Agenda of Ordinary Council

Ordinary Council: Agenda

22 September 2020 Page 21

SHIRE OF ESPERANCE

AGENDA

Ordinary Council Meeting
TO BE HELD IN the Cascade Community Hall

ON 22 September 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 S Burge Acting Chief Executive Officer

Mr M Walker Director Asset Management

Mr S McKenzie Acting Director External Services

Mrs B O’Callaghan Acting Director Corporate Resources

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

Mr T Sargent Director External Services Leave

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 – AUGUST ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

Questioned by Dr K Nieukerke

Answered by Mr S Burge – Acting Chief Executive Officer

Thank you for your questions on 25 August 2020 at the Ordinary Council Meeting. Please see responses to you questions taken on notice below.

Question 1 - Current Estimates for the Tanker Jetty.

We are now well into the construction phase of the Tanker Jetty. I like an understanding of the full costs Shire will incur on this project. In broad terms I believe these to be:

a) Design by H&H $ 375,000

b) Deconstruction by Crossview $ 1,525,000

c) Heritage 'supervision' $ 50,000

d) Shire Project Management $ 80,000

e) Jetty Construction by Maritime Construction $ 6,850,000

f) Contract variations (2020) $ 250,000

The total costs appear to now be over $9M.

Response

The Budget / cost for the Esperance Tanker Jetty:

a) Esperance Tanker Jetty Replacement Detailed Design Development by H&H - $368K

b) Demolition Esperance Tanker Jetty by Crossview - $1,522K

c) Watching Brief for Deconstruction of Esperance Tanker Jetty - $35K

d) Shire Project Management - $80K

e) Jetty Construction by Maritime Construction - $6,796K

f) Construction Contingencies - $260K

Question 2 - Annual costs for the Tanker Jetty.

Based on the current estimates can Shire advise anticipated annual costs in

• Depreciation

• Maintenance

• Replacement/ future jetty reserve

Response

The Annual Cost for the Replacement Jetty:

• Depreciation / Replacement/ future jetty reserve $6,796K / 50 Years = $136K / year

• Annualised Maintenance $57K / year

Again, thank you for your queries. Should you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

8. PUBLIC ADDRESSES / DEPUTATIONS

9. Petitions

Nil

10. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of the 25 August 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

11. DELEGATES’ REPORTS WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Councillor Attendance

	Agenda Briefing Sessions (11)	Ordinary Council Meetings (11)	Special Council Meetings (5)	Annual Electors Meeting (1)
Shire President Cr Ian Mickel	11	11	5	1
Deputy President Cr Basil Parker	11	11	4	1
Cr Jo-Anne O’Donnell	11	11	5	1
Cr Steve McMullen	10	11	5	1
Cr Shelley Payne	11	11	5	1
Cr Jennifer Obourne	10	11	5	1
Cr Ron Chambers	10	11	4	1
Cr Dale Piercey	8	10	5	1
Cr Wes Graham	11	10	4	1

12. MATTERS REQUIRING A DETERMINATION OF COUNCIL

12.1 External Services

Item: 12.1.1

Food Organics & Garden Organics (FOGO)

Author/s	Nicholas Kleinig	Acting Manager Council Enterprises
	Georgia Ryan	Waste Management Coordinator
Authorisor/s	Scott McKenzie	Acting Director External Services

File Ref: D20/23488

Applicant

N/A

Location/Address

N/A

Executive Summary

To consider the implementation of a Food Organics and Garden Organics (FOGO) recovery and composting program.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council commit to progressing the implementation of a Food Organics and Garden Organics (FOGO) recovery and composting program in line with the existing business case.

Background

As of 2020, many WA Local Governments including the City of Fremantle, the City of Bunbury, the Town of East Fremantle and the Shires of Augusta-Margaret River, Capel, Collie, Harvey and Donnybrook-Balingup have all introduced FOGO services, while many other areas are currently working on early planning or developmental phases. Additional to this, the WA Waste Authority aims to have introduced a FOGO recovery system throughout every Local Government across the entirety of the Perth and Peel regions by 2025, extending this to regional areas by 2030, noting Esperance is considered “remote”, not “regional” or “city” by the ABS, and is thus not bound to these targets.

In 2018 the Shire of Esperance conducted a Kerbside Waste Audit, and headlining the list of outcomes was a recommendation that the Shire “…investigate the benefits of [the] introduction of a FOGO kerbside collection service as part of the organics business case and implementation plan to capture the high rate of compostable organics present within the waste stream”. In May 2019, an Organics Recycling Program - Business Case and Implementation Plan (Attachment A - ‘FOGO Business Case’) was then presented to Council, whereat it was resolved:

O0519-077

Council Resolution

That Council direct the CEO to:

1. Commence planning for the introduction of a 3rd bin system for FOGO waste and processing via composting early in the 20/21 financial year

2. Actively Pursue grant funding to assist with the required capital outlay, and

3. Submit applications to The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation for works approval and licences to operate a composting facility.

Further to this, the issue of FOGO was raised during the July 2020 OCM, whereat Council resolved to conduct additional research on the topic with the results - the subject of this report - to be presented at the September 2020 OCM as follows:

O0720-258

Council Resolution

That Council;

1. Request the CEO to report to Council on the proposed FOGO program including:

· Funding opportunities

· Financial implications

· Educational opportunities

· Environmental implications

· Compost Quality and Sale of Compost Possibilities

· Community Consultation – previous & proposed

2. Report to Council at the September 2020 OCM.

Officer’s Comment

The 2018 Shire of Esperance Kerbside Waste Audit (D18/28449) identified that “food waste in packaging” and “compostable” waste represented a combined 55% of the current volume being deposited into landfill:

Once “capture rates” are applied, in a single year this equates to an estimated total of 3,504,000 kilograms (3,504 tonnes, business case Table 6-8) of FOGO waste that would otherwise be destined for landfill, which, once processed, has potential to become approximately 2,394,000 kilograms (2,394 tonnes, business case Table 15-12) of ‘saleable end product’ in the form of FOGO compost in the first year alone.

Funding Opportunities:

Limited grant funding opportunities are available through the WA Waste Authority (refer https://www.wasteauthority.wa.gov.au/programs), including:

“Better Bins Plus: Go FOGO”:

The next round of applications for this grant opportunity open on 1 February, 2021, closing 31 March, 2021. This funding model is a sliding scale set on a per household basis, reducing each year to encourage early adoption, i.e. the funding was originally as high as $30 per household, but this reduces to $23 per household in 2021/22, $21 per household in 22/23 etc.

“WasteSorted” Grants (formerly known as the Community and Industry Engagement (CIE) Program):

The current round of applications closed 14 September, 2020, however, subject to ministerial approval, this funding or a variant thereof will likely be offered again in 2021. Grants of up to $250,000 are available to support investment in local recycling infrastructure, while grants of up to $50,000 are available for community educational programs.

At this point in time, no additional Federal or State grants other than those mentioned above appear to cover Local Government organics programs such as FOGO. Refer Section 14 of the Organics Recycling Program - Business Case and Implementation Plan (Attachment A - ‘FOGO Business Case’) as presented to Council in May 2019 for further detailed information on funding opportunities.

Financial Implications:

As detailed above, grant funding opportunities could be used to offset a portion of the initial start-up and ongoing costs wherever possible. In WA, where FOGO programs have recently been successfully implemented, the whole of the cost base has been able to be shared between Local Government areas. This has also been absorbed by existing waste revenue streams which creates minimal (if any) additional cost to the ratepayer, made possible through Local Government collaboration and by varying the necessary frequency of general waste collection through a broad scale reduction in waste presently destined for landfill. In the City of Bunbury, where the first WA based FOGO program commenced in 2013, it is claimed that “…[the FOGO system is] basically cost-neutral for ratepayers”, and as much as is practicable, our aim should be to achieve the same here in Esperance.

Noting the environmental benefits, ongoing costs are offset to some extent by:

· Reductions in the necessary size and frequency of collection for general waste bins (current green bins, moved to a fortnightly collection) with putrescible waste being collected weekly in FOGO bins;

· Increased usable lifespan of landfill cells and landfill sites due to a reduction in the volume of household waste that reaches landfill; and

· Proceeds from the sale of the finished FOGO compost product.

Noting that the City of Bunbury initially ventured into FOGO ‘alone’, it needs to be clearly understood that in areas where FOGO compost programs have more recently been implemented, all preliminary and processing costs have been able to be shared between Local Governments, i.e. the centralised regional Council managed organics processing facility located in Dardanup - operated by the Bunbury-Harvey Regional Council - is now used by the City of Bunbury, Shire of Harvey, Shire of Capel, Shire of Dardanup, Shire of Collie, Shire of Donnybrook-Balingup and the Shire of Boyup Brook. This type of model allows a division of costs incurred over the lifespan of the project, i.e. operating one FOGO facility means that all costs are shared between multiple Local Governments and a far greater ratepayer base. Due to the geographic isolation of Esperance, a shared cost saving model is not viable in this area, thus establishment and ongoing costs are higher and would need to be covered by the Shire of Esperance utilising what limited grant funding is available.

Over the next 20 years, landfill disposal costs are estimated to average $115.62 (“disposal cost”, business case Table 15-11) per tonne, while FOGO can be converted to organic compost at $90.64 (“processing cost”, business case Table 15-14) per tonne using the cheaper “aerated static pile” option, representing an in principle saving where any waste is diverted from landfill. Because a FOGO composting program runs alongside a landfill program, not in place of a landfill program, there are however additional costs to the yearly waste disposal baseline, estimated to average $274,379 per year (Table 15-13) over the same period. The volume and sale of compost predicted to be produced - 2,394 tonnes in the first year at $30 per tonne - does not cover that baseline ‘loss’ or recover processing costs on its own; it is proposed that Council absorb the balance of the cost of implementing FOGO utilising existing fees for green and blue household and commercial bins - i.e. the FOGO program would be implemented at no additional cost to present waste service rates charges.

It is acknowledged that FOGO production per household varies significantly. An ‘Opt Out’ system allowing households with low FOGO production the opportunity to withdraw from the scheme could be offered where:

- The property has physical site constraints that would prevent a FOGO bin being stored on site, i.e. small or multi-unit developments; or

- The owner / occupier can demonstrate that organic composting is already being conducted on the property and thus does not need a weekly food / organic waste collection; or

- The owner / occupier produces zero or insufficient putrescible food or organic waste per week and thus does not need a weekly waste collection of any type.

