text:
Please note: These minutes are yet to be confirmed as a true record of proceedings
CITY OF BUSSELTON
MINUTES FOR THE Council MEETING HELD ON 10 March 2021
ITEM NO. SUBJECT PAGE NO.
1....... Declaration of Opening aCKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY / ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF Visitors / DISCLAIMER / NOTICE OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS. 3
2....... Attendance. 3
3....... Prayer. 4
4....... Application for Leave of Absence. 4
5....... Disclosure Of Interests. 4
6....... Announcements Without Discussion.. 4
7....... Question Time For Public. 4
11..... Items brought forward.. 8
9....... RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS. 8
ITEMS FOR DEBATE. 9
16.1 RESPONSE TO MOTION - GENERAL MEETING OF ELECTORS 8 FEBRUARY 2021 - CALL FOR REFERENDUM... 9
8....... Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes. 20
Previous Council Meetings. 20
8.1 Minutes of the Council Meeting held 24 February 2021. 20
8.2 Minutes of the General Meeting of Electors held 8 February 2021. 20
Committee Meetings. 20
8.3 Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held 24 February 2021. 20
8.4 Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 24 February 2021. 20
10..... QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION). 20
ADOPTION BY EXCEPTION RESOLUTION.. 21
12.2 Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/2/2021 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: AASB 124 RELATED PARTY DISCLOSURES. 22
12.3 Policy and Legislation Committee 24/2/2021 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICIES: BUSHFIRE POLICIES. 65
13.1 DRAFT BUSSELTON FORESHORE STRUCTURE PLAN - ADOPTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL. 99
16.2 SALE OF LOTS 58 & 59 CHAPMAN HILL ROAD AND LOT 60 QUEEN ELIZABETH AVENUE, AMBERGATE. 136
17.1 COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN.. 142
ITEMS TO BE DEALT WITH BY SEPARATE RESOLUTION (WITHOUT DEBATE). 147
12.1 Audit Committee - 24/2/2021 - 2020 ANNUAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN.. 147
18..... Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given.. 167
19..... urgent business. 167
20..... Confidential Reports. 167
21..... Closure. 167
Council 20 10 March 2021
MINUTES OF A Meeting of the Busselton City Council HELD IN THE Council Chambers, Administration Building, Southern Drive, Busselton, ON 10 March 2021 AT 5.30pm.
1. Declaration of Opening aCKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY / ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF Visitors / DISCLAIMER / NOTICE OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS
The Presiding Member opened the meeting at 5.30pm.
The Presiding Member noted this meeting is held on the lands of the Wadandi people and acknowledged them as Traditional Owners, paying respect to their Elders, past and present, and Aboriginal Elders of other communities who may be present.
2. Attendance
Presiding Member:
Cr Grant Henley Mayor
Cr Kelly Hick Deputy Mayor
Cr Sue Riccelli
Cr Ross Paine
Cr Paul Carter
Cr Phill Cronin
Cr Jo Barrett-Lennard
Cr Lyndon Miles
Mr Mike Archer, Chief Executive Officer
Mr Matthew Twyman, Acting Director, Engineering and Works Services
Mr Paul Needham, Director, Planning and Development Services
Mrs Naomi Searle, Director, Community and Commercial Services
Mr Tony Nottle, Director, Finance and Corporate Services
Ms Sarah Pierson, Manager, Governance and Corporate Services
Ms Melissa Egan, Governance Officer
Approved Leave of Absence:
Cr Kate Cox
"Busselton-Dunsborough Mail"
3. Prayer
The prayer was delivered by Pastor Andy Pitt of the Down South Gospel Church.
4. Application for Leave of Absence
5. Disclosure Of Interests
6. Announcements Without Discussion
Announcements by the Presiding Member
7. Question Time For Public
Response to Previous Questions Taken on Notice
Question Time for Public
7.1 Mr Keith Simms
At last week's Community Access Session, Councillor Paine said the Bay to Bay Action Group was not a majority group as it did not have 50% of the community involved in it. Councillor Paine, what percentage of the community was consulted in relation to the performing arts centre?
(Cr Ross Paine)
The actual numbers can be taken on notice. However, there is a difference between saying that one group of people is a majority or minority as a proportion of another number and between statistical surveying, which is a random sample of the population. They are not the same thing. The numbers of the surveys, each one will be different, but importantly, they were statistically significant. The survey from 2017, for example, has a sampling error margin of 5% and a confidence level of 95%, meaning that you can be 95% confident that you would get the same answer if you surveyed literally everyone as you did with the sample.
My question is to Councillor Carter – would you be happy with a borrowing of $15 million plus the rates increasing to $65 extra a year?
Yes. I am happy to spend more money on a building that will be more functional and deliver greater benefit to the community than a less multifunctional facility which is cheaper.
7.2 Mr Ian Clarke
Has the Council got the ability to take action on obviously decaying asbestos sheds around the place? A good example is on Brown Street, where the roof is frittering away and is right next to a public walkway.
(Paul Needham, Director Planning and Development Services)
We do have some powers in relation to things on private land. If you can let us know the sites, we can arrange staff to undertake an inspection and identify what needs to occur.
7.3 Ms Anne Ryan
The officer comment in response to Councillor Riccelli's motion at the 24 June 2021 Council meeting contained a quote from the Hilton developers which says "understanding that the conference facilities were to be incuded in the BEACH complex was one of the factors that informed our investment decision to proceed with the Hilton project down at the foreshore. Conferencing facilities that are close to hotels are great generators of room revenue. They enhance the existing business travel market and also have a positive impact on the broader tourism market. We would be disappointed if the City decides to go down this path, as we would view this as a significant deviation from what we have been led to believe. I would urge you to reconsider this proposed deviation from your original vision". Who authored the officer comment in response to Councillor Riccelli's motion at the 24 June 2021 Council meeting?
(Mrs Naomi Searle, Director Community and Commercial Services)
It was a combined effort by a number of people. It was myself, our Governance Manager Sarah Pierson, and Maxine Palmer, Manager of Events and Cultural Services.
You do not dispute that the quote came from the developers or the Hilton people?
(Mrs Searle)
Which staff members were involved in the negotiations and discussions with the Hilton and/or the developers Pacifica Ausglobal Busselton?
(Mayor)
I have been involved in some meetings with Pacifica, our CEO has, and our legal team.
So, you were the only Councillor involved in those discussions?
I am the only Councillor, I understand, that has met with the Pacifica Ausglobal group, but they may have made a presentation to Council.
What specifically were the Hilton or the developer led to believe?
Like anyone that comes to invest in the City of Busselton, we illustrate plans that we have for the long term, including the airport, the foreshore development and, at the time, the plans for a performing arts centre, which was on our budget, our long term financial plan and on our long term strategic plan from 2010.
Has any written agreement been made with the Hilton and/or developer in regards to this understanding of the provision of a performing arts conference facility at the BEACH?
(Mr Mike Archer, Chief Executive Officer)
If the BEACH did not go ahead, would there be any legal ramifications with the Hilton and/or developer?
(Mr Archer)
7.4 Mr Tony Plumb
I am from the soccer club in Dunsborough. Can you guarantee that the worn areas on our pitch will be rectified to the same standard as everything else around the pitch?
I understand our staff have been liaising with yourself and there have been some remediation works to those areas of concern. I am prepared to come down and meet with you tomorrow or Friday and I will take some more advice from staff prior to our meeting.
In relation to the new Dunsborough Lakes oval, will you give us a break-up of the funds available today, the future funds, and on what you intend to spend those funds?
We can provide some of that information. Most of that information is in our budget for the project, but we have received State Government funding, Federal funding, various developers contributions, as well as City funds.
Has the plan for the new fields been adopted by Council?
I will take that on notice and can tell you at our meeting tomorrow.
11. Items brought forward
At this juncture of the meeting, the Mayor advised, for the benefit of the public in attendance, Item 9 and Item 16.1 would be brought forward for consideration.
9. RECEIVING OF Petitions, Presentations AND DEPUTATIONS
Ms Anne Ryan presented as a Party with an Interest in relation to item 16.1 'Response to Motion - General Meeting Of Electors 8 February 2021 - Call for Referendum'. Ms Ryan was in favour of options A or B of the Officer Recommendation and supporting a referendum.
Mr Ray Mountney presented as a Party with an Interest in relation to item 16.1 'Response to Motion - General Meeting Of Electors 8 February 2021 - Call for Referendum'. Mr Mountney was in support of a referendum.
Mr Gordon Bleechmore presented as a Party with an Interest in relation to item 16.1 'Response to Motion - General Meeting Of Electors 8 February 2021 - Call for Referendum'. Mr Bleechmore was in support of a referendum.
Mr David Barton presented as a Party with an Interest in relation to item 16.1 'Response to Motion - General Meeting Of Electors 8 February 2021 - Call for Referendum'. Mr Barton was against a referendum.
Mrs Heather Carroll presented as a Party with an Interest in relation to item 16.1 'Response to Motion - General Meeting Of Electors 8 February 2021 - Call for Referendum'. Mrs Carroll was against a referendum.
Mrs Judy Walsh presented as a Party with an Interest in relation to item 16.1 'Response to Motion - General Meeting Of Electors 8 February 2021 - Call for Referendum'. Mrs Walsh was against a referendum.
ITEMS FOR DEBATE
16.1 RESPONSE TO MOTION - GENERAL MEETING OF ELECTORS 8 FEBRUARY 2021 - CALL FOR REFERENDUM
STRATEGIC GOAL
6. LEADERSHIP Visionary, collaborative, accountable
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE
6.2 Council engages broadly and proactively with the community.
REPORTING OFFICER
Manager Governance and Corporate Services - Sarah Pierson
Director Finance and Corporate Services - Tony Nottle
AUTHORISING OFFICER
Chief Executive Officer - Mike Archer
NATURE OF DECISION
Executive: Substantial direction setting, including adopting budgets, strategies, plans and policies (excluding local planning policies); funding, donations and sponsorships; reviewing committee recommendations
VOTING REQUIREMENT
Simple Majority
Cr Barrett-Lennard foreshadowed an alternative to the officer recommendation prior to the meeting. In accordance with the City's Standing Orders Local Law 2018, the alternative motion was considered first.
There was opposition and debate ensued.
