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

CITY OF BUSSELTON

MINUTES OF THE Council MEETING HELD ON 9 March 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

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

2....... Attendance. 3

3....... Prayer. 4

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Council Meetings. 7

8.1          Minutes of the Council Meeting held 23 February 2022. 7

8.2          Minutes of the Special Meeting of Electors held 21 February 2022. 7

Committee Meetings. 7

8.3          Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 16 February 2022. 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 - 16/2/2022 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT  -  AIRPORT OPERATIONS UPDATE. 9

12.2        Airport Advisory Committee - 16/2/2022 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT - NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW... 14

17.1        COUNCILLORS INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 58

items to be dealt with by separate resolution (without debate). 64

14.1        BUSSELTON JETTY 50-YEAR MAINTENANCE PLAN REVIEW... 64

16.1        COUNCILLOR MEMBERSHIP OF MEELUP REGIONAL PARK COMMITTEE. 70

16.2        YOU CHOOSE COMMUNITY FUNDING PROGRAM - PILOT PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING BASED PROGRAM... 73

items for debate. 85

13.1        DA21/0548 PROPOSED CHALET DEVELOPMENT - LOT 100 (NO.4259) CAVES ROAD, WILYABRUP. 85

17.2        RESPONSE TO MOTIONS CARRIED AT SPECIAL ELECTORS MEETING 21 FEBRUARY 2022. 287

15..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 295

18..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 296

18.1        NOTICE OF REVOCATION MOTION - C2111/101 - DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY LOTS 58 & 59 CHAPMAN HILL ROAD AND LOT 60 QUEEN ELIZABETH AVENUE, AMBERGATE. 296

19..... urgent business. 322

20..... Confidential Reports. 322

21..... Closure. 323

 


Council                                                                                      3                                                                       9 March 2022

MINUTES

 

MINUTES OF A Meeting of the Busselton City Council HELD IN Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton, ON 9 March 2022 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 Paul Carter          Deputy Mayor

Cr Sue Riccelli

Cr Kate Cox

Cr Anne Ryan

Cr Phill Cronin

Cr Jodie Richards

Cr Mikayla Love

 

Officers:

 

Mr Mike Archer, Chief Executive Officer

Mr Oliver Darby, Director, Engineering and Works Services

Mrs Naomi Searle, Director, Community and Commercial Services

Mr Tony Nottle, Director, Finance and Corporate Services

Ms Lee Reddell, Manager, Development Services

Mrs Emma Heys, Governance Coordinator
Ms Jo Barrett-Lennard, Governance Officer

 

 

Apologies:

 

Cr Ross Paine

 

 

Approved Leave of Absence:

 

Nil

 

 

Media:

 

“Busselton-Dunsborough Times”

 

 

Public:

 

28

 

3.               Prayer

 

The prayer was delivered by Pastor Tony Peak of Abundant Life Centre.

 

 

4.               Application for Leave of Absence 

 

Nil

 

 

5.               Disclosure Of Interests

 

Nil

 

 

6.               Announcements Without Discussion

Announcements by the Presiding Member

 

Nil

 

 


7.               Question Time For Public

Prior to the Public Question Time commencing the Mayor advised that the questions taken on notice at the previous meeting had been circulated and would be tabled in the minutes.

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice

 

The following questions were taken on notice by the Council at the 23 February 2022 Ordinary Council meeting

 

7.1             Mr Gordon Bleechmore

 

Question

Why has the city has taken to grading the beach access carpark at Wonnerup over the last six months every week but apparently taking no action to protect the work, and is there plans to seal the carpark soon?

 

Response to question taken on notice

(Mr Oliver Darby, Director Engineering Works and Services)

The primary reason for maintenance in this area is to provide boat ramp access this is done on a weekly basis in the high boating season. When on site officers will inspect the adjacent car park to grade as necessary avoiding a second visit. The toilet block car park is listed in the Cities forward capital works program for sealing in the 2024/25 financial year. The Coastal node upgrade including sealing the main car park is listed for construction in the 2027/28 financial year. These programs are subject to change and the Councils endorsement through the Long Term financial plan and ongoing budget adoption. 

 

Question

Why is the City grading that carpark every week?

 

Response
(Mr Oliver Darby, Director Engineering Works and Services)

The primary reason for maintenance in this area is to provide boat ramp access this is done on a weekly basis in the high boating season. When on site officers will inspect the adjacent car park to grade as necessary avoiding a second visit.

 

Question

Some of the geo-fabric groins at Wonnerup Beach have been removed possibly by vehicles driving over them.   What is the City going to do to rectify this? 

 

Response
(Mr Oliver Darby, Director Engineering Works and Services)

Officers have visited the site and noted that on the most eastern groyne two Geosynthetic sand containers have been damaged and are no longer in place. These bags will be replaced as soon as practicable.

 


Question

At the Wonnerup Beach Access carpark there has been cameras placed near the toilet block but don’t appear to take vision of the car park, what is the purpose of the cameras?

 

Response
(Mr Tony Nottle, Director Finance and Corporate Services)

The cameras installed assist both the City and the WA Police with a range of measures including visual security, asset protection and general monitoring. These cameras are part of the City’s wider CCTV network across the district.

 

7.2             Mr Jeffrey Forrest

 

Question

I’ve had my garden shed flooded twice in April last year from waters coming down Yungarra Drive, I have reported it to council but it has not been acted on, what is the City of Busselton going to do to rectify the issue?

 

Response

(Mr Oliver Darby, Director Engineering Works and Services)

Initial contact from Mr Forrest was made on the 11th February 2021. On inspection it was evident that the crossover/driveway has been built incorrectly.


There is an open swale that runs in front of the property to control storm water. Unfortunately there is no culvert under the driveway to allow water to pass and continue along the swale when raining. Water builds up in the swale and overflows onto the driveway and then enters the property. The installation of a culvert will resolve the situation. Officers will contact Mr Forrest to assist in rectifying the situation.

 


8.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes

Previous Council Meetings

8.1             Minutes of the Council Meeting held 23 February 2022

COUNCIL DECISION

C2203/038              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor K Cox

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 23 February 2022 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED 8/0

 

8.2             Minutes of the Special Meeting of Electors held 21 February 2022

COUNCIL DECISION

C2203/039              Moved Councillor A Ryan, seconded Councillor P Cronin

That the Minutes of the Special Meeting of Electors held 21 February 2022 be noted.

CARRIED 8/0

 

 

Committee Meetings

8.3             Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 16 February 2022

COUNCIL DECISION

C2203/040              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor A Ryan

That the Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 2 March 2022 be noted.

CARRIED 8/0

 

 

9.               RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS

Petitions

 

Nil

Presentations

 

Nil

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

C2203/041              Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor S Riccelli

That the Committee Recommendations for items 12.1 and 12.2 and the Officer Recommendation for item 17.1 be carried en bloc:

 

12.1         Airport Advisory Committee – 16/02/2022 – BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT – AIRPORT OPERATIONS UPDATE

12.2          Airport Advisory Committee – 16/02/2022 – BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT – NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW

17.1          COUNCILLORS INFORMATION BULLETIN

CARRIED 8/0

en bloc

 

 


Council                                                                                      9                                                                       9 March 2022

12.             REPORTS OF COMMITTEE

12.1           Airport Advisory Committee - 16/2/2022 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT  -  AIRPORT OPERATIONS UPDATE

STRATEGIC THEME

OPPORTUNITY - A vibrant City with diverse opportunities and a prosperous economy

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

3.4 Develop aviation opportunities at the Busselton Margaret River Airport.

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

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 16/2/2022, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

The committee recommendation was moved and carried.

COUNCIL DECISION

C2203/042              Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor S Riccelli

That the Council receives and notes the Airport Operations Report.

CARRIED 8/0

EN BLOC

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council receives and notes the Airport Operations Report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

BACKGROUND

The first half of the reporting period has seen positive growth in closed charter flights and passenger numbers through the BMRA. The COVID-19 pandemic has continued to have significant impacts on the aviation industry with domestic and international air services severely restricted resulting in the Jetstar Busselton-Melbourne flights commencement date being further delayed.

 

In November, the City hosted the BMRA Community Open Day and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Centenary which saw approximately 5,500 people visit the Airport with RAAF Hawk 127 Lead-In-Fighter jets, Pilatus PC-21 and a range of other private, commercial (A320 and F100) and emergency services aircraft on display.

 

Officers have also been focussing on business development and preparation of request for tender and quotation documentation for capital works projects. A review of the Noise Management Plan including public consultation was conducted in November and December.

Further, State Government directions relating to the requirements for COVID vaccinations came into effect in early December with all airport services workers and Aviation Security Identity Card (ASIC) holders required to be fully COVID vaccinated by 1 January 2022.

 

Aircraft Movements

The total number of Fly in Fly out (FIFO) closed charter services using BMRA remains at 20 flights (40 movements) per week. Currently there are four airlines operating from the BMRA utilising the F70, F100, A320 and Dash 8 aircraft.

 

As of the first week of March the schedule is anticipated to increase to 24 closed charter flights operating to North West destinations such as Boolgeeda, Barimunya, West Angeles, Newman, Roy Hill and Karratha.

 

The total number of aircraft landings has steadily increased during the period with some monthly variations mainly due to light and general aviation traffic, however the overall flight numbers during the reporting period for 2021 was (1772) compared to 2020 (1700) and 2019 (1373).

 

 

Passenger Numbers

Overall passenger numbers has seen an increase of 34.3% (25,761) for the reporting period compared to same period for 2020 (18,646) which also saw a 28.8% increase from 2019 (14,477).  This can be attributed to a recruitment drive by Rio Tinto in November/December and the commencement of services by Alliance Airlines, Network Aviation and Maroomba for FIFO passengers employed by BHP and FMG from September 21.

 

 

 

Carpark

Currently 1217 swipe cards have been issued with 1071 cards actually in use and 146 awaiting collection. The average daily occupancy for the reporting period was 300 parked patrons per day. The highest occupancy month was November with an average of 339 parked patrons per day. The highest occupancy date was 16 November with 411 parked vehicles.

 

Operations

The focus for the reporting period has been on:

·        Support for the LATS (Large Aerial Tanker Support) operations

·        Preparation of tenders and quotations for the design and construction of four general aviation hangars, the central apron expansion, and a design for the extension of the public car park

·        The City’s Facilities team have started a maintenance and painting program for the Arrivals Hall and Terminal building prior to the arrival of the Jetstar flights

·        Business development activities have included advertising of the Commercial and Industrial Precinct opportunities, progressing the General Aviation hangar leases and liaising with airlines on new Busselton routes

·        A revised Transport Security Program was submitted to the Department of Home Affairs for approval

·        Noise Management Plan review public consultation.

 

LATS

The LATS operations commenced on 8 December with the establishment of the DFES operations centre and arrival of C130 (Bomber 131) which commenced operations that day. Boeing 737 (Bomber 138) arrived on 22 December on secondment from NSW and Boeing 737 (Bomber 137) arrived on 24 December and will be permanently stationed at BMRA until 22 April 2022. The operations centre is located landside on the western edge of the southern apron adjacent to Bay 1. The facility has a permanent daily contingent of aircrew on standby consisting of 2 Pilots and 2 engineering ground crew members.

During the month of December the LATS attended 6 fire sites in WA including:

·        Calgardup

·        Bindoon

·        Treeton

·        Chidlow

·        Gascoyne Complex

·        Dunsborough/Eagle Bay

 

The LATS have collectively dropped 166,638 litres of retardant during December and taken delivery of 105,593 litres of Jet A1 fuel during December.

OFFICER COMMENT

FIFO passenger numbers through the BMRA have continued to increase significantly in comparison to the same period last year and officers expect passenger numbers to continue to increase as FIFO employment recruitment from the South West continues.  The 40 aircraft movements (20 flights) per week equate to 28 movements for RioTinto (Virgin Australia), 4 for FMG (Qantas Group), 4 for BHP (Alliance Airlines) and 4 for Northern Star Resources (Maroomba Airlines).

 

The commencement of the Jetstar Busselton- Melbourne flights have once again been delayed due to COVID-19 border restrictions however Officers have been liaising regularly with Jetstar executives and their operations teams on a new start date for the flights.

 

The summer maintenance programs are in progress now that the underground water table has subsided including mowing and spraying, and apron/ runway line marking will be a focus over February and March.

 

Statutory Environment

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

 

The BMRA operates in accordance with the following:

·    Aviation Transport Security Act 2004

·    Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005

·    CASA Manual of Standards 139 (Aerodromes)

·    City of Busselton Transport Security Plan

·    Ministerial Statement 1088

·    City policies and procedures

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

The officer recommendation aligns to the following adopted plan or policy:

·    The BMRA operates under the Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan 2019.

 


Financial Implications

Revenue

Actual YTD revenue for the reporting period is $1,052,925 compared to the YTD budget of $968,570 not including security screening revenue which has not been realised due to the delay in the Jetstar flights. The reason for revenue being greater than expected is mainly due to an increase in airport landing fees, sundry income and car parking income.

 

Expenditure

Actual YTD expenditure for the reporting period is $749,049 compared to the YTD Budget of $795,181, not including security screening costs and the airline attraction program which have not been incurred due to the delay in the Jetstar flights.  Lower expenditure for the reporting period can mainly be attributed to specific airport maintenance that will not be completed until the end of summer and lower contactor and consultancy fees to date.  


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 Airport Advisory Committee may choose not to receive and note the Airport Operations Report.

CONCLUSION

The airport summer maintenance work is well under way including mowing and spraying, with apron and runway line marking programs set to commence in February. The apron lighting project which has not been completed due to the delay in delivery of lighting parts from Europe is expected to be complete by mid-February.

 

In early March, Officers will be seeking quotations to prepare a new BMRA Master Plan with the focus shifting from aviation and landside infrastructure development (detailed in the existing BMRA Master Plan 2016-2036) to business (commercial and freight) and domestic and international air services route development and the future infrastructure required to facilitate this.  

 

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                                                                     9 March 2022

12.2           Airport Advisory Committee - 16/2/2022 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT - NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW

STRATEGIC THEME

OPPORTUNITY - A vibrant City with diverse opportunities and a prosperous economy

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

3.4 Develop aviation opportunities at the Busselton Margaret River Airport.

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

Noting: The item is simply for information purposes and noting

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   BMRA Noise Management Plan (2022)

Attachment b    NMP YourSay submissions

This item was considered by the Airport Advisory Committee at its meeting on 16/2/2022, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

The committee recommendation was moved and carried.

COUNCIL DECISION

C2203/043              Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor S Riccelli

That the Council:

1.         Notes the outcomes of the Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan (NMP) review and public consultation as required by Ministerial Statement 1088.

2.         Endorses the draft Noise Management Plan (2022) to be submitted to the Environmental Protection Authority as required by Ministerial Statement 1088.

CARRIED 8/0

EN BLOC

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.         Notes the outcomes of the Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan (NMP) review and public consultation as required by Ministerial Statement 1088.

2.         Endorses the draft Noise Management Plan (2022) to be submitted to the Environmental Protection Authority as required by Ministerial Statement 1088.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides the outcomes resulting from a review of the Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan (January 2019), including a draft Noise Management Plan (2022) advertised for public comment and stakeholder consultation to be included in a report to the CEO of the Office for the Environmental Protection Authority by 7 April 2022.


BACKGROUND

The concept of a Noise Management Plan (NMP) for the Busselton Margaret River Airport (BMRA) was first initiated in 2009 with the first NMP approved as part of Ministerial Statement 901 on 22 June 2012. Since this time there has been a number of versions, with the current version of the NMP (January 2019) approved through Ministerial Statement 1088, through a Public Environmental Review (PER) process, which has now been in place for three years.  

 

In accordance with Statement 1088, the City is required to monitor and report to the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA) any operational non-compliances, which may include aircraft movements outside of the approved operating hours, unauthorised flight training and aircraft noise breaches, and to submit annual compliance reports outlining the effectiveness of the NMP to the OEPA. 

