minutes - shire of augusta-margaret river

Ordinary Council

MINUTES

FOR THE MEETING TO BE HELD WEDNESDAY, 10 JUNE 2020

COMMENCING AT 5:30PM

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 10 JUNE 2020

2

Meeting Notice Dear Councillor I advise that an Ordinary Council Meeting of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River will be held on Wednesday 10 June 2020, commencing at 5:30pm. Yours faithfully

STEPHANIE ADDISON-BROWN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


3

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


4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO. SUBJECT PAGE NO.

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING .................................................................................................. 5 2. ATTENDANCE ........................................................................................................................... 5 3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST ................................................................................................. 6 4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................ 6 4.1. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE ................................ 6 4.2. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ......................................................................................................... 6

5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ........................................................................... 6 6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING ..................................................... 6 6.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD 27 MAY 2020 ............................................................. 6

7. DEPUTATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 6 7.1 ITEM 11.2.6 CAPE LEEUWIN TRAIL – DEAD FINISH TO CAPE LEEUWIN – PAUL

SOFILAS ..................................................................................................................................... 6 7.2 ITEM 11.2.6 CAPE LEEUWIN TRAIL – DEAD FINISH TO CAPE LEEUWIN –

MICHAEL SMART ...................................................................................................................... 6 7.3 ITEM 11.2.6 CAPE LEEUWIN TRAIL – DEAD FINISH TO CAPE LEEUWIN –

STEVE HARRISON .................................................................................................................... 6

8. PETITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 7 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDING MEMBER......................................................... 7 9.1 NICK LOGAN – NEW DIRECTOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND

INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................................... 7

10. QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ..................... 7 11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND EMPLOYEE REPORTS ................................................... 7 11.1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ................................................................................................. 20 11.1.1 RAILWAY PRECINCT INVESTIGATION PROJECT ............................................................... 21

11.2. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................ 29 11.2.1 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 60 AND RELATED STRUCTURE PLAN - FOR FINAL

DETERMINATION .................................................................................................................... 30 11.2.2 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO.63 - STRATA LOTS 3 - 7 OF LOT 300 BLACKWOOD

AVENUE, AUGUSTA, FOR FINAL ADOPTION ...................................................................... 37 11.2.3 ADDENDUM - ITEM WITHDRAWN - PROPOSED HOME BUSINESS AT 10 MANN

STREET, MARGARET RIVER ................................................................................................. 45 11.2.4 PROPOSED SINGLE DWELLING AND ANCILLARY DWELLING - 10 (LOT 120)

LESUEUR PLACE GNARABUP .............................................................................................. 46 11.2.5 ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................................................................. 53 11.2.6 CAPE LEEUWIN TRAIL – DEAD FINISH TO CAPE LEEUWIN .............................................. 60

11.3. CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ....................................................................... 61 11.3.1 LIST OF PAYMENTS FOR APRIL 2020 ................................................................................. 62 11.3.2 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENT REPORT - APRIL 2020 ................................................ 65

12. MOTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ............ 79 13. MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AT NEXT MEETING ....................................................... 79 14. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE ......................................................................... 79 14.1 MEMBERS ................................................................................................................................ 79 14.2 CEO .......................................................................................................................................... 79

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS .................................................................................................... 79 16. CLOSURE OF MEETING ......................................................................................................... 79


5

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on Wednesday 10 June 2020, in Council Chambers, 66 Allnutt Terrace, Augusta, commencing at 5.30pm

Ordinary Council Meeting

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING The Shire President welcomed all the attendance and declared the meeting open at 5.30pm

The Shire President gave an Acknowledgement of Country:

‘I acknowledge and respect the traditional custodians of this land and pay our respects to elders past and present and emerging, whose lands we share.’

2. ATTENDANCE Shire President : Cr Ian Earl

Councillors : Cr Paula Cristoffanini Cr Naomi Godden

Cr Brian Daniel Cr Kylie Kennaugh Cr Pauline McLeod Cr Julia Meldrum

Chief Executive Officer : Ms Stephanie Addison-Brown Director Sustainable Development and Infrastructure : Mr Nick Logan

Director Corporate and Community Services : Mr James Shepherd Manager Corporate Services : Mr Andrew Ross

Manager Legal and Governance Services : Mr Ian McLeod

Acting Manager Planning And Development : Mr Matt Cuthbert Manager Asset Services : Mr David Nicholson (seated in public gallery) Coordinator Asset Services : Ms Sonja Pienaar (seated in public gallery) Governance Officer / Council Support : Ms Claire Schiller

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC : 26

MEMBERS OF THE PRESS : Nil


6

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST Nil

4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS 4.1. Response to Previous Public Questions Taken on Notice

Nil

4.2. Public Question Time Nil

5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 6.1 Ordinary Council Meeting held 27 May 2020

MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR MELDRUM, CR CRISTOFFANINI OM2020/95 That Council confirms the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 27 May 2020 to be a true and correct record of the meeting.

CARRIED 7/0

7. DEPUTATIONS As the meeting had reached its maximum capacity for the Augusta Council Chambers under COVID-19 restrictions, the following officers left Chambers at 5.35pm to allow for additionial members of the public to enter the gallery: Chief Executive Officer, Director Sustainable Development and Infrastructure, Director Corporate and Community Services, Manager Corporate Services, Manager Legal and Governance and Acting Manager Planning and Development. 7.1 Item 11.2.6 Cape Leeuwin Trail – Dead Finish to Cape Leeuwin – Paul Sofilas Mr Paul Sofilas, Chairperson of Augusta Community Trails Association, addressed the meeting in relation to Item 11.2.6 Cape Leeuwin Trail – Dead Finish to Cape Leeuwin. 7.2 Item 11.2.6 Cape Leeuwin Trail – Dead Finish to Cape Leeuwin – Michael Smart Mr Michael Smart of 3 Storm Bay Road, Augusta, addressed the meeting in relation to Item 11.2.6 Cape Leeuwin Trail – Dead Finish to Cape Leeuwin. 7.3 Item 11.2.6 Cape Leeuwin Trail – Dead Finish to Cape Leeuwin – Steve Harrison Mr Steve Harrison, Joint CEO and Operations Manager, Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association, addressed the meeting in relation to Item 11.2.6 Cape Leeuwin Trail – Dead Finish to Cape Leeuwin.


7

8. PETITIONS Nil

9. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDING MEMBER

9.1 Welcome to Nick Logan, New Director Sustainable Development and Infrastructure

The Shire President welcomed and congratulated newly appointed Director Sustainable Development and Infrastructure, Nick Logan, noting that he will join Chief Executive Officer, Stephanie Addison-Brown and Director Corporate and Community Services, James Shepherd in the Executive Leadership Team, which is now complete. The Shire President went on to congratulate Mr Logan on the recent birth of his daughter.

10. QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN Nil

11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND EMPLOYEE REPORTS

The Shire President brought forward Item 11.2.6 Cape Leeuwin Trail – Dead Finish to Cape Leeuwin, for deliberation while concerned members of the public remained in the gallery.


8

11.2.6 CAPE LEEUWIN TRAIL – DEAD FINISH TO CAPE LEEUWIN LOCATION/ADDRESS Augusta APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE ENV/93 REPORT AUTHOR John McKinney, Coordinator Environment Landcare Services AUTHORISING OFFICER David Nicholson, Acting Director Sustainable Development and

Infrastructure An addendum was published on 4 June 2020 and provided minor amendments to dot point 4 and 5 of the ‘In Brief’, and a revised recommendation. REVISED IN BRIEF • In June 2018 Council resolved to commission trail consultants, environmental reports and consider

Aboriginal Heritage requirements to undertake a feasibility analysis and prepare a concept plan for extension of a coastal trail between Dead Finish and the Cape Leeuwin Lighthouse.

• There are significant environmental and cultural values identified through that assessment that were presented to a Council briefing in February 2020.

• These values were discussed at an Augusta Interpretation Plan and Trails Community Reference Group meeting in May 2020. The group indicated a preference to continue planning for a dual use path rather than reducing the standard of the path.

• In May 2020, Council received a presentation from local Wadandi representatives who requested Council engage in development of a “Healthy Country Plan” (HCP) for a range of sites across the Shire, including this area. The HCP would explore all cultural and heritage values with local Wadandi people and determine the values of the site prior to making any further decisions in relation to this project. For this area, the HCP would be funded by the Cape Leeuwin Trail project budget.

• In the interim, no further construction should take place until these issues are resolved. REVISED RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Notes the outcomes of the preliminary trail analysis, flora and fauna surveys, initial cultural

consultation and consultation with the Augusta Interpretation Plan and Trails Community Reference Group;

2. Notes the need for a detailed archaeological and ethnographic survey; 3. Authorises the CEO to engage with Wadandi representatives and source relevant consultants to

undertake a Healthy Country Plan for the area from Dead Finish to the Cape; 4. Notes that no construction will occur whilst this plan is being developed; and 5. Receives the Healthy Country Plan once complete with the recommendations for the area. LOCATION PLAN


9

TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND The Shire has been progressively investigating and constructing a multi-use trail (walk/cycle) from Flinders Bay towards the Cape Leeuwin lighthouse since at least 2011. In 2015 construction commenced of a concrete path between Flinders Bay and the Augusta Boat Harbour (ABH). Due to significant interest and constraints including financial, environmental and constructability, Council has considered the matter a number of times. In 2016 at OM2016/46 Resolution:

That Council: • Supports a dual use path to be constructed from the Augusta Boat Harbour to Dead Finish

Rd in the 2016/17 financial year. • Forms an Augusta Path/ Trails group in order to determine the most suitable path alignment

from the Augusta Boat Harbour to the Leeuwin Lighthouse, giving consideration to the environmental, financial and safety aspects.

• Explore additional funding options, including grants and the sale of Augusta land assets, to support the staged completion of the path.

CARRIED 6/1 CR HAYNES VOTED AGAINST

Following discussion, in 2018 at OM2018/162 Resolution:

Council asks that the CEO: 1. Make a recommendation to Council on the appointment of a specialised trail consultant to;

a) finalise construction details, and await a clearing permit for the trail section between Augusta Boat Harbour and Dead Finish, with the aim to complete construction by November 2018.

b) Complete the work required in sections 1,3,4 and 7 of this motion subject to satisfactory costings of each section.

2. Once construction details are finalised seeks external and internal quotes to determine the most cost efficient method of constructing this section of the Trail.

3. Calls a meeting of the Augusta Path/Trail Group, relevant officers and the appointed consultant to determine the status of the group and its composition and to formally determine a potential alignment for the sections beyond Dead Finish;

4. Commissions the trail consultant to conduct a feasibility analysis/concept plan of the trail and corridor for the entire section between Dead Finish and the Lighthouse, and a preliminary cost estimate.

5. Commissions flora fauna surveys (Spring 2018) and Aboriginal Heritage surveys if required, for the preferred corridor from Dead Finish to the Lighthouse once the alignment is determined.

6. Receives a report on the preferred alignment and preliminary cost and consider the need to amend the allocation for the project in the Long Term Financial Plan.


10

7. Commissions the trail consultant to develop a detailed construction plan and costing for distinct trail sections, ready to allow procurement for continued construction, in a timely manner on a staged basis, utilizing current and future budgeted funds.

8. Seeks supporting grant funding for further stages including dedicated interpretive signage to ensure the creation of a world class walking/cycle track, after having determined their alignment and cost.

CARRIED 7/0 Following extensive environmental approvals and negotiations with Department of Transport, approximately 800m of compacted granite path was constructed from the ABH to Dead Finish Road in late 2019 and work has been progressing on item 4 above. Dead Finish Road is a short 530 m low traffic gravel road that is suitable to be shared between pedestrians/cyclists and vehicles allowing trail users to reach Dead Finish Beach, where a picnic table, disabled fishing platform, informal parking area and swimming opportunities exist.

An extension of approximately 2.7km would provide residents and visitors the opportunity to travel safely from Dead Finish to Cape Leeuwin Lighthouse. However, there are very significant environmental and cultural constraints that require consideration prior to determining proceeding further with this project. These are discussed below. The existing path from Flinders Bay to Dead Finish varies from a 2.5m wide concrete path, to an approximately 2m wide compacted granite path, to shared use of an existing gravel road and is currently suitable for walkers, bicycling and prams. Due to grades and surfaces, it is not considered feasible to provide for universal access. The expected standard of any extension to the Lighthouse is subject to more detailed analysis. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation The Augusta Interpretation Plan and Trails Community Reference Group met on 15 August 2019 to discuss the concept alignments prior to commissioning appropriate flora and fauna studies. The group


11

were supportive of progressing studies and should be used to consider the outcomes of the various studies to date and options for progressing a trail to the Lighthouse in accordance with the Council resolutions. The Group met again on 07 May 2020 to discuss the outcomes of the environmental and Aboriginal cultural values consultation and possible next steps. The Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) and the Undalup Association were consulted as detailed in the Discussion section below. It is noted that a trail extension from Flinders Bay to the Cape Leeuwin Lighthouse is identified in the draft CapeROC Regional Trails Strategy (in preparation) and also in the Unbeaten Trails Plan. In May 2020, Council received a presentation from local Wadandi representatives who requested Council engage in development of a “Healthy Country Plan” (HCP) for any site the Shire is considering undertaking work on, including this area. The HCP would explore all cultural and heritage values with local Wadandi people and determine the values of the site. This would be funded by the Cape Leeuwin Trail project budget. Internal Consultation • Asset Services • Works DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS On 27 June 2018, Council resolved OM2018/238:

That Council awards the Cape Leeuwin Trail Planning and Design project to Common Ground Trails Pty Ltd.

CARRIED 5/1 CR GODDEN VOTED AGAINST

Common Ground Trails then commenced field assessments and provided indicative alignments for consideration in August 2018. This concept design is provided in detail as Attachment 1 and an extract is shown below.


12

This concept identified a preferred alignment (solid red line) and a series of optional (red dash line) alignments. These concept alignments were determined onsite and consider terrain and landform and are primarily designed to provide the best experience for trail users. This experience includes considerations such as gradients, views for trails users, and safety and aesthetic impacts of the trail itself. Environmental Assessment Litoria Ecoservices was commissioned to undertake flora and fauna assessments of the proposed alignments. Initial field work identified significant environment values, including the presence of critically endangered and vulnerable fauna species across almost the entire study area and the presence of large tracts of some of the most ecologically significant vegetation managed by the Shire, plus the presence of a possible endangered vegetation community. Shire staff then met on site with the consultant, and threatened flora and fauna specialists from the Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions. This meeting confirmed the presence of the endangered vegetation community and also identified a new, previously unrecorded population of the threatened Cape Leeuwin Snail which is State and Federally listed. In summary, development of a trail along either alignment would need to consider and mitigate impacts on: • Western Ringtail Possums ((State and Federally listed as Critically Endangered) in many parts. The

consultant noted that WRP surveys were largely limited to the edges of existing disturbed areas due to the impenetrable nature of much of the vegetation. It is presumed that WRP are present in all areas of Low closed forest, closed scrub and dense heath.

• Cape Leeuwin Snail (State and Federally listed as Vulnerable) • Chuditch (State listed as Vulnerable) • Quenda and Hooded Plover (Priority species) • Some of the most ecologically significant vegetation managed by the Shire • Extensive areas of very good and excellent condition vegetation • Endangered Tufa Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) (State and Federally listed) not

previously recorded from southern coast


13

• State listed Melaleuca lanceolata forest priority ecological community (PEC) • Regionally significant granite communities • Groundwater dependent vegetation supporting endangered fauna Recommendations made by the environmental consultant include: • Avoid or minimise clearing good or better condition vegetation • Avoid or minimise clearing of WRP habitat by realigning the trail out of the Low closed forest, closed

scrub and dense heath. • Maintain canopy connectivity by reducing trail width • Avoid impact to Cape Leeuwin snail through avoiding direct impact to the sites and avoiding any

hydrological changes • Avoid clearing in Melaleuca PEC. • Avoid disturbance to Tufa TEC through avoiding direct impact to the sites and avoiding any

hydrological changes • Avoid disturbance of granite plant communities Granite alignment In collaboration with Common Ground Trails and Litoria Ecoservices, a third trail alignment option was then discussed. This would involve construction of a boardwalk over extensive tracts of bare granite to minimise direct and indirect impact to vegetation and fauna values. Shire officers prepared an indicative map as shown below which was used as a basis for the Cultural Values Assessment. This options is shown as the blue dash line below. It should be noted that this alignment is a theoretical concept only and not the result of accurately determining a possible alignment in the field. As such, it would be subject to “ground truthing” and significant refinement, but was considered suitable for a high level cultural values assessment.

