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 25 May 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. 7

Previous Council Meetings. 7

8.1          Minutes of the Council Meeting held 11 May 2022. 7

Committee Meetings. 7

8.2          Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting held 11 May 2022. 7

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

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

11..... Items brought forward.. 9

ADOPTION BY EXCEPTION RESOLUTION.. 9

12.1        Finance Committee - 11/5/2022 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE - MARCH 2022. 10

12.2        Finance Committee - 11/5/2022 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - YEAR TO DATE AS AT 31 MARCH 2022. 21

14.1        PROPOSAL TO DEDICATE AS PUBLIC ROAD, PORTION OF LOT 4959 OF CROWN RESERVE 42673, CAPE NATURALISTE ROAD, DUNSBOROUGH.. 52

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 61

ITEMS FOR DEBATE. 67

13.1        SECTION 31 RECONSIDERATION - PROPOSED RECEPTION CENTRE - LOT 21 (NO.64) ESPINOS ROAD, SABINA RIVER. 67

13.2        DRAFT DUNSBOROUGH PRECINCT STRUCTURE PLAN AND ASSOCIATED AMENDMENT 52 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 21 - CONSIDERATION FOR INITIATION; AND AMENDMENT 50 MINISTERIAL DECISION.. 545

15..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 820

16..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 821

18..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 822

19..... urgent business. 822

20..... Confidential Reports. 822

21..... Closure. 823

 


Council                                                                                      9                                                                         25 May 2022

MINUTES

 

MINUTES OF A Meeting of the Busselton City Council HELD IN Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton, ON 25 May 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 Sue Riccelli

Cr Ross Paine

Cr Kate Cox

Cr Anne Ryan (via remote attendance)

Cr Phill Cronin

Cr Jodie Richards

Cr Mikayla Love

 

Officers:

 

Mr Mike Archer, Chief Executive Officer (via remote attendance)

Mr Oliver Darby, Director, Engineering and Works Services

Mr Paul Needham, Director, Planning and Development Services

Mrs Naomi Searle, Director, Community and Commercial Services

Mr Tony Nottle, Director, Finance and Corporate Services

Ms Sarah Pierson, Manager Governance and Corporate Services
Ms Jo Barrett-Lennard, Governance Officer

 

 

Apologies:

 

Cr Paul Carter          Deputy Mayor

 

 

Approved Leave of Absence:

 

Nil

 

 

Media:

 

“Busselton-Dunsborough Times”

 

Public:

 

21

 

 

3.               Prayer

 

The prayer was delivered by Pastor Joe Attwater from Dunsborough Church of Christ.

 

 

4.               Application for Leave of Absence 

 

Nil

 

 

5.               Disclosure Of Interests

The Mayor noted that a declaration of impartiality interest had been received from Cr Mikayla Love in relation to Agenda Item 13.1 ‘Section 31 Reconsideration – Proposed Reception Centre – Lot 21 (No.64) Espinos Road, Sabina River’.

 

The Mayor advised that, in accordance with regulation 22(2)(b) of the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021, this declaration would be read out immediately before Item 13.1 was discussed.

 

6.               Announcements Without Discussion

Announcements by the Presiding Member

 

Mayor Grant Henley acknowledged Reconciliation Week, and encouraged Councillors and members of the public to attend the Reconciliation Walk on Friday 27 May 2022 in the interests of Reconciliation with our Indigenous Community.

 

7.               Question Time For Public

Prior to the Public Question Time commencing the Mayor advised that the responses to questions taken on notice at the previous meeting were displayed on the screen, and would be tabled in the minutes.

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice

 

The following questions were taken on notice by the Council at the 11 May 2022 Ordinary Council meeting.

 


7.1             Mr Andrew Macnish

 

Question

Given my second question put to the last Council meeting and the City's answer provided yesterday, will the Council furnish the public via its response hereto with the applicable instrument of authorisation of power pursuant to Section 5.44 from the CEO to the Manager Legal and Property Services?

 

Response

The City will make available to you the relevant authorisation of power and organise a suitable time for you to review the documentation.

 

Question

Were the ARC members (soon to consider a legal brief and subsequent advice) misled by presiding member Cr Carter in his communication of the CEO having made an appropriate delegation but who had in fact chosen not to? 

 

Response

Nobody has been misled. The matter was dealt with by the Manager of Legal and Property Services without the involvement of the CEO. Regardless of the terminology used to issue power, the CEO issued power to the Manager of Legal and Property Services in relation to the matter.

 

Question Time for Public

 

7.2             Mr Don Edwards

 

Question

Is the Council doing anything formally to investigate eco-friendly housing and building alternatives within the City of Busselton?

 

Response

(Mayor Grant Henley)

The Council is not formally investigating these particular housing designs. The City has land that is zoned for future residential, and the City is amenable to any discussion with any developer or proponent of any potential solution to the housing crisis.

 

7.3             Mr Peter Kyle

 

Question

A revised proposal regarding the Dugalup Centre has been put to the City in accordance with some direction from the State Administrative Tribunal. Can the City tell me whether or not the revised proposal involved was of a similar nature to the one previously rejected,  but with four and five storeys?

 

Response

(Mayor Grant Henley)

I will ask Mr Needham to respond noting there are some confidential issues around the preparation of the responsible authority report as part of that reconsideration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Mr Paul Needham, Director Planning and Development Services)

The issues at this stage are around publication of plans, not provision of information. We are working with the proponents to enable some of the information associated with the modified proposal to be published. If we cannot resolve that then the publication will be with the RJDAP report.

 

I can say that the revised plans have not been fully assessed by City Officers at this stage, but that they do involve a building that is not as high or bulky as was previously proposed. This building includes three storey and five storey elements.

 

Question
Why is the City proceeding with a proposal for a scheme amendment which will allow exactly what the proponents of this development want and exactly contrary to what the community of Dunsborough said it did not want? Is that not an invitation to the applicants for development approval to proceed in light of the fact that once this Precinct Structure Plan and the scheme amendments have been approved it is a seriously entertained planning provision?


Response
(Mr Paul Needham, Director Planning and Development Services)

The time frame in relation to the Dugalup Cente proposal and the time frame associated with the State Administrative Tribunal Orders would mean the planning framework can’t change between today and the last date possible for consideration by the RJDAP which is the 7th July 2022. Even if the Council had made the decision two weeks ago, essentially for the amendment to have any effect or to be given any due consideration as part of the forthcoming RJDAP meeting, the amendment would need to be advertised.
Before we can advertise the amendment, we have to prepare the amendment documents and then we have to refer the document to the Environmental Planning Authority for a period of 28 days in which they can decide if they want to put the amendment through environmental review.

 

Question
Tonight when the Council considers the Precinct Structure Plan and the scheme amendments, will it become a seriously entertained planning document?

 

Response

(Mr Paul Needham, Director Planning and Development Services)

No, that is not the case. In terms of the amendment to the scheme, it becomes something that can be given due consideration once it has been advertised. The advertising process has to have commenced.

 

With the Precinct Structure Plan, the regulations are now quite clear, so a structure plan of any kind including a precinct structure plan can only be given consideration once it has been approved by the Planning Commission.

 

Question
Is it more or less likely that the RJDAP will approve the Dugalup Proposal application in its amended form if the officers recommendation for a five storey blanket provision affecting this particular piece of land along with the rest of the town centre is endorsed?

 

 

 

Response

(Mr Paul Needham, Director Planning and Development Services)

The RJDAP will be assessing the application against the planning framework and any decision that the Council makes this evening in relation to the Precinct Structure Plan or the associated amendment will not be part of the planning framework before 7th July 2022.
It should have no effect on the decision  that the RJDAP makes.

 

7.4             Mr Jeff Forrest

 

Question

Will all voting on the Precinct Structure Plan be recorded including who voted in the affirmative and in opposition?

 

Response
(Mayor Grant Henley)

Recording of votes is done with every motion of every meeting as a matter of course.

 

8.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes

Previous Council Meetings

8.1             Minutes of the Council Meeting held 11 May 2022

COUNCIL DECISION

C2205/104              Moved Councillor M Love, seconded Councillor P Cronin

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 11 May 2022 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED 8/0

 

Committee Meetings

8.2             Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting held 11 May 2022

COUNCIL DECISION

C2205/105              Moved Councillor M Love, seconded Councillor S Riccelli

That the Unconfirmed Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting held 11 May 2022 be noted as received.

CARRIED 8/0

 

 

9.               RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS

Petitions

 

Nil


Presentations

 

Mr Anthony Rowe spoke with respect to Agenda Item 13.1 ‘Section 31 Reconsideration – Proposed Reception Centre – Lot 21 (No. 64) Espinos Road, Sabina River’. Mr Roe was opposed to the officer recommendation.

 

Mr David Wilkins spoke with respect to Agenda Item 13.1 ‘Section 31 Reconsideration – Proposed Reception Centre – Lot 21 (No. 64) Espinos Road, Sabina River’. Mr Wilkins was opposed to the officer recommendation.

 

Ms Rebecca Ireland spoke with respect to Agenda Item 13.1 ‘Section 31 Reconsideration – Proposed Reception Centre – Lot 21 (No. 64) Espinos Road, Sabina River’. Ms Ireland was opposed to the officer recommendation.

 

Dr Flamina Coiacetto spoke with respect to Agenda Item 13.1 ‘Section 31 Reconsideration – Proposed Reception Centre – Lot 21 (No. 64) Espinos Road, Sabina River’. Dr Coiacetto was opposed to the officer recommendation.

 

Mr Neville Haddon spoke with respect to Agenda Item 13.1 ‘Section 31 Reconsideration – Proposed Reception Centre – Lot 21 (No. 64) Espinos Road, Sabina River’. Mr Haddon was in favour of the officer recommendation.

 

Dr Peter Rocher spoke with respect to Agenda Item 13.1 ‘Section 31 Reconsideration – Proposed Reception Centre – Lot 21 (No. 64) Espinos Road, Sabina River’. Dr Rocher was in favour of the officer recommendation.

 

Mr Lindsay Bergsma spoke with respect to Agenda Item 13.2 ‘Draft Dunsborough Precinct Structure Plan and Associated Amendment 52 to Local Planning Scheme No. 21 - Consideration For Initiation; and Amendment 50 Ministerial Decision’. Mr Bergsma was in opposition to the alternative 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

C2205/106              Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor S Riccelli

That the Committee Recommendations for items 12.1 and 12.2 and Officer Recommendations for items 14.1 and 17.1 be carried en bloc:

12.1        Finance Committee – 11/05/2022 – LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE

12.2        Finance Committee – 11/02/2022 – FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – YEAR TO                 DATE AS AT 31 MARCH 2022

14.1        PROPOSAL TO DEDICATE AS PUBLIC ROAD, PORTION OF LOT 4959 OR CROWN                 RESERVE 42673, CAPE NATURALIST ROAD, DUNSBOROUGH

17.1        COUNCILLORS INFORMATION BULLETIN

CARRIED 8/0

en bloc

 


Council                                                                                      11                                                                      25 May 2022

12.             Reports of Committee

12.1           Finance Committee - 11/5/2022 - LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE - MARCH 2022

STRATEGIC THEME

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Financial Operations

BUSINESS UNIT

Financial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Financial Services - Paul Sheridan

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

NATURE OF DECISION

Noting: The item is simply for information purposes and noting

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   List of Payments - March 2022  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 11/5/2022, the recommendations from which have been considered by Council.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2205/107              Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor S Riccelli

That the Council notes payment of voucher numbers for the month of March 2022 as follows:

CHEQUE PAYMENTS

CHEQUE # 119178 - 119219

               135,717.24

ELECTRONIC TRANSFER PAYMENTS

EFT # 85799 - 85836 and 85840 - 86434

           9,044,895.36

TRUST ACCOUNT

CHEQUE # 7585 -7588 and EFT # 85837 - 85839

            46,082.12

PAYROLL PAYMENTS

01.03.22 - 31.03.22

          1,601,949.92

INTERNAL PAYMENT VOUCHERS

DD004793- DD004832

            167,966.01

TOTAL PAYMENTS

 

         10,996,610.65

CARRIED 8/0

EN bloc

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council notes payment of voucher numbers for the month of March 2022 as follows:

CHEQUE PAYMENTS

CHEQUE # 119178 - 119219

               135,717.24

ELECTRONIC TRANSFER PAYMENTS

EFT # 85799 - 85836 and 85840 - 86434

           9,044,895.36

TRUST ACCOUNT

CHEQUE # 7585 -7588 and EFT # 85837 - 85839

            46,082.12

PAYROLL PAYMENTS

01.03.22 - 31.03.22

          1,601,949.92

INTERNAL PAYMENT VOUCHERS

DD004793- DD004832

            167,966.01

TOTAL PAYMENTS

 

         10,996,610.65

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides details of payments made from the City’s bank accounts for the month of March 2022, for noting by the Council and recording in the Council Minutes.

BACKGROUND

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

OFFICER COMMENT

In accordance with regular custom, the list of payments made for the month of March 2022 is presented for information. 

 

Statutory Environment

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

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

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

 

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

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

 

Risk Assessment

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

 

Options

Not applicable.

CONCLUSION

The list of payments made for the month of March 2022 is presented for information.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Not applicable.


Council

20

25 May 2022

12.1

Attachment a

List of Payments - March 2022

 










Council                                                                                      37                                                                      25 May 2022

12.2           Finance Committee - 11/5/2022 - FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - YEAR TO DATE AS AT 31 MARCH 2022

STRATEGIC THEME

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Financial Services

BUSINESS UNIT

Financial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Financial Services - Paul Sheridan

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

NATURE OF DECISION

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

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Loan Schedule - March 2022

Attachment b    Investment Report - March 2022

Attachment c    Financial Activity Statement - March 2022  

 

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 11/5/2022, the recommendations from which have been considered by Council.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2205/108              Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor S Riccelli

That the Council receives the statutory financial activity statement reports for the period ending 31 March 2022, pursuant to Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

CARRIED 8/0

en bloc

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council receives the statutory financial activity statement reports for the period ending 31 March 2022, pursuant to Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

 

This report has been compiled to fulfil the statutory reporting requirements of the Act and associated Regulations, whilst also providing the Council with an overview of the City’s financial performance on a year to date basis, for the period ending 31 March 2022.


BACKGROUND

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

·        Annual budget estimates

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

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

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

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

 

Additionally, and pursuant to Regulation 34(5) of the Regulations, a local government is required to adopt a material variance reporting threshold in each financial year. At its meeting on 26 July 2021, the Council adopted (C2107/140) the following material variance reporting threshold for the 2021/22 financial year:

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

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

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

OFFICER COMMENT

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

 

Statement of Financial Activity

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

 

Net Current Position

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

 

Capital Acquisition Report

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

·        Land and Buildings

·        Plant and Equipment

·        Furniture and Equipment

·        Infrastructure

Reserve Movements Report

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

 

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

 

Comments on Financial Activity to 31 March 2022

The Statement of Financial Activity (FAS) for the year to date (YTD) shows an overall Net Current Position of $10.5M as opposed to the budget of ($6M). This represents a positive variance of $16.5M YTD.

 

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

 

Description

2021/22
Actual YTD

$

2021/22
Amended
Budget YTD

$

2021/22
Amended
Budget

$

2021/22
YTD Bud Variance

%

2021/22
YTD Bud Variance

$

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Revenue from Ordinary Activities

 

1.56%

1,157,703

225,812

1.    Other Revenue

573,789

244,465

414,950

134.71%

329,324

49,926

2.    Interest Earnings

588,789

533,897

609,250

10.28%

54,892

17,997

Expenses from Ordinary Activities

10.98%

7,306,488

3,211,218

3.    Other Expenditure

(2,283,600)

(7,561,269)

(9,685,100)

69.80%

5,277,669

3,323,969

4.    Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

3,545,044

12,036,912

34,850,687

(70.55%)

(8,491,868)

(684,823)

Capital Revenue & (Expenditure)

 

28.08%

12,952,884

1,921,070

5.    Land & Buildings

(2,527,103)

(16,577,224)

(22,802,632)

84.76%

14,050,121

1,360,178

Plant & Equipment

(848,413)

(2,230,000)

(2,890,000)

61.95%

1,381,587

192,103

Furniture & Equipment

(327,684)

(562,541)

(828,800)

41.75%

234,857

(133,567)

Infrastructure

(14,106,305)

(26,585,758)

(38,537,750)

46.94%

12,479,453

2,370,410

6.    Proceeds from Sale of Assets

28,839

674,078

776,071

(95.72%)

(645,239)

(39,800)

7.    Proceeds from New Loans

11,325,000

15,450,000

25,450,000

(26.70%)

(4,125,000)

1,250,000

8.    Self Supporting Loans - Repayment of Principal

44,938

146,069

267,033

(69.24%)

(101,131)

(101,132)

9.   Total Loan Repayments – Principal

(2,285,208)

(2,625,919)

(3,839,418)

12.97%

340,711

107,638

10.  Advances to Community Groups

(1,325,000)

(5,450,000)

(5,450,000)

75.69%

4,125,000

(1,250,000)

11.  Transfer to Restricted Assets

(21,580,611)

(11,600)

(10,021,740)

(185939.75%)

(21,569,011)

(1,896,506)

12.  Transfer from Restricted Assets

6,856,622

0

1,735,682

100.00%

6,856,622

1,658,942

 

Revenue from Ordinary Activities

In total, revenue from Ordinary Activities is very close to budget at only 1.56% ahead YTD.  There are however material variance items contained within this category, on the face of the Financial Activity Statement, that require comment.

