ordinary council - amrshire.wa.gov.au

Ordinary Council

MINUTES

FOR THE MEETING HELD WEDNESDAY, 8 MARCH 2017

IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ALLNUTT TERRACE, AUGUSTA

COMMENCING AT 5:30PM

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 8 MARCH 2017

1

Meeting Notice Dear Councillor I advise that an Ordinary Council Meeting of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River will be held in Council Chambers, Allnutt Terrace, Augusta on Wednesday 8 March 2017, commencing at 5:30pm. Yours faithfully

GARY EVERSHED CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


2

ATTENTION/DISCLAIMER

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


3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO. SUBJECT PAGE NO.

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING .................................................................................................. 4 2. ATTENDANCE ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 APOLOGIES ............................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE ........................................................................................... 4

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST ................................................................................................. 5 4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................ 5 4.1. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE ................................ 5 4.2. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ......................................................................................................... 5

5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ........................................................................... 5 6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING ..................................................... 5 6.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 22 FEBRUARY 2017 .......................................... 5

7. DEPUTATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 6 7.1 ITEM 11.2.3 INVESTIGATION OF SECOND ACCESS ROAD TO GNARABUP AND

PREVELLY – MR ERIC STREITBERG .................................................................................... 6 7.2 ITEM 11.2.3 INVESTIGATION OF SECOND ACCESS ROAD TO GNARABUP AND

PREVELLY – MS JANELLE LOOF .......................................................................................... 6 7.3 ITEM 11.2.3 INVESTIGATION OF SECOND ACCESS ROAD TO GNARABUP AND

PREVELLY – MR JOHN NOLAN ............................................................................................. 6

8. PETITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 8 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDING MEMBER......................................................... 8 10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN .................................................... 8 11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND EMPLOYEE REPORTS ................................................... 8 11.1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ................................................................................................... 9 11.1.1 COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN 2016 ..................................................................................... 10 11.1.2 CONTRIBUTION TO AUGUSTA DIGITAL TOURISM TOWN CONCEPT .............................. 14

11.2. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 17 11.2.1 AMENDMENT 54 (OMNIBUS AMENDMENT) FOR INITIATION ............................................ 18 11.2.2 DISPOSAL OF LAND AND ROAD CLOSURES - GLOUCESTER PARK ............................... 34 11.2.3 INVESTIGATION OF SECOND ACCESS TO GNARABUP AND PREVELLY ........................ 42 11.2.4 FLINDERS BAY MASTERPLAN, AUGUSTA ........................................................................... 49

11.3. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES ............................................................................................. 56 11.4. CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ....................................................................... 58 11.4.1 LOCAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT - 14

FEBRUARY 2017 .................................................................................................................... 59 11.4.2 BUSH FIRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - 15 FEBRUARY 2017 ............ 63 11.4.3 SUBMISSION ON THE REVIEW OF THE EMERGENCY SERVICS LEVY (ESL) ................. 66

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ........................................... 68 13. MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AT NEXT MEETING ....................................................... 68 14. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE ......................................................................... 68 14.1 MEMBERS ................................................................................................................................ 68 14.2 CEO .......................................................................................................................................... 68

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS .................................................................................................... 68 16. CLOSURE OF MEETING ......................................................................................................... 68


4

Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Wednesday 8 March 2017, in Council Chambers, 66 Allnutt Terrace, Augusta, commencing at 5.30pm

Ordinary Council Meeting

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

2. ATTENDANCE Shire President : Cr Ian Earl North Ward

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

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

Acting Director Infrastructure Services : Mr David Nicholson Acting Director Corporate and Community Services : Mr Nathan Hall (5.33pm) Manager Planning and Development Services : Mr Nick Logan

Minute Secretary : Ms Claire Schiller MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 17

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

2.1 Apologies Johan Louw, Director Infrastructure Services Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services

2.2. Approved Leave of Absence

Nil


5

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST Nil

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

Nil

4.2. Public Question Time

4.2.1 Doonbanks Caravan Park and Footpath to the Lighhouse – Ms Gudrun Thiele

Ms Gudrun Thiele of 39 Turner Street, Augusta asked the following questions: Q1: What has happened at Doonbanks Caravan Park and what can be done to avoid it in

the future? The Manager Planning and Development provided the response: A1: There was some illegal clearing carried out. The Shire has requested the landowners make a

retrospective application. This is in progress, the outcome is expected to be determined shortly. Education will help avoid it in the future.

Q2: Re. Footpath to Lighthouse. The next stage was to Dead Finish. When will that go

ahead? The Acting Director Infrastructure Services provided the response: A2: Officers have investigated the option of a pathway on the side of the road. At this stage the

Shire is waiting on the Department of Roads for a response regarding an amended speed limit.

The Acting Director Community and Corporate Services entered Chambers at 5.33pm.

5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 6.1 Ordinary Council Meeting held on 22 February 2017

MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR HAYNES, CR SMART OM2017/59 That Council confirms the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held 22 February 2017 to be a true and correct record of the meeting.

CARRIED 7/0


6

7. DEPUTATIONS 7.1 Item 11.2.3 Investigation of Second Access Road to Gnarabup and Prevelly –

Mr Eric Streitberg

Mr Eric Streitberg of 7-9 Blackboy Hollow Cave Road, Redgate, addressed the meeting in relation to Item 11.2.3 Investigation of a Second Access Road to Gnarabup and Prevelly, a summary of his deputation is as follows: • I have owned 7 Black Boy Hollow since 1986 and number 7 since 2006. One is my principle

residence, the other is used by friends and family. • I am a past Chair of the WA Marine Parks and Reserves Authority and have extensive experience

in consultation processess for contentious proposals for change in the public domain.

• The public consultation process for the alternative was flawed as the original process identified Option 2 as the most practicale.

• Consequently when the Your Say process took place it was in the context of Option 2 being fully characterised and Option 3 being in a preliminary state and poorly characterised.

• Despite this, the fact sheet distributed via email on 15 February 2017 indicated that 79% favoured Option 2 and 13% favoured Option 3.

• As a long term resident, potentially seriously affected by Option 3, I am concerned I did not receive any notice, I was alterted by a neighbour in late Noveber 2016.

• It is clear that the consultation process for Option 3 has been inadequate and ineffective.

• In the Feasabability Report it is not clear how the cost numbers have been derived. Option 3 is 2.5 times longer than Option 2 but is estimated to be only 1.6 times the cost. This seems highly anomalous given the steeper terrain, greater area of uncleared vegetation and much more difficult access to Caves Road at the end of Blackboy Hollow Road for Option 3.

• Apart from the substantial visual impact, it will require a large incursion into the National Park.

• Connectivity to existing network: There is a blind corner and steep slope close to the intersection with Boodjidup Road which is also a blind corner and steep slope, it is also a frequent location for accidents.

• There will be greater impacts on the environment with Option 3 due to its incursion on the National Park.

• Community impacts: Option 3 borders a substantial number of properties, it will have substantial affect on amenity.

• The Blackboy Hollow Cave Road Boodjidip Road and Caves Road services will require relocation.

• There will need to be acquisition of LNNP as well as private properties in relation to lot 1295 and my properties. The proprietor of Lot 1295 has offered to server the area required which would reduce the cost, however this has the potential to lead to further development in the area.

The Shire President called for questions and thanked Mr Streitberg for his deputation.

7.2 Item 11.2.3 Investigation of Second Access Road to Gnarabup and Prevelly – Ms Janelle Loof Mr Janelle Loof of 269 Yates Road, Margaret River , addressed the meeting in relation to Item 11.2.3 Investigation of a Second Access Road to Gnarabup and Prevelly, a summary of her deputation is as follows:


7

• I have lived on Yates Road for 25 years.

• Option 2 distance is 1.37kms as opposed to 3.37kms for Option 3. The shorter distance has lesser

impact to flora anf fauna and animals. • The link to join Wallcliffe and Rainbow Cave Road has a gentler slope which is at moost 9%. Option

3 is 15% and may need to be reduced to meet DFES guidelines of 10% maximum. • The intersection to Caves Road is a safer option at the Rainbow Cave meeting point as this is a

straght stretch of road where there is ample vision both ways. • 70% of people voted for Option 2. 13% for Option 3. This is wahat the community prefers.

• The evacuation time for both options is marginal.

• I do not believe that people from Prevelly will want to travel to town via Boodjidup or Glenelly Road.

It is safer and less time consuming via Wallcliffe Road.

The Shire President called for questions and thanked Ms Loof for her deputation.

7.3 Item 11.2.3 Investigation of Second Access Road to Gnarabup and Prevelly – Mr John Nolan Mr John Nolan of Lot 130 Mallee Fowl Way, Margaret River, addressed the meeting in relation to Item 11.2.3 Investigation of Second Access Road to Gnarabup and Prevelly, a summary of his deputation is as follows: • In 1990, 27 years ago my wife and I purchased our 11 acre Special Rural property. • You can only build in the allotted building envelope which was chosen for its minimal impact on the

existing bush. • You still cannot fence your boundary. This is to let the wild life move through freely. • You cannot run over a stick on the road in fear it may be a Bearded Dragon, a bob tail, a snake etc. • Every week I stop and move some critter of the road. • When it rains you have to drive even slower to avoid the hundreds of frogs crossing the road to get

from one swamp to another • We feel privileged to live there, it is like know other spot I know of, anywhere! • This pocket of Margaret River with its 10 to 15 acer Special Rural Blocks has no through traffic.

Imagine what it will be like going from that to 1000 or more cars a day

• I think you will agree, a lot of people choose Option 2 based on the information presented in “Weighing up the Option” which was biased and misleading.

• Under the heading National Park it states “lesser impact, shorter length” for option 2 where in fact

there is more, National Park, involved in Option 2. • And 1 third of the National Park, affected by Option 2, from Bob’s Hollow Cave, (there is a big cave

right there, on the edge of Option 2) which the proposed road practically runs over the top off, all the way to Rainbow Cave road, is Virgin Bush with Large Jarrahs, Red Gums and the largest Black Boys on the Ridge.


8

• Based on this misinformation in ‘Weighing up the Options’, the Councillors should consider paying

no attention to the ’Fact sheet’ were it states the publics preferred option, is Option 2. • The Shire should specify to the State Government, if they decide to fund a second access to

Gnarabup they should get current total costs on both options including the upgrade of Rainbow Cave road, Option 2 and the upgrade of the intersection of Caves and Boodjidup Road, to make it safer, Option 3.

• The state Government should further investigate which Route is THE Safest, in a Bush Fire and the

Safest for everyday use of vehicles. has the least impact on National Parks, has the least impact on residents? And Will not create problems for the AMR Shire, sorting out how to make adjoining roads such as Glennelly and Exmoor road Safer, under heavier traffic.

• I believe a second access road is not Needed, unless, you are, a Developer. • I Believe Nation Parks should not have 3.47 Hectares bulldozed for a road. • But if we have to have, a second access road, then it should be option 3. The Shire President called for questions and thanked Mr Nolan for his deputation.

8. PETITIONS Nil

9. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDING MEMBER Nil

10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN Nil

11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND EMPLOYEE REPORTS


9

11.1. Chief Executive Officer


10

11.1.1 COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN 2016 LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE COR/80 REPORT AUTHOR Emma Rogers, Governance Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer

IN BRIEF • Council is requested to consider the Audit and Risk Management Committee’s review of the 2016

Compliance Audit Return, adopt the 2016 Compliance Audit Return and forward a certified copy of the Return to the Director General of the Department of Local Government and Communities by 31 March 2017.

RECOMMENDATION That Council notes the report and recommendations of the Audit and Risk Management Committee and: 1. Receives the 2016 Compliance Audit Return, noting the full compliance achieved in 86 out of 87

areas, and noting the variation of compliance and actions for remediation in 1 area; 2. Adopts the 2016 Compliance Audit Return for the Shire of Augusta Margaret River; and 3. Forwards the certified copy of the 2016 Compliance Audit Return to the Director General of the

Department of Local Government and Communities prior to 31 March 2017. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS The recommendation to Council made by the Audit and Risk Management Committee (ARMC) will be tabled at the meeting for Council’s consideration. The report to the ARMC is included in the attachments. BACKGROUND Each local government is required to carry out a compliance audit for the period 1 January to 31 December each year in a form approved by the Minister. The local government’s audit committee is to review the compliance audit return and report to Council the results of that review (r14 Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996). The audit return is then to be adopted by Council, and a certified copy submitted to the Department of Local Government and Communities by 31 March the following year. The 2016 CAR continues in a reduced format, with the areas of compliance restricted to those considered high risk. The questions relate to regulation 13 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Nil Internal Consultation Chief Executive Officer and Directors


11

DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The 2016 Compliance Audit Return has been completed, for the period of 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016. The Audit and Risk Management Committee is to consider the 2016 Compliance Audit Return and report the results of their review to the Council. The Compliance Audit Return is then to be presented for adoption by Council and a certified copy of the return, along with the relevant section of the minutes and any additional information explaining or qualifying the compliance audit, is to be submitted to the Director General of the Department of Local Government and Communities by 31 March 2017. The 2016 CAR consists of a total of 87 questions, divided into 9 categories, covering various aspects of the Shire’s functions and services. These categories include: 1. Commercial Enterprises by Local Governments 2. Delegation of Power/Duty 3. Disclosure of Interest 4. Disposal of Property 5. Elections 6. Finance 7. Local Government Employees 8. Official Conduct 9. Tenders for Providing Goods and Services From a total of 87 questions, the Chief Executive Officer and Directors have confirmed that full compliance was achieved in all areas within their respective directorates with the exception of 1 question (outlined below). Tenders for Providing Goods and Services Question 9: Did the information recorded in the local government's tender register comply with the requirements of F&G Reg 17? Reference: Reg 17 LG (Functions & General) Regulations 1996 Response: No Comment: It was identified in the LG (Audit) Audit Reg 1996 - Audit Report, December 2016 that the tender register was not compliant with reg 17 LG (Functions and General) Regs 1996. Specifically, a copy of the notice of invitation to tender and names of each tenderer whose tender had been opened was not included in the register. The tender register has been updated and format amended, to ensure compliance with Reg 17 LG (Functions and General) Regs 1996. Regulation 17 of the LG (Functions & General) Regulations 1996 is specific in requiring, for each invitation to tender: (a) a brief description of the goods or services required; and [(b) deleted] (c) particulars of — (i) any notice by which expressions of interests from prospective tenderers

was sought; and (ii) any person who submitted an expression of interest; and (iii) any list of acceptable tenderers that was prepared under regulation 23(4); and (d) a copy of the notice of the invitation to tender; and (e) the name of each tenderer whose tender has been opened; and (f) the name of any successful tenderer. (3) The tenders register is to include for each invitation to tender the amount of the

consideration or a summary of the amount of the consideration sought in the tender accepted by the local government.

