Council Agenda

 

 

 

27 July 2022

 

 

 

 

 


ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN VARIOUS FORMATS ON REQUEST

city@busselton.wa.gov.au

 

 


CITY OF BUSSELTON

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA – 27 July 2022

 

 

 

TO:                  THE MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS

 

 

NOTICE is given that a meeting of the Council will be held in the Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton on Wednesday, 27 July 2022, commencing at 5.30PM.

 

Your attendance is respectfully requested.

 

 

DISCLAIMER

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

 

 

 

Mike Archer

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

15 July 2022


CITY OF BUSSELTON

Agenda FOR THE Council MEETING TO BE HELD ON 27 July 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM NO.                                        SUBJECT                                                                                                                              PAGE NO.

1....... Declaration of Opening, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY and Announcement of Visitors. 5

2....... Attendance. 5

3....... Prayer. 5

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Council Meetings. 5

8.1          Minutes of the Council Meeting held 22 June 2022. 5

Committee Meetings. 5

8.2          Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 15 June 2022. 5

8.3          Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 22 June 2022. 6

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

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

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

12..... Reports of Committee. 7

12.1        Airport Advisory Committee - 15/6/2022 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT - OPERATIONS UPDATE. 7

12.2        Policy and Legislation Committee - 22/6/2022 - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSOLIDATED PARKING SCHEME (CPS). 14

12.3        Policy and Legislation Committee - 22/6/2022 - DOG EXERCISE AREA - YALLINGUP BEACH NORTH OF THE DAWSON DRIVE ACCESS PATH.. 30

12.4        Policy and Legislation Committee - 22/6/2022 - COUNCIL POLICY REVIEW: VERGE AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENT. 36

12.5        Policy and Legislation Committee - 22/6/2022 - COUNCIL POLICY REVIEW: MANAGEMENT OF COMPLAINTS OF ALLEGED BREACHES OF BEHAVIOUR. 51

13..... Planning and Development Services Report. 74

13.1        DRAFT COASTAL HAZARD RISK MANAGEMENT AND ADAPTATION PLAN - CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL. 74

14..... Engineering and Work Services Report. 522

14.1        NAMING PORT GEOGRAPHE CANALS, COVES AND PARKS. 522

15..... Community and Commercial Services Report. 532

16..... Finance and Corporate Services Report. 533

16.1        LOCKE ESTATE CAMPSITE 16 LEASE. 533

16.2        CEO RESIGNATION AND VEHICLE DISPOSITION.. 538

17..... Chief Executive Officers Report. 542

17.1        COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 542

18..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 546

19..... urgent business. 546

20..... Confidential Matters. 546

21..... Closure. 546

 


Council                                                                                      4                                                                          27 July 2022

 

1.               Declaration of Opening, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY and Announcement of Visitors

 

2.               Attendance 

Apologies

 

Approved Leave of Absence

 

Nil

 

3.               Prayer 

 

4.               Application for Leave of Absence 

 

5.               Disclosure Of Interests

 

6.               Announcements Without Discussion

Announcements by the Presiding Member

 

 

7.               Question Time For Public

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice

 

Public Question Time For Public

 

 

8.               Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes 

Previous Council Meetings

8.1             Minutes of the Council Meeting held 22 June 2022

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 22 June 2022 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

Committee Meetings

8.2             Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 15 June 2022

Recommendation

That the Unconfirmed Minutes of the Airport Advisory Committee Meeting held 15 June 2022 be noted as received.

 

8.3             Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 22 June 2022

Recommendation

That the Unconfirmed Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 22 June 2022 be noted as received.

 

 

9.               RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS

Petitions

Presentations

Deputations

 

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

 

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


Council                                                                                      13                                                                        27 July 2022

12.             Reports of Committee

12.1           Airport Advisory Committee - 15/6/2022 - BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT - OPERATIONS UPDATE

STRATEGIC THEME

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

3.4 Develop aviation opportunities at the Busselton Margaret River Airport.

SUBJECT INDEX

BUSSELTON MARGARET RIVER AIRPORT

BUSINESS UNIT

Commercial Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Economic and Business Development Services - Jennifer May

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Community and Commercial Services - Naomi Searle

NATURE OF DECISION

Noting: The item is simply for information purposes and noting

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

 

This item was considered by the Airport Advisory Committee at its meeting on 15/6/2022, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the Council receives and notes the Airport Operations Report.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council receives and notes the Airport Operations Report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an overview of the operations and activities of the Busselton Margaret River Airport (BMRA) for the reporting period 1 January 2022 through 31 May2022. This includes an update on passenger numbers, regular public transport services (RPT), closed charter and general airport operations.

 

BACKGROUND

The BMRA has seen positive growth in aircraft landings and passenger numbers with the commencement of Jetstar RPT services, additional closed charter flights operating during the reporting period, along with the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) Large Air Tanker and helitac operations, and military aircraft activity.

 

Aircraft Movements

The total number of Fly in Fly out (FIFO) closed charter services operating from the BMRA has increased, with 28 flights (56 movements) per week as at the end of May which has increased from 24 flights at the end of March. Currently there are four airlines operating closed charter services from the BMRA utilising the F70, F100, A320 and Dash 8 aircraft and servicing North West destinations such as Boolgeeda, Barimunya, West Angeles, Newman, Roy Hill and Karratha. Still to be confirmed are two new flights on a Thursday and Friday which could potentially start in the third quarter of this year.

 


Jetstar RPT services direct from Melbourne to Busselton commenced on Wednesday 6 April with 3 flights a week on Mondays, Wednesday and Saturdays. For the reporting period there have been 24 Jetstar flights. 

 

The total number of aircraft landings has increased over all aircraft categories during the period 1 January 2022 through to 31 April 2022 with some monthly variations mainly due to light and general aviation traffic.  The total aircraft landings during the period from January 2022 – April 2022 was 5,026 compared to 3,606 for the same period in 2021.

 

 

Passenger Numbers

Passenger numbers have increased by 50% (32,896) for the reporting period compared to same period for 2020/21 (21,956), representing an increase of over 200% from 2019/20 (10,346). The total number of passengers passing through the BMRA for 2021/2022 to the end of May was 58,657.

 

The increase in passenger numbers can be attributed to the growth in FIFO passenger numbers across all closed charter airlines servicing Rio Tinto, BHP and FMG, and the commencement of Jetstar services with a total of 8,168 RPT passengers arriving and departing from the BMRA since 6 April.

 

 

 

Carpark

Currently 1,540 FIFO passengers have been provided swipe cards to access the BMRA car park at a discounted rate. The average daily occupancy for the reporting period was 390 parked patrons per day. The public car park has now reached capacity on a number occasions and Officers have been investigating a temporary car parking solution while an extension to the new public car park is constructed. The original proposal was  to fence off approximately 9,000m2 of the southern general aviation apron for FIFO passenger use and line mark with up to 300 car parks, however the costs of installing boom gates and a temporary pay system was unjustified.  Officers are now proceeding with an alternative solution whereby an external fenced area to the transport operator’s car park will be installed and FIFO parking will be accessed through the transport operators car park using the existing car parking system.  A drawing of the proposed area is included below.

 

 

Operations

 

The focus for the reporting period has been on:

 

·    Noise Management Plan and Noise monitoring

A review of the Noise Management Plan including public consultation was conducted from November 2021 through to January 2022 with a report submitted to the CEO of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in early April. The compliance branch of the EPA have requested further information and justification as to why the City does not need to submit a Section 45c (request to amend a proposal and/or conditions) under the Environmental Protection Act for the two proposed amendments to the flight training guidelines.

Noise monitoring has been completed at two locations (Reinscourt and Kalgup) and a report prepared for the City by a noise consultant. The report included some discrepancies relating to flight schedules and the consultant has been asked to review the data recordings and resubmit the report.

·    Commencement of Jetstar RPT services

·         Preparation for the Jetstar flights required a large number of operational readiness activities including equipment servicing and maintenance, a revised Transport Security Program (TSP) submission, mobilisation of the security screening team and landside activities such as wayfinding signage, car parking and provision of information for the public to be completed.


The first flights highlighted some ‘teething’ problems and operational limitations which have impacted the turn-around times. The following key issues were identified; 

§ The sterile departure lounge is at capacity for A320 operations and after seeking a number of quotes for demountables, a tender will be issued in mid-June for the supply and installation of three demountables; the departure/sterile lounge expanded area, an office/training room and ablution demountable.

§ An additional check-in injector belt is required and an order is ready to be placed;

§ The checked baggage system (CBS) baggage conveyor belt design was susceptible to blockages and  alarms and improvements have been made and the CBS x-ray software settings have been reviewed;

§ Increased ground handling equipment storage areas have been quoted and waiting for contractors to complete the works;

§ Wayfinding and directional signage which is now in place;

·         Officers have submitted a request to the State Government to fund the above mentioned items, including carpark expansion

 

·    A request for tender (RFT) is currently being advertised to expand the car park which closes on 28 June 2022;

·    The Department of Home Affairs have completed two site inspections, the first a scheduled audit of the TSP and security screening processes, and the second a unscheduled ‘systems test’ at the BMRA passenger screening point using part of a firearm as the test weapon. The City is yet to receive the formal reports for either site inspection.

·    Regional Airport Program Funding projects (RAP) - Federal Government programs

RFDS relocation project – further consultation with the Royal Flying Doctors Service (RFDS) has resulted in a request to change the location of the new RFDS patient transfer facility to the General Aviation precinct. Officers have requested a variation to the funding agreement to defer the final delivery milestones into the 2022/23 financial year. The grant funding allocation is for $188,665 however with price escalations since the grant application submission the project is expected to cost in the region of $280k.  The City will be required to fund this shortfall, however it can be funded through the Airport Infrastructure Renewal Reserve as part of the 2022/23 budget.

Central apron expansion project - Officers have been negotiating with the preferred tenderer however the works have not been awarded as yet. Officers are requesting a variation to the funding agreement at this time.

·    Airside and landside mowing programs;

·    Runway and taxiway line marking program.

 

Following endorsement by the Council (C2205/098) on 11 May 2022, the position of an Aviation Business Development Officer is being advertising and closes on 20 June. The City is also advertising for a casual Airport Reporting and Maintenance Officers to provide support to the team given the significant and rapid growth in FIFO closed charter and commencement of RPT services which now extend over six days a week (Monday – Saturday).

 

OFFICER COMMENT

With the end of the 2021/22 financial year approaching, the BMRA has seen significant growth over the past eleven months in aircraft and passenger activity. Officers are estimating that the BMRA will have had over 11,000 aircraft movements in 2021/22 and in the region of 64,000 passengers through the terminal.


Officers will continue to progress the delivery of the operational improvements listed above and will also focus on the following in 2022/23;

·    An RFT was advertised for the supply and construction of three general aviation hangars. The RFT submissions indicated that the price escalation in materials and services meant that only two hangars could be constructed for the available budget. Officers have delayed awarding the tender to construct the hangars and have been investigating the design to see if there are cost efficiencies that can be achieved. A new RFT will be issued in the new financial year. 

·    The procurement of an Airport inspection, maintenance and reporting tablet/online system to facilitate accurate and real time reporting, recording and reporting of regulatory requirements, recording and workflow of maintenance and capital items; and processes such as online inductions and applications.

·    Regional Airports Development Scheme (RADS)  - Department of Transport (DoT)

Financial and Asset Management Framework. The completion of the framework is a new requirement by DoT for airports when applying for future RADS grants. The framework will also provide the City with key tools in the management of airport assets and provide improved financial management and modelling capabilities.

·    A new Airport Master Plan will be delivered with a focus on business and commercial development to replace the existing BMRA Master Plan (2016-36) which was developed with a strong focus on infrastructure and for which the majority has now been achieved.

·    A review of the BMRA Wildlife and Hazard Management Plan is required as regulatory requirement under CASA MOS Part 139.

·    An external review /audit of the BMRA Transport Security Program is required as regulatory requirement under the Aviation Transport Security Regulations.

·    Business development strategy and implementation plan to guide the marketing and development of commercial opportunities at and relating to the BMRA, including the attraction of new domestic routes and planning for future international operations.

 

Statutory Environment

The BMRA operates in accordance with the following:

·    Aviation Transport Security Act 2004

·    Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005

·    CASA part 139 Manual of Standards (Aerodromes)

·    City of Busselton Transport Security Plan

·    Ministerial Statement 1088

·    City policies and procedures

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

The officer recommendation aligns to the following adopted plans:

·    BMRA Master Plan (2016-2036)

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

 


Financial Implications

Revenue

Actual year-to-date (YTD) revenue for the reporting period is $2,215,989.14 compared to the YTD budget of $2,337,750, noting that security screening revenue has not been realised due to the delay in the Jetstar flights. Excluding the security screening revenue, YTD actual budget ($2,215,989.14) is tracking higher than the YTD budget ($1,715,759) with the key revenue areas contributing towards this being airport landing fees, sundry income and car parking income.

 

Expenditure

Actual YTD expenditure for the reporting period is $765,473.56 (including commitments) compared to the YTD budget of $1,054,701, not including the airline attraction program which has not been expended due to the delay in the Jetstar flights, and depreciation.  Lower  expenditure for the reporting period can mainly be attributed to the lower expenditure costs in security screening services of YTD budget $360,371 compared to actual budget of $96,584

 

Stakeholder Consultation

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

 

Risk Assessment

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

No risks of a medium or greater level have been identified.

 

Options

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

 

CONCLUSION

Officers continue to strive to provide a high level of customer service at the BMRA, while ensuring the airport is compliant, safe and security is maintained throughout.  The commencement of Jetstar RPT services has identified a number of operational actions and infrastructure investment requirements.

 

The focus for the new financial year will be to prepare a new BMRA Master Plan, achieving operational efficiencies and business and commercial development initiatives have been deferred to date.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Not applicable.

 

 


Council                                                                                      20                                                                        27 July 2022

12.2           Policy and Legislation Committee - 22/6/2022 - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSOLIDATED PARKING SCHEME (CPS)

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

Consolidated Parking Scheme

BUSINESS UNIT

Environmental Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Ranger & Emergency Services Coordinator - Ian McDowell

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

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   CPS Amendment Queen Street

Attachment b    CPS Amendment Castle Rock Road 1

Attachment c    CPS Amendment Castle Rock Road 2

Attachment d   CPS Amendment Castle Rock Road 3

Attachment e    CPS Amendment Smiths Beach SLS

Attachment f    CPS Amendment Barnard Park West

Attachment g   CPS Amendment Old Tennis Club

Attachment h   CPS Amendment Smiths Beach Road Congestion

Attachment i     CPS Amendment Smiths Beach Road No Stopping

Attachment j     CPS Amendment Smiths Beach Road No Stopping (inclusive of Committee Amendments)  

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 22/6/2022, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council, pursuant to clause 2.1 of the City of Busselton Parking Local Law 2020, approves the following amendments to the Consolidated Parking Scheme:

1.         Designation of two parking bays in Queen Street outside St Mary’s Church, as shown in Attachment A, as “No Parking, 9am to 5pm Mon to Fri, Hearses Excepted”;

2.         Designation of both sides of Castle Rock Road in Meelup Regional Park, as shown in Attachments B, C and D, as “No Parking, Road or Verge”;

3.         Designation of an area close to the beach access gate to Smiths Beach, as shown in Attachment E, as “No Parking, 7am to 12pm Sun, Oct to Apr, Surf Life Saving Vehicles Excepted”;

4.         Designation of one parking bay in the Barnard Park West western car park, as shown in Attachment F, as “No Parking, 6am to 6pm Mon to Fri, Authorised Vehicles Excepted”; and

5.         Designation of the following special purpose parking bays in the Old Tennis Club car park, as shown in Attachment G, as follows:

(a)       five new disabled parking bays located within the car park;

(b)       two loading zones on the northern side of Foreshore Parade; and

(c)       one bus zone on the northern side of Foreshore Parade.

6.         Amending the designation of both sides of Smiths Beach Road, as shown in Attachment J, inclusive of the Committee Amendments, removing “No Stopping” on Eastern side, and amending Western side to “No Stopping, Road or Verge”.

