Please note:  These minutes are yet to be confirmed as a true record of proceedings

CITY OF BUSSELTON

MINUTES FOR THE Council MEETING HELD ON 12 May 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

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

2....... Attendance. 3

3....... Prayer. 4

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

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

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

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

8....... Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes. 7

Previous Council Meetings. 7

8.1          Minutes of the Council Meeting held 28 April 2021. 7

Committee Meetings. 7

8.2          Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting 21 April 2021. 7

8.3          Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held 28 April 2021. 7

8.4          Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 28 April 2021. 7

9....... RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS. 7

10..... QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION). 8

11..... Items brought forward.. 8

ADOPTION BY EXCEPTION RESOLUTION.. 8

12.1        Airport Advisory Committee - 21/4/2021 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT - AIRPORT UPDATE. 9

12.2        Airport Advisory Committee - 21/4/2021 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT - GENERAL AVIATION HANGAR PRECINCT PROPOSAL. 15

12.3        Audit Committee - 28/4/2021 - 2020 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REVIEW... 22

12.5        Policy and Legislation Committee - 28/4/2021 - SOUTH WEST DESIGN REVIEW PANEL AND PROPOSED LOCAL PLANNING POLICY - DESIGN REVIEW... 54

14.1        RFT 09-21 DUNSBOROUGH LAKES SPORTS PRECINCT - EARTHWORKS. 62

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 67

ITEMS FOR DEBATE. 78

12.4        Policy and Legislation Committee - 28/4/2021 - PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 49 (WESTERN RINGTAIL POSSUM HABITAT PROTECTION SPECIAL CONTROL AREA) & PROPOSED LOCAL PLANNING POLICY (LPP XX : WESTERN RINGTAIL POSSUM HABITAT PROTECTION AREA) - CONSIDERATION FOR INITIATION FOR ADVERTISING.. 78

13.1        DA 20/0916 - MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (BREWERY, TAVERN, RESTAURANT/CAFE, SHOP AND TOURIST ACCOMMODATION). 130

18..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 552

19..... urgent business. 552

20..... Confidential Reports. 552

21..... Closure. 552

 


Council                                                                                      5                                                                         12 May 2021

MINUTES

 

MINUTES OF A Meeting of the Busselton City Council HELD IN THE Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton, ON 12 May 2021 AT 5.30pm.

 

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

The Presiding Member opened the meeting at 5.30pm.

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

 

2.               Attendance

Presiding Member:

Members:

 

Cr Grant Henley     Mayor

Cr Kelly Hick             Deputy Mayor

Cr Sue Riccelli

Cr Ross Paine

Cr Kate Cox

Cr Paul Carter

Cr Phill Cronin

Cr Lyndon Miles

 

Officers:

 

Mr Oliver Darby, Director, Engineering and Works Services

Mr Paul Needham, Director, Planning and Development Services

Mrs Naomi Searle, Director, Community and Commercial Services

Mr Tony Nottle, Director, Finance and Corporate Services

Mrs Emma Heys, Governance Coordinator

Ms Melissa Egan, Governance Officer

 

Apologies:

 

Cr Jo Barrett-Lennard

Mr Mike Archer, Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Approved Leave of Absence:

 

Nil

 

 

Media:

 

“Busselton-Dunsborough Times”

“Busselton-Dunsborough Mail”

 

 

Public:

 

3

 

3.               Prayer

The prayer was delivered by Pastor Nathan Seinemeier of the Cornerstone Church.

 

4.               Application for Leave of Absence 

Nil

 

5.               Disclosure Of Interests

The Mayor noted that declarations of impartiality interests had been received from:

 

·         Cr Grant Henley in relation to Agenda Item 12.4 ‘Proposed Scheme Amendment No. 49 (Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Special Control Area) & Proposed Local Planning Policy (LPP XX : Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area) - Consideration For Initiation For Advertising’.

 

·         Cr Paul Carter in relation to Agenda Item 12.4 ‘Proposed Scheme Amendment No. 49 (Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Special Control Area) & Proposed Local Planning Policy (LPP XX : Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area) - Consideration For Initiation For Advertising’.

 

·         Cr Sue Riccelli in relation to Agenda Item 12.4 ‘Proposed Scheme Amendment No. 49 (Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Special Control Area) & Proposed Local Planning Policy (LPP XX : Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area) - Consideration For Initiation For Advertising’.

 

·         Cr Kelly Hick in relation to Agenda Item 13.1 ‘DA 20/0916 - Mixed Use Development (Brewery, Tavern, Restaurant/Cafe, Shop and Tourist Accommodation)’.

 

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

 

·         Cr Ross Paine in relation to Agenda Item 12.4 ‘Proposed Scheme Amendment No. 49 (Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Special Control Area) & Proposed Local Planning Policy (LPP XX : Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area) - Consideration For Initiation For Advertising’.

 

The Mayor advised that, in accordance with regulation 22(2)(a) of the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021, these declarations would be read out immediately before these items were discussed.


 

6.               Announcements Without Discussion

Announcements by the Presiding Member

 

The Mayor and Councillor Kate Cox attended the 2021 GWN7 Top Tourism Town Awards in Geraldton. The Mayor was pleased to announce that Busselton was the recipient of the Gold Medal in the Top Tourism Town category, which is a great accolade for everyone involved in tourism in the Busselton community over what has been an extraordinary year.

 

7.               Question Time For Public

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice

 

Nil

 

Question Time for Public

 

7.1             Mr Keith Sims

 

Question

At the Council meeting in June 2020, when Councillor Riccelli put forward her motion to reduce the Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre [BPACC] project budget to $21 million, two Councillors stated if elements were removed from the project, it would be a white elephant and they would not support the project. If elements of the project have now been removed, including the creative industries hub, will the project become the white elephant and not be supported by those Councillors?

 

Response

(Mayor)

We will take that question on notice.

 

Question

Why has the critical assumption which required $9.5 million State Government funding now been removed from the January 2021 Business Case [for the BPACC] and the financial burden put onto the ratepayers?

 

Response

(Mayor)

We will take that question on notice.

 

Question

Council used the August 2020 business case to decide to continue with the BPACC project. Why was it deleted off the website when the only project change is to remove the creative industries hub?

 

Response

(Mayor)

The decision to proceed with the project was made in June, prior to August. The amendment to the business plan was the deletion of the creative industries hub, because we were advised by the State Government that no funding would be forthcoming.

 


 

Question

Why was the very comprehensive final business plan from August 2020 replaced with a new January 2021 document which includes the creative industries hub?

 

Response

(Mrs Naomi Searle, Director Community and Commercial Services)

The business case had the actual infrastructure for the creative industries hub removed and that was reflected in the budget as well. This business case you are referring to was used to support a funding application to the Federal Government for $1.5 million.

 

Question

At what meetings did Council resolve to; one, take the project from $21 million to $30.5 million, and two, in regards to the $28.5 million budget, not receive the $9.5 million grant and make the ratepayers pay that third approximately?

 

Response

(Mayor)

The resolution was made in June last year, to proceed with the project at that cost and part of that resolution was to seek further funding.

 

                   Question

                   When are the BPACC tender documents due back?

 

                   Response

                   (Mayor)

                   The BPACC tender closed 2.00pm last Friday and they are being evaluated by staff.

 

                   Question         

                   (Mayor)

                   How long does the evaluation take?

                  

                   Response

                   Over a period of time, usually a couple of weeks.

 

 

7.2             Ms Anne [Surname not captured]

 

Question

In respect to the proposed changes to the bushfire notice, has a full environmental study been carried out on the removal of trees?

 

Response

(Mayor)

The public submission that is currently on YourSay is for proposed changes to the Bushfire Notice 2022/23, so it has been deferred until the following year. It is still open for submissions until 31 May.

 

Response

(Mr Paul Needham, Director Planning and Development Services)

There has been no comprehensive environmental study, but certainly the environmental impacts have been considered in the notice. It is very important to note that the requirements for removal of vegetation in the proposed notice, on the vast majority of residential properties in the City of Busselton, are less than the current notice.


 

8.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes

Previous Council Meetings

8.1             Minutes of the Council Meeting held 28 April 2021

Council Decision

C2105/086              Moved Councillor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 28 April 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED 8/0

 

Committee Meetings

8.2             Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting 21 April 2021

Council Decision

C2105/087              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor K Hick

That the Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee held 21 April 2021 be noted.

CARRIED 8/0

 

8.3             Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held 28 April 2021

Council Decision

C2105/088              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor P Cronin

That the Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held 28 April 2021 be noted.

CARRIED 8/0

 

8.4             Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 28 April 2021

Council Decision

C2105/089              Moved Councillor K Cox, seconded Councillor K Hick

That the Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 28 April 2021 be noted.

CARRIED 8/0

 

9.               RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS

Petitions

 

Nil

Presentations

 

Mr David Read, Director Element WA, presented as a party with an interest in Item 13.1 ‘DA 20/0916 - Mixed Use Development (Brewery, Tavern, Restaurant/Cafe, Shop and Tourist Accommodation)’.

Mr Read was in favour of the officer recommendation and the alternative recommendation foreshadowed by Councillor Hick.

Deputations

 

Nil

 

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

Nil

 

11.             Items brought forward

ADOPTION BY EXCEPTION RESOLUTION

At this juncture the Mayor advised the meeting that, with the exception of the items identified to be withdrawn for discussion, the remaining reports, including the Committee and Officer Recommendations, will be adopted en bloc, i.e. all together.

 

Council Decision

C2105/090              Moved Councillor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

 

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

            

12.1        Airport Advisory Committee - 21/4/2021 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT - AIRPORT UPDATE

                            

12.2        Airport Advisory Committee - 21/4/2021 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT - GENERAL AVIATION HANGAR PRECINCT PROPOSAL

 

12.3        Audit Committee - 28/4/2021 - 2020 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REVIEW

 

12.5        Policy and Legislation Committee - 28/4/2021 - SOUTH WEST DESIGN REVIEW PANEL AND PROPOSED LOCAL PLANNING POLICY - DESIGN REVIEW

 

14.1        RFT 09-21 DUNSBOROUGH LAKES SPORTS PRECINCT – EARTHWORKS

 

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN:

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 


Council                                                                                      14                                                                      12 May 2021

12.1           Airport Advisory Committee - 21/4/2021 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT - AIRPORT UPDATE

STRATEGIC GOAL

5. TRANSPORT Smart, connective and accessible

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

5.1 Public transport services that meet the needs of the community.

SUBJECT INDEX

Airport Operations

BUSINESS UNIT

Commercial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Airport Operations Coordinator - David Russell

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

NATURE OF DECISION

Noting: The item is simply for information purposes and noting

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

This item was considered by the Airport Advisory Committee at its meeting on 21/4/2021, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

Council Decision and Committee Recommendation and Officer Recommendation

C2105/091              Moved Councillor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council receives and notes the Airport Operations Report.

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an overview of the operations and activities of the Busselton Margaret River Airport (BMRA) for the reporting period 1 January 2021 - 31 March 2021. This includes an update on passenger number trends, aircraft landings, actions relating to COVID-19 and general airport operations.

 

BACKGROUND

Virgin Australia Regional Airlines (VARA) fly in fly out (FIFO) services from Busselton have returned to above pre COVID-19 frequencies with an increase in the overall passenger numbers compared to the same period in 2020. There has been a total of 9,013 passengers for the January – March 2021 reporting period compared to 7,362 passengers in 2020 and 7,700 passengers in 2019.

 

                     

               


 

A total of 1,008 aircraft landings were recorded for the reporting period, an increase from the numbers reported for the same period in 2020 (788) and a decrease to 2019 (1,176). This increase in aircraft landings from 2020 can be attributed to an increase in Busselton Aeroclub flight training (an increase of 39 landings) within the general aviation aircraft (0kg to 1999kg) category, increases in landings in the 30,000kg category aircraft, primarily FIFO charter aircraft (increase 66 landings) and DFES fire-fighting operations totalling 102 landings. The total number of FIFO services using BMRA is currently 15 flights (30 movements) per week utilising the F-100 and A320 aircraft.

 

                  

               

Carpark

There are currently 736 car park users using the FIFO swipe card system, with an average of 197 vehicles parked per week for the month of January and with the highest number of vehicles parked on any one day at 291 vehicles (recorded on 27 January) out of an available 422 bays. 

 

Operations

The focus for the reporting period has been on:

·        The continued readiness of the Jetstar Melbourne to Busselton service due to commence on the 26 June 2021.

·        Officers submitted the new BMRA Aerodrome Manual to CASA in early December for review with approval and issue of the new Aerodrome Certificate expected in May 2021.

·        Establishment of the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) operations and refuelling support of fire-fighting aircraft during the Wooroloo fire emergency.

 

As reported at the last Airport Advisory Committee meeting, the Department of Home Affairs conducted an audit inspection on 8 December 2020 including a site visit and inspection of the terminal building, airside security areas, airside/landside boundary and the BMRA’s Transport Security Program. While some feedback was provided on the day verbally, no non-compliances were issued and the Department has written to the City with the following findings that the City may wish to address to improve security outcomes:

·        Along the far northern boundary, there is a structure close to the perimeter fencing that may require removal (to be completed).

·        Signage on internal terminal doors to indicate entry to the Security Restricted Area (completed).

·        Persons required to display ASICs in aviation security zones are not displaying valid ASICs  (ongoing).

As at 12 January 2021, the West Australian Government introduced a directive under the Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA) for all persons entering airport terminal facilities to wear face masks. As such, all staff, contractors, passengers and visitors (noting that there are some exclusions) entering the BMRA terminal building are now required to wear a face mask. Signage has been put up on the terminal entry doors and, when there are no scheduled flights, the terminal doors are locked to prevent access. Signage includes staff contact details for persons who need to conduct business in the terminal building so that access can be provided. 

 

Hangar Leases

Hangar leases and hire agreements by emergency services and private operators continue to occupy 10 of the 12 hangars owned by the City of Busselton, with two other hangars being used to store aircraft ground servicing equipment and airport maintenance equipment owned by the City and the ground handling operator. City officers will continue to liaise with emergency services and aircraft owners to secure interest in the existing hangars and new general aviation precinct.

        

DFES Aerial Fire Fighting Capability

DFES aerial fire-fighting operations infrastructure was setup at the BMRA in late November 2020 and Coulson Aviation, the Large Air Tanker (LAT) operator for DFES, deployed a C-130 aircraft to the BMRA in December 2020. A second LAT was deployed to the BMRA for a period of time in response to extreme fire risk ratings due to  high winds and temperatures in early January and a further  two B737 aircraft were deployed to BMRA from NSW to assist in the firefighting response for the Wooroloo fires north of Perth in February. On 20 March 2021, DFES Commissioner visited the BMRA to award certificates of appreciation to the City of Busselton for their support during the LAT operations.  DFES fire-fighting operations concluded on 8 April 2021 for the season.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

FIFO passenger numbers through the BMRA have increased in comparison to previous years and officers expect passenger numbers to continue to increase as FIFO employment recruiting from the South West for the resources sector continues.

 

Officers continue to liaise regularly with Jetstar executives and operations teams for the commencement of the Busselton - Melbourne flights on 26 June 2021. BMRA is operationally ready to commence Regular Public Transport (RPT) services with the exception of the security screening contractor’s team who need to be redeployed and complete final training.

 

The RAAF deployed six Hawk 127 fighter training aircraft to BMRA on the week of 29 March to conduct formation take-off and landing exercises and facilitated a group of high school students interested in a career in the RAAF. Officers are continuing to liaise with the RAAF regarding the RAAF centenary which occurred on 31 March 2021. Officers are planning to host a BMRA Open Day on 7 November 2021 for the community to come and view the upgraded airport facilities, and invite the RAAF to celebrate their centenary at the same time. Officers will also invite the Busselton Aero Club to participate in the open day by hosting a general aviation ‘fly in’ and ground display of recreation and general aviation aircraft.

 

Capital Works

Ongoing capital works and infrastructure improvements for this financial year include:

·        Baggage carousel installation for the arrivals building.

·        Installation of weatherproof shelters for car park entrance / exit ticket machines.

·        Line marking of the new transport operators car park.

 

Regional Airports Development Scheme 2021-23 (RADS)

The Department of Transport (DoT) Regional Airport Development Scheme (RADS) 2021-23 includes a COVID-19 stimulus initiative to support the State’s economic recovery. RADS funding will cover up to 75% of the total eligible project cost for successful applicants for projects that can be completed prior to 31 December 2021.

 

City officers lodged funding applications for the below listed projects. The City has been notified by the Minister for Transport that it has been successful in its application to complete the airside/landside fencing for the General Aviation precinct (2), with unsuccessful applications for the Royal Flying Doctor’s Service (RFDS) transfer station (1) and airside drain netting (3).

 

1.         Relocation of the RFDS/St Johns transfer station from the central apron to the emergency services precinct. The total cost of this project is $188,664 with the City’s 25% required contribution of $47,166.

2.         Completion of a general aviation (GA) precinct fencing to allow airside/landside access for future hangar owners/tenants. The total cost of this project is $25,558 with the required City contribution of $6,390.00.

3.         Airside drain netting of taxiways A and B drains to improve safety by minimising bird / wildlife presence on the aerodrome. The total cost of this project is $190,000 with the required City contribution of $47,500.

 

Following advice from DoT, the City also submitted funding applications for the three projects above to the Federal Government’s Regional Airports Program Round 2.

 

Regional Airports Program (RAP) Round 2 grant opportunity

Applications for the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications RAP Round 2 grant funding program closed on 18 December 2020. The key objective of the RAP is to improve the safety and accessibility of airports or aerodromes in regional areas of Australia by assisting aerodrome owners/operators to undertake essential works, promoting aviation safety and access for regional communities.

 

As the City falls under the category of an Australian local government agency or body and the total project cost is equal to or less than $300,000, Commonwealth funding will cover up to 100% of eligible project costs.

 

Officers have submitted applications for the three projects listed above as well as the two below listed projects:

·        Extension of the central apron northern shoulders to facilitate extended taxiing guideline markings and apron edge clearance for A320 and Boeing 737 aircraft utilising bay 11 for RPT operations.

·        Clearing of airside swale drains to improve water flow and drainage of the runway strip to ensure safe and compliant winter operations.

 

Unexpected delays in notifying successful applicants has occurred for RAP Round 2 grant applications, with a new notification date to be confirmed.

 

Domestic Airports Security Costs Support Program (DASCS)

The City of Busselton as operator of BMRA has been invited to apply for the DASCS program. This grant opportunity was announced on 11 March 2021 as part of the Australian Government’s tourism and aviation's flight path to recovery support package and is to support regional airports with security screening costs.

