Ordinary Council - Shire of Augusta-Margaret River...Ordinary Council MINUTES FOR THE MEETING TO BE...

Ordinary Council

MINUTES

FOR THE MEETING TO BE HELD WEDNESDAY, 24 MAY 2017

IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, WALLCLIFFE ROAD, MARGARET RIVER

COMMENCING AT 5:30PM

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 24 MAY 2017

1

Meeting Notice Dear Councillor I advise that an Ordinary Council Meeting of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River will be held in Council Chambers, Wallcliffe Road, Margaret River on Wednesday 24 May 2017, commencing at 5:30pm. Yours faithfully

GARY EVERSHED CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


2

ATTENTION/DISCLAIMER

This agenda has yet to be dealt with by the Council. The Recommendations shown at the foot of each item have yet to be considered by the Council and are not to be interpreted as being the position of the Council. The minutes of the meeting held to discuss this agenda should be read to ascertain the decision of the Council. In certain circumstances members of the public are not entitled to inspect material, which in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer is confidential, and relates to a meeting or a part of a meeting that is likely to be closed to members of the public. No responsibility whatsoever is implied or accepted by the Shire of Augusta Margaret River for any act, omission, statement or intimation occurring during Council or Committee meetings. The Shire of Augusta Margaret River disclaims any liability for any loss whatsoever and howsoever caused arising out of reliance by any person or legal entity on any such act, omission or statement of intimation occurring during Council or Committee meetings. Any person or legal entity who acts or fails to act in reliance upon any statement, act or omission made in a Council or Committee meeting does so at that person’s or legal entity’s own risk. In particular and without derogating in any way from the broad disclaimer above, in any discussion regarding any planning application or application for a licence, any statement or intimation of approval made by any member or Officer of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River during the course of any meeting is not intended to be and is not taken as notice of approval from the Shire of Augusta Margaret River. The Shire of Augusta Margaret River advises that anyone who has any application lodged with the Shire of Augusta Margaret River must obtain and should only rely on WRITTEN CONFIRMATION of the outcome of the application and any conditions attaching to the decision made by the Shire of Augusta Margaret River in respect of the application. The Shire of Augusta Margaret River advises that any plans or documents contained within this agenda may be subject to copyright law provisions (Copyright Act 1968, as amended) and that the express permission of the copyright owner(s) should be sought prior to their reproduction. It should be noted that copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against any persons who infringe their copyright. A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may represent a copyright infringement.


3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO. SUBJECT PAGE NO.

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING .................................................................................................. 5

2. ATTENDANCE ........................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 APOLOGIES .............................................................................................................................. 5

2.2. APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE .......................................................................................... 5

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST ................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Item 11.4.5 List of Payments for April 2017 – Financial Interest – Director Corporate

and Community Services, Ms Annie Riordan ............................................................................. 6

3.2 Item 11.1.1 Community Contributions – Impartiality Interest – Councillor Kylie Kennaugh .................................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Item 11.4.3 Draft Fees and Charges – Impartiality Interest – Councillor Kylie Kennaugh .................................................................................................................................... 6

4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................ 6 4.1. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE ............................... 6

4.2. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ......................................................................................................... 6

4.2.1 Proposed Service Station - Lot 9502 Bussell Highway Cowaramup - Ms Tracey Gregory, 21 Tinglewood Court Cowaramup…………………………………………..........................................6

4.2.2 Proposed Service Station - Lot 9502 Bussell Highway Cowaramup - Mr Allan Coy, 8 O'Brien St, Cowaramup………………………………………………………………………………………………7

4.2.3 Proposed Service Station – Lot 9502 Bussell Highway Cowaramup – Mr David Binks, 10 Wandoo Court Cowaramup ................................................................................................... 9

4.2.4 Proposed Service Station – Lot 9502 Bussell Highway Cowaramup – Mr Brian Connor, 20 Bavin Drive Cowaramup ........................................................................................................ 9

4.2.5 Proposed Service Station – Lot 9502 Bussell Highway Cowaramup – Mr Bill Menlow, 43 Honeysuckle Lane Cowaramup ........................................................................................... 10

5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ......................................................................... 10 6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING ................................................... 10 6.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 10 MAY 2017 ........................................ 10

7. DEPUTATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 10 7.1 Item 11.2.2 Amendment 36 Perimeter Road and John Archibald Drive Funding – Mr

Peter Gleed PGPM Pty Ltd ....................................................................................................... 10

7.2 Item 11.2.2 Amendment 36 Perimeter Road and John Archibald Drive Funding – Ms Karen Browne Hopgood Ganim Lawyers ................................................................................. 11

8. PETITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 17 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDING MEMBER....................................................... 17 10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN .................................................. 18 11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND EMPLOYEE REPORTS ................................................. 18 11.1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ................................................................................................. 19 11.1.1 REVIEW OF STANDING ORDERS LOCAL LAW .................................................................... 20

11.1.2 CEO POLICY REVIEW 2017 .................................................................................................... 25

11.2. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 34


4

11.2.1 PROPOSED SERVICE STATION - LOT 9502 BUSSELL HIGHWAY, COWARAMUP ........... 35

11.2.2 AMENDMENT 36 - PERIMETER ROAD AND JOHN ARCHIBALD DRIVE FUNDING ........... 52

11.3. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES .............................................................................................. 69 11.4. CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES…………………………………………...............69 11.4.1 COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS ............................................................................................. 71

11.4.2 TENDER 06/17 - REPLACEMENT OF SYNTHETIC BOWLING GREENS AT THE MARGARET RIVER BOWLING CLUB INC ............................................................................. 79

11.4.3 2017-18 DRAFT FEES AND CHARGES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ....................................... 82

11.4.4 COUNCILLOR FEES AND ALLOWANCES FOR 2017-18 ...................................................... 87

11.4.5 LIST OF PAYMENTS APRIL 2017 ........................................................................................... 91

11.4.6 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENT REPORT - APRIL 2017 ................................................ 95

11.4.7 AGE FRIENDLY COMMUNITY PLAN 2017-2021 ................................................................. 105

11.4.8 OPERATIONAL PLAN 2016-17 QUARTER 3 REPORT ........................................................ 111

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ......................................... 117 13. MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AT NEXT MEETING ..................................................... 117 14. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE ....................................................................... 117 14.1. MEMBERS .............................................................................................................................. 117

14.2 CEO…… .................................................................................................................................. 117

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS .................................................................................................. 117 16. CLOSURE OF MEETING ....................................................................................................... 117


5

Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Wednesday 24 May 2017, in Council Chambers, Wallcliffe Road, Margaret River, commencing at 5.30pm

Ordinary Council Meeting

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING The Shire President welcomed all in attendance and declared the meeting open at 5:30

I would like to pay my respects the traditional owners of this land, and their elders past and present.

2. ATTENDANCE Shire President : Cr Ian Earl North Ward

Councillors : Cr Kylie Kennaugh North Ward Cr Peter Lane North Ward Cr Kim Hastie Leeuwin Ward Cr Mike Smart Leeuwin Ward Cr Felicity Haynes Town Ward

Chief Executive Officer : Mr Gary Evershed Director Sustainable Development : Mr Dale Putland

Director Infrastructure Services : Mr Johan Louw Director Corporate and Community Development : Ms Annie Riordan

Manager Planning and

Development : Mr Nick Logan

Minute Secretary : Ms Megan Smith

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC : 38

MEMBERS OF THE PRESS Augusta Margaret River Times : Mr Warren Hately Augusta Margaret River Mail : Mr Declan Bush

2.1 Apologies Nil

2.2. Approved Leave of Absence


6

Cr Pam Townshend, Town Ward 3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

3.1 Item 11.4.5 List of Payments for April 2017 – Financial Interest – Director Corporate and Community Services, Ms Annie Riordan

The Director Corporate and Community Services disclosed an interest in Item 11.4.5 List of Payments for April 2017, the credit card expenses which is certified by the Chief Executive Officer.

3.2 Item 11.1.1 Community Contributions – Impartiality Interest – Councillor Kylie Kennaugh

Cr Kylie Kennaugh disclosed an interest affecting impartiality in Item 11.1.1 Community Contributions in that as President of the Margaret River & Districts Agricultural Society our group is affiliated with the South west Group of Affiliated Agricultural Associations one of the community organizations seeking funding.

3.3 Item 11.4.3 Draft Fees and Charges – Impartiality Interest – Councillor Kylie Kennaugh

Cr Kylie Kennaugh disclosed an interest affecting impartiality in Item 11.4.3 Draft Fees and Charges in that as President of the Margaret River & Districts Agricultural Society we are currently one of the users whose fees are going out for advertising. 4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS

4.1. Response to Previous Public Questions Taken on Notice Nil

4.2. Public Question Time 4.2.1 Proposed Service Station – Lot 9502 Bussell Highway Cowaramup – Ms Tracey Gregory, 21 Tinglewood Court Cowaramup

Ms Tracey Gregory of 21 Tinglewood Court Cowaramup asked the following questions: Q1: Has the Shire located the original Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed

BP site? If yes, why wasn’t this made available to the public at submissions time? If not, how can this proposal proceed without an EIA and its outcomes being made available to the public?

The Director Sustainable Development provided the following response: A1: An EIA assesses potential environmental impact to a matter of environmental significance. In

this case the site is cleared and drained. The site had previously contained a ‘minor drain’ that was modified and redirected. There are no matters of environmental significance occurring on this site to warrant an EIA.

The proposal on the site was investigated for its suitability as part of the development application process. Referral to State Government agencies resulted in additional information being submitted to demonstrate that potential adverse impacts arising from the use can be mitigated. With submission of the additional information the proposal did not raise objections from State Government referral authorities. The Department of Environment and Regulation in its response regarding the application noted that there were no comments to make in relation to implications arising under the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The Department of Water noted that the additional information provided demonstrated that the level of risk can be appropriately managed.

Q2: What considerations have been given to the recommendations in The Cowaramup

Village Strategy (CVS) of 2005? The future development of Cowaramup as outlined in the CVS states “A vibrant, quaint, rural village vibe “modelled on Hahndorf village can


7

be achieved at 2,000 or 3,000 persons, retaining the sense of place, if planned in a sustainable and sensitive manner.” How does this proposed development, a 24/7 BP petrol service station, less than 120m from and directly opposite residential housing comply with any of the recommendations in the CVS?

The Director Sustainable Development provided the following response: A2: The proposal has been amended with regard to the Actions & Guidelines in the CVS as detailed

in the agenda report and the attached Schedule of Submission. Operating hours were reduced from 24/7 proposed to 5am – midnight and a recommended to be further reduced to 6am – 10pm.

Q3: a) What measures has the proponent put in place to safeguard the Cowaramup Brook

and its tributaries from pollution? The protection and enhancement of the environment is addressed in section 7.2 of the CVS, with these following main objectives; i) To facilitate the protection, rehabilitation and management of watercourses in and around the village. ii) Retain a rural outlook to the town, and iii) The rural outlook of the townsite is to be maintained through the provision of strategically located vegetated corridors around the town.

b) Can the Shire please explain how this proposed development meets these objectives? c) What revegetation will the proponent be undertaking? What measures are in place to prevent runoff into the creek systems in major rainfall events?

The Director Sustainable Development provided the following response: A3: Refer to the comments at submission 314 in the Schedule of Submissions attached to the

agenda report. Measures include bunds, stormwater pits/soakwells, oil separator and corrosion resistant double walled underground storage fuel tanks. The proposal is also required to achieve standards for a Dangerous Goods Licence from the Department of Mines and Petroleum.

Q4: Has the groundwater system been environmentally assessed? The Director Sustainable Development provided the following response: A4: Refer to the answer to Question one.

Q5: Margaret River once had 3 service stations in the main street and 2 closed down. How

will Cowaramup sustain 2 petrol stations with a significantly smaller population? The Director Sustainable Development provided the following response: A5: Potential viability of development can’t be taken into account by the planners as it is not a

planning consideration

4.2.2 Proposed Service Station – Lot 9502 Bussell Highway Cowaramup – Mr Allan Coy. 8 O’Brien Street Cowaramup

Mr Allan Coy of 8 O’Brien Street Cowaramup asked the following questions: Q1: Given that the Shire has spent considerable ratepayer funds on a commitment to the

‘Electric Highway’ from Perth to Augusta. Will the Shire require ALL new petrol station


8

developments to include an electric car charging station, since the cost at construction is minimal?

The Director Sustainable Development provided the following response: A1: Council can’t require an electric filling station – we do not have the power to require a service

station to include this as part of their development. Q2: For the benefit of the layperson in attendance at this meeting. Will someone present at

the meeting of 24 May 2017 please explain, for the benefit of the public gallery, the difference between a discretionary approval and a regular approval and how this affects this application

The Director Sustainable Development provided the following response: A2: There are four classifications for uses in the Shire Planning Scheme as follows:

‘P’ Meaning the use is permitted by the scheme provided that the development complies with the relevant development standards and requirements of the scheme; ‘D’ Meaning the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting development approval; ‘A’ meaning that the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting development approval after giving special notice in accordance with clause 64 of the deemed provisions; and ‘X’ meaning a use is not permitted by the Scheme.

Q3: Given that I have been unable to locate any records relating to this council decision. Will the Shire please produce some documentation to support the relocation of the service station to the east side of Bussell Hwy from the west side, which is he site that ALL public consultation considered

The Director Sustainable Development provided the following response: A3: No, the documentation that exists shows what has occurred, however, none can be found

which can shows the exact reasons for this change. Having discussed this with Cr Smart the reason appears to be related to the removal of the roundabout at the intersection of Roy Earl Dve and Bussell Hwy.

Following the relocation of precinct 8 to the eastern side of the highway, the Department of Planning required modifications to the Structure Plan, when it identified an increase in the amount of commercial land, beyond what had been identified in commercial studies. The Shire argued that precinct 8 was not included because it had been identified as an agricultural precinct with specific uses – agribusiness and service station. The Department of Planning required a condition regarding the service station and agribusiness use, which was included in the Structure Plan that the WAPC endorsed

Q4: Given that the proponent has stated the intention to NOT service ‘B Double’ vehicles

on this site but the turn radiuses shown on the application plan still accommodate this size of vehicle. Will the shire require alterations to the forecourt layout to restrict access to ‘B Double’ vehicles?

The Director Sustainable Development provided the following response: A4: It is not necessary or desirable to alter the road layout as the entry to the site by B doubles

will be prohibited by law


9

Q5: Given that this proposal is for a BP Wild bean franchise and franchisees can usually only stock products as directed by the franchiser I believe that the proponents undertaking to stock local produce is undeliverable. Will the Shire place a condition on any approval given requiring a set percentage (say 20%) of all stock lines be locally produced or derived, since the proponent has stated this intention at the council briefing 10/5/2017

The Director Sustainable Development provided the following response: A5: No, the Shire has no ability to restrict the sale of produce in a service station to only locally

produced food. The proponent has indicated that the food supplied will be prepared off site and sold as prepackaged food.

4.2.3 Proposed Service Station – Lot 9502 Bussell Highway Cowaramup – Mr David Binks, 10 Wandoo Court Cowaramup

Mr David Binks of 10 Wandoo Court Cowaramup asked the following questions:

Q1: At the briefing a couple of weeks ago, Cr Smart asked a question, with the implications of this question to be considered carefully and accurate information supplied, in regard to the following two points.

1. Would the CEO be able to provide a report on the implications of investigating Cr

Smart’s question about the appearance of the site

A1(1): The CEO provided the following response: No, an explanation was provided at the briefing.

2. Would council consider deferring the item so a more informed decision could be

made?

A1(2): The Director Sustainable Development provided the following response: No, all available information has been provided and deferral could give rise to a SAT appeal based on a deemed refusal. Q2: Were Council fully informed that this had taken place?

The Director Sustainable Development provided the following response: A2: They were aware that the existing uses had changed. Council at the time thought it would be Cowaramup Agencies conducting agribusiness with the possibility of fuel bowsers. The decision was not directly related to trying to create a service station on the site as there had been no application or expressions of interest received for this use at that time.

4.2.4 Proposed Service Station – Lot 9502 Bussell Highway Cowaramup – Mr Brian Connor, 20 Bavin Drive Cowaramup

Mr Brian Connor of 20 Bavin Drive Cowaramup asked the following question.

Q1: Would Council consider undertaking a study into the existing businesses in the town?

The Director Sustainable Development provided the following response: A1: No. Council can take into account the impact of a business into the area if the outcome would be the loss of a local business entirely, but not the effect of competition with existing businesses.


10

4.2.5 Proposed Service Station – Lot 9502 Bussell Highway Cowaramup – Mr Bill Menlow, 43 Honeysuckle Lane Cowaramup

Mr Bill Menlow of 43 Honeysuckle Lane Cowaramup asked the following question.

Q1: Why does the plan endorsed by the WAPC in 2011 show both precincts 8 and 6?

The Director Sustainable Development provided the following response: The plan in 2011 was a Structure Plan that had been prepared in relation to land north of Cowaramup along Treeton Rd. The area was clearly delineated on page 2 of the amendment document. The document also showed this change on the Cowaramup Village Strategy map, however the map was otherwise unaltered. The Cowaramup Country Structure plan shows the detailed planning for the area under consideration, and is a more relevant planning document than the plan you are referring to.

The Village Strategy is not listed as a specific matter which Council needs to consider, however the structure plan is given a higher status.

5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 6.1 Ordinary Council Meeting held on 10 May 2017

MOTION/COUNCIL DECISION CR SMART, CR KENNAUGH OM2017/116 That Council confirms the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held 10 May 2017 to be a true and correct record of the meeting.

CARRIED 6/0

7. DEPUTATIONS 7.1 Item 11.2.2 Amendment 36 Perimeter Road and John Archibald Drive Funding – Mr Peter Gleed PGPM Pty Ltd

Mr Peter Gleed of PGPM Pty Ltd PO Box 369 Margaret River addressed the meeting in relation to item 11.2.2 Amendment 36 Perimeter Road and John Archibald Drive Funding. His deputation was as follows:

• Brookfield Estate Pty Ltd – Developer Contribution Plan (John Archibald Drive) • The proposed amendment is not consistent with the revised draft “State Planning Policy 3.6

Development Contributions for Infrastructure” in relation to the principles of need and nexus, equity, and certainty in the implementation of the proposed DCP.

• Key principle of SPP 3.6 is that developers should only fund the infrastructure to the extent that it is “reasonable and necessary” to service the development.

• Brookfield considers that the “nexus” argument outlined in the scheme amendment between the development of Brookfield Estate and its impact on JAD is exaggerated, contains little justification and ignores established traffic facts presented in technical traffic reports prepared by Transcore traffic consultants.

• the amendment takes an opportunistic approach in that it simply includes all of the lots in the eastern cell of the Brookfield Estate without any regard to the actual traffic generated by Brookfield that will use John Archibald Drive.

• There is extensive background to this matter commencing when the draft LPP 22 was advertised for comment in 2012.

• Brookfield argued successfully in its submission on the Policy that inclusion in a JAD contribution plan was not appropriate as there was very little relationship between the estate and JAD. The final Policy excluded Brookfield but with the qualifier that it would subject to “further traffic modelling”. It states that: “in preparing a formal development contribution plan,


11

consideration will be given to the incorporation of other future development areas within the John Archibald Drive Contribution Area based on proportional demand generated for this road link that is evident in future traffic modelling”.

• Such modelling was acknowledged in the Amendment 36 report which stated that “the issue of nexus for additional land (principally FDAM3c area of the Brookfield Estate) is being resolved through traffic modelling”.

• At the Council's request, Brookfield submitted modelling by Transcore Consultants which concludes that ;

• JAD will be utilised mainly by existing developments along the north side of JAD, Rapids landing and background traffic.

• Traffic contribution from the Brookfield Estate on John Archibald Drive is about 881 vehicles per day or 88 vehicles per hour after full development of all stages of the Structure Plan.

• Traffic contribution by Brookfield Estate to JAD is estimated to be about 9% of the overall JAD capacity in an easterly direction and negligible in a westerly direction.

• Despite this modelling demonstrating limited impact from Brookfield, the approach in the amendment is to simplistically include the future lot yield of the Brookfield balance holding (approx. 389 lots) into the calculation.

• Scant argument in the Council report is provided as to why the Brookfield traffic modelling has not been accepted except to say that the likely traffic volumes arising from Brookfield are considered to be “understated”.

• The overall yield being used in the calculation (794 lots) means that the balance undeveloped portion of Brookfield Estate (389 lots) is contributing 48% to the cost of a road.

• Brookfield strongly submits that the demand proportion determined by the Shire for Brookfield Estate is overstated.

• The Transcore report clearly establishes that there is very little nexus between JAD and the Brookfield balance land holding.

• WAPC SPP 3.6 clearly outlines that the costs of meeting infrastructure needs should be allocated “to existing residents and new residents proportional to the need for the infrastructure and facilities”. Brookfield considers that this amendment is not consistent with SPP 3.6.

• Brookfield Estate should only be funding its proportion based on the traffic generated as the subdivision is not heavily reliant on the provision of JAD.

• Accordingly, the proportional contribution amount as is clearly advocated in the SPP 3.6 methodology for Brookfield should be re-calculated as follows:

• 9% of $2,299,432 which equates to $206,949 applied over 389 lots = $532 /lot • This methodology is a fairer and more equitable approach consistent with SPP 3.6 to the

funding of the road having regard to the justifiable relationship the Estate has with JAD. • Brookfield strongly argues against the manner in which the Shire has simply adopted the total

yield as the ‘divisor’ and ignored the findings of the traffic study which establishes that very little “nexus” exists.

• It is unreasonable and inequitable to spread the cost for the John Archibald contribution evenly over all future residential development in the area when the impact from the Brookfield Estate area is significantly less than the traffic demand generated from other development areas immediately adjacent.

• Brookfield already has road upgrading / construction responsibilities. Main Roads insists that Brookfield widens Bussell Highway and further upgrades the intersections of Brookfield Ave and Rosa Brook Road. The eastern development cell links to Rosa Brook road and no doubt future upgrading impositions will be applied.

• Brookfield is prepared to meet its responsibilities for John Archibald Drive but only on an equitable basis consistent with WAPC guidelines for Developer Contribution Plans reflecting the impact that the estate will actually have on the road.

• The Shire President called for questions and thanked Mr Gleed for his deputation 7.2 Item 11.2.2 Amendment 36 Perimeter Road and John Archibald Drive Funding – Ms Karen Browne Hopgood Ganim Lawyers

Ms Karen Browne of Hopgood Ganim Lawyers, Level 7 Allendale Square 77 St Georges Tce Perth addressed the meeting in relation to item 11.2.2 Amendment 36 Perimeter Road and John Archibald Drive Funding. Her deputation was as follows:


12

Greendene Development Corporation Pty Ltd (Greendene) is the owner of land known, before the take by Main Roads WA (MRWA) as Lot 2150 and Lot 2153 Darch Road, Margaret River and, for the purposes of Amendment 36, DIAM2. I will refer to the land as DIAM2. My name is Karen Browne and I am the planning Partner at HopgoodGanim Lawyers, engaged by Greendene to make this deputation on its behalf in respect to the impact of Amendment 36 on Greendene and DIAM2. My client extends its thanks to the President for approving an opportunity to make this deputation and all the Shire Councillors for their time. It would also like to acknowledge the work undertaken by Nick Logan on behalf of the Shire and John Szeliga of MRWA in respect to the Margaret River Perimeter Road (MRPR) project in general. Greendene repeats the issues set out in its written submission in response to the publication of Amendment 36 and I won’t repeat most of them at this time, relying on the fact that the Shire Council is fully conversant with the content. What my client is concerned to ensure is that Shire Council is aware of the main thrust of the submissions. History of landowner consultation : it is said that landowners in Development Investigation Areas were consulted in the early 2000’s in respect to making a contribution to the MRPR. That is true. However, what that fails to acknowledge is the fact that, at the time of that consultation, MRWA had determined that on traffic volumes there was no need for a bypass around Margaret River. It was then determined that due to the fact that the DIA’s had been identified as having future urban potential in the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge Policy (SPP 6.1) gazetted in September 1998, construction of the MRPR could occur ahead of a need in terms of traffic volumes if it brought DIA urban development forward. It was therefore put to landowners that a contribution by them would be akin to a contribution towards other road infrastructure, required in the fullness of time, to open up the DIA land at subdivision and that construction of the MRPR would open the land up for urban development earlier than anticipated. That was of direct benefit to DIA landowners. However, it is obvious that the agreement reached with the DIA landowners did not come to fruition given the failure of the construction of the MRPR to open the land up for urban development ‘early’. It is now 17 years later and the DIA land is no closer to urban development than it was in 2000, except to the extent that the Local Planning Strategy adopted in 2011 (LPS), allows for rezoning in sequence, commencing at DIAM1, unless there is some over-riding housing demand (which is highly unlikely especially given the balance of land between Darch Road and Bussell Highway will take years to be fully released), comprehensive structure plans being developed and scheme amendments to effect rezoning which can only be initiated when funding and implementation for the MRPR has been resolved (refer pages 73 and 74 LPS). Planning : The starting point for consideration of whether Amendment 36 complies with applicable statutory law is WAPC State Planning Policy 3.6 – Development Contributions for Infrastructure (SPP 3.6). Despite a growing tendency to expect landowners to fund all infrastructure, SPP 3.6 confines the objects of the policy to :

• promoting the efficient and effective provision of public infrastructure and facilities to meet the demands arising from new growth and development; (my emphasis)

• ensuring that development contributions are necessary and relevant to the development to be permitted and are charged equitably among those benefiting from the infrastructure and facilities to be provided; (my emphasis)

• ensuring consistency and transparency in the system for apportioning, collecting and spending development contributions; and

• ensuring the social well-being of communities arising from, or affected by, development. It is Greendene’s submission that none of the SPP 3.6 objects are met by Amendment 36. Firstly, in order to promote effective provision of public infrastructure to ‘meet the demands arising from new growth and development’ there must be ‘new growth and development’. This standard does not reflect new growth and development which is likely to be some 25+ years before release and I will explain the reasons why that is so later in this deputation.


