COB-RGB

 

 

 

COUNCIL AGENDA

 

Supplementary Items

 

 

 

11 December 2019

 

 

 

 

 


ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS FORMATS ON REQUEST

city@busselton.wa.gov.au

 

 


CITY OF BUSSELTON

SUPPLEMENTARY Items FOR THE Council MEETING TO BE HELD ON 11 December 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

13..... Planning and Development Services Report. 3

13.3        AL FRESCO TRADING IN THE BUSSELTON CITY CENTRE - CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS AND FORESHADOWING OF CONSIDERATION OF CHANGES TO POLICY. 3

13.4        CITY OF BUSSELTON BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN.. 16

 


Supplementary Items                                                         4                                                             11 December 2019

13.             Planning and Development Services Report

13.3           AL FRESCO TRADING IN THE BUSSELTON CITY CENTRE - CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS AND FORESHADOWING OF CONSIDERATION OF CHANGES TO POLICY

STRATEGIC GOAL

2. PLACE AND SPACES Vibrant, attractive, affordable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Activity Centre Plan - Buselton

BUSINESS UNIT

Environmental Health Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Environmental Health Coordinator - Jane Cook

Design and Survey Coordinator - Justin Smith

Economic and Business Development Coordinator - Jaylene Chambers

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

NATURE OF DECISION

Executive: substantial direction setting, including adopting strategies, plans and policies (excluding local planning policies), tenders, setting and amending budgets, funding, donations and sponsorships, reviewing committee recommendations

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Current Policy

Attachment b    Revised Policy (showing track changes)

Attachment c    Revised Policy

Attachment d   Al Fresco Proposals  

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council replace its existing Al Fresco Trading in the Busselton City Centre Policy with the revised Policy set out at Attachment C.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Council is asked to consider changes to the Al Fresco Trading in the Busselton City Centre policy that would facilitate delivery of additional al fresco space as trials in locations on both Queen and Prince Streets. The changes to the Policy are considered necessary to meet the purpose set out in the Policy and the Council’s social and economic objectives.

 

BACKGROUND

At its ordinary meeting of 12 December 2018, the Council adopted a policy relating to Al Fresco Trading in the Busselton City Centre (Attachment A) (the Policy). The development and adoption of the Policy was part of a broader body of work being undertaken by the City aimed at supporting greater activation and vibrancy in the Busselton City Centre, and which also includes: the development of an ‘Activity Centre Plan’; the ‘Place Project’ initiatives, which have recently resulted in interest in creation of a community-driven ‘Town Team’; and the planned Mitchell Park Revitalisation project. That broader body of work also has a strategic relationship with the development of the Busselton Entertainment, Arts and Cultural Hub (BEACH) in the Cultural Precinct–which is critical for building better links between the City Centre and the Busselton Foreshore.

 

Over the past 12 months, the City has been working with a number of proponents with a view to implementing al fresco trading proposals consistent with the Policy. As a result of that work, though, it has become apparent that it is difficult to reconcile traffic safety and other considerations whilst still meeting some of the detailed expectations set out in the Policy. Notwithstanding that, there are several proponents keen to progress proposals consistent with the broader purpose of the Policy.

City officers, in partnership with those proponents, have developed alternative proposals to facilitate enhanced al fresco trading associated with the proponents’ businesses. Those proposals involve works by the City itself, rather than the arrangement provided for in the current Policy, which is that the works are undertaken by the proponents. The proposals do, however, involve payment of fees by the proponents from commencement, rather than only after a two year fee-free period, which the current Policy provides for.

 

The Council is asked to consider making changes to the Policy to reflect and provide support for the implementation of the alternative proposals. A revised Policy, with tracked changes, relative to the current Policy is provided as Attachment B, and with the track changes accepted as Attachment C. Plans illustrating the alternative proposals are provided as Attachment D.

 

Presentation of this report follows a Council briefing session on 27 November 2019, and this report is being presented direct to the Council for consideration rather than via the Policy & Legislation Committee partly because of feedback received at that time, and most importantly to allow proposals to be implemented as soon as possible, and before the end of the 2019/20 summer period.

OFFICER COMMENT

The purpose of the Council’s current Policy is to set out that, and how, the City; “supports the activation and sustainability of the Busselton City Centre through facilitating an expansion in the number and scale of al fresco areas associated with cafes, bars and restaurants”.

