Minutes of Ordinary Council

23 March 2021 Page 6

SHIRE OF ESPERANCE

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting HELD IN Council Chambers ON
23 March 2021.

COMMENCING AT 4pm

1. OFFICIAL OPENING

The Shire President declared the meeting open at 4.02pm and read aloud an acknowledgement to country.

The Shire of Esperance acknowledges the Nyungar and Ngadju people who are the Traditional Custodians of this land and their continuing connection to land, waters and community. We pay our respects to Elders past, present and emerging and we extend that respect to other aboriginal Australians today.

The President welcomed Councillors, staff, guests and members of the public to the meeting.

2. ATTENDANCE

Members

Cr I Mickel, AM JP President Rural Ward

Cr B Parker Deputy President Rural Ward

Cr S McMullen 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 Chief Executive Officer

Mr M Walker Director Asset Management

Mr S McKenzie Acting Director External Services

Mrs F Baxter Director Corporate & Community Services

Mr R Hindley Manager Strategic Planning & Land Projects

Miss A McArthur Executive Assistant

Miss S Hawke Trainee Administration Assistant - Executive Services

Members of the Public & Press

Mr T Gray Item 12.4.5

Mr B Landers Item 12.1.3

Mrs A Landers Item 12.1.3

Mr P Flood Item 12.1.3

3. APOLOGIES & NOTIFICATION OF GRANTED LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr S Payne, JP Town Ward Apology

Cr J O’Donnell Town Ward Apology

4. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion

Moved: Cr Graham

Seconded: Cr Parker

O0321-064

That Council accept the following leave of absence:

Cr Obourne 31 Mar 2021 until 7 April 2021

Cr Parker 7 April 2021 until 16 April 2021

Cr McMullen 30 March 2021 until 7 April 2021

CARRIED

F7 - A0

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PERSON PRESIDING WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Cr Mickel advised the Ordinary Council Meeting is being recorded in a trial for live streaming, should the recording be successful it will be placed on the Shire website for viewing.

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

Cr Parker declared an impartiality interest in item 12.3.8 as he is a director of the Esperance District Football Association (EDFA).

Cr Chambers declared an impartiality interest in item 12.4.1 as he is a past member of the Esperance Goldfields Surf Life Saving Club.

Cr Chambers declared an impartiality interest in item 12.1.1 as he is the employer of one of the objectors.

Mr Gray left the Chamber at 4.07pm.

7. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

1. Mr P Flood – Item 12.1.3

Mr Flood referred to item 12.1.3 in which the applicants have applied for a reduced setback. Mr Flood questioned why does the Shire have restrictions in place for the Special Control Area, when the conditions can simply be altered. Mr Flood raised concerns of having Special Control Area restrictions that aren’t adhered to.

Cr Mickel responded that all properties have set backs and no one can own a view, however Council take visual amenity into account in the Special Control Area.

Mr Gray returned to the Chamber at 4.07pm.

2. Mr T Gray – CCTV Strategy

Mr Gray referred to the February Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes, in particular item 17.3 CCTV Strategy. Mr Gray questioned if the MOU being developed with the Police will be made publically available, similar to other local governments who have published their CCTV Policy and MOU on their websites.

Mr Burge responded that he wasn’t aware of other local governments publishing their CCTV Policy and MOU. However, provided this process is consistent with other local governments, he can’t see why the Shire wouldn’t make the documents publically available.

8. PUBLIC ADDRESSES / DEPUTATIONS

Nil

9. Petitions

Nil

10. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved: Cr McMullen

Seconded: Cr Chambers

O0321-065

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of the 23 February 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

