ordinary council - shire of augusta-margaret...

Ordinary Council

MINUTES

FOR THE MEETING HELD WEDNESDAY 9 JULY 2014 IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS

WALLCLIFFE ROAD, MARGARET RIVER COMMENCING AT 5:30

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA-MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 9 JULY 2014

2

Meeting Notice

Dear Councillor I advise that an Ordinary Council Meeting of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River will be held in Council Chambers, 41 Wallcliffe Road, Margaret River, on Wednesday 9 July 2014, commencing at 5:30pm. Yours faithfully

GARY EVERSHED CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


3

ATTENTION/DISCLAIMER

These minutes will be confirmed at the next Ordinary Council Meeting. The minutes 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 these minutes may be subject to copyright law provisions (Copyright Act 1968, as amended) and that the express permission of the copyright owner(s) should be sought prior to their reproduction. It should be noted that Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against any persons who infringe their copyright. A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may represent a copyright infringement.


4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO. SUBJECT PAGE NO.

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

2. ATTENDANCE ................................................................................................................................. 5

2.1. APOLOGIES ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2. APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE ................................................................................................. 5

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST ....................................................................................................... 5

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

4.1.1 STREET LIGHTING ON BUSSELL HIGHWAY – MR CHRIS WHALLEY ........................................ 6 4.2. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ............................................................................................................... 6

4.2.1 LATCH ROAD KARRIDALE, MR KEN JOHN ................................................................................... 6 4.2.2 CLOSURE OF THE ALEXANDRA BRIDGE WASTE TRANSFER STATION, MR DEAN

CAMPBELL ...................................................................................................................................... 6

5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ................................................................................. 7

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING ............................................................ 7

6.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD 25 JUNE 2014 .................................................................. 7

7. DEPUTATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 7

8. PETITIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 7

9. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDING MEMBER ............................................................... 7

10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ........................................................... 7

11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND EMPLOYEE REPORTS .......................................................... 7

11.1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ......................................................................................................... 9

11.1.1 CEO PERFORMANCE TARGETS MAY 2014 TO APRIL 2015 ....................................................... 9

11.2. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 12

11.2.1 BROOKFIELD STRUCTURE PLAN - APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE ............................................ 12 11.2.2 AUGUSTA RETIREMENT VILLAGE - BUSINESS CASE .............................................................. 21 11.2.3 SCHEME AMENDMENT 24, LOT 2 ASHTON STREET MARGARET RIVER FOR

INITIATION ..................................................................................................................................... 28

11.3. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES ................................................................................................... 37

11.4. CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES .............................................................................. 39

11.4.1 FINAL ADOPTION PHYSICALLY ACTIVE COMMUNITIES POLICY ............................................ 39 11.4.2 SPORTS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - 4 JUNE

2014................................................................................................................................................ 42 11.4.3 MINUTES OF AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 25

JUNE 2014 ..................................................................................................................................... 44 11.4.4 SUBMISSIONS ON 2014-15 DIFFERENTIAL RATES AND MINIMUM PAYMENTS ..................... 46

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN .................................................. 53

13. MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AT NEXT MEETING .............................................................. 53

14. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE ................................................................................ 53 14.1. MEMBERS ..................................................................................................................................... 53

14.1.1 CLOSURE OF THE ALEXANDRA BRIDGE WASTE TRANSFER STATION, CR KIM HASTIE ........................................................................................................................................... 53

14.2. CEO ................................................................................................................................................ 55

14.2.1 TENDER RFT 12/14 UPDATED REPORT ..................................................................................... 55

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS .......................................................................................................... 58

16. CLOSURE OF MEETING ............................................................................................................... 58


5

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Wednesday 9 July 2014, in Council Chambers, 41

Wallcliffe Road, Margaret River, commencing at 5.30pm.

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Chair welcomed all in attendance and declared the meeting open at 5.34pm.

2. ATTENDANCE

Shire President : Cr Mike Smart Leeuwin Ward Councillors : Cr Kim Hastie Leeuwin Ward

Cr Kylie Kennaugh North Ward Cr Lyn Serventy North Ward Cr Felicity Haynes Town Ward Cr Neville Veitch Town Ward

Chief Executive Officer : Mr Gary Evershed Director of Corporate and Community Services : Ms Annie Riordan Director of Infrastructure : Mr Johan Louw Director of Sustainable Development : Mr Iliya Hastings Manager Planning and Development : Mr Nick Logan Minute Secretary : Ms Zoe Cunningham

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 19 MEMBERS OF THE PRESS Augusta Margaret River Mail : Nil Augusta Margaret River Times : Mr Warren Hately

2.1. Apologies

Nil

2.2. Approved Leave of Absence

Cr Ian Earl, North Ward

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

Nil


6

4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS

4.1. Response to Previous Public Questions Taken on Notice

4.1.1 Street Lighting on Bussell Highway – Mr Chris Whalley

Mr Chris Whalley of 15/6 Westringia Loop, Margaret River, asked the following question at the 25 June Ordinary Meeting of Council, with regards to possible street lighting on the Bussell Highway: Q: Could Council approach Main Roads and Western Power with a proposal of installing

street lights along the Bussell Highway between Boodjidup Road roundabout and Rosa Brook Road intersection along the Bussell Highway? Likewise, could lighting be installed along the sealed pathway that runs adjacently parallel to this section of the Highway?

The Director Infrastructure Services, Mr Johan Louw, took the question on notice and provided the following response: On 26 June 2014 the Shire requested that Main Roads WA (MRWA) consider installing street lights along the Bussell Highway between Boodjidup Road roundabout and Rosa Brook Road intersection along the Bussell Highway. The Shire does not have a program for the installation of lighting along footpaths in residential areas. The Shire will advise Mr Whalley of MRWA’s response once received.

4.2. Public Question Time

4.2.1 Latch Road Karridale, Mr Ken John

Mr Ken John of Latch Rd, Karridale, asked the following questions with regards to questions he has previously asked and an access road for his property: Q: What do I need to do to get Council to answer the questions previously submitted? Cr Smart responded to Mr John that his questions had already been adequately answered by the Shire’s Director Infrastructure in the minutes of the 11 June 2014 Ordinary Meeting of Council. Q: Where is the access road to my property? The question was taken on notice by Cr Smart, who asked the Director Infrastructure to provide a response. The Director Infrastructure, Mr Johan Louw, provided the following response: Lot 3947 is currently serviced by a formed gravel road (Latch Road). Access to Mr John’s property is via a crossover traversing the future rail trail (Reserve 47049) and an unmade road reserve. Crossovers are generally constructed by owners of properties (that benefit from the access) across existing reserves. There are no requirements for the Shire to gazette crossovers. The Shire has previously advised Mr John in writing (email) on 12 September 2013 that the Shire would continue to maintain this crossover until further investigation following the Chief Executive Officer’s undertaking at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 11 September. This information is also contained in the Shire's response to Mr John following the Ordinary Council Meeting on 28 May 2014. Future planning for the rail trail allows for access across the trail to allow for continued operations of farming properties abutting the rail reserve. The Shire has no long term plans to change access to Lot 3947.

4.2.2 Closure of the Alexandra Bridge Waste Transfer Station, Mr Dean Campbell

Mr Dean Campbell of Alexandra Bridge, addressed Council with the following question regarding suggestions made by the community in a presentation that took place prior to the Ordinary Meeting:


7

Q: Will our [members of the Alexandra Bridge community] suggestions regarding the closure of the Alexandra Bridge Waste Transfer Station be addressed by Council at tonight’s meeting?

Cr Smart responded to Mr Campbell’s question, noting that Council could not state any matters of urgent business until the item arose at the meeting, at Item 14.1 (New Business of and Urgent Nature – Members). 5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

6.1 Ordinary Council Meeting held 25 June 2014

MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR SERVENTY, CR VEITCH OM2014/137 That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held 25 June 2014 are confirmed to be a true and correct record of the meeting.

CARRIED 6/0

7. DEPUTATIONS

Nil

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


8

11.1

Chief Executive Officer


9

11.1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 11.1.1 CEO PERFORMANCE TARGETS MAY 2014 TO APRIL 2015

LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE GOV/16PER/05780 REPORT AUTHOR Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer

The CEO discloses a financial interest in this item under section 5.70 of the Local Government Act 1995 as the position of CEO provides the CEO with his principal source of income. IN BRIEF Council is required to review the CEO’s performance annually based on the performance criteria outlined in the CEO’s employment contract. The performance criteria should be the highest level strategic projects and programs which align with the Strategic Community Plan and the Corporate Plan which are adopted by Council and are informed by strategic planning workshops attended by Councillors. RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the CEO Performance Targets for 1 May 2014 to 30 April 2015 as included in the attachments to the Council meeting of 9 July 2014.

LOCATION PLAN NA TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Council is required to review the performance of the CEO annually. The performance review is to be based on the performance criteria attached to the CEO’s contract of employment. Council has recently evaluated the CEO’s performance against these criteria for the 2013-14 reporting period from May to April and judged the CEO’s performance as being highly satisfactory verging on outstanding. A new suite of performance targets has been established by extracting the key items from the Corporate Plan adopted by Council. This will:

Ensure the alignment of the CEO’s targets with the strategic direction of the organisation.

Ensure that the higher level strategic items receive priority in the next year.

Ensure that targets are Council adopted and shared by all Councillors rather than individual Councillors wish lists which are not supported by the majority of Councillors.

The CEO and Council need to agree on any new targets before implementation and the Council needs to provide the CEO with sufficient resources to achieve the outcomes in terms of staffing and finance. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE The CEO has formulated the draft targets taking into account the Corporate Plan 2014-18 which was revised and adopted in June 2013, the Council adopted budget for 2013-14, the SuperTown Growth Plan and feedback from a Councillor workshop on 28 August 2013.


10

DISCUSSION/ OFFICER COMMENTS The current performance targets expired in April 2014 and a new suite of targets is needed for the current reporting period including any carried over or incomplete at the end of the reporting period. As the reporting period is from 1 May a sixth of the reporting year has already elapsed and some targets have already been completed e.g. the review of the Waste Transfer Stations. The great Italian painter Michelangelo once said, “The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.” This is true when setting performance targets where there is a high level of trust between the Council and CEO so that stretch targets can be set rather than settling for mediocrity. The suite of targets presented is considered to be challenging and requiring good coordination and delivery of some complex projects and programs. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The LGA states under section 5.38 “The performance of each employee who is employed for a term of more than one year, including the CEO and each senior employee, is to be reviewed at least once in relation to every year of the employment.” The CEO’s contract includes the following clauses: “The CEO must use every reasonable endeavour to comply with the performance criteria. (Clause 4.1)” “The performance criteria may be amended, from time to time, by agreement in writing between the parties.” (Clause 4.5) POLICY IMPLICATIONS An ongoing review of policies is envisaged as part of the performance plan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Targets require a budget allocation and where grant funds are to be utilised, confirmation of the receipt of income is required prior to the commencement of the project. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS The performance targets are developed from the Corporate Plan which has a triple bottom line approach to the integration of economic development, environmental protection and social advancement. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the CEO Performance Targets for 1 May 2014 to 30 April 2015 as included in the attachments to the Council meeting of 9 July 2014. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT NA ATTACHMENTS 1. CEO Performance Targets RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR HASTIE, CR KENNAUGH OM2014/138 That Council adopts the CEO Performance Targets for 1 May 2014 to 30 April 2015 as included in the attachments to the Council meeting of 9 July 2014.

