Download - 150120 Council Agenda - City of Bunbury
CITY OF BUNBURY 4 Stephen Street
Bunbury WA 6230 Western Australia
Correspondence to: Post Office Box 21
Bunbury WA 6231
Telephone: (08) 9792 7234 ◌ Facsimile: (08) 9792 7184 ◌ TTY: (08) 9792 7370 ◌ www.bunbury.wa.gov.au
Bunbury City Council
Notice of Meeting and Agenda
20 January 2015
Table of Contents
Item No Subject Page
1. Declaration of Opening/Announcements of Visitors ............................................................................. 6
2. Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................................... 7
3. Announcements from the Presiding Member ........................................................................................ 7
4. Attendance ............................................................................................................................................. 7
4.1 Apologies ................................................................................................. 7 4.2 Approved Leave of Absence ....................................................................... 7
5. Declaration of Interest ............................................................................................................................ 8
6. Public Question Time .............................................................................................................................. 9
6.1 Public Question Time ................................................................................ 9 6.2 Responses to Public Questions Taken ‘On Notice’ ......................................... 9
7. Confirmation of Previous Minutes and other Meetings under Clause 19.1 ......................................... 15
7.1 Minutes ................................................................................................. 15 7.1.1 Minutes – Ordinary Council Meeting ................................................................... 15
7.1.2 Minutes – Council Advisory Committees and Working/Project Groups ............. 16
8. Petitions, Presentations, Deputations and Delegations ....................................................................... 17
8.1 Petitions ................................................................................................ 17 8.2 Presentations ......................................................................................... 17 8.3 Deputations ........................................................................................... 17 8.4 Council Delegates’ Reports ...................................................................... 17 8.5 Conference Delegates’ Reports................................................................. 17
9. Method of Dealing with Agenda Business ............................................................................................ 17
10. Reports .................................................................................................................................................. 18
10.1 Recommendations from Advisory Committees ........................................... 18 10.1.1 New Council Policy – Asset Monitoring ............................................................... 18
10.1.2 Revision of Council Policy – Purchasing - Local Preferences ............................... 20
10.1.3 Revision of Council Policy – Street Addressing .................................................... 22
10.1.4 Revision of Council Policy – City of Bunbury Art Collection Policy ...................... 23
10.1.5 Amendment of Council Policy – Leases and Licences .......................................... 25
10.1.6 New Council Policy – Commercial Leases ............................................................ 27
10.1.7 Revision of Council Policy – Recreation Facilities and Provide Diverse Range
of Activities and Facilities for Residents and Visitors .......................................... 29
10.1.8 Revision of Council Policy – Bunbury Museum Collection Policy ........................ 31
10.1.9 Revision of Council Policy – Vandalism/Graffiti Management Policy .................. 33
10.2 Chief Executive Officer Reports ................................................................ 34 10.2.1 Petition - Proposed Sale of Lot 70 Winthrop Avenue College Grove .................. 34
10.2.2 Lot 70 Winthrop Avenue ...................................................................................... 37
10.2.3 Release of Confidential Report ............................................................................ 44
10.2.4 Major Projects Update Report for the period 1 July 2014 to 31 December
2014 ............................................................................................................. 46
Table of Contents
Item No Subject Page
10.2.5 Development Assessment Panels – Local Government Nominations ................. 48
10.2.6 Motions Passed at the Annual Meeting of Electors 2014 ................................... 51
10.2.7 Schedule of Accounts Paid for the Period 1 November 2014 to 30 November
2014 ............................................................................................................. 54
10.2.8 Financial Management Report for the Period Ending 30 November 2014 ......... 55
10.3 Director Corporate and Community Services .............................................. 61 10.3.1 National Sister Cities Australia Conference 2014 ................................................ 61
10.3.2 Creative City Strategy 2015-2020 ........................................................................ 65
10.3.3 Proposed Deed of License to Heather MacFarlane Pty Ltd as Trustee for the
Jenny Spencer Trust Trading as Yours or Mine over a portion of Lot 3 Blair
Street, Bunbury .................................................................................................... 68
10.3.4 Dedication of Road Reserve - Bunbury Primary School – Lovegrove Avenue
Traffic and Parking ............................................................................................... 71
10.4 Director Planning and Development Services Reports ................................. 74 10.4.1 Bunbury War Memorial Conservation Works...................................................... 74
10-4-2 Proposed Structure Plan – Part Lots 120 and 549 South Western Highway,
Davenport ............................................................................................................ 77
10.5 Director Works and Services Reports......................................................... 85 10.5.1 Vittoria Rd/Jeffrey Rd – Proposed Compulsory Acquisition of Land ................... 85
10.5.2 Bunbury Timber Jetty – Heritage Interpretation ................................................. 88
11. Applications for Leave of Absence ........................................................................................................ 93
12. Motions on Notice ................................................................................................................................ 93
12.1 Motion on Notice – Cr Steck – Boulters Heights ................................................. 93
13. Questions on Notice ............................................................................................................................. 95
13.1 Response to Previous Questions from Members taken on Notice ................. 95 13.2 Questions from Members ........................................................................ 95
14. New Business of an Urgent Nature Introduced by Decision of the Meeting ....................................... 97
14.1 Street Trading Licence application - Helicopter Joy Flights, Lot 882
Koombana Drive, Bunbury ................................................................................... 97
15. Meeting Closed to Public .................................................................................................................... 100
15.1 Matters for which the Meeting may be Closed ......................................... 100 15.2 Public Reading of Resolutions that may be made Public ............................ 100
16. Closure ................................................................................................................................................ 100
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
Term Explanation
1:100 Ratio of 'one in one hundred'
AD Acceptable Development
ARI Annual Recurrence Interval
AHD Australian Height Datum
ANEF Australian Noise Exposure Forecast
AWARE All West Australians Reducing Emergencies (grant funding)
BCA Building Code of Australia
BCCI Bunbury Chamber of Commerce & Industries
BCRAB Bunbury Community Recreation Association Board
BEAC Built Environment Advisory Committee
BESAC Bunbury Environment and Sustainability Advisory Committee
BHRC Bunbury Harvey Regional Council
BPA Bunbury Port Authority
BRAG Bunbury Regional Art Galleries
BRAMB Bunbury Regional Arts Management Board
BREC Bunbury Regional Entertainment Centre
BSSC Big Swamp Steering Committee
BTJE&CS Bunbury Timber Jetty Environment & Conservation Society
BWEA Bunbury Wellington Economic Alliance
CALM Department of Conservation and Land Management
CBD Central Business District
CCAFF Community Cultural and Arts Facilities Fund
CERM Centre of Environmental and Recreation Management
CPI Consumer Price Index
CSRFF Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund
DADAAWA Disability in the Arts Disadvantage in the Arts Australia, Western Australia
DAP Detailed Area Plan (required by WA Planning Commission)
DCU Development Coordinating Unit
DEC Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly CALM)
DEWCP Department for Environment, Water and Catchment Protection
DLI Department of Land Information
DoE Department of Environment
DOLA Department of Land Administration
DoPI Department of Primary Industry
DoW Department of Water
DPI Department for Planning and Infrastructure
DSR Department of Sport and Recreation
DUP Dual-use Path
ECT Enforcement Computer Technology
EDAC Economic Development Advisory Committee
EDWA Education Department of Western Australia
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EPA Environmental Protection Authority
ERMP Environmental Review and Management Program
ESL Emergency Services Levy
FESA Fire and Emergency Services Authority
FFL Finished Floor Level
GBPG Greater Bunbury Progress Group
GBRP Greater Bunbury Resource Plan report
GBRS Greater Bunbury Region Scheme
GL Gigalitres
GRV Gross Rental Value
GST Goods and Services Tax
HCWA Heritage Council of Western Australia
ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
ICT Information and Communications Technology
IP Internet Protocol
IT Information Technology
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
Term Explanation
ITC In Town Centre
ITLC Former In-Town Lunch Centre (now the "In Town Centre")
LAP Local Action Plan
LCC Leschenault Catchment Council
LEMC Bunbury Local Emergency Management Committee
LIA Light Industrial Area
LN (2000) Liveable Neighbourhoods Policy (2000)
LSNA Local Significant Natural Area
MHDG Marlston Hill Design Guidelines
MRWA Main Roads Western Australia
NDMP National Disaster Mitigation Program
NEEDAC Noongar Employment & Enterprise Development Aboriginal Corp.
NRM Natural Resource Management
NRMO Natural Resource Management Officer
ODP Outline Development Plan
PAW Public Access Way
PHCC Peel-Harvey Catchment Council
PR Plot Ratio
R-IC Residential Inner City (Housing) - special density provisions
RDC Residential Design Codes
RDG Residential Design Guidelines
Residential R15 Town Planning Zone – up to 15 residential dwellings per hectare
Residential R20 Town Planning Zone – up to 20 residential dwellings per hectare
Residential R40 Town Planning Zone – up to 40 residential dwellings per hectare
Residential R60 Town Planning Zone – up to 60 residential dwellings per hectare
RFDS Royal Flying Doctor Service
RMFFL Recommended Minimum Finished Floor Levels
ROS Regional Open Space
ROW Right-of-Way
RSL Returned Services League
SBCC South Bunbury Cricket Club Inc.
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SGDC Sportsgrounds Development Committee
SW South West
SWACC South Western Area Consultative Committee
SWAMS South West Aboriginal Medical Service
SWBP South West Biodiversity Project
SWCC South West Catchments Council
SWDC South West Development Commission
SWDRP South West Dolphin Research Program
SWEL South West Electronic Library
SWSC South West Sports Centre
TME Thompson McRobert Edgeloe
TPS Town Planning Scheme
USBA Union Bank of Switzerland Australia
VGO Valuer General’s Office
VOIP Voice-Over Internet Protocol
WALGA Western Australian Local Government Association
WAPC Western Australian Planning Commission
WAPRES Western Australian Plantation Resources
WAWA Water Authority of Western Australia
WC Water Corporation
WML WML Consultants
WRC Waters and Rivers Commission
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 6
Bunbury City Council
Notice of Meeting
The next Ordinary Meeting of the Bunbury City Council will be held in the Council Chambers, City of
Bunbury Administration Building, 4 Stephen Street, Bunbury on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 at 5.30pm.
Andrew Brien
Chief Executive Officer (Date of Issue: 16/01/2015)
Agenda 20 January 2015
Note: The recommendations contained in this document are not final and are subject to adoption, amendment (or
otherwise) at the meeting.
Council Members:
Mayor Gary Brennan
Deputy Mayor Councillor Brendan Kelly
Councillor Murray Cook
Councillor Wendy Giles
Councillor James Hayward
Councillor Judy Jones
Councillor Betty McCleary
Councillor Neville McNeill
Councillor Jaysen Miguel
Councillor Sam Morris
Councillor David Prosser
Councillor Michelle Steck
Councillor Karen Steele
1. Declaration of Opening/Announcements of Visitors
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 7
2. Disclaimer
All persons present are advised that the proceedings of this meeting will be recorded for record
keeping purposes and to ensure accuracy in the minute taking process, and will also be streamed
live via the internet to the public.
3. Announcements from the Presiding Member
4. Attendance
4.1 Apologies
4.2 Approved Leave of Absence
Nil.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 8
5. Declaration of Interest
Members should fill in Disclosure of Interest forms for items in which they have a financial,
proximity or impartiality interest and forward these to the Presiding Member before the meeting
commences.
Section 5.60A: “a person has a financial interest in a matter if it is reasonable to expect that the
matter will, if dealt with by the local government, or an employee or committee of the local
government or member of the council of the local government, in a particular way, result in a
financial gain, loss, benefit or detriment for the person.”
Section 5.60B: “a person has a proximity interest in a matter if the matter concerns –
(a) a proposed change to a planning scheme affecting land that adjoins the person’s
land; or
(b) a proposed change to the zoning or use of land that adjoins the person’s land; or
(c) a proposed development (as defined in section 5.63(5)) of land that adjoins the
person’s land.”
Regulation 34C (Impartiality): “interest means an interest that could, or could reasonably be
perceived to, adversely affect the impartiality of the person having the interest and includes an
interest arising from kinship, friendship or membership of an association.”
Cr Jones declared an impartiality interest in item 10.2.1 titled “Petition – Proposed Sale of Lot 70
Winthrop Avenue College Grove” as she is the Chairman of Alliance Housing. Cr Jones will remain in
the chamber for the discussion and the vote on the matter.
Cr Jones declared an impartiality interest in item 10.2.1 titled “Lot 70 Winthrop Avenue” as she is
the Chairman of Alliance Housing. Cr Jones will remain in the chamber for the discussion and the
vote on the matter.
Cr Cook declared an impartiality interest in item 10.4.1 titled “Bunbury War Memorial Conservation
Works” as he is an affiliate member of the Bunbury RSL Sub-Branch. Cr Cook will remain in the
chamber for the discussion and the vote on the matter.
Cr Cook declared an impartiality interest in item 10.5.1 titled “Vittoria Rd/Jeffrey Rd – Proposed
Compulsory Acquisition of Land” as his niece is the Canteen Manager at Grace Christian. Cr Cook
will remain in the chamber for the discussion and the vote on the matter.
Cr Cook declared an impartiality interest in item 10.5.2 titled “Bunbury Timber Jetty – Heritage
Interpretation” as he is a financial member of the Bunbury Timber Jetty Environment &
Conservation Society (Inc). Cr Cook will remain in the chamber for the discussion and the vote on
the matter.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 9
6. Public Question Time
In accordance with Reg. 7(4)(a) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, members of the
public in attendance at the meeting may stand, state aloud their name and address, and ask a question in
relation to any matter over which the municipality of Bunbury has jurisdiction or involvement.
In accordance with Standing Order 6.7(3)(a) a person wishing to ask a question, must complete a question
form which is provided in the trays at the back of the public gallery and on the City’s website. The completed
form must include your name and address and contain no more than three (3) questions. If your question
requires research or cannot be answered at the meeting, it will be taken on notice and you will receive a
written response and a summary of your question (and any responses provided) will be printed in the
minutes of the meeting.
6.1 Public Question Time
6.2 Responses to Public Questions Taken ‘On Notice’
At the Council Meeting held 9 December 2014, a number of questions were asked during Public
Question Time that could not be answered during the meeting. A copy of the questions and the
written responses forwarded to the questioner following the meeting is provided below for public
information:
Mr Zyggi Uchwal – PO Box 801, Bunbury WA 6231
1. Why were private valuers used and not Valuer General Office used for valuation of the
Land?
Reply: Council regularly users private valuers to get faster turnaround on valuations. This is in
accordance with legislative provisions and valuations are from registered valuers.
2. Why 31 sites (existing zooming) is sold to Developers for $775,000 ($25,000 per site) if
cleaning cost only $400,000 then effective price per lot is $12,000? If cost of clean-up
reaches $700,000 then land will be sold for less than $2,000 per lot
Reply: No decision has been made on the number of lots or the decontamination of site, therefore
remediation costs are not know and all costs so far are purely speculative. Decontamination
will be a cost for that must be absorbed by the developers.
3. What will be benefit to the ratepayers from proposed sale – information obtained from
CEO was that this sale will pay for extension of Somerville Drive and crossing to Robinson
Drive, could be explained how much of this cost will be recovered while this land is being
sold for free?
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 10
Reply: The land is not being given away and any proceeds from the sale will need to be used for
repayment of debt for the Somerville Drive extension which was completed last year.
J. Yasmina Jackson, PO Box 801, BUNBURY WA 6231
1. Whilst the proposed elderly village was refused on the grounds of lack of amenities, what
amenities exist for Alliance Housing to make it so attractive to buy?
Reply: The Council has not refused any development on the site nor has amenity been raised as an
issue for an elderly village. In relation to the questions about what makes the proposed site
attractive to Alliance this is a question that should be referred to them for a response.
2. Why is there a plan to make cluster of misery where worldwide study suggest that this is
worst possible scenario and it will only add to detriment not solve the problem – see
research Uni of NSW – School of Social Studies et al.
Reply: There is no formal application before Council at this stage and therefore the question
cannot be answered. The comments in relation to research are noted.
3. Why Council do not learn from Pelican Point contention (Short stay apartment block) which
cost Bunbury Ratepayers close to $60,000, stop sale of the College Grove land to the
proposed developer and avoid this issue altogether?
Reply: The two matters are not related and are therefore not comparable. The application for the
development at Pelican Point was considered in accordance with requirements of the
planning scheme and building requirements, and decisions were then made based on
factual information. As there is no development application before Council it is not possible
to compare situations.
Gary Probin, PO Box 801, BUNBURY WA 6231
1. As this is former shooting range – copper, lead, antimony and arsenic will be present – how
City will deal with contamination on the site and who will pay the bill?
Reply: Environmental consultants are currently working on the level of site contamination and will
provide Council with a report once completed. Once the situation in relation to the level of
contamination and costs of remediation are known this information will be further
considered by Council. Addressing the costs of decontamination will be the responsibility of
the developer.
2. What is the estimated cost of the clean-up? If not determined or established, why sell
before this data is available?
Reply: Currently reports are being prepared to consider this matter
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 11
3. City does not have money, only what it collects in rates and taxes, why City and Councillors
propose to spend Ratepayers and Taxpayers money for nothing in return?
Reply: The Termination Deed and the Joint Venture Agreement were developed based on the
requirement to sell or develop land in order to repay debt.
Kylie Clancy for Carly Stone, PO Box 801, BUNBURY WA 6231
1. What will prevent the Developer from constructing 84 houses or four story 180 units of
flats after re-zoning?
Reply: When a development application is lodged the Council will consider the matter. At this point
in time there is nothing to assess and until an application is lodged a more detailed answer
cannot be provided.
2. Who will ultimately pay for the development and infrastructure of this proposed College
Grove subdivision?
Reply: Infrastructure required as part of any development is a cost for the developer.
3. Why did the Council not listen to the overwhelming residents of the College Grove
opposition to the proposed developer?
Reply: Council has not made a decision in relation to this matter. A report is to be provided to
Council for consideration in January 2015
Darlene Drummond, PO Box 801, BUNBURY WA 6231
1. Why has no one else been offered to tender for the land?
Reply: The City was approached for the sale and a report provided to Council for consideration.
This is standard practice and the Local Government Act provides for this to occur.
2. Why is there going to be a zone change?
Reply: At this stage the concept for rezoning has only been raised to assist in determining financial
viability of the project. No formal application for a zoning change has been lodged.
3. Why is the land being re-zoned to smaller blocks when the demand for 500sqm plus blocks
is there?
Reply: At this stage the concept for rezoning has only been raised to assist in determining financial
viability of the project. No formal application for a zoning change has been lodged.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 12
Jislav Daniel Uchwal, PO Box 801 BUNBURY WA 6231
1. Did Councillor Judy Jones, Bunbury City Council member excuse herself from dispute and
voting on the subject as she is as well the Chairman of Alliance Housing and land in
question is going to be sold to Alliance?
Reply: No – when the matter was first considered by Council Alliance Housing was not a party to
the proposal and hence there was no need for Cr Jones to disclose any conflict.
2. When did Alliance Housing proposed purchase of the land?
Reply: Council was advised of the joint venture between Alliance Housing and Stellar Living and its
proposal on 11 November 2014.