In depth financial modelling has been undertaken as part of the business case, and it needs to be recognised that the costs of implementing and running a FOGO program are different for a standalone Local Government like the Shire of Esperance as compared to places like the Bunbury Harvey Regional Council or Perth’s Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council etc. - i.e. the financial modelling is neither comparable nor interchangeable. Refer Section 15 of the Organics Recycling Program - Business Case and Implementation Plan (Attachment A - ‘FOGO Business Case’) as presented to Council in May 2019 for further detailed information on financial modelling.

Educational Opportunities:

To familiarise Council with the broader process from beginning to end, there is an opportunity to organise a facilities inspection with the City of Bunbury who have been running their FOGO program since 2013. Should Council decide to proceed with implementing a FOGO program here in Esperance, a key element of the rollout will be initial and ongoing community education - refer “Community Consultation” following.

Additional to this, the Shire of Esperance is presently engaged in recruiting a Waste Education Officer whose role will be to:

· Promote recycling and other waste management practices which lead to landfill reduction within the Shire;

· Promote recycling and waste management in schools and the broader community through education programs, workshops etc;

· Maintain recycling awareness in the community through advertising, displays, social media, shire website etc;

· Assist local businesses & groups to establish in-house recycling practices; and

· Assist in investigating, implementing and maintenance of other recycling and waste management opportunities, e.g. FOGO, composting, vermiculture etc.

Zero contamination in terms of what waste goes in which bin is neither achievable nor expected across the board, however to combat this and achieve as low a contaminant percentage rate as possible, WALGA have developed a Bin Tagging Program as an ongoing community educational tool to unify waste disposal messages in WA. The system requires targeted or occasional monitoring of bins to ensure that residents are doing the right thing, with audited bins being tagged to applaud (left) and encourage (right) correct waste disposal:

Environmental Implications:

The WA Waste Authority’s Position Statement on Food Organics and Garden Organics Collection Systems clearly outlines the environmental implications of FOGO, recording:

“Environmental benefits

Greenhouse gas emissions from organics recovery and landfill

Decomposing putrescible waste in landfills produces a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide. Methane is about 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas (Department of Environment and Energy (DEE), 2016).

High-performing landfills abate much of their potential greenhouse gas emissions by either flaring landfill gas or by capturing and using landfill gas, but leakage into the environment can still occur, even with high performing systems (DEE, 2016). Some landfills have less controls and emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases.

Best-practice organics recovery emits less greenhouse gas than putrescible landfills per tonne of FOGO materials managed (MRA Consulting, 2017; Biala, 2011).

The use of compost and other recycled organics as soil amendments can potentially produce further greenhouse gas benefits by offsetting some fertiliser use and/or reducing other greenhouse gas emissions from land management (Biala, 2011).

Local use of recycled product

FOGO can usually be processed close to the source of generation. Products derived from FOGO can also be used locally. Compost produced by FOGO materials can be used by local governments in parks and gardens, or sold back into the local community.

Local processing and use of recycled FOGO products reduces the environmental and economic cost of transporting materials over long distances, supporting a more circular economy.

Other environmental impacts from organics recovery and landfill

Landfilling organic wastes can contribute to a range of other environmental impacts such as odour and the production of landfill leachate.

FOGO recovery reduces the volume of putrescible waste entering landfills and associated environmental impacts.”

Compost Quality and Sale of Compost Possibilities:

Compost quality is assured through rigorous and professional independent laboratory testing prior to use and sale to meet Australian Standard AS4454 Composts, Soil Conditioners and Mulches. To get to that point, after maturing and being turned in windrows for a set period, the raw compost is screened through a ‘trundle’ that effectively cleans and separates coarse mulch suitable material from finer compost suitable material, again, all required to be independently tested to Australian Standard AS4454 prior to sale to ensure that only the highest quality end product is marketed.

As an example of product quality, the Bunbury Harvey Regional Council produce an officially “Australian Certified Organic” compost, recording that:

“The compost on the site is tested to the Australian Standards AS 4454-2012 Compost, Soil Conditioner and Mulches. This test gives the customers the security that they are buying a quality product. The Australian Standards test for pathogens, chemicals and physical contaminants.”

Short videos - well worth watching - on the inner workings of FOGO systems from beginning to end as used by the City of Melville and City of Bunbury respectively can be viewed at:

https://www.melvillecity.com.au/waste-and-environment/waste-recycling-fogo/3-bin-fogo-system/what-is-the-3-bin-fogo-system

https://ownyourimpact.com.au/news/what-is-fogo

In terms of sales, the lowest cost option as used by the Bunbury Harvey Regional Council is for FOGO compost to be sold ‘by the scoop’ in an on-site only sales model, see https://bhrc.wa.gov.au/how-does-the-organics-facility-work/. This cuts out delivery and associated costs, with trailers and trucks etc. being sourced by and at the cost of the customer. Alternatively, or possibly in addition, there is potential to expand the sales base and engage interested local businesses in Esperance as selling agents to bag (typically 20kg) and commercialise the end product and assist in cost recovery. This does however add additional costs such as transport from the processing site, storage, handling and bagging infrastructure etc. to a point that could detract from any commercial viability.

In addition to sales, to further promote the finished product within the community while also capitalising on the end product, FOGO compost could be used in large quantities in place of bought substitutes in Shire of Esperance landscaping projects as well as in landscape rehabilitation, particularly where soil quality has degraded or eroded. As you will read in the “community consultation” comments following, there is already an element of demand for both a FOGO service and the finished product. On top of this, an Esperance based organic beef producer has, this year, approached the Shire of Esperance to register their interest in progressing local composting facilities with an aim to using significant quantities of the finished compost product in their ongoing operation.

Community Consultation (Previous & Proposed):

Noting these comments do not necessarily represent broader community sentiment, a small number of written submissions in support of FOGO have been received by the Shire this year, while the Community Perception Survey in 2019 also received an element of related feedback, including:

“Waste management - Three bin system. Enforced fines for those doing the incorrect thing. More realistic tipping fees. Up recycling.”

“One green verge pickup per year. One recycle - whitegoods pick up per year. Green waste composted and sold cheaply to ratepayers (like other shires).”

“Rethink the waste management and recycling efforts - promote free green waste or help to get the green waste back into people’s gardens as mulch”

The question “would you like the Shire to provide a third household bin for organic waste (such as vegetable scraps and garden waste)?” was specifically posed to the community during the 2013 Community Perception Survey, with 988 votes forming the responses below:

Written feedback relating to the possibility of a ‘third organic waste bin’ and / or green waste in general as part of that same 2013 Community Perception Survey included:

“The possibility of a third bin for organic waste to be recycled for those households that would use it. Not a compulsory charge to all households though.”

“Green waste bins. Compost garden waste and sell the resulting product so we can improve soil quality in our gardens.”

“Green waste collection.”

“Would be great to have a green waste bin to have collected alternating weeks (opposite week to recycle collection). This might help reduce greenhouse gases if it were used for mulch, maybe.”

“Reducing staff numbers and all overheads. Ratepayers are not a bottomless money pit! Now you want to add to the bill by introducing a third bin. We live within our means, as should the Shire.”

“An extra bin would be nice, at what cost (a small one).”

“Recycling bin emptied weekly and a bin for garden rubbish would be great. Not all people have trailers, or want dirt in their cars.”

“Bin for garden waste.”

“Reinstate street kerb pick up of goods and green waste disposal to be made free of charge, like before.”

“Disposal of garden waste should be free and should be composted for sale, not put into landfill.”

“Mulch green waste, compost and recycle.”

“Having additional 'green waste' only tip passes, perhaps 6.”

“Not having to pay for green waste at the tip. A mulcher (maybe free green waste to tip, Shire buys and sells mulch back to community).”

“Environmental management. To encourage green waste recycling, best practice management of waste and stormwater.”

“Organise the rubbish disposal site properly. Green waste dumping should be free. Stop trying to make the rubbish tip make a profit, it's a rubbish tip for God's sake!”

“Focus on a new tip site, with new technology, i.e. power generation from waste and incineration, mulch etc.”

“Tip fees for green waste.”

“Rubbish tip is expensive, especially green waste.”

“I would like to see monthly street collections of large waste, e.g. old white goods, cardboard boxes, broken furniture, large prunings from gardens.”

“Stop charging for 'green waste' at the tip. It encourages people to dump it in the bush.”

“I would like to see rubbish tip fees abolished, particularly for 'green waste'. Improved recycling facilities, so that more goods can be taken and recycled.”

“Would like an extra bin for garden refuse once a month.”

“Organic waste bin at no cost to ratepayers.”

“Green waste bins, YES please. Works well in Albany.”

“I wish we had green bins for food and gardening mulching.”

Noting all of the above comments, with the Shire of Esperance FOGO business case already in place (Phase 1 per below), site selection and investigation (Phase 2) could now be undertaken which would then feed into informed and formal community consultation as planned to form part of the approvals process (Phase 3). The City of Kalamunda recently ran their own community survey on FOGO (refer Attachment B - FOGO Community Survey, City of Kalamunda), while firms such as Catalyse as used by the Shire of Esperance in previous consultation are well versed in similar public engagement, having recently undertaken community perception surveys on FOGO for the City of Fremantle et al. Engaging an experienced consultant to conduct community engagement during Phase 3 will ensure that the right questions are asked and answered.

Should Council commit to proceeding with the proposed FOGO program here in Esperance, Phase 2 is the next step of FOGO implementation per the Organics Recycling Program - Business Case and Implementation Plan, while Phase 3 includes further community consultation:

Phase 1: Business Case (complete)

Phase 2: Site Selection and Investigations

Note - In considering size, location, surrounding land uses, environmental separation distances, site access, road networks, land ownership, services and geology, Myrup Truck Wash Facility has been identified in the business case as the preferred location for a FOGO processing plant.

Phase 3: Approvals (includes developing Community Consultation Strategy)

Note - It is recommended that a Community Consultation Strategy is developed outlining the various engagement activities that will be undertaken for the project.