Cultural Values Assessment A lodged Aboriginal Heritage site, the Augusta Standing Stone (Place ID 21489) is recorded in the area to the south west of Dead Finish as indicated on the map below.


14

In October 2018, Shire officers discussed the concept of a trail from Dead Finish to the Cape Leeuwin Lighthouse with the South West Boojarah Working Party. The Working Party provided in principle support subject to by representatives of the Working Party assessing the alignment in the field. The initial concept alignment prepared by Common Ground Trails and the subsequent granite concept were designed to avoid the actual Standing Stone Site but would pass nearby. In February 2020, Applied Archaeology Australia and Undalup Association carried out a preliminary archaeological and ethnographic assessment. This involved a discussion of possible alignments and trail construction methodology, including a site visit. The Augusta Standing Stone was unable to be located and is presumed to have been damaged or lost. During the site visit, a large and previously unrecorded ceremonial and ancestral occupation site was located, which has been impacted by historic and ongoing unauthorised vehicle access. Each of the three concept alignments for the trail extension would potentially cause further damage to the newly revealed Site. Furthermore, erosion associated with vehicle access continues to impact and undermine the cultural values of this area. Undalup Association and Applied Archaeology Australia strongly recommended that urgent measures are installed to reduce vehicle access, undertake a comprehensive cultural values assessment of the entire area and develop a cultural management and rehabilitation plan. Work is underway to address vehicle access and the Undalup Association has made application for a Coastwest grant to further review the heritage values and undertake rehabilitation in this area. The Shire could provide inkind support to this project with a view to working with Traditional Owners to evaluate cultural values and rehabilitate degraded areas. The Shire’s role and direction will be guided by further planning for track options. In May 2020, Council received a presentation from local Wadandi representatives who requested Council engage in development of a “Healthy Country Plan” (HCP) for any site the Shire is considering undertaking work on, including this area. The HCP would explore all cultural and heritage values with


15

local Wadandi people and determine the values of the site. This would be funded by the Cape Leeuwin Trail project budget. Options for consideration Walk Trails can categorised by their level of usability and degree of landform modification as defined in the Australian Standard 2156.1 - 2001 Walking Tracks - Classification and Signage. This standard classifies trails from Grade 1 to Grade 5, with Grade 1 being suitable for universal access and Grade 5 being suitable for experienced bushwalkers with specialised skills and no modification to the natural environment, such as stairs, being undertaken. An extract from a classification user guide is provided below for reference.

Given the significant cultural and ecological values, several options should be considered: 1. Continue with planning for a multi-use trail (Grade 2) that would be likely to include sections of

extensive boardwalk to mitigate impacts to environmental values, at significant cost; 2. Commence planning for a formalised, but narrow, Grade 3-4, walk only trail that minimises impact

to existing vegetated areas and connects to existing degraded areas and vehicle tracks; 3. Commence planning for an informal walk trail that utilises existing degraded areas and granite

areas. This could be similar to the more rugged sections of the Cape to Cape Track and would likely be classified as a Grade 4 or 5 walk trail as the terrain will be unmodified; or

4. Resolve to not undertake any further trail development and undertake rehabilitation of degraded areas. Consideration could be given to improving the facilities at Dead Finish to make it a more attractive terminus such as interpretive signage and a shade structure in line with the Augusta Interpretive Plan.

To progress options 1, 2 or 3 will require significant further investigation before finalising a feasibility analysis and preliminary costing. This would include, at a minimum: • Further, more detailed investigation into cultural values; • Further investigation into gradients, alignments and costs of all options including boardwalk

sections; • Further investigation of improving safety of the Leeuwin Road shoulder for cyclists;


16

• Further investigation in relation to management of environmental values; • Visual impact assessment, particularly in relation to views from the Cape Leeuwin Lighthouse

Precinct and possible boardwalk; • Development of economic analysis or business case that considers whole of life costs; • Possible grant funding opportunities; and • Further community consultation, given the possible significant change to the type of trail previously

endorsed by Council. Until such time as these issues are resolved, it is recommended that no further construction work take place. Augusta Interpretation Plan and Trails Community Reference Group The Augusta Interpretation Plan and Trails Community Reference Group met in May 2020 and considered the four options outlined above. CRG members unanimously agreed that the standard of the trail should remain dual use (walk/cycle) and a walk only trail was not an acceptable outcome. The group further agreed that detailed investigation of Indigenous heritage of the area between Dead Finish and the Cape Leeuwin lighthouse should be undertaken as a matter of priority. This would include an ethnographic and archaeological investigation and detail cultural values that may be affected by the proposal and how these values can be protected and managed. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2036 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2019-2023 Key Result Area 3: Ensuring Sustainable Development Community Outcome 6: Connected and safe transport network Strategy 1: Develop and maintain a high quality road, cycleway and footpath network throughout the shire in partnership with all levels of government Action 3.6.1.2 ongoing implementation of the Cape Leeuwin Trail and Tourism Precinct Plan. Key Result Area 1: Valuing, protecting and enhancing the natural environment Community Outcome 4: Continued Unique and Iconic Coastal Landscapes Strategy 1: Plan effectively to protect coastal and other key landscapes. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2019-20 budget for the project allocated $445,000 of which approximately $200,000 remains. It is not possible to accurately estimate costs for various trail scenarios without further analysis. Costs associated with planning for the extension from Dead Finish to Cape Leeuwin Lighthouse to date are approximately $15,000 with a further $8,500 committed to detailed design. It is anticipated that to undertake a cultural assessment and development of a management plan would cost in the order of $25-$30,000. It is proposed to fund this from the project budget PXN013. At this stage, no grant sources have been identified as suitable for this project. However, if a significant post COVID19 stimulus package geared towards increasing tourism is available, then there could be possible opportunities for State and/or Federal contributions. Long Term Financial Plan The project was allocated $100,000 per annum in the 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 years of the adopted Long Term Financial Plan. Furthermore, in 2019, Council resolved (OM2019/183) to direct the funds generated from the sale of 29 Allnutt Terrace to this project. That sale resulted in income of $222,727 (excluding GST).


17

Whole of Lifecycle considerations A trail or infrastructure of any type will require on going management and maintenance and eventual replacement, however the details of these costs can’t be considered until further detail on trail types and alignments is progressed. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental • Option 1 is considered to be likely to have the greatest environmental impact due to the larger

clearing footprint required to construct and maintain a multi-use trail. It would be impossible to achieve any of the key recommendations detailed in the environmental reports.

• Option 2 would have slightly less impact, however it would require resolution of significant environmental issues to achieve the recommendations in the environmental reports, particularly in relation to avoiding clearing in good or better condition vegetation, or clearing of WRP habitat. Boardwalks would be required to avoid damage to Tufa and Cape Leeuwin Snail areas.

• Option 3 whilst minimal new clearing would be required, it would be difficult to adequately delineate a preferred path across the granite communities, resulting in long term degradation of this community. Boardwalks would be required to avoid damage to Tufa and Cape Leeuwin Snail areas. It is expected that this option would have an overall negative impact on the environment.

• 4 is considered to have opportunities for positive environmental impacts Social Development of a trail to the Cape Leeuwin Precinct area will provide opportunities for visitors and residents to recreate outdoors and may provide significant tourism benefits if a spectacular boardwalk is constructed. Options 2 and 3 will provide extremely limited opportunities for less-able walkers Advice from engagement with Traditional Owners and Knowledge Holders to date indicates a strong lack of support for progressing a trail. Progressing such a trail will cause damage to cultural and social landscapes and relationships and such damage should be strongly considered. Economic While there could be potential for increased tourism as a result of a high quality walk experience, a detailed analysis would be required to quantify the expected capital and operational costs along with any positive economic impacts. ADVOCACY Nil IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION Council could resolve not to develop a Healthy Country Plan, however, further studies would still need to be undertaken before the trail could be constructed. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority REVISED RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Notes the outcomes of the preliminary trail analysis, flora and fauna surveys, initial cultural


2. Notes the need for a detailed archaeological and ethnographic survey; 3. Authorises the CEO to engage with Wadandi representatives and source relevant consultants to

undertake a Healthy Country Plan for the area from Dead Finish to the Cape; 4. Notes that no construction will occur whilst this plan is being developed; and 5. Receives the Healthy Country Plan once complete with the recommendations for the area. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil


18

ATTACHMENTS 1. Concept Plan 2. Environmental Reports (x2) 3. CONFIDENTIAL Cultural assessment REVISED RECOMMENDATION CR MELDRUM, CR CRISTOFFANINI That Council: 1. Notes the outcomes of the preliminary trail analysis, flora and fauna surveys, initial cultural


2. Notes the need for a detailed archaeological and ethnographic survey; 3. Authorises the CEO to engage with Wadandi representatives and source relevant

consultants to undertake a Healthy Country Plan for the area from Dead Finish to the Cape; 4. Notes that no construction will occur whilst this plan is being developed; and 5. Receives the Healthy Country Plan once complete with the recommendations for the area.

0/0 Cr McLeod moved the following amendment: REASON The additional wording in dot point 3 ensures the project stays on track. The addition of point 6 allows for exploration of potential funding opportunities. AMENDMENT / COUNCIL DECISION CR MCLEOD, CR KENNAUGH OM2020/96 That the recommendation be amended with additions shown in underline as follows: That Council: 1. Notes the outcomes of the preliminary trail analysis, flora and fauna surveys, initial cultural



consultants to undertake a Health Country Plan for the area from Dead Finish to the Cape as soon as feasibly possible;

4. Notes that no construction will occur whilst this plan is being developed; 5. Receives the Healthy Country Plan once complete with the recommendations for the area;

and 6. Requests the CEO investigates opportunities for state or federal government funding to

ensure the highest standards of environmental and cultural integrity in any Cape Leeuwin Track Design.

CARRIED 7/0 This then became the primary motion: PRIMARY MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR MELDRUM, CR CRISTOFFANINI OM2020/97 That Council: 1. Notes the outcomes of the preliminary trail analysis, flora and fauna surveys, initial cultural



consultants to undertake a Health Country Plan for the area from Dead Finish to the Cape as soon as feasibly possible;

4. Notes that no construction will occur whilst this plan is being developed; 5. Receives the Healthy Country Plan once complete with the recommendations for the area;

and


19

6. Requests the CEO investigates opportunities for state or federal government funding to ensure the highest standards of environmental and cultural integrity in any Cape Leeuwin Track Design.

CARRIED 7/0 Members of the public left Chambers at 6.07pm The following officers re-entered Chambers: Chief Executive Officer, Director Sustainable Development and Infrastructure, Director Corporate and Community Services, Manager Corporate Services, Manager Legal and Governance and Acting Manager Planning and Development The order of business was then resumed.


20

11.1. Chief Executive Officer


21

11.1.1 RAILWAY PRECINCT INVESTIGATION PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS Lot 508 Clarke Road, Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Various FILE REFERENCE LND/159 REPORT AUTHORS Ian McLeod, Manager Legal and Governance

Claire Schiller, Governance Officer / Council Support Matt Cuthbert, Statutory and Strategic Planning Officer Jason Cleary, Coordinator Community Development

AUTHORISING OFFICER Ian McLeod, Manager Legal and Governance Services

IN BRIEF • At its Ordinary Meeting on 11 December 2019, Council resolved to explore the costs and options

associated with developing contiguous reserves located on Clarke Road as a community precinct, with a focus on the Shire’s railway heritage.

• A key element of the project would be the return of the former Margaret River Railway Station Building from its current location at Yoongarillup in the City of Busselton.

• In February 2020, the current owner of the station building advised that he would not relinquish the building.

• Due to the unavailability of the station building, along with a number of other constraints relating to the legal and tenure arrangements of the site, community need, and strategic planning implications, officers concluded that development of the Clarke Road site as a community precinct is unfeasible at this time.

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Does not proceed with detailed investigations into development of Lot 136 Clarke Road as a

Community Precinct: 2. Does not renew the option to purchase agreement with Mr Bevan McCann in relation to the Railway

Barracks; and 3. Authorises the CEO to assist Mr McCann with the cost of demolishing the barracks on Lot 136

Clarke Rd, in the event that an alternative purchaser is unable to be located. LOCATION PLAN


22

THE SUBJECT LAND Table 1 indicates the land which forms part of the notional ‘precinct’, its ownership and tenure. Table 1- Tenure

Land Description Buildings Vesting Purpose Reserve R50552 (old railway station reserve) – Lot 508

Goods Shed constructed in 1926.

Shire of Augusta Margaret River

• Leased to Margaret River Regional Environment Centre (MRREC)

• Proposed location for relocation of railway building

Lot 136 Railway Barracks constructed in 1926.

Formerly a reserve vested in the Public Transit Authority (PTA), converted to Unallocated Crown Land in 2004 and subject to Native Title Settlement

• UCL with lease from PTA to Bevan McCann carried over from former reserve.

Reserve R51851 – Lots 509/510

DFES SES Facility and Fire Station Site

Reserve R39689 Shire of Augusta Margaret River

Parks and Recreation with power to lease

HERITAGE VALUE The following is taken from the Shire’s Municipal Heritage Inventory

Statement of Significance

Margaret River Railway Station Group* Site is of significance: For its contribution to an understanding of the pattern of settlement in the South West of the State and its association with the development of the region following the establishment of the Group Settlement Scheme.


23

For its historical association with the important role of the WAGR railway in providing goods transport in the South West to assist agricultural production. In 1993 the Goods Shed was assessed as an extremely rare example of its type (Goods Shed, 4th Class) (Uhe, Philippa, The Survey of Railway Heritage in Western Australia National Trust of Australia, 1993)

Integrity Low: The use has been altered and the original use cannot be readily discerned.

Authenticity Low to Moderate (varies across the site) Level of Significance Moderate - Contributes to the heritage of the locality. Extract from Historical Notes

After the railway closed, the WA Government Railway (WAGR) decided to retain a station officer at Margaret River for dealing with road services. Frank McCann had been Assistant Station Master, Margaret River since November 1952 and was appointed to this new role. He was the only WAGR station officer at a station with no rail service. On 1 July 1982 he was appointed Station Master, Busselton and retired from that position in July 1984.

*Margaret River Station Group Site – Lot 136 and 135, bounded by Railway Terrace, Boodjidup Road, Clarke Road and Betts Street, Margaret River TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND The Margaret River Railway Station opened in 1924 with the Barracks and Goods Shed built two years later. In 1957 rail traffic ceased and in 1985 the station building was privately purchased and moved to Yoongarillup, where it formed part of the Whistle Stop Miniature Railway tourist attraction until it closed in approximately 2001. The Barracks remain located at Lot 136 Clarke Road and Goods Shed on Reserve R50552.

Station building located in Yongarillup, January 2015 Goods Shed, 2012

Barracks, Lot 136 Clarke Rd, 2020


24

In July 2019 Bevan McCann, owner of the railway barracks building and lessee of Lot 136 Clarke Road, sought expression of interest in the local newspaper for sale and removal of the barracks building from Lot 136 so he could terminate the lease. In response the Shire contacted the Public Transport Authority (PTA) requesting that Mr McCann be allowed to surrender the lease without removing the barracks from the land due to its historical significance to Margaret River. The PTA agreed for Mr McCann to surrender the lease without removing the barracks and confirmed they would be willing to relinquish control of the reserve to enable the Shire pursue management with the Department Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH). The Shire is currently seeking vesting of the land through DPLH. This prompted a notice of motion from Cr McLeod and subsequent Council decision on 11 December 2019:

MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR MCLEOD, CR CRISTOFFANINI OM2019/263 That Council: 1. Requests the CEO explore the options and costs related to development of this site (Lot

136 Clarke Road, currently UCL) as a community precinct. 2. Authorises the CEO to write to the Margaret River Districts & Historical Society Inc and

Margaret River Regional Environment Centre Inc to discuss costs and logistic of relocating the original railway station building to reserve 50552 (Lot 508 Clarke Rd) currently leased by the Margaret River Regional Environment Centre Inc.