                                   

1.      Other Revenue

Ahead of YTD budget by $329K, or 134.7%, mainly due to the items listed in the table below:

Revenue Code

Revenue Code Description

Actual YTD

$

Amended Budget YTD

$

Variance
YTD
$

Variance
YTD
%

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Finance & Corporate Services

53,945

47,927

6,018

12.56%

(109)

10360

Customer Services – Sale of Number Plates

9,818

3,150

6,668

211.69%

(630)

This financial year there has been a spike in people wishing to acquire personalised plates.

Planning and Development Services

121,100

94,478

26,622

28.18%

38,710

10942

Bushfire Risk Management Planning – DFES – Sundry Income

37,861

 -

37,861

(100.00%)

37,861

This is the DFES contribution to the shared bushfire risk mitigation coordinator position - as per bushfire risk management planning program grant agreement May 2021.

10950, 10960, 10970

Animal, Litter & Parking Control – Fines & Prosecutions

40,774

58,530

(17,756)

(30.34%)

(5,076)

Result impacted by improved public compliance coupled with a shift in focus away from prosecution toward education.

Engineering and Works Services

396,866

98,158

298,708

304.31%

12,252

11107

Engineering Services Design – LSL Contribution from Other LGA

10,897

 -

10,897

(100.00%)

10,897

At the time of Budget development a staff member had not planned to take LSL, which has since changed. We have now received the contribution of the previous employer.

12642

NCC Standpipe – Sale of Water

25,396

9,073

16,323

179.90%

 -

Sales are based on meter readings for water taken from the standpipe.  Over summer there was considerably more volume taken than was originally budgeted.

G0030 & G0031

Busselton & Dunsborough  Transfer Station – Sale of Scrap Materials

358,942

89,085

269,857

302.92%

1,355

Prices received for scrap metal have been favourable affecting the positive result.  Due to the more favourable prices, a higher volume of scrap metal was sold from stockpiles.

 


2.      Interest Earnings

Ahead of YTD budget by $54.9K, or 10.28%, due to a slight increase in interest rates being offered on investments over the last few months.

 

Expenses from Ordinary Activities

Expenditure from ordinary activities is $7.3M, or 10.98%, less than expected when compared to the budget YTD as at March. The expense line items on the face of the financial statement that have a YTD variance that meet the material reporting threshold are outlined below.

 

3.      Other Expenditure  

$5.3M, or 69.8%, under the budget YTD. The main contributing items are listed below:

Cost Code

Cost Code Description

Actual YTD

$

Amended Budget YTD

$

Variance
YTD
$

Variance
YTD
%

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Executive Services

89,813

62,253

(27,560)

(44.3%)

(7,904)

10001

Office of the CEO

41,995

62,253

20,258

32.5%

(1,395)

The underspend relates to the inter-council initiatives budget line item, which has not been spent to date. 

10011

Emergency Contingency Costs (Other)

47,818

 -

(47,818)

(100.0%)

(6,509)

There is no budget for this particular area, as it is used purely to capture specific unforeseen emergency related costs.  YTD actuals represent the costs associated with the forgone rental opportunities at the YCAB, whilst it is being used as a COVID vaccination clinic i.e. effectively tracking this part of the City’s contribution to the vaccination effort.  This a non-cash “book entry”, with an offsetting revenue amount shown in Venue Hire income for the YCAB facility.

Finance and Corporate Services

874,464

839,127

(35,337)

(4.2%)

8,758

10000

Members of Council

479,495

544,310

64,815

11.9%

3,411

Timing related variances with underspends in primarily member allowances and sitting fees ($35k), plus underspends in reimbursements and training expenses due to change of council members.

10151

Rates Administration

31,296

45,819

14,523

31.7%

2,465

The budget is for rating valuations in relation to the interim rating of new properties.  It was set as an even monthly spread, as historically these activities are random (e.g. dependant on building completions), and can’t be predicted.  As such, there will always be timing variances.

10200

Financial Services

45,029

 -

(45,029)

(100.0%)

 -

The budget for the 5 yearly valuation of the City’s Land & Buildings was removed, as at the time of developing the budget it was believed that a qualified in-house valuer would be able to conduct this service. 

10221, 10227, 10228, 10229 & 10230

Finance & Borrowing Programs 4, 11, 12, 13 & 14

197,054

103,082

(93,972)

(91.2%)

 -

The Government Guarantee levy on the City’s loans as collected by the WA Treasury Corp payable for the period 1 January to 30 June 2021 was levied in July 2021. This invoice should have been posted to June via an accrual, however it was not completed and instead included in July’s expenses. Accordingly there will be three payments included in 2021/2022’s reports.

10511

Community Assistance Program (Governance)

 -

16,666

16,666

100.0%

 -

Funds for the You Choose Program yet to be allocated.  The full year budget of $100K will be allocated in May / June.


 

Community and Commercial Services

1,042,318

6,419,239

5,376,921

83.8%

3,344,968

10532

BPACC Operations

2,860

37,500

34,640

92.4%

12,500

BPACC operational activity will not commence until 2023.

10536

School Chaplaincy

 -

41,400

41,400

100.0%

 -

This is the annual grant to Youthcare which is paid on invoice. An invoice for the full amount is expected before the end of financial year.

10543

Community Development

97,634

176,318

78,684

44.6%

34,435

This relates to the first three rounds of Community Assistance Program. Round 1 and 2 approvals were combined due to Council elections and round 3 closed on 30 November.

From the first 3 rounds $133,873 is committed with actual expenditure to be seen in first quarter of 2022.  Round 4 has now closed and applications are being assessed.  Timing is largely dependent on CAP Applications received from community groups.

10558

Events

557,155

969,448

412,293

42.5%

25,729

The YTD underspend to budget can be explained as follows:

·       To date there have been 8 budgeted events cancelled due to COVID, totaling approximately $71K;

·       There have been 5 events that have occurred for which the City has yet to be invoiced for their contribution, totaling $57.5K;

·       6 events have had partial payments, however a total of $91.5K remains due to milestones not yet met;

·       A further $192K was forecast to have been incurred by YTD March ($110K for Winter Wonderland, and approximately $72K in general unallocated funds).

10630

Economic and Business Development Administration

126,600

140,637

14,037

10.0%

44,917

This is due to a number of underspends including allocations towards cruise ship visitor servicing, advertising and valuation expenses.

10634

Business Support Program

 -

23,850

23,850

100.0%

 -

Final acquittals of the support program yet to be received.  This budget was carried over from the 20/21 financial year, funded from the MERG Reserve, however it has now been ascertained that only approximately $10,000 will be required.  This will more than likely be the positive variance by the end of the year, offset by a lower transfer from the reserve.

11151

Airport Operations

1,978

1,729,584

1,727,606

99.9%

195,690

Marketing activities continue to be delayed due to the postponement of Jetstar RPT services as a result of COVID restrictions etc.

11160

Busselton Jetty

 -

3,000,000

3,000,000

100.0%

3,000,000

The budget YTD represents the City’s contribution to the AUDC project, which has been deferred.  This was to funded from the Jetty Reserve, so it will remain in the reserve at year end.

11156

Airport Development Operations

115,139

148,550

33,411

22.5%

 -

At the time of setting the budget the timing for the final carried over payments related to a noise mitigation project were not known. $148K was estimated to be remaining in total, split over three payments, however we have not received practical completion on the works, and there are still some outstanding works in progress.


 

Planning and Development Services

100,371

85,463

(14,908)

(17.4%)

(29,473)

10805

Planning Administration

 -

15,000

15,000

100.0%

 -

This budget item relates to the Façade Refurbishment Program which the City normally runs on an annual basis.  Due to staff shortages and other priorities this year, it’s not likely that the full year budget of $30K will get spent at all.

10942

Bushfire Risk Management Planning – DFES

27,145

 -

(27,145)

(100.0%)

(27,145)

This unbudgeted spend represents the return of unspent grant funds to DFES for the 20/21 BRP program.

Engineering and Works Services

176,634

155,187

(21,447)

(13.8%)

7,620

10830

Environmental Management Administration

16,037

937

(15,100)

(1611.5%)

143

Biodiversity Incentive Rate Rebate costs per allocated and paid in January, however the budget of $17,650 is allocated to June.  Variance will rectify at year end.

B1223

Micro Brewery - Public Ablution

 -

60,000

60,000

100.0%

 -

The full contribution of $120K to the ablutions, in two instalments, was made in the 20/21 financial year, however due to the lateness of the second $60K instalment, it was inadvertently included again in the 21/22 year budget unnecessarily.

G0042

BTS External Restoration Works

118,176

50,000

(68,176)

(136.4%)

8,636

Rendezvous Road Refuse site remedial works.

 

4.     Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies & Contributions  

The negative variance of $8.5M is mainly due to the items in the table below. It should be noted that any negative variance in this area will approximately correlate to an offsetting positive underspend variance in a capital project tied to these funding sources. This can be seen in the section below that outlines the capital expenditure variances.  Where this is not the case, the reconciliation of the projects and the required funding to be recognised in revenue is not completed until closer to year end.

Revenue Code

Revenue Code Description

Actual YTD

$

Amended Budget YTD

$

Variance
YTD
$

Variance
YTD
%

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Community and Commercial Services

 -

164,351

(164,351)

(100.0%)

(48,975)

10540

Recreation Administration

 -

76,875

(76,875)

(100.0%)

(25,625)

10590

Naturaliste Community Centre

 -

70,050

(70,050)

(100.0%)

(23,350)

C6010

Airport Fencing Works

 -

17,426

(17,426)

(100.0%)

 -

Engineering and Works Services

3,066,082

11,807,561

(8,741,479)

(74.0%)

(635,848)

A0014

Bussell Highway Bridge – 0241 – Federal Capital Grant

 -

744,000

(744,000)

(100.0%)

 -

A0022

Yallingup Beach Road Bridge - 3347 – Federal Capital Grant

 -

700,000

(700,000)

(100.0%)

 -

A0023

Kaloorup Road Bridge – 3381 – Federal Capital Grant

 -

234,000

(234,000)

(100.0%)

(234,000)

A0024

Boallia Road Bridge – 4854 – Federal Capital Grant

 -

143,750

(143,750)

(100.0%)

(143,750)

A0025

Tuart Drive Bridge 0238 – Developer Cont. Utilised

 -

667,583

(667,583)

(100.0%)

(667,583)

B9407

Busselton Senior Citizens – Developer Cont. Utilised

 -

111,750

(111,750)

(100.0%)

 -

B9591

Performing Arts Convention Centre – Federal Capital Grant

 -

4,554,000

(4,554,000)

(100.0%)

 -

B9612

Churchill Park Renew Sports Lights –

State Capital Grant

 -

72,850

(72,850)

(100.0%)

 -

C3116

Dawson Park (Mcintyre St Pos) – Developer Cont. Utilised

71,116

 -

71,116

100.0%

 -

C3211

Tulloh St (Geographe Bay Road) - POS Upgrade – Developer Cont. Utilised

25,043

 -

25,043

100.0%

 -

C3214

Kingsford Road - POS Upgrade – Developer Cont. Utilised

71,437

 -

71,437

100.0%

 -

C3215

Monash Way - POS Upgrade – Developer Cont. Utilised

71,939

 -

71,939

100.0%

 -

C3216

Wagon Road - POS Upgrade – Developer Cont. Utilised

81,341

 -

81,341

100.0%

 -

C3217

Limestone Quarry - POS Upgrade – Developer Cont. Utilised

119,687

 -

119,687

100.0%

 -

C3218

Dolphin Road - POS Upgrade – Developer Cont. Utilised

90,634

 -

90,634

100.0%

 -

C3219

Kingfish/ Costello - POS Upgrade – Developer Cont. Utilised

33,551

 -

33,551

100.0%

 -

C3220

Quindalup Old Tennis Courts Site - POS Upgrade – Developer Cont. Utilised

34,480

 -

34,480

100.0%

 -

C3225

Dunsborough Lakes Sporting Precinct (Stage 1) – Developer Cont. Utilised

944,234

 -

944,234

100.0%

944,234

C3243

Vasse River - Ongoing Restoration of River Habitat – State Capital Grant

 -

90,000

(90,000)

(100.0%)

 -

F0084

Thompson Way - New Path - Contributions

36,818

 -

36,818

100.0%

 -

F0112

Causeway Road Shared Path – State Capital Grant

 -

80,000

(80,000)

(100.0%)

 -

S0048

Bussell Highway – Developer Cont. Utilised

-

200,000

(200,000)

(100.0%)

-

S0076

Kaloorup Road (Stage 1) – Main Roads Direct Grant

-

224,400

(224,400)

(100.0%)

-


 

S0077

Ludlow-Hithergreen Stage 2 Reconstruct & Widen – MR Capital Grant

-

96,000

(96,000)

(100.0%)

-

S0078

Sugarloaf Road –

State Capital Grant

-

643,198

(643,198)

(100.0%)

(321,599)

S0321

Yoongarillup Road - Second Coat Seal –

MR Capital Grant

-

100,000

(100,000)

(100.0%)

-

S0331

Barracks Drive Spray Seal – MR Capital Grant

-

130,980

(130,980)

(100.0%)

-

S0332

Inlet Drive Spray Seal –

MR Capital Grant

-

47,000

(47,000)

(100.0%)

-

S0333

Chapman Crescent Spray Seal – MR Capital Grant

-

78,000

(78,000)

(100.0%)

-

S0334

Chapman Hill Road – MR Capital Grant

-

1,122,000

(1,122,000)

(100.0%)

(374,000)

S0335

Kaloorup Road – MR Capital Grant

-

361,425

(361,425)

(100.0%)

(120,475)

S0336

Wildwood Road – MR Capital Grant

750,200

1,406,625

(656,425)

(46.7%)

281,325

 

5.      Capital Expenditure  

As at YTD March, there is an underspend variance of 61.2%, or $28.1M, in total capital expenditure, with YTD actual at $17.8M against the YTD budget of $46M. A large portion of this positive underspend variance is offset by the negative variance in Non-Operating Grants, Contributions & Subsidies discussed above, with the remainder offset by the negative variances in Transfers From Reserves and Restricted Assets related to funds held aside for these projects. The attachments to this report include detailed listings of all capital expenditure (project) items, however the main areas of YTD variance are summarised as follows:

Cost Code

Cost Code Description

Actual YTD

$

Amended Budget YTD

$

Variance
YTD
$

Variance
YTD
%

Change in Variance Current Month

$

Land

2,599

37,503

34,904

93.1%

4,167

10610

Property Services Administration

2,599

37,503

34,904

93.1%

4,167

This is a contingency fund for costs associated with land acquisition or disposal under the LTFP, such as advertising costs in relation to the proposed disposition of freehold land holdings at Ambergate.

Buildings

2,524,505

16,539,721

14,015,216

84.7%

1,356,011

B9614

Dunsborough Lakes Sporting Precinct-Pavilion /Changeroom Facilities

12,272

687,501

675,229

98.2%

203,267

There has been minimal expenditure to date as works have not yet commenced. The design is currently under review to achieve budget alignment in consultation with user groups.

B9012

Civic and Administration Building Replacement of Cladding

121,889

100,000

(21,889)

(21.9%)

7,482

Cladding replacement commenced in January and was completed toward the end of February.  Associated billing from the supplier is expected to be completed by the end of April, totalling approximately $430K, which will be less than the forecast of $500K.

Various

Busselton Performing Arts Convention Centre

1,747,955

13,892,593

12,144,638

87.4%

978,599

The contract for construction was awarded to Broad Constructions in late January. Broad took full site possession at the end of January and have commenced investigative works. Unspent budget at June 30 will be carried over into the following financial year.

B9300/1/2

Aged Housing

Capital Improvements

38,148

182,250

144,102

79.1%

35,652

Budgeted works were proposed to separate the power and drainage that service Winderlup Court and Winderlup Villas.  Western Power have now confirmed that separation of power is not required. As there are other works required to these units the proposal is a capex spend of circa $28,000 for bathroom upgrades and reflux valves and a possible further $70,000 for replacement carports.  

B9596

GLC Building Improvements

87,464

213,852

126,388

59.1%

61,936

Proposed project for stadium ventilation has been put on hold, pending a review of capital projects. Storage upgrade has commenced. 

B9605

Energy Efficiency Initiatives (Various Buildings)

116,897

164,240

47,343

28.8%

225

Works planned for commencement have encountered delays pending Western Power applications and approvals. Works programmed to be completed by the end of the financial year.

B9610

Old Butter Factory

17,991

6,000

(11,991)

(199.8%)

 -

The YTD overspend is due the retention monies owing to the contractor on final completion of project.  These were not factored in at the time of developing the budget.

B9611

Smiths Beach

New Public Toilet

 -

250,000

250,000

100.0%

 -

Notification has been received by the entity that currently supplies the water that they are no longer able to supply water for City toilets. 