Council Decision
C2103/035 Moved Councillor J Barrett-Lennard, seconded Councillor K Hick
That the Council:
1. Resolves not to proceed with a referendum in relation to the performing arts and convention centre project, noting the consultation and work undertaken to date in relation to the project; and
2. Confirms it will further consider and decide whether to proceed with the project on the receipt of construction tenders and in conjunction with considering those tenders.
CARRIED 7/1
For the motion: Cr Henley, Cr Hick, Cr Barrett-Lennard
Cr Cronin, Cr Carter, Cr Miles, Cr Paine
Against the motion: Cr Riccelli
Reasons: Since 2008, the City of Busselton has developed the plan for the Busselton Performing Arts Centre as a significant and long term strategic planning project. Since this time, there has been documented community consultation, considerable research and extensive budget planning, which brings the Performing Arts Centre to the tender stage today.
Approximately 25% of the population of the City of Busselton is under the age of 18, who are ineligible to vote in a referendum, yet make up a large group of key users of the Performing Arts Centre.
A referendum within local government is neither compulsory nor binding.
Progressing to the tender stage of any infrastructure project is not a referendum issue, but a strategic decision to be made by council.
Point 2 of the motion has created a hold point where the Performing Arts Centre can be re-evaluated. There has been significant consideration regarding the Performing Arts Centre, as well as due diligence and budget assessment, and this will continue with receipt of the construction tenders.
Officer Recommendation
That the Council resolve as per one of either Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E.
Option A
1. In accordance with the motion moved at the General Meeting of Electors 8 February 2021, conduct a referendum as soon as possible in relation to the performing arts and conference centre project as per Resolution C2006/066 of Council resolved 24 June 2020;
2. Hold a workshop to agree to the wording of the referendum question including community groups such as the Bay to Bay Action Group and other community groups across the district together with interested individuals; and
3. Engage the Western Australian Electoral Commission to run the referendum in accordance with Section 4.99(3) of the Local Government Act 1995, and Regulation 89 of the Local Government (Election) Regulations 1996.
Option B
1. In accordance with the motion moved at the General Meeting of Electors 8 February 2021, conducts a referendum using the combined electoral roll as soon as possible in relation to the performing arts and conference centre project as per Resolution C2006/066 of Council resolved 24 June 2020;
2. Does not support the holding a workshop with community groups or interested individuals in relation to the question;
3. Resolves on the following question to be asked
"Do you support the proposal by the City of Busselton to build a performing arts and convention centre for the District, as outlined in the attached information sheet"
with an information sheet to clearly set out factual information as to the project scope, estimated construction costs and projected operating costs; and
Option C
1. In accordance with the motion moved at the General Meeting of Electors 8 February 2021, conducts a referendum using a combination of the combined electoral roll and the ratepayer roll as soon as possible in relation to the performing arts and conference centre project as per Resolution C2006/066 of Council resolved 24 June 2020;
Option D
That the Council
1. Resolves not to proceed with a referendum in relation to the performing arts and convention centre project; and
2. Resolves to either
(a) engage an independent survey company to conduct a community wide survey of households using unaddressed mail, and in addition a random sample survey of non-elector ratepayers; or
(b) engage an independent survey company to conduct a representative random sample telephone survey of 1,000 community members.
Option E
At the General Meeting of Electors, 8 February 2021, the following motion was carried:
"The Electors of the City of Busselton request the Council conduct a referendum as soon as possible on the performing arts and conference project as per Resolution 15.1 of Council on 24 June 2020. The Resolution being a project between $28.5m and $30.3m.
Further, that a workshop to agree to the wording of any referendum include community groups such as the Bay to Bay Action Group and other community groups across the district together with interested individuals."
This report considers that motion and recommends that Council choose one of five options presented for consideration.
The development of a Performing Arts and Convention Centre (PACC) has been a long aspired community project, and has been consistently identified as a local priority project over several iterations of the City's Strategic Community Plan (2010, 2013, review 2015, 2017 and review 2019). It was also contained in the South West Blueprint (February 2015) as a regional priority project, and is identified in the City of Busselton Economic Development Strategy (2016-26) as a key project that will support tourism growth and the concept of 'quality of place'.
The history of the project has been outlined in previous reports to Council on 29 January 2020 and 24 June 2020. Key points are outlined in brief below.
Numerous feasibility studies and assessments into the demand for a PACC have been undertaken over the previous 13 years. In 2008, the then Shire of Busselton commissioned a report into the feasibility of a performing arts and creative industries centre. This report recommended that the Council proceed with a 250 seat black box theatre (stage 1), expanding to a 650 seat facility over time with addition of a 400 seat proscenium arch theatre. An arts and cultural needs assessment undertaken in 2012 made similar recommendations. In 2016, a market demand analysis identified demand at that point in time, given significant growth in the City's population, for a performing arts centre of 650 seats.
With respect to location, a number of sites have been examined and in 2011, the Council (C1104/115) identified Lot 450 Queen Street in the Cultural Precinct, as a possible location for the PACC. In 2014, Council also considered the potential for a multi-function civic centre that could be incorporated into the design of the City's new administration building. Council considered feedback from comprehensive community consultation for this proposal and confirmed its commitment (C1407/186) to progress the community's preference of a stand-alone performing arts facility, to be developed within the Cultural Precinct. As Lot 450 Queen Street remained (and still remains) occupied by the Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions, the Council, in 2016, resolved (C1605/127) to reconfirm its commitment for the development of a PACC within the Cultural Precinct and further endorsed Lots 43 and 44 Queen Street as the preferred location.
In June 2019, the City secured $10.35M from the Federal Government's Regional Growth Fund for the design and development of a PACC, to be matched by the City.
At the General Meeting of Electors held on 2 December 2019, the following motion was carried:
That the City of Busselton conduct a thorough survey of the Busselton Community to ascertain if the community wants a performing arts centre, whether they are prepared to pay the construction costs for it and pay the costs to operate it, and to decide the community's preference for the location of the proposed new Busselton entertainment centre; and that the location options include the Brown Street Council owned future parking site near the historic Butter Factory Museum.
Council considered the motion at its Ordinary Meeting on 29 January 2020 and resolved (C2001/021) that no further action be taken, given the extensive consultation undertaken since 2007 in relation to the development and location of a performing arts centre.
In June 2020, Council reconfirmed (C2006/066) its commitment to the project as per a design developed by Kerry Hill Architects, at a budget of between $28.5M and $30.3M, and endorsed a funding strategy involving loan borrowings / debt financing of up to $17M over a 20 year term. Council also resolved that it would continue to seek external funding for the project, to reduce the quantum of loan borrowing required.
Since then, the optional Creative Industries Hub has been removed from the project design, with the current scope of the project budgeted at $28.5M, reducing the loan requirement to fund the project to $15M.
OFFICER COMMENT
The information and options below are provided by officers in order to assist Council in their consideration of the motion.
Option A & B – Referendum (Combined Electoral Roll)
Under Section 4.99(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), local governments may hold advisory (or non-binding) referendums or polls. The Local Government (Elections) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations) outline provisions in relation to preparing for, conducting and ascertaining the result of polls and referendums, and specify that the Electoral Commissioner may, on behalf of a local government, conduct polls and referendums or other kinds of surveys.
A cost estimate for a stand-alone referendum of electors on one topic has been obtained from the Western Australian Electoral Commission (WAEC). Based on 29,400 electors and a 38% participation rates, a postal referendum is estimated at $75,000 (GST incl.), with additional costs of between $5k and $10k for City officer time and set up of a polling place.
It is estimated that the referendum process would take five to six weeks. A referendum may be held in conjunction with the October 2021 Ordinary Election, however this would not provide for a timely resolution. It would also put the Federal Funding for the project at significant risk, with the City unable to meet the project completion date under the funding agreement (assuming that a tender would not be awarded until after the election). Additionally, if an early Federal election was called and there was a change in government, the City could lose the funding altogether, as has occurred in the past with a change of government at State and Federal level with the new airport terminal and the tennis club relocation (where the funding commitment was not honoured). This may also put future funding opportunities at jeopardy. A referendum run in conjunction with the October 2021 election is also likely to result in an election process focused around a singular issue. For all of these reasons it is not recommended and not presented as an option in this report.
If Council do elect to hold a referendum, it is the view of officers that the question should be determined by Council, without reference to community groups or interested individuals, as is their role. This is because the project scope has already been clearly resolved on by Council, which is the construction of a Performing Arts and Convention Centre within the Cultural Precinct, up to the value of $28.5M.
The setting of a simple, easily understood question that provides a clear outcome is crucial in a referendum process. While referendums can present voters with more than a yes / no or more than two options, this is not recommended, noting that each option needs to be distinctive and lead to one clear outcome. Most importantly, there is only one currently endorsed performing arts and convention centre project, and therefore the question can only relate to that proposal. It is therefore recommended that Council resolve formally on the question (as is their role) and that it be phrased as follows, with an answer of yes or no to be provided:
"Do you support the proposal by the City of Busselton to build a performing arts and convention centre for the District, as outlined in the attached information sheet?"
The information sheet would set out factual information as to the project scope, estimated construction costs and projected operating costs.
The referendum result would not be binding on Council. The outcome would be reported formally to Council, and Council would be required to make a further determination. If Council do wish to hold a referendum, it is considered important that Councillors are prepared to reconsider their position on the project, dependant on the results. Councillors will need to consider what outcome in terms of voter turnout and majority vote, they consider a 'valid' representation of electors. For example, 51% of a 50% voter turnout, or something more or less.
Option C – Referendum (Combined Electoral and Rate Assessment Roll)
Traditionally a referendum would be carried out on the basis of the consolidated electoral roll, that is, the combined roll of residents, owners and occupiers. This roll does not however contain all of the City's ratepayers. Ratepayers who are not residents of the City of Busselton, and who have not applied to be added to the owners and occupiers roll, are not captured. Based on a review of the ratepayer roll and the current owner occupier roll, officers estimate that approximately 30% of rateable assessments (approximately 8,500) are associated with non-resident ratepayers.
As the referendum is not proposed to be held in conjunction with the October 2021 elections, the City can request that the WAEC, use a combination of the combined electoral roll and the ratepayer roll for the referendum. Officers have contacted the WAEC to determine if they would agree to this and what the additional cost will be. At the time of publishing this report, the WAEC were unable to provide an additional cost estimate for this (obviously being very busy with the State election). Based on the quote of $75,000 for 29,400 electors, and approximately 8,500 non-resident rateable assessments, it is estimated at an additional cost of $20,000. Further confirmed information from the WAEC will be provided as soon as possible to Councillors.
