Council Agenda

 

 

 

28 October 2020

 

 

 

 

 


ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS FORMATS ON REQUEST

city@busselton.wa.gov.au

 

 


CITY OF BUSSELTON

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA – 28 October 2020

 

 

 

TO:                  THE MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS

 

 

NOTICE is given that a meeting of the Council will be held in the Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton on Wednesday, 28 October 2020, commencing at 5.30pm.

 

Your attendance is respectfully requested.

 

 

DISCLAIMER

Statements or decisions made at Council meetings or briefings should not be relied on (or acted upon) by an applicant or any other person or entity until subsequent written notification has been given by or received from the City of Busselton. Without derogating from the generality of the above, approval of planning applications and building permits and acceptance of tenders and quotations will only become effective once written notice to that effect has been given to relevant parties. The City of Busselton expressly disclaims any liability for any loss arising from any person or body relying on any statement or decision made during a Council meeting or briefing.

 

 

 

Mike Archer

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

16 October 2020


CITY OF BUSSELTON

Agenda FOR THE Council MEETING TO BE HELD ON 28 October 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

1....... Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors. 5

2....... Attendance. 5

3....... Prayer. 5

4....... Application for Leave of Absence. 5

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

6....... Announcements Without Discussion.. 5

7....... Question Time For Public. 5

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

Previous Council Meetings. 5

8.1          Minutes of the Council Meeting held 14 October 2020. 5

Committee Meetings. 6

8.2          Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting held 14 October 2020. 6

9....... RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS. 6

10..... QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION). 6

11..... Items brought forward for the convenience of those in the public gallery. 6

12..... Reports of Committee. 7

12.1        Finance Committee - 14/10/2020 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - YEAR TO DATE AS AT 31 AUGUST 2020. 7

12.2        Finance Committee - 14/10/2020 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE - AUGUST 2020. 41

13..... Planning and Development Services Report. 52

13.1        SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 46 (HEAD OF POWER FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND STRUCTURE PLANS) - CONSIDERATION FOR FINAL APPROVAL. 52

13.2        AMENDMENT 43 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME 21 PART OF LOT 22 BUSSELL HIGHWAY, YALYALUP - CONSIDERATION FOR FINAL APPROVAL. 69

14..... Engineering and Work Services Report. 121

15..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 122

16..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 123

16.1        RESPONSE TO BAY TO BAY ACTION GROUP MOTIONS MOVED 16 SEPTEMBER 2020. 123

17..... Chief Executive Officers Report. 131

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 131

18..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 134

19..... urgent business. 134

20..... Confidential Matters. 135

20.1        LEGAL MATTER. 135

21..... Closure. 136

 


Council                                                                                      4                                                                 28 October 2020

1.               Declaration of Opening and Announcement of Visitors

 

2.               Attendance 

Apologies

Approved Leave of Absence

 

Nil

 

3.               Prayer

 

4.               Application for Leave of Absence

 

5.               Disclosure Of Interests

 

6.               Announcements Without Discussion

Announcements by the Presiding Member

 

7.               Question Time For Public

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice

Public Question Time For Public

 

8.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes 

Previous Council Meetings

8.1             Minutes of the Council Meeting held 14 October 2020

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 14 October 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 


 

Committee Meetings

8.2             Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting held 14 October 2020

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting held 14 October 2020 be noted.

 

9.               RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS

Petitions

Presentations

Deputations

 

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

 

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


Council                                                                                      21                                                               28 October 2020

12.             Reports of Committee

12.1           Finance Committee - 14/10/2020 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - YEAR TO DATE AS AT 31 AUGUST 2020

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Financial Services

BUSINESS UNIT

Financial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Financial Services - Paul Sheridan

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Acting Director Finance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

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   Investment Report August 2020

Attachment b    Financial Activity Statement August 2020

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 14/10/2020, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council receives the statutory financial activity statement reports for the period ending 31 August 2020, pursuant to Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pursuant to Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) and Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations), a local government is to prepare, on a monthly basis, a statement of financial activity that reports on the City’s financial performance in relation to its adopted / amended budget.

 

This report has been compiled to fulfil the statutory reporting requirements of the Act and associated Regulations, whilst also providing the Council with an overview of the City’s financial performance on a year to date basis for the period ending 31 August 2020.

 

BACKGROUND

The Regulations detail the form and manner in which financial activity statements are to be presented to the Council on a monthly basis, and are to include the following:

·        Annual budget estimates

·        Budget estimates to the end of the month in which the statement relates

·        Actual amounts of revenue and expenditure to the end of the month in which the statement relates

·        Material variances between budget estimates and actual revenue/expenditure (including an explanation of any material variances)

·        The net current assets at the end of the month to which the statement relates (including an explanation of the composition of the net current position)

 


 

Additionally, and pursuant to Regulation 34(5) of the Regulations, a local government is required to adopt a material variance reporting threshold in each financial year. At its meeting on 27 July 2020, the Council adopted (C2007/071) the following material variance reporting threshold for the 2020/21 financial year:

That pursuant to Regulation 34(5) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations, the Council adopts a material variance reporting threshold with respect to financial activity statement reporting for the 2020/21 financial year as follows:

·        Variances equal to or greater than 10% of the year to date budget amount as detailed in the Income Statement by Nature and Type/Statement of Financial Activity report, however variances due to timing differences and/or seasonal adjustments are to be reported only if not to do so would present an incomplete picture of the financial performance for a particular period; and

·        Reporting of variances only applies for amounts greater than $25,000.

OFFICER COMMENT

In order to fulfil statutory reporting requirements and to provide the Council with a synopsis of the City’s overall financial performance on a year to date basis, the following financial reports are attached hereto:

Statement of Financial Activity

This report provides details of the City’s operating revenues and expenditures on a year to date basis, by nature and type (i.e. description). The report has been further extrapolated to include details of non-cash adjustments and capital revenues and expenditures, to identify the City’s net current position; which reconciles with that reflected in the associated Net Current Position report.

Net Current Position

This report provides details of the composition of the net current asset position on a full year basis, and reconciles with the net current position as per the Statement of Financial Activity.

Capital Acquisition Report

This report provides full year budget performance (by line item) in respect of the following capital expenditure activities: 

·        Land and Buildings

·        Plant and Equipment

·        Furniture and Equipment

·        Infrastructure

Reserve Movements Report

This report provides summary details of transfers to and from reserve funds, and associated interest earnings on reserve funds, on a full year basis.

 

Additional reports and/or charts are also provided as required to further supplement the information comprised within the statutory financial reports.


 

Comments on Financial Activity to 31 August 2020

The Statement of Financial Activity (FAS), for the year to date as at 31 August 2020 shows an overall Net Current Position of $51.6M as opposed to the budget of $46.4M.  This represents a positive variance of $5.2M YTD. 

 

The following table summarises the major YTD variances that appear on the face of the FAS, which, in accordance with Council’s adopted material variance reporting threshold, collectively make up the above difference.  Each numbered item in this lead table is explained further in the report.

 

Description

2020/21
Actual YTD

$

2020/21
Amended
Budget YTD

$

2020/21
Amended
Budget

$

2020/21
YTD Bud Variance

%

2020/21
YTD Bud Variance

$

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Revenue from Ordinary Activities

 

(0.43%)

(265,498)

(493,214)

1.     Other Revenue

75,146

34,896

424,730

115.34%

40,250

25,162

2.     Interest Earnings

171,665

122,364

1,046,684

40.29%

49,301

(2,505)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expenses from Ordinary Activities

 

13.62%

1,877,520

238,489

3.     Materials & Contracts

(1,871,804)

(3,080,765)

(18,710,746)

39.24%

1,208,961

199,947

4.     Utilities

(382,476)

(470,912)

(2,770,956)

18.78%

88,436

12,783

5.     Other Expenditure

(233,922)

(510,306)

(5,236,779)

54.16%

276,384

(687)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capital Revenue & (Expenditure)

 

40.62%

3,291,191

(5,657,412)

6.     Land & Buildings

(615,374)

(944,086)

(17,454,059)

34.82%

328,713

(1,192,197)

        Plant &   

        Equipment

(28,570)

(232,724)

(2,510,340)

87.72%

204,154

(288,702)

        Furniture &

        Equipment

(15,512)

(62,667)

(461,088)

75.25%

47,155

12,760

       Infrastructure

(2,202,220)

(5,074,676)

(33,943,507)

56.60%

2,872,456

1,504,180

7.     Proceeds from Sale of Assets

70,907

173,500

581,500

(59.13%)

(102,593)

(102,593)

8.     Transfer to Restricted Assets

(108,000)

(9,168)

(62,750)

(1078.01%)

(98,832)

(23,552)

9.     Transfer from Reserves

1,234,878

1,433,105

34,105,297

(13.83%)

(198,227)

(4,196,650)

 


 

Revenue from Ordinary Activities

Actual income from ordinary activities for August YTD is ($265K) less than YTD budget.  Although overall revenue is under YTD budget, the following YTD items are the only items that meet the material variance reporting thresholds, both of which are positive:

 

1.    Other Revenue is $40K better than budget.  The variance is mainly due to the following:

Revenue Code

Revenue Code Description

Actual YTD

$

Amended Budget YTD

$

Variance
YTD
$

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Comments

G0030

Busselton Transfer Station

36,272

1,018

35,254

26,144

The sale of scrap materials has been budgeted for the end of each quarter, based on historical trend, with only a small amount budgeted monthly for sale of recyclables.

 

2.    Interest Earnings YTD of $172K actual is $49K better than YTD budget.  This represents budget timing issues that have arisen due to when actual rates were issues compared to when originally budgeted earlier in the year, plus the timing of when certain investments were rolled over.  It is too early to tell, but it is believed that the variance will rectify as the year progresses, with further rates installments and investment maturities.

 

Expenses from Ordinary Activities

Expenditure from ordinary activities is $1.88M or 13.62% less than expected when compared to the budget YTD as at August.  The following individual expense line items on the face of the financial statement have YTD variances that meet the material reporting thresholds:

 

3.    Materials and Contracts

Better than budget by $1.2M or 39.24%.  The table below lists the main variance items that meet the reporting thresholds:

Cost Code

Cost Code Description

Actual YTD

$

Amended Budget YTD

$

Variance
YTD
$

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Comments

Finance and Corporate Services

302,855

397,147

94,292

(1,924)

 

10521

Human Resources & Payroll

895

25,226

24,331

21,218

COVID has had a significant impact on training availability, and delivery methods, with on-line training significantly cheaper than face to face training options which are limited at present.

 

 

Community and Commercial Services

142,893

393,693

250,800

99,297

 

10541

Recreation Planning

 -

24,332

24,332

12,166

Timing of expenditure is largely due in Q2 & Q3 due to flora/fauna assessment scheduling and awaiting the outcomes of external grant applications.  Budget timing will be adjusted accordingly.

10591

Geographe Leisure Centre

46,858

69,755

22,897

(12,742)

The Geographe Leisure Centre was closed due to COVID and upon reopening was subject to phased restrictions which limited the attendance numbers and therefore expenditure associated with our programs and services throughout July and into August. To date we are still limited by Phase 5 restrictions and have limited numbers in some activities affecting a slow return to business as usual and therefore planned expenditure.

10600

Busselton Jetty Tourist Park

44,966

96,836

51,870

5,561

The majority of this variance cost is the monthly management contract fee ($41,125) for the caravan park which has resulted due to a timing issue with presentation and payment of the invoice. Other expenses falling within Materials & Contracts are related to maintenance which will occur throughout the year.