Reasons:              The Committee recommended to allow parking on the eastern side of Smiths Beach Road as per Attachment J to alleviate access issues on a trial basis for the 2022/2023 summer season.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That Council, pursuant to clause 2.1 of the City of Busselton Parking Local Law 2020, approves the following amendments to the Consolidated Parking Scheme:

1.         Designation of two parking bays in Queen Street outside St Mary’s Church, as shown in Attachment A, as “No Parking, 9am to 5pm Mon to Fri, Hearses Excepted”;

2.         Designation of both sides of Castle Rock Road in Meelup Regional Park, as shown in Attachments B, C and D, as “No Parking, Road or Verge”;

3.         Designation of an area close to the beach access gate to Smiths Beach, as shown in Attachment E, as No Parking, 7am to 12pm Sun, Oct to Apr, Surf Life Saving Vehicles Excepted”;

4.         Designation of one parking bay in the Barnard Park West western car park, as shown in Attachment F, as “No Parking, 6am to 6pm Mon to Fri, Authorised Vehicles Excepted”; and

5.         Designation of the following special purpose parking bays in the Old Tennis Club car park, as shown in Attachment G, as follows:

(a)       five new disabled parking bays located within the car park;

(b)       two loading zones on the northern side of Foreshore Parade; and

(c)       one bus zone on the northern side of Foreshore Parade.

6.         Amending the designation of both sides of Smiths Beach Road, as shown in Attachment I, from “No Stopping” to “No Stopping, Road or Verge”.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This reports presents a number of proposed changes to the Consolidated Parking Scheme (CPS) pursuant to Clause 2.1 of the City of Busselton Parking Local Law 2020.

BACKGROUND

The CPS is an administrative document and series of maps that detail car parking restrictions across the local government district. Restrictions include timed parking zones, no parking/no stopping zones, and special purpose parking zones including disabled parking bays, loading zones, taxi zones, and bus zones. The current version of the CPS was endorsed by the Council in February 2018 (CC1802/21) however, there have been some minor amendments to the CPS since that time.

 

The City of Busselton Parking Local Law was last reviewed in 2020. Under the provisions of the previous version (2010) of the Parking Local Law, the authority under clause 2.1 to determine parking stalls, parking stations and parking areas, approving amendments to the CPS, was delegated to the City’s Chief Executive Officer.

 

Under this delegation amendments to the CPS did not occur without first consulting with Councillors. Prior to a change being made Councillors were provided written notice of the proposed change, and if they considered it appropriate to do so, could request a report be presented to the Council for their consideration.

 


During the review of the Parking Local Law in 2020, the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries advised that the power to make determinations under clause 2.1 of the Local Law could not be delegated. As a result of this all amendments to the CPS, even those that are relatively minor in nature, require a resolution of the Council before taking effect.

OFFICER COMMENT

No Parking (Hearses Excepted): St Mary’s Anglican Church, Queen Street - Attachment A.

St Mary’s Anglican Church (the Church) has approached the City requesting that two of the Queen Street parking bays outside the Church be reserved for hearse parking only, Monday to Friday.  Prior to the recent roundabout works at the intersection of Queen Street and Peel Terrace, the first of these two bays had the word “reserved” spray painted on the road however, the wording had faded and was not enforceable.

 

Currently, the two bays in question have no restrictions meaning motorists can park there all day. Anecdotally, employees of nearby businesses in Queen Street utilise these bays all day on a daily basis causing issues for the Church when funeral services are scheduled. In August 2021 for example, a funeral director (parked in the first bay) but was unable to remove the deceased from the hearse as another vehicle parked in the second bay behind the hearse was causing an obstruction.

 

Officers support the request from the Church and propose to regulate parking in the first two bays outside the Church in Queen Street (as shown in Attachment A) by designating them: “No Parking, 9am to 5pm Mon – Fri, Hearses Excepted.” The change would not have a significant impact on overall parking availability or supply in the Busselton City Centre.

 

No Parking Road or Verge: Castle Rock Road - Attachments B, C and D.

The demand for parking at Castle Rock beach during peak holiday periods is high. This creates a hazardous situation when motorists, unable to park in the beach car park, park on both sides of Castle Rock Road. This has the potential to obstruct access for emergency service vehicles attending emergency incidents in the area. There is also an added risk of hot exhausts from vehicles parked over dry vegetation causing a bush fire.

 

To mitigate the risk on Boxing Day and Australia Day, traditionally two of the busiest days at Meelup Regional Park, from 2016/17 to 2020/21 the City controlled vehicular access to Meelup Regional Park through the implementation of vehicle check points at either end of Meelup Beach Road at an approximate cost of $4,500 per day.

 

It should be noted that part of the rationale for controlling access to Meelup Regional Park, on Boxing Day and Australia Day, was to discourage large gatherings of people who were at times engaging in anti-social behaviour. This strategy appears to have worked with incidents of anti-social behaviour greatly reduced over the past five years.

 

As a means of better controlling the hazards associated with vehicles parking along Castle Rock Road on a permanent basis, rather than just Boxing Day and Australia Day each year, this report proposes to prohibit parking along Castle Rock Road (as shown on Attachments B, C and D) by designating it “No Parking, Road or Verge”.

 


No Parking (Surf Lifesaving Vehicles Excepted): Smiths Beach - Attachment E.

The Smiths Beach Surf Lifesaving Club (SLC) has approached the City requesting a 24 metre length of the gravel road shoulder, adjacent to the beach vehicle access ramp be reserved for SLC vehicle parking only, from 7am to 12pm on Sundays, October to April each year.

 

The basis for their request is that a suitable area to park and unload a trailer transported off-road all-terrain vehicle (ATV) for use on the beach is a critical aspect of running Smiths Beach SLC Nipper Program and surf patrols. Equipment trailers from the SLC Club Shed on Canal Rocks Road are towed by normal on-road vehicles to the beach access ramp, where they are unhitched from the vehicles and hitched to the ATV that then tows them onto the beach (3 to 5 trailers are used on any given Sunday during SLS operations). It has been getting increasingly difficult for the SLC to park and unload the ATV due to the high demand for public parking at Smiths Beach during peak holiday periods.

 

Officers support the request from Smiths Beach SLC and propose to regulate parking on the gravel road shoulder, immediately adjacent to the beach vehicle access ramp by designating it “No Parking, 7am to 12pm Sun, Oct – April, Surf Life Saving Vehicles Excepted” (as shown in Attachment E).

 

No Parking (Authorised Vehicles Excepted): Barnard Park West Western Car Park - Attachment F.

The City’s Jetty Maintenance Team has requested that one parking bay in the Barnard Park West western car park be reserved for authorised City vehicles only from 6am to 6pm, Monday to Friday.

 

Although there is parking available within the jetty maintenance compound, immediately adjacent to the car park, there are times the compound needs to be cleared to allow larger vehicles to enter. Often during peak periods, there are no bays available in the car park, and this hinders jetty maintenance.

 

This report proposes to regulate parking in one bay, immediately adjacent to the maintenance compound, in the Barnard Park West western car park by designating it “No Parking, 6am to 6pm Mon – Fri, Authorised Vehicles Excepted” (as shown in Attachment F).

 

Special Purpose Parking: Old Tennis Club Car Park - Attachment G.

The Old Tennis Club car park is an all-day parking area bounded by Marine Terrace to the south, Queen Street to the west, Foreshore Parade to the north, and Jetty Way to the east. The car park was constructed in two parts and includes six disabled parking bays. One of the disabled parking bays has already been included in the CPS however, the remaining five have not.

 

Located on the northern side of Foreshore Parade are two loading zones, and one bus zone which are also not reflected in the CPS.

 

This report proposes to amend the CPS (as shown in Attachment G) by adding the as constructed five disabled parking bays, two loading zones, and one bus zone to the CPS.

 


No Parking Road or Verge: Smiths Beach Road (for P&L discussion) - Attachments H and I.

Currently both sides of Smiths Beach Road, from Canal Rocks Road to a point approximately level with the north-east corner of the Smiths Beach Resort, are designated no stopping areas in the CPS. This restriction applies only to the road. During peak holiday periods when the demand for parking is high, motorists often park on the verge in bush areas. Others park with half of their vehicle on the verge and the other half on the road. Some ignore the restrictions altogether and park wholly on the road.

 

A major issue during those peak periods is the ’follow the leader’ affect which occurs when one or two people choose to park contrary to the existing no stopping signs, then others follow in the belief that if “they can do it, so can we”. Unfortunately, when this happens it creates a hazardous situation due to traffic and parking congestion as shown at Attachment H.

 

Concerns regarding this congestion were raised through the City’s Bush Fire Advisory Committee (BFAC), on behalf of some Smiths Beach residents by one of the Fire Control Officers of the local Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade. Concerns are that congestion of the type as shown in Attachment H may seriously hamper emergency access and egress for first responders to an incident, or a forced evacuation due to an emergency incident such as a bushfire.

 

Certainly one of the ways to manage this congestion is for the City to have zero tolerance to illegal parking along Smiths Beach Road. That would most likely only be a temporary fix, though, as the City’s ability to rigorously enforce these restrictions on a regular basis is limited (Smiths Beach is only one area within the City where parking demand is high during peak holiday periods). It may also harm the reputation of the City as a tourist destination if we start to regularly issue parking infringements at this or any other location for which there is high demand for parking.

 

A solution to this problem may be to amend the CPS to change the restriction from “No Stopping” to “No Stopping, Road or Verge”.  This would act as a deterrent and provide greater clarity to those people who choose to straddle the road and verge when parking along Smiths Beach Road, apparently with the belief that because part of their vehicle is not on the road they are not committing an offence. Another major concern associated with people wholly or partially parking on the verge is the risk of a bushfire starting when a hot exhaust comes into contact with dry vegetation.

 

Should the CPS be amended as recommend the City’s initial approach would be one of education, including written cautions for people who choose to ignore the restrictions, followed by a period of stronger enforcement whereby infringements would be issued to offenders as a means of changing behaviours.

 

This report proposes to amend the CPS (as shown in Attachment I) changing the parking designation of Smiths Beach Road from “No Stopping” to “No Stopping, Road or Verge”.

P&L may choose to proceed with this amendment to the CPS as recommended above. Alternatively, due to high community interest in the proposed Smiths Beach Development, P&L may recommend consultation with the affected community prior to considering this proposal.

 


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.

 

Pursuant to clause 2.1 of the City of Busselton Parking Local Law 2020 (the Local Law):

 

“Determination of parking stalls, parking stations and parking areas

(1)       The Council may by resolution constitute, determine or vary:

(a)      parking stalls;

(b)      parking stations;

(c)       parking areas;

(d)      no parking areas;

(e)       no stopping areas;

(f)       permitted time and conditions of parking in parking stalls, parking stations and parking areas which may vary with the locality;

(g)      permitted classes of vehicles which may park in parking stalls, parking areas and parking stations;

(h)      permitted classes of persons parking stalls, parking stations and parking areas; and

(i)        the manner of parking in parking stalls, parking stations and parking areas.

(2)       Where the Council makes a determination under subclause (1), the CEO must give local public notice of, and erect signs to give effect to, the determination.”

 

Under the provisions of clause 1.8 of the Local Law:

 

“For the purpose of this local law, vehicles are divided into classes as follows:

a.         buses;

b.         commercial vehicles;

c.         motorcycles and bicycles;

d.         taxis; and

e.         all other vehicles.”

 

In the case of the recommendation to regulate parking in the first two parking bays outside St Mary’s Anglican Church, a hearse would be included in the classification “all other vehicles”.

 

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. Costs for the installation of parking signage and/or line marking will be funded using existing operating budgets.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

The proposal to regulate parking along Castle Rock Road was presented to, and endorsed by the Meelup Regional Park Working Group.

 

Other than the above, no external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to this matter.

 

Risk Assessment

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

 

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could approve with changes all or some of the proposed amendments to the CPS.

CONCLUSION

Officers are proposing that the Council approves the recommended amendments to the Consolidated Parking Scheme pursuant to Clause 2.1 of the City of Busselton Parking Local Law 2020.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

If approved by the Council, public notice of the amendments to the CPS will be given within four weeks. Signage designating the changes will be procured concurrently with the public notice and will be erected as soon as practicable after receipt.


Council

21

27 July 2022

12.2

Attachment a

CPS Amendment Queen Street

 


Council

22

27 July 2022

12.2

Attachment b

CPS Amendment Castle Rock Road 1

 


Council

23

27 July 2022

12.2

Attachment c

CPS Amendment Castle Rock Road 2

 


Council

24

27 July 2022

12.2

Attachment d

CPS Amendment Castle Rock Road 3

 


Council

25

27 July 2022

12.2

Attachment e

CPS Amendment Smiths Beach SLS

 


Council

26

27 July 2022

12.2

Attachment f

CPS Amendment Barnard Park West

 


Council

27

27 July 2022

12.2

Attachment g

CPS Amendment Old Tennis Club

 


Council

28

27 July 2022

12.2

Attachment h

CPS Amendment Smiths Beach Road Congestion

 


Council

29

27 July 2022

12.2

Attachment i

CPS Amendment Smiths Beach Road No Stopping

 


Council

30

27 July 2022

12.2

Attachment j

CPS Amendment Smiths Beach Road No Stopping (inclusive of Committee Amendments)

 


Council                                                                                      31                                                                        27 July 2022

12.3           Policy and Legislation Committee - 22/6/2022 - DOG EXERCISE AREA - YALLINGUP BEACH NORTH OF THE DAWSON DRIVE ACCESS PATH

STRATEGIC THEME

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

2.3 Provide well planned sport and recreation facilities to support healthy and active lifestyles.

SUBJECT INDEX

Animal Management

BUSINESS UNIT

Environmental Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Ranger & Emergency Services Coordinator - Ian McDowell

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

NATURE OF DECISION

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

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Yallingup Beach - Dog Exercise Area North of Dawson Drive

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 22/6/2022, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.         After the giving of 28 days public notice, pursuant to section 31(3C) of the Dog Act 1976, resolves to adopt and implement, pursuant to section 31(3A) of the Dog Act 1976, a one kilometre length of Yallingup Beach north of the Dawson Drive access path , bounded by Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park in the east, Ngari capes marine park in the west as a dog exercise area; and

2.         Resolves to adopt the following with regard to the specified area in recommendation 1: 

(a)       Beach areas, including the beach only (i.e. from the limit of the ephemeral vegetation or the toe of the seawall to the low water marks only, and not including vegetated foreshore areas, beach access paths or car parks) to be categorised as ‘Dog Exercise Area’ with that area being defined as follows:

(i)        Pursuant to s.31(3A) of the Dog Act 1976 dogs are permitted, including off-leash, at all times except when approved organised events are taking place, wherein dogs are to be prohibited (except assistance dogs as defined by s.8 of the Dog Act 1976)  unless specifically permitted by the City.

Reasons:             The Committee requested an amendment to part 2(a)(1) of the recommendation              to provide clarity and alignment to the Dog Act 1976.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.          After the giving of 28 days public notice, pursuant to section 31(3C) of the Dog Act 1976, resolves to adopt and implement, pursuant to section 31(3A) of the Dog Act 1976, a one kilometre length of Yallingup Beach north of the Dawson Drive access path, bounded by Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park in the east, Ngari capes marine park in the west as a dog exercise area; and

 

2.         Resolves to adopt the following with regard to the specified area in recommendation 1: 

(a)       Beach areas, including the beach only (i.e. from the limit of the ephemeral vegetation or the toe of the seawall to the low water marks only, and not including vegetated foreshore areas, beach access paths or car parks) to be categorised as ‘Dog Exercise Area’ with that area being defined as follows:

(i)        Pursuant to s.31(3A) of the Dog Act 1976 and means that dogs are permitted, including off-leash, at all times except when approved organised events are taking place, wherein dogs are to be prohibited (except assistance dogs as defined by s.8 of the Dog Act 1976)  unless specifically permitted by the City.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) Parks and Wildlife Services has approached the City to request Yallingup Beach north of the Dawson Drive access path (as identified in green within Attachment A), be designated as a dog exercise area under the provisions of the Dog Act 1976 (the Act).

 

This section of beach has been informally used as a dog exercise area (DEA) for some years. This report seeks to formalise this practice, and in doing so, enable the City’s Rangers to enforce relevant provisions of the Act if and when required.

 

BACKGROUND

The City’s existing dog management controls were established through a series of Council decisions between September 2014 and October 2016. During the process of establishing these controls, there was extensive consultation with the community and community groups.

 

As a result of this, Yallingup Beach south of the Dawson Drive access path was declared a dog prohibited area (an area where dogs are prohibited at all times). Consideration was given to declaring the proposed DEA north of Dawson Drive as a DEA, however as the land was understood to be within the marine park this did not eventuate.