Option D – Community Survey
As opposed to holding a referendum, Council could consider an independently run community survey. While there are a range of options available (and associated price points), the options presented below are cheaper than a stand-alone referendum, may reach a broader number of people and potential users of the facility, and also provide scope for additional analysis of results.
Council could engage an independent survey company to conduct a community wide survey of all residential households and residential PO Boxes, using unaddressed mail (circa 20,700 contacts in the Australia Post unaddressed mail database). Each household and residential PO Box, including those with no junk mail stickers (due to the City being a government body), would receive an unaddressed survey to complete. The envelope, in conjunction with promotion, can be designed to capture attention.
Respondents complete the survey either in hard copy using reply paid post, or by submitting it online. Respondents would be required to include their name and address for validation purposes and also be asked to answer some demography questions, including how many dependents (and age of) in the household. Assuming a response rate of 10%, a total of 2000 survey responses would be anticipated.
In addition, to capture absentee property owners, Council could use an independent consultant to undertake a separate random sample survey of non-resident rate assessments (based on postal codes of the ratepayer database). A 100 response survey would provide a 10% margin of error rate; that is, if 60% of respondents did or did not support the project, statistically between 50% and 70% of all people would support or not support the project. Alternatively Council could do a 1000 response survey which would reduce the error margin.
Survey results would be analysed, weighted (to ensure validity against ABS Census population data) and presented to Council separately – the community wide unaddressed survey and the random sample of absentee property owners. The total estimated cost for all of the above is between $45,000 and $50,000.
A variant of the survey option is for a representative random sample telephone survey. The survey company would set non-interlocking quotas by location, age and gender to be representative of the population (ABS Census). They would aim to complete 1,000 computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) with a random sample of community members, conducting a proportionate number of interviews in each group. Telephone numbers are acquired through a third party research centre. Calls would continue to be made until the required response rate is reached for each group. This method ensures that the sample is representative of the community, without the need to weight responses. A risk to consider is that once quotas are filled in the older age groups, interviews will need to be declined for residents who may wish to take part. The estimated cost for this option is $60,000.
Both survey options outlined would provide an avenue for non-resident ratepayers to have a say. Like a referendum, it would not allow for those under 18 to have a say (see discussion under Option E below), although with the survey addressed to the household, the views of the household, including those under 18, may be reflected.
Data collected would also allow the independent consultant to analyse the responses in more detail, including looking at the difference in responses between those with dependants and those without.
Option E – Not hold a referendum and continue with the project as per Council's previous decision
Council is not obligated to implement motions moved at Elector's meetings. Council could therefore choose to note the motion and resolve not to conduct a referendum.
As outlined in the background section of this report, successive Councils have, over successive years, resolved to progress the construction of a PACC as a strategic priority project. Accordingly significant work has been undertaken to get it to the point it is at today. Excluding staff time, costs involved to date in developing the detailed design (including professional fee commitment) and relocating the Wood Turners are estimated at $1.85M.
Council have made a decision to progress the project, and, in deciding to hold a referendum, or even a community survey, Council must be prepared to reconsider their position, dependant on the results. Council must also accept that any decision not to go ahead with the project, will place in jeopardy the Federal funding of $10.35M due to the City not being able to meet the conditions of the grant funding agreement. Interest rates are currently at an all-time low, with the City able to fix borrowings at very low interest rates over a long period of time. This won't remain the case forever though, and any delay to the project may see the costs of borrowings increase. Similarly building costs could also increase, and in fact there are already indications that this is starting to occur.
While the Council has made a decision to progress the project, they have also agreed on a hold point, with the ability to review that decision on receipt of tenders for construction. In the event that the project does proceed post a referendum, officers will, in order to meet project completion deadlines, need to continue with the tendering process in parallel to a referendum (or a community survey). A request for tender is expected to be released in March 2021, and presented to Council in early June 2021. Expending money to hold a referendum (or a community survey) in advance of this could be considered as a less than effective use of ratepayers' money, if the outcome of the tender process is significantly different to the estimated budget. It may also discourage builders from tendering, which they do at a significant cost to them.
As outlined above, if a referendum is chosen based on option A or B, input will not be sought from all of the City's ratepayers. Community members under the age of 18, who are future users of the facility and future ratepayers would also not have a say. According to population estimates, 25% of the City's population is aged under 18. While those under 18 are also not entitled to vote in a local government election, they are considered a key user group of this new facility, whether it be for dance concerts, school functions, or to attend live entertainment shows.
Finally, Council need to consider whether the holding of a referendum on this issue sets a precedent for future Councils faced with major decisions. It is the responsibility of a Council to make considered decisions in the best interest of the persons of the district; and in doing so they must weigh up a range of (sometimes competing) social, economic and environmental factors. There are of course costs associated with the construction and operating of a performing arts and convention centre, and these need to be considered also. This is true however of many facilities and services provided by Council – the provision of sporting ovals, recreation centres, libraries, the jetty, waste facilities, youth centres all have a cost associated with them. If the operating cost was always the overriding factor, none of these community facilities would have been built in the past.
It is the role of a Councillor to represent the interests of electors, ratepayers and residents of the district and to provide leadership and guidance to the community. This does not mean that a Councillor must always act in accordance with the wishes of a particular group or groups. Instead Councillors are required to form their own judgement through considering all of the information and issues put to them; they do this by listening to residents, by considering professional advice, by doing their own research and by listening to their fellow councillors through debate. It is in this context that Council must consider whether the holding of a referendum accords with their roles and responsibilities, and whether it will achieve on balance a positive outcome, as they have been elected to do.
Statutory Environment
Section 4.99 of the Act deals with polls and referendums. Relevantly, Section 4.99(3) provides that Regulations may make necessary or convenient provisions in relation to preparing for, conducting and ascertaining the result of polls and referendums held by local governments, whether under local laws or otherwise, and for ensuring the purity of the conduct of them.
Section 4.99(4) further states that, without limiting subsection (2) or (3), regulations may provide for the electoral rolls that are to be used, or prepared and used, for polls and referendums.
Regulation 88, 89 and 90 of the Local Government (Elections) Regulations 1996, set out as follows:
88. Election procedures apply to polls and referendums not required under Act — s. 4.99(3) and (4)
Subject to regulation 89, to the extent to which the provisions of Part 4 of the Act are capable of being applied with or without adaptation in respect of polls and referendums referred to in section 4.99(3), those provisions apply with or without adaptation in respect of those polls and referendums.
89. Election procedures need not be applied in certain cases — s. 4.99(2) to (4)
1. A local government can conduct a poll or referendum in such manner as it considers appropriate if:
a) the poll or referendum is not held in conjunction with an election; and
b) voting at the poll or referendum is not confined to electors.
2. Where a poll is required by the Minister under Schedule 2.1, clause 7 or 8 of the Act, the Minister may, by notice in writing to the relevant local government or local governments, fix the day on which the poll is to be held.
3. Where the Electoral Commissioner is to be responsible for the conduct of a poll, other than an electoral poll, the local governments involved in that poll may, with the agreement of the Electoral Commissioner, abridge the time periods set out in sections 4.20(5) and (6), 4.39(1) and (2), 4.40(1) and (2), 4.41(1), and 4.61(3) and (5), to take account of periods in Part 4 of the Act that only apply to electoral polling.
90. Electoral Commissioner may assist
The Electoral Commissioner may, on behalf of a local government, conduct:
a) polls and referendums referred to in section 4.99(3); or
b) other kinds of surveys, on such terms and conditions as the Electoral Commissioner and the local government may agree.
All of the options contained within this report meet the Statutory Requirements outlined in the Act and Regulations.
Relevant Plans and Policies
The development of a PACC for Busselton has been identified in the City of Busselton Strategic Community Plan since 2010 (2013, reviewed 2015; 2017 and 2019) as a local priority project. The South West Regional Blueprint (February 2015) identifies the construction of a performing arts venue in the Busselton Cultural Precinct as a project of regional significance in support of burgeoning creative industries and events. It continues to be identified as a priority project through subsequent reviews.
Financial Implications
The direct financial implications associated with the options outlined in the officer comment are tabled below:
A & B– referendum using combined electoral roll
C – referendum using a combination of the combined electoral roll and the ratepayer roll
$95,000 - $105,000 *
D – community survey (dependant on method)
E – not holding a referendum and proceeding as per previous Council decision
* to be confirmed
Additionally in relation to options A, B, C and D there will be indirect (staff) costs associated with the development and production of information material. Costs associated with these options are not provided for within the City's 2020/2021 budget and would therefore need to be offset by any potential end of year surplus or result in an end of year deficit position of the City's municipal fund.
Stakeholder Consultation
This report is the result of a motion moved at the General Meeting of Electors in February 2021. In preparing the report officers have consulted with the WAEC, and Catalyse, a well-established and respected survey company who work extensively with local government and communities.
An assessment of the potential implications of implementing each of the options contained in the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City's risk management framework, with risks assessed taking into account any controls already in place.
The following risks associated with conducting a referendum have been identified:
Conducting a referendum and the result being close. The Council may be in the same position but having expended significant funds.
Risk Consequence
Likelihood of Consequence
Conducting a referendum and the result indicating a lack of broad support for the project. The Council will then need to decide whether to shelve the project for now and return the grant funding, resulting in the project requiring more ratepayer funds or the need to be significantly reduced the scope of the project.
Risk Level *
* Note: based on the loss of $10.5M in funding this risk is actually considered extreme under the City's risk framework.
The following risk associated with undertaking a community survey instead of a referendum have been identified:
Conducting a community survey instead of a referendum, the risk being that those calling for a referendum will not support the survey outcomes.
The following risks associated with not conducting a referendum (or a community survey) have been identified:
Not conducting a referendum or a community survey and the matter remaining an election issue.
Not conducting a referendum or a community survey and therefore a perception from sectors of the community that they are not being listened to.
This report presents a number of options for the Council. It is for the Council to determine which option they prefer. Councillor/s will be required to foreshadow and move (with support of a seconder) their preferred option for consideration and / or debate.
In summary Council is asked to consider five options:
· Option A - to undertake a referendum and determine the question as per the motion moved at the General Meeting of Electors;
· Option B - to undertake a referendum and determine as a Council the question to be answered;
· Option C - to undertake a referendum as per B but using an expanded roll (subject to agreement of the WAEC);
· Option D - not to undertake a referendum and to instead run a community survey. In this option Councillors are asked to select which survey variant they would like to proceed with – option a and b; or
· Option E - not to undertake a referendum and to proceed with the project, subject to further consideration on receipt and consideration of tenders.
TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Option A, B, and C would be implemented over the next 12 weeks, with preparatory work undertaken in March, the referendum in April and results presented to Council at the end of May / early June. Option D would follow a similar timeline. Option E will align with the tender process and timeframes associated with presentation of the report.
8. Confirmation and Receipt Of Minutes
Previous Council Meetings
8.1 Minutes of the Council Meeting held 24 February 2021
C2103/036 Moved Councillor P Cronin, seconded Councillor K Hick
That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held 24 February 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.
8.2 Minutes of the General Meeting of Electors held 8 February 2021
C2103/037 Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor R Paine
That the Minutes of the General Meeting of Electors held 8 February 2021 be noted.
8.3 Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held 24 February 2021
C2103/038 Moved Councillor J Barrett-Lennard, seconded Councillor P Carter
That the Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held 24 February 2021 be noted.
8.4 Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 24 February 2021
C2103/039 Moved Councillor K Hick, seconded Councillor R Paine
That the Minutes of the Policy and Legislation Committee Meeting held 24 February 2021 be noted.
10. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION)
ADOPTION BY EXCEPTION RESOLUTION
At this juncture the Mayor advised the meeting that, with the exception of the items identified to be withdrawn for discussion, the following reports, including the Committee and Officer Recommendations, will be adopted en bloc, i.e. all together.
C2103/040 Moved Councillor J Barrett-Lennard, seconded Councillor P Cronin
That the Committee and Officer Recommendations in relation to the following agenda items be carried en bloc:
12.2 Policy and Legislation Committee - 24/2/2021 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY: AASB 124 RELATED PARTY DISCLOSURES
12.3 Policy and Legislation Committee 24/2/2021 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICIES: BUSHFIRE POLICIES
13.1 DRAFT BUSSELTON FORESHORE STRUCTURE PLAN - ADOPTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
16.2 SALE OF LOTS 58 & 59 CHAPMAN HILL ROAD AND LOT 60 QUEEN ELIZABETH AVENUE, AMBERGATE
17.1 COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN
En Bloc
6.1 Governance systems, process and practices are responsible, ethical and transparent.
Manager Financial Services - Paul Sheridan
Attachment a AASB 124 Related Party Disclosures - Proposed Draft Policy⇩
Attachment b AASB 124 Related Party Disclosure - Current Policy⇩
Attachment c AASB 124 Standard - Related Party Disclosures⇩
This item was considered by the Policy and Legislation Committee at its meeting on 24/2/2021, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.
That the Council endorse the revised Council policy 'AASB 124 – Related Party Disclosures' (Attachment A), to replace the current policy as per Attachment B.
Council Decision and Committee Recommendation
That the Council endorse the revised Council policy 'AASB 124 – Related Party Disclosures' (Attachment A), to replace the current policy as per Attachment B, inclusive of the following Committee amendments:
· Clause 5.4(d) to be amended to read "An external or internal auditor appointed by the City";
· Clause 5.4(e) to become "An Auditor from the WA Auditor General's Office; and
· The addition of "KMP" in parenthesis to clause 2.1 and the abbreviation "KMP" to replace the words "Key Management Personnel" in clauses 5.2 and 5.3.
Reasons: The Committee recommended an amendment to clause 5.4(d) of the revised policy to clarify the reference to the Auditor from the WA Auditor General's Office and one appointed by the City; and a minor administrative amendment to the policy.
This report presents Council policy AASB 124 Related Party Disclosures (the Policy), which has been transferred into the City's updated policy template (Attachment A) and amended to provide for a simple statement of compliance. The Policy is recommended for endorsement by Council. The current policy is included at Attachment B for reference.
The Policy relates to the disclosure of related party transactions, which all local governments are required to disclose in annual financial reports, in accordance with AASB 124 Related Party Disclosures (the Standard) as published by the Australian Accounting Standards Board (Attachment C).
Changes to the Standard in 2016 required that certain transactions of Key Management Personnel – Council Members, the Chief Executive Officer and senior management – must be detailed separately in the annual financial reports.
The Policy has been reviewed and officers are recommending that the Policy be retained to support a culture of compliance in line with Departmental and industry advice. In addition to the Policy having being transferred into the updated Council policy template, changes include the removal of content which is contained within the Standard (and is best referred to there) and an overall refinement of the policy back to a simple statement of the need to comply with the accounting standard.
Under the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, all local governments in Western Australia must produce annual financial statements that comply with Australian Accounting Standards.
The Australian Accounting Standards Board determined that from 1 July 2016, AASB 124 Related Party Disclosures applied to government entities, including local governments. The City is required to disclose Related Party Relationships and Key Management Personnel compensation in its Annual Financial Statements.
The purpose of the Policy is to stipulate compliance with the Australian Accounting Standard AASB 124 – Related Party Disclosures.
In accordance with section 2.7(2(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) it is the role of the Council to determine the local government policies. The Council does this on recommendation of a Committee it has established in accordance with section 5.8 of the Act.
The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires all local governments to produce annual financial statements that comply with the Australian Accounting Standards.
Australian Accounting Standard AASB 124 Related Party Disclosures applies to all government entities.
The City has a policy framework which was developed and endorsed by Council in response to the recommendations of the 2017 Governance Service. The framework sets out the intent of Council policies, as opposed to operational documents such as Operational Practices.
AASB 124 Related Party Disclosures sets out the definitions and requirements of disclosures all local governments are required to make.
There are no financial implications associated with the officer recommendation.
No external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to this matter.
An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken using the City's risk management framework, with risks assessed taking into account any controls already in place. No risks of a medium or greater level have been identified.
As an alternative to the proposed recommendation the Council could:
1. Propose amendments to the Policy; or
2. Propose that the Policy be rescinded, noting that the requirements to comply with the Standard exist and are outlined in regulation.
Council endorsement of the AASB 124 Related Party Disclosures policy is being sought, with the Policy having been reduced to a statement of the need to comply, and being transferred into the City's updated policy template (Attachment A).
The Policy will be placed on the City's website within one week of adoption.
Attachment a
AASB 124 Related Party Disclosures - Proposed Draft Policy
Attachment b
AASB 124 Related Party Disclosure - Current Policy
Attachment c
AASB 124 Standard - Related Party Disclosures
Manager Environmental Services - Tanya Gillett
Director, Planning and Development Services - Paul Needham
Attachment a Proposed Council Policy - Bush Fire Brigades⇩
Attachment b Current Council Policy 32 - Bush Fire Brigade Grievance Process and Disciplinary Action⇩
Attachment c Current Council Policy 33 - Meetings of Bush Fire Brigades⇩
Attachment d Current Council Policy 34 - Membership of Bush Fire Brigades⇩
Attachment e Current Council Policy 35 - Qualifications of Bush Fire Brigade Officers⇩
Attachment f Current Council Policy 36 - Roles of Bush Fire Brigade Officers⇩
Attachment g Current Council Policy 40 - Bush Fire Brigade Accounting⇩
Attachment h Current Council Policy 41 - Code of Conduct, Bush Fire Brigade Objectives and Values⇩
1. Acknowledge the proposal to adopt the proposed Council Policy – Bush Fire Brigades (Attachment A) and rescind the Council polices listed below and attached (Attachments B-H):
a. 32 – Bush Fire Brigade Grievance Process and Disciplinary Action;
b. 33 – Meetings of Bush Fire Brigades;
c. 34 – Membership of Bush Fire Brigades;
d. 35 – Qualifications of Bush Fire Brigade Officers;
e. 36 – Roles of Bush Fire Brigade Officers;
f. 40 – Bush Fire Brigade Accounting; and
g. 41 – Code of Conduct, Bush Fire Brigade Objectives and Values.
2. Acknowledge the Policy and Legislation Committee support of the proposal contained in recommendation 1.
3. Refers the proposal contained in recommendation 1 to the Bush Fire Advisory Committee, with the Bush Fire Advisory Committee to provide a recommendation to Council.
1. Do not adopt the proposed Council Policy (Attachment A) and do not rescind the Council polices listed below and attached (Attachments B-H):
2. Request officers to undertake a detailed review of the Council policies (Attachments B-H) in consultation with the Bush Fire Advisory Committee and return the policies to the Policy and Legislation Committee at a later time.
3. Acknowledge the current review of the State Government bushfire framework which may have a future impact on Council policies or local laws.
Reasons: The Committee requested a further review of the Council policies and consultation with the Bush Fire Advisory Committee before it would make a recommendation to Council. The Committee also considered it to be prudent to determine the impact of the outcomes of the State Government's bushfire framework review on these policies and any future local laws.
This report proposes the adoption of a new Council Policy – Bush Fire Brigades, and the rescission of the following current Council policies pertaining to Bush Fire Brigades:
a. 32 – Bush Fire Brigade Grievance Process and Disciplinary Action
b. 33 – Meetings of Bush Fire Brigades
c. 34 – Membership of Bush Fire Brigades
d. 35 – Qualifications of Bush Fire Brigade Officers
e. 36 – Roles of Bush Fire Brigade Officers
f. 40 – Bush Fire Brigade Accounting
g. 41 – Code of Conduct, Bush Fire Brigade Objectives and Values
It is considered that the proposal should be considered by two Committees of Council, the Policy and Legislation Committee and the Bushfire Advisory Committee; and as such this report recommends that Council acknowledges the Policy and Legislation Committee review of the Policy and proposal to rescind the current policies, and further refer the proposal to the Bushfire Advisory Committee before the Council makes a final decision.
In 2015, the current Bush Fire Brigade Council Policies were adopted with the aim of providing governance and operational direction across a variety of matters pertaining to the City's Bush Fire Brigades. The policies have not been reviewed since that time.
During 2017, the City engaged Mr John Woodhouse who produced a report entitled 'Promoting Confidence: A Review of the City of Busselton Governance Systems And Processes.' Within this report, Mr Woodhouse recommended the following (bold text in original):
17.4 Local laws – Bush Fires – Recommendations
(1) The Bush Fires Act 1954 not only empowers a local government to make local laws for certain matters but also requires that certain matters are to be dealt with by way of local laws.
