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 12 February 2020

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. 4

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. 8

Previous Council Meetings. 8

8.1          Minutes of the Council Meeting held 29 January 2020. 8

Committee Meetings. 8

8.2          Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 29 January 2020. 8

8.3          Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 29 January 2020. 8

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

9.1          PETITION - DA18/0674 - EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY - LOT 101, 285 GIBB ROAD, KALOORUP. 9

9.2          PETITION - EXTENSION OF PATHWAY TO BELL DRIVE - NOVA VILLAGE. 18

10..... QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION). 27

11..... Items brought forward.. 27

ITEMS FOR DEBATE. 28

13.1        APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (DA18/0674) - PROPOSED INDUSTRY - EXTRACTIVE (SAND AND GRAVEL) - LOT 101 (285) GIBB ROAD KALOORUP. 28

ADOPTION BY EXCEPTION RESOLUTION.. 234

12.6        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: BEACH AND FORESHORE AREAS - ACCESS BY THE HOLDER OF A COMMERCIAL FISHING BOAT LICENCE. 235

12.7        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - REVIEW OF BUILDING INSURANCE POLICY. 239

12.8        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - REVIEW OF EVENTS POLICY. 248

12.9        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - LOCAL PLANNING POLICY REVIEW - REVOCATION OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES LPP1A, LPP1E, LPP1G, LPP1H AND LPP8B. 276

12.10      Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: PUBLIC ARTWORK. 299

12.11      Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - MEDIA AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS COUNCIL POLICY. 316

13.2        AMENDMENT 45 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME 21 AND PROPOSED STRUCTURE PLAN AFFECTING LOT 30 (70) MILLBROOK ROAD – CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION.. 327

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 347

ITEMS TO BE DEALT WITH BY SEPARATE RESOLUTION (WITHOUT DEBATE). 360

12.1        Finance Committee - 22/01/2020 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW - REALLOCATION OF GLC POOL RELINING BUDGET. 361

12.2        Finance Committee - 22/01/2020 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW - CLIMATE ADAPTATION RESERVE. 364

12.3        Finance Committee - 22/01/2020 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW - VASSE KALOORUP OVAL CARPARK DEVELOPMENT. 368

12.4        Finance Committee - 22/01/2020 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW - PROJECT OVERSPENDS OFFSET BY ROAD ASSET RENEWAL RESERVE. 372

12.5        Finance Committee - 22/01/2020 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW - OLD VASSE LIGHTHOUSE. 376

14.1        RFT 26-19 BUSSELTON FORESHORE HOTEL SITE 1 PRECINCT CIVIL AND LANDSCAPING WORKS  379

ITEMS FOR DEBATE. 387

12.12      Airport Advisory Committee - 29/01/2020 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT CAR PARKING FEES. 387

15..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 394

16..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 395

18..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 396

19..... urgent business. 396

20..... Confidential Reports. 396

21..... Closure. 396

 


Council                                                                                      3                                                                12 February 2020

MINUTES

 

MINUTES OF A Meeting of the Busselton City Council HELD IN the Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton, ON 12 February 2020 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 5.39pm.

The Mayor noted this meeting is held on the lands of the Wadandi people and acknowledged them as Traditional Owners, paying respect to their Elders, past and present, and Aboriginal Elders of other communities who may be present.

2.               Attendance

Presiding Member:

Members:

 

Cr Grant Henley     Mayor

Cr Kelly Hick             Deputy Mayor

Cr Sue Riccelli

Cr Ross Paine

Cr Kate Cox

Cr Paul Carter

Cr Phill Cronin

Cr Jo Barrett-Lennard

Cr Lyndon Miles

 

Officers:

 

Mr Oliver Darby, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Mr Daniell Abrahamse, Acting 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

Ms Melissa Egan, Governance Officer

 

Apologies:

 

Nil

 

Approved Leave of Absence:

 

Nil

 

Media:

 

“Busselton-Dunsborough Times”

“Busselton-Dunsborough Mail”

 

Public:

 

31

3.               Prayer

The prayer was delivered by Pastor Lee Sykes of the Cornerstone Church, Busselton.

 

4.               Application for Leave of Absence

Nil

 

5.               Disclosure Of Interests

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

 

·         Cr Paul Carter in relation to Agenda Item 13.1 ‘Application for Development Approval (DA18/0674) – Proposed Industry – Extractive (Sand and Gravel) – Lot 101 (285) Gibb Road, Kaloorup.

 

The Mayor advised that in accordance with the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 this declaration would be read out immediately before Item 13.1 was discussed.

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             Dr Martin Staines

 

Question

I spoke last week in relation to the extraction proposal at 285 Gibb Road. It states in the documents today, under item 3.2, that a revised Dust Management Plan including additional details validating the water supply relating to dust suppression must be made. Who will actually put together this plan and who will vet this plan? And does the City accept that the amount of water to be used in this operation stated by the applicant was grossly understated to the extent of perhaps 100 times what would really be required? And therefore the potential impact on the hydrology in this catchment so close to the Carbanup River could also be much greater than what has been acknowledged by the applicants? 

 


 

Response

(Mr Paul Needham, Director Planning and Development Services)

It will be prepared by consultants working for the proponent. It will  be reviewed by City officers. If City officers feel the need to do so, we can seek further advice from the Department of Water Environment and Regulation before we complete that vetting process. I would also note that we have not made a change to the condition requiring a Dust Management Plan.

 

Question

Even though the applicant states for example that no water will be required for washing of sand? The application states that the water used in this process is nil.

 

Response

(Mayor)

Item 3.2 refers to the Dust Management Plan including additional details validating the water supply available for dust suppression. That hasn’t changed. The change recommended by the officers is to do with containment, treatment and discharge of water from the wash down of trucks [conditions 3.3 and 3.4].

 

7.2             Mr Mark Pettersson

 

Question

How do you expect the proponent to patrol or administer the rules and regulations you have set down for them, for example, only coming in and out of their pit at 40km/hr, only travelling north, only 10 trips in and 10 trips out each day, when he does not own a single truck?

 

Response

(Mr Needham)

There is a condition that says the owner must ensure these things. If there is a breach of those conditions or a concern of a breach, it would be a relatively simple matter for the City to gather evidence around that. That would involve putting a traffic counter on the cross-over to the site and saying to the proponent you are not complying with this condition and we’ve got good evidence you are not. Without these kinds of conditions, I would say we can’t assess the traffic impact of extractive industries and let’s assess them without assessing the traffic impact, which I’m sure is not what the community wants us to do.

 

7.3             Mr Ross Booth

 

Question

We talk about water, do you have the qualifications to debunk anything or do you just look at it and say “it’s been prepared by professionals, looks pretty good to me” – how do you manage that?

 

Response

(Mr Needham)

Where we don’t have the technical capacity, we have the capacity to refer it to the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation. They certainly have the technical capacity to review those things. It’s also worth noting that these are proclaimed water catchments and water extraction or use beyond certain levels requires a separate approval from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation.

 


 

Question

If they say they aren’t going to be using much, can we ask you still to refer it so there’s no question?

 

Response

(Mr Needham)

For the purposes of this particular application, I am happy to commit that, should the Council approve this, we will refer those plans to the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation.

 

Question

The application says it will be capped at 10 trucks in and out, 20 movements. It then says the applicant hopes to grow the business to include a further 20 trucks. Why isn’t anyone mentioning that? That’s 60 movements. Why aren’t you asking the questions? Have you double-checked your figures.

 

Response

(Mr Oliver Darby, Acting Chief Executive Officer)

Yes, we have double-checked the figures.

 

Question

Last week there was a question asked whether there are any other sites that have gravel roads access. I understand we received an answer today. Do any of those gravel roads have residents down both sides the length of the gravel roads?

 

Response

(Mr Needham)

One of them has quite significant pedestrian traffic crossing the road, and that’s Ludlow Park Road that has a similar cap on daily traffic movements to this particular one. There is the Forrest Adventures facility on one side of the road and the car park on the other.

 

Question

Has anyone read the letter from our solicitor today? Has anyone received it?

 

Response

(Mayor)

We did receive the letter this morning and staff have had a look at it and provided some advice. 

 

7.4             Mr Ralph Petchell

 

Question

Are you going to put a camera on a tree to count the number of trucks?

 

Response

(Mayor)

I think that question was answered with a previous response; that we could put a traffic counter at the entrance to the property if we were concerned about over use.

 

Question

Are you going to do it or not?

 

Response

We’re not going to put one there permanently.

7.5             Mrs Karen Galloway

                  

                   Question

Why have the planning department allowed only an 800m boundary from all of these residences? The State planning policy – and I do understand this is only a guideline –recommends a minimum 1km radius from any residences where gravel is going to be crushed. Why only an 800m boundary?

 

Response

(Mr Needham)

You’ve correctly pointed out that State planning policies are guidance, they don’t have a statutory weight or legal weight. They are something which we need to consider and something we have considered when drafting our policy. As we set out in the report, they are quite conservative and they assume a reasonably large amount of gravel being extracted for longer. Our judgment is that there is not going to be an unacceptable impact given the relatively small amount of gravel to be extracted and the relatively short duration over which that will occur. The other thing we are concious of is that to widen Gibb Road and to construct that to a higher gravel standard, gravel will be required. We think it is preferable that gravel is sourced on the site, because that avoids gravel having to be brought from elsewhere and reduces the impact of that haulage on the rest of the road network.

 

7.6             Mr John Vitale

 

Question

Last year I lost a mate and a colleague in front of an active sand pit site. How are Council going to ensure these roads are not going to impact the safety of the local community and ensure these requirements are going to be met by Council to avoid such a tragic incident happening again?

 

Response

(Mayor)

Mr Vitale, I am sorry for your loss and I know the incident you speak of. I also knew the person who lost his life at that time, on a sealed section of road, it was in pretty terrible weather conditions. I travelled on that stretch of road not long after. We’ll be making sure that the terms of the road upgrades are complied with and there’s no work allowed to be carried out until those conditions are met and inspected. 

 

Question

Have any of the Councillors been out to the area and had a look at the impact on the local community living within the vicinity of the sand pits and the impact the entrances have on the safety of road users and the local community?

 

Response

(Mayor)

We’ve all undertaken a site visit to the site. Many of us have travelled those roads numerous times before and several Councillors live in reasonable proximity and are quite familiar with the area. We do take our role very seriously and we do undertake to familarise ourselves with the areas that are in reports.


 

8.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes

Previous Council Meetings

8.1             Minutes of the Council Meeting held 29 January 2020

COUNCIL DECISION

C2002/024              Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor S Riccelli

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 29 January 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED 9/0

 

Committee Meetings

8.2             Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 29 January 2020

COUNCIL DECISION

C2002/025              Moved Councillor K Cox, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 29 January 2020 be noted.

CARRIED 9/0

 

8.3             Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 29 January 2020

COUNCIL DECISION

C2002/026              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor P Cronin

That the Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 29 January 2020 be noted.

CARRIED 9/0

 


 

9.               RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS

Petitions

9.1             PETITION - DA18/0674 - EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY - LOT 101, 285 GIBB ROAD, KALOORUP

COUNCIL DECISION

C2002/027              Moved Deputy Mayor K Hick, seconded Councillor J Barrett-Lennard

That Council:

1.       receive the petition from Deb and Mark Petterrsson with respect to DA18/0674 – Extractive Industry – Lot 101, 285 Gibb Road, Kaloorup asking the Council to not permit any further extractive industries in the particular area; and

 

2.       note that the issues raised in the petition will be considered in item 13.1 of this meeting agenda.

CARRIED 9/0

 

A petition was received from the petitioners on 17 January 2020 with the request that the City of Busselton “not permit any further extractive industries in the particular area, taking note of the cumulative negative impacts resulting from the large number of extractive industries operating in this area where there are tourist operations, vineyards, recreational activities (e.g. mountain biking and horse riding) an sub-divisions into smaller, lifestyle blocks”.

 

The requirements for a petition to be heard by Council is set out by Standing Order 6.9 of the City of Busselton Standing Orders Local Law 2018, specifically that it:

 

(a)    be addressed to the Mayor;

(b)    be made by electors of the district;

(c)     state the request on each page of the petition;

(d)    contain the name, address and signature of each elector making the request;

(e)    contain a summary of the reasons for the request;

(f)      state the name of the person to whom, and an address at which, notice to the petitioners can be given; and

(g)    be respectful and temperate in its language.

 

The presiding member has the discretion to accept the petition for consideration if it meets a majority of the above requirements.

 

It is considered by officers that the petition meets all, if not a majority, of the requirements set out by the Standing Orders.

 

The issues raised in the petition are the subject of the report to Council being heard at this Ordinary Council Meeting at agenda item 13.1.

 

Pursuant to Standing Order 6.9(3), the Council has the following options:

 

(a)    receive the petition;

(b)    reject the petition;

(c)     receive the petition and refer it to the CEO to prepare a report to Council / Committee;

(d)    receive the petition and refer it to the CEO for action.

 

It is recommended that the petition is received by Council, noting that the issues are to be considered at agenda item 13.1.


Council

10

12 February 2020

9.1

Attachment a

Petition

 



 


 


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      19                                                                12 February 2020

9.2             PETITION - EXTENSION OF PATHWAY TO BELL DRIVE - NOVA VILLAGE

COUNCIL DECISION

C2002/028              Moved Councillor L Miles, seconded Councillor P Cronin

 

That the Council:

1.       receive the petition from Nova Village Busselton with respect to a request to extend the pathway from the north gate at Nova Village to Bell Drive; and

 

2.    refer it to the CEO for action

CARRIED 9/0

 

A petition was received from the petitioners on 23 January 2020 with respect to a request to extend the pathway from the north gate at Nova Village to Bell Drive

 

The requirements for a petition to be heard by Council is set out by Standing Order 6.9 of the City of Busselton Standing Orders Local Law 2018, specifically that it:

 

(a)  be addressed to the Mayor;

(b)  be made by electors of the district;

(c)   state the request on each page of the petition;

(d)  contain the name, address and signature of each elector making the request;

(e)  contain a summary of the reasons for the request;

(f)   state the name of the person to whom, and an address at which, notice to the petitioners can be given; and

(g)  be respectful and temperate in its language.

 

The presiding member has the discretion to accept the petition for consideration if it meets a majority of the above requirements.

 

The petition does not meet requirement (a) or (e), but does meet all of the other requirements, noting that the address provided is in some instances a unit number within the Nova Village. 

With respect to requirement (a), this is not considered to be prohibitive to the petition being considered.  Requirement (e) is considered to be more substantive however the request is clearly stated on the first page of the petition and it can be seen that the pages were stapled together in such a way that the request would have been clear to those signing the petition. 

 

Given this, the Mayor as presiding member has indicated his discretion to accept the petition for consideration.

 

Pursuant to Standing Order 6.9(3), the Council then has the following options:

 

(a)  receive the petition;

(b)  reject the petition;

(c)   receive the petition and refer it to the CEO to prepare a report to Council / Committee;

(d)  receive the petition and refer it to the CEO for action.

 


 

The request for a path within the general vicinity of the Nova Village have been progressed over a number of years with each project being prioritised on its individual merit. The initial connection was between Bell Drive and the north side of Bussell Highway in 2007/2008.  The second connection linked the western gate to the north side of Bussell Highway, including a pedestrian refuge island, in 2011/2012.

 

The linkage between the two separate path sections was identified as a beneficial but not a strategic connection and has been assessed accordingly. Prior to receipt of this petition officers had discussed the possibility of completing this linkage as there is a current budget allocation for Bell drive footpath which is underspent.  Therefore, subject to scheduling, there is the capacity for this to be considered. 

 

The CEO will further discuss with the relevant Director and provide confirmation to the Council.

 

Officers would therefore recommended that the petition is received by Council and referred to the CEO for action.   

 


Council

20

12 February 2020

9.2

Attachment a

Letter from Nova Village

 


Council

21

12 February 2020

9.2

Attachment b

Petition

 


 


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      36                                                             12 February 2020

Presentations

 

Nil

Deputations

 

Nil

 

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

   Nil

 

11.             Items brought forward

   At this juncture, the Mayor advised that Item 13.1 would be brought forward for the interests of the public gallery and consideration of the remaining items deferred until after Item 13.1 has been considered.

 


 

ITEMS FOR DEBATE

13.             Planning and Development Services Report

13.1           APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (DA18/0674) - PROPOSED INDUSTRY - EXTRACTIVE (SAND AND GRAVEL) - LOT 101 (285) GIBB ROAD KALOORUP

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Development / Planning Applications

BUSINESS UNIT

Statutory Planning

REPORTING OFFICER

Senior Development Planner – Policy - Stephanie Navarro

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

NATURE OF DECISION

Quasi-Judicial: to determine an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests e.g. development applications, applications for other permits/licences, leases and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Admin Tribunal.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Location plan

Attachment b    Site plan

Attachment c    Explanatory reports and management plans

Attachment d   Summary of submissions - initial round (2018)

Attachment e    Summary of submissions - second round (2019)

Attachment f    Proposed plans/documents to be approved  

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Date

12 February 2020

Meeting

Ordinary Council

Name/Position

Paul Carter, Councillor

Item No./Subject

13.1

Type of Interest

Impartiality Interest

Nature of Interest

I have had recent dealings with a petitioner in relation to item 13.1.

 

Alternative motions were foreshadowed prior to the meeting. In accordance with the City’s Standing Orders Local Law 2018, they were moved prior to the Officer Recommendation which was:

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council determines:

A.         That application DA18/0674 submitted for development of Industry – Extractive (sand and gravel) at Lot 101 (285) Gibb Road Kaloorup is considered by the Council to be generally consistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the objectives of the zone within which it is located.

 

B.         That Development Approval is granted for the proposal referred to in (A) above subject to the  following conditions –

 

General Conditions

 

1.         The development hereby approved is permitted to operate for five years from the date of this Decision Notice or until 141,375 tonnes of material has been extracted, whichever is earlier. The site must be fully rehabilitated in accordance with the approved Closure Plan before the expiry date of this development approval.

 

2.         The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans, which are as follows, or any plans which may be approved pursuant to other conditions of approval:

 

2.1      ‘Excavation – Rehabilitation Management Plan, Sand Excavation, Lot 101, Gibb Road, Kaloorup’ (dated 30 November 2019), specifically:

(i)       Figure 3 Concept Final Contours;

(ii)      Part 7.0 Noise Management;

(iii)    Part 11.0 Closure Plan;

(iv)     Figure 3 Sand Resource Proposed Staging; and

(v)      Figure 7 Depth to the perched water table and soil test holes.

 

2.2      ‘Amended Traffic Route and Management Plan’ (dated 13 September 2019).

 

Prior to Commencement of any DEVELOPMENT conditions:

 

3.         No material is to be extracted from the site or any other works undertaken until the following plans/details have been submitted to, and approved by, the City: 

 

3.1      A Tree Protection Plan outlining temporary demarcation barriers to be erected 15 metres from the crown drip zone of trees to protect the tree and root system from accidental machinery damage.

 

3.2     A revised Dust Management Plan, including additional details validating the water supply available for dust suppression.

 

3.3     A revised Dieback Management Plan prepared by a dieback management consultant accredited with Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, including additional details of monitoring and compliance over the life of the development.

 

3.4      A revised Water Management Plan, including additional details regarding stormwater retention measures to prevent the flow of stormwater into the tributaries of the Carbunup River.

 

3.5      Plans for the widening of Gibb Road to a minimum unsealed carriageway width of 7.0 metres from the crossover to the subject site north to the sealed section of Gibb Road (such plans shall specify the width, alignment, gradient and type of construction proposed for the upgrades, including all relevant horizontal cross-sections and longitudinal-sections showing existing and proposed levels, together with details of culverts and where necessary how such culverts will be upgraded).

 

3.6      Details of upgrades to the crossover to ensure that adequate sightlines are achieved.

 

3.7      Details of warning signage to be erected along the transport route. Signage shall include signs on both approaches to the pit along Gibb Road 100 metres from the crossover.

 

3.8      The following bonds being provided to the City: 

 

(i)        A road maintenance bond of $20,000 (being an unconditional bank guarantee) to ensure that the surrounding road network is maintained to the satisfaction of the City for the term of the approval. Those portions of public roads affected by the activities related to the approval shall be maintained to a standard acceptable to the City. The City may use the bond to maintain the affected public roads as it deems necessary.

 

(ii)      A dust bond to the value of $5,000 (being an unconditional bank guarantee), which shall be held against satisfactory compliance with the Dust Management Plan.

 

(iii)     A rehabilitation bond to the value of $20,000 (being an unconditional bank guarantee), which shall be held against satisfactory compliance with the Closure Plan

 

(iv)     Further to Conditions 3.8(i) – 3(iii), the bonds are to be accompanied by an executed legal agreement with the City (with the costs of preparation of that agreement not being borne by the City). The legal agreement shall provide for:

 

(a)       The ability for the City to be able to use the bonds, or parts of the bonds as appropriate, and any costs to the City including administrative costs of completing or rectifying any outstanding works in accordance with the conditions of this development approval and any further costs;

 

(b)       Written authorisation from the owner of the land that the City may enter the site at any time and permit the City to complete or rectify any outstanding work to the satisfaction of the City;

 

(c)       If at any time any part of the bond is called upon, used or applied by the City in accordance with the legal agreement, the restoration of the bond to the full amount required by these conditions; and

 

(d)       The ability to lodge a caveat over the site to secure the City’s interest.

 

Prior to COMMENCEMENT OF EXTRACTION CONDITIONS:

 

4.         No material is to be extracted until the owners has ensured that information setting out how the plans and details required by Conditions 2 and 3 have been implemented has been provided to the satisfaction of the City, and the City has subsequently issued a ‘Permit to Commence’, confirming that extraction can commence.