3. Will the tenants include people being rehoused from prisons, pathways (mental health) and
other anti-social groups?
Reply: No application has yet been lodged for the proposed development so no answers can be
provided at this stage.
Cole Jackson, PO Box 801, BUNBURY WA 6231
1. On our Facebook Page, we have several questions when the blocks will be sold, therefore,
why can’t the Council subdivide land into standard residential blocks for sale in line with the
previous development in College Grove?
Reply: When a formal development application is lodged, the Council will consider the matter
further. The views of the residents have been passed on to the proposed purchasers.
2. When was the College Grove land put to tender?
Reply: The land has not been put to tender. It has been advertised for disposal in accordance with
section 3.58(3) of the LGA
3. Could Council guarantee that property and land values of existing residents will not suffer
by ANY development by devaluation of our current property prices?
Reply: No – this is a market driven outcome
John Robinson for Rob Drummond, PO Box 801, BUNBURY WA 6231
1. What is the Council’s plan for the intersection of Somerville Drive and Bussell Highway?
With any type of development how will the Council deal with the traffic congestions?
Reply: This will be subject to a traffic management plan as part of any development proposal.
Nothing has been approved by Council at this stage.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 13
2. How is the Council planning to control the increase in noise if the development goes ahead?
Reply: As a residential subdivision, noise is not considered an issue at this stage of the process.
3. Why is the government land being sold to a selected private enterprise without being
offered to the public and other developers?
Reply: The land is proposed to be disposed of in accordance with provisions of section 3.58(3) of
the LGA.
Mr Ahmad Adni, PO Box 1839 Bunbury 6231
1. In regards to the City taxi rank (in front of the Lord Forrest Hotel) and after hour parking by
private cars: people regularly park in the taxi night rank pick up area. This causes the other
cars to go around the taxis to have to veer to the wrong side of the road to get around
them, It is only a matter of time before someone is injured or killed when this happens. Can
anything be done to fix this?
Reply: Police and Rangers have been made aware of the issue through the Bunbury Alcohol Accord
Committee and will liaise and work with the Bunbury Taxis to establish strategies to
manage illegally parked vehicles within the Symmons Street night taxi rank.
2. During any event in Bunbury, there is a complete block on vehicles entering the city area.
Can taxis be exempt from this so that people can be moved in and out of the city area,
before and during the event.
Reply: The Bunbury Taxis will be consulted as part of the development of the Traffic Management
Plan for any Council community event to ensure that consideration is given to access for
taxis during an event.
Mr Mike Fenton, 25 Acacia St Bunbury 6230
1. Last evening Council had a Bushfire Threat Assessment Meeting attended by 18 people. 75
residents did not receive meeting notices until yesterday. Will the CEO Mr Brien schedule a
new meeting to enable proper community consultation?
Reply: Letters were issued to properties that were determined to be at very high or extreme
bushfire risk. Approximately 35 letters were hand delivered to properties on 3/12/14 and
the remainder were posted on 3/12/14 Offers have already been made for any residents
who want to get a group together that staff will attend and work through any issues with
them. Staff have indicated that if groups of neighbours wish to get together, appropriate
arrangements will be made for staff to attend neighbourhood meetings to provide locally
specific bush fire preparedness advice. The letters contained a personal invitation to meet
with us at the Christmas activities on Sunday afternoon and/or the community meeting, and
this was supported by website, newspaper, social media advertising of the event.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 14
2. Most questions posed by residents were beyond the scope of Mr Widmer (insurance,
negligence, Parks and Gardens, Rangers, Planning, etc. Will the CEO commit to chairing
future meetings?
Reply: Any questions that could not be answered on the night were taken on notice. Residents are
encouraged to write to Council with any outstanding questions to enable responses to be
provided to them directly. Based on the information provided by staff in attendance, the
questions were outside of the scope of local government activities and would not have been
answerable regardless of who from Council was present. As such, the presence of the CEO is
not essential to the conduct of the meetings and future meetings may or may not be chaired
by the CEO depending on availability.
3. Two years ago the CEO told me that the private land at the corner of Upper
Esplanade/Stockley Road did not pose a fire risk to Wattle Hill Lodge because the owners
were building imminently. Can the CEO detail how much the owners have been fined for
avoiding regulation firebreaks since then?
Reply: The owners have not been fined and Council considers appropriate actions have been taken.
The owners of the property as identified by Mr Fenton were not fined as they complied with
all of Council requirements and also allowed staff from the City and DFES to conduct a
prescribed burn from their property when the City conducted a prescribed burn of the Irwin
Street Reserve.
In correspondence to you in 2012 the following was provided –
“To inexperienced persons, any vegetation sometimes appears to be a risk. And it is true
that many materials have a point of flammability, however, this must be weighed up in
balance of a significant range of factors that determine fire behaviour characteristics and
the resultant treatments for fire hazard mitigation.
This area has also been assessed by several experienced fire officers, career and private,
and the consensus is to institute a Fire Management Plan that takes into account the
amenities of the area, Bunbury’s bushland environment, and above all community safety
consideration. This in fact has been started and works associated with this will be scheduled
appropriately.”
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 15
7. Confirmation of Previous Minutes and other Meetings under
Clause 19.1
7.1 Minutes
7.1.1 Minutes – Ordinary Council Meeting
The minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Bunbury City Council held 9 December 2014 have been
circulated.
Recommendation
The Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Bunbury City Council held 9 December 2014 be
confirmed as a true and accurate record.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 16
7.1.2 Minutes – Council Advisory Committees and Working/Project Groups
File Ref: Various
Applicant/Proponent: Internal Report
Author: Various
Executive: Various
Attachments: Appendix MTBN-1 – Bunbury Setagaya Sister Cities Committee Minutes
26-11-2014
Appendix MTBN-2 – Community Access Committee Minutes 5-12-2014
Appendix MTBN-3 – Policy Review and Development Committee
Minutes 18-12-2014
Appendix MTBN-4 - Youth Advisory Committee Minutes 10-12-2014
Summary
The following Advisory Committee Meetings were held and the minutes are presented for noting:
1. Title: Bunbury Setagaya Sister Cities Committee Minutes 26 November 2014
Author: Jaimee Earl, Executive Assistant Office of the Mayor
Appendix: MTBN-1
2 Title: Community Access Committee Minutes 5 December 2014
Author: Isabell Evans, Community Development Officer
Appendix: MTBN-2
3 Title: Policy Review and Development Committee Minutes 18 December 2014
Author: Greg Golinski, Manager Governance
Appendix: MTBN-3
4 Title: Youth Advisory Committee Minutes 10 December 2014
Author: Elizabeth Larkin, Community Development Projects Assistant
Appendix: MTBN-4
Executive Committee Recommendation
The following Advisory Committee meeting minutes listed in the report be accepted and noted:
1. Bunbury Setagaya Sister Cities Committee Minutes 26 November 2014
2. Community Access Committee Minutes 5 December 2014
3. Policy Review and Development Committee Minutes 18 December 2014
4. Youth Advisory Committee Minutes 10 December 2014
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 17
8. Petitions, Presentations, Deputations and Delegations
8.1 Petitions
Pursuant to clause 6.10(2) of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders 2012, upon receiving a petition,
the Council is to
a) Receive the petition and refer to the relevant officer for a report to be submitted within
the next two (2) rounds of Council meetings; or
b) Reject the petition
8.2 Presentations
Nil.
8.3 Deputations
Nil.
8.4 Council Delegates’ Reports
Nil.
8.5 Conference Delegates’ Reports
Nil.
9. Method of Dealing with Agenda Business
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 18
10. Reports
10.1 Recommendations from Advisory Committees
10.1.1 New Council Policy – Asset Monitoring
Applicant/Proponent: Policy Review and Development Committee
Author: Aileen Clemens, Manager Organisational Development and HR
Executive: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: Appendix RAC-1: Council Policy: Asset Monitoring
Summary
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a new Council Policy relating to workplace
surveillance, as applicable to the City of Bunbury.
Committee Recommendation
That that Council adopt the new Council Policy entitled Asset Monitoring as presented at appendix
RAC-1.
Background
The draft policy, Asset Monitoring, as presented at appendix RAC-1 makes provision for the
implementation of workplace surveillance in the City of Bunbury.
Council Policy Compliance
This report proposes the adoption of a new Council Policy – Asset Monitoring.
Legislative Compliance
The Surveillance Device Act 1998 requires organisations to have in place policies prior to any
surveillance activities being implemented, to ensure all affected persons (employees) are fully
aware of the City’s intentions in this regard.
Officer Comments
The purpose of the proposed policy is to facilitate the protection of the City’s assets and
equipment; to improve community and employee safety; and to assist in the management of
mobile plant and equipment.
The City of Bunbury is committed to providing a safe work environment for its employees and the
community in which unlawful, antisocial and inappropriate activity is kept to a minimum while
respecting the individual rights of privacy.
The proposed policy will ensure that the possible use of workplace surveillance will be compliant
with the requirements of relevant legislation, including the Surveillance Device Act 1998.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 19
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
There are no financial or budgetary implications impacting from the recommendations of this
report. Any possible future surveillance activities will be funded using current year budgeted funds.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
The proposed policy is commended to Council by the Policy Review and Development Committee.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 20
10.1.2 Revision of Council Policy – Purchasing - Local Preferences
Applicant/Proponent: Policy Review and Development Committee
Author: David Russell, Senior Contracts and Procurement Officer
Executive: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: Appendix RAC-2: Council Policy Purchasing – Local Preferences
Summary
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a revised Policy relating to Purchasing – Local
Preferences for local contractors/suppliers.
Committee Recommendation
That Council adopt the revised Council Policy entitled Purchasing – Local Preferences as presented
at appendix RAC-2.
Background
The Policy was adopted by Council in July 2001 and last reviewed in June 2010. The purpose of the
Policy is to promote economic activity, increase employment opportunities and facilitate small
business participation in the buying process of the City of Bunbury. The current entitlement is for
local suppliers and contractors within the City of Bunbury.
Council Policy Compliance
This report proposes a revision of an existing Council Policy.
Legislative Compliance
This policy complies with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995 and associated
regulations.
Officer Comments
The Policy Review and Development Committee have undertaken a review of the Council Policy
Purchasing – Local Preferences.
The Policy is proposed to be amended to maintain consistency with the City’s current processes
and procedures. The length of the policy has been reduced to be more user-friendly for suppliers
and contractors. The core elements of the policy remain and the percentage of local preference
(5%) remains unchanged. The application of the policy however, is proposed to be extended from
the City of Bunbury to the Bunbury Wellington Region.
The amendment of the qualifying period from twelve to six months was done to ensure compliance
with the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.
It should be noted that in the last eighteen (18) months, this policy has not had an influence on the
outcome of any tender or quotation process for procurement over $50,000 in value.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 21
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
There are no financial or budgetary implications impacting from the recommendations of this
report when considering changes from the current policy to the recommended policy.
Where the Purchasing – Local Preferences policy has an influence over the selected tenderer then
there may be an increase in expenditure of 5% on a case by case basis for either project or base line
expenditure within budgeted allocations.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
The Manager Governance and staff within the Corporate Governance and Contracts and Property
Department have been consulted in the review of this Policy. The revised policy is commended to
Council by the Policy Review and Development Committee.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 22
10.1.3 Revision of Council Policy – Street Addressing
Applicant/Proponent: Policy Review and Development Committee
Author: Leonie Barwick, Team Leader Corporate Revenue - Finance
Executive: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: Appendix RAC-3: Street Addressing Policy
Summary
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the revision of a Council policy relating to the
standards and procedures for the assignment and amendment of street numbering within the City
of Bunbury.
Committee Recommendation
That Council note the review of Council Policy Street Addressing, with no changes, as presented at
appendix RAC-3.
Background
The Street Addressing Policy was developed to establish a clear documented policy position rather
than an otherwise unidentified process which residents can relate to when seeking advice or
opposing proposed re-allocation of street numbers.
The Policy was first adopted by Council at its meeting held 25 September 2012 (refer Council
decision 278/12).
Council Policy Compliance
This report proposes the revision of an existing Council Policy.
Legislative Compliance
There is no legislative compliance impacting upon this report.
Officer Comments
The Policy Review and Development Committee have undertaken a review of the Council Policy
Street Addressing, and recommend that no changes are required at this time.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
There are no financial or budgetary implications impacting from the recommendations of this
report, as the intent of the existing Policies has not been altered.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
The Manager Finance has been consulted in the review of this Policy. The policy is commended to
Council by the Policy Review and Development Committee.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 23
10.1.4 Revision of Council Policy – City of Bunbury Art Collection Policy
Applicant/Proponent: Policy Review and Development Committee
Author: Julian Bowron, Manager Arts and Culture
Executive: Stephanie Addison-Brown, Director Corporate and Community Services
Attachments: Appendix RAC-4: Council Policy City of Bunbury Art Collection
Summary
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a revised policy relating to the City of Bunbury
Art Collection.
Committee Recommendation
That Council adopt the revised Council Policy City of Bunbury Art Collection as presented at
appendix RAC-4.
Background
At its ordinary meeting held on 4 February 2014 Bunbury City Council meeting Council resolved to
suspend the City of Bunbury Arts Collection Committee (refer Council decision 36/14). At the same
meeting Council also resolved that “The Bunbury Regional Arts Management Board’s tenure of
management of the Bunbury Regional Art Gallery end at 30th June 2014...” (refer Council decision
35/14).
While the City’s collection was owned and managed by the City with advice provided by the
Committee, from 1 July 2014 management of the City of Bunbury Art Collection became the
responsibility of City’s Manager Arts and Culture (who also has the title Director of Bunbury
Regional Art Galleries).
The previous City of Bunbury Art Collection policy was prepared by the Arts Collection Committee
and reflected their management of the Collection. The Committee also held Deductible Gift
Recipient status which enables gifts and bequests to the collection to attract a tax concession.
Council Policy Compliance
This report proposes a substantial revision of an existing Council Policy.
Legislative Compliance
Deductible Gift Recipient DGR status from the Australian Tax Office which enables gifts and
bequests to the collection to attract a tax concession is held in the name of City of Bunbury Arts
Collection Committee.
It is now necessary to re-apply for DGR status in the name of Bunbury Regional Art Gallery and to
provide an appropriate policy which reflects the current management of the Collection. It is also
necessary to ensure that the wording required by the Australian Tax Office to facilitate DGR status
is contained in this policy.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 24
Officer Comments
The Policy Review and Development Committee has undertaken a review of City of Bunbury Art
Collection Policy.
The Policy has been amended accordingly to maintain consistency with the City’s current processes
and procedures, and updated in accordance with operating developments and professional art
museum standards generally.
The previous policy required substantial rewriting to address the following:
- Provide greater clarity with regard to acquisition and de-acquisition criteria and guidelines;
- Introduce an appropriate process for approving acquisitions consistent with industry best
practice;
- Updating the history of the Collection;
- Conservation and disaster planning;
- Provide greater clarity around the terms and conditions for loans from the Collection.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
There are no financial or budgetary implications impacting from the recommendations of this
report, as the intent of the existing Policy has not been altered.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
The Director Corporate and Community Services and staff within the Arts and Culture department
have been consulted in the review of this Policy. The revised policy is commended to Council by the
Policy Review and Development Committee.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 25
10.1.5 Amendment of Council Policy – Leases and Licences
Applicant/Proponent: Policy Review and Development Committee
Author: Massimo Andreone, Manager Contracts and Property
Executive: Stephanie Addison-Brown, Director Corporate and Community Services
Attachments: Appendix RAC-5: Council Policy Leases and Licences
Summary
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider an amendment to the Council Policy relating to
Leases and Licences, which was adopted by Council on 11 November 2014.
Committee Recommendation
That the Policy Review and Development Committee recommend that Council adopt the amended
Council Policy entitled Leases and Licences as presented at appendix RAC-5.
Background
On 11 November 2014, Council adopted a Policy regarding the provision of leases and licences to
organisations which cover land and buildings owned or managed by the City including crown land
(refer Council decision 419/14). A revision to the policy is proposed by the Policy Review and
Development Committee.
Council Policy Compliance
This report proposes an amendment of an existing Council Policy.
Legislative Compliance
There is no legislative compliance impacting upon this report.
Officer Comments
Officers have received a request from a Councillor to incorporate an additional clause within the
Policy to clarify the position relating to peppercorn leases. Accordingly, it is proposed to include
the following clause into the Policy:
“Not for profit community groups which are currently on a “peppercorn” lease/licence will remain
as such and not be charged a fee document preparation fee unless determined otherwise by
Council.”
There is no cost for valuations, as they are not conducted when leases are peppercorn, however
Council will still need to cover the cost of document preparation fee and advertising costs.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
Should this change be endorsed, the City will need to absorb the cost of the following in relation to
peppercorn leases:
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 26
Document preparation fee $550 incl. GST (estimate only)
Advertising costs $200 incl. GST (estimate only)
$750 (estimate only)
Councillor/Officer Consultation
The Director Corporate and Community Services, and staff within the Contracts and Property
Department have been consulted prior to the amendment of this Policy. The revised policy is
commended to Council by the Policy Review and Development Committee
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 27
10.1.6 New Council Policy – Commercial Leases
Applicant/Proponent: Policy Review and Development Committee
Author: Massimo Andreone, Manager Contracts and Property
Executive: Stephanie Addison-Brown, Director Corporate and Community Services
Attachments: Appendix RAC-6: Council Policy Commercial Leases
Summary
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a new Council Policy relating to the provision of
commercial leases.
Committee Recommendation
That Council adopt the new Council Policy entitled Commercial Leases as presented at appendix
RAC-6.
Background
Following the adoption of a Policy relating to leases and licences for community groups and
organisations (Council Resolution 419/14 11 November 2014) and further to comments from
Councillor Steck at the meeting held 11 November 2014, officers prepared a draft policy relating to
commercial leases for the consideration of the Policy Review and Development Committee at its
December meeting.
Council Policy Compliance
This report proposes the adoption of a new Council Policy – Commercial Leases.
Legislative Compliance
Where required, the City will establish lease agreements in accordance with the Commercial
Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985, the Local Government Act 1995, and the Land
Administration Act 1997.
Officer Comments
The proposed draft policy, Commercial Leases as presented at appendix RAC-6, defines the way in
which commercial leases are determined and applied within the City of Bunbury.
The Policy Review and Development Committee added an additional clause into the draft policy as
prepared by Officers, to read: Commercial leases will be subject to appropriate conditions as
imposed by resolution of Council
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
There are no financial or budgetary implications impacting from the recommendations of this
report.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 28
Councillor/Officer Consultation
The proposed Commercial Lease policy is commended to Council by the Policy Review and
Development Committee.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 29
10.1.7 Revision of Council Policy – Recreation Facilities and Provide Diverse Range of Activities and
Facilities for Residents and Visitors
Applicant/Proponent: Policy Review and Development Committee
Author: Garry Stokes, Sport and Recreation and Kristy Tillett, Manager
Landscape and Open Space
Executive: Stephanie Addison-Brown, Director Corporate and Community Services
Attachments: Appendix RAC-7: Council Policy Recreation Facilities
Summary
The purpose of this report is Council to consider the revision of two Council policies relating to the
provision of a diverse range of activities and facilities for residents and visitors.