(2) An example of a power to make local laws is section 41(1) which provides:
"For the purpose of carrying out normal brigade activities a local government may, in accordance with its local laws made for the purpose, establish and maintain one or more bush fire brigades and may, in accordance with those local laws, equip each bush fire brigade so established with appliances, equipment and apparatus."
(3) An example of a requirement to make a local law is section 43 which provides:
"A local government which establishes a bush fire brigade shall by its local laws provide for the appointment or election of a captain, a first lieutenant, a second lieutenant, and such additional lieutenants as may be necessary as officers of the bush fire brigade, and prescribe their respective duties." [Emphasis added]
(4) Despite this, the City has no local laws made under the Act.
(5) There is a Council Policy but no local law.
(6) Consideration should be given, therefore, to the preparation of suitable local laws under the Bush Fires Act 1954.
The use of a Bush Fire Brigades Local Law would most certainly streamline governance structures for the Brigades and reduce the need for comprehensive Council Policies and Operational Practices to be developed and implemented. At this stage, though, adoption of a local law is not recommended – for reasons set out in 'Officer Comment' below.
Further, Mr Woodhouse, in relation to the City's policy framework also recommended:
(7) There should be a review of the Council Policies with the intent that a Council Policy:
a. Should deal with higher level objectives and strategies;
b. Should not deal with operational matters, employee matters, or other matters which are the responsibility if the CEO; and
c. Should, where appropriate provide sufficient direction to the CEO to develop OPPs which deal with the implementation of the Council Policy or other detailed matters.
(8) As part of that review, any existing Council Policy should be deleted where it could, more sensibly, be dealt with by an OPP adopted by the CEO.
Accordingly, review of the current policies has been undertaken.
Currently within local government, Bush Fire Brigades are either governed by Council policies, as per the City's current governance model, or local governments have adopted a version of a 'Model Local Law' developed some years ago.
In October 2019, WALGA advised that the Minister for Emergency Services, the Hon. Francis Logan MLA announced the commencement of a review of the emergency management legislation, including the Fire Brigades Act 1942, Bush Fires Act 1954 and Fire and Emergency Services Act 1998. It is envisaged that the legislation will be consolidated under a single Act. The existing legislation is, in substantial part, quite dated, and it is fair to say that in many ways, it is no longer 'fit-for-purpose'.
While it is acknowledged that the drafting of new legislation is rarely a quick process, the development of a local law under the current legislation is unlikely to be a swift process either. With the announcement by the Minister that the legislation review is imminent, and the need to review the City's policies with reasonable frequency (and also align them with the City's overall governance framework), it is at this stage recommended that the Council adopt a new, higher level, integrated 'Bush Fire Brigades' Council Policy, and that more detailed and / or operational elements of the existing policies are incorporated instead into Operational Practices.
Council has established a Policy and Legislation Committee and a Bush Fire Advisory Committee, with both committees asked to review and provide recommendations to Council in relation to the above proposal.
It should also be noted that officers do not envisage that there will be any significant change in terms of how Brigade governance functions at an operational level. There may, at times in the future, be a need to update and refine operational governance, and it is envisaged that consultation with the Bush Fire Advisory Committee would occur as required.
In accordance with section 2.7(2(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), it is the role of the Council to determine the local government policies. The Council does this on recommendation of a Committee it has established in accordance with section 5.8 of the Act.
The Bush Fires Act 1954 provides the City of Busselton the power to establish and maintain Bush Fire Brigades.
The Council has, in accordance with section 5.8 of the Act established a Bush Fire Advisory Committee, its role being to provide advice to Council in regard to all matters relating to bush fire control, prevention and management.
In response to the Governance Services Review, the City developed a policy framework to clearly establish the strategic nature and intent of Council policies, as opposed to operational documents.
The proposed Council Policy – Bush Fire Brigades, will replace the seven current Council Policies and a series of Operational Practices will be drafted to provide for the operational requirements to effect this Policy.
As per the officer recommendation, consultation is recommended with the Bush Fire Advisory Committee before Council makes a final decision in relation to this matter.
The governance measures currently applied to the Bush Fire Brigades will not change in an operational sense but will administratively align to the City's requirements with respect to policy and procedural documentation.
As an alternative to the proposed recommendation, the Council could:
1. Retain the seven Council Policies as listed above;
2. Make changes to the proposed Council Policy – Bush Fire Brigades; or
3. Commence preparation of a Local Law where it is applicable to the City's requirements; and
4. Rescind the current 7 Council Policies as listed when the Local Law has been Gazetted.
Following a review of the current Bush Fire Brigade policies, officers have determined that they are not strategic in nature, and propose that a single Council Policy replace them. In addition, Operational Practices will then be developed to administer the more operational requirements of the brigades.
Should the Officer Recommendation be endorsed by the Council, the proposals contained within this report will be referred to the next Bush Fire Advisory Committee meeting, with a further recommendation presented by that Committee to Council.
Proposed Council Policy - Bush Fire Brigades
Current Council Policy 32 - Bush Fire Brigade Grievance Process and Disciplinary Action
Current Council Policy 33 - Meetings of Bush Fire Brigades
Attachment d
Current Council Policy 34 - Membership of Bush Fire Brigades
Attachment e
Current Council Policy 35 - Qualifications of Bush Fire Brigade Officers
Attachment f
Current Council Policy 36 - Roles of Bush Fire Brigade Officers
Attachment g
Current Council Policy 40 - Bush Fire Brigade Accounting
Attachment h
Current Council Policy 41 - Code of Conduct, Bush Fire Brigade Objectives and Values
Council 106 10 March 2021
2. PLACE AND SPACES Vibrant, attractive, affordable
2.1 Planning strategies that foster the development of healthy neighbourhoods that meet our needs as we grow.
Structure Plans
Principal Strategic Planner - Louise Koroveshi
Legislative: adoption of "legislative documents" such as local laws, local planning schemes and local planning policies
Attachment a Endorsed Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan⇩
Attachment b Busselton Foreshore Master Plan⇩
Attachment c Draft Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan⇩
Attachment d Busselton Car Parking Utilisation and Turnover Survey⇩
Attachment e Old Tennis Club Precinct⇩
Attachment f Schedule of Modifications⇩
Attachment g Schedule of Submissions⇩
Council Decision and Officer Recommendation
That the Council adopts the draft Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan depicted at Attachment C for final approval, pursuant to Part 4 of the Deemed Provisions (Schedule 2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, subject to modifications as set out in Attachment F.
The Council is requested to consider adopting for final approval proposed modifications to the endorsed Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan.
The modifications include: presentation of the Structure Plan in a format consistent with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; allowing for consideration of additional land uses in some existing precincts; identifying an 'Old Tennis Club Precinct' focused on the former Busselton Tennis Club building; and reviewing car parking requirements.
As a result of advertising, two submissions were received and no objections or matters of concern were raised. The draft Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Officers are recommending that the draft Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan is adopted for final approval and referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission for endorsement.
The proposal comprises modifications to the endorsed Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan (Attachment A). The Structure Plan area is zoned 'Special Use 3 Busselton Foreshore' (SU3) and is within 'Special Provision Area 44', pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 21 (LPS21). Land uses within SU3 are guided by the Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan and include recreational, community, commercial, retail and entertainment activities, as well as thoroughfares and parking areas. The draft Plan was adopted for advertising by the Council on 25 November 2020.
The Busselton Foreshore Precinct has been extensively redeveloped over the last 10 years including: key infrastructure items (e.g. roads, public car parking and coastal protection structures); community facilities (e.g. Youth and Community Activities Building, Railway House, skate park, playgrounds, sporting fields, tennis club relocation and grassed picnic/BBQ areas); and commercial development (kiosks and microbrewery). Redevelopment works undertaken to date have reflected the community vision established through the formulation of the Busselton Foreshore Master Plan (Attachment B).
As an important means of implementing the Busselton Foreshore Master Plan, the Busselton Foreshore Development Guide Plan was adopted by the Council (and subsequently by the WA Planning Commission) in 2012. Amendments were subsequently made and the plan adopted as a Structure Plan in 2016, in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations).
The review of the Structure Plan is a response to matters associated with two development applications within the Foreshore Precinct. In March 2020, the City approved the proposed change of use of the former Busselton Tennis Club building from 'Club Premises' to 'Educational Establishment'. The approval reflected lease arrangements between the City and the Bunbury Regional Community College.
In April 2020, the Southern JDAP granted approval to the proposed development of a hotel on Lot 503 Foreshore Parade, Busselton. Of relevance to consideration of proposed modifications to the Structure Plan, the City has determined, in consultation with the hotel proponent, that a dedicated hotel car park comprising 30 parking bays (based on the size of the hotel - 110 rooms) be situated adjacent to an existing, larger public car parking area. A hotel in a regional location does require some dedicated parking for guests, however allowing numerous private car parks for specific development sites within the Foreshore Precinct would not be the best outcome. The City has various potential options in relation to parking should the need arise, including parking management and overflow parking areas. Planning of the Foreshore has generally been undertaken on the basis of an integrated, rather than site-by-site basis, but the Southern JDAP had some difficulty with fully understanding that in the context of the planning framework. Changes are proposed to address that issue, and better support that integrated approach.
It is also a timely opportunity to reformat the Structure Plan in accordance with the Regulations and further refine land use permissibilities and development standards to provide flexibility and opportunities to attract further activity, as well as to consolidate vibrancy and connectivity between attractions within and adjacent to the Foreshore Precinct, especially the Cultural Precinct and the Busselton City Centre.
The modifications to the Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan are described in greater detail below:
1. In relation to the Structure Plan Provisions:
a. Amend Provision No.2 by removing the reference to, and definition of, 'Exhibition Centre' as the land use term and definition are set out under Division 2 of 'Schedule 1 – Interpretations' of LPS21.
b. Amend Provision No.5 Car Parking Requirements so that it reads as follows: "Car parking requirements shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The City shall manage car parking across the Structure Plan area".
c. Remove Provision No's. 8 and 9 that relate to requirements for an 'Irrigation and Fertiliser Management Plan' and a 'Stormwater and Groundwater Management Plan' as these documents have been prepared and are being implemented as part of ongoing development.
d. Remove Provision No.10 as controls relating to liquor licensing can be effectively managed through planning approvals and liquor licensing regulations.
2. In relation to Table 1 – Land Use Permissibility:
a. In the Queen Street precinct include 'Tavern', 'Small Bar' and 'Reception Centre'.
b. In the Busselton Jetty precinct include 'Small Bar' and 'Reception Centre'.
c. In the Short Stay Accommodation precinct include 'Guesthouse', 'Small Bar' and 'Reception Centre'.
d. Include a new 'Old Tennis Club Precinct' focused on the former Busselton Tennis Club building and allow for consideration of the following uses in addition to the current educational use: 'Restaurant/Café', 'Shop', 'Tavern', 'Small Bar', 'Exhibition Centre', 'Amusement Parlour' and 'Cinema/Theatre'.
3. In relation to Table 2 – Building Height and Floor Area for Development Locations: include development standards for the proposed Old Tennis Club Precinct.
The draft Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan is provided at Attachment C.
Busselton City Centre Parking Utilisation and Turnover Survey
Of relevance to the consideration of proposed changes to the Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan are the findings of the Car Parking Utilisation and Turnover Survey (Attachment D) commissioned by the City to support the preparation of an Activity Centre Plan for the Busselton City Centre (the Dunsborough Town Centre was also included in the study but is not discussed in this report).
The purpose of the survey, together with a current and projected future needs analysis of (public and private) car parking, was to assess the performance of the City's existing car parking management arrangements and also identify specific areas of under and over supply within the Busselton City Centre. The survey area included car parks and parking zones within the Busselton City Centre, as well as those within the Busselton Foreshore Precinct, the Geographe Bay Road car park to the west of the Foreshore Precinct and the Barnard Park carpark on Brown Street.
The survey was undertaken on two separate days between the hours of 6.00am – 10.00pm on:
· Wednesday 4 December 2019 – being a normal 'non-peak' day; and
· Tuesday 7 January 2020 – being a seasonal 'peak' day.
Licence Plate Recognition technology was used to collect data on the respective survey days, which included average parking turnover (cars/space), average duration of stay (hours/car) and maximum duration of stay (hours/car) to determine overall utilisation. For the main car parking areas within the Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan area, the survey determined the following peak and non-peak utilisation:
· Carpark 1 (Equinox/foreshore) peak 87%, non-peak 80%
· Carpark 2 (Queen Street/Foreshore Parade) peak 81%, non–peak 74%
· Carpark 3 (former tennis club building/Jetty Way west) peak 54%, non-peak 49%
· Carpark 4 (The Goose/Foreshore Parade north & south) peak 77%, non-peak 78%
The survey concluded that the Busselton City Centre and the Busselton Foreshore Precinct do not have a shortage of parking supply. A maximum parking occupancy percentage of 52% (1960 vehicles across 3774 parking supply) was observed during the non-peak survey compared with 56% (2127 vehicles across 3774 parking supply) observed during the peak survey. The highest average amount of time that cars occupied parking bays was less than 1 hour, with the second highest occupancy time being between 1 to 2 hours.
The survey also found that there is sufficient existing parking capacity to accommodate projected demand forecast for the next twenty years which supports assumptions in regard to likely Busselton Performing Arts and Cultural Centre (BPACC) parking demand. Furthermore, this indicates little impetus at this stage to construct car parking on the City's land at Harris Road (i.e. the former 'Donga City' site, originally acquired as a strategic land supply to meet future parking needs).
Modifications to the Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan relate to: making the format and presentation consistent with the Regulations; review of provisions to remove those that are redundant (as requirements have been completed or are dealt with under separate legislation); additional land uses for some existing precincts; identification of an 'Old Tennis Club Precinct'; and review of current and future car parking requirements.
The first two matters are essentially administrative. The proposed changes in regard to additional land uses, the 'Old Tennis Club Precinct' and ongoing car parking requirements are discussed below under appropriate subheadings.
Land Uses
Additions to land uses currently contemplated by the endorsed Structure Plan for the Queen Street, Busselton Jetty and Short Stay Accommodation precincts essentially reflect existing activities. The Goose and the Equinox restaurants each have a small bar component and there is little doubt that the recently approved Hilton Hotel will also seek to have a licensed premises, especially if it is to operate a restaurant. Restaurants, taverns and hotels can host functions in the same manner as premises defined as 'Reception Centre' under LPS21. The microbrewery is defined as a 'Tavern' and, like hotels and restaurants, is licenced under the Liquor Control Act 1988. Liquor licences for restaurants, taverns and hotels can be restricted under the Act, as can these for a 'Small Bar' (this land use was introduced into LPS21 by Amendment 29 gazetted in June 2019).
The endorsed Structure Plan restricts the location of certain land uses such as Restaurant/Café and Tavern and does not include 'Small Bar', 'Guesthouse' or 'Reception Centre'. From a planning perspective such land uses reflect attractive development that is currently occurring. They also provide for future development flexibility for existing restaurants and other land uses that may be developed (there is an undeveloped restaurant/cafe site in the Queen Street Precinct). 'Guesthouse' provides an additional option in the Short Stay Accommodation precinct.
Land use and liquor licensing definitions under LPS21 and the Liquor Control Act 1988 are closely aligned. From a planning perspective, there is no compelling reason to close off the option for a restaurant to operate as a tavern at some point in the future, the only differences being increased patron capacity (which would be determined through the development application process), and the ability to sell packaged liquor, subject to discretion and lease conditions.
Please note that in relation to the land use permissibilities proposed for the 'Old Tennis Club Precinct' the addition of 'Reception Centre' is being recommended (Attachment F Schedule of Modifications).
At the time of advertising, this land use was proposed to be included in the 'Queen Street Precinct', the 'Busselton Jetty Precinct' and the 'Short Stay Accommodation Precinct'. It should also have been proposed to be included in the 'Old Tennis Club Precinct' but was inadvertently left out of that list of land uses. Its inclusion makes no substantive difference in effect or form to those other land uses being proposed for the premises. 'Reception Centre' simply allows for '…hosted functions on formal and ceremonial occasions' (LPS21) and should logically be permitted for premises in the particular location and historical context of the Old Tennis Club building.
Old Tennis Club Precinct
The former Busselton Tennis Club building on Lot 488 Marine Terrace (Attachment E) is the closest building within the Busselton Foreshore Precinct to the Cultural Precinct and occupies a prime location given its proximity to the planned BPACC at the northern end of Queen Street. Lot 488 and the club building are currently leased by the City to the Bunbury Regional College for educational purposes. Whilst this is a worthwhile and beneficial use, there is seen to be merit in the identification of a new precinct focused on the former Busselton Tennis Club building that would allow for consideration of other commercial uses, particularly ones that would provide activation and interest for this part of the Foreshore Precinct that is currently underutilised, and help to better integrate the Foreshore and City Centre over time.
Land uses proposed for consideration within the Old Tennis Precinct include café/restaurant, small bar, shop, tavern, exhibition centre, amusement parlour, cinema/theatre and reception centre. The precinct could facilitate future pedestrian connectivity between attractions elsewhere within the Foreshore Precinct (as well as those in the Cultural Precinct and the Busselton City Centre) given that the proposed land uses would provide for pedestrian focused activity. Development standards proposed for the new precinct would allow reasonable expansion of the building's floor area and perhaps a new building in time (Lot 488 is approximately 700m2 in area).
It is proposed to amend the Structure Plan to allow assessment and determination of car parking requirements on a case-by-case basis. This reflects the strategic and holistic approach that the City has formulated and implemented since the adoption of the Busselton Foreshore Master Plan and recognises that the City is best placed to determine such matters as it is the land manager for the Foreshore Precinct.
There are over 1,000 public parking bays across the Busselton Foreshore Precinct in addition to those available in the adjoining Cultural Precinct and the Busselton City Centre. In many ways, these are overlapping areas for the purposes of considering parking supply and demand.
The City has already spent considerable time developing a strategic approach to parking in both the Foreshore, Cultural and City Centre Precincts (including acquisition of land for future parking supply in the City Centre). The City recently commissioned a holistic examination of this through the Busselton City Centre Parking Utilisation and Turnover Survey, which included the Busselton Foreshore Precinct within the study area. The survey findings indicate that there is sufficient parking capacity in the Precinct for the foreseeable future and that, overall, there is a significant oversupply of parking in the Busselton City Centre.
At peak times, the survey found that parking supply in the Busselton Foreshore Precinct can be tight, but for the vast majority of the time it is not. It would be difficult and undesirable to provide infrastructure to meet peak demand as that would significantly impact the amenity and activity that makes the area so attractive from an urban/design landscape perspective (e.g. replacement of recreational grassed areas with bitumen car parks). The fundamental principles of the Busselton Foreshore Master Plan support this view, as set out below:
· reduce the visual dominance of car parks;
· limit parking bays in the inner core to enable a greener, more people friendly, environment;
· integration with the Busselton City Centre is an important element of the Foreshore Precinct to encourage people to walk, cycle or skate between the two using pedestrian and cycling pathways; and
· the Busselton Foreshore Precinct is an integrated recreational and commercial area allowing for the management of parking supply and demand on a 'whole of precinct' basis, rather than site-by-site.
During periods of peak demand, overflow parking can also be made available on Signal Park and possibly in future, if the need arises, on parts of Barnard Park and Churchill Park. An additional 176 vehicle public car park has been constructed on the former Busselton Tennis Club grounds. The BPACC planned for the adjoining Cultural Precinct will generate significant parking demand at times, but would generally not overlap with peak times for the Foreshore and City Centre Precincts.
The survey found that most of the parking demand generated in the Foreshore and Busselton City Centre Precincts is during the day. The highest parking occupancy rates on both peak and non-peak days were between 1 – 4 hours and this declined steadily after 2pm. This supports the view in terms of parking demand likely to be generated by attractors such as the BPACC and the new microbrewery. There is likely to be an under-utilisation of available parking in the afternoons and evenings, hence opportunities for separate turnover in shared parking areas.
The key components of the statutory environment for the proposal are set out in the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21 and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Each is discussed below under appropriate subheadings.
City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme No. 21
The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with LPS21 which sets out the intent for the subject land under Special Provision Area 44 being to facilitate the planned, progressive renewal and revitalisation of the Busselton Foreshore in accordance with a broad community vision.
Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015
The Regulations came into operational effect on 19 October 2015 and introduced deemed provisions for the preparation, advertising and approval of structure plans. The deemed provisions are adopted into LPS21 and define the process for receiving and assessing proposed structure plans and/or modifications to same. Local governments are to have 'due regard' to approved structure plans when making decisions relating to subdivision and development.
