ordinary council - home | shire of augusta … council minutes for the meeting to be held wednesday,...

Ordinary Council

MINUTES

FOR THE MEETING TO BE HELD WEDNESDAY, 28 JUNE 2017

IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, WALLCLIFFE ROAD, MARGARET RIVER

COMMENCING AT 5:30PM

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28 JUNE 2017

1

Meeting Notice Dear Councillor I advise that an Ordinary Council Meeting of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River will be held in Council Chambers, Wallcliffe Road, Margaret River on Wednesday 28 June 2017, commencing at 5:30pm. Yours faithfully

GARY EVERSHED CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


2

ATTENTION/DISCLAIMER

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


3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO. SUBJECT PAGE NO.

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING .................................................................................................. 5 2. ATTENDANCE ........................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 APOLOGIES ............................................................................................................................... 5 2.2. APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE ........................................................................................... 6

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST ................................................................................................. 6 3.1 ITEM 11.4.2 LIST OF PAYMENTS FOR MAY 2017 – FINANCIAL INTEREST –

ACTING DIRECTOR CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, MS HEATHER AULD .......................................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 ITEM 11.4.1 SPORT AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 6 JUNE 2017 – IMPARTIALITY INTEREST - CR KYLIE KENNAUGH .................... 6

3.3 ITEM 11.4.7 TENDER 03/17 MARGARET RIVER YOUTH PRECINCT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION – FINANCIAL INTEREST - CR IAN EARL .......................................... 6

4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................ 6 4.1. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE ................................ 6 4.2. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ......................................................................................................... 6

5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ........................................................................... 6 6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING ..................................................... 7 6.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 14 JUNE 2017 .................................................... 7

7. DEPUTATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 7 7.1 ITEM 11.1.1 ADOPTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY – MS

NAOMI GODDEN ....................................................................................................................... 7 7.2 ITEM 11.2.2 GRACETOWN SECOND ACCESS ROAD – FEASIBILITY STUDY –

MR WILL BERLINER ............................................................................................................. 10 7.3 ITEM 11.2.2 GRACETOWN SECOND ACCESS ROAD – FEASIBILITY STUDY –

MR DAVID RANKIN ............................................................................................................... 10 7.4 ITEM 11.2.2 GRACETOWN SECOND ACCESS ROAD – FEASIBILITY STUDY –

MR IAN ENGLERT ................................................................................................................... 12 7.5 ITEM 11.2.2 GRACETOWN SECOND ACCESS ROAD – FEASIBILITY STUDY –

MR DAVID MARTIN.................................................................................................................. 12 7.6 ITEM 11.2.4 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (STAGE 1) – MARGARET RIVER

LIFESTYLE VILLAGE, LOTS 104 AND 105 BUSSELL HIGHWAY, MARGARET RIVER – MR GREG MOORE ................................................................................................... 14

7.7 ITEM 11.2.5 AMR CLEAN COMMUNITY ENERGY REQUEST FOR FUNDING – MS LYN SERVENTY ....................................................................................................................... 15

8. PETITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 15 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDING MEMBER....................................................... 15 10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN .................................................. 15 11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND EMPLOYEE REPORTS ................................................. 15 11.1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ................................................................................................. 16 11.1.1 ADOPTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY ................................................... 17

11.2. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 19 11.2.1 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 56 AND RELATED STRUCTURE PLAN, ASHTON

STREET - FOR INITIATION .................................................................................................... 26 11.2.2 GRACETOWN SECOND ACCESS ROAD - FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT ............................ 32 11.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY - DRAFT FOR PUBLIC

CONSULTATION ...................................................................................................................... 41 11.2.4 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (STAGE 1) - MARAGRET RIVER LIFESTYLE

VILLAGE , LOTS 104 AND 105 BUSSELL HIGHWAY, MARGARET RIVER......................... 45


4

11.2.5 AMR CLEAN COMMUNITY ENERGY REQUEST FOR FUNDING ......................................... 51

11.3. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES ............................................................................................. 57 11.4. CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ....................................................................... 59 11.4.1 SPORTS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 6

JUNE 2017 ................................................................................................................................ 60 11.4.2 LIST OF PAYMENTS FOR MAY 2017 ..................................................................................... 63 11.4.3 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENT REPORT - MAY 2017 ................................................... 66 11.4.4 2017-18 SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES .................................................................... 76 11.4.5 SUBMISSIONS ON 2017-18 DIFFERENTIAL RATES AND MINIMUM PAYMENTS ............. 79 11.4.6 2017-18 DRAFT BUDGET ........................................................................................................ 84 11.4.7 TENDER 03/17 MARGARET RIVER YOUTH PRECINCT DESIGN AND

CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 99

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ......................................... 107 13. MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AT NEXT MEETING ..................................................... 107 14. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE ....................................................................... 107 14.1 MEMBERS .............................................................................................................................. 107 14.2 CEO ........................................................................................................................................ 107

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS .................................................................................................. 107 15.1 PROPOSED SALE OF LOT 15 ALLNUT TERRACE, AUGUSTA .......................................... 108 15.2 DEVELOPMENT OF RAPIDS LANDING DISTRICT OPEN SPACE AND SCHOOL

SITE ........................................................................................................................................ 108

16. CLOSURE OF MEETING ....................................................................................................... 111


5

Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Wednesday 28 June 2017, in Council Chambers, 41 Wallcliffe Road, Margaret River, commencing at 5.30pm

Ordinary Council Meeting

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

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 Development : Ms Heather Auld

Manager Planning and

Development : Mr Nick Logan Manager Human and Community Services : Mr Nigel Anderson Manager Corporate Services : Mr Andrew Ross Minute Secretary : Ms Claire Schiller

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 16

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

2.1 Apologies Director Corporate and Community Services, Ms Annie Riordan


6

2.2. Approved Leave of Absence

Nil

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

3.1 Item 11.4.2 List of Payments for May 2017 – Financial Interest – Acting Director Corporate and Community Services, Ms Heather Auld

The Acting Director Corporate and Community Services disclosed an interest in Item 11.4.2 List of Payments for May 2017, the credit card expenses which is certified by the Chief Executive Officer.

3.2 Item 11.4.1 Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 6 June

2017 – Impartiality Interest - Cr Kylie Kennaugh Councillor Kylie Kennaugh disclosed an impartiality interest in Item 11.4.1 Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 6 June 2017, as she is the President of the Margaret River Districts Agriculutral Society.

3.3 Item 11.4.7 Tender 03/17 Margaret River Youth Precinct Design and Construction – Financial Interest - Cr Ian Earl

Councillor Ian Earl disclosed a financial interest in Item 11.4.7 Tender 03/17 Margaret River Youth Precinct Design and Construction, as his company has provided a price for this project.

3.4 Item 11.4.1 Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 6 June 2017 – Impartiality Interest - Cr Kim Hastie Cr Hastie disclosed an impartiality interest in Item 11.4.1 Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 6 June 2017, the nature of the impartiality interest is as follows: ‘I am the secretary of the Augusta Men’s Shed and there may be a perception that I am biased either in favour or against the proposed Margaret River Men’s Shed. I am confident I will be able to deal with this in an impartial manner’.

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

Nil

4.2. Public Question Time Nil

5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil


7

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 6.1 Ordinary Council Meeting held on 14 June 2017

MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR SMART, CR TOWNSHEND OM2017/144 That Council confirms the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held 14 June 2017 to be a true and correct record of the meeting.

CARRIED 7/0

7. DEPUTATIONS 7.1 Item 11.1.1 Adoption of Economic Development Strategy – Ms Naomi Godden

Ms Naomi Godden of 7b Townview Terrace, Margaret River, addressed the meeting in relation to Item 11.1.1 Adoption of Economic Development Strategy, a summary of her deputation is as follows: I am speaking about the Economic Development Strategy, wearing three hats. Firstly, I have 15 years of experience as a social justice researcher and community worker with disadvantaged communities in Australia and internationally. Secondly, I actively volunteer in local social justice organisations. Thirdly, my partner and I have a modest household income as we juggle a new small business, insecure employment, and shared care for small children. The Shire’s Economic Development Strategy is an improvement from the first draft. The Strategy aligns with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals – although it does not refer to Goal 1 End Poverty, Goal 5 Gender Equality or Goal 10 Reduced Inequalities. The EDS also strongly recognises how the economy and environment intersect. However, the EDS has a huge gap – it does not discuss or attempt to address the widespread economic inequalities our community, as outlined in the Margaret River Professional Social Work Collective’s submission. But if we are visionary, I believe that we can work together to build a connected, resilient, and just community, economy and environment. Tonight I will talk about three groups in our community that experience economic hardship but are ignored in the EDS: • Low income households and people living in poverty • Women • Young people The Officer’s report states, ‘Gender equity and the access to the economic benefits of economic development by underrepresented groups is implicit in the EDS and will be covered in separate Social inclusion strategies’ (page 9). Basically, the EDS is deliberately blind to the needs of our most disadvantaged community members. This is very disappointing. The EDS does not reflect the Shire’s Overarching Sustainability Policy which interconnects economic, social, environment and cultural issues. The EDS separates disadvantaged people from the ambitious project of economic growth, relying on increasingly discredited ‘trickle down economics’ to address inequalities. Low income households and people living in poverty Many local residents are in economic hardship. Here are some facts: • 21.7% of AMR households have a combined gross weekly wage of $649 or less, which is less

than the minimum wage of $708.90/week (2016 Census). • Median weekly rental price in AMR is $300. • 12.5% (1,410) of AMR residents are in poverty1 (National Centre for Social and Economic

Modelling (NATSEM) 2013).

1 NATSEM (2013) uses the most commonly and accepted international relative poverty measure: “The relative poverty measure… is the half-median version where a household is considered to be in poverty if the household’s after-tax income is less than half of the median after-tax income of all households in Australia. To account for


8

• In 2016/17, MR Community Centre provided 446 instances of assistance for 177 people, giving food and fuel vouchers, food parcels and referrals.

Local story: Clancy and Jules (not their real names) have two young children, and Clancy is the sole income earner, working for the minimum wage at the local supermarket. Under his casual contract, his work hours range from 8 to 30 hours per week. They rent a substandard house at $300/week with very high heating costs, and have rising debt as they struggle to meet their weekly living costs. How does the current EDS support Clancy and Jules to exit their cycle of poverty? How will increased wealth generation in AMR be redistributed to them? The EDS does not analyse wealth disparities, economic inequality or poverty in our community. The document has no tangible strategies to directly support low income households, especially with WA’s economic downturn which will increase poverty (NATSEM 2013). The Shire could take action to support disadvantaged people, such as: • Analyse and address the structural causes of poverty and income inequality, such as the

downturn of the mining boom and the impact on living costs from aggressively pushing the MR brand – ‘Mark-up River’.

• Drive and support a sharing economy, such as labour banks and food cooperatives. • Advocate for AMR to be an Australian trial site for a Universal Basic Income.

Women Women in AMR are particularly economically disadvantaged. Some more facts: • More than 3,000 AMR women aged above 15 earn less than $650 per week, compared with only

1,800 men (2016 Census). • 2,141 AMR women do more than 15 hours of unpaid domestic work per week, compared with

only 849 men (2016 Census). • Nearly 80% of AMR single parent households (521 households) are headed by women. • AMR women are more likely to volunteer than men. There is a clear gender divide regarding income, unpaid work and single parenting; and this increases women’s risk of economic inequality, poverty and hardship. Story: Katie is a single parent to a toddler, and lives in a low-rent granny flat. Her mother cares for the baby when Katie works two days a week in admin for a local business, earning about $25 an hour. After paying rent, utilities and fuel, Katie budgets $40 a week for food, but she cannot make ends meet. She has a crippling debt and is considering bankruptcy. How does the current EDS address Katie’s situation of gendered disadvantage? If the EDS strategies actually generated greater wealth, would her manager start paying her a higher wage? Could she realistically find an alternative job with the flexibility she requires as a sole parent? The EDS does not in any way acknowledge women’s economic disparities, nor commit to any activities that specifically benefit women. It isn’t good enough to say that women’s access to economic benefits is implicit in the EDS – women’s focussed strategies are vital, especially in a local economy with male-dominated industries such as agriculture and construction. Some proposed strategies for how the Shire can support the economic empowerment of women: • Support and promote the training and employment of women; • Support the development of more affordable quality child care; • Promote shared childcare by women and men; • Promote workplace flexibility in all industries to support working parents.

differences in household size and structure we equivalise incomes using an equivalence scale. This means that incomes are divided by a factor that accounts for household size in order for incomes to be comparable between different household types” (p.6).


9

Young people The 2016 Census data shows that AMR young women and men aged 15-34 are highly likely to earn low wages. There is also a population gap of young people in AMR. In a recent workshop for the Shire’s Community Strategic Plan, young people said that ‘jobs and education’ was a key youth issue. They suggested the following Shire actions: • More employment opportunities for youth other than part time hospitality work; • More opportunities for job counselling and 'earning opportunities’ to expand the horizons for youth

above pure hospitality work; • More encouragement for local businesses to hire local youth in a wider range of industries. Other possible Shire actions are: • Develop business hubs with low-cost co-working spaces for young people to begin innovative and

sustainable businesses with shared facilities, desks and meeting spaces. • Establish a Shire policy to promote the contracting of youth businesses and the employment of

young people through traineeships.

However, the EDS does not analyse economic issues facing young people and does not include youth-focussed strategies to enhance their economic options.

The call for economic redistribution Globally, 8 men own the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population (3.6 billion people) (Oxfam 2017). In Australia, the top 10% of wealth holders own 45% of total Australian wealth (ACOSS, 2015). The current EDS focuses on new opportunities for economic growth rather than deliberate redistribution of wealth. It reflects ‘trickle down economics’ – the notion that increased wealth will trickle down and financially benefit people on low incomes and in poverty. However, economists such as Thomas Pikkety have proven that increased wealth results in greater economic disparity between the wealthy and poor. The EDS also suggests that the strategy will ‘create a greater range of higher paying jobs’ (page 18). But this claim is not evidence-based - it does not show how the suggested activities will actually improve wages across the whole community, especially with casualised work and high job insecurity. It is reasonable, and necessary, that the Shire’s proposed framework of sustainable economic development strongly considers the equity ramifications of proposed projects. The EDS must include processes to mitigate potential harmful impacts of economic growth on the most vulnerable and marginalised community members. Unless we tackle inequalities and promote a redistributive economy, poor community members will be driven out, and AMR will become a gentrified enclave for a privileged few. We should not simply propose that young people and families with roots in this community just move away. Proposal I urge Councillors to defer the adoption of the proposed EDS. I urge Councillors to request some amendments to the document: • The EDS includes robust analysis regarding poverty and economic inequality in AMR, with a

particular emphasis on low income households, women and young people. • The EDS analyses the equity implications of its proposed economic development outcomes and

activities. • The EDS includes specific outcomes and activities to prevent and address economic inequalities. I also suggest that the EDS is updated with the 2016 Census data released yesterday. The Shire can work with local social justice organisations to make these changes. In our submission to the EDS, the MRPSWC provided research, data and analysis to support the Shire to make the proposed amendments. We also provided many practical suggestions for Shire activities to address economic inequality. I estimate about 5 days of work to make these proposed changes to the EDS. Local social justice organisations can support the Officer to do the analysis. By including inequalities, the EDS will provide a sustainable approach to economic development. It will assist all members of our community to flourish. The Shire President called for questions and thanked Ms Godden for her deputation.


10

7.2 Item 11.2.2 Gracetown Second Access Road – Feasibility Study – Mr Will Berliner Mr Will Berliner of 532 Caves Road, addressed the meeting in relation to Item 11.2.2 Gracetown Second Access Road – Feasibility Study, a summary of his deputation is as follows: • We all know the arguments for and against this item We need to take a step back and look at it in

a different way – this is really just a question about how we want to live our lives here. • We need to think about the area in which we live. • I chose to live here because of the biodiversity, it’s unique here. • The National Park was created by some visionary person, it is special, can we cut into it for the

possibility of providing some thing for some people? • What’s the vision? Do we divide it up until there are ¼ acre blocks everywhere? • Is this really for a fire road? • Maybe we could like at other options? A sprinker system? Maybe the Landcorp development

should be addressed? Why don’t we buy the property back? • We want to take a stand for nature. We should keep things in tact. • Areas that take a stand for nature create more economic possibilities. • Destuction of this area is permenant if we go ahead with the road.

7.3 Item 11.2.2 Gracetown Second Access Road – Feasibility Study – Mr David Rankin Mr David Rankin of Glenbourn, addressed the meeting in relation to Item 11.2.2 Gracetown Second Access Road – Feasibility Study, a summary of his deputation is as follows: 1. The road has limited use as a fire escape route

• The proposed road is of limited effect as a fire escape route in the advent of a fire from the south, east, west or north east . A fire developing in approximately 240 degrees of the terrai n around Gracetown would ma ke this road not suitable as a firebreak. The road would be exceptionally dangerous and quickly closed.

• The $10 million Rd is I presume for fires approaching Gracetown from the North - the smallest strip of native vegetation around the town.

• The road may a lso be closed in the advent of a fire from the north irrespective of the situation south of town. High winds, flung branches or blown over trees etc. may have the proposed southern escape/access route closed a nyhow. The first actions by authorities is usually the closure of multiple roads - some a long distance from the fire front.

• The cost for this road at approximately 10 million dollars is unjustified if this is a serious public fire safety mitigation method.

• Other methods may be more effective in assisting public safety in the advent of a horrific fire approaching Gracetown i.e.: Fire shelters or financial support for fire units and vehicles

• What happens to the Gracetown community if a big fire approaches from the South? What value is the $10,000,000 expenditure on the southern road?

2. The proposed road is predominately a convenience for various Gracetown Residents

• As this debate moved from closed workshops and committees and moved into the public arena, many proponents of the road changed their opinion about it being a fire safety issue and promoted it as necessary for the residents of Gracetown by dispersing vehicular traffic and trucks to the south.

• A well organised road promotion campaign is based in Gracetown and has been operating for a long time.

• As the low effectiveness of the road as a fire escape route became apparent its perceived usefulness changed to one of traffic management.


11

• Even the Department of Fire and Emergency Services question its value in ensuring fire safety in an emergency. The Department of Parks and Wildlife would prefer not to have the second access road. (Reference page 15, - Workshop Summary 2016)

3. The proposed road will become a major road to Gracetown

• The proposed road will significantly reduce the time for residents to travel from Margaret River to Gracetown. It may actually increase the traffic problems in Gracetown though. People will visit the town who otherwise were put off by the drive time down and back along Cowaramup Bay Road.

• Most, if not all vehicles driving from Margaret River to Gracetown, will use the proposed road. Likewise, people travelling Gracetown to Margaret River will also use it. They would abandon the existing Cowaramup Bay Road.

• It is only a matter of a short period of time before the road will require upgrading from its proposed original dimensions.

• It's possible the road will become busier than Cowaramup Bay Road. • Any claims this is a low impact Road are false. This is the creation of a major road using

fire mitigation as an excuse. 4. The ecological value of the section of National Park that would be bisected by the road is

particularly high • The idea of building roads through National Parks defies all intents and purposes of

the creation of a "National Park" • DPAW strategy favours the closing of ring roads in the park and the creation of single

site access roads to assist the preservation of environmental values. • The road will cut into coastal heaths and thick edge forest ecosystems. It finishes in

medium/tall eucalyptus woodlands. Endangered and rare species live in this area. Southern brown bandicoots, ring tailed possums, Phascogales and marsupial mice hide in the thick vegetation.

• Numerous plants grow there. Many species are only found in the Capes coastal environs.

• The vegetation is in remarkably good condition. The isolation of that area has been the principal reason it is in such good condition.

• Degraded areas in the Park reveal just how high quality the proposed Road alignment area is.

5. The Road will irreparably damage and destroy ecological and social values of that area of

the park. • The road will isolate the coast from the inland eucalyptus forest. This is particularly

important for small mammals that need to create individual territories but still have interaction with other members of the same species for breeding or colonisation of new areas.

• It will become a highway for feral cats and foxes and possibly domestic dogs. • It will introduce plant disease and weeds along its entire length.

• Nothing will be able to stop the degradation to the National Park that this road will

bring. • The clearing proposed for the road, upgrades and straightening is a far more

significant area than some residents believe • Statements that the road will not damage the National Pa rk, has the least ecological

footprint or not da mage the forest or Ellenbrook Road are not true. This is a major project that involves environmental destruction of high quality vegetation a nd habitat over a large area.

• Not only does the road permanently remove another 8.8 hectare of vegetation within the Park its, total footprint is 4.4 km long and over 10 ha of vegetation removal.

• The road will destroy the remoteness and wilderness va lues of that area. It will put a major road straight through an area of high ecological value.

6. Decisions by Council (such as on this issue ) have a direct influence on the future of the

Ecology of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River.


12

• It's not someone else's problem or decisions made by other organisations or Government departments. The National Park is the most significantly valuable natural environment in the Shire and we all need to recognise this value.

• The National Park needs help in defending its ecological value and preservation into the future.

• The council has policy documents that state its intention is to preserve and promote our natural environment.

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

7.4 Item 11.2.2 Gracetown Second Access Road – Feasibility Study – Mr Ian Englert Mr Ian Englert of 124 Georgette Road, Gracetown and on behalf of the Gracetown Progress Association Inc, addressed the meeting in relation to Item 11.2.2 Gracetown Second Access Road – Feasibility Study, a summary of his deputation is as follows: • I have lived in Gracetown since 1980 and was a Councillor here from 1987 – 1993. • Gracetown in 1980 only had 4 or 5 children domicile and they had to be driven to Cowaramup

Primary School as there was no school bus. • 37 years later there are two buses in the morning and afternoon, both overflowing with children. • Most of these children are keen surfers and swimmers and before and after school, can always be

found in the water enjoying the waves. • Because there are very few footpaths in Gracetown these children walk on the roads and are

constantly dodging the high traffic volume travelling into and out of Gracetown, a lot of whom are also headed for the surf in the bay of Lefthanders.

• Gracetown is about to double in size with the proposed Lancorp 150 lot subdivision. • There is a second access road being proposed to Gracetowm from Ellensbrook Road to the south

and an alignment for this road is now before you. • Having lived in the area for decades and having driven many different vehicles aling the proposed

alignment, I can assure you this chosen alignment is the correct one, and I trust you will embrace the recommendation in your agendas and adopt it.

• I was on Council when the Gnarabup development was going ahead. We as a Council would not allow the developer to proceed without constructing a second access road to Gnarabup thus avoiding development traffic and future surfing traffic passing through Prevelly. It was an obvious condition to include because it made planning sense and not to do so would have been detrimental to the amenity of the area in Prevelly.

• When the second access road is built to Gracetown, the same traffic nightmare that would have occurred in Prevelly will be avoided in Gracetown with Gracetown development traffic, Margaret River surfers and others all using the 2nd acccess road from the south to get to left handers and the new subdivision development site.

• If my colleague, David Martin, and I owned the land at Gracetown and we were going to do a 150 lot development, you as a Council would make it a condition that we put in a second access road the same as you did at Gnarabup and Prevelly. The only difference in this case is that the developer is the State Government.

• Don’t let the State Government and Landcorp stand over you and fool you. Common sense and past precedence must prevail. Be strong and insist ‘No road, No development’.

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

7.5 Item 11.2.2 Gracetown Second Access Road – Feasibility Study – Mr David Martin

Mr David Martin on behalf of the Gracetown Progress Association Inc, addressed the meeting in relation to Item 11.2.2 Gracetown Second Access Road – Feasibility Study, a summary of his deputation is as follows: The GPA supports the recommendation, and encourages Councillors to adopt it.