Committee Recommendation
That Council:
1. Adopt new Council Policy entitled Recreation Facilities as presented at appendix RAC-7;
and
2. Note that this new policy is an amalgamation of 2 previous policies: Recreation Facilities
(DWS-3) and Provide Diverse Range of Activities and Facilities for Residents and Visitors
(DWS-4).
Background
At the Council meeting held on 14 April 1998, Council adopted a Recreation Facilities Policy (DWS-
3). Whilst this Policy has been reviewed numerous times since its initial adoption, the majority of
the content remain as written in 1998.
At a subsequent meeting held on 15 September 1998, following involvement from the Department
of Sport and Recreation, disability and community groups within Bunbury, recreation clubs and
associations, Council adopted an additional Recreation Policy (Provide diverse range of activities
and facilities for residents and visitors – DWS-4) to provide a general direction for recreation
development throughout the City.
Similarly this Policy has been reviewed numerous times since its initial adoption, without requiring
major changes.
Council Policy Compliance
This report proposes to combine two policies Recreation Facilities (DWS-3) and Provide Diverse
Range of Activities and Facilities for Residents and Visitors (DWS-4) into one new Council policy.
The new policy supports the strategies of the 2012-2017 Disability Access and Inclusion Plan.
Legislative Compliance
There is no legislative compliance impacting upon this report.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 30
Officer Comments
The Policy Review and Development Committee have undertaken a review of both Council Policies
Recreation Facilities (DWS-3) and Provide Diverse Range of Activities and Facilities for Residents and
Visitors (DWS-4).
As both policies refer to the provision of recreation facilities and provide the same outcomes, it is
proposed to combine the two policies into one.
The proposed new policy is entitled Recreation Facilities and reads the same as Provide Diverse
Range of Activities and Facilities for Residents and Visitors with minor wording changes and the
addition of point 8 under Policy Details.
A combined and revised Council Policy entitled Recreation Facilities is presented at appendix RAC-7.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
There are no financial or budgetary implications impacting from the recommendations of this
report, as the intent of the existing Policies has not been altered.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
The Director of Corporate and Community Services, Manager of Sport and Recreation, Manager of
Landscape and Open Places and Sport and Recreation Liaison Officer have been consulted in the
review of these Policies.
The combined policy is commended to Council by the Policy Review and Development Committee.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 31
10.1.8 Revision of Council Policy – Bunbury Museum Collection Policy
Applicant/Proponent: Policy Review and Development Committee
Author: Lauretta Davies, Museum Curator
Executive: Stephanie Addison Brown, Director Corporate and Community Services
Attachments: Appendix RAC-8: Council Policy Bunbury Museum and Heritage Centre
Collection
Summary
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a revised Policy relating to the Bunbury
Museum Collection Policy.
Committee Recommendation
That Council adopt the revised Council Policy Bunbury Museum and Heritage Centre Collection
Policy as presented at appendix RAC-8.
Background
The Bunbury Museum Collection Policy was originally adopted by Council on 5 March 2013, and
revised to comply with the Australian Taxation Office requirements for Deductible Gift Recipient
status.
Council Policy Compliance
This report proposes a revision of an existing Council Policy.
Legislative Compliance
There is no legislative compliance impacting upon this report.
Officer Comments
The Policy Review and Development Committee has undertaken a review of the Council Policy
Bunbury Museum Collection Policy.
The Policy has been amended and retitled to maintain consistency with the City’s current processes
and procedures, and updated in accordance with operating developments and museum standards
generally.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
There are no financial or budgetary implications impacting from the recommendations of this
report, as the intent of the existing Policy has not been altered
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 32
Councillor/Officer Consultation
The Director Corporate and Community Services and staff within the Arts and Culture department
have been consulted in the review of this Policy. This policy is commended to Council by the Policy
Review and Development Committee.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 33
10.1.9 Revision of Council Policy – Vandalism/Graffiti Management Policy
Applicant/Proponent: Policy Review and Development Committee
Author: James Shepherd, Manager Assets and Projects
Executive: Phil Harris, Director Works and Services
Attachments: Appendix RAC-9: Council Policy Vandalism/Graffiti Management
Summary
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the revision of a Council policy relating to
vandalism and graffiti management.
Committee Recommendation
That Council adopt the reviewed Council Policy Vandalism/Graffiti Management as presented at
appendix RAC-9.
Background
The Vandalism/Graffiti Management Policy was developed in consultation with the Community
Crime Prevention Committee and first adopted by Council at its meeting held on 1 May 2007 (refer
Council Decision 81/07).
The policy provides guidelines and procedures for the removal of graffiti and repair of damage, the
offer of rewards for information from the public, a program of community education, and the
proactive development of activities for young people that address associated risk factors.
Council Policy Compliance
This report proposes the revision of an existing Council Policy.
Legislative Compliance
There is no legislative compliance impacting upon this report.
Officer Comments
The Policy was reviewed by the Policy Review and Development Committee on 18 December 2014,
with only minor formatting changes proposed.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
There are no financial or budgetary implications impacting from the recommendations of this
report, as the intent of the existing policy has not been altered.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
The Manager Waste Services and Community Development Officer - Community Safety, have been
consulted in the review of this Policy. The revised policy is commended to Council by the Policy
Review and Development Committee.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 34
10.2 Chief Executive Officer Reports
10.2.1 Petition - Proposed Sale of Lot 70 Winthrop Avenue College Grove
File Ref: Internal
Applicant/Proponent: Joanna Yasmina Jackson
Author: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer
Executive: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: Nil
Summary
A Petition has been received in relation to the Sale and Development of Lot 70 Winthrop Ave
College Grove with the Chief Petitioner being Joanna Yasmina Jackson of 10 University Close
Bunbury. The basis of the petition was to request that Council hold an extraordinary meeting prior
to considering the matter of the disposal of Lot 70. The petition contained 324 signatures.
Executive Recommendation
That Council note the petition and opposition to the sale and development of Lot 70 Winthrop Ave
and advise the Chief Petitioner as follows:
1. The Council has followed the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 in relation to the
disposal of land;
2. The Council does not support the view of the petitioners that the Council has acted in an
underhanded manner nor has there been any secrecy surrounding the sale; and
3. The Council held a community forum on 13 January 2015 to allow community input into
the matter and to expand on the previously received public submissions, which
appropriately addresses the request of the petitioners.
Background
At the Council Meeting held 28 October 2014 Council resolved to delegate authority to the Chief
Executive Officer to commence the process for the disposal of Lot 70 Winthrop Avenue in
accordance with legislative requirements and the Amended Joint Venture Agreement and to enter
into an Offer and Acceptance in accordance resolved conditions.
Council Policy Compliance
NIL
Legislative Compliance
Local Government Act 1995
Standing Orders Local Law 2012
Officer Comments
The Petition has been provided to Council in an effort to call an “extraordinary meeting” of Council
prior to making a decision in relation to the disposal of the site. Prior to receipt of the petition a
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 35
request had been received from another resident for Council to hold a community briefing which
was approved by the Mayor in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer. Whilst it is believed
that the intent of the petition may have been for an electors meeting, the request was not made in
accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 and therefore could not be
accepted as such. In discussions with the Mayor, it was considered appropriate that the previously
arranged public forum should continue as planned.
The wording of the Petition is as outlined below
“We, the undersigned, being electors of the City of Bunbury, oppose sale of the
abovementioned property to the proposed Developer, we oppose underhanded procedure
and secrecy surrounding the sale. We oppose sale of the Land without advertised Public
Tender and against interest of the City and Ratepayers.
Your petitioners, therefore respectfully request the Council of the City of Bunbury to have an
Extraordinary Meeting of the City of Bunbury Council and Electors before matter is voted by
the Council.
We respectfully remind Councillors and CEO that they are indeed Servants of the City and
they priority should be the City and its inhabitants, which expressed legitimate concern
pertaining proposed Sale of the Land, we do not understand why matter should go to
Council vote as early (20th Jan 2015) as stated in official communication.”
In responding to the issues contained within the Petition the following matters are relevant:
1. The objection to the sale to the proposed developer is noted;
2. The perception that the proposed disposal is in some way underhanded is refuted by staff.
All staff involved in the process from both Council and the Department of Lands have
always acted in accordance with legislative provisions and the requirements of the Joint
Venture Agreement.
3. The perception that there has been any secrecy in relation to the proposed disposal of the
site is also refuted. Staff have made public all information in relation to the sale, have made
amendments to the advertised sale following a change in potential purchaser and
requested the potential purchase arrange a public meeting to hear community views and
provide responses where possible based on available information.
4. The view that the land should not be disposed of without going to public tender and
against the interest of the City and ratepayers is not supported at this point in time. The
land has been available for many years and formed part of the original joint venture when
the estate was first developed. Whilst there have been many proposals considered for the
site, there has not been a formal proposal to purchase until an approach was made
towards the end of 2014. The Local Government Act 1995 provides that land may be
disposed of without going to public tender if the other requirements of the Act have been
complied with. The process that has been implemented in this instance complies with all
provisions.
5. The request for an Extraordinary Meeting is not something that is covered in either the
Council Standing Orders Local Law or the Local Government Act 1995. If the intent was for
a Special Electors Meeting, the petition does not meet the necessary requirements and
therefore cannot be considered as such. The additional public forum scheduled prior to the
receipt of the Petition is considered to be appropriate to meet the intent of the petitioners.
6. The issue of reminding Councillors and the CEO that they are servants of the City is simply a
statement of position and does not require a response.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 36
7. The rationale for the consideration of the matter as early as possible is to enable the
proposed purchasers to undertake their commercial due-diligence and assess the viability
of the proposal before spending significant funds on the project.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
The proposed disposal of Lot 70 Winthrop Ave College Grove will provide funding for Council to
contribute towards the repayment of the funding agreement for the construction of the Somerville
Drive extension from Hildas Close to Robertson Drive.
Community Consultation
The matter has been publicly advertised and has been the subject of public question time at recent
Council Meetings.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
Discussions have been held with relevant staff and also between the Mayor and Chief Executive
Officer.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 37
10.2.2 Lot 70 Winthrop Avenue
Applicant/Proponent: Internal Report
Author: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer
Executive: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: Appendix CEO-1: Copy of Letter to residents
Appendix CEO-2: Summary of Submissions Received
Appendix CEO-3: Copy of submissions
Appendix CEO-4: Amended Joint Venture Agreement
Summary
At the Council Meeting held 28 October 2014 Council resolved to delegate authority to the Chief
Executive Officer to commence the process for the disposal of Lot 70 Winthrop Avenue in
accordance with legislative requirements and the Amended Joint Venture Agreement and to enter
into an Offer and Acceptance in accordance resolved conditions.
During the public submission period a petition was presented to Council opposing the development
of affordable housing which was further supported by approximately 170 individual submissions.
This report deals with all aspects of the petition, public submissions and recommendations in
relation to the disposal of the site.
Executive Recommendation
Council:
1. Notes the submissions received and thanks the submitters for their contribution.
2. Support the disposal of Lot 70 Winthrop Avenue (by the College Grove Joint Venture) based
on the following conditions:
(a) The current zoning of R15 is to remain with conditional opportunity to increase to
R20 based on acceptable development concept plans;
(b) The preparation of a development concept plan for the site addressing issues of
traffic management, environmental impacts and other relevant sub-division
conditions including the identification of an overall building envelope;
(c) Final sale price to be determined once decontamination plan is completed and
costs of implementation known;
(d) Site remediation costs are to be borne by the purchasers;
3. In the event that the current purchasers are not supportive of proceeding with the
development based on the above conditions, the site be advertised for sale by tender in
accordance with the above conditions.
4. Note the petition opposing the development of Lot 70 for high density social housing and
advise the chief petitioner of the recommendation to dispose of Lot 70 in accordance with
current zoning or potential to increase to R20 maximum.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 38
Background
Whilst the background to the development of College Grove has been provided previously, it is
considered appropriate to provide an overview of the key aspects of the current Agreement to put
the current disposal proposal into context. The Joint Venture partners (City of Bunbury,
Department of Lands and LandCorp) agreed to terminate the Joint Venture Agreement following
protracted negotiations surrounding the decision to cease development on all lands south of
Somerville Drive. This decision was made following the decision to include the identified land in the
Preston River to Ocean Regional Park. The Termination arrangements included amongst other
things the following key points:
- The State Government providing a funding agreement to allow for the construction of the
Somerville Drive extension from Robertson Drive to Hildas Close
- Payment of compensation for land around the Maidens and Usher areas
- Inclusion of the existing Joint Venture Land
- Transfer of additional parcels of land around the City for future development (referred to
additional Joint Venture Land)
- The formation of a new Joint Venture agreement between the City and the Department of
Lands
The remaining land with the College Grove area covered by the Amended Joint Venture Agreement
are covered by the following clauses and are shown in the diagrams:
Original Joint Venture Land:
(a) Lot 298 on Plan 19467 and being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title
Volume 2180 Folio 812; and
(b) Lot 70 on Plan 18631 and being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title
Volume 1959 Folio 434 and which was formerly Crown land transferred to the City
pursuant to the Original Joint Venture Agreement
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 39
Additional Joint Venture Land:
(a) Lot 743 on Plan 18152 and being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Crown
Land Title Volume LR 3110 Folio 509;
(b) Lot 744 on Plan 18152 and being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Crown
Land Title Volume LR 3110 Folio 510;
(c) Lot 761 on Plan 18631 and being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Crown
Land Title Volume LR 3110 Folio 511;
(d) Lots 732 and 733 on Deposited Plan 218194 and being the whole of the land comprised in
Certificates of Crown Land Title Volume 3144 Folios 366 and 367 respectively;
In accordance with the terms of the amended Joint Venture Agreement, the management group
has been progressing on the development and disposal of the remaining lots within the College
Grove area.
The Management Group identified Lot 70 as the first development site which is to be followed by
Lot 298 (both lots from the Original Joint Venture Land). An initial approach was made by a
consortium to develop Lot 70 for affordable housing based on a residential density of R30/40. This
proposal was intended to ensure that the financial analysis could be undertaken by the developers
to make sure that the development of the site was financially viable. The community opposition to
this proposal has been evident through both the submissions and the petition. Whilst there has
never been a formal proposal before Council for consideration, the community has opposed the
development of social housing and an increase in density in this area.
The major areas of concern based on an assessment of the submissions was in relation to traffic
(safety, increase, parking and congestion), opposition to social housing (homes west, Alliance and
Stellar, etc.), opposition to an increase in density followed by opposition to affordable housing and
the overall perceived impact on existing property prices.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 40
A proposal to proceed with the disposal of Lot 70 was put to the Council meeting of 28 October
2014 after which members of the public were invited to make submissions in writing in relation to
the proposed sale. The City hand delivered the attached letter to residents in the area and also
advertised the intent in the Bunbury Mail, City Focus column for the duration of the submission
period. A copy of the letter and distribution map to residents is attached at Appendix CEO-1.
In addition to the submission period, a public meeting was arranged by Alliance Housing and the
Stellar Group which was held on site on Monday 1 December at 5.30pm. Submissions closed on 3
December 2014 and at the closure, 194 were received. A summary of each of the submissions is
attached at Appendix CEO-2 along with copies of all the submissions. A number of the submissions
were anonymous and a number of others specifically requested that their personal details be
removed prior to publication.
As mentioned in the agenda item considered on 28 October, If Council agrees to dispose of Lot 70,
there are a number of matters that will be undertaken. The City of Bunbury will continue to
coordinate the flora and fauna surveys for Lot 70 as part of other works in the area, but it will
ultimately be the purchaser/developer’s responsibility to prepare, submit and manage any required
state and federal environmental referrals. In relation to the Scheme Amendment, any rezoning
application would be required to commence immediately to enable the future development of the
site.
Council Policy Compliance
Not applicable.
Legislative Compliance
Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 (“the Act”) deals this with the matter of disposing of
property.
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 41
The Amended College Grove Joint Venture Agreement (attached as CEO-4) deals with the issue of
development of lands within College Grove.
Delegated Authority
At the Council Meeting held 28 October 2014 Council resolved to delegate authority to the Chief
Executive Officer to:
1. Formally commence the process for the disposal of Lot 70 Winthrop Avenue in accordance
with legislative requirement and the Joint Venture.
2. Enter into an Offer and Acceptance in accordance with the following conditions:
- An open due diligence clause of 12 calendar months to enable time to assess the
Flora/Fauna study, Contamination report, Scheme Amendment results, final ruling
on any road works from MRWA and Subdivision approval.
- A negotiated settlement period
- Settlement of the property into the purchasers name (or another entity to be
established) within 21 days of the due diligence clause being waived, with full
payment being delayed until completion of the first stage of the development.
- An agreement by the City of Bunbury to fast track the studies, and the Scheme
Amendment wherever possible
- The purchaser (or another entity to be established) to contribute towards the
expansion of the Flora/Fauna study to take in Lot 70.
- The purchaser (or another entity to be established) to engage a suitable engineer
to prepare the necessary elements of the Scheme Amendment and make
application for such.
- The purchaser (or another entity to be established) to commence other aspects of
the due diligence requirements.
As the CEO does not have the above delegated authority to finalise this matter, there is a need for
the final decision to come back before Council.
Officer Comments
The intent of the current College Grove Joint Venture is to ensure that the City and the Joint
Venture Partner (Department of Lands) are in a position to repay the funds advanced for the
construction of the Somerville Drive extension and to finalise development of the available land
within College Grove area.
Over the years there have been various informal proposals considered in relation to Lot 70
however none of these have progressed to a formal proposal. Council was approached in relation
to Lot 70 by a developer looking to progress a development of affordable housing in a partnership
arrangement. This is consistent with the intent of the objectives of the Amended Joint Venture
Agreement and would provide an opportunity for Council to secure funds and commence the
repayment of the Somerville Drive extension project.
Discussions have been underway with the developer to look at requirements for the site before any
development can occur such as contamination reports, flora and fauna surveys and community
engagement. To that end Council staff have been working on all of these aspects of the disposal,
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 42
not just for Lot 70, but for all land involved in the Joint Venture and this will form the basis of a
separate report.
Discussions with the purchaser have resulted in the group advising they would like to investigate
with the City of Bunbury proceeding with the proposal, in the following fashion;
1. Sign a conditional offer and acceptance, conditional upon;
i. An open due diligence clause of 12 calendar months. This would enable time to
assess the Flora/Fauna study, Contamination report, Scheme Amendment results,
final ruling on any road works from MRWA and Subdivision approval.
ii. An agreement by the City of Bunbury to fast track the studies, and the Scheme
Amendment wherever possible
iii. Settlement of the property into the purchasers name (or another entity to be
established) within 21 days of the due diligence clause being waived, with full
payment being delayed until completion of the first stage of the development (to
be defined).
2. The purchaser will then contribute towards the expansion of the Flora/Fauna study to take
in Lot 70 (amount to be discussed).
3. The purchaser will engage TME (or similar) to prepare the necessary elements of the
Scheme Amendment and make application for such.
4. The purchaser will commence other aspects of the due diligence requirements.
Based on the overall community opposition to the increase in density and affordable housing
proposals it is considered appropriate to review the proposal for development. In discussions with
Alliance Housing, the development of the site at R15 may not be feasible based on the
requirements for remediation of the site and the limited scope for development.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
All work associated with the Joint Venture is recoverable from the Joint Venture Reserve and
proceeds of any land sales. Whilst costs are all anticipated to be covered from these sources, there
is unlikely to be any capital return to Council through this process, given the requirements to repay
the advanced funds.