3. Authorises the CEO to enter into an agreement with Mr Bevan McCann to: a) pay $500 for an option to purchase the railway barracks building from Mr McCann

expiring in 30 June 2020; and b) reimburse all direct expenses incurred by Mr McCann

CARRIED 7/0 CONSULTATION AND ADVICE In January 2020, Shire officers contacted the Margaret River & Districts Historical Society Inc (MRDHS) and confirmed the group remained supportive of development of a community precinct and were continuing to proactively ‘steer’ the project by re-opening communication with the station building owner and requesting funding from the Shire to assist with potential relocation of the station building. MRREC also gave in principle support for the relocation of the station building to their leased site, Reserve R50552, Clarke Road. In February 2020 the Shire was notified by MRDHS that the owner of the station building was not prepared to relinquish ownership. DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Station Building Council’s resolution to explore a community precinct at the subject site was predicated on the ability to obtain the original station building from its current owner. Due to the refusal of the owner to relinquish the building, staff have been unable to quantify key elements and logistics such as:

• The cost of purchasing the building; • The cost of its transportation to Margaret River; and • Costs associated with its ‘installation’ upon a new site.

Community Precinct - Form and Function The objective of the MRDHS for a community precinct at the subject land is understood to be the showcasing of the Shire’s railway heritage in an attractive natural setting. The MRDHS have not developed a plan for the area and, therefore, the Shire has not been able to establish with MRDHS key questions as to the form and function of any future precinct such as:

• Who would manage the precinct and under what arrangement e.g. lease? • For what purpose would the station building and barracks be used – would they have any

practical use beyond heritage preservation?


25

• What would be the costs of maintaining the precinct? • Would the precinct have the potential to generate any income?

Despite the lack of a plan, Shire officers have observed that there are fundamental impediments to the creation of a community precinct located across the land parcels which form the subject site. These include:

• The Barracks and Goods Shed are 250m apart; • The Barracks and Goods Shed are completely separated by an area of dense vegetation and

land parcels under the control of DFES and would require visitors to traverse a 90m extent of road reserve to access both buildings.

• The Shire does not have responsibility for Lot 136 which accommodates the Barracks and because the land is Unallocated Crown Land (UCL), it remains subject to Native Title and could not be vested in the Shire unless Native Title was extinguished.

• The dilapidated state of the Barracks means that moving it (to one of the adjacent reserves) is not possible.

• The Barracks is currently unsafe for public use and may be too dilapidated to restore to appropriate engineering and heritage standards for public use.

Future of the Goods Shed The Shire has granted MRREC $80,000 in funding for the upgrade of the Goods Shed for use as their headquarters in accordance with a Shire issued Development Approval. This funding has not been drawn upon to date. Before expending these monies, MRREC have advised the Shire in April 2020 that they are reconsidering their ability to manage and operate the facility due to uncertainties about the MRREC’s future governance and resources. Future of the Railway Barracks The Shire has an option to purchase the Barracks which has been preserved by way of a $500 payment to the owner. If the Shire does not purchase the building it will be the responsibility of the owner Mr McCann to find an alternative buyer or to dispose of the building through demolition. Any estimated costs to restore the Barracks without prior detailed structural assessment and material testing would be arbitrary and possibly misleading. The size and design of the building does not lend itself to a community building, either for general community hall type use or as an exclusive use leased premises for a single community group. Some preliminary outline of the works that would be required to make the building fit for a community type use would include:

• Structural assessment and upgrades as required; • Provision of access and facilities for those with disabilities, including carparking, access ramp

and unisex accessible toilet; • Assessment of light and ventilation, including weatherproofing and condensation

management; • Energy efficiency assessment.

While the cost of preserving the Barracks as a non-habitable building would be considerably lower, repairs would still need to be made to the building and it would require significant ongoing maintenance like any other building in the Shire. It would be difficult to justify expending funds on repairs and maintenance for a building that would not be useable and is not in a prominent enough location to allow its heritage value to be appreciated by passers-by. The Shire made enquiries with the Department of Planning Land and Heritage in August 2019 in relation to the possibility of providing the Shire with a management order over Lot 136. In November 2019 Shire officers met with the Assistant Manager for DPLH Lands in the South West and Manager South West-Great Southern in relation to Lot 136 to further discuss the vesting of Lot 136. The Shire was advised by DPLH that as the land was UCL it was subject to Native Title and had been flagged as part of the South West Settlement. On 20 May 2020 the Assistant Manager for DPLH Lands in the South West verbally advised Shire officers that they were having difficulty identifying any tenure that would extinguish native title over Lot 136 and therefore a management order in favour of the Shire would not


26

be a possibility until the South West Native Title Settlement was finalised. No timeline has been provided for this. It is anticipated that there would be an incentive for the Shire to consider expending such monies in improving the Barracks if:

• They held a high level of heritage significance; and • They were located upon land which the Shire controlled; and • They could be put to a useful ongoing purpose, which may result in a financial return to the

Shire or management responsibility could be transferred to another group; and • They could be made to form part of a broader railway heritage precinct managed and primarily

funded by bodies external to the Shire. None of these prerequisites are currently applicable. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The option to purchase the barracks building form Mr McCann expires on 30 June 2020. Given the;

• cost of restoring the building; • strong possibility that the Shire will not get a management order for Lot 136; • lack of community need or demand for a building of this nature; • ongoing costs of maintenance; and • inability to integrate the barracks building into a larger community precinct or relocate the

building to alternative site;

The option to purchase has cost the Shire $5,691 to date through waivers and reimbursements of expenses related to the barracks (see financial implications). If the option was renewed for another year, it is expected that this amount would more than double. It is recommended that the option to purchase not be renewed. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2036 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2019-2023 Key result area 3: Ensuring sustainable development Community Outcome 1: Clearly defined areas for growth, renewal and protection Strategic Response 2: Ensure structure plans are designed to preserve and enhance the unique character and sustainability of centres, towns and villages FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Implications No money has been budgeted for any designs or works for the proposed precinct or the Barracks building. To date the Shire has expended/forgone $5,691.43 through waivers and reimbursements to Mr McCann in relation to the Barracks. That amount can be broken down as follows:

Item Amount ($’s) Rate concession for assessment A5308 1,510.44 Request for payment No 1 – rent, water rates, waste levy, ESL, waste & recycling collection

2,216.67

Request for payment No 2 – water rates and usage 115.09 Request for payment No 3 - rent 1,300.00 Request for payment No 4 – water rates and usage 49.23 Option to purchase fee 500 Total of above 5,691.43

Long Term Financial Plan Nil


27

Whole of Lifecycle considerations Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental In the absence of a detailed plan for the project it is not possible to determine the exact extent of any environmental impacts (if any). Given the vegetated nature of Reserve 39689, development of this lot would likely require removal of trees and understory. Social A community precinct of this size and nature requires a lead agency or committee with good governance and resources in place to ensure successful implementation as well as ongoing sustainability. The Margaret River District Historical Society have indicated that they do not have the resources nor the willingness to manage both the current historical precinct, the Old Settlement, alongside this new facility. The Margaret River Regional Environment Centre are focused on delivering the upgrade project for their current facility within this reserve and, at this stage, it is understood they are unsure if their own governance structures are sufficient to manage the space if developed. No other community organisations have been identified with need for a space as such or with the capacity to manage such a precinct if it was developed. Economic Nil ADVOCACY Nil IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION Should Council wish to proceed with developing the site as a community precinct, further exploration of options and costs would be required. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Does not proceed with detailed investigations into development of Lot 136 Clarke Road as a

Community Precinct: 2. Does not renew the option to purchase agreement with Mr Bevan McCann in relation to the Railway

Barracks; and 3. Authorises the CEO to assist Mr McCann with the cost of demolishing the barracks on Lot 136

Clarke Rd, in the event that an alternative purchaser is unable to be located. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Excerpts from Shire of Augusta Margaret River Municipal Heritage Inventory (assessment matrix

and Margaret River Station Group Site) RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR GODDEN, CR DANIEL OM2020/98 That Council: 1. Does not proceed with detailed investigations into development of Lot 136 Clarke Road as

a Community Precinct: 2. Does not renew the option to purchase agreement with Mr Bevan McCann in relation to the

Railway Barracks; and


28

3. Authorises the CEO to assist Mr McCann with the cost of demolishing the barracks on Lot 136 Clarke Rd, in the event that an alternative purchaser is unable to be located.

LOST 0/7 CRS EARL, MCLEOD, MELDRUM, KENNAUGH, CRISTOFFANINI, GODDEN AND DANIEL

VOTED AGAINST During debate Cr Godden foreshadowed the following alternative motion: FORESHADOWED ALTERNATIVE MOTION That Council: 1. Does not proceed with detailed investigations into development of Lot 136 Clarke Road as a

Community Precinct; and 2. Authorises the CEO to negotiate an extension of the option and reimbursement agreement with Mr

McCann in relation to the Railway Barracks, from 30 June 2020 to 30 June 2021. As the primary motion was lost, Cr Godden moved the foreshadowed alternative motion: REASON The alternative motion allows for more time to see what emerges from the community. ALTERNATIVE MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR GODDEN, CR DANIEL OM2020/99 That Council: 1. Does not proceed with detailed investigations into development of Lot 136 Clarke Road as

a Community Precinct; and 2. Authorises the CEO to negotiate an extension of the option and reimbursement agreement

with Mr McCann in relation to the Railway Barracks, from 30 June 2020 to 30 June 2021. CARRIED 7/0


29

11.2.

Sustainable Development and Infrastructure


30

11.2.1 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 60 AND RELATED STRUCTURE PLAN - FOR FINAL DETERMINATION LOCATION/ADDRESS Lot 16 and 26 Illawarra Avenue and Lot 20 Merino Way, Margaret

River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Halsall & Associates Town Planning Consultants / SC Spiers, LM

Willmott, WM & GJ Smith FILE REFERENCE LND/1/60SASP REPORT AUTHOR Matt Cuthbert, Strategic Projects Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER David Nicholson, Acting Director Sustainable Development and

Infrastructure IN BRIEF • The subject land is an established rural residential subdivision known as ‘Basildene Estate’. • A Subdivision Guide Plan was prepared to guide re-subdivision of the area from 3ha lots into 1ha

lots in 1997. • That plan no longer forms part of the operational statutory planning framework. • Three lots (Lots 16 and 26 Illawarra Avenue and Lot 20 Merino Way) were not subdivided at that

time and remain as larger 3ha lots. • The proposal is to put in place a suitable zoning and structure plan which will allow the un-

subdivided lots to be subdivided into 1ha lots consistent with those that surround them. RECOMMENDATION That Council recommend to the WAPC that Amendment 60 and the related Structure Plan be approved. THE SUBJECT LAND The subject precinct consists of 57 lots in the general vicinity of Merino Way, Hereford Drive and Illawarra Avenue, west of Margaret River. Whilst these lots are all included within the subject amendment, the only lots which will be affected in any meaningful way are Lots 16 and 26 Illawarra Avenue and Lot 20 Merino Way (hereafter referred to as ‘the subject land’).

Figure 1 – Precinct in blue with subject land shaded


31

THE PROPOSAL The objective of this proposal is to: • Allow Lots 16 and 26 Illawarra Avenue to be subdivided to create 4 lots ranging between 1ha and

1.7ha in size; and • Allow Lot 20 Merino Way, to be subdivided into two lots of between 1 and 2ha in size (see

Attachment 1). Currently, the subject land is zoned rural residential in Council’s LPS1 and hence the minimum lot size applicable is 3ha. Notwithstanding this, the majority of the lots within the precinct are 1ha, owing to the fact that they were subdivided at the time a ‘Subdivision Guide Plan’ was in effect over the land. As such, it is proposed to include all of the land within a logical precinct, and designate it as Rural Residential Area No. 39 (‘RR39’) within which the following provisions will apply: 1. The local government will not support any proposal to re-subdivide the land until such time a

Structure Plan has been prepared and adopted for the land in accordance with the Scheme or subsequent Structure Plan approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission, in accordance with the process set out in Part 4 of the Deemed Provisions.

2. All vegetation on the land shall be preserved unless dead or dangerous or required to be removed to give effect to an approved subdivision or development.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 4.21 of the Scheme, the average lot size for re subdivision of the land shall be 1 hectare.

In accordance with the intended scheme provisions (above), a structure plan has been submitted for approval. In relation to the majority of the lots within the precinct, the structure plan does nothing but reflect their current layout and density. However, as it applies to the subject land, the structure plan provides for Lots 16 and 26 Illawarra Avenue to be subdivided to create 4 lots ranging between 1ha and 1.7ha, and Lot 20 Merino Way, to be subdivided into two lots of 1ha and 1.99ha. BACKGROUND Council resolved to support the proposal (with modifications) for the purposes of allowing it to be subject to consultation, in July 2019. TABLED ITEMS Nil STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The proposal has been progressed in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Local Planning Strategy Rather than identifying new areas for rural residential development, the LPS seeks to provide supply through the re-subdivision and efficient use of areas already committed for this purpose. Council’s policy position with respect to the re-subdivision of rural residential land is articulated at section 3.3.5 of the LPS which defines locational and design criteria. Design Criteria particularly relevant to the subject land are:

a) Subdivision at a ratio of less than 1ha (average) will not be supported. b) Lots of not less than 4000m2 may be considered where a clustered subdivision approach is

appropriate notwithstanding that the 1ha average lot size will still need to be met. c) Rezoning and structure planning necessary to support subdivision should be undertaken on a

precinct (rather than lot by lot) basis unless completing a pattern of subdivision. d) Subdividers will be required to contribute to the proportional upgrade of infrastructure necessary

to adequately service the intended additional population. e) Opportunities for re-subdivision should seek to provide enhanced environmental outcomes. f) A bushfire hazard assessment and Bushfire Management Plan is to be prepared and

implemented at the time of subdivision.


32

The subject proposal was initially identified as being suitable for re-subdivision in 1997. Re-subdivision of the subject lots would be in keeping with the ‘infill’ subdivision which has occurred in the immediate locality since 1997. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE The proposal was subject to a period of public consultation which ended in December 2019. During that period a total of 14 submissions were received, 7 being from government agencies and service providers and 7 from the general public. All Government submissions were of ‘no objection’ with the exception of DFES who raised concerns regarding the Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) which have since been addressed. No objections were received from the general public (see Attachment 2). DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Fire safety As required by the LPS, a fundamental determinant of whether a rural residential lot should be considered for further subdivision, is the ability to achieve building envelopes where the risk rating is BAL29 or below. The proponent has submitted a bushfire hazard assessment and management plan prepared by a suitably qualified consultant. This confirms that there are locations on all proposed lots where future dwellings can be safely located to achieve a Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) of 29 or less. DFES initially raised concerns over the classification of vegetation and its effect on the resultant BAL rating. These matters were subsequently addressed by the proponent and referred again to DFES who have since advised that the application is now ‘compliant’. The BMP confirms that the location of building envelopes is such that there will be “no proposed modification required to any native vegetation”. Vegetation Protection The majority of vegetation which exists on all lots is introduced woodland species. Native species, where they exist, consist of Marri and WA Peppermint. A flora and fauna assessment which accompanies the proposal identifies that the vegetation is classed as being in a degraded to very degraded state. Notwithstanding, there are 12 native trees ranging in size from 9m to 28m in height, which are identified as being significant and possible habitat to the black cockatoo. The subdivision layout has been designed to avoid significant trees and as required by Council prior to advertising, the trees are clearly marked on the structure plan to ensure their protection during subdivision and beyond.