 

In January this year, officers from DBCA approached the City requesting that we assume dog management responsibility for the northern section of the beach by designating it a DEA under the provisions of the Act.

 

The request was triggered from negative public feedback from beach users to DBCA, impacted by nuisance behaviour of dogs left unattended by owners in the water. As the City already has a dog prohibited area designated on the southern section of the beach, DBCA approached the City to request assistance in dog management controls for the proposed area in the north. Formalisation of this location as a DEA will mean all beach users are aware that dogs off leash are permitted on the northern section of the beach.

 

OFFICER COMMENT

This report proposes to establish a one kilometre length of Yallingup Beach, north of the Dawson Drive access path as a DEA (the green shaded area of Attachment A).

 

Yallingup Beach south of the Dawson Drive access path (the red shaded area of Attachment A) will remain a dog prohibited area as will the car park, known as the Rabbit’s car park and including all beach access paths, within the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park. This means the only access path to the dog beach will be from the Dawson Drive access path.

 


The responsibility for enforcing the dog prohibition within the National Park will remain with Parks and Wildlife Services.

 

If approved by the Council, this area would be the only dog exercise beach on the Western Cape. Although a portion of Smiths Beach is designated a seasonal DEA, the seasonal restrictions means that dogs are prohibited on the beach from 9am to 5pm, December to February inclusive.

 

Designating the section of the beach north of Dawson Drive as a dog exercise area is the preferred option of officers. This would allow dog owners to continue to exercise their dogs off-leash. Whilst the City’s ability to patrol this or any other beach within the district would not be increased as a result of this designation, it would allow the City to engage with and educate dog owners and taking stronger enforcement action if necessary.

 

It should be noted that without some type of dog control designation under the provisions of the Act, the UCL portion of the beach would default to an area where dogs may be exercised but only on-leash. Therefore, as there has been no formal dog control designation on that part of the beach in the past, it has not been an area patrolled by the City. From a practical enforcement perspective, any formal reduction in what has become custom and practice for many years (i.e. dogs being exercised off-leash) would be problematic and likely to create an unrealistic expectation that those controls would be rigorously enforced and/or complied with. If dogs were prohibited, or required to be on-leash it would create an influx of complaints to the City or DBCA whenever non-compliance is observed by those who oppose dogs on the beach.

 

Statutory Environment

The management and control of dogs in public areas is prescribed under the following sections of the Dog Act 1976:

 

Section 31(3A):

A local government may, by absolute majority as defined in the Local Government Act 1995 section 1.4, specify a public place, or a class of public place, that is under the care, control or management of the local government to be a dog exercise area.

 

Section 31(3C)(b):

At least 28 days before specifying a place to be a dog exercise area under subsection (3A) a local government must give local public notice as defined in the Local Government Act 1995 section 1.7 of its intention to so specify.

 

Assistance dogs, and persons entitled to be accompanied by assistance dogs, are defined in section 8 of the Dog Act 1976. Under the provisions of section 8(2) a person mentioned in subsection (3):

 

a.         is entitled to be accompanied by an assistance dog, in any building or place open to or used by the public, for any purpose, or in any public transport: and

 

b.         is not guilty of an offence by reason only that he or she takes that dog into or permits that dog to enter any building or place open to or used by the public or on any public transport.

 


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

Extensive consultation has been undertaken by City officers to assess the feasibility of determination of the proposed area as a DEA. The process has been triggered from a request from DBCA, followed by on site meetings and extensive email correspondence between the City and DBCA officers.

 

Property owners in Yallingup townsite were invited in writing to comment on the proposal to specify Yallingup Beach north of Dawson Drive access path, a dog exercise area.

 

The Yallingup Residents Association (YRA), and Yallingup Land Conservation District Committee (LCDC) were also invited to comment and whilst both acknowledged this is an important community issue, both committees chose not to provide comment on behalf of their members. Instead they recommended their members respond on an individual and independent basis.

 

Of the 206 property owners who were invited to comment, 41 responded. Six of the respondents oppose the proposal, and 34 support it. It was unclear whether the remaining respondent opposed or supported the proposal and when requested to clarify, they did not respond further.

 

The views expressed by respondents were at either end of the spectrum with those in opposition “strongly opposed” to it, and many of those in support “strongly supporting” it.

 

It appeared that from some comments provided, there was a perception the area is already a designated dog exercise area. Some supporters welcomed the social aspects of formalising the designation, and noted the lack of dog exercise beaches on the Western Cape.

 

Reasons for opposing the proposal include:

 

1.    Some dogs are left unrestrained (unattended) on the beach while their owners are swimming or surfing in the water;

2.    Unattended dogs are:

a.    jumping up on children and the elderly walking on the beach;

b.    running on and through the personal belongings of other beach users;

c.     aggressive towards other beach users and dogs;

d.    toileting on the beach with absent owners not cleaning up after their dog;

3.    The proposed area includes a portion of the beach patrolled by Surf Life Saving WA (SLSWA) during the summer months;

4.    Yallingup beach is an iconic beach, no other iconic beaches throughout Australia allow dogs; and

5.    The beach is part of the Leeuwin National Park and as such dogs are prohibited under the provisions of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984.

 

Due to the amount of community interest in the management of dogs at Yallingup Beach, officers will advise all respondents to the consultation process of the Committee’s recommendation and when it will be put to Council for consideration.

 


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.         Resolve to maintain the status-quo and not to make any formal dog management controls at Yallingup Beach north of the Dawson Drive access path.

2.         Resolve to establish dog management controls at Yallingup Beach north of the Dawson Drive access, other than that recommended. That could be, pursuant to section 31(2B) of the Dog Act 1976, to specify the area:

a.    an area where dogs are prohibited at all times; or

b.    an area where dogs are prohibited at specified times (a seasonal dog exercise area).

 

CONCLUSION

Specifying Yallingup Beach north of the Dawson Drive access path as a dog exercise area will formalise what has been occurring informally in that area for many years. The City has consulted with property owners in Yallingup townsite, the Yallingup Residents’ Association, and the Yallingup Land Conservation District Committee (LCDC). The results of the consultation indicate respondents are overwhelmingly in support of specifying this part of the beach a dog exercise area.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Should the Council endorse the officer recommendation to specify Yallingup Beach north of the Dawson Drive access path, officers will arrange for the public notice requirements of the Dog Act 1976 to be actioned within two weeks.

 

The changes will then come into force 28 days after the giving of the public notice, at which time arrangements will be made to erect the necessary signage at that location to indicate it is a dog exercise area.


Council

36

27 July 2022

12.3

Attachment a

Yallingup Beach - Dog Exercise Area North of Dawson Drive

 


Council                                                                                      39                                                                        27 July 2022

12.4           Policy and Legislation Committee - 22/6/2022 - COUNCIL POLICY REVIEW: VERGE AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENT

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

Council Policies

BUSINESS UNIT

Governance Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Governance Coordinator - Emma Heys

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   Council policy: 185/3 Verge and Public Open Space Improvement - Subdivision (Current)

Attachment b    Council policy: Verge and Public Open Space Improvement - Subdivisions (Proposed)

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 22/6/2022, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the amended Council policy: Verge and Public Open Space Improvement – Subdivisions (Attachment B) to replace the current policy (Attachment A).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the amended Council policy: Verge and Public Open Space Improvement – Subdivisions (Attachment B) to replace the current policy (Attachment A).

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents an amended Council policy: Verge and Public Open Space Improvement – Subdivisions (the Policy) (Attachment B), with the policy having been reviewed as part of the City’s ongoing review of its Council policies. Officers recommend it replaces the current Council policy (Attachment A.)

 

BACKGROUND

Council policy: Verge and Public Open Space Improvement – Subdivisions was last reviewed 13 December 2017 (Attachment B). The intention of the policy is to establish the City’s minimum landscaping standards and to provide guidance around how the City will deal with proposals from a developer to implement within a subdivision a higher standard of landscaping and infrastructure. 

 

Officers have undertaken a review of the Policy as part of the City’s ongoing review of Council policies and are proposing a number of amendments to improve the application of the policy.


OFFICER COMMENT

The objective of the Policy is to outline how the City will deal with proposals from developers of subdivisions to construct or apply a higher standard of landscaping and infrastructure to new subdivisions that are to be vest to the City for management.

 

The City has set out a minimum standard of subdivision landscaping and infrastructure within its Engineering Technical Standards and Specifications (Technical Specifications) and whilst the preference is that this standard is not exceed, it is acknowledged that historically in selected subdivisions a higher standard has been constructed and provided for through application of a Specified Area Rate (SAR), and that there may be instances where the Council would consider this in the future.

 

The information required for developing landscaped areas is contained within the Technical Specifications, Section 9(a) and 9(g) – Landscape;

·        Section 9a - Landscaping General

·        Section 9b - Landscape Irrigation

·        Section 9c - Landscape Road Reserve or Nature Verge

·        Section 9d - A Guide to Landscape POS Rev A

·        Section 9e - Combined Species Rev A

·        Section 9f - Environmental Weeds Rev A

·        Section 9g - A Guide to Landscape Entry Statements

 

These standards and specifications need to be read in conjunction with the City's relevant statutory requirements, Council Policies, relevant State and Federal Government policy and the WA Planning Commission (WAPC) conditions including operational policy Liveable Neighbourhoods (latest version).

 

The proposed amendments to the Policy set out the City’s position with respect to proposals from a developer for a higher standard of landscaping and infrastructure in subdivisions that are intended to be vested in the City for management. That is, that a SAR would be applied subject to the approval of Council, and the submission of plans.  The option of a Developer Funded Landscape Annuity Proposal has been removed, as this is not a current practice.

 

The duplications with the Technical Specifications has been removed from the Policy and replaced with a simple reference to the minimum standards of landscaping and infrastructure required by the City.

 

How a SAR is to be calculated has been removed from the Policy as this would be determined at the time as part of any application to Council for a SAR. This detail is to be included in the Technical Specifications when a review of these documents is undertaken.

 

Statutory Environment

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

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

The City’s Engineering Technical Standards and Specifications are a relevant document associated with the officer recommendation.

 

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

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could chose not to adopt the amended policy and retain the policy in its current form. For the reasons outlined in the officer comment above, this option is not recommended.   The Council could also choose to make further amendments to the Policy.

CONCLUSION

An amended Council policy: Verge and Public Open Space Improvement – Subdivisions (the Policy) (Attachment B), is presented to Council for endorsement, with the policy having been reviewed as part of the City’s ongoing review of its Council policies. Officers recommend it replaces the current Council policy (Attachment A.)

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The officer recommendation will be implemented within one week of Council’s endorsement.  


Council

42

27 July 2022

12.4

Attachment a

Council policy: 185/3 Verge and Public Open Space Improvement - Subdivision (Current)

 











Council

51

27 July 2022

12.4

Attachment b

Council policy: Verge and Public Open Space Improvement - Subdivisions (Proposed)

 



Council                                                                                      55                                                                        27 July 2022

12.5           Policy and Legislation Committee - 22/6/2022 - COUNCIL POLICY REVIEW: MANAGEMENT OF COMPLAINTS OF ALLEGED BREACHES OF BEHAVIOUR

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

Council Policies

BUSINESS UNIT

Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

Governance Coordinator - Emma Heys

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

Absolute Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Council Policy: Management of Complaints of Alleged Breaches of Behaviour (Current)

Attachment b    Amended Council Policy: Management of Complaints of Alleged Breaches of Behaviour (Clean)

Attachment c    Amended Council Policy: Management of Complaints of Alleged Breaches of Behaviour (Tracked Changes)

Attachment d   Council Policy: Management of Complaints of Alleged Breaches of Behaviour (inclusive of Committee Amendments)  

This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 22/6/2022, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopts the amended Council policy: Management of Complaints of Alleged Breaches of Behaviour (the Policy) (Attachment D), inclusive of the Committee Amendments, to replace the current policy (Attachment A).

 

Reasons:              The Committee recommended the amendments as per Attachment D to provide

                                clarity during the Committee finding process.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopts the amended Council policy: Management of Complaints of Alleged Breaches of Behaviour (the Policy) (Attachment B), to replace the current policy (Attachment A).

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents an amended Council policy: Management of Alleged Breaches of Behaviour (the Policy) (Attachment B) for Council endorsement, to replace the current policy (Attachment A).


BACKGROUND

In accordance with section 5.103 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) and the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (the Regulations), Council adopted a Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates (the Code). The Code includes general principles and behaviours for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates. Alleged breaches of Part 3 of the Code - ‘Behaviours’ are subject to a complaints process, to be determined and managed by the local government.

 

Council initially adopted Council policy: Management of Complaints of Alleged Breaches of Behaviour (the Policy) at its Ordinary Meeting of Council 9 June 2021 (C2106/113).

 

At its meeting of 27 October 2021, the Policy and Legislation Committee recommended the formation of a Behaviour Complaints Committee (the Committee) consisting of 5 members and 4 deputy members, with the Committee to make findings on complaints under delegation from the Council.  The Committee recommended revisions to the Policy including an additional clause to provide the CEO with the discretion to refer the Complaints Officers’ report, in extraordinary circumstances, to a Council Meeting for Council to make a finding in relation to the complaint.

 

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council, 10 November 2021, Council endorsed an alternative motion to establish a Behaviour Complaints Committee and appoint all members of Council to the Committee.  This was in response to further research and practical examples from other local governments where appointing all Councillors to the Committee removed any perception of bias in its decision making (C2111/087).

OFFICER COMMENT

Since the implementation of the current policy, the City’s Complaints Officer has referred five complaints in relation to alleged breaches of behaviour to the Committee. This has provided officers with the opportunity to review what elements of the Policy work well and which elements are less effective.  Additionally, officers have had the opportunity to discuss with other local governments their experiences in managing complaints.

 

Officers are recommending several amendments to the Policy and the process by which complaints are managed.  Key changes are:

·        the implementation of a response form to be completed by the person to whom the complaint relates (the Respondent) and submitted to the City’s Complaints Officer;

·        mediation to be an option for the Complainant and Respondent to opt in through the complaint and response form, and to be arranged by the Complaints Officer if requested;

·        initial assessment of the complaint by the Complaints Officer based on the complaint and response form submitted, with option to for the Complaints Officer to make a recommendation for the complaint to be dismissed if it meets the relevant section of the Code or to assess the complaint and determine a recommendation to the Committee.  Use of an external assessor remains an option at the Complaints Officer’s discretion;

·        change in terminology from Investigator to Assessor to reflect that investigation beyond the submitted complaint and response form is not a feature;

·        the Committee’s findings and its reasons to be made publicly available;

·        an action plan to be developed by the City’s Complaints Officer or an external party as determined by the Committee finding, as opposed to prior, and endorsed by the Committee at a meeting separate to the determination of the complaint;

 

·        a reduction in timeframes throughout the complaints management process; and

·        removal of the ability for the CEO to refer a complaint to the Council, given all Councillors are now appointed to the Committee and that the Committee delegation requires those party to the complaint to leave the meeting.

 

The changes are designed to streamline the management of complaints in order to achieve a timelier and cost effective outcome.  While the use of an external assessor is considered necessary and appropriate in most instances, there may be some complaints that the Complaints Officer can readily determine or recommend dismissal of, and the Complaints Officer should, where guidance is provided by the Committee, be able to determine an action plan. 

 

Statutory Environment

Section 5.103 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) [Model code of conduct for council members, committee members and candidates] provides that regulations must prescribe a Model Code of conduct for council members, committee members and candidates and must include –

(a) general principles to guide behaviour; and

(b) requirements relating to behaviour; and

(c) provisions specified to be rules of conduct,

and may include provisions about how to deal with alleged breaches of the behaviour requirements.

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

The officer recommendation aligns to the City’s Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates.

 

Financial Implications

The cost to date in managing complaints of alleged breaches of behaviour totals $13,984.  The proposed changes to the Policy seek to reduce these costs.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

The City of Busselton participated in a ‘feedback lab’ in February run by the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries, where other local governments shared their experiences. 

 

Many local governments have adopted a model similar to ours (as per the WALGA proposal), however through consultation we have identified improvements such as the use of a standard response form. 

 

Alternative models do also exist – for instance, for the Council to determine the complaints in session without the recommendation of an officer / assessor.  At this stage however officers believe the Policy with the proposed revisions strikes the right balance.  

 

Risk Assessment

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

 


Options

As an alternative to the officer recommendation the Council could determine not to make any changes to the Policy or to make additional or different amendments.