There has been considerable discussion in relation to the development of the site and the potential
for Council to undertake the development in-house and then sell the sites. A preliminary analysis
has been undertaken in relation to the development costs and the following is provided as an
indicative estimate of costs for the development of the balance of land which is approximately
10,000m2.
Assuming development of lots at 600m2 there is potential for around 17 lots. Each of the 17 lots are
estimated to cost between $65,000 and $85,000 to service with power, water, gas,
telecommunications, footpath, landscaping, lighting and road pavement. This equates to
approximately $1,105,000 TO $1,445,000. In addition to the costs for decontamination of between
$400, 000 and $500,000 there are costs for design, all required studies, external agency referrals
and marketing for sales of the lots. These costs are estimated at approximately $10,000 per lot or
$170,000 for the development. Based on these figures and an estimated sale price of between
$150,000 and $200,000 (average $175,000) per lot the overall financial summary for an external
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 43
purchaser is as outlined in the table. Based on a comparison of development costs for a
development based on R30/40 it can be seen how the feasibility of the development is being
considered. It should be noted that these figures are estimates and based on average development
costs and would be subject to final review by external parties.
R15/20 R30/40
Land Value (based on
developer being responsible
for remediation)
$775,000 Land Value (based on
developer being
responsible for
remediation)
$775,000
Development costs for 17
lots @ $85,000 per lot
$1,445,000 Development costs for 30
lots @ $65,000 per lot
$1,950,000
Decontamination costs
(estimate)
$500,000 Decontamination costs
(estimate)
$500,000
Studies, sales and marketing $170,000 Studies, sales and
marketing
$170,000
Income from sales
@$175,000 per lot (average)
$2,975,000 Income from sales
@$125,000 per lot
(average)
$3,750,000
Community Consultation
Members of the public were invited to make submissions in writing in relation to the proposed
disposal. The City hand delivered the attached letter to residents in the area and also advertised
the intent in the Bunbury Mail, City Focus column for the duration of the submission period. A site
meeting was arranged by Alliance Housing and Stellar Living and was attended by a number of
Councillors and the Chief Executive Officer.
In addition to the advertising, a public meeting was held on site on Monday 1 December at 5.30pm
to advise residents of Council’s intent to dispose of Lot 70 Winthrop Avenue.
A further public forum is to be held on 13 January 2015 to allow residents to have a further
opportunity for input prior to Council considering the matter.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
Members of the College Grove Working Group and Joint Venture partners have been consulted in
the development of the report and recommendations.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 44
10.2.3 Release of Confidential Report
Applicant/Proponent: Internal
Author: Greg Golinski, Manager Governance
Executive: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: Nil
Summary
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider releasing for public inspection a confidential
report that was previously presented to Council.
Executive Recommendation
That Council, pursuant to section 5.95(7) of the Local Government Act 1995, resolves that report
item 15.1.1 from the Ordinary Council Meeting held 30 September 2014 entitled Shanghai
Hippo/Vue Group Production Studio and Training School Proposal and the associated attachment is
no longer considered to be confidential, and that a copy of the report and associated attachment
be made available for public inspection.
Background
At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 30 September 2014, a confidential report (the report) was
provided to Council for consideration at item 15.1.1. The report was titled Shanghai Hippo/Vue
Group Production Studio and Training School Proposal, which also comprised an attachment, being
a proposal from the Vue Group.
The report was originally marked as confidential under the provisions of section 5.23(2)(c) of the
Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), as it contained information relating to “a contract entered
into, or which may be entered into, by the local government, which relates to a matter to be
discussed at the meeting”.
The City received a Freedom of Information (FOI) application in October 2014, which requested
access to a copy of the report.
Council Policy Compliance
There are no Council Policies applicable to this matter.
Legislative Compliance
Section 5.95(7) of the Act makes provision for the Council to agree (by resolution) to make a report
that has been previously prescribed as confidential available for public inspection.
Officer Comments
Section 5.95(7) of the Act makes provision for the Council to agree (by resolution) to make a report
that has been previously prescribed as confidential available for public inspection. Additionally,
clause 6.15(1)(c) of the City’s Standing Orders Local Law (Standing Orders) states that information
withheld by the CEO from the public under regulation 14(2) is to be kept confidential until the
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 45
Council resolves otherwise (note regulation 14(2) covers confidential items provided to Council).
The Act and Standing Orders are consistent in their application in relation to this matter.
In terms of the requested document, Officers consider that as the Memorandum of Understanding
between the City, WA Government, and Shanghai Hippo/Vue Group has now been executed
pursuant to Council Decision 380/13, the content of report item 15.1.1 from the Ordinary Council
Meeting held 30 September 2014 entitled Shanghai Hippo/Vue Group Production Studio and
Training School Proposal, is no longer confidential, and that consideration should be given to its
release as part of the related FOI application.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
Nil
Councillor/Officer Consultation
This item is presented to Council for consideration.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 46
10.2.4 Major Projects Update Report for the period 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2014
Applicant/Proponent: Internal
Author: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer
Executive: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: Appendix CEO-5: Major Projects Report 1 July to 31 December 2014
Summary
As an outcome of the Council Decision to disband the Major Projects Committee, the report
attached at Appendix CEO-5 provides an overview of Councils endorsed major projects for the
2014/15 financial year, being the period 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2014.
As a result of Elected Member requests, the report now contains additional minor expenditure
projects which when added together, act as major commitments (including various Withers
projects).
Executive Recommendation
That Council receives and notes the circulated Major Projects update report for the period ending
31 December 2014.
Background
The Major Projects report is a positive tool to help effectively manage and report on current year
Major Projects being undertaken by the City of Bunbury, and will be submitted to Council on a six
weekly interval and to allow time for works to be actioned.
It should be noted that in the list of projects identified in this report that not every project will have
an update due to project delivery and consultation at different stages.
Council Policy Compliance
Not Applicable.
Legislative Compliance
Not Applicable
Officer Comments
This report will be circulated to Council for noting and receiving on a 6 weekly basis. It should be
noted that if any Elected Member wishes to receive an update on any major project outside of this
timeframe, this option is still available.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
Not Applicable.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 47
Community Consultation
There is no requirement for community consultation.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
Not Applicable.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 48
10.2.5 Development Assessment Panels – Local Government Nominations
Applicant/Proponent: Internal Report
Author: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer
Executive: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: Nil
Summary
Under regulation 26 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels)
Regulations 2011, the City of Bunbury is requested by the Director General, Development
Assessment Panels, to nominate four (4) elected members of the Council, comprising two (2) local
government members and two (2) alternate local government members to sit on the local
Development Assessment Panel (DAP) as and when required.
Nominations are required to be put forward by no later than 27 February 2015, using the
prescribed DAP Nomination Form.
It should be noted that nominations for the four (4) local governments DAP nominees must be
supported by a curriculum vitae in addition to the following mandatory information of: name;
address; email; mobile and land line telephone numbers; date of birth; employer(s); position(s).
Executive Recommendation
That Council nominates the following four (4) Councillors as its nominees for local government
members on the South West Joint Development Assessment Panel as determined accordingly:
(a) __________ (member);
(b) __________ (member);
(c) __________ (alternate member); and
(d) __________ (alternate member).
Background
On 1 July 2011, fifteen DAPs came into operation in order to determine development applications
that meet set type and value thresholds (e.g. is of a class prescribed under section 171A(2)(a) of the
Planning and Development Act 2005 and has an estimated cost of $3 million or more but less than
$7 million for optional DAP applications, or $7 million and greater for mandatory DAP applications).
Under the Planning and Development Act 2005, development applications of a prescribed class or
kind must be determined by a DAP as if the DAP were the responsible authority under the relevant
planning instrument, such as the local planning scheme or region planning scheme. Under the Act
and associated DAP regulations, applications that meet the prescribed type and value thresholds
cannot be determined by a local government or the Western Australian Planning Commission
(WAPC).
There are two different types of DAPs:
1. Local Development Assessment Panels (LDAPs), which serves only one local government
within its boundary area, as it is deemed to be a high-growth local government with
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 49
enough development to support its own DAP (i.e. the City of Perth is currently the only
LDAP); and
2. Joint Development Assessment Panels (JDAPs), which service two or more local
governments, of which there are 14 JDAPs in Western Australia.
The South West JDAP covers the following local government areas of Augusta-Margaret River,
Boyup Brook, Bridgetown-Greenbushes, Bunbury, Busselton, Capel, Collie, Dardanup, Donnybrook-
Balingup, Harvey, Manjimup and Nannup.
Each DAP is comprised of five members: three (3) specialist members, one of which is the presiding
member, and two (2) local government members. The role of DAP members is to determine
development applications through consistent, accountable, and professional decision-making.
An expression of interest for DAP specialist members was advertised in the West Australian on 6
and 10 December 2014 and in regional newspapers in the week commencing 8 December 2014.
Nominations for specialist members closes on Friday 23 January 2015 and nominations for local
government members will close on Friday 27 February 2015.
Following receipt of all local government nominations, the Minister for Planning will consider and
appoint all nominees for up to a two (2) year term, expiring on 26 April 2017. All appointed local
members will be placed on the local government member register and advised of DAP training
dates and times. It is a mandatory requirement, pursuant to the DAP regulations, that all DAP
members attend training before they can sit on a DAP and determine applications. Local
government representatives who have previously been appointed to a DAP and have received
training are not required to attend further training.
Local representation is vital to DAPS. If no nominations are received by 13 March 2015, regulation
26 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011, enables
the Director General to include on the local government register a person who is an eligible voter of
the local government district and who has relevant knowledge or experience that will enable that
person to represent the interest of the local community.
Council Policy Compliance
Not applicable.
Legislative Compliance
The nomination of local government members to the South West JDAP is in accordance with the
Planning and Development Act 2005 and associated Planning and Development (Development
Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011.
Officer Comments
Previously, the City of Bunbury’s local government members were:
(a) Former Mayor David Smith (Member);
(b) Cr Murray Cook (Member);
(c) Cr Neville McNeil (Alternate Member); and
(d) Cr Michelle Steck (Alternate Member).
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 50
Local government elections may result in a change to local DAP membership if current councillors,
who are DAP members, are not re-elected. In this instance, the alternate local DAP members will
take the place of the former local DAP members. If both local and alternative local members are
not re-elected, the local government will need to re-nominate for the Minister’s consideration of
appointment.
The Director General of DAPs has advised the City of Bunbury in correspondence received on 23
December 2014, that appointments of all local government DAP members expire on 26 April 2015.
Members whose term has expired will be eligible for re-consideration at this time.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
There are no direct financial implications however, it should be noted that local DAP members are
entitled to be paid for their attendance at DAP training and at DAP meetings, unless they fall within
a class of persons excluded from payment.
Members who are not entitled to payment of sitting, training and State Administrative Tribunal
attendance fees include Federal, State and local government employees, active or retired judicial
officers and employees of public institutions. These DAP members are not entitled to be paid
without the Minister’s consent, and such consent can only be given with the prior approval of
Cabinet.
Community Consultation
Not applicable.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
Not applicable.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 51
10.2.6 Motions Passed at the Annual Meeting of Electors 2014
Applicant/Proponent: Internal
Author: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer
Executive: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: Appendix CEO-6: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of Electors 4.12.2014
Summary
On 4 December 2014, the City’s Annual Meeting of Electors was held pursuant to section 5.27 of
the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act). A copy of the minutes from that meeting are attached at
Appendix CEO-6.
Three (3) motions were carried that require Council consideration pursuant to the provisions of
section 5.33 of the Act, as follows:
1. That Council do more to counter the effect on the CBD, Bunbury Forum, Parks Centre and
Plaza of the Regional Centres Policy adopted in the Greater Bunbury Regional Plan.
2. That Council do more to advance the cause for amalgamations in Bunbury.
3. That Council consider the construction of an attractive bridge over “The Plug” – the area
between the Leschenault Inlet and Koombana Bay.
Executive Recommendation
That Council:
1. Acknowledge the three (3) motions passed at the Annual Meeting of Electors held on 4
December 2014;
2. Consider the matter of the Activity Centres Policy as part of the ongoing development of
Town Planning Scheme 8;
3. Continue to work with the surrounding local governments to progress regional projects and
initiatives; and
4. Refer the matter of the construction of a bridge over the Plug to the Landscape sub-
committee working with the Marine Facilities Alliance for incorporation into the public
consultation process to be undertaken in early 2015.
Background
Section 5.33 of the Act requires that all decisions made at an electors’ meeting be considered at the
next ordinary meeting of the Council. This report fulfils Council’s obligation in this regard.
Council Policy Compliance
Nil
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 52
Legislative Compliance
Subdivision 4 of Division 2 of Part 5 of the Act deals with processes and procedures for electors’
meetings.
Officer Comments
Comments are provided individually for each of the 3 motions passed.
Motion: That Council do more to counter the effect on the CBD, Bunbury Forum, Parks
Centre and Plaza of the Regional Centres Policy adopted in the Greater Bunbury
Regional Plan.
Comment: The motion as moved and carried referred to the Regional Centres Policy, however
based on the intent of the motion it is considered that the mover intended the
matter to be the focus of the Activity Centres Policy. The Council has been working
on the development of Town Planning Scheme 8 for some time and through the
changes contained within the working draft it is considered that this matter is going
to be appropriately addressed. The Activity Centres Policy in isolation is not the
major impacting aspect on commercial and retail performance within the City of
Bunbury. There are several contributing factors including costs of in-fill
development, changes in retail trends, deregulation of trading hours and other
matters such as transport, parking and public perceptions.
Motion: That Council do more to advance the cause for amalgamations in Bunbury.
Comment: Council’s position in relation to local government reform and amalgamations dates
back to 29 September 2009, where in its submission to the Minister for Local
Government, Council agreed to support an amalgamation of local governments in
the Greater Bunbury region.
Council subsequently also agreed to enter into a regional transition group (RTG)
with the Shires of Harvey, Capel and Dardanup with a view to formal amalgamation
at its meeting held on 23 March 2010 (refer decision 43/10).
With local government reform and amalgamations currently being implemented in
the Perth metropolitan region, there has been no mandate from the WA
Government for regional areas to entertain similar arrangements. At the officer
level, there has continued to be a focus on shared services, a regional approach to
projects, and looking for opportunities for savings through any other opportunities
as they arise. Recent examples include a regional approach to Library Management
Systems and Waste Management.
In this instance, it is recommended that the Mayor write to the Minister for Local
Government seeking clarification as to whether local government reform and/or
amalgamations are being considered in regional WA, and in particular the Greater
Bunbury region.
Motion: That Council consider the construction of an attractive bridge over “The Plug” – the
area between the Leschenault Inlet and Koombana Bay.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 53
Comment: The Council is currently working with government agencies in relation to the
planning for the Marine Facilities Alliance Project, which includes the landscaping
of the areas from the Dolphin Discovery Centre through to the Outer Harbour. Part
of this project includes incorporating public access to these areas including access
across “the Plug”. The community will have an opportunity to have input to the
landscaping plan as this progresses, which is considered the most appropriate way
to deal with this request at this point in time.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
Nil
Community Consultation
This report is based on motions carried at the 2014 annual meeting of electors.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
Relevant officers have been consulted during the preparation of this report, which is now
presented to Council for consideration.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 54
10.2.7 Schedule of Accounts Paid for the Period 1 November 2014 to 30 November 2014
Applicant/Proponent: Internal Report Author: David Ransom, Manager Finance Executive: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer Attachments: Appendix CEO -7: Schedule of Accounts Paid
The City of Bunbury "Schedule of Accounts Paid" covering the period 1 November 2014 to 30
November 2014 is attached at Appendix CEO-7. The schedule contains details of the following
transactions:
1. Municipal Account – payments totalling $6,647,109.02
2. Advance Account – payments totalling $4,881,049.72
3. Trust Account – payments totalling $23,134.32
4. Visitor Information Centre Trust Account – payments totalling $16,060.35
5. Bunbury-Harvey Regional Council Municipal Account – payments totalling $308,388.02
6. Bunbury-Harvey Regional Council Advance Account – payments totalling $203,251.63
Executive Recommendation
The Schedule of Accounts Paid for the period 1 November 2014 to 30 November 2014 be received.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 55
10.2.8 Financial Management Report for the Period Ending 30 November 2014
Applicant/Proponent: Internal Report
Author: David Ransom, Manager Finance
Executive: Andrew Brien, CEO
Attachments: Appendix CEO-8: Balance Sheet to November 2014
Appendix CEO-9: Capital Expenditure Summary to November 2014
Appendix CEO-10: Statement of Financial Activity to November 2014
Appendix CEO-11: Statement of Net Current Assets to November 2014
Appendix CEO-12: Operating Projects Expenditure Summary to
November 2014
Appendix CEO-13: Statement of Comprehensive Income to November
2014
Summary
The following comments are provided on the key elements of Council’s financial performance.
1. Statement of Comprehensive Income (attached at CEO-13)
Actual Financial Performance to 30 November 2014
- Actual income of $43.69M is $221K greater than the year-to-date budgeted income
of $43.47M.
- Actual expenditure of $16.89M is $1.57M less than the year-to-date budgeted
expenditure of $18.46M (refer explanation on next page).
- Actual operating surplus of $26.80M is $1.79M greater than the year-to-date
budgeted operating surplus of $25.01M.
2. Balance Sheet (attached at CEO-8)
Council’s year-to-date and forecast balances are as follows:
Year-to-date Forecast
- Current Assets of $43.07M includes:
- Cash and Investments $30.21M $14.16M
- Rates $11.76M $0.22M
- Other Current Assets $ 1.10M $2.04M
- Current Liabilities of $9.07M includes:
- Trade and Other Payables $4.01M $4.30M
- Annual Leave and LSL Provisions $3.23M $3.70M
- Working Capital
(Current Assets less Current Liabilities) $34.00M $6.41M
- Equity
(Total Assets less Total Liabilities) $452.42M $426.03M
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 56
3. Capital Works (attached at CEO-9)
- Actual capital works of $4.09M is $2.91M less than the year-to-date budgeted
capital works of $7.00M, (refer explanation within report).
4. Operating Project Expenditure (attached at CEO-12)
- Actual operating project expenditure of $1.08M is $702K less than the year-to-date
budgeted operating project expenditure of $1.78M, (refer explanation within
report).
Executive Recommendation
The Financial Management Report for the period ending 30 November 2014 be received.
Background
A financial management report is provided to Councillors on a monthly basis which includes the
following summaries:
- Statement of Comprehensive Income (attached at CEO-13)
- Statement of Financial Activity (attached at CEO-10)
- Statement of Net Current Assets (attached at CEO-11)
- Balance Sheet (attached at CEO-8)
- Capital Works Expenditure Summary (attached at CEO-9)
- Operating Projects Summary (attached at CEO-12)
These summaries include end-of-year forecasts based on a monthly review of year-to-date income
and expenditure for all accounts.
Council Policy Compliance
Not applicable.
