Declaration of Interest (Notes for Your Guidance)

A member who has a Financial Interest in any matter to be discussed at a Council or Committee Meeting, which will be attended by the member, must disclose the nature of the interest:

a) In a written notice given to the Chief Executive Officers before the Meeting or;

b) At the Meeting, immediately before the matter is discussed.

A member, who makes a disclosure in respect to an interest, must not:

c) Preside at the part of the Meeting, relation to the matter or;

d) Participate in, or be present during any discussion or decision-making procedure relative to the matter, unless to the extent that the disclosing member is allowed to do so under Section 5.68 or Section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Notes on Financial Interest (For your Guidance)

The following notes are a basic guide for Councillors when they are considering whether they have a Financial Interest in a matter.

1. A Financial Interest requiring disclosure occurs when a Council decision might advantageously or detrimentally affect the Councillor or a person closely associated with the Councillor and is capable of being measured in money terms. There are expectations in the Local Government Act 1995 but they should not be relied on without advice, unless the situation is very clear.

2. If a Councillor is a member of an Association (which is a Body Corporate) with not less than 10 members i.e sporting, social, religious ect, and the Councillor is not a holder of office of profit or a guarantor, and has not leased land to or from the club, i.e, if the Councillor is an ordinary member of the Association, the Councillor has a common and not a financial interest in any matter to that Association.

3. If an interest is shared in common with a significant number of electors and ratepayers, then the obligation to disclose that interest does not arise. Each case need to be considered.

4. If in doubt declare.

5. As stated in (b) above, if written notice disclosing the interest has not been given to the Chief Executive Officer before the meeting, then it must be given when the matter arises in the Agenda, and immediately before the matter is discussed.

6. Ordinarily the disclosing Councillor must leave the meeting room before discussion commences. The only exceptions are:

6.1 Where the Councillor discloses the extent of the interest, and Council carries a motion under s.5.68(1)(b)(ii) of the Local Government Act; or

6.2 Where the Minister allows the Councillor to participate under s.5.69(3) of the Local Government Act, with or without conditions.

Interests Affecting Proximity

1) For the purposes of this subdivision, a person has a proximity interest in a matter if the matter concerns;

a) a proposed change to a planning scheme affecting land that adjoins the person’s land;

b) a proposed change to the zoning or use of land that adjoins the person’s land; or

c) a proposed development (as defined in section 5.63(5)) of land that adjoins the person’s land.

2) In this section, land (the proposal land) adjoins a person’s land if;

a) The proposal land, not being a thoroughfare, has a common boundary with the person’s land;

b) The proposal land, or any part of it, is directly across a thoroughfare from, the person’s land; or

c) The proposal land is that part of a thoroughfare that has a common boundary with the person’s land.

3) In this section a reference to a person’s land is a reference to any land owned by the person or in which the person has any estate or interest.

Interests Affecting Impartiality

Definition: An interest that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the impartiality of the person having the interest would be adversely affected, but does not include an interest as referred to in Section 5.60 of the ‘Act’.

A member who has an Interest Affecting Impartiality in any matter to be discussed at a Council or Committee Meeting, which will be attended by the member, must disclose the nature of the interest;

a) In a written notice given to the Chief Executive Officers before the Meeting or;

b) At the Meeting, immediately before the matter is discussed.

Impact of an Impartiality Closure

There are very different outcomes resulting from disclosing an interest affecting impartiality compared to that of a financial interest. With the declaration of a financial interest, an elected member leaves the room and does not vote.

With the declaration of this new type of interest, the elected member stays in the room, participates in the debate and votes. In effect then, following disclosure of an interest affecting impartiality, the member’s involvement in the Meeting continues as if no interest existed.

THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 12

8. Matters Requiring a Determination of Council

8.1 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Item: 8.1.1

Proposed Closure of Portion of Thomas Road, Scaddan

Author/s	Ashwin Nair	Town Planner
Authorisor/s	Richard Hindley	Director Development Services

File Ref: V38

Applicant

W & M Vandenberghe Nominees

Location/Address

Executive Summary

At its July All Purpose Committee Meeting and Ordinary Council Meeting, Council agreed to approve Vandenberghe Nominees road closure application and close an extra portion of road to the east (to Williams road). However, the extra portion of road had not undergone public consultation. Shire officers were advised that, due to the absence of consultation the Minister will likely refuse Council’s request to close the road. Since then the extra portion has been advertised where one (1) objection was received.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council resolve to formally close the portion of Thomas Road from Lot 1833 to the unconstructed portion of Williams Road, Scaddan.

Background

At its Ordinary Meeting held on 24 July 2012, Council resolved (O0712-067(AP 712-046)):

“That Council approve the application and request the Minister of Lands to close the portion of Thomas Road from Lot 1833 to the unconstructed portion of Williams road under Section 58 (1) of the Land Administration Act 1997.”

Council approved Vandenberghe Nominees application for a road closure in July. Furthermore, Council agreed to close an extra portion of Thomas Road which had not been advertised. It was advised by State Land Services that the extra portion must be advertised under Section 58 (1) of The Land Administration Act 1997 prior to requesting the closure by the Minister of Lands.

Council must consider any comments made by affected landowners and service agencies prior to formally requesting the Minister of Lands to close the road from Lot 1833 to the unconstructed portion of Williams road. After Council supports the application, then the applicant can initiate proceedings to acquire the land.

The Land Administrative Act 1997 sets out the administrative provisions for Road Closure applications, and the Local Government Act 1995 sets out the administrative provisions for Gate Permit applications. Neither Act provides guidance for determining the outcomes of such applications. There is no Council policy for Road Closures. However, it seems reasonable to consider the following matters:

· Current usage of the road.

· The Shire’s future plans for the road

· The impact of the closure on road traffic safety

· Compliance with Local Planning Scheme 23 (LPS 23)

Council issues Gate Permits to authorise a person to have a gate or other device that enables motor traffic to pass and prevents the straying of livestock. With regard to Gate Permits in Thomas Road, a review of available Council records shows the following details:

· 1994 – JJL & RY Vermeersch made a $20 payment for two Gate Permits (no other details are available);

· 1997 - Mr Vandenburghe’s application for a Gate Permit was refused by Council;

· 1999 – Vermeersch Family Trust made a $20 payment for two Gate Permits (no other details are available) ;

· 2004 – J & R Vermeersch made a $10 payment, for a Gate Permit (no other details are available);

· 2005 – J & R Vermeersch made a $10 payment, for a Gate Permit (no other details are available);

· 2010 – Roselea Vermeersch was issued with two Gate Permits on 16 December 2010;

· 2011 – in August Council resolved to refuse the Vandenburghe’s application to close a section of Thomas Road; and

· 2011 – in September the Vandenburghe’s application or Gate Permits on Thomas Road was refused and the Vermeersch’s existing Gate Permits were revoked (as they had not been maintained in accordance with the permit conditions).

· 2012 (July)-Application by Vandenburghe nominees to close a portion of Thomas Road approved. Furthermore, Council resolved to close an extra portion of road which had not been advertised to the public

· 2012 (September) -Extra portion of road to be closed put on advertising for 35 days as per State Land Services advice.

Officer’s Comment

The assessment of the extra portion of road to be closed has been identified in the following table

Matters to consider

Officer Comment

Current usage of the Road.

Emergency access / egress in case of fire.

Access between lots for agricultural purposes.

This section of Thomas Road is currently a public thoroughfare

Given the local road network and arrangement of lots, if the road were closed there would be adequate emergency access/egress for all lots in the area.

Closing the road would have an adverse impact on the objector’s farming operations.

The Shire’s future plans for the road.

There are no future plans for this part of Thomas Road.

The impact of the closure on road traffic safety.

With the previous application, there were no objections from agency referrals.

Compliance with Local Planning Scheme 23 (LPS 23).

Under Local Planning Scheme 23 (LPS 23), the land is zoned Agriculture - General and Clause 4.2.10 states one of the objectives of the zone is to encourage sustainable farming practices.

As Mr Vermeersch would no longer have a direct internal access between his various lots, the road closure would likely result in longer journeys between lots and significantly higher levels of fuel consumption and fuel emissions. This would be economically inefficient and would result in adverse environmental impacts.

As Council resolved to close an extra portion of road at the July Council meeting, Officers recommendation is to conditionally approve the closure of the portion of Thomas Road from Lot 1833 to the unconstructed portion of Williams road.

Consultation

The road closure process operates under Section 58 under the Land Administration Act 1997. This process provides for a 35 day referral period where all affected landowners and servicing agencies are to be consulted (including a notice published in the local newspaper).

During the referral period five (5) submissions were received in response to advertising, one (1) objection was received, and four (4) submissions indicated support. The one (1) objection was received from JJ Vermeersch who owns Lot 1833 to the west, Lot 859 to the east and Lot 856 further to the south East. The submission is summarised below along with the Officers response.

Vermeersch submissions	Officers Response
Council has no policy for road closures.	The Land Administrative Act 1997 sets out the administrative provisions for Road Closure applications, and the Local Government Act 1995 sets out the administrative provisions for Gate Permit applications. Neither Act provides guidance for determining the outcomes of such applications. There is no Council policy for Road Closures. However, Council alone approved the extra portion of road to the east (to Williams road) based on the following: · Current usage of the road. · The Shire’s future plans for the road · The impact of the closure on road traffic safety · Compliance with Local Planning Scheme No. 23 (LPS 23)
Proposed closure does not support sustainable farming practices	The proposed closure would prevent direct access between Lot 1833 and the farmland on Lots 859 and 856. However, the objector would still be able to access these areas from surrounding roads. As Mr Vermeersch would no longer have a direct internal access between his various lots, the road closure would likely result in adverse environmental impacts due to higher fuel emissions
Current Road Usage	This section of Thomas road is currently a public thoroughfare.
The Shire’s application to close a larger portion of Thomas Road than applied for in the Vandenburghe application is inconsistent with Council’s adopted procedure for road closures and accordingly could be ultra vires.	The Land Administrative Act 1997 sets out the administrative provisions for Road Closure applications, and the Local Government Act 1995 sets out the administrative provisions for Gate Permit applications. Neither Act provides guidance for determining the outcomes of such applications. There is no Council policy for Road Closures.

Financial Implications

Nil

Asset Management Implications

There are potential asset management implications if the road is not closed. The closure of the road would absolve the Council of any responsibility for the maintenance of a road within the road reserve.

Statutory Implications

Land Administration Act 1997

Local Planning Scheme No.23

Policy Implications

N/A

Strategic Implications

N/A

Environmental Considerations

The road closure would not be consistent with objective (e) for the ‘Agriculture-General’ zone as outlined in clause 4.2.10 of the Scheme: encourage sustainable farming practices. The road closure would not prevent access between lots but would increase the distance travelled to move between lots.

Attachments

a View.	Road Closure Plan
b View.	All Purpose Council meeting- July 2011
c View.	Ordinary Council meeting minutes-July 2012
d View.	Objection
e View.	Submissions of Support

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

1. Request the Minister to close the portion of Thomas Road from Lot 1833 to the unconstructed portion of Williams road under Section 58 (1) of the Land Administration Act 1997”.

2. Seek expressions of interest for the purchase of the land comprising of the closed portion of Thomas Road.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 32

NOTICE OF OBJECTION

Thomas Road, Road Closure

TO: ESPERANCE SHIRE COUNCIL

Windich Street

ESPERANCE WA 6450

I John VERMEERSCH of Esperance Location 1833 Belgian Road WEST SCADDAN hereby give notice of objection to the proposed closure of any part or portion of Thomas Road Scaddan.

Back Ground

1975 The Vermeerschs’ purchased Esperance Lots 856 & 859 and have farmed these lots continuously since.

1976 I purchased Esperance Lot 1833 specifically on account of Thomas Road connecting Lots 1833 and 856/859 which would allow the movement of livestock, plant and machinery between the lots.

Being a road reserve the Vermeerschs’ applied for and obtained a Gate Permit to enable a gate to be installed at the eastern end of the road reserve to assist in the transfer of sheep. Thomas Road has been in continuous use since 1976.

1987 Vandenberghe Nominees purchased Lot 1346 in the knowledge that Thomas Road was a gazetted road and used by the adjoining land owners.

1993 Vandenberghe Nominees erected a central fence through Lot 1346 which continued across the Thomas Road, road reserve. This was done without Shire of Esperance knowledge or the consent of other Thomas Road users.

Dec 1994 Council resolution approving application by J & R Vermeersch for Thomas Road reserve along locations 859 and 1346 to be widened.

1997 Shire of Esperance refused an application from Vandenberghe Nominees for a Gate Permit and was instructed to remove the fence/gate in question.

1997 With the encouragement of the then Shire Clerk, I reached a verbal agreement with Walter Vandenberghe which involved fencing the common boundary of the Thomas Road, road reserve and Lot 1346.