 

Statement 1088 also includes the requirements for the review of the NMP including Condition 6 Review of NMP:

 

6-1      Within three months of each three year period, from the date of issue of this Statement, the proponent shall submit a report to the CEO which reviews the effectiveness of the Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan 2018 (version 1, May 2018) or any subsequent approved versions, in achieving the objective of condition 5-1.

 

6-2      The report required by condition 6-1 shall include, but not be limited to:

1)        Noise monitoring results;

2)        Noise amelioration assessments and/or implementation;

3)        Number of complaints received and actions taken to resolve complaints;

4)        Published flight paths to minimize impacts; and

5)        The findings of the review to determine the effectiveness of the Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan 2018 (version1, May 2018) or any subsequent approved revisions, and whether amendments to the Plan are required.

 

A review of the NMP (2019) was completed in November 2021 and a report was presented to the Airport Advisory Committee (AAC) on 1 December 2021 detailing the process undertaken including consideration of the following main areas of the NMP and a revised draft NMP was prepared;

·        BMRA Development Opportunities

·        Flight Paths and Noise Abatement Zones

·        Standard Hours of Operations

·        Noise monitoring and Emissions

·        Fly Neighbourly Agreement and Flight Training Guidelines

 

At this meeting, the AAC endorsed (AIR2112/071) the draft NMP (2022) (see attachment A) with the following amendments, to advertise for public comment:


 

NMP January 2019

NMP Proposed Draft 2022

 

Chapter heading

Section heading

Chapter heading

Section heading

Comment

1. Introduction and Background

 

Introduction

 

Includes objectives and information about aircraft noise

 

Noise Context

 

Understanding Noise

 

Changed from “Description of noise and perceived nuisance” to “Definition of sound and noise”

 

Structure of Document

 

 

Removed  - Not needed

 

Background

 

 

Removed  – historical background to BRA and development project

2. Principles and Statement of Intent

Objectives for BRA development

 

 

Removed – historical background to development project

 

A Balanced Approach

 

Who is responsible for noise?

Removed – replaced with context to ICAO and organisations responsible for noise management

 

Limitations

 

 

Removed – included in other sections throughout the document

 

Statement of Intent

 

 

Removed  -  BMRA Strategic objectives are more aligned with Master Plan than NMP

3. Management of operational Activities

 

Airport Operational Activities

 

 

 

Aircraft Operations Classifications

 

Aircraft Type

Amended from Single engine aircraft under 1500kgs MTOW only to Single engine non-turbine aircraft only

 

Flight Training Guidelines

 

Flight Training Guidelines

 

 

Frequency & Type of Use

 

Flight Training

Instructor cumulative hours changed from 25hrs/week/instructor to 35hrs/week/instructor

Added Ministerial Statement criteria for overflying wetlands


 

 

Flying heights for Training operations

 

 

Removed as CASA guidelines on height restrictions over rural and urban areas  are governed by CASA

 

Aircraft Noise management

 

 

Removed – included in Who is responsible for Noise?

 

Activities requiring City approval

 

 

Removed – duplication with Standard hours of operation

 

Approval for Charter and RPT Operations

 

 

Removed – duplication of Standard Hours or Operation

 

Approval for Flight Training or Licence Renewal Training

 

 

Removed – duplication of Standard Hours or Operations & Flight Training Guidelines

4. Noise Complaints

 

Noise Complaints

 

Updated to reflect roles and responsibilities for aircraft noise complaints

5. Noise Assessment & Monitoring

 

Noise Assessment & Monitoring

 

 

 

Noise Monitoring

 

Noise Monitoring

Amended to remove duplication of text and table.

 

Noise modelling

 

Noise Measurement

Updated to reflect current wording

6. Noise Amelioration

 

Noise Amelioration

 

 

 

Noise Context

 

 

Removed – covered in other chapters

 

Noise reduction and Amelioration measures

 

Noise reduction and Amelioration measures

Updated to reflect current wording

7. Land Use Planning

 

 

 

Removed  -  Land use planning is more aligned with Master Plan than NMP

8. Communication & Consultation

 

Communication & Consultation

 

Updated were relevant


 

9. Implementation & Review

 

Implementation & Review

 

Updated were relevant

 

Compliance Framework

 

Compliance Framework

Updated to remove Land based activities and Activates in Airspace which are covered in other chapters

OFFICER COMMENT

The draft NMP (2022) was advertised for public comment through the City’s YourSay platform for a period of three weeks as detailed in the stakeholder consultation section of this report.

 

During the public comment period, there were a total of 203 page views to the NMP YourSay page with 100 participants clicking through to other NMP project pages, including 47 participants downloading documents and 44 participants visiting the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) project page. A total of 14 submissions were received, 12 through the YourSay platform and 2 submissions emailed directly to the Airport Manager.

 

Officers have reviewed the submissions and have categorised the responses into the following general categories:

 

·        6 submissions in support of the draft NMP (2022)

·        6 objections;

o    4 objections to flight training at BMRA and/or inclusion in the NMP

o    1 objection to flight training and larger aircraft operating from BMRA

o    1 objection to aircraft flying at night

·        1 submission stating that aircraft noise is currently tolerable however would expect a further review of NMP if frequency of flights increase

·        1 submission requesting clarification on helicopter operations.

 

The objections relating to flight training were generally directed at all flight training operations occurring at the BMRA and did not specifically refer to the two amendments being proposed to the flight training guidelines in the draft NMP. Attachment B lists the comments only, received from the fourteen public submissions.    

 

A meeting of the BMRA Consultative Reference Group (Reference Group) was held on Thursday 13 January with only one member, representing the Reinscourt area, attending on the day. At the meeting Officers provided an update on the review process and the amendments being proposed. Discussion was held on the flight paths and noise monitoring conducted by the City, which at the time was not publicly available. A commitment was made by Officers to reform the Reference Group once the Regular Public Transport (RPT) services have commenced.

 

Additionally, consultation with airlines and airport stakeholders has determined that there is general support for the draft NMP (2022) with feedback indicating some interest in the future, for expanding the hours of operations, particularly earlier in the morning (pre 6.00am). Officers are not proposing that the standard hours of operations are extended at this point in time.

 

Noise monitoring was performed as part of the review to measure the impacts of aircraft noise on the community. Two noise loggers were placed out, one in the Reinscourt area and the other to the south of the airport on Acton Park road approximately xx km from the end of the runway.

The City has engaged an Environmental Consultant to assist with the noise monitoring, perform the data analysis and provide summary reports of the noise recordings. 

The noise loggers were located on both sites between the dates of 21 December 2021 and 13 January 2022 with the following results:

 

 

Kalgup (LAmax (dB))

Reinscourt

Total number of plane events

42

50

Arrivals

9

32

Departures

33

18

Highest recording

84.0  (depart)

23 Dec 2021 5.55am

80.2 (arrival)

5 Jan 2022 8.22am

Average of all recordings

70.62

68.2

 

The results from the noise monitoring indicated that the maximum noise level of 85dB was not breached and the noise acceptability levels defined as ‘acceptable’, ‘conditionally acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ were not breached.

 

Officers have now completed the review of the current NMP (2019) and draft NMP (2022), advertised the draft NMP for public comment and consulted with airlines, airport users and stakeholders. The level of public comment received was considered low and comments specific to the proposed NMP amendments were few in number. In general, the objections were directed towards flight training and concerns with allowing flight training aircraft to increase in size and frequency. The proposed flight training amendments are (i) to change the allowable aircraft from single engine under 1500kgs MTOW to single engine non-turbine aircraft, and (ii) increase the allowable number of instructor hours per week from 25 hours per instructor to 35 hours per instructor.

 

The intent of the flight training amendments are not to promote increased flight training or the number of operators to be based at the BMRA, but rather to enable the Busselton Aero Club to grow and become more sustainable through offering flying training for recreational and general aviation pilots.

 

Statutory Environment

The BMRA Noise Management Plan (version 2 January 2019) was approved by the then Minister for the Environment; Disability Services after review and consideration by the Environmental Protection Authority. Compliance reporting and review of the NMP is defined under Ministerial Statement 1088.

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

The officer recommendation aligns to the following adopted plan or policy:

·        Ministerial Statement 1088

·        Busselton Margaret River Airport Noise Management Plan (version2 January 2019)

·        Busselton Margaret River Airport Compliance Assessment Plan (Version 2) (CAP) (23 September 2019)

 

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.

 


Stakeholder Consultation

The draft NMP (2022) was advertised for public comment between 4 January 2022 and 21 January 2022 on the City’s website through the YourSay platform. The NMP public comment period was advertised in the Busselton –Dunsborough Mail on 5 January and 12 January 2022, with posts on the City’s Facebook page on 10 and 15 January and the BMRA Facebook page on the 11 and 17 January 2022. The NMP review was also included on the BMRA website. 

 

A letter to residents notifying them of the NMP review, public comment period and information on how to access YourSay was distributed out to a total of 1490 residential properties in Acton Park, Bovell, Kalgup, Reinscourt, Sabina River, Yalyalup and Yoogarillup.

 

Additionally, letters were sent to all airlines and charter operators that use the BMRA, emergency services and airport stakeholders including Rio Tinto, Busselton and Dunsborough Yallingup Chambers of Commerce, MRBTA, Busselton Aero Club and lessees notifying them of the NMP review and public comment period.

 

Finally, a meeting of the BMRA Community Reference Group was held on Thursday 13 January 2022 with members representing residential areas located adjacent to the BMRA invited to attend to ask questions and provide comments on the draft NMP and review. One member representing Reinscourt area attended the Reference Group meeting.

 

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 amended, draft NMP (2022) to be submitted to the OEPA.

2.         Choose to include specific proposed amendments and/or alternative amendments to the draft NMP (2022) to be submitted to the OEPA. 

CONCLUSION

The NMP (2019) has been in place for three years and has enabled the City to manage the BMRA operations effectively. In accordance with Statement 1088, the City is required to monitor and report to the OEPA any operational non-compliances and submit annual compliance reports outlining the effectiveness of the NMP.  The City has completed its mandatory compliance reporting over the past three years and in accordance with Statement 1088 is required to undertake a full review of the NMP and report its effectiveness to the CEO of the OEPA. Both Statement 1088 and NMP (2019) outline the criteria for consideration in completing this review.

 

A review of the NMP (2019) has now been completed and an amended draft NMP (2022) is proposed. The draft NMP (2022) has been amended to reduce the content and size of the plan with much of the background and history of the BMRA and the NMP being removed. The key compliance based content in the plan, including the standard hours of operations, noise abatement zones, fly neighbourly agreement, noise complaints process, noise amelioration criteria and process and review, are proposed to remain unchanged at this time.

 


The draft NMP (2022) was advertised for public comment for a period of three weeks through the City’s YourSay platform with a total of 14 submissions received, with six submission in support of the draft plan, six objections, one submission requesting clarification and one submission neither supporting nor objecting. Consultation with airlines, airport users and stakeholders was also performed with general support for the plan and no specific requests for additional amendments to the plan.

 

The review of the NMP (2019) has generally indicated that noise emissions are being effectively managed from the BMRA with noise complaints per year ranging from 3 to 8 (mainly due to emergency services) over the past four years and the highest number of OEPA reportable non-compliances at four in 2020/21. Other criteria considered in the review such as flight paths and noise abatement zones have yet to be tested due to the delay of RPT services.  Noise monitoring completed as part of the review has showed that the maximum noise level of 85dB (LAmax) and noise acceptability levels were not being breached during the monitoring period. 

 

As a result of the review and public comment process, Officers are of the opinion that the draft NMP (2022) including the amendments proposed, be submitted along with a report on the effectiveness of the NMP to the OEPA by the 7 April 2022. 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Officer will start to compile a report from mid-February, including the draft NMP (2022) to be submitted to the OEPA by the 7 April 2022.

 


Council

47

9 March 2022

12.2

Attachment a

BMRA Noise Management Plan (2022)

 



































Council

57

9 March 2022

12.2

Attachment B

NMP YourSay submissions

 

ATTACHMENT B - Submission comments received.

Participant residential area

Submission comment

Kalgup

We live under the ‘turning point’ of aircraft when the wind direction dictates. To date, this has not been a frequent occurrence. We do make provision by being alert to overhead aircraft if one of the horses on our property is being ridden at the time our property is on a flight path. In the past, an incident occurred resulting in a horse throwing the rider (our daughter) due to being startled by an air craft (small passenger craft) seemingly low & turning. Generally, because flights are minimal at present, noise is tolerable with us. If frequency of flights increases I would expect a further review of noise management for households affected by the flight paths in & out of Busselton Margaret River Airport.

Yalyalup

I agree with all the changes to the current plan and after living in Yalyalup for the last 12 months have had no problems with aircraft noise (even during the extensive fire fighting activities). The airport is a well managed asset for the City, and extremely important for the region in general.

Yalyalup

No flying training to be conducted at the airport.

Yalyalup

I have no issues with the draft Noise Management Plan (2022) and to-date have not experienced any particular noise discomfort from aircraft utilizing the BMRA.

Yalyalup

We have absolutely no concerns re noise from the Busselton airport.

Yalyalup

I wanted clarification on the helicopters flying to and from BMRA, do they need to follow main roads..ie Vasse Hwy and Sues Rd instead of flying directly over  our property, they are so low sometimes our windows rattle.

Acton Park

Both xxxxxx and I are concerned that with increased pilot training, light plane activity will become a nuisance. Currently the pilot training conducted by the areo club is of little effect. Is the intent of increasing pilot training in the Busselton-Margaret River airport an effort to attract other pilot training schools that currently operate out of the area to base themselves in Busselton? With a young family living under the flight path we believe that increasing repetitive circuit activity over our house would be a serious disruption for us.

Blum Bvld - Reinscourt

I am extremely concerned that Flight Training is still included in the plan. Have you ever lived underneath the airspace where this is conducted? I have and it is NOT pleasant. It is extremely disruptive to residents and I am strongly opposed to it being allowed at this airport that is so close to built-up areas. The fly in fly out workers planes are bad enough. To say they will not disturb residents has proved entirely false as they already do at the current volume allowed. Please rethink allowing big aircraft from coming and going and ruining the rate payers peace and quiet that is so valued.

Yalyalup

Living in Yalyalup I don’t get bothered by the noise.


 

Bovell

 

We are happy at the moment with the airport and hoping that the Melbourne route and any further increase in air traffic is done with consideration and consultation of local residents.

Salmon Close ?

 

Firstly the amendments are agreeable to me. However further adjustments should be considered to improve the NMP. (1) Page 20 of the existing NMP "LSA/GA " restricted 0600-2200 should be altered to 0500/2200 because summer time heat can be avoided by early dep and pilot/pax safety and comfort enhanced. This would provide enhanced potential to the BMRA (2) Page 22 some information here is repetitive in that it is already promulgated in CASA docs. (3) Page 23 has a serious flaw at dot point "When landing" as it directly conflicts with POH recommendations for safe and standard ops of a/c systems. It must be removed from text. (4) Page 25 Consider increasing Flight Training licence period to 24 months (from 12 mths) to give more certainty of tenure and reduce costs. (5) Page 45 "Urban Growth Strategy" Clear advice should be transmitted to all developers/buyers that no comeback due to proximity to airport will be considered and NMP will not continually be extended to new development areas.(6) Page 50 - "Activities in Airspace" the NMP final sentence in para is contradictory and should be removed to avoid misinterpretation

Acton Park

As a landholder and resident living just over 2 km from the BMRA and directly under the flight path I am continually being disturbed by aircraft noise. I oppose changes to the Noise Management Plan that will allow an increase in Pilot training.

Acton Park

I object to changes in the Noise Management Plan (NMP) to allow an increase in plane size and frequency in relation to pilot training as proposed by the Busselton Aero Club.