The 2016 Audit Report found the tender register was not compliant with part (d) and (e) above.


12

Corrective actions taken Following the findings, the tender register was updated to include all names of tenderers whose tenders has been opened, and additionally, the format of the tender register was amended to include the names of all tenderers within the actual register (previously, this information was included as an attachment to the register). The tender register is now compliant with Reg 17(e). The tender advertising dates and newspapers in which the advertisements were placed are included in the Register, which allows the advertisement to be identified. However, the wording of Reg 17(d) is specific in requiring a copy of the notice of invitation. The tender register has been updated to include all copies of advertisements, and is now compliant with Reg 17(d). The tender register procedure has been updated to reflect these changes to ensure ongoing compliance. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The Annual Compliance Audit Return is required under the provisions of s.7.13 (i) of the Local Government Act 1995 and r.14 & 15 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 5: Effective Leadership and Governance 5.1.3 Ensure Councillors and employees demonstrate the importance of ethical behaviour and compliance with codes of conduct. Complete and submit Statutory Compliance Return and remediate any errors within timeframes. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Nil Social Nil Economic Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council notes the report and recommendations of the Audit and Risk Management Committee and: 1. Receives the 2016 Compliance Audit Return, noting the full compliance achieved in 86 out of 87

areas, and noting the variation of compliance and actions for remediation in 1 area; 2. Adopts the 2016 Compliance Audit Return for the Shire of Augusta Margaret River; and 3. Forwards the certified copy of the 2016 Compliance Audit Return to the Director General of the

Department of Local Government and Communities prior to 31 March 2017. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Compliance Audit Return report to the Audit and Risk Management Committee Meeting held 8

March 2017


13

2. Compliance Audit Return 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016 RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR HAYNES OM2017/60 That Council notes the report and recommendations of the Audit and Risk Management Committee and: 1. Receives the 2016 Compliance Audit Return, noting the full compliance achieved in 86 out

of 87 areas, and noting the variation of compliance and actions for remediation in 1 area; 2. Adopts the 2016 Compliance Audit Return for the Shire of Augusta Margaret River; and 3. Forwards the certified copy of the 2016 Compliance Audit Return to the Director General of

the Department of Local Government and Communities prior to 31 March 2017. CARRIED 7/0


14

11.1.2 CONTRIBUTION TO AUGUSTA DIGITAL TOURISM TOWN CONCEPT LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE CSV/45 REPORT AUTHOR Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer

IN BRIEF • The Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association (MRBTA) has developed the Augusta Digital

Tourism Town project. • They have requested a partnership with the Shire of Augusta Margaret River and a contribution of

$10,000 to assist in the funding of the project. • Council has approved funding of $30,000 in the CEO budget (Ref: CE 50 – 17 CEO 19) for

Economic Development Strategy Initiatives. • This project is seen as a beneficial EDS initiative for the local tourism economy and will help to

leverage funding from the Building Better Regions Fund which requires evidence of partnerships and is brought to Council for endorsement and as a means of promoting and publicising the initiative at the Augusta meeting.

RECOMMENDATION That Council endorses the allocation of $10,000 from the 2016-17 Budget as a contribution to the Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association’s Augusta Digital Tourism Town project and as a partner contribution for the MRBTA’s Building Better Regions Fund Federal Grant funding application. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Council has supported digital programs in the past as part of a strategic approach to economic development. For example at the 13 May 2015 Ordinary Council Meeting, Council resolved to contribute $10,000 to the Margaret River Chamber of Commerce and Industry for the installation of free public Wi-Fi in the main street of Margaret River (OM2015/106). Shire libraries also provide internet access for patrons many of whom are from overseas. The MRBTA have developed the Augusta Digital Tourism Town concept designed to increase the amount of visitors to Augusta through the use of digital technology. The MRBTA has welcomed involvement from the Shire of Augusta Margaret River and requested a once off contribution of $10,000 on top of $40,000 being contributed by the Association. An application has been lodged for Better Regions Funding for a significant program to be launched. Irrespective of the success of the Federal funding bid a program will be rolled out and the Shire’s contribution will be of significant assistance. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation MRBTA Internal Consultation Nil


15

DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS MRBTA Chief Executive Officer, Pip Close, provided the following information about the Augusta Digital Tourism Town Project. “MRBTA is developing new models of visitor servicing in response to digital disruption and changing visitor expectations. These models involve the use of technology-enhanced interaction with visitors within visitor centres and the opportunity to interact with visitors remotely. The Augusta locality has a lower frequency of tourism product to attract visitors that other towns in the Margaret River region, however, it does have strengths in the beauty of the natural environment and associated activities, plus an interesting history. Many visitors to the region are unaware of these attributes. For those who do visit there is a lack of interpretation to bring alive the stories that could be told, or explain the environmental features. The title ‘Augusta Digital Tourism Town’ is a working title for the project. The purpose of the Augusta Digital Tourism Town concept is to:

• boost the tourism economy of Augusta by providing a more compelling reason to visit which capitalises on the town’s natural advantages;

• provide visitors with a personal digital guide to reveal the local sites and stories that make Augusta special;

• provide visitor servicing in a more effective manner in response to the digital disruption of the traditional business model of one fixed location visitor centre.

The idea is to utilise technology to:

• bring alive the stories of Augusta; • provide interpretation at key sites around the town and locality; • engage the community as local ambassadors to maximise tourism opportunities.

Once the technology and necessary content is in place, it will be possible to:

• promote Augusta as a place where visitors can experience an interactive way of engaging with the history, environment and local life of the town,

• enable community and businesses to play an active part in tourism promotion and visitor servicing;

• achieve coherence in interpretation and story-telling between Augusta town, Cape Leeuwin Precinct and the new Cape Leeuwin Interpretive Centre in Cottage 2.

Large interactive touch screens with map-based software will allow visitors to explore things to do and create itineraries within a locality or throughout the region. Screens can have the option to communicate remotely with a consultant which is a facility that can be switched on or off. Bookable product information can be sent to the visitor’s mobile device to facilitate booking via margaretriver.com. The YMRR Regional App together with beacons located at chosen points enable visitors to be automatically provided with site-specific information, audio, images, video, etc. A number of initial meetings have taken place with the Augusta community, facilitated by the ACCI. Response to date has been overwhelmingly positive. From MRBTA perspective, it provides an opportunity to generate an energy and focus for Augusta tourism that has been lacking.” The MRBTA are also seeking funding from the Building Better Regions program. The CEO has indicated support for the program and this report is brought to Council for endorsement and as a means of promoting and publicising the initiative at the Augusta meeting. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil

http://margaretriver.com/


16

STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 4: Vibrant and diverse economy Community Outcome 4.2: Sustainable Tourism Industry Strategic Response 4.2.1 Work collaboratively with the tourism sector to increase visitor numbers and length of stay to the Shire of Augusta Margaret River. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The proposed contribution will support the MRBTA’s application to leverage Federal grant funding and also demonstrates a financial commitment to a project providing economic benefits to Augusta and the Shire. Council has approved funding of $30,000 in the CEO budget (Ref: CE 50 – 17 CEO 19) for Economic Development Strategy Initiatives. This project is seen as a beneficial EDS initiative for the local tourism economy and will help to leverage funding from the Better Regions Program which requires evidence of partnerships. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Nil Social The Augusta Digital Tourism Town plan has the potential to boost the tourism industry in Augusta resulting in an increased amount of visitors and additional opportunity for social interaction. Economic An increase in the amount of visitors to Augusta has the potential for an increase economic activity. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council endorses the allocation of $10,000 from the 2016-17 Budget as a contribution to the Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association’s Augusta Digital Tourism Town project and as a partner contribution for the MRBTA’s Building Better Regions Fund Federal Grant funding application. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS Nil RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR HASTIE, CR SMART OM2017/61 That Council endorses the allocation of $10,000 from the 2016-17 Budget as a contribution to the Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association’s Augusta Digital Tourism Town project and as a partner contribution for the MRBTA’s Building Better Regions Fund Federal Grant funding application.

CARRIED 7/0


17

11.2. Sustainable Development


18

11.2.1 AMENDMENT 54 (OMNIBUS AMENDMENT) FOR INITIATION LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER N/A FILE REFERENCE LND/1/54 REPORT AUTHOR Matt Cuthbert, Strategic Projects Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Dale Putland, Director Sustainable Development

• The proposal is the third ‘Omnibus Amendment’ to LPS1. • An ‘Omnibus Amendment’ is a typical process for rectifying anomalies and making improvements

to a scheme and updating components as necessary over time to address issues. • The changes proposed are generally of a minor or administrative nature and intended to improve

implementation of LPS1. • The rationale for each amendment is set out in this report. Amendments include changes to both

LPS1 text and maps (zoning).

RECOMMENDATION That Council initiates Scheme Amendment No. 54 to Local Planning Scheme No. 1 for the purpose of public consultation. TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND An omnibus Amendment is a mechanism of progressing a group of (usually) unrelated amendments to a scheme. Typically, omnibus amendments deal only with minor modifications. More substantial proposals that require a greater level of scrutiny and assessment are progressed as separate amendments. The last omnibus amendment was initiated in 2015. Since that time, the need for further revisions has emerged as officers continuously implement and review LPS1. SCOPE OF THE AMENDMENT The modifications to LPS1 which are sought via this amendment can be grouped into 3 types. They are: • Text amendment – The addition or deletion of words or clauses from the scheme text; • Changes to Table 1 – Changes which modify the extent to which certain landuses are permissible

in the various zones of the scheme; and • Zoning Amendments – Changes to the Scheme maps which modify the zoning of defined land areas. PLANNING FRAMEWORK It is essential that any amendments to the Scheme are consistent with the planning framework which applies. In the case of this amendment, the intent is to improve consistency of LPS1 with: • The Residential Design Codes; • Local Planning Policies; and • Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.


19

DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Text Amendments The following explains each of the textual amendments to the scheme which are proposed and the reason for making them. Where indicated, amendments are shown with additions underlined and text to be deleted in strikethrough.

Modification Reason for Modification Modifying clause 4.16.2(a)(v) as follows: The Rural Worker's Accommodation should generally be clustered together with the principle dwelling in one location on the property with all relevant services shared; and

To provide greater clarification as to the intent of the clause.

Adding a clause at 4.16.2 (c) as follows: Ancillary dwellings should generally be clustered together with the principal dwelling in one location on the property with all relevant services shared.

In order that similar requirements apply to ancillary dwellings in rural areas as they currently do to other forms of ancillary accommodation such as rural workers dwellings.

Delete clause 4.21.2 (a) and (e) relating to Residential zoned lots with a R2.5 and R5 density code, as follows: (a) only one single dwelling house is permitted on any lot

exclusive of any “ancillary dwelling” that the local government may approve in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Design Codes;

(e) In medium, high and extreme bush fire prone areas, all habitable buildings shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standards AS3959 - Construction of Dwellings in Bush Fire Prone Areas (as amended from time to time); and

The number of dwellings which can be accommodated on any lot is dictated by the density code and amount of available land hence this clause is superfluous. This clause has become superfluous given the introduction of the Deemed Provisions and the requirement for all dwellings to comply with AS3959 dependant on the applicable BAL rating.

Delete clause 4.22.6(x) as follows: in medium, high and extreme bush fire prone areas, as determined by the Bushfire Hazard Assessment Study 2004 as amended from time to time, all habitable buildings shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 3959 (as amended from time to time); and

This clause has become superfluous given the introduction of the Deemed Provisions and the requirement for all dwellings to comply with AS3959 dependant on the applicable BAL rating.

Deleting clause 4.24.2 as follows: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Zoning Table, a single dwelling, grouped dwelling and multiple dwelling development is not permitted at street level for those lots having frontage to Bussell Highway, Margaret River between Churchill Avenue and Forrest Road on its east side and Tunbridge Street and Wallcliffe Road on its western side.

This clause limits residential development to the upper storey on defined streets in the Margaret River town centre zone. It is however superfluous given clause 4.23.4 which requires residential development to be located at the upper storey in all cases (in the town centre zone).

Deleting clause 4.23.5 and relocating it at 4.24.2 as follows: 4.24.4 Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1 – Zoning Table, residential uses will only be supported where they form part of a mixed use development on the same lot.

This clause prohibits residential development within the ‘Town Centre’ zone unless it is part of a mixed use development. The proposal is that its application should be limited only to Margaret River. This is due to the fact that it currently prevents owners of dwellings in (for example) Augusta, from replacing their dwelling or undertaking further residential development in areas


20

which are zoned ‘Town Centre’ but which are not located in the central commercial hub.

Including at 4.23.5 the following: Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1 – Zoning Table, fast food outlets which are inclusive of a ‘drive through’ component are not permitted where their access is to be via Bussell Highway.

In order to prevent high traffic generating ‘drive through’ outlets from compromising the proper functioning of Bussell Highway.

Modifying clause 5.10.2 as follows: The local government may, in circumstances where full and satisfactory justification is provided by the applicant and where deemed necessary subject to advertising in accordance with the provisions of clause 64 of the Deemed Provisions has been undertaken, approve a variation to, or relocation of the building envelope provided in each case it is satisfied that:

In order that discretion is provided as to when a change to a building envelope requires advertising. It is noted that in some cases, building envelope locations may be changed so as to have less impact on surrounding property owners and in these cases, advertising would be unwarranted.

Removing clause 5.13(1)(a) which provides a 6m building height limit for properties coded R2.5. (a) 6 metres in areas coded R2.5;

This requirement is anomalous given that an 8m height restriction applies throughout the majority of the Shire. There is no known reason as to why residential areas with a density code of 2.5 should have a height limit different to that which applies throughout the Shire.

Modify clause 5.19 as follows: 5.19 Bush fire hazard and Fire Management Plans

To be reflective of contemporary terminology as set by the state government.

Delete clauses 5.19.1 – to 5.19.4 inclusive as follows: 5.19.1 All areas identified as bushfire prone on the Bushfire Hazard Assessment Maps are designated bushfire prone areas for the purposes of the Building Code of Australia. 5.19.2Bush Fire Hazard Assessment maps are contained within the Local Planning Strategy, held at the local government offices and form part of the Scheme for the purposes of this clause. 5.19.3 If an owner disputes the land’s identification within a Designated Bushfire Prone Area that owner may provide suitable written evidence from a qualified bush fire expert, to the local government, and request reconsideration of that identification. 5.19.4 On receiving a request made under clause 5.19.3, the local government may by notice in writing served on the person who made that request – (a) determine that the land is not within a Designated Bushfire Prone Area; or (b) determine that the land’s identification within a Designated Bushfire Prone Area is correct.

These clauses have been superseded by an amendment to the Deemed Provisions which deal with substantially the same issues.