1997 I supplied and erected a fence along slightly more than 50% of the common boundary of the Thomas Road, road reserve and Lot 1346 commencing at the eastern boundary of Location 1833. Walter Vandenberghe was to have fenced the remaining portion of the common boundary, however he and/or Vandenberghe Nominees have reneged on our agreement and failed to erect any fence on the common boundary of Lot 1346 and the Thomas Road, road reserve.

Over the past 14 years I have sought to resolve the matter of having Thomas Road fenced with Vandenberghe Nominees without success. The CEO at Shire of Esperance will have records/correspondence to confirm my efforts.

14-12-2010 Roselea Vermeersch met with the Esperance Shire Council CEO, Mal Osborne. Mr Neil Williams attended the meeting at the CEO request. Several matters were discussed relating to gate permits, Thomas Road, road reserve and other ongoing associated issues. Mr Osborne suggested we should consider closure and purchase of this portion of Thomas Road Reserve.

The CEO was informed that I had previously discussed this very thing in 1997 with the then CEO and was told that the Shire was adamant that closing Thomas Road would never be supported without agreement between Vandenberghe Nominees and I. The CEO was advised, however, that I would support the closure of the Thomas Road, road reserve only on the condition that I could purchase the land to retain the carriage way between Lot 1833 and 859/856.

Neil William’s stated that the Shire would not consider a closure of the Thomas Road, road reserve and any talk of the road closure ended.

17-12-2010 Letters written by Margaret Vandenberghe were sent to the Esperance Shire Council requesting closure of Thomas Road Reserve and Offer to Purchase the land.

Vandenberghe Nominees did not consult with me, or to the best of my knowledge with other adjoining landowners prior to submitting their request for the Thomas Road closure.

25-5-2011 I received a letter from Manager Planning Service of the Esperance Shire Council giving me notice of the proposal to close the Thomas Road, road reserve.

23-08-11 Application by WFC & MK Vandenburghe to close a portion of Thomas Road refused.

May 2012 Further application by WFC & MK Vandenburghe to close a portion of Thomas Road.

July 2012 Council vote to close a greater portion of Thomas Road than applied for by WFC & MK Vandenburghe and subsequent application to Minister to close road rejected.

August to

Present Council has, without a third party application, commenced the statutory required process to close Thomas Road.

Grounds of Objection

1. Council Road Closure Policy

I refer to email dated 16 October 2012 from the Esperance Shire Council Town Planner, Mr Ashwin Nair to Mr J Vermeersch a copy of which is hereto attached and marked “JV01”.

Given the clear statement by Mr Nair that there is “no council policy for road closures”, it is reasonable to say that Council’s approach to the same is on an ad hoc and/or piecemeal basis. The Council adopted process is that when an application for a road closure is received from a third party, eg the Vandenburgh’s, then such application is considered by the DCU and a recommendation is made to Council either in support of the application or rejecting the said application. What is certain is that without a Council policy in respect to road closures, such closures should not be initiated by the Council.

At present there is only one application on foot for a partial road closure. Council are seeking to close a further portion of Thomas Road. No application exists from a third party for the proposed Thomas Road road closure. Rather the “fresh application” referred to by Mr Nair is, in effect, a self-generated Council application rather than a third party application.

Given that Council has no policy on road closures, the Council is acting outside of its own adopted process for considering and recommending road closures to the Minister. It is reasonable to conclude that, in the words of the Council’s immediate past CEO, Council’s approach to closing Thomas Road is a way of resolving a neighbourhood dispute, rather than implementing Council policy for the wider community benefit.

2. Local Planning Scheme 23

The objective of the said Scheme is to support sustainable farming practices.

Thomas Road provides a thoroughfare between a number of farming lots. Lot 1833 was purchased on account of the location of Thomas Road, which made travel between the two farming properties efficient. Had Thomas Road not been located as it is now, we would not have purchased lot 1833, we would have purchased land closer to, or contiguous with lots 859 & 856. In any event we have since 1976 used Thomas Road for the carriage of stock, machinery, and people involved in our farming enterprise.

Over the same period of time other third parties have also used Thomas Road for the purpose of carriage, particulars of such use can be provided if the same is required. We for the said period of time, carried out all necessary maintenance on the road in addition to fencing a portion thereof.

I and others have constantly used this road for a period of 36 years as a linkage between the various farming lots contiguous to Thomas Road. .

Removal of Thomas Road will increase the use of on farm fossil fuels, not only contributing to increased operating costs but also to increased greenhouse gas emissions. Such an outcome is contrary to the stated policy, and further not in the wider national interest which is a reduction of such emissions.

3. Current Road Usage and Safety

Current road usage is as outlined above and has the potential to increase depending on future farm lot ownership contiguous to Thomas Road.

Current road usage also needs to be considered in light of what effect the closure of Thomas Road would have on adjoining roads. Currently Thomas Road is used as a thoroughfare for the movement of machinery, stock and light vehicles. Given that it Thomas Road is a dead end and is not a fully constructed road, there is little “general public” use of the road. Accordingly stock and heavy machinery can be moved safely between farming lots.

Closure of Thomas Road will result in stock and machinery being moved on a fully formed public road and it follows that the potential for light vehicle/machinery and light vehicle/stock conflict will increase correspondingly.

Thomas Road is currently maintained by the adjoining property owners. Council have never committed any financial resources to the maintenance or upgrade of Thomas Road and is unlikely to do so. Accordingly Thomas Road has no financial impact on either the capital or recurrent expenditure of Council.

Council does maintain and upgrade surrounding roads. An increased usage of surrounding roads, on account of the closure of Thomas Road, will result in an increase in maintenance to be carried out on such surrounding roads. Accordingly closure of Thomas Road will increase the financial burden on Council in respect to road maintenance.

4. Applicants Reasons for Closing Road

Vandenberghe Application

The Vandenburghe application to close “the portion of Thomas Road which passes through location 1346” dated 19 March 2012 does not address any of the issues raised above.

Fundamentally, Thomas Road does not as stated, “pass through location 1346”. Rather Thomas Road is contiguous to the northern boundary of location 1346 and accordingly does not have any adverse or negative impacts on the applicant’s farming operations.

The applicant has failed to comply with local laws to fence the northern boundary of location 1346 to prevent stock straying onto Thomas Road, such failure causing difficulty for adjoining farming operations on account of straying stock.

Further it is denied that closure of Thomas Road will not “interfere with access in any way for fires or any other persons farming activities”. I repeat paragraphs 2 and 3 above and restate that closure of Thomas Road will not only impact the immediate users of Thomas Road but will also negatively impact the ratepayers and wider community as set out above.

The application does not fall within a Council policy for road closures.

Council’s Application

The Council’s application to close a larger portion of Thomas Road than applied for in the Vandenburghe application is inconsistent with Council’s adopted procedure for road closures and accordingly could be ultra vires.

Council’s application is not founded under a Council policy for road closures and does not consider safety, usage, financial, LPS 23 requirements, future needs and wider community benefit of Thomas Road remaining a public road. Closure of any portion of Thomas Road fails the public interest test.

I welcome the opportunity to address Council on any of the issues raised herein.

Yours faithfully,

J J L Vermeersch

cc. to all Councillors

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 42

Item: 8.1.2

Proposed Local Planning Policy - Industrial precinct Design Guidelines

Author/s	Douglas Fotheringham	Manager Planning Services
Authorisor/s	Richard Hindley	Director Development Services

File Ref: OAP.14

Applicant

Internal – Planning Services

Location/Address

The Policy Area is shown below.

Executive Summary

To consider the adoption of the Draft Local Planning Policy – Industrial Precinct Design Guidelines. Implementing the policy can ensure that new development on the main entrances to town improves the character and setting of the area, and enhances Esperance’s reputation as an attractive place to live, work and visit. The draft policy was advertised for 21 days by notifying 110 affected landowners, advertising in the Esperance Express and by making it available on the website. Two objections were received. The policy was then workshopped with Councillors and Officers have made some minor changes in accordance with the advice received.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council adopt draft Local Planning Policy: Industrial Precinct Design Guidelines as per Clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 23 (LPS 23), and advertise the adopted policy as required under Clause 2.4.3 of LPS 23.

Background

Following advertising, the Council considered the Draft Policy at its August meetings, where it was resolved to lay the policy on the table to allow Officers to workshop the policy with Councillors. During the Workshop Councillors considered the policy and suggested some minor changes.

Officer’s Comment

Since the August meetings and the October Workshop, the Draft Policy has been modified in accordance with the advice of Councillors. The most significant changes are:

· that applicants are now only encouraged (rather than required) to utilise colours from the Colour Palette;

· advice boxes have been improved to better explain some of the design requirements;

· exceptions to the front setback parking provisions have been expanded; and

· the perimeter fencing provisions have been relaxed.

Adoption of the policy by the Council is recommended. If adopted, Officers will advertise this fact, as required by the Local Planning Scheme.

Consultation

N/A

Financial Implications

The costs associated with advertising of the Local Planning Policy in accordance with the provisions of LPS 23 were provided for in the 2011/2012 Budget.

Asset Management Implications

N/A

Statutory Implications

Local Planning Scheme No. 23

Planning and Development Act 2005

Local Government Act 1995

Policy Implications

Regular review of policies is appropriate to ascertain relevance with current Council direction and compliance with any legislative requirements.

Local Planning Policies are guidelines used to assist the local government in making decisions under the Local Planning Scheme and may address land use as well as requirements. Although Local Planning Policies are not part of the Local Planning Scheme they must be consistent with, and cannot vary, the intent of the Local Planning Scheme provisions, including the Residential Design Codes. In considering an application for Planning Approval, the local government must have due regard to relevant Local Planning Policies as required under Clause 10.2 of the Local Planning Scheme.

Strategic Implications

SuperTowns Growth Plan

The Policy meets the aims to improve the main entrances to town.

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

Service Delivery – Through benchmarking, community consultation and continual improvement, aim for a standard of services and service delivery that is assured of quality, innovation and consistency.

Environmental Considerations

There are no perceived environmental considerations associated with the proposed Policy.

Attachments

a View.

Draft Industrial Precinct Design Guidelines

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

1. Adopt Local Planning Policy: Industrial Precinct Design Guidelines (Attachment A) in accordance with Clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 23; and

2. Advertise the adopted policy as required under Clause 2.4.3 of LPS 23.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 55

Item: 8.1.3

Proposed Sea Container in Residential Zone

Author/s	Ashwin Nair	Town Planner
Authorisor/s	Richard Hindley	Director Development Services

File Ref: HOC1/039

Applicant

Tim Phoebe

Location/Address

Lot 294 (39) Hockey Place, West Beach

Executive Summary

To provide Council with information to consider and determine an application for a sea container on a residential lot. The proposal is to clad a sea container in blue corrugated tin and in addition construct a pitched roof to resemble an outbuilding. The applicant wishes to store a collector’s car within the transformed sea container. The applicant was advised by Development Services that Local Planning Policy pertaining to Sea Containers does not permit sea containers on ‘Residential’ land and Council permission is required. No objections were received by adjoining landowners for the proposal. Approval is recommended by Shire officers as the proposal will not detract from the streetscape or visual amenity of residents.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council approve Development Application 10.2012.02101.1 for a sea container at Lot 294 (39) Hockey Place, West Beach subject to conditions.

Background

Development application 10.2012.02101.1 was submitted on the 16^th of October 2012. The application is to transform a 15m²sea container into an outbuilding for storage purposes (plans are attached at Attachment A).

The lot is zoned Residential R/12.5 under the provisions of the Shire of Esperance Local Planning Scheme 23 and is approximately 757m² in size.

Council Policy for Sea Containers does not permit sea containers on ‘Residential’ land. However, the applicant has advised Development Services that the proposal is to transform a sea container into an outbuilding for storage purposes. The sea container will be clad with blue corrugated tin and have the addition of a pitched roof to resemble an outbuilding. Applicant justification for the proposal is Attachment B.

As the sea container will be used as an outbuilding for storage purposes it must be noted that the proposal complies with Council Policy for Outbuildings.

Development Services are supportive of the location of the transformed sea container (Outbuilding) within the front setback. The proposal will not detract from the streetscape or the visual amenity of residents. The topography of land towards the rear of the property slopes heavily towards Phillips Street making any development difficult.

The applicant has consulted adjoining neighbours of the proposal and has their signature of support as attachment C.

The application is referred to Council as the proposed development does not satisfy the objectives of Council Policy for sea containers.

Officer’s Comment

The following outlines the officer’s assessment of the most significant Council Policy provisions for Sea Containers and Outbuildings.