33

Figure 2 –Significant trees to be protected (green dots) STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2036 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2019-2023 Key Result Area 3: Managing Growth Sustainably Community Outcome: Clearly defined areas for growth and renewal Strategic Response: Implement Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1) Service Level Strategy/Plan: Provide Planning Services FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Implications The proposal will have a small positive effect on rates. Long Term Financial Plan Nil Whole of Lifecycle considerations Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Vegetation identified as being significant will be protected. Social The proposal will provide for the growth of the Margaret River community in a planned manner. Economic The creation, sale and development of the subject lots will have a positive economic effect. ADVOCACY Nil IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION Regulation 50 (3) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 provides Council with three options being:


34

a) to support the amendment without modification; or b) to support the amendment with proposed modifications to address issues raised in the

submissions; or c) not to support the amendment.

Notwithstanding what Council’s decision might be, the WAPC and (in respect to the amendment only) Minister, will make a final decision which may differ from the Council’s recommendation. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. In accordance with Regulation 50(3)(a) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning

Schemes) Regulations 2015 determines to support (without modifications) Amendment No. 60 to the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Local Planning Scheme No. 1, by:

a) Modifying Schedule 7 as it relates to ‘RR39’ as follows:

Scheme Map Reference No.

Site Description Specific Conditions and Requirements

R-R39 Lots 20, 231, 232, 233, 243, 252, 253 Merino Way, Lots 16,26, 151, 152, 213, 221, 222, 241, 242, 251, 271, 272, 273, 281, 282, 283, 291, 292, 293, 351, 352, 353, 361, 362, 363, 380, 403 Illawarra Avenue, Lots153, 161, 162, 170, 171, 181,

182, 191, 192, 193, 211, 212 Hereford Place,

Lots 371, 372,373, 374, 375, 376,

377, 378,379 Percheron Place and Lots 401 & 402 Clydesdale Place,

Margaret River.

1. The Local Government will not support any proposal to re-subdivide the land until such time a Structure Plan has been prepared and adopted for the land in accordance with the Scheme or subsequent Structure Plan approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission, in accordance with the process set out in Part 4 of the Deemed Provisions.

2. All vegetation on the land

shall be preserved unless dead or dangerous or required to be removed to give effect to an approved subdivision or development.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions

of Clause 4.21 of the Scheme, the average lot size for re-subdivision of the land shall 1 hectare.

b) Amending the Scheme Map to incorporate lots 20, 231, 232, 233, 243, 252, 253

Merino Way, Lots 16, 26, 151, 152, 213, 221, 222, 241, 242, 251, 271, 272, 273, 281, 282, 283, 291, 292, 293, 351, 352, 353, 361, 362, 363, 380, 403 Illawarra Avenue, Lots 153, 161, 162, 170, 171, 181, 182, 191, 192, 193, 211, 212 Hereford Place, Lots 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379 Percheron Place and Lots 401 & 402 Clydesdale Place, Margaret River within the RR-39 designation.


35

2. Recommend to the WAPC in accordance with clause 20(2)(e) of the Deemed Provisions of LPS1 that local structure plan (dated September 2019 – Attachment 1) be given final approval.

ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Structure Plan 2. Schedule of Submissions RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR MELDRUM OM2020/100 That Council: 1. In accordance with Regulation 50(3)(a) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning

Schemes) Regulations 2015 determines to support (without modifications) Amendment No. 60 to the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Local Planning Scheme No. 1, by:

a) Modifying Schedule 7 as it relates to ‘RR39’ as follows:

Scheme Map Reference No.

Site Description Specific Conditions and Requirements

R-R39 Lots 20, 231, 232, 233, 243, 252, 253 Merino Way, Lots 16,26, 151, 152, 213, 221, 222, 241, 242, 251, 271, 272, 273, 281, 282, 283, 291, 292, 293, 351, 352, 353, 361, 362, 363, 380, 403 Illawarra Avenue, Lots153, 161, 162, 170, 171, 181,

182, 191, 192, 193, 211, 212 Hereford Place,

Lots 371, 372,373, 374, 375, 376,

377, 378,379 Percheron Place and

Lots 401 & 402 Clydesdale Place,

Margaret River.

1. The Local Government will not support any proposal to re-subdivide the land until such time a Structure Plan has been prepared and adopted for the land in accordance with the Scheme or subsequent Structure Plan approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission, in accordance with the process set out in Part 4 of the Deemed Provisions.

2. All vegetation on the land

shall be preserved unless dead or dangerous or required to be removed to give effect to an approved subdivision or development.

3. Notwithstanding the

provisions of Clause 4.21 of the Scheme, the average lot size for re-subdivision of the land shall 1 hectare.

b) Amending the Scheme Map to incorporate lots 20, 231, 232, 233, 243, 252, 253

Merino Way, Lots 16, 26, 151, 152, 213, 221, 222, 241, 242, 251, 271, 272, 273, 281, 282, 283, 291, 292, 293, 351, 352, 353, 361, 362, 363, 380, 403 Illawarra Avenue, Lots 153, 161, 162, 170, 171, 181, 182, 191, 192, 193, 211, 212 Hereford Place, Lots 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379 Percheron Place and Lots 401 & 402 Clydesdale Place, Margaret River within the RR-39 designation.


36

2. Recommend to the WAPC in accordance with clause 20(2)(e) of the Deemed Provisions of LPS1 that local structure plan (dated September 2019 – Attachment 1) be given final approval.

CARRIED 7/0


37

11.2.2 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO.63 - STRATA LOTS 3 - 7 OF LOT 300 BLACKWOOD AVENUE, AUGUSTA, FOR FINAL ADOPTION LOCATION/ADDRESS Strata Lots 3 - 7 of Lot 300 Blackwood Avenue, Augusta APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Halsall & Associates Town Planning Consultants / G & S Willmott,

Happy Budda Investments Pty Ltd, A, D & E Lindsay FILE REFERENCE LND/1/63 REPORT AUTHOR Matt Slocomb, Strategic Planning Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER David Nicholson, Acting Director Sustainable Development and

Infrastructure IN BRIEF • A scheme amendment was lodged to use the five (5) chalets fronting Blackwood Avenue for both

short term and long-term occupancy. • The amendment was initiated by Council for consultation at its meeting on the 27 November 2019. • No concerns were raised through the consultation period; accordingly, the proposal is

recommended for final approval subject to an additional scheme provision to address a parking short fall that will arise through permanent use of the site.

RECOMMENDATION That Council recommends to the WAPC that Amendment 63 be approved. LOCATION PLAN

Figure 1: Location Plan Site and Surrounds The site is located at the corner of Blackwood and Heppingstone View, in the north of the Augusta Town Centre (refer to Figure 1).


38

The site is divided into seven strata lots – lot 1 is located to the western side of the site contains an existing backpackers’ accommodation and managers residence which is not subject to the subject proposal. Lot 2 is located centrally on site and contains shared parking, whilst each of the units and dedicated parking bay(s) within their own Lot (Lots 3 – 7). The lots are serviced by reticulated sewerage and water.

Figure 2: Site Layout TABLED ITEMS Nil PROPOSAL The proposal involves the modification of the Shire’s Local Planning Scheme to create a specific tourism designation that would allow for continued short term use of the site, as well long term use (i.e. terms of stay exceeding three months) for each unit. BACKGROUND The amendment was initiated by Council for consultation at its meeting on the 27 November 2019. The Council decision OM2019/227 required the following specific matters to be addressed: • Parking shortfall – permanent use attracts a higher parking rate than short term use, meaning if all

units are used for permanent stay there will be a parking shortfall at the site; • Compliance with the Residential Design Codes – As the units were approved as for short term use,

they were assessed against the standards of the Scheme, which differ from the Residential Design Codes.

• Consultation with the owner/operator of the backpackers on adjoining lot one to ensure appropriate measures are put in place to mitigate risks of land use conflict.

CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation The Shire received 2 submissions in support of the proposal. Advice was also provided by several government agencies. The submissions have been included in a schedule of submissions as attached to this report (Attachment 2). The proposal was referred to the owners of the backpackers located on adjacent strata lot 1 site who did not comment on the proposal.

Lot 2

Lot 1

Lots 3 - 7


39

DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Parking Different parking requirements apply for either short stay ‘chalet’ use or permanent use (multiple or grouped dwelling), of which are summarised below:

Short Stay Use Use Parking Requirement Bays Required Chalet 1 space per chalet plus 1 visitor

parking space for every 4 chalets as per Local Planning Scheme No.1

5 bays (1 Per Chalet) 1 visitor bay 6 Total

Permanent Use Multiple Dwelling

1.25 bays for dwellings less than 110m² and/or 1 or 2 bedrooms

2.5 bays (2 Multiple Dwellings on site)

Grouped Dwellings

2 per dwelling 6 bays (3 Grouped Dwellings on site)

Visitor Bays 1 per 4 grouped dwellings 0.25 visitor bays per multiple dwelling

1 0.5

Total 10 bays There are 8 bays provided on site for the Chalet development, meaning a complete change to permanent use would result in a shortfall of two parking bays. In response to this issue, the applicant has proposed the construction of two visitor bays in the Heppingstone View road reserve as depicted below (concept plan only):

The concept plan has been referred to the Shire’s Infrastructure Department who are supportive of this option in principle, with detailed design to inform the exact location of the visitor bays. An additional development standard has been added to the proposed Scheme Amendment to ensure that the parking is constructed prior to the change of use of the chalets.


40

Compliance with the R-Codes A provision has been added to the Scheme amendment requiring that compliance with the Residential Design Codes is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Shire. Given that the uptake of the change to permanent use may not occur universally across the site, it is considered that this will be more effective on a case by case bases. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS There is a highly prescribes procedure for the consideration of standards Scheme amendments in Part 5 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2036 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2019-2023 Key Result Area 3: Managing Growth Sustainably Community Outcome: Clearly defined areas for growth and renewal Strategic Response: Implement Local Planning Scheme. Service level strategy/plan: Provide Planning Services. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Local Planning Strategy (LPS) Key policy direction on changes to Tourism sites is found within the Shire’s Local Tourism Planning Strategy, which forms part of the LPS. This is discussed in further details below. The LPS identifies the site as ‘Mixed Use’ with a R40 density. The mixed-use zone in the local planning strategy has translated to a combination of Town Centre, Residential and Tourism zones under the Local Planning Scheme. Given that the underlying tourism zoning applicable to the site is not being changed, and that residential use is a reasonably anticipated component of ‘mixed use’ designation, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the broader direction of the LPS. Local Tourism Planning Strategy (LTPS) The Shires LTPS sets out the following criteria for the assessment of rezoning from tourism to an alternative zone, and the same considerations are relevant for permanent residential occupation within tourism zones. 1. It can be demonstrated that the site no longer has an existing or potential tourism function, and

where rezoning of the whole or part of the site for an alternative use is therefore considered appropriate;

2. The proponent undertakes an independent supply/demand study to determine whether the site is surplus to demand and appropriate for rezoning;

3. Development of surrounding land uses is no longer compatible with tourism development; 4. The site has not been identified as a key tourism site; 5. Regardless of whether the site is a key tourism site, whether experiential values of a particular site

that are important to the local tourism market are able to provided elsewhere; 6. The site isn’t one a limited number of opportunities to provide for an important component of the

tourism market, such as large tourism sites in urban areas; 7. Rezoning will not result in adverse impacts upon surrounding amenity and land uses; 8. Rezoning will not result in a significant loss to the tourism market (such as rezoning of a caravan

park where it may be the only one within an area of tourism interest); 9. The alternative use proposed is otherwise consistent with the LPS, in particular the planned

settlement hierarchy. In the initiation of the amendment, it was demonstrated that the proposal is capable of meeting the above criteria for the following reasons: • The proposal will maintain the ability for ongoing tourism function but will also provide some

flexibility for owners to use the units on a permanent basis. This provides flexibility should market conditions change into the future and short-term use becomes more favourable.

• Independent analysis of the occupancy of the units shows some variance between the units annually, with some around 50%, with others as low as 18.5% occupancy. The overall annual


41

average is at 36%. Whilst not a direct comparison, the LTPS indicates an annual average occupancy rate of between 53 – 73% for chalet/serviced apartment type development between 2010/11.Whilst these figures can’t be directly compared without considering the broader market conditions, it does give some indication that the chalets do not make a significant contribution to overall supply in Augusta.

• Analysis of the availability of other properties on booking websites ‘Stayz’ and ‘Airbnb’ in February 2019 showed that there were 17 – 27 properties unoccupied over this period, not including the Augusta Hotel and Georgiana Molloy Motel. Whilst only a cursory assessment it indicates there is sufficient supply of short stay accommodation within the Augusta town site.

• The site is surrounded by residential land use, with the exception of a church on the opposite side of Blackwood Avenue. Whilst there is no documented instances of land use conflict occurring with these adjoining uses, the LTPS outlines that ideal tourism sites are located where activities available to guests would not be limited due to possible impacts on the amenity of nearby residents.

• The site has not been identified as a key tourism site.

• The key experiential value associated with the site is its views over the Augusta townsite towards the Hardly Inlet and Southern Ocean and foreshore beyond. Whilst this would be classed as an area of tourism interest, there are numerous and more significant tourism developments that provide this experience within the Augusta town centre as well as significant additional opportunities to build on this. On this basis permanent accommodation does not represent loss to the tourism market that is incapable of being replaced elsewhere.

• Measures have been incorporated into the amendment that require the strata management statement to be changed to prevent land use conflict, specifically informing residents of the existence of the tourism accommodation on the adjoining lot noting that this is part of the current amenity of the area. Similar provisions will apply between lots 3 – 7 should some units remain short stay.

Residential Design Codes As the initial development and subdivision were assessed against Tourism standards, compliance with the Residential Design Codes will need to be demonstrated where a dwelling is changed to a grouped dwelling or multiple dwelling. A development standard has been added to this effect. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Implications Nil Long Term Financial Plan Nil Whole of Lifecycle considerations Ni SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The proposal will result in a small population increase being housed within walking and riding distance of the Augusta Town site. Social The proposal will result in a small population increase within the immediate locality. Economic Subdividers will be responsible for the provision of the necessary infrastructure to the newly created lots. It appears there will be negligible economic impact with the removal of the units from the tourism market. The applicant will be responsible for the cost of constructing the two visitor bays required, however maintenance thereafter will be the responsibility of the Shire.


42

ADVOCACY Nil ALTERNATE OPTIONS The alternative option in this case is for Council to recommend to the WAPC to refuse the amendment, but in doing so would need to provide clear reasons for taking this position. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. In accordance with Regulation 50(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes)

Regulations 2015, notes the submissions received in respect to Amendment No.63 to the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Local Planning Scheme No.1 and endorses the response to the submissions as contained in this report;

2. In accordance with Regulation 50(3)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 determines to support with modification Amendment No.63 to the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Local Planning Scheme No.1 by:

a) Amending the Scheme maps to include Strata Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Lot 300, Blackwood

Avenue, within a ‘Tourism’ (T22) designation;

b) Insert the following into Schedule 12

T22 Strata Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Lot 300, Blackwood Avenue, Augusta

1. The following uses ‘P’ permitted uses within the zone: • Serviced Apartments; • Grouped Dwellings; • Multiple Dwellings.

2. Residential development is permitted at

the R40 density.

3. Prior to occupation and where the use of the land is used for any of the permitted either a grouped dwelling or multiple dwelling uses, the applicable strata management statement is to be amended to include requirements relating to the: • management and letting of dwellings

for short stay use; and • relationship / operation between

permanent occupation and short-stay use on the same site and the adjoining backpackers / tourism use site;

4. Prior to the use of the land for either a

grouped dwelling or multiple dwelling compliance with the applicable requirements of the Residential Design Codes shall be demonstrated.

5. Prior to the use of the land for either a grouped dwelling or multiple dwelling two visitor bays shall be constructed within the Heppingstone View Road reserve to the specification and satisfaction of the Shire.