13

Secondly, development contributions must be ‘relevant to the development to be permitted’. At this point, there is no urban zoning of any DIA’s and the zoning is constrained by the terms of the LPS I referred to earlier. As for ensuring consistency and transparency in collecting and spending the contributions, Amendment 36 states that the contributions will be returned to the State Government given that the MRPR has been funded by Royalties for Regions. I will deal with the funding separately. The Shire will facilitate the collection of contributions through conditioning of subdivision conditions with MRWA clearing the conditions. So, effectively, the Shire will condition approval requiring the contribution amount to be paid to MRWA as a condition of clearance: see clause 6.4 (page 18) of Amendment 36 as advertised and tabled for this meeting. At no point therefore, does the Shire, who is the owner of the development contribution plan, take any SPP 3.6 responsibility for its own plan in respect to collection and it will also breach clause 6.3.16 Appendix 2 – Draft model text provisions for incorporation of development contributions plans into local planning scheme – of SPP 3.6. Appendix 2 is stated to be ‘standard WAPC requirements for development contributions (see clause 2 of SPP 3.6). That clause requires as a mandatory provision that a local government is to establish and maintain a reserve account for each development contribution area ‘into which cost contributions for that area will be credited and from which all payments’ will be paid. Further, there is a requirement for interest to be earned on cost contributions credited to the reserve account. There is no discretion; the clause is clear and the reasons are obvious; a local government is provided with the power to implement development contributions as part of its scheme, not some other body’s scheme. However, the Shire has determined on this occasion, that it can ignore that State Planning Policy requirement and merely act as conduit for the collection from its stakeholders of money for the State Government and has not addressed how MRWA will account to the landowners in collecting and expending the money or earning interest etc, which is the right of a paying landowner under SPP 3.6. If nothing else in this deputation impresses you so as to reject the current drafted Amendment 36, it should be this predetermined breach. Before moving onto each of the clause 5.2 principles of which you are more than familiar it should be pointed out that Appendix 1 of SPP 3.6 contained the standard development contribution requirements. Relevantly :


14

What is apparent is that monetary contributions towards ‘infrastructure’ as defined in SPP 3.6 are those in respect to water, sewerage, drainage, headworks or in lieu of land or infrastructure works. ‘Infrastructure’ is defined in clause 6.3.1 Appendix 2 of SPP 3.6 to mean ‘the standard infrastructure items (services and facilities set out in appendix 1) and community infrastructure, including recreational facilities; community centres; child care and after school centres; libraries and cultural facilities and such other services and facilities for which development contributions may reasonable be requested having regard to the objectives, scope and provisions of this policy’. I have dealt with the objectives. Clause 5.1 deals with the scope which stipulates that development contributions can be sought for items of infrastructure that are required to support the orderly development of an area. This includes the standard requirements for infrastructure contributions as outlined in appendix 1. In addition, local governments can seek contributions for the capital costs of community infrastructure which is defined as: ‘the structures and facilities which help communities and neighbourhoods to function effectively, including sporting and recreational facilities, community centres, child care and after school centres, libraries and cultural facilities and such other services and facilities for which development contributions may reasonably be requested, having regard to the objectives, scope and provisions of this policy.’ Development contributions can be sought for—

• a new item of infrastructure; • land for infrastructure; • an upgrade in the standard of provision of an existing item of infrastructure; • an extension to existing infrastructure;


15

• the total replacement of infrastructure once it has reached the end of its economic life; • other costs reasonably associated with the preparation, implementation and administration

of a development contribution plan. The contributions are for the initial capital requirements only and not for ongoing maintenance and/or operating costs of the infrastructure’. There is no mention of roads and definitely not main roads. In support of the clause outlining the State’s scope, Appendix 1 confines contributions to roads to either the provision of land or the actual works. There is no provision for financial contributions to roads at all and that makes sense. Either a developer cedes land for the construction of a road or it constructs a road on its own land, both of which are conditions of subdivisional approval. The clause 5.2 of SPP 3.6 principles are set out in the Amendment 36 as advertised on page 1. The principles which are objected to, on the basis that Greendene alleges the development contribution policy does not comply, are those of ‘need and nexus’ and ‘equity’. In order to comply with the SPP 3.6 principles, the need and nexus of contributions must be linked to and arise ‘solely from’ a public need which bears a direct relationship to the development. There is a plethora of case law where Courts have determined that the requirement that a development contribution reasonably relates to the development does not allow use of the development as a trigger for a future need that does not arise, in part, from that development. That has been determined by the Courts to mean that there is no justification for the use of development contributions to promote the community infrastructure ‘simply because a developer will come forward for development approval at some point in time’. The policy itself has determined the way Courts have interpreted the requirement of need and nexus. It stipulates that the need for the infrastructure must be clearly demonstrated AND the connection between the development and the demand created should be clearly established. Again, this means that there is no discretion; if the development (ie : urban development of the DIA’s) does not create the demand NOW when the obligation arises, the need and nexus is non-existent. Amendment 36, consistent media by the Shire and State Government stakeholders and this report to the Shire Council all highlight the fact that the real need is the removal of heavy haulage from the town centre and the current development of DIAM2 and other DIA’s is non-existent. If there is an ‘nexus’ it would be the connection to those to gain the benefit ie: the business owners in the town centre however that would not comply with the requirement that there be a ‘development’ aspect to the principle either. In respect to equity, the best example of the way in which this amendment highlights the lack of equity is when one considers the contribution being demanded of DIA landowners but none from landowners on Bussell Highway or the town centre which are the immediate recipients of the benefits of a bypass. If one considers all of the drivers for a bypass one is consistently confronted with numerous publications by both the Shire and different arms of State Government, commencing in the late 90’s, extolling the future requirement to move heavy haulage from the centre of the town so that the town centre and commercial interests represented therein, gain a benefit from relief from traffic and remodelling of the town centre. No-one, including Greendene, denies that the volume of heavy haulage through the town is a continuing threat to safety and amenity. However, it is a far cry to say that the requirement for a bypass has arisen due to DIA landowners and ignore the greatest driver in the general interests and in particular, the business interests, of town. I refer to paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of the written submission in respect to a full outline of the history of drivers for a bypass. A response to Greendene’s written submission (point 6 in the Schedule of Submissions for Greendene) is that the Shire acknowledges that there is a significant portion of demand arising from existing development and natural growth in regional traffic flows. The response of the Shire is that is ‘the reason why the contribution is proportional to the future growth in East Margaret River and the costs of the road adjacent to future development areas’. That may be so, however it misses the real point – there is no DIAM2 development now or in the foreseeable future which requires any road to be constructed on an alignment adjacent to DIAM2, let alone a main road. Greendene has pointed out that the growth rates adopted are those generated at a time of unprecedented growth and all current estimates are predicting very negative growth in WA in the


16

medium to long term. What that ends up being is anyone’s guess in the current economic climate however it would be prudent to adjust figures so as to provide the Shire Council with realistic estimates rather than those rates which were inflated during boom years. Traffic volumes : Greendene repeats its written submissions in respect to the failure of the Shire to undertake its own traffic study. It has relied on a study produced for MRWA in 2012 which relies on the NSW RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, October 2002 (Guide). There are only 2 things I wish to say about this. Firstly, relevantly, the Guide is based on traffic trips within a NSW metropolitan context in NSW. It is obvious that applying traffic trips in a regional context based on the Guide is a ridiculous proposition. However, it is fair to say that all government, when considering traffic volumes and trips rely on the Guide as it is the current Australian Standard. But does that mean it should be appropriated so as to justify elevating traffic volumes from DIAM2 and other DIA’s to that comparable to NSW metropolitan standards. No-one would say that is equitable or sensible. Further, the Guide itself notes that its findings should not be adopted for regional use within the daily vehicle trips of 9 per dwelling, adopted by GHD. It states ‘When reviewing the impact of the traffic generated on sub-regional and regional roads, some adjustment is necessary, …’. In respect to DIAM2, Amendment 36 states that it will comprise 618 dwellings. That number is refuted by Greendene based on current design in accordance with the LPS and draft East Margaret River District Structure Plan (EMRDSP). However, even taking it at its highest of 618 dwellings, on traffic modelling undertaken by Cardno on behalf of Greendene, the result was that 5% - 7% total traffic on the MRPR would be associated with DIAM2 all of which could reach its intended destination by using John Archibald Drive and Bussell Highway. DIAM2 therefore drives a traffic volume, at the time of completion of its release to the market some 30+ years in the future, of between 5% - 7% of the total 55% to 73% total traffic alleged to be associated with all DIA’s. DIAM2 development : Not to put too fine a point on it, DIAM2 was anticipated to be released, in stages of course, commencing some 15 years in the future. However, that is not possible. The best example I can provide, which is based in fact, is the estimates which have already been undertaken on DIAM1. DIAM1 is alleged to have capacity, on urban zoning approval, to release 194 lots for sale based on current LPS/EMRDSP policy. The estimated engineering costs (today) for development of the 194 DIAM1 lots and a construction cost of $25m for the MRPR using the Amendment 36 calculator results in a cost of $231,850.00 per lot. It is said in Amendment 36 that it cannot be presumed that those costs will be ‘passed directly and fully to future landowners’ (page 41 of the Shire Council report). With all due respect, that is exactly who will be required to pay. On current holding costs and bank interest, at the rate of $231,000 (rounded down) per lot and with district level charges still to be applied at the point of approval/clearance, let’s say with inflation etc we are looking at $260,000. That will mean that a landowner will need to wait until the market demands are such that it can release land at $330,000 to cover costs without turning a profit. Currently, 700 sqm lots at Rapids Landing are selling for $170,000. With the holding costs attached to DIAM2 it is anticipated by Greendene that the market will not demand release of the land, based on current growth rates and the housing market generally, for close to 30 years. It is also the case, that DIAM2 will need to wait for DIAM1 to release its land, pursuant to the LPS requirement for a staged release of urban DIA’s to the market and, based on the above estimate, it is likely that will not be until the market is ready to pay in excess of $380,000. It was reported in Business News on 23 May 2017 that there is a real risk of a house price slump similar to that seen in the US and Ireland and that the a significant rise in credit losses, the worst affected likely to be young families; just the market that DIAM2 is attractive to. The outlook for the future in the metropolitan area is bleak and history shows that regional areas suffer far worse than metropolitan areas in a downturn. All analysists are consistently saying that WA is yet to see the bottom of the downturn and planning and development is an area which has been adversely affected as much as the mining sector.


17

Greendene and its associated companies, have been stakeholders in Margaret River for a considerable period of time and are conscious of, and ready willing and able, to contribute towards the community by supporting infrastructure necessary to grow the community however that support must be grounded in a connection to their land ownership. The land holding costs must be recognised by Shire Council and its stakeholders as a necessary cost but one which very much is passed to future landowners, and therefore, a cost which very much determines the regions ability to grow its urban footprint. No doubt, a great deal of future initiatives requiring Shire funding are predicated on the forecasts for growth by land development in Margaret River and a rising rate base from which those initiatives are to be achieved. If the cost of delivering land is prohibitive however those forecasts will not be met in the short or medium term. John Archibald Drive (JAD) : In addition to the developer contributions Greendene will be obliged to pay under Amendment 36 should it be approved, it is required to cede land between the MRPR alignment and Beech Drive free of cost, in exchange for not being required to contribute towards the construction of JAD. Greendene’s position is that a ‘double jeopardy’ contribution to both the MRPR and JAD would never receive WAPC approval and therefore the ceding of the JAD land is done in order to assist the Shire to meet community expectation arising from its representations about the MRPR/JAD project. Greendene’s associated company, Balwyn Margaret River Pty Ltd which is developing Rapids Landing, is responsible for, as has until now, been solely contributing to JAD from Bussell Highway to Beech and which it will continue to be responsible for. Funding generally : A real question for consideration is why, within the context of State Government media statements regarding fully funding the MRPR through Royalties for Regions, landowners with little likelihood of going to market at any foreseeable time in the future, should be asked to supplement, or offset if you like, money already in MRWA budget. A further question is why is Bunbury getting 2 bypass roads with no requirement for landowners to contribute to the construction costs of either? One of the reasons is because the Shire has, to a certain extent, driven the construction of the MRPR so as to benefit from traffic relief through the town centre. Given that a bypass was recognised by the State Government as being required, for a regional purpose, in SPP 6.1 in 1998 unconnected with DIA development (except to define where urban development to the east of the town site would lay) the question is why should the Shire or any landowners contribute to State required infrastructure. However, while it’s obviously a boon to the town centre, the bigger consideration is the fact that the State Government has recognised, from the 1990’s, that heavy haulage would need a straight forward, unimpeded, road to deliver goods to the south-west. This can be seen by publications such as the WA Tourisms ‘South West Action Statement – Regional Projects’ in the early 2000’s where the estimated cost was $25m recognising Margaret River’s importance as a tourist destination, its 2010 update suggesting the bypass was ‘critical’ for the wine regions’ continued success and the other matters referred to in Greendene’s submission in respect to this issue. By reason of the matters set out in the written submissions and this deputation by Greendene, it is Greendene’s position that Amendment 36 does not comply with SPP 3.6 and therefore is not a development contribution plan which is capable of being approved by the Shire Council. The Shire Council should not adopt the recommendations in the report and if it is so minded to do so, it is respectfully submitted that it should at least defer the item to allow for contemplation of the matters tabled in the submissions and this deputation by Greendene.

The Shire President called for questions and thanked Ms Browne for her deputation

8. PETITIONS Nil 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDING MEMBER During the last fortnight, the Shire has hosted the following:


18

• Civic Reception to mark the retirement of Barry House MP, after 30 years of service to the region. A great event enjoyed by all

• Civic Reception to mark the 10 year anniversary of the Margaret River Lions Club, who have raised over $1m and passed this on to the community in many ways

• The visit of a delegation from Vietnam and the signing of a Letter of Understanding

The Shire President also noted the upcoming Reconciliation Week event being held at the Margaret River library and encouraged its support

He also welcomed Peter Brown, the newly appointed Manager Works

10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN Nil

11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND EMPLOYEE REPORTS


19

11.1. Chief Executive Officer


20

11.1.1 REVIEW OF STANDING ORDERS LOCAL LAW LOCATION/ADDRESS Shir eof Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE GOV/57 REPORT AUTHOR Claire Schiller, Council Minutes and Agenda Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer

IN BRIEF • The Review of Standing Orders is a CEO Performance Target. • Council is currently operating under the Standing Orders 2011 which was gazetted on 28 July 2011

and came into force on 11 August 2011. • A Standing Orders Amendment Local Law 2012 was gazetted and incorporated in the Standing

Orders Local Law 2011 in June 2012. • A review at officer level has been conducted and it is proposed that the Shire of Augusta Margaret

River does not need to adopt a new local law. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Acknowledges the completion of Standing Order Local Law 2011 desktop review and the suggested

improvements; 2. Determines that a new Local Law does not need to be adopted as the current Standing Orders are

deemed appropriate in the interim period; and 3. Agrees to conduct a comprehensive review of the Standing Orders in 2018-19 in accordance with

Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1995 incorporating the suggested changes and any other required changes at the time.

LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND A review of local laws is required within eight years of the day when a local law commenced (s.3.16 LGA). 3.16. Periodic review of local laws (1) Within a period of 8 years from the day when a local law commenced or a report of a review

of the local law was accepted under this section, as the case requires, a local government is to carry out a review of the local law to determine whether or not it considers that it should be repealed or amended.

The Shire’s existing Standing Orders were Gazetted in 2011 and have been serving the Council well in running meetings in an orderly fashion. The Standing Orders provide rules and guidelines which apply to the conduct of meetings of Council, committees and electors, Standing Orders are intended to result in:

• better decision making by the Council and committees; • the orderly conduct of meetings dealing with Council business; • better understanding of the process of conducting meetings; and • the more efficient and effective use of time at meetings.


21

CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Nil Internal Consultation Committee Minutes and Agenda Officers Governance Officer CEO DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS An internal desktop review of the Standing Orders Local Law 2011 was conducted in 2016 resulting in few minor administrative changes, not substantial enough to warrant the process of adopting a new Local Law. The below Local Government Standing Orders Local Laws were used as comparisons during the desktop review: • City of Busselton • Shire of Nannup • City of Subiaco • City of Stirling • Town of Bassendean • City of Bunbury • Town of Vincent • Shire of Augusta Margaret River - 2007 version Suggested changes resulting from the 2016 desktop review are as follows: 1. General – Layout

• Remove hyphen from Augusta-Margaret River 2. Clause 5.7 Suggested Amendment

5.7 Other procedures for question time for the public

• Additional clauses (a), (e) and (f) to point 2:


22

The addition of (a) gives the community the right to participate in Council meetings and ensures they are present to physically ask questions. If a member of the public cannot attend a Council meeting there are other avenues in which they can ask a question and receive a response. This additional clause (a) safeguards against non attendees unfairly tying up question time to the detriment of those present and avoids excessive amounts of public question time being devoted to questions which can be dealt with outside of meeting time. Points (e) and (f) empower the Presiding Member in the interests of time management and where a reasonable amount of time has already been given to questions for the public, to close question time.

• Point 3 amended as follows:

The restructure and amendment of Point 3 enables the Presiding Member, in the interest of time management, to close public question time if the same or similar question is being asked by members of the public.


23

6 Clause 5.9 - Suggested Amendments

5.9 Deputations • Replace the number 5 with the number 4 to read ‘4 clear working days’. • Replace the word CEO with Presiding Member to read ‘to the Presiding Member for approval’.

The amendment allows members of the public who wish to make a deputation sufficient time to do so. 7 Clause 5.16 Suggested Addition 5.16 Prevention of disturbance

• Addition of mobile phone clause:

8 Clause 10.6 Suggested Addition

10.6 Voting

• Addition of relevant section of the Act and Regulations

It is recommended that a comprehensive review of the Standing Orders Local Law 2011 be conducted in 2018-19. Acknowledgement of Country Although not necessary to be included in the Standing Orders, it is good practice that an Acknowledgement of Country be included prior to the meeting’s commencement. Three out of the seven Local Governments used as a comparison for this review, perform an Acknowledgment of Country at item 1 of the meeting, ‘Declaration of Opening’. The practice shows respect for the traditional custodians of the region. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The Standing Orders Local Laws have been prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 5: Effective governance and corporate leadership Community Outcome 5.6: A culture of innovative, quality and continuous improvement Strategic Response 5.6.2: Ensure Shire services and processes meet or exceed customer needs and recognised industry standards


24

Service level strategy/plan 5.6.2.3: Present the comprehensive review of Standing Orders to Councillor workshop for consideration and action if required PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Nil Social Nil Economic Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Acknowledges the completion of Standing Order Local Law 2011 desktop review and the suggested

improvements; 2. Determines that a new Local Law does not need to be adopted as the current Standing Orders are

deemed appropriate in the interim period; and 3. Agrees to conduct a comprehensive review of the Standing Orders in 2018-19 in accordance with

Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1995 incorporating the suggested changes and any other required changes at the time.

ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Reviewed Standing Orders Local Law 2011 with tracked changes

RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR HASTIE OM2017/117 That Council: 1. Acknowledges the completion of Standing Order Local Law 2011 desktop review and the

suggested improvements; 2. Determines that a new Local Law does not need to be adopted as the current Standing

Orders are deemed appropriate in the interim period; and 3. Agrees to conduct a comprehensive review of the Standing Orders in 2018-19 in accordance

with Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1995 incorporating the suggested changes and any other required changes at the time.

CARRIED 6/0


25

11.1.2 CEO POLICY REVIEW 2017 LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE GOV/38 REPORT AUTHOR Megan Smith, Position Title AUTHORISING OFFICER XXX, Position Title

IN BRIEF • The majority of Office of the CEO policies were due for review by November 2016. • The CEO has reviewed the policies which are attached for Council’s consideration. RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the suite of Office of the CEO policies as presented in the attachments to the agenda as the changes are mainly corrections and clarifications as required by changing legislation and position titles. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Determining the local government’s policies is one of four main roles for Council listed under Section 2.7 of the Local Government Act 1995. Policies are an important component of governance by which responsibilities to stakeholders are identified and effective systems of leadership, authority, accountability and control are implemented. The following is a list of current policies known as Office of the CEO policies:

Title Date Adopted Special Meeting Following Annual Elections 23rd January 2013 Councillor Induction 23rd January 2013 Provision of Councillor Support 23rd January 2013 Councillor Professional Development 23rd January 2013 Councillor Contact with Administration 23rd January 2013 Councillor Information Briefings and Workshop Sessions 23rd January 2013 Acting Chief Executive Officer 23rd January 2013 End of Term Acknowledgement Function 23rd January 2013 Council Delegates 23rd January 2013 Women in Local Government 23rd January 2013 Financial Viability Policy 23rd January 2013 Reimbursement of Expenses 23rd January 2013 Legal Representation 23rd January 2013 Recognition for Departing Councillors 23rd January 2013 Councillor Requests for Information 23rd January 2013


26

Privacy Policy 23rd January 2013 Use of the Council Logo 23rd January 2013 Councillor Email Policy 23rd January 2013 Correspondence Addressed to Councillors 23rd January 2013 Donations and Community Grants 23rd January 2013 Aboriginal Reconciliation 23rd January 2013 Social Justice 23rd January 2013 Cultural Diversity 23rd January 2013 Business Excellence Framework 23rd January 2013 Recording of Councillor Attendance at Meetings 23rd January 2013 Caravan and Camping 23rd April 2014 Economic Development 23rd April 2014 Tourism Policy 23rd April 2014 Iconic Events Sponsorship policy 23rd April 2014

CONSULTATION AND ADVICE The table below shows a summary of the advice sought when reviewing the policies:

Policy Review - Office of the CEO - summary of actions Goal 5 - Effective leadership and governance

Review Actions Alterations to Policy

5.1 Governance and Business Excellence Policies

GL1 Special Meeting Following Annual Elections

DLGC Circular 20-2015 - Bulletin 6 Schedule 1 Local Government (Constitution) Regulations1998 Local Government Act 1995 s 2.29 Schedule 2.3 Local Government Act 1995 Clauses 2(1)(a), 3, 4(5), 4(6), 4(7), 7(1)(a), 7(2)(a) 8(5), 8(6), 8(7)of Schedule 2.3 of the Act, and regulations 11F and 13 of the Constitution Regulations. Shire Standing Orders Clause 7.2

Minor grammatical changes

GL2 Councillor Induction DLGC Operational Guideline No. 4 Elected Member Induction - updated 4 Jan 2016

Change in name of Department Clarification of training provided by WALGA Addition of sentence 'Additionally, the councillors will receive a copy of the Elected Members induction manual, which has been developed in accordance with the DLGC guidelines.' Capitalisation of 'Councillors' throughout

GL3 Provision of Councillor Support

WALGA advice re payment for events and functions

Change in heading from 'Council Support' to 'Councillor Support' Provision of name badges - altered to 'Two name badges will be provided for each councillor and one for their partner' Access to Shire information through a secured facility on the Shire's intranet site


27




altered to 'Access to Shire information through a secure electronic facility' Shire President - paragraph b) amended to replace shared secretarial services with Shared administrative support and typing replaced with word processing, postage and facsimile removed The Shire President shall, in carrying out the duties of that office, be entitled to receive the benefit of the following services and facilities, subject to budgetary allocations, in addition to those available to all Councillors and in addition to the fees and allowances approved by Council and payable under the Local Government Act:" A new paragraph f) to be inserted under Shire President and Councillors to clarify the position around registration for events as follows "The registration cost or ticket cost for the President/Councillors, plus his or her partner attending any breakfast, dinner, Shire or State Government sponsored event or similar function where invited as the President/Councillor and representative of the Shire provided such function does not fall into the category of a Conference and Training event or is not for an election purpose;"

GL4 Councillor Professional Development

National Sea Change Taskforce Minutes Special General Meeting 12 March 2015 Local Government (Admin) Regs 1996 s31, s32

Change Annual Sea Change Conference to Australian Coastal Councils Conference Change WALGA's Annual Local Government Week to Local Government Convention Remove Prime Ministers Australian Council for Local Government annual forum Remove amounts specified for Councillor and President training allocations. Sentence now reads Council shall ensure adequate resources are allocated annually in the Shire’s budget to provide the opportunity for Councillors to participate in appropriate training and development. Specify the amount of $3,000 in the next paragraph. Replace • Relevant training of the Councillor’s choice from within their individual budget allocation, but not exceeding $1,500 per instance with Relevant training of the Councillors choice not exceeding $1,500 per instance Replace In addition to the above permitted training opportunities, the President can use his training allocation as Council’s delegate, to attend one or more of the following conferences with In addition to the


28




above permitted training opportunities, the President can attend one or more of the following conferences Amend method of reimbursement to reflect either direct payment by the Shire to the provider, or reimbursement to the Councillor following the provision of receipts

GL5 Councillor Contact with Administration

Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 r10


GL6 Councillor Agenda Briefings and Concept Forum Sessions

Reviewed and amended to allow open briefings to occur- went to OCM 13 November 2013 - decision no OM1311/8

Change of title Minor grammatical and formatting changes

GL7 Acting Chief Executive Officer

s5.44 Local Government Act 1995


GL8 End of Term Acknowledgement Function


GL9 Council Delegates Minor formatting changes ie insertion of bullet points

GL10 Women in Local Government

Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) Gender Equity Fact sheet Promoting Women in Local Government

Adds the following dot point to the list of strategies: • acknowledges that increasing the representation of women in leadership positions will help challenge and shift workplace cultures and provide women with a greater capacity to participate in the development and implementation of legislation, policies and services that affect their lives.

GL11 Financial Viability Policy Section 1.3 (3) of the Local Government Act

Remove "Support WALGA efforts to obtain developer contributions for new development infrastructure in a similar fashion as in NSW and Victoria" as this has largely been resolved Minor formatting changes

GL12 Reimbursement of Expenses

Section 5.98 (2) of the Local Government Act and sections 31 and 32 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations SAT Determination 2016 Section 8

Expand description of the sections of the Act and Regs referred to Minor formatting changes

GL13 Legal Representation DLGC Local Government Operational Guideline 14 -Legal representation for Officers and Members

Change heading to "Governance and Corporate Leadership" Clarifying the sections of the Act which apply

GL14 Recognition for Departing Councillors

Change Heading to "Governance and Corporate Leadership" Change 'Deputy CEO' to 'Deputy President'

GL15 Councillor Requests for Information

City of Narrabri Councillor Access to Information and Interaction Between Councillors and Staff Policy

Add that the CEO must indicate in writing the reason for refusing any request Add that councillors should put their


29




requests in writing so that they can be filed appropriately.

GL16 Privacy Policy National Privacy Principles 2001

Change heading to "Governance and Corporate Leadership" Add under Access and Correction that individuals can access and correct information if they believe that it is incorrect, incomplete or out of date.

GL17 Use of the Shire Logo AMR Shire Style Guide 2015-2016

Change of name to 'Use of Shire Logo' and change of first paragraph Replacement of the first paragraph with "The Shire of Augusta Margaret River logo may only be used with the express permission of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River. The logo is not to be used by other members of the community unless authorised. It belongs to the corporate body of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River. Its identity should not be allowed to be diffused by other uses. Where authorised, the use of the logo must comply with the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Style Guide 2015-2016. The Shire of Augusta Margaret River logo should be featured in one of the approved forms on any document, project or sponsorship event which the Shire of Augusta Margaret River issues or promotes."