21

5.20.1 Land clearing (a) All land clearing requires the prior development approval of the Local Government, with the exception of the following: i) any clearing, including the provision of firebreaks, that is authorised under the Bush Fires Act 1954 (as amended); ii) any clearing that is carried out in accordance with an existing subdivision or development approval; ii clearing within a building envelope where a building permit has been issued and no development approval for the building is required; iii) any vegetation that is dead, or certified as dangerous by a qualified arborist dangerous; iv) any clearing of non-indigenous vegetation not native to Western Australia; v) clearing for farm management purposes within the Priority Agriculture, General Agriculture and Cluster Farm zones in accordance with the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 (as amended); vi) the lopping of native vegetation for stock fodder in any period of declared drought if the continued health of the vegetation is not affected; vii) any clearing carried out in accordance with an local government approved BushfFire Management Plan; viii) the clearing of indigenous any vegetation planted for forestry, agriculture, wood lots, gardens and horticultural purposes the purposes of harvesting including farm forestry; ix) any clearing of vegetation for the control of that has been designated as a noxious weeds authorised under the Agriculture Act 1988 (as amended); x) any minimal clearing of native vegetation to the extent necessary for vermin control under the Health Act 1911 (as amended); xi) minor pruning of vegetation for maintenance purposes which does not endanger the life of that vegetation; xii) the removal of vegetation to meet an acceptable Bushfire Attack Level under AS3959 for an approved dwelling, whether or not that dwelling is on the same lot, but does not include clearing on a Reserve or Crown land; xiii) clearing on land within the commercial or industrial zones; xiv) clearing upon residential lots less than 2000m² in size; and xv) minor clearing upon residential zoned lots to facilitate use incidental to the residential occupation of the land.

The minor changes to the wording of this clause are aimed at clarifying its intent to benefit both the community and the Shire in relation to any legal challenges that may arise. For example, wording is included to clarify that “dangerous” vegetation is that which has been assessed by an arborist to be so. Wording is also included to clarify that “Indigenous” vegetation is that which is native to Western Australia. Clarification is provided that the exemption from the need to obtain development approval does not extend to clearing for fire management purposes on reserves or Crown land.

Add at 5.20.3, the following: With the exception of lots in the rural zones, vegetation cleared within 1km of town centre zoned land is to be disposed of by means other than by being burnt onsite.

In order to alleviate the nuisance caused by smoke in built up areas. In order to promote more sustainable use of ‘waste’.

5.22.2 Where, water supplies are required for firefighting purposes in addition to the requirements of clause 5.22.1 for a supply of potable water for any dwelling, additional water supplies are required for firefighting purposes, the capacity of the rainwater catchment tank shall be 135,000 litres a dedicated rainwater catchment tank of no less than 10,000 litres is to be provided and fitted with an appropriate gate valve to enable firefighting appliances to draw water for firefighting purposes.

To accord with A4.3 of the Planning for Bushfire Prone Area Guidelines.


22

6.4.3.2.1 Residential Zone (a) Development within residential zone shall be in accordance with the scheme and the RCodes as identified in the scheme and the Gnarabup Beach Structure Plan (2006) (f) All lots shall dispose of stormwater on-site to the satisfaction of the local government (unless it is proved to be impracticable as demonstrated by a report prepared by a qualified geotechnical/groundwater engineer,) with particular attention given to avoiding erosion or connection of the lot drainage system to the adjoining street.

The R-Codes and scheme are applicable to the land and the clause is not required to achieve this outcome. The 2006 structure plan does not provide any guidance in relation to development outcomes. The consideration of proposed stormwater systems by the Shire is a component of any DA/building licence and does not require special emphasis in the Gnarabup context.

Modifying the ‘Special Conditions and Requirements’ column of Schedule 7 applicable to RR17 as follows: 1. The local government will not support any proposal to re-subdivide the land until such time as Detailed Area a Structure Plan has been prepared and adopted for the land in accordance with the Scheme having regard the relevant considerations for the preparation of such a plan at clause 6.2.8. Deemed Provisions

In order that the Scheme provision is reflective of the Deemed Provisions.

Deleting ‘specific conditions and requirements’ No. 10 relating to R-R9 at Schedule 7 as follows: Notwithstanding the other provisions of the Scheme all development requires the approval of the local government and no development shall be carried out until such time as the local government has approved the building or structure and has approved the colours and materials to be used in the external cladding of any such building or structure.

In order to bring the requirements for Development Approval into line with those that apply to all other rural residential zones. Note that visual management requirements are set out at clause 4.22.4(c) relating to the rural residential zone.

Adding a parking requirement applicable to ‘Holiday House’ at Schedule 8 as follows: 1 space per room used for accommodation. Grouped dwellings - Minimum 2 bays

To reflect the requirements of LPP7

Modifying Schedule 11 by removing the entry at SPA23 relating to portion of Lot 300 Salter Street, Gracetown from SPA23 and relocating the text so removed to SPA27.

To rectify duplication of entries in Schedule 11 at ‘SPA23’.

Modifying all references in the scheme from ‘ancillary accommodation’ to ‘ancillary dwelling’.

To accord with the landuse definitions of the scheme.

Changes to Table 1 Table 1 is the ‘zoning table’ which forms part of the scheme and which identifies the extent to which each land use is permissible or otherwise in all of the zones within the scheme. The following explains the proposed changes to Table 1 and the reason for making them.

Changes to Table 1 Reason Changing ‘Grouped Dwellings’ from an ‘X’ to a ‘D’ use in the ‘Rural Residential’ zone.

There are rural residential subdivisions which exist in the Shire that are, by definition grouped dwellings in that they have been strata titled. This proposal will remove the anomaly whereby lots that have been created specifically for residential purposes


23

Changing ‘Ancillary Dwelling’ from a ‘D’ to a ‘P’ use in the Residential and Rural Residential zones

To reflect the exemption from the need for development approval relating to this use class as set out by the Deemed Provisions and LPP17.

Changing ‘Park Home Park’ from a ‘D’ to an ‘X’ use in the General Agriculture and Priority Agriculture zones.

Park home parks are subject to being used for residential purposes which is a type of use not promoted in the rural zones (beyond a single house). Furthermore there is a lack of development controls relating to this use in the rural zones which would limit their size (such as is the case for caravan bays/cabins etc).

Scheme Map Changes Lot 203 Cowaramup Bay Road, Gracetown The subject land was transferred by the owner to the State Government as part of conservation based subdivision as provided for by the LNRSPP. The land is currently zoned ‘Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge Conservation’. The intention is that it becomes part of the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park. Rezoning of the land to ‘National Parks and Nature Reserves’ will make it consistent with the zoning which applies to the existing National Park (see Attachment 1). Rezone Lot 108 Rosa Brook Road, Rosa Brook The subject land is owned in freehold and does not form part of the adjoining State Forest. It is therefore proposed to be rezoned from State Forest to General Agriculture’ to be consistent with surrounding farmland (see Attachment 2). Lot 300 Salter Street, Gracetown The subject land was erroneously given the designation of SPA23, a designation which is already applicable to Lot 1017 Redgate Road, Witchcliffe. Changing the designation to SPA27 will resolve this duplication (see Attachment 3). Country Vines, Cowaramup Stages 1 and 2 of the Country Vines estate have been completed with titles now issued and development commencing. The land is zoned ‘Future Development’ however the applicable structure plan identifies that the lots as residential with applicable R-Codes along with associated roads and parks and recreation reserves. The proposed rezoning will bring the zoning of this part of the subdivision into alignment with the structure plan (see Attachment 4). Symphony Waters Estate, Cowaramup Stages 1 of the Symphony Waters estate have been completed with titles now issued and development commencing. The land is zoned ‘Future Development’ however the applicable structure plan identifies the lots as residential with applicable r-codes, along with associated roads and parks and recreation reserves. The proposed rezoning will bring the zoning of this part of the subdivision into alignment with the structure plan (see Attachment 5). Riverslea Stage 8, Margaret River Stage 8 of the Riverslea estate has been completed with titles now issued and development commencing. The land is zoned ‘Future Development’ however the applicable structure plan identifies the lots as residential with applicable r-codes along with associated roads and parks and recreation reserves. The proposed rezoning will bring the zoning of this part of the subdivision into alignment with the structure plan (see Attachment 6). CONSULTATION Should this proposal be initiated by Council, detailed consultation would be required in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 3 Managing Growth Sustainably Community Outcome: Clearly defined areas for growth and renewal


24

Strategic Response: Implement Local Planning Scheme No. 1 Service level strategy/plan: Review Local Planning Scheme No. 1. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The proposal maintains environmental protection measures as currently contained within LPS1. Social The proposal improves the legibility of LPS1, to the benefit of all users. Economic A streamlining of processes and a reduction in duplication, has the potential to stimulate economic activity. CONCLUSION The range of amendments proposed to the Scheme will assist in improving its useability by both planning staff and the community. It will achieve this in part by replacing unnecessarily lengthy clauses with simple and straight forward wording which will make it easier to administer, and in some cases, by removing unnecesary planning controls altogther. Anomalies inherent in some clauses as have been identified since its gazettal, will be rectified. For these reasons it is recommended that the proposal be initiated to allow for public consultation to occur. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council, in pursuance of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (as amended), initiates Scheme Amendment No. 54 to Local Planning Scheme No.1 for the purposes of:

1. Amending various provisions of the Local Planning Scheme with text to be deleted shown in

strikethrough and additional text underlined as follows:

Modifying clause 4.16.2(a)(v) as follows: The Rural Worker's Accommodation should generally be clustered together with the principal dwelling in one location on the property with all relevant services shared; and Adding a clause at 4.16.2 (c) as follows: Ancillary dwellings should generally be clustered together with the principle dwelling in one location on the property with all relevant services shared. Delete clause 4.21.2 (a) and (e) relating to Residential zoned lots with a R2.5 and R5 density code, as follows: (b) only one single dwelling house is permitted on any lot exclusive of any “ancillary dwelling” that the

local government may approve in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Design Codes;

(e) In medium, high and extreme bush fire prone areas, all habitable buildings shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standards AS3959 - Construction of Dwellings in Bush Fire Prone Areas (as amended from time to time); and Delete clause 4.22.6(x) as follows: in medium, high and extreme bush fire prone areas, as determined by the Bushfire Hazard Assessment Study 2004 as amended from time to time, all habitable buildings shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 3959 (as amended from time to time); and Deleting clause 4.24.2 as follows:


25

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Zoning Table, a single dwelling, grouped dwelling and multiple dwelling development is not permitted at street level for those lots having frontage to Bussell Highway, Margaret River between Churchill Avenue and Forrest Road on its east side and Tunbridge Street and Wallcliffe Road on its western side. Deleting clause 4.23.5 and relocating it at 4.24.4 as follows: 4.24.4 Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1 – Zoning Table, residential uses will only be supported where they form part of a mixed use development on the same lot. Including at 4.23.5 the following: Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1 – Zoning Table, fast food outlets which are inclusive of a ‘drive through’ component are not permitted where their access is to be via Bussell Highway. Modifying clause 5.10.2 as follows: The local government may, in circumstances where full and satisfactory justification is provided by the applicant and where deemed necessary subject to advertising in accordance with the provisions of clause 64 of the Deemed Provisions has been undertaken, approve a variation to, or relocation of the building envelope provided in each case it is satisfied that: Removing clause 5.13(1)(a) which provides a 6m building height limit for properties coded R2.5. (a) 6 metres in areas coded R2.5; Modify clause 5.19 as follows: 5.19 Bush fire hazard and Fire Management Plans Delete clauses 5.19.1 – to 5.19.4 inclusive as follows: 5.19.1 All areas identified as bushfire prone on the Bushfire Hazard Assessment Maps are designated bushfire prone areas for the purposes of the Building Code of Australia. 5.19.2Bush Fire Hazard Assessment maps are contained within the Local Planning Strategy, held at the local government offices and form part of the Scheme for the purposes of this clause. 5.19.3 If an owner disputes the land’s identification within a Designated Bushfire Prone Area that owner may provide suitable written evidence from a qualified bush fire expert, to the local government, and request reconsideration of that identification. 5.19.4 On receiving a request made under clause 5.19.3, the local government may by notice in writing served on the person who made that request – (a) determine that the land is not within a Designated Bushfire Prone Area; or (b) determine that the land’s identification within a Designated Bushfire Prone Area is correct. 5.20.1 Land clearing (a) All land clearing requires the prior development approval of the Local Government, with the exception of the following: i) any clearing, including the provision of firebreaks, that is authorised under the Bush Fires Act 1954 (as amended); ii) any clearing that is carried out in accordance with an existing subdivision or development approval; ii clearing within a building envelope where a building permit has been issued and no development approval for the building is required; iii) any vegetation that is dead, or certified as dangerous by a qualified arborist dangerous; iv) any clearing of non-indigenous vegetation not native to Western Australia; v) clearing for farm management purposes within the Priority Agriculture, General Agriculture and Cluster Farm zones in accordance with the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 (as amended); vi) the lopping of native vegetation for stock fodder in any period of declared drought if the continued health of the vegetation is not affected; vii) any clearing carried out in accordance with an local government approved BushfFire Management Plan; viii) the clearing of indigenous any vegetation planted for forestry, agriculture, wood lots, gardens and horticultural purposes the purposes of harvesting including farm forestry;


26

ix) any clearing of vegetation for the control of that has been designated as a noxious weeds authorised under the Agriculture Act 1988 (as amended); x) any minimal clearing of native vegetation to the extent necessary for vermin control under the Health Act 1911 (as amended); xi) minor pruning of vegetation for maintenance purposes which does not endanger the life of that vegetation; xii) the removal of vegetation to meet an acceptable Bushfire Attack Level under AS3959 for an approved dwelling, whether or not that dwelling is on the same lot, but does not include clearing on a Reserve or Crown land; xiii) clearing on land within the commercial or industrial zones; xiv) clearing upon residential lots less than 2000m² in size; and xv) minor clearing upon residential zoned lots to facilitate use incidental to the residential occupation of the land. Add at 5.20.3, the following: With the exception of lots in the rural zones, vegetation cleared within 1km of town centre zoned land is to be disposed of by means other than by being burnt onsite. 5.22.2 Where, water supplies are required for firefighting purposes in addition to the requirements of clause 5.22.1 for a supply of potable water for any dwelling, additional water supplies are required for firefighting purposes, the capacity of the rainwater catchment tank shall be 135,000 litres a dedicated rainwater catchment tank of no less than 10,000 litres is to be provided and fitted with an appropriate gate valve to enable firefighting appliances to draw water for firefighting purposes. 6.4.3.2.1 Residential Zone (a) Development within residential zone shall be in accordance with the scheme and the RCodes as identified in the scheme and the Gnarabup Beach Structure Plan (2006) (f) All lots shall dispose of stormwater on-site to the satisfaction of the local government (unless it is proved to be impracticable as demonstrated by a report prepared by a qualified geotechnical/groundwater engineer,) with particular attention given to avoiding erosion or connection of the lot drainage system to the adjoining street. Modifying the ‘Special Conditions and Requirements’ column of Schedule 7 applicable to RR17 as follows: 1. The local government will not support any proposal to re-subdivide the land until such time as Detailed Area a Structure Plan has been prepared and adopted for the land in accordance with the Scheme having regard the relevant considerations for the preparation of such a plan at clause 6.2.8. Deemed Provisions Deleting ‘specific conditions and requirements’ No. 10 relating to R-R9 at Schedule 7 as follows: Notwithstanding the other provisions of the Scheme all development requires the approval of the local government and no development shall be carried out until such time as the local government has approved the building or structure and has approved the colours and materials to be used in the external cladding of any such building or structure. Adding a parking requirement applicable to ‘Holiday House’ at Schedule 8 as follows: 1 space per room used for accommodation. Grouped dwellings - Minimum 2 bays Modifying Schedule 11 by removing the entry at SPA23 relating to portion of Lot 300 Salter Street, Gracetown from SPA23 and relocating the text so removed to SPA27. Modifying all references in the scheme from ‘ancillary accommodation’ to ‘ancillary dwelling’. Modifying Table 1 by changing ‘Grouped Dwellings’ from an ‘X’ to a ‘D’ use in the ‘Rural Residential zone. Modifying Table 1 by changing ‘Ancillary Dwelling’ from a ‘D’ to a ‘P’ use in the Residential and Rural Residential zones Changing ‘Park Home Park’ from a ‘D’ to an ‘X’ use in the General Agriculture and Priority Agriculture zones.