 

The Policy then sets out the preferred approach to achieving that. Amongst other requirements, that involves the reversible conversion of on-street parking to al fresco space, with the works being undertaken by the proponents themselves, but with no charge associated with the use of the land per se, for up to two years. That was, in part, in recognition of the investment being made and risk that would be borne by the proponent (which would most often be a tenant, rather than a landowner).

 

That approach has proven problematic, in substantial part because of the costs and complications of achieving an acceptable traffic safety outcome, given that people would be dining in fairly close proximity to a roadway. Whilst not all locations and contexts are the same, achieving an acceptable outcome in some contexts could have involved an up-front expenditure of up to $15,000 for installing bollards alone (plus other costs of a similar order), and could have resulted in only around 1.2 metres of the width of a parallel on-street parking bay actually being available for use as al fresco space. Proponents were, therefore, reluctant to commit to such an investment. Also, as a result, the purpose of the Council’s Policy was not being achieved.

 

Following extensive research and liaison across several different functional units within the City, with a backdrop of growing interest and some frustration from proponents, alternative proposals have been developed – which are intended to be implemented as a trial.

 

In summary, the proposals involve the following works by the City –

·        Bringing the ground up to be level with the adjoining footpath through placement of a sand bed on top of the bay, and paving on top;

·        Installing rubber kerbing on the edge of the road carriageway and other parking bays, where they are remaining in place;

·        In the case of parallel parking bays only (e.g. Queen Street) Installing removable bollards adjacent to the road carriageway and other parking bays; and

·        Installing non-slip aluminium covering to integrate the newly raised surface and the existing footpath.

 

The nature of the works proposed provides for reversibility and does not create risks of damaging existing infrastructure. Al fresco furniture and presentation would be by the proponents themselves.

 

From an administrative perspective, the proposals may be summarised as follows –

·        The proposals are intended to be implemented as a trial, extending from date of implementation through to 30 June 2021 – which would allow for trading across two summer periods, and allow a review to be undertaken in the latter part of 2020/21 financial year;

·        There would be an agreement between the City and the proponents, providing for non-exclusive possession; and

·        Under an existing delegation, the consolidated parking scheme would be amended to identify the affected bays as ‘no parking’ areas.

 

It is expected that implementation could occur by the end of January 2020, although the aim would be to implement as soon as possible. The trials will be valuable to assist with future planning and management of the Busselton City Centre.

 

The changes proposed to the Policy are intended to facilitate the kinds of proposals described above, but do not prevent implementation of proposals consistent with the current Policy at some stage in the future.

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.

 

Key statutory environment is set out in the City’s Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2015 (‘Thoroughfares Local Law’) and town planning scheme, as well as in the Land Administration Act 1997. Those documents have been considered in the preparation of this report.

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

 

Relevant plans and policies include the City’s Economic Development Strategy 2016-2026 (‘ED Strategy’), and Local Planning Policy 4C: Busselton Town Centre Urban Design Provisions (LPP4C). The ED Strategy identifies ‘Place Making and Activation’ as a key focus area, and sets out a number of related strategies, including ‘Partner with business owners and managers to focus positive activity into streets and public spaces’. LPP4C identifies Queen Street as a ‘Primary Street’, and sets out that development on such streets should be ‘highly activated’ and that ‘al fresco uses also encouraged’.

 

Financial Implications

 

The costs of implementing the proposals varies from approximately $6,000 per proposal for those that involve conversion of angled bays (i.e. Prince Street) to $17,000-$26,000 per proposal for those that involve conversion of parallel bays (i.e. Queen Street). The cost differential is mostly because of the need for bollards to achieve adequate traffic safety where parallel bays are involved. Adequate traffic safety can be achieved without bollards where angled bays are involved. The cost of implementing the four proposals set out at Attachment D can be met without a budget amendment, through the allocation of streetscape upgrade funds that would otherwise be applied to the replacement of ageing pavers elsewhere in the City Centre. It is not envisaged that any further proposals would be implemented in the current financial year.