GL18 Councillor Email Policy Councillor Induction Manual 2015

Add "Councillors should use the email address set up for them by the Shire’s Information Technology business unit for all Shire related issues, rather than any personal email address that they may have. These Shire email addresses should not be used for any party political, mailing list or election purposes whatsoever." Remove reference to internet communication as this is not relevant to Councillors

GL19 Correspondence Addressed to Councillors

AS ISO 15489.1 2002 Office of the Ombudsman

"Elected Members" replaced by "Councillors" for consistency. Wording altered to reflect the Shire's use of electronic records. Minor grammatical changes to simplify the policy

GL20 Donations and Community Grants

Minor formatting changes

GL21 Aboriginal Reconciliation


GL22 Social Justice Shire Homelessness Policy Addition of reference to the Homelessness policy

GL23 Cultural Diversity Minor Formatting Changes


30




GL24 Business Excellence Framework

Australian Business Excellence Framework SAI Global


GL25 Recording of Councillor Attendance at Meetings

DLGC - A Guide to Meetings Minor grammatical changes

GL26 Caravan Parks and Camping


GL27 Economic Development

Update airport name Update to include new members of the Industry Leaders Group Change Caperoc to CapeROC

GL28 Tourism Change name of tourism body Minor formatting changes

GL29 Iconic Events Sponsorship

Minor formatting changes Responsible officer changed to CEO

DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The following policy framework was adopted by Council as it focuses on building a sustainable community and integrates with the Shire’s Strategic Plan and proposed annual reporting format rather than the current policy framework which focuses on organisational silos of business unit services and activities. Governance and Business Excellence Policies are located under the Business Excellence Framework section of the Strategic Planning and Policy Framework.

Sustainable Augusta-Margaret River Shire (Overarching Sustainability Policy) Managing growth sustainably

Valuing the natural environment

Welcoming and cohesive communities

Vibrant and diverse economy

Effective leadership and governance

Planning Policies Waste Management

Cultural Development Policies

Economic Development Policies

Governance Policies

Building Policies Biodiversity Protection

Recreation Policies

Tourism Strategy Business Excellence

Asset Management Policies

Water Conservation and Quality

Emergency Management Policies

Events Management Policies

Code of Conduct

Infrastructure Management Policies

Carbon Pollution Reduction Policies

Community Development Policies

Governance Manual

Parks and Gardens Policies

Customer Service Charter

The revised policies with the exception of planning policies are structured under three headings as follows: Objectives Clear statement of Council’s position and the outcomes it hopes to achieve Strategy Statements as to how the objectives are to be achieved and guidelines to direct

the Town’s activities and to provide the parameters in which staff will operate Application A statement of the accountabilities and responsibilities for the policy

implementation


31

Policies are to be as clear and concise as possible and clearly differentiate high level Council policies and do not include day to day operational procedures and instructions. The separation of powers between the role of Council as policy maker and the role of the CEO and staff in implementing the policies is to be reinforced in the process. The following Office of the CEO policies are presented to Council for the purposes of public consultation:

• Special Meeting Following Annual Elections • Councillor Induction • Provision of Councillor Support • Councillor Professional Development • Councillor Contact with Administration • Councillor Agenda Briefings and Concept Forum Sessions • Acting Chief Executive Officer • End of Term Acknowledgement Function • Council Delegates • Women in Local Government • Financial Viability Policy • Reimbursement of Expenses • Legal Representation • Recognition for Departing Councillors • Councillor Requests for Information • Privacy Policy • Use of the Shire Logo • Councillor Email Policy • Correspondence Addressed to Councillors • Donations and Community Grants • Aboriginal Reconciliation • Social Justice • Cultural Diversity • Business Excellence Framework • Recording of Councillor Attendance at Meetings • Caravan and Camping • Economic Development • Tourism • Iconic Events Sponsorship

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The Local Government Act 1995 specifies the key roles of the Council. Under Section 2.7 of the Local Government Act 1995 Council has four main roles: 1. Direct and control the Local Government's affairs; 2. Be responsible for the local government’s functions; 3. Oversee the allocation of the local government’s finances and resources, and 4. Determine the local government’s policies. Policy determination is a key role of the Council. Policies are guidelines to provide a consistent approach and framework for Council decision making and for the CEO and staff to action Council’s requests. Policies are not legislation and there may be circumstances where a position needs to be taken which is at variance with an existing policy. In these circumstances Council should make a decision which departs from an existing policy. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 5: Effective Leadership and Governance Community Outcome 6: A culture of innovation, quality and continuous improvement


32

Strategic Response: Review and update procedures for Office of the CEO PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS The policies support good governance which aids sustainability. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the suite of Office of the CEO policies as presented in the attachments to the agenda as the changes are mainly corrections and clarifications as required by changing legislation and position titles. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Office of the CEO Policies RECOMMENDATION CR HAYNES, CR KENNAUGH That Council adopts the suite of Office of the CEO policies as presented in the attachments to the agenda as the changes are mainly corrections and clarifications as required by changing legislation and position titles.

Cr Hastie proposed the following amendment, as he felt that clarification was required on certain aspects of the three policies mentioned below:

RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION CR HASTIE, CR SMART That Council adopts the suite of Office of the CEO policies as presented in the attachments to the agenda with the exception of the following three policies: 1. GL4 Councillor Professional Development 2. GL5 Councillor Contact with Administration 3. GL3 Provision of Councillor Support so that further advice and clarification can be sought and provided before those three policies are brought back to Council

CARRIED 6/0

Cr Kennaugh proposed the following amendment to the motion:

RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR HASTIE OM2017/118 That Policy GL18 Councillor Email Policy to be amended to read “Councillors must use the email address set up for them by the Shire’s Information Technology Business unit for all Shire related issues….”

CARRIED 4/2 CR SMART, CR LANE VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION


33

The primary motion including the two amendments, was then put to the vote.

RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION CR HAYNES,CR KENNAUGH OM2017/119 1. That Council adopts the suite of Office of the CEO policies as presented in the attachments to the agenda with the exception of the following three policies: 1. GL4 Councillor Professional Development 2. GL5 Councillor Contact with Administration 3. GL3 Provision of Councillor Support so that further advice and clarification can be sought and provided before those three policies are brought back to Council, and 2. That Policy GL18 Councillor Email Policy to be amended to read “Councillors must use the email address set up for them by the Shire’s Information Technology Business unit for all Shire related issues….”

CARRIED 6/0


34

11.2.

Sustainable Development


35

11.2.1 PROPOSED SERVICE STATION - LOT 9502 BUSSELL HIGHWAY, COWARAMUP LOCATION/ADDRESS Lot 9502 Bussell Highway, Cowaramup APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Michael Stewart And Gino Vespoli FILE REFERENCE PTY/11921 REPORT AUTHOR Angela Satre, Senior Planning Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Dale Putland, Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF • In October 2016 a development application for a service station was lodged over proposed Lot 400

Bussell Highway, corner Roy Earl Drive, Cowaramup. • The land is zoned ‘Future Development’ and a service station in the zone is a use that the local

authority has the discretion to approve or refuse subject to evaluating the acceptability of the proposal with regard to the applicable planning consideration.

• The application was advertised and considerable objection to the proposal was received. Concerns raised include proposed B-Double truck refuelling, 24/7 hours of operation, noise, odour, light impacts, environmental impacts and noncompliance with the adopted strategic planning guidelines for the locality.

• The application was amended in response to the concerns raised. • The amended proposal is considered to address the issues raised such that, with application of

conditions to any approval granted, the land use can be developed and operated in accordance with the adopted strategic planning guidelines for the locality and to mitigate adverse impacts.

• Conditional approval is recommended to the application. RECOMMENDATION That Council, in accordance with regulation 68(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 approves the proposed Service Station on Lot 400 Bussell Highway Cowaramup subject to conditions. SITE AND SURROUNDS The service station is proposed on Lot 400 (the Site) which is located approximately 400m south of the existing Cowaramup town centre. The Site is 3460m2 in size and has frontage to Bussell Highway, Roy Earl Drive and Hasluck Street. To the east of the Site, on the opposite frontage of Hasluck Street, is a reserve for recreation and drainage (Reserve 50457). Roy Earl Drive to the south provides access to the partly developed Country Vines residential estate (refer to Figure 1).


36

LOCATION PLAN

Figure 1: Location and Site Plan BACKGROUND A certificate of title for Lot 400 was created in May 2017 after subdivisional works were completed. THE PROPOSAL The proposal has been amended since it was initially lodged and consultation undertaken. Operating hours for the proposed Service Station are now proposed from 5am to midnight seven days; modified from 24 hour operations. The proposal originally submitted included B-Double refuelling. The maximum capacity of truck refuelling proposed is now semi trailer trucks. The proposal for a Service Station comprises:

Six car fuel bowsers for 12 vehicles (west of the building); Two refuelling bays (north of the building) including one high flow diesel bowser for trucks and

one bay for caravans/large vehicles; and A convenience store, and ancillary Wild Bean café, totalling approximately 290m2.

Access onto the Site is proposed via: An 11m wide one-way entry off Roy Earl Drive that accommodates left and right turn vehicles

(modification to the Roy Earl Drive median strip is required for right turn access); and A 6m wide one-way entry from Bussell Highway, for vehicles travelling south, allowing left turn

entrance from the highway. Exit from the Site is proposed via:

A 7.5m wide crossover onto Roy Earl Drive for left turn only vehicles; and An 8m wide one-way crossover onto Hasluck Street for large vehicles.

A ‘Keep Clear’ area is to be marked internally on Site to ensure traffic flows and to mitigate the risk of the Roy Earl Drive entrance being blocked by parked vehicles.

The Site

Country Vines Estate

Stages 2 & 3


37

In the area directly north of the building, the southern bowser (that abutted the building) has been deleted from the original proposal. In the area directly north of the building, a “Keep Clear Large Vehicle Exit” is proposed to be marked / sign posted, as an exit to the east for caravans and large vehicles. Two refuelling bays are also proposed north of the building. These include a refuelling bay for caravan/large vehicles serviced by two bowsers. A truck refuelling bay is proposed abutting the northern boundary of the Site and this would be serviced by one high flow diesel bowser. Illumination is proposed from six 8m high light poles. Lights are to comply with the Australian Standards, are to be fitted with hoods directing light internally and downward to ensure they do not spill onto other lots. The exit from Roy Earl Drive is proposed to be constructed so that vehicles exit to the left only and the median strip is to be landscaped to mitigate the impact of headlight glare to southern residences. An illuminated free standing sign (5.6m x 2.2m) is proposed at the Bussell Highway entrance. The building design has been modified to a hipped roof. Full height clear glass is proposed to the western elevation. Variations of materials and colours and recessed motifs are proposed on the north and south elevations of the building. The Site is proposed to be landscaped with a stone and timber panel fence to the perimeter, vegetation screening and retention of existing trees, and the corner of the Site is dedicated to public art to reinforce the street corner and provide a welcoming entry statement. A copy of the amended plans of the proposal are annexed as Attachment 1. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Local Planning Scheme No. 1 The land is zoned ‘Future Development’ under Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1). The Future Development zone is a broad zone that provides for a range of uses. The uses include a service station, which is identified as discretionary in the Future Development zone. Local Planning Strategy The Local Planning Strategy (LPS) seeks to ensure development in the locality is in accordance with the Cowaramup Village Centre Design Guidelines, the Cowaramup Village Strategy and the Cowaramup Country Structure Plan. Cowaramup Village Strategy The Cowaramup Village Strategy (CVS), adopted by the Shire in December 2005, represents the endorsed position of Council and applies to new development. The CVS provides objectives followed by actions and guidelines for new development. Cowaramup Country Structure Plan The Cowaramup Country Structure Plan (the Structure Plan) was adopted in November 2007, identifies the Site as ‘Commercial’ with an ‘Agribusiness & Service Station’ notation and states that the ‘scale, form and architectural design of any proposed development would need to reflect the Cowaramup’s ‘rural village’ character…’. Cowaramup Village Centre Design Guidelines The Cowaramup Village Centre Design Guidelines (the Design Guidelines), adopted by Council in June 2008, are a direct outcome of the CVS, have been applied to new development and address urban design and architecture of the village. The Design Guidelines apply to development applications in the policy area through application of the acceptable development and performance criteria provisions. The Design Guidelines are a relevant consideration by reference in the Structure Plan.


38

Local Development Plan The Local Development Plan (LDP) for Lots 400 – 408 Bussell Highway, Cowaramup was required as a provision of the Structure Plan. The LDP seeks to ensure that development reflects the adopted outcomes of the CVS, the Design Guidelines and ensures an appropriate Cowaramup village vernacular style in new development. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE The application was advertised for 21 business days. A total of 313 submissions from the public were received including 297 objections, one petition of objection with 850 signatures and a second petition of objection with 22 signatures. Twelve submissions of support were received. The Schedule of Submissions is annexed as Attachment 2. Key objections were:

24 hour operation. Heavy vehicle refuelling. Traffic hazards. Potential adverse environmental impacts including water contamination. Risk of hazards (spills, explosions etc). Proximity to residences (noise, fumes, vibration, light). The proposal being out of character with and adverse to the unique village character of

Cowaramup. The proposal was also referred to seven State Government agencies (refer to Attachment 2). Additional information in relation to stormwater management and modifications to the access arrangements were requested (Department of Water and Main Roads WA). Shire business units including Environmental Health and Infrastructure assessed the application. Additional information was requested in relation to noise management, access and stormwater. DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The proposal was amended as follows in response to the concerns raised:

B-Double refuelling was removed; additional information in relation to stormwater management was submitted; the building design was modified; the site design was modified to address noise impacts; modifications are proposed to the median strip and access way to mitigate glare and improve

traffic-ability; the number of truck bowsers was reduced and operating hours were reduced.

State Government agencies, including the Department of Water and Main Roads WA, advised that they do not object to the proposal based on the additional information provided. Operating Hours In response to concerns raised, the proponent reduced proposed operating hours to 5am – midnight. There is still concern with these reduced operating hours and the potential adverse impacts of late evening and early morning operation particularly to the residences to the south. Operating hours are recommended to be further reduced to 6am – 10pm seven days as a condition of any approval granted. These hours would be consistent with the operating hours applied to the service station approved in Margaret River (October 2015 decision: OM2015/222), and importantly, are considered to be hours people would be expected to reasonably be awake and are more appropriate given the proximity of residences to the south. Stormwater Management Additional information was submitted in relation to stormwater management and contamination risk mitigation including:

Stormwater calculations to demonstrate catchment volumes and that the capacity of the stormwater system is adequate;

Details of bunds corresponding to high risk areas beneath canopies; The location of new stormwater pits/soakwells; Details of the oil separator system (SPEL Class 1 Puraceptor oil separator) and sensor alarm;


39

pipework and grates to show that stormwater will be contained on site and will capture surface water flows; and

Information on the corrosion resistant double walled underground storage fuel tanks. The Shire has sufficient detail to determine that pollutants will be managed on Site and that adverse impacts to water resources can be suitably mitigated in accordance with the objectives of the CVS and the requirements of DoW. Notwithstanding, a final Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) is recommended as a condition of any approval granted to bring together the details of the stormwater management systems. The proponent has provided a commitment to submit this plan. Noise An acoustic report was submitted recommending changes to mitigate noise impacts including to residences to the south. The changes were moving the truck refuelling bays east, constructing a side-wall panel on the north edge of the truck refuelling canopy and lining the interior of the panel with sound absorptive material. The proposal was amended demonstrating these changes and showing that the development would comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 for 24 hour operation. Furthermore, an Operational Management Plan is recommended as a condition of any approval to address noise that may occur with the ongoing use and function of the premises (e.g. rubber seals to grates, broadband reversing alarms, rubbish emptying times, use of machinery, servicing schedules). The proponent has provided a commitment toward such a plan. Light Impacts The proponent has confirmed that lighting from poled lights will comply with the Australian Standards and will be fitted with hoods to contain light spill. These lights would be required to be turned off outside operating times as a condition of any approval granted. The crossover onto Roy Earl Drive is setback 30m to the adjoining southern dwellings. The proponent advises that glare from exiting vehicles would meet the 25m separation distance from dwellings to comply with the Australian Vehicle Standards 2006 for low beam light. Notwithstanding, the impact of headlight glare to southern dwellings is recommended to be mitigated by installing landscape screening on the Roy Earl Drive median strip. The proponent has provided a commitment toward this measure. Odour Impacts Regarding concern about cooking odours, exhausts are required to be fitted with filtration systems to mitigate odour in accordance with the Shire’s Health Local Law. Further steps are recommended through the Operational Management Plan (OMP), to address odour impacts to adjacent residences. The OMP is recommended to ensure that odour sources, such as cooking areas, are suitably ventilated and emissions are captured and discharged at a suitable height and/or location so as to not cause an odour nuisance to adjacent sensitive land uses within 50m. Vibration Concerns about vibration during construction are addressed through the requirement for a Construction Management Plan. Health Impacts Much of the potential health impacts associated with service stations focuses on exposure to benzene, which is a volatile organic compound found in petrol. The move from leaded to unleaded fuel has significantly reduced the amount of benzene in fuel. The responsibility for ensuring that petrol bowsers and storage tanks are located a safe distance from surrounding residences, together with a wide range of other safety considerations, falls to the State Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP). The proposal was referred to the DMP and the Department of Environment and Regulation and no objections were received. Referral to DMP involved consideration of separation distance requirements to neighbouring land uses. Of particular interest is the location of LPG tanks which are not proposed as part of this application. A Dangerous Goods Licence will also be required from the DMP under the Dangerous Goods Safety (Storage and Handling of Non-explosives) Regulations 2007. Separation distances to development on


40

surrounding land will be closely assessed in the licence application, however, it is understood the Site could comply in this regard. Signage An illuminated free standing sign (6m x 2.2m) is proposed at the Bussell Highway entrance. The sign exceeds the 5m height and 5m2 area guidelines for a large freestanding sign. The size and area of the sign is consistent with the scale of signs of this type for service stations elsewhere in the Shire. The sign would be setback 80m to residences to the south. The variation is considered minor and the proposed sign is considered acceptable. Mitigation Measures The proposed building design was amended to address the provisions of the CVS and the Design Guidelines. The roof design was changed to a hipped roof, full height clear glass is proposed on western elevation and a variety of colours and materials are proposed on the northern and southern elevations including recessed motifs to provide relief to the parapet wall. The Site design was also amended. The stone fence on the corner of Bussell Highway is proposed to be retained and continued around the perimeter of the Site, landscape screening is proposed to the satisfaction of the Shire and existing trees are proposed to be retained. The illuminated sign is shown to be relocated to the Bussell Highway entrance and the Roy Earl Drive Bussell Highway corner of the Site is dedicated for public art to reinforce the street corner and provide a welcoming entry statement. Visual screening is a requirement of the LDP for the area and includes solid screening to service areas and landscape screening. The requirement for landscape screening, on both the private lot and the adjoining road verge, is recommended to be enforced through a condition of any approval. The amended proposal meets the actions and guidelines in the CVS and the provisions of the Structure Plan. The amended proposal meets the acceptable development standards in the Design Guidelines with the exception of the standard in relation to Scale. The acceptable standard for Scale specifies window sill heights of 450mm from footpath level. The proposal is for windows set at ground level on the west elevation. The standard also specifies a 4m paparet wall height and the proposal is for 4.3m parapet walls. The proposal meets the provisions of the LDP with the exception of exterior colours. Colours are not earthy tones as described in the LDP however colours are typically vibrant in Cowaramup and given the limitations of the franchise the colours are acceptable. The variations sought are considered to be minor. With application of conditions the proposal is considered acceptable. Concluding Comments The proponent has amended the proposal in response to concerns raised during the advertising period and during the assessment of the application. The Proposal, subject to conditions, is considered to be consistent with the matters to be considered in assessment, including LPS1, the CVS, Structure Plan, Design Guidelines and LDP. Conditional approval is recommended restricting operating hours to 6am to 10pm. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Councillors must ensure when they debate a planning matter under consideration that they restrict themselves to the relevant matters of fact and law. These relevant matters will be contained and addressed in the officer’s report. Where Council conducts a debate on a matter that is based on irrelevant considerations, or fails to take into account relevant considerations, this may jeopardise the decision making process. The 2006 State Administrative Tribunal decision in the J & P Metals vs the Shire of Dardanup appeal highlights this point. The Shire of Dardanup not only lost the appeal but over $10,000 in costs were awarded against the Shire.


41

“The Shire of Dardanup failed to identify any environmental planning issues in respect to this matter and justified their decision based on community opposition to the proposal. The Tribunal determined that community opposition could not of itself be a determinative matter, as it was but one of many considerations relevant to the determination of the application. The elevation of this consideration to the sole criterion was an error. The Tribunal was of the view that the Shire of Dardanup failed to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the substantial merits of the application. The Tribunal was persuaded by the arguments presented by J& P Metals and was satisfied that the upgrade of the existing landfill facility from Class II to Class III would not prejudicially affect the amenity of the area and was consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality. Planning approval for the upgrade of the existing landfill facility to accept Class III landfill was granted subject to a number of conditions.” STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 3: Managing Growth Sustainably Community Outcome: Clearly defined areas for growth and renewal Strategic Response: Implement Local Planning Scheme No. 1 Service level strategy/plan: Provide planning services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications arising from the proposal to the Shire. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Sufficient detail has been provided to demonstrate that adverse environmental risk is mitigated with stormwater management and oil separation proposed. Social There will be a social impact arising from the development of Lot 400 and the lots to the north. While some may appreciate the opportunity a service station provides for refuelling others object to the use. Economic There will be an economic effect of the proposal from employment of staff and provision of a fuel service in the town site. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council, in accordance with regulation 68(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 approves the proposed Service Station on Lot 400 Bussell Highway Cowaramup subject to the following conditions: 1. The development is to be carried out in compliance with the plans and documentation listed below

and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent.

Plans and Specifications: P1 received at the Shire offices on 16 May 2017, P2 – P4 received at the Shire

offices on 10 May 2017, P5 received at the Shire offices on 21 March 2017.

2. If the development, the subject of this approval, is not substantially commenced within two (2) years from the date of this letter, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect. Where an approval has lapsed, development is prohibited without further approval being obtained. (P)

3. The Service Station and ancillary uses are approved to operate between the hours of 6am and

10pm only. 4. Emptying of rubbish bins and fuel deliveries shall not occur outside the hours of 7am to 7pm.


42

5. The food preparation and sale component of the proposal shall at all times function as an integrated component of the overall facility and as an ancillary component to the approved Service Station. The food preparation and sale component of the proposal shall be of an incidental / convenience nature to the predominant retail sale of petroleum products as defined in Local Planning Scheme No. 1.

6. The proponent shall provide and maintain onsite stormwater treatment measures to remove

petrols and oils, sediments, gross pollutants and nutrients to the satisfaction of the Shire prior to connection to the district drainage scheme. Details to be submitted with the building permit. (I)

7. A Stormwater Management Plan is required to be submitted prior to the issue of a building licence

and shall include the management of hydrocarbons (and potential contaminants) and contingency measures against spills; to the satisfaction of the Shire.

8. Prior to commencement of the development, suitable arrangements shall be made for connection

of the land to the comprehensive district drainage system at the landowner/applicant’s cost. A detailed engineering plan is to be submitted, prior to issue of a building permit, to the Shire’s Asset Services Department showing drainage details, levels, drainage pipe inverts, sump connections details, slow release, offsite connection and infrastructure details. No development shall commence until the engineering plan is approved. (I)

9. Detailed engineering plans shall be submitted prior to issue of a building permit, to the Shire’s

Asset Services Department, showing construction details including pavement levels, thickness, cross fall, drainage disposal method. No development shall commence until the engineering plan is approved. Prior to commencement of the use, vehicle parking areas shall be designed, constructed, drained and thereafter maintained in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2890.1-1993 and the Shire’s standards and specifications and as demonstrated on detailed engineering plan(s). (I)

10. Prior to the issuing of a building permit, the proponent shall submit to the Shires Asset Services

Department a Dust Management Plan including dust mitigation measures such as installation of sprinklers, mulching or other land management systems to prevent or control dust nuisance. The approved Dust Management Plan shall be implemented on site at all times from commencement of works. (I)

11. Crossovers shall be designed, constructed and drained in accordance with the Shire's Standards

and Specifications, prior to occupation of the development. (I) 12. The proposed access and egress to Roy Earl Drive, including the median strip, shall be designed,

drained and constructed, at the full expense of the proponent, to the Shire’s Standards and Specifications on advice from Main Roads WA, prior to commencement of the use. The median strip shall be designed and constructed to prevent a right-turn vehicle movement from the proposed egress onto Roy Earl Drive, shall provide for a right-turn vehicle movement to facilitate access to the development from Roy Earl Drive, and shall be appropriately landscaped not to obscure visibility of vehicles entering the development from Roy Earl Drive. Design details shall be submitted to the Shire and Main Roads WA prior to the issue of a building permit.

13. Approval being obtained from Main Roads WA for any works proposed within the Bussell

Highway road reserve, including, but not limited to, proposed modifications to existing drainage infrastructure and the road verge, landscaping works and the footpath.

14. A Construction Management Plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Shire prior to the

commencement of development (refer to advice note b). (I) 15. All loading and unloading shall take place within the boundaries of the premises. 16. Disabled parking bay and statutory signs shall be located convenient to the building entrance to

the satisfaction of Local Government.


43

17. A footpath shall be constructed to link into the Roy Earl Drive footpath system to the satisfaction of Local Government.

18. Prior to the commencement of development, the proponent shall pay a $10,000.00 development

bond to the satisfaction of Local Government and in accordance with Shire’s Policy PE.51 Development Bonds.

19. The Service Station shall not allow the access or servicing of the class heavy vehicles within the

definition of Restricted Access Vehicles. 20. Works are prohibited within the road reserve including any pruning or clearing of vegetation

without prior written approval of the Shire and or Main Roads WA. The Proponent shall submit and implement a Traffic Management Plan prepared by an accredited Traffic Manager in accordance with the Main Roads WA Traffic Management Code of Practice, and Australian Standards AS 1742.3 – 2009 for any works on or within the road reserve (including road). (I)

21. Prior to commencement of development, an easement in gross shall be secured for the portion

of access over adjacent Lot 401. Evidence shall be submitted to confirm that the easement is in place over Lots 400 and 401 to facilitate shared access from Bussell Highway prior to development commencing. (P)

22. An Operational Management Plan (OMP) shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Shire and

submitted for the approval of the Shire prior to the issue of a building permit (refer to advice note c). The approved OMP shall address the ongoing use and management of the premises to mitigate nuisance impacts that may arise to the amenity of the area and to ensure appropriate maintenance of onsite facilities. The approved OMP shall be updated as required and shall be implemented from commencement of the use and at all times thereafter. (P)

23. The signs identifying the entry and exit points shall be located not to obstruct sight lines. 24. The approved signs shall be maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Shire. (P) 25. External lighting, the subject of this planning approval, shall be static and must not flash or

pulsate, and must be operated to ensure that there is no detrimental impact upon traffic safety. (P)

26. The light poles on the subject site shall not exceed a height of 8m measured from the finished

ground level of the trafficable area as shown on the approved plans. 27. Illumination from light poles on the subject site shall be switched off after 10pm and not turned

on before 6am. After hours lighting is restricted to low illuminated lighting confined to bollards at the entry/exits and within the manoeuvring areas on site, signage on the building and fuel canopies and internal store security lighting.