As such an MOU is being reviewed by the property team to establish viability of infrastructure works and costs for water supply. A clearing permit application is also underway, however all other activity on the project has been put on hold until these issues are resolved.

B9612

Churchill Park

Renew Sports Lights

75,617

212,850

137,233

64.5%

(2,056)

RFQ for installation of lights was awarded with works commenced in March 2022.  Supplier billing will follow completion of the works.

B9615

Naturaliste Community Centre AMP

641

72,000

71,359

99.1%

14,400

Delays due to contractor availability, these works will be re listed into next financial year.

B9616

Buildings Asset Management Plan High Use Allocation

92,319

120,000

27,681

23.1%

18,094

This budget will be fully expended come June 30. The budget is used for various maintenance activities on numerous buildings across the City.

B9617

Buildings AMP Renewal Allocation - Meelup Ablution

7,389

160,000

152,611

95.4%

40,000

During Budget planning these works were anticipated to be spread evenly over 5 months.  Due to unforeseen design complexities the works were not able to start on time.  These issues have been resolved and this project will be delivered in this financial year.

B9622

Dunsborough Youth Centre Building Construction

15,740

 -

(15,740)

(100.0%)

 -

The timing for works and initial procurement of a transportable building was not accurately known at the time of setting the original total budget of $80K.

B9717

Airport Construction - Existing Terminal Upgrade

 -

46,485

46,485

100.0%

 -

Invoicing in relation to the retention monies owing to Pindan (in receivership), for works completed has not yet been received.  There is also a budget amount for unforeseen works required to enable RPT services, however this has not as yet been utilised.

B9720

BMRA Hangars

 -

210,000

210,000

100.0%

 -

This is a timing issue - the RFT process closed in January, however negotiations with tenderers are still ongoing.  It is hoped that the tender will be awarded in April.

B9808

Busselton Jetty Tourist Park Upgrade

4,314

25,000

20,686

82.7%

 -

Timing Issue - capital works upgrades that cannot be done until after Easter (the tourist season).

Plant & Equipment

848,413

2,230,000

1,381,587

62.0%

192,103

10250

Information & Communication Technology Services

 -

40,000

40,000

100.0%

 -

Vehicle due to be delivered April.

10372

Dunsborough Cemetery

 -

20,000

20,000

100.0%

 -

The budget is for maintenance trailers for the cemetery, both for grave shoring equipment and watering equipment. The delay in procurement of these items is due to current material and supply related issues.

10540

Recreation Administration

 -

40,000

40,000

100.0%

 -

The budget relates to a vehicle for the recently created Manager position. Vehicle has been ordered, delivery due in April.

10610

Property Services Administration

 -

35,000

35,000

100.0%

 -

Vehicle has been ordered, delivery due in April.

10630

Economic and Business Development Administration

 -

75,000

75,000

100.0%

 -

The budget relates to the replacement of two vehicles. One vehicle due to be delivered in June. Second vehicle yet to be ordered.

10810

Statutory Planning

 -

35,000

35,000

100.0%

 -

Vehicle has been ordered, delivery due in April.

10920

Environmental Health Services Administration

 -

40,000

40,000

100.0%

 -

Vehicle will be ordered when new officer appointed.

10950

Animal Control

 -

50,000

50,000

100.0%

 -

Ute for rangers to be ordered in April.

11001

Engineering Services Administration

 -

35,000

35,000

100.0%

 -

Vehicle due in November.

11107

Engineering Services Design

69,015

140,000

70,986

50.7%

 -

Survey equipment incorrectly budgeted here, but actual cost has been allocated under Furniture & Office Equipment. 2 x cars delivered.  Survey ute to be ordered in April.

11151

Airport Operations

 -

15,000

15,000

100.0%

 -

Slasher (tractor mounted) not yet ordered.


 

11202

Building Facilities - Weather Station Installations

10,280

 -

(10,280)

(100.0%)

 -

The actual weather stations were procured earlier than expected, and will be installed in April.

11401

Depot Workshop

 -

10,000

10,000

100.0%

 -

The budget is for a replacement hydraulic press.  Specification requirements are being reviewed in light of supply chain issues.

11402

Plant Purchases (P10)

420,639

446,000

25,361

5.7%

 -

Waste truck P166019 to be sent to auction end of April.  Bin cleaning trailer expected to be built November. DWF site ute to be held and not replaced at this time.

11403

Plant Purchases (P11)

130,486

544,000

413,514

76.0%

180,000

An RFQ for 3 x light trucks is in progress.  Irrigation ute and Parks maintenance ute not yet ordered, waiting feedback on requirements from P&Gs team.

11404

Plant Purchases (P12)

88,453

515,000

426,547

82.8%

 -

Specification development is in progress for 2 x light trucks and RFQ is in progress for a new grader.

11407

P&E - P&G Smart Technologies

 -

25,000

25,000

100.0%

25,000

This budget was to be used for investment in smart technologies to manage / address drying climate, however plans have not yet been developed for its use.  Funds will remain in reserve if not spent for this purpose by year end.

11500

Operations Services Administration

 -

40,000

40,000

100.0%

 -

Vehicle ordered, delivery expected in April.

G0013

Domestic Organics Collections (FOGO)

12,897

 -

(12,897)

(100.0%)

 -

At the time of setting the budget of $75K for investigative works and FOGO trials, it was unknown what sort of activities would be undertaken.  As such, the full year budget of $75K has been allocated to an operational contractors line, where in fact we needed to purchase some monitoring equipment to affix to the trucks.  There should be an underspend against budget in the contractor line that will offset this spend against a nil budget.

Furniture & Office Equipment

327,684

562,541

234,857

41.7%

(133,567)

10250

Information & Communication Technology Services

163,250

220,891

57,641

26.1%

(65,467)

Underspend is due to not yet ordering ICT asset replacement items. This is due to be ordered in the coming months though actual delivery may not occur for some time due to global supply chain issues.

10558

Events

 -

200,000

200,000

100.0%

 -

The budget YTD represents the carry-over from the 20/21 year for the electronic billboard. The tender closed with three responses over the forecast budget. The tender was not awarded and it was agreed at the November MERG meeting to restructure the tender with options. A new tender has been issued which closes on 14 April 2022.

10590

Naturaliste Community Centre

16,326

51,650

35,324

68.4%

8,350

The budget represents a carry-over from 20/21 for the purchase of replacement fitness equipment.  Order for fitness equipment was placed in February, however delivery is not expected until April/May due to supply issues.  Fencing purchase of $8k was moved out to infrastructure, increasing the variance further.

11107

Engineering Services Design

73,211

 -

(73,211)

(100.0%)

(73,211)

Survey equipment that was incorrectly budgeted for under Plant & Equipment.


 

B1350

Churchill Park-

Other Buildings

 -

26,450

26,450

100.0%

 -

The budget relates to the storage facility project. Discussions are still progressing with the Stakeholders, delaying construction until a later date.

B1450

Depot Building-Busselton

17,776

 -

(17,776)

(100.0%)

 -

Expenditure was for 8 sit-to-stand workstations at the depot administration building.  There is no budget in this particular line, however it is offset by considerable savings in other areas.

Infrastructure

14,106,305

26,585,758

12,479,453

46.9%

2,370,410

Various

Roads

5,592,539

8,506,528

2,913,989

34.3%

711,200

Many road construction projects are now well underway.  Impacting this increasing variance through to June will be the outcome from discussions with Council in September/October 2021 where it was decided that the current capital works program would be spread over 18 months extending into the 2022/23 financial year.  To this end, some projects that were to be budgeted this financial year have been put on hold given the state of the economy, availability of contractors and increased costs.

•             46% of the YTD variance valued at $1.351m is associated with the two remaining Regional Road Safety Program projects that are both currently in progress. The $1.465m in committed works will be receipted against invoices prior to June 30.  

•             15% of the YTD variance valued at $442k is associated with the Peel Terrace/ Queen street roundabout renewal works recently completed in April. This variance will swing into a deficit positon upon receipt of all invoices associated with the project. The project will exceed the budget due to increases in the work scope and unforeseen unfavourable ground conditions identified. City officers have secured a transfer of unspent Regional Road Group grant monies that will be applied against this project together with an additional draw down of funds from the City’s Major traffic Improvement Reserve. A report will go to Council on this matter.

There will be a significant under expended variance to budget associated with road projects come June 30.

Various

Bridges

630

2,682,997

2,682,367

100.0%

1,238,367

Major bridge works are completed by Main Roads, with financial recognition of works often not occurring until late in the financial year.

To date, works have been completed on the Bussell Highway bridge #241, Yallingup Beach Road bridge #3347 and the Tuart Drive bridge #0238 that should be open to the public soon.

The City has limited control over Main Roads scheduling and it is often the case that some Bridge projects are carried over into the following year. The City was recently been notified that bridge works on Layman Road, Kaloorup Road, Boallia Road & Gale Road values at $2.308m will now not commence until the 2022/23 financial year. This variance will continue to increase until invoices for works are provided by Main Roads, which is typically at the end of the financial year.

Various

Car Parks

828,088

1,805,750

977,662

54.1%

(153,887)

52% of the YTD variance valued at $511k is associated with the new car parking for the Dunsborough Lakes Sporting Precinct. Works are well under way with the first progress payment of $281k made in March.  

The following two projects will not be completed this year and thus will represent under expenditures come June 30:

•             Dunsborough Chieftain Crescent Carpark Extension $129k YTD,  annual budget $240k.

•             Hotel Site 2 Carpark $230k YTD.

There will be a significant under expended variance to budget associated with Car Parks projects come June 30.


 

Various

Footpaths & Cycleways

625,185

1,458,620

833,435

57.1%

137,180

29% of the year to date variance totalling $241k is associated with the $500k Busselton CBD Footpath Renewal project where the majority of this project has temporarily been put on-hold pending further review and potential re list.

12% of the YTD variance valued at $105K is associated with the Buayanup Drain Shared path project. Not all of this the budget will be expended as the value of the project was reduced towards the end of last financial year, however the amount carried over was not adjusted based on the reduced estimate.

14% of the YTD variance valued at $116K is associated with the Causeway Road Shared Path project. Tender prices for these works have come in higher than anticipated and it is thus unclear if this project will proceed this financial year.

There will be a significant under expended variance to budget associated with Footpaths & Cycleway projects come June 30.

Parks, Gardens & Reserves

6,784,883

11,669,123

4,884,240

41.9%

501,173

Various

Busselton Jetty - Capital Expenditure

236,223

545,048

308,825

56.7%

(33,317)

At the time this budget was being prepared the 50 year Jetty plan was being revised and structural assessments were being carried out. To this end, some of the scheduled works were able to be moved forward and as such were not required to be completed this financial year. There will be a variance to budget in the order of $200k come June 30; where these monies will remain in the Jetty Reserve to fund the rescheduled works going forward.            

Various

Coastal & Boating

60,148

1,136,800

1,076,652

94.7%

127,522

72% of the variance valued at $775k is attributable to both the stage 2 West Busselton & Forth Street seawall works. A report to Council in late January resulted in a decision to only proceed with the West Busselton works at this time with some of these costs to be offset by the Forth Street Seawall project that has been put on hold.  This project has now commenced with committed costs totalling $691k. The expectation is that it will be completed prior by June 30 weather permitting.  

18% of the variance values at $200k is associated with a Coastal Adaptation project re the Mitigation of Coastal Flooding. This project is in the design phase with a major portion of the funding anticipated to be outlaid before the end of the FY; subject to the availability of resources and material.

Various

Waste Services

912,321

1,512,500

600,179

39.7%

207,349

Works associated with the Busselton Landfill Post-Closure Capping, Rehab & Remediation budget set at $1m are $657k under budget YTD with the focus this year having shifted to the development of stage two phase 1  of the Dunsborough landfill budgeted at $500k taking priority.   

There will be a significant under expended variance to budget associated with Waste Services projects come June 30.

Various

Townscape & Vasse River

53,576

1,023,264

969,688

94.8%

243,569

No townscape works of any significance associated with projects in this category have yet to commence, however planning is well advanced.

Some of the townscape works in Dunsborough valued at $1.057m will be staged, between the 21/22 and 22/23 financial years.

Major Vasse River works valued at $640,000 will commence in April.    

Various

Other P&G Infrastructure

5,522,615

7,451,511

1,928,896

25.9%

(43,950)

There are 45 individual Parks & Gardens capital projects budgeted this financial year ranging in value from between a mere $1.8k to $2.118m.

•          74% of the YTD variance valued at $ 1.468m is associated with the Dunsborough Lakes Sporting Precinct project and the new Non-Potable Water Network both under construction.

•          The Barnard Park East Foreshore Landscaping project is reported at $237k over expended to the annual budget. This variance is anticipated to increase to an est. $550k over expenditure to budget, this has been highlighted in Councillor briefings. 

Various

Regional Airport & Industrial Park Infrastructure

93,288

286,740

193,452

67.5%

66,254

YTD actual is made up of four separate account strings all part of the Airport development project. Some are completed (underspent) and others may not be spent until the end of the FY depending on timing of the works. A nominal amount was budgeted for unforeseen noise mitigation requirements, resulting from the commencement of RPT services.  Some of these works have only just commenced.

 

6.      Proceeds From Sale of Assets  

YTD there have been minimal proceeds from sale of assets recorded against the YTD budget of $674K. This is due to the continuing delays in delivery of acquisitions, and the associated transfer to auction of the vehicles being replaced.  Some vehicles that were planned to be traded/auctioned have also been retained and redeployed instead. 

7.     Proceeds from New Loans

By YTD March it was forecast that a self-supporting loan of $4M would have been drawn, which has not happened at this time.  A further $125K of self-supporting loans to community groups was also forecasted to have been drawn and on-lent by this stage of the financial year.  The combination of these things accounts for the $4.125M negative variance YTD

        This is offset by a corresponding positive timing variance of $4.125M in Advances to Community Groups.

 

8.     Self Supporting Loans – Repayments of Principal

         This line is $101K under budget due to the AUDC loan not proceeding.

 

9.     Total Loan Repayments - Principal

         Repayments of the principal on loans is $340K under budget YTD, due to the loan for the BPACC not proceeding in the timeframe as budgeted, as well as the deferment of the AUDC and hence the non-draw down of the associated loan (offset per #8 above).

 

10.   Advances to Community Groups

         Although it is not possible to predict when these loans will be applied for, the negative variance is 100% offset by the positive variance in Proceeds from New Loans outlined above.  YTD the variance is $4.125M mainly due to the AUDC being put on hold.

 

11.   Transfer to Restricted Assets  

There is a YTD variance in transfers to Restricted Assets of $21.6M because there is no budget for this item during the year.  The transfers are usually not possible to predict, and are fully reconciled only at year end.

 

At the time of budgeting it is not possible to predict what grants will be received, and in what timeframe, nor when they will be spent and hence potentially transferred to Restricted Assets (or unspent portions thereof). 

 

YTD, loans of $10M were received for BPACC that were transferred to restricted assets until utilized, as well as $7.9M in various government grants, plus $1.6M in Roadwork Bonds, and $3.7M in developer contributions, deposits and bonds.

 


12.   Transfer from Restricted Assets

YTD, there has been $6.9M transferred from Restricted Assets into the Municipal Account. This was attributable to $2.19M of grant money for works completed and reconciled, $687K of Roadwork Bonds, $462K of caravan park deposit refunds, utilization of $1.7M of restricted loan money (BPACC), and $1.9M of various other bonds and deposits.

 

Investment Report

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

 

As at 31st March 2022 the value of the City’s invested funds remained at $97M from 28th February 2022.

 

As at 31st March 2022 the 11AM account balance is $13.0M, up from $11M as at 28th February 2022 due to the closure of MEBank Term Deposit of $2M.

During the month of March seven term deposits totalling the amount of $20M matured, including the closure of the MEBank Term Deposit as transferred to 11am account above. These were renewed for a further 93 days at 0.54% on average.

 

The official cash rate remains steady for the month of March at 0.10%.  This will continue to have an impact on the City’s interest earnings for the foreseeable future.

 

Borrowings Update

During the month a self-supporting loan of $1.25M was drawn down and on-lent to the MRBTA for their Ancient Lands Discovery Park.  Also, $670K of principal and $250K of interest was repaid on existing loans.  The attached Loan Schedule outlines the status of all existing loans as at March YTD.

 

Chief Executive Officer – Corporate Credit Card

Details of transactions made on the Chief Executive Officer’s corporate credit card during March 2022 are provided below to ensure there is appropriate oversight and awareness.

 

Date

Payee

Description

$ Amount

10/03/22

City of Busselton

Geographe Leisure Centre Café – CEO Morning tea with GLC Team

$73.20

29/03/22

Event Brite Ticket - Tonic By The Bay

Budget Breakfast 2022 -  1 April 2022 M. Archer

$32.74

 

 

TOTAL

$105.94

 

Donations & Contributions Received

During the month no donations or contributions were received.

 

Statutory Environment

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

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

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

 

Financial Implications

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

 

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Risk Assessment

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

 

Options

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

CONCLUSION

As at 31st March 2022, the City’s net current position stands at $10.5M. The City’s financial performance is considered satisfactory, and cash reserves remain strong.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Not applicable.

