19 February 2018 Page 1
Shire of Esperance
Special Council
Monday 19 February 2018
MINUTES
19 February 2018 Page 1
Shire of Esperance
Special Council
Monday 19 February 2018
MINUTES
DISCLAIMER
No responsibility whatsoever is implied or accepted by the Shire of Esperance for any act, omission or statement or intimation occurring during Council or Committee meetings. The Shire of Esperance disclaims any liability for any loss whatsoever and howsoever caused arising out of reliance by any person or legal entity on any such act, omission or statement or intimation occurring during Council or Committee meetings. Any person or legal entity who acts or fails to act in reliance upon any statement, act or omission made in a Council or Committee meeting does so at that person’s or legal entity’s own risk.
In particular and without derogating in any way from the broad disclaimer above, in any discussion regarding any planning application or application for a licence, any statement or intimation of approval made by a member or officer of the Shire of Esperance during the course of any meeting is not intended to be and is not to be taken as notice of approval from the Shire of Esperance. The Shire of Esperance warns that anyone who has any application lodged with the Shire of Esperance must obtain and should only rely on written confirmation of the outcome of the application, and any conditions attaching to the decision made by the Shire of Esperance in respect of the application.
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Council is committed to a code of conduct and all decisions are based on an honest assessment of the issue, ethical decision-making and personal integrity. Councillors and staff adhere to the statutory requirements to declare financial, proximity and impartiality interests and once declared follow the legislation as required.
ATTACHMENTS
Please be advised that in order to save printing and paper costs, all attachments referenced in this paper are available in the original Agenda document for this meeting.
Table of Contents / Index
ITEM
NO. ITEM HEADING PAGE
3. APOLOGIES & NOTIFICATION OF GRANTED LEAVE OF ABSENCE
4.1 Declarations of Financial Interests – Local Government Act Section 5.60a
4.2 Declarations of Proximity Interests – Local Government Act Section 5.60b
4.3 Declarations of Impartiality Interests – Admin Regulations Section 34c
6.2 Motion 2 - Lot 12 Kirwan Road - Modern Waste Management Facility
6.4 Motion 4 - Esperance Tanker Jetty
SHIRE OF ESPERANCE
MINUTES
OF
THE Special Council Meeting
HELD IN Council Chambers ON 19 February 2018.
1. OFFICIAL OPENING
The Shire President declared the meeting open at 4:00pm
The President welcomed Councillors, staff, guests and members of the public to the meeting.
2. ATTENDANCE
Members
Cr V Brown President Rural Ward
Cr N Bowman Deputy President Rural Ward
Cr J Parsons Town Ward
Cr S McMullen Town Ward
Cr S Payne Town Ward
Cr L McIntyre Town Ward
Cr R Padgurskis Town Ward
Cr D Piercey, JP Town Ward
Cr B Parker Rural Ward
Shire Officers
Mr W M (Matthew) Scott Chief Executive Officer
Mr S Burge Director Corporate Resources
Mr M Walker Director Asset Management
Mr T Sargent Director External Services
Ms P Davies Manager Executive Services
Miss S Fitzgerald Corporate Reporting & Governance Officer
Miss A McArthur Trainee Administration Officer
Members of the Public & Press
|
N Hosking C Seimer S O’Brien H O’Brien R Furniss J Furniss T Furniss D Furniss T Castledine K Roberts E Iddison K Nieukerke D Congreve J Dietsch (the Esperance Express) N Hanks G Bouckaert G Fahn-smith M Bush K Stevens T Bright G Bright D Usher R Daniels D Andre J Andre J Andre R Grant E Dixon J Dixon W Stewart L Western C De Garis (ABC Goldfields/Esperance) J Burton (the Esperance Express) |
K Hall J O’Donnell S O’Donnell J Fletcher R Smoker T Connor J Biven M O’Neill M Herring A Houlin J Osmetti W Rodgers J Beale K Beale A Johnson D Johnson N Chalmer L Western M Gibbs E Gibbs A Hughes B Pearce R Rolland M Ridgway J Starcevich G Harp J Clawson B Grundy M Handley M Richte D Eltringham A Kuss J Hyatt |
J Sanderson D Howe D Hatter I Allison T Stewart C Stewart N Blumann L Plecas T Ibrahim D Reynolds W Robertson D Andre T Lowe K O’Donnell J Handley J Mulcock K Francis L Plunkett A Middleton N Varco D Plecas C Creed K Everett D Everett L Fitzpatrick M Macpherson H D’Emden W McKenna S Willis T Gray C Smith P Gale B Willoughby |
3. APOLOGIES & NOTIFICATION OF GRANTED LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Mr M Biven Apology
4.1 Declarations of Financial Interests – Local Government Act Section 5.60a
The CEO, Mr Scott, declared a financial interest in item 6.1 as it relates to his employment.
