CITY OF BUSSELTON FOR THE COUNCIL … note: These minutes are yet to be confirmed as a true record...

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

CITY OF BUSSELTON

MINUTES FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 25 FEBRUARY 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM NO. SUBJECT PAGE NO.

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS .................................................... 3

2. ATTENDANCE .................................................................................................................................. 3

3. PRAYER ........................................................................................................................................... 3

4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME .................................................................................................................. 4

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice .................................................................................. 4

Public Question Time .............................................................................................................................. 4

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS WITHOUT DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 4

Announcements by the Presiding Member ............................................................................................ 4

Announcements by other Members at the invitation of the Presiding Member ................................... 4

6. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ............................................................................................. 4

7. PETITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ..................................................................................................... 4

8. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS .............................................................................................................. 5

9. CONFIRMATION AND RECEIPT OF MINUTES .................................................................................... 5

Previous Council Meetings ...................................................................................................................... 5

9.1 Minutes of the Council held on 11 February 2015 .............................................................. 5

9.2 Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting held 5 February 2015 .................................... 5

9.3 Minutes of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee meeting held 10 February 2015 ....................................................................................................................... 6

ADOPTION BY EXCEPTION RESOLUTION .................................................................................................... 6

10. REPORTS OF COMMITTEE .............................................................................................................. 60

10.1 Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – NOVEMBER 2014 ............ 60

10.2 Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – DECEMBER 2014 ............. 60

10.3 Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 DECEMBER 2014 .............................................................................................. 60

10.4 Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ 2014/15 BUDGET AMENDMENT WONNERUP COASTAL FORESHORE MANAGEMENT PLAN...................................................................... 60

10.5 Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ GEOGRAPHE LEISURE CENTRE NEW FEES AND CHARGES ‐ 2014‐15 FINANCIAL YEAR ............................ 60

10.6 Meelup Regional Park Management Committee ‐ 10/02/2015 ‐ MEELUP BEACH CARPARK ............................................................................................................................. 61

11. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT ........................................................................ 65

11.1 AMENDMENT No. 7 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME No. 21 ‐ REZONING LOT 376 KENT STREET AND LOT 309 PRINCE STREET, BUSSELTON FROM 'RESERVE FOR RECREATION' TO 'BUSINESS' ‐ CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION FOR FINAL

Council 2 25 February 2015

APPROVAL ........................................................................................................................... 65

11.2 AMENDMENT No. 2 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME No. 21 ‐ INTRODUCTION OF A SPECIAL PROVISION AREA TO PERMIT AN UNRESTRICTED LENGTH OF STAY ‐ FORTE CAPE VIEW APARTMENTS ‐ CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL ........................................................................................................................... 65

11.3 DA14/0506: PROPOSED NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL : LOT 1 CORNERSTONE WAY, QUEDJINUP ......................................................................................................................... 65

12. ENGINEERING AND WORKS SERIVICES REPORT .............................................................................. 65

13. COMMUNITY AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES REPORT ...................................................................... 65

13.1 BUSSELTON FORESHORE REDEVELOPMENT: HOTEL/SHORT‐STAY ACCOMMODATION PRECINCT ............................................................................................ 65

14. FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT ............................................................................... 65

14.1 AMENDMENT OF THE CITY OF BUSSELTON DOGS LOCAL LAW 2014 ............................... 65

15. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS’ REPORT ............................................................................................. 66

15.1 PROPOSED NAMING OF NEW ROADS, BUSSELTON FORESHORE ....................................... 66

15.2 COUNCILLORS’ INFORMATION BULLETIN ........................................................................... 75

LATE ITEMS ............................................................................................................................................. 75

16. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ............................................................. 81

17. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS................................................................................................................ 81

17.1 PROPOSED TERMINATION OF SUBLEASE I126939 GRANTED TO DA & JL COUCH IN RESPECT OF THE ICE CREAM KIOSK AT THE BUSSELTON FORESHORE ........................... 81

18. QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS ........................................................................................................ 81

19. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ................................................................................................................ 81

20. NEXT MEETING DATE ..................................................................................................................... 81

21. CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................................... 81


MINUTES

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BUSSELTON CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SOUTHERN DRIVE, BUSSELTON, ON 25 FEBRUARY 2015 AT 5.30PM .

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Presiding Member open the meeting at 5.37pm.

2. ATTENDANCE

Presiding Member: Members:

Cr Ian Stubbs Mayor Cr Grant Henley Cr John McCallum Cr Tom Tuffin Cr Gordon Bleechmore Cr Rob Bennett Cr Coralie Tarbotton Cr Jenny Green Cr Terry Best

Officers: Mrs Naomi Searle, Acting Chief Executive Officer Mr Oliver Darby, Director, Engineering and Works Services Mr Paul Needham, Director, Planning and Development Services Mr Matthew Smith, Director, Finance and Corporate Services Mrs Maxine Palmer, Acting Director, Community and Commercial Services Miss Lynley Rich, Manager, Governance Services Mrs Katie Banks, Administration Officer, Governance Apologies Mr Mike Archer, Chief Executive Officer Approved Leave of Absence Nil Media: “Busselton‐Dunsborough Times” “Busselton‐Dunsborough Mail” Public: 3

3. PRAYER

The prayer was delivered by Pastor Thomas Cooper from the Freedom Church.


4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice At the 28 January 2015 Council meeting, Councillor Tuffin asked the following question which was taken on notice: Cr Tuffin: What’s happening with the Ambergate Hall and Pistol Club? What are the City’s plans with the hall? Response, Director, Finance and Corporate Services – Matthew Smith: The Busselton Pistol Club (BPC) are in occupation of the Ambergate Hall site on a month by month lease. The BPC are conducting indoor shooting only from this site in the shed attached to the hall. The BPC do not have access to Ambergate Hall itself. The Hall was closed several years ago due to its poor condition resulting in a structural assessment which assessed it as unsafe. The BPC are currently working with the City to identify an alternative site they can relocate to. The BPC’s preferred option is the Old Ruabon Tip Site and consultation is currently ongoing with the BPC and the Department of Environment regarding use of the site. There have been a number of alternatives considered, and considerable consultation undertaken to try to find a suitable, compliant site. Once a suitable site has been identified and found to be suitable, a report will be presented to Council for its consideration. It is also likely at this point that recommendations will be made regarding the removal of buildings and infrastructure on the Ambergate Hall site.

Public Question Time Nil

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Announcements by the Presiding Member Nil

Announcements by other Members at the invitation of the Presiding Member Nil

6. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

COUNCIL DECISION C1502/026 Moved Councillor G Henley, seconded Councillor T Tuffin

That leave of absence be granted to Councillor Coralie Tarbotton and Councillor John McCallum for the 11 March meeting of Council.

CARRIED 9/0

7. PETITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

Nil


8. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS

Nil

9. CONFIRMATION AND RECEIPT OF MINUTES

Previous Council Meetings

9.1 Minutes of the Council held on 11 February 2015

COUNCIL DECISION C1502/027 Moved Councillor J McCallum, seconded Councillor G Henley

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 11 February 2015 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED 9/0

Committee Meetings

9.2 Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting held 5 February 2015

COUNCIL DECISION C1502/028 Moved Councillor G Bleechmore, seconded Councillor T Best

1) That the minutes of a meeting of the Finance Committee held on 5 February 2015

be received.

2) That the Council notes the outcomes of the Finance Committee meeting held on 5 February 2015 being:

a) The Committee noted the Information Bulletin – November 2014 b) The List of Payments Made –November 2014 Item is presented for Council

consideration at Item 10.1 of this agenda c) The List of Payments Made – December 2014 Item is presented for Council

consideration at Item 10.2 of this agenda d) The Committee noted the Information Bulletin – December 2014 e) The Financial Activity Statements – Period Ending 31 December 2015 Item is

presented for Council consideration at Item 10.3 of this agenda f) The 2014/15 Budget Amendment Wonnerup Coastal Foreshore Management

Plan Item is presented for Council consideration at item 10.4 of this agenda. g) The Geographe Leisure Centre New Fees and Charges 2014‐15 Financial Year

Item is presented for Council consideration at item 10.5 of this agenda h) The Committee discussed meeting dates for 2015 and confirmed they wished

to continue with the same meeting cycle i) The CEO discussed with the Committee, borrowing rates for the Busselton

Foreshore Project. j) The Committee was supportive of a Financial Consultant being employed to

conduct an independent review of how officers achieved the Long Term Financial Plan with a particular focus on debt financing.

CARRIED 9/0


9.3 Minutes of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee meeting held 10 February 2015

COUNCIL DECISION C1502/029 Moved Councillor G Bleechmore, seconded Councillor T Best

1) That the minutes of a meeting of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee

held on 10 February 2015 be received.

2) That the Council notes the outcomes of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee meeting held on 10 February 2015 being: a) The Meelup Beach Carpark Item is presented for Council consideration at

Item 10.6 of this agenda b) The Committee noted the Environment Officer’s report.

CARRIED 9/0

ADOPTION BY EXCEPTION RESOLUTION

At this juncture the Mayor advised the meeting that the Committee and Officer Recommendations, will be adopted en bloc.

COUNCIL DECISION C1502/030 Moved Councillor G Bleechmore, seconded Councillor C Tarbotton

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

10.1 Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – NOVEMBER 2014

10.2 Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – DECEMBER 2014

10.3 Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS – PERIOD ENDING 31 DECEMBER 2014

11.1 AMENDMENT No. 7 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME No. 21 ‐ REZONING LOT 376 KENT STREET AND LOT 309 PRINCE STREET, BUSSELTON FROM 'RESERVE FOR RECREATION' TO 'BUSINESS' ‐ CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL

11.2 AMENDMENT No. 2 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME No. 21 ‐ INTRODUCTION OF A SPECIAL PROVISION AREA TO PERMIT AN UNRESTRICTED LENGTH OF STAY ‐ FORTE CAPE VIEW APARTMENTS ‐ CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL

11.3 DA14/0506: PROPOSED NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL : LOT 1 CORNERSTONE WAY, QUEDJINUP

13.1 BUSSELTON FORESHORE REDEVELOPMENT: HOTEL/SHORT‐STAY ACCOMMODATION PRECINCT

15.2 COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN CARRIED 9/0 EN BLOC



SUBJECT INDEX: Financial Operations STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive

outcomes for the community. BUSINESS UNIT: Finance and Information Technology ACTIVITY UNIT: Finance REPORTING OFFICER: Manager, Finance and Information Technology ‐ Darren Whitby AUTHORISING OFFICER: Director, Finance and Corporate Services ‐ Matthew Smith VOTING REQUIREMENT: Simple Majority ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A List of Payments Made ‐ November 2014

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 5 February 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. PRÉCIS This report provides details of payments made from the City’s bank accounts for the month of November 2014, for noting by the Council and recording in the Council Minutes.

BACKGROUND The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations require that when the Council has delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to make payments from the City’s bank accounts, that a list of payments made is prepared each month for presentation to, and noting by, the Council. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Section 6.10 of the Local Government Act and more specifically, Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations; refer to the requirement for a listing of payments made each month to be presented to the Council. RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES NA. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS NA. STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Open and Collaborative Leadership’ and more specifically Community Objective 6.3 ‐ ‘An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community’. RISK ASSESSMENT NA. CONSULTATION NA.


OFFICER COMMENT NA. CONCLUSION NA. OPTIONS NA. TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION NA.

COUNCIL DECISION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION C1502/031 Moved Councillor G Bleechmore, seconded Councillor C Tarbotton

That the Council notes the payment of voucher numbers M110116 ‐ M110279, EF037147 ‐ EF037615, T007110 ‐ T007112, and DD002323 ‐ DD002342, together totalling $8,923,510.20.

CARRIED 9/0

EN BLOC


10.2 Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – DECEMBER 2014 SUBJECT INDEX: Financial Operations STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive

outcomes for the community. BUSINESS UNIT: Finance and Information Technology ACTIVITY UNIT: Finance REPORTING OFFICER: Manager, Finance and Information Technology ‐ Darren Whitby AUTHORISING OFFICER: Director, Finance and Corporate Services ‐ Matthew Smith VOTING REQUIREMENT: Simple Majority ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A List of Payments Made ‐ December 2014

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 5 February 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. PRÉCIS This report provides details of payments made from the City’s bank accounts for the month of December 2014, for noting by the Council and recording in the Council Minutes.

BACKGROUND The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations require that when the Council has delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to make payments from the City’s bank accounts, that a list of payments made is prepared each month for presentation to, and noting by, the Council. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Section 6.10 of the Local Government Act and more specifically, Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations; refer to the requirement for a listing of payments made each month to be presented to the Council. RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES NA. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS NA. STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Open and Collaborative Leadership’ and more specifically Community Objective 6.3 ‐ ‘An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community’. RISK ASSESSMENT NA. CONSULTATION NA.


OFFICER COMMENT NA. CONCLUSION NA. OPTIONS NA. TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION NA.


That the Council notes the payment of voucher numbers M110280 ‐ M110485, EF037616 ‐ EF038210, T007113 ‐ T007117, and DD002343 ‐ DD002361, together totalling $7,510,797.60.

CARRIED 9/0

EN BLOC



SUBJECT INDEX: Budget Planning and Reporting STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive

outcomes for the community. BUSINESS UNIT: Finance and Information Technology ACTIVITY UNIT: Finance REPORTING OFFICER: Manager, Finance and Information Technology ‐ Darren Whitby AUTHORISING OFFICER: Director, Finance and Corporate Services ‐ Matthew Smith VOTING REQUIREMENT: Simple Majority ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Financial Activity Statements ‐ Period Ending 31

December 2014

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 5 February 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. PRÉCIS Pursuant to Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act (‘the Act’) and Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations (‘the Regulations’), a local government is to prepare, on a monthly basis, a statement of financial activity that reports on the City’s financial performance in relation to its adopted/ amended budget. This report has been compiled to fulfil the statutory reporting requirements of the Act and associated Regulations, whilst also providing the Council with an overview of the City’s financial performance on a year to date basis for the period ending 31 December 2014.

BACKGROUND The Regulations detail the form and manner in which financial activity statements are to be presented to the Council on a monthly basis; and are to include the following: Annual budget estimates Budget estimates to the end of the month in which the statement relates Actual amounts of revenue and expenditure to the end of the month in which the statement

relates Material variances between budget estimates and actual revenue/ expenditure/ (including

an explanation of any material variances) The net current assets at the end of the month to which the statement relates (including an

explanation of the composition of the net current position) Additionally, and pursuant to Regulation 34(5) of the Regulations, a local government is required to adopt a material variance reporting threshold in each financial year. At its meeting of 30 July 2014, the Council adopted (C1407/190) the following material variance reporting threshold for the 2014/15 financial year: That pursuant to Regulation 34(5) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations, the Council adopts a material variance reporting threshold with respect to financial activity statement reporting for the 2014/15 financial year to comprise variances equal to or greater than 10% of the year to date budget amount as detailed in the Income Statement by Nature and Type/ Statement of Financial Activity report, however variances due to timing differences and/ or seasonal adjustments are to be reported on a quarterly basis.


STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations detail the form and manner in which a local government is to prepare financial activity statements. RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES Not applicable. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Any financial implications are detailed within the context of this report. STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES This matter principally aligns with Key Goal Area 6 – ‘Open and Collaborative Leadership’ and more specifically Community Objective 6.3 ‐ ‘An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community’. The achievement of the above is underpinned by the Council strategy to ‘ensure the long term financial sustainability of Council through effective financial management’. RISK ASSESSMENT Risk assessments have been previously completed in relation to a number of ‘higher level’ financial matters, including timely and accurate financial reporting to enable the Council to make fully informed financial decisions. The completion of the monthly Financial Activity Statement report is a treatment/ control that assists in addressing this risk. CONSULTATION Not applicable. OFFICER COMMENT In order to fulfil statutory reporting requirements, and to provide the Council with a synopsis of the City’s overall financial performance on a year to date basis, the following financial reports are attached hereto: Statement of Financial Activity This report provides details of the City’s operating revenues and expenditures on a year to date basis, by nature and type (i.e. description). The report has been further extrapolated to include details of non‐cash adjustments and capital revenues and expenditures, to identify the City’s net current position; which reconciles with that reflected in the associated Net Current Position report. Net Current Position This report provides details of the composition of the net current asset position on a year to date basis, and reconciles with the net current position as per the Statement of Financial Activity. Capital Acquisition Report This report provides year to date budget performance (by line item) in respect of the following capital expenditure activities:

o Land and Buildings

o Plant and Equipment


o Furniture and Equipment

o Infrastructure Reserve Movements Report This report provides summary details of transfers to and from reserve funds, and also associated interest earnings on reserve funds, on a year to date basis. Reserve Transfers to Municipal Fund This report provides specific detail in respect of expenditures being funded from reserves. Additional reports and/ or charts are also provided as required to further supplement the information comprised within the statutory financial reports. COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL ACTIVITY TO 31 DECEMBER 2014 In terms of the Council’s adopted material reporting threshold for 2014/15, ‘quarterly’ financial activity statement reports are required to provide a summary of variances equal to or greater than 10% of the year to date budget amount as detailed in the Income Statement by Nature and Type/ Statement of Financial Activity report, irrespective of whether they are only due to timing differences. This matter has been considered in the compilation of this report, and is reflected in the following commentary: Operating Activity Operating Revenue As at 31 December 2014, there is a variance of ‐0.2% in total operating revenue, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:

Description Variance %

Variance $000’s

Other Revenue ‐33% ‐$94

Non‐Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions ‐17% ‐$464

Profit on Asset Disposals +50% +$3

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows: Other Revenue (‐$94K) This variance is primarily attributable to: Fines and penalties revenue is falling short of year to date budget estimates by approximately ‐

$46K, with the primary contributors being parking fines (‐$29K) and bushfire related fines (‐$9K) A scheduled transfer of bond monies for Birchfields landscape maintenance is yet to occur (‐