Provisions	Officer Comment
Sea Containers will only be considered in the following zones: Rural-Unsettled, Agriculture-General, Rural Small Holdings, Rural residential, Industry General, Industry business	Council Policy for sea containers does not permit sea containers in residential zoned land. However, the application is to transform the sea container into an outbuilding by cladding the exterior with corrugated tin and adding a pitched roof to finish the structure. Conditions can be added to the approval to ensure the transformed sea container must always have an appearance of an outbuilding.
Should not result in a detrimental impact on the amenity of the land or adjoining land or development	The proposed sea container will be transformed into an outbuilding with a corrugated tin exterior and a pitched roof. Although located in the primary street setback the proposal will not detract from the streetscape or the visual amenity of residents or neighbouring properties. The proposal is setback the required distance for an outbuilding as per the Residential Design Codes
Should not impinge on any boundary setbacks as per the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No.23,or be located in front of the building line or outside of a building envelope	The proposal meets all setbacks as per the Residential Design Codes
Must be in good repair with no visual rust marks; and where appropriate/relevant be of a uniform colour to complement the building to which it is ancillary	Conditions placed on the planning approval can control exterior appearance. The sea container will be transformed with a corrugated tin exterior and no part of the sea container will be visible
Providing for the legitimate garaging, storage and other domestic needs of people living in residential areas	Applicant has advised Development services that the transformed sea container will be used as an outbuilding to store a collectors vehicle.
Minimising the adverse impacts outbuildings may have on the amenity (peace and quiet), appearance and character or residential neighbourhoods, and on neighbours	The subject site slopes heavily towards the rear of the lot. Any further development on the lot will most likely be located within the primary street setback as it is flat. The outbuilding will be behind a wooden fence and will have an appearance of a garage. As the applicant needs storage for a collectors car it appropriate for the structure to be located in its proposed location as to access the existing driveway

Consultation

Neighbour referral was undertaken by the land owner to abutting properties who have all signed a letter of non objection (Attachment C) to the proposal

Financial Implications

Nil

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Nil

Policy Implications

Council Policy-Sea Containers

Council Policy-Outbuildings

Strategic Implications

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

67. Aim to ensure that all development in the Shire of Esperance is carried out in a way that is sustainable

74. Ensure that intrusive or intensive land developments do not occur without thorough scrutiny and an appropriate approval process

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a View.	Site Plan
b View.	Applicants Justification
c View.	Non Objections

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council approve Development Application 10.2012.02101 submitted by Tim Phoebe for a proposed sea container (transformed into an outbuilding) on Lot 294 (39) Hockey Place, West Beach subject to the following conditions:

1. Development shall be carried out and fully implemented in accordance with the details indicated on the stamped approved plan(s) unless otherwise required or agreed in writing by the Shire of Esperance (Planning Services).

2. The approved sea container shall be used for purposes incidental and ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling on the land only, and shall not be used for human habitation, commercial or industrial uses.

3. All stormwater and drainage run off from all roofed and impervious areas is to be retained on-site to the satisfaction of the Shire of Esperance (Building Services).

4. The provision of all services, including augmentation of existing services, necessary as a consequence of any proposed development shall be at the cost of the developer and at no cost to the Shire of Esperance.

5. The works involved in the implementation of the development must not cause sand drift and/or dust nuisance. In the event that the Shire of Esperance is aware of, or is made aware of, the existence of a dust problem, measures such as installation of sprinklers, use of water tanks, mulching, or other land management systems as appropriate may be required to be installed or implemented to prevent or control dust nuisance, and such measures shall be installed or implemented within the time and manner directed by the Shire of Esperance (Environmental Health Services).

6. During construction stage, adjoining lots are not to be disturbed without the prior written consent of the affected owner(s).

7. The materials to be used on the external surfaces of the proposed sea container shall complement the existing building material used in the construction of the existing building to the satisfaction of the Shire of Esperance (Planning Services).

8. The proposed sea container must be in good repair at all times with no visual rust marks

AND the following advice notes:

1. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that building setbacks correspond with the legal description of the land. This may necessitate re-surveying and re- pegging the site. The Shire of Esperance will take no responsibility for incorrectly located buildings.

2. It is the responsibility of the developer to search the title of the property to ascertain the presence of any easements and/or restrictive covenants that may apply.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 65

Item: 8.1.4

Local Planning Scheme No. 23 - Amendment No. 12

Author/s	Peter Wilks	Town Planner
Authorisor/s	Richard Hindley	Director Development Services

File Ref: TPS23/AM12

Applicant

Whelans Town Planning

Location/Address

Duke of Orleans Caravan Park – Part Lot 1 & Lot 5 Wharton Rd, Condingup

Executive Summary

To consider initiating Amendment 12 to Local Planning Scheme No. 23 for the rezoning of Part Lot 1 & Lot 5 Wharton Rd, Condingup from ‘Tourist’ to ‘Special Use 5’. This proposal is derived from previous Council resolutions (January 2011 and February 2012) to defer a request to remove a restrictive covenant from the lots and consider a Scheme Amendment. The covenant prevents the lots from being used for any purpose other than as a ‘Special Site – Caravan Park’. The proposed Amendment is broadly consistent with the Local Planning Strategy, subject to demonstrating that service provision is adequate and potential environmental impacts are acceptable.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council resolve to initiate Amendment 12.

Background

The former reserve which contained the Duke of Orleans Caravan Park (Lots 1 and 5) was converted to freehold title in 1999 with a restrictive covenant placed under s15 of the Land Administration Act to protect the site as a ‘Special Site – Caravan Park’ in perpetuity.

The policy at the time of the freeholding of the site provided general direction to:

· Encourage private enterprise to develop caravan parks by offering secure tenure.

· Ensure that appropriate levels of caravan park accommodation are maintained throughout the State.

· Provide for Crown land, which contains strategic tourist accommodation, to be retained as a community asset.

· To protect public access to foreshores where freehold is contemplated of coastal and river line caravan parks.

· Consult with Local Government, Tourism and Planning.

· Ensure appropriate safeguards are placed on freehold title over a strategic site to retain its use as a caravan park.

In accordance with the above principles a restrictive covenant was placed on the site as part of the freeholding process restricting the use of the site to ‘Special Site – Caravan Park’.

The Shire was approached by the Department of Regional Development and Lands following a request to modify the restrictive covenant from the land owner and their representative. To facilitate the expansion of the development on the site to include permanent residential requires the restrictive covenant to be removed from those portions of the site.

At the Ordinary Meeting held on 25 January 2011, Council resolved (O0111-1552):

That Council defer the consideration of the request until such time as a Scheme Amendment has been formally advertised and brought back to Council for consideration of Final Approval. The Scheme Amendment is to cover all issues raised in this report in addition to all statutory requirements. Considering the removal of the covenant at this stage will ensure that adequate community and servicing agency comments have been received prior to a decision being made.

The Amendment Document was subsequently submitted to Planning Services for consideration as part of the process to vary the covenant.

The draft amendment was considered by Council at the Ordinary Meeting held on 28 February 2012 where it was resolved (O0212-019(AP0212-002)):

That Council defers its decision until such time that the applicant can provide further details and to enable the proposal to be workshopped with Councillors and Officers, in order to fully explore the servicing issues.

Significant discussions have been undertaken with Shire Engineering and Planning Staff to facilitate the reconsideration of the amendment by Council. The Amendment Document has been modified to address servicing issues. Section 7.1 in particular makes reference to the upgrade of Orleans Bay Road:

7.1 Prior to the issue of planning approval for the development of the lots contained within SU5, the developer(s) will agree to make a financial contribution to the necessary road upgrades on Orleans Bay Road, to the satisfaction of the Shire of Esperance.

The size of the contribution required as a result of the development has been identified as one third of the cost of the required upgrade works.

Officer’s Comment

Lots 1 & 5 (Reserve 35132) Wharton Rd, Condingup have a combined size of 13.8 hectares and are freehold lots with a zoning of ‘Tourist’.

The subject land is located at the southern extent of Orleans Bay Road and is surrounded by land zoned ‘Reserve – Parks, Recreation and Conservation – Local’.

The site is located in Precinct 56 – Condingup and has a designation of ‘Tourist Node’.

The applicable objectives, strategies and actions of the Precinct are to ensure the sustainable development of tourist nodes within the precinct by supporting modest expansion of tourist accommodation at Duke of Orleans or Wharton recognising the strategic nature of the site for tourism uses.

The proposed rezoning of the site will facilitate the creation of 40 residential lots, a 1.77 hectare resort lot, 1.81 hectares of short stay accommodation and the retention of the Caravan Park site on a 6.08 hectare site (See Attachment C).

Initiation of the proposed amendment means that Council will forward the proposal to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the assessment of potential environmental impacts. Once the EPA has provided advice and any requirements have been satisfied (if any), the Amendment will be advertised. When advertised all relevant referral agencies will be able to fully assess the servicing issues and potential environmental impacts. The public will also have the opportunity to comment during the advertising period of 42 days.

Whilst the proposed Amendment will result in the intensification of land use, development and human activity it is considered to be generally consistent with the Local Planning Strategy.

The proposal will not result in the expansion of the Wharton Townsite, and Action 4 of sub-clause 6.11 of the Local Planning Strategy supports holiday accommodation and permanent residences in this location with all urban services provided. The applicants have submitted a report and other supporting documentation demonstrating how the development will be serviced. It should be noted that servicing of the development is the developer/s responsibility both under this amendment and any future subdivision application.

A full copy of the amendment document is available on request.

Consultation

A mandatory 42 day advertising period applies for Scheme Amendments. This advertising will include referral to relevant government departments and servicing agencies and will commence on receipt of comments from the EPA.

Financial Implications

As a result of the proposal, Orleans Bay Road will require upgrading. The total cost of this upgrading has been estimated at approximately $2.4 million which will be split between the Shire and developers along Orleans Bay Road.

Based on the identified upgrade cost the proponent will be responsible for a contribution of $800,000.

The Shire is seeking to submit Orleans Bay Road to the Regional Road Group which will enable the Shire to source funding for its component of the upgrade cost.

Asset Management Implications

The proposal will require the upgrading of Orleans Bay Road. The amendment now obligates the developer to make a financial contribution to the upgrade of Orleans Bay Road.

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications associated with this item are:

· Planning and Development Act 2005

· Town Planning Regulations 1967

· Local Planning Scheme No. 23

Policy Implications

There are no policy implications relating to this item.

Strategic Implications

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

67. Aim to ensure that all development in the Shire of Esperance is carried out in a way that is sustainable.

69. Encourage, support and promote the development of infrastructure, services and events that enhance the Esperance region as a tourist destination

72. Ensure the adequate and timely availability of land and services to meet the future needs of the town of Esperance.

Local Planning Strategy

Sub-clause 6.11 (Coastal, Foreshore and Islands):

Strategy F: Support expansion of the Wharton Townsite with servicing to be from Condingup and camping and caravan facilities to be provided at the Duke of Orleans Caravan Park.

Action 4: Support new residential development at Wharton for holiday accommodation and permanent residences with all urban services provided and having a Holiday Village feel. A concept plan to be adopted providing a mix of residential and commercial/fishermen lots and a corner store.

Precinct 56 – Condingup:

Recognises that further expansion of the Wharton Townsite is constrained by lack of water supply and other services.

Development of an expanded Wharton Townsite to provide residential development for holiday accommodation and permanent residences would require all urban services to be provided and have a “Holiday Village feel”.

Environmental Considerations

There are no known environmental considerations arising from the recommendations of this report.

Attachments

a View.	Amendment Provisions
b View.	Proposed Amended Scheme Maps
c View.	Subdivision Guide Plan

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, resolve to:

1) Initiate Local Planning Scheme No. 23 – Amendment No. 12

2) Amendment Local Planning Scheme No. 23 by:

a) Reclassifying portions of Lot 1 on Deposited Plan 182598 and Lot 5 on Deposited Plan 187874 from “Tourist” to “Special Use” zone,

b) Including the specified land and related special provisions within Schedule 4 of the Scheme Text, and;

c) Amending the Scheme Maps accordingly.

3) Refer Amendment 12 to the EPA under Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

4) Determine that Local Planning Scheme No. 23 – Amendment No. 12 is consistent with the criteria listed under Section 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations and resolve to proceed to advertising of the amendment for public inspection after referral to the EPA.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 77

Item: 8.1.5

Local Planning Scheme No. 23 Amendment 13 - Final Approval

Author/s	Peter Wilks	Town Planner
Authorisor/s	Richard Hindley	Director Development Services

File Ref: F12/3738

Applicant

Whelans Town Planning

Location/Address

Lot 100 Coolgardie-Esperance Highway, Monjingup

Executive Summary

To consider granting Final Approval for Amendment 13 to Local Planning Scheme No. 13 for the rezoning of Lot 100 Coolgardie-Esperance Highway, Monjingup from “Agriculture – General” to “Rural Smallholdings”.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council resolve to grant Final Approval to Amendment 13 and forward the Amendment No. 13 documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission seeking final approval by the Hon. Minister for Planning.

Background

At its Ordinary Meeting held on 24 July 2012, Council resolved (O0712-069(AP0712-049)):

“That Council, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 resolve to:

1. Initiate Local Planning Scheme No. 23 – Amendment No 13.

2. Amend Local Planning Scheme No. 23 by:

a. Amending the scheme map by rezoning Lot 100 Coolgardie-Esperance Highway, Myrup to Rural Smallholdings as depicted on the amendment Map

3. Refer Amendment 13 to the EPA under Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

4. Determine that Local Planning Scheme No. 23 – Amendment No. 13 is consistent with the criteria listed under Section 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations and resolve to proceed to advertising of the amendment for public inspection after referral to the EPA.”