 

Prior to COMMENCEMENT OF EXTRACTION, OTHER THAN EXTRACTION FOR UPGRADES TO GIBB ROAD:

 

5.         Notwithstanding Condition 4 above, gravel can be extracted from and crushed on the site for the purpose of upgrading Gibb Road or the crossover, in the following circumstances –

 

5.1       Where all plans, details and bonds required by Condition 3 have been provided to and approved by the City, and implemented to the satisfaction of the City; and

 

5.2       With the prior written approval of the City.

 

OnGoing Conditions:

 

6.         The owner must ensure that the plans, details and works undertaken to satisfy Conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4 are subsequently implemented and maintained for the life of the development and, in addition, the following conditions must be complied with:

 

6.1       The development hereby approved shall be limited to: the excavation or movement of sand and gravel from its natural state on the site, screening of sand, crushing of gravel, transportation of sand and gravel within or off the site, associated drainage works and access ways; and rehabilitation works. At no time shall any blasting works be carried out.

 

6.2       Notwithstanding Condition 6.1, Cells 1 and 2 are limited to the extraction of sand only, and no crushing can be undertaken within Cells 1, 2, 3 or 4, or outside the approved extraction area. Cells are as indicated on the approved plans (Figure 3 Sand Resource Proposed Staging).

 

6.3       Working hours, including transportation of materials, shall be restricted to the hours between: 7.00am and 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays; and 7.00am and 1.00pm Saturdays for rehabilitation works only; and at no time on Sundays or public holidays.

 

6.4       Trucks going to and from the Approved Development are not to operate on Monday to Friday between the hours of 7.30am and 8.50am and between 3.15pm and 4.30pm on any given school day or between other times as agreed in writing between the applicant and the City.

 

6.5       The designated haulage route to Bussell Highway will be northwards along Gibb Road to North Jindong Road and then west along Roy Road. No other routes may be used, until trucks have reached Bussell Highway.

 

6.6       A maximum number of 20 truck movements (i.e. 10 trucks entering and 10 trucks exiting the site) shall be permitted on any operating day. No truck movements shall be permitted on any other day.

 

6.7       Notwithstanding Conditions 6.5 and 6.6 above, should more than 20 truck movements per day and/or an alternative haulage route be proposed a Traffic Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the City; with the Plan being submitted to the Cityat least 7 working days prior to any haulage not consistent with Conditions 6.5 or 6.6 occurring.

 

6.8       No more than 2 hectares shall be worked at any one time; this area shall then be rehabilitated in accordance with the approved details pursuant to Condition 2.1 (iii) concurrently with the extraction of the following 2 hectare area.

 

6.9       No excavation can occur closer than 300mm to the maximum winter perched water table, generally as indicated in ‘Figure 7 Depth to the perched water table and soil test holes’, and no dewatering works are to be undertaken

 

6.10    The final land surface (after rehabilitation for pasture) must be a minimum of 500mm above the maximum winter perched water table, generally as indicated in ‘Figure 3 Concept Final Contours’.

 

6.11    The applicant or the owner must submit to the City annually within three months of every annual anniversary of the issue of the Permit to Commence certificate a written report detailing the following to the satisfaction of the City:

(a)       A survey conducted by a licensed surveyor certifying:

(i)      The extent/size and location of the area which has been extracted;

(ii)     The extent/size and location of the area which has been rehabilitated;

(vi)   The extent/size and location of the area which is currently under operation;

 

(b)       Details confirming that the conditions of this approval have been complied with and how the conditions have been complied with; and

 

(c)       No extraction operations, including stockpiling or transportation of extracted material, is to be undertaken on the site at any time when an annual written report is due and has not been submitted to the City.

 

6.12    No development (including any extraction) may be carried out at any time when any bond that is required to be in force and effect under Condition 3.8 is not in full force and effect.

 

Cr Cox moved the following alternative motion, as foreshadowed prior to the meeting:

ALTERNATIVE MOTION

That the Council determines:

A.         That application DA18/0674 submitted for development of Industry – Extractive (sand and gravel) at Lot 101 (285) Gibb Road Kaloorup is considered by the Council to be generally consistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the objectives of the zone within which it is located.

 

B.         That Development Approval is granted for the proposal referred to in (A) above subject to the  following conditions –

 

General Conditions

 

1.         The development hereby approved is permitted to operate for five years one year from the date of this Decision Notice or until 141,375 tonnes of material has been extracted, whichever is earlier. The site must be fully rehabilitated in accordance with the approved Closure Plan before the expiry date of this development approval.

 

2.         The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans, which are as follows, or any plans which may be approved pursuant to other conditions of approval:

 

2.1      ‘Excavation – Rehabilitation Management Plan, Sand Excavation, Lot 101, Gibb Road, Kaloorup’ (dated 30 November 2019), specifically:

(i)       Figure 3 Concept Final Contours;

(ii)      Part 7.0 Noise Management;

(iii)    Part 11.0 Closure Plan;

(iv)     Figure 3 Sand Resource Proposed Staging; and

(v)      Figure 7 Depth to the perched water table and soil test holes.

 

2.2      ‘Amended Traffic Route and Management Plan’ (dated 13 September 2019).

 

Prior to Commencement of any DEVELOPMENT conditions:

 

3.         No material is to be extracted from the site or any other works undertaken until the following plans/details have been submitted to, and approved by, the City: 

 

3.1      A Tree Protection Plan outlining temporary demarcation barriers to be erected 15 metres from the crown drip zone of trees to protect the tree and root system from accidental machinery damage.

 

3.2     A revised Dust Management Plan, including additional details validating the water supply available for dust suppression.

 

3.3     A revised Dieback Management Plan prepared by a dieback management consultant accredited with Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, including:

 

(i) aAdditional details of monitoring and compliance over the life of the development.; and

 

(ii) Details of the containment, treatment and discharge (where applicable) of water from the wash down of trucks.

 

3.4      A revised Water Management Plan, including:

 

(i) aAdditional details regarding stormwater retention measures to prevent the flow of stormwater into the tributaries of the Carbunup River.; and

 

(ii) Details of the containment, treatment and discharge (where applicable) of water from the wash down of trucks.

 

3.5      Plans for the widening of Gibb Road to a minimum unsealed carriageway width of 7.0 metres from the crossover to the subject site north to the sealed section of Gibb Road (such plans shall specify the width, alignment, gradient and type of construction proposed for the upgrades, including all relevant horizontal cross-sections and longitudinal-sections showing existing and proposed levels, together with details of culverts and where necessary how such culverts will be upgraded).

 

3.6      Details of upgrades to the crossover to ensure that adequate sightlines are achieved.

 

3.7      Details of warning signage to be erected along the transport route. Signage shall include signs on both approaches to the pit along Gibb Road 100 meters from the crossover.

 

3.8      The following bonds being provided to the City: 

 

(i)        A road maintenance bond of $20,000 (being an unconditional bank guarantee) to ensure that the surrounding road network is maintained to the satisfaction of the City for the term of the approval. Those portions of public roads affected by the activities related to the approval shall be maintained to a standard acceptable to the City. The City may use the bond to maintain the affected public roads as it deems necessary.

 

(ii)      A dust bond to the value of $5,000 (being an unconditional bank guarantee), which shall be held against satisfactory compliance with the Dust Management Plan.

(iii)     A rehabilitation bond to the value of $20,000 (being an unconditional bank guarantee), which shall be held against satisfactory compliance with the Closure Plan

 

(iv)     Further to Conditions 3.8(i) – 3(iii), the bonds are to be accompanied by an executed legal agreement with the City (with the costs of preparation of that agreement not being borne by the City). The legal agreement shall provide for:

 

(a)       The ability for the City to be able to use the bonds, or parts of the bonds as appropriate, and any costs to the City including administrative costs of completing or rectifying any outstanding works in accordance with the conditions of this development approval and any further costs;

 

(b)       Written authorisation from the owner of the land that the City may enter the site at any time and permit the City to complete or rectify any outstanding work to the satisfaction of the City;

 

(c)       If at any time any part of the bond is called upon, used or applied by the City in accordance with the legal agreement, the restoration of the bond to the full amount required by these conditions; and

 

(d)       The ability to lodge a caveat over the site to secure the City’s interest.

 

Prior to COMMENCEMENT OF EXTRACTION CONDITIONS:

 

4.         No material is to be extracted until the owners has ensured that information setting out how the plans and details required by Conditions 2 and 3 have been implemented has been provided to the satisfaction of the City, and the City has subsequently issued a ‘Permit to Commence’, confirming that extraction can commence.

 

Prior to COMMENCEMENT OF EXTRACTION, OTHER THAN EXTRACTION FOR UPGRADES TO GIBB ROAD:

 

5.         Notwithstanding Condition 4 above, gravel can be extracted from and crushed on the site for the purpose of upgrading Gibb Road or the crossover, in the following circumstances –

 

5.1       Where all plans, details and bonds required by Condition 3 have been provided to and approved by the City, and implemented to the satisfaction of the City; and

 

5.2       With the prior written approval of the City.

 

OnGoing Conditions:

 

6.         The owner must ensure that the plans, details and works undertaken to satisfy Conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4 are subsequently implemented and maintained for the life of the development and, in addition, the following conditions must be complied with:

 

6.1       The development hereby approved shall be limited to: the excavation or movement of sand and gravel from its natural state on the site, screening of sand, crushing of gravel, transportation of sand and gravel within or off the site, associated drainage works and access ways; and rehabilitation works. At no time shall any blasting works be carried out.

 

6.2       Notwithstanding Condition 6.1, Cells 1 and 2 are limited to the extraction of sand only, and no crushing can be undertaken within Cells 1, 2, 3 or 4, or outside the approved extraction area. Cells are as indicated on the approved plans (Figure 3 Sand Resource Proposed Staging).

6.3       Working hours, including transportation of materials, shall be restricted to the hours between: 7.00am and 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays; and 7.00am and 1.00pm Saturdays for rehabilitation works only; and at no time on Sundays or public holidays.

 

6.4       Trucks going to and from the Approved Development are not to operate on Monday to Friday between the hours of 7.30am and 8.50am and between 3.15pm and 4.30pm on any given school day or between other times as agreed in writing between the applicant and the City.

 

6.5       The designated haulage route to Bussell Highway will be northwards along Gibb Road to North Jindong Road and then west along Roy Road. No other routes may be used, until trucks have reached Bussell Highway.

 

6.6       A maximum number of 20 truck movements (i.e. 10 trucks entering and 10 trucks exiting the site) shall be permitted on any operating day. No truck movements shall be permitted on any other day.

 

6.7       Notwithstanding Conditions 6.5 and 6.6 above, should more than 20 truck movements per day and/or an alternative haulage route be proposed a Traffic Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the City; with the Plan being submitted to the City at least 7 working days prior to any haulage not consistent with Conditions 6.5 or 6.6 occurring.

 

6.8       No more than 2 hectares shall be worked at any one time; this area shall then be rehabilitated in accordance with the approved details pursuant to Condition 2.1 (iii) concurrently with the extraction of the following 2 hectare area.

 

6.9       No excavation can occur closer than 300mm to the maximum winter perched water table, generally as indicated in ‘Figure 7 Depth to the perched water table and soil test holes’, and no dewatering works are to be undertaken.

 

6.10    The final land surface (after rehabilitation for pasture) must be a minimum of 500mm above the maximum winter perched water table, generally as indicated in ‘Figure 3 Concept Final Contours’.

 

6.11    The applicant or the owner must submit to the City annually within three months of every annual anniversary of the issue of the Permit to Commence certificate a written report detailing the following to the satisfaction of the City:

 

(a)       A survey conducted by a licensed surveyor certifying:

(i)      The extent/size and location of the area which has been extracted;

(ii)     The extent/size and location of the area which has been rehabilitated;

(vi)   The extent/size and location of the area which is currently under operation;

 

(b)       Details confirming that the conditions of this approval have been complied with and how the conditions have been complied with; and

 

(c)       No extraction operations, including stockpiling or transportation of extracted material, is to be undertaken on the site at any time when an annual written report is due and has not been submitted to the City.

 

6.12    No development (including any extraction) may be carried out at any time when any bond that is required to be in force and effect under Condition 3.8 is not in full force and effect.

LAPSED

FOR WANT OF A SECONDER

 

The Mayor called on Cr Riccelli to move her alternative motion, as foreshadowed prior to the meeting.

 

ALTERNATIVE MOTION

Moved Councillor S Riccelli, seconded Councillor K Cox

That the Council defers consideration of application DA18/0674 submitted for development of Industry – Extractive (sand and gravel) at Lot 101 (285) Gibb Road Kaloorup until the Council’s 11 March 2020 Ordinary Meeting.

 

There was objection to the alternative motion and debate ensued.

 

Cr Paine moved an amendment to the alternative motion.

 

AMENDMENT TO ALTERNATIVE MOTION

C2002/029              Moved Councillor R Paine, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council defers consideration of application DA18/0674 submitted for development of Industry – Extractive (sand and gravel) at Lot 101 (285) Gibb Road Kaloorup until the Council’s 26 February 2020 Ordinary Meeting.

LOST 1/8

For the Motion: Cr Paine

Against the Motion: Cr Henley, Cr Hick, Cr Cox, Cr Riccelli,

Cr Cronin, Cr Miles, Cr Barrett-Lennard, Cr Carter

 

Debate resumed on the alternative motion and the motion was put:

ALTERNATIVE MOTION

C2002/030              Moved Councillor S Riccelli, seconded Councillor K Cox

That the Council defers consideration of application DA18/0674 submitted for development of Industry – Extractive (sand and gravel) at Lot 101 (285) Gibb Road Kaloorup until the Council’s 11 March 2020 Ordinary Meeting.

CARRIED 7/2

For the motion: Cr Riccelli, Cr Cox, Cr Barrett-Lennard, Cr Hick, Cr Paine, Cr Cronin, Cr Miles

Against the motion: Cr Henley, Cr Carter

Reasons:             To allow a fully informed decision to be made regarding this application, further information is required outlining the non-compliance issues/audits carried out on approved extractive industry operations; clarification of the traffic count and the figure at which a road is sealed; clarification of the residential density of the area; and further discussion of the conditions of the application is required.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received a development application for an ‘Industry – Extractive’ to extract 200,000 tonnes of sand and gravel over an area of 20.94 hectares at Lot 101 (285) Gibb Road, Kaloorup. Due to the nature of the issues requiring consideration and the level of community interest, the application is being presented to 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 No. 21 (Scheme) and the broader, relevant planning framework including Local Planning Policy 5A – Extractive Industries (LPP5A). It is therefore recommended that the application is approved, subject to appropriate conditions.

 

Note that the Council has also received a petition in relation to the proposal and the regulation of extractive industry more broadly. This report is also intended to address the issues raised in that petition.

 

BACKGROUND

The Council is asked to consider an application for ‘Industry – Extractive’ at Lot 101 (285) Gibb Road, Kaloorup.  The application was originally submitted in September 2018 and at that time advertising was undertaken to all property owners within one kilometre of the site. On receipt of agency/neighbour submissions, the application was put on hold by the applicant, pending additional hydrology information being submitted and resolution of transport/haulage route issues.

 

Following the resolution of these outstanding issues, which included modifications to the haulage route, the application was re-advertised again to surrounding landowners within one kilometre of the site in December 2019.

 

Key information regarding the application is set out below ––

 

1.         Landowner/s: Margaret River Natural Resources Pty Ltd

 

2.         Applicant: Margaret River Natural Resources Pty Ltd

 

3.         Site area: 91.66 hectares

 

4.         General description of site: Lot 101 (285) Gibb Road is located approximately 2.5 kilometres south of the intersection of Gibb, Payne and North Jindong Roads. There are three other extractive industry sites approved and operating on surrounding lots within one kilometre of the site and another three within two kilometres of the site. The surrounding lots are predominately used for agricultural purposes, however, there are a number of Bushland Protection zoned lots located to the north-west of the site, plus a number of dwellings and some tourism related uses. 

5.         Current development/use: The lot is currently used for agricultural purposes.

 

6.         Brief description of proposed development: The applicant proposed to extract 200,000 tonnes of sand and gravel with an extraction depth of one to three metres within an area of 20.94 hectares.

 

The applicant originally proposed to transport the materials to Gale Road by taking access through two surrounding lots (being Lot 1 and Lot 4205 Gale Road). Further investigation into the traffic volumes along Gibb Road (which fronts the lot) confirmed that, based on the current traffic volumes along Gibb Road, the additional truck movements from the proposal would not trigger the requirement for the gravel portion of Gibb Road to be sealed and therefore the haulage route was modified.

 

The proposed haulage route is northwards along Gibb Road to North Jindong Road, then west along Roy Road to Bussell Highway. The applicant has agreed to limit the maximum truck movements so that the total vehicle movements, taking into consideration the additional vehicle movements from the proposal and the existing traffic volumes along Gibb Road, do not exceed the maximum vehicle movements for a gravel road as set by the relevant planning framework (principally, LPP5A).

 

7.         Applicable Zoning and Special Control Area designations: The site is located within the Rural Zone.

 

8.         Land-use permissibility: Industry – Extractive is an ‘A’ use in the Rural Zone, meaning that it is a use that may be permitted in the Zone at the reasonable discretion of the City, following a compulsory period of consultation and consideration of any submissions received. Under LPP5A the site is located within Policy Area 3, which is considered less constrained than other policy areas due to the primarily agriculture nature of the area.

 

The following attachments are provided –

·        Attachment A – Location plan.

·        Attachment B – Site plan.

·        Attachment C – Explanatory reports and management plans.

·        Attachment D – Schedule of submissions – initial round.

·        Attachment E – Schedule of submissions – second round.

·        Attachment F – Proposed plans/documents to be approved.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

As a result of the submissions received and the assessment of the application, the following are considered to be the key issues relevant to determination of the application (and to address the issues raised in the petition submitted in relation to the proposal) –

1.         Basic raw materials supply and demand;

2.         Amenity impacts, including cumulative amenity impacts of multiple and/or ongoing extraction sites; and

3.         Haulage route and transport impacts.

 

Each of these issues is outlined and discussed below, under appropriate sub-headings.

 


 

It is worth first setting out in brief, though, how the proposal addresses the key considerations against which extractive industry proposals should be assessed –

·    With what is considered a relatively minor exception, the proposal meets requirements related to minimum setbacks from property boundaries (i.e. 20 metres) and from existing sensitive premises, such as dwellings. Those requirements are 500 metres for sand extraction, although 300 metres may be permissible in some instances, but not proposed in this case. The actual minimum separation distance proposed is 600 metres. The requirement for gravel extraction is one kilometre, as is the case for gravel crushing. The proposal achieves that for crushing, although there is some gravel extraction proposed, in Cells 3 and 4, at a distance of 800 metres from the nearest sensitive premises. Given the scale and context, that is not considered unreasonable, and will also allow Gibb Road to be upgraded without requiring gravel to be brought from another site.

·    A dust management plan consistent with normal requirements has been provided, although some relatively minor revisions are considered necessary – and that is reflected in a recommended condition of approval.

·    The proposal does not involve removal of remnant vegetation – noting that vegetation can be removed to allow for extraction, where the necessary approvals related to that have been obtained.

·    Hydrological information has been provided setting out how extraction and site levels following rehabilitation will meet State requirements.

·    The impact of traffic on the proposed haulage route has been assessed against policy requirements, and subject to the widening of Gibb Road (the implementation of which is a recommended condition of approval, to be completed at the proponent’s cost), will not result in traffic on the proposed haulage route exceeding levels that could reasonably be considered to have unacceptable impacts.

 

Basic raw materials supply and demand

In setting the relevant planning framework, planning authorities – which in this case means both the City and the State (i.e. Western Australian Planning Commission and Hon. Minister for Planning) – need to be conscious of issues related to basic raw materials (BRM) supply and demand, as well as issues such as amenity, traffic and environmental impact. That is because BRM, such as sand and gravel, are vital to the economy of the District and broader region.

 

BRM are also finite and increasingly scarce resources, vital to the construction industry especially, which is a very significant contributor to the local economy and employment. Importantly, economic access to BRM is also necessary for the further expansion of the tourism industry (for instance, the development of the Regional Airport required significant use of BRM, as does most tourism-related construction) and for major infrastructure projects, such as the extension of the Bussell Highway dual-carriageway from Capel to Busselton.

 

BRM can of course only be extracted where they are present in the landscape. In the City of Busselton, resources are concentrated in areas near the Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge and Whicher Escarpment. There are some sand resources located further north, but such resources are often constrained by the presence of winter groundwater at or just below the surface (noting that State requirements prevent extraction within 300mm of maximum groundwater levels, or the reduction of post extraction levels to less than 500mm to 1.0 metre above that level – dependent on the intended post-extraction agricultural land use).

 


 

There are also some resources located further west and south, but they often tend to be constrained by the presence of native vegetation, a higher density of sensitive premises, land tenure (i.e. the land is in conservation estate, such as National Park or State Forest) and/or by the zoning of the land (noting that extractive industry is permissible in the Rural Zone, but prohibited in the Viticulture and Tourism Zone, which applies to much of the rural land between Caves Road and Bussell Highway).

 

Consequently, the alternative to permitting extraction in the City where resources are present (and subject to reasonable assessment and conditions) would involve transport of BRM from outside the City (noting that does occur to some degree already). That would add to the cost of BRM and there are also similar supply constraints elsewhere in the region (and there is also a scarcity of BRM in the Perth and Peel regions too, with some BRM being extracted and transported from the South-West to those regions).