Legislative Compliance
In accordance with the provisions of Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation
34 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, a Local Government is
to prepare each month a Statement of Financial Activity (attached at CEO-10) reporting on the
revenue and expenditure as set out in the annual budget under Regulations 22 (1) (d) for this
month.
Officer Comments
The Operating Income, Operating Expenditure and Capital Expenditure graphs provide an overview
on how actual income/expenditure is tracking to budget and the previous financial year. Comments
are provided on each graph regarding the current financial position.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 57
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 58
The following is an explanation of significant Operating and Capital variances identified in the
Statement of Comprehensive Income and Statement of Financial Activity:
Statement of Comprehensive Income
YTD Actual to
Budget Variance
Operating Income
Rates
Rate Interim Income – Due to an error with a Landgate GRV valuation
this resulted in a rates refund of $50K. No change anticipated to the
end of year forecast.
($36,378)
(50%)
Contributions Reimbursements and Donations
Contribution Income – Favourable variance of $42,395 due to higher
than expected sponsorship income received ($8K) for the Sister Cities
conference which is offset by operating grants and donations income
not received. Insurance rebate ($31K) received that was not
budgeted.
Reimbursements Income – Favourable variance of $52,973, mainly
due to $49K of workers compensation reimbursements not
budgeted, but is offset by payments made to employees.
$90,955
27%
Fees and Charges
Fine and Penalty Fee Income – Favourable variance of $37,339 due to
higher than anticipated parking fines received year-to-date. Any
additional income is transferred into reserves. This will be monitored
on a monthly basis.
$133,607
2%
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 59
Fees and Charges (continued)
Miscellaneous Fee and Charge Income – Favourable variance of
$67,046 due to higher than anticipated dog registrations received
($58K), additional art hire fees received ($7K) and higher than
anticipated wildlife park café sales ($5K).
Operating Expenditure
Employee Costs
Salary Expenses - Actual Employee Costs are $385,305 above budget-
to-date. This is due to payments of employee annual leave, long
service leave and other entitlements. Annual leave and long service
leave entitlements will not affect the end of year surplus as this
expenditure has a matching provision in the balance sheet. This will
even out over the financial year and does not affect the end of year
forecast for employee costs.
Other Employee Related Expense – Actual Employee Related
expenses are currently $233,663 under budget due to the final
workers compensation insurance invoice not yet received.
($151,946)
(2%)
Materials and Contracts
Materials Expense – Favourable variance of $527,715. This is
monitored on a monthly basis.
Contract Employment Expense – Currently over year-to-date budget
by $16,667. This will be monitored on a monthly basis.
Contractors Expense – Favourable variance of $963,253 due to timing
of operating projects. This will be monitored on a monthly basis.
Software Licence or Maintenance Expenses – Favourable variance of
$138,662 due to timing of invoices. Account to be monitored on a
monthly basis.
$1,641,895
26%
Other Expenditure
Miscellaneous Expense – Currently under year-to-date budget due to
the employee training and conferences that have not yet occurred.
$20,485
11%
Statement of Financial Activity
YTD Actual to
Budget Variance
Operating Revenues
See explanation above included in the Statement of Comprehensive
Income variances.
$260,179
2.4%
Operating Expenses
See explanation above included in the Statement of Comprehensive
Income variances.
$1,567,823
8.5%
Capital Expenses
Acquisition of Assets – Variance due to delay in progress of various
projects. Note that there is committed expenditure of $3.17M. Refer
to Capital Expenditure report for project details.
$2,909,910
42%
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 60
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
This Financial Management Report on the financial performance of the City is provided for
Councillors information and does not have any financial or budget implications.
Community Consultation
There is no requirement for community consultation on this report.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
Council’s Executive Leadership Team, Department Managers and Finance staff monitor the City’s
monthly revenue and expenditure and (as required) refer any variances requiring remedial action
to Council.
Approved budget amendments are recorded in the financial statements to reflect Council’s current
budget and financial position at all times.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 61
10.3 Director Corporate and Community Services
10.3.1 National Sister Cities Australia Conference 2014
Applicant/Proponent: Internal Report
Author: Stephanie Addison-Brown, Director Corporate and Community Services
Executive: Stephanie Addison-Brown, Director Corporate and Community Services
Attachments: Appendix DCCS-1: 2014 National Sister Cities Conference Registration
Brochure
Appendix DCCS-2: National Sister Cities Conference Registrations
Appendix DCCS-3: National Sister Cities Conference Survey Results
Appendix DCCS-4: National Sister Cities Conference Budget
Summary
This report sets out the activities and outcomes of the national Sister Cities Australia annual
conference hosted by the City of Bunbury in November 2014.
Executive Recommendation
That Council note the outcomes of the National Sister Cities Australia Conference and the financial
summary.
Background
In 2012, at the suggestion of the Bunbury-Setagaya Sister City Committee, a delegation of four
including the Chief Executive Officer, Bunbury-Setagaya Sister City Officer and two Bunbury-
Setagaya Sister City Committee members attended the national Sister Cities Australia conference in
Devonport to investigate the viability of Bunbury hosting the conference in 2015/16.
Council Decision 255/12 stated:
“Council endorse the development of a feasibility study to host either the 2015 or 2016 National
Sister Cities Conference, including allocating an additional $9,340 to send up to four (4) participants
to attend the National Sister Cities Conference in Devonport Tasmania.”
In February 2013, Council endorsed a proposal for Bunbury to host the 2014 annual conference.
Council Decision 39/13 stated:
“A. That, the City of Bunbury formally submits a nomination to Sister Cites Australia to host the
Sister Cities Australia 2014 Annual Conference.
B. That Council notes that as per the budget submitted the conference is expected to be held
at no net cost to Council.“
Council later resolved to send a delegation of five people to the 2013 conference in Broken Hill to
present Bunbury’s proposal to the conference, network and encourage delegates to attend the
conference in Bunbury the following year and to consult with delegates and the National
Committee of Sister Cities Australia about the types of themes they would like to see in preparation
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 62
for the 2014 conference in Bunbury. An additional two members of the Committee also chose to
attend at their own expense.
Council Decision 290/13 stated:
“That Council endorse the attendance of the following members from the Bunbury-Setagaya Sister
Cities Committee at the Sister Cities Australia 2013 National Conference in Broken Hill as delegates
representing the City of Bunbury:
1. Valda Smith, Community Committee Member
2. Jenni Brown, Executive Officer Bunbury-Setagaya Sister Cities Committee
3. Arron Craig, Community Committee Youth Member
4. Stephanie Addison-Brown, Director Corporate and Community Services
5. Dee Smith, Team Leader Events, Tourism and Promotions”
Council Policy Compliance
Nil
Legislative Compliance
Nil
Officer Comments
The City hosted the conference at the Bunbury Regional Entertainment Centre from 16 to 19
November 2015 with a range of other Bunbury facilities and tourism attractions being showcased
as part of the conference. The welcome reception was held in the Chapel Gallery at the Bunbury
Regional Art Galleries and a breakfast held at the Dolphin Discovery Centre on one of the mornings.
The full program is attached at Appendix DCCS-1. A youth conference was run in parallel and in
conjunction with aspects of the adult conference including youth delegates from Korea.
The Tourism Team prepared pre and post conference touring options and delegates were
encouraged to book accommodation through the Bunbury Visitor Centre.
The work of the Bunbury-Setagaya Sister City Committee was invaluable prior to and during the
conference. Committee members served as ambassadors for Bunbury and provided support to the
visiting delegates, including the official Setagaya delegation and the Japan Local Government
representatives.
The calibre of speakers was high with a range of presentations reflecting international, national,
state and local perspectives on sister cities and the economic and social/cultural opportunities
presented through friendly international relations. Speakers included Tony Wheeler (founder of
Lonely Planet), Dr Keith Suter (foreign affairs expert and foreign correspondent for Channel 7),
Khoa Do (Young Australian of the Year 2005, film director and brother of Anh Do) and Mary Kane,
global President and CEO of Sister Cities International. In addition, the CEO of Tourism WA was
joined by representatives from local tertiary institutions and the South West Development
Commission to form a panel to discuss opportunities and benefits of sister cities.
The conference was promoted through a number of means. Direct emails and a weekly ‘program
highlights’ e-bulletin were sent to all national Sister Cities Australia members and other local
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 63
Councils which are not members but are known to have sister city relationships. Social media was
used by both the City of Bunbury as well as Sister Cities Australia to promote the conference and
opportunities to register to hear individual speakers. Promotional materials were sent out to
identified target audiences including a ‘save the date’ flyer, the program itself and registration
packs. Some local newspaper adverts were placed to attract people in the south west to attend
individual speaker sessions. The conference was also promoted via radio in the lead up to the
conference. Regular conversations were held with the Bunbury Chamber of Commerce and
Industries and the South West Development Commission.
The number of registrations overall was slightly less than originally hoped for, although it was
understood that it was always going to be harder to attract delegates to regional Western Australia
when in the past most had come from the eastern states. In addition to this, it was noted that
budgets across all Councils have become tighter and the fact two states were holding elections just
prior to the conference would have meant a range of Elected Members who might have been part
of the target audience would not have registered. That being said, the conference managed to
attract delegates from Western Australia, the eastern states and internationally. A list of attendees
is attached at Appendix DCCS-2.
The delegates in attendance felt that despite the numbers being a little lower than expected, the
conference was in fact one of the best yet. Sister Cities Australia have responded thanking the City
for organising the conference and achieving such a high standard of content.
Some excellent connections were made with businesses, between interstate cities and an early
connection was established between the Vietnamese Consul General and Business Manager from
the South West Institute of Technology. New introductions and a the renewal of established
relationships were also made between the Mayor, Councillors, City of Bunbury officers, MLA John
Castrilli and the Bunbury-Setagaya Sister City Committee with the delegation from Bunbury’s sister
city of Setagaya.
Several delegates decided to extend their stay in Bunbury following the conference with a direct
benefit to the local businesses.
At the Gala Dinner and Awards Night, Bunbury was awarded the winner of the Community
Involvement Category for its biennial photography competition, ‘What’s Your ING Thing’, and
photographic exchange with Setagaya. A ‘Highly Commended’ award was also received for the
Bunbury-Setagaya Sister City Committee’s overall program.
Following the conference, an electronic survey was sent to all delegates for feedback.
Overwhelmingly, the responses offered praise for the conference including the overall program,
registration, venue and overall calibre of speakers. Two from the 23 responses reported a low level
of satisfaction.
Some examples of the comments received include:
“Bunbury should be very proud of the conference that was delivered. It is a great shame
that the numbers did not reach the anticipated level.”
“Yes, very good value for money”
“A great conference that covered great topics most of which were very relevant”
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 64
“High praise for the Bunbury organisers. Dee especially was outstanding in her
professionalism in looking after us all. But, thanks to the whole team”
“Of the Sister City Conferences I have attended this one was by far the best for overall
content and quality of the speakers - very well done.”
The survey responses from delegates are attached at Appendix DCCS-3.
Feedback received from this conference will be provided to next year’s host City, Blacktown, for
them to use when preparing their program for 2015.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
Summary of costs:
Income: $73,944
Expenditure: $73,471
The final budget for the conference is attached at Appendix DCCS-4.
Staff hours have not been included in the budget breakdown but are estimated to total
approximately 700 hours and are made up from a range of different staff participating in the
planning and coordination of the conference.
The Conference was coordinated using existing resources and no additional staff were employed.
Community Consultation
When preparing the program for the conference, previous delegate feedback from previous Sister
Cities Australia conferences was examined and discussed with the National Committee of Sister
Cities Australia. The President and Vice President of Sister Cities Australia visited Bunbury in March
to look at the proposed locations for the overall conference program (including BREC,
accommodation, breakfast and dinner locations etc.).
Councillor/Officer Consultation
During the planning phase and lead up to the conference, meetings were held involving the:
Director Corporate and Community Services; Manager Community, Arts and Culture; Team Leader
Events; Team Leader Arts and Culture; Senior Visitor Centre Officer; and the Corporate Marketing
Officer. Cr McCleary was also involved in the final preparation and throughout the conference
itself.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 65
10.3.2 Creative City Strategy 2015-2020
Applicant/Proponent: Internal Report
Author: Stephanie Addison-Brown, Director Corporate and Community Services
Julian Bowron, Manager Community, Arts and Culture
Executive: Stephanie Addison-Brown, Director Corporate and Community Services
Attachments: Appendix DCCS-5: Creative City Strategy
Appendix DCCS-6: Creative City Strategy Consultation Feedback
Summary
Summary
In February 2014, Council resolved to develop a Creative City Strategy (Council Decision 35/14).
During 2014, research and consultation took place in regard to the development of this strategy.
This report seeks Council’s endorsement of the final Creative City Strategy (attached at appendix
DCCS-5).
Executive Recommendation
1. That Council endorse the Creative City Strategy 2015-2020 and use it as a guide for future
arts and cultural initiatives for Bunbury.
2. That a review of implementation progress and outcomes in accordance with the Strategy
be undertaken and reported to Council by 30 June 2016.
Background
In February 2014, Council made the following decision:
Council Decision 35/14 states:
PART A
1. Council thanks the Bunbury Regional Art Gallery Working Group for its efforts and notes the
recommendations.
2. Given the desire for more creative projects and vibrancy in our community and the
limitations on the Board’s ability to attract additional funding or initiate any change to the
services it delivers, Council no longer funds the Bunbury Regional Arts Management Board.
3. The Bunbury Regional Arts Management Board’s tenure of management of the Bunbury
Regional Art Gallery end at 30th June 2014 and the Board find alternative accommodation
as of 1st July 2014.
4. The management and operational funding of the Bunbury Regional Art Gallery be provided
by the Council’s financial management systems.
5. The Director and Staff employed at the Bunbury Regional Art Gallery be offered
employment with the Council, to be managed by the CEO, or upon his delegation by the
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 66
Director Community Development, at the same rates and conditions as their current terms
and conditions.
6. The CEO of the Bunbury City Council, in conjunction with Art Gallery of Western Australia,
arrange in-house regional consultation and national research to be conducted of
contemporary governance models of Art Galleries, or related Boards and constitutions, that
enables an independent Board to effectively and proactively oversee the management and
functions of the Bunbury Regional Art Gallery, including management of the City of Bunbury
Art Collection.
7. That the CEO submits recommendations for a suitable model of governance to Council prior
to February 2016.
8. The CEO invite the Director of the Bunbury Regional Art Gallery and the General Manager
Bunbury Regional Entertainment Centre, in consultation with the Department for the Arts
and other relevant stakeholders, to participate and guide in-house regional consultation
and national research on the establishment of a "Creative City Strategy" and submit
recommendations to Council by 30th June 2014.
PART B
1. The City of Bunbury arts collection committee be suspended immediately.
2. The City of Bunbury arts collection committee be thanked for their work over the past years.
PART A (number 8), refers to the development of a Creative City Strategy. In response to this, a
project team comprising Cr McCleary, Cr Giles, the Director BRAG (now also the City’s Manager
Community, Arts and Culture), General Manager BREC, Director Corporate and Community
Development and Team Leader Arts and Culture was established to progress the development of
this strategy. A meeting was also held with the Board of the Stirling Street Arts Centre early on in
the development of the strategy as part of the process.
Research was then undertaken including examination of recent strategies developed by the
Department of Culture and the Arts, South West Development Commission and a range of other
places such as Hobart who presented their Creative City Strategy to the Dynamic Cities conference
in Mandurah in late 2013.
Following this initial research, some draft themes were prepared by the project team. A draft
Creative City Strategy document (for consultation purposes only) and proposed consultation
process were endorsed by Council on 22 July 2014 as per Council Decision 259/14 which stated:
“That Council:
1) Endorse the draft Creative City Strategy for consultation purposes; and
2) Endorse the Creative City Strategy Consultation Process as outlined in this report.”
An arts industry and stakeholder workshop was held in August 2014 where the proposed themes
and content were workshopped with a range of representatives from the arts community in
Bunbury and the region.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 67
Following this, a revised draft Creative City Strategy document was then put out for broader public
consultation in October 2014 and feedback received from this was used to prepare the final
document to ensure the focus was clear, tangible and reflected community aspirations. Both
Councillor Giles and Councillor McCleary were involved with the final proofing of the document.
Concurrently, discussions have also been held between the Manager Community, Arts and Culture,
the Department of Culture and the Arts and representatives from other regional capitals in
Western Australia about the future direction of arts funding across the State.
Council Policy Compliance
Nil
Legislative Compliance
Nil
Officer Comments
The Creative City Strategy will be a key document to guide the themes and focus for arts and
cultural facilities and activities across Bunbury for the next five years. It is intended to state the
City’s position as a facilitator and enabler with the intent of engaging and connecting the
community with creative activities and industries for the benefit of the whole community.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
The Creative City Strategy will provide a guide for the priorities and themes for arts and cultural
activities into the future.
The costs associated with development of the strategy include staff time, printing (a limited print
run is intended as this strategy will be available electronically) and some initial design work
(although the final design was developed in-house by the City Corporate Marketing Officer and the
Manager Community, Arts and Culture).
Community Consultation
The initial team established to progress the Creative City Strategy comprised the General Manager
BREC, the Director BRAG and Councillors Giles and McCleary. The Board of the Stirling Street Arts
Centre was also involved at an early stage and encouraged to participate throughout the process.
An arts industry workshop and survey took place on 16 August 2014 at the BREC which examined
the key themes and proposed content. This was then followed by a broader community
consultation process (survey) carried out in October 2014. The feedback from these sessions and
surveys is attached at Appendix DCCS-6.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
Councillors Giles and McCleary have been involved in the development of the strategy from the
start and also steered the final proofing of the document. Other Elected Members have been
briefed on progress through the Elected Member Weekly Updates and had an opportunity to
provide feedback on the draft document.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 68
10.3.3 Proposed Deed of License to Heather MacFarlane Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Jenny Spencer Trust
Trading as Yours or Mine over a portion of Lot 3 Blair Street, Bunbury
File Ref: L239
Applicant/Proponent: Heather MacFarlane Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Jenny Spencer Trust
Trading as Yours or Mine
Author: Kristen Anderson, Administration Officer Property and Procurement
Executive: Stephanie Addison-Brown, Director Corporate and Community Services
Attachments: Appendix DCCS-7 Proposed Deed of License – Portion Lot 3 Blair Street
Location Plan
Summary
The City of Bunbury (the “City”) has been approached by Heather MacFarlane Pty Ltd as Trustee for
the Jenny Spencer Trust Trading as Yours or Mine (the “Applicant”) to License a portion of Lot 3
Blair Street, Bunbury to enable a grease trap and bin storage compound to be built. This is in order
to facilitate the establishment of a new restaurant the Applicant is opening, located at 26 Victoria
Street (the “Adjoining Property”) and the legislative and health requirements relating to those
items. A location plan is attached at Appendix DCCS-7.
Executive Recommendation
Council agrees to grant a new Deed of License to Heather MacFarlane Pty Ltd as Trustee for the
Jenny Spencer Trust Trading as Yours or Mine over a portion of Lot 3 Blair Street, Bunbury for the
purpose of grease trap and bin storage compound for a period of five (5) years with a further
option of five (5) years, subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the report, and the
following:
1. Applicant to pay all costs associated with the license application including document
preparation and advertising.
2. Advertising in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act
1995.