The Program provides a total of $90 million over six months for the period of 29 March 2021 to 30 September 2021. The Program will reimburse grantees for Eligible Expenditure incurred associated with passenger and baggage security screening operations required under the Regulations with a maximum grant amount for the BMRA of $300,000.

 

Eligible applicants are those domestic airport operators in Australia, or airlines who have screening authority for a terminal in an Australian domestic airport that, between 29 March 2021 and 30 September 2021, will be:

·        receiving RPT services, and

·        required to undertake passenger and baggage security screening as prescribed by the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005.

 

Applications for the Grant close on 1 September 2021.

 

Tourism Aviation Network Support (TANS) Program

In March 2021, the Federal Government announced the TANS funding package as part of the COVID-19 recovery plan that included subsidies of half-price airfares on selected routes across Australia.  With Broome being the only Western Australian destination to be included, officers have approached the Government to include the Melbourne-Busselton RPT service when it commences in June 2021.  It is hoped that a further announcement of routes will be made over the coming months.

 

Busselton Margaret River Airport Commercial and Industrial Precinct

While the City continues to focus on securing new air routes and services, it recognises that landside land use is equally important to the economic viability and success of the BMRA. Landside land use will support the BMRA’s growth and is complementary to airside activities. The BMRA Master Plan (2016) identifies a number of land use precincts including the Industrial and Commercial Precinct with its primary purpose to provide facilities and services including:

·        Airline support services;

·        Freight logistics;

·        Aviation engineering, maintenance and servicing; and

·        Non-aviation uses including light industrial, specialised industrial, commercial and office facilities where proximity to aviation related services and air transport is required or advantageous.

 

Officers have advertised an RFQ document to engage consultants to prepare Request for Proposal (RFP) documentation for the BMRA Commercial and Industrial Precinct. The RFP is to provide a framework to attract private sector investors / developers interested in leasehold, outright purchase or investment partnership arrangements. The RFQ closing date is 15 April 2021.

Statutory Environment

The BMRA operates in accordance with the following:

·        Aviation Transport Security Act 2004

·        Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005

·        CASA Manual of Standards 139

·        Council’s Transport Security Plan

·        City policies and procedures

Relevant Plans and Policies

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

 

Financial Implications

Airport revenue at the end of the reporting period totals $1,126,215 compared to the amended budget of $1,269,371. The reason for revenue being less than expected is mainly due to not receiving passenger screening fees for Jetstar services of $121,770.

Actual expenses to April 2021 excluding depreciation, airline marketing and attraction expenses were $488,672 compared to the amended YTD budget of $720,998. Lower expenses are attributed to delays in the commencement of some works projects and no passenger screening services expenses due to Jetstar flights not commencing.

Stakeholder Consultation

Consultation has been occurring on a regular basis with Department of Transport, Government agencies, airport stakeholders, Department of Home Affairs, Aviation Marine Security (AMS), Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Air Services Australia, Virgin Australia Regional Airline, Qantas Group, the Busselton Aero Club, Albany, Esperance, Geraldton Airports and Australian Airports Association, concerning many topics and issues relating to the Airport.

Risk Assessment

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

Options

The Council may choose not to receive and note the Airport Operations Report.

CONCLUSION

The airport team has had a busy summer period working with the fire-fighting aircraft and are now looking forward to the commencement of RPT services in June. Officers will continue to provide a high level of customer service ensuring the airport is compliant, safe and security is maintained throughout.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Not applicable.


Council                                                                                      19                                                                      12 May 2021

12.2           Airport Advisory Committee - 21/4/2021 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT - GENERAL AVIATION HANGAR PRECINCT PROPOSAL

STRATEGIC GOAL

5. TRANSPORT Smart, connective and accessible

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

5.1 Public transport services that meet the needs of the community.

SUBJECT INDEX

Busselton Margaret River Airport

BUSINESS UNIT

Commercial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Economic and Business Development Services - Jennifer May

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

NATURE OF DECISION

Contractual: To enter into a contract e.g. a lease or the award of a tender etc.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Airport Aerial Plan

Attachment b    GA Hangar Lot Site Plan

 

This item was considered by the Airport Advisory Committee at its meeting on 21/4/2021, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

Council Decision and Committee Recommendation and Officer Recommendation

C2105/092              Moved Councillor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council:

1.         Subject to an Expression of Interest process, endorse the construction of up to three General Aviation hangars at the Busselton Margaret River Airport.

2.         Endorse the allocation of $210,000 from the draft 2021/22 budget to be funded from the Airport Infrastructure Renewal Reserve to a newly created capital account for the construction of general aviation hangars.

3.         Notes that the CEO will under delegation enter into lease arrangements for the constructed hangars.

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents a proposal for Council consideration to fund the construction of general aviation hangars for lease at the Busselton Margaret River Airport (BMRA).

 

BACKGROUND

Following the completion of the BMRA Redevelopment Project in March 2018, including the construction of a fully serviced General Aviation (GA) precinct, the City of Busselton advertised for Registrations of Interest (RoI) for the lease of vacant hangar lots.

 

The GA precinct includes 36 hangar lots ranging in size from 150m2 to 838m2. The lots are fully serviced and available for recreational and commercial pilots and/or aviation related businesses. The hangar lots are situated adjacent to Code B rated aprons (see Attachment A), have direct access to the runway of 2,520m (TODA) x 45m via dedicated Code B and Code 4C taxiways, and Jet A1 Fuel and Avgas facilities are available. All lots are serviced with water, power, sewer and telecommunications.

 


 

The RoI included details on the proposed lease arrangements which were subject to commercial negotiations with the City of Busselton. The following standard lease conditions were put forward:

·        Term – 10 years plus a further two 5 year options.

·        Rent - by market valuation, with previous valuations indicating $9-11 (excl. GST) per square metre per annum.

·        Rent reviews - every five years with all other years subject to CPI (Perth All Groups) rent reviews.

·        Outgoings - the Lessee to pay for City of Busselton rates, water consumption (individually metered), electricity (individually metered), communications/NBN and insurances (including Property, Public Liability and Hangar Keepers).

 

The RoI also included the design guidelines for the development of hangars including setbacks, height restrictions, built form and materials, signage and required approvals.

 

The RoI was advertised in October 2018 on the City of Busselton’s website and social media, local newspapers, aviation magazines and distributed to all West Australian aero clubs and aviation businesses located in Perth and Jandakot Airport precincts. Three RoI submissions were received following the advertising period, however no leases were entered into. There were a number of reasons that contributed towards the lack of submissions received, including:

·        Capital funding for hangar construction was difficult to achieve.

·        Lease term was considered too short (minimum of 30 years was preferred).

·        There was no ‘buy back’ clause for hangar infrastructure available in the lease.

Since 2018, officers have been approached for information on the hangar lots and currently there is interest from a helicopter operator for one of the larger lots, additionally the Busselton Aero club have expressed interest in hangar lots in the GA precinct. 

 

The City also owns two of the existing large (25m x 50m) hangars situated adjacent to the Busselton Aero Club (see Attachment A). The City purchased the two hangars from the hangar owner consortiums in 2018. The hangars are split internally into 5 and 6 individual hangars and currently 9 of the 11 individual hangars are leased out, with the remaining two used for airport operations and the Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association (MRBTA) ground handlers. There are three leases with McDermott Aviation, Helistar and the Busselton Aero Club which return an annual income of $30,600 and four short-term hangar hire arrangements returning a monthly income of $3,812. The City is frequently approached for additional hangar space on both long-term lease and short-term hangar arrangements. 

OFFICER COMMENT

The GA precinct has remained vacant since the completion of the BMRA redevelopment project in 2018 and officers are keen to attract general and recreational pilots and aviation related businesses to the BMRA, and in particular the GA precinct. In considering feedback received from potential lessees during the last RoI of the cost and availability of capital funding, and the reluctance to enter into leases where the infrastructure reverts to City ownership on termination of the lease, officers now propose an alternate proposal as outlined below.

 


 

The GA precinct is made up of five sections of different sized lots:

·        Lots 3-5 being approximately 830m2;

·        Lots 6-15 being 150m2;

·        Lots 18 -27 being 225m2;

·        Lots 28-36 being between 425-588m2; and

·        Premium lots 16-17, each 587m2, having dual-sided apron access and facing the runway.

 

To ensure the efficient and greatest use of the entire GA precinct, the following principles have been applied to how the precinct can be utilised:

·        Lots 33-36 reserved for helicopter operators;

·        Lots 28-32 and 16-17 reserved for larger GA fixed wing operators and aviation businesses;

·        Lots 6-15 and 18-27 reserved for GA/RAA operators;

·        Lots 4-5 reserved for aviation related businesses/flight training operators; and

·        Lots 3 reserved for potential Busselton Aero Club hangar/clubrooms.

 

Using the above principles, the primary focus is to attract GA/RAA operators into lots 6-15 initially (see Attachment B). This will activate the precinct and lead to further interest of both operators and aviation related businesses.

 

To facilitate this, officers propose that the City constructs up to three 10m x 15m sized hangars starting at lot 15 and progressing through to lot 6 based on demand. It is proposed to offer these hangars for long term leases of up to 20 years and/or short term hire arrangements. In offering fully constructed hangars, the City would be able to eliminate some of the barriers preventing the take up of hangar lots, as well as being able to maintain consistency in the initial design and aesthetics of the GA precinct, with standard hangars and colours being used. Leases would be for a minimum of 10 years, up to 20 years and the lease rate would be higher than the market valuation rate to incorporate the return on investment of the hangars constructed by the City. Standard lease conditions as detailed in the RoI issued back in 2018 including outgoings (utilities), insurances, CPI increases and 5 yearly rent reviews would all still apply. 

 

To gauge interest, officers propose that an initial expression of interest is advertised to attract potential lessees and ideally a minimum of two hangars constructed at a time to save on installation costs. Once the initial hangar leases have been secured and hangars constructed, additional hangars would only be constructed on demand. It is also proposed that this approach is initially capped at five hangars.  If there is demand beyond this, a report would be brought back to Council to ensure that the funding implications are appropriately considered. The City would also continue to offer undeveloped hangar lots for lease.   

 

Officers have sought quotations for the construction of standard hangars of 10m x 15m x 6m for lots 6-15 (150m2) including hangar style doors and concrete floors. Quotes for supply and installation, including contingency, all approvals, fees and charges are in the region of $70,000 (incl. GST) per hangar. A recent market valuation completed by the City’s Land Asset Management Officer has valued the ground leases of sites in the GA precinct as follows:

·        Sites 6-15, 18-27 and 28 -33 at $10 per m2 per annum

·        Sites 16, 17 and 34 -36 at say $11 per m2 per annum

·        Sites 3-5 being larger sites at $9 per m2 per annum

 

The valuation has recommended that developed lease lots (i.e. including constructed hangars) include a rental for the building based on a 6% return on the cost of construction of the hangers. Based on a 6% return on investment, the rental rate for a newly constructed hangar on lots 7-15 would be $38 per square metre per annum, totalling a rental return of $5,700 per annum not including outgoings (as opposed to an estimated $1,500 per annum on undeveloped serviced lease lots).

 

In the event that the EoI process indicates interest, it is recommended that the CEO, under delegation, enter into a lease(s). It should be noted that officers will be required to conduct a formal Request for Quotation process for the construction of hangars.

Statutory Environment

When disposing of property whether by sale, lease or other means, a local government is bound by the requirement of section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) which requires giving local public notice when disposing of property. The public notice must describe the property concerned, gives details of the proposal and invites submissions to be made before a specified date, not less than two weeks after the notice is first given. Any submissions received before the date specified in the notice must be considered.

 

Section 3.58(4) of the Act requires that the disposition includes either a valuation not more than six months old or a declaration by resolution that a valuation older than 6 months is considered a true indication of the value at the time of the disposition.  A valuation was obtained from the City’s Land Asset Management Officer (a licensed valuer) on 25 March 2021.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The proposal to construct hangars at the Busselton Margaret River Airport General Aviation Precinct aligns with the Busselton Margaret River Airport Master Plan 2016-36.

Financial Implications

There are no budget allocations in the 2020/21 adopted budget or draft 2021/22 Budget for this proposal. The City’s Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) indicates there are funds available in the Airport Infrastructure Renewal Reserve (the Reserve) over the next three years that could be used for the construction of GA hangars, with an opening 2021/22 balance forecast of $1,444,145.  Transfers from the Reserve towards marketing and incentives for 2022/23 and 2023/24 total $730,000 and $227,100 for fleet purchases. This leaves an unallocated amount of $487,045 over the next three years, not including any net operating profit transferred into the Reserve at the end of the financial year(s). 

 

Based on a rental rate of $38 per square metre per annum and an annual rental of $5,700 being transferred back to the Reserve, the construction of a single hangar at a cost of $70,000 would be recouped within 13 years including the proportion of the land rental income and not taking into account any CPI or rental review increases.

 

Alternatively, if the EOI for constructed hangars / leases resulted in a positive outcome (3-5 leases signed), then the City could consider borrowing funds so that the Reserve is not impacted. Using the rental rate of $38 per square metre and annual rental income of $5,700, the repayments of a $70,000 loan over 20 years at 2% ($4,255 p.a.) would be covered with a minimal amount left.

 

While the hangars would be new builds and maintenance costs would be minor in the first decade, the City would be responsible for structural and asset renewal maintenance under the lease.  This would need to be factored into the airport operational budget for future years. It would be expected that securing the leases and activating the GA precinct would result in increased landing fees and potentially attract new general aviation businesses which would contribute to the overall Airport revenue.

Stakeholder Consultation

Officers have consulted with existing general and recreational aviation operators and the Busselton Aero Club to gauge interest in the proposal which has generally been positive. An expression of interest would be advertised to determine the demand for constructed hangars and leases.

Risk Assessment

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

Options

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

1.         Choose not to support the proposal to construct GA hangars for lease and continue to advertise undeveloped lease lots.

2.         Authorise the CEO to proceed with an expression of Interest and bring back a proposal for funding once submissions have been received.

CONCLUSION

The BMRA redevelopment project included the construction of a purpose built GA precinct with 36 hangar lots of various sizes. Officers advertised a RoI to lease the hangar lots in 2018, however no leases have been taken up, with feedback suggesting that obtaining capital funding and lease terms and conditions were a barrier to GA/RAA pilots and operators taking up leases. Despite this feedback, there have been regular enquiries for hangar space in the two existing large hangars owned by the City suggesting that there is genuine interest in hangar occupation at the BMRA. To facilitate this, and generate activity at in the GA precinct, officers propose that the City constructs the GA hangars and re-advertise for lease opportunities on both long-term and short-term hangar hire arrangements through an expression of interest process.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

If Council support the officer recommendation, officers will advertise an expression of interest in May and June 2021. If there is interest for operators to enter into a lease, officers would be keen to have the first GA hangars constructed prior to the BMRA Community Open Day to be held in November 2021 to showcase the GA precinct opportunities.

 


Council

20

12 May 2021

12.2

Attachment a

Airport Aerial Plan

 


Council

21

12 May 2021

12.2

Attachment b

GA Hangar Lot Site Plan

 


Council                                                                                      26                                                                      12 May 2021

12.3           Audit Committee - 28/4/2021 - 2020 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REVIEW

STRATEGIC GOAL

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

FINM007

BUSINESS UNIT

Finance and Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Finance Coordinator - Jeffrey Corker

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

NATURE OF DECISION

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

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   2020 Financial Management System Review

 

This item was considered by the Audit Committee at its meeting on 28/4/2021, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

Council Decision and Committee Recommendation and Officer Recommendation

C2105/093              Moved Councillor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council receives the 2020 Financial Management Systems Review and acknowledge the results as presented in Attachment A in accordance with Regulation 5(2)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In accordance with Regulation 5(2)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations), a local government is to undertake reviews of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of the local government regularly (and not less than once in every 3 financial years) and report the results of those reviews to the local government.

 

This report provides the findings of the Financial Management System Review (FMSR) as completed by AMD Chartered Accountants (AMD) (the Auditor) in February 2021.

 

BACKGROUND

As per the Regulations, City officers engaged AMD to undertake an independent review of the City’s financial management systems. AMD had previously undertaken the FMSR on the City's behalf in 2016, with the next review scheduled to be undertaken in the second half of 2019. As a result of COVID-19 and other extenuating circumstances, and as agreed with the Office of the Auditor General (OAG), the 2019 FSMR was delayed and undertaken in February 2021. This report presents the findings of that FSMR.


 

OFFICER COMMENT

The FMSR was comprehensive, with seven key focus areas being considered. A summary of those, and the appropriate scope and approach undertaken, is as follows:

I.          Collection of Monies

Site visits were completed for 9 outstations and the City’s central Customer Service.

 

The following procedures were completed (as applicable) at each site:

·        Documented internal controls, procedures and reconciliations in relation to all sources of income;

·        Tested collection, receipting, invoicing and posting procedures over cash receipts on a sample basis;

·        Counted petty cash and float on hand ensuring materially correct;

·        Reviewed the fees and charges schedule to ensure adequate internal controls in place over receipting; and

·        Reviewed credit control procedures in respect to sundry debtors and rate debtors.

 

II.         Custody and security of money

Site visits were completed for 9 outstations and the City’s central Customer Service at the Administration Building. These visits reviewed the security of cash and banking procedures to ensure the appropriate controls and procedures are in place.

 

III.       Maintenance and security of the financial records

Reviewed information technology (IT) systems to assess physical security, access security, data backups, contingency plans, compliance and systems development; and also reviewed registers maintained (including key register, tender register, gifts and travel registers etc.) and the minutes of Council meetings.

 

IV.       Accounting for Municipal or trust transactions

The scope and approach was as follows:

·        Reviewed all monthly reconciliations including bank, sundry debtors, sundry creditors, fixed assets, rates debtors and rateable value reconciliations ensuring they are correctly reconciled and reviewed;

·        Reviewed and tested in detail most recent municipal and trust bank reconciliations prepared;

·        Reviewed processes in respect to BAS, FBT Return and other statutory returns preparation;

·        Reviewed use of reserve funds and determined whether changes in reserve purposes have been budgeted or public notice was provided;

·        Reviewed trust ledger balances; and

·        Reviewed policies and procedures in respect to insurance, recording claims and insuring newly acquired assets.