Officer’s Comment

In accordance with Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, Local Planning Scheme No. 23 (LPS 23) Amendment No. 13 was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for a determination to be made under Section 48A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

The EPA advised the Shire of Esperance via letter dated 15 August 2012 that after consideration of the LPS 23 Amendment No. 13 documentation, that the proposed scheme amendment was not required to be assessed under Part IV Division 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and that it was not necessary to provide any advice or recommendations on the Scheme Amendment.

Upon receiving the advice from the EPA, LPS 23 Amendment No. 13 was advertised for public comment in accordance with the provisions of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and the Planning and Development Act 2005. The advertising on the 26 October 2012 being a period of 42 days; advertising commenced, with the following advertising mediums being undertaken:

· Advertising notice in the Esperance Express – 14 September 2012;

· Two (2) ‘Notice of Public Advertisement of Scheme Amendment’ sign on-site;

· Amendment documentation being available via the Shire of Esperance’s website; and

· Referral letters to the Department of Environment and Conservation, Water Corporation, Department of Health, Main Roads, Horizon Power, FESA, Department of Indigenous Affairs, Department of Water, Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia Planning Commission and Telstra.

At the close of the advertising period a total of seven (7) submissions were received – all submissions were from servicing and government agencies supporting the amendment.

A full copy of Amendment No. 13 is available upon request.

Consultation

LPS 23 Amendment No. 13 was advertised for public comment in accordance with the provisions of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and the Planning and Development Act 2005.

Financial Implications

There are no known Financial implications arising from the recommendations of this report.

Asset Management Implications

There are no known Asset Management implications arising from the recommendations of this report.

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications associated with this item are:

· Planning and Development Act 2005

· Town Planning Regulations 1967

· Local Planning Scheme No. 23

Policy Implications

The policy implications arising from this report are:

· Local Planning Strategy

Strategic Implications

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

67. Aim to ensure that all development in the Shire of Esperance is carried out in a way that is sustainable

72. Ensure the adequate and timely availability of land and services to meet the future needs of the town of Esperance

Environmental Considerations

As per Department of Water advice, a Foreshore Management Plan will be required at Subdivision Stage for the rehabilitation, remediation and protection of wetlands on the property and in proximity to the property.

As per Department of Agriculture and Food advice, an Acid Sulphate Soils survey will be required at Subdivision Stage.

Attachments

a View.	Schedule of Submissions
b View.	Resolution Page of Amendment No. 13
c View.	Subdivision Guide Plan
d View.	Rezoning Maps

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

1) Note the submissions received in relation to Local Planning Scheme No. 23 Amendment No. 13.

2) Adopts Local Planning Scheme No. 23 Amendment no. 13 for final approval without modification, by:

a) Amending the scheme map by rezoning Lot 100 Coolgardie-Esperance Highway, Monjingup to Rural Smallholdings as depicted on the Amendment Map.

3) Authorise the Shire President and Chief Executive Officer to execute Local Planning Scheme No. 23 Amendment No. 13 documentation for forwarding to the Western Australian Planning Commission seeking final approval by the Hon. Minister for Planning.

4) Advise the submitters of Council’s decision in relation to Local Planning Scheme No. 23 Amendment No. 13.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 87

Item: 8.1.6

Development Application - Unspecified Use - Truck Wash and Liquid Waste Collocation Facility

Author/s	Richard Hindley	Director Development Services
Authorisor/s	Richard Hindley	Director Development Services

File Ref: DD010.2012.00001987.001; MYR1/LT1885-03; R51287

Applicant

Shire of Esperance

Location/Address

Part Lot 1885 Myrup Road, Myrup (Reserve 51287)

Executive Summary

Council, at its October 2012 Ordinary Council Meeting accepted the Management Order for Reserve 51287. Based on tenure to this site being obtained development approval can be issued for the development of a collocated truck wash and liquid waste facility.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council approve development application 10.2012.1987.1 for an unspecified use being a Truck Wash and Liquid Waste Facility on Part Lot 1885 (Reserve 51287) Myrup Road, Myrup.

Background

During the December 2010 All Purpose Committee Meeting, Council resolved to support a collocated Liquid Waste Facility incorporating an improved Truck Wash Facility and new Liquid Waste facility. This would enable the closure of the liquid waste pond at the Wylie Bay Facility.

History shows that the Truck Wash was closed on 31^st December 2011.

Following significant consultation with the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), an Environmental Protection Notice was issued on 5^th June 2012 which allowed the Truck Wash to reopen once certain conditions were satisfied. On 12^th July 2012, the Shire received notification from DEC that the conditions had been met, and therefore the Myrup Truck Wash was reopened on 13^th July 2012.

The Environmental Protection Notice allows the Truck Wash to remain operational in its current state until 31^st January 2013.

Officer’s Comment

The Development Application has been brought before Council for consideration as the land tenure issues with the site have been resolved with the Shire now having control over Reserve 51287.

The Shire has outstanding Works Approval and Clearing Permit applications with DEC that are now being processed as a result of the resolution of the land tenure issues.

Consultation

The application was advertised with comments closing on the 15^th June 2012. No submissions were received.

Financial Implications

The Shire of Esperance committed up to $479,320 during the June 2011 All Purpose Committee Meeting to represent the cost of constructing a facility for the Shire’s Liquid Waste collection and processing requirements only.

Funding has been announced from the Department of Agriculture and Food for $520,000.

Funds are also likely to be received from the Country Local Government Fund component of Royalties for Regions for $350,000.

A further contribution of $100,000 of in-kind support has been allocated by the farming community.

Asset Management Implications

The Truck Wash and Liquid Waste Facility will fall under the Shire of Esperance asset management hierarchy.

Statutory Implications

Local Planning Scheme No. 23

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

Waste Management – Manage waste in a manner that is environmentally sustainable and meets the expectations of the community

61. Aim for excellence in waste management and recycling

Environmental Considerations

The proposed use is in a Prescribed Category under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and as such is the subject of a Works Approval.

Attachments

a View.

Development Site Plan

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council approve development application 10.2012.1987.1 for an unspecified use being a Collocated Truck Wash and Liquid Waste Facility on Part Lot 1885 (Reserve 51287) Myrup Road, Myrup, subject to the following condition:

1) Development shall be generally in accordance with the approved plans. The development shown on the approved plans is not to be altered or amended without the prior written consent of the Shire of Esperance (Planning Services).

And the following advice notes:

1) Compliance with the requirements of the appropriate Statutory Authorities.

2) If the development the subject of this approval is not substantially commenced within a period of ten years from the date of this approval, the approval shall lapse and be of no further affect.

3) Where an approval has so lapsed, no development shall be carried out without the further approval of the local government having first been sought and obtained.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 91

8.2 ENGINEERING SERVICES

Item: 8.2.1

RFQ 13-12 Replacement of a Multi Wheel Roller

Author/s	Neil Williams	Manager Engineering Assets
Authorisor/s	Gavin Harris	Director Engineering Services

File Ref: F12/3857

Applicant

Internal

Location/Address

Engineering

Executive Summary

To consider quotations for the Supply, Delivery and Licensing of One New 2012 Pneumatic Tyred Road Roller utilising trade in of the Shire’s existing 2002 Bomag Road Roller and the outright purchase offers received in relation to a WALGA disposal tender.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council accept the quotation RFQ 13-12 from Tutt Bryant Equipment for the supply delivery and licensing of one Bomag BW25RH Road Roller and trade in the Shire’s existing 2002 Bomag Road Roller.

Background

The WALGA Preferred Supplier System was used to obtain quotes from the three (3) providers of rollers being Tutt Byrant, Westrac and Atlas Copco.

WALGA was engaged to run tenders for the disposal of the Shire’s existing roller which was advertised on Wednesday the 22^nd August, 2012 and closed Wednesday 29^th August, 2012. No tenders were received for the outright purchase under the WALGA disposal tender RTF 30-12.

All three (3) companies supplied quotations to replace the roller including trade changeover figures.

Tenders were evaluated with the following criteria:

Description of Qualitative Criteria	Weighting
Whole of Life Costs	50%
Mechanical Assessment	30%
Provision of Service Abilities	10%
Operator Assessment	10%

The assessment matrix (below) allows the tenders / quotations to be evaluated in an unbiased manner where by the supplier with the highest overall points may be considered to be the most advantageous quotation. This is to be used as a guide only during the assessment and is not necessarily binding.

Officer’s Comment

Shire staff evaluated the machinery from the supplied technical information, photos, internet, discussion with the various sales representatives and previous experience.

Assessment

Company	Tutt Bryant	Westrac	Atlas Copco
Make and Model	Bomag BW25RH	Caterpillar CW34	Dynapac CP224
Score	87.70	88.95	83.30

From the above table the company with the best score based on the assessment criteria is Westrac however the result is close with Tutt Bryant. It is difficult to justify spending an additional $33,937 for the Caterpillar and on that basis the preferred supplier is Tutt Bryant.

Consultation

Workshop Supervisor

Construction Supervisor

Plant Operators

Company Representatives

WALGA

Financial Implications

Council has allocated $115,000 (excluding gst) net changeover in its 2012/13 Budget. The net changeover for this roller is $13,000 (excluding gst) over budget. The over budget is due to the price being higher than the estimated price for the replacement plant item. The over budget amount may be funded through under budget results associated with other heavy plant purchases.

Asset Management Implications

It is important to ensure that fleet is changed over at the optimal time where by a suitable trade value is obtained while limiting the need to undertake significant maintenance on plant prior to trading. This ensures that Council keeps a modern, up to date fleet that is capable of undertaking the significant work required within the Shire of Esperance.

Statutory Implications

Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 Part 4 and Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

85. Maintain and endeavour to increase road maintenance and construction funding and develop plans for the stable and predictable allocation of resources over the long term

a) Base road construction and maintenance decisions on identified priorities under the road hierarchy system adopted for rural road network within the Shire.

b) Utilise and continuously improve best practise methodology to optimise the utilisation of plant/equipment, resources and materials in road construction and the preservation of the Shire’s road asset.

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a .

RFQ 13-12 Heavy Plant Price Comparison - Confidential - Under Separate Cover

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council accept quotation RFQ13-12 from Tutt Byrant for the Supply, Delivery and Licensing of One New 2012 Pneumatic Tyred Road Roller utilising trade in of the Shire’s Existing 2002 Bomag Road Roller, Registration E26938, Shire ID MR15, Plant ID. 99007.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 94

Item: 8.2.2

RFQ 15-12 Replacement of a Single Axle Truck

Author/s	Neil Williams	Manager Engineering Assets
Authorisor/s	Gavin Harris	Director Engineering Services

File Ref: F12/3858

Applicant

Internal

Location/Address

Engineering

Executive Summary

To consider quotations for the Supply, Delivery and Licensing of One New 2012 Single Axle Tip Truck (approx 15T GVM) utilising trade in of the Shire’s Existing 2005 Hino Ranger Pro 9 and the outright purchase offers received in relation to a WALGA initiated disposal tender.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council accept the quotation RFQ 15-12 from Daimler Trucks Perth for the supply delivery and licensing of one Mitsubishi Fuso Fighter and trade in the Shire’s Existing 2005 Hino Ranger Pro 9, Single Axle Tip Truck. Also Council not accept the outright purchase offers from West Coast Profilers and Pickles Auctions under WALGA disposal tender RFT 031-12.

Background

The WALGA Preferred Supplier System was used to obtain quotes from the three (3) providers of trucks being Daimler Trucks Perth, Albany City Isuzu Trucks and WA Hino.

WALGA was engaged to run tenders for the disposal of the Shire’s existing truck which was advertised on Wednesday the 5^th September, 2012 and closed Friday 14^th September, 2012. Two tenders were received for the outright purchase of the truck. Where the tendered prices did represent best value to the shire, the outright purchase offers were considered in the evaluation process.

All three (3) companies supplied quotations to replace the trucks including trade changeover figures.

Tenders were evaluated with the following criteria:

Description of Qualitative Criteria	Weighting
Whole of Life Costs	50%
Mechanical Assessment	30%
Provision of Service Abilities	10%
Operator Assessment	10%

The assessment matrix (below) allows the tenders / quotations to be evaluated in an unbiased manner where the supplier with the highest overall points may be considered to be the most advantageous quotation. This is to be used as a guide only during the assessment and is not necessarily binding.

Officer’s Comment

Shire staff evaluated the machinery from the supplied technical information, photos, internet, discussion with the various sales representatives and previous experience.

Assessment

Company	Daimler Trucks Perth	Albany City Isuzu Trucks	WA Hino
Make and Model	Mitsubishi Fuso Fighter	Isuzu FTR Medium	Hino FG 1628
Score	86.49	84.80	84.51

From the above table the company with the best score based on the assessment criteria is Daimler Trucks Perth and is the preferred truck. The outright purchase tenders did not represent best value for the Shire.