Background
The Applicant approached the City in anticipation of establishing a restaurant called ‘Yours or
Mine’, at 26 Victoria Street. The establishment of a ‘food business’ identified the need for a grease
trap and bin storage area to ensure legislative and health requirements relating to a ‘food business’
were able to be met.
The Applicant has advised that the venue will be intimate, displaying an ‘industrial vintage’ theme,
with furniture consisting of quality, new and reclaimed items. A high class food and beverage
service will be offered and it is the aim of Jenny Spencer to bring an intimate and mature drinking
and dining venue to Bunbury.
The creation of this new business in the Bunbury CBD will also offer six (6) full time employment
opportunities with additional casual staff required over the busier summer months.
The Applicant has worked closely with the City’s Environmental Health Department and the
Community Law, Safety and Emergency Management Department to ensure legislative
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 69
requirements can be met and that there is little to no impact on parking and access to the Licensed
Premises. As such, there have been several ‘Special Conditions’ included in the Deed of License,
that the Applicant has agreed to, which cater for issues such as access and aesthetics.
Proposed New License Details
Commencement: 6 February 2015
Term: Five (5) years with a further five (5) year option
Expiry Date: 5 February 2020
Rental: $875.00 + GST per annum
Rent Review: CPI annually, Market Rent Review every third year
Outgoings: Responsibility of the Licensee
Insurance: Licensee to maintain Public Risk and General Insurance cover over the
premises with Public Liability to be set at $10 million
Special Conditions: The Redevelopment Clause has been included
Layout of License Premises
i. the layout of the bin store and grease trap must always remain
within the Licensed Premises;
ii. access to the compound should be only through the North East
corner of the Licensed Premises as indicated on the plan so as not to
impact on parked vehicles;
iii. the Licensed Premises is to have a secure permeable fence with a
lockable access gate. The fence is to be 1.8 metres high;
iv. access to the Licensed Premises is permitted from the entrance to
the car parking area off Victoria Street;
v. servicing of the grease trap or emptying of the bins is to be done
prior to 9.00am or by agreement with the Bunbury Regional
Entertainment Centre Management.
Document
preparation:
The Lessee to pay full cost of document preparation and advertising
Legislative Compliance
Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995
Officer Comments
The Applicant has agreed to meet all ‘Special Conditions’ as set out in the Deed of License, and that
all health related legislative requirements are also met to ensure the operation of their business
located at the Adjoining Property can be conducted in a compliant manner.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 70
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
A valuation was carried out by LMW Hegney Property Valuers which valued the rental rate of the
36sqm area at $875.00 per annum excluding GST. The City intends to charge the Applicant the full
valuation amount and the Applicant has agreed.
The rent payable will increase by CPI on an annual basis with a market rent review to be conducted
every three (3) years during the term of the license.
Community Consultation
Consultation has been undertaken with the Management Board for the Bunbury Regional
Entertainment Centre (“BREC”) to ensure there is minimal impact and disruption to the operation
of BREC.
Advertising in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 will
be undertaken.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
The proposed Deed of License was tabled with the City’s Development Coordination Unit (“DCU”)
with no objections having been received, so long as, parking issues and health regulations were
complied with.
The Officer, in conjunction with the Community Law, Safety and Emergency Management
Department and Environmental Health Department, has drafted conditions specifically addressing
the layout of the licensed premises to ensure minimal impact on the surrounding area including the
BREC, and so that the relevant health regulations are complied with.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 71
10.3.4 Dedication of Road Reserve - Bunbury Primary School – Lovegrove Avenue Traffic and Parking
File Ref: Lovegrove Avenue and Reading Street
Applicant/Proponent: Internal Report
Author: Jane Dawson, Senior Property Officer
Executive: Stephanie Addison-Brown, Director Corporate and Community Services
Attachments: Appendix DCCS-8 Dedication of Road Reserve Lovegrove Avenue Traffic
and Parking Plan
Summary
Following extensive consultation with stakeholders, City staff have prepared a design to modify
Lovegrove Avenue to accommodate improved traffic management and parking near Bunbury
Primary School as part of the City’s School Frontage Program. The project requires the dedication
of a strip of land from Reserve to Road Reserve. A location plan is attached at Appendix DCCS-8.
Executive Recommendation
That Council agrees to the dedication of part of Reserve 25941 to Road Reserve in accordance with
section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997.
Background
Traffic management and parking near the Bunbury Primary School is problematic during morning
and afternoon peak times, particularly on Lovegrove Avenue.
Following an extensive consultation and facilitation process, the City prepared a street frontage
design concept that increases parking by 15 bays, retains five existing street trees, introduces a
raised platform to create a traffic slow point and pedestrian refuge area, widens the western ROW
to 5.5m, replaces the northern path with a new 2.0m path and creates a safer on road
environment. The project also includes the upgrade of the existing drainage line.
The approved design concept was adopted by Council at its 27 May 2014 meeting. Council Decision
181/14 applies.
The approved design concept relies on a widening of the Lovegrove Road Reserve to accommodate
the new infrastructure. The widening is derived from the existing sports oval, which is owned by
the Department of Education, and must be administered through the Land Administration Act
1997.
In accordance with section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (Dedication of land as road):-
If in the district of a local government;
(i) land is reserved or acquired for use by the public, or is used by the public, as a road under
the care, control and management of the local government;
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 72
The local government is to make a request in accordance with the regulations;
(i) prepare and deliver the request to the Minister; and
(ii) provide the Minister with sufficient information in a plan or survey, sketch plan or
document to describe the dimensions of the proposed road.
A request was submitted to the Department of Lands on the 23 September 2014 applying for the
dedication of a part of Reserve 25941 to Road Reserve for additional parking at the Bunbury
Primary School, included with this request was the formal response from the Department of
Education giving consent for the dedication and the survey.
Council Policy Compliance
Not Applicable.
Legislative Compliance
Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997
Officer Comments
The formalisation of the dedication will ensure the road, drainage and path infrastructure will be
located on road reserve dedicated to the City of Bunbury. This will give the City legal access to its
infrastructure and remove the need for management or vesting orders.
The dedication will ensure that the Bunbury Primary School has access to its land at the oval and
will remove any common ownership issues that arise from time to time where the ownership of
land is not clear.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
The City has negotiated with the Education Department to have the land dedicated as Road
Reserve. As such there are no costs associated with the procurement of the land.
Community Consultation
A letter to Residents was sent in September 2014 advising of the City’s intent to facilitate a process
to determine a suitable development option to improve traffic movement and parking around
Bunbury Primary School during peak school times. This process culminated in a development
proposal that balances the needs of the school community and retains the aesthetic values of the
streetscape for residents.
The City has been negotiating with the Education Department and received emails of support to
the dedication. These were required to obtain permission to undertake works on the site in the
absence of the completed dedication.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 73
Councillor/Officer Consultation
The proposal was presented to the Council for consideration on the 27 May 2014, the Council
decided (181/14):
“1. That Council adopt Drawing 1-2014-16 (TWO WAY concept) as its preferred development
option for the School Frontage Program at Lovegrove Avenue. (Carried 10/1)
2. That Council note that the construction of 30 parking bays within the School grounds has
not been included in the project unless additional grant funding becomes available. (Carried
8/3)
A. Construction of interim car park of an informal nature be considered as a first step.
B. Work with Bunbury School Board to find funding for permanent upgrade including work
on entry and exit points into the existing staff parking area.
3. City of Bunbury enlarge cul-de-sac to facilitate safe turn around at the top of Reading
Street. Funding for this project to be found from road existing/future road budget and to be
completed as soon as practicable. (Carried 9/2)
4. City of Bunbury review and consider the installation of bollards and footpath extensions to
improve the pedestrian/cyclist crossing points on Stockley Road at the intersections of
Reading Street, Karri Street and the Western Lovegrove. (Carried 10/1)”
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 74
10.4 Director Planning and Development Services Reports
10.4.1 Bunbury War Memorial Conservation Works
File Ref: PR-3390/P09125
Applicant/Proponent: Internal Report
Author: Dorothy Harmer, Planning Officer
Executive: Bob Karaszkewych, Director Planning and Development Services
Attachments: Appendix DPDS-1:
Summary
Council previously endorsed an additional $25,000 in the event that Federal ANZAC Centenary Local
Grants funding was not successful (Council Decision 347/14); however, the City of Bunbury was
subsequently successful in securing this grant funding in December 2014.
A site visit to the Bunbury War Memorial and test patch for paint removal undertaken by the
consultant in November 2014 nevertheless found that further works would be required to
complete the restoration at an additional cost of $20,000 (quotation attached at DPDS-1).
In order for works to commence at the beginning of March, a commitment of additional funds is
needed. This will ensure that all works can be completed prior to the ANZAC Centenary
Commemorations.
It is therefore requested that Council approves the expenditure of $14,000 of the already endorsed
funding for the additional conservation works. As this will ensure that the Bunbury War Memorial
is repaired to a presentable standard for the ANZAC Centenary. The further $6,000 required can
then be sourced from available unspent funds within the heritage operational budget.
Executive Recommendation
That Council approves the commitment and expenditure of an additional $14,000 for inclusion in
the February 2015 Budget Review to complete the conservation of the Bunbury War Memorial (PR-
3991).
Background
The cost of undertaking the original scope of conservation works to the Bunbury War Memorial
was quoted at $51,435, which included:
- the test patch,
- schedule of works required by the State Heritage Office,
- removal of the paint from the cenotaph and statue,
- repair of the soldiers hat and nose, and
- supervising heritage architect.
A range of funding sources has been secured as follows:
- $10,000 Lotterywest,
- $27,003 Federal ANZAC Centenary Local Grants, and
- $15,000 from Council (at project initiation).
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 75
The project to undertake the conservation works (restoration and repairs) to the Bunbury War
Memorial (PR-3391) is in accordance with the ANZAC Park Conservation Plan (2011), which has
been adopted by Council.
The consultant has advised that there is likely to be a range of unforseen works needing to be
undertaken during the conservation of the Bunbury War Memorial, including stone repair and re-
pointing.
The consultant will commence works in the first week of March and advises that this is sufficient
time for all works to be completed prior to the ANZAC Centenary Commemorations.
It is important to note that the additional funding will allow for the most cost efficient outcome by
utilising the trades, machinery, scaffolding and equipment already mobilised. Should the additional
funding not be endorsed at this time, the works will still be required at a later date, however with
the additional costs incurred for remobilising the trade specialists and equipment.
Council Policy Compliance
All works are recommendations of the adopted ANZAC Park Conservation Plan (2011).
Legislative Compliance
The restoration works returning the Bunbury War Memorial to its original condition is considered
“significant works”, which are required to be referred to the State Heritage Office in accordance
with the Heritage Act of Western Australia 1990.
Officer Comments
Council has demonstrated its commitment to the project and has previously endorsed a greater
level of additional funding than is now being requested, which will represent a cost efficient high
quality outcome.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
The cost to complete the project of restoring the Bunbury War Memorial to its original condition is
estimated by the consultant to be an additional $20,000.
Subject to the lesser amount of $14,000 of additional funding being approved by Council, the
remaining $6,000 can be sourced from within the Planning and Development Services operational
budget categories of:
- Manage heritage conservation/promotion of programs, and
- Conduct heritage assessments.
If the funding is not endorsed to undertake the additional works at the same time as the paint
removal and repair of the stone soldier statue, the same works will cost significantly more at a later
date.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 76
Community Consultation
The project has the support of the RSL, Heritage Advisory Group, Regional Heritage Advisor and the
State Heritage Office.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
All directorates of Council have been consulted and involved in this project.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 77
10-4-2 Proposed Structure Plan – Part Lots 120 and 549 South Western Highway, Davenport
File Ref: P14248/PR-2123
Applicant/Proponent: City of Bunbury
Author: Teshome Tadesse, Senior Planning Officer
Thor Farnworth, Manager Sustainability, Planning and Development
Executive: Bob Karaszkewych, Director Planning and Development Services
Attachments: Appendix DPDS-2 Draft Structure Plan
Appendix DPDS-3 Schedule of Submissions
Summary
The draft proposed Structure Plan for Part Lots 120 and 549 South Western Highway, Davenport,
was publicly advertised and is now presented to Council for its consideration to grant final approval
to adopt.
A modified draft proposed Structure Plan was advertised with no objections being received, with
only comments provided by infrastructure service providers and state government agencies on
matters relating to future development proposals on the subject site. Details of the comments
provided by utilities and agencies are attached at Appendix DPDS-3 as a Schedule of Submissions.
The final draft proposed Structure Plan is now at the stage that it can be approved by Council, in
order to serve as a framework to guide future subdivision and development of Part Lots 120 and
549 South Western Highway, Davenport. In particular, it is considered that the draft proposed
Structure Plan will be instrumental in facilitating the development of the future Regional Animal
Pound and Welfare Centre on the subject site.
Executive Recommendation
That Council:
1. In accordance with clause 6.2.5 of the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7,
resolves to adopt the draft proposed Structure Plan – Part Lots 120 and 549 South Western
Highway, Davenport.
2. Notify the Western Australian Planning Commission of Council’s decision to adopt the draft
proposed Structure Plan, and requests that the Commission endorse Structure Plan – Part
Lots 120 and 549 South Western Highway, Davenport.
3. Following the endorsement of the draft proposed Structure Plan by the Western Australian
Planning Commission, resolves to adopt Structure Plan – Part Lots 120 and 549 South
Western Highway, Davenport, in accordance with clause 6.2.5.15 of the City of Bunbury
Town Planning Scheme No. 7.
4. Advise stakeholders of the decision subject to the Western Australian Planning
Commission’s endorsement of the adopted Structure Plan.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 78
Background
Council resolved the following in relation to the draft proposed Structure Plan – Part Lots 120 and
549 South Western Highway, Davenport, at its Ordinary Meeting of 8 July 2014 (Council Decision:
249/14):
“That Council:
1. Release the draft Structure Plan – Part Lots 120 and 549 South Western High Way,
Davenport, for the purpose of public consultation for a period of 21 days in
accordance with clause 6.2.5.2 (a) of Town Planning Scheme No. 7 (TPS7) subject to
the following modifications:
Part 1 Clause 5.1
It is considered more appropriate to apply ‘D’ (discretionary) to all land uses, given
that there are no development requirements provided in the Town Planning Scheme
No. 7 (TPS7) or the Structure Plan. It should be outlined that all development
proposals will be considered having regard to clause 10.2 of TPS7.
Part 1 Clause 6.
The following additional wording should be included:
“Prior to the lodgement of any subdivision or development application to the relevant
decision making authority, a Fire Management Plan is to be completed to the
satisfaction of the Department of Fire and Emergency Services and the local
government. Following the completion of a Fire Management Plan, the
recommended fire management controls are to be reflected on an updated Structure
Plan and implemented to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning
Commission, Department of Fire and Emergency Services and the local government.”
Part 2 Clause 1.2.2
The Structure Plan states that the site is currently vacant; however, it should be
mentioned that the site is currently used by the City of Bunbury for the storage of
green waste.
Part 2 Clause 2.2
Additional wording should be added, given that potential excavation will be required
for septic tanks and or rain water tanks. The potential for ASS disturbance represents
a development constraint and further acid sulphate soil investigation and
management planning should occur if the excavation of 100m³ or more of soil
beneath the natural water table and or drainage works (e.g. dewatering) be
proposed.
Part 2 Clause 2.4
Additional wording should be added in regard to a Fire Management Plan and the
possible requirement of Hazard Reduction Zone and Building Protection Zone buffers
between buildings and bushland, bearing in mind that the existing remnant
vegetation on Lot 549 is not to be cleared and the 100m buffer and or other fire
management controls are to be applied to the proposed development area. Also, the
continuation of the use of the balance of the site for the storage of green waste,
should this be proposed post-development, could further contribute to the fire risk
onsite.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 79
Part 2 Clause 3.2.5
The Structure Plan states that the existing unsealed road in the road reserve to the
north west of the site will be upgraded as part of the proposed development. It
should be noted that, should this or any other activity warrant the clearing of native
vegetation onsite, a clearing permit under the WA Environmental Protection Act 1986
and/or Ministerial approval under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 may be required in view of the recognised
environmental values of native vegetation in the area.
Part 2 Clause 2.6
It should be noted that the site supports approximately 30 individual native trees in a
“parkland cleared” (i.e. completely degraded) setting. Native vegetation in WA is
protected under the WA Environmental Protection Act 1986. The Department of
Environment Regulation previously advised in July 2013 that the clearing of these
trees is likely to require a clearing permit; however, it is noted that the construction
of buildings, roads and footpaths is at times exempt under the Act and so it is
recommended that further advice be sought from the department on this issue, as
the proposal has been further developed since the time of the department’s original
advice.
Also, there is an unsubstantiated report of organochlorin pesticide use on the site
during the 1950’s, which may have resulted in site contamination. The City reported
the suspected contaminated site to the Department of Environment Regulation in
2007, which subsequently classified the site as “Report Not Substantiated” under the
WA Contaminated Sites Act 2003 i.e. insufficient evidence to determine the presence
or otherwise of contaminants.
2. Structure Plan
The Structure Plan should not show indicative buildings as the location might change
due to further investigations and Fire Management Plan requirements.
Notes on the Structure Plan:
(a) The first note should be amended to reflect that land uses are ‘D’
(discretionary).
The following notes should be added to the Structure Plan:
(b) Prior to the lodgement of any subdivision or development application to the
relevant decision making authority, a Fire Management Plan is to be
completed to the satisfaction of the Department of Fire and Emergency
Services and the local government.
(c) Following the completion of a Fire Management Plan, the recommended fire
management controls are to be reflected on an updated Structure Plan and
implemented to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning
Commission, Department of Fire and Emergency Services and the local
government.
(d) No development shall be located outside of the ‘Development Area’.
3. Advise the applicant of its decision.
The City of Bunbury engaged the private consulting firm Harley Dykstra Pty Ltd to prepare a local
structure plan over Part Lots 120 and 549 South Western Highway, Davenport, in order to facilitate
the development of a future Regional Animal Pound and Welfare Centre on the subject site.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 80
A modified version of the draft proposed Structure Plan was publicly advertised in accordance with
the Scheme requirements (a copy of the draft proposed Structure Plan, incorporating both text and
map, is included at attached at Appendix DPDS-2). No major issues have been identified that are
considered to be detrimental to the design or implementation of the draft proposed Structure Plan,
or to the ultimate use of the subject site as a Regional Animal Pound and Welfare Centre.
Council Policy Compliance
Local Planning Policy: Development within 100m from the toe of the Preston River Levee is relevant
in this case, as it is applicable to new developments within 100m of the Preston River Flood Plain.
However, development on the subject site will only be permitted to occur within a designated
“Development Area” as shown on the draft proposed Structure Plan map, which is located
approximately 150m away from the Preston River in compliance with the policy.
Legislative Compliance
Clauses 6.2.3.1, 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 of the Scheme set out the relevant statutory planning requirements
for this proposal. The draft proposed Structure Plan has been prepared in accordance with the
Scheme, and as such, is considered ready for Council’s consideration for adoption prior to referral
to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for its determination on the matter.