 

When the original NMP was being developed, I was appointed a Community Representative of the Busselton-Margaret River Regional Airport (BMRA) Advisory Group, representing residents living in close proximity to the BMRA.  Since the construction of the BMRA pilot training at the airport was a huge contentious issue.  It was apparent that the Shire of Busselton at the time had a problem in that the noise limitation placed on airport activity was 80 dB(A) within 15 metres of a residence.  This was well and truly exceeded by many of the aircraft using the airport. 

Therefore at a meeting between myself and Councillors Tom Tuffin (Chair of the BMRA Advisory Group) and Jackie Emery and              Jennifer May, I proposed that the noise limit be lifted from 80dB(A) to 85dB (A) but that the agreement was that Pilot training needed to cease and the exception being small aircraft below 1500 kgs with limited number of flights.  This has been occurring and I would suggest successfully.

 

I therefore would request that the City of Busselton respect this agreement and the amenity of those living in close proximity to the BMRA and reject this proposed amendment.

 

 


Council                                                                                      59                                                                     9 March 2022

17.1           COUNCILLORS INFORMATION BULLETIN

STRATEGIC THEME

LEADERSHIP - A Council that connects with the community and is accountable in its decision making.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

4.2 Deliver governance systems that facilitate open, ethical and transparent decision making.

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   State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

Attachment b    Letter from Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development - Polyphagous Shot-Hole Borer Trap Placement

Attachment c    Photo - Polyphagous Shot-Hole Borer Trap  

  The officer recommendation was moved and carried.

COUNCIL DECISION

C2203/044              Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor S Riccelli

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

17.1.1       State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

17.1.2       Letter from Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development – Polyphagous Shot-Hole Borer Trap Placement

CARRIED 8/0

en bloc

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

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

17.1.1       State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

17.1.2       Letter from Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development – Polyphagous Shot-Hole Borer Trap Placement

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

 

The current State Administrative Tribunal Reviews is at Attachment A.

17.1.2       Letter from Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development – Polyphagous Shot-Hole Borer Trap Placement

 

This letter notifies the City that the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) has confirmed the detection of Polyphagous Shot-Hole Borer (PSHB) in the Perth area, and notifies the City that PSHB traps will be placed in our local government area as a surveillance method to determine how far the pest may have spread.

 

See Attachment B and C.


Council

60

9 March 2022

17.1

Attachment a

State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

 


Council

62

9 March 2022

17.1

Attachment b

Letter from Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development - Polyphagous Shot-Hole Borer Trap Placement

 



Council

63

9 March 2022

17.1

Attachment c

Photo - Polyphagous Shot-Hole Borer Trap

 


Council                                                                                      65                                                                     9 March 2022

items to be dealt with by separate resolution (without debate)

14.1           BUSSELTON JETTY 50-YEAR MAINTENANCE PLAN REVIEW

STRATEGIC THEME

LIFESTYLE - A place that is relaxed, safe and friendly with services and facilities that support healthy lifestyles and wellbeing

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

2.12 Provide well maintained community assets through robust asset management practices.

SUBJECT INDEX

Busselton Jetty

BUSINESS UNIT

Community and Commercial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

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

Nil

Prior to the meeting, Councillor Ryan foreshadowed a motion that was different to the officer recommendation. In accordance with clause 10.18(7) of the City’s Standing Orders Local Law 2018, it was taken to be an alternative motion and was considered first. 

 

The alternative motion was moved and carried.

COUNCIL DECISION

C2203/045              Moved Councillor A Ryan, seconded Councillor J Richards

That the Council:

1.         Notes the review of the 50-year Busselton Jetty Maintenance Plan and the underlying assumptions as outlined in this report.

2.         Notes the next review of the 50-year Busselton Jetty Maintenance Plan will be undertaken in 2024 and every five years thereafter.

3          Notes Councillors to be briefed on the current status of the Busselton Jetty Maintenance Plan every 2 years following Council Elections.

CARRIED 8/0

Reason:         To ensure Councillors remain aware of the Busselton Jetty Maintenance Plan and future funding spikes and strategies.   

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.         Notes the review of the 50-year Busselton Jetty Maintenance Plan and the underlying assumptions as outlined in this report.

2.         Notes the next review of the 50-year Busselton Jetty Maintenance Plan will be undertaken in 2024 and every five years thereafter.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following the refurbishment of the Busselton Jetty a 50-year Jetty Maintenance Plan was prepared to guide the asset maintenance and replacement requirements of the asset. In 2019/20, the City commissioned a 5-year structural review of the Jetty and has since updated the Maintenance Plan to reflect the outcomes of the review.  This report summarises the review and recommends Council notes its key outcomes, and that the structural review process will be undertaken every five years, with the next review to be undertaken in 2024.

BACKGROUND

On 9 February 2022 Council considered this report and resolved (C2202/024) that the item be deferred until the 9 March 2022 Council Meeting to allow further clarifications to be provided to Council on the assumptions.  Officers have since held a briefing with Council to discuss the 50-year Maintenance Plan review and underlying assumptions, and present the report for reconsideration.

 

In 2008, the City obtained grant funding of $24 million from the State Government administered by the South West Development Commission (SWDC) for purposes of refurbishing the Busselton Jetty.  In accordance with the grant agreement the City and Busselton Jetty Inc. (formerly Busselton Jetty Environment and Conservation Association) (BJI) entered into a licence agreement on 30 October 2009, which has since been amended (Busselton Jetty Licence). Under the Busselton Jetty Licence, BJI was granted the right to conduct certain commercial activities at/on the Busselton Jetty in consideration for payment of an annual licence fee, which includes collecting entrance fees from persons entering the Busselton Jetty from its land side and operating the Busselton Jetty train, the Underwater Observatory (UWO) towards the northern end of the Busselton Jetty and the Interpretive Centre. 

 

These licensed activities constitute BJI’s main business and main source of revenue, of which 25% is paid to the City as a contribution to the annual maintenance of the Jetty.  In addition to this, rent received from Busselton foreshore leases, various commercial activities undertaken on the Busselton foreshore, and municipal revenue fund the balance of the annual annuity required to meet the Jetty’s maintenance requirements as per the 50-year Jetty Maintenance Plan.

 

Following the refurbishment in 2012, Disley Civil Engineering (DCE) developed a document known as the 50-year Maintenance Plan which was produced as a guide to maintaining and prolonging the life of the Jetty, Interpretive Centre (IC) and Underwater Observatory (UWO).

 

The 50-year plan identifies scheduled and reactive maintenance, structural upgrades and replacements to the Busselton Jetty and associated infrastructure (i.e. the IC and the UWO) on an annual basis.  The scope of maintenance works includes all structural works above and below the water line.  The 50-year plan is based on the following assumptions:

1.         Inflation rate:  3%

2.         Interest rate:  6%.

In 2013 the City and BJI agreed to assume the major works spiking in respective those years would be 50% funded by external agencies, resulting in an annual annuity of $1,389,921 (in 2021$).  These major works incorporated the following items:


 

Item

Value ($2012)

Year

Replacement of Interpretive Centre

Replace section 1 East

Replace timber to section 1 West

Blast & recoat steelwork to Section 2/3, 5 & 6

Replace timber, blast & recoat steelwork to HIN4

Replace Allies Landing

Replace swim platforms 5A & 5B

 

$17,698,925

2035

Refurbish piers & superstructure steelwork to section 4

 

$1,007,842

2055

Replace timber to Section 1 East

Replace section 1 West

Replace section 2/3

Replace HIN 4

Replace Section 5 Deck and superstructure

Replace Swim platforms 5A & 5B

Refurbish piers & superstructure steelwork to section 6

Refurbish section 7

Demolish and replace UWO with equivalent

 

$28,128,629

2060

 

The basis of this assumption was that grant funding would be obtained given the status of the Busselton Jetty being a State significant asset. 

OFFICER COMMENT

In June 2019, and in accordance with the City’s asset management plan, the City undertook a detailed assessment of the Jetty structure, to compare the actual structural integrity against the predictions in the 50-year plan.  As a result of this review, a 5-year maintenance plan was produced and was used to update the 50-year plan.

 

The structural assessment undertaken in 2019 found the following:

·        frequency and nature of the scheduled maintenance tasks generally align with the original 50 year plan;

·        only minor adjustments are required, namely increasing the frequency of timber end grain treatment from 10 to 5 yearly cycles, and delaying the replacement of bolts around the splash zone by 6 to 10 years from 2019;

·        the majority of capital works planned for 2020 could be delayed until 2030, the exception being installation of the handrail to the eastern side of the jetty (which is complete);

·        capital works planned for 2030 can be pushed back to 2035;

·        replacement of decking and refurbishment of steelwork to HIN 4 can be brought forward from 2035 to either 2025 or 2030 (to be confirmed during the next 5 yearly assessment in 2024).

 

Generally the jetty was found to be in good condition and better than expected considering the environment in which it sits.

 

All capital replacement items after 2040 are assumed to remain aligned with the original assumptions due to the difficulty in predicting so far into the future, however it is not unreasonable to expect further changes as the 5 yearly assessments are carried out.

 

Subsequent to this assessment, the 50-year Maintenance Plan was updated and presented at a Busselton Jetty Reference Group meeting, where the following assumptions were reviewed and endorsed by members:

1.         Inflation rate:  3%

2.         Interest rate:  3%

3.         Spikes in 2035, 2055, and 2060 to be funded by external agencies to the value of 50% of the estimated cost

4.         Annual annuity (in 2022/23) calculated on the latest detailed structural assessment is $1,455,858.

 

The 2022/23 annual annuity does not include what are considered to be non- structural items such as air conditioning units and their replacement. The inclusion of these items would require an increase to the annual annuity and would be subject to further negotiations of the Busselton Jetty License Agreement with BJI. 

 

Statutory Environment

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

 

Jetties Act 1926

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Jetties Act 1926 the Department of Transport granted the City a licence to construct, maintain and use the Busselton Jetty as a private jetty for purposes of recreation, tourism and heritage.

 

Busselton Jetty Licence Agreement

The City of Busselton has the control and management of Reserve 46715 (Lot 350 Queen Street, Busselton) through a Management Order and a Licence to use and maintain the Busselton Jetty through a Licence Agreement with the Department of Transport.  The Licence Agreement states that amongst other things the City of Busselton must maintain the Jetty in accordance with the Jetty Maintenance Plan and must establish and maintain a Jetty Maintenance Reserve to provide for the ongoing maintenance of the Jetty into the future.

 

Busselton Jetty Licence and Management Agreement

BJI operates the Busselton Jetty under a Licence and Management Agreement with the City of Busselton, dated October 2009. 

 

Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990

The Busselton Jetty was entered on the State Register of Heritage Places on 30 June 2009 (Interim Entry).  The progression from interim to permanent registration was delayed for a number of years to allow for the completion of the 2009-12 refurbishment works.  Following the practical completion of that work on 18 June 2012, the Heritage Council of Western Australia (HCWA), on 31 August 2012, resolved that Busselton Jetty should be progressed to permanent registration. 

 

On 26 September 2012 the State Heritage Office on behalf of HCWA wrote to the City of Busselton seeking further written comments on the proposed permanent entry.   On 21 February 2014, the Jetty was officially placed on the state heritage list.

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

As detailed above, the 50-year Jetty Maintenance Plan identifies scheduled and reactive maintenance, structural upgrades and replacements to the Busselton Jetty and associated infrastructure (i.e. the IC and the UWO) on an annual basis. 

 

Financial Implications

The anticipated opening balance of the Jetty Maintenance Reserve as at 1 July 2022 is estimated to be $5,820,080. $1,455,858 is budgeted to be transferred into the Reserve during the year which comprises the BJI licence fee, fees associated with the Busselton Foreshore leases and commercial hire sites, along with municipal funds to fund the balance of the required annual annuity as per the 2012 50-year Busselton Jetty Maintenance Plan.  In 2023/24 the annual annuity increases to $1,511,699.

 

Any increase to the annual annuity will be funded from a combination of municipal funds, Busselton Foreshore leases and commercial hire sites, and BJI licence fee.  In 2022/23 BJI will contribute a minimum of $826,541. See attached draft LTFP.

 

Further, as noted earlier, the annuity would need to increase if what are currently considered to be non- structural items were included in the maintenance plan.  The funding of any additional costs would be subject to further negotiations with BJI. 

 

Stakeholder Consultation

The review of the 50-year Maintenance Plan was presented at a Busselton Jetty Reference Group meeting held on 23 July 2020 and a subsequent meeting was held between BJI Board Member Mr Steve Disley, the original author of the plan, and City Officers to further review the updated plan.  Reference Group members at the time included Mayor Cr Henley, Cr Cronin, City Chief Executive Officer Mike Archer, BJI Chairperson, BJI Board Member and BJI Chief Executive Officer.

 

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 following risks have been identified:

 

Maintenance works exceed the value of funds held within the Busselton Jetty Maintenance Reserve.

Risk Category

Risk Consequence

Likelihood of Consequence

Risk Level

Financial

Major

Rare

Medium

Reputation

Major

Rare

Medium

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could:

1.         Amend the underlying assumptions and request the CEO to further review the plan.

2.         Determine an alternate structural review cycle.

CONCLUSION

The Busselton Jetty 50-Year Maintenance Plan was developed in 2011 following the rebuild of the Busselton Jetty. The plan guides the annual infrastructure maintenance requirements, however it is good asset management practice to undertake regular reviews to ensure it remains relevant.


TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Officers will finalise the review process and diarise the next review following the resolution of Council.


Council                                                                                      72                                                                     9 March 2022

16.1           COUNCILLOR MEMBERSHIP OF MEELUP REGIONAL PARK COMMITTEE

STRATEGIC THEME

LEADERSHIP - A Council that connects with the community and is accountable in its decision making.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

4.2 Deliver governance systems that facilitate open, ethical and transparent decision making.

SUBJECT INDEX

Committees

BUSINESS UNIT

Governance Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Governance Coordinator - Emma Heys

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

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

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

The officer recommendation was moved and carried.

COUNCIL DECISION

C2203/046              Moved Councillor M Love, seconded Councillor P Cronin

That the Council, pursuant to section 5.8 of the Local Government Act 1995:

1.         Accepts the resignation of Cr Sue Riccelli from full membership of the Meelup Regional Park Committee and appoints Cr Riccelli as a Deputy Member; and

2.         Appoints Cr Mikayla Love as a full member of the Meelup Regional Park Committee.

CARRIED 8/0

by absolute majority

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council, pursuant to section 5.8 of the Local Government Act 1995:

1.         Accepts the resignation of Cr Sue Riccelli from full membership of the Meelup Regional Park Committee and appoints Cr Riccelli as a Deputy Member; and

2.         Appoints Cr Mikayla Love as a full member of the Meelup Regional Park Committee.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is presented to enable Council to endorse changes to the Councillor membership of the Meelup Regional Park Committee (the Committee).

BACKGROUND

Membership of the Committee is comprised of three Councillors (including one deputy member) and between six and eight community members. At the Special Council Meeting on 18 October 2021, the following Councillors were appointed to the Committee:

·        Councillor Sue Riccelli

·        Councillor Kate Cox

·        Councillor Mikayla Love (deputy member)

OFFICER COMMENT

The Committee assist the Council in managing and promoting Meelup Regional Park and meets as required, generally twice a year. The Committee is supported by a working group with the same membership.

 

The Committee is a formal committee, with elected and non-elected members. Councillor membership of the Committee consists of 2 full members and 1 deputy member.

 

Due to work commitments, Cr Riccelli has advised she will need to step down from full membership of the Committee and take up the role of deputy member. Cr Love has agreed to become a full member of the Committee.  Council is asked to accept Cr Riccelli’s resignation, appoint Cr Love as a full member and to endorse Cr Riccelli as a deputy member.