Consultation

Workshop Supervisor

Construction Supervisor

Plant Operators

Company Representatives

WALGA

Financial Implications

Council has allocated $90,000 (ex GST) net changeover in its 2012/13 Budget. The net changeover for this truck is $10,470 (ex GST) under budget.

Asset Management Implications

Statutory Implications

Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 Part 4 and Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

85. Maintain and endeavour to increase road maintenance and construction funding and develop plans for the stable and predictable allocation of resources over the long term

a) Base road construction and maintenance decisions on identified priorities under the road hierarchy system adopted for rural road network within the Shire.

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

RFQ 15-12 Heavy Plant Budget Quotation Comparison - Confidential - Under Separate Cover

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

1. Accept quotation RFQ15-12 from Daimler Trucks Perth for the supply delivery and licensing of one (1) new Mitsubishi Fuso Fighter 1627 - FM65FH2RFAH as specified and trade in the Shire’s existing 2005 Hino Ranger Pro 9, Registration E21221, Shire ID T88, Plant ID 62010

And;

2. Not accept the outright purchase offers from Pickles Auctions and West Coast Profilers under the WALGA disposal tender RFT 031-12.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 97

8.3 CORPORATE SERVICES

Item: 8.3.1

FESA Fire Station and SES Site

Author/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: OAF.10-08

Applicant

Fire and Emergency Services Authority (FESA)

Location/Address

The existing fire station is located on the corner of Forrest and Windich Streets.

The existing SES site comprises 2 lots on Norseman Road.

Executive Summary

This report is seeking Council approval to finalise the land acquisition and demolition of the old Fire Station on the corner of Forrest and Windich Streets and approve the land disposal and demolition of the SES site on Norseman Road as part of the Shires commitment to the new Co-location facility that was constructed on Brazier Street.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council:

1. Agree to accept $75,600 from FESA to demolish buildings and levelling of lots 161 and 162 Norseman Road, Esperance.

2. Agree to transfer the SES property as vacant land at lots 161 and 162 Norseman Road Esperance to FESA.

3. Agree to accept $109,266 from FESA for recognition of work performed by the Shire on the new Co-location facility and to demolish the old Fire Station on the corner of Forrest and Windich Streets, Esperance.

4. Accept the old Fire Station site as vacant land on the corner of Forrest and Windich Streets Esperance.

5. Authorise the use of the common seal to execute any transfer of land documents in relation to the land acquisition and disposal.

Background

In June 2005, Council received a report concerning the signing of an MOU between the Shire, FESA, and the various volunteer emergency service organisations within Esperance, which would facilitate the construction of a new Emergency Services Co-location Facility (on Brazier Street). The MOU was subsequently executed and the Facility is now operational. The key financial ramification was that Council, in signing the MOU, agreed to the following financial contributions to FESA:

1. The net proceeds from the sale of the current SES site including land and buildings;

2. $20,000 site works at Brazier Street; and

3. $5,000 towards demolition costs associated with the removal of the existing fire station.

The fire station site was “given” to the WA Fire Brigades Board (now FESA) on 12 September 1972 through the execution of a Deed of Agreement, for the purpose of having a fire station constructed on that site, meaning the site is currently freehold in the name of FESA. The Deed prohibits FESA from using the site for any purpose other than that of a fire station, nor does it allow FESA to sell the lot to any party other than the Shire. As part of the construction of the new Emergency Services Co-location facility, the old fire station site was to be returned to the Shire as it was no longer operational

Following the decision by Council in June 2005 to execute the MOU as outlined above, the following resolutions have since been passed relating to this matter.

July 2006 C0706-6313

That Council;

1. Agrees to the surrender and /or assignment of its sub-lease with CBH for that portion of Reserve 16506 Brazier Street, site proposed for the new Emergency Services Facility in favour of the sub-lease being offered to Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA.

2. Agrees to make a minimum contribution to the construction of the Emergency Services Facility on the Brazier Street site of $300,000 consisting of $280,000 from the sale of the SES headquarters and $20,000 in earthworks.

3. Confirms that Fire and Emergency Services Authority will remove the existing Town Fire Station and return the vacant land to Council at no cost in accordance with the original deed of agreement.

It is unclear as to why a definitive dollar value contribution forms part of the resolution given the wording within the executed MOU speaks of net proceeds. Whilst the MOU is silent on the return of the existing fire station site, point 3 of the resolution above clearly indicates that the fire station is to be removed, and the site returned vacant to the Shire.

Following the above resolution, FESA requested a review of the decision, as “the sale proceeds of the SES site in Norseman Road was always regarded by FESA as part of the land swap arrangement for the current fire station site, and as such would like the Shire to reconsider providing FESA with the full sale benefits from the Norseman Road site.” This request was consistent with the original report presented in June 2005 where the MOU was executed.

A subsequent report was presented to Council in February 2007, where the following and final resolution in relation to this matter was passed (which is again consistent with the MOU):

February 2007 (C0207-6443)

That Council transfers the net sale proceeds from the sale of the SES property at lots 161 and 162 Norseman Road Esperance to FESA as its contribution to the Co-location Facility in Brazier Street, on condition that FESA returns the current fire station site to Council.

Officer’s Comment

With the co-location of emergency services into the new Brazier Street facility now complete, the Shire has initiated dialogue with FESA to recoup the existing fire station site. FESA has advised that ideally, the return of the fire station site and sale of the SES site/s would occur concurrently.

An analysis of the information above shows that the Shire’s final position in this regard is to:

1. Provide the net sale proceeds from the sale of the SES property at lots 161 and 162 Norseman Road Esperance to FESA as its contribution to the Co-location Facility in Brazier Street, on condition that FESA returns the current fire station site to Council;

2. Provide site works at the Brazier Street site to the value of $20,000; and

3. Provide $5,000 towards demolition costs associated with the removal of the existing fire station.

The final cost of the site works that was provided by the Shire of Esperance (SOE) to the Co-location facility on Brazier Street amounted to $82,866. As this amount is well over and above the amount of $20,000 that was provided, the intent being that the Shire will recoup the amount through the transfer of land transaction.

FESA have since advised that rather than sell the SES (as was the original intent) and gain the net sale proceeds, they wish to retain the SES site for any future development needs that may occur. There is no financial difference to the Shire between providing the net sale proceeds of the site or agreeing to transfer the site to FESA.

In addition to the above, FESA and the Shire together received quotes to demolish both the old Fire Station and SES building and add fill to the SES site to create a level vacant block.

Below is a table explaining the financial contributions that FESA will provide to the Shire with FESA retaining the SES site and the Shire being responsible for co-ordinating the demolition of both sites.

Description	$ Value
SOE contribution to co-located Facility	(20,000)
SOE contribution to demolish Fire Station Site	( 5,000)
Actual site works by SOE on Co-location facility	82,866
Quote for demolition of fire station site	51,400
Quote for demolition of SES site	36,000
Quote to backfill/level SES site	39,600
TOTAL	184,866

Provided Council agree with the transfer arrangement as proposed, FESA will gain the Ministers approval and the transfer of land documents can be prepared. FESA have obtained the Heritage Council’s sign-off on the demolition of the fire station in accordance with the Government Property Disposal process.

Consultation

FESA and VSA Property

Financial Implications

Although it is proposed that the Shire will receive $184,866 from FESA as part of the land swap arrangements, the majority of the costs will be utilised for demolition of buildings at the fire station and SES site. As part of the arrangement the Shire will also be recovering the costs that it incurred in site works for the co-located site whilst having its contributions to the co-located site and fire station site being recognised.

Asset Management Implications

Nil as the property that will be acquired is to be demolished.

Statutory Implications

Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 deals with the disposal of property and methods that can be used for its disposal although the Functions and General Regulations exempt this disposal from Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996

30. Dispositions of property excluded from Act s. 3.58

(1) A disposition that is described in this regulation as an exempt disposition is excluded from the application of section 3.58 of the Act.

(b) the land is disposed of to a body, whether incorporated or not —

(i) the objects of which are of a charitable, benevolent, religious, cultural, educational, recreational, sporting or other like nature; and

(ii) the members of which are not entitled or permitted to receive any pecuniary profit from the body’s transactions;

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

10. Maintain best practice in the management and coordination of rural and urban fire control in the Shire of Esperance

a) Continue to work with the State Government on the construction of a new collocation facility for SES/FESA

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

Nil

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

1) Agree to accept $75,600 from FESA to demolish buildings and levelling of lots 161 and 162 Norseman Road, Esperance.

2) Agree to transfer the SES property as vacant land at lots 161 and 162 Norseman Road Esperance to FESA.

3) Agree to accept $109,266 from FESA for recognition of work performed by the Shire on the new Co-location facility and to demolish the old Fire Station on the corner of Forrest and Windich Streets, Esperance.

4) Accept the old Fire Station site as vacant land on the corner of Forrest and Windich Streets Esperance.

5) Authorise the use of the common seal to execute any transfer of land documents in relation to the land acquisition and disposal.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Item: 8.3.2

Leases Extension - Sinclair House - Museum Village

Author/s	Annette Slade	Manager Administration Services
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: LR46

Applicant

Amanda & Geoff Thomas trading as E.S.P.

Location/Address

Portion of Lot 60 on Reserve 2815, which is described as Sinclair House.

Executive Summary

Mr & Mrs Thomas have leased Sinclair House since 1 March 2006, and run a successful retail business trading as E.S.P. Their Lease expired on 14 April 2012 and they have requested to extend their lease.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council, subject to the approval of the Minister of Lands, agrees to lease to Amanda and Geoff Thomas a portion of Lot 60 on Reserve 2815, described as Sinclair House, for a period of 5 years with another option of 5 years.

Background

Mr & Mrs Thomas were assigned the lease of Sinclair House on 1 March 2006 where they have retail such items as shoes, bags, sunglasses (particularly for children), designer jewellery, fashion accessories, gifts (personalised T-Shirts, wooden toys, mobiles) and Simmo cornet ice-cream.

Officer’s Comment

This business draws a considerable number of customers and visitors to the Museum Village, and is a good asset to this infrastructure.

Consultation

Nil

Financial Implications

Leases for properties in the Museum Village provide the surety of commercial rental income streams. There are financial implications as this building falls within the building hierarchy as a commercial building and therefore the Shire is responsible for the maintenance of the building.

Asset Management Implications

There are asset management implications as this building falls within the building hierarchy as a commercial building and therefore the Shire is responsibility for maintenance of the building.

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications associated with this item are :-

Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 deals with the disposal of property and methods that can be used:

3.58 Disposing of property;

(1) In this section —

dispose includes to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of, whether absolutely or not;

property includes the whole or any part of the interest of a local government in property, but does not include money.

(2) Except as stated in this section, a local government can only dispose of property to —

(a) the highest bidder at public auction; or

(b) the person who at public tender called by the local government makes what is, in the opinion of the local government, the most acceptable tender, whether or not it is the highest tender.

(3) A local government can dispose of property other than under subsection (2) if, before agreeing to dispose of the property —

(a) it gives local public notice of the proposed disposition —

(i) describing the property concerned; and

(ii) giving details of the proposed disposition; and

(iii) inviting submissions to be made to the local government before a date to be specified in the notice, being a date not less than 2 weeks after the notice is first given; and

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

(4) The details of a proposed disposition that are required by subsection (3)(a)(ii) include —

(a) the names of all other parties concerned; and

(b) the consideration to be received by the local government for the disposition; and

(i) as ascertained by a valuation carried out not more than 6 months before the proposed disposition; or

(ii) as declared by a resolution of the local government on the basis of a valuation carried out more than 6 months before the proposed disposition that the local government believes to be a true indication of the value at the time of the proposed disposition.

Policy Implications

This item relates to Council Policy CORP 004 for Building and Property Leases.

The Building and Property Lease Policy determines property classifications that can be applied to all Council’s property providing for consistency in leased documentation and equity in terms and conditions within the various property classifications. This policy also aims to clarify the role and responsibilities between the Lessor (Shire) and Lessee on matters replating to cleaning, internal and external property maintenance.

The applicable classification for this item is:

Commercial Premises – Open Market which covers the lease for Sinclair House requires that market rental be determined by valuation with individual rental as determined by Council.

The last commercial rental valuation for the Museum Village was implemented in 2008. There is due to be a new valuation performed in early 2013. The lease for this property has been calculated on 2008 rent per m², plus CPI increases.

Strategic Implications

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

No. 26 (f) Review and refine all leases and other contracts relating to leisure services and facilities, as they come due, to ensure they are uniform, equitable and easy to understand.

Environmental Considerations

Nil

ATTACH

Attachments

Nil - Under Separate Cover

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

Subject to the approval of the Minister of Lands, agrees to lease to Amanda & Geoff Thomas portion of Lot 60 on Reserve 2815, described as Sinclair House, subject to the following:

a) The term of lease to be 5 years, with an additional option of 5 years.

b) The lease rental be $4,722.24 per annum, payable in 12 equal monthly payments.

c) The lease area is to be a portion of Lot 60 on Reserve 2815 described as ‘Sinclair House’ and defined in the lease and displayed clearly in an attachment to the lease document.

d) That all lease terms and conditions be as per Council adopted Standard Commercial Lease.

e) Will be advertised in accordance with Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 for Disposal of Property.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 105

Item: 8.3.3

Lease - Railway Station Masters Ticket Office - Museum Village

Author/s	Annette Slade	Manager Administration Services
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: B144

Applicants

Belinda Perry

Tom & Susie Druce

Location/Address

Portion of Lot 103 on Reserve 2815.