Phase 4: Detailed Design and Procurement

Phase 5: Construction

Phase 6: Marketing (includes developing a Marketing Strategy)

Phase 7: Operational Planning (includes developing a Community Education Program to prepare for roll out)

Phase 8: Operations

Consultation

Bunbury Harvey Regional Council

Department of Water and Environmental Regulation

Financial Implications

The financial implications arising from this report are included in the body of this report.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Natural Environment

A community that is empowered and motivated to minimise waste

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

Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24

N2 Targeted reduction of waste with an emphasis on resource recovery and waste minimisation

N2.2 Investigate Food Organics and Garden Organics Processing

N2.3 Implement the Community Waste Strategy

Attachments

a ⇨.	FOGO Business Case and Implementation Plan - Under Separate Cover
b ⇨.	FOGO Community Survey (Example Only), City of Kalamunda - Under Separate Cover

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council commit to progressing the implementation of a Food Organics and Garden Organics (FOGO) recovery and composting program in line with the existing business case and request the CEO to:

1. Undertake a due diligence assessment of the Myrup Truck Wash Facility as the identified preferred location with the results to be presented to Council in November;

2. Develop a Community Consultation Strategy to be presented to Council in December; and

3. Investigate funding and resources to cover the Implementation Plan as detailed in the existing business case for budget consideration.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Ordinary Council: Agenda

22 September 2020 Page 22

Item: 12.1.2

Fabric Waste Disposal

Author/s	Georgia Ryan	Waste Management Coordinator
	Nicholas Kleinig	Acting Manager Council Enterprises
Authorisor/s	Scott McKenzie	Acting Director External Services

File Ref: D20/23523

Applicant

External Services

Location/Address

N/A

Executive Summary

To consider implementing a fabric waste disposal and reuse program on a trial basis in Esperance.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council commit to supporting a fabric waste disposal and reuse program on a trial basis in Esperance.

Background

In July 2020, Sue Starr presented a “fabric waste disposal” concept to Council, and Council later resolved to “…request the CEO investigate this proposal and provide a briefing with recommendations to the September OCM.”

Officer’s Comment

Due to the collection and freight support offered by Esperance Care Services (ECS) and Freight Lines Group (FLG) in establishing and running this fabric recovery program, this can remain a relatively low cost proposal. Per the estimates below, costs are negligible and can be absorbed by current waste management revenue streams while also being offset to an extent by a direct reduction in waste going to landfill.

Estimates & Costings - Textiles Recycling Program:

· Estimated 600kg of fabric per week equates to 31,200kg per annum diverted from landfill;

· 31,200kg equates to 1.5 truckloads per annum at approximately $2000 freight full load one way (donated by FLG);

· Wool bales are approximately $15 each, to cover start-up no more than 10 would be required, noting E’Co would return these to Esperance (to be purchased by the Shire of Esperance);

· Wool bale frames are approximately $200 each to manufacture, and the program would require between two and four dependant on uptake (to be purchased by the Shire of Esperance);

· 240L bins (four to six total, one or two per charity / op shop may be easier for staff to handle as opposed to using bales - to be purchased by the Shire of Esperance) at approximately $60 per bin for ease of collection if required; and

· ECS’ fuel costs for a 5km circuit to pick up from each charity / op shop at 72c per km (ATO rate, 2020/21) equates to $3.60 per week and $187.20 per annum.*

*Note: ECS is presently a recipient of funding under the 2020/21 Community Grants Program for a project centered on recycling and waste recovery. There is potential for ECS to apply for grant funding if necessary under the Shire’s Community Grants Program or the WA Waste Authority’s Charitable Recyclers Dumping Reduction Program.

In terms of ongoing logistics, in consultation with ECS, FLG and E’Co Australia, the proposed trial fabric recovery program would run as follows:

· In cooperation with ECS, the Shire would supply and deliver 240L “fabric recycling only” bins (or bales if requested) to participating charity groups / op shops and the Wylie Bay Waste Facility;

· Fabric collection would then be overseen by the respective charity group and the Wylie Bay Waste Facility, disposing of any excess or unwanted textiles including clothing and materials in those 240L “fabric recycling only” bins or larger bales;

· Either weekly or fortnightly (or when full, pending trial outcomes), the 240L bins or larger bales would be collected by ECS to be packed in wool bales at their Gilpin Street site;

· Baled fabric would then be transported by ECS to the FLG Esperance yard - note ECS have indicated that they have a funded vehicle and trailer suitable for this purpose;

· FLG have advised that they are happy to freight small amounts for this cause to FLG’s Welshpool yard in Perth free of charge; and

· E’Co Australia would then collect bales from FLG’s Welshpool yard in Perth, sort the materials and send empty bales back to Esperance.

E’Co Australia are happy to present to Council (using Zoom if required) to demonstrate how the program works from their side and to show how the company is set up. As Sue Starr indicated, the City of Albany via Cr Tracey Sleeman have indicated that they are very happy with E’Co Australia and how the broader textile recovery program functions in Albany.

Consultation

Sue Starr

Freight Lines Group (Michael Harding)

Albany Shire Council (Cr Tracey Sleeman)

E’Co Australia PTY LTD (Zane Turner)

Esperance Care Services (Chris Meyer)

Financial Implications

The financial implications arising from this report (as detailed above) are simplified in the table below.

Estimates & Costings - Textiles Recycling Program:

	Initial / Year One:	Ongoing:
Environmental:
Landfill Savings: 31,200kg per annum @ $77 per tonne (Wylie Bay)	($2,402.40pa)	($2,402.40pa)

Collection Infrastructure:
Wool Bales x 10 (SoE)	$150	Nil (Reusable)*
Wool Bale Frames x 4 (SoE)	$800	Nil (Reusable)*
240L Collection Bins x 6 (SoE)	$360	Nil (Reusable)*

Transport:
Collection in Esperance (ECS)	Donated by ECS	Donated by ECS
Freight to FLG Esperance (ECS)	Donated by ECS	Donated by ECS
Freight to Perth (FLG)	Donated by FLG	Donated by FLG
Collection from FLG in Perth (E’Co)	Donated by E’Co	Donated by E’Co

Total:	$1,310.00	Nil / Cost Neutral (excluding environmental savings)

*excludes damage / depreciation

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Natural Environment

A community that is empowered and motivated to minimise waste

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

Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24

N2 Targeted reduction of waste with an emphasis on resource recovery and waste minimisation

N2.1 Manage Waste and Recycling Programs

Environmental Considerations

The environmental considerations arising from this report are included in the body of this report.

Attachments

Nil

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

1. Commit to supporting a fabric waste recycling trial for six months with results to be presented to Council in March 2021, and

2. Allocate expenditure from Account W2055 – Operations Recycling

3. Thank Sue Starr, Chris Meyer (Esperance Care Services) and Michael Harding (Freight Lines Group) for their support in initiating and supporting the trial.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Ordinary Council: Agenda

22 September 2020 Page 25

Item: 12.1.3

Development Application - Unauthorised Earthworks - Lot 10 (33) Harris Road, Monjingup

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

File Ref: D20/24952

Applicant

P & L Grant

Location/Address

Lot 10 (33) Harris Road, Monjingup

Executive Summary

That Council consider Development Application 10.2020.4396.1 for Unauthorised Earthworks at Lot 10 (33) Harris Road, Monjingup.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council resolve to refuse Development Application 10.2020.4396.1 for Unauthorised Earthworks at Lot 10 (33) Harris Road, Monjingup based on advice from the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions and issue a direction to restore the land as nearly as practicable to its condition immediately before the development started.

Background

A service request was received by Shire of Esperance External Services on 28 May 2020 from an anonymous complainant who reported that Victorian Tea Tree was being removed from the new TAFE site and was being transported to a property on Harris Road. Additional complaints were made by other individuals to Shire of Esperance Parks and Gardens on 5 May 2020 and to Shire of Esperance Waste Management on 27 May 2020. Concerns were also raised with the Shire by South Coast NRM on 28 May 2020.

Ongoing discussions and investigations were carried out by multiple Shire Officers from 28 May 2020 with the matter being raised at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 23 June 2020.

While the officers recommendation at the time was as follows:

That Council:

1. Recognises Shire staff will continue to work with the responsible parties to ensure the appropriate and lawful disposal of waste material from Lot 25 (No.124) Pink Lake Rd Sinclair. And,

2. In the event that staff are unable to negotiate the lawful disposal of waste material from the site, authorises the CEO, in consultation with the Shire President, to initiate appropriate legal action against those persons or entities responsible for alleged offences in relation to the disposal of clearing waste from Lot 25 (No.124) Pink Lake Rd, Sinclair.

Councillors resolved (F9-A0) to lay the matter on the table until further information is available (resolution number: O0620-206).

The landowners of Lot 10 (33) Harris Road were requested on 29 June 2020 to submit an Application for Development Approval within twenty eight (28) days.

A development application was subsequently lodged with Shire of Esperance (Planning Services) on 20 July 2020.

Victorian Tea Tree is a priority weed in the Shire of Esperance according to the Environmental Weed Strategy.

Officer’s Comment

Lot 10 (33) Harris Road, Monjingup is zoned Rural Residential under Shire of Esperance Local Planning Scheme No. 24. The property is also located within the boundaries of Special Control Area 5 – Wetlands of Significance and Lake Warden Recovery Catchment, and Special Control Area 8B – Esperance Airport. Both Special Control Areas require the issuance of Development Approval for all development with only minor exemptions (such as Outbuildings under 10sqm in site area and less than 2.4 metres in height).

The purpose of Special Control Area 5 is to provide guidance for land use and development within the catchments of wetlands of significance, which are primarily those protected under the international RAMSAR treaties.

In accordance with Special Control Area 5 despite any other provision of the Scheme development approval is required for all development.

Development is defined under Section 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 as:

development means the development or use of any land, including —

(a) any demolition, erection, construction, alteration of or addition to any building or structure on the land;

(b) the carrying out on the land of any excavation or other works;

(c) in the case of a place to which a protection order made under the Heritage Act 2018 Part 4 Division 1 applies, any act or thing that —

(i) is likely to change the character of that place or the external appearance of any building; or

(ii) would constitute an irreversible alteration of the fabric of any building;

Special Control Area 8 is the Special Control Area for Esperance Airport, and deals with development that may impact on the airport. It is the position of planning officers that this application does not impact on airport operations.

As per the provisions of Shire of Esperance Local Planning Scheme No. 24, the following applies in Special Control Area 5.