CARRIED 6/0


11

11.2

Sustainable Development


12

11.2. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 11.2.1 BROOKFIELD STRUCTURE PLAN - APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE

LOCATION/ADDRESS Lot 9007 Darch Road, Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER RPS Australia / Brookfield Estate Pty. Ltd. FILE REFERENCE LND/152SP REPORT AUTHOR Matt Cuthbert, Strategic Project Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Iliya Hastings, Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF

The subject land is zoned ‘Future Development’ and designated as Structure Plan Area No. 5 (SPA5) which requires that subdivision accords with the East Margaret River Structure Plan 2006 or an alternative structure plan as may be subsequently endorsed.

Planning for the perimeter road has seen its alignment moved outside of the subject land, which means that the land can now be developed as one cohesive locality, whereas it was previously divided by the road.

The resultant densities included in the proposed structure plan have therefore been increased, in line with the existing Brookfield estate.

It is recommended that the Structure Plan be advertised for public comment. RECOMMENDATION That Council in accordance with clause 6.2.6.2(b) of Local Planning Scheme No. 1: 1. Determines that the proposed Structure Plan for Lot 9007 Darch Road is suitable for advertising

subject to the following changes being made: a) Remove Conservation Reserve from the legend. b) Replace ‘Public Open Space’ in the Legend with ‘Parks and Recreation Reserve’ and colour

all reserves similarly. c) Include a ‘Structure Plan Condition’ which requires all areas of POS to be ceded free of cost. d) Widen Southern landscape buffer along Rosa Brook Road to 20m. e) Delete Condition 2. f) Include a condition requiring an erosion management and sediment control plan g) Include a new condition requiring a compliance strategy for the provision of rainwater tanks

for each new dwelling. h) Include a new condition requiring the subdivider to install the necessary infrastructure to allow

for treated wastewater to be returned to areas of POS for irrigation. 2. Requires the following items to be addressed during the consultation period and prior to the

matter being considered by Council for final adoption: a) Undertake a Sustainability Outcomes and Implementation Plan, which should importantly

details targets and mechanisms for achieving them. b) Undertake traffic analysis to determine the potential impact of the proposal upon traffic

volumes on John Archibald Drive, and if applicable, insert a ‘Structure Plan Condition’ which requires the subdivider to make an appropriate per lot contribution towards road construction.

THE SITE The subject site consists of the undeveloped land between the easternmost extent of the ‘Brookfield’ estate and Darch Road. It is predominantly cleared with the exception of a large block of remnant vegetation in the north western corner and scattered paddock trees. The land is gently undulating, with the lowest part of the site containing a natural drainage line. Darch Road is a heavily vegetated road reserve which has been developed as a bike/walk trail. A drainage line runs north west through the centre of the property.


13

Figure 1 – Location Plan THE PROPOSAL The proposal is a Structure Plan which will provide a framework for the future subdivision and development of the Brookfield estate. It outlines the proposed road layout, location and size of areas of POS, and residential densities which will dictate the size of future lots. The Structure Plan is included as Attachment 1. TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND

The planning framework for the subject site was first set via the East Margaret River Structure Plan (EMRSP), endorsed by the WAPC in 2005.

A more detailed Structure Plan for the Brookfield Estate (Stage 5) was subsequently endorsed in 2006 which provided a framework for the subject land west of the proposed perimeter road alignment identified in the EMRSP.

The location of the perimeter road has subsequently been moved further east outside of the subject land as shown on the Local Planning Strategy and Margaret River Townsite Strategy.

Brookfield Estate has been progressively subdivided and developed over time, with the development front moving in an easterly direction towards the subject land, which it now abuts.


14

Figure 2 – Brookfields Stage 5 ODP STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Clause 6.2.6.2 of LPS1 provides that ‘upon receiving a Proposed Structure Plan, the local government shall either:

(a) determine that the Proposed Structure Plan is satisfactory for advertising;

(b) determine that the Proposed Structure Plan should not be advertised until further details have been provided or modifications undertaken; or

(c) determine that the Proposed Structure Plan is not satisfactory for advertising, giving reasons to the Proponent.’

PLANNING FRAMEWORK Local Planning Strategy The land is identified as being within future Development Area ‘M3c’ by the LPS – see Figure 3. The LPS reflects development outcomes as set out by the East Margaret River Structure Plan, being lots of 2000m

2 – 4000m

2.


15

Figure 3 – Local Planning Strategy LPS1 The subject land is zoned for ‘Future Development’ and has a structure plan area ‘SPA5’ designation, which, in accordance with Schedule 15, sets out detailed requirements for future structure plans to accommodate. Associated text contained within Schedule 15 requires that subdivision and development is to be “Generally in accordance with the East Margaret River Structure Plan and Guiding Document endorsed 19/5/2005 or a subsequent Structure Plan endorsed by the local government and the Western Australian Planning Commission in accordance with the process set out in Part 6.2 of the Scheme” East Margaret River Structure Plan At the time that the EMRSP was developed, the location of the perimeter road was intended to traverse through the centre of the subject land (see Figure 4). As such, the EMRSP depicts a conventional residential layout for the land west of the road, and limited development with lower densities (R2.5/R5) on the eastern side of the road, which at the time represented the ‘urban fringe’. This was an appropriate outcome given the circumstances which prevailed at the time, however these have now changed through the location of the perimeter road further East.


16

Figure 4 – Exerpt from East Margaret River Structure Plan. DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The primary issues to be considered in the assessment of the subject Structure Plan are as follows: Lot Density The Structure Plan provides scope for the creation of 389 lots. Of these, 343 will have an R-code of R20, and therefore lots will be an average of 450m

2 in size. Pockets of higher density have been

provided with R30 lots located to integrate with existing lots to the west that have the same density code. Approximately 20 R25 lots (average 350m

2) are located overlooking an area of POS. The

structure Plan provides for approximately 200 more lots than would have been possible under the lower density codes prescribed by the EMRSP. Lots with an R10 (1000m

2) code frame the structure plan area along its eastern boundary. These

larger lots, together with the existing vegetation located within the Darch Road reserve, provide a transition between the urban environment and the rural land beyond. In time this land too will be considered for residential development in accordance with the LPS and Shire’s Hamlet Design guidelines and as such, significant POS buffers around that development are likely. This reinforces the need for a gradual transition of lot sizes as does ensuring lots are large enough to minimise any adverse visual impact experiences by users of the Darch Road trail. Public Open Space (POS) The Public Open Space identified by the Structure Plan represents an appropriate mix between landscape and conservation purposes, maintaining natural water bodies and drainage flows, and areas for active recreation purposes, which are distributed so that they will be easily accessible to all new residents. The location, size and design of POS accords with the direction provided by the Shires’ Public Open Space Strategy 2014. All residents will have access to a park within easy walking distance (no more than 400m). Parks are interconnected by the dual use path network as shown on the structure plan, and good surveillance of POS is created by the design of streets so that dwellings can ‘overlook’ parkland.


17

As requested, the proponent has provided confirmation that upon full development of the structure plan area, Brookfield (as a whole) will have fully delivered its 10% POS requirement, as shown at Figure 5.

Brookfield Estate Western Precinct (Existing Development)

Eastern Precinct (subject to proposed Structure Plan)

Total

Site Area 59.81ha 45.65ha 105.46ha

Net Subdivisible Area 57.898ha 40.57ha 98.468ha

10% Requirement 5.79ha 4.05ha 9.84ha

POS Provided on Plan 6.5603ha 4.68ha 11.24ha

Figure 5 – POS provision Brookfield Estate Local Water Management The proponents have prepared a Local Water Management Strategy (LWMS) and have undertaken preliminary consultation with the Department of Water. The DoW has indicated that they are in general support of the LWMS. The general drainage principle that is intended to be followed is that of a ‘treatment train’ whereby stormwater high in the catchment is directed through a series of basins/swales before it is discharged into the Darch Brook at one of three outlet points. The LWMS flags the potential for treated effluent to be returned to POS areas for irrigation as is a consideration under the Shire’s District Water Management Strategy. Water conservation in the home is also addressed with a recommendation that each dwelling have a water tank utilised for non-potable purposes however this isn’t mandated. These initiatives are partly demonstrated at the Rapids Landing subdivision at present where landowners are required to provide rainwater tanks to reduce discharge to the stormwater system during peak events. Rebates are made available where tanks are connected to houses for non-potable purposes. The proponent does not wish to commit to implementing these measures however it is recommended that they be mandated through the inclusion of ‘Structure Plan conditions’ which should be added to the plan with implementation measures to be determined at the time of subdivision. Sustainability LPS1 requires that structure plans be accompanied by a range of information including “a Sustainability Outcomes and Implementation Plan which details the targets and method of delivery in respect to “sustainability outcomes” inclusive of:

• on-site power generation;

• efficient use of power and water;

• on-site water capture and re-use;

• re-use of grey water; and

• correct housing orientation for passive heating and cooling.”

The proponent has identified some potential sustainability outcomes which could be achieved however the plan requires further work. This should be undertaken before the Structure Plan is considered for final approval. Landscape Impact The Structure Plan provides for a 10m wide landscape buffer along Rosa Brook Road. This is consistent in terms of its width with that which has been provided to the developed portion of Brookfield to the West. It is considered however that greater visual mitigation could be achieved by widening this buffer to 20m which will allow more dense landscaping to be instated. It will also provide a more gradual transition from the rural area into the urban area when entering from Rosa Brook Road which is likely to become a key entrance from the Perimeter Road to which it will connect, into the East Margaret River urban area. The proponent does not agree with this recommendation and submits that adequate screening can be achieved within the 10m wide buffer as provided.


18

Solar Orientation Ideally, roads should be orientated north-south or east-west, to allow houses to be designed with one frontage facing due north to maximise passive solar heating. The Structure Plan achieves this in the southern half of the site, but not in the north. This is due to the irregular shape of the site and the orientation of roads relative to site contours which is critical to achieving necessary drainage flows. Notwithstanding, lots will be orientated so that future dwellings can achieve reasonable access to the northern sun. Developer Contributions The traffic study submitted with the Structure Plan does not give an indication as to the way on which the subject proposal may impact upon John Archibald Drive. An increase to traffic on John Archibald Drive would warrant a developer contribution towards its construction. It is recommended that additional work be undertaken during the advertising to determine what level of contribution towards the construction of John Archibald Drive is reasonable (if any). Modifications A schedule of modifications is provided below. As discussed, some changes are required to the Structure Plan prior to advertising, whilst other matters should be dealt with by the proponent during the advertising period.

No. Modification Reason When

1 Remove Conservation Reserve from the legend

No such reservation exists within LPS1.

Prior to advertising.

2 Replace ‘Public Open Space’ in the Legend with ‘Parks and Recreation Reserve’ and colour all reserves similarly.

So that all areas of POS become zoned accordingly.


Include a ‘Structure Plan Condition’ which requires all areas of POS to be ceded free of cost.

For clarity. Prior to advertising.

3 Widen Southern landscape buffer along Rosa Brook Road to 20m

To increase capacity for screen landscaping.


4 Delete Condition 2 Not necessary. Prior to advertising.

5 Include condition requiring an erosion management and sediment control plan.

Given proximity to the Darch Brook.


6 Undertake a Sustainability Outcomes and Implementation Plan, which should importantly details targets and mechanisms for achieving them.

As required by LPS1 Prior to consideration of the proposal post advertising.

7 Include a new condition requiring all new dwellings to provide a rainwater tank to be connected to the dwelling.

As suggested by the LWMP


8 Include a new condition requiring the subdivider to install the necessary infrastructure to allow for treated wastewater to be returned to areas of POS for irrigation.

As suggested by the LWMP


9 Undertake traffic analysis to determine the potential impact of the proposal upon traffic volumes on John Archibald Drive, and if applicable, insert a ‘Structure Plan conditions’ which requires the subdivider to make an appropriate per lot contribution towards road construction.

To determine whether or not developer contributions towards the construction of John Archibald Drive are applicable.

Prior to consideration of the proposal post advertising.

CONSULTATION AND ADVICE If the Structure Plan is determined to be acceptable for the purposes of consultation, it will be publicly advertised in accordance with clause 6.2.6.2 of LPS1.


19

STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 The sections of the Strategic Plan that are relevant to the Proposal are:

Goal 1: Valuing the natural environment; and

Goal 3: Managing growth sustainably. The proposal provides for the future accommodation needs of Margaret River in an environmentally responsible manner. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The Proposal will result in a significant area of native vegetation being ceded to the Crown for protection in perpetuity. Social The proposal will provide for the growth of the Margaret River community in a planned manner. Economic The proposal will, in time, lead to growth of the Margaret River economic base. CONCLUSION The proposal represents a significant change to the urban form envisaged for the eastern extent of Brookfield. However, the proposed Structure Plan, necessarily responds to the decision by Main Roads WA to move the alignment of the Perimeter Road east of the subject land, allowing it to be designed and developed as a cohesive extension to the existing Brookfield Estate. On this basis, it is recommended that the proposal be advertised subject to modifications being made. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council in accordance with clause 6.2.6.2(b) of Local Planning Scheme No. 1: 1. Determines that the proposed Structure Plan for Lot 9007 Darch Road is suitable for advertising

subject to the following changes being made: a) Remove Conservation Reserve from the legend. b) Replace ‘Public Open Space’ in the Legend with ‘Parks and Recreation Reserve’ and colour

all reserves similarly. c) Include a ‘Structure Plan Condition’ which requires all areas of POS to be ceded free of cost. d) Widen Southern landscape buffer along Rosa Brook Road to 20m. e) Delete Condition 2. f) Include a condition requiring an erosion management and sediment control plan g) Include a new condition requiring a compliance strategy for the provision of rainwater tanks

for each new dwelling. h) Include a new condition requiring the subdivider to install the necessary infrastructure to allow

for treated wastewater to be returned to areas of POS for irrigation. 2. Requires the following items to be addressed during the consultation period and prior to the

matter being considered by Council for final adoption: a) Undertake a Sustainability Outcomes and Implementation Plan, which should importantly

details targets and mechanisms for achieving them. b) Undertake traffic analysis to determine the potential impact of the proposal upon traffic


ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Structure Plan


20

RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR HASTIE, CR SERVENTY OM2014/139 That Council in accordance with clause 6.2.6.2(b) of Local Planning Scheme No. 1: 1. Determines that the proposed Structure Plan for Lot 9007 Darch Road is suitable for

advertising subject to the following changes being made: a) Remove Conservation Reserve from the legend. b) Replace ‘Public Open Space’ in the Legend with ‘Parks and Recreation Reserve’ and

colour all reserves similarly. c) Include a ‘Structure Plan Condition’ which requires all areas of POS to be ceded free of

cost. d) Widen Southern landscape buffer along Rosa Brook Road to 20m. e) Delete Condition 2. f) Include a condition requiring an erosion management and sediment control plan g) Include a new condition requiring a compliance strategy for the provision of rainwater

tanks for each new dwelling. h) Include a new condition requiring the subdivider to install the necessary infrastructure

to allow for treated wastewater to be returned to areas of POS for irrigation. 2. Requires the following items to be addressed during the consultation period and prior to

the matter being considered by Council for final adoption: a) Undertake a Sustainability Outcomes and Implementation Plan, which should

importantly details targets and mechanisms for achieving them. b) Undertake traffic analysis to determine the potential impact of the proposal upon traffic


CARRIED 6/0


21

11.2.2 AUGUSTA RETIREMENT VILLAGE - BUSINESS CASE

LOCATION/ADDRESS Reserve 20761 Hillview Terrace, Augusta APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Crown FILE REFERENCE LND/43 REPORT AUTHOR Matt Cuthbert, Strategic Project Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Iliya Hastings, Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF

One of Council’s priorities for 2013/14 is the progression of a business case to facilitate the development of a retirement village in Augusta.

Council resolved in June 2013 to prepare a business case further investigating the financial viability and demand for a retirement village in Augusta, the preferred land tenure arrangements, ownership model and development concept.

Rosewood Care Group have undertaken the business case which is now presented for Council’s information.

Rosewood recommends that there is a sound basis for moving ahead with the project and have provided an outline for so doing.

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Notes the Augusta Lifestyle/Retirement Village Business Case 2014 prepared by Rosewood Care

Group and in particular its’ finding that there is sufficient justification for progressing with a retirement village in Augusta.

2. Supports the identified 1.8ha portion of Reserve 20761 as being the preferred development site. 3. Progresses the proposal, by:

Seeking conditional Freehold title to the land from the Department of Lands;

Seeking funding for the extension of the sewer to the subject site from the State Government; and

If/When the above are achieved, expressions of interest in constructing and running the facility be sought from suitable not for profit retirement village providers.

SITE AND SURROUNDS The site within which the consideration of a retirement village has focussed is Reserve 20761 Allnut Terrace in Augusta. It is Crown land administered by the Department of Lands and is vested in the Shire of Augusta Margaret River with power to lease, for the purpose of ‘Community Centre and Recreation’. It is a Class C reserve with a legal area of 26.4739ha. The Site accommodates the Augusta Shire office and Recreation Centre which includes tennis and basketball courts, a skate park, hydrotherapy pool, BMX track and sporting oval (see Figure 1). The Site is zoned Public Purposes (Community Purposes) and Parks and Recreation under Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1). To the west of the Site exists Light Industry zoned land and to the east is the Augusta Townsite. The portion of the site within which the business case recommends that the retirement village be located is shown at Figure 1 and discussed later in this report.


22

Figure 1 – Location Plan TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Since 2011, ongoing discussions have occurred between the Shire and the Department of Lands (DoL) regarding the Shire’s ability to take ownership of the subject site. Discussions have led to the DoL providing preliminary advice that:

There is in principle support to the Shire progressing with a retirement village on the site;

If the proposal is to be undertaken on a fully commercial basis, the land would need to be converted to freehold and bought by the Shire at the market rate; and

If the proposal is undertaken by a not for profit organisation, conditional tenure to the land could be transferred for a nominal fee.

In 2013, Council received a feasibility study commissioned by the Shire to investigate the financial viability and other key considerations with respect to providing a retirement village upon the subject land. The 2013 Feasibility Study identified that the subject site was well suited to the development of a retirement village of approximately 25 dwellings. Following consideration of the feasibility study Council resolved on 12 June 2013 to continue discussions with the DoL and to undertake further detailed investigations regarding the demand for retirement village via production of a business case. CONSULTATION A key outcome required of the business case is the investigation of the level of demand for such a facility in Augusta. In order to establish this, Rosewood undertook a comprehensive survey, which was mailed directly to all pensioners living in Augusta, and advertised to the broader community via newspaper and internet mediums. A total of 152 households responded to the survey, and when those from outside of Augusta are excluded, the return rate represents 41% of Augusta’s over 65 population. The survey revealed that:

89% of the people who responded owned a house with an assumed value of over $400,000;

The house features people are looking for are in line with current industry norms – e.g.: a free standing home with 2 or 3 bedrooms;

72% of people who responded said that they would pay over $350,000 for a new home in the right retirement village;


23

65% of people who responded said that they would pay over $60 for the weekly service fees in the right retirement village; and

87% of people who responded consider the proposed site location to be a good one.

PLANNING FRAMEWORK Local Planning Scheme No. 1 Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1) gives some guidance about the appropriate use and development of Local Reserves. Clause 3.4 simply specifies that the use or development of a Local Reserve must first be granted planning approval with due regard to the general ‘matters to be considered’ under clause 10.2 and the ultimate purpose intended for the Local Reserve. Given the site is largely zoned Parks and Recreation Reserve, it is likely that in the event a lifestyle / retirement village is progressed by Council, the zoning of the site would need to be changed via an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 1. Local Planning Strategy The Site is identified as Development Investigation Area A2 in the Local Planning Strategy (LPS) within which “Appropriate land use and development opportunities, including uses which aid the establishment of aged persons/retirement facilities” are supported. DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The key investigations and recommendations of the business case are explored below: Preferred Site Whilst the previously prepared feasibility study focussed on a 0.8ha portion of the site located on Hillview Road, Rosewood were encouraged to consider all opportunities for development within undeveloped portions of Reserve 20761. The business case recommends a similar (albeit larger at 1.8ha) area on Hillview Road as the preferred location (see Figure 1). The benefits of the chosen site as compared to other potential sites are that it has better access to the power, water and sewer infrastructure required to service the proposal, and the fact that the vegetation located on site is of a reduced quality compared to the larger vegetated area which occupies the western half of Reserve 20761. Notwithstanding this there is a need for a sewer extension from the corner of Blackwood Avenue and Manning Street to the subject site. This is estimated to cost $400,000. The business case makes the recommendation that this money be sourced through ‘Royalties for Regions’ or a similar grant opportunity. Demand Within the context of the subject business case, ‘market penetration’ refers to the percentage of the over 65 population in any given area, which resides within a retirement village. Rosewood advise that the market penetration in WA is 6.4% whilst the National average is 5%. Of particular note is the fact that:

“There are currently 443 retirement village units in Busselton, which represents a market penetration of 9% - considerably higher than the WA and national averages. From a positive point of view, this market penetration suggests that retirees move to Busselton from elsewhere. From a negative point of view, if we combine Busselton with Augusta Margaret River, the overall market penetration of retirement village units for the region is 8.2% which suggests that the combined region is over provided with units.”

In December 2013, McCrindle Baynes carried out the third national study of the retirement village (RV) industry. The survey was carried out in 243 villages nationally and is regarded as the most comprehensive of the industry. It found that over half (56%) of all retirement village residents had moved more than 10km from their previous homes. The comparatively high number of RV residents in Busselton suggests that up to 50% of residents may have moved from outside areas. The above information is presented within the business case to demonstrate a high demand scenario (6.4% penetration and 50% expected patronage from outside Augusta) and a low demand scenario (5% penetration and 30% patronage from outside Augusta). The results are expressed in table form at Figure 2.


24

Figure 2 – Demand scenarios

Rosewood caution against reliance on expected demand at 2026 given it is a substantial time into the future. The suggested new demand can therefore reasonably be expected to be somewhere between 17 and 32 new units by 2021.The predicted conservative demand compares favourably with the results of the survey conducted by Rosewood which suggests that there is currently a demand for around 7 units from the local community.

Development Model The business case explores four development models to determine the most suitable for the Augusta context. They are: Retirement villages: Retirement villages are dedicated communities managed under the Retirement Villages Act. Generally, residents must be over 55 and able to live independently, though some villages have an older age limit. Seniors Strata Title Developments: These are groups of houses or apartment buildings that a developer builds and then sells (normally as a strata title development) with the regulation that only people aged 55 and over can live there. There are no other restrictions and generally limited facilities. Seniors Residential Parks: Residential parks are based on the idea that the resident buys a relocatable (manufactured) home, which is placed on leased land in a residential park. The cost is often lower than for other forms of housing because residents do not pay for land. Parks are covered by the Residential Parks Act. Seniors Rental Accommodation: Rental villages are not normally covered by the Retirement Villages Act. Rental villages provide the dwelling – often with meals - and limited community facilities. Rental assistance from Centrelink is usually available. Rental housing is covered by the Residential Tenancies Act. The retirement village model is recommended by the business case based upon the tenure of the available land and the type of housing sought by potential residents as illustrated by the survey results. Development Concept The business case contains a concept plan which shows how the site could be developed with 36 dwellings, 12 being three bedroom and the remainder 2 bedroom (see Figure 3). Each house has a private 2 car garage and has a floor area of approximately 125m

2. The concept plan also provides for

some form of common room or facility, and an area where boats or caravans could be stored. The business case recommends that development be staged over a number of years given the slow growth in demand predicted between 2016 and 2021. Notwithstanding, a development site capable of being developed with 36 units will easily be sufficient to provide for demand up to and beyond that predicted up to 2021.

DEMAND SCENARIOS 2016 2021 2026

High penetration rate demand (6.4%), Augusta only 9 units 16 units unitsnit

s

23 units

High move from elsewhere percentage (50%) 9 16 23

Total - optimistic assumptions 18 32 46

Low penetration rate demand (5.5%), Augusta only 6 12 18

Low move from elsewhere percentage (30%) 3 5 8

Total - conservative assumptions 9 17 26


25

Figure 3 – Development concept and staging plan The concept plan contained within the business case has been provided for illustrative purposes and to confirm the land area required to provide a development site capable of meeting the demand for units. There would be no compulsion for the ultimate developer to adhere to the plan, but it does provide a good starting point for future planning. Staff are of the view that the density shown on the plan could be reduced to retain more vegetation in order to create a less urban and more ‘local’ aesthetic. The ultimate design would need to provide a greater degree of amenity and be more responsive to the site. Land Tenure Four types of land tenure have been explored as illustrated in table form at Figure 4 which is taken from the business case.

Figure 4 – Comparison of forms of suitable land tenure

Form of Tenure Development Model Potential Developer Conclusion

Reservation for a

Specific Purpose

Excludes retirement

village and strata options. Relocatable home and affordable rental is possible.

Restricted to

Government funded programs

Not consistent with market

demand. Dependent on

Government funding.

Freehold (fee simple) All options are open

including retirement/ lifestyle village.

Private developers

and

NFP’s.

Market price of land will affect

the financial viability of a

lifestyle/retirement village as

shown in Part 2 of the Business

Case.

Not consistent with AMRS “no

monies” objective.

Conditional Freehold

Tenure (fee simple)

Some options are open

including retirement village

Not for Profit

providers

Consistent with market demand

Leasehold (40x40) Affordable rental

housing

Restricted to

Government funded

programs.

Not consistent with Market

demand.


26

The business case recommends that Conditional Freehold Tenure (CFT) be pursued with the Department of Lands. This option would allow the implementation of the preferred model of accommodation to be realised (retirement village) and could be achieved at a minimal cost to the Shire. Rosewood advises that CFT is a form of land tenure which is very likely to be acceptable to any nominated not for profit developer. Ownership The most common form of tenure for retirement villages today is a lease/loan structure with an entry premium (which equates to market value) and an exit, or deferred fee (of up to 20-30% of the resale price) payable when a resident departs. This arrangement is often referred to as a Deferred Management Fee structure or DMF. The business case recommends that this type of ownership structure is that which is offered to prospective tenants of the retirement village, and is identified as being understood and accepted by providers and tenants alike. The business case explains that all new retirement villages developed by the not-for-profit sector in WA in the past 10 years plus have been lease/loan with a departure/deferred fee. This has become the standard model for the not-for-profit sector. Summary In summary, the business case confirms that:

There is demand for between 17 and 32 retirement village units in Augusta as at 2021;

A 1.8ha site fronting Hillview Terrace is the most desirable location within Reserve 20761 within which to accommodate a retirement village development sufficient in size (up to 36 units) to cater for expected demand;

The Shire should pursue condition freehold tenure over the land, which will be at minimal cost, but which will limit development of the retirement village to ‘not for profit’ partners. The land will represent the Shire’s contribution towards the project.

In order to make the proposal attractive to potential developers, the Shire will need to arrange for the sewer to be extended to the site, which is likely to cost $400,000. Funding could be sought through Royalties for Regions or similar;

The developer should aim to market the units at around $400,000;

The units should be offered to the market on a DMF arrangement. The contribution of the land free of costs to the project would entitle the Shire to enter into a profit sharing arrangement with the not for profit provider subject to agreed terms.

Next Steps The information now available to Council by way of the 2013 Feasibility study and the subject Business Case provides Council with sufficient confidence to continue with the proposal. The key issues which remain critical to its progression however, are:

Will the State agree to provide conditional freehold tenure to the land to the Shire?

Can $400,000 be sourced to extend the sewer to the site or is there another suitable effluent disposal solution available?

Will a suitable not for profit organisation agree to develop and run the retirement village?

If Council wish to progress with the retirement village and in order to establish satisfactory answers to the above, the following are identified as being the ‘next steps’ by the business case:

Request ‘in principle support from the Department of Lands for conditional freehold tenure over the identified portion of Reserve 20761;

Liaise with SWDC and other as necessary in order to identify and pursue options for funding the necessary sewer extension;

Upon successful resolution of the above, prepare a ‘package’ of information for not for profit retirement village providers and seek expressions of interest.

The outcomes of the EOI process will be reported to Council. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Goal 3: Managing growth sustainably Key Project: Retirement/lifestyle village Augusta Feasibility Study


27

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The business case has been premised on the assumption that the Shire do not wish to expend financial capital in the process of establishing the retirement village. The Shire’s contribution towards the project is in establishing the demand and making the land available to an appropriate provider. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The preferred location for the retirement village promoted by the business case is located within an area where the vegetation is of least environmental value. Social A retirement village would support ‘ageing in place’ of a growing demographic of retirees in Augusta. Economic Local trades and services would benefit from a substantial project such as the construction of a retirement village. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Notes the Augusta Lifestyle/Retirement Village Business Case 2014 prepared by Rosewood Care

Group and in particular its’ finding that there is sufficient justification for progressing with a retirement village in Augusta.

2. Supports the identified 1.8ha portion of Reserve 20761 as being the preferred development site. 3. Progresses the proposal, by:




ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Business Case 2014– Rosewood Care Group RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR HASTIE, CR SMART OM2014/140 That Council: 1. Notes the Augusta Lifestyle/Retirement Village Business Case 2014 prepared by

Rosewood Care Group and in particular its’ finding that there is sufficient justification for progressing with a retirement village in Augusta.

2. Supports the identified 1.8ha portion of Reserve 20761 as being the preferred development site.

3. Progresses the proposal, by:




CARRIED 6/0


28

11.2.3 SCHEME AMENDMENT 24, LOT 2 ASHTON STREET MARGARET RIVER FOR INITIATION

LOCATION/ADDRESS Lot 2 Ashton Street, Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Ahola Planning / Hulme Developments Pty Ltd FILE REFERENCE PTY/1283 REPORT AUTHOR Lucy Gouws, Planning Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Iliya Hastings, Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF

The Proposal seeks the ‘initiation’ of an Amendment and an associated Structure Plan to provide for the further subdivision of an existing 3ha rural residential lot into five (5) 2000sqm residential lots and two (2) 1ha rural residential lots.

The site is zoned rural residential and has previous approval under the Outline Development Plan (ODP) for Ashton Street (2006) to be subdivided into three (3) 1ha rural residential lots.

It is recommended that the Amendment be initiated. RECOMMENDATION That Council pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act (2005) initiate Amendment No. 24 to Local Planning Scheme No. 1 by rezoning portion of Lot 2 Ashton Street, Margaret River from ‘Rural Residential’ to ‘Residential’; and modifying Schedule 11 – SPA 14 associated provisions.

TABLED ITEMS Nil SITE AND SURROUNDS Lot 2 Ashton Street, Margaret River (the Site), is located approximately 1.5km west from the Margaret River Town Centre. The site is 3ha, and undeveloped. The location of the land is shown in Figure 1. The land is accessed from Ashton Street which is bitumen sealed. All lots in the proposal will have direct access from Ashton Street. The land is serviced with reticulated water and power, but not sewer. The terrain of the site falls away from Ashton Street and falls relatively steeply to the north-west towards the reserve along the edge of the Margaret River. The site is predominantly cleared for grazing, with an area of vegetation (Marri) in the south western portion of the site, and a stand of introduced mature Eucalypt Gum trees along the eastern side along Ashton Street.


29

Figure 1. Location Plan Surrounding land is zoned a mixture of rural residential (consisting of lots 1ha or greater) and residential lots averaging 2000sqm. The area falls within Structure Plan Area 14 ‘SPA14’ and associated endorsed ODP (2006) that allows for the further subdivision of the site to three (3) 1ha rural residential lots. Lot 3, Ashton Street (south) is zoned residential and rural residential, similar in context to that of the proposal. Lot 3 has the ability to be subdivided into six (6) 2000sqm residential lots in a battle axe configuration and one (1) rural residential lot that will contain the existing dwelling. Land immediately on the eastern side of Ashton Street is zoned residential with an area set aside for parks and recreation. Land to the north is zoned rural residential, where most lots have been developed with single dwellings. The existing ODP is evident in Figure 2. This ODP shows Lot 2 being subdivided into 3 rural residential lots. It is unclear why this lot was outside the area where some 2000sqm lots were provided adjacent to the Ashton Street frontage of the site. BACKGROUND Council endorsed Amendment 133 to Town Planning Scheme 11, Amendment 16 to Town Planning Scheme 17 and an associated Outline Development Plan in 2006 to facilitate the re-subdivision of 13 special rural (now referred to as rural residential) lots to create a mixture of 2ha rural residential and a number of 2000sqm residential lots (see Figure 2). The lots on the eastern and southern sides of Ashton Street were generally on higher ground and were considered suitable for higher density residential lots ranging from 2,000 – 3,000sqm. Lots on the western side of Ashton Street where the land is steeper sloping and abuts the Margaret River were considered better suited to larger lots sizes of 2ha or more. Following from the endorsed Amendments, subdivision applications for the majority of the lots that were part of the Structure Plan have been approved and implemented. Lot 2, the subject of this report remains a single rural residential lot.

2

3

Lots


30

Figure 2. Structure Plan Figure 2. Existing ODP PROPOSAL The proposal consists of an amendment to the Scheme and a separate Structure Plan for Lot 2. - The amendment to the Scheme is to rezone a portion of the site from rural residential to

residential R5 providing for 2000sqm. - A Structure Plan has been prepared by the proponent to demonstrate how the land could be

subdivided into five (5) residential lots of 2000sqm and two (2) rural residential lots of 1ha. The draft Structure Plan can be found at Attachment 1. It proposes that each residential lot will gain direct access onto Ashton Street, and the proposed rural residential Lots 206 and 207 will gain access via two (2) parallel battle axe access legs with ‘reciprocal rights of access’. The proposal also presents building envelopes on both the residential lots and rural residential lots. PLANNING FRAMEWORK The following documents set out the planning framework applicable to assessment of the proposal: 1. Statement of Planning Policy No. 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge (LNRSPP); 2. Shire of Augusta Margaret River Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1); and 3. Local Planning Strategy (LPS).

Subject Site


31

The Site is identified for ‘Rural Residential’ purposes by both the LNRSPP and the LPS. Both of these documents support the consolidation of land already committed for this purpose, instead of the creation of new Rural Residential areas and consumption of productive agricultural land. The LPS provides that the maximum density of development in the Rural Residential zone should be one lot/dwelling per hectare. In addition, the western portion of the site is located within the ‘National Park Influence Area’ under the LNRSPP where land use should have due regard to the management practices of the National Park and not affect the management regime of the National Park. The Site is also zoned ‘Rural Residential’ in LPS1. Under the general provisions for this zone the minimum lot size is three hectares unless otherwise provided for by way of an endorsed Structure Plan. In this regards, the site falls within the endorsed Structure Plan Are SP14, where the site has already been identified to be subdivided into three (3) lots of approximately 1 ha. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE Initiation of Amendment No. 24 will allow the consultation process to commence, in accordance with the requirements of the Town Planning Regulations (1967). PLANNING ASSESSMENT Environmental Impacts The assessment of the local environmental issues was previously carried out through the endorsed ODP. The site has been used for grazing and is largely cleared, with some remnant vegetation in the south-west corner and a planted buffer of Eucalypts along the Ashton Street frontage. There are no significant environmental issues arising from the proposed Amendment. The proposed Structure Plan seeks to minimise any impact upon the existing remnant trees by allocating development within building envelopes for both the proposed two (2) rural residential lots and the five (5) residential lots. The endorsed ODP for Ashton Street does not include building envelopes on either the rural residential lots or the residential lots. Whilst the intent of the building envelopes is noted, it is not considered necessary to limit development within the individual lots by use of building envelopes. There are other mechanisms to protect the exiting remnant vegetation that exist within the site, and it is recommended that the existing Landscape Protection Area that buffers the Margaret River is expanded to incorporate the area of remnant vegetation within the site. It is also recommended that a further Landscape Buffer is placed over the Eucalypt (Gums) along the eastern side along Ashton Street. This approach is consistent with how other land is planned in the Ashton Street area. Fire Management A Fire Management Plan (FMP) has been prepared for the proposal which identifies the subject land and adjoining as having areas of “Low” and “Extreme” bush fire hazard levels. In order to mitigate against the risk of fire, a range of measures are recommended including - Construction of dwellings to a BAL 19 – 29 standards depending on the distance from vegetation

rated ‘Moderate’ or ‘Extreme’. - A 20m combined building protection/hazard separation zone within which fuel loads must be

reduced; and - Installation of fire hydrants adjacent to the site. The content of the FMP is considered acceptable for the purpose of consultation. Servicing The site is not serviced with a reticulated sewage service and will be required to rely upon onsite effluent disposal systems. No issues have been raised by the Shire’s Environmental Health Business Unit at this stage in the process. A Soil Wastewater Capability Assessment accompanies the proposal and finds that standard onsite effluent disposal (i.e. septic tanks) can be achieved for each proposed lot. Visual Management Section 3.7 of the LPS includes visual management principles that have been established for each of the Visual Management Areas as set out in Figure 5 of the LPS. The Site is located within Visual


32

Management Zone ‘C’ of the policy. Within this zone development or changes in land use can be dominant, but should be suitable in terms of their form within the existing landscape. Subdivision of the density proposed would be in keeping with the density of surrounding development Access The proposal creates five (5) 2000sqm lots with direct access onto Ashton Street and two (2) battleaxe driveways located next to each other with reciprocal access right to apply. These access arrangements are considered reasonable, however the cumulative impact of creating six (6) crossovers onto Ashton Street will have a significant impact to the area of Eucalypt (Gums) on the site. This area of vegetation ranges in height from 5m up to 15m, and reaches depths between 10m to 30m from Ashton Street. The trees are visually prominent within the streetscape and are important to be retained in order to soften the shift from residential development through to the rural residential area north of the site. It is recommend that the Structure Plan includes a notation which advises that shared access driveways are achieved for proposed Lots 205 and 204, and 201 and 202 and that Lot 203 achieves an access from the proposed battleaxe driveway for Lot 206. This will require further reciprocal access rights to apply to this shared arrangement, and will minimize impact on the Ashton street vegetation. Stormwater No issues have been raised with the proposal by the Shire’s Infrastructure Development Officer, whom has been involved with previous subdivisions of Lots 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 Ashton Street. The applicants propose changes to the stormwater management arrangements that have been previously developed on the area. It is proposed to manage the stormwater though slow release detention tanks/pit and overland flow to the river. The proposed stormwater management will not require the two (2) existing stormwater easements that traverse Lot 2. A recent Stormwater Management Assessment undertaken as part of the proposal finds that overland flow paths are not formalised, and do not follow the alignment of the easements. Instead, stormwater flows are concentrating to a fire break on the south boundary of the site. The proposed changes to the stormwater management are considered to be feasible but will require further refinement through the preparation and submission of a drainage management plan prior to subdivision, and implemented through the subdivision process. Policy PE.54 – Ashton Street Infrastructure Contributions Policy The policy applies to the subdivision within the Ashton Street ODP area and provides for the provision/upgrading of Ashton Street road and kerbing, shared pathway, street lighting, public open space (POS) development, foreshore upgrading, public access way (PAW) upgrading and drainage. The change in the ODP will necessitate a change to the policy as it increases the number of lots within the policy area and the proportional contribution from Lot 2. The proposed stormwater management strategy for Lot 2 will also necessitate a review of the policy as it is recommends changes to the way in which stormwater from higher in the catchment is discharged through the property to the river. As noted in the applicant’s stormwater management plan, it is also timely that a review of this policy is carried out. The review would cover changes to the stormwater management arrangements and costs, review of unit rates for the POS development and other infrastructure, and reconsideration of the proposed vehicle access to the river via the PAW between Lots 2 and 3. Amending Provisions The proposal is set out as an amendment to modify zoning and a separate Structure Plan showing a subdivision layout. The preferable mechanism would be for the land to be incorporated within the existing ODP. This would provide for a more legible and consistent planning framework. The proposed Structure Plan can then be incorporated into the Ashton Street ODP following advertising. It is also relevant to slightly amend the provisions in Schedule 15. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The review of Policy PE.54 and the associated costs will be required given the increase in the lot yield from 3 to 7. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental An assessment of the environmental features of the site has found that the proposed development can occur without any significant impact.


33

Social The proposed rezoning will allow for more residential development in close proximity to the Margaret River Townsite which provides for a further range of housing options. Economic The provision of essential infrastructure will be covered by the developer. The proposal is consistent with the planning objectives for the area and will add to the number of residential lots available in the development. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION 1. That Council, pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act (2005) initiates

Scheme Amendment No.24 to Local Planning Scheme No. 1 for the purposes of: a) Rezoning portion of Lot 2 Ashton Street, Margaret River from ‘Rural Residential’ to

‘Residential’, and amending the Scheme maps accordingly; b) Modifying Schedule 11 – SPA 14 associated provisions, by including the following:

Area No. (SPA)

Site Description

Land Use Expectations

Matters to be Addressed in Structure Plans (in addition to clause 6.2.4)

Associated Provisions

14 Ashton Street Lots 1 - 13

Area to be redeveloped into a high standard for rural residential through re-subdivision of existing 3 hectare lots that complements the surrounding land uses, natural character and existing townscapes.

The physical, topographical and environmental characteristics of the land including slope, soil type, vegetation and drainage characteristics and the need to protect such areas as the vegetation corridor along the Margaret River, high erosion areas or areas subject to flooding or inundation.

Existing built development and land uses.

Proposed lot sizes and the location, width and standard of proposed roads and their connection with the road and public recreation network in the locality.

The provision of public open space and drainage reserves and their management to protect the natural qualities of the area.

Where any lots back onto a public road or area of open space the local government will require individual lot access and the standard of fencing deemed compatible with the objectives of protecting visual and landscape

Subdivision and/or development of the area in accordance with the adopted Structure Plan, or a subsequent Structure Plan endorsed by the local government and the Western Australian Planning Commission, in accordance with the process set out in Part 6.2 of the Scheme.

2. Determining pursuant to Clause 6.2.6.2 of LPS1 that the proposed Structure Plan is satisfactory

for advertising subject to the following modifications: a) Removal of the building envelopes;


34

b) Amending the Landscape Protection Area to incorporate the existing vegetation in the south western portion of the lot;

c) Adding an area of Landscape Protection to include the existing trees adjacent to Ashton Street;

d) Adding a notation on Plan, to read: Shared access is to be achieved for Lots 201 and 202, Lots 205 and 204 and Lot 203 will achieve an access from the battle axe driveway to Lot 206.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Structure Plan RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR VEITCH, CR KENNAUGH OM2014/141 1. That Council, pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act (2005) initiates

Scheme Amendment No.24 to Local Planning Scheme No. 1 for the purposes of: a) Rezoning portion of Lot 2 Ashton Street, Margaret River from ‘Rural Residential’ to

‘Residential’, and amending the Scheme maps accordingly; b) Modifying Schedule 11 – SPA 14 associated provisions, by including the following:

Area No. (SPA)

Site Description

Land Use Expectations

Matters to be Addressed in Structure Plans (in addition to clause 6.2.4)

Associated Provisions

14 Ashton Street Lots 1 - 13

Area to be redeveloped into a high standard for rural residential through re-subdivision of existing 3 hectare lots that complements the surrounding land uses, natural character and existing townscapes.

The physical, topographical and environmental characteristics of the land including slope, soil type, vegetation and drainage characteristics and the need to protect such areas as the vegetation corridor along the Margaret River, high erosion areas or areas subject to flooding or inundation.

Existing built development and land uses.

Proposed lot sizes and the location, width and standard of proposed roads and their connection with the road and public recreation network in the locality.

The provision of public open space and drainage reserves and their management to protect the natural qualities of the area.

Where any lots back onto a public road or area of open space the local government will require individual lot access and the standard of fencing deemed compatible with the objectives of protecting visual and landscape

Subdivision and/or development of the area in accordance with the adopted Structure Plan, or a subsequent Structure Plan endorsed by the local government and the Western Australian Planning Commission, in accordance with the process set out in Part 6.2 of the Scheme.


35

2. Determining pursuant to Clause 6.2.6.2 of LPS1 that the proposed Structure Plan is

satisfactory for advertising subject to the following modifications: a) Removal of the building envelopes; b) Amending the Landscape Protection Area to incorporate the existing vegetation in the

south western portion of the lot; c) Adding an area of Landscape Protection to include the existing trees adjacent to

Ashton Street; d) Adding a notation on Plan, to read:

Shared access is to be achieved for Lots 201 and 202, Lots 205 and 204 and Lot 203 will achieve an access from the battle axe driveway to Lot 206.

CARRIED 6/0


36

11.3

Infrastructure Services


37

11.3. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

Nil


38

11.4

Corporate and Community

Services


39

11.4. CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES 11.4.1 FINAL ADOPTION PHYSICALLY ACTIVE COMMUNITIES POLICY

LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER NA FILE REFERENCE COR/11 REPORT AUTHOR Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services AUTHORISING OFFICER Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer

IN BRIEF

Determining the local government’s policies is one of found main roles for Council listed under Section 2.7 of the Local Government Act 1995.

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 14 May 2014 Council resolved to advertise the Physically Active Communities Policy for a four week period.

One submission was received.

The Physically Active Communities Policy is presented to Council for final adoption. RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the Physically Active Communities Policy as shown in Attachment 1.

LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Determining the local government’s policies is one of four main roles for Council listed under Section 2.7 of the Local Government Act 1995. Policies are an important component of governance by which responsibilities to stakeholders are identified and effective systems of leadership, authority, accountability and control are implemented. Policies assist in ensuring the Shire’s functions are carried out and services and facilities are provided to the community in an ethical, innovative and responsive manner. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation The draft policy was advertised for four weeks with one public submission received in support of the policy. Internal Consultation Internal consultation has been undertaken with the Executive Leadership Team and Recreation Staff. Research in the development of the policy has made reference to the following documents:

Western Australian Planning Commission: Liveable Neighbourhoods 2009 Update 02;

Government of Western Australia: Active Living for All: A Framework for Physical Activity in Western Australia 2012-2016; and

Western Australian Department of Sport and Recreation: Strategic Directions 2011-2015 (SD5). DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The Active Living for All: A Framework for Physical Activity in Western Australia 2012-16 was developed by the State Government to provide a coordinated and collaborative approach to ensuring active living opportunities exist for all Western Australians. It is well recognised that active living


40

through physical activity can enhance the health, wellbeing and quality of life for individuals, families and the community. Through physical activity there are multiple positive economic, environmental, health and social outcomes. The framework has been adopted through the development of the Physically Active Communities Policy which provides a strategic direction for increasing and improving opportunities for physical activity through the places in which we live and the programs and initiatives that are offered in the Shire. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The Local Government Act 1995 (LGA) specifies the key roles of the Council. Under section 2.7 of the LGA Council has four main roles:

2.7. Role of council

(1) The council —

(a) governs the local government’s affairs; and

(b) is responsible for the performance of the local government’s functions.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the council is to —

(a) oversee the allocation of the local government’s finances and resources; and

(b) determine the local government’s policies. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Physically Active Communities Policy aligns with Goal 2 Welcoming and inclusive communities from the Shire’s Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) and addresses Outcome 5, Active and Healthy Lifestyles. Strategies in the Policy also relate to other Outcomes of the CSP. Policy development can be seen to reflect Goal 5 Effective Governance and Leadership and Outcome 6, A culture of innovation, quality and continuous improvement. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications through the adoption of the Physically Active Communities Policy. Any implementation of strategies will be subject to future budget processes. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Active communities and those participating in active transport such as walking and cycling can reduce vehicle dependence reducing carbon emissions and improving the impact on the environment. Social Physical activity enhances social interaction, building stronger communities through networks and friendships and also enhances a sense of place and connectedness to the community. Economic Healthy people are more productive and require less health care reducing health care costs and the impacts on the health sector. Increasing physical activity can have economic impacts in the provision of additional services to the community in support of growth in sport and recreation services and goods both through local government and the private sector. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the Physically Active Communities Policy as shown in Attachment 1.


41

ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Physically Active Communities Policy RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR KENNAUGH, CR HASTIE OM2014/142 That Council adopts the Physically Active Communities Policy as shown in Attachment 1.

CARRIED 6/0


42

11.4.2 SPORTS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - 4 JUNE 2014

LOCATION/ADDRESS NA APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE REC/36 REPORT AUTHOR Dylan Brown, Recreation Operations Manager AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services

IN BRIEF

On the 4 June 2014 the Sports and Recreation Advisory Committee (SRAC) held its bi-monthly meeting.

The Augusta representative of the SRAC advised in writing that they were resigning from the committee.

The Director of Corporate and Community Services gave a briefing regarding Fee Waivers. The sporting clubs were advised that sporting levies are not eligible for fee waivers.

The committee were updated on the Interest Free Loan component of the Financial Assistance Policy. Interest free loans are open to all groups within the community.

Augusta Golf Club presented their application for intention to submit an Interest Free Loan for works to the Club.

At this meeting recommendations were passed proposing that: o The minutes of the SRAC held 5 February 2014 be confirmed as a correct record of the

meeting; and o That the SRAC give in principle support to the Augusta Golf Club to resubmit their interest

free loan application. RECOMMENDATION That Council receives the minutes of the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee held 4 June 2014.

LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Nil CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation

Sports and Recreation Advisory Committee delegates

Augusta Golf Club Internal Consultation Nil DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Resignation from the Committee Sarah Wilson from the Augusta Community Recreation Centre Action Group has forwarded a written resignation from the committee. A replacement is being sought however at this point a nominee has not been found.


43

Fee waiver requests for Sporting Groups and Clubs Delegates were advised that the following fees and charges were exempt from fee waiver requests:

Sporting levies;

Court hire fees;

Line marking fees; and

Reimbursement for utility charges such as water and electricity. Interest Free Loans The submission of an Interest Free Loan application from the Augusta Golf Club has highlighted the need to update the Interest Free Loan procedure, to clarify a few grey areas as well as set a limit for funding under this stream of the Financial Assistance Policy. Applications for Interest Free Loans will be advertised annually, which will be available to all groups within the community. Augusta Golf Club Interest Free Loan Application The committee discussed the application to seal an area in concrete to assist with water catchment to be used for irrigation. Due to the location of bores, wells, soaks and the elevation of the club, alternative means of irrigation are costly or not viable. With the decreasing rainfall this leaves the club looking dry and dusty for part of the year. The Director Corporate and Community Services will liaise with the club and requests that the Augusta Golf Club resubmit their application. The committee have provided in principle support for to the Augusta Golf Club to resubmit their interest free loan application within the proposed changes to the procedure discussed at the meeting. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Goal 5: Effective leadership and governance

1. Effective governance and corporate leadership 1.5 Develop effective partnerships and strategic alliances to maximise community

benefits 1.5.1 Hold regular meetings with the Sports and Recreation Advisory Committee

PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council receives the minutes of the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee held 4 June 2014. ATTACHMENTS 1. Sports and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – June 2014


CR KENNAUGH, CR HASTIE OM2014/143 That Council receives the minutes of the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee held 4 June 2014.

CARRIED 6/0


44

11.4.3 MINUTES OF AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 25 JUNE 2014

LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/7 REPORT AUTHOR Andrew Ross, Manager Finance AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services

IN BRIEF

On 25 June 2014 the Audit and Risk Management Committee held its third and final meeting for the 2013-14 financial year.

The meeting considered the results of the interim audit, the implications of Local Government Audit Regulation 17 and Local Government Financial Management Regulation 5, and insurance coverage for 2014-15.

RECOMMENDATION That Council receives the minutes of the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting held on 25 June 2014.

LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee (ARMC) comprises all members of Council and operates in accordance with the Augusta Margaret River Audit and Risk Management Committee Instrument of Appointment and Delegation. The Committee is required to discharge the legislative obligations outlined in the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996. At its meeting on 13 November 2013 the ARMC agreed to a schedule of meetings and meeting purposes and the June meeting represents the final meeting for the financial year. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Nil Internal Consultation Nil DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The minutes of the meeting are self-explanatory and in brief the Committee:

Noted the findings of the Interim Audit;

Noted the implications of the Local Government ( Audit) Regulations 1996 and the new Regulation 17 with the recommendation for an independent audit to ensure compliance with the Regulation;

Noted the implications of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 and the recommendation to conduct a review to ensure compliance with the Regulation; and

Noted the details of the Shire’s insurances for 2014-15.


45

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Regulation 16 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 states that “An audit committee — (a) is to provide guidance and assistance to the local government — (i) as to the carrying out of its functions in relation to audits carried out under Part 7 of the Act; and (ii) as to the development of a process to be used to select and appoint a person to be an auditor; and (b) may provide guidance and assistance to the local government as to — (i) matters to be audited; and (ii) the scope of audits; and (iii) its functions under Part 6 of the Act; and (iv) the carrying out of its functions relating to other audits and other matters related to financial management; and (c) is to review a report given to it by the CEO under regulation 17(3) (the CEO’s report) and is to — (i) report to the council the results of that review; and (ii) give a copy of the CEO’s report to the council.” STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Goal 5: Effective leadership and governance

7. Measure and report on success and sustainability 7.1 Effectively measure our success and progress to a sustainable future

7.1.7 Convene tri-annual meetings of the Audit and Risk Management Committee PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Nil Social Nil Economic Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council receives the minutes of the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting held on 25 June 2014. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Minutes of the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting 25 June 2014. RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR HAYNES, CR SERVENTY OM2014/144 That Council receives the minutes of the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting held on 25 June 2014.

CARRIED 6/0


46

11.4.4 SUBMISSIONS ON 2014-15 DIFFERENTIAL RATES AND MINIMUM PAYMENTS

LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/11 FIN/11 REPORT AUTHOR Andrew Ross, Manager Finance AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate & Community Services

IN BRIEF

Council approved the advertising of the proposed 2014-15 Differential Rating Categories, Rate in the Dollar and Minimum Payments together with the proposed Service and Waste Charges for the year ending 30 June 2015 at the Ordinary Meeting of 28 May 2014.

Differential Rates were advertised for a minimum period of 21 days with the closing date for submissions being 4.00pm on 30 June 2014.

Advertisements were placed in the local newspaper for 3 consecutive weeks from and including Friday 6 June 2014.

Eleven submissions were received objecting to the proposed Differential Rates. Twenty Eight submissions were received on the change of Differential Rating categories resulting from the adoption of Policy FI.15 Shire Rating.

The Shire requires Ministerial approval to levy minimum payments for the differential rating category of General GRV 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 (LG Act).

Department of Local Government and Communities (DLGC) Rating Policy Minimum Payments (s.6.35) August 2013 requires the Council to consider submissions received prior to Ministerial approval being considered.

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Notes the objections received to the 2014-15 proposed differential rates and minimum payments

as contained within this report. 2. Notes the submissions received to the differential rating category changes as tabled in attachment

1.

LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND The proposed Differential Rates and Minimum Payments for the 2014-15 financial year were considered by Council at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 28 May 2014, and subsequently advertised for public comment on Friday 6, 13 and 20 June 2014 in the Augusta Margaret River Times. Advertising was undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act with a 21 day public submission period for ratepayers expiring at 4.00pm Monday 30 June 2014. Policy FI.15 Shire Rating was adopted by Council at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 28 May 2014. The revised Policy FI.15 Shire Rating provides for fair and equitable rating with administrative efficiency in its application and the main change was to include a land use rating table which associates land use zones and land use classes with the Shire’s differential rating categories. As a consequence of this policy the rating category for a number of properties was changed.


47

CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Department of Local Government and Communities – the Department was consulted to determine the requirements for compliance with Sections 6.35 (5) of the LG Act. Community – the community was informed of the Shire’s intention to levy Differential Rates and Minimum Payments through advertisements in the local newspaper. Ratepayers were provided with 21 days to lodge a submission. Closing date for submissions was 4.00pm 30 June 2014. Ratepayers – directly impacted by the change to rating policy FI.15 were informed of the Shire’s intention to change the differential rating category. 332 letters were sent to the owners of 304 properties and they were provided with 21 days to lodge a submission. Closing date for submissions was 4.00pm 30 June 2014. Internal Consultation Directorate Corporate and Community Services DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Differential Rates and Minimum Payments Eleven submissions were received objecting to the proposed 2014-15 differential rates and the details of these submissions are summarised in the following table.

1 As a pensioner I recently rolled over a term deposit and was offered 3.1%.

The reserve bank of Australia is trying to keep the C.O.L. increases to between 2 and 3% p.a. via its monetary policy of keeping inherent rates at historical low levels.

The fair works commission awarded the lowest paid workers a maximum 3% wage increase – as a Shire, we have lots of these workers, because they’re in the hospitality industry: as an example.

In the motivation for rejecting the ASU’s 4% wage increase, by yourself as per the minutes of 9.1.13 you stated the reasons for 2.25% wage increase was that “the community expects rate rises to be modest as the Shire is a high rating Council…….”

You got the mandate to negotiate the lesser rates and “won” and it is noticeable that employee expenses are (as at 31.3.14) some $48,000 down on budget.

These intended savings from last October’s well-crafted negotiations over wages should be passed onto the ratepayers via lower rates i.e. well less than the 4% proposed increases.

2 I want to voice my disapproval at the continued rise in the rates we pay. It should never be above the inflation rate, you have put the 4% x 10 year’s rates rise out for public comment but you never listen anyway. I am appalled by the way the Shire is run and its attitude to the public.

3 I am writing in regards to my concern and objection to the rate rises for the shire of Augusta, Margaret River and Cowaramup where I live. It is being suggested that the rises are higher than the CPI which is currently 2-3%. This came from Julian Sanderson CPA. We are new home owners and with a new baby and 1 income, things are very tight. We only have $300 left over at the end of the month after we pay our rates, utilities, mortgage, insurances and living expenses. This doesn't include, going out clothes, social or emergency costs. We can't afford to have takeaway on a Saturday night in case we need that spare cash for emergency. Please don't make the rates any higher than they currently already are. The new shire building


48

shows off that the council is greedy and money hungry by building such an expensive building. We are only 1 family of many who are financially suffering. Think of those who are suffering instead of the profit you can make by bleeding us dry in the long range financial plan. In 4 years our rates have risen 17%. This is Greedy. I don't feel the rate rises reflect what that money has been used to Cowaramup any better. Please do the right thing and stop the rate rises.

4 I am opposed to the forthcoming rate increase. Last year my commercial property in Station Road had an increase in excess of 40%. How many properties had this increase and how much did the Shire raise from this increase alone? Commercial property rents have decreased for some years now. I purchased this property in late 2008, and if I sell today I would lose some $140,000 on the purchase price. If property prices drop surely the rates should as well, not a 40% increase in one year. I could not afford a rate hike of this magnitude and was forced to make arrangements with the Shire Rates Department to pay (plus interest) when I could afford to. This rate increase was not in my budget and was a complete shock to me. Each year your rates increase far more than the CPI. So why is there a CPI? A CPI should be the maximum increase. I have not had a wage increase in the last three years. TIMES ARE TOUGH. How can the Shire justify such a heavy increase last year and another increase in rates again this year? By increasing rates again this year, you will make life more difficult for ratepayers and eventually the bubble will burst. I trust you will consider this request not to increase rates. Maybe this year you should freeze rates and give some relief to the ratepayers.

5 I would like to register my disappointment in continual rate rises above the “Consumer Price Index”. I think the Council’s long range financial plan needs to be adjusted to fit our needs, and constant rate rises above CPI make life very hard for lower income ratepayers.

6 We write to express our strong protest against the proposed increase in shire rates at an annual rate of 4 per cent. This is completely unacceptable at a time when there is widespread economic hardship, and retirees like ourselves find our levels of income from superannuation falling. Please reconsider your budgets and your policies, and bring any increases into line with no more that the current level of general inflation.

7 I write to express my extreme disappointment, bordering on outrage, at the proposed 4% increase in rates for the 2014/2015 year. 1. Such an increase has a significant impact on pensioners living in the shire and inevitably will force more to seek help from charity. Not a desirable outcome or socially acceptable result. This is an extremely important point as nobody want to force pensions onto welfare or indeed to sell up and move to an ostensibly cheaper town where they may have no friends or relatives. Add to this the fact that the WA government has today announced that it is slashing the annual seniors' cost of living rebate in half, blaming federal budget cuts for the move. 2. The rates increase will be passed on by landlords to their tenants thereby leading to an increase in prices and making trading just that little bit harder - another nail in the retail coffin and a further impost on both locals and visitors. The actual impact is impossible to predict as each business will react differently but empty shops in the main street does the image, and the economics, of Margaret River no favours. 3. I understand the shire has made a saving in wages for the 9 months to end March this year. Well done and now please keep it up. Nobody has noticed any reduction in services. 4. The recent "improvements" to Memorial Park have done little to add to the amenity of the park. What they demonstrate however, is that the shire doesn't seem to adopt a zero based approach to its budgeting. The motto that "if it isn't bust don't fix it" certainly doesn't seem to


49

apply to many shire activities. 5. I find it incongruous that on a day when BHP Billiton is reported to be looking at ways of rationalizing its iron ore mining activities and reducing its Pilbara workforce by 3,000 employees (20%) the shire doesn't seem to get the message that it must learn to live within its means, albeit reduced means. BHP is not the only employer cutting staff in the present economic environment. Inevitably some of those sacked by BHP will be fly in fly out workers living in the shire. 6. I therefore urge the shire to re-do its budget adopting a zero based approach and ensuring that it keeps within a rates increase of no more than 2.0%. We're all hurting and keeping rates in check will do a little bit to help and perhaps more importantly, demonstrate to the ratepayers that the shire understands the current economic environment and is living within its means.

8 You've asked us to write in if we're not satisfied about the proposed 2014/15 rates increase of 4%. As a business owner, I find it unacceptable that the Shire spends more than what we can, as ratepayers, afford to pay. It's time that the Shire assisted businesses by keeping rates to a minimum of not more than the national COL increase i.e. around 2.5% MAXIMUM. We all need the local businesses to be successful, as we employ people who pay their rates. In this current business environment, every cost increase isn't readily compensated by increased sales! Even the Fair Works Commission only agreed to increase the lowest worker's pay rate by 3 %; yet you want 4%. Give us a break!

9 As a rate payer (x2) I wish to oppose this rate increase as I strongly believe it is completely unnecessary. The shire rates are excessive. I'm paying commercial rates for residential properties. Margaret River is becoming too expensive to live in.

10 We wish to register our objection to the 4% rate increase. An automatic rate hike every year is not sustainable and places a further burden on ratepayers struggling to keep up with financial commitments. Our personal annual income does not increase comparatively and our use of Shire services remains unchanged since becoming ratepayers in this Shire some 20 years ago. Our vision of building a sustainable future in Margaret River is being continually eroded by the demands placed upon us by the Shire's long-term financial plan. An immediate freeze on rate increases is necessary now.

11 I am writing in response to the invitation contained in the Shire document ‘OBJECTIVES AND REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED DIFFERENTIAL RATES AND MINIMUM PAYMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDING 30 JUNE 2015’. My comments pertain to the overall financial planning in the Shire and some of the assumptions that form the foundation of the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) as they affect the Differential Rate approach used in the Shire.

As intended, the LTFP provides boundaries within which budget planning can take place. I appreciate that boundaries need to be set, lest every element of the planning process be open to question and challenge. My submission is that the LTFP assumption of a 4% increase in rates above the growth in properties, gives an operating boundary for budget planners that is too generous. Times are tough and in these circumstances (and perhaps even more so when times are good) budget planners and other managers should be routinely driven to look for cost efficiencies in the delivery of services.

This is a well-run Shire and I am grateful for the innovative and visionary management that has made it so. The demand for innovative management is however, relentless, and would be in sharper focus if the LTFP was amended to contain rate growth to Cost of Living increases above property growth. The reduced growth in Shire revenue under my proposal would, sharpen the focus of services delivery to be more in keeping with mainstream community expectations of a keener balance between service delivery and cost.

The submissions received all have the common message that the proposed rate increase of 4% is too high and that an annual increase equivalent to the change in the consumer price index or even lower would be more appropriate. It is noted that it is possible some of these submissions may have been influenced by a series of letters published in the local media that provided some information on rate increases and the Shire’s financial position and encouraged ratepayers to send a submission.


50

The comments raised by the ratepayer submissions are noted, however the proposed increase to rates in the dollar and minimum payment is consistent with the increases included in the Shire’s recently revised Long Term Financial Plan and is the minimum required to ensure the prudent and responsible long-term financial management of the Shire. However, the Shire’s long term financial plan is reviewed and updated annually and the process includes identifying operating expenditure savings in order to limit rate increases. The Shire like all businesses is exposed to cost increases resulting from wages, superannuation, utilities, fuel, contractors and materials but is also mindful of the impact rate increases have upon ratepayers. State Government charges recently published by The West Australian showed electricity charges are increasing by 4.5%, water by 6%, vehicle registrations by 24.7% and the Emergency Services Levy by 5% will also impact the community. The proposed rate increase for 2014-15 has taken these factors into consideration and the increase of 4% is lower than the increases applied for previous years and relatively modest compared to rate increases proposed by other local governments throughout the State. It should also be noted that none of the submissions received specifically object to rating details for the General GRV Vacant land category which is the only rating category for which Ministerial approval is required. Ministerial Approval DLGC Rating Policy Minimum Payments (s.6.35) August 2013 requires local governments requesting approval of differential rates to complete a formal Application Form with the following attachments:

1. Copy of the public notice; 2. A copy of the Objects and Reasons for each proposed minimum payment; 3. Any other communication with landowners/ratepayers; 4. Copies of any objections that have been received; 5. The Council’s response to these; 6. Officer’s report to Council; 7. Relevant Council minutes; 8. Council resolution.

It is proposed to lodge the Application Form and its attachments with the DLGC on Thursday 10 July 2014. This should allow sufficient time for the DLGC to consider the Shire‘s request and allow Council to formally adopt the rates for 2014-15 at the Ordinary Meeting on 23 July 2014. Policy FI.15 Shire Rating At the Ordinary meeting of 28 May 2014, Council adopted revised Policy FI.15 Shire Rating. The Policy objective is to provide for fair and equitable rating with administrative efficiency in its application. 304 properties across a range of differential rating categories were identified as being affected by the change in policy and correspondence was issued to 332 property owners. Ratepayers were informed of the change in differential rating category based on the properties predominant land use as listed in the Policy’s Land Use Rating Table and provided the opportunity to make a submission on the changes. A total of Twenty Eight (28) submissions were received. Two submissions were in support, two indifferent and 24 objected. Two respondents also advised they were no longer using the property for its stated use and these claims will need to be investigated. The attached table provides a summary of the contents of each submission, whether it was an objection, indifferent or in support and the reason for changing the property’s differential rating category. In summary of the 24 objections:

20 submissions will be impacted by changing from the General GRV to Tourism category and consequently their rate in the dollar for 2014-15 will increase from 10.5664 cents to 11.9236


51

cents or 12.8%. All of these properties have Planning approval to operate the property as a short term holiday rental.

2 submissions will be impacted by changing from the Commercial to General GRV category and consequently their rate in the dollar for 2014-15 will reduce from 11.9236 cents to 10.5664 cents. It appears both of these respondents may have misunderstood the proposed rating change as they will benefit from the change.

2 submissions will be impacted by changing from the Special Use GRV to General GRV rating category and consequently their rate in the dollar for 2014-15 will reduce from 10.7483 cents to 10.5664 cents.

The number of submissions received indicates a response rate of 8% of affected properties and reflects a reasonably high level of interest in this change. However, although the Shire will benefit with an increase in rate revenue the main reason for the change is to ensure properties are rated correctly and in accordance with their approved planning and land use. Objectivity, Equity and Fairness, Consistency, Transparency and Administrative Efficiency are the guiding principles of the Shire’s rating policy and the rating change for these properties is in accordance with these principles. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Part VI of the Local Government Act 1995 (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 rate for each category. Section 6.35(4) limits local governments from imposing a minimum rate 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 rate on vacant land that applies to more than 50% of the properties in the category.

Pursuant to Section 6.36 of the LG Act the Shire is 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 FI.15 Shire Rating PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Ministerial approval will ensure that the 2014-15 rates can be adopted by Council at the Ordinary Meeting of 23 July 2014. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Nil Social Nil Economic Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority


52

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Notes the objections received to the 2014-15 proposed differential rates and minimum payments

as contained within this report. 2. Notes the submissions received to the differential rating category changes as tabled in

attachment 1. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS

1. Table of submissions Policy FI.15 Shire Rating.

Cr Serventy foreshadowed the following supplementary motion before the officer’s recommendation

was moved:

MOTION

That Council gives consideration at its next 10 year planning meeting to making a further reduction in

rate increases to 3%.


CR HASTIE, CR SERVENTY OM2014/145 That Council: 1. Notes the objections received to the 2014-15 proposed differential rates and minimum

payments as contained within this report. 2. Notes the submissions received to the differential rating category changes as tabled in

attachment 1. CARRIED 4/2

Cr Smart and Cr Veitch voted against the motion

Cr Serventy then moved the below motion:


CR SERVENTY, CR HASTIE OM2014/146 That Council gives consideration at its next 10 year planning meeting to making a further

reduction in rate increases to 3%.

CARRIED 5/1

Cr Hastie voted against the motion

REASON: Cr Serventy spoke to the motion, stating that the Council were determined to minimise the

annual rate rises whenever possible and that it was appropriate to flag the issue now so that it would

remain a part of Council considerations over the next eleven months.


53

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

14.1.1 Closure of the Alexandra Bridge Waste Transfer Station, Cr Kim Hastie

Cr Kim Hastie addressed the meeting with regards to the closure of the Alexandra Bridge Waste Transfer Station (ABWTS). He noted the community’s response to the Council’s decision to close the transfer station since it was made at the 25 June Council Meeting and proposed that the Council suspend Standing Orders so that they could discuss the pressing matter.

Cr Hastie then moved the following motion: MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR HASTIE, CR SMART OM2014/147 That the matter of the closure of the Alexandra Bridge Waste Transfer Station be introduced to the meeting for discussion.

CARRIED 6/0

As the Council unanimously agreed to discuss the matter, Cr Hastie moved that the Standing Orders be suspended with the exception of one speaker at a time and through the Chair: MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR HASTIE, CR VEITCH OM2014/148 That the Standing Orders be suspended except for those clauses permitting one speaker at a time to address the meeting and that speakers address their remarks through the Chair.

CARRIED 6/0

Discussion was then opened. Cr Kim Hastie spoke on the recent meeting that took place at the Alexandra Bridge Hall and the Councillor briefing that had been presented by members of the Alexandra Bridge community prior to the Ordinary Meeting. The key points that Cr Hastie raised are as follows:

Of the estimated 100 community members in attendance at the Alexandra Bridge Hall meeting, mostly all were against the closure of the ABWTS;

The community sentiment reflects that concerns have not been heard by Council;

There seems to be disparity between closure of ABWTS and the implementation of changes to be made to other transfer stations - the transfer station was closed on short notice;

Reopening the site means that most waste will still be disposed of in one place, which is easier to manage than illegal dumping at multiple sites;

There is already reported pressure on the area, for example, during peak tourist seasons rubbish is regularly dumped at the Nilup store, and the closure of the station has potential to significantly increase this issue;

A Metal recycling supplier (Augusta) may be interested in coming to an arrangement with the Shire or members of the Alexandra Bridge community to collect scrap metal and whitegoods;

The community representatives noted an increased Carbon footprint if many vehicles Vs one vehicle need to dispose of waste at another site;

It should also be noted that a large cost involved is transfer of waste from ABWTS to Davis Rd;

Waste services are fundamental services that the community requires;


54

Given the outcome of Wednesday night’s meeting and tonight’s presentation, the Council should review the decision made regarding the closure of ABWTS.

Cr Smart noted that Council would need to hold discussions with the Manager Environmental Health and Waste Services and the Director to closely look at what options would be available to the Council. The Chief Executive Officer then suggested Council move that staff present options to Councillors providing costings and information related to reopening the transfer station and staffing it in line with the Shire’s other staffed transfer stations or maintaining the status quo (the transfer station remains closed). Cr Smart then asked that the members of the community note that State legislation no longer allows for unmanned waste transfer stations, and as such, if the ABWTS was to be reopened, its hours of operation would be regulated in-line with the other transfer stations throughout the Shire. Cr Veitch then asked the Director Sustainable Development, Mr Iliya Hastings, for clarification as to whether or not the ABWTS could be reopened as it was prior to closure. Mr Hasting responded by saying that the State legislation governing unmanned transfer stations was very tight. As an extremely short term solution it may be possible to reopen it unmanned however, as a medium to long term solution, it was definitely not possible. Cr Veitch then suggested that if a new report was to be presented to Council, it would seem appropriate to enlist several representatives of the Alexandra Bridge community to meet with Shire officers in order to raise their concerns and workshop possible solutions. The CEO agreed that this was a good idea and asked that members of the community nominate some representatives who could leave their contact details with Shire officers. Before reinstating the Standing Orders, Cr Serventy noted that the Council does have an obligation to maintain waste services, but that they need to apply it equitably across the Shire. If the station was to reopen, she asked that the community note, in accordance with equity across the Shire’s transfer station services, that the ABWTS would only accept household waste, not scrap metal, chemicals and whitegoods that have been left there in the past. Cr Hastie agreed that a degree of responsibility would need to be agreed to from the Alexandra Bridge community. Cr Smart then closed the discussion and asked that a member move that the Standing Orders be reinstated. MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR VEITCH, CR SERVENTY OM2014/149 That Council reinstate the Standing Orders.

CARRIED 6/0


CR HASTIE, CR SMART OM2014/150 That Council receives a report at the next Ordinary Meeting of Council, to be held on 23 July 2014, on the various options for waste management at Alexandra Bridge.

CARRIED 6/0

REASON: Due to community feedback at the Alexandra Bridge meeting and attendance of many Alexandra Bridge community members, it was decided that this matter was of an urgent nature.


55

14.2. CEO

14.2.1 Tender RFT 12/14 Updated Report A company was incorrectly excluded as a result of some submitted tendered information not reaching the assessment panel. Had this information been made available to the assessment panel then the company would not have been excluded from assessment initially as all compliance criteria would have been met. This report seeks to extend the Panel of Providers for Plant Hire to include this company.


CR HASTIE, CR KENNAUGH OM2014/151 That Council accepts Item 14.2.1 Tender RFT 12/14 Updated Report as a matter of urgent business.

CARRIED 6/0


56

14.2.1 TENDER RFT 12/14 UPDATED REPORT

LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE COR/42 COR/43 REPORT AUTHOR Craig Young, Manager Works AUTHORISING OFFICER Johan Louw, Director Infrastructure Services

IN BRIEF

An error occurred, whereby the supplemented information by a company was received by the requested date but discounted. This company was incorrectly disqualified from the panel.

Had the information reached the assessment panel, the company would have been eligible for inclusion onto the panel of providers.

RECOMMENDATION That Council award Tender RFT 12/14, to Prime Earthmoving as a successful tender for inclusion on the plant hire services panel of providers.

LOCATION PLAN N/A TABLED ITEMS N/A BACKGROUND The Shire prepares biennial tenders to create a panel of providers for plant hire services where the cumulative value of these contracts may exceed $100,000 per annum. Tenders are required to be called in accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995. A panel of providers has historically been established for these services. A panel of providers enables the Shire to seek quotes from prequalified contractors. Assessments are made on which contractor best suited the requirements for specific goods and/or services. This approach facilitates timely delivery and value for money.

During the tender process more information was sought from the tenderers to clarify their submissions on 30 May 2014 and was to be supplied back to the Shire by 05 June 2014. The tender assessment panel finalised the tender analysis and the tender was awarded by Council on 25 June 2014. As not all compliance information was supplied some companies were excluded from the panel of providers. On the 26 June 2014 Prime Earthmoving contacted the Shire and advised that the requested information was submitted electronically on the 30 May 2014. It has been confirmed later on the 26 June 2014 by the Shire’s Information Communication Technology Unit that the email was definitely received. As such the tender is considered conforming and the company eligible for inclusion onto the panel of providers for plant hire services. It is possible that a human error occurred where this email was accidently deleted. Advice was sought from WALGA and an external independent legal advisor on the 26 and 27 June 2014 on the process that should be followed to rectify the error.

CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Shire officers have sought advice from WALGA and external independent legal advice on what process is required to resolve the error. Based on this advice it was determined that the excluded company also be appointed to the panel of providers for plant hire services as they were excluded in error.


57

Internal Consultation Nil DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Where a submitted tender does not address the compliance criteria it MUST be excluded. This is the first check in analysing submitted tenders. Due to a human error on the part of the Shire a crucial piece of submitted information from Prime Earthmoving was deleted. This report seeks to correct this error. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Local Government procurement of goods and services is bound by Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995. If the value of a purchase is, or is expected to be, $100,000 or greater (exclusive of GST), then public tenders must be called. A State-wide public notice of the invitation must be issued. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Seeking best value goods and services meets the objectives of Sustainable Development for Sustainable Community Infrastructure. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Council annually budgets for the external supply of goods and services. Tenders are called to ensure Council gets value for money and meets its obligations under section 3.57 of the Local Government Act. Budgets are included in the capital and operational areas for Construction, Maintenance and Parks and Gardens. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental All contractors are required to provide services in a manner that will not cause damage to the environment. Social The establishment of panels enables the Shire to deliver services to the community in a timely manner. Economic Value for money, goods and services. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council award Tender RFT 12/14, to Prime Earthmoving as a successful tender for inclusion on the plant hire services panel of providers. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT NA ATTACHMENTS Confidential Attachment 1 Evaluation Report and spreadsheet RFT 12/14 RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR HASTIE, CR KENNAUGH OM2014/152 That Council award Tender RFT 12/14, to Prime Earthmoving as a successful tender for inclusion on the plant hire services panel of providers.

CARRIED 6/0


58

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

Nil

16. CLOSURE OF MEETING

The Chair thanked all in attendance and closed the meeting at 7.10pm.

ordinary council - shire of augusta-margaret...

Documents