43

3. Authorises affixing the common seal to Amendment 63. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Amendment Plan 2. Schedule of Submissions

RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR MELDRUM, CR DANIEL OM2020/101 That Council: 1. In accordance with Regulation 50(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning

Schemes) Regulations 2015, notes the submissions received in respect to Amendment No.63 to the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Local Planning Scheme No.1 and endorses the response to the submissions as contained in this report;

2. In accordance with Regulation 50(3)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 determines to support with modification Amendment No.63 to the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Local Planning Scheme No.1 by:

a) Amending the Scheme maps to include Strata Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Lot 300, Blackwood

Avenue, within a ‘Tourism’ (T22) designation;

b) Insert the following into Schedule 12

T22 Strata Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Lot 300, Blackwood Avenue, Augusta

1. The following uses ‘P’ permitted uses within the zone: • Serviced Apartments; • Grouped Dwellings; • Multiple Dwellings.

2. Residential development is permitted

at the R40 density.

3. Prior to occupation and where the use of the land is used for any of the permitted either a grouped dwelling or multiple dwelling uses, the applicable strata management statement is to be amended to include requirements relating to the: • management and letting of

dwellings for short stay use; and • relationship / operation between

permanent occupation and short-stay use on the same site and the adjoining backpackers / tourism use site;

4. Prior to the use of the land for either a

grouped dwelling or multiple dwelling compliance with the applicable requirements of the Residential Design Codes shall be demonstrated.

5. Prior to the use of the land for either a grouped dwelling or multiple dwelling two visitor bays shall be constructed


44

within the Heppingstone View Road reserve to the specification and satisfaction of the Shire.

3. Authorises affixing the common seal to Amendment 63.

CARRIED 6/1 CRS CRISTOFFANINI VOTED AGAINST


45

ADDENDUM – ITEM WITHDRAWN 11.2.3 PROPOSED HOME BUSINESS (HOLISTIC COUNSELLING & WELLNESS THERAPIES) AT 10 (LOT 1) MANN STREET, MARGARET RIVER LOCATION/ADDRESS 10 (Lot 1) Mann Street, Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Watts R / Boland GM FILE REFERENCE PTY/8917 REPORT AUTHOR Clare Hamilton, Planning Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER David Nicholson, A/Director Sustainable Development and

Infrastructure This Item was been withdrawn from 10 June 2020 Ordinary Council Meeting agenda. REASON There are no longer any proposals to amend the officers’ recommendation. The Item can be determined under delegated authority.


46

11.2.4 PROPOSED SINGLE DWELLING AND ANCILLARY DWELLING - 10 (LOT 120) LESUEUR PLACE GNARABUP LOCATION/ADDRESS 10 (Lot 120) Lesueur Place Gnarabup APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Aspland J FILE REFERENCE PTY/7962 REPORT AUTHOR Devin Moltoni, Planning Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER David Nicholson, Acting Director Sustainable Development and

Infrastructure IN BRIEF • Planning approval is sought for a single dwelling and ancillary dwelling at 10 (Lot 120) Lesuer Place,

Gnarabup (the Site). • The dwelling is proposed with a flat roof design with a portion of the wall exceeding the 7metre wall

height limit under Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme). • A rear setback variation against Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes (RCodes) is proposed. A

setback of 4.4 metres is proposed in lieu of the minimum of 6 metres required in order to meet the deemed-to-comply standards of the RCodes.

• The proposed ancillary dwelling complies with all relevant RCode and Scheme provisions. RECOMMENDATION That Council grants approval for the dwelling and ancillary dwelling at 10 (Lot 120) Lesueur Place, Gnarabup, subject to conditions. LOCATION PLAN The Site is located at 10 (Lot 120) Lesueur Place, Gnarabup at the end of the Lesueur Place cul-de-sac. The site is zoned as Residential R10 and comprises an area of 1484m2. Figure 1, below, shows the site within context. It is noted that the site is currently undeveloped. Figure 1: Context


47

TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Planning approval is sought for a single dwelling and ancillary dwelling. The lot is currently undeveloped with no active planning approvals. A dwelling was previously approved in 2007. This dwelling was not constructed, and the approval lapsed in 2009. The application was received by the Shire on 21 February 2020. The application was advertised to adjoining landowners for comment. During the advertising period, five (5) submissions were received. These included three (3) submissions in objection and two (2) in support with comments provided. The proposal was considered by the Shire’s Development Assessment Unit (DAU) on 5 May 2020. The outcome of DAU was to approve the proposal subject to conditions. Councillors have requested that the matter be brought before Council for final determination. CONSULTATION External Consultation The application was advertised to all property owners adjoining and adjacent to the site. Three (3) submissions in objection and two (2) in support were received. Due consideration was given to the concerns raised by submitters in the assessment of the proposed dwelling and ancillary dwelling. The concerns of submitters are outlined and discussed in further detail as follows. Each objection refers to the proposed wall height variation. The main concern regarding the wall height variation is for the potential for the over height wall to impact on visual amenity, particularly views of the ocean. Other comments by submitters request that a wall height variation should be given the same favourable consideration on the affected undeveloped properties if approval is granted for the current proposal.

The Site N


48

Submitters in objection to the proposal have also raised concerns regarding the rear setback variation. The primary concerns raised include detrimental impacts to the privacy and views from potentially affected properties. The following has been considered. Internal Consultation Nil DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Wall Height Variation: The dwelling design is with a flat roof with wall heights up to 7.5m. Under the Scheme the maximum height of a wall is 7 metres and 8 metres to the top of the roof. Both can be varied subject to advertising and specific consideration. Only a minor portion of the wall height exceeds the 7 metre limit. Confirmation has been received that this portion of the wall comprises only 10.9% of the of the total area of the wall. An 8 metre pitched roof would present a far bulkier appearance and scale than that of the proposed 7.5m flat roof. It is therefore considered that the proposed design will present significantly less impact on visual amenity and views than an 8 metre pitched roof otherwise could dependant on orientation, regarding the impact of the wall height variation The slope of the area is expected to reduce the impact of the proposed development on views for the objecting neighbours to the rear. The contours of the slope are indicated on Figure 2: Contours. Figure 2: Contours

Figure 3 indicates that the proposed dwelling will sit between the 40m contour and the 45m contour. It is also indicated that the existing dwelling at 85 (Lot 107) Baudin Drive is situated midway between the 45 metre and the 50 metre contour and sloping upward of the 50m contour. Therefore, the natural ground levels are as much as 5 metres and greater above the natural ground levels of the subject site. It is also noted that the dwelling at the subject site is proposed to cut into the slope at the rear as opposed to filling at the front. The cut will result in a finished floor level 1.5m below the natural ground

Approximate Dwelling Location N


49

level at the North Eastern boundary. Effectively, the wall and roof height will present as 5.5m above the natural ground level of the North Eastern boundary. This will reduce the visual impact of the proposed dwelling on the existing dwelling to the rear as well as to 83 (Lot 106) Baudin Drive. It is noted that the difference in natural ground levels between 83 (Lot 106) Baudin Drive and the subject site are similar to those discussed regarding 85 (Lot 107) Baudin Drive. The same effect of the slope is therefore considered to apply and reduce impact on visual amenity by the proposed development. The dwelling at 85 (Lot 107) is approved with considerable fill at the front. Due to this fill, the finished floor level of the dwelling is close to the level of the 50m contour in Figure 3. The proposed dwelling will therefore sit significantly lower than the dwelling directly to the rear. It is also noted that similar wall height variations have been assessed on their merits and approved in the area. It is of particular note that the existing dwelling at 85 (Lot 107) Baudin Drive was granted approval for a 7.8m wall height in lieu of the 7m limit in 2013. It is noted that several submitters, both in support and objection, would like the same consideration given for height variations on their properties when building. The same consideration can be made for the future proposals by submitters only if they also merit this consideration. Only the current proposal is being considered in this application. Rear Setback Variation: The proposed dwelling complies with the visual privacy provisions of the RCodes and the proposed rear setback variation is not expected to impact on privacy. It is noted that only a 3.09m2 portion of the dwelling is proposed to intrude into the 6m rear setback area. This is considered minor and is not expected to reduce privacy between residents or amenity otherwise. The minor rear setback is also not expected to adversely impact on views. It is noted that a submitter in support has expressed that they are happy with the rear setback variation as they believe they will benefit from a reduced impact on their views. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2036 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2019-2023 Key Result Area 3: Managing growth sustainably Community Outcome 2: Clearly defined areas for growth and renewal Strategic Response: Implement Local Planning Scheme Service level strategy/plan: Provide Planning Services PLANNING FRAMEWORK Local Planning Scheme No.1 (LPS1) Clause 5.13 of the Scheme prescribes a 7m wall height limit and an 8m roof height limit for the Gnarabup area. The proposal is considered acceptable as the proposal: Is not expected to adversely impact on the visual amenity of the area. Only a small portion of the wall is proposed to exceed the 7m limit. This portion is only 10.9% of the total area of the wall area. The ground levels of the properties to the rear are elevated significantly higher than the subject site and the small portion of the wall is not expected to adversely impact on views. Is in keeping with the character of the area. Wall height variations have been approved in the area, including adjoining properties. It is noted that a 7.8 metre wall was approved for the dwelling directly behind the subject site at 85 (Lot 107) Baudin Drive. Respects the topography of the site in such a way as to mitigate potential impacts against visual amenity. The dwelling is proposed to cut into the slope at the rear as opposed to filling at the front. The wall will effectively be 5.5m above the natural ground level at the rear boundary. Cutting into the slope will result in the wall height having the lowest potential impact to the visual amenity of the properties to the rear. Potentially results in a lower impact to the amenity of the area than if an 8 metre pitched roof was proposed. The Scheme allows for dwellings in the Gnarabup area to built to an 8 metre pitched roof


50

height. An 8 metre pitched roof could potentially result in a greater impact to the amenity of the area than the proposed 7.5m wall height adjoining the flat roof. Regarding the above considerations under 5.13 of the Scheme, the proposed wall height variation is considered acceptable and is not expected to impact on the amenity or character of the area. Residential Design Codes- Rear Setback Variation: A variation to the rear setback under the Residential Design Codes (RCodes) is proposed. This considers that a rear setback of 4.4m is proposed in lieu of the minimum 6m required in order to meet the deemed-to-comply standards of the RCodes. Variations may be approved to RCodes if considered appropriate by the decision maker based on the merits of the proposal. The proposed rear setback variation proposed should: Not result in an impact to the rear adjoining property or any other adjoining properties. The proposed rear setback variation is considered to be minor. Only a 3.09m2 portion of the dwelling is proposed to intrude into the 6m rear setback area. This is not expected to result in an inappropriate building bulk impact on the rear adjoining property, or on any other adjoining properties. No impacts on the privacy of residents or amenity otherwise are expected to result from the minor variation. This considers that no variations are proposed to the visual privacy provisions of the RCodes under Clause 5.4.1. The small 3.09m2 area of the dwelling includes only a portion of a bedroom which does not have a major opening addressing the rear boundary. No impacts to privacy are expected as result of the proposed rear setback With regards to considerations discussed above, the rear setback variation against the provisions of RCodes is recommended to be supported. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Implications Nil Long Term Financial Plan Nil Whole of Lifecycle considerations Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Vegetation is proposed to be removed in order to achieve an acceptable BAL rating. Clearing on the property is exempt due to the lot being less than 2000m2 and due to the clearing being subject to approval under a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP). No other environmental considerations apply for the proposal. Social Nil Economic Nil ADVOCACY Nil IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION That Council refuse to grant planning approval for a dwelling and ancillary dwelling at 10 (Lot 120) Lesueur Place, Gnarabup for the following reasons: Insert reasons here


51

If the Shire refuse the proposal, the applicant will have a right to request review of that decision by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council grant planning approval for a dwelling and ancillary dwelling at 10 (Lot 120) Lesueur Place, Gnarabup subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. The development is to be carried out in compliance with the plans and documentation listed below

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

Plans and Specifications P1 to P7 received by the Shire on 21 February 2020

2. If the development, the subject of this approval, is not substantially commenced within two (2) years

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

3. All stormwater and drainage run-off from the development shall be contained within the lot boundaries or disposed offsite by an approved connection to the Shire’s drainage system which is to be installed prior to occupation in accordance with the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Standards & Specifications.

4. The walls and roof of the dwelling and ancillary building shall be clad in a non-reflective material and painted in a colour of natural or earth toning consistent with the existing landscape and existing development. To this end, reflective materials or reflective colours as cladding/external (including but not limited to) 'silver' sheeting painting white, cream, off white or pale grey are prohibited.

5. The Bushfire Management Plan, Version 13A dated 17 April 2020, shall be implemented on site prior to application for a Building Permit and at all times thereafter.

6. Certification shall be provided to the Shire by an accredited Bushfire Consultant that all bushfire management actions detailed in the accepted Bushfire Management Plan have been implemented prior to occupation.

7. The building wall height shall not exceed 7.5 metres in height from natural ground level.

8. A licenced surveyors report shall be submitted to the Shire within 30 days of completion of the

building to confirm compliance with the maximum height limit.

9. Prior to lodging of a building permit application details shall be submitted for a privacy screen for upper floor balcony to Bed 1. Screening shall meet the acceptable development standards of the Residential Design Codes clause 5.4.1. Screening shall then be installed prior to occupation of the dwelling and maintained thereafter.

ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT a) You are advised of the need to comply with the requirements of the following other legislation:

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

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

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

ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Plans


52

RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR CRISTOFFANINI, CR DANIEL OM2020/102 That Council grant planning approval for a dwelling and ancillary dwelling at 10 (Lot 120) Lesueur Place, Gnarabup subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. The development is to be carried out in compliance with the plans and documentation listed

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

Plans and Specifications P1 to P7 received by the Shire on 21 February 2020

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

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

3. All stormwater and drainage run-off from the development shall be contained within the lot boundaries or disposed offsite by an approved connection to the Shire’s drainage system which is to be installed prior to occupation in accordance with the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Standards & Specifications.

4. The walls and roof of the dwelling and ancillary building shall be clad in a non-reflective material and painted in a colour of natural or earth toning consistent with the existing landscape and existing development. To this end, reflective materials or reflective colours as cladding/external (including but not limited to) 'silver' sheeting painting white, cream, off white or pale grey are prohibited.

5. The Bushfire Management Plan, Version 13A dated 17 April 2020, shall be implemented on site prior to application for a Building Permit and at all times thereafter.

6. Certification shall be provided to the Shire by an accredited Bushfire Consultant that all bushfire management actions detailed in the accepted Bushfire Management Plan have been implemented prior to occupation.

7. The building wall height shall not exceed 7.5 metres in height from natural ground level.

8. A licenced surveyors report shall be submitted to the Shire within 30 days of completion of

the building to confirm compliance with the maximum height limit.

9. Prior to lodging of a building permit application details shall be submitted for a privacy screen for upper floor balcony to Bed 1. Screening shall meet the acceptable development standards of the Residential Design Codes clause 5.4.1. Screening shall then be installed prior to occupation of the dwelling and maintained thereafter.

ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT a) You are advised of the need to comply with the requirements of the following other

legislation:

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

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

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

CARRIED 6/1 CR GODDEN VOTED AGAINST


53

11.2.5 ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE COR/353 REPORT AUTHOR Sonja Pienaar, Coordinator Asset Management AUTHORISING OFFICER David Nicholson, Acting Director Sustainable Planning and

Infrastructure IN BRIEF • Council adopted the Shire’s first Asset Management Plan in June 2013. The plan included elements

of an Asset Management Strategy. • Shire policy and best practice requires the Asset Management Plan to be reviewed every 4 years,

with a minor review every 2 years. • The Asset Management Plan has been updated for the 10 year period from 2019-20 to 2028-29. It

includes a review of how well the Shire’s Forward Capital Works Program component of the Long Term Financial Plan 2018-29 to 2027-28 provides for managing infrastructure and building assets.

• This Asset Management Plan has informed the current reviews of the Long Term Financial Plan 2020-21 to 2029-30 and Corporate Plan 2020-21 to 2023-24, which in turn will provide input to the 2020-21 Budget and the Forward Capital Works Program 2020-21 to 2029-30.

• The Asset Management Strategy 2019-20 to 2028-29 addresses specific questions on the Shire’s asset management position and is supported by the Asset Management Plan 2019-20 to 2028-29.