(d) Relevant Provisions

In addition to provisions of the Scheme, the local government in considering applications for rezoning, subdivision or development approval in SCA 5 is to have due regard to –

(i) results of scientific research conducted by Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions regarding groundwater and surface water interactions within the Lake Warden Wetland System and recommendations for management of the priority areas;

(ii) guidelines of the Environmental Protection Authority for protection of the environment including but not limited to maintenance of water quality;

(iii) guidelines of the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation for protection of wetlands and waterways including but not limited to maintenance of water quality;

(iv) the potential for adverse environmental impacts and the management of such potential impacts; and

(v) There is a general presumption against subdivision within the Priority 1 area of the Lake Warden catchment except where a structure plan applies; and shall determine applications for Development Approval accordingly

(e) Referral of Applications

(ii) Within the Priority 1 area of the Lake Warden catchment the Local Government will refer applications for Development Approval (except for Single House and other related incidental uses) to the Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions and the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation and the Local Government is to have due regard to recommendations and advice received from those authorities when determining applications.

Subsequently the application (Attachment A) was referred to the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) and the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) with comments being received from DWER on 6 August 2020 (Attachment B), and DBCA providing initial comments on 27 July 2020 (Attachment C) with a subsequently request from the Shire for clarification resulting in additional comments from DBCA being received on 12 August 2020 (Attachment D). DBCA then undertook further investigations and provided additional comments (Attachment E), a map (Attachment F) and site photos (Attachment G) on 21 August 2020.

It is noted that Planning Officers and the Local Government are bound to follow the advice and determinations of the State Government and its departments.

As a result of DBCA comments, primarily those in Attachment D, Planning Officers do not believe that the development application can be supported in any way, and that the application must be refused and the site remediated to the satisfaction of DBCA and Shire of Esperance Environmental Services.

Reasons for recommendation

· The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of Special Control Area No. 5;

· The proposal alters the water regime at the site and downstream impacts on neighbouring properties;

· The works have resulted in the direct loss of habitat and ecosystem function through the infill;

· The emergence of weed species further impacting on native vegetation communities locally and downstream; and

· DBCA does not support the application.

Consultation

The application (Attachment A) was referred to the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) and the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) with comments being received from DWER on 6 August 2020 (Attachment B), and DBCA providing initial comments on 27 July 2020 (Attachment C) with a subsequently request from the Shire for clarification resulting in additional comments from DBCA being received on 12 August 2020 (Attachment D). DBCA then undertook further investigations and provided additional comments (Attachment E), a map (Attachment F) and site photos (Attachment G) on 21 August 2020.

Financial Implications

Retrospective Application fees totalling $441.00 were received as part of this application.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Local Planning Scheme No. 24

Planning and Development Act 2005

It should be noted that pursuant to s.211(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005, a person aggrieved by the failure of a local government to enforce or implement effectively the observance of a local planning scheme may make representation to the Minister. If the Minister considers it appropriate to do so, representation may be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal for its report and recommendation. Following subsequent actions and recommendation by the SAT the Minister may order the local government to do all things considered necessary for enforcing the observance of the Scheme or any provisions of the Scheme.

In this instance it is considered that the Scheme has been enforced effectively.

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Built Environment

New developments that enhance the existing built environment

Encourage innovation and support new development

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a ⇩.	Plans
b ⇩.	DWER Comments
c ⇩.	DBCA Initial Response
d ⇩.	DBCA Amended Response
e ⇩.	DBCA Further Comments
f ⇩.	DBCA Further Comments Map
g ⇩.	DBCA Further Comments Site Photos

Officer’s Recommendation

1. That Council resolve to refuse Development Application 10.2020.4396.1 for Unauthorised Earthworks at Lot 10 (33) Harris Road, Monjingup on the following grounds:

a. The proposed development represents both a short and long-term impact on the Lake Warden Recovery Catchment through scouring of fill material, increased sedimentation during high water flows, damage to ecosystem function and emergence of weed species impact on native vegetation communities both locally and downstream.

2. That Council resolve to:

a. Direct under Section 214 (3)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 that the land be restored as nearly as practicable to its condition immediately before the development started, to the satisfaction of the Shire of Esperance.

b. Under Section 214 (6) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 the direction is to be complied with within 120 days after the service of the direction.

3. That Council resolve to undertake any and all applicable compliance action to ensure that the site is satisfactorily remediated up to and including direct legal action if required.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Ordinary Council: Agenda

22 September 2020 Page 49

Item: 12.1.4

Development Application - Restaurant and Takeaway - Lot 307 (55) Goldfields Road, Castletown

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

File Ref: D20/25515

Applicant

Lionel Trotman on behalf of D P Piercey

Location/Address

Lot 307 (55) Goldfields Road, Castletown

Executive Summary

The Council consider Development Application 10.2020.4417.1 for a Restaurant and Takeaway at Lot 307 (55) Goldfields Road, Castletown.

Recommendation in Brief

The Council resolve to approve Development Application 10.2020.4417.1 for a Restaurant and Takeaway at Lot 307 (55) Goldfields Road, Castletown subject to conditions.

Background

A development application for a Restaurant and Takeaway at Lot 307 (55) Goldfields Road, Castletown was received by Planning Services on 13 August 2020. The application included additions and/or extensions to the building and a request for a variation to the car parking requirement.

Lot 307 (55) Goldfields Road is zoned Residential R20. Additional Use 21 was applied to the property on 9 July 2019 which allows Shop and Restaurant Land Uses as a ‘D’ or Discretionary land uses as per the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 24.

The property has previously been utilised for a number of Food Premises, Restaurants, Cafés and similar uses, with the last such application being put before Council at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 27 November 2018.

Public Advertising was undertaken via the Shire website between 19 August 2020 and 2 September 2020. No objections or submissions were received during the advertising period.

Three non-objections were provided by the applicant from the two adjoining landowners and from the Castletown IGA.

As the property is owned by Councilor Dale Piercey, it was determined that the placing the application before Council is the most appropriate course of action. This is in line with the intent of Council Policy EXT 004 (Applications Lodged by Staff or Elected Members) due to the financial return possible to the landowner due to the lease of the property.

Officer’s Comment

There are several variations proposed in regards to the setbacks of the proposed additions and to the car parking provision on-site.

In the Residential R20 zone, the standard requirement is for all development to be setback 6 metres from the primary street and 1.5 metres from the secondary street. In this instance the applicant proposes a 2 metre setback to the primary street (Reynolds) and a 0.05 metre (50mm) setback to the secondary street (Goldfields Road) however it is noted that the structure proposed to be constructed in the setback areas is an open alfresco area and not an enclosed addition to the building as such the impact from the building bulk on visual amenity will be significantly less than an equivalent structure with solid walls.

In terms of carparking, the standard requirement for a restaurant is one (1) car parking bay per four (4) square metres of dining or waiting area. This would equate to a car parking requirement of 37 parking bays which, as the applicant demonstrates, is not feasible on the site. Cash-in-lieu is not an option as it only applies in the Commercial, Mixed Use, Tourism Zones and the area subject to Additional Use A6. The applicant proposes ten (10) car parking bays (being nine (9) standard bays plus one (1) disabled bay) on site, with the potential to use the vacant site on the other side of the Castletown IGA as additional parking. Given that the busiest hours for a food business of this type are likely to be around 6pm which is the time that most businesses in the area are closing for the day, the level of traffic or car parking issues generated by the proposal should be relatively minor.

Asset Management has indicated that they have concerns with the car parking variation and have suggested a formal agreement for shared car parking between the developer and the Castletown IGA for the use of the IGAs sealed car park. The use of the unsealed properties adjacent to the IGA is not supported, due to Lots 184 (48), 185 (50), 186 (52) and 187 (54) Burton Road being owned by a separate party (who is neither the IGA nor the developer), and there being no guarantee that Lot 299 (69) Goldfields Road will remain in the ownership of the IGA.

The map below shows the lots referenced above.

One thing to note is that the property is affected by Additional Use 21 under Local Planning Scheme No. 24. Additional Use 21 is of interest as it allows for the use of the subject land for the purposes of Shop and Restaurant as ‘D’ or Discretionary land uses with development standard/conditions ‘as set by local government’. While it does not exempt the proposal from compliance with the other provisions of the Local Planning Scheme (such as the Car Parking requirement), this does provide the local government with more options when considering variations to Scheme standards when exercising its discretion regarding any development application on-site.

While Planning Services has some concerns with the level of car parking variation proposed, Planning Services acknowledges that the development is unlikely to cause significant issue to the locality and is of benefit to the community particularly if an agreement is reached with the Castletown IGA for Shared Car Parking. As such Planning Services recommends approving the proposal subject to conditions including for a Shared Car Parking Agreement to be negotiated between the developer and the Castletown IGA and a signed copy provided to the Shire. An option for refusal is also presented to Council.

Reasons for recommendation

· The proposed use is consistent with Additional Use A21;

· The proposed use meets the definition of restaurant/cafe means premises primarily used for the preparation, sale and serving of food and drinks for consumption on the premises by customers for whom seating is provided, including premises that are licenced under the Liquor Control Act 1988;

· The neighbours are supportive of the development; and

· There are options to address the parking shortfall on other lots.

Consultation

Public Advertising was undertaken via the Shire website between 19 August 2020 and 2 September 2020.

No objections or submissions were received during the advertising period.

Three non-objections, two from adjoining landowners and one from the Castletown IGA, were provided by the applicant as part of the application.

The application was also referred to Shire of Esperance Asset Management Division and Health Services for comment.

Financial Implications

Application fees totalling $517.00 were received as part of this application.

Asset Management Implications

A Shire Footpath runs through the eastern corner of Lot 307 (55) Goldfields Road.

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications arising from this report are:

· Planning and Development Act 2005

· Local Planning Scheme No. 24

Policy Implications

EXT 004: Applications Lodged by Staff or Elected Members

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Built Environment

New developments that enhance the existing built environment

Encourage innovation and support new development

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a ⇩.	Plans
b ⇩.	Applicants Justification
c ⇩.	Non objections

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council approves Development Application 10.2020.4417.1 for a Restaurant and Takeaway at Lot 307 (55) Goldfields Road, Castletown subject to the following conditions:

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

2) The land and buildings the subject of this approval shall be used for the purposes of Restaurant/Cafe only and for no other purpose unless otherwise approved in accordance with the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 24 (refer attached definition as extracted from Schedule 1 – Definitions of LPS 24).

a. Restaurant/Cafe means premises primarily used for the preparation, sale and serving of food and drinks for consumption on the premises by customers for whom seating is provided, including premises that are licenced under the Liquor Control Act 1988;

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

4) Earthworks are to be in accordance with Australian Standard 3798 Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments.