 

V.        Authorisation for incurring liabilities and making payments

The scope and approach was as follows:

·        Reviewed controls and procedures over the authorisation of purchase orders and making of payments;

·        Tested sample of payments to ensure compliance with stated procedures;

·        Reviewed credit card processes and procedures, testing transactions on a sample basis;

·        Reviewed petty cash processes and procedures, testing transactions on a sample basis;

·        Completed sample testing of asset additions and asset disposals;

·        Reviewed asset capitalisation and depreciation policy and ensure compliance with stated policies; and

·        Reviewed new loans received ensuring budgeted for or public notice provided.

 

VI.       Maintenance of payroll, stock control and costing

The scope and approach was as follows:

·        Completed site visit to the depot to review security over stocks held and allocation / costings of stocks used (including fuel and inventory stocks);

·        Reviewed the allocation of public works overheads, plant operating costs and administration overheads completed;

·        Reviewed payroll controls and procedures to ensure effective controls are in place, and complete tests on a sample basis to ensure these controls were operating effectively;

·        Reviewed procedures and policies in place in respect of human resource management legislative and compliance requirements, recruitment, performance appraisal, disciplinary and termination procedures and leave entitlements;

·        Reviewed listing of leave taken by employees ensuring authorised leave forms completed; and

·        Reviewed annual leave balances and identify employees with more than eight weeks annual leave.

 

VII.      Preparation of budgets, budget reviews, accounts and reports required by the Act or the Regulations

The scope and approach was as follows:

·        Reviewed policy and procedure manual;

·        Reviewed the procedures for preparation of the monthly financial statements, annual financial statements and annual Budget, including assessment of accounting policy, notes and applicable reporting requirements and efficiency of the process;

·        Reviewed monthly financial statements ensuring presented to Council within two months and information contained within monthly financial statements in accordance with Regulation 34 of Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996;

·        Reviewed the mid-year budget review to ensure compliance with Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 and assessment of budgetary expenditure controls in place;

·        Ensured prior year audit report and management letter have been presented to the Audit Committee and Council; and

·        Reviewed compliance with Part 6 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

 

As a result of the above, the Auditor has made a number of recommendations to further improve the City’s overall financial management systems. These are listed within the attached report.

 

As part of the FMSR, the responsible officers provided comment on each of the recommendations. Of the fourteen recommendations, five have a moderate risk rating, with the remainder rated as low.

 

With respect to the moderate risk items, the following areas have been identified for improvement:

·        Testing of IT backup systems

·        Business Continuity Plan

·        Control and Custody of Keys

·        Review of User Profiles

·        Post Tender Review Process

 

No recommendations were made in respect to Focus Area 7 of the report (Preparation of budgets, budget reviews, accounts and reports required by the Act or the Regulations). The FMSR indicated key underlying policies and processes in relation to the preparation of budgets, budget reviews, accounts and reports required by the Act or Regulations are appropriate, in line with the best practice and are operating effectively.

 

City officers will implement the amendments and improvements to ensure risks are controlled in accordance with the comments provided within the attached report.

Statutory Environment

Section 6.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 states that the Regulations may provide for the controls over the financial management of the local government.

 

Regulation 5 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 outlines the areas a CEO is to establish efficient systems and procedures over.

 

Regulation 5(2)(c) requires that a review of those systems be undertaken regularly and reported to the local government.

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

Various Operational Practices (OP) and other documents are referred to within the FMSR. These include:

·        The Business Continuity Plan

·        Mobile Phone

·        Risk management Framework

·        Corporate data management and security

·        Operation of Business Customer Account (Store) cards

·        Petty Cash

·        Performance Improvement and Discipline

·        Code of Conduct

·        Motor Vehicle Policy

Other documents are in the development stage, including the Information Security Management OP, Asset Policy and the Work from Home OP, which are documents established under the CEO’s authority.

Financial Implications

The financial impact of implementing changes to systems or processes contained within the recommendations will be considered in future budget deliberations.

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Risk Assessment

The FMSR contains an assessment of risk with each recommendation given an individual risk rating. Five findings were found to be of moderate risk, with the remaining nine rated as minor.

Options

Council may determine to recommend additional requirements upon officers in response to recommendation contained within the FMSR.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with Regulation 5(2)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, this report provides the findings of the Financial Management System Review as completed by AMD Chartered Accountants (AMD) in February 2021.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Responses to the specified individual recommendations of the FMSR will be undertaken in accordance with management comments contained within the document.

 


Council

51

12 May 2021

12.3

Attachment a

2020 Financial Management System Review

 




























Council                                                                                      59                                                                      12 May 2021

12.5           Policy and Legislation Committee - 28/4/2021 - SOUTH WEST DESIGN REVIEW PANEL AND PROPOSED LOCAL PLANNING POLICY - DESIGN REVIEW

STRATEGIC GOAL

2. PLACE AND SPACES Vibrant, attractive, affordable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Local Planning Policy

BUSINESS UNIT

Development Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Development Services - Lee Reddell

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

NATURE OF DECISION

Legislative: adoption of “legislative documents” such as local laws, local planning schemes and local planning policies

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Draft Design Review Policy  

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 28/4/2021, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

 

Council Decision and Committee Recommendation and Officer Recommendation

C2105/094              Moved Councillor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council:

1.         Resolves to initiate for the purposes of public consultation a new Local Planning Policy ‘Design Review’ (Attachment A) by advertising the proposed policy in accordance with clause 4 of Part 2 of Schedule 2 - Deemed Provisions for Local Planning Schemes of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

2.         Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to enter a memorandum of understanding with other participating South West local governments for the operation and management of a South West Joint Design Review Panel.

 

3.         Consider allocating appropriate funding in the 2021/22 financial year budget to enable the establishment and operation of a South West Design Review Panel.

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Design Review Panels (DRPs) are groups of independent experts who advise on the design quality of a project or development proposal. DRPs have been operating in Australia for over 20 years and 80% of Perth’s metropolitan local governments have established a DRP, which are now reinforced through the State Government’s Design WA initiative. Officers have been working with other local authorities within the South West region to establish a South West Design Review Panel (SWDRP). A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Terms of Reference (TOR) have been prepared by the participating local governments.

 

At this point in time, there is commitment from the following local governments:

•          City of Bunbury

•          Shire of Augusta Margaret River

•          Shire of Harvey

•          Shire of Collie

For design review to occur through the development assessment process, a Local Planning Policy (LPP) is required to:

1.         Establish a ‘head of power’, in creating a relationship between the development assessment and design review process;

2.         Outline the types of applications that will trigger design review; and

3.         Address fees and charges.

 

BACKGROUND

City officers have been in ongoing discussions with other South West local government planners to gauge support for a shared DRP. The advantages of a SWDRP are lower costs and a larger pool of experts to draw from, thus improving the potential pool of expertise and lowering the risk of conflict of interest.

 

In order for the SWDRP to function, an MOU has been drafted between the participating local governments. The MOU is an agreement between the parties to work together to establish and maintain a DRP. The MOU states that participating local governments will contribute equally to funding an Expression of Interest (EOI) process and ongoing member recruitment costs, after which the DRP will operate on a ‘user pays’ basis, where costs incurred presenting an item (such as panel member sitting fees) will be borne by the local government presenting an item.

 

Further operational guidance will be provided by way of the TOR document which sets out the role and stature of the DRP, governance, member appointment and responsibilities, remuneration, and meeting procedures. Importantly, the TOR refer to an LPP to establish the types of applications that will require design review, as well as a process around fees and charges. An LPP is advantageous as it can be tailored from place to place to recognise the differences in development scale and frequency between local authorities.

 

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

 

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

 

LPPs are given due regard in the assessment of development applications and are listed as a “consideration of application by local government” when making determination of a development application under Schedule 2, clause 67 of the Regulations.

OFFICER COMMENT

Design review is an independent and impartial evaluation process through which a panel of experts on the built environment assesses the design of a proposal. DRPs can be used for development applications, major public works, structure plans, local development plans and design related local planning policies.

 

DRPs often contain a wide range of experience that can cover architecture, heritage, urban design, landscape architecture and planning. Their focus is principally on pre-lodgement advice, so that the DRP can influence the drafting of plans before the applicant is committed through fully worked up drawings.

State Planning Policy 7.0 Design of The Built Environment (SPP7.0) sets out the objectives, measures, principles and processes which apply to the design and assessment of built environment proposals through the Western Australian planning system. It also provides the overarching framework for a range of supporting State Planning Policies that provide design quality guidance for specific types of planning and development proposals. 

 

The WAPC’s Design Review Guide works with SPP7.0 to assist local governments with the establishment and operation of DRPs and supports consistency in the design review processes already in operation across the State.

 

SPP7.0 states that planning authorities, including local government, should establish or arrange access to design review processes to review:

·        complex planning proposals;

·        proposals identified as benefitting from design review; or

·        matters as set out in the Regulations or recommended in the Design Review Guide.

 

Of the 29 metropolitan local governments in Perth, 25 have established DRPs. There are no DPRs in regional WA at the present time. The SWDRP will be a first for the State. The Office for the Government Architect (OGA), the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage and the South West Development Commission are all supportive of establishing the joint SWDRP.

 

Proposed Local Planning Policy

The LPP is proposed to achieve three things:

1.         establish a ‘head of power’, in creating a relationship between the development assessment and design review process;

2.         outline the types of applications that will require design review; and

3.         outline process on fees and charges.

 

As outlined above, the operational aspects of the DRP are dealt with through the MOU and TOR.  Council approval for these documents is not proposed for these documents given their operational nature but it is a recommendation of this agenda item that Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to enter the MOU on behalf of the City for the operation and management of the SWDRP.

 

Under Part 3 of the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations, the City must have regard to an LPP in determining a development application, meaning the proposed LPP will provide a relationship between the development assessment and design review process.

 

Part 4.1(e) of the draft LPP establishes the DRP role in the development application process as follows:

e)         The Design Review Panel performs an advisory function and the decision maker shall give due regard to the panel’s advice. The Design Review Panel does not report on compliance with the Scheme or policies.

Part 4.2 of the draft LPP sets the threshold for the types of applications that are referred to the DRP. It is important to strike a balance on what matters require DRP review. The lower the threshold, the higher the number of meetings and therefore cost. Too high a threshold and matters which would have benefited from design review might be overlooked.

 


 

The threshold included in the draft LPP is provided below:

4.2       THRESHOLD

a)        The Design Review Process may apply to:

i)          All applications that meet the mandatory or optional requirement for Development Assessment Panels applications, where there is a design element that may impact on the character, appearance or streetscape of an area; or

ii)         Major development proposals where there is a design element that may have a significant impact on the character, appearance, or streetscape of an area at the discretion of the City; or

iii)        Any other planning proposal (e.g. Scheme Amendment, Structure Plan, Precinct Plan, Local Planning Policy, Local Development Plan, Design Guidelines; or City project) relating to the design of development and places may be referred to the Design Review Panel at the discretion of the City.

 

Importantly, the above provides discretion for the Director of Planning and Development to require design review in instances where other criteria are not fully met but the proposal would benefit from design input. Outside of the development assessment process, the City can refer its own projects to the DRP at its discretion.

 

Normally, a proposal is reviewed three times by a DRP, but this is not mandatory.  The draft LPP allows for three design reviews at no cost to the proponent, provided one of the reviews occurs before the lodgement of a development application. This is to incentivise early engagement with the panel, which increases opportunities for DRP feedback to be incorporated into a design at a lower cost to the proponent.

 

If no review is undertaken before lodgement, then only one review will be provided at no cost to the proponent. This may provide an incentive for the applicant to take on board the DRPs early feedback to avoid costs associated with a third review.

 

A Scheme Amendment may be appropriate at some point to introduce a trigger to require applicants of specified development to participate in the design review process, however this is not considered necessary at this time given the level of positive buy-in from applicants to the informal design review processes being undertaken on significant development within the City currently.  Officers will liaise with the Department of Planning Lands and Heritage on this matter and seek to introduce a relevant provisions as part of the Scheme Review process if deemed necessary.

Statutory Environment

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

 

Division 2, clause 4 sets out the procedure for making a local planning policy.

 


 

Relevant Plans and Policies

State Planning Policy 7.0 Design of the Built Environment (SPP7.0)

SPP7.0 states that planning authorities should establish or provide access to design review processes for complex planning proposals. This is set out in the WAPC’s “Design Review Guide – Guidance for Local Governments to set up and operate a design review process”.

Financial Implications

Establishment and Maintenance Costs

Estimates put establishment costs at $5,000, covering advertising and circulating an Expression of Interest Campaign (EOI) and potential recruitment costs if administration staffing is outsourced. Costs for outsourcing administration support for the panel are likely to be $7000 per annum. These estimates are based on costings from the City of Stirling.

 

Other options that are being explored are ‘rotating’ the hosting of the DRP such that administrative support can be undertaken with existing staffing arrangements. This would involve the Cities of Bunbury and Busselton and the Shire of Augusta Margaret River taking turns in hosting the DRP meetings and undertaking the administrative tasks, including preparing and circulating agendas, invites, taking minutes and formulating recommendations with the Panel Chair. This would reduce this workload to once quarterly, which is manageable within existing staffing arrangements and would negate the staffing cost. The Shire is also exploring for external funding assistance to cover the establishment costs.

 

The total establishment and maintenance costs when shared between the five participating local governments may be $2,400 per year for the City, however these may be further reduced based on the above.

 

Meeting Costs

The TOR sets the remuneration of the Panel Members, which is at $500 per meeting for the chair and $400 per meeting for other members, inclusive of preparation time. Costings have been based on five panel members, but this may be adjusted down depending on the outcomes of the EOI process. Based on this approach, one meeting would cost $2,100.

 

The estimated budget for operating the SWDRP would be $33,070 annually based on 12 meetings per year. Under the terms of the draft MOU, the meeting costs would be divided equally between those local governments with matters to be considered at a particular meeting.  This model is yet to be tested through an EOI process however so there may need to be changes to the model if there is insufficient interest based on offering only one fee per meeting, irrespective of the number of matters to be considered.

 

Based on the details above, a budget allocation of $35,470 for the 2021/22 financial year will be requested through the budgeting process. The costs to run the DRP process are expected to fluctuate dependent on the level of development proposed on any given year and could be returned to general municipal funds at budget review if unlikely to be expended in the financial year.  It is noted that development applications the subject of Design Review are likely to generate significant application fees which would off-set the cost of the review.  City projects referred to DRP would need to account for referral costs in the project budget.

 

It should be noted that support to advertise the draft LPP does not commit Council to supporting any particular budget allocation or prevent Council from reconsidering the timing of a DRP process based on financial constraints. It is also possible that the City could pursue a full cost recovery methodology.

Stakeholder Consultation

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

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

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

·          A portal is to be created using the City’s YourSay platform for the online lodgement 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 of a medium or greater level have been identified.

Options

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

1.         Choose not to initiate the Policy recommended to be initiated as part of this report; and/or

2.         Modify the Policy before initiation.

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council support the proposed initiation of the LPP as described in this report.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Implementation of the officer recommendation would involve public consultation of the initiated Policy as outlined in the consultation section of this report above. It is expected that this will commence within one month of the Council decision. A subsequent report will be presented to the Council following public consultation outlining the nature of any submissions received in relation to the Policy and any necessary modifications to the Policy (where applicable).

 


Council

61

12 May 2021

12.5

Attachment a

Draft Design Review Policy

 


 


Council                                                                                      66                                                                      12 May 2021

14.1           RFT 09-21 DUNSBOROUGH LAKES SPORTS PRECINCT - EARTHWORKS

STRATEGIC GOAL

2. PLACE AND SPACES Vibrant, attractive, affordable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

2.2 Attractive parks and open spaces that create opportunities for people to come together, socialise and enjoy a range of activities.

SUBJECT INDEX

Tenders

BUSINESS UNIT

Major Projects and Facilities

REPORTING OFFICER

Major Projects - Contract Admin & Tech Officer - Natalie Walker

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

NATURE OF DECISION

Contractual: To enter into a contract e.g. a lease or the award of a tender etc.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Published Under Separate Cover  Confidential Tender Evaluation Report RFT 09-21 Dunsborough Lakes Sports Precinct Earthworks

Attachment b    Published Under Separate Cover  Confidential Tender Evaluation - Panel Consensus Score Sheet

Attachment c    Published Under Separate Cover  Confidential Tender Evaluation Sheet  

 

Council Decision and Officer Recommendation

C2105/095              Moved Councillor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council:

1.         Pursuant to RFT 09-21 Dunsborough Lakes Sports Precinct – Earthworks, accept the tender from Leeuwin Civil Pty Ltd for clearing and earthworks for the Dunsborough Lakes Sports Precinct (tendered price $698,599.50 exclusive of GST) as the most advantageous tender (Successful Tenderer), subject to minor variations to be negotiated in accordance with Regulation 20 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (FG Regs).

 

2.         Delegate power and authority to the Chief Executive Officer to:

a.         negotiate and agree with the Successful Tenderer minor variations in accordance with Regulation 20 of the FG Regs, subject to such variations and final terms not exceeding the overall project budget; and

b.        enter into a contract with the Successful Tenderer for supply of the relevant goods and services.

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Busselton invited tenders under Request for Tender RFT 09-21 Dunsborough Lakes Sports Precinct – Earthworks for a suitably experienced and qualified contractor to carry out clearing and earthworks for the Dunsborough Lakes Sports Precinct, Lot 40 Dunsborough Lakes Drive.

 


 

This report summarises the submissions received, and recommends that Council:

·        endorse the outcome of the evaluation panel’s assessment;

·        delegate power and authority to the CEO to negotiate and agree final terms and conditions with the Successful Tenderer, Leeuwin Civil Pty Ltd; and

·        enter into a contract for the clearing and earthworks for the Dunsborough Lakes Sports Precinct in accordance with the Specification.

 

BACKGROUND

Lot 40 Dunsborough Lakes Drive (formerly Lot 10 Commonage Road) is City-owned land purchased from the Water Corporation, zoned as special use and identified as open space for sport and recreation purposes within the Dunsborough sub-district.

The Dunsborough Lakes Sporting Precinct is identified in the City of Busselton Sports Facilities Analysis and Future Requirements (KA3 Action Plan Priority 1) and the Long Term Financial Plan 2020.

The precinct will be accessible from the future school which will be located on the corner of Dunsborough Lakes Drive and Diamante Boulevard. The overall design allows for potential future expansion of the precinct and the facility.

The precinct will include fit for purpose facilities for a mix of senior and junior participants for cricket, soccer, netball and basketball clubs, as well as other potential sporting groups in the future.

The project is jointly funded by the City of Busselton, the State Government’s Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund and a Commonwealth Government’s Community Infrastructure.