2. Amending the Local Planning Scheme No. 1 Scheme Maps to:


27

a) Rezone Lot 203 Cowaramup Bay Road, Gracetown from ‘Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge Conservation’ to ‘National Parks and Nature Reserves’;

b) Rezone Lot 108 Rosa Brook Road, Rosa Brook from ‘State Forest’ to ‘General Agriculture’;

c) Change the SPA designation applicable to Lot 300 Salter Street, Gracetown from ‘SPA23’ to ‘SPA27’;

d) Rezone Lots 1-30 Brookside Boulevard and Copse Way Cowaramup, Reserve 52546 and the respective road reserves from ‘Future Development’ to ‘Residential’, ‘Parks and Recreation’ and ‘Local Roads’ respectively;

e) Rezone Lots 200-267 and 306 – 312 in the vicinity of Roy Earl Drive Cowaramup, Reserves 52273, 50457 and 50458 and the respective road reserves from ‘Future Development’ to ‘Residential’, ‘Parks and Recreation’ and ‘Local Roads’ respectively; and

f) Rezone Lots 7-79 and Lots 3000 and 3001 in the vicinity of Greenwood Avenue Margaret River, and the respective road reserves from ‘Future Development’ to ‘Residential’, ‘Parks and Recreation’ and ‘Local Roads’ respectively.

3. Determines that the Amendment is a ‘standard amendment’ in accordance with clause 35(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as it: “does not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land in the scheme area”.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Amending map - Lot 203 Cowaramup Bay Road, Gracetown 2. Amending map - Lot 108 Rosa Brook Road, Rosa Brook 3. Amending map - Lot 300 Salter Street, Gracetown 4. Amending map - Country Vines, Cowaramup 5. Amending map - Symphony Waters Estate, Cowaramup 6. Amending map - Riverslea Stage 8, Margaret River RECOMMENDATION CR TOWNSHEND, CR LANE That Council, in pursuance of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (as amended), initiates Scheme Amendment No. 54 to Local Planning Scheme No.1 for the purposes of:

1. Amending various provisions of the Local Planning Scheme with text to be deleted shown

in strikethrough and additional text underlined as follows:

Modifying clause 4.16.2(a)(v) as follows: The Rural Worker's Accommodation should generally be clustered together with the principal dwelling in one location on the property with all relevant services shared; and Adding a clause at 4.16.2 (c) as follows: Ancillary dwellings should generally be clustered together with the principle dwelling in one location on the property with all relevant services shared. Delete clause 4.21.2 (a) and (e) relating to Residential zoned lots with a R2.5 and R5 density code, as follows: (c) only one single dwelling house is permitted on any lot exclusive of any “ancillary dwelling”

that the local government may approve in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Design Codes;

(e) In medium, high and extreme bush fire prone areas, all habitable buildings shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standards AS3959 - Construction of Dwellings in Bush Fire Prone Areas (as amended from time to time); and Delete clause 4.22.6(x) as follows: in medium, high and extreme bush fire prone areas, as determined by the Bushfire Hazard Assessment Study 2004 as amended from time to time, all habitable buildings shall be


28

constructed in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 3959 (as amended from time to time); and Deleting clause 4.24.2 as follows: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Zoning Table, a single dwelling, grouped dwelling and multiple dwelling development is not permitted at street level for those lots having frontage to Bussell Highway, Margaret River between Churchill Avenue and Forrest Road on its east side and Tunbridge Street and Wallcliffe Road on its western side. Deleting clause 4.23.5 and relocating it at 4.24.4 as follows: 4.24.4 Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1 – Zoning Table, residential uses will only be supported where they form part of a mixed use development on the same lot. Including at 4.23.5 the following: Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1 – Zoning Table, fast food outlets which are inclusive of a ‘drive through’ component are not permitted where their access is to be via Bussell Highway. Modifying clause 5.10.2 as follows: The local government may, in circumstances where full and satisfactory justification is provided by the applicant and where deemed necessary subject to advertising in accordance with the provisions of clause 64 of the Deemed Provisions has been undertaken, approve a variation to, or relocation of the building envelope provided in each case it is satisfied that: Removing clause 5.13(1)(a) which provides a 6m building height limit for properties coded R2.5. (a) 6 metres in areas coded R2.5; Modify clause 5.19 as follows: 5.19 Bush fire hazard and Fire Management Plans Delete clauses 5.19.1 – to 5.19.4 inclusive as follows: 5.19.1 All areas identified as bushfire prone on the Bushfire Hazard Assessment Maps are designated bushfire prone areas for the purposes of the Building Code of Australia. 5.19.2Bush Fire Hazard Assessment maps are contained within the Local Planning Strategy, held at the local government offices and form part of the Scheme for the purposes of this clause. 5.19.3 If an owner disputes the land’s identification within a Designated Bushfire Prone Area that owner may provide suitable written evidence from a qualified bush fire expert, to the local government, and request reconsideration of that identification. 5.19.4 On receiving a request made under clause 5.19.3, the local government may by notice in writing served on the person who made that request – (a) determine that the land is not within a Designated Bushfire Prone Area; or (b) determine that the land’s identification within a Designated Bushfire Prone Area is correct. 5.20.1 Land clearing (a) All land clearing requires the prior development approval of the Local Government, with the exception of the following: i) any clearing, including the provision of firebreaks, that is authorised under the Bush Fires Act 1954 (as amended); ii) any clearing that is carried out in accordance with an existing subdivision or development approval; ii clearing within a building envelope where a building permit has been issued and no development approval for the building is required; iii) any vegetation that is dead, or certified as dangerous by a qualified arborist dangerous; iv) any clearing of non-indigenous vegetation not native to Western Australia; v) clearing for farm management purposes within the Priority Agriculture, General Agriculture and Cluster Farm zones in accordance with the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 (as amended); vi) the lopping of native vegetation for stock fodder in any period of declared drought if the continued health of the vegetation is not affected;


29

vii) any clearing carried out in accordance with an local government approved BushfFire Management Plan; viii) the clearing of indigenous any vegetation planted for forestry, agriculture, wood lots, gardens and horticultural purposes the purposes of harvesting including farm forestry; ix) any clearing of vegetation for the control of that has been designated as a noxious weeds authorised under the Agriculture Act 1988 (as amended); x) any minimal clearing of native vegetation to the extent necessary for vermin control under the Health Act 1911 (as amended); xi) minor pruning of vegetation for maintenance purposes which does not endanger the life of that vegetation; xii) the removal of vegetation to meet an acceptable Bushfire Attack Level under AS3959 for an approved dwelling, whether or not that dwelling is on the same lot, but does not include clearing on a Reserve or Crown land; xiii) clearing on land within the commercial or industrial zones; xiv) clearing upon residential lots less than 2000m² in size; and xv) minor clearing upon residential zoned lots to facilitate use incidental to the residential occupation of the land. Add at 5.20.3, the following: With the exception of lots in the rural zones, vegetation cleared within 1km of town centre zoned land is to be disposed of by means other than by being burnt onsite. 5.22.2 Where, water supplies are required for firefighting purposes in addition to the requirements of clause 5.22.1 for a supply of potable water for any dwelling, additional water supplies are required for firefighting purposes, the capacity of the rainwater catchment tank shall be 135,000 litres a dedicated rainwater catchment tank of no less than 10,000 litres is to be provided and fitted with an appropriate gate valve to enable firefighting appliances to draw water for firefighting purposes. 6.4.3.2.1 Residential Zone (a) Development within residential zone shall be in accordance with the scheme and the RCodes as identified in the scheme and the Gnarabup Beach Structure Plan (2006) (f) All lots shall dispose of stormwater on-site to the satisfaction of the local government (unless it is proved to be impracticable as demonstrated by a report prepared by a qualified geotechnical/groundwater engineer,) with particular attention given to avoiding erosion or connection of the lot drainage system to the adjoining street. Modifying the ‘Special Conditions and Requirements’ column of Schedule 7 applicable to RR17 as follows: 1. The local government will not support any proposal to re-subdivide the land until such time as Detailed Area a Structure Plan has been prepared and adopted for the land in accordance with the Scheme having regard the relevant considerations for the preparation of such a plan at clause 6.2.8. Deemed Provisions Deleting ‘specific conditions and requirements’ No. 10 relating to R-R9 at Schedule 7 as follows: Notwithstanding the other provisions of the Scheme all development requires the approval of the local government and no development shall be carried out until such time as the local government has approved the building or structure and has approved the colours and materials to be used in the external cladding of any such building or structure. Adding a parking requirement applicable to ‘Holiday House’ at Schedule 8 as follows: 1 space per room used for accommodation. Grouped dwellings - Minimum 2 bays Modifying Schedule 11 by removing the entry at SPA23 relating to portion of Lot 300 Salter Street, Gracetown from SPA23 and relocating the text so removed to SPA27. Modifying all references in the scheme from ‘ancillary accommodation’ to ‘ancillary dwelling’. Modifying Table 1 by changing ‘Grouped Dwellings’ from an ‘X’ to a ‘D’ use in the ‘Rural Residential zone.


30

Modifying Table 1 by changing ‘Ancillary Dwelling’ from a ‘D’ to a ‘P’ use in the Residential and Rural Residential zones Changing ‘Park Home Park’ from a ‘D’ to an ‘X’ use in the General Agriculture and Priority Agriculture zones.









0/0

Cr Haynes moved the following amendment: AMENDMENT CR HAYNES, CR TOWNSHEND That the following additional clause be added to 4.23.5 That drive-through food and beverage outlets will not be supported where access is via Bussell Highway.

0/0 REASON: To ensure that 4.23.5 applied to liquor stores as well as fast food outlets. Cr Haynes stated there are enough liquor stores in Margaret River. Cr Haynes, with consent of the seconder, withdrew the amendment to allow for further consideration, on the basis that there would be future opportunity to make this amendment. Debate continued on the primary motion. PRIMARY MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR TOWNSHEND, CR LANE OM2017/62 That Council, in pursuance of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (as amended), initiates Scheme Amendment No. 54 to Local Planning Scheme No.1 for the purposes of:

1. Amending various provisions of the Local Planning Scheme with text to be deleted shown

in strikethrough and additional text underlined as follows:


31

Modifying clause 4.16.2(a)(v) as follows: The Rural Worker's Accommodation should generally be clustered together with the principal dwelling in one location on the property with all relevant services shared; and Adding a clause at 4.16.2 (c) as follows: Ancillary dwellings should generally be clustered together with the principle dwelling in one location on the property with all relevant services shared. Delete clause 4.21.2 (a) and (e) relating to Residential zoned lots with a R2.5 and R5 density code, as follows: (d) only one single dwelling house is permitted on any lot exclusive of any “ancillary dwelling”

that the local government may approve in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Design Codes;

(e) In medium, high and extreme bush fire prone areas, all habitable buildings shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standards AS3959 - Construction of Dwellings in Bush Fire Prone Areas (as amended from time to time); and Delete clause 4.22.6(x) as follows: in medium, high and extreme bush fire prone areas, as determined by the Bushfire Hazard Assessment Study 2004 as amended from time to time, all habitable buildings shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 3959 (as amended from time to time); and Deleting clause 4.24.2 as follows: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Zoning Table, a single dwelling, grouped dwelling and multiple dwelling development is not permitted at street level for those lots having frontage to Bussell Highway, Margaret River between Churchill Avenue and Forrest Road on its east side and Tunbridge Street and Wallcliffe Road on its western side. Deleting clause 4.23.5 and relocating it at 4.24.4 as follows: 4.24.4 Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1 – Zoning Table, residential uses will only be supported where they form part of a mixed use development on the same lot. Including at 4.23.5 the following: Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1 – Zoning Table, fast food outlets which are inclusive of a ‘drive through’ component are not permitted where their access is to be via Bussell Highway. Modifying clause 5.10.2 as follows: The local government may, in circumstances where full and satisfactory justification is provided by the applicant and where deemed necessary subject to advertising in accordance with the provisions of clause 64 of the Deemed Provisions has been undertaken, approve a variation to, or relocation of the building envelope provided in each case it is satisfied that: Removing clause 5.13(1)(a) which provides a 6m building height limit for properties coded R2.5. (a) 6 metres in areas coded R2.5; Modify clause 5.19 as follows: 5.19 Bush fire hazard and Fire Management Plans Delete clauses 5.19.1 – to 5.19.4 inclusive as follows: 5.19.1 All areas identified as bushfire prone on the Bushfire Hazard Assessment Maps are designated bushfire prone areas for the purposes of the Building Code of Australia. 5.19.2Bush Fire Hazard Assessment maps are contained within the Local Planning Strategy, held at the local government offices and form part of the Scheme for the purposes of this clause. 5.19.3 If an owner disputes the land’s identification within a Designated Bushfire Prone Area that owner may provide suitable written evidence from a qualified bush fire expert, to the local government, and request reconsideration of that identification.