5) The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation and Environment Regulation has prepared dust control guidelines for development sites, which outline the procedures for the preparation of dust management plans. Further information on the guidelines can be obtained from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation and Environmental Regulation’s website www.dwer.wa.gov.au under air quality publications.

6) The vehicle crossover is to be constructed, drained and sealed to the satisfaction and specifications of the Shire of Esperance (Asset Management Division) – refer enclosed vehicle crossover application form.

7) A minimum of ten (10) sealed car parking bays are to be provided on-site in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard AS2890.1:2004 Parking Facilities – Off-street Car Parking.

8) Prior to the commencement of the use, vehicle parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas shall be suitably constructed, repaired, sealed, drained, kerbed, marked (including disabled bays) and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Shire of Esperance (Asset Management Division).

9) The existing sealed car parking area is to be a one-way through arrangement, with people entering from the entrance nearest to Goldfields Road and exiting from the access nearest Burton Road.

10) All car parking areas and access ways shall be maintained for their stated purpose at all times and shall not be used for display or general storage purposes.

11) The existing pram crossing is to be modified to the satisfaction of Shire of Esperance (Asset Management Division) at the cost of the applicant.

12) A Shared Car Parking Agreement is to be negotiated between the Developer and Castletown IGA with a signed copy to be provided to the Shire of Esperance.

13) No parking or display of vehicles and/or equipment shall occur within the Goldfields Road verge area at any time.

14) 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 (Asset Management Division).

15) The existing infrastructure located within the road reserve shall be retained and protected during the construction process period with any damage to the infrastructure being repaired to the satisfaction of the Shire of Esperance (Asset Management Division) at developer’s expense.

16) 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.

17) A suitably sized grease trap is to be installed to satisfy the increased scale of development. Please contact the Water Corporation for advice in regards to trade waste.

18) 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.

19) The materials to be used on the external surfaces of the proposed extension to the building shall complement the existing building’s materials used in the construction of the existing building to the satisfaction of the Shire of Esperance (Planning Services).

20) 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).

21) A bin storage area shall be provided on-site and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Shire of Esperance (Environmental Health Services).

22) Rubbish enclosure areas adequate to service the development are to be constructed and provided in accordance with the Shire of Esperance Health Local Laws 2009 prior to the occupation or use of the development to the satisfaction of the Shire of Esperance (Environmental Health Services).

23) The proposed operations, during and after construction, are required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

And the following Advice Notes:

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

2) The development is to comply with the National Construction Code, Building Act 2011, Building Regulations 2012 and the Local Government Act 1995.

3) 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.

4) 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.

5) 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.

6) All fencing shall be in accordance with the Shire of Esperance Local Law Relating to Fencing.

7) The developer is to liaise with Shire of Esperance (Statutory Compliance) to determine any requirement for additional approvals for any signage proposed to be erected on site.

8) The approved development is required to comply with the following legislation (as amended from time to time):

· Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911

· Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996

· Sewerage (Lighting, Ventilation & Construction) Regulations 1971

· Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997

· Food Act 2008 and Food Regulations 2009

· Health Act (Laundries and Bathrooms) Regulations 1971

· Health (Smoking in Enclosed Public Places) Regulations 1999

9) The development is defined as a “Food Business” under the Food Act 2008. The development must comply with the Food Act 2008 and Food Regulations 2009 and the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code.

10) In accordance with the provisions of the Food Act 2008 and Food Regulations 2009 an application to notify the food business hereby permitted must be submitted and approved by the Shire of Esperance (Health Services) prior to the commencement of operations.

11) Prior to commencement of development, an Application to Fit out of the food premises shall be submitted to and approved by Shire of Esperance (Environmental Health Services). Application information required is to be in line with Shire of Esperance Food Premise Design, Construction & Fit-Out Guide.

A final inspection of the premises will be required to be carried out by Environmental Health Services prior to commencing operation.

12) The development the subject of this development approval is required to comply with the Shire Esperance Health Local Laws 2009.

13) The development the subject of this development approval must comply with the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Discharge) Regulations 2004 in relation to discharges into the environment.

14) Building application to include details of the fume extraction and ventilation systems including exhaust canopies and smoker for compliance with associated and relevant standards to ensure no nuisance to amenity. The fume extraction and ventilation system shall be installed prior to the commencement of use of the premises and thereafter retained and maintained as per the manufacturer’s specifications to the satisfaction of the Shire of Esperance.

15) Asbestos is to be removed and disposed of in accordance with the Health (Disposal of Asbestos Waste) Regulations 1984 and Worksafe Western Australia Requirements.

16) It is recommended that provision be made for staff parking to the rear of the building.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Ordinary Council: Agenda

22 September 2020 Page 68

Item: 12.1.5

Local Planning Scheme No. 24 - Amendment No. 6

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

File Ref: D20/25714

Applicant

Harley Dykstra on behalf of J R Bestall

Location/Address

Lot 205 (1692) Orleans Bay Road

Executive Summary

For Council to consider draft Amendment No. 6 for Approval.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council in accordance with Regulation 50(3)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 support draft Amendment No. 6 with no modifications.

Background

Amendment No. 6 was initiated by Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 26 May 2020 under Resolution Number O0520-138.

This amendment is now brought back for Council consideration after advertising.

Officer’s Comment

In accordance with Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Local Planning Scheme No. 24 (LPS 24) Amendment No. 6 (Attachment A) was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for a determination to be made under Section 48A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

The EPA advised the Shire of Esperance via letter dated 29 June 2020 that after consideration of the LPS 24 Amendment No. 6 documentation, the proposed scheme amendment was not required to be assessed under Part IV Division 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and that it was not necessary to provide any advice or recommendations on the Scheme Amendment.

Upon receiving the advice from the EPA, LPS 24 Amendment No. 6 was advertised for public comment in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. The advertising was commenced on 30 June 2020 and closed on 31 August 2020 being a period of 61 days.

No modifications are proposed as a result of submissions received.

Consultation

A 42 day advertising period applies for amendment which will commence upon receipt of comments from the EPA.

Seven submissions were received, with six submissions either supporting the proposal or providing no objection.

The seventh submission was from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation who raised the following:

The proposed amendment to the SU3 area to allow for the development of a caravan park on the site will increase the intensity of the land use on the site, as it will increase the number of guests able to stay on the site.

The planning report does not provide any land capability information that would provide an understanding of whether the site is able to manage this intensification, particularly with regard to the management of on-site effluent disposal and provision of a potable water supply.

Department of Water and Environmental Regulation recommends that the proponents undertake further site assessments to demonstrate that on-site effluent disposal and water supply issues can be managed.

The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation comments were forwarded to the applicant, whereby the applicant acknowledged the existing conditions of the Special Use 3 zone relating to infrastructure which read:

(i) The disposal of liquid and/or solid wastes shall be carried out with an effluent disposal system approved by the Local Government and the Health Department of Western Australia.

(ii) A potable water supply shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Local Government and in accordance with Clause 19 of Schedule 1 of the Scheme; and

(iii) Appropriate arrangements to be made with the electricity supplier to upgrade electricity supply to three phase power.

Planning Services also noted that additional information on land capability and infrastructure provision can be sourced as part of future development applications for the site and referred at that time to the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation for comment, as such Planning Services notes the comments and consider it appropriate to defer these requirements until such time as Development Approval is sought.

Financial Implications

Fees of $7,000 have been paid in relation to this application. If any fees are unexpended at the time the amendment is Gazetted the unexpended fees are returned to the applicant.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Planning and Development Act 2005

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

Local Planning Scheme No. 24

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Built Environment

New developments that enhance the existing built environment

Encourage innovation and support new development

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a ⇩.	Amendment Document
b ⇩.	Schedule of Submissions

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

1) In accordance with Regulation 50(3)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 support draft Amendment No. 6 with no modifications;

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Ordinary Council: Agenda

22 September 2020 Page 94

Item: 12.1.6

Development Application - Oversized Outbuilding (Shed) - Lot 45 (43) Peek Road, West Beach

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

File Ref: D20/26125

Applicant

Lionel Trotman on behalf of G J & J S Quinlivan

Location/Address

Lot 45 (43) Peek Road, West Beach

Executive Summary

For Council to consider Development Application 10.2020.4433.1 for an Oversized Outbuilding at Lot 45 (43) Twilight Beach Road.

Recommendation in Brief

That resolve to approve Development Application 10.2020.4433.1 for an Oversized Outbuilding at Lot 45 (43) Twilight Beach Road subject to conditions.

Background

Development Application 10.2020.4433.1 was received by Planning Services on 28 August 2020.

Non-objections from all adjoining landowners were provided with the application.

A separate approval for retaining walls and associated earthworks was issued to the landowner, with only the Outbuilding requiring the consent of Council.

Lot 45 (43) Peek Road is zoned Residential (No R-Code) and is 5,162 square metres in size. The property is affected by Special Control Area 4 – Public Drinking Water Source Protection Areas, and Special Control Area 7D – Blue Haven and Second Beach.

Special Control Area 7(d)(i) states:

Generally within this area, no development will be permitted which, in the opinion of the local government; will be likely to endanger the visual amenity of Twilight Beach Road and the coastal views as seen from any lot or public place, and the ocean.

The proposed location of the Outbuilding is just below the maximum height of the surrounding topography (42.1 metre finished ground level, versus 46 or 47 metre ground levels above natural sea level on surrounding properties). That said the Outbuilding will be visible from properties to the north and to any development of the property to the east, and the Outbuilding is located in the area with a large number of visually prominent Single Houses.

The proposed development is consistent with Special Control Area 7(d)(vi) which states:

The local government will not permit the erection of sheds or other buildings between a house erected on the lot and any road except in the case of a corner lot or a lot with dual street frontages where the local government may permit such a building to be built between the residence and any road other than Twilight Beach Road.

As the lot is a battle-axe lot the proposed development is consistent with this clause.

As such Planning Services is satisfied that the impact of the Outbuilding on visual amenity will be within acceptable limits.

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 Local Planning 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 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.

This proposal calls for a maximum ridge height of 4.9 metres, where Council has permitted a maximum of 4.62 square metres under its Local Planning Policy: Outbuildings (4.2 metres plus 10% subject to neighbour referral).