The key plans and policies most relevant to the proposal include:
· State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy
· Busselton Foreshore Master Plan
· Local Tourism Planning Strategy
· Planning Bulletin 83/2013 – Planning for Tourism
State Planning Policy 2.6 State Coastal Planning Policy
The Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan and the various land tenure amendments required to implement the Structure Plan to date have been considered by the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage, including in the context of SPP2.6. The section of the City's coast adjacent to the structure plan area is subject to coastal protection and contains very significant assets, including the Busselton Jetty. Additional coastal protection measures have been implemented as part of redevelopment within the Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan area, including a buried seawall to a height of approximately 3.4m with a design life of 40 years. Further consideration of coastal protection will be required by the City during the terms of current and future leases for commercial leasehold sites within the Busselton Foreshore Precinct.
A draft Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan (CHRMAP) has been prepared for the majority of the City's coast and was recently adopted by the Council for consultation. The draft CHRMAP recommends a 'protection' approach for that part of the coast containing the Busselton Foreshore Precinct, as it is already protected, and contains and/or is on the seaward side of the highest concentration of assets (economic, social and heritage) in the City of Busselton.
Busselton Foreshore Master Plan
The Busselton Foreshore Master Plan (Attachment B) outlines the vision, objectives and design principles for the Busselton Foreshore. The Master Plan identifies development sites for land uses that are focused on community and civic use, hospitality, recreation and tourism. Detailed design considerations are also incorporated in the Master Plan that relate to building character and form, setbacks, orientation and frontages, ancillary development, landscaping and pedestrian links.
The design approach of the Master Plan has been to reduce car parking bays in the core of the Foreshore Precinct to enable a greener and more people friendly environment. The proposal reinforces the concept of having parking on the periphery, as well as improving access and legibility throughout.
Local Tourism Planning Strategy
The Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan area and the Busselton Jetty are identified by the Local Tourism Planning Strategy (LTPS) as Strategic Tourism Precinct 2 and is noted as an iconic site of State significance. The modifications proposed for the Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan will not undermine the strategic policy directions for the Busselton Foreshore Precinct which are to: support the development of a resort hotel/landmark building, provide focus for entertainment and recreation; and maintain/improve connectivity and visual linkages to the Busselton City Centre.
Planning Bulletin 83/2013 – Planning for Tourism
Planning Bulletin 83/2013 provides guidance on the determination of the strategic value of sites and precincts for tourism, highlighting the importance of strategic planning for tourism. The policy specifically recognises the Busselton foreshore as a potential tourism precinct due to its proximity to tourist attractions and facilities; existing compatible land uses and infrastructure; existing and potential short stay accommodation opportunities; its character and amenity; visitation statistics to the locality; access including transport opportunities; and capacity to accommodate a mix of uses that complement tourism development.
Short stay accommodation was identified for the Busselton Foreshore in previous planning proposals and strategies including the Local Tourism Planning Strategy and Local Commercial Planning Strategy. This was in recognition of the project area being accessible, unique, having an excellent setting and meeting a perceived need for short stay accommodation close to the Busselton City Centre and beachfront.
The draft Structure Plan was advertised for an extended period (given the Christmas/New Year period), ending 27 January 2021 and two submissions were received. A Schedule of Submissions is provided at Attachment G. No objections or issues were raised, therefore no modifications to the Structure Plan proposal are being recommended.
Officers have undertaken an assessment of the potential implications of carrying out the Officer Recommendation using the City's risk assessment framework. The assessment identifies 'downside' risks only, rather than 'upside' risks as well. The implementation of the Officer Recommendation will involve referring the draft Structure Plan to the WAPC for endorsement. In this regard, there are no significant risks identified.
1. Resolve not to adopt the draft Structure Plan for final approval (with reasons to be provided).
2. Resolve to adopt the draft Structure Plan, but with recommended modifications (for instance, inclusion of Nightclub as an additional permissible land use).
Officer assessment has not revealed any substantive issue or reasonable grounds that would support either of the above options.
Officers are recommending that the draft Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan is adopted for final approval and referred to the WAPC for endorsement.
Implementation of the Officer Recommendation will occur within one month of the date of the delegated decision.
Endorsed Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan
Draft Busselton Foreshore Structure Plan
Busselton Car Parking Utilisation and Turnover Survey
Schedule of Modifications
Schedule of Submissions
1. COMMUNITY: Welcoming, friendly, healthy
1.3 A community with access to a range of cultural and art, social and recreational facilities and experiences.
Disposition of Land
Property Management Coordinator - Sharon Woodford-Jones
Contractual: To enter into a contract e.g. a lease or the award of a tender etc.
Attachment a Location Plan⇩
1. Acknowledges that Lots 58 and 59 on Chapman Hill Road and Lot 60 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate (the Land) is no longer required to be retained for strategic purposes.
2. Approves the advertising of an Expression of Interest for the disposal of the Land to inform decisions regarding the future use and ownership.
3. Be presented with the outcomes and recommendations following the Expression of Interest process on a disposition by way of sale or lease in accordance with the requirements of section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.
The City of Busselton is the freehold owner of Lots 58 and 59 Chapman Hill Road and Lot 60 Queen Elizabeth Avenue, Ambergate (the Land).
A previous Council resolution (C1801/011) authorised the CEO to negotiate and enter into a land exchange contract for the Land with the Chapman family and their related entities. Negotiations have ended without a land exchange contract being finalised.
This report recommends that Council agree to a marketing strategy and expression of interest process that will enable officers to present options and make a recommendation for the future disposition of the Land.
The Land comprises a total area of just over 136 hectares and is zoned 'Agriculture'. It is currently leased for grazing and farming purposes to an adjoining landowner.
The Land is situated on the eastern side of Queen Elizabeth Avenue running through to the western side of Chapman Hill Road in Ambergate, approximately 5km south of the Busselton town site. Nearby land uses consist of 'Rural Residential' development to the north (St Andrews Lane) and 'Special Residential' (Ambergate Heights) to the south. Busselton Golf Club and Busselton Margaret River Airport are located to the east. See location plan attached (Attachment A).
The legal description of each parcel is:
· Lot 58 on Diagram 64060 being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 1675 Folio 623;
· Lot 60 on Diagram 70229 being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 1761 Folio 410.
Lot 58 comprises an area of 37.84 hectares, Lot 59 is 46.25 hectares and Lot 60 totals 52.22 hectares. All three lots are totally cleared and pastured and have been fertilised by the current lessee to maintain adequate pasture for cattle.
Services available to the lots are limited to Western Power electricity available on Queen Elizabeth Avenue and telecommunication lines. There is no scheme water or deep sewer available.
The Land is encumbered by a lease. The initial term of the lease expired on 30 June 2017, however the tenant has remained on the Land as a monthly tenant under the holding over provisions. The lease may be terminated by the City with one months' notice.
The lease also contains a right of first refusal for future leasing which means that before a new lease can be entered into, the same terms must be offered first to the current tenant.
The City originally acquired the Land in 1984 as a potential site for a new airport in Busselton. The Land was never used for that purpose and the airport was ultimately constructed in 1997 at its current location on Vasse Highway.
As part of a strategic land review in 2010, Council resolved (C1005/158):
"That with respect to Lots 58, 59 and 60 Chapman Hill Road, the Council resolve to 'land bank' the land for the future to provide funding for community projects in 10 to 20 years' time. In the meantime the Acting CEO be authorised to undertake statutory process and enter into an appropriate grazing lease under the Shire's usual commercial conditions, for a term of up to 5 years with a first right of refusal for the lessee if an extension of the lease is approved."
In a 2016 strategic land review, officers reported on the potential sale of the Land "…and the re-investing of the returns in land that better meets the strategic needs of the community into the future".
Council resolved (C1609/257):
"…with respect to the Strategic Land Review and the management of City and Crown Land within the District, to generally endorse the strategic direction set out in the agenda report".
Finally, in 2018, Council endorsed the officer recommendation and resolved (C1801/011):
"That the Council authorises the CEO to negotiate and enter into a land exchange contract for the Land with the Chapman family and related entities on terms and conditions consistent with those outlined in this report".
The objective was to swap the Land for land under the flight path immediately to the south of Busselton Margaret River Airport. Negotiations ended without a land exchange contract being finalised.
As the Land is not identified as a strategic land holding and the land exchange contract identified in Council resolution C1801/011 was never completed, officers are recommending that the resolutions of the strategic land reviews in 2010 and 2016 be revisited.
The resolutions endorsed considering the sale of the Land and to use the proceeds to purchase land that better met the needs of the community in the future.
In February 2019, following the decision to refuse an application for development of premises for the Clay Target Club on Lot 501 Coolilup Road, Ludlow, Council resolved (C1902/024):
"to request that the CEO continues to investigate a suitable location for ballistic clubs, including writing to the Federal Member for Forrest, seeking discussion with the Department of Defence on co-location of additional ballistic clubs on the existing Hutton Road range".
City officers have identified potential land parcels that may be suitable for the co-location of noisy sports and, as such, now may be the time to consider whether it is appropriate to dispose of land assets such as this to fund such an acquisition.
Anecdotally, the value of agricultural land in the South West has increased recently, in part due to the strong commodity prices and the fact that smaller land holdings are being sought by investors and family farmers.
City officers have also obtained informal advice from local specialist real estate agents who have advised that demand for agricultural land has increased in the last few months attributable to the extreme and novel change of circumstances brought about by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Officers are recommending an expression of interest process be run as a precursor to any disposition. This strategy will allow interested parties the time to formulate proposals and enables the City to gauge the level of interest and the range of options for disposition.
Opportunities for disposition that may arise from the expression of interest process include:
· the sale of the whole or part of the Land;
· the leasing of the whole or part of the Land; or
· land exchange opportunities.
To enable the best possible outcome from a marketing perspective, it is recommended that a local real estate agent with the relevant experience and expertise is engaged to market the expression of interest.
An expression of interest process will afford ample time to make the final decision and all proposals can be fairly considered on their individual merits. A further report and recommendations will then be presented to Council following the outcome of the expression of interest process.
Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) relates to the disposal of property by local government. It enables a local government to dispose of property:
· To the highest bidder at public auction;
· By way of a public tender process; or
· By giving local public notice of the proposed disposition and following the public consultation process as prescribed by sub-section 3.58(3) of the Act.
Local public notice will require:
· A description of the property concerned;
· Details of the proposed disposition (including names of the parties concerned; the consideration to be received and the market value of the disposition); and
· An invitation for submissions to be made before a date to be specified in the notice, being not less than 2 weeks after the notice is first given.