13

The Gracetown community has been very consistent over the past 10 years on the need for a second access road, both for reasons of emergency access and amenity. A survey of residents and landowners in late 2010 found that 73% of respondents were in favour of a second road. The Shire’s recent community consultation shows that support for the second road has strengthened since then, and is shared by the wider community. DFES, DPaW and Main Roads also all support the second access road. Just by way of a quick reminder, there are 4 key reasons why a second access road is needed for Gracetown:

• Fire safety – both access for emergency services and an alternative exit route. The current investigation was triggered by the 2011 Prevelly fire, but there have been 4 near misses in the last 12 years. The last was in 2012, when people were trapped in town

• Other emergency access – to respond more quickly to shark attacks, boating mishaps, bridge vulnerability, etc

• Landcorp development – this is now an approved development of 146 lots, involving significant infrastructure work and construction traffic over the next 15 years

• General traffic load and loss of amenity – as a result of the increasing popularity of Gracetown and surrounding surf breaks, the increase in the local population due to the Landcorp development, and a general increase in the population in surrounding areas, all leading to a substantial increase in traffic in town

The GPA participated on behalf of the Gracetown community in the Community Reference Group, and agrees that Route 4A, as recommended by the Steering Group, is by far the best option. It meets all of the community’s needs, while minimising the impact on the National Park, and is the lowest cost option. From the community’s perspective, the critical issue now is the timing of construction of the road. The potential for a devastating bushfire is always present. But the need for the road is made more urgent due to the imminent Landcorp development that will substantially increase the number of residents of, and visitors to, Gracetown, and the inadequacy of Landcorp’s Fire Management Plan. Gracetown has a current population of around 300 permanent residents, plus many more visitors during the holiday season. These numbers will at least double following the Landcorp development, and will be in the range of 1,000 to 2,000 people during the summer holiday season. In July 2016 the WA Planning Commission, through the South West Region Planning Committee, accepted the need for a second access road for Gracetown when considering the Structure Plan for the Landcorp Development. The Committee recommended that: “due to the bushfire management issues and risks a second access road in the alignment recommended by the Main Roads working group be constructed prior to the finalisation of any subdivision approval”. Unfortunately, the GPA was not given the opportunity to present to the Committee when it considered the Scheme Amendment, so this is not a condition of the Scheme Amendment. We know that Landcorp will oppose the second road, presumably because they do not want to pay for it, or delay their development while it is funded and built by the Government. Landcorp acknowledges in their FMP (at para 5.2.1) that their development “will not meet the performance criteria for ‘Vehicular access’ (Element 2) unless a suitable alternative solution can be implemented to adequately offset the risk of maintaining a single access road”. The report before you contains extracts from Landcorp’s FMP for the Gracetown development, which outlines a series of proposed measures which Landcorp will rely on to argue against the need for a second road. However, several of the key proposals are window dressing, and will either not be implemented or will be inadequate. Examples include:

• Firstly, Landcorp proposes creating a “20m wide low fuel buffer … on either side of Cowaramup Bay Road … to ensure the road is accessible and protected in the event of bush fire”. Apart from destroying the attractiveness of the approach to Gracetown, this proposal will fail because most of the land either side of Cowaramup Bay Road is privately owned, and is part of a registered flora road.

• Secondly, Landcorp says that “in the unlikely event that … Cowaramup Bay Road is still compromised during a bush fire situation … residents and visitors of the townsite will be provided a safe assembly/refuge point from fire and designated evacuation point in the


14

upgraded community centre”. To achieve this, Landcorp will “implement BAL 29 construction standards” with respect to the Gracetown Hall.

THIS IS THE PRIMARY FIRE REFUGE FOR OVER 1,000 PEOPLE. I have checked, and implementing BAL 29 simply involves putting ember proof screens on the windows of the Gracetown Hall, nothing more. The 20m Bushfire Protection Zone around the building will be the primary protection. The FMP goes on to say that, as a result, “there will be no imminent need to escape the townsite”. THIS IS THE SECONDARY FIRE REFUGE FOR OVER 1,000 PEOPLE. I have been advised by a senior officer of DFES that the agency supported the Landcorp FMP on the assumption that, in the event of a fire, most residents of Gracetown would stay and defend their houses, rather than seeking refuge. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the makeup of the Gracetown population, particularly during the summer holiday fire season. The vast majority of people in Gracetown during the summer are temporary visitors to the town, either holiday renters or day visitors. They will not be in a position to stay and defend. They will be looking for an escape route, or a fire refuge. During the summer holiday season, there may be well over 1,000 people in Gracetown, particularly when the new development is completed. The Hall could not possibly be the primary evacuation point, or refuge, for this many people. The Hall and the main beach will clearly be inadequate as refuges in these circumstances. The main beach is small and narrow, and not an adequate place to shelter. The Hall is too small to accommodate much more than 100 people. I stress these issues because it is very important to the community, both for amenity reasons, and from a safety perspective, that the second access road is supported, and built, before work commences on the Landcorp development. There has been a steady watering down, by Landcorp and its consultants, of the fire risk mitigation measures for Gracetown through successive versions of their second access road reports and fire management plans. The GPA is concerned that there will continue to be a watering down of these measures by Landcorp, while continuing to resist delaying their development until a second road is built. It simply makes no sense at all to expose significantly more people to an extreme fire risk, when a second access road route that is acceptable to the community, and all relevant agencies, has been identified and recommended. No formal approval is required from the Shire for the road. However, we would appreciate the Shire supporting the community on this issue by:

• supporting the findings of the Gracetown Second Access Feasibility Report; and • supporting the community’s efforts to ensure that the Landcorp development does not proceed

before the second access road is built. The Shire President called for questions and thanked Mr Martin for his deputation.

7.6 Item 11.2.4 Local Development Plan (Stage 1) – Margaret River Lifestyle Village, Lots 104 and 105 Bussell Highway, Margaret River – Mr Greg Moore

Mr Greg Moore of Building Development Group Pty Ltd, 26a Lillian Avenue, Applecross, addressed the meeting in relation to Item 11.2.4 Local Development Plan (Stage 1) – Margaret River Lifestyle Village, Lots 104 and 105 Bussell Highway, Margaret River. Mr Moore talked through a pwerpoint presentation which can be viewed as Deputation Attachment 7.6. The Shire President called for questions and thanked Mr Moore for his deputation.


15

7.7 Item 11.2.5 AMR Clean Community Energy - Request for Funding – Ms Lyn Serventy and Mr Ian Williams

Ms Lyn Serventy Chairperson and Mr Ian Williams Deputy Chairperson of AMRCCE, addressed the meeting in relation to Item 11.2.5 AMR Clean Community Energy Request for Funding, a summary of their deputation is as follows: The group is happy with the intention of the recommended motion to be put to council but are concerned that Part 2 of the motion is too restrictive as there will be various steps along the way to completion that require expenditure. We feel that to achieve Part 2 as currently defined, the $400,000 to $500,000 costs will have been incurred and the further support no longer needed. We need support as we progress towards completion and can show that continuation is warranted.

Re Part 2(C): Part of the feasibility study will involve site specific evaluation of suitability for wind generation. That will involve an initial agreement for land access (little or no cost), a subsequent option agreement (moderate cost), followed by a lease agreement setting out what will be paid over the next 25 years. The last agreement is done at the end or near the end of the feasibility study, so it would be more reasonable to link consideration of further support to the 1st and 2nd agreements which are essential parts of the feasibility study.

Below is a suggested amendment to the recommendation with changes highlighted. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Carries forward $12,000 from the 2016/17 Planning and Development Services budget as seed

funding towards the AMRCCE renewable energy project business case. 2. Directs that any additional funding allocated in the 2017/18 budget, or Shire support to grant

applications, is to be contingent upon Augusta Margaret River Clean Community Energy (AMRCCE) conducting the following to the satisfaction of the Shire:

a) successful progress towards completion of a feasibility study, which demonstrates a large-scale renewable project is likely to be economically viable and feasible at a determined site.

b) formal agreement for a proportion of income raised from the project being used towards developing community renewable energy projects;

c) formal support from a landowner willing to enter into a land access and options agreement to allow assessment of suitability for the development of a large- scale renewable energy project on the site;

3. Supports and endorse AMRCCE as a vehicle for achieving Council’s LEAP; and 4. Assists AMRCCW to hold community consultative meetings to promote the group. The Shire President called for questions and thanked Ms Serventy and Mr Williams for their 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


16

11.1. Chief Executive Officer


17

11.1.1 ADOPTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE ECD/83 REPORT AUTHOR Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer

IN BRIEF • A draft Economic Development Strategy 2026 (EDS) was developed in April 2016 for advertising

and further community and stakeholder consultation. • Finalisation of the EDS has been deferred to enable community consultation gleaned through the

Your 2036 workshops to be considered and to allow further integration with the Environmental Sustainability Strategy (ESS).

• In addition to the initial public submission period additional consultation has occurred through feedback from the attendees at two Food and Agriculture Summits, focus groups with the local Chambers of Commerce and Traders associations, feedback on questions in the community survey, and from feedback through the Your 2036 community visioning program.

• The revised and finalised document is presented to Council for consideration and adoption. RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the Economic Development Strategy 2017-2027. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND The Council is committed to creating a sustainable and prosperous future for our residents and local businesses. A future that balances and integrates the often competing needs of environmental protection, social advancement and developing economic prosperity. This means protecting the Shire’s pristine environment from exploitation and inappropriate development, ensuring our communities are cohesive and resilient and that economic development is well planned and sustainable into the future. An intergenerational approach is required to ensure long lasting prosperity is created not just short term financial gain at the expense of the environment or social cohesion. Long term social benefits and improved community infrastructure need to accrue from any economic development. The Council in governing the Shire’s strategic direction has a vital role to play through this Economic Development Strategy in setting a clear economic vision by adopting the policy settings which will foster sustainable economic development in the Shire. The Shire previously partnered with the Shire of Busselton (at the time) to produce a Capes Region Economic Development Strategy (CREDS) in 2009 which was delivered through a $50,000 external consultancy. This document is now well past its use by date. The City of Busselton has opted to independently develop its own Economic Development Strategy so it is appropriate that the Shire articulates its own strategy for our Shire’s participation in economic development. Further Economic Development Planning was undertaken through the Supertown Program in 2011-12 by the AEC Group. The EDS is a high level strategic document which outlines the key signature projects which will be undertaken by the Shire as well as the associated key activities which will be instrumental in prosecuting sustainable economic development over the next 10 years.


18

The strategy will assist in identifying and prioritising strategies to deliver on the following key elements:

• The critical importance of environmental protection • Transition to renewable energy • Diversification of the economy • Improved business innovation • Overcoming the seasonality of tourist visitation • Job creation • increased access to education, training and skills development • Creative industries development • Leveraging benefit from major infrastructure investment in the Shire and the wider Margaret

River Region CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Stakeholder and Consultant Input The Shire acknowledges the publications and contributions informing the Strategy provided by the Region’s key stakeholders including :

• Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association, • South West Development Commission (SWDC), • Capes Region Voluntary Organisation of Councils (CapeROC), • Margaret River Wine Association (MRWA), • Margaret River and Augusta Chambers of Commerce and Industry (MRCCI and ACCI), • Cowaramup Traders Association, • Creative Emergence, • Margaret River Education Campus (MREC); • AEC 2011 Economic Development Plan commissioned by the Shire under the SuperTown

program; • Lawrence Consulting , “Shire of Augusta Margaret River Economic Profile 2017”.

Relevant research information from these sources and others has been collated to inform the EDS. Community Consultation Extensive community consultation has been undertaken in developing the direction and content of the strategy including:

• Public submissions on the draft EDS; • Feedback from the two Food and Agricultural Summit held on 8 & 9 April 2016 and the 10

August, 2017; • CEO Presentation and Community Workshop held at MREC in conjunction with Curtin

University 28 July, 2016 and workshop feedback; • Key industry focus groups conducted by Dr Jack Carlsen with MRCCI, ACCCI and Cowaramup

Traders Association; • Whole of Shire tri-annual community survey questions, and • Community Reference Group workshops for the Your 2036 Community Plan held at various

locations in the Shire.

A summary of the community feedback is incorporated into the Attachments. The sheer volume of feedback provided and the high expectation of the community for the Shire to deliver across the board on numerous fronts is overwhelming. The Shire does not have the financial or human resources to deliver or to even follow up the many excellent suggestions which have been made. The employment of an Economic Development Officer from 1 January 2018 will assist in the implementation of the EDS and will be pivotal in attracting grants to assist economic development in the Shire including the critical area of renewable energy. A combination of qualitative feedback combined with evidence based data supports the identification of the priority issues and opportunities and the development of the strategies in the EDS. The data and information contained within the strategy has been prepared based on the most accurate and reliable


19

information available. Any revisions or updates to the underpinning data will be incorporated into future EDS updates. The major themes of the community feedback have been incorporated into the final draft of the EDS as follows:

Community Feedback Response Incorporated into EDS Title should be Economic Sustainability Strategy not Development

Decision to retain Development in the title of the EDS to avoid confusion with the Environmental Sustainability Strategy (ESS). Sustainability is incorporated into all aspects of the document. The EDS aligns at an international level with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) adopted by world leaders including Australian in September, 2015

Include an acknowledgement of country

Suitable wording is included preceding the contents page. Indigenous employment is featured as a goal within the EDS with suggested strategies.

Greater integration with the “Environment” stream

The EDS framework pictorially shows healthy land and waterways and the transition to renewable energy as underpinning a healthy economy. One of the six key result areas is “Environmental Stewardship” which focuses on climate change adaption, renewable energy, waste minimisation and bio-diversity protection. Big picture concepts are captured such as the UNESCO Eco Park idea being promoted by the MRBTA and community interest in an Australian Wildlife Conservancy predator free sanctuary and an Arboretum in the Shire.

Emphasis on Food and Fibre Production

The importance of fishing and agriculture is highlighted in the Wine and Food, Tourism and Competitive Business streams – Cutting red tape. The production of hemp as an emerging industry is a key activity to support. The goal of assisting in the relocation of meat processing operations to Cowaramup is possibly the most important single signature project in the agricultural sector in attracting higher paid jobs to our Shire in one operation.

Retention of character of the Shire

This is one of the biggest challenges of the future and the Shire’s Local Planning Scheme (LPS) and Local Planning Strategies is critical to this retention of character. This is supplemented by effective Local Planning Strategies, “Place Making” action in key town centres, conservation of remnant bushland, protection of agricultural land from urban sprawl and in the buffering and landscaping of commercial, industrial and residential areas. Shire incentives such as “Subdivision for conservation” and “Environmental Stewardship and Grants Scheme” programs are to be continued.

Specific strategies for Augusta and Cowaramup

The key strategies and signature projects support initiatives in both Augusta and Cowaramup. Place Making strategies can be implemented in both locations to enhance their unique feel and character of the locations.

Inclusion of a specific “Tackling Inequality” social justice theme

A number of social justice initiatives are included in the EDS without having a specific social justice stream. An aspirational wish for Aboriginal people to share equitably in the economic growth of the Shire is incorporated in the “Acknowledgement of Country” section and strategies for Indigenous employment. A key objective of this strategy is to attract better paid jobs to our Shire and to eliminate the seasonality of employment which will improve household incomes. Housing affordability remains a difficult issue to combat particularly with the rise of AirBnB increasing rental prices and reducing the supply of long term rental accommodation. Gender equity and the access to the economic benefits of economic development by underrepresented groups is implicit in the EDS and will be covered in separate Social inclusion strategies.

Various initiatives Wherever possible individual actions have been included in the “Key Activities” section of the EDS.


20

Internal Consultation Executive Leadership Team Senior Leadership Team DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS In considering the challenges, emerging opportunities and strengths of the local economy in a global context there are three key focus areas which emerge as extremely importance in growing a stronger economy. The purpose of the EDS 2027 will be to focus on three key focus areas, namely economic diversification, increased winter tourist visitation and fostering innovation The EDS is structured according to the following Framework, Strategic Themes and Outcomes.

STRATEGIC THEMES AND OUTCOMES Tourism Development Strong diversified year round tourism visitation experiencing a world bio-diversity hot spot with a wide range of world class attractions, iconic food and wine, cultural, sporting and business events. Wine and Food Thriving food and fibre production and value adding and an internationally acclaimed wine industry marketing premium produce to local, interstate and international markets. Environmental Stewardship Pro-actively responding to the challenge of climate change while working in partnerships to protect bio-diversity, minimise waste to landfill and transition to renewable energy. New Industries New dynamic businesses attracted by the quality lifestyle and using the Shire as a base to compete regionally and globally including industries involving creativity, education and lifelong learning, indigenous employment and new professional services. Economic Infrastructure


21

The completion of key transformational infrastructure, which leverages sustainable economic development in the Margaret River Region. Competitive Business A globally focussed business sector providing innovative services and products to local, interstate and international customers.

Signature projects are the highest level projects which will be undertaken by the Shire from the lists of key activities itemised in the EDS.

STRATEGIC THEME SIGNATURE PROJECT TIMEFRAME Tourism Development Shire Caravan Park Redevelopment in

accordance with adopted master plans. 2017-27

Tourism Development Augusta Boat Harbour activation through events and dual use path connectivity.

2017-27

Tourism Development “Your Margaret River Region” branding and signage project.

2017-2020

Tourism Development Ongoing Iconic Events sponsorship and Place Making activities at key locations.

2017-27

Tourism Development Implementation of the Events Strategy 2017-27 Tourism Development Complete Wadandi Track (Rails to Trails)

southern extensions and other identified strategic trails development.

2017-27

Wine and Food Wine and Food, and Organic Food trail development.

2017-27

Wine and Food Investigate the use of the Beenup Mine site for milk processing or other value adding processes.

2017-22

Wine and Food Support industry efforts to locate a meat processing plant in the Shire.

2017-22

Wine and Food Advocacy to the State Government and direct Shire works for the upgrading of Restricted Access Vehicle (RAV) routes.

2017-27

Environmental Stewardship Updating the Local Energy Action Plan (LEAP) and working to meet revised targets.

2017-19

Environmental Stewardship Closure of the David Road Landfill site and development of an enhanced recycling and transfer station.

2017-24

Environmental Stewardship Providing seed funding for the community renewable energy project and encouraging the establishment of renewable energy production on a commercial scale within the Shire.

2017-27

New Industries Support for creative industry development including sponsorship of the Creative Emergence Festival, Readers and Writers Festival and the Margaret River Open Studios program.

2017-27

New Industries Advocate for faster NBN internet speeds. 2017-22 New Industries Curtin University Partnerships through the

Margaret River Education Campus. 2017-27

Economic Infrastructure Integration of the Margaret River Perimeter Road into the local distributor road network.

2017-19

Economic Infrastructure Completion of the Margaret River Main Street redevelopment.

2018-19

Economic Infrastructure Support for commercial fishing, seafood processing and maritime businesses at the Augusta Boat Harbour.

2017-27

Economic Infrastructure Completion of the Cultural Centre redevelopment.

2017-19


22

Economic Infrastructure Leverage local benefit from the establishment of the Busselton Margaret River Airport.

2021-27

Competitive Business Annual Business Awards sponsorship. 2017-27 Competitive Business Review policies and practices to create a

Business Friendly Shire which Buys Locally as much as possible.

2017-27

Competitive Business Receive visiting trade delegations from China and other overseas countries.

2017-27

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Local Government Act 1995 STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 4: Vibrant and diverse economy Ensure Shire processes support the development of strong agricultural and viticultural Sectors Facilitate access to affordable, high speed communication networks for all residents and Businesses Retain commercial and retail activities through support programs for year-round stability Foster sustainable economic growth which provides local employment Work collaboratively with other agencies to provide enhanced tertiary education facilities PLANNING FRAMEWORK The Shire of Augusta Margaret River’s Vision has sustainability at it core which can be summed up in three words – Naural, Connected and Prosperous. Our vision requires an intergenerational approach and an integration of the triple bottow line in all that we do as a local governemnt. Our vision drives the long term Community Strategic Plan which drives the four year Corporate Plan which is in turn informed by a variety of key strategic documents including the Economic Development Startegy. Corporate stratgies are fundamental in delivering transformational change across the Shire and meeting challenges and grasping oportunites. Of critical importance is the retention of our character and community livability of we undergo growth and economic development. The Economic Development Plan is grounded in stakeholder and community support and will be implemented and evaluated across all Directorates of the Shire. Chart showing how the EDS fits into the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework


23

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Project listed in the Draft EDS are fully funded in the 10 year Long Term Financial Management Plan or are included as part of the annual budgetary process. The provision of an Economic Development Officer (EDO) from 1 January 2018 will result in approximately $80,000 per annum plus on costs. The EDO should be able to leverage funding from grants in excess of the investment in the officer’s annual salary. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Economic activity needs to be conducted in a sustainable manner which does not adversely impact on the environment. Social The EDS will focus on improving average earnings per annum and ensuring land supply to improve housing affordability. Economic The EDS will focus on diversifying the economy, combatting the winter downturn in tourist visitation and fostering innovation. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the Economic Development Strategy 2017-2027. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft EDS 2017-2027 2. Summary of Community Consultations 3. Lawrence Consulting , “Shire of Augusta Margaret River Economic Profile 2017”. RECOMMENDATION CR , CR That Council adopts the Economic Development Strategy 2017-2027.

0/0 Cr Townshend foreshadowed the following motion: FORESHADOWED MOTION That the adoption of the Economic Development Strategy is deferred for the Shire staff to update the document as follows:

a) Includes analysis of economic inequality and poverty in the AMR area; b) Includes ‘tackling economic inequalities’ as an additional strategic theme and outcome; c) Includes analysis about the equity implications of the current EDS strategic themes and

outcomes, and how any negative impacts will be mitigated; d) Updates statistical information throughout the report with the available 2016 Census data, and

disaggregate all reported data by gender and age, plus addition of Councillor input. As there was no mover for the recommendation, Cr Townshend moved her foreshadowed motion: FORESHADOWED MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR TOWNSHEND, CR HAYNES OM2017/145 That the adoption of the Economic Development Strategy is deferred for the Shire staff to update the document as follows:


24

a) Includes analysis of economic inequality and poverty in the AMR area; b) Includes ‘tackling economic inequalities’ as an additional strategic theme and outcome; c) Includes analysis about the equity implications of the current EDS strategic themes and

outcomes, and how any negative impacts will be mitigated; d) Updates statistical information throughout the report with the available 2016 Census

data, and disaggregate all reported data by gender and age, plus addition of Councillor input.

CARRIED 7/0 REASON Cr Townshend spoke to the motion with reference to Naomi Godden’s deputation at Item 7.1, highlighting the importance of including analysis of the economic effect on the Margaret River community. Cr Townshend emphasised that there is no hurry and by deferring, the recently released ABS Census statistics could also be included in the EDS which could then feed into the Community Resilience report.


25

11.2.

Sustainable Development


26

11.2.1 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 56 AND RELATED STRUCTURE PLAN, ASHTON STREET - FOR INITIATION LOCATION/ADDRESS Lot 13 Ashton Street, Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Halsall & Associates Town Planning Consultants FILE REFERENCE LND/1/56SASP REPORT AUTHOR Matt Cuthbert, Strategic Project Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Dale Putland, Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF • The subject land is currently partly zoned Residential and partly for Parks and Recreation. • The land has subdivision potential as guided by a Structure Plan. A subdivision to create 9 residential

lots of approximately 2000m2 has been issued by the WAPC. • The approval requires that a Public Open Space (POS) reserve of 9060m2 be ceded consistent with

the zoning of the land and its designation on the Structure Plan. • The proposal is to change the zoning and the structure plan designation for a portion of the POS in

order to reduce the POS and allow the creation of one additional residential lot. • The POS is provided primarily to accommodate storm water infrastructure and provide for passive

recreation which can be comfortably situated within the modified POS area. The active recreation (play) needs of the local community are accommodated in nearby locations.

• It is therefore recommended that the amendment be initiated and public consultation commenced. RECOMMENDATION That Council initiates Amendment 56 to rezone a portion of Lot 13 Ashton Street, Margaret River from ‘Parks and Recreation’ to ‘Residential’ and modifies the related Structure Plan accordingly to allow for a period of public consultation. LOCATION The subject land is located with frontage to Ashton Street in Margaret River. The land falls moderately from its high point in the south east corner towards Ashton Street. A subdivision approval is in place and earthworks are currently being undertaken on site consistent with that approval.

Figure 1 – Location Plan


27

THE PROPOSAL There are two elements to the subject proposal. The first is a revision to the existing structure plan which relates to the land, which intends to reduce the amount of POS to be ceded from 9080m2 to 6876m2 and create an additional residential lot of 2204m2 in its place. The second element is to make corresponding changes to the zoning of the land to reflect the decreased size of the land zoned ‘Parks and Recreation’ and increase that zoned ‘Residential’.

Figure 2 – Excerpt from existing Structure Plan BACKGROUND Comprehensive planning for the subject lot and surrounding Lots 1-12 Ashton Street was undertaken in 2006. An amendment to the then operative Town Planning Scheme (Amendment 16) was progressed together with a structure plan for the area. The documentation associated with these proposals notes that the size and location of the POS to be ceded from Lot 13 was designed “to accommodate existing trees and a natural drainage area”. Modifications to the structure plan 2008 and 2016, did not alter the POS requirement.

