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 13 April 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. 4

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

Previous Council Meetings. 5

8.1          Minutes of the Council Meeting held 23 March 2022. 5

9....... receiving of petitions, presentations and deputations . 5

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

11..... Items brought forward.. 7

ADOPTION BY EXCEPTION RESOLUTION.. 7

13.2        AMENDMENT NO. 53 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 21 (SCHEDULE 9 - EXEMPTED ADVERTISEMENTS) - CONSIDERATION FOR INITIATION FOR ADVERTISING.. 8

17.1        COUNCILLORS INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 15

Items to be dealt with by separate resolution (without debate). 27

15.1        MARKETING AND EVENTS REFERENCE GROUP OUTCOMES. 27

Items for debate. 40

13.1        APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (DA20/0437) - PROPOSED INDUSTRY - EXTRACTIVE (SAND) - 157 HAAG ROAD YELVERTON.. 40

14..... Engineering and Works Services Report. 352

16..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 353

18..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 354

19..... urgent business. 354

20..... Confidential Reports. 354

21..... Closure. 355

 


Council                                                                                      2                                                                        13 April 2022

MINUTES

 

MINUTES OF A Meeting of the Busselton City Council HELD IN Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton, ON 13 April 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 Oliver Darby, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Mr Paul Needham, Director, Planning and Development Services

Mr Tony Nottle, Director, Finance and Corporate Services
Mr Dave Goodwin, Acting Director, Community and Commercial Services
Mr Daniell Abrahamse, Acting Director, Engineering and Works Services

Ms Sarah Pierson, Manager Governance and Corporate Services

Ms Jo Barrett-Lennard, Governance Officer

 

 

Apologies:

 

Cr Ross Paine

 

 

Approved Leave of Absence:

 

Nil

 

 

Media:

 

Nil

 

Public:

 

7

 

3.               Prayer

 

The prayer was delivered by Pastor Andy Pitt from Down South Gospel.

 

4.               Application for Leave of Absence 

 

Nil

 

5.               Disclosure Of Interests

 

Nil

 

6.               Announcements Without Discussion

Announcements by the Presiding Member

 

Mayor Henley acknowledged the first Jetstar flights between Busselton and Melbourne, and thanked Ms Naomi Searle and the Community and Commercial Services team for their efforts in this endeavour.

 

7.               Question Time For Public

Question Time for Public

 

7.1             Mr Andrew Macnish

 

Question

Will the Council consider postponing its vote on the confirmation of its March 29 meeting minutes until an independent assessment is conducted, given these minutes note the minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held 2 March and which are in error in varying degree owing to seven matters related to the publication, declaration of interests, references to confidentiality, the recording of officers present, and recording of Councillor objections?

 

Response

(Mayor Grant Henley)

We will take that questions on notice.

 


Question

I was informed that a matter before the Audit and Risk Committee was being dealt with appropriately via it being delegated to the Manager of Legal and Property Services. Why is no such entry in the City’s Delegations Register?

 

Response

(Mayor Grant Henley)

We will take that questions on notice.

 

 

8.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes

Previous Council Meetings

8.1             Minutes of the Council Meeting held 23 March 2022

COUNCIL DECISION

C2204/071              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor P Cronin

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

CARRIED 7/1

                                                     For: Cr Henley, Cr Carter, Cr Riccelli, Cr Cox, Cr Cronin,
cr Love, Cr Richards

Against: Cr Ryan

 

 

9.               RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS

Petitions

 

Nil

Presentations

 

Mr Ben Ford spoke with respect to Agenda Item 13.1 ‘Application for Development Approval (DA20/0437) – Proposed Industry – Extractive (Sand) – 157 Haag Road Yelverton’.

Mr Ford was opposed to the officer recommendation.  

 

Mr Tim Paltridge spoke with respect to Agenda Item 13.1 ‘Application for Development Approval (DA20/0437) – Proposed Industry – Extractive (Sand) – 157 Haag Road Yelverton’.

Mr Paltridge was opposed to the officer recommendation.

 

Mr Peter Rouw spoke with respect to Agenda Item 13.1 ‘Application for Development Approval (DA20/0437) – Proposed Industry – Extractive (Sand) – 157 Haag Road Yelverton’.

Mr Rouw was opposed to the officer recommendation.  

 

Mr Guy Hopkins spoke with respect to Agenda Item 13.1 ‘Application for Development Approval (DA20/0437) – Proposed Industry – Extractive (Sand) – 157 Haag Road Yelverton’.

Mr Hopkins was opposed to the officer recommendation.  

 

Deputations

 

Nil

 

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

 


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

C2204/072              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor J Richards

That the Officer Recommendations for items 13.2 and 17.1  be carried en bloc:

 

13.2        AMENDMENT NO. 53 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 21 (SCHEDULE 9 -                 EXEMPTED ADVERTISEMENTS) - CONSIDERATION FOR INITIATION FOR                 ADVERTISING

 

17.1        COUNCILLORS INFORMATION BULLETIN

CARRIED 8/0

 


Council                                                                                      13                                                                      13 April 2022

13.2           AMENDMENT NO. 53 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 21 (SCHEDULE 9 - EXEMPTED ADVERTISEMENTS) - CONSIDERATION FOR INITIATION FOR ADVERTISING

STRATEGIC THEME

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

2.8 Plan for and facilitate the development of neighbourhoods that are functional, green and provide for diverse and affordable housing choices.

SUBJECT INDEX

Planning Scheme

BUSINESS UNIT

Development Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Development Services - Lee Reddell

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

NATURE OF DECISION

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

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

The officer recommendation was moved and carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2204/073              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor J Richards

That the Council resolves to:

1.         In pursuance of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, initiate Amendment No. 53 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 for community consultation, for the purposes of:

(a)       Amending Schedule 9 “Exempted Advertisements” Clause (B) “Any advertisement will require development approval if it” to include an additional provision requiring development approval for certain forms of signage (including digital signage), as follows:

9. Is in the form of:

(a)        a digital display, illumination or radio;

(b)       an animation or movement in its design or structure; or

(c)        retro-reflective or fluorescent materials in its design or structure.

2.         Pursuant to Regulation 35 (2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), determine that Amendment No. 48 is a ‘standard amendment’ in accordance with r. 34 of the Regulations as it is:

(a)       an amendment that would have minimal impact on land in the Scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment;

(b)       an amendment that does not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land in the Scheme area; and

(c)       an amendment that is not a complex or basic amendment.

 

 

 

 

 

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

CARRIED 8/0

En bloc

 

Officer recommendation

That the Council resolves to:

1.         In pursuance of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, initiate Amendment No. 53 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 for community consultation, for the purposes of:

(a)       Amending Schedule 9 “Exempted Advertisements” Clause (B) “Any advertisement will require development approval if it” to include an additional provision requiring development approval for certain forms of signage (including digital signage), as follows:

9. Is in the form of:

(a)        a digital display, illumination or radio;

(b)       an animation or movement in its design or structure; or

(c)        retro-reflective or fluorescent materials in its design or structure.

2.         Pursuant to Regulation 35 (2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), determine that Amendment No. 48 is a ‘standard amendment’ in accordance with r. 34 of the Regulations as it is:

(a)       an amendment that would have minimal impact on land in the Scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment;

(b)       an amendment that does not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land in the Scheme area; and

(c)       an amendment that is not a complex or basic amendment.

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


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council is requested to consider initiating proposed Scheme Amendment No. 53 (the Amendment) to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (the Scheme). The Amendment would facilitate clarification that illuminated, animated or digital advertising signage is not exempt from the requirement for development approval.  Signage of this nature could still be considered through the development application process but would not be exempt. It is recommended that the proposal be supported, and that the Amendment be initiated/adopted for the purpose of community consultation.

BACKGROUND

Schedule 9 (previously 14) was included in the Scheme with the final omnibus amendment to District Planning Scheme No. 20, to incorporate relevant sections from the former Signs Local Law. The Schedule was amended in August 2017 and has since been renumbered several times. For advertisements within the Scheme area, Clause 6.1.1 (d) provides for the Schedule 9 exemptions for development approval.

 

In addition, clause 4.41 Prohibited Advertisements specifies:

 

“Advertisements that advertise goods or services which are not produced, displayed or offered for sale on the land which the advertisement is located, are prohibited”.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

The purpose of the proposed Amendment is to resolve uncertainty recently noted in respect to animated or digital signage which, despite guidance provided in Local Planning Policy 4.12 ‘Advertisements and Advertising Signs’ (LPP 4.12) seeking to limit this type of signage, could be exempt in some cases through Schedule 9 of the Scheme. 

 

The substantive content of Schedule 9 relates to the City’s former Signs Local Law, the relevant provisions of which were incorporated into the final omnibus amendment to Scheme 20 when the Local Law was revoked.  The provisions of Schedule 9 have not been significantly reviewed since that time and as such, do not adequately consider or address new forms of animated and digital signage (such as LED signs) that are now commonplace. 

 

Schedule 9 of the Scheme exempts advertising such as For Sale Signs, Wall Signs or Display Home Signs as listed in Part (A) subject to certain conditions, such as the height of the signage above ground level. The definition of “advertisement” in the Deemed Provisions (which form part of every scheme) includes illuminated signs. The unintended consequence is that illuminated wall signs, such as an LED sign, could be argued to be exempt.

 

Consideration of this issue has arisen through a recent Joint Development Assessment Panel development application which proposed two large LED signs attached to the wall of a Shop within the Vasse Village that would be visible from Bussell Highway.  In that case, the applicant argued that the signs, which were approximately 6.8-7m in height, ought to be considered favourably for approval on the basis that they would otherwise be exempt had they been limited to no greater than 5m in height in accordance with Part (A) clause 15 which states: 

 

“(A)       Subject to (B) below, the following advertisements located on privately owned land are exempt from requiring development approval:

                                …

15.          All advertisements affixed to any shop, bulky goods showroom or other uses appropriate to a shopping area, below the top of the awning or, in the absence of an awning, below a line measured at 5 metres from the ground floor level of the building.”

There are no subsequent provisions in Part (B) of Schedule 9 that specifically trigger the need for a development approval for advertising signage that is illuminated, animated or digital in nature which means that if the signs could reasonably be considered as ‘Wall Signs’ and limited to no greater than 5m in height (from the ground floor level of the building) they would arguably be exempt. 

 

This creates some confusion when considered in light of the guidance provided in Local Planning Policy 4.12 ‘Advertisements and Advertising Signs’, adopted by Council in January 2021, which seeks to restrict commercial ‘animated’ signage to Local Centres and to cap any such signage to one animated sign per centre. 