32

5.19.4 On receiving a request made under clause 5.19.3, the local government may by notice in writing served on the person who made that request – (a) determine that the land is not within a Designated Bushfire Prone Area; or (b) determine that the land’s identification within a Designated Bushfire Prone Area is correct. 5.20.1 Land clearing (a) All land clearing requires the prior development approval of the Local Government, with the exception of the following: i) any clearing, including the provision of firebreaks, that is authorised under the Bush Fires Act 1954 (as amended); ii) any clearing that is carried out in accordance with an existing subdivision or development approval; ii clearing within a building envelope where a building permit has been issued and no development approval for the building is required; iii) any vegetation that is dead, or certified as dangerous by a qualified arborist dangerous; iv) any clearing of non-indigenous vegetation not native to Western Australia; v) clearing for farm management purposes within the Priority Agriculture, General Agriculture and Cluster Farm zones in accordance with the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 (as amended); vi) the lopping of native vegetation for stock fodder in any period of declared drought if the continued health of the vegetation is not affected; vii) any clearing carried out in accordance with an local government approved BushfFire Management Plan; viii) the clearing of indigenous any vegetation planted for forestry, agriculture, wood lots, gardens and horticultural purposes the purposes of harvesting including farm forestry; ix) any clearing of vegetation for the control of that has been designated as a noxious weeds authorised under the Agriculture Act 1988 (as amended); x) any minimal clearing of native vegetation to the extent necessary for vermin control under the Health Act 1911 (as amended); xi) minor pruning of vegetation for maintenance purposes which does not endanger the life of that vegetation; xii) the removal of vegetation to meet an acceptable Bushfire Attack Level under AS3959 for an approved dwelling, whether or not that dwelling is on the same lot, but does not include clearing on a Reserve or Crown land; xiii) clearing on land within the commercial or industrial zones; xiv) clearing upon residential lots less than 2000m² in size; and xv) minor clearing upon residential zoned lots to facilitate use incidental to the residential occupation of the land. Add at 5.20.3, the following: With the exception of lots in the rural zones, vegetation cleared within 1km of town centre zoned land is to be disposed of by means other than by being burnt onsite. 5.22.2 Where, water supplies are required for firefighting purposes in addition to the requirements of clause 5.22.1 for a supply of potable water for any dwelling, additional water supplies are required for firefighting purposes, the capacity of the rainwater catchment tank shall be 135,000 litres a dedicated rainwater catchment tank of no less than 10,000 litres is to be provided and fitted with an appropriate gate valve to enable firefighting appliances to draw water for firefighting purposes. 6.4.3.2.1 Residential Zone (a) Development within residential zone shall be in accordance with the scheme and the RCodes as identified in the scheme and the Gnarabup Beach Structure Plan (2006) (f) All lots shall dispose of stormwater on-site to the satisfaction of the local government (unless it is proved to be impracticable as demonstrated by a report prepared by a qualified geotechnical/groundwater engineer,) with particular attention given to avoiding erosion or connection of the lot drainage system to the adjoining street. Modifying the ‘Special Conditions and Requirements’ column of Schedule 7 applicable to RR17 as follows:


33

1. The local government will not support any proposal to re-subdivide the land until such time as Detailed Area a Structure Plan has been prepared and adopted for the land in accordance with the Scheme having regard the relevant considerations for the preparation of such a plan at clause 6.2.8. Deemed Provisions Deleting ‘specific conditions and requirements’ No. 10 relating to R-R9 at Schedule 7 as follows: Notwithstanding the other provisions of the Scheme all development requires the approval of the local government and no development shall be carried out until such time as the local government has approved the building or structure and has approved the colours and materials to be used in the external cladding of any such building or structure. Adding a parking requirement applicable to ‘Holiday House’ at Schedule 8 as follows: 1 space per room used for accommodation. Grouped dwellings - Minimum 2 bays Modifying Schedule 11 by removing the entry at SPA23 relating to portion of Lot 300 Salter Street, Gracetown from SPA23 and relocating the text so removed to SPA27. Modifying all references in the scheme from ‘ancillary accommodation’ to ‘ancillary dwelling’. Modifying Table 1 by changing ‘Grouped Dwellings’ from an ‘X’ to a ‘D’ use in the ‘Rural Residential zone. Modifying Table 1 by changing ‘Ancillary Dwelling’ from a ‘D’ to a ‘P’ use in the Residential and Rural Residential zones Changing ‘Park Home Park’ from a ‘D’ to an ‘X’ use in the General Agriculture and Priority Agriculture zones.









CARRIED 7/0


34

11.2.2 DISPOSAL OF LAND AND ROAD CLOSURES - GLOUCESTER PARK LOCATION/ADDRESS Rigby Road /Clarke Street APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Summerstar Pty Ltd FILE REFERENCE PTY/3899 REPORT AUTHOR Matt Cuthbert, Strategic Projects Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Dale Putland, Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF • The Shire’s recreation and civic facilities which constitute ‘Gloucester Park’ are located across

multiple freehold land titles. • In 2015, Council resolved to progress amalgamation of the land titles and to simultaneously resolve

encroachment issues by selling a portion of land to the owners of adjoining Lot 46 (Margaret River Tourist Park). A portion of the Rigby Street and Clarke Road reserves were also proposed to be closed.

• A subdivision application was subsequently lodged and approved, and the Shire is in the process of implementing the approval by complying with the related conditions. This includes progressing the closure of Rigby Road in accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA).

• A resolution of Council is required to complete this process and to authorise the sale of Shire land, with the market value of the disposition to be ascertained by a valuation not more than 6 months old.

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Supports closure of portions of Rigby Street road reserve, as shown on Attachment 1 to allow

amalgamation with the Margaret River Tourist Park (Lot 46) and Shire land (future Lot 1000). 2. Supports closure of a portion of Clarke Road, as shown on Attachment 1, to allow amalgamation

with the Margaret River Tourist Park (Lot 46). 3. Informs the Department of Lands of the closures under section 58 of the LAA and indemnifies the

Department of any costs and claims. 4. Agrees to the sale of a portion of Lot 45 Station Road as shown on Attachment 1 for a sum of $100

per square metre totalling approximately $57,000 excluding GST. 5. Agrees to the ceding free of cost of a portion of Lot 999 as shown on Attachment 2 for

amalgamation with Reserve 44736. SITE AND SURROUNDS There are seven freehold lots which make up the majority of the civic, cultural and recreation facilities known as ‘Gloucester Park,’ all of which are owned by the Shire. As shown at Figure 1, a number of boundaries dissect existing buildings including the cultural centre. The ‘Nippers Oval’ is partially located upon the Rigby Road reserve. Development upon adjoining Lot 46 (MR Tourist Park) encroaches into the Rigby Road reserve and adjoining Lot 45 (see Figure 2).


35

Figure 1 – Location Plan TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND The Shire proposed to close Rigby Street in 2013, and advertised its intent to do so. However, the procedure for closing the road was not completed at that time. In 2014 the Margaret River Tourist Park sought to purchase areas of land along its shared boundary with Shire land and with Rigby and Clarke Roads. The land purchase sought to deal with historical encroachment of the caravan park into the Rigby Street road reserve.


36

Figure 2 – Encroachments On 24 June 2015 (OM2015/129) Council resolved: That Council pursues subdivision/amalgamation of portion of Lot 45 Station Road, Margaret River, and partial closure of Rigby Street and Clarke Road, on the following basis: 1. An area of approximately 557m² along the southern boundary of Lot 45 being incorporated within

Lot 46 Station Road. 2. Subdivision/amalgamation detailing a partial closure of Rigby Street and Clarke Road as detailed

in Attachment 1 with the exception that a six metre wide section on the western boundary of Rigby Street remains as road to ensure access to the balance of Rigby Street.

3. The amalgamation of the remaining lots within Gloucester Park being included in the subdivision/amalgamation application.

4. The owner of Lot 46 Station Road being responsible for all costs associated with the subdivision/amalgamation process, including consultation on the proposed partial road closure.

A subdivision application reflective of the above, was subsequently lodged and approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission. However, since that time an additional encroachment issue has been identified involving the karate club premises located on Reserve 44736 (see figure 3). In order to rectify this issue, a portion of the Shire’s freehold land can be transferred to the Crown for amalgamation with the reserve. In exchange, the State has agreed to cede an equivalent portion of the Rigby Road reserve to the Shire at no cost. The WAPC have agreed that both changes can be accommodated within the scope of the current subdivision approval. This provides for the closure of the entire Rigby Road reserve and potential sale (by the State) of a greater portion of the reserve to the MR Tourist Park. A plan detailing the full suite of amendments to the Shire’s landholdings is detailed at Attachment 1.


37

Figure 3 – Karate club encroachment CONSULTATION The proposed road closure was referred to service providers and publicly advertised as required by the LAA. External Consultation- Road Closure and Disposition of Land As required under the Local Government Act 1995 (LGA) the proposed road closure and disposition of land were advertised on 20 January 2017 in the Augusta Margaret River Times and on the Shire’s website. Submissions were invited from interested persons with the closing date for the submissions being 4pm on Friday, 17 February 2017. The consultation process resulted in the following outcomes: • Department of Lands – will await the outcome of the Council report prior to doing their own

assessment. • Service providers - no objections received. • Advertisement in the Public Notices section of the Augusta Margaret River Times – two objections

received, details of which are below. • Notice on the Shire’s Community Consultation Website – no objections received. Objections Margaret River Regional Environment Centre Inc (MRREC) Located to the south of the MR Tourist Park, the MRREC object to the closure and amalgamation due to potential loss of vegetation. They are interested in protection and improvement of native vegetation in the vicinity of the Centre and wish for Rigby Street to remain unmade. Margaret River Montessori School (School) Situated to the west of the MR Tourist Park the School is concerned with the following:

• Any encroachment or clearing of surrounding bushland puts the ecosystem at risk. The School conducts night stalks in the bushland opposite the school and have found possums nesting.

• Safe access to the Shires sporting facilities which are regularly used, namely the Tennis Club and Nippers Oval

The School wish the bushland at either end of the MR Tourist Park to remain untouched. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Under section 3.58(3) of the LGA a local government can dispose of property if, before agreeing to dispose of the property —

(a) it gives local public notice of the proposed disposition — (i) describing the property concerned; and (ii) giving details of the proposed disposition; and (iii) inviting submissions to be made to the local government before a date to be specified in

the notice, being a date not less than 2 weeks after the notice is first given; and


38

(b) it considers any submissions made to it before the date specified in the notice and, if its decision is made by the council or a committee, the decision and the reasons for it are recorded in the minutes.

Pursuant to this section, the market value of the disposition is to be ascertained by a valuation not more than 6 months old. Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and Regulation 9 of the Land Administration Regulations 1998 set the process and procedure for the disposal of roads. Following advertising and a Council resolution, a road or portion of a closed road may be incorporated within adjoining land. DISCUSSION/OFFICER COMMENTS Road Closures Council has previously considered options to close the whole or part of the Rigby Road reserve. A partial closure was endorsed by Council on the basis that should the Shire wish to take possession of the majority of the closed road (northern end), it would need to buy the land from the State. This was considered to be an unacceptable and unnecessary cost. By ‘swapping’ a portion of freehold land (2022m2 portion of Lot 999) for a similar sized portion of the Rigby Street road reserve the Shire can resolve the karate club encroachment and the anomalous situation whereby a portion of the nipper’s oval is located upon a road reserve. The submissions received with specific regard to the southern and vegetated portion of Rigby Road require careful consideration. If the State does in fact sell the land to the MR Tourist Park as it has indicated in principle, the Park would seek to develop the land to provide additional accommodation. This would logically require removal of vegetation within the current Road Reserve (see figure 4). It would also prevent the school and others from using an existing track located in the road reserve to access the Gloucester Park playing fields. Further to the above, the Shire are currently considering a slight reconfiguration of the Nippers oval. The extent to which the Rigby road reserve may contribute to the reconfiguration is at this time unknown. Shire commissioned flora and fauna studies of the surrounding area (Nov 2016) and found that there is evidence of Quendas and Western ringtail possums frequenting the area. Notwithstanding the above, the majority of vegetation located on the road reserve, commences 6m from the existing fence line (see figure 4). A compromise which would allow some limited expansion of the park and protection of vegetation and access would be closure of that portion of Rigby Street already within the MR Tourist Park fence line plus 4m of additional land. This option would result in only cleared land (with the exception of three large trees) being purchased by the Tourist Park. The trees could easily be retained as they are clumped together and in fact would add beneficial shade to future campsites. A new pathway could then be created with minimal clearing required. Creation of the pathway could be a condition of the road closure meaning that the MR Tourist Park would be responsible for its construction.


39

Figure 4 – cleared land to be added to Tourist Park. Land Sale The portion of the Shire’s Lot 45 which is within the fenceline of the MR Tourism Park is approximately 570m2 in size. A recent valuation by Landgate (less than 6 months old) put the value of this land at approximately $57,000 excluding GST, based on a land value of $100 per square metre. The MR Tourist Park have accepted an in principle offer to purchase the land at this price, subject to Council’s consent. The area of Shire land is currently encumbered by an historic encroachment from the MR Tourist Park. There are no strategic reasons for the Shire to retain the small portion of land sought by the MR Tourist Park. The proposal provides the opportunity for the Shire to acquire much needed funds for the implementation of works associated with the Gloucester Park Masterplan. Next steps The Shire are progressing items required by conditions of the subdivision/amalgamation approval with the objective of finalising the proposal in the short to medium term. At the time of writing, the Shire are awaiting Western Powers’ quotation regarding modifications to power connections required as a consequence of the amalgamation. The area of land will need to be surveyed to confirm the exact measurements of the land involved in the closure, amalgamation and sale. If the road closure is approved by Council, the proposal will be assessed by the Department of Lands and a recommendation made to the Minister for Lands. If the proposed road closure is approved by the Minister, adjacent land owners and relevant state government agencies will be formally notified of the closure.


40

STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 3: Welcoming and inclusive communities Community Outcome 2.5.2: Provide the community with a high standard recreational facilities and sporting grounds Service level strategy/plan: Gloucester Park Masterplan FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As per Council’s previous decision the owners of Lot 46 are responsible for all costs associated with the subdivision/amalgamation and have paid the required fee to progress the road closure. Once finalised, the land transfer will result in the Shire receiving $57,000. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The Rigby Street road reserve contains remnant vegetation. If the MR Tourist Park acquire the land and intend to develop upon it, a Development Approval would be required at which time any proposed clearing of vegetation would be considered. A decision not to close the majority of the road as recommended would provide the vegetation a greater degree of protection. Social The proposed recommendation ensures that pedestrian access which links Clarke Road with the Nippers oval is maintained for use by the Montessori school and others. Economic Closure and sale of Rigby Street to the Tourist Park will facilitate some minor development opportunities within the Tourist Park. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Supports closure of portions of Rigby Street road reserve, as shown on Attachment 1 to allow

amalgamation with the Margaret River Tourist Park (Lot 46) and Shire land (future Lot 1000); 2. Supports closure of a portion of Clarke Road, as shown on Attachment 1, to allow amalgamation

with the Margaret River Tourist Park (Lot 46); 3. Informs the Department of Lands of the closures under section 58 of the LAA and indemnifies the

Department of any costs and claims; 4. Agrees to the sale of a portion of Lot 45 Station Road as shown on Attachment 1 for a sum of $100

per square metre totalling approximately $57,000 excluding GST; and 5. Agrees to the ceding free of cost of a portion of Lot 999 as shown on Attachment 2 for

amalgamation with Reserve 44736. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Amendments to Shire landholdings. RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR SMART OM2017/63 That Council: 1. Supports closure of portions of Rigby Street road reserve, as shown on Attachment 1 to

allow amalgamation with the Margaret River Tourist Park (Lot 46) and Shire land (future Lot 1000);

2. Supports closure of a portion of Clarke Road, as shown on Attachment 1, to allow amalgamation with the Margaret River Tourist Park (Lot 46);

3. Informs the Department of Lands of the closures under section 58 of the LAA and indemnifies the Department of any costs and claims;


41

4. Agrees to the sale of a portion of Lot 45 Station Road as shown on Attachment 1 for a sum of $100 per square metre totalling approximately $57,000 excluding GST; and

5. Agrees to the ceding free of cost of a portion of Lot 999 as shown on Attachment 2 for amalgamation with Reserve 44736.