28. The design and management recommendations of the Environmental Noise Assessment shall

be implemented to the satisfaction of the Shire. Details to be submitted prior to issue of a building permit.

29. Any external fan, air conditioner or similar equipment shall be installed and located so that there

is no loss of amenity to the locality by appearance, noise, emissions or otherwise, to the satisfaction of the Shire. (P/EH)

30. The development or use of the land shall not cause or permit to cause the escape of dust, smoke,

fumes, offensive matter or foul odours in such quantity or of such nature as to unreasonably impact on the amenity of the locality. (EH)

31. The proponent shall treat any wash downs associated with the proposed activity on site. Details

of wash down area including any treatment shall be submitted to the Shire prior to the issue of a building permit.


44

32. No trees shall be removed on the site or in the adjoining road verge(s) except for the trees identified for removal on the approved plans. The Proponent shall ensure that the health of the existing street tree(s) is not adversely affected.

33. A Landscape Plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Shire by a suitably qualified and/or

experienced landscape consultant and be submitted to the Shire for approval prior to the commencement of works. The Landscape Plan shall be drawn to scale and show detailed landscape designs for the following:

a) the vegetated buffers on the western, southern and eastern boundaries of the site including vegetation in the adjoining road verges.

b) landscaping to mitigate headlight glare on the Roy Earl Drive median strip. c) general landscaping to soften the visual impact of the development and to ensure an

attractive entry to the town is maintained. e) the location, name and mature heights of existing and proposed trees and shrubs and

ground covers. f) any lawns and paved areas to be established. g) any natural landscaped areas to be retained.

28. Landscaping shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan prior to

commencement of the use and shall be maintained at all times (refer to advice note e). 29. A schedule of colour and texture of the building materials shall be submitted for approval prior to

the commencement of any work(s) and shall be implemented accordingly. (P) 30. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the proponent shall make a contribution towards public art

in accordance with the Shire’s Governance and Business Excellence Policy 5.8 – Public Art Policy.

ADVICE NOTES a) You are advised of the need to comply with the requirements of the following other legislation:

(i) This is not a Building Permit. A Building Permit must be issued by the relevant Permit Authority before any work commences on site as per the Building Act 2011;

(ii) Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911 and Department requirements in respect to the development and use of the premises; and

(iii) The Bush Fires Act 1954 as amended, Section 33(3), Annual Bush Fires Notice applies to this property.

b) The Construction Management Plan must include but not limited to the following:

a. Pre-start meeting with Shire Officers (including Planning, Environmental Health & Infrastructure);

b. Protection of existing infrastructure; c. Protection of vegetation; d. Working in Shire reserves; e. Ensuring proper approvals have been obtained; f. Access points to building site; g. Materials lay down; h. Haulage routes; i. Construction workers parking; j. Fencing of building sites; k. Scaffolding and protection works; l. Litter and building rubbish control; m. Stormwater, sedimentation and erosion control; n. Dust control; o. Working hours; p. Construction noise and vibration; q. Minimum facilities to be provided; r. Storage of goods; s. Insurances for construction related use of public areas; t. Infrastructure development bond.


45

c) The Operational Management Plan must include but is not be limited to the following: a. Mechanical plant that will operate during the night (e.g. refrigeration condensers) to be

selected having a low speed option. b. Mechanical plant for all stores to be located as close to parapet walls as possible or

behind local screens. c. All delivery vehicles are to be encouraged to have broadband type reversing alarms fitted

rather than standard tonal alarms. Where a safe work practice can be provided (e.g. use of spotters), reversing alarms are to be turned off.

d. Mechanical plant to be regularly maintained to ensure noise levels do not increase over time.

e. Mechanical plant to be installed using vibration isolation mounts. f. Mechanical plant to be in line with those assumed in the modelling in the acoustic report

submitted as part of the application. g. External speakers shall not play music or the like between the hours of 7pm and 7am; h. Tanker refuelling shall occur between 7am and 7pm. i. Access grates shall be firmly seated in position and fitted with rubber gaskets to avoid

excess banging. j. Installation of external fixtures to ensure they are located discreetly and are not adverse

to the streetscape appeal. k. Waste collection or similar activities shall occur between 7am and 7pm and shall be

undertaken in a reasonable and quiet manner. l. Inspection and maintenance program for the oil separator system. m. Management program for waste collection, storage and disposal in accordance with

industry best practice. n. Program for monitoring, maintaining and reporting for the fuel storage tank(s) and system

and oil separator. o. Odours from the premises not to be detectable at the nearest sensitive land use. p. Odour sources such as cooking areas to be suitably ventilated. Cooking emissions to be

captured and discharged at a suitable height and/or location so as to not cause an odour nuisance to adjacent sensitive land uses within 50m.

q. Odorous exhaust gases to be treated by activated carbon adsorbers, before exhaust gases are discharged to atmosphere. Ventilation system to be equipped with efficient filtration equipment to remove particles and aerosols from the cooking exhaust before it enters the activated carbon adsorbers.

r. No visible particulate emissions to be discharged from an exhaust stack. s. Ongoing record keeping and follow up program for complaints. t. Commitment toward updating and revising the OMP as required.

d) Rubbish enclosure areas adequate to service the development are to be constructed and

provided in accordance with the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Health Local Laws 1999 prior to the occupation or use of the development to the satisfaction of the Local Government. (EH)

e) Noise emissions (sound levels) resulting from the use of the premises shall not exceed the

assigned levels in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and shall not unreasonably interfere with the health, welfare, convenience, comfort or amenity of an occupier of any other premises. (EH)

f) Any chemicals associated with the proposed activity are to be stored in accordance with the

Dangerous Goods Safety (Storage and Handling of Non-explosives) Regulations 2007. g) The proposed activity is to comply with all requirements of the Environmental Protection

(Controlled Waste) Regulations 2004. h) The proposed activity must comply with the Food Act 2008 and the Australia New Zealand Food

Standards Code. (EH) i) Specifications for drainage connections, conditions for working within the road reserve and

approvals for connections to drainage systems may be obtained through the Shires Asset Services Department.


46

j) Should soil and sediment not be retained on site, The Council may take measures to address the

problem such as cleaning downstream pipes and manholes and street sweeping and the recover such costs from the Proponent or Owner. (I)

k) Verge areas are required to be maintained by the owner or occupier of the adjoining premise in

accordance with the Shire’s Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2010.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposal Plans 2. Schedule of Submissions

RECOMMENDATION CR EARL, CR KENNAUGH That Council, in accordance with regulation 68(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 approves the proposed Service Station on Lot 400 Bussell Highway Cowaramup subject to the following conditions: 1. The development is to be carried out in compliance with the plans and documentation

listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent.

Plans and Specifications: P1 received at the Shire offices on 16 May 2017, P2 – P4 received at

the Shire offices on 10 May 2017, P5 received at the Shire offices on 21 March 2017.

2. If the development, the subject of this approval, is not substantially commenced within

two (2) years from the date of this letter, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect. Where an approval has lapsed, development is prohibited without further approval being obtained. (P)

3. The Service Station and ancillary uses are approved to operate between the hours of 6am

and 10pm only. 4. Emptying of rubbish bins and fuel deliveries shall not occur outside the hours of 7am to

7pm. 5. The food preparation and sale component of the proposal shall at all times function as an

integrated component of the overall facility and as an ancillary component to the approved Service Station. The food preparation and sale component of the proposal shall be of an incidental / convenience nature to the predominant retail sale of petroleum products as defined in Local Planning Scheme No. 1.

6. The proponent shall provide and maintain onsite stormwater treatment measures to

remove petrols and oils, sediments, gross pollutants and nutrients to the satisfaction of the Shire prior to connection to the district drainage scheme. Details to be submitted with the building permit. (I)

7. A Stormwater Management Plan is required to be submitted prior to the issue of a building

licence and shall include the management of hydrocarbons (and potential contaminants) and contingency measures against spills; to the satisfaction of the Shire.

8. Prior to commencement of the development, suitable arrangements shall be made for

connection of the land to the comprehensive district drainage system at the landowner/applicant’s cost. A detailed engineering plan is to be submitted, prior to issue of a building permit, to the Shire’s Asset Services Department showing drainage details, levels, drainage pipe inverts, sump connections details, slow release, offsite connection


47

and infrastructure details. No development shall commence until the engineering plan is approved. (I)

9. Detailed engineering plans shall be submitted prior to issue of a building permit, to the

Shire’s Asset Services Department, showing construction details including pavement levels, thickness, cross fall, drainage disposal method. No development shall commence until the engineering plan is approved. Prior to commencement of the use, vehicle parking areas shall be designed, constructed, drained and thereafter maintained in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2890.1-1993 and the Shire’s standards and specifications and as demonstrated on detailed engineering plan(s). (I)

10. Prior to the issuing of a building permit, the proponent shall submit to the Shires Asset

Services Department a Dust Management Plan including dust mitigation measures such as installation of sprinklers, mulching or other land management systems to prevent or control dust nuisance. The approved Dust Management Plan shall be implemented on site at all times from commencement of works. (I)

11. Crossovers shall be designed, constructed and drained in accordance with the Shire's

Standards and Specifications, prior to occupation of the development. (I) 12. The proposed access and egress to Roy Earl Drive, including the median strip, shall be

designed, drained and constructed, at the full expense of the proponent, to the Shire’s Standards and Specifications on advice from Main Roads WA, prior to commencement of the use. The median strip shall be designed and constructed to prevent a right-turn vehicle movement from the proposed egress onto Roy Earl Drive, shall provide for a right-turn vehicle movement to facilitate access to the development from Roy Earl Drive, and shall be appropriately landscaped not to obscure visibility of vehicles entering the development from Roy Earl Drive. Design details shall be submitted to the Shire and Main Roads WA prior to the issue of a building permit.

13. Approval being obtained from Main Roads WA for any works proposed within the Bussell

Highway road reserve, including, but not limited to, proposed modifications to existing drainage infrastructure and the road verge, landscaping works and the footpath.

14. A Construction Management Plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Shire prior

to the commencement of development (refer to advice note b). (I) 15. All loading and unloading shall take place within the boundaries of the premises. 16. Disabled parking bay and statutory signs shall be located convenient to the building

entrance to the satisfaction of Local Government. 17. A footpath shall be constructed to link into the Roy Earl Drive footpath system to the

satisfaction of Local Government. 18. Prior to the commencement of development, the proponent shall pay a $10,000.00

development bond to the satisfaction of Local Government and in accordance with Shire’s Policy PE.51 Development Bonds.

19. The Service Station shall not allow the access or servicing of the class heavy vehicles

within the definition of Restricted Access Vehicles. 20. Works are prohibited within the road reserve including any pruning or clearing of

vegetation without prior written approval of the Shire and or Main Roads WA. The Proponent shall submit and implement a Traffic Management Plan prepared by an accredited Traffic Manager in accordance with the Main Roads WA Traffic Management Code of Practice, and Australian Standards AS 1742.3 – 2009 for any works on or within the road reserve (including road). (I)


48

21. Prior to commencement of development, an easement in gross shall be secured for the portion of access over adjacent Lot 401. Evidence shall be submitted to confirm that the easement is in place over Lots 400 and 401 to facilitate shared access from Bussell Highway prior to development commencing. (P)

22. An Operational Management Plan (OMP) shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Shire

and submitted for the approval of the Shire prior to the issue of a building permit (refer to advice note c). The approved OMP shall address the ongoing use and management of the premises to mitigate nuisance impacts that may arise to the amenity of the area and to ensure appropriate maintenance of onsite facilities. The approved OMP shall be updated as required and shall be implemented from commencement of the use and at all times thereafter. (P)

23. The signs identifying the entry and exit points shall be located not to obstruct sight lines. 24. The approved signs shall be maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Shire.

(P) 25. External lighting, the subject of this planning approval, shall be static and must not flash

or pulsate, and must be operated to ensure that there is no detrimental impact upon traffic safety. (P)

26. The light poles on the subject site shall not exceed a height of 8m measured from the

finished ground level of the trafficable area as shown on the approved plans. 27. Illumination from light poles on the subject site shall be switched off after 10pm and not

turned on before 6am. After hours lighting is restricted to low illuminated lighting confined to bollards at the entry/exits and within the manoeuvring areas on site, signage on the building and fuel canopies and internal store security lighting.

28. The design and management recommendations of the Environmental Noise Assessment

shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Shire. Details to be submitted prior to issue of a building permit.

29. Any external fan, air conditioner or similar equipment shall be installed and located so

that there is no loss of amenity to the locality by appearance, noise, emissions or otherwise, to the satisfaction of the Shire. (P/EH)

30. The development or use of the land shall not cause or permit to cause the escape of dust,

smoke, fumes, offensive matter or foul odours in such quantity or of such nature as to unreasonably impact on the amenity of the locality. (EH)

31. The proponent shall treat any wash downs associated with the proposed activity on site.

Details of wash down area including any treatment shall be submitted to the Shire prior to the issue of a building permit.

32. No trees shall be removed on the site or in the adjoining road verge(s) except for the trees

identified for removal on the approved plans. The Proponent shall ensure that the health of the existing street tree(s) is not adversely affected.

33. A Landscape Plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Shire by a suitably qualified

and/or experienced landscape consultant and be submitted to the Shire for approval prior to the commencement of works. The Landscape Plan shall be drawn to scale and show detailed landscape designs for the following:

a) the vegetated buffers on the western, southern and eastern boundaries of the site including vegetation in the adjoining road verges.

b) landscaping to mitigate headlight glare on the Roy Earl Drive median strip. c) general landscaping to soften the visual impact of the development and to ensure

an attractive entry to the town is maintained.


49

e) the location, name and mature heights of existing and proposed trees and shrubs and ground covers.

f) any lawns and paved areas to be established. g) any natural landscaped areas to be retained.

28. Landscaping shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan prior

to commencement of the use and shall be maintained at all times (refer to advice note e). 29. A schedule of colour and texture of the building materials shall be submitted for approval

prior to the commencement of any work(s) and shall be implemented accordingly. (P) 30. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the proponent shall make a contribution towards

public art in accordance with the Shire’s Governance and Business Excellence Policy 5.8 – Public Art Policy.

ADVICE NOTES a) You are advised of the need to comply with the requirements of the following other

legislation: (i) This is not a Building Permit. A Building Permit must be issued by the relevant

Permit Authority before any work commences on site as per the Building Act 2011;

(ii) Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911 and Department requirements in respect to the development and use of the premises; and

(iii) The Bush Fires Act 1954 as amended, Section 33(3), Annual Bush Fires Notice applies to this property.

b) The Construction Management Plan must include but not limited to the following:

a. Pre-start meeting with Shire Officers (including Planning, Environmental Health & Infrastructure);

b. Protection of existing infrastructure; c. Protection of vegetation; d. Working in Shire reserves; e. Ensuring proper approvals have been obtained; f. Access points to building site; g. Materials lay down; h. Haulage routes; i. Construction workers parking; j. Fencing of building sites; k. Scaffolding and protection works; l. Litter and building rubbish control; m. Stormwater, sedimentation and erosion control; n. Dust control; o. Working hours; p. Construction noise and vibration; q. Minimum facilities to be provided; r. Storage of goods; s. Insurances for construction related use of public areas; t. Infrastructure development bond.

c) The Operational Management Plan must include but is not be limited to the following: a. Mechanical plant that will operate during the night (e.g. refrigeration

condensers) to be selected having a low speed option. b. Mechanical plant for all stores to be located as close to parapet walls as possible

or behind local screens. c. All delivery vehicles are to be encouraged to have broadband type reversing

alarms fitted rather than standard tonal alarms. Where a safe work practice can be provided (e.g. use of spotters), reversing alarms are to be turned off.

d. Mechanical plant to be regularly maintained to ensure noise levels do not increase over time.

e. Mechanical plant to be installed using vibration isolation mounts.


50

f. Mechanical plant to be in line with those assumed in the modelling in the acoustic report submitted as part of the application.

g. External speakers shall not play music or the like between the hours of 7pm and 7am;

h. Tanker refuelling shall occur between 7am and 7pm. i. Access grates shall be firmly seated in position and fitted with rubber gaskets to

avoid excess banging. j. Installation of external fixtures to ensure they are located discreetly and are not

adverse to the streetscape appeal. k. Waste collection or similar activities shall occur between 7am and 7pm and shall

be undertaken in a reasonable and quiet manner. l. Inspection and maintenance program for the oil separator system. m. Management program for waste collection, storage and disposal in accordance

with industry best practice. n. Program for monitoring, maintaining and reporting for the fuel storage tank(s) and

system and oil separator. o. Odours from the premises not to be detectable at the nearest sensitive land use. p. Odour sources such as cooking areas to be suitably ventilated. Cooking emissions

to be captured and discharged at a suitable height and/or location so as to not cause an odour nuisance to adjacent sensitive land uses within 50m.

q. Odorous exhaust gases to be treated by activated carbon adsorbers, before exhaust gases are discharged to atmosphere. Ventilation system to be equipped with efficient filtration equipment to remove particles and aerosols from the cooking exhaust before it enters the activated carbon adsorbers.

r. No visible particulate emissions to be discharged from an exhaust stack. s. Ongoing record keeping and follow up program for complaints. t. Commitment toward updating and revising the OMP as required.

d) Rubbish enclosure areas adequate to service the development are to be constructed and

provided in accordance with the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Health Local Laws 1999 prior to the occupation or use of the development to the satisfaction of the Local Government. (EH)

e) Noise emissions (sound levels) resulting from the use of the premises shall not exceed

the assigned levels in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and shall not unreasonably interfere with the health, welfare, convenience, comfort or amenity of an occupier of any other premises. (EH)

f) Any chemicals associated with the proposed activity are to be stored in accordance with

the Dangerous Goods Safety (Storage and Handling of Non-explosives) Regulations 2007. g) The proposed activity is to comply with all requirements of the Environmental Protection

(Controlled Waste) Regulations 2004. h) The proposed activity must comply with the Food Act 2008 and the Australia New Zealand

Food Standards Code. (EH) i) Specifications for drainage connections, conditions for working within the road reserve

and approvals for connections to drainage systems may be obtained through the Shires Asset Services Department.

j) Should soil and sediment not be retained on site, The Council may take measures to

address the problem such as cleaning downstream pipes and manholes and street sweeping and the recover such costs from the Proponent or Owner. (I)

k) Verge areas are required to be maintained by the owner or occupier of the adjoining

premise in accordance with the Shire’s Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2010.

LOST 2/4


51

CRS HASTIE, SMART, LANE AND HAYNES VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION Cr Smart proposed the following alternative motion ALTERNATIVE MOTION RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION CR SMART, CR HASTIE OM2017/120 That Council, in accordance with regulation 68(2) of the Planning and Development ( Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 REFUSE the proposed Service Station of Lot 400 Bussell Highway Cowaramup for the following reasons; The proposed development does not fully comply with the following sections of regulation 67 of the Planning and Development ( Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 which need to be given due regard by the local government. Section (m) The compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including, but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the development; (n) the amenity of the locality including the following-- (ii) the character of the locality (iii) social impacts of the locality. (p) whether adequate provision has been made for the landscaping of the land to which the application relates. (s) the adequacy of -- (i) the proposed means of access to and egress from the site; (t) the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the development, particularly in relation to the capacity of the road system in the locality and the probable effect on traffic flow and safety; (x) the impact of the development on the community as a whole notwithstanding the impact of the development on the particular individuals. (y) any submissions received on the application ;

CARRIED 4/2

CRS EARL AND KENNAUGH VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION REASONS: Cr Smart spoke to the motion, explaining that this was an alternative approach to make clear the reasoning why Council does not support the proposal 28 members of the public left the Council Chambers


52

11.2.2 AMENDMENT 36 - PERIMETER ROAD AND JOHN ARCHIBALD DRIVE FUNDING LOCATION/ADDRESS East Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River and Main Roads WA FILE REFERENCE LND/1/36 REPORT AUTHOR Nick Logan, Manager Planning and Development AUTHORISING OFFICER Dale Putland, Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF • The Shire’s Local Planning Strategy (LPS) sets out a requirement that development contributions

towards the Perimeter Road and John Archibald Drive are resolved prior to the development of growth areas in East Margaret River.

• In May 2014 the Council adopted Local Planning Policy 22 – Perimeter Road Funding and Implementation (LPP22). LPP22 set out a proposed formula for establishing contribution requirements and noted that these requirements would need to be incorporated within Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1) in due course by way of scheme amendment, once costings for the infrastructure were more certain.

• Amendment 36 has been prepared for the incorporation of contribution requirements into LPS1. A number of submissions were raised through the consultation process, some supported by varied traffic modelling conclusions.

• Some minor modifications to Amendment 36 are proposed in response to submissions made. RECOMMENDATION That Council:

1. pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (as amended) amend the above Local Planning Scheme by:

2. Amending Local Planning Scheme No. 1 Scheme Maps by identifying the following Development Contribution Areas: 2.1. Margaret River Perimeter Road (DCP2e) 2.2. John Archibald Drive (DCP2f)

3. Introducing the following Development Contribution Plans into Schedule 14 of Local Planning Scheme No. 1: 3.1. Margaret River Perimeter Road (DCP2e) 3.2. John Archibald Drive (DCP2f)

4. Undertake modifications to Amendment 36 in response to submission made. TABLED ITEM Amendment 36 as advertised. BACKGROUND The Shire’s LPS sets out a requirement that prior to rezoning and structure planning of future growth areas in East Margaret River a funding and implementation policy for the Perimeter Road is necessary, including the requirement for developer contributions. State Planning Policy 3.6 has been developed since preparation of the LPS. SPP3.6 requires greater rigour and oversight around contribution requirements than policy preparation, and specifies that contributions are embedded in a planning scheme by way of scheme amendment. Full funding of the Perimeter Road has now been provided, and development commenced and tenders called for project completion. Funding for John Archibald Drive is included in this funding package, with the exception of any costs for land acquisition. At the same time, development has continued in East Margaret River with more dwelling construction and subdivision consuming available land for urban expansion increasing the likelihood of rezoning, structure planning and development of land further east.


53

In May 2014 the Council endorsed Local Planning Policy 22 – Margaret River Perimeter Road Funding and Implementation. LPP22 acknowledged that the contribution requirements specified in the Policy would need to be embedded in LPS1 when detailed costings were available for the balance of the Perimeter Road, enabling the practical effects (costs) of the contribution requirements to be known. This information is now available and the design for the Perimeter Road finalised, enabling accurate contribution estimates to be appreciated when adopting Amendment 36. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE LPP22 was subject to two separate rounds of consultation with affected landowners and relevant government agencies (principally MRWA and the Department of Planning). A number of submissions were received and considered by the Council when finalising and adopting LPP22. Following adoption of LPP22, the Shire participated in further discussions with MRWA and the DoP. Upon completion of detailed design and costings by MRWA the implications of applying LPP22 were then distributed to all affected landowners for their information. Amendment 36 was then subject to formal consultation, with all directly affected landowners consulted. In addition further engagement has been undertaken with the DoP and MRWA, and further meetings undertaken with landowners or their representatives to discuss Amendment 36. Through the consultation period six submissions were received, five objections from affected landowners and submission of support from MRWA. Advice was also provided by the DoP. A full schedule of submissions and observations in relation to those submissions is included as Attachment 1. The main points raised by submission are discussed further in this report, with several consequential modifications proposed to Amendment 36. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The mechanism for the collection of contributions is at clause 6.3 of LPS1. These provisions set out the process and ability to collect contributions for infrastructure from development. Typically this is through the subdivision process but may also apply to density development without subdivision. Contributions must be detailed in a Development Contribution Plan (DCP), and costing set out in a Cost Apportionment Schedule (CAS). Only the DCP forms part of LPS1 by inclusion as a schedule in the Scheme. With transparency a key objective in developing contributions, the actual cost implications as described in the CAS have also been advertised with the DCP, as good practice and for transparency rather than a technical requirement. The DCPs as advertised (for each of the Perimeter Road and John Archibald Drive) and CAS are included as Attachment 2. Note that if modifications are adopted as recommended these would be updated accordingly. PLANNING FRAMEWORK The LPS identifies the areas that are required to accommodate future demand for urban development. The LPS also identifies the considerations that are associated with establishing future development areas. The LPS identifies the Perimeter Road as critical infrastructure to support population growth, and the requirement that future development contributes to the cost of the road1. The future growth areas in East Margaret River and the indicative Perimeter Road alignment from the LPS are identified in Figure 1 below. It should be noted that this indicative alignment has been established for a considerable period of time, with only minor refinement occurring through the detailed design process undertaken by MRWA. The relevance being that the impact of the alignment was a known consideration by all parties through the process of developing the LPS. LPS1 sets the provisions and mechanism for collection of contributions. State Planning Policies must be given ‘due regard’ when amending LPS1 (s77A of the Planning and Development Act). SPP3.6 sets out the principles that must be given this ‘due regard’ in preparing contribution requirements, specifically: • The need for infrastructure and the nexus to future development.

1 See policies 3.1.1(n), the policies for Development Investigation Areas in Margaret River (pg73, 74) and observations for the Eastern Perimeter Road in the settlement strategy for Margaret River (pg79).


54

• Transparency in that the method for calculation should be clear, understandable and simple to administer.

• Equity in that development should contribute based on its proportional contribution to need for the infrastructure. Also that those that are paying should also see the benefit of the infrastructure that they are funding within a reasonable period.

• Certainty in that contributions should be clearly identified and the method for cost adjustments determined at the commencement of development.

• Efficiency in that cost should be based on actual likely infrastructure costs to avoid over collecting. • Consistency in that contributions should be applied uniformly over a development area. • Rights of review should be available for landowners who believe that costs are not reasonable. • The manner in which contributions are determined needs to be accountable.