Any submissions received during the notice period must be considered by Council and the resulting decision recorded in the minutes of the meeting at which the decision is made.
Seeking expressions of interest alone will not trigger the statutory requirements, they are referenced here in relation to any subsequent recommendations for disposition.
Under the City of Busselton Local Planning Scheme 21 the Land is zoned 'Agriculture'. Until recently, it was designated as a Development Investigation Area (DIA). In May 2020, Council resolved (C2005/141) to amend the Town Planning Scheme and remove the land from this designation. The justification for this was it determined that it was no longer within an urban growth area and, in the absence of support under the Local Planning Strategy, the designation as a DIA was redundant.
To the north of Lots 58, 59 and 60, and the rural-residential subdivisions at 'Ambergate Heights' and 'St. Andrew's Lane', is the 'Ambergate North' Structure Plan area.
The Ambergate North Structure Plan (2014) covers an area generally bounded by Queen Elizabeth Avenue to the west, the Busselton Bypass to the North, the Vasse Diversion Drain to the east and the future alignment of the Busselton Outer Bypass to the south. If fully developed in accordance with the current structure plan, this area could potentially accommodate a residential population of between 10,000 – 12,000 people. Only about one third of the structure plan area is currently zoned for 'Urban Development', however, with the remainder currently zoned 'Rural' and subject to 'Special Provision Area 39' in Local Planning Scheme 21.
The land the subject of this report (Lots 58, 59 and 60) is not zoned for either urban or rural-residential development, and the City's current strategic planning framework does not provide support for any change of zoning in that regard.
The Sport and Recreation Facilities Strategy 2020-2030 adopted by Council in March 2020 reflects the fact that, over the last 10 years, extensive investigations have been undertaken by the City and clubs to locate and develop sports such as clay target, rifle and pistol shooting sports within the district. To that end, the City has, since the Strategic Land Review of 2016, been in negotiations with land owners in the district with a view to acquiring a strategic site suitable for noisy sports and other recreational opportunities or alternatives, or part thereof, allocate proceeds to another community project.
The lease generates an annual income of $11,120.04 exclusive of GST. City officers have obtained informal advice that the current rent may be below market value.
The most recent valuation for the Land was conducted in 2018 and is not reflective of current market values. A current valuation will be sought in conjunction with the expression of interest process and be presented to Council in a future report dealing with the results of the expression of interest.
Until the outcome of a procurement process to identify a suitable agency or organisation to conduct a marketing strategy for the disposition of the Land is concluded, the cost of sale or disposition will not be ascertainable. Details of the marketing strategy and the cost of the ultimate recommendation following the process will be embodied in the subsequent report to Council noted above.
City officers have consulted informally with local real estate agents about marketing the Land.
Negotiations with the lessee of the Land have been ongoing for some time.
An assessment of the potential implications of implementing the officer recommendation has been undertaken. There is no risk associated with investigating the level of interest in the Land via an expression of interest process.
As an alternative to the proposed recommendation:
1. Council may resolve to retain the Land and not undertake an expression of interest process.
2. Council may resolve to dispose of the Land in accordance with Section 3.58(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 by way of public auction or public tender.
The officer recommendation supports a marketing campaign and expression of interest process be run by a local real estate agent for the disposal of the Land. This process will provide a range of options for Council and flexibility in decision making. It may, for example, be determined that it is preferable to sell only part of the Land or consider other land swap opportunities.
On conclusion of the expression of interest process, a further report and recommendations will be presented to Council after which a disposal under s 3.58(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 may be progressed.
Should Council support the officer recommendation, the procurement process for identifying the provider of a marketing strategy and undertaking an expression of interest will be commenced immediately.
Location Plan
Councillors' Information Bulletin
Reporting Officers - Various
Noting: The item is simply for information purposes and noting
Attachment a Current Running State Administrative Tribunal Reviews⇩
Attachment b WALGA Energy and Sustainability and Renewables Project: Letter from WALGA CEO Nick Sloan⇩
That the items from the Councillors' Information Bulletin be noted:
17.1.1 State Administrative Tribunal Reviews
17.1.2 WALGA Energy Sustainability and Renewables Project
This report provides an overview of a range of information that is considered appropriate to be formally presented to the Council for its receipt and noting. The information is provided in order to ensure that each Councillor, and the Council, is being kept fully informed, while also acknowledging that these are matters that will also be of interest to the community.
Any matter that is raised in this report as a result of incoming correspondence is to be dealt with as normal business correspondence, but is presented in this bulletin for the information of the Council and the community.
INFORMATION BULLETIN
A summary of the current State Administrative Tribunal reviews as at 24 February 2021 is provided at Attachment A.
A letter from WALGA Chief Executive Officer, Nick Sloan, regarding the Energy Sustainability and Renewables Project is provided at Attachment B.
The CEO will be referring consideration of this opportunity to the City of Busselton's Sustainability and Energy Working Group.
Current Running State Administrative Tribunal Reviews
WALGA Energy and Sustainability and Renewables Project : Letter from WALGA CEO Nick Sloan
ITEMS TO BE DEALT WITH BY SEPARATE RESOLUTION (WITHOUT DEBATE)
12.1 Audit Committee - 24/2/2021 - 2020 ANNUAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN
Compliance Audit Return
Governance Services
Governance Coordinator - Emma Heys
Absolute Majority
Attachment a 2020 Compliance Audit Return⇩
This item was considered by the Audit Committee at its meeting on 24/2/2021, the recommendations from which have been included in this report.
Council Decision and Committee Recommendation and Officer Recommendation
C2103/046 Moved Councillor P Carter, seconded Councillor K Hick
That the Council, having received the 2020 Compliance Audit Return (Attachment A), adopt the 2020 Compliance Audit Return and authorises the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to sign in joint the Certificate.
by absolute majority
The Compliance Audit Return (CAR) is a statutory reporting tool that evaluates the City's compliance with targeted sections of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) during the period 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020.
The City has completed the 2020 CAR and it is included in this report (Attachment A) for the Audit Committee's consideration. The 2020 CAR is recommended for adoption by Council, after which it will be lodged with the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (the Department), as required, by 31 March 2021.
Between 1 January 2021 and 31 March 2021, local governments are required to carry out an audit of compliance covering the period 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020. The City's responses to the 2020 CAR are to be reviewed by the Audit Committee and then adopted by Council. The certified CAR, together with an extract of the Council Minutes of the meeting in which the 2020 CAR is adopted, is to be lodged with the Department via the online SmartHub portal by 31 March 2021.
In completing the 2020 CAR, designated officers have undertaken an audit of the City's activities, practices and procedures in line with the Act and associated Regulations.
The Audit results are summarised in the Table below:
Compliance Area
Commercial Enterprises by Local Government
YES - 100%
Delegation of Power/Duty
Disclosures of Interest
Disposal of Property
Local Government Employees
Official Conduct
Tenders for Providing Goods and Services
Optional Questions
There are two optional questions where we have been unable provide a positive response. Optional Question #1 refers to Financial Management Regulation 5(2)(c) and whether the CEO reviewed the appropriateness and effectiveness of the local government's financial management systems and procedures within the three years prior to 31 December 2020. The City engages an independent Auditor to undertake its Financial Management Systems Review (FMSR) every three years. The FMSR was due to occur in November 2020. Due to COVID-19 however, the Auditor was unable to come down and complete the Audit. As opposed to doing the Audit internally, a decision was made to postpone the Audit to February 2021. The FMSR has since been completed.
Optional Question #9 refers to section 5.127 of the Act, requiring a local government (the CEO) to prepare a report detailing the training completed by Council Members in each financial year. This report is required to be published on the City's website within one month of the end of each financial year. This is the first year in which this requirement has been in place. A comprehensive list of the training undertaken by each Council Member has been published to the City's website since the 2019 Local Government Ordinary Elections, and officers were of the understanding this information met the requirements of section 5.127. A separate consolidated report (of the same information) has therefore not been compiled or published. A report is now available to view on the Elected Members Training page on the City's website and relevant governance procedures have been amended to ensure this requirement is met in the future.
Overall and on review, the 2020 CAR represents a high level of compliance by the City.
Section 7.13 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides for the making of Regulations in regards to Audits.
Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 prescribes the statutory requirements for which the compliance audit is needed.
Regulations 14 and 15 state the following:
14. Compliance audits by local governments
(1) A local government is to carry out a compliance audit for the period 1 January to 31 December in each year.
(2) After carrying out a compliance audit the local government is to prepare a compliance audit return in a form approved by the Minister.
(3A) The local government's audit committee is to review the compliance audit return and is to report to the council the results of that review.
(3) After the audit committee has reported to the council under subregulation (3A), the compliance audit return is to be –
(a) presented to council at a meeting of the council; and
(b) adopted by council; and
(c) recorded in the minutes of the meeting at which it is adopted.
15. Certified copy of compliance audit return and other documents to be given to Departmental CEO
(1) After the compliance audit return has been presented to the council in accordance with regulation 14(3) a certified copy of the return together with -
(a) a copy of the relevant section of the minutes referred to in regulation 14(3)(c); and
(b) any additional information explaining or qualifying the compliance audit,
is to be submitted to the Departmental CEO by 31 March next following the period to which the return relates.
(2) In this regulation – certified in relation to a compliance audit return means signed by –
(a) the mayor or president; and
(b) the CEO.
There are no relevant plans or policies to consider in relation to this matter.
The City has consulted with the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries in relation to the impacts of COVID-19 on aspects of compliance, such as the completion of the FMSR. The Department have indicated that they understand COVID-19 will have had some impacts and that we should indicate where this is the case.
No other external stakeholder consultation was required or undertaken in relation to this matter.
As an alternative to the proposed recommendation, the Council may choose to request further information from officers prior to adopting the 2020 CAR. It is however a statutory requirement that the 2020 CAR is endorsed by Council and submitted to the Department prior to 31 March 2021.
It is recommended that the Council adopts the 2020 CAR for submission to the Department prior to 31 March 2021.
The 2020 CAR will be lodged with the Department prior to 31 March 2021.
2020 Compliance Audit Return
18. Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given
19. urgent business
20. Confidential Reports
21. Closure
The Presiding Member closed the meeting at 7.16pm.
THESE MINUTES CONSISTING OF PAGES 1 TO 167 WERE CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD ON Wednesday, 24 March 2021.
DATE:_________________ PRESIDING MEMBER:__________________________________