 

It is inevitable that BRM supply will become ever more constrained in the future. That will, and is already, leading to the construction and development industries finding ways to undertake development using less BRM. The scarce and finite nature of BRM supplies is also already influencing the pattern of development across the City and elsewhere, with land where less fill is required being developed ahead of areas that may be more centrally located, but where the amount, and therefore the cost, of fill is greater. BRM extraction will, however, continue for at least the foreseeable future, as construction, of both buildings and especially infrastructure, will continue to require BRM.

 

Amenity impacts, including cumulative amenity impacts of multiple and/or ongoing extraction sites

BRM extraction can and often does impact on the amenity of nearby properties and residents. The State has established guidelines that seek to identify when such impacts may be unreasonable. The City has reflected those guidelines in LPP5A. In short, LPP5A requires extraction of sand to occur no closer than 500 metres to a sensitive premises (i.e. a dwelling, chalet or similar place of accommodation), but in some cases as close as 300 metres may be considered. For extraction of gravel or rock, the equivalent is one kilometre, as is the case for the crushing of gravel. The proposal meets those requirements, with the exception already outlined above.

 

The State guidelines on which those requirements are based are generally considered to be quite conservative – i.e. the separation distances proposed are relatively large, in comparison with the distances that would be required if more detailed site assessment and impact modelling were undertaken (i.e. in most cases, noise modelling, although there are also potential amenity impacts in the form of dust, and some broader considerations as well). Whilst LPP5A does not make it explicit, proponents could choose to propose lesser separation distances, if they were prepared to invest in that kind of more detailed assessment (which can be quite costly to undertake). That is, in fact, the approach usually taken by the mineral sands industry (which may also enter into ‘amenity agreements’ with the owners of affected sensitive premises).

 

It is also worth noting that the proposal is in a rural area, not a residential or rural-residential area. Whilst protection of amenity is a relevant consideration in a rural area, amenity does not have the same status as a planning consideration in a rural area as it would in a residential or rural-residential area. There are activities, such as agricultural and extraction activities which can only occur in rural areas, and which can and do impact on amenity, but providing for those activities is an important consideration in planning decisions in rural areas.

 

Given the relevant planning framework, the most important elements of which are outlined above, there is not seen to a basis on which to refuse the application because of potential amenity impacts.

 


 

Turning to the more specific question of cumulative amenity impacts, raised in the petition, it is worth discussing first when and how cumulative impacts in general can be and are assessed in the determination of applications for development approval. In general, each application must be assessed on its merits against the relevant planning framework. It is somewhat difficult therefore to consider cumulative impacts as part of administrative decision-making – and the determination of applications for development approval is a form of administrative decision-making. In the absence of any specific policy or power allowing for consideration of cumulative impacts, it will often be difficult to do so.

 

There are, however, instances where cumulative impacts can be considered. One of those relates to traffic. LPP5A, drawing on other standards, identifies maximum recommended traffic levels, given the nature of the roads proposed to be used for haulage (i.e. whether it is sealed or unsealed, what the carriageway width is). If the traffic associated with an extractive industry proposal would reasonably be expected to result in the traffic on that road exceeding a particular threshold, and it was considered that would have a significant impact on the road (in terms of congestion, safety or asset life/maintenance) it should only be approved subject to a condition requiring the upgrading of the subject road (and then only if that upgrading, in and of itself, was considered appropriate).

 

If a subsequent extractive operation is proposed, and it would result in the road exceeding the next threshold, that operation should only be approved with a condition requiring the subsequent and additional upgrade of the road. It should be noted that there can be practical issues with this kind of approach, where multiple operations are using the same roads (not to mention issues related to other development or land-uses which may affect the subject roads), but it is a well-established approach.

 

Because the thresholds for consideration of amenity impacts are principally around separation distances, there is no similarly straightforward means of considering ‘cumulative impact’. If all extractive industry proponents were required to prepare and submit noise modelling, then it may be possible to consider the cumulative impacts of noise from extractive operations (noting that noise is only one component of amenity, but a very important component in this context). That is not, however, what the relevant planning framework currently requires – and in any case it is not clear that it would result in a different outcome (as the separation distances are such that even multiple pits all operating at the same time would probably not result in noise levels at any particular sensitive premises that exceed those set out in the noise regulations).

 

Effectively, if the Council was of the view that the cumulative impacts of extractive industry in a given area may be excessive, the Council would most likely need to prohibit extractive industry in that area. The Council has done so in the Viticulture and Tourism Zone, as noted earlier in this report. As part of the ongoing review of extractive industry regulation, officers have done some work to identify whether that could or should be re-considered. The outcome of that work indicates that the density of sensitive premises in that Zone would mean that, even if extractive industry was permissible, very little extraction could actually be approved given required separation distances. The same is not the case in the area where the subject site for this application is located.

 

Another means of reducing potential cumulative impacts could be through increasing separation distances in the Council’s policy (i.e. LPP5A). Given that the current separation distances reflect relevant State guidelines, however, it is not clear that such an approach would be defensible in the State Administrative Tribunal. It is even less clear that an ad hoc decision to apply higher separation distances would be defensible.

 


 

Further, regardless of the means by which amenity might be given a higher level of protection, it would inevitably result in an effective reduction in BRM supply over the medium to long term. As already noted, in the setting of its regulatory framework, it is considered that the Council does need to consider both amenity and supply issues, and there will no doubt be legitimate and genuine differences of view on how to balance those two often competing considerations.

 

Haulage route and transport impacts

The applicant originally proposed to access Gale Road via two adjoining properties to the south. Following further assessment, however, they amended the proposal to access the site via the existing crossover located at the southern end of the site’s frontage to Gibb Road. The proposed haulage route is now north from the site along Gibb Road to North Jindong Road and then west along Roy Road to Bussell Highway.

 

The general approach to assessment of traffic impacts of extractive industry is that the potential on local roads is assessed, through to the point where the regional road network can be accessed – in this case Bussell Highway. From that point on, it is assumed that the impacts will be fairly diffuse (i.e. the material will be going to a wide range of sites, and the impacts on any particular part of the road network not be significant), or that where that may not be the case, the traffic impacts will be assessed from the point of view of the receiving site – for instance as part of the traffic management considerations for a major construction or infrastructure project.

 

‘Attachment 1 – Traffic Impact Assessment and Road Upgrading Requirements’ of LPP5A is used as a guide by the City in assessing the suitability of existing traffic infrastructure to accommodate the traffic impacts of proposed extractive industries. ‘Table 3 – Seal Widths and Carriageway width for Rural Roads’ of Attachment 1 prescribes different minimum carriageway and sealed widths for four categories of the annual average daily traffic (AADT). When assessing a development application for an extractive industry, in order to determine the minimum carriageway requirements the proposed maximum truck movements are added to the current AADT to confirm if the proposed haulage route complies with the applicable standards. In this instance, Gale Road is unsealed and therefore the minimum requirement is a seven metre carriageway width for up to 75 vehicle movements per day. Once the number of vehicle movements per day exceeds 75, the road is required to be upgraded to have a carriageway width of 7.5 metres, with a sealed width of 3.5 metres.

 

The City most recently undertook traffic monitoring along Gibb Road from 16 May 2019 to 5 June 2019. The traffic counter was located 2.6 kilometres north of the intersection of Gibb Road and Gale Road adjacent to the subject lot. The data collected during this period indicated that the average vehicle movements per day during this period was 31, with maximum vehicle movements per day being 46 on a Sunday. The maximum vehicle movements on a weekday, when the extractive is proposed to operate, was 38.

 

The applicant has indicated within their supporting information that the average vehicle movements would be 12 truck movements (i.e. six leaving and six entering) per day with potential for a maximum of 40 truck movements (i.e. 20 leaving and 20 entering) per day. However, the applicant has advised that they are willing to limit the maximum number of truck movements per day to the maximum permissible under LPP5A so that the total vehicle movements per day do not exceed the limit for a gravel road. When calculating the maximum number of tuck movements LPP5A requires each truck movement to be counted as 1.7 vehicle movements, due to the additional wear that results from truck movements compared to light vehicles. Therefore, with the current maximum vehicle movements along Gibb Road of 38 vehicle movements per week day it is considered appropriate in this instance to limit the maximum number of truck movements to 20 (i.e. 10 entering and 10 exiting the property) as this would keep the AADT below 75 vehicle movements per day.

 


 

The current carriageway width of the gravel portion of Gibb Road, which extends approximately 1.5km north of the crossover from the site, does not meet the minimum carriageway width requirements of LPP5A. Therefore it is recommended that, via a condition of development approval, the applicant be required to widen the carriageway to a minimum width of seven metres. As the maximum number of vehicle movements per day will not exceed 75, there is no requirement under LPP5A for Gibb Road to be sealed.

 

Based on the above mentioned maximum daily truck movement, it is recommend that the amount of material to be extracted over the approval period be limited to 141,375 tonnes, rather than the 200,000 tonnes applied for (as that larger amount could not be extracted without breaching the traffic movement condition). It should be noted that there are times when a contract may require higher volumes of material than what the maximum movements per day can accommodate.

 

There may also be times when an alternative route is appropriate (whilst not likely, there is a possibility that material could be required on a site in the vicinity, where it would not make sense to transport the material to Bussell Highway, before taking it to the receiving site). Conditions of approval include an allowance for this kind of eventuality, through submission to and approval by the City of a traffic management plan.

 

A number of concerns were raised regarding the use of Roy Road as part of the haulage route. Roy Road is designated as a ‘Restrictive Access Vehicle (RAV) Network 3 Low Volume Road’ by Main Roads. Main Roads WA’s RAV Route Assessment Guidelines are used by Main Roads to assess routes within the State for inclusion on RAV Networks. To be included as a RAV route a road is required to be designed/assessed as being able to accommodate heavy haulage traffic. In this instance, according to the Main Roads RAV network classification a Category 3 road is suited to accommodate vehicles up to 27.5m in length. A prime mover with a semi-trailer, which would be used for the transport of material from the site, would comply with these requirements.

 

Being designated as a RAV route in and of itself, however, does not mean there is no need to consider the potential impact of increased levels of heavy traffic. The City obtained independent advice from Cardno in relation to traffic levels on Roy Road. Cardno estimates an AADT of 416 vehicles per day, and an additional 20 truck movements per day would not result in over 500 movements per day – Roy Road meets the LPP5A standard for the level of traffic that would result.

Statutory Environment

 

The key statutory environment is set out in the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme 21 (Scheme), the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (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 ‘Rural’. The objectives of the ‘Rural’ zone are as follows –

a.         To provide for the maintenance or enhancement of specific local rural character.

b.         To protect broad acre agricultural activities such as cropping and grazing and intensive uses such as viticulture and horticulture as primary uses, with other rural activities as secondary uses in circumstances where they demonstrate compatibility with the primary use.

c.         To maintain and enhance the environmental qualities of the landscape, vegetation, soils and waterways, to protect sensitive areas especially the natural valley and watercourse systems from damage.

d.         To provide for the operation and development of existing, future and potential rural land uses by limiting the introduction of sensitive land uses.

e.         To provide for a range of non-rural land uses where they have demonstrated benefit and are compatible with surrounding rural uses.

f.          To provide for development and expansion of the viticultural, winemaking and associated tourism activities and other industries related to agricultural activities, in addition to general rural pursuits, in a manner that does not cause adverse environmental impact.

g.         To provide for the extraction of basic raw materials, where appropriate.

 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of the zone.

 

Land-use and permissibility

The proposed land uses which is defined as follows –

 

“Industry – Extractive” means premises, other than premises used for mining operations, that are used for the extraction of basic raw materials including by means of ripping, blasting or dredging and may include facilities for any of the following purposes – 

 

(a)           the processing of raw materials including crushing, screening, washing, blending or grading,

 

(b)           activities associated with the extraction of basic raw materials including wastewater treatment, storage, rehabilitation, loading, transportation, maintenance and administration.

 

Industry - Extractive is identified as an ‘A’ or advertised use within the Rural zone.

 

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 -

 

(d)       any environmental protection policy approved under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 section 31(d);

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

 

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

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

             (i)    environmental impacts of the development;

             (ii)   the character of the locality;

             (iii) social impacts of the development;

(o)       the likely effect of the development on the natural environment 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;

(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;…

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

Local Planning Policy 5A - Extractive Industries

Local planning policies must be given due regard, but cannot and do not bind the City, in the assessment of applications for development approval. LPP5A provides guidance regarding the extraction of basic raw materials. The application site is located within Policy Area 3, elements of LPP5A considered particularly relevant to assessment of the application are as follows –

 

1.    4.2.2.3           Policy Areas 2 and 3: Notwithstanding 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 above, the extraction of sand and limestone may be located less than 500m but generally no closer than 300m from a sensitive land use dependent upon the nature and scale of the operation and the content of a Dust and Noise Management plan including consideration of the requirement for dust and noise measuring equipment to be installed within the site for the duration of the extraction process. However this will not apply to the extraction of basalt and other hard rock quarrying which requires greater setback distances (generally a minimum of 1000m) to a sensitive land use.

 

2.      4.2.2.5         Policy Areas 2 and 3: Where an extractive industry is approved within 1km of a residence or tourist accommodation or attraction, additional conditions to reduce amenity impact from noise and dust may be imposed, including operating times.

 

3.      4.2.5            Route Assessment and Transportation:

The potential impacts of an extractive industry will be assessed against the Scheme and the following criteria:

a)     The outcomes of the Schedule 1 – Traffic Impact Assessment and Road Upgrading Guidelines.

b)     Any comments or recommendations from Main Roads WA.

c)      The impacts of haulage traffic noise, vibration and amenity loss on surrounding areas.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.


Stakeholder 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.

 

The purpose of public consultation is to provide an opportunity for issues associated with a proposed development to be identified by those who potentially may be affected.  A development application should not be approved or refused based on the number of submissions it receives, for or against, rather all applications must be determined on the merits of the particular proposal, including consideration of any relevant planning issues raised through consultation.   

 

The application was initially open for submissions from 28 September 2018 to 31 October 2018. The application was 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 were sent to all the land owners within one kilometre of the site; and

4.         A notice was placed in a local newspaper on 10 October 2018.

 

A total of 33 submissions were received from 29 properties. Where multiple submission were received from the same address these were counted as one submission. The submissions included 2 submissions in support, 10 submissions opposed and 17 pro-forma letters in support of the proposal.

 

A schedule of submissions from the initial round of consultation is provided as Attachment D. The schedule identifies who submissions were received from and summarises the submissions. 

 

Following provision of additional hydrology information and modifications to the proposed access and haulage route the application was re-advertised from 28 November 2019 to 13 December 2019. Initially, the second round of consultation was undertaken via email to anyone who made a submission during the initial advertising period excluding those who completed the pro-forma letter. However, due to the number and nature of submissions a referral letter was sent to all landowners within one kilometre of the site. In addition, the advertised period for all parties was extended until 31 December 2019.

 

A schedule of submissions from the second round of consultation is provided as Attachment E. The schedule identifies who submissions were received from and summarises the submissions. 

 

During this second round of advertising a total of 26 public submissions from 21 properties were received, all of which were objections. Where multiple submission were received from the same address these were counted as one submission.

 

The concerns raised within both submission periods can generally be summarised as follows:

 

·    Haulage Route, including -

Proposed haulage route along Gibb Road with the following concerns;

§ Safety concerns from insufficient width; and

§ Additional wear on the road.

Proposed haulage route along Roy Road with the following concerns:

§ Safety concerns from insufficient sightlines along Roy Road and for entering/exiting traffic; and

§ Conflicts with school bus routes.

 

 

·    Amenity and health concerns, including -

Concerns regarding dust emitted from the extractive activities and along haulage route. Potential impact on health and wellbeing of people within the area as well as potential impact on vegetation, wildlife and other commercial operations within the area (vineyards); and

Impact upon amenity of the area from noise from the operations.

·    Environmental concerns including –

Impacts on native fauna and flora; and

Impacts on the ground water table.

·    Number of extractives within the locality with ongoing compliance issues.

 

Where issues are raised which are not able to be considered, as they do not relate to the relevant planning framework, the comment provided (note comments have been grouped given the number of submissions received) 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.

 

In addition to the above, the application was referred to Main Roads, Department of Water, Environment and Regulation and Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. A summary of agencies comments are provided within the schedule of submissions at Attachment D and E. 

 

In addition to the above the City has received a petition objecting to the proposal including the cumulative negative impact as a result of the number of extractions within the area and the impacts on tourist operations, vineyards, recreation activities and residential blocks within the area. In accordance with the Standing Orders Local Law 2018 the Council may vote on a matter that is the subject of a petition presented to that meeting provided the matter is subject of a report included in the agenda and the Council has considered the issues raised in the petition.

 

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. The key risk to the City is considered to be the potential reputational and environmental risk that may arise if the site is not managed in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval. Mitigation of that risk requires proactive and appropriately resourced compliance activity.

 

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could:

 

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

 

2.    Apply additional or different conditions.

CONCLUSION

Subject to the inclusion of relevant conditions, the proposal is considered appropriate to support and it is accordingly recommended for approval.

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.


Council

48

12 February 2020

13.1

Attachment a

Location plan

 


Council

49

12 February 2020

13.1

Attachment b

Site plan

 


Council

54

12 February 2020

13.1

Attachment c

Explanatory reports and management plans

 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

188

12 February 2020

13.1

Attachment d

Summary of submissions - initial round (2018)

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

198

12 February 2020

13.1

Attachment e

Summary of submissions - second round (2019)

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

199

12 February 2020

13.1

Attachment f

Proposed plans/documents to be approved

 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council                                                                                      234                                                             12 February 2020

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 below reports, including the Committee and Officer Recommendations, will be adopted en bloc, i.e. all together:

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2002/031              Moved Deputy Mayor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

 

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

               

12.6        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: BEACH AND FORESHORE AREAS - ACCESS BY THE HOLDER OF A COMMERCIAL FISHING BOAT LICENCE

 

12.7        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - REVIEW OF BUILDING INSURANCE POLICY

 

12.8        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - REVIEW OF EVENTS POLICY

 

12.9        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - LOCAL PLANNING POLICY REVIEW - REVOCATION OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES LPP1A, LPP1E, LPP1G, LPP1H AND LPP8B

 

12.10     Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: PUBLIC ARTWORK

 

12.11     Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - MEDIA AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS COUNCIL POLICY

 

13.2        AMENDMENT 45 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME 21 AND PROPOSED STRUCTURE PLAN AFFECTING LOT 30 (70) MILLBROOK ROAD – CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION

 

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc


Council                                                                                      235                                                           12 February 2020

12.             Reports of Committee

12.6           Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: BEACH AND FORESHORE AREAS - ACCESS BY THE HOLDER OF A COMMERCIAL FISHING BOAT LICENCE

STRATEGIC GOAL

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Council Policies

BUSINESS UNIT

Environmental Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Ranger & Emergency Services Coordinator - Ian McDowell

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   Council Policy: Beaches and Foreshore Areas - Access by the Holder of a Commercial Fishing Boat Licence  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 29 January 2020, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C2002/032              Moved Deputy Mayor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council rescinds Council policy ‘009/6: Beaches and Foreshore Areas – Access by the Holder of a Commercial Fishing Boat Licence’.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A review of Council Policy 009/6: Beaches and Foreshore Areas: Access by the Holder of a Commercial Fishing Boat Licence (the Policy) has been undertaken. Following the review it has been determined by officers that the Policy is not strategic in nature and, as such, should be administered by the City as an internal guideline. This report seeks to rescind the Policy. A copy of the Policy is attached (Attachment A).

 

BACKGROUND

A review of the Policy has been undertaken in accordance with the City’s policy review schedule. Since the last review of the Policy in November 2017, the City implemented a Policy Framework document, the purpose of which is to provide a structure for the development and maintenance of documents intended to guide the City’s approach to decision-making, namely Council Policies, Operational Practices, Work Processes and Guidelines.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

Under the City’s policy framework structure, a Council policy should provide a strategic statement of the Council’s direction. Following a review of the Policy it has been determined by officers that its content provides supporting information more aligned to the administrative function of issuing permits rather than a strategic statement of the Council and as such, the development of an Operational Practice or an internal guideline document is more appropriate.

 

Statutory Environment

Pursuant to section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995, a role of Council is to determine the local government’s policies.

Pursuant to section 2.1(1) of the City of Busselton Local Government Property Local Law 2010:

“Unless under the authority of a permit or determination a person must not take or cause a vehicle to be taken onto or driven onto local government property”.

Local government property includes beaches and foreshores, except where land is in private ownership, or is managed by the State Government’s Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA).

The authority to administer the provision of Local Laws, including issuing permits, is delegated to the Chief Executive Officer under the provisions of the section 3.18 of the Local Government Act 1995. Accordingly, there is no need to have a Council Policy for what is essentially an administrative function.

Relevant Plans and Policies

There are no relevant plans or policies to consider in relation to this matter.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.

Stakeholder Consultation

No external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to this matter.

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. No risks of a medium or greater level have been identified.

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could:

1.    Retain Council Policy 009/6: Beaches and Foreshore Areas: Access by the Holder of a Commercial Fishing Boat Licence; and

2.    Ask that officers present a revised policy for Council’s consideration at a later point in time.

 

CONCLUSION

Following a review of Council Policy 009/6: Beaches and Foreshore Areas: Access by the Holder of a Commercial Fishing Boat Licence it has been determined by officers that the policy is not strategic in nature and as such, can be administered by the City as an Operational Practice or similar internal guideline. This report recommends to rescind the Policy.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

If the Officer Recommendation is endorsed by the Council, the Policy will be immediately rescinded.