Figure 3 – Excerpt from proposed structure plan showing additional residential lot (in red)


28

CONSULTATION AND ADVICE If the Amendment is initiated by Council, consultation will occur in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015. PLANNING FRAMEWORK WAPC Development Control Policy 2.5 (DC2.5) Lots with an R5 density code (2000m2 minimum lot size) are considered as ‘Special Residential’ for the purposes of DC 2.5. The need for POS in Special Residential areas is determined by DC 2.5 which states: “Because of their spacious character and large lot sizes, the Commission does not specify a standard open space contribution for Special Residential zones. Land for public open space will be required, however, when the provision of recreational open space is considered desirable or when it can include an important topographical feature such as a creek, lake or group of trees which is to be retained as a recreational amenity for residents of the subdivision and the district as a whole.” Shire of Augusta Margaret River POS Strategy 2014 Chardonnay Park is located within a 400m walkable catchment from the subject land. The park contains play equipment and the Shire’s POS Strategy notes that its purpose is to provide “a neighbourhood recreation focus for residents to the north west of town where larger lots are common and the demand for local open space is somewhat less than in higher density residential areas.”

Figure 4 – Excerpt from POS Strategy DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Need for POS As discussed, there is no policy requirement for POS in special residential areas, which includes the subject land. Consistent with the original intent outlined by documentation accompanying Amendment 16 however, a reservation of sufficient size to accommodate drainage and tree retention is however required. In this regard, the draft landscape plan currently being considered by Shire staff identifies that the POS area is sufficient for this purpose. As previously discussed, Chardonnay park is within a 400m walkable distance from the subject lot and provides for the active recreation needs of the local community. A pedestrian access way is also located directly opposite the subject lot and will link future residents to the Margaret River foreshore for walking and passive recreation opportunities.

SUBJECT LAND


29

Figure 5 – Draft Landscape Plan Drainage The Shire has approved detailed engineering plans to allow construction of a detention basin in the POS as approved by way of the existing subdivision approval. On site works are currently underway. Reduction of the POS as proposed will not compromise implementation of the detention basin. There is sufficient area for suitable buffers and passive recreation. Environment As can be seen at figure 3, the creation of one additional lot will not impact upon the retention of existing trees. Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) A BAL contour plan has been submitted with the proposal as required. The plan shows that that BAL contours range from BAL12.5-40. The majority of the site has a BAL 29 or less rating which is the recommended maximum BAL rating as contained in the Planning in Bushfire Prone Area Guidelines. Developer Contributions The subject land falls within Developer Contributions Area 2d (DCA2d) wherein substantial developer contributions are payable given the high level of infrastructure required to support infill development. Contributions are required for three main categories of works including POS, foreshore management and shared infrastructure including roads. As they relate to Lot 13, contributions are fulfilled by provision of land for POS rather than a monetary contribution. The value of the POS equates to a greater contribution than is otherwise required and therefore contributions obtained from surrounding subdividers will be used to reimburse the owner of Lot 13. Reduction of the POS as is proposed will reduce the extent to which the owner of Lot 13 will be reimbursed and will therefore reduce the risk of holding a significant land cost liability for reimbursement by other subdividers. If the subject proposal is finally approved, a review of the cost contribution schedule will be required. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020


30

Goal 3: Managing Growth Sustainably Community Outcome: Clearly defined areas for growth and renewal Strategic Response: Implement Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1) Service Level Strategy/Plan: Provide Planning Services FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The proposal if approved will result in a review of the developer contributions payable by subdividers located in the DCP2d precinct. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The proposed additional residential lot does not contain any remnant vegetation. Social Surrounding residents will be consulted regarding the potential impact of the proposal on their amenity. Economic The proposal will reduce the amount of developer contributions payable in the locality. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Pursuant to section 72 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, amends the above Local

Planning Scheme by: Rezoning a portion of Lot 13 Ashton Street, Margaret River from ‘Parks and Recreation’ to ‘Residential’ and applying an ‘R5’ density code to it, and amending the scheme map accordingly.

2. Determines that the Amendment is ‘standard’ under the provisions of the Planning and

Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as it is: “an amendment that would have minimal impact on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment”

3. Determines that the proposed (modified) Ashton Street Structure Plan dated May 2017 complies

with clause 16 (1) of the Deemed Provisions of LPS1, and can therefore be advertised, subject to the format of the Structure Plan and document being made to comply with the WAPC’s Structure Plan Framework.

ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS Nil RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR SMART OM2017/146 That Council: 1. Pursuant to section 72 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, amends the above Local

Planning Scheme by: Rezoning a portion of Lot 13 Ashton Street, Margaret River from ‘Parks and Recreation’ to ‘Residential’ and applying an ‘R5’ density code to it, and amending the scheme map accordingly.

2. Determines that the Amendment is ‘standard’ under the provisions of the Planning and

Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as it is: “an amendment that would have minimal impact on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment”


31

3. Determines that the proposed (modified) Ashton Street Structure Plan dated May 2017 complies with clause 16 (1) of the Deemed Provisions of LPS1, and can therefore be advertised, subject to the format of the Structure Plan and document being made to comply with the WAPC’s Structure Plan Framework.

CARRIED 6/1 CR TOWNSHEND VOTED AGAINST


32

11.2.2 GRACETOWN SECOND ACCESS ROAD - FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT LOCATION/ADDRESS Gracetown APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Main Roads WA 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 Gracetown. • This investigation was coordinated by MRWA and a technical assessment undertaken by an

intergovernmental working group that reported the outcome of this assessment to the State Government in 2013. The working group found that it was possible to construct a second access to Gracetown, 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 supports the findings of the Gracetown Second Access Feasibility Report – May 2017 into the provision of a second access road to Gracetown, noting that Option 4A in the Feasibility Report is considered the most appropriate alignment as: 1. The alignment maximises separation from Cowaramup Bay Road and so the potential for

alternative access. 2. It is an option with minimal visual impact from key viewing locations. 3. It reduces issues associated with establishing a road adjacent to the coast and avoids the Cape to

Cape track. 4. It has an acceptable geometry and minimises land clearing through following an existing track. TABLED ITEMS Gracetown Second Access Feasibility Assessment BACKGROUND A number of significant fire events have occurred in the vicinity of Gracetown, with access closed to Gracetown as a consequence of one of the most recent. The November 2011 Bushfires resulted in road closures to other coastal communities in the Shire, with these communities subsequently isolated. The State Government investigation into the cause of the 2011 Bushfires resulted in the then Premier tabling in Parliament what is known as the Keelty Report ‘Appreciating the Risk – The Report of the Special Inquiry into the November 2011 Margaret River Bushfire’. While not a recommendation of the Keelty Report, the Premier announced other actions to be undertaken as a result of considering the findings, which included investigation of additional, or ‘second’ access roads to selected coastal communities. These access roads were to be investigated for the purpose of providing reasonable and alternative evacuation routes in the event of bushfires. An intergovernmental working group was subsequently formed to review, from a technical perspective, whether a second access could be provided to various townsites that currently had a single access road. 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 of a second access to


33

Gracetown was feasible and identified the opportunities and constrains associated with various alignments. The findings of the working group were reported to Government with the Department of Premier and Cabinet subsequently directing that further investigation be undertaken. An intergovernmental steering group was formed and further assessment undertaken by way of a ‘feasibility analysis’ which is the subject of this report. The proposed expansion of Gracetown was also subject to feasibility assessment in the late 1990’s, which led to the identification of development potential at Gracetown within State Planning Policy 6.1 – Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge (SPP6.1). This assessment included consideration of secondary access to Gracetown2 and identified, at a preliminary level, a preferred second access route to Gracetown. This alignment is termed the ‘Koltasz Smith Preferred Alignment’ in the feasibility assessment. The proposal for expansion of Gracetown was then developed through the 2000’s and the final version formally considered through a Scheme Amendment and Structure Plan that was given final approval by the WAPC in 2016. This endorsed proposal did not include a second access and instead relied on a series of alternative measures to address the risk of fire contained in the Bushfire Management Plan (BMP). These measures and the graphical representation of the BMP associated with the Gracetown Structure Plan is included as Attachment 1. While the BMP was endorsed by DFES it was also noted at the time that while the measures were considered acceptable, it did not mean this was an optimal solution. It was also evident through feedback on the Gracetown development proposal that there was a significant number of residents within Gracetown that view a second access as necessary for traffic management and amenity reasons. FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT The original recommendations of the working group were considered further by the steering group with eight options considered in detail. A plan of these options is included below as Figure 1, with a comparative comment on their respective issues as follows.

Option Comment Van Tripp Road Unconstructed road reserve option

Not considered any further due to findings of original Working Group.

Option 1 Cowaramup Brook

Does not provide any appreciable time benefit to escape from a fire.

Option 2 Koltaz-Smith preferred alignment

Does not provide any appreciable time benefit to escape from a fire.

Option 3 Coastal Route

While this provides the most evacuation benefit, it has significant environmental impact, and impacts the Cape to Cape Track. The CRG did not support this option.

Option 4A Inland north-south route

The preferred option of the Steering Group and CRG. Majority of the alignment follows existing tracks and is remote to the coast.

Option 4B Combination of Option 4 and 6

Similar to Option 4A with the exception being that the alignment deviates towards the coast at the northern end. Although this alignment has some engineering advantages over Option 4A it may have a greater environmental impact.

Option 5 Eastern North-South Route

This option was developed after a suggestion from the CRG. Although almost entirely following existing tracks/cleared land, it has a section with an east-west orientation that is less desirable in the event of a fire moving from north to south. Additionally it impacts on private land.

2 Gracetown Potential Access Routes, Koltasz Smith and Partners (Stage 1a – February 2000, Stage 1b – August 2002)


34

Option 6 Inland Direct Route

While this option had direct access to Caves Road, the east-west orientation was less desirable in the event of a fire moving from north to south. Additionally, most of the alignment did not follow existing tracks and passed through an environmentally sensitive area.

While Option 3 (the ‘Coastal Route’) was the preferred alignment reported to Parliament as an outcome of the working group, subsequent evaluation by the steering group found this alignment unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. Consequently detailed investigation focused on the alignment termed Option 4A.

Figure 1. Plan of Proposed Options The feasibility of Option 4A is informed by technical evaluation detailed further in this report. The scope of work built into the design and costing of Option 4A includes:


35

• Service relocation; • Environmental offsets; • Construction of the road; • Construction of northern tie in at Salter Street; • Reconstruction of intersection with Lefthanders Road; • Widening of Salter Street at tie in; • Widening of the Ellen Brook Road to a 9m pavement width from Caves Road to the second access

tie in. • Reconstruction of the Ellen Brook Road/Caves Road junction, in either a staggered ‘T’ or

roundabout configuration. 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 4A was the best option available. • Specific on site meetings and evaluation of alternative options raised by the CRG. • Formal consultation in January/February 2017. 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 Gracetown and in the wider area, east and west of Caves Road. A report on the consultation process and outcomes is included as Attachment 2. Consultation was focused around two key questions: • Whether a second fire access road was needed. • Whether option 4A was an appropriate alignment. 355 responses were received in total. Responses to key questions were as follows: A secondary access road to Gracetown is needed? • Agree: 267 (75%) • Disagree: 88 (25%) Is Option 4A an appropriate alignment? • Agree: 245 (69%) • Disagree: 41 (13%) • No answer: 3 (~1%) The consultation revealed general community support for a second access road and the preferred alignment of Option 4A. The comments made both for and against the provision of a second road and each option is included in Attachment 2. In addition a petition of 38 signatures was received from the Gracetown Progress Association (GPA). The GPA continue to express a strong view that a second access is required to address two main concerns: 1. Emergency access and exit (particularly in the case of fire); and 2. The management of increasing traffic flows through the town to ensure the preservation of amenity,

particularly considering the effects of increasing residential and construction traffic that would eventuate from the potential expansion of residential development at Gracetown.

The views raised through submissions are considered in relation to specific elements of the feasibility assessment discussed below.


36

DISCUSSION Bushfire management and evacuation Assessment of the extent of any potential benefit of a second access was assisted by the provision of fire spread predictions undertaken by DPaW/DFES. The example selected was a fire moving from north to south and based on a reconstruction of the 2011 bushfires. This assessment shows that the time for fire under those circumstances to impact Ellen Brook Road (from Cowaramup Bay Road) is approximately 1 hour 45 minutes. The conclusion in the feasibility report that is drawn partly from this modelling, is that the objective of maximum separation between Cowaramup Bay Road and the potential options is best achieved by Option 4A. There are a number of factors that are relevant to the actual benefit of secondary access in response to particular conditions on a given day. These include the nature of a particular emergency, the type of event, and the position of the incident controller of the day in relation to the particular risk of an event. The steering group had previously noted that generally two accesses are better than one in providing options for responding to particular events; a position supported by the standard requirement for dual access in the Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas guidelines (WAPC, 2015). There were a number of submissions that made comment on the conclusions reached in the fire spread modelling exercise. It is noted that there may be a range of other scenarios encountered or that may cause or influence a particular event. The key factors leading to the choice of the type of event modelled are: 1. Cowaramup Bay Road’s east/west orientation is more likely to be directly impacted by a north/south

fire event. 2. As Cowaramup Bay Road is north of the existing townsite a fire from the south already affords an

option to consider whether this road would be able to remain open for access in a particular event. 3. The relevant agencies consider that winds under a northerly influence produce the greatest fire

danger rating. The feasibility report also emphasises the point made by both submissions and members of the steering group and the CRG, that a second access is not the only method to improve safety and prepare for bushfires, and does not guarantee community safety in such events. Design All alignments have been designed in a preliminary form by MRWA. A key influencing factor of the design is the horizontal and vertical geometry of each alignment. The Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas guidelines specify a desirable maximum gradient for an access road of 10%. The alignments of most options are reasonably at or below the 10% maximum such that gradient isn’t a defining factor. Option 5 does however include some difficult terrain that would require substantial earthworks towards the southern end. The ‘coastal route’ (Option 3) would require significant earthworks and drainage solutions. The standard of construction included in the design is based on a number of factors, which led to a selected construction requirement of an eight-metre seal on a nine-metre formation. Connectivity At the northern end all options connect to the current termination of Salter Street. Localised upgrades will be required to Salter Street and the Lefthanders Road access point adjusted. At the southern end options 3, 4A, 4B and 5 all connect to Ellen Brook Road. Any of these connections would require modification to some of the curves on Ellen Brook Road, with Option 5 requiring the least improvements and 3 the most. Due to the volume of traffic likely to use the connection (around 1400vpd in peak periods, including the residential expansion of Gracetown), modification to the Caves Road/Ellen Brook Road junction would be required. Two different solutions have been investigated, a staggered ‘T’ junction and a roundabout. As an optimal safety solution, a roundabout would be a preferred solution. One of the key issues raised by submissions was the current impacts of traffic on amenity in the Gracetown Townsite, and the increase in these impacts from traffic growth, the future residential expansion in Gracetown, and associated construction traffic. While these concerns are noted, the


37

investigation undertaken is in the context of providing solutions to address safety and risk from bushfire events. Land Tenure All options require the excision of land from the National Park. The difference in area that would be required is not a determining factor in a comparison of the options. It is possible that if funded, works could be progressed prior to formal excision of the land for the road reserve. Option 5 also requires acquisition of private land and preliminary discussions suggest the landowner would be strongly opposed. Some of the upgrading works required to Ellen Brook Road and the Caves/Ellen Brook junction may also require some land acquisition, the extent of which would be determined through detailed design. Environmental Assessment All alignments require both clearing of vegetation in the National Park and would create further ongoing impacts through severance. The approximate footprint and clearing areas for each of the options is described below:

Option Footprint (Ha) Approx. Clearing % Clearing Area (Ha) 3 7.1 95 6.8

4A 10 75 7.5 4B 10.8 85 9.2 5 13.5 60 8.1 6 9.9 90 8.9

The comparatively lesser percentage involved in clearing for Option 4A is partly reflecting that the alignment follows an existing access track. Spring flora and vegetation surveys have been conducted for Options 3 and 4A. No flora protected under State or Federal legislation was identified in the alignment of either Option 3 or 4A. One priority 3 and one priority 4 species was found in the Option 3 alignment. One priority 3 and two priority 4 species was found in the Option 4A alignment. All these priority species are otherwise well represented in the local area, including within DPaW managed reserves. Options 5 and 6 have not been formally assessed however, the northern sections of the options follow Options 4A and 4B respectively. Options 5 and 6 differ from the others in that they traverse a greater variety of vegetation/habitat types. Overall, Option 4A is considered to have the least impact with regard to flora and vegetation. Preliminary site/desktop fauna surveys have been conducted with more detailed fauna survey of Option 4A in progress. Due to the nature of the vegetation in the alignment of each option and the extent of clearing proposed, Option 4A is considered to have the least impact on fauna. All options include clearing within the National Park and the introduction of effects from severance. The extent of the effects of severance are difficult to quantify, however, any of the options will cause further environmental impacts through severance and consequential impacts such as edge effects and road kill. Should any of the options proceed to be further developed, more detailed environmental assessment would be required and corresponding levels of environmental approvals determined at that point. A key issue raised through submissions is the potential for additional access tracks to be developed heading west from a second access and the impacts on the environment of illegal camping. The preferred alignment of Option 4A is reasonably well separated from the coast, sufficient to be a similar distance from the key coastal locations of the Lefthanders and Ellensbrook carparks and associated access roads. Since closure of vehicular access in this section of the coast and the development of carparks and formal access at Lefthanders and Ellensbrook there hasn’t been a proliferation of illegal access in this section of the coast. Option 4A would likely see a continuation of people using the main access and parking areas already provided for, however some access restrictions may be required.


38

Visual Impact A visual impact assessment has been undertaken on Options 3, 4A and 4B, with Option 4A less visible than any of the other identified options. Option 4A is described as ‘barely visible’ from key viewing locations due to screening from vegetation, topography and the location of the horizon line. Karst A preliminary geotechnical karst investigation was undertaken along the alignment of option 4A. The conclusion was that the risk of encountering karst landforms that would significantly impact construction was ‘tolerable’. There are no know karst features recorded by the Speleological Society within the area, with Meekadarrabe Cave approximately 800m to the south west of Option 4A. Heritage Option 4A was the subject of an Aboriginal Heritage Survey completed in January 2017. The survey included an archaeological site assessment and consultation with representatives from the South West Boojarah Working Party. No new archaeological or ethnographic sites were identified that would be impacted by Option 4A. The representatives present were supportive of the need for the access road. No European heritage issues are known to exist with any of the proposed options. 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 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. The road is a significant undertaking with concept estimates being undertaken for both Options 4A and 5. These are currently:

Project Component Option 4A $ (ex GST)

Option 5 $ (ex GST)

Project Development - Stage 2 250,000 250,000 Subtotal 250,000 250,000

Preconstruction (services, land, survey, offsets etc) 1,504,000 2,298,000 General and Management 1,380,000 1,380,000 Road Construction 7,990,000 10,240,000 Northern Tie In 195,000 195,000 Southern Tie In 108,000 108,000 Ellen Brook Road Upgrades 987,000 635,000 Ellen Brook Road / Caves Road Intersection 1,557,000 1,557,000


39

Reseals 380,000 380,000 Subtotal 14,101,000 16,793,000

Associated Works

Additional Traffic Calming measures 50,000 50,000 Reconciling road reserves/National Park 100,000 100,000 Targeted Fencing Adjacent Road 100,000 100,000 Works on Cowaramup Bay Road to reduce fire risk 680,000 680,000

Subtotal 930,000 930,000

Grand Total 15,281,000 17,973,000 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 Gracetown 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 draft feasibility assessment describes how this work could be undertaken and what is considered the most appropriate way to achieve a second access. Additional measures further considered at the detailed design stage may also assist in further mitigating impacts. These include speed limit restrictions and rehabilitation of existing access tracks in the area of the proposed additional access. Social 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. There is also a reasonable number of submissions opposed to the establishment of a second access, specifically highlighting the environmental consequences and potential to impact on the integrity of the National Park. 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 supports the findings of the Gracetown Second Access Feasibility Report – May 2017 into the provision of a second access road to Gracetown, noting that Option 4A in the Feasibility Report is considered the most appropriate alignment as: 1. The alignment maximises separation from Cowaramup Bay Road and so the potential for

alternative access. 2. It is an option with minimal visual impact from key viewing locations. 3. It reduces issues associated with establishing a road adjacent to the coast and avoids the Cape to

Cape track. 4. It has an acceptable geometry and minimises land clearing through following an existing track. ATTACHMENTS 1. Endorsed Gracetown Bushfire Management Plan actions and Plan 2. Gracetown Second Access Community Consultation Report


40

RECOMMENDATION CR EARL, CR That Council supports the findings of the Gracetown Second Access Feasibility Report – May 2017 into the provision of a second access road to Gracetown, noting that Option 4A in the Feasibility Report is considered the most appropriate alignment as: 1. The alignment maximises separation from Cowaramup Bay Road and so the potential for

alternative access. 2. It is an option with minimal visual impact from key viewing locations. 3. It reduces issues associated with establishing a road adjacent to the coast and avoids the

Cape to Cape track. 4. It has an acceptable geometry and minimises land clearing through following an existing

track. 0/0

Cr Townshend foreshadowed the following motion: FORESHADOWED MOTION That Council does not support the finding of the Gracetown Second Access Road Feasibility Report. The primary motion lapsed for want of a seconder, Cr Townshend then moved her foreshadowed motion: FORESHADOWED MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR TOWNSHEND, CR SMART OM2017/147 That Council does not support the finding of the Gracetown Second Access Road Feasibility Report.

CARRIED 6/1 CR EARL VOTED AGAINST

REASON Cr Townshend spoke to the motion, making reference to deputations from Will Berliner and David Rankin at Item 7.0, stating their arguments against the road were very compelling. Councillors that voted in favour of the foreshadowed motion were collectively against any road due to environmental reasons. Cr Lane foreshadowed the following motion: FORESHADOWED PROCEDURAL MOTION That the item be deferred pending the confirmation of the fire risk of the Van Tripp Road option. As the primary foreshadowed motion was carried, Cr Lane’s foreshadowed motion was not put.


41

11.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY - DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER N/A FILE REFERENCE ENV/26 REPORT AUTHOR Matt Cuthbert, Strategic Project Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Dale Putland, Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF • Preparation of an environment strategy is a project identified by the Shire’s Corporate Business

Plan. • The purpose of the Strategy is to provide a strategic framework for planning projects, improving

business structures and allocating resources towards environmental management and sustainability.

• Development of the Strategy has been preceded by release of an Issues Paper as a means of harnessing community input into the development of the Strategy.