 

 

 

 

 

11151

Airport Operations

18,214

115,754

97,540

73,100

The budget YTD monthly allocation for Airport Ops of $115k includes the key allocations of:

·    security screening allocations of $30k not spent

·    Inspections  - only $5k expended out of YTD $10k

·    Contractors  - 

$49k for water tank removal & tree clearing not completed/ expended

·    Smaller variances in other cost codes (3498, 3260, 3224, 3341) not expended.

Planning and Development Services

103,956

304,520

200,564

114,956

 

10925

Preventative Services – CLAG

 -

30,166

30,166

15,083

CLAG mosquito treatments have just commenced for the season and will soon be reflected in the accounts accordingly. 

10931

Protective Burning & Firebreaks-Reserves

6,318

90,648

84,330

45,064

Only one fire mitigation activity has been completed in Q1 due to weather constraints. 

Procurement is underway for a comprehensive role out of fire mitigation activities to be completed in Q2 of 2020 and prior to the peak bush fire season.

11170

Meelup Regional Park

1,519

26,052

24,533

12,442

Reserve maintenance work and pest/weed control contracts have now commenced according to budget. 

 


 

Engineering and Works Services

1,321,297

1,983,595

662,298

(12,486)

 

12600

Street & Drain Cleaning

43,306

72,956

29,651

(6,828)

Expenditure timing - large component of this budget provides for a program of pre-winter drainage maintenance that occurs during the summer months.

12620 & 12621

Rural & Urban Tree Pruning

12,576

63,000

50,424

19,788

Expenditure timing and reduced expenditure to potentially offset May 2020 storm damage subject to DRFAWA claims.

Various

Bridges

2,513

30,202

27,689

13,608

Expenditure timing and reduced expenditure to potentially offset May 2020 storm damage subject to DRFAWA claims.

Various

Buildings

127,533

236,846

109,313

2,600

The majority of scheduled maintenance activities to Buildings occur in the second half of the financial year; hence the year to date variance to budget (which is spread evenly).

Various

Other Infrastructure Maintenance

95,779

287,792

192,013

80,717

Expenditure is attributable to timing with the budget having been evenly spread across the financial year. Material & Contractor costs associated with all these areas will gradually increase as the year progresses.

 


 

Various

Waste services

191,277

436,368

245,091

125,615

The larger variances are due to delays processing significantly higher volumes of green waste (and therefor pay), due to more people being at home because of COVID impacts, plus two major storm events.  There were also delays in receiving invoices from various aspects of the recycling contractor.  Additionally, we’ve got a few outstanding invoices that we haven’t paid as we are seeking a discount from the recycling Contractor, Cleanaway. Another contributing factor is that the City suspended the FOGO service due to COVID (i.e. No collection & No Processing costs).

Various

Roads Maintenance

463,582

144,468

(319,114)

(316,567)

Costs are largely associated with WANDRRA storm claim from the May 2020 storm events. 3 claims have been submitted to DFES, with 1 further claim required for remaining recovery costs.

Various

Reserve Maintenance

94,642

329,162

234,520

77,117

Costs associated with Public Open Spaces are historically low to the year to date budget in the first few month of any new financial year. These costs will begin to increase as we move towards spring and the busy summer tourism peak period.

 


 

5280

Transport - Fleet Management

271,336

377,385

106,049

(4,095)

The variance in fleet is due to both delays in supplier invoicing and the reduced maintenance activities due to lower winter utilisation.  Fuel was underspent by $59,771 YTD due to delays in receiving invoices, lower fuel cost, lower plant utilisation due to winter and less light fleet use due to COVID.  Tyre purchase was underspent by $9,000 YTD, replacement parts/tooling were underspent by $28,488 YTD and contractor costs were underspent by $8,790 YTD.  Budget is spread evenly across the year, however spending is generally more cyclical in nature and peaks in the busier spring/summer/ autumn months.

 

4.    Utilities

Costs are $88K under budget.  At year ended 30/6 the June street lighting account was booked in June, rather than in July with an offsetting accrual reversal.  Coupled with this the July and August accounts have not yet been received from Synergy due to system issues at their end (along with a number of other electricity accounts).  No accrual was done for July or August to allow for this, causing what appears to be an underspend against the budget.  Pending resolution of the system issues at Synergy, this should rectify itself in September accounts.


 

5.    Other Expenditure

$276K under the budget. The main contributing items are listed below:

Cost Code

Cost Code Description

Actual YTD

$

Amended Budget YTD

$

Variance
YTD
$

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Comments

Executive Services

716

30,494

29,778

22,331

 

10001

Office of the CEO

716

30,494

29,778

22,331

The variance is due to underpayment (compared to budget) of the CAPEROC Regional Budget. $15,000 was scheduled for payment in August however was not paid until September.  The balance of the budget ($40,000) is payable as and when initiatives arise, however is budgeted evenly over the 12 months.  A further $10,000 has been paid in September, the balance of the budget timing will be adjusted to reflect payment later in the financial year.

Finance and Corporate Services

64,835

123,548

58,713

13,181

 

10000

Members of Council

50,639

88,640

38,001

6,317

Councillor fees and allowances are paid one month in arrears, apart from June, where there is effectively a double up to ensure the full year figures are correct per YTD budget.  The budget however is allocated to every month, causing a variance in July, which gradually resolves by June.

 


 

Community and Commercial Services

149,613

329,358

179,745

(46,825)

 

10530

Community & Commercial Services Administration

107,859

70,716

(37,143)

(72,501)

There were no marketing activities during July and only one sponsored event (Cabin Fever) with their invoice being presented in August. However, the annual budget allocation for events and marketing areas were incorrectly allocated over the duration of the year and hence variances have resulted. The budget monthly allocations will be rectified for subsequent months following finalisation of the funding agreements and payment schedules.

10567

Cinefest Oz

 -

120,000

120,000

-

Cinefest Oz is commenced on 25th August with a different event being hosted this year due to COVID-19 restrictions, resulting in a varied payment schedule for their event funding as agreed by MERG and Council.  Invoices to be presented/paid during Sept/Oct.

11151

Airport Operations

 -

35,272

35,272

17,636

The budget relates to the Airline Attraction program expenditure for Jetstar RPT flights.  This has been COVID affected and subsequent budget timings will be adjusted.

12631

Peel Tce Building & Surrounds

 -

27,266

27,266

13,633

MRBTA visitor servicing funding – the contract between MRBTA and the City has now been signed and the first quarterly invoice presented at the end of Sept. The monthly allocations will need to be adjusted to reflect quarterly payments (cost code name will be changed as well).

 


 

6.    Capital Expenditure

As at 31 August 2020, there is an underspend variance of 54.68% or $3.5M in total capital expenditure, with YTD actual at $2.7M against the YTD amended budget of $6.3M.  Almost all of this positive underspend variance is offset by the negative variance in Non-operating Grants, Contributions & Subsidies discussed above, plus negative variances in Transfers From Reserves related to funds held aside for these projects.  The attachments to this report include detailed listings of all capital expenditure (project) items, however the main areas of YTD variance are summarised as follows:

Cost Code

Cost Code Description

Actual YTD

$

Amended Budget YTD

$

Variance
YTD
$

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Comments

Buildings

615,374

944,086

328,713

(1,192,197)

 

B9516

Busselton Library Upgrade

110,182

150,000

39,818

(110,054)

Project was underspent due to mid-June 2020 contract award which occurred later than expected.  Works scheduled for completion on 8 October 2020.

B9407

Busselton Senior Citizens

232,762

361,722

128,960

(250)

Works completed in September 2020.

B9596

GLC Building Improvements

2,364

81,942

79,578

40,971

Carried over works from the prior year.  Works scheduled to be completed in October 2020.

Plant & Equipment

28,570

232,724

204,154

(288,702)

 

10810

Statutory Planning

 -

35,000

35,000

35,000

Vehicle not yet ordered – awaiting confirmation of government pricing.

11156

Airport Development Operations

 -

47,184

47,184

23,592

Vehicle ordered – due to be delivered late October/early November.

11402

Plant Purchases (P10)

 -

40,000

40,000

40,000

Generators at DWF pond & cell – not yet replaced.  Site and operations under review.  Mark can elaborate if required.

11500

Operations Services Administration

 -

40,000

40,000

40,000

Vehicle not yet ordered – awaiting confirmation of government pricing.

 


 

Furniture & Office Equipment

15,512

62,667

47,155

12,760

 

10250

Information & Communication Technology Services

15,512

42,667

27,155

(7,240)

Alternative solution found for the Fully Qualified Domain Name project that resulted in a lower spend up front, the capital assigned will now include a migration to Exchange Online which was always an option within the initial project. Expect the costs to be drawn in Q4 2020.

Infrastructure By Class

2,202,220

5,074,676

2,872,456

1,504,180

In the first quarter of the financial year a majority of Projects are in the planning and design phase and as such minimal actual expenditure is recorded against them. Further to this Capital Projects with Civil works are commonly scheduled to be carried out later; in the drier summer construction season.  The Capital works budgets have been entered based on an even spread method and approach, not on a scheduled timing of works basis.

 

Roads

1,064,204

3,177,420

2,113,216

1,484,315

 

Bridges

34

286,666

286,632

143,451

 

Car Parks

201,690

293,126

91,436

6,635

 

Footpaths & Cycleways

22,109

206,970

184,861

87,463

 

Parks, Gardens & Reserves

882,673

993,636

110,963

(245,319)

 

Drainage

 -

28,494

28,494

14,769

 

Regional Airport & Industrial Park Infrastructure

31,509

88,364

56,855

12,866

 

7.    Proceeds From Sale of Assets

YTD proceeds from sale of assets is $103K behind budget due to delays in delivery of acquisitions.  We are also still holding a couple of vehicles to ensure we have enough pool cars for staff given the extension of alternating weeks of working from home.

 

8.    Transfer to Restricted Assets

There is a YTD variance in transfers to restricted assets of $99K more than amended budget.

Developer contributions and bonds are inherently hard to predict and budget for.  An annual amount of $50K spread evenly over 12 months was budgeted, however, over $69K has been received YTD August.  Also contributing to the variance is $25K in caravan park deposits that is not budgeted for.  

 

9.    Transfer from Reserves

There is a YTD variance in Transfers from Reserves of $198K less than amended budget.  $150K of this relates to the completion of the Busselton Library extension, which has actually been transferred in September.  A further $36K relates to a transfer from the Long Service Leave reserve upon retirement of a long serving employee that was budgeted for August but was actually transferred in September.

Investment Report

Pursuant to the Council’s Investment Policy, a report is to be provided to the Council on a monthly basis, detailing the investment portfolio in terms of performance and counterparty percentage exposure of total portfolio. The report is also to provide details of investment income earned against budget, whilst confirming compliance of the portfolio with legislative and policy limits.

 

As at 31 August 2020, the value of the City’s invested funds totalled $74.79M, up from $65.79M as at 31 July 2020. The increase is due to the deposit of $9.0M into the 11am account (an intermediary account which offers immediate access to the funds compared to the term deposits and a higher rate of return compared to the cheque account).  The $9.0M deposit is due to additional funds being available as 2020-21 rate payments begin to be received.

 

During the month of August six term deposits totalling the amount of $16.0M matured. Existing deposits were renewed for a further 172 days at 0.73% on average.

 

The official cash rate in June remains steady at 0.25%. This will have a strong impact on the City’s interest earnings for the foreseeable future. Further drops are unlikely at this stage.

Chief Executive Officer – Corporate Credit Card

 Details of transactions made on the Chief Executive Officer’s corporate credit card during August 2020 are provided below to ensure there is appropriate oversight and awareness.

 

Date

$ Amount

Payee

Description

24/07/2020

38.00

KINDRED NOMINEES, BOYANUP ( Bull & Bush Tavern) 

SW CEO'S MEETING - LUNCH

27/07/2020

199.00

Booking.com Australia     Sydney   ( CROWN PROMENADE)

ACCOM FOR MAYOR TO ATTEND WALGA AGM AND POLITICAL FORUM

6/08/2020

90.10

OFFICE WORKS ON LINE

ITEMS FOR CITIZENSHIP CEREMONY CATERING

6/08/2020

54.00

SENTINEL BAR & GRILL

RCAWA MEETING PERTH

6/08/2020

200.14

QT PERTH

RACWA MEETING -ACCOMODATION

6/08/2020

200.14

QT PERTH

RACWA MEETING -ACCOMODATION

7/08/2020

63.68

QT PERTH

RCAWA MEETING PERTH

18/08/2020

80.00

ONE RUSTIC BLOOM

SYMPATHY FLOWER DELIVERY FOR STAFF

 

925.06

 

 

Statutory Environment

Section 6.4 of the Act and Regulation 34 of the Regulations detail the form and manner in which a local government is to prepare financial activity statements.

Relevant Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

Any financial implications are detailed within the context of this report.

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Risk Assessment

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the Officer Recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk management framework, with risks assessed taking into account any controls already in place. No risks of a medium or greater level have been identified.

Options

The Statements of Financial Activity are presented in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Act and Regulation 34 of the Regulations and are to be received. Council may wish to make additional resolutions as a result of having received these reports.

CONCLUSION

Budget timings remain affected by COVID impacts and are gradually being re-aligned. As at 31 August 2020, the City’s net current position stands at $51.6M. The City’s financial performance is considered satisfactory, and cash reserves remain strong.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Not applicable.


Council

22

28 October 2020

12.1

Attachment a

Investment Report August 2020

 


Council

39

28 October 2020

12.1

Attachment b

Financial Activity Statement August 2020

 



















Council                                                                                      42                                                               28 October 2020

12.2           Finance Committee - 14/10/2020 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE - AUGUST 2020

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Financial Operations

BUSINESS UNIT

Financial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Financial Services - Paul Sheridan

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Acting Director Finance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

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   List of Payments August 2020

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 14/10/2020, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council notes payment of voucher numbers M118230 – M118279, EF073379 – EF074003, T7523 – T7527, DD004205 – DD004238 together totalling $7,264,177.31.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides details of payments made from the City’s bank accounts for the month of August 2020, for noting by the Council and recording in the Council Minutes.

 

BACKGROUND

The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations) requires that when the Council has delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to make payments from the City’s bank accounts, that a list of payments made is prepared each month for presentation to, and noting by, the Council.

OFFICER COMMENT

In accordance with regular custom, the list of payments made for the month of August 2020 is presented for information. 

Statutory Environment

Section 6.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 and more specifically Regulation 13 of the Regulations refer to the requirement for a listing of payments made each month to be presented to the Council.

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

Not applicable.

CONCLUSION

The list of payments made for the month of August 2020 is presented for information.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Not applicable.


Council

51

28 October 2020

12.2

Attachment a

List of Payments August 2020

 









 


Council                                                                                      63                                                               28 October 2020

13.             Planning and Development Services Report

13.1           SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 46 (HEAD OF POWER FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND STRUCTURE PLANS) - 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 and Amendments

BUSINESS UNIT

Strategic Planning

REPORTING OFFICER

Senior Strategic Planner - Helen Foulds

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   Amendment 46 Schedule of Submissions

Attachment b    Amendment 46 Schedule of Modifications  

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.         In pursuance of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, adopts Amendment No. 46 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 B, for the purposes of:

(a)       Amending Part 5 “Special Control Areas” by –

(i)        Amending clause 5.4 “Landscape Value Area” by inserting a new sub-clause 5.4.1 as follows, and renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly:

5.4.1      Development within the Landscape Value Area requires the prior development approval of the local government.

(ii)      Amending clause 5.5 “Wetland Area” by replacing sub-clause 5.5.1 with the following:

5.5.1      Development within the Wetland Area requires the prior development approval of the local government.

(iii)     Amending clause 5.6 “Coastal Management Area” by inserting a new sub-clause 5.6.1 as follows, and renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly:

5.6.1      Development within the Coastal Management Area requires the prior development approval of the local government.

(iv)     Amending clause 5.7 “Special Character Area” by inserting a new sub-clause 5.7.1 as follows, and renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly:

5.7.1      Development within the Special Character Area requires the prior development approval of the local government.

(v)       Amending clause 5.8 “Airport Protection Area” by inserting a new sub-clause 5.8.1 as follows, and renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly:

5.8.1      Development within the Airport Protection Area requires the prior development approval of the local government.

(vi)     Amending clause 5.10 “Waste Water Exclusion Area and Waste Water Buffer Area” by inserting a new sub-clause 5.10.1 as follows, and renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly:

5.10.1    Development within the Waste Water Exclusion Area and Waste Water Buffer Area requires the prior development approval of the local government.

(vii)    Amending clause 5.11 “Floodway Area and Other Flood Prone Land” by replacing it with the following:

5.11        FLOODWAY AREA

5.11.1    This clause applies to all land identified within a Floodway area on the Scheme map.

5.11.2    Development within the Floodway Area requires the prior development approval of the local government.

5.11.3    Notwithstanding any other provision of this Scheme, prior to granting development approval for the carrying out of any development on land that is shown on the Scheme map as being within, or partly within, a Floodway area, the local government is to carry out an assessment –

(a)       the effect of the proposed development on the efficiency and capacity of the floodway to carry and discharge floodwaters;

(b)       the safety of the proposed development during flood events; and

(c)       whether the proposed development involves any possible risk to life, human safety, or private property in time of flood.

5.11.4    For the purposes of clause 5.11.2, the local government shall consult with, and take into consideration, the advice of the responsible Government agency(s) in relation to the delineation of flood ways and flood prone land, the effect of the development on a floodway, and any other measures to offset the effects of flooding.

5.11.5    In clause 5.11 –

“habitable building” means a building designed primarily for housing and/or overnight accommodation for persons.

(b)       Amending Part 4 “General Development Requirements” by –

(i)        Amending clause 4.38 “Special provisions relating to the Rural Residential zone” by inserting new sub-clause 4.38.8 as follows –

4.38.8    No subdivision of Rural Residential zoned land shall occur until a Structure Plan, prepared in accordance with Part 4 of the Deemed Provisions and approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission, is in place for the applicable land.  Subdivision, which is inconsistent with an endorsed Structure Plan, will not be supported.

(ii)      Amending clause 4.39 “Special provisions relating to the Rural Landscape zone” by inserting a new sub-clause 4.39.1 as follows, and renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly:

 

 

 

4.39.1    No subdivision of Rural Landscape zoned land shall occur until a Structure Plan, prepared in accordance with Part 4 of the Deemed Provisions and approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission, is in place for the applicable land.  Subdivision, which is inconsistent with an endorsed Structure Plan, will not be supported.

(iii)     Amending clause 4.37 “Special provisions relating to the Conservation zone” by inserting a new sub-clause 4.37.3 as follows, and renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly:

4.37.3    No subdivision of Conservation zoned land shall occur until a Structure Plan, prepared in accordance with Part 4 of the Deemed Provisions and approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission, is in place for the applicable land.  Subdivision, which is inconsistent with an endorsed Structure Plan, will not be supported.

(iv)     Amending clause 4.40 “Special provisions relating to the Bushland Protection zone” by inserting a new sub-clause 4.40.1 as follows, and renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly:

4.40.1    No subdivision of Bushland Protection zoned land shall occur until a Structure Plan, prepared in accordance with Part 4 of the Deemed Provisions and approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission, is in place for the applicable land.  Subdivision, which is inconsistent with an endorsed Structure Plan, will not be supported.

 

2.         Advises the Western Australian Planning Commission that Amendment No. 46 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 is consistent with a local planning strategy for the Scheme that has been endorsed by the Commission; and

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

 

3.         Pursuant to r.53 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, endorses the Summary of Submissions at Attachment A, which has been prepared in response to the public consultation process undertaken in relation to Amendment No. 46.

 

4.         Upon preparation of the necessary documentation, refers the adopted Amendment No. 46 to the Western Australian Planning Commission for consideration and determination in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005.

 

5.         Pursuant to r.56 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, should directions be given that modifications to Amendment No. 46 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.

 

 


 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Council is requested to consider adopting for final approval Amendment No. 46 to Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (the Scheme). The Amendment proposes to re-establish the ‘head of power’ for development applications in Special Control Areas and for Structure Plans prior to subdivision occurring in the ‘Rural Residential’, ‘Rural Landscape’, ‘Conservation’ and ‘Bushland Protection’ zones.

 

The purpose of this report is to recommend to the Council that Amendment 46 be adopted for final approval, subject to recommended minor modifications, and forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).

 

BACKGROUND

On 15 October 2014, the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (the Scheme) was published in the Government Gazette. The Scheme, which incorporates the Scheme Text and Scheme Map, controls and guides development and growth within the City.

 

In October 2015, the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) came into operational effect. The Regulations guide and require processes for local planning schemes, strategies and amendments. In addition to a ‘model scheme text’ (the Model Provisions), the Regulations introduced a set of ‘Deemed Provisions’ that automatically form part of all local planning schemes.

 

The Deemed Provisions, located at Schedule 2 of the Regulations, include administrative processes for:

·        planning policy;

·        heritage protection;

·        structure planning; and

·        development approval.

 

All provisions that were made irrelevant by or were contradictory to the Deemed Provisions were removed from the Scheme through Amendment No. 25, which was published in the Government Gazette on 23 March 2018. Through this process, a number of key triggers were inadvertently removed from the Scheme, such as the requirement for a structure plan to guide subdivision in the Rural Residential zone and the explicit requirement for a development approval in some Special Control Areas. Although these matters can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, it is more efficient and unambiguous to have clear requirements contained within the Scheme.

 

Consideration was given to incorporating the proposed changes as part of the Scheme Review, as both the City and the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) are committed to the timely and effective preparation of, and smooth transition to, a new and replacement Local Planning Scheme. However, despite all best intentions to keep the review process as succinct at possible, it will be some time (in the order of 2+ years) before the new Scheme is likely to be gazetted and operational.

 

As such, these identified irregularities are proposed to be the subject of a discrete and standalone Scheme Amendment.

 


 

The purpose of Amendment 46, therefore, is twofold:

1.         to re-introduce to the operational Scheme the requirement for a development application in specific Special Control Areas; and

2.         to re-introduce to the operational Scheme the requirement for a Structure Plan to guide any intention to subdivide in the ‘Rural Residential’, ‘Rural Landscape’, ‘Conservation’ and ‘Bushland Protection’ zones.

OFFICER COMMENT

As outlined above, Amendment 46 seeks to remedy anomalies introduced into the current Scheme through Amendment 25, which otherwise removed a number of necessary clauses from the Scheme that duplicated, or were in conflict with, the Deemed Provisions. Amendment 46 will serve to reinstate the two requirements previously referred to, and set out in more detail below:

 

1.      Development Approval within Special Control Areas

Through the introduction of the Deemed Provisions and subsequent changes to the Scheme, the trigger to require development approval where such development is proposed in Special Control Areas (SCAs) was inadvertently removed. This particularly affects the Coastal Management Area, Landscape Value Area and Special Character Areas. Whilst the Scheme provides general guidance for the consideration of a development application, the specific requirement for the preparation and submission of a development application should be clearly stated.

 

Amendment 46 therefore proposes to include provisions for the following SCAs into Part 5 of the Scheme, specifically stating that any development within those areas will require the prior approval of the City:

·        Landscape Value Area;

·        Wetland Area;

·        Coastal Management Area;

·        Special Character Areas;

·        Airport Protection Area;

·        Waste Water Exclusion Area and Waste Water Buffer Area; and

·        Floodway Area.

 

The Deemed Provisions allow for exemptions to this requirement for works (clause 61(1)(i)) or use of land (clause 61(2)(e)) through a local planning policy (LPP) or local development plan if that was considered appropriate in particular circumstances in future.

 

The changes to SCAs in section 1(a) of the Officer Recommendation introduce a new clause for the majority of these SCAs, although it is considered that the Wetland Area and Floodway Area provisions require additional attention. This is discussed below.

 

Wetland Area

Clause 5.5.1 (see below) identifies that, if development is proposed on land identified as being within the Wetland Area, such development should be located, wherever possible, on land outside of the SCA:

5.5.1   If land the subject of an application for development approval includes land to which this clause applies the development shall, wherever possible, be carried out on that part of the land which is not land identified in a Wetland Area.

 

Although it was recommended by the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions in its submission to retain this wording, this overly-complicated clause is considered misleading and does little to clarify the requirement for development approval or guide the due assessment of a development application.

 

In the event that a proposal was received for development within a Wetland Area, alternative locations that might be outside this Area would always be preferred, but balanced with other factors that apply to the land, such as setbacks, amenity and bushfire risk. If development was proposed outside of the Wetland Area, though, the clause would not actually apply.

 

Clause 5.5.1 is proposed to be simplified by replacing it with the following:

5.5.1   Development within the Wetland Area requires the prior development approval of the local government.

 

Flood Prone Land

To provide greater clarity on when development approval would be necessary, further simplification of clause 5.11 “Floodway Area and other flood prone land” is recommended. The current clause is set out in full below.

 

5.11       FLOODWAY AREA AND OTHER FLOOD PRONE LAND

5.11.1    This clause applies to -

(a)    all land identified within a Floodway area on the Scheme map; and

(b)   any other land identified as flood prone land on a map prepared or adopted by the local government or on other land which, in the opinion of the local government, may be subject to flooding.

5.11.2    Notwithstanding any other provision of this Scheme -

(a)   prior to granting development approval for the carrying out of any development on land that is shown on the Scheme map as being within, or partly within, a Floodway area, the local government is to carry out an assessment of -

(i)     the effect of the proposed development on the efficiency and capacity of the floodway to carry and discharge floodwaters;

(ii)    the safety of the proposed development during flood events; and

(iii)   whether the proposed development involves any possible risk to life, human safety, or private property in time of flood.

(b)   land identified as flood prone land or which, in the opinion of the local government, may be liable to flooding, may not be developed unless -

(i)     where no works have been carried out to protect the land from flooding, the floor of any habitable building is, or will be, raised 500 millimetres above the 1 in 100 year flood level, as determined by the local government, or where a 1 in 100 year flood level has not been determined, above the maximum recorded flood level; or

ii)      in any other case, the local government is satisfied that adequate measures have been taken to offset the likely effects of flooding on the development concerned.

5.11.3    For the purposes of clause 5.11.2, the local government shall consult with, and take into consideration, the advice of the responsible Government agency(s) in relation to the delineation of flood ways and flood prone land, the effect of the development on a floodway, and any other measures to offset the effects of flooding.

5.11.4    In clause 5.11 -

"habitable building" means a building designed primarily for housing and/or overnight accommodation for persons.

 

The clause refers to ‘flood prone land’ as identified “...on a map prepared or adopted by the local government” (clause 5.11.1(b)), as being separate from the ‘Floodway’ SCA that is designated on the Scheme Map.

 

The City has never adopted such a map showing ‘flood prone land’ separately, and generally does not delineate areas considered ‘flood prone’ in addition to the Floodway as shown on the Scheme Map. Updated flood modelling data from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) is intended to be reflected on the Scheme Map through the Scheme Review process.

 

This reference to “...other flood prone land” also places an implied obligation on City officers to determine if a parcel is flood prone each time the City receives an enquiry for whether a development application is required outside the Floodway Area. This places the City in an impossible position, creating an unachievable task against what should be a simple response. Reference to “...other flood prone land” is therefore proposed to be deleted from clause 5.11 to reduce possible confusion in the reading of the Scheme. The recommended re-wording of this clause, as advertised, can be found at section 1(a)(vii) of the Officer Recommendation (also incorporating the recommended reference to the requirement for a development application in a Floodway Area) and is reproduced in full below:

 

5.11       FLOODWAY AREA

5.11.1    This clause applies to all land identified within a Floodway area on the Scheme map.

5.11.2    Development within the Floodway Area requires the prior development approval of the local government.

5.11.3    Notwithstanding any other provision of this Scheme, prior to granting development approval for the carrying out of any development on land that is shown on the Scheme map as being within, or partly within, a Floodway area, the local government is to carry out an assessment –

(a)   the effect of the proposed development on the efficiency and capacity of the floodway to carry and discharge floodwaters;

(b)   the safety of the proposed development during flood events; and

(c)    whether the proposed development involves any possible risk to life, human safety, or private property in time of flood.

5.11.4    For the purposes of clause 5.11.2, the local government shall consult with, and take into consideration, the advice of the responsible Government agency(s) in relation to the delineation of flood ways and flood prone land, the effect of the development on a floodway, and any other measures to offset the effects of flooding.

5.11.5    In clause 5.11 –

“habitable building” means a building designed primarily for housing and/or overnight accommodation for persons.

 

DWER provided a submission during the public consultation period, making recommendations on the wording of the Floodway clause. These recommendations are set out within the Schedule of Submissions at Attachment A.

 


 

The DWER recommendations included retaining reference to “Flood Prone Land” outside the Floodway SCA. However, the purpose of this component of Amendment 46 is to reduce confusion as to where the provisions of the clause would apply and when a development application should be required. The proposed wording of clause 5.11 specifically states that it is applicable to land identified as being within the Floodway SCA. It is the opinion of City officers that a more appropriate approach would be a broad scale review of the Floodway mapping to ensure all applicable areas are properly captured as appropriate, along with refinement to the wording of the clause. That work is intended to be undertaken as part of the Scheme Review process, which is currently underway.

 

Further advice was provided by DWER in relation to stipulated minimum habitable finished floor levels within the Scheme, to ensure adequate and acceptable flood protection from 1 in 100 (1%) Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flooding event in the future. Officers agree that there is merit to trying to establish a minimum habitable finished floor level requirement in the Scheme. The current Floodway SCA mapping is based on inland flood risk only, whereas there is a view to look at inland and coastal flooding risk in an integrated way in the new Scheme. A considerable amount of further work on this complex assessment is required, even beyond the development of the current Coastal Adaptation Strategy (and current review of the Guidelines for SPP 2.6 ‘Coastal Planning’), to determine and justify proposed levels.

 

The inclusion of this type of assessment, and the delineation of appropriate habitable finished floor levels into the Scheme, will first need a comprehensive consultation process that would best be conducted through the Scheme Review process. City officers intend to work closely with DWER as part of this process.

 

The submission from DWER also identified two corrections that are necessary to make to the proposed clause:

1.         Reference to “clause 5.11.2” at cl. 5.11.4, should refer to “clause 5.11.3”; and

2.         The definition of ‘habitable building’ at cl. 5.11.5 is no longer necessary, as this term is proposed to be removed from the original clause 5.11.

 

On reflection, a further modification to clause 5.11.4 is recommended by officers to improve the wording of the clause, given the purpose of clause 5.11 is to set the statutory duty within that SCA and the intention behind the proposed changes to the Floodway SCA provisions is to make these requirements more clear and precise.

 

As currently written, the clause effectively directs the City to consult with responsible agencies on the location of the Floodway SCA boundary at the time of receiving a development application. In actual fact the City would be seeking advice from the relevant agency on the effect any flood hazard would have on the proposed development as well as the effect of the development on the floodway (rather than the location of the Floodway SCA boundary itself). Officers therefore recommend that the words “the delineation of flood ways and flood prone land” is replaced with the words “flood hazard”.

 

It is also important to note here that concern for flooding hazards would not be disregarded just because a development might be located outside the Floodway Area. For example, if an application is received because the development is located within a Wetland Area (and outside the Floodway Area) and is therefore referred to Government agencies, any advice that may be provided by those agencies in relation to a flood hazard would be duly considered.

 


 

When incorporating both the recommended modifications relevant to clause 5.11.4 set out above, the clause would appear as follows:

5.11.4    For the purposes of clause 5.11.3, the local government shall consult with, and take into consideration, the advice of the responsible Government agency(s) in relation to flood hazard the delineation of flood ways and flood prone land, the effect of the development on a floodway, and any other measures to offset the effects of flooding.

 

These modifications have been set out within the recommended Schedule of Modifications at Attachment B.

 

2.      Structure Plans in the ‘Rural Residential’, ‘Rural Landscape’, ‘Conservation’ and ‘Bushland Protection’ zones

The Deemed Provisions at clause 15 of Part 4 of the Regulations states when a Structure Plan may be prepared, including where an area:

·    is zoned as an being suitable for urban or industrial development (cl. 15(a)(i));

·    is otherwise identified as requiring a Structure Plan, by either the Scheme (cl. 15(a)(ii)) or a State Planning Policy (cl. 15(b)); or

·    is considered by the WAPC as requiring a Structure Plan in the interests of orderly and proper planning (cl. 15(c)).

 

Currently, however, there is no explicit ‘head of power’, in the Scheme or the Regulations, for the requirement of a Structure Plan to guide subdivision within the ‘Rural Residential’, ‘Rural Landscape’, ‘Conservation’ and ‘Bushland Protection’ zones.

 

Rural Residential zone

Within ‘Rural Residential’ zoned land, the removal of the explicit requirement for a Structure Plan to guide subdivision was due to an oversight introduced as part of Amendment No. 25 (incorporating the Deemed Provisions into the Scheme), when that empowerment clause was inadvertently removed.

 

When an enquiry was recently received over specific ‘Rural Residential’ zoned land, the DPLH was requested by City Officers to advise if it might be willing to support the requirement of a Structure Plan over these lots pursuant to clause 15(c) of the Deemed Provisions. This is a ‘stop-gap solution’ of sorts but is a time-consuming and cumbersome process to undertake every time a proposal is submitted for ‘Rural Residential’ zoned land, and the DPLH (on behalf of the WAPC) has advised the City that it does not wish to have to entertain such requests for ‘every proposal’; although, to date, the WAPC has been very accommodating in working to rectify the current Scheme anomaly.

 

Accordingly, the City has been asked by the DPLH to re-introduce the appropriate clause into the Scheme at ‘...the very earliest opportunity’. This is proposed through Amendment 46, by inserting a new sub-clause within clause 4.38 “Special Provisions relating to the Rural Residential Zone”.

 

Rural Landscape, Conservation and Bushland Protection zones

These zones originated in District Town Planning Scheme No. 20, which was gazetted in 1999. In the past, it was common for the rezoning of a property to one of these zones to be accompanied by a Structure Plan (previously referred to as a ‘Development Guide Plan’ or ‘Subdivision Guide Plan’, prior to the current Regulations coming into operation).

 


 

Whilst the majority of properties within these zones already have a Structure Plan in place, the Deemed Provisions, at Schedule 2 of the Regulations, provide an effective ‘end date’ to Structure Plans, being 10 years from the date of approval. For Structure Plans that pre-date the Regulations the duration for approval is to be 10 years from the ‘commencement day’ of the Regulations, being 19 October 2015. This would mean that the approval for a number of Structure Plans associated with these zones will lapse on 19 October 2025.

 

There has always been an expectation that a Structure Plan be submitted and approved prior to subdivision of lots within these particular zones, but, as with the ‘Rural Residential’ zone, there is currently no clear requirement in the Scheme for this to occur. Given that many Structure Plans are due to expire in October 2025, it is considered critical that this requirement be properly in place. Amendment No. 46 therefore proposes to introduce this requirement in these zones, provided at section 1(b) of the Officer Recommendation.

Statutory Environment

The key elements of the statutory environment in relation to Amendment 46 are set out in the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. This Scheme Amendment has been prepared having regard to the Act and the Regulations (and the Model Provisions and Deemed Provisions contained therein).

 

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 identifies three different levels of amendments – ‘basic’, ‘standard’ and ‘complex’. The resolution of the local government is required to specify the level of the amendment and provide a brief explanation justifying this specification.

 

Amendment 46 is considered to be a ‘standard’ amendment, given it is consistent with the identified zone objectives provided for within the Scheme, and with the outcomes and recommendations endorsed in the Local Planning Strategy (2019), and will not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land in the Scheme area.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The Officer Recommendation aligns with endorsed outcomes and recommendations in the City of Busselton Local Planning Strategy, 2019 (LPS).

 

The LPS sets the long-term strategic planning direction for the District of the City of Busselton and provides the strategic rationale for decisions relating to the progressive review, update and amendment of the Scheme. The LPS was adopted for final approval by the Council in September 2016 and was endorsed by the WAPC on 10 December 2019, subject to certain agreed modifications prior to endorsement by the DPLH. The DPLH formally endorsed the LPS on 13 March 2020.

 

‘Theme 1’ of the LPS, ‘Settlement and community’, identifies the following relevant strategies:

Strategy (f):

“Support and pro-actively plan for urban consolidation and redevelopment... Planning for consolidation should have regard to Special Character Areas, amenity, streetscape and Western Ringtail Possum habitat.”

Strategy (r):

“Do not support the following –

i.                Unplanned new settlements or urban growth areas, including through creation of new settlements not identified in the established settlement framework or new urban growth areas not identified in the urban growth area framework;

 

ii.         The rezoning of any further land for rural-residential development;

iii.        Planning proposals that would significantly compromise the capacity of urban growth areas to accommodate planned growth; and

iv.        Any proposals inconsistent with any State Planning Policy, including the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy, and the Leeuwin Naturaliste Sub-Regional Strategy.”

 

‘Theme 3’ of the LPS, ‘Transport and infrastructure’, identifies the following relevant strategy:

Strategy (h):

“Support the progressive upgrading of wastewater treatment facilities, delivery of infill sewer, initiatives for wastewater recycling and regulating land-use to minimise the risk of future land-use conflict around facilities.”

 

‘Theme 4’ of the LPS, ‘Environment, landscape and heritage’, identifies the following relevant objectives and strategies:

Objective (a):

“Protect and enhance the natural environment and biodiversity of the District.”

Objective (b):

“Manage environmental risks such as flooding, bush fire and coastal erosion.”

Objective (c):

“Preserve and enhance the natural, rural and urban landscapes of the District.”

Strategy (a):

“Protect and enhance the habitat of native fauna, native vegetation, waterways and wetlands as part of the planning and development of the District.”

Strategy (b):

“Seek to identify and secure ecological corridors as part of considering structure planning and rezoning proposals.”

Strategy (g):

“Ensure that new and existing urban areas and other development infrastructure are adequately protected from inland and coastal flooding risks.”

Strategy (h):

“Ensure that management of bush fire risk is a central consideration in planning and development decisions and that it is undertaken at the same time as development of any landscape or vegetation management planning.”

Strategy (i):

“Maintain the physical separateness and unique identities of all settlements, and in particular do not allow intensification of development in the Siesta Park/Marybrook area by maintaining the broadacre character, wetland ecology, rural landscape and cultural values of the ‘Wetland Amenity Area’ as identified in the Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy and other areas, as identified in this strategy.”

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the Officer Recommendation.

Stakeholder Consultation

The Amendment was advertised for 42 days, ending 26 August 2020. Eight government agency submissions were received, and no public submissions. A Summary of Submissions, along with Officer comments, is provided at Attachment A.

 

The most substantive matters were raised by DWER, in relation to the wording of clause 5.11 (Floodway Area), and by DBCA, in relation to the wording of subclause 5.5.1 (Wetland Area). These matters have already been addressed within the ‘Officer Comment’ section, above.

Risk Assessment

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

 

The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve adopting the Amendment for final approval and referral to the Western Australian Planning Commission and Minister for Planning for final approval. No risks of a medium or greater level have been identified.

Options

As an alternative to the Officer Recommendation, the Council could:

1.         Not adopt the Amendment for final approval (and provide reasons for such a decision). It should be noted that, under the relevant legislation, there is no right of appeal against a Council decision not to adopt an amendment for final approval.

2.         Seek further information before making a final determination.

CONCLUSION

As a result of the assessment detailed above, Officers are of the view that the proposal is generally consistent with the aims and objectives of the State and local planning policy framework. It is recommended that the Council provides a recommendation to the Western Australian Planning Commission to endorse the final approval of Amendment 46, subject to the modifications set out at Attachment B.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve the referral of Amendment 46 to the Western Australian Planning Commission for final approval and this will occur within one month of the resolution.

 


Council

67

28 October 2020

13.1

Attachment a

Amendment 46 Schedule of Submissions

 





Council

68

28 October 2020

13.1

Attachment b

Amendment 46 Schedule of Modifications

 


Council                                                                                      76                                                               28 October 2020

13.2           AMENDMENT 43 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME 21 PART OF LOT 22 BUSSELL HIGHWAY, YALYALUP - CONSIDERATION FOR FINAL APPROVAL

STRATEGIC GOAL

2. PLACE AND SPACES Vibrant, attractive, affordable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Town Planning Schemes and Amendments

BUSINESS UNIT

Strategic Planning

REPORTING OFFICER

Principal Strategic Planner - Louise Koroveshi

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   Draft Provence Structure Plan

Attachment b    Location Plan

Attachment c    Existing and Proposed Zoning

Attachment d   Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Modelling Technical Report 2019

Attachment e    N65 Contours 2038/39

Attachment f    N75 Contours 2038/39

Attachment g   DWER Environmental Noise Branch review of noise modelling reports

Attachment h   Local Planning Strategy map

Attachment i     Schedule of Submissions  

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.         In pursuance of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, adopts Amendment 43 to Local Planning Scheme 21 for final approval for the purposes of:

a)         Rezoning part of Lot 22 Bussell Highway, Yalyalup from ‘Tourism’, ‘Special Use 15 (Road Purposes)’ and ‘Reserve for Recreation’ to ‘Special Use 27 (Yalyalup Development)’.

b)        Rezoning part of Lot 76 Neville Hyder Drive, Yalyalup from ‘Special Use 15 (Road Purposes)’ to ‘Special Use 27 (Yalyalup Development)’.

c)         Deleting Special Provision Area 10.

d)        Amending Schedule 3 – ‘Special Provision Areas’ by including, under the ‘Particulars of Land’ column of ‘Special Provision Area 23’, the following text: “part of Lot 22 Bussell Highway and part of Lot 76 Neville Hyder Drive, Yalyalup” and deleting ‘Special Provision Area 10’.

e)        Amending the boundary of Special Provision Area 23 to include part of Lot 22 Bussell Highway and part of Lot 76 Neville Hyder Drive, Yalyalup.

f)         Amending the Scheme Map accordingly.

2.         Advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that Amendment 43 is considered to be a ‘standard’ amendment pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as it:

a)         is consistent with the Local Planning Strategy 2019;

b)        would have minimal impact on land in the Scheme area that is not the subject of the Amendment; and

c)         would not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land in the Scheme area.

 

3.         Pursuant to r.53 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, endorses the Schedule of Submissions at Attachment I, which has been prepared in response to the public consultation process undertaken in relation to Amendment 43.

 

4.         Upon preparation of the necessary documentation, refers the adopted Amendment 43 to the Western Australian Planning Commission for consideration and determination in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005.

 

5.         Pursuant to r.56 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, should directions be given that modifications to Amendment 43 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.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Council is requested to consider adopting Amendment 43 to Local Planning Scheme 21 (LPS21) for final approval. The Amendment proposes to rezone part of Lot 22 Bussell Highway, Yalyalup from ‘Tourism’, ‘Special Use 15 (Road Purposes)’ and ‘Reserve for Recreation’ to ‘Special Use 27 (Yalyalup Development)’ and include the land within ‘Special Provision Area 23’. The Amendment would facilitate the future subdivision and development of the land for residential purposes as part of the ongoing development of the Provence Estate.

 

It is recommended that Amendment 43 to LPS21 be adopted for final approval and referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and Minister for Planning for consideration for final approval.

 

BACKGROUND

The Amendment 43 land is subject to the draft Provence Structure Plan (adopted for final approval under Delegated Authority on 29 April 2019) and pending endorsement by the WAPC (Attachment A). The subject land was included in the structure planning analysis and design process to ensure a seamless and cohesive design with the balance of the landholdings within Provence. The subject land is identified on the draft Structure Plan as requiring rezoning via a separate Scheme amendment to facilitate residential development.

 

The draft Structure Plan was supported by a suite of technical assessments that addressed the following matters: environment; local water management; bushfire risk management; retail demand; transport and traffic; landscape; noise impact (road and aircraft) and servicing. A new Bushfire Management Plan and an updated Environmental Assessment Report have been submitted in support of Amendment 43.

 

Recent aircraft noise modelling commissioned by the City supersedes the aircraft noise assessment report prepared for the draft Structure Plan. The updated assessment modelled the forecast changes in usage and aircraft type assumptions set out in the business case for the redevelopment and upgrading of the Busselton Margaret River Airport, as required by the Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan. The updated modelling is relevant to the assessment of Amendment 43 in determining the potential for impact from aircraft noise.


 

The Proposal

The subject land is approximately 40 hectares in area and is located 5km south east of the Busselton City Centre (Attachment B). The majority of the subject land is cleared and undeveloped.

Amendment 43 proposes to:

i.          Rezone part of Lot 22 Bussell Highway, Yalyalup from ‘Tourism’, ‘Special Use 15 (Road Purposes)’ and ‘Reserve for Recreation’ to ‘Special Use 27 (Yalyalup Development)’.

ii.         Rezone part of Lot 76 Neville Hyder Drive, Yalyalup from ‘Special Use 15 (Road Purposes)’ to ‘Special Use 27 (Yalyalup Development)’.

iii.        Delete Special Provision Area 10.

iv.        Amend Schedule 3 – ‘Special Provision Areas’ by including the subject land in Special Provision Area 23.

Existing and proposed zoning maps are provide at Attachment C. The following technical assessments have informed Amendment 43.

Bushfire Management Plan

Parts of the subject land are designated ‘bushfire prone’ on the State Map of Bushfire Prone Areas. In response, a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) has been prepared for the proposal by a suitably qualified fire consultant in accordance with the WAPC State Planning Policy 3.7 – Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas 2015/Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas 2017. An assessment of the composition of the vegetation and the slope of the land under that vegetation was conducted for a minimum 150m from the edge of the Amendment area. The assessment determined the effective slope as ‘Upslope/Flat’ with vegetation classified as ‘Class A – Forest’, ‘Class B – Woodland’ and ‘Class G – Grassland’ and a resultant bushfire attack level (BAL) of 29 or lower for the majority of the site.

 

The BAL assessment determined that classified vegetation to the west of the subject land (within the current undeveloped Provence landholdings) would result in a minor encroachment of BAL-40/BAL-FZ along the boundary of some of the future residential cells. The BMP states that the progressive development of the adjacent Provence land and implementation of the BMP for that land would result in a reduced and compliant BAL-29 rating or lower for the subject land.

 

Environmental Assessment Report

The environmental assessment covers the following aspects of the subject land:

·        Flora and vegetation survey – no Threatened or Priority species/communities were recorded within the Structure Plan area. The condition of remnant vegetation was assessed as ‘Completely Degraded’, ‘Degraded’ and ‘Degraded-Good’. Areas of remnant vegetation, comprising Blackbutt/Flooded Gum/Peppermint woodland, in the northern portion of the subject land, will be retained in public open space. The subject land does not contain habitat suitable for the Western Ringtail Possum.

·           Fauna survey – no evidence (dreys, scats) or sightings of Western Ringtail Possum were recorded. No black cockatoo species were seen or heard during the surveys and no signs of feeding or feathers were recorded. Better quality habitat exists in the Tuart Forest National Park (2 km north-east) and other state forests nearby (10 km south). Since the broader area contains a large amount of potential habitat, the assessment concluded it is unlikely that black cockatoos are reliant on remnant vegetation on the subject land.

 


 

Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Modelling Technical Report (2019)

A noise modelling technical assessment has been completed for the Busselton Margaret River Airport by consultants To70 Aviation (Attachment D). This modelling updates previous noise assessments to align with changes in forecast usage and aircraft type assumptions set out in the business case for the redevelopment and upgrading of the Airport and as required by the Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan and State environmental approvals.

 

An Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) system is the aircraft noise exposure index currently adopted in Australia. ANEF is a plot of estimated noise exposure based on a forecast of aircraft movements and fleet mix for a designated time in the future. The Australian Noise Exposure Concept (ANEC) is an illustration of the aircraft noise exposure at a site using data that may bear no relationship to actual or future situations. An appropriate ANEC scenario is adopted as an ANEF for an airport (e.g. ANEC 20 contour is a spatial illustration of ANEF 20). To complement the ANEF maps, the modelling uses Noise-Above contour (N contour) charts to show the number to aircraft noise events per day exceeding specific noise levels.

 

The noise modelling has generated the following contours:

·        ANEC for 2038/39

·        N-Contours for 2018/19, 2022/23, 2028/29 and 2038/39

 

The technical assessment includes the following observations:

·        The ANEC 20 contour does not impact upon the eastern extension of Provence (Amendment 43 land).

·        The size (spatial extent) of the ANEC contours has reduced by around 40%.

·        The size of the N-contours has also reduced, highlighted by the loss of the 20 event contour and the shortening of the 5 event contour (due to the reduction in forecast helicopter and single piston aircraft movements).

·        N65 and N75 event noise contours do not impact on the eastern extension of Provence (Amendment 43 land).

 

The spatial extent of the forecast N65 contours and N75 event contours for 2038/39 relative to the Provence Structure Plan area are provided at Attachments E and F respectively.

OFFICER COMMENT

Amendment 43 would facilitate the future subdivision and development of part of Lot 22 Bussell Highway, Yalyalup as part of the ongoing development of the Provence Estate.

 

A fundamental consideration for the proposal relates to the potential for conflict between the operations of the Busselton Margaret River Airport and residential development. Recent modelling commissioned by the City has updated previous noise assessments to align with changes in forecast usage and aircraft type assumptions set out in the business case for the redevelopment and upgrading of the Airport and as required by the Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan

 

This modelling clearly indicates that development should not be impacted by noise above the thresholds established by the approved Noise Management Plan for the Airport. As such, there is no need for any special controls or similar for future development within Provence, including the eastern extension that would be enabled by Amendment 43, to safeguard future residents from excessive noise intrusion, as well as protect all airport operations.


 

The Environmental Noise Branch of the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) reviewed and provided advice on the noise assessment reports prepared for the draft Provence Structure Plan and the technical report on updated noise modelling for the Busselton Margaret River Airport as required by the Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan. The DWER submission is provided in full at Attachment G.

 

Of particular relevance to the consideration of Amendment 43 is the assessment of the updated (To70 Aviation 2019) aircraft noise modelling report. The DWER review notes that the updated 2038/39 ANEC 20 contour is significantly reduced with the N65/5 contour lying outside of the Amendment 43 land (the latter being a more acceptable and stringent modelling metric).

 

DWER does not recommend the imposition of conditions for aircraft noise on the amendment area assuming that the operation of the Busselton Margaret River Airport will follow the operational assumptions on which the latest modelling is based.

 

Notwithstanding this, a condition requiring a notification to be placed on certificates of title advising prospective purchasers of aircraft noise has previously been imposed as a condition of subdivision approvals by the WAPC and the City is likely to continue to recommend the imposition of this condition to the WAPC.

Statutory Environment

The key elements of the statutory environment in relation to Amendment 43 are set out in the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Each is discussed under appropriate subheadings.

 

Planning and Development Act 2005

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

 

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

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

Relevant Plans and Policies

The key policy implications with respect to the proposal are set out in the following documents:

·        State Planning Policy 3 - Urban Growth and Settlement (2006)

·        State Planning Policy 3.7 – Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (2015)/Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (2017).

·        Local Planning Strategy (2019)

·        Local Tourism Planning Strategy (2011)

·        Draft Provence Structure Plan (2019)

·        EPA Guidance Statement No.33: Part C - Aircraft Noise

·        Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan (2019)

 

Each is discussed below under appropriate subheadings.

 


 

State Planning Policy 3 - Urban Growth and Settlement (2006)

SPP 3 sets out the principles and considerations which apply to planning for urban growth and settlement in Western Australia. The overall aim of the policy is to facilitate sustainable patterns of urban growth and settlement and effective protection of the environment. The policy cites five objectives to achieve this outcome. The following objectives of the policy are relevant to the consideration of Amendment 43:

·        To promote a sustainable and well planned pattern of settlement across the State, with sufficient and suitable land to provide for a wide variety of housing, employment, recreation facilities and open space.

·        To promote the development of a sustainable and liveable neighbourhood form which reduces energy, water and travel demands whilst ensuring safe and convenient access to employment and services by all modes, provides choice and affordability of housing and creates an identifiable sense of place for each community.

 

State Planning Policy 3.7 - Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (2015)/Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (2017)

SPP 3.7 directs how strategic planning proposals should address bushfire risk management in Western Australia. It applies to all land which has been designated as being bushfire prone on the State Map of Bushfire Prone Areas. The accompanying Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas provide supporting information to assist in the interpretation of the objectives and policy measures outlined in SPP 3.7, 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 four elements of the Guidelines are:

·        Element 1: Location – to ensure that the subdivision, development or land use is located in areas with the least possible risk from bushfire, to help minimise risk to people, property and infrastructure.

·        Element 2: Siting and Design of Development – to ensure that the siting of development minimises the level of bushfire impact.

·        Element 3: Vehicle Access – to ensure that residents and the community, as well as emergency services, have safe access and egress from both the subdivision and individual houses/development.

·        Element 4: Water – ensures adequate water is available to defend against a bushfire.

 

Local Planning Strategy (2019)

The Local Planning Strategy (LPS) sets the long term broad planning direction for the whole of the District of the City of Busselton and provides the strategic rationale for decisions related to the progressive review and amendment of the Scheme. The LPS also sets out four ‘frameworks’ relating to: settlement; urban growth areas; activity centres; and industrial/service commercial growth areas.

 

Of relevance to Amendment 43, the LPS identifies ‘Yalyalup East’ as a ‘medium-term urban growth area’ under the Urban Growth Area Framework (reference number 10 on the LPS map provided at Attachment H). The reasons for this, as set out in Part B of the LPS, are:

·        Currently zoned ‘Tourism’ but not required for that purpose as per the recommendation of the City’s Local Tourism Planning Strategy.

·        Forms a logical extension to the ‘Yalyalup (2) current urban growth area’.

 


 

The LPS identifies issues to be considered in rezoning the subject land as: visual management; airport noise; and the design of the future planned Busselton Outer Bypass. Matters relating to visual management and the Busselton Outer Bypass are addressed by the draft Provence Structure Plan. Airport noise is discussed in subsequent sections below.

 

Local Tourism Planning Strategy (2011)

The Local Tourism Planning Strategy (LTPS) has a specific land use focus to identify locations and sites that are important for tourism industry growth within the City. The strategy also provides guidance for decision-making on tourism proposals, including consideration of change of land use from tourism to an alternative land use.

 

In relation to the subject land, the strategic direction set by the LTPS provides for consideration of rezoning to accommodate residential development including, potentially, park home park development.

 

Draft Provence Structure Plan (2019)

The draft Provence Structure Plan demonstrates how the subject land would be developed and provides guidance for matters such as: allocation of land uses; residential densities; road networks; public open space; and provision of community facilities. The Structure Plan identifies the future use of the Amendment area as residential (density coding R25 – R40) and public open space.

 

EPA Guidance Statement 33 – Aircraft Noise

Guidance Statement 33 Part C 4.3.8 outlines the advice of the EPA in considering the potential impacts of noise generated by aircraft operations to assist land use planning. The Guidance Statement notes that while ANEFs are useful tools around major city airports, they have limited application for regional and special purpose airports and helipads. For these types of airports, the particular air traffic characteristics should be taken into account to assist in determining acceptable separation distances between noise-sensitive premises and the airport.

 

It is the expectation of the EPA that for proposals for new and upgraded regional airports, the proponent submits a detailed assessment of the predicted noise impacts of all likely aircraft operations, together with a comprehensive draft Noise Management Plan addressing the proposed management of the noise emissions and the related land use planning policy.

 

Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan (2019)

The Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan (NMP) provides a comprehensive plan for the effective management of noise generated by aircraft using the airport in order to protect the amenity of community members potentially affected by aircraft and aircraft noise.

 

The NMP provides for the implementation of a range of strategies for managing noise generated by users of the airport, with the main objective to provide a balance of airport development and amenity protection for potentially affected residents. These strategies include, amongst other things, operational hours restrictions; regulatory measures for flight training; noise assessment and monitoring; and land use planning.  

 

The NMP utilises a combination of ANEF contours and Noise-Above contours (N contours) for noise modelling. ANEF contours have inherent limitations for use by regional airports because they represent an average of operations over a year, but not peak time operations and resulting effects. N contours are used as supplementary measurements to the ANEF contours to guide land use planning and provide guidance on the number of aircraft noise events that exceed a given decibel level at certain times per day e.g. 65dB(A) is expressed as N65.

 

The NMP sets out outdoor noise criteria as follows:

·        85dB(A);or

·        80dB(A) for >6 events per day; or

·        75dB(A) for >12 events per day.

 

The NMP indicates that the noise modelling is based on ANEF and N65, N70 and N75 contours and would provide the direction for future land use planning, especially relating to noise sensitive land uses such as residential development, as the Airport develops.

 

The NMP states that where any significant proposal is to be considered which may result in a significant increase in traffic or change in the types of aircraft utilising the airport, the noise modelling and resultant contours would require updating.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the Officer Recommendation.

Stakeholder Consultation

The Amendment was advertised for 42 days ending 19 August 2020 and ten submissions were received. A Schedule of Submissions is provided at Attachment I.

The Department of Fire and Emergency Services recommended support for the Bushfire Management Plan subject to modifications (as set out in the Schedule of Submissions). A revised Bushfire Management Plan has been submitted and has addressed the matters raised.

The Environmental Noise Branch of the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation reviewed and provided advice on the technical report (road and aircraft noise) for the draft Provence Structure Plan and the updated aircraft noise modelling report for the Busselton Margaret River Airport. This is discussed in the Officer Comment section of this report and addressed in the Schedule of Submissions.

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 or a medium or greater level have been identified.

Options

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

1.         Resolve not to adopt the Amendment for final approval (and provide a reason for such a decision); or

2.         Seek further information before making a decision.

CONCLUSION

The information contained within this report confirms that the Amendment as proposed would represent an appropriate outcome consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the City of Busselton and as such, it is recommended that Amendment 43 be adopted for final approval.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve the provision of the Amendment documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission and this will occur within one month of the resolution.


Council

77

28 October 2020

13.2

Attachment a

Draft Provence Structure Plan

 


Council

78

28 October 2020

13.2

Attachment b

Location Plan

 


Council

79

28 October 2020

13.2

Attachment c

Existing and Proposed Zoning

 


Council

101

28 October 2020

13.2

Attachment d

Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Modelling Technical Report 2019

 























Council

102

28 October 2020

13.2

Attachment e

N65 Contours 2038/39

 


Council

103

28 October 2020

13.2

Attachment f

N75 Contours 2038/39

 


Council

111

28 October 2020

13.2

Attachment g

DWER Environmental Noise Branch review of noise modelling reports

 









Council

112

28 October 2020

13.2

Attachment h

Local Planning Strategy map

 


Council

120

28 October 2020

13.2

Attachment i

Schedule of Submissions

 








 


Council                                                                                      122                                                             28 October 2020

14.             Engineering and Work Services Report

Nil


 

15.             Community and Commercial Services Report

Nil


Council                                                                                      130                                                             28 October 2020

16.             Finance and Corporate Services Report

16.1           RESPONSE TO BAY TO BAY ACTION GROUP MOTIONS MOVED 16 SEPTEMBER 2020

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

6.2 Council engages broadly and proactively with the community.

SUBJECT INDEX

Governance

BUSINESS UNIT

Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

NATURE OF DECISION

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

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.         In relation to motion 1, notes the request to further review the Community Engagement policy, and instead requests that the CEO commence the process of developing a community engagement framework, with the framework to be developed with input from the community, including through community workshops, and presented to Council for adoption by 30 June 2021;

 

2.         In relation to motion 2, rejects the motion on the basis that there are no financial standards set out by the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996, and that the Financial Health Indicator score is not reflective of the financial standing of a local government; and instead requests that the CEO develop a financial sustainability plan outlining clear measures and targets which demonstrate the City’s financial position and can be reported on to the community; and

 

3.         In relation to motion 3, note but reject the vote of no confidence motion.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report responds to three motions moved at a public meeting organised by the Bay to Bay Action Group Inc. The public meeting was organised after the City received a request for an electors’ special meeting and, due to Ministerial Orders put in place to prohibit electors’ meetings during the current State of Emergency, were unable to hold such a meeting.

 

BACKGROUND

On 8 July 2020, the City received a request (dated 7 July 2020) from four electors – Ms Anne Ryan, Mr Gordon Bleechmore, Ms Deborah Christophersen and Mr Ian Christophersen (the Requesting Parties) - for an electors’ special meeting to be held regarding the performing arts project which they do not support. The request was supported by a petition containing over 100 signatures of electors, as required under Section 5.28(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act). 

 

Under the Local Government (COVID-19 Response) Order 2020 (gazetted 8 May 2020) (the Order), the City is currently prohibited from holding an electors’ special meeting. The Order modified Section 5.28(4) of the Act prohibiting the holding of an electors’ special meeting during the COVID emergency period, with a requested electors’ special meeting to instead be held on a day selected by the mayor or president, not more than 35 days after cessation day.


 

Cessation day is defined as:

the day on which the state of emergency declaration made under the Emergency Management Act 2005 section 56 on 15 March 2020 in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic is revoked or otherwise ceases to have effect

 

The Requesting Parties were advised that the request would be considered in accordance with the Order. In response, the newly formed Bay to Bay Action Group Inc. (the Action Group), of which the Requesting Parties are members, convened a public meeting to discuss the matter. This was held on 16 September 2020. The Chief Executive Officer agreed to attend the meeting, along with the Director Community and Commercial Services and the Director Finance and Corporate Services.  The Mayor and a number of Councillors also attended.

 

The following motions were moved by those in attendance:

 

Motion 1:

That the City of Busselton workshops its Community Engagement Policy no later than December 2020. Further, that:

1.         The word “Consultation” be reinstated;

2.         Stakeholder Definition is to include “Ratepayers, Residents, and Businesses” to ensure true transparency;

3.         The workshop to include community groups across the district together with interested individuals;

4.         The workshop is to be advertised widely by (but not limited to) email, mail, newsletters, newspapers.

 

Motion 2: 

That the City of Busselton ceases all new borrowing until the financial standards set out by the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 are met. That is, until all seven of the financial performance ratios are satisfied and an overall score in excess of 70 is achieved and sustained for at least 2 financial years.

 

Motion 3:

That this meeting of very concerned citizens express a vote of no confidence in the City of Busselton Mayor, Councillors, and CEO, in their handling of the BEACH proposal.

 

The Action Group has requested that Council consider and respond to the motions. This report is provided for that purpose.

OFFICER COMMENT

Officers provide the following commentary and recommendations (as contained within the Officer Recommendation) in relation to each of the motions.

 

Motion 1:

That the City of Busselton workshops its Community Engagement Policy no later than December 2020. Further, that:

1.         The word “Consultation” be reinstated;

2.         Stakeholder Definition is to include “Ratepayers, Residents, and Businesses” to ensure true transparency;

3.         The workshop to include community groups across the district together with interested individuals;

4.         The workshop is to be advertised widely by (but not limited to) email, mail, newsletters, newspapers.

 

Council adopted a revised Community Engagement policy on 9 September 2020 (C2009/001), on recommendation of the Policy and Legislation Committee. 

 

The policy is based on the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) engagement approach, used extensively across the public and private sector, and widely referenced across the Australian Local Government sector. It is also referenced in the ‘Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework and Guidelines’ produced by the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC).

 

In the IAP2 model, and as defined within the policy, the term ‘Engagement’ refers to a range of objectives, one of which is consultation. The City adopted this approach because it is more encompassing than the term ‘consultation’, with consultation just one tool in the engagement toolbox.  Others include informing, involving, collaborating with stakeholders or empowering stakeholders to make final decisions. 

 

Similarly, the term ‘stakeholder’ as defined within the policy is inclusive of, but also far more encompassing, than the suggested definition of “Ratepayers, Residents and Businesses”. It also includes all those groups and individuals that have an interest in the business of the City. Along with residents and ratepayers, the City may also need to engage with Government and not-for-profit agencies, Environmental and Indigenous Representative Organisations.  

 

For these, and the following reasons, officers do not believe that the Community Engagement Policy requires further review. Officers instead propose that a community engagement framework is developed, with community consultation informing its development. 

 

The purpose of the Community Engagement policy is to provide guiding principles for engagement which enables stakeholders to stay informed about matters that affect them, and provides the opportunity for informed comment. Consistent with the City’s Policy Framework, the policy is not intended to set out how these principles will be achieved; this level of detail will be contained in either more detailed strategic plans or in operational documents, dependant on the nature of the matter. 

 

In this instance, officers are proposing to develop a community engagement framework, for adoption by Council. This framework will support the policy principles and provide more detailed guidance for the City as to the level and type of engagement required to be undertaken on a matter (beyond that set by legislation). 

 

Officers believe that engaging with the community on this framework as opposed to the Community Engagement policy would be more appropriate and provide for a better outcome.  It will also build on the engagement undertaken in November 2019 which elicited 284 responses. In that survey, the community were asked, among other questions, how engagement with the City could be improved. Some of the more pointed responses being:

·        Consult earlier – especially on major projects

·        Explain why decisions are made (close the feedback loop)

·        Advertise engagement opportunities better

·        More face-to-face contact with Councillors

·        Undertake more surveys

·        Contact (email) me directly



Motion 2:

That the City of Busselton ceases all new borrowing until the financial standards set out by the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 (Audit Regulations) are met. That is, until all seven of the financial performance ratios are satisfied and an overall score in excess of 70 is achieved and sustained for at least 2 financial years.

 

This particular motion incorrectly states that the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 establishes the financial standards and refers vaguely to the “score” which is understood to be the Financial Health Indicator (FHI) that the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) releases on its MyCouncil website.

 

While the Action Group have since attempted to clarify their concerns via the media, it is important to note that:

1.         Financial Ratios are not established under the Audit Regulations;

2.         The FHI is not established as a requirement under the Local Government Act 1995 or any of its subsidiary legislation; and

3.         The City is not in breach of the Audit Regulations.

 

The City of Busselton’s financial position is solid. In particular, the established cash reserves of the City ensure that capital and operating costs can be met into the future. The City is required (under Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996) to disclose seven financial ratios as part of its annual report.  While many are suitable for private companies structured to generate profit, they are not well suited to a local government context, and do not adequately measure the financial performance of local governments. This is because, in part, most Local Governments adopt a “break even” budget to ensure revenue is spent on services to the community. Many, such as the City of Busselton, also hold funds in reserve for future asset management and infrastructure funding. This is a practice that the City through a decision of Council has endorsed since 2010/11 and has continued through successive years.

 

The FHI score, reported on the My Council website, is calculated by the DLGSC using the seven ratios, with each ratio applied a weighting and a score.  As reflected in the commentary below from Mr Ron Back (a financial consultant with significant local government industry experience) the FHI is not considered to be an appropriate means by which to measure a local government’s overall financial health.

Firstly, I should advise that there is no “financial standards set out by the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996”. Indeed, there are no financial ratio standards in any current local government legislation. In my view it is irresponsible to make such a false claim as it suggests that the City is not complying with the law. That is simply not the case.

 

The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires local governments to disclose seven financial indicators in the annual financial report. Reference to standards is included Local Government Operational Guidelines - Number 18 and the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework and Guidelines.

 

Reference to the Financial Health Indicator (FHI) first arose in the LGAB Metropolitan Local Government District Inquiries Report. The Western Australian Treasury Corporation (WATC) was engaged to undertake an assessment of the financial sustainability of each of the proposals based on the seven financial ratios included in Regulation 50 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

 

That indicator is compiled by the Department and included on the MyCouncil website.

 

The information on that website is NOT free from error and for many local governments creates anxiety with communities. These are usually left with the local government to resolve.

 

The Statutory financial ratios have been in existence since 2013 and, as currently calculated, do not adequately measure the financial performance of local governments. They do not provide ratepayers with acceptable benchmark to measure the financial performance of their local government against industry standards. As such, these indicators are not considered fit for the purpose they were intended.  

 

A number of submissions have been made under phase two of the review of the Local Government Act for these performance indicators to be reviewed and more appropriate indicators legislated. There is an industry working group, chaired by WALGA, currently developing a set of financial indicators for local governments in WA.

 

Mr Back’s views are widely held within the industry, with the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) currently leading a working group focused on the development of a more relevant set of financial measures.  This is reflected in the Office of the Auditor General’s report to Parliament in March 2020:

 

Most of the ratios are useful indicators. However, we note that DLGSC is reviewing the ratios. We support the intent to simplify this reporting, as some ratios are more robust than others. For example, the definition of ‘current ratio’ in the regulations excludes restricted assets and liabilities associated with restricted assets. This means that the ratio is directly affected by the amount of funds that management and council decide to transfer to and hold in reserves. This appears to render the ratio more complex than common business practice and may make it more difficult to compare different entities. Also, reporting the operating surplus ratio may be unnecessary as users of the financial report can get similar information about any deficit from the Statement of Comprehensive Income.

 

Critically for the City of Busselton, the calculation of the ratios does not take into consideration cash reserves. The City’s Auditor has previously stated over consecutive years to the City’s Audit Committee that, while the City of Busselton’s Current Ratio is low, its significant cash reserves show that it is in a strong financial position. Over the past three financial years, the City has transferred an end-of-year surplus into cash reserves to assist in project and development expenditure in the future. 

 

In addition, the City also transfers any net profit from the Busselton Jetty Tourist Park and the Busselton Margaret River Airport to specific reserve accounts. This was an important contributor to the City’s ability to manage the adverse impacts of COVID-19, with loss of revenue from the tourist park and airport operations not impacting on the City’s municipal budget.

 

With specific respect to the City’s capacity to borrow, our Debt Service Coverage Ratio is more than two times better than the accepted ratio set by the Department.  This is indicative of the City’s strong borrowing position; and with interest rates at a record low (fixed), borrowing is considered to be a prudent way to fund inter-generational infrastructure.  Therefore officers do not recommend that the motion be supported by Council. 

 

Officers, and Council, do however understand that there are concerns within the community regarding the City’s FHI score. The City has engaged an independent consultant to review the financial ratios and to develop an action plan.


 

In the absence of changes being in acted in the near future to the financial ratios by DLGSC, and as part of the action plan officers will look at measures including recommending changing City policies (such as transfers of surplus funds to reserve at the end of financial year) to improve the standings.  This will be in addition to the advocacy efforts noted above so that it can address these concerns and ensure that its financial position is better reflected through the FHI score and / or other measures. It is important that the community can more easily track and understand financial performance, and that any measures used by the DLGSC or other stakeholders reflect well on the City. Based on this advice the City will further determine an action plan to address this.

 

Motion 3:

That this meeting of very concerned citizens express a vote of no confidence in the City of Busselton Mayor, Councillors, and CEO, in their handling of the BEACH proposal.

 

The vote of no confidence relates, as per the motion, to the City’s “handling of the BEACH proposal” (now referred to as the Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre (BPACC)). Officers are unclear as to which aspects of the City’s handling of the proposal are referred to by the motion.

 

It is clear that there are a range of community views as to the need for a BPACC, its scope and the timing for its delivery.  This is not surprising given the diversity of the community and the many and varied priorities.  This is also normal for a project of this size.  Council’s role is to make decisions which provide for the community’s needs now and into the future in a balanced and responsible manner, and officers believe that Council has, and continues, to do this. 

 

While a vote of no confidence from a sector of the community is disappointing, it is important to note that those attending the meeting represented a very small percentage of the City’s residents and ratepayers.  By contrast, in the City’s recent community scorecard survey run by Catalyse Pty Ltd with 584 randomly selected residents responding, the City scored as follows:

 

Measure

Positive Rating

Performance Index Score (PIS)

PIS Industry Average

City of Busselton as the organisation that governs the local area

86%

 

61

56

City of Busselton as a place to live

100%

88

75

Overall Performance Index Score

 

74

65

 

The City’s overall performance index score placed the City as the equal fifth best local government in WA and the equal best regional local government. These results, which have a sampling error of only +/- 4.02%, are not demonstrative of a Council or an administration that is underperforming or warrants a vote of no confidence.

 

The City also has a strong track record in the management of large infrastructure projects, and has delivered significant and much needed capital investment to the district over the last ten years.  This includes successful foreshore upgrades in both Busselton and Dunsborough, refurbishment of the Busselton Jetty, redevelopment of the airport to provide for interstate and future international flights, new sporting pavilions, a new tennis club, upgrades to the senior citizens centre, and major traffic improvements. 

 


 

The City has managed the BPACC project using well established project management principles, in the same way that it has managed all other significant infrastructure projects. The proposal has been appropriately flagged in its strategic planning for over 10 years; feasibility studies and business cases have been undertaken at various points to test and re-test the viability of the proposal; community consultation has been undertaken over many years; a funding strategy has been developed and continuously reviewed; significant external funding has been sought and secured; architects have been engaged to develop concept and detailed plans; and cost estimates have been reviewed and revised based on professional advice. 

 

Finally, officers note that a vote of no confidence motion such as that moved by the Action Group has no legal standing or consequence. Therefore while noting the motion, for all of the reasons outlined, officers recommend that Council take no further action in relation to it.

 

Statutory Environment

Section 5.28 of the Act provides as follows:

1.         A special meeting of the electors of a district is to be held on the request of not less than-

a.         100 electors or 5% of the number of electors — whichever is the lesser number; or

b.        1 /3 of the number of council members.

2.         The request is to specify the matters to be discussed at the meeting and the form or content of the request is to be in accordance with regulations.

3.         The request is to be sent to the mayor or president.

4.         A special meeting is to be held on a day selected by the mayor or president but not more than 35 days after the day on which he or she received the request.

 

As detailed in the Background section of this report, the Order amended 5.28 (4) of the Act prohibiting the holding of an electors’ special meeting during the COVID emergency period, with a requested electors’ special meeting to instead be held on a day selected by the mayor or president, not more than 35 days after cessation day (as defined in the Order).

 

There is no statutory requirement for the Council to consider the motions of a public meeting (which is not an electors’ meeting).

Relevant Plans and Policies

Other than the Community Engagement policy referred to in relation to motion 1, 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

The motions being considered as the subject of this report have resulted from a public meeting, attended by representatives of the City and Council.  Council are considering the motions as part of its commitment to listen to and engage with stakeholders.

Risk Assessment

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the Officer Recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk management framework, with risks assessed taking into account any controls already in place. There are no risks of a medium or greater level identified.

Options

Council could choose to take a variety of different actions in relation to one or more of the motions.   

CONCLUSION

A public meeting was held by the Action Group on 16 September 2020. The Action Group has requested that Council consider and respond to the motions. This report is provided for that purpose and recommends that, in relation to motion one, the CEO be asked to develop a community engagement framework with input from the community; in relation to motion two, that the CEO be asked to develop a financial sustainability plan outlining measures and targets which demonstrate the City’s financial position; and in relation to motion three, that Council note but reject the vote of no confidence.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation one will be implemented by 30 June 2021. Recommendations two and three will be effected immediately.  


Council                                                                                      134                                                             28 October 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

Nil

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

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

17.1.1       Current Active Tenders 

17.1.2       Donations, Contributions and Subsidies Fund – September 2020

17.1.3       Community Assistance Program 2020/2021

 

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       Current Active Tenders 

 

Note: Information in italics has previously been provided to Council, and is again provided for completeness.

 

RFT03/20 CONSTRUCTION OF BORE(S) – DUNSBOROUGH NON-POTABLE WATER PROJECT

Requirement – to engage an adequately skilled and experienced Contractor to:

a)        construct, test and equip exploration, production and/or monitoring bore(s) on Mewitt Road, Quindalup (defined in the Request for Tender as the Bore Site) as part of the City’s Dunsborough Non-Potable Water Network Project;

b)        comply with DWER requirements in relation to a Hydrogeological Assessment Report for these bores (as specified in the Drilling Licence); and

c)         if required, provide the City with a report on the beneficial use (availability, volume, quality and sustainability) of groundwater available for extraction from this bore(s).

·        A Request for Tender was advertised on 18 July 2020 with a closing date of 20 August 2020.  The closing date was extended to 25 August 2020.

·        Two submissions were received and have been evaluated.

·        The value of the contract exceeded the CEO’s current delegated authority under Delegation DA 1-07.

·        A recommendation was made to Council at the 14 October 2020 Council Meeting to:

o   accept the tender from Delmoss Nominees Pty Ltd T/A Welldrill as being the most advantageous tender to the City subject to minor variations to be negotiated in accordance with regulation 20 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (FG Regs); and

o   Delegate power and authority to the CEO to negotiate and agree with the successful tenderer minor variations in accordance with Regulation 20 of the FG Regs, subject to such variations and the final terms not exceeding the overall project budget.

·        It is expected that a contract will be entered into in mid to late October 2020.

 

EOI02/20 CONSTRUCTION OF BUSSELTON PERFORMING ARTS AND CONVENTION CENTRE

Requirement – the construction of the Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre.

·    An Expression of Interest was advertised on 11 July 2020 with a closing date of 11 August 2020.

·    Seven submissions were received.

·    The CEO under delegation has approved a recommendation to shortlist seven respondents as acceptable tenderers.  The proposed date for issue of the Request for Tender to acceptable tenderers is estimated to be December 2020.

 

PQS05/20 BUSSELTON CBD PAVING UPGRADE

Requirement – the provision of goods and services relating to the installation of large format paving within the Busselton CBD at various locations, to be completed in stages. 

·    A Request for Applications to Join a Panel of Pre-Qualified Suppliers was advertised on 26 August 2020 with a closing date of 10 September 2020. 

·    Two submissions were received.

·    In accordance with delegation DA 1-10 the CEO has authority to establish the panel and to accept applications to join the panel.

·    The CEO approved a recommendation to establish a panel consisting of two pre-qualified suppliers, namely Paving Solutions (WA) Pty Ltd and Artisan Group (WA) Pty Ltd.

17.1.2       Donations, Contributions and Subsidies Fund – September 2020

 

The Council allocates and annual budget allowance to the Donations, Contributions and Subsidies Fund. This is provided such that eligible groups and individuals can apply for and receive sponsorship to assist them in the pursuit of endeavors that bring direct benefit to the broader community. Allocation of the funds is delegated to the Chief Executive Officer, in accordance with the published guidelines and funding availability.  

 

Six applications were supported in September 2020, totalling $2,111 as outlined in the table below:


 

Recipient

Purpose

Amount

Busselton Horse and Pony Club

Funds requested to assist with hire of marquees, chairs and toilets for the Busselton Winter Jumping Festival (cancelled earlier in the year due to COVID) This event is usually sponsored through the CoB events sponsorship however missed the deadline due to the unexpected re-scheduling of the event.

$1,000.00

The People Place Busselton Inc.

Funds requested to assist with covering the cost of hosting a Mental Health Week luncheon to focus on service providers in the region. Whilst this funding avenue would not normally support a closed event such as this, it is important as part of the City’s COVID-19 Recovery Plan and the need to support community organisations and service providers who are supporting the community.

$500.00

West Busselton Primary School

Donation requested as a contribution towards year 6 graduation book awards – Humanities & Social Sciences & Technology.

$100.00

Busselton Choral Society

Funds requested to purchase a wheeled keyboard cover, which will enable the choir to sing with accompaniment when outdoors.

$311.00

Dunsborough Primary School

Donation requested as a contribution towards year 6 graduation book awards.

$100.00

Busselton Primary School 

Donation requested as a contribution towards year 6 graduation book awards.

$100.00

 

September total

$2,111.00

17.1.3       Community Assistance Program 2020/2021

 

The Council allocates an annual budget allowance to the Donations, Contributions and Subsidies (Community Bids). In May 2020, Council refocused the City’s annual Community Bids funding to Community Assistance Program for 2020/21 to provide eligible community and sporting organisations funding for recovery initiatives that have a social and economic stimulus. Allocation of funds is delegated to the Chief Executive Officer, in accordance with Council resolution C2005/133.

 

Five applications were supported in September 2020 totalling $31,609. The applications are outlined in the table below:

ORGANISATION

PROJECT TITLE

RECOMMENDED FUNDING

Dunsborough Towners Football Club Inc.

Financial Assistance

$2,725

Barnard Park Sports Association Inc.

Audio System for inside and outside the building

$5,000

Busselton Kart Club Inc.

Upgrade to LED lighting

$7,591

Lamp Inc.

Caravan Refurbishment

$6,293

Geographe Bay Yacht Club Inc.

 

Car Park and Access way Refurbishment

$10,000

 

 

TOTAL

$31,609

 

18.             Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given

Nil

 

19.             urgent business


Council                                                                                      135                                                             28 October 2020

20.             Confidential Matters

20.1           LEGAL MATTER

The reports listed below are of a confidential nature, in accordance with section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995. These reports have been provided to Councillors, the Chief Executive Officer and Directors only.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council endorses the Officer Recommendation contained within the Officer Comment of the report.

 

20.1        LEGAL MATTER

 

This item is confidential in accordance with section 5.23(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1995, as it contains information relating to legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting.

 


 

21.             Closure