Agenda of Ordinary Council

Ordinary Council: Agenda

25 February 2020 Page 21

SHIRE OF ESPERANCE

AGENDA

Ordinary Council Meeting
TO BE HELD IN Council Chambers ON 25 February 2020

COMMENCING AT 4pm

1. OFFICIAL OPENING

2. ATTENDANCE

Members

Cr I Mickel President Rural Ward

Cr B Parker Deputy President Rural Ward

Cr J O’Donnell Town Ward

Cr S McMullen Town Ward

Cr S Payne Town Ward

Cr J Obourne Town Ward

Cr R Chambers Town Ward

Cr D Piercey, JP Town Ward

Cr W Graham 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

Mr R Hindley Manager Strategic Planning & Land Projects

Miss A McArthur Administration Officer – Executive Services

Members of the Public & Press

3. APOLOGIES & NOTIFICATION OF GRANTED LEAVE OF ABSENCE

4. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PERSON PRESIDING WITHOUT DISCUSSION

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS INTERESTS

6.1 Declarations of Financial Interests – Local Government Act Section 5.60a

6.2 Declarations of Proximity Interests – Local Government Act Section 5.60b

6.3 Declarations of Impartiality Interests – Admin Regulations Section 34c

7. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE – JANUARY ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

Asked by Dr K Nieukerke on behalf of Esperance Ratepayers & Electors Association

Answered by Mr M Scott – Chief Executive Officer

Further to your questions on behaif of the Esperance Ratepayers Association that were taken

on notice at the January 2020 Ordinary Council Meeting, please see below the Shire's response

(in Italics) to your queries.

Payments to Crossview

1. Can the Shire provide a list of all payments made to Crossview since 2016 under the Watch and Act process (e.g regular inspections and ‘make safe’ operations)

*Tran Date*	*Year*	*Reference*	*Value*	*Description*
15/03/2016	2016	1128	$3,344.01	Sampling jetty timber and remove ladders etc
15/02/2017	2017	1197	$2,327.50	Jetty timber removal
27/06/2017	2017	1011	$10,238.25	Periodic hire of barge for video inspections.
12/04/2017	2017	1214	$7,046.88	Periodic hire of barge for video inspections.
19/09/2017	2018	1028	$15,400.00	Emergency clearance of collapsed TJ debris
14/08/2017	2018	1022	$3,041.50	Inspection of Tanker Jetty and removal of walkway

2. Can the Shire confirm whether any work was performed under the Demolition contract. When was the contract signed and endorsed? What payments have been made and when?

3. Can the Shire confirm whether any work was performed under the Deconstruction contract. When was the contract signed and endorsed? What payments have been made and when?

The Shire only has a Demolition Contract, with a deconstruction methodology, with Crossview Enterprises (Crossview). There is no separate Demolition and Deconstruction Contract. Crossview's Demolition Tender was accepted by Council at the 8 November 2016 Special Council Meeting:

S1116-037

Council Resolution

That Council

1. Award Tender 0006-16 Demolition Esperance Tanker Jetty to Crossview Enterprises at a total cost of $1,521,700 (exclusive of GST).

2. Requests the CEO to write to the Department of Transport asking it, within 28 days, to advise the Shire whether it wishes

a. To take over control of, and resume responsibility for, the Tanker Jetty; or

b. To confirm that the Shire has the decision making authority in respect of the demolition of the Tanker Jetty;

3. Unless the Department of Transport responds under 2(a) above, requests the CEO to enter into a contract on behalf of the Shire with the successful tenderer

With the subsequent issuing of a stop work order, which ultimately became the current conservation order from the then Minister for Heritage, the Hon. Albert Jacobs MLA, a contract was unable to be executed at that time. An agreement was however reached to maintain the current tender price until such time a contract could be executed and demolition work could commence. Once a process to lift the current conservation order was endorsed by the State Govemment, including the Issuing of a Section 64 Permit, and all avenues of appeal against Council's decisions relating to the Tanker Jetty had been resolved, the Demolition Contract was executed on 3 September 2019. Since executing the contract the following payments have been made:

*Tran Date*	*Year*	*Reference*	*Value*	*Description*
07/01/2020	2020	1253	$41,846.75	Deconstruction Esperance Tanker Jetty

I trust this answers your queries.

8. PUBLIC ADDRESSES / DEPUTATIONS

Nil

9. Petitions

Nil

10. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of the 28 January 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

11. DELEGATES’ REPORTS WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Councillor Attendance - October 2019 – January 2020

	Agenda Briefing Sessions (4)	Ordinary Council Meetings (4)	Special Council Meetings (1)	Annual Electors Meeting (1)
Shire President Cr Ian Mickel	4	4	1	1
Deputy President Cr Basil Parker	4	4	1	1
Cr Jo O’Donnell	4	4	1	1
Cr Steve McMullen	4	4	1	1
Cr Shelley Payne	4	4	1	1
Cr Jennifer Obourne	4	4	1	1
Cr Ron Chambers	4	4	1	1
Cr Dale Piercey	4	4	1	1
Cr Wes Graham	4	4	1	1

12. MATTERS REQUIRING A DETERMINATION OF COUNCIL

12.1 External Services

Item: 12.1.1

Proposed Landfill at Lot 12 Kirwan Road

Author/s	Scott McKenzie	Manager Council Enterprises
Authorisor/s	Terry Sargent	Director External Services

File Ref: D19/32668

Applicant

External Services

Location/Address

Executive Summary

To enable Council to make an informed decision with regard to the environmental and financial suitability of Lot 12 Kirwan Road for a modern waste management facility.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council continue to progress with the required works within the Endorsed Environmental Scoping Document from the Environmental Protection Agency as per motion O0219-038 from the February 2019 Ordinary Council Meeting unless site investigations provide evidence of an unacceptable risk or are completed.

Background

The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER under its current and previous names) has made it well known since 2004 that the Wylie Bay Landfill site is not considered to be a suitable site for long term landfill. The first of at least six (6) letters was received in March 2004 and states in part “Local conditions would suggest that Wylie Bay is an inappropriate site for a landfill, due to the strong winds, sandy soil, high groundwater table and proximity to the coastal environs.”

Another letter from DWER received in November 2011 states “The requirement for the Wylie Bay Landfill and the liquid waste facility to be replaced by new alternate facilities on a site with appropriate pollution control has been made clear to the Shire by both the former Department of Environment and DEC.”

The Shire of Esperance has been actively seeking a new landfill site since 2007, with efforts intensifying in 2012 as the Waste Disposal Strategy was prepared. This strategy confirmed that establishing a modern waste management facility at a new site is the best long term option for the Shire.

In 2013, the Shire commenced detailed Site Selection works, including GIS mapping on constraints based on adopted criteria. Potential sites to the west and north of Esperance were subjected to ground investigations, then following ground investigations on Lot 12 Kirwan Road in September 2016, Council decided (during the December 2016 Ordinary Council Meeting) to approve a conditional contract of sale for Lot 12 Kirwan Road. The conditional purchase contract gave the Shire until 14 April 2017 to decide if the due diligence condition within the contract could be met. Nearby neighbours and residents subsequently formed the Esperance Merivale Tip Action Group (EMTAG).

The Due Diligence investigation involved the installation of 14 bores, laboratory testing of water and soils and resulted in the production of a Phase 1 Hydrogeological Risk Assessment that identified the site as being a low risk to the environment. Following the due diligence investigation, Council decided to purchase the property during the Special Council Meeting held on 12 April 2017.