Council

238

12 February 2020

12.6

Attachment a

Council Policy: Beaches and Foreshore Areas - Access by the Holder of a Commercial Fishing Boat Licence

 


 

 


Council                                                                                      239                                                           12 February 2020

12.7           Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - REVIEW OF BUILDING INSURANCE POLICY

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

6.4 Assets are well maintained and responsibly managed.

SUBJECT INDEX

Asset Management

BUSINESS UNIT

Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

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   Revised Building Insurance Policy

Attachment b    Current Building Insurance Policy  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 29 January 2020, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C2002/033              Moved Deputy Mayor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council adopts the revised Council policy ‘Building Insurance’ as per attachment A to replace the current policy at Attachment B.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents a revised Building Insurance Policy (Attachment A) (the Policy) for Council’s consideration, with the current policy amended as part of the City’s ongoing policy review process.

 

BACKGROUND

In 2011, the Council resolved to adopt an approach of taking out different levels of insurance for City building assets on a Service Level Hierarchy (SLH) basis, with all buildings and improvements on land owned or managed by the City allocated a level of insurance appropriate to its SLH, its current condition and planned future use. At its meeting held on 23 March 2011, the Council resolved (C1103/091) the following:

 

1.    Adopt an approach of taking out different levels of insurance for City owned building assets based on Service Level Hierarchy approach and building condition.

2.    Apply different levels of insurance for the 2011/ 2012 financial year being; Demolition, Indemnity and Replacement / Reinstatement …

3.    Provide for the insurance needs of buildings valued at under $50,000 through the existing Buildings Reserve Fund and thus not take out an insurance policy in respect of any buildings within the Shire that are valued at under $50,000 unless the CEO considers it necessary due to special circumstances to take out a separate policy of insurance in respect of a particular building.

4.    Via the Policy and Legislation Committee develop a policy in relation to insurance of City owned buildings that encapsulates the philosophy of the approach identified in this resolution and report including appropriate CPI indexing of building values.

5.    Request the CEO to review the costs and need of insuring buildings for demolition value only and only take out this form of insurance where a cost benefit analysis justifies insuring.

A policy adopting the above approach was presented to and adopted by Council on 24 July 2013 (C1307/192). The policy outlined the rationale for the different insurance levels and detailed the calculation of the SLH. It also formalised the requirement for lessees to reimburse the City for the costs of insurance. The Policy was again reviewed in 2016 as part of the City’s ongoing policy review process, with no substantive changes identified or made to the policy (see current policy version at Attachment B).

 

The Policy has undergone a further review as part of the City’s policy review process and is presented for Council’s adoption.

OFFICER COMMENT

When reviewing the City’s policies, officers consider several factors, including the purpose and relevance of the policy, the City’s policy framework, any other associated policies, plans and procedures, and whether the content and format can be amended for improved readability.

 

The Policy is considered of ongoing relevance, and to have an important purpose; providing strategic guidance and clarity as to the various levels of insurance and in what circumstances they will be applied.

 

In 2017, the City engaged John M. Woodhouse to conduct a review of the City’s governance systems and procedures (GSR), one of the recommendations being that policies “should deal with higher level objectives and strategies” and “should not deal with any operational matters, employee matters or other matters which are the responsibility of the CEO”.

 

A proportion of the content of the current policy is considered to be operational in nature, as it sets out in detail the calculation of the SLH. Pursuant to the recommendations of the GSR and current City practice, the proposed Policy has been revised to remove this detail. The Policy instead refers to the Building Asset Management Plan, an operational-level document which contains the detailed breakdown of the SLH. This provides officers with an overarching policy guideline which can be read in conjunction with a discrete, more flexible operational document, and aligns with the GSR recommendation that “any existing Council Policy should be deleted where it could, more sensibly, be dealt with by an OPP adopted by the CEO (this is so particularly where the purpose is to give directions to employees as to the manner in which operational matters are to be carried out)”.

Statutory Environment

Under section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), the local government’s policies are determined by the Council. The Council fulfils this role with the recommendations of the Policy and Legislation Committee, established under section 5.8 of the Act.

 

The officer recommendation supports the general function of a local government under the Act to provide for the good government of persons in its district.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The Policy aligns with the City’s policy framework, intended to provide guidance as to the intent, scope and language of a Council policy (versus an operational document), and has been developed using the City’s policy template, intended to provide a consistent format across all City policies.

 

The officer recommendation is intrinsically linked to the Asset Management Plan which details the City’s Service Level Hierarchy.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation as the Policy does not seek to change the way in which building insurance is currently allocated.

Stakeholder Consultation

No external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to this matter.

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.  No risks have been identified.

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation, the Council could:

1.    Not endorse the Policy as revised;

2.    Suggest further amendments to the Policy; or

3.    Rescind the Building Insurance Policy with the CEO to determine the approach to be taken from time to time in relation to insurance.

CONCLUSION

This report presents a revised Building Insurance Policy for Council to consider. The Policy continues to provide guidance to City officers in allocating the appropriate insurance level to City-owned buildings and improvements on land owned and managed by the City.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The revised Policy will be implemented and published within one week of the Council’s endorsement.  


Council

243

12 February 2020

12.7

Attachment a

Revised Building Insurance Policy

 


 


Council

247

12 February 2020

12.7

Attachment b

Current Building Insurance Policy

 


 


 


 

 


Council                                                                                      248                                                           12 February 2020

12.8           Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - REVIEW OF EVENTS POLICY

STRATEGIC GOAL

4. ECONOMY Diverse, resilient, prosperous

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Events and Governance

BUSINESS UNIT

Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

Events Coordinator - Peta Tuck

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

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   Events Policy - Revised

Attachment b    Events Policy - Current

Attachment c    DA1- 25 Delegation

Attachment d   Events Policy - Revised With Committee Amendments  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 29 January 2020, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopts the Council policy ‘Events’ as per Attachment A, to replace the current policy (Attachment B)

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

C2002/034              Moved Deputy Mayor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council:

1.    adopts the Council policy ‘Events’, inclusive of the Committee amendments, as per Attachment D; and

2.       adopts the Delegation DA1-25 as per Attachment C.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents a revised Events policy (Attachment A) (the Policy) for Council consideration, with the current policy being amended in response to recent amendments to the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) requiring all local governments to adopt a policy that deals with matters relating to the attendance of council members and the CEO at events.  As opposed to creating a second stand-alone policy for this purpose, the current Events policy has been reviewed to be more strategic in nature and to include these requirements.  It is now recommended for Council approval.

 


 

BACKGROUND

The original Events policy was adopted by Council on 12 April 2006 to improve management of the event application and approval process.  The policy was part of an overall events application package developed to help inform applicants about the various approvals required and to assist the City to meet its legislative responsibilities.

 

The policy was reviewed in September 2016 to include reference to the objectives and goals of the Events Strategy prepared in April 2012, and to document improvements in the event application process. Provisions of a Surfing Events and Competition Policy, and the Meelup Regional Park Special Event Conditions were also incorporated, with those policies rescinded.

 

The current policy is very operational in nature, detailing the event application process and setting out specific conditions for the use of various sites around the district for events.  In accordance with an initiative to ensure policy documents are strategic in nature, the Policy has been moved into the current policy format and significantly reviewed to remove operational level detail.  This operational detail will be included in an Operational Practice which can be made available to both staff and members of the public as required.

 

Additionally, on 18 October 2019, amendments to the Act came into force requiring local governments to prepare and adopt a policy that deals with matters relating to the attendance of council members and the CEO at events.  Importantly, local governments are able to approve, in accordance with the policy, attendance at an event, and in doing so, exclude as a closely associated person a person who provided a gift in the form of the ticket or invitation to attend the event.  This is further discussed in the Officer Comment and Statutory Environment sections of this report. 

OFFICER COMMENT

The attraction, development and promotion of events is a key strategic objective for the City of Busselton, with events an important contributor to the achievement of a robust and prosperous economy, and the creation of vibrant places and an inclusive community. 

 

In recognition of events as a strategic driver the City has adopted the brand ‘Events Capital WA’ and developed an events strategy (currently under review).  Through this strategy the City seeks to achieve the following objectives, as outlined in the Policy:

 

·      generation of direct and indirect economic benefits to the community;

·      generation of social benefit, vibrancy, and promotion of cultural diversity and inclusion;

·      creation of a calendar of events which brings visitors and provides activation of the district year round; and

·      positive promotion of the City of Busselton district and the South West region of WA.

 

Events are considered to be either a Hallmark, Major, Regional or Community event dependant on their ability to achieve the City’s objectives with the Policy containing a guide as to how events will be categorised.   The Policy also sets out the ongoing role for the Marketing and Events Reference Group to make recommendations to Council with respect to the allocation of sponsorship funds towards Events.

 

While the Policy recognises the importance of events, it also acknowledges the potential for events to impact adversely on community safety, amenity and the environment; and thus maintains the requirement for events within the City of Busselton district to be approved.  The event application process has however been removed from the Policy but will be outlined in an Events Application Operational Practice. 

 

Attendance at Events

Section 5.90A of the Act requires all local governments to prepare and adopt a policy that deals with matters relating to the attendance of council members and the CEO at events. 

 

Section 5.87A and 5.87B of the Act requires a Councillor or CEO respectively to declare any gift received in the course of their duties with a value of more than $300, or where the cumulative value of one or more gifts received from a donor is more than $300. 

 

Further, under Section 5.62(1)(eb) and (ec), a person who gives, in any capacity, a gift or gifts to a Councillor or CEO with a value (single or cumulative) of over $300, becomes a closely associated person, in relation to which interests must be declared. 

 

Section 5.62 (1A) and (1B) provide an exclusion to this requirement which is where the gift is a ticket to, or otherwise relates to the attendance at an event as defined in section 5.90A(1), and where the local government approves, in accordance with the local government’s policy under section 5.90A, the Councillor or CEO’s attendance at the event.

 

The Policy is proposed to be the City’s policy under section 5.90A of the Act.  It outlines the value of having Council members and the CEO attend events, as a means of supporting and reinforcing the City’s strategic positioning as the ‘Events Capital WA’, and to strengthen the City’s ability to assess events for their benefit and ongoing relevance.

 

While the Policy does provide scope for the CEO to purchase tickets for the purposes of representation at events, attendance by Council members and the CEO will generally be approved where invitations / tickets are provided by event organisers to the City.  The Policy provides criteria by which applications to attend events will be assessed and pre-authorises attendance (where tickets are available) by Councillors at a number of established Hallmark and Major events.  The Policy supports the provision of invitations / tickets to a Council member’s / the CEO’s partner for events held outside of normal business hours.

 

In conjunction with the Policy, it is recommended that a delegation be provided from Council to the CEO for the purposes of section 5.62 (1B) such that he can approve, in accordance with the local government’s policy under section 5.90A, the relevant person’s attendance at an event.  The proposed delegation is attached at Attachment C.  The alternative is for each relevant person’s attendance at an event (where the attendance is a gift over $300 and where an exclusion to the financial interest disclosure requirements are sought) to be approved by Council (the local government).  It is expected that this will be impractical in a lot of instances, and the delegation also seeks to create efficiencies, reducing the need to prepare Council reports.  The delegation is conditioned, requiring the CEO to seek written approval from the Mayor for his own attendance. 

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 the Act. 

 

There is no dedicated legislative framework under which event approvals are provided.  The staging of an event will generally trigger the need for one or more approvals under various pieces of legislation, such as the Public Health Act 2016 and the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992, the Liquor Control Act 1988, and the Road Traffic Act 1974 and Road Traffic Code 2000.  The City’s centralised event approval requirement and process ensures that the relevant approvals for an event are obtained in an efficient manner, for both the City and the event organiser, and provides the City with the additional ability to apply appropriate risk mitigation strategies.

 


 

Recent changes to the Act, as detailed already above, have resulted in the Policy dealing with attendance at events by Councillors and the CEO.  The relevant clauses are detailed below: 

 

5.62 Closely associated persons

(1)  For the purposes of this Subdivision a person is to be treated as being closely associated with a relevant person if —

….

(eb)       the relevant person is a council member and the person has given a gift to which this paragraph applies to the relevant person since the relevant person was last elected; or

(ec)        the relevant person is a CEO and the person has given a gift to which this paragraph applies to the relevant person since the relevant person was last employed (or appointed to act) in the position of CEO;

 

(1A) Subsection (1)(eb) and (ec) apply to a gift if —

(a) either —

(i) the amount of the gift exceeds the amount prescribed for the purposes of this subsection; or

(ii) the gift is 1 of 2 or more gifts made by 1 person to the relevant person at any time during a year and the sum of the amounts of those 2 or more gifts exceeds the amount prescribed for the purposes of this subsection; and

(b) the gift is not an excluded gift under subsection (1B).

 

(1B) A gift is an excluded gift —

(a) if —

(i) the gift is a ticket to, or otherwise relates to the relevant person’s attendance at, an event as defined in section 5.90A(1); and

(ii) the local government approves, in accordance with the local government’s policy under section 5.90A, the relevant person’s attendance at the event;

 

5.90A. Policy for attendance at events

(1) In this section —

event includes the following —

(a) a concert;

(b) a conference;

(c) a function;

(d) a sporting event;

(e) an occasion of a kind prescribed for the purposes of this definition.

 

(2) A local government must prepare and adopt* a policy that deals with matters relating to the attendance of council members and the CEO at events, including —

(a) the provision of tickets to events; and

(b) payments in respect of attendance; and

(c) approval of attendance by the local government and criteria for approval; and

(d) any prescribed matter.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The City has a policy framework which was developed and endorsed by Council in response to the recommendations of the Governance Services Review carried out in 2017.  The framework sets out the intent of Council policies, as opposed to operational documents such as Staff Management Practices and operational procedures.

Financial Implications

Adoption of the Policy does not have any direct financial implications as the City is not proposing in practice to adjust its current approach to the management of event attendance and specifically is not proposing to allocate additional funds towards event attendance.

Stakeholder Consultation

The Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) have released an operational guideline and template policy to assist local governments in the drafting of their policies.  The City’s policy aligns broadly to the template, while being tailored to suit the City’s specific practices.  No other external stakeholder consultation has been undertaken. 

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.  No risks of a medium or greater level have been identified, with the Policy helping to mitigate the risk of attendance at events being seen as inappropriate or unnecessary; and removing the risk of event attendance, where approved for valid reasons, creating a financial conflict of interest. 

Options

Council could decide not to adopt the Policy or to require further amendments to the Policy. 

CONCLUSION

A revised Events Policy is presented for Council’s approval.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The Policy will be placed on the City’s website within one week of adoption.

 

 

 

 

 


Council

257

12 February 2020

12.8

Attachment a

Events Policy - Revised

 


 


 


 


 


Council

269

12 February 2020

12.8

Attachment b

Events Policy - Current

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

270

12 February 2020

12.8

Attachment c

DA1- 25 Delegation

 


Council

275

12 February 2020

12.8

Attachment d

Events Policy - Revised With Committee Amendments

 


 


 


 


 

 


Council                                                                                      276                                                           12 February 2020

12.9           Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - LOCAL PLANNING POLICY REVIEW - REVOCATION OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES LPP1A, LPP1E, LPP1G, LPP1H AND LPP8B.

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

Development Control Policy

BUSINESS UNIT

Statutory Planning

REPORTING OFFICER

Senior Development Planner – Policy - Stephanie Navarro

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

NATURE OF DECISION

Legislative: to adopt legislative documents e.g. local laws, local planning schemes, local planning policies

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   LPP 1A : Canal Lots

Attachment b    LPP 1E : Grouped and Multiple Dwellings and Habitat

Attachment c    LPP 1G : Kalgaritch Estate

Attachment d   LPP 1H : Abbey Green Estate

Attachment e    LPP 8B : Social Impact Statements  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 29 January 2020, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C2002/035              Moved Deputy Mayor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council:

1.         Revoke the following Local Planning Policies as set out below:

·                LPP 1A : Canal Lots;

•          LPP 1E : Grouped and Multiple Dwelling and Habitat;

•          LPP 1G : Kalgaritch Estate;

•          LPP 1H : Abbey Green Estate; and

·                LPP 8B : Social Impact Statements.  

2.         Advertise the notice of revocation in a newspaper circulating within the Scheme area in accordance with Clause 6 of Part 2 of Schedule 2 – Deemed Provisions for Local Planning Schemes of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has commenced a review of its local planning policies (LPPs). Stage 1 of this review in March 2019 was policy neutral and converted the LPPs into a new format. This review took the LPPs from the existing manual structure and separated them into individual policies.

 

The City has now commenced Stage 2 of the process which involves reviewing the content and relevance of all LPPs. As part of this stage, the City has already revoked three LPPs which were considered to be redundant due to changes in legislation. It is proposed as part of this stage that another five LPPs be revoked.

 

 

The LPPs proposed to be revoked as part of this report are as follows –

 

·        LPP 1A : Canal Lots;

·        LPP 1E : Grouped and Multiple Dwelling and Habitat;

·        LPP 1G : Kalgaritch Estate;

·        LPP 1H : Abbey Green Estate; and

·        LPP 8B: Social Impact Statements.

 

BACKGROUND

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) provide that LPPs may be prepared by a local government in respect of any matter related to the planning and development of the Scheme area.

 

The intention of an LPP is to provide guidance to applicants and developers in regards to the decision making process as well as to the local government when exercising discretion under the Scheme. LPPs must be consistent with the intent of the relevant Scheme provisions, including the R-Codes, and cannot vary development standards or requirements set out in a Scheme or impose any mandatory requirements upon development.

 

LPPs are to be given due consideration in the assessment of development and are listed as a “matter to be considered” when making a determination of a development application under Clause 67 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations – ‘Deemed Provisions for Local Planning Schemes’ (Deemed Provisions).

 

In March 2019, the City commenced the first stage of the LPP review. This stage was policy neutral and did not alter the intent or provisions within the LPPs, however reformatted the LPPs into a new, easier to read template and took the LPPs out of a manual structure, separating them into individual policies.

 

These changes were adopted by the Council at its meeting held on 27 March 2019 (C1903/053).

 

The City has now commenced the second stage of this process and is reviewing the content and relevance of its LPPs. Due to the number of LPPs and the complexity of issues which need to be addressed, this review is intended to be broken down into a number of stages.

 

At its meeting held on 30 October 2019, the Council resolved (C1910/208) to revoke three LPPs that were considered to be redundant and it is now proposed that another five LPPs be revoked for the reasons outlined in the report below.

 

As part of this stage, the following LPPs have been identified as being redundant and are recommended to be revoked:

 

·        LPP 1A: Canal Lots;

·        LPP 1E: Grouped and Multiple Dwelling and Habitat;

·        LPP 1G: Kalgaritch Estate;

·        LPP 1H: Abbey Green Estate; and

·        LPP 8B: Social Impact Statements.

A further, more comprehensive description of each of the above LPPs and the reasons why they are considered to be redundant is provided within the Officer Comment section of this report. The LPPs will be revoked following a Council resolution via a notice of revocation published in a local newspaper.

OFFICER COMMENT

Below is a description of each of the LPPs that City officers are recommending be revoked and the reasons why they are now considered redundant.

 

LPP 1A: Canal Lots

LPP1A was adopted as part of ‘LPP1 – Residential Development Policy’ (previous policy manual format) by the Council at its meeting on 17 October 2007 (C0710/236). LPP1A was introduced to ensure consistent standards were achieved for residential development which fronted onto canals. At the time that LPP1A was adopted there were no setback provisions for buildings to canals within the Scheme.

 

LPP1A provides guidance in relation to setbacks from canal lot frontages where a lot has more than one frontage (or boundary) to a canal. In these instances, one canal is required to be nominated by the City as the “primary canal frontage”. This frontage is required to achieve a minimum setback of 4.5m and average setback of 6m. The other canal frontage shall be deemed the “secondary canal frontage” and therefore is not required to achieve the 6m average however a minimum setback of 4.5m will still apply.

 

It is noted that the only canal lots within the City are located within the Port Geographe Development Special Control Area and therefore the provisions of clause 5.9 – Port Geographe Development Area of the Scheme and LPP4B – Port Geographe Village Centre apply to these lots. Clause 5.9.2(g) of the Scheme includes provisions for setbacks from canal walls and states as follows:

 

No building shall be erected closer than 4.5 metres from the landward side of the stabilised canal edge, subject to an average setback of 6.0 metres and the general appearance of the canal being maintained. Engineering certification will also need to be provided with a building licence application ensuring that no additional structural loads are placed on the canal walls.

 

The requirements within LPP1A are therefore consistent with the Scheme with the exception of the requirement to not meet the 6m average where the canal is deemed to be the “secondary canal frontage”.  An aerial review of the Port Geographe Development Area indicates that there are 21 canal lots within Port Geographe with more than one canal frontage. 13 of these lots have already been developed with 8 of these lots still vacant.  Given the small number of lots with dual canal frontages and the likelihood that any variation sought (through a development application) to the secondary frontage setbacks would be minor in terms of neighbour and visual amenity, the setback provision in the policy is considered unnecessary.

 

The LPP also provides guidance in relation to appropriate setbacks for shade sails on canal lots.  The R-Codes define ‘pergolas’ (which for the purposes of this discussion includes shade sails) as “an open framed structure covered in water permeable material or unroofed which may or may not be attached to a dwelling”.  Pergolas are not considered ‘buildings’ under the R-Codes and therefore are not subject the street setback or lot setback requirements at Parts 5.1.2 of Volume 1 of the R-Codes which specifically relate to building setbacks.  The installation of a shade sail in a Residential zone does not typically require any development approval on this basis.  As such, it is considered inappropriate to introduce de facto setback controls for shade sails associated with Single Houses through this policy.

 

For the reasons above, the Policy is considered to superfluous to the Scheme requirements and other LPP requirements and it is recommended that LPP1A be revoked.