• It is recommended that the draft Strategy be released for broader community input. RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the release of the draft Environmental Sustainability Strategy for the purpose of community consultation. BACKGROUND An Issues Paper was released for public comment in late 2016 with the submission period closing in February 2017. The purpose of the Issues Paper was to articulate to the community the Shire’s current environmental priorities and the projects and level of resources currently being directed to each one. The rationale for the issues paper was to generate community feedback which would go to inform the development of the Strategy. In addition to the 51 submissions received, direct input was sought from the Sustainability Advisory Committee and all known local environmental groups. THE PROPOSAL Key elements of the Strategy are: Vision – This provides the focus for the Strategy with all actions aimed at achieving the vision. A vision is an aspirational statement about where we want to be in the future. The vision articulated by the Strategy is: Our interaction with the Shire of Augusta Margaret River’s natural environment is harmonious, and results in outcomes which are beneficial for both the environment and the community. We are a sustainable Shire which sustains and is sustained by our natural environment. Action Areas - The consultation process to date suggests that there are three key spheres which the Shire should focus upon to improve environmental outcomes. These are Corporate, Collaborative and Community. The chosen action areas respond directly to these areas as shown in the diagram below. Each action area has a series of pathways and projects assigned to it (see Discussion section for examples). Focus Areas – These are the five key environmental issues for which there is community support for the Shire’s involvement. Each focus area has a goal, a series of projects and one or more targets. Projects are designed to ensure attention is given to the corporate/collaborative and community space (see Discussion section for examples). The Focus Areas are:


42

• Climate Change • Green energy • Water • Natural Areas • Consumption CONSULTATION Consultation to date has been undertaken as informed by release of the ‘Issues Paper’. This has included direct input from the SAC, all known environmental groups operating in the Shire and the general public. The results have influenced the development of the Strategy. Subject to support from Council, the draft Strategy will be subject to a community consultation period of 4 weeks. DISCUSSION Examples of recommendations included in the strategy are: Action Area: Governance Pathway: An ‘Environment First’ Policy Project: Review the Shire’s Sustainability Policy. An environment first policy explains to the community how the Shire interpret the three pillars of sustainability. An environment first policy reinforces the natural environment as the basis for community life and economic development. Rather than sustainability being a balance between the three pillars it recognises that without a healthy and sustainable environment, continuous economic propsperity and community well being is impossible. Sometimes referred to as reducing our ecological footrint or ‘one planet living’, an environment first policy encourages us to live within our means. Action Area: Funding Pathway: Increased Funding Project: Ensure annual budgets (from 18/19 onwards) include an allocation of 3.0% of rate revenue towards environmental and sustainability projects (otherwise referred to as the Environmental and Sustainability Fund (ESF). In the 2016/17 financial year approximately $19 million of rate revenue was collected by the Shire. The Environmental Managament Fund, at $100,000 represents 0.5% of total revenue. Council have indicated that the fund should be increased over time to 1% of rate revenue. In reality, a much larger amount of money is spent each year by the Shire on positive evironmental initiatives. When broader ‘sustainability’ projects are included, the Shire spent, 2.4% (or approximately $468,000) of its rate revenue in the 2016/17 financial year on environmental and sustainability based projects. This includes inititiatives such as LEAP, Living Smart, possum protection, carbon offsets and LED light replacement. As demonstrated in 2016/17, 2.4% of rate revenue is a realistic contribution towards environmental projects from a financial perspective. Coupled with Council’s intention to grow the EMF to 1% of rate revenue over time, this rises to a commitment of 3% of rate revenue. Based on an estimated rate contribution of $21 million in 18/19 this equates to $630,000. Committing a defined percentage of rate revenue from future budgets towards environmental sustainability means that as rate revenue rises over time, so to will the amount available for that purpose. In order to maintain this level of funding into the future, It is reccomended that the EMF form part fo a broader Environmental and Sustainability Fund, and that funding be allocated at a rate of 3% of projected rate revenue each financial year. Focus Area: Climate Change Goal: A resilient Shire Targets: Responding to climate change consistent with global commitments.Maintain current levels of human and environmental health. Projects: Develop and implement a climate change adaptation plan Provide resources to enable behaviour change amongst the community


43

Implement actions arising from the Coastal Hazard Risk Management Adaptation Planning (CHRMAP) 5 year works plan Fund annual tree planting program to offset a proportion of corporate carbon emissions. Focus Area: Green Energy Goal: A low carbon Shire Targets: Zero net carbon emissions by 2050 Projects: Implement the Local Energy Action Plan (LEAP) Support progress of community energy installation Sponsor workshops and forums to share knowledge and increase access to renewable energy for households and businesses Replace infrastructure in Shire buildings with energy efficient fittings (e.g LED lighting) Continue to install renewable energy systems across existing and planned Shire buildings. Full details of all reccomendations can be found in the draft document (see attachement 2) STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 1: Valuing the natural environment Community Outcome 1.4: Ecology and biodiversity protection Strategic Response: Collaborate with state Government to protect the biodiversity of the Shire. Service level strategy/plan: Finalise Environmental and Sustainability Strategy. PLANNING FRAMEWORK The Strategy once finalised will inform corporate business planning including key documents such as the Long Term Financial Plan, Corporate Plan and yearly Business Plans. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The strategy recommends that future budgets allocate no less than 3% of rate revenue towards environmental and sustainability projects, SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The Strategy will guide the Shire’s environmental activities over the next 10 years. Social The Strategy has a grass roots focus recognising that the community has a large role to play in implementing the recommendations of the Strategy Economic The sustainability of the Shire’s economy is intrinsically linked to the quality of our environment. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council approves the release of the draft Environmental Sustainability Strategy for the purpose of community consultation. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Issues Paper 2. Draft Environment Strategy Acting Director Corporate and Community Services left Chambers at 7.31pm Acting Director Corporate and Community Services returned to Chambers at 7.35pm


44

RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR TOWNSHEND, CR LANE OM2017/148 That Council approves the release of the draft Environmental Sustainability Strategy for the purpose of community consultation.

CARRIED 7/0


45

11.2.4 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (STAGE 1) - MARAGRET RIVER LIFESTYLE VILLAGE, LOTS 104 AND 105 BUSSELL HIGHWAY, MARGARET RIVER LOCATION/ADDRESS Lots 104 and 105 Bussell Highway, Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER The Building Development Group Pty Ltd FILE REFERENCE PTY/514 PTY/2648; P216517 REPORT AUTHOR Johan Pienaar, Statutory Planning Coordinator AUTHORISING OFFICER Dale Putland, Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF • Council issued approval on 22 March 2017 for a “Park Home Park” and the development of relevant

infrastructure on Lots 104 and 105 Bussell Highway, Margaret River (the Site). • Condition 26 of the approval requires the preparation and approval of a Local Development Plan

(LDP). • The proposed LDP sets detailed site and development standards. The deemed provisions of Local

Planning Scheme No.1 (the Scheme) allows development to be exempted from development approval if the proposed development complies with the provisions of an approved LDP.

• The Site will be developed in three stages. The proposed LDP is for stage 1. • The proposed LDP standards and provisions are an appropriate response to the requirements

under development approval P216517, Scheme provisions and approved Structure Plan. • The proposed LDP for Stage 1 is supported subject to minor modifications. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Approves, pursuant to clause 52 of the Deemed Provision of Local Planning Scheme No.1., the

Stage 1 Local Development Plan for Lots 104 and 105 Bussell Highway, Margaret River (Revision A dated 8 June 2017 received on 19 June 2017) subject to modifications; and

2. Delegate the determination of Local Development Plans for future stages to the Director of Sustainable Development.

SITE AND SURROUNDS Lots 104 and 105 Bussell Highway, Margaret River (the Site) are located approximately 2.5km south of the Margaret River town centre on the western side of Bussell Highway, opposite the entrance to the Brookfield Estate.


46

Figure 1 – Location Plan TABLED ITEMS Approved Structure Plan BACKGROUND The Site is zoned ‘Future Development’ and is within a four-lot precinct identified in the Scheme as Structure Plan Area No. 20 (SPA20). Schedule 11 of the Scheme contains relevant provisions to guide subdivision and development of the site. A Structure Plan was approved in 2015, incorporating provisions to be addressed at certain stages of the development process. The WAPC issued conditional subdivision approval in December 2016 to facilitate the development of a public road, as depicted on the approved Structure Plan. The subdivision approval includes a condition, which requires the ceding of the public open space (POS) free of cost to the crown. Council issued on 22 March 2017 development approval P216517 for a “Park Home Park” and development of relevant infrastructure associated with the park home park use. The development approval allows for a staged approach. Condition 26 of the development approval requires the preparation of a LDP to guide future development on the Site. THE PROPOSAL The LDP submitted for consideration is for the first stage of the development and is included as Attachment 1. Stage 1 is situated in the north-eastern corner of the Site and includes the majority of the north-south public road, POS area on the eastern side of the new public road, club house and the development of internal roads to provide access to 37 lease areas. The LDP comprise of the following:

• Stage 1 layout plan identifying which park home designs are suitable for the different lease areas. The layout plan is generally consistent with Council’s development approval P216517. The development approval plan is included as Attachment 2;

• Identifying a 1m “tree retention zone” and a further 0,5m “possible tree retention” zone.(Fig.1 on LDP plan and addendum 1);

• A suite of site and development standards relating to aspects such as setbacks, streetscape, fencing, open space, bushfire mitigation etc;

The Site


47

• Addendum 1, identifying trees that are inside the “tree retention” and “possible tree retention” zones; and

• Addendums 2a, 2b, 3 and 4 providing design details on the proposed park homes, clubhouse, fencing, retaining and feature walls and access control gates.

Local Planning Scheme No.1 (the Scheme) and Caravan Park and Camping Grounds Regulations 1997 (the Regulations) The LDP is prepared under the Provisions of Part 6 – Local Development Plans of the Deemed Provisions of Local Planning Scheme no.1. The purpose of a LDP is to set specific and detailed guidance for future development on a site, including site and development standards that are to apply to the development. The LDP may include specifying exemptions from the requirement to obtain development approval. The proposed LDP includes a provision specifying compliance with the provisions of the LDP exempts development from further development approval. The proposed LDP is generally consistent with the WAPC guidelines for the manner and form in which a LDP must be prepared. Due to the “park home park” land use classification the proponent is required, under the provisions of the Caravan Park and Camping Grounds Regulations 1997, to obtain written approval from the local government. The written approval is in lieu of a building permit and is required before bringing a park home onto the site. Any request for written approval is be accompanied with a certificate that the proposed park home design meets the building code of Australia. Compliance with the LDP provisions will be assessed at the ‘request for written approval’ stage. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE The advertising of the LDP is not considered necessary, as the implementation of the plan will not result in any adverse off-site impacts. Clause 50(3) of the Deemed Provisions of Local Planning Scheme No.1 allows for discretion not to advertise a LDP if “…the local government is satisfied that the plan is not likely to adversely affect any owners or occupiers within the area covered by the plan or an adjoining area”. DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Development approval P216517 allows the development to be undertaken in three stages. The proponent has opted to develop a separate LDP for each stage. Notwithstanding, any provisions approved on the stage 1 LDP will be applicable to any of the LDP’s for subsequent stages. The only variable between the LDP’s for each stage is the map. It is therefore recommended that the approval of the LDP’s for subsequent stages be delegated to the Director of Sustainable Development. The key elements of the proposed LDP are discussed below. Vegetation retention A key aspect of the Scheme provisions and the approved Structure Plan is the protection of vegetation on the site. In addition to the vegetation protection areas identified on the approved Structure Plan and development approval site plan, it was considered appropriate to apply a condition to the development approval, which requires trees worthy of retention to be identified. In response to this condition of development approval, a 1m wide “tree retention’ zone is identified around the lease area boundaries, as shown in figure 1 (insert) on the LDP plan. Any trees inside this 1m wide zone will be retained. A further 0,5m is identified as a possible tree retention zone”. Trees may be retained in this 0.5m zone subject to the park home design that are chosen for the specific lease area and appropriate siting of the building within the setback provisions of the LDP. Addendum 1 of the LDP show the trees that fall within the 1m and 0.5m zones. This approach is considered an appropriate response to condition 16 of development approval P216517. The trees within the 1m tree retention zone is required to be identified onsite to ensure the trees are retained during the development of the site. Provision 30 requires the marking of trees in the tree preservation zone to ensure the trees are not removed during the development of the site. Amenity An appropriate level of amenity/streetscape is important in the context of density and relative small lease areas. Eight park home designs have been developed for the site and is included as addendum


48

2a and 2b to the LDP. To avoid a monotonous street and roof scape, a 50% maximum limit is set on the same elevation or material and colours in a street. More than one street elevation treatment is compatible to some of the proposed floor plans, which will facilitate compliance with the 50% maximum limit provisions. Provision 19 include a requirement for a minimum of two colours and two materials and at least one architectural feature (porch, feature wall, verandah etc.) be incorporated for visual interest. This proposed provisions relating to streetscape is appropriate. Bushfire and Quite House design The proposed LDP map shows the BAL29, which corresponds with the BAL29 contour line of the approved Bushfire Management Plan (BMP). Provision 35 confirms that development must not exceed the BAL 29 standard. The BMP also specifies site-specific seatbacks for lots along the POS and vegetation retention areas. Provisions 12 of the LDP draws attention to the site-specific setback requirements under the BMP. During the Structure Planning of the site an Acoustic Report was prepared, which requires specific elements, as a noise mitigation measure, to be incorporated in the design of the park homes along the Bussell Highway Boundary of the site. The above design requirements and standards, including demonstrating compliance with AS3959 – Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas will be confirmed at the written consent stage of the development process. Provisions 34, 36 and 24 of the LDP deals with these development and procedural requirements. Fencing A selection of fence designs is proposed for the various interfaces in the development. Addendum 3 of the LDP shows the fencing details; in particular, solid fencing is proposed along the Bussell Highway boundary of the site, which is a variation to the open style fencing required under the relevant Structure Plan provision. The Structure Plan provision is aimed at reducing visual impacts in the context of potential reduction of fuel loads in the road reserve, to achieve appropriate bushfire management outcomes. A BMP has since been approved and fuel reduction along the majority of the Bussell Highway boundary is not a requirement; therefore, the proposed limestone fence is supported, as it will not result in the adverse visual impacts. The proposed solid limestone fence will assist in mitigating Bussell Highway traffic noise. Clubhouse The clubhouse design is included in the LDP as addendum 4. It is proposed to commence the development of the clubhouse as part of stage 1; however, the clubhouse will not be finished prior to the placing of the first park homes on the site. The proponent has agreed to a provision to require the completion of stage 1 of the clubhouse prior to the occupation of any park homes in stage 2. The proponent anticipates stage 1 of the clubhouse to be finished towards the second half of 2018. Minor Modifications Prevision 27 requires the provision of 4m² enclosed storage area. The proponent is providing external storage, which will vary in size depending on park home design and lease are size. The proponent has confirmed that 4m² storage will be provided for each park home as a combination of internal and external storage area. It is recommended that provision 27 be amended to reflect the developer’s intensions, by adding, by way of explanation the words “...may be a combination of internal and external storage area…” in brackets after the provision. Provision 30 requires the marking of trees in the tree preservation zone and refers to figure 1. Figure 1 identifies the 1m tree preservation zone, whereas the trees to be marked for retention is reflected on addendum 1. It is recommended that provision 30 be amended by replacing the reference to “figure 1” with reference to “addendum1”. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 3: Managing Growth Sustainably Community Outcome: Clearly defined areas for growth and renewal Strategic Response: Implement Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1)


49

Service Level Strategy/Plan: Provide Planning Services FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The proposed development will have no financial implication for the Shire. The LDP, if approved, will exempt development from the need for further planning approval. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The retention of vegetation assessed to be in excellent condition is considered to be a realistic outcome. The LDP incorporates provisions to facilitate the retention of trees that are located outside the identified vegetation retention areas. Social The propose development will provide an alternative and affordable form of housing in the Shire for the over 55 demographic. The development will provide affordability, security and a sense of community for residents in a development with high natural amenity supported by onsite community services and infrastructure. Economic The proposed development will increase the value of the rateable lots. Developer contributions are required for Shire wide facilities and the development of local footpath infrastructure. The proposed development will additionally create several jobs associated with the construction and ongoing maintenance of site infrastructure and facilities such as the clubhouse. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Approves, pursuant to clause 52 of the Deemed Provision of Local Planning Scheme No.1, the

Stage 1 Local Development Plan for Lots 104 and 105 Bussell Highway, Margaret River (Revision A dated 8 June 2017 received on 19 June 2017) subject to the following modifications:

a) By adding by way of explanation the words “...may be a combination of internal and

external storage area…” in brackets at the end of provision 27, and b) By replacing the reference to “figure 1” in provision 30 with reference to “addendum 1”.

2. Delegates the determination of Local Development Plans for future stages to the Director of

Sustainable Development. ATTACHMENTS 1. Local Development Plan 2. Approved Site Plan RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR SMART, CR KENNAUGH OM2017/149 That Council: 1. Approves, pursuant to clause 52 of the Deemed Provision of Local Planning Scheme No.1,

the Stage 1 Local Development Plan for Lots 104 and 105 Bussell Highway, Margaret River (Revision A dated 8 June 2017 received on 19 June 2017) subject to the following modifications:

a) By adding by way of explanation the words “...may be a combination of internal and

external storage area…” in brackets at the end of provision 27, and

b) By replacing the reference to “figure 1” in provision 30 with reference to “addendum 1”. 2. Delegates the determination of Local Development Plans for future stages to the Director of

Sustainable Development.


50

CARRIED 7/0


51

11.2.5 AMR CLEAN COMMUNITY ENERGY REQUEST FOR FUNDING LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE ENV/119 REPORT AUTHOR Jared Drummond, Sustainability Planning Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Dale Putland, Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF • The recently formed Augusta Margaret River Clean Community Energy group (AMRCCE) is

seeking to use funds allocated in the 2016/17 budget for a renewable energy feasibility study, to assist towards seed funding for a business case to develop a large-scale renewable energy project.

• The nature of the funding request is considered to be generally in accordance with funding allocated in the 2016/17 budget.

• The proposed project is in line with the Shire’s community emission reduction targets, and the key project in the Corporate Plan to support the community based alternative energy windfarm project feasibility study.

• Income generated from the project is proposed to be used for ‘behind the meter’ community renewable energy projects, such as solar PV installations on community buildings and lower income households.

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Carries forward $12,000 from the 2016/17 Planning and Development Services budget as seed



a) successful completion of a feasibility study, which demonstrates a large-scale renewable project is economically viable and feasible at a determined site.


c) formal support from a landowner willing to enter into an agreement to develop a large-scale renewable energy project;

3. Supports and endorse AMRCCE as a vehicle for achieving Council’s LEAP; and 4. Assists AMRCCE to hold community consultative meetings to promote the group. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND The Shire held a community renewable energy workshop in June 2014. An outcome of the workshop was for the Shire to assist community to develop a large-scale community wind farm. The LEAP was reviewed in October 2014, with one of the actions being to assist the community towards preparing a proposal to initiate a major community wind farm project. The Corporate Plan (2016-2020) included a priority to ‘partner with Curtin University to support the community based alternative energy windfarm project feasibility study’. The Shire of Augusta Margaret River set up a Working Party in May 2016, which consisted of approximately 20 community members with expertise in renewable energy and/or financial


52

backgrounds. The intent of the Working Party was to assist Curtin University and the Shire in preparing a feasibility study to evaluate the potential for a large-scale community renewable energy project in the Shire. The Curtin University PhD student involved in this project has since put their PhD on hold indefinitely. The AMRCCE has been formed by members of the working party. The aim of the company is to implement the Shire’s community LEAP targets aimed at reducing carbon emissions and increasing uptake of renewable energy. To facilitate the above, $12,000 was included in the 2016/17 budget as contribution towards a wind farm feasibility project. This funding has not been utilised at this point. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Proposal The initial proposal considered by the working party was to develop a 10MW renewable energy system (solar and/or wind farm) connected to the electricity grid. The Vision for this project adopted by the Working Party was to: Form a not-for-profit community action group (known as AMRCCE) dedicated to reducing carbon emissions in the Shire through:

a) Partnering with others to create a renewable energy (solar and/or wind) facility in AMRS that produces and sells to the grid clean renewable energy equivalent to 20% of the electricity consumed each year in the Shire; and

b) Set up community-owned and community-sponsored projects design to collectively achieve a minimum reduction of 20% of the carbon emissions in the Shire.

The vision is aligned with the Shire’s LEAP community emission reduction and renewable generation goals. If successful, the proposed project is expected to far exceed the adopted community LEAP targets. The share of profits from the project will be used to support ongoing community-owned renewable projects. The aims for AMRCCE is to facilitate the development of projects that:

o Achieve LEAP community emissions reduction targets; o Improves the purchasing power in the local community through reducing expenditure on

grid electricity; o Provides access to renewable energy for those who might be excluded for socio-economic

or similar reasons; o Allows the value created by AMRCCE volunteers in establishing the projects to be returned

to the Shire community; o Celebrates, and is empowered by community engagement; o Invests a share of profits paid back to the community for more sustainable and renewable

energy projects; o Support by fostering local economic development through local investment and local jobs.

Anticipated costs The anticipated project cost is $20 – 25 million. The business case is expected to cost around $400 - $500k to prepare. The business case will determine whether there is a bankable business case for the project. These costs include Western Power approvals and applications (valued at approximately $60,000), detailed feasibility studies and individual technical reports i.e. environmental reports. The AMRCCE will create assets/intellectual property equivalent to $400 - $500k through the work of volunteers, use of donations, grants etc. The AMRCCE structure report (Attachment 1) outlines that the Shire community currently exports $20m of local purchasing power to external energy retailers. A 20% reduction in annual electricity bills within the AMR is expected to free up $4m pa. A proportion of these savings will be retained within the local community to be spent on behind the meter renewable energy projects designed to decrease community emissions. CONSULTATION Aside from a briefing session to Council, there has not been any formal consultation undertaken to date.


53

DISCUSSION The AMRCCE are seeking support from Council for a number of elements to assist with financial and administrative components of the project. These are summarised below:

1. Support and endorsement of AMRCCE as a vehicle for achieving Council’s LEAP. 2. Allocation of funding in the current budget ($12,000) and a similar or greater amount in the

upcoming budget as seed capital. This amount is sought as seed funding to offset the costs associated with the business case.

3. Provide further financial assistance via a grant to assist towards funding of the business case. 4. Assist with contacting landowners, identified for possible site selection. 5. To support, where considered appropriate, applications to other bodies for grants or donations. 6. To assist AMRCCE to hold community consultative meetings to promote the group.

The desire to develop a large-scale community renewable energy project has been touted by the community for a number of years. The 2016-20 Corporate Plan and 2016/17 budget resolved to develop a community renewable energy project feasibility study in collaboration with Curtin University. Initial meetings with Curtin University and the Working Party focussed on development of a feasibility study. All parties agreed that prior to developing a feasibility study, it was important to agree upon a vision, and a set of aims and objectives before progressing any further. At the same time, a not-for-profit organisation (AMRCCE) was established by members of the working party as a means of applying for financial and legal support. The undertaking of these activities has resulted in delay of a feasibility study. As alluded to earlier in the report, Curtin University will ultimately no longer be able to develop the feasibility study. In moving forward, a detailed feasibility study will be undertaken by members of the AMRCCE with assistance provided by Curtin University and others where required. The AMRCCE has prepared an initial high-level feasibility study which supports both wind and solar in the Shire, with wind having an advantage. The feasibility study is yet to be qualified and requires further work to determine the potential for success of both renewable energies. The feasibility study also needs to address fundamental items such as proximity of a site to the nearest sub-station. Following advice from Western Power, the AMRCCE has been investigating sites close to the Beenup sub-station north-east of Augusta. An important issue to consider when it comes to grid connection is the distance between the solar/wind farm and the electrical grid. Should the AMRCCE be able to secure land close to the sub-station, then it would significantly reduce costs associated with the development, potentially making a business case a lot stronger. In the event that the feasibility study shows solar/wind to be less reliable at the preferred location, it is possible that the close proximity to the sub-station would offset costs resulting from lesser generation. These technical uncertainties will also need to be addressed through feasibility and network studies. As part of the research phase, the AMRCCE will need to liaise with nearby landowners to the sub-station with the intent of securing land for future development. The project is aligned with Council’s community LEAP objectives. From an officer level, it is recommended that Council support carry over of funds in the 2016/17 budget to the 2017/18 budget, to be used as seed capital towards development of a business case. The draft 2017/18 budget includes a line item of $12,000 for further assistance towards this project. It is recommended that additional funding in 2017/18, or any further grant assistance (as requested) is contingent upon the following components first being completed:

a) Successful completion of a feasibility study, which demonstrates a large-scale renewable project is economically viable and feasible at a determined site.

a) That a proportion of income raised from the project being used towards developing community renewable energy projects; and

b) Support from a landowner willing to enter into an agreement to develop a large-scale renewable energy project.

The other administrative components sought by AMRCCE are supported from an officer level. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Nil


54

STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Goal 1: Valuing the natural environment Key Plan: Local Energy Action Plan Strategy: Assist the community to reduce their carbon emissions to meet adopted targets. Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 1: Valuing the natural environment Community Outcome 1.2: Climate change response Strategic Response 12.3: Assist the community to reduce their carbon emissions to meet adopted targets. Service level priority: Partner with Curtin University to support the community based alternative energy windfarm project feasibility study. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There is $12,000 in the 2016/17 budget for a large-scale renewable energy feasibility study. It is recommended that these funds are used as seed funding towards the AMRCCE business case. Any future funding will be subject to completion of a number of studies undertaken by AMRCCE. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The environmental benefits of this project are potentially very rewarding. The proposal seeks to offset 20% of the community’s energy with clean renewable energy. This is a positive step towards controlling climate change. Social A project of this size will provide new employment opportunities for the local community. Dividends raised from the project will be used to assist lower socio-economic residents through the provision of funds for ‘behind the meter’ renewable energy projects. Economic A proportion of income generated from the project will go back to the community, through installation of renewable energy installations. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Carries forward $12,000 from the 2016/17 Planning and Development Services budget as seed






3. Supports and endorse AMRCCE as a vehicle for achieving Council’s LEAP; and 4. Assists AMRCCE to hold community consultative meetings to promote the group. ATTACHMENTS 1. Augusta Margaret River Community Energy Project Working Party Report


55

RECOMMENDATION CR, CR That Council: 1. Carries forward $12,000 from the 2016/17 Planning and Development Services budget as

seed funding towards the AMRCCE renewable energy project business case; 2. Directs that any additional funding allocated in the 2017/18 budget, or Shire support to grant





3. Supports and endorses AMRCCE as a vehicle for achieving Council’s LEAP; and 4. Assists AMRCCE to hold community consultative meetings to promote the group.

