ordinary council - shire of augusta-margaret river · i advise that an ordinary council meeting of...

Ordinary Council

MINUTES

FOR THE MEETING TO BE HELD WEDNESDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2016

IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, WALLCLIFFE ROAD, MARGARET RIVER

COMMENCING AT 5:30PM

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 28 SEPTEMBER 2016

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, Wallcliffe Road, Margaret River on Wednesday 28 September 2016, commencing at 5:30pm. Yours faithfully

GARY EVERSHED CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


3

ATTENTION/DISCLAIMER

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


4

TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM NO. SUBJECT PAGE NO.

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

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST ................................................................................................. 7 3.1 ITEM 11.4.1 LIST OF PAYMENTS FOR AUGUST 2016 – FINANCIAL INTEREST –

DIRECTOR CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, MS ANNIE RIORDAN ................. 7

4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................ 7 4.1. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE................................ 7 4.2. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ......................................................................................................... 7

5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ........................................................................... 7 6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING ..................................................... 7 6.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD 14 SEPTEMBER 2016 .............................................. 7

7. DEPUTATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 7 7.1 ITEM 11.1.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES OF THE WINE

EQUALISATION TAX – MR STUART WATSON ..................................................................... 7 7.2 ITEM 11.2.1 SCHEME AMENDMENT 44 AND STRUCTURE PLAN – 10296 (LOT

122) – MR GLENN AHOLA ...................................................................................................... 8 7.3 ITEM 11.2.2 PROPOSED SMALL BAR – 124 (LOT 3) BUSSELL HIGHWAY,

MARGARET RIVER – MR LEON CARROLL ......................................................................... 11

8. PETITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 11 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDING MEMBER....................................................... 11 10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN .................................................. 12 11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND EMPLOYEE REPORTS ................................................. 12 11.1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ................................................................................................. 13 11.1.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES OF THE WINE EQUALISATION TAX ............... 14 11.1.2 STATUTORY REVIEW OF WARDS DISCUSSION PAPER AND OPTIONS ......................... 20

11.2. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 30 11.2.1 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO.44 AND STRUCTURE PLAN - 10296 (LOT 122)

BUSSELL HIGHWAY, WITCHCLIFFE - FOR INITIATION ..................................................... 31 11.2.2 PROPOSED SMALL BAR - 124 (LOT 3) BUSSELL HIGHWAY, MARGARET RIVER ........... 40 11.2.3 APPOINTMENT OF PROPERTIES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

PROGRAM AND ENVIRONMENTAL GRANTS PROGRAM - 2016/2017 ............................. 48

11.3. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES ............................................................................................. 54 11.4. CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ....................................................................... 56 11.4.1 LIST OF PAYMENTS FOR AUGUST 2016 .............................................................................. 57

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ........................................... 60 12.1 FUTURE USE OF THE WATER CORPORATION WATER TANK - CR EARL ....................... 60

13. MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AT NEXT MEETING ....................................................... 60 15.1 YOUR VISION 2036 - COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP ................................................. 61

14. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE ......................................................................... 63 14.1. MEMBERS ................................................................................................................................ 63 14.1.1 MOTION TO HALT FURTHER WORK ON THE CAPE TO CAPE WINTER

DIVERSION TRACK - CR PAM TOWNSHEND ....................................................................... 63 14.2. CEO .......................................................................................................................................... 64


5

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS .................................................................................................... 64 15.1 YOUR VISION 2036 - COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP ................................................. 61

16. CLOSURE OF MEETING ......................................................................................................... 64


6

Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Wednesday 28 September 2016, in Council Chambers, 41 Wallcliffe Road, Augusta, commencing at 5.30pm.

Ordinary Council Meeting

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING The Shire President welcomed all in attendance and declared the meeting open at 5.31pm

2. ATTENDANCE Shire President : Cr Ian Earl North Ward

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

Chief Executive Officer : Mr Gary Evershed Acting Director Sustainable Development : Mr Nick Logan

Acting Director Infrastructure Services : Mr David Nicholson

Director Corporate and Community Services : Ms Annie Riordan

Acting Manager Planning and Development Services : Mr Matt Cuthbert Minute Secretary : Ms Claire Schiller MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 9

MEMBERS OF THE PRESS Augusta Margaret River Mail : Nil

Augusta Margaret River Times : Mr Warren Hately

2.1 Apologies

Cr Kylie Kennaugh, North Ward Mr Johan Louw, Director Infrastructure Services

2.2. Approved Leave of Absence Nil


7

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST 3.1 Item 11.4.1 List of Payments for August 2016 – Financial Interest – Director

Corporate and Community Services, Ms Annie Riordan The Director Corporate and Community Services discloses interest in the credit card expenses which is certified by the Chief Executive Officer.

4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS

4.1. Response to Previous Public Questions Taken on Notice Nil

4.2. Public Question Time Nil

5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 6.1 Ordinary Council Meeting held 14 September 2016

MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR SMART, CR TOWNSHEND OM2016/199 That Council confirms the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held 14 September 2016 to be a true and correct record of the meeting.

CARRIED 6/0

7. DEPUTATIONS

7.1 Item 11.1.1 Impacts of the Proposed Changes of the Wine Equalisation Tax – Mr Stuart Watson

Mr Stuart Watson of 22 Marshall Road, Quindalup, President of the Margaret River Wine Industry Association, addressed the meeting in relation to Item 11.1.1 Impacts of the Propsed Changes of the Wine Equalisation Tax. A summary of his deputation is as follows: • I ask the Shire of Augusta Margaret River to provide a letter of support in opposing the WET

rebate cap. • The changes will have a devestating affect on the industry. There are potentially 300 producers

in Margaret River that will be effected, including closure of cellar doors. • Seeking to reduce the WET rebate cap from $500,000 to $290,000, this will mean significantly

less Margaret River producers will be affected, approx. 60. • Request support from the Shire to pursue this avenue. • Also request support from the Margaret River and Busselton Tourism Association. The Shire President called for questions and then thanked Mr Watson for his deputation.


8

7.2 Item 11.2.1 Scheme Amendment 44 and Structure Plan – 10296 (Lot 122) – Mr Glenn Ahola Mr Glenn Ahola of 14 Chudditch Place, Gnarabup and Principle Planning at Ahola Plannng, addressed the meeting in relation to Item 11.2.1 Scheme Amendment 44 and Structure Plan. A summary of his deputation is as follows: • Thank you Council for the opportunity to present at this meeting. • We have been actively liaising with Council staff to refine the Structure Plan and associated

wording provisions.

• We note and support the officer’s recommendation. However, we seek a minor change to reflect the issue of access across the rails to trails to the eastern portion of the site.

Key Concern – Road Access Across Rails to Trails Reserve Background • There is a 20m un-made road reserve that will provide access to the western portion of the

property only. It remains the only link available to provide reasonable access to the property that will connect to the constructed Rowe Road West that connects on to Bussell Highway.

• Main Roads will not support an additional road access on to Bussell Highway.

• The 60m wide Rails to Trails reserve (comprising the Wadandi Track) runs north-south and immediately east of the 20m un-made road reserve and bifurcates the Structure Plan area into a western and eastern development cell.

• The approved Structure Plan for landholdings to the south shows an entry point on to Bussell Highway that also crosses the Rails to Trails reserve. However, subdivision/development of these landholdings has not taken place and is unlikely to occur for the medium to longer term noting that:

- the existing blue gum harvest on the adjoining land is not expected to be harvested for another 5 years; and - the approved Structure Plans shows the eastern portion of the adjoining land, with an approved Rail Reserve cross-over, to be the final, last stages of development – likely to be another 10-20 years noting the lot development staging rate within the Witchcliffe locality; and

• Structure Planning, subdivision approval & creation of the lots immediately north of the land is

now taking place – there is no opportunity to provide road access across their land.

Reasons to support Road Access across Rails to Trails Reserve 1. Provides improved connectivity, permeability and function for residents/community for walking,

cycling and vehicle access and the provision of essential services in both the; - short term (development of the eastern residential portion of the Structure Plan); and - longer term (when at full development of the approved Witchcliffe Village Strategy (WVS), Council has scope to either close the road reserve across the Rails to Trails, or can resolve to retain access that will afford local residents the option to move in either a northerly or southerly direction). 2. Represents a desirable urban form consistent with the WVS where it makes reference to the WAPC

Liveable Neighbourhoods Operational Policy Aims that include – To provide for access generally by way of an interconnected network of streets which facilitate safe, efficient and pleasant walking, cycling and driving.


9

3. The proposed road access across the Rails to Trails will have a negligible impact with regard to disturbing the intended use of the Wadandi Track by reason that:

(i) The proposed road would be constructed to Council standards consistent with other

roads that cross the Rails to Trails reserve (in Margaret River town site for example) that provide controlled access for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles;

(ii) The proposed road access across the Rails to Trails would make provision for local residents/traffic to enter/exit the eastern 14 lots without any significant increase in road traffic/use that would adversely impact on the use and function of the Wadandi Track and will maintain the rural landscape amenity of the locality;

Requested Change to the Officer’s Recommendation • The proponent supports the Officer’s recommendation subject to the wording under point 3 being

modified as follows: 3. Determines that the Structure Plan for Lot 122 Bussell Highway, Witchcliffe (00005-2-001) is

satisfactory for advertising subject to the road link crossing the Wadandi Trail being identified for temporary purposes (to be constructed, drained and created at the landowner/applicant’s cost at the time of subdivision) pending connection to the road network to be established on land to the south (Structure Plan Area 11), and associated mechanisms being set out for eventual closure and rehabilitation of the road alignment to a standard that allows for emergency service access only in accordance with the approved Bushfire Management Plan.

The above wording change is requested for the following reasons: 1. Provides certainty to the proponent, Council and the community that facilitates reasonable and

timely development of the Structure Plan area while allowing for future closure of the road across the Wadandi Trail at an appropriate future stage;

2. It clarifies the intent and process to provide road access that is suitably constructed and legally

created. It also accords with WAPC wording applied at the subdivision stage; 3. It ensures that the closed road alignment remains constructed to a standard to be as an Emergency

Access Way which accords with the requirements set out in the approved Bushfire Management Plan; and

4. Approval of a temporary road reserve crossing would not result in any greater impact on the amenity

of the Wadandi Trail, given that one reserve crossing has already been approved and constructed on the same alignment as the proposed road crossing, and only one reserve crossing would be open at any one time.

Conclusion • Proposed road access across the Rails to Trails will facilitate the full development of larger

residential lots on the northern portion of the Witchcliffe Townsite that: (i) reflect the WVS objectives for the land; (ii) respond to the density of development originally envisaged by the community in developing the Witchcliffe townsite; and (iii) provides for, and reinforces the lot diversity and housing/lifestyle choice identified for the land in the WVS. Staging the development would simply stifle the land identified in the WVS to be fully developed in an orderly, proper, timely and sustainable manner to support this objective.

• Supporting the Structure Plan as proposed represents a robust and proactive planning approach that will provide certainty in facilitating full development of the land in a timely manner.

• Full development of the site makes the project more economically viable when considering the overall costs to coordinate and install roads, footpaths, power and drainage infrastructure


10

• It should be recognised that the perimeter development cells within the WVS are the ones seeing

initial development. Full development of this land adds to that momentum of developing Witchcliffe as envisaged in key planning documents

Other Matters Background details provided in Officer’s Report • Makes reference to an older ‘superseded’ 2009 WVS document with regard to staging of

development that included Cell 6 to be developed ‘upon substantial completion of Cells 1-4’

• To this day no development has occurred in Cells 1-4 (and unlikely to take place in the medium to longer term)

• We note that separate larger lot Structure Planning has already been approved north of the town site (and the proponents land) and other residential Cells in the WVS that contain larger lots have been developed to the southern and eastern perimeters of the Witchcliffe Townsite without any requirement for substantial development to occur closer to town. In noting that the current approved WVS 2012 document doesn’t include such wording, we don’t consider there to be any logical planning reason for this one matter to be raised in context with this proposal.

Servicing details provided in Officer’s Report The Council officer’s report should clearly make reference to Council’s resolution of 17 December 2014 with regard to servicing lots greater than 2,000m2 within residential Cells in the WVS. It would provide clarity and demonstrate that this proposal complies with the requirements as resolved by Council that it: 4. Advises developers within the Witchcliffe Village Strategy area that where lots of 2000m2 and above are created in accordance with existing structure plans, consideration will be given to onsite waste disposal subject to the applicable structure plans being revised and approved, that:

- Demonstrates the suitability of ground conditions to safely and effectively accommodate on site effluent disposal. Geotechnical reports are required to the satisfaction of the Shire and Department of Health in this regard;

- Demonstrates acceptable alternative forms of fire protection and firefighting infrastructure (in the absence of reticulated hydrants); and

- Provides onsite treatment units being of a type which allow water to be recycled for reuse i.e. garden irrigation. • This residential cell is identified to support lots 2,000m2 and above and has been determined to

be suitable and capable for on-site effluent disposal which has been fully investigated and justified in the proposal.

• We therefore strongly maintain our position that the proposed on-site servicing requirements for the land not only achieve the direction of the Council but also satisfy the sustainability initiatives set out in the WVS considered relevant to lots 2,000m2 and above.

• It would be our expectation that, upon the WVS review, any reference to servicing of the land in the WVS will reflect that previously resolved by Council for residential cells identified to support lots 2,000m2 and above – as this Structure Plan proposes.

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


11

7.3 Item 11.2.2 Proposed Small Bar – 124 (Lot 3) Bussell Highway, Margaret River – Mr Leon Carroll

Mr Leon Carroll applicant of proposed small bar, addressed the meeting in relation to Item 11.2.2 Proposed Small Bar – 124 (Lot 3) Bussell Highway, Margaret River. A summary of his deputation is as follows: The DAU has given approval for an opening time of 6pm, with a maximum capacity of 16 people. As you can imagine, this is not quite the balance needed for a business of this size to succeed. My request for you tonight is two-fold: 1. To move the opening time from 6:00PM to 5:00PM; and 2. To increase the capacity to 25 patrons. I understand the Planning Department must follow scheme guidelines. I am also aware that they do not wish to set a precedent for future applications. However, given the modest nature of this proposed business and the unique position of the site, my request tonight does not set a precedent as much as an exception. My Reasoning for the First: Opening time to be 5:00PM

• To be open an hour earlier - at 5:00PM - in order to provide an ‘after work drinks’ service to neighbouring business staff and the local community.

• The majority of locals who work in town and who would use this service are already in town having finished work for the day, negating the need for parking.

• Those who work outside the town centre and want to purchase food for dinner also would have parked already. Thus, not requiring the need for the parking provision.

• Although the On-site parking has not been attributed to my application prior to 6:00PM due to the constraints of the Scheme - the other 4 on-site businesses are in fact closed at 5:00PM (The exception being the Barbershop which closes on Thursdays at 6:00PM).

My Reasoning for the Second: Maximum patronage of 25 people • This request equates to a parking shortfall of only 1.3 bays. • The DAU recommendation does acknowledge that “Despite the likely availability of parking in

the locality, the Scheme does not provide capacity for reciprocal parking to be considered on adjoining properties” – hence my request to council.

• The proposed business has a total of 153 Shire controlled public parking bays, all within 80m of the site. With 68 of those, being within less than 35 meters.

• From the Scheme amendment #34 - Car Parking Requirements (2014) – A survey contained results stating that from 5:00PM, of those 153 public car parks, an occupancy rate of only 47% was measured and figures suggest that the occupancy rate further decreases into the evening.

In conclusion, I wish to note that 25 patrons are a maximum number and not a guaranteed patronage. I envisage that the patrons will be an ever changing group as the after work clients move to go home; others will arrive before and after dinner at local restaurants. This maximum number will enable me the ability for some private functions, participate in events like the Emergence Creative Festival and most importantly the opportunity to provide local employment. By having this number of patrons to support the success of this modest venture, I hope to provide another layer to the diversity of Margaret River for locals in particular as well as for tourists. The Shire President called for questions and thanked Mr Carroll for his deputation. 8. PETITIONS

Nil

9. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDING MEMBER Nil


12

10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN Nil

11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND EMPLOYEE REPORTS


13

11.1. Chief Executive Officer


14

11.1.1 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES OF THE WINE EQUALISATION TAX LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE ECD/24 REPORT AUTHOR Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer

IN BRIEF • Following from the ongoing tax reform of the Wine Equalisation Tax (WET) mooted since 2015 the

Turnbull Government recently released an implementation paper on tightened eligibility criteria for the Wine Equalisation Tax (WET) Rebate on 2 September 2016.

• The Shire President and CEO recently have met with Mr. David Martin a spokesperson for Wines of Western Australia (WoWA). WoWA provides support to WA wine producers and the nine WA regional wine associations in dealings with the Government on key issues. The Margaret River Wine Industry Association (MRWIA) supports the position set out in the WoWA Position Paper dated August 2016. The CEO has also had discussions with Denis and Trish Horgan from Leeuwin Estate.

• WoWA and Margaret River Wine Industry Association (MRWIA) are very concerned that the current implementation plan does not go far enough in supporting smaller producers and in particular those in the Margaret River Region from unintended negative impacts which will have a dramatic effect on employment and investment in the Margaret River Wine Region and therefore across the whole local economy.

• Submissions can be made until 7 October 2016 and it is recommended that the Council support the lodging of a submission re-enforcing the Wine Industry’s efforts in the interests of safeguarding arguably the Region’s most important industry sector.

RECOMMENDATION That Council lodges a submission by way of a letter from Council signed by the Shire President in support of the Margaret River Wine Industry Association and Wines of WA position and forwards copies to all Western Australian Federal Parliamentarians and key State Parliamentarians: 1. Calling for the elimination of the misuse of the WET Rebate but in support of retaining the full

$500,000 rebate for legitimate regional wine producers such as those wineries and cellar doors operating in the Margaret River Region;

2. Tightening eligibility criteria for the WET Rebate to support wineries and those who are based and operate from a regional location such as the Margaret River Region and who process grapes from the crusher through to the bottled and branded product;

3. Endorsing the Wines of Western Australia (WoWA) Wine Equalisation Tax Position Paper (Attachment 1).

LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND On 2 September the Turnbull Government released an implementation paper on tightened eligibility criteria for the Wine Equalisation Tax (WET) Rebate. Submissions can be made until 7 October 2016. The Federal Treasury document and implementation paper “Wine Equalisation Tax Rebate: Tightened Eligibility Criteria – September 2016” is included in the Attachments.


15

In a nutshell the WET is a value (not volume) based excise tax of 29% applied to the wholesale price of wine. Approximately 86% of Australian Wine is produced by just 20 companies with over 2,500 accounting for the other 14%. At the time of the implementation of the WET 60% of wine retailed was sold in low value cardboard casks which has now reduced to 30% due to changes in consumer demand and marketing. The WET discriminates against the small regional producers which includes the wineries of the Margaret River Region in that they do not have the economies of scale of the larger producers, they are further from the capital city retail markets so transport costs are higher and they produce a higher value bottled product which attracts a higher dollar value excise and compounding GST tax because the Region produces higher value premium wines. The consumer is hit for the additional GST of 10% on the higher priced bottle of wine at the bottle shop or retail outlet. Denis Horgan of Leeuwin Estate estimates that the additional costs contribute up to $5 per bottle at the bottle shop on a $20 bottle of wine produced by the small family winery due to the above factors compared to the big 20 producers who can retail a bottle $5 cheaper for approximately $15 by comparison. The WET Rebate was introduced to support smaller wine producers in regional and rural Australia with domestic sales, and to effectively exempt those wine producers from WET. The WET Rebate operates by returning to producers up to a maximum of $500,000 of the WET collected on wine sales, so that producers can sell up to $1.79 million of wine before they will pay any WET to the Government. Unfortunately, the system has been abused and rorted. The wine industry itself has called for reform of the WET Rebate based on their concern it has moved beyond its original policy intent, compromising profitability in the wine industry, through: • The ability to create artificial business structures to access the rebate and claim multiple rebates. • The conversion of uncommercial grapes into bulk wine for the sole purpose of claiming the rebate,

affecting the pricing of both grapes and wine. According to the Implementation Paper, “In the 2016-17 Budget, the Government announced that it will address integrity concerns with the WET rebate and better target support to small wine producers in rural and regional Australia. In the Budget, the Government announced it would: • provide $50 million over four years to the Australian Grape and Wine Authority to promote

Australian wine overseas and wine tourism within Australia; • strengthen the associated producer rules in WET legislation to help stop multiple claims for the

WET rebate by complex structures of associated businesses; • from 1 July 2017, reduce the WET rebate cap from $500,000 to $350,000 and from 1 July 2018

to $290,000; and • from 1 July 2019, apply tightened eligibility criteria where a wine producer must own or lease a

winery and sell branded, packaged wine domestically, with final details settled through consultation.”

Mr Martin, spokesperson for WoWA, said: “Following the release of the Budget, extensive consultation with the local wine industry by Wines of Western Australia (WoWA) exposed serious concerns about the direct and indirect consequences of the announced changes for regional growth and development, and regional communities. These consequences will have significant negative social and economic impacts in Australia’s regional communities in which wine producers are based.” The position of WoWA is that the WET Rebate needs to be refocussed to restore integrity to the WET Rebate system and is outlined in their position paper and quoted verbatim in the following four points:

1. “Eliminate the rebate for bulk and unbranded wine by limiting the rebate to packaged, branded wine which is for sale to domestic customers – this element is supported by both the Government and the wine industry;

2. Expand the existing eligibility criteria to provide that a producer must operate from a place of business in a wine region and maintain ownership and control of the grapes from which wine is made from the crusher to the finished bottled and branded product – the Government’s proposal that a producer must own an interest in a winery does not recognise the many legitimate business models used by smaller wine producers;


16

3. Maintain the overall rebate of $500,000 but refocus it so that the full amount is only available on cellar door or direct sales, and introduce a limit within the cap on the rebate available for wholesale sales at $350,000, transitioned in over four years – the Government’s proposed reduction in the cap for legitimate producers will damage their viability and their ability to invest in their businesses; and

4. Restrict access to the rebate to small and medium sized wine producers - the rebate was never intended to support large scale producers.”

There appears to be overwhelming support for the rebate to be removed from bulk and unbranded wine, with the main question on this aspect being the timing of removal of the rebate. The two contentious aspects of the Government’s proposal are the reduction in the cap on the amount of rebate that may be claimed, and the introduction of additional eligibility criteria. Mr Martin, spokesperson for WoWA, said: “The cap reduction will damage the business every wine producer in the Margaret River Wine Region who sells, or is likely to sell, more than $1 million of wholesale wine. The amount available for investment in their businesses will be reduced by up to $210,000 as a result of the cap reduction. In order to adjust their businesses for this loss, many producers have indicated that they would reduce the amounts that they invest in regional promotion and development, innovation, business expansion, and employment of staff. The affected producers are the driving force behind the industry in the region and are major employers and generators of business activity and tourism.” It appears from reading the documentation that the Government is aware that some industry participants have called for eligibility for the rebate to focus on wine producers who own the grapes throughout the winemaking process, and this is part of the solution proposed by WoWA. However, the Government has also proposed that this test be in addition to an assets test, whereby a producer would need to demonstrate significant investment in the industry such as through ownership of a winery, vineyard or cellar door. Mr Martin, spokesperson for WoWA, said: “WoWA does not agree with the additional assets test. The ownership test proposed by WoWA (ownership grapes from the crusher to the finished product) would itself mean that a producer would have a substantial investment in the industry as it would be carrying the cost of buying the grapes, and processing, packaging and marketing the wine, as well as all of the associated overhead and working capital costs. The additional assets test proposed by the Government would create many issues associated with defining and prescribing what investments are required in order to qualify for the rebate and would lead to an additional and unnecessary burden on wine producers. WoWA believes that decisions relating to business structure and allocation of capital are best left to the business owners and the additional assets test would stifle innovation and growth among smaller producers.” WoWA has developed a revenue neutral approach which will raise the same amount of revenue for the government but at the same time assist the regional producer to stay viable. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation David Martin – Stormflower Vineyard, Wilyabrup Wines of WA – WET Position Paper (See attachment) Denis and Trish Horgan - Leeuwin Estate Industry Leaders Group Internal Consultation Nil DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The proposed changes to the WET Rebate Scheme potentially will have severe detrimental impacts on the profitability of locally run wineries and cellar doors which will have a flow on effect right throughout the economy. The loss of a percentage of the rebate up to $210,000 is a significant loss of revenue and will have a devastating effect on employment and investment in the Wine Industry.


17

This is further exacerbated by the tightened eligibility criteria proposed by the Government, where a wine producer must own or lease a winery. In the Margaret River Region around half of local wine producers do not own or lease a winery but arrange for their wine to be made by contract winemakers. The wine produced is then sold through a cellar door and other local outlets, or by wholesale sale. In the case of these producers, the proposed eligibility criteria would mean that they could not access the WET rebate at all, unless they invested in a winery. The Government’s proposal that a producer must own an interest in a winery does not recognise the many legitimate business models used by smaller wine producers in the Margaret River Region. The WoWA paper recommends that the producer needs to operate from business premises in the Region and maintain ownership of the grapes from the crusher through to the finished bottle and branded product. Due to the major importance of a vibrant and viable wine industry to the economy of the Margaret River Region and the potential negative impacts if the WET Rebate is not amended correctly to safeguard the interests of local producers the Council should lend its weight to the campaign for appropriate reforms to the legislation. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Federal Wine Equalisation Tax (WET) STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 4: Vibrant and Diverse Economies Community Outcome 4.1: Strong agricultural and viticultural sectors Strategic Response 4.1.1: Maintain a positive collaborative relationship with the Margaret River Wine Industry Association and promote the Margaret River Wine Region as Australia’s premier wine region. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS No Shire expenditure anticipated SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental A strong and vibrant wine industry is important in ensuring sustainable environmental practices are embedded in the wine industry. Sufficient funds are required to enable spending on better quality management practices and on additional conservation projects such as the conservation of streams and water courses on wineries. Social Wine and food are inextricably interwoven into the fabric of social life in the Shire in terms of providing jobs, creating social and cultural events, leisure activities and the sense of place and belonging of the community. A loss of jobs and investment in the industry will impact on the wider economy and social fabric of the community. Economic Economic modelling was recently undertaken for the Shire by Tourism Research Services using the REMPLAN analytical tool. REMPLAN has estimated that the output generated by wine production a major component of the manufacturing sector accounts for $447.453 million or 28.6% of the economic output of the Shire (Table 1). Construction fuelled by population growth and both public and private sector investment is second. Tourism in Augusta Margaret River Shire is valued at $157.185 million, making tourism the third highest contributor to Output at 10.1% after construction. The Agriculture and Food sector is next with $135.483 million or 8.7% of economic output. Table 1 – Augusta-Margaret River Shire Output by Sector

Industry Sector $M % Manufacturing $447.453 28.6 %

Construction $170.725 10.9%


18

Tourism $157.185 10.1%

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing $135.483 8.7%

Ownership of Dwellings $88.195 5.6%

Retail Trade $67.338 4.3%

Education &Training $43.422 2.8%

Sub-Total $1,109.800 71.0%

Source: Tourism Research Services Wine production and retailing through the cellar doors and in local restaurants is vitally important to the tourism industry. The workforce of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River is concentrated in tourism related industries such as the hospitality industry, retailing, and primary production. Tourism is a major driver for employment in Margaret River and from the graph below it can be seen that industries such as accommodation and food and retail are the major employers of people in the Shire. Figure 1. Tourism Related Employment by Industry Sector in WA (Place of Work 2010-11)

VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council lodges a submission by way of a letter from Council signed by the Shire President in support of the Margaret River Wine Industry Association and Wines of WA position and forwards copies to all Western Australian Federal Parliamentarians and key State Parliamentarians: 1. Calling for the elimination of the misuse of the WET Rebate but in support of retaining the full

$500,000 rebate for legitimate regional wine producers such as those wineries and cellar doors operating in the Margaret River Region;

2. Tightening eligibility criteria for the WET Rebate to support wineries and those who are based and operate from a regional location such as the Margaret River Region and who process grapes from the crusher through to the bottled and branded product; and


19


ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Feedback will be provided to the Wine of WA and the MRWIA and other producers. ATTACHMENTS 1. Australian Government – Wine Equalisation Tax – Tightened Eligibility Criteria - Implementation

Paper September 2016 2. Wines of Western Australia – Wines of Western Australia Wine Equalisation Tax Position Paper 3. Wines of Western Australia Press Release – WoWA Response to WET Rebate: Tightened Eligibility

Implementation Paper

RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR TOWNSHEND, CR LANE OM2016/200 That Council lodges a submission by way of a letter from Council signed by the Shire President in support of the Margaret River Wine Industry Association and Wines of WA position and forwards copies to all Western Australian Federal Parliamentarians and key State Parliamentarians: 1. Calling for the elimination of the misuse of the WET Rebate but in support of retaining the

full $500,000 rebate for legitimate regional wine producers such as those wineries and cellar doors operating in the Margaret River Region;

2. Tightening eligibility criteria for the WET Rebate to support wineries and those who are based and operate from a regional location such as the Margaret River Region and who process grapes from the crusher through to the bottled and branded product; and


CARRIED 6/0


20

11.1.2 STATUTORY REVIEW OF WARDS DISCUSSION PAPER AND OPTIONS LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE GOV/4 REPORT AUTHOR Emma Rogers, Governance and Permit Officer

Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer

IN BRIEF • Schedule 2.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires local governments with wards to carry

out reviews of the ward boundaries and the number of councillors for each ward every 8 years. • Schedule 2.2 of the Act specifies the factors that must be taken into account by a local government

as part of the review process. • The Shire’s last review of wards and representation was completed in April 2009 so Council is

required to conduct another review to allow any required changes to be put in place for the 2017 elections.

• Council resolved at the 13 April 2016 Ordinary Council Meeting to conduct a review of wards and a discussion paper canvassing six options. Council requested the CEO to prepare six options for consideration.

• A series of three workshops have been held and two options involving two wards have been assessed as not suitable and the remaining four options have firmed up for inclusion in the discussion paper for community consultation.

• The discussion paper is presented for adoption by Council for public advertising for a minimum six-week period inviting submissions.

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Adopts the Wards Review Discussion Paper in the attachments to the agenda including four ward

options as listed in the following table:

Option Number of Wards Description 1 No wards (One Shire

Ward) 7 councillors elected by all voters in one Shire wide ward.

2 3 Wards One Augusta Ward covering the Augusta Townsite, East Augusta, and Molloy Island (1 Cr), one expanded Margaret River Ward (3 Crs) and one rural-coastal ward comprising the balance of the Shire (3 Crs).

3 4 Wards One Augusta Ward covering the Augusta Townsite, East Augusta, and Molloy Island (1 Cr), an expanded Margaret River Townsite Ward (3 Crs), one North Ward covering the settlements of Cowaramup and Gracetown townships (1 Cr) and a rural and coastal ward encompassing the rest of the Shire (2 Crs).

4 3 Wards An expanded Leeuwin Ward with northern boundaries of Mowen Road, the Margaret River, Roxburgh Road, Caves Road and property boundaries (2 Crs), an expanded Margaret River Townsite Ward (3 Crs), one North Ward covering Cowaramup-Gracetown-Prevelly Gnarabup and land north of the Margaret River (2 Crs).


21

2. Gives local public notice for a minimum advertising period of six weeks calling for public submissions on the best Ward structure to serve the Shire over the next eight years until the next review based on the adopted Wards Review Discussion Paper.

LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Schedule 2.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 (Act) requires local governments with wards to carry out reviews of the ward boundaries and the number of councillors for each ward from time to time so that no more than eight years elapse between successive reviews. The last ward review for the Shire of Augusta Margaret River was completed on 23 April 2009. The next ward review needs to be completed by April 2017 in order to fall within the 8-year period. It is recommended to commence a review of the Shire’s ward system, to enable full community consultation and any recommended changes to be approved by the Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) and implemented prior to the 2017 elections. This current ward system has worked well over the past 7 years, however the creation of a Margaret River Ward including the fast growing East Margaret River suburbs of Rapids Landing and Brookfield combined with the Augusta town site experiencing slower growth has inevitably resulted in a deterioration in the principal of one vote – one value with residents in this ward being underrepresented per capita compared to their counterparts on other wards. At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 13th April, 2016 Council adopted a resolution which included: That Council: 1. In accordance with Schedule 2.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 resolves to conduct a

Review of Wards; 2. Develops a discussion paper for the purposes of the required statutory community

consultation and submission period to be finalised at a Councillor Strategic Planning Workshop etc.).

Council conducted three strategic planning workshops related to the six options developed for the wards by Shire staff. At one session the Chairman of the Local Government Advisory Board Mr. Mal Congerton and Executive Officer Mr. Chris Berry were in attendance. Councillors by consensus recommended that two options be eliminated for consideration as they involved two wards only which had the potential to be problematic. The first option of two wards with Margaret River having three councillors and the balance of the Shire having four councillors was eliminated and another two ward options with Margaret River and Prevelly having four councillors and the balance of the Shire three councillors was also eliminated. It was generally felt that it was not sound governance to potentially have an absolute majority of councillors in a single ward and there was also a perceived danger of creating or exacerbating an “us and them” culture between Margaret River and non-Margaret River councillors. The four options selected for the discussion paper are further outlined and discussed later in the report. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Schedule 2.2 of the Act requires Council to give local public notice before carrying out a review of wards and to consider any submissions made during the advertising period. A minimum of six weeks is required for the consultation period.


22

The purpose of the public notice is to inform the community that Council intends to conduct a review and encourage responses and suggestions from the community. In addition to local public notice, the Shire plans on undertaking other initiatives to promote community discussion including media releases, posting information on the Shire’s community consultation website page, visual screens in customer service area and emailing to media distribution lists. DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The next stage is to publish the discussion paper with the four options to be adopted by Council and seek community feedback for a minimum of six weeks. The draft Discussion Paper is attached to the Agenda. The following is a summary of the options: Option 1 – No Wards (i.e. One Shire Wide Ward)

Number of Wards Description No Wards (One Shire Ward)

With no ward boundaries, the seven (7) Councillors would be elected by all voters in one Shire wide ward. The advantages and disadvantages of a no ward structure identified in the WALGAB publication “A Guide for Local Governments” are listed below.

Advantages Disadvantages Elected members are elected by the whole community not just a section of it. Knowledge and interest in all areas of the Council’s affairs would result in broadening the views beyond the immediate concerns of those in a ward.

Electors may feel that they are not adequately represented if they don’t have an affinity with any of the elected members.

The smaller town sites, villages, hamlets and rural areas would have the whole Council working for them.

Elected members living in a certain area may have a greater affinity and understanding of the issues specific to that area.

Members of the community who want to approach an elected member can speak to any elected member.

There is potential for an interest group to dominate the Council.

Social networks and communities of interest are often spread across a local government and elected members can have an overview of these.

Elected members may feel overwhelmed by having to represent all electors and may not have the time or opportunity to understand and represent all the issues.

Elected members can use their specialty skills and knowledge for the benefit of the whole local government.

It may be more difficult and costly for candidates to be elected if they need to canvass the whole local government area.

There is balanced representation with each elected member representing the whole community.

The election process is much simpler for the community to understand and for the Council to administer.


23

Option 2 - Three Wards

Number of Wards

Description

3 Wards One Augusta Ward covering the Augusta Townsite, East Augusta, and Molloy Island (1 Cr), one expanded Margaret River Ward (3 Crs) and one Coastal-Rural Ward comprising the balance of the Shire (3 Crs).

Features of this Option Augusta is acknowledged as having a strong community of interest based on school, shopping and specialist services catchments, participation in sporting clubs, service clubs and special interest groups and has a local newspaper circulating within the town. Topographically it is located on the meeting point of the Indian and Southern Oceans at the mouth of the Blackwood River and at the southern terminus of Bussell Highway. Augusta has an older demographic compared to both Margaret River and Cowaramup. Having a single designated representative will ensure the views and interests of Augusta electors will be represented on Council and that the ratio of the one councillor to electors ratio will be within the required LGAB range. Margaret River is the largest town in the Shire and has a strong community of interest based on school, shopping and specialist services catchments, participation in sporting clubs, service clubs and other special interest groups. Like Augusta it has a strong topographical location on the Margaret River and its junction with the Bussell Highway. Demographically Margaret River has a relatively young cohort in the most rapidly growing settlement in the Shire compared to other locations. Three councillors in an expanded ward will provide more equitable representation on an elector to councillor ratio now and over the next 8 years allowing for expansion and growth.


24

Augusta and Margaret River are the two main towns in the Shire which will have direct representation and the other four councilors will represent the interests of all of the other electors in the Shire. The third ward shares communities of interest between rural residents and those in coastal and inland hamlets with the largely rural focused town of Cowaramup and the larger population concentrations at Gracetown, Prevelly and Gnarabup and Witchcliffe.

Option 3 - Four Wards

Number of Wards

Description

4 Wards One Augusta Ward covering the Augusta Townsite, East Augusta, and Molloy Island (1 Cr), an expanded Margaret River Townsite Ward (3 Crs), one North Ward covering the settlements of Cowaramup and Gracetown townships (1 Cr) and a Coastal-Rural Ward encompassing the rest of the Shire (2 Crs).

Features of this Option Augusta Ward – See comments above. Margaret River Ward – See comments above. Cowaramup-Gracetown Ward. Cowaramup is the third largest town in the Shire and has its own community of interest with a primary school catchment, service clubs and a shopping and business precinct. Gracetown has a community of interest with Cowaramup being located on Cowaramup Bay and using Cowaramup town as the closest larger settlement for shopping and specialist services such as the chemist and local doctor. Cowaramup has a younger cohort than the national average and is growing at a faster rate than Augusta. Having a designated ward representative


25

will ensure the views and interests of Cowaramup and Gracetown electors will be represented on Council and that the ratio of the one councillor to electors will be within the required range. The fourth ward shares communities of interest with rural residents and those in coastal and inland hamlets. Two representatives will ensure that rural and coastal views are heard as their needs are quite different from those in the main towns of Margaret River, Augusta and Cowaramup/Gracetown. The largest concentration of residents in the ward are in the coastal hamlet of Gnarabup and Prevelly.

Option 4 – Three Wards

Number of Wards

Description

3 Wards An expanded Leeuwin Ward with northern boundaries from west to east of State Reserve and property boundaries, Caves Road, Roxburgh Road, Margaret River Perimeter Roads, the Margaret River and Mowen Road (2 Crs), an expanded Margaret River Townsite Ward (3 Crs), one North Ward covering Cowaramup-Gracetown-Prevelly Gnarabup and land north of the Margaret River (2 Crs).

Features of this Option North Ward - Cowaramup is the third largest town in the Shire and has its own community of interest with a primary school catchment, service clubs and a shopping and business precinct. Gracetown has a community of interest with Cowaramup being located on Cowaramup Bay and


26

using Cowaramup town as the closest larger settlement for shopping and specialist services such as the chemist and local doctor. Cowaramup has a younger cohort than the national average and is growing at a faster rate than Augusta. This ward also takes in Prevelly and Gnarabup which have a community of interest in common with Gracetown but tend to use Margaret River as a service centre. Having two designated ward representatives will ensure the views and interests of electors in Cowaramup, Gracetown and Prevelly/Gnarabup and the surrounding rural areas will be represented on Council and that the ratio of the two councillors to electors will be within the required range. Margaret River Ward – See previous comments. Leeuwin Ward – The Leeuwin Ward will ensure representation of electors to the south of the Margaret River and the Margaret River townsite. The settlements of the ward include Augusta, Kudardup, Karridale, Hamelin Bay, Witchcliffe and Rosa Brook. Having two designated representatives will ensure the views and interests of electors from Augusta through to Rosa Brook will be represented on Council and that the ratio of the two councillors to electors will be within the required LGAB range.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The review process involves a number of steps:

1. The Council resolves to undertake the review in accordance with part 6 of Schedule 2.2 LGA; 2. Council gives local public notice advising that;

i. a review is to be carried out; ii. submissions may be made to the local government by a date no less than 6 weeks

after the notice is given; in accordance with part 7 of Schedule 2.2 LGA. 3. A discussion paper will be made available to the public, explaining the review process, various

ward options being considered and the five factors in which they will be assessed against; 4. Other initiatives to promote community discussion may be undertaken such as media releases,

presentations to the community; 5. Public submission period closes; 6. The Council considers all submissions and relevant factors and makes a decision in

accordance with part 7 & 8 of Schedule 2.2 LGA; 7. The Council submits a report to the Local Government Advisory Board (Board) for its

consideration and may propose to the Board the making of any order it thinks fit in accordance with part 9 of Schedule 2.2 LGA; and

8. If a change is proposed, the Board submits a recommendation to the Minister of Local Government (the Minister).

The Board expects local governments to complete their reviews to allow any changes to be implemented within the eight-year period. The Board also requires Local Governments to submit their reports of the review by the end of March in the year of an ordinary election, to allow sufficient time for any changes to be considered and processed for the beginning of the election cycle. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 5: Effective leadership and governance Community Outcome 5.1: Effective governance and corporate leadership Strategic Response: Attract and develop high quality Councillors that are able to lead and articulate the community’s aspirations. Service level strategy/plan: Conduct comprehensive review of the Shire’s ward system. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If there are changes to ward boundaries upon review, a technical description of the new boundaries prepared by Landgate will be prepared at the local government’s cost.


27

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Ward systems are to take into account topographical and physical features. Social Ward systems are to take into account communities of interest and demographic information relating to the proposed wards. Economic Ward systems are required to take into account the economic factors related to each proposed ward. VOTING REQUIREMENTS A simple majority is required for this recommendation. As a result of the review the Council is to make a report in writing to the Board and any proposal for the making of any order must be made by absolute majority (Schedule 2.2, part 9). RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Adopts the Wards Review Discussion Paper in the attachments to the agenda including four ward

options as listed in the following table:

Option Number of Wards Description 1 No wards (One Shire

Ward) 7 councillors elected by all voters in one Shire wide ward.




2. Gives local public notice for a minimum advertising period of six weeks calling for public

submissions on the best ward structure to serve the Shire over the next eight years until the next review based on the adopted Wards Review Discussion Paper.

ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Wards Review Discussion Paper RECOMMENDATION CR, CR That Council: 1. Adopts the Wards Review Discussion Paper in the attachments to the agenda including four

ward options as listed in the following table:

Option Number of Wards Description


28

1 No wards (One Shire Ward)

7 councillors elected by all voters in one Shire wide ward.




2. Gives local public notice for a minimum advertising period of six weeks calling for public

submissions on the best ward structure to serve the Shire over the next eight years until the next review based on the adopted Wards Review Discussion Paper.

0/0 The CEO addressed the meeting in relation to Attachment 1 Wards Review Discussion Paper. On page 22 the Public Submission form states the name and address is optional. To ensure submissions are genuine, the CEO suggested the word ‘optional’ be deleted. Cr Lane moved the motion to include the amendment as follows: MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR LANE, CR HASTIE OM2016/201 That Council: 1. Adopts the Wards Review Discussion Paper with the deletion of the word optional (page 22)

in the attachments to the agenda including four ward options as listed in the following table:

Option Number of Wards Description 1 No wards (One

Shire Ward) 7 councillors elected by all voters in one Shire wide ward.





29

2. Gives local public notice for a minimum advertising period of six weeks calling for public submissions on the best ward structure to serve the Shire over the next eight years until the next review based on the adopted Wards Review Discussion Paper.

CARRIED 6/0


30

11.2. Sustainable Development


31

11.2.1 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO.44 AND STRUCTURE PLAN - 10296 (LOT 122) BUSSELL HIGHWAY, WITCHCLIFFE - FOR INITIATION LOCATION/ADDRESS 10296 (Lot 122) Bussell Highway, Witchcliffe APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Ahola Planning FILE REFERENCE PTY/5337 (P216220) REPORT AUTHOR Lucy Gouws, Planning Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Nick Logan, Acting Director of Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF • The Proposal seeks ‘initiation’ of Amendment 44 and an associated Structure Plan to rezone Lot

122 Bussell Highway, Witchcliffe (the Site) from the Priority Agriculture to the Future Residential zone.

• The proposal will facilitate the subdivision and development of the site into: - 32 x Residential (R5 – 2,000m²) lots; - 10 x Residential (R2.5 – 4,000m²) lots, and - Creation of a road reserve across the Wadandi Trail to facilitate an access to the eastern portion

of the site. • The proposal is generally consistent with the Witchcliffe Village Strategy.

RECOMMENDATION That Council instate Amendment 44 and determine the associated Structure Plan is satisfactory for advertising, subject to modifications. SITE AND SURROUNDS The Site is located 700m to the north of the village of Witchcliffe (see Figure 1). A blue gum plantation is located upon Lot 1003 which abuts the southern boundary of the Site. Lot 1003 is zoned Future Development, and has a related Structure Plan which identifies its future development for residential purposes, forming a major component of the Witchcliffe Village expansion. Until recently the Site has been used for commercial tree production. These trees were harvested in 2015, and the Site has since been returned to paddocks. An area of native vegetation exists within the northern portion of the Site, which is contiguous with vegetation found in Location 1035 to the north. There are a number of isolated trees scattered through the site. The Wadandi Trail runs through the site creating two separate parcels of land. Lot 121 to the west is vegetated and under a Conservation Covenant.


32

Figure 1: Site Plan TABLED ITEMS Nil THE PROPOSAL The proposed Scheme Amendment and associated Structure Plan seek to rezone the land to Future Development, and facilitate its subdivision into forty two (42) lots. The draft Structure Plan can be found at Attachment 1. Some of the specific characteristics of the Structure Plan are:

• Creation of forty two (42) residential lots consisting of thirty two (32) R5 density (minimum 2000m²) and ten (10) R2.5 density (minimum 4000m²).

• The use of building envelopes within the R2.5 lots for the protection of existing native vegetation.

• The use of development setbacks from both Bussell Highway, Wadandi Trail and the adjacent Conservation Lot 121 to the west of the site. These development setbacks are to ensure the protection of existing vegetation and to ensure future residential development does not encroach in these areas which could in turn impact their existing natural qualities.

• Construction of 15m wide road through the Wadandi Trail to create an access to the eastern portion of the site.

BACKGROUND The initial Witchcliffe Village Strategy (2009 – since reviewed) included a requirement that the subject land referred to as “Cell 6” should only be developed "upon the substantial completion of Cells 1-4". The objective of the requirement was to ensure that the substantive townsite expansion proposed by the village strategy was completed before lower density lifestyle lots, which form a buffer between the town and surrounding rural lands, were progressed. The Witchcliffe Village Strategy (WVS) was reviewed in 2012 (see Figure 2 below). The owner of the Site (cell 6 in the WVS) made a submission during the consultation period requesting that the staging requirements be removed in order to allow the land to be developed in the short term. Council agreed to this request and the current WVS does not include a staging requirement. A structure Plan was approved for the land abutting the southern boundary of the subject land (Lot 2, Redgate Road) in 2010. This Structure Plan for land to the south provides for road connections to both the eastern and western portions of the Site.

Wadandi Trail

The Site

Witchcliffe


33

Figure 2: Witchcliffe Village Strategy (site as Cell 6)

PLANNING FRAMEWORK The following documents set out the planning framework applicable to the proposal:

• Statement of Planning Policy No. 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge (LNRSPP); • Shire of Augusta Margaret River Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1); • The Local Planning Strategy (LPS); and • The Witchcliffe Village Strategy (WVS).

The LNRSPP policy establishes a settlement hierarchy for the region and identifies a number of settlements including Witchcliffe as a ‘Village’ to accommodate a population of between 500-2,000 people. Under the LPS and the WVS the Site is identified as an area to accommodate future growth of the town. The LPS identifies the subject land as a Development Investigation Area (DIA) W3 and the WVS identifies the site as ‘Cell 6 – Residential’. The WVS outlines that the Shire will consider a Scheme Amendment and Structure Plan to facilitate residential development, which is to be guided by the following parameters: • Potential lot yield (approximately): 36 lots; • Lot range 2,000m2 to 5,000m2 (R5-R2); • The density, scale and form of subdivision to be determined to the satisfaction of the Shire; • Subdivision design is to maximise the retention of remnant vegetation and provide a transition

between the adjacent Rural Residential and Residential lots; • Proposals are to demonstrate compliance with the ‘sustainability’ requirements of the Strategy; • Subdivision and subsequent development is to be screened from Bussell Highway - provide an

average 20-30 metre buffer as a visual separation to Bussell Highway to maintain rural and village amenity along the northern entry corridor;

• Address fire risk and fire hazard planning; • Incorporate public health planning principles into design and implementation; • Subject to provision of water supply and sewerage services; grey-water re-use; capture and re-

use of rainwater; environmentally sensitive housing development and sustainable energy use.

CONSULTATION AND ADVICE Initiation of Amendment No. 44 will allow the consultation process to commence, in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.


34

PLANNING ASSESSMENT Following preliminary review and modification the Proposal is acceptable for advertising with the exception of the access arrangements. The primary matters considered are set out below - Environment An environmental study has been undertaken which finds that the Site is mostly cleared apart from a few isolated Marris and Karri trees, but is overall considered to be degraded. The study identified 20 potential habitat trees which have been identified on the Structure Plan as ‘Significant Trees’ required to be retained. A 1.32ha area of open woodland (Marri and Jarrah) is located within the central-northern portion of the Site. The report classifies the condition of the vegetation to be degraded due to its lack of structure and understorey. The report does however recommend that this area is worthy of being retained and protected where possible and practicable, and this is achieved by the Structure Plan through the use of building envelopes for Lot 9, and Lots 24 – 30. Fire Management A fire hazard assessment and management plan has been prepared for the subject land which classifies the site as having a low bushfire risk level. The areas of existing remnant vegetation in the central northern section and a small area of planted trees surrounding the existing dwelling are identified as having a moderate bushfire risk. In order to mitigate against the risk of fire, a range of measures are recommended including:

• Provision of a permanent strategic water tank of 100,000 litres for firefighting purposes; • Emergency fire access route is proposed as an alternative access option eastward to Bussell

Highway; and • Construction of dwellings is required to meet AS3959 - 2009; dwellings are all subject to a BAL

of 29 or lower. 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 majority of the Site is located within Visual Management Zone ‘A’ of the policy. Within this zone development or changes in land use should result in development which is in-evident in the landscape. The WVS also highlights the importance of mitigating landscape impact from Bussell Highway.

The visual landscape assessment undertaken to support the Proposal identifies a number of landscape features which have informed the Structure Plan in terms of retaining and protecting the local characteristics and landscape values. The combination of natural screening, buffer planting (zone adjacent to Bussell Highway), use of development setbacks from both Bussell Highway and the Rails to Trails will all ensure views are limited to the future dwellings within the site, without compromising the visual amenity or rural landscape. Access Arrangements The Proposal put forward shows a road network which connects the eastern and western portions of the subject land via a road traversing the Wadandi Trail. The network connects with Rowe Road West (currently under construction) which also serves subdivision to the north which is approved and under construction. The crossing of the Wadandi Trail with a road reserve as is proposed is not consistent with the WVS. Access to the eastern portion of the lot is provided for by the WVS and an approved structure plan for adjoining lot 1003 via roads which connect from the south (see Figure 3 below). The crossing of the Wadandi trail should be deleted given that it would interfere with the safety and amenity of the trail for walking and cycling purposes. The Trail is a project of significant importance to the Shire and any proposal which might diminish its functionality should be carefully considered. The proponent does not agree to the removal of the road as this would result in the timing of the subdivision of the eastern portion of the subject land being dependant on subdivision of Lot 1003, which


35

is unknown. The reliance of one developer on another is an unfortunate but common reality for the staging of development both in the Shire and across the state. Notwithstanding the owners own development timeframes and intentions, the delivery of the 14 lots to the east of the Wadandi Trail is not of such strategic importance as to warrant variation from the WVS to create an additional crossing. There is plentiful land within the township which has approvals in place so that demand for similar lots can be accommodated in the medium to long term. There is no overriding imperative or urgency in land supply that suggests that an undesirable urban design outcome should be forwarded to provide for development of occur sooner.

Figure 3: Proposed Road Connections Servicing The WVS sets out that this land should be subject to provision of reticulated sewer and water. The Council previously resolved to consider larger lot sizes in and around water in the absence of services. This is subject to qualifications around water supply, geotech and fire management. A further review of the WVS is also underway largely due to servicing implications. The servicing requirements for this land will require review following advertising and to reflect the WVS review outcomes. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 3: Managing growth sustainably. Community Outcome: Clearly define areas for growth and renewal Strategic Response: Implement LPS1 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental An assessment of the environmental features of the site has found that the proposed development can occur without any significant impact to the existing vegetation found within the site.


36

Social The proposed rezoning will allow for more residential development in close proximity to the Witchcliffe Town site which provides for a further range of housing options. Economic The proposal will cater for additional accommodation options to support the potential growth of Witchcliffe population and economy. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Initiates Scheme Amendment No.44 pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act

(2005) to Local Planning Scheme No. 1 for the purposes of:

a) Rezoning Lot 122 Bussell Highway, Witchcliffe from ‘Priority Agriculture’ to ‘Future Development’ and amending the scheme maps accordingly;

b) Amending the scheme map by including Lot 122 Bussell Highway, Witchcliffe in a Structure

Plan Area (SPA) designated SPA 26 as depicted on the scheme amendment map; and c) Modifying ‘Schedule 11 – Structure Plan Area’ by including the following schedule:

Area No.

(SPA)

Description of Land

Area

Land Use Expectations

Matters to be Addressed in Structure Plans (in

addition to clause 6.2.4)

Associated Provisions

26 Lot 122 Bussell Highway, Witchcliffe

Residential The following matters are to be investigated and methods of resolution/implementation are to be addressed by the Structure Plan: • Provision of sustainable

on-site servicing options that considers re-use of greywater.

• Drainage based on water sensitive design principles.

• Retention of remnant vegetation through future development and fire management protection should not compromise the environmental and landscape values of this vegetation.

• Provision of landscape buffer and development setbacks to Bussell Highway to mitigate visual impact on the function of this road as a travel route corridor.

• Preparation of detailed bushfire management planning providing acceptable mitigation of risk from threat of wild fire without compromising the integrity of areas of remnant vegetation.

1. No development will be permitted unless it is in accordance with the Structure Plan approved in the manner prescribed in Clause 6.2 and Schedule 15 of the Scheme.

2. The Structure Plan is to generally conform with the Witchcliffe Village Strategy relating to the land.

3. All new dwellings to be designed to achieve the current BCA +1-star rating under the Home Energy Rating System, and living areas are to be located on the northern elevation of the dwelling.


37

2. Determines that Amendment 44 is a standard amendment. 3. Determines that the Structure Plan for Lot 122 Bussell Highway, Witchcliffe (00005-2-001) is

satisfactory for advertising subject to the road link crossing the Wadandi Trail being removed and associated modification to the southern boundaries of proposal Lots 1 and 14.

ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Structure Plan RECOMMENDATION CR , CR That Council: 1. Initiates Scheme Amendment No.44 pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development

Act (2005) to Local Planning Scheme No. 1 for the purposes of:


b) Amending the scheme map by including Lot 122 Bussell Highway, Witchcliffe in a

Structure Plan Area (SPA) designated SPA 26 as depicted on the scheme amendment map; and

c) Modifying ‘Schedule 11 – Structure Plan Area’ by including the following schedule:

Area No.

(SPA)

Description of Land

Area












2. The Structure Plan is to generally conform with the Witchcliffe Village Strategy relating to the land.



38



satisfactory for advertising subject to the road link crossing the Wadandi Trail being removed and associated modification to the southern boundaries of proposal Lots 1 and 14.

0/0 Cr Hastie moved the following motion with an amendment to point 3, the words ‘removed and associated modification to the southern boundaries of proposed Lots 1 and 14.’ were deleted and replaced with the following: ‘identified for temporary purposes pending connection to the road network to be established on land to the south (Structure Plan Area 11), and associated mechanisms being set out for eventual closure and rehabilitation of the access.’ MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR HASTIE, CR LANE OM2016/202 That Council: 1. Initiates Scheme Amendment No.44 pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development

Act (2005) to Local Planning Scheme No. 1 for the purposes of:


b) Amending the scheme map by including Lot 122 Bussell Highway, Witchcliffe in a

Structure Plan Area (SPA) designated SPA 26 as depicted on the scheme amendment map; and

c) Modifying ‘Schedule 11 – Structure Plan Area’ by including the following schedule:

Area No.

(SPA)

Description of Land

Area










2. The Structure Plan is to generally conform with the


39




Witchcliffe Village Strategy relating to the land.



satisfactory for advertising subject to the road link crossing the Wadandi Trail being identified for temporary purposes pending connection to the road network to be established on land to the south (Structure Plan Area 11), and associated mechanisms being set out for eventual closure and rehabilitation of the access.

CARRIED 4/2 CRS HAYNES AND TOWNSHEND VOTED AGAINST

REASON Cr Hastie spoke to the motion highlighting that the road link crossing of the Wadandi Trail is only temporary and will be used to access only 14 residential lots which would mean minimal traffic.


40

11.2.2 PROPOSED SMALL BAR - 124 (LOT 3) BUSSELL HIGHWAY, MARGARET RIVER LOCATION/ADDRESS 124 (Lot 3) Bussell Highway, Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Leon Carrol/Faire Investments Pty Ltd FILE REFERENCE P216186; PTY/1250 REPORT AUTHOR Matt Slocomb, Senior Planning Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Matt Cuthbert, Acting Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF • An application has been received for the change of use of an existing storage/outbuilding to a

Small Bar, with opening hours from 5:00pm to 12:00 midnight and to accommodate a maximum of 20 patrons.

• The proposal is constrained by the lack of available parking on site. No bays are available until after 6:00pm, with 2 bays available thereafter.

• Given the parking limitations, approval is recommended to be subject to a restriction on operating hours and a limit of 16 patrons.

RECOMMENDATION That Council approves the proposed Small Bar at 124 (Lot 3) Bussell Highway, Margaret River subject to conditions. PROPOSAL An application has been received for the change of use of an existing storage/outbuilding at 124 (Lot 3) Bussell Highway, Margaret River to a Small Bar. The proposal as put forward is to operate from 5:00pm to 12:00 midnight and to accommodate a maximum of 20 patrons. LOCATION PLAN 124 (Lot 3) Bussell Highway, Margaret River is located on the corner of Bussell Highway and Fearn Avenue, Margaret River. The site currently contains two real estate offices, an espresso bar and barber. The site is identified below as Figure 1.

Figure 1. 124 (Lot 3) Bussell Highway, Margaret River

Proposed Small Bar


41

TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND The subject building has been used previously for the purposes of storage. The approval history associated with the overall site is summarised below: May 1984 Renovations approved for the building. No plans were included in the approval but a

condition was imposed requiring the provision of 6 parking bays on site and cash in lieu for a further two bays.

May 1999 Planning approval issued for additions and alterations to the premises, with no change to the parking required.

September 2008

A change of use was approved for the use of the premises as a takeaway food outlet. No further bays were provided but the configuration was modified, with three bays obtaining direct access from Fearn Avenue on the northern boundary of the site and 3 bays being located in the central courtyard area of the site.

May 2013 Planning approval was granted for a change of use to an espresso bar (Brew Shack). The approval limited the number of seats available to 8 which was commensurate with the 2 parking bays available to the use. Of further note was a condition limiting operation to 6:00pm.

December 2013

Planning approval was granted for additions to the barber premises located on site, which did not result in the need for additional parking. The plan approved as a part of this application involved the reconfiguration of the parking arrangement to 4 sets of tandem bays (removing the central courtyard bays). This brought the total amount of parking provided on site to 8 bays.

The proposal was considered by Council’s Delegated Authority Unit (DAU) which recommended approval of the proposal subject to modifications. Councillors have requested that proposal be brought to an Ordinary Meeting for determination by Council. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE The proposal was not publically advertised. Comment has been provided from internal business units of the Shire which has been included as advice to the applicant. PLANNING FRAMEWORK The objectives of the Town Centre zone are to allow for a range of activities and services, to establish efficient and vibrant commercial and tourism centres and to maintain streetscape character and values. It is considered that the proposed use is completely consistent with the objectives of the zone and will be complementary to the intended upgrades to Fearn Avenue as a part of the Margaret River Main Street Redevelopment, which will increase the verge area for pedestrian use and events. The key issue associated with this proposal are car parking and the function of the development. The parking rate for a small bar within the Margaret River Town Centre is 1 bay per 7.5m² of bar space (areas occupied by customers, excluding servery areas) or where determined by the local government – 1 space per 7.5 patrons. In this case the number of patrons has been applied as the basis for determining the parking requirement for the site, as this is considered to more reasonably relate to the parking demand, given the capacity of a venue is often regulated via a condition of planning approval. Given the proposal is to accommodate 20 patrons, 3 parking bays are required for the use in this instance.


42

Earlier approvals for the site have culminated in the provision of 8 bays overall, with 6 being provided on site, and a further two being provided through payment of ‘cash in lieu’ of parking. A summary of parking for each tenancy is provided as follows:

Tenancy Bays Allocated Shop 1 (Acton Real Estate) 2 (1 on site, one cash in lieu) Shop 2 (First National Real Estate) 2 (1 on site, one cash in lieu) Shop 3 (Brew Shack) 2 bays on site Shop 4 (Barber) 2 bays on site

Of particular note in this case is that the approval for the ‘Brew Shack’ was inclusive of a condition limiting operations between 6am to 6pm. No operating restrictions have been placed upon shops 1, 2 and 4. In 2013 approval was sought for additions to the barber shop, which did not result in an increased parking requirement for the site; however the proposal involved a reconfiguration of the parking provided to an arrangement with 8 bays (4 sets of two tandem bays). It has been suggested by the proponent that this has resulted in a surplus parking provision on site with two unallocated bays being in existence. Whilst the parking ‘surplus’ was not attributed to a use, they have not been considered in the context of the current assessment as they have considerable practical issues associated with them, namely access restrictions from a non-mountable kerb and street parking obstructing access to these bays. A number of other options have been explored by staff with the proponent in the context of the parking both onsite and within the vicinity, however these have found to be unworkable. On this basis, there are 2 bays available (from 6pm) which is sufficient only to accommodate a maximum of 15 patrons. The parking shortfall is discussed further below. DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS For the proposal to be approved in the manner put forward by the applicant, the Shire would need to exercise discretion in respect to the number of parking bays provided. In this respect, it is appropriate for the use to be limited to those times where parking is available on the premises, which would translate to a limitation on the opening hours from 6:00pm. If a 6.00pm opening time is accepted, there remains a shortfall of 1 bay associated with the use. In the context of the broader locality, it is noted that there is a sufficient capacity for reciprocal parking given that the operating hours of a small bar generally coincide with lower demand/use of office and retail uses in the vicinity. Notwithstanding, in respect to reciprocal parking clause 5.8.3 of the Shires Local Planning Scheme No.1 states the following:

“Where, on any lot, different land uses have been, or are to be established and those uses operate at different times to each other, the local government, upon being satisfied that the operating times will be permanent and will form the subject of conditions under which a development approval will be granted, may reduce the total number of bays required to be provided for those uses as set out in Schedule 8, or as specified by the local government, on a reciprocal use basis having regard to the greatest number of vehicles that may need to be accommodated on the land during periods of peak usage of the site”.

Despite the likely availability of parking in the locality, the Scheme does not provide capacity for reciprocal parking to be considered on adjoining properties. Accordingly, it is recommended that approval be considered based on the use of the 2 bays available after 6:00pm, and a reduction in patrons from that proposed from 20 to 15. This can be increased to 16 patrons through application of clause 5.8.9 of LPS 1 which provides a 10% reduction to the parking requirements if an active transport plan is prepared and implemented by the proponent. This ensures that provision is made for modes of transport other than the car. A condition is recommended accordingly.


43

A further issue is the proposed form and operation of the development. The plans of the proposal show the existing building with the large doors opening directly onto the parking area. As the parking area has minimal setback from these openings this would be an undesirable situation. Accordingly, a condition of approval is recommended to prevent these doors being opened during operating hours or used for access purposes. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 3: Managing Growth Sustainably Community Outcome 3.1: Clearly defined areas for growth and renewal Strategic Response: Implement Local Planning Scheme No.1 Service level strategy/plan: Provide planning services FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The proposal is unlikely to have significant environmental impact. Social At present a small bar of this scale is not available within the town centre and for this reason the proposal will increase the diversity of venues within town, for use by a wider section of the community. Economic The small bar is likely to bring people into the town centre and provide flow on economic benefits to other businesses as a consequence. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: Approves a small bar at 124 (Lot 3) Bussell Highway, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development is to be carried out in compliance with the plans and documentation listed below

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

P1 – P2 received at the Shire on the 28 June 2016 and P3 – P4 received at the Shire on the 1 April 2016.

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

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

3. The number of patrons for the use hereby permitted shall not exceed 15. The number may be increased to 16 subject to the approval of an active transport plan. The active transport plan must be submitted to the Shire for approval, and be implemented thereafter to the specification and satisfaction of the Shire. (H)

4. The use is not permitted to operate outside the hours of 6:00pm to 12:00 midnight. 5. The doors to the small bar on the Fearn Avenue frontage shall not be opened or used for access

to the facility during opening hours. ADVICE NOTES a) You are advised of the need to comply with the requirements of the following other legislation:

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


44

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

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

b) In respect to condition 3, an active transport shall comprise of details of the location and number

of bike racks provided on site, as well as end of trip facilities where applicable.

c) Food premises shall comply with the requirements of Food Act 2008, Food Regulations 2009, and Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code.

d) The applicant shall submit to the Shire an application for ‘Notification/Registration’ of a food business, together with details of food premises layout, finishes, fittings and fixtures. Application form is available on Shire website.

e) The applicants will be required to comply with the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor

requirements for Standards of Licensed Premises.

f) The proposed development is classified as a public building and is required to comply with the Health Act 1911; Health (Public Building) Regulations 1992; and Building Code of Australia.

g) The proposed development is defined as a Public Building in accordance with the Health (Public Building) Regulations 1992. The enclosed Form 2 Application for Certificate of Approval - Application for Certificate of Approval shall be completed and submitted to Council for approval together with the appropriate fee, prior to use of development as a Public Building. Application forms are available on Shire website.

h) Noise emissions resulting from the development / use of the premises for the approved purpose shall not exceed the assigned levels in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, and shall not unreasonably interfere with the health, welfare, convenience, comfort or amenity of an occupier of any other premises.

i) A rubbish bin storage area adequate to service the development is to be designed and

constructed in accordance with the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Health Local Laws 1999 prior to the occupation or use of the development to the satisfaction of the Shire. Wastewater from the bin wash shall not discharge into the stormwater system.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Plans RECOMMENDATION CR HASTIE, CR That Council: Approves a small bar at 124 (Lot 3) Bussell Highway, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development is to be carried out in compliance with the plans and documentation

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


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

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



45

4. The use is not permitted to operate outside the hours of 6:00pm to 12:00 midnight. 5. The doors to the small bar on the Fearn Avenue frontage shall not be opened or used for

access to the facility during opening hours. ADVICE NOTES a) You are advised of the need to comply with the requirements of the following other

legislation:




b) In respect to condition 3, an active transport shall comprise of details of the location and

number of bike racks provided on site, as well as end of trip facilities where applicable.



e) The applicants will be required to comply with the Department of Racing, Gaming and

Liquor requirements for Standards of Licensed Premises.



h) Noise emissions resulting from the development / use of the premises for the approved purpose shall not exceed the assigned levels in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, and shall not unreasonably interfere with the health, welfare, convenience, comfort or amenity of an occupier of any other premises.



0/0

The motion lapsed for want of a seconder.

Cr Townshend moved the following alternative motion which included the following amendments:

a) In dot point 3 the number 15 be replaced with the number 25 and 16 be replaced with 26; and b) In dot point 4 the word 6.00pm be changed to 5.00pm.


46

ALTERNATIVE MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR TOWNSHEND, CR HAYNES OM2016/203 That Council: Approves a small bar at 124 (Lot 3) Bussell Highway, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development is to be carried out in compliance with the plans and documentation

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


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

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


4. The use is not permitted to operate outside the hours of 5:00pm to 12:00 midnight. 5. The doors to the small bar on the Fearn Avenue frontage shall not be opened or used for

access to the facility during opening hours. ADVICE NOTES a) You are advised of the need to comply with the requirements of the following other

legislation:




b) In respect to condition 3, an active transport shall comprise of details of the location and number of bike racks provided on site, as well as end of trip facilities where applicable.



e) The applicants will be required to comply with the Department of Racing, Gaming and

Liquor requirements for Standards of Licensed Premises.



h) Noise emissions resulting from the development / use of the premises for the approved purpose shall not exceed the assigned levels in the Environmental Protection (Noise)


47

Regulations 1997, and shall not unreasonably interfere with the health, welfare, convenience, comfort or amenity of an occupier of any other premises.



CARRIED 5/1 CR HASTIE VOTED AGAINST


48

11.2.3 APPOINTMENT OF PROPERTIES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM AND ENVIRONMENTAL GRANTS PROGRAM - 2016/2017 LOCATION/ADDRESS Various properties APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE LND/7 REPORT AUTHOR Jared Drummond, Sustainability Planning Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Nick Logan, Acting Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF • The Shire advertised the Environmental Stewardship Program and the Environmental Grants

Program during July and August 2016. • One application was received through the stewardship program and three applications were

received for the grants program. • It is recommended that all three grant applications are awarded environmental grant funding. The

one stewardship program application received is not supported as it does not meet site eligibility criteria.

RECOMMENDATION That Council awards funding to the following properties through the Environmental Grants Program 2016/17:

• 18 Morris Road, Forest Grove • 10890 Bussell Highway, Forest Grove • Lot 1467 Bussell Highway, Margaret River

BACKGROUND In May 2010, Council resolved through the adoption of the Conservation Incentive Strategy to develop an Environmental Stewardship Program and an Environmental Grants Program. The Stewardship and Grants programs have been in operation for five years now. CONSULTATION Expressions of Interest were sought through the local newspaper, email database and the Community Update for both the Environmental Stewardship and Grants Programs during July and August 2016.

PLANNING FRAMEWORK The stewardship program provides technical advice and preparation of an Environmental Management Plan for successful properties which meet the eligibility criteria. The stewardship program provides a calendar of actions for the landowner to implement environmental actions. The grants program involves the provision of direct funding to support on-ground environmental management activities. The grants incentive aims to fund three successful land care projects, allocating a maximum of $3,000 for each project. Only those properties that have an existing Environmental Management Plan, prepared through the stewardship program or other means are eligible for funding. Properties are required to meet the following ‘site eligibility criteria’ in order for consideration through the stewardship and grants programs:

• Consist of at least 10 hectares of native vegetation; or • at least 5 hectares of native vegetation in addition to one of the following environmental

attributes: - the site contains a watercourse with intact vegetation; or - the site is part of an environmental corridor; or - the site consists of protected flora/fauna; or - the site is recognised by the Shire for other conservation values.


49

The programs apply to land zoned General Agriculture, Priority Agriculture, Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge Landscape Amenity, Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge Conservation and Southern Ocean Foreshore Protection set out under the Local Planning Scheme No. 1. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Goal 1 – Valuing the Environment “Implement Biodiversity Strategy” PLANNING ASSESSMENT One application was received through the stewardship program and three applications were received through the grants program. All three grants applications are supported as they meet site eligibility criteria, and were appointed to the stewardship program in the previous financial year. The one application received through the stewardship program is not supported as it does not meet site eligibility criteria. Information provided in the applications was checked for accuracy, using recent aerial photography and on-line vegetation and watercourse mapping. The following tables and property maps provide a detailed assessment of each application (for both Stewardship and Grants Programs). A recommendation is provided for each stewardship and grants application. Environmental Grants Program 1. 18 Morris Road, Forest Grove

Property address Assessment of application Recommendation 18 Morris Road, Forest Grove

The site is 165 hectares (ha) in size of which 35ha are covered in native vegetation. A number of environmental actions have already been implemented including storm water management and watercourse protection of the Chapman Brook, fauna protection, education awareness, weed removal and revegetation. Quotes (valued at $2,715) have been provided to carry out feral animal control of foxes and rabbits. The applicant’s intent is to reduce feral animals as a means of protecting water fowl. More importantly, feral animal control is expected to minimise erosion and impact of native vegetation.

Support


50

2. Lot 1467 Bussell Highway, Margaret River

Property address Assessment of application Recommendation Lot 1467 Bussell Highway, Margaret River

The site is 52ha in size, of which 37ha is covered in native vegetation. The site contains two wetlands, one in very good condition with full vegetation corridors all around. Portions of the site contain poorly represented vegetation complexes worthy of protection. The site has good connectivity to large remnant vegetation types. One of the highest priorities is to conduct weed control in the front paddocks. The intent is to remove weeds, using organic means where possible. Once weeds are controlled, the next step will be to continue ripping, direct seeding and encouraging vegetation growth. A quote of approximately $2,500 has been provided to conduct weed control.

Support

3. Margaret River Independent School – 10890 Bussell Highway, Forest Grove

Property address Assessment of application Recommendation Margaret River Independent School – 10890 Bussell Highway, Forest Grove

In 2014 the reserve adjacent to the Margaret River Independent School (MRIS) became vested with the MRIS. The bushland is essential to the school’s philosophy on environmental management. The environmental activities that will be undertaken by this grant are: • Control of large woody weeds including

non-local wattles and Victorian tea tree; and

• Dieback assessment and mapping to improve management and decision making.

Support


51

Approximately $3,000 has been sought to undertake the above activities.

Environmental Stewardship Program 166 Bushby Road, Karridale

Property address Assessment of application Recommendation 166 Bushby Road, Karridale

The property is 13 hectares in size and contains approximately 2 hectares of native vegetation. The property has some surrounding environmental values being close to the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park. The property is not environmentally significant in terms of meeting the stewardship eligibility criteria, and is therefore not supported.

Do not support


52

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Council’s 2016/17 budget includes $15,000 to implement the environmental stewardship and grants programs. Implementation of the stewardship and grants programs in the 2016/17 financial year is expected to use approximately $9,000 from the available budget. Unspent funds (approx. $6,000) will be allocated to the Environmental Management Fund as previously directed by Council. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The stewardship and grants programs deliver a positive environmental benefit to rural landowners in return for implementing environmental activities. Social Protecting the natural environment is valued strongly by the community. The stewardship and grants program provide awareness for biodiversity protection. Economic Implementation of the stewardship and grants program contribute towards the Shire’s brand as being environmentally conscious. VOTING Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council awards funding to the following properties through the Environmental Grants Program 2016/17:

• 18 Morris Road, Forest Grove • 10890 Bussell Highway, Forest Grove • Lot 1467 Bussell Highway, Margaret River

ATTACHMENTS Nil RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR TOWNSHEND, CR HAYNES OM2016/204 That Council awards funding to the following properties through the Environmental Grants Program 2016/17:

• 18 Morris Road, Forest Grove


53

• 10890 Bussell Highway, Forest Grove • Lot 1467 Bussell Highway, Margaret River

CARRIED 6/0


54

11.3. Infrastructure Services


55

11.3. Infrastructure Services Nil


56

11.4.

Corporate and Community Services


57

11.4.1 LIST OF PAYMENTS FOR AUGUST 2016 LOCATION/ADDRESS N/A APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/42 REPORT AUTHOR Jaye Lanzini, Finance Officer Accounts Payable AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate Community Services

Director Corporate and Community Services discloses interest in the credit card expenses which is certified by the Chief Executive Officer. IN BRIEF It is a requirement of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 that payments made under delegated authority by the CEO are reported to Council on a monthly basis showing details of each account paid since the last such list was prepared. RECOMMENDATION That the Council notes the August 2016 List of Payments of $3,723,340.38 as certified as correct by the Director Corporate and Community Services. LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND Where Council has delegated authority to the CEO to make payments from the Shire’s bank accounts then under Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Regulation 13 (1) a list of such payments is to be prepared each month for noting by Council. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Nil Internal Consultation Nil DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Table 1 below provides a summary of the payments made and Table 2 makes comparison between payments for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 financial years. The List of Payments attachment provides further details as required under Regulation 13 (1). These details are as follows.