4.2 Declarations of Proximity Interests – Local Government Act Section 5.60b
Nil
4.3 Declarations of Impartiality Interests – Admin Regulations Section 34c
Cr McIntyre declared an impartiality interest in item 6.4 as she is was married, over 20 years ago, to the contractor who was awarded the tender to demolish the Esperance Tanker Jetty.
The Director Corporate Resources, Mr Burge, declared an impartiality interest in item 6.5 as he is a member of the Esperance Golf Club.
Cr Piercey declared an impartiality interest in item 6.4 as she is a member of the Friends of the Esperance Tanker Jetty Group.
Cr Brown declared an impartiality interest in item 6.2 as she owns property in the Merivale area.
Cr Brown declared an impartiality interest in item 6.4 as she is acquainted with the contractor who was awarded the tender to demolish the Esperance Tanker Jetty.
5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
1. Mr D Johnson – Item 6.2
Mr Johnson questioned if the Shire will accept the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA) decision after they have completed their assessment.
Cr Brown responded that the Shire will accept the EPA’s decision.
Mr Johnson asked if the community can expect an appeal from the Shire against the EPA decision if they find the site inappropriate.
Cr Brown responded that it would be premature to answer.
Mr Johnson asked if the Shire intended to use Public Works Exemption as suggested in section 6.4 Town Planning of the Due Diligence and Landfill Capability Assessment Lot 12 Kirwan Road Report prepared by Talis.
Mr Sargent responded that this was the Shire’s intention.
Mr Scott explained that the Public Works Exemption only applies to planning approval and could not be used for environmental purposes. This exemption could not be used to override any EPA determination.
2. Mr K Beale – Item 6.2
Mr Beale asked what is the total cost spent to date on identifying Lot 12 Kirwan Road as a preferred site.
Mr Sargent clarified if Mr Beale wanted the total amount spent on the current site exclusively or the total amount including the investigation of all sites up to this point.
Mr Beale stated that since 2015 $900,000 has been paid to Talis with $550,000 spent on the site.
Mr Sargent responded that gross headings may not represent what the money was spent on. Mr Sargent then took the question on notice.
Cr Brown commented that it seemed Mr Beale had answered his own question.
3. Mrs J Biven – Item 6.2
Mrs Biven asked that given the EPA has advised it will be assessing the proposed tip site at the highest level, what will it take for Council to abandon Lot 12 as a landfill site and look elsewhere?
Cr Brown responded that it will take a determination from the EPA that a fatal flaw has been found and the site is not suitable.
Mrs Biven asked if there will be a limit on the amount spent on this project.
Cr Brown responded that cost was something Council had considered and would continue to monitor and assess.
4. Mrs N Chalmer – Item 6.2
Mrs Chalmer referred to a recent radio interview where Mr Scott stated that Government agencies supported the Shire’s view that contamination from the proposed landfill would take over 500 years to reach the RAMSAR wetlands. Mrs Chalmer asked which agencies supported this view and requested written evidence of this support.
Mr Scott begun by correcting Mrs Chalmer that he believed had stated “hundreds of years”. Mr Scott then quoted:
“The DWER’s Principal Hydrogeologist has calculated that under a scenario where there is an absence of interconnected karst-like features between the site and the groundwater discharge area (the escarpment), groundwater travel times are expected to lie in the range of about 66 to 347 years, assuming that groundwater discharge takes place 900 metres away from the site.” – Letter addressed to the Standing Committee on Environmental and Public Affairs from the Minister for Environment in response to Petition No 14 for a proposed landfill in Esperance at Lot 12 Kirwan Road, Merivale which was submitted to the Legislative Council.”