• Both the Asset Management Strategy 2019-20 to 2028-29 and the Asset Management Plan 2019-20 to 2028-29 are presented for adoption by Council.

RECOMMENDATION That Council, pursuant to Section 5.56 (1) of the Local Government Act 1995 and Section 19DA of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, adopts the Asset Management Strategy 2019-20 to 2028-29 and Asset Management Plan 2019-20 to 2028-29 as informing strategies and gives public notice of the adoption and availability for public inspection. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND The Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 has been amended to require each local government to adopt a Strategic Community Plan and a Corporate Business Plan. The Corporate Plan integrates the informing strategies, which are the Workforce Plan (WP), Asset Management Plan (AMP), Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) and the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Strategic Framework. The Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries’ (DLGSCI) Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework and Guidelines sets the requirements for informing strategies. Council may adopt some informing strategies (such as LTFP, AMP and WP) but not necessarily all of them. The strategies that Council are required to adopt are determined by individual local governments’ policies and practices.


54

By adopting these informing strategies, such as the Asset Management Strategy and Asset Management Plan, Council is ensuring that these plans are monitored and outcomes reported to the community, as required. Council adopted the Shire’s first Asset Management Plan in June 2013 (OM1306/13). This report presents an updated Asset Management Plan for adoption. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Nil Internal Consultation • Shire Executive and Managers • Councillors DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The Shire’s Asset Management Improvement Plan (prepared by an independent consultant) has identified that the previous Asset Management Plan included elements of an asset management strategy and that consideration be given to separating the plan into two documents. Both the Asset Management Strategy and the Asset Management Plan provide a long-term view of asset management practices within the Shire. Asset management is about ensuring that the Shire has the necessary plans in place so that funds and resources are available at the appropriate time to ensure assets continue to be able to provide ongoing delivery of services to the community. Although the Shire has significantly improved its asset management planning and systems since 2013, it remains a process of continuous improvement, with many challenges to overcome. The Asset Management Framework for Western Australian Local Governments requires local governments to address the following within the Asset Management Strategy and the Asset Management Plan: • The service needs and expectations of the community are the primary drivers for good asset

management, which seeks to achieve the best possible value for the local government’s ratepayers and communities.

• Council determines affordable, realistic and achievable priorities and is responsible for ensuring that the local government’s Asset Management Policy is developed and implemented and that appropriate resources are made available for asset management. By making certain that Asset Management Plans are monitored and outcomes reported to the community, Council ensures that it is making progress towards meeting long-term community needs.

• The local government administration, through the CEO, facilitates the asset management process. The CEO leads the implementation and delivery of asset management and facilitates Council decision making by providing accurate and reliable information. The local government administration, through the CEO, also has responsibility for the development and implementation of Asset Management and Improvement Plans for individual asset classes.

Sustainable management of Shire assets is not only a legislative requirement, but also a duty of care. The outputs of the Shire’s ongoing and organisational wide approach to asset management are: • The Asset Management Strategy that demonstrates how the local government's assets will meet

the service delivery needs of the community; • The Asset Management Plan that is informed by community priorities and includes an asset

management policy, whole of life costing for the asset register, strategies for critical assets and an improvement plan to build asset management capability; and

• A process of addressing the financial implications by integrating the Asset Management Plan with the Long Term Financial Plan through the Forward Capital Works Program to ensure capability is understood.


55

Key issues facing the Shire of Augusta Margaret River and local governments throughout Australia include: • Ageing infrastructure, requiring attention that has not previously been planned for; • Long lived assets such as roads, drainage and buildings presenting challenges as their condition

and longevity can be difficult to determine; and • Increasing demand in terms of quality and standards.

The Shire’s present funding levels are forecast to be insufficient to continue to provide existing services from existing assets at desired service levels. There are risks associated with providing services and not being able to complete all the identified asset maintenance and renewal activities such as: • Asset failure that can result in injury to Shire staff or members of the public and damage to property; • Public liability and the associated financial implications; and • Financial implications of unfunded and unplanned infrastructure failures requiring immediate

replacement. These plans also identify the priorities for improving asset management to ensure appropriate funds are available at appropriate times, and to manage the risk where funding shortfalls are forecast. Over the next 10 years it is recommended that the Shire focus on the following: • Reduce the backlog of outstanding renewal projects by prioritising renewal projects over other

projects. Review maintenance practices and funding to align with aging and a growing infrastructure portfolio;

• Renew assets at the optimal time to make renewal more cost effective by improving forward planning. Ensure desired project outcomes by improving program implementation. Explore cost saving measures and additional funding opportunities;

• Assess services and their assets to ensure they are optimally used and planned for. Reduce where there is under utilisation to focus funding on a lesser number of quality services that can be sustained.

• Ensure provisions are made for increased maintenance and renewal due to new/expansion/upgrade and donated projects by considering whole of life cost in the decision making process; and

• Monitor and review asset management practices and ensure sufficient resources are allocated to implement the improvement plan.

The AMP adopted in 2013 was based on the Shire’s 30 June 2012 asset portfolio (although the AMP covered the planning period 2013-14 to 2022-23). Asset management is an ongoing organisation wide process, but six years has elapsed since an updated plan has been released for Council adoption and public viewing. The revised AMP represents a significant update from the AMP 2013-14 to 2022-23 and the major updates include the following: • The AMP objectives are now aligned to the Community Strategic Plan 2036, compared to the

previous alignment with the Community Strategic Plan 2033. The Community Strategic Plan 2036 objectives prioritise core service provision while acknowledging the need for a holistic planning approach to include social, economic and environmental sustainability;

• Although continuous improvement is required, the plan shows improved understanding of new, upgraded and donated asset requirements and does not see renewal planning in isolation. Integration with other planning strategies such as the Community Infrastructure Plan, Developer Contribution Program, Access and Inclusion Strategy, is therefore just as important.

• Asset management data and systems used to prepare this plan have significantly improved and now align with the organisation’s financial system. This will facilitates the preparation of more frequent updates of the AMP;

• There is a better understanding of the remaining useful life of assets and improved methods to forecast renewal expenditure requirements;

• There is improved understanding of the levels of service for asset provision, but it is still difficult to monitor levels of service for maintenance and operating assets without appropriate systems that measure current activities; and

• Renewal requirements for individual asset classes have improved and is sufficient for integration of the AMP with the LTFP through the FCWP. Refining the FCWP into a 4 year detailed project level works program is essential to further improve forward planning, ensure effective capital expenditure


56

and support capital decision-making processes that support the organisation’s strategic and asset management objectives.

The major changes in the Shire’s asset management position according to the AMP can be summarised as follow: 1. Asset portfolio changes:

Change over 7 years

Replacement Cost

Depreciable Replacement Cost

Depreciated Replacement Cost

Annual Depreciation

30 June 2012 $455,281,000 $342,078,100 $333,143,100 $6,513,200 30 June 2019 $533,502,000 $394,967,900 $414,686,200 $7,969,100

$change $78,221,000 $52,889,800 $81,543,100 $1,455,900 %change 17.2% 15.5% 24.5% 22.4% %change per year 2.5% 2.2% 3.5% 3.2%

• The Shire’s asset portfolio’s current replacement cost increased by 17.2 % from 30 June 2012

($455,281,000) to 30 June 2019 ($533,502,000) or 2.5% per year over the 7 year period; and • Annual depreciation for assets covered in the AMP increased by 22.4% from $6,513,200 in 30

June 2012 to $7,969,100 in 30 June 2019 or 3.2% per year.

2. Service Cost

Change over 6 years

Whole of life cost

Required renewal

expenditure

LTFP - Planned renewal

expenditure Funding Gap

2013-14 to 2022-23 $13,583,500.00 $4,963,800.00 $3,532,600.00 -$1,431,200.00 2019-20 to 2029-29 $16,744,261.00 $8,852,494.00 $5,685,500.00 -$3,166,994.00 $change $3,160,761.00 $3,888,694.00 $2,152,900.00 -$1,735,794.00 %change 23.3% 78.3% 60.9% 121.3% %change per year 3.9% 13.1% 10.2% 20.2%

• The annual cost to deliver the service (whole of life cost) has increased by 23.3% from

$13,584,000 to $16,744,000 or 3.9% per year (ie greater than the annual rate increases). This can be contributed to an increase in number and value of the assets through newly constructed or donated assets and through the replacement cost increase of existing assets. Due to the ongoing funding shortfall the asset portfolio condition is declining and requires more funds to renew;

• The average annual required renewal expenditure increased by 78.3% from $4,963,800 to $8,852,500 or 13.1% per year. There are various reasons for this including aging infrastructure, increased costs, improved renewal planning, etc;

• While the LTFP 2018-19 to 2027-28 has increased annual average renewal expenditure by 60.9% from $3,532,600 to $5,685,500 over the same period, this is not sufficient and the forecast funding gap is widening;

• The forecast average annual renewal shortfall has increased by 121.3% from $1,431,200 to $3,167,000 or 20.2% per year. Despite the increase in renewal expenditure there has been an even greater increase in the forecast renewal cost to sustain the current level of service. This increase is due to the Shire acquiring more assets with a higher replacement cost combined with existing assets with an aging profile;

• Although reporting on operations and maintenance expenditure is not consistent between the 2013 and 2019 plans, it has been limited to no increase in non-capital asset expenditure. This will translate into a decrease in levels of service and an increase in asset deterioration unless significant efficiencies can be implemented;


57

• The 2013 AMP predicted a cumulative funding shortfall for 2019-20 of $7,217,900, but the current portfolio shows this is as high as $9,822,800. Although the 2013 modelling under predicted the shortfall, the forecast pattern and magnitude of the results was in-line with the realised asset management position in 2019-20. This reinforces that the new AMP results should be seen as a reasonable prediction of the Shire’s future asset management position;

• Quantifiable change in community satisfaction with Shire services from assets is not evident from community surveys conducted since 2012. The stable trend in community satisfaction (not necessarily at desired levels) shows that overall the Shire has dealt fairly well with managing assets with less than sufficient funding under increasingly difficult conditions. The community, however, indicated in the last survey that Shire priorities should be around core services such as roads, waste and public safety, while still improving social, economic and environmental sustainability; and

• The review of the AMP further addressed community needs by aligning the AMP with the Community Strategic Plan 2036 and other strategic documents compiled through consultation with the community.

3. Asset performance ratios:

Key Financial Indicators DLGSCI Target AMP 2019-20 to 2028-29

AMP 2013-24 to 2022-23

Asset Sustainability Ratio – Total expenditure over next 10 years

90% to 100% 71% 54%

Asset Consumption Ratio 50% to 75% 70% 73%

Asset Renewal Funding Ratio 95% to 105% 64% 71%

• The only improvement in these performance indicators was the ratio between capital renewal

expenditure planned vs annual depreciation, although it is not yet at the target level set by DLGSCI. This indicates that 71% of asset value lost will be renewed and in the long run will result in decreased levels of service;

• The asset consumption ratio indicates how much of the as new value of assets is remaining. A reduction in the rate over time indicates a decline in asset condition. The Shire’s asset portfolio is still above the target range and this represents a network currently in good condition with significant useful life left; and

• The reduction in the funding ratio indicator indicates that the funding gap is increasing and that the need for renewal is growing faster than the increase in renewal expenditure as provided for in the LTFP.

After the Long Term Financial Plan and Corporate Plan have been reviewed and adopted, the next review of the Asset Management Strategy and Asset Management Plan will commence to provide an updated position. Officers will also continue to review and benchmark service levels, seek improvements and efficiencies in service provision to prolong asset life, reduce operating and maintenance costs and improve the Shire’s asset management process in line with best practice. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Section 5.56 (1) Local Government Act 1995 requires local governments to have in place a plan for the future. Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 regulation 19DA specifies the requirements for a Corporate Business Plan and section 3 reads as follows: A corporate business plan for a district is to — a) set out, consistently with any relevant priorities set out in the strategic community plan for the

district, a local government’s priorities for dealing with the objectives and aspirations of the community in the district; and

b) govern a local government’s internal business planning by expressing a local government’s priorities by reference to operations that are within the capacity of the local government’s resources; and

c) develop and integrate matters relating to resources, including asset management, workforce planning and long-term financial planning.


58

STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2036 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2019-2023 Key Result Area 5: Effective leadership and governance Community Outcome 2: Effective and integrated strategy, planning, financial and asset management Strategic Response: Develop long term Informing Strategy including asset and financial management aligned to the Community Strategic Plan Service level strategy/plan: Finalise the major review of the Asset Management Plan in early 2019-20 and continue in the review cycle with a minor review every two years (due 2020-21) and a major review every four years (due 2022-23) Shire’s Asset Management Policy The Shire’s Asset Management Policy is currently under review and refers to asset management objectives requiring the support of an adopted asset management plan. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Implications The Asset Management Plan discusses key financial indicators. These indicators are showing an underinvestment in renewal of assets. Although there has been improvements since 2013, the Shire does not meet DLGSCI targets for sustainable practices according to the Asset Management Plan 2019-20 to 2027-28. This highlights the ongoing support needed to improve asset management practices throughout the organisation as well as the importance of implementing the Asset Management Policy objectives in all services and capital decision made in the future. No increase in operational budgets to support the management of assets have been highlighted in this report, but should be pursued at a business unit level. This will be the function of future individual asset management plans and asset management improvement programs to address improved operational activities, such as maintenance, inspections, planning and project implementation. The increase in capital renewal expenditure in order to improve key financial indicators has been addressed by information the LTFP review. Balancing the required renewal expenditure and strategic new/upgrade projects within the Forward Capital Works Program until the LTFP has a balanced position, is part of the integration of asset management planning and financial planning. Long Term Financial Plan The ability to deliver on the Community Strategic Plan’s strategic directions is dependent on having the financial resources to do so. The LTFP which is a resourcing strategy outlines the financial implications of the Community Strategic Plan and Corporate Plan and provides the basis for the 2020-21 budget. The Asset Management Plan informs the LTFP on costs and priorities to sustain current service provision through assets. Whole of Lifecycle considerations The Asset Management Plan measures the performance of how well the LTFP provides for Whole of Lifecycle considerations of existing and future infrastructure to ensure the ongoing sustainable delivery of services. The asset management process will also include consideration of the available, existing and anticipated future financial resources and competing priorities through continuous improvement of long term planning of assets. The Shire has a responsibility, as infrastructure custodians, to ensure the necessary asset management plans are in place, so that funds and resources are available at the appropriate time to ensure assets can continue to provide sustainable service delivery.


59

Managing current assets, however, should not be taken in isolation, as consideration must be given to competing need for sustainable development and growth to support community needs. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The asset management process will include consideration of environmental sustainability as an element of the decision making process as discussed in the Asset Management Plan. Social The asset management process will include consideration of the community-building effect as an element of the decision making process as discussed in the Asset Management Plan. Economic By aligning the Asset Management Plan with the Community Strategic Plan and the LTFP, the Shire will ensure that the management of asset renewal, upgrade, expansion and disposal will support sustainable development and growth within the community. ADVOCACY The sustainable management of local government infrastructure assets is a core function of local government and essential for ongoing service delivery that supports economic and social development and environmental sustainability. Local government faces increasing pressures on resources to take care of aging infrastructure, but also to cater for infrastructure for growth into the future. Lobbing state and federal government increase rather reduce their support to local government will become more important. IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council, pursuant to Section 5.56 (1) of the Local Government Act 1995 and Section 19DA of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, adopts the Asset Management Strategy 2019-20 to 2028-29 and Asset Management Plan 2019-20 to 2028-29 as informing strategies and gives public notice of the adoption and availability for public inspection. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Asset Management Strategy 2019-20 to 2028-29 2. Asset Management Plan 2019-20 to 2028-29 3. Asset Management Plan Addendum

RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR MELDRUM OM2020/103 That Council, pursuant to Section 5.56 (1) of the Local Government Act 1995 and Section 19DA of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, adopts the Asset Management Strategy 2019-20 to 2028-29 and Asset Management Plan 2019-20 to 2028-29 as informing strategies and gives public notice of the adoption and availability for public inspection.