Figure 1. LPS Map for the Margaret River Townsite DISCUSSION The DCPs and CAS included as Attachment 2 are those advertised for public comment, however some key modifications have been made in response to submissions. These modifications are detailed below. Development Contribution Plan and Cost Apportionment Schedule for the Perimeter Road Consistent with LPP22 the DCP and CAS for the Perimeter Road was based on a formula that sees future development contributing to the 4,650 metre section of the Perimeter Road that is adjacent to future development areas, i.e. from the southern Bussell Highway junction to the southern side of the Margaret River. Only land that has the potential for future urban development is included in the contribution area. While this is over half of the total length of the Perimeter Road, it is considerably less than half of the cost as factors such as earthworks and bridge construction from the Margaret River north comprise substantial portions of the total cost. The portion of costs comprises the following, for only that section south of the Margaret River to Bussell Highway:


55

• The survey of the road; • Proportional design and project costs; • Earthworks for the road; • Formation, preparation, priming and sealing of one lane of what will be for the short to medium

term, a two lane road (with longer term potential for duplication); • The provision of kerbing, drainage and services in relation to the road. These elements of cost are reflective of the principles set out in the State Government’s Development Control Policy 1.7 – General Road Planning as elements of contributions for higher order roads. The total cost of the Perimeter Road is estimated to have a 2014/15 value of $65.88M. Costs attributed to future development based on the above elements are estimated at $14,263,949, equating to approximately 21.6% of the total cost. The Perimeter Road DCP identifies these costs spread over the approximately 280ha of developable land in future growth areas (Development Investigation Areas 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 in the LPS). Areas of developable land (rather than numbers of lots/dwellings) has been used to calculate contributions due to the inclusion of the future industrial area (DIAM6) in the DCP area. As lot yields aren’t the determining factor for traffic generation in the context of industrial land development, to achieve the principle of equity a per hectare rate is the most appropriate divisor. The advertised DCP and CAS reflected the principles of LPP22 that a 50% reduction in contribution requirements will be applied where land is ceded free of cost at the time of acquisition. While land for the road would ordinarily be required to be ceded free of cost at subdivision, funding for the road is being sought for construction to occur significantly prior to all subdivision being undertaken meaning that the land needs to be acquired first. The land acquisition process has also triggered a compensation process where landowners could be paid for that land, however will need to repay that compensation at the time of development, which is analogous to the provision of land through the subdivision process. Alternatively, the DCP and CAS provide that if land is ceded free of cost through the acquisition process, the contribution requirements can be reduced by 50%. This would have the implication that $7,131,974 would be spread over 280ha of future development area, resulting in a contribution of around $25,500 per ha of developable land. In relation to the nexus principle, it is also a fundamental point that the traffic network in the Margaret River Townsite already experiences significant pressures at key intersections. Very poor levels of service were identified in the intersection modelling undertaken in 2012 for the Margaret River Integrated Transport Strategy. This modelling also identified that growth in traffic over time, largely from the East Margaret River future development areas, would result in complete failure of some key intersections. In addition, with the diversion of heavy vehicles, critical solutions (such as intersection treatments) cannot be implemented. No contributions have been sought for remedying these wider traffic issues, which have been fully funded through grants obtained for Main Street improvements with additional future modifications to build capacity subject to future budgeting processes. Perimeter Road DCP Key Submission Points and Responses Following are the key points raised in submissions and through further discussion regarding the Perimeter Road DCP, together with observations relating to those points and any consequential modifications. All submission points are further covered in the schedule of submissions included as Attachment 1.

Submission Response A number of submissions raised the point that the timeframe for the DCP is too long. The DCP sets out that it is expected to have a life of 20 years. The key guidance found in SPP3.6 states that contribution plans should generally be limited to 5-10 years in duration.

SPP3.6 also provides that longer timeframes may be appropriate in specific circumstances. This guidance on the timeframe of a DCP typically being restricted to 5-10 years is set out for two key reasons. The first that longer contribution schemes can have problems due to cost escalation and greater uncertainties over development rates over a longer timeframe. The second being the principle of equity in that those contributing to infrastructure should have the benefit of using that infrastructure. These problems with longer duration arrangements are not relevant in the instance where infrastructure is prefunded but relate to situations where contributions are collected and infrastructure realised once all contributions have been received. As the works


56

will have been undertaken there will be absolute certainty over costs and the benefits of the infrastructure will immediately be realised. The DCP will also be subject to periodic review. These points set aside any issue with the duration of the DCP and further discussion will be included in Amendment 36 to this effect.

Several submissions raised, at length, the issue of the historical identification of the road in various strategic planning documents. Specifically the significant focus in those documents on the road enabling improvements to be made to the town centre and through removal of heavy vehicles. As such, the need for the road arising from a consequence of future development was considered to be ‘fiction’.

The original identification of the Perimeter Road and further observations in documents such as the Margaret River Townsite Strategy have highlighted the positive amenity benefits for the town centre that is likely from removal of heavy vehicles, together with the scope to make improvements in the town centre. This has only limited relevance to the factual situation of whether there is a relationship of the need for the Perimeter Road to future growth, which is a key consideration in determining the question of the nexus between contributions and infrastructure. These observations in submissions also underplay the fact that the key planning document guiding the development of the statutory framework is the Local Planning Strategy and State Planning Policy. The LPS is clear on the need to consider and develop a contribution regime for major roads, including the Perimeter Road where contribution requirements are set out as a precursor to development in East Margaret River. The acceptability of the contribution arrangements are then tested against the principles of the LPS and State Planning Policy

Nexus between infrastructure and contribution requirements is a key principle to be resolved and highlighted in SPP3.6. The issue of a perceived lack of nexus was consistently highlighted in: • Submissions from

landowners refuting traffic growth assumptions relied upon, including suggestion that the trip rate applied to dwellings was erroneous and that different routes may be used differently by future residents in East Margaret River, depending on their location.

• Observation from the representatives of DIAM1 and DIAM4 that as they have no direct access to the Perimeter Road there is no benefit from the infrastructure for that development.

The DCP has been formulated to apply all principles of SPP3.6, which also includes a requirement to recognise the principle principle of consistency, in that contributions should be applied uniformly across a development contribution area. Assessment of traffic growth and that arising from the future development in East Margaret River was undertaken in the Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) prepared for the Shire in 2012, and traffic modelling undertaken for MRWA in 2008 and 2014. At the level of considering contribution from the East Margaret River Area the cumulative effect of traffic growth in this area is the relevant consideration. The trip generation rate of nine per dwelling per day is industry standard and the ITS already accounts for internal movements within the East Margaret River area and therefore is considered suitable for the purpose of estimating traffic growth arising from future development in East Margaret River. It is possible to undertake a finer level of assessment for components of future development, which would estimate different route preferences. The assumptions put forward in submissions include very low rates of use from some DIAs (including zero trips south on the Perimeter Road arising from DIAM1), which is not a realistic alternative scenario. While direct access to DIAs has been limited to ensure the Perimeter Road functions effectively, all DIAs have a reasonable connection to the Perimeter Road which would make this a preferred route for particular trips. This is evident in the East Margaret River District Structure Plan shown in Figure 2, which identifies future internal road connections. Applying the principle of consistency and recognising total growth in traffic arising from East Margaret River the proportional contribution of around 20% of the project cost is fairly and reasonably proportional to the demand arising from future growth. Further information will be incorporated within Amendment 36 detailing these traffic growth estimates from the ITS. It is recognised that traffic growth estimates and the movement of that traffic are not perfect assumptions of the future movement of people. The DCP deals with a cumulative issue at a level that is consistent between parties that contribute demand. The


57

determined share of costs is also proportion to the principles of DC1.7 as they apply to contributions for higher order roads.

Submissions have also made reference to a general observation in SPP3.6 and the associated guidelines that contributions for the highest order ‘Primary Roads’ are generally provided by the State.

SPP3.6 and the associated guidelines apply throughout the state and acknowledge that different situations need to be dealt with within their specific context. SPP3.6 also sets out that contributions may be required for these higher order roads in specific circumstances, using the context of superlot creation on the urban fringe. The Perimeter Road does have a different context than the highest order roads in the metropolitan area where SPP3.6 also applies. It is readily apparent that there is a direct correlation between a proportion of demand for the Perimeter Road and future growth in the defined context of the Margaret River Townsite. It is also relevant that the significant majority of the cost will still be funded directly by the State, for not only the MRPR but also for capacity building in the network, such as the town centre improvements required to accommodate future growth.

Further clarity is sought over the repayment of the land area contribution.

Typically land for road infrastructure would be given through the subdivision process. In this circumstance the mechanics of obtaining the road alignment mean that land owners may be compensated at the time of land acquisition. Where landowners have received compensation at the time of acquisition they will proportionally repay this acquisition cost as the particular DIA is developed. This principle wasn’t readily apparent to all parties in the Amendment 36 and further clarification is required in the DCP and Amendment 36 documentation.

A number of submission points noted that there was uncertainty over future contribution requirements, as the DCP is based on a formula rather than setting out actual values.

Both the formula and the current cost estimates that apply to that formula were advertised and the implications of Amendment 36 therefore were readily obtainable. The contribution requirements under Amendment 36 are more certain than other contribution requirements as the cost estimates will be given absolute certainty by the completion of the project prior to most contributions being collected. The DCP will then be reviewed once the project is completed and the final costs known. The current cost estimates will be incorporated into the CAS and reviewed once construction is completed.

Submissions also noted that the proposed per hectare rate of contribution was inequitable given that there is likely to be a higher per hectare trip rate arising from future industrial development within DIAM6.

It is a fair observation that trip generation rates per hectare are likely to be higher from industrial development within DIAM6, based on the assumed gross density of six dwellings per hectare in future DIA areas. Traffic estimates in the ITS utilise a daily rate of 125 per ha for industrial development and 54 per ha for residential development. Recognition of this higher trip rate would see contributions for DIAs M1 to M4 (DIAM5 is excluded due to low yield) proportionally reduced to comprise 74% of total contributions from the contribution area as opposed to the current 86.5%. 26% of total trips (as a proportion of future growth) from DIAs M1 to M6 (excluding M5) are attributable to the industrial area within DIAM62. Given the inherent costs in future development within DIAM6 it is not considered appropriate to further increase contribution requirements for DIAM6, but to apply a discount factor to contribution requirements for DIAs M1-M4 to recognise lower proportional trip generation and amend the DCP, CAS and Amendment 36 accordingly. The modelled assumptions relied upon in submissions seek to demonstrate that between 40 and 63% of traffic on the southern section of the Perimeter Road arises from DIAM6. This assumption significantly overstates the traffic generation assumptions from DIAM6, particularly as it

2 As detailed in the transport modelling technical note Tables 1 and 2 of the Integrated Transport Strategy (GHD, 2012)


58

assumes 70ha of industrial land use, whereas the ITS identifies trips from the current 35ha zoned under Amendment 6, which is a more realistic assumption of growth under the intended 20 year timeframe of the DCP.

The lot/dwelling yields for DIAM2 are likely to be significantly less than set out in the LPS (a maximum of 295 versus 618 set out in the LPS).

It is unclear where these lot yield estimates have been derived, however given the developable area within DIAM2 the comparatively low urban density estimates of six dwellings per hectare leads to a significantly higher lot yield. 295 dwellings from DIAM2 would give a density of 4.7 lots per hectare, which is an extremely low yield for what is intended to be efficiently utilised urban land.

Figure 2. East Margaret River District Structure Plan The full implications of the contribution requirements as advertised by way of Amendment 36 and as proposed to be modified are included as Attachments 3 and 4 respectively.


59

Development Contribution Plan and Cost Apportionment Schedule for John Archibald Drive Contributions have been consistently applied to development in the Rapids Landing and Margarets Fields subdivisions, and in the latter stages of the Riverslea subdivision. LPP22 identified a continuation of these contributions to complete John Archibald Drive from Bussell Highway west to the Perimeter Road. Since the adoption of LPP22 portion of JAD has been completed from Bussell Highway to Beech Drive, largely utilising contributions collected to date. The revised design and costing has been factored in to the DCP for JAD, as shown in Amendment 36.

Figure 3. John Archibald Drive In addition, the section of John Archibald Drive east of Darch Road, traversing DIAM2 (as shown in Figure 3), was proposed in LPP22 to be incorporated within the John Archibald Drive DCP. The developable land within DIAM2 is subject to Perimeter Road contribution requirements. It was evident given finalisation of the cost estimates for the Perimeter Road, adding the collection of costs for the balance of John Archibald Drive would be likely to place a significant burden on development of that land. Accordingly some revision to the principles in LPP22 was proposed to ensure that costs aren’t excessive for the development of DIAM2 and all future development areas are treated consistently. These revisions included: • Removal of the land within DIAM2 from the John Archibald Drive Contribution Area. This was on

the basis that grant funding would be utilised to fund the construction of JAD east of Darch Road, provided that land was provided free of cost for the road alignment. As this section of JAD would ordinarily be funded by th subdivider this was a mutually beneficial situation that sees delivery of the full road network.

• Continuing to utilise the contribution arrangements for the balance of Rapids Landing and Riverslea to fulfil the costs of John Archibald Drive from Beech Drive east to Darch Road.

• Including the future area of Brookfield in the John Archibald Drive contribution arrangements. The revised costs for John Archibald Drive show around $2,299,432 being required to complete the road from Beech Road to Darch Road ($4,769,056 in total from Beech Road east to the Perimeter Road), with around 405 lots remaining in the Rapids Landing and Riverslea subdivisions in Amendment 36 when advertised. This provides that contributions required would be around $5,677 per lot, which was significantly higher than the charge of $2,964 for the March 2015 quarter. Previous contribution requirements were based on cost assumptions from 2006, which have been escalated through time but clearly leaves a shortfall if the current contribution arrangements were continued. At the same time, the Brookfield subdivision also relies on this essential infrastructure however, has not been included in contribution requirements to date. A structure plan has been received for the balance of Brookfield to increase density within the future growth area known as FDAM3c (see Figure 1). The Council considered this structure plan at its meeting of 14 July 2014 (OM2014/139) where the decision to advertise the Structure Plan also required the proponent to undertake traffic modelling to determine inclusion in the John Archibald contribution arrangements. This Structure Plan has yet to be finally considered, however traffic modelling has been undertaken in

Darch Road John Archibald Drive


60

support of the Structure Plan and included in the submission made on Amendment 36 by the representatives of Brookfield. Including the future section of Brookfield has the implication of adding a further 389 lots to the John Archibald Drive contribution arrangements, and increasing the ‘divisor’ (number of future lots) from 405 to 794. Given the updated cost Amendment 36 as advertised would result in the $2,299,432 cost being levied over 794 lots, resulting in a per lot contribution of $2,896. The contribution requirements for JAD are within a different context than those for the Perimeter Road. JAD is at the level in the road hierarchy where state government policy is explicit that it would typically be the subdividers responsibility to facilitate development of this road. John Archibald Drive DCP Key Submission Points and Responses Following are the key points raised in submissions and through further discussion regarding the John Archibald Drive DCP, together with observations relating to those points and any consequential modifications. All submission points are further covered in the schedule of submissions included as Attachment 1.

Submission Response The contribution requirements for JAD are not proportional to the use of JAD arising from the Brookfield estate with only 9% of traffic on JAD (east of Rapids landing intersection only) arising from Brookfield Estate.

The assumptions set out in this submission vary significantly from those supporting the following submission point, which indicates the varied results that can be described in traffic modelling assumptions. This submission assumes JAD will carry 10,000vpd, which is the assumed design capacity as opposed to assumed traffic flow. The reduced 9% of $2,299,432 over the 389 lots in Brookfield future expansion is considered to understate the likely traffic volume arising from Brookfield. Implementing the principle that contribution requirements should be spread equitably through a contribution area no modification is proposed to Amendment 36 as a consequence.

The contribution requirements for JAD are not proportional to the demand requirements for JAD arising from the Rapids Landing and Riverslea subdivisions. Development contributions toward construction costs from Bussell Highway to Darch Road should be constrained to 43% of the total cost rather than the 48% currently sought. 43% of the total JAD cost of $4,769,056 divided between 794 lots from Brookfield, Rapids and Riverslea, so $2,582 per lot.

Should land not be provided free of cost for the development of the eastern portion of JAD and the landowner compensated at the time of land acquisition this will also be subject to future contribution requirements. Amendment 36 requires some modification to make this position clear. At present the JAD contribution relates to the western section of JAD with the cost to complete this road divided by adjacent subdivision in Riverslea (now completed), Rapids Landing and Brookfield. The assumed traffic flows on JAD in this submission are fairly equal between the Rapids Landing, Riverslea and Brookfield developments – 22.1% from Rapids/Riverslea and 21.1% from Brookfield, which is considerably different to the above submission. As the contribution requirement currently only applies to the eastern section of the Perimeter Road the $2,299,432 figure to complete this section of the road is relevant.

Rights of Review for Costs Ultimately the funding of the Perimeter Road and the requirement for contributions will be a decision for the State Government through the finalisation of Amendment 36. As the current source of funding for the Perimeter Road the State Government will need to make a decision on the acceptable quantum of contributions, and ensuring the level of costs for all parties that are appropriate. The Shire’s role is to fulfil the LPS, produce a reasonable contribution regime, subject this regime to formal consideration through the Scheme Amendment process, and present the outcomes of this process to the State Government for their consideration. Should aggrieved parties wish to further challenge contribution requirements, this can also be pursued through future processes when contributions are actually applied to subdivision or development.


61

Affordability and Cost of Future Development A key issue raised in the application of contribution requirements is the issue of ensuring that development remains profitable, the affordability of future housing, and the impacts of contributions on these two issues. The separate Amendment 35 has been gazetted and details contribution requirements, primarily for community infrastructure but also for local level contributions in specific circumstances. The East Margaret River Growth areas have specifically been excluded from any local level contribution requirements in Amendment 35 (however would still pay a district level charge) given the likelihood of contribution requirements for the Perimeter Road coming into effect, and a continuation of the John Archibald Drive contribution requirements. Should Amendment 36 not receive final endorsement, the local level contribution requirements implemented through Amendment 35 will require further review and application to the East Margaret River growth area. It is also likely that affordability initiatives, including the provision of specific housing options within future development that ensured a delivery of dedicated affordable housing, could see some concession in contribution requirements. This would need to be examined in detail at the time that such initiatives were put forward by a prospective developer. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2014-2018 Goal 4: Vibrant and diverse economy. Community Outcome 4.3: Infrastructure for economic growth. Strategic Response: Develop major infrastructure to cater for increased residents and visitors. Service level strategy/plan: Finalise funding and financing for construction for John Archibald Drive; Assist MRWA to progress development of the Perimeter Road; Implement the Local Planning Strategy. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The financial implications for the Shire are relatively minimal as once the contributions regime is established contributions would be paid directly to Main Roads WA through the subdivision clearance process. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental This relates to funding for these roads only, environmental issues have been fully addressed through other processes. Social One of the key issues for the community is the ability to provide for housing needs. While contribution requirements place an additional cost on the delivery of land the ongoing surety of supply is a key issue in ensuring housing can be provided and costs can be regulated through competition. The Perimeter Road and John Archibald Drive is essential infrastructure for the provision of future growth areas and accordingly, ensuring its delivery is essential to ensuring the ongoing provision of the housing needs of a growing community. While the costs of developing land are relevant to the final price that people pay, it is not a necessary conclusion that these costs are passed directly and fully to future landowners. Within the Shire there is and will be a variety of urban development areas. This variety provides that the price that people are prepared to pay in a particular subdivision is relative to alternative options, and would typically also provide that development may absorb some of these development costs. In addition, for specific affordable housing initiatives, the mechanisms noted in the discussion section above (specific concessions for affordable housing) may be given further consideration in the future. Economic The delivery of the Perimeter Road and John Archibald Drive enables the ongoing provision of sufficient housing supply for future growth demands. In addition, there are the wider economic (and social) benefits that improving the amenity of the Town Centre is likely to bring. While there is a cost associated


62

with this infrastructure, it is an essential component of future development. As the decision on funding and any contributions is ultimately one for the State Government, the degree of local contribution requirements will be finally determined at that level. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (as amended) amend the

above Local Planning Scheme by: 2. Amending Local Planning Scheme No. 1 Scheme Maps by identifying the following

Development Contribution Areas: 2.1 Margaret River Perimeter Road (DCP2e) 2.2 John Archibald Drive (DCP2f)

3. Introducing the following Development Contribution Plans into Schedule 14 of Local Planning

Scheme No. 1: 3.1 Margaret River Perimeter Road (DCP2e) 3.2 John Archibald Drive (DCP2f)

Scheme Reference DCP2e

Development Contribution Area

DCA2e

Relationship to Planning Instruments

The implementation of the Perimeter Road and the collection of contributions are key principles and policy direction included in the Local Planning Strategy, and relevant to the future Development Investigation Areas in the LPS that are incorporated within DCA2e.

Infrastructure and Administrative Items to be funded

This includes only that 4560 metre section of the Perimeter Road adjacent to future Development Investigation Areas – south of the Margaret River to Bussell Highway. Cost assumptions for the cost of providing the relevant portion of cost of providing the Perimeter Road include:

• the survey of the land provided as road; and

• design of the road; and

• earthworks for the road; and

• formation, preparation, priming and sealing of one carriageway12 of the road13; and

• the provision of kerbing, drainage and service ducts in connection with the road.

Method of Calculating Contributions (where compensated for land at acquisition)

Factor Description Value

A Infrastructure and Administrative Items to be funded for the Perimeter Road

$

B Producer Price Index (PPI) since xx/xx/xxxx Compounded as relevant at particular time

C Total area of land from which contributions are payable

274.71ha

D Amount of land in relevant stage of subdivision/development

Per ha


63

E Construction Contribution Requirement as at xx/xx/xxxx = (A x B / C) x D = x per ha

$ per ha

F Cost of land acquisition for the land area requirement within the relevant DIA

$TBC based on land acquisition costs

G Area of the DIA being subdivided/developed divided by the total residual land area within that DIA

x ha (developed area/x ha (total DIA area)

H Consumer Price Index (CPI) since xx/xx/xxxx

Compounded as relevant at particular time

I Land Contribution Requirement = F X G X H $

Total Contribution requirement = E + I (land contribution requirement)

$

Discount factor for non-industrial development in Development Investigation Areas 1-4 = Total Contribution Requirement x 0.8

$

12 For the purpose of this definition the term ‘carriageway’ refers to one lane only given the likely medium term construction of the Perimeter Road as two lanes only. 13 For the purpose of the formation component the estimate is based on 50% of the cost of formation etc is $1,377,000 (Stage 1) + $4,530,000 (Stage 2) or half the IQE estimate, totalling $4,530,000.

Method of Calculating Contributions (where land ceded free of cost at acquisition)

Factor Description Value/Measure A Infrastructure and Administrative Items

to be funded for the Perimeter Road/2 $

B Producer Price Index (PPI) since xx/xx/xxxx



274.71ha approx.


Per ha

Total Contribution Requirement as at xx/xx/xxxx = (A x B / C) x D = contribution per ha of developable land.

$


$

Period of Operation 20 years Priority and Timing These works are intended to be prefunded Review Process This DCP will be reviewed periodically in line with the balance of cost

reviews undertaken for Development Contribution funded projects. It is likely that final construction costs may vary from the estimates undertaken pre-construction and contribution amounts will be updated accordingly when construction is completed.

Scheme Reference DCP2f Development Contribution Area

DCA2f


64


The implementation of the Perimeter Road, including John Archibald Drive and the collection of contributions are key principles and policy direction included in the Local Planning Strategy, and relevant to the future Development Investigation Areas in the LPS that are incorporated within DCA2j. Existing subdivision and structure planning recognises and relies on the provision of JAD.

Infrastructure and Administrative Items to be Funded

The completion of John Archibald Drive requires construction of 1200m of single lane carriageway separated by a median and 1000m of single carriageway, connecting the existing section of John Archibald Drive to the Margaret River Perimeter Road.

Method of Calculating Contributions

Contributions calculated on a per lot basis as follows: • Cost to complete John Archibald Drive from Beech Drive to

Darch Road. • Costs divided by residential lots created in the balance

of the R a p i d s L a n d i n g , Riverslea and Brookfield subdivisions, and the FDAM3c area of Brookfield.

Period of Operation 20 years Priority and Timing These works are intended to be prefunded Review Process This DCP will be reviewed periodically in line with the balance

of cost reviews undertaken for Development Contribution funded projects. It is likely that final construction costs may vary from the estimates undertaken pre-construction and contribution amounts will be updated accordingly when construction is completed.

4. Recommends to the Western Australian Planning Commission the following modifications

to Amendment 36: a. The inclusion of further detail in the amendment documentation regarding the

rationale behind the 20-year timeframe of the Development Contribution Plans. b. Incorporating additional information regarding traffic growth estimates arising from

the growth in East Margaret River. c. Updating the divisor in the Development Contribution Plan DCPA2e to recognise a

six ha reduction for the district level open space and primary school site within DIAM4.

d. Apply a discount factor within DCPA2e to future residential development recognising the reduced vehicle trip generation rates from residential development as opposed to industrial development.

e. Further detail the methods for collection of the contributions in the DCP2Ae and DCP2Af in that contributions will be collected directly by MRWA on behalf of the State.

f. Clarify the land acquisition component of DCP2Ae titled Factor G, to make it explicit that the repayment of land acquisition costs is particular to the specific DIA from which those acquisition costs were paid, and to be paid proportionally at the time of subdivision or development.

ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Schedule of submissions 2. Development Contribution Plans and Cost Apportionment Schedules 3. Implications of Amendment 36 as advertised 4. Implications of Amendment 36 following consultation RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION CR HASTIE, CR SMART OM2017/121 That Council: 1. Pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (as amended) amend

the above Local Planning Scheme by:


65

2. Amending Local Planning Scheme No. 1 Scheme Maps by identifying the following Development Contribution Areas:

2.1 Margaret River Perimeter Road (DCP2e) 2.2 John Archibald Drive (DCP2f)

3. Introducing the following Development Contribution Plans into Schedule 14 of Local

Planning Scheme No. 1: 3.1 Margaret River Perimeter Road (DCP2e) 3.2 John Archibald Drive (DCP2f)

Scheme Reference DCP2e

Development Contribution Area

DCA2e


The implementation of the Perimeter Road and the collection of contributions are key principles and policy direction included in the Local Planning Strategy, and relevant to the future Development Investigation Areas in the LPS that are incorporated within DCA2e.

Infrastructure and Administrative Items to be funded

This includes only that 4560 metre section of the Perimeter Road adjacent to future Development Investigation Areas – south of the Margaret River to Bussell Highway. Cost assumptions for the cost of providing the relevant portion of cost of providing the Perimeter Road include:

• the survey of the land provided as road; and

• design of the road; and

• earthworks for the road; and

• formation, preparation, priming and sealing of one carriageway12 of the road13; and

• the provision of kerbing, drainage and service ducts in connection with the road.