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

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


58

TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF PAYMENTS MADE IN THE MONTH

MODE OF PAYMENT CHEQUE / EFT NUMBERS SUB-TOTAL AMOUNT

Cheques (includes reimbursement of credit cards) 42077-42086 $23,160.39 $23,160.39

EFT 54998-55469 $2,850,180.50 Direct Debits $849,999.49 $3,700,179.99

TOTAL $3,723,340.38

TABLE 2 – COMPARISON WITH PRIOR YEAR OF PAYMENTS MONTH CHEQUES EFT TOTAL PMTS CUMULATIVE CHEQUES EFT TOTAL PMTS CUMULATIVE

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

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

SEPTEMBER 16,151.74 9,861,625.31 9,877,777.05 15,002,755.52 OCTOBER 19,349.63 5,058,215.63 5,077,565.26 20,080,320.78

NOVEMBER 22,306.58 2,617,585.05 2,639,891.63 22,720,212.41 DECEMBER 38,300.43 3,340,304.12 3,378,604.55 26,098,816.96 JANUARY 24,247.57 4,404,603.21 4,425,850.78 30,524,667.74

FEBRUARY 17,988.50 2,292,007.08 2,309,995.58 32,834,663.32 MARCH 31,991.91 6,362,556.19 6,394,548.10 39,229,211.42 APRIL 15,738.88 2,481,350.30 2,497,089.18 41,726,300.60 MAY 26,446.62 2,806,629.63 2,833,076.25 44,559,376.85 JUNE 38,302.06 7,078,064.84 8,204,329.10 52,763,705.95

287,720.03 51,391,023.72 52,763,705.95 49,978.81 7,367,065.35 7,417,044.16


59

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Local Government Act 1995, s 6.10, and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, r 13 STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2016-2020 Goal 5: Effective leadership and governance Community Outcome 2: Effective strategy, planning and asset management Strategic Response: Ensure the Shire’s financial performance is well managed and leads to a strong financial position Service level strategy/plan: Continue to monitor and analyse monthly, year to date and annual financial performance. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Nil Social Nil Economic Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That the Council notes the August 2016 List of Payments of $3,723,340.38 as certified as correct by the Director Corporate and Community Services. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. List of Payments for August 2016 RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR HASTIE, CR SMART OM2016/205 That the Council notes the August 2016 List of Payments of $3,723,340.38 as certified as correct by the Director Corporate and Community Services.

CARRIED 6/0


60

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

12.1 Future Use of the Water Corporation Water Tank On 20 September 2016, the Chief Executive Officer, Mr Gary Evershed, received notification from Cr Earl of his intention to move the following motion: MOTION That Council requests the CEO to provide a report on the possible future use of the Water Corporation Water Tank on Ten Mile Brook Road for the purposes of fire fighting. MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR EARL, CR HASTIE OM2016/206 That Council requests the CEO to provide a report on the possible future use of the Water Corporation Water Tank on Ten Mile Brook Road for the purposes of fire fighting.

CARRIED 6/0 13. MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AT NEXT MEETING

Nil Before the Council moved on to deliberate Item 14, the Shire President suggested that the Council consider Item 15.1 Confidential Business: Your Vision 2036 – Community Reference Group, while the meeting remained open to the public. MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR TOWNSHEND, CR LANE OM2016/207 That Council suspends the order of business, and brings forward and considers Item 15.1 Confidential Business: Your Vision 2036 – Community Reference Group.

CARRIED 6/0


61

15.1 YOUR VISION 2036 - COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE COR/353 REPORT AUTHOR Stacey Hutt, Community and Corporate Planner AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services

IN BRIEF • It is a legislative requirement to conduct a major review of the Shire’s Community Strategic Plan

(CSP) every four years under section 5.56 of the Local Government Act 1995. • The Department of Local Government and Communities, Integrated Planning and Reporting

Framework, 2016, Advisory Standards outline achievement of standards includes community engagement involving at least 500 or 10% of community members, whichever is fewer, and is conducted by at least two documented mechanisms.

• Council were presented with the project plan for the major review Your Vision 2036 at a Councillor Briefing Session on 10 August 2016, and discussed the formation of a Community Reference Group (CRG) in detail at the Councillor Workshop on 24 August 2016.

• The principle aim of the CRG is to bring together the expertise and diverse community knowledge needed to suitably guide and develop the future vision for the residents and visitors to the Shire for the next twenty years.

• The CRG provides a forum for discussions between the Shire and the community on a range of topics for consideration through CSP major review through six independently facilitated sessions for the duration of 12 months.

• CRG nominations were open to the community for five weeks from 12 August to 20 September 2016 with a total of 35 nominations received for Council to appoint to the CRG.

RECOMMENDATION That Council appoints the nominated representatives as members of the Community Reference Group for Your Vision 2036. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council appoints the following representatives as members to the Community Reference Group for Your Vision 2036:

1 Laura Bailey Transition Margaret River 2 Karen Majer AMR Sustainability Advisory Committee 3 Byron Joel Regenerative Agriculture South Western Australia 4 Boyd Wilks Cape to Cape Catchments Group 5 David Binks Parkwater Community Group 6 Mark Heyink Margaret River Gropers Rugby Club 7 Fran Tremby Rotary Club Margaret River 8 Bruno Hongortner Football Margaret River Inc 9 Michelle Mathey Margaret River Polocrosse Club 10 Marilyn Smith Margaret River Chamber of Commerce 11 David Groves Cowaramup Lions 12 Jill Turton Cowaramup Halls, Reserves & Residents Assoc 13 Kerry Sibly Cowaramup Retailers Association 14 David Chick Hemp Society & Community Spirit


62

15 Mark Lockyer Artzability & MR Social Workers Group 16 Ian Ladyman Karridale, Augusta General Community 17 Ian Smith Margaret River Theatre Group 18 Steve Black Margaret River Soup Kitchen 19 Doug Thompson Augusta Chamber of Commerce

20 Elizabeth Hurley & Clare Schwier Cowaramup Community Members

21 Bruce Hamilton Lower Blackwood Land Conservation District Committee 22 Tracey Skippings Margaret River Community Garden 23 Malia Rouillon Gas Field Free South West 24 David Martin Gracetown Progress Association 25 Naomi Godden Margaret River Environment Centre 26 Andrea Lindsay Augusta Chamber of Commerce 27 Roley McRobert CAMCAN 28 Barbara Maidment Economic & small business development 29 Terry Hutchings Margaret River Mens Shed 30 Jacki Hardy Margaret River Playgroup 31 Kevin Silverthorne Agriculture & Rosa Glen 32 Maggie Leggott President of U3A 33 Gail Gifford Rosabrook Hall Committee 33 Stephanie Kennaugh Youth focus 34 Petra Stene Education & Youth focus

ATTACHMENTS 1. Nominations received for the CRG 2. CRG Nomination Community Group contact list It is to be noted that after publication of the agenda, two additional nominations for representation were received. The nominations have been added to the recommendation as highlighted in red. RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR TOWNSHEND, CR HAYNES OM2016/208 That Council appoints the following representatives as members to the Community Reference Group for Your Vision 2036:

1 Laura Bailey Transition Margaret River 2 Karen Majer AMR Sustainability Advisory Committee 3 Byron Joel Regenerative Agriculture South Western Australia 4 Boyd Wykes Cape to Cape Catchments Group 5 David Binks Parkwater Community Group 6 Mark Heyink Margaret River Gropers Rugby Club 7 Fran Tremby Rotary Club Margaret River 8 Bruno Hongortner Football Margaret River Inc 9 Michelle Mathey Margaret River Polocrosse Club 10 Marilyn Smith Margaret River Chamber of Commerce 11 David Groves Cowaramup Lions 12 Jill Turton Cowaramup Halls, Reserves & Residents Assoc 13 Kerry Sibly Cowaramup Retailers Association 14 David Chick Hemp Society & Community Spirit 15 Mark Lockyer Artzability & MR Social Workers Group 16 Ian Ladyman Karridale, Augusta General Community 17 Ian Smith Margaret River Theatre Group 18 Steve Black Margaret River Soup Kitchen 19 Doug Thompson Augusta Chamber of Commerce


63

20 Elizabeth Hurley & Clare Schwier Cowaramup Community Members

21 Bruce Hamilton Lower Blackwood Land Conservation District Committee 22 Tracey Skippings Margaret River Community Garden 23 Malia Rouillon Gas Field Free South West 24 David Martin Gracetown Progress Association 25 Naomi Godden Margaret River Environment Centre 26 Andrea Lindsay Augusta Chamber of Commerce 27 Roley McRobert CAMCAN 28 Barbara Maidment Economic & small business development 29 Terry Hutchings Margaret River Mens Shed 30 Jacki Hardy Margaret River Playgroup 31 Kevin Silverthorne Agriculture & Rosa Glen 32 Maggie Leggott President of U3A 33 Gail Gifford Rosabrook Hall Committee 34 Stephanie Kennaugh Youth focus 35 Petra Stene Education & Youth focus 36 Sue Briggs Margaret River Region Open Studios 37 Sean Allen Margaret River Independent School

CARRIED 6/0

After voting on the motion, Council resumed its order of business. 14. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE

14.1. Members 14.1.1 Motion to Halt Further Work on the Cape to Cape Winter Diversion

Track – Cr Pam Townshend No explanation was given in the meeting as to why this item should be considered as urgent business. MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR TOWNSHEND, CR HASTIE OM2016/209 That the following motion be moved as a matter of urgent business.

CARRIED 5/1 CR EARL VOTED AGAINST

Cr Townshend introduced the matter, noting the need to make sure that no work is carried out while continuing with possible alternatives. MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR TOWNSHEND, CR HASTIE OM2016/210 Council resolves that all further work (including funding applications and ethnographic studies and indigenous consultation) on the Winter diversion track be halted excepting rehabilitation, revegetation, weed control and erosion repair and prevention, until alternatives to the current plans for the track are explored.

CARRIED 5/1 CR EARL VOTED AGAINST


64

Cr Lane moved the following procedural motion:

PROCEDURAL MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR LANE, CR TOWNSHEND OM2016/211 That the meeting go behind closed doors.

CARRIED 4/2 CRS SMART AND HASTIE VOTED AGAINST

Members of public, press and staff with the exception of the CEO, Acting Director Infrastructure Sevices, Director Corporate and Community Services and Minute Secretary, left Chambers at 7.02pm The CEO sought clarification from Council regarding interpretation of the word ‘alternatives’ in the Council decision. Cr Smart then moved the following procedural motion: PROCEDURAL MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION CR SMART, CR HASTIE OM2016/212 That the meeting come out from behind closed doors.

CARRIED 6/0

14.2. CEO

Nil

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS Item 15.1 Your Vision 2036 – Community Reference Group, was brought forward and considered by Council after Item 13: Motions for Consideration at Next Meeting. 16. CLOSURE OF MEETING The Shire President thanked all in attendance and declared the meeting closed at 7.15pm

ordinary council - shire of augusta-margaret river · i advise that an ordinary council meeting of...

Documents