CARRIED 7/0


42

11.2.3 INVESTIGATION OF SECOND ACCESS TO GNARABUP AND PREVELLY LOCATION/ADDRESS Gnarabup, Prevelly and Wilderness Localities APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Main Roads; Department of Parks and Wildlife FILE REFERENCE TPT/40 REPORT AUTHOR Nick Logan, Manager Planning and Development AUTHORISING OFFICER Dale Putland, Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF • Following investigation into the 2011 bushfires the State Government directed that an investigation

be undertaken into the provision of a second access to the Gnarabup and Prevelly localities. • This investigation was coordinated by MRWA and a technical assessment undertaken by an

intergovernmental working group that reported technical findings to the State Government in 2013. The working group found that it was possible to construct a second access to Gnarabup/Prevelly, and outlined a number of criteria for a second access to achieve the most functional outcome.

• Subsequently the Department of Premier and Cabinet directed further investigation and a Steering Group was formed. This Steering Group considered a number of potential alignments for a second access and outlined a preferred option from a technical perspective. A component of this investigation was consultation with the community.

• Consultation has been undertaken through a range of different methods and the outcomes of the technical investigation and response from the community are presented for Council’s information.

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Supports the findings of the Gnarabup Second Access Feasibility Report – February 2017 into the

provision of second access road to the Gnarabup/Prevelly localities, specifically that Option 2 is the preferred option.

2. Highlights the essential requirements for measures to address impacts on the amenity of residents and the existing road network through ensuring the following measures are included in the request for funding to the State Government:

a) The incorporation of traffic calming measures to discourage the use of the alternative routes through the existing rural residential area.

b) Ensuring a low speed environment in the existing rural residential area. c) Provision made for pavement improvement on the existing Rainbow Cave Road. d) Ensuring that existing crossovers are appropriately reinstated and finished through design

and construction. e) Construction of a footpath on Rainbow Cave Road through the existing Rural residential

area. f) Undergrounding of power lines. g) Construction of a pullover bay for the school bus in Rainbow Cave Road. h) Ensuring that both design and speed limit considerations give due regard to potential

impacts on fauna movement through the National Park. 3. Notes that further submissions regarding issues with the road network are to be incorporated in the

community strategic plan process. 4. Requests that if the State Government decides not to fund second access consideration is given

by the State to the identification and funding of alternative risk mitigation measures. BACKGROUND In November 2011 there was a significant fire event in the Margaret River District, which resulted in road closures that isolated the coastal communities of Gnarabup and Prevelly. The State Government commissioned an investigation into the cause of the bushfire and on 23 February 2012 the Premier


43

tabled the Keelty Report ‘Appreciating the Risk – The Report of the Special Inquiry into the November 2011 Margaret River Bushfire’. The Premier also announced other actions to be taken which included investigation of new access roads for the coastal communities of Prevelly/Gnarabup, Yallingup, Gracetown and College Grove, to provide reasonable and alternative evacuation routes in the event of future bushfires. An intergovernmental working group was subsequently formed to review, from a technical perspective, whether a second access could be provided to these townsites. The working group was led by MRWA and included representatives from DPaW, DFES, the Shire and the City of Busselton. The working group concluded that construction was feasible and identified the limitations and opportunities associated with various alignments. The findings of the working group were then reported to Government with the Department of Premier and Cabinet subsequently directing that further investigation be undertaken. An intergovernmental steering group was then formed and further assessment undertaken. This assessment identified 5 possible alignments for a second access, refined to a preferred alignment (Option 2) and an alternative that could feasibly be developed (Option 3). These alignment Options 2 and 3 are shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Alignment Options 2 and 3 Qualitative criteria were utilised by the steering group to assess the 5 potential options and determine Option 2 as the favoured option. The comparison of each of the 5 options, against the following criteria, is included as Attachment 1: • Bushfire management and evacuation. • Geometric design. • Connectivity to the existing road network. • Environmental impacts. • Heritage impacts. • Community impacts. • Land availability. • Services. Both Option 2 and Option 3 would connect to a junction at the Wallcliffe Road/Grunters Way/Gas Bay Road junction and follow the most appropriate contour until diverging with Option 2 connecting to the existing stub end of Rainbow Cave Road. Option 3 would head further south, traversing the privately owned Location 1295 and connecting to Blackboy Hollow Cave Road. Both options include significant development within the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park.


44

In addition, a number of technical studies were undertaken to identify any critical issues and inform the design process. These included: • Ground survey of Western and Eastern tie ins. • Traffic counts undertaken in late Sept/early Oct/November 2016 and the January 2017 long

weekend. • Flora and fauna surveys. • Aboriginal heritage survey. • Concept cost estimates of the 5 options. • Environmental impact assessment. • Traffic noise assessment. • Assessment of intersection layout. These investigations were undertaken with an objective to report back to Government in early 2017. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE Consultation and engagement was undertaken throughout refinement of the options and also following completion of technical assessment. The consultation process included: • A community reference group (CRG) which was formed and meetings held to discuss options and

their assessment. • General consensus from Steering Group and CRG that Option 2 was the best option available. • Further meetings with individual landowners. • Specific meeting with residents of Rainbow Cave Road and surrounds in November 2016. • Formal consultation from 18 November to 16 December. Consultation utilised the following: • Fact Sheet, survey form, maps, study investigations and other relevant information placed on Shire

website and available in hard copy format. • Local media coverage calling for responses. • Shire community consultation e-newsletter advertised the consultation each week. • Letters sent to landowners in Gnarabup/Prevelly and in the wider rural residential area, east and

west of Caves Road. A report on the consultation process and outcomes is included as Attachment 2. Consultation was focused around three key questions: • Whether a secondary fire access road was needed. • Which option was preferred. • Issues associated with each option. 312 responses were received in total. Responses to key questions were as follows: A secondary access road to Gnarabup and surrounding communities is needed? • Agree: 237 (76%) • Disagree: 71 (23%) • No answer: 4 (1%) Preference for Options: • Option 2: 246 (79%) • Option 3: 41 (13%) • Neither: 25 (8%) The consultation revealed strong community support for a second access road and the preferred alignment of Option 2. A summary of comments made both for and against the provision of a second road and each option is included in Attachment 2. Of specific note are the general concerns and considerations raised and how these may be addressed, and in particular the position of the residents of Rainbow Cave Road and surrounds to which the preferred option would connect. These concerns and considerations include: • The road could be gated/opened only for emergencies. • Wider impacts on traffic network – potential rat runs.


45

• Alternative measures that could be utilised such as: o Refuge at the beach. o Enhanced clearing around Wallcliffe Road.

• Limited benefit for safety – road closed in emergency. • Environmental concerns – fauna and habitat will be affected. • Impacts on Cape to Cape track. • That the road would be used as a thoroughfare. These issues are discussed in turn below. DISCUSSION Through technical assessment and consultation, the following issues and observations regarding those issues have been made. These are also detailed in Steering Group Feasibility Assessment included as Attachment 3. Bushfire Management and Evacuation Modelling was undertaken by DPaW on the estimated benefits that establishment of a second road could provide. With a fire originating from the north the time for a fire to spread from Wallcliffe Road to the Option 2 alignment is between 1 hour 15 minutes and 3 hours 15 minutes. There are no significant time differences between Options 2 and 3. It was noted through consultation that there were varied opinions on benefit given that there are inherent risks in access in significant events, and the closure of access is at the discretion of the Incident Controller on a particular day. The majority of respondents viewed a second access as necessary. Road Being Emergency Access Only and Normally Closed This issue was canvassed originally through the working group discussions where it was considered that any access should be permanently open. The reasons for this conclusion included: • That any access would need to be designed to a standard that can carry all vehicles and meet the

requirements of the ‘Planning for Bushfire Protection’ Guidelines. Both Options 2 and 3 exceed the maximum length of an emergency access way under these guidelines (600m). The Guidelines also specify that ‘all roads should allow for two-way traffic to allow conventional two-wheel drive vehicles and fire appliances to travel safely on them’.

• That attempts to prohibit access to roads suitable for vehicles and provide logical points of access are not successful.

• To meet the objective of providing access/egress in case of emergencies, impediments to use, such as locked gates, are undesirable.

Impacts on the Wider Road Network A number of submissions raised issues related to subsequent impacts on the existing road network through the redistribution of traffic. These included the impacts of higher traffic volumes on the local road network such as the routes via Yates Road and Glenellie/Exmoor Drive. While other routes are possible (such as Garthowen/Harrington) these routes are more convoluted with longer travel distances/times to any destination. Traffic modelling undertaken shows that the standard of road geometry on these routes make them less desirable options and therefore unlikely to be used to any great extent, however traffic calming measures would be appropriate to further discourage their use. Some concern was also raised regarding elements of the current network, including the bend in Wallcliffe Road adjacent to the intersections with Mitchell Drive and the Chuditch Place junction in Gnarabup, and the intersection of the Glenellie Road/Caves Road junction. While the latter is a matter unlikely to be influenced by a second access road, the current issues associated with Wallcliffe Road should be given further consideration in the Shire’s strategic planning initiatives. This feedback will be incorporated into the Shire’s Strategic Community Plan review and integrated planning process. Impacts on Amenity and Safety Both Options 2 and 3 would impact on existing rural residential landowners in the Rainbow Cave Road and Blackboy Hollow Cave Road areas respectively. A number of residents of these areas that have objected to the establishment of a second access will impact on amenity and safety due to modifications to the existing road and significantly greater traffic volumes. It is clear that existing amenity for residents adjacent to either Options 2 or 3 would be impacted through construction of an additional access.


46

While Option 2 was preferred by the majority of respondents, impacts on the amenity of the residents of Rainbow Cave Road should the second road proceed would require a number of measures to ensure these impacts were minimised. Measures to address impacts should be sought in the package of works and include: • Ensuring a lower speed environment in the rural residential area. • Provision made for pavement improvement on the existing Rainbow Cave Road. • Ensuring that existing crossovers are appropriately reinstated and finished through design and

construction. • Construction of a footpath on Rainbow Cave Road through the existing Rural residential area. • Undergrounding of power lines. • Construction of a pullover bay for the school bus. Should it be determined that the establishment of a second access isn’t supported due to amenity impacts, it may be appropriate to consider alternative risk mitigation measures for Gnarabup/Prevelly, however these measures are not within the scope of this investigation. It was also noted that realignment and reinstatement of an approximately 200m section of the Cape to Cape track would be required. Environmental Matters and Severance of the National Park Both Options 2 and 3 have environmental impact as development within the National Park. Option 2 has a significantly smaller development footprint (1.37km; 3.47ha) than Option 3 (3.37km; 6.57ha). Flora and Fauna assessment for Option 2 have not identified any significant species that is likely to be directly impacted by establishment of the road, with the vegetation complexes well represented in existing reserves. Two priority species found are also well distributed within surrounding areas. Both initially through construction and ongoing through severance of the National Park. While severance will have ongoing impacts, it does introduce the opportunity to close and rehabilitate existing access tracks in the area. In addition, due consideration to speed and design to minimise impacts on fauna should be required at the detailed design stage. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS No formal approval is required from the Shire for construction of the road. Various forms of approval would be required if funding was provided and these would be dealt with following a more detailed design process. In particular, appropriate tenure over the road alignment would need to be resolved in due course. It is possible that, with consent of the Conservation Commission and Parliament, a second access could be progressed with formal land excision and creation of a local road reserve in due course. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 3: Welcoming and inclusive communities Community Outcome 2.6: Safer Communities Strategic Response: Enhance the Shire’s emergency and disaster management capabilities Service level strategy/plan: N/A PLANNING FRAMEWORK The road does not require approval from the Shire under the planning framework. It is not identified in State Planning Policy 6.1 – Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge or the management plan for the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park. The latter does outline an objective to rationalise existing tracks in the area of the potential second access. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Construction of a second access, if funded, would be at the cost of the State Government. Additional works required to ensure the impacts of implementing the works as outlined, will also need to be packaged into the funding requirements. If constructed, the road would be an additional asset for the Shire and would incur the associated costs of maintenance and depreciation.


47

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental There are significant environmental impacts associated with the construction of a new public road through the National Park. As any alternative feasible access to Gnarabup/Prevelly traverses either National Park or National Park/vegetated freehold land the issue of environmental impact becomes one of ensuring that the impact is minimised, and secondly, balancing that environmental impact against the social benefits of improved access and safety. The Council is not required to make a decision in this regard, however the comparative impacts and benefits are evident in the comparison of options noted in Attachment 1 and described in the draft feasibility assessment. Additional measures further considered at the detailed design stage may also assist in further mitigating impacts. As described, these include speed limit restrictions and rehabilitation of existing access tracks in the area of the proposed additional access. Social There are amenity impacts arising from either Options 2 or 3 being located adjacent to existing rural residential development. There are also varied positions on the need for the second road and the degree of benefit that the second road would provide. The general consensus of the community was that a second road was warranted. This feedback was informed by a description of environmental impact with detail available about relevant environmental factors. If the second road is progressed, there are a number of measures that may be implemented to mitigate impacts on local residents adjacent to the road alignment. These mitigation measures should be packaged as an essential component of any funding provided for a second access. Economic The costs of providing a second access road would need to be met entirely by the State Government, as the Shire does not have provision within the Long Term Financial Plan to fund such works. As the road would ultimately become a Shire asset there would be longer term costs associated with depreciation and maintenance that would be incurred by the community. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Supports the findings of the Gnarabup Second Access Feasibility Report – February 2017 into the

provision of second access road to the Gnarabup/Prevelly localities, specifically that Option 2 is the preferred option;



b) Ensuring a low speed environment in the existing rural residential area. c) Provision made for pavement improvement on the existing Rainbow Cave Road. d) Ensuring that existing crossovers are appropriately reinstated and finished through design

and construction. e) Construction of a footpath on Rainbow Cave Road through the existing Rural residential

area. f) Undergrounding of power lines. g) Construction of a pullover bay for the school bus in Rainbow Cave Road. h) Ensuring that both design and speed limit considerations give due regard to potential

impacts on fauna movement through the National Park; 3. Notes that further submissions regarding issues with the road network are to be incorporated in the

community strategic plan process; and 4. Requests that if the State Government decides not to fund second access consideration is given

by the State to the identification and funding of alternative risk mitigation measures.