Post purchase, additional on-site and desktop investigations were completed to further understand the geology and suitability of the site for the landfill in preparation for the approaches to the state and federal government approval agencies. As requested by Council, Talis Consultants prepared a Referral Document for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that was submitted for consideration on 20 October 2017. The EPA released the proposal for a seven (7) day public comment period which closed on 8 November 2017.

After receiving 82 submissions and requesting additional information from the Shire of Esperance, on 19 February 2018 the EPA determined the Level of Assessment as a Public Environment Review (PER) with a six (6) week public review period and provision of a proponent prepared Environmental Scoping Document (ESD). It is important to note that the Shire also requested a PER as one of the 82 submissions in response to some concerns from the local community in Merivale (this was to ensure the project was subjected to the highest level of scrutinity).

Later the same day, the Shire held a Special Council Meeting to consider the resolutions made at the Annual Electors Meeting, held on 30 January 2018, which included a motion; “To abandon lot 12 Kirwan-Merivale Road for a tip and immediately focus on the selection of a more appropriate site as per environmental protection authority guidelines”. In response, the following motion was put and carried by Council during a Special Council Meeting on 19 February 2018.

S0218-026

That Council

1. Acknowledge the concerns of EMTAG and others in the Community with regards to the proposed landfill facility on Lot 12 Kirwan Road; and

2. Defer any further decision regarding the proposed landfill facility on Lot 12 Kirwan Road until Council has had an opportunity to consider:

a. The Level of Assessment that has now been determined by the EPA on the Shire’s current application;

b. The Scoping Document associated with the Level of Assessment required; and

c. The potential costs of providing any additional assessment information that may be required by the EPA.

d. A third party, independent review of all current available hydrological investigations and associated reports, including the Phase 2 Hydrology report from Talis.

The draft ESD was submitted to the EPA on 1 March 2018 and two officers from the EPA conducted a site visit on 19 March 2018. During their site visit, officers from the EPA and DWER attended an informal briefing with the New Landfill Community Reference Group. The EPA provided comments back to the Shire on the Draft ESD on 4 April 2018.

This feedback informed a revised draft ESD which was distributed by the EPA to Decision Making Authorities (DMAs - various State Government Agencies). These Agencies considered the draft ESD and provided the EPA with comments and further studies that they believe should be included in the ESD. The Shire responded to all DMA comments in mid-November 2018 and the EPA Board released an Endorsed ESD on 18 December 2018. The Endorsed ESD included a number of recommendations put forward by Pennington Scott who completed the independent review.

Rockwater Pty Ltd prepared a Conceptual Hydrogeological Model (CHM), included as Attachment A, that was submitted to the EPA in support of the Final Draft ESD. The CHM contained the following key conclusions;

· The aquifer in bulk is relatively homogeneous and so is not complex in nature;

· The aquifer is typical of a normal, porous, and moderately permeable aquifer;

· Groundwater flows very slowly through the spongolite, as indicated by the hydraulic gradient and hydraulic conductivities determined by test-pumping. There have been no solution channels detected in the spongolite (that if present, could result in high-velocity flows), and it is very unlikely that any such channel exists;

· The travel time, and the pumping capacity of the production bores (indicated from the test pumping to be about 120 m3/d each), indicate that any leachate from the landfill should be readily recoverable, as described in Rockwater (2018);

· The granite (quarry) forms a barrier between the two wetland systems (Doombup and Bannitup);

· Landsim modelling software is a risk assessment tool and one-dimensional solute transport model. Provided a low risk is confirmed by the Landsim modelling, there should be no need for more complex numerical solute-transport modelling. Numerical flow and solute transport modelling could possibly be needed in the future if a leak in the liners occurred, to assist in designing a means of contaminant recovery or to predict the impact on receptors;

· A hole needed to be drilled through the Pallinup Siltstone near the southern boundary of Lot 12 to determine whether the Werillup Formation occurs, and its local characteristics; and

· With the small size of the landfill, controls on the wastes to be emplaced, the double lining planned for cells, and the potential for adsorption, biodegradation, dilution and potential recovery of any contaminants, it is unlikely there could be any unacceptable impact to receptors.

The nearby neighbours and residents again raised their concerns at the Annual Electors Meeting held on 17 December 2018. Motion 4 was moved and carried as per the below;

That Council abandon Lot 12 Kirwan Road before more ratepayer’s funds are wasted and focus on finding a site with suitable hydrology and geology that ideally embraces all elements of the triple bottom line.

Council considered all motions from the Annual Electors Meeting during the Special Council Meeting on 15 January 2019. During this meeting the following motion was carried.

S0119-004

That Council:

1. Re-confirms resolution S0218-026, specifically re-committing to defer any further decision regarding the proposed landfill facility on Lot 12 Kirwan Road until Council has had an opportunity to consider all the elements listed in resolution S0218-026; and

2. Request the CEO, if practicable, to provide initial cost estimates to implement the currently approved Scoping Document for Council’s consideration by or before the 28 February 2019.

During a meeting with EPA Officers in mid-January 2019 to discuss the Endorsed ESD, it was highlighted that the EPA is seeking ‘multiple lines of evidence’ with regard to the geological, hydrological and hydrogeological processes within and external to the site.

This series of independent investigations into the geological and hydrological processes is to ensure that the Shire provides significant scientific evidence that the Kirwan Road landfill proposal will not have a negative effect on the environment.

All Works Requirements within the endorsed ESD were sorted into a priority order for Council’s consideration. Council then agreed during the Ordinary Council Meeting on 26 February 2019 that each priority will be undertaken (in order) and work will proceed unless evidence of an environmental issue is found, as per the below motion.

O0219-038

That Council;

1. Continue with the Public Environment Review process for Lot 12 Kirwan Road

2. Undertake the required works in Attachment B in the amended priority order

3. Instruct the CEO to advise Council on the results of each study as they become available to enable Council to reassess the decision to proceed, and release the results to the community once considered by Council; and

4. Instruct the CEO to release to the public the priority order of works and;

a. Total estimated costs of implementing the scoping document.

b. The portion of the estimated costs required for DWER approval; and

c. The balance being the cost of works associated with the PER process.

Following the above motion Priority 1 tasks were undertaken. Specifically, this was to satisfy work requirements 5 and 6, being geophysical surveys to identify shallow bedrock and the presence of karst-like features that could form conduits. ASST were engaged to undertake the geophysical surveys. The surveys were conducted from 14 March to 21 May 2019.

The ASST Report “Geophysical Assessment of the Proposed Esperance Waste Management Facility” was completed in late May 2019. The report is highly technical in nature, however within the Conclusion and Recommendation on page 33, ASST made the following statement; “The geophysical datasets acquired over the survey area suggest that site conditions are fairly uniform. Apart from possible variations in gravel, sand and clay content which results in variations in the electrical structure and density (and subsequently porosity) of the subsurface, there is no evidence in the geophysical data or the drill hole logs that points to a karst environment typically found in dolomitic, limestone and gypsum environments”.

No shallow bedrock was identified within the report.