CARRIED 7/0


60

11.2.6 CAPE LEEUWIN TRAIL – DEAD FINISH TO CAPE LEEUWIN LOCATION/ADDRESS Augusta APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE ENV/93 REPORT AUTHOR John McKinney, Coordinator Environment Landcare Services AUTHORISING OFFICER David Nicholson, Acting Director Sustainable Development and

Infrastructure This item was brought forward for consideration (page 8)


61

11.3.

Corporate and Community Services


62

11.3.1 LIST OF PAYMENTS FOR APRIL 2020 LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/42 REPORT AUTHOR Stacey Harvey, Finance Officer, Accounts Payable AUTHORISING OFFICER James Shepherd, Director Corporate & Community Services

IN BRIEF It is a requirement of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 that payments made under delegated authority by the CEO are reported to Council on a monthly basis showing details of each account paid since the last such list was prepared. RECOMMENDATION That Council notes the April 2020 List of Payments for $4,797,857.32. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Where Council has delegated authority to the CEO to make payments from the Shire’s bank accounts then under Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Regulation 13 (1) a list of such payments is to be prepared each month for noting by Council. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Nil Internal Consultation Nil DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Table 1 below provides a summary of the payments made and Table 2 makes comparison between payments for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 financial years. The List of Payments attachment provides further details as required under Regulation 13 (1). These details are as follows.

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

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


63

TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF PAYMENTS MADE IN THE MONTH APRIL 2020

MODE OF PAYMENT CHEQUE / EFT NUMBERS AMOUNT

Cheques - - EFT 75217 - 75792 $3,771,956.86

Direct Debits $1,025,900.46 TOTAL $4,797,857.32

TABLE 2 – COMPARISON WITH PRIOR YEAR OF PAYMENTS

MONTH CHEQUES EFT/DD TOTAL PMTS CUMULATIVE CHEQUES EFT/DD TOTAL PMTS CUMULATIVE

2018-19 2018-19 2018-19 PAYMENTS 2019-20 2019-20 2019-20 PAYMENTS

JULY 26,103.88 5,421,569.55 5,447,673.43 5,447,673.43 4,869.95 5,279,604.72 5,284,474.67 5,284,474.67 AUGUST 24,324.24 3,479,792.07 3,504,116.31 8,951,789.74 0.00 2,813,479.48 2,813,479.48 8,097,954.15

SEPTEMBER 12,292.40 3,829,327.80 3,841,620.20 12,793,409.94 1,460.04 3,838,673.94 3,840,133.98 11,938,088.13 OCTOBER 16,100.80 12,583,756.59 12,599,857.39 25,393,267.33 593.05 11,323,915.09 11,324,508.14 23,262,596.27

NOVEMBER 18,922.59 4,513,582.09 4,532,504.68 29,925,772.01 776.75 3,284,744.97 3,285,744.97 26,548,341.24 DECEMBER 26,683.06 4,637,340.93 4,664,023.99 34,589,796.00 1,379.75 4,879,911.54 4,880,495.29 31,428,836.53 JANUARY 39,638.36 3,969,206.46 4,008,844.82 38,598,640.82 2,231.00 3,600,470.14 3,602,701.14 35,031,537.67

FEBRUARY 24,695.30 3,222,690.77 3,247,386.07 41,846,026.89 3,726.00 9,042,817.14 9,046,543.14 44,078,080.81 MARCH 23,851.36 3,494,760.00 3,518,611.36 45,364,638.25 511.47 8,516,753.22 8,517,264.69 52,595,345.50 APRIL 51,672.65 3,701,615.40 3,753,288.05 49,117,926.30 0.00 4,797,857.32 4,797,857.32 57,393,202.82 MAY 21,246.69 4,085,730.80 4,106,977.49 53,224,903.79 JUNE 39,968.10 4,897,066.12 4,937,034.22 58,161,938.01

325,499.43 57,836,438.58 58,161,938.01


64

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Local Government Act 1995, s 6.10, and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, r 13 STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2036 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2019-2023 Key Result Area 5: Effective leadership and governance Community Outcome 2: Effective and integrated strategy, planning, financial and asset management PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Implications Nil Long Term Financial Plan Nil Whole of Lifecycle considerations Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Nil Social Nil Economic Nil ADVOCACY Nil IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council notes the April 2020 List of Payments for $4,797,857.32. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. List of Payments for April 2020 RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR CRISTOFFANINI, CR KENNAUGH OM2020/104 That Council notes the April 2020 List of Payments for $4,797,857.32.

CARRIED 7/0


65

11.3.2 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENT REPORT - APRIL 2020 LOCATION/ADDRESS N/A APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/14 REPORT AUTHOR Andrew Ross, Manager Corporate Services AUTHORISING OFFICER James Shepherd, Director Corporate and Community Services

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

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

• Council is to consider the financial results for the period ending 30 April 2020. RECOMMENDATION That Council receives the Monthly Financial Report – April 2020 in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND In accordance with Financial Management Regulation 34 the Shire is to prepare each month a Statement of Financial Activity reporting on the sources and applications of funds, as set out in the annual budget under Financial Management Regulation (1) (d), for that month with the following details:

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

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

Also under Financial Management Regulation 34(5) Council are to adopt each year a material variance threshold. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 24 July 2019 (OM2019/136) Council adopted a monthly variance for reporting of material variances, where financial activity is greater than 10% and $10,000. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Nil Internal Consultation Business unit managers were provided the draft monthly financial reports for their business units and have provided their comments on variances greater than 10% and $10,000. DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The commentary contained in the body of this report is in line with Financial Management Regulation (2)(b) that requires commentary on material variances to the Statement of Financial Activity at the nature/type, program or business unit level.


66

The Statement of Financial Activity shows a year to date actual closing position at 30 April of $6.109 million ($4.289 million lower than last month’s result of $10.398 million). This result was higher than the expected year to date budgeted position of $2.915 million. The following details the main reasons for this favourable variation to Budget. Operating revenue is $0.058 million or 0.2% under budget (last month $0.391 million or 1.2% above budget) and reflects the impact of facilities being closed due to Covid-19. The main contributor to this unfavourable variance is fees and charges which are $0.339 million or 3.6% below budget. Higher than budget interim rates, operating grants for the fire prevention and outside school hours care areas, and other income due to the recognition of notional income from the use of resource stockpiles have largely offset the lower fees and charges. Operating expenditure on a year to date basis is $1.450 million or 4.5% under budget (last month $0.877 million or 3.0% below budget). The variation has increased as savings are being achieved to offset the loss of revenue. Variations include materials and contracts being $1.707 million or 19.1% under budget (last month $1.100 million or 14.0% under budget) with the Asset Services, Fire Prevention, Maintenance, Parks and Gardens, Waste and Community Planning & Development having the largest variances; and interest being $0.092 million under budget due to a timing difference. Over budget employee expenses of $0.106 million or 0.8% (last month $0.149 million or 1.3% over budget) and over budget depreciation of $0.116 million or 1.6% (last month $0.119 million or 1.7% over budget) have partially offset these under budget expenditures. Employee expenses are over budget in a number of business units including Outside School Hours Care, the HEART and the Infrastructure and Sustainable Development directorates due to additional hours or employees as well as a management restructure. These over expenditures are offset by under budget training due to Covid-19 restrictions. The following table provides a breakdown of actual to budget performance for employee expenses.

Category Full Year Budget

YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Variance

Provisions 1,168,566 941,767 944,714 2,947 Salaries & Wages 12,391,159 10,024,789 10,092,990 68,201 Superannuation 1,561,580 1,256,546 1,315,092 58,546 Workers Compensation

147,244 119,122 123,750 4,628

Fringe Benefits Tax 70,420 60,909 56,151 (4,758) Recruitment expenses

39,180 30,567 23,763 (6,804)

Training & Education 368,307 243,675 218,633 (25,042) Uniforms & PPE 90,225 80,625 83,911 3,286 Memberships 0 0 4,688 4,688 Total 15,836,681 12,758,000 12,863,691 105,692

Grants for capital works are $0.692 million or 15.9% below budget (last month $0.829 million or 19.4% below budget). The main reasons for this variation are:

• the $0.266 million balance of the $0.405 million Lotterywest grant for the Cowaramup Hall project won’t be fully claimed until construction is completed, the $0.070 million Better Bins grant application is in progress, and Regional Road Group grant instalments are claimed progressively as works are completed;

• offsetting the above are over budget developer contributions of $0.240 million. Capital expenditure of $1.987 million during the month ($2.264 million last month) was higher than the budget for the month of $1.583 million. On a year to date basis capital expenditure is $2.430 million under budget (last month $2.848 million under budget). The main variations are:

• works for buildings in the Margaret River Youth Precinct being delayed but are now progressing; • some works for cemeteries and animal care facilities will be carried over to 2020-21;


67

• construction on major projects at the Davis Road landfill site is progressing but have not achieved budget timing projections and are $0.418 million under budget;

• the sourcing of a suitable option to replace the retractable seating at the HEART is progressing; • building projects are $0.455 million under budget with some projects likely to be carried over to

2020-21 due to approval delays; • various furniture and equipment items for the HEART are being considered with some expected

to be carried over; • replacement of playground equipment at the Colourpatch and Brookfield are underway and a

public open space project in progress as well as a project being completed below budget have all contributed to under budget expenditure of $0.120 million for the parks and gardens area;

• delays with approvals and consultation have contributed to under budget expenditure $0.163 million for Asset Services;

• infrastructure upgrade projects are now $0.107 million over budget due primarily to the main street upgrade project exceeding budget timing expectations;

• infrastructure renewal projects are $1.224 million under budget with the main variations occurring for bridge works, road preservation and rehabilitation, gravel re-sheeting, path, drainage and foreshore preservation projects;

• the unbudgeted replacement of a utility following an insurance claim has contributed to over budget expenditure for the plant replacement program which has been completed for the year; and

• building works and equipment purchases for caravan parks are $0.033 million under budget. Capital expenditure for the month included:

• $147,867 for various building works primarily the Cowaramup Hall and the Cowaramup Pioneer Park toilets;

• $1,731,020 on road related projects of which $1,200,889 was spent on infrastructure upgrade projects and $530,132 was spent on infrastructure renewal projects. The Margaret River main street upgrade with expenditure of $1,063,289 was the main project on which expenditure was incurred. Carparks, foreshore facilities at Flinders Bay, crack patching, kerb works, gravel reshouldering, Gnarabup boat ramp works and the reconstruction of Leeuwin Road, Warner Glen Road, Rosa Brook Road and Ashton Street were the main areas of expenditure;

• $63,833 in payments for the purchase of two replacement utilities; and • $37,665 for the renewal of caravan parks infrastructure.

Financial performance against budget is shown in the following charts.


68


69

Financial impact of Covid-19 The Covid-19 enforced closure of Shire facilities providing face to face services is having a negative financial impact upon the Shire’s operating revenue. Due to additional interim rates and some other revenues as well as revised expectations for some sources of revenue due to facilities reopening, forecast revenue foregone is now expected to be $0.874 million compared to $1.098 million forecast last month. The following table details the business units expected to suffer the largest losses of revenue due to factors including forced closure, waiving of fees and charges and reduced business. These forecast revenue losses are partially offset by increased revenue results for some areas.

Business Unit Budget $’s

Actual at 30/4/20

$’s

Forecast at 30/6/20

$’s

Revenue Foregone

$’s

Previous Expectation

$’s Caravan Parks 2,201,140 1,796,219 1,816,360 384,780 403,780 MR Recreation Centre

835,600 575,559 586,600 249,000 267,000

Waste Services 5,213,376 4,937,940 5,072,687 233,689 209,489 MR HEART 126,000 31,562 32,000 94,000 99,000


70

Rangers 190,814 119,736 141,714 49,100 42,100 Building Services 240,000 169,624 200,000 40,000 36,600

To offset the loss of revenue, operating expenditure savings totalling $0.691 million have been identified for business units and include expected savings in labour, training, consultants, contractors, advertising, subscriptions, public relations, activities, printing, events, functions, projects, fuel and maintenance. Further savings may be identified as the financial year progresses, with the objective being to offset all foregone revenue with operating expenditure savings. Most business units have identified savings of at least $10,000 and the following table details the business units with the largest savings.

Business Unit Budget $’s

Actual at 30/4/20

$’s

Forecast at 30/6/20

$’s

Expenditure Savings

$’s

Previous Expectation

$’s MR HEART 1,177,125 831,769 1,070,466 106,659 112,195 Maintenance 8,820,850 7,198,010 8,715,850 105,000 105,000 Planning Services 1,281,978 890,934 1,195,978 86,000 115,000 MR Recreation Centre

2,136,355 1,708,541 2,059,855 76,500 78,500

Asset Services 1,391,065 1,038,531 1,319,565 71,500 91,500 Waste Services 3,445,330 2,442,627 3,374,930 70,400 123,000 Libraries 1,011,190 754,383 956,190 55,000 55,000 Marketing 612,671 367,610 558,871 53,800 51,800 Rangers 694,694 535,186 642,194 52,500 86,000

Following is the Statement of Financial Activity for the year ending 30 April 2020. This statement has been modified to include additional columns for the forecast balance at 30 June 2020, the forecast amendment and a comment relating to the amendment.


71

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVERSTATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITYFOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 April 2020

BUSINESS UNITS 2019-20 2019-20 2019-20 YTDAmended YTD YTD Variance Forecast Forecast YTD Actual to Budget Comments Forecast Comments

Budget Budget Actual >10% & Actual Adjustment$ $ $ >$10,000 $ $

Net Current Assets at 1 July surplus/(deficit) 3,804,165 3,804,165 3,804,165 3,804,165 0 C/F includes FAG paid in advance less write off of assets from previous years

Revenue from Operating ActivitiesRates 22,571,870 22,546,870 22,625,990 0 22,626,498 54,628 Lower penalty interest offset by interim ratesGeneral Financing 1,355,093 1,110,828 1,157,073 0 1,348,760 (6,333) Reduced interest earned and property lease incomeMembers of Council 200 150 303 0 200 0Chief Executive Officer 0 0 0 0 0 0Director Corporate & Community 0 0 0 0 0 0Director Sustainable Development 0 0 0 0 0 0Director Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0 0Finance 20,100 8,100 5,950 0 20,100 0COVID-19 Response and Recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0Records 400 300 495 0 400 0Corporate Services 0 0 0 0 0 0Customer Services 183,800 153,500 153,848 0 167,200 (16,600) DoT Commisisons reduced Information Comm. Technology 1,440 1,200 2,782 0 2,440 1,000 Sundry income receivedHuman Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0Community Planning & Development 52,055 47,811 37,357 (10,454) 52,055 0 Perm: operating grantsLegal & Governance 0 0 188,395 0 0 0Communications & Marketing 0 0 0 0 0Community Fire & Emergency Services 601,010 518,260 492,789 0 616,010 15,000 Additional MAF grantRangers 190,814 164,780 119,736 (45,044) 141,714 (49,100) Perm: reduced infringements, fees and charges Reduced infringements, fees and chargesLibraries 39,720 33,360 32,096 0 32,720 (7,000) Reduced fees and chargesEnvironmental Health 124,460 117,560 125,955 0 126,460 2,000 Reduced fees and chargesOutside School Hours Care 430,700 372,900 411,050 0 412,200 (18,500) Reduced fees and chargesWaste Services 5,213,376 5,067,038 4,937,940 0 4,979,687 (233,689) Reduced fees and charges, reduced commercial activityPlanning & Development Services 284,000 237,000 275,219 38,219 278,544 (5,456) Timing/Perm: fees and charges for applications Reduced fees and chargesCommunity Buildings 35,333 35,333 40,627 0 40,333 5,000 Sundry income adjustmentsMR Recreation Centre 835,600 695,100 575,559 (119,541) 586,600 (249,000) Perm: reduced fees as facilities closed Reduced fees and charges Margaret River Heart 126,000 67,000 31,562 (35,438) 32,000 (94,000) Perm: reduced venue hire income Reduced fees and charges and venue hire incomeAugusta Recreation Centre 37,500 31,500 27,369 0 27,500 (10,000) Reduced fees and charges Gloucester Park 67,500 62,000 45,889 (16,111) 47,500 (20,000) Timing/Perm: invoicing of annual usage charges Reduced fees and charges Beach Lifeguards 0 0 0 0 0 0Parks and Gardens 12,800 4,000 5,805 0 12,800 0Asset Services 99,400 90,000 97,082 0 101,400 2,000 Subdivision chargesLandcare & Environmental Services 0 0 3,000 0 0 0Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0Maintenance 11,000 11,000 10,997 0 11,000 0Plant Program 12,373 12,373 89,404 77,031 89,373 77,000 Perm: profit on sale of vehicles & plant Increased profit on sale of vehicles & plantCaravan Parks 2,201,140 2,045,120 1,796,219 (248,901) 1,816,360 (384,780) Perm: reduced fees as caravan parks closed Reduced fees and charges Building Services 240,000 200,000 169,624 (30,376) 200,000 (40,000) Timing/Perm: fees and charges for applications Reduced fees and charges Sustainable Economy 0 0 0 0Works Overheads 0 0 1,364 0 0 0Plant Operation Costs 0 0 4,520 0 0 0Other Property and Services 187,000 187,000 295,730 108,730 291,000 104,000 Resource pit income & workers comp recoveries Resource pit income & workers comp recoveries