0/0

Cr Lane addressed the meeting, making reference to the deputation at Item 7.7 in which Lyn Serventy and Ian Williams requested an amendment to the officers recommendation. Cr Lane proposed the amendment: AMENDMENT That the wording, as highlighted in yellow, be added: 1. Carries forward $12,000 from the 2016/17 Planning and Development Services budget as seed


applications, is to be contingent upon Augusta Margaret River Clean Community Energy (AMRCCE) conducting the following to the satisfaction of the Shire: a) successful progress towards completion of a feasibility study, which demonstrates a large-scale

renewable project is likely to be economically viable and feasible at a determined site. b) formal agreement for a proportion of income raised from the project being used towards

developing community renewable energy projects; c) formal support from a landowner willing to enter into a land access and options agreement to

allow assessment of suitability for the development of a large- scale renewable energy project on the site and the intention of the landowner to allow development of a large-scale renewable energy project on that site;

3. Supports and endorse AMRCCE as a vehicle for achieving Council’s LEAP; and 4. Assists AMRCCW to hold community consultative meetings to promote the group. Cr Lane then moved the recommendation with the additional wording: AMENDED MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR LANE, CR HASTIE OM2017/150 That Council: 1. Carries forward $12,000 from the 2016/17 Planning and Development Services budget as

seed funding towards the AMRCCE renewable energy project business case. 2. Directs that any additional funding allocated in the 2017/18 budget, or Shire support to grant

applications, is to be contingent upon Augusta Margaret River Clean Community Energy (AMRCCE) conducting the following to the satisfaction of the Shire: a) successful progress towards completion of a feasibility study, which demonstrates a

large-scale renewable project is likely to be economically viable and feasible at a determined site.


c) formal support from a landowner willing to enter into a land access and options agreement to allow assessment of suitability for the development of a large- scale


56

renewable energy project on the site and the intention of the landowner to allow development of a large-scale renewable energy project on that site;

3. Supports and endorse AMRCCE as a vehicle for achieving Council’s LEAP; and 4. Assists AMRCCW to hold community consultative meetings to promote the group.

CARRIED 7/0 REASON Cr Lane spoke to the amendment, stating the added wording would ensure there is a willingness from the landowner. PROCEDURAL MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR HASTIE, CR SMART OM2017/151 That the meeting be adjourned.

CARRIED 7/0 The meeting adjourned at 7.48pm The meeting resumed at 7.53pm Members of the public, with the exception of three, and press did not return to Chambers.


57

11.3. Infrastructure Services


58

11.3. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES Nil


59

11.4. Corporate And Community

Services


60

11.4.1 SPORTS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 6 JUNE 2017 LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE REC/36 REPORT AUTHOR Hannah Waters, Executive Assistant Corporate and Community

Services AUTHORISING OFFICER Heather Auld, Acting Director Corporate and Community Services

Cr Kennaugh disclosed an impartiality interest in this item at Item 3. Disclosures of Interest and left Chambers at 7.53pm Cr Hastie disclosed an impartiality interest in this item at Item 3. Disclosures of Interest. IN BRIEF • On the 7 June 2017 the Sports and Recreation Advisory Committee (SRAC) held its bi-monthly

meeting. • The planning application for the Margaret River Men’s Shed was forwarded to the committee

members to view. • A proposal for an interest free loan was tabled for consideration by the Margaret River and Districts

Agricultural Society. • The committee were invited to provide feedback on the Shire’s Your Say project relating to the

Community Infrastructure Plan. • Delegates provided updates on their clubs. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Receives the unconfirmed minutes of the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting held

7 June 2017; and 2. Notes that an Interest Free Loan for the Margaret River and Districts Agricultural Society totalling

$5,200 has been supported by the Sports and Recreation Advisory Committee under the Financial Assistance Policy - Interest Free Loan funding stream.

LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Sports and Recreation Advisory Committee meetings are held bi-monthly on the first Wednesday of the month. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Margaret River and Districts Agricultural Society SRAC delegates Internal Consultation Nil


61

DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Planning Application for the Margaret River Men’s Shed The committee were advised that the planning application for the Margaret River Men’s Shed is currently being advertised for public comment and they were provided with a copy to review. Details for completing a submission were distributed and the committee were advised that the closing date was 7 June 2017. Margaret River and Districts Agricultural Society Interest Free Loan Application Following informal notice at the 5 April 2017 SRAC meeting, the Margaret River and Districts Agricultural Society submitted an interest free loan application totalling $5,200 to assist with the purchase of four tiered grandstands for consideration and support. The total cost of the grandstands comes to $10,400. The Margaret River Hawks Cricket Club are donating $100 towards the purchase and the balance will be paid by the Society. The portable seating will be for the use at the annual Agricultural Show and will be made available to other clubs and groups for event use on Gloucester Park. The committee discussed the purchase of the grandstands and have provided support for the application. Community Infrastructure Plan The Shire is reviewing how community facilities should be managed and maintained over the next 20 years. The review includes public parks and gardens, sport, recreation and cultural facilities, community meeting places, halls and community resource centres. As key stakeholders the committee were encouraged to provide feedback during the submission period. The committee were shown where they could access the information from on the Shire’s website and the Shire’s Your Say portal in addition to being provided with links to the websites. The submission period closes 23 June 2017. Updates from the Clubs The delegates provided updates on their clubs/associations. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 5: Effective leadership and governance Community Outcome: Effective governance and corporate leadership Strategic Response 1.5: Develop effective partnerships and strategic alliances to maximise community benefits Service level strategy/plan 1.5.1: Hold regular meetings with the Sports and Recreation Advisory Committee PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Nil Social Sporting groups provide members of the community the opportunity for physical fitness and socialisation. Economic Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority


62

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Receives the unconfirmed minutes of the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting held

7 June 2017; and 2. Notes that an Interest Free Loan for the Margaret River and Districts Agricultural Society totalling

$5,200 has been supported by the Sports and Recreation Advisory Committee under the Financial Assistance Policy - Interest Free Loan funding stream.

ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Unconfirmed Sports and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting minutes and attachments – 7

June 2017. RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR TOWNSHEND, CR LANE OM2017/152 That Council: 1. Receives the unconfirmed minutes of the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting

held 7 June 2017; and 2. Notes that an Interest Free Loan for the Margaret River and Districts Agricultural Society

totalling $5,200 has been supported by the Sports and Recreation Advisory Committee under the Financial Assistance Policy - Interest Free Loan funding stream.

CARRIED 6/0

Cr Kennaugh returned to Chambers at 7.54pm


63

11.4.2 LIST OF PAYMENTS FOR MAY 2017 LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/42 REPORT AUTHOR Anja Gerganoff, Accounts Payable Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Heather Auld, Acting Director Corporate Community Services

The Acting Director Corporate and Community Services discloses interest in the credit card expenses which is certified by the Chief Executive Officer. IN BRIEF It is a requirement of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 that payments made under delegated authority by the CEO are reported to Council on a monthly basis showing details of each account paid since the last such list was prepared. RECOMMENDATION That Council notes the May 2017 List of Payments for $3,062,943.76 as certified correct by the Chief Executive Officer. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Where Council has delegated authority to the CEO to make payments from the Shire’s bank accounts then under Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Regulation 13 (1) a list of such payments is to be prepared each month for noting by Council. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Nil Internal Consultation Nil DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Table 1 below provides a summary of the payments made and Table 2 makes comparison between payments for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 financial years. The List of Payments attachment provides further details as required under Regulation 13 (1). These details are as follows. (a) The payee’s name; (b) The amount of the payment; (c) The date of the payment; and (d) Sufficient information to identify the transaction. In order to improve operational efficiency and reduce costs, the Shire’s Finance team continually liaise with creditors paid by cheque to encourage them to switch to EFT.


64

TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF PAYMENTS MADE IN THE MONTH

MODE OF PAYMENT CHEQUE / EFT NUMBERS SUB-TOTAL AMOUNT

Cheques (includes reimbursement of credit cards) 42172-42182 $14,188.22 $14,188.22

EFT 58915-59462 $2,127,883.30 Direct Debits $920,872.24 $3,048,755.54 TOTAL $3,062,943.76

TABLE 2 – COMPARISON WITH PRIOR YEAR OF PAYMENTS

MONTH CHEQUES EFT TOTAL PMTS CUMULATIVE CHEQUES EFT TOTAL PMTS CUMULATIVE

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

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

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

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

FEBRUARY 17,988.50 2,292,007.08 2,309,995.58 32,834,663.32 7,590.17 2,504,279.74 2,511,869.91 31,081,914.60 MARCH 31,991.91 6,362,556.19 6,394,548.10 39,229,211.42 13,729.92 2,804,922.72 2,818,652.64 33,900,567.24 APRIL 15,738.88 2,481,350.30 2,497,089.18 41,726,300.60 25,312.62 4,964,872.34 4,990,184.96 38,890,752.20 MAY 26,446.62 2,806,629.63 2,833,076.25 44,559,376.85 14,188.22 3,048,755.54 $3,062,943.76 41,953,695.96 JUNE 38,302.06 7,078,064.84 8,204,329.10 52,763,705.95

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


65

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Local Government Act 1995, s 6.10, and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, r 13 STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 5: Effective leadership and governance Community Outcome 2: Effective strategy, planning and asset management Strategic Response: Ensure the Shire’s financial performance is well managed and leads to a strong financial position Service level strategy/plan: Continue to monitor and analyse monthly, year to date and annual financial performance. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Nil Social Nil Economic Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council notes the May 2017 List of Payments for $3,062,943.76 as certified correct by the Chief Executive Officer. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. List of Payments for May 2017 RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR LANE OM2017/153 That Council notes the May 2017 List of Payments for $3,062,943.76 as certified correct by the Chief Executive Officer.

CARRIED 7/0


66

11.4.3 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENT REPORT - MAY 2017 LOCATION/ADDRESS N/A APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/14 REPORT AUTHOR Andrew Ross, Manager Corporate Services AUTHORISING OFFICER Heather Auld, Acting Director Corporate and Community Services

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

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

• Council is to consider the financial results for the period ending 31 May 2017. RECOMMENDATION That Council receives the Monthly Financial Report – May 2017 in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND In accordance with Financial Management Regulation 34 the Shire is to prepare each month a Statement of Financial Activity reporting on the sources and applications of funds, as set out in the annual budget under Financial Management Regulation (1) (d), for that month with the following details:

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

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

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


67

DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The commentary contained in the body of this report is in line with Financial Management Regulation (2) (b) that requires commentary on material variances to the Statement of Financial Activity at the nature/type, program or business unit level. The Statement of Financial Activity shows a year to date actual closing position at 31 May of $10.378 million compared to the year to date budget position of $1.058 million. The actual closing position reduced by $0.347 million compared to the result at the end of April. The main reasons for the variation to Budget are:

• Operating expenditure on a year to date basis is $2.663 million or 8.3% below budget (last month $2.746 million or 9.2% below budget). Contributing factors are employee expenses being $0.495 million or 3.8% under budget (last month $0.531 million or 4.5% under budget) due to staff leave taken, staff vacancies and under budget training. Of the 36 business units, 25 are reporting under budget employee related expenditure and 11 are over budget. Materials and contracts are $2.044 million or 24.3% under budget (last month $2.093 million or 26.6% under budget). This is due primarily to project delays in a number of areas such as Waste ($0.601 million), fire prevention ($0.076 million), Asset Services ($0.154 million), CEO ($0.163 million), Community Planning & Development ($0.050 million), Rangers ($0.087 million), Landcare ($0.054 million), Information Technology ($0.087 million) and Indoor Recreation Centre ($0.092 million). It is likely projects for some areas will not be completed in 2016-17 and will be carried forward to 2017-18. At this stage the 2017-18 draft budget already has $322,709 of operating expenditure projects to be carried forward.

• Operating revenue is $0.485 million or 1.5% above budget (last month $0.338 million or 1.1% above budget).

• Grants for capital works are $0.707 million or 15.3% under budget (last month $1.635 million or 36.6% under budget). This is due to the Emergency Services Levy grant documentation for the replacement of the Cowaramup BFB appliance (received in late April) not being received until June and Roads to Recovery and Regional Road Group grant claims being delayed by the road works construction program.

• Capital expenditure on a year to date basis is $6.466 million or 55.2% below budget (last month $6.995 million or 61.6% below budget). All areas of capital expenditure continue to be below budget due to delays resulting from factors including past inclement weather, obtaining of approvals, resource constraints, preparation of designs and procurement plans as well as over optimistic budget profiles. The draft 2017-18 budget has already identified carry forward capital projects to the value of $2.324 million but it is evident from the financial results for May that more will need to be carried over. Major under budget projects and areas are included in the following table.

Project Description YTD

Budget Variance ($)

Project Status

Fire Prevention buildings and infrastructure

47,497 BFB shed building works have commenced or are in the procurement stage. Bush fire danger signs have been ordered.

Fire Prevention plant and equipment 392,427 The replacement of the Cowaramup BFB’s fire appliance occurred in April, documentation from DFES to allow recognition of the grant and expenditure processed in June.

Waste Management infrastructure 241,044 Davis Road landfill site cell stage 2 works completed with invoicing to be finalised in June.

Aquatic Centre dehumidifier & UV systems

245,265 Dehumidifier project carried forward to 2017-18 as additional budget is required for scope of works.

Gloucester Park projects 68,505 Building project deferred to 2017-18, infrastructure projects (fencing, goal posts, etc) in progress.


68

Parks & Gardens infrastructure 192,009 Playground equipment, cemetery and West Cowaramup POS projects totalling $146,787 are to be carried over to 2017-18. Other projects in progress.

Asset Services infrastructure 106,866 Trails signage, bridle trail and Augusta interpretation plan projects totalling $92,445 are to be carried over to 2017-18. Shire entry signs fabricated and installation in progress, dump point relocation to be carried over.

Construction infrastructure upgrades 836,796 Path projects totalling $329,806 to be carried over to 2017-18. Carpark projects in progress. Main street upgrade project to be carried over. 2 foreshore projects to be carried over and part of the Ellis Street jetty boat trailer car parking project will also be carried over. Overall, the majority of the under budget variance is to be carried over to 2017-18.

Construction infrastructure renewals 2,648,881 Bridge project variance of $500,000 to be carried over to 2017-18. $767,000 of asphalt overlays and rural reseals are in progress. Anticipated that at least $330,000 of the road reconstruction budget will need to be carried over. $92,000 of gravel reshouldering expected to be completed in June. Majority of balance of $196,000 path renewal program expected to be completed. Drainage projects of $183,000 to be carried over. Contractor engaged to undertake kerbing works. Foreshore projects totalling $204,965 to be carried over.

Plant Program 1,195,115 Procurement progressed for items but as delivery is unlikely to occur until 2017-18 $1,065,000 for 7 items will be carried over and possibly some other items will also need to be carried over.

Turner Caravan Park buildings 365,432 Turner Caravan Park chalet construction in progress and scheduled for completion in September/October 2017. Progress payment expected to be made in June with remaining budget to be carried over to 2017-18.

Total of listed under budget variances

6,339,837

Capital expenditure of $0.876 million was incurred during the month and included:

• $30,954 for various emergency services items including the $10,455 final instalment for the emergency power generator, and $20,499 for bush fire brigade shed works;

• $18,334 for the second waste cell at the Davis Road landfill site; • $59,631 on various community building projects including $26,228 on the upgrade of the youth

precinct toilets, $11,141 for provision of power to Gracetown swimmers beach toilets, $9,190 to install automatic doors for the Augusta library and $8,980 to install automatic doors for the Augusta office;

• $40,963 for Parks and Gardens projects including $25,735 for POS renewal works and $9,177 for Gloucester Park works;

• $12,241 for asset services projects included $6,484 for trails signage and $5,757 for Shire entry signs;


69

• $419,524 on road related projects of which $53,401 was spent on infrastructure upgrade projects and $366,124 was spent on infrastructure renewal projects. Drainage projects, the Margaret River main street upgrade, Ellis Street jetty precinct, Carbunup South Road bridge, asphalt overlays, rural reseals, path works, gravel resheeting and the reconstruction of Wallcliffe Road were the main projects;

• $169,750 to replace a heavy truck and $56,811 for modifications to the Bomag compactor.; and • $67,317 for various works at caravan parks including $6,000 for fencing at Flinders Caravan

Park and $54,496 for the construction of the chalets at Turner Caravan Park. Financial performance against budget is shown in the following charts.


70

Following is the Statement of Financial Activity for the year ending 31 May 2017.


71

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA - MARGARET RIVERSTATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITYFOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31 May 2017

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

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

Net Current Assets at 1 July surplus/(deficit) 2,187,703 2,242,226 0 2,187,703 2,242,226

Revenue from Operating ActivitiesRates 19,665,575 19,886,575 24,829 19,884,325 19,923,663 0General Financing 2,051,632 2,246,391 392,970 2,200,925 2,216,232 0Members of Council 0 0 0 0 0 0Chief Executive Officer 16,000 6,000 0 6,000 4,400 0Director Corporate & Community 8,500 8,500 552 8,000 9,168 0Director Sustainable Development 0 0 17,389 0 83,478 83,478 Perm: Fines and Penalties following legal actionDirector Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0 0Finance 40,788 40,788 39,360 40,788 194,757 153,969 Perm: Settlement of uninsured lossesRecords 0 0 30 0 959 0Corporate Services 5,000 5,000 6 4,875 2,211 0Customer Relations 225,200 225,200 12,631 210,100 181,979 (28,121) Perm: Sale of number platesInformation Comm. Technology 0 0 500 0 5,955 0Human Resources 10,000 52,000 0 52,000 54,357 0Community Planning & Development 52,180 51,950 5,274 50,205 48,200 0Emergency and Fire Services 411,107 432,925 21,078 421,304 604,561 183,257 Perm: Supplementary ESL operating grant for 2015-16Rangers 215,250 215,250 11,830 199,250 180,454 (18,796) Perm: Cost recovery income not requiredLibraries 33,750 33,750 4,008 31,080 37,123 0Health 104,788 104,788 3,553 100,422 105,480 0Child Care 283,379 288,379 31,586 260,182 305,342 45,159 Perm: School holiday program incomeWaste Services 4,326,298 4,391,298 71,061 4,342,248 4,453,465 0Town Planning 387,900 407,900 43,045 373,075 379,970 0Community Buildings 0 42,000 210 42,000 45,322 0MR Recreation Centre 901,200 901,200 76,632 839,700 762,626 (77,074) Perm: Income impacted by January closure of poolCultural Centre 4,800 4,800 668 4,400 6,326 0Augusta Recreation Centre 36,000 36,000 2,058 31,000 35,006 0Gloucester Park 70,500 70,500 6,652 67,500 67,115 0Parks and Gardens 5,000 30,000 0 30,000 32,133 0Asset Services 124,200 124,200 23,961 87,600 96,085 0Landcare 0 0 0 0 4,800 0Maintenance 0 0 0 0 8,868 0Plant Program 40,498 51,498 2,551 51,498 29,425 (22,073) Perm: Disposal of plant items delayedCaravan Parks 2,000,100 2,000,100 75,353 1,947,950 1,908,192 0Building Control 218,520 218,520 18,171 200,310 195,528 0Works Overheads 0 0 2,273 0 2,273 0Plant Operation Costs 0 0 0 0 5,336 0Other Property and Services 40,000 60,000 8,162 50,000 31,413 (18,587) Timing/Perm: Workers Compensation reimbursements

31,278,165 31,935,512 896,394 31,536,737 32,022,200 485,463Expenditure from Operating Activities

Revenue (300,420) (320,420) (40,363) (301,662) (304,124) 0General Financing (592,557) (583,557) (12,473) (457,599) (429,756) 0Members of Council (300,902) (310,902) (23,823) (288,779) (278,943) 0Chief Executive Officer (1,069,298) (1,059,298) (90,610) (985,621) (866,490) 119,131 Timing: Projects and eventsDirector Corporate & Community (455,058) (455,058) (23,318) (429,785) (379,804) 49,981 Timing: Projects, eg, Community Infrastructure ReportDirector Sustainable Development (644,131) (644,131) (55,861) (588,456) (558,678) 0Director Infrastructure (293,798) (273,798) (17,997) (252,202) (247,561) 0Finance (943,410) (943,410) (29,330) (912,680) (894,670) 0Records (188,615) (188,615) (14,057) (172,890) (165,358) 0Corporate Services (273,520) (284,420) (16,887) (263,185) (217,711) 45,474 Timing/Perm: postage, water, electricityCustomer Relations (543,392) (543,392) (34,345) (501,238) (461,729) 0Information Comm. Technology (1,112,397) (1,074,397) (39,959) (1,025,856) (931,704) 94,152 Timing: Printing, software licences, Asset Mgmt softwareHuman Resources (603,861) (645,861) (38,676) (590,016) (541,451) 0Community Planning & Development (578,434) (583,204) (45,228) (536,084) (491,132) 0Emergency and Fire Services (972,773) (1,204,591) (108,353) (1,139,060) (1,089,310) 0Rangers (721,960) (721,960) (55,698) (678,466) (574,246) 104,220 Timing/Perm: Labour, contract services & cemetery costsLibraries (893,048) (948,048) (70,956) (878,457) (846,347) 0Health (549,426) (549,426) (45,140) (508,491) (481,699) 0Child Care (306,864) (336,864) (29,909) (315,242) (361,278) (46,036) Perm: Additional day care, offset by additional incomeWaste Services (3,132,894) (2,827,144) (178,763) (2,597,217) (1,970,816) 626,401 Timing: Labour, projects, number of collectionsTown Planning (1,129,258) (1,084,258) (91,231) (983,293) (830,197) 153,096 Timing: Labour and projectsCommunity Buildings (1,794,531) (1,856,531) (161,314) (1,707,799) (1,621,788) 0MR Recreation Centre (2,180,051) (2,205,051) (216,362) (2,025,131) (1,829,897) 195,234 Timing: Labour, utilities, equipment & building maintenanceCultural Centre (361,765) (401,765) (12,525) (390,365) (381,636) 0Augusta Recreation Centre (108,308) (108,308) (5,172) (101,539) (86,349) 15,190 Timing: Equipment leasing, chemicals & equipmentGloucester Park (193,100) (193,100) (15,692) (179,050) (158,279) 20,771 Perm/Timing: Projects and maintenanceBeach Lifeguards (118,605) (113,605) (2,268) (113,605) (100,349) 13,256 Perm: Labour, equipment, maintenanceParks and Gardens (2,691,088) (2,691,088) (181,039) (2,496,643) (2,091,074) 405,569 Timing/Perm: Lower labour overhead rate appliedAsset Services (1,037,608) (1,043,608) (79,017) (945,726) (791,879) 153,847 Timing/Perm: Projects delayedLandcare (336,041) (358,741) (40,071) (317,943) (253,257) 64,686 Timing: Contributions and ProjectsConstruction 0 0 0 0 0 0Maintenance (8,041,220) (8,352,220) (695,317) (7,651,968) (7,286,084) 0Plant Program (48,968) (59,968) (1,570) (57,968) (32,329) 25,639 Perm: Plant purchases delayedCaravan Parks (1,377,087) (1,289,587) (92,627) (1,182,055) (1,056,187) 125,868 Timing: Seasonal variations and utilitiesBuilding Control (171,584) (161,584) (15,197) (149,149) (148,172) 0Works Overheads (119,106) (139,106) (24,404) (122,858) (678,828) (555,970) Timing: Under recovery of overheads due to changed ratePlant Operation Costs 78,772 (121,228) 24,510 (121,367) 105,973 227,340 Timing: Over recovery of overheadsOther Property and Services (237,000) (237,000) (758) (222,000) (194,873) 27,127 Perm: Reduced workers compensation claims

(34,343,305) (34,915,243) (2,581,800) (32,191,445) (29,528,013) 2,663,432


72

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA - MARGARET RIVERSTATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITYFOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31 May 2017

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

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

Operating activities excluded from BudgetDepreciation on assets 8,209,428 8,873,428 746,799 8,142,609 8,084,130 0(Profit)/Loss Asset Disposal 168,470 168,470 (981) 168,470 149,533 (18,937) Perm: Associated with replacement of plantAdd back Movement in Provisions,etc 0 0 0 0 0 0Movement in employee benefit provisions (non-current) 0 0 0 0 0 0Loss on revaluation of non current assets 0 0 0 0 0 0

8,377,898 9,041,898 745,818 8,311,079 8,233,663 (77,416)

Amount attributable to operating activities 7,500,461 8,304,393 (939,587) 9,844,074 12,970,076

INVESTING ACTIVITIESNon Operating Grants & Contributions

Community Planning & Development 1,393,000 0 0 0 0 0Emergency and Fire Services 1,009,250 594,600 0 394,000 0 (394,000) Timing: ESL grant for Cowaramup BFB applianceTown Planning 200,000 200,000 111,665 180,000 352,613 172,613 Perm: Transfer of Cash in Lieu POS from BondsCommunity Buildings 3,400,000 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0MR Recreation Centre 32,000 32,000 0 32,000 32,000 0Augusta Recreation Centre 0 0 0 0 0 0Parks and Gardens 0 0 0 0 3,371 0Asset Services 0 0 0 0 29,091 29,091 Perm: Grant funds transferred to the ShireConstruction 3,522,514 3,522,514 973,500 3,522,514 3,004,629 (517,885) Timing/Perm: Grant claims delayed due to construction

9,556,764 4,849,114 1,085,165 4,628,514 3,921,704 (706,810)Capital Investment

Purchase Land Held for Resale 0 0 0 0 0 0Purchase Land and Buildings (6,149,323) (2,043,323) (145,081) (1,212,200) (727,202) 484,998 Timing: Caravan Park chalet project commencedPurchase Infrastructure Assets - Other (4,695,197) (1,443,380) (84,360) (1,252,523) (625,424) 627,099 Timing/Perm: Waste and other projects delayed or deferredPurchase Infrastructure Assets - Roads (6,112,139) (6,162,139) (419,524) (6,102,139) (2,616,462) 3,485,677 Timing/Perm: Works commenced or deferredPurchase Plant and Equipment (3,434,900) (3,257,250) (226,561) (3,055,650) (1,219,843) 1,835,807 Perm: Plant replacements delayed, dehumidifier deferredPurchase Furniture and Equipment (94,000) (81,000) 0 (81,000) (48,535) 32,465 Timing/Perm: Minor projects delayedProceeds from Disposal of Assets 644,153 644,153 48,656 644,153 472,384 (171,769) Perm: Associated with replacement of plant

(19,841,406) (12,342,939) (826,870) (11,059,359) (4,765,082) 6,294,277

Amount attributable to investing activities (10,284,642) (7,493,825) 258,295 (6,430,845) (843,378)

FINANCING ACTIVITIESRepayment of Debentures (600,922) (600,922) (19,930) (486,950) (486,950) 0Advances to Community Groups 0 0 0 0 0 0Proceeds from Self-Supporting & IF Loans 15,386 15,386 0 14,149 20,149 0Proceeds from New Loan 1,450,000 0 0 0 0 0Transfers to Cash Reserves (1,041,129) (2,833,032) (246,090) (1,882,227) (1,882,227) 0Transfers from Cash Reserves 2,960,846 2,608,000 600,000 0 600,000 600,000

Amount attributable to financing activities 2,784,181 (810,568) 333,980 (2,355,028) (1,749,028) 600,000

Net Current Assets Surplus (Deficit) 0 0 (347,313) 1,058,201 10,377,669 Investments At 31 May 2017 the Shire’s cash on hand, deposits and investments totalled $32,266,350 (a decrease of $777,345 to last month) and total investment interest earned for the month was $63,518. Actual interest earned for the year to date of $658,805 exceeded the amended budget of $639,334.