$23K) Unbudgeted registration fees for the Mayoral Prayer Breakfast have been received (+$11K),

albeit these have been fully offset by related costs and the donation of residual funds held Sales of scrap metals and recyclables are falling short of year to date budget estimates by

approximately ‐$45K, with this variance attributable to timing differences at this juncture Non‐Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (‐$464K) The current variance is primarily attributable to: The receipt of additional developer contributions over year to date budget estimates (+$538K) The accounting recognition of a donated fire tender from DFES (+$117K) Timing differences associated with the receipt of capital grant funding including, but not limited

to:


o Road construction related grant funding (‐$371K)

o Busselton Regional Airport Terminal upgrade and Airport related infrastructure works (‐$470K)

o Beach restoration and boat‐ramp related works (‐$397K) It should be noted that the developer contributions funding has no direct impact on the Net Current Position, as these funds are transferred to Equity upon receipt, via the ‘Transfers to Restricted Assets’ capital expenditure activity. Additionally, donated assets are accounted for in the City’s Balance Sheet, and do not impact on the Net Current Position. Profit on Asset Disposals (+$3K) This nominal variance is primarily attributable to book profits on the sale, through auction, of obsolete computer equipment and sundry plant items. In most cases, the items had a zero written down value, with any funds received representing a book profit on disposal. It should be noted however that performance in this activity has no direct impact on the Net Current Position. Whilst reflecting a nominal adverse variance as at 31 December 2014, overall operating revenue performance has been boosted by additional rates revenue, earlier than anticipated receipt of operating grants and reimbursements, and net favourable performance in fees and charges revenue. Coupled with additional developer contributions and the recognition of donated assets, this has notionally offset the underlying performance in the non‐operating grants, subsidies and contributions category; which at this juncture is primarily attributable to timing differences. Operating Expenditure As at 31 December 2014, there is a variance of ‐5.9% in total operating expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:


Variance $000’s

Materials and Contracts ‐26% ‐$2,118

Utilities ‐22% ‐$249

Depreciation on Non‐current Assets +19% +$987

Insurance Expenses ‐11% ‐$88

Loss on Asset Disposals +250% +$71

A summary of the above variances is provided as follows: Materials and Contracts (‐$2,118K) Due to the nature of this expenditure category, variances are evident across a broad range of activities. However, the major variances, which are predominantly due to timing differences, include: Collective contractor expenditure is presently ‐$1,191K below year to date budget estimates and

includes, amongst others, recycling contractors (‐$354K), Busselton Jetty contractors (‐$237K), coastal protection related contractors (‐$185K), Vasse and Provence specified area rate maintenance works (‐$220K), and also numerous building contractor related works (e.g. Nautical Lady lighthouse demolition of $150K)

Collective consultancy expenditure is presently ‐$317K below year to date budget estimates Building maintenance services (including contract cleaning and general maintenance) are

presently $145K below year to date budget estimates Collective legal expenses are presently ‐$104K below year to date budget estimates The remainder of the variance is attributable to a variety of budget shortfalls in contractor expenditures, leasing payments, information technology expenses, maintenance of plant and


equipment and non capital asset acquisitions. However, as previously mentioned, the current collective variance is primarily as a result of budget timing differences at this juncture. Utilities (‐$249K) This variance is primarily attributable to timing differences in the payment of utilities including water related charges, and also electricity charges. As a result of the repealing of the carbon tax, it is estimated that the City’s electricity charges will reduce by up to $70K during 2014/15 (based on annual budget estimates). However the actual extent of any savings will be dependent upon overall electricity usage during the financial year. Depreciation on Non‐current Assets (+$987K) This variance is primarily attributable to the Buildings fair value valuation (as at 30 June 2014), coupled with the significant value of donated assets brought to account as at financial year end. The depreciation budget is developed reasonably early in the annual budget process, based on financial year end projections. Whilst generally accurate, this approach has this year been impacted by the aforementioned activities, the outcomes of which were not known until very late in the 2013/14 financial year. It should be noted however that depreciation expense is reversed as a non cash adjustment, and as such has no net effect on the Net Current Position. Insurance Expenses (‐$88K) This variance is primarily attributable to property and plant insurance premiums, which presently reflect variances of ‐$46K and ‐$49K respectively. Whilst an end of financial year saving is projected in this category, additional expenses will continue to be incurred during the financial year as additions/ amendments are made to the City’s insurance schedule. Loss on Asset Disposals (+$71K) This variance is due to book losses on the write‐off, or disposal through auction or trade‐in, of obsolete computer equipment, sundry plant items, and also light and heavy plant items. In addition, the variance includes a book loss of $11K in respect of a boat‐ramp structure at Scout Road. It should be noted however that performance in this activity has no direct impact on the Net Current Position. Whilst collective operating expenditure presently reflects a variance of ‐$1.7M, this includes the additional depreciation expense of $987K. Discounting the depreciation variance results in a revised variance of ‐$2.7M (or ‐9.8%) against year to date budget estimates, which is predominantly due to shortfalls in Employee Costs, Materials and Contracts and Utilities expenditures. Capital Activity Capital Revenue As at 31 December 2014, there is a variance of ‐1.3% in total capital revenue, with the following category exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:


Variance $000’s

Proceeds from the Sale of Assets ‐26% ‐$104

A summary of the above variance is provided as follows: Proceeds from the Sale of Assets (‐$104K) This variance is primarily attributable to budget timing differences in relation to the changeover of light and heavy plant items, and corresponds with the current variance in the ‘Plant and Equipment’ capital expenditure activity.


Capital Expenditure As at 31 December 2014, there is a variance of ‐15.4% in total capital expenditure, with the following categories exceeding the 10% material variance threshold:


Variance $000’s

Plant and Equipment ‐44% ‐$794

Furniture and Office Equipment ‐49% ‐$140

Infrastructure ‐55% ‐$5,339

Advances to Community Groups ‐100% ‐$30

Transfers to Restricted Assets +133% +$691

The attachments to this report include detailed listings of the following capital expenditure (project) items, to assist in reviewing specific variances: Land and Buildings Plant and Equipment Furniture and Office Equipment Infrastructure A summary of the reportable variances is provided as follows: Plant and Equipment (‐$794K) In addition to light and heavy vehicle replacements/ acquisitions, this budget includes the Kookaburra Caravan Park cabin construction and other sundry plant items (e.g. GLC pump replacement). The variance as at 31 December 2014 is primarily attributable to the light and heavy vehicle replacements. The Engineering and Works Services Directorate advises that many of the heavy vehicles up for replacement will not be purchased until later in the year, with much of the quotation and tendering process having already been finalised. The majority of light fleet vehicles due for change‐over were replaced in the first half of the financial year. Furniture and Office Equipment (‐$140K) This variance is primarily due to current shortfalls in Information Technology expenditure of ‐$122K, and also the Settlement Art Project of ‐$50K. Conversely, the Geographe Leisure Centre expenditure exceeds year to date budget estimates by approximately $23K. With regards to the Information Technology budget, whilst a number of scheduled projects are well under way, expenditures are yet to be incurred (e.g. Busselton Water joint venture). Similarly, as part of the Settlement Art Project, the Council has commissioned the completion of the second sculpture (Timber Worker) during the 2014/15 financial year. Infrastructure (‐$5,339K) For the purposes of this report, the Busselton Foreshore project variance is discussed separately to the remaining Infrastructure budget. Infrastructure – Busselton Foreshore (YTD Variance: ‐ $1,416K) The Executive Services Directorate advises that the majority of infrastructure cannot be installed until the coastal defence works have been undertaken, which have been put on hold to follow the event season. The coastal defences have been tendered and construction (Jetty abutment through to Brown St) should commence on 09 February 2015, albeit working around major events. Construction completed or underway includes the Geographe Bay Road / Brown Street extension, the relocation of the Busselton Jetty Depot, both Barnard Park oval East and West, and smaller scale capital works.


The year to date budget variance has mainly arisen through planning and preparation of detailed design of service infrastructure including (not limited to) Western Power, Water Corporation and Telstra, whose design application and approvals processes are ongoing. The negotiations with service providers should be finalised before the capital works, including the Foreshore promenade and Youth Precinct area, commences. All materials, street furniture and ancillary equipment has been ordered, and contractor works have been tendered, and in some cases awarded, in accordance with the construction schedule. Infrastructure – Other (YTD Variance: ‐ $3,923K) With regards to this variance (and excluding the Busselton Regional Airport Infrastructure works), the Engineering and Works Services Directorate advises that:

A large number of road capital projects are scheduled to commence in the warmer and dryer second half of the year. To this end, total road expenditure is $1.3M under budget YTD. All projects are programmed to be completed by 30 June 2015 however the next stage of the Puzey Road reconstruction and widening project has the potential to be delayed.

Sanitation Infrastructure is presently $909K under budget YTD, with the majority of this attributable to the Transfer Station Development that is now in the detailed planning stage.

Beach Restoration projects are presently $330K under budget YTD, however all of these projects are now under‐way.

It is prudent to note that as at 31st December 2014 there was an additional $2.7M in orders that represent committed costs raised again the various infrastructure projects.

With regards to the Busselton Regional Airport infrastructure works, as at 31 December 2014, $23K had been expended against a year to date budget of $765K. The Community and Commercial Services Directorate has provided the following commentary in respect of each project: Helipad and Infrastructure Works The additional heli parking pad, primarily for the DFES fire‐fighting helitacs, has now been completed and an invoice raised to recoup two‐thirds of the total project cost as per Airport Advisory Committee resolution (AIR1409/005). Jet Fuel Installation Final negotiations on the associated contract are nearing finalisation, at which time site clearance and advertising of the leased area for the Jet Fuel installation will be undertaken. Installation works are planned to commence in March 2015. New Apron The tender has now been awarded, and preliminary project meetings held. City Officers have reviewed the design assumptions documents and are awaiting the draft design. The final design is planned for sign‐off on 9 February 2015, with construction planned for completion by 8 May 2015. Taxiway/ Hangar Extension Civil works commenced during December, with the works projected to be completed before the end of January 2015. Advances to Community Groups (‐$30K) This matter relates to the drawdown of the budgeted self‐supporting loan of $30K in favour of the Busselton Football and Sportsman’s Club; to carry out repairs to the Bovell Park football clubrooms. It


is understood that the Club is keen to progress the repairs imminently, which will necessitate the drawing of the associated borrowing facility. Transfers to Restricted Assets (+$691K) The favourable variance is primarily due to the receipt of developer contributions (predominantly pertaining to the Vasse Newtown and Via Vasse subdivisions) totalling approximately $990K, along with bond and deposit payments totalling approximately $219K, against a year to date budget of $518K. It should be noted however that performance in this activity has no direct impact on the City’s Net Current Position. BUDGET VARIATIONS AND OTHER ‘KNOWNS’ The Council has approved no less than twenty individual budget amendments this financial year to date. These are all reflected in the financial activity statement reports for the period ending 31 December 2014. At this stage, no other specific budget variations have been identified. CONCLUSION As at 31 December 2014, collective operating revenue is tracking in line with year to date budget estimates (variance of only ‐$92K). Whilst impacted by timing differences in several categories (primarily in relation to grant revenue), rates revenue and fees and charges revenue are currently exceeding year to date budget estimates by approximately $350K. There is presently nothing to indicate that the overall annual operating revenue budget will not be achieved by 30 June 2015. Whilst collective operating expenditure is presently falling short of year to date budget estimates by approximately ‐$1,720K, this figure is understated by depreciation expense, which is presently $987K in excess of year to date budget estimates. The majority of the current budget shortfall sits within the Materials and Contracts category, and is due to timing differences. A further critical review of performance in this area will be undertaken as part of the Annual Budget Review. From a capital perspective, capital revenue is tracking in line with year to date budget estimates, with Proceeds for the Sale of Assets being the principal area of difference. However, this is primarily as a result of timing differences associated with the Plant and Equipment replacement program, and should be resolved by financial year end. Conversely, overall capital expenditure is presently falling short of year to date budget estimates by approximately $5.7M, with the major contributor being Infrastructure expenditure (‐$5.3M). However, as detailed in this report, it is projected that the majority of budgeted expenditure will be incurred by financial year end. Whilst the Annual Budget Review, scheduled to be completed as at the end of February 2015, will critically review all revenue and expenditure categories, the City’s performance to the end of December is considered generally consistent with recent year’s performance for the first half of the financial year. OPTIONS The Council may determine not to receive the statutory financial activity statement reports. TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION NA.



That the Council receives the statutory financial activity statement reports for the period ending 31 December 2014, pursuant to Regulation 34(4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations.

CARRIED 9/0

EN BLOC



SUBJECT INDEX: Town Planning Schemes and Amendments STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for

diverse activity and strengthen our social connections. BUSINESS UNIT: Strategic Planning and Development ACTIVITY UNIT: Strategic Planning and Development REPORTING OFFICER: Principal Strategic Planner ‐ Louise Koroveshi AUTHORISING OFFICER: Director, Planning and Development Services ‐ Paul Needham VOTING REQUIREMENT: Simple Majority ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Location Plan

Attachment B Schedule of Submissions

PRÉCIS The Council is requested to consider adopting for final approval draft Amendment No. 7 to Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (LPS21) which seeks to rezone Lot 376 Kent Street and Lot 309 Prince Street, Busselton from ‘Reserve for Recreation’ to ‘Business’. The amendment follows the decision of the Council to broadly support, in principle, a concept for the redevelopment and expansion of the Busselton Central Shopping Centre, Target and Rivers stores to incorporate, amongst other things, a full size Discount Department Store and the activation of the western side of Mitchell Park. The amendment is required to ensure that, should the concept for Busselton Central be realised, future land uses contemplated for Lot 376 Kent Street and Lot 309 Prince Street are consistent with the applicable statutory planning framework. The amendment was advertised for 42 days and no objections were received. Officers are recommending that the amendment be adopted for final approval.

BACKGROUND The proposal comprises a scheme amendment that seeks to rezone Lot 376 Kent Street and Lot 309 Prince Street, Busselton from ‘Reserve for Recreation’ to ‘Business’ (Attachment A). Lot 309 Prince Street is freehold land that is owned by the City and currently accommodates the Old Library building. Lot 376 Kent Street (Reserve 36383) is Crown land managed by the Water Corporation and contains an underground sewer pump station. The amendment follows two previous decisions of the Council, being ‐

At its meeting on 12 June 2013 the Council resolved (C1306/142), amongst other things, to give ‘in‐principle’ support for the staged redevelopment and expansion of the Busselton Central complex and revitalisation of Mitchell Park, including the proposal to potentially transfer the Old Library site (being Lot 309 Prince Street) as part of a negotiated ‘heads‐of‐agreement’ between the City and the proponent.

At its meeting on 12 February 2014 the Council resolved (C1402/025) to retain Lot 309 Prince Street and undertake further assessment in relation to the City’s strategic objectives. Since then, proposals in relation to the future of Busselton Central Shopping Centre have progressed and this site is viewed as being a potentially important component.


The reason for the amendment relates to the identification of the Old Library site and the Water Corporation land as ‘Recreation Reserve’ in the City’s local planning scheme. The rest of the land that is the subject of the Busselton Central concept is zoned ‘Business’. Whilst officers are of the view that the development contemplated for the Old Library site and the Water Corporation land could be approved under the existing reservation in LPS21, there is a risk that the planning authority assessing an application for planning consent (most likely to be a Development Assessment Panel given the likely value of the development over $7M) may not hold that view. The amendment would change the reservation of the land to a zone under LPS21, meaning that the land uses contemplated for these land parcels would be consistent with the statutory planning framework.

The Water Corporation supports the amendment and is negotiating the transfer of Lot 376 Kent Street with the proponent as it is redundant to their needs. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT The Planning and Development Act 2005 outlines the relevant considerations when preparing and amending local planning schemes. The relevant provisions of the Act have been taken into account in preparing and processing this amendment. RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES There are no plans or policies relevant to the proposal. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications arising from the recommendations of this report. STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES The proposed amendment is considered to be consistent with the following community objectives of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 – ‘2.2 A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections.’ RISK ASSESSMENT An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the Officer Recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment identified ‘downside’ risks only, rather than upside risks as well. The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve adopting the amendment for final approval and referring it to the Western Australian Planning Commission. In this regard, there are no significant risks identified. CONSULTATION The amendment was advertised for public consultation for 42 days, with the public submission period closing on 16 January 2015. One submission was received from the Water Corporation outlining support for the proposal (Attachment B). Subsequent to the 12 June 2013 Council meeting, the City issued a media release that outlined the Council’s decision to broadly support, in principle, a preliminary proposal for the upgrade and expansion of the Busselton Central Shopping Centre, Target and Rivers stores and enter into a ‘heads‐of agreement’ with the proponent to allow further due diligence and discussion without legal obligation. A full public consultation process in relation to the proposal will be undertaken before any final decision is made.


OFFICER COMMENT The Council has made a decision to broadly support, in principle, a concept for the expansion of the Busselton Central Shopping Centre, Target and Rivers stores to incorporate, amongst other things, a full size Discount Department Store. The concept, if realised, will require the inclusion of the Old Library site and the Water Corporation land and will be pivotal in facilitating the activation and revitalization of Mitchell Park, which is a very valued asset at the heart of our City Centre. The rezoning of these two parcels of land to ‘Business’ is consistent with the current zoning of the balance of the land the subject of the Busselton Central Shopping Centre concept and would ensure that future proposals could be accommodated within the statutory planning framework. The previous decision of the Council also includes the proposal to potentially transfer the Old Library site as part of a negotiated ‘heads‐of‐agreement’ between the City and the proponent. The retention of the Old Library Building is not viewed as being of significant value. The building does not have any long term economic value and, although it has in the past housed some community groups, such groups are now better accommodated in the purpose‐built Busselton Community Resource Centre and the current library building. The Old Library building also contains asbestos that would be costly to remove and is not considered to have significant heritage value. The amendment also follows the Council’s previous decision concerning the Strategic Land Review wherein the Old Library site was to be retained subject to further assessment in relation to the City’s strategic objectives. Since then, proposals in relation to the future of Busselton Central Shopping Centre have progressed and this site is viewed as being a potentially important component. Officers are of the view that the amendment would facilitate key elements of the planned, progressive renewal and revitalisation of an important part of the City’s retail, commercial and social heart. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the amendment is adopted for final approval and referral to the Western Australian Planning Commission. OPTIONS Should the Council not support the Officer Recommendation, the Council could consider the following options –

1. Resolve to decline the request to adopt the amendment for final approval which potentially could compromise some aspects of the proposed Busselton Central Shopping Centre concept. 2. Resolve to adopt amendment for final approval, subject to modification(s).

Officers consider that there are no substantive issues that would support either option. TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve referral of the Scheme Amendment documents to the Western Australian Planning Commission and this will occur within one month of the date of the Council decision.


COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION C1502/034 Moved Councillor G Bleechmore, seconded Councillor C Tarbotton

That the Council: 1. In pursuance of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2005, adopts Amendment No. 7 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 for final approval, for the purposes of: (a) Rezoning Lot 376 Kent Street and Lot 309 Prince Street, Busselton from ‘Reserve for Recreation’ to ‘Business’; and (b) Amending the Scheme Map accordingly. 2. Endorses the Schedule of Submissions prepared in response to the public consultation undertaken in relation to Amendment No. 7. 3. Refers Amendment No. 7 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21, so adopted for final approval, to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a request for the approval of the Hon. Minister for Planning. 4. That, where notification is received from the Western Australian Planning Commission that a modification of the Amendment is required prior to the approval of the Amendment by the Minister, the modification is to be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, unless the modification affects the intent of the Amendment, in which case it shall be referred to the Council for consideration.

CARRIED 9/0

EN BLOC



SUBJECT INDEX: Town Planning Schemes and Amendments STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for

diverse activity and strengthen our social connections. BUSINESS UNIT: Strategic Planning and Development ACTIVITY UNIT: Strategic Planning and Development REPORTING OFFICER: Principal Strategic Planner ‐ Louise Koroveshi AUTHORISING OFFICER: Director, Planning and Development Services ‐ Paul Needham VOTING REQUIREMENT: Simple Majority ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Location Plan

Attachment B Strata Lot Layout Attachment C Location of Proposed Unrestricted Length of Stay

Units Attachment D Schedule of Submissions

PRÉCIS The Council is requested to consider adopting for final approval draft Amendment No. 2 to Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (LPS21) to introduce a special provision into Schedule 3 that would permit an unrestricted length of stay for up to 25% of tourist accommodation units within Forte Cape View Apartments. The amendment was advertised for 42 days and one public submission objecting to the proposal was received. Assessment of the submission did not reveal any substantive issues. It is considered that the proposal is broadly consistent with the strategic planning framework applicable to the area and reflects proposed changes in planning direction endorsed by the Council in the adoption of the Local Tourism Planning Strategy. Officers are recommending that the amendment be adopted for final approval.

BACKGROUND The proposal comprises a scheme amendment that seeks to introduce a special provision for Lots 1‐42 Little Colin Street, Broadwater to permit an unrestricted length of stay for up to 25% of tourist accommodation units that, pursuant to LPS21, may only be used for short stay purposes. To achieve the objectives of the amendment it is proposed to include the whole of the subject land within a ‘Special Provision Area’ pursuant to Schedule 3 of LPS21, as outlined in the table below –

No. Particulars of Land

Zone Special Provision

SP56 Lots 1‐42 Little Colin Street, Broadwater

Tourist Notwithstanding any other provision of the Scheme, an unrestricted length of stay is permissible for 22 of the 23 accommodation units on Strata Lots 21, 23 – 27, 29, 35 and 38 on Strata Plan 40537 (approved on 19 February 2008) and proposed Strata Lots 44 and 45 on Strata Plan 40537 (approved on 3 May 2013).

The proposed amendment would facilitate a variation for these strata lots to the standard restriction of 3 months occupancy within a 12 month period that applies to tourist accommodation, to allow the occupiers to occupy a unit for an unlimited time.


The subject land is located to the north of Bussell Highway approximately 7km west of the Busselton City Centre (Attachments A & B). The northern boundary of the land has frontage to the coastal foreshore reserve. The site has been progressively developed for tourist accommodation and operates as Forte Cape View Apartments. Currently 75 of a total of 89 accommodation units have been constructed, as well as a reception/manager’s residence, children’s playground and a BBQ area. The City has issued Planning Consent for the development of the remaining 14 accommodation units, conference facilities and an indoor swimming pool. The resort operates as a single, centrally managed entity with binding agreements in place for the central management of the resort and shared use of the common property. Attachment C illustrates the distribution of the proposed unrestricted length of stay units (one of which will be a new residence for the resort manager) within the resort. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT The key elements of the statutory environment with respect to the proposed amendment are set out in the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21. The subject land is zoned ‘Tourist’ under LPS21 and is mostly developed for short stay tourist accommodation purposes. ‘Tourist Accommodation’ is defined pursuant to Schedule 1 of LPS21 as meaning –

‘a building or group of buildings substantively used for the temporary accommodation of tourists, visitors and travellers which may have facilities for the convenience of patrons such as restaurants, convention areas and the like but does not include a building or place elsewhere specifically defined in this Schedule or a building or place used for a purpose elsewhere specifically defined in this Schedule.’

Clause 5.18.1 of LPS21 deals with residential occupancy of tourist developments as follows:

‘No person shall occupy a tourist accommodation unit, chalet, caravan, camp or any other form of tourist accommodation for more than a total of 3 months in any one 12 month period.’

Clause 6.3.1 provides the mechanism for special provisions, in addition to any provisions which are generally more applicable to such land under LPS21, to be introduced into the Scheme and for those provisions to be listed in Schedule 3 of the Scheme and for the Scheme Map to be endorsed accordingly. RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES The key policy implications for consideration of the amendment are set out in the Western Australian Planning Commission Planning Bulletin 83/2013 – Planning for Tourism and the City of Busselton Local Tourism Planning Strategy (2010). Each is discussed below under appropriate subheadings. Western Australian Planning Commission Planning Bulletin 83/2013 – Planning for Tourism The bulletin sets out the policy of the WAPC to guide decision making by the WAPC and local government for subdivision, development and scheme amendment proposals for tourism purposes. Policy provisions outlined in this bulletin relevant to the consideration of the proposed amendment include – * Proposals for non‐tourist accommodation developments (such as permanent residential,

commercial, retail and restaurant) within tourism sites to facilitate the development of tourist accommodation should be considered on a case‐by‐case basis.


* For permanent residential use, local governments may set a percentage limit within their local planning strategy or local planning policy.

City of Busselton Local Tourism Planning Strategy The Local Tourism Planning Strategy (LTPS) provides the long term strategic land use planning and strategic direction for tourism development within the District. The subject land is identified as a non‐strategic tourism site meaning that, although it has an important tourist function, the allowance of a component of residential development may be appropriate. Non‐strategic sites that are located within an existing urban settlement and where determined appropriate in the planning context, can be allowed an unrestricted length of stay component up to a maximum of 25%. The LTPS outlines criteria against which to assess proposals to incorporate an unrestricted length of stay component within non‐strategic tourism sites. Each criteria is listed below, with the officer response immediately following – i) up to 25% unrestricted length of stay, with maximum percentage to be determined on a case‐by‐case

basis and subject to adequate addressing of design issues;

The amendment seeks allowance for 22 of the 89 existing, under construction and approved accommodation units for unrestricted length of stay occupancy. This equates to 25% of the total tourist accommodation units, consistent with the LTPS. ii) located within an existing urban settlement;

The subject land is situated approximately 1km from the Broadwater Shopping Centre which provides for local residential and tourist convenience shopping needs. The site is 7km from the Busselton City Centre, which provides higher level services and shopping opportunities for residents and tourists. The site also has convenient access to public transport, being located on Bussell Highway. iii) any unrestricted length of stay component units/development shall be of a design and scale that is

subsidiary to the tourism component of the development;

The amendment would retain the existing ‘Tourist’ zoning of the site, reflective of the primary use of the site for short stay holiday accommodation. The applicant is seeking an unrestricted length of stay component for 25% of the total strata units in the resort. It is considered that this percentage is consistent with the LTPS in terms of retaining the dominant tourist function and character of the overall resort development. iv) the restricted length of stay component having to be completed to the City’s satisfaction, prior to the

occupation of the unrestricted stay component; or v) the City being satisfied through a legal agreement, bond, bank guarantee, or other legally agreed

commitment from the developer to ensure the development will be undertaken and satisfactorily completed;

The subject land has been substantially developed and is operating as a tourist resort, comprising 75 accommodation units and limited central facilities. The undeveloped balance of the site has been approved for the development of another 14 accommodation units and significant improvements to the standard and range of central facilities. vi) the City being satisfied with the separation of the two uses or the management arrangement to prevent

land use conflict;


Land use conflict within tourist resorts can potentially play out in numerous ways and the most undesirable outcome for a tourist resort is manifested in a devaluation of the tourism experience. A reduced level of conflict and therefore detrimental impact on tourism generated by a residential component can be achieved by limiting the latter to a maximum of 25%, combined with design and management such that the tourism orientation of the development is emphasised and maintained. Forte Cape View Apartments will continue to operate with a dominant tourist function that will be reinforced by the delivery of upgraded and improved central facilities and new tourist amenities such as swimming pools, café, conference facilities and children’s playground. Short stay accommodation units are situated in high tourist amenity areas within the resort closest to the beach and planned new facilities. The resort operates as a single, centrally managed entity with binding agreements in place for the central management of the resort and shared use of the common property and this is an important factor in providing a level of service to support the predominant tourist function such as reception, room servicing, on‐site manager and ongoing provision of tourist facilities. Furthermore, the majority of the proposed unrestricted length of stay units are clustered together, rather than being distributed amongst the short stay units and that should also assist in mitigating potential conflict. vii) on all sites, the unrestricted length of stay component being generally located away from the areas of

the site providing the highest tourism amenity; and viii) on coastal sites, the unrestricted length of stay component being generally located in areas further

from the coast.

The highest tourism amenity elements include proximity to the beach and resort amenities such as pools. The existing apartments located adjacent to the coastal foreshore reserve are to remain as short stay units. The closest proposed unrestricted length of stay unit to the beach will be located approximately 40m from the boundary of the coastal foreshore reserve, and separated by short stay units. Ten of the proposed unrestricted length of stay units will be clustered adjacent to the central facilities building and near amenities such as the outdoor swimming pool. Whilst their location here could be considered as not being strictly compliant with criteria (vii), it could equally be argued that proximity to resort facilities could serve to encourage the use of those units for short stay purposes. Either way, flexibility in occupancy length would be provided, and equally in close proximity to the same facilities are accommodation units, including apartments, that will only be available for short stay. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications arising from the recommendations of this report. STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES The proposed amendment is considered to be consistent with the following community objectives of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 – ‘2.2 A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections.’ RISK ASSESSMENT An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the Officer Recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment identified ‘downside’ risks only, rather than upside risks as well. The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will


involve adopting the amendment for final approval and referring it to the Western Australian Planning Commission. In this regard, there are no significant risks identified. CONSULTATION The amendment was advertised for public consultation for 42 days, with the public submission period closing on 16 January 2015. One public submission was received from the owner of a strata unit (that is not identified as one of the 22 units that will have the unrestricted length of stay allowance) objecting to the proposal unless their unit was considered for unrestricted length of stay (Attachment D). This is discussed further under the ‘Officer Comment’ section of this report. OFFICER COMMENT The Local Tourism Planning Strategy identified the subject land as a non‐strategic tourism site to be retained for tourism purposes that may, subject to meeting assessment criteria and rezoning, incorporate an unrestricted length of stay component. The proposal has been assessed against the criteria outlined in the LTPS that, in brief, relate to: maximum percentage of unrestricted length of stay units; location within an urban settlement; subsidiary to the tourist component; completion of the tourist component; separation of tourist and residential uses; and location generally away from high tourist amenity areas. The amendment generally meets the assessment criteria of the LTPS and the state planning policy framework in relation to the introduction of an unrestricted length of stay component within a non‐strategic tourism site. The unrestricted length of stay units will not necessarily be removed from the short stay letting pool. The proposal would simply enable flexibility in occupancy length that is not currently possible under LPS21. The proposal will also support the reinvestment in the central resort facilities and delivery of planned, new amenities including: indoor and outdoor swimming pools plus children’s splash pool, conference facilities; gymnasium; all weather BBQ areas; outdoor café; children’s playground and playroom; toilets and grassed/landscaped common areas. These improvements will serve to reinforce the predominant tourist function and character of the resort. Occupancy rates for tourist resorts fluctuate throughout the year, being influenced by seasonality, school holidays and major events held within the municipality. An unrestricted length of stay component will provide the opportunity for a more continuous, less seasonal presence within the resort and contributing year round vitality and patronage of the resort and its facilities. With respect to the submission received in response to advertising, officers are of the view that had this particular strata unit formed part of the amendment, its inclusion would have been assessed against the planning framework and found to be inconsistent with the Local Tourism Planning Strategy and Western Australian Planning Commission policy, in terms of its location in an area of high tourism amenity and exceedance of the 25% unrestricted length of stay allowance. For this reason officers are not recommending any change to the scheme amendment as proposed that would permit the inclusion of this additional strata unit. CONCLUSION Officers are recommending that the amendment is adopted for final approval and referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission.


OPTIONS Should the Council not support the Officer Recommendation, the Council could consider the following options – 1. Resolve to decline the request to adopt the amendment for final approval and provide a

reason for such a decision. 2. Resolve to adopt the amendment for final approval, subject to modification(s). Officers consider that there are no substantive issues that would support either option. TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve referral of the Scheme Amendment documents to the Western Australian Planning Commission and this will occur within one month of the date of the Council decision.


That the Council: 1. In pursuance of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2005, adopts draft Amendment

No. 2 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 for final approval, for the purposes of:

(a) inserting the following particulars into Schedule 3 – ‘Special Provision Areas’ of the Scheme:

No. Particulars of Land Zone Special Provisions

SP56 Lots 1‐42 Little Colin Street, Broadwater

Tourist Notwithstanding any other provision of the Scheme, an unrestricted length of stay is permissible for 22 of the 23 accommodation units on Strata Lots 21, 23 – 27, 29, 35 and 38 on Strata Plan 40537 (endorsed on 19 February 2008) and proposed Strata Lots 44 and 45 on Strata Plan 40537 (approved 3 May 2013).

(b) amending the Scheme Map accordingly.

2. Endorses the Schedule of Submissions prepared in response to the public consultation undertaken in relation to Amendment No. 2. 3. Refers Amendment No. 2 to the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21, so adopted for final approval, to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a request for the approval of the Hon. Minister for Planning. 4. That, where notification is received from the Western Australian Planning Commission that a modification of the Amendment is required prior to the approval of the Amendment by the Minister, the modification is to be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, unless the modification affects the intent of the Amendment, in which case it shall be referred to the Council for consideration. CARRIED 9/0 EN BLOC


11.3 DA14/0506: PROPOSED NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL : LOT 1 CORNERSTONE WAY, QUEDJINUP SUBJECT INDEX: Development Applications STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for

diverse activity and strengthen our social connections. BUSINESS UNIT: Development Services and Policy ACTIVITY UNIT: Statutory Planning REPORTING OFFICER: Policy Planner, Statutory Planning ‐ Carly Rundle AUTHORISING OFFICER: Director, Planning and Development Services ‐ Paul Needham VOTING REQUIREMENT: Simple Majority ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Development Plans

Attachment B Location Plan Attachment C Site Plan Attachment D Schedule of Submissions

PRÉCIS The City has received a development application for the approval of a new primary school at Lot 1 Cornerstone Way, Quedjinup. The proposal is consistent with the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.21 and it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

BACKGROUND The City has received a development application for a new primary school to accommodate up to 432 students at a new pre‐primary/primary school campus of the Cornerstone Christian College at Lot 1 Cornerstone Way, Quedjinup (herein referred to as the proposal). The proposed development plans are provided at Attachment A. A Location Plan and Site Plan are provided at Attachment B and Attachment C respectively. Lot 1 is 6.557 ha in area and currently vacant of development. The eastern portion of the property is mostly clear of vegetation, with denser remnant vegetation located in the western portion of Lot 1 and adjoining Lot 2. Lot 1 is located south of the Dunsborough Lakes Development Area. Surrounding land uses include single dwellings on Rural Residential lots to the south, west and north and land with potential for future urban development immediately to the east. Land to the south east of Lot 1 on the opposite side of Commonage Road is zoned ‘Industrial’, although is currently undeveloped. This application proposes the construction of what is envisioned as the first of two stages ultimately and will accommodate:

Early Learning Centre (to initially accommodate 40 prekindy/kindy and 56 preprimary students until stage 2 is constructed);

General Learning Area Building 1 (to initially accommodate for staff, library until stage 2 is constructed; and

The Assembly building (to be extended as shown in Attachment A as part of Stage 2).

All stage 1 and 2 works are intended to be included within the boundaries of Lot 1. Lots 1 and 2 Cornerstone Way were originally identified on the Development Guide Plan (DGP), endorsed by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on 21 August 2009, as locations to accommodate a future ‘Educational Establishment’ and “Place of Public Worship’ subject to


assessment and determination pursuant to the Scheme. These lots at the DGP stage have been designed to be consistent with the WAPC’s Development Control Policy 2.4 – School Sites which provides direction on the planning, siting and design of school sites. Lots 1 and 2 were created to comply with this policy which is discussed in the Statutory Environment section below.

The proposal has been submitted with a number of supporting studies required by City policies including a:

Stormwater Management Strategy (Called a Local Water Management Strategy);

Traffic Impact Assessment;

Fire Management Plan; and

Landscape Plan. The use of an Educational Establishment is a ‘D’ (or ‘discretionary’) use in the ‘Rural Residential’ zone, approval of which is at the reasonable discretion of the City. The application was publicly advertised and referred to adjoining landowners for comment, due to the nature of the use, and due to the height of the assembly building being 11.4m, varied from the 7.5m from natural ground level normally permitted ‘as of right’ in the Rural Residential zone by the Scheme. A total of 12 submissions were received, including 7 from government authorities, and 5 public submissions, 4 of which objected to the use and aspects of the development, issues which are discussed further below. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT The key elements of the statutory environment that relate to the proposal are set out in the Local Planning Scheme. The property is located within the ‘Rural Residential’ zone and identified within a ‘Landscape Value’ area. There are a range of land uses which may be considered in the ‘Rural Residential’ zone subject to consideration by the City and exercise of discretion by granting planning consent. The proposed new Primary School is defined by the Scheme in Schedule 1 as an ‘Educational Establishment’ which:

“means a school, college, university, technical institute, academy or other educational centre, but does not include a reformatory”.

The use of an educational establishment is identified as a ‘D’ use in the Rural Residential zone; meaning it may be permitted at the reasonable discretion of the City. The proposal also includes an Early Learning Centre which allows for the care of up to 40 pre kindy/kindy children which forms part of the use of the Educational Establishment. Objectives of the Rural Residential zone, relevant to this proposal are: …(b) To ensure that development maintains the rural character of the locality, maintains a high

level of residential amenity and minimises disturbances to the landscape through the construction of buildings and structure, clearing, earthworks and access roads;

…(d) To discourage or prohibit development not compatible with the predominantly rural nature

and residential amenity of the zone;


(e) To enable the development of land for other purposes where it can be demonstrated by the applicant that suitable land or buildings for the proposed purposes are not available elsewhere, and where such purposes would detrimentally affect the rural residential character of nearby land;

Policies of the ‘Rural Residential’ zone relevant to this application are: …(f) To adequately protect any areas or sites of conservation value within the design of

subdivision and development. The Landscape Value Area provisions of the Scheme are set out at Clause 6.4. The relevant provisions include that:

“The local government shall not grant planning approval for the clearing or development of any land identified within a Landscape Value area on the Scheme map unless it has considered: (a) Whether the development will be compatible with the maintenance and enhancement, as

far as is practicable, of the existing rural and scenic character of the locality;

(b) Whether the development will materially affect any wildlife refuge, significant wetland, coastal environment or any identified site containing Aboriginal archaeological relics and;

(c) Disturbance to the natural environment, including:

i) Visual effects of clearing for development;

ii) Maintenance of rural character; and

iii) Habitat disturbance”.

Before granting planning approval for the erection of a building on land within the Landscape Value area, the local government shall make an assessment as to whether it should impose conditions relating –

a) The siting of the proposed building;

b) The use of prescribed materials on the external surfaces of the building; and

c) The number type, and location of existing trees and shrubs which are to be retained and the extent of landscaping to be carried out on the site.

Part 5 of the Scheme deals with General Development Requirements. Relevant to this proposal is Clause 5.8.7 which sets out the maximum building heights applicable to development in the Rural Residential zone and Clause 5.37.2 which specifies the minimum setbacks required. In determining all applications for planning approval, the City must also consider the ‘Matters to be Considered’ set out at Clause 11.2 of the Scheme, some of the most relevant in this context are as follows –

…(i) The compatibility of a use or development within its setting;

…(l) The likely effect of the proposal on the natural environment and any means that are proposed to protect or to mitigate impacts on the natural environment;


…(o) The relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal.

(p) Whether the proposed means of access to and egress from the site are adequate and whether adequate provision has been made for the loading, unloading, maneuvering and parking of vehicles.

(o) The amount of traffic likely to be generated by the proposal, particularly in relation to the capacity of the road system in the locality and probably effect on traffic flow and safety;

(s) whether public utility services are available and adequate for the proposal;

(z) any relevant submission received on the application;

(aa) the comments or submissions received from any authority consulted under clause 11.1.1 or clause 11.1.2.

Development Guide Plan Development Guide Plan 64 (DGP) was finally endorsed by the Western Australian Planning Commission on the 21 August 2009 and applies to the property. The DGP provides a framework for future subdivision and development of the land. The DGP identifies:

a 20m Flora and Fauna corridor for on the north and eastern boundaries of Lot 1;

A 70m no development/setback area from Commonage Road without the written consent of the City;

Should Lot 1 be developed for an educational establishment all access shall be from the internal road (Cornerstone Way); and

Proposed Lots 1 & 2 have been identified for possible future educational establishment and place of worship respectively.

Development Control Policy 2.4 – School Sites This policy contains the WAPC’s general requirements for school sites. It is intended to be used at Structure Plan, DGP or subdivision stages to appropriately plan for school sites The policy outlines requirements for site selection and planning, area, access, servicing and consideration of relationships to nearby land uses. Lot 1 is consistent with the site planning requirements of DC 2.4 – School Sites. RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES The assessment of the proposed educational establishment is guided by a number of policies. The key policy implications are outlined below. Town Planning Policy 2C ‐ Traffic Assessments The Traffic Assessment Policy outlines a threshold, consistent with state guidelines, as to when a Traffic Impact Assessment will be required to support development. The proposal accommodates over 100 students, and is required to provide the Traffic Impact Assessment to assess potential impacts on existing roads, and outline any necessary upgrades to accommodate the additional traffic.


The assessment identifies that the existing intersection from Commonage Road and Cornerstone Way is sufficient to accommodate the additional traffic that will be generated as a result of the school. The assessment identifies a number of recommended works for access from Cornerstone Way onto Lot 1 and will be implemented as required in the Traffic Impact Assessment through a condition of planning consent. Town Planning Policy 8A ‐ Car Parking Provisions The Car Parking Provisions Policy outlines car parking requirements for land uses. The policy requires 1 space to be provided per teacher or parent on roster, and 1.25 spaces per classroom. Stage 1 includes an Early Learning Centre which has 4 classrooms, and the General Learning Area 1 which includes 4 classrooms, study area and activity area. Approximately 26 car parking bays are required by the policy for stage 1. The policy also requires safe pick up and set down areas (including off street bus zones to be developed as directed by the City. The Traffic Impact Assessment identifies adequate access, pick‐up and set down areas, and bus parking areas. The Traffic Impact Assessment has also completed an assessment of car parking in accordance with the traffic assessment section of the Department of Education Standard Pattern Primary School document (assessed as part of registration of new schools, with the Department of Education). The assessment determines that a total of 121 bays will be required, inclusive of 3 disabled bays, and that 80 bays are sufficient to accommodate stage 1. The proposed application is consistent with the City’s car parking provisions policy. Further details of the location of the disabled bays and 4 bicycle parking spaces will be conditioned on approval Town Planning Policy 8C – Stormwater Management Provisions The stormwater policy sets out requirements for drainage to be contained on site. For non‐residential development on rural land, stormwater is to be retained on site at a rate of 1m3 per 40m2 (1 in 5 year rain event). Run‐off from car parking and access ways are to be treated in bio‐filtration systems incorporated into landscaped areas. Given that the development is staged, the applicant has provided a Stormwater Management Strategy outlining the retention of stormwater for a 1 in 10 year ARI event which exceeds the City’s requirements. Run‐off from the site after stage 1 and 2 of the development is constructed will be maintained a pre development level. Detailed drainage plans will be required as a condition of approval. Planning Policy 9B Bush Fire Protection Provisions, Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines Edition 2, Draft State Planning Policy 3.7 Planning for Bushfire Management and draft Planning for Bushfire Risk Management Guidelines. The property is identified as ‘Bush Fire Prone – General’ by the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and associated mapping. In accordance with TPP 9B and special provisions, a Fire Management Plan is to be prepared to support the planning application in accordance with the criteria of the current Planning for Bush Fire Protection Guidelines (‘the Guidelines’). The Guidelines are the current standard for assessment of planning proposals in bushfire prone areas. A Fire Management Plan exists for the larger subdivision area, however does not adequately address the introduction of the commercial use. Both Planning for Bush Fire Protection Guidelines Edition 2 and Draft Planning for Bushfire Risk Management Guidelines also identify the use of a ‘primary school’ within a ‘bush fire prone’ area as being a ‘vulnerable land use’ which requires specific consideration and also requires the preparation of an evacuation plan to form part of the Fire Management Plan.


Based on the advice provided by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services a new Fire Management Plan was required to support the application. The Fire Management plan assesses the bush fire risk for the property and suggests management measures to reduce bush fire risk and comply with the Guidelines. Key components of the FMP on the development include:

Introducing Building Protection Zones and identifying buildings to be constructed with ember protection (not a statutory requirement for non‐residential land uses);

Identifying internal assembly points, and constructing these buildings to BAL 29 standard for bush fire protection (not a statutory requirement); and

Identifying appropriate access and servicing points for bush fire purposes. Fire Management Plans are reviewed by DFES and endorsed by the City, however as the FMP did not include an evacuation plan, DFES have declined to comment at this stage. The Fire Management Plan demonstrates that bush fire risk can be reduced to an adequate level for development to be achieved and the evacuation plan is unlikely to impact on the design of the site. Officers are satisfied that the outstanding issues with the Fire Management Plan can be addressed as a condition of planning of consent, and that will involve further consultation with DFES once an evacuation plan is received. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The recommendation of this report is a planning determination. It does not impose any direct financial implications upon the City. STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES The recommendation in this report reflects Community Objective 2.2 of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 – ‘A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections.’ RISK ASSESSMENT An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the Officer Recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment identifies ‘downside’ risks only, rather than ‘upside’ risks as well. Risks are only identified in Council reports where the residual risk, once controls are identified, is ‘medium’ or greater. No such risks have been identified. CONSULTATION The application was publicly advertised for a period of 14 days, ending on 19 December 2014. A total of 12 submissions were received, including 7 from government authorities, and 5 public submissions, 4 of which objected to the use and aspects of the development. Specific consideration of each of the submissions is given at Attachment D. The key concerns raised by public submissions relate to:

Noise;

The height variation of the assembly building having a detrimental impact on visual amenity;

Clearing of vegetation; and


That the use is inconsistent with the objectives of the Rural Residential zone.

No objections to the proposal were received from government authorities, although the Department of Parks and Wildlife provided a submission which requests that the City request an Environmental Management Plan, which will include a flora and fauna survey to be prepared to support the development and inform future development of Stage 2. The extent of clearing required for Stage 1 is minimal, does not require a clearing permit from the Department of Environment and Regulation (DER) and does not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Management Plan. Future development on the site may warrant further assessment of environmental values and will be considered at this stage. Future development may also require a clearing permit, and DER can require an Environmental Management Plan as part of their assessment process at that stage. OFFICER COMMENT Lots 1 and 2 Cornerstone Way were identified as part of the ‘Development Guide Plan’ as being possible locations for an educational establishment and place of public worship. The lots were designed to be able to meet requirements of DC 2.4 – school sites and were planned specifically to be used for the use of an educational establishment. As part of the public consultation process and provisions of the scheme for assessment, there are seen to be a number of key issues affecting the consideration of this process. These issues are outlined below. Noise A number of submissions from adjoining landowners raised noise generated from the use as a concern and specifically:

Noise from children and outdoor play times;

Noise from the use of sirens, loudspeakers or PA systems;

Noise from increased traffic associated with the use;

Noise associated with special functions and after hours use of the assembly hall and oval. Noise created by certain land uses and activities are controlled by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (the Regulations) which operate under the Environmental Protection Act. The Regulations apply to the creation of unreasonable noise and sets limits that provide guidance on what is unreasonable, they also provide some exemptions for specific activities and uses. The regulations can be enforced separately from the planning process and are an ongoing requirement for land uses to comply with. Noise emissions may be dealt with under the planning process when there is concern that a land use may not be able to comply with the regulations and should this require attention the planning assessment process can give consideration to aspects such as orientation and design. Educational Establishments and noise emissions from children, sporting events and traffic are exempt noises which do not have assigned noise emission limits. The planning assessment should consider noise emissions in terms of aspects of the development such as orientation of the development/compatibility of the development with regards to noise emissions from children to adjoining landowners.


Officers consider that stage 1 of the development is unlikely to produce any significant noise emissions which would have the potential to impact on the amenity of adjoining landowners and provide the following reasons:

Schools are typically located in areas in very close proximity to residential areas, without consideration being given to noise emissions (the limits on noise emissions for ‘Rural Residential’ zones are the same that apply to ‘Residential’ zones);

There is a minimum of 100m setback to adjoining dwellings to the proposed Primary School;

The Regulations provide an exemption for noise created during educational activities and community sporting events because it is a general community perception that this type of noise is not ‘unreasonable’ for the activity;

Outdoor play areas are proposed to be dispersed over the site, which will decrease noise emissions relative to a large centralised play area;

Outdoor play area times are limited to 3 times a day, which will be for approximately 2 hours each day;

Traffic from vehicles and the potential for noise generation will be limited to two peak periods during the day, during which school speed zone times will apply and limit vehicles to 40km/hour which reduces the noise created during vehicle movements. This is not expected to generate noise which will be a nuisance for residents over a hundred metres away;

Noise emissions from equipment such as sirens, loudspeakers and music do fall under the control of the Noise Regulations. It is not necessary to address this as a planning matter, as the ongoing compliance with noise regulations will continually need to be complied with regardless of the planning consent, and can easily be addressed as part of the ongoing use of the school. The use of the assembly building out of school hours will be required to be used in accordance with the use of an ‘educational establishment’. This allows for functions ancillary to support the educational establishment, but will not allow for use by external parties for commercial gain. These types of uses associated with schools are not regular occurrences, will be buffered by the enclosed nature of the building and will be required to comply with noise regulations for equipment use. Officers are satisfied that noise emissions will not have a detrimental impact on adjoining landowners from stage 1 and outdoor play areas, will not cause non‐compliance with the Regulations and that noise concerns regarding the use of sirens can be managed separate to the planning process. However, officers also acknowledge concerns from adjoining landowners regarding noise emissions from stage 2 development such as the oval, canteen and outdoor playing areas abutting northern boundaries which fall out of the control of the noise regulations. Further assessment of noise emissions can be undertaken as part of the assessment of stage 2 (if necessary) to inform the design of buildings so that noise can be managed, and measures implemented to reduce potential noise impacts to an acceptable level. Stage 2 works however, are not part of the application before the City and cannot be assessed at this stage. Height variation of Covered Assembly building from 7.5m to 11.415m The Scheme sets an ‘as of right’ building height of 7.5m from natural ground level. The proposed assembly building has proposed walls 7.73m high, and the ridge at 11.4m from natural ground level. The maximum building heights are outlined in Clause 5.8 of the Scheme, which is a development standard and may be varied in accordance with Clause 5.5 of the Scheme, subject to the local government being satisfied that approval of the variation would be appropriate having regard to


Clause 11.2 of the Scheme (‘Matters to be Considered’) and consultation with adjoining landowners who may be affected. The relevant provisions of Clause 11.2 relate to the likely effect of height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance to development on adjoining land. The covered assembly is 43.25m by 38.05m. Stage 1 involves the construction of one half of the covered assembly only (38.05m by 24.545m), although consideration should be given to the overall building as part of this assessment. The gabled ends of the covered assembly will be viewed from the east and west elevations. The covered assembly building will be over 100m from dwellings to the north and will be sufficiently screened by the presence of tall trees to the north of Lot 1. The building will also not appear to be significantly out of scale with the development to the south as the vegetation corridor will be retained fronting Commonage Road, and view of bulk will be reduced by other development of 6.9m in height to be located in front of the assembly building. Development to the east and south east of the property have maximum building heights of 10m and the development will not be out of scale with future development to occur in the locality. All buildings proposed will be comprised of non‐reflective materials. The proposed height of the covered assembly is consistent with the Scheme and will not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the visual amenity of adjoining landowners or the locality. Clearing of vegetation The development is located in the cleared portion of the development which limits vegetation removal. Vegetation clearing of remnant vegetation of Stage 1 is limited to the removal of 12 Jarrah and Marri trees, and clearing of understory necessary to achieve compliance with the Fire Management Plan. Advice from DPaW regarding clearing was sought which provided that:

Development should aim to minimise impacts and fragmentation of vegetation.

Lots 1 and 2 are located in Priority Ecological Corridors. The areas of value of the Priority Ecological Corridor are located in Lot 2, with Lot 1 acting as a buffer area;

Recommended that the city condition an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) be prepared and implemented to protect and minimise impacts of development on biodiversity of the site. The EMP should include a flora and vegetation condition assessment and flora survey.

Suggest that offset planting occur in the east.

The siting of development on the site has limited vegetation removal consistent with scheme requirements. The extent of clearing required for Stage 1 is minimal and does not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Management Plan. Future development on the site may warrant further assessment of environmental values and will be considered at this stage. Offset planting will be required as a condition of stage 2 works.


The use is inconsistent with the objectives of the Rural Residential zone. The use of an ‘Educational Establishment’ is a discretionary use in the Rural Residential zone, meaning it may be permitted subject to assessment and determination pursuant to the Scheme. Lots 1 and 2 at the time of initial planning for the site at the Development Guide Plan stage, and subdivision specifically designed the site to be suitable to comply with state requirements for a school site, which was subsequently endorsed by the WAPC. Given that an assessment of the suitability of the site to accommodate a school has already been undertaken at a local and state level, the outstanding concerns relate to the specific design of the site and whether this is consistent with the objectives of the Rural Residential zone. Stages 1 and 2 of the Educational Establishment will result in 9 buildings being constructed, car parking/access and an oval. The development footprint of buildings will be approximately 6,420m2, on a lot 6.557ha in area. The proposed building footprint of the school is not of a size that is anticipated to appear bulky or significantly impact on the visual amenity of the area and minimises disturbance to the landscape through the siting of buildings in the more cleared portion of Lot 1. Buildings will be designed with materials to comply with the landscape value requirements and the layout and design of individual buildings and learning areas is sympathetic to the Rural Residential surrounding and minimises the impact of building bulk to adjoining landowners. The proposed development will not impact on the rural character of the locality and will maintain the amenity of the locality and is consistent with the objectives of the Rural Residential zone. CONCLUSION Overall, officers consider that the proposal is acceptable and is consistent with the Scheme. It is therefore recommended that approval, subject to conditions be granted. OPTIONS The Council could:

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

2. Apply additional or different conditions.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION The proponent and those who made a submission will be advised of the Council decision within two weeks of the Council meeting.


That the Council determine:

1. That the application for an Educational Establishment (Stage 1) – Lot 1 Cornerstone Way, Quedjinup is considered by the Council to be generally consistent with Local Planning No. 21 and the objectives and policies of the zone within which it is located.

2. That Planning Consent be granted for the proposal referred in 1. Above, subject to the following conditions:


General Conditions: 1. The development hereby approve shall be substantially commenced within two years of

the date of this decision notice.

2. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the signed and stamped, Approved Development Plan(s) (enclosed), including any notes placed thereon in red by the City, and except as may be modified by the following conditions.

Prior to Commencement of Any Works Conditions:

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

a) Details of type and colour of all external materials to be used.

b) A Fire Management Plan.

c) A Drainage Management Plan.

d) Details of a minimum of 3 spaces for bicycle parking facilities. The details shall include, as a minimum, the location, design and materials to be used in their construction.

e) Details of the width, alignment, gradient and type of construction proposed for the roads, car parking bays (inclusive of 2 disabled bays), footpaths and accesses, including all relevant horizontal cross‐sections and longitudinal‐sections showing the existing and proposed levels, together with details of street lighting and the method of disposing of surface water, and details of a programme for the making up of roads and footways.

f) Details of sewerage/on‐site effluent disposal;

g) Details of the means and method of providing a potable water supply to the satisfaction of the City; and water supply for:

Landscaping; and

Fire Management.

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

Prior to Occupation/Use of the Development Conditions:

4. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or used until all plans, details of works required by Conditions(s) 2 and 3 have been implemented and the following conditions have been complied with:

a) Recommendations of the Traffic Impact Assessment for Stage 1 works are implemented.

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


others of the same species, size and number as originally approved.

On‐Going Conditions:

5. The works required to satisfy Condition(s) 2, 3 and 4 shall be subsequently maintained for the life of the development.

CARRIED 9/0

EN BLOC



SUBJECT INDEX: Tourism Development STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: A strong, innovative and diversified economy that attracts people to

live, work, invest and visit. BUSINESS UNIT: Commercial Services ACTIVITY UNIT: Economic and Business Development REPORTING OFFICER: Economic and Business Development Coordinator ‐ Jon Berry AUTHORISING OFFICER: Director, Community and Commercial Services ‐ Naomi Searle VOTING REQUIREMENT: Simple Majority ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Busselton Foreshore Statement of Intent (2011)

Attachment B Busselton Foreshore Master Plan (2014) Attachment C Busselton Foreshore Development Guide Plan (2014)

PRÉCIS This report provides an overview of current and proposed future activities to recruit commercial interest in the hotel/short‐stay tourism accommodation precinct within the Busselton Foreshore Master Plan. It recommends Council updates and reaffirms the Busselton Foreshore ‘Statement of Intent’ that was adopted on 8 June 2011 (C1106/180) and shown at Attachment 1 and confirms the hotel/short stay accommodation sites incorporated in the Busselton Foreshore Master Plan (Attachment 2) and the Busselton Foreshore Development Guide Plan (Attachment 3) both reviewed and endorsed by Council on 9 July 2014 (C1407/170). The report also recommends Council request the CEO to prepare and implement a marketing program and subsequent Expressions of Interest process to guide future land development.

BACKGROUND On 8 June 2011, the former Shire Council adopted the Busselton Foreshore ‘Statement of Intent’ (C1106/180) to articulate principles for development of the Busselton Foreshore. The statement recognizes a balanced approach is required to ensure sustainable outcomes from public and private investment. The statement concluded “the foreshore will be developed in a manner that respects Busselton’s identity and heritage whilst providing economic, social, environmental and cultural benefits to the Shire (sic) and the South West region”. An independent community‐based committee (the Busselton Foreshore Working Group) worked with the City of Busselton and the State Government to guide the development of a concept plan for the foreshore, prepared by urban design professionals Hassell Pty Ltd. The plan recognised that an improved foreshore experience is required to elevate Busselton as a major regional commercial centre and to maximize the economic spin‐offs from tourists visiting Busselton as an outright destination or touring through the South West. A range of potential commercial functions were identified, including restaurants, cafes and hotel/short‐stay accommodation, coupled with improvements to public infrastructure including pathways, sporting and recreational facilities, parklands, car parking and public amenities. The Busselton Foreshore Master Plan (BFMP) was adopted by Council on 28 March 2012 (C1203/073), which identified potential sites for hotel/short‐stay commercial development. The City of Busselton initiated an Expression of Interest (EoI) process to recruit hotel operators and developers to lease land for short‐stay accommodation developments up to four storeys plus loft, with ground floor commercial retail. As part of the State Government investment into the Busselton


Jetty, all revenue generated from the lease of the short‐stay accommodation land is to be directed into maintenance, renewal and preservation of the Busselton Jetty. Upon completion of the time‐bounded EoI process, three submissions were received from hotel chains and three from developers. The submissions did not include design concepts or business plans (as was requested), however included feedback and commentary as summarized below:

there will likely be a need for a long leasehold period (e.g. 99 years) to attract investment finance;

a preference for a percentage of units to be able to be purchased under sub‐lease arrangements (to also help facilitate financing);

preference for a portion of the development to be able to be converted to residential should the tourism development fail (not necessarily as a condition for Busselton, but raised in the context of reducing risk should tourism returns lead to failure in the future);

need for greater certainty on funding and timing of the proposed Busselton Regional Airport expansion to induce increased inbound tourism visitation to the region, which was deemed necessary given current annual average occupancy rates for tourist accommodation in Busselton was around 51% in 2012/13;

greater certainty on the timing of the Busselton foreshore master plan delivery including utility headworks infrastructure connected to the proposed short ‐stay tourism sites.

As part of a review of the Busselton Foreshore Master Plan (BFMP) and the adoption of the Busselton Foreshore Development Guide Plan (BFDGP) in 2014, Council endorsed (C1407/170) a modification of the proposed size and location of the tourism accommodation development areas, as illustrated in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3. In light of the industry feedback received from the EoI process in 2012, along with more recent industry/government advice and a contiguous review of the BFDGP, marketing of the tourism accommodation sites has been minimal during the past two years. The City has however, been active in focusing its efforts on creating a more conducive investment environment for the hotel/short‐stay opportunity, including the relocation of the Tennis Club to free up the prime hotel site adjacent to Queen street and has been investigating public funding for utility services (electricity, sewerage, telecommunications, gas) to create serviced sites that will reduce the capital cost of a hotel development, a constraining factor potentially impeding commercial interest. Funding of $4.5m for these project elements is currently being sought from the State Government’s Southern Investment Fund (Royalties for Regions), supported by an analysis of economic and social impacts prepared by RPS Australia East Pty Ltd (RPS). Further to this, Council has been successfully seeking funding for the next stage of the foreshore redevelopment (youth precinct) which is to commence in March 2014. RPS has assessed the impact of three development scenarios for hotel/short‐stay accommodation on the Busselton foreshore

300 room development (est. cost: $118.95 million);: New visitors to the region would spend approximately $20.05 million in the region per annum which would directly support approximately 171 new jobs in the region.

225 room development(est. cost: $93.71 million);: New visitors to the region would spend approximately $15.04 million in the region per annum which would directly support approximately 128 new jobs in the region.

150 room development (est. cost: $62.48 million): New visitors to the region would spend


approximately $10.03 million in the region per annum which would directly support 86 new jobs in the region.

The most tangible impact of increased hotel capacity will be increased visitation, which translates into increased expenditure on retail, accommodation and tourism attractions in the region.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT There are no statutory issues relating to the Officer recommendation contained within this report. Any proposals for lease of City property will be subject to s3.58(3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which states that before agreeing to dispose of property, the local government is required to:

(a) give local public notice of the proposed disposition by:

describing the property concerned;

giving details of the proposed disposition (including names of the parties concerned; the consideration to be received by the local government and the market value of the disposition)

inviting submissions to be made to the local government before a date to be specified in the notice, being a date not less than 2 weeks after the notice is first given

(b) consider any submissions made to it before the date specified in the notice and, if its

decision is made by the council or a committee, the decision and the reasons for it are recorded in the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was made.

Additionally, s3.59(2) of the Act states that before a Local Government enters into a major land transaction, it is to prepare a business plan and seek public comment by giving statewide notice. RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES Busselton Foreshore Statement of Intent On 8 June 2011 (C1106/180), the former Busselton Shire Council adopted a ‘Statement of Intent’ for the development of the Busselton Foreshore, recognising a balanced approach is required to ensure sustainable outcomes from public and private investment. The statement concluded “the foreshore will be developed in a manner that respects Busselton’s identity and heritage whilst providing economic, social, environmental and cultural benefits to the Shire (sic) and the South West region”. A copy of the Statement of Intent is in Attachment 1 Busselton Foreshore Master Plan (BFMP)

On 28 March 2012, the BFMP was adopted (C1203/073) by the Busselton City Council after consideration of public submissions. It is a strategic document that provides guidance for the planning and development of the Busselton Foreshore extending between King Street and Ford Road. The plan identifies a number of community and commercial development opportunities within the project area as follows:


Commercial • Hotel and/or short stay accommodation, with conference facilities and/or ground

level commercial space;

• refurbishment and/or regeneration of existing commercial uses;

• retail/restaurant locations; and,

• kiosks / pavilions.

Community • interactive water playground;

• children’s adventure playground;

• amphitheatre;

• district playing fields (soccer, tennis and croquet clubs);

• youth facilities building (sea scouts and surf life saving club);

• skate park; and,

• a railway house and interpretative centre, to accommodate the jetty train and allow space for maintenance and cultural/heritage information

A revision to the BFMP was endorsed (C1407/170) on 9 July 2014, which included relocated sites for short‐stay tourism accommodation to reduce the environmental impact related to the use of peppermint tress as a possum habitat. Five distinct land areas were endorsed to form the short‐stay accommodation precinct located between Marine Terrace and a proposed new east‐west spine road. A copy of the BFMP showing the hotel/short stay accommodation sites is in Attachment 2.

Busselton Foreshore Development Guide Plan (BFDGP)

The BFDGP incorporates statutory controls relating to land use, building heights and floor areas that reflect the BFMP and is included as Attachment 3 to this report. The BFDGP was endorsed (C1407/170) by Council on 9 July 2014 and the Western Australian Planning Commission in late 2014, following consideration of public submissions. A copy of the BFDG showing the hotel/short stay accommodation sites is in Attachment 3 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Costs associated with promotion of tourism accommodation development opportunities are budgeted within the Property and Business Development section ‘Marketing and Promotion’ of the City’s budget. Should Council adopt the Officer recommendation, additional funds for a more active marketing and promotion program may be sought through the normal annual budget development process and will be used to leverage support from Tourism Western Australia, which co‐ordinates investment attraction activities, including partnering international tourism investment campaigns conducted by Austrade. Long Term Financial Plan The success, or otherwise, of attracting investment to the hotel/short‐stay sites, will impact on the Long Term Financial Plan municipal contributions to the Busselton Jetty Reserve. Revenue achieved from leasing the hotel/short‐stay sites is to be directed to the Busselton Jetty Reserve in accordance with an agreement with the State Government.


STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES Key Goal Area 2: Well‐planned vibrant and active places: An attractive city offering great places and facilities promoting an enjoyable and enriched lifestyle.

2.1 A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, leisure facilities and Services

2.2 A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections

Key Goal Area 3: Robust local economy: A strong local economy that sustains existing and attracts new business, industry and employment opportunities.

3.1 A strong innovative and diversified economy that attracts people to live, work, invest and visit

3.2 A City recognised for its high quality events and year round tourist offerings 3.3 A community where local business is supported

RISK ASSESSMENT

Risk Controls Consequence Likelihood Risk Level

1. The local community no longer supports the Busselton Foreshore Statement of Intent (2011), which includes acknowledgement of commercial development to create a revenue stream to support long term Jetty refurbishment 2. Marketing of the sites yields little or no interest in progressing a commercial development

Public consultation has occurred regularly since 2011, including feedback on a revised Master Plan and Development Guide Plan for the foreshore and convening of the Busselton Foreshore Working group which has confirmed the overall direction and modifications to planning documents Link marketing activities to progression of key milestones related to funding and timing of regional airport expansion, utility infrastructure and relocation of the Busselton Tennis Club

Moderate Possible

Unlikely Minor

M M

CONSULTATION Public consultation has been conducted as part of the endorsement of the revised Busselton Foreshore Development Guide Plan. Government agencies consulted with in regards to the relocation of the tourism accommodation sites includes the WA Planning Commission, Department of Lands, South West Development Commission and Tourism Western Australia. Regular consultation has occurred with Tourism Western Australia and the South West Development Commission regarding synergies of this project with the regional airport expansion proposal and the need for further public investment in the Busselton foreshore to create greater certainty for potential developers and to assist in the offsetting of the capital costs of the project by provision of support for utility headworks (electricity, gas, sewerage and telecommunications).


OFFICER COMMENT Previous efforts to attract a commercial developer for the Busselton foreshore hotel/short‐stay accommodation precinct have been unsuccessful for several reasons, including the high financial risk of such a project and uncertainty with regard to:

completion of the Busselton foreshore;

funding of the airport expansion which would help drive increased visitation to the district to support higher occupancy;

the nature of the land tenure being leasehold and the length of a long term lease being undefined;

lack of ability to include a residential component within a proposed development, which is often required as a source of equity finance to supplement debt finance for new tourism accommodation developments.

With the above conditions still prevailing and a continued softening of economic activity in Western Australia as a result of reduced investment in the resources sector, the Officer recommendation within this report is to continue to conduct awareness raising activities for the hotel/short‐stay sites, in order to build a register of potential investors / developers once economic and site conditions improve. For example:

new site signage on the corner of Queen Street and Marine Terrace, showing the proposed new development sites in the context of the Busselton Foreshore Master Plan and inviting registrations of interest to be submitted

partnering with Tourism Western Australia at hotel/short‐stay tourism industry events where tailored prospecting and networking with hotel/short‐stay executives can be conducted to garner interest.

Feedback received from industry and several government agencies suggests there are a number of catalytic milestones that should be achieved prior to a more aggressive marketing campaign for the hotel/short‐stay development sites, in order to improve commercial viability. For example, according to a recent report by RPS Australia East Pty Ltd (2015) a 150 room development is likely to cost in the order of $60m and a 225 room development likely to cost around $94m. An expression of interest marketing campaign is likely to be more successful once funding milestones for one (or preferably all) of the milestones below are achieved:

i. the commencement of the relocation of the Busselton Tennis club facilities to the Active Sports Precinct (provides certainty on timing of the availability of Site 1)

ii. regional airport expansion including confirmation of interstate flights (provides for greater commercial viability related to an expansion to the number of visitors to Busselton and the Margaret River Region).

iii. serviced sites are likely to be more successful once utilities are established, including water, power, gas, sewerage and telecommunications (provides for greater commercial viability related to reduced capital costs for a developer).

Officers have reviewed the original Busselton Foreshore ‘Statement of Intent’ that was adopted on 8 June 2011 (C1106/180) and shown at Attachment 1. The principles of sustainability embedded in the document remain valid, however it requires updating to replace the words ‘Shire of Busselton’ with ‘City of Busselton’ . Officers recommend Council also reaffirm and publish the updated ‘Statement of Intent’ to communicate and guide future stages of the redevelopment project.


CONCLUSION Recruitment of commercial interest in the hotel/short‐stay tourism accommodation precinct within the original Busselton Foreshore Master Plan (2012) was unsuccessful due to several reasons relating to commercial viability; market conditions at the time an EoI program was conducted; uncertainty with regard to the completion of the Busselton foreshore redevelopment; uncertainty about the proposed expansion of the regional airport and uncertainty about the availability of the sites, being Crown land that was subject to a rationalization process. In 2014, Council progressed modifications to the Busselton Foreshore Master Plan and received endorsement of the Busselton Foreshore Development Guide Plan by the WA Planning Commission. Additionally, a business case for expansion of the Busselton Regional Airport has been finalized and a decision on State and Federal Government funding is likely in 2015. With advancement in planning for the foreshore and associated regional tourist access (i.e. the airport expansion business case), it is timely Council reviews its position on progressing commercial investment into the hotel/short stay sites. The report recommends Council update the Busselton Foreshore Statement of Intent (2011) by replacing the words ‘Shire of Busselton’ with ‘City of Busselton’, and reaffirms the sustainability principles contained therein. This includes achieving a balance between economic, social and environmental issues. Commercial development of hotel/ short stay accommodation is an important contributor (along with cafes/restaurants and hospitality services) to economic sustainability by creating a revenue stream to support maintenance of the Jetty and to assist establish the wider foreshore as a vibrant precinct to be enjoyed by both tourists and residents. On this basis, this report recommends the City commence preparation and implementation of a marketing program and a subsequent EoI process to guide future land development on the sites earmarked for hotel/short‐stay accommodation on the Busselton Foreshore Development Guide Plan. OPTIONS Council may elect to: 1. Not update the Statement of Intent (2011) and modify its content

2. Nominate alternative locations and/or areas for future development of hotel/short‐stay tourist

accommodation, noting this will require an amendment to the Development Guide Plan endorsed by the WA Planning Commission in late 2014. This process would consume a considerable amount of time as public consultation would need to occur prior to any significant change to the Foreshore Master Plan.

3. Not commence, or defer any further marketing of the hotel/short‐stay tourist accommodations sites, including conducting an EoI process.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION City officers would prepare a marketing program for the sites based on a budget allocation in the 2015/16 financial year and present the proposed activities and potential cost to a Councillor briefing session prior to consideration in the budget. However, officers will commence a passive marketing campaign and initiate a Registration of Interest (RoI) process should the Council endorse the Officer recommendation.


Ideally, the EoI process will be conducted in an environment of greater certainty of project funding and timing for:

the expansion of the regional airport;

relocation of the Busselton Tennis Club; and,

provision of headworks for utility (electricity, gas, telecommunications, sewerage) for the proposed sites

Decisions on funding and timing of these matters are likely to be known in the first half of 2015 and their status would be communicated in EoI documentation. known in the first half of 2015 and their status would be communicated in EoI documentation.


That the Council;

1. Updates the Busselton Foreshore ‘Statement of Intent’ adopted by Council (C1106/180) on 08 June 2011 (refer Attachment 1) by replacing the words ‘Shire of Busselton’ with ‘City of Busselton’ and reaffirms its commitment to the contents of the statement;

2. Reconfirms the hotel/short stay accommodation sites incorporated in the Busselton Foreshore Master Plan (refer Attachment 2) and the Busselton Foreshore Development Guide Plan (refer Attachment 3) adopted by Council (C1407/170) on 9 July 2014; and,

3. Requests the CEO to prepare and implement a marketing program, and subsequent Expressions of Interest process to guide future land development

CARRIED 9/0

EN BLOC


15.2 COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN SUBJECT INDEX: Councillors' Information STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: Governance systems that deliver responsible, ethical and accountable

decision‐making. BUSINESS UNIT: Executive Services ACTIVITY UNIT: Executive Services REPORTING OFFICER: Reporting Officers ‐ Various . AUTHORISING OFFICER: Chief Executive Officer ‐ Mike Archer VOTING REQUIREMENT: Simple Majority ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Planning Applications Received 16 to 31 January, 2015

Attachment B Planning Applications Determined 16 to 31 January, 2015

Attachment C State Administrative Tribunal Applications Review as at 5 February, 2015

Attachment D City of Busselton Amendment No. 181 — West Street, Busselton

Attachment E Extended Trading Application – City of Busselton

PRÉCIS 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

15.2.1 2011‐12 Local Government National Report A copy of the 2011‐12 Local Government National Report has been received from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. The Report details the distribution of funding provided under the Australian Government Financial Assistance Grant program to local government for 2011‐12 and provides an account of initiatives that seek to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government services to the community. It has been prepared by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development in cooperation with local government associations, state and territory governments. A copy of the Report is available to be viewed on CD in the Councillors’ office.

15.2.2 2014 Annual Report – Activ A copy of the 2014 Activ Annual Report has been received and is available to be viewed in the Councillors’ office.

15.2.3 Planning & Development Services Statistics Attachment A is a report detailing all Planning Applications received by the City between 16 and 31 January, 2015. Seventeen formal applications were received during this period.


Attachment B is a report detailing all Planning Applications determined by the City between 16 and 31 January, 2015. A total of sixteen applications (including subdivision referrals) were determined by the City during this period with all approved / supported.

15.2.4 State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Appeals Attachment C is a list showing the current status of State Administrative Tribunal Appeals involving the City of Busselton as at 5 February, 2015.

15.2.5 City of Busselton Amendment No. 181 — West Street, Busselton Attachment D is a copy of correspondence received from Julian Wright, A/Executive Director, Regional Planning and Strategy in relation to City of Busselton Amendment No. 181 – West Street, Busselton.

15.2.6 Extended Trading Application – City of Busselton Attachment E is a copy of correspondence received from Hon. Michael Mischin MLC, Attorney General, Minister for Commerce confirming the City’s application for Extended Trading Hours has been approved.


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

15.2.1 2011‐12 Local Government National Report

15.2.2 2014 Annual Report – Activ

15.2.3 Planning & Development Services Statistics

15.2.4 State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Appeals

15.2.5 City of Busselton Amendment No. 181 — West Street, Busselton

15.2.6 Extended Trading Application – City of Busselton

CARRIED 9/0

EN BLOC


ITEMS CONSIDERED BY SEPARATE RESOLUTION At this juncture, in accordance with Clause 5.6 (3)(a) & (b) of the Standing Orders, those items requiring an Absolute Majority or in which Councillors had declared Financial, Proximity or Impartiality Interests were considered. 10.4 Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ 2014/15 BUDGET AMENDMENT WONNERUP COASTAL

FORESHORE MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBJECT INDEX: Environment STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: Our natural environment is cared for and enhanced for the enjoyment

of the community and visitors. BUSINESS UNIT: Environmental Services ACTIVITY UNIT: Environmental Planning REPORTING OFFICER: Senior Sustainability Officer/Environment Officer ‐ Jackie Nichol AUTHORISING OFFICER: Director, Planning and Development Services ‐ Paul Needham VOTING REQUIREMENT: Absolute Majority ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Wonnerup Foreshore Management Study 1 & 2

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 5 February 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. PRÉCIS The City has been successful in securing $15,000 from the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) to develop a management plan for the Wonnerup foreshore and associated coast lands. This report recommends that Council accepts the $15,000 grant funding allocated by the WAPC as part of the Coastal Management Plan Assistance Program, and that Council amend the 2014/2015 Budget to include these grant funds as revenue and allocates equivalent expenditure to develop the Wonnerup Coastal Foreshore Management Plan.

BACKGROUND The Wonnerup Foreshore comprising the coastal land from the Wonnerup town site to the City boundary with the Shire of Capel and including Captain Baudin reserve and the land adjacent to the mouth of the Wonnerup Inlet is one of the remaining sections of foreshore in the City of Busselton without a current management plan to guide future investment and development of this coastal zone. The land area to be considered as part of the development of the Wonnerup Coastal Foreshore Management Plan is indicated in Attachment A. This particular stretch of coastline has been identified as a future priority for management by the WAPC in their Status of Coastal Planning in WA report. A management plan for Wonnerup is required to manage this section of coast and to protect this area from threatening processes such as environmental weed spread and uncontrolled access. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT This grant funding will assist with the management of reserves listed currently (and soon to be) vested with the City of Busselton as per Clause 3.54 of the Local Government Act which provides the City the head of power for the purpose of controlling and managing land vested in the District.


Reserves currently vested with the City of Busselton for the purposes of this plan are:

R22952 (C Class camping and recreation),

R5217 (A Class, Camping and Recreation),

R385 (A Class, Camping and recreation),

R39193 (C Class, Recreation and Foreshore Protection). Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 refers to expenditure from the municipal fund not included in the annual budget. RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES Management plans have been produced for over 80% of coastal reserves in the City of Busselton to date. These plans will guide the development of a management plan for the Wonnerup coastal land area. Existing Council Plans of relevance to the Wonnerup Coastal reserves area include the :

Geographe Bay Foreshore Management Plan (Coastwise, 2000),

Central East Busselton foreshore Management Plan, (COB 2009), Captain Baudin Management Plan (COB, 2000), Busselton Wetland Conservation Strategy, (Department of Planning and Infrastructure, 2005),

Boating Facilities Study for the Shire of Busselton (Department of Transport, 1995), Forrest Beach and Wonnerup Dunes Access Study, (Shire of Busselton; Ecologia

Environmental Consultant, 1997). FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS In order to maintain the integrity of Council’s financial reporting, this report recommends an amendment to Council’s 2014/2015 Budget to include the operating grant funding provided by the WAPC Coastal Management Plan Assistance Program Grant as revenue, and corresponding expenditure for the works associated with the development of the Wonnerup Coastal Reserves Management Plan. As follows:

Environmental planning – Implementation Management Plans Other

Description Account String 2014/2015 Adopted Budget

2014/2015 Amended Budget

(Proposed)

2104/2015 Variance

Revenue

Grants & Subsidies WAPC

421‐10850‐1239‐0000

0 ($15,000) (15,000)

Expenditure

Contractors (Inc Contract Staff)

421‐10850‐3280‐0000

87,500 102,500 15,000

Net Exp/Rev 87,500 87,500 $0.00

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES The works to be funded by the WAPC Grant allocation are considered as relating to Key Goal Area 5 – Cared for and Enhanced Environment and Community Objective 5.1 ‐ Our natural environment is cared for and enhanced for the enjoyment of the community and visitors.


RISK ASSESSMENT An assessment of the potential implication of not implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. The assessment sought to identify ‘downside’ risks only rather than ‘upside’ risks and where the risk following implementation of controls has been identified is moderate or greater. No such risks were identified. CONSULTATION The application for funding the Wonnerup Coastal Foreshore Management Plan was prepared in partnership with the WAPC staff who provided advice on the best approach for the administration and acquittal of the grant. The project has also been supported by staff from the South West Catchments Council and the Department of Fisheries who were consulted during the development of the grant application. Should the development of this Plan be endorsed by Council, further consultation with other agencies will be undertaken as part of the Management Plan development process, including Department of Parks and Wildlife, the Wonnerup Residents Association, RecFishWest, the WAPC and a local 4WD Club. OFFICER COMMENT Council endorsement of the proposed 2014/15 Budget amendments will enable the development of a detailed Wonnerup Coastal Foreshore Management Plan to address the key threats to the Wonnerup coastline. It is proposed that through consultation with the relevant government agencies and user groups a more strategic approach to the protection and management of Coastal assets in this area, such as vegetation, flora and fauna will evolve. The actions identified through the development of a Wonnerup Coastal Foreshore Management Plan will guide Council decisions for this coastal area. Identifying current threats and developing a comprehensive Plan will help to minimise the future impact on both environmental values and important coastal vegetation and habitat for flora and fauna. For example, the Plan will address issues such as climate change impacts relating to increased storm surge and coastal erosion that may impact on habitat for critically endangered species such as the Western Ringtail possum. Issues have also recently arisen in this area with regards to user access to the beaches and safety with so many conflicting different user groups accessing the area without any existing management controls, planning or policies to protect the environment or users. Increased likelihood of greater storm surges and weather events will also affect infrastructure and nearby residential values. Such issues need to be addressed in advance of such events occurring to provide for climate change adaptation. By producing a coordinated management plan with extensive consultation expected with the formation of a Steering Committee and key Community and Stakeholder Strategy during the Plan’s development, will ensure these pertinent safety, community and amenity issues are addressed. Partnerships with WAPC and other agencies including local resident associations during the Plan’s development increases community awareness in the area and should result in better planning controls for managing safety and access to local community and users in this more remote part of the coastline.


The predicted recommendations to improve access, safety and signage will enhance user experience and provide greater protection for environmental values in the area, as well as an opportunity to protect existing environmental values and amenity. CONCLUSION

The grant funding provided by the WAPC Coastal Management Plan Assistance Program for the production of the Wonnerup Coastal Foreshore Management Plan for 2015/16, if accepted by Council, will provide significant benefit to the community and values of the Wonnerup area and will greatly contribute to improved management in this area in future. The proposed budget amendment will increase the amenity and better manage the natural values of the foreshore from Captain Baudin Reserve to the Council boundary in Capel, for all users. OPTIONS The Council may determine to not endorse the proposed amendment to the 2014/2015 budget. TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION Should the Officer Recommendation be endorsed, an amendment to the 2014/2015 adopted budget will be processed by the 30 March 2015.

COUNCIL DECISION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED

C1502/039 Moved Councillor C Tarbotton, seconded Councillor J Green

That the Council:

Accepts the grant funding of $15,000.00 allocated by the WAPC under the Coastal Management Plan Assistance Program and endorses an amendment to the 2014/2015 adopted budget on the following basis: Environmental planning – Implementation Management Plans Other

Description Account String 2014/2015 Adopted Budget

2014/2015 Amended Budget

(Proposed)

2104/2015 Variance

Revenue

Grants & Subsidies WAPC

421‐10850‐1239‐0000

0 ($15,000) (15,000)

Expenditure Contractors (Inc Contract Staff)

421‐10850‐3280‐0000

87,500 102,500 15,000

Net Exp/Rev 87,500 87,500 $0.00

CARRIED 9/0

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY


10.5 Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ GEOGRAPHE LEISURE CENTRE NEW FEES AND CHARGES ‐ 2014‐15 FINANCIAL YEAR

SUBJECT INDEX: GLC Operations STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive

outcomes for the community. BUSINESS UNIT: Community Services ACTIVITY UNIT: Geographe Leisure Centre REPORTING OFFICER: Manager, Community Services ‐ Maxine Palmer AUTHORISING OFFICER: Director, Community and Commercial Services ‐ Naomi Searle VOTING REQUIREMENT: Absolute Majority ATTACHMENTS: Nil

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at its meeting on 5 February 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. PRÉCIS In accordance with Regulation 5(2) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations (the ‘Regulations’), a local government is to undertake a review of its fees and charges regularly; and not less than once in every financial year. Whilst the Council has previously adopted its Schedule of Fees and Charges to apply for 2014/15, this report provides the Council with recommended Fees and Charges for additional facilities now available for hire at the Geographe Leisure Centre (GLC). It is proposed these Fees would apply from 1 March 2015.

BACKGROUND The City has now completed the construction of a new gymnasium, crèche, health suites, meeting room and cycle room at the GLC. The meeting room, health suites and group fitness room can now be hired for community or commercial use to generate additional revenues that help achieve the Council’s objective to decrease the net operating cost of the GLC. In order for fees and charges relating to these new facilities to be effective, the Council is requested to adopt these fees during the current financial year, such that statutory public notice periods can be complied with and to support the achievement of revenues forecast in the 2014/15 GLC operating budget. On 10 December 2014 and 21 January 2015, Council were briefed on the progress of the Expression of Interest (EOI) process undertaken to lease the new health suites at the GLC. Feedback from prospective users revealed that a variety of arrangements are of interest, with many preferring shorter periods of use such as daily or occasional hire. This report proposes daily hire fees for the health suites to meet the needs which have been identified. Lease arrangements for sole occupancy of some suites will also continue to be progressed. A mix of different lease and hire arrangements will provide a variety of ways in which the health suites can be used and maximise usage of these new facilities. Other fees are also proposed in this report for other facilities enabled by the GLC expansion. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Section 6.16(3) of the Act states that a schedule of fees and charges is to be adopted by the Council when adopting the annual budget, however fees and charges may also be imposed during a financial year. Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act (the “Act”) states that a local government may impose and


recover a fee or charge for any goods or services it provides or proposes to provide, other than a service for which a service charge is imposed. Section 6.17 of the Act further states that in determining the amount of a fee or charge for goods and services, a local government is to take in to consideration the following factors: a) The cost to the local government of providing the service or goods b) The importance of the service or goods to the community; and c) The price at which the service or goods could be provided by an alternative provider Section 6.18 of the Act clarifies that if the amount of any fee or charge is determined under another written law, then a local government may not charge a fee that is inconsistent with that law. Pursuant to Section 6.19 of the Act, local public notice must be given should fees and charges be adopted outside of the annual budget adoption process. The above matters have been considered as part of the development of the new fees and charges in this report. RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES The Council’s currently endorsed Long Term Financial Plan reflects fees and charges revenue increasing by 4.2% annually, based on the 10 year average Local Government Cost Index. This level of increase has guided officers in setting the recommended fees and charges to apply in 2014/15 and 2015/16. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The GLC 2014/15 annual budget includes additional revenue to be generated from the hire of facilities at the GLC. The new fees have been developed by benchmarking against other similar size facilities for hire by the City, for example rooms at the Naturaliste Community Centre. The proposed fees have also been benchmarked against alternative providers in accordance with Section 6.17 of the Act. STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES This matter aligns with Community Objective 6.3 in the Community Strategic Plan ‐ ‘An organisation that is managed effectively and achieves positive outcomes for the community’. RISK ASSESSMENT There are several risks that the Council needs to be mindful of when reviewing its Schedule of Fees and Charges. Firstly, in an effort to assist in recovering costs associated with the provision of services, it is important that, where applicable, fees and charges are increased on an annual basis in line with relevant economic indicators. Should this not occur, the provision of those services is required to be increasingly subsidised by other funding sources. Conversely however, a balance is also required to ensure that fees and charges are maintained at levels so as not to adversely impact on the financial capacity for users to utilise those services, which may otherwise result in a net reduction in revenue. These matters were considered by officers when setting the recommended fees and charges to apply for 2014/15. CONSULTATION Not applicable


OFFICER COMMENT The Council’s $1.3 million expansion of the GLC has provided several new facilities and eased the burden on some existing facilities, as a result the following rooms are now available for hire for community and commercial use: a meeting room, health suites and the group fitness room. A storage fee is also proposed. Officers have found at the NCC that regular hirers often like to leave some of their equipment on site. By offering a storage service at the GLC regular hire will be more attractive to a larger variety of users who may only want to hire a room for a day or two a week but find it difficult to transport their equipment to and from the facility. Fees have been developed for these rooms by benchmarking against other similar size facilities for hire in the City, for example rooms at the Naturaliste Community Centre and alternative providers of commercial room hire and storage. A commercial market valuation was undertaken for the health suites in June 2014, this was reviewed in December 2014 to ensure it was current. The valuation received on 23 December 2014, was unchanged from the June valuation and proposed a commercial rent in the range of $235 to $275 plus GST per week net of outgoings. A daily hire rate of $90.00 including GST is proposed for the health suites to ensure the additional administration and cleaning costs of daily hire are covered and to ensure lease arrangements remain an attractive alternative. The Fees and Charges proposed are shown in the table below:

DESCRIPTION DRAFT FEE

2014/15 (Excl GST)

GST DRAFT FEE

2014/15 (Inc GST)

GEOGRAPHE LEISURE CENTRE

Health Suites

Community ‐ per day $54.55 $5.45 $60.00

Commercial ‐ per day $81.82 $8.18 $90.00

Storage ‐ per month $72.73 $7.27 $80.00

Meeting room hire

Community ‐ per hour $18.18 $1.82 $20.00

Commercial ‐ per hour $31.82 $3.18 $35.00

Fitness room hire



CONCLUSION The Council has previously adopted its Schedule of Fees and Charges for the 2014/15 financial year. It is recommended that Council adopt the new Fees and Charges in this report for storage, hire of the group fitness room, new meeting room and health suites to commence 1 March 2015. Adoption of these new fees will support the achievement of revenue forecast in the 2014/15 GLC operating


budget and provide a range of alternative hire arrangements to maximise use of the additional space afforded by the expansion of the GLC to a variety of users. OPTIONS The Council may decide to wait until all Fees and Charges for the City’s services are reviewed for adoption in line with the budget development process for 2015/16, noting that this will have a negative impact on the revenue budget forecast for the GLC. TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION Subsequent to Council endorsement, it is anticipated that the Schedule of new Fees and Charges for the GLC will become effective from and including 1 March 2015. Public Notices of the new Fees and Charges will published immediately, as required by Section 6.19 of the Local Government Act.

COUNCIL DECISION AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED C1502/040 Moved Councillor C Tarbotton, seconded Councillor J Green

That the Council: 1. Endorses the Fees and Charges as detailed in the “Draft Fee 2014/15 (excl. GST)” column of the following Schedule of Fees and Charges; effective from and including 1 March 2015:

DESCRIPTION DRAFTFEE

2014/15 (Excl GST)

GST DRAFT FEE

2014/15 (Inc GST)

GEOGRAPHE LEISURE CENTRE

Health Suites

Community ‐ per day $54.55 $5.45 $60.00

Commercial ‐ per day $81.82 $8.18 $90.00

Storage ‐ per month $72.73 $7.27 $80.00

Meeting room hire



Fitness room hire



CARRIED 9/0

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY


10. REPORTS OF COMMITTEE


This Item was considered earlier in the meeting as part of the En Bloc Resolution of Council. (Page 8)

10.2 Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ LIST OF PAYMENTS MADE – DECEMBER 2014




10.4 Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ 2014/15 BUDGET AMENDMENT WONNERUP COASTAL FORESHORE MANAGEMENT PLAN

This Item was considered earlier in the meeting as a part of the Items Considered by Separate Resolution of Council. (Page 55)

10.5 Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ Finance Committee ‐ 5/02/2015 ‐ GEOGRAPHE LEISURE CENTRE NEW FEES AND CHARGES ‐ 2014‐15 FINANCIAL YEAR

This Item was considered earlier in the meeting as a part of the Items Considered by Separate Resolution of Council. (Page 59)


10.6 Meelup Regional Park Management Committee ‐ 10/02/2015 ‐ MEELUP BEACH CARPARK

SUBJECT INDEX: Meelup Beach Master Plan STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: Infrastructure assets are well maintained and responsibly managed to

provide for future generations. BUSINESS UNIT: Engineeering and Works Services ACTIVITY UNIT: Engineering and Facilities Services REPORTING OFFICER: Director, Engineering and Works Services ‐ Oliver Darby AUTHORISING OFFICER: Director, Engineering and Works Services ‐ Oliver Darby VOTING REQUIREMENT: Simple Majority ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Meelup Beach Carpark Design ‐ 54 Bays

This item was considered by the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee at its meeting on 10 February 2015, the recommendations from which have been included in this report. PRÉCIS This report is presented to enable the Council, having considered all of the information available relating to the planned reconfiguration of the carpark at Meelup Beach, to provide clear direction on the finalization and subsequent implementation of the design.

BACKGROUND At its meeting on 13 January 2015, the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee passed a motion relating to the Meelup Beach Carpark, resulting in recommendations to be considered by the Council. This, however, occurred in the absence of a report and as a result of informal discussions involving officers, Committee members and Councillors, it is seen as appropriate that the final decision on the car park design be made by the Council, following the Committee making a recommendation informed by a report. It should be noted that decisions about works of this kind are not normally made by the Council or through formal Council or Committee processes, but rather by City officers, following informal consultation processes. The motion passed by the Committee was:

1. That the Committee rescinds resolution MP 1412/040 carried at its 9 December

2014 meeting because the Director of Engineering and Works Services says the Committee’s preferred carpark layout is unacceptable as in his opinion it may result in vehicle congestion in the carpark on some occasions.

2. That, subject to confirmation by the Director of Engineering and Works and Services that the area between the carpark and the beach will be widened by no less than 7m (2m of footpath and 5m of grassed area), Council approve the plan attached (marked “54 bays”) with:

a. a flush curb on the foreshore side of the carpark

b. a 2m wide universal access path, at the same level as and adjacent to the curb on the foreshore side of the carpark

c. and wheelstops in the bays on the foreshore side of the carpark, the combination of which will enable dissipation of runoff from the carpark

d. retention of the Peppermint tree near the toilet block and deletion of the two parallel bays

e. no bollards on the foreshore side of the carpark but round topped bollards on all other sides of the carpark


f. proper grassing , irrigation and management of the reclaimed area noting that:

I) key features of the approved Meelup Beach Master Plan were:

I. widening and upgrading the grassed/treed area between the carpark and the beach to enhance visitor amenity

II. providing for the coastal trail to traverse Meelup Beach to improve safety and connectivity and

III. preventing erosion by addressing runoff from the carpark which is currently concentrated into the NW corner by the raised curb

II) the plan attached achieves these objectives and also improves safety and amenity by providing for a universal access path connecting the toilet block to the beach so that visitors do not have to walk cross the carpark

III) however, relative to the previously recommended plan, the plan attached does not enhance visitor amenity to the same extent because it:

I. reduces the additional width of the grassed area between the carpark and the beach from 7m to 5m

II. Reduces the width of the grassed area at the rear of the capark by 2m

IV) the Director of Engineering and Works Services has advised the Committee that the design features detailed at 2 a, b, c and d are acceptable

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT NA. RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES Meelup Beach Master Plan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The upgrade of the Meelup Beach carpark is provided for in the current budget. Long‐term Financial Plan Implications NA. STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES Infrastructure assets that are well maintained and responsibly managed to provide for future generations. RISK ASSESSMENT Not required as the carpark design has been undertaken in accordance with Australian Standards and associated design documentation.


CONSULTATION The carpark design has been developed with input from the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee but is now formally presented to the Committee due to the motion passed at its 13 January, 2015 meeting. OFFICER COMMENT With regard to the motion passed by the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee at its January meeting, the following comment addresses parts 2 a. and 2 b. of that motion. Officer advice is that flush kerb will not be required in this location with the presence of the footpath. In essence, the path acts as the kerb. The addition of the kerb will act only to reduce the useable space. With regard to 2 c. the detailed drainage design has not been completed to date, however, the design will ultimately be completed in order to minimise erosion of the surrounding area. The design will be completed in accordance with the City’s technical specifications. At that meeting, the Committee also recommended at 2 d. the retention of the peppermint tree near the toilet block and the deletion of the two parallel bays. Officers can advise that with the City’s current design the peppermint tree will be retained. However, the parallel bays must be kept in order to maximise the number of parking bays. If these bays are removed (there is no technical or engineering reason why they need to be removed as the kerb line here is not altering) there will be an overall reduction in bays from the outset of the project. With the officer’s preferred design including the two parallel bays there will be a net loss of only one bay when the overall project is completed. While the Committee’s views relating to grassing, irrigation and management of the reclaimed area are noted by officers, the officer advice is that the budget for the carpark upgrade only includes the reinstatement of the existing reticulation, which in the case of the Meelup foreshore is minimal.

CONCLUSION The informal direction of the Council in relation to the reconfiguration of the Meelup Beach carpark has been to maximise the number of bays that are available. It is therefore recommended that the plan provided as Attachment A, achieving 54 bays, is endorsed and that the two parallel bays are retained in the design. OPTIONS Changes can be made to the carpark design if required by the Council. TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION It is intended that the Meelup Beach carpark reconfiguration works will be undertaken from May 2015.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council resolve that the carpark design provided at Attachment A and identifying 54 bays is endorsed.

2. That Officers review the possibility of moving the carpark back up to 1.2m south and

further present the design to the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee.


Note: The Mayor and CEO of the City of Busselton met with the Presiding Member and Deputy Presiding Member of the Meelup Regional Park Management Committee after the Committee made this recommendation. In this regard, City officers have been requested by the CEO to reconsider the carpark design as requested by the Committee. Should another solution be able to be identified, a new plan will be presented as part of the Council agenda item. Note: Officers put forward an Alternative Recommendation for Council to consider a car park design developed with 57 parking bays (Attachment 2).

COUNCIL DECISION C1502/041 Moved Councillor R Bennett, seconded Councillor C Tarbotton

That the Council resolve that the carpark design provided as Attachment 2, identifying 57 bays is endorsed. Attachment 2:

CARRIED 5/4

Voting: For the motion: Councillor R Bennett, Councillor T Best, Councillor G

Bleechmore, Councillor J Green and Councillor C Tarbotton. Against the motion: Councillor G Henley, Councillor J McCallum, Councillor I Stubbs and Councillor T Tuffin.


11. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT


This Item was considered earlier in the meeting as a part of the En Bloc Resolution of Council. (page 23)



11.3 DA14/0506: PROPOSED NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL : LOT 1 CORNERSTONE WAY, QUEDJINUP


12. ENGINEERING AND WORKS SERIVICES REPORT

Nil

13. COMMUNITY AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES REPORT


This Item was considered earlier in the meeting as a part of the En Bloc Resolution of Council. ( page 49)

14. FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT

14.1 AMENDMENT OF THE CITY OF BUSSELTON DOGS LOCAL LAW 2014

This Item was considered later in the meeting as a Late Item for Council consideration. (page 78)


15. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS’ REPORT

15.1 PROPOSED NAMING OF NEW ROADS, BUSSELTON FORESHORE

SUBJECT INDEX: Naming of New Roads, Busselton Foreshore STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for

diverse activity and strengthen our social connections. BUSINESS UNIT: Major Projects ACTIVITY UNIT: Strategic Planning REPORTING OFFICER: Major Projects Officer ‐ Mersina Robinson AUTHORISING OFFICER: Chief Executive Officer ‐ Mike Archer VOTING REQUIREMENT: Simple Majority ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Busselton Foreshore Master Plan

Attachment B Development Guide Plan Attachment C Proposed Roads

PRÉCIS Officers seek the Council’s consideration of the proposed naming of the new roads planned on the Busselton Foreshore. The roads include what have previously been referred to as: the east‐west spine road; extension of Stanley Street; and extension of Brown Street.

The proposed road alignments have all been adopted by the Council as outlined in the Busselton Foreshore Master Plan (BFMP) and the Busselton Foreshore Development Guide Plan (DGP) (endorsed by the Western Australian Planning Commission {WAPC}).

Officers have considered a list of names for each of the proposed roads consistent with the Geographic Names Committee Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia. It is recommended that the Council adopt the proposed name for the extension of Brown Street and makes a recommendation to Landgate for their approval. With regard to the east‐west spine road and the Stanley Street extension, it is recommended that officers undertake further consultation.

BACKGROUND Road Naming Requirements ‐ Busselton Foreshore

The BFMP and DGP outline the proposed new roads informally referred to as: the east‐west spine road; extension of Stanley Street; and extension of Brown Street.

The Foreshore from West Street to Ford Road has recently been the subject of a cadastral survey outlining the reserve rationalisation and new and existing road realignments throughout the area. The cadastral survey includes the northern extension of Stanley Street, northern extension of Brown Street connecting to Geographe Bay Road, the new east west spine road and road boundary around the existing roundabout at the northern end of Queen Street, adjacent to the Equinox (refer Attachment C).

Cadastral survey documents require approved road names before the survey can be approved. Local government is required to propose road names.

The responsibility for the naming of roads, features, townsites and places in WA resides with the Minister for Lands. The Geographic Names Committee (GNC) was established by the Minister to provide advice on geographical nomenclature matters; and guidelines to facilitate the approval and processing of nomenclature applications.


The guiding principles of nomenclature are as follows:

- Preferred sources of names are: descriptive names appropriate to the features, pioneers, war casualties and historical events connected with the area, and names from Aboriginal languages currently or formerly identified with the general area;

- Names to be avoided: given and surname combinations; qualified names; double names; unduly cumbersome or difficult to pronounce names, obscene, derogatory, racist or discriminating names, company or commercialised names;

- Names of living individuals should be used only in exceptional circumstances (there is a new requirement that the individual has passed away for at least 2 years);

- New names and changes of names shall have strong local community support; - Names in public use shall have primary consideration; - Name duplication and dual naming should be avoided, especially those in close proximity; - Generic names must be appropriate to features described; - New names must be accompanied by exact information as to location, feature identification,

origin or if alteration is proposed, by a rationale.

Should the names proposed not be accepted by Landgate the City may request consideration by the GNC of WA and Minister for Lands.

Proposed Road Names

The prefix names to a road type considered are listed in Tables 1‐3 below.

Table 1

East West Spine Road Reason Comment

1 Foreshore The word ‘Foreshore’ has a geographic relationship with the Foreshore.

The LGIO advise that ‘Foreshore’ is too generic, duplicated and not specific to this location, and inappropriate for emergency service issues.

2 Busselton Busselton is a prominent name for a prominent road.

LGIO advise this name is not to be used due to existence of other roads in the City commencing with Busselton i.e., ‘Busselton Bypass’ and potential confusion for emergency services.

3 Busselton Foreshore The words ‘Busselton Foreshore’ have a geographic relationship with the Busselton Foreshore.

This name would result in a double barrelled name. Triple or double barrelled names are not compliant with 3.1.3 of the GNC Policy. A maximum of two words including the road type for roads is appropriate.

4 The Esplanade This name gives emphasis to the ‘Busselton Foreshore’ as a prominent place.

Inconsistent with GNC Policy which states “New road names shall not include the definite article ‘The’ except in exceptional circumstances and only where necessary to give emphasis to a unique or outstanding topographical feature. Note the existence of ‘The Esplanade Hotel’ in Busselton.


5 Geographe Bay ‘Geographe Bay’ was named in 1801 by French explorer Nicolas Baudin. Baudin named the bay after his ship, Geographe. Hence the words ‘Geographe Bay’ has a geographic relationship with the Foreshore.

Not appropriate because: a maximum of two words including the road type for roads is applicable; and there is a pre‐existing ‘Geographe Bay Road’ within vicinity of the proposed road, which is not acceptable to GNC.

6 Geographe ‘Geographe’ is the name of Nicolas Baudin’s ship.

There is a pre‐existing ‘Geographe Bay Road’ within vicinity of the proposed road. The word Geographe has been used.

7 Bay Bay is suggested to reflect the view of Geographe Bay.

There is an existing Bay View Street in Busselton. Issue of duplication of the word ‘Bay’.

8 Yundalup ‘Yundalup’ is the Indigenous traditional name for Geographe Bay. It is more applicable as a place name, but would be acceptable as a street name. It refers to the Aboriginal name for Geographe Bay, hence this is considered to be an appropriate name.

This road meets the GNC policies and standards.

9 Jetty The Busselton Jetty is one of the

most recognised icons in WA. It is

the longest wooden piled jetty in

the southern hemisphere. This is

one of two key entrance roads

(along with Queen Street) to the

Busselton Jetty. Reference to the

Jetty is proposed as: the route

provides a connection to the

public accessway and the

Busselton Jetty..

There is no other roadway in the

City which has the name ‘Jetty’.

There is no other Jetty with such a

high level of significance in WA.

This name is considered suitable.

However, the name is more

appropriate for the extension of

Stanley Street given it runs in a

north south direction, generally in

line with the Busselton Jetty.

10 Busselton Jetty As for 9 above. Triple or double barrelled names

are not compliant with 3.1.3 of the

GNC Policy. The word Busselton is

unlikely to be acceptable to the

GNC policies and standards.

11 Whalers The town of Dunsborough in

Geographe Bay evolved from the

establishment of the Castle Rock

Whaling Station in 1845. During

the convict era of WA, many of

the ships which brought convicts

to the state were whalers, and

would revert to their whaling

operations for the return voyage.

The name has only been used in the ‘Whalers Cove Villas’ in Dunsborough, hence would not represent a duplication from an emergency services perspective. The name is considered suitable and compliant with GNC policies and standards.


12 Baudin In 1801 French explorer Nicolas Baudin reached Australia. He discovered part of the southern coast and was the first to discover the western coast[1].

There is a B&B in Busselton, known as ‘Baudins of Busselton’. However this is not considered to be in conflict. There is a Baudin Terrace in Bunbury (City of Bunbury) and a Baudin Drive in Gnarabup, (Shire of Augusta‐Margaret River). Given that both roads are outside the City of Busselton the name may be considered acceptable but may require Ministerial approval.

13 Ballaarat Busselton was the site for the first railway in WA, constructed in March 1871. The line ran from a jetty at Lockeville near Busselton to a Mill at Yoganup. The first motive power along the line, were horses, however shortly after the opening of this line, the company ordered a small locomotive from the Victoria Foundry at Ballaarat, in Victoria and 'Ballaarat' the loco became the first locomotive in Western Australia.

This name has strong historical significance and given the Ballaarat Engine will be housed on the Busselton Foreshore within or adjacent to Railway House there is relevance to the use of this name. The name is considered suitable and compliant with GNC policies and standards.

Table 2

Northern extension

Stanley Street

Reason Comment

1 Jetty As for Table 1 point 9. In addition

the route runs in a north‐south

direction generally consistent with

the line of the jetty.

There is no other roadway in the

City of Busselton which has the

name ‘Jetty’. This name is

considered suitable. However, the

name is more appropriate for the

extension of Stanley Street given it

runs in a north south direction,

generally in line with the Busselton

Jetty. There is no other roadway in

the City which has the name ‘Jetty’.

There is no other Jetty with such a

high level of significance in WA.

2 Busselton Jetty As for Table 1 point 9. Triple or double barrel names are

not compliant with 3.1.3 of the GNC

policies and standards.

3 Stanley The road represents a northern

extension of the existing Stanley

Street, however the name ‘Stanley

Street’ does not have any

geographic relationship with the

Busselton Foreshore.

Not considered appropriate.


4 Henry Yelverton ‘Henry Yelverton’ won the

contract to complete the jetty

construction in 1864, only 33

years after settlement of the area.

This construction was 176 metres

in length. In 1883 he was again

awarded a contract to complete a

second extension. He is

considered to have made a

significant contribution to the

Jetty.

Triple or double barrel names are

not compliant with 3.1.3 of the GNC

Policy.

5 Yelverton As for 4 above. There is an existing Yelverton Road

in the City of Busselton. Issue of

duplication.

Table 3

Northern extension Brown

Street connecting to Geographe

Bay Road

Reason Comment

1 Geographe Bay The new road is a direct

connection and extension to the

existing Geographe Bay Road.

The new road should have

the same name as the road

it connects directly with.

2 Brown The new road is a northerly

connection to Brown Street.

The new road connects

directly to Geographe Bay

Road and would cause

confusion if it was given a

different name.

A number of the names considered for the east‐west spine road do not meet the naming standards and policies of the GNC. This is largely due to:

- use of what is considered generic naming i.e. ‘Busselton’ or ‘Foreshore’. - duplication in the South West region or other parts of WA. - inappropriate for emergency service issues, having the potential to be confused with other

roads. - names that are not specific to this location. - restriction of road names (including road type) to a maximum of two words.

The following names outlined above are considered to be generally acceptable and compliant with the GNC policies and standards.

East West Spine Road - Yundalup - Jetty - Whalers - Baudin (may require Ministerial consideration given use in City of Bunbury and Shire of Augusta‐

Margaret River). - Ballaarat


Northern extension of Stanley Street - Jetty

Northern extension Brown Street - Geographe Bay Suitable road types as defined in the GNC Policy and Standards are listed below.

Approach – A roadway leading to an area of community interest i.e. public open space, commercial area, beach etc Avenue – A broad roadway, usually planted on each side with trees. Boulevard – A wide roadway, well paved, usually ornamented with trees and grass plots. Drive – A wide thoroughfare allowing a steady flow of traffic without many cross streets. Entrance – A roadway connecting other roads Esplanade – A level roadway, often along the seaside or a river. Parade – A public promenade or roadway which has good pedestrian facilities along the side. Promenade – A roadway like an avenue with plenty of facilities for the public to take a leisurely walk, a public place for walking. Walkway – A roadway which traffic travels at a slow pace.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT The legislation that impacts on Geographic Names is the Land Administration Act 1997, Part 2 – General Administration and Division 3 General. District Town Planning Scheme No. 20 The subject land is zoned ‘Special Purpose (Busselton Foreshore)’ and comprises Special Provision Area No. 44, which sets out detailed planning matters that are to be addressed through the preparation of a DGP. The Special Purpose zone provides for land uses which do not easily fit within the scope of other zones. The Special Purpose zone was introduced to facilitate the Busselton Foreshore redevelopment. The DGP has been adopted by the Council in accordance with the provisions of Clause 25 of the Scheme, which includes advertising, consideration of submissions and final approval/determination by the City and the WAPC. The DGP was endorsed by the WAPC on 7 November 2014. Land Administration Act 1997 In addition to town planning considerations, land tenure considerations are also relevant subject to the Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA). The LAA is administered by the Minister for Regional Development and Lands in his statutory role as Minister for Lands, with advice provided by the Department of Lands. Further control on the use of the reserve is protected by the Management Order conditions which may range from specific land management restrictions to the granting to the management body of the power to lease. Rationalisation of the existing reserves on the site was approved by Parliament in November 2012 subject to the following conditions: - Finalisation of the proposed rezoning of the site (Amendment No.173) bound by West Street,

Marine Terrace, Brown Street extension and the coast; - City adoption and WAPC endorsement of a Development Guide Plan for the rezoned site; and


- Finalisation of an agreement to the satisfaction of the Minister for Lands for the relocation of the tennis club facilities from Reserve 28535, including the right for the tennis club to continue to operate in its present location until relocation has been achieved.

RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES The key policies relevant to the proposal are the Geographic Names Committee Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia (Landgate, April 2013). FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The only financial implications for the City arising from this proposal is if it doesn’t proceed with the finalisation of road names, as this will result in additional costs to the processing of the cadastral survey. STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES The revised BFMP is considered consistent with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 which identifies the following community objectives especially relevant to the Busselton Foreshore Redevelopment:

2.1: A City where the community has access to quality cultural, recreation, and leisure facilities and services. 2.2: A City of shared, vibrant and well‐planned places that provide for diverse activity and strengthen our social connections.

RISK ASSESSMENT An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City’s risk assessment framework. There are no significant risks identified. CONSULTATION There is no requirement for the City to seek public comment for this proposal. OFFICER COMMENT Consideration has been given to Geographic Names Committee Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia (Landgate, April 2013). Specifically, Section 3, Clause 3.1.3 states names should be easy to pronounce, spell and write. They shall not exceed two (2) words including the road type for roads. Names used for roads and localities should be short. Section 8, Clause 8.3.1 Road Name Elements which states that every road name shall consist of a single name element followed by a road type, e.g. Smith Road, Jones Street etc not Black Swan Drive, Jon Smith Avenue.

Officers consider the proposed road names below could be acceptable, given they are specific to this location and have generally not been duplicated elsewhere. The other names below are considered to be consistent with the Geographic Names Committee Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia objectives of local and State policy. Therefore, Officers recommend Council consider the proposed road names for approval. East West Spine Road - Busselton Foreshore Esplanade - Busselton Foreshore Parade


- Isaacs Esplanade - Yundalup Esplanade

Northern extension Stanley Street - Jetty Avenue - Jetty Entrance - Jetty View - Jetty Boulevard - Busselton Jetty Avenue - Henry Yelverton Avenue Northern extension Brown Street connecting to Geographe Bay Road - Geographe Bay Road

A list of proposed road names was referred to Landgate’s Geospatial Information office (LGIO) in January 2015 for preliminary review. However, officers have been advised that a formal response from LGIO may be weeks away due to a backlog of requests. Based on informal advice from LGIO some of the names listed are not likely to be supported for the reasons outlined in this report. However, should the Council feel strongly about any of those names a request for consideration may be submitted to the Minister for Lands for determination.

Before proceeding with recommendations for the naming of A and B above it is considered that further consultation should be undertaken for selection of a suitable name. CONCLUSION Officers are recommending that:

- Before proceeding with recommendations for the naming of A and B above that further

consultation be undertaken for selection of a suitable name. A meeting with the former members of the Busselton Foreshore Reference Group could be held to discuss the proposed names; and

- Council adopt the proposed road name for C on the Busselton Foreshore as ‘Geographe Bay Road’.

In this regard, the Council may prefer to consider adopting its own preferences for the naming of the spine road and Stanley Street extension for referral to the members of the former Busselton Foreshore Reference Group. Should this be the preference, then Officers would recommend Busselton Foreshore Esplanade or Busselton Foreshore Parade for the spine road and Jetty Entrance or Jetty View for the extension of Stanley Street, due to the unique and iconic features of the District that the Busselton Foreshore and Jetty represent. OPTIONS Should the Officer Recommendation not be supported, the following options could be considered – 1. Other names considered but not recommended to be put forward to Landgate for

consideration. 2. Other names not outlined in this report to be considered and put forward to Landgate. The assessment did not reveal any substantive issue or reasonable grounds that would support either option.


TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION Implementation of the Officer Recommendation will occur within three months of the date of the Council decision. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That the Council:

1. Approve the following road name on the Busselton Foreshore:

- Geographe Bay Road (northern extension of Brown Street)

2. Refers the proposed name to Landgate’s Geographic Names Committee for approval. 3. Requests that officers liaise with the former members of the Busselton Foreshore Reference Group regarding the proposed road naming of the east‐west spine road and northern extension of Stanley Street, and consider the need for further community consultation before reporting back to Council with recommended names. Note: Councillor Tom Tuffin put forward an Alternative Motion for Council to consider the road in the precinct that is a continuation of Geographe Bay Rd being named Geographe Bay Road and that the City conduct conducts a public competition to name the other two thoroughfares in the new development.

COUNCIL DECISION C1502/041 Moved Councillor T Tuffin, seconded Councillor G Henley

That the Council: With respect to the naming of the three thoroughfares that will be developed in the Eastern Foreshore Precinct, that

1) the road in the precinct that is a continuation of Geographe Bay Road be named Geographe

Bay Road, 2) the City conduct a public competition to name the other two thoroughfares in the new

foreshore development, 3) the following people be invited to form a judging panel

a. the Mayor (or his representative), to be Chair of the Panel, b. one other Councillor nominated by Council, c. a member of BJECA, nominated by BJECA and who is not a Councillor, d. a representative from the tourism association, e. Ms Helen Shervington (as ex Chair of the Foreshore Committee) or her

representative, 4) the judging panel is to be guided by the Guidelines established by the Geographic Naming

Committee, 5) the two names selected by the Panel will be presented to Council as the preferred names for

the two hitherto unnamed thoroughfares.

CARRIED 9/0


15.2 COUNCILLORS’ INFORMATION BULLETIN


LATE ITEMS

14.1 AMENDMENT OF THE CITY OF BUSSELTON DOGS LOCAL LAW 2014 SUBJECT INDEX: Local Laws STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: Governance systems that deliver responsible, ethical and accountable

decision‐making. BUSINESS UNIT: Corporate Services ACTIVITY UNIT: 5.1.3. Ensure regulatory requirements are met REPORTING OFFICER: Legal Services Coordinator ‐ Cobus Botha AUTHORISING OFFICER: Director, Finance and Corporate Services ‐ Matthew Smith VOTING REQUIREMENT: Simple Majority ATTACHMENTS: Nil

This report was presented for consideration as a Late Item as a timely response was required to be provided to the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. Councillors in attendance indicated their willingness to consider the Item, and the Presiding Member approved consideration of the Item. PRÉCIS Council resolved on 12 November 2014 to make the City of Busselton Dogs Local Law 2015 (Dogs Local Law). Following gazettal of the Dogs Local Law the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (JSC) notified the City that it has a concern with certain wording of the Dogs Local Law and subsequently requests Council to provide the JSC with undertakings in relation to interim enforcement of the Dogs Local Law pending amendment thereof. The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the request from the JSC and to resolve whether to provide the requested undertakings and to commence the process of amending the Dogs Local Law in accordance with these undertakings.

BACKGROUND Council resolved on 12 November 2014 to make the Dogs Local Law which was subsequently gazetted on 24 November 2014 and which came into operation 14 days after its publication in the Government Gazette. Section 42 of the Interpretation Act 1984 allows the WA State Parliament to disallow a local law, which is a mechanism to guard against the making of subsidiary legislation that is not authorised or contemplated by the empowering enactment, has adverse effect on existing rights or ousts or modifies the rules of fairness. Parliament appointed the JSC to undertake an overseeing role on its behalf, which includes the power to scrutinise and recommend the disallowance of local laws to the Parliament. The JSC scrutinised the Dogs Local Law at its meeting on 25 February 2015 and resolved to write to the City about clause 3.1(1)(c) which states:


“3.1 Dogs to be confined (1) An occupier of premises on which a dog is kept must –

(a)… (b)… (c) ensure that every gate or door in the fence is kept closed at all times when the dog is on the premises and is fitted with a proper latch or other means of fastening it;”

The JSC expressed its concern with the underlined part of this clause, advising as follows:

“While, the intention of the clause is clear – to keep dogs confined – the clause makes it an offence for and owner or occupier to open a gate at any time when a dog is on the premises, including when the owner or occupier temporarily opens a gate to leave their yard.”

The JSC is of view that the current wording of clause 3.1(1)(c) potentially modifies the rules of fairness, could lead to an unreasonable outcome and therefore causes it to fall outside the empowering enactment. As a solution the JSC proposed that Council amend this clause in the manner of the text underlined below:

“(c) ensure that every gate or door in the fence is kept closed at all times when the dog is on the premises (unless the gate is temporarily opened in a manner that ensures that the dog remains confined), and is fitted with a proper latch or other means of fastening it;”

The JSC further requested that Council provide the JSC by Friday 6 March 2015 with an undertaking:

To within 6 months amend clause 3.1(1)(c) to read as drafted above;

Not enforce the above clause in a manner contrary to the undertaking;

Make any consequential amendments arising from the undertaking; and

Where the Local Law is made publicly available, whether in hard copy or electronic form, that the law be accompanied by a copy of these undertakings.

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the request from the JSC and to resolve whether to provide the requested undertaking and to commence the process for amending the Dogs Local Law accordingly. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Under its Terms of Reference the JSC has the power to recommend to Parliament that a local law, which is considered to be beyond giving effect to a purpose authorized or contemplated by the empowering enactment be disallowed. Therefore should Council resolve not to provide the undertakings as requested, it may result in the Dogs Local law being disallowed by Parliament. Section 3.12(8) of the Local Government Act 1995 (Act) stipulates that the procedure for amending the text of a local law is the same as for making a local law. The procedure for making local laws is set out in sections 3.12 to 3.17 of the Act and regulation 3 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. The person presiding at a Council meeting is to give notice of the purpose and effect of a proposed local law by ensuring that —

the purpose and effect of the proposed local law is included in the agenda for that meeting; and

the minutes of the Council meeting include the purpose and effect of the proposed local law.


The purpose and effect of the proposed amendment local law is as follows: Purpose: To amend clause 3.1(1)(c) of the City of Busselton Dogs Local Law 2014 to clarify the intended operation of the clause. Effect: To ensure that the wording of clause 3.1(1)(c) of the City of Busselton Dogs Local Law 2014 operates fairly as intended and as such achieve consistency with the empowering legislation under which the local law is made. Statewide and local public notice is to be given by advertising the proposed amendment in accordance with the requirements of sections 3.12(3) and (3a) of the Act. The submission period must run for a minimum period of six weeks after which Council, having considered any submissions received, may resolve to make an amendment local law in accordance with the proposed amendment. RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES None FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Costs associated with the advertising and gazettal of an amendment local law will come from the legal budget. These costs are unlikely to exceed $2,000 and there are sufficient funds in the draft legal budget for this purpose. STRATEGIC COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES The proposal aligns with the City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan 2013 as follows:

6.2 Governance systems that deliver responsible, ethical and accountable decision making. RISK ASSESSMENT The requested undertakings and proposed amendment of the Dogs Local Law does not involve any significant changes from current practices and is therefore considered low risk. CONSULTATION No external consultation has been sought. If Council resolve to commence the law making process, public submissions will be invited as part of the statutory consultation process prescribed under Sections 3.12 (3) and (3a) of the Act. OFFICER COMMENT The City’s Dogs Local Law is based on the WALGA pro‐forma or “model” Dog Local Law, with the current wording of clause 3.1(1)(c) of the Dogs Local Law essentially the same as the WALGA pro‐forma local law. The JSC acknowledged this and indicated that it has already informed WALGA accordingly and suggested that this clause of WALGA’s pro‐forma Dog Local Law be amended. The JSC’s terms of reference 3.6(a) and 3.6(b) state:


In its consideration of an instrument, the Committee is to inquire whether the instrument— (a) is authorized or contemplated by the empowering enactment; (b) has an adverse effect on existing rights, interests or legitimate expectations beyond giving effect to a purpose authorized or contemplated by the empowering enactment …. The terms of reference authorise the JSC to express an opinion on what Parliament contemplated when passing legislation. Although it has never been the intention with clause 3.1(1)(c) to ‘criminalise’ the opening of a gate by an owner or occupier when a dog is on the premises, it can be contemplated that a strict interpretation and application of this clause could potentially allow this to happen. Therefore the suggested amendment of clause 3.1(1)(c) of the Dogs Local Law is considered necessary to achieve consistency with the rules of fairness and is recommended. CONCLUSION In order to avoid the unintentional but potential unreasonable effect of clause 3.1(1)(c) of the City’s Dogs Local Law, this clause should be amended in accordance with the wording recommended by the JSC and the requested undertakings in relation thereto provided to the JSC. OPTIONS In addition to the Officer Recommendation, Council have the following options: Option 1 Council can resolve not to amend the Dogs Local Law as requested, but rather to make a submission to the JSC to the effect that the intention of clause 3.1(1)(c) of the Dogs Local Law is clear – to keep dogs confined and not to ‘criminalise’ otherwise lawful behaviour by owner or occupiers temporarily opening gates on premises where dogs are kept. For the reasons discussed under OFFICER COMMENT above this is not recommended and will in all likelihood result in the Dogs Local Law being disallowed by Parliament. TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION Council is requested to provide the required undertakings to the JSC by Friday, 6 March 2015. In accordance with the undertakings the required amendment of the Dogs Local Law will have to be completed within 6 months from providing these undertakings.

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION C1502/042 Moved Councillor G Bleechmore, seconded Councillor G Henley

That the Council:

1. Provides, in relation to the City of Busselton Dogs Local Law 2014, the following undertakings to the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation:

a) To amend within 6 months from this resolution clause 3.1(1)(c) to read as follows:

“(c) ensure that every gate or door in the fence is kept closed at all times when the dog is on the premises (unless the gate is temporarily opened in a manner that ensures that the dog remains confined), and is fitted with a proper latch or other means of fastening it;”

b) Not enforce the above clause in a manner contrary to the undertaking;

c) Make any consequential amendments arising from the undertaking; and

d) Where the Local Law is made publicly available, whether in hard copy or electronic form,


that the law be accompanied by a copy of these undertakings.

2. Commences the law‐making process for amending the City of Busselton Dogs Local Law 2014, the purpose and effect of the local law being as follows: Purpose: To amend clause 3.1(1)(c) of the City of Busselton Dogs Local Law 2014 to clarify the

intended operation of the clause. Effect: To ensure that the wording of clause 3.1(1)(c) of the City of Busselton Dogs Local

Law 2014 operates fairly as intended and as such achieve consistency with the empowering legislation under which the local law is made.

3. Authorises the CEO to carry out the law‐making procedure under section 3.12(3) of the Local Government Act 1995, by –

a) giving Statewide public notice and local public notice of the proposed amendment of the Local Law; and

b) giving a copy of the proposed amendment local law and public notice to the Minister for Local Government.

4. That the CEO, after the close of the public consultation period, submit a report to the Council on any submissions received on the proposed amendment of the Local Law to enable the Council to consider the submissions made and to determine whether to make an amendment local law in accordance with section 3.12(4) of the Act.

CARRIED 9/0


17.1 PROPOSED TERMINATION OF SUBLEASE I126939 GRANTED TO DA & JL COUCH IN RESPECT OF THE ICE CREAM KIOSK AT THE BUSSELTON FORESHORE

SUBJECT INDEX: Busselton Jetty and Foreshore Revitalisation STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: A City of shared, vibrant and well planned places that provide for

diverse activity and strengthen our social connections. BUSINESS UNIT: Corporate Services ACTIVITY UNIT: Legal Services REPORTING OFFICER: Legal Services Coordinator ‐ Cobus Botha AUTHORISING OFFICER: Director, Finance and Corporate Services ‐ Matthew Smith VOTING REQUIREMENT: Simple Majority ATTACHMENTS: Nil This report was presented for consideration as a Late Item as a notice period is required to be provided to current tenants to enable the continuation of the next stage of the Busselton Foreshore Master Plan. Councillors in attendance indicated their willingness to consider the Item, and the Presiding Member approved consideration of the Item. This item is confidential in accordance with section 5.23(2) (e)(ii) of the Local Government Act 1995, as it contains information relating to a matter that if disclosed, would reveal information that has a commercial value to a person, where the information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

COUNCIL DECISION AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATION C1502/043 Moved Councillor T Best, seconded Councillor G Bleechmore

That the Council: Terminates David Arthur and Jennifer Lee Couch’s sublease of a portion of Lot 431, Queen Street, Busselton (known as the Ice Cream Kiosk) by giving 3 months written notice.

CARRIED 9/0


16. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil

17. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

17.1 PROPOSED TERMINATION OF SUBLEASE I126939 GRANTED TO DA & JL COUCH IN RESPECT OF THE ICE CREAM KIOSK AT THE BUSSELTON FORESHORE

This Item was considered earlier in the meeting as a Late Item for Council consideration. (page 80)

18. QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

Nil

19. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil

20. NEXT MEETING DATE

Wednesday, 11 March 2015

21. CLOSURE

The meeting closed at 5.55pm.

THESE MINUTES CONSISTING OF PAGES 1 TO 81 WERE CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND

CORRECT RECORD ON WEDNESDAY, 11 MARCH 2015.

DATE:_________________ PRESIDING MEMBER: _________________________

CITY OF BUSSELTON FOR THE COUNCIL … note: These minutes are yet to be confirmed as a true record...

Documents

Transcript of CITY OF BUSSELTON FOR THE COUNCIL … note: These minutes are yet to be confirmed as a true record...