48

ATTACHMENTS 1. Steering group comparative summary of options 2. Summary of consultation outcomes 3. Draft feasibility assessment RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR LANE, CR SMART OM2017/64 That Council: 1. Supports the findings of the Gnarabup Second Access Feasibility Report – February 2017

into the provision of second access road to the Gnarabup/Prevelly localities, specifically that Option 2 is the preferred option;



b) Ensuring a low speed environment in the existing rural residential area. c) Provision made for pavement improvement on the existing Rainbow Cave Road. d) Ensuring that existing crossovers are appropriately reinstated and finished through

design and construction. e) Construction of a footpath on Rainbow Cave Road through the existing Rural

residential area. f) Undergrounding of power lines. g) Construction of a pullover bay for the school bus in Rainbow Cave Road. h) Ensuring that both design and speed limit considerations give due regard to

potential impacts on fauna movement through the National Park; 3. Notes that further submissions regarding issues with the road network are to be

incorporated in the community strategic plan process; and 4. Requests that if the State Government decides not to fund second access consideration is

given by the State to the identification and funding of alternative risk mitigation measures. CARRIED 6/1

CR TOWNSHEND VOTED AGAINST

Members of the public left Chambers at 7.03pm


49

11.2.4 FLINDERS BAY MASTERPLAN, AUGUSTA LOCATION/ADDRESS Flinders Bay, Augusta APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE LND/144 REPORT AUTHOR Matt Slocomb, Senior Planning Officer

Matt Cuthbert, Strategic Project Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Dale Putland, Director Sustainable Development

Cr Smart disclosed a proximity interest in Item 11.2.4 Flinders Bay Master Plan, Augusta, on the basis that the Reserve 24653 that encompasses the Flinders Bay Caravan Park also wraps around the coast to incorporate the foreshore at Grannies Pool directly across the road from Cr Smart’s house. Cr Smart requested it be treated as trivial in line with 20.2 of section 5.68(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995, Cr Smart requested he be allowed to participate in discussions and the decision making process. Local Government Act 1995, Administration, Part 5, Division 6 s.5.68 5.68. Councils and committees may allow members disclosing interests to participate etc. in meetings (1) If a member has disclosed, under section 5.65, an interest in a matter, the members present

at the meeting who are entitled to vote on the matter — (a) may allow the disclosing member to be present during any discussion or decision

making procedure relating to the matter; and (b) may allow, to the extent decided by those members, the disclosing member to

preside at the meeting (if otherwise qualified to preside) or to participate in discussions and the decision making procedures relating to the matter if —

(i) the disclosing member also discloses the extent of the interest; and (ii) those members decide that the interest — (I) is so trivial or insignificant as to be unlikely to influence the

disclosing member’s conduct in relation to the matter; or (II) is common to a significant number of electors or ratepayers. Cr Smart left Chambers at 6.40pm Cr Hastie moved the following motion as per Cr Smart’s request: MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR HASTIE, CR TOWNSHEND OM2017/65 That the matter of Cr Smart’s proximity interest be considered trivial under the Local Government Act 5.68 and Cr Smart be permitted to participate in the decision making process.

CARRIED 4/2 CRS EARL AND KENNAUGH VOTED AGAINST

Cr Smart re-entered Chambers at 6.50pm


50

IN BRIEF • A draft of the Flinders Bay Masterplan (the Masterplan) was presented to Council on the

23 November 2016. Council resolved that the item be deferred to allow for further input from Flinders Bay property owners, prior to consultation with the wider community.

• A workshop was undertaken on 18 January 2017, and attended by approximately 50 local residents, Shire staff and Councillors.

• Local residents have since formed the Flinders Bay Association (FBA). • The draft plan has (in part) been modified taking into consideration the feedback received from local

residents and it is recommended that consultation with the wider community now occur. RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the draft Flinders Bay Masterplan (Attachment 1) for the purposes of advertising and consultation with the community. SITE AND SURROUNDS The area to which the Masterplan relates includes Shire vested reserves surrounding the main foreshore, Redman Brook, Granny’s Pool and Storm Bay as depicted in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Location Plan

TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND On 23 November 2016 Council resolved as follows: That the item be deferred until a meeting can be held with the immediate property owners in January 2017 with a report back to Council. The reason provided for the deferral was to allow for direct input from immediate property owners that will be impacted by the development, many of whom are absentee owners, before the wider community is consulted.


51

CONSULTATION AND ADVICE Consultation Prior to November Council Meeting The process of developing the Masterplan leading up to its consideration by Council on 23 November 2016, can be summarised as follows: • Preparation of an Opportunities and Constraints plan which assessed current infrastructure,

identifies aspects important to the character of the area, elements which could be improved and options for future development.

• Letter sent to residents which included a hard copy of the Opportunities and Constraints plan, with an invitation to comment.

• Advertisements placed in ‘Community Consultation’ section of the Augusta Margaret River Times on Friday, 25 March 2016 and Friday, 8 April 2016 and the Pelican Post during the same period.

• Posters placed on site (Flinders Foreshore) and at the Shire offices (including Augusta). • Creation of ‘Your Say’ consultation page (part of the soft launch of the software) which provided

access to general information, a copy of the Opportunities and Constraints Plan as well an online survey. The page attracted 80 views and 25 comments were submitted during the consultation period through this channel.

• 1-day face to face consultation session held at the Augusta offices. Community members were invited to view and discuss the Opportunities and Constraints plan, with two planning staff located in the Augusta office for that day. This informal consultation method was publicised online and in the paper. Approximately 16 community members attended the consultation throughout the day.

• Consultation summary document prepared and placed on the Your Say page providing transparency around what feedback had been received.

The feedback received directly informed the development of the draft master plan. Consultation January 2017 As directed by Council’s resolution, staff began engaging with local residents in December 2016. The draft plan was placed on the Shire’s Your Say page with an associated questionnaire and hard copies of the draft plan were sent to all residents of Flinders Bay. On 6 January 2017, an informal community site meeting was held at the Flinders foreshore which was attended by local residents, staff and Councillors. The meeting was organised by local residents to discuss the draft Masterplan and to form the Flinders Bay Association (FBA). It was agreed at the meeting that the FBA would run a workshop to discuss the individual actions listed on the plan with a view to providing a ‘consensus’ position on the matter. The workshop held on 17 January 2017 at the Augusta Shire offices was attended by approximately 50 local residents, Shire staff and Councillors. The outcomes of the meeting which were compiled by the FBA and their complete submission can be found at Attachment 2. The Shire also received 4 submissions from the community via ‘Your Say’ and email which are summarised in a Schedule of Submissions, enclosed as Attachment 3. DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The draft Masterplan can be found at Attachment 1. The main features of the draft Masterplan are: • Removal of bitumen loop road; • Consolidated interpretation walk/trail head; • Provide space for informal parking off Davies Road delineated by vehicle barriers; • Foreshore treatments. The features of the draft Masterplan include modifications arising from the meeting held with the FBA, where appropriate. The features and responses to consultation are as follows: Removal of Bitumen Loop Road The FBA have requested that the bitumen loop road adjacent to the boat ramp to be retained. The reason given is that it provides an opportunity for visitors to appreciate the foreshore without leaving their car.


52

The existing bitumen loop road is degraded and will in time require replacement. It is no longer critical to maintain formalised vehicle access into this area given the closure of the boat ramp and removal of the bitumen would provide the opportunity to increase the width of the foreshore area available for passive use by replacing the bitumen with turf. It should be noted however that replacement would only happen at the end of the roads useful life. The removal of boat launching from the bay increases the attractiveness of the area to swimmers/picnickers and this is predicted to increase over time. Expansion of the grassed area is seen to be a reasonable response aimed at catering for this increased use and to remove the impacts of pedestrian/recreational use conflicting with traffic. Removal of this action from the plan will not allow the Shire to ‘test’ the desirability of this action with the broader community and for this reason it is proposed to be retained in the plan. Council can further consider whether or not to retain the action ‘post advertising’ with the benefit of additional community input. Consolidated interpretation walk/trail head The FBA’s position is that this proposal would clutter one of the most sheltered areas of the foreshore, which should be developed as a picnic area and be available for weddings or other events that occur from time to time. Despite this position, it is recommended that this action be maintained, albeit modified to take into account the above concerns. This action has not been formulated in isolation, rather it has been adopted previously through other Shire plans (Augusta Interpretation and Rails to Sails Development Plans). Currently there is an interpretation shelter located at Reserve R24535 on the opposite side of Davies Road and about 250m from the other interpretive structures and signage located on the foreshore. Consolidating heritage information in one location provides the opportunity to increase its impact, by making it more accessible from the primary recreation area (being the foreshore). A low key link/walk between the foreshore and the jetty ruins could be constructed in a manner reminiscent of the Memorial Approach in Mt Clarence and the Burrawang Walk at Kamay Botany Bay National Park (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Interpretive Signage on the Burrawang Walk at Kamay Botany Bay National Park In response to the communities’ concerns, the main area of the interpretation walk/trail head has been shifted to the cleared area adjacent to the existing winch, with a significantly reduced footprint on the main foreshore area. It should be noted that the plan serves only to set aside the land required to achieve this recommendation, which if implemented would occur in consultation/collaboration with the FBA and historical society. Presently there is no budget available for progressing this item. Provide space for informal parking off Davies Road delineated by vehicle barriers As depicted at Figure 3, the foreshore area is taken up by parking in an ad-hoc manner at busier times, removing capacity for passive and active recreation in this area. The FBA prefer this type of informal parking arrangement.


53

If removal of the bitumen loop road is accepted by Council, parking will occur in designated areas surrounding the main foreshore. Parking will not be bituminised consistent with the FBA’s recommendations. Bollards are not preferred by the FBA, but they are supportive of the use of alternative, more low key vehicle barriers being used to prevent cars interfering with the passive use of the foreshore.

Figure 3 – Parking on grassed area on the 18 January 2017. Foreshore Treatments Initially it was recommended that the interface between the beach and grassed area on the foreshore be reinforced with local stone and terraced in order to provide seating for passive recreational use. Whilst this element was not rejected by the community outright, there was some concern that the terracing may be too elaborate for the area, and that the specific scope of works should be determined once there is a better understanding of coastal processes within Flinders Bay. The action has been modified to acknowledge that further information is required before specific works can be proposed and this information will be shared with the FBA. Construction of two formalised car parking areas The community has conveyed that this aspect of the plan would be detrimental to maintaining the low key feel of the foreshore area and as such the car parking areas have been removed. Boat Ramp Treatments The outright removal of the boat ramps was not supported until/unless there is a clear understanding of the influence the ramps have on coastal processes (erosion/accretion). This action has been removed. Pontoon Installation This aspect was not supported by the community and has therefore been removed from the plan. Drainage maintenance works in Redman Brook The FBA have advised that the existing drainage infrastructure provides sufficient capacity for winter storm events, and the required maintenance would largely be the removal of plant matter adjacent to the culverts. Accordingly, this action has been removed from the draft plan. Change of Storm Bay to a Dog Beach Storm Bay is well separated from the main recreational area of Flinders Bay and it was suggested through via initial consultation as being appropriate for use as a dog beach. Following the consultation with the FBA it has been determined that there is not consensus in respect to this particular matter, with


54

the majority of residents not supporting this action. Accordingly, this has been removed from the draft plan. Signage Strategy A concern raised by the community was the lack of uniformity in approach to signage within the foreshore, which had not been previously addressed as a part of the initial draft of the plan. It is acknowledged that in order to maintain the established character of the area that a more strategic approach to signage is warranted to minimise visual clutter around the foreshore. A recommendation has been added accordingly. Stairway It is unclear as to when the existing steps from Wishart Road to Peppermint Drive were installed however they now require maintenance and possible relocation/replacement. The steps assist with movement through the settlement and an additional action has been added to the draft Masterplan at the request of the FBA to investigate their maintenance and possible replacement. Restore pedestrian access via cleared/mown track (unconstructed path) Currently there is no pedestrian access along the Redman Brook Reserve. An unconstructed track was previously in place but has since become overgrown. Whilst it is not proposed to create a formalised path, it is considered appropriate that the connection be established informally to provide improved movement through the settlement, make maintenance easier (i.e. mowing) and manage fuel levels. The FBA have not resolved upon a final position with respect to this matter and therefore retention is proposed to allow the Shire (and FBA) to undertake further consultation. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP): Prepare a management plan for the Flinders Bay area. Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 3: Managing Growth Sustainably Community Outcome 3.3: Unique natural and settlement character Strategic Response: Protect heritage places, values and significant regional landscapes in the planning scheme. Service level strategy/plan: Finalise and implement Flinders Bay Development Plan FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS A specific budget has not been provided for the implementation of the Masterplan, but it is intended to inform future budget considerations, and also guide replacement and renewal over time. Other funding opportunities are also possible, such as Coastal Assistance Project Grants for foreshore protection works. The Shire’s Infrastructure Department has provided cost estimates for each of the actions (enclosed at Attachment 5). It should be noted that the estimates are preliminary and have been based on assumptions, and may therefore vary by +/-20% or more. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The Masterplan does not contain any proposals that would negatively impact on the existing remnant vegetation present on the site. Social Projects supported by the draft Masterplan will provide additional opportunities for social interaction. Economic Additional investment in Augusta by the Shire has the potential to encourage private sector investment and increase economic activity. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority


55

RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the draft Flinders Bay Masterplan (Attachment 1) for the purposes of advertising and consultation with the community. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Flinders Bay Masterplan 2. Flinders Bay Association Submission 3. Schedule of Submissions 4. Community Engagement Summary – May 2016 5. Estimate Costings RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR HASTIE, CR SMART OM2017/66 That Council adopts the draft Flinders Bay Masterplan (Attachment 1) for the purposes of advertising and consultation with the community.