Term Deposits – Cash Management At 31 May the Shire had the following short-term facilities (term deposits).

Term Days Maturity Institution (ADI) Principal

$ Interest Rate Interest

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


73

365 6/9/17 Bankwest 2,000,000 2.45% 49,000 365 12/9/17 National Australia Bank 3,000,000 2.71% 81,300 365 13/9/17 National Australia Bank 2,000,000 2.71% 54,051 365 11/4/18 National Australia Bank 2,500,000 2.60% 65,000

23,500,000 523,484 During the month no changes occurred for term deposits. The average rate of interest to be paid on all of the term deposits is 2.64% and exceeds the Reserve Bank’s cash rate of 1.50%.

The Shire also has an Overnight Cash Deposit Facility (OCDF) with WA Treasury Corporation (WATC) which is used to hold the Royalties for Regions funds of $5.490 million allocated for the main street redevelopment project. The South West Development Commission are a joint signatory for this facility. During the month interest of $6,598 was earned and the current balance of the investment is $5.365 million. The current rate of interest earned on this facility is 1.45% and is set at 5 basis points lower than the Reserve Bank’s cash reference rate.


74

In-Kind Support In-Kind support and fee waivers at 31 May 2017 were the same as the previous month and totalled $4,584. $184 of fees were waived under delegation and $4,400 was provided in sponsorships for sports representatives. Reserves Movements to reserves for the month generally represent interest earned on reserve funds. However, other transactions may also be processed. During the month the following reserve transactions were processed:

• $10,000 to the Affordable Housing Fund reserve which represented the final contribution to this reserve from the sale of affordable housing lots in West Cowaramup;

• $300,000 from the Plant reserve for the purchase of a grader; • $100,000 from the Waste Management reserve for the purchase of the Bomag compactor; and • $200,000 from the Margaret River CBD Redevelopment reserve representing the first

drawdown from the OCDF investment for the Margaret River main street redevelopment project.

The actual balance of reserves for the year to date of $22.789 million exceeded the year to date budget of $21.332 million. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Financial Management Regulation 34 requires a local government to prepare each month a Statement of Financial Activity reporting on the sources and applications of funds, as set out in the annual budget under Financial Management Regulation 22(1)(d). STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 5: Effective leadership and governance Community Outcome 2: Effective strategy, planning and asset management Strategic Response: Ensure the Shire’s financial performance is well managed and leads to a strong financial position. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The overall financial performance of the Shire is as summarised in this report. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Nil Social Nil Economic As stated in the report. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council receives the Monthly Financial Report – May 2017 in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil


75

ATTACHMENTS 1. Monthly Financial Report consisting of:

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

RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR SMART OM2017/154 That Council receives the Monthly Financial Report – May 2017 in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

CARRIED 7/0


76

11.4.4 2017-18 SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES LOCATION/ADDRESS N/A APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/357 REPORT AUTHOR Vicki Scott, Coordinator Revenue and Customer Services AUTHORISING OFFICER Heather Auld, Acting Director Corporate and Community Services

IN BRIEF • Council approval is required to adopt the previously advertised 2017-18 draft Schedule of Fees and

Charges. RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the 2017-18 Schedule of Fees and Charges as per attachment 1 to be implemented from 1 July 2017. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND The Shire’s draft Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2017-18 was approved for advertising at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 May 2017 (minute reference OM20170524). The Schedule was subsequently advertised for the minimum period of 14 days from Friday 2 June 2017. The closing date for the receipt of submissions was Monday 19 June 2017. No submissions were received. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation The community were informed of the Shire’s intention to apply fees and charges for 2017-18 through advertisements in the Augusta Margaret River Times on 2 June 2017, 9 June 2017 and 16 June 2017. Submissions were requested to be lodged by 4.00pm on Monday 19 June 2017. Internal Consultation Executive Leadership Team Business Unit Managers and Coordinators DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS No submissions were received from the community relating to the Shire’s advertised Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2017-18. Council are advised of the following amendments to the Schedule of Fees and Charges as a result of advice received after the schedule was approved for advertising by Council:

• Building Services have received notification from the Building Commission of new Fees and Charges. Amendment to Qualified Inspection Services and Search and Information Fees.

All Statutory Fees have increased by CPI and will come into effect on 1 July 2017.

• Sport and Recreational Services fee changes for the recovery of oval line marking costs have increased, following advice received from the supplier of materials that material costs have increased:


77

Fee and Charge Advertised Amended 2017-18 Line marking paint per drum 20 L

$50.00 $60.00

It is also advised that to ensure full compliance with legislation Council will be requested to adopt the 2017-18 Fees and Charges schedule again at the time of adopting the 2017-18 Budget which is currently scheduled for 26 July 2017. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Local Government Act 1995 (LG Act) section 6.16 – Imposition of fees and charges

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

* Absolute majority required.

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

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

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

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

* Absolute majority required. LG Act section 6.17 refers to setting level of fees and charges. LG Act section 6.19 refers to local government to give notice of fees and charges. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 5: Effective Leadership and Governance. Community Outcome 2: Effective strategy, planning and asset management. Strategic Response 2.5: Ensure the Shire’s financial performance is well managed and leads to a strong financial position. Service level strategy/plan: Fees and charges are incorporated in the annual budget. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Revenue generated from fees and charges are a vital component of the overall 2017-18 budget. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Revenue generated from fees and charges is utilised by the Shire to carry out environmental works on gardens, parks, reserves and foreshores. There is continued demand for these activities.


78

Social Revenue generated from fees and charges is utilised by the Shire to support a range of community oriented activities which impact on the social fabric of the community. Economic Revenue generated from fees and charges are a vital component of the overall 2017-18 budget without them the Shire would be financially unviable. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the 2017-18 Schedule of Fees and Charges as per attachment 1 to be implemented from 1 July 2017. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. 2017-18 Schedule of Fees and Charges. RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR HAYNES, CR TOWNSHEND OM2017/155 That Council adopts the 2017-18 Schedule of Fees and Charges as per attachment 1 to be implemented from 1 July 2017.

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 7/0


79

11.4.5 SUBMISSIONS ON 2017-18 DIFFERENTIAL RATES AND MINIMUM PAYMENTS LOCATION/ADDRESS N/A APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/11 REPORT AUTHOR Andrew Ross, Manager Corporate Services AUTHORISING OFFICER Heather Auld, Acting Director Corporate and Community Services

IN BRIEF • Council approved the advertising of the proposed 2017-18 differential rating categories, rate in the

dollar and minimum payments together with the proposed service and waste charges for the year ending 30 June 2018 at the Ordinary Meeting of 10 May 2017.

• Differential rates were advertised for a minimum period of 21 days with the closing time and date for submissions being 4pm Monday 12 June 2017.

• Advertisements were placed in the local newspaper for 4 consecutive weeks from and including Friday 19 May 2017.

• One submission objecting to the proposed differential rates was received as of 4pm Monday 12 June 2017.

• The Shire requires Ministerial approval to levy minimum payments for the differential rating category of Residential Vacant as the number of properties to be levied the minimum exceeds the 50% parameter specified in Section 6.35 (4) of the Local Government Act 1995 (LG Act).

• Department of Local Government and Communities (DLGC) Rating Policy Minimum Payments (s.6.35) March 2016 requires Council to consider submissions received prior to Ministerial approval being considered.

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Notes the submission received objecting to the differential rates and minimum payments proposed

for 2017-18; 2. Advises the submitter that no change is proposed to be made to the differential rates; and 3. Approves an application be made to the Minister for Local Government, Heritage, Culture and the

Arts to seek approval in accordance with Section 6.35 of the Local Government Act 1995 to impose a minimum payment on more than 50% of the properties in the Residential Vacant land category.

LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Council considered the proposed differential rates and minimum payments for the 2017-18 financial year at the Ordinary Meeting of 10 May 2017. These rates were advertised for public comment on Friday 19 May 2017, Friday 26 May 2017, Friday 2 June 2017 and Friday 9 June 2017 in the Augusta Margaret River Times. Advertising was undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the LG Act with the 21 day public submission period for ratepayers expiring at 4.00pm on Friday 9 June 2017 although submissions were invited to be received until Monday 12 June 2017.


80

CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Ratepayers and Electors The proposed differential rating categories, rates in the dollar and minimum payments were advertised in the local newspaper. Ratepayers and electors were provided with 24 days to lodge a submission. Closing date for submissions was 4pm Monday 12 June 2017. At the closing date, one submission had been received. Internal Consultation Coordinator Revenue and Customer Services DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS One submission was received that objected to the proposed 2017-18 differential rates. A copy of this submission is attached. The following table summarises the contents of the submission received and the staff response to the issues raised in the submission.

Submission Date

Summary of Submission Issues Staff Comment

9/6/17 Received from: McMahon Mining Title Services Pty Ltd “We act for a number of exploration and prospecting companies in WA and thank you for the opportunity to make a general submission regarding the proposed rates for 2017-18. We would like to take this opportunity to ask the Shire to consider a reduction, stay or concession in the minimum rate applicable to Exploration and Prospecting Licences. We note that valuations provided by the Valuer General are used as the basis for establishing rates each year. In relation to Exploration and Prospecting Licences, their valuations are based on the rent imposed by the Department of Mines and Petroleum. If the proposed minimum ($1,418) is applied to a Prospecting Licence, however, the annual rate payable would be more than 283% the maximum annual rent payable ($500). As another example, if the proposed minimum is applied to a 10 block Exploration Licence, it would be more than the annual rent payable ($1,295) and would result in the rates payable for just one year representing approximately 44% of the total the licence is valued for ($3,237.50). For an Exploration Licence 4 blocks or less, the rates payable for just one year would be more than the total amount the licence is valued for. This minimum is also significantly higher than the minimum levied by other Shires. We note that Prospecting and Exploration Licences only allow the holder to search for and test to establish the presence of

Exploration licence areas are measured in blocks, whereas mining tenements are normally measured in hectares. An exploration licence may cover a number of blocks and a block may cover part or a whole property. Similarly, a mining tenement may cover one, many or part of a property. The holder of a licence/tenement is unable to use the property for rural purposes as the licence/tenement is a right that overlays the property or properties. As they overlay rural properties the basis of rating for mining or exploration leases is their unimproved value (UV). The UV of a mining tenement or exploration lease is calculated by the Department of Mines and Petroleum and provided to Landgate. Typically, their valuation is low. The properties subject to mining or exploration licences are usually rural land and are categorised as UV Rural for rating purposes by the Shire. The characteristics of these properties are they are zoned priority agriculture, general agriculture and cluster farm and the predominant land use is rural. The Shire’s Local Planning Scheme number 1 (LPS1) does not make any distinction in land use for exploration licences or mining tenements as these activities fall outside of the jurisdiction of the planning legislation. The Shire’s property rating database has 5 exploration licences and 14 mining tenements. All of these assessments are charged the minimum rural payment as the highest unimproved value of a


81

mineralisation. If a resource is identified, a Mining Lease would be required for the purpose of extracting minerals for the purpose of sale. Unlike mining companies, exploration and prospecting companies do not make profits extracting commercial quantities of resources for sale and are generally equity funded with limited cash flow. Exploration activities are normally of low intensity and short duration and not characterised by high traffic volumes or weights or demands on Shire infrastructure. As any stay or reduction in rates could greatly assist the exploration sector, we would be grateful for an consideration given to this matter.”

licence/tenement is $63,525. These licences/tenements range in size from less than 1 hectare to 843 hectares. Consistent with other local governments the Shire rates the individual property owners and also rates the holder of the exploration licence or mining tenement. As the holder of an exploration licence operates on rural land, but is limited to exploration activities, the granting of a rate concession could be considered. The financial impact of such a concession would be to reduce the proposed rate levied for the 5 exploration licences from $1,418 to $500. The total value of such a concession would be $4,590. However, a concession is not supported for exploration licences for a number of reasons including:

• Exploration licences do confer a land use and although the impact may be minimal, it is appropriate holders of these licences provide a contribution to the operation of the Shire.

• As the exploration activities occur on rural land, rating on the basis of the rural category is appropriate and necessary as the absence of a specific land use in LPS1 prevents a specific differential rating category being created.

• The holder of an exploration licence has the option to relinquish their right and surrender the licence.

• It could result in a precedent being set which may be extended to mining tenements.

• The high value the community of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River place in the natural environment as outlined in the Community Strategic Plan 2033.

Ministerial Approval DLGC Rating Policy Minimum Payments (s.6.35) March 2016 requires local governments requesting approval of differential rates to complete a formal Application Form with the following attachments:

1. Copy of the minutes that Council reviewed and considered budget efficiency measures; 2. Copy of the Statement of Objects and Reasons; 3. Copy of the minutes where Council adopted the Statement of Objects and Reasons; 4. Copy of letters to ratepayers where there are less than 30 in a category; 5. Copy of any submissions received; 6. Copy of the response to submissions;


82

7. Copy of the public notice; 8. Copy of the Council agenda and minutes where submissions were considered; and 9. Copy of the minutes where Council resolved to make an application to the Minister;

It is proposed to lodge the Application Form and its attachments with the DLGC on Thursday 29 June 2017. This should allow sufficient time for the DLGC to consider the Shire‘s request and allow Council to formally adopt the rates for 2017-18 at the Ordinary Meeting on 26 July 2017. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Part VI of the LG Act deals with the levying of differential rates.

• Sections 6.32 and 6.33 state that Council may impose differential rates based on differential

categories. • Section 6.35 states that Council may impose a minimum payment for each category. • Section 6.35(4) limits local governments from imposing a minimum payment on more than 50%

of the properties in a category. • Section 6.35(5) states a local government may seek the approval of the Minister to impose a

minimum payment on vacant land that applies to more than 50% of the properties in the category.

Section 6.36 requires the local government to give the appropriate notice of its intention to impose differential rates and minimum payments in respect to each differential rate category. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 5: Effective Leadership and Governance. Community Outcome 2: Effective strategy, planning and asset management. Strategic Response: Ensure the Shire’s financial performance is well managed and leads to a strong financial position. Service level strategy/plan: Bill property rates on adoption of the Shire’s annual budget. Policy FI.15 Shire Rating endorsed by Council (OM20140528) outlines the administrative processes in applying differential rates. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Rate revenue is the main source of funding for the Shire and Ministerial approval will ensure the 2017-18 rates are able to be adopted by Council at the Ordinary Meeting of 26 July 2017. The level of rate increase is required to reduce the gap between operating expenditure and operating revenue as well as contributing funds for the renewal of the Shire’s asset base. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Rate revenue is used to carry out works on parks, reserves, beaches, foreshores and all other land owned and managed by the Shire which has an impact on the environment. There is continued demand for these activities. Social Rate revenue is used by the Shire to carry out a range of community oriented activities which impact on the social fabric of the community. Economic Rate revenue allows the Shire to undertake a wide range of services and activities, many of which directly result in an economic benefit for the community of the Shire. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority


83

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Notes the submission received objecting to the differential rates and minimum payments proposed

for 2017-18; 2. Advises the submitter that no change is proposed to be made to the differential rates; and 3. Approves an application be made to the Minister for Local Government, Heritage, Culture and the

Arts to seek approval in accordance with Section 6.35 of the Local Government Act 1995 to impose a minimum payment on more than 50% of the properties in the Residential Vacant land category.

ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS Nil Cr Hastie addressed the meeting, proposing the following amendment: AMENDMENT That in dot point 2 of the recommendation, the words ‘no change is proposed to be made to the differential rates’ be omitted and replaced with ‘Council has noted the submission’. Cr Hastie then moved the recommendation with the amendment: AMENDED RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR HASTIE, CR SMART OM2017/156 That Council: 1. Notes the submission received objecting to the differential rates and minimum payments

proposed for 2017-18; 2. Advises the submitter that Council has noted the submission; and 3. Approves an application be made to the Minister for Local Government, Heritage, Culture

and the Arts to seek approval in accordance with Section 6.35 of the Local Government Act 1995 to impose a minimum payment on more than 50% of the properties in the Residential Vacant land category.

CARRIED 7/0

REASON Cr Hastie spoke to the motion stating the amended wording was clearer.


84

11.4.6 2017-18 DRAFT BUDGET LOCATION/ADDRESS N/A APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/358 REPORT AUTHOR Andrew Ross, Manager Corporate Services AUTHORISING OFFICER Heather Auld, Acting Director Corporate and Community Services

IN BRIEF • Each year prior to 31 August, Council must adopt an Annual Budget for the financial year. • Council are requested to consider the draft budget for 2017-18 and to propose any amendments or

changes for inclusion in the final budget. • Council will be requested to consider adopting the final budget for 2017-18 at the Ordinary Meeting

on 26 July 2017. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Having considered proposed revenues, expenditures and budget efficiency measures for 2017-18

approves the draft Budget for 2017-18 with the following changes: LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND The Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to prepare and adopt an annual budget prior to 31 August in each year, or such extended time as the Minister allows. The draft budget is the result of input from each of the Shire’s business units and has considered the Shire’s Long Term Financial Plan, Community Strategic Plan and Corporate Business Plan. The budget as provided is balanced and is based on the version provided to Councillors on 8 June 2017 and discussed at the Council Workshop on 14 June 2017. The major components of the draft budget are:

• A capital works programme totalling $25,389,168; • Operating expenditure of $34,806,566; • Rate revenue of $20,179,508; • Operating revenue of $11,879,868; • Capital grants and contributions of $9,694,051; • Transfers from reserves of $4,283,674 to fund specific capital works; • Transfer to reserves of $2,745,135 to fund future capital works; • Three new loans totalling $2,450,000 for the proposed Cultural Centre redevelopment

($1,100,000), the Margaret River Youth Precinct ($350,000) and the removal and replacement of asbestos from community buildings ($1,000,000); and

• An estimated carry forward balance of $3,815,302 from 2016-17.


85

CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation

• Invitation to comment on the proposed Differential Rates was first advertised on 19 May 2017 with a closing date for submissions of 12 June 2017.

• Fees and Charges for 2017-18 were approved by Council for advertising on 24 May 2017 and following the completion of over 14 days local public notice Council will be requested to consider their adoption on 28 June 2017 so they become effective on 1 July 2017.

Internal Consultation

• Councillors have been involved through the budget process in budget briefings for rates and employee costs and a workshop on the draft budget as well as approving the fees and charges and the rates for 2017-18.

• Management and staff were actively involved in the preparation and review of the operational and capital budgets. They were also involved in the setting of fees and charges for their areas of responsibility.

DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The 2017-18 draft Budget has been developed over a number of months with significant input from staff, management and Councillors. Negotiation has resulted in the reprioritisation and deferral of some projects and activities in order to ensure available funding sources resulted in a balanced budget. The draft Budget as provided includes revenue and expenditure information for each business unit as well as comments providing a breakdown of these amounts and this information will be the main element of the final budget. A Statement of Financial Activity, Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature or Type, Capital Works Schedule, details of Grants and Contributions revenue, breakdown of Carry Forward Items, details of Reserve balances and loan interest and principal repayments are also included. In addition to this information the final budget will include statutory statements and explanatory notes as well as some explanatory text. Changes to the Draft Budget since Council Workshop A number of changes to the draft budget have been made since the Council workshop was conducted on 14 June 2017. These changes resulted from the notification of amendments and the correction of errors and omissions since the draft budget was published. The following table summarises these changes with numbers in brackets representing a reduction in revenue or expenditure.

Description Business Unit Revenue $

Expenditure $

Correct Councillor fees and allowances Members of Council

(4,095)

Include budget for Stage 2 chalets Turner C/Park 500,000 Reduce site survey budget Flinders C/Park (10,000) Increase Hot Water Systems budget Flinders C/Park 20,000 Increase marketing budget (chalet photos) Turners C/Park 2,000 Increase site layout master plan Turners C/Park 50,000 Increase storage facility non-capital equipment

Turners C/Park 5,000

Increase Dekkers ablution block upgrade Turners C/Park 20,000 Increase construction of chalets carryover Turners C/Park 20,000 Increase Dekkers HWS upgrade Turners C/Park 10,000 Include power upgrade carryover Turners C/Park 160,000 Increase landscaping budget Turners C/Park 10,000 Increase rental income Alex Br Camp Gnd. 3,000 Legal fees increased for possible SAT costs Director Sust. Dev. 40,000 Include MR Bowling Club green replacement Gloucester Park 246,530 Contribution from MR Bowling Club Gloucester Park 13,030 Insurance payout for bowling greens Gloucester Park 233,500 Include Asset Management system carryover ICT 6,500 Carryover tandem axle trailer Plant Program 11,000 Carryover playground equipment Parks & Gardens 85,000


86

Carryover Cemetery works Parks & Gardens 12,000 Carryover West Cowaramup POS Parks & Gardens 45,000

Carryover path expansion works Construction 100,000 Increase Flinders to Cape Leeuwin path Construction 120,000 Carryover pedestrian structure works Construction 10,000 Carryover drainage works Construction 150,000 Total 249,530 1,608,935

Summary of Draft Budget A balanced budget is proposed as at 30 June 2018. A summary of the draft Annual Budget 2017-18 compared to the Annual Budget for 2016-17 and actual for 2015-16 is provided below for reference.

Description 2017-18 $’000

2016-17 $’000

2015-16 $’000

Rates 20,180 19,282 18,668 Operating Revenue (excluding Rates) 11,879 11,996 11,885 Capital Grants 9,694 9,557 9,602 Operating Expenditure 34,807 34,343 32,281 Capital Expenditure 25,389 20,170 7,880 Asset Sale Proceeds 2,136 644 1,127 Borrowings Repaid 708 601 645 New Loan Borrowings 2,450 1,450 0 Net Transfers (To)/From Reserves 1,539 1,919 (10,231) Brought Forward Surplus 3,815 2,188 3,431 Closing Position 0 0 2,242

At this stage it is projected the Shire will commence the budget year with a surplus of $3,815,302 from 2016-17. The extent of this surplus allows the draft budget to be balanced. The projected budget surplus is an improvement on the budgeted result expected for 2016-17 and is the result of a number of factors including:

• Capital works projects totalling $2,691,678 were delayed or not completed; • Advance payment by the WA Local Government Grants Commission of 50% of the financial

assistance grants for 2017-18 of $677,329 in June 2017 had to be recognised as revenue in 2016-17;

• Operating expenditure projects totalling $358,300 were not completed in 2016-17; and • Various under expenditures and over budget revenues are expected for the year totalling

$87,995.