The fees associated with the proposals would be $2,060 per bay per annum (or pro-rata thereof) – as per the adopted fees and charges. Advice previously obtained indicates that the value of the land alone (note that there is valuation advice which can be provided to Councillors, confidentially, if requested), given the nature of the tenure proposed, would be approximately $750 per annum. Given the above, for the angled parking bay proposals, the fees would represent a high rate of return from both a land value and infrastructure cost perspective (equivalent to over 30% per annum), and a reasonable rate of return for the parallel bay proposals (equivalent to 7-10% per annum). Those costs do not, however, include the significant investment of officer time required to develop the proposals.

 

The rate of financial return, however, is not considered to be the right mindset for looking at the proposals and the issue more broadly, on a number of levels. Firstly, the proposals are intended as trials initially, and may not be in place for long enough for costs to be recovered. Secondly, when the City undertakes streetscape works, including works which facilitate al fresco use, it does not seek to recover costs from adjoining or benefitting landowners in any direct way. That would have been the case, for instance, with the proposals, currently deferred, to implement the next stage of streetscape works in Dunsborough (on Naturaliste Terrace). Thirdly, the City does not directly charge for use of public land and infrastructure for other purposes associated with adjoining businesses (such as for on-street parking, or trade display).

 

Instead, the right mindset is considered to be related to achievement of the Council’s social and economic objectives, which in this case are reflected in the purpose of the Policy, and whether the investment proposed, relative to the income to be received represents a reasonably cost effective way of achieving those objectives. Officers consider that the proposals do meet that test.

Stakeholder Consultation

In developing the current Policy, using the Your Say platform, the City ran an online survey seeking community views and information on a range of questions related to the Policy, as well as some other questions related to the planning and management of the Busselton City Centre.

 

A total of 295 people viewed the survey, of whom 125 provided responses. On questions directly related to the Policy, some of the key things to note from the responses are considered to be –

·        To the question ‘What would bring you into the Busselton City Centre more often on the weekend or evening (choose all that apply)?’, the most common responses were - ‘more al fresco options’ (86 respondents), ‘more café, bar and restaurant options’ (85 respondents) and ‘if there were events taking place in the City Centre’ (70 respondents); and

·        Between 67% and 80% were supportive of the key elements of the Policy, between 6% and 15% were not supportive, with the balance being unsure – in short, there was substantial net support for all of the key elements of the Policy.

 

No further consultation is proposed with respect to the proposed Policy changes, and nor is any further consultation envisaged with respect to implementation of the proposals. Nearby land and business owners would, however, be notified. In assessing the trials, however, further consultation is envisaged – the details of which it is expected would be developed and agreed with the Council as part of the process of reviewing the trials.

Risk Assessment

The key risk associated with implementing the Policy change and the proposals is considered to be the reputational risks associated with people who may not be supportive. The proposals in particular, however, are considered important to address the risk associated with not meeting the purpose of the Council’s policy, and not delivering on social and economic objectives that look to be important to the community as a whole.

Options

As an alternative to the recommendation the Council could:

1.    Defer Council consideration of this matter until after Policy & Legislation Committee consideration in February 2020 (which would defer implementation until no earlier than March 2020, meaning that the trials could not commence until after the 2019/20 summer period);

2.    Make different changes to the Policy;

3.    Not change the Policy; and/or

4.    Make a specific resolution supporting one or more of the current proposals.

If any Councillor is minded to any of the above options officers can assist on the drafting of a suitable alternative motion.

CONCLUSION

The Policy changes are seen as necessary and appropriate to allow the Council to achieve the purpose set out in its adopted Policy, and will provide for useful trials that can assist with future planning and management of the Busselton City Centre.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The revised Policy would be published on the City’s website within one week.


Supplementary Items

9

11 December 2019

13.3

Attachment a

Current Policy

 


 


Supplementary Items

11

11 December 2019

13.3

Attachment b

Revised Policy (showing track changes)

 


 


Supplementary Items

12

11 December 2019

13.3

Attachment c

Revised Policy

 


 


Supplementary Items

15

11 December 2019

13.3

Attachment d

Al Fresco Proposals

 


 


Supplementary Items                                                         20                                                          11 December 2019

13.4           CITY OF BUSSELTON BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN

STRATEGIC GOAL

3. ENVIRONMENT Valued, conserved and enjoyed

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

3.1 Development is managed sustainably and our environment valued.

SUBJECT INDEX

Fire and Emergency Services

BUSINESS UNIT

Environmental Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Environmental Services - Tanya Gillett