 


Council

38

25 May 2022

12.2

Attachment a

Loan Schedule - March 2022

 


Council

39

25 May 2022

12.2

Attachment b

Investment Report - March 2022

 


Council

43

25 May 2022

12.2

Attachment c

Financial Activity Statement - March 2022

 












 


Council                                                                                      55                                                                      25 May 2022

14.1           PROPOSAL TO DEDICATE AS PUBLIC ROAD, PORTION OF LOT 4959 OF CROWN RESERVE 42673, CAPE NATURALISTE ROAD, DUNSBOROUGH

STRATEGIC THEME

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

2.10 Provide local road networks that allow for the safe movement of people through the District.

SUBJECT INDEX

Crown Land

BUSINESS UNIT

Engineering and Facilities Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Land and Infrastructure Officer - Andrew Scott

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

NATURE OF DECISION

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

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Aerial imagery

Attachment b    Plan 13907

Attachment c    Plans from development application for Lots 1 and 2 Dunn Bay Road

Attachment d   Dunsborough 1986  

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2205/109              Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor S Riccelli

That the Council supports a request being made to the Minister for Lands to dedicate as road an approximate 200 square metre portion of Lot 4959 of Crown Reserve 42673, where Lot 4959 lies between Cape Naturaliste Road and Lot 1 of Diagram 85620, 61 Dunn Bay Road, Dunsborough.

CARRIED 8/0

en bloc

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council supports a request being made to the Minister for Lands to dedicate as road an approximate 200 square metre portion of Lot 4959 of Crown Reserve 42673, where Lot 4959 lies between Cape Naturaliste Road and Lot 1 of Diagram 85620, 61 Dunn Bay Road, Dunsborough.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In Council decision C2105/098, the City approved with conditions, development application DA20/0916 on Lots 1 and 2, 59-61 Dunn Bay Road, Dunsborough, for a mixed use development.

 

The approved development plans proposes access to car parking bays on Lot 1 from Cape Naturaliste Road.  However Lot 4959 of Crown Reserve 42673 lies between Lot 1 and Cape Naturaliste Road, restricting vehicular access from Lot 1 to the road.

 

To provide legal vehicular access from Lot 1 to Cape Naturaliste Road and to satisfy a condition of development application approval, this report recommends that a portion of Lot 4959 is dedicated as road.

BACKGROUND

Lot 4959 on Plan 13907 is a 1.0m wide strip of land that adjoins the eastern boundary of Cape Naturaliste Road, Dunsborough; extending from Dunn Bay Road for approximately 200m (refer to Attachment A).  The land forms part of Crown Reserve 42673, vested with the City for the purpose of “public recreation”.

 

Plan 13906 (the survey from which Lot 4959 was created) was approved during 1982 (refer to Attachment B).  Research of the City’s archived records did not find any documents that explain why Lot 4959 was created, other than for recreational purposes. 

 

However the intention at the time of the subdivision was likely to have been to restrict vehicular access from adjoining lots east of Lot 4959 directly to a future road west of Lot 4959 (noting that Cape Naturaliste Road was not constructed at the time).  Where narrow strips of land lie adjacent a road, they were generally created to restrict vehicular access to the road (and are often referred to as ‘spite strips’).

 

During 2021, the City assessed and approved with conditions an application for a new mixed use development on Lot 1, 61 Dunn Bay Road, Dunsborough (DA20/0916, Council decision C2105/098).  The development application includes a brewery, tavern, restaurant/cafe, shops and tourist accommodation (refer to Attachment C).

 

The development plans propose that access to one of two parking areas for the development is from Cape Naturaliste Road.  Given this access would be over Lot 4959 of Crown Reserve 42673, a condition of development application approval requires (Condition 4.1):

 

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

 

Dedication of portion of Lot 4959 as road would satisfy Condition 4.1 as dedication would provide direct access from Lot 1 to Cape Naturaliste Road.  It is for this reason that this report proposes the Council resolves to make a request to the Minister for Lands to dedicate portion of Lot 4549 (where it adjoins Lot 1) to form part of Cape Naturaliste Road, a road under the management responsibility of the City.

 

Provisions within the Land Administration Act 1997 allows local government to make requests to the Minister for Lands to dedicate land as a road.

OFFICER COMMENT

Should Lot 4959 of Crown Reserve 42673 be dedicated as road as proposed by this report, adjoining Lot 1 would have legal vehicular access to Cape Naturaliste Road, satisfying a condition of development application approval for DA20/0916.  However dedicating Lot 4959 as road is contrary to the reason why Lot 4959 was likely created during 1982, which was to restrict vehicular access from Lot 1 (and other lots) to Cape Naturaliste Road.

 

At the time that Lot 4959 was created during 1982, the Dunsborough town centre was significantly different to what it is today (refer to Attachment D).   Four decades later, the planning objectives for the town centre have adapted to the changing town centre.

 

Today, the Local Planning Scheme No. 21 aims to limit vehicular access to Dunn Bay Road from adjoining lots.  Clause 4.21.1(k) of the Scheme states:

 

No vehicular access to sites shall be taken from Queen Street, Prince Street or Kent Street (between Queen Street and Brown Street), Busselton or Dunn Bay Road or Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough, unless no alternative is available, in which case a single crossover width shall be no greater than 5 metres with a cumulative maximum width of 7 metres

 

The development plan for Lots 1 and 2 Dunn Bay Road (as approved by the City with conditions) provides 80 car bays for parking split over two parking areas.  Access to one parking area is from Dunn Bay Road, and access to the other parking area is from Cape Naturaliste Road.  By providing a parking area off Cape Naturaliste Road, the development plan goes some way towards contemporary planning objectives, and for limiting the number of vehicles crossing over pedestrian paths along Dunn Bay Road to access the development.

 

From a planning and development perspective, the development application for Lots 1 and 2 Dunn Bay Road (as approved with conditions) meets the requirements of the Local Planning Scheme No. 21.  To resolve the issue of providing legal vehicular access from the Lot 1 to Cape Naturaliste Road, the 1.0m wide strip of Lot 4959 adjoining Lot 1 should be dedicated a road to form part of Cape Naturaliste Road.  As part of Cape Naturaliste Road, the strip of land would remain as Crown land and the City would retain management responsibility for the land.

 

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.

 

There are provisions within the Land Administration Act 1997 for local government to make a request to the Minister for Lands to dedicate land as road, where the request meets the requirements of the Act and its regulations.

 

The City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 clause 4.21.1(k) is applicable to this report (referring to the Officer Comment section of this report).

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

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

 

·        Development application DA20/0916 as approved by the Council in decision C2105/098, 12 May 2021, for the development of a brewery, tavern, restaurant/cafe, shop and tourist accommodation on Lots 1 and 2 on Diagram 85620, 59-61 Dunn Bay Road, Dunsborough.

 

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

The proposal to dedicate portion of Lot 4959 as road was advertised in the “City Connect” pages of the Busselton-Dunsborough Mail, 6 April 2022.  The City received one submission.  The submission supported the proposal, commenting that the “spite strip” was in place prior to the construction of the two roundabouts linking Cape Naturaliste Road to Caves Road.

 

The City did not receive any objections to a notice of the proposal sent to service providers.

 

Risk Assessment

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

 

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could recommend the developer makes a request to the Minister for Lands for a licence over portion of Lot 4959 of Crown Reserve.  An issue with this recommendation is that a licence would generally be subject to terms requiring periodic renewal.

CONCLUSION

The City should make a request to the Minister for Lands to dedicate as road a portion of Lot 4959 of Crown Reserve 42673, Cape Naturaliste Road, Dunsborough, where Lot 4959 adjoins Lot 1 of Diagram 85620 (61 Dunn Bay Road, Dunsborough).

 

Should the Minister support the request, the land would form part of Cape Naturaliste Road and would allow legal vehicular access from Lot 1 to Cape Naturaliste Road.  The land would remain as Crown land and the City would retain management responsibility for the land.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

A request may be packaged and forwarded to the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (for the Minister for Lands) within two weeks of the publication of the Council meeting minutes.

 


Council

56

25 May 2022

14.1

Attachment a

Aerial imagery

 


Council

57

25 May 2022

14.1

Attachment b

Plan 13907

 


Council

59

25 May 2022

14.1

Attachment c

Plans from development application for Lots 1 and 2 Dunn Bay Road

 



Council

60

25 May 2022

14.1

Attachment d

Dunsborough 1986

 

 


Council                                                                                      64                                                                      25 May 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: This item is simply for information purposes and noting

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Letter from Hon. John Carey MLA

Attachment b    Letter from Busselton RSL Subbranch  

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2205/110              Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor S Riccelli

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

17.1.1       Minor Donation Program – April 2022

17.1.2       Current Active Tenders

17.1.3      Letter from Hon. John Carey MLA – Easing of Public Health Measures

17.1.4       Letter from Busselton RSL Subbranch – Thank You for Assistance with ANZAC Day                              Activities

CARRIED 8/0

en bloc

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

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

17.1.1       Minor Donation Program – April 2022

17.1.2       Current Active Tenders

17.1.3      Letter from Hon. John Carey MLA – Easing of Public Health Measures

17.1.4       Letter from Busselton RSL Subbranch – Thank You for Assistance with ANZAC Day                              Activities

 

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       Minor Donations Program – April 2022

The Council allocates an annual budget allowance to the Minor Donations Program. This is provided such that the eligible groups and individuals can apply for and receive sponsorship to assist them in the pursuit of endeavors that bring direct benefit to the broader community.

 

Allocation of funds is delegated to the Chief Executive Officer, in accordance with the published guidelines and funding availability.

 

Three applications were approved in April 2022, totaling $1,510, as outlines below:

 

Recipient

Purpose

Amount

Busselton Mother’s Day Classic Committee

Assistance to cover the cost of community activities such as face painting to support the Mother’s Day Classic walk/run community fundraising event on 8 May 2022.

 

$330

Mia Anderson

Assistance with travel related expenses for Mia to represent WA at the U18 Australian National Basketball Championships in Ballarat, Victoria in April 2022.

 

$500

Zonta Club of Dunsborough

Assistance to cover the cost of the hire of the Naturaliste Community Centre for the Zonta Club of Dunsborough to hold their annual bridge tournament in Dunsborough in June 2022.

 

$680

April Total

 

$1,510

17.1.2       Current Active Tenders

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

 

EOI 01/21 SOUTH WEST REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

·        Requirements – a waste management expert to provide solutions to participating local governments in the South West of WA for sustainable, long term management of municipal solid waste. 

·        An expression of interest on behalf of a number of South West regional local governments was advertised on 30 September 2021 and closed on 25 November 2021. 

·        12 submissions were received. 

·        An evaluation panel has reviewed the submissions and is finalising a report to the CEOs of the South West Regional local governments.

 

RFT 24/21 BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT – GENERAL AVIATION HANGARS

·        Requirements – a suitable Contractor to design and construct four general aviation hangar sheds at the Busselton Margaret River Airport. 

·        A request for tender was advertised on 22 December 2021 and closed on 25 January 2022.

·        3 submissions were received and an evaluation panel has reviewed the submissions.

·        The value of the contract falls within the CEO’s delegated power for accepting tenders. 

·        Officers are negotiating with the preferred supplier and a recommendation will be made to the CEO.

 

RFT 01/22 CONCRETE CRUSHING SERVICES

·        Requirements – a suitable Contractor to crush the brick and concrete waste pile at Dunsborough Waste Facility to produce drainage aggregate. 

·        A request for tender was advertised on 12 March 2022, closing on 20 April 2022.

·        One submission was received and is currently being assessed.

·        The value of the contract falls within the CEO’s delegated power for accepting tenders.

RFT 02/22 EXTERNAL CLEANING CONTRACT

·        Requirements – regular cleaning services to the City’s ablution blocks and BBQs.

·        A request for tender was advertised on 23 March 2022, closing on 21 April 2022.

·        The value of the contract is likely to exceed the CEO’s delegated power for accepting tenders.

·        Four submissions were received and are currently being assessed.

 

RFT 03/22 WATER MAIN RELOCATION – DUNSBOROUGH

·        Requirements – a suitable Contractor to relocate a water main (a Water Corporation asset) between Dunn Bay Road and Cyrillean Way, Dunsborough.  

·        A request for tender was advertised on 26 March 2022, closing on 21 April 2022.

·        Only one non-compliant submission was received, which was rejected by the CEO pursuant to Delegation DA1-07.

·        Pursuant to regulation 11(2)(b)(i) the City proceeded with inviting a local contractor to submit a quotation.

·        The value of the contract is expected to fall within the CEO’s delegated power for accepting tenders.

 

RFT 04/22 DIGITAL BILLBOARD

·        Requirements – a suitable supplier to design and construct a digital billboard on Bussell Hwy.

·        A request for tender was advertised on 23 March 2022, closing on 27 April 2022.

·        The value of the contract falls within the CEO’s delegated power for accepting tenders.

·        Nine competitive submissions were received giving options on how to achieve the $200k allocated for the screen and supporting structure and a cost to achieve a to size and scale replacement of the existing structure.  Officers will review options and make recommendation to the CEO

 

17.1.3       Letter from Hon. John Carey MLA – Easing of Public Health Measures

 

This letter addresses the easing of public health measures in relation to Covid-19, and the effects of this on Local Government.

 

See Attachment A.

 


17.1.4       Letter from Busselton RSL Subbranch – Thank You for Assistance with ANZAC Day Activities

 

This letter thanks the City Council and staff for the recent assistance provided for the ANZAC Day activities.

 

See Attachment B.

 

 


Council

65

25 May 2022

17.1

Attachment a

Letter from Hon. John Carey MLA

 


Council

66

25 May 2022

17.1

Attachment b

Letter from Busselton RSL Subbranch

 

 


Council                                                                                      81                                                                      25 May 2022

ITEMS FOR DEBATE

13.1           SECTION 31 RECONSIDERATION - PROPOSED RECEPTION CENTRE - LOT 21 (NO.64) ESPINOS ROAD, SABINA RIVER

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

Development Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Statutory Planning Coordinator - Joanna Wilson

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    Development Plans

Attachment c    Cover Letter and Social Impact Report

Attachment d   Waste Management Plan

Attachment e    Risk Management Plan

Attachment f    Traffic Impact Assessment

Attachment g   Noise Impact Assessment

Attachment h   Bushfire Management Plan

Attachment i     Summary of Submissions

Attachment j     Schedule of Referral Responses from Statutory Public Authorities

Attachment k    Bushfire Management Plan Peer Review  

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Date

25 May 2022

Meeting

Ordinary Council

Name/ Position

Cr Mikayla Love, Councillor

Item No./ Subject

Item No. 13.1 ‘SECTION 31 RECONSIDERATION - PROPOSED RECEPTION CENTRE - LOT 21 (NO.64) ESPINOS ROAD, SABINA RIVER’

Type of Interest

Impartiality Interest

Nature of Interest

I live reasonably close to the location of the proposed reception centre.

 

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


 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2205/111              Moved Councillor A Ryan, seconded Councillor S Riccelli

That the Council:

1.              Notes that the development application for a ‘Reception Centre’ at Lot 21 (64), Espinos Road, Sabina River (DA21/0742), was deemed to be refused by the City pursuant to section 253 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 on 13 December 2021 (“the decision”).

2.              Notes that, pursuant to review proceedings under the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, the Tribunal invited the City to reconsider the decision.  

3.              Pursuant to section 31(2)(a) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, affirms the decision to refuse the development t as it is inconsistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the objectives of the zone within which it is located.

4.              That the application is refused for the following reasons –

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1.              The proposed development is inconsistent with the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No.21, objectives of the Rural zone and the Local Rural Planning Strategy in that the proposal:

(a)           would result in the introduction of a significant non-Rural use which would undermine the objectives of the Rural zone which include preserving the operation and development of established rural uses and would be inconsistent with the character and amenity of the area, contrary to objective (d) and (e) of the Rural Zone;

(b)           is contrary to the objective that non-agricultural uses will be secondary uses and compatible with the primary established agricultural uses and preserve the ongoing use and development of that land for productive agricultural purposes;

(c)            the proposal for 12,000 guests is considered to generate an unreasonable and excessive volume of traffic for the area beyond the anticipated traffic volumes considered acceptable in a rural locality;

(d)           in the absence of a traffic management plan, the proposal has not adequately demonstrated that the existing road network is capable of accommodating the proposed number of vehicles;

(e)           the noise levels generated by the proposal from music, vehicles, patrons, car parking areas and site infrastructure would result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties and the wider locality;

(f)            in the absence of a dust management plan, the proposal has not adequately demonstrated how the amount of dust generated from the use of the access road and internal access road would not result in an unreasonable impact on the amenity of surrounding properties.

2.        The City is not satisfied that the bushfire management issues can be satisfactorily addressed by the proposed development in accordance with the objectives and intent of State Planning Policy 3.7 - Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas and the Guidelines to Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas:

a)             the proposal is located in an area of high bushfire risk and the risk assessment has not demonstrated that the risk can be managed, to ensure the protection of people, property and infrastructure;

 

b)             both access roads to the site traverse an Extreme Bushfire Hazard Level in excess of the length requirements specified in the Guidelines;

c)              the proposal has not adequately demonstrated the safe and efficient evacuation of patrons, whilst simultaneously providing a safe operational environment for emergency services, can be achieved resulting in placing life at an unacceptable level of risk; and

d)             inadequate provision of a suitable location for sheltering on site especially for the number of patrons proposed..