As per Council Resolution 0219-038 (copy above), ASST presented their findings to Council, the report was released to the community and the Shire moved onto Priority 2 work including the installation of a bore into the Werrilup Formation and assessing the aquifer properties through a tracer test. Soil Mechanics were then engaged to drill the bores required for the Tracer Tests and the Werrilup Formation bore. These bores were installed between 2 July 2019 and 17 July 2019, which were supervised by qualified hydrogeologists from Rockwater Pty Ltd. The Werrilup Bore was drilled down to 101m below surface level.

The tracer tests commenced on Friday 19 July 2019 and the injection, receival and two control bores were monitored 4, 5 and 7 days later and have been monitored weekly since then. The dye took 2-3 weeks to vacate the north injection well and it is still being recorded in the south injection well at the time of writing this report (over 7 months from the date of injection). To date, no dye has been detected in the receival bores. The current data from the tracer tests suggests that the hydraulic conductivity is lower (ie groundwater even moving slower) than suggested by the pumping tests.

As per the Endorsed ESD, the Shire is required to provide multiple lines of evidence to confirm the geology and hydrogeology, and their interaction, on and surrounding the site. To date multiple lines of evidence have been collated through the use of scientific techniques widely adopted by industry practitioners and as determined appropriate by the EPA to assess concerns raised by Council and the community in relation to these aspects. All investigations to date, undertaken by multiple consultancy firms, has provided a greater detailed understanding of the site and its surrounds while returning favourable results in relation to these aspects. These multiple lines of evidence further confirm the suitability of the site for the development of a landfill facility including:

· Both Rockwater and ASST consider that the site is homogenous in lithology, not complex and doesn’t have any karstic features;

· Rockwater has confirmed that the aquifer contains a continuous body of groundwater that flows as a sheet to the southwest with a relatively low hydraulic conductivity (flow);

· There is no evidence to date to supports the concept of any preferential pathways on the site that could transport water at greater speed / direction. There is some seepage from the aquifer into the Doombup Creek, however, this does not significantly alter the speed of movement / direction in the aquifer;

· Based on the properties of the aquifer gathered to date, Rockwater believes that a contingency action plan could be implemented at the site for the recovery of leachate if there was a leak from the landfill.

These findings demonstrate that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding environment including downstream receptors. In addition, no scientific information has been provided to the Shire or any of the approval authorities that would counter the findings of the extensive investigations commissioned by the Shire to date. Furthermore, the EPA and other approval authorities will be looking to make decisions on the proposal based on scientific information, which should provide greater confidence to the Council about obtaining the relevant approvals for the project.

The nearby neighbours and residents again raised their concerns within the Annual Electors Meeting held on 4 February 2020. A motion was moved and carried as per the below;

That the Esperance Shire abandons Lot 12 Kirwan Road and pursues a replacement landfill site on land more accommodating for this type of land use.

Officer’s Comment

The work involved in the ESD is a normal process that would be applied to any other hypothetical landfill location within the Shire of Esperance, and is also similar to other landfill applications being progressed through the EPA by other parties in other locations throughout the State. It is also important to note that the majority of the works would be required to satisfy the DWER application process for a Works Approval and Licence which are required at a later stage.

The proposed organic composting system (FOGO) further mitigates any potential risk to the environment due to the reduction in leachate production levels and concentrations caused by removing approximately 5,000 - 7,000 tonnes of organic waste per annum from landfill. It is anticipated that this will result in an almost inert landfill and also reduce potential odour emissions and infauna issues from the site.

It is also important to note that the proposed waste management facility is not being over-engineered to cater for any perceived or actual risk associated with the selected site. The proposed design is a standard best practice design to cater for a Class 2 on Class 3 landfill (identical to the design). The engineering design for Kirwan Road has not altered from the standard design proposed when the site was unknown, nor is it different to the design proposed when a site in Dalyup was being considered. There is therefore is no additional construction cost associated with the Kirwan Rd site as compared to any other unknown location (therefore no constrction cost savings to be achieved by relocating). It should also be noted that the Kirwan Rd site contains clay materials on site that will be used as an additional layer of attenuation under the composite lining system, an example of the commitment of the Shire of Esperance to go above and beyond the best practice requirements.

In the absence of any scientifically proven environmental or financial concern, it is considered prudent and good governance to continue with the EPA & DWER processes to allow for the independent assessment of the suitability of Lot 12 Kirwan Road for the development and operation of landfill facility. The cost to abandon the site without having any alternative site or options for landfilling past December 2022 is extremely high, approximately $2.6M.

Due to the extent of the EPA’s assessment requirements including associated data and studies, it is anticipated that these will satisfy the DWER assessment requirements and therefore, the assessment process will be streamlined. In addition, the DWER is required to be involved in satisfying Required Works which means they will be involved in the EPA process in the near future.

Due to the time required to find an alternate site, negotiate with the landowner/s, enter into a contract for sale, undertake a due diligence works, understand the initial monitoring including the tracking of seasonal variations and prepare an EPA & DWER submission, it is expected that it would take a minimum of 3 to 3 ½ years to get back to our current state of readiness for Kirwan Road. The Shire recently obtained a footprint extension to the Wylie Bay landfill which allows landfilling until 31 December 2022, this approval was granted by DWER. There is not sufficient time to source another suitable location, go through the approvals process again and construct a landfill prior to 31 December 2022.

During the recent Briefing Sessions, Council was informed of the various options for long term waste disposal that are considered available to the Shire. These can be summarised as below;

· FOGO Diversion – AVAILABLE – Will divert approximately 50% of kerbside collected waste from landfill.

· Waste to Energy – NOT AVAILABLE – The waste composition and volume from Esperance does not support any currently available waste to energy technology at a reasonable cost.

· Continuing at Wylie Bay – NOT AVAILABLE – As detailed above, the DWER has made it clear on multiple occasions that utilising the Wylie Bay location for a landfill in the medium to long term is not a viable option. Wylie Bay Landfill does not meet the current environmental standards.

· New Landfill Site – AVAILABLE – the only viable long term option, in conjunction with waste diversion/minimisation.

· Transfer Station and Cart Waste – NOT AVAILABLE – only a landfill on the west coast (metro or Bunbury region) would be able to receive the Shires waste. The Landfill levy of $70 per tonne for putrescible waste and $105 per tonne for inert waste and transport costs would make this uneconomical.

With regard to the New Landfill Site option, there have been four options identified for future assessment;

· Lot 12 Kirwan Road – an available, tested and suitable option and the Shire is progressing through detailed studies in preparation for the approvals process. All investigations to date are returning favourable results.

· Crown Land - Previously investigated in 2013. At the time, an allocation of Crown Land could be classed as ‘operational’ and therefore not allocated as a reserve but require purchase from the State. Some Crown Land will require compliance with the future act provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 (NTA) (full right to negotiate). This will impose significant time constraints and costs.

· Freehold Land – Market Approach. An obvious option is to try a fresh approach to the market to see if any new sites are available. It would be strongly recommended that Council review the Site Selection Criteria prior to any involvement with the market. Council also need to consider the risk of no offers of land being presented by landowners or those offers being well above market price.

· Freehold Land – Compulsory Acquisition. Council can acquire a site through a legal acquisition order as the land would be required for Public Works. This is an extremely unpopular option and would need careful consideration. Another challenging aspect of this process is that the Council would need to ensure that the site is suitable prior to purchase, however this cannot be achieved without on site field investigations. It is not a recommended option.