 

Animation is defined by LPP 4.12 as:

 

“Animation” means the movement or the appearance of movement through the use of patterns of lights, changes in colour or light intensity, computerized special effects, video displays, or through any other method.

 

It was the City’s intention to capture digital (eg: LED) signage under the banner of ‘animated’ signage when drafting LPP 4.12 however more robust wording, similar to provisions used in other schemes, is now proposed within the Scheme to ensure that it is clear that illuminated, animated and digital  signage is not exempt from the requirement to obtain development approval.

 

The proposed Amendment does not seek to prohibit such signage, rather to ensure that it be suitably considered in the context of the development, local character and any relevant Scheme and Policy provisions through the development application process.

 

It is noted that a full review of Schedule 9 and LPP 4.12 is considered necessary at some point, with the possible recommendation to delete Schedule 9 of the Scheme and to instead include any relevant exemptions for advertisements in the LPP, as is permitted by the Regulations.  

 

Statutory Environment

The key statutory documents relevant to this proposal include the Planning and Development Act 2005, the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, and the relevant objectives and provisions of the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21. Each is discussed below under appropriate subheadings.

 

Planning and Development Act 2005

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

 

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), which came into operational effect on 19 October 2015, identify three different levels of amendments – basic, standard and complex. The resolution of the local government is to specify the level of the amendment and provide an explanation justifying this choice.  The Amendment is considered to be a ‘standard’ amendment for reasons outlined in Part 2 of the Officer Recommendation.

Local Planning Scheme No. 21

Clause 6.1 ‘Permitted Development’ of LPS 21 outlines development which is exempt from requiring development approval.  Exemptions for advertising signage are established Clause 6.1.1 (d) as follows:

 

(d)       the erection, placement or display of any advertisement and the use of land or buildings for that purpose as exempted by Schedule 9, except in respect of a place included in the Heritage List or in a heritage area; and

 

The exemptions are set out in Schedule 9 (A):

 

(A)      Subject to (B) below, the following advertisements located on privately owned land are exempt from requiring development approval:

 

1.         A For Sale Sign or an Institutional Sign less than 2.2m2 in size, with a maximum width / length of 2.0 metres, provided that there is no more than 1 For Sale Sign or an Institutional Sign on each street frontage of a lot.

2.         An advertisement less than 0.2m2 in size erected or affixed on the street alignment or between that alignment and the building line to indicate the name and occupation or profession of the occupier of the property.

3.         Advertisements affixed inside or painted on a shop window by the occupier thereof and relating to the business carried on therein.

4.         Advertisements which are not visible from a public space outside the boundaries of a property.

5.         Advertisements containing changeable public notices or information not larger than 0.7 metres by 0.9 metres in size located on advertising pillars or panels approved by or which have the prior approval of the City for the purposes of displaying public notices or information.

6.         A Wall Sign on a residential multiple dwelling or grouped dwelling indicating the name of the building provided that the advertisement comprises of letters and numbers only, and those letters and numbers do not individually exceed 300mm in height.

7.         Advertisements used solely for the direction and/or control of people, animals and/or vehicles or to indicate the name, and/or street number of a premises, providing the area of any such advertisement is less than 0.2m2 in size and the advertisement is located wholly within the boundaries of land owned by a person who erected or who maintains the advertisement.

8.         An advertisement that is required by the Builders Registration Board or other government or statutory bodies or authorities on building sites, providing any such advertisement is less than 1.5m2 in size and that any such advertisement is removed within 7 days of completion of the building works on the building site.

9.         An advertisement which is a heritage or memorial plaque not exceeding 1m2 in size.

10.       An advertisement which does nothing other than indicate an exit or exits, warn of the existence of a hazard or indicate that smoking is prohibited on particular premises and which does not exceed 0.5m2 in size.

11.       An Information Panel erected within a site used or occupied by a tourist, recreational, cultural, religious or other community organisation that does not exceed 2.0m2 in size or 1.5 metres in height.

12.       An advertisement not exceeding 0.6m2 in size that advertises an approved non-residential land use within the Residential zone.

13.       A Display Home Sign in the Residential zone not exceeding 2m2 in size.

14.       An advertisement attached to or painted on the wall of a building other than a residential building that identifies the name of the building or business operating from the building, where the total area of advertising is not greater than 5m2 per wall.

15.       All advertisements affixed to any shop, bulky goods showroom or other uses appropriate to a shopping area, below the top of the awning or, in the absence of an awning, below a line measured at 5 metres from the ground floor level of the building.

16.       Advertisements within any lot or on any building that is situated in an Industrial Area provided:

(a)      Advertisements applied to or affixed to the walls of the building do not:

(i)        exceed a maximum of four advertisements per building;

(ii)       exceed an area of 6m2 for individual advertisements;

(iii)      exceed a maximum total area of 10m2 per building;  

(iv)      project above the eaves or the ridge of the roof of the building;

(v)       project from a building whether or not those advertisements are connected to a pole, wall or other building; and

(b)      free standing advertisements do not exceed:

(i)        a maximum of two free-standing advertisements per lot;

(ii)       5m in height above ground level; and

(iii)      a maximum total area of 15m2 per lot.

Schedule 9 (B) sets out specific circumstances where development approval is required for advertisements, and this amendment seeks to include an additional requirement as Clause (B) 9 (as set out in Part 1 (a) of the Officer Recommendation).

 

(B)       Any advertisement will require development approval if it: 

 

1.         Advertises goods or services which are not produced, displayed or offered for sale, or which is otherwise not relevant to, the land upon which the advertisement is located. 

Note: Advertisements that advertise goods and services which are not produced, displayed or offered for sale, or which is otherwise not relevant to, the land upon which the advertisement is located, are prohibited as specified by clause 4.41.

2.         Is located so as to cause an unreasonable impediment to the safe operation of an adjoining road or footpath.

3.         Is likely to be confused with or mistaken for an official traffic light or sign or so as to contravene the Main Roads Act 1930 or the Regulations made thereunder.

4.         Is located more than 3 metres above the ground level immediately adjacent to it (where a specific height limit is not specified at (A) (1)-(16) above).

5.         Is located upon or inside a vehicle adapted and exhibited to primarily facilitate advertising.

6          Is in the form of a balloon or air blimp.

7.         Is located to form a part of, or is attached or affixed to a fence or wall which is forward of the approved building setback for any lot in the Industrial zone.

8.         Is located underneath a verandah and does not afford a minimum head clearance of 2.75 metres above the ground level immediately adjacent.”

Relevant Plans and Policies

Local Planning Policy No. 4.12 Advertisements and Advertising Signs is used to guide the development assessment of advertisements. The intent of LPP 4.12 is to set standards relating to the design and placement of Advertisements and Advertising Signs and where specific types of signage are not permitted.

 

LPP 4.12 provides development standards for static illumination and animated advertisements which relate to the additional text proposed by this amendment to include digital (eg: LED) signage.

 

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

If the Council resolves to initiate the proposed Amendment, the relevant documentation would be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for consideration of the need for formal assessment under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.  Should the EPA resolve that the Amendment does not require formal assessment, the document will be advertised for 42 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

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 Officer Recommendation the Council could:

 

1.         Request modifications to the proposed Amendment before advertising.

2.         Decline the initiation of the proposed Amendment for advertising for reasons to be identified and explained.

 

The assessment has not revealed any substantive issue or reasonable grounds that would support either of the above options.

 

CONCLUSION

The Amendment provides for the clarification of development application requirements relating to advertisements and specifically addresses that certain types of signage, such as illuminated, animated or digital signage (including LED signs), are not exempt from the requirement for development assessment.

 

Officers are recommending that the Council supports the initiation of the Amendment for public advertising.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will include referring the Amendment to the Environmental Protection Authority, which will occur within two weeks of the date of the Council decision.


Council                                                                                      15                                                                      13 April 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   Current State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

Attachment b    LVRMAG Meeting Notes and Action Sheet

Attachment c    LVRMAG Communique  

 

The officer recommendation was moved and carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2204/074              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor J Richards

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

17.1.1       State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

17.1.2       Lower Vasse River Management Advisory Group

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       Lower Vasse River Management Advisory Group

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       Lower Vasse River Management Advisory Group

 

The Lower Vasse River Management Advisory Group (LVRMAG) meeting was held 14 February 2022. The meeting notes, action sheet and communique are included as Attachment B and Attachment C.


Council

17

13 April 2022

17.1

Attachment a

Current State Administrative Tribunal Reviews

 



Council

20

13 April 2022

17.1

Attachment b

LVRMAG Meeting Notes and Action Sheet

 





Council

25

13 April 2022

17.1

Attachment c

LVRMAG Communique

 




 

 


Council                                                                                      38                                                                      13 April 2022

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

15.1           MARKETING AND EVENTS REFERENCE GROUP OUTCOMES

STRATEGIC THEME

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

2.5 Facilitate events and cultural experiences that provide social connection.

SUBJECT INDEX

MERG

BUSINESS UNIT

Commercial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Events Coordinator - Peta Tuck

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

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, there was opposition, and debate ensued.