 

LPP 1E: Grouped and Multiple Dwelling and Habitat

On 14 December 2005, the Council resolved to develop a consolidated residential development Policy. This LPP was to supersede the Dual Occupancy Development Policy (1994) and contain only the provisions within the Residential Development Policy (1994) which had not become redundant through the gazettal of the District Town Planning Scheme No. 20 in 1999 and the introduction of the Residential Design Codes of WA in October 2002 (C0512/387).

 

Through the development of the LPP an Environmental Reference Group was consulted who suggested that the policy should incorporate provisions to protect native vegetation on private property, particularly Agonis flexuosa (WA Peppermint Trees) and other vegetation that forms important habitat for the Western Ringtail Possum (WRP). Provisions were developed and incorporated into the LPP whereby the design of infill development in Busselton and Dunsborough would be encouraged to minimise the impact of development on WA Peppermint trees.

 

It was considered at the time that applying these provisions to Single Houses would be difficult to introduce without further detailed assessment as to the impact the controls may have on development. It was therefore considered that this was beyond the scope of the policy. The LPP did however propose that Grouped and Multiple Dwelling development aim to reduce the impacts of development by retaining trees with a trunk diameter greater than 10cm, requiring 3m buffer areas around trees as well as incorporating new WA Peppermint trees in landscaping within the lot and/or verge to create habitat and habitat connections for WRP. The final version of the LPP containing these provisions was adopted by the Council at its meeting held on 17 October 2007 (C0710/236 refers). It is noted however that the Policy carries no significant statutory weight given no formal tree controls exist in Residential areas and there is no direct reference to the matter of tree retention for such development in the Scheme.  

 

It is considered that the current provisions within the LPP will become redundant with the introduction of Scheme Amendment 42 which proposes to introduce a ‘Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Special Control Area.’ Amendment 42 was initiated by the Council at its meeting held on 10 April 2019 and is currently with the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage awaiting consent to advertise. It is anticipated that Amendment 42 will be advertised in early 2020 and at such time it will be considered to be a ‘seriously entertained’ planning document and therefore can be given due regarding in the assessment of development application.

 

Amendment 42 proposes to introduce into the Scheme a Special Control Area within which a development application will be required prior to the removal of native trees of a certain size. The Special Control Area will include the Residential zoned areas within Busselton and Dunsborough which currently do not have controls around clearing within the Scheme. It is proposed that an associated LPP will be developed in conjunction with Amendment 42 that will include provisions for the assessment of development applications within the Special Control Area and require in the first instance the removal of native trees be avoided and/or minimised and where this is not possible it will include specific requirements for replacement planting.

 

With the initiation of Amendment 42, and proposed associated LPP, it is considered that this Policy will become redundant and once advertised Amendment 42 will be considered a ‘seriously entertained planning document’ and therefore can be considered in the assessment of development application. It is therefore recommended that that the policy be revoked.

 


 

LPP 1G: Kalgaritch Estate

LPP1G was adopted on 8 July 1992 and was introduced to ensure the protection of properties from potential flooding and to preserve residential amenity of former lots 170 and 171 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Beachlands (subsequently subdivided and known as ‘Kalgaritch Estate’).

 

‘Kalgaritch Estate’ is zoned Residential with a residential density of R2.5. Under the R-Codes the minimum lot size at this density is 4,000m2. It is noted however that the range of lot sizes within this Estate is from 2,000m2 to 4,000m2 and therefore the Policy was introduced to allow concessions for reduced setbacks of 3m for outbuildings or similar structures to the side and rear setbacks. The deemed-to-comply criteria of R-Codes requires 7.5m to side and rear boundaries at an R2.5 density. By removing these provisions, the City may still award these concessions considered through the assessment of a proposal against the Design Principles of the R-Codes.

 

In addition to the above, the LPP1G also prescribes a 21 metre buffer strip to the Sub “A” Drain along Queen Elizabeth Drive for the purposes of overland flow in event of flooding. The lots which abut the Sub “A” Drain along Queen Elizabeth Drive have drainage easements along the rear of 10m or 20m which are considered to be sufficient in ensure development does not occur within this area and unreasonably interfere with overland flow paths should the Sub “A” Drain flood.  It is further noted that should such a matter be considered sufficiently important to warrant development control, it should always be contained within the Scheme itself given the limited statutory weight given to LPPs.

 

It is therefore considered that this Policy is redundant and it is recommended that it be revoked.

 

LPP 1H: Abbey Green Estate

LPP 1H applies to former lots 100 to 133 Ray Avenue, Broadwater which were subsequently subdivided into 34 individual green title lots. These lots have been developed as Single Houses however function in association within the neighbouring aged person’s facility ‘Ray Village’. There are restrictive covenants over these properties which limit the age of occupants to persons over 50.

 

The original version of this LPP titled ‘Abbey Green Housing and Development – Ray Avenue Broadwater’ was originally adopted on 26 June 1997. The previous version of this LPP included provision for the following –

 

·        Building envelopes;

·        Architectural style;

·        Finishes;

·        Vehicle parking;

·        Fencing;

·        Driveways;

·        Landscaping;

·        Clothes lines;

·        Screening of rubbish bins;

·        TV antennas;

·        Storerooms/sheds;

·        Solar water heaters; and

·        Air conditioners.

As part of a review of the LPPs in 2009 the above LPP was amended and only two provisions within the original LPP were retained which related to height of development, being limited to single storey, and the retention of mature Agonis Flexuosa - WA Peppermint. These provisions were inserted into Element H ‘Abbey Green Estate’ of LPP1 – Residential Development Policy with the following commentary relating to these changes inserted into the background notes:

 

The Abbey Green Performance Standards have been significantly reduced in scope in recognition of the ineffectiveness of the earlier version of the policy to control the matters which it was originally designed to control. The Abbey Green component of the policy now only seeks to restrict two matters, being: the restriction of redevelopment to single storey; and the removal of habitat trees (specifically the mature Agonis Flexuosa - WA Peppermint).

 

These changes to the LPP were adopted by the Council at its meeting held on 14 October 2009 (C0910/354).

 

The lots which are covered by this LPP have now all been developed in accordance with these requirements. It is considered that as there is no planning basis for the height controls by the LPP and that an LPP is not the appropriate mechanism to control height.  Furthermore, it is considered that the vegetation controls are inconsistent with the requirements for other similar adjoining residential areas which do not have any such ‘controls’.

 

It is noted that the City has initiated Amendment 42 which will include these lots in a ‘Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Special Control Area’ which intends to impose consistent controls around the clearing of vegetation throughout the City.

 

It is therefore considered that this Policy is redundant and is recommended that it be revoked.

 

LPP 8B: Social Impact Statements

In 1996 a local planning policy was adopted by the Council that required the preparation of a Social Impact Statement (SIS) for significant development proposals. This LPP was subsequently amended by Council at its meetings held on 9 September 1998 and again on 17 October 2007. As part of these amendments, the application of this LPP was broadened to include all development proposals which require advertising as well as strategic development projects. In addition, the requirements regarding the content of the SIS were modified.

 

The intention of this Policy was to outline those matters which should be considered in the assessment of a development application. These matters included economic, social, transport, ecological, cultural and other potential cumulative impacts. The Policy also includes a pro-forma SIS for minor development proposals such as Residential Enterprise, Cottage Industry or Bed and Breakfast Accommodation.

 

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) contains at Clause 67 ‘Matters to be considered by local government’ for development applications.  Amongst other things, Clause 67 includes:

 

(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; (emphasis added)

 


 

Given the introduction of the ‘Matters to be considered’ in the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations, the requirements of LPP8A have effectively been superseded.  It is further noted the detailing of such requirements is better suited to an information sheet and/or checklist that can be submitted by the applicant with their development application, and is not necessary to be addressed within an LPP.

 

In addition, LPP8A outlines procedures for different levels of ‘stakeholder and community consultations’ for different types of applications. This is considered to be a procedural issue in the assessment of development applications and therefore better suited to an internal procedure and not an LPP.

 

It is therefore considered that this Policy is redundant and is recommended that it be revoked.

 

Statutory Environment

The key statutory environment is set out in the Planning and Development Act 2005 and related subsidiary legislation, including the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (Scheme) and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, especially Schedule 2 (Deemed Provisions) of the Regulations, which form part of the Scheme.

 

The Deemed Provisions include procedures for the creation, amendment and revocation of an LPP. Clause 6(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Deemed Provisions allows a local planning policy to be revoked by a notice of revocation prepared by the local government and published in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme area.

 

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

Part 2, Division 2 of the Deemed Provisions requires that a local government undertake consultation before adopting or amending a local planning policy (although a minor amendment can be made without consultation). At least 21 days must be allowed for the making of submissions.

 

The Deemed Provisions do not require the same consultation when a LPP is to be revoked and an LPP can be revoked via a notice of revocation published in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme area.

 

Risk Assessment

An assessment of the risks associated with the implementation of the officer recommendations has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. No risks of a medium or greater level have been identified.

 

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation, the Council could choose to not revoke one or more of the LPPs recommended to be revoked as part of this report.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the Council support the proposed policy changes and initiation as described in this report.

 


 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Implementation of the officer recommendation would involve advertising the policy revocations. It is expected that this will occur within one month of the Council decision.


Council

284

12 February 2020

12.9

Attachment a

LPP 1A : Canal Lots

 


Council

286

12 February 2020

12.9

Attachment b

LPP 1E : Grouped and Multiple Dwellings and Habitat

 


 


Council

287

12 February 2020

12.9

Attachment c

LPP 1G : Kalgaritch Estate

 


Council

288

12 February 2020

12.9

Attachment d

LPP 1H : Abbey Green Estate

 


Council

298

12 February 2020

12.9

Attachment e

LPP 8B : Social Impact Statements

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council                                                                                      300                                                           12 February 2020

12.10        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: PUBLIC ARTWORK

STRATEGIC GOAL

1. COMMUNITY: Welcoming, friendly, healthy

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

CMTY016: Community Programs

BUSINESS UNIT

Community Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Cultural Development Officer - Jacquie Happ

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

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   Revised Policy - Public Artwork

Attachment b    Current Policy - Public Artwork

Attachment c    Public Artwork Guidelines  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 29 January 2020, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C2002/036              Moved Deputy Mayor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council adopts the Council policy ‘Public Artwork’ as per Attachment A, to replace the current policy (Attachment B).

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents a revised version of Council policy Public Artwork (the Policy) (Attachment A) for Council approval. The Policy has been amended as part of the City’s overall review of its Council policies and with regard to the recommendations of the Governance System Review (GSR) carried out by Mr John Woodhouse in 2017.

 

BACKGROUND

In March 2018, Council adopted a policy in relation to public artworks on City owned or managed land that are commissioned by the City or through Developer Contributions, received by donation or on loan. 

The City has developed and implemented a policy framework, which sets out the intent of Council policies, as opposed to operational documents such as Operational Practices. The Policy has been transferred to the new Council policy template and reviewed by officers. Being considered of continuing importance, it is now presented for Council’s consideration.

OFFICER COMMENT

The purpose of the Policy is to convey the importance and relevance of public artwork in the City, and highlight that there are processes in place that guide the City in acquiring, managing and decommissioning public artworks on City owned or managed property.

 

The Policy has been amended to remove repetition of clauses, operational aspects and simplify definitions. The Policy refers to and operates in conjunction with the Public Artwork Guidelines which are provided at Attachment C for reference.

Statutory Environment

In accordance with Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) it is the role of the Council to determine the local government’s policies.

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 Operational Practices.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.

Stakeholder Consultation

No external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to this matter.

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. No risks of medium or greater level were identified.

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could:

1.    require further amendments to the Policy; or

2.    choose to rescind the Policy, noting public artwork guidelines would remain in place.

CONCLUSION

The report presents a revised Council policy ‘Public Artwork’ for approval by Council.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The Policy will be placed on the City’s website within one week of adoption.

 

 

 

 


Council

302

12 February 2020

12.10

Attachment a

Revised Policy - Public Artwork

 


 


Council

307

12 February 2020

12.10

Attachment b

Current Policy - Public Artwork

 


 


 


 


 


Council

315

12 February 2020

12.10

Attachment c

Public Artwork Guidelines

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council                                                                                      318                                                           12 February 2020

12.11        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/01/2020 - MEDIA AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS COUNCIL POLICY

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

6.2 Council engages broadly and proactively with the community.

SUBJECT INDEX

Council Policies

BUSINESS UNIT

Governance Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Public Relations Coordinator - Meredith Dixon

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

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   Media and Public Statements

Attachment b    Media and Public Statements – Revised With Committee Amendments  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 29 January 2020, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopts the Council policy ‘Media and Public Statements’as per Attachment A.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

C2002/037              Moved Deputy Mayor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council adopts the Council policy ‘Media and Public Statements’, inclusive of the Committee amendments, as per Attachment B.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents a proposed Policy ‘Media and Public Statements’ (the Policy) (Attachment A) for Council approval. The purpose of the Policy is to establish protocols for the release of public statements (including media statements) issued by the City of Busselton; to ensure the City is professionally and accurately represented and to maximise a positive public perception of the City.

 

BACKGROUND

The issuing of media and public statements by the City of Busselton has to date, been guided by the City of Busselton Code of Conduct; the Local Government (Rules of Conduct ) Regulations 2007, the Local Government Act 1995, and various internal procedural documents.

 

With a heightened focus on communications and engagement both across the sector and within the City of Busselton, it is timely that the City adopt a formal position on the issuing of media and public statements.

 

The review of existing procedures and formalisation of a media and public statements policy has been prompted by discussions at Council inductions (post the 2019 Local Government Elections) and a workshop held with Council in early December to look at communication and engagement strategies. 

While this workshop was primarily focused on engagement (i.e. consultation and the two-way flow of information) the need to formalise roles and responsibilities regarding the issuing of media and public statements (including on social media) was evident.

 

The Policy will underpin and inform the development of a broader Community Stakeholder Framework for the City including development of a Community Engagement Policy and associated engagement planning guidelines.  Public and media statements are an essential component of stakeholder communication.  Formalising roles and responsibilities in relation to the issuing of such statements is a practical first step toward improved communication and engagement. 

OFFICER COMMENT

The Policy guides the issuing of media statements and public statements pertaining to City of Busselton business, with particular reference to the roles and responsibilities of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, Elected Members and the CEO (or authorised officer/s). 

 

The Policy outlines the purpose of issuing media and public statements and the modes through which such statements will generally be made, including social media.   

 

The Policy outlines the City’s approach to responding to official media enquiries and seeks to formalise sector wide and current practice at the City which sees media enquiries directed to the CEO such that information can be coordinated (usually by members of the Public Relations team) to support the release of an official response.

 

It is noted, however, that the Mayor in his / her official capacity as spokesperson for the City, can provide statements directly to the media if he / she elects to do so.

Statutory Environment

The officer recommendation supports the general function of a local government under the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) to provide for the good government of persons in its district.   Specific references to the roles and responsibilities of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Elected Members and the CEO as per the Act are referenced in the Policy.

Relevant Plans and Policies

There are no relevant plans or policies to consider in relation to this matter.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.

Stakeholder Consultation

No external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to this matter, however a review of a number of similar local government policies was undertaken.


 

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. The Officer recommendation serves to mitigate the currently identified risk of inconsistent and potentially incorrect information and/or inappropriate commentary being relayed to the public by Elected Members and employees, helping to ensure the risk is reduced from a high (likelihood of likely) to a medium level risk.

 

Inconsistent and potentially incorrect information and/or inappropriate commentary being relayed to the public by Elected Members and City of Busselton employees. 

Risk Category

Risk Consequence

Likelihood of Consequence

Risk Level

Reputation

Moderate

Possible

Medium

Options

Council could choose:

1.    Not to adopt a policy in relation to the subject matter.

2.    To amend the Policy.

CONCLUSION

This Policy formalises the City of Busselton’s position on the issuing of public and media statements.  It contains guidelines that will help ensure Elected Members and City Officers respond to public and media enquiries relating to City of Busselton business in a way that is consistent, professional and maximises the positive perception of the City.  

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The officer recommendation will be effective immediately upon adoption, with the Policy published to the City’s website within one week.


Council

322

12 February 2020

12.11

Attachment a

Media and Public Statements

 


 


 


 


Council

326

12 February 2020

12.11

Attachment b

Media and Public Statements – Revised With Committee Amendments

 


 


 


 

 


Council                                                                                      336                                                           12 February 2020

13.2           AMENDMENT 45 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME 21 AND PROPOSED STRUCTURE PLAN AFFECTING LOT 30 (70) MILLBROOK ROAD – CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION

STRATEGIC GOAL

3. ENVIRONMENT Valued, conserved and enjoyed

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Local Planning Schemes

BUSINESS UNIT

Stategic Planning

REPORTING OFFICER

Strategic Planner - Janine Eriksson

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

NATURE OF DECISION

Legislative: to adopt legislative documents e.g. local laws, local planning schemes, local planning policies

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Location Plan

Attachment b    Development Guide Plan

Attachment c    Proposed Structure Plan

Attachment d   Scheme Amendment Map

Attachment e    Alternative EAW route

Attachment f    Commonage Structure Plan (CPACSP)  

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C2002/038              Moved Deputy Mayor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council:

1.    In pursuance of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, initiates Amendment No. 45 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 for community consultation for the purposes of:

 

a)         Deleting Additional Use 52 from Schedule 2 Additional Uses

 

b)        Amending Schedule 3 – Special Provision Areas as follows:

 

No.

Particulars of Land

Zone

Special Provisions

SP 71

As shown on Scheme Map

Rural Residential

1.    The following uses shall be deemed to be “A” uses for the purposes of Part 4 of the Scheme:

 

·    Art Gallery

·    Brewery

·    Chalet

·    Exhibition Centre

·    Hotel

·    Reception Centre

·    Rural Holiday Resort

·    Small Bar

·    Tavern

·    Tourist Accommodation

·    Winery

 

2.    Development within the Special Provision Area shall be limited to 2,500m2 NLA, other than for:

 

i.     Development associated with the use (but not expansion) of existing buildings on the land (as at 1 January 2019); or

ii.    Development of a Single House or development ancillary to a Single House; or

iii.   Use of a Single House or development ancillary to a Single House as a Holiday Home (Single House), Bed and Breakfast, Home Business, Home Occupation or Home Office. 

 

 

c)         Amending the Scheme Map accordingly.

 

2.    Notes that, as the Amendment is in the opinion of the Council consistent with Part V of the Act and Regulations made pursuant to the Act, upon preparation of the necessary documentation, the Amendment be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as required by the Act, and on receipt of a response from the EPA indicating that the draft Amendment is not to be subject to formal environmental assessment, be advertised for a period of 42 days, in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. In the event that the EPA determines that the draft Amendment is to be subject to formal environmental assessment, this assessment is to be prepared by the proponent prior to advertising of the draft Amendment.

 

3.    Advises the Western Australian Planning Commission that Amendment No. 45 is considered a ‘standard’ amendment pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for the following reasons:

 

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

 

b)        It is an amendment that would have minimal impact on land in the Scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment.

 

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

 

4.    Adopts the Millbrook Farm Structure Plan, shown at Attachment D for public consultation, pursuant to Part 4 of the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Council is requested to consider initiating a Scheme Amendment to remove Additional Use 52 from Schedule 2 of the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme 21 (the Scheme) from Lot 30  Millbrook Road, Yallingup, and introducing Special Provision 71 under Schedule 3 of the Scheme to a portion of Lot 30 Millbrook Road. Council is also requested to consider the associated Structure Plan aimed at superseding the existing ‘Development Guide Plan No. 50’ (DGP 50), which relate to the land.

 

The intent of the changes proposed through the Structure Plan and Amendment is to reduce the extent of the land currently able to be considered for non-residential uses and to better control the potential scale of such development to be more consistent with the amenity of existing neighbouring lots whilst providing for some additional rural residential lots.

 

The purpose of this report is to recommend to the Council that Amendment 45 be initiated and, together with the associated Structure Plan, be adopted for the purposes of community consultation.

 

BACKGROUND

The Millbrook rural residential area generally, and Lot 30 Millbrook Road more particularly (‘Millbrook Farm’, the subject land), was created through the subdivision of original Lots 1 and 114 Millbrook Road, Yallingup. This land had a total area of 99 hectares, on which 43 lots were allowed in accordance with DGP 50, which was endorsed in May 2005 (see Attachment B).  Of the allowable 43 lots, a total of 41 lots were ultimately created.

 

The subject land and Structure Plan area is identified on the Location Plan at Attachment A.  The Structure Plan area is bound by Millbrook Road and Gunyulgup Valley Drive to the west, Nukklgup Loop to the north and east, and Wildbrook Place to the south.  The subject land is located within the Structure Plan area, with access from Millbrook Road to the west, Dress Circle to the east, and Wildbrook Place to the south.

 

‘Millbrook Farm’ is 24 hectares in area and contains State and local heritage registered buildings which include a timber mill, water wheel, barn and dwellings built in the 1920s. It has variable topography associated with waterways, and includes three dams. The majority of the land is cleared, with intact remnant vegetation in the southern area, and along Gunyulgup Brook to the north.

 

Since 2005, the majority of the rural residential lots and associated roads in the Structure Plan area have been developed in accordance with DGP 50, with the exception of the subject land (depicted as proposed Lot 30 and Lot 43 on the DGP).  In accordance with DGP 50, the subject land was zoned under the Scheme to provide for a variety of tourist-related uses to complement the heritage precinct (please refer to Additional Use No. 52). The DGP currently provides development potential on the subject land for 34 Chalets and Holiday Cabins, together with a range of tourist/commercial activities.

 

A development application for a Reception Centre was approved on 4 April 2018 (DA17/0651), subject to conditions, including the restriction of hours of operation (based on noise assessments and sound management plans). The Reception Centre has not as yet been constructed.

 

The proposed Structure Plan (Attachment C) is intended to supersede DGP 50. An overall Structure Plan review was required to ensure that general density requirements and emergency access for bushfire considerations (etc.) could be adequately addressed and integrated holistically, as well as updating provisions to be consistent with current regulations and practice.  

 


 

The Structure Plan proposes to subdivide the subject land into nine rural residential lots, which range in size from 1.02 ha – 1.69ha, with the exception of proposed Lots 5 and 8.   Proposed Lot 5 has an area of 4.14 ha, and includes the existing homestead and two associated dams.  Proposed Lot 8 has an area of 10.8 ha and incorporate existing heritage buildings and potential tourist uses.

 

The Structure Plan report is accompanied by a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) and Heritage Assessment (to be discussed in officer comment below) and outlines a number of community benefits as summarised below: 

 

·    Remnant vegetation and areas unsuitable for development based on bushfire assessment are proposed to be protected by the introduction of a Development Exclusion Area.

·    Portion of Lot 30 (proposed Lot 8) near Wildbrook Place, with a current development potential for 6 chalets, will instead retain existing remnant vegetation.

·    Proposed Lots 7 and 9 will each accommodate a single dwelling, in place of 10 chalets allowed under current DGP 50.

·    The amenity of existing and future residents will be improved by concentrating potential tourist/commercial activities within proposed Lot 8, and restricting any additional development to a maximum floorspace of 2,500m2 Net Lettable Area (NLA).

·    The Bushfire Management Plan prepared to support this Structure Plan (to be implemented at the subdivision stage) will improve bushfire safety and control in the vicinity by the introduction of a new road connection and realigned fire emergency access way, supported by the construction of a 50,000 litre water supply for fire-fighting purposes.

·    The current DGP allows for intensive agriculture (e.g. viticulture) within Lot 30. This policy statement is removed in the proposed Structure Plan and, therefore, the subject land will no longer have the potential for intensive agriculture land uses.

 

The Amendment proposes to remove ‘Additional Use No. 52’ from Schedule 2 of the Scheme, which applies to Lot 30, and replace it with ‘Special Provision Area No. 71’ in Schedule 3 of the Scheme to a portion of Lot 30 (proposed Lot 8 in the proposed Structure Plan). This would reduce the potential land area available for uses not ordinarily permitted in the Rural Residential zone.

 

The Scheme Amendment Map is shown at Attachment D.  

OFFICER COMMENT

The main issues considered relevant for discussion in this report are:

•             Heritage

•             Amenity

•             Bushfire and Environmental Management

•             Lot Yield

 

Heritage

There are three distinct groups of heritage buildings on ‘Millbrook Farm’ which were developed in the early 1920’s. The structures recognised as having important heritage value include the water driven saw mill and water wheel, barn, the stables, blacksmith’s forge, and two original residences of former landowners, Jack Donald and Robert Donald, who first developed the property. The historic structures are to remain and are showcased by their close proximity as a small heritage precinct. The property also contains the ‘Seymour Cottages’ that were relocated to the site from Dunsborough in 1982. These buildings were reconstructed on site using early building techniques and original materials (where possible) to preserve the original designs.

 

The heritage precinct was classified by the National Trust (WA) in 1984, and is included as a Permanent Entry on the State Register of Heritage Place in 1999. It is also included in the City’s Heritage List, and the City included both ‘Millbrook Farm’ and the Millbrook Water Mill in its Municipal Heritage Inventory in 2014.

 

The Structure Plan proposal is supported by a Heritage Assessment which indicates that, whilst heritage components are to be preserved, the ‘Millbrook Farm’ heritage precinct has the potential for sensitive and adaptive re-use as a tourist destination. The Assessment also indicates that a number of covenants exist over the subject land which preclude fencing and the planting of vegetation to retain the visual link between each of the two heritage residences and the other buildings reinforcing the original intent of the builder and promoting the site as a heritage precinct.

 

Amenity

The subject land has been regarded as having potential for tourist uses since adoption of the Commonage Policy Area Consolidated Structure Plan (2004) (Attachment F), which identified the heritage precinct on the subject land as having merit to accommodate certain appropriate additional uses. This was reflected in ‘Additional Use No. 52’ (which is proposed to be removed through this Amendment and replaced with ‘Special Provision Area No. 71’ as described previously). Additional Use No. 52 is detailed in the Statutory Environment section of this report). Certain uses are already permissible under the ‘Rural Residential’ Zone and the following uses therefore no longer require inclusion in the proposed Special Provision Area for that reason:

 

•             Guesthouse.

•             Restaurant/Café.

•             Recreation – Private.

•             Industry – Cottage.

 

The following uses are, however, proposed to be excluded as they are no longer considered necessary or appropriate:

 

•             Caretaker’s dwelling.

•             Club Premises.

 

To ensure that development does not occur at a scale that is inconsistent with the objectives of the zone or the rural amenity of the surrounding locality, the Amendment proposes to control the extent of development on proposed Lot 8 by limiting any additional allowable floorspace to a maximum of 2,500m2 NLA. This additional floorspace limit will not include single dwelling development, or the retrofit of existing heritage buildings, but will apply only to any additions to buildings and new development.  The existing development permissibilities under the DGP/ Additional Use No. 52 does not limit floorspace and therefore the subject land could potentially accommodate extensive development areas. The restriction of floorspace in this instance will limit all additional development to 2500m2 which may equate, for example, to ten 250m2 chalets, or a 12 room guesthouse and dining area.

 

‘Reception Centre’ has been included, as a use previously considered (and approved), along with other associated uses, including ‘Hotel’, ‘Tavern’ or ‘Small Bar’ (which are also complementary to uses such as ‘Brewery’ or ‘Winery’, which are proposed to remain as permissible additional uses).  The rationale for inclusion of these uses is that whist they aren’t permissible uses in a Rural Residential zone they are considered likely to support the heritage/tourist theme, and provide complementary additional uses to the existing permissible uses. For example, a ‘Guesthouse’ is currently a permissible use in the Rural Residential zone, however, if alcohol is served to guests, then that use may become more directly defined as a ‘Hotel’. 

 

A ‘Restaurant/Café’ is also a permissible use in the Rural Residential zone, which may on occasion be hired for events, and therefore operate as a ‘Reception Centre’ at times. 

 

Whilst this rationale would not apply in standalone situations in a Rural Residential zone, in this context where support for a range of additional tourism uses has been recognised under the Scheme and in planning policy, these additional uses are considered appropriate. All uses in ‘Special Provision Area No. 71’ will be considered ‘A’ uses under the Scheme, which requires that related development applications will require to be advertised.

 

The list of permissible uses is quite varied in order to provide future developers a reasonable degree of flexibility in the nature of tourist development which may eventually occur on the subject land, and in the size and scale of the buildings developed. However, considering the additional floorspace limit imposed, it is likely that only a small proportion of additional of uses will ultimately be developed on site.

 

Vegetation and Bushfire

A Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) has been prepared on behalf of the landowners based on the objectives and criteria set out in the WAPC bushfire policy and associated guidelines for a ‘bushfire prone’ area.  The BMP assessment supports the proposed cul-de-sac design, subject to the realignment of the emergency access way (EAW) to Dress Circle (to be provided as an easement, or right of carriageway, in favour of the City).  The BMP also requires the provision of a 50,000 litre water supply in the public reserve, to the satisfaction of the City. The Structure Plan proposes to protect all existing remnant vegetation, and areas that are not suitable for future development (based on the bushfire assessment) shall be placed in a ‘Development Exclusion Area’. 

 

City officers will review comments from external agencies (i.e. DFES and DPLH) regarding the BMP prior to making final recommendations regarding the alignment of the EAW. The City has previously investigated opportunities to improve public access way (PAW) connections and/or EAW throughout the Commonage area, and consider that any viable opportunities for improved access should be investigated through subdivision and development processes. When the Structure Plan is presented to the Council for final consideration, City officers will likely be recommending an alternative EAW route, to follow the western boundary of Lot 7 through the battle axe shaped portion of the lot and extending past the southern boundary of Lot 6 to connect into the proposed cul-de-sac (See Attachment E: Alternative EAW). This route may also serve to provide improved public access for residents in the location.

 

Lot Yield

DGP 50 comprised an area of 99 hectares, and allowed the creation of 43 lots (of which a total number of 41 lots was actually created) and a resultant average lot area of 2.3 ha. In the subject ‘Precinct 4’, CPACSP ordinarily recommends a minimum rural residential lot size of 1 ha, with an overall average lot size of 2 ha. The Structure Plan proposes to intensify the density of the original DGP by creating an additional 9 lots (providing for a potential total of 50 lots), which results in an average lot size of 1.9 ha. Although this is marginally less than the CPACSP policy requires, the minimum lot size of 1 would be maintained, and the overall outcome generally meets the underlying purpose and intent of the CPACSP.

 

The consideration of 9 additional rural residential lots (in place of a potential 34 chalets currently allowable under DGP 50) and the proposed reduction of the area available for additional tourist uses, is considered an improvement in terms of any likely impact on the prevailing local rural residential character and amenity. It is therefore recommended that the additional rural residential lots proposed in the Structure Plan be supported.

 


 

Statutory Environment

The key elements of the statutory environment with respect to this proposal are set out in the relevant objectives, policies and provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) and the Scheme. 

 

Planning and Development Act 2005

The Planning and Development Act 2005 outlines the relevant considerations when preparing and amending local planning schemes. The relevant provisions of the Act have been taken into account in preparing and processing this Amendment.

 

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

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

 

The Regulations provide separate processes for the approval of Scheme amendments and structure plans, adherence to which would advance the draft Structure Plan ahead of the draft Amendment. The Structure Plan is required to be endorsed, however, to create the land parcel the subject of the Amendment (i.e. portion of Lot 30) and therefore the Structure Plan and Amendment proposals are being progressed concurrently. Progression of the draft Structure Plan will observe the statutory process and timeframes associated with the Amendment.

 

City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21

The subject land at ‘Millbrook Farm’ is zoned ‘Rural Residential’ in the Scheme, with associated ‘Additional Use No. 52’, as shown below:

 

Table 1 : Extract from Schedule 2- Additional Use No. 52

No

PARTICULARS OF LAND

LAND USE PERMITTED/SPECIFIED

CONDITIONS

A52

Portions of Lots 1 and 110, being 9000, Millbrook Road, Yallingup (proposed Lots 30 and 43)

Additional Uses permitted on the specified land are –

1.    Chalets & Holiday Cabins

2.    Guesthouse

3.    Restaurant/Café

4.    Public Amusement

5.    Recreation Private

6.    Art & Craft Studio

7.    Workshop & Sales

8.    Boutique Brewery

9.    Winery

10.  Museum

11.  Club Premises

12.  Rural Holiday Resort

13.  Caretakers Dwelling

1.    The Additional Uses specified shall be deemed to be “D” uses for the purpose of Part 4 of the Scheme.

2.    The Additional Uses, where permitted, shall be developed in a manner that is considered by the local government to be consistent with the endorsed DGP and maintenance of the rural and historic amenity of the locality.

 

The Amendment proposes to remove the ‘Additional Use’ rights under Schedule 2 and replace it with a ‘Special Provision Area’ under Schedule 3. 

 


 

The subject land is also located within a designated ‘Landscape Value Area’ (LVA) in the Scheme.  The proposed Structure Plan design, and the scale of uses included in the proposed ‘Special Provision Area No. 71’, supports the objectives of the LVA provisions through protection of significant remnant vegetation and established landscape values. 

 

It has also been determined that the Structure Plan proposal and associated Amendment can address the relevant objectives and policies of the ‘Rural Residential’ zone.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The key strategies and policies most relevant to the proposal are:

•             State Planning Policy 6.1: Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge Policy (2003).

•             State Planning Policy 3.7 Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas and Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas.

•             Leeuwin-Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy (LNSRS) (2019).

•             City of Busselton Draft Local Planning Strategy (2016).

•             Commonage Policy Area Consolidated Structure Plan (2004)

 

State Planning Policy 6.1: Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge (2003)

The Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge Statement of Planning Policy 6.1 (SPP6.1) defines the subject land as ‘Rural Residential’ within the Commonage area. The landscape classes of ‘Natural Landscape Significance’ and ‘Rural Landscape Significance’ relate to the subject land and identify that natural and rural characteristics there contribute to landscape values.  SPP6.1 also encourages that land committed for rural residential development adopts a ‘cluster principle’ responsive to retaining designated landscape values. The objectives of SPP6.1 have been accommodated in the Structure Plan by providing a rural residential lot design which provides protection and enhancement of the natural vegetation and habitat linkages, and maintains rural land use features.

 

The protection and enhancement of the heritage and tourism component of the subject land upholds to the statement and intent of Section 4.5 and 4.6 of SPP6.

 

Section 4.5: ‘Tourism Statement of Intent’ states:

‘A diverse and sustainable tourism base which complements the existing character and lifestyle of the policy area will be facilitated by:

•             encouraging nature-based and cultural tourism opportunities;

•             promoting low-scale tourist development that is consistent with local characteristics;

•             encouraging innovative tourism development that responds to the local natural and cultural environment;

•             assessing land use proposals for their impact on tourism; and

•             conserving those landscape, cultural and environmental values that offer future tourism potential.’

 

Section 4.6: ‘Cultural Heritage Statement of Intent’ includes places of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultural heritage significance being identified and conserved for the benefit of present and future generations by:

 

•             the establishment of the cultural heritage significance of the place;

•             the development and implementation of an appropriate conservation policy for the place;

•             the appropriate management of places in the public domain; and

•             the encouragement of the use of available incentives to heritage conservation.

 

State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (2015) and the Guidelines for Planning   in Bushfire Prone Areas (2017)

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

 

The subject land is located in a bushfire prone area and, consistent with the requirements of SPP3.7, a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) has been prepared by qualified fire consultants.

 

Leeuwin-Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy (LNSRS)

The purpose of the LNSRS is to manage and plan for growth in the sub-region, to respond to environmental landform change, and to guide planning for the development of rural land uses. 

 

The subject land is designated as ‘Rural and Landscape Protection’ in the LNSRS, and the WAPC strategic requirements relevant to such areas include:

 

15. Balancing bushfire risk, biodiversity conservation and economic growth.

 

17. Supporting the identification through planning instruments or regional ecological corridors for biodiversity and wildlife, and to connect environmental assets.

 

It has been assessed that the proposed Amendment and Structure Plan achieve a desirable balance between mitigating bushfire risk, enabling biodiversity conservation, and allowing limited and localised economic activities.

 

City of Busselton Draft Local Planning Strategy (2016)

The City’s Draft Local Planning Strategy includes the provision to:

 

Support and pro-actively plan to identify suitable areas for re-subdivision/consolidation of existing rural-residential development in both the Commonage and Dunbarton rural residential areas.

 

Furthermore:

 

In accordance with the draft South West Planning and Infrastructure Framework no new rural residential areas are proposed and the strategy provides the scope to consider limited further subdivision and consolidation within the existing rural-residential areas of Commonage and Dunbarton, where there is seen to be a demonstrable community benefit and having regard to environmental, landscape/visual amenity and biodiversity values, as well as bushfire risk. This will contribute to the more efficient use of land, services and infrastructure and will maximise the number of rural residential lots without needing to alienate additional areas of rural land.

 

The proposed Amendment and Structure Plan are considered to be consistent with the aims and objectives of the draft LPS. 

 

Commonage Policy Area Consolidated Structure Plan (2004)

The CPACSP was endorsed by the City and the WAPC in 2004 as a guide to planning and development within the 'Commonage' area. It should be noted that the CPACSP is an overarching, guiding document and not a ‘Structure Plan’ in the sense that the term is now used in the Regulations.

 

The subject land is located in ‘Precinct 4’ of the CPACSP, which has a requirement for a minimum lot size of 1 ha and an average lot size of 2 ha across that precinct. The CPACSP states that the designated average lot sizes must be maintained, although flexibility in minimum lot sizes may be permitted by the City (and WAPC) subject to demonstrated community benefits. ‘Precinct 4’ also indicates an area for ‘proposed tourist development’ and a ‘tourist village’.  Proposed Lot 8 in the draft Structure Plan is sited in the area generally indicated.

 

The Structure Plan proposals are considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the CPACSP as described throughout the ‘Officer Comment’ section.

 

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.

Stakeholder Consultation

No external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to this matter.

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. No risks of a medium or greater level have been identified.

Options

Should the Officer Recommendation not be supported, the following options could be considered:

 

1.         Resolve to not adopt the Amendment (and/or Structure Plan) for initiation for public consultation, and provide justification for such a decision. It should be noted that, under the relevant legislation, there is no right of appeal against a Council decision not to adopt a Scheme amendment for initiation.

 

2.         Require modifications to the proposed Amendment and/or Structure Plan, and provide reasons for requiring these.      

 

3.        To seek further information before making a decision.

 

Officer assessment has not revealed any substantive issue or reasonable grounds that would support any of the above options being appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Officers are of the view that the proposal is generally consistent with the aims and objectives of the State and local planning policy frameworks. It is recommended that Amendment 45 be initiated by the Council, and that the proposed (and accompanying) Structure Plan be also adopted, for advertising for public consultation.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The implementation of the ‘Officer Recommendation’ will involve advising the applicant of the resolution of the Council and commencing the process to advertise the Amendment and Structure Plan, which will occur within one month of the decision date.


Council

337

12 February 2020

13.2

Attachment a

Location Plan

 


Council

338

12 February 2020

13.2

Attachment b

Development Guide Plan

 


Council

339

12 February 2020

13.2

Attachment c

Proposed Structure Plan

 


Council

340

12 February 2020

13.2

Attachment d

Scheme Amendment Map

 


Council

341

12 February 2020

13.2

Attachment e

Alternative EAW route

 


Council

342

12 February 2020

13.2

Attachment f

Commonage Structure Plan (CPACSP)

 



 


 


 

 


Council                                                                                      348                                                           12 February 2020

17.             Chief Executive Officers Report

17.1           COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Councillors' Information Bulletin

BUSINESS UNIT

Executive Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Reporting Officers - Various

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

NATURE OF DECISION

Noting: the item does not require a decision of Council and is simply for information purposes and noting

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   City of Busselton Quarterly Report from WALGA 2019

Attachment b    Local Government House Trust 2020

Attachment c    Correspondence from the office of Hon Rita Saffioti MLA

Attachment d   State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

Attachment e    Correspondence from the office of Hon Stephen Dawson MLC  

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C2002/039              Moved Deputy Mayor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

 

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

17.1.1       WALGA Quarterly Report Q4 2019 and Local Government House Trust 2020

17.1.2       WALGA 2020-21 State Budget Submission 

17.1.3       Correspondence from the Office of Hon Rita Saffioti MLA regarding Bushfire Framework Review 2019 

17.1.4       State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

17.1.5       Correspondence from the Office of Hon Stephen Dawson MLC regarding recycling sector

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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       WALGA Quarterly Report Q4 2019 and Local Government House Trust 2020

 

The quarterly report from WALGA is an important communications vehicle, enabling us to outline interactions and activities of your Council with the Association and help to demonstrate how WALGA can contribute to Member’s operations and our progress towards achieving Council specific and sector-wide advocacy goals.

17.1.2       WALGA 2020-21 State Budget Submission 

 

Each year WALGA prepares a submission to the State Government outlining the sector’s key priorities for the upcoming budget. The sector’s 2020-21 submission which was developed in consultation with WALGA’s State Council and Zones can be accessed here:  https://walga.asn.au/Policy-Advice-and-Advocacy/Economic-Development/Economic-Policy-and-Advocacy

17.1.3       Correspondence from the Office of Hon Rita Saffioti MLA regarding Bushfire Framework Review 2019 

 

Correspondence has been received in relation to the Bushfire Framework Review 2019 and is attached for your information.

17.1.4       State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

 

A summary of the current State Administrative Reviews is attached (Attachment D) for your information.

 

17.1.5       Correspondence from the Office of Hon Stephen Dawson MLC regarding recycling sector

 

Correspondence has been received in response to current issues and challenges relating to the recycling sector and is attached for your information.

 


Council

351

12 February 2020

17.1

Attachment a

City of Busselton Quarterly Report from WALGA 2019

 


 


 


Council

353

12 February 2020

17.1

Attachment b

Local Government House Trust 2020

 


 


Council

355

12 February 2020

17.1

Attachment c

Correspondence from the office of Hon Rita Saffioti MLA

 


 


Council

357

12 February 2020

17.1

Attachment d

State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

 


 


Council

359

12 February 2020

17.1

Attachment e

Correspondence from the office of Hon Stephen Dawson MLC

 


 

 

 


Council                                                                                      363                                                           12 February 2020

ITEMS TO BE DEALT WITH BY SEPARATE RESOLUTION (WITHOUT DEBATE)

At this juncture, the Mayor, being no objections, put the below reports, which require an absolute majority of Council, were adopted en bloc, i.e. all together:

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2002/040              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor J Barrett-Lennard

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

 

12.1        Finance Committee - 22/01/2020 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW - REALLOCATION OF GLC POOL RELINING BUDGET

 

12.2        Finance Committee - 22/01/2020 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW - CLIMATE ADAPTATION RESERVE

 

12.3        Finance Committee - 22/01/2020 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW - VASSE KALOORUP OVAL CARPARK DEVELOPMENT

 

12.4        Finance Committee - 22/01/2020 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW - PROJECT OVERSPENDS OFFSET BY ROAD ASSET RENEWAL RESERVE

 

12.5        Finance Committee - 22/01/2020 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW - OLD VASSE LIGHTHOUSE

 

14.1        RFT 26-19 BUSSELTON FORESHORE HOTEL SITE 1 PRECINCT CIVIL AND LANDSCAPING WORKS

CARRIED 9/0

 


 

 

12.1           Finance Committee - 22/01/2020 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW - REALLOCATION OF GLC POOL RELINING BUDGET

STRATEGIC GOAL

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Budget Planning and Reporting

BUSINESS UNIT

Financial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Financial Services - Paul Sheridan

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

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

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 22 January 2020, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C2002/041              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor J Barrett-Lennard

That the Council endorse the requested budget amendment outlined in Table 1 below resulting in nil impact on the budgeted net current position:

 

Table 1:

Cost Code

Description

Current Amended Budget ($)

Change ($)

Resulting Proposed Amended Budget ($)

Non-Current Assets

 

 

 

 

522-B9517-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – GLC Pool Relining

50,000

(50,000)

0

332-B9604-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Women’s Change Facility Bovell

83,685

6,500

90,185

522-B9596-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – GLC Building Improvements

525,900

43,500

569,400

 Net Total 

659,585

0

659,585

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks recommendation of the Finance Committee to Council for the approval of budget amendments as detailed in this report. Adoption of the officer recommendation will result in a nil impact on the City’s current amended budget net position.


 

BACKGROUND

Council adopted its 2019/2020 municipal budget on Wednesday 31 July 2019 with a balanced budget position. Since this time, Council has been advised of certain expense changes that have impacted the original budget. The Finance Committee is now being asked to consider recommending to Council a budget amendment for the re-allocation of the GLC Pool Relining budget.

OFFICER COMMENT

Capital works were recently completed on the installation of women’s change room facilities located at Bovell Oval. This project cost $6,500 more than estimated. To this end, a request is made to transfer $6,500 of the GLC Pool Relining budget totalling $50,000 to cover this budget overrun.

 

Subsequent to this, a second request is made to reassign the remaining $43,500 of Pool Relining budget to the GLC Building Improvements budget increasing it from $525,900 to $569,400, for works to be completed this financial year.

  

Both GLC swimming pools were relined in financial year 2017/2018. It was decided at the time that $50,000 of the left over budget be carried over in anticipation of additional future works. Additional works are no longer considered necessary. Based on this, a request is made to consolidate the remaining $43,500 of budget into this year’s GLC building improvements works, soon to go out for tender.

 

Planned Amendment Items

Officers propose that the 2019/2020 adopted budget (as amended), be further amended to reflect the following funding changes, shown in Table 1.

 

Table 1:

Cost Code

Description

Current Amended Budget ($)

Change ($)

Resulting Proposed Amended Budget ($)

Non-Current Assets

 

 

 

 

522-B9517-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – GLC Pool Relining

50,000

(50,000)

0

332-B9604-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Women’s Change Facility Bovell

83,685

6,500

90,185

522-B9596-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – GLC Building Improvements

525,900

43,500

569,400

 Net Total 

659,585

0

659,585

Statutory Environment

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 refers to expenditure from the municipal fund that is not included in the annual budget. Any adjustments to a budget allocation must be made by an absolute majority decision of the Council. Additionally, where no budget allocation exists, expenditure is not to be incurred until such time as it is authorised in advance by an absolute majority decision of the Council.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The proposed budget amendment is supported by the City’s asset management plan, capital works program and long term financial plan.

 

Financial Implications

The financial implications of this recommendation are contained within the report.

Stakeholder Consultation

No external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to this matter.

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.

 

There is a risk to the City, as there is with all projects undertaken, that the final cost could exceed budget. If this looks to be the case, Council will be notified so a suitable offset / project scope back can be identified.

Options

The Council could decide not to go ahead with the proposed budget amendment request.

CONCLUSION

Council’s approval is sought to amend the budget as per the details contained in this report. Upon approval, the remaining proposed works will be planned, organised and completed.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Should the officer recommendation be endorsed, the associated budget amendment will be processed within a month of being approved.

 

 


Council                                                                                      367                                                           12 February 2020

12.2           Finance Committee - 22/01/2020 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW - CLIMATE ADAPTATION RESERVE

STRATEGIC GOAL

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Budget Planning and Reporting

BUSINESS UNIT

Financial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Financial Services - Paul Sheridan

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

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

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 22 January 2020, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C2002/042              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor J Barrett-Lennard

That the Council endorse the requested budget amendment outlined in Table 1 below resulting in a nil impact on the City’s budgeted net current position:

Table 1:

Cost Code

Description

Current Amended Budget ($)

Change ($)

Resulting Proposed Amended Budget ($)

Current Assets

 

 

 

 

9000-7001

Municipal Cash at Bank

(160,209)

(162,352)

(322,561)

Revenue

 

 

 

 

510-C2512-1215-0000

Capital Grants – Sand Renourishment

(60,000)

60,000

0

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

510-C2525-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Wonnerup Groynes 3, 4, 5 & 6

136,000

11,367

147,367

510-C2528-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Craig Street Groyne & Sea Wall

84,209

90,985

175,194

Reserve

 

 

 

 

9000-2500

Transfer to Reserve – Municipal Retained Earnings

(1,316,137)

(162,352)

(1,478,489)

102-9103

Transfer from Climate Adaptation Reserve

1,316,137

162,352

1,478,489

 Net Total 

0

0

0

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks recommendation of the Finance Committee to Council for the approval of budget amendments as detailed in this report. Adoption of the officer recommendation will result in a nil impact to the City’s budgeted net current position.

BACKGROUND

Council adopted its 2019/2020 municipal budget on Wednesday 31 July 2019 with a balanced budget position. Since this time, the City has been advised of certain expense changes that have impacted the original budget. The Finance Committee is now being asked to consider recommending to Council a budget amendment for the following items:

 

1.    Sand Renourishment

a)    Remove $60,000 from the budgeted Sand Re-nourishment Coastal Adaptation and Protection program (CAP) grant allocation.

b)    Retain the corresponding Sand Re-nourishment expenditure budget, funded by drawing down an additional $60,000 from Reserve 102 - Climate Adaptation Reserve.

 

2.    Coastal Protection Groyne Projects

a)    Include the refurbishment of one extra groyne to the capital project C2525 Wonnerup Groynes 3, 5 & 6 and adjust the project name to Wonnerup Groynes 3, 4, 5 & 6.

b)    Add an additional budget of $11,367 against project C2525 Wonnerup Groynes 3, 4, 5 & 6 to be drawn from Reserve 102 - Climate Adaptation Reserve.

c)    Add an additional budget of $90,985 against project C2528 being the Craig Street Groynes and Sea Wall, also to be drawn from Reserve 102 - Climate Adaptation Reserve.

OFFICER COMMENT

Sand Renourishment

Over the last eight years the City has been very successful in securing sand renourishment grant funding under the State Governments Coastal Adaptation and Protection (CAP) grants program, having been successful five out of the last eight years. Unfortunately this financial year the City has been unable to secure grant funding, requiring a budget amendment to recognise the reduced grant income.

 

Total sand renourishment costs year to date total $202,378, against a budget of $259,240 for the year. It is highly likely the City will encounter damaging storms in winter 2020 and that coastal renourishment will be necessary.  City officers are therefore seeking to retain the expenditure budget at current levels through drawdown of an equivalent amount ($60,000) from the Climate Adaptation Reserve.

 

Coastal Protection Groyne Projects

Last financial year the City embarked on two coastal protection groyne projects. These two projects were combined into a single Tender due to the nature of the works being related, i.e. rock seawall and groyne works.

 


 

The first project was to refurbish three of the six Wonnerup groynes at an original estimated cost of $300,000 (C2525). Upon further investigation it was decided to include a fourth groyne into the scope of works. The works spanned two financial years at a total cost of $171,794.  The budget carried over into the 2019/2020 budget for this project was calculated incorrectly with an amount of $136,000 carried over as opposed to $147,367.  Council approval is therefore sought to add an additional $11,367 to the budget for C2525 Wonnerup groynes 3, 4, 5 & 6, to be drawn down from the Climate Adaptation Reserve.

 

Additionally, the intent was to carry over the full remaining budget (of the original $300,000) as at the end of 2018/2019 which was $275,573; such that the balance (between that and the total cost of $171,794 for project one) could be utilised for project two - the construction of coastal defences C2528 - Craig Street groyne and sea wall.

 

Project two was originally estimated to cost $250,000. The City received grant funding from the Department of Transport’s Costal Adaptation Program to the value of $125,000, matched by the City for an overall budget of $250,000. The total project came in at $340,986; over budget by $90,986. As noted above it was intended that the savings from the Wonnerup groyne project ($128,206) would cover / offset the over expenditure against this project. The savings were not carried over however and so effectively were never drawn down from the Climate Adaptation Reserve in 2018/19. In order to balance this year’s budget a request is made to budget an additional amount of $90,986 against this project; to be drawn from the Climate Adaptation Reserve.

 

In summary the two projects had a total combined budget of $300,000+250,000 = $550,000 and the total cost for both amounts to $171,794+$340,986 = $512,780. Thus combined, the projects came in under budget by $37,220.  Due to the circumstances described above however, budget adjustments are now required.

 

Planned Amendment Items

Officers propose that the 2019/2020 adopted budget (as amended), be further amended to reflect the following funding changes, shown in Table 1.

 

Table 1:

Cost Code

Description

Current Amended Budget ($)

Change ($)

Resulting Proposed Amended Budget ($)

Current Assets

 

 

 

 

9000-7001

Municipal Cash at Bank

(160,209)

(162,352)

(322,561)

Revenue

 

 

 

 

510-C2512-1215-0000

Capital Grants – Sand Renourishment

(60,000)

60,000

0

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

510-C2525-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Wonnerup Groynes 3, 4, 5 & 6

136,000

11,367

147,367

510-C2528-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Craig Street Groyne & Sea Wall

84,209

90,985

175,194

Reserve

 

 

 

 

9000-2500

Transfer to Reserve – Municipal Retained Earnings

(1,316,137)

(162,352)

(1,478,489)

102-9103

Transfer from Climate Adaptation Reserve

1,316,137

162,352

1,478,489

 Net Total 

0

0

0

Statutory Environment

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 refers to expenditure from the municipal fund that is not included in the annual budget. Any adjustments to a budget allocation must be made by an absolute majority decision of the Council.  Additionally, where no budget allocation exists, expenditure is not to be incurred until such time as it is authorised in advance, by an absolute majority decision of the Council.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The proposed budget amendment is supported by the City’s asset management plan, capital works program and long term financial plan.

Financial Implications

The financial implications of this recommendation are contained within the report.

Stakeholder Consultation

No external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to this matter.

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.  No risks of a medium or greater level have been identified.

Options

The Council could decide not to go ahead with the proposed budget amendment request.

CONCLUSION

Council’s approval is sought to amend the budget as per the details contained in this report. Upon approval the remaining works will be planned, organised and completed.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Should the officer recommendation be endorsed, the associated budget amendment will be processed within a month of being approved.

 

 


Council                                                                                      370                                                           12 February 2020

12.3           Finance Committee - 22/01/2020 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW - VASSE KALOORUP OVAL CARPARK DEVELOPMENT

STRATEGIC GOAL

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Budget Planning and Reporting

BUSINESS UNIT

Financial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Financial Services - Paul Sheridan

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

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

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Department of Education Letter  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 22 January 2020, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C2002/043              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor J Barrett-Lennard

That the Council endorse the requested budget amendment outlined in Table 1 below resulting in nil impact on the budgeted net current position:

 

Table 1:

Cost Code

Description

Current Amended Budget ($)

Change ($)

Resulting Proposed Amended Budget ($)

Revenue

 

 

 

 

510-C0052-1212-0000

Capital Grants – Vasse Kaloorup Oval Carpark

(130,000)

(20,000)

(150,000)

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

541-C0052-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Vasse Kaloorup Oval Carpark

260,000

20,000

280,000

 Net Total 

130,000

0

130,000

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks recommendation of the Finance Committee to Council for the approval of budget amendments as detailed in this report. Adoption of the officer recommendation will result in a nil impact on the City’s current amended budget net position.

 

BACKGROUND

Council adopted its 2019/2020 municipal budget on Wednesday 31 July 2019 with a balanced budget position. Since this time, Council has been advised of certain expense changes that have impacted the original budget. The Finance Committee is now being asked to consider recommending to Council a budget amendment for the following items:

 

1.    An increase in the budgeted grant contribution (from $130,000 to $150,000) from the Department of Education towards the Vasse Kaloorup Oval carpark development.

2.    An increase the overall budget towards the Vasse Kaloorup Oval carpark development by $20,000 to $280,000.

OFFICER COMMENT

The City was notified in August 2019 of its success in securing $150,000 towards the Vasse Kaloorup Oval carpark development. At the time the budget was being prepared it was estimated that this amount would be in the order of $130,000. The contribution was increased with a desire by the Department of Education “that the project may include public access pathway links to and around the school to bring students safely to school”. See Attachment A being the letter of grant award from the Department. This amendment will have no impact on the municipal net position.

 

Planned Amendment Items

Officers propose that the 2019/2020 adopted budget (as amended), be further amended to reflect the following funding changes, shown in Table 1.

 

Table 1:

Cost Code

Description

Current Amended Budget ($)

Change ($)

Resulting Proposed Amended Budget ($)

Revenue

 

 

 

 

541-C0052-1212-0000

Capital Grants – Vasse Kaloorup Oval Carpark

(130,000)

(20,000)

(150,000)

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

541-C0052-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Vasse Kaloorup Oval Carpark

260,000

20,000

280,000

 Net Total 

130,000

0

130,000

Statutory Environment

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 refers to expenditure from the municipal fund that is not included in the annual budget. Any adjustments to a budget allocation must be made by an absolute majority decision of the Council.  Additionally, where no budget allocation exists, expenditure is not to be incurred until such time as it is authorised in advance, by an absolute majority decision of the Council.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The proposed budget amendment is supported by the City’s capital works program and long term financial plan.

 

Financial Implications

The financial implications of this recommendation are contained within the report.

Stakeholder Consultation

No external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to this matter.

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.

 

There is a risk to the City, as there is with all projects undertaken, that the final cost could exceed budget. If this looks to be the case, Council will be notified so a suitable offset / project scope back can be identified.

Options

The Council could decide not to go ahead with the proposed budget amendment request.

CONCLUSION

Council’s approval is sought to amend the budget as per the details contained in this report. Upon approval the proposed works will be planned, organised and completed.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Should the officer recommendation be endorsed, the associated budget amendment will be processed within a month of being approved.

 

 


Council

371

12 February 2020

12.3

Attachment a

Department of Education Letter

 


Council                                                                                      375                                                           12 February 2020

12.4           Finance Committee - 22/01/2020 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW - PROJECT OVERSPENDS OFFSET BY ROAD ASSET RENEWAL RESERVE

STRATEGIC GOAL

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Budget Planning and Reporting

BUSINESS UNIT

Financial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Financial Services - Paul Sheridan

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

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

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 22 January 2020, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C2002/044              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor J Barrett-Lennard

That the Council endorse the requested budget amendment outlined in Table 1 below resulting in a nil impact on the budgeted net current position:

 

Table 1:

Account Codes

Account Code Description

Current Amended Budget ($)

Change ($)

Resulting Proposed Amended Budget ($)

Current Assets

 

 

 

 

9000-7001

Municipal Bank Account

(156,913)

(268,260)

(425,173)

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

541-W0224-3280-0000

Contractor Costs - Jones Way Asphalt Overlay

74,182

18,248

92,430

541-S0068-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Georgiana Molloy Bus Bay Facilities

0

14,784

14,784

541-S0317-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Naturaliste Tce Asphalt Overlay

0

45,291

45,291

541-W0195-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Yallingup Beach Road

0

43,039

43,039

541-C0013-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Yallingup Beach Car Park

66,472

8,727

75,199

541-D0017-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Chain Ave Drainage Works

0

41,621

41,621

541-S0035-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Strelly St / Barlee St Roundabout

16,259

96,550

112,809

Equity

 

 

 

 

9000-2500

Transfer to Reserve - Municipal Retained Earnings

(156,913)

(268,260)

(425,173)

223-9102

Transfer from Reserve - Road Asset Renewal

156,913

268,260

425,173

 Net Total 

0

0

0

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks recommendation of the Finance Committee to Council for the approval of budget amendments as detailed in this report. Adoption of the officer recommendation will result in a nil impact on the City’s budgeted net current position.

BACKGROUND

Council adopted its 2019/2020 municipal budget on Wednesday 31 July 2019 with a balanced budget position. Since this time, Council has been advised of certain expense changes that have impacted the original budget. The Finance Committee is now being asked to consider recommending to Council a budget amendment for the re-allocation of Road Asset Renewal Reserve funds to re-align capital project over expenditures compared to budget.

OFFICER COMMENT

The projects detailed below were budgeted and scheduled for completion in the 2018/19 financial year but were not fully invoiced or in some instances completed by the end of the financial year, they were however completed by mid-July 2019.  The carry-over work required for completion was not however re-budgeted and hence Council approval is sought to utilise funds within the Road Asset Renewal Reserve to offset the costs. 

 

In considering the detail provided for each project below, it should be noted that approximately $488,947 of road project savings was returned to the Road Asset Renewal Reserve at the end of the 2018/19 financial year (in reality they were not drawn from the reserve). This is after the various other projects were completed, carried over or correctly re listed and represents the savings which would have been used to offset the expenditure listed below. Officers therefore recommend that Council approve a budget amendment to transfer funds from the Road Asset Renewal Reserve to balance the project over expenditures that are now occurring within 2019/20 financial year budget.

 

W0224 - Jones Way Asphalt Overlay                                          Budget Required $18,248

The original scope for this project excluded approximately 150m of road resurfacing and kerb, plus two drainage pits which would allow the whole streetscape to be upgraded.  The opportunity to upgrade the whole of street was however taken, therefore maximizing on mobilization efficiencies. While this increase in scope could have (ideally) been covered from within the 2018/19 budget, works were not complete and receipt of invoices post the end of the 2018/19 has resulted in the overspend falling into the 2019/20 year.

 


 

S0068 - Georgiana Molloy Bus Bay Facilities                             Budget Required $14,784

The above requirement has occurred due to Contractor invoices not being received during the 2018/19 financial year. The project was delivered $51,863 under the original budget in 2018/19 with the remaining funding returned to the reserve and not carried into 2019/20.

 

S0317 - Naturaliste Terrace Asphalt Overlay                             Budget Required $45,291

Similarly the requirement for this job has occurred due to Contractor invoices not being received during the 2018/19 financial year.   

 

W0195 - Yallingup Beach Road and                                                Budget Required $43,039

C0013 – Yallingup Beach Car Park                                                   Budget Required $8,727

The combined budget requirement associated with these two road and carpark projects is $51,766.  Works were not complete in 2018/19 and receipt of invoices post the end of the 2018/19 year has resulted in this requirement falling into 2019/20.

 

The over expenditure occurred due to wet weather, imposed staging and project scope changes including additional footpath, bollards and adjustments to the kerb profile to minimise impact to Melaleuca trees within the carpark.  This over expenditure would normally have been resolved through balancing the project under and overs at the end of the 2018/19 financial year but was only highlighted as invoices and receipts were costed to the project, post the end of the financial year.

 

D0017 - Chain Avenue - Drainage Works                                     Budget Required $41,621

The above requirement has occurred largely due to drainage detail changes on-site, following input from the Water Corporation. This over expenditure only came to light post the end of the financial year due to Contractor invoices not being received during the 2018/19 financial year.

 

S0035 - Strelly Street / Barlee Street Roundabout                   Budget Required $96,550   

This requirement has occurred as works were not complete in 2018/19 and receipt of invoices post the end of 2018/19 has resulted in the overspend falling into the 2019/20 year. The over expenditure occurred due to additional NBN/ Telstra costs incurred, drainage changes on-site to avoid conflicts with utilities & additional connections, additional asphalt laid prior to winter storm event (to save granular road base), kerb changes and inefficiencies of working during inclement winter weather                                            

 

An additional $28,319 of Regional Road Group (RRG) grant funding has been secured and applied against this project, reducing the budget requirement to $96,550. Again, this over expenditure only come to light post the end of the 2018/19 financial year.

 

Planned Amendment Items

Officers propose that the 2019/2020 adopted budget (as amended), be further amended to reflect the following funding changes, shown in Table 1.

 

Table 1:

Cost Code

Description

Current Amended Budget ($)

Change ($)

Resulting Proposed Amended Budget ($)

Current Assets

 

 

 

 

9000-7001

Municipal Bank Account

(156,913)

(268,260)

(425,173)

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

541-W0224-3280-0000

Contractor Costs - Jones Way Asphalt Overlay

74,182

18,248

92,430

541-S0068-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Georgiana Molloy Bus Bay Facilities

0

14,784

14,784

541-S0317-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Naturaliste Tce Asphalt Overlay

0

45,291

45,291

541-W0195-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Yallingup Beach Road

0

43,039

43,039

541-C0013-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Yallingup Beach Car Park

66,472

8,727

75,199

541-D0017-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Chain Ave Drainage Works

0

41,621

41,621

541-S0035-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Strelly St / Barlee St Roundabout

16,259

96,550

112,809

Equity

 

 

 

 

9000-2500

Transfer to Reserve - Municipal Retained Earnings

(156,913)

(268,260)

(425,173)

223-9102

Transfer from Reserve - Road Asset Renewal

156,913

268,260

425,173

 Net Total 

0

0

0

Statutory Environment

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 refers to expenditure from the municipal fund that is not included in the annual budget. Any adjustments to a budget allocation must be made by an absolute majority decision of the Council.  Additionally, where no budget allocation exists, expenditure is not to be incurred until such time as it is authorised in advance, by an absolute majority decision of the Council.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The proposed budget amendment is supported by the City’s asset management plan, capital works program and long term financial plan. 

Financial Implications

The financial implications of this recommendation are contained within the report.

Stakeholder Consultation

No external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to this matter.

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.  There are no risks identified of medium or greater level.

Options

The Council could decide not to go ahead with the proposed budget amendment request.

CONCLUSION

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

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Should the officer recommendation be endorsed, the associated budget amendment will be processed within a month of being approved.


Council                                                                                      378                                                           12 February 2020

12.5           Finance Committee - 22/01/2020 - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST / REVIEW - OLD VASSE LIGHTHOUSE

STRATEGIC GOAL

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Budget Planning and Reporting

BUSINESS UNIT

Financial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Financial Services - Paul Sheridan

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

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

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 22 January 2020, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C2002/045              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor J Barrett-Lennard

That the Council endorse the requested budget amendment outlined in Table 1 below resulting in nil impact on the budgeted net current position:

 

Table 1:

Cost Code

Description

Current Amended Budget ($)

Change ($)

Resulting Proposed Amended Budget ($)

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

120-B9600-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Old Vasse Lighthouse

120,000

(94,245)

25,755

120-C3112-3280-000

Contractor Costs – Foreshore Exercise Equipment

123,400

94,245

217,644

 Net Total 

243,400

0

243,400

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks recommendation of the Finance Committee to Council for the approval of budget amendments as detailed in this report. Adoption of the officer recommendation will result in a nil impact on the City’s current amended budget net position.


 

BACKGROUND

Council adopted its 2019/2020 municipal budget on Wednesday 31 July 2019 with a balanced budget position. Since this time, Council has been advised of certain expense changes that have impacted the original budget. The Finance Committee is now being asked to consider recommending to Council a budget amendment for the re-allocation of the remaining budget for the Old Vasse Lighthouse project to the Foreshore Exercise Equipment project.

OFFICER COMMENT

In the 2018/19 budget, the City allocated $120,000 towards the Old Vasse Lighthouse project with the understanding that the Rotary Club would provide an additional contribution of $100,000; which was later reduced to $10,000 to procure the clocks component only.

   

Following the procurement of an engineer’s structural design at a cost of $25,755, the City has a balance of $94,245 in unallocated funds to complete the project. An indicative estimated costing has been secured of $260,000 to $280,000 for the project, excluding landscaping works.

 

Given the significant reduction in available funds and the remaining scope of work to complete the project, it is recommended that it be discontinued and that the balance of remaining funds be reallocated to the Foreshore Exercise Equipment project to address a budget shortfall identified at tender stage for that project.

 

The Busselton Foreshore Exercise Equipment project includes six exercise stations over a one kilometre circuit between Gale Street and the Equinox restaurant. The project supplements youth-oriented playground infrastructure with exercise equipment that is suitable for a broad range of ages. Exercise stations are for community use and will be readily accessible to the public.

 

A Rotary clock could be further considered as part of projects such as the Mitchell Park redevelopment, or as part of an upgrade to a roundabout in an appropriate location.

 

Planned Amendment Items

Officers propose that the 2019/2020 adopted budget (as amended) be further amended to reflect the following funding changes, shown in Table 1.

 

Table 1:

Cost Code

Description

Current Amended Budget ($)

Change ($)

Resulting Proposed Amended Budget ($)

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

120-B9600-3280-0000

Contractor Costs – Old Vasse Lighthouse

120,000

(94,245)

25,755

120-C3112-3280-000

Contractor Costs – Foreshore Exercise Equipment

123,400

94,245

217,644

 Net Total 

243,400

0

243,400

Statutory Environment

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 refers to expenditure from the municipal fund that is not included in the annual budget. Any adjustments to a budget allocation must be made by an absolute majority decision of the Council.  Additionally, where no budget allocation exists, expenditure is not to be incurred until such time as it is authorised in advance, by an absolute majority decision of the Council.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The proposed budget amendment is supported by the City’s capital works program and long term financial plan.

Financial Implications

The financial implications of this recommendation are contained within the report.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

The Rotary Club has been advised that the City is unable to proceed with the proposed Old Vasse Lighthouse project at this point in time.

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.  No risks of a medium or greater level have been identified.

Options

The Council could decide not to approve the proposed budget amendment request.

CONCLUSION

Council’s approval is sought to amend the budget as per the details contained in this report. Upon approval the remaining proposed works will be planned, organised and completed.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Should the officer recommendation be endorsed, the associated budget amendment will be processed within a month of being approved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


Council                                                                                      385                                                           12 February 2020

14.1           RFT 26-19 BUSSELTON FORESHORE HOTEL SITE 1 PRECINCT CIVIL AND LANDSCAPING WORKS

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

Tenders

BUSINESS UNIT

Major Projects and Facilities

REPORTING OFFICER

Administration Officer - Carley O’Neil

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

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

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Landscaping Plan

Attachment b    Published Under Separate Cover  Confidential Evaluation & Recommendation Report  

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C2002/046              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor J Barrett-Lennard

That the Council:

1.    Pursuant to RFT 26-19 Hotel Site 1 Precinct Civil and Landscaping Works, accept the tender from Industrial Roadpavers (WA) Pty Ltd as the most advantageous tenderer (Successful Tenderer), subject to minor variations to be negotiated in accordance with Regulation 20 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (FG Regs);

 

2.    Delegates power and authority to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and agree with the Successful Tenderer minor variations in accordance with Regulation 20 of the FG Regs, subject to such variations and the final terms not exceeding the overall project budget; and

 

3.    Endorse the requested budget amendment outlined in Table 1 below resulting in no change to the budgeted net current position:

 

Table 1:

 

Cost Code

Description

Current Amended Budget $

Change ($)

Resulting Proposed Amended

Budget ($)

Revenue

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

120.C3206.3280.0000

Landscaping Old Tennis club Site

500,000

80,000

580,000

120.C0053.3280.0000

Carpark on Hotel Site 1

500,000

366,566

866,566

120.C3113.3280.0000

Busselton Tennis Club Infrastructure

868,604

(200,000)

668,604

Reserve

 

 

 

 

225.9103

Transfer from Parks and Gardens Reserve

(500,000)

(80,000)

(580,000)

114.9103

Transfer from City Car Parking and Access Reserve

0

(166,566)

(166,566)

9000-7054

Unspent Loan Funds for Busselton Tennis Club

(788,604)

200,000

(588,604)

9000-7054

Unspent Loan Funds to be utilised for carpark on Hotel Site 1 (BTC Project)

0

(200,000)

(200,000)

 Net Total 

$580,000

$0

$580,000

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City’s objective with request for tender RFT26-19 Hotel Site 1 Precinct Civil and Landscaping Works (the RFT) is to engage a suitably experienced Contractor to undertake the following works at Busselton Foreshore Hotel Site 1:

 

·    Demolition of existing tennis courts and other infrastructure.

·    Construction of drainage and car park works; extending the existing car park located on the corner of Marine Terrace and Jetty Way.

·    Extension of power from Marine Terrace.

·    Installation of street lighting poles and luminaires, vista lights, bollard lights and other lighting equipment. These will be free-issued by the City.

·    Hard landscaping such as exposed aggregate footpaths and seating walls.

·    Soft landscaping including turf, trees, garden beds, median island rain gardens and reticulation.

 

BACKGROUND

An improved foreshore experience was identified to elevate Busselton as a major regional commercial centre and to maximise the economic growth from tourists visiting Busselton as an outright destination or touring through the South West.

 

The Busselton Foreshore Master Plan (the Master Plan) was adopted by the Council on 28 March 2012. It was prepared to guide the detailed planning of the Foreshore into the future and identified potential sites for hotel/short stay accommodation. The Master Plan followed a process of systematic community engagement and local decision making. It is consistent with the Council’s vision of the Busselton Foreshore as the principal playground and recreation space for residents and visitors.

 

The Busselton Foreshore redevelopment project has been delivered in three stages over a decade of development. The result is a thriving destination that is enjoyed by locals and visitors alike with a visitor centre and exhibition space, a skate park, a nautical-themed playground and walking promenades.

 

The next stage of the redevelopment will integrate open space and public facilities with existing commercial leases and new private investment. Ground lease revenues from commercial venues will be directed to maintenance and preservation of the iconic Busselton Jetty and foreshore area reducing the burden on ratepayers both now and into the future.

 

Redevelopment of this area (known as Hotel Site 1) will connect the Busselton Foreshore, Cultural Precinct and Busselton CBD by removing the former barrier of use to this area by the Busselton Tennis Club. The new car park and landscaping works will link the Esplanade Hotel and Marine Terrace to the Busselton Foreshore. As a result, significant additional parking for the Foreshore and the new Busselton Entertainment Arts and Cultural Hub (BEACH) will be provided.

OFFICER COMMENT

The RFT was issued as a Public Tender on Saturday 30 November 2020 and closed at 2:00p.m. on Tuesday 14 January 2020. The invitation to tender was advertised in the ‘West Australian’ newspaper. The City received five (5) compliant tender responses from the following contractors:

 

·    BCP Contractors Pty Ltd

·    Cape to Cape Excavations Pty Ltd

·    Civilcon (WA) Pty Ltd

·    Industrial Roadpavers (WA) Pty Ltd

·    Leeuwin Civil Pty Ltd

 

Assessment Process

In accordance with the City’s procurement practices and procedures, tender assessments were carried out by a tender evaluation panel comprising City officers with relevant skills and experience. The tender assessment process included:

 

·    Assessing tenders received against relevant compliance criteria. The compliance criteria were not point scored.  Each submission was assessed on a Yes/No basis as to whether each criterion was satisfactorily met. All tenders were deemed compliant.

·    Assessing tenders against the following qualitative criteria:

 

Criteria

Weighting

Relevant Experience

20%

Local Benefit

5%

Respondent’s Resources

15%

Demonstrated Understanding

20%

 

A scoring and weighting system was used to assess the tenders against these qualitative criteria.

 


 

The extent to which a tender demonstrated greater satisfaction of each of the qualitative criteria resulted in a greater score. The tendered prices were then assessed together with the weighted qualitative criteria and the tenders scored and ranked to determine the most advantageous outcome to the City, based on principles of best value for money.  That is, although price was a consideration, the tender containing the lowest price will not necessarily be accepted, nor will the tender ranked the highest on the qualitative criteria.

 

Summary of Assessment Outcomes

The outcome of the evaluation panel’s assessment was as follows:

 

Rank

Company

Summary

1.

Industrial Roadpavers (WA) Pty Ltd

Strong submission. Industrial Roadpavers have 50 years’ experience in civil projects similar in scope.

Recent experience relevant to Hotel Site 1 in Perth working for State Government on hospital and school car parking projects. 

Fuel and accommodation sourced locally in Busselton. 

Large list of resources, subcontractors listed.

Management personnel and job description provided. 

Detailed program provided illustrates good understanding of project scope and requirements. Lowest price tendered.

2.

Leeuwin Civil Pty Ltd

Leeuwin Civil have experience working in and around townscape services, previous contracts awarded with similar detail required and stakeholder engagement.

Experience working on the foreshore.

Support of local community and sporting groups.  Good staffing, plant and equipment.

Good understanding of project scope and requirements. Second lowest price tendered.

3.

Cape to Cape Excavations Pty Ltd

Cape to Cape Excavations have some prior experience provided including Margaret River Senior High School and Busselton Toyota, although minor detail provided.

Support a range of local sporting and community groups.

Good list of resources and materials and maintenance repair.

Good detail provided in methodology, detailed program provided.


 

4.

BCP Contractors Pty Ltd

Good range of local experience relevant to the project.

Support a range of local sporting and community groups. 

Good staffing, plant and equipment. No indication of landscape resourcing.

Provided detailed works methodology and articulated a good understanding of the project requirements.

5.

Civilcon (WA) Pty Ltd

Mostly buildings noted in previous experience that are not relevant to the scope of the project.  

Good regional experience.

Small list of resources - no grader or semi trucks.

Minimal information relating to scope of works.

Limited information in submission relating to landscape construction.

Statutory Environment

The contract value is greater than $500,000, therefore, in accordance with section 5.43(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), read with Delegation 3J, the tender is required to go before the Council.

 

In terms of section 3.57 of the Act, a local government is required to invite tenders before it enters into a contract of a prescribed kind under which another person is to supply goods and service. Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996:

 

·    requires that tenders be publicly invited for such contracts where the estimated cost of providing the required goods and/or service exceeds $150,000; and

·    Regulations 11, 14, 18, 20 and 21A provides the statutory framework for inviting and assessing tenders and awarding contracts pursuant to this process.

With regard to the RFT, City officers have complied with abovementioned legislative requirements.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The City's purchasing policies and its occupational health and safety, asset management and engineering technical standards and specifications were all relevant to the RFT, and have been adhered to in the process of requesting and evaluating tenders.

 

Financial Implications

The 2019/20 budget allocated a total of $1,000,000 to complete the project. Tender prices however have been submitted in excess of the allocated budget.

 

Staff have investigated potential project scope amendments to bring the costs in line with the budgeted amount. Unfortunately, the scope would have to be significantly amended to the point that the end result would not be in keeping with the overall foreshore concept.

 


 

The financial impact taking into consideration the costs of materials supplied by the City and the tendered price is described in the table below:

 

Description

Amount

19/20 Budget Allocation Busselton Foreshore Hotel site 1 Precinct

 $ 1,000,000

Tendered Price - Industrial Road Pavers (WA Pty Ltd)

-$ 1,241,516

City provided materials (LED lights/Light fittings/Poles etc.)

-$    201,357

Less consultancy spent to date

-$         3,693

Total

-$    446,566

 

Officers have identified alternative funding sources to ensure that the project can be completed. It is therefore recommended that Council consider accessing funds from both the Parks and Gardens Reserve and the Car Park Reserve as well as the savings generated from the Busselton Tennis Club (BTC) project to fund the shortfall as follows:

 

Funding source

 Amount

Parks and Gardens Reserve

 $            80,000

City Car Parking and Access Reserve

 $          166,566

Savings from BTC Project

 $          200,000

Total

 $          446,566

 

The BTC project was partially funded via a loan. The hotel site 1 works are part of the overall Busselton Tennis Club relocation and therefore the loan funds are able to be utilised.

 

Table 1:

In order for Council to access the additional funding required, a budget amendment would need to be considered as follows:

Cost Code

Description

Current Amended Budget ($)

Change ($)

Resulting Proposed Amended Budget ($)

Revenue

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expenditure

 

 

 

 

120.C3206.3280.0000

Landscaping Old Tennis club Site

500,000

80,000

580,000

120.C0053.3280.0000

Carpark on Hotel Site 1

500,000

366,566

866,566

120.C3113.3280.0000

Busselton Tennis Club Infrastructure

868,604

(200,000)

668,604

Reserve

 

 

 

 

225.9103

Transfer from Parks and Gardens Reserve

(500,000)

(80,000)

(580,000)

114.9103

Transfer from City Car Parking and Access Reserve

0

(166,566)

(166,566)


 

9000-7054

Unspent Loan Funds for Busselton Tennis Club

(788,604)

200,000

(588,604)

9000-7054

Unspent Loan Funds to be utilised for carpark on Hotel Site 1 (BTC Project)

0

(200,000)

(200,000)

 Net Total 

580,000

$0

$580,000

Stakeholder Consultation

No external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to the works.

Risk Assessment

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer's recommendation has been

undertaken using the City's risk assessment framework, with the intention being to identify risks which, following implementation of controls, are identified as medium or greater. There are no such risks identified, with the preferred tenderer assessed as being capable of delivering the services to a suitable service level and in line with the agreed program.

Options

The Council may consider the following alternate options:

 

1)    To award the tender to an alternative tenderer/s. In the view of the Officers, this could result in the tender being awarded to a tenderer that is not most advantageous to the City.

2)    To not award the tender. This would mean going back out to tender, resulting in significant delays to the contract award and potential significant delays to the construction of the Hotel Site 1 Precinct car park and associated works.

For the reasons provided in this report, the abovementioned options are not recommended.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council accept the tender of Industrial Roadpavers (WA) Pty Ltd as the most advantageous to the City, subject to minor variations to be negotiated by the CEO, not exceeding the overall project budget.  A budget amendment is also requested.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The selection of the Successful Tenderer can be made immediately after the Council has endorsed the officer recommendation, subject to successful negotiation in accordance with the officer recommendation.


Council

386

12 February 2020

14.1

Attachment a

Landscaping Plan

 

 


Council                                                                                      391                                                           12 February 2020

ITEMS FOR DEBATE

 

12.12        Airport Advisory Committee - 29/01/2020 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT CAR PARKING FEES

STRATEGIC GOAL

5. TRANSPORT Smart, connective and accessible

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

5.1 Public transport services that meet the needs of the community.

SUBJECT INDEX

BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT

BUSINESS UNIT

Commercial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager, Commercial Services - Jennifer May

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

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

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   BMRA Proposed Public Parking Rates

Attachment b    Airport Public Parking Rates Comparison  

 

This item was considered by the Airport Advisory Committee at its meeting on 29 January 2020, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

Cr Henley foreshadowed an alternative motion prior to the meeting. In accordance with the City’s Standing Orders Local Law 2008, the Committee Recommendation was moved and considered first.

 

COUNCIL DECISION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

C2002/047              Moved Deputy Mayor K Hick, seconded Councillor R Paine

That the Council endorse:

1.         Public parking fees for the Busselton Margaret River Airport public car park as listed in the Busselton Margaret River Airport Public Parking Fees (attachment A); and

2.         The advertising of the Busselton Margaret River Airport Public Parking Fees in accordance with Local Government Act WA 1995 for 7 days.

CARRIED 5/4

For the  motion: Cr Hick, Cr Paine, Cr Cronin, Cr Carter, Cr Riccelli

Against the motion: Cr Henley, Cr Barrett-Lennard, Cr Cox, Cr Miles

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As a result of the introduction of Jetstar regular public transport (RPT) flights commencing in March 2020, it is anticipated there will be an increased demand in public car parking. As such, officers have undertaken a review of other airport fees and charges and recommend new public parking rates to be in effect prior to the commencement of Melbourne-Busselton RPT services on 25 March 2020.

 

BACKGROUND

In 2007, the first closed charter services for fly in fly out (FIFO) workers commenced from the BMRA with two flights per week. Since this time, the number of flights and passengers have fluctuated depending on the demand for FIFO workers by mining resource companies. In 2012/13, due to a considerable increase in FIFO charter flights (eight new flights within three months) and subsequent increase in FIFO passengers, parking at the BMRA had become an issue with some passengers paying for parking and many others parking on grassed areas within the BMRA precinct.

As such, officers presented a car parking upgrade proposal to Council in 2013, recommending the introduction of formalised parking areas, expansion and fencing of the existing gravel car park, and installation of car parking machines.

 

Officers also recommended replacing the existing parking rate based on a maximum period of three weeks parking with a daily parking rate. Council endorsed the recommendations and the secured gravel car park was constructed and the first pay machines installed in 2013/14.

 

In 2018, the landside component of the Airport Development Project included the construction of a new 422 bay public car park and installation of an automated car parking system which has been used by the FIFO passengers since June 2019. While the public car park is located 150m further away from the terminal building, the new car parking system offers patrons the ability to pay by EFTPOS and credit card and has been well received by FIFO workers.

 

Currently, parking in the public car park is charged at a rate of $5.00 per day (incl GST) which is the same rate that was applied for parking in the previous dedicated FIFO gravel car park and which was considered appropriate for that particular situation.

 

The number of closed charter flights to mine site airports located in the North West is currently 12 per week and a total of 14,344 departing passengers were recorded for the 2018/19 financial year. Car parking revenue for the 2018/19 financial year totalled $224,700.

 

In March 2020, RPT services will commence operating from the BMRA with the commencement of Jetstar Melbourne- Busselton direct flights. The introduction of RPT services will result in an increase in the number of people using the BMRA either as passengers, family and/or friends picking up or dropping off passengers. Regardless, it is expected there will be an increase in visitation and increased demand for public parking.

 

The new public car park will be the only short term and long term parking available to members of the public and FIFO passengers. Other parking areas such as drop off/ pick up zones, taxi, ride share, car hire, private charter vehicles and shuttle buses will have separate dedicated parking areas and be managed accordingly.

 

Hence with the commencement of RPT services and anticipated increased public parking, officers recommend the introduction of new public car parking fees while retaining the existing FIFO daily parking rate which will only be available to FIFO passengers.

OFFICER COMMENT

The development of the BMRA and the commencement of the Jetstar RPT flights in March will increase visitation and hence the requirement for formalised public car parking at the BMRA. The Development project has delivered the construction of the public car park and car parking systems which have been in use by FIFO passengers since June 2019. The increased car parking expected with the commencement of RPT services has identified a need to review the current parking rates and pricing structure, in particular paid public parking rates. On investigation of other regional airport and Perth Airport car parking fees, officers have considered the need to introduce paid public parking at rates that do not discourage the public from parking at the BMRA.

 

In determining the new public car parking fees, officers have collated car parking fees and charges from other regional airports within Western Australia and Perth Airport as a comparison (attachment B). Officers have also considered the frequency and number of flights per day, type of passengers (FIFO, community/residents and business) and facilities available at BMRA and other regional airports.

 


 

In summary, officers recommend the following:

 

·    the first hour of parking continues to be free of charge;

·    an increasing rate starting at $5 be charged after the first hour through to 24 hours at a rate of $10 for short term parking (less than 24 hours);

·    long term parking to start at $10 per day, decreasing to $5 per from day 31; and