 

Statutory Environment

Section 5.10(2) of the Act provides that a member is entitled to be a member of at least one of the formal Committees.

 

The Meelup Regional Park Management Committee is created pursuant to the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), specifically via a resolution of the Council pursuant to sections 5.8, 5.9(2) (c) and 5.17(1) (c) of the Act.

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

In accordance with Council Policy: ‘Fees, Allowances and Expenses for Elected Members’, Elected Members are entitled to be paid a travelling allowance for attending meetings of community groups or other external organisations of which the Elected Member has been appointed as the Council's representative.

 

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation , with the costs associated with attendance at these Committees/groups have been allocated in the current budget.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

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

 

Risk Assessment

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

 

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could choose to accept further nominations from Councillors for appointment to membership of the Meelup Regional Park Committee.

CONCLUSION

Due to work commitments, Cr Riccelli is no longer able to fulfil the role of full member of the Committee and this report seeks Council endorsement to changes of the membership of the Committee.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The changes to the membership of the Committees will become effective immediately upon adoption by Council.

 


Council                                                                                      74                                                                     9 March 2022

16.2           YOU CHOOSE COMMUNITY FUNDING PROGRAM - PILOT PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING BASED PROGRAM

STRATEGIC THEME

6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

6.2 Council engages broadly and proactively with the community.

SUBJECT INDEX

Community Engagement

BUSINESS UNIT

Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Strategic Projects / Grants Officer - Julie Rawlings

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

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   Vote Totals (Weighted)  

Prior to the meeting, officers foreshadowed an amendment to the officer recommendation. The amended recommendation was moved first and carried.

COUNCIL DECISION

C2203/047              Moved Councillor A Ryan, seconded Councillor S Riccelli

That the Council:

1.         Endorse the funding distribution of $96,304 to the following preferred projects as chosen by the community through the You Choose community funding program:

1

Shelterbags

$20,000

2

Supporting Pets of Older Persons

$7,750

3

Busselton Hospice Care Lasting Words

$10,875

4

Waste Not Want Not

$20,000

5

Ludlow Tuart Forest Heritage Walk Trail

$18,596

6

Vasse Fathering Project

$19,083

2.         In the event that the Shelterbags and / or Waste Not Want Not projects are unable to secure the additional funding required within six months, authorise the CEO to allocate funding to the next most popular project/s to a maximum of $100,000.

3.         Endorse any remaining unallocated funds to be returned to the Donations, Contributions and Subsidies budget.

CARRIED 8/0

Reason:                The amended officer recommendation is to provide clarity of project funding and                                 the return and re-allocation of funds should the preferred projects be unable to                                 secure additional funding required.

 


OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.         Endorse the funding distribution of $96,304 to the following preferred projects as chosen by the community through the You Choose community funding program:

1

Shelterbags

$20,000

2

Supporting Pets of Older Persons

$7,750

3

Busselton Hospice Care Lasting Words

$10,875

4

Waste Not Want Not

$20,000

5

Ludlow Tuart Forest Heritage Walk Trail

$18,596

6

Vasse Fathering Project

$19,083

 

2.            Endorse the remaining budget of $3,696 being returned to the Donations, Contributions and        Subsidies budget.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As part of determining the CEO’s key performance indicators (KPI) for 2021/2022, the Council and the CEO agreed to implement a pilot participatory budgeting style program titled “You Choose” (the Program), to provide opportunity for the community to have more involvement and input into the way in which a portion of Council funds is allocated. 

 

This report details the approach, promotion, and outcomes of community voting and recommends that Council endorse the funding of the most popular projects, as voted by the community. 

BACKGROUND

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a process of democratic deliberation and decision-making.  It can take many forms but is based around the principles of local ownership and involvement in setting budget priorities and identifying projects for public spend.

 

Although Council cannot devolve its decision making responsibilities under the Local Government Act 1995, it can create opportunities for greater community ownership over portions of its budget.  The decision to explore how, and to what extent, a PB approach could be implemented at the City of Busselton was largely focused around this objective, as well as improving community engagement, increasing transparency and accountability, and providing an opportunity for community capacity building.

 

Specifically the relevant CEO KPI set in 2020/2021 required that the CEO:

 

Develop and provide to Council a participatory budget methodology report in readiness for implementation of a pilot program in 2021/2022 for the 2022/2023 budget.

 


Officers researched PB approaches implemented at a number of other local governments across Australia and workshopped a range of options with Councillors at a session held on 3 March 2021.  Recognising that this would be the City’s first exploration of a PB centred approach, it was agreed that a pilot program should focus on a small and clearly defined portion of the City’s budget to determine the community’s appetite for such a venture.

 

The Program endorsed by Council on 28 April 2021 was for implementation during the 2021/2022 budget year (and not 2022/2023 as originally envisioned).  The relevant CEO KPI for 2021/2022 therefore requires that the CEO:

 

Implement the You Choose program and report the outcomes to Council at its conclusion for consideration of its continuation and / or expansion of PB principals to other aspects of the City’s budget.

OFFICER COMMENT

In addition to being PB centred, the intent of the Program is about the community developing their capacity to deliver projects and initiatives, with support from the City, as opposed to the City driving delivery. It’s about increasing community ownership which in turn contributes to the building of community resilience, capacity and cooperation.

 

The ethos of the Program is encapsulated in the following description:

Projects or programs that help to shape the physical, social and cultural development of neighbourhoods or the broader community neighbourhood, and which promote the capacity of local communities to develop, implement and sustain solutions.

 

Program Approach

The program was launched and promoted in September 2021at two community information events held in Busselton and Dunsborough.  This provided an opportunity for ideas to be shared and for staff to provide some technical assistance.   

 

Community proposals were submitted via an on-line application form through the City’s website/Your Say platform.  Enquiries were managed through a dedicated You Choose City email address.  The City’s libraries also assisted with enquiries.

 

All 27 submissions received were reviewed by a panel of City staff against a set of criteria.  The criteria were designed to ensure that the proposals were in keeping with the ethos of the program, safe, legal, and broadly achievable.  The role of the panel was not to determine whether or not something is a good idea but simply to ensure that those core criteria were met and / or to offer suggestions as to how the proposal could be adjusted to suit. 

 

Following the review 26 submissions were deemed suitable to be put to the community to deliberate on, with only 1 proposal determined not to meet the criteria.  City staff are assisting the proponent to identify other opportunities aligned to their proposal, as priorities allow.

 

Program Promotion

The City promoted the program through a range of communication methods, commencing in September 2021 through to the end of voting on 17th February, 2022.  Promotion included the following:


 

Medium

Method

Reach

Effectiveness

Statistics

Community Information Events (12th and 13th October 2021)

Face to Face

Busselton and Dunsborough

As a new concept these sessions were necessary to explain the program and answer queries face to face.

Community Directory

Direct contract through the Directory

All local groups etc listed through the Directory

Click Rate – Awareness.

September October

 

 

42.17%

42.11%

Direct Mail

Email

Schools & P&C

Minimal takeup.

1 Project proposed by a School.

Meetings

Face to Face

Chambers of Commerce, Social Services Health Alliance Group meeting.

Great enthusiasm and engagement demonstrated.

Multiple projects proposed.

Bay to Bay

Email

City’s registered database

Number of clicks to the program

January 2022

October 2021

 

 

 

81

57

Local Newspapers

Media Release (Media Monitoring)

Local newspapers and radio

Mayors column

15/9/21

23/11/21

21/1/22

100% take-up of media releases issued.

In keeping with the ethos of this community led program many proponents took to promoting the Program and specifically their project to the community through the local paper and their networks which created greater engagement outcomes.

Local Newspaper

Community Page

Community

Targeted advertising promoted the various milestones of the program and contributed to the voter turnout.

Social Media

Facebook (and some Instagram)

 An average of 1,173 persons reached per post.

12 posts generating 175 reactions and shares.

City’s Website

Front page, updated community funding page(s)

All visitors to the website

Feedback on rebranding of the City’s community funding and consolidated information has been well received.

Community Funding Brochure

On-line through the website.  Hardcopies in City buildings.

 

Feedback from the information session participants was positive.

Staff Briefings (& City Intranet

Face to Face

On-line Intranet: Project Board and CEO Message.

City Staff

Staff appeared engaged and participated in the project through assistance with assessment, promotion and trialling of the voting tool. 

Councillors

Email

Postcards

All Councillors

Postcard recipients

Councillors appeared engaged.


 

Video (Program Introduction and ‘How to Vote’)

Your Say

Your Say viewing audience

Awareness raising. No direct outcomes /feedback reported.

Posters

Staff and Community Notice Boards

Libraries and visitors to the NCC

Awareness raising. No direct outcomes /feedback reported.

Message Board

Electronic

Passing traffic

Awareness raising. No direct outcomes /feedback reported.

Email Footers

Email Signature Panel

All receiving emails from City staff.

Awareness raising. No direct outcomes /feedback reported.

 

Community Voting

Commencing 21 January 2022, the community took part in allocating the $100,000 budget using a Prioritise Budget tool available through the City’s Your Say site.  This tool allowed people to choose how they would like to spend the budget by selecting which of the 26 projects they would like to see funded.  They could then prioritise the projects they had selected. Participants could submit a surplus budget (less than $100,000 spend) but could not go into deficit (over $100,000).

 

At the close of voting 1277 eligible votes had been received.  The most popular projects, as voted by the community in order of preference are:

 

Project Name

Project Summary

You Choose Project Value

1. Shelterbags

Rotary Club of Busselton Geographe Bay

The project is intended to provide emergency help in the form of a waterproof sleeping bag to Busselton and South West People who are sleeping rough.  Various organisations and charities who assist people in need may apply to Rotary to have access to the addition of Shelterbags to offer their clients free of charge.  Rotary will provide storage for the bags.

Total Project Cost: 1 full shipping container of 750 Shelterbags at approximately $75 each, $56,000. Allocation of the bags within the Southwest will be reflective of the contributions made.  The proponent is contributing $10,000 and advises the remaining funds of $26,000 is being sought from South West Rotary Clubs.  

 

$20,000

2. Supporting Pets of Older Persons

Pets of Older Persons (POOPS)

Funding is to support the Volunteers of POOPS to continue to deliver and safely expand services to the elderly in the Busselton and Dunsborough region by providing home visits, dog walking and looking after pets when an owner has to go into hospital and supporting the purchase of new equipment. 

Total Project Cost: $7,750

 

$7,750


 

3. Busselton Hospice Care Lasting Words

Busselton Hospice Care Inc

Funding will allow people who are approaching the end of their life to have their stories, thoughts and special memories captured.  This funding will provide volunteer training and associated costs along with evaluation of data and preparation of final documents.

Total Project Cost: $50,505 (includes $34,630 in-kind contribution from Busselton Hospice and $5,000 secured via another funding partner).

 

$10,875

4. Waste Not Want Not

South West Biotech Pty Ltd

Funding will contribute to the setup of a pilot Black Soldier Fly Farm in the City of Busselton as solution to the food waste problem.  A site has been secured for the farm at Bio Soil Kaloorup Road, Vasse.

Total Project Cost: $123,156 (the proponent advises that it is confident in raising the additional funds required).

 

$20,000

5. Ludlow Tuart Forest Heritage Walk Trail

Ludlow Tuart forest restoration group

Funding will enable the establishment of a circular, sign posted and lime stone paved trail. It is proposed to create a people friendly informative walk that encompasses the heritage Ludlow settlement site, the southern bank of the Ludlow River all within the heart of the only Tuart forest in the world. The trail will provide access to future resource space for Aboriginal heritage, traditional arts and crafts displays, the establishment of a native plants nursery and food garden, and a yarning circle in a forest setting. 

Total Project Cost: $18,596

 

$18,596

6. Vasse Fathering Project

The Vasse Primary School Fathering Project Group

The Project is a schools based community group that encourages fathers and father figures to be the best they can with their children. Funding will enable the purchase of a trailer to have a completely portable multi use self-contained fun unit to service the three existing groups in Vasse, West Busselton and Georgiana Molloy Primary schools.

The trailer itself would form part of the assets of the Vasse Primary School Fathering Project. The trailer would be available to any of the other Fathering Project groups in the SW region.

Total Project Cost: $19,083

 

$19,083

Total Value

 

$96,304

 

The total votes, weighted by rank, are attached at Attachment 1.  The weighting provided the highest score to the projects that were selected by people as their first prioritised project, with the weighted score reducing for the second, third, fourth and so on.

The data captured through the voting process enabled staff to verify voter’s eligibility, with duplicate votes (a small number voted twice assuming their first attempt was unsuccessful) and those of non-residents / ratepayers removed.  Fifty three votes were ineligible. 

 

The six projects chosen are clear favourites of the community.  They align with the ethos of the Program and will bring a benefit to the community.  It is noted that two projects identify the need for additional funding - the Shelterbags and the Waste Not Want Not projects.  The spirit of the Program supports the ‘have a go’ mentality with the intent to build community resilience through co-operation and problem solving.  Potentially, by supporting these projects, community discussion and cooperation can be encouraged to obtain the additional funding required; although the amount outstanding is noted as significant for the Waste Not Want Not Project. 

 

If however either project is unable to obtain enough funding to proceed within 6 months from the commencement of the agreement, the funding commitment from the City will be withdrawn. The intent would then be to fund the next preferred project being No. 7 the Outdoor Classroom proposed by the Busselton Dunsborough Environment Centre Inc., for an outdoor play and learning venue at a value of $19,984, and, if required the No. 8 project ‘Love Living with Wildlife’ at a value of $20,000.

 

Alternatively, in the event that Council decided not to fund the Waste Not Want Not Project, due to the reliance on significant additional funding, the Outdoor Classroom project could be funded now instead.

 

Council is asked to endorse funding for the six preferred projects. A simple agreement that includes a reporting and acquittal process (including presentation of receipts) will be prepared for each funded project. Opportunities for celebration and promotion of community achievements will also be identified within each agreement.

 

Successful projects are expected to be completed by 30 June 2023. This will be followed by a report presented to Council on the outcomes of this final phase of the Program and consideration of its continuation and / or expansion of PB principals to other aspects of the City’s budget.  The table below provides some measurements and assessment of the Program to date. Targets were set by officers prior to the programs launch to help measure its success.

 

Demonstrated Strong Interest and Participation

How

Target

Actual

Registrations for Community Event

 

Registration process

>50

45

You Choose Voting page views

Statistics on page view

>200

9066

Budgeting tool used for voting

Number of votes cast

>200

1330

Program Comments

 

Collected Data

Positive >10

352

Voting Question – Should the Program continue?

Yes /Undecided/ No

Not set.

1,276 Yes

44 Undecided

10 No

Email Enquiries/contacts re project proposals

Enquiry Log

>20

63

Submissions Received for project proposals

# received

>15

27

Media Coverage – media releases are picked up.

Media Monitoring

100% pick up rate for local newspapers

100%

Statutory Environment

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

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

The officer recommendation aligns to the Council policy - Sponsorship Arrangements.  This Policy outlines the framework under which the City will enter into Sponsorship Arrangements for the purposes of facilitating the provision of a service, program, event, activity or endeavour that may contribute to the economic, social, environmental or cultural development of the City.  The Program is a form of Sponsorship Arrangement under this Policy.


Financial Implications

Council allocates 0.5% of rates per annum to the Donations, Contributions and Subsidies budget.  $100,000 of that funding was allocated in this year to this new pilot program, with the remaining budget allocation funding the Community Assistance Program (CAP) run by the Community and Commercial Services Directorate. 

 

The total value of the projects recommended to be funded is $96,304, leaving $3,696 to be returned to the Donations, Contributions and Subsidies budget and the broader community funding pool.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

This Program achieved a high level of engagement with our community by providing the opportunity to partner with Council and make final recommendations for Council’s consideration.  This level of engagement - referenced as collaboration in the City of Busselton’s Community Engagement Framework - is usually only undertaken with a smaller audience such as reference and advisory groups, as outlined in the Framework.  Achieving such broad community participation is a positive outcome of this Program’s PB concept.