The sports field procurement and construction has been separated into specialised components (clearing, earthworks, services pre-lay, drainage, irrigation and turf installation) to increase opportunities of local contractors.  Construction of the sports fields will commence in May 2021 and is expected to be complete in October 2021.

The carpark and courts are planned to be constructed in late 2021 and the pavilion is planned to be constructed in 2022.

Consultation has been taking place with relevant sporting groups to develop the design of the precinct.

A brief scope of works for RFT 09-21 Dunsborough Lakes Sports Precinct – Earthworks is as follows:

·        Clearing of approximately 1 hectare of bushland (canopy area) in line with clearing permit approval

·        Removal of topsoil

·        Subgrade preparation

·        Earthworks fill

·                Table drain construction


 

OFFICER COMMENT

The tender was issued as a public tender on Saturday 20 March 2021 and closed at 2:00pm on Tuesday 20 April 2021. The invitation to tender was advertised in ‘The West Australian’ and the ‘Busselton Dunsborough Times’.

 

The City received three compliant tender submissions from the following companies:

·        BCP Contractors Pty Ltd

·        Cape to Cape Excavations

·        Leeuwin Civil Pty Ltd

 

Assessment Process

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

 

The tender assessment process included:

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

 

·        The assessment of tenders against the following qualitative criteria; weighted according to the table below:

Criteria

Weighting

·    Relevant Experience

25%

·    Local Benefit

5%

·    Demonstrated Understanding

20%

 

The qualitative criteria were scored depending on the extent of which each tenderer was able to appropriately satisfy each criteria.  The tendered prices were then assessed together with the weighted qualitative criteria and the tenders scored and ranked to determine the most advantageous outcome to the City; based on principles of representing best value for money. That is, although price is a consideration, the tender containing the lowest price will not necessarily be accepted by the City and nor will the tender be ranked the highest on the qualitative criteria.

 

Summary of Assessment Outcomes

The outcome of the evaluation panel’s assessment was as that Leeuwin Civil Pty Ltd was determined to be the highest ranked tenderer.

 

Leeuwin Civil offered a competitive price and displayed appropriate previous experience in completing earthwork projects of similar scale and scope. They also demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the project requirements and program. Leeuwin Civil identified local community support for charities, schools and sports.

 


 

Evaluation Panel Recommendation

Based on the Evaluation Panel’s assessment and overall ranking of the tenders, it is recommended that it is most advantageous to the City to accept the tender from Leeuwin Civil Pty Ltd (Preferred Tenderer).

 

Leeuwin Civil Pty Ltd, compared to the other Tenderers, demonstrated they have:

·        Strong relevant experience in completing projects of a similar scale and scope.

·        A comprehensive understanding of the project requirements.

·        Supported local community groups, schools and charities.

·        In this case, also the lowest price tenderer.

Statutory Environment

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

 

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

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

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

With regard to the RFT, City officers have complied with abovementioned legislative requirements.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The City's purchasing policies, its occupational health and safety and asset management were all relevant to the RFT, and have been adhered to in the process of requesting and evaluating tenders.

Financial Implications

The estimated total value of the requirements for RFT 09-21 over the full contract term is $698,599.50 excluding GST. The value is slightly more than estimated but remains within the available budget allocation for this component of work.

 

RFT 09-21 forms part of the 2020/21 Dunsborough Lakes Sports Precinct budget allocation, which comprises of:

Community Facilities - City District Reserve

$400,000

Community Facilities - Dunsborough Lakes Reserve

$938,000

New Infrastructure Development Reserve

$700,000

Parks, Gardens & Reserves Reserve

$250,000

Total

$2,288,000

The project is jointly funded by the City of Busselton, the State Government’s Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund and a Commonwealth Government’s Community Infrastructure.


 

Stakeholder Consultation

Consultation with the relevant sporting groups has taken place to develop the detailed design of the precinct. The sporting groups consulted have included:

·        Dunsborough Cricket Club

·        Dunsborough Towners Football Club (Senior Soccer)

·        Dunsborough Soccer Club (Juniors)

·        Dunsborough Coasters Netball

·        Dunsborough Basketball Club

·        Dunsborough Football Club

Risk Assessment

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer’s recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk management framework, with the intention being to identify risks which, following implementation of controls, are identified as medium or greater. There are no such risks identified, with the Preferred Tenderer assessed as being capable of delivering the services to a suitable service level. 

Options

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

1.         Award the tender to an alternative tenderer. In the view of the officers, this could result in the tender being awarded to a tenderer that is not most advantageous to the City.

2.         To not award the tender. This would mean re-advertising the tender, resulting in significant delays to contract award of the earthworks, which would impact on the timing of other sports precinct works.  This may have a reputational risk to the community if the sports fields are not being ready for the 2022 sporting season.

                                     

For the reasons provided in this report, the abovementioned options are not recommended.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council accept the tender RFT 09-21 Dunsborough Lakes Sports Precinct – Earthworks from Leeuwin Civil Pty Ltd as the most advantageous to the City, subject to minor variations to be negotiated by the CEO, not exceeding the overall project budget.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The selection of the Successful Tenderer can be made immediately after the Council has endorsed the officer recommendation, subject to successful negotiation in accordance with the officer recommendation.

 

Should Council adopt the officer recommendation, it is anticipated that the contract for construction will commence in late May 2021.

 


Council                                                                                      68                                                                      12 May 2021

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

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

NATURE OF DECISION

Noting: The item is simply for information purposes and noting

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Current Running State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

Attachment b    Department of Communities Letter of Thanks

Attachment c    Letter from Department of Water and Environmental Regulation  

 

Council Decision and Officer Recommendation

C2105/096              Moved Councillor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

 

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

17.1.1       State Administrative Tribunal Reviews 

17.1.2       Correspondence from Busselton Old Time Dance Inc. 

17.1.3       Correspondence from US Consul General David J Gainer following recent visit to Busselton

17.1.4       Correspondence from Department of Communities 

17.1.5       Correspondence from Department of Water and Environmental Regulation

17.1.6       Correspondence from Hon Alannah MacTiernan MLC - Election Win and Priorities

17.1.7       Correspondence from Hon Dave Kelly MLA Minister for Water; Forestry; Youth 

CARRIED 8/0

En Bloc

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an overview of a range of information that is considered appropriate to be formally presented to the Council for its receipt and noting. The information is provided in order to ensure that each Councillor, and the Council, is being kept fully informed, while also acknowledging that these are matters that will also be of interest to the community.

 

Any matter that is raised in this report as a result of incoming correspondence is to be dealt with as normal business correspondence, but is presented in this bulletin for the information of the Council and the community.

 


 

INFORMATION BULLETIN

17.1.1       State Administrative Tribunal Reviews 

 

A summary of the Current State Administrative Tribunal reviews, as at 31 March 2021 is provided at Attachment A.

17.1.2       Correspondence from Busselton Old Time Dance Inc. 

 

“A big thank you from all our members from the Old Time Dance for the City’s kind donation from the fund. The City’s donation made it possible for us to have a very successful festival. We were able to donate $2,000 to the Royal Flying Doctors. Our sincere thanks for your continual support.”

 

Busselton Old Time Dance Inc. were successful in receiving a $250 contribution from the City’s Donations, Contributions and Subsidies fund in March 2021.

17.1.3       Correspondence from US Consul General David J Gainer following recent visit to Busselton

 

“Dear Grant,

It was a pleasure to meet you and Mike during my recent visit to Busselton. I enjoyed the opportunity to learn more about the City and the positive work you are doing within the region. I value you taking the time to share your insights with me, and I look forward to continuing to explore opportunities to grow U.S. partnerships within Busselton.”

17.1.4       Correspondence from Department of Communities 

 

Correspondence has been received from the Department of Communities, thanking the City for its assistance during the recent Yallingup Bushfires. A copy of the correspondence is provided at Attachment B.

17.1.5       Correspondence from Department of Water and Environmental Regulation

 

A Notice of a Classification letter, issued under s.15 of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 relating to the former Dunsborough landfill site has been received. A copy of the correspondence is provided at Attachment C.

17.1.6       Correspondence from Hon Alannah MacTiernan MLC - Election Win and Priorities

 

“Dear Grant,

Thank you and Mike for your kind words on my election and re-appointment as Minister. I very much look forward to meeting with you soon to discuss ways we can continue to work together for the benefit of our community.”

17.1.7       Correspondence from Hon Dave Kelly MLA Minister for Water; Forestry; Youth 

 

“Dear Grant,

Thank you for your letter of congratulations. It is an honour to be reappointed as a Minister in the McGowan Government. I look forward to continuing to work with the City of Busselton on matters related to the Water, Forestry and Youth portfolios.”

 


Council

70

12 May 2021

17.1

Attachment a

Current Running State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

 



Council

71

12 May 2021

17.1

Attachment b

Department of Communities Letter of Thanks

 


Council

77

12 May 2021

17.1

Attachment c

Letter from Department of Water and Environmental Regulation

 






 


Council                                                                                      94                                                                      12 May 2021

ITEMS FOR DEBATE

12.4           Policy and Legislation Committee - 28/4/2021 - PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 49 (WESTERN RINGTAIL POSSUM HABITAT PROTECTION SPECIAL CONTROL AREA) & PROPOSED LOCAL PLANNING POLICY (LPP XX : WESTERN RINGTAIL POSSUM HABITAT PROTECTION AREA) - CONSIDERATION FOR INITIATION FOR ADVERTISING

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

Planning Officer - Joanna Wilkinson

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   Dunsborough - Existing Zoning

Attachment b    Dunsborough - Proposed Zoning

Attachment c    West Busselton - Existing Zoning

Attachment d   West Busselton - Proposed Zoning

Attachment e    East Busselton - Existing Zoning

Attachment f    East Busselton - Proposed Zoning

Attachment g   LPP XX WRP Habitat Protection Area

Attachment h   WRP Working Group Directions Paper

 

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 28/4/2021. The item lapsed for want of a quorum.

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Date

12 May 2021

Meeting

Ordinary Council

Name/Position

Cr Grant Henley, Mayor

Item No./Subject

Item No. 12.4 ‘Policy and Legislation Committee - 28/4/2021 - Proposed Scheme Amendment No. 49 (Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Special Control Area) & Proposed Local Planning Policy (LPP XX : Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area) - Consideration for Initiation for Advertising’

Type of Interest

Impartiality Interest

Nature of Interest

I own property which is located inside the affected area.

 


 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Date

12 May 2021

Meeting

Ordinary Council

Name/Position

Cr Paul Carter, Councillor

Item No./Subject

Item No. 12.4 ‘Policy and Legislation Committee - 28/4/2021 - Proposed Scheme Amendment No. 49 (Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Special Control Area) & Proposed Local Planning Policy (LPP XX : Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area) - Consideration for Initiation for Advertising’

Type of Interest

Impartiality Interest

Nature of Interest

A person to whom I am closely associated owns a property which is located inside the affected area.

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Date

12 May 2021

Meeting

Ordinary Council

Name/Position

Cr Sue Riccelli, Councillor

Item No./Subject

Item No. 12.4 ‘Policy and Legislation Committee - 28/4/2021 - Proposed Scheme Amendment No. 49 (Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Special Control Area) & Proposed Local Planning Policy (LPP XX : Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area) - Consideration for Initiation for Advertising’

Type of Interest

Impartiality Interest

Nature of Interest

A person to whom I am closely associated owns a property which is located inside the affected area.

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Date

12 May 2021

Meeting

Ordinary Council

Name/Position

Cr Ross Paine, Councillor

Item No./Subject

Item 12.4 ‘Policy and Legislation Committee - 28/4/2021 - Proposed Scheme Amendment No. 49 (Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Special Control Area) & Proposed Local Planning Policy (LPP XX : Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area) - Consideration For Initiation For Advertising’

Type of Interest

Financial Interest (Indirect)

Nature of Interest

I own a property which is located inside the affected area.

 


 

5.58pm:   At this time, Councillor Paine left the meeting.

 

Councillor Henley foreshadowed an alternative recommendation prior to the meeting. In accordance with the City’s Standing Orders, it was moved prior to the officer recommendation, which was:

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolves to:

I.          In pursuance of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, initiate Amendment No. 49 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 for community consultation, for the purposes of:

 

1.         Amending Part 5 “Special Control Areas” by inserting new clause 5.15 as follows –

 

5.15          WESTERN RINGTAIL POSSUM HABITAT PROTECTION AREA

 

5.15.1       PURPOSE

 

The purpose of this special control area is to designate an area that is known to include trees of the species WA Peppermint which provide core habitat for the critically endangered Western Ringtail Possum, and to assist in the protection and enhancement of this habitat.

 

5.15.2     OBJECTIVES

 

The objectives of this special control area are to –

 

(a)       Provide for site planning that maximises retention of existing mature and healthy WA Peppermint on affected sites, and protects the ongoing health of existing WA Peppermint trees on adjoining sites and road reserves.

                            

(b)      Provide a framework so that the protection of Western Ringtail Possum habitat is given high regard in decision-making.

 

(c)       Provide measures to offset the removal of mature and healthy WA Peppermint, where removal is approved.

 

(d)      Support the continuing and ongoing consolidation and expansion of urban development, consistent with the aims of this Scheme, and the objectives of the zones which apply to any affected site.

 

5.15.3     DEFINITIONS

 

For the purposes of clause 5.15, the meaning of terms used are as follows –

 

“LPP No. XX” refers to the City’s Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area Policy (as amended).

 

“offset planting” means the planting of replacement WA Peppermint to offset the loss of such vegetation that has been approved for removal.

 

“removal” means the pruning, lopping, transplanting or root removal of WA Peppermint vegetation.

“WA Peppermint” means all vegetative parts of the tree species Agonis flexuosa including canopy, trunks, branches, and root system.

 

5.15.4           PROVISIONS

 

(a)       The following provisions apply to all land shown on the Scheme Map as being within the “Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area” special control area.

 

(b)      There shall be no removal of WA Peppermint without the prior development approval of the local government, where:

(i)        a tree has a trunk diameter of 100mm or greater when measured at 1.4 metres above ground level (see LPP No. XX); or

(ii)       removal exceeds a canopy area of 50m² in any 12 month period (50m² is approx. 7m x 7m); or

(iii)      there is an impact on roots or canopy in a tree protection zone, as described in LPP No. XX.

(c)       In consideration of an application for development approval, the local government may vary site and development requirements to facilitate the preservation of WA Peppermint in accordance with clause 4.5 of the Scheme and the approved R-Code variations within LPP No. XX.

 

(d)      Development approval for the removal of the WA Peppermint may be granted where the local government is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that:

(i)        it is not possible to avoid removal; and

(ii)       all reasonable steps to minimise removal are being taken.

 

(e)      In granting development approval, the local government may apply conditions that require one or more of the following measures:

(i)        Retention of WA Peppermint, whereby a tree protection plan   shall be prepared in accordance with LPP No. XX;

(ii)       Offset planting of WA Peppermint trees in accordance with guidelines and planting rates specified in LPP No. XX;

(iii)      Payment in lieu of offset planting, in accordance with the rates specified in LPP No. XX;

(iv)      A Notification, pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893, to be placed on the Certificate(s) of Title advising that there is a presumption against removal of WA Peppermint without the prior development approval of the local government, in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Scheme.

 

(f)       Where the proposed removal has been assessed and approved under State or Federal environmental legislation, then the provisions of this special control area do not apply.

 

 

 

 

(g)       The removal of WA Peppermint that is dead, dying or poses a hazard to property or life, or is required to meet bushfire management requirements, is exempt from the requirements of sub-clauses 5.15.4 (b) - (e). The local government may require that the person responsible for the removal demonstrate that it was necessary for this reason.

 

2.         Modifying clause 5.1.1 “Operation of Special Control Areas” by including a new area – “Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area” after the Drive-Through Facility Control Area as listed.

 

II.         Amend the Scheme Map by identifying “Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area” as shown on the Scheme amendment map and illustrated at Attachments B, D and F.

 

III.       Pursuant to Regulation 35 (2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), determine that Amendment No. 49 is a standard amendment in accordance with r. 34 of the Regulations as it is an amendment that is consistent with a local planning strategy for the scheme that has been endorsed by the Commission.

 

IV.       Note that, as the Amendment is in the opinion of the Council consistent with Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (Act) and Regulations made pursuant to the Act, upon preparation of necessary documentation, the Amendment be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as required by the Act, and on receipt of a response from the EPA indicating that the Amendment is not to be subject to formal environmental assessment, be advertised for a period of 42 days, in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. In the event that the EPA determines that the Amendment is to be subject to formal environmental assessment, this assessment is to be prepared prior to advertising of the Amendment.

 

V.        Initiate for the purpose of public consultation a new Local Planning Policy – LPP XX: Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area, as set out at Attachment G, by advertising the Local Planning Policy in accordance with clause 4 of Part 2 of Schedule 2 – Deemed Provisions for Local Planning Schemes of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 


 

Council Decision and ALTERNATIVE Recommendation

C2105/097              Moved Councillor G Henley, seconded Councillor P Carter

 

That the Council defers consideration of Item 12.4 ‘Policy and Legislation Committee - 28/4/2021 - Proposed Scheme Amendment No. 49 (Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Special Control Area) & Proposed Local Planning Policy (LPP XX : Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area) - Consideration for Initiation for Advertising’ to allow for further explanatory information to be provided to Councillors and for current planning matters to be considered prior to introducing this proposed amendment, with the item to be returned to Council by the end of 2021.

CARRIED 7/0

 

Reasons:       Deferral of this item is proposed to allow for further information to be provided to Councillors and to allow consideration of other current planning matters, before introducing another broad scheme amendment.

 

I have observed significant stress in our planning area given the volume, complexity and contentious nature of developments currently being assessed. Throwing in another broad scheme amendment such as this would not, I believe, be wise. 

 

I am also aware that not all Councillors have had the benefit of the significant amount of briefings and consultation I have on this issue. I would therefore like to see this item deferred to ensure all Councillors have enough time to understand the item.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council is asked to consider initiating Scheme Amendment No. 49 which proposes a new special control area ‘Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area’, and a new Local Planning Policy ‘LPP XX: Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area’ (LPP XX). Existing zoning is illustrated at Attachments A, C and E.

 

Amendment No. 49 and LPP XX will be bound together in practice, meaning that the policy will provide operational detail for the implementation of the Scheme amendment.

 

Amendment No. 49 and LPP XX are recommended to be adopted for the purposes of public advertising.