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

NATURE OF DECISION

Executive: substantial direction setting, including adopting strategies, plans and policies (excluding local planning policies), tenders, setting and amending budgets, funding, donations and sponsorships, reviewing committee recommendations

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   City of Busselton Bushfire Risk Management Plan 2019-2024  

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.    Endorse the City of Busselton Bushfire Risk Management Plan 2019-2024; and

2.    Supports the development and implementation of a coordinated, comprehensive, multi-agency Treatment Schedule in support of, and to be incorporated into, the Bushfire Risk Management Plan 2019-2024.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Emergency Management Act 2005 provides the head of power to direct local governments to comply with the requirements of the State emergency management policies. 

 

The State Hazard Plan – Fire (formally Westplan Fire) is an emergency management plan that requires local governments to develop a Bushfire Risk Management Plan. 

 

The City has now completed a Bushfire Risk Management Plan and this is presented for Council’s endorsement.

 

BACKGROUND

The DFES Bushfire Risk Management Branch was created in 2012 to respond to key recommendations from the Perth Hills fire (Keelty 1), Margaret River fire (Keelty 2) & the Waroona fire (Ferguson) inquiries. The Branch coordinates DFES Bushfire Risk Management Officers (BRMO’s) and DFES funded Bushfire Risk Planning Coordinators (BRPC’s) embedded in local governments to facilitate the creation of Bushfire Risk Management Plans.

 

The City joined the program in November 2017 with a BRPC shared with the Shires of Nannup and Augusta-Margaret River.  This shared arrangement, now with the Shires of Augusta-Margaret River and Capel, will continue until 30 June 2021 when the Treatment Schedule required to implement the Bushfire Risk Management Plan (BRMP) will be completed.

 

As per the Office of Bushfire Risk Management (OBRM) BRMP Guidelines, at the end of each financial year the City is required to prepare and submit a report to OBRM detailing progress against the BRMP, including the treatment implementation.

 

In addition, the Emergency Management Act 2005 provides the head of power to direct local governments to comply with the requirements of State emergency management policies where they are given a role within those policies. The State Hazard Plan – Fire requires local governments with a high or extreme bushfire risk to develop an integrated Bushfire Risk Management Plan utilising OBRM guidelines and templates to do so.

 

The City has now completed a Bushfire Risk Management Plan (BRMP) outlining a strategy to reduce bushfire related risk across all land tenures within the district.  The BRMP documents a coordinated and efficient approach towards identifying assets at risk from bushfire and their priority for treatment, which will be documented within a comprehensive Treatment Schedule that is currently being drafted.  “The Treatment Schedule sets out a broad program of coordinated multi-agency treatments to address risks identified in the BRMP” to help reduce the risk of bushfire to an acceptable level.

 

The draft City of Busselton BRMP was endorsed by OBRM on 25 July 2019 confirming that the document meets the standards required in accordance with ISO 31000 and the Guidelines – “Bushfire Risk Management Planning – Guidelines for Preparing a Bushfire Risk Management Plan”.

 

The City of Busselton BRMP 2019-2024 is attached and presented for Council endorsement.

OFFICER COMMENT

The BRMP has been prepared for the City based on a best practice template provided by OBRM.  Local information relating to the bushfire context is added for each local government, considering environment, weather, priorities and demographics. 

 

The identification of assets and calculation of bushfire risk has been conducted utilising the DFES specialist software Bushfire Risk Management System.  This software allows assets to be mapped in a Geographical Information System (GIS) and then completes an individual risk assessment based on the data entered.  Assets can be grouped with adjoining assets of the same category and with the same risk, to simplify the assessment process.  There are four categories of assets available, being Human Settlement, Economic, Environmental and Cultural. 

 

Human Settlement is the most significant asset type, referring to residential assets, with a separate sub category for Special Risk or Critical Infrastructure.  For the City, known tourism and short stay properties have been categorised as Special Risk, whilst the Busselton Regional Hospital is considered Critical Infrastructure. 

 

The Economic category has been utilised to record assets such as commercial, industrial and agricultural properties.  This category also includes tourism and recreational facilities, such as wineries and restaurants.