Abandoning Lot 12 Kirwan Road as a landfill site as per the motion from the Annual Electors Meeting held on 3 February 2020 is an extremely high risk option for the Shire, especially without any alternate site being identified. If Councillors wish to mitigate some of this risk, Option 1 below would allow the scientific tests to continue, gravel to be extracted and a decision made on the tree resources whilst a search is undertaken for an alternate site.

Option 1

That Council

1. Commence a search for an alternative landfill site

2. Retain lot 12 Kirwan Road to exploit the timber and gravel resources

3. Allow the scientific tests to continue at Lot 12 Kirwan Road and commence a search for an alternate site; and

4. Review the Site Selection Criteria to be utilised in the search for an alternate site.

Alternatively, if Council is concerned about the perceived risk to the environment, Priority 5 (being an independent peer review of all hydrogeological and geological information and characterisation by a qualified and experienced hydrogeologist) could be brought forward in two phases. One phase would be to review all current work and the second to review the Priority 2, 3 and 4 work once complete. Priority 5 works would require a procurement process to choose an independent hydrogeologist, with the preferred candidate & scope of works to be approved by the EPA prior to appointment. Bringing forward the Priority 5 works will also save significant time in relation to the overall delivery of the Required Works.

Option 2

That Council bring forward Priority 5 works (independent peer review of all hydrogeological and geological information and characterisation by a qualified and experienced hydrogeologist) in two Phases as follows;

1. Phase 1 – Review all geological and hydrogeological work to date, and

2. Phase 2 – Review Priority 2, 3 and 4 work once complete

Staff are unable to present an option to abandon the site, because although this is open to Council, the financial cost is extremely high ($2.6m) and none of the data collected to date shows the site to be unstuitable.

Consultation

The Shire has consulted with numerous organisations throughout the 3 years of investigation of Lot 12 Kirwan Road including;

Esperance Merivale Tip Action Group

Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development

Department of Biodiversity, Conservations and Attractions

Department of Water and Environmental Regulation

Environmental Protection Authority

Federal Department of the Environment and Energy

New Landfill Community Reference Group

Talis Consultants

Pennington Scott

Rockwater Pty Ltd

Applied Scientific Services and Technology Pty Ltd (ASST)

IW Projects

In more recent times Council has been briefed on Tuesday 28^th January 2020 on the environmental and financial implications of siting a modern waste management facility at Lot 12 Kirwan Road or trying to continue at Wylie Bay. Mr Stephen Fitzpatrick (Director Waste Services - Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council) assisted with this presentation providing guidance on EMRC’s waste infrastructure, landfill engineering and industry experience including approval requirements.

Council were also briefed on Wednesday 5^th February 2020 on the geology and hydrogeology investigations and conditions of Lot 12 Kirwan Road. Mr. Phil Wharton (Principal Hydrogeologist for Rockwater Pty Ltd) provided the presentation to Council.

Mr Phil Wharton provided the following summary during his briefing regarding the suitability of Lot 12 Kirwan Road from a hydrogeological perspective; “A good site, and probably as good as any on the Tertiary sediments, which extend to about 15 km to north. EPA requiring detailed investigations & modelling to confirm this. Better than existing landfills such as at Tamala Park and Henderson in Perth, on karstic Tamala Limestone”.

Councilors were briefed by John Simons, Senior Research Scientist at the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development on Tuesday 11^th February 2020. Mr Simons made a variety of conclusions that suggest a different interpretation of the geology and hydrogeology data as well as identifying a recently added shear zone within Lot 12 Kirwan Road. These conclusions are being summarised and responses will be provided as an addendum to the agenda in the near future.

Financial Implications

Request for Quote (RFQ) 0066-17 was awarded to Talis Consultants to undertake all conceptual and detailed design works as well as all approval works for the proposed Modern Waste Management Facility at Lot 12 Kirwan Road. The RFQ also allows Talis to appoint sub-contractors as required to undertake various specialist studies.

Rockwater Pty Ltd have stated that it is very unlikely that another site within the Shire will have clay of sufficiently low permeability (hydraulic conductivity of less than 1 x 10^-9) to act as an engineered liner, therefore the capital construction cost of a composite lined cell at any other location within the Shire is expected to be the same as Lot 12 Kirwan Road.

At the recent Councillor workshops, a variety of queries where raised in relation to transportation costs as well as potential options of waste transfer stations and haulage of waste to landfills external to the Shire. The Shire has completed a range of modelling works to gather a response to these queries.

Firstly, modelling works were undertaken to compare the haulage costs across a variety of set distance in comparison to the Kirwan Road site for direct haulage within a kerbside collection vehicles. Financial modelling was also undertaken to determine at what distance would a waste transfer station, where the waste would be accepted from kerbside collection vehicles and other similar vehicles would be consolidated prior to loading into specialist long distance haulage vehicles (such as Road Trains) for efficient transportation.

The Shire also assessed external landfills that the Shire could transport its waste to for disposal. The closest suitable facility that would be will accepted the Shire waste would be the Cleanaway Banksia Road facility in Dardanup, within the Bunbury region. The Cities of Kalgoorlie and Albany both have landfills that are approaching the end of their operational lifespans and therefore, it is anticipated that these would not wish to accept the Shire’s waste and consume their valuable void space. The licence conditions on smaller landfills in the region prevent them from accepting Esperances waste.

The modelling works have been based on a variety of assumptions that are listed below:

· Annual waste tonnage of 10,000 per annum has been utilised which is the residue waste after the implementation of the FOGO recycling system;

· The transportation distance is calculated from Wylie Bay which is the current disposal point that the Shire pays the collection contractor to deliver the waste material;

· The key logistic costs items have been provided the current contractors utilised by the Shire;

· The waste transfer station Capex consists of $2M for a fully enclosed shed and $0.5M for a dedicated compaction unit;

· The waste transfer station Opex includes covering the costs of a front end loader and its amortisation, staff wages and services costs (electricity and fuels costs);

· The landfill gate fee applied to landfills within Esperance are the same and based on previous modelling works undertaken by the Shire;

· The landfill levy has been included within the landfill disposal costs for the Banksia Road site. Over recent years there has been discussions of the expansion of the landfill levy to beyond the metropolitan area. Due to the significant population and associated waste tonnages, it is anticipated that the landfill levy will cover the whole south western seaboard. The landfill levy has been costed at 58% of the metropolitan levy.

· The model assumes a 2% inflation rate over the 30 years;

Table 1 below summarises the findings of the financial modelling works undertaken across the various options listed above. It is important to note, these costs will need to be imposed on the Esperance community either through the rates systems or via waste fees and charges for commercial waste generators.

Table 1. Estimated Additional Annual Cost of Transporting Waste

The key findings arising from the logistics modelling works are as follows:

· The additional average cost per annum for haulage to a location further than the Kirwan Road facility ranges from $155,000 to $800,000 depending on how far the waste is transported (40km to 140km). This corresponds to an average annual increase per rateable property from $23.92 to $127.95.

· At somewhere between 120km and 140km, it would be more cost effective for the Shire to implement a waste transfer station as opposed to direct haulage with the kerbside waste collection vehicles;

· The cost of transporting the Shire waste to the Cleanaway Banksia Road facility within Dardanup is calculated as an average annual cost of $1.4M, or over $43M over 30 years. This correlates to an average annual increase to rateable properties of $221.87.

This illustrates the Kirwan Road proposal is by far the most cost effective option available to the Shire for the provision of its long term waste disposal requirements.