 

BACKGROUND

During 2006/07 Councillors and staff, in conjunction with the Federal Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts, began thinking about how the habitat of Pseudocheirus occidentalis or Western Ringtail Possum (WRP) in the district might better be protected. Between 2008 and 2010 various Council actions included specific items within the 2008/09 financial year budget, the 2008/09 Corporate Plan, and the 2010-2020 Strategic Plan. The first formal Council decision (C0905/186) to support these actions was made at its meeting of 27 May 2009:

That the Council requires the CEO to consider how protection can be provided for individual peppermint trees in the area designated as the core habitat for the Western Ringtail Possum as prescribed by the Federal Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts. That this consideration be directed to the development of a policy and/or Town Planning Scheme amendment that would require where possible the retention of individual and/or groups of peppermint trees, particularly those that are not afforded protection under existing DEC controls. The Policy and/or Town Planning Scheme Amendment mechanism be reported back with the draft content as part of either the next scheduled Policy (Planning) Review of the Scheduled Town Planning Scheme Review.

A WRP Habitat Protection Plan was completed in November 2009 which highlighted a number of elements affecting WRP habitat, as well as draft Scheme provisions to protect the habitat. On 25 May 2011, Council resolved (C1105/170) to note the WRP Habitat Protection Plan and support its use as a background document to assist with further planning and management of issues relating to WRP habitat; and to amend Town Planning Scheme No. 20 (TPS 20) by introducing a WRP habitat protection special control area. This lead to a Council resolution (C1212/357) on 12 December 2012 to adopt Amendment No. 146 to TPS 20, which proposed the introduction of a WRP Habitat Protection Area.

 

On 30 July 2014, following assessment by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC), the City received notification that Amendment No. 146 had been refused. The reasons for refusal were:

(i)        The WAPC does not support provisions which would effectively ‘up-code’ individual development sites, beyond that which could be achieved under the prescribed R-Code. Such an approach would be contrary to the expectations of the local community and inconsistent with orderly planning.

(ii)       The provisions have a primary focus on cash or planting offsets rather than mechanisms to ensure flexible application of development standards to achieve colocation of habitat trees and development on the same site.

(iii)      Provision 6(b) would appear to incentivise the removal of vegetation, contrary to the intent of the provisions.

(iv)      The modifications necessary to suitably amend the proposal would be time consuming, may warrant advertisement of the Amendment and as such would jeopardise the timely introduction of Scheme 21.

(v)       The proposal provisions are unnecessarily complex and would be subject to misinterpretation by the community.

 

Each of these reasons has been taken into consideration during the drafting of this Amendment, with more detail provided in the ‘Officer Comment’ section of this report.

 

During 2016/2017, the conservation status of WRP was elevated at both State and Federal level to Critically Endangered, and this provided impetus for Council to recommence measures relating to WRP habitat protection through the Scheme.

 

At its meeting on 10 May 2017, the Council resolved (C1705/105):   

That the Council support the formation by the CEO of a ‘Western Ringtail Possum Working Group’, with the membership and role of the Group to be as follows:

1.         Membership - Interested Councillors and relevant staff; and

2.         Role –

a)        Researching and receiving briefings from stakeholders on WRP issues;

b)        Forming a view on what the City’s role and approach to WRP issues should be, both in terms of actions by the City itself, but also in terms of advocating for action at State and/or Federal level; and

c)         Briefing and seeking Council support for the Group’s findings and proposed direction.

                                            


 

Subsequently, the Western Ringtail Possum Working Group (WRPWG) was formed and discussions were held with key stakeholders, resulting in the development of a Directions Paper (Attachment G). The intent of this Directions Paper is to form the basis for a WRP habitat protection strategy, and relevant to this proposal, key findings of the Directions Paper included:

1.         Habitat in and around the Busselton and Dunsborough urban areas is likely to be important to the future survival of the WRP as a species.

2.         Whilst WRP do feed on other plant species, mature WA Peppermint trees (Agonis Flexuosa) are important for providing food and shelter for WRP.

3.         The current approach to protection and enhancement of WRP habitat, both in City of Busselton managed reserves and private land, is clearly insufficient to protect against degradation through clearing and development in a way that will critically affect the chances of WRP surviving on the Busselton-Dunsborough coastal strip.

 

At its meeting on 10 April 2019, the Council resolved (C1904/068) to adopt the WRPWG Directions Paper for the purpose of community consultation. At the same meeting, Council also resolved to initiate Amendment No. 42 to the Scheme for the purpose of amending the Scheme text by inserting a new clause within ‘Part 5 – Special Control Areas’ that would, if approved by the WAPC, create a ‘Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Protection Area’.

 

Proposed Amendment No. 42 was considered to be a ‘complex’ amendment, pursuant to r. 34 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), because it was not addressed by any local planning strategy. As a result, regulation 37(4) required that the WAPC examine the proposal and advise if any changes to the documents were required prior to public advertising. A request to advertise proposed Amendment No. 42 was lodged with the WAPC on 26 September 2019.

 

This led to a lengthy period of examination by Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) officers, on behalf of the WAPC, whereby various changes were discussed. During this time, DPLH officers also requested that City officers draft a complementary local planning policy to provide operational detail for the implementation of the proposed Amendment. On 23 October 2020 the WAPC formally advised that Amendment No. 42 was suitable to be advertised.

 

During the time that DPLH were examining Amendment No. 42, the City of Busselton Local Planning Strategy 2019 (LPS) was endorsed by the WAPC (13 March 2020). Where previously it had been found that Amendment No. 42 was a ‘complex’ amendment because it hadn’t been addressed by any local planning strategy, the LPS addresses the protection of WRP habitat as set out in the ‘Relevant Plans and Policies’ section below.

 

In part due to the change in the planning framework, and in part due to the substantial changes that have occurred to proposed Amendment No. 42 as a result of examination by DPLH, City officers believe it is prudent to discontinue with Amendment No. 42. Given that officers are in the early stages of drafting a new local planning scheme, it is apparent that Amendment No. 42 will, without any further action, simply ‘fall away’. It is proposed that a new amendment, Amendment No. 49, be initiated by Council, for the purpose of public advertising. Amendment 49 responds to the current planning framework as a ‘standard’ amendment, and seeks to address the changes suggested during examination by DPLH.

 

Given that LPP XX has been prepared and also examined DPLH officers, it is also proposed that this LPP be initiated by Council and advertised concurrently with Amendment No. 49. Further details of the LPP and Amendment are outlined below.

OFFICER COMMENT

The WRP is unique to and was once widespread across much of the south west of Western Australia. Since European settlement, land clearing and other environmental changes have led to the species now being largely restricted to areas of the south and west coasts between Australind and Albany. The most important habitats are near-coastal woodlands and forests located on the southern Swan Coastal Plain between Bunbury and Dunsborough, and the WA Peppermint tree has been identified as the principle habitat and food source for WRP. In particular, the core habitat for much of the remaining WRP population is the narrow band of WA Peppermint forest that extends in a broken chain from the eastern edge of the Dunsborough urban area to the southern edge of the Bunbury urban area, as well as older parts of Bunbury, Busselton and Dunsborough urban areas.

 

WRP are identified as Critically Endangered under both State and Commonwealth environmental legislation. Statutory controls set out under the State and Commonwealth framework provide a reasonable level of protection for WRP and WRP habitat in rural and natural areas, as well as in areas of new urban development, from extensive clearing.

 

In older urban areas, including areas that are experiencing pressures for redevelopment (zoned and considered necessary for increased density residential development, or identified for urban consolidation under the Local Planning Strategy), much of the habitat consists of individual or small stands of WA Peppermint trees, the clearing of which can currently occur without City, State or Commonwealth approval.

 

Whilst the clearing of individual trees or small stands of trees in these areas may not, in any one instance, have significant impact on WRP as a species, the cumulative impact of such clearing is significant. These areas represent a large proportion of the core habitat for the WRP, and their protection and enhancement as WRP habitat has been identified as vital to ensuring the long-term survival of the species.

 

Key recommendations arising from both the 2009 WRP Habitat Protection Plan and the 2019 Directions Paper are the protection of WRP habitat on private land, particularly in the urban areas of Busselton and Dunsborough.

 

Furthermore, the broader benefit of preserving or establishing an ‘urban canopy’ has emerged as an important principle to be considered in urban planning. This is reflected in recent State planning documents such as State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) Volume Two – Apartments, and the State Administrative Tribunal decision Kemstone Investments Pty Ltd and City of Joondalup [2020] WASAT 115. The SAT presiding member found that the applicant had not complied with the acceptable outcome to provide adequate deep soil area for two medium trees that would, in the long term, improve urban tree canopy.

 

It is considered that the need to preserve the localised habitat of the Critically Endangered WRP, provides a sound basis to warrant the introduction of new Scheme controls. Additionally, the introduction of controls to preserve this habitat is consistent with the broader planning principle to preserve and expand urban tree canopy.

 

The two key elements of this proposal are the introduction of Amendment No. 49 (the Amendment), and the introduction of LPP XX. Each of these is discussed below.

 


 

Amendment No. 49

Through this Amendment, it is proposed to introduce a special control area (SCA) to overcome deficits in the current clearing controls.

 

The area included in the SCA has been based on the Significant Impact Guidelines for the Vulnerable Western Ringtail Possum (Pseudocheirus occidentalis) in the Southern Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia (the Guidelines) which identifies important habitat and feeding areas, dividing the areas into the three key categories of ‘Core Habitat’, ‘Primary Corridors’ and ‘Supporting Habitat’. Within the District, ‘Core Habitat’ and ‘Primary Corridors’ tend to be centralised around residential areas of Busselton and along the coast between Busselton and Dunsborough where, in most instances, there are currently no controls over the small-scale removal of vegetation.

 

Some areas indicated as important areas for WRP within the Guidelines have been excluded from the SCA. These include residential areas with density coding of R5 or less, and newer residential subdivisions. The reasons for exclusion are:

·        Residential areas with a density coding of R5 or less are subject to existing Scheme provisions that necessitate a development application being submitted and approved prior to the clearing of vegetation.

·        Newer residential subdivisions, for example Vasse, Dunsborough Lakes and Old Broadwater Farm, are generally devoid of well-established native trees on private land. If clearing approvals are required as part of the subdivision process then these are obtained from the necessary agencies. It is considered that there is no requirement at present for these areas to be included in the SCA, however this may be reviewed in the future when vegetation becomes better established.

                               

While the WRP Habitat Protection Plan found that many species of native vegetation can provide habitat for WRP, the most significant type of WRP habitat vegetation within the District is the WA Peppermint tree (Agonis flexuosa). The proposed SCA aims to provide for site planning that will maximise the retention of existing mature and healthy WA Peppermint trees, and to protect the health of WA Peppermint trees on adjoining sites and road reserves.

 

The Amendment would require development approval for any proposed removal of WA Peppermint vegetation where:

(i)        a tree has trunk diameter of 100mm or greater when measured at 1.4 metres above ground level; or

(ii)       removal exceeds a canopy area of 50m² in any 12 month period; or

(iii)      there is an impact on roots or canopy in a tree protection zone.

 

These criteria have been developed with the intention to allow the removal of small individual trees and/or pruning without requiring development approval, however it would capture the removal of a single mature tree or greater which may provide viable WRP habitat conditions. It is proposed that the maximum area of canopy cleared before a development application is required would be determined cumulative over a 12 month period. This would prevent multiple rounds of small scale clearing and/or pruning over a short period and is consistent with the timeframe set under the clearing regulations for large scale clearing.

 


 

In order to provide incentive for the retention of vegetation, the Amendment has been drafted so that some site and development requirements may be varied in accordance with the R-Codes (Volume 1) design element variations detailed in LPP XX, or for all non-residential zones in accordance with clause 4.5 of the Scheme. It should be noted that Amendment 42 was deliberately broad to allow for the variation of a range of design elements, however during their examination of the proposal DPLH officers suggested that the proposed variations to the R-Codes (Volume 1) be specified in a local planning policy. When drafting these variations, a factor considered was one of the reasons for refusal of Amendment No. 146 to TPS 20, i.e. because it proposed to effectively ‘up-code’ individual sites by providing density bonuses (R-Codes Volume 1, clause 5.1.1 Site area). This proposal does not include a variation to density controls, and the variations that are proposed within the LPP are discussed in further detail below.

 

While the protection of WRP habitat is the primary purpose of this proposal, it is acknowledged that retention of vegetation is not always possible. Therefore, the Amendment proposes that where a proponent is able to demonstrate that they are unable to retain WA Peppermint tree vegetation within the development site, they can either carry out offset planting within the site or on the adjoining road reserve. If that is not possible, a payment in lieu of offset planting may be required.

 

Furthermore, the Amendment also aims to support the continuing and ongoing consolidation and expansion of urban development, consistent with the Local Planning Strategy. This is achieved through acknowledging that sites should have the ability to be developed for the purpose for which they were created, and that there should be a partial exemption for sites that are previously undeveloped/vacant. Partial exemptions are discussed in further detail below.

 

Finally, the Amendment sets out the measures that may be required if development approval is granted for the removal of WRP habitat. LPP XX provides the operational detail for the implementation of these measures.

 

Draft Local Planning Policy XX

The operational measures that are addressed within LPP XX include variations to R-Codes (Volume 1) development requirements, partial exemptions for vacant lots, offset planting requirements, payment in lieu calculations, and additional supporting information requirements. These are discussed below under appropriate sub-headings.

 

Variations to R-Code Development Requirements

LPP XX clearly sets out the R-Codes (Volume 1) design elements and the deemed-to-comply variations that may be considered in order to facilitate the retention of WRP habitat. Part 7.3.1 of the R-Codes (Volume 1) sets out which of these design elements may be varied with local government consent; elements proposed within the LPP include 5.1.2 Street setback, 5.1.3 Lot boundary setbacks, and 5.2.1 Setbacks of garages and carports.

 

Part 7.3.2 of the R-Codes (Volume 1) provides that the local government may, with WAPC approval, amend other deemed-to-comply provisions by means of the local planning policy, where it can be demonstrated that the proposal:

·        is warranted due to a specific need related to that particular locality or region;

·        is consistent with the objectives and design principles of the R-Codes; and

·        can be properly implemented and audited by the decision-maker as part of the ongoing building approval process.

 


 

It is proposed that the deemed-to-comply provisions of the following design elements, requiring WAPC approval, be varied in order to facilitate the retention of WRP habitat:

 

Design Element

R-Code Deemed-to-Comply

Proposed Deemed-to-Comply

5.3.3 Parking

C3.1 On-site car parking spaces required for a 2+ bedroom single house or grouped dwelling: 2

On-site car parking spaces required for a 2+ bedroom single house or grouped dwelling: 1

C3.2 On-site visitor car parking spaces for grouped and multiple dwellings: 1 space for each 4 dwellings.

On-site visitor car parking spaces for grouped and multiple dwellings: 1 space for each 6 dwellings.

5.3.5 Vehicular Access

C5.1 Access to on-site car parking spaces may be provided:

·    where available, from a right-of-way;

·    from a secondary street where no right-of-way exists;

·    from the primary street frontage where no secondary street or right-of-way exists.

All dwellings:

Access to on-site car parking spaces may be provided from a primary street where a secondary street exists.

C5.5 Driveways for multiple and grouped dwellings where the number of dwellings is five or more, shall be:

·    a minimum width of 4m; and

·    designed to allow vehicles to pass in opposite directions at one or more points.

Grouped and multiple dwellings where the number of dwelling is five or more:

·    driveways may be reduced to no less than 3m, and passing bays or similar are to be provided.

 

As discussed at the beginning of this section, the proposed variations are warranted due to specific need related to the locality/region. The proposed variations are not profoundly different from the current standards, and therefore the consistency with objectives and design principles of the R-Codes can be assessed on a case by case basis, at the time when development applications are submitted. Should the variations be approved by the WAPC as part of this proposal, and later by the local government as part of a development application, then implementation and audit processes would be consistent with current practices.

 

Partial Exemption for Vacant Lots

The proposed partial exemption area will conform to the percentage of a site that is not required for open space (i.e. the developable area) as provided for in Part 5.1.4 of the R-Codes (Volume 1). It may be applied where the site of the proposal is zoned Residential and has not previously been developed, or if the site is vacant and WRP habitat vegetation exceeds the R-Code open space requirement (this latter measure allows for sites where demolition of building may occur prior to an application for a new building).

 

The LPP includes an appendix with an example calculation showing how the partial exemption may be applied.

 

Offset Planting Requirement

The LPP requires that one tree should be planted for each 20m² of canopy removed. This calculation is based on the requirements set out in Table 3.3a of Part 3.3 of the R-Codes (Volume 2), where tree provision requirements aim to improve urban tree canopy in the long term.

 

The LPP also specifies an indicative pot size of 35 litres. A tree of this size will be approximately 1.5m tall at the time of planting, and is readily available from local suppliers. 35 litres is generally the pot size that will be purchased by the City when carrying out street tree planting.

 

Furthermore, guidelines have been provided in regard to the separation distance between offset plants and between buildings. This is a proactive measure to allow for the best conditions for long-term survival of the offset plant.

 

Payment in Lieu Calculations

It is acknowledged that some sites may not have sufficient area to fulfil offset planting requirements, and therefore it is proposed that the balance be provided as a payment in lieu of offset planting.

 

A standard fee is prescribed, and an appendix to the LPP provides detail as to how the fee has been calculated. This calculation includes the actual contract and material costs, as well as administration and in-kind costs, associated with the City’s 2019 street tree planting program.

 

This calculation demonstrates that the cost of planting one 35L tree is approximately $200. Given the proposal that one offset tree should be required per 20m² of canopy removed, it is therefore proposed that the payment in lieu amount is set at $10 per one square metre of canopy removed.

 

Additional Supporting Information Requirements

The primary purpose of this proposal is to retain existing WRP habitat, and therefore a mechanism is included to ensure the survival of vegetation during construction. This mechanism is proposed through a tree protection plan, whereby the applicant would identify the tree protection zone (an area isolated from construction disturbance so the tree remains healthy) and accordingly put measures in place to protect this area.

 

A tree protection plan template is provided as an appendix to the LPP. This template has been drafted based on information derived from AS 4970 – 2009: Protection of trees on development sites.

Statutory Environment

The key statutory documents relevant to this proposal are:

·        Planning and Development Act 2005 and associated Regulations

·        Local Planning Scheme No. 21

·        Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

·        Environmental Protection Act 1986

·        Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

 

Each is discussed below under appropriate subheadings.

 


 

Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (‘PD Act’) and associated Regulations

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

 

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

 

Clause 4 of Part 2 of Schedule 2 – Deemed Provisions for Local Planning Schemes of the Regulations, sets out the procedure for making a local planning policy.