Thus the matter is referred to Council for determination.

Officer’s Comment

The ridge height of the Outbuilding is proposed at 4.9m which exceed both the maximum wall height of 4.2m of Outbuildings permitted in the Residential zone as the 10% maximum variation criteria which would permit up to 4.62m in ridge height. The ridge height may be higher than 4.9 from natural ground level due to earthworks, with a likely effective height from natural ground level of between 5.0 and 5.1 metres.

The officer’s recommendation is for approval due to the large size of the property, and the proposed variations producing impacts that the officer considers to be within acceptable limits.

Reasons for recommendation

· The development in an ‘I’ use which means it is not permitted unless it is incidental to a dwelling;

· The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Residential Zone; and

· Although exceeding the maximum heights in Local Planning Policy: Outbuildings non-objections have been received from all adjoining landowners.

Consultation

Non-objections were provided from all adjoining landowners.

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 that enhance the existing built environment

Encourage innovation and support new development

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a ⇩.	Plans
b ⇩.	Non Objections

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council resolve to approve Development Application 10.2020.4433.1 for an Oversized Outbuilding at Lot 45 (43) Peek Road, West Beach subject to the following conditions:

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

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

3. The approved outbuilding shall not be used for commercial or industrial uses.

4. The approved outbuilding shall not be used for human habitation without the express written consent of the Shire of Esperance.

5. The driveway/accessway shall be constructed and maintained to an all-weather standard (e.g. gravel, crushed rock) to facilitate access to the development by 2 wheel drive vehicles.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. All fencing shall be in accordance with the Shire of Esperance Local Law Relating to Fencing.

10. The proposed operations, during and after construction, are required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

AND the following advice notes:

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

2. The development is to comply with the Building Code of Australia, Building Act 2011, Building Regulations 2012 and the Local Government Act 1995.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Ordinary Council: Agenda

22 September 2020 Page 103

Item: 12.1.7

Proposed transfer of Lot 299 (1A) Goldfields Road

Author/s	Richard Hindley	Manager Strategic Planning & Land Projects
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: D20/26571

Applicant

Internal (Strategic Planning & Land Projects)

Location/Address

Lot 299 (1A) Goldfield Road, Castletown

Executive Summary

For Council to consider acquiring Lot 299 (1A) Castletown Quays, Castletown.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council advise the Department of Planning, Heritage and Lands that it will take on the responsibility for the structures on the site and support the amalgamation Lot 299 (1A) Castletown Quays, Castletown with Reserve 26967.

Background

The YHA requested to relinquish its Crown Grant and return the land to the State of WA due to ongoing costs of managing and maintenance.

The site is currently zoned “Tourism” under the Shire of Esperance Local planning Scheme No. 24 and is partially located within SCA9 – Coastal Erosion and Inundation Risk. It is registered on the Shire’s municipal inventory and it is registered as the historic Heritage Place P829 – Fresh Air League. It should be noted that the site is not on the State Heritage Register.

The Department of Planning, Heritage of Lands have offered to amalgamate the Lot with Reserve 26967 (The RAC Esperance Holiday Park).

Officer’s Comment

Lot 299 (1A) Castletown Quays, Castletown is zoned the same as the adjoining reserve and has 81.38m frontage to the Caravan Park. The lot has an area of 11,534m².

The proposed amalgamation with Reserve 26967 means it acquires the purposes of Camping and Caravan Park as well as a power to lease for a term not exceeding 35 years subject to the consent of the Minister for Lands.

The proposed reserve conditions will allow the site to be used either as an extension to the caravan park, leased to another party for the provision of accommodation with a requirement to upgrade the building or a combination of the two.

Two options are presented below to enable Council to consider the acquisition of the site along with the potential asset management issue in relation to the development on the site.

Options

Option 1 – Officer Recommendation

Option 2

That Council advise the Department of Planning, Heritage and Lands that it will not take on the responsibility for the structures on the site and request that it not be amalgamated with Reserve 26967.

Consultation

N/A

Financial Implications

There are significant financial implications arising from this report.

There are a number of maintenance issues that will be required to be undertaken to maintain the existing building on the site. These are outlined under Asset Management Implications

Asset Management Implications

The following list of issues was identified when the Shire first leased the premise from the YHA. A formal assessment may identify further issues.

· There is a large amount of Asbestos and ACM materials throughout the facility in various conditions. Although none of it currently appears friable, for us to take on the building would require a full audit and a significant investment in maintenance or replacement to ensure the building is able to maintain minimum safe standards as specified by Worksafe.

· There are significant plumbing issues that will be costly to resolve.

· None of the doors are compliant from an emergency/fire egress point of view.

· The thermal properties of the building are very poor making it expensive to maintain.

· Much of the timber structures will need replacement or significant upkeep in the not too distant future.

· Many of the ceilings are starting to fail and will need replacing.

The above is just a cursory estimate and even then will likely cost the Shire of Esperance hundreds of thousands of dollars in the short to medium term, just to bring to a minimum standard, let alone ensure any longevity.

It may be more cost effective to demolish the building.

Statutory Implications

Land Administration Act 1997

Policy Implications

N/A

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Built Environment

New developments that enhance the existing built environment

Encourage innovation and support new development

Environmental Considerations

N/A

Attachments

Nil

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council advise the Department of Planning, Heritage and Lands that it will take on the responsibility for the structures on the site and support the amalgamation Lot 299 (1A) Castletown Quays, Castletown with Reserve 26967.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Ordinary Council: Agenda

22 September 2020 Page 106

12.2 Asset Management

Item: 12.2.1

Pink Lake Road Shared Path Concept Design

Author/s	Mathew Walker	Director Asset Management
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: D20/23148

Applicant

Location/Address

Pink Lake Road, Esperance

Executive Summary

For Council to consider the Pink Lake Road Shared Path Concept Design public consultation.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council

1. Endorse the Pink Lake Road Shared Path Corridor - Concept Design; and

2. Request the CEO to investigate options to improve the Pink Lake Road and Padbury Street intersection for budget consideration.

Background

As part of the Esperance 2050 Cycling Strategy that was developed in partnership with the Department of Transport, a priority project was identified for the Pink Lake Road corridor upgrade as it is as a primary route servicing schools, shopping centres and residential suburbs . The Shire received a Western Australia Bike Network (WABN) grant for 2019/20 of $20,000 to undertake a $40,000 project to develop a concept design for the of Pink Lake Road corridor Shared Path upgrade. Once we have this overall concept design finalised, we will have a better chance of receiving WABN funding in the future for staged shared path upgrades along Pink Lake Road.

The Shire engaged Stantec, who have an Albany office, to undertake the concept design development. The Pink Lake Road Shared Path Concept Design (Concept Design) has been developed to guide future upgrades and investment to the shared path.

The Concept Design provided, offers the Shire direction and guidance for implementing a high quality Primary cycling route along Pink Lake Road. To implement some of the staged upgrades as per the Concept Design will require land acquisition, which from the desktop review will be possible, but may require sometime to achieve. It should also be noted that this is a long term plan and some of the actions and ideas will require community attitudes to change to cycling i.e. the path priority crossings, this doesn’t mean they have to be implemented now, but should be allowed for in planning future works.

At the April Ordinary Council Meeting Council resolved the following:

O0420-106

Council Resolution

That Council endorse the Pink Lake Road Shared Path Concept Design for public consultation.

The pubic consultation period for the proposed Pink Lake Road shared walk cycle path was open from 31 May – 17 July 2020. During this time letters were sent to all properties along Pink Lake Road advising of the proposal including a map of the location and referring people to provide comments and feedback via social pin point, the web based community and stakeholder engagement platform. All 89 comments received as part of the public consultation are provided in Appendix 1

Officer’s Comment

There was a significant amount of feedback provide on the concept design through the consultation process. This feedback including Shire Officers assessment and comments are provided in attachment 1. The main themes arising from the feedback around the concept design were:

Harbour Road and Pink Lake Road Intersection

All comments around the Harbour Road and Pink Lake Road Intersection were supportive improving the intersection with the possibility of a bridge over being favoured by most. This would be a long term project that should be incorporated with the upgrade of this intersection.

Trees

There were many comments around trees being removed or not in the feedback with a variety of reason given. As part of the implementation of the concept design trees will only be removed where required to ensure the shared path is safe.

Pink Lake Shopping Area

There were a number of comments around the Pink Lake Shopping Area proposed changes, most identifying concerns over the proposed changes. After further discussion and taking the comments into consideration a modified concept design has been developed that will allow for a 4m wide shared path through the area and no significant loss in car parking.

Land Acquisition

A number of property owners questioned the potential for land acquisition as part of the project. Once they were provided information and the process required there was a general understanding. If land acquisition is required as part of the detailed design, Shire officers will negotiate with the directly affected owners, to work with them and come to an agreed compensation if required.

Esperance Primary School Bus Drop Off

One of the comments in the concept plan identified the possible relocation of the Esperance Primary School bus drop off, raising concern over where would it be shifted too. Given that there is no logical alternative for the school bus drop area, this comment should be removed.

Based on the feedback the following changes have been included in the revised concept design and report in attachments 2 and 3.

· Modifications to the Concept Plan based on the feedback:

o Increase the path from 3m wide to 4m wide footpath from the High School to Harbour Road to cater for peak school traffic;

o Modify the layout around the Pink Lake Shops, to reflect the alternative design;

o Provide a connection at the top end of Pink Lake Road across Eleven Mile Beach Road to Pink Lake; and

o Remove the comment about relocating the Bus Drop-off at Esperance Primary School.

· Modifications to report based on the feedback:

o Consider installing seating, tree planting and installing interpretive nodes along the path as part of the detailed design.

Given the amount of feedback around the Pink Lake Road and Padbury Street intersection Council may wish to consider investigating options to improve safety at this intersection for future consideration.

Consultation

Consultation was under taken via Social Pinpoint and letters to residents along Pink Lake Road. All comments received are provided in Appendix 1. The statistics for Social Pinpoint are given below:

Financial Implications

Nil

Asset Management Implications

Asset management implications will be considered as part of the staged upgrades.

Statutory Implications

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Built Environment

Transport networks that meet the needs of our community and provide safe movement for all users

Deliver a diverse, efficient and safe transport system

Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24

B2.3 Renew, upgrade and build new urban infrastructure.