The estimated cost of getting back to the current progress of a landfill search is $2.596M (see table below). This assumes a new site will cost $1.2M and the trees on Kirwan Road have retained some value. This information was presented to Council in December 2017, February 2018, June 2018 and February 2019.

It should be noted that although land parcels are generally much larger in the northern agricultural areas, the land value per hectare is not substantially lower so acquisition costs may be much more than the purchase or sale price of Lot 12 Kirwan Rd and the $1.2M figure listed below.

Known Costs
Kirwan Road Purchase Price	$1,450,000
Holding Cost (interest foregone on funds)	$108,750
Drilling, Due Diligence & Phase 1 Hydro Risk Assessment - 2016/17	$253,644
Esperance Surveys	$4,640
Lawyers - Contract	$2,199
EPA Referral, Specialist Studies (inc Phase 2 Hydro) – 2017/18	$133,713
Preparation of ESD, Pumping Test, etc – 2018/19	$231,978
Werrilup Bore Drilling and Tracer Test Supervision	$121,276
SUB-TOTAL	$2,306,200
Assumed Costs and Income
Drilling and Reports to get back to current stage of works	$740,000
Purchase of new unknown site (could be significantly higher if large lot)	$1,200,000
Net return from tree harvest and rehab of land *	-$700,000
Resale of Lot 12 Kirwan Road	-$950,000
TOTAL	$2,596,200
Assumptions:
Foregone Interest at current treasury rate - 2.5% over 3 years
*Quoted value in trees to increase by more than cost of site rehab but decisions about the timing of the harvest and the extent of rehabilitation will affect this figure
Assumed growth in value of approx 3% pa on 2016/17 sworn valuation of $820K

The 2018-19 Budget has an allocation of $433,500 for Strategic Waste Initiatives in Work Order 2189. To date, $153,894 has been expended, leaving a balance of $279,606. The work required to undertake tasks in the priority order can be completed within Budget this financial year, however due to timing issues, there would need to be a carryover and/or further funds budgeted in the 2019/20 financial year.

Asset Management staff have recently investigated the gravel resources on Lot 12 Kirwan Road and reported that there is a good supply of gravel in the 400mm to 1,200mm+ layers. They further report that future roadworks planned in the Merivale Area would require approximately 50,000 to 60,000 m3 of gravel in the short term. If this gravel was obtained from Lot 12 Kirwan Road, it is estimated to save the Shire between $139,500 and $352,800 in reduced haulage costs and royalty payments.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Section 3.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) states that the general function of local government is to provide for the good governance of persons in its district.

Section 2.7 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) states that the role of Council is to govern the local government’s affairs and is responsible for the performance of the local government’s functions.

The Shire has referred the proposal to develop a modern waste management facility as per section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 for assessment under Part IV of the same Act.

The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 makes it quite clear that Local Government is required to provide a waste service to the community, which also includes the provision and management of waste facilities. The Act also contains a power for the CEO of the Waste Authority to direct a Local Government to include a Waste Plan in the Shire’s plan for the future to outline how the local government plans to protect human health and the environment going forward. If this Waste Plan is not the satisfaction of the CEO of the Waste Authority, the Waste Authority can prepare a plan on the Shire’s behalf. This could be an option that the Waste Authority / DWER considers if the Shire has no suitable plan in place to locate a new landfill facility.

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Natural Environment

A community that empowered and motivated to minimise waste

Targeted reduction of waste with an emphasis on resource recovery and waste minimisation

Corporate Business Plan 2019/20 – 2022/23

B1.5 Plan for and construct new landfill site

Council adopted a Community Waste Strategy 2018-2023 during the Ordinary Council Meeting on 27^th February 2018, one of the actions included within this strategy was ‘New Waste Management Facility – The Shire to continue to progress the development of a best practice landfill facility to ensure that this critical community service can be provided to the community’.

Environmental Considerations

One of the major concerns from the community relates to the speed of groundwater movement on Lot 12 Kirwan Road and surrounding areas.

Rockwater Pty Ltd were engaged to perform pumping tests, with Kent Water Drilling installing the bores and assisting with the pumping tests. Pumping tests were performed on 31 July 2018 and 1August 2018. Both pumping tests resulted in a calculated velocity of 39m per annum. Based on the distance from the proposed landfill cell to the southern property boundary this is a travel time of approximately 41 years.

Rockwater have also commenced tracer tests. There has been some concern raised with regard to the Tracer Tests and the fact that the dye is yet to be detected. All indications are proving that the aquifer is slow moving. The dye took 2-3 weeks to vacate the north injection well and is still being recorded in the south injection well at the time of writing - almost 7 months from the date of injection. These interim results suggest that the groundwater movement at the site is lower than the pumping test results. Therefore, it is anticipated that the 41 years travel time to the southern property boundary may be conservative and the actual time could be higher. This provides sufficient time for the Shire to enact any leachate recovery plan if required to ensure there are no impacts to down gradient receptors.

Over the course of site investigations since September 2016, the Shire has conducted numerous scientific tests and commenced work on defining other amenity issues. In order to summarise the risks (including proposed controls that will mitigate these risks) and define the overall risk of a modern waste management facility at Lot 12 Kirwan Road, the Risk Assessment Table (Attachment I) has been prepared. As can be seen within the Table, the overall risk to the surrounding environment and amenity is consider low arising from the detailed understanding of the environmental values on and surrounding the site and the extensive environmental engineering and management measures to be implemented at the site including ongoing monitoring and contingency plans.

Numerous consultants have prepared reports and reviewed information over the three years of investigations since the conditional offer to purchase was signed. All of these reports and reviews provide the Shire, approval authorities and other project stakeholders with multiple lines of evidence that confirm that the site is of low risk (there is no ‘zero’ risk option, therefore low is the lowest risk option) and is therefore suitable for the establishment of a modern waste management facility. None of the consultants have concluded the site to be unsuitable.

Extracts of the below reports (other than IWProjects and the Rockwater Conceptual Hydrogeological Model) are provided in the agenda as the full reports total 841 pages. All reports are all available on the Shire website and have been previously released to the community.

Talis – Due Diligence and Landfill Capability Assessment March 2017, page 21 (Attachment B) - “The result of the assessment indicated that the likelihood of the landfill negatively impacting the receptors is low. This is due to the landfill being engineered to BPEM Guidelines and the geology of the Site will allow for natural attenuation”.

Talis – Due Diligence and Landfill Capability Assessment March 2017, page 33 (Attachment B) - “The environmental and social attributes of the Site were assessed against the BPEM Guidelines to ensure the Site meets all requirements for the siting of a landfill. Following assessment of this information it was determined that the Site complies with all the relevant siting requirements as specified within the BEPM Guidelines”.

Eco Logical – Site 19 Esperance Flora and Fauna Survey March 2017, page 19 (Attachment C) – “It is considered unlikely that the Proposal will have a detrimental effect on the ecological values of this system if all precautionary steps are taken to ensure that the landfill is secure and contained to the study area”.

Talis – Phase 1 Hydrogeological Investigation June 2017, page 46 (Attachment D) - “The overall risk posed by the siting of a facility within the Site is considered to be low”.