 

Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (the Scheme)

Under the PD Act, the clearing of vegetation generally falls within the definition of ‘development’ and requires approval unless specifically exempted by a planning scheme. In the City’s Scheme, Part 6 sets out requirements for the development of land, and the clearing of vegetation is exempt from the requirement for development approval except where the development is located:

·        in a Coastal Management, Wetland, Landscape Value, or Floodway area;

·        in the Rural Residential, Conservation, Rural Landscape or Bushland Protection zones;

·        on land coded R2, R2.5 or R5;

·        on or over any land below the mean high water mark, or forming part of a watercourse;

·        on a public road or unzoned land.

 

The Amendment would change the areas of land that are exempt from development approval for the clearing of vegetation.

 

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (‘EPBC Act’)

Under the EPBC Act, in 2018 the conservation status of the WRP was elevated from ‘Endangered’ to ‘Critically Endangered’. The EPBC Act protects WRP habitat but is limited in its application to clearing controls which can have a “significant impact” on habitat environment. This term is not defined in the Act, however, the Significant Impact Guidelines for the Western Ringtail Possum (Pseudocheirus occidentalis) in the Southern Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia (EPBC Act policy statement 3.10) does provide guidance on this matter. Most small-scale clearing in urban areas is not regulated under the EPBC Act.

 

Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) (‘EP Act’) and associated Regulations

The EP Act provides a legal framework for the State Government to protect the environment and regulate pollution. It sets out a range of different processes for doing this, including (relevant to this proposal) environmental impact assessments for planning scheme amendments and development proposals with the potential to cause significant environmental impact; as well as a permit system regulating the clearing of native vegetation. The EP Act is supplemented by a number of environmental protection policies and subsidiary pieces of legislation, including the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 (Clearing Regulations).

 


 

The Clearing Regulations have the effect that, unless specifically exempted, a permit is required for the clearing or disruption of native vegetation (including, in many instances, regrowth or “intentionally planted vegetation”). There are no exemptions provided within identified ‘Environmentally Sensitively Areas’ (ESA) pursuant to the EP Act. This includes ‘Conservation Category Wetlands’ and the associated buffers and vegetation containing ‘Threatened Ecological Communities’ or ‘Declared Rare Flora’. Much of the City, including most of the urban area, however, is located outside an ESA. As such, clearing may be exempt from the need to obtain a permit, for purposes that include:

·        development of approved buildings;

·        establishment of fences;

·        collection of firewood for personal use by a landowner; or

·        fire and emergency management.

 

With the exception of the last of these, exempted clearing includes a maximum of 1.0 hectare per year per property and, as such, permits are not required for most (usually small scale) clearing of habitat within urban areas.

 

Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (WA, ‘BC Act’)

The BC Act came into practical effect from 1 January 2019, replacing the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. The BC Act introduces new provisions for important biodiversity conservation matters that were not recognised in the previous Act, such as new protections for habitat critical to the survival of a ‘Threatened Species’ (including habitat conservation notices). Orders necessary to use those powers, however, have not yet been developed. As such, like its predecessor, the BC Act at present “protects the animal, but not its home”.

Relevant Plans and Policies

The key policies relevant to this proposal are:

·        City of Busselton Local Planning Strategy

·        State Planning Policy 2 –Environment and Natural Resources Policy

·        State Planning Policy 3.1 – The Residential Design Codes of WA

 

Each is discussed below under appropriate subheadings.

 

City of Busselton Local Planning Strategy (LPS)

The LPS broadly sets out the long-term planning direction for the whole of the district, and provides the strategic rationale for decisions related to the planning and development of the district. The LPS includes the following Themes and Strategies that are applicable to the Amendment.

 

Theme 4 ‘Environment, landscape and heritage’ includes the following strategy:

d)        Support the long-term survival of the District’s Western Ringtail Possum Population, especially the population within urban areas.

 

Theme 5 ‘Implementation and review’ includes the following strategy:

d)        Develop and implement integrated plans within 5 years of adoption of the strategy as follows –

(iv)      A Western Ringtail Possum habitat protection strategy, which provides for the long-term protection and enhancement of habitat, whilst also supporting the consolidation and expansion of urban development.

State Planning Policy 2: Environment and Natural Resources Policy (SPP 2)

SPP 2 must be given due regard by the WAPC and local government in the making of all planning decisions. SPP 2 sets out that planning schemes and decision-making should:

(ii)       Actively seek opportunities for improved environmental outcomes including support for development which provides for environmental restoration and enhancement.

(iii)      Protect significant natural… features, including sites and features significant as habitats…

(x)       Support conservation, protection and management of native remnant vegetation where possible to enhance… biodiversity, fauna habitat, landscape, amenity values and ecosystem function.

 

SPP 2, Part 5.5 Biodiversity, sets out that planning strategies, schemes and decision-making should:

(i)        Consider mechanisms to protect areas of high biodiversity and/or conservation value, including:

….

(d)      land containing Threatened Flora or Threatened Ecological Communities… or that which is habitat to Threatened Fauna.

(ii)       Seek to avoid or minimize any adverse impacts, directly or indirectly, on areas of high biodiversity or conservation value as a result of changes in land use or development.

(iv)      Safeguard and enhance linkages between terrestrial aquatic habitats which have become isolated, including the re-establishment of habitat corridors.

 

State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes – Volumes 1 and 2 (R-Codes)

The Scheme adopts the standards for residential development established in the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes) subject to the modifications specified in Clause 4.3 of the Scheme. The incentive provisions referred to in this Amendment allow for consideration of discretions to the deemed-to-comply criteria of certain design elements of Volume 1 of the R-Codes.

Financial Implications

Financial implications associated with the recommendations of this report relate to implementation of additional clearing controls, which would likely increase the City’s planning assessment and enforcement workload.

Stakeholder Consultation

Consultation to Date

Following Council’s initiation of Amendment No. 42, DPLH officers (representing WAPC) were required to examine the proposal. As a result, DPLH officers suggested that City officers draft a complementary local planning policy to provide operational detail for the implementation of Amendment No. 42. The information exchanged during the examination period forms the basis of Amendment No. 49 and associated LPP XX.

 

Proposed Consultation

If the Council resolves to initiate the Amendment and LPP XX, the relevant documentation associated with the Amendment would be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for consideration of the need for formal assessment under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

Should the EPA resolve that the Amendment does not require formal assessment, then the Amendment document and associated Local Planning Policy XX will be advertised concurrently and for 42 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the advertising period required for a standard amendment).

 

To facilitate advertising, the following actions will be undertaken:

·        Targeted emails to landowners within the proposed Special Control Area;

·        A notice on the City’s website, and a portal to be created using the City’s YourSay platform for the online lodgement of submissions;

·        Notices in the local newspaper and via social media; and

·        Information sessions with stakeholders and the community.

 

At its meeting on 10 April 2019, Council also resolved (C1904/068) to adopt the Western Ringtail Possum Working Group Directions Paper for the purpose of community consultation. That paper would also be advertised for 42 days alongside the Amendment and LPP.

Risk Assessment

The implementation of the officer recommendation will involve initiating the Amendment and LPP XX for referral to the EPA and, upon response from the EPA, advertising for the purpose of public consultation. No risks of a medium or greater level have been identified.

Options

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

1.         Resolve to seek further information before making a decision.

2.         Resolve to initiate the Amendment and/or LPP XX subject to identified modification(s), to be explained.

3.         Resolve to decline the initiation of the Amendment and LPP XX for advertising for reasons to be identified and explained.

CONCLUSION

The information contained within this report confirms that the Amendment and LPP XX are an appropriate outcome consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the City of Busselton and, as such, it is recommended that the Amendment and LPP XX be initiated for public consultation.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The implementation of the officer recommendation will include referring the Amendment to the Environmental Protection Authority, which will occur within one month of the date of the Council decision.


Council

95

12 May 2021

12.4

Attachment a

Dunsborough - Existing Zoning

 


Council

96

12 May 2021

12.4

Attachment b

Dunsborough - Proposed Zoning

 


Council

97

12 May 2021

12.4

Attachment c

West Busselton - Existing Zoning

 


Council

98

12 May 2021

12.4

Attachment d

West Busselton - Proposed Zoning

 


Council

99

12 May 2021

12.4

Attachment e

East Busselton - Existing Zoning

 


Council

100

12 May 2021

12.4

Attachment f

East Busselton - Proposed Zoning

 


Council

116

12 May 2021

12.4

Attachment g

LPP XX WRP Habitat Protection Area

 

















Council

129

12 May 2021

12.4

Attachment h

WRP Working Group Directions Paper

 













 


Council                                                                                      151                                                                    12 May 2021

5.59pm:                                At this time, Councillor Paine re-entered the meeting.

 

13.1           DA 20/0916 - MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (BREWERY, TAVERN, RESTAURANT/CAFE, SHOP AND TOURIST ACCOMMODATION)

STRATEGIC GOAL

2. PLACE AND SPACES Vibrant, attractive, affordable

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Development Applications

BUSINESS UNIT

Development Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Senior Development Planner - Andrew Watts

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Manager, Strategic Planning - Matthew Riordan

NATURE OF DECISION

Regulatory: To determine an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests e.g. development applications, applications for other permits/licences, and other decisions that may be reviewable by the State Administrative Tribunal

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Location Plan

Attachment b    Development Plans

Attachment c    Landscape Plans

Attachment d   Applicant report in support of proposal

Attachment e    Traffic Impact Assessment

Attachment f    Bushfire Management Plan

Attachment g   Environmental Noise (Acoustic) Report

Attachment h   Environmental Report and Fauna Management Plan

Attachment i     Waste Management Plan

Attachment j     URBIS design review comments

Attachment k    Schedule of Submissions  

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Date

12 May 2021

Meeting

Ordinary Council

Name/Position

Cr Kelly Hick, Deputy Mayor

Item No./Subject

Item 13.1 ‘DA 20/0916 - Mixed Use Development (Brewery, Tavern, Restaurant/Cafe, Shop and Tourist Accommodation)’

Type of Interest

Impartiality Interest

Nature of Interest

I am an Authorised Marriage Celebrant and the proposed development is a potential venue for weddings.

I am also the owner of a tourism accommodation business Dunsborough Ridge Retreat which is located at Ocean View Drive, Quindalup.

 

Councillor Hick foreshadowed an alternative recommendation prior to the meeting. In accordance with the City’s Standing Orders, it was moved prior to the officer recommendation, which was:

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council determines:

A.         That application DA20/0916 submitted for a ‘Mixed Use Development (Brewery, Tavern, Restaurant/Cafe, Shop and Tourist Accommodation)’ is considered by the Council to be generally consistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the objectives and policies of the zone within which it is located.

 

 

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

 

General Conditions

 

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

 

2.         The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the signed and stamped Approved Development Plans except as may be modified by the following conditions.

 

Prior to Commencement of Any Works Conditions

 

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

 

3.1       Drainage Management Plan.

 

3.2       Odour Management Plan.

 

3.3       Venue Management Plan.

 

3.4       Acoustic Report which demonstrates that all mechanical services associated with the proposed development, and any other noise source, including noise emanating from Licensed Premises, will comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, must be submitted to and approved by the City.

 

3.5     A Noise Management Plan which shall include (but not be limited to) all recommendations specified in the Environmental Noise Report dated 9 November 2020, prepared by Gabriels Hearne Farrell  in order to reduce noise disturbance to neighbours and generally comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

 

3.6       Lighting Management Plan consistent with the ‘dark sky principles’ and the requirements of Australian Standard AS 4282—2019, Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

 

3.7       A schedule of the final materials, finishes and colours. The schedule shall include details of the type of materials proposed to be used, including their colour and texture.

 

3.8       Details of signage, including but not limited to the design, materials and levels of illumination (where applicable).

 

3.9       Details of the proposed bicycle parking facilities. The details shall include, as a minimum, the location, design and materials to be used in their construction.

 

3.10    Details of the entry controls required at the southern crossover to Cape Naturaliste Road to ensure this crossover is only used by service vehicles exiting the site in a left-out movement only.

 

3.11    The southern crossover to Cape Naturaliste Road being designed and constructed to the specification and satisfaction of the City to ensure continuity for pedestrians and that it is of sufficient width to cater for left-out truck movements.

 

 

3.12    A contribution of $10,995.80 toward the cost of Road Network Upgrading in the Dunsborough precinct.

 

3.13    A contribution of $5,795.20 toward the cost of Dual Use Path Network Upgrading in the Dunsborough precinct.

 

3.14    A contribution of $32,340.00 toward the cost of community facilities in the Dunsborough precinct.

 

3.15    Satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City to provide public art works within the development site. This entails compliance with the Percent for Art provisions of the City's Development Contribution Policy via appropriate works up to a minimum value of 1% of the Estimated Cost of Development ("ECD"). Where the value of on-site works is less than 1% of the ECD, a payment sufficient to bring the total contribution to 1% of the ECD is required.

 

3.16    A Construction Management Plan (CMP). The CMP shall address the following:

a.         access to and from the site;

b.        delivery of materials and equipment to the site;

c.         storage of materials and equipment on the site;

d.        parking arrangements for contractors and subcontractors;

e.        management of construction waste; and

f.         other matters likely to impact on the surrounding properties.

 

3.17    A Landscape Plan which shall include the following:

a.         the location, number, size and species type of existing and proposed trees and shrubs, including calculations for the landscaping area;

b.        any lawns to be established;

c.         fencing to the northern site boundary to provide definition with the Dugalup Brook Recreation Reserve (R42673);

d.        any existing landscape areas to be retained;

e.        those areas to be reticulated or irrigated; and

f.         verge treatments.

 

3.18    A Tree Protection Plan (TPP) for the mature trees to be retained on the site and adjoining road reserves as indicated on the approved site plan and for vegetation within the adjoining Recreation Reserve – R42673 (Dugalup Brook). The approved TPP shall be implemented before any of the substantive development is commenced and shall be retained throughout the development period until such time as all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site.  Within the areas so fenced, nothing shall be stored or placed, and the ground levels shall not be altered.

 

3.19    Satisfactory arrangements being made with the City for an easement in accordance with sections 195 and 196 of the Land Administration Act for the benefit of the City of Busselton and the public at large is to be shown on the Deposited Plan to be registered on the Certificate of Title over a 3m wide by 13m deep section of the southeast access way (to Dunn Bay Road) to the satisfaction of the City.

 

3.20    Updated Bushfire Management Plan to address the following:

a.         Clearly identify where a Performance Principle Solution has been used to address Bushfire Protection Criteria in place of an Acceptable Solution;

b.         Following an audit of vegetation classifications and distance to vegetation, modify inputs in the BMP as necessary;

c.         Confirm the Landscape Plan will comply with Schedule 1 of the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas.

 

Prior to Occupation/Use of the Development Conditions

 

4          The development hereby approved shall not be occupied, or used, until all plans, details or works required by Condition 3 have been implemented; and the following conditions have been complied with:

 

4.1       Arrangements to the satisfaction of the City being entered into to provide for legal access from Cape Naturaliste Road to the development site across the 1.0m wide portion of adjoining recreation reserve (Lot 4959, R42673).

 

4.2       All vehicle parking, access ways, footpaths and external lighting shall be constructed in accordance with the Australian Standard for Parking Facilities - Off-Street Car Parking (AS 2890.1) and shall be developed in the form and layout depicted on the approved plans to the satisfaction of the City.

 

4.3       Accessible car parking and access shall be provided and designed in accordance with the Australian Standard for Parking Facilities - Off-Street Car Parking for people with disabilities (AS 2890.6).

 

4.4       Exterior lighting shall be provided under all awnings, in parking areas and all entry points.

 

4.5       Buildings within the approved development shall be constructed in accordance with the  ‘Architectural Requirements’ specified in the Environmental Noise Report dated 9 November 2020, prepared by Gabriels Hearne Farrell.

 

Ongoing Conditions

 

5          The works undertaken to satisfy Conditions 2, 3 and 4 shall be subsequently maintained for the life of the development; and the following conditions must be complied with:

 

5.1       The Venue Management Plan for the development shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approval details.

 

5.2       The Noise Management Plan for the development shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approval details.

 

5.3       The southern crossover to Cape Naturaliste Road shall be provided with controlled access to be limited to use only by service vehicles exiting the site in a left-out movement only.

 

5.4       No roller doors or screens are permitted to be installed to the windows fronting the commercial tenancies fronting Dunn Bay Road.

 

5.5       All glazing to the commercial tenancies fronting Dunn Bay Road is to be clear, non-tinted glazing and shall not be subsequently obscured by alternative window treatments, signage or internal shelves.

 

5.6       All doors to shop premises fronting Dunn Bay Road must be kept unlocked for customer access during all hours when the subject premises are trading.

 

5.7       All services and service-related hardware, including antennae, satellite dishes and air conditioning units, being suitably located away from public view and/or screened to the satisfaction of the City.

 

5.8       Compliance with the approved Waste Management Plan.

 

5.9       The approved Bushfire Management Plan shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approval details and any recommendations therein.

 

5.10    Landscaping and reticulation shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the City. Unless otherwise first agreed in writing, any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from first planting, are removed, die, or are assessed by the City as being seriously damaged, shall be replaced within the next available planting season with others of the same species, size and number as originally approved.

 

5.11    Within 6 months of the registration of an easement pursuant to Sections 195 and 196 of the Land Administration Act 1997 over Lot 108 (no. 57) Dunn Bay Road, providing legal access to Lot 2 (no. 59) Dunn Bay Road and completion of the balance crossover on Lot 108 the relevant crossover onto Dunn Bay Road being amended to the specification and satisfaction of the City to allow for shared access to Dunn Bay Road. Within 30 days of the completion of the crossover the redundant portion of the cross over being removed and the area landscaped to the satisfaction of the City.

 

Council Decision and alternative recommendation

C2105/098              Moved Councillor K Hick, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council determines:

A.              That application DA20/0916 submitted for a ‘Mixed Use Development (Brewery, Tavern, Restaurant/Cafe, Shop and Tourist Accommodation)’ is considered by the Council to be generally consistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the objectives and policies of the zone within which it is located.

 

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

 

General Conditions

 

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

 

2.              The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the signed and stamped Approved Development Plans except as may be modified by the following conditions.

 

Prior to Commencement of Any Works Conditions

 

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

 

 

3.1          Drainage Management Plan, the details of which shall incorporate Water Sensitive Urban Design principles as discussed in the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Better Urban Water Management guidelines and should ensure that surface water will be contained within the development site with no direct, unfiltered discharge to the Dugalup Brook. 