Expectations are that 2017-18 will end up with a balanced result. Long Term Financial Plan The Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) was updated for the ten years from 2017-18 to 2026-27 and was approved by Council on 12 April 2017. The first year of the LTFP is 2017-18 and the LTFP’s major assumptions, apart from the expected increase to the rate yield, have been reflected in the draft Budget. Accordingly there should be a reasonable degree of correlation between the LTFP forecast for 2016-17 and the draft Budget. The following table provides a comparison.

LTFP 2017-18

$’000

Draft Budget 2017-18

$’000

Difference %

Operating Revenue 33,016 32,059 (2.9%) Operating Expenditure 33,184 34,807 4.9% Net Operating Result (168) (2,748) Capital Grants 7,376 9,694 31.4% Net Result 7,208 6,946 (3.6%) Capital Expenditure 19,884 25,839 27.7% New Loan Borrowings 2,450 2,450


87

Net Transfers (To)/From Reserves 3,647 1,539 (57.8%) Closing Position 0 0

Reasons for the variances are:

• The advance payment of the financial assistance grant has contributed to the operating revenue being lower than forecast;

• Carryovers and increased depreciation have contributed to operating expenditure exceeding the LTFP forecast;

• Emergency Services Levy grants and higher grants for road works and other projects have contributed to capital grants exceeding forecast; and

• Capital expenditure carryovers have contributed to capital expenditure exceeding the LTFP. Capital Works Programme – not updated Capital works totalling $25,389,168 have been included in the draft Budget. 37% of these works are to be funded by grants, 22% from council funds, 17% from reserves, 10% from new loan borrowings, 4% from assets sale proceeds and 11% represents budget carryovers from 2016-17. The $2,691,678 of carryover projects include the Aquatic Centre dehumidifier ($240,000), plant and equipment purchases ($312,962), building projects ($245,000), various caravan parks projects ($75,000), parks and reserves projects ($185,500), path projects ($330,000), Carbunup South Road bridge ($500,000) and other construction projects ($601,625). Grants and contributions for new capital projects total $9,300,051 with $2,384,035 of these funds allocated to various road and works projects, $3,200,000 for the proposed redevelopment of the Cultural Centre and $2,217,333 to the Margaret River youth Precinct (MRYP). Proceeds from the sale/trade-in of mobile plant and vehicles are expected to total $491,000. Possible sale proceeds of $50,000 from the encroachment of the caravan park into Gloucester Park have been allocated to the MRYP. Proceeds from the sale of 4 blocks held as land inventory are expected to be allocated to the contribution payable to the Department of Education for the shared use oval at the Rapids Landing primary school. $4,283,674 is proposed to be transferred from reserves to fund specific capital projects including the plant replacement program ($1,224,674), chalets and works for Turner Caravan Park ($1,080,000), Margaret River Youth Precinct ($340,000), the Lower Western Oval ($625,000) and the Cultural Centre redevelopment ($829,000 of which $365,000 represents part of the Regional Venues Improvement Fund grant received in 2016-17). The balance of the capital works programme of $5,562,765 will be funded from general revenue (property rates) and is a 5% increase on the amount budgeted for 2016-17. The majority of the programme is considered to be asset renewal works with 55% or $13,957,548 capital expenditure expected to be for this purpose. This amount exceeds the expected depreciation allocation for the year of $9,046,640 and shows the Shire’s asset base is being replenished. The remaining capital expenditure is for new projects ($3,616,442 or 14%) and expansion or upgrade projects ($7,815,178 or 31%). The major capital projects for the year and their source of funding are shown in the following table.

Project Description Budget $

Source of Funding

Margaret River Youth Precinct 3,063,333 Revenue, reserves, grant, loan Emergency Services & Fire Prevention items 940,337 Grants, revenue & BFB

contributions Various works for community buildings 1,680,000 Revenue, loan, carryovers Cultural Centre redevelopment 5,129,000 Grants, reserve transfer, loan Aquatic Centre dehumidifier 400,000 Revenue, carryover Various parks and reserves works 1,921,530 Revenue, reserves, carryovers,

insurance payout


88

Lower Western Oval 1,154,000 Revenue, grant, reserves Paths 972,700 Revenue, reserves, carryovers Road Bridges 500,000 Carryover Plant and Equipment 2,362,768 Revenue, reserve, sales,

carryovers Road works 3,060,000 Revenue, grants, reserves Waste management improvements 675,000 Waste management revenue Drainage works 480,000 Revenue, carryover Other infrastructure 1,270,000 Revenue, grants, carryovers Depot works 206,000 Revenue, carryovers Turner Caravan Park chalets 920,000 Reserve Other caravan park works 654,500 Revenue, reserve, carryovers 25,389,168

Major road work projects to be undertaken include:

• Rosa Brook Road reconstruction works of $675,000 is 2/3 funded by a Regional Roads Group grant of $450,000 as well as Roads to Recovery grant funding of $210,884;

• Carters Road reconstruction of $525,000 is 2/3 funded by a Regional Roads Group grant of $350,000;

• Rosa Glen Road reconstruction of $525,000 is 2/3 funded by a Regional Roads Group grant of $350,000

• Treeton Road reconstruction works of $75,000 and Warner Glen Road reconstruction works of $60,000 are both 2/3 funded by a Regional Roads Group grant;

• $350,000 is allocated towards gravel road re-sheeting (last year $300,000) and $150,000 for sealed road re-shouldering; and

• $300,000 allocated towards various rural road reseals and $400,000 towards various asphalt overlays are both funded by Roads to Recovery.

Loan Repayments At 30 June 2018 the balance of loan principal outstanding is expected to be $9,620,593 and compares to an expected balance of $7,878,788 at 30 June 2017. Budgeted principal repayments for the year total $708,194 and interest repayments total $447,730. In addition to interest repayments the cost of the government guarantee fee of 0.7% is budgeted to be $57,300. New loans of $1,100,000 for the Cultural Centre project, $350,000 for the Margaret River Youth Precinct and $1,000,000 for the replacement of asbestos on community buildings are budgeted to be drawn down in 2017-18. The drawdown of these loans will depend upon the timing of the capital projects they will fund. Interest expense represents 1.5% of total operating expenditure. Reserves The draft budget anticipates the balance of cash backed reserves at 30 June 2018 will be $21,214,106. This compares to the actual closing balance at 31 May 2017 of $22,788,735. During 2017-18 it is proposed to transfer the following to reserves:

• $427,581 in interest is expected to be earned on reserve balances at an estimated average interest rate of 2.65% per annum;

• $200,000 is to be transferred to the Plant Replacement reserve; • $20,000 income from the sale of special series vehicle number plates are to be transferred to

the Community Grants reserve; • $150,000 in expected Developer Contribution Plan contributions will be transferred to the

Developer Contributions reserve; • $240,000 proceeds from the sale of a property in Augusta are to be transferred to the Augusta

Revitalisation reserve; • $7,554 in repayments received for Interest Free Loans are transferred to the Community Loan

reserve; • $900,000 is expected to be transferred to the Waste Management reserve to fund future waste

management works including conversion of the Davis Road landfill site to a waste transfer station

• $5,000 proceeds from commercial promotional signage are to be transferred to the Recreation centres reserve; and


89

• $795,000 in property sale proceeds are to be transferred to the Margaret River CBD Redevelopment reserve.

Transfers from reserves include: • $1,224,674 from the Plant reserve for purchase and replacement of mobile plant; • $20,000 from the Emergency Services reserve for bushfire brigade shed works; • $125,000 from the Developer Contributions reserve for the Lower Western Oval; • $120,000 from the Augusta Revitalisation reserve for the Flinders Bay to Cape Leeuwin path; • $45,000 from the Affordable Housing Fund reserve for works at the West Cowaramup public

open space is a carryover from 2016-17; • $140,000 from the Public Open Space reserve for the Margaret River Youth Precinct; • $420,000 from the Caravan Park Upgrade reserve for construction of chalets is a 2016-17

carryover • $160,000 from the Caravan Park Upgrade reserve for the extension of electricity is a 2016-17

carryover; • $500,000 from the Caravan Park Upgrade reserve for the construction of stage 2 of the chalets

at Turner Caravan Park; • $464,000 from the Community Facility reserve for the Cultural Centre redevelopment; • $365,000 from the Community Facility reserve, being part of the Regional Venues Improvement

Fund grant received in 2016-17 for the Cultural Centre redevelopment; • $200,000 from the Community Facility reserve for the Margaret River Youth Precinct; and • $500,000 from the Community Facility reserve for the Lower Western Oval.

It is also intended to establish a Roads reserve for the renewal of rural and urban roads and to rename the Road Asset reserve the Infrastructure Contributions reserve as the majority of funds held in this reserve are contributions received for specific infrastructure projects. Rates The draft Budget has included $20,179,508 income to be raised from property rates and is based on the 3% increase applied to minimum payments and rates in the dollar for all rating categories and also takes into consideration the 4.1% average increase in valuations for unimproved value (rural) properties. The total amount raised is 3% higher than the total rate revenue of $19,598,320 recorded at 19 April 2017 that was used as the base for determining the rate yield target. Interim rates of $100,000, back rates of $20,000, expected late payment interest of $95,000, instalment interest and instalment administration charges of $195,000 and recovery of summons costs and various other sundry income of $68,500 have also been included in the budget and result in total rates related income of $20,658,008 being reported in the Statement of Financial Activity. Employees The budget provides for employee costs for 168.2 full time equivalent (FTE) positions compared to 167.4 for 2016-17. The main reasons for the increase of 0.8 FTEs are:

• 1 FTE Economic Development Officer that has been included in the Shire’s Workforce Plan; • 0.7 FTE for Alexandra Bridge camping ground camp host has been removed as this role is

being undertaken by staff from the shire’s caravan parks; • 0.5 FTE for the possible continuation of a contract Community Ranger during peak times;

Compared to the 2016-17 adopted budget, base salaries and wages have only increased by 2.2% despite an Enterprise Agreement wage increase of 2.5% as well as a 2% performance increase for eligible employees Total labour, leave, superannuation, workers compensation, training, uniforms and fringe benefits tax are budgeted to be $15,181,429 and after $886,713 is allocated to capital projects, $14,294,716 is budgeted to be expensed for the year as employee costs. The amount expensed represents an increase of 1.8% compared to the 2016-17 amended Budget for employee expenses of $14,036,468 and reflects continued restraint in wages growth and workforce employment.


90

Business Unit Details The following table provides a summary of the budgeted operating revenue and operating expenditure for each business unit and details of the major changes which have occurred and the major items or projects budgeted for the year.

Business Unit

Operating Revenue

$’000

Operating Expenditure

$’000

Comments

Revenue 20,658 457 3% rate increase, rate instalment interest, penalty interest and other items consistent with 2016-17 actual. Additional cost of GRV revaluation of $150k included, all other costs steady. No change in FTE.

General Financing

1,324 580 Advance payment of Financial Assistance Grants has reduced revenue by $677k. Main other source of income is interest on investments based on an estimated interest rate of 2.65%. Operating expenditure is primarily interest on loans. Bank fees reduced consistent with 2016-17 actual expenditure. Loan principal repayments are included under capital expenditure. 3 new loans included.

Council 0 327 Higher expenditure as election in 2017-18, no increase to member fees and allowances in accordance with Salaries & Allowances Tribunal determination of 11/4/17. Cost of maintaining relationship with Haining included.

CEO 40 1,114 Income from Local Government Chief Officers Group (LGCOG) conference. Operating expenditure increased due to inclusion of Economic Development Officer for 6 months and increase in public relations expenditure. Special projects include internal audit, iconic events, local events, CAPEROC, economic development initiatives, LGCOG conference cost and business plan for Cultural Centre operations post construction.

DCCS 8 422 Decrease in expenditure as some contributions and support for community groups moved to the community buildings and parks and gardens areas. No change in FTE and special projects same allocation as last year.

DSD 0 694 Minor increase in expenditure is a result of labour costs. No change in FTE. $40k has been included for possible legal costs associated with defending planning decisions at the State Administrative Tribunal.

DIS 0 259 Decrease in expenditure as reduced labour costs resulting from FTE decreasing to 1.5 from 2. This 0.5 FTE saving has been allocated to Community Buildings.

Finance 44 998 Minor income from insurance rebates and reimbursement of insurance costs. FBT for salary packaging matched by income as employee contributes to cover full cost of FBT. Increased insurance costs, audit costs, procurement and special projects to improve general ledger and financial reporting. No change in FTE.

Records 190 No change in FTE and minimal change to 2016-17. Corporate Services

2 265 Based on actual usage for 2016-17 utility costs may be lower, budget included for operation of 2 pool vehicles for staff, other items consistent with actual expenditure.

Customer Services

223 554 Income from providing contract services for Department of Transport and TRANSWA. Profit from sale of special series registration plates transferred to Community Grants reserve. No change in FTE. Carry over capital expenditure of $5k for display cabinet.


91

Information Comm. & Technology

0 1,060 Decrease in expenditure due to reduced special projects, lower equipment leasing costs and stable software licencing costs. No change in FTE. $98k allocated for capital projects with the majority required for replacement of production servers and storage.

Human Resources

20 670 Revenue expected from LGIS scheme member dividend. Increase in expenditure due to organisational development training and programs, and inclusion of Occupational Health and Safety initiatives funded by LGIS scheme member dividends. No change in FTE.

Community Planning & Development

25 610 Reduction in grants and budgeted grants are primarily for youth activities. No change in FTE. Increase in integrated planning, youth, capacity building and safer communities’ projects partly offset by decrease in Arts & Culture projects. Capital grants of $2.217 million and expenditure of $3.063 million are included for the Margaret River Youth Precinct project.

Emergency Management

32 74 Capital expenditure of $71k for replacement of SES vehicle is a carryover. Main increase in expenditure is the $6k increase to the allocation of depreciation for plant and equipment.

Fire Prevention

346 983 Grant for possible extension of Bushfire Risk Management Coordinator has been included. Other income is similar to 2016-17. Operational expenditure commitments for bushfire brigades are similar to 2016-17. Reduction in contract services is primarily due to the reduced contract term for the Bushfire Risk Management Coordinator. The allocation of depreciation has also increased. 65% of expenditure excluding depreciation is grant funded, was 56% last year. Capital grants and contributions of $800k fund plant and equipment items and bushfire brigade shed works totalling $870k. 2 of the major items of bushfire brigade plant are carryovers.

Rangers 213 720 Revenue and expenditure are consistent with 2016-17 with no significant changes. 30% of expenditure funded by direct revenue is the same as last year. FTE increased to 5.6 due to contract Community Ranger for peak time previously budgeted as contract services. $20k allocated for capital works is associated with animal management.

Libraries 36 930 Income from fees and charges and grant are similar to last year. No change to FTE. Main increases in expenditure are employee costs, depreciation, library stock, cleaning contract costs and utilities.

Environmental Health

111 549 Increased revenue from fees and charges. No change in FTE. Reduction in contract services due to completion of events strategy. Increase in vehicle expenses due to inclusion of a dedicated fit for purpose vehicle for inspections, sampling, monitoring, etc. 20% of expenditure funded by direct revenue was 19%.

Outside School Hours Care

306 344 Expected increase in revenue from fees and charges. Capital budget of $6.5k for nature play playground expansion carried over from 2016-17. Increased labour costs but no change in FTE. Some additional minor equipment purchases but other operational budgets are consistent with last year. Inclusion of $20k budget for consultants to undertake a review and determine


92

available options to meet demand for these services in the Shire as this service is the only one available and demand is increasing. Due to the inclusion of this item, the overall level of cost recovery has declined to 89% of expenditure funded by direct revenue when it was 92%.

Waste Services

4,566 2,912 Plus $675k for various capital related works at the Davis Road landfill site including the possible construction of a third waste cell. Overall, the waste services area is budgeted to be self- supporting and as revenue raised exceeds operating and capital expenditure, $900k can be transferred to the Waste Management reserve to fund future expenditure on waste facilities for the community. Increased number of waste collection and recycling services is increasing income. Commercial waste charges expected to increase. To obtain an improved understanding of the income generated from transfer stations, revenue jobs created for each transfer station to record gate charges. Total operating expenditure is similar to last year with no change in FTEs. A number of special projects relating to the operation and future of the Davis Road site are budgeted to continue. Collection costs for waste and recycling are expected to increase due to the number of services and the per lift cost of collection. Operating costs for the Davis Road site expected to be similar while an expected increase in the cost of other waste disposal sites is due to works required at the East Augusta disposal site.

Town Planning

368 1,026 Decreased revenue is due to an operating grant for the Coastal Hazard Risk Management Adaptation Program (CHRMAP) not being budgeted for 2017-18. Capital income of $150k from the Developer Contribution Plan (DCP) transferred to the DCP reserve. No change in FTE. Decreased operating expenditure is a result of reduced special projects which is primarily the result of the completion of the Coastal Plan Assistance project.

Community Buildings

0 1,923 $6.864 million is also included for capital works with the main item being the first stage of the redevelopment of the Cultural Centre ($5.129 million). This project is funded by grants of $3.2 million, a $1.1 million loan and reserve transfers of $0.829 million including $0.365 million of the Regional Venues Improvement Fund grant received in 2016-17. The capital works program also includes building renewal works of $370k consistent with the LTFP and $1 million for the removal of asbestos and replacement for various community buildings. The 0.5 FTE saving in the Infrastructure Services Directorate has allowed the number of FTEs allocated to Community Buildings to be increased by 0.5 to 1.9 FTE. Building maintenance costs for 130 buildings/sites are expected to increase by 12% partly as a result of works for community halls being transferred from the DCCS area. Cleaning costs for 33 buildings/sites expected to increase. A $30k contribution to the Margaret River Community Resource Centre has been included following an earlier Council resolution and $35k is allocated to asbestos monitoring and management.


93

Increased depreciation has also contributed to increased operating expenditure compared to last year.

Indoor Sports 270 707 Removal of kid sports grant and reduced income budgets for the Café and Kiosk which are more consistent with 2016-17 actual income has resulted in a decrease to the operating revenue budget. Excluding the grant, total revenue has reduced by $28k. No change in FTE for recreation area but a 0.4 FTE decrease for the kiosk. Carryover of sports masterplan. Increased equipment maintenance, utilities and contract services, such as cleaning, offset by reduced stock purchases for the Café and Kiosk. Building depreciation has also increased. Overall operating expenditure decrease of $28k. Overall level of subsidy required is expected to increase with 38% of expenditure funded by direct revenue compared to 46% for the 2016-17 amended budget.

Aquatic Centre

249 1,157 Plus $425k for capital works including the dehumidifier project ($400k) and upgrade to water saving tapware & shower heads which is expected to be funded by a Pool Revitalisation grant of $32k. Revenue growth from memberships and entrance fees is expected to be minor. No change in FTE. Consultant’s costs increased due to technical support required for replacement of dehumidifiers. Cost of utilities and building maintenance have also increased but other budgets are consistent with 2016-17 budget. Overall level of subsidy is expected to increase with 22% of operating expenditure funded by direct revenue compared to 23% for the 2016-17 amended budget.

Fitness Centre 330 422 No change in FTE. Increase in labour costs, equipment maintenance and minor equipment, otherwise budget items are consistent with 2016-17. Overall level of subsidy is higher with 78% of operating expenditure funded by direct revenue compared to 80% for the 2016-17 Budget.

Cultural Centre

7 411 Increased building depreciation and payment to Arts Margaret River in accordance with agreement. Revenue is reimbursement for utilities.

Augusta Recreation

42 107 Plus $35k of capital expenditure to renew assets. Labour costs included as serviced by Fitness Centre. Other costs are steady. 39% of operating expenditure funded by direct revenue compared to 33% for the 2016-17 amended budget.

Gloucester Park

309 214 Plus $55k for various capital works for buildings. $247k for replacement of Margaret River Bowling Club synthetic bowling greens is funded from an insurance payout and a contribution from the bowling club. Lower Western Oval design and project management costs, higher building maintenance costs and utilities have contributed to increased operating expenditure. Utility cost are recovered from users and clubs also pay annual fees. Insurance payout of $234 for bowling club greens. Overall subsidy is the same as 2016-17.

Beach Lifeguards

0 120 No change in FTE. Total expenditure consistent with 2016-17. Carryover of surf life-saving audit and a minor increase in equipment purchases.

Parks and Gardens

4 2,576 Plus capital expenditure of $2.519 million for various projects including replacement of playground equipment,


94

public open space works, cemetery works, tree planting, etc. Major projects for 2017-18 include:

• the development of the Lower Western Oval which is partly funded by a Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) grant of $332k and reserve transfers of $625k;

• drainage, landscaping and associated works in the vicinity of the Margaret River Youth Precinct; and

• the Rapids Landing shared use oval and public open space.

No change in FTE. Operating expenditure is budgeted to decrease by 4.3% compared the 2016-17 amended budget, primarily as a result of the change in the methodology used for allocating overheads. This decrease has occurred despite budgets being added for maintenance of the Cowaramup Oval (the payment of this contribution was previously included in the DCCS business unit) and the Lower Western Oval. Budget allocations have also been changed to focus on areas requiring greater resources such as Cowaramup and Brookfield due to increasing areas of POS.

Asset Services

134 1,134 Plus $300k for various capital works partly funded by grants of $75k and carryovers totalling $88.5k. Operating revenue is similar to 2016-17 with the main change being the addition of a $25k grant for trails planning. No change in FTE. Operating expenditure budgeted to increase by $91k compared to the 2016-17 amended budget. The carryovers of $45k for the implementation of the Asset Management Information System and $64k for paths and trails planning are contributing factors to this increase. The inclusion of expenditure for land encroachment issues and the Alexandra Bridge camping ground foreshore plan also added almost $20k to the operating budget.

Landcare 0 429 No change in FTE. Expenditure budgeted to increase by $70k compared to the 2016-17 amended budget. The major increases are an additional $10k for weed control, an additional $25k each for the Lower Blackwood LCDC and Nature Conservation Margaret River, and a $10k allocation for the control of feral pigs has been included in the Environmental Management Fund budget.

Construction 0 0 Capital expenditure of $6.184 million funded by grants totalling $2.596 million and carryovers of $1.492 million. Council’s contribution of $1.977 million is similar to that budgeted for 2016-17. Amount of capital grants budgeted exceeds the amount allocated as a source of funding in the capital works program as there are two unclaimed grants totalling $237k for works completed in previous years.

Maintenance 0 8,236

Expenditure has reduced by 1.4% compared to 2016-17 amended budget. Main reason is reduced employee costs with FTE allocation of 9 instead of 10. Increased budget allocations for storm damage clean up and footpath slab replacement are consistent with actual expenditure for 2016-17. Reduced budget for waste collection for public spaces is also consistent with actual. Depreciation allocation has increased by $40k.


95

Plant Program 13 105 Plus capital expenditure of $2.363 million funded by sale proceeds of $491k, a $1.225 million transfer from the Plant Replacement reserve and $313k of prior period funding (carryovers). Compared to previous years the cost of replacing plant is inflated by the inclusion of State Government stamp duty, which prior to 2017-18 Local Government did not pay. The cost of the removal of this concession for 2017-18 is estimated to be $81k. Operating revenue and operating expenditure items are the non-cash recognition of profit and loss on asset disposals.

Caravan Parks

2,134 1,455 Plus capital expenditure of $1.574 million part funded by a $1.080 million transfer from Caravan Parks reserve as well as carryovers. Capital expenditure includes:

• hot water systems & fencing for Flinders totalling $100k

• chalets, toilet block works, hot water systems and infrastructure works for Turner caravan park totalling $1.454 million.

• water supply upgrade works for Alexandra Bridge camping ground totalling $20k.

Revenue is projected to increase for Flinders Bay by 3%, Turner by 8% due largely to new chalets and Alexandra Bridge camping ground by 9%. FTE allocation has reduced by 0.7 FTE for Alexandra Bridge due to removal of camp host position. No change in FTE for other sites. Reduced labour costs has decreased operating expenditure for Flinders. Increased labour costs as well as establishment and operating costs for the chalets have increased operating expenditure for Turners. Reduced labour costs are the main reason for decreased expenditure for Alexandra Bridge although there are increases for marketing, maintenance and tree management.