IWProjects – Review of Kirwan Road Landfill Documentation February 2018, page 1 (Attachment E) – “My opinion, as a waste management consultant with extensive experience in landfill development, is that the site is well suited for the proposed development and should easily be able to be developed, operated and closed without causing any significant environmental impact to the local environment. The challenge that we have in the waste industry is the fact that there is often a portion of the community that have a fundamental objection to the development or even expansion of landfill facilities. Provided that there are no significant environmental concerns with the identified site (which there appears to be none for the Kirwan Road site), generally, the community objection is emotive as opposed to technical in nature. This appears to be the situation with the Shire’s proposed development.”.

Pennington Scott – Technical Review on Hydrogeology May 2018, page 18 (Attachment F) – “We have identified no hydrogeological fatal flaws that would otherwise preclude this Site from use as a Waste Management Facility…”.

Pennington Scott had confidence in the engineering work performed by Talis, page 5 – “Overall the engineering recommendations provided by Talis are sound”. However, Pennington Scott was critical of some of the geological and hydrogeological work performed by Talis at that stage, this was addressed going forward by having Rockwater Pty Ltd undertake all geological and hydrogeological work going forward.

Rockwater – Results of Pumping Test August 2018, page 4 (Attachment G) – “The pumping test results have shown that the Pallinup Siltstone underlying the site is moderately permeable and suitable for the construction of leachate recovery bores, should they be needed”.

Rockwater – Results of Pumping Test August 2018, page 6 (Attachment G) – “There are no indications from either the test results or the groundwater-level contours that there are any zones of preferred groundwater flow beneath the site that would result from, for example, a major karstic feature such as a solution pipe”.

Rockwater – Conceptual Hydrogeological Model November 2018, page 8 (Attachment A) – “Groundwater flows very slowly through the spongolite, as indicated by the hydraulic gradient and hydraulic conductivities determined by test-pumping. There have been no solution channels detected in the spongolite (that if present, could result in high-velocity flows), and it is very unlikely that any such channel exists”.

ASST – Report for Geophysical Assessment of the Proposed Esperance Waste Management Facility May 2019, page 33 (Attachment H) – “The geophysical datasets acquired over the survey area suggest that site conditions are fairly uniform. Apart from possible variations in gravel, sand and clay content which results in variations in the electrical structure and density (and subsequently porosity) of the subsurface, there is no evidence in the geophysical data or the drill hole logs that points to a karst environment typically found in dolomitic, limestone and gypsum environments”.

Attachments

a ⇨.	Entire Report - Rockwater Conceptual Hydrogeological Model - November 2018 - Under Separate Cover
b ⇩.	Extract - Talis Due Diligence and Landfill Capability Assessment - March 2017
c ⇩.	Extract - Eco Logical - Flora and Fauna Survey - June 2017
d ⇩.	Extract - Talis Hydrogeological Invesigation - June 2017
e ⇩.	Entire Report - IWProjects - Review of Kirwan Road Landfill Documentation - February 2018
f ⇩.	Extract - Pennington Scott - Technical Review on Hydrogeology - May 2018
g ⇩.	Extract - Rockwater - Results of Pumping Tests - August 2018
h ⇩.	Extract - ASST - Geophysical Assessmen of the Proposed WMF - May 2019
i ⇩.	Risk Assessment Table - Lot 12 Kirwan Road

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council continue to progress with the required works within the Endorsed Environmental Scoping Document from the Environmental Protection Agency as per motion O0219-038 from the February 2019 Ordinary Council Meeting unless site investigations provide evidence of an unacceptable risk or are completed.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Ordinary Council: Agenda

25 February 2020 Page 49

Item: 12.1.3

Development Application - Additions to Outbuilding (Shed) - Lot 12 (33) Mitchell Street, Castletown

Author/s	Peter Wilks	Senior Planning Officer
Authorisor/s	Richard Hindley	Manager Strategic Planning & Land Projects

File Ref: D20/3662

Applicant

R R & S B Growden

Location/Address

Lot 12 (33) Mitchell Street, Castletown

Executive Summary

For Council to consider Development Application 10.2019.4272.1 for Additions to an Outbuilding (Shed) at Lot 12 (33) Mitchell Street, Castletown.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council refuse Development Application 10.2019.4272.1 for Additions to an Outbuilding (Shed) at Lot 12 (33) Mitchell Street, Castletown as the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of Local Planning Policy: Outbuildings.

An alternative recommendation is included as Option 2 should Council choose approve the application after having regards for the Local Planning Policy: Outbuildings.

Background

An application for planning approval for Additions to the Outbuilding (Shed) at Additions to an Outbuilding (Shed) at Lot 12 (33) Mitchell Street, Castletown was received by Planning Services on 14 January 2020. Advertising was subsequently undertaken by Shire of Esperance (Planning Services) to adjoining landowners. No objections were received from the adjoining landowners.

In accordance with the provisions of Council’s Local Planning Policy: Outbuildings, the proposed outbuilding requires referral to Council for determination, with the policy stating:

Outbuildings in Residential and Future Residential Zones

*Objective*	The objective of these development requirements is to achieve a balance between: • Providing for the legitimate garaging, storage and other domestic needs of people living in residential areas; and • Minimising the adverse impacts outbuildings may have on the amenity (e.g. peace and quiet), appearance and character of residential neighbourhoods, and on neighbours.
*Permitted Uses of Outbuildings*	• Must be for legitimate residential purposes. • Use of outbuildings for commercial/business uses is not permitted except where planning approval has been granted for a home based business. • Use of outbuildings for human habitation is not permitted. • An Outbuilding will not be approved until such time as a Dwelling is substantially commenced on the lot.
*Setbacks*	As per provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 24 and the Residential Design Codes;
*Size*	• Maximum area of outbuilding(s) per lot: o 10% of site area where lot 1000m2 or less; o 100m2 where lot is greater than 1000m2. • Maximum wall height – 3.6 metres • Maximum ridge height – 4.2 metres
*Maximum Variation*	• 25% for Site Area • 10% for Wall or Ridge Height
*Consultation*	Where an application for an outbuilding does not comply with the site and setback provisions referenced above, the application is to be referred to the affected adjoining landowners for comment in accordance with the consultation provisions of the Residential Design Codes.

Shire staff are only authorised to approve applications that meet the requirements of legislation and Council Policy. Applications for outbuildings that do not comply with the above development requirements will be assessed on a case by case basis and may be permitted by Council subject to the following matters being taken into account in the assessment process:

· Demonstration that the larger size is required to satisfy specific domestic needs;

· The outbuilding will not reduce the amount of open space required by Table 1 of the Residential Design Codes;

· The outbuilding being sited behind the front setback line for the dwelling;

· Use of non-reflective materials on the outbuilding and/or adequate screening from the road and neighbouring properties being provided; and

· Comments from the affected adjoining landowner’s.

If the Maximum Variation is exceeded the matter will be referred to Council with an officers recommendation to refuse the application.

This proposal calls for approximately 154 square metres of Outbuildings on the property, where Council has permitted a maximum of 100 square metres under its Local Planning Policy: Outbuildings. Thus the matter is referred to Council for determination.

It should be noted that the subject lot has an area of 1012m² which results in approximately 15% of the site being covered by outbuildings.

The proposal complies with all other provisions of the Residential Design Codes and Local Planning Scheme No. 24 that are not overwritten by Local Planning Policy: Outbuildings with the sole exception of the side boundary setback to the western boundary. A non-objection was provided by the affected adjoining landowner as part of the application.

Officer’s Comment

The proposal calls for approximately 154 square metres of Outbuildings on the property. It is noted that the building does not comply with the acceptable development provisions of the Local Planning Policy – Outbuildings as it exceeds both the maximum 100 square metres of Outbuildings permitted in the Residential zone as the 25% maximum variation criteria which would permit up to 125 square metres of Outbuildings on the property subject to neighbor referral.

The applicant has informed Planning Services that the proposed Additions to the Outbuilding are for the purposes of a carport and to shelter vehicles.

The structure does not comply with Local Planning Policy: Outbuildings, and as such the Officers Recommendation is for the refusal of the application as per the policy.

Options:

Option 1 (Officers Recommendation):

Council officers are bound to make recommendations that are consistent with legislation and the provisions of Local Planning Policy: Outbuildings so the officer’s recommendation is:

That Council refuse development application Development Application 10.2019.4272.1 for Additions to an Outbuilding (Shed) at Lot 12 (33) Mitchell Street, Castletown on the following grounds:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of Local Planning Policy: Outbuildings.

Option 2:

Whilst officers are required to make a recommendation consistent with the Local Planning Policy: Outbuildings, Council still has some discretion by giving regard to the Local Planning Policy to determine in favour of the application hence this second option is also presented for Council consideration.

That Council approve development application Development Application 10.2019.4272.1 for Additions to an Outbuilding (Shed) at Lot 12 (33) Mitchell Street, Castletown subject to the following conditions:

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

b) The approved outbuilding(s) 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.

c) 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).

d) 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.

e) 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).

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

g) The development hereby approved must not create community safety concerns, or otherwise adversely affect the amenity of the subject locality by reason of (or the appearance or emission of) smoke, fumes, noise, vibration, odour, vapour, dust, waste water, waste products or other pollutants.

And the following advice notes:

a) THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. An application for a building permit or building approval certificate is required to be submitted and approved by the Shire of Esperance (Building Services) prior to any works commencing on-site.

b) The development is to comply with the Building Code of Australia, Building Regulations and the Local Government Act.

c) 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.

d) 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.

e) Horizon Power has requested the Shire to advise Applicants that Horizon Power has certain restrictions regarding the installation of conductive materials near its network assets. Applicants are advised to contact Horizon Power’s Esperance office to ascertain whether any of Horizon Power’s restrictions affect their proposed development.

Consultation

Neighbour referral was undertaken by Planning Services to five adjoining landowners between 22 January 2020 and 6 February 2020. No objections were received to the application. A non-objection was provided by one adjoining landowner as part of the application.

Financial Implications

Application fees totalling $147.00 were received as part of this application.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications arising from this report are:

· Planning and Development Act 2005

· Local Planning Scheme No. 24

· Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

Policy Implications

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 development 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. In considering an application for Planning Approval, the local government must have regard to a Local Planning Policy as required under Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Built Environment

New developments enhance the existing built environment

Facilitate and guide high quality, compliant and efficient building and development across the Shire

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a ⇩.

Plans

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council refuse Development Application 10.2019.4272.1 for Additions to an Outbuilding (Shed) at Lot 12 (33) Mitchell Street, Castletown on the following grounds:

1) The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of Local Planning Policy: Outbuildings.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Ordinary Council: Agenda

25 February 2020 Page 169

Item: 12.4.3

2020 Annual Meeting of Electors Motions

Author/s	Matthew Scott	Chief Executive Officer
Authorisor/s	Matthew Scott	Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: D20/3710

Applicant

Internal

Location/Address

N/A

Executive Summary

For Council to consider the motions from electors that were carried at the Annual Meeting of Electors, held on 4 February 2020.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council request the CEO to investigate forming a Streetscape Committee (Motion 1) and note Motion 2 from the 2020 Annual Meeting of Electors.

Background

Subsequent to accepting the 2018/19 Annual Report, the Shire of Esperance held its Annual Meeting of Electors (AME), held on 4 February 2020, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 and associated regulations. At the AME, two (2) motions in General Business were moved and subsequently carried by electors at the meeting, being:

Motion 1

That the Shire of Esperance explores the forming of a Streetscape Committee.

Motion 2

That the Esperance Shire abandons lot 12 Kirwan Road and pursues a replacement landfill site on land more accommodating for this type of land use.

Section 5.33 Local Government Act 1995 requires all decisions made at electors’ meetings to be considered by Council at either the next Ordinary Council Meeting, or, if this is not practicable, at the next Ordinary Council Meeting or at Special Council Meeting for that purpose, whichever happens first. Given the relatively few motions passed, there seems little reason not to deal with these matters other than at the February Ordinary Meeting of Council.

Officer’s Comment

As discussed in the Item background, Section 5.33 Local Government Act 1995 (LGA) provides for what occurs with decisions made at an Electors’ meeting (both annual and special). Section 5.33(1) deals with when Council is required to consider decisions from the AME, while Section 5.33(2) deals with what Council must do, should it make a response to a decision (or motion) at the AME. Under this section, the LGA provides no power to an electors’ meeting (Annual or Special) to direct the Council or Shire to take any action or not to take any action on specific or general issue. Council is simply required to consider the motions passed, and if it chooses to make a decision (or resolution) in response to these motions, then the reason for these decisions are to be recorded in the minutes. Council has a variety of options available being:

1. Reject the motion(s)

2. Support the motion(s)

3. Amending the motion(s)

4. Note the motion(s)

5. Or a combination of the above

Council, however, is also required to ensure all actual Council decisions are lawful, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the LGA and related regulations, other legislation and law (such as contract and industrial), with reference to Council policies, local laws and currently uncompleted Council resolutions. This can create conflict between motions moved and passed at electors’ meetings, as there is no expectation for electors to have regard to these obligations (as they are not elected members nor may have access to all information regarding a specific matter). Council’s role is to balance the views that are expressed at the electors meeting, with those of the greater community and Council’s statutory obligations. This regrettably may result in motions at electors meeting being significantly modified or unable to be implemented, due to them being considered “ultra vires” (beyond the authority of Council).

Council should consider the following matters relating to the Motions passed at the AME.

Motion 1

1. Section 5.8 LGA provides Council to the ability to establish committees of 3 or more persons to assist the Council. Council needs to develop terms of reference for a committee, which would include the committee purpose, type and membership. Council will need to decide whether this committee is used for referral purposes or provides the committee with authority to make actual decisions with regard to future streetscape developments;

2. The Shire currently utilises, engages and contracts with several local individuals and organisations with landscaping skill and expertise on a regular basis. It may be difficult to recruit local individuals with the necessary skills and expertise without potentially creating financial interest conflicts, restricting their participation within the committee;

3. Streetscaping within the Esperance CBD is currently guided by the Esperance CBD Landscaping Plan, developed by H+H Architects and adopted by Council in August 2019, which includes an overall landscape design for Dempster and Andrew Streets, including plant selection and planting guide, and proposed location of hard infrastructure (public seating, shelters and bike racks);

4. Simply investigating Streetscape Committees from other Local Governments (if any) should not be overly demanding, and therefore it is recommended that the Council request the CEO to provide a briefing on other Local Government Streetscape Committees prior to seeking a resolution to form one.

Motion 2

1. The future of the proposed landfill on Lot 12 Kirwan Road, Merivale, is a separate item within this Agenda to be considered by Council;

2. As this matter is already being considered separately, it is recommended that Council note the motion from the AME.

As always, Councillors have the ability to move their own motions, which may or may not be representative of the Officer’s recommendation. Council also has the option to deal with each recommendation separately or collectively.