                                        

3.2          Odour Management Plan, (OMP) which is to detail how odours emitted from coffee roasting and brewing activities will be managed to prevent impact on the amenity of neighbouring business and residential premises. The OMP shall include (but is not limited to) details of the following:

a.             Roasting and brewing days and times;

b.             Scale of production;

c.              Production techniques to limit odour emission;

d.             Control equipment and Engineering control measures;

e.             Monitoring; and

f.              Odour complaints handling process.

 

3.3          Venue Management Plan, (VMP) which is to support implementation of the Noise Management Plan and manage patrons’ behaviour to mitigate impact on the amenity of neighbouring business and residential premises. The VMP shall include (but is not limited to) details of the following:

a.             Outdoor entertainment;

b.             Implementation of the approved Noise Management Plan;

c.              Management of patrons leaving the site;

d.             Control of vandalism, litter and anti-social behavior;

e.             Complaints and conflict resolution process;

f.              Trading hours as follows:

                                                           i.             Between 7am and 10pm, Monday to Sunday (inclusive) the maximum permissible patrons numbers in each of the food and beverage sites shall be as follows:

·                Within Building 1 (Brewery) – 206 patrons

·                Within Building 2 (Restaurant) – 181 patrons      

·                Within Building 3 (Café) – 71 patrons

·                In the external areas (courtyard and decks) – 542 patrons

                                                         ii.              Between 10pm and 12 midnight, Thursday to Saturday (inclusive) the maximum permissible patrons numbers in each of the food and beverage sites shall be as follows:

·                Within Building 1 (Brewery) – 206 patrons

·                Within Building 2 (Restaurant) – 181 patrons

·                Within Building 3 (Café) – Closed

·                In the external areas (courtyard and decks) – 160 patrons

                                                       iii.              Between 10pm and 12 midnight, Sunday to Wednesday (inclusive) the maximum permissible patrons numbers in each of the food and beverage sites shall be as follows:

·                Within Building 1 (Brewery) – 206 patrons

·                Within Building 2 (Restaurant) – 181 patrons

·                Within Building 3 (Café) – Closed

·                In the external areas (courtyard and decks) - Closed

                                                        iv.              All food and beverage sites including external areas are to be closed to the public between 12 midnight and 7am.

                                            

3.4          Acoustic Report which demonstrates that all mechanical services associated with the proposed development, and any other noise source, including noise emanating from Licensed Premises, will comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, must be submitted to and approved by the City.

 

3.5          A Noise Management Plan which shall include (but not be limited to) all recommendations specified in the Environmental Noise Report dated 9 November 2020, prepared by Gabriels Hearne Farrell  in order to reduce noise disturbance to neighbours and generally comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

 

3.6          Lighting Management Plan consistent with the ‘dark sky principles’ and the requirements of Australian Standard AS 4282—2019, Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

 

3.7          A schedule of the final materials, finishes and colours. The schedule shall include details of the type of materials proposed to be used, including their colour and texture.

 

3.8          Details of signage, including but not limited to the design, materials and levels of illumination (where applicable).

 

3.9          Details of the proposed bicycle parking facilities. The details shall include, as a minimum, the location, design and materials to be used in their construction.

 

3.10      Details of the entry controls required at the southern crossover to Cape Naturaliste Road to ensure this crossover is only used by service vehicles exiting the site in a left-out movement only.

 

3.11      The southern crossover to Cape Naturaliste Road being designed and constructed to the specification and satisfaction of the City to ensure continuity for pedestrians and that it is of sufficient width to cater for left-out truck movements.

 

3.12      A contribution of $10,995.80 toward the cost of Road Network Upgrading in the Dunsborough precinct.

 

3.13      A contribution of $5,795.20 toward the cost of Dual Use Path Network Upgrading in the Dunsborough precinct.

 

3.14      A contribution of $32,340.00 toward the cost of community facilities in the Dunsborough precinct.

 

3.15      Satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City to provide public art works within the development site. This entails compliance with the Percent for Art provisions of the City's Development Contribution Policy via appropriate works up to a minimum value of 1% of the Estimated Cost of Development ("ECD"). Where the value of on-site works is less than 1% of the ECD, a payment sufficient to bring the total contribution to 1% of the ECD is required.

 

3.16      A Construction Management Plan (CMP). The CMP shall address the following:

a.             access to and from the site;

b.             delivery of materials and equipment to the site;

c.              storage of materials and equipment on the site;

d.             parking arrangements for contractors and subcontractors;

e.             management of construction waste; and

f.              other matters likely to impact on the surrounding properties.

 

3.17    A Landscape Plan which shall include the following:

a.             the location, number, size and species type of existing and proposed trees and shrubs, including calculations for the landscaping area;

b.             any lawns to be established;

c.              fencing, including fencing to the northern site boundary to provide definition to and manage access through the Dugalup Brook Recreation Reserve (R42673);

d.             any existing landscape areas to be retained;

e.             those areas to be reticulated or irrigated; and

f.              verge treatments, including any proposed footpath upgrades or extensions, and including an extension of the footpath along Cape Naturaliste Road to at least the southern proposed crossover to the site from Cape Naturaliste Road.

 

3.18      A Tree Protection Plan (TPP) for the mature trees to be retained on the site and adjoining road reserves as indicated on the approved site plan and for vegetation within the adjoining Recreation Reserve – R42673 (Dugalup Brook). The approved TPP shall be implemented before any of the substantive development is commenced and shall be retained throughout the development period until such time as all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site.  Within the areas so fenced, nothing shall be stored or placed, and the ground levels shall not be altered.

 

3.19      Satisfactory arrangements being made with the City for an easement in accordance with sections 195 and 196 of the Land Administration Act for the benefit of the City of Busselton and the public at large is to be shown on the Deposited Plan to be registered on the Certificate of Title over a 3m wide by 13m deep section of the southeast access way (to Dunn Bay Road) to the satisfaction of the City.

 

3.20      Updated Bushfire Management Plan to address the following:

a.             Clearly identify where a Performance Principle Solution has been used to address Bushfire Protection Criteria in place of an Acceptable Solution;

b.             Following an audit of vegetation classifications and distance to vegetation, modify inputs in the BMP as necessary;

c.              Confirm the Landscape Plan will comply with Schedule 1 of the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas.

 

 

 

 

Prior to Occupation/Use of the Development Conditions

 

4                The development hereby approved shall not be occupied, or used, until all plans, details or works required by Condition 3 have been implemented; and the following conditions have been complied with:

 

4.1          Arrangements to the satisfaction of the City being entered into to provide for legal access from Cape Naturaliste Road to the development site across the 1.0m wide portion of adjoining recreation reserve (Lot 4959, R42673).

 

4.2          All vehicle parking, access ways, footpaths and external lighting shall be constructed in accordance with the Australian Standard for Parking Facilities - Off-Street Car Parking (AS 2890.1) and shall be developed in the form and layout depicted on the approved plans to the satisfaction of the City.

 

4.3          Accessible car parking and access shall be provided and designed in accordance with the Australian Standard for Parking Facilities - Off-Street Car Parking for people with disabilities (AS 2890.6).

 

4.4          Exterior lighting shall be provided under all awnings, in parking areas and all entry points.

 

4.5          Buildings within the approved development shall be constructed in accordance with the  ‘Architectural Requirements’ specified in the Environmental Noise Report dated 9 November 2020, prepared by Gabriels Hearne Farrell.

 

Ongoing Conditions

 

5                The works undertaken to satisfy Conditions 2, 3 and 4 shall be subsequently maintained for the life of the development; and the following conditions must be complied with:

 

5.1          The Venue Management Plan for the development shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approval details.

 

5.2          The Noise Management Plan for the development shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approval details.

 

5.3          The southern crossover to Cape Naturaliste Road shall be provided with controlled access to be limited to use only by service vehicles exiting the site in a left-out movement only.

 

5.4          No roller doors or screens are permitted to be installed to the windows fronting the commercial tenancies fronting Dunn Bay Road.

 

5.5          All glazing to the commercial tenancies fronting Dunn Bay Road is to be clear, non-tinted glazing and shall not be subsequently obscured by alternative window treatments, signage or internal shelves.

 

5.6          All doors to shop premises fronting Dunn Bay Road must be kept unlocked for customer access during all hours when the subject premises are trading.

 

5.7          All services and service-related hardware, including antennae, satellite dishes and air conditioning units, being suitably located away from public view and/or screened to the satisfaction of the City.

 

5.8          Compliance with the approved Waste Management Plan.

5.9          The approved Bushfire Management Plan shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approval details and any recommendations therein.

 

5.10      Landscaping and reticulation shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the City. Unless otherwise first agreed in writing, any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from first planting, are removed, die, or are assessed by the City as being seriously damaged, shall be replaced within the next available planting season with others of the same species, size and number as originally approved.

 

5.11      Within 6 months of the registration of an easement pursuant to Sections 195 and 196 of the Land Administration Act 1997 over Lot 108 (no. 57) Dunn Bay Road, providing legal access to Lot 2 (no. 59) Dunn Bay Road and completion of the balance crossover on Lot 108 the relevant crossover onto Dunn Bay Road being amended to the specification and satisfaction of the City to allow for shared access to Dunn Bay Road. Within 30 days of the completion of the crossover the redundant portion of the cross over being removed and the area landscaped to the satisfaction of the City.

CARRIED 8/0

 

Reasons:       Seeking improved detail and clarity in the articulation of conditions and measures to limit potential amenity impacts to neighbouring residential and business premises.  

 

Enhanced detail to be contained within the conditions is particularly sought relating to:

·               the proposed Venue Management Plan (in particular trading hours and proposed patron numbers during those hours and noise mitigation measures),

·               Drainage Management Plan with particular conditions to protect the Dugalup Brook,

·               Odour Management Plan with express conditions requiring roasting and brewing activities to be managed to prevent impact on the amenity of neighbouring business and residential premises,

·               protection of access to the Dugalup Brook Recreation Reserve, and

·               safety measures or treatments, including any proposed footpath upgrades or extensions. 

 

ADDENDUM

Other than the addition of clause 3.20 in the Officer Recommendation, this report (including attachments) and its recommendations is the same as the report related to this application that Council previously considered at its Ordinary Meeting on 28 April 2021, at which time the Council resolved to defer consideration of until this Ordinary Meeting 12 May 2021.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received a development application for Mixed Use Development (Brewery, Tavern, Restaurant/Cafe, Shop and Tourist Accommodation) at Lot 1 (No.61) and Lot 2 (No.59) Dunn Bay Road, Dunsborough.

 

The application was advertised for public comment for a period of 28 days. During the consultation period, the main concerns raised related to traffic impacts, parking, noise, odour and environmental impact.

 

Due to the nature of the issues requiring consideration and the level of community interest, the application is being presented to Council for determination, rather than being determined by City officers acting under delegated authority.

 

Having considered the application, including submissions received in relation to the application, City officers consider that the application is consistent with the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the broader, relevant planning framework.

 

It is therefore recommended that the application be approved, subject to appropriate conditions.

 

BACKGROUND

The Council is asked to consider an application for a Mixed Use Development (Brewery, Tavern, Restaurant/Cafe, Shop and Tourist Accommodation) at Lot 1 (No.61) and Lot 2 (No.59) Dunn Bay Road, Dunsborough.

 

Key information regarding the application is set out below:

 

1.         Landowner: Eldorado Pty Ltd

2.         Applicant: Element Advisory Pty Ltd

3.         Site area: 8632m2

4.         General description of the site: Lot 1 (No.61) and Lot 2 (No.59) Dunn Bay Road are situated on the northern corner of Dunn Bay Road and Cape Naturaliste Road at the western edge of the Dunsborough Town Centre.  Cape Naturaliste Road and Dunn Bay Road run along the western and southern edges of the site (respectively), Dugalup Brook recreation reserve is to the north and two vacant ‘Centre’ zoned lots are to the east.

The site is predominantly flat and presently has various trees of species endemic to the area dispersed across the site. The nearest residential properties are located to the west, within the Naturaliste Heights subdivision, with the nearest dwelling approximately 60m from the sites western boundary.

5.         Current development/use: Lot 1 (No. 61) is currently a vacant site. Lot 2 (No. 59) is occupied by Peko Peko restaurant.

6.         Brief description of proposed development: The application seeks approval to redevelop the combined site for mixed use commercial purposes, and involves the following components:

·        a ‘Brewery’ producing primarily for on-site consumption and associated ‘Tavern’ within Building 1;

·        two ‘Restaurant/Café’ tenancies including a larger Restaurant style building (Building 2) anticipated to serve lunch and dinner in association with the Tavern and a smaller Café style building with small coffee roastery (Building 3) anticipated to serve breakfast and lunch only;

·        ‘Tourism Accommodation’ including 18 individual chalet style units at the rear of the site, adjacent to Dugalup Brook, and two self-contained short-stay apartments above the Shop tenancy;

·        a ground level ‘Shop’ tenancy fronting the corner of Dunn Bay Road and Cape Naturaliste Road (Building 4);

·        central alfresco dining space;

·        two separate car parking areas; one with a single access point from Dunn Bay Road intended to service the Tourist Accommodation units at the rear of the site as well as the food and beverage uses, with a second car park with two crossovers to Cape Naturaliste Road intended to service the retail and short-stay apartments.

7.         Applicable Zoning and Special Control Area designations: The site is located within the Centre zone and subject to the ‘Drive-Through Facility Special Control Area’.

8.         Land-use permissibility: Several land uses are proposed as follows: 1. ‘Shop’ and ‘Restaurant/Café’ are “P” uses in the Centre zone which means that the use is permitted by the Scheme providing the use complies with the relevant development standards and the requirements of the Scheme; 2. ‘Tourist Accommodation’ is a “D” use in the Centre zone meaning that the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting approval; and 3. ‘Brewery’ and ‘Tavern’ are “A” uses in the Centre zone meaning that the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting development approval after giving special notice in accordance with Clause 64 of the Deemed Provisions.

OFFICER COMMENT

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

·        general considerations when making a decision on a development application;

·        built form;

·        parking and access;

·        amenity Impacts (noise and odour);

·        environmental Impacts;

·        bushfire.

General considerations when making a decision on a development application

When considering a development application for any land use designated as a “D” or “A” land use under Table 2 - The Zoning Table of the Scheme, a decision-maker is required to exercise discretion when considering the development. The exercise of discretion should take into account relevant considerations as identified within Clause 67 – ‘Consideration of application by government’ of Schedule 2 of the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. The decision-maker has an obligation to exercise statutory responsibilities appropriately and a decision is required to be based upon sound planning principles.

 

The Matters to be Considered which are relevant to this development application are outlined in the Statutory Environment section of this report. If an item or issue is not listed in Clause 67, it is not deemed to be a valid planning consideration and therefore is not to be given regard in the determination of a development application. 

 

The improvement of the region, including ‘economic development’ is one of the broader aims of the Scheme, however, economic considerations are not listed as a matter to be considered within the Regulations. Economic considerations per se should therefore only be considered when setting the planning framework and not when making a determination on an individual development application. 


 

Built Form

The proposal consists of three primary structures arranged around a central courtyard including: a single storey brewery and bar; single storey kitchen and dining; and two-storey retail and short stay apartment building which wraps around the south-west corner of the site with an attached single-storey  café.  Additionally 18 individual tourist accommodation structures are proposed at the rear of the site adjacent to Dugalup Brook. A mix of materials and finishes are proposed including timber and timber look cladding, metal cladding, local stone, slatted screens, feature paving, timber decks, decorative pergolas and a mix of rooflines.

 

The proposal adopts an industrial design style for the internal facing food and beverage buildings with saw-tooth style rooves that provide good height, light and ventilation to these buildings.  While the industrial style does not reference any existing local aesthetic, the development sits comfortably on the site and is enhanced by the retention of many of the existing mature trees on the site. The chalet or ‘tiny-house’ style units proposed for short-stay accommodation at the rear of the site are an interesting design, have a very small footprint and are finished in a dark timber-look cladding which assists in making them visually recessive.  Further, they are designed to sit lightly on the ground, making them able to be easily moved around, or off, the site in future if desired.

 

While the site could arguably accommodate a much larger ‘landmark’ building given its prominence at the western entry to the town centre, this is not considered essential given the lack of public open space and limited pedestrian links and activity at this end of the town centre.  The two-storey built form proposed on the Cape Naturaliste Road and Dunn Bay Road corner incorporates a good mix of materials, colours and textures and provides a solid book-end to the town centre, with the desired future character for more substantial buildings able to be accommodated further into the town centre. The proposed design is considered suitable in the context of the surrounding environment and development and can generally be supported.

 

The need for the proposed retail tenancy on Dunn Bay Road to actively front the street is considered essential to achieve good levels of pedestrian amenity and passive surveillance and ensure that the development does not ‘turn its back’ on a major thoroughfare within the town centre. While this tenancy includes a recessed entry point from the street frontage, it also provides an entry from the central courtyard. It is therefore recommended that, should an approval be issued, conditions be included requiring that the entry from Dunn Bay Road be maintained and accessible whenever the shop is open, and that the glazing to this tenancy not be covered or altered in order to block views to and from the shop.

 

Given the scale of the proposed development, the City commissioned an independent design review of the proposal from Urbis. Urbis advised that the development is considered generally appropriate in the context of the Dunsborough town centre but raised several opportunities for minor improvements, a number of which have been incorporated into the revised site plan, including improved legibility of pedestrian access, reduction in the width of the Dunn Bay Road crossover and revisions to loading and bicycle parking arrangements. Particular concern was raised in respect of the visual permeability of the proposed acoustic wall on the western side of the courtyard, however the applicant has clarified that a significant portion of the wall is intended to be clear (acoustic glass or similar) ensuring views to and from the courtyard from Cape Naturaliste Road. It is not proposed to open this courtyard up any further as this would have negative consequences in regard to noise abatement. A copy of the Urbis design review is provided at Attachment J.


 

Parking, Traffic and Access

Parking

The proposal provides for a total of 80 car parking bays, including four universal access bays, across two car parks on the site. The City’s Local Planning Policy No. 2.1 ‘Car Parking’ (LPP2.1) specifies that all new development within the Dunsborough Town Centre (the ‘Centre’ zoned land) should provide car parking at a rate of 4 bays per 100m2 of net lettable area (NLA) for all land uses. While this should, in principle, also apply to the Tourist Accommodation uses proposed, it is considered more appropriate to require one bay per unit given the likelihood that guests will drive to their accommodation. Based on the NLA provisions for the retail and food and beverage uses and a rate of one bay per accommodation unit, the proposed development generates a requirement for 75 car bays. The proposal provides a total of 80 car bays on site, therefore exceeds the minimum requirement specified by LPP2.1 by five bays. 