 

The officer recommendation was carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2204/075              Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor J Richards

That the Council:

1.    Endorses funding allocations towards the following events, to be funded from the 2021/22 Events Budget:

Event

Funding Allocation

Bare Naked Theatre- Mamma Mia production

$6,500

2022 Football West Regional Festival of Football

$3,000 cash (+ up to $500 in kind)

Dunsborough SWFL Season 2022

$40,000

Film Proposal – ‘Inheritance’

$10,000

Busselton City Football Club – 100 year celebration

$5,000

TOTAL

$64,500  (+ up to $500 in kind)

2.    Endorses funding allocations towards the following events, to be funded from the 2022/23 – 2024/25 Events Budget:

Event

Funding Allocation

CinefestOZ – additional funding

2022/23 - $40,000

2023/24 - $40,000

2024/25 - $40,000

TOTALS

2022/23 - $40,000

2023/24 - $40,000

2024/25 - $40,000

3.    Endorses funding allocations towards the following initiatives, to be funded from the 2021/22 Marketing Budget:

Proposal

Funding Allocation

Creative Corner – Creative Community Activation

$6,200

TOTAL

$6,200

4.    Endorses funding allocations towards the following initiatives, to be funded from the 2022/23 Marketing Budget:

Proposal

Funding Allocation

Visage Productions – Our Town television series

$35,000

TOTAL

$35,000

5.    Endorses the alteration of the payment schedule for Cabin Fever Festival 2022 – 2024, to be paid from the 2021/22 – 2024/25 Events Budget:

Festival Year

Current Schedule

Proposed Schedule

2022

2022/23 - $40,000

2021/22 - $10,000

2022/23 - $30,000

2023

2023/24 - $40,000

2022/23 - $10,000

2023/24 - $30,000

2024

2024/25 - $40,000

2023/24 - $10,000

2024/25 - $30,000

TOTALS

2022/23 - $40,000
2023/24 - $40,000

2024/25 - $40,000

2021/22 - $10,000

2022/23 - $40,000

2023/24 - $40,000

2024/25 - $30,000

 

CARRIED 7/1

For: Cr Henley, Cr Carter, Cr Cronin, Cr Love, Cr Cox, Cr Richards, Cr Riccelli

Against: Cr Ryan


 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.    Endorses funding allocations towards the following events, to be funded from the 2021/22 Events Budget:

Event

Funding Allocation

Bare Naked Theatre- Mamma Mia production

$6,500

2022 Football West Regional Festival of Football

$3,000 cash (+ up to $500 in kind)

Dunsborough SWFL Season 2022

$40,000

Film Proposal – ‘Inheritance’

$10,000

Busselton City Football Club – 100 year celebration

$5,000

TOTAL

$64,500  (+ up to $500 in kind)

2.    Endorses funding allocations towards the following events, to be funded from the 2022/23 – 2024/25 Events Budget:

Event

Funding Allocation

CinefestOZ – additional funding

2022/23 - $40,000

2023/24 - $40,000

2024/25 - $40,000

TOTALS

2022/23 - $40,000

2023/24 - $40,000

2024/25 - $40,000

3.    Endorses funding allocations towards the following initiatives, to be funded from the 2021/22 Marketing Budget:

Proposal

Funding Allocation

Creative Corner – Creative Community Activation

$6,200

TOTAL

$6,200

4.    Endorses funding allocations towards the following initiatives, to be funded from the 2022/23 Marketing Budget:

Proposal

Funding Allocation

Visage Productions – Our Town television series

$35,000

TOTAL

$35,000

 

 

 

 

5.    Endorses the alteration of the payment schedule for Cabin Fever Festival 2022 – 2024, to be paid from the 2021/22 – 2024/25 Events Budget:

Festival Year

Current Schedule

Proposed Schedule

2022

2022/23 - $40,000

2021/22 - $10,000

2022/23 - $30,000

2023

2023/24 - $40,000

2022/23 - $10,000

2023/24 - $30,000

2024

2024/25 - $40,000

2023/24 - $10,000

2024/25 - $30,000

TOTALS

2022/23 - $40,000
2023/24 - $40,000

2024/25 - $40,000

2021/22 - $10,000

2022/23 - $40,000

2023/24 - $40,000

2024/25 - $30,000

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A meeting of the Marketing and Events Reference Group (MERG) was held Wednesday 16 March 2022. This report presents the recommendations from this meeting.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 13 April 2011, Council resolved (C1104/114) to endorse the implementation of a differential rating system whereby properties rated industrial and commercial across the City would directly contribute toward the City’s continued support of tourism, marketing and event activities. The City also established a key stakeholders reference group, known and the ‘Marketing and Events Reference Group’ (MERG), to make recommendations to Council with respect to the marketing and events budget allocations.

 

At its meeting of 22 June 2011, Council resolved (C1106/201) to introduce a 3% Differential Rate on industrial and commercial rated properties which has increased over time to 10%. The proceeds from the differential rate are allocated towards funding events and marketing.

 

The adopted 2021/22 budget for marketing and events totals $1,196,700. The breakdown of the budget is as follows:

·                $924,900 – Events;

·                $231,800 – Marketing and economic development initiatives;

·                $40,000 – City-led events.

 

This excludes budget allocations for Leavers Week, administration and events staffing. The proposed 2022/23 budget for marketing and events totals $1,012,888. The breakdown of this budget is as follows:

·                $759,666 – Events;

·                $253,222 – Marketing and economic development initiatives.

 


Through the budget process, it will be determined whether any of the Events budget will be allocated towards City led events. A MERG meeting was held on Wednesday 16 March 2022, with the following matters presented:

·        updates in events held since the last meeting on 24 November 2021 and upcoming major events;

·        consideration of funding applications for the 2021/22 – 2024/25 events and marketing budgets.

OFFICER COMMENT

Supporting the development and attraction of new events throughout the year, the City’s Events Sponsorship Programme promotes the City of Busselton as an attractive event tourism destination. At the MERG meeting held 16 March 2022 a range of requests for events funding were considered as outlined below.

 

Requests for Funding – 2021/22 Events Budget

The following requests have been received from the 2021/22 events Budget:

 

Mamma Mia Stage Production – Bare Naked Theatre

Bare Naked Theatre will be staging a production of the acclaimed musical Mamma Mia in Busselton over a period of 10 days, from 11-22 Mar 2022. In the absence of a dedicated performing arts space, and being unable to utilise the Weld Theatre due to upgrade works and size of the venue, they will be utilising the High Street Hall and will need to bring in all staging, lighting and production requirements.

 

They have been able to secure the hire of the Mamma Mia stage set which will be used at the Regal Theatre in Perth in March, and add an increased level of professionalism to the Busselton Production. Bare Naked Theatre are seeking sponsorship form the City to assist with Venue Hire, marketing, promotion and equipment hire costs. Their total budget is $98k, they are seeking sponsorship of $6.5k from the City.

 

MERG recommendation is to support Bare Naked Theatre’s request of $6.5k, to be funded from the adopted 2021/22 Events Budget. This will enable them to proceed and source necessary equipment to stage a production of this calibre in a facility that does not have the supporting infrastructure in place.

 

2022 Football West Regional Festival of Football

The City received a request to sponsor the Regional Festival of Football, to be held in Busselton on Saturday 14 May 2022. The event consists of a week long program of activities which may include open training sessions, school clinics, coaching and referee courses and workshops, a MiniRoos Coaching Certificate, and a Hyundai Club Development Workshop. This week then cumulates in a National Premier Leagues WA double-header for the Perth Glory Men’s and Women’s teams on Saturday 14 May. 

 

The event involves 100 players and officials, approximately 1400 spectators, 300 school children and 20 community coaches and referees. 25% of participants will come from outside the region.

 

The requested funding support for the event is $3k, plus in-kind venue hire of Barnard Park sporting grounds up to $500. MERG recommendation is to support the requested amount, as this represents a small investment for the economic outcomes of hosting matches of this calibre.

 


Busselton City Football Club – 100 year celebration

The City received a request to sponsor the Busselton City Football Club’s 100 year celebrations, to be held on Saturday 25 June. Their request for support is to go towards the following activities:

·        Memory Lane Historical project of a timeline display and additional video presentation – design, printing and display;

·        Historical storage of the Clubrooms – a construction of a display at the clubrooms for storage of important memorabilia;

·        Presentation Gala Evening with Special Guests and Presentations – to be held at the Esplanade Hotel;

·        Junior events (may be on a separate weekend to the Gala evening due to volunteers) – full day of events with a junior celebration on the morning (bouncy castles etc. at the club/ Churchill Park) followed by an under-18’s Silent Disco.

 

Current and past players and supporters will be invited to join in the celebrations.

 

The requested funding support for the event is $16k. MERG recommendation is to allocate an amount of $5k towards the event. This lesser amount is recommended, as this is in line with what other similar events are funded.

 

Dunsborough Football Club – South West Football League inaugural season

The Dunsborough Football Club has been accepted into the South West Football League (SWFL) for the first time in history. This will be the first club to join the league in over 15 years and the first club to join any football association in WA in over 35 years. The acceptance into the league provides immense opportunity for youth engagement, social connection, mental health and physical exercise through the connection of a community.

 

As such, to meet the requirements of the SWFL there needs to be a certain minimum level of infrastructure in place to accommodate these events. Currently the facilities at the Dunsborough Playing Fields do not meet these requirements, as outlined in the City of Busselton’s Sport and Recreations Facilities Strategic Plan. Through ongoing discussion between the City and the Dunsborough Football Club, and in light of the future master planning work for the Dunsborough Playing Fields, temporary facilities were agreed as the best options to meet the SWFL requirements for this inaugural season.

 

Due to the scale and nature of the home fixtures, the expected number of visitors, the need for traffic management, advertising and communications, and positive social outcomes, it was agreed that these dates should be treated as 10 events over the course of the winter season.

 

Each event will include 3 SWFL football games with Dunsborough hosting each of the other clubs, one at a time, with all but Busselton Football Club travelling from out of the City of Busselton region.

 

Dunsborough Football Club are seeking $40k in funding for these 10 events, on the basis of $4k per event. The funds will be used to specially contribute to the cost of hiring temporary/transportable facilities in order to host these events to the required level set by the SWFL.

 

Funding support for sporting fixtures through MERG is unusual, however given the unique circumstances, level of visitation and local social outcomes these games will achieve, MERG recommend to support this request as a one off only, with organisers to be advised that further years fixtures would need to be funded from other sources.

 

Dunsborough Football Club will be required as a condition of funding to provide detail around their engagement with visitors and local residents, businesses and accommodation providers to ensure that the region is promoted in conjunction with the fixture games.

Film Proposal – ‘Inheritance’

A proposal has been received to provide funding for a short drama film ‘Inheritance’ to be filmed in the City of Busselton and across the South West. This film is written by Myles Pollard and Ben Morley, directed by Myles Pollard and produced by Jasmine Leivers and Myles Pollard. Details as per below:

 

Inheritance is a short drama film that tells the story of recently paroled prisoner, John Barker, whose dying grandfather gives him a journal containing the story of his convict ancestor, Wilson Barker. Delving into his own history, John learns that his family’s turbulent past may have in some way contributed to his own recent skirmishes with the law. In order to move forward, John must look back and understand his psychological inheritance.

 

Inheritance was inspired by the true story of writer/director Myles Pollard’s convict ancestry. Wilson Barker was one of the last convicts transported to Perth on the 4th April 1866 of the ship, the Belgravia, for stealing cloth and eventually settled in Vasse in WA’s southwest. Wilson Barker is buried in the Busselton Cemetery. Inheritance is very culturally significant to WA, showcasing a formative chapter in the state’s history. WA was a tough place to live in the early to mid-19th Century and the regions resilience, adaptiveness and resourcefulness was built on the back of its convict heritage.

 

The film is set across two timelines, one in the present and the other in 1866. All the present day drama will be filmed conventionally while the period component will be animated. As John explores his history, compiled in a scrapbook given to him by his pop, the pages of notes, reproductions and scribblings come to life in the form of a two dimensional ‘flip-book’ animation.

 

The aim is to shoot towards the end of 2022 when the weather is mostly clear and aim to complete post production by the end of the financial year in 2023 so that the film can premiere at CinefestOZ in Busselton if it is accepted into the program. The film will be entered into film festivals throughout WA, nationally and internationally, with the aim to get on as many screens and in front of as many people as possible throughout the world.

 

The total budget they are aiming to raise is $150,000, with $33,070.50 raised so far through donations on the Australian Cultural Fund fundraising campaign.

 

https://artists.australianculturalfund.org.au/s/projects?searchterm=inheritance&sortby=CreatedDate%2520DESC

 

The organiser has requested $10k in City sponsorship.

 

MERG recommendation is to support the requested amount of $10k, to be funded from the adopted 2021/22 Events Budget as this is a unique opportunity to showcase another aspect of the region’s history, and shows the City’s support as a Film Friendly region.

 


In summary, MERG recommend the following, to be funded from the adopted 2021/22 Events Budget:

 

Event Name

Requested

MERG Recommendation

Bare Naked Theatre – Mamma Mia production

$6,500

$6,500

2022 Football West Regional Festival of Football

$3,000 cash

(+ up to $500 in kind)

$3,000 cash

(+ up to $500 in kind)

Dunsborough SWFL Season 2022

$40,000

$40,000

Film proposal – “Inheritance’

$10,000

$10,000

Busselton City Football Club – 100 year celebration

$16,000

$5,000

TOTAL

$75,500

(+ up to $500 in kind)

$64,500
(+ up to $500 in kind)

 

Requests for Funding – 2022/23 – 2024/25 Events Budget

 

CinefestOz

Since its inception in 2008, CinefestOZ has become one of the City’s hallmark events, attracting visitation in winter months and growing in stature as one of Australia’s premiere film festivals. CinefestOZ had reached the end of their previous sponsorship agreement, which was for an amount of $120k in 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22 respectively. CinefestOZ applied for a multi-year agreement from 2022/23 – 2024/25 for an amount of $160k per year.

 

At the meeting of 24 November 2021, it was felt that their application lacked sufficient information to award an increase in funding, and therefore a recommendation was made to Council to retain the funding at the previous level of $120k per year from the 2022/23, 2023/24 and 2024/25 Events Budgets. Council endorsed (C2112/122) this recommendation at the meeting of 8 December 2021.

 

CinefestOZ provided a presentation to MERG members, outlining the proposed use of the additional funds, broken down into the following three areas:

·        $15k – expansion of the CinefestOZ Industry Program (providing opportunities to leverage the City of Busselton’s Film Friendly destination status);

·        $15k – extending the free Community Day incorporating IndigefestOZ beyond a pilot and into a regular feature of the event;

·        $10k – Engagement of a National Publicist to build interstate profile and visitation, and leverage the direct flight to Busselton Margaret River Airport.

 

MERG recommend that CinefestOZ are funded for the requested additional $40,000 per annum for the next three years, evaluated annually for impact and outcomes after each year’s event and prior to the next year’s funding being provided. The funding agreement will reflect payment schedules and terms, reporting obligations, key performance indicators/milestone/outcomes to be achieved and acknowledgement/branding requirement, and will be reviewed by MERG prior to execution by all parties.

 

CinefestOZ will also be required to submit their Strategic Plan to MERG, once finalised, to clarify their sustainability plan, risks and opportunities to grow audiences and visitation to the event in the City of Busselton.

 

In summary, MERG recommend the following to be funded from the 2022/23 – 2024/25 Events Budgets:

 

Event Name

Requested

MERG Recommendation

CinefestOZ – additional funding

2022/23 $40,000

2023/24 $40,000

2024/25 $40,000

2022/23 $40,000

2023/24 $40,000

2024/25 $40,000

TOTALS

2022/23 $40,000

2023/24 $40,000

2024/25 $40,000

2022/23 $40,000

2023/24 $40,000

2024/25 $40,000

 

Requests for Funding – 2021/22 Marketing Budget

 

Creative Corner – Creative Community Activation

The City has received a proposal from Creative Corner to deliver networking and events specifically designed to encourage cross-pollination and reduce silos across the City’s creative professionals, to support increased opportunity for these practitioners and engagement with the City.

 

The objectives of the projects are as follows:

·        Provide opportunity to unite creative professionals currently living and working within the City of Busselton;

·        Facilitate networking events to encourage practitioners to collaborate on establishing sustainable creative projects and break down ‘silos’;

·        Secure high-value workshops for creative practitioners within the City of Busselton to provide upskilling opportunities to further support their professional practice.

 

The activities proposed consist of the following:

·        3 x Creative Cleanser events held in the City of Busselton;

·        Minimum three local creatives to present/speak at each;

·        3 weeks promotion of each event (minimum);

·        Co-branded with City of Busselton on all associated communications and socials;

·        Final report provided back to the City outlining feedback, attendance numbers and summary of the workshops and networking delivered.

 

The requested funding amount is $6,200, to be funded from the 2022/23 Marketing Budget.

 

MERG recommendation is to support the requested funding amount as this program supports outcomes identified in the City’s Industry Sector Analysis Report and economic development strategies.


In summary, MERG recommend the following to be funded from the 2021/22 Marketing Budget:

 

Proposal

Requested

MERG Recommendation

Creative Corner – Creative Community Activation

$6,200

$6,200

TOTALS

$6,200

$6,200

 

Requests for Funding – 2022/23 Marketing Budget

 

Visage Productions – Out Town television series

The City has received a proposal from Visage Productions, to be features in the Out Town television series to be filmed mid-2022 and aired late in 2022. The City previously participated in this show in 2018/19.

 

The proposal for the 2022 series is as follows:

·        Total budget of $40k ex GST, via a collaborative effort (note the City contributed $20k in the 2018/19 series);

·        A City of Busselton episode around the City’s growth story;

·        Each episode is made up of four, five-minute segments, with potential to include multiple partners, however, the aim is always to look like one complete story on a designated region;

·        Potential doe the City to ‘buy out’ an episode to have greater control of the wider storyline, which would be discounted;

·        The projected ten-episode series will be broadcast throughout Australia later in 2022, on the Seven TWO Network, Australia’s highest rating free-to-air digital television multichannel, on a weekend afternoon;

·        After broadcast the episodes will be added to the Seven Network on-line catch-up service 7+;

·        Filming for the series to commence from mid-2022, during the 2022-2023 financial year;

·        The overall aim of the series model is to promote why people should visit, live, work, play and invest in regional and metropolitan locations throughout Australia. 

 

The cost to the City of shared with other partner organisations is $20k, however if the City would prefer to produce the whole episode from a City of Busselton perspective and retain ownership of all segments, the cost is discounted to $35k.

 

MERG recommendation is to allocate $35k towards the episode, to retain ownership and full control of the content aired.

 

In summary, MERG recommend the following to be funded from the 2022/23 Marketing Budget:

 

Proposal

Requested

MERG Recommendation

Visage Productions – Our Town television series

$35,000

$35,000

TOTALS

$35,000

$35,000

 

 

 

Cabin Fever – alteration to payment schedule

At the meeting of 8 December 2021 (C2112/112) Council endorsed the allocation of $40k per year to the Cabin Fever Festival, to be paid from the 2022/23 – 2024/25 Events Budgets.

 

Due to the timing of the Cabin Fever Festival in July each year, funds are not normally paid until the new financial year starts. Event organisers have requested an alteration to their payment schedule to allow them some funds to pay for suppliers for services such as marketing, website design and PR that need to occur in the months leading up to the Festival. They have requested that they receive a first milestone payment upon signing for the first year of the agreement, then three months prior To the Festival in years two and three of the agreement.

 

The requested payment schedule will be as follows:

 

Festival Year

Current Schedule

Proposed Schedule

2022

2022/23 - $40,000

2021/22 - $10,000

2022/23 - $30,000

2023

2023/24 - $40,000

2022/23 - $10,000

2023/24 - $30,000

2024

2024/25 - $40,000

2023/24 - $10,000

2024/25 - $30,000

 

With sufficient budget remaining in the 2021/22 Events Budget, Officer Recommendation is that Council support the alteration to the Cabin Fever payment schedule.

 

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 with the City’s Events Policy which provides event organisers with information on the event application and approval process and event sponsorship guidelines.

 

Financial Implications

At the Council meeting of 26 July 2021 Council resolved (C2107/138) to include an allocation of $1,196,700 in the 2021/22 Marketing and Events Budget, which contains the following allocations:

·        $924,900 towards event sponsorship;

·        $231,800 towards Marketing and Economic Development initiatives; and

·        $40,000 towards City run events.

 

In addition to the above allocation for event sponsorships, and amount of $55,500 was carried over from the 2020/21 Events Budget due to the approved carry-over of $38k from the CinefestOZ 2020 event and the rescheduling of two events into the 2021/22 financial year (Raising the Vibe concert $5k, Margaret River Region Open Studios $12.5k). Therefore the overall 2021/22 Events Budget is $980,400.

 


Funds currently committed from the 2021/22 Events Budget through multi-year agreements and Round 1 of the Event Sponsorship program totals $799,500. In addition, $110,000 was allocated towards the development of the 2022 Winter Wonderland event, which will now not be proceeding.

This leaves a balance of $180,900 in the 2021/22 Events Budget for any further event attraction or initiatives. As detailed above, Officers have recommended the allocation of $64,000 cash plus $500 in kind support towards events, leaving $166,400 in the 2021/22 Events Budget if endorsed by Council.

In addition to the $231,800 allocated towards Marketing and Economic Development initiatives, an amount of $45,000 was carried over from the 2020/21 Marketing Budget due to two funded projects not having been completed (Tourism Information Bay Signage $5k, Event Strategy review $40k). Therefore the overall Marketing Budget is $276,800.

 

Funds currently committed from the 2021/22 Marketing Budget total $158.625 (Airport Marketing Reserve $50k, Busselton Performing Arts and Convention Centre (BPACC) $50k, update of the City’s Events Strategy 40k, update of tourism signage $5k, and allocations through Round 1 $13,625) leaving a balance of $118,175 remaining for any further initiatives. As detailed above, Officers have recommended the allocation of $6,200 towards marketing initiatives, leaving $111,975 in the 2021/22 Marketing Budget if endorsed by Council.

 

Funds committed through the 2021/22 City run events budget currently total $22,926, leaving $17,074 remaining in the budget for any further initiatives.

 

There is also a balance of $219,852 remaining in the Marketing and Area Promotions Reserve, as well as the $200k carried over for the development of the electronic billboard.

 

The proposed 2022/23 budget for marketing and events totals $1,012,888. The breakdown of this budget is as follows:

·                $759,666 – Events

·                $253,222 – Marketing and Economic Development Initiatives.

 

Fund currently committed from the 2022/23 Events Budget through multi-year agreements totals $623,500, leaving a balance of $136,166 for the 2022/23 event sponsorships and any other events. Through the budget process, it will be determined whether any of the Events budget will be allocated towards City led events.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

Consultation has been undertaken with MERG members with representatives comprising the Busselton and Dunsborough Yallingup Chambers of Commerce and Industry, MRBTA, Busselton Jetty Inc. and the City of Busselton.

 

Risk Assessment

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk management framework, with risks assessed taking into account any controls already in place.  The officer recommendation does not introduce any risks identified as being of a high or medium level.

 

Options

Council may choose to not support the recommendations made by MERG and resolve not to endorse part or all of the recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The MERG has been established by Council to make recommendations on the way in which funds raised through the industrial and commercial differential rate for the purposes of the events and marketing are allocated. This report contains the recommendations made at the 16 March 2022 MERG meeting, which if endorsed by Council, will result in the continuation of high quality events being held within the region, supported by successful marketing promotions. All recommendations support Councils vision of being recognised as the ‘Events Capital WA’

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Following Councils decision, the outcomes will be communicated to MERG members and relevant event/marketing bodies for their information and implemented where required.  


Council                                                                                      50                                                                      13 April 2022

Items for debate

13.1           APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (DA20/0437) - PROPOSED INDUSTRY - EXTRACTIVE (SAND) - 157 HAAG ROAD YELVERTON

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 /Planning Applications

BUSINESS UNIT

Statutory Planning

REPORTING OFFICER

Senior Development Planner – Policy - Stephanie Navarro

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

NATURE OF DECISION

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    Site Aerial

Attachment c    Proposed plans/documentation to be approved

Attachment d   Additional explanatory reports and management plans

Attachment e    Schedule of submissions – initial round

Attachment f    Schedule of submissions - second round  

 

The officer recommendation was moved and seconded, there was opposition and debate ensured.

 

During debate, Cr Riccelli moved an amendment to the officer recommendation. The amendment was lost.

 

amendment

C2204/076              Moved Councillor S Riccelli, seconded Councillor M Love

4.2       Operating hours, including in respect of any use of any vehicle or machinery or the transportation of materials, shall be restricted to the hours between:

a.         7.00am and 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays; and

b          7.00am and 1.00pm Saturdays for rehabilitation works only.

No works of any kind to be carried out at any time on Saturdays and Sundays or public holidays.

tie 4/4

for: cr riccelli, cr richards, cr love, cr cox

against: cr henley, cr ryan, cr carter, cr cronin

As the votes were equally divided, the Presiding Member cast a second vote under section 5.21(3) of the Local Government Act 1995.

lost 4/5

 

Debate continued and the officer recommendation was carried:


 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2204/077              Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor A Ryan

That the Council determines:

 

A.         That application DA20/0437 submitted for ‘Industry – Extractive’ (sand) at Lot 75 (157), Haag Road, Yelverton is considered by the Council to be generally consistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the objectives of the zone within which it is located.

 

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

 

General Conditions

 

1.         The development hereby approved is permitted to over a period of five years from the date of this Decision Notice.  The site must be fully rehabilitated in accordance with the approved Closure and Rehabilitation Plan dated 1 October 2021 before the expiry date of this development approval.

 

2.         The owner must ensure that the development hereby approved is undertaken in accordance with the approved plans, which are as follows, and any plans approved pursuant to other conditions of approval:

 

2.1       Staging Plan with existing contours and maximum seasonal groundwater levels; and

2.2       Concept Final Contour Plan; and

2.3       Conservation Covenant Areas Plan dated 16 November 2021; and

2.4       Operations Environment Management Plan dated 16 November 2021 (OEMP 2021); and

2.5       Social Impact Assessment dated 16 November 2021 (SIS 2021); and

2.6       Closure and Rehabilitation Plan dated 1 October 2021.

Where there is a conflict between a provision contained within a condition of this development approval and a provision contained within one of the plans listed above, the requirements of the condition shall prevail.

 

Prior to Commencement of any DEVELOPMENT conditions:

 

3.         The development hereby approved, or any works required to implement the development, shall not commence until the owner/applicant has applied for, and obtained, a Permit to Commence certificate from the City.  The following plans/details are to be submitted to and approved by the City prior to requesting the issue of a Permit to Commence:

 

3.1     Details validating the water supply available for dust suppression to implement the approved dust management plan.

 

3.2      Details of the proposed crossover.  The location / construction of the crossover shall be agreed to with the City and shall ensure that adequate sightlines are achieved.

 

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

 

3.4      Details of entry signage to be erected within the lot boundaries adjacent to the driveway and pit entrance visible to vehicles entering/exiting the Site.

            Signage shall include the following details:

i.          Approved operating hours; and

ii.         Site contact details; and

iii.       Ultra high frequency (UHF) channel for operators; and

iv.        Approved haulage route.

 

3.5      Means of ensuring adequate protection of conservation areas indicated on the approved Conservation Covenant Area Plan.

 

3.6      A 3D Digital Terrain Model prepared by a licensed surveyor for the whole of Lot 75 (157) Haag Road, Yelverton indicating the following in Australian Height Datum:

(i)        Existing ground levels;

(ii)       Proposed maximum extraction depths to maintain a minimum 500mm above maximum seasonal groundwater table ; and

(iii)      Minimum final ground levels after rehabilitation to maintain a minimum 700mm above maximum seasonal groundwater table.

 

3.7     A Clearing Permit for the removal of the vegetation from the Department of Water, Environment and Regulation.

 

3.8      The following being provided to the City: 

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

 

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

 

(iii)     A rehabilitation bond to the value of $30,000 (being an unconditional bank guarantee), which shall be held against satisfactory compliance with the Closure Plan.

 

(iv)     Further to Conditions 3.8(i) – 3.8(iii) an executed legal agreement with the City (with the costs of preparation of that agreement being borne by the owner or nominee). The legal agreement shall provide for:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

OnGoing Conditions:

 

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

 

4.1       The development hereby approved shall be limited to the excavation or movement of sand from its natural state on the site; screening of sand; transportation of sand within or off the site; construction of internal roads and rehabilitation works.  At no time shall any blasting works be carried out.

 

4.2       Operating hours, including in respect of any use of any vehicle or machinery or the transportation of materials, shall be restricted to the hours between:

a.         7.00am and 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays; and

b          7.00am and 1.00pm Saturdays for rehabilitation works only.

No works of any kind to be carried out at any time on Sundays or public holidays.

 

4.3       The designated haulage route to Bussell Highway will be east along Haag Road and then south along Chambers Road. No other routes may be used until trucks have reached Bussell Highway.

 

4.4       A maximum number of 24 truck movements (i.e. 12 trucks entering and 12 trucks exiting the site) shall be permitted on any operating day. No truck movements shall be permitted on any other day or outside the approved operating hours.

 

4.5       Notwithstanding Conditions 4.3 and 4.4 above, should more than 20 truck movements per day and/or an alternative haulage route be proposed, a Traffic Management Plan is to first be both submitted to and approved in writing by the City; with the Plan being submitted to the City at least 7 working days prior to any haulage not consistent with Conditions 4.3 and 4.4 occurring.

                             

Note: The City will not approve additional truck movements and/or an alternative haulage route for more than 20 working days in any calendar year. Any additional days will require a Modification to Development Approval to be submitted to, and approved by, the City.

 

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

 

4.6       All operations related to the extractive industry shall be carried out in accordance with the approved OEMP 2021 and SIS 2021, including but not limited to:

i.          part 3.1.4 – Quarantine - dieback and weeds of the OEMP; and

ii.         part 3.1.1 – Noise and Dust Management of the OEMP; and

iii.       on-going ground water monitoring in accordance with Table 8 : Hydrology and Pit Floor Management of the SIS 2021

 

4.7       The approved Closure and Rehabilitation Plan shall be implemented and carried out in accordance with the approved details.  Unless otherwise first agreed in writing, any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from first planting, are removed, die or, are assessed by the City as being seriously damaged, shall be replaced within the next available planting season with others of the same species, size and number as originally approved.

 

4.8      The owner must ensure that, annually and within the month following every anniversary of the issue by the City of the Permit to Commence certificate, a 3D Digital Terrain Model is prepared by a licensed surveyor for the whole of Lot 75 (157) Haag Road, Yelverton indicating ground levels at the time of survey in Australian Height Datum.

 

4.9       The owner must ensure that, annually and within three months following every anniversary of the issue by the City of the Permit to Commence certificate, a written report is given to the City that includes the following to the satisfaction of the City:

 

(a)  A copy of the 3D Digital Terrain Model prepared in accordance with Condition 6.11 and a statement by a licensed surveyor certifying:

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

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

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

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

 

4.10    No extraction operations, including the use of any vehicle or machinery or the stockpiling or transportation of extracted material, is to be undertaken on the site at any time when an annual written report is due under Condition 4.8 and has not been provided to the City.

 

4.11    No development, including the use of any vehicle or machinery or the stockpiling or transportation of extracted material, may be carried out at any time when any bond that is required to be in force and effect under Condition 3.8 (or any agreement made in accordance with Condition 3.8) is not in full force and effect. 

 

CARRIED 5/3

For: Cr Henley, Cr Ryan, Cr Cox, cr carter, cr cronin

against: cr love, cr riccelli, cr richards

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council determines:

 

A.         That application DA20/0437 submitted for ‘Industry – Extractive’ (sand) at Lot 75 (157), Haag Road, Yelverton is considered by the Council to be generally consistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the objectives of the zone within which it is located.

 

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

 

General Conditions

 

1.         The development hereby approved is permitted to over a period of five years from the date of this Decision Notice.  The site must be fully rehabilitated in accordance with the approved Closure and Rehabilitation Plan dated 1 October 2021 before the expiry date of this development approval.

 

2.         The owner must ensure that the development hereby approved is undertaken in accordance with the approved plans, which are as follows, and any plans approved pursuant to other conditions of approval:

 

2.1       Staging Plan with existing contours and maximum seasonal groundwater levels; and

2.2       Concept Final Contour Plan; and

2.3       Conservation Covenant Areas Plan dated 16 November 2021; and

2.4       Operations Environment Management Plan dated 16 November 2021 (OEMP 2021); and

2.5       Social Impact Assessment dated 16 November 2021 (SIS 2021); and

2.6       Closure and Rehabilitation Plan dated 1 October 2021.

Where there is a conflict between a provision contained within a condition of this development approval and a provision contained within one of the plans listed above, the requirements of the condition shall prevail.

 

Prior to Commencement of any DEVELOPMENT conditions:

 

3.         The development hereby approved, or any works required to implement the development, shall not commence until the owner/applicant has applied for, and obtained, a Permit to Commence certificate from the City.  The following plans/details are to be submitted to and approved by the City prior to requesting the issue of a Permit to Commence:

 

3.1     Details validating the water supply available for dust suppression to implement the approved dust management plan.

 

3.2      Details of the proposed crossover.  The location / construction of the crossover shall be agreed to with the City and shall ensure that adequate sightlines are achieved.

 

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

 

3.4      Details of entry signage to be erected within the lot boundaries adjacent to the driveway and pit entrance visible to vehicles entering/exiting the Site. Signage shall include the following details:

i.          Approved operating hours; and

ii.         Site contact details; and

iii.        Ultra high frequency (UHF) channel for operators; and

iv.        Approved haulage route.

 

3.5      Means of ensuring adequate protection of conservation areas indicated on the approved Conservation Covenant Area Plan.

 

3.6      A 3D Digital Terrain Model prepared by a licensed surveyor for the whole of Lot 75 (157) Haag Road, Yelverton indicating the following in Australian Height Datum:

(i)        Existing ground levels;

(ii)       Proposed maximum extraction depths to maintain a minimum 500mm above maximum seasonal groundwater table ; and

(iii)      Minimum final ground levels after rehabilitation to maintain a minimum 700mm above maximum seasonal groundwater table.

 

3.7    A Clearing Permit for the removal of the vegetation from the Department of Water, Environment and Regulation.

 

 

 

3.8      The following being provided to the City: 

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

 

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

 

(iii)      A rehabilitation bond to the value of $30,000 (being an unconditional bank guarantee), which shall be held against satisfactory compliance with the Closure Plan.

 

(iv)      Further to Conditions 3.8(i) – 3.8(iii) an executed legal agreement with the City (with the costs of preparation of that agreement being borne by the owner or nominee). The legal agreement shall provide for:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

OnGoing Conditions:

 

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

 

4.1       The development hereby approved shall be limited to the excavation or movement of sand from its natural state on the site; screening of sand; transportation of sand within or off the site; construction of internal roads and rehabilitation works.  At no time shall any blasting works be carried out.

 

4.2       Operating hours, including in respect of any use of any vehicle or machinery or the transportation of materials, shall be restricted to the hours between:

a.         7.00am and 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays; and

b          7.00am and 1.00pm Saturdays for rehabilitation works only.

No works of any kind to be carried out at any time on Sundays or public holidays.

 

4.3       The designated haulage route to Bussell Highway will be east along Haag Road and then south along Chambers Road. No other routes may be used until trucks have reached Bussell Highway.

 

4.4       A maximum number of 24 truck movements (i.e. 12 trucks entering and 12 trucks exiting the site) shall be permitted on any operating day. No truck movements shall be permitted on any other day or outside the approved operating hours.

 

4.5       Notwithstanding Conditions 4.3 and 4.4 above, should more than 20 truck movements per day and/or an alternative haulage route be proposed, a Traffic Management Plan is to first be both submitted to and approved in writing by the City; with the Plan being submitted to the City at least 7 working days prior to any haulage not consistent with Conditions 4.3 and 4.4 occurring.

                             

Note: The City will not approve additional truck movements and/or an alternative haulage route for more than 20 working days in any calendar year. Any additional days will require a Modification to Development Approval to be submitted to, and approved by, the City.

 

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

 

4.6       All operations related to the extractive industry shall be carried out in accordance with the approved OEMP 2021 and SIS 2021, including but not limited to:

i.          part 3.1.4 – Quarantine - dieback and weeds of the OEMP; and

ii.         part 3.1.1 – Noise and Dust Management of the OEMP; and

iii.        on-going ground water monitoring in accordance with Table 8 : Hydrology and Pit Floor Management of the SIS 2021

4.7       The approved Closure and Rehabilitation Plan shall be implemented and carried out in accordance with the approved details.  Unless otherwise first agreed in writing, any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from first planting, are removed, die or, are assessed by the City as being seriously damaged, shall be replaced within the next available planting season with others of the same species, size and number as originally approved.

 

4.8      The owner must ensure that, annually and within the month following every anniversary of the issue by the City of the Permit to Commence certificate, a 3D Digital Terrain Model is prepared by a licensed surveyor for the whole of Lot 75 (157) Haag Road, Yelverton indicating ground levels at the time of survey in Australian Height Datum.

 

4.9       The owner must ensure that, annually and within three months following every anniversary of the issue by the City of the Permit to Commence certificate, a written report is given to the City that includes the following to the satisfaction of the City:

 

(a)  A copy of the 3D Digital Terrain Model prepared in accordance with Condition 6.11 and a statement by a licensed surveyor certifying:

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

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

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

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

 

4.10    No extraction operations, including the use of any vehicle or machinery or the stockpiling or transportation of extracted material, is to be undertaken on the site at any time when an annual written report is due under Condition 4.8 and has not been provided to the City.

 

4.11    No development, including the use of any vehicle or machinery or the stockpiling or transportation of extracted material, may be carried out at any time when any bond that is required to be in force and effect under Condition 3.8 (or any agreement made in accordance with Condition 3.8) is not in full force and effect. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received a development application for ‘Industry – Extractive’ (sand) at Lot 75 (157) Haag Road, Yelverton. Due to the nature of the issues requiring consideration and the level of community interest, the application is being presented to Council for determination, rather than being determined by City officers acting under delegated authority.

 

Having considered the application, including submissions received in relation to the application, City officers consider that the application is consistent with the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (Scheme) and the broader, relevant planning framework including Local Planning Policy 2.3 – Extractive Industries (LPP2.3).

 

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

BACKGROUND

In July 2020 the City received a development application for ‘Industry – Extractive’ (sand) at Lot 75 (157) Haag Road, Yelverton (the Site). One month prior to lodging the development application the City received notice from Department of Water and Environmental Regulations (DWER) that the applicant had lodge an application under section 51E(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (‘clearing permit’) to clear 11.572 hectares of native vegetation on the Site for the purposes of sand extraction. The City received notice from DWER that additional information in relation to the clearing permit had been requested and that they were working with the applicant to resolve outstanding issues.

 

The application was subsequently accepted for assessment in September 2020 and was advertised to surrounding landowners within a 1 kilometre of the Site as well as several state government agencies. A submission was received from DWER that they were still processing the clearing permit and waiting on additional information from the applicant. The development application was subsequently placed on “hold” awaiting the outcome of the clearing permit assessment process.

 

In September 2021, the applicant obtained advice from DWER that they were satisfied with the revegetation plan and that a clearing permit would be granted, subject to conditions, including development approval from the City. Through the negotiation process with DWER the area approved to be cleared, and extracted, was reduced from 11.5 hectares to 5 hectares.

 

Following confirmation from DWER that a clearing permit could be obtained, the City re-commenced processing of the development application. Given the extent of change and passage of time, re-advertised the application to surrounding properties owners and occupiers within 1 kilometre of the Site.

 

 

Key information regarding the application is set out below ––

 

1.         Landowner/s: Staunton Developments Pty Ltd. (Note : The property has sold since the application was first lodged, the new owner has signed the development application form and the former owner has remained as the applicant for the application).

 

2.         Applicant: Stuart Threadgold

 

3.         Site area: 48.8643 Ha

 

4.         General description of site: The Site is located approximately 1.1 kilometres west of the intersection of Haag Road and Chambers Road. The surrounding lots are predominately zoned Rural and are used for agricultural purposes, directly south-east and north-west of the Site there are two short term accommodation operators, Mile End Glamping and Hidden Valley Resort. In addition, there are two Bushland Protection zoned lots located to the north-east of the site, plus a reserve to the north-west of the Site.

 

5.         Current development/use: The northern portion of the Site is currently used for agricultural pursuits and contains a dwelling and ancillary accommodation. The central portion of the site is the location of a previous sand extraction (DA ref : DA12/0338).

 

6.         Brief description of proposed development: The applicant proposed to extract approximately 250,000 cubic metres of sand from an area of 5 hectares broken into three cells.

 

The applicant proposes to transport the materials to Bussell Highway by travelling east from the Site along Haag Road then turning south on to Chambers Road and travelling further east to Bussell Highway.

 

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

 

8.         Land-use permissibility: Industry – Extractive is an ‘A’ use in the Rural Zone, meaning that it is a use that may be permitted in the Zone at the reasonable discretion of the City, following a compulsory period of consultation and consideration of any submissions received. Under LPP2.3 the site is located within Policy Area 3, which is considered less constrained than other policy areas due to the primarily agriculture nature of the area.

 

The following attachments are provided –

·        Attachment A – Location plan.

·        Attachment B – Site aerial.

·        Attachment C – Proposed plans/documents to be approved, including;

Staging Plan with existing contours and maximum seasonal groundwater levels; and

Concept final contour plan; and

Conservation covenant areas dated 16 November 2021; and

Operations Environment Management Plan dated 16 November 2021; and

Social Impact Assessment dated 16 November 2021; and

Closure and Rehabilitation Plan dated 1 October 2021.


·        Attachment D – Addition explanatory reports and management plans, including;

Fauna Assessment; and

Flora and Vegetation Assessment; and

Hydrological Assessment.

·        Attachment E – Schedule of submissions – initial round.

·        Attachment F – Schedule of submissions – second round.

OFFICER COMMENT

Provided below is an outline of some of the key considerations, that the proposal clearly complies with -

·        Lot boundary setbacks - The proposal meets the requirement related to minimum setbacks from property boundaries (i.e. 20 metres).

·        Separation to the maximum seasonal ground water table - Hydrological information has been provided setting out that the pit levels as well as the final surface levels following rehabilitation will meet the requirements of DWER’s Water Quality Protection Note 15 Basic Raw Materials Extraction (2019).

·        School bus route - There are no school bus routes along either Haag Road or Chambers Road which form part of the haulage route to Bussell Highway.

·        Rehabilitation – Sufficient separation distance from final ground level to the maximum seasonal ground water table of 700mm can be achieved and will be enforced via an on-going condition of development approval.

·                Phytophthora dieback (dieback) & weed management – Inconsistent advice has been provided by the applicant and DBCA regarding the presence of dieback on the Site, however, flora surveys have indicates that two declared pest species under the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act (2007) are present on the Site being Asparagus asparagoides (bridal creeper) and Zantedeschia aethiopica (Arum lily). Both a dieback and weed management plan have been submitted as part of the development application and form part of the supporting documentation. Both plans are to be implemented via a condition of development approval.

 

The following considerations, all of which were raised through submissions, are also relevant, and require further discussion –

1.         Site History; and

2.         Environmental impacts; and

3.         Amenity Impacts, including setbacks to sensitive premises; and

4.         Haulage.

 

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

 

Site History

The current applicant, and former owner of the Site, initially gained approved to operate an extractive from the Site in September 2005. This approval proposed to extract 240,000m3 of sand from the northern portion of the Site and proposed access to the Site from Chambers Road via an adjoining lot. This application was never implemented and subsequently expired.

 


The applicant re-applied in 2012 for the same area to be extracted as the 2005 approval, however, access was proposed to be taken from Haag Road rather than via the adjoining lot onto Chambers Road.  The Council, at its meeting held on 24 April 2013, granted approval to this proposal subject to several conditions including a condition that Haag Road, which was a single width gravel road, be sealed at the applicant’s expense. The applicant subsequently appealed this condition through the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) and through the mediation process the condition was amended such that Haag Road was no longer required to be sealed, however, it was required to be upgraded to a 7 metre wide gravel constructed formation.

 

In 2017, the applicant lodged a development application for sand extraction which proposed to extract material in the same location as what was initially proposed as part of the current application before the Council. This application was refused by the City under Delegated Authority on 6 April 2018 for the following reasons:

 

REFUSE TO GRANT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL

for the following reasons:

 

1.              The site is located within the Geographe Bay Rivers Surface Water Area and the Busselton-Capel Groundwater Area, both proclaimed under the ‘Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914.  On the basis of the lack of information, it is considered the proposal would intercept groundwater to the detriment of the natural environment and water resources.

 

2.         On the basis of the lack of information submitted the impact on the site’s hydrology is considered to pose an unacceptable risk to groundwater dependent Federally listed vegetation community, ‘Banksia Woodlands of the Swan Coastal Plain’.  Further, changes in hydrological function would impact on the vegetation community.

 

3.         The proposal would result in the loss of Federally listed vegetation community, ‘Banksia Woodlands of the Swan Coastal Plain’, the vegetation provides habitat for the Western Ringtail Possum.  It is considered that the loss of the vegetation would result in an unacceptable impact on the natural environment.

 

4.         Insufficient information has been submitted to confirm that the vegetation is subject to dieback. Notwithstanding Reason No.3 above, on the basis of the lack of information, the proposal may result in the spread of Dieback to the detriment of the environment and surrounding properties.

 

5.         On the basis of the lack of information, the post extraction change in ground level will result in standing groundwater, exposure of groundwater to pollutants, evaporative loss of the resource and hydrological dysfunction.  Changes in hydrology will severely impact the agricultural viability of the site following extractive activities.

 

6.         Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 Deemed Provisions lists matters that local government is to have due regard to when considering a development application. The following are considered to be of relevance to the subject proposal:

 

(a)      The aims and provisions of the Scheme and any other local planning Scheme operating within the Scheme Area;

 

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

(n)      The amenity of the locality including the following –

 

i) Environmental 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;

 

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

 

Approval of the proposal would be in conflict with provisions (a), (g), (n), (o), (p), (q) and (za) listed under Clause 67 of the Regulations.   

 

7.         As a result of the above the proposal is inconsistent with Local Planning Scheme 21 Clause 3.2.6 objectives of the Agriculture zone:

 

(a)      To conserve the productive potential of rural land

 

(k)       To control the clearing of trees and encourage generally the retention of vegetation and vegetation corridors concomitant with the agricultural use of the land.

8.         Further, the proposal is inconsistent with the below considerations of Local Planning Policy 5A: Extractive Industry Provisions:

 

(1)       Proximity to areas of declared rare or endangered flora and fauna (DRF) or threatened ecological communities. 

(2)       Proximity to and significance of watercourses, drains, wetlands and on-site and adjoining dams and need for surface drainage and groundwater management plans.

(3)       Evidence of Dieback disease and the suitability of a Dieback Hygiene Management Plan.

(4)       Comments or recommendations from the Environmental Protection Authority, Department of Agriculture and Food WA, the Department of Water or any other relevant government agency.

(5)      Proposed end use of the site, particularly if intending to revert to agricultural land

 

9.         Approval of this development would be inconsistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality for the reasons noted above.

 

The applicant subsequently appealed this refusal through the SAT, however, following mediation between the City and the applicant, the applicant withdrew from the SAT proceedings. 

 


The applicant lodged another development application for the same proposed extraction location in September 2019, however, this application was not accepted by the City as the information in relation to groundwater monitoring was deemed insufficient to constitute ‘an application’ for the purposes of the Regulations. The applicant had previously been advised that details of the Maximum Seasonal Groundwater Level was required to be submitted as part of the development application and that this information should comprise of water monitoring details which should be correlated to historical data from the most appropriate DWER regional monitoring bore, groundwater contour map and proposed maximum pit floor levels.

 

The applicant subsequently undertook the required water monitoring and submitted the current development application with the City in July 2020, while working with DWER to resolve outstanding issues with the clearing permit. In September 2021, the applicant obtained advice from DWER that they were satisfied with the revegetation plan and that a clearing permit would be granted, subject to conditions, including development approval from the City.  Through the negotiation process with DWER the area approved to be cleared, and extracted, was reduced from 11.5 hectares to 5 hectares.

 

Following confirmation from DWER that a clearing permit could be obtained, the City re-commenced processing of the development application. Given the extent of change and passage of time, the City re-advertised the application over December 2021 – January 2022 to surrounding properties owners and occupiers within 1 kilometre of the Site.

 

It is noted that through the time taken to process the development application, the property has sold and is now under new ownership. The new owner has signed the development application form and the previous owner has remained the applicant for the application. It is not uncommon for owners to nominate another party to act as the applicant for a development application and, as development approval runs with the land and not the owner, it is considered that there are no on-going implications from a planning point of view as a result of the change in ownership.

 

Environmental Impacts

The portion of site subject to this application will require the removal of native vegetation and a clearing permit from DWER. Whilst the City needs to consider potential environmental impacts in the assessment of development applications, it is not appropriate that the City duplicate State and/or Commonwealth regulatory processes. DWER have indicated that a conditional clearing permit could be obtained for the proposed area to be cleared, subject to conditions requiring rehabilitation to be undertaken, it is considered that the environmental impacts, including impacts on both fauna and flora, of the development have been sufficiently assessed and addressed.

 

In light of the clearing permit not being issued, a condition has been recommended that prior to commencement a clearing permit is required to be submitted to the City.  Whilst imposing a condition that requires a licence to be issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 could be challenged in the SAT, it is considered that it is appropriate as the applicant could withdraw the clearing permit that is being assessed and the environmental impacts would not have been considered as part of this application. 

 

Amenity Impacts, including setbacks to sensitive premises

A number of concerns have been raised in relation to the potential impact of the proposal on the “residential amenity” of the area. It is noted that the site is zoned ‘Rural’ and is surrounded by ‘Rural’ zoned properties. In AGC Earthmoving Group Pty Ltd and Shire of Mundaring [2008] WASAT 151, the SAT dealt with the 'central question' of rural amenity, and the position of the rural residents who objected to an extractive industry on this basis. The SAT decision stated as follows:

 

Even allowing for the fact that rural areas are not immune from noise and related issues (“Rural areas generate a variety of "externalities" ­ mainly noise and dust emissions. One cannot expect to reside in such a zone and necessarily expect a quiet and serene rural environment.” : Marley­ Duncan v Corporation of the Town of Gawler [2003] SAERDC 28 … cited in Self and Shire of Serpentine­ Jarrahdale [2005] WASAT 140 … the objectors [in AGC] still remain troubled that their 'idyllic' lifestyle might be affected by an activity (here an extractive industry) which they see as wholly counter to the notions of rural living, especially in an area such as here where the subject land forms a 'quiet rural cul-de-sac'.  However, it is well settled that the noise and other nuisances that may be expected from the class of potential activities permitted or contemplated (if approved) in rural areas produces no absolutes in favour of objecting residents…

 

It is therefore considered that due to the zoning of the property, and surrounding area, that a different level of consideration to “amenity” should be given to that of an area zoned ‘Residential’. While it is noted that there are sensitive premises located on surrounding lots, the zone in which they are located is one set aside for rural activities often, if not always, associated with a degree of impact.

 

The main emissions generated from an extractive operation that have the potential to have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of surrounding properties are noise and dust. In line with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, it is necessary for individual operators to take all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent or minimise emissions from their premise. It is generally expected that, through appropriate site layout and design as well the implementation of adequate management plans, emissions from an individual extractive operation can be prevented from causing an adverse impact beyond the boundaries of the particular site. Generally, impacts will decrease with increasing distance from the source of the emission and therefore buffer distances are applied.

 

The Environmental Protection Authority Guidance Statement No.3 (EPA Guidance Statement) provides advice on generic separation distances between specific industries and sensitive land uses to avoid or minimise the potential for land use conflict. The distances outlined in the EPA Guidance Statement are not intended to be absolute separation distances, rather they are a default distance for the purposes of:

·        identifying the need for specific separation distance or buffer definition studies; and

·        providing general guidance on separation distances in the absence of site specific technical studies.

 

Where a lesser setback is proposed than that identified within the EPA Guidance Statement, it is not adequate justification for an application to not be supported, but rather that site-specific investigations are to be undertaken and reports demonstrating that the separation distance will meet acceptability criteria be submitted. Furthermore, enforceable management techniques should be applied to ensure an appropriate outcome.

 


In relation to separation distances, the EPA Guidance Statement provides the following generic buffer distances for sand extraction is 300m – 500m (depending on scale). The City’s LPP2.3 states as follows in relation to setback distances:

 

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

 

In relation to this development application, with the exception of Lot 22 (76) Yelverton Road all of the surrounding sensitive land uses, including dwellings, would be in excess of 500m to the proposed extraction area.  In relation to Lot 22 (76), the property contains a dwelling setback at approximately 350m and two chalets, one of which setback at approximately 485m to the proposed extraction area.  All of the sensitive premises on Lot 22 (76) would have a separation distance in excess of the minimum separation distance of 300m.

 

The two main potential impacts are noise and dust.  The City has not previously received any complaints regarding operations on the Site in relation to dust, however, it has received complaints regarding noise from beepers on machinery working within the pit. It is noted that there is dense, mature vegetation between the proposed extractive area and these sensitive premises that will assist in ameliorating any impacts. As further controls, the operations will be required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and dust will be required to be contained on site via the requirements of the Dust Management Plan and Dust and Building Waste Local Law it is considered that these external impacts will be adequately addressed and therefore the proposed setbacks are appropriate.

 

The EPA Guidance Statement and LPP2.3 do not address separation distances of a sensitive premises from a proposed haulage route. This matter, in particular in relation to dust, has been addressed further under the Haulage heading below.

 

Haulage

Dust from using a gravel road

In the last 5–10 years, the City has approved several extractive operations which proposed to use gravel roads as part of their haulage route. The most recent being an extraction at Lot 101 (285) Gibb Road (City Ref: DA18/0674).

 

In this instance, the following 3 dwellings along the gravel portion of the haulage route along Haag Road. These dwellings and their setbacks to the gravel formation of Haag Road are as follows:

·    Lot 102 (84) Haag Road setback 280m;

·    Lot 2 (82) Haag Road setback 340m; and

·    Lot 7 (2) Haag Road setback 350m.

 

With regard to the concerns raised about dust generated from the haul route, the City’s Dust and Building Waste Control Local Law (Local Law) and LPP2.3 only deals with dust from a site  and requires dust from a vehicle load (i.e. the sand in the tray of a truck) be contained via “effective measures”.  The Local Law and LPP2.3 do not deal with dust generated from the road surface by a vehicle travelling along a road.  As a result the dust management plan recommends dust suppression within the site and internal haul routes only.

 

Suitability of haulage route

The applicant has indicated that a maximum of 24 truck movements per day (12 trucks entering, 12 trucks leaving the property) are proposed. It is noted that the previous extraction approved on the Site in 2005 proposed to remove a similar amount as the current application (240,000m3) over a shorter timeframe (3 years). This supporting documentation submitted as part of this application indicated that 24 truck movements per day (12 trucks entering, 12 trucks leaving the property).

 

Traffic data collected by the City along Haag Road in 2018 indicates a maximum daily vehicle count of 45 movements per day. It is noted that no new, traffic generating development has been approved along Haag Road since 2018 and therefore it is considered that this data accurately reflects traffic movements along Haag Road.

 

Under the City’s LPP2.3 it is noted that daily movements over 75 per day it is recommended that roads be upgraded to a minimum carriageway width of 7.5 metres with a 3.5 metre seal. The City has previously obtained advise from a traffic consultant regarding the requirements of road upgrades, due to the age of the LPP it is outdated and has not kept up with current standards, including Austroad Guidelines.

 

The Austroad Guidelines detail standards for the design of sealed roads in Western Australia. As Austroad does not deal with unsealed roads, Main Roads advise that for guidance on the design of unsealed roads, reference is made to the "ARRB Unsealed roads manual Guidelines to good practice 3rd edition March 2009-08-19" (ARRB Guidelines).Under the ARRB Guidelines, the carriageway requirements for roads with ‘very low volumes’ (less than 150vpd) is one lane with a carriageway width (including shoulders) of 5m–6m. This standard allows for vehicle to pass each other by riding half on the traffic land and half on the shoulders.

 

ARRB Guidelines state that roads carrying ‘heavy or long vehicles towing multiple trailers’ (i.e. any vehicle greater in length or weight than an ‘as-of-right’ vehicle) should require additional road width in the order of 200mm per lane. It is considered that by requiring the carriageway width to be widened to 7 metres, adequate lane width is provided for two semi-trailers to pass. Taking into account the proposed maximum vehicle movements per day, it is considered that the likelihood of this occurring is relatively low, however, if this does occur it can be accommodated in the wider carriageway width.

 

Haag Road was upgraded to a 7m wide constructed gravel formation as required by a condition of the 2012 approval, and no greater number of truck movements are proposed as part of this application.  There is not considered to be any planning basis on which to either refuse the application on traffic grounds, or require further upgrades.

 

Statutory Environment

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

 

Zoning

The site is zoned ‘Rural’. The objectives of the ‘Rural’ zone are as follows –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Matters to be considered

Clause 67 of the deemed provisions within the Regulations sets out ‘considerations of applications by local government’ and outlines the matters to be given due regard by a local government in considering an application for development approval. The following matters are considered to be relevant to consideration of this application –

 

(2)       In considering an application for development approval (other than an application on which approval cannot be granted under subclause (1)), In considering an application for development approval the local government is to have due regard to the following matters to the extent that, in the opinion of the local government, those matters are relevant to the development the subject of the 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);

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

(m)     the compatibility of the development with its setting including –

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

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

 


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

(i)        environmental impacts of the development;

(ii)       the character of the locality;

(iii)     social impacts of the development;

 

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

           

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

 

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

 

(s)       the adequacy of —

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

(y)       any submissions received on the application;

 

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

 

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

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

Leeuwin‐Naturaliste Ridge Statement of Planning Policy

The LNRSPP places a very high priority on the protection of Prime Agricultural Land with the overriding criterion being to ensure the predominant use of land will be agriculture. Other uses, including uses of interspersed lands with lesser agricultural potential, will be compatible with and not jeopardise, agricultural use of adjoining Prime Agricultural Land. The LNRSPP requires that development of mineral and basic raw material resources will be subject to programmed rehabilitation which will be recommended as a condition of any Planning Consent (Development Application) granted.  The rehabilitation of the extracted area with native vegetation is required as a condition of development approval and the clearing permit from DWER when granted.

State Planning Policy 2.4 - Basic raw materials

The intent of SPP2.4 is to ensure basic raw materials (BRM) and extractive industries matters are considered during planning and development decision-making, to facilitate the responsible extraction and use of the State’s BRM resources. The objectives of SPP2.4 are to:

·        ensure BRM and its regional importance is considered at the earliest stages of the planning process;

·        protect BRM in SGS areas and ES by avoiding encroachment from incompatible land uses;

·        ensure BRM resources are used efficiently in land use planning and development;

·        identify BRM extraction opportunities through sequential land use without compromising the final intended land use; and

·        ensure the extraction of BRM avoids, minimises or mitigates any adverse impacts on the community, water resources and biodiversity values.

 

Local Planning Policy 2.3 - Extractive Industries

Local planning policies must be given due regard, but cannot and do not bind the City, in the assessment of applications for development approval. LPP2.3 provides guidance regarding the extraction of basic raw materials. The application site is located within Policy Area 3, elements of LPP2.3 considered particularly relevant to assessment of the application are as follows –

 

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

 

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

 

4.2.5         Route Assessment and Transportation:

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

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

b)  Any comments or recommendations from Main Roads WA.

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

 

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

The application was initially advertised in accordance with clause 64 Advertising applications of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (Regulations). Clause 64 of the deemed provisions sets out circumstances in which an application for development approval must be advertised, and also sets out the means by which applications may be advertised.

 

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

 

The application was initially open for submissions from 24 September 2020 to 21 October 2020. The application was advertised in the following manner –

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

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

3.         Letters were sent to all the land owners within one kilometre of the site; and

4.         A notice was placed in a local newspaper on 30 September 2020.

 

A total of 10 submission were received all of which opposed the development. A summary of submissions received during the initial round of advertising is provided at Attachment E.

 

Once confirmation from DWER that a clearing permit could be obtained, due to the length of time that had passed since the application was originally advertised, the City deemed it necessary for the application to be readvertised. In addition, in the time that the application was originally advertised four properties within 1km of the site changed ownership. In addition, in 2021 updates to the Regulations came into effect and the application as now required to be assessed as a “complex” application Under the Regulations, all complex applications are required to be advertised for a minimum consultation period of 28 days (previously 14 or 21 days) via the following means:

 

i.          Notice/letters sent to all owners and occupiers within 200m of the site (note: the City’s LPP Extractive Industry requires consultation within 1km of the site);

ii.         Sign/s on site; and

iii.        Notice placed within the newspaper.

 

The application was subsequently re-advertised from 3 December 2021 to 7 January 2022.The application was advertised in the following manner –

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

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

3.         Letters were sent to all the land owners and occupiers within one kilometre of the site; and

4.         A notice was placed in a local newspaper on 10, 17, 24 and 31 December 2020.

 

A total of 13 submission were received all of which opposed the development. A summary of submissions received during the initial round of advertising is provided at Attachment F.

 

The key concerns raised in both rounds of advertising are as outline below:

·        Concerns regarding haulage route including safety; and

·        Concerns regarding environmental impacts including clearing of native vegetation; and

·        Concerns regarding dust and noise; and

·        Concerns regarding on-going compliance; and

·        Concerns regarding proximity to sensitive land uses.

 

These concerns are address further in the officer comment section of this report above.

 

Risk Assessment

An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk management framework, with risks assessed taking into account any controls already in place. The key risk to the City is considered to be the potential reputational and environmental risk that may arise if the site is not managed in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval. Mitigation of that risk requires proactive and appropriately resourced compliance activity.

 

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could:

 

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

 

2.    Apply additional or different conditions.

CONCLUSION

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

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

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

 


Council

61

13 April 2022

13.1

Attachment a

Location Plan

 


Council

62

13 April 2022

13.1

Attachment b

Site Aerial

 


Council

166

13 April 2022

13.1

Attachment c

Proposed plans/documentation to be approved

 

















































































































































Council

215

13 April 2022

13.1

Attachment d

Additional explanatory reports and management plans

 





























































































































Council

337

13 April 2022

13.1

Attachment e

Schedule of submissions – initial round

 








Council

347

13 April 2022

13.1

Attachment f

Schedule of submissions - second round

 











Council                                                                                      349                                                                   13 April 2022

14.             Engineering and Works Services Report

Nil


16.             Finance and Corporate Services Report

Nil


Council                                                                                      351                                                                   13 April 2022

18.             Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given

Nil

 

19.             urgent business

                   Nil

 

20.             Confidential Reports  

                   Nil


21.             Closure

 

The Presiding Member closed the meeting at 7:09pm

 

THESE MINUTES CONSISTING OF PAGES 1 TO 365 WERE CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD ON Wednesday, 27 April 2022.

 

DATE:_________________  PRESIDING MEMBER:         _____________________________