CARRIED 8/0

Reasons:       The amendment to the wording of the Officer Recommendation is to clarify that the recommendation is not to substitute or vary the decision.  It is to affirm a refusal, which was a decision that was deemed to have been made by the City at the expiry of the statutory timeframe to determine a development application, pursuant to s253 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council determines:

A.        That the Section 31 Reconsideration for development application DA21/0742 submitted for ‘Reception Centre’ at Lot 21 (64), Espinos Road, Sabina River is considered by the Council to be inconsistent with Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the objectives of the zone within which it is located.

B.         That the Section 31 Reconsideration is refused for the proposal referred to in (A) above subject to the following reasons –

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1.         The proposed development is inconsistent with the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No.21, objectives of the Rural zone and the Local Rural Planning Strategy in that the proposal:

(a)       would result in the introduction of a significant non-Rural use which would undermine the objectives of the Rural zone which include preserving the operation and development of established rural uses and would be inconsistent with the character and amenity of the area, contrary to objective (d) and (e) of the Rural Zone;

(b)       is contrary to the objective that non-agricultural uses will be secondary uses and compatible with the primary established agricultural uses and preserve the ongoing use and development of that land for productive agricultural purposes;

(c)       the proposal for 12,000 guests is considered to generate an unreasonable and excessive volume of traffic for the area beyond the anticipated traffic volumes considered acceptable in a rural locality;

(d)       in the absence of a traffic management plan, the proposal has not adequately demonstrated that the existing road network is capable of accommodating the proposed number of vehicles;

(e)       the noise levels generated by the proposal from music, vehicles, patrons, car parking areas and site infrastructure would result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties and the wider locality;

(f)        in the absence of a dust management plan, the proposal has not adequately demonstrated how the amount of dust generated from the use of the access road and internal access road would not result in an unreasonable impact on the amenity of surrounding properties.

2.       The City is not satisfied that the bushfire management issues can be satisfactorily addressed by the proposed development in accordance with the objectives and intent of State Planning Policy 3.7 - Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas and the Guidelines to Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas:

a)         the proposal is located in an area of high bushfire risk and the risk assessment has not demonstrated that the risk can be managed, to ensure the protection of people, property and infrastructure;

b)        both access roads to the site traverse an Extreme Bushfire Hazard Level in excess of the length requirements specified in the Guidelines;

c)         the proposal has not adequately demonstrated the safe and efficient evacuation of patrons, whilst simultaneously providing a safe operational environment for emergency services, can be achieved resulting in placing life at an unacceptable level of risk; and

                d)     inadequate provision of a suitable location for sheltering on site especially for the                            number of patrons proposed.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received a development application for a Reception Centre to host music events including camping facilities at Lot 21 (No.64) Espinos Road, Sabina River.

 

The application was advertised (as a complex application) for public comment for a period of 28 days. During the consultation period, the main concerns raised related to traffic, noise from the events and vehicles, amenity impacts on surrounding properties and the impact on the productivity of surrounding farming properties.

 

The applicant lodged an application for review with the State Administrative Tribunal as the application was not determined within 90 days from receipt of the application (referred to as a ‘deemed refusal’).  Pursuant to S.31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 the Tribunal has invited the City to reconsider its decision.

 

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

 

It is therefore recommended that the Reconsideration be refused, for the reasons set out in the officer recommendation.

BACKGROUND

The Council is asked to consider an application for a Reception Centre to host music events including camping facilities at Lot 21 (No.64) Espinos Road, Sabina River.

 

Key information regarding the application is set out below:

 

1.         Landowner: Mayfly Property Group Pty Ltd

 

2.         Applicant: Element Advisory Pty Ltd

 

3.         Site area: 20 Hectares

 

4.         General description of the site: Lot 21 (No.64) Espinos Road is located on the southern side of Espinos Road, close to the junction with Piggott Road and Goulden Road.  The site has access to both Espinos Road and Piggott Road.  There is currently a Single House and a Rural Workers Dwelling on the Site. 

             The Site was historically farmed and used for grazing of cattle and keeping of horses.  The Site is predominantly flat and presently has various trees of species endemic to the area dispersed across the site with rows of trees on the southern and eastern boundaries.

 

The three lots that abut the site and the lot to the north are all developed with Single Houses and the lot to the east has an olive grove.  In the wider context State Forest, horse stud farm and an Extractive Industry site are located to the south along Piggott Road; vineyards and an avocado farm located to the north and a dairy farm uses the majority of surrounding paddocks to the west for grazing.

 

5.         Current development/use: Lot 21 (No. 64) has a Single House and Rural Workers Dwelling.  The site was historically used for the grazing of cattle and keeping of horses.

 

6.         Brief description of proposed development: The development application seeks approval for a Reception Centre and includes the following:

·        Host music and arts events for an audience of 12,000 patrons, comprising two three-day camping and music events and three single day/overnight events per year.  Events would take place only between the months of April to November inclusive.

·        Provide camping facilities for up to 6,000 patrons which consists of:

i.          2,000 car camping sites; 

ii.         12, six stall shower blocks and 6, sixteen pan toilet blocks with drinking facilities.

iii.        The camping area would have an emergency muster point and sufficient space for food vans and first aid tents.

·        The music area would comprise of three stages; main, big top and local stage and a further 13 ablution blocks, numerous drinking water facilities and food trucks.

·        Noise from sounds checks would commence at 10am, events would finish on Fridays at 11pm, Saturdays at 12am and Sundays at 10pm.

·        Entry to the site would be from Espinos Road, with a one way traffic system proposed through the site with the exit point onto Piggott Road.  In addition to the 2,000 car camping sites there would be an additional 650 day car parking sites and 225m of bus parking to allow for 15 buses at any one time.

·        For a three day concert for up to 12,000 patrons, it is proposed that the arrival of campers (2,000 cars) be managed by a ticketing system that specifies arrival times and numbers.  1,000 cars would be scheduled to arrive between 9 AM and 6 PM on the Friday with the remaining 1,000 cars arriving between 8 AM and 12 noon on the Saturday. The remainder of patrons are expected to arrive as follows:

i.          4,000 via event shuttle buses from Margaret River, Dunsborough, Yallingup, Broadwater, and Busselton;

ii.         1,500 via 300 cars parking in day parking, and

iii.        500 via taxi/ drop-off.

 

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

 

8.         Land-use permissibility: In the Rural zone Reception Centre is an “A” use which means that the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting development approval only after giving special notice in accordance with Clause 64 in Schedule 2 of the Deemed Provisions.


OFFICER COMMENT

During consultation on the application, a number of concerns were raised that are not considered to be relevant planning matters. The exercise of discretion when determining a development application should only take into account relevant considerations as identified within Clause 67 Consideration of application by local government, Schedule 2, Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations). The decision-maker has an obligation to exercise their statutory responsibilities appropriately and a decision is required to be based upon sound planning principles.

 

The matters to be given consideration which are relevant to this development application are outlined in the Statutory Environment section of this report, below. If an item or issue is not listed it is not deemed to be a valid planning consideration and therefore is not to be given regard in the determination of a development application. For example, while the improvement of the region, including ‘economic development’ is one of the broader aims of the Scheme, economic considerations, including the economic competition as well as demand for a development, are not listed under Clause 67 of the Regulations. Therefore, economic considerations per se should only be considered when setting the planning framework and not when making a determination on an individual development application. 

 

It is considered that the main planning issues relevant for detailed discussion in this report are as follows:

·        Zoning and land use permissibility;

·        Vehicle access and traffic;

·        Bushfire;

·        Noise and Amenity; and

·        Noise impact on livestock.

 

Zoning and land use permissibility

The lot is located within the Rural zone.  The character of the area can be described as rural and overwhelmingly agricultural, with one of the largest dairy farms and avocado farms in the south-west in proximity and most of the surrounding properties being grazed or undertaking intensive agricultural activities. 

 

As described above, the proposal comprises of two three-day camping and music events and three single day/overnight events per year.  Set up / pack away for larger events however could take up to 5-7 days either side of the event.  This could result in the local community being disrupted for up to 10 weeks a year from patrons and setting/packing up of infrastructure.

 

As a result of advertising the proposal, a number of concerns have been raised that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the productivity of surrounding farming properties.  Officers are of the opinion that the proposed development would be akin to approving a stand-alone, significant tourism use on rural land which would have the potential to seriously undermine the objective of providing for the operation of existing and development of new rural uses and is inconsistent with the rural character and amenity of the land within the area.

 

The Scheme and the Local Rural Planning Strategy both note the importance of limiting land uses that would be incompatible with the primary use of the area.  The Strategy states that this particular precinct has strategic importance as a dairy production area and all proposed development should be sensitively planned and managed to ensure that they do not conflict with dominant rural qualities.

 

It is considered that a proposal of this scale is inappropriate in its setting and would be contrary to the objectives of the Scheme and the Strategy.

Vehicle access and traffic

It is proposed to gain access to the Site from Yoongarillup Road onto Espinos Road, with a one way traffic system through the site with the exit point out to Piggott Road.  The existing formation of Espinos Road is made up of a gravel surface that ranges from 4.5m to 5.5m in width (e.g. single width).  Espinos Road is approximately 820m in length and ends at the road frontage for Lot 300 Espinos Road.  There is no cul-de-sac head which means there is no space in the road reserve for vehicles to turn around without multi-point turns.

 

Other than the site, Espinos Road only services three other properties; it is estimated that currently on any normal day vehicle movements would not exceed 30 vehicles/day. This volume of traffic would not warrant an upgrade under normal circumstances.

 

Yoongarillup Road and Piggott Road are also proposed to be utilised by the proposal.  Both roads are sealed and the existing formation is over 6m in width (e.g. double width).  The exit onto Piggott Road is by a shared crossover with the adjoining property, Lot 30.  The crossover is sealed but would require widening with culvert improvements. 

 

A Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA), prepared by i3 consultants WA, was provided as part of the application package. The TIA was peer reviewed by Cardno on behalf of the City and a number of revisions, including additional modelling of all intersections in the vicinity of the Site and Bussell Highway/Sues Road, were requested.  A revised TIA was subsequently provided and again reviewed by City officers and Cardno.

 

The TIA does not recommend any road upgrades but proposes to reduce the impact from the event on the road network through the use of a number of measures, including staggering arrival/departure times, patrons arriving by a mix of transport including buses and taxis/drop off.  It concludes that provided a traffic management plan is in place, the existing road network has the capacity to manage the proposed use.  A traffic management plan has not been prepared and officers are not satisfied that the road network is capable of accommodating the amount of vehicles without a detailed traffic management plan being provided.

 

Whilst staggering of arrival/departure times is required to ensure the road network is capable of accommodating the number of vehicles, this would significantly inconvenience the residents within the area.  Traffic management would be required between Friday to Monday (excluding set up/pack away) and it would be difficult for them to easily access their properties.   

 

A number of concerns were raised by neighbours about the width of Espinos Road, with recommendations that it be widened.  Espinos Road has intact road side vegetation, with the surrounding road reserves all containing priority and threatened flora species, it is unknown if Espinos Road contains the same vegetation complex. 

 

In the absence of a flora and fauna survey, the City is unable to advise if Espinos Road is even capable of being upgraded.

 

Bushfire

The Site is located within a bushfire prone area and in accordance with State Planning Policy 3.7 (SPP3.7) a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) has been submitted.  Given the complexities of the issues, the BMP has been referred to Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES), Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) and a peer review has been undertaken by Ecosystems Solutions (Attachment K).

 

 

The BMP concludes that it will be possible for the bushfire protection criteria outlined in Version 1.4 of the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (Guidelines) to be satisfied.  It is proposed that the site is accessed from Espinos Road by a one-way system through the site onto Piggott Road.  The width of Espinos Road (which does not comply with the minimum required by the Guidelines) is not proposed to be resolved as part of the proposal, so an alternative risk treatment by performance principle for vehicle access is required by the Guidelines. 

 

The risk assessment provides risk treatments and contingency measures such as shelter on-site, early evacuation and seasonal closure.

 

For departures after an event the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) proposes a staggered departure between the hours of 6am-2pm in order for the intersections to perform in a safe manner.  It is acknowledged in the BMP that early evacuation will always be the preference, however it is not clear how this can be achieved in a short time frame noting that a staggered departure is recommended in the TIA under normal circumstances. 

 

Main Roads have advised that it is not their role to provide comments on the function of the road network in an emergency situation.  According to Main Roads it is the role of DFES to be satisfied that the network can accommodate the number of patrons.

 

The Guidelines provide flexibility for consideration of shelter on-site through a performance principle. The Guidelines reference a maximum number of 100 patrons, however, if a development proposes to exceed 100 patrons, a risk assessment can be undertaken.  Officers however are generally unsupportive of shelter on-site as a means to justify an application that cannot achieve the minimum access requirements, particularly in the more remote locations of the local government area and for a development of the scale proposed. 

 

It should be noted that an incident on this site would likely be the City’s responsibility to manage, rather than DFES.  The proposed use of shelter on-site would likely necessitate sending volunteer firefighters onto a site that it may not ordinarily seek to enter (because of the access arrangements) to protect guests and property in the event of a bushfire.  Furthermore, by virtue of the constrained nature of the site, there is limited area to shelter on site away from cars/buses and tents, which are all flammable material. 

 

In the worst case scenario, the remaining area may have to contain 12,000 people sheltering and a brigade with a limited number of both volunteers and fire appliances managing the situation. Having to deal with such potentially complex issues on this site would significantly strain resources in the event of a fire. 

 

With regard to seasonal closure, it is proposed that events would take place during April to November only to mitigate bushfire risk.   Whilst officers agree that an event outside of this period would have a greater risk of bushfire, some significant fire events in the south-west have taken place during this time.  A major bushfire at Prevelly, Margaret River occurred in November 2011, a significant fire at Jarrahwood occurred in June 2019 and recently in South Bunbury in May 2022. 

 

Due to the location of this proposed development, insufficient sheltering on site provisions and the inadequate access arrangements, City officers do not support seasonal closure as a means to justify the proposed use.

 

DPLH

In light of the recent revision to the Guidelines, clarification has been sought on a number of issues from DPLH, in particular the maximum number of people that can be accommodated through shelter on site, what constitutes a ‘suitable destination’, guidance on risk assessments and standards of roads. The response is provided within the Schedule of Referral Responses at Attachment J.

 

In summary, DPLH have advised that when the maximum number of patrons that can be accommodated through shelter on site is proposed to be exceeded and the acceptable solution cannot be satisfied, then a performance based solution should be developed through a risk assessment.  The risk assessment may be peer reviewed by a suitably qualified level 3 bushfire consultant.

 

DFES

DFES has assessed the proposal against the previous and current Guidelines and raised a number of concerns, in addition to those raised by officers above.  It is considered by DFES that the site does not comply with the requirement for access in two directions until the intersection of Espinos and Piggott Road, which is as a result of both Espinos and Piggott Road being unable to comply with the maximum distance of a no through road traversing vegetation.  Furthermore, the proposal does not address how safe and efficient evacuation of patrons, whilst simultaneously providing a safe operational environment for emergency services, can be achieved.    

 

In order to address this, the BMP proposes a performance based solution of avoidance through seasonal closure, early evacuation and shelter on site.  DFES are of the opinion that sheltering on site, cannot be considered as an option, as the Guidelines states that “where A5.8.2a, A5.8.2b and A5.8.2c (vehicular access) cannot be achieved, and the proposal has a capacity of up to a maximum of 100 guests and staff at any one time, then an on-site shelter is to be provided”. 

 

The proposal shelter on site would exceed 100 patrons and furthermore insufficient evidence has been provided to show that the number of patrons proposed could be accommodated on site.

 

The proposed BMP does not satisfy a number of acceptable solutions in the Guidelines contained within Element 1 – Location, Element 2 – Siting and Design, Element 3 - Vehicular Access and Element 5 - Vulnerable Tourism Land Use.   A risk assessment has been submitted to demonstrate compliance, however in the opinion of officers the risk assessment has not demonstrated that the risk can be adequately managed, to ensure the protection of people, property and infrastructure and would not comply with the intent of SPP3.7 which is to preserve life. 

 

Peer Review

A peer review of the BMP and risk assessment has been undertaken by a Level 3 Accredited Bushfire Practitioner from Ecosystems Solutions (Attachment K).  In summary -

 

The reviewer does not agree that the proposal complies with SPP3.7 due to the extreme Bushfire Hazard Level that exists at the entrance and exit of the site or the access requirements of the Guidelines.  Also, has concerns that that the performance solution prescribed, regarding a managed and staged arrival and departure one way road flow, can adequately cope with the volume of people and vehicles proposed.  Those concerns are increased when considering an emergency evacuation scenario. 