Consultation

The attendance of 45 electors at the AME is considered to be the community consultation on this matter.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications associated with this item are:

Section 2.7 The Role of the council, Local Government Act 1995

Section 5.33 Decisions made at electors’ meetings, Local Government Act 1995

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Community Leadership

Community confidence and trust in Council

Provide transparent and accountable leadership

Corporate Business Plan 2019/20 – 2022/23

L1.3 Facilitate Regular Public Council Meetings

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

Nil

Officer’s Recommendation – Motion 1

That Council:

1. Note Motion 1 from the Annual Meeting of Electors (February 2020);

2. Request the CEO investigate forming a Streetscape Committee; and

3. Instruct the CEO to advise the Mover and Seconder of the Motion of Council’s resolution.

Officer Recommendation - Motion 2

That Council note Motion 2 from the Annual Meeting of Electors (February 2020) and instruct the CEO to advise the Mover and Seconder of Motion of Council’s resolution.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Change	Comment
Modification to title to reference as a Local Planning Policy.	Minor variation reflecting the status of the Policy as a Local Planning Policy.
Requiring a Bushfire Attack Level Assessment be prepared and lodged with a development application where the development is located in a fire prone area.	Where development is proposed within the Bushfire Prone Area a Bushfire Attack Level Assessment be prepared and lodged with the application.
A new provision stating that where a Bushfire Attack Level Assessment of BAL-40 and BAL-Flame Zone applies it is considered inappropriate for a Holiday Home land use and an application for development approval will be not be accepted or supported.	Where a proposal is within the BAL-40 and BAL-Flame Zone a prohibition will be placed on the development of Holiday Homes due to the risk of Bush Fire Attack.
Requiring an Electrical Safety Certificate must be prepared and lodged with a development application or alternatively may be conditioned where smoke alarms have not yet been installed.	This is required to ensure that electrical safety including the installation of smoke alarms and any emergency lighting is compliant.
New Heading of Smoke Alarms and Fire Safety	Minor variation relating to heading only.
Where there are four (4) or more bedrooms being let the building is subject to compliance with Disability (Access to Premises – buildings) Standards 2010 and AS 1428 – Design for access and mobility.	Where there are four (4) or more bedrooms being let within a building there is a requirement to comply with the Disability (Access to Premises – buildings) Standards 2010 and AS 1428 – Design for access and mobility.
Requiring a Certificate of Building Compliance is to be provided demonstrating compliance with Sections 3.3 and where relevant 3.4 of this Local Planning Policy.	This condition established the method by which compliance with aspects of the policy relating to Smoke Alarms and Fire Safety as well as the Premise Standards where four (4) or more bedrooms are let in a building.

Policy Name	New Ref No.	Recommended Amendment
Motor Vehicles	HR 001	Change to level 1 use – cost of fuel now employee’s responsibility outside of WA rather than outside Shire boundary.
Staff Entitlements	HR 002	Change from Human Services to Human Resources.
Staff Retention & Recruitment	HR 003	Add ‘reclassified’ into basis of calculation paragraph.
Staff Annual and Long Service Leave Management	HR 004	No change to wording.
Recognition of Long-Term Service	HR 005	Removal of additional full stop in Policy section.
Equal Opportunity, Harassment & Bullying	HR 007	Amend title to include Discrimination. Amend listed legislation in Policy section. Add sentence to procedure section regarding threat or assault. Add ‘consequences’ paragraph. Minor spelling amendments.
Emergency Volunteer and Reserve Services Leave	HR 008	No change to wording.
Jury Duty	HR 009	No change to wording.
Occupational Safety & Health	HR 010	No change to wording.
Termination of Employment	HR 011	Add full stop into point 3 of objective.
Gratuity Payment and Farewell Gifts to Employees	HR 012	Amend objective, add eligibility section, include ‘continuous service’ after listed timeframes, add determination of continuous service.
UV & Clothing Policy	HR 013	Inclusion of ‘damaged’ in point 2 in ‘fair wear and tear replacements’ section.
Workplace Drug and Alcohol Use	HR 014	Minor wording changes throughout.
CEO Performance Review	HR 015	Minor wording changes.
Volunteer Management	HR 016	No changes to wording.

Page Number	Amendment	Reason for Amendment
2	Update Shire President Information, photo and signature	To reflect current Shire President
7	Updated Dates (also on cover page)	To reflect the current year
8	Support Category - Added wording ‘for Events see Events Eligibility and Conditions pg.11’	To ensure Support Grants for events meet our Event requirements ie getting permits etc.
9,10 &11	Divided additional information required into “must include” and “can include”	Previously only had “must include”, many of these not relevant to applications, considered onerous
9,10 &11	Quote information requirements updated - *Added Quotations for project expenses: one quotation for all purchases over $1,000; two quotations for all purchases over $3,000** *Local quotes preferred, if local quotes are not obtained, please provide a suitable explanation.	Previously had 2 quotes required for all purchases over $1,000, no mention of local quotes
13	‘Please Note’ section - Updated to include Shire Staff	Previously only mentioned Councillors
15	Updated Dates of Strategic Community Plan	To reflect current plan
15	‘Ineligible’ section - Removed “Are currently receiving a recurring contribution/s from Council”	To reflect current reality. There is still reference to sustainability and lower priority given to recurring projects (pg. 14-15).

Amendment	Reason for Amendment
Created new condensed application form for Grants under $5,000, based upon existing form. To be used for Assistance & Smaller Event Applications. Previously 7 pages, now only 3	To reduce workload/explanation required by applicants for smaller grant amounts
Updated existing 7 page application form to show it is now only to be used for applications over $5,000. Development and Larger event applications
Updated budget and checklist/declaration to be more explicit with what the guidelines require	To improve the quality of information supplied and help to ensure applications meet guidelines and reduce follow-up required.
Changed “I” to “we” in declaration	To encourage two committee members to sign / be responsible for the application
For the over $5k form: Updated Strategic Community Plan Themes	To reflect current plan

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	Mathew Walker	Director Asset Management
Authorisor/s	Matthew Scott	Chief Executive Officer

Timber Grade	Action
3	Expression of Interests to donate historic timber for projects that demonstrate community benefit

Author/s	Sarah Walsh	Coordinator Corporate Support
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Director Corporate Resources

a ⇩.	Request to not renew lease
b ⇩.	Information on Site from Committee

Author/s	Beth O'Callaghan	Manager Financial Services
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Director Corporate Resources

Author/s	Sarah Moroney	Corporate Reporting & Governance Officer
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Director Corporate Resources

Author/s	Alli McArthur	Administration Officer - Executive Services
Authorisor/s	Matthew Scott	Chief Executive Officer

a ⇩.	Information Bulletin - January 2020
b ⇩.	Corporate Performance Report - January 2020
c ⇩.	Register - Delegations Discharge - Corporate Resources

Author/s	Trevor Ayers	Manager Community & Economic Development
Authorisor/s	Matthew Scott	Chief Executive Officer

Author/s	Shane Tobin	Community Development & Events Coordinator
Authorisor/s	Matthew Scott	Chief Executive Officer

a ⇩.	Community Grants Guidelines 20/21
b ⇩.	Community Grants Support Application
c ⇩.	Community Grants Application ($5000 or below)
d ⇩.	Community Grants Applications (over $5000)