CARRIED 7/0


56

11.3. Infrastructure Services


57

11.3. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES Nil


58

11.4. Corporate and Community

Services


59

11.4.1 LOCAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT - 14 FEBRUARY 2017 LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE EMS/3 REPORT AUTHOR Nathan Hall, Community Emergency Services Manager AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services

IN BRIEF On 14 February 2017 the Local Emergency Management Committee (LEMC) held its quarterly meeting. Key items discussed at the meeting included: • Delegate Reports; • Completed review of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Local Emergency Management

Arrangements; • Update on the State Risk Project; • Formation of the new Office of Emergency Management; • Update on Bushfire Risk Management Plan; and • The committee received a presentation from Department of Food and Agriculture WA (DAFWA) on

biosecurity. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Receives the minutes of the Local Emergency Management Committee held 14 February 2017; 2. Endorses the Draft 2017 Local Emergency Management Arrangements; and 3. Notes the matters relating to the State Risk Project and the Office of Emergency Management. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Local Emergency Management Arrangements – Version 2, February 2017 BACKGROUND The Local Emergency Management Committee meetings are held quarterly on the second or third Tuesday of the month. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation • Local Emergency Management Committee delegates • Augusta and Margaret River Chambers of Commerce • Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association Internal Consultation • Director of Corporate and Community Services • Manager of Human and Community Services (Shire Recovery Coordinator) • Shire of Augusta Margaret River Community Emergency Services Manager


60

DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Officer Reports Delegates were given the opportunity to speak on and to answer any questions regarding their respective reports. Local Emergency Management Arrangements The five yearly review of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Local Emergency Management Arrangements has now been completed and were reviewed by the members of the LEMC and the South West Regional District Advisor for the Office of Emergency Management. The Arrangements have been reviewed in line with the State Emergency Management Guidelines and are compliant with Section 41 and 42 of the Emergency Management Act 2005. The Local Emergency Management Arrangements will now comprise of the main document and the following supporting documents:

• Emergency Contacts and Resource Directory • Local Recovery Plan • Department for Child Protection and Family Support Welfare Plan • Local Evacuation Plan • Animal Welfare Plan • Special Needs Groups, Shire Events & Critical Infrastructure List • General Public Emergency Contact Directory • Shire Maps (Evacuation Planning) • Bushfire Response Plan (Completed 2015) • Bushfire Risk Management Plan (To be completed in May 2017).

A public version of the Arrangements has also been created to provide privacy of personal contact numbers and agreements whilst still complying with Section 43 of the Emergency Management Act 2005 which requires that the Arrangements be available for inspection by members of the public. Furthermore, the State Emergency Management Guidelines require the Arrangements are provided on the Shire’s website. With the completion of the Local Emergency Management Arrangements Council is now required to review and endorse the Arrangements which will be then forwarded onto the District and State Emergency Management Committees for endorsement. State Risk Project On the 8 February 2017 the Shire’s Director of Corporate and Community Services and the CESM attended the State Risk Project - Local Group Workshop. The project aims to:

• Help local governments to understand their risk • Assist local governments to complete the emergency risk management (ERM) process as

required by existing policy • Allow the state to gain a comprehensive understanding of current risks at the local level; and • Provide information to enable future mitigation at all levels which will reduce the future cost of

disasters. Participation in the State Risk Project will formalise the ERM process for the Shire of Augusta Margaret River and provide a treatment schedule which will provide the Shire with guidance on how to reduce the impact of disasters on the community. Work on the project is expected to start in April and conducted over a four-month period. New Office of Emergency Management The Office of Emergency Management, which was formerly the SEMC Secretariat, was established on 1 December 2016 as a result of the recommendations of the Special Inquiry into the January 2016 Waroona Fire by Euan Ferguson AFSM. The Office of Emergency Management’s key role is to provide support to the State Emergency Management Committee (SEMC) in delivering on its strategic goals across Risk, Capability, Impact, Engagement and Governance and Support.


61

Update on Bushfire Risk Management Plan An update was provided by the Shire’s Bushfire Risk Planning Coordinator Chris Lloyd about the Bushfire Risk Management Plan (BRMP) and Treatment Plans. DAFWA Presentation on Biosecurity Emily Lewis from the Department of Food and Agriculture WA (DAFWA) provided the LEMC with a very informative presentation on the risks and consequences of biosecurity within the Shire of Augusta Margaret River. Biosecurity measures within the Shire will be further reviewed as part of the upcoming State Risk Project for the Shire of Augusta Margaret River. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

• Section 36(a) Emergency Management Act 2005 • Section 38(1) Emergency Management Act 2005 • Sections 41, 42 & 43 Emergency Management Act 2005

STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 2: Welcoming and inclusive communities Community Outcome 3: Strong community groups and networks Strategic Response: Support and value community organisations and volunteers across the region. Community Outcome 6: Safer Communities Strategic Response: Support community celebrations, events and local festivals Strategic Response: Enhance the Shire’s emergency and disaster management capabilities PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no known significant financial implications from this report on Council’s existing or future budgets. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Preparedness, timing, response and support to local emergencies will reduce any impact on the environment from an emergency situation. Social An effective LEMC will assist the community in the response and recovery phases of an emergency. Economic An effective LEMC has the potential to reduce the likelihood and consequence of an emergency impacting on economic wellbeing of the local community. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Receives the minutes of the Local Emergency Management Committee held 14 February 2017; 2. Endorses the Draft 2017 Local Emergency Management Arrangements; and 3. Notes the matters relating to the State Risk Project and the Office of Emergency Management. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil


62

ATTACHMENTS 1. Unconfirmed Local Emergency Management Committee meeting minutes – 14 February 2017 2. Draft Shire of Augusta Margaret River Local Emergency Management Arrangements RECOMMENDATION CR SMART, CR KENNAUGH That Council: 1. Receives the minutes of the Local Emergency Management Committee held 14 February

2017; 2. Endorses the Draft 2017 Local Emergency Management Arrangements; and 3. Notes the matters relating to the State Risk Project and the Office of Emergency

Management. 0/0

Cr Hastie moved the following amendment: AMENDMENT / COUNCIL DECISION CR HASTIE, CR SMART OM2017/67 That the following wording be added to the end of dot point 2 of the recommendation: ‘and congratulates the CESM on a comprehensive upgrade.’

CARRIED 7/0 REASON To formally acknowledge the work and effort of Nathan Hall, Community Emergency Services Manager. The primary motion was then put: PRIMARY MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR SMART, CR KENNAUGH OM2017/68 That Council: 1. Receives the minutes of the Local Emergency Management Committee held 14 February

2017; 2. Endorses the Draft 2017 Local Emergency Management Arrangements and congratulates

the CESM, Nathan Hall, on a comprehensive upgrade to the document; and 3. Notes the matters relating to the State Risk Project and the Office of Emergency

Management. CARRIED 7/0


63

11.4.2 BUSH FIRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - 15 FEBRUARY 2017 LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE EMS/4 REPORT AUTHOR Nathan Hall, Community Emergency Services Manager AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services

IN BRIEF • On 15 February 2017 the Bush Fire Advisory Committee (BFAC) held its quarterly meeting. • An update was provided by the Shire’s Bushfire Risk Planning Coordinator, Chris Lloyd about the

Bushfire Risk Management Plan (BRMP) and Treatment Plans. • The committee supported Molloy Island Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade member John Matten’s

application to sit on the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) Volunteer Vehicles Advisory Group.

• The current and future Fire Break Notice and Fuel Hazard Subcommittee were discussed. • Safety issues relating to the fuel lines on light tanker pumps and hand held halogen spotlights were

raised. • Brief discussion was held in regards to considerate smoke management during the Restricted

Burning Periods. • Discussions were held on brigade operational matters. RECOMMENDATION That Council receives the unconfirmed minutes of the Augusta Margaret River Bush Fire Advisory Committee meeting held 15 February 2017. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND The Bush Fire Advisory Committee meetings are held quarterly on the third Wednesday of the month. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation BFAC delegates BFAC observers including the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) and the Department of Parks and Wildlife (P&W) Internal Consultation Shire of Augusta Margaret River Community Emergency Services Manager Shire of Augusta Margaret River Director of Corporate and Community Services DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Update on the BRMP and Bushfire Treatment Plans The Bushfire Risk Planning Coordinator provided the committee with a power point update on the current status of the BRMP. The update included the methodology used to assess risk.


64

Smoke Management During the Restricted Burning Periods Advice was provided to committee members that due consideration be given to local vineyards when issuing permits or undertaking control burns. Volunteer Vehicles Advisory Group DFES has asked for nominations for a new committee called the Volunteer Vehicles Advisory Group (VVAG) and are asking for three representatives from the Southern districts. John Matten from the Molloy Island brigade has forwarded his nomination through to DFES. BFAC provided a recommendation and support of John’s nomination to sit on this DFES committee. Fire Break and Fuel Hazard Subcommittee Brigade members raised concerns about ongoing issues of moving from 2 metre to 3 metre firebreaks. The committee were advised by the Coordinator Ranger Services that the Rangers were not going to pursue a change of firebreak width from 2m to 3m in the short term and the CBFCO advised that it is unlikely that a new committee will be needed to review the next issue of the fire break notice as there will be only minor changes needed from the version issued in October 2016. Preformed Team for Shire Reserve Fuel Reduction There are Volunteer Fire Fighters (VFF) willing to assist with burns on Shire reserves who are not called upon if their brigade is not involved. It was decided that the brigades will provide the Shire’s CESM with a list of available members to keep on record for future hazard reduction burns. Fuel lines on Light Tanker Pumps The committee discussed crimping of fuel lines on the light tanker pumps, possible solutions such as longer lines or the implementation of a rigid elbow. While maintenance issues were being discussed the potential threat of an appliance catching fire from the inside due to a halogen hand held spot light was also raised. A representative from DFES in attendance confirmed that the issue had previously been identified and information distributed in a DFES circular with safety measures had been distributed although a state wide solution had not yet been determined. He also noted that since it seems to be a recurrent issue with the fuel lines and spotlights that the brigades through the CESM should send photos and incident information through to him so it can be added to a report lodged with DFES. Concern was also raised on the increased level of expectation that is being placed on volunteers to inspect and maintain the deluge systems. The committee moved a motion requesting the CESM send a letter to the Department of Fire and Emergency Services expressing concerns about hoses, clamps, clamping system, servicing and ongoing inspections of the deluge system. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Section 38(1) Bush Fire Act 1954 Local Government Act 1995 STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 2: Welcoming and inclusive communities Community Outcome 3: Strong community groups and networks Strategic Response: Support and value community organisations and volunteers across the region. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental An effective BFAC and well trained brigade members will reduce the likelihood and consequence of a bushfire impacting on the environment.


65

Social An effective BFAC and well trained brigade members will reduce the likelihood and consequence of a bushfire impacting on community wellbeing. Economic An effective BFAC and well trained brigade members will reduce the likelihood and consequence of a bushfire impacting on the economic wellbeing of the local community. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council receives the unconfirmed minutes of the Augusta Margaret River Bush Fire Advisory Committee meeting held 15 February 2017. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Unconfirmed Bush Fire Advisory Committee meeting minutes and attachments -15 February 2017 RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR HAYNES, CR SMART OM2017/69 That Council receives the unconfirmed minutes of the Augusta Margaret River Bush Fire Advisory Committee meeting held 15 February 2017.

CARRIED 7/0


66

11.4.3 SUBMISSION ON THE REVIEW OF THE EMERGENCY SERVICS LEVY (ESL) LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/31 REPORT AUTHOR Andrew Ross, Manager Corporate Services AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services

IN BRIEF • The Treasurer of WA has requested the Economic Regulation Authority (ERA) conduct a review of

the Emergency Services Levy (ESL). • The ERA has responded by releasing an Issues Paper and requesting submissions be lodged by 10

March 2017. • WALGA are preparing a submission on behalf of WA local governments and to inform their

submission they requested local governments complete and submit a survey by 27 February 2017. • A survey response from the Shire was submitted by the deadline. • The survey response and the ERA Issues Paper form the basis of the Shire’s submission. RECOMMENDATION That Council considers and notes the submission to the Economic Regulation Authority’s review of the Emergency Services Levy. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND The Emergency Services Levy was introduced in 2003 and funds fire and emergency services including career fire stations, volunteer fire brigades, State Emergency Services and volunteer marine rescue services. The ESL is collected by local governments and administered by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES). The “Special Inquiry into the January 2016 Waroona Fire” recommended an independent review be conducted of the current arrangements for the management and distribution of the ESL. The ERA has been requested by the Treasurer of WA to conduct this review and have prepared an Issues Paper and requested submissions from interested parties. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation The Chief Bush Fire Control Officer and the Deputy Chief Bush Fire Control Officer provided input to and reviewed the WALGA survey before it was submitted. Internal Consultation The Community Emergency Services Manager provided input to and reviewed the WALGA survey and the submission. DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Shire officers completed a survey request from WALGA which WALGA will use to inform their submission to the ERA on behalf of local governments in WA. The survey questions were similar to the questions in the ERA Issues Paper and therefore the survey response is consistent with the submission to the ERA.


67

The submission to the ERA is structured to specifically respond to the questions raised in the ERA Issues Paper. Time and resource constraints have prevented a more thorough response being compiled. However, the main point of the submission is the ESL was introduced to improve funding for emergency service preparedness and response activities and this focus should not be compromised. The point is also made that it is difficult to comment on the possible implications on the ESL from the possible introduction of a Rural Fire Service as the form and role of such a service is unknown at this stage. Concern is raised about the Rural Fire Service becoming another bureaucracy as it is considered focus must be on supporting the activities of bush fire brigades. It is also acknowledged that investment in bushfire prevention or mitigation activities is essential but should not occur at the expense of expenditure from the ESL on emergency preparedness and response activities. The short timeframe allowed for the response to the WALGA survey and the preparation of the submission to the ERA did not allow any time for consultation with bush fire brigades through the Bush Fire Advisory Committee. However, both the Chief and Deputy Bush Fire Control Officers were provided an opportunity to comment on the WALGA survey. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The Emergency Services Levy Act 2002 established the ESL and the Fire and Emergency Services Act 1998 and the Fire and Emergency Services Regulations 1998 determine administration of the ESL. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 2 Welcoming and inclusive communities Community Outcome 6: Safer communities Strategic Response: Enhance the Shire’s emergency and disaster management capabilities PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications associated with lodging this submission. However, in the longer term there may be financial implications associated with the possible introduction of a Rural Fire Service. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Nil Social Nil Economic Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council considers and notes the submission to the Economic Regulation Authority’s review of the Emergency Services Levy. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Submission to Economic Regulation Authority’s Review of the Emergency Services Levy (ESL)


68

RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR HASTIE, CR KENNAUGH OM2017/70 That Council considers and notes the submission to the Economic Regulation Authority’s review of the Emergency Services Levy.

CARRIED 7/0 12. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil 13. MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AT NEXT MEETING

Nil 14. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE 14.1. Members

Nil

14.2. CEO Nil

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

Nil 16. CLOSURE OF MEETING The Shire President thanked all in attendance and declared the meeting closed at 7.16pm

ordinary council - amrshire.wa.gov.au

Documents