 

The reviewer acknowledges that radiant heat exposure is an unlikely dominant risk in a bushfire event on the Site, however the surrounding landscape vegetation readily produce embers and will also produce smoke.  Elements of the site that would normally be excluded i.e windrows, should be considered as ember traps or potential fire sources for spot fires given the vulnerable and extended nature of the patrons on the site.

 

The management of people on site should evacuation be unable to occur is problematic given the number of people involved and the available resources.  It is likely that should a bushfire event occur, a large component of community resources with Bushfire Brigades and Fire and Rescue and SES crews will be needed. 

 

The occupancy characteristics of the patrons do not appear to have been considered in sufficient detail in an emergency as many are likely to not be able to drive a vehicle and evacuate in a bushfire event and may more likely be prone to panic increasing the difficulty for emergency services. 

 

Overall, the reviewer believes the risks proposed in the BMP understate the overall potential risk of the site and ultimate consequences of a bushfire event on people attending the event.

 

Noise and amenity

As already noted, the character of the area can be described as rural and overwhelmingly agricultural, with most properties undertaking extensive / intensive agricultural activities around the site.  This area of the City does not contain a mix of development or tourism uses and night time rural background noise in this location is low. 

 

It is understood from the Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) that the noise levels associated with the use are unable to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (Noise Regulations) and will be audible for a number of kilometres.  It has been argued that the noise levels are consistent with previous local music events – ‘Southbound’ and ‘Three Oceans’ and due to ‘Three Oceans’ also being located in the Rural zone this proposal should also be considered acceptable. 

 

By virtue of the nature of the use, music events are usually unable to comply with the as of right levels established by the Noise Regulations.  It is noted that the applicant is applying for approvals under regulation 18 of the Noise Regulations for two events a year. 

 

Regulation 18 allows the ‘as of right’ maximum noise levels in the Noise Regulations to be exceeded for up to two events per year.  In the future the applicant intends to apply for a venue approval under regulation 19 for up to five events a year, which would provide certainty on the number of events that can be held. 

 

Whilst granting of approvals under Regulation 18 and/or 19 would mean the activity could be compliant with the Regulations, noise in a planning context is broader than simply considering the Noise Regulations.  In many cases, including the subject application, it is not sufficient criterion to simply consider the Noise Regulations. That is, even where a land use complies with the Noise Regulations, it does not automatically mean that the noise associated with the development and/or land use will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding properties or broader locality.

 

The impact on the two nearest sensitive premises on the adjoining lots need to be carefully considered as they are sited close to the boundary with the Site.  The dwelling on Lot 1 Espinos Road is situated 20m from the northern boundary and 50m from the eastern boundary, immediately adjacent to the access and ‘day’ car parking area. The dwelling on Lot 30 Piggott Road is situated 70m from the boundary and the camping area. 

 

In addition to noise from music, the NIA has considered noise associated with the car parking area, patrons talking, 200 patrons talking at any one time within the camping area, lighting towers etc and the modelling indicates this noise associated with these aspects may comply with the Noise Regulations.  It is difficult however to accurately model this type of noise due to its nature. 

 

Also of note is that the Noise Regulations do not consider traffic noise from public roads and this has not been taken into account in the NIA.

 

Not only would there be a detrimental impact on the adjoining properties, there would also be a wider impact on the amenity of the properties in the locality from noise associated with music, traffic noise, patrons and congestion.  

 

The planning framework does not prohibit uses such as a Reception Centre being approved in this locality.

 

Furthermore, there is nothing inherently objectionable about a Reception Centre being located in a rural context, providing the impacts of such a development can be appropriately managed.  It is also considered that large-scale events can and will have an impact on amenity, and could not take place at all if there was not an acceptance of that fact. 

 

It is considered though, that the noise from music, vehicular traffic, traffic management, patrons, use of the car parking area as proposed and in the location proposed would result in an unacceptable impact on the amenity currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring properties and wider area.

 

Noise Impact on livestock

A number of concerns have been raised about the impact on the dairy, beef/sheep and horse stud activities occuring within the vicinity.  The dairy farm utilises most of the surrounding paddocks within the vicinity to graze animals.  The farm has 3,500 head of cattle (both dairy and beef) and is currently the largest milk producer in the South-West, producing 12.5 million litres of milk per annum.   

 

The concerns that have been raised include:

·        the impact on dairy cows from noise as cows are sensitive to an increase in the normal ambient noise level, which can lead to the decrease in the amount of milk produced;

·        noise including vibrations which can cause animals to stampede and injure themselves and also result in the increase in cortisol levels in the beef;

·        disease associated with any bio-security breaches; and

·        cattle digesting litter.

 

Nether the City nor the Department of Primary Industry and Regional Development (DPIRD) have the expertise to comment on the concerns raised.  DPIRD recommended seeking advice from Western Dairy in respect of this matter, Western Dairy are a not for profit organisation, funded by dairy farmer levies, Australian Government and DPIRD.  Western Dairy have advised that this type of event would not be supported by the dairy industry in light of the stress on the animals and the adverse impacts on milk production, reproduction and adverse behaviour (kicking/stomping).

 

Officers have not recommended a reason for refusal that specifically relates to the impact on livestock from noise, but are of the opinion that a development of this scale is inappropriate in its setting and would be contrary to a number of the objectives of the Rural zone. 

 

Statutory Environment

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

 


Zoning

The site is zoned ‘Rural’ under the Scheme.  The objectives of the Rural zone area 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.

 

Land-use and permissibility

The proposed land use is an ‘A’s use in the Zone, and is defined as follows:

 

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

 

Clause 67 Consideration of application by local government

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

 

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

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

(c)        any approved State planning policy;

(d)       any environmental protection policy approved under the Environmental Protections Act 1986 Section 31 (d);

(e)       any policy of the commission;

(f)        any policy of the State;

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

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

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

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

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

(i)        environmental impacts of the development;

(ii)       the character of the locality;

(iii)      social impacts of the development;    

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

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

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

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

(s)       the adequacy of —

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

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

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

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

(i)        public transport services; 

(ii)       public utility services;

(iii)      storage, management and collection of waste; 

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

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

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

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

(y)       any submissions received on the application;

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

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

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

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

 

State Planning Policy 3.7 – Planning in bushfire Prone Areas

The intent of SPP3.7 is to ‘implement effective, risk-based land use planning and development to preserve life and reduce the impact of bushfire on property and infrastructure.’  SPP 3.7 directs how land use should address bushfire risk management, and applies to all land which has been designated as bushfire prone by the Office of Bushfire Risk Management.  The proposal is considered to be contrary to the objectives of the Policy. 

 


State Planning Policy 2.5 – Rural Planning

Seeks to protect and preserve Western Australia’s rural land assets due to the importance of their economic, natural resource, food production, environmental and landscape values. Ensuring broad compatibility between land uses is essential to delivering this outcome.

The Policy provides guidance on how rural planning issues should be considered through Strategic planning processes and refers to the Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for matters to be considered in determining a development application.  The proposal is considered to be contrary to the relevant objectives of the Policy.  It is considered that the proposal would conflict with the objectives of the strategy.

 

Local Rural Planning Strategy

Provides guidance on the introduction of uses within the rural zone and seeks to minimise the potential for conflict between agricultural and non-agricultural uses.  The site is located within Precinct 1 – Primary Rural and states that grazing uses need to be protected as the precinct has strategic importance as a dairy production area, rural enterprises/tourist accommodation should be low key and sensitively planned and managed to ensure that they do not conflict with dominant rural qualities. 

 

Financial Implications

The application is currently within the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT); if Councillors decided to refuse the application, it is likely the matter would be determined by SAT in Formal Hearings.  Costs including external costs for engagement of expert witnesses etc, would be incurred.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

Consultation on the proposed development was undertaken in the following manner:

·        Letters sent directly to surrounding landowners within 3km of the site (extent of the Noise Impact Assessment Area); and

·        Two signs erected on the lot; and

·        Notification placed in the local paper on 29 October, 5, 12 and 19 November 2021; and

·        Development plans and information provided by the applicant were made available for public viewing on the City’s website via ‘Your Say’.

 

Consultation on the proposal concluded on 25 November 2021 with 130public submissions received, 76 submissions were in support of the proposal and 54 of which raised concerns with the development.  A schedule of submissions is provided at Attachment I.  The key concerns raised in the submissions are provided below:

·        Noise;

·        Bushfire;

·        Impact on livestock and native wildlife;

·        Inadequate road network to accommodate the number of patrons;

·        Unsuitable location.

 

The proposed development was referred to the following agencies:

·        DWER;

·        DPLH (Bushfire Team);

·        DPIRD / Western Dairy;

·        Department of Health;

·        Main Roads WA;

·        DFES;

·        DBCA; and

·        WAPOL.

 

Submissions were received from the majority of agencies with the key concerns raised by DWER in relation to potential conflict of the noise generated by the proposal on surrounding properties and DFES in relation to the proposal not being able to comply with the Bushfire framework.  A schedule of Agency responses is provided at Attachment J and further discussions regarding the comments from DPLH and DFES is provided within 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.  No risks of a medium or greater level have been identified.

 

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could:

1.         Approve the proposal, applying appropriate conditions; or

2.         Apply additional or different reasons for refusal.

 

In considering options, it should be noted that a planning authority is required to consider the application has been lodged, and to determine whether the application is acceptable.  It is not for a planning authority to determine whether the application is desirable, or the most desirable outcome.  In addition a planning authority cannot apply conditions of approval that substantially modify an application.  If such conditions are necessary, an application should be refused, although in some cases the applicant may be asked to consider modifying the application before it is determined.

 

Because of the nature of this application, though, and the clear need to accommodate large-scale outdoor events in the City, it is worth setting out context in which such events could be supported. 

 

There are two key kinds of context.  The first is within urban areas, although it will often be difficult to accommodate on-site camping/accommodation.  In urban areas issues association with traffic and fire safety and more easily managed, and existing night-time noise levels are higher. 

 

The second context would be on a substantially larger site in a rural context better able to contain amenity impacts within the site, and with better and more options in terms of road access.  A location with a less exclusively agricultural character would also likely be more suitable.

CONCLUSION

Subject to the reasons for refusal, the proposal is considered inappropriate and contrary to the objectives of the zone in which it is located and accordingly recommended for refusal.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The applicant will be notified within of the Council’s decision within one week and prior to the scheduled SAT directions hearing, scheduled for 1 June 2022


Council

82

25 May 2022

13.1

Attachment a

Location Plan

 


Council

88

25 May 2022

13.1

Attachment b

Development Plans

 







Council

94

25 May 2022

13.1

Attachment c

Cover Letter and Social Impact Report

 







Council

98

25 May 2022

13.1

Attachment d

Waste Management Plan

 





Council

101

25 May 2022

13.1

Attachment e

Risk Management Plan

 










































































Council

176

25 May 2022

13.1

Attachment f

Traffic Impact Assessment

 
























































































Council

263

25 May 2022

13.1

Attachment g

Noise Impact Assessment

 







































Council

305

25 May 2022

13.1

Attachment h

Bushfire Management Plan

 

























































































































Council

499

25 May 2022

13.1

Attachment i

Summary of Submissions

 




















































































Council

522

25 May 2022

13.1

Attachment j

Schedule of Referral Responses from Statutory Public Authorities

 
























Council

544

25 May 2022

13.1

Attachment k

Bushfire Management Plan Peer Review

 























Council                                                                                      569                                                                    25 May 2022

13.1           DRAFT DUNSBOROUGH PRECINCT STRUCTURE PLAN AND ASSOCIATED AMENDMENT 52 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 21 - CONSIDERATION FOR INITIATION; AND AMENDMENT 50 MINISTERIAL DECISION

STRATEGIC THEME

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

3.1 Work with key partners to facilitate the activation of our town centres, creating vibrant destinations and consumer choice.

SUBJECT INDEX

Local Planning Scheme 21 Amendments

BUSINESS UNIT

Strategic Planning

REPORTING OFFICER

Strategic Planner - Joanna Wilkinson

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

NATURE OF DECISION

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

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Aerial Photograph

Attachment b    Draft Dunsborough Precinct Structure Plan

Attachment c    Scheme Amendment Map

Attachment d   Amendment 50 - Minister's Decision  

 

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

 

The motion was moved, there was opposition, and debate ensued. The motion was carried.

 

COUNCIL DECISION

C2205/112              Moved Councillor K Cox, seconded Councillor S Riccelli

That the Council:

1.         In pursuance of Part 4 of the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), adopts the draft Dunsborough Precinct Structure Plan (PSP - Attachment B) for consultation, to be advertised concurrently with Amendment 52, as set out in the points below, and subject to the following modifications –

(a)           Delete objective (b) from page 1 of the PSP document;

(b)          On the PSP Map, identify Lot 5153 (1) Leslie Pearce Court and Lot 9020 Caves Road as per the existing zoning;

(c)           Revise the depiction of R-AC4, R-AC0 and R60 residential density codings on the PSP Map, to be consistent with recommendations 2 I (a) and 2 I (b) below;

(d)          Revise the PSP Map by deleting “Building Height Area (BHA)”, “3 Storey BHA”, “4 Storey BHA” and “5 Storey BHA” from the legend, and all building height areas shown on the PSP Map; and

(e)          Revise the PSP document accordingly.

2.              In pursuance of Part 5 of the Regulations, prepares Amendment 52 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 for consultation, for the purposes of:

                    I.            Amending the Scheme Map (Attachment C) by:

(a)           Amending the residential density code from R-AC3 to R-AC4 over all lots zoned ‘Centre’

(b)          Amending the residential density code from R80 to R60 over:

(i)        Lots 51 and 87 to 102 Chieftain Crescent;

(ii)       Lots 86 and 162 Chester Way;

(iii)     Lot 141 Lorna Street;

(iv)     Lots 1 & 2 (4), 5 (2), 17, 18 and 41 to 43 Prowse Way;

(v)       Lots 3 and 4 Greenacre Road;

(vi)     Lot 60 (191) Naturaliste Terrace; and

(vii)   Strata Plan 28592 (3 Dunn Bay Road).

(c)           Amending the ‘Drive Through Facility Control Area’ Special Control Area to include the whole of:

(i)        Lots 1-2 (64) Dunn Bay Road;

(ii)       Lot 1 (61) Dunn Bay Road; and

(iii)     Reserve 42673;and

(iv)     Lot 5153 (1) Leslie Pearce Court and Lot 9020 Caves Road.

(d)          Amending the zoning of a portion of ‘Road’ reserve at the northern end of Lorna Street, between serifed portions of Reserve 26512, to redesignate as ‘Recreation’ reserve.

(e)          Realigning the zoning of Lot 400 (24) Dunn Bay Road and the portion of ‘Road’ reserve adjacent to the western and south western side of Lot 400 to be consistent with the cadastral boundary, as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

                  II.            Retitling the “Centre” zone to “District Centre” zone throughout the Scheme, and amending the Scheme Map accordingly.

                III.            Amending Table 1 “Zoning Table” in relation to the use classes ‘Single House’, ‘Ancillary Dwelling’, ‘Repurposed Dwelling’, ‘Second-hand Dwelling’, ‘Marina’, ‘Marine Filling Station’, ‘Motor Vehicle, Boat or Caravan Sales’ and ‘Transport Depot’, by replacing the symbol ‘D’ with the symbol ‘X’ in the Centre zone.

                IV.            Amending clause 4.3 “Modifications of R-Codes” by changing sub-clause 4.3.2 to read as follows:

“Building height provisions as specified under –

(a)        Table 3 and Deemed-to-Comply provision 5.1.6 C6 of Volume 1 of the R-Codes, and

(b)       Table 2.1, and Acceptable Outcome A2.2.1 of Volume 2 of the R-Codes;

do not apply, except to land coded R-AC3, R-AC4, or R80. In all other areas, maximum building height requirements are required to comply with the provisions of clause 4.8 of the Scheme.”

                  V.            Amending clause 4.8 “Height of Buildings” by amending sub-clause 4.8.9, removing reference to “Centre” zone.

 

                VI.            Amending clause 4.21 “Development in the Regional Centre and Centre Zones” by removing reference to “Centre” zone, “Dunn Bay Road”, “Naturaliste Terrace” and “Dunsborough”.

              VII.            Inserting a new clause 4.22 as follows, and renumbering subsequent clauses and clause references throughout the Scheme:

“4.22              Development in the District Centre Zone

Development within the District Centre zone shall address the following provisions:

(a)       To achieve a consistent building line, increased lot boundary setbacks may be required on Naturaliste Terrace, between the intersections of Cyrillean Way and Dunn Bay Road;

(b)       A 5 metre lot boundary setback shall be provided on the west side of Naturaliste Terrace, between the intersections of Dunn Bay Road and Caves Road. The setback area shall include:

(i) A minimum 2.5 metre wide footpath and pedestrian shelter; and

(ii) A landscaped area adjacent to the boundary;

(c)        Additional primary and secondary street setbacks may be considered where development is providing an associated alfresco space within the setback area;

(d)       Development abutting Caves Road shall respond to the prominence and scenic character of Caves Road by addressing the following matters:

(i)        Buildings shall not be located within 6 metres of the Caves Road              boundary;

(ii)       Building design, finishes and materials shall respond to and enhance the              scenic character of Caves Road;

(iii)     Building services such as bin storage, utilities, storage tanks and the like             shall be adequately concealed so they are not visible from Caves Road;      and

(iv)      Landscape planting shall provide an attractive interface between           development and Caves Road;

(e)       The upper storey external wall face and/or balcony roofs of the third storey shall be setback from the ground floor external wall face, a minimum of 4m on the interface of Reserves 42673, 35758 and 26513 (Dugalup Brook), Reserve 38693 (Lions Park) and Reserve 26512 (Seymour Park).

(f)        No residential uses shall be permitted at ground floor fronting Dunn Bay Road, Naturaliste Terrace or Clark Street;

(g)       Buildings shall be articulated to break up perceived bulk and provide visual interest, particularly with buildings occupying a large/long site frontage;

(h)       Upper levels shall be designed to promote informal surveillance of the street through the use of balconies and/or large windows;

(i)         At the ground floor level, development shall address the street with a primary business entrance and a shop front façade;

(j)         Ground floor commercial uses shall incorporate transparent glazing for a minimum of 70% of all building frontages to adjacent streets;

(k)       Other than sites subject to clause 4.22 (b), a pedestrian shelter through the provision of a verandah, awning or the like, shall be provided with a minimum depth of 2.5 metres over the footpath for the full width of the lot frontage;

(l)         Roller doors or screens of solid material on shop fronts will not be permitted, and security measures should be located and installed internally behind the glazing line;

(m)     No vehicle access ways or car parking shall be provided between buildings and the street, or be visible from the street, unless required to provide access to car parking or loading areas behind or within buildings;

(n)       Notwithstanding clause 4.22 (m), car parking is supported between buildings and the street on lots fronting Clark Street, and Naturaliste Terrace between Greenacre Road and Cyrillean Way, subject to:

(i)        Being limited to a single row of car parking bays; and

(ii)       Inclusion of a 2 metre wide landscaping area adjacent to the street; and

(iii)      In such case, the rear setback may be 3 metres;

(o)       All cross-overs shall be rationalised and strategically placed in locations where they will have the least impact on vehicle, pedestrian and cyclist movement;

(p)       Redevelopment sites shall incorporate shared use of car parking and reciprocal access arrangements with adjoining sites;

(q)       For all boundaries abutting Reserves 42673, 35758 and 26513 (Dugalup Brook), Reserve 38693 (Lions Park) and Reserve 26512 (Seymour Park), no parking, loading bays, services or utilities are to be located on the public land interface;

(r)        Undercroft, decked or roof top car parks shall be located above or behind interactive street frontages at ground level, such as shops or other uses that promote activity and, where car parking is visible from a street or public space, high quality architectural detailing shall be incorporated into the façade and other external walls of all floors;

(s)        General plant, such as air-conditioning, television antennas, bins, hot water storage tanks, rain water tanks, satellite dishes and the like are to be adequately concealed and screened from the street or public view;

(t)        Signage and advertising shall not adversely detract from the architectural elements of the building, or visually dominate the building or the streetscape generally.”

            VIII.            Amending Schedule 2 “Additional Uses” by:

(a)    Amending Additional Use No. A74 by deleting the following properties listed in the ‘Particulars of Land’ column, and amending the Scheme Map accordingly:

Lots 51 and 87 to 102 Chieftain Crescent, Lots 86 and 162 Chester Way, Lots 139 to 141 Lorna Street, Lots 1-9 (20), 81 (18) and 115 to 127 Geographe Bay Road, Lots 1 to 17 (3) Dunn Bay Road, Lots 1 & 2 (4), 5 (2), 17, 18, 41 to 43 Prowse Way, Lots 3 and 4 Greenacre Road and Lot 60 (191) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough.”

(b)   Inserting an Additional Use (No. A84) provision as follows, and amending the Scheme Map accordingly:

A84

Lots 51 and 87 to 102 Chieftain Crescent;

Lots 86 and 162 Chester Way;

Lots 139 to 141 Lorna Street;

Lots 1-9 (20), 81 (18) and 115 to 127 Geographe Bay Road;

Lots 1 to 17 (3) Dunn Bay Road;

Lots 1 & 2 (4), 5 (2), 17, 18, 41 to 43 Prowse Way;

Lots 3 and 4 Greenacre Road; and Lot 60 (191) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough

Consulting Rooms

Guesthouse

Medical Centre

Office

Restaurant/Café

Shop

Tourist Accommodation

1.     The Additional Uses specified shall be deemed to be “D” uses for the purposes of the Scheme.

2.     ‘Shop’ land uses may be permitted at ground floor level only and occupy up to 50% of total development floor space, up to a maximum area of 300m² per lot.

3.     A nil setback to the street shall be considered for a development that includes one or more of the Additional Uses specified and an active frontage.

4.     Active frontages shall comply with the following design requirements:

a.         Minimum 50% transparent glazing;

b.     Roller doors or screens of          solid material will not be          permitted.

5.     The provisions of Clause 4.25 relating to cash in lieu of car parking shall apply.

 

3.              Pursuant to Regulation 35 (2) of the Regulations, determine that Amendment 52 is a ‘standard amendment’ in accordance with r.34 of the Regulations as it is:

(a)           an amendment relating to a zone or reserve that is consistent with the objectives identified in the scheme for that zone or reserve; and

(b)           an amendment that is consistent with a local planning strategy for the scheme that has been endorsed by the Commission.

4.              Note that, as the draft Amendment is in the opinion of the Council consistent with Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (the 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 Regulations. In the event that the EPA determines that the draft Amendment is to subject to formal environmental assessment, this assessment is to be prepared prior to advertising of the draft Amendment.

5.              Notes the Ministerial decision and Schedule of Modifications to modify Amendment 50 (Attachment D).

 

CARRIED 6/2

For: Cr Cox, cr riccelli, cr richards, cr love, cr ryan, CR cronin

Against: Cr Henley, Cr Paine

Reasons:          With respect to Amendment 52 and the ‘Drive Through Facility Control Area’ Special Control Area, to include Lot 5153 Leslie Pearce Court and Lot 9020 Caves Road as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map; and on the PSP Map to revert to the existing zoning for each of these Lots.  With respect to height, to respond to widespread community concern over the height, scale and bulk of developments in excess of 3 storeys in the Town Centre of Dunsborough and the impact they would have on the existing and desired future character.


 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.         In pursuance of Part 4 of the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), adopts the draft Dunsborough Precinct Structure Plan (Attachment B) for consultation, to be advertised concurrently with Amendment 52, as set out in the points below.

2.         In pursuance of Part 5 of the Regulations, prepares Amendment 52 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 for consultation, for the purposes of:

I.     Amending the Scheme Map (Attachment C) by:

(a)       Amending the residential density code from R-AC3 to R-AC4 over lots bound by Reserve 42545, Naturaliste Terrace, Reserve 42673, and Cape Naturaliste Road, Dunsborough.

(b)      Amending the residential density code from R-AC3 to R-AC0 over the remainder of land zoned ‘Centre’, being:

(i)     Lots bound by Caves Road, Cape Naturaliste Road, Dunn Bay Road and Naturaliste Terrace;

(ii)    Lots bound by Dunn Bay Road, Cape Naturaliste Road, Reserve 42673 and Naturaliste Terrace;

(iii)   Lots bound by Dunn Bay Road, Naturaliste Terrace and Hannay Lane;

(iv)   Lots 1-7 (233) Naturaliste Terrace, and Lots 1-17 (31) and 112 to 104 (13 to 29) Dunn Bay Road; and

(v)    Lots bound by Reserve 26512, Chieftain Crescent, Seymour Boulevard, Reserve 38693 and Dunn Bay Road.

(c)       Amending the residential density code from R80 to R60 over:

(i)     Lots 51 and 87 to 102 Chieftain Crescent;

(ii)    Lots 86 and 162 Chester Way;

(iii)   Lot 141 Lorna Street;

(iv)   Lots 1 & 2 (4), 5 (2), 17, 18 and 41 to 43 Prowse Way;

(v)    Lots 3 and 4 Greenacre Road; and

(vi)   Lot 60 (191) Naturaliste Terrace.

(d)      Amending the ‘Drive Through Facility Control Area’ Special Control Area to include the whole of:

(i)     Lots 1-2 (64) Dunn Bay Road;

(ii)    Lot 1 (61) Dunn Bay Road; and

(iii)   Reserve 42673.

(e)      Amending the zoning of a portion of ‘Road’ reserve at the northern end of Lorna Street, between serifed portions of Reserve 26512, to redesignate as ‘Recreation’ reserve.

(f)       Realigning the zoning of Lot 400 (24) Dunn Bay Road and the portion of ‘Road’ reserve adjacent to the western and south western side of Lot 400 to be consistent with the cadastral boundary, as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

II.    Retitling the “Centre” zone to “District Centre” zone throughout the Scheme, and amending the Scheme Map accordingly.

III.   Amending Table 1 “Zoning Table” in relation to the use classes ‘Single House’, ‘Ancillary Dwelling’, ‘Repurposed Dwelling’, ‘Second-hand Dwelling’, ‘Marina’, ‘Marine Filling Station’, ‘Motor Vehicle, Boat or Caravan Sales’ and ‘Transport Depot’, by replacing the symbol ‘D’ with the symbol ‘X’ in the Centre zone.

IV.  Amending clause 4.3 “Modifications of R-Codes” by changing sub-clause 4.3.2 to read as follows:

“Building height provisions as specified under –

(a)    Table 3 and Deemed-to-Comply provision 5.1.6 C6 of Volume 1 of the R-Codes, and

(b)    Table 2.1, and Acceptable Outcome A2.2.1 of Volume 2 of the R-Codes;

do not apply, except to land coded R-AC3, R-AC4, R-AC0 or R80. In all other areas, maximum building height requirements are required to comply with the provisions of clause 4.8 of the Scheme.”

V.    Amending clause 4.8 “Height of Buildings” by amending sub-clause 4.8.9, removing reference to “Centre” zone.

VI.  Amending clause 4.21 “Development in the Regional Centre and Centre Zones” by removing reference to “Centre” zone, “Dunn Bay Road”, “Naturaliste Terrace” and “Dunsborough”.

VII. Inserting a new clause 4.22 as follows, and renumbering subsequent clauses and clause references throughout the Scheme:

“4.22              Development in the District Centre Zone

Development within the District Centre zone shall address the following provisions:

(a)    In addition to the provisions of Volume 2 of the R-Codes, the following provisions  apply to land coded R-AC0 – 

(i) Table 2 sets out the primary controls; and

(ii) Primary controls shall apply to Building Height Areas as shown on the Scheme Map.

TABLE 2 – R-AC0 PRIMARY CONTROLS

Building Height Area (BHA) /

Primary Controls

3 storey BHA

4 storey BHA

5 storey BHA

Boundary Wall Height (storey)

3

2

2

Setback – min. primary street

Nil

Nil, unless otherwise specified in clause 4.22

Setback – min. secondary street

Nil

Commercial use: Nil; and

Non-commercial use: 2m;

or unless otherwise specified in clause 4.22

Setback – min. side

Nil

Nil, unless otherwise specified in clause 4.22

Setback – min. rear

3m

Nil, unless otherwise specified in clause 4.22

Plot Ratio

1.2

1.3

1.5

(b)    To achieve a consistent building line, increased lot boundary setbacks may be required on Naturaliste Terrace, between the intersections of Cyrillean Way and Dunn Bay Road;

(c)     A 5 metre lot boundary setback shall be provided on the west side of Naturaliste Terrace, between the intersections of Dunn Bay Road and Caves Road. The setback area shall include:

(i) A minimum 2.5 metre wide footpath and pedestrian shelter; and

(ii) A landscaped area adjacent to the boundary;

(d)    Additional primary and secondary street setbacks may be considered where development is providing an associated alfresco space within the setback area;

(e)    Development abutting Caves Road shall respond to the prominence and scenic character of Caves Road by addressing the following matters:

(i) Buildings shall not be located within 6 metres of the Caves Road boundary;

(ii) Building design, finishes and materials shall respond to and enhance the scenic character of Caves Road;

(iii) Building services such as bin storage, utilities, storage tanks and the like shall be adequately concealed so they are not visible from Caves Road; and

(iv) Landscape planting shall provide an attractive interface between development and Caves Road;

(f)     The upper storey external wall face and/or balcony roofs shall be setback from the ground floor external wall face, in accordance with the following:

(i) Three storey development: the third storey setback a minimum of 4m on the interface of Reserves 42673, 35758 and 26513 (Dugalup Brook), Reserve 38693 (Lions Park) and Reserve 26512 (Seymour Park);

(ii) Four and/or five storey development: the third and fourth storey setback a minimum of 4m on all boundaries; and

(iii) Five storey development: the fifth storey setback a minimum of 8m on all boundaries;

(g)    No residential uses shall be permitted at ground floor fronting Dunn Bay Road, Naturaliste Terrace or Clark Street;

(h)    Buildings shall be articulated to break up perceived bulk and provide visual interest, particularly with buildings occupying a large/long site frontage;

(i)      Upper levels shall be designed to promote informal surveillance of the street through the use of balconies and/or large windows;

(j)     At the ground floor level, development shall address the street with a primary business entrance and a shop front façade;

(k)    Ground floor commercial uses shall incorporate transparent glazing for a minimum of 70% of all building frontages to adjacent streets;

(l)      Other than sites subject to clause 4.22 (c), a pedestrian shelter through the provision of a verandah, awning or the like, shall be provided with a minimum depth of 2.5 metres over the footpath for the full width of the lot frontage;

(m)   Roller doors or screens of solid material on shop fronts will not be permitted, and security measures should be located and installed internally behind the glazing line;

(n)    On land coded R-AC0, no vehicle access ways or car parking shall be provided between buildings and the street, or be visible from the street, unless required to provide access to car parking or loading areas behind or within buildings;

(o)    On land coded R-AC4, car parking is supported between buildings and the street, subject to:

(i) Being limited to a single row of car parking bays; and

(ii) Inclusion of a 2 metre wide landscaping area adjacent to the street; and

(iii) In such case, the rear setback may be 3 metres;

(p)    All cross-overs shall be rationalised and strategically placed in locations where they will have the least impact on vehicle, pedestrian and cyclist movement;

(q)    Redevelopment sites shall incorporate shared use of car parking and reciprocal access arrangements with adjoining sites;

(r)     For all boundaries abutting Reserves 42673, 35758 and 26513 (Dugalup Brook), Reserve 38693 (Lions Park) and Reserve 26512 (Seymour Park), no parking, loading bays, services or utilities are to be located on the public land interface;

(s)     Undercroft, decked or roof top car parks shall be located above or behind interactive street frontages at ground level, such as shops or other uses that promote activity and, where car parking is visible from a street or public space, high quality architectural detailing shall be incorporated into the façade and other external walls of all floors;

(t)     General plant, such as air-conditioning, television antennas, bins, hot water storage tanks, rain water tanks, satellite dishes and the like are to be adequately concealed and screened from the street or public view;

(u)    Signage and advertising shall not adversely detract from the architectural elements of the building, or visually dominate the building or the streetscape generally.”

VIII. Amending the Scheme Map by inserting an additional information area named “Building Height Area,” as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

IX.   Amending Schedule 2 “Additional Uses” by:

(a)  Amending Additional Use No. A74 by deleting the following properties listed in the ‘Particulars of Land’ column, and amending the Scheme Map accordingly:

Lots 51 and 87 to 102 Chieftain Crescent, Lots 86 and 162 Chester Way, Lots 139 to 141 Lorna Street, Lots 1-9 (20), 81 (18) and 115 to 127 Geographe Bay Road, Lots 1 to 17 (3) Dunn Bay Road, Lots 1 & 2 (4), 5 (2), 17, 18, 41 to 43 Prowse Way, Lots 3 and 4 Greenacre Road and Lot 60 (191) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough.”

(b)  Inserting an Additional Use (No. A84) provision as follows, and amending the Scheme Map accordingly:

A84

Lots 51 and 87 to 102 Chieftain Crescent;

Lots 86 and 162 Chester Way;

Lots 139 to 141 Lorna Street;

Lots 1-9 (20), 81 (18) and 115 to 127 Geographe Bay Road;

Lots 1 to 17 (3) Dunn Bay Road;

Lots 1 & 2 (4), 5 (2), 17, 18, 41 to 43 Prowse Way;

Lots 3 and 4 Greenacre Road; and Lot 60 (191) Naturaliste Terrace, Dunsborough

Consulting Rooms

Guesthouse

Medical Centre

Office

Restaurant/Café

Shop

Tourist Accommodation

1.    The Additional Uses specified shall be deemed to be “D” uses for the purposes of the Scheme.

2.    ‘Shop’ land uses may be permitted at ground floor level only and occupy up to 50% of total development floor space, up to a maximum area of 300m² per lot.

3.    A nil setback to the street shall be considered for a development that includes one or more of the Additional Uses specified and an active frontage.

4.    Active frontages shall comply with the following design requirements:

a.    Minimum 50% transparent glazing;

b.    Roller doors or screens of solid material will not be permitted.

5.    The provisions of Clause 4.25 relating to cash in lieu of car parking shall apply.

3.         Pursuant to Regulation 35 (2) of the Regulations, determine that Amendment 52 is a ‘standard amendment’ in accordance with r.34 of the Regulations as it is:

(a)       an amendment relating to a zone or reserve that is consistent with the objectives identified in the scheme for that zone or reserve; and

(b)       an amendment that is consistent with a local planning strategy for the scheme that has been endorsed by the Commission.

4.         Note that, as the draft Amendment is in the opinion of the Council consistent with Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (the 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 Regulations. In the event that the EPA determines that the draft Amendment is to subject to formal environmental assessment, this assessment is to be prepared prior to advertising of the draft Amendment.

5.         Notes the Ministerial decision and Schedule of Modifications to modify Amendment 50 (Attachment D).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council is requested to consider initiating for public advertising the draft Dunsborough Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) to guide future zoning, subdivision, and development in the PSP area (refer to Attachment A: Aerial Photograph). The PSP is consistent with relevant ‘Settlement and Community’ and ‘Activity Centres and Economies’ strategies outlined in the City’s Local Planning Strategy (the Strategy), and the ‘Centre’ zone objectives of Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (the Scheme).

 

Council is also requested to consider initiating, for concurrent public advertising, associated Amendment 52 (the Amendment) to the Scheme. The Amendment would enact recommendations of the PSP relating to zoning, land use and development standards for built form (as set out in the Officer Recommendation and Attachment C).

 

It is recommended that the proposal be supported, and that the PSP and Amendment be initiated/adopted for the purposes of community consultation.

 

Council is also asked to consider the Minister for Planning’s recent final decision on Amendment 50 (which relates to part of the PSP area).

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The report was initially brought before Council for consideration at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 11 May 2022, where it was deferred until the 25 May 2022 for the following reason:

 To allow Councillors additional time to review the proposals. The Precinct Structure Plan and associated Amendment are technical planning documents, and the additional time will allow Councillors an opportunity to develop a greater understanding of the desired outcomes.

 

This has enabled further discussion between officers and the Council.

 

At its meeting of 14 February 2018, the Council endorsed the preparation of an Activity Centre Plan (now termed a Precinct Structure Plan) and urban design guidelines for the Dunsborough Town Centre (DTC) (C1802/016).


This decision followed the gazettal of Scheme Amendment 1 in August 2017, which implemented recommendations stemming from the Local Commercial Planning Strategy (2011), Local Cultural Planning Strategy (2011) and Dunsborough Town Centre Conceptual Plan (2014). Amendment 1 introduced the following changes affecting the DTC:

·        Introduction of R-AC3 coding to encourage and support residential and mixed use development;

·        Introduction of a range of incentives (including increased plot ratio) to encourage and support mixed use development;

·        Extension of the DTC via the rezoning of the Clark Street industrial area; and

·        Introduction of Additional Use areas (A74) fringing the DTC to provide certain low-impact business/commercial opportunities and a legible transition between land uses in the DTC and adjoining residential area.

 

Amendment 29, adopted for final approval by the Council in April 2018 (C1804/076) and gazetted in June 2019, introduced general development requirements into the Scheme for the ‘Regional Centre’ and ‘Centre’ zones. These requirements were intended to provide a framework to guide development in the Busselton and Dunsborough City/Town Centres, to later be supported through preparation of Activity Centre Plans and urban design guidelines. The provisions were based on Local Planning Policy 3.8 Busselton Town Centre Guidelines and the State’s then draft Apartment Design Policy.

 

A significant change to the State’s planning framework occurred following that time, through introduction of the ‘Design of the Built Environment’ suite of policies:

·        In May of 2019, the former draft Apartment Design Policy was followed and replaced by State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments (R-Codes Vol. 2). This policy includes comprehensive planning and design standards for mixed use development in areas coded R40 and above, including within activity centres. It is a performance based policy – proposals are assessed against objectives and there is no deemed-to-comply assessment pathway.

·        At the same time the “old” R-Codes, which had previously been State Planning Policy 3.1 (SPP 3.1) and included provisions for multiple dwelling development, became State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 1 (R-Codes Vol. 1), applying only to single houses and grouped dwellings.

·        State Planning Policy 7.2 Precinct Design (SPP 7.2) was introduced in December 2020. SPP 7.2 aims to ensure that precinct planning and design processes deliver good quality built environment outcomes that provide social, economic and environmental benefits. SPP 7.2 is applicable to all of Western Australia, whereas previously there had been policy guidance but no statutory requirements around the preparation of an Activity Centre Plan outside of the Perth and Peel regions.

The introduction of these State planning policies resulted in a number of unforeseen consequences:

·        The PSP development process has been delayed considerably due to the teething period that comes with a totally new policy (SPP 7.2), and indeed no local government to date has progressed a PSP to the stage of final approval.

·        The R-Codes Vol. 2 include new and/or changed provisions that did not exist in SPP 3.1, which have impacted the scale of development that can be proposed in the DTC. In particular, under SPP 3.1 the height of a building was assessed under deemed-to-comply and design principle criteria. For an R-AC3 proposal, the deemed-to-comply height for the top of an external wall was 18 metres (4 - 5 storeys). Under the R-Codes Vol. 2 however, the acceptable building height for an R-AC3 proposal is 6 storeys (indicatively 21 metres). As a performance based policy, proposals are to be assessed in the context of ‘element objectives’ (performance principles), even if they meet ‘acceptable outcomes’ (which are not to be considered ‘deemed to comply’).

·        There is no longer the same need to prepare urban design guidelines to support provisions in the Precinct Structure Plan, as building design considerations that were not previously included in SPP 3.1 are now comprehensively covered in the R-Codes Vol. 2.

 

Changes to the Scheme and the introduction of the R-Codes Vol. 2 and SPP 7.2 have shaped the development and direction of the PSP, and a concurrent Amendment to the Scheme is required to implement the majority of land use and built form provisions identified during the development of the PSP. Further detail is provided in the Officer Comment section below.

 

Issues related to Amendment 50

Amendment 50 was adopted by Council in October 2021 (C2110/076). The purpose of Amendment 50 was to down-code 21 residential lots fronting Geographe Bay Road from R80 to R60. At the time, the Council resolved that Amendment 50 be further considered by the Council, should the Minister make different or additional modifications, relative to those approved by the Council.

 

On 19 April 2022 the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) advised that the Minister requires the Amendment to be modified in the manner specified in Attachment D. In summary:

·        Re-coding the majority of lots to R60 is supported; however Lots 115 and 116 Geographe Bay Road and Lots 139 and 140 Lorna Street are to be retained at R80 because amalgamation of the site has been approved by the WAPC, and a mixed use (mainly apartment) development on the site is substantially commenced at an R80 density.

·        Minor changes are to be made to clauses 4.3.2, 4.81 and 4.83 of the Scheme to update R-Code references, and introduce natural ground level as the point from which building height is to be measured.

 

Several of these modifications are different or additional to those supported by the Council. The Act provides that the Minister may direct the local government to modify a Scheme amendment, and the Regulations outline how a decision on a Scheme amendment is to be given effect. There is no opportunity for the Council or the Minister to alter the Minister’s decision, and therefore this report assumes that the Minister’s decision has been implemented. Further detail on the relevant sections of the Act and Regulations are provided in the Statutory Environment section below.

 

It is recommended that the Council note the Minister’s decision. The City would then arrange for the modification of Amendment 50, consistent with the Minister’s decision.

 

 

OFFICER COMMENT

The DTC is identified in the Local Planning Strategy (2019) as the principal activity centre in the western portion of the Busselton District. As such it is considered an ‘Activity Centre Precinct’ under the provisions of State Planning Policy 7.2: Precinct Design and draft State Planning Policy 4.2: Activity Centres. The PSP sets out to plan for the strategic growth and development of the DTC, and it aims for a vibrant place of community and visitor activity that is one of the main centres of economic, social and cultural life in the District.

 

The PSP is approximately 31.85 hectares in area and incorporates all roads, reserves and land that is zoned ‘Centre’, as well as some medium density Residential zoned land with Additional Use rights fringing the Town Centre. The PSP area also includes Tourism and Residential zoned lots immediately north of the intersection of Cape Naturaliste Road and Caves Road.

 

The PSP consists of two parts. Part One contains the PSP Map and sets out how the PSP is to be implemented through staging, subdivision and development requirements, local development plans, and additional information requirements. Part Two provides background, explanation, engagement outcomes and technical appendices. Key issues are identified throughout Part Two and recommendations for design considerations/actions occur in Section Six of Part Two, ‘Precinct Design Elements’. Part Two of the PSP informs and guides the implementation measures set out in Part One.

 

Key Issues

In order to identify key issues, the Part Two background analysis considers the physical and community context of the PSP and broader catchment area, and is informed by various technical reports and the outcomes of community engagement over a number of years. The physical context section provides an understanding of location, landscape and environment, land use, tenure and ownership, built form and movement networks. The community context section provides an understanding of human and social aspects of the area, including demographics, culture and values, employment and economic activity, and existing housing.

 

Key issues identified through the Part Two analysis include:

·        Limited vacant land area to provide for the expected commercial floor space demand, particularly for Shop/Retail and Office/Business land uses. Potentially this could result in retail leakage, loss of employment opportunity, and loss of vibrancy and purpose in the DTC.

·        Limited housing choice and supply, despite the local planning framework promoting this aim. Conversely, changes to the State planning framework have resulted in unintended consequences, i.e. proposals for buildings of height, bulk and scale that were not anticipated when previous changes to the local planning framework occurred, which have exacerbated issues of concern for a portion of the community. The ability to accommodate housing in the DTC should be considered in the context of the ‘Activity Centre’ hierarchy in the District and region, population and visitor growth, land use and economic demand, urban structure and built form, placemaking and activation; and balanced against the priorities and expectations of all stakeholders.

·        Constrained ability for vehicles to travel into, through and around the area due to block size, physical constraints (Dugalup Brook) and no-through roads, contributing to vehicle congestion during peak seasons.

·        Lack of car parking supply to provide for expected demand in the long term, particularly all day car parking on the periphery of the DTC. Lack of alternative car parking options places a greater onus on new development proposals to provide car parking within development sites, possibly resulting in the under-utilisation of land through at grade car parking, or other poor design outcomes.

A number of other issues and areas for potential improvement have been identified, such as retention and enhancement of environmental value and amenity in the public realm; recognition of local Aboriginal knowledge, concepts and stories of place; and potential provision of a community and civic space in proximity to the DTC.

 

Implementation

Implementation of the PSP will occur though: the Scheme Amendment; subdivision and development requirements for local development plans and additional information requirements set out in Part One of the PSP; and various streetscape/landscape works by the City set out in Part One and in more detail in Part Two of the PSP.

Implementation is also largely dependent on the timing and willingness of individual landowners to develop their sites. In order to guide development for the duration of the PSP (10 years) and beyond that timeframe, the majority of land use and built form provisions are set out in the concurrent Scheme Amendment which is discussed in further detail below. The Amendment aims to implement the recommendations of the PSP by proposing:

·        Revised residential density codings.

·        Revising other zoning arrangements.

·        Renaming the Centre zone to District Centre zone.

·        Changing the permissibility of some land uses.

·        Introduction of customised R-AC0 and District Centre zone development standards (including for height and setbacks).

·        Amendment of Schedule 2 “Additional Uses”.

 

Implementation measures set out in Part One of the PSP are:

·        The staging of key infrastructure and public realm improvements, which would require investment in a number of actions such as:

o   Establishing or enhancing a ‘green network’, including the relocation of power transmission lines from overhead to underground, to allow trees to grow fully.

o   Revegetating fragmented portions of public land; developing a register of significant trees located on public land; and replacement of civil infrastructure to mitigate the environmental impact of surface pollutants, as street upgrades occur.

o   In consultation with the Undalup Association and local elders, installation of an Aboriginal interpretive signage and art trail.

o   Investigation of new civic spaces including a temporary expandable event space around the intersection of Dunn Bay Road and Naturaliste Terrace, and setting aside land in the future for a multi-function community and civic space, near the PSP area.

o   Upgrades to the traffic and pedestrian/cyclist networks, including the extension of Clark Street, installation of roundabouts at either end of Cyrillean Way, improved pedestrian/cyclist connectivity to/from Dunsborough Lakes, and improved pedestrian crossing points along Dunn Bay Road.

o   Identification and/or acquisition of peripheral land for future expected car parking demand. 

·        Subdivision and development requirements primarily relating to the Residential-zoned portion of the PSP area, consistent with relevant Centre zone requirements in the Scheme (where there is a variation from the R-Codes).

·        Local development plan requirements for identified areas where key issues and principles are to be addressed in an integrated manner, across multiple development sites.

 

Key Land Use and Built Form Provisions

The key proposed changes to land use and built form provisions are set out in detail below. These changes are associated with the proposed District Centre zone and/or R-AC4 and R-AC0 density codings. The only areas to be identified are located in the DTC, meaning that these changes would have no impact on any other area of the District.

 

1.      Revised zoning and/or land tenure arrangements

The R-AC3 ‘activity centre’ density coding was introduced through Amendment 1 to the Scheme, coming into effect in 2017. At that time the R-Codes comprised a single volume that addressed requirements for all types of residential development, and ‘activity centre’ density codings were limited to four codings ranging from R-AC0 to R-AC3. In terms of building height, maximums were specified in metres rather than storeys. In summary:

·        R-AC0 did not specify any maximum height, but allowed for controls to be set out in a local structure plan or local development plan;

·        R-AC1 and R-AC2 allowed for maximum heights of 6 – 8 storeys;

·        R-AC3 allowed for a maximum height of 4 - 5 storeys.

 

At that time, R-AC3 was considered the most appropriate ‘activity centre’ density coding because R-AC1 and R-AC2 allowed for excessively high and dense development, and the R-AC0 controls could only be introduced through a local structure plan or local development plan, meaning that these plans would have needed to be prepared prior to the Scheme amendment.

 

Further, structure plans and local development plans have a limited lifespan of 10 years.

 

In 2019 the R-Codes were split into two separate volumes; Volume 1 addresses low and medium density single house and grouped dwelling residential development, and Volume 2 addresses multiple dwelling (apartment building and mixed use) development in activity centres. A number of changes were introduced with Volume 2:

·        R-AC3 allowed for buildings of six storeys, to be assessed through performance principles, and building height (in metres) became ‘indicative’ rather than a maximum ‘deemed to comply’;

·        R-AC4 was introduced, allowing for buildings (subject to assessment through performance principles) of three storeys;

·        R-AC0 continues to have no building height specified, however there is now an option to set controls out in the local planning scheme.

 

The PSP context analysis recognises that six storey buildings may not be consistent with the current character and future needs of Dunsborough, meaning R-AC3 is no longer the appropriate ‘activity centre’ density coding. As a result, it is proposed that the area currently coded as R-AC3 would be re-coded to either R-AC4 or R-AC0:

·        R-AC4 – Land surrounding Clark Street, and three adjoining lots fronting Naturaliste Terrace, all previously zoned ‘Light Industry’ –

o   The area sits outside of the ‘core’ centre of commercial and social activity, and currently comprises a variety of lower intensity land uses.


o   The proposed R-AC4 coding would allow for appropriate development outcomes between the environmental and amenity value provided by Dugalup Brook to the south, and low density (R15) residential development to the north (noting that three storey height controls would apply along Clark Street, consistent with the residential area to the north).

o   In terms of the residential interface, the transition would be augmented by R-AC4 and R15 rear setback requirements and a 6 metre wide reserve between the residential and Clark Street lots, potentially resulting in an 18 metre separation between buildings.

·        R-AC0 – The remainder of the proposed District Centre zone is characterised by a variety of commercial and social activity, with the intensity of activity tending to progressively decrease away from the central roundabout at the intersection of Dunn Bay Road and Naturaliste Terrace –

o   The proposed R-AC0 coding provides an opportunity to introduce primary controls on a block-by-block or site-by-site basis, taking into account lot size, interface, existing landscaping and other localised factors.

o   These controls can include customised controls for building height, setbacks for lower and upper storeys, boundary walls and plot ratio, and can be introduced through the Scheme to ensure they will not fall away after a 10 year period.

 

Proposed District Centre zone and R-ACO development standards are discussed in further detail below (Part 5 of this report).

 

2.      Revising other zoning/tenure arrangements

The proposals/issues described in this section are included in the PSP but not in the Amendment. If ultimately supported by the Council and WAPC, however, a further scheme amendment may be necessary.

 

A number of small land parcel ‘anomalies’ are identified on the PSP Map for redesignation to ‘Recreation’ reserves. The various reasons for redesignation include:

·        There is a Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) ‘Banksia Dominated Woodlands of the Swan Coastal Plain’ (Priority 3) identified within the area;

·        The land parcel is fragmented and undevelopable;

·        The nominated area would provide a buffer between the road reserve and future development.

 

A portion of Lots 20 and 21 Clark Street have been identified on the PSP Map as a future road connection. The reasons for this proposal are:

·        Currently there is no road connection between the northern part of the PSP area and the arterial road Cape Naturaliste Road, adding a greater volume of traffic congestion to Naturaliste Terrace, Dunn Bay Road and the core of the town centre generally, and reducing the overall