 

While the proposed uses may generate well in excess of 80 patrons on site at any one time, the level of parking provided is considered sufficient given the likelihood of reciprocal parking with other uses in the town centre and the ability for people to easily walk and cycle to the site.  The proposal also provides space for up to 65 bicycle parking bays, including seven bays within a lockable storage area for staff, which exceeds the LPP 2.1 requirement for 58 bicycle bays.

 

Land Use

NLA

Requirement

Proposed

Shop

393m2

55

60

Restaurant/Café

469m2

Brewery/Tavern

505m2

Tourist Accommodation

20 units or

Approx. 573.92m2

includes units and decks

20 (one per unit) or

23 (approx. NLA)

20

Total:

1367m2 +

20 units

75 (per TA unit)

78 (using NLA)

80

 

Traffic and Access

The proposal includes two separate car parking areas, one accessed from Cape Naturaliste Road and the other from Dunn Bay Road. 

 

The car park on the Cape Naturaliste Road frontage of the development is accessed by two 9 metre wide crossovers and includes 15 car parking bays, a loading dock and bin store generally intended to be utilised by the proposed shop and upper level short-stay apartments. While the proposed northern crossover is acceptable as a full-movement access point, movements associated with the southern crossover are required to be limited due to its proximity to the turning pocket for south-bound vehicles turning left from Cape Naturaliste Road into Dunn Bay Road.  This requirement was discussed with the applicant during the assessment process and it was agreed that use of the southern crossover would be limited to service vehicles exiting the site in a left-out movement only and controlled by an electronic gate or bollard system. This has been reflected in the relevant plans. 

 

It is also noted that the access points on the Cape Naturalise Road frontage are required to cross an existing 1m wide reserve (Reserve No. 42673) under the City’s management for public recreation purposes.  It is unclear exactly why this reserve was created in this form (in 1982) but it is considered likely that it was intended to function as a ‘spite strip’ to prevent access to the site from Cape Naturaliste Road.  Given that Part 4.21.1(k) of the Scheme discourages new access to sites from Dunn Bay Road however (see further detail below), it is not considered reasonable to prevent access to the site from this street frontage.  The reserve type does not prevent the City from allowing access across this land and as such, it is recommended that, should an approval be granted, formal access across the reserve can be dealt with by way of a condition.

 

Part 4.21 of the Scheme contains provisions relating to development in the Regional Centre and Centre Zones.  As referenced above, Part 4.21.1(k) of the Scheme indicates that no vehicular access to sites shall be taken from Dunn Bay Road unless there is no alternative available.  The proposed development includes access to car parks from both Cape Naturaliste Road and Dunn Bay Road. While the construction of any new crossovers to Dunn Bay Road is generally discouraged to assist in improving pedestrian amenity in the town centre, there is an existing double crossover to Dunn Bay Road, associated with the ‘Peko Peko’ take away food business on the site, in approximately the same location as proposed for the new development. While the number of vehicle movements associated with the new development will exceed those generated by the current business, the inclusion of a crossover to Dunn Bay Road in this case is considered acceptable given the siting of the development at the western edge of the town centre where pedestrian movement is more limited than in the centre. 

 

It is further noted that while the original application material proposed to have the crossover to Dunn Bay Road set off the eastern boundary, discussion with the applicant around future development potential on the adjacent site resulted in revisions to the plans to shift the crossover to the eastern boundary. This change provides the ability for any future development of the adjacent site to tie-in with this crossover (which could subsequently be reduced in width), preventing the potential for two crossovers on this street block of Dunn Bay Road in future.  Conditions which address the need for an easement to allow shared access and the ability to require the narrowing of the driveway and crossover in future have been included in the officer recommendation.

 

The proposal is not expected to generate traffic levels that would negatively affect the capacity of the surrounding road network.  While comments received from Main Roads WA suggest the City may wish to consider the long-term need for upgrades to Dunn Bay Road and a wider road verge in this area, the City does not believe that any such upgrades will be necessary in the foreseeable future, and additional verge width is therefore not required. 

 

Bushfire

The potential impacts from bushfire are required to be considered as a large portion of the site is located within a designated Bushfire Prone Area. The proposed development is a vulnerable land use under State Planning Policy 3.7 because visitors and groups to the facility will be less able to respond in a bushfire emergency. Accordingly, a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) has been prepared by an accredited Level 3 Bushfire Planning Practitioner to support the application, with the aim that the implementation of the BMP will reduce the threat to staff, the public and emergency services in the area.  A Bushfire Emergency Evacuation Plan has also been developed in conjunction with the BMP.

 

The site is located within the Dunsborough townsite which is considered a ‘built out area’. In the event of a bushfire emergency, good access and egress is required as well as ready access to an adequate water supply. There is good vehicular access to and within the property, with multiple entries and turn-around areas; scheme water is available to the site and there are two fire hydrants in the immediate vicinity.

 

The BMP recognises that the short stay accommodation units located adjacent to the recreation reserve containing Dugalup Brook are sited in a location exposed to BAL-FZ and as such a risk assessment has been undertaken consistent with the Western Australian Planning Commission Position Statement: Tourism land uses in bushfire prone areas, to identify acceptable mitigation strategies.

 

The proposal was referred to the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) who have raised a number of issues in respect to the BMP, seeking updates to provide clarification in respect to inputs used to determine the BAL levels that the development would be exposed to. DFES also raised that it does not support the development of vulnerable land uses at BAL-40/BAL-FZ.

 

Notwithstanding that DFES does not support the development of vulnerable or high-risk land uses in areas of BAL-40/BAL-FZ, officers consider that the site is located within a built out area and as such, in accordance with the WAPC Position Statement, development at BAL-40/BAL-FZ is able to be considered where supported by a suitable risk assessment. The proposal identifies that all of the development, including the tourist accommodation exposed to BAL-FZ, will be required to be built to the appropriate construction standards. Further, the risk assessment included within the BMP is considered to provide suitable mitigation measures such that officers can recommend support of the proposal, noting its location in the town centre, access to scheme water and hydrants, multiple means of access and the presence of officers on-site to assist with evacuation if required.

 

If approved, officers recommend that a condition be included as per the DFES recommendation that the BMP be revised to: clearly identify where a Performance Principle Solution has been used to address Bushfire Protection Criteria in place of an Acceptable Solution; provide an audit of the vegetation classifications and distances to vegetation; modify the inputs in the BMP as necessary; and amend the BMP to confirm that the Landscape Plan will comply with Schedule 1 of the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas.

 

Amenity Impacts

Noise

An Environmental Noise (Acoustic) Report, prepared by Gabriels Hearne Farrell Pty Ltd, was submitted with the application. The report includes an assessment of the likely impact of the proposal on surrounding land uses, including the nearest sensitive receptors, being dwellings on nearby Martingale Drive. The report reviews the architectural requirements of the proposal, such as glazing, insulation, cladding and acoustic walls, as well as the required management actions to adequately control off-site noise impacts. 

 

A number of submissions were received from nearby residential properties to the west indicating concerns regarding the potential noise impacts associated with the proposed venue.  The application material was referred to the DWER Noise Branch as the technical experts on environmental noise matters, who provided comments (see Schedule of Submissions at Attachment K) indicating that: the technical detail in the report is reasonable; the predicted noise emissions at the nearby residential receptors seem reliable; the proposed architectural requirements are appropriate and sufficient; the noise management requirements are appropriate and effective; and that the proposed development can comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997

 

A submission was also received relating to the adjacent vacant property to the east, which is also located within the Centre zone, indicating that the development may have a negative impact on any future residential development on that site. In this regard, while it is understood from the modelled decibel levels that there may periodically be noise exceeding the normally acceptable residential levels on this site, it is impossible to model the impact on development that has not yet occurred. It is also noted that elevated noise levels are experienced in town centres from time to time and that any future residential development of the adjoining site is likely to be required to consider ‘quiet house’ design in any case. Further, should it be necessary at the time, the City could also require notifications be placed on titles that advise prospective purchasers of any new residential properties in this location of the potential for amenity impacts associated with living in a vibrant town centre.

 

Given the Noise Branch at DWER has indicated that the proposal can satisfy the requirements of the Noise Regulations and are supportive of the proposed architectural and noise control measures, it is considered that the development can be supported in this regard. While the applicant has indicated that the proposed development could potentially accommodate up to 1,000 patrons on site, it is noted that the acoustic report indicates that impacts can be suitably managed and/or numbers restricted as appropriate dependent on the time of day, which buildings are in use and whether music is being played.

While it is considered unlikely that the premises will actually accommodate 1,000 patrons on all but the rarest of occasions, it is recommended that conditions requiring the provision, approval and on-going compliance with appropriate noise and venue management plans be included on any approval.  These plans would address noise emissions from the site and how the venue is managed on an on-going basis, including but not limited to, the types of music, location of bands, operating hours, maximum patron numbers, management of patrons leaving the site and complaints resolution.

 

Odour

The proposal has the potential, if not appropriately managed, to result in odours emitted from proposed coffee roasting and brewing activities that may impact on the amenity of neighbouring business and nearby residential premises.

 

The applicant advises that the coffee roasting is anticipated to occur 2 – 3 times per week, conducted during normal business hours and that the coffee roastery will use production techniques to reduce emissions, including afterburning, a process in which the fumes emitted by coffee roasting are eliminated completely through high heat.

 

The application also indicates that the brewing component of the development is relatively small scale and the intention is to produce primarily for on-site consumption only. The applicant advises that the majority of brewing will only occur during normal business hours and will not occur overnight. The source of potential odour is the boiling stage of the brewing process. This is intermittent on brewing days and only for a short duration. The potential odour has been described by the applicant as:

“sweet/ malty/ bready, localised and not intense or sustained. It is not dissimilar to the smells of a bakery, which we note are common in urban areas as is the case in Dunsborough.”

 

The applicant advises that specialised rooftop products and condensers shall be fitted to flues to cool steam before it exits the single stack, resulting in the removal of almost all odour.

 

Given the size and type of production and the processes and timings used in the proposed roasting and brewery components, the potential for intense and continuous odour emission is considered minimal and unlikely to adversely affect residents in the vicinity.  In order to ensure this is the case across the life of the facility, however, it is recommended that a condition be applied to any approval requiring an odour management plan be prepared by the applicant and approved by the City prior to commencement of use.

Environmental Impacts

The proposal was referred to the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) and the DWER given the proposed removal of native vegetation on the site, potential impact on fauna and the proximity of Dugulap Brook. 

 

Comments received from DBCA indicate that the proposal can be supported subject to: a suitable fauna management plan; fauna handlers being present during the approved removal of vegetation on site and the demolition of the existing buildings; the provision of tree protection zones during construction; and the installation of a fence or bollards to define the northern boundary in order to protect vegetation within the adjacent reserve.  Conditions addressing these matters have been included in the officer recommendation. 

 

Advice received from DWER indicates that the proposed vegetation removal is likely to be exempt from the requirement for a clearing permit under the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

Statutory Environment

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

 

Zoning

The site is zoned ‘Centre’. The objectives of the ‘Centre’ zone are as follows:

a.         to provide a genuine centre of community life, socially, culturally and economically.

b.         to provide a basis for future detailed planning in accordance with the structure planning provisions of this Scheme or the Activity Centres State Planning Policy.

c.         to ensure that development provides for activation of the street and public spaces, high quality design and a variety of land uses.

d.         to provide for medium to high density residential development.

 

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

 

Land-use and permissibility

This mixed use proposal includes a number of different land uses under the Scheme.

 

The proposed land uses are defined as follows:

 

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

 

“Restaurant/Café” means premises primarily used for the preparation, sale and serving of food and drinks for consumption on the premises by customers for whom seating is provided, including premises that are licenced under the Liquor Control Act 1988.

 

"Shop" means premises other than a bulky goods showroom, a liquor store – large or a liquor store – small used to sell goods by retail, to hire goods, or to provide services of a personal nature, including hairdressing or beauty therapy services.

 

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

 

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

 

Shop and Restaurant/Café are “P” uses in the Centre zone.

 

Tourist Accommodation is a “D” uses in the Centre zone.

 

Brewery and Tavern are “A” uses in the Centre zone.

 


 

Consideration of application by local government

Clause 67(1) of the Deemed Provisions within the Regulations sets out ‘consideration of application by local government’ (formerly referenced as ‘matters to be considered’). The following matters are considered to be relevant to consideration of this application:

             (a)       the aims and provisions of this Scheme and any other local planning scheme operating within the Scheme area;

             (b)       the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any proposed local planning scheme or amendment to this Scheme that has been advertised under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 or any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving;

             (c)       any approved State planning policy;

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

             (e)       any policy of the Commission;

             (f)        any policy of the State;

             (fa)     any local planning strategy for this Scheme endorsed by the Commission;

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

             (l)        the effect of the proposal on the cultural heritage significance of the area in which the development is located;

             (m)     the compatibility of the development with its setting, including —

                         (i)        the compatibility of the development with the desired future character of its setting; and

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

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

                         (i)        environmental impacts of the development;

                         (ii)       the character of the locality;

                         (iii)      social impacts of the development;

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

             (p)       whether adequate provision has been made for the landscaping of the land to which the application relates and whether any trees or other vegetation on the land should be preserved;

             (q)       the suitability of the land for the development taking into account the possible risk of flooding, tidal inundation, subsidence, landslip, bush fire, soil erosion, land degradation or any other risk;

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

             (s)       the adequacy of —

                         (i)        the proposed means of access to and egress from the site; and

                         (ii)       arrangements for the loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles;

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

(u)       the availability and adequacy for the development of the following —

                         (i)        public transport services;

                         (ii)       public utility services;

                         (iii)      storage, management and collection of waste;

                         (iv)      access for pedestrians and cyclists (including end of trip storage, toilet and shower facilities);

                         (v)       access by older people and people with disability;

 (x)      the impact of the development on the community as a whole notwithstanding the impact of the development on particular individuals;

(y)       any submissions received on the application;

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

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

 

The proposal generally complies with the relevant provisions noted above.

Relevant Plans and Policies

Relevant plans and policies must be given due regard in assessing the application, but cannot and do not bind the local government in determining an application for development approval. Plans and policies considered in the assessment of the application are as follows:

Local Planning Policy 2.1 - Car Parking

Provides guidance on the City’s requirements for the provision of car parking and bicycle parking facilities for new development. The proposal satisfies the minimum number of car parking and bicycle bays required by the policy.

 

Local Planning Policy 4.1 - Percent for Art

Identifies development that is required to provide public art as well as methods for determining the contribution and implementation. The policy applies to development with a value greater than $1,000,000 however excludes residential, extractive industry and agricultural development.  A condition requiring the relevant contribution has been recommended.

 

Local Planning Policy 6.1 - Stormwater Management

Provides guidance on methods for achieving the safe and effective management of the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff. A condition requiring stormwater management plan has been recommended.

 

Local Planning Policy 6.1 - Road, Footpath and Cycle Network Upgrade Contributions

Applies to development within the policy area and requires a contribution for each tourism unit for the purposes of upgrading the distributor road network as well as upgrading the footpath and cycle network infrastructure.  A condition requiring the relevant contribution has been recommended.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.


 

Stakeholder Consultation

Clause 64 of the Deemed Provisions sets out circumstances in which an application for development approval must be advertised, and also sets out the means by which applications may be advertised. Given the scale of the proposed development, it was considered appropriate to advertise the development application.

 

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

 

The application was open for submissions from 15 January 2021 to 11 February 2021. The application was advertised in the following manner:

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

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

3.         letters were sent to all the land owners and occupiers of properties within 200m of the development site;

4.         a notice was placed in a local newspaper on 15, 22, 29 January and 5 February 2021; and

5.         two signs were placed on the development site giving notice of the proposed development.

 

Submissions were received from a total of 47 people (noting that a number of submissions come from people sharing a household). A schedule of submissions is provided as Attachment K. The schedule identifies who submissions were received from and summarises the submissions. 

 

The public submissions can generally be grouped as follows:

 

Objection

·        The proposed access onto Cape Naturaliste Road will conflict with existing vehicular and pedestrian traffic, resulting in safety concerns.

·        Amenity impact concerns to nearby residential development due to noise and odour.

·        Removal of vegetation which supports endangered fauna.

·        Insufficient parking for proposed patron numbers.

·        Anti-social behaviour from intoxicated patrons.

 

Support

·        Will add vibrancy to the town centre.

·        Well-designed architecture.

·        Retains a significant portion of the trees on the site.

 

Where issues are raised that do not relate to the relevant planning framework, they are noted but no further commentary is provided by officers. This does not necessarily suggest that the issues are not genuine issues of concern to the submitter or more broadly, but they are unfortunately not issues that can nor should be addressed in the assessment of this particular application.

In addition to the above, the application was referred to DWER (Noise and Native Vegetation Clearing), DBCA, DFES, MRWA and Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (Aboriginal Heritage). The comments received from these authorities are included 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. The key risk to the City is considered to be the potential reputational and environmental risk that may arise if the site is not managed in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval.

 

Options

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

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

2.         Apply additional or different conditions.

CONCLUSION

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

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

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

 


Council

152

12 May 2021

13.1

Attachment a

Location Plan

 


Council

167

12 May 2021

13.1

Attachment b

Development Plans

 

















Council

170

12 May 2021

13.1

Attachment c

Landscape Plans

 


































































Council

313

12 May 2021

13.1

Attachment e

Traffic Impact Assessment

 














































 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 











Council

328

12 May 2021

13.1

Attachment f

Bushfire Management Plan

 





































































































Council

449

12 May 2021

13.1

Attachment g

Environmental Noise (Acoustic) Report

 































Council

451

12 May 2021

13.1

Attachment h

Environmental Report and Fauna Management Plan

 
















 
























Council

507

12 May 2021

13.1

Attachment i

Waste Management Plan

 





















Council

517

12 May 2021

13.1

Attachment j

URBIS design review comments

 











Council

551

12 May 2021

13.1

Attachment k

Schedule of Submissions

 


































 


Council                                                                                      552                                                                    12 May 2021

18.             Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given

Nil

 

19.             urgent business

Nil

 

20.             Confidential Reports  

Nil

  

21.             Closure

The Presiding Member closed the meeting at 6.01pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

THESE MINUTES CONSISTING OF PAGES 1 TO 552 WERE CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD ON Wednesday, 26 May 2021.

 

DATE:_________________  PRESIDING MEMBER:         _____________________________