 

Environmental assets include flora and fauna habitat that are assessed as either Priority, Protected or of Local Importance.  It is recognised that much of the information for flora and fauna assets is not formally recorded and requires some local knowledge.  To this extent these attributes are expected to be recognised and included to a more specific extent (e.g. actual location of orchid species) during the implementation of the Treatment Schedule. Notwithstanding that, assets entered into the program include areas of known Western Ringtail Possum habitat. 

 

The Cultural category has been used to assess a variety of cultural assets broken down into sub categories of Aboriginal, Recognised, Local or Other.  As with environmental assets, Aboriginal assets and sensitivities will be included specifically during the planning of treatments through collaboration and consultation with the traditional owners of the land.  Other assets entered consist of heritage buildings, religious buildings such as churches and local community assets, such as community centres and sporting facilities.

The risk assessment process is slightly different for each category type, with the same Likelihood and Consequence formulae, but varying vulnerability calculators.  All categories take into account the fuel type (grassland, scrub, forest etc.), fuel age and separation distance (distance from the asset to the vegetation), as well as the slope under the vegetation and slope between the vegetation and the asset. 

 

Human Settlement and Cultural vulnerability is assessed merely as Low, Moderate or High.  Low for example, may indicate a higher level of community engagement and preparedness, better construction standards or water hydrants in the area.  For Economic assets the vulnerability is assessed as to the susceptibility of the asset to fire and the level of impact of damage to the asset, in local, regional or state – Critical Infrastructure terms. 

 

For Environmental assets, the assessment for vulnerability takes into consideration the conservation status (priority/threatened or local) and the geographical extent of the asset type (widespread, restricted or highly restricted).

 

A total of 952 groups of assets have been identified and risk assessed during the process.  The BRMP suggests treatments that are then required for all assets assessed as at High, Very High or Extreme Risk.  This equates to 79% of assets, or 750 groupings.  Of these assets, 42% or almost 400 groups have been assessed as at Extreme Risk, requiring urgent treatment action.

 

The BRMP has been reviewed by the Bushfire Risk Management Branch of DFES / Rural Fire Division.  Following review from DFES, the BRMP has also now been approved by OBRM, confirming that it meets their standards.

 

The BRMP now needs to be endorsed by the Council, which is to be followed by finalisation of the Treatment Schedule.  The Treatment Schedule is anticipated to be developed as an extensive 5 – 10 year dynamic treatment plan for all City tenure as well as interacting with other agencies and private land holders to mitigate risk on other tenure.

 

From 2016, following the Waroona Bushfire special inquiry from Euan Ferguson, DFES have had a significant shift in direction towards preparedness/mitigation and prevention aspects, in addition to their traditional focus on response.  There has been increasing support for the Bushfire Risk Management Branch, and BRMP’s being drafted within local government, the creation of the Rural Fire Division and the Bushfire Centre for Excellence.  These changes all acknowledge the significant cost of response operations both financially and environmentally, and the need for greater capacity building within communities by way of preparedness and mitigation strategies.  The City is embracing this direction, ensuring a sustainability approach to mitigation works, with respect shown for the biodiversity values, utilising local knowledge and also incorporating traditional land management practices where appropriate.  As knowledge improves surrounding prescribed burning, the City has embraced contemporary techniques and incorporated stakeholders in the process to achieve the best outcomes possible for the environment and for hazard reduction and reducing the impacts of wild fire.

 

As the City completes the Treatment Schedule required as part of the BRMP and implements the plan over the next 5-10 years, the City can continue to show leadership by implementing contemporary fire management techniques, responsible land management, and encouraging private land owners to also manage their land responsibly (principally, through the City’s ‘bushfire notice’).


Statutory Environment

The Emergency Management Act 2005 provides the head of power to direct local governments to comply with the requirements of State emergency management policies where they are given a role within those policies as follows:

 

Section 20 (4) sets out that -

A public authority that is given a role and responsibilities under a State emergency management policy is to comply with the State emergency management policy. 

Relevant Plans and Policies

The State Hazard Plan – Fire, Section 2.2.7 requires the following:

LGs with high or extreme bushfire risk are required to develop an integrated BRMP outlining a strategy to treat or reduce bushfire related risk across all land tenures.

Data and information provided to the planning process must be in a defined form (OBRM BRMP Guidelines and template).