34,934,684 33,820,083 33,761,730 (58,353) 34,060,854 (873,830)


72


BUSINESS UNITS 2019-20 2019-20 2019-20 YTDAmended YTD YTD Variance Forecast Forecast


Expenditure from Operating ActivitiesRevenue (366,438) (311,996) (324,199) 0 (366,438) 0 Reduced salaries offset debt recovery costsGeneral Financing (654,202) (515,450) (424,479) 90,971 (654,202) 0 Timing: Reversal of interest accrual, Govt Gty FeeMembers of Council (330,775) (279,418) (272,902) 0 (324,775) 6,000 Reduced training & travel expensesChief Executive Officer (550,706) (472,128) (450,983) 0 (535,706) 15,000 Reduced training & organisation developmentDirector Corporate & Community (456,767) (322,688) (306,186) 0 (439,209) 17,558 Reduced training, sponsorships & financial reviewDirector Sustainable Development (445,212) (358,507) (448,580) (90,073) (529,031) (83,819) Perm/Timing: employee costs Payout offset by reduced training, etcDirector Infrastructure (484,036) (391,572) (413,278) 0 (520,036) (36,000) Payout offset by reduced training, etcFinance (1,183,164) (1,093,550) (1,068,233) 0 (1,199,164) (16,000) Insurance offset by reduced training & procurementCOVID-19 Response and Recovery 0 0 (194,153) (194,153) 0 0 Perm: care package funded from reserveRecords (177,974) (142,392) (131,750) 0 (175,774) 2,200 Reduced service costsCorporate Services (225,800) (192,850) (183,163) 0 (215,800) 10,000 Reduced telephone costsCustomer Services (510,738) (411,881) (396,737) 0 (496,738) 14,000 Reduced salaries & trainingInformation Comm. Technology (1,050,668) (893,146) (853,623) 0 (1,040,668) 10,000 Reduced printing & stationeryHuman Resources (686,022) (551,630) (547,404) 0 (676,022) 10,000 Reduced Org Devpmt offsets legal & other leaveCommunity Planning & Development (771,806) (649,373) (487,322) 162,051 (771,806) 0 Timing/Perm: projects delayedLegal & Governance (390,554) (307,994) (277,738) 0 (377,554) 13,000 Reduced salaries & trainingCommunications & Marketing (612,671) (524,591) (367,610) 0 (558,871) 53,800 Reduced public relations, DVD removedCommunity Fire & Emergency Services (1,368,102) (1,162,927) (1,003,942) 158,985 (1,355,602) 12,500 Timing: bushfire mitigation works Reduced contract servicesRangers (694,694) (577,463) (535,186) 0 (642,194) 52,500 Reduced training & contract servicesBeach Lifeguards (142,000) (106,750) (100,997) 0 (142,000) 0Libraries (1,011,190) (822,537) (754,383) 0 (956,190) 55,000 Reduced salaries, training, subscriptions, PR, etcEnvironmental Health (563,328) (452,522) (450,310) 0 (559,328) 4,000 Reduced trainingOutside School Hours Care (508,166) (420,862) (375,831) 45,031 (485,666) 22,500 Timing/Perm: projects Reduced salaries, training & activitiesWaste Services (3,445,330) (2,923,282) (2,442,627) 480,655 (3,374,930) 70,400 Timing: special projects, waste collection invoices Reduced training, minor equipment, maintenance, etcPlanning & Development Services (1,281,978) (1,006,830) (890,934) 115,896 (1,195,978) 86,000 Perm/Timing: employee costs, projects Reduced salaries, training, printing & contract staffLandcare & Environmental Services (821,967) (655,746) (499,870) 155,876 (804,246) 17,721 Timing: EMF projects Reduced trainingCommunity Buildings (2,102,421) (1,773,050) (1,700,769) 0 (2,151,421) (49,000) Reduced salaries, trainingMR Recreation Centre (2,136,355) (1,751,483) (1,708,540) 0 (2,059,855) 76,500 Consumables, advertising, contract services, training, etcMargaret River Heart (1,177,125) (902,226) (831,769) 0 (1,070,466) 106,659 Reduced PR, events, stock, functions, etcAugusta Recreation Centre (124,974) (106,900) (90,791) 16,109 (106,974) 18,000 Perm: employee costs, advertising, building ops Reduced salariesGloucester Park (258,000) (228,100) (166,967) 61,133 (255,000) 3,000 Timing: projects Reduced operating costsParks and Gardens (2,811,900) (2,346,566) (2,259,820) 0 (2,811,900) 0Asset Services (1,391,065) (1,189,077) (1,038,531) 150,546 (1,319,565) 71,500 Timing/Perm: projects Reduced training & projectsConstruction 0 0 0 0 0 0Maintenance (8,820,850) (7,354,517) (7,198,010) 0 (8,715,850) 105,000 Reduced drainage & rehab of resource pitsPlant Program (54,913) (49,913) (24,237) 25,676 (29,913) 25,000 Perm: Loss on sale of vehicles & plant Reduced loss on sale of vehicles & plantCaravan Parks (1,311,826) (1,054,387) (1,107,795) 0 (1,311,826) 0Building Services (169,282) (135,934) (127,780) 0 (169,282) 0Sustainable Economy (121,194) (100,456) (86,126) 0 (121,194) 0Works Overheads (127,815) (6,609) (502,093) (495,484) (127,815) 0 Timing: under allocation of overheadsPlant Operation Costs 164,528 157,663 114,206 (43,457) 160,528 (4,000) Timing: over allocation of cost recovery Reduced training, fuel priceOther Property and Services (113,000) (100,000) (108,361) 0 (111,000) 2,000 Reduced resource pits expenses

(39,290,480) (32,489,639) (31,039,802) 1,449,837 (38,599,461) 691,019


73


BUSINESS UNITS 2019-20 2019-20 2019-20 YTDAmended YTD YTD Variance Forecast Forecast


Operating activities excluded from BudgetDepreciation on assets 9,361,200 7,801,000 7,916,697 0 9,407,800 46,600(Profit)/Loss Asset Disposal 22,540 22,540 (52,508) (75,048) (49,460) (72,000) Perm: vehicle sale proceeds

9,383,740 7,823,540 7,864,189 (75,048) 9,358,340 (25,400)

Amount attributable to operating activities 8,832,109 12,958,148 14,390,282 8,623,898 (208,211)

INVESTING ACTIVITIESNon Operating Grants & Contributions

Community Fire & Emergency Services 1,280,000 178,000 193,121 0 1,294,200 14,200Waste Services 70,000 70,000 0 (70,000) 70,000 0 Timing: Better Bins grant application in progressPlanning & Development Services 204,000 170,000 409,633 239,633 408,000 204,000 Perm: Developer contributions received Increased contributions tfd to reserveCommunity Buildings 1,155,268 1,155,268 942,941 (212,327) 1,209,321 54,053 Timing: Cowaramup Hall Lotterywest grant Contribution from CHRRA, increased solar rebateMR Recreation Centre 0 0 10,000 0 0 0Parks and Gardens (54,397) (54,397) (60,555) 0 (54,397) 0Asset Services 36,000 36,000 0 (36,000) 36,000 0 Timing: WA Bicycle Network grantConstruction 3,376,009 2,799,509 2,167,646 (631,863) 3,376,009 0 Timing/Perm: RRG grant claimsOther Property & Services 0 0 0 0 0

6,066,880 4,354,380 3,662,785 (691,595) 6,339,133 272,253Capital Investment

Purchase Land Held for Resale 0 0 0 0 0Purchase Land and Buildings (3,138,108) (2,471,639) (2,167,990) 303,649 (3,133,108) 5,000 Timing: various building projects Project expected to be completed under budgetPurchase Infrastructure Assets - Other (2,873,435) (1,510,135) (791,018) 719,117 (2,865,935) 7,500 Timing: waste projects Projects expected to be completed under budgetPurchase Infrastructure Assets - Roads (10,843,625) (7,568,520) (6,451,236) 1,117,284 (10,843,625) 0 Timing: road rehabilitation projects Purchase Plant and Equipment (2,785,000) (1,252,000) (1,104,368) 147,632 (2,785,000) 0 Timing: BFB & waste itemsPurchase Furniture and Equipment (231,100) (223,100) (80,626) 142,474 (231,100) 0 Timing: various, including purchases for HEARTProceeds from Disposal of Assets 505,000 505,000 532,178 0 505,000 0Proceeds from Sale of Land Held for Resale 120,000 120,000 122,727 0 120,000 0

(19,246,268) (12,400,394) (9,940,333) 2,430,156 (19,233,768) 12,500

Amount attributable to investing activities (13,179,388) (8,046,014) (6,277,548) (12,894,635) 284,753

FINANCING ACTIVITIESRepayment of Debentures (924,549) (772,467) (772,467) 0 (924,549) 0Repayment of Leases (36,897) (28,812) (27,832) (36,897) 0Advances to Community Groups 0 0 0 0 0Proceeds from Self-Supporting & IF Loans 18,277 18,277 10,277 0 18,277 0Proceeds from New Loan 0 0 0 0 0%Transfers to Cash Reserves (1,063,076) (2,288,387) (2,288,387) 0 (1,267,076) (204,000) $204k to Dev Contbns ReserveTransfers from Cash Reserves 6,353,525 1,074,525 1,074,525 0 6,403,525 50,000 $50k tfr from Leave Reserve

Amount attributable to financing activities 4,347,280 (1,996,864) (2,003,884) 0 4,193,280 (154,000)

Net Current Assets Surplus (Deficit) 0 2,915,271 6,108,850 (77,458) (77,458)


74

Outstanding Debtors The following charts compare the outstanding balance of rates and services and the outstanding balance of rates and services in arrears for the current and previous year. The charts show that both the number of assessments and the amounts outstanding are similar. At 30 April 2020 outstanding rates and services totalled $1,085,626 compared to $996,735 at the same time last year. A year on year increase of 8.9%. Rates and services in arrears totalled $258,629 compared to $299,743 at the same time last year.

Investments At 30 April 2020 the Shire’s cash on hand, deposits and investments totalled $32,100,469 (a decrease of $3,322,626 to last month’s total of $35,423,095). Total investment interest earned for the year was $466,381 and exceeded the budget of $454,000.


75

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

Term Days Maturity Institution (ADI) Principal

$ Interest Rate Interest

$

365 2/4/21 Bendigo Bank 1,000,000 1.35% 13,500 90 9/7/20 National Australia Bank 2,500,000 1.14% 7,027 365 17/7/20 NAB 1,500,000 1.85% 27,750 365 8/5/20 National Australia Bank 1,500,000 2.36% 35,400 90 12/5/20 Bankwest 4,000,000 1.50% 14,794 180 4/6/20 Bankwest 2,000,000 1.12% 5,523 180 7/9/20 National Australia Bank 5,000,000 1.34% 33,041 90 9/7/20 Bankwest 1,500,000 1.14% 5,716 90 12/5/20 CBA 2,000,000 1.50% 7,397 21,000,000 150,148

During the month the following changes were made to term deposits:

• a $1 million term deposit with Bendigo Bank matured on 1/4/20 and was rolled over for 1 year at 1.12%;

• a $2.5 million term deposit with NAB matured on 10/4/20 and was rolled over for 90 days at 1.12%;

• a $2 million term deposit with Bank of Queensland matured on 14/4/20 and was redeemed;

• a $2 million term deposit with Members Equity Bank matured on 15/4/20 and was redeemed; and

• a $4 million term deposit with Macquarie Bank matured on 16/4/20 and was redeemed. The average rate of interest to be paid on all term deposits is 1.48% (last month 1.70%).


76

The Shire also has an Overnight Cash Deposit Facility (OCDF) with WA Treasury Corporation (WATC) which is used to hold the Royalties for Regions funds allocated for the main street redevelopment project. The South West Development Commission and the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development are joint signatories for this facility. The second drawdown from the OCDF of $2.245 million was transacted on 5/2/20. During the month interest of $544 was earned (last month $1,061) and the current balance of the investment is $3.313 million. At 30 April 2020 the rate of interest earned on this facility is 0.20% and is set at 5 basis points lower than the Reserve Bank’s cash reference rate which is currently 0.25% after being reduced on 19/3/20.

In-Kind Support At 30 April 2020 fee waivers, donations and financial assistance sponsorships totalled $12,278 and included $8,200 of sporting sponsorships, $600 of donations and $3,478 of fee waivers. During the month fees were waived for mobile food businesses that were unable to operate due to Covid-19. Reserves Movement to reserves represent interest earned on reserve funds and transfers to and from reserves. During the month a number of reserve transfers were processed including:

• proceeds from the sale of a property to the Augusta revitalisation reserve; • proceeds from the sale of land inventory to the Community Facilities reserve; • proceeds received from interest free loans to the Community Loan reserve; • part of the purchase cost for a loader and truck from the Plant Replacement reserve; • principal and interest repayments for the HEART and MRYP loans from the DCP reserve; • part of the construction costs for various community and bush fire brigade buildings transferred

from the DCP reserve, Community Facilities reserve and Emergency Services reserve; and • the increase in the Workers Compensation premium transferred from the Self Insurance

reserve. Budget Amendments No budget amendments are proposed. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Financial Management Regulation 34 requires a local government to prepare each month a Statement of Financial Activity reporting on the sources and applications of funds, as set out in the annual budget under Financial Management Regulation 22(1) (d). STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2036 (CSP)


77

Corporate Business Plan 2019-2023 Key Result Area 5: Effective leadership and governance Outcome 6: Measure and report on success and sustainability Strategy 1: effectively measure our success and progress to a sustainable future Service level strategy/plan: Continue to monitor monthly, year to date and annual financial performance including preparation of the annual financial report. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Implications At 30 April 2020 the Shire’s financial performance is exceeding budget projections for liquidity and the net operating result. This is attributable to under budget capital and operating expenditure and over budget operating revenue. However, the closure of Shire facilities due to Covid-19 restrictions is negatively impacting financial performance. Long Term Financial Plan Monthly financial performance will influence the Long Term Financial Plan by providing actual revenue and expenditure parameters to compare against forecast results. Whole of Lifecycle considerations Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental As included in the report in business units such as Landcare & Environmental Services, Parks & Gardens, Waste Services, Environmental Health. Social As included in the report in business units such as Community Planning & Development, Town Plannning, Recreation Centres, Parks & Gardens. Economic As included in the report in business units such as Sustainable Economy, Caravan Parks, Building Services, Town Planning, General Financing. ADVOCACY Nil IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council receives the Monthly Financial Report – April 2020 in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Monthly Financial Report consisting of:

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


78

RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR DANIEL OM2020/105 That Council receives the Monthly Financial Report – April 2020 in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

CARRIED 7/0


79

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

14.1. Members Nil 14.2. CEO Nil

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS Nil 16. CLOSURE OF MEETING The Shire President thanked all in attendance and declared the meeting closed at 6.21pm

minutes - shire of augusta-margaret river

Documents