 

Participatory budgeting in its purest sense would see full empowerment provided to its citizens to determine a government budget.  While Council cannot devolve its decision making responsibilities under the Local Government Act 1995, this Program has been a positive step in creating an opportunity  for greater community ownership over a part of Council’s budget with the added benefit of contributing to community resilience, co-operation and problem solving. 

 

The response rate and feedback received suggests that the concept of engaging and collaborating in this way has been very well received.  The Program also value added to the City’s community funding programs more broadly by generating greater awareness through the new consolidated community funding branding developed and launched at the start of this Program.

 

Further community engagement will continue throughout the project implementation period as the project proponents celebrate their achievements as milestones are reached.

 

Risk Assessment

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk management framework.  Community led projects often rely on volunteers and/or additional funding for implementation and as such there is a risk that one or more of the programs will not meet its intended objectives nor be completed on time. 

The controls in place to mitigate these possibilities include a customised agreement for each project with City staff monitoring set milestones.  Agreements will require the acquittal of funds, with any funds not expended returned to the Donations, Contributions and Subsidies budget. 

As a result there are no risks of a medium or greater level being identified. 

 

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could:

1.         Choose not to allocate funding to one or more of these projects; and/or

2.         Fund one or more of the remaining 20 projects that include (listed in order or rank by weighting):

7.    Outdoor Classroom

$19,984

8.    Love Living with Wildlife

$20,000

9.    Busselton Street Art Project

$20,000

10.  Bay Life Community Café Outdoor Area

$15,100

11.  Piazza on Prince

$12,000

12.  Busselton Woodturners Equipment Expansion

$8,633

13.  Enclosed BBQ Undercover Area

$20,000

14.  Community Reading Engagement

$7,195

15.  Child Cyber Safety

$11,000

16.  Seniors Computer Lessons

$11,000

17.  Travel the Whale Highway

$18,875

18.  Adventure Sailing

$15,897

19.  Vasse River Goldrush 2022

$20,000

20.  Let it Grow Dunsborough

$12,317

21.  FireWise Demonstration Garden

$18,000

22.  Busselton and Dunsborough Community Radio

$20,000

23.  Sky Stories Light Show

$20,000

24.  Rescue of the SS Georgette

$20,000

25.  Discover Busselton

$20,000

26.  Takin’ it to the Streets

$20,000

CONCLUSION

The Program has demonstrated it is highly engaging and meets the goals and objectives identified by Council, providing broad opportunity for the community to identify projects for public spend and to decide their priorities for that spend. 

 

The community have embraced the pilot program and provided some suggestions for improvement which will be incorporated into a final review of the Program post implementation of the successfully funded projects.  It is recommended that Council endorse the funding of the six most popular projects as voted by the community.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Funding agreements will be established in March / April 2022. Successful projects are expected to be completed by June 2023.


Council

84

9 March 2022

1.1

Attachment a

Vote Totals (Weighted)

 

 


Council                                                                                      89                                                                     9 March 2022

items for debate

13.1           DA21/0548 PROPOSED CHALET DEVELOPMENT - LOT 100 (NO.4259) CAVES ROAD, WILYABRUP

STRATEGIC THEME

ENVIRONMENT - An environment that is valued, conserved and able to be enjoyed by current and future generations.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

1.1 Ensure protection and enhancement of environmental values is a central consideration in land use planning

SUBJECT INDEX

Development Application

BUSINESS UNIT

Development Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Development Services - Lee Reddell

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

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    Original Application Report

Attachment c    Original Development Plans

Attachment d   Revised Application Report

Attachment e    Revised Development Plans

Attachment f    Landscape Plan

Attachment g   Revised Bushfire Management Plan

Attachment h   Schedule of Submissions

Attachment i     Submission from adjacent wineries  

Prior to the meeting, Councillor Carter foreshadowed a motion that was different to the officer recommendation. In accordance with clause 10.18(7) of the City’s Standing Orders Local Law 2018, it was taken to be an alternative motion and was considered first. 

 

The alternative motion was moved and carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2203/048              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor P Cronin

That the Council determines:

 

A.        That application DA21/0548 submitted for development of 10 Chalets Lot 100 (No. 4259) Caves Road, Wilyabrup, is considered by the Council to be generally consistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the objectives of the zone within which it is located.

 

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

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS:

 

1.         The development hereby approved 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, and 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 City and have been approved in writing –

 

3.1      Notification in the form of a section 70A notification, pursuant to the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (as amended) is to be placed on the Certificates of Title of Lot advising that:

 

a)         This land is within a bushfire prone area as designated by an Order made by the Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner. The approval of the Chalets is conditional upon the details contained within the Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) prepared by Bushfire Prone Planning, Version 1.1 dated 8 December 2021 and the accompanying Bushfire Emergency Evacuation Plan (BEEP).

 

b)     The Chalets hereby approved are to be made available for temporary accommodation purposes only. A single Chalet shall not be occupied by any one person, family or group of persons (two persons or more) for a period exceeding 3 months (consecutively or intermittently) within any 12 month period.

       

A copy of the Certificate of Title with the section 70A notification registered against it, or Landgate lodgment receipt, is to be provided to the City.

 

3.2      Details of the effluent management system which is required to be a secondary treatment system and achieve a minimum setback of 60m from the edge of Biljidup Brook. 

 

3.3      A Drainage Management Plan.

 

3.4      Details of the entry point to the Chalet driveway modified to be off-set from the main entry into the site.

 

3.5      Details of signage to direct visitors to the site to the Tavern parking, Tavern over-flow parking and the Chalets.  

 

3.6      Details of the finished treatment of all hard surfaced areas to be used for the driveway and manoeuvring areas as shown on the Approved Development Plans.

 

3.7      A final schedule of the external materials, finishes and colours, which shall be generally consistent with the approved plans. The schedule shall include details of the type of materials proposed to be used, including their colour and texture.

 

3.8      A final Landscaping Plan based on water sensitive urban design principles and designed in reference to soil types across the site. The Landscaping Plan shall include the following:

 

a.         the location and species of all trees to be removed;

b.         the provision of suitable screen planting along the western boundary;

 

c.         the provision of suitable screen planting along the eastern side of the chalets;

d.         a plant schedule nominating species, planting distances, numbers, planting sizes, together with the anticipated height of each plant at maturity;

e.         those areas to be reticulated or irrigated.

 

3.9      Details of the provision of a minimum 50,000 litre static water supply for firefighting purposes – the dedicated water supply will be non-combustible and located such that fire services can readily gain access to appropriate fittings and connect fire fighting vehicles to dedicated water supplies in a safe manner.

 

3.10    Details of upgrades to proposed access routes to achieve the requirements of Table 6 in the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas.

 

3.11    Satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City to provide public art works within the development. 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.

 

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 Conditions 2, 3 & 4 have been implemented; and the following conditions have been complied with to the satisfaction of the City –

 

4.1.     Hard and soft landscaping, as detailed in the approved Landscaping Plan, installed at the full cost of the applicant.  

 

4.2.     All vehicle parking, access ways, footpaths and external lighting shall be constructed to a minimum standard 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.

 

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.     Provision of a Certificate of Compliance, indicating that the works have been undertaken in accordance with the Bushfire Management Plan, including the provision of a dedicated firefighting water supply and any necessary upgrades to the proposed access routes.

 

ONGOING CONDITIONS

 

5.         The works and other measures undertaken to satisfy Conditions 2, 3 & 4 shall be subsequently maintained for the life of the development and the following conditions must be complied with, to the satisfaction of the City –

 

 

5.1.     The Bushfire Management Plan, Version 1.1 dated 8 December 2021, shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approval details and any recommendations therein.

 

5.2.     Signage shall be provided within each Chalet that advises guests:

 

“This accommodation is located within 100 metres of operating agricultural land uses which have the potential to create odour, noise, spray drift and dust nuisance at times, including during the night. Please be advised that primacy of activity is given to agricultural production within this area.”

 

5.3.     The landscaping detailed within the Approved Landscaping Plan shall be subsequently maintained for the life of the development.

 

5.4.     All services and service related hardware, including antennae, satellite dishes and air conditioning units, being suitably located away from public view and/or screened.

 

ADVICE TO APPLICANT

 

1.         If the applicant and/or owner are aggrieved by this decision there is a right of review under the provisions of Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. A review must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal, and must be lodged within 28 days of the decision.

 

2.         This Decision Notice grants Development Approval to the development the subject of this application. It cannot be construed as granting Development Approval for any other structure shown on the approved plans which was not specifically included in this application.

 

3.         Please note it is the responsibility of the applicant / owner to ensure that, in relation to Condition 1, this Development Approval remains current and does not lapse.  The City of Busselton does not send reminder notices in this regard. The term “substantially commenced” has the meaning given to it in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as amended from time to time.

 

4.         In accordance with the provisions of the Building Act 2011, and Building Regulations 2012, an application for a building permit must be submitted to, and approval granted by the City, prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted.

 

5.         You are advised that a licence to take water from the existing soak on site, which may be required under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914, has not been issued by the Department of Water and Environment Regulation (DWER) at the time of approval.  This development approval has been issued on the basis that the potable water supply for the Chalets will be drawn from the existing dams on the site and does not require the take of any water from the soak. 

 

6.         You are advised that any new or modified crossing of Biljidup Brook may require a Permit to Interfere with Beds and Banks, issued by DWER, under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914.  Please contact DWER for further information.

 

7.         In respect to effluent management, you are advised that there may be a need to separate the Brewery waste stream from the human waste stream when finalising the design of the system. Should this be required, there will need to be consideration of the location of any separate system in accordance with Condition 3.2.

 

8.         Unless otherwise first agreed in writing, any trees or plants in the approved landscaping plan 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.

 

9.         You are advised that the ‘external materials’ shall comprise of ‘prescribed materials’ as identified by the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No.21 which are defined as follows –

 

‘external surfaces’ means the external walls and cladding (if any), external doors, external door and window frames, columns, roofs, fences and any surface of a building or work visible from the exterior of a building or work; and

 

‘prescribed materials’ means materials with dark tones or dark colouring and of low reflective quality or materials which are painted or similarly treated with dark toned or dark coloured paint or pigment of low reflective quality”

 

10.       In relation to the provision of public art in accordance with Local Planning Policy 4.4 Percent for Art.  The Estimated Cost of Development shall be to the satisfaction of the City and based on demonstrated contract values or estimates provided by a quantity surveyor, with such contract or estimates being no more than 3 months old at the time of calculation of the payment amount, and if such information is more than 3 months old, the Estimated Cost of Development shall be indexed to the general construction industry index for Western Australia.

 

11.       You are advised Agonis flexuosa (WA Peppermint Trees) provide key habitat for the “critically endangered” Pseudocheirus occidentalis (Western Ringtail Possum). The Western Ringtail Possum are awarded protection under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and you may face penalties for taking or disturbing (including intentionally disturbing, trapping/relocating or causing harm/death) a Western Ringtail Possum. A Section 40 Ministerial authorisation to take or disturb threatened fauna under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 is to be obtained prior to clearing occurring.  A fauna handler is required to be onsite prior to and during any clearing operations and is required to hold a Section 40 Ministerial Authorisation. The fauna handler is to provide a post clearing report to DBCA swlanduseplanning@dbca.wa.gov.au that includes the numbers of adult or juvenile western ringtail possums observed, taken or disturbed, any injuries or fatalities, and the location of the fauna after clearing has occurred.

CARRIED 8/0

 

 

 

Reason:                By planting adequate screening along the eastern side of the chalets, we can minimize the visual impact of the chalets on adjoining land, but also through dense planting can provide reduced impact on the development from noise associated with agricultural land use (tractors, livestock, firearms etc.), and potentially reduce the likelihood of spray drift onto the proposed development.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council determines:

 

A.        That application DA21/0548 submitted for development of 10 Chalets Lot 100 (No. 4259) Caves Road, Wilyabrup, is considered by the Council to be generally consistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the objectives of the zone within which it is located.

 

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

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS:

 

1.         The development hereby approved 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, and 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 City and have been approved in writing –

 

3.1      Notification in the form of a section 70A notification, pursuant to the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (as amended) is to be placed on the Certificates of Title of Lot advising that:

 

a)        This land is within a bushfire prone area as designated by an Order made by the Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner. The approval of the Chalets is conditional upon the details contained within the Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) prepared by Bushfire Prone Planning, Version 1.1 dated 8 December 2021 and the accompanying Bushfire Emergency Evacuation Plan (BEEP).

 

b)     The Chalets hereby approved are to be made available for temporary accommodation purposes only. A single Chalet shall not be occupied by any one person, family or group of persons (two persons or more) for a period exceeding 3 months (consecutively or intermittently) within any 12 month period.

       

A copy of the Certificate of Title with the section 70A notification registered against it, or Landgate lodgment receipt, is to be provided to the City.

 

3.2      Details of the effluent management system which is required to be a secondary treatment system and achieve a minimum setback of 60m from the edge of Biljidup Brook. 

 

3.3      A Drainage Management Plan.

 

3.4      Details of the entry point to the Chalet driveway modified to be off-set from the main entry into the site.

3.5      Details of signage to direct visitors to the site to the Tavern parking, Tavern over-flow parking and the Chalets.  

 

3.6      Details of the finished treatment of all hard surfaced areas to be used for the driveway and manoeuvring areas as shown on the Approved Development Plans.

 

3.7      A final schedule of the external materials, finishes and colours, which shall be generally consistent with the approved plans. The schedule shall include details of the type of materials proposed to be used, including their colour and texture.

 

3.8      A final Landscaping Plan based on water sensitive urban design principles and designed in reference to soil types across the site. The Landscaping Plan shall include the following:

 

a.         the location and species of all trees to be removed;

b.         the provision of suitable screen planting along the western boundary;

c.         a plant schedule nominating species, planting distances, numbers, planting sizes, together with the anticipated height of each plant at maturity;

d.         those areas to be reticulated or irrigated.

 

3.9      Details of the provision of a minimum 50,000 litre static water supply for firefighting purposes – the dedicated water supply will be non-combustible and located such that fire services can readily gain access to appropriate fittings and connect fire fighting vehicles to dedicated water supplies in a safe manner.

 

3.10    Details of upgrades to proposed access routes to achieve the requirements of Table 6 in the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas.

 

3.11    Satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City to provide public art works within the development. 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.

 

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 Conditions 2, 3 & 4 have been implemented; and the following conditions have been complied with to the satisfaction of the City –

 

4.1.     Hard and soft landscaping, as detailed in the approved Landscaping Plan, installed at the full cost of the applicant.  

 


4.2.     All vehicle parking, access ways, footpaths and external lighting shall be constructed to a minimum standard 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.

 

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.     Provision of a Certificate of Compliance, indicating that the works have been undertaken in accordance with the Bushfire Management Plan, including the provision of a dedicated firefighting water supply and any necessary upgrades to the proposed access routes.

 

ONGOING CONDITIONS

 

5.         The works and other measures undertaken to satisfy Conditions 2, 3 & 4 shall be subsequently maintained for the life of the development and the following conditions must be complied with, to the satisfaction of the City –

 

5.1.     The Bushfire Management Plan, Version 1.1 dated 8 December 2021, shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approval details and any recommendations therein.

 

5.2.     Signage shall be provided within each Chalet that advises guests:

 

“This accommodation is located within 100 metres of operating agricultural land uses which have the potential to create odour, noise, spray drift and dust nuisance at times, including during the night. Please be advised that primacy of activity is given to agricultural production within this area.”

 

5.3.     The landscaping detailed within the Approved Landscaping Plan shall be subsequently maintained for the life of the development.

 

5.4.     All services and service related hardware, including antennae, satellite dishes and air conditioning units, being suitably located away from public view and/or screened.

 

ADVICE TO APPLICANT

 

1.         If the applicant and/or owner are aggrieved by this decision there is a right of review under the provisions of Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. A review must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal, and must be lodged within 28 days of the decision.

 

2.         This Decision Notice grants Development Approval to the development the subject of this application. It cannot be construed as granting Development Approval for any other structure shown on the approved plans which was not specifically included in this application.

 


3.         Please note it is the responsibility of the applicant / owner to ensure that, in relation to Condition 1, this Development Approval remains current and does not lapse.  The City of Busselton does not send reminder notices in this regard. The term “substantially commenced” has the meaning given to it in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as amended from time to time.

 

4.         In accordance with the provisions of the Building Act 2011, and Building Regulations 2012, an application for a building permit must be submitted to, and approval granted by the City, prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted.

 

5.         You are advised that a licence to take water from the existing soak on site, which may be required under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914, has not been issued by the Department of Water and Environment Regulation (DWER) at the time of approval.  This development approval has been issued on the basis that the potable water supply for the Chalets will be drawn from the existing dams on the site and does not require the take of any water from the soak. 

 

6.         You are advised that any new or modified crossing of Biljidup Brook may require a Permit to Interfere with Beds and Banks, issued by DWER, under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914.  Please contact DWER for further information.

 

7.         In respect to effluent management, you are advised that there may be a need to separate the Brewery waste stream from the human waste stream when finalising the design of the system. Should this be required, there will need to be consideration of the location of any separate system in accordance with Condition 3.2.

 

8.         Unless otherwise first agreed in writing, any trees or plants in the approved landscaping plan 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.

 

9.         You are advised that the ‘external materials’ shall comprise of ‘prescribed materials’ as identified by the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No.21 which are defined as follows –

‘external surfaces’ means the external walls and cladding (if any), external doors, external door and window frames, columns, roofs, fences and any surface of a building or work visible from the exterior of a building or work; and

‘prescribed materials’ means materials with dark tones or dark colouring and of low reflective quality or materials which are painted or similarly treated with dark toned or dark coloured paint or pigment of low reflective quality”

 

10.       In relation to the provision of public art in accordance with Local Planning Policy 4.4 Percent for Art.  The Estimated Cost of Development shall be to the satisfaction of the City and based on demonstrated contract values or estimates provided by a quantity surveyor, with such contract or estimates being no more than 3 months old at the time of calculation of the payment amount, and if such information is more than 3 months old, the Estimated Cost of Development shall be indexed to the general construction industry index for Western Australia.

 


11.       You are advised Agonis flexuosa (WA Peppermint Trees) provide key habitat for the “critically endangered” Pseudocheirus occidentalis (Western Ringtail Possum). The Western Ringtail Possum are awarded protection under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and you may face penalties for taking or disturbing (including intentionally disturbing, trapping/relocating or causing harm/death) a Western Ringtail Possum. A Section 40 Ministerial authorisation to take or disturb threatened fauna under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 is to be obtained prior to clearing occurring.  A fauna handler is required to be onsite prior to and during any clearing operations and is required to hold a Section 40 Ministerial Authorisation. The fauna handler is to provide a post clearing report to DBCA swlanduseplanning@dbca.wa.gov.au that includes the numbers of adult or juvenile western ringtail possums observed, taken or disturbed, any injuries or fatalities, and the location of the fauna after clearing has occurred.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received a development application proposing 10 ‘Chalets’ at Lot 100 (No. 4259) Caves Road, Wilyabrup.  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 generally consistent with the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (Scheme) and the broader, relevant planning framework including State Planning Policy 6.1 – Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge and Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Rural Tourist Accommodation.

BACKGROUND

1.         Landowner/s: Wilyabrup Investments Pty Ltd

 

2.         Applicant: CF Town Planning and Development

 

3.         Site Area: 14.19 hectares

 

4.         General description of the site:  The site is located on Caves Road, approximately 2.7km south of the intersection with Metricup Road and near to the southern boundary of the local government area.  The site comprises an approved Holiday Home in the northern portion of the lot, an approved Tavern (occupied by Cheeky Monkey Brewing Co.) at the southern end as well as two dams, a soak and approximately 3.7 hectares of land planted with vines in the centre of the lot. The surrounding lots are predominantly used for agricultural purposes including viticulture, grazing and cropping, although it is noted that the lot immediately to the north is developed with a Single House and is not used for commercial purposes.

 

5.         Current development/use:  The site is currently developed with a Holiday Home and Tavern (Cheeky Monkey Brewing Co) and vines.

 

6.         Brief description of the proposed development: The proposal seeks to further develop the site with 10 Chalets and associated reception building adjacent to an existing dam on the site.

It is noted that the application material refers to five Chalets however given the dual key units have the capacity to be used as two independent Chalets, each building has been assessed as two Chalets.




The original proposal (see Attachment B) was submitted to the City in June 2021 seeking approval for twelve (six x dual key) Chalets, an associated office and swimming pool, as well as an 18 hole mini golf course proposed to be open to the public for an entry charge. 

The application was referred to adjoining properties for comment in August 2021 with three submissions (one being from multiple properties) received.  The submissions, all objections, raised a number of concerns which can be summarised as:  

·        Overdevelopment of the site;

·        Boundary setbacks do not comply;

·        Potential conflict with agricultural uses in the area;

·        Potential impact of water quality in the area;

·        Visual impact of the proposal;

·        Impact on the rural amenity of the area; and

·        Lack of sufficient parking.

 

In response to the submissions received and discussion with City officers, the applicant opted to review the proposal and submitted revised plans in November 2021 (see Attachment E). The original plans have been superseded and it is the revised plans which are being considered for the purposes of this assessment.

 

The revised plans include the following changes:

·        Reduction from 12 (six x dual key) to 10 (five x dual key) Chalets;

·        Redesign of Chalets to remove the glazed link between the dual key units;

·        Chalets relocated to increase the setback from the eastern boundary from 18m to 71m;

·        Deletion of the proposed swimming pool; and

·        Deletion of the proposed mini-golf facility. 

 

7.         Applicable Zoning and Special Control Area designations: The site is located within the ‘Viticulture and Tourism’ zone and is affected by the ‘Landscape Value’ Special Control Area.

8.         Land-use permissibility: Chalet is identified as a ‘D’ use within the Viticulture and Tourism zone meaning that the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting a development approval.

OFFICER COMMENT

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

·        Overview of Scheme and Policy Framework;

·        Potential Impact on Waterways;

·        Potential Conflict with Agricultural Uses;

·        Visual and Rural Amenity;

·        Car Parking and Access.

 

Each of these issues are addressed below under the relevant heading.

 


Overview of Scheme and Policy Framework

The site is affected by the Landscape Value Special Control Area in the Scheme which seeks to ensure that development is compatible with the rural and scenic qualities of land and is also subject to a number of relevant policies.  Policies of particular relevance are State Planning Policy 6.1 ‘Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge’, Local Planning Policy 2.1 ‘Rural Tourist Accommodation’ and Local Planning Policy 4.6 ‘Caves Road Visual Management’.

 

While the specific provisions of these policies vary (and noting that this report does not intend to address every applicable policy provision in detail) they all fundamentally seek to achieve the same objectives, which can be summarised as:

·        To protect the scenic quality of the area valued by locals and visitors alike;

·        To ensure new development is considerate of, and in keeping with, local character;

·        To promote low-impact tourism in appropriate locations; and

·        To ensure that development is generally compatible with surrounding agricultural land uses.

 

Potential Impact on Waterways

The site is traversed by the Biljidup Brook which runs west to east through the site between the existing dams and Tavern building.  Biljidup Brook discharges into the Wilyabrup Brook which runs south to north through the adjacent lots to the east and eventually discharges to the ocean.  Concerns regarding the ability to manage the wastewater treatment and stormwater runoff associated with the proposed Chalets and the potential impact on the water quality of the brooks was raised by a number of adjoining landowners.

 

In respect to wastewater treatment, the proposal seeks to install an additional Aerobic Treatment Unit (ATU) system for the Chalets.  The proposed 6000L ATU would treat the Chalet wastewater and then pump the treated water to the pump-out tank of the existing 12,000L ATU used by the Tavern.  It is also proposed to replace the existing irrigation system with new flat-bed leach drains which are generally more efficient in terms of the footprint required.  ATU’s, which are a form of secondary treatment system, provide a higher output water quality than a standard septic system and are preferred in areas of environmental sensitivity.

 

The application was referred to DWER for comment as part of the consultation process with advice specifically sought on the potential impact of the proposal on the two brooks.  DWER indicated that further consideration was required regarding the siting of the proposed leach drains in order to achieve an appropriate buffer from the brook and that a water balancing assessment would be required if the proposed sought to take water from the existing soak on site.  They also advised that where the provisions of the Government Sewerage Policy (GSP) cannot be met in full a risk-based approach is to be applied. 

 

In respect of the proposed leach drains, the GSP requires a setback of 100m from a waterway.  As the proposal is unable to achieve a 100m setback from the Biljidup Brook, DWER’s recommendation is to maximise the separation that can be achieved within the constraint of the property. Given the site layout and conditions, DWER advised that the leach drains should be located as close to the southern boundary as possible.  This would achieve a setback of approximately 60m from the Biljidup Brook and is considered acceptable by DWER in respect of the potential impact on the environment and public health, provided that a secondary treatment system, such as an ATU, is used rather than a standard septic system.  A condition requiring a suitable secondary treatment effluent disposal system that achieves a minimum setback of 60m from the edge of Biljidup Brook is recommended should an approval be issued.

 


In respect to the need for a water balancing report to determine whether the take of water from the existing soak would require a licence, the applicant has subsequently advised that the proposal is able to operate without needing to take any water from the soak and that potable water requirements can be met through the existing dams. In response, DWER have indicated that neither of the two dams on site require a licence to take and that if the applicant has committed to ensuring no water is required/will be taken from the soak on site, no water balancing report is required in consideration of the development application.  An advice note reiterating that the potable water supply for the development is unable to be sourced from the soak will be included should an approval be issued.

 

DWER also advised in their referral comments that the GSP requires consideration of cumulative impacts when assessing potential impacts on waterways and indicated:

 

“In considering the cumulative risks to the Biljidup Brook it is noted that the majority of land holdings are large in nature other than Cowaramup townsite (which is sewered).  There are not likely to be many other wastewater systems developed in close proximity to the brook, and as such the potential for significant risk of cumulative impacts occurring is deemed low.  The greater risk to water quality in such a catchment is likely to be diffuse nutrient sources resulting from agricultural practises.”

   

It is noted that approval for the proposed effluent disposal system will be required from the Department of Health, rather than the City, given the volume of waste being treated.  The City’s Environmental Health team have indicated however that it may be appropriate to install a separate system for the brewery wastewater (approximately 250L per day) as the salts in brewery wastewater can affect the treatment of human waste.  An advice note indicating that this should be considered when designing the final system will be included should an approval be issued.

 

In respect to stormwater run-off, due to the gradient across the site stormwater flows over the boundary onto the properties to the east in major rainfall events.  While it is not expected that the proposed development will exacerbate this issue, a condition requiring a drainage management plan has been recommended as a condition of approval.

 

Potential Conflict with Agricultural Uses

The site is located within the Viticulture and Tourism zone.  The proposed Chalet use is a “D” land use within the zone and can be undertaken subject to the consideration of the application’s merits and the issue of a development approval.

 

The site and surrounding land to the east is identified as Principal Agricultural Land (Viticulture and Grazing) by the Leeuwin Naturaliste Policy (SPP 6.1) which seeks to ensure that agriculture remains the predominant land use but contemplates other uses, including the use of interspersed lands with lesser agricultural potential, where they are compatible with and will not jeopardise the agricultural use of adjoining land. While the SPP does not provide detailed guidance on how this could be achieved, the City’s Rural Tourist Accommodation Policy LPP 2.1 (LPP 2.1) includes setback requirements for development of this nature that are equivalent to, or greater than, those required by the Scheme for the Viticulture and Tourism zone and are relevant to discussion on the suitability of the proposed Chalet land use in this area. 

 

LPP2.1 requires setbacks of 100m from all boundaries.  The 100m setback requirement is understood to have been introduced as a suitable buffer between tourism land uses and viticulture when the Policy was first developed in the 1990’s in order to protect existing viticultural activity in the rural areas. 

 


The proposal exceeds the 100m Caves Road setback required by the Scheme and LPP2.1 with setbacks in excess of 150m provided from the western boundary.  The proposal also exceeds the 100m setback requirement between the Chalets and the southern (Lot 23 - Cullens Wines) and north-east (Lot 852 - Gralyn Estate) boundaries.  It is noted that the setback between the Reception building and the north-east boundary (Gralyn Estate) is 75m.  The reduced setback is considered acceptable given the Reception component of the development is not considered a sensitive land use and does not generate the same potential for conflict between land uses as the Chalets.

 

The setback provided between the eastern boundary (Lot 852 - Vasse Felix) and the easternmost units (shown as Chalets 4 & 5 on the site plan) is 71m, while the setback to the westernmost units (shown as Chalets 4 & 5 on the site plan) is 98m and therefore they do not satisfy the 100m requirement. 

 

While it is understood that Vasse Felix may seek to plant vines on Lot 853 in future, the land is currently used for grazing and/or cropping purposes.  The 2m discretion required for the westernmost units is considered inconsequential and can be supported.  The reduced setback to the easternmost units is also considered reasonable given the current use of the adjacent lot for grazing purposes which is unlikely to create significant conflict with the proposed Chalet land use.  While it is acknowledged that the reduced setback to the eastern boundary may have an impact on the future use of the adjacent lot for viticulture purposes, the potential impact is considered minor given it would affect approximately 1200m2 of the 68 hectare lot (should an equivalent 100m2 buffer be applied from the Chalets onto Lot 853).

 

The applicant made significant changes to the original proposal in response to concerns raised during the first round of advertising, reducing the number of Chalets from 12 to 10 and deleting the swimming pool and public mini-golf course entirely.  City officers were unlikely to have supported the development as originally proposed given the scale of activity, the visibility of commercial activity including car parking, potential access issues associated with increased visitation to the site and the likely subsequent impacts on rural amenity and adjacent agricultural uses. 

 

The modified proposal however is considered to be low impact, at an appropriate scale and to provide sufficient setbacks to limit any significant or unreasonable impacts on adjacent agricultural pursuits.  The proposal achieves a reasonable balance between development potential on the site with the continued agricultural use of surrounding land.  Subject to a condition requiring that signage/ information be provided for guests of the Chalets advising of the rural nature of the area and the potential for impacts associated with agricultural activity, the proposal is recommended for support.

 

It is further noted that LPP2.1 encourages 24 hour on-site management for all rural tourist accommodation.  Given the small scale of the proposed development and the presence of existing tourism based activity on site, being the adjacent Brewery, it is not considered necessary to require 24-hour on-site management for this proposal.

 

Visual and Rural Amenity

SPP6.1 identifies the site as being located within a ‘Travel Route Corridor’ Landscape Class (Figure 3 of the Policy) and within the ‘Valley’ and ‘Plateau’ Landscape Character Units (Figure 4 of the Policy).  Within the Policy area, low impact tourism is able to be considered outside designated tourism nodes subject to consideration of impacts on the character of the area, the scale of the development and whether the use is complementary to agricultural uses.

 


The City’s ‘Caves Road Visual Management’ Policy LPP 4.6 (LPP 4.6) was developed to provide guidance on the maintenance of the visual quality of the natural and rural landscapes as viewed from Caves Road.  LPP4.6 identifies the site as being within a moderate visual impact area with low/medium visual quality and indicates that development may be visually apparent from Caves Road but should be subordinate to the established landscape patterns.

 

The City’s ‘Rural Tourist Accommodation Policy’ LPP 2.1 provides guidance on tourism development within the Rural zones with the aim of encouraging development that integrates with existing tourism operations, is low profile and designed in harmony with the setting, and does not conflict with existing agricultural uses. Of relevance to the preservation of visual and rural amenity, LPP 2.1 includes provisions relating to minimum site area requirements, maximum densities and minimum setbacks.

 

In respect of minimum site area requirements, LPP 2.1 indicates that Chalets should not be permitted on sites of less than 15 hectares.  While the subject site is only 14.2 hectares, a minor discretion is considered appropriate given the revised proposal has reduced the built form and activity proposed on the site, has appropriately sited the Chalets centrally on the site, will not significantly affect rural character and amenity of the area and is not considered an over-development of the site. 

 

In respect of density, LPP 2.1 indicates Chalets shall not be developed at a density greater than 1 Chalet per 3 hectares. While the proposal effectively constitutes 10 Chalets (5 x dual key) the proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives relating to density as each of the dual key Chalets are designed to present as one Chalet rather than two. This allows the clustered development to present as five Chalet buildings which would otherwise be acceptable, subject to the 1 Chalet per 3 hectares requirement, if the units were not dual key.  The applicant could choose to amend the proposal to five x three bedroom Chalets (eg: by removing the internal partition wall and door between the units) and the outcome in terms of built form impacts would be the same.


As detailed in the discussion on potential conflict with agricultural land uses above, the proposal satisfies the minimum setback of 100m required between the Chalets and all boundaries except the eastern boundary with Lot 853 which is owned by Vasse Felix and currently used for grazing and/or cropping purposes.

 

While the proposed Chalets will be visible from Caves Road, more so when travelling south due to the more open nature of the view lines across the property from the north, the small scale and clustered nature of the development, the recessive materials and colours used, the setback to Caves Road and the addition of some supplementary screen planting along the western property boundary is considered to sufficiently mitigate the impact of the proposal on views from the public realm.  Views to the proposal from Caves Road will be filtered and will not dominate the travellers experience when traversing this section of the travel route corridor.  Submitter comments made in relation to suitability of species on the site are noted and a revised detailed landscaping plan that addresses the provision of screen planting to Caves Road and landscaping around the Chalets with species that are suitable to the relevant soil types is recommended as a condition of approval.

 

In respect to views of the proposed development from surrounding sites, it is noted that the nearest dwelling is located approximately 450m north of the proposed Chalets on Lot 101 and views to the proposal will be filtered by intervening vegetation located on the site and on Lot 101.  Views to the development from the south (Lot 23 – Cullens Wines) will be obscured by an existing fence and dense vegetation on the northern boundary of that lot.  The development will be visible from lots generally to the east, including Lots 852 (Gralyn Estate) and 853 (Vasse Felix) but these lots are both currently used for grazing and/or cropping purposes and are not developed with any residential or tourism land uses whose visual amenity may be affected by the proposal.  It is further noted that the nearest dwellings to the east are in excess of 1km from the proposed Chalets and have intervening vegetation and as such, will not be significantly affected by the proposed development.

As a general principle, the preservation of the scenic quality or visual amenity as viewed from lots that are used exclusively for agricultural purposes, such as Lots 852 and 853 to the east, is not considered a reasonable priority in the assessment of any such development applications, given the limited impact that additional built form in the environment will have on either their rural operations or the expansive views enjoyed from these large properties.


Car Parking and Access

Local Planning Policy 2.1 – Car Parking provides guidance on the City’s requirements car and bicycle parking.  For ‘Chalets’ one bay per unit plus one visitor bay for every four units is required.  The proposal provides 10 bays for the 10 units (five x dual key) which satisfies the requirements for guests and while no specific visitor parking is proposed, there is a pull-in bay adjacent to the reception building which can accommodate two or three vehicles and is considered sufficient for the required visitor bays.  It is further noted that the proposal will not affect the primary or overflow parking of the adjacent Tavern.

 

In respect to access, as Caves Road is a Primary Distributor Road, the proposal was referred to MRWA for comment.  The proposal seeks to make use of the existing crossover to Caves Road which services all other existing uses on the site.  MRWA have indicated that the proposal can be supported subject to adjustments to the entry point from the main driveway to the driveway for the Chalets to minimise potential conflict. This modification, as well as suitable signage to ensure visitors entering the site understand how to access the Chalets, Tavern and overflow parking is recommended as a condition of approval.

 

Statutory Environment

The key statutory environment is set out in the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme 21 (Scheme), the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations), Schedule 2 of which is the ‘deemed provisions’, which also functionally form part of the Scheme. The key aspects of the Scheme and Regulations relevant to consideration of the application are set out below.

 

Zoning

The site is zoned ‘Viticulture and Tourism’.  The objectives of the Viticulture and Tourism zone are:

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

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

c.             To facilitate the development of tourist facilities of a scale and nature appropriate in rural settings without prejudice to the scenic quality of land within this zone and without creating or increasing ribbon development on any road.

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

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

f.             To maintain and enhance the environmental qualities of the landscape, vegetation, soils and waterways.

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




Land use and permissibility

The proposed ‘Chalet’ land use is defined as follows:

“a dwelling forming part of a tourist facility that is —

(a)      a self-contained unit that includes cooking facilities, bathroom facilities and separate living and sleeping areas; and

(b)      designed to accommodate short-term guests with no guest accommodated for periods totalling more than 3 months in any 12 month period.”

 

Chalet is identified as a ‘D’ use within the Viticulture and Tourism zone meaning that the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granted a development approval.

 

General considerations when making a decision on a development application

When considering a development application for a discretionary land use, including 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 approving the development.

 

The exercise of discretion should take into account relevant considerations as identified within Clause 67 – ‘Consideration of application by local government’ of Schedule 2 Deemed Provisions for local planning schemes of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (commonly referred to as ‘Matters to be Considered’). The decision-maker has an obligation to exercise their 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 as a Matter to be Considered, 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.

 

Matters to be considered

Clause 67 of the deemed provisions within the Regulations sets out ‘matters to be considered’ by a local government in considering an application for development approval. The following matters are considered to be relevant to consideration of this application:

(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;

(h)    any structure plan or local development plan that relates to the development;

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

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

2.                    (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 —

3.                    (i)            environmental impacts of the development;

4.                    (ii)           the character of the locality;

5.                    (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 —

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

7.                   (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 —

8.                       (i)            public transport services;

9.                        (ii)          public utility services;

       (ii)           storage, management and collection of waste;

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

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

(w)   the history of the site where the development is to be located;

(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 has been considered against the matters listed 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:

 

Government Sewerage Policy

Establishes the Western Australian Government’s position on the provision of sewerage services in the State through the planning and development of land. In instances where reticulated sewerage cannot be provided, it adopts a best practice approach to the provision of on-site sewage treatment and disposal, in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standard 1547 On-site domestic wastewater management. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives of the Policy.


State Planning Policy 2.5 - Rural Planning

Seeks to protect and preserve Western Australia’s rural land assets due to the importance of their economic, natural resource, food production, environmental and landscape values. Ensuring broad compatibility between land uses is essential to delivering this outcome. The Policy provides guidance on how rural planning issues should be considered through Strategic planning processes and refers to the Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for matters to be considered in determining a development application. 

 

State Planning Policy 6.1 - Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge

Seeks to provide the strategic policy framework for the policy area by providing vision, guidance and certainty of land use and promote sustainable development, conservation, and land and resource management.  The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant provisions of the Policy.

 

The site is identified as:

-           Travel route corridor - Figure 3

-           Valleys and Plateau - Figure 4

-           Principle agriculture (Viticulture and Grazing) – Figure 5

 

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.  For ‘Chalets’ the Policy requires one bay per unit plus one visitor bay for every four units.  The proposal provides 10 bays for the 10 units (five x dual key) which satisfies the requirements for guests and while no specific visitor parking is provided, there is a pull-in bay adjacent to the reception building which can accommodate two or three vehicles and is considered sufficient for the required visitor bays.  No bicycle parking facilities are required for Chalets.

 

Local Planning Policy - 2.4 Rural Tourist Accommodation

Provides guidance on rural tourist accommodation and is relevant to Chalet development within the Viticulture and Tourism zone.  The Policy indicates a desire for development that integrates with existing tourism operations, provides a feature of interest for tourists, is low profile and designed in harmony with the setting does not conflict with existing agricultural uses. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant provisions of the Policy.

 

Local Planning Policy - 3.1 Reflective Building Materials

Provides guidance on suitable non-reflective building materials with a view to protecting residential and visual amenity and the rural or scenic qualities of the landscape, especially for sites located within the Landscape Value Special Control Area. A condition requiring the use of non-reflective building materials has been recommended.

 

Local Planning Policy - 4.2 Bushfire

Seeks to provide clarity regarding the assessment of development applications on sites located within a bushfire prone area and ensure consideration of a balance between bushfire risk and visual and environmental impacts.  The proposal satisfies the relevant provisions of the Policy.

 


Local Planning Policy - 4.6 Caves Road Visual Management

Seeks to maintain and enhance the visual quality of the natural and rural landscape as viewed from Caves Road, maintain the rural landscape as the dominant visual experience on Caves Road and maintain significant views.  The site is located within Policy Area 2 with low / medium visual quality, with an indication that development may be visible from Caves Road subject to suitable design. 

The clustered, low level form of development is considered appropriate particularly when coupled with the provision of additional landscaping treatments to minimise the visual impact of the proposal. 

 

Local Planning Policy - 6.1 Stormwater Management

Provides guidance on methods for achieving the safe and effective management of the quality of stormwater runoff. A condition requiring stormwater management plan 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 nature and scale of the proposed development, it was considered appropriate to advertise the development application to surrounding landowners.

 

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 referred to adjoining properties for comment in August 2021 with three submissions (one being from multiple properties) received.  The submissions, all objections, raised a number of concerns which can be summarised as:

·        overdevelopment of the site;

·        lack of sufficient parking;

·        boundary setbacks do not comply;

·        potential conflict with agricultural uses in the area;

·        potential impact on water quality in the area;

·        insufficient landscaping; visual impact of the proposal; and

·        impact on the rural amenity of the area.

 

In response to the submissions received and discussion with City officers, the applicant opted to review the proposal and submitted revised plans in December 2021.

The revised plans were advertised to surrounding properties in December 2021 and included the following amendments:

·        reduced from twelve to ten (five x dual key) Chalets;

·        Chalets relocated west to increase the setback from the eastern boundary from 18m to 71m;

·        deleted the proposed swimming pool; and

·        deleted the proposed mini-golf facility. 

 

Three further submissions (from the same parties who provided the previous submissions) were received.  A schedule of submissions is provided as Attachment H. The schedule identifies who submissions were received from and summarises the submissions.   A full copy of the submission made by S. Baxter on behalf of a number of vineyards / wineries is attached at Attachment I.

 

In addition to the above, the application was referred to DPIRD, DWER, DBCA, DFES and MRWA. 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.         Refusal 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 accordingly is 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

107

9 March 2022

13.1

Attachment a

Location Plan

 



Council

127

9 March 2022

13.1

Attachment b

Original Application Report

 





















Council

141

9 March 2022

13.1

Attachment c

Original Development Plans

 















Council

172

9 March 2022

13.1

Attachment d

Revised Application Report

 














































Council

200

9 March 2022

13.1

Attachment e

Revised Development Plans

 















Council

201

9 March 2022

13.1

Attachment f

Landscape Plan

 


Council

207

9 March 2022

13.1

Attachment g

Revised Bushfire Management Plan

 















































Council

258

9 March 2022

13.1

Attachment h

Schedule of Submissions

 












Council

286

9 March 2022

13.1

Attachment i

Submission from adjacent wineries

 




























 


Council                                                                                      288                                                                  9 March 2022

17.2           RESPONSE TO MOTIONS CARRIED AT SPECIAL ELECTORS MEETING 21 FEBRUARY 2022

STRATEGIC THEME

LEADERSHIP - A Council that connects with the community and is accountable in its decision making.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

4.2 Deliver governance systems that facilitate open, ethical and transparent decision making.

SUBJECT INDEX

Special Electors Meeting

BUSINESS UNIT

Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

NATURE OF DECISION

Advocacy: to advocate on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

Prior to the meeting, Councillor Ryan foreshadowed a motion that was different to the officer recommendation. In accordance with clause 10.18(7) of the City’s Standing Orders Local Law 2018, it was taken to be an alternative motion and moved first.


There was opposition to the motion and debate ensued.

 

Substantive motion

C2203/049              Moved Councillor A Ryan, seconded Councillor M Love

That the Council, in response to motions put forward by the Electors, require the CEO to write to the Premier and relevant State Government Ministers and advise that circa 450 business owners and community members within the City of Busselton attended a special electors meeting and collectively expressed strong concern about the impacts that the vaccine mandates are having on business, employees, volunteers, and the wider community and advise the Premier forthwith -

 

1.        that we demand the immediate removal of the vaccine mandates and associated restrictions in WA due to lack of evidence that a pandemic exists; and

 

2.        that forthwith the City of Busselton will be a Pro-Choice community regardless of 1 above.

lost 1/7

For: cr ryan

against: cr henley, cr carter, cr riccelli, cr love, cr cronin, cr cox, cr richards

The officer recommendation was moved and carried.


 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2203/050              Moved Councillor S Riccelli, seconded Councillor P Carter

That the Council

1.         In response to motions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 write to the Premier and relevant State Government Ministers and

(a)       advise that circa 450 business owners and community members within the City of Busselton attended a special electors meeting and collectively;

(i)        expressed strong concern about the impacts that the vaccine mandates are having on business, employees, volunteers, and the community; and

(ii)      requested that the City advocate to the State Government for

·      the removal of volunteers from vaccine mandates;

·      clearer information for businesses in relation to the implementation of vaccine mandates and their obligations and liabilities for employees under Work Health and Safety legislation; and

·      a survey be conducted by the State Government to better understand the impacts of vaccine mandates on small business; and

·      the removal of vaccine mandates and associated restrictions; and

(b)       request that the Premier takes the concerns of the those electors into account as he reviews the State Government’s position on vaccine mandates;

2.         In response to motion 4, resolves that the City will not conduct its own survey into the impacts of vaccine mandates on ratepayers; and

3.         Acknowledges that the representations made from the electors present at the special electors meeting may not necessarily represent the diversity of views of the City’s electors.

CARRIED 8/0

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council

1.         In response to motions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 write to the Premier and relevant State Government Ministers and

(a)       advise that circa 450 business owners and community members within the City of Busselton attended a special electors meeting and collectively

(i)        expressed strong concern about the impacts that the vaccine mandates are having on business, employees, volunteers, and the community; and

(ii)       requested that the City advocate to the State Government for

·        the removal of volunteers from vaccine mandates;

·        clearer information for businesses in relation to the implementation of vaccine mandates and their obligations and liabilities for employees under Work Health and Safety legislation; and

·        a survey be conducted by the State Government to better understand the impacts of vaccine mandates on small business; and

·        the removal of vaccine mandates and associated restrictions; and

(b)       request that the Premier takes the concerns of the those electors into account as he reviews the State Government’s position on vaccine mandates;

2.         In response to motion 4, resolves that the City will not conduct its own survey into the impacts of vaccine mandates on ratepayers; and

3.         Acknowledges that the representations made from the electors present at the special electors meeting may not necessarily represent the diversity of views of the City’s electors.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At a special meeting of electors held 21 February 2021, the following motions were carried:

 

That the Electors present:

 

1.         Request that the City of Busselton advocate on behalf of local volunteers to the state government to remove the vaccine mandate, allowing all willing community members to participate in volunteer work.

2.         Request the City of Busselton write to the State Government to initiate a survey regarding impacts of mandates on small businesses.

3.         Request that the City of Busselton write to the State Government and request that they provide absolute clarity to businesses with regards to any liability of all mandates. 

4.         We request that the City of Busselton develop and conduct a survey on the impact of mandates on ratepayers.

5.         Request that the City of Busselton to ask the State Government to request clear information that clarifies the mandates for all local businesses regarding overreach.

6.         That the City of Busselton advocates to all relevant State and Federal Ministers for removal of all mandates and restriction, as these mandates are causing segregation and immense harm.

 

This report considers those motions and in response to motion 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 recommends that Council write to the Premier and relevant State Government Ministers outlining the concerns of those electors who attended the special electors meeting and respectfully request that the Premier takes the concerns of those electors into account as he reviews vaccine mandates.  Further, in response to motion 4, officers recommend that the City does not undertake its own survey on the impact of vaccine mandates on ratepayers.

BACKGROUND

On 17 January 2022 the City received a request from over 100 electors of the District to hold a special meeting of electors.  The request was signed by 330 people and called for a meeting to discuss the following matters:

a)        Hear concerns in respect to the detrimental economic, business, workplace health and safety, public liability and lifestyle impacts of the vaccination mandates specifically on the City of Busselton community.

 

b)        Ensure Councillors and the CEO of the City of Busselton acknowledge and understand the financial risks to the ratepayers of the City that these vaccination mandates could potentially impose on them.

 

c)         Declare the City of Busselton a Pro-Choice community and advise the Premier of Western Australia and State Parliament about the concerns of the City of Busselton community and request they refrain from imposing any further mandates and revoke any mandates in place now

 

Under the Local Government Act 1995, the City, on receipt of a request containing 100 or more signatures of electors, must hold a special electors meeting. 

 

The meeting was held on Monday 21 February 2022 at 5.30pm, at Churchill Park.  In anticipation of attendance greater than the capacity of Churchill Park Hall, the meeting was held outdoors in the oval central to the trotting track.  Circa 450 people attended the meeting, with six motions carried.  The meeting was respectful and provided an opportunity for Councillors to hear from those moving and supporting the motions, as well as anyone objecting to them, although no-one spoke in objection to any motion.  All motions were carried by a clear simple majority.

 

Officers note that while no-one spoke in objection to any of the motions, the City has since advertising the special electors meeting received via email 10 requests from individuals to note an objection to the matters to be discussed at the meeting.  In particular objections were noted to the potential declaration of the City of Busselton as a pro-choice community.

OFFICER COMMENT

The mover and seconder of each motion spoke to the motion.  A summary of key reasons for each motion is provided below.

 

Motion 1

Request that the City of Busselton advocate on behalf of local volunteers to the state government to remove the vaccine mandate, allowing all willing community members to participate in volunteer work.

 

Rationale as put by mover / seconder

·        Due to the mandates the workforce and volunteer agencies are not functioning at full potential. 

·        It has been a very busy fire season and fire brigade volunteer numbers are down due to the requirement to be vaccinated. 

·        The risk versus the benefit of the mandates needs to be considered; we have overall very high vaccination rates within the state and so the benefit of the mandates do not compare to the risk in hindering the provision of important services such as fire response.

·        The fighting of fire is generally undertaken in the bush with full PPE on and so the risks of having unvaccinated volunteers in this context is less than the risk of not having enough volunteers.

 

Motion 2

Request the City of Busselton write to the State Government to initiate a survey regarding impacts of mandates on small businesses.

 

Rationale as put by mover / seconder

·        Businesses are suffering as a result of COVID having to cope with testing and isolation protocols, restrictions and staff shortages and the mandates impose additional burdens.

·        Some businesses can no longer function due to the mandates.

·        Businesses should not be put in a position where they have to impose mandates on their workers – it should be an individual’s choice. 

·        Businesses should not have to police mandates.

·        The Premier is stating the mandates will continue for some time and businesses need support from Councillors to relay the impacts and concerns to the Premier.

 


Motion 3

Request that the City of Busselton write to the State Government and request that they provide absolute clarity to businesses with regards to any liability of all mandates. 

 

Rationale as put by mover / seconder

·        Under the OHS Act businesses have a duty of care to their employees.

·        Vaccines can result in adverse reactions and the employer may be liable for adverse reactions on site. It is also unlawful to direct employees to harm themselves.

·        Those directly affected by hazards must be consulted and there are questions as to whether vaccines are effective controls.

·        Businesses are checking vaccine passports when it is not their job and they are not trained to do so.  What liability is there for businesses in collecting this information which is private information?

·        Insurance companies have been approached and provided no definitive answer. We are hoping that the Councillors can help get answers.

 

Motion 4

We request that the City of Busselton develop and conduct a survey on the impact of mandates on ratepayers.

 

Rationale as put by mover / seconder

·        Two types of costs – physical cost (including mental health costs) and opportunity cost.

·        Mandates are resulting in increasing costs to our community while also reducing income to our community through decreasing tourism and spend.

·        The rules are confusing and businesses are being asked to police them.

·        Mandates are resulting in divided communities and friendships being ruined; kids don’t understand for instance why they can’t do dance with the same kids they go to school with and there are stores of kids deciding who they will play with based on vaccination status. 

·        What sort of community do we want to live in?  Asking for the Busselton Council to stand up and represent the interests of the residents and ratepayers that you represent.

 

Motion 5

Request that the City of Busselton ask the State Government for clear information that clarifies the mandates for all local businesses regarding overreach.

 

Rationale as put by mover / seconder

·        Businesses reaching well beyond the mandates to willingly discriminate

·        While vaccine passport requirements are imposed on venues with 500 people or more, we have seen local venues under that capacity imposing the requirements.  This is resulting in vendors who are fully capable being denied the right to work.

·        Business find it hard to police the rules and so have applied a blanket mandate

·        Ask that the City help to educate and support business as they navigate their way through ever changing mandates; to ensure they are not imposing measures beyond the mandates and to limit the risk of discrimination. 

 


Motion 6

That the City of Busselton advocates to all relevant State and Federal Ministers for removal of all mandates and restriction, as these mandates are causing segregation and immense harm.

 

Rationale as put by mover / seconder

·        The mandates are flattening people’s livelihoods.

·        The mandates are creating segregation and a lack of trust.

·        On the other hand some businesses are taking a risk and turning a blind eye because they love and respect the people they know.

·        We need to get back to the values that this community is built on, we need to start to care for one another and protect our freedoms – freedom from discrimination, individual autonomy and the right to choose our own fate.

·        If there is ever a time to end mandates it is now – the people here want pro-choice. 

 

Circa 450 people, a number equivalent to approximately 1.5% of the 29,852 electors of the City of Busselton expressed their strong support for the motions passed and the supporting arguments.  They were clear and strong in their views about the impacts of mandates on businesses and community cohesiveness, based on their lived experiences. 

 

Overall the City of Busselton as a district has very high vaccination rates.  In acknowledging this, it is also fair to say that there are a diversity of views in the community in relation to vaccine mandates.  Without undertaking some form of referendum (which is not recommended) the Councillors are not in a position to know exactly what the views of all electors are in relation to mandates; and as such officers would not recommend the Council move to declare itself ‘Pro-choice’ or similar, noting that the motions carried at the electors meeting do not require Council to consider that.  

 

The motions carried requests that the Council advocate on behalf of those electors their concerns about the impacts of mandating vaccination on the community and businesses.  One way that the Council can represent the different views of its community is through advocacy.  In acknowledgment of the views of those electors present at the meeting, and also acknowledging that the COVID-19 pandemic (and its associated measures) is an unusual event, it is recommended that the Council, in response to motions 1,2,3,5 and 6, write to the Premier and relevant State Government Ministers and advise that circa 450 business owners and community members within the City of Busselton attended a special electors meeting and collectively:

 

1.         expressed strong concern about the impacts that the vaccine mandates are having on business, employees, volunteers, and the community; and

 

2.         requested that the City advocate to the State Government for

(a)       the removal of volunteers from vaccine mandates;

(b)       clearer information for businesses in relation to the implementation of vaccine mandates and their obligations and liabilities for employees under Work Health and Safety legislation; and

(c)       a survey be conducted by the State Government to better understand the impacts of vaccine mandates on small business; and

(d)       the removal of all vaccine mandates and associated restrictions;

 

It is further recommended that Council respectfully request the Premier takes the concerns of the electors attending the meeting into account as he reviews the vaccine mandates. It is not recommended that advocacy be directed towards Federal Government Ministers given that the vaccine mandates are State Government directions. 

In doing so it is recommended that Council acknowledge that the representations made from the electors present at the special electors meeting may not necessarily represent the views of the majority of the City’s electors. 

 

In response to motion 4, it is recommended that the Council do not agree to the City conducting its own survey about the impact of vaccine mandates on ratepayers.  The City does not have the resources, when considering its current work programmes and priorities, to undertake a survey and, given the vaccine mandates do not fall within the jurisdiction of local government, the City would not be able to usefully use any data gathered.  To this end conducting a survey is not an effective use of resources.  Instead, as per above, it is proposed that Council communicate the request of the electors for the State Government to survey the business community for impacts.

 

Statutory Environment

Section 5.28 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires a special electors meeting to be held on the request of not less than 100 electors of 5% of the number of electors, whichever is the lesser number.  The request is to specify the maters to be discussed at the meeting and be in the form set out by the Regulations.  All of these requirements were met.

 

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

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

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

 

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation. 

 

The holding of the special electors meeting cost the City approximately $5,000 in direct costs plus the opportunity cost of the staff time and wages involved.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

This report is the result of a motion moved at the General Meeting of Electors in February 2021. 

 

Risk Assessment

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

Options

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

1.         Not to advocate to State Government on any or some of the motions;

2.         To conduct its own survey on the impacts of vaccine mandates on ratepayers;

3.         To take some other course of action.

CONCLUSION

Motions carried at a special electors meeting on Monday 21 February 2022 are required to be considered by Council.  This report recommends that Council advocate on behalf of those electors who attended the special meeting to ensure their concerns are noted to the Premier and relevant State Ministers.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

On adoption the officer recommendation can be carried out within two weeks.


Council                                                                                      295                                                                  9 March 2022

15.             Community and Commercial Services Report

Nil


Council                                                                                      298                                                                  9 March 2022

18.             Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given

18.1           NOTICE OF REVOCATION MOTION - C2111/101 - DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY LOTS 58 & 59 CHAPMAN HILL ROAD AND LOT 60 QUEEN ELIZABETH AVENUE, AMBERGATE

Prior to the meeting, Councillor Richards foreshadowed an alternative motion that was different to the motion. In accordance with clause 10.18(7) of the City’s Standing Orders Local Law 2018, it was taken to be an alternative motion and was considered first.

The alternative motion was moved and carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2203/051              Moved Councillor J Richards, seconded Councillor K Cox

That the Council:

1.      Revokes the following Council resolution C2111/101 made at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 November 2021:

         That the Council discontinues plans for the sale of Lots 58 and 59 Chapman Hill Road and Lot 60 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate

2.      Agrees to the sale of Lots 58 and 59 Chapman Hill Road and Lot 60 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate to Ambergate Farm Property Holdings Pty Ltd for $2,500,000 exclusive of GST having undertaken the public notice requirements and considered the submissions received; and

3.      Authorises the transfer of the net sale proceeds of Lots 58 and 59 Chapman Hill Road and Lot 60 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate to the Strategic Projects Reserve, with the intention of using these funds for a strategic land parcel purchase in the future.

4.      Agree that the net sale proceeds will not fund the Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre Project.

CARRIED 8/0

Reason:               The addition of part four (4) of the motion is to ensure the funds received from the sale of Lots 58 and 59 Chapman Hill Road and Lot 60 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate are to be transferred into the Strategic Projects Reserve, and not put towards funding for the Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre Project. 

 

MOTION

 

That the Council:

1.         Revokes the following Council resolution C2111/101 made at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 November 2021:

That the Council discontinues plans for the sale of lots 58 and 59 Chapman Hill Road and Lot 60 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate

2.         Agrees to the sale of Lots 58 and 59 Chapman Hill Road and Lot 60 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate to Ambergate Farm Property Holdings Pty Ltd for $2,500,000 exclusive of GST having undertaken the public notice requirements and considered the submissions received; and

3.         Authorises the transfer of the net sale proceeds of Lots 58 and 59 Chapman Hill Road and Lot 60 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate to the Strategic Projects Reserve, with the intention of using these funds for a strategic land parcel purchase in the future.

 

In accordance with Regulation 10 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 (WA) (Admin Regulations), a notice of motion has been received from Councillor Richards which has also been signed by Councillor Cox and Councillor Love that, at the meeting on 9 March 2022, Councillor Richards will move the following motion:

 

“That the Council:

1.         Revokes the following Council resolution C2111/101 made at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 November 2021:

That the Council discontinues plans for the sale of lots 58 and 59 Chapman Hill Road and Lot 60 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate

2.         Agrees to the sale of Lots 58 and 59 Chapman Hill Road and Lot 60 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate to Ambergate Farm Property Holdings Pty Ltd for $2,500,000 exclusive of GST having undertaken the public notice requirements and considered the submissions received; and

3.         Authorises the transfer of the net sale proceeds of Lots 58 and 59 Chapman Hill Road and Lot 60 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate to the Strategic Projects Reserve, with the intention of using these funds for a strategic land parcel purchase in the future.”

OFFICER COMMENT

Previous decision of Council

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 November 2021 the Council resolved that (C2111/101):

 

“That the Council discontinues plans for the sale of Lots 58 and 59 Chapman Hill Road and Lot 60 Queen Elizabeth Road, Ambergate.”

 

The reason for the decision as stated in the minutes was that there was no current compelling reason to sell the land and that the elected members required further information and consideration in future long term financial planning in order to support a decision to sell the land.

 

Impact of change decision

The revocation of Council Resolution C2111/101 and support for parts 2 and 3 of the Notice of Motion will allow the sale of Lots 58 and 59 Chapman Hill Road and Lot 60 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate (Land) to be progressed.

 

If endorsed by Council settlement for the sale of Land could be achieved within one to two months. Post settlement the sale proceeds will be held in the Strategic Projects Reserve until reinvested in a strategic land purchase identified in the Long Term Financial Plan for sports and events and to meet the needs of the community.

 

A sale would also mean that the Council is:

·        divesting Land that has previously been identified as no longer being a strategic landholding of the City; and

·        achieving a premium to the market value of the Land with the proposed sale price of $2,500,000 (excluding GST) exceeding the most recent market valuation of $2,115,000 (excluding GST).

 

 

 

 

Status of the proposed buyer

Officers understand that the proposed buyer, Ambergate Farm Property Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 653 063 417), remains willing to proceed with the sale at the price set out in the public notice, being $2,500,000 (exclusive of GST).

 

Considerations and Voting Requirements for the Notice of Motion

Councillors will need to consider the submissions received in response to the local public notice made between 15 October 2021 and 29 October 2021, along with the officer response. A copy of the original Council report and submissions is attached to this notice of motion for Councillors consideration.

 

The voting requirements for the revocation motion is Absolute Majority (reg 10 Admin Regulations).

 

 

Attachments

Attachment a   Agenda Item 16.2 (Ordinary Council Meeting 24 November 2021) including submissions in response to public notice  

 


Council

321

9 March 2022

18.1

Attachment a

Agenda Item 16.2 (Ordinary Council Meeting 24 November 2021) including submissions in response to public notice

 























 


Council                                                                                      323                                                                  9 March 2022

19.             urgent business

Nil

 

20.             Confidential Reports  

 

 Nil

 

 


21.             Closure

The Presiding Member closed the meeting at 6.35pm

 

THESE MINUTES CONSISTING OF PAGES 1 TO 323 WERE CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD ON Wednesday, 23 March 2022.

 

DATE:_________________     PRESIDING MEMBER:      _____________________________