Mr Scott clarified that the proposed site is not within the RAMSAR wetlands
Mrs Chalmer clarified that the Shire was claiming that no water is flowing from the property into the RAMSAR wetlands.
Mr Scott stated that the property is not included within the RAMSAR wetlands at this stage.
5. Mr J Andre – Item 6.2
Mr Andre referred to the sale of the property 3 years prior to the Shire purchasing the property. At the time the land was sold for roughly $600,000 yet the Shire purchased the land for $1.4m. Mr Andre asked why the Shire had paid $800,000 extra.
Mr Scott explained that the previous sale price did not track with other sales in that range. He continued that the Department of Local Government had investigated a complaint of overspending and found the Shire had not paid a premium. Mr Scott added that the Shire had also purchased the blue gum plantation on the property, which was worth approximately $300,000.
Mr Andre asked if the Shire believed this purchase represented excellent value to the ratepayers.
Mr Sargent responded that as a landfill, this presented excellent value. The blue gum plantation was valuable as screening for the site. If a cleared block was purchased it would cost approximately $500,000 to adequately screen the site.
Mr Andre asked whether the Shire was aware that the majority of blue gum plantations in the area had either been burnt down or were being sold for as little as $5p/tonne. He stated there was more value in cropping.
Cr Bowman clarified that the trees were valued for screening, not for their harvest value.
6. Mr L Western – Item 6.2
Mr Western asked how much did the Shire pay for the site.
Cr Brown responded the purchase price was $1.45m.
7. Ms D Fletcher – Item 6.2
Ms Fletcher referred to the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder website, which lists two areas as being suitable for industrial use. Ms Fletcher asked why the Shire could not do the same as Kalgoorlie and suggest sites in suitable locations.
Mr Scott responded that the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder current scheme is based on old regulations. When the City reviews their Scheme they will remove these industrial zones in line with current regulations.
Mr Sargent added that Strategic Industry Zones were prescribed by the State and not through Local Planning Schemes.
8. Ms E Iddison – Item 6.2
Ms Iddison cited the Local Planning Scheme No.24 and the supporting Local Planning Strategy which both include regulations regarding environmental laws, considerations and guidelines. She recalled that Mr Scott had said that these documents are not environmental documents; she asked why he had made this misleading statement.
Mr Scott responded that he did not believe the statement was misleading as the Shire can only grant approvals based on planning considerations not environmental issues. If the Shire exceeds its jurisdiction in this area it will be overturned.
9. Mr Gale – Item 6.2
Mr Gale referred to conflict in land use he had observed between the Local Planning Scheme 24 and the Local Planning Strategy. He asked which document listed the correct use.
Mr Sargent took the question on notice before clarifying that if there is a conflict between the Scheme and the Strategy then the Scheme is takes precedent.
10. Mr A Bright – Item 6.4
The following questions were provided in advance in writing and read aloud by Mr Bright.
On 7 November 2016 Council decided it was not feasible or prudent to reconstruct the Esperance Tanker Jetty, while at the same time it rejected a study (Bonacci) which could answer this for them. Why, when Bonacci and others have shown the real possibility of reconstruction at a cost of less than $6m, does council still apparently refuse to investigate this process of reconstruction, and what is it about this process that makes council apprehensive about an open and transparent process allowing all competent marine contractors to present these process solutions?
Cr Brown responded that there is a tender out at the moment and her understanding any team led by a heritage architect can submit a tender for a $6m project which is the amount Council considers affordable.
Cr Brown continued that the Bonacci report was flawed, after a review found it relied on the assumption that a large portion of material was usable.
Cr Bowman added that to progress a funding application a business case needed to be developed and a design selected. The design team needed to be led by a heritage architect and produce a fully costed design to secure funding.
The Minister's quote relating to the reconstruction of the jetty to its original form and scale is unlikely relates to the fact that what is being proposed is that a rebuilt jetty will be for pedestrian use only and not heavy rail traffic. No one is suggesting it be rebuilt for use by trains and rolling stock. It will be reconstructed according to the 1934 original design, and that its cultural fabric will be retained by its continued presence in our seascape, on the original footprint, with the same specifications, and will continue to meet all the values for which it was Heritage Listed, a listing sought and achieved by the Esperance Shire Council. In view of this and the fact that the structure can be reconstructed prudently and feasibly, as is outlined in the terms of the Burra Charter by using new and old material where required, will councillors now reconsider its position in relation to demolition?