Officer Comments
The draft proposed Structure Plan provides a sound regulatory framework for the development of
the future Regional Animal Pound and Welfare Centre on Part Lots 120 and 549 South West
Highway, Davenport, which is located within a “Development Investigation Policy Area” under the
Scheme (an extract of the TPS7 Scheme Map can be found on page 5 the Structure Plan Report
attached at Appendix DPDS-2).
The draft proposed Structure Plan has been assessed for its compliance with statutory planning
requirements, notably in relation to the following:
- Greater Bunbury Region Scheme (GBRS); and
- City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 (TPS7).
Greater Bunbury Region Scheme
The proposed Structure Plan area is included in the “Rural Zone” under the GBRS, with the
surrounding land designated as follows:
- “Regional Open Space Reserve” to the north and east;
- “Public Purpose Reserve – Airport” to the south; and
- “Primary Regional Roads Reserve” over the South Western Highway to the west.
The nominated range of land uses listed in the draft proposed Structure Plan are considered to be
consistent with the intent and objectives of the Region Scheme’s rural zoning. Accordingly, the
ultimate use of the subject site as a Regional Animal Pound and Welfare Centre is therefore judged
to be an appropriate animal oriented land use for this location and rural setting.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 81
The Regional Animal Pound and Welfare Centre requires a relatively large area of land in order to
provide sufficient space for an animal exercising yard and noise and odour buffering to sensitive
land uses such as residential neighbourhoods. A rural environment with adequate separation from
sensitive land uses that is otherwise not suitable for agricultural purposes is considered to be an
ideal location in terms of satisfying these requirements.
City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7
A substantial portion of Part Lots 120 and 549 South Western Highway, Davenport, is included in
the “Rural Zone”, with a small portion of the lots to the north west being included in an “Access
Road Reserve” under TPS7. In addition, the proposed Structure Plan area is encompassed by a
“Development Investigation Policy Area”, as shown on the Scheme Map.
A structure plan is required in a “Development Investigation Policy Area” prior to any subdivision
and/or development occurring on site in accordance with clause 6.2.3.1 of the Scheme, which reads
as follows:
The Local Government requires a Structure Plan for a Development Investigation Policy Area, or for
any particular part or parts of a Development Investigation Policy Area, before recommending
subdivision or approving development of land within the Development Investigation Policy Area.
The proposal is assessed to be consistent with the Scheme requirements, as it provides a
technically sound statutory planning framework for facilitating the development of the land for a
Regional Animal Pound and Welfare Centre and other compatible land uses on the subject site as
justified.
Proposed Structure Plan
Land Use and Development
The draft proposed Structure Plan map shows the following:
- a designated “Development Area” – with no development being permitted outside of this
envelope; and
- available infrastructure services (with overhead power located to the north and north east,
and telecommunications located to the west).
The draft proposed Structure Plan text specifies land use permissibility as follows:
Land use permissibility within the Structure Plan area shall be in accordance with the corresponding
zone under the Scheme, with the following exceptions:
The following use classes (as defined in the Scheme) shall be ‘D’ (discretionary) uses within the
Structure Plan area:
- Animal establishment;
- Caretaker’s dwelling;
- Car park;
- Civic use;
- Community purpose;
- Nursery;
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 82
- Storage;
- Veterinary centre.
The permissible range of land uses listed in the draft proposed Structure Plan are considered to be
generally compatible with the intent and objectives of the “Rural Zone”, albeit with the exception
of some uses such as community purpose and car park as stand-alone uses. However, it is
anticipated that the subject site will primarily be developed for a Regional Animal Pound and
Welfare Centre; and therefore, the car park and community purpose uses would be incidental and
ancillary to the primary use of the site. In addition, the draft proposed Structure Plan sets out the
fundamental standards and requirements for the regulation of development (and managing
associated risks and impacts) applicable to the proposed Structure Plan area.
Aboriginal Heritage
The Department of Aboriginal Affairs (formerly Indigenous Affairs) acknowledges that the potential
impact of development on the registered Aboriginal Site DAA 4873 (Bunbury 23) within the
proposed Structure Plan area is likely to be minimal. Nevertheless, the Department of Aboriginal
Affairs has recommended that the City of Bunbury endeavour to analyse historical use of the site
and to refer any application for planning approval for the development of the subject site on to the
department for its comment. As such, it is acknowledged that any future development of the
subject site will need to be in accordance with both the provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act
1972 and the recommendations of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
Remnant Vegetation
It is appreciated that the proposed Structure Plan area contains remnant vegetation on Part Lot
549 South Western Highway; whereas, the majority of the subject site to be developed has already
been cleared (i.e. Part Lot 120 South Western Highway). Consequently, no development will be
permitted on Part Lot 549 South Western Highway, which is outside of the designated
“Development Area”, as identified on the draft proposed Structure Plan map. The vegetation cover
on Part Lot 459 South Western Highway will serve as a buffer. To ensure protection of the remnant
vegetation in and around the subject site, it is intended that the existing landscape buffer of
established trees within the development site will be retained were practicable.
Bushfire Hazard
The draft proposed Structure Plan also contains the following provisions in relation to the need for
a Fire Management Plan:
2) Prior to the lodgement of any subdivision or development application to the relevant
decision making authority, a Fire Management Plan is to be completed to the satisfaction of
the Department of Fire and Emergency Services and the local government.
3) Following the completion of a Fire Management Plan, the recommended fire management
controls are to be reflected on an updated Structure Plan and implemented to the
satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission, Department of Fire and
Emergency Services and the local government.
It should be noted that in accordance with clause 6.2.8.2 of the Scheme, the provisions of the
adopted Structure Plan shall have effect as if they were the provisions of the Scheme. If an
inconsistency arises between the requirements of the Scheme and the adopted Structure Plan, the
requirements of the Structure Plan will prevail in respect of the proposed Structure Plan area.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 83
Infrastructure Service Provision
Part Lots 120 and 549 South Western Highway, Davenport, are located in a rural area with limited
infrastructure services available to the lots. The existing access road to the subject site is unsealed
and requires regular maintenance. The City of Bunbury has assured Main Roads Western Australia
(MRWA) that the access road will be maintained to a standard that is acceptable to the MRWA, and
hence, it is considered that the existing access road with regular maintenance by the City of
Bunbury will be adequate to service the subject site.
Telecommunications and electricity services are available nearby; and therefore, these lots can be
provided with these utilities within a reasonable timeframe and cost. With regard to other
essential services such as reticulated water and effluent disposal, the draft proposed Structure Plan
provides for onsite solutions to be developed as required.
A reticulated water system is not presently available to service the subject site; however, the
proposed utilisation of rooftop catchments and rainwater tanks on site in order to provide an
adequate potable water supply for future developments is considered to be a feasible alternative.
The expected total water demand will depend on the ultimate type and scale of development on
the subject site. In this case, the subject site is primarily intended to be used as a Regional Animal
Pound and Welfare Centre. As such, it can be expected that a significant proportion of the total
water demand of this type of premises would be substantially used for cleaning purposes; and
therefore, suitable solutions will be provided onsite for water harvesting that are tailored to
efficiently match the specific water demands of the Regional Animal Pound and Welfare Centre
once known in in accordance with its detailed design and operation.
A reticulated sewerage system is also not presently available to the subject lots, with the only
solution being to establish appropriate onsite effluent disposal systems with sufficient capacity to
meet the needs of the Regional Animal Pound and Welfare Centre and other incidental and
ancillary land uses and development as required.
Stormwater Management
The Department of Water and the Water Corporation (WaterCorp) have advised that stormwater
management arrangements can be adequately dealt with on site at the development stage. As
such, the City of Bunbury will prepare a Stormwater Management Plan as part of the application for
planning approval, which will be referred to these agencies for their comment prior to the granting
of planning approval with conditions.
It is considered that the final draft of the proposed Structure Plan is now ready for Council’s
consideration for adoption. Once the Structure Plan has been adopted by Council, the approved
Structure Plan together with Council’s resolution and Schedule of Submissions will be forwarded on
to the WAPC for its determination.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
A breakdown of the funding contributions made towards the development of the Regional Animal
Pound and Welfare Centre is as follows:
- $200,000 received from the Country Local Government Fund (CLGF);
- $150,000 received from the Department of Local Government (DLG); and
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 84
- $100,000 from the City of Bunbury (PR-2123 Construct animal care facility to replace
existing pound facility (Design PR-2368)).
To date investment has already been made in the subject site in terms of site evaluation, surveying,
sourcing quotations for service connection and building design and planning consultancy fees.
Community Consultation
The draft proposed Structure Plan was advertised for 21 days from 29 October 2014 to 18
November 2014. No submissions were received from the general public, as it can be assumed, the
location of the subject site is adequately removed from sensitive land uses to not be of any concern
to residents. Seven submissions were received from government agencies, which generally related
to matters concerning future development requirements, such as stormwater management and
vehicular access arrangements (a copy of the Schedule of Submissions is included attached at
DPDDS-3).
Councillor/Officer Consultation
A number of discussions have been held internally with affected departments prior to the
finalisation of the draft proposed Structure Plan – Part Lots 120 and 549 South Western Highway,
Davenport.
Delegation of Authority
In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Scheme, a Council determination is required with
respect to the adoption of a proposed Structure Plan.
Relevant Precedents
There are no known proposals that set a precedent in relation to this matter.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 85
10.5 Director Works and Services Reports
10.5.1 Vittoria Rd/Jeffrey Rd – Proposed Compulsory Acquisition of Land
File Ref: A04445
Applicant/Proponent: Internal
Author: Nigel Archibald, Team Leader Airport & Design
Executive: Phil Harris, Director Works & Services
Attachments: Appendix DWS-1 – Vittoria Road Plan
Appendix CRUSC-1-1 Confidential
Appendix CRUSC-1-2 Confidential
Appendix CRUSC-1-3 Confidential
Summary
It is proposed to formally request the Minister for Lands to compulsorily acquire a truncation from
land owned by the Apostolic Church Trust (Grace Christian School) to facilitate the construction of a
roundabout at the intersection of Vittoria Rd and Jeffrey Rd.
Executive Recommendation
That:
1. Pursuant to Part 9, Division 3, Subdivision 2 of the Land Administration Act 1997 Council
requests the Minister for Lands to compulsorily acquire the land shown marked as
“proposed road widening” on DWS-1.
2. Council agrees to indemnify the Minister for Lands against any compensation claim made
under the Land Administration Act 1997 on account of the taking of such land.
Background
It is anticipated that significant residential growth will occur in Glen Iris over the next decade
resulting in a commensurate increase in traffic volumes on Vittoria Rd. The Glen Iris Structure Plan,
adopted by Council in 2010, details the installation of three (3) roundabouts at the intersections of
Vittoria Rd with Jeffrey Rd, Woodley Rd and Erica Entrance to manage and control the increase in
traffic.
The detailed design of a roundabout at the intersection of Vittoria Rd and Jeffrey Rd has been
undertaken which satisfies the existing road layout whilst also catering for the ultimate road layout.
The north eastern corner of this intersection is not currently truncated and it is proposed that a
448m2 truncation be acquired from land currently owned by the Apostolic Church Trust (Grace
Christian School) to facilitate construction of the roundabout and also house a Western Power pad
mounted transformer.
Landgate has provided Council with a valuation of $45,000 based on the site’s current zoning of
‘Development Zone – Residential’ (attached at CRUSC-1-3).
Grace Christian School have engaged Opteon Property Group which has provided a valuation of
$86,240 based on the site’s potential rezoning to ‘Neighbourhood Centre (Mixed Use)’ (attached at
Appendix CRUSC-1-1). Grace Christian School have also stipulated six (6) conditions they require
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 86
Council agreement too (attached at Appendix CRUSC-1-2). Grace Christian School have provided
written advice that their valuation and Council agreement to the six conditions is not negotiable.
Council Policy Compliance
No Council policy applies
Legislative Compliance
Pursuant to Part 9, Division 3, Subdivision 2 of the Land Administration Act 1997 the Council is
required to request the Minister for Lands (by formal Council Decision) to compulsorily acquire land
for public works where negotiations have failed.
Officer Comments
Council Officers had hoped to reach a negotiated agreement with Grace Christian School, however
with the school’s alternative valuation and six conditions being not negotiable, this has not been
possible.
Agreement to the school’s alternative valuation and six conditions would impose an additional
financial burden upon the ratepayers.
Compulsory acquisition of the truncation will likely have a longer timeframe for resolution in
comparison to reaching a negotiated settlement.
The land acquisition requirements have only recently been confirmed with Western Power service
relocation requirements.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
Grace Christian School have nominated six conditions it requires Council to agree upon. Several
conditions are low obligation/low cost, however Condition 3 which stipulates the construction of an
indented bus bay and Kiss and Drop Zone has an estimated value of $50,000 - $70,000. Condition 4
stipulating construction of a footpath linking Vittoria Rd to the Kiss and Drop Zone has an estimated
value of $30,000.
Community Consultation
A meeting was held with Grace Christian School on the 7th March 2014 to discuss the proposed land
resumption. A formal offer was made by letter dated the 9th June 2014 following receipt of the
Landgate valuation. A secondary meeting was held with Grace Christian School on the 10th
December 2014 at which they advised their valuation and conditions were not negotiable.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
This issue was discussed at the ELT Meeting held on Monday 15th December 2014 at which it was
accessed that Grace Christian School’s valuation and conditions needed to be referred to Council.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 87
Relevant Precedents
At the Council Meeting held on the 22nd May 2007, Council Decision 105/07 resolved to request the
compulsory acquisition of two parcels of land to allow the upgrade of Stuart St to two-way traffic.
Council officers are not aware of instances where land acquisitions have been paid at rates above
Landgate valuations.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 88
10.5.2 Bunbury Timber Jetty – Heritage Interpretation
File Ref: SF/1921
Applicant/Proponent: Internal Report
Author: Jason Gick, Manager Engineering
Executive: Phil Harris, Director Works and Services
Attachments: Appendix DWS-2: Bunbury Timber Jetty Design Drawing email from the
Department of Transport
Appendix DWS-3: Bunbury Timber Jetty Funding Conditions proposed
demolition Bunbury Timber Jetty Replica Jetty
Appendix DWS-4: Draft Bunbury Timber Jetty and Sir William Arrol
Crane Interpretation Plan
Appendix DWS-5: Bunbury Timber Jetty Design Drawing 1
Appendix DWS-6: Bunbury Timber Jetty Design Drawing 2
Appendix DWS-7: Bunbury Timber Jetty Design Drawing 3 Wayfinders
Appendix DWS-8: Bunbury Timber Jetty Design Drawing 4 Landscape
Plan
Appendix DWS-9: Bunbury Timber Jetty Design Drawing 5
Appendix DWS-10: Bunbury Timber Jetty Design Drawing 6
Summary
Due to potentially conflicting planning objectives, it is recommended that the Bunbury Timber Jetty
Heritage Interpretation project is deferred and included in a broader master planning exercise for
the precinct.
Executive Recommendation
That the Council:
1. Defer the design and implementation of the Bunbury Timber Jetty Heritage Interpretation
project until the Department of Transport has completed its master planning for the
Casuarina Boat Harbour, including the Jetty Road groyne;
2. Following a decision on the financial commitment to the proposed fishing platform
conclude its financial arrangements with LandCorp and place the balance of funds in
reserve for future works; and
3. Identify surplus Bunbury Timber Jetty materials not required for the Heritage
Interpretation project for sale.
Background
Deconstruction of the Bunbury Timber Jetty was approved by the WAPC under provisions of the
Greater Bunbury Region Scheme. The approval was issued subject to seven Conditions and six
Advice Notes. One of the Advice Notes requires the design and implementation of didactic panels
to the satisfaction of the Heritage Council of WA.
Deconstruction of the jetty is complete. The only outstanding issue is the implementation of
heritage interpretation of the Bunbury Timber Jetty. The City has engaged Savagely Creative
Consultants to prepare a Heritage Interpretation Plan (September 2013), which is attached DWS-4.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 89
The Heritage Interpretation Plan outlined five development options, to be determined based on
budget constraints:
Option 1: Minimalist – Basic Interpretation ($50k to $100k)
Option 2: Story telling ($100k to $250k)
Option 3: Heritage Precinct ($250k to $1.5M)
Option 4: Small Jetty Replacement Structure ($1.8M to $4.0M)
Option 5: Holistic Koombana/Casuarina Development ($20M to $100M)
Given the budget constraints, the consultant was instructed to prepare a design to accommodate a
moderate ‘Story Telling’ development at the site near the Sir William Arrol crane. A separate
consultant, Creative Spaces, was engaged to prepare design drawings for stakeholder consultation
and pricing.
During the heritage interpretation planning exercise, a separate proposal was put forward by Mr
Kerry Trantham to develop a small fishing platform at the end of the groyne. Mr Trantham is a
volunteer member of Bunbury Sea Rescue and worked with the contractor deconstructing the
Bunbury Timber Jetty, Swan Marine Construction. Mr Trantham has been working with Mr Steve
Woodhouse (structural engineer) from WML consultants to prepare a suitable fishing platform
design.
Mr Trentham’s proposal has gained support from the South West Development Commission
(SWDC), Recfishwest, the remaining members of the Bunbury Timber Jetty Environment &
Conservation Society (BTJE&CS) and the City. As such, the heritage interpretation plan was
modified to include provision for a fishing platform, without the platform or the heritage project
compromising each other.
Conversations regarding an application for funding of $49,000 from the South West Regional Grant
Scheme indicates that the likelihood of funding is promising with further grants being sought from
Lotterywest and Recfishwest for the project. The City has identified a $30,000 contribution with
$20,000 in-kind for materials.
The heritage interpretation design drawings are now in draft form and have been circulated to
stakeholders for comment, as attached at: DWS-5 Bunbury Timber Jetty Design Drawing 1; DWS-6
Bunbury Timber Jetty Design Drawing 2 , DWS-7 Bunbury Timber Jetty Design Drawing 3
Wayfinders ; DWS-8 Bunbury Timber Jetty Design Drawing 4 Landscape Plan; DWS-9 Bunbury
Timber Jetty Design Drawing 5, DWS10 - Bunbury Timber Jetty Design Drawing 6.
Council Policy Compliance
Council Policy DCS-4: Integrated Planning applies.
Councils Asset Management Policy applies.
Legislative Compliance
The deconstruction of the Bunbury Timber Jetty was approved on 21 December 2011 by the WAPC
under provisions of the Greater Bunbury Region Scheme with seven Conditions and six Advice
Notes. With respect to the Heritage Interpretation aspect of this project there are a total of four
Conditions and Advice Notes. These are:
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 90
Condition 5:
Prior to demolition works being undertaken satisfactory arrangements being made with the
Heritage Council of Western Australia for a design for a new jetty structure. – Achieved
Condition 6:
Satisfactory arrangements being made with the Heritage Council of Western Australia for a
watching brief to be carried out by a qualified marine archaeologist during demolition works. -
Achieved
Advice Note 5:
The design and content of interpretive didactic panels and its implementation program shall be to
the satisfaction of the Executive Director of the Office of Heritage. – Not Achieved
Advice Note 6:
Retention of as much physical fabric of the jetty as possible for reuse as part of the interpretation. -
Achieved
Officer Comments
Prior to the commencement of the deconstruction project, the heritage aspects of the Bunbury
Timber Jetty were rated as extremely important in the decision making surrounding the options to
deconstruct, demolish or rebuild the jetty. The importance of the heritage aspects of the jetty are
reflected in the statutory Conditions and Advice Notes issued as part of the demolition approval.