 

As per the OBRM BRMP Guidelines, at the end of each financial year the City is required to prepare and submit a report to OBRM detailing progress against the BRMP.

Financial Implications

DFES currently funds a Bushfire Risk Planning Coordinator (BRPC) for the City.  This position is currently shared with the Shires of Augusta-Margaret River and Capel on a 0.6/0.2/0.2 FTE ratio.  The BRPC is located at the City and supervised by City staff under a contract arrangement with DFES.  No further funding from DFES is anticipated for the BRPC position beyond 30 June 2021. 

 

The plan provides for a cyclical Treatment Schedule over a 5 – 10 year period.  City involvement will now increase during implementation of the BRMP (including stakeholder interaction, considering public and private land tenure and departments) and further resources will be required in this space.

 

Having an endorsed BRMP does allow the City to access the State government mitigation activity funding (MAF) grants available to all Local Governments.  The City of Busselton was successful in receiving a MAF grant for planned treatments of $331,500 for 2019/20, following the BRMP being accepted by OBRM.  The MAF grant is made available to implement treatment strategies on land managed by the local government.  Access to MAF funding is an important support that DFES has introduced to encourage the implementation of the BRMP’s endorsed by local governments. 

While these grants do include funding for contractors, the planning and control of all treatments completed remains the responsibility of the local governments, including coordination of contractors and stakeholder management across all interest groups and bush fire brigades involved in each treatment strategy.  Again this will require additional resources as the City’s Community Emergency Services Manager does not have the capacity to absorb the required workload to ensure that the BRMP is implemented as required.

Stakeholder Consultation

The Communication Strategy is included within the BRMP and includes the following objectives:

 

1.    Key stakeholders understand the purpose of the BRMP and their role in the bushfire risk management planning process.

2.    Stakeholders who are essential to the bushfire risk management planning process, or can supply required information, are identified and engaged in a timely and effective manner.

3.    Relevant stakeholders are involved in decisions regarding risk acceptability and treatment.

4.    Key stakeholders engage in the review of the BRMP as per the schedule in place for the local government area.

5.    The community and other stakeholders engage with the bushfire risk management planning process and as a result are better informed about bushfire risk and understand their responsibilities to address bushfire risk on their own land.

6.    Strengthen the objectives outlined within the Strategic Community Plan and enhancing the ability of the City to be bushfire prepared and ready.

Consultation and assistance has been provided through DFES, OBRM and the Bushfire Risk Management Branch of DFES.  External consultation with State Government agencies including environmental and land management expertise from DBCA Parks and Wildlife have been taken into consideration.

 

Further significant internal and external consultation will be undertaken in developing the Treatment Schedule.  This consultation will include liaising on all treatments with local Bushfire Brigades, friends of volunteer groups, local traditional owners of the land, DBCA and DFES experts in environmental and fire management. 

Risk Assessment

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk management framework, with risks assessed taking into account any controls already in place.

 

While the officer recommendation serves to assist the City to provide treatments and controls for the risks identified within the BRMP, the risk of wildfire will always remain within the District.  The BRMP will identify those areas that remain at high bushfire risk and where planned mitigation works are required.    Implementation of the BRMP will not remove the risk but will assist the City to highlight areas where work with landowners is required to decrease the bushfire risk.  Implementation of the BRMP Treatment Schedule will assist to reduce the impact of bushfire on areas that mitigation measures have been implemented. Not adequately resourcing implementation of the BRMP could, however, create significant reputational risk for the City, and should therefore be avoided.

CONCLUSION

The City of Busselton BRMP has now been completed.  It provides a strategy to reduce bushfire related risk across all land tenures within the district.  The BRMP documents a coordinated and efficient approach towards identifying assets at risk from bushfire and their priority for treatment, which will be documented within a comprehensive Treatment Schedule that is currently being drafted. 

 

The City of Busselton BRMP 2019-2024 is attached and presented for Council endorsement.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The development of the BRMP Treatment Schedule is underway as the implementation component of the BRMP.  OBRM preference is for the Treatment Schedule to be completed within six months of the BRMP being endorsed by the Council. 

 


Supplementary Items

60

11 December 2019

13.4

Attachment a

City of Busselton Bushfire Risk Management Plan 2019-2024