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a ⇩.	Pink Lake Road Share Path Corridor - Public Consultation
b ⇩.	Pink Lake Road Share Path Corridor - Concept Design - Revised
c ⇩.	Pink Lake Road Share Path Corridor - Preliminary Design Report - Revised

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

1. Endorse the Pink Lake Road Shared Path Corridor - Concept Design; and

2. Request the CEO to investigate options to improve the Pink Lake Road and Padbury Street intersection for budget consideration.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Ordinary Council: Agenda

22 September 2020 Page 234

Item: 12.4.2

Land Tender

Author/s	Trevor Ayers	Manager Community & Economic Development
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: D20/24482

Applicant

Internal Report

Location/Address

See Attachment A for a map detailing the lots available for sale in Flinders (lots for sale are marked in blue, those in white have already been sold or are currently under contract) and Attachment B for a map identifying the two lots for sale in Hockey Place.

Executive Summary

Approval is sought to proceed to tender for all lots within as identified above, with any lots that don’t receive an offer through the tender process to continue to be sold via Chief Executive Officer (CEO) delegation for a further six-month period.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council:

1. Direct the CEO to advertise all unsold lots within Flinders Stage 2 and Lots 861 and 862 Hockey Place (excluding any lots that are under contract at the time the tender is advertised) for sale by tender.

a. Confirm it believes that the valuations previously received from Opteon Property Group for the Hockey Place Lots in February 2017 and Heron Todd White Esperance for the Flinders Stage 2 lots in February 2020 continue to be a fair indication of the value of these lots.

b. Relist all lots that don’t receive an offer through the tender process.

c. Delegate authority to the CEO to negotiate and accept offers on these listed properties.

Background

The current delegated authority to the CEO to accept offers on the residential lots contained in Flinders and Hockey place is due to expire in September.

Delegated authority to the CEO can only be provided for a maximum of 6 months following a tender or auction process being undertaken. In the event that a delegation isn’t provided all negotiations require Council Decisions for each stage of the negotiation. This obviously has the potential to both make negotiations a lengthy and drawn out process as well as resulting in it playing out in the public domain. Neither of these outcomes is generally conducive to attracting purchasers.

Since the last tender there has been three sales in Flinders, with seven other properties currently having accepted offers over them. One of these is waiting on settlement while the other 6 currently require finance approval to be gained to enable them to proceed. This leaves a total of 10 lots currently available for sale in Flinders as well as the two lots in Hockey Place.

Officer’s Comment

Submissions are rarely received for tenders issued for lots in Flinders Stage 2 (3 sales have been achieved by tender in the past 8 years). This recommendation removes the need for Council to reconsider these lots prior to them being re-listed with real estate agents unless a submission is received. In the event that one or more tender submissions is received, this recommendation will allow all lots not involved in a submission to be listed with real estate agents while the tenders are being considered, minimising the time the lots are off the market.

It has been recommended that Council continue to rely upon the licensed valuations obtained in February 2017 for the Hockey Place lots and Heron Todd White in February 2020 [as allowed under s3.58 (4)(c)(ii)] as there has been little change in the market in the intervening time. These valuations are available at Attachment C & D.

The options for Council are:

· Continue with the current pricing process.

· Adjust the pricing if Council believes material changes in the market justify it.

· Request new valuations prior to making any decisions on future pricing for any of the lots lots. This can occur during the tender process with the decision being made after the tender closes, however it will remove these properties from sale by the real estate agents for close to 2 months

Consultation

Thorp Realty and The Professionals currently act as selling agents on these properties. Regular contact regarding the local market is maintained.

Financial Implications

Income from any sale of land will be placed in the Land Development reserve to ensure that income from the sale of land assets doesn’t get utilised on an operational expense or depreciating asset as per the intent of the Land Asset policy and procedures.

Asset Management Implications

Sale of lots removes the Councils obligations to maintain them.

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications associated with this item are contained within:

Local Government Act 1995

Section 3.58 – Disposing of Property

Policy Implications

Sale of non-strategic freehold land and placement of fund in reserve for future land development or acquisition of strategic land is consistent with the Councils Public Land Asset Strategy.

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Leadership

A financially sustainable and supportive organisation achieving operational excellence

Provide responsible resource and planning management for now and the future.

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a ⇩.	Lots for Sale - Flinders
b ⇩.	Lots for Sale - Hockey Place
c .	Valuation - Hockey Place - Confidential
d .	Valuation - Flinders - Confidential
e .	Minimum Acceptable Sale Price - Confidential

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

2. Accept the valuation report from Herron Todd White for the unsold Flinders lots, undertaken in February 2020 and confirm it believes that the valuations received from Opteon Property Group for the Hockey Place Lots undertaken in February 2017 and Heron Todd White in February 2020, continue to be a fair indication of the value of the unsold lots.

3. Relist all lots that don’t receive an offer through the tender process at the following prices:

LOT	SIZE (SQM)	Listing Price
Flinders
226	766	$175,000
228	766	$175,000
241	836	$190,000
242	836	$185,000
244	836	$190,000
248	836	$190,000
249	836	$190,000
266	768	$180,000
271	801	$180,000
275	801	$180,000
Hockey Place
861	567	$170,000
862	571	$175,000

4. Delegate authority to the CEO to negotiate and accept offers on these listed properties at or above the Minimum Acceptable Sale Price identified in the schedule within Attachment E (Listing and Sale Prices).

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Ordinary Council: Agenda

22 September 2020 Page 241

Item: 12.4.4

Proposal from Helispirit to Operate from the James Street Groyne

Author/s	Trevor Ayers	Manager Community & Economic Development
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: D20/26534

Applicant

Helicopter Film Services Pty Ltd trading as Helispirit (Helispirit)

Location/Address

Executive Summary

Helispirit have provided a proposal to operate helicopter tours from the Esperance foreshore (see Attachment A). Support is sought from Council for this operation to be approved.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council approve a 5 year trader’s permit enabling Helispirit to operate from the James Street Groyne area.

Background

Helispirit have been in discussions with the CEO of Australia’s Golden Outback regarding expanding their operations to include Esperance. Following a visit to town in August they have presented a proposal that includes use of the James Street Groyne as a helipad. Helispirit currently operate a large fleet of helicopters from several location across the North West of the Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

This area has previously been used for this purpose by another operator, however this operation ceased several years ago.

Officer’s Comment

The proposed Helispirit operations are seen as a positive offering in the tourism space, with a diversification of the available activities and attractions in Esperance being something that has long been identified as a need. Additionally, similar activities have previously operated from this spot meaning that this is not a new and untried activity.

The proposal is for Helispirit to be given approval to use the end of the James Street Groyne area for a period of 5 years. Under the terms of the permit it would still be available for community use outside of their operating periods. At this point this only intended to be operated on a seasonal basis however the intent is to maintain the ability for this operating period to be expanded in the future if it is commercially viable.

As part of their visit to town in August other options for operations were canvassed including the helipads at the Port. It was believed that this location provides the most chance for a successful operation due to the visibility of the location at the same time as being able to maintain a safe operating environment due to the limited accessibility to the landing site. As can be seen in the full proposal this is not the only location Helispirit are proposing to operate from within the Esperance area.

Council’s options are:

· As per the Officer’s Recommendation

· Decline the application by Helispirit

· Approve with amended conditions and advice notes as required

Consultation

The Managing Director and General Manager of Helispirit initially met with the Manager Community and Economic Development (with the CEO of Australia’s Golden Outback).

The Acting CEO, Acting Director External Services, Manager Development and Statutory Services, Manager Strategic Planning and Land Projects, Acting Manager Council Enterprises and Coordinator Governance and Corporate Support have all provided input and expertise in the crafting of this item.

Financial Implications

Helispirit will be required to pay the applicable traders permit fee each year.

Asset Management Implications

Helispirit will be responsible for any maintenance or restitution required as a result of their operations.

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications associated with this item are:

· Shire of Esperance Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2016

· Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997

· Civil Aviation Safety Authority requirements

Policy Implications

The policy implications arising from this report are:

· Trading in Public Places

· Advertising Signage in a Thoroughfare of Public Place

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Growth And Prosperity

Support our businesses to grow, adapt and assist in building capacity

Develop partnerships to strengthen economic growth

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a .	HeliSpirit - Proposal to Operate Esperance Scenic Helicopter Flights - Confidential
b ⇩.	Proposed trader's permit areas

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

1. Approve the traders permit application from Helicopter Film Services Pty Ltd trading as Helispirit for use of the areas identified in the attached diagram (attachment B) subject to the following conditions:

a. Compliance with the Shire of Esperance Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2016;

b. Compliance with Shire of Esperance Council Policy Trading in Public Places;

c. Compliance with Shire of Esperance Council Policy Advertising Signage in a Thoroughfare of Public Place

d. Compliance with Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;

e. That the exclusive use of the permit area is provided to the Permit Holder during hours of operation/use of the permit area only , however this does not preclude use for emergency landings or medical evacuation or sea search and rescue operations;

f. No landing or departure flights shall be permitted prior to 0900 on any day, except flights in connection with emergencies i.e. fire, rescue, accident etc.

g. Flights may be conducted during daylight hours only;

h. Compliance with applicable Civil Aviation Safety Authority requirements;

i. Walkways, Driveways and carparks are not to be obstructed;

j. No posters or promotional material are to be affixed to any structure, plant or wall;

k. People are to be allowed to go about their business without harassment or coercion;

l. The Permit holder is responsible for any restitution of the permit area as a result of their activities;

m. The area is to be left in a neat and tidy condition;

n. Current Public Liability Insurance; and,

o. Permit period is valid until 30^th June 2025;

and advice notes:

a) Operate in accordance Fly Neighbourly Principles

b) Minimise the flight paths over townsite area,

2. Delegate authority to the CEO to negotiate the exact land areas with Helicopter Film Services Pty Ltd trading as Helispirit and any minor amendments to the conditions and advice notes required to finalise the trader’s permit.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Ordinary Council: Agenda

22 September 2020 Page 268

Item: 13.2

Esperance Road Respect Initiative

Author/s	Tamara Garrett	Administration Officer - Asset Management
Authorisor/s	Mathew Walker	Director Asset Management

File Ref: D20/25806

Applicant

Esperance Roadwise Committee

Executive Summary

For Council to consider the request from the Esperance Roadwise Committee to underwrite the Esperance Road Respect Initiative Promotional Campaign.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council approves a budget variation for the Esperance Road Respect Initiative.