CONCLUSION

The City has processed five complaints of alleged breaches of behaviour under the Code, and through this experience has identified a number of improvements in the way in which complaints are managed.  The changes proposed to the Policy are aimed at a more timely and cost effective management process.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The officer recommendation will be implemented within one week of Council’s endorsement.

 


Council

60

27 July 2022

12.5

Attachment a

Council Policy: Management of Complaints of Alleged Breaches of Behaviour (Current)

 






Council

64

27 July 2022

12.5

Attachment b

Amended Council Policy: Management of Complaints of Alleged Breaches of Behaviour (Clean)

 





Council

70

27 July 2022

12.5

Attachment c

Amended Council Policy: Management of Complaints of Alleged Breaches of Behaviour (Tracked Changes)

 







Council

74

27 July 2022

12.5

Attachment d

Council Policy: Management of Complaints of Alleged Breaches of Behaviour (inclusive of Committee Amendments)

 




 


Council                                                                                      99                                                                        27 July 2022

13.             Planning and Development Services Report

13.1           DRAFT COASTAL HAZARD RISK MANAGEMENT AND ADAPTATION PLAN - CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL

STRATEGIC THEME

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

1.4 Respond to the impacts of climate change on the City’s coastlines through informed, long term planning and action .

SUBJECT INDEX

Planning and Development Services

BUSINESS UNIT

Strategic Planning

REPORTING OFFICER

Principal Strategic Planner - Louise Koroveshi

Strategic Planning Coordinator - David Sands

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham

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   Draft Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan (2021)

Attachment b    Proposed general and management unit recommendations

Attachment c    Inland minimum finished floor level maps

Attachment d   Revised boundaries for Marybrook & Siesta Park management units

Attachment e    Schedule of submissions

Attachment f    Long submissions  

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council, with respect to the Draft Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan (CHRMAP) -

1.         Adopts the CHRMAP for final approval as a guide for future planning, subject to the following modifications -

a)  Inclusion of the revised recommendations set out at Attachment B;

b)  Updating and editing to reflect the revised recommendations set out at Attachment B; and

c)   Inclusion of information relating to the consultation process, reflecting the information set out in the agenda report;

2.      Notes the Schedule of Submissions provided in Attachment E and thanks submitters for their contributions during and after the formal consultation period;

3.      Refers the CHRMAP to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration; and

4.      Notes that the City will prepare an implementation strategy to guide the prioritisation and progression of future work.

 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Council is requested to consider adopting the Draft Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan (CHRMAP) for final endorsement, subject to changes addressing issues raised through the consultation process.

 

The strategic direction and recommendations outlined in the CHRMAP attracted a considerable level of interest during the consultation period and, in response to substantive matters raised in submissions primarily relating to recommendations for the Marybrook and Siesta Park sections of the coast, modifications are being recommended.

 

The CHRMAP, modified as recommended, sets out a well-reasoned and equitable strategic direction for the City to address a significant issue. Once adopted, the CHRMAP is intended to underpin and guide future planning and infrastructure/land management decisions by the City.

 

BACKGROUND

Introduction

At its Ordinary Meeting of 24 February 2021 the Council resolved to adopt for public consultation a draft Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan (CHRMAP). The CHRMAP, as advertised, is provided at Attachment A.

 

The CHRMAP is a high level strategic document that identifies the current and projected extent of risk to private and public assets (as well as environmental/social/cultural values) from coastal erosion and coastal inundation hazards, including those arising from future sea level rise. The CHRMAP sets out recommendations for responding to those hazards, including funding considerations, over the next 100 years. The CHRMAP is intended to provide a basis for prioritising and undertaking more detailed work after a final CHRMAP has been adopted.

 

The development of the CHRMAP reflects the requirements of State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy (SPP2.6) and the fact that the City has a long and dynamic coastline with significant property, infrastructure and environmental assets in close proximity to the coast and potentially vulnerable to coastal processes. SPP2.6 requires planning authorities to consider the potential impact of coastal processes on proposed development over a 100 year time horizon (i.e. if a decision is being made in 2022, through to 2122). SPP2.6 also sets out that planning authorities should assume an increase in mean sea level over that period of 0.9 metres.

 

That rise, should it occur, is expected to significantly increase risks associated with the two main coastal hazards – coastal erosion and coastal inundation (the latter may also be referred to as ‘storm surge’ or ‘coastal flooding’). It may also increase other hazards, such as through the lifting and salinization of groundwater tables in near coastal areas. Such a rise in mean sea level is expected to result in accelerated coastal erosion, with approximately 100-200 metres of land along the City’s northern coast potentially being lost to erosion over the 100 year period, if the coast is not actively managed.

 

SPP2.6 also requires that planning authorities consider the potential coastal inundation impact of a 1 in 500 year coastal storm surge event (or, to use the current technical term, a 1 in 500 Annual Exceedance Probability - ‘AEP’ - event). Whilst there have been more recent assessments which indicate the risk may be somewhat lower, the current advice of the Department of Transport (‘DoT’ - which is effectively the State’s ‘coastal engineer’) applicable to most of the City’s northern / Geographe Bay coast is that such an event may result in storm surge as high as 2.9 AHD (i.e. 2.9 metres above mean sea level) with present day mean sea levels, or 3.8 AHD with mean sea level 0.9 metres higher.

Cyclone Alby is thought to have resulted in water levels of around 1.8 AHD. A 3.8 AHD event, however, could result in coastal inundation several kilometres inland in some cases, and could result in flooding to depths of around 2.0 metres, in significant parts of both Busselton and Dunsborough.

 

Given the above, the issues that the CHRMAP seeks to understand and address are clearly very significant issues for the City and its community.

 

Summary of CHRMAP direction – as set out in draft document

The CHRMAP divides the City’s coastline into nine management units and recommends adaptation pathways for each over three time periods: short-term (through to 2040); medium-term (2040-2070); and long-term (2070-2120, note these dates are proposed to be adjusted back by three years for the final CHRMAP to reflect the required 100 year timeframe). In some cases, the fundamental adaptation pathway differs between coastal erosion and coastal inundation hazards.

 

The five different kinds of adaptation strategies recommended for the various management units are summarised below (noting these reflect the draft CHRMAP, and that some changes are recommended for the final CHRMAP) –

i.         MU01 – Smiths Beach, MU02 – Yallingup and MU03 – Bunker Bay: Protect from coastal erosion hazard, and avoid coastal inundation hazard.

 

ii.       MU04 – Eagle Bay and MU05 – Old Dunsborough: Protect from coastal erosion hazard, and accommodate coastal inundation hazard (principally, through setting minimum finished floor levels for new development, in the small areas that may be vulnerable).

 

iii.     MU06 – Dunsborough Townsite, MU07 – Quindalup, MU11 – Abbey, MU12 – Broadwater, MU13 – Busselton West (A), MU14 – Busselton West (B), MU15 - Busselton Central, MU16 – Busselton East, MU17 – Port Geographe and MU18 – Wonnerup: Protect from coastal erosion hazard. Accommodate coastal inundation hazard through setting minimum finished floor levels for new development over the short term (and emergency management responses), and protect from inundation in the medium and long terms (through a continuous seawall/bund or elevated/protected foredune).MU08 – Marybrook, MU09 – Siesta Park and MU19 – Forrest Beach: Protect from coastal erosion hazard for the short term (subject to resolution of land tenure issues, and to be fully funded by the benefitting landowners). Accommodate coastal inundation through setting minimum finished floor levels for new development over the short term (and emergency management responses). Leave open the option of retreat in the longer-term, supported by controls on new development (i.e. time-limited approval).

 

iv.     MU10 – Locke Estate: Land in this Management Unit is all publicly owned, and the campsites on the northern side of Caves Road are leasehold facilities. In some respects there is a different planning time horizon, which coincides with the current 21 year lease terms that are in place. Protect from erosion in the short-term (noting there are already coastal protections in place with a design life that extends for at least another ten years). Accommodate inundation risk (through minimum floor levels for new development and emergency management approaches) and keep open the option of retreat over the medium to long term for future decision-makers.


 

SPP2.6 sets out that, if a section of the coast is likely to be affected by coastal hazards over the next 100 years, the response in relation to both potential and existing development should be considered sequentially, i.e. Avoid, Retreat, Accommodate, Protect (an explanation of each term is provided in the Relevant Plans and Policies section of this report). In reality, though, for the City’s northern/Geographe Bay coast, avoid is not an option as there is already significant development in vulnerable areas. The choice is effectively between a protect strategy or a retreat strategy for coastal erosion, and a protect strategy or accommodate strategy for coastal inundation in some areas at some times.

 

Even in the absence of a CHRMAP, though, much of the City’s coast is actively managed today, and has been historically, mostly in response to risk and impacts from coastal erosion. If the direction was to not commit to long-term protection what would most likely occur is a continuation of current management practices for sections of the coast, such as groynes, beach nourishment and seawalls and localised retreat where the coast is not currently managed. This would be a ‘de facto’ combination of protect and retreat that is unlikely to be a successful, sustainable or acceptable long term adaptation response.

 

Future decisions (timing would vary for different sections of the coast) would need to be made on maintenance and/or refurbishment of current coastal infrastructure to enable continued management of, and protection from, coastal erosion (groynes and seawalls do not have a design life of 100 years). If adjoining sections of the coast not requiring active management (such as parts of the coast with a wide beach and foreshore reserve) are left to retreat the beach and foreshore would most likely be lost. Should this occur, it would be extremely challenging to protect from inundation risk as there would not be continuous public land along the coast within which to implement a medium to long term protect strategy (i.e. what the CHRMAP is currently recommending – the construction of a continuous seawall/bund or similar in the foreshore reserve for much of the coast). Similar challenges would arise also for a medium to long term protect strategy for coastal erosion risk – which is needed to protect not only the foreshore reserve within which the infrastructure would be placed, but also the land that sits behind it.   

 

In parts of the Marybrook/Siesta Park area, there are a number of private coastal erosion protection structures (seawalls) along a vulnerable and relatively narrow strip of developed land with very narrow or absent foreshore reserve. Not all properties have seawalls and not all of the current seawalls are the same in terms of size and scale, construction materials and design life. There are gaps where some properties do not have any defences in place and these ‘gaps’ are vulnerable to erosion (and have been subject to erosion damage/recession in the past). A situation where a landowner whose property has protection infrastructure on the seaward boundary of their lot cannot rely on neighbouring properties having similar protection in place. To be fully protected, that landowner would also have to install seawalls along the side boundaries of their property to safeguard against risk of accelerated erosion pressure emanating from adjoining properties – which would clearly be an undesirable outcome. This is one of the reasons why the CHRMAP recommends an integrated strategy for erosion protection in these areas.

 

In considering retreat, for undeveloped or more natural areas, the coastline would ‘naturally’ recede and progressively adjust. For those parts of the coastline that are developed, if the coast was allowed to retreat (without support for that such as acquisition of land by government, and proactive and progressive removal or relocation of buildings, roads and other infrastructure ahead of coastal erosion), it would not be such a passive process. Houses and other public and private buildings, utilities (infrastructure for water/sewerage/electricity/gas etc), roads, dual use pathways, carparks and so forth would become increasingly vulnerable to damage from, and progressively lost to, coastal erosion. There would no longer be a public beach or foreshore reserve – the beach and foreshore would be in private property - and the ‘new’ coastline would be blighted for many decades by the damage inflicted on assets and infrastructure.  

There are also highly valuable and significant assets that would also be compromised or lost, such as the Ramsar wetlands in the Vasse-Wonnerup estuary, recognised habitat areas for the critically endangered Western Ringtail Possum, wetlands, groundwater aquifers and sites of both Aboriginal and European historical, spiritual and cultural significance.

 

Background work

Commencing as early as 2008, the City has undertaken, or been otherwise directly involved in, a number of projects and initiatives that have assisted in understanding the risks and setting the future direction for the effective management of our coastline, including:

i.          Formation of the Peron-Naturaliste Partnership (PNP), which is a collaboration of the nine coastal local authorities between Point Peron (in the City of Rockingham) and Cape Naturaliste (in the City of Busselton) providing regional direction and leadership in terms of coastal monitoring and management, particularly through the:

·        Federally funded Coastal Adaptation Pathways project that delivered an economic analysis of adaptation options at a ‘whole of region’ scale, and a demonstration of coastal adaptation pathways and options at a scale relevant to partner local governments (ACIL Tasman/Damara 2012).

·        Coastal Community Adaptation Awareness Plan project (2013) that engaged with the City of Busselton community regarding coastal adaptation challenges and options, with the aim that ‘lessons learned’ could be applied for similar engagement elsewhere within the PNP region and beyond (ACCARNSI 2013).

ii.         A number of coastal erosion studies to model the potential impacts of sea level rise on the Geographe Bay coastline, with the most recent of these (Damara 2012) reflecting the direction of the WAPC that coastal planning be undertaken on the basis of a predicted 0.9 metre sea level rise over a time period of 100-years. The Damara study produced interim coastal modelling maps that provided an interpretation of development planning setbacks for coastal erosion under a set of possible climate change scenarios. These are publicly available on the City’s website.

iii.        A Coastal Vulnerability Assessment for four settlements either side of Cape Naturaliste: Smiths Beach, Yallingup, Bunker Bay and Eagle Bay (Damara 2017).  

iv.        A rolling Coastal Management Programme 10 Year Plan (2020-2030) (CMP) for the Geographe Bay coastline that provides the basis for a ‘whole of coast’ approach to managing coastal erosion, through the definition of six coastal management areas based on tertiary sediment cells and local management practices (Shore Coastal 2020). The CMP also sets out planned and costed coastal protection maintenance works, beach width monitoring, investigations (such as sediment and coastal inlet dynamics, coastal stratigraphy, numerical modelling of coastal flooding and review of sand and rock sources) and coastal adaptation works. The CMP has a time horizon, however, that is less than what is needed for long-term coastal adaptation planning. The focus of the CMP to date is also on reserves and public assets, with little explicit consideration of private land and assets. A previous five-year CMP (2014-2018) has already been implemented.

v.         The transition of the City’s ‘Beach Protection Reserve’ to a ‘Climate Adaptation Reserve’ in 2015/16 to enable the direct allocation of funds towards the preparation of a short term (<25 years) coastal protection plan/long-term coastal adaptation strategy (i.e. the CHRMAP) to be reflected in an integrated way into the City’s local planning scheme, as well as the City’s long-term infrastructure and financial plans.


vi.        Two legal implications related projects to assist coastal local government authorities to identify, manage and mitigate legal risks in an environment of changing climate policy.

vii.       A WALGA-led project to obtain qualified legal advice and opinion to assist coastal local government authorities with respect to matters associated with coastal hazard planning issues relating to sea level rise. 

 

The CHRMAP process formally commenced in 2017 and has been overseen by a multi-agency steering group. The City was successful in securing a $75,000 WAPC Coastal Management Plan Assistance Programme (CMPAP) grant to support the project. Formulation of the CHRMAP included the following components -

·        Coastal hazard modelling gaps filled and identification of when and where different sections of the coast may be vulnerable (with each section identified as one of 19 management units).

·        Engagement and consultation to determine what our community values about the coast, and to elicit views on how coastal hazards should be managed.

·        Development of a financial model to identify potential financial implications and costs associated with different adaptation strategies.

·        Development and application of a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) framework to inform the formulation of ‘whole of coast’ recommendations, as well as recommendations for multiple or specific management units.

 

Most of the technical work which underpins the CHRMAP was undertaken by an external consulting team. The development of the MCA framework and recommendations, however, was largely undertaken in-house.

 

Early community engagement (prior to formal consultation on the CHRMAP)

Early consultation in the form of a community survey was undertaken in 2018 to determine what people value most about the City’s coastline. An important objective of the consultation was to deliver a random and representative sample of the community, including those members of the community who may not typically participate in such consultation due to their residing away from the coastline.

 

The north-facing sandy beaches were strongly valued by the community with uninterrupted stretches of sandy beach being a vital part of the character and well-being of Busselton. The most important coastal value from respondents was essentially preserving the coastline as it is today, or in a better state, for future generations.

 

On the question of who should be responsible to pay for costs associated with the prevention or mitigation of likely coastal erosion impacts, 41% of respondents felt that the State taxpayer should bear the majority of such necessary costs, with the balance to be borne by all ratepayers in the City (29%) and private landowners/businesses more directly affected (30%). Further detail on the community survey is provided under the Stakeholder Consultation section of this report.

 

The results of the community coastal values survey were used to inform the MCA of adaptation options for the CHRMAP, as well as the financial model (where all scenarios assume protection and preservation of a continuous beach and foreshore, wherever possible, is the preferred end result).

 


In June 2020, the City undertook a ‘community scorecard survey’ to support a review of the Strategic Community Plan and to assist with identifying community priorities. The survey asked respondents to rank local projects and issues, from the most important to the least important. Of those respondents, 46% ranked the management and protection from coastal erosion of the City’s coastline as the most important.

 

Advertising of the CHRMAP

Consultation on the CHRMAP commenced in May 2021. The strategic direction and recommendations outlined in the CHRMAP attracted a significant level of community interest during the consultation period. Of the 62 public submissions received, nearly half (29) indicated general support for the CHRMAP and/or recommended response(s) to managing risk from coastal hazards. Most of the rest of the submissions were from Siesta Park/Marybrook landowners, and expressed concerns about the approach proposed for that part of the coast.

 

Originally the end date for consultation was intended to be 23 July 2021. Following higher levels of enquiry and concern from landowners in the Marybrook and Siesta Park coastal areas, consultation was extended to 28 September 2021. An overview of the consultation process and issues raised is provided in the ‘Stakeholder Consultation’ section of this report. 

 

The recommendations of the advertised CHRMAP of most contention during consultation related to MU08 Marybrook and MU09 Siesta Park management units, and in particular –

·        The boundaries of the Marybrook and Siesta Park management units.

·        Option for long term managed retreat.

·        Planning controls on development.

·        Proposals to address inundation hazard (finished floor levels for habitable floor space).

·        Proposals to address erosion hazard.

·        Proposed approach to fund coastal protection and management.

 

Following the formal consultation phase, the Geographe Bay Coastal Action Group (GBCAG) was formed. A working group, comprised of five members acting as a committee on behalf of GBCAG, two Councillors and City staff, was convened to discuss matters arising from the advertised CHRMAP. The working group met on four occasions to discuss potential changes to the advertised CHRMAP. The City and GBCAG also co-hosted an information session that all Marybrook/Siesta Park landowners were invited to attend.

 

Engagement with GBCAG has led to both the City and GBCAG members having a better understanding of the issues of concern, and a range of recommended modifications to the CHRMAP. Feedback from the GBCAG indicates a reasonable degree of support for the direction as now proposed by officers. It cannot, however, be assumed that the direction proposed by officers is necessarily supported by all landowners in that area, or indeed in other parts of the City’s coast.


OFFICER COMMENT

Officers are proposing a range of modifications to the recommendations of the CHRMAP. It is proposed to replace the recommendations contained in Part 7 of the draft CHRMAP with the proposed recommendations set out in Attachment B. The modifications proposed are a response to careful consideration of the substantive issues raised in submissions (principally from landowners in Marybrook and Siesta Park).  

 

Sections A and B below set out the principles proposed to be applied consistently to all management units and includes setting of minimum finished floor levels for new development and high level commentary on the community use of foreshore reserves (something that was not explicit in the draft CHRMAP).

 

Section C below describes the proposed changes to the general recommendations and section D provides further detail on changes proposed for the Marybrook, Siesta Park and Forrest Beach management units.

 

A.            Coastal inundation risk and finished floor levels (FFL)

The draft CHRMAP, reflecting SPP2.6 requirements and Department of Transport advice, considers and seeks to address the potential impacts of a 3.8m AHD coastal flooding event. Given the geology and topography that does not create significant issues for the settlements either side of Cape Naturaliste (i.e. Smiths Beach, Yallingup, Bunker Bay, Eagle Bay, Old Dunsborough). It does, however, create significant issues along the rest of the City’s coast, from the Dunsborough Townsite all the way to the boundary with the Shire of Capel, at Forrest Beach. Fundamentally, there are two potential strategies to address this risk.

 

The first would be an accommodation strategy, potentially requiring the minimum finished floor level (FFL) for new development to be at or above 3.8m AHD (note that this would principally be for ‘habitable’ floorspace such as houses, sheds or similar could have lower floor levels). In new/greenfields development areas, that would mean that the floor level for all development would be at or above that level. Most of the vulnerable areas, however, are not new/greenfields development areas. They are older and largely developed areas, so such a requirement would only have a practical impact as and when sites are redeveloped.

 

Whilst some redevelopment can no doubt be expected to occur over coming decades, in many areas, a significant proportion of existing buildings will still exist in 20, 30 or even 100 years’ time. That would mean that, whilst the lifting of floor levels would mitigate the risk to some degree, it would represent a partial solution only, and the largest flooding events could still be expected to have very significant consequences, both during and after any such event. Given the scale and nature of the vulnerable areas, the task of evacuating and accommodating people living in houses with floor levels below the flood level in and of itself would be extremely challenging. The shorter-term cost and amenity impacts of requiring floor levels for new development to be, in some cases, over 2.0 metres than existing ground or floor levels would, however, also be considerable – and probably unacceptable to the community.

 

For those and other reasons, the draft CHRMAP instead recommended a medium- to long-term protect strategy for inundation risk for the City’s main urban/developed areas. That would entail the construction of a continuous seawall/bund or similar in the foreshore reserve for much of the coast. It would also entail works to prevent seawater entering urban areas via the various ‘gaps’ along the coast – e.g. drain and inlet entry channels, or the Port Geographe Marina entry. The CHRMAP recommends further investigations into the potential costs and means of managing the ‘gaps’, as well as further investigation into coastal inundation risk more broadly (note that the City has recently been awarded a Federal Government grant that will enable those further investigations to commence).

Together, those approaches enabled the draft CHRMAP to recommend that FFLs in the main urban/developed areas be set at 3.0m AHD, rather than 3.8m AHD. 3.0m AHD was chosen in recognition of the fact that it may take several decades to implement the medium- to long-term protect strategy for inundation risk for the City’s main urban/developed areas, and there is still a significant risk to mitigate coastal inundation risk in the interim period.

 

In the Siesta Park/Marybrook/Locke Estate and Forrest Beach areas, a long-term protect strategy for inundation risk was not proposed in the draft CHRMAP. Given that, a minimum FFL of 3.8M AHD was recommended. The reasons for the different approach proposed in those areas are returned to later in this section of the report.

 

Returning to the City’s main developed/urban areas, officers remain concerned about the cost and amenity impacts of requiring floor levels for new development to be 3.0m AHD. In some cases, that would still be over 1.0 metre higher than existing ground or floor levels. Two strategies have been identified and are now proposed to reduce those impacts.

 

Firstly, consideration has been given to coastal inundation modelling undertaken to support a review of structure planning for Port Geographe. That modelling indicates that the level of a 1 in 500 year coastal storm surge with present day mean sea levels is 2.5m AHD (i.e. 2.5 metres above mean sea level), or 3.4m AHD with mean sea level 0.9 metres higher, rather than 2.9m AHD or 3.8m AHD respectively. That modelling, prepared by Baird Consultants for the developers (Aigle Royal) has been accepted by DoT, and there is not seen to be any clear reason why the figure would be higher for other parts of the City’s coast.

 

On the basis of that, it is considered that minimum FFLs for new development in areas where a medium- to long-term protect strategy for inundation risk is being proposed could be reduced from the originally proposed 3.0m AHD to 2.7m AHD. The reason that 2.5m AHD is not proposed is because some of the projected 0.9m sea level rise over the next 100 years will occur in the period between now and when the medium- to long-term protect strategy for inundation risk can actually be implemented. Note that the recommended revised recommendations also add the word ‘generally’, and that the additional modelling being funded by the Federal Government and progressed by the City is also likely to have been completed prior to the City’s town planning scheme being amended to actually implement this recommendation of the CHRMAP – and the actual level(s) required could be adjusted based on that modelling.

 

Secondly, consideration has also been given to allowing some development, especially additions or alterations to existing development, to occur at a somewhat lower level – down to 2.2m AHD. It is proposed that be allowed to occur where development has been built to withstand temporary inundation, with moisture proofing up to a level of at least 2.7m AHD. Whilst in extreme events, such development could still be inundated, residents needing to be evacuated and significant damage done to finishes, furniture or appliances, the integrity of the structure would be expected to be maintained.

 

Further work would be required to determine the specific/requirements for new floorspace below 2.7m AHD, but it is seen as important that option is accommodated. There are some small areas where a minimum FFL of 2.7m AHD would be around 1.0 metre higher than existing ground or floor levels, and even a 2.2m AHD FFL would be around 0.5 metres above existing ground or floor levels. Even that level would have cost and in some cases amenity impacts, and whilst it is seen as vital that the City does seek to mitigate future flooding risk, that does need to be considered in a broader context, especially in terms of potential cost and amenity impacts.


Turning to the Siesta Park/Marybrook/Locke Estate and Forrest Beach areas, whilst a long-term protect strategy is no longer proposed to be explicitly ‘ruled out’ in the CHRMAP, neither is a commitment to do so recommended at this stage. A key impact of that is that the minimum FFL for new development should reflect the projected 1 in 500 year coastal storm surge, including an allowance for a 0.9 metre increase in mean sea level. Given material identified above, however, it is now considered that can be 3.4m AHD, rather than 3.8m AHD – although that would also be subject to the additional modelling as also described above. It should also be noted that application of that requirement would require a town planning scheme amendment, which would entail further community and stakeholder engagement.

 

The cost and amenity impacts of that higher minimum FFL in Siesta Park/Marybrook/Locke Estate and Forrest Beach are likely to be less than in significant parts of the main urban/developed areas, as natural ground levels are generally above 2.5m AHD, and through building (rather than planning) controls the City has been recommending (and in most cases applying) a minimum FFL of 3.0m AHD in any case. As such, in many cases, the increase in minimum FFL is only from 3.0m AHD to 3.4m AHD. It is also considered that, on average, the rate of redevelopment in these areas will be a little higher than the average rate elsewhere, enhancing the risk mitigation value of that approach, as a larger proportion of existing development, some of which may be at a lower level, would be demolished and then replaced with new development with a hjgher FFL.

 

There are several other key reasons why it is not seen as necessary or appropriate to recommend a protect strategy for inundation risk for the Siesta Park/Marybrook/Locke Estate and Forrest Beach areas in the CHRMAP –

1.         The total population and value of assets that would be protected per kilometer of coast would be considerably lower, as there are not the extensive urban/residential areas inland from the coast that would benefit from the protection, instead there is a relatively narrow strip of developed land along Caves Road in the case of Siesta Park/Marybrook/Locke Estate, and a small number of somewhat sparsely distributed houses in the case of Forrest Beach;

2.         The costs of protection per kilometer of coast would be somewhat higher, as the number of ‘gaps’ is higher – in the entire approximately 18km length of coast between Abbey and Wonnerup, there are four such gaps (counting the two at either end – the Buayanyup Drain and Vasse-Wonnerup Estuary mouth), whereas in the approximately 7km length of coast between the Locke Estate and Quindalup there are six;

3.         As there is not a continuous foreshore reserve in the Siesta Park/Marybrook area, and even where there is in some cases it is quite narrow, without the City acquiring private land, the land on which to build a continuous seawall/bund that would provide that protection is actually not available; and

4.         There could be significant amenity issues and challenges maintaining a continuous beach, with continuous seawall/bund in this section of the coast, given the absence of or limited width of the foreshore reserve.

 

One of the other issues that has been considered in developing the revised recommendations is the definition of the inland boundaries of areas where different floor level controls may apply. Because so much of the land in the City is flat and low, those areas need to extend quite some distance inland – essentially sufficiently far inland to a point where existing ground levels are at or above the minimum FFLs proposed. If the same minimum FFL was being proposed everywhere, that would be fairly straightforward, as the town planning scheme could simply establish a minimum FFL throughout the whole of the City.


Reflecting the approach to flood risk mitigation proposed, it is envisaged that a general minimum of 2.7m AHD would be introduced, but that in the areas inland from Siesta Park/Marybrook/Locke Estate and Forrest Beach, a minimum of 3.4m AHD would apply, extending south through to east-west oriented roads (i.e. Vasse-Yallingup Siding Road and Tuart Drive respectively), by which point existing ground levels are above 3.4 AHD. As noted, there would also be allowance for some development to be approved below that level, and the exact levels and boundaries would also be identified following the further modelling work that has been noted above.

 

B.            Community use of foreshore reserves

A new theme is proposed with the intent that very high level recommendation is being made for all management units on community use of foreshore reserves. As evidenced by the coastal values survey, a significant proportion of our community use the local beaches and foreshore areas, with stretches of sandy beaches to walk on, natural vegetation and habitat afforded by foreshore and beach areas, safe swimming beaches, and the ‘natural’ aesthetic of some parts of the coast being very highly valued. Handing the beaches and foreshore areas to future generations in the same or better state than it is now was cited as the most important value.

 

For Abbey, and most of the rest of the coast, the response is to continue to support and consider accommodating new community infrastructure within the foreshore reserve. The principle also recognises that there is public access and use of the foreshore in Marybrook and Siesta Park and flags that some areas could accommodate community infrastructure at some point in the future, but other parts are too constrained. 

 

The direction set for adaptation response to coastal erosion risk is to protect public assets and infrastructure (including foreshore areas) as well as private properties. The CHRMAP should recognised that public assets are protected at the City’s cost and therefore those assets should be available and able to be used by the whole community. Protection also provides an opportunity to consider new or expanded infrastructure available for use by the whole community. 

 

C.            General recommendations

The changes proposed to the general recommendations are set out below.

 

Recommendations 1 and 2

Recommendations 1 and 2 are proposed to be retained without change in the final CHRMAP, other than updating to reflect the renumbering of current recommendation 8 a Recommendation 9. The wording proposed for Recommendations 8 and 9 is as follows -

Recommendation 1:

That the coastal erosion hazard lines shown on the maps for each of the identified Management Units in Recommendation 9 be adopted as a guide for future planning.

 

Recommendation 2:

That the adaptation pathways for the identified Management Units are generally as set out in Recommendation 9.

 


Recommendation 3

Recommendation 3 is proposed to be retained with a minor update to part (a) reflecting that since adoption of the draft CHRMAP, the Council has already reflected this in the LTFP. The wording proposed for Recommendation 4 is as follows -

Recommendation 3:

That the City:

a.            Allocates, through a phased increase from 1% (as applies currently), a minimum of             2.0% of total rates revenue to the ‘Coastal Adaptation Reserve’, as set out in within      the City’s current 10-year Long Term Financial Plan;

b.            Advocates and make application for State and/or Federal Government grants funding      to support coastal adaptation measures and initiatives as these become available    and necessary;

c.             Advocates at State and Federal Government level for the identification and            implementation of a sustainable, equitable and efficient framework for the funding of               coastal adaptation;

d.            Advocates at State Government level to identify and secure strategic sand supplies for      beach nourishment, including a coordinated regional approach to the delivery of such    supplies.

 

Recommendation 4

Recommendation 4 is proposed to be retained without change in the final CHRMAP, as follows -

Recommendation 4:

That the City undertake or support, subject to appropriate assistance from the State and/or Federal Government, the following associated but additional work:

a.    A cost-benefit and/or benefit distribution analysis and/or systemic financial and economic system risk analysis of the identified adaptation pathways.

b.    Coastal erosion modelling, following specific geotechnical investigations (possibly in partnership with landowners), for the following Management Units:

i.  Smiths Beach;

ii. Yallingup;

iii.                Bunker Bay;

iv.               Eagle Bay; and

v. Old Dunsborough.

c.     Given the identified pathways for coastal erosion hazard management in the CHRMAP, further coastal inundation hazard modelling including for both Geographe Bay and west coast settlements (Yallingup and Smiths Beach).

d.    Preliminary design and costings associated with storm surge events (coastal inundation hazard)  protection at:

i.      Toby Inlet mouth.

ii.     The mouths of all agricultural drains.

iii.    The eastern bank of the Buayanyup River Drain.

iv.   Vasse Diversion Drain mouth and Vasse-Wonnerup Estuary storm surge barrier.

v.    Port Geographe Marina entry channel and seawall.

vi.   Vasse-Wonnerup Estuary Channel.

vii.  Layman Road, from a point just to the north of the Vasse-Wonnerup Estuary Channel to a point somewhat to the north of Tuart Drive.

viii. Urban stormwater outlets.

 

Recommendation 5

Recommendation 5 is a proposed new recommendation. It places the planning responses from the MU recommendations into a general recommendation, setting out approaches/principles to be applied consistently to sections of the coast with similar characteristics. The proposed recommendation also reflects the fact that the CHRMAP is a strategic and relatively high level document that seeks to set the broad direction and provide a basis for undertaking more detailed work after a final CHRMAP is adopted. Implementation of some of the recommendations of the CHRMAP will require amendments to the town planning scheme and the development of a local planning policy. The proposed wording of Recommendation 5 is as follows -

 

Recommendation 5:

That the City amends the Local Planning Strategy and town planning scheme, and develops local planning policy, as follows -

a.            Amend Theme 4, Strategies (f), (g) and (i) of the Local Planning Strategy to identify the     adoption of the CHRMAP, and reflect at a high level the strategic direction set out in the CHRMAP;

b.            Extension of a modified Coastal Management Special Control Area or other suitable           mechanism in the town planning scheme to –

i.              Create a head of power for requiring development approval for development        that is not infill, but which would otherwise not require development             approval;

ii.             Support the setting out of advice in local planning policy around –

I.             what types of development could be supported beyond the ‘infill line’;

II.            how to calculate/determine the location of the infill line; and

III.           guidance relating to private coastal protection works, which may be         supported, but which will generally not be supported where                coordinated approaches to coastal protection are being implemented,           unless they are consistent with those coordinated approaches; and

iii.            Apply the Special Control Area or other suitable mechanism to coastal areas          across the whole of the coast, on the seaward side of the 2120 coastal erosion           hazard line.

c.             Introduce controls on minimum FFLs for new development throughout the whole of           the City through a suitable mechanism which would set out that –

i.              Unless a higher minimum FFL is required elsewhere in the Scheme, or through      the application of the BCA, the minimum FFL for new habitable floorspace is –

I.             Generally 2.7m AHD; and

II.            A reduction to 2.2m AHD may be considered, subject to –


•             Development being additions or extensions;

•             Electrical wiring and installations being placed at or above            3.4m AHD; and

•             Structures being moisture proofed up to 3.4m AHD.

ii.             Subject to resolution of detailed boundary and interface issues, in an area              bound by Geographe Bay, Station Gully Drain, Caves Road, Quindalup Siding            Road, Vasse-Yallingup Siding Road, the section of Bussell Highway between     Vasse-Yallingup Siding Road and Caves Road, the section of Caves Road     between Bussell Highway and Buayanyup Drain, and the section of                 Buayanyup Drain between Caves Road and Geographe Bay, and in an area             bound by Geographe Bay, the Shire of Capel boundary, Ludlow North Road,              Tuart Drive, the section of Layman Road between Tuart Drive and the Vasse               Estuary Channel, and the Vasse Estuary Channel, unless a higher minimum            FFL is required through the application of the BCA, the minimum FFL for new     habitable floorspace is –

I.             Generally 3.4m AHD; and

II.            A reduction to 3.0m AHD may be considered, subject to –

•             Development being additions or extensions;

•             Electrical wiring and installations being placed at or above            3.4m AHD; and

•             Structures being moisture proofed up to 3.4m AHD.

iii.            For the purposes of assessing compliance with height, overlooking,           overshadowing, building separation or setback controls, if Natural Ground             Level is less than the generally applicable minimum FFL, NGL shall be     assumed to be the generally applicable minimum FFL.

 

Part (a) reflects the progress on the CHRMAP since the City’s Local Planning Strategy was adopted in 2019 and the need to update the strategy accordingly. Part (b) generally reflects the need to provide clarity that development, whether within or outside the infill area, would always require development approval and that further guidance and advice would be set out in a local planning policy for the Special Control Area. This would be applied to all MUs. Part (c) reflects the need to give statutory effect to the principles set out in the CHRMAP on minimum FFLs throughout the City.    

 

Recommendation 6

Recommendation 6 (recommendation 5 in the advertised CHRMAP) is proposed to be retained in the final CHRMAP (note reference to the local planning scheme is now part of proposed Recommendation 5), worded as follows –

Recommendation 6:

That the above recommendations are all incorporated into the City’s:

a.            Community Strategic Plan;

b.            Corporate Business Plan;

c.             Long-Term Financial Plan;

d.            Rolling, ten-year Coastal Management Programme; and

e.            Local Emergency Management arrangements.

 


Recommendations 7 and 8

Recommendations 7 and 8 are proposed to be retained in the final CHRMAP, without change (other than renumbering), worded as follows -

 

Recommendation 7:

That the City provide an annual update to the community and other relevant stakeholders on progress towards implementation of the findings and recommendations of the CHRMAP.

 

Recommendation 8:

That the CHRMAP is the subject of scheduled periodic review, at least once every ten years.

 

D.            Marybrook and Siesta Park management unit recommendations

The rationale for the proposed direction for these management units for inundation risk is set out in Part A of this section of the report. That rationale is not reiterated in this section of the report. The focus here is therefore on issues/considerations that are particular to this section of the coast – which principally relate to erosion risk.

 

As has already been noted, the now proposed coastal adaptation direction for these areas is protection from erosion and accommodation for inundation. This is different to the direction in the draft CHRMAP, where erosion protection was proposed for the short to medium term only (through to 2070), with the potential for retreat in the long term. That had necessitated a recommendation that any new development approval contain a ‘sunset clause’, with approvals only being valid until 2070. That recommendation had generated a high and consistent level of concern from affected landowners.

 

Having further considered the issues, officers are no longer recommending a long-term retreat strategy for this section of the coast. There are two key reasons for that –

1.         The significant landowner concerns, especially in the context of a situation where there is seen to be a need for the City to work closely with some of the landowners to be able to implement erosion protection in the more vulnerable, central portion of this section of the coast; and

2.         A very strong sense that retreat would only be politically acceptable if it involved property acquisition by government, and that the only level of government that is likely to do that is the State, meaning that the right approach for the City was to proactively plan to protect the coast from erosion.

 

There are a range of more detailed issues/concerns requiring consideration and changes to the CHRMAP proposed to address those matters. The headings below reflect the themes of the substantive matters raised in submissions (as set out under the ‘Stakeholder Consultation’ section of this report and the ‘Key Issues’ column of the Schedule of Submissions at Attachment D).

 


1.            Distribution of costs and benefits

A number of submissions raised concerns that, through the direction set out in the draft CHRMAP, landowners in the Siesta Park and Marybrook areas were having costs imposed on them that were greater than other landowners. Costs do, however, also need to be understood in the context of the related benefits. For a variety of reasons, however, officers are recommending a range of changes to recommendations that would reduce those costs. Those include –

·        No longer applying a sunset clause condition as described above;

·        No longer requiring direct contributions to coastal protection from landowners at the eastern and western ends of the Siesta Park/Marybrook area, recognizing that vulnerability in those areas is significantly lower, and protection is not needed in the next 20 years or so – this is addressed in more detail below;

·        Within the central section of the Siesta Park/Marybrook area, rather than requiring the entire cost of erosion protection to be met by landowners, proposing that the cost be split between State or Federal Government, City of Busselton ratepayers as a whole, and direct contributions from landowners – also addressed in more detail below;

·        Reducing minimum FFL for new development from 3.8m AHD to 3.4m AHD – as described above;

·        No longer requiring the ceding of a foreshore reserve where development approval is being granted – again addressed further below; and

·        No longer proposing the prohibition of new private coastal protection structures, although some controls on such structures are still proposed (and there are some controls currently too- again, this is also addressed further below.

 

The result of those changes is that the only landowners from which direct contributions would be sought are those in the central section of the Siesta Park/Marybrook area, where properties often are and in fact have been vulnerable in the past to coastal erosion, and many landowners have chosen to develop private coastal protection structures in the past. Through the integrated approach now recommended, however, it is envisaged that protection can be enhanced and made more consistent, and through economies of scale, at lower overall cost. There is also an opportunity to ensure that the beach is protected and maintained long-term, as well as the land, buildings and other assets.

 

Wherever possible, the proposed strategic direction is also intended to be applied via general rather than MU specific recommendations, reflecting the application of consistent principles across the whole of the coast wherever possible. Because the issues are not the same everywhere, though, there are also some differences in approach proposed, reflecting the different characters of different parts of the coast.

 

2.            Boundaries of MU08 Marybrook and MU09 Siesta Park management units

It is proposed to divide these two management units into four (Attachment D) -

i.          MU08(a) Marybrook West – wide beach and foreshore reserve mostly in public ownership. Coastal erosion risk similar to MU11 Abbey (unlikely to be at risk before 2040). Larger foreshore area allows consideration at some point in the future for new public infrastructure with a long term protection strategy. Land to the south of Caves Road is not immediately at risk from coastal erosion, and Caves Road itself is a significant State asset. 

ii.         MU09(b) Siesta Park East – similar characteristics as MU08(a) Marybrook West and includes the Siesta Park groyne and dual use path.

iii.        MU08(b) Marybrook/Siesta Park Central – a single row of privately owned beachfront properties with a narrow beach and little or no public foreshore. Landowners have constructed various private coastal protection structures at their own cost. Includes the Lennox River Drain outlet that has contributed to some coastal management issues.

iv.        MU09(a) Siesta Park Holiday Resort – single ownership with a coastal frontage of approximately 400m which is of sufficient length to implement its own protection strategy.

 

The management units in the advertised CHRMAP were defined on the basis of: coastal erosion hazard assessments; Department of Transport sediment cell framework; existing coastal infrastructure; and the distribution/types of assets vulnerable to coastal hazards. A more nuanced approach is now being proposed that also reflects variation in beach/foreshore width, the vulnerability of private assets by 2040 and provides for a refinement of recommendations/risk responses along this part of the coast.

 

3.            Planning controls: ceding of land/development approval for all development/time limited          development approvals/prohibit private coastal protection structures

The planning response set out for Marybrook and Siesta Park management units included the following planning controls:

 

·    As a condition of approval for any development or subdivision, ceding of land to ensure there is a foreshore reserve of a minimum width of approximately 20m.

·    Where development approval is granted, it must always be subject to a ‘time limited approval’, with development approval lapsing no later than 1 July 2070.

 

It is proposed to not include these planning controls in the final CHRMAP.

 

·    Prohibit private coastal protection structures.

 

It is proposed to not include this in the final CHRMAP. Consideration of private coastal protection works is now proposed to be set out under the proposed, new general recommendation 5 and addressed through potential amendments to the planning framework and progression towards implementation of an integrated approach to coastal protection.

 

4.            Infill subdivision/development density

It is proposed to not include this in the final CHRMAP. This principle is already established in the City’s Local Planning Strategy Theme 4(i) which seeks to maintain the physical separation of settlements, in particular, through not supporting intensification of development in the Marybrook/Siesta Park area.

 

5.            Integrated approach to erosion protection

An ‘integrated approach’ has been used to refer to the City-led integrated protection strategy for the Marybrook and Siesta Park MUs in the advertised CHRMAP, instead of the current, ad hoc, individual landowner-led approaches. With the changes to the MU boundaries set out in point 1 above, the  integrated approach would now only apply to proposed to the most vulnerable section being MU08(B)  Marybrook/Siesta Park Central, and where many landowners have spent money on coastal protection in the past.

 


Detailed design and other work will be necessary to advance an integrated approach to coastal protection. If groynes and beach nourishment are seen as sufficient to protect property and assets in Marybrook/Siesta Park Central without necessarily needing a seawall, then there may be capacity to allow individual landowners to construct private seawalls if they wanted an additional level of protection.

 

For the proposed MU08(A) Marybrook West and MU09(B) Siesta Park East, infrastructure, buildings and the foreshore reserve are less vulnerable and an integrated approach is not necessary due to the relatively wide reserve. Erosion control would be through a combination of groynes, beach nourishment and seawalls as required (same as for Abbey where it is possible to do so, and most of the rest of the coast). 

 

Over the course of the next couple of decades, such an integrated approach will provide much more effective protection than current ad hoc, individual landowner-led approaches, and is likely to do so at lower overall cost – due to economies of scale, and the possibility that seawalls may not be required to the extent that would likely be required if protection was being done on a lot by lot basis.

 

In relation to proposed MU09(A) Siesta Park Holiday Resort, the City has had discussions with the landowner who is willing to prepare and implement an integrated coastal adaptation strategy (‘mini-CHRMAP’) for the MU.  

 

The direction for the abovementioned approaches also relates to changes proposed to fund coastal protection works, described under point 6 below. 

 

6.            Funding

The financial response is proposed to be removed from MU recommendations. For the most vulnerable parts of Marybrook/Siesta Park (proposed MU08a Marybrook/Siesta Park Central), and where an integrated erosion protection strategy is being recommended, a shared funding model (costs apportioned between State/Federal Government, City ratepayers and direct contribution from landowners) to fund works is proposed under the infrastructure/coastal management response.

 

For proposed MU09(A) Siesta Park Holiday Resort, the landowner would be responsible for funding coastal protection works, and funding contributions from the State through grants could be pursued.

 

7.            Use of beach and foreshore reserves

This is proposed as a new recommendation theme to be applied to all MUs in recognition of the value that our community places on using the beaches and foreshore areas and that these areas should be available and able to be used by the whole community. Protection also provides an opportunity to consider new or expanded infrastructure available for use by the whole community.  

 

8.            Shortening Siesta Park Groyne

It is proposed to not include this in the final CHRMAP. The maintenance of coastal protection structures is set out in the City’s Coastal Management Programme (2020 – 2030) and would be subject to coastal monitoring and modelling/investigation of potential adverse updrift and downdrift impacts, as well as community consultation.

 


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.

 

In addition, the final CHRMAP will guide the City and WAPC in the development and review of the City’s town planning scheme, which is adopted pursuant to powers established in the Planning and Development Act 2005.

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

The key policy considerations are set out in State Planning Policy 2.6 State Coastal Planning Policy (SPP2.6). SPP2.6 requires planning authorities to consider the potential impact of coastal processes on proposed development over a 100 year time horizon (i.e. if a decision is being made in 2021, through to 2121). SPP2.6 also sets out that planning authorities should assume an increase in mean sea level over that period of 0.9 metres.

 

SPP2.6 also sets out a hierarchy of coastal adaptation options to be considered in preparing CHRMAPs, as set out in clause 5.5 (iii) -

Where risk assessments identify a level of risk that is unacceptable to the affected community or proposed development, adaptation measures need to be prepared to reduce those risks down to acceptable or tolerable levels. Adaptation measures should be sought from the following coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning hierarchy on a sequential and preferential basis:

(1)       Avoid the presence of new development within an area identified to be affected by coastal hazards. Determination of the likely consequences of coastal hazards should be done in consideration of local conditions and in accordance with the guidelines provided in Schedule One.

(2)       Planned or Managed Retreat or the relocation or removal of assets within an area identified as likely to be subject to intolerable risk of damage from coastal hazards over the planning time frame.

(3)       If sufficient justification can be provided for not avoiding development of land that is at risk from coastal hazards then Accommodation adaptation measures should be provided that suitably address the identified risks. Such measures would involve design and/or management strategies that render the risks from the identified coastal hazards acceptable.

(4)       Where sufficient justification can be provided for not avoiding the use or development of land that is at risk from coastal hazards and accommodation measures alone cannot adequately address the risks from coastal hazards, then coastal Protection works may be proposed for areas where there is a need to preserve the foreshore reserve, public access and public safety, property and infrastructure that is not expendable.

 

SPP2.6 does not set out a particular process for the adoption of a CHRMAP. State planning policies in general, however, must be given due regard in the making of all planning decisions, including applications for development approval, applications for subdivision approval, assessments of structure plans or similar and, most importantly, in the making and amending of town planning schemes. The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is, for obvious reasons, aware of the coastal adaptation issues in the City, and it is likely that the CHRMAP and its recommendations will be very important to support the City’s new town planning scheme, currently under development (and as required by the WAPC). For that reason, officers are recommending that the City’s CHRMAP be sent to the WAPC for its formal consideration, ahead of the City’s new scheme also being forwarded to the WAPC.

Financial Implications

The financial implications of the implementation of the officer recommendation per se are not significant. The financial implications of addressing the issues that the CHRMAP seeks to address, however, will be very significant, especially in the medium to long term. There will also be increased costs in the nearer term, but strategies to meet some of those costs are set out in the CHRMAP itself and/or already identified and met through the City’s Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP). That includes the allocation of 2.0% of general rate revenue to coastal adaptation in the LTFP. It also includes recommendations of the CHRMAP to work with the State to identify an equitable, efficient and sustainable funding model for coastal adaptation.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

Consultation and engagement with the community and stakeholders has occurred throughout the CHRMAP project.  Early in 2018, the City engaged Advisian to prepare the draft CHRMAP Technical Assessment Report to inform the preparation of the CHRMAP. One of the initial tasks was the preparation of a Community and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy (CSES) in accordance with SPP2.6 Guidelines.

 

Consultation actions recommended in the CSES and undertaken prior to the four month advertising period for the CHRMAP included: a community coastal values survey (2018) and community information sessions held in Busselton and Dunsborough in March 2019 (focus on coastal hazard risk mapping, assets at risk, options and adaptation pathways to address coastal hazards and manage risk), as well as additional two hour informal ‘drop-in’ sessions preceding the community meetings.   

 

The Community Coastal Values Survey (2018) sought to –

·        Establish how the coastline is used and compare this with the values people espouse for the coastline.

·        Establish key values and what people feel should be protected and preserved from future erosion.

·        Establish whether the community understands the changes that are occurring on the coastline and the level of awareness of the City’s actions to manage coastal erosion.

·        Explore who the community feels should pay for the work required to reduce the impact of coastal erosion.

 

The survey found that the north facing beaches in the City are strongly valued by the community, with over half of those surveyed feeling that uninterrupted stretches of sandy beaches are a vital part of the character of Busselton and our social wellbeing. The most important coastal value cited was handing the coastal area onto our children and grandchildren in the same or better state than it is now. Other important values cited were -

·        Knowing that there are places on the coast that feel ‘natural’

·        Natural vegetation/habitat on foreshore and beach areas

·        Uninterrupted stretches of sandy beach to walk along

·        Heritage – historical features such as the Pioneer Cemetery or the Busselton Jetty

·        Safe swimming beaches

 


The survey established that a significant proportion of the community use our local beaches. Over 53% of respondents cited walking/jogging on the beach or foreshore at least once a week. Of those, 42% of respondents living in the western part of the City preferred remotely located parts of the beaches (this increased to 54% of respondents who lived in the eastern part of the City). Of all respondents, 22% cited using areas close to the Busselton ‘town beach’ or Old Dunsborough beach and remote beach areas for walking and/or jogging.

 

There was a high level of awareness of natural changes in the coastline over the year preceding the survey (62%) and 60% of respondents were aware that the City had taken action to stop or reduce impacts from coastal erosion over the previous five years (e.g. groynes, seawalls, beach nourishment and revegetation).

 

On the question of who should pay to mitigate coastal erosion impacts, 41% of respondents felt that the taxpayer should bear the cost, with the balance feeling that costs should be borne by all ratepayers in the City (29%) or the private landowners/businesses most affected (30%).

 

 Advertising of the CHRMAP

The CHRMAP was advertised for four months between 21 May and 28 September 2021 and a Schedule of Submissions is provided at Attachment E. Eleven agency and 62 public submissions were received.  Long public submissions and/or multiple submissions provided by a landowner are identified by a submission number, with a list of key issues raised, in Attachment E, with a copy of each submission provided in full in Attachment F. The consultation process and general matters raised in submissions are described below, followed by further detail on the substantive issues raised.

 

The initial consultation period was 21 May – 23 July 2021 during which time a number of staffed displays, presentations (both online and in person), community information sessions and other forms of communication and engagement in regard to the project were coordinated and conducted by the City, as follows –

·        Media release and regular social media updates, including the Mayor’s Message

·        Weekly newspaper notices (‘City Connect’)

·        Two Bay to Bay articles

·        Correspondence to community based groups and industry associations

·        Direct mail out to registered landowners in Marybrook and Siesta Park

·        Static information displays in the City of Busselton Administration Building and the Naturaliste Leisure Centre

·        Staffed information displays at the Busselton Central and Dunsborough Centrepoint shopping centres

·        Two community information sessions (City of Busselton Administration Building on 27 May 2021 with 21 attendees and John Edwards Pavilion, Dunsborough with 19 attendees) – powerpoint presentation providing overview of the CHRMAP process, findings of the Community Coastal Values Survey, potential legal/liability implications, methods of advocacy, existing coastal management and protection works by City, application of SPP2.6 and adaptation hierarchy, CHRMAP recommendations and Q&A

·        4 online information sessions

 


Following significant levels of interest and concern expressed to the City by landowners in Marybrook and Siesta Park, the consultation period was extended to 26 August 2021. A community information session specifically for these landowners was convened by the City on 5 August, with approximately 50 persons attending. The format was an overview of the CHRMAP process and then focus on the Marybrook Siesta Park coast (presenting various data, historical trends, images and mapping) along with specific recommendations for the two management units and how/why these differed from the recommendations for most of the coast. General matters/questions raised by attendees were –

 

1.         Proposed funding options:

·        Why should we pay a SAR?

·        Why should we be singled out and burdened?

·        Will other areas be subject to a SAR?

·        Unfair to be treated differently to the rest of the coast

·        A more nuanced approach is needed

2.         Integrated design and development response:

·        Why is there a difference in FFL’s (3.8m AHD) for our area and 3.0m AHD elsewhere? Is the 3.8m AHD flexible?

·        Uncertainty around submitting development applications until the FFL is certain/is it too late to amend a current DA to go to a higher FFL?

·        Most landowners have private insurance and are comfortable with perceived levels of risk

3.         Climate science, sea level rise and coastal process:

·        Data modelling for the CHRMAP is more than 10 years old

·        Scepticism around projected 0.9m sea level rise over 100 years

·        Dynamic coastline, lots of accretion evident – so how can predictions be made over such a long time?

 

An outcome of this community information session was the request to extend the consultation period to 28 September 2021 to allow for another more science-based session with expert information and advice on the more specialised matters of coastal science, coastal management and engineering and to address related questions/concerns by landowners. The request was prompted by the numerous questions on climate change, sea level rise and coastal mechanics. Co-presenters at the follow up session were specialist coastal consultants Dr Matt Eliot (presentation on climate and coastal science) and Stuart Barr (presentation on coastal protection – engineering and infrastructure – with an emphasis on the City’s 10 year coastal management programme).

 

General and substantive issues raised in submissions

General points raised in submissions (summarised) –

1.         Broad recognition of risks associated coastal hazards and the need to address how those risks might be managed as a matter of priority.

2.         Development of the CHRMAP viewed as a positive step in response to this important issue for the City.

3.         Protect was favoured over managed retreat – less cost to ratepayers and less impact on environmental values.

4.         Support to protect and retain a useable beach and foreshore.

5.         Support for shared funding, including State contributions, but those at most risk/direct beneficiary should contribute more.

6.         Support for minimum finished floor levels for habitable floor space.

7.         Climate change/sea level rise scepticism, hazard modelling too conservative/out of date, inherent uncertainty over 100 years to be making decisions today.

8.         Inadequate consultation with Marybrook and Siesta Park landowners.

9.         Support for the emergency management response for Marybrook and Siesta Park management units.

10.       Impacts of new groynes on the beach in front of properties.

 

Substantive issues raised in submissions -

1.         Boundaries of MU08 Marybrook and MU09 Siesta Park management units – a more nuanced approach to boundary selection in this area is needed to reflect the variation in beach and foreshore reserve widths (and therefore the level of risk to assets to 2040), with refined recommendations/response for each to manage risk.

2.         Distribution of costs and benefits – significant objection to the direction for Marybrook and Siesta Park (option for long term managed retreat) being different to that for the remainder of the coast. The same direction of protect should be set out, equivalent to other management units. Adverse impact on current and future property values, uncertainty over development/capital improvements, insurance premiums and ability to sell properties. Negative impacts of long term retreat on the coastal environment/habitat values.

3.         Finished floor levels - 3.8m AHD for habitable floor space – some support, but a greater level of objection. The applicability of a higher FFL to this part of the coast, but lower elsewhere questioned. Query - scope to reduce the minimum FFL or be treated the same as other management units also raised.

4.         Planning controls: ceding of land/development approval for all development/time limited development approvals/prohibit private coastal protection structures – significant objection relating to point 2 above.

5.         Infill subdivision/development density – some support, but a greater level of objection.

6.         Integrated approach to erosion protection - some support (recognising current piecemeal approach), but a greater level of objection. A number of private seawalls are already in place, at no cost to the City, and landowners are of the view that they have the right to protect private assets.

7.         Funding - Specified Area Rate to fully fund protection to 2040 – some support, but a greater level of objection (unfair, inequitable, should be treated the same as remaining management units).

8.         Use of beach, access and foreshore areas – strong contention that the Marybrook/Siesta Park coast is used by, and accessible to, the general public and is an asset to the broader community.

9.         Shortening Siesta Park groyne – objection to this option being foreshadowed in the CHRMAP.

 


Consultation after advertising the CHRMAP

·    Following advertising, a site meeting was held in Marybrook/Siesta Park with landowners, Councillors and City staff in November 2021.

·    The Geographe Bay Coastal Action Group (GBCAG) was formed and represent approximately 60 landowners in the MB/SP area. A working group comprised of five members acting as a committee on behalf of GBCAG, two Councillors and City staff was convened to discuss matters arising from the advertised CHRMAP. The working group met on four occasions to discuss potential changes to the advertised CHRMAP.

·    CHRMAP Steering Group was consulted on potential changes – with broad support.

·    A public information session was held on 12 May 2022 for Marybrook and Siesta Park landowners on the potential changes to the advertised CHRMAP – broad support indicated for potential changes.

·    Final meeting with GBCAG to provide final comments/seek clarification following public information session.

·    Separate consultation with the landowners of the Siesta Park Holiday Resort on the proposal for the landholding north of Caves Road to form its own management unit (MU09a), with a tailored planning response recommendation and funding model.

·    Potential changes to CHRMAP recommendations provided to GBCAG for final comments.

 

The GBCAG has indicated that intends to remain active as a community group representing the landowners of Siesta Park and Marybrook into the future and to be involved and consulted on the implementation of the CHRMAP, including coastal protection and future planning policies/scheme amendments that may affect landowners in this area.

 

Implementation of some of the recommendations of the CHRMAP are likely to require amendments to the local planning scheme and development of local planning policy. There are statutory requirements to advertise and consult with the community as part of the development of those planning actions, and consultation with GBCAG will occur as part of those processes. Engagement and consultation with landowners and the GBCAG will be necessary in relation to implementing an integrated approach to coastal protection, as per the process set out earlier in this report. 

 

Risk Assessment

The City’s risk management framework is not suited to assessment of risks associated with a planning document with such a long time horizon (i.e. 100 years), and where the potential financial risks over that period are so significant (i.e. according to the financial model, upwards of $1.6B). The CHRMAP process, however, is inherently a risk identification and assessment process, and has sought to identify the long-term strategy with the lowest overall risk to the City, using a framework and approach tailored to the situation and the key strategic and policy questions requiring consideration.

 

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could:

1.         Not adopt the CHRMAP for final endorsement; or

2.         Require further changes before adopting the CHRMAP for final endorsement.

 

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

 

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the Council adopt the CHRMAP for final endorsement, subject to the recommended changes, and subsequent referral to the WAPC. Adoption of a final CHRMAP will enable the commencement of further work needed to implement recommendations (to be set out by the preparation of an implementation plan) such as changes to the planning framework, grant funding applications (i.e. Coastwest and the Coastal Management Plan Assistance Programme) which would need to commence in the last quarter of this year ahead of funding programmes commencing early next year (which require approved CHRMAPs in order to be eligible), and commencement of work on integrated approaches for erosion protection.  

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Should the Council adopt the CHRMAP for final approval, it is envisaged that it could take up to around six to eight weeks to edit the document in accordance with the recommendation of the Council and prepare it to a presentation standard. Referral of the final CHRMAP to the Western Australian Planning Commission would likely occur in September 2022.


Council

236

27 July 2022

13.1

Attachment a

Draft Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan (2021)

 










































































































































Council

238

27 July 2022

13.1

Attachment b

Proposed general and management unit recommendations

 

























Council

262

27 July 2022

13.1

Attachment c

Inland minimum finished floor level maps

 



Council

266

27 July 2022

13.1

Attachment d

Revised boundaries for Marybrook & Siesta Park management units

 





Council

288

27 July 2022

13.1

Attachment e

Schedule of submissions

 























Council

339

27 July 2022

13.1

Attachment f

Long submissions

 










































































































































































































































 


Council                                                                                      525                                                                     27 July 2022

14.             Engineering and Work Services Report

14.1           NAMING PORT GEOGRAPHE CANALS, COVES AND PARKS

STRATEGIC THEME

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

2.1 Recognise, respect and support community diversity and cultural heritage.

SUBJECT INDEX

Naming of Places

BUSINESS UNIT

Engineering and Technical Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager, Engineering and Technical Services - Daniell Abrahamse

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director, Engineering and Works Services - Oliver Darby

NATURE OF DECISION

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

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Plan of Port Geographe Coves and Park Names

Attachment b    1.8.1 Consulting with the Community (Landgate Policy)

Attachment c    Public Consultation Comments  

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

1.       Supports the selected names list in the officer comment section of this report for the various canals, coves and parks in the Port Geographe area; and

 

2.       Submit a formal request to Landgate requesting the naming of the various parks, canals and coves as per the Plan of Port Geographe Cove and Park Names (Attachment A).

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the outcome of a request from the Port Geographe Land Owners Association to name various Port Geographe canals, coves and parks and the subsequent consultation with the owners and occupiers immediately adjacent to the affected areas of the proposal.

 

This report recommends proceeding with the naming proposal outlined in the Plan of Port Geographe Coves and Park Names (Attachment A).

 

BACKGROUND

The City received a request from the Port Geographe Land Owners Association (PGLOA) at the end of 2021 to officially name the waterways and parks of the Port Geographe area, including a list of proposed names.

 

The City contacted the Department of Transport (DoT) to clarify there would be no objection to the City naming the canals, coves and parks within Port Geographe.  The DoT advised they had no objection to the naming proposal.

 

City officers also contacted Landgate seeking guidance on the naming of canal, coves and parks in Port Geographe and the advice received was that the naming of these areas must follow Landgate’s Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia.

 

City officers met with representatives from PGLOA in December 2021, and from this meeting and subsequent discussions, a final list of proposed names that conform to Landgate’s Policies and Standards has been developed.

OFFICER COMMENT

The request to name the waters ways and parks in the Port Geographe area provides benefits in relation to communications such as postal and news services; emergency service response; and tourism and assisting visitors to the area. The following is a list of the proposed names as suggested by the PGLOA and which meet the criteria set out by Landgate.

 

PGLOA Canals

PGLOA Parks

A. Grand Canal

1 Spinnaker Park

B. Geographe Quay

2. Marina Park

C. Windjammer Canal

3. Dolphin Park

D. Helm Canal

4. Keel Park

E. Yardarm Canal

5. Woodhenge Park

F. Leeward Canal

6. Layman Park

G. Foremast Canal

7. Circle Park

H. Fathom Canal

8. Footbridge Park

I. Mizzen Canal

9. Burgee Park

J. Trysail Canal

10. Tallwood Park

K. Pearler Canal

11. Pebble Park

Coves

12. Seahorse Park

L. Lagoon Cove

13. Portage Park

M. Galley Cove

14. Cutter Park

O. Anchor Cove

15. Transom Park

 

16 Geographe Beach Park

 

The Minister for Lands has the authority to name Crown Land and features, on the request from a Local Government.

 

Statutory Environment

The Land Administration Act 1997 provides that the Minister for Lands (the Minister) has the authority for officially naming and un-naming all local parks and recreational reserves in Western Australia.

 

Through delegated authority, Landgate acts on the Minister’s behalf to undertake administrative responsibilities, including the development of policies and procedures required for the formal approval of local parks and recreational reserve names.

 

Relevant Plans and Policies

The officer recommendation aligns to Council Policy: Naming of City Roads and Assets.

 

Financial Implications

Signage for the new names will be installed at various locations. Aluminium signs will be placed on the canal walls and Replas park signage, signs made from recycled plastic, for the parks.

 

The cost for signage is estimated at $7,000, to be funded from the 2022/23 Port Geographe General Improvements Foreshore budget.

 


Stakeholder Consultation

In accordance with Landgate Naming Policy – Section 1.8.1 - Consulting with the Community (Attachment B), the City undertook public consultation with the “immediate community” ie owner / occupiers adjacent to the affected areas for the proposed naming.

 

A total of 557 letters were distributed with a map showing the area for the naming on the Thursday 28 April 2022 with a closing date for comments of Wednesday 25 May 2022 (Attachment C).

 

As a result of this distribution 6 responses were received, with many of the comments suggesting alternative naming for the canals, coves and parks which had previously been put to and rejected by Landgate.

 

Risk Assessment

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

Options

As an alternative to the Officer Recommendation Council may recommend alternative names, request further consultation or for reject the proposal.

 

CONCLUSION

The City has received a proposal from PGLOA to name various parks, canals and coves in the Port Geographe area. It is recommended that the Council supports the naming selection as per the Plan at Attachment A and submit this to Landgate for final approval.

 

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Should Council endorse the naming of Port Geographe Canals, Coves and Parks, officers will submit the recommendation to Landgate to process the request for naming as per the State Land Administration Act procedures.


Council

526

27 July 2022

14.1

Attachment a

Plan of Port Geographe Coves and Park Names

 


Council

527

27 July 2022

14.1

Attachment b

1.8.1 Consulting with the Community (Landgate Policy)

 


Council

532

27 July 2022

14.1

Attachment c

Public Consultation Comments

 





 


Council                                                                                      533                                                                     27 July 2022

15.             Community and Commercial Services Report

Nil


Council                                                                                      537                                                                     27 July 2022

16.             Finance and Corporate Services Report

16.1           LOCKE ESTATE CAMPSITE 16 LEASE

STRATEGIC THEME

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

1.2 Work with the community to manage and enhance natural areas and reserves and their biodiversity.

SUBJECT INDEX

Locke Estate

BUSINESS UNIT

Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Leasing and Property Officer - Julie Oates

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Manager Legal and Property Services - Ben Whitehill

NATURE OF DECISION

Choose an item.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Campsite 16 Lease Plan  

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council

1.         Enter into a lease with The Legacy Club of Western Australian Incorporated subject to the consent of the Minister for Lands for the occupation of a portion of Reserve 22674, Lot 5303, Deposited Plan 220583; Volume LR3088, Folio 423, Caves Road, Siesta Park as indicated in Attachment A, on the following terms and conditions  

(a)       The term of the lease commencing no later than 1 October 2022 and expiring on the 30 November 2032;

(b)       The annual rent to commence at $2,500.00 plus GST with annual rent increase of CPI or 3% whichever is greater;

(c)       For up to the first 6 years of the term of the lease the lessee is required to pay Council $4,000 per annum to be placed in an interest bearing Reserve for future coastal works adjoining the Locke Estate;

(d)       The lease being consistent with the City’s standard Locke Estate lease agreement; and

(e)       All costs for the preparation of the lease to be met by the lessee.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Campsite 16 at the Locke Estate has been vacant since 2019. This report recommends that Council enter into a lease with The Legacy Club of Western Australian Incorporated (Legacy) for Campsite 16 at Locke Estate.

BACKGROUND

Reserve 22674, Lot 5303, Caves Road, Siesta Park, also known as the Locke Estate, is an 'A class' crown reserve vested with the City of Busselton (City) for the designated purpose of ‘Recreational Camp Sites and Group Holiday Accommodation’.

The Locke Estate consists of sixteen campsites. Fifteen of the campsites are currently leased and operated by various not-for-profit organisations. Council recently resolved to enter into a lease with South-West Aboriginal Medical Service Aboriginal Corporation for campsite 7 following an expression of interest process. Meanwhile campsite 16, the subject of this report, remains vacant.

Campsite 16 was leased between 2016 and 2019 by the Grand Lodge of Western Australian Freemasons Homes for the Aged Incorporated (Masonic Care). The lease was surrendered by Masonic Care in 2019. Since then the campsite has been managed by the City.

Unoccupied campsites have typically been leased by an Expression of Interest (EoI) process with applications assessed against detailed selection criteria designed to assess a prospective lessees’ ability to meet the lease purpose and terms relevant to the Locke Estate campsite. The selection criteria were reviewed in 2015 (C1506/155).

 

Campsite 16 has limited development potential due to a lack of existing infrastructure, high bushfire risk, small development zone and a small lease term of approximately 10 years.

 

Due to the constraints Council have considered several options for Campsite 16 including:

·    Seeking EoI’s for the campsite;

·    Retaining all or part of the campsite for community use;

·    Leasing all or part of campsite to Legacy who currently lease the adjoining campsite 15.

Following discussions officers were requested to explore leasing Campsite 16 to Legacy.

OFFICER COMMENT

Legacy cares for the families of Australian Defence Force men and women who have lost their lives or their health as a result of their service. Legacy currently uses campsite 15 to support the partners and children of veterans.

 

Legacy has held its current lease of campsite 15 since 2011 but have occupied the campsite for a significantly longer period with the majority of the infrastructure built after the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. During this time they have demonstrated their capability to manage the campsite both logistically and financially.

 

In 2021 Legacy were given a temporary approval to use Campsite 16 as an overflow camping area as part of the annual Legacy Ward Camp. Legacy has indicated that their use of Campsite 16 will be for tent camping in the proposed area with guests utilising Legacy’s current building assets including ablution block, kitchen utilities and check in office (all located on campsite 15).

 

The benefits of offering the lease of Campsite 16 to Legacy are:

1.    Legacy will be able to leverage off the existing infrastructure on campsite 15 reducing the development cost and burden otherwise associated with the constrained campsite; and

2.    all Locke Estate campsites will be leased reducing the City’s management costs and responsibility.

Legacy have been provided with a draft lease for Campsite 16 and understand the constraints of the campsite. They have indicated a willingness to enter into a lease on the proposed lease terms and conditions.

 

Proposed Lease terms and conditions

The proposed lease terms and conditions are consistent with the City’s standard Locke Estate Lease Agreement and include the following:

·    a term of approximately 10 years expiring on the 30 November 2032;

·    an annual rent to commence at $2,500.00 plus GST with annual rent increase of CPI or 3% whichever is greater;

·    a requirement to pay an annual coastal protection contribution of $4,000 for up to the first 6 years or a lesser amount if determined by the City.

 


Consideration of alternatives

As an alternative to leasing to Legacy the City could seek EoI’s. Since early 2021 the City has conducted three EoI’s for campsite 7 and received a limited number of proposals. Campsite 16 is significantly more constrained from a development perspective than campsite 7. Unless development constraints are removed it is unlikely that seeking EoI’s will receive viable development proposals.

 

Similarly retaining Campsite 16 for community use is not viable because it is not consistent with the reserve purpose being “Recreational Camp Sites and Group Holiday Accommodation”. Furthermore if retained by the City there is no budget for any capital works and the City would continue to incur ongoing costs associated with the maintenance of the campsite.

Statutory Environment

Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 (LGA) sets out the process for how a local government can dispose of property.

 

Exemptions exist to the processes outlined in s 3.58 of the LGA. Relevantly reg 30(2)(b) of the Local Government (Functions & General) Regulations 1996 states that if land is disposed to a body (incorporated or not) with the objects that are of a charitable, benevolent, religious, cultural, educational, recreational, sporting or other like nature and where the members of which are not entitled or permitted to receive any pecuniary profit from the body’s transactions it will be excluded from the application of s 3.58 of the LGA.

 

Section 18 of the Land Administration Act 1997 requires the approval of the Minister for Lands for a lease on a crown reserve.

Relevant Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

Rent will commence at $2,500 per annum plus GST with annual rent increases of CPI or 3%, whichever is greater. A contribution of $4,000 per annum from the Lessee for coastal protection works for up to a maximum of 6 years is also required and will be transferred to the Locke Estate Reserve.

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Risk Assessment

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

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could:

1.         Resolve to retain Campsite 16.

2.         Resolve to seek expressions of interest for Campsite 16.

CONCLUSION

Legacy have agreed to enter into the terms of the lease as outlined in the Officer Recommendation and be able to development the campsite in a short period of time.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

It is anticipated that the lease will commence on or before 1 October 2022. Legacy would be required to submit a development application within 12 months of the commencement date and commence any significant building works within 3 years.


Council

538

27 July 2022

16.1

Attachment a

Campsite 16 Lease Plan

 


Council                                                                                      541                                                                     27 July 2022

16.2           CEO RESIGNATION AND VEHICLE DISPOSITION

STRATEGIC THEME

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Employment

BUSINESS UNIT

Corporate Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle

NATURE OF DECISION

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

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Valuation  

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That the Council, with respect to Mr Michael Archer’s resignation from his position of Chief Executive Officer:

1.         Thanks Mr Archer for his dedicated service to the City of Busselton for the past 12 years;

2.         Endorses his requested notice period and his final date of employment as 19th August 2022; and

3.         Authorises disposal of Vehicle Registration Number BSN59BA, a Mazda CX9, to Mr Michael Archer for $34,046 exclusive of GST, subject to the City satisfying the requirements of  s3.58(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA).

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks to formalise the Chief Executive Officers resignation and notice period, in addition to seeking council approval for the disposal of his current city provided motor vehicle, in accordance with his contract and the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act).

 

BACKGROUND

Mr Michael Archer commenced employment with the City on 9 August 2010. His current contract of employment expires on 28 July 2023.

Mr Archer provided notice of his resignation from his position on Friday 8 July 2022, having been offered the position of CEO at Shellharbour City Council in NSW. In resigning Mr Archer noted that it was with ‘a tinge of sadness’ that he tender his resignation after nearly 12 years but that he had been offered an exciting opportunity to further his career in a larger regional council in a different legislative environment.  He also noted that ‘the right time to move on, with most of what I came to Busselton to achieve (on behalf of successive Councils) having been completed or on the way to being realised’.

Mr Archer’s contract of employment stipulates a notice period of three months, however Mr Archer has requested a reduced notice period of six weeks. His last day would be Friday 19 August 2022.

 

In relation to his motor vehicle, the contract provides for Mr Archer to request, and the City to agree, to Mr Archer purchasing his vehicle at its depreciated value, subject to complying with the Act.

OFFICER COMMENT

The Council is requested to formally resolve on Mr Archer’s requested period of notice, and his final day of employment as 19 August 2022.

 

The Council is also requested to formally agree to dispose to Mr Archer his current motor vehicle – a Mazda CX9, registration number BSN59BA - at its depreciated value of $34,045.79.  It should be noted that the provision of a vehicle to the CEO for private use has been accounted for within his employment package, with the CEO having paid $25,000 for the vehicle through his package since 2019.

 

The car is nearly 3 years old, with a market value according to Redbook of $52,850 for a private sale, based on the condition of the car being very good and kilometres of 57,586.  Trade in value by comparison is $46,050. 

 

It is also likely that, if a vehicle is offered as part of the package for a new CEO, they would be provided with option of a new vehicle. 

 

It is therefore recommended that the Council resolve to dispose of the vehicle to Mr Archer at its depreciated value – as per the contract of employment, and subject to local public notice of the proposed disposition being advertised in accordance with Section 3.58(3) of the Act. 

Statutory Environment

The relevant clause of Mr Archer’s contract reads:

“Upon termination of employment you may request and the City may agree that you can purchase the motor vehicle currently allocated to you at its depreciated value subject to complying with all relevant sections of the Act”

Section 3.58 of the Act relates to the disposal of property by local government.  It enables a local government to dispose of property:

·        To the highest bidder at public auction;

·        By way of a public tender process; or

·        By giving local public notice of the proposed disposition and following the public consultation process as prescribed by s 3.58(3) of the Act.

 

Local public notice of the disposition must include:

·        A description of the property concerned;

·        Details of the proposed disposition (including names of the parties concerned; the consideration to be received and the market value of the disposition); and

·        An invitation for submissions to be made before a date to be specified in the notice, being not less than 2 weeks after the notice is first given.


Relevant Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

As noted above Mr Archer’s contract of employment provides for the disposal of his vehicle at its depreciated value.  Given this is lower than the market value, it will have some financial impact on the Plant Reserve. 

Stakeholder Consultation

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

Risk Assessment

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

Options

As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could:

1.         Request the CEO to provide a longer notice period; and / or

2.         Not agree to dispose of the motor vehicle; and / or

3.         Not agree to dispose of the motor vehicle at its depreciated value as per the contract and instead seek market value.

CONCLUSION

Mr Archer has served for 12 years as the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Busselton and during that time has successfully led the organisation through a period of significant growth and development.  It is recommended that the Council endorse Mr Archer’s requested notice period and that, in accordance with the contract, agree to the disposal of his current motor vehicle to him, subject to the provision of local public notice.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

If the officer recommendation is endorsed local public notice will be given as soon as is practicable.  


Council

542

27 July 2022

16.2

Attachment a

Valuation

 

 


Council                                                                                      545                                                                     27 July 2022

17.             Chief Executive Officers Report

17.1           COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN

STRATEGIC THEME

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY

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

SUBJECT INDEX

Councillors' Information Bulletin

BUSINESS UNIT

Executive Services

REPORTING OFFICER

Reporting Officers - Various

AUTHORISING OFFICER

Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer

NATURE OF DECISION

Noting: The item is simply for information purposes and noting

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment a   Community Assistance Program - Round Six  

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

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

17.1.1       Minor Donations Program – June 2022

17.1.2       Community Assistance Program

17.1.3       Current Active Tenders

 

 

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 – June 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.

 


Two applications were approved in June 2022, totaling $1,400, as outlined below:

 

Recipient

Purpose

Amount

Dunsborough and Districts Progress Association;

and

The Lions Club of Vasse

Assistance to cover the cost of a Traffic Handling Course.

The groups formed a partnership to hold this course for their volunteers.

It will equip them with the knowledge and skills to undertake traffic handling at community events, saving the groups from having to pay traffic management companies, and allowing them to re-direct their funds to other community projects.

 

$700 per group

June Total

 

$1,400

 

17.1.2       Community Assistance Program

Attachment A outlines the applications received and funded in Round Six of the Community Assistance Program.

17.1.3       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 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. 

·        An evaluation panel is reviewing the submissions.

·        The value of the contract falls 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.

·        Nine submissions were received and are currently being assessed.

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

RFT 05/22 AIRPORT – CARPARK EXPANSION

·        Requirements – a suitable supplier to construct a new carpark at Busselton Margaret River Airport. 

·        A request for tender was advertised on 4 June 2022, closing on 28 June 2022. 

·        Six compliant submissions were received.

·        The value of the contract exceeds the CEO’s delegated power for accepting tenders and a report to Council to decide on which tender to accept is expected to be presented at the 17 August 2022 council meeting.   

 

PQS 01/22 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SERVICES

·        Requirements – a panel of pre-qualified suppliers to supply the City’s ongoing traffic management services.

·        A request for applications was advertised on 28 May 2022, closing on 16 June 2022.

·        Four submissions were received and City Officers are in the process of reviewing the applications.

·        The CEO has delegated power to appoint contractors to panels of pre-qualified suppliers.

 

PQS 02/22 SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF PRE-MIXED CONCRETE

·        Requirements – a panel of pre-qualified suppliers to supply the City’s ongoing requirements for pre-mixed concrete. 

·        A request for applications was advertised on 11 June 2022, closing on 7 July 2022.

·        Two applications were received and City Officers are in the process of reviewing the applications.

·        The CEO has delegated power to appoint contractors to panels of pre-qualified suppliers.

 

RFT 06/22 AIRPORT – BMRA Transportable buildings

·        Requirements – a suitable supplier to construct up to three transportable buildings at Busselton Margaret River Airport. 

·        A request for tender was advertised on 2 July 2022, closing on 21 July 2022. 

·        The value of the contract is not expected to exceed the CEO’s delegated power for accepting tenders.

 

RFT 07/22 Dunsborough Waste Facility – Landfill Liner Cell 2

·        Requirements – a suitable supplier to supply and install a new landfill liner at Dunsborough Waste Facility, Cell 2.   

·        A request for tender was advertised on 13 July 2022, closing on 3 August 2022. 

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

 

PQS 03/22 SUPPLY QUARRY PRODUCTS

·        Requirements – a panel of pre-qualified suppliers to supply the City’s ongoing requirements for quarry products. 

·        A request for applications was advertised on 16 July 2022, closing on 4 August 2022.

·        The CEO has delegated power to appoint contractors to panels of pre-qualified suppliers.


Council

546

27 July 2022

17.1

Attachment a

Community Assistance Program - Round Six

 

 


Council                                                                                      547                                                                     27 July 2022

18.             Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given

Nil

 

19.             urgent business

 

20.             Confidential Matters

Nil 

 

21.             Closure