During the deconstruction phase there was great emphasis placed on the retention of jetty
materials for future use, particularly in the heritage interpretation project. The City has stored 200
tonnes of best quality timber at the depot as well as numerous bollards, railway line and sleeper
pins, railway trolleys, water pipe, pile repair sleeves and other tools, several examples of repaired
piles, an old workers shed and more. These items are available for use in any display feature and
for reuse on the proposed fishing platform.
Since the completion of the deconstruction project, the focus has been on developing a suitable
Heritage Interpretation Plan and subsequent heritage precinct design. This process has taken
longer than anticipated, as the issue of heritage is subjective and stakeholder groups, and
individuals amongst stakeholder groups, have differing ideas on what is important and how to
prioritise works.
The draft heritage precinct design drawings show about a dozen different elements that could be
delivered subject to prioritisation and budget constraints. Yet stakeholder feedback, at this time,
does not make clear which features are seen as critical, important or optional. Whilst the design
drawings depict a possible precinct layout and nominal designs for the elements, they do not
provide any substance around the interpretive story telling for the jetty. For example, there are
upright timber panel boards shown, but the text and images are not recommended. This was
identified at the 10 November 2014 stakeholder meeting as requiring further development.
The limited budget for the project suggests that any physical works on the site may seem
incomplete. At present the site is not levelled or surfaced and any works may need proper
foundation works to enable them to remain in place should a future project seek to improve the
levels and the surface condition. The elements may need to be built on concrete plinths that can
be removed and reinstated should a bitumen or concrete seal be established at the site.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 91
The size of the proposed precinct also creates problems with continuity. The remaining project
budget indicates that not all elements could be delivered effectively and there may be significant
spatial gaps between the elements. This may create a disconnect that will not work properly.
The site is likely to continue to attract people using the area for recreational fishing, casual drivers,
recreational walkers and recreational divers. This mix of use of the area may also contribute to a
small and limited precinct becoming “lost” in the large space available.
The Department of Transports most recent advice is that the site could potentially be used for
vehicle turning space to accommodate increased traffic volumes. A plan showing the concept
layout is attached DWS-2 Bunbury Timber Jetty Email from Department of Transport. This suggests
that the City should suspend work on the heritage interpretation site until a clear view of the sites
future is available. This would be prudent as the land depicted for the interpretation area is owned
by the Department of Transport and any works on the site will require Departmental approval.
A more detailed master planning exercise between the City, the Department of Transport and the
Marine Facilities Alliance would ensure that the bigger picture planning for the site, Koombana Bay
and Casuarina Boat Harbour is considered.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
PR-1018 has $154,799 in the 2014/15 Budget for the design and implementation of the heritage
interpretation project of which 50% was prefunded by LandCorp. $9,095 has been spent on the
heritage interpretation and design consultants and $12,269 worth of purchase orders remains
outstanding to complete the design work. This leaves $133,435 for physical works, once a
preferred design is accepted.
Given the incompatibility of the City’s draft Heritage Interpretation design and the Department of
Transports proposed development planning for Casuarina Boat Harbour it would be prudent at this
time to suspend the planning process until a broader master plan is developed and approved. This
would mean that the balance of the LandCorp funds may need to be returned with any
uncommitted funding placed into a reserve for future use.
Under a Ministerial commitment issued in letter dated 11 June 2012 attached at DWS-3 the State
Government has committed $3.5M towards the demolition/part restoration of the jetty, on the
basis that the City matches the commitment on a dollar for dollar basis. The commitment is
administered through LandCorp and project has recouped $1.96M in 2012/13 and 2013/14. The
final claim was made in June 2014 on the basis that the City would carry the balance of funds and
spend them in 2014/15.
Community Consultation
The Heritage Interpretation project has been subject to stakeholder consultation before, during
and after the preparation of the design drawings.
In preparing the Heritage Interpretation Plan (September 2013) the City, and its consultant,
consulted with the BTJE&CS, the Department of Transport, the State Heritage Office and the
Bunbury Port Authority. The consultation process assisted with the development of the themes
and story options for further development.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 92
In January 2014, a meeting was convened to discuss the findings and recommendations of the
Heritage Interpretation Plan. The scope of that meeting was expanded to include discussion on Mr
Trentham’s fishing platform proposal. The meeting included the abovementioned stakeholders as
well as the SWDC, Recfishwest and Mr Trantham.
In the lead up to the draft drawings being completed, the City met with Mr Trantham,
representatives of the Department of Transport, the SWDC and Steve Woodhouse to discuss the
proposed location of the platform and the process required to obtain a jetty licence for it. This
meeting took place on site on 14 August 2014. The Department of Transport indicated at that
meeting that it had no objection to the fishing platform, in principle.
During the consultation period for the Heritage Interpretation Design drawings, Mr Phil Smith (past
president of the BTJE&CS) requested a meeting with the City to discuss the design. The meeting on
10 November 2014 was attended by Mr David Smith, Mr Stephen Craddock, Ms Juliette Harrop and
Mr Steve Woodhouse. At this meeting the members requested further information on the design
and outlined priorities. A desire to increase the project funding was emphasised.
More recently, the City has become aware of a major development proposal for Casuarina Boat
Harbour, being developed by the Department of Transport. The development has been mooted
through the Marine Facilities Alliance and requires the development of Jetty Road and the creation
of a vehicle turning head coincident with the space identified for the Heritage Interpretation
project.
The most recent advice from the Department of Transport is that the Heritage Interpretation
project and the Casuarina Boat Harbour project may be incompatible in their current format, and
that further master planning should be undertaken to determine the interface of both projects.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
The Bunbury Timber Jetty heritage interpretation project has been ongoing since the
deconstruction of the jetty in 2012 and has involved various Councillors (past and present) and staff
in the project deliberations.
Officers in Engineering and Planning have been involved in the design, consultation and liaison
aspects associated with this project and the proposed fishing platform.
The Executive is aware of the project and supports the recommendation.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 93
11. Applications for Leave of Absence
No requests for Leave of Absence had been received at the time of printing.
12. Motions on Notice
12.1 Motion on Notice – Cr Steck – Boulters Heights
Applicant/Proponent: Cr Steck
Author: Cr Steck
Executive: If adopted refer to Phil Harris, Director Works and Services
Attachments: Appendix MN-1: Aerial Printout - Boulters Heights
The below Motion from Cr Steck is submitted for consideration at the Council Meeting on 20
January 2015.
That:
1. That council form a Boulters Heights Committee with Community Members to address the
ongoing maintenance and strategy for Boulters Heights.
2. That council fund an initial amount of $50,000 to assist the committee to hold workshops,
construct a strategy, and develop landscaping plans and an operating budget.
Comments – Cr Steck
Typically Council has not managed Boulters Heights very well in the past, yet council has spent a
considerable amount of money with poor result.
Boulters Heights traditionally was covered in European plants and during that time the hill was well
maintained.
During my time on council I have seen the waterfall turned off, the total destruction of the plants
which were originally on the hill, by Council striping the hill bare and replanting with native plants.
The hill was terrible for some time.
Today the hill is full of weeds and dry grass with only a few natives. Native species are not the right
plants for the hill because of the oils native species contain. Oils in native species burst during fire
and cause a greater heat load which causes the fire to burn furiously.
Boulters Heights is unique in that it is a large sand hill and requires daily watering to water plants
and reduce the risk of fire hazard. It is not really possible to follow the normal council policy in
regards to bushfire inspection, the hill requires ongoing maintenance.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 94
The infrastructure such as paths, wooden stairs and rails require regular maintenance, council has
virtually left them to rot.
A dedicated community group would find better outcomes for the hill, such as Botanical gardens or
a general community garden. A strategy needs to be constructed and adopted by the committee.
The budget should contain annual funds set aside for the committee to have available funds to
operate. Such as purchasing plants, watering equipment etc., the operational budget should be
developed by the committee with approval from council.
Last week the City of Bunbury had a fire on Boulters Heights which erupted in seconds and
destroyed a large area of the hill. Council was lucky the wind was blowing in the direction of the
hill rather than towards the houses. Otherwise, all homes would have been destroyed including
vehicles.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
At present there are no funds allocated for this project and any budget allocated to this would need
to be sourced from the deletion of another pre-existing project. The matter will be listed as a
potential project for consideration in the 2015/16 budget considerations if the motion is supported
by Council.
Executive Comments
The work undertaken on Boulters Heights has been restricted due to the requirements for
compliance with OSH requirements and limited budgets over several years. In conjunction with the
staff from Corrective Services work has been undertaken in previous years to address both planting
and pedestrian access issues.
An aerial photograph of Boulters Heights is attached at QN-1
DFES have a document which details a reference of fire retardant species of plants which can be
used as potential guide. This can be found at:
http://www.dfes.wa.gov.au/safetyinformation/fire/bushfire/BushfireProtectionPlanningPublication
s/FESA%20Plant%20Guide-BP%20Zone-Final-w.pdf
The Team Leader Community Safety and Emergency management advises that investigation on the
potential cause of the fire on Sunday 11 January 2015 was the prevailing wind was NNE. This then
pushed the fire towards the south, with the natural tendency for fire to travel more quickly uphill,
lead to the ultimate fire shape. Arguably then, this was the worst case scenario for Cr Steck’s
property, other than the potential for stronger winds to push the fire harder to the south.
Available bushfire fuels were fully cured and available for burning. Other plant species may retard
the fire rate of spread, if they remained green and moisture laden.
The fire risk assessments that have been completed for 4 Turner Street, do not identify a high
bushfire risk from the Boulter’s Heights reserve, due in the main, to that property being down-hill
and some 14 metres from the nearest vegetation. Adjacent properties would be higher.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 95
A bushfire risk rating of 75 is a ‘moderate’ risk level, with 150 being the upper acceptable limit. BAL
29 is the currently accepted level of radiant heat yield, under the Bushfire Policy.
There are other properties which are at higher risk (such as 2 Picton Crescent). Clearly, it would
then be appropriate to consider fire risk in any planning activity that may result from this enquiry.
An alternative recommendation is proposed to address the issue of financial resourcing of the
project which allows for the formation of the group to start some initial planning and subject to
available funds being allocated through the budget process works could potentially be commenced
during 2015/16.
That:
1. That Council support the formation of a Boulters Heights Working Group with Community
Members to address the ongoing maintenance and strategy for Boulters Heights.
2. That funding be included for consideration as part of the 2015/16 budget.
13. Questions on Notice
13.1 Response to Previous Questions from Members taken on Notice
Nil.
13.2 Questions from Members
The following questions were submitted by Cr Steck on 14 January 2014. An extract from Bushfires
Act 1954 (attached at Appendix QN-1) and the Council Policy: Bushfire Inspection and Mitigation
(attached) at Appendix QN-2) are provided. Responses are provided below:
1. Has Council complied with the bushfires Act of 1954 and inspected all Crown Land for
potential fire hazards?
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 96
Yes, there is an ongoing commitment to bushfire risk management. Our emergency risk
management study from 2013, indicated that bushfire is currently the third highest risk to
our community.
Whilst the Bush Fires Act (1954) does not ‘bind the Crown’ [s7(2)] and as the City of
Bunbury is a Crown entity there is no requirement for Council to undertake any specific
action, however the City has done a formal bushfire risk assessment for all properties that
are within 100 metres of bushland areas that are greater than 1 hectare. Council policy has
recognised an interim benchmark of a Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) 29 (Australian Standard
3950-2009 – Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas), as the upper acceptable
limit. Bushfire risk ratings are then used to populate the City’s Bushfire Risk register, to
inform mitigation priorities against the available budget.
In most cases, Council has the responsibility to manage bushfire risk on Crown Lands, with
DFES having a fire risk mitigation responsibility for some reserves. Environmental
Protection legislation does limit what work can be done to reduce bushfire risk, with a
general exemption to permit 3 metre wide, peripheral fire breaks only. Prescribed burning
remains an option for local governments in some areas but, is an expensive, labour
intensive and often unpopular treatment option.
Many reserves have already had work completed within them this year, to enhance or
increase fire protective infrastructure.
2. Does Council conform to the “COUNCIL POLICY: Bushfire Inspection and Mitigation”?
Yes the City does conform to this policy.
Council adopted a new policy in mid-2014, to reflect the adoption of a holistic risk
assessment process, to inform mitigation strategies. The preliminary work on the risk
assessments, have been completed and owners/occupiers of properties with BAL 40 or BAL
FZ (Flaming Zone) exposure have all received notices advising them of this assessment.
Copies of the City of Bunbury ‘First and Final Fire Notice’, were sent to all owner/occupiers
within the City in October this year, rather than with rate notices in July.
Bushland that has been found to present high risk has been signalled out for treatment and
on three occasions, agencies (other than the City of Bunbury) have undertaken works to
reduce this risk exposure. The City of Bunbury reduced the risk to Ocean Close, from the
Maiden’s Reserve, from BAL FZ (in some cases) to BAL 29. Department of Housing and WA
Planning Commission have done like-wise in Glen Iris and the southern end of Ocean Close,
after being presented with our assessments.
Inspections and orders for remedial works are being undertaken currently, where
compliance to the requirements from the above policy, is not observed.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 97
14. New Business of an Urgent Nature Introduced by Decision of the Meeting
It is requested that this matter be dealt with as urgent business as a Council Decision is required in
order for this application to progress and Australia Day occurs prior to the Council Briefing of the
next round. To allow time for a Development Application to be processed, it is requested that this
business be considered as a late item rather than deferring the matter to the next round.
Recommendation
That Council pursuant to section 5.4 of Councils Standing Orders, agree to receive the item 14.1
entitled “Street Trading Licence application – Helicopter Joy Flights, Lot 882 Koombana Drive,
Bunbury” as a matter of urgent business.
14.1 Street Trading Licence application - Helicopter Joy Flights, Lot 882 Koombana Drive, Bunbury
File Ref: P13963
Applicant/Proponent: Eddy Gobby, Bunbury Helicopters
Author: Bob Karaszkewych, Director Planning, Development and Regulatory
Services
Executive: Bob Karaszkewych, Director Planning, Development and Regulatory
Services
Attachments: Appendix DPDS-4: Site Map Lot 882 Koombana Drive
Summary
The City has received a Street Trading Licence application to conduct Helicopter Joy Flights on three
(3) days on the Australia Day weekend. Helicopter joy flights are often undertaken as a one (1) day
event with past minimal complaint from residents.
The proposal to operate over three (3) days on the Australia Day weekend is unprecedented; the
basis of the recommendation to approve the application is on a ‘trial basis’ to gauge resident’s
response.
The applicant proposes to similarly conduct joy flights on the Aqua Spectacular weekend in March
2015, which is not the subject of this agenda item.
Executive Recommendation
That Council approve a Street Trading Licence to operate Helicopter Joy Flights upon Crown land
described as being Lot 882 Koombana Drive, Bunbury. The specific location is the grassed area on
the western side of the car park, opposite the Dolphin Discovery Centre in accordance with the
following conditions:
1. Operating days and times being limited to 10:00am to and inclusive of 4:30pm Saturday 24
and Sunday 25 January 2015.
2. Operating helicopter flights on Monday 26 January 2015 is limited to 10:00 to 3:00pm. The
reason for this is to allow for Aero Club flight demonstrations; water bomber display at
4:45pm; and that a condition of the fireworks permit is that no aircraft is to fly over the
launch area for fireworks.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 98
3. Setup located a minimum of 30 metres away from members of the public and as far away
as possible from Koombana Bay Caravan Park and adequately fenced to prevent public
access.
4. An appropriate fire extinguisher is to be provided on site at all times during the licence
period.
5. A wind indicator is to be provided on site at all times during the licence period.
6. Public parking is to be provided and managed along the service road and the gate locked at
conclusion of each day of trading.
7. Prevention of public access to the storage area of AVGas. Bunding of the storage area is to
be provided and a spill kit is to be onsite and readily available, if required. A management
plan detailing measures of cleaning up spills is to be provided to the City by 5pm Thursday
22 January 2015.
8. Any damage caused to the existing turf, vegetation, reticulation or ground levels by the
constant landing and take-off of the helicopter shall be reinstated to pre-existing conditions
by Licensee.
9. To satisfy CASA requirements to conduct the flight operation take-off and landing should
be over Koombana Bay and adjacent mangroves avoiding any noise sensitive premises,
including residential areas.
10. Public notification must be provided to all residents of the Koombana Bay Caravan Park
(including permanent residents in park homes) and residents living in Koombana Cove area
by Thursday 22 January 2015. Notification is to include the proposed trading days and
times and include a contact number for the Licensee should residents wish to call.
11. All rubbish to be removed from site at the conclusion of each day.
12. The Licensee shall provide a public liability insurance of not less than $10 million at all
times in the name of Licensee by 5:00pm Thursday 22 January 2015.
13. No food or drinks or other items are to be sold in association with this licence.
Background
The applicant has previously sought approval to operate Helicopter joy flights on the subject land
including Lucianna Park with minimal resident complaint.
Previous approval has been granted for a one day event due to the potential risk associated with
noise. Helicopter noise is exempt from the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997,
however noise associated with the continual take-off and landing operations can be unreasonable
and may result in complaints being received from noise sensitive premises.
As a result of complaints associated with the noise from helicopter joy flights previously conducted,
an internal work procedure “WP 16.10 Approval of Helicopter Joy Flights” was developed in 2011
and implemented “to manage requests from helicopter operators to conduct joy flights in close
proximity to noise sensitive premises (residential areas) by balancing the needs of the tourism
industry and the intrusiveness of the noise on nearby premises”.
Council Policy Compliance
Not applicable.
Legislative Compliance
Not applicable.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 99
Officer Comments
Having regard to the licence granted last year, a three (3) day trial (Saturday 24, Sunday 25 and
Monday 26 January 2015) is considered reasonable and can be used to gauge public response on
the operation of joy flights on three consecutive days. Noise requirements for Sundays and public
holidays are stricter than for Monday – Saturday.
The applicant will be refuelling the helicopter on site with a product known as AVGas (60 litres of
AVgas) a hazardous substance with the potential to present significant environmental and human
health risks. There is some concern that the refuelling operations may present risks if not
adequately managed by the operator.
TPS7 exempts the requirements for a planning approval for 48 hours or less. Trading for three (3)
days will require the applicant to submit a Development Application. Should the Council grant a
Street Trading Licence for a period exceeding 48 hours, the applicant is required to lodge a
Development Application (with requisite fees) for assessment. A conditional approval would issue
referencing the above recommended conditions of Street Trading Licence approval.
A copy of the location map is attached at Appendix DPDS-4.
Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications
Nil
Community Consultation
A condition of Licence references notification to all adjacent residents of the Koombana Caravan
Park with an opportunity to monitor and comment on the activities to the City.
Councillor/Officer Consultation
Elected members had been earlier notified of the proposal. Comments received have expressed
support; and concerns on the duration of this event, operations and public amenity.
20 January 2015
Agenda – Council Meeting
Page 100
15. Meeting Closed to Public
15.1 Matters for which the Meeting may be Closed
Nil.
15.2 Public Reading of Resolutions that may be made Public
16. Closure