Background

The Esperance Roadwise Committee held a meeting on the 10^th August 2020. The committee where discussing the Action Plan events around the Esperance Road Respect Initiative Promotional Campaign and the funding requirements. The Committee moved a motion to council regarding the funding options available for the Esperance Road Respect Initiative Promotional campaign, given below.

That the Esperance Roadwise Committee recommends that Council underwrite the $2500 balance required to complete the Esperance Road Respect Initiative Promotional campaign.

· Total Project cost being - $5500

· $2500 being received from RAC

· $500 being received from the Esperance Roadwise Committee

· Balance owing - $2500 to be sought from other sources (eg. Southern Ports, Aurizon & CBH)

Esperance Road Respect Initiative aims to broaden the Road Safety Commission 'Kindness Travels' campaign by putting a local spin on the theme of being respectful to others when sharing the roads, using local people to endorse the message. The aim of the campaign is to:

1. Increase awareness in the local community that roads are a shared amenity;

2. Increase community consciousness that sharing roads respectfully contributes to everybody getting home safely; and

3. Foster a community that acts with kindness in the knowledge that people will always make mistakes.

Officer’s Comment

Since the time the resolution was made by the Esperance Roadwise Committee, the Shire has had confirmation that they have the available funding, except for $200, to undertake the Esperance Road Respect Initiative without the need for the Shire to underwrite the project.

Given that project is unbudgeted and only requires $200 to proceed Council should consider approving a budget variation for the project as detailed in the Financial Implications. It is also recommend that Council provide the Roadwise committee an additional $300 in budget so that they can undertake other events during the year.

Consultation

N/A

Financial Implications

The financial implications to undertake the Esperance Road Respect Initiative are detailed below:

Description		Budget Figure	Amended Figure	Variation
RoadWise Expenses	W1665	2,800	5,800	3,000
Community Assistance - Roads	W1664	15,000	14,500	(500)
Income RAC	3930-115-155	0	(2,500)	(2,500)
Net result				Nil

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 - Expenditure from municipal fund not included in annual

Budget.

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Built Environment

Transport networks that meet the needs of our community and provide safe movement for all users

Deliver a diverse, efficient and safe transport system

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

Nil

Committee Recommendation

That Council underwrite the $2500 balance required to complete the Esperance Road Respect Initiative Promotional campaign.

· Total Project cost being - $5500

· $2500 being received from RAC

· $500 being received from the Esperance Roadwise Committee

· Balance owing - $2500 to be sought from other sources (eg. Southern Ports, Aurizon & CBH)

Voting Requirement Absolute Majority

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council approves a budget variation for the Esperance Road Respect Initiative as detailed in the below:

Description		Budget Figure	Amended Figure	Variation
RoadWise Expenses	W1665	2,800	5,800	3,000
Community Assistance - Roads	W1664	15,000	14,500	(500)
Income RAC	3930-115-155	0	(2,500)	(2,500)
Net result				Nil

Voting Requirement Absolute Majority

Ordinary Council: Agenda

22 September 2020 Page 270

Item: 13.3

Airport Risk Register

Author/s	Scott McKenzie	Acting Director External Services
	Beth O'Callaghan	Manager Financial Services
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: D20/26464

Applicant

External Services

Location/Address

Executive Summary

To allow Council to consider the consequences of the Risk Register for the Esperance Airport.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council endorse the Safety Management System Risk Register for the Esperance Airport as attached.

Background

The Esperance Airport implemented the original SMS Manual in 2006 and, with the aim of continuous improvement, this has been recently updated to reflect the latest regulatory requirements as well as current industry best practice. The SMS is regularly audited by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

Currently there are no mandatory standards on an SMS, however aerodrome operators are expected to be able to demonstrate, through documentation and procedures, that the elements of the SMS have been incorporated in the management and operation of their aerodromes. Previous CASA audit reports have recommended that the Risk Register be presented to Council for consideration.

The Airport SMS Committee comprises the Manager Council Enterprises, Airport Operations Coordinator and Airport Operations Officer. The Committee meet monthly (and more often if required), and is responsible for:

· Reviewing the status of recent accidents and incidents;

· Reviewing actions taken;

· Reviewing airport safety or audit reports, and the review and approval of audit responses and actions taken;

· Reviewing and resolving any airport safety matters that may be brought before the committee; and

· Approving, rejecting or recommending action on any matter brought before it.

The Risk Register was last presented to Council during the All Purpose Committee Meeting on 15^th February 2011 and adopted by Council during the Ordinary Council meeting on 21^st February 2011.

Officer’s Comment

Each identified hazard is assessed by the SMS Committee against a matrix of consequence level and likelihood level to produce a risk level. The consequence and likelihood levels used by the Airport are identical to the Shire levels.

Once the risk level has been identified, the SMS Committee are required to make a decision with regard to whether that risk is acceptable or not acceptable. If the level of risk is acceptable, then no further action is taken.

If the level of risk is not acceptable, then a mitigation strategy is identified and the level of risk after the mitigation strategy is again identified.

The register further identifies whether the mitigation strategy is ongoing or complete.

The Safety Management System Risk Register for the Esperance Airport was presented to the Audit Committee on Tuesday 9 September 2020. The Audit Committee resolved to recommend that Council endorse the Safety Management System Risk Register. The Audit Committee also recommended that this register is presented to Council annually.

Consultation

Airport SMS Committee

Financial Implications

Nil

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications associated with this item are included within the Manual of Standards Part 139 – Aerodrome (MOS 139 section 10.1.14) and Advisory Circular 139-1(0), section 4.1(h) issued by CASA.

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Community Connection

A feeling of safety and confidence within our neighbourhoods and a sense of security

Develop and maintain a safe environment for the community

Corporate Business Plan 2019/20 – 2022/23

B4.1 Manage the Esperance Airport

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a ⇩.

Airport Safety Management System - Risk Register

Audit Committee Recommendation

That Council

1. Endorse the Safety Management System Risk Register for the Esperance Airport as attached and

2. Is presented with the Safety Management System Risk Register for the Esperance Airport annually.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Ordinary Council: Agenda

22 September 2020 Page 292

Item: 13.5

Review of Financial Management Practices

Author/s	Beth O'Callaghan	Manager Financial Services
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: D20/26467

Applicant

Internal

Location/Address

N/A

Executive Summary

This report is seeking the Council endorsement of the Financial Management Review that has been undertaken to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council receive the report entitled Financial Management Review from the Chief Executive Officer for compliance with the requirement of Reg. 5 (2) (c) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

Background

The Financial Management Regulations associated with the Local Government Act 1995 requires the Chief Executive Officer to undertake a review of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of the local government regularly (and not less that once in 4 financial years) and report to the local government the results of the review. The last review was conducted in March 2016 by auditors Butler Settineri.

The review was undertaken by Butler Settineri during July 2020.

Officer’s Comment

Following the review, it is the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer that the financial management systems and procedures in place at the Shire of Esperance are both appropriate and effective.

This conclusion is supported by the Financial Management Review Report that concludes that

“we note that the financial management framework is generally in good order. In particular, we found that all major controls in relation to financial controls for the receipting of monies, safeguarding of assets and control over expenditure are in place and functional.” on page 4 of the report under heading 1.4 Key Findings.

The review did however make some recommendations that are categorised as moderate or low risk to strengthen the internal systems currently in place. Of the six findings, three were identified during the Interim Audit process and have been addressed in a separate report to the Audit Committee.

The other three matters are as follows:

· Long Term Financial Plan – moderate risk

The long term financial plan (LTFP) is usually presented to Council each year however due to COVID-19 the LTFP was not presented to Council during 2020 as the rates and fees were to remain the same as 2019/20. The auditor is concerned the Asset Renewal Funding Ratio could not be calculated due to only 9 years of projections for asset replacements instead of 10 year projections. This ratio is to be included in Annual Financial report. A LTFP will be provided to Council to adopt in the near future and will address this matter.

· Employee Termination Checklist – minor risk

The Shire has in place an Employee Termination Checklist to refer to when an employee terminates their employment. However the auditor has noted that each item on this checklist is not signed off by a member of management. A procedure has been put in place where either the Manager Human Resources, Manager Financial Services or Assistant Accountant will sign off the checklist once the task have been completed.

· IT Control Environment – moderate risk

The auditor has noted that the Shire does not have a Disaster Recovery Plan in place which details policy concerning back-up procedures, the protection of electronic data and records and the recovery of these in the event of a disaster. The auditor also noted the Shire did not have a formal policy regarding responding to cyber-attacks. The IT Department are currently in the process of developing a Disaster Recovery Plan and will look into a cyber-attack policy.

All the recommendations can be made with minimal financial impact.

The Financial Management Review was presented to the Audit Committee on Tuesday 9 September 2020. The Audit Committee resolved to recommend that Council receive the report.

Consultation

Butler Settineri

Financial Implications

The cost for the Financial Management Review was $6,500 excluding GST and disbursements.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

A Financial Management Review is required under the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Leadership

A financially sustainable and supportive organisation achieving operational excellence

Provide responsible resource and planning management for now and the future.

Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24

L.2.9 Manage Finance

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a ⇩.

Financial Management Review Report

Audit Committee Recommendation

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Author/s	Sarah Walsh	Coordinator Governance & Corporate Support
Authorisor/s	Robbie Meerman	Acting Director Corporate Resources

a ⇩.	Live Streaming Notification Wording Examples
b ⇩.	DRAFT Policy - Live Streaming and Recording of Meetings

Author/s	Alli McArthur	Administration Officer - Executive Services
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Acting Chief Executive Officer

a ⇩.	Information Bulletin - August 2020
b ⇨.	Corporate Performance Report - August 2020 - Under Separate Cover
c ⇩.	Letter of Appreciation - Esperance Chamber of Commerce & Industry (ECCI) - Silver Sponsorship
d ⇩.	Letters of Appreciation - Victorian Councils
e ⇩.	Lake Condolence Letter - Department of Fire & Emergency
f ⇩.	Letter - Esperance Domestic Violence Assist

a ⇩.	Esperance Roadwise Committee - 10 August 2020
b ⇩.	Streetscape Advisory Committee - 20 August 2020
c ⇩.	Local Recovery Committee - 25 August 2020
d ⇩.	Reconciliation Action Plan Working Group - 31 August 2020