Executive Summary

A number of leases have recently expired, or due to expire, and submissions have been received to lease the Railway Station Masters Ticket Office. Council approval is required to enter into new leases.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council, subject to the approval of the Minister of Lands, agrees to lease to Tommy & Susie Druce a portion of Lot 103 on Reserve 2815 described as Railway Station Masters Ticket Office for a period of 2 years with an additional option of 2 years.

Background

The Railway Station Masters Ticket Office has been empty for some time now as the building is not suitable for a lot of enterprises. The Shire has recently received 2 submissions to lease the building.

Belinda Perry

Belinda’s submission was for a ‘Ye Old Colonial Devonshire Tearoom’ to provide locals and visitors with a comfortable and affordable tea/coffee and cake experience, both in the Ticket Office and on the surrounding paving, all in old colonial Australian surroundings in keeping with the Museum Village theme. The submission stated that the Tearoom, for the first 12 months, would only trade on Sundays from 7am to 4pm, except for December and January it would be open 7 days per week.

There is a major issue with this proposal, there is no running water or drainage at the premises. Ms Perry has stated that all foods sold would be pre-packaged and the drinks would be made from Gibson Soak Water feed via a pump to the coffee machine. Waste water would be fed into removable drums. All beverages and food would be served in disposable containers with disposable utensils, thus requiring no washing water. All refuse created by the enterprise would be removed at the end of each trading day.

If successful in the first year, Ms Perry offered, at her own expense, to have installed running water and drainage to the building so that she could trade on weekdays.

Further information can be read in the attached submission.

Tommy & Susie Druce

Tommy & Susie Druce manufacture high quality ceramic and wooden bead crafts. The Druce’s have settled in Condingup and intend creating a studio there from where they will do their manufacturing. They would also like to operate a classy coffee stall. They are also aware of the issue of no running water or drainage, so propose to use a coffee machine with a tank to supply the water. All food items will be served pre-packaged and in disposable containers, with refuse removed from the premises. Mr & Mrs Druce have previous experience in running a similar business.

Officer’s Comment

Both submissions for the Railway Station Masters Ticket Office have the same health issues with running water and sewerage, but the submission from Tommy & Susie Druce will see the premises open for more hours per week, and will fit with the tourist focus of the Museum Village. The Shire has a concern that Belinda Perry may not be aware of the considerable cost involved in the connection of water and sewerage to the Ticket Office when she said that she would undertake the connections at her expense.

Consultation

Shire Health Department Officer advised that the use of a coffee machine and disposable cups would be acceptable. However the applicant would have to take home the parts of the machine requiring washing every day. The premises would also need refrigeration to keep milk at the correct temperature. Food would require pre-packaging from approved supplier as no hand basin and washing facilities available for preparing or handling of food. If food is prepared from home then applicant would be required to have an approval from planning for a home occupation business and health approval for preparation area.

Town Planning Department confirmed that the zoning and available parking is suitable for either enterprise.

Building Services have advised that both water and sewerage are close by, but that it would not be cheap to connect these services to the premises.

Financial Implications

Leases for the Museum Village properties would provide the surety of commercial rental income streams, especially for the Railway Station Masters Ticket Office, which has been vacant for some time. There are financial implications as this building falls within the building hierarchy as a commercial building and therefore the Shire is responsible for the maintenance of the building.

Asset Management Implications

There are asset management implications as this building falls within the building hierarchy as a commercial building and therefore the Shire is responsible for the maintenance of the building.

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications associated with this item are :-

Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 deals with the disposal of property and methods that can be used:

3.58 Disposing of property;

(1) In this section —

dispose includes to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of, whether absolutely or not;

property includes the whole or any part of the interest of a local government in property, but does not include money.

(2) Except as stated in this section, a local government can only dispose of property to —

(a) the highest bidder at public auction; or

(b) the person who at public tender called by the local government makes what is, in the opinion of the local government, the most acceptable tender, whether or not it is the highest tender.

(3) A local government can dispose of property other than under subsection (2) if, before agreeing to dispose of the property —

(a) it gives local public notice of the proposed disposition —

(i) describing the property concerned; and

(ii) giving details of the proposed disposition; and

(iii) inviting submissions to be made to the local government before a date to be specified in the notice, being a date not less than 2 weeks after the notice is first given; and

(4) The details of a proposed disposition that are required by subsection (3)(a)(ii) include —

(a) the names of all other parties concerned; and

(b) the consideration to be received by the local government for the disposition; and

(i) as ascertained by a valuation carried out not more than 6 months before the proposed disposition; or

Policy Implications

This item relates to Council Policy CORP 004 for Building and Property Leases.

The applicable classification for this item is:

Commercial Premises – Open Market which covers both the lease for the Railway Station Masters Ticket Office. It requires that market rental be determined by valuation with individual rental as determined by Council.

Strategic Implications

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

No. 26 (f) Review and refine all leases and other contracts relating to leisure services and facilities, as they come due, to ensure they are uniform, equitable and easy to understand.

Environmental Considerations

Nil

ATTACH

Attachments

a View.	Submission From Belinda Perry to Lease Museum Railway Ticket Office
b View.	Submission From Tommy & Susie Druce to Lease Museum Railway Ticket Office

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council,

Subject to the approval of the Minister of Lands, agrees to lease to Tommy & Susie Druce portion of Lot 103 on Reserve 2815, described as Railway Station Masters Ticket Office, subject to the following:

a) The term of lease to be 2 years, with an additional option of 2 years.

b) The lease rental to be $3507.00, payable in 12 equal monthly payments.

c) The lease area is to be a portion of Lot 103 on Reserve 2815 described as ‘Railway Station Masters Ticket Office’ and defined in the lease and displayed clearly in an attachment to the lease document.

d) That all lease terms and conditions be as per Council adopted Standard Commercial Lease.

e) Will be advertised in accordance with Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 for Disposal of Property

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 115

Item: 8.3.4

Lease Extension - Condingup Country Club - Lot 88 Reserve 27363

Author/s	Annette Slade	Manager Administration Services
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: LR2

Applicant

Condingup Country Club

Location/Address

Lot 88 on Reserve 27363

Executive Summary

The Condingup Country Club has leased Lot 88 on Reserve 27363 since March 1971. Their current lease is due to expire on 28 February 2013 and they have requested an extension to their lease.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council, subject to the approval of the Minister of Lands, agrees to lease to the Condingup Country Club Lot 88 on Reserve 27363 for a period of 21 years.

Background

The Condingup Country Club has previously held 2 leases. The first from March 1971 to February 1992, and the second from March 1992 to February 2013.

Officer’s Comment

The lease for the Condingup Country Club is an extension of an existing lease where there have been no concerns with the occupancy.

Consultation

Nil

Financial Implications

There are minimal financial implications subject to the lease for the Condingup Country Club being drawn up in a manner that clearly identifies the lease as ‘land only’, with the Shire having no responsibility for the buildings and other infrastructure.

Asset Management Implications

There is minimal asset management implications for the Condingup Country Club, subject to the lease being drawn up in a manner that clearly identifies the lease as ‘land only’, with the Shire having no responsibility for the buildings and other infrastructure.

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications associated with this item are :-

Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 deals with the disposal of property and methods that can be used:

3.58 Disposing of property;

(1) In this section —

dispose includes to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of, whether absolutely or not;

property includes the whole or any part of the interest of a local government in property, but does not include money.

(2) Except as stated in this section, a local government can only dispose of property to —

(a) the highest bidder at public auction; or

(b) the person who at public tender called by the local government makes what is, in the opinion of the local government, the most acceptable tender, whether or not it is the highest tender.

(3) A local government can dispose of property other than under subsection (2) if, before agreeing to dispose of the property —

(a) it gives local public notice of the proposed disposition —

(i) describing the property concerned; and

(ii) giving details of the proposed disposition; and

(iii) inviting submissions to be made to the local government before a date to be specified in the notice, being a date not less than 2 weeks after the notice is first given; and

(4) The details of a proposed disposition that are required by subsection (3)(a)(ii) include —

(a) the names of all other parties concerned; and

(b) the consideration to be received by the local government for the disposition; and

(i) as ascertained by a valuation carried out not more than 6 months before the proposed disposition; or

Policy Implications

This item relates to Council Policy CORP 004 for Building and Property Leases.

The Building and Property Lease Policy determines property classifications that can be applied to all Council’s property providing for consistency in leased documentation and equity in terms and conditions within the various property classifications. This policy also aims to clarify the role and responsibilities between the Lessor (Shire) and Lessee on matters relating to cleaning, internal and external property maintenance.

The applicable classification for this item is:

Specific Sports Facilities

· Development of facilities by Shire or Club on Council land often with capital cost shared between Shire, Department of Sport and Recreation, and Club or any combination of this mix of funding.

· Exclusive use of the premises for a specific sport.

· All maintenance, operational and cleaning expenses at the Lessee cost.

· All outgoings (consumable charges) are recouped or charged direct to the Club.

· Major repairs, reconstruction/refurbishment to be detailed within lease or licence document.

· The provision of bar facilities should not be used to differentiate lease fees in this classification.

· Council approval required prior to any sub-letting of the premises.

· Groups, Clubs and Organisations would be encouraged to submit applications via the Community Development Fund Grants process when requesting Council’s financial assistance.

Strategic Implications

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

No. 26 (f) Review and refine all leases and other contracts relating to leisure services and facilities, as they come due, to ensure they are uniform, equitable and easy to understand.

Environmental Considerations

Nil

ATTACH

Attachments

Nil - Under Separate Cover

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

Subject to the approval of the Minister of Lands, agrees to lease to the Condingup Country Club Lot 88 on Reserve 27363, subject to the following:

a) The term of lease to be 21 years.

b) The lease rental be $1 as and when demanded

c) The lease area is to be Lot 88 on Reserve 28099 as defined in the lease and displayed clearly in an attachment to the lease document.

d) That all lease terms and conditions be as per Council adopted Standard Lease for Sporting and Community Groups.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 118

8.4 COMMUNITY SERVICES

Item: 8.4.1

Community Heritage Committee - Amended Terms of Reference

Author/s	Rod Hilton	Director Community Services
Authorisor/s	Rod Hilton	Director Community Services
	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: OAC.3.15

Applicant

Community Heritage Committee

Location/Address

Advisory Committee to Council

Executive Summary

The Community Heritage Committee has proposed several minor amendments to the Committee Terms of Reference, and, nominated Rose Riley, John Bridges and David Ford for appointment to the committee.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council:

1. Disbands the Community Heritage Committee

2. Facilitates the formation of a Community Heritage Working Party comprising the persons formerly appointed and nominated to the Advisory Committee and chaired by Cr. Heasman

Background

On the 10^th July 2012 the Community Heritage Committee was convened for the first time since May 2008. The first item of business was to review the Committees Terms of Reference. The review resulted in several minor amendments for presentation to Council for endorsement.

A draft of the amended Terms of Reference is attached for Councillors information. (Attachment 1)

The Committee also nominated 3 persons, Rose Riley, David Ford, and John Bridges, to fill the vacant Community Representative positions.

Officer’s Comment

The Council has the option of de-formalising the Community Heritage Committee from an Advisory Committee to a Working Party. Local Government Operational Guideline No. 05 Council Forums indicates that Forums (Working Parties, Briefing Sessions etc) can be approved by Council. The conditions are:

- No decisions are permitted other than recommendations to Council

- No debate is allowed

- Members still need to declare financial interests

- Modified rules are recommended if Standing Orders are not applied

- Minutes can be replaced with a general record of proceedings

- An elected member should preside

- A modified agenda in the form of forum papers should be prepared.

De-formalisation can increase efficiencies by reducing staff meeting preparation time and provide flexibility in who actually participates in the working party.

To make this truly effective the Presiding Member will need to allocate investigative and research type tasks to Working Party members in preference to Council officers. Regardless, Council officers will still be required to interpret the working party/committee requests and translate into a format for Council to receive.

Option 1. Consider the Committee recommendation

Option 2. Disband the Community Heritage Committee and facilitate the formation of a Community Heritage Working Party comprising the persons currently appointed and nominated to the Advisory Committee

Consultation

Expressions of interest in becoming members of the Community Heritage Committee have been received from Rose Riley, John Bridges and David Ford.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Asset Management Implications

There are no Asset Management Implications arising from this report.

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications associated with this item are contained within Local Government Act 1995 Section 5.10 – Appointment of Committee Members

Policy Implications

The policy implications arising from this report are contained within the Committees Terms of Reference

Strategic Implications

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

There are no strategic implications associated with this report.