Method of Calculating Contributions (where compensated for land at acquisition)

Factor Description Value

A Infrastructure and Administrative Items to be funded for the Perimeter Road

$




274.71ha


Per ha

E Construction Contribution Requirement as at xx/xx/xxxx = (A x B / C) x D = x per ha

$ per ha

F Cost of land acquisition for the land area requirement within the relevant DIA

$TBC based on land acquisition costs


66

G Area of the DIA being subdivided/developed divided by the total residual land area within that DIA

x ha (developed area/x ha (total DIA area)

H Consumer Price Index (CPI) since xx/xx/xxxx


I Land Contribution Requirement = F X G X H

$

Total Contribution requirement = E + I (land contribution requirement)

$


$

12 For the purpose of this definition the term ‘carriageway’ refers to one lane only given the likely medium term construction of the Perimeter Road as two lanes only. 13 For the purpose of the formation component the estimate is based on 50% of the cost of formation etc is $1,377,000 (Stage 1) + $4,530,000 (Stage 2) or half the IQE estimate, totalling $4,530,000.

Method of Calculating Contributions (where land ceded free of cost at acquisition)

Factor Description Value/Measure A Infrastructure and Administrative

Items to be funded for the Perimeter Road/2

$




274.71ha approx.


Per ha

Total Contribution Requirement as at xx/xx/xxxx = (A x B / C) x D = contribution per ha of developable land.

$


$

Period of Operation 20 years Priority and Timing These works are intended to be prefunded Review Process This DCP will be reviewed periodically in line with the balance of

cost reviews undertaken for Development Contribution funded projects. It is likely that final construction costs may vary from the estimates undertaken pre-construction and contribution amounts will be updated accordingly when construction is completed.

Scheme Reference DCP2f Development Contribution Area

DCA2f


67


The implementation of the Perimeter Road, including John Archibald Drive and the collection of contributions are key principles and policy direction included in the Local Planning Strategy, and relevant to the future Development Investigation Areas in the LPS that are incorporated within DCA2j. Existing subdivision and structure planning recognises and relies on the provision of JAD

Infrastructure and Administrative Items to be Funded

The completion of John Archibald Drive requires construction of 1200m of single lane carriageway separated by a median and 1000m of single carriageway, connecting the existing section of John Archibald Drive to the Margaret River

Method of Calculating Contributions

Contributions calculated on a per lot basis as follows: • Cost to complete John Archibald Drive from Beech

Drive to Darch Road. • Costs divided by residential lots created in the

balance of the R a p i d s L a n d i n g , Riverslea and Brookfield subdivisions, and the FDAM3c area of

Period of Operation 20 years Priority and Timing These works are intended to be prefunded Review Process This DCP will be reviewed periodically in line with the

balance of cost reviews undertaken for Development Contribution funded projects. It is likely that final construction costs may vary from the estimates undertaken pre-construction and contribution amounts will be updated

4. Recommends to the Western Australian Planning Commission the following

modifications to Amendment 36: a. The inclusion of further detail in the amendment documentation regarding the

rationale behind the 20-year timeframe of the Development Contribution Plans. b. Incorporating additional information regarding traffic growth estimates arising

from the growth in East Margaret River. c. Updating the divisor in the Development Contribution Plan DCPA2e to recognise

a six ha reduction for the district level open space and primary school site within DIAM4.

d. Apply a discount factor within DCPA2e to future residential development recognising the reduced vehicle trip generation rates from residential development as opposed to industrial development.

e. Further detail the methods for collection of the contributions in the DCP2Ae and DCP2Af in that contributions will be collected directly by MRWA on behalf of the State.

f. Clarify the land acquisition component of DCP2Ae titled Factor G, to make it explicit that the repayment of land acquisition costs is particular to the specific DIA from which those acquisition costs were paid, and to be paid proportionally at the time of subdivision or development.

CARRIED 6/0


68

11.3. Infrastructure Services


69

11.3. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES Nil


70

11.4. Corporate And Community

Services


71

Cr Kennaugh left Chambers At 7.32pm 11.4.1 COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Various FILE REFERENCE FIN/358 REPORT AUTHOR Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services AUTHORISING OFFICER Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer

IN BRIEF • Each year Council contributes a percentage of the budget towards Community Contributions

funding for community organisations. • Information regarding Community Contribution funding requests was advertised in the Augusta

Margaret River Times and on the Shire website. • Applications closed for funding requests for the 2017-18 budget on 20 March 2017. • Council is to consider the funding requests received and to allocate Community Contributions

funding for the annual budget for 2017-18. RECOMMENDATION That Council provides an amount of $71,029 in the annual budget for 2017-18 and allocates funding for the following community groups:

LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS

COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS

Community Organisation 2017-18 $

Augusta Historical Museum 15,925 Cowaramup Hall Reserves and Residents Association 11,374 Cowaramup Volunteer Bushfire Brigade 1,000 South West Academy of Sport 4,400 South West Group of Affiliated Agricultural Associations Inc.

250

Margaret River Concert Band 3,360 Margaret River and Districts Historical Society 9,000 Karridale Hall Management Committee 2,720 Margaret River Regional Environment Centre Inc. 10,000 Rosa Brook Sporting and Cultural Facilities – Tier 2 Contribution

1,500

Alexandra Bridge Community Hall – Tier 2 Contribution 1,500 Gracetown Progress Association – Tier 3 Contribution 5,000 Augusta Centennial Hall – Tier 3 Contribution 5,000 TOTAL 71,029


72

Nil BACKGROUND In January 2017 the Strategic Review of Community Halls relating to funding and Council Contributions was completed. Following the review Shire officers met with committee members from the community halls groups and a tiered contribution system was implemented for the 2017-18 financial year. (Attachment 1). In an effort to relieve administrative pressures and streamline the Shire’s financial support to the groups the halls have now been categorised under the tier system based on the hall capacity and activation level of the facility. During the review, financial assistance was also allocated into Operational Maintenance, Asset Maintenance and Capital Items. As a result of the tiered contribution system, community groups within the matrix are no longer required to submit a Council Contribution request or complete a Council Contribution acquittal. Due to the complexity and individual nature of management of facilities and projects undertaken by the Augusta Museum, Augusta Historical Society, Margaret River Museum and Historical Society and the Cowaramup Halls and Residents Association these groups have not yet been included within the tiered system and the groups were asked to submit a Council Contribution request for the 2017-18 budget. Council Contributions while generally staying in line with previous years allocations have now been split between budgets across the organisation to best represent where the contribution will be allocated. For example operational expenses will be funded from the Director Corporate and Community Services budget while asset maintenance and requests for capital items will be budgeted and funded from the Community Buildings and Community Amenities budgets. Assistance for reserve maintenance for Cowaramup will be provided from the Parks and Gardens budget. As Council Contributions are available for all community organisations the Shire annually calls for submissions for Community Contributions for the forthcoming financial year. The following table details funding provided over the past five financial years:


73

*Note since 2015-16 funding for events such as the Margaret River Districts Agricultural Society Show, Augusta River Festival are included as a budget item in the CEO business unit. At the Ordinary Council Meeting of the 11 September 2013, Council adopted FI12 Financial Assistance Policy. The objective of Finance Policy FI12 Financial Assistance is to provide an overarching framework for the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River to provide financial assistance to community organisations and individuals within our local community to enhance community values and aspirations. The implementation of the Policy ensures:

• Transparency and accountability to the community; • Fairness and equity to all applicants; • Eligibility criteria is applied to each type of financial assistance; • The amount of financial assistance available; • Guidelines are in place to assist applicants in completion and lodgement of forms; • Applications are assessed by a delegated Officer;

Community Organisation 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Museums Augusta Historical Museum 13,740 13,000 14,329 16,375 20,475 Margaret River and Districts Historical Society

0 7,000 7,340 12,000 11,000

Hall Management Groups Alexandra Bridge Hall and Social Committee

2,000 0 5,000 0

Augusta Centennial Hall 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Cowaramup Hall Reserves and Residents

33,000 38,000 37,000 38,000 38,000

Gracetown Progress Association

9,717 5,372 3,500 4,157 4,647

Karridale Hall M/Committee 0 7,120 4,930 5,720 3,160 Rosa Brook Sporting and Cultural Facilities

0 0 1,000

Agricultural Societies 0 1,000 0 1,000 Margaret River District Ag Society*

0

SW Group affiliated Ag Associations

5,000 5,000 6,000 0 0

Events 250 250 0 250 Augusta River Festival* 0 Open Mic Event Sponsorship 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 Other 0 3,000 0 0 South West Academy of Sport

4,400

Lions Margaret River 0 0 0 0 0 Margaret River Concert Band 4,000 4,400 4,000 4,000 3,360 Cowaramup Volunteer Bushfire Brigade

0 0 0 0 0

Augusta Historical Society 800 0 0 Industrial Hemp Western Australia Association Inc.

0 0 0 0 0

Augusta Croquet Club Inc. 0 0 0 0 0 Lower Blackwood L.C.D.C on behalf of the Lower Blackwood Vertebrate Pest Control Group

0 0 0 0 0

Margaret River Regional Environment Centre Inc.

0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 84,707 101,142 99,899 93,502 98,042


74

• Effective reporting mechanisms and administrative procedures advise Council of the type and total value of financial assistance provided for the financial year.

The adoption of the policy and associated procedures provides guidance to Shire staff and Councillors as to eligibility, timeframes for application and assessment. Council Contributions are to be determined by Council with the amount of assistance available at Council’s consideration. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Calls for submissions for Community Contributions were advertised in the Augusta Margaret River Times during January to March 2017 and details were available through the Shire website. Internal Consultation Nil DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The following submissions for Community Contribution funding were received:


75

REQUESTS RECEIVED

Community Organisation

Total Request

DCD44 2017-18

$

Comments OTHER 2017-18

$

Comments

Augusta Historical Museum

18,975 15,925 Assistance towards curator and operational costs offset by income received by Shire - Account DC82

3,050 Community Buildings

and Community Amenities

Contribution towards asset maintenance - Equipment repairs and restoration, floor board polish miscellaneous hardware and annual pest control

Cowaramup Hall Reserves and Residents Association

38,000 11,374 Contribution towards operational costs

26,626 Parks and Gardens

Contribution towards asset maintenance - Hall maintenance, Community Centre, Pioneer Park and Reserve maintenance

Cowaramup Volunteer Bushfire Brigade

1,000 1,000 Purchase of hand held radio and charger to assist operational activities

South West Academy of Sport

4,400 4,400 Financial sponsorship of SWAS

South West Group of Affiliated Agricultural Associations Inc

250 250 Contribution towards district display at the Perth Royal Show

Margaret River Concert Band

3,360 3,360 Contribution towards conductor’s fees

Industrial Hemp Western Australia Association Inc

1,000* 0 Support for local industry to host the 2017 iHemposium WA

Augusta Croquet Club Inc

1,100* 0 Fit window security screens at clubhouse

Margaret River and Districts Historical Society

14,900* 9,000 Contribution towards curator and operational costs



Contribution towards asset maintenance - Restoration of school and group house windows and Internal restoration of group house

Karridale Hall Management Committee

8,860* 2,720 Contribution towards operational costs

300 Community Buildings

Contribution towards asset maintenance - Gutter cleaning

Lower Blackwood L.C.D.C on behalf of the Lower Blackwood

11,000 11,000 Landcare

Contribution towards feral pig control within the Shire


76

An assessment of the applications has been undertaken with the following recommendations: Augusta Historical Museum – An additional amount of $2,000 has been included for external storage of museum items due to the limitations onsite. Industrial Hemp Western Australia Association Inc – This application has been forwarded to the Marketing and Events Officer to be considered under the CEO’s local events budget and is not included in the recommended Council Contributions. Augusta Croquet Club – Under the current lease agreement the club is responsible for all maintenance and therefore this request is not considered for funding. Margaret River and Districts Historical Society – Funding for the construction of a wall and shelves to display tools in the machinery shed, purchase of a tank and construction of a tank stand have been excluded from the allocation however, significant projects still remain such as a windows restoration project on the Bramley School. $1,000 has also been allocated towards the ongoing preservation/refurbishment of degraded machinery and tools. Karridale Hall Management Committee – The group have been advised that the capital works and purchase of capital items are considered in a process separate to Council Contributions. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires that each year a local government prepare and adopt an annual budget. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 2: Welcoming and inclusive communities

Vertebrate Pest Control Group Augusta Historical Society

12,492 12,492 Community Planning

and Development

Contribution towards operational costs and special project

Margaret River Regional Environment Centre Inc.

10,000 10,000 Contribution towards Centre refurbishment

Rosa Brook Sporting and Cultural Facilities – Tier 2 Contribution


Alexandra Bridge Community Hall – Tier 2 Contribution


Gracetown Progress Association – Tier 3 Contribution


Augusta Centennial Hall – Tier 3 Contribution




TOTALS 145,337 71,029 63,468 COMBINED TOTAL

134,497


77

Community Outcome 3: Strong community groups and networks Strategic Response 3.2: Encourage community organisations and local communities to work together to be self sufficient Service level strategy: Support hall management groups FI12 Financial Assistance Policy provides direction on the types of financial assistance available to community organisations and individuals. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Shire Procedure FI12.5 Council Contribution states that annually the Shire will provide budget funding to a maximum of $100,000. The Council Contribution submissions total $143,337 and therefore submissions have been reviewed and rationalised across all business unit budgets. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Nil Social It is recognised that community organisations play an important volunteer role in the wider community and contribute to the quality of life. Economic There is economic value to the Shire in the support of community halls and museums and the ongoing provision of services by community groups. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council provides an amount of $71,029 in the annual budget for 2017-18 and allocates funding for the following community groups:



Augusta Historical Museum 15,925 Cowaramup Hall Reserves and Residents Association 11,374 Cowaramup Volunteer Bushfire Brigade 1,000 South West Academy of Sport 4,400 South West Group of Affiliated Agricultural Associations Inc.

250


1,500

Alexandra Bridge Community Hall – Tier 2 Contribution 1,500 Gracetown Progress Association – Tier 3 Contribution 5,000 Augusta Centennial Hall – Tier 3 Contribution 5,000 TOTAL 71,029


78

ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Community Hall Tier Determination Matrix RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION CR LANE, CR HASTIE OM2017/122 That Council provides an amount of $71,029 in the annual budget for 2017-18 and allocates funding for the following community groups:

CARRIED 5/0

Cr Kennaugh returned to Chambers at 7.34



Augusta Historical Museum 15,925 Cowaramup Hall Reserves and Residents Association

11,374

Cowaramup Volunteer Bushfire Brigade 1,000 South West Academy of Sport 4,400 South West Group of Affiliated Agricultural Associations Inc.

250


1,500

Alexandra Bridge Community Hall – Tier 2 Contribution

1,500

Gracetown Progress Association – Tier 3 Contribution

5,000

Augusta Centennial Hall – Tier 3 Contribution 5,000 TOTAL 71,029


79

11.4.2 TENDER 06/17 - REPLACEMENT OF SYNTHETIC BOWLING GREENS AT THE MARGARET RIVER BOWLING CLUB INC LOCATION/ADDRESS Gloucester Park, Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Margaret River Bowling Club FILE REFERENCE COR/223 REPORT AUTHOR Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services AUTHORISING OFFICER Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer

IN BRIEF • An insurance claim was lodged with LGIS in regards to damage sustained to the two synthetic

bowling greens at the Margaret River Bowling Club Inc. • The insurance claim has been accepted by LGIS and due to the value of the replacement of the

synthetic surface a tender has been required to procure the works. • Tender 06/17 was advertised and assessed for the supply and installation of two synthetic bowling

greens at the Margaret River Bowling Club and recommendations for the preferred Tenderer are outlined.

• A budget item has not been included in the 2016-17 budget as the expenditure will be reimbursed by LGIS on completion of the works in addition to a contribution by the Margaret River Bowling Club Inc. (to be confirmed in writing)

RECOMMENDATION That Council awards Tender 06/17 for the Replacement of Synthetic Bowling Greens at the Margaret River Bowling Club to Evergreen Synthetic Grass as outlined in the Evaluation Report (Attachment 1). LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND An insurance claim was lodged by the Shire on behalf of the Margaret River Bowling Club (the Club) in December 2016. Spot damage had been noticed by the Club on both synthetic greens which had occurred from an unknown source. The claim was accepted by the Shire’s insurer LGIS in January 2017 and due to the replacement value of the synthetic greens the Shire was required to prepare a tender as the value will exceed $150,000 (ex GST). Tenders are required to be called in accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE Margaret River Bowling Club LGIS Charles Taylor Adjusting (Australia) Pty Ltd DISCUSSION/OFFICER COMMENTS An evaluation report for tenders has been undertaken and a copy is attached as Confidential Attachment 1.


80

Tenders were received from the following contractors: -

No. Name of Organisation 1 Evergreen Synthetic Grass 2 Green Planet Grass Pty Ltd 3 Berry Bowling Systems Pty Ltd 4 Artificial Lawn Supplies

Tenders have been assessed by an evaluation panel against the criteria of price, relevant experience, key personnel skills and experience, tenderer’s resources, demonstrated understanding and warranties. The weighting applied to those criteria were as follows

• Price – 40% • Relevant Experience – 30% • Key Personnel Skills and Experience – 10% • Tenderer’s Resources – 5% • Demonstrated Understanding – 10% • Warranties – 5%

Based on the tender assessment, it is recommended that the tender be awarded to Evergreen Synthetic Grass using the Ultra Plus synthetic surface. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Nil Internal Consultation Nil DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Nil STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Tenders were called by the Shire in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995 STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 2: Welcoming and inclusive communities Community Outcome 2.5: Active and healthy lifestyles Strategic Response: Provide the community with high standard recreational facilities and sporting grounds PLANNING FRAMEWORK N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The expenditure incurred through the tender process will be reimbursed by LGIS less the deductible $1,000 excess, which is applicable to the insurance policy. The awarding of the tender to Evergreen Synthetic Grass for the Ultra Plus surface will require a contribution from the Margaret River Bowling Club Inc. as outlined in the Evaluation Report. As part of the tendered works the existing synthetic surface will be removed and stored. There is the possibility that the surface may be suitable for a synthetic training surface for a sport such as hockey and as such the Shire will retain the surface while investigating future options. The Loss Adjustor has estimated the salvage value of the removed surface at $2m2 which on the dimensions of the existing


81

greens equates to approximately 2,888 m2 with a value of $5,776. If the surface is not utilised by the Shire there may the possibility of selling the surface to community groups or the public. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Synthetic greens are less reliant on water than the existing grass greens. Social The Club provides members of the community the opportunity for physical fitness and socialisation. Economic Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council awards Tender 06/17 for the Replacement of Synthetic Bowling Greens at the Margaret River Bowling Club to Evergreen Synthetic Grass as outlined in the Evaluation Report (Attachment 1). ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Tender 06/17 Evaluation Report (Confidential)

RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR HASTIE OM2017/123 That Council awards Tender 06/17 for the Replacement of Synthetic Bowling Greens at the Margaret River Bowling Club to Evergreen Synthetic Grass as outlined in the Evaluation Report (Attachment 1).

CARRIED 6/0


82

Cr Kennaugh left Chambers at 7.37 11.4.3 2017-18 DRAFT FEES AND CHARGES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/357 REPORT AUTHOR Vicki Scott, Coordinator Revenue and Customer Service AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services

IN BRIEF • Council is to consider the 2017-18 draft fees and charges for advertising. • As the Shire is intending to impose updated fees and charges for 2017-18 before the adoption of

the 2017-18 budget, the Local Government Act 1995 (LG Act) requires the Shire to give a minimum of 14 days local public notice of its intention to impose the 2017-18 fees and charges to become effective on 1 July 2017.

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Adopts the draft fees and charges as per attachment 1 that are proposed to be imposed from 1 July

2017 to 30 June 2018; and 2. Advertises the draft fees and charges for 2017-18 for a minimum of 14 days locally. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND The fees and charges are set prior to the adoption of the annual budget so implementation is effective from 1 July, the beginning of the financial year to match the timing of cost increases with revenue. The Shire imposes fees and charges for any goods or service it provides or proposes to provide, and when setting the level of a fee or charge considers the following factors: (a) cost to the local government of providing the service or goods; (b) importance of the service or goods to the community; and (c) price at which the service or goods could be provided by an alternative provider. Where the Shire is required to amend the adopted Schedule of Fees and Charges, the Schedule is presented to Council for adoption by absolute majority. Shire Policy FI8 Fees and Charges (OM2014/84), allows for establishing a fair and equitable fee structure which reflects actual reasonable costs for services and goods provided by the Shire. In keeping with the requirements of the LG Act, the Shire gives public notice for a minimum period of 14 days of the proposed 2017-18 fees and charges before adoption of the annual budget. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Nil


83

Internal Consultation Council Executive Leadership Team Business Unit Managers and Coordinators DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS To assist with financial reporting and budget, Revenue income codes of Chart of Account, Job codes and Work Order Numbers are included in the Schedule for each Business Unit. Fee and Charge Type descriptive of ‘Statutory’, ‘Regulatory’ or ‘Shire’ are included as follows:

• ‘Statutory’ charge is levied by the Shire under a legislative Act, and not determined by Council; • ‘Regulatory’ charge is levied by the Shire under a legislative Act, regulatory body or Australian

Law including Shire Local Laws and is determined by Council; and • ‘Shire’ fees and charges are set by the local government.

The Shire adopts a ‘user contributes’ approach to the provision of services and goods in order that the cost burden is fairly set and spread more equitably amongst customers. The basic principles considered in establishing Shire fees and charges are:

• Charges reflect the true cost of providing a facility; • Compliance with the LG Act and Regulations; • Fees for a service on a cost recovery basis; • Importance of the service to the community; and • Compliance with Goods and Services Tax (GST).

When considering possible fees and charges increases, the increase in the Perth Consumer Price Index (CPI) is used as a guide. For the 12 months to March 2017 the increase in this index was 1.0%. WA Treasury have previously forecast the CPI increase for 2017-18 to be 2.25% and based on this forecast the Shire’s Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) has escalated forecast revenue and expenditure by up to 3%. In order to be consistent Fees and Charges for 2017-18 have been increased by up to 3%. Directorates have completed the review of the 2017-18 fees and charges with the following changes and amendments noted: Governance and Marketing Governance fees and charges have increased by up to 3%.

Corporate Services Customer and Information Services, Finance and Revenue have increased by up to 3%. An increase has been applied to the Rates Special arrangement fee to encourage customers to self-manage their accounts and bring in line with properties charged instalment option 2 administration fees.

Statutory fees for Records Management apply under the Freedom of Information Act 1992, while associated Shire fees for copying are charged at ‘actual cost’ recovery.

Human and Community Services Community Development and Planning fees and charges have increased by up to 3%.

For Caravan Parks and Camp Grounds, the Flinders Bay and Turner Caravan Park site fees are to be increased by up to 3% and Alexandra Bridge Camping Ground fees increased by up to 10% (an increase of 50 cents per night) as there has been no increase for 3 years.

The annual fees and rent for Turner Caravan Park’s holiday and long term stay sites were recently reviewed. This included assessing such fees and rent against the earning capacity of comparable sites within the Park. Due to varying site locations and sizes within the Park, it was determined necessary to create a more equitable fee structure based upon differentiating between ’premium’ and ‘standard’ sites within the Park. As such, the fees and rent recommended have been benchmarked against the earning capacity of similar sites within the Park. The revised fees and rent also include a 15% discount to


84

recognise our residents (short & long term stay) commitment to the park. The holiday sites are proposed to have 150 nights stay included in their fees, up from the existing 70 nights. Libraries The Augusta Library and the Augusta Margaret River Regional Library fees and charges have increased by up to 3%. There has been anIncrease to new charges for the cost of supplying inter Library loans from outside WA as State Libraries WA no longer provide a 50% contribution to costs.

Sport and Recreational Services Discounts apply to Emergency Service Volunteers’ memberships, membership for extended terms, multiple entry purchases, Educational Institutions and Students and Sporting Associations.

Concessions apply for Seniors, Pensioners and Disability card holders.

The majority of the Margaret River Aquatic Centre, Fitness, Indoor Recreation Centre and Child Care fees and charges have increased by the LTFP escalation rate. Aquatic Centre lane hire fees have increased based on price per square metre and local industry benchmarking and Child Care fees have increased benchmarked on South West average.

Margaret River and Augusta Outdoor Community Sporting facilities have increased by up to 3%.

Augusta Civic Park Recreation Centre fees and charges have increased by up to 3%.

Asset Services Asset Management fees and charges have increased by up to 3%.

Planning and Development Services For Strategic Planning, Statutory Planning Regulatory fees under WA Planning Commission Guideline 93/2011 no increases have been advised at this time. Shire fees and charges have increased by up to 3%.

Local Government Property and Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places are fees for use of Shire Parks, Reserves, Beaches and Foreshores. There has been a change of fee structure to introduce shorter terms for the duration of permits. There has been an amendment to the calculation method for Outdoor Eating Facility Permit Fees to a figure per square metre area.

Building approvals and inspections For building approval and inspection fees under the Building Act 2011, no increases have been advised at this time. Shire fees and charges have increased by up to 3%.

Health, Waste and Ranger Services For Environmental Health, Event approvals and Waste management services the majority of fees will increase by up to 3%.

Waste Management fees have been reviewed and various fees have been increased to recover operating costs.

Ranger Services fees and charges have increased by up to 3%.

Fire Control have implemented new fees for cost recovery.

As it is the Shire’s intention to impose the Fees and Charges prior to adoption of the 2017-18 budget, in accordance with the LG Act, the Shire will provide local public notice for a minimum of 14 days. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS LG Act section 6.16 – Imposition of fees and charges

(1) A local government may impose* and recover a fee or charge for any goods or service it provides or proposes to provide, other than a service for which a service charge is imposed.


85

* Absolute majority required.

(2) A fee or charge may be imposed for the following — (a) providing the use of, or allowing admission to, any property or facility wholly or

partly owned, controlled, managed or maintained by the local government; (b) supplying a service or carrying out work at the request of a person; (c) subject to section 5.94, providing information from local government records; (d) receiving an application for approval, granting an approval, making an inspection

and issuing a licence, permit, authorisation or certificate; (e) supplying goods; (f) such other service as may be prescribed.

(3) Fees and charges are to be imposed when adopting the annual budget but may be — (a) imposed* during a financial year; and (b) amended* from time to time during a financial year.

* Absolute majority required. LG Act section 6.17 refers to setting level of fees and charges. LG Act section 6.19 refers to local government to give notice of fees and charges. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 5: Effective Leadership and Governance. Community Outcome 2: Effective strategy, planning and asset management. Strategic Response 2.5: Ensure the Shire’s financial performance is well managed and leads to a strong financial position. Service level strategy/plan: Fees and Charges are incorporated in the preparation of the annual budget. Policy Policy FI8 Fees and Charges (OM2014/84). PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Revenue generated from fees and charges are a vital component of the overall 2017-18 budget and Long Term Financial Plan. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Revenue generated from fees and charges is utilised by the Shire to carry out work, which affects the environment. There is continued demand for these activities. Social Revenue generated from fees and charges is utilised by the Shire to support a range of community-oriented activities, which influence the social fabric of the community. Economic Revenue generated from fees and charges are a vital component of the overall 2017-18 budget without them the Shire would be financially unviable. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority


86

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Adopts the draft fees and charges as per attachment 1 that are proposed to be imposed from 1 July

2017 to 30 June 2018; and 2. Advertises the draft fees and charges for 2017-18 for a minimum of 14 days locally. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. 2017-18 draft Schedule of Fees and Charges. RECOMMENDATION CR SMART, CR HASTIE That Council: 1. Adopts the draft fees and charges as per attachment 1 that are proposed to be imposed from

1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018; and 2. Advertises the draft fees and charges for 2017-18 for a minimum of 14 days locally.

Cr Hastie proposed the following amendment to the motion AMENDMENT/COUNCIL DECISION CR HASTIE, CR SMART OM2017/124 1. That a 10% increase be applied on the 2016-2017 fees and charges in respect of the three

specific fees and charges identified as follows be applied: • Annual holiday standard site fee • Annual holiday site 1-2 adults per week • Annual holiday site – 1-2 additional adults p/night

2. That the annual holiday premium site fee be removed 3. That the included occupancy in the annual holiday standard site fee be 70 nights for 1-2 adults in line with the 2016-17 fee

CARRIED 5/0 The primary motion including the amendment, was then put to the vote.

RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION CR SMART, CR HASTIE OM2017/125 That Council: 1. Adopts the draft fees and charges as per attachment 1 that are proposed to be imposed from

1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018, with the following amendments 1. That a 10% increase be applied on the 2016-2017 fees and charges in respect of the

three specific fees and charges identified as follows be applied: • Annual holiday standard site fee • Annual holiday site 1-2 adults per week • Annual holiday site – 1-2 additional adults p/night 2. That the annual holiday premium site fee be removed

3. That the included occupancy in the annual holiday standard site fee be 70 nights for 1-2 adults in line with the 2016-17 fee, and

2. Advertises the draft fees and charges for 2017-18 for a minimum of 14 days locally. CARRIED 5/0

Cr Kennaugh returned to Chambers at 7.50


87

11.4.4 COUNCILLOR FEES AND ALLOWANCES FOR 2017-18 LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/358 REPORT AUTHOR Andrew Ross, Manager Corporate Services AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services

IN BRIEF • Councillors are entitled to fees and allowances for meeting attendance and associated expenses. • The parameters for fees and allowances are established by legislation and an annual

determination by the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal. • Each year Council are required to determine the fees and allowances to be included within the

Budget. RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the following elected members’ fees and allowances to be included in the Annual Budget 2017-18, in accordance with the April 2017 Determination of the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal, sections 5.98, 5.98A, 5.99 and 5.99A of the Local Government Act 1995 and regulations 30 to 32 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

Annual Allowance

$

Meeting Fees

$

Information Technology &

Communications Allowance

$ President 38,400 23,460 3,500 Deputy President 9,600 18,129 3,500 Councillors 0 18,129 3,500

LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Allowances and fees for elected members are considered each year as part of the process of developing the budget. Amendments to the Local Government Act 1995 in July 2013 transferred the responsibility of setting elected members’ fees, allowances and expenses to the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal (Tribunal). Local Governments must now use the parameters determined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal have categorised local governments into four bands. Each band has minimum and maximum amounts for fees and allowances. The Shire of Augusta Margaret River is classified as Band 2. The Tribunal released their determination for band ranges for 2017-18 on 11 April 2017. This determination concluded, “there will be no increase at this time in the remuneration, fees expenses or allowances ranges provided to CEOs and elected members in light of the serious economic conditions facing Western Australia at this time”.


88

CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Nil Internal Consultation Nil DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The Tribunal determined that from 1 July 2013 the banding structure for local governments provides for:

• Meeting fees within a range of $3,500 to $30,000 per annum for Councillors and $3,500 to $40,000 per annum for Mayors and Presidents;

• Annual allowance for Mayors and Presidents will extend from $500 to $85,000 per annum within the 4 band structure; and

• To combine the separate Information Technology and Telephone allowances into an Information and Communication Technology allowance with the maximum payable being $3,500 per annum.

The minimum and maximum amounts applicable to Band 2 were originally:

Minimum Maximum Meeting Fee for Councillors $14,500 $22,000 Meeting Fee for Mayor or President $14,500 $29,500 Allowance for Mayor or President $15,000 $60,000

The Tribunal’s determination of the fees and allowances for elected members on 12 April 2017 determined no increase would apply. As a result the minimum and maximum amounts applying to the Shire for 2017-18 are:

Minimum Maximum Meeting Fee for Councillors $14,718 $23,000 Meeting Fee for Mayor or President $14,718 $30,841 Allowance for Mayor or President $15,225 $62,727

The following fees and allowances were budgeted for 2016-17 and were based on applying a 1.5% increase to the 2015 fees and allowances in accordance with the Tribunal’s 2016 determination.

Annual Allowance $

Meeting Fees $



$ President 38,400 23,460 3,500 Deputy President 9,600 18,129 3,500 Councillors 18,129 3,500

Fees and allowances budgeted for 2016-17 totalled $204,752. At this stage, it is proposed no increase be made to elected members’ fees and allowances in accordance with the April 2017 determination of the Tribunal. The proposed fees and allowances are shown in the following table. However, as meeting fees and allowances are below the upper limit of the ranges for Band 2, Council have the opportunity to increase these meeting fees and allowances.


89

Annual Allowance

$ Meeting Fees

$ Information

Technology & Communications

Allowance $

President 38,400 23,460 3,500 Deputy President 9,600 18,129 3,500 Councillors 18,129 3,500

Should no increase be made, fees and allowances to be budgeted for 2017-18 will total $204,752. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The following sections of the Local Government Act 1995 are relevant:

• Section 5.98 Fees, etc. for Council Members • Section 5.98A Allowance for deputy mayor or deputy president • Section 5.99 Annual fees for council members in lieu of fees for attending members • Section 5.99A Allowances for council members in lieu of reimbursement of expenses

Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996

• Regulation 30 Meeting attendance fees (Act s. 5.98(1) and (2A)) • Regulation 31 Expenses to be reimbursed (Act s. 5.98(2)(a) and (3)) 32 • Regulation 32. Expenses that may be approved for reimbursement (Act s. 5.98(2)(b) and (3))

STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 5: Effective leadership and governance Community Outcome 2: Effective strategy, planning and asset management Strategic Response: Ensure the Shire’s financial performance is well managed and leads to a strong financial position. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The proposed budget of $204,752 for elected members’ fees and allowances represents no increase on the amount budgeted for 2016-17. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Nil Social Nil Economic Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the following elected members’ fees and allowances to be included in the Annual Budget 2017-18, in accordance with the April 2017 Determination of the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal, sections 5.98, 5.98A, 5.99 and 5.99A of the Local Government Act 1995 and regulations 30 to 32 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.


90

Annual Allowance

$

Meeting Fees

$



$ President 38,400 23,460 3,500 Deputy President 9,600 18,129 3,500 Councillors 0 18,129 3,500

ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS Nil RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION CR HASTIE, CR SMART OM2017/126 That Council adopts the following elected members’ fees and allowances to be included in the Annual Budget 2017-18, in accordance with the April 2017 Determination of the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal, sections 5.98, 5.98A, 5.99 and 5.99A of the Local Government Act 1995 and regulations 30 to 32 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

Annual Allowance

$

Meeting Fees

$



$ President 38,400 23,460 3,500 Deputy President

9,600 18,129 3,500

Councillors 0 18,129 3,500

CARRIED 6/0


91

11.4.5 LIST OF PAYMENTS APRIL 2017 LOCATION/ADDRESS N/A APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/42 REPORT AUTHOR Lynne Kenworthy, Coordinator Finance AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services

Director Corporate and Community Services discloses interest in the credit card expenses which is certified by the Chief Executive Officer. IN BRIEF It is a requirement of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 that payments made under delegated authority by the CEO are reported to Council on a monthly basis showing details of each account paid since the last such list was prepared. RECOMMENDATION That Council notes the April 2017 List of Payments for $4,990,184.96 as certified correct by the Chief Executive Officer. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Where Council has delegated authority to the CEO to make payments from the Shire’s bank accounts then under Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Regulation 13 (1) a list of such payments is to be prepared each month for noting by Council. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Nil Internal Consultation Nil DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Table 1 below provides a summary of the payments made and Table 2 makes comparison between payments for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 financial years. The List of Payments attachment provides further details as required under Regulation 13 (1). These details are as follows.

(a) The payee’s name; (b) The amount of the payment; (c) The date of the payment; and (d) Sufficient information to identify the transaction.


92

In order to improve operational efficiency and reduce costs, the Shire’s Finance team continually liaise with creditors paid by cheque to encourage them to switch to EFT.


93

TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF PAYMENTS MADE IN THE MONTH

MODE OF PAYMENT CHEQUE / EFT NUMBERS SUB-TOTAL AMOUNT

Cheques (includes reimbursement of credit cards) 42163-42171 25,312.62 $25,312.62

EFT 58497-58914 $1,512,605.80 Direct Debits $3,452,266.54 $4,964,872.34

TOTAL $4,990,184.96

TABLE 2 – COMPARISON WITH PRIOR YEAR OF PAYMENTS MONTH CHEQUES EFT TOTAL PMTS CUMULATIVE CHEQUES EFT TOTAL PMTS CUMULATIVE

2015-16 2015-16 2015-16 PAYMENTS 2016-17 2016-17 2016-17 PAYMENTS

JULY 18,574.29 3,108,059.98 3,126,634.27 3,126,634.27 26,818.42 3,666,885.36 3,693,703.78 3,693,703.78 AUGUST 18,321.82 1,980,022.38 1,998,344.20 5,124,978.47 23,160.39 3,700,179.99 3,723,340.38 7,417,044.16

SEPTEMBER 16,151.74 9,861,625.31 9,877,777.05 15,002,755.52 19,330.43 8,310,023.78 8,329,354.21 15,746,398.37 OCTOBER 19,349.63 5,058,215.63 5,077,565.26 20,080,320.78 17,878.48 5,011,969.93 5,029,848.41 20,776,246.78

NOVEMBER 22,306.58 2,617,585.05 2,639,891.63 22,720,212.41 11,582.39 2,527,108.13 2,538,690.52 23,314,937.30 DECEMBER 38,300.43 3,340,304.12 3,378,604.55 26,098,816.96 28,503.44 2,694,198.73 2,722,702.17 26,037,639.47 JANUARY 24,247.57 4,404,603.21 4,425,850.78 30,524,667.74 19,943.84 2,512,461.38 2,532,405.22 28,570,044.69

FEBRUARY 17,988.50 2,292,007.08 2,309,995.58 32,834,663.32 7,590.17 2,504,279.74 2,511,869.91 31,081,914.60 MARCH 31,991.91 6,362,556.19 6,394,548.10 39,229,211.42 13,729.92 2,804,922.72 2,818,652.64 33,900,567.24 APRIL 15,738.88 2,481,350.30 2,497,089.18 41,726,300.60 25,312.62 4,964,872.34 4,990,184.96 38,890,752.20 MAY 26,446.62 2,806,629.63 2,833,076.25 44,559,376.85 JUNE 38,302.06 7,078,064.84 8,204,329.10 52,763,705.95

287,720.03 51,391,023.72 52,763,705.95 193,850.10 38,696,902.10 38,890,752.20


94

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Local Government Act 1995, s 6.10, and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, r 13 STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 5: Effective leadership and governance Community Outcome 2: Effective strategy, planning and asset management Strategic Response: Ensure the Shire’s financial performance is well managed and leads to a strong financial position Service level strategy/plan: Continue to monitor and analyse monthly, year to date and annual financial performance. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Nil Social Nil Economic Nil Voting Requirements Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council notes the April 2017 List of Payments for $4,990,184.96 as certified correct by the Chief Executive Officer. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. List of Payments for April 2017 RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR HASTIE OM2017/127 That Council notes the April 2017 List of Payments for $4,990,184.96 as certified correct by the Chief Executive Officer.

CARRIED 6/0


95

11.4.6 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENT REPORT - APRIL 2017 LOCATION/ADDRESS N/A APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/14 REPORT AUTHOR Andrew Ross, Manager Corporate Services AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services

IN BRIEF • The monthly financial activity statement report is a standard financial reporting item prepared in

accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

• Council is to consider the financial results for the period ending 30 April 2017. RECOMMENDATION That Council receives the Monthly Financial Report – April 2017 in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND In accordance with Financial Management Regulation 34 the Shire is to prepare each month a Statement of Financial Activity reporting on the sources and applications of funds, as set out in the annual budget under Financial Management Regulation (1) (d), for that month with the following details:

(a) annual budget estimates; (b) budget estimates to the end of the month to which the statement relates; (c) actual amounts of expenditure, revenue and income to the end of the month to which the

statement relates; (d) material variances between the comparable amounts referred to in (b) and (c); and (e) net current assets at the end of the month to which the statement relates.

Also under Financial Management Regulation 34(5) Council are to adopt each year a material variance threshold. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 27 July 2016 (OM2016/158) Council adopted a monthly variance for reporting of material variances, where financial activity is greater than 10% and $10,000. Determination of budget variances for the February to June 2017 financial reports are based on the 2016-17 amended budget approved at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 22 February 2017 (OM2017/54). CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Nil Internal Consultation Business unit managers were provided the draft monthly financial reports for their business units and have provided their comments on variances greater than 10% and $10,000.


96

DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The commentary contained in the body of this report is in line with Financial Management Regulation (2) (b) that requires commentary on material variances to the Statement of Financial Activity at the nature/type, program or business unit level. The Statement of Financial Activity shows a year to date actual closing position at 30 April of $10.725 million compared to the year to date budget position of $2.519 million. The actual closing position reduced by $1.806 million compared to the result at the end of March. The main reasons for the variation to Budget are:

• Operating expenditure on a year to date basis is $2.746 million or 9.2% below budget (last month $2.645 million or 9.8% below budget). Contributing factors are employee expenses being $0.531 million or 4.5% under budget (last month $0.511 million or 4.8% under budget) due to staff leave taken, staff vacancies and under budget training. Of the 36 business units, 26 are reporting under budget employee related expenditure and 10 are over budget. Materials and contracts are $2.093 million or 26.6% under budget (last month $1.978 million or 27.5% under budget). This is due primarily to project delays in a number of areas such as Waste ($0.589 million), fire prevention ($0.080 million), Asset Services ($0.145 million), CEO ($0.178 million), Community Planning & Development ($0.061 million), Rangers ($0.087 million), Landcare ($0.077 million), Information Technology ($0.075 million) and Indoor Recreation Centre ($0.108 million).

• Operating revenue is $0.338 million or 1.1% above budget (last month $0.330 million or 1.1% above budget).

• Grants for capital works are $1.635 million or 36.6% under budget (last month $1.364 million or 32.7% under budget). This is due to the Emergency Services Levy grant documentation for the replacement of the Cowaramup BFB appliance (received in late April) not yet being received and Roads to Recovery and Regional Road Group grant claims being delayed by the road works construction program.

• Capital expenditure on a year to date basis is $6.995 million or 61.6% below budget (last month $7.039 million or 65.4% below budget). All areas of capital expenditure continue to below budget due to project and equipment purchase delays resulting from factors including inclement weather, obtaining of approvals, resource constraints, preparation of designs and procurement plans as well as over optimistic budget profiles. Major under budget projects and areas are included in the following table.

Project Description YTD

Budget Variance ($)

Project Status

Fire Prevention buildings and infrastructure

67,885 BFB shed building works have commenced or are in the procurement stage. Bush fire danger signs have been ordered.

Fire Prevention plant and equipment 402,882 The replacement of the Cowaramup BFB’s fire appliance occurred in April, documentation is to be provided by DFES so that grant and expenditure can be recognised.

Waste Management infrastructure 259,378 Davis Road landfill site cell stage 2 works are scheduled for completion in May.

Aquatic Centre dehumidifier & UV systems

245,265 Procurement of dehumidifier deferred to 2017-18 as more funding is required for project scope.

Gloucester Park projects 68,505 Procurement in progress for fencing, building project deferred, goal post installation in May.

Parks & Gardens infrastructure 168,065 Playground equipment procurement in progress, some POS projects completed and waiting on invoices, other projects commencing in May & June, possible carryover of some items.


97

Asset Services infrastructure 119,107 Trails signage, bridle trail and Augusta interpretation plan will be carried over to next year, Shire entry signs fabricated and installation in progress, dump point relocation to be carried over.

Construction infrastructure upgrades 715,697 Path and carpark works scheduled for May/June, foreshore projects delayed due to approvals. Leeuwin path configuration and alignment being determined.

Construction infrastructure renewals 3,015,005 Bridge project deferred to 2017-18 due to unseasonal river flow. Drainage projects progressing after late start. Foreshore projects progressing where approvals obtained and weather allows. Path projects scheduled for May/June and contractor procurement in progress for kerb projects. Road rehabilitation projects progressing and contract awarded for road preservation (reseals & overlays) works.

Plant Program 1,421,675 Procurement in progress for most items, some replacements temporarily deferred due to other priorities. Carryover of some items required as delivery timeframes will extend into next year.

Turner Caravan Park buildings 421,692 Turner Caravan Park chalet construction contract awarded, works commencing in May 2017 for completion in September/October 2017. Budget to be carried over to 2017-18. Western Power upgrade to occur.

Total of listed under budget variances

6,905,156

Capital expenditure of $0.630 million was incurred during the month and included:

• $4,850 to supply and install a security system for the animal pound; • $5,234 for blinds for the child care area; • $14,142 for the second waste cell, road and drainage works at the Davis Road landfill site; • $34,633 on various community building projects including $22,748 on the upgrade of the youth

precinct toilets and $11,885 on upgrades for the Zone Room; • $72,068 for Parks and Gardens projects included West Cowaramup POS upgrade ($23,733)

and other POS works; • $5,097 on new entry signs for the Shire; • $359,039 on road related projects of which $64,461 was spent on infrastructure upgrade

projects and $294,578 was spent on infrastructure renewal projects. The Margaret River main street upgrade, Ellis Street jetty precinct, Fearn Ave carpark retaining wall, Carbunup South Road bridge, rural reseals, drainage projects, staged kerb renewal and works for the reconstruction of Leeuwin Road, Rosa Brook Road, Rosa Glen Road, Treeton Road and Wallcliffe Road were the main projects;

• $102,000 for the purchase of the Bomag waste compactor; and • $28,085 for various building and infrastructure works at Turner Caravan Park and Alexandra

Bridge Camping Ground. Financial performance against budget is shown in the following charts.


98


99

Following is the Statement of Financial Activity for the year ending 30 April 2017.


100

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA - MARGARET RIVERSTATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITYFOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 April 2017

BUSINESS UNITS 2016-17 2016-17 2016-17 2016-17 2016-17 YTDApproved Amended Month of YTD YTD Variance

Budget Budget April Budget Actual >10% & Comments$ $ $ $ $ >$10,000

Net Current Assets at 1 July 2,187,703 2,242,226 0 2,187,703 2,242,226OPERATING REVENUES

Rates 19,665,575 19,886,575 27,242 19,882,325 19,898,833 0General Financing 2,051,632 2,246,391 74,730 1,824,028 1,823,262 0Members of Council 0 0 0 0 0 0Chief Executive Officer 16,000 6,000 0 6,000 4,400 0Director Corporate & Community 8,500 8,500 895 7,500 8,615 0Director Sustainable Development 0 0 2,452 0 66,089 66,089 Perm: Fines and Penalties following legal actionDirector Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0 0Finance 40,788 40,788 0 3,000 155,396 152,396 Perm: Settlement of uninsured lossesRecords 0 0 630 0 929 0Corporate Services 5,000 5,000 88 4,750 2,205 0Customer Relations 225,200 225,200 17,068 195,000 169,349 (25,651) Timing: Sale of number platesInformation Comm. Technology 0 0 200 0 5,455 0Human Resources 10,000 52,000 0 52,000 54,357 0Community Planning & Development 52,180 51,950 677 50,205 42,926 0Emergency and Fire Services 411,107 432,925 72,234 421,304 583,483 162,179 Perm: Supplementary ESL operating grant for 2015-16Rangers 215,250 215,250 13,758 190,350 168,624 (21,726) Timing: Cost recovery income not requiredLibraries 33,750 33,750 2,546 28,410 33,115 0Health 104,788 104,788 4,216 96,781 101,926 0Child Care 283,379 288,379 32,201 244,762 273,755 28,993 Perm: School holiday program incomeWaste Services 4,326,298 4,391,298 70,809 4,284,198 4,382,404 0Town Planning 387,900 407,900 23,417 338,250 336,925 0Community Buildings 0 42,000 210 42,000 45,112 0MR Recreation Centre 901,200 901,200 44,502 766,200 685,994 (80,206) Perm: Income impacted by January closure of poolCultural Centre 4,800 4,800 0 4,000 5,658 0Augusta Recreation Centre 36,000 36,000 2,443 29,000 32,948 0Gloucester Park 70,500 70,500 3,142 64,500 60,463 0Parks and Gardens 5,000 30,000 0 30,000 32,133 0Asset Services 124,200 124,200 17,047 66,000 72,123 0Landcare 0 0 4,800 0 4,800 0Maintenance 0 0 0 0 8,868 0Plant Program 40,498 51,498 703 51,498 26,874 (24,624) Timing: Disposal of plant items delayedCaravan Parks 2,000,100 2,000,100 206,879 1,873,350 1,832,839 0Building Control 218,520 218,520 12,610 182,100 177,357 0Works Overheads 0 0 0 0 0 0Plant Operation Costs 0 0 0 0 5,336 0Other Property and Services 40,000 60,000 0 50,000 23,252 (26,748) Timing/Perm: Workers Compensation reimbursementsTOTAL REVENUES 31,278,165 31,935,512 635,501 30,787,511 31,125,805 338,294

OPERATING EXPENSESRevenue (300,420) (320,420) (22,673) (264,654) (263,760) 0General Financing (592,557) (583,557) (11,308) (441,934) (417,283) 0Members of Council (300,902) (310,902) (18,462) (266,459) (255,119) 0Chief Executive Officer (1,069,298) (1,059,298) (58,096) (914,198) (775,880) 138,318 Timing: Projects and eventsDirector Corporate & Community (455,058) (455,058) (21,411) (402,956) (356,486) 46,470 Timing: Projects, eg, Community Infrastructure ReportDirector Sustainable Development (644,131) (644,131) (49,394) (542,841) (502,816) 0Director Infrastructure (293,798) (273,798) (25,676) (229,399) (229,563) 0Finance (943,410) (943,410) (42,255) (880,374) (865,339) 0Records (188,615) (188,615) (13,693) (158,344) (151,301) 0Corporate Services (273,520) (284,420) (20,068) (241,200) (200,824) 40,376 Timing/Perm: postage, water, electricityCustomer Relations (543,392) (543,392) (35,888) (462,411) (427,385) 0Information Comm. Technology (1,112,397) (1,074,397) (61,063) (975,555) (891,745) 0Human Resources (603,861) (645,861) (42,649) (533,209) (502,775) 0Community Planning & Development (578,434) (583,204) (31,582) (504,281) (445,905) 58,376 Timing: Youth, Safety, DAIP, Arts and Aged projectsEmergency and Fire Services (972,773) (1,204,591) (77,230) (1,068,942) (980,957) 0Rangers (721,960) (721,960) (52,230) (632,027) (518,549) 113,478 Timing: Labour, contract services & cemetery costsLibraries (893,048) (948,048) (65,277) (809,663) (775,391) 0Health (549,426) (549,426) (46,284) (466,017) (436,559) 0Child Care (306,864) (336,864) (32,664) (291,020) (331,370) (40,350) Perm: Additional day care, offset by additional incomeWaste Services (3,132,894) (2,827,144) (270,858) (2,409,609) (1,792,053) 617,556 Timing: Labour, projects, number of collectionsTown Planning (1,129,258) (1,084,258) (83,024) (904,685) (738,966) 165,719 Timing: Labour and projectsCommunity Buildings (1,794,531) (1,856,531) (177,535) (1,569,067) (1,460,474) 0MR Recreation Centre (2,180,051) (2,205,051) (146,988) (1,864,167) (1,613,536) 250,631 Timing: Labour, utilities, equipment & building maintenanceCultural Centre (361,765) (401,765) (14,602) (378,465) (369,111) 0Augusta Recreation Centre (108,308) (108,308) (6,092) (94,770) (81,177) 13,593 Timing: Equipment leasing, chemicals & equipmentGloucester Park (193,100) (193,100) (12,703) (165,000) (142,587) 22,413 Perm/Timing: Projects and maintenanceBeach Lifeguards (118,605) (113,605) (18,374) (113,605) (98,081) 15,524 Timing: Labour, equipment, maintenanceParks and Gardens (2,691,088) (2,691,088) (160,805) (2,287,115) (1,910,035) 377,080 Timing/Perm: Lower labour overhead rate appliedAsset Services (1,037,608) (1,043,608) (80,931) (855,013) (712,861) 142,152 Timing: Projects delayedLandcare (336,041) (358,741) (32,218) (300,889) (213,186) 87,703 Timing: Contributions and ProjectsConstruction 0 0 0 0 0 0Maintenance (8,041,220) (8,352,220) (603,180) (6,933,017) (6,590,767) 0Plant Program (48,968) (59,968) (3,527) (55,968) (30,759) 25,209 Timing: Plant purchases delayedCaravan Parks (1,377,087) (1,289,587) (129,533) (1,092,106) (963,560) 128,546 Timing: Seasonal variations and utilitiesBuilding Control (171,584) (161,584) (13,449) (136,442) (132,975) 0Works Overheads (119,106) (139,106) (51,349) (107,905) (654,425) (546,520) Timing: Under recovery of overheads due to changed ratePlant Operation Costs 78,772 (121,228) (3,672) (117,006) 81,464 198,470 Timing: Over recovery of overheadsOther Property and Services (237,000) (237,000) (189) (222,000) (194,115) 27,885 Timimg/Perm: Reduced workers compensation claimsTOTAL EXPENSES (34,343,305) (34,915,243) (2,536,934) (29,692,313) (26,946,213) 2,746,100

NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (3,065,140) (2,979,731) (1,901,433) 1,095,199 4,179,592 3,084,394


101

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA - MARGARET RIVERSTATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITYFOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 April 2017

BUSINESS UNITS 2016-17 2016-17 2016-17 2016-17 2016-17 YTDApproved Amended Month of YTD YTD Variance

Budget Budget April Budget Actual >10% & Comments$ $ $ $ $ >$10,000

NON OPERATING GRANTS & CONTRIBUTIONSCommunity Planning & Development 1,393,000 0 0 0 0 0Emergency and Fire Services 1,009,250 594,600 0 394,000 0 (394,000) Timing: ESL grant for Cowaramup BFB applianceTown Planning 200,000 200,000 32,561 160,000 240,948 80,948 Perm: Transfer of Cash in Lieu POS from BondsCommunity Buildings 3,400,000 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0MR Recreation Centre 32,000 32,000 0 32,000 32,000 0Augusta Recreation Centre 0 0 0 0 0 0Parks and Gardens 0 0 0 0 3,371 0Asset Services 0 0 0 0 29,091 29,091 Perm: Grant funds transferred to the ShireConstruction 3,522,514 3,522,514 0 3,386,014 2,031,129 (1,354,885) Timing: Grant claims delayed due to construction delaysTOTAL NON OPERATING REVENUES 9,556,764 4,849,114 32,561 4,472,014 2,836,539 (1,635,475)

NET RESULT 6,491,624 1,869,383 (1,868,872) 5,567,213 7,016,131 1,448,919

ADJUSTMENTS FOR NON-CASHOperating activities excluded

Add back Depreciation 8,209,428 8,873,428 724,280 7,397,290 7,337,331 0Add back (Profit)/Loss Asset Disposal 168,470 168,470 169 168,470 150,514 (17,956) Timing: Associated with replacement of plantAdd back Movement in Provisions,etc 0 0 0 0 0 0Movement in Provisions and Accruals 0 0 0 0 0 0Fair value change to financial assets 0 0 0 0 0 0

8,377,898 9,041,898 724,449 7,565,760 7,487,845 (77,915)

Investing ActivitiesPurchase Land Held for Resale 0 0 0 0 0 0Purchase Land and Buildings (6,149,323) (2,043,323) (43,464) (1,107,200) (592,575) 514,625 Timing: Caravan Park chalet project to commence in MayPurchase Infrastructure Assets - Other (4,695,197) (1,443,380) (119,194) (1,185,413) (541,065) 644,348 Timing: Waste and other projects delayed or deferredPurchase Infrastructure Assets - Roads (6,112,139) (6,162,139) (359,039) (5,927,640) (2,196,938) 3,730,702 Timing: Works commenced but delayed Purchase Plant and Equipment (3,434,900) (3,257,250) (103,453) (3,055,650) (982,828) 2,072,822 Timing: Plant replacements delayed, dehumidifier deferredPurchase Furniture and Equipment (94,000) (81,000) (5,234) (81,000) (48,535) 32,465 Timing: Minor projects delayedProceeds from Disposal of Assets 644,153 644,153 23,959 644,153 423,728 (220,425) Timing: Associated with replacement of plant

(19,841,406) (12,342,939) (606,425) (10,712,750) (3,938,213)

Financing ActivitiesRepayment of Debentures (600,922) (600,922) (19,610) (467,020) (467,020) 0Advances to Community Groups 0 0 0 0 0 0Proceeds from Self-Supporting & IF Loans 15,386 15,386 0 14,149 20,149 0Proceeds from New Loan 1,450,000 0 0 0 0 0Transfers to Cash Reserves (1,041,129) (2,833,032) (35,970) (1,636,137) (1,636,137) 0Transfers from Cash Reserves 2,960,846 2,608,000 0 0 0 0

2,784,181 (810,568) (55,580) (2,089,008) (2,083,008) 0

Net Current Assets Surplus (Deficit) 0 0 (1,806,428) 2,518,918 10,724,981 1,371,003 Investments At 30 April 2017 the Shire’s cash on hand, deposits and investments totalled $33,043,695 (a decrease of $1,262,181 to last month) and total investment interest earned for the month was $63,467. Actual interest earned for the year to date of $595,286 exceeded the amended budget of $588,834.