11. DELEGATES’ REPORTS WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Cr Chambers

10 Mar Attended Civic Reception to welcome WA Governor Hon. Kim Beazley AC to Esperance

15 Mar Meeting with Jade O’Donovan, Adventure in Nature

Cr Obourne

4 Mar Chaired the Community Support Sub Committee

6 Mar Constituent Meeting regarding BOILC Incident

11 Mar Attended Adventureland Park Committee Meeting

11 Mar Attended the Future Leaders Program Mentee Catch-up

13 Mar Attended “Cakes for a Cause”

16 Mar Attended Disability Access & Inclusion Plan Reference Group Meeting

19 Mar Constituent Meeting regarding Salmon Gums upgrades

20 Mar Attended “Coffee with Councillors” at the Condingup Fair

22 Mar Attended Senior Citizens Management Group Committee Meeting

23 Mar Constituent Meeting regarding Monjingup Masterplan

23 Mar Attended Local Recovery Meeting

Cr Parker

10 Mar Attended Civic Reception to welcome WA Governor Hon. Kim Beazley AC to Esperance

11 Mar Attended a tour of the New Jetty with Governor Hon. Kim Beazley AC

12 Mar Attended Meet and greet with reps from Scaddan regarding options for upgrading their recreation centre

20 Mar Attended “Coffee with Councillors” at the Condingup Fair

Cr McMullen

8 Mar Chaired Audit Committee Meeting

10 Mar Attended Civic Reception to welcome WA Governor Hon. Kim Beazley AC to Esperance

23 Mar Attended Local Recovery Meeting

Cr Mickel

25 Feb Attended the ECCI Business after Hours

5 Mar Attended meet and greet with two Grass Patch landowners regarding waste management sites

8 Mar Attended Greater Sports Ground Committee meeting

10 Mar Attended Civic Reception to welcome WA Governor Hon. Kim Beazley AC to Esperance

10 Mar Attended function for Governor Hon. Kim Beazley AC at Lucky Bay Brewery

11 Mar Attended the TOAST breakfast session

11 Mar Attended a tour of the New Jetty with Governor Hon. Kim Beazley AC

11 Mar Attended function for Governor Hon. Kim Beazley AC at Deep Sea Angling Club

12 Mar With Director of Asset Management, attended Skype meeting of Regional Road Group

12 Mar Attended meet and greet with reps from Scaddan regarding options for upgrading their recreation centre

18 Mar Attended a morning tea at the Esperance Men in Sheds

20 Mar Attended “Coffee with Councillors” at the Condingup Fair

23 Mar Attended Local Recovery Meeting

12. MATTERS REQUIRING A DETERMINATION OF COUNCIL

12.1 External Services

Item: 12.1.1

Development Application - Single House - Lot 19 (8) Matthews Street, Castletown

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

File Ref: D21/5854

Applicant

Timmins and Timmins Building Contractors on behalf of M & H Florisson

Location/Address

Lot 19 (8) Matthews Street, Castletown

Executive Summary

That Council consider Development Application 10.2021.4593.1 for a Single House at Lot 19 (8) Matthews Street, Castletown.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council resolve to approve Development Application 10.2021.4593.1 for a Single House at Lot 19 (8) Matthews Street, Castletown subject to conditions.

Background

A development application for a Single House at Lot 19 (8) Matthews Street, Castletown was received on 4 February 2021.

The application was subsequently advertised for 21 days between 4 February 2021 and 25 February 2021 to adjoining landowners for setback variations with one objection and one non-objection being received.

When an objection is received it means that Delegated Authority cannot be utilised, hence it is referred to Council for determination.

Officer’s Comment

Lot 19 (8) Matthews Street, Castletown is zoned Residential R30 and is not affected by any Special Control Areas.

The only variations to the Residential Design Codes deemed-to-comply criteria relate to the side boundary setbacks with a 1.08 metre setback proposed to the northern boundary, and a 1.3 metre setback proposed to the southern boundary where a 1.5 metre setback is the requirement for both side boundaries. It is noted that the proposal includes a nil setback to the southern boundary which is in accordance with the Walls on Boundary criteria of the Residential Design Codes.

Given the narrow lot design allowing limited options for dwelling design, it is not surprising to see reduced side boundary setbacks as part of the design of a single house.

Reasons for Recommendation

· The only variations proposed to the Residential Design Codes deemed-to-comply criteria are minor side setback variations, 1.08 metres to the north and 1.3 metres to the south proposed where 1.5 metres is required.

· The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Residential zone.

· There are no design guidelines or protections on the character of the area that prevent this form of development.

· The design of the proposed single house is a logical response to a narrower than average lot arrangement.

Consultation

The application was advertised to adjoining landowners between 4 February 2021 and 25 February 2021 with one objection received.

The grounds of objection are as follows:

Objection

Officers Comment

The proposed dwelling imparts an impact of building bulk which adversely impact adjoining properties, as opposed to reduced impacts.