Environmental Considerations

There are no environmental considerations arising from this report.

Attachments

Nil

Committee Recommendation

That Council:

1. Amend the Terms of Reference of the Community Heritage Committee as follows:

· Role – delete the word “conversation” and replace with the word “conservation”

· Membership – delete the words “Project Officer of the Goldfields Land & Sea Council” and “Esperance Regional Tourism Association” and replace with the words “A representative of the Esperance Nyungar Aboriginal Corporation” and “Tourism Esperance” and add “Shire of Esperance Manager Planning Services” and increase representatives of the Esperance Community from 2 to 3;

· Meeting Frequency – delete the words “Every four (4) months” and replace with the words “As deemed necessary by the committee”

· Scope – delete the words in scope 6 “To maintain and update Councils Municipal Heritage Inventory” and replace with “To make recommendations to Council on the maintenance and updating of Councils Municipal Heritage Inventory”; and

2. Appoint Rose Riley, David Ford, and John Bridges, as members of the Community

Heritage Committee to fill the community representative’s vacancies.

Officers Recommendation

That Council:

1. Disbands the Community Heritage Committee; and

2. Facilitates the formation of a Community Heritage Working Party comprising the persons formerly appointed and nominated to the Advisory Committee; and

3. Appoints Cr Heasman as the Presiding Member of the Working Party

Voting Requirement Absolute Majority

Attachment 1 – Amended Terms of Reference

Community Heritage Committee

Committee Type

Advisory Committee

Role

To identify and make submissions for the preservation, conservation, and/or restoration, of heritage buildings, places and sites, within the Shire of Esperance.

Membership

The committee will comprise:

One Elected Member (currently Cr Heasman with Cr Brown (deputy) as at October 2011)

One Shire of Esperance Officer to provide secretarial support (ex officio)

Shire of Esperance Manager Planning Services

Esperance Museum Curator

President and Curator of the Esperance Bay Historical Society

A committee member of Tourism Esperance

District Manager of Department of DEC

Member of the Esperance Nyungar Aboriginal Corporation

3 representatives of the Esperance community

Regional Goldfields Heritage Adviser of the Heritage Council

Term of Office

The election of delegates will occur every two (2) years immediately following the Council elections.

Meeting Frequency As deemed necessary by the committee

Scope

To coordinate and unite existing Esperance heritage and heritage stakeholder groups to lobby for funding resources.

To explore avenues to attract appropriate expertise to identify heritage buildings, places, and sites, within the Shire of Esperance and for making submissions for their preservation, conservation and restoration as deemed appropriate by the committee.

To promote and publicise understanding and recognition of local heritage values and of persons and groups whom have contributed to the development of the region.

To undertake research to identify heritage buildings, places and sites, within the Shire of Esperance that require preservation, conservation and restoration.

In conjunction with relevant stakeholders, to develop management plans for the future of heritage buildings, places and sites within the Shire of Esperance.

To make recommendations to Council on the maintenance and updating of Councils Municipal Heritage Inventory

Responsible Officer

Director Community Services

Reporting To

All Purpose Committee

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 122

Item: 8.4.2

Community Arts and Activities Funding

Author/s	Rebecca Seinor	Community Services Officer
Authorisor/s	Rod Hilton	Director Community Services

File Ref: OAC.19.1.1

Applicant

Community Services

Location/Address

N/A

Executive Summary

Community Arts and Activities Funding applications have been received for the second round of the 2012/2013 budget period.

Two applications have been received by the Community Arts and Activities Funding sub-committee. Both applications are considered suitable for the funding.

Recommendation in Brief

Approve $2,000 for the Cannery Arts Centre Inc. towards the implementation of their Summerschool program.

Approve funding of $1,250 for Escare Inc. towards the implementation of their Summer Surfers program.

Background

The Community Arts and Activities Fund has a total annual budget of $12,000 and the second of four rounds of the Community Arts and Activities Fund is due for consideration.

In the first round of funding $1,550 was approved. For the remaining three rounds there is $10,450 remaining in the 2012/2013 budget.

Two applications have been received, one from the Cannery Arts Centre Inc and the other from Escare Inc.

Applications have been summarised below

1. The Cannery Arts Centre Inc – Summerschool 2013

TRIM Reference D12/784

Purpose: The Cannery will provide 11 art and craft workshops for children and youth and 6 advanced/adult workshops as part of their Summerschool program. The program will run for two weeks in January 2012. The Cannery will also host two artists in residence to assist with the Summerschool program

Participants: Based upon previous participation, the Cannery is expecting 140 children/youth and 35 adults to the workshops.

Funding Request

Total Project Cost: $ 10,140

Applicant/other Contributions: $ 8,140

Amount Requested: $ 2,000

The Cannery Arts Centre Inc. has acquitted their previous funding accordingly.

2. Escare Inc – Summer Surfers

TRIM Reference CR12-6887

Purpose: Escare is planning to hold beginner-level surfing workshops for at-risk youth in the January school holidays at a date to be determined. Workshops will be held over four mornings with transportation and meals provided for participants. The workshops will encourage participation in a new activity, goal setting, water safety education and confidence building.

Participants: Up to 10 at-risk youth aged 12-16 years.

Funding Request

Total Project Cost: $3,750

Applicant/other Contributions: $2,500

Amount Requested: $1,250

Escare Inc. has acquitted their previous funding accordingly.

Officer’s Comment

Both organisations have previously run successful, well patronised activities and have acquitted their funds accordingly.

Both applications fit within the Community Arts and Activities Funding Guidelines.

Approval of both of the applications will leave $7,200 in the budget for the remaining two rounds of Community Arts and Activities Funding.

Consultation

The applications were reviewed by the Community Arts and Activities Funding sub-committee which consists of Cr Stewart and Cr Bowman. The Community Arts and Activities Funding sub-committee supports both applications.

Financial Implications

There are no known financial implications arising from this report as the Community Arts and Activities Funding has already been set for the 2012/2013 financial year at $12,000. This is the second round of funding for the 2012/2013 financial year.

Asset Management Implications

N/A

Statutory Implications

N/A

Policy Implications

N/A

Strategic Implications

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

Provide funds to community based organizations and exceptional individuals for the promotion and development of projects that complement the Community Vision

a) Ensure that the annual funds allocated under the Community Development Fund are targeted towards community projects and initiatives. Priority to be given to the key areas

Youth activities and projects

Recreation and leisure activities

Community Arts Inc and other arts and cultural groups

Seed funding to enable the allocation of funds from other sources to secure the appointment of personnel to community development positions

Environmental Considerations

N/A

Attachments

Nil

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council approve the following Community Arts and Activities fund applications:

a) Cannery Arts Centre Inc $2,000

b) Escare Inc $1,250

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 125

8.5 EXECUTIVE SERVICES

Item: 8.5.1

Review of Wards and Representation

Author/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: OAB.3

Applicant

Shire of Esperance

Location/Address

Shire of Esperance

Executive Summary

Council resolved on the 28^th August 2012 to undertake a review of its ward boundaries and representation. No public submissions were received during the six week advertising period and Council is now required to determine whether or not it will alter the ward boundaries or Councillor representation.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council:

1. Resolve to retain the existing ward boundaries and representation.

2. Advise the Local Government Advisory Board accordingly.

Background

Under schedule 2.2 (6) of the Local Government Act 1995:

“A local government the district of which is divided into wards is to carry out reviews of:

· It’s ward boundaries; and

· the number of officers of Councillors for each ward,

from time to time so that not more than 8 years elapse between successive reviews.”

The last formal review undertaken by the Shire of Esperance of its ward system was conducted in 2004. As part of the Structural Reform process that took place during 2010, the Shire of Esperance reviewed its representation and recommended to reduce the number of Councillors to nine (9). This recommendation was supported by the Minister and the reduced number of Councillors came into effect at the October 2011 elections.

The Local Government Advisory Board has advised that the submission received in the 2010 submission from the Shire of Esperance was “minor in nature” and did not require public consultation. As no public submissions were sought the submission did not meet the statutory requirement for a formal review and hence the need for a formal review before the end of 2012.

Council resolved on the 28^th August 2012 to undertake a review of its ward boundaries and representation. In accordance with the Local Government Act 1995, the Shire advertised the review and called for submissions as part of the review. As part of the review, a discussion paper was prepared which outlined the reasons for the current review and offered a number of options.

The submission period closed at 4.30pm on the 12^th October 2012 and at the close, no public submissions were received.

Officer’s Comment

The table below shows the Shire’s Councillor to Elector ratios at the time of the October 2011 elections.

WARDS AND REPRESENTATION

Ward	Number of Councillors	Number of Electors	Councillor to Elector Ratio	% Ratio Deviation
Rural	3	2,793	931	+3.29%
Town	6	5,871	979	-1.64%
TOTAL	9	8,664	963 Average

(Source: Statistics provided by the WA Electoral Commission October 2011 Ordinary Local Government Elections)

The % ratio deviation gives a clear indication of the % difference between the average councillor/elector ratio for the whole local government and the Councillor/Elector ratio for each ward.

The Local Government Advisory Board has expressed the view that it will tolerate a 10% deviation either way in the Councillor to Elector ratio. The above table clearly shows that there is acceptable (within 10%) deviation between the wards; therefore no change of boundaries for the sake of Councillor to elector ratio needs to occur.

Under the Local Government Act 1995, once the public submission period has closed, a local government must consider all the submissions that it receives. As there were no public submissions received, any change in ward boundaries or representation is at Council’s discretion.

Under Schedule 2.2(9) once a review has been completed, the local government is to make a report in writing to the Advisory Board and by absolute majority, may propose to the Board the making of any order under section 2.2(1), 2.3(3) or 2.18(3) that it thinks fit.

The Council considered its representation as part of the Structural Reform process in 2009, including the Shire undertaking extensive community consultation, holding four public meetings across the Shire relating to a range of options presented for discussion and reducing the number of Councillors from 11 to 9. Given that the above was undertaken only 3 years ago, another change to representation at this stage would seem premature.

The Minister for Local Government approved the recommendation from the Local Government Advisory Board (Board), that the number of Councillors in the town ward be reduced from seven to six and in the rural ward from four to three, with the reduction occurring in time for the 2011 local government elections.

Given that the current Councillor to elector ratio is within the deviation permitted and the fact that the Shire has had a recent review with both Councillor numbers and also ward representation it is recommended that no change to ward boundaries or representation be undertaken at this time.

Should Council accept these recommendations, the local government having voted on the review, must provide a written report about the review to the Local Government Advisory Board. The report must outline the process and outcome of the review and include any recommendations for change. The Board will consider the recommendations contained in the report and will make recommendations to the Minister for Local Government who has the final decision and may accept or reject the Boards recommendations.

Consultation

Public consultation was conducted for the required period of six weeks. A discussion paper was prepared to encourage discussion and thought on the issue and an article was published in Council Connections through the local media.

Financial Implications

Nil

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications associated with this item is schedule 2.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 which requires a local government which has wards to carry out a review of the ward boundaries and the number of Councillors for each ward (representation) so that no more than eight years elapse between successive reviews.

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

98. Ensure that rural areas receive adequate representation on Council.

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

Nil

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

1. Resolve to retain the existing ward boundaries and representation.

2. Advise the Local Government Advisory Board accordingly.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 128

Item: 8.5.2

2011/12 Annual Report

Author/s	Priscilla Davies	Coordinator Corporate Reporting
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: L.2.1

Applicant

Executive Services

Location/Address

N/A

Executive Summary

To present to Council for endorsement the Annual Report for 2011/2012 as well as set a date and time for the Shire’s annual general meeting of electors.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council:

1. Accepts the 2011/12 Annual report as presented.

2. Convenes the annual general meeting of electors for 7pm Wednesday 12 December 2012 at the Esperance Civic Centre.

3. Requests that the Chief Executive Officer, pursuant to sections 5.29 and 5.55 of the Local Government Act 1995, provide the requisite statutory local public notice of the acceptance of the 2011/2012 Annual Report and the time and date of the annual general meeting of electors.

Background

Pursuant to sections of 5.53 and 5.54 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Shire is required to prepare an Annual Report and present it to Council for acceptance by 31^st December of each calendar year.

Furthermore, section 5.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 stipulates that a general meeting of electors is to be held once every financial year but not more than 56 days after the local government accepts the Annual Report for the previous financial year.

Officer’s Comment

A copy of the 2011/2012 Annual Report has been distributed under separate cover for the consideration of Elected Members. The Annual Report includes a full copy of the endorsed 2011/2012 Audit Report.

It is suggested that the annual electors meeting be held on 12 December 2012. To comply with statutory obligations a minimum of two weeks notice must be provided to the community regarding the annual electors meeting. For the meeting to occur on 12 December an advertisement will need to be placed in the Esperance Express on the 23 November, this would be prior to the Ordinary Council Meeting on 27 November.