Building Control

225 173 Increase in income compared to 2016-17. No change in FTE and expenditure is consistent with 2016-17.

Public Works Overheads

37 Represents the allocation of labour and related overheads associated with the works’ workforce. Overhead rate of 20% applied to all parks and gardens, maintenance and construction expenditure. High allocation due to value of budgeted works has left minor balance unallocated (normally would represent depreciation and the plant operating costs overhead). Increase of 1 FTE as Works Inspector position resulted from reallocating a vacant position in the operational works area. Most budgets are similar to 2016-17.

Plant Operating Costs

(237) Represents the allocation of plant maintenance costs to individual items of plant. Reduction in plant lease payments and fuel is offset by increased registrations cost of $63k resulting from the removal by the State Government of the concession for Local Government. No change in FTE. Over recovery of costs offsets the slight under recovery of public works overheads and also allows $200k to be transferred to the Plant Replacement reserve

Other Property and Services

20 101 Plus $1.645 million included as possible proceeds from sale of property. Includes:

• $795k for Churchill Ave tfd to MR CBD reserve • $240k for Allnutt Tce tfd to Augusta reserve


96

• $50k for Gloucester Park encroachment used for MRYP

• $560k for 4 vacant lots in Rapids Landing held as land inventory used for Rapids Landing oval

Budget for some land sale costs has been included, also loss on sale. Workers compensation paid and recovered has been reduced.

Councillor and Community Requests Requests from Councillors and the community that have been provided to staff during the year or were advised at the draft Budget workshop on 14 June 2017 have been included in the draft Budget. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The draft Annual Budget 2017-18 has been prepared in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 and associated Local Government Financial Management (Regulations 1996), together with the Australian Accounting Standards. Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 and, Part 3 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations detail the form and manner in which an annual budget is to be presented to the Council for adoption. In accordance with Section 6.36 of the Local Government Act 1995 the Shire has given the appropriate notice of its intention to impose differential general rates and specified minimum payments in respect of each differential rate category. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 5: Effective leadership and governance Community Outcome 2: Effective strategy, planning and asset management Strategic Response: Ensure the Shire’s financial performance is well managed and leads to a strong financial position. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The draft Annual Budget 2017-18 determines the financial operations of the Shire for the 2017-18 financial year. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The draft Annual Budget 2017-18 includes activities and programs that take into consideration the Shire’s strategic goal of valuing the natural environment. Social The draft Annual Budget 2017-18 includes activities and programs that take into consideration the Shire’s strategic goals of welcoming and inclusive communities and managing growth sustainably. Economic The draft Annual Budget 2017-18 includes activities and programs that take into consideration the Shire’s strategic goals of a vibrant and diverse economy and effective leadership and governance. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council:


97

1. Having considered proposed revenues, expenditures and budget efficiency measures for 2017-18 approves the draft Budget for 2017-18 with the following changes:

ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Budget for 2017-18 RECOMMENDATION CR KENNAUGH, CR LANE That Council: 1. Having considered proposed revenues, expenditures and budget efficiency measures for

2017-18 approves the draft Budget for 2017-18 with the following changes: 0/0

Cr Kennaugh moved the following amendment:

AMENDMENT / COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNUAGH, CR HASTIE OM2017/157 That the following be added as bullet points: • Sets aside $10,000 for the Augusta Chamber of Commerce and it be funded from savings

from the reinstatement licensing concessions; and • Sets aside $40,000 for Cowaramup Halls and Reserves and it be funded from savings from

the reinstatement licensing concessions CARRIED 7/0

Cr Earl disclosed an impartiality interest in that his brother is the President of the Cowaramup Hall and Reserve Association, stating that he is confident he would be fair in dealing with the item in an impartial manner. REASON Cr Kennaugh spoke to the amendment highlighting the existing conditions of the halls and reserves and the need for funding. This then became the primary motion: PRIMARY MOTION CR KENNAUGH, CR LANE That Council: 1. Having considered proposed revenues, expenditures and budget efficiency measures for

2017-18 approves the draft Budget for 2017-18 with the following changes: • Set aside $10,000 for the Augusta Chamber of Commerce and it be funded from savings

from the reinstatement licensing concessions • Set aside $40,000 for Cowaramup Halls and Reserves and it be funded from savings from

the reinstatement licensing concessions 0/0

Cr Hastie moved the following amendment: AMENDMENT / COUNCIL DECISION CR HASTIE, CR SMART OM2017/158 That the following be added as bullet points:


98

• To reduce the expenditure from the parks and gardens Job RES142 for Wallcliffe Road Reserve Margaret River Youth Precinct by $200,000;

• and $100,000 be added to gravel road re-sheeting; and • and $100,000 to environmental programs to be allocated in the Landcare business unit under

special projects CARRIED 5/2

CRS EARL AND KENNAUGH VOTED AGAINST REASON Cr Hastie spoke to the amendment stating the Shire only spends $117,000 of ratepayers funding on gravel re-sheeting, and given this is the biggest source of discontent from the rural community, an additional $100,000 deserved to be spent. Cr Hastie informed the meeting that there are many deserving environmental programs that would benefit from funding, and suggested the Sustainability Advisory Committee could provide some direction on which programs to allocate the funding. This then became the primary motion and was put to vote: PRIMARY MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR LANE OM2017/159 That Council: 1. Having considered proposed revenues, expenditures and budget efficiency measures for

2017-18 approves the draft Budget for 2017-18 with the following changes:

• Sets aside $10,000 for the Augusta Chamber of Commerce and it be funded from savings from the reinstatement licensing concessions;

• Sets aside $40,000 for Cowaramup Halls and Reserves and it be funded from savings from the reinstatement licensing concessions; and

• Reduces the expenditure from the parks and gardens Job RES142 for Wallcliffe Road Reserve Margaret River Youth Precinct by $200,000;

o and $100,000 be added to gravel road re-sheeting; o and $100,000 to environmental programs to be allocated in the Landcare business

unit under special projects. CARRIED 7/0


99

11.4.7 TENDER 03/17 MARGARET RIVER YOUTH PRECINCT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION LOCATION/ADDRESS Margaret River Youth Precicnt, 31 Wallcliffe Road, Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE COR/219 REPORT AUTHOR Nigel Anderson, Manager Human and Community Services AUTHORISING OFFICER Heather Auld, Acting Director Corporate and Community Services

Shire President, Cr Earl, left Chambers at 8.31pm as he disclosed a financial interest at Item 3.3. Deputy Shire President, Cr Kennaugh, took the place of Chair in his absence. IN BRIEF • Tender 03/17 Margaret River Youth Precinct Design and Construction was advertised, assessed

and recommendations for the preferred Tenderer are outlined. • The Margaret River Youth Precinct Final Concept Report December 2016 is provided to Council. • The updated Margaret River Youth Precinct Financial Plan is provided to Council and includes

current funding arrangements and the recommended Tenderer’s prices. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Adopts the Margaret River Youth Precinct Final Concept Plan and Report prepared by Convic Pty

Ltd and included as Attachment 3 to the agenda; 2. Awards Tender 03/17 to Convic Pty Ltd for the Design and Construction of the Margaret River Youth

Precinct to undertake the component of the project design and construction works with confirmed funding from Lotterywest and Shire of August Margaret River sources, and

3. Subject to funding being confirmed from the National Building Better Regions Fund, Awards Tender 03/17 to Convic Pty Ltd for the Design and Construction of the Margaret River Youth Precinct to undertake the component of the design and construction works to be funded by the National Building Better Regions Fund.

LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND At the Ordinary Council Meeting held 14 June 2017 Council requested additional background information be provided for the Margaret River Youth Precinct (MRYP) project and associated Tender 03/17 Design and Construction of Margaret River Youth Precinct. (Council resolution OM2017/143). The MRYP concept plan has undergone extensive community consultation, all of which has been considered by an internal project control group, in conjunction with a community design work group and facilitated by Convic to ensure that the finalised concept plan will be functional now and into the future. The MRYP, Version 1A. October 2013 was advertised to the general public and resulted in a local community meeting being held at the existing skate park. The meeting was attended by approximately 60-70 people, all of which agreed that the concept plan needed to be reworked. Community members who attended this public meeting included a local architect, skate park designers, skate park builders, youth and parents. Based upon the adverse community feedback received further consultation was


100

undertaken including direct consultation with key user groups including the Community Access Inclusion Reference Group, Margaret River Lions, and a community survey was launched on the current concept plan. Community feedback received by the Shire included over 70 improvement items and there was a consensus that the concept plan should be revisited. This community feedback was taken back to the Shire’s Internal Project Group who agreed with community’s concerns and improvement items in terms of its design and functionality. Margaret River Youth Precinct Final Concept Report, Version 1A. October 2013.

The Shire invited key stakeholders to form a Community Design Work Group (CDWG) that included representatives from Margaret River Lions, Artzability, Margaret River Scouts, Arts Margaret River, Margaret River Skateboard Collective, Skateboarding WA, local internationally sponsored skater Andrew Brophy, users including a local architect, local skate park designers, local skate park builders, local youth and parents. Once the group was formed the Shire engaged Convic to revisit the concept plan and facilitate concept design review sessions with both the Shire Internal Project Group and the CDWG. Convic worked through several iterations of the MRYP Concept Plan with Shire staff and the CDWG resulting in a finalised version of the master plan that was endorsed by all stakeholders in December 2016. This was then advertised to the broader community with no adverse feedback being received. It is noted that the concept master plan would be progressed into a detailed design and that construction works would only proceed based upon committed funding being available to the Shire. The revised concept design principles and considerations have been extensively covered within the Convic Final Concept Design Report Margaret River Youth Precinct and which has been attached for Council information.


101

Margaret River Youth Precinct Final Concept Report, December 2016

Reference: Final Concept Design Report, Margaret River Youth Precinct SD03.16002.G, Convic, p. 17. Whilst the MRYP concept plan was being developed, Shire staff also undertook extensive works to source further funding partnerships, with grant applications being completed as follows:

Date Grant Scheme Grant Request $ (Excluding GST)

Project elements grant to cover

Status

March 2016

Royalty for Regions

$300,000 • Wooden stage; • Zone Room Shade

Structure (100m2); and

• Concrete breakout space.

Unsuccessful (recommended to re-apply)

March 2016

Lotterywest $1,393,126 • Skate works; Successful


102

• Landscaping; • Skate Shade

Structure; and • Relocation of Art

Work. September 2016

Royalty for Regions

$300,000 • Wooden stage; • Zone Room Shade

Structure (100m2); and

• Concrete breakout space.

Unsuccessful

September 2016

Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund

$354,000 • Skate works; and • Skate Lighting.

Unsuccessful

February 2017

Building Better Regions Fund

Up to an amount of $774,207

• Wooden stage; • Zone Room Shade

Structure (100m2); • Concrete breakout

space; • Skate Lighting; • Provisional Skate

Works; • Provisional

Landscape furniture; and

• Shade structures Zone Room (100m2) & (55m2)

TBA prior to 30/06/2017

Note The Shire has sought and received approval in this instance from Lotterywest to defer progress claims due to project delays, with the first progress claim due in November 2017. Community fundraising to-date has included a pledge from Margaret River Lions of $25,000, Rex Maloney has set up a Gofund Me page that has raised $925 and Vanessa Moore has conducted a Skate theme night that has raised $362. The MRYP financial details were included in the Long Term Financial Plan 2017-18 to 2026-27, which were adopted by Council at the Ordinary Council meeting on the 12 April 2017, (Council resolution OM2017/91). In summary Council adopted the following Forward Capital Works Items:

Major Projects – Buildings and Infrastructure Funding Source Funding 2017-18 Community Facility Reserve $112,877 2017-18 Lotterywest & Other $1,901,126 2017-18 Borrowings $350,000 Total $2,364,003

Major Projects – Buildings and Infrastructure Funding Source Funding 2017-18 General Revenue $10,000 2017-18 Public Open Space Reserve $140,000 2017-18 Proceeds on Sale $50,000 $200,000

Public Open Space


103

Funding Source Funding 2017-18 Community Facility Reserve $150,000 2017-18 Revenue Lotterywest $178,962 $328,962

Public Open Space 2018-19 Revenue Lotterywest $70,000 $70,000

The latest iteration of the MRYP financial plan has been attached as a confidential item that includes costings derived from the recommended Tenderer’s pricings and associated funding. Margaret River Youth Precinct Tender Works The Shire is required to prepare tenders for construction works when the value of those items may exceed $150,000 (ex GST) over the duration of the tender term. Tenders are required to be called in accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995. The scope of works listed within the advertised Tender 03/17 Design and Construction of Margaret River Youth Precinct included the provision for detailed design works of the entire master concept plan. The construction scope of works had clearly specified that provisional items would only be constructed subject to funding being approved. Margaret River Youth Precinct Project Scope of Works

CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation A Community based design team assisted the development of the concept plan. The Shire sought advice from Skateboarding WA, Ben Bowring in terms of assessing the usability of the skate parks


104

provided as examples of project works completed by the Tenderers or their sub-contractors. Reference checks were undertaken for all Tenderers. Tenders were advertised in The West Australian (as per the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996), in local press and on the Shire’s website. Internal Consultation A Shire internal team was formed that involved staff from Infrastructure, Sustainable Development and Corporate and Community Services. Consultation was also undertaken with the Shire’s Project and Procurement Officer. DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS An evaluation report for tenders has been undertaken and a copy is attached as Confidential Attachment 1. Tenders were received from the following (listed in alphabetical order): - • Advanteering Civil Engineers • Convic Pty Ltd • Danello Pty Ltd trading as Tate Construction • Menchetti Consolidated Pty Ltd trading as MG Group WA Tenders have been assessed by an evaluation panel against criteria of price, experience, resources, demonstrated understanding and OSH management. The weighting applied to those criteria were as follows

• Price – 50% • Relevant Experience – 20% • Tenderer’s Resources – 10% • Demonstrated Understanding – 10% • OSH Management – 10%

Based on the tender assessment, Convic is the most advantageous tender. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995. Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 1: Valuing the natural environment Community Outcome: 5 Quality parks, gardens and green spaces Strategic Response: Ensure green and public open spaces cater for a wide range of users including people with a disability Service level strategy/plan: Provide playground facilities at Margaret River Youth Precinct Goal 2: Welcoming and inclusive communities Community Outcome 2: Equity and opportunities for all Strategic Response: Provide programs and facilities that encourage resilience in seniors, young people and families Service level strategy/plan: Complete detailed drawings and award tender for the construction of the Margaret River Skate Park Youth Precinct and refurbish toilet facilities PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The total confirmed budget estimate is $2,265,413 (excluding GST) inclusive of the following elements:


105

• Shire Funding = $656,000 ($350K Loan, $200K Community facilities reserve, $106K general revenue);

• Lotterywest = $1,393,126; • Cash in Lieu of POS = $140,000 (confirmed awaiting Minister approval); • Proceeds from sale of land (Gloucester Park/Caravan Park) = $50,000 (estimated valuation); • MR Lions Pledge = $25,000 (confirmed); and • Community = $1,287 (approximately).

Total unconfirmed budget estimate of $797,920 (excluding GST) is inclusive of the following elements:

• Building Better Regions Fund grant application = $774,207; and • Community = $23,713 (Approximately).

Total potential budget estimate $3,063,333 (excluding GST). The budget allocation includes the provision of detailed plans for the entire Youth Precinct and the construction component will include only those funded elements and preliminary works on future elements that fit within the budget. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental • Enhance the natural environment within our built up recreational parks; • Create a safe environment where the youth and families are able to frequent and interact; • Create collaborative community partnerships which will develop art and culture within the Precinct,

further promoting art pieces within the region; and • Promote environmental awareness through nature based play. Social • Increase the diversity and quality of our community infrastructure and promote greater opportunities

for social inclusion and interaction for all walks of life; • Enhance our social infrastructure by creating a centralised community hub that is conducive to

bringing people together for sport, recreation, events, functions, socialising, meetings and play; • Increase the level of physical and mental health wellbeing within the community through the

provision of integrated recreational and sporting facilities; and • Promote greater universal access and inclusion to the Precinct and its facilities.

Economic • Increase economic activity in Australia’s South West region through increased intrastate, interstate

and international tourist visitation; • Increase the duration of visitor stays by growing the vibrancy and attractiveness of sporting and

recreational facilities; • Increase the potential for having more events, both local and high profile, that can be run from the

Precinct which will also value add to existing iconic events such as the Margaret River International Surfing Pro world tour event; and

• Increase the marketing potential of the Capes region statewide, nationally and internationally. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Adopts the Margaret River Youth Precinct Final Concept Plan and Report prepared by Convic Pty

Ltd and included as Attachment 3 to the agenda; 2. Awards Tender 03/17 to Convic Pty Ltd for the Design and Construction of the Margaret River Youth

Precinct to undertake the component of the project design and construction works with confirmed funding from Lotterywest and Shire of August Margaret River sources; and



106

ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. CONFIDENTIAL Attachment 1 – 03/17 Evaluation Report 2. CONFIDENTIAL MRYP Financial Plan 3. Final Concept Design Report Margaret River Youth Precinct Convic RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR LANE, CR KENNAUGH OM2017/160 That Council: 1. Adopts the Margaret River Youth Precinct Final Concept Plan and Report prepared by

Convic Pty Ltd and included as Attachment 3 to the agenda; 2. Awards Tender 03/17 to Convic Pty Ltd for the Design and Construction of the Margaret

River Youth Precinct to undertake the component of the project design and construction works with confirmed funding from Lotterywest and Shire of August Margaret River sources; and


CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 6/0

Cr Earl re-entered Chambers at 8.39pm and took his seat as Chair. Cr Kennaugh returned to her allocated seating position.


107

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 PROCEDURAL MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR SMART, CR TOWNSHEND OM2017/161 That the meeting go behind closed doors.

CARRIED 7/0 The Manager Corporate Services, Manager Community and Human Services and Members of the public left chambers at 8.40pm.


108

15.1 PROPOSED SALE OF LOT 15 ALLNUT TERRACE, AUGUSTA LOCATION/ADDRESS 29 Allnut Terrace, Augusta APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE PTY/1051 REPORT AUTHOR Lauren Bidesi, Senior Legal Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Dale Putland, Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF • In March 2011 Council adopted the Land Asset Management Plan (LAMP) that included the action

to sell 29 (Lot 15) Allnut Terrace (Site) to better utilise the revenue for the revitalisation of Augusta. • In March 2012 the Site was listed for sale by public tender through WALGA and no offers were

received. • The Site was listed with the Shire’s agent (First National) in 2013 for $340,000 and was reduced to

$320,000 in 2014 at which it has continued to be marketed at until 2017. • On 23 April 2017 an offer of $240,000 was received for the Site. • In May 2017 the Shire sought a valuation from an independent valuer and gave local public notice

of the proposed sale before bringing the matter to Council in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995.

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Notes that one submission was received in response to the local public notice of the proposed sale

of 29 (Lot 15) Allnut Terrace, Augusta for $240,000 to The Applicant; 2. Resolves not to enter into an agreement for the sale of 29 (Lot 15) Allnut Terrace, Augusta for

$240,000 to The Applicant; and 3. Readvertises the sale of 29 (Lot 15) Allnut Terrace, Augusta at the higher end of the recommended

valuation range.

It is recommended that this item be dealt with with members of the public excluded as it contains information that is commercial in confidence. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Notes that one submission was received in response to the local public notice of the proposed sale

of 29 (Lot 15) Allnut Terrace, Augusta for $240,000 to The Applicant; 2. Resolves not to enter into an agreement for the sale of 29 (Lot 15) Allnut Terrace, Augusta for

$240,000 to The Applicant; and 3. Readvertises the sale of 29 (Lot 15) Allnut Terrace, Augusta at the higher end of the recommended

valuation range. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Notes that one submission was received in response to the local public notice of the

proposed sale of 29 (Lot 15) Allnut Terrace, Augusta for $240,000 to The Applicant; 2. Resolves not to enter into an agreement for the sale of 29 (Lot 15) Allnut Terrace, Augusta

for $240,000 to The Applicant; and 3. Readvertises the sale of 29 (Lot 15) Allnut Terrace, Augusta at the higher end of the

recommended valuation range.


109

0/0 Cr Smart foreshadowed the following motion: FORESHADOWED MOTION That Council: 1. Supports the sale of Lot 15 Allnut Tce for $240,000; and 2. Allocates $120,000 to the path from the Augusta boat harbour to the lighthouse and the balance of

those funds be allocated to the Augusta Revitalisation Reserve Account. Cr Lane moved the officers recommendation: RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR LANE, CR KENNAUGH OM2017/162 That Council: 1. Notes that one submission was received in response to the local public notice of the

proposed sale of 29 (Lot 15) Allnut Terrace, Augusta for $240,000 to The Applicant; 2. Resolves not to enter into an agreement for the sale of 29 (Lot 15) Allnut Terrace, Augusta

for $240,000 to The Applicant; and 3. Readvertises the sale of 29 (Lot 15) Allnut Terrace, Augusta at the higher end of the

recommended valuation range. LOST 3/4

CRS TOWNSHEND, HAYNES, SMART AND HASTIE VOTED AGAINST The CEO advised Council to ‘come out from closed doors’ before moving the foreshadowed motion as it was no longer necesscery to withhold the applicants name. Cr Kennaugh moved the following procedural motion: PROCEDURAL MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR TOWNSHEND OM2017/163 That the meeting come out from behind closed doors.

CARRIED 7/0 Cr Smart then moved his foreshadowed motion: FORESHADOWED MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR SMART, CR HASTIE OM2017/164 That Council: 1. Supports the sale of Lot 15 Allnut Tce for $240,000 to Ms Joanna Foster; and 2. Allocates $120,000 to the path from the Augusta boat harbour to the lighthouse and the

balance of those funds be allocated to the Augusta Revitalisation Reserve Account. CARRIED 5/2

CRS LANE AND KENNAUGH VOTED AGAINST REASON Cr Smart spoke to the motion stating that 29 Allnut Tce had been on the market for three years and this was the first offer that had been presented, he stated that there are better uses for the money than having it sit on a dormant block of land. Cr Kennaugh then moved the following procedural motion: PROCEDURAL MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR LANE OM2017/165 That the meeting go behind closed doors.

CARRIED 7/0


110

15.2 DEVELOPMENT OF RAPIDS LANDING DISTRICT OPEN SPACE AND SCHOOL SITE LOCATION/ADDRESS Reserve 50760 Humble Way, Margaret River APPLICANT/ LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River/Department of Education FILE REFERENCE LND/152 REPORT AUTHOR Nick Logan, Manager Planning and Development AUTHORISING OFFICER Dale Putland, Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF • A new primary school and district level Public Open Space (POS) is currently being developed as

a shared facility between the Shire and the Department of Education. • Works have commenced and the facilities are due to be completed late 2017 for the school to open

2018. • The Shire has a preliminary budget estimate in the draft 17/18 budget, pending approval from

Council and finalisation of cost estimates. • The DoE has agreed to fund half the cost of the shared component of the POS, which is a variation

to their standard policy, and to allow the Shire’s share to be paid back over the following two financial years.

• There is an additional cost liability for completing the unshared portions of POS to a basic but useable standard. These cost estimates are currently being finalised.

• The cost liability expressed by the DoE is a reasonable concession and the Shire’s contribution can be funded without significant modification to the 17/18 budget estimate. The additional component for the unshared POS will require additional funding and will be brought back before the Council for consideration when cost estimates have been finalised.

RECOMMENDATION That Council notes the funding requirements associated with the delivery of district open space at Rapids Landing. RECOMMENDATION CR HASTIE, CR SMART That Council notes the funding requirements associated with the delivery of district open space at Rapids Landing.

0/0 Following debate, the CEO suggested Council amend the motion to include the dollar amount as it would enable the Shire to respond to the offer made by the Department of Education. Cr Smart moved the following amendment: AMENDMENT / COUNCIL DECISION CR SMART, CR KENNAUGH OM2017/166 That the following wording be added: And commits to funding approximately $640,000 over two years.

CARRIED 7/0 This then became the primary motion:


111

RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR HASTIE, CR SMART OM2017/167 That Council notes the funding requirements associated with the delivery of district open space at Rapids Landing and commits to funding approximately $640,000 over two years.

CARRIED 7/0 PROCEDURAL MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR KENNAUGH, CR LANE OM2017/168 That the meeting come out from behind closed doors

CARRIED 7/0 16. CLOSURE OF MEETING The Shire President thanked all in attendance and declared the meeting closed at 9.08pm

ordinary council - home | shire of augusta … council minutes for the meeting to be held wednesday,...

Documents