Cr Brown replied that Council could not fund a 1935 design at 500m for $6m. If this was feasible Council would like to see it bought forward. Council does not want to begin a project that it cannot afford.
Why doesn't the Shire take note of what is happening elsewhere and recognise the importance of the tanker Jetty, its rich history, cultural fabric and importance as a visitor attraction and the flow- on benefits it has for the local economy?
Cr Brown responded that the Council take to heart the value of the Jetty however they have seen others attempt projects like this only to have the budget blown out.
11. Ms L Plunkett – Item 6.4
Ms Plunkett asked if the services of a Heritage Architect had always been a requirement or was it a recent development.
Cr Brown confirmed it was a recent stipulation put in place by the Heritage Council in October 2017 that a Heritage Architect lead the design process.
12. Mr J Osmetti – Item 6.1
Mr Osmetti asked whether the mover, Mr Nieukerke and seconder, Mr Pearce, of Motion 1 moved at the Annual Electors Meeting, were going to discuss the motion.
Cr Brown clarified that as this is a Special Council Meeting, Standing Orders apply. Members of the public are welcome to ask a question during public question time but are not permitted to make statements. Cr Brown invited Mr Nieukerke or Mr Pearce to ask a question.
13. Mr K Nieukerke – Item 6.1
Mr Nieukerke asked why the Shire Presidents comments from the Annual Electors Meeting had appeared in the report for item 6.1 of the Agenda while his comments had not.
Cr Brown responded that she did not author the report and was not party to the collation of the information.
14. Mr B Pearce – Item 6.1
Mr Pearce asked for clarification on the meeting process. He wanted to know if he would have the opportunity to debate item 6.1.
Cr Brown reiterated that this was a Special Council Meeting and governed by the Local Government Act 1995 and the Standing Orders Local Law 2015. Councillors will have the opportunity to debate motions but the public gallery were observers only.
Mr Pearce referred to the ongoing public debate surrounding the proposed waste site and the Tanker Jetty. He expressed his belief that the problem lie with the Chief Executive Officer who he believed has assumed total control over the Council. Mr Pearce asked if the Councillors will now have the strength to terminate the Chief Executive Officer’s contract of employment.
Cr Brown responded that the matter would be debated when they reached the relevant item in the Agenda.
15. Ms T Lowe – Item 6.2
Ms Lowe recalled that while holding a deputy community position on the New Landfill Community Reference Group, the value of the blue gum plantation on Lot 12 Kirwan Road had been discussed. Ms Lowe believed Mr Sargent had suggested that the land would need to be cleared for the construction of a landfill site. If this was the case, why was the land purchased on this basis.
Cr McIntyre responded that she had also attended the New Landfill Community Reference Group meetings and could not recall Mr Sargent suggesting the trees be cleared.
16. Ms E Iddison
Ms Iddison asked what course of action electors could take if they were unhappy with the outcome of the Special Council Meeting.
Cr Brown explained that if an elector was not happy with the outcome they could approach three (3) Councillors to initiate the rescinding of a Council Resolution.
Mr Scott declared his financial interest and left the Chamber at 6:22pm.
Reason: Council wished to acknowledge community concerns and undertake a review of the CEO performance as soon as possible.
Mr Scott returned to the Chamber at 6:30pm
Reason: Council wanted to acknowledge community concerns and delay any further decisions on the proposed site until the EPA has reached a determination.
Reason: Council does not have the power to implement the requested outcome under current State Planning legislation, regulations and policy.
Reason: Council felt the best way forward was to continue following the advice received from the Heritage Council of Western Australian to reach a positive and financially suitable outcome for the Community.
Reason: Council want to look further into the issue during the budget process, considering the impact on other user groups and encourage the Esperance Golf Club to apply for Community Grants Program to assist in costs.
7. CLOSURE
The President declared the meeting closed at 7:12pm.
These Minutes were confirmed at a meeting held on _____________________
Signed ________________________________________
Presiding Member at the meeting at which the Minutes were confirmed.
Dated_____________________