Consultation

Executive Services

Corporate Services

Community Services

Development Services

Engineering Services

Financial Implications

Advertising costs are within the Council Connections budget.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications associated with this item are sections 5.27; 5.29; 5.53; 5.54 and 5.55 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

Nil

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

Nil

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

1. Accepts the 2011/12 Annual report as presented.

2. Convenes the annual general meeting of electors for 7pm Wednesday 12 December 2012 at the Esperance Civic Centre.

Voting Requirement Absolute Majority

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 130

Item: 8.5.3

Regional Business Plan

Author/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: GA291

Applicant

Goldfields-Esperance Regional Collaborative Group (GERCG)

Location/Address

Goldfields Esperance Region

Executive Summary

This item is seeking Council approval of the Regional Business Plan that was prepared by KPMG on behalf of the Goldfields-Esperance Regional Collaborative Group to identify whether opportunities exist within the region for sharing of services. The final draft of the Regional Business Plan has five high level business cases attached for service sharing opportunities that may be pursued further by the GERCG Board and member local governments.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council:

1. Adopt the Goldfields-Esperance Regional Collaborative Group (GERCG) Regional Business Plan.

2. Advise the GERCG Board accordingly.

Background

The state government has initiated reform across Western Australia’s local government sector to create stronger local governments that will better service communities into the future. As part of this state-wide reform program the local governments across the Goldfields Region have come together to form the Goldfields-Esperance Regional Collaborative Group (GERCG). The GERCG Members Councils are the:

1. City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder

2. Shire of Coolgardie

3. Shire of Dundas

4. Shire of Esperance

5. Shire of Laverton

6. Shire of Leonora

7. Shire of Ngaanyatjarraku

8. Shire of Menzies

9. Shire of Ravensthorpe

10. Shire of Wiluna

In the more remote areas of the state, where vast distances separated communities, amalgamation of local governments was not seen as a priority. As an alternative a Regional Collaborative Group could be set up for the GERCG Member Councils to work together to develop a Regional Business Plan. The purpose of an RBP is to examine whether opportunities for sharing of services exist and what the benefits to the different communities might be.

In November 2011, the GERCG engaged KPMG to assist with the development of this Regional Business Plan to examine each member council and identify opportunities for local improvements and potential areas for sharing of service arrangements to maximise benefits to the community.

The GERCG Board resolved the following two resolutions at its meeting on the 19^th October-

“That the GERCG Board receive and endorse in principle the Final Draft of the Goldfields Esperance Regional Collaborative Group Regional Business Plan as presented by KPMG.”

“That the GERCG Board requests all Member Councils to consider the Final Draft of the Goldfields Esperance Regional Collaborative Group Regional Business Plan, including the 5 business cases, at their next Ordinary Council Meeting with a view to adopting the Final Draft subject to any changes required. Any decisions that may arise from discussion of the Final Draft of the Goldfields Esperance Regional Collaborative Group Regional Business Plan should be with the Executive Officer in time for inclusion in an agenda item for the GVROC Technical Officers Working Group Meeting scheduled for Friday 23 November 2012.”

Officer’s Comment

The Regional Collaborative Group (RCG) model engaged local governments to facilitate the creation of a Regional Business Plan (RBP) to examine if opportunities exist for the sharing of services on a regional or sub-regional basis.

In order to identify whether sharing of service arrangements are appropriate, a review of activities and resources was conducted across all GERCG Member Councils. The objectives of these activities were to:

· understand where current resources are being utilised and activities completed across service lines in relation to key areas commonly undertaken in local governments;

· identify the top priority areas across their services where opportunities for organisational reform and/or sharing of service arrangements may exist; and

· understand whether they should proceed with implementing organisational reform or sharing of services across certain functions and services collectively at regional or sub-regional level.

The Regional Business Plan is to provide the GERCG Member Councils with an understanding of the commonalities across the ten member councils and to identify where opportunities may exist to support the sharing of services. The report provides:

· an overview of the approach for considering sharing of services opportunities;

· the key findings for each component – consolidated from the analysis performed for each member;

· development of the key themes arising from the consolidated findings; and

· high-level business cases in the key themes identified and agreed by the GERCG Board.

In addition to the Regional Business Plan high level business cases have been produced for each of the five key themes identified in this document as potential areas where opportunities may exist to support the sharing of services. The five key theme and opportunities that have been identified and high level business cases developed are-

Theme 1 – Improving workforce capacity

Theme 2 – Sharing and developing knowledge

Theme 3 – Operations are supported by efficient and effective processes

Theme 4 – Service delivery supported by effective management of assets

Theme 5 – Maximising investments and quality of systems

It is proposed that the Goldfields Esperance Voluntary Regional Organisation of Council (GVROC) technical officers group will consider each of the high level business cases and make a recommendation through to the GVROC Board on any business cases that they consider should be considered for full business case development.

Consultation

GERCG Board and member local governments.

Financial Implications

There are no direct financial implications associated with the endorsement of the Regional Business Plan.

If one or more of the high level business cases are considered suitable for further investigation, then there may be a requirement for each local government to contribute towards the development of the plan.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Action Plan 2007 - 2027

102. Identify and develop strategic alliances and resource sharing opportunities that will benefit the region

a) Encourage, support and co-operate with neighbouring Councils with a view to developing strategic alliances that will benefit the Shire of Esperance and the development of the region. (E.g. shared rubbish contractor, recycling, resource sharing plant and human resources)

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a.	GERCG Regional Business Plan - Under Separate Cover
b.	Business Case 1- Improving workforce capacity - Under Separate Cover
c.	Business Case 2 - Sharing and developing knowledge - Under Separate Cover
d.	Business Case 3 - Operations supported by efficient and effective processes - Under Separate Cover
e.	Business Case 4 - Service delivery supported by effective management of assets - Under Separate Cover
f .	Business Case 5 - Maximising investments in, and quality of systems - Under Separate Cover

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

1. Adopt the Goldfields-Esperance Regional Collaborative Group (GERCG) Regional Business Plan.

2. Advise the GERCG Board accordingly.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

All Purpose Committee: Agenda

20 November 2012 Page 134

Item: 8.5.4

Final Draft Strategic Community Plan

Author/s	Priscilla Davies	Coordinator Corporate Reporting
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: OAS.15

Applicant

Executive Services

Location/Address

Whole of Shire

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is for Council to receive and endorse the Shire of Esperance Strategic Community Plan 2012-2022. The Plan was advertised for public comment for a four week period which concluded on 9 November 2012. The suggestions and officers responses have been collated and are included in a table as an attachment to this report.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council:

1) Notes the submissions received.

2) Endorse the Shire of Esperance Strategic Community Plan 2012-2022.

Background

Council received the final draft Shire of Esperance Strategic Community Plan 2012-2022 (the Plan) at a Special Council Meeting on 9 October 2012, and invited submissions from the community and stakeholders for a 4 week period ending 9 November 2012 (S1012-026).

The Plan must satisfy the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework that was introduced by the Western Australian Government in October 2010. The Plan must be representative of the community’s aspirations and goals for the future of Esperance and provide overarching guidance for the Shire in developing a Corporate Business Plan and other strategic plans that will subsequently determine our Annual Budget.

During the 4 week public comment period the plan was advertised in the Esperance Express through the Council Connections page and on the Shire of Esperance website. Officers and copies of the plan were available over the two days of the Esperance Agricultural Show to promote the draft plan and encourage input from community members. A fact sheet was distributed to schools in the outlying towns to be included with community newsletters. Copies of the plan were also sent to community members who had provided input on the previous draft.

Officer’s Comment

The final Shire of Esperance Strategic Community Plan 2012-2022 has had minor amendments made to incorporate feedback received. These changes have substantially been to provide clarification on particular aspects within the Plan, additional information on how the Plan sits within the wider context of State and Regional Planning and some alterations to wording. These have been documented in the schedule of submissions with the outcomes for information. Not all proposed amendments have been incorporated. Therefore explanations have been provided responding to all suggestions.

Consultation

Department of Local Government

Esperance Regional Forums (ERF)

Rob Simpson

Anonymous community member

Esperance Community

Shire of Esperance staff

Councillors

Financial Implications

The financial implications arising from this report are minimal with the costs limited to printing and supply of copies to the Department of Local Government and community members. Additional financial implications may occur through the implementation of this strategic plan, however these will be considered as part of the normal budget process.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Regulation 19C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations applies to the development of a Strategic Community Plan.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) REGULATIONS 1996 - REG 19C

19C . Strategic community plans, requirements for (Act s. 5.56)

(1) A local government is to ensure that a strategic community plan is made for its district in accordance with this regulation in respect of each financial year after the financial year ending 30 June 2013.

(2) A strategic community plan for a district is to cover the period specified in the plan, which is to be at least 10 financial years.

(3) A strategic community plan for a district is to set out the vision, aspirations and objectives of the community in the district.

(4) A local government is to review the current strategic community plan for its district at least once every 4 years.

(5) In making or reviewing a strategic community plan, a local government is to have regard to —

(a) the capacity of its current resources and the anticipated capacity of its future resources; and

(b) strategic performance indicators and the ways of measuring its strategic performance by the application of those indicators; and

(6) Subject to subregulation (9), a local government may modify its strategic community plan, including extending the period the plan is made in respect of.

(7) A council is to consider a strategic community plan, or modifications of such a plan, submitted to it and is to determine* whether or not to adopt the plan or the modifications.

*Absolute majority required.

(8) If a strategic community plan is, or modifications of a strategic community plan are, adopted by the council, the plan or modified plan applies to the district for the period specified in the plan.

(9) A local government is to ensure that the electors and ratepayers of its district are consulted during the development of a strategic community plan and when preparing modifications of a strategic community plan.

(10) A strategic community plan for a district is to contain a description of the involvement of the electors and ratepayers of the district in the development of the plan or the preparation of modifications of the plan.

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

This report is for a new Strategic Community Plan to be endorsed by Council based on the State Governments Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework. This plan will be the overarching document that guides Council decisions and Shire staff activities over the next decade. All future report items will identify a strategy in the plan, ensuring alignment with the aspirations and goals of the Esperance Community.

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a.	Shire of Esperance Strategic Community Plan 2012-2022 - Under Separate Cover
b View.	Strategic Community Plan 2012-2022 Schedule of Submissions

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

1) Notes the submissions received.

2) Endorse the Shire of Esperance Strategic Community Plan 2012-2022.

Voting Requirement Absolute Majority

Submission #	Submitter Details	Description of Affected Property	Submission Comments (Verbatim)	Planning Services Comments & Recommendation
1	Water Corporation	Servicing Agency	The Water Corporation has no objections to the proposal.	*Recommendation*: Noted – no modifications necessary to the Scheme Amendment documentation as a result of this submission.
2	Main Roads	Statutory/ Government Agency	Main Roads has no objection to the rezoning proposal However, they have commented that the Coolgardie Esperance Highway is under the authority of Main Roads WA and therefore any applications for additional access to this highway will require the approval of Main Roads WA	*Recommendation*: Noted – no modifications necessary to the Scheme Amendment documentation as a result of this submission.
3	Department of Health	Statutory/ Government Agency	The Department of Health has no objections to the proposal.	*Recommendation*: Noted – no modifications necessary to the Scheme Amendment documentation as a result of this submission.
4	Department of Water	Statutory/ Government Agency	The Department of Water has no objections to the proposal. However, they have commented that a Foreshore Management Plan for wetlands on the property should be required at subdivision stage.	*Recommendation*: Noted – no modifications necessary to the Scheme Amendment documentation as a result of this submission.
5	Telstra	Servicing Agency	Telstra has no objections to the proposal.	*Recommendation*: Noted – no modifications necessary to the Scheme Amendment documentation as a result of this submission.
6	Department of Indigenous Affairs	Statutory/ Government Agency	The Department of Indigenous Affairs has no objections to the proposal.	*Recommendation*: Noted – no modifications necessary to the Scheme Amendment documentation as a result of this submission.
7	Department of Agriculture and Food	Statutory/ Government Agency	The Department of Agriculture and Food has no objection or comment to the proposal as it appears to be a development on low quality agricultural land. The Department of Agriculture and Food however is concerned regarding the potential for increased nutrient export as well as wind erosion, and recommends that an Acid Sulphate soil survey be undertaken as part of any subdivision application.	*Recommendation*: Noted – no modifications necessary to the Scheme Amendment documentation as a result of this submission.

From:	Tommy Druce [SMTP:Tommy.Druce@gotempumps.com.au]
To:	Shire Of Esperance [SMTP:shire@esperance.wa.gov.au]
Cc:	druce@space.net.au [SMTP:druce@space.net.au]
Sent:	18/09/2012 at 5:19 PM
Received:	18/09/2012 at 5:19 PM
Subject:	Expression of interest old railway station

Disclosure of Financial, Proximity or Impartiality Interests

Local Government Act 1995 – Section 5.65, 5.70 and 5.71 and Local Government (Administration) Regulation 34C

Declaration of Interest (Notes for Your Guidance)

Author/s	Amelia Fitzgerald	Minutes Secretary
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

Author/s	Beth O'Callaghan	Acting Director Corporate Services
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer