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 August 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. 3

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Council Meetings. 8

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

Committee Meetings. 8

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

9....... RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS. 8

10..... QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION). 9

11..... Items brought forward.. 10

ADOPTION BY EXCEPTION RESOLUTION.. 10

12.1        Policy and Legislation Committee – 29/07/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY EVENTS AND RESCISSION OF COUNCIL POLICY 074: MARKETS. 11

12.2        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: LOANS. 33

12.3        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: COMPLAINTS HANDLING.. 42

12.4        Policy and Legislation Committee 29/07/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: ELECTED MEMBER TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. 54

12.5        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - PARKING LOCAL LAW 2020. 66

12.6        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - RECISSION OF COUNCIL POLICY: SHELTERS AND STRUCTURES ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. 158

12.7        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - PROPOSED CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY AND REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT POLICY. 163

12.8        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - LOCAL PLANNING POLICY REVIEW - REVOCATION OF LPP 1.4, LPP 6.2 AND LPP 6.3; INITIATION OF REVISIONS TO LPP 1.3 AND LPP 6.1; AND INITIATION OF NEW LPP ** : ADVERTISING SIGNS. 191

15.1        COMMUNITY SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITIES FUND - SMALL GRANTS ROUND APPLICATIONS JULY 2020. 254

17.1        COUNCILLORS INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 261

ITEMS FOR DEBATE. 265

13.1        AMENDMENT 45 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME AND PROPOSED STRUCTURE PLAN AFFECTING LOT 30 (70) MILLBROOK ROAD - CONSIDERATION FOR FINAL APPROVAL. 265

14..... Engineering and Work Services Report. 428

16..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 429

18..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 430

19..... urgent business. 430

20..... Confidential Reports. 430

21..... Closure. 430

 


Council                                                                                      4                                                                    12 August 2020

MINUTES

 

MINUTES OF A Meeting of the Busselton City Council HELD IN Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton, ON 12 August 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 5.30pm.

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 Mike Archer, Chief Executive Officer

Mr Oliver Darby, Director, Engineering and Works Services

Mr Paul Needham, Director, Planning and Development Services

Mrs Naomi Searle, Director, Community and Commercial Services

Mr Tony Nottle, Director, Finance and Corporate Services

Mrs Emma Heys, Governance Coordinator

Ms Melissa Egan, Governance Officer

 

Apologies:

 

Nil

 

Approved Leave of Absence:

 

Nil

 

Media:

 

“Busselton-Dunsborough Mail”

 

Public:

 

22

3.               Prayer

Nil

4.               Application for Leave of Absence 

Council Decision

C2008/072              Moved Councillor L Miles, seconded Deputy Mayor K Hick

That Cr Sue Riccelli be granted a Leave of Absence for the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on 23 September 2020.

CARRIED 9/0

 

5.               Disclosure Of Interests

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

 

·         Cr Ross Paine in relation to Agenda Item 13.1 Amendment 45 to Local Planning Scheme And Proposed Structure Plan Affecting Lot 30 (70) Millbrook Road - Consideration For Final Approval’.

 

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

 

The Mayor acknowledged and thanked the Chief Executive Officer for 10 years of service with the City of Busselton.

 

7.               Question Time For Public

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice

 

The following question was taken on notice at the Community Access Session held on 5 August 2020.

 

7.1             Ms Anne Ryan

 

Question

Did the Goose or Equinox pay a contribution to the development of their car parking?

 

Response (Mayor)

I can confirm that in 2001 the developers of the Equinox contributed $10,000 and in 2004 the developers of the Goose paid $30,500. As part of the $105,000 (+GST) annual rent payable by the developers of the Hilton Garden Inn, $100,000 (+GST) is based on the market rent value of the ground lease and $5,000 (+GST) is for the car park.

 


 

Question Time for Public

 

7.2             Ms Anne Ryan

 

Question

What will the financial health of the City in this current financial year look like, as the City could not charge the rate of 4.75% as detailed in the 10-year financial plan?

 

Response (Mayor)

We’ve set a budget with a $0 surplus and 0% rate increase. With the transfers that we are making to reserves, our Financial Health Indicators will be at a similar level. We have refused to manipulate those figures, as other local governments have done, by adjusting the time of transfers of cash to reserves from municipal accounts.

 

Question

I’m asking this question of all Councillors and ask them to respond individually, if this financial health record was yours personally, would you be considering borrowing a further $17 million and funding ongoing annual running costs of an unknown amount, bearing in mind if, as you state on your website, it is a like-for-like project of similar size to the Glasshouse in Port Macquarie that runs at an annual loss of $4.5 million?

 

Response (Cr Carter)

We choose to transfer our funds into reserves, which makes our Financial Health Indicators look a lot worse than they are. If it was my budget and putting that sort of money aside for future asset replacement, I would be more than comfortable having that situation.

 

Response (Cr Riccelli)

I agree the FHI is not an accurate figure because of the way our reserves work. With regards to the $17 million, I have made my views clear previously, but that is not based specifically on the Financial Health Indicator, that is based on my views around the cost, scale, timing and consultation.

 

Response (Cr Barrett-Lennard)

I am aware that the figures in the health check do not reflect the reserve accounts, which are healthy. I am willing to work with my fellow Councillors to come up with a plan and a solution, because it is not just one person’s opinion of what we should or should not do. We are here to work together. There are nine of us to make this decision, not just one.

 

Response (Cr Cronin)

With regards to the BPACC, we have had numerous discussions and have spent years in consultation. Your question is, is it the right time to build this building? It is the right time, because interest rates are extremely low and it acts as a stimulus to the economy. The Glasshouse in Port Macquarie brings in an estimated $15.8 million a year to the local economy. I think this supports the local residents and businesses. The cost has to be offset against the value it will bring to the community. We are the Events Capital of WA and we are hamstrung by our current facilities. This building will bring people to the accommodation and to the high street. No final decision has been made. When we get the final costs and plans, then we will make a decision.

 

 


 

Response (Cr Carter)

The City could pay for [the BPACC] in cash from our reserves. But this is an asset that will last for a long time and by using borrowings to fund that asset, we are spreading the cost of that asset over the users that will use it in the future.

 

Response (Cr Hick)

Talking about the Long Term Financial Plan, we will be reviewing it again in September or October, when we can have a look at some of those things. It is a living document and will be reviewed once we can start seeing how some of these figures start to come through in the hardship aspects we are working with.

 

7.3             Mr Gordon Bleechmore

                  

Question

In relation to Item 12.2 on tonight’s Agenda, Council policy ‘Loans’, are the Policy and Legislation Committee members fully across what this item entails?

 

Response (Mayor)

It was discussed at the Policy and Legislation Committee meeting.

 

Question

It talks about the financial ratio guidelines and the Local Government Operational Guideline No. 18. Could I get a guide as to what that says? I just want to get an understanding firstly from the Councillors. I want to make sure the Councillors understand firstly what they are asked here.

 

Response (Mayor)

Councillors consider, read and discuss items on an agenda. They should not be required to recall verbatim the contents of a report.

 

Question

I want to know what the Local Government Operational Guideline No. 18 is.

 

Response (Mr Nottle)

The Local Government Operational Guideline No. 18 outlines the seven ratios that are relevant to the local governments themselves. One of them is the debt coverage ratio, which is what is referred to in that Policy.

 

Question

There is a lot of talk about the Financial Health Indicators on the MyCouncil website, why haven’t you referred to that in your definitions as a guiding principle?

 

Response (Mayor)

It is a website set up by the local government department. It shows ratios which change on an almost annual basis.

 

Response (Cr Carter)

These ratios are artificial. It is unfair to take a single snapshot of something when you don’t know how it works.

 

Question

Cr Carter talked about a healthy budget and budgeting to a surplus. Do you think that’s a good way to budget – to budget to a surplus?

 

Response (Cr Carter)

We do not budget to a surplus. We budget for a balanced budget. We aim for a balanced budget every year. For as long as I have been on Council, the budget has come out with an underspend and we transfer dollars into reserves as a result of that underspend.

 

7.4             Mr Keith Sims

 

                   Question

At the Special Council Meeting on 27 July, I asked “will the Hilton be paying for their car park” and I was told “part of the car park is for public use and part of the car park is licensed for their use. We are not contributing any funds at all to the hotel development itself”. You told us that it was normal for the Council to pay for car parks and used the Goose and the Equinox as examples. But we have already heard tonight that they paid cash in lieu of parking. Will the microbrewery have to pay in lieu of parking and will they get designated parking rights like the Hilton?

 

                   Response (Mayor)

                   I understand that the microbrewery, in the terms of its lease, will be making a cash contribution in lieu of parking. Because of its location, it does not have parking immediately adjacent to it. The hotel is not making a cash contribution in lieu of parking, however, there is a provision in the lease for an amount over the leased area of the car park, which over 60 years will more than pay back the cost of that car park. Other businesses that contributed cash in lieu of car parking were the Equinox and the Goose, over 15 years ago in both instances, and their contributions were made prior to the significant upgrade of the foreshore and the quality and standard of car parking in that area. Neither of those businesses, despite both of those having undertaken renovations, have made a subsequent cash contribution in lieu of parking.

 

                   Question

                   So the microbrewery will pay a one-off payment for parking initially?

 

                   Response (Mayor)

                   They do pay a one-off cash contribution in lieu of parking, as do a lot of businesses throughout the CBD and the town centre of Dunsborough who are not able to provide sufficient parking. There is a cash contribution in lieu of parking, which goes into a reserve.

 

                   Question

                   Mr Archer said if the [Hilton] car park costs $200,000 and we are paying for half, that means they have had a $100,000 “subsidy” – that is a quote. Does that mean no-one gets exclusive use except for the Hilton?

 

                   Response (Mr Archer)

                   It’s not really a subsidy when they are paying it back over time. I accept I said that, but they have elected to pay us over 60 years. The other people are paying cash up front but they don’t get exclusive use of that part of the car park. That is correct, only Hilton has exclusive use of its part of the car park. But there was a requirement under the JDAP that they be provided with car parking. We did not have a choice.

 

 

                  

                  

8.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes

Previous Council Meetings

8.1             Minutes of the Council Meeting held 29 July 2020

Council Decision

C2008/073              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor P Cronin

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 29 July 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 July 2020

Council Decision

C2008/074        Moved Deputy Mayor K Hick, seconded Councillor J Barrett-Lennard

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

CARRIED 9/0

 

9.               RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS

Petitions

 

Nil

 

Presentations

 

Mr Chris Avis, Chairman Gungyulgup Valley Action Group, presented in relation to Item 13.1 ‘Amendment 45 to Local Planning Scheme and Proposed Structure Plan Affecting Lot 30 (70) Millbrook Road - Consideration For Final Approval’.

 

Mr Avis was opposed to the Officer’s Recommendation.

 

Mr Tim Koroveshi, representative of the applicant, presented in relation to Item 13.1 ‘Amendment 45 to Local Planning Scheme and Proposed Structure Plan Affecting Lot 30 (70) Millbrook Road - Consideration For Final Approval’.

 

Mr Koroveshi was in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation.

 

Mr Kevin Merrifield, the applicant, presented in relation to Item 13.1 ‘Amendment 45 to Local Planning Scheme and Proposed Structure Plan Affecting Lot 30 (70) Millbrook Road - Consideration For Final Approval’.

 

Mr Merrifield was in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation.

 

Deputations

 

Nil

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

Nil


 

11.             Items brought forward

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

 

Council Decision

C2008/075              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Deputy Mayor K Hick

 

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

               

12.1        Policy and Legislation Committee – 29/07/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY EVENTS AND RESCISSION OF COUNCIL POLICY 074: MARKETS

 

12.2        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: LOANS

 

12.3        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: COMPLAINTS HANDLING

 

12.4        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: ELECTED MEMBER TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

 

12.5        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - PARKING LOCAL LAW 2020

 

12.6        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - RECISSION OF COUNCIL POLICY: SHELTERS AND STRUCTURES ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

 

12.7        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - PROPOSED CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY AND REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT POLICY

 

12.8        Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - LOCAL PLANNING POLICY REVIEW - REVOCATION OF LPP 1.4, LPP 6.2 AND LPP 6.3; INITIATION OF REVISIONS TO LPP 1.3 AND LPP 6.1; AND INITIATION OF NEW LPP ** : ADVERTISING SIGNS

 

15.1        COMMUNITY SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITIES FUND - SMALL GRANTS ROUND APPLICATIONS JULY 2020

 

17.1        COUNCILLORS INFORMATION BULLETIN

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

 


Council                                                                                      13                                                                 12 August 2020

12.             Reports of Committee

12.1           Policy and Legislation Committee – 29/07/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY EVENTS AND RESCISSION OF COUNCIL POLICY 074: MARKETS

STRATEGIC GOAL

4. ECONOMY Diverse, resilient, prosperous

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Council Policies

BUSINESS UNIT

Community and Commercial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

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   Markets Policy

Attachment b    Events Policy

Attachment c    Events Policy - Tracked Changes

Attachment d   Events Policy - Committee Amendments

 

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

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.      Adopts the Events Policy as per Attachment B; and

2.      Rescinds Council Policy 074: Markets (Attachment A), effective immediately.

 

Council Decision and Committee RecommendatioN

C2008/076              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Deputy Mayor K Hick

That the Council:

1.      Adopts the Events Policy inclusive of Committee amendments as per Attachment D; and

2.      Rescinds Council Policy 074: Markets (Attachment A), effective immediately.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

Reasons:       The Committee recommended the additional wording at paragraph 5.7(g) to strengthen the objectives of the Policy in relation to the approval of applications to hold markets.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report recommends the rescission of Council policy 074: Markets (Markets Policy) (Attachment A), with the policy objectives and conditions having been incorporated into the City’s ‘Events’ Council Policy (Events Policy) (Attachment B).


 

BACKGROUND

The objective of the Markets Policy is to ensure that markets held on City owned or managed land (City Land) do not adversely impact on local business and are successful, sustainable and appropriately accessible to the public. The Markets Policy outlines market locations and frequencies and sets out the requirement for markets to be approved under the City’s Events Policy and event approval process. 

 

The Markets Policy was reviewed in 2013, in response to an increase in the number of requests to hold new markets in various locations across the district. It was again reviewed in November 2014 with minor amendments made to market locations in the district and to provide for alternative venues for markets in Busselton. 

 

At the May 2020 Policy and Legislation Committee meeting, officers recommended that the Markets Policy be rescinded to allow the City to respond more readily to the changes in market locations or to requests for new markets.  The Committee felt that Council should retain strategic oversight in relation to markets and instead requested, as per an option presented, that officers incorporate the objectives of the Markets Policy into the Events Policy.   

OFFICER COMMENT

The Events Policy was reviewed, amended and endorsed by Council at its meeting on 12 February 2020 (C2002/034). While markets have always been processed as an ‘event’, as part of the review of the Events Policy, the definition of ‘Event’ was expanded to expressly include Markets. 

 

Further to this, and as per the request of the Policy and Legislation Committee, it is recommended that the objectives and conditions of the Markets Policy are incorporated into the Events Policy. A track changes version is provided as Attachment C.


Markets are well established and function successfully within the City of Busselton, with the Markets Policy setting out maximum frequencies and locations for markets across the district. To provide for increased flexibility, while still maintaining appropriate oversight and control, it is recommended that the following changes are made as part of incorporating the conditions into the Events Policy:

·        the maximum number of markets to be held in Busselton at the Busselton Community Garden be increased from one per fortnight to one a week (on a Saturday);

·                the maximum number of markets to be held in Dunsborough be increased from one per fortnight to one per week (on a Saturday), to be held at either Lions Park or at the Dunsborough Playing Fields;

·                the maximum number of markets to be held in Vasse be increased from one per fortnight to one per week (on a Saturday).

 

Additionally, it is recommended that the CEO have the ability to consider and approve applications for markets to be held at other locations.

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. The Council does this on recommendation of a committee it has established in accordance with section 5.8 of the Act.


 

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 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 a medium or greater level have been identified.

Options

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

1.         Choose to retain the current maximum frequency and locations for markets.

2.         Make other changes to the Events Policy.

CONCLUSION

The contents and objectives of the Markets Policy are proposed to be contained in the Events Policy.  It is recommended that the Events Policy is adopted as proposed and that the Markets Policy be rescinded.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The Events Policy will be updated and the Markets Policy rescinded and removed from the website within one week of Council’s endorsement.  


Council

14

12 August 2020

12.1

Attachment a

Markets Policy

 


Council

20

12 August 2020

12.1

Attachment b

Events Policy

 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

21

12 August 2020

12.1

Attachment c

Events Policy - Tracked Changes

 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

32

12 August 2020

12.1

Attachment d

Events Policy - Committee Amendments

 


 


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      35                                                                 12 August 2020

12.2           Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: LOANS

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Policy

BUSINESS UNIT

Finance

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

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Council Policy 048 - Loans

Attachment b    Council Policy: Loan Facilities (Proposed)

Attachment c    Council Policy: Loan Facilities (Proposed) With Committee Amendments

 

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

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopts the revised policy Loan Facilities (Attachment B) (the Policy) to replace the existing Council policy 048: Loans at Attachment A.

 

Council Decision and Committee Recommendation

C2008/077              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Deputy Mayor K Hick

 

That the Council adopts the revised policy Loan Facilities, inclusive of Committee amendments as per Attachment C, to replace the existing Council policy 048: Loans at Attachment A.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

Reasons:       The Committee recommended the deletion of paragraph 5.4, being superfluous to the objectives of the Policy; and amendments to paragraphs 5.9 and 5.10 for the purposes of clarity.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A review of Council Policy 048 – Loans has been undertaken, and having been updated to the new Council policy format and with minor amendments made for readability and clarity, a revised Council policy: Loan Facilities (the Policy) (Attachment B) is now presented to Council for endorsement.

BACKGROUND

Council Policy 048: Loans was last reviewed in January 2018 with changes made relating to the criteria for Self Supporting Loan applications. Other minor changes made included acknowledgment of the Long Term Financial Planning process and changes in respect to Financial Ratios.

 


 

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 and Guidelines. Council Policy 048: Loans has been reviewed by officers in this context and having been revised to ensure its ongoing relevance to the City’s strategic objectives, has been transferred into the new Council policy template and minor amendments made for readability, is now presented for endorsement.

OFFICER COMMENT

Officers have completed a review of the Policy with changes being made to acknowledge the relevance of this Policy in regard to the Integrated Planning Framework and also to ensure no loan facility should cause the City to be outside of the recommended financial ratios pertaining to debt.

Self-Supporting Loans

Council policy 048: Loans stated that it did not apply to self-supporting loan facilities, however then went on to outline what would be considered in a self-supporting loan application, creating confusion. For clarity, officers have amended this and more clearly outlined the criteria in which an application for a self- supporting loan would be considered.

Purpose and Scope

Amendments have been made to streamline the Policy purpose as well as provide a clearer scope to guide the reader. Reference to intergenerational funding and equity when considering loans has also been included.

Financial Ratios Guideline

Reference has been made to give due regard to the Department of Local Government Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) Operational Guideline 18 – Financial Ratios. This Guideline sets out basic and advanced standards for local governments in relation to a variety of key ratios.

 

In particular, the Debt Service Cover Ratio (Debt Ratio) is arrived at by calculating the annual operating surplus before interest and depreciation divided by principal and interest. A basic standard as recommended by DLGSC is 2.0.

 

These proposed changes to the Policy provide a more contemporary and prudent policy to ensure financial responsibility in relation to loan funding.

Statutory Environment

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

Relevant Plans and Policies

The City has a policy framework which was developed and endorsed by Council in response to the recommendations of the 2017 Governance Service Review. 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 a medium or greater level have been identified.

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could:

1.         Recommend that the Policy remain unchanged;

2.         Recommend alternative amendments; or

3.         Recommend that the Policy be withdrawn.

CONCLUSION

The Policy is presented for Council endorsement, and has been updated to the new Council policy format, with minor amendments made for readability and clarity. Amendments made include acknowledging the relationship to the integrated planning framework and financial ratios pertaining to debt.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

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


Council

37

12 August 2020

12.2

Attachment a

Council Policy 048 - Loans

 


 


Council

39

12 August 2020

12.2

Attachment b

Council Policy: Loan Facilities (Proposed)

 


 


Council

41

12 August 2020

12.2

Attachment c

Council Policy: Loan Facilities (Proposed) With Committee Amendments

 


 


Council                                                                                      44                                                                 12 August 2020

12.3           Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: COMPLAINTS HANDLING

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Policy

BUSINESS UNIT

Information Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Information Services - Kris Davis

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   Council Policy: Complaints Management (Proposed)

Attachment b    Council Policy 012: Complaints Handling (Current)

Attachment c    Complaints Management (Proposed) With Committee Amendments

 

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

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopts the revised policy Complaints Management at Attachment A to replace the existing Council policy ‘012: Complaints Handling’ at Attachment B.

 

Council Decision and Committee Recommendation

C2008/078              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Deputy Mayor K Hick

 

That the Council adopts the revised policy Complaints Management, inclusive of Committee amendments as per Attachment C, to replace the existing Council policy ‘012: Complaints Handling’ at Attachment B.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

Reasons:       The Committee recommended an amendment to the definition of “Complaint”; and recommended an amendment to paragraph 5.3 for reasons of consistency.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents a revised Council policy: Complaints Management (Attachment A) (the Policy), with officers recommending it replace the existing Council policy 012: Complaints Handling (Attachment B).

BACKGROUND

Council policy 012: Complaints Handling was implemented on 24 April 2012 (C1204/104) as a guide for Council and the City to manage complaints. The policy underwent a review on 12 October 2016 (C1610/095) at which time a reference to dealing with vexatious and/or malicious complainants was removed. 


 

The reason for this change was officers considered that the complaint investigation process will determine whether or not a complaint is substantiated. Identifying a complaint as vexatious or malicious was considered to be unnecessary and would not add to the process or assist to uphold the objectives of the Policy. 

 

An operational practice and procedure (CUS 100 Complaints Handling Practice and Procedure) (the OPP) was developed by officers in 2012, and was the basis for a training program for City staff. A complaint register and a reporting mechanism was also established to improve complaints handling.

 

In 2017, as part of the regular practice of reviewing Council policies, a review was carried out on Council policy 018: Customer Service. It was established that the contents of this Customer Service policy would be more appropriately contained as a separate charter. At its Ordinary Meeting on 28 June 2017, Council resolved (C1706/154) to cancel Council policy 018: Customer Service and adopt the Customer Service Charter (the Charter) in its place. The Charter, in conjunction with Council policy 012: Complaints Handling and the OPP, provide overarching guidance for customer service provision across the City, including in the management of complaints.

OFFICER COMMENT

The Policy has been transferred into the new Council policy template and reviewed by officers with the intent of refining the policy statement in accordance with the recommendations of the 2017 Governance Service Review (GSR). The Policy has been retitled “Complaints Management”, which is considered a more appropriate description of the purpose and scope of the Policy.

Purpose and Scope

The Policy’s purpose and scope remains substantially the same, with the wording having been refined to provide greater clarity.

 

The Policy reflects the City’s strategic intent and approach to customer service and the management of complaints. The addition of the words “timely, impartial and equitable” emphasises the importance of complaint resolution as being “crucial to ensuring the delivery of quality services”.

 

Additionally, the statement “Council and the CEO will support and promote a culture where complaints are seen as opportunities to learn and improve service delivery” is intended to focus the Policy, and directs Councillors and officers to act in accordance with a culture that values continuous improvement and quality service provision.

Operational Detail

Council policy 012 Complaints Handling contains a significant amount of detail which is already contained in, or is better suited to, operational practices and procedures, or other relevant documentation, including the Customer Service Charter, or the Elected Members and Employees Codes of Conducts. This operational detail has been removed from the Policy, maintaining the separation between the City’s policy and operational documents. 

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 policies. The Council does this on recommendation of a Committee it has established in accordance with section 5.8 of the Act.

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 and work procedures.

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.         Require further amendments to the Policy.

2.         Retain the Policy in its current form.

CONCLUSION

The Policy has been transferred into the new Council policy template and reviewed by officers with the intent of refining the Policy and is presented for Council’s consideration and endorsement.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

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


Council

46

12 August 2020

12.3

Attachment a

Council Policy: Complaints Management (Proposed)

 


 


Council

50

12 August 2020

12.3

Attachment b

Council Policy 012: Complaints Handling (Current)

 


 


 


 


Council

53

12 August 2020

12.3

Attachment c

Complaints Management (Proposed) With Committee Amendments

 


 


 


Council                                                                                      54                                                                 12 August 2020

12.4           Policy and Legislation Committee 29/07/2020 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: ELECTED MEMBER TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Council Policy

BUSINESS UNIT

Governance Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Executive Assistant to Council - Lisa Haste

Governance Coordinator - Emma Heys

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   Elected Member Training and Professional Development Policy

Attachment b    Elected Member Training and Professional Development Policy - marked up version

Attachment c    Elected Member Training and Professional Development Policy with Committee Amendments

 

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

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopts the revised Council Policy: Elected Member Training and Professional Development, as per Attachment A.

 

Council Decision and Committee Recommendation

C2008/079              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Deputy Mayor K Hick

 

That the Council adopts the revised Council Policy: Elected Member Training and Professional Development, inclusive of Committee amendments as per Attachment C.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

Reasons:       The Committee recommended the various amendments to the Policy for the purposes of clarity and improved readability.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents a revised ‘Elected Member Training and Professional Development’ Council Policy (Attachment A) (the Policy) for Council approval. The Policy inclusive of tracked changes is included at Attachment B to highlight the recommended amendments.

 

With a number of training and development opportunities spanning over multiple years, or costing more than the shared annual allowance, changes have been made to the Policy to allow for the allowance to be rolled over into the next financial year, allowing Elected Members the opportunity to undertake a broader range of professional development opportunities.

 

BACKGROUND

The Policy was last reviewed on 24 April 2019 as a result of the Governance Service Review. Changes included the removal of the ability for unused funds to be carried forward into the next financial year. Since then, however, professional development opportunities have been recognised which exceed the specified annual allowance and are carried out over a number of years. In response, officers have informally discussed with Council the ability to isolate unspent funds from a financial year, for use in the next one, and are now formally proposing a change to the Policy to allow for this.

OFFICER COMMENT

The Policy has been amended to allow for unspent funds from one year to be held in the reserve and used in the following financial year, with no more than two financial years’ worth of the allowance to accrue. To assist in managing this, the Policy has also been amended to provide for a fixed allowance of $3,000 per Elected Member per financial year. This was discussed as an option when the Policy was last reviewed and rejected due to the unknown costs of mandatory training that needs to be undertaken by new or re-elected members. 

 

Six Elected Members are currently completing the mandatory training, at a total cost to date of $6,262.35. This has been through a combination of face to face and online delivery. Four of the five modules are now available online and the fifth one will be available shortly. Each online module has a cost of $195, with future costs not expected to exceed $975 per Elected Member, on the basis of WALGA continuing with this mode of delivery.   

 

An amount of $3,000 per annum, with the ability to roll over unspent funds to the next financial year, is recommended as adequate to provide for both mandatory and ongoing professional development needs. In order to facilitate this change, officers have expanded the purpose of the Professional Development Reserve to include Elected Members. The Elected Members’ Funds will be partitioned off from City Officer’s funds in the Reserve.

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 recommendation of a committee it has established in accordance with section 5.8 of the Act.

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 practices.

 

Financial Implications

Adoption of the Policy has no immediate budget implications, with the City’s annual budget containing an amount to meet the Policy requirements. The cost of mandatory training is now known and, with the ability to use the unspent allocation of funds in the next financial year, the opportunity to participate in a greater range of training and development is enhanced.

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 choose not to specify a monetary figure for the allowance per financial year and instead continue to define allowance as an equal share of the total budget.

CONCLUSION

The proposed amendments to the Policy provide greater flexibility to Elected Members in accessing a greater range of professional development and training opportunities.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

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


Council

59

12 August 2020

12.4

Attachment a

Elected Member Training and Professional Development Policy

 


 


 


Council

62

12 August 2020

12.4

Attachment b

Elected Member Training and Professional Development Policy - marked up version

 


 


 


Council

63

12 August 2020

12.4

Attachment c

Elected Member Training and Professional Development Policy with Committee Amendments

 


 


 


Council                                                                                      67                                                                 12 August 2020

12.5           Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - PARKING LOCAL LAW 2020

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Local Laws

BUSINESS UNIT

Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Legal Officer - Briony McGinty

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

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   Current Local Law with Mark-ups

Attachment b    Proposed Local Law

Attachment c    Proposed Local Law with Committee Amendments

 

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

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1)    Commences the law-making process for the City of Busselton Parking Local Law 2020, the purpose and effect of the local law being as follows:

Purpose: To regulate and control the movement and parking of vehicles throughout the district.

Effect: To provide a well-regulated parking environment for all persons in the district.

 

2)    Authorises the CEO to carry out the law-making procedure under section 3.12(3) of the Local Government Act 1995, by:

(a)  Giving Statewide public notice and local public notice of the Parking Local Law; and

(b)  Giving a copy of the Parking Local Law and public notice to the Minister for Local Government.

3)    Directs the CEO, after the close of the public consultation period, to submit a report to the Council on any submissions received on the Parking Local Law to enable the Council to consider the submissions made and to determine whether to make the local law in accordance with section 3.12(4) of the Local Government Act 1995.

 


 

Council Decision and Committee Recommendation

C2008/080              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Deputy Mayor K Hick

 

That the Council:

1)    Commences the law-making process for the City of Busselton Parking Local Law 2020 inclusive of Committee amendments as per Attachment C, the purpose and effect of the local law being as follows:

Purpose: To regulate and control the movement and parking of vehicles throughout the district.

Effect: To provide a well-regulated parking environment for all persons in the district.

 

2)    Authorises the CEO to carry out the law-making procedure under section 3.12(3) of the Local Government Act 1995, by:

(a)  Giving Statewide public notice and local public notice of the Parking Local Law inclusive of Committee amendments as per Attachment C; and

(b)  Giving a copy of the Parking Local Law inclusive of Committee amendments as per Attachment C and public notice to the Minister for Local Government.

3)    Directs the CEO, after the close of the public consultation period, to submit a report to the Council on any submissions received on the Parking Local Law to enable the Council to consider the submissions made and to determine whether to make the local law in accordance with section 3.12(4) of the Local Government Act 1995.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

Reasons:       The Committee recommended the additional words to paragraph 3.9(b), to make it clear it does not apply to bicycles; and the deletion of paragraph 2.3(2) for the reasons this condition would not be enforced in practice by City officers.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) requires that local laws be reviewed every 8 years. The City’s Shire of Busselton Parking Local Law (Current Local Law) was gazetted in 2011 and is due for review. The City has prepared an updated version which incorporates recent legislative changes impacting on the local law as well as updating infringement penalties which have not been amended for nearly 9 years.

 

It is recommended that the Council initiate the law-making process and authorise the CEO to commence advertising the proposed City of Busselton Parking Local Law 2020 (Parking Local Law), which would repeal the Current Local Law and replace it with the Parking Local Law.

 

BACKGROUND

Section 3.16 of the Act requires that local laws be reviewed every 8 years. The Current Local Law was gazetted on 30 November 2011 and came into effect shortly thereafter. Since that time, there have been some minor changes to state legislation relating to the regulation of motor vehicles, which impact on the Current Local Law.

 

Both the Current Local Law and the Parking Local Law are based on the relevant WALGA model that, among other things, ensures these local laws are consistent with WA road traffic laws, including the Road Traffic Code 2000.

The Parking Local Law seeks to provide the City with the ability to effectively regulate and control the movement and parking of vehicles throughout the district in order to provide a well-regulated parking environment for all persons in the district.

OFFICER COMMENT

The Current Local Law has operated effectively since its gazettal. The Current Local Law is based on the WALGA model but was modified to accommodate the particular circumstances of the locality. WALGA have not amended their model local law during this time. However, during its internal review, City officers have identified five instances where amendments to the local law should be made.

(1)       The Local Government (Parking for People with Disabilities) Regulations 2014 (the Regulations) governs parking for people with disabilities. The terminology in the Regulations applying to disability parking permits has been amended necessitating minor amendments to the local law. Further, the Regulations provide for infringements for people who contravene disabled parking provisions. Therefore, the equivalent offence provisions contained within the Current Local Law are redundant and can be removed. 

(2)       Similarly, the definition of “taxi” has been moved to the Road Traffic Code 2000.

(3)       Clause 3.1(5) of the Current Local Law, which creates the offence of parking a motorcycle or bicycle in a parking stall, has been removed. This clause is not currently enforced by rangers and, in relation to bicycles, presents obvious difficulties in the identification of offenders.

(4)       The modified penalties for offences have not been updated since the Current Local Law’s inception in 2011. Some modified penalties in the Parking Local Law have not seen an increase, there have been minor increases in some modified penalties (which is still below a CPI increase over the relevant period), and some offences have seen a moderate increase due to their potentially more significant impact on safety or amenity.

(5)       References to “Shire” should be updated to “City”.

 

City officers also considered introducing clauses to provide for residential parking permits. Currently, there are only two known properties within the district with no off-street parking. There is on-street parking available to these two properties, however, it is timed parking. The residents of the two properties have provided their vehicle registration numbers to the City and rangers manage this issue administratively. If the City were to introduce a residential parking permit system, this would require significant amendments to the local law and would need to be accompanied by a policy to guide decision-making under those provisions of the local law. It would also create a right of review for those people who are aggrieved by a decision to refuse a residential parking permit. Given the small number of properties affected, and the ease with which rangers can manage the situation, the introduction of residential parking permits is not recommended at this stage.

Given the small number of proposed changes to the Current Local Law, the City considered whether the changes should be made via an amendment local law or creating a new local law. Largely for administrative ease, it is considered that a new local law is preferable. It is simpler to draft (thus avoiding referencing errors in the amendments) and circumvents future challenges regarding the preparation of consolidated local laws.

Attachment 1 is the Current Local Law showing the suggested changes as mark-ups. Attachment 2 is the Parking Local Law which would be advertised for comment if the Officer Recommendation is accepted.


 

Statutory Environment

Local Government Act 1995

Section 3.5 of the Act provides Council with the head of power for making local laws, which stipulates:

A local government may make Local Laws under this Act prescribing all matters that are required or permitted to be prescribed by a local law, or are necessary or convenient to be so prescribed, for it to perform any of its functions under this Act.

The procedure for making local laws is set out in sections 3.12 to 3.17 of the Act and regulation 3 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (WA). The person presiding at a Council meeting is to give notice of the purpose and effect of a proposed local law by ensuring that:

·        the purpose and effect of the proposed local law is included in the agenda for that meeting; and

·        the minutes of that Council meeting include the purpose and effect of the proposed local law.

The purpose and effect of the Parking Local Law is as follows:

Purpose

To repeal Shire of Busselton Parking Local Law and to extend to the Council the ability to regulate and control the movement and parking of vehicles throughout the district.

Effect

To provide a well-regulated parking environment for all persons in the district.

Statewide and local public notice is to be given by advertising  the Parking Local Law in accordance with the requirements of sections 3.12(3) and (3)(a) of the Act. The submission period must run for a minimum period of six weeks after which Council, having considered any submissions received, may resolve to make the local law as proposed or make a local law that is not significantly different from what was proposed.

The Local Government Act Review has led to amendments to the requirements and particulars for public notice under sections 1.7 and 1.8 of the Act. The changes are awaiting proclamation pending finalisation of regulations covering public notice requirements. Should the amendments be proclaimed during this period, appropriate modifications to the process will be adopted.

Parliamentary Scrutiny

Section 42 of the Interpretation Act 1984 allows the WA State Parliament to disallow a local law, which is a mechanism to guard against the making of subsidiary legislation that is not authorised or contemplated by the empowering enactment, has an adverse effect on existing rights or ousts or modifies the rules of fairness. Parliament has appointed the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (JSC) which is a committee of State politicians from both houses of the Western Australian Parliament, to undertake an overseeing role on its behalf, which includes the power to scrutinise and recommend the disallowance of local laws to the Parliament. After gazettal, a copy of the Parking Local Law will be sent to the JSC who will examine the local law and determine whether or not it complies with abovementioned criteria.


 

Relevant Plans and Policies

The City of Busselton Consolidated Parking Scheme determines parking stalls, parking stations and parking areas created under the Current Local Law. Where a sign has been erected to give effect to a determination under the Current Local Law, it is deemed to have been erected by the local government under the Parking Local Law and will continue to have effect.

Financial Implications

Costs associated with the advertising and gazettal of the Parking Local Law will come from the legal budget. These costs are unlikely to exceed $2,000 and there are sufficient funds in the legal budget for this purpose.

 

In terms of the increase in modified penalties, the City is unlikely to see any significant increase in income, given the City’s approach to its regulatory functions. Proposed increases are minor and based on a review of the City’s existing amounts and a comparison of other southwest local governments.

 

Making and implementing the Parking Local Law should not have any other financial implications for the City.

Stakeholder Consultation

Should Council resolve to commence the process of making the Parking Local Law, public submissions will be invited as part of the statutory consultation process prescribed under sections 3.12(3) and (3a) of the Act.

 

The submission period must run for a minimum period of 6 weeks after which, the Council having considered any submissions received, may resolve to adopt the proposed local law or a law which is not significantly different.

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 choose to vary the provision of the Parking Local Law in any number of ways. However, for the reasons outlined in this report, the Parking Local Law is the form of local law recommended at this stage.

 

There will be further opportunity for considering and making changes to the Parking Local Law following the public consultation process outlined above, provided the changes are not significantly different from what is currently proposed. If any changes are of a significant nature the Parking Local Law would need to be re-advertised.

CONCLUSION

The Current Local Law requires review. It is outdated and should be repealed and replaced by an updated local law in line with current needs, expectations and operational requirements. The Parking Local Law will provide the City with adequate and effective controls for the purpose of managing and regulating parking throughout the district. 

 

 


 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Within two weeks of the Council decision to commence the law-making process, the Parking Local Law will be advertised for public comment. The statutory consultation period is a minimum of six weeks and following the close of the advertising period a report will be submitted to the Council for further consideration which, depending on the number and nature of submissions received, could be within three months.

 


Council

76

12 August 2020

12.5

Attachment a

Current Local Law with Mark-ups

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

128

12 August 2020

12.5

Attachment b

Proposed Local Law

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

157

12 August 2020

12.5

Attachment c

Proposed Local Law with Committee Amendments

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council                                                                                      160                                                               12 August 2020

12.6           Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - RECISSION OF COUNCIL POLICY: SHELTERS AND STRUCTURES ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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   CP246: Shelters and Structures on Local Government Property

 

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

 

Council Decision and Committee Recommendation and Officer Recommendation

C2008/081              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Deputy Mayor K Hick

That the Council rescinds Council Policy 246: Shelters and Structures on Local Government Property (Attachment A), effective immediately.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report recommends the rescission of Council policy 246: Shelters and Structures on Local Government Property (the Policy) (Attachment A), with the Policy having been reviewed as part of the City’s overall review of its Council policies. It is recommended the Policy be rescinded as 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 Operational Practice.

BACKGROUND

In 2015, Council received a petition in relation to the semi-permanent placement of shelters on beaches for the duration of the summer period. Council did not support the placement of shelters for private use on beaches overnight. A policy that supported Council’s position was developed and endorsed in March 2016. 

 

The objective of the Policy was to provide consistent enforcement of the Council’s position in relation to structures on beaches. The Policy sought to keep beaches a part of the natural environment, whilst still facilitating the use of structures which were required as part of other authorised events.

 

The Policy was reviewed in April 2017, with the main changes being to provide greater clarity in the management of structures erected on local government property. Definitions were amended and information relating to the removal of unauthorised structures was included. The reviewed Policy continued to support Council’s position on the management of structures.

 

Officers have again reviewed the Policy in accordance with the City’s policy review schedule and have found its contents to be more aligned to the functions already undertaken by officers in their administrative capacities.

 

The City has 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

The Policy, underpinned by the City of Busselton Local Government Property Local Law 2010, prohibits the retention of structures (including beach shades and windbreaks) on beaches overnight without the owner first obtaining a permit from the City.

 

Clause 3.14 of the City of Busselton Property Local Law 2010 states:

                (3) A person must not without a permit –

…(b) erect any tent, camp, hut or similar structure on local government property other than a beach shade or windbreak erected for use during the hours of daylight and which is dismantled during those hours on the same day.

 

The Policy refers to the use of structures which are required as part of other authorised activities, such as events, by stating:

…applications for the retention of other structures on local government property overnight will form part of the event application process…

 

The management of structures on local government property is embedded in existing administrative practices and procedures, including the evaluation and approvals process of permit applications and the evaluation and approvals process of event applications. In addition, an internal guideline that sits within the Ranger and Emergency Services Activity Unit deals with the removal of structures.

 

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 information more aligned to the administrative function of issuing permits, and the operational function of dealing with unauthorised/abandoned structures on local government property and particularly the beach, rather than a strategic statement or direction of the Council.

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 policies. The Council does this on recommendation of a Committee it has established in accordance with section 5.8 of the Act.

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 246: Shelters and Structures on Local Government Property; and

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

 

CONCLUSION

Following a review of the Policy, it has been determined by officers that the Policy is not strategic in nature, and is already being administered by the City through existing processes and procedures. This report recommends the Policy be rescinded.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

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


Council

162

12 August 2020

12.6

Attachment a

CP246: Shelters and Structures on Local Government Property

 


 


Council                                                                                      164                                                               12 August 2020

12.7           Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - PROPOSED CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY AND REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT POLICY

STRATEGIC GOAL

3. ENVIRONMENT Valued, conserved and enjoyed

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

3.4 Climate change risks and impacts are understood, acknowledged and responded to through appropriate planning and community education.

SUBJECT INDEX

Policy

BUSINESS UNIT

Environmental Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Senior Sustainability/Environment Officer - Mathilde Breton

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   Draft Climate Change Policy

Attachment b    WALGA  Climate Change Policy Statement

Attachment c    Environment Policy (Draft Tracked Changes)

Attachment d   Draft Climate Change Policy Endorsed by Committee

 

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

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.    Adopt the Climate Change Policy as shown at Attachment A; and

2.    Adopt the (Revised) Environment Policy as shown at Attachment C.

 

Council Decision and Committee Recommendation

C2008/082              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Deputy Mayor K Hick

 

That the Council:

1.    Adopt the Climate Change Policy inclusive of Committee amendments as per Attachment D; and

2.    Adopt the (Revised) Environment Policy as per Attachment C.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 

Reasons:       Due to an administrative error, the correct version of the draft climate change policy was not included in the Agenda. The correct version was circulated to Committee Members during the meeting for consideration. Amendments to the draft policy made during the meeting were subsequently agreed to by Committee Members.

 


 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This reports presents a draft Council Climate Change Policy (Policy) (Attachment A) for consideration, in response to a resolution made at Council’s 22 April 2020 meeting. The Policy is consistent with the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) Policy Statement on Climate Change (WALGA Statement) (Attachment B), adapted to the City’s policy template, governance framework and context in terms of the climate change related challenges facing the City. Consequential changes to the Council’s Environment Policy are also recommended (see Attachment C).

BACKGROUND

At its 22 April 2020 meeting, Council resolved (C2004/001):

That the Council:

1.    Signs the Western Australian Local Government Association Climate Change Declaration (Attachment A);

2.    Continues to support the community in reducing the impacts of climate change and their greenhouse gas emissions; and

3.    Request that Officers draft a City of Busselton Council Policy, ‘Climate Change’, which is to be consistent with the Western Australian Local Government Association Policy Statement on Climate Change (Attachment B) and present to Council for endorsement by 31 July 2020, subject to public accessibility to the meeting being possible.

 

With regard to Resolution 1 above, it is expected that the City will sign the WALGA Climate Change Declaration by July 2020. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, there had been difficulties obtaining the hard copy Climate Change Declaration signed by WALGA (for subsequent signing by the Mayor, on behalf of the City).

 

With respect to Resolution 2 above, work continues on a number of fronts, including through encouragement of active transport and coastal adaptation work.

 

With regard to Resolution 3 above, the WALGA Statement, which the Policy reflects, was endorsed by WALGA State Council on 4 July 2018, following consultation with member local governments. It represents the consolidated view of the local government sector and forms the basis of WALGA’s climate change advocacy.  The WALGA Statement sets out that:

 

•    Local Government acknowledges:

–   The science is clear: climate change is occurring and greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the dominant cause.

–   Climate change threatens human societies and the Earth’s ecosystems.

–   Urgent action is required to reduce emissions, and to adapt to the impacts from climate change that are now unavoidable.

–   A failure to adequately address this climate change emergency places an unacceptable burden on future generations.

•    Local Government is committed to addressing climate change.

•    Local Government is calling for:

–   Strong climate change action, leadership and coordination at all levels of government.

–   Effective and adequately funded Commonwealth and State Government climate change policies and programs.

The current WALGA Statement was updated from an earlier 2009 version to take account of developments in the scientific understanding of climate change, international and national political developments, and the perception of an increasing urgency for effective climate change adaptation and mitigation action.

 

Prior to the adoption of the WALGA Statement, the City had expressed its support through the South-West WALGA Zone, as well as through the 2016 adoption of the Environment Strategy (see ‘Relevant Plans and Policies’). The City has also been and remains pro-active in both the climate change mitigation and adaptation spaces. Mitigation effort includes continued roof-top solar roll-out, reflected in the Energy Strategy. Adaptation effort includes the development of the City’s ‘Coastal Adaptation Strategy’, recognising that the City is highly vulnerable to coastal processes and sea level rise.

OFFICER COMMENT

The report considered by Council in April contains further background and rationale for developing a Climate Change Policy. Given that, and given that the Council Resolution explicitly asks for presentation of a draft policy, consistent with the WALGA Statement, there is not seen to be a further need to set out a rationale for such a policy in this report. The focus here, therefore, is on explaining how officers have sought to reflect the WALGA Statement in a policy consistent with the City’s policy template, governance framework and context.

 

The operative part of the Policy (i.e. the ‘Policy Statement’) consists of three parts, each briefly described below:

1.         The WALGA Climate Change Declaration (which forms part 1.0 of the WALGA Statement) is replicated in 5.1-5.3, with the word ‘City’ replacing the words ‘Local Government’. The Declaration was carefully worded to represent the views of the local government sector in WA, and the ‘acknowledgement’ component is also reflective of the stated policy positions of both government and opposition parties at both State and Federal level over a considerable period of time. 5.1 is a broad statement of intent, and inclusion in the Policy to reflect the WALGA Statement is seen as important.

2.         5.4 seeks to identify and recognise the climate change related risks that are or may have a significant impact on the City, its residents and ratepayers. The aim is to make the Policy a little more ‘real’, rather than simply talking about climate change in the abstract. It should be noted that most, if not all, of the identified risks, are risks that exist even in the absence of climate change, but which would be made more acute by climate change. The risks identified, are as follows (and which have been identified through numerous studies in the past):

a.         Coastal erosion and inundation;

b.         Bushfire;

c.         Extreme weather events (storm, cyclone, heatwave, drought, flood);

d.         Water availability, for both human and environmental use;

e.         Changes to wetlands and waterways;

f.          Loss of biodiversity;

g.         Human health impacts (due to, amongst other things, an increase in vector-borne diseases and heatwaves); and

h.         Increased transport and energy costs (due to efforts to mitigate climate change).

3.         5.5 indicates the City’s support for the WALGA Statement more broadly, including the important advocacy role that local governments and WALGA can play on behalf of local communities – but without directly including that content in the City’s own policy.

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 and Guidelines. Given the City’s policy framework and context, it was not considered appropriate to include further detail within a policy document.

Statutory Environment

The Officer Recommendation supports the general function of a local government under the Local Government Act 1995 to provide for the good government of persons in its district.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The Officer Recommendation aligns to the following adopted plans or policies:

 

- Environment Policy (2018), sets out that, inter alia:

5.2 The City will maintain an Environment Strategy to provide direction on how the City will meet the environmental aspirations of the community, as set out in the Strategic Community Plan, and to guide the City’s activities.

 

- City of Busselton Environment Strategy (2016) includes:

Strategic Action 4.6 “Develop a climate change declaration for the City.

 

- City of Busselton Energy Strategy (2019) sets out that, inter alia:

Vision: “Minimise energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions, through using energy as efficiently as possible and optimising our approach to generation and use of renewable energy, and to maximise returns to ratepayers through becoming a net energy generator”.

Targets:

·   To generate 100% of the City of Busselton electricity needs from renewable sources by 2030.

·   To reduce City of Busselton corporate carbon emissions per capita to 50% on 2017/18 levels by 2030.

·   Develop efficiency targets for fleet and plant by 2025.

 

The City has a policy framework which was developed and endorsed by Council in response to the recommendations of the 2017 Governance Services Review. 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. Implementation of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures can, however, have financial implications, both positive and negative. For instance, should the Council choose to move to an ongoing and more widespread FOGO bin service, there would be costs associated with doing so. Or, in another context, if the City failed to protect infrastructure from coastal processes and sea level rise (i.e. coastal erosion and inundation, salinisation of groundwater), there would be associated costs (and also costs associated with protection, if the Council had chosen to do that).

Stakeholder Consultation

No external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to this matter. Council Resolution C2004/001, which requested officers prepare a Climate Change Policy, was in response to a petition received by the Council in February 2020. The resolution of the Council set a timeframe for presentation of this report, which was to allow the Policy to be presented to Council once public accessibility to meetings becomes possible due to COVID-19 restrictions being lifted, as is now the case. That was in acknowledgment of the public interest in the matter of climate change.

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.         Amend the wording of the Policy.

2.         Decide not to endorse a Climate Change Policy, but this would be contrary to Council Resolution C2004/001.

CONCLUSION

Having a Climate Change Policy will signal even more clearly than is currently the case that the City takes the issue of climate change seriously and is committed to reducing and managing the impacts it is having on its operations and community. It also provides a clearer framework to support the extensive climate change mitigation and adaptation work already underway.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

If adopted by the Council, the final Policy will be uploaded onto the City’s website within 14 days of Council resolution.  


Council

170

12 August 2020

12.7

Attachment a

Draft Climate Change Policy

 


 


 


Council

173

12 August 2020

12.7

Attachment b

WALGA  Climate Change Policy Statement

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

187

12 August 2020

12.7

Attachment c

Environment Policy (Draft Tracked Changes)

 


 


Council

190

12 August 2020

12.7

Attachment d

Draft Climate Change Policy Endorsed by Committee

 


 


 


Council                                                                                      202                                                               12 August 2020

12.8           Policy and Legislation Committee - 29/07/2020 - LOCAL PLANNING POLICY REVIEW - REVOCATION OF LPP 1.4, LPP 6.2 AND LPP 6.3; INITIATION OF REVISIONS TO LPP 1.3 AND LPP 6.1; AND INITIATION OF NEW LPP ** : ADVERTISING SIGNS

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 1.4 : Single Dwelling Design

Attachment b    LPP 6.2 : Drainage Infill Contributions

Attachment c    LPP 6.3 : Mosquito Control

Attachment d   Current LPP 1.3 : Private Jetties and Boat Lifting Structures

Attachment e    Proposed LPP 1.3 : Private Jetties and Boat Lifting Structures - Amended

Attachment f    Current LPP 6.1 : Stormwater Management

Attachment g   Proposed LPP 6.1 : Stormwater Management - Amended

Attachment h   Proposed LPP ** : Advertisements and Advertising Signs - New

 

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

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

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

(a)       LPP 1.4 : Single Dwelling Design (Attachment A);

(b)       LPP 6.2 : Drainage Infill Contribution (Attachment B); and

(c)       LPP 6.3 : Mosquito Control Contribution (Attachment C).

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.

3.         Initiates for the purposes of public consultation the following amended Local Planning Policies as set out below:

(a)       LPP 1.3 : Private Jetties and Boat Lifting Structures (Attachment E); and

(b)       LPP 6.1 : Stormwater Management (Attachment G).

4.          Initiates for the purposes of public consultation a new Local Planning Policy – LPP ** : Advertisements and Advertising Signs (Attachment H); and

5.          Advertise the initiated Local Planning Policies in a newspaper circulating within the Scheme area for four weeks 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.

 

Council Decision and Committee Recommendation

C2008/083              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Deputy Mayor K Hick

 

That the Council:

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

(a)       LPP 1.4 : Single Dwelling Design (Attachment A);

(b)       LPP 6.2 : Drainage Infill Contribution (Attachment B); and

(c)       LPP 6.3 : Mosquito Control Contribution (Attachment C).

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.

3.         Initiates for the purposes of public consultation the following amended Local Planning Policies as set out below:

(a)       LPP 1.3 : Private Jetties and Boat Lifting Structures (Attachment E); and

(b)       LPP 6.1 : Stormwater Management (Attachment G).

4.          Defer consideration of a new Local Planning Policy – LPP ** : Advertisements and Advertising Signs (Attachment H) to the next Committee meeting; and

5.          Advertise the initiated Local Planning Policies in a newspaper circulating within the Scheme area for four weeks 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

 

Reasons:       The Committee have requested further information and time to consider the proposed Local Planning Policy: Advertisements and Advertising Signs.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City is undertaking a comprehensive review of all its local planning policies (LPPs). It is proposed, as part of this report, that the following LPPs be revoked for the reasons outlined within this report:

1.         LPP 1.4 : Single Dwelling Design; and

2.         LPP 6.2 : Drainage Infill Contribution; and

3.         LPP 6.3 : Mosquito Control Contribution.

In addition to the above, it is proposed that amendments to the following LPPs be initiated for the purposes of public consultation:

1.         LPP 1.3 : Private Jetties and Boat Lifting Structures; and

2.         LPP 6.1 : Stormwater Management.

 

Furthermore, it is proposed that a new LPP be initiated for the purposes of public consultation:

1.              LPP ** : Advertisements and Advertising Signs.

It is noted that since the previous report to the Council on the LPP review, the numbering of the LPPs has been changed. The change was administrative only and therefore no resolution by Council was required.

BACKGROUND

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations) provide that LPPs may be prepared by a local government in respect of any matter relating to planning and development within the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (Scheme) area.

 

The intention of an LPP is to provide guidance to applicants/developers and the community in regard 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 State Planning Policy 7.3 - Residential Design Codes (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 regard in the assessment of development applications 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.

 

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 the LPPs were re-formatted into an easier-to-read template, taking the LPPs from a single manual structure and separating them into individual policies. These changes were adopted by Council at its meeting on 27 March 2019 (C1903/053).

 

The City has now commenced the second stage of the review process and is currently reviewing the content and relevance of all LPPs. Due to the number of LPPs and the complexity of issues which need to be addressed, this review has been broken down into a number of stages. It is proposed as part of this report that a number of LPPs be revoked, amended or initiated. A comprehensive description of each of the LPPs being considered is set out in the officer comment section of this report.

OFFICER COMMENT

1.   Policies Recommended For Revocation

LPP 1.4 : Single Dwelling Design

In 2007, the Council endorsed an LPP that combined the former ‘Dual Occupant Development’ and ‘Residential Development’ policies into a single policy, the ‘Residential Design Guidelines’ policy. This policy was created to deal with a number of issues relating to residential development not covered by the R-Codes, including clarifying what constitutes a single dwelling. At the time, it was considered that the planning and building framework did not adequately define what constitutes a single dwelling (i.e. the distinction between a ‘Single House’ and a ‘Grouped Dwelling’ was unclear) and therefore it was considered necessary to introduce a policy clarifying the matter.

 

Under the R-Codes, there are three main types of ‘Dwellings’ being ‘Single House’, ‘Grouped Dwelling’ and ‘Multiple Dwelling’. These types of ‘Dwellings’ are defined within the R-Codes and, under clause 25 of Part 4 (General development requirements) of the Regulations, these definitions are to be read as part of the Scheme. They therefore have the same weight as land use definitions within the Scheme.

 


 

A recent State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) case, Corp and Town of Cambridge [2019] WASAT 65, dealt with this matter in relation to the land use classification of a dwelling. This case dealt with a development application that was refused by the Town of Cambridge, with one of the reasons for refusal being that the design of the dwelling resulted in it being considered to be two dwellings. The dwelling proposed two ‘wings’, each with a kitchen, living room, bathrooms and bedrooms, and therefore was considered by the Town to be two Grouped Dwellings (which was not permissible, as the minimum lot sizes for each dwelling at that density were unable to be met). While the dwelling proposed some shared elements, being a shared entry, laundry and garage, it was considered by the SAT that this was not sufficient for the dwelling to be considered a Single House, as the manner in which the dwelling would function was that of two separate dwellings. The case found that:

There are no set criteria that are to be worked through in making an assessment of this type. There can be no fixed or rigid principles.  In each instance, it will be an evaluative judgment and each application will turn on its own facts.

 

The Corp decision referenced an earlier case in Victoria, Casey City Council v Kelly [2004] VCAT 1838, which found along the same lines:

It is not just the physical characteristics of development that will determine the purpose for which land is used but rather the way in which that development functions or is used that will determine its purpose.

 

When assessing a development application, it is considered that the definitions within the R-Codes are sufficient for the City to determine the use class of a development and, as per the Corp case (referenced above), each development is required to be assessed on a case–by-case basis. Therefore, it is considered that this Policy is redundant and should be revoked. It is proposed that the City’s understanding of what constitutes a ‘Dwelling’ (in plain English terms, with appropriate disclaimers) will be addressed by the City via an information sheet.

 

LPP 6.2 : Drainage Infill Contribution

In 2014, the Council adopted two new Local Planning Policy provisions - LPP 6.1 : Stormwater Management and LPP 6.2 : Drainage Infill Contributions Provisions (C1410/244). These LPPs replaced three earlier Council policies, namely 182/3 (Vasse Diversion Drain Contributions), 183/3 (Local Drainage Contributions) and 184/3 (Main Drain Contributions).

 

The ‘Building Code of Australia’ requires stormwater to be disposed of in a way that avoids the likelihood of damage or nuisance to any other property however it does not specify the rate at which the stormwater is required to be retained. 

 

LPP 6.2 was introduced to collect contributions in situations when stormwater could not be contained on site as in accordance with the volumetric requirements required under LPP 6.1 as the discharge of stormwater off-site placed additional pressure on the City’s Infrastructure.

 

In a practical sense, the City always requires compliance with the volumetric requirements of the deemed-to-comply criteria of LPP 6.1 and does not perform an assessment under the design principles of the Policy.  Furthermore, a number of issues arose from applying the contributions to development, including concerns regarding the consistency at which the contributions were applied and inadequate funds being collected to pay for the works necessary.  It is noted that for larger scale development or subdivision, District, Local or Urban Water Management Plan/Strategy provides for the management of stormwater to local government requirements. 

 


 

More importantly, however, Draft State Planning Policy 3.6 ‘Infrastructure Contributions’ (Draft SPP 3.6), which is a seriously entertained document, specifies that a monetary contribution for public utilities (which includes drainage works) is only permitted where the matter has been included in a Developer Contribution Plan (DCP). As the City has no DCP for drainage infill, when Draft SPP 3.6 is adopted in final form (which is understood to be imminent) no suitable head of power to require a monetary contribution for drainage works would be in place and, as such, LPP 6.2 would be invalid.

 

It is therefore proposed that LPP 6.2 be revoked and LPP 6.1 be amended to simplify the requirements and remove the ability for insufficient stormwater infrastructure to be provided on site.

 

LPP 6.3 : Mosquito Control Contribution

LPP 6.3 : Mosquito Control Contribution requires a contribution towards mosquito management to be paid at the time of subdivision/commencement of development for every additional lot or dwelling within the policy area. The purpose of this contribution was to enable the City to effectively plan for the provision or extension of mosquito control operations that were likely to be required as a consequence of development in the area.

 

The current contribution rate is $40.78 per additional dwelling/lot. The funds collected as part of this contribution have ceased to form part of the funding utilised for the City’s ongoing mosquito management activities. It is considered that the administrative burden on the City and applicants associated with collecting these developer contributions in disproportionate to the relatively low monetary value of this contribution. Furthermore, there is no consideration of contributions of this nature in draft SPP 3.6 and as the City has no DCP for this contribution, when Draft SPP3.6 is adopted in final form there would be no suitable head of power to require a monetary contribution for mosquito management and, as such, LPP 6.3 would be invalid.

 

It is, therefore, recommended that the Policy be revoked.

 

2.   Policies Recommended To Be Revised

LPP 1.3 : Private Jetties and Boat Lifting Structures

LPP 1.3 : Private Jetties and Boat Lifting Structures was adopted by the Council in 2011 and provides a framework for the assessment and approval of jetties and boat lifting structures within waterways. 

 

A number of amendments to LPP 1.3 are proposed including a number of formatting changes which are proposed to simplify and shorten the Policy. The main modification to the existing policy is to allow for the consideration of mechanical boat lifting structures. Currently, under part 4.2 ‘Boat Lifting Devices and Structures’, mechanical boat lifting structures (including davits) are not permitted. This provision was included in the Policy as at the time that the original Policy was endorsed in part because the Port Geographe Landowners’ Association did not support mechanical boat lifting facilities. 

 

It is proposed that the assessment criteria be updated so as to allow for the consideration of mechanical boat lifting structures where it can be demonstrated that the structure will not detrimentally impact on the amenity of adjoining owners or the navigability, accessibility and useability of the canal.  Given that davits are used to move larger type vessels from land to water, a provision has been included which specifies that davits will only be supported in ‘Marinas’ (as defined by the Scheme) where it can be demonstrated that the structure will not detrimentally impact on the amenity of the locality.

 

It is noted that noise from a development and land use, including but not limited to noise from the use of equipment and machinery (including the use of a boat lifting device), is to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

The remainder of the key content contained within the Policy Statement section of the policy remains largely unchanged. However, the length of the policy has been reduced significantly through:

·                The inclusion of the term ‘Jetty’ within the listed interpretations to include a Finger, Floating Land backed and L or T shaped structure;

·                The amalgamation of individual Jetty provisions under the subheading ‘4.2 Jetties’ and the relocation of provisions under ‘4.1 General Provisions’;

·                The removal of the subheading ‘4.3 Consultation with adjoining landowners and community groups’; and

·                The removal of attachments on the basis that this information is able to be provided to applicants via an information sheet.

 

The draft Policy has been reviewed by a Senior Planning Project Officer from the Marine division of the Department of Transport, who expressed support for the changes, in particular the updated wording with reference to consideration of mechanical boat lifting structures.

 

LPP 6.1 : Stormwater Management

As mentioned above, in 2014 the Council adopted two new Local Planning Policy Provisions; LPP 6.1: Stormwater Management and LPP 6.2 : Drainage Infill Contributions Provisions (C1410/244). LPP 6.1 : Stormwater Management was introduced to provide guidance to the community and industry on standards for on-site stormwater management including volumetric requirements.

 

LPP 6.1 currently includes a deemed-to-comply criteria, and design principles, for on-site stormwater management for different types of development. Under the current Policy, where on-site stormwater management methods was not in accordance with the volumetric requirements of the deemed-to-comply criteria of the Policy, the Policy enabled an assessment against the relevant design principles and included a requirement for the payment of contributions in accordance with LPP 6.2.

 

The volumetric requirements for on-site stormwater management systems is unchanged from the current Policy requirements however as LPP 6.2 is proposed to be revoked, for the reasons outlined above, the ability to provide insufficient stormwater management on site as well as any reference to LPP6.2 within this Policy, has been removed. Therefore, it is proposed as part of this revised Policy that that all stormwater be contained on site for a 1-year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) for Single Houses (and associated outbuildings) on lots less than 4,000m2, which equates to 1m3 of stormwater storage per 65m2 of impervious surfaces. For all other types of development on lots less than 4,000m2 all stormwater is required to be contained on site for a 5-year ARI, which equates to 1m3 of stormwater storage per 40m2 of impervious surfaces. The greater level of stormwater retention for development other than Single House is required, as generally these types of development have a larger proportion of impervious surfaces and therefore have a greater amount of stormwater run-off.

 

In some areas, lots are provided at the subdivision stage with a Drainage Property Connection which is a device used to discharge stormwater from a private lot directly into an integrated street conveyance and treatment system. In these instances, sufficient stormwater management systems in accordance with the rates prescribed under the policy are still required to be provided within the lot however the overflow from these systems may be directed into the Lot Drainage Connection should be installed provide a silt trap is provided to collect and remove waste.

 


 

For lots greater than 4,000m2, no set volumetric requirement is prescribed as it is considered that there is generally adequate setback and/or soft landscaped areas for the stormwater to be managed on-site without storage and infiltrations systems. Stormwater is still required to be contained on site such that it does not cause erosion to any building or adjoining properties. These standards are in keeping with the practices that are currently undertaken by the City.

 

It is therefore proposed that LPP 6.1 be amended to simplify the requirements and remove the ability for contributions to be made to allow stormwater infrastructure to lower standards to be provided on site.

 

3.   Recommendation For New Policy

LPP ** : Advertisements and Advertising Signs

Advertising Signs are defined under this Policy to include “permanent structure/s used for the purpose of advertisement, or to draw attention to, a product, business, person or event”. It is not proposed that this Policy be applicable to portable signs as these are controlled by the Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2015 and guided by Council Policy - Portable Advertising Signs in Public Places.

 

Currently, the only controls applicable to Advertising Signs are contained with clauses 4.36.4, 4.41 and Schedule 11 – Exempted Advertising of the Scheme as outlined below:

·                Clause 4.36.4 outlines requirements for entry statements within the Rural and Viticulture and Tourism zones; and

·                Clause 4.41 outlines that Advertisements are prohibited if they advertise goods and services which are not produced, displayed or offered for sale, or which is otherwise not relevant to, the land upon which the advertisement is located; and

·                Schedule 11 includes specific types and requirements for Advertising Signs that if met are exempt under clause 6.1 Permitted Development of the Scheme from requiring development approval.

 

In the absence of the prohibition under Clause 4.41 of the Scheme, there would be a widespread proliferation of such signage, including the potential for third party billboard advertising. It is considered that this type of advertising would significantly affect the visual amenity of the District, in particular along Bussell Highway and the entrances into the Busselton city centre and Dunsborough town centres. It is considered, under the current controls, the City has been relatively successfully in maintaining the natural and rural landscapes along these highly visible tourism routes providing a significant ‘point of difference’ relative to Perth and all other major regional centres in Western Australia. These are considered to be significant benefits that arise from that ‘point of difference.’

 

If an advertisement does not comply with the requirements of clause 4.36.4 or Schedule 11, there are no further controls in place and development applications are required to be assessed on a case by case basis against the “matters to be considered” of the Regulations. A lack of further requirements has resulted in uncertainty regarding what the City considers to be acceptable when determining a development application for an Advertising Sign which require approval.

 

It is therefore proposed as part of this Policy that provisions relating to the dimensions and maximum number of signs be introduced. Requirements for different zones are proposed to reflect the different land uses permissible in those areas, as well as the desired amenity of each zone.

 

The Policy also proposes to set requirements for signage which incorporates illumination. Currently the City does not have any specific controls around the illumination of advertisements. The Policy makes the distinction between animated signage and static illumination of advertisements.


 

Animated Signage is defined under the Policy as follows:

Animated Signage includes, but is not limited to, any signage or its content that is electronic and includes flashing or “chasing” lights, as well as video signs, plasma and LCD screen signs.

 

It is proposed under the Policy that Animated Signage is not permissible for commercial purposes and is only permitted for not-for-profit organisations, schools and/or other authorities when used to display community messages. The City’s Local Planning Strategy, Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy and associated State Planning Policy 6.1 seek, inter alia, to support the retention of the existing visual and environmental character and amenity of the District and discourage commercialisation along travel route corridors. In line with the strategic direction provided in these documents, the proposed Policy intends to limit animated signage as it is considered that it would detract from the desirable visual amenity of the area and once approved.

 

Further, is would be very difficult to control what advertisements are displayed and ensure compliance with Clause 4.41 of the Scheme and to differentiate between an appropriate and inappropriate advertisement.  As with ‘billboard’ type signage, it is considered that the primary beneficiary of allowing this kind of signage would be large businesses, in many cases state-wide or national chains, and such advertising would undermine visual amenity and local character. There are also substantial practical difficulties with enforcing controls that relate to dynamic content in signs. Note that the City has been approached on several occasions, including recently, seeking support for LED or similar signage.

 

Static Illumination is defined under the Policy as follows:

Static Illumination means an internal or external light source that lights any type of sign. The light cannot chase, flash or have any moving features or animations and includes light boxes, LED and Neon signs.

 

It is proposed that Static Illumination of signage be permissible only where the application has been able to demonstrate to the City that there will be no detrimental impact on surrounding residential properties.

 

As part of the preparation of this Policy, the City has considered the requirements of other local governments within Western Australia, including the City of Bunbury and various Perth Metropolitan local governments.  In addition, officers have reviewed the City’s former local law relating to signs and other advertising devices (which was repealed in 2015) as well as previous development approvals for various types of signs within the City. It is considered that the provisions proposed within this Policy are consistent with the current requirements that are generally applied by the City when assessing development applications.

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 (the Scheme) and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), especially Schedule 2 (Deemed Provisions) of the Regulations, which form part of the Scheme.


 

Division 2 — Local planning policies

3.         Local planning policies

(1)       The local government may prepare a local planning policy in respect of any matter related to the planning and development of the Scheme area.

(2)       A local planning policy —

(a)  may apply generally or in respect of a particular class or classes of matters specified in the policy; and

(b)  may apply to the whole of the Scheme area or to part or parts of the Scheme area specified in the policy.

(3)       A local planning policy must be based on sound town planning principles and may address either strategic or operational considerations in relation to the matters to which the policy applies.

(4)       The local government may amend or repeal a local planning policy.

(5)       In making a determination under this Scheme the local government must have regard to each relevant local planning policy to the extent that the policy is consistent with this Scheme.

4.         Procedure for making local planning policy

(1)       If the local government resolves to prepare a local planning policy the local government must, unless the Commission otherwise agrees, advertise the proposed policy as follows –

(a)      publish a notice of the proposed policy in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme area, giving details of —

(i)    the subject and nature of the proposed policy; and

(ii)   the objectives of the proposed policy; and

(iii)  where the proposed policy may be inspected; and

(iv) to whom, in what form and during what period submissions in relation to the proposed policy may be made;

(b)      if, in the opinion of the local government, the policy is inconsistent with any State planning policy, give notice of the proposed policy to the Commission;

(c)       give notice of the proposed policy in any other way and carry out any other consultation the local government considers appropriate.

(2)       The period for making submissions in relation to a local planning policy must not be less than a period of 21 days commencing on the day on which the notice of the policy is published under subclause (1)(a).

(3)       After the expiry of the period within which submissions may be made, the local government must —

(a)      review the proposed policy in the light of any submissions made; and

(b)      resolve to —

(i)    proceed with the policy without modification; or

(ii)   proceed with the policy with modification; or

(iii)  not to proceed with the policy.

(4)       If the local government resolves to proceed with the policy, the local government must publish notice of the policy in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme area.

(5)       A policy has effect on publication of a notice under subclause (4).

(6)       The local government —

(a)      must ensure that an up-to-date copy of each local planning policy made under this Scheme is kept and made available for public inspection during business hours at the offices of the local government; and

(b)      may publish a copy of each of those local planning policies on the website of the local government

Relevant Plans and Policies

The policies affecting this proposal include:

·                State Planning Policy 3.6 – Development Contributions; and

·                Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy and associated State Planning Policy 6.1: Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge; and

·                City of Busselton Local Planning Strategy 2019.

State Planning Policy 3.6

State Planning Policies are made under section 26 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. The Western Australian Planning Commission and local governments must have due regard to the provisions of adopted policies in preparing planning schemes and making decisions on planning matters.

 

State Planning Policy 3.6 (SPP 3.6) sets out the principles and considerations that apply to development contributions for the provision of infrastructure in new and established urban areas, as well as the form, content and process to be followed in preparing a development contributions plan.

 

The policy provides the capacity to obtain development contributions towards community infrastructure (i.e. contributions that go beyond delivery of public open space or traditional ‘hard’ infrastructure such as roads, drainage and reticulated water, energy or telecommunications services) either by way of a development contributions plan or by a voluntary agreement between the developer and the relevant local government.

 

The objectives of the policy are:

i.          to promote the efficient and effective provision of public infrastructure and facilities to meet the demands arising from new growth and development;

ii.         to ensure that development contributions are necessary and relevant to the development to be permitted and are charged equitably among those benefiting from the infrastructure and facilities to be provided;

iii.        to ensure consistency and transparency in the system for apportionment, collecting and spending development contributions; and

iv.        to ensure the social well-being of communities arising from, or affected by, development.

 


 

Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy and Associated State Planning Policy 6.1

The Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy (LNSRS) is an overarching planning document that guides the future planning and development of all the land within the local government areas of the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River and the City of Busselton. The LNSRS was released in May 2019 with the following vision for the Leeuwin-Naturaliste sub-region:

The Leeuwin-Naturaliste sub-region to continue to develop and be managed in a manner consistent with the character, amenity and value of the natural and built environments, and the efficient use and equitable distribution of resources.

 

State Planning Policy 6.1 (SPP 6.1) includes a statement of intent to conserve the unique landscape values of the Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge, including those along travel route corridors. Both documents support the retention of the visual and environmental values along these routes and discourage commercialisation along travel route corridors. The City would consider that third party billboards along these routes would not be in keeping with the intention of LNSRS and SPP 6.1 and that controls regarding advertising signage, including restrictions on animated signage, proposed in the new LPP will reinforce intent of these documents. 

Local Planning Strategy 2019

The purpose of the LPS is to:

·                set out the long-term (25 years-plus) broad planning direction for the whole of the District of the City of Busselton;

·                provide a strategic rationale for decisions related to the planning and development of the District;

·                apply state and regional planning policies relevant to the strategy; and

·                provide a strategic rationale for decisions related to the planning and development of the District. The LPS consists of five ‘planning themes’ with Theme 4 : Environment, landscape and heritage relating to the natural, rural and urban landscapes of the District.

 

Strategies j) of Theme 4 states as follows:

j)    Protect and enhance the visual character of the District by avoiding the further commercialisation of land-use and development visible from: i) key public vantage points (e.g. scenic lookouts, trails) within National Parks and conservation parks; and ii) regional roads, strategic local roads and travel route corridors (as defined in the Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy); as well as providing, wherever possible and consistent with maintaining landscape and visual character values, screening landscaped buffers where development is being undertaken in locations visible from these sites, roads and travel routes.

 

It is considered that the controls regarding advertising signage, including restrictions on animated signage, is in keeping with the intent of the LPS.

 

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.

 

It is proposed that consultation will be for a period of four weeks and will be undertaken as follows:

·                Targeted letters/emails to key stakeholders within the region (where applicable);

·                Notices in the local newspaper for four consecutive weeks, as well as on the City’s website, including the subject and nature as well as objectives of the proposed LPP; and

·                A portal is to be created using the City’s YourSay platform for the online lodgment of submissions.

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 Officer Recommendation, the Council could:

1.         Choose not to initiate one or more of the LPPs recommended to be initiated as part of this report;

2.         Modify those LPPs before initiation; and/or

3.         Choose not to revoke one or more of the LPPs recommended for revocation.

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 proposed LPPs as outlined in the consultation section of this report above.  It is expected that this will commence within one month of the Council decision. A subsequent report will be presented to the Council following consultation outlining the nature of any submissions received and any necessary modifications to the LPPs (where applicable).

 

 


Council

204

12 August 2020

12.8

Attachment a

LPP 1.4 : Single Dwelling Design

 


 


Council

212

12 August 2020

12.8

Attachment b

LPP 6.2 : Drainage Infill Contributions

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

216

12 August 2020

12.8

Attachment c

LPP 6.3 : Mosquito Control

 


 


 


 


Council

226

12 August 2020

12.8

Attachment d

Current LPP 1.3 : Private Jetties and Boat Lifting Structures

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

229

12 August 2020

12.8

Attachment e

Proposed LPP 1.3 : Private Jetties and Boat Lifting Structures - Amended

 


 


 


Council

243

12 August 2020

12.8

Attachment f

Current LPP 6.1 : Stormwater Management

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

246

12 August 2020

12.8

Attachment g

Proposed LPP 6.1 : Stormwater Management - Amended

 


 


 


Council

251

12 August 2020

12.8

Attachment h

Proposed LPP ** : Advertisements and Advertising Signs - New

 


 


 


 


 



 

 


Council                                                                                      258                                                               12 August 2020

15.             Community and Commercial Services Report

15.1           COMMUNITY SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITIES FUND - SMALL GRANTS ROUND APPLICATIONS JULY 2020

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

CSRFF JULY 2020 ROUND

BUSINESS UNIT

 Community and Commercial Development

REPORTING OFFICER

Senior Sport and Recreation Project Officer - Brendan McNally

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   Site Plan - Sir Stewart Bovell Sports Park

Attachment b    Site Plan - Busselton Horse and Pony Club Inc.  

 

Council Decision and Officer Recommendation

C2008/084              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Deputy Mayor K Hick

 

That the Council endorses:

1.   The priority rankings and ratings of the applications to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries’ Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund as:

a)            Ranking 1 of 2, project rating A : City of Busselton, Sir Stewart Bovell Sports Park, sporting talent hub masterplan; and

b)           Ranking 2 of 2, project rating B: Busselton Horse and Pony Club Inc., upgrade of the all-weather dressage arena on Reserve 32066, 310 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate.

2.   An application to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries’ Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund, July 2020, for:

a)            A $14,348 contribution towards the of the Sir Stewart Bovell Sports Park sporting talent hub masterplan;

b)           A $7,157 contribution towards the Busselton Horse and Pony Club Inc. upgrade dressage arena.

3.   The allocation of up to $10,000 towards the Busselton Horse and Pony Club Inc. application to upgrade the all-weather dressage arena, to be funded from the 2020/21 community assistance program budget.

CARRIED 9/0

En Bloc

 


 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Each year, local government authorities are required to rate and prioritise the Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) submissions received within their municipality.

 

The CSRFF 2020/21 July small grant round applications must be submitted by local government authorities to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) by 14 August 2020. The purpose of this report is to meet the CSRFF criteria, by outlining the submissions received for projects within the City and request that Council rates and ranks the applications prior to forwarding to DLGSC for final consideration.

 

BACKGROUND

The CSRFF program is administered by DLGSC and provides financial assistance, one third of the total estimated project cost, to well-planned sport and recreation facility projects that will maintain or increase physical activity or result in a more rational use of facilities.

 

In 2020/21, the total project value for the small grant round is up to $300,000 (excluding GST).

 

In order to assist with the evaluation of submissions to ensure projects are viable and appropriate, DLGSC has developed an assessment criteria. Accordingly, each submission is to be assessed against those criteria and local government authorities are required to rate and prioritise local submissions using the following guide:

 

RATE

DESCRIPTION

A

Well planned and needed by the municipality

B

Well planned and needed by the applicant

C

Needed by the municipality, more planning required

D

Needed by the applicant, more planning required

E

Idea has merit, more preliminary work needed

F

Not recommended

 

Applications for the current funding round must be assessed and submitted to the South West Office of DLGSC no later than 14 August 2020.

 

During September to November 2020 the applications, along with others received throughout the State, will be evaluated and ranked by relevant State Sporting Associations and the CSRFF Assessment Panel. Successful applications are announced following this assessment with funding expected to be available around December 2020.

 

There are two (2) applications for this round of funding:

1.         The City of Busselton - Sir Stewart Bovell Sports Park, sporting talent hub masterplan;

2.         Busselton Horse & Pony Club Inc., upgrade of dressage arena at Reserve 32066, 310 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate.

OFFICER COMMENT

Sir Stewart Bovell Sports Park

Owned in freehold by the City of Busselton, Sir Stewart Bovell Sports Park plays an important role in providing outdoor sporting facilities for the region and district. Home to hockey, Aussie Rules, cricket, football (soccer) and diamond sports the 20ha sports park, together with 4ha of land purchased to the south, forms part of project site to identify opportunities for future developments (Attachment A).

The Sport and Recreation Facilities Strategy 2020-2030 (SRFS) identifies that a masterplan of Sir Stewart Bovell Sports Park is a key priority for the City of Busselton district and broader region. This project will ensure the development of the sports park is well planned, fit for purpose and guide the future staged development of the park to capitalise on the opportunity for a sports talent hub in the region.

 

This project will assess the opportunities, including the West Coast Eagles Football Club MoU and land available to the south of SSBSP, and will lead to a well-planned, considered and informed approach to future grant applications and new/upgraded infrastructure.

 

Busselton Horse & Pony Club Inc. (BHPC)

The BHPC propose to upgrade the current dressage arena to enable the club to increase membership and provide sporting infrastructure so more people can participate in horse sports training and events (Attachment B). This project was first proposed as part of the March 2020 Community Bids workshop before the program was paused and refocused to response and recovery initiatives.

 

Parts of the existing arena have been assessed as unsafe and this is limiting the number of members able to participate at any one time. The upgrades will make the area an all-weather surface, increase the carrying capacity and safety of this equestrian arena and will enable up to 6 riders to participate in any one lesson.

 

SRFS also notes horse sports and highlights the need to focus on the safety of playing surfaces and increasing the carrying capacity of arenas and trails.

 

Assessment Summary

As part of the CSRFF process, local governments are required to undertake an internal assessment of projects against CSRFF key principles of facility provision.

 

Sir Stewart Bovell Sports Park (SSBSP): The following is a summary of the CSRFF criteria assessed for the sporting talent hub masterplan application.

 

Assessment criteria

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Not relevant

Project justification

ü

 

 

Planned approach

ü

 

 

Community input

ü

 

 

Management planning

ü

 

 

Access and opportunity

ü

 

 

Design

 

 

ü

Financial viability

ü

 

 

Co-ordination

ü

 

 

Potential to increase Physical activity

ü

 

 

Sustainability

ü

 

 

 


 

Busselton Horse & Pony Club Inc. (BHPC): The following is a summary of the CSRFF criteria assessed for the upgrade of dressage area application.

 

Assessment criteria

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Not relevant

Project justification

ü

 

 

Planned approach

ü

 

 

Community input

ü

 

 

Management planning

ü

 

 

Access and opportunity

ü

 

 

Design

ü

 

 

Financial viability

ü

 

 

Co-ordination

ü

 

 

Potential to increase Physical activity

ü

 

 

Sustainability

ü

 

 

 

Recommendation Summary

Ranking 1 of 2:                   Sir Stewart Bovell Sports Park, sporting talent hub masterplan

Rating:                                  A: Well planned and needed by the municipality

CSRFF request:                  $14,348 (ex GST)

 

Ranking 2 of 2:                   Busselton Horse and Pony Club Inc., upgrade of dressage area

Rating:                                  B: Well planned and needed by the applicant

CSRFF request:                  $7,157 (ex GST)

Statutory Environment

The Officer Recommendation supports the general function of a local government under the Local Government Act 1995 to provide for the good government of persons in its district.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The Officer Recommendation aligns to the following adopted plans and policies:

 

·        City of Busselton Community Strategic Plan 2017 (review 2019).

 

·        Sport and Recreation Facilities Strategy 2020-2030 (SRFS) – provides a long term strategy to inform, guide and underpin the planning and provision of indoor and outdoor community sporting and recreation facilities to meet existing and future needs of the district.

 

·        Social Plan 2015-2025 - a key goal of this Plan is to “create needed, quality, sustainable recreation and leisure facilities and services for our community”.

Financial Implications

The City of Busselton has allocated $46,000 in the 2020/21 municipal budget to undertake site investigations at SSBSP and the development of a masterplan. The proposed funding breakdown is as follows:

Contribution towards project

Amount (ex GST)

City of Busselton

$28,695

CSRFF

$14,348

Total project cost

$43,043

The application received from the BHPC for the upgrade of the dressage arena at a total cost of $21,473 (ex GST), one third of which is requested through CSRFF and a proposed allocation of $10,000 from the City’s Community Assistance Program, with BHPC funding the balance of the project through its facility reserves. The proposed funding breakdown is as follows:

 

Contribution towards project

Amount (ex GST)

Busselton Horse and Pony Club Inc.

$4,316

City of Busselton

2020/21 Community Assistance Program July Round

$10,000

CSRFF

$7,157

Total project cost

$21,473

Stakeholder Consultation

Extensive targeted engagement was undertaken as part of the SRFS, with views and data extracted from 501 individual survey responses, 79 local sporting club/association meetings and 168 submissions on the draft SRFS.

 

This engagement identified that; there is a lack of available sport space to participate, additional grass sport space should be one of the City’s main priorities, facilities are ageing and do not meet sport (and safety) guidelines and there are limited facilities that meet current standards for unisex facilities.

 

Both proposed projects align with the outcomes of this targeted engagement.

 

Consultation has taken place with DLGSC staff at the South West office in regards to both projects.

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 decide not to support the BHPC application and BHPCs request for a contribution from the Community Assistance program and/or request the ranking and priority of the two (2) application be amended.

 

Alternate options may impact on the achievability of the projects.

CONCLUSION

The applications received for the CSRFF July 2020 small grant round show sound reasoning and justification. It is recommended that the two applications are assessed and ranked as follows:

·        1 of 2, project rating A - City of Busselton Sir Stewart Bovell Sports Park sporting talent hub masterplan; and

·        2 of 2, project rating B - Busselton Horse & Pony Club Inc., upgrade of dressage arena at Reserve 32066, 310 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

On endorsement, officers will finalise the grant applications and provide the full contents of the applications to the DLGSC South West office before the closing time on 14 August.


Council

259

12 August 2020

15.1

Attachment a

Site Plan - Sir Stewart Bovell Sports Park

 


Council

260

12 August 2020

15.1

Attachment b

Site Plan - Busselton Horse and Pony Club Inc.

 

 


Council                                                                                      261                                                               12 August 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   Current SAT Reviews  

 

Council Decision and Officer Recommendation

C2008/085              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Deputy Mayor K Hick

 

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

17.1.1       A summary of the current State Administrative Tribunal reviews is attached.

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       State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

 

A summary of the current State Administrative Tribunal reviews is attached.

 


Council

264

12 August 2020

17.1

Attachment a

Current SAT Reviews

 


 


 


Council                                                                                      270                                                               12 August 2020

ITEMS FOR DEBATE

13.             Planning and Development Services Report

13.1           AMENDMENT 45 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME AND PROPOSED STRUCTURE PLAN AFFECTING LOT 30 (70) MILLBROOK ROAD - CONSIDERATION FOR FINAL APPROVAL

STRATEGIC GOAL

3. ENVIRONMENT Valued, conserved and enjoyed

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

3.1 Development is managed sustainably and our environment valued.

SUBJECT INDEX

Local Planning Schemes

BUSINESS UNIT

Strategic 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    Scheme Amendment Map

Attachment c    Structure Plan

Attachment d   Schedule of Submissions

Attachment e    Schedule of Modifications

Attachment f    (Existing) Development Guide Plan (DGP50)

Attachment g   Landuse Definitions and Permissibilites

Attachment h   Draft Millbrook Structure Plan provisions (as advertised)

Attachment i     Bushfire Management Plan

Attachment j     Heritage Assessment

Attachment k    Heritage Council - Millbrook Farm Statement of Significance

Attachment l    Adjoining landowners notified  

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Date

12 August 2020

Meeting

Ordinary Council

Name/Position

Cr Ross Paine

Item No./Subject

13.1 Amendment 45 to Local Planning Scheme and Proposed Structure Plan Affecting Lot 30 (70) Millbrook Road – Consideration for Final Approval

Type of Interest

Impartiality Interest

Nature of Interest

A member of my family either built or restored most of the structures on the property that is the subject of this application.

 

Cr Hick foreshadowed an amended recommendation prior to the meeting. In accordance with the City’s Standing Orders Local Law 2018, the amended recommendation was moved prior to the Officer Recommendation, which was:

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.    In pursuance of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, adopts Amendment No. 45 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 for final approval, in accordance with the modifications proposed in the ‘Schedule of Modifications’ shown at Attachment E, 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 (as per Attachment B).

 

2.    Advises the Western Australian Planning Commission that Amendment No. 45 is considered a ‘standard’ amendment pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) 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.

 

3.    Pursuant to Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, adopts the Structure Plan shown at Attachment C for final approval, in accordance with the modifications proposed in the Schedule of Modifications shown at Attachment E, and also on the basis that support for final adoption of the Structure Plan is contingent on the Hon. Minister for Planning’s support for Amendment 45.

 

4.    Pursuant to r.53 and Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, endorses the Schedule of Submissions at Attachment D, which has been prepared in response to the public consultation process undertaken in relation to Amendment No. 45 and the associated Millbrook Structure Plan.

 

5.    Upon preparation of the necessary documentation, refers Amendment No. 45 and the Structure Plan to the Western Australian Planning Commission and Hon. Minister for Planning for consideration and determination in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005.

 

6.    Pursuant to r.56 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, should directions be given that modifications to Amendment No. 45 and/or the Millbrook Structure Plan are required, direct these modifications to be undertaken accordingly, on behalf of the Council, unless they are considered by Officers likely to significantly affect the purpose and intent of the Amendment, in which case the matter shall be formally referred back to the Council for assessment and determination.

 

7.    Following final decisions by the Western Australian Planning Commission and Hon. Minister for Planning, the City undertakes further community consultation with the aim of identifying means by which pedestrian accessibility and inter-connection in the area may be improved.

 

There was opposition to the Amended Recommendation and debate ensued.

 

Council Decision and AMENDED Recommendation

C2008/086              Moved Deputy Mayor K Hick, seconded Councillor S Riccelli

That the Council:

1.       In pursuance of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, adopts Amendment No. 45 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 for final approval, in accordance with the modifications proposed in the ‘Schedule of Modifications’ shown at Attachment E (as modified by point 3 below), 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 (as per Attachment B).

 

2.       Advises the Western Australian Planning Commission that Amendment No. 45 is considered a ‘standard’ amendment pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) 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.

 

3.       Pursuant to Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, adopts the Structure Plan shown at Attachment C for final approval, in accordance with the modifications proposed in the Schedule of Modifications shown at Attachment E, also on the basis that support for final adoption of the Structure Plan is contingent on the Hon. Minister for Planning’s support for Amendment 45, and also subject to further modifications to SP71, such that SP71 reads as follows –

No.

Particulars of Land

Zone

Special Provisions

SP 71

As shown on Scheme Map

Rural Residential

The objectives of these provisions are to –

i.     Support the development of tourism and visitor oriented land uses on the land;

ii.    Ensure that such development is of a scope and scale, and is sensitively located, so as to be consistent with the preservation of a high level of amenity for the surrounding rural-residential area; and

iii.  Through supporting the development of tourism and visitor oriented land uses on the land, assist in the preservation, activation and adaptive re-use of the significant heritage assets and values of the land.

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

·         Art Gallery

·         Chalet

·         Exhibition Centre

·         Rural Holiday Resort

·         Tourist Accommodation

2.    Development within the Special Provision Area shall be limited to 1,500m2 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.

3.    Any development that would involve any significant presence on site of persons not living or being temporarily accommodated on the site (such as Chalets or a Guesthouse) should be located in the north-western portion of the Special Provision Area, in proximity to the key heritage assets.

 

4.       Pursuant to r.53 and Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, endorses the Schedule of Submissions at Attachment D, which has been prepared in response to the public consultation process undertaken in relation to Amendment No. 45 and the associated Millbrook Structure Plan.

 

5.       Upon preparation of the necessary documentation, refers Amendment No. 45 and the Structure Plan to the Western Australian Planning Commission and Hon. Minister for Planning for consideration and determination in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005.

 

6.       Pursuant to r.56 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, should directions be given that modifications to Amendment No. 45 and/or the Millbrook Structure Plan are required, direct these modifications to be undertaken accordingly, on behalf of the Council, unless they are considered by Officers likely to significantly affect the purpose and intent of the Amendment, in which case the matter shall be formally referred back to the Council for assessment and determination.

 

7.       Following final decisions by the Western Australian Planning Commission and Hon. Minister for Planning, the City undertakes further community consultation with the aim of identifying means by which pedestrian accessibility and inter-connection in the area may be improved.

CARRIED 5/4

For the Motion: Cr Hick, Cr Miles, Cr Riccelli, Cr Paine, Cr Barrett-Lennard

Against the Motion: Cr Henley, Cr Cox, Cr Cronin, Cr Carter

Reasons:       Reduction of Proposed NLA

As outlined in the Officers’ Report, the fundamental intent of deleting A52 and proposing SP71 is to provide a greater level of protection to the amenity of surrounding areas. 

While I support an explicit floor space control on further non-residential development, the potential scope, scale and footprint of the proposed 2,500m² limit (being 50m x 50m) is in my opinion, far too significant. The proposed limit potentially permits a scale and bulk of development which is not consistent with a balanced commercial use in this environment and will have unacceptable amenity impacts.

Additionally, the proposed development of residential blocks in close proximity to the proposed Lot 8 within the Structure Plan (which the Officers’ Report notes at p.258 is ‘…in part in recognition of the loss of other development potential that is proposed’), will mean even less buffer area and greater potential impacts between Lot 8 and surrounding existing and proposed residences in this rural residential setting. 

Accordingly, I propose a maximum limit of 1,500m² NLA which is more consistent with low-key, smaller scale development to complement and support the heritage assets and limit amenity impacts given the constraints of the location to surrounding uses and the particular features and topography of this rural residential valley environment. 

Deletion of some land uses

In relation to Officer Recommendation 1(b), I am proposing amendment to the list of uses to remove the following proposed uses:

§  Hotel

§  Tavern

§  Small Bar

§  Reception Centre

 

These uses were not expressly listed in the current A52 Additional Uses, and arise only as potential uses through the increased ‘rural scope’ mechanism from the land area being in excess of 20Ha pursuant to cl.3.5.2 in the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.21 (City’s Scheme). 

The area of the proposed SP71 is 10.8Ha and the mechanism of cl.3.5.2 is not invoked in relation to broadening of uses.  As noted in my reasons above, the fundamental intent of deleting A52 and proposing SP71 is to provide a greater level of protection to the amenity of surrounding areas.  As with A52, the SP71 proposes to allow uses, which would otherwise be prohibited uses on the proposed Lot 8 and those permissions must be closely scrutinised in the context of the property in question and its surrounds.

In seeking to reduce scope and range of the land uses permissible pursuant to this Scheme Amendment and SP71, it is critical that those land uses as outlined at p. 267 of the Officers’ Report in relation to the City’s Scheme and in the case of the LRPS, ‘…provide for diversification in small-scale and low-key, smaller scale, tourist, rural and home- based activities in a manner that sustains the existing natural environment, landscape values and residential amenity of the area with well-developed pedestrian and habitat/biodiversity links…’. 

The four uses proposed and the activities they contemplate, are inconsistent with those objectives, more generally in a rural residential setting, but more particularly given the particular features and topography of the surrounding rural residential valley and the current and proposed residential uses in close proximity to the proposed Lot 8. 

The City’s Scheme recognises distinct and separate land uses in its Zoning Table in acknowledgement that those uses operate differently and have different planning impacts. This is reinforced at cl. 3.4.1 that provides that ‘[A] specific use class referred to in the zoning table is excluded from any other use class described in more general terms’. 

While not expressly listed in the proposed SP71, the land use of a Restaurant/Café is an ‘A’ use within a rural residential zoned area.  This distinct use class with a predominant service of food and beverage (liquor if a liquor licence is obtained) is not a Reception Centre or a Small Bar or Tavern which can potentially operate in very different ways (including potentially rowdier activities, later night operations) with very different potential impacts.  

Additionally, I am not at all comfortable in relying for assistance on other potential controls outlined at p.259 should these four uses be approved.  Liquor licensing controls are not de-facto planning controls and can take into account a suite of other considerations not related to planning impacts.  Similarly, the measure of protection that may be sought in compliance with noise regulations, a use, such as contemplated with these four uses, may still comply, but be a problem!

Low-key commercial operations that complement and support the heritage assets can be achievable without the Hotel, Tavern, Small Bar and Reception Centre uses. The four proposed uses contemplate operations and activities that are clearly not compatible with land uses in this particular valley environment and will have unacceptable amenity impacts on the surrounding rural residential environment. 

Amend proposed Plan to have a specified boundary area in the north-western portion of Special Provision Area, in proximity to heritage assets where ‘development that would involve any significant presence on site of persons not living or being temporarily accommodated on the site (such as chalet or guesthouse) should be located. 

The current use of the wording ‘generally located’ proposed in Attachment E Schedule of Modifications at 3, is not sufficiently certain and provides for an unacceptable degree of latitude for location of potential more intensive commercial development. As an alternative to the above, remove the word ‘generally’.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Council is requested to consider adopting for final approval Amendment 45 (‘Amendment’) to Local Planning Scheme 21 (‘Scheme’) and the related ‘Structure Plan’ (Attachment C) – collectively the ‘proposals’. The purpose of the Amendment is to remove Additional Use 52 from Schedule 2 of the Scheme (which currently applies to Lot 30 Millbrook Road, Yallingup), and introduce Special Provision 71 under Schedule 3 of the Scheme to a portion of Lot 30 Millbrook Road. The Structure Plan is intended to supersede the existing Development Guide Plan (‘DGP50’), which relates to the land.

 

The effect of the proposals is to reduce the potential scope, scale and footprint of non-residential development permissible on the land (relative to what is currently potentially permissible), whilst also providing for creation of a limited number of additional rural residential lots – in part in recognition of the loss of other development potential that is proposed. It is considered by City officers that the proposals would result in a planning framework that significantly reduces the potential for non-residential development that may have an impact on the amenity of the surrounding rural-residential area, whilst preserving some of the potential for non-residential development associated with important heritage assets on the land, and which was envisaged when the area was first developed for rural-residential purposes.

 

It is recommended that the Council adopt the proposal for final approval (subject to a number of recommended modifications) and forward them to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and Hon. Minister for Planning for their consideration.


 

BACKGROUND

The land affected by the proposals is within the fairly extensive rural-residential area located between and to the south of the Dunsborough and Yallingup townsites, often referred to as the ‘Commonage’, and as identified on the Location Plan at Attachment A. The land where there is a substantive change to the planning framework proposed is identified on that plan as the ‘subject land’. The subject land is 24 hectares in area and contains heritage assets that are formally recognised at both State and local level (i.e. the subject land is listed on the State Heritage Register and the City’s Heritage List).

 

The subject land has a variable topography associated with waterways, and includes three dams. The majority of the land is cleared, with areas of remnant vegetation in the southern area, and along Gunyulgup Brook to the north. There are also currently two dwellings and several other buildings in the western central part of the site, to the north-west of the largest of the three dams (including an historic mill).

 

The various lots in the area and Lot 30 Millbrook Road more particularly (i.e. the subject land or ‘Millbrook Farm’), were created through the subdivision of original Lots 1 and 114 Millbrook Road, Yallingup. Those lots had a total area of 99 hectares, out of which 43 lots could have been created in accordance with DGP50, which was endorsed in May 2005 (Attachment F). In addition, up to 34 chalets and a range of other non-residential uses were and remain permissible on Lot 30. Of the potential 43 lots, a total of 41 lots have been created; and the non-residential uses have not been developed to date.

The non-residential development potential was, in part, achieved via inclusion of Additional Use 52 (‘A52’) in the Scheme, in parallel with the process of adopting DGP50. The details of A52 are set out in the ‘Statutory Environment’ section of this report. A52 is one of a number of similar designations that apply to sites within the Commonage, where a range of non-residential uses have been provided for in the Scheme.

 

The ‘Rural-Residential’ Zoning that applies to the land also allows for a range of non-residential uses (as permissible, but discretionary, uses) on all land subject of that Zoning. In addition, by virtue of what is currently clause 3.5.2 of the Scheme, land-use permissibilities for Rural-Residential Zoned lots greater than 20 hectares in area are as per those for the ‘Rural’ Zone (wherein a broader range of land-uses are permissible).

 

Prior to 2015, the Scheme also included a broad discretion to approve any land use on land identified on the Heritage List. That discretion was narrowed significantly, however, through the introduction by the State of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

The Amendment proposes the deletion of A52 and its effective replacement by Special Provision 71 (‘SP71’). In the Amendment, as adopted for advertising/consultation purposes, SP71 is 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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The area proposed to be subject of SP71 is a portion of Lot 30 only (i.e. it is a significantly smaller area than that affected by A52), as illustrated on the Scheme Amendment Map (Attachment B).

 

Whilst some changes to SP71 are recommended by officers (see ‘Officer Comment’ and Attachment E – Schedule of Modifications), the fundamental intent of deleting A52, introducing SP71 and providing for further subdivision (through the Structure Plan) was and remains to –

1.         Reduce the potential scope, scale and footprint of non-residential development permissible on the land, with the aim of providing greater protection of the amenity of the surrounding area;

2.         Preserving some of the potential for non-residential development associated with important heritage assets on the land, and which was clearly envisaged when the area was first developed for rural-residential purposes;

3.         Provide for creation of a limited number of additional rural residential lots – in part in recognition of the loss of other development potential that is proposed; and

4.         Provide for logically consistent and robust land-use controls.

 

A table analysing the impact of the changes on land-use permissibilities is provided as Attachment G – and that issue is outlined and discussed in more detail in the ‘Officer Comment’ section of this report.

 

The Structure Plan (Attachment C) is intended to supersede DGP50. An overall Structure Plan review was required to ensure that the rural residential density requirements and emergency access requirements for bushfire planning (etc.) could be adequately addressed and integrated holistically, as well as a means of updating provisions to be consistent with the current planning framework.

 


 

The Structure Plan provides for the subdivision of the subject land into seven rural residential lots, ranging in size from 1.02ha – 1.69ha. In addition, creation of Lots 5 and 8 is also proposed. Proposed Lot 5 would have land use permissibilities which would be the same as any other Rural-Residential Zoned lot, but has an area of 4.14ha, and includes one of the existing dwellings and two associated dams. Proposed Lot 8 has an area of 10.8ha and incorporates the existing heritage buildings and would be subject of SP71 – and so have broader land-use permissibilities than the other lots.

 

The Structure Plan report is accompanied by a Bushfire Management Plan (‘BMP’ – Attachment I) and Heritage Assessment (Attachment J) Attachjand the Heritage Council – ‘Millbrook Farm Statement of Significance’ (Attachment K). Other than providing for subdivision as set out above, the Structure Plan also provides for -

1.         Remnant vegetation and areas unsuitable for development based on bushfire assessment to be protected by the introduction of ‘Building Exclusion Areas’; and

2.         A new road and realigned fire emergency access way.

 

It was and remains the view of officers that final adoption of the Structure Plan would not be appropriate without the prior deletion of A52, and its replacement by SP71 (or something similar to SP71). That is because A52, if left in place, would provide for an inappropriately wide range of land-use permissibilities on the smaller proposed lots, and nor would the Scheme, in the absence of both A52 and SP71, provide for sufficient flexibility or sufficient control in relation to non-residential development potential on proposed Lot 8.

 

2017 Development Application

A development application for a ‘Reception Centre’ on the subject land was lodged in 2017 and subsequently approved by the Council on 28 March 2018. Approval was subject to conditions, including conditions relating to the potential future subdivision of the land and a restriction on the hours of operation (essentially, the condition required it to be a ‘daytime only’ facility).

 

An application for review (i.e. an ‘appeal’) was subsequently made in the State Administrative Tribunal (‘SAT’), seeking variation of conditions of approval. That resulted in the Council reconsidering the conditions on 13 June 2018, and agreeing to modify the condition relating to the potential future subdivision of the subject land. A revised approval was then issued on 30 July 2018.

 

Ordinarily, a development approval requires that ‘substantial commencement’ occur within two years of the date of the decision notice. By virtue of notices issued by the Hon. Minister for Planning in response to the Covid-19 situation, though, that has been extended by two years. As such, substantial commencement must occur no later than 30 July 2022.

 

It should also be noted that, as with any other development approval, an application to further extend the term of approval could be lodged – and the ultimate decision should be the same, other than where there has been a change in the planning framework. It is nevertheless understood that there is no intention to proceed with implementing the approval.

 

Further information relating to the development application and associated appeal is set out in the agendas and minutes of the Council’s 28 March and 13 June 2018 ordinary meetings, available on the City’s website.


 

OFFICER COMMENT

Key issues

Key issues identified in the submissions and/or by City officers as part of the assessment of the proposals, and which require some consideration in the making of recommendations about the proposals to the WAPC and Hon. Minister for Planning, relate to –

1.         Potential amenity impacts;

2.         Potential environmental impacts and bushfire risk;

3.         Heritage values; and

4.         Pedestrian access through the subject land.

 

Each of these issues is outlined and discussed below, under appropriate sub-headings. It is seen as appropriate, however, to firstly set out the key rationale for the design of the proposals, as well as the recommended modifications – which in substantial part are aimed at addressing some of the issues raised in the submissions.

 

Key rationale for the design of the proposals (from a City officer assessment perspective)

Some of the key rationale for the design of the proposals was set out in the Background section above, as follows -

1.         Reduce the potential scope, scale and footprint of non-residential development permissible on the land, with the aim of providing greater protection of the amenity of the surrounding area;

2.         Preserving some of the potential for non-residential development associated with important heritage assets on the land, and which was clearly envisaged when the area was first developed for rural-residential purposes;

3.         Provide for creation of a limited number of additional rural residential lots – in part in recognition of the loss of other development potential that is proposed;

4.         Provide for logically consistent and robust land-use controls; and

5.         Recognise that other controls also apply – such as those that specifically address noise or liquor licensing.

 

With respect to the first point above (i.e. reduce potential scope, scale and footprint of non-residential development), the scope, scale and footprint of non-residential permissible on the site is extensive. Development of a much larger scale than the Reception Centre that has been approved, but not implemented, would be permissible. That could include a ‘Restaurant/Café’, which could potentially contain a ‘Small Bar’ component for up to 120 people, could exceed 2,500 square metres in floor area, and contain an ancillary ‘micro-brewery’ component – and that would be possible under the ‘base’ Rural-Residential Zoning, even in the absence of A52, SP71, clause 3.5.2 of the Scheme, or the heritage related discretion that existed prior to 2015. All or part of that Restaurant/Café could then potentially accommodate hosted functions (as many restaurants and bars do now) on a regular basis. In addition to such a development, under the current planning framework, at least 34 chalets could be approved on the subject land, as could other kinds of accommodation.

 

Whilst, as with the earlier Reception Centre application, there would be a need for a detailed assessment of the impacts of such development, there is little in the way of specific controls or guidance about the acceptable scale or footprint of such development in the planning framework that would guide such assessment. As was the case with the Reception Centre application, issues suited to detailed technical analysis – such as noise – can be managed fairly well, other, more ‘subjective’ considerations, such as amenity in the broader sense, are harder to manage.

That would especially be the case where, through the planning history of the site, the land has so clearly been identified as one where significant non-residential development is contemplated.

 

It is considered by City officers that the current planning framework, even in the absence of the Structure Plan proposal, provides insufficient protection of the amenity of the surrounding rural-residential community. The same is true with respect to many other sites in rural-residential areas across the City. That is an issue that has been identified as needing attention through the development of the City’s new town planning scheme.

 

The proposals, though include several elements aimed at better managing the potential scope, scale and footprint of non-residential development on the subject land:

a.         The additional land-uses proposed via SP71 are proposed to be ‘A’ uses, meaning approval would be at the reasonable discretion of the City, following compulsory advertising;

b.         Most importantly, and uniquely at the current time, an explicit floorspace control on further non-residential development is proposed, of 2,500 square metres net lettable area; and

c.         The Structure Plan identifies Building Exclusion Areas in environmentally sensitive areas.

 

With respect to point b above, some developments which may provide a guide as to what sort of scale 2,500 square metres floor space represents are the following –

·        Typically, residential building envelopes in rural residential areas are 2,000 square metres.

·        Cape Lodge, Yallingup - approximate floor space of 3,870 square metres.

·        Eagle Bay Brewery, Yallingup - approximately 1,900 square metres (restaurant) and 2343m2 (square metres associated brewery infrastructure and outbuildings).

·        Eight Willows Retreat, Metricup (which consists of a winery and chalets), approximate floor space of 4,985 square metres.

·        Amelia Park Tavern, Abbey - approximate floor space of 1,500 square metres.

·        Aravina Estate, Yallingup Siding - approximate floor space of 5,374 square metres.

 

With respect to the second point above (i.e. not the second dot point above, but the earlier point 2 - preserving potential for non-residential development), there are three key reasons why that is seen as appropriate. Firstly, the heritage assets on the land are very significant, and the long-term preservation of those assets, as in so many other cases, will be greatly assisted if there is flexibility and opportunity in terms of the future use and development of the land – i.e. a capacity for ‘adaptive re-use’ in heritage terms. Secondly, there is a very clear expectation of that kind of development being possible in the planning framework. Thirdly, more broadly, it is seen as appropriate that rural-residential areas accommodate more than purely low-density residential development (the same is true in other residential areas – where a range of other land-uses are approvable, and do exist, even if residential uses are predominant). The Commonage in particular is a large area, and it is seen as appropriate that it serves more than one function. The Commonage can and does serve a number of non-residential functions including: environment/biodiversity functions; some agricultural production functions; and tourism/economic functions associated with accommodation and some other kinds of commercial development (e.g. cafes).

 

What is also worth noting is that some submitters seem to have a view that, by preserving some of the development potential only possible via clause 3.5.2, which only applies to lots greater than 20 hectares in area, even if the subject land is subdivided to below that area, is somehow ‘double-dipping’ or something similar.

That view is not supported by officers. In drafting A52, the City (then the Shire Of Busselton) would have been aware of the existence of what is now clause 3.5.2 (and which reflects a clause of the City’s previous town planning scheme), and so the identification of some of the uses permissible by virtue of clause 3.5.2 in A52 would have been unnecessary. Note also that the degree of that redundancy has changed over time, as the range of permissible uses in both the Rural-Residential and the Rural Zones (formerly, the Agricultural Zone) has increased over time.

 

Finally on this point, it is important to note that the proposals do not result in any land-use being permissible on any of the land where that use is not currently permissible – but the proposal would result in a reduction in permissible uses on most of the land affected by the proposals. The only and partial exception to that is the use ‘Tourist Accommodation’ in the area proposed to be subject of SP71 – but in the rural-residential context, that use is essentially indistinguishable from the uses ‘Chalet’ or ‘Guesthouse’. A table analysing the impact of the changes on land-use permissibilities is provided as Attachment G.

 

With respect to the third point above (i.e. provide for creation of a limited number of additional rural residential lots), that is in part in recognition of the loss of other development potential that is proposed. That also, however, has several other benefits in terms of protecting the amenity of the surrounding rural-residential community.

 

Firstly, when combined with the removal of A52 and the fact that clause 3.5.2 would no longer apply, it means that, for most of the surrounding residents, the boundary will be with another, very similar, rural-residential property, rather than with a site where non-residential development is contemplated. Secondly, it would mean that there would be additional rural-residential properties, closer to where any of the most significant non-residential development is likely to occur (i.e. to the north-west of the largest dam), and so the total amount of noise or activity that could occur without having unacceptable amenity impacts on the nearest adjoining site would be lower than is currently the case. That would then provide a greater level of protection for the amenity of the existing, surrounding residents/properties than is currently the case.

 

With respect to the fourth point above (i.e. provide for logically consistent and robust land-use controls), there are two key considerations. Firstly, it is important that any additional development controls, specifically the floorspace control, are applied through a Special Provision Area designation, such as SP71, rather than through an Additional Use designation, such as A52. That is because any development control applied through an Additional Use designation would only apply to the identified additional uses (e.g. Reception Centre) but not to other permissible uses (e.g. Restaurant/Café). If the issue to be addressed is the potential amenity impact of non-residential development, it is clearly sensible for the controls to relate to all forms of non-residential development, and not just those permissible through an Additional Use designation.

 

Secondly, it is important that the relationship between land-uses is understood (and that they are understood correctly – noting land-uses are often not able to be understood or interpreted in Plain English terms). Some land-uses are, in effect, subsets of others (or, it is at least very strongly arguable that is the case). Reception Centre, for instance, is, in effect, a subset of Restaurant/Café. Small Bar is also, effectively, a subset of Restaurant/Café. Restaurant/Café is, in turn, a subset of ‘Tavern’, which is a subset of ‘Hotel’. ‘Guesthouse’ is another subset of Hotel. It is seen as sensible that, in most cases where the broader/more expansive use is permissible, the more specific use should generally also be permissible. If there are then concerns about the potential impact of some of the activities or development that may be encompassed by the permissible uses, those impacts are best addressed through controls specifically targeted at those impacts.

 


 

In this particular case, it is seen as important that Hotel is a permissible use. The planning definition of Hotel reflects the meaning of that term in the Liquor Control Act 1988 (‘Liquor Act’), with the definition in the Scheme (which reflects State regulations) being as follows –

Hotel" means premises the subject of a hotel licence other than a small bar or tavern licence granted under the Liquor Control Act 1988 including any betting agency on the premises.

 

Under the Liquor Act, any accommodation development, regardless of size, where alcohol is offered to guests (including in a mini-bar or similar) is a Hotel. It is considered that, on the subject land, a premises that may be marketed as a ‘lodge’, with perhaps 15 or 20 rooms, and which offers alcohol to guests, would potentially be appropriate (subject to detailed assessment at development application stage). If Hotel is not a permissible land-use, however, such a premises could not be approved.

 

With respect to the fifth point above (i.e. recognise that other controls also apply), there are two key sets of controls that bear consideration. Firstly, the liquor licensing controls. Where a liquor licence is being sought, there are a range of processes that must be followed including, where certain thresholds are met, community consultation and the ‘public interest test’.              

 

Any significant development on the site involving a bar or other activity involving consumption of alcohol would be subject of the public interest test.

 

The second set of controls that bear consideration are regulations that specifically address noise (i.e. the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 – ‘Noise Regulations’). Whilst consideration of noise (as an important component of amenity) does not turn entirely on technical assessment against the Noise Regulations, it is an important component of such consideration. The earlier Reception Centre application is, in fact, an example of where the technical assessment of noise against the Noise Regulations has, even had that development proceeded, substantially addressed noise concerns – as the assessment had indicated that, to avoid unacceptable noise impacts, it would need to be a ‘daytime only’ venue (in substantial part, on the basis that the venue was intended to be a tent, rather than a permanent, solid structure, and would provide very little in the way of noise attenuation).

 

There are some submissions that have suggested that such a control (e.g. no activity of certain kinds past a certain time in the evening) should be incorporated into SP71. That is not considered appropriate. Firstly, it is the kind of detailed control that should not be incorporated into a town planning scheme – were such controls to be applied on a regular basis, a planning framework that is already overly lengthy and complicated would become significantly more so. Secondly, it would be quite a crude control, which would be hard to draft clearly and could have inadvertent consequences – for instance, would it be appropriate for the guests of a lodge to have a meal and drinks together past 10pm in the evening? The view of officers is that it would. Finally, it fails to recognise that there are other controls that would already act to mitigate potential impacts.

 

Recommended modifications

Whilst there is not considered to be a need to significantly depart from the initial rationale for the proposals, having considered the key issues in the light of the submissions received, City officers are recommending a number of modifications to the proposals, in substantial part aimed at better addressing some of the issues raised in the submissions. The recommended modifications are set in the Schedule of Modifications at Attachment E, and they are also described below.

 


 

Three changes to SP71 are recommended –

1.         The inclusion of an objective, to guide the exercise of discretion that would be involved in applying the provisions;

2.         The removal of ‘Brewery’ and ‘Winery’ as permissible uses; and

3.         An additional provision, which would set out that non-residential development, other than that associated with short stay accommodation (such as chalets or a guesthouse), should be located within the north-western part of proposed Lot 8, to the north-west of the dam.

 

The first proposed change to SP71 (i.e. including an objective) reflects the fact that, in exercising discretion in assessing a development application, the local government is required to consider, amongst other things,  ‘the provisions of the Scheme’ (as per clause 67(1) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015). Important amongst those provisions, when exercising discretion, are the objectives of the Zone in which development is proposed. That creates some difficulty where there are land-uses that are permissible in addition to the uses ordinarily permissible in the Zone – such as where an Additional Use designation, or something like SP71, applies.

 

Given that, it is seen as appropriate that, whenever additional uses are to be identified, there should be an objective set out, which then supplements the objectives of the Zone, with respect to development on the affected land (and, to the extent of any inconsistency, it would have greater weight than the objectives of the Zone).

It is proposed that the following objective be added to SP71 -

The objectives of these provisions are to –

i.                     Support the development of tourism and visitor oriented land uses on the land;

 

ii.                   Ensure that such development is of a scope and scale, and is sensitively located, so as to be consistent with the preservation of a high level of amenity for the surrounding rural-residential area; and

 

iii.                 Through supporting the development of tourism and visitor oriented land uses on the land, assist in the preservation, activation and adaptive re-use of the significant heritage assets and values of the land.

 

The second proposed change to SP71 (i.e. removal of Brewery and Winery as permissible uses) reflects the fact that more detailed assessment of the site indicates that such uses would be difficult to develop on the land, especially the area to the north-west of the dam. Breweries and wineries can generate significant wastewater, requiring substantial wastewater treatment infrastructure (or connection to reticulated sewerage, which is not available in this area), which needs to be setback from watercourses. Given that and the nature of the site, a brewery or winery of any significant scale could not be developed on the land, certainly not in the area to the north-west of the dam, where such development would be most appropriate, as it is the location where such development is least likely to impact on the amenity of existing, adjoining rural-residential properties. It should be noted, though, that a small brewery or winery production facility, ancillary to other development (such as a Restaurant/Café) could still be potentially developed.

 

The third proposed change to SP71 (i.e. an additional provision, setting out where ‘non-accommodation’ development should be located) is intended to provide certainty around where a use such as a Restaurant/Café or Tavern would best be located to reduce potential impact on the amenity of existing, adjoining rural-residential properties – i.e. north-west of the dam.


 

The proposed provision is quite difficult to draft (for instance, it would be useful if different land-uses could be treated differently, but that is not sensible, given that a Hotel or Guesthouse may include a ‘dining’ component, which may need to be physically integrated with the ‘sleeping’ component), and a provision which seeks to guide discretion in a fairly broad sense is considered appropriate, rather than something more prescriptive. The following is proposed -

Any development that would involve any significant presence on site of persons not living or being temporarily accommodated on the site (such as Chalets or a Guesthouse) should generally be located in the north-western portion of the Special Provision Area, in proximity to the key heritage assets.

 

A number of changes to the Structure Plan are also recommended –

1.         Replace provision 1 to state “Subdivision shall be generally in accordance with this Structure Plan.”

2.         Include provision 2 to state “No further subdivision of lots identified on the approved Structure Plan Map shall be allowed.”

3.         Include provision 3 to state “As a condition of subdivision, unless acceptable alternative arrangements are made, a pedestrian access way shall be provided between the end of the proposed, new cul-de-sac and the eastern boundary of existing Lot 30, and that access way shall be placed between proposed Lots 5 and 6.”

4.         Include provision 4 to state “As a condition of subdivision and prior to subdivisional works, a Drainage/Stormwater Management Plan is to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Local Government.”

5.         Include provision 5 to state “Prior to application for subdivision, an Interpretation Plan and an Archaeological Management Plan prepared by an appropriately qualified and experienced archaeologist will be required to be submitted, to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning Land and Heritage.”

6.         Include provision 6 to state “No development, fencing or clearing of may take place in a Building Exclusion Area except for the construction and maintenance of a Local Government approved access way or firebreak; or where Development Approval for fencing or associated clearing has been obtained from the Local Government.”

 

The rationale for these changes is set out in the paragraphs below and/or in the Schedule of Submissions and Schedule of Modifications.

 

Potential amenity impacts

The majority of public submissions received expressed concerns regarding the possible impact of potential development on the land on the amenity of the locality. Many submissions raised concerns relating to the levels of noise, operating times, scale and location of development, and traffic generation. Many submitters referred to the earlier Reception Centre application, stating that although they had objected to that use in the first instance, the conditions of approval (which restricted activities after 7pm) had, to varying degrees, satisfied some of their concerns. Addressing and managing these concerns, and other issues such as servicing and heritage values cannot be undertaken in detail until a specific development application for one or more of the land uses has actually been submitted.

 

At the time a development application is lodged, amenity considerations would be assessed in accordance with the Scheme.  For example, any land use proposal likely to have noise generating concerns will be subject to a development application process that will require a noise assessment, and conditions to manage or mitigate potential noise impacts applied accordingly.


 

Similarly, the process to consider land use and development will consider elements such as setbacks, separation to waterways, servicing, car parking, traffic management, scale and operation. 

 

Landowners in the vicinity will also have the opportunity to comment on any application received for the additional uses, similarly to the process undertaken in the determination of the previous Reception centre application.

 

Whilst the underlying Rural-Residential provisions of the Scheme provide adequate direction for the assessment of development applications in most instances, SP71 further proposes to control the extent of development on proposed Lot 8 by limiting any additional allowable floor space to a maximum of 2,500m2 net lettable area (excluding single house or similar development, or the retrofit of existing heritage buildings). This maximum floor space seeks to ensure that prospective development cannot occur at a scale that is inconsistent with the objectives of the core zone or the amenity of the surrounding locality. This floor space limit is considered appropriate, given the area SP71 shall apply to is approximately 10.8 hectares, with approximately 7.4 hectares of that land excluded from any development (i.e. Building Exclusion Area), leaving some 3.4 hectares of land over in which to accommodate development. Further controls are also proposed, through recommended modifications, as set out above and at Attachment F.

 

A high level of amenity can reasonably be expected in a Rural Residential area, although some activity which some may perceive as impacting on their amenity may occur. That is especially the case where the planning framework so clearly contemplates some non-residential development.

 

The question is more about what level of amenity impact might be reasonable? Further, as has been noted elsewhere in this report, the proposals do provide greater amenity protection and more control of non-residential development than is currently the case. Especially with the recommended modifications, the proposals are seen to provide an appropriate balance between amenity protection and support for non-residential development.

 

Potential environmental impacts and bushfire risk

The potential impact of development on the waterways in and around the subject land was raised in a number of submissions, and advice from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) indicates that future development should observe the recommended separation distance to waterways. A Structure Plan provision has been recommended in the Schedule of Modifications which states that ‘As a condition of subdivision, and prior to subdivisional works, a Stormwater and Drainage Management Plan is to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Local Government’. Whilst this is also a matter that can be addressed through the development application process, preliminary assessment demonstrates that the new rural residential lots have soils capable of receiving wastewater and are considered suitable for stand-alone on-site effluent disposal systems in accordance with the DWER Soil Waste Water Assessment (Appendix 3).

 

A Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) has been prepared on behalf of the landowners based on the objectives and criteria set out in 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). This is a reference to E1, which is a Right of Carriageway (ROCW), which is in place across parts of Lot 30, and several other lots in the area, including a number under separate ownership.  Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) review of the BMP has resulted in important updates being required and additional matters being addressed. The process to modify a ROCW is extremely difficult, and it is not considered necessary or appropriate to modify the existing ROCW. What is recommended, however, is that a pedestrian access way (PAW) be provided across portion of what is currently Lot 30, and when combined with the proposed new cul-de-sac, that would render some of the ROCW on Lot 30 redundant in practice.

 

DFES raised the option for the proposed cul-de-sac being extended to provide a connection by public road from Millbrook Road to Dress Circle. Officers do not recommend the access be created as a public road due to topographical and land tenure constraints. The proposed cul-de-sac and the creation of the PAW are considered to improve legible access in the locality for the broader community benefit.

 

The Building Exclusion Area (BEA) indicated on the Structure Plan seeks to protect all stands of remnant vegetation and define areas otherwise unsuitable for development based on bushfire assessment.  Provisions proposed in the Schedule of Modifications would clarify the presumption against development, fencing or clearing of remnant endemic vegetation within the BEA.

 

Heritage values

There are three distinct groups of heritage buildings on ‘Millbrook Farm’, all 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. The cluster of buildings form an overall heritage precinct classified by the National Trust (WA) in 1984, and is included as a Permanent Entry on the State Register of Heritage Place in 1999. The precinct 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 property also contains the ‘Seymour Cottages’ which were relocated to the site from Dunsborough in 1982. 

 

The DPLH (Heritage) submission includes a request that, prior to subdivision, the WAPC require lodgement of an ‘Interpretation Plan’ (ensuring the provision of meaningful onsite interpretative material with any development of Lot 8) and an ‘Archaeological Management Plan’ (to provide for the identification, assessment and proposed management of the archaeological components of the place). The provisions of the Structure Plan are recommended to be modified to include reference to this requirement. DPLH (Heritage) would then require detailed design guidelines be prepared for the purpose of guiding future development affecting proposed Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. Any development application associated with the heritage precinct will be referred to DPLH (heritage) for detailed assessment.

 

Pedestrian access through the subject land

A number of submissions indicated that landowners in the area understood that they should have the capacity to walk through Lot 30 Millbrook Road, Yallingup (the subject land) - but that is not the case, in practice at present. It is understood that marketing material for the approved Millbrook subdivision identified nature trails intended to link the chalet developments proposed under DGP50. There is also a Right of Carriageway Easement E1 (ROCW) which traverses the property in a similar location to a nature trail identified on the marketing plan. The ROCW was created to the benefit of the City of Busselton, principally to help manage fire risk, and provides access to the City. 

 

Whilst the ROCW does not effectively provide access to the public at large at this time, City officers consider that provision of pedestrian access is something that could potentially be achieved through the structure planning process.  Officers also consider that pedestrian accessibility and inter-connection is an important planning and community objective, even in rural-residential areas, and has been under-provided for in the Commonage generally, including the Millbrook area. It is not considered necessary, and nor may it be possible, to resolve the question of what pedestrian access ‘should’ have been provided through earlier processes before determining future direction.

 

Officers investigated options of utilising the existing ROCW alignment or alternative routes to secure pedestrian access via a Public Access Way Reserve (PAW) within the subject land, however the alternative routes have been assessed as impractical due to the topography of the land.


 

Officers recommend undertaking some targeted consultation regarding preferred access arrangements to provide pedestrian access from the subject land via the existing ROCW to Dress Circle at the time when the proposals have been subject of final determinations by the Minister and WAPC.  The reason for deferring such consultation until that time is that those determinations may have a material effect on what may be possible and/or appropriate in the future.

 

A portion of the ROCW linking the proposed cul-de-sac and Dress Circle within Lot 30 is proposed to be supplemented with a PAW as described above (in the discussion of environmental and bushfire issues). The Structure Plan is recommended to be modified to include a notation to that effect. That will assist in resolving, but will not on its own, resolve the pedestrian accessibility issue.

 

Previous reporting on the Structure Plan indicated that an alternative route, following the western boundary of Lot 7 and extending past the southern boundary of Lot 6 to connect into the proposed cul-de-sac, could be supported to provide pedestrian access. This option is no longer supported, however, due to topographical considerations.

 

Statutory Environment

The key elements of the statutory environment with respect to this proposal are set out in the Planning and Development Act 2005, the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (‘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 Regulations, which came into operational effect on 19 October 2015, identify 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. Once an amendment process has been formally commenced by the Council, it must be followed to its conclusion, which in this case requires the forwarding of the amendment to the WAPC and Hon. Minister for Planning for their consideration (with the latter making the final decision). The Council can recommend that an amendment be adopted without modification, that it be adopted subject to modifications, or that it not be adopted. Local government decisions relating to amendments cannot be delegated to officers, and must be made by the Council itself.

 

The Regulations also set out the process for assessment and adoption of structure plans. The process requires the advertising of a draft structure plan, and the subsequent forwarding of the structure plan to the WAPC for their final consideration. The local government (in this case, the Council, but such decisions can be made by officers acting under delegation, where appropriate) can recommend that the WAPC adopt a structure plan without modification, subject to modifications or not be adopted.

 

The local government decisions in relation to amendments and structure plans cannot be subject to applications for review in the SAT, and nor can WAPC or Ministerial decisions in relation to amendments. WAPC decisions in relation to structure plans can, however, be subject of SAT proceedings – but only the applicant has a right to lodge such an application.

 


 

City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme 21 (Scheme)

The subject land is Zoned Rural Residential in the Scheme, and is also subject of A52, as set out below (as per Schedule 2 of the Scheme) -

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.

 

Clause 3.5.2 of the Scheme also applies to the subject land currently, and sets out that land-use permissibilities for Rural-Residential Zoned lots greater than 20 hectares in area are as per those for the ‘Rural’ Zone (wherein a broader range of land-uses are permissible).

 

Elements of A52 are outdated and/or redundant, and would require review through the development of the City’s new town planning scheme (which is required by the WAPC), even without the current proposals. For instance, ‘Restaurant/Café’ is now a permissible use in the Rural-Residential Zone, and so could be approved on the subject land even in the absence of A52.

 

The subject land is also located within the ‘Landscape Value Area’ (LVA), pursuant to clause 5.4 of the Scheme. 

Relevant Plans and Policies

The key plans and strategies and policies most relevant to the proposal are -

1.         State Planning Policy 6.1: Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge Policy (‘SPP6.1’)

2.         State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas and Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (‘SPP3.7’ and ‘Guidelines’)

3.         Leeuwin-Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy (‘LNSRS’)

4.         City of Busselton Local Planning Strategy (‘LPS’)

5.         City of Busselton Local Rural Planning Strategy (‘LRPS’)

6.         Commonage Policy Area Consolidated Structure Plan (‘CPACSP’)

 

The documents listed above are briefly outlined below, and are also available in full on the City and/or WAPC websites.

 


 

SPP6.1

SPP6.1 identifies the Commonage area as ‘Rural Residential’. 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 significant landscape values. SPP6.1 also encourages that land used for rural residential development adopts a ‘cluster principle’ to help retain landscape values. The objectives of SPP6.1 have been accommodated in the Structure Plan by indicating a rural residential lot design which provides protection and enhancement of the natural vegetation and habitat linkages, and maintains rural land use features.

 

Section 4.5 of SPP6.1, ‘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 of SPP6.1, ‘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.

 

The protection and enhancement of the heritage and tourism component of the subject land complies with the statement and intent of Section 4.5 and 4.6 of SPP6, and is proposed to be reflected in the recommended objective for SP71 as set out in Attachment F.

 

SPP3.7 and Guidelines

SPP3.7 directs how development 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 provide supporting information to assist in the interpretation of the objectives and policy measures outlined in SPP3.7, providing advice on how bushfire risk is to be addressed when planning, designing or assessing a planning proposal within a designated bushfire prone area.

 

The 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 appropriately accredited fire consultants.

 


 

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 Amendment and Structure Plan proposals each achieve a desirable balance between mitigating bushfire risk, enabling biodiversity conservation, and allowing limited and localised economic activities. The LNSRS does not, however, provide much guidance or direction with respect to the proposals (or any similar proposals for this or other land that may emerge in the future).

 

LPS

The LPS does not provide much direction or guidance with respect to the proposals (or any similar proposals for this or other land that may emerge in the future). Theme 2 (‘Activity centres and economy’), Strategy (h), does, however, set out that the planning framework and planning authorities should; “Continue to support low-key, small-scale tourism accommodation in rural areas”.

 

LRPS

The subject land is located within Precinct 6 ‘Commonage’ of the LRPS. The LRPS describes the precinct as ‘comprising the existing Commonage Rural Residential Policy Area South of Dunsborough and north of Wildwood Road’. 

 

The vision of the precinct is to: 

·                Consolidate rural residential land use and provide for diversification in small-scale and low-key tourist, rural and home based activities in a manner that sustains the existing natural environment, landscape values and residential amenity of the area with well-developed pedestrian and habitat/biodiversity links; and

·                Promote the retention of the rural amenity and appropriate scaled rural land uses where compatible with rural residential amenity. 

Section 7.6.7, ‘Landuse Allocation’, of the LRPS states that consideration of additional small scale tourist precincts be subject to Scheme Amendments where necessary and subject to appropriate locational, environmental, landscape and servicing considerations. Subdivision criteria of the LRPS state that rural residential subdivision is limited to existing rural residential zones and is to be in accordance with the adopted Structure and Development Guide Plans (including the CPACSP).

 

It is considered that the Amendment and Structure Plan proposal are each consistent with the vision and objectives of the precinct.

 

CPACSP

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 of the term 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 Millbrook Structure Plan is located in the area generally indicated.

 

The Structure Plan and Amendment proposals are considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the CPACSP.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the Officer Recommendation.

Stakeholder Consultation

The Amendment and Structure Plan were advertised for 54 days, from 15 April to 8 June 2020. An extension to the advertising period for the Structure Plan was approved by the WAPC due to exceptional circumstances (i.e. Covid-19 related). Usually, standard amendments are advertised for a minimum of 42 days and Structure Plans for 28 days.

 

The City advertised the Amendment and the Structure Plan in the Busselton-Dunsborough Mail and on the City’s Website under the “Your say” portal; a notice was placed on site and correspondence was sent to all adjoining landowners as indicated in Attachment L.

 

During the advertising period, a group of landowners formed the Gunyulgup Valley Action Group (GVAG). The City arranged a community information session, with the assistance of GVAG, via Zoom on 28 May 2020. Up to 27 people attended (although it is understood some may not have been present for the whole session).

 

A total of 64 submissions were received; 4 from government agencies and 60 from the community. A Schedule of Submissions is provided at Attachment D.

 

In very simple terms, the submissions indicate that the Structure Plan, in and of itself, seems to enjoy a degree of community support, the Amendment is a source of significant community concern. The key issues identified in the submissions are outlined and discussion in the Officer Comment section of this report.

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.         Recommend to the WAPC/Hon. Minister for Planning further or different modifications to the proposals; or

2.         Recommend to the WAPC/Hon. Minister for Planning that the proposals not be approved.


 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the Council adopt the Amendment and Structure Plan for final approval (subject to the recommended modifications) and forward them to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and Hon. Minister for Planning for their consideration. It is considered that the proposals, suitably modified, provide for an appropriate and robust framework for controlling development on the land, and which strike a suitable balance between protecting amenity and the environment, whilst also providing for appropriate development opportunities and assisting with preservation of the heritage assets on the land.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve the referral of Amendment 45 and the Structure Plan to the Western Australian Planning Commission for consideration and this will occur within one month of a resolution of the Council consistent with the Officer Recommendation.  


Council

289

12 August 2020

13.1

Attachment a

Location Plan

 


Council

290

12 August 2020

13.1

Attachment b

Scheme Amendment Map

 


Council

291

12 August 2020

13.1

Attachment c

Structure Plan

 


Council

332

12 August 2020

13.1

Attachment d

Schedule of Submissions

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

336

12 August 2020

13.1

Attachment e

Schedule of Modifications

 


 


 


 


Council

337

12 August 2020

13.1

Attachment f

(Existing) Development Guide Plan (DGP50)

 


Council

349

12 August 2020

13.1

Attachment g

Landuse Definitions and Permissibilites

 

 

Land use

Formal definition / meaning

Simplified/ Plain English meaning

Rural

Rural-Residential + A52

Rural + A52 (current situation)

Rural-Residential + SP71 - (proposed situation within SP71 area, before recommended modifications) - * indicates a use that would become permissible which was not previously, # indicates a use which was permissible but which would not be

Rural-Residential (proposed situation outside SP71 area) - # indicates a use which was permissible but which would not be

Chalets & Holiday Cabins

(Chalet) means a dwelling forming part of a tourist facility that is —
(a) a self-contained unit that includes cooking facilities, bathroom facilities and separate living and
sleeping areas; and
(b) designed to accommodate short-term guests with no guest accommodated for periods totalling
more than 3 months in any 12 month period.

Self-contained short stay unit (chalet - holiday cabin not defined) - subset of tourist accommodation

D

D

D

A

X (#)

Guesthouse

means a single building on a lot (which may be in addition to any single house already
developed) utilised for the purpose of providing holiday accommodation and typically offering full
board for guests. The building would be characterised by individual suites which are serviced by
centralised dining (not being a public restaurant/café) and other facilities. Suites would not be selfcontained
and occupation would generally be reliant on services provided by management.

Non-self-contained accommodation for more than six people, consisting of suites and centralised facilities - subset of tourist accommodation

A

A

D

A

A

Restaurant/Café

Food and drinks for consumption on premises, including liquor, and up to 120 people in a 'bar' setting - subset of tavern

Food and drinks for consumption on premises, including liquor, and up to 120 people in a 'bar' setting - subset of tavern

D

A

D

A

A

Public Amusement

Not defined - no close equivalent

Would be interpreted in Plain English terms - possibly quite broad

NA

D

D

NA

NA

Recreation - Private

means premises that are –
(a) used for indoor or outdoor leisure, recreation or sport; and
(b) not usually open to the public without charge.

Indoor or outdoor leisure, recreation or sport - not free of charge

D

A

D

A

A

Art & Craft Studio

Not defined - no close equivalent

Would be interpreted in Plain English terms

NA

D

D

NA

NA

Workshop & Sales

Not defined - no close equivalent

Would be interpreted in Plain English terms - could be very broad

NA

D

D

NA

NA

Boutique Brewery

Not defined, but Brewery is - see below

Not defined, but Brewery is - see below - would possibly be interpreted as per Brewery

NA

D

D

NA

NA

Winery

means premises used for the production of viticultural produce and associated sale of the produce.

Place where wine is produced, and can include an associated bar/restaurant component

D

D

D

A

X (#)

Museum

Not defined - probably subset of Exhibition Centre

Would be interpreted in Plain English terms

NA

D

D

NA

NA

Club Premises

Club Premises means premises used by a legally constituted club or association or other body of persons

Premises of a club - e.g. RSL, football club

A

D

D

X (#)

X (#)

Rural Holiday Resort

united by a common interest.

Short stay accommodation with more than 10 chalets, suites etc - if 10 units or less, could be hotel, guesthouse, chalets etc

X

D

D

A

X (#)

Caretaker’s Dwelling

means a dwelling on the same site as a building, operation (including tourist
development) or plant and occupied by a caretaker of that building, operation or plant.

House occupied by a caretaker

X

D

D

X

X (#)

Art Gallery

means premises –
(a) that are open to the public; and
(b) where artworks are displayed for viewing or sale.

A place where art is sold or displayed - subset of exhibition centre

NA

NA

D

A

NA

Brewery

means premises the subject of a producer’s licence authorising the production of beer, cider or
spirits granted under the Liquor Control Act 1988.

Place where beer, cider or spirits is produced, and can include an associated bar/restaurant component

A

X

A

A

X (#)

Exhibition Centre

Display or sale of artistic, cultural or historical material

Display or sale of artistic, cultural or historical material

A

X

A

A

X

Hotel

means premises the subject of a hotel licence other than a small bar or tavern licence granted under the Liquor Control Act 1988 including any betting agency on the premises.

Any accommodation where alcohol is available in the rooms/suites and any accommodation associated with a licensed restaurant or tavern

A

X

A

A

X (#)

Reception Centre

means premises used for hosted functions on formal or ceremonial occasions.

Hosted functions - subset of restaurant

A

X

A

A

X (#)

Small Bar

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

Up to 120 people in a bar setting - or seated restaurant style - subset of restaurant or tavern

A

X

A

A

X (#)

Tavern

means premises the subject of a tavern licence granted under the Liquor Control Act 1988.

A bar for more than 120 people - can also include restaurant space - subset of hotel

A

X

A

A

X (#)

Single House

A dwelling standing wholly on its own green title or survey strata lot, together with any easement over adjoining land for support of a wall or for access or services and excludes dwellings on titles with areas held in common property.

One house on one lot

P

P

P

P

P

Residential Building

A building or portion of a building, together with rooms and outbuildings separate from such building but incidental thereto; such building being used or intended, adapted or designed to be used for the purpose of human habitation:
- temporarily by two or more persons; or
 - permanently by seven or more persons, who do not comprise a single family, but does not include a hospital or sanatorium, a prison, a hotel, a motel or a residential school.

A lodging house or hostel

A

X

A

X (#)

X (#)

Place of Worship

means premises used for religious activities such as a chapel, church, mosque,
synagogue or temple.

A church or similar and could include associated facilities (church hall, youth group etc)

A

A

A

A

A

Community  Purpose

means premises designed or adapted primarily for the provision of educational,
social or recreational facilities or services by organisations involved in activities for community benefit.

A community hall or similar - unlikley to be developed on private land

D

A

D

A

A

Animal Establishment

means premises used for the breeding, boarding, training or caring of animals for
commercial purposes but does not include animal husbandry — intensive or veterinary centre.

A kennels or cattery

D

A

D

A

A

Educational Establishment

means premises used for the purposes of providing education including
premises used for a school, higher education institution, business college, academy or other
educational institution.

A school or training facility

D

D

D

D

D

Tourist Accommodation

means single occupancy accommodation units, which may be self-contained and may include associated central facilities for the exclusive use of guests, and includes serviced
apartments.

Single occupancy short stay units, may be self-contained, may include shared facilities - subset of rural holiday resort

X

X

X

A (*)

X

 


Council

350

12 August 2020

13.1

Attachment h

Draft Millbrook Structure Plan provisions (as advertised)

 

The Structure Plan Provisions as advertised.

 

 

The Structure Plan requirements have therefore been reviewed and set out as follows:

 

1. Subdivision shall be generally in accordance with this Structure Plan, although minor

variations may be permitted by appropriate authorities at the detailed subdivision stage.

 

2. No development shall generally be permitted within a Development Exclusion Area as

identified on the Structure Plan without prior approval of appropriate authorities. In relation to

all other lots, development shall be contained within the current endorsed building envelopes.

 

3. A Fire Management Plan applies to all lots within the Structure Plan and carries with it

ongoing fire management responsibilities for lot owners to maintain fire protection measures

and emergency access to an appropriate standard.

 

4. All future development within proposed Lot 8 as permitted pursuant to proposed Special Provision 71 of the scheme shall be subject to prior development approval.

 

 

 


Council

372

12 August 2020

13.1

Attachment i

Bushfire Management Plan

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 

 

 

 

 



 



 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


 


Council

424

12 August 2020

13.1

Attachment j

Heritage Assessment

 


 


 


 


Council

426

12 August 2020

13.1

Attachment k

Heritage Council - Millbrook Farm Statement of Significance

 


 


Council

427

12 August 2020

13.1

Attachment l

Adjoining landowners notified

 

 


Council                                                                                      428                                                               12 August 2020

14.             Engineering and Work Services Report

Nil


Council                                                                                      429                                                               12 August 2020

16.             Finance and Corporate Services Report

Nil


Council                                                                                      430                                                               12 August 2020

18.             Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given

Nil  

 

 

19.             urgent business

Nil

            

20.             Confidential Reports  

Nil

 

21.             Closure

The Presiding Member closed the meeting at 7.12pm.

 

 

 

 

THESE MINUTES CONSISTING OF PAGES 1 TO 290 WERE CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD ON Tuesday, 25 August 2020.

 

DATE:____________________ PRESIDING MEMBER:     _____________________________