Term Deposits – Cash Management At 30 April the Shire had the following short-term facilities (term deposits).

Term Days Maturity Institution (ADI) Principal

$ Interest Rate Interest

$ 270 16/6/17 Members Equity Bank 2,000,000 2.65% 39,205 270 16/6/17 Bank of Queensland 1,500,000 2.60% 28,849 183 19/6/17 Bankwest 1,500,000 2.55% 18,968 90 5/7/17 Bankwest 2,500,000 2.50% 15,411 365 18/7/17 National Australia Bank 1,500,000 2.90% 43,500 365 28/7/17 National Australia Bank 1,000,000 2.82% 28,200 365 16/8/17 Bankwest 4,000,000 2.50% 100,000 365 6/9/17 Bankwest 2,000,000 2.45% 49,000


102

365 12/9/17 National Australia Bank 3,000,000 2.71% 81,300 365 13/9/17 National Australia Bank 2,000,000 2.71% 54,051 365 11/4/18 National Australia Bank 2,500,000 2.60% 65,000

23,500,000 523,484 During the month the following changes occurred for term deposits:

• $2.5 million with National Australia Bank matured on 11/4/17 and was reinvested at 2.6% for 1 year

• $2 million with ING matured on 21/4/17 and was not reinvested • $2.5 million was placed with Bankwest on 6/4/17or 90 days at 2.5%

The average rate of interest to be paid on all of the term deposits is 2.64% and exceeds the Reserve Bank’s cash rate of 1.50%.

The Shire also has an Overnight Cash Deposit Facility (OCDF) with WA Treasury Corporation (WATC) which is used to hold the Royalties for Regions funds of $5.490 million allocated for the main street redevelopment project. The South West Development Commission are a joint signatory for this facility. During the month interest of $6,378 was earned and the current balance of the investment is $5.358


103

million. The current rate of interest earned on this facility is 1.45% and is set at 5 basis points lower than the Reserve Bank’s cash reference rate. In-Kind Support In-Kind support and fee waivers at 30 April 2017 were the same as the previous month and totalled $4,584. $184 of fees were waived under delegation and $4,400 was provided in sponsorships for sports representatives. Reserves Movements to reserves for the month generally represent interest earned on reserve funds. However, other transactions may also be processed. During the month no additional reserve transactions were processed. The actual balance of reserves for the year to date of $23.143 million exceeded the year to date budget of $21.332 million. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Financial Management Regulation 34 requires a local government to prepare each month a Statement of Financial Activity reporting on the sources and applications of funds, as set out in the annual budget under Financial Management Regulation 22(1)(d). STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 5: Effective leadership and governance Community Outcome 2: Effective strategy, planning and asset management Strategic Response: Ensure the Shire’s financial performance is well managed and leads to a strong financial position. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The overall financial performance of the Shire is as summarised in this report. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Nil Social Nil Economic As stated in the report. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council receives the Monthly Financial Report – April 2017 in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Monthly Financial Report consisting of:

a. Notes to and forming part of the Statement of Financial Activity b. Financial Reports by Business Units


104

RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR HASTIE OM2017/128 That Council receives the Monthly Financial Report – April 2017 in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

CARRIED 6/0


105

11.4.7 AGE FRIENDLY COMMUNITY PLAN 2017-2021 LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE CSV/29 REPORT AUTHOR Susie Elton, Community Development Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate Services

IN BRIEF • The Age Friendly Community Plan 2017-2021 (the Plan) is a revision to the Age Friendly

Communities Study prepared in 2009. • The two most important issues emerging from the 2009 study were the lack of affordable and

appropriate housing and the inadequate design of the built environment to service the needs of older residents.

• Recent consultation indicates that safety, quality and availability of footpaths remains an issue, as does the availability of public seating. The provision of housing, however, has been replaced by transport as the most significant priority domain for improvement. Other areas of concern include, communication and information and health and community services.

• The actions proposed in the Plan have been determined in response to community consultation and in collaboration with relevant Shire Business Units.

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Adopts the Age Friendly Community Plan 2017-2021 (Attachment 1). LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil THE PLAN The Age Friendly Community Plan adopts a locally driven bottom up methodology that begins with the experience of older people regarding what is, and what is not, age friendly and what could be done to improve the community’s age friendlessness. Harnessing this approach, the Shire has considered relevant aspects from Australian and international policy frameworks to guide the key objectives for the Plan, with the clear understanding that creating an age friendly community benefits the whole community. The objectives of the Plan are:

• A better understanding of the needs of older residents within the shire; • A set of achievable recommendations that can be actioned by the Shire to further enhance the

age friendliness of the region. BACKGROUND The Shire, in developing the Age Friendly Communities Study Report – 2009, was the first regional Shire in WA to use the WHO Age Friendly Cities Framework to assess the needs and aspirations of older residents on issues such as housing, outdoor spaces and buildings, transport, respect and social inclusion. This report determined that the main priority area for concern was the lack of affordable and appropriate housing for older people, particularly rental housing close to facilities and services. It also indicated that older residents within the shire are extremely concerned about the inadequate design of


106

the built environment, particularly the lack of outdoor seating, public toilets, unsafe traffic crossings, lack of parking and lack of access to beaches for older people. This document, the Age Friendly Community Plan 2017 – 2021 builds on the initial research undertaken in 2009 and serves to provide the Shire with a specific framework and direction to enable continued adequate planning for an age friendly community. Age Friendly Community Defined An age friendly community is one which:

• recognises the great diversity among older people; • promotes their inclusion and contribution in all areas of community life; • respects their decisions and lifestyle choices; and • anticipates and responds flexibly to ageing-related needs and preferences

(World Health Organisation 2007, 5) An age friendly community promotes active ageing which is “the process of optimising opportunities for health, participation and security in order to enhance quality of life as people age” (World Health Organisation 2002, 12). In an age friendly community, there is a culture of inclusion shared by people of all ability levels and ages. Policies, services and structures related to the physical and social environment are designed to support and enable older people to “age actively”, that is, to live in security, enjoy good health and continue to participate fully in society (Department for Communities 2015). Age Friendly Community Plan The Plan is based on the following framework as guided by the World Health Organisation (WHO) concepts of ‘Active Ageing’ and ‘Age Friendly Cities’ in conjunction with the Department for Communities ‘Age Friendly Communities – A Western Australian Approach’. These frameworks for age friendly cities were researched, developed and trialled in 35 cities worldwide, drawing on the knowledge and expertise of older people to determine the essential features of an age-friendly city. The eight domains of age friendly communities include:

• Housing • Social participation • Respect and social inclusion • Civic participation and employment • Communication and information • Outdoor spaces and buildings • Transportation • Community and health services

Role of Local Government The Plan investigates and makes recommendations on all eight domains of an age friendly community. Where the Shire has influence and control it will exercise it to the best of its capabilities in pursuit of the objectives of the Plan. Where control and influence is limited it will explore innovative partnerships and advocate in pursuit of the objectives of the Plan CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Community engagement included two focus group sessions, attended by 24 community members and a community survey, which received 61 responses. Internal Consultation Internal consultation occurred with stakeholders from a variety of business units relevant to the eight domains of an age friendly community. DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS


107

The Community Planning and Development (CPD) team conducted research throughout November 2016, which included engagement with older residents and aged care service providers. Overall, 85 community members and service providers engaged in the workshops and survey. Table 1 summaries the community engagement for this work.

Community Engagement Involvement

Your Say and hardcopy survey (three weeks) - Nov 2016 61 submissions

1 x general community workshop (Margaret River) – Nov 2016 16 attendees

1 x general community workshop (Augusta) – Nov 2016 8 attendees

Total 85

Table 1: Community engagement for development of the Age Friendly Community Plan Through this work CPD were able to establish that older residents and service providers recognise that transport currently forms the most significant priority domain for improvement, as the Shire and its communities face many challenges in regards to establishing available, accessible and affordable public or private transport options. This is a shift away from the priority domain of the provision of affordable and appropriate housing, which was recognised as the main challenge in the Age Friendly Communities Study Report 2009. Outdoor spaces and buildings was also recognised as an important priority domain for enhancement in 2009 and unfortunately, despite some improvements this remains largely unresolved. Consultation results determine that older residents are concerned about the safety, quality and availability of footpaths within the town sites of Margaret River, Augusta and Cowaramup as well as the availability and suitability of public seating areas. Many seniors are also eagerly awaiting the upgrade of the main street of Margaret River. The domain of communication and information, recognised as an area of concern in 2009, has remained a priority domain within the Plan. Older residents made clear that in the age of new technologies they are seeking information about matters that affect them to be delivered in a variety of formats conducive to their needs and abilities. In addition, health and community services is a domain that older residents are feeling a level of concern, specifically in regards to access to specialists and consistency of GP services in Augusta. This work has highlighted the priority areas of improvement across the eight domains of an age friendly community. To address these areas, the following objectives and goals have been determined in support of further enhancing the age friendliness of the Shire. Each of these goals have a number of associated actions that have been prioritised based on the outcomes of community and staff consultation. In addition, a matrix has been included in the Plan to assist business units to further determine priorities of works. The objective and goals of the Plan are as following. Distinct actions can be reviewed on pages 32 -39 of the Plan. Objective 1 – Transport and Movement Goal 1: The Shire of Augusta Margaret River will work towards ensuring that seniors have access to safe and consistent transport options Action 1.1 Ensure adequate footpaths and cycle paths are provided in new subdivisions and are

connected to existing areas Action 1.2 Review existing Path Plan implementation priorities to specifically consider age friendly

and disability access objectives


108

Action 1.3 Investigate the feasibility of a Demand Responsive Public Transport scheme Objective 2 – Outdoor Spaces and Buildings Goal 2: Create outdoor spaces and buildings that promote mobility, independence and quality of life for older people Action 2.1 Continue to undertake well planned maintenance of Council infrastructure that

contributes to safe access for all Action 2.2 Install and maintain seating in public spaces throughout the Shire Action 2.3 Make improvements to existing public toilets, as required, and increased number of

facilities where warranted Action 2.4 Undertake upgrades to Margaret River and Augusta Recreation Centre Objective 3 – Health and Community Services Goal 3: Ensure older people have access to quality and reliable health and community services Action 3.1 Continue to work with local GP services in Augusta to ensure a consistent and secure

service is accessible to older people Action 3.2 Advocate and support increased service provision in the Shire of Augusta Margaret

River with a focus on home care / support services Action 3.3 Seek to collate and communicate information about available health services across

the Shire Objective 4 – Communication and Information Goal 4: Ensure high quality, reliable and up to date information is made available to older people in the community Action 4.1 Seek opportunities to improve all aspects of Shire communication Action 4.2 Ensure older people have access to necessary Shire information in suitable formats Action 4.3 Facilitate communication between agencies and service providers that contribute to

an Age Friendly Community. Ensure this information is accessible to the community is a variety of formats

Objective 5 – Housing Goal 5: Advocate for accessible, affordable and diverse housing options that contribute to the ability of older people to age in place Action 5.1 Create and apply a statutory and strategic land use planning framework which makes

provision for affordable housing developments and the provision of small lots close to services

Action 5.2 Facilitate improved communication from all stakeholders around available housing

options and application processes Action 5.3 Increase awareness of universal house design as a tool for increasing the ability of

people to age in place Objective 6 – Respect, Inclusion and Social Participation Goal 6: Encourage respectfulness of older community members and promote opportunities for supporting social inclusion and participation Action 6.1 Investigate interest and support for the establishment of a senior citizens centre

within Augusta and/ or Margaret River


109

Action 6.2 Promote the use of the Rotary Directory as a tool to accessing available community

groups and services Objective 7 – Sport and Recreation Goal 7: Provide facilities and recreation services that contribute to the social and physical wellbeing of older community members. Action 7.1 Investigate interest, cost implications and support for a hydrotherapy pool in Margaret

River or a bus service to Augusta to access the hydrotherapy pool Actions allocated under the seven objective are designed to provide strategic guidance to relevant Business Units as a means to better adapt our services and structures to meet the needs of older people. Where the Shire has influence and control it will exert it to the best of its capabilities in pursuit of the objectives of the Plan. Where control and influence is limited, it will explore innovative partnerships and advocate in pursuit of the objectives of the Plan STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 2: Welcoming and Inclusive Communities Community Outcome 2.2: Equity and opportunities for all Strategic Response: Provide programs and facilities that encourage resilience in seniors, young people & families Service level strategy/plan: Develop the Shire’s Age Friendly Plan PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The implementation of the Plan may have some financial implications for Council that need to be considered when determining the four-year Corporate Plan and Annual Budget priorities. However, many of the resources required to implement the Plan are already absorbed into existing work schedules and budget allocated in the Corporate Plan. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The environmental benefits of the Plan include: • Ensuring public open spaces cater for a range of users including people with a disability; • Enabling programs that encourage the widespread adoption of environmentally responsive and

sustainable practices; and • Addressing the needs for affordable and appropriate housing for seniors. Social The social and community development benefits of the Plan include: • Fostering active participation in community activities; • Providing programs and facilities that encourage resilience in seniors, young people and families; • Fostering a sense of community belonging and identity through participation in and attendance at

cultural activities, community events, festivals and celebrations; • Building community capacity and resilience by strengthening community groups, networks and

volunteerism; • Promoting equity and access to all community members inclusive of those with disabilities and

from culturally and linguistically diverse cultures as well as young people, seniors and families through the provision of information in a variety of formats;

• Ensuring universal disability access standards are being met or exceeded in catering for the needs of the community in public spaces; and


110

• Creating pedestrian friendly linkages and connections to and through the townsites of Augusta, Margaret River and Cowaramup.

Economic The economic implication of the Plan include: • Ensuring that older residents have access to the services, recreational activities and businesses

conducive to their needs. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Adopts the Age Friendly Community Plan 2017-2021 (Attachment 1). ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Age Friendly Community Plan RECOMMENDATION/COUCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR SMART OM2017/129 That Council: 1. Adopts the Age Friendly Community Plan 2017-2021 (Attachment 1).

CARRIED 6/0


111

11.4.8 OPERATIONAL PLAN 2016-17 QUARTER 3 REPORT LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE COR/130 REPORT AUTHOR Stacey Hutt, Community and Corporate Planner AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services

IN BRIEF • Council adopted the Community Strategic Plan 2033 (reviewed 2015) at the Ordinary Council

Meeting (OM) of 11 February 2015 • Council adopted the Operational Plan 2016-17 at OM 27 July 2016 • The Operational Plan 2016-17 is a sub plan of the Corporate Plan and outlines the activities,

delivery of services, projects, infrastructure and other Shire informing strategies to achieve the priorities set by Council

• The Operational Plan confirms the Shire's ability to achieve priorities in alignment with the Corporate Plan and the Long Term Financial Plan and addresses the objectives and strategies outlined in the Community Strategic Plan

• The Operational Plan allocates responsibility to business units, sets and meets performance measures for evaluating projects, services and delivery of priorities in the short term and is aligned to the Annual Budget, capital works program details and key funding partners

• It is a requirement for the Shire to report quarterly to Council. RECOMMENDATION That Council receives the Operational Plan 2016-17 Quarter 3 Report (Attachment 1). LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Under the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 (LGAR), all local governments in Western Australia are required to have developed and adopted two key documents: a Strategic Community Plan and a Corporate Business Plan which are supported and informed by resourcing and delivery strategies. These plans drive the development of each local government’s annual budget. The Community Strategic Plan was reviewed in February 2015 and is currently undergoing a scheduled major review. It outlines the goals that will be achieved through the strategies and actions that are provided in the Corporate Plan. The Corporate Plan integrates the informing strategy which is comprised of the Workforce Plan, Asset Management Plan and the Long Term Financial Plan. The Corporate Plan sets out the projects and services the Shire will deliver over the next four years that work towards achieving the outcomes identified in the Community Strategic Plan. The Corporate Plan is achieved through the annual Operational Plans. An annual Operational Plan is developed which includes information on individual actions and projects programmed to be completed throughout the year (Year 1 of the Corporate Plan) and incorporates the CEO Performance Targets as adopted by Council. The annual Operational Plan is reported quarterly to Council. The Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework and Guidelines (2016) issued by the Department of Local Government and Communities provide guidance in the reporting requirements of local


112

government in relation to the integrated plans. Performance monitoring of the annual Operational Plan is required to be undertaken quarterly and reported to Council. This is the third quarter report of the Operational Plan 2016-17 to be received by Council. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation No external consultation is required as part of the Quarterly Report review. Internal Consultation Executive Leadership Team Business Unit Managers and Coordinators DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS In accordance with the LGAR, Council is required to receive quarterly updates on the annual Operational Plan 2016-17 and to be cognisant of the resourcing required by the Shire to implement Council’s Community Strategic Plan and Corporate Plan. The quarterly review provides a description of planned activities for the financial year. Each action indicates the responsible person and provides an opportunity to understand how the projects, activities and services are developing according to key business unit indicators whilst gaining an insight to highlights and challenges encountered on the way. Third quarter progress on the Operational Plan 2016-17 as reported in the Quarterly Report indicates:

Of the 310 reportable actions, 60% are on track and have achieved their target. Eleven actions have been completed this quarter. Seven actions are achieving between 40-60% of their target and three actions are achieving less than 40% of their target. The three actions achieving less than 40% of their target are: ACTION 5.2.1.2 Develop Sport and Recreation Strategic Plan ACTION PROGRESS COMMENTS: This project scope is now incorporated into the Community Infrastructure Plan for which a Request for Quotation was issued on 7 April 2017 Last Updated: 20-Apr-2017


113

ACTION

5.2.1.3 Review Community Infrastructure Plan

ACTION PROGRESS COMMENTS: A Request for Quotation for the development of a Community Infrastructure Plan was issued to consultants on 7 April 2017. Last Updated: 20-Apr-2017

ACTION

5.4.4.1 Develop a workforce communication strategy

ACTION PROGRESS COMMENTS: Research and networking with external bodies has been undertaken over this quarter. This project is scheduled to be completed in quarter four of 2016-17. Last Updated: 01-May-2017

The 11 completed actions this quarter are: ACTION

1.2.2.1 Install improved lighting control and water heating at the Margaret River Recreation Centre

ACTION PROGRESS COMMENTS: Centralised lighting and water efficiency equipment has been purchased. Installation subject to 2017-18 budget allocation. Last Updated: 05-May-2017

ACTION

2.1.1.8 Partner with the University of Notre Dame Australia to assist in the Augusta Archaeological Dig Project

ACTION PROGRESS COMMENTS: Notre Dame archaeological dig took place in Augusta from the 5 to 12 December 2016. Many items of significance were found which has changed the direction of this work. Further investigation into ideas found and next scheduled archaeological dig are underway. The Shire was included in all media related coverage of this work with 60 to 100 people attended the dig site whilst works were underway. The University of Notre Dame will continue to work closely with the Shire as this project progresses. Last Updated: 17-Jan-2017

ACTION

2.2.1.5 Develop Business Case for activating the MR Zone Room commercial kitchen as a source of revenue for the youth program and a space for future food hub start ups

ACTION PROGRESS COMMENTS: The Executive Leadership Team endorsed the preferred proposal on 23 January 2017 for further development and implementation. Last Updated: 20-Apr-2017

ACTION


114

2.5.1.4 Provide a Recreation Centre run Swim School for the community

ACTION PROGRESS COMMENTS: Feasibility study conducted with assistance of consultants and presented to Council in January 2017.

Last Updated: 01-May-2017

ACTION

2.6.2.1 Develop, implement and administer the Local Emergency Management Committee (LEMC) Business Plan

ACTION PROGRESS COMMENTS: It has been determined by the State Emergency Management Committee (SEMC) that the LEMC Business Plan is no longer required. Work has begun on the Shire's Emergency Risk Management Plan as part of the State Risk Project. Last Updated: 20-Apr-2017

ACTION

2.6.2.6 Review and update Shire Emergency Management Arrangements, Recovery Plan and Evacuation Plan

ACTION PROGRESS COMMENTS: The Shire's Local Emergency Management Arrangements were completely reviewed and endorsed by Council on the 8 March 2017. The Arrangements have been submitted to the State Emergency Management Committee. Last Updated: 20-Apr-2017

ACTION

5.1.3.1 Complete and submit Statutory Compliance Return and remediate any errors within timeframes

ACTION PROGRESS COMMENTS: Compliance Audit Return was completed and adopted by Council 8 March 2017. 86 out of 87 areas achieved full compliance. Last Updated: 13-Apr-2017

ACTION

5.1.2.2 Facilitate staff participation in the Local Government Managers Australia (LGMA) South West Aspiring Leaders and Mentors Conference

ACTION PROGRESS COMMENTS: The conference was held in Margaret River in March 2017 and was well attended by staff with 16 staff attending over the two days. Last Updated: 02-May-2017

ACTION

5.2.3.9 Develop the Annual Plant Replacement Program


115

ACTION PROGRESS COMMENTS: Plant replacement program has been developed for 2017-18 in line with the Long Term Financial Plan review. Last Updated: 21-Apr-2017

ACTION

5.2.4.4 Implement annual Light Fleet Replacement program

ACTION PROGRESS COMMENTS: This was completed over quarter three, with the replacement of five light vehicles and two Ranger vehicles. Last Updated: 21-Apr-2017

ACTION

5.7.1.3 Conduct external audit and interim audit annually and remediate any problems within timeframes

ACTION PROGRESS COMMENTS: External audit field visit occurred from 10 to 12 August 2016. Audit adjustments actioned as required. Interim audit was conducted from 22 to 24 March 2017 as scheduled. Last Updated: 20-Apr-2017

Below is a brief road map on reading the quarter report:

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Section 5.56 (1) Local Government Act 1995 requires local governments to have in place a plan for the future. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-20 Goal 5: Effective Leadership and Governance Community Outcome 7: Measure and report on success and sustainability Strategic Response: Prepare and advertise quarterly reports of the Community Strategic Plan PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil

Indicates the percentage of work complete for 2016-17

Position responsible for completing the action

Unique numbering of actions as listed in the Operational Business Plan 2016-17

Progress comments are relevant to this quarter only


116

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The actions and projects, which are detailed in the Operational Plan 2016-17 and the Quarter 3 Report, are aligned with the Annual Budget 2016-17 and the Long Term Financial Plan. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS The Community Strategic Plan fosters an identification and integration of environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity, which is enacted through the Corporate and Operational Plan. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council receives the Operational Plan 2016-17 Quarter 3 Report (Attachment 1). ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Operational Plan 2016-17 Quarter 3 Report RECOMMENDATION CR LANE, CR SMART OM2017/130 That Council receives the Operational Plan 2016-17 Quarter 3 Report (Attachment 1).

CARRIED 6/0


117

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN Nil 13. MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AT NEXT MEETING Nil 14. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE 14.1. Members Nil

14.2. CEO Nil 15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS Nil 16. CLOSURE OF MEETING The Shire President thanked all in attendance and declared the meeting closed at 7.58

Ordinary Council - Shire of Augusta-Margaret River...Ordinary Council MINUTES FOR THE MEETING TO BE...

Documents

Transcript of Ordinary Council - Shire of Augusta-Margaret River...Ordinary Council MINUTES FOR THE MEETING TO BE...