The combination of the Office-Alfresco façade setback reduction, including its overhanging eaves, and the garage boundary wall, sees the dwelling skirting within less than 1m of both side adjoining properties. This is inconsistent with the established character of the streetscape, in which no other property features a boundary wall. Even the northern adjoining property (No. 30 Mitchell Street), which is smaller than most other lots along the street, does not provide Matthews Street a boundary wall.
Further compounding the matter is the garage boundary wall being located along the southern boundary, which amplifies the perception of building bulk by overshadowing the affected site to the south.

Asides from the combination of the boundary wall and setback variation, the setback variation alone will increase, rather than decrease, the impact of building bulk. This is due to the alfresco component being situated directly opposite the northern adjoining lot’s outdoor living area. This, along with the overhanging eaves of the Office-Alfresco, which are just 0.725m from the boundary, will create a sense of confinement.

With the Office-Alfresco facade being directly visible from the northern adjoining dwelling and its rear courtyard, it is therefore recommended that the design be amended to comply with the applicable deemed to comply requirements. This can be achieved by either providing a larger setback, or shortening the façade to 9m or less. Doing so would not negate the feasibility of the proposed dwelling.

With the exception of the on-the-boundary construction of the proposed Garage which is compliant with the provisions of the Residential Design Codes, the closest a wall comes from the side lot boundaries is 1.08 metres.

The comments regarding the proposal being out of character with the existing character of Matthews Street are correct, however it must be noted that the subject land is also significantly narrower than other lots along Matthews, Mitchell and Westmacott Street with have lot frontages between 20 and 25 metres in width whereas Lot 19 (8) Matthews Street and the other lots in its parent subdivision have street frontages of 13.57 metres in width for Lot 19 (8) and Lot 20 (6) Matthews, and 14.47 metres in width for Lot 18 (30) Mitchell Street. These narrower lot frontages, while compliant with the provisions of the Residential Design Codes are also out of character with the surrounding area.

While the boundary wall is out of character with the surrounding area, is it compliant with the provisions of the Residential Design Codes. The narrower than normal lot design also encourages construction on the property boundaries to make the best use of the property.

The proposal complies with overshadowing criteria of the Residential Design Codes.

Unfortunately the ‘sense of confinement’ as the objector phrases it, is common with small and narrow lots where there is a space or dimension based restriction on design. It is unlikely this could be avoided on the property.

There is no requirement or provision that relates to the proximity between outdoor living areas such as the office-alfresco on Lot 19 (8) Matthews Street and the alfresco on the adjoining property.

The alfresco’s location close to the northern lot boundary denies the subject site, and all future occupants, the ability to access favourable direct sunlight from the north. This is because most of the dwelling’s primary outdoor living area is shaded, and leaves less than a 0.8m wide strip of uncovered open space along the northern lot boundary. An increase setback of the Office-Alfresco façade, including reducing the overhang of the eaves, will enable occupants of the site to enjoy an outdoor living area which can be readily landscaped, and able to take meaningful advantage of direct sunlight from the north.

The reduced Office-Alfresco façade setback also compromises on the ability to provide a path for natural breezes to flow along the northern lot boundary, to the detriment of both its outdoor living area, and the rear courtyard of the northern adjoining property. The northern adjoining property’s southern elevation is also compromised by the reduced setback.

The proposal complies with overshadowing criteria of the Residential Design Codes.

Given the single storey nature of the proposal, and the assumption that a 1.8 metre high boundary fence will be located between Lot 19 (8) Matthews Street and the lot immediately to the south, the impact on light/solar access should be minimal and should still permit installation of landscaping.

It is noted that the design elements that cause this issue are a response to the lot dimensions.

The reduced Office-Alfresco setback will diminish the privacy of the northern adjoining lot in that it facilitates two habitable rooms (Kitchen/Living/Dining and Office), and the covered portion of the outdoor living area, closer to that property and its rear courtyard. Three major openings are located along the Office-Alfresco façade. In this manner, the proposed variation does not minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties, but rather exacerbates it. Therefore, this design principle of R-Codes Clause 5.1.3 – Lot Boundary Setbacks has not been addressed.

Overlooking and privacy are not valid grounds for objection as the trigger for Overlooking and privacy criteria under the Residential Design Codes is that a habitable room has to have a finished ground level more than 0.5 metres above natural ground level (or the ground level that has resulted from the subdivision of the land). In this instance the proposed dwelling does not have a finished floor level sufficiently elevated to trigger overlooking or privacy concerns.

Financial Implications

Application fees totalling $1024.00 were received as part of this application.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications associated with this item are:

1. Planning and Development Act 2005; and

2. Local Planning Scheme No. 24

Policy Implications

The policy implications arising from this report are:

1. Local Planning Strategy

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 ⇩.	Objection

Ordinary Council: Minutes

23 March 2021 Page 21

PDF Creator

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.1.1 Development Application - Single House - Lot 19 (8) Matthews Street, Castletown

Moved: Cr Piercey

Seconded: Cr McMullen

O0321-066

Council Resolution

That Council resolve to approve Development Application 10.2021.4593.1 for a Single House at Lot 19 (8) Matthews Street, 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.

2. The land and buildings the subject of this approval shall be used for the purposes of Single House only and for no other purpose unless otherwise approved in accordance with the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 24 (refer below definitions as extracted from the Residential Design Codes).

· Single House – A dwelling standing wholly on its own green title or survey strata lot, together with any easement over adjoining land for support of a wall or for access or services and excludes dwellings on titles with areas held in common property.

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 vehicle crossover is to be constructed, drained and sealed to the satisfaction and specifications of the Shire of Esperance – refer enclosed vehicle crossover application form.

6. A minimum of two (2) 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.

7. Vehicle parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas shall be suitably constructed, sealed (asphalt, concrete or brickpavers), drained and thereafter maintained.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. The approved development must be connected to a reticulated water supply provided by a licensed water provider.

12. Before the approved development is occupied, the property must connected to the Water Corporation reticulated sewerage system.

13. 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.

14. 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.

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

16. 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 at developer’s expense.

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 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.

6. 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.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Item: 12.1.2

Local Planning Scheme No. 24 - Amendment No. 7

Author/s	Richard Hindley	Manager Strategic Planning & Land Projects
Authorisor/s	Scott McKenzie	Acting Director External Services

File Ref: D21/6039

Applicant

Internal

Location/Address

Shire of Esperance

Executive Summary

For Council to consider re-initiating Amendment 7 to Local Planning Scheme No. 24 to amend the Scheme as requested by the EPA.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council:

1. Amend Local Planning Scheme No. 24 in pursuance of Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005

2. Determining that the amendment is “standard” under the provisions of regulation 35.(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for the following reason(s):

“… (c) an amendment that is consistent with a local planning strategy for the scheme that has been endorsed by the Commission…” and;

“… (g) any other amendment that is not a complex or basic amendment…”

3. Refer Amendment 7 to the EPA under Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and resolve to proceed to advertising of the amendment for public inspection after referral to the EPA.

Background

Council initiated Amendment No. 7 at its November 2020 Ordinary Meeting of Council (O1120-345).

The amendment was subsequent forwarded to the EPA in accordance with Council’s resolution. The EPA have requested that two components of the amendment be deleted and the amendment be re-initiated with those modifications.

The two modifications made to the amendment are the deletion of the following 2 amendment points:

6. Amending Table No. 4 Zoning and Land Use Table by making ‘Waste Disposal Facility’ an ‘A’ use in the Rural zone.

11. Amending Schedule 1 Clause 17(a) by deleting subclause (iii) and renumbering the clause accordingly.

The remainder of the amendment is identical to that considered by Council at the November 2020 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

The proposed amendment is consistent with the Local Planning Strategy.

Officer’s Comment

A copy of the modified amendment in contained within Attachment A.

The two modification to the amendment are as follows:

· Amending Table No. 4 Zoning and Land Use Table by making ‘Waste Disposal Facility’ an ‘A’ use in the Rural zone.

This provision would have enabled a ‘Waste Disposal Facility’ to be approved in the ‘Rural’ zone subject to advertising.

· Amending Schedule 1 Clause 17(a) by deleting subclause (iii) and renumbering the clause accordingly.

This provision would have removed the requirement to plant and maintain the area around each effluent disposal system with indigenous trees and shrubs.

The EPA have advised if these provisions are included within the amendment then the amendment may be formally assessed under the EP Act.

Consultation

Amendment 7 has been considered by the EPA and referred back for the Shire to re-initiate the document containing the modifications. Once re-initiated the EPA will consider the modified amendment.

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

Financial Implications

Nil

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

Local Planning Strategy

Government Sewerage Policy

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Built Environment

New developments that enhance the existing built environment

Encourage innovation and support new development

Corporate Business Plan

Corporate Business Plan 2020 - 2024

B3 Encourage innovation and support new development

B3.3 Update and Implement Local Planning Scheme and Policies

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a ⇨.

Local Planning Scheme No. 24 - Amendment No. 7 - Under Separate Cover

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.1.2 Local Planning Scheme No. 24 - Amendment No. 7

Moved: Cr Chambers

Seconded: Cr McMullen

O0321-067

Council Resolution

That Council

1. In pursuance of Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 amend Local Planning Scheme No. 24 by:

i. Amending Table No. 4 Zoning and Land Use Table by making ‘Animal Establishment’ a ‘D’ use in the Rural Smallholdings zone.

ii. Amending Table No. 4 Zoning and Land Use Table by making ‘Commercial Vehicle Parking’ an ‘A’ use in the Residential and Rural Townsite zone.

iii. Amending Table No. 4 Zoning and Land Use Table by making ‘Repurposed Dwelling’ a ‘D’ use in the Rural Residential zone.

iv. Amending Table No. 4 Zoning and Land Use Table by making ‘Telecommunications Infrastructure’ a ‘P’ use in all zones.

v. Amending Table No. 4 Zoning and Land Use Table by making ‘Grouped Dwelling’ a ‘D’ use in the Rural zone.

vi. Amending Table No. 2 Specified additional uses for land in local reserves in Scheme area by deleting point 2 in conditions for AR3 and renumbering the clause accordingly.

vii. Amending Clause 26.(4) replacing it with:

‘26. (4) In the established ‘Residential’ zone along Castletown Quays and Twilight Beach Road to the West of Walker Street the minimum front setback shall be 7.5 metres unless considered in accordance with clause 64 of the deemed provisions or otherwise provided by Special Control Area provisions of this Scheme.’

viii. Amending Schedule A Clause 61.(u) by inserting ‘in areas subject to the R-Codes’ after ‘residential outbuilding’.

ix. Amending Schedule 1 Clause 8 by replacing it with:

‘8. Rural Zone Additional Dwelling Provisions

(a) The local government may grant approval for an additional dwelling in the Rural zone in accordance with the following:

(i) the total number of dwellings on the lot with an area between 40ha and 100ha (excluding any ancillary dwelling) will not exceed two;

(ii) the total number of dwellings on the lot with an area greater than 100ha (excluding any ancillary dwelling) will not exceed three;

(iii) the local government is satisfied that adequate provision can be made for the supply of domestic water and for the disposal of sewage from the additional dwelling/s;

(iv) the additional dwelling/s will not adversely affect the rural landscape or conflict with agricultural production on the subject lot or on adjoining land;

(b) The approval of more than one (1) dwelling on any lot zoned Rural should not be construed as support for the subdivision of the lot. Subdivision of Rural land shall be in accordance with State planning policy and the Local Planning Strategy.’

x. Amending Schedule 1 Clause 18 by inserting a new subclause as (e) as follows:

‘(e) The height limit of a Renewable energy facility is only limited by the provisions of Schedule 2 – Special Control Area No. 8.’

xi. Amending Schedule 1 Clause 18 by inserting a new subclause as (f) by moving Schedule 1 Clause 35(b) to subclause (f) and renumber the subclauses in Schedule 1 Clause 35 taking note of the deletion.

xii. Amending Schedule 2 by inserting a new Clause 11 as follows:

‘11. SCA 11 – Modified Sewerage Sensitive Areas Special Control Area

(a) The purpose of SCA 11 is to provide guidance for land use and development within the modified Sewerage Sensitive Area as identified in The Analysis of Surficial Ground Water Landscapes and Hydrological Pathways linking the Ramsar Listed Lake Warden Wetlands by Tilo Massenbauer and as shown on the Scheme Map.

(b) Objectives

The objectives of SCA 11 are to –

(i) identify land that has been designated as a sewerage sensitive area;

(ii) ensure that the development and use of land does not detrimentally impact on a sewerage sensitive area; and

(iii) implement Scheme controls that are designed to mitigate any adverse effects on a sewerage sensitive area.

(c) Application Requirements

(i) Despite any other provision of the Scheme development approval is required for all land use and development not connected to a reticulated sewerage system.

(d) Development Requirements

(i) Compliance with the Government Sewerage Policy.

(ii) Where a lot is also located within SCA 4 – Public Drinking Water Source Protection Areas the requirements of SCA 4 will apply in addition to the requirements of SCA 11.

Note: The report referenced in clause 11.(a) can be found in the Shire’s Electronic document and records management system – Ref: D18/20641.’

xiii. Amending the Scheme Map by inserting SCA 11 as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

xiv. Amending Schedule 3 by deleting A3 and delete A3 from Lot 83 Lalor Drive, Windabout as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

xv. Amending Schedule 3 by deleting A8 and delete A8 from Lot 5 Downes Street, Pink Lake as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

xvi. Amending Schedule 3 by inserting ‘Consulting Rooms’ as a ‘D’ use in the column ‘Additional Use(s)’ of A6.

xvii. Amending Schedule 3 by replacing ‘Portion Lot 9002 Eleven Mile Beach Road, Pink Lake’ with ‘Portion of Lot 770 Spencer Road, Pink Lake’ in A16 and amend the Scheme Map as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

xviii. Amending Schedule 3 and the Scheme Map as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map by adding an Additional Use with the following:

No.

Location

Base Zone

Additional Use(s)

Development Standards/Conditions

A23

Lot 2 Pink Lake Road, Pink Lake

Rural Residential

As a ‘D’ use:

· Home Store

As determined by the Local Government.

xix. Amending Schedule 3 and the Scheme Map as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map by adding an Additional Use with the following:

No.

Location

Base Zone

Additional Use(s)

Development Standards/Conditions

A24

Lot 12 and 13 Warden Road, Chadwick

Rural Residential

As an ‘A’ use:

· Community Purpose

As determined by the Local Government.

xx. Amending Schedule 5 by replacing 15.3.4 within SU4 with ‘Measures may be implemented as part of the Noise Management Plan to avoid flights over residential areas.’

xxi. Amending Schedule 5 by deleting SU6 and delete SU6 from a Portion of Reserve 27318 and Reserve 32048 by reclassifying Reserve 27318 as ‘Public Open Space’ and Reserve 32048 as ‘Private Community Purposes’ as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

xxii. Amending Schedule 5 by replacing ‘Part Lot 63 on DP80539’ with ‘Lot 66 on Plan 415322’ in the Description of land and deleting point (a) and deleting ‘further’ and ‘greater than outlined in condition (a)’ in (b) in the conditions of SU7.

xxiii. Amending the Scheme Map by reclassifying Reserve 34788 and a portion of Reserve 23527 from ‘Public Open Space’ to ‘Environmental Conservation as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

xxiv. Amending the Scheme Map by reclassifying Reserve 4182 from ‘Public Open Space’ to ‘Environmental Conservation’ as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

xxv. Amending the Scheme Map by rezoning a portion of Lot 300 Kalgoorlie Street, Lots 2, 24, 25, 26, 628, 629, 1 Sims Street and Lot 134 on Plan 226439 from ‘Public Open Space’ to ‘Industrial Development’ as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

xxvi. Amending the Scheme Map by rezoning a portion of Lot 204 on DP 416486 from ‘Local Road’ to ‘Rural Townsite’ as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

xxvii. Amending the Scheme Map by rezoning both portions of Lot 55 on Plan 12843 from ‘Residential’ to ‘Local Road’ as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

xxviii. Amending the Scheme Map by amending Lot 202 on Plan 39677 Fisheries Road, Bandy Creek from ‘Public Open Space’ to ‘Private Community Purposes’ as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

xxix. Amending the Scheme Map by rezoning Lot 75 Woods Street, Chadwick from ‘General Industry’ to ‘Light Industry’ as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

xxx. Amending the Scheme by renumbering the clauses and any referenced clauses within the Scheme caused by either deletion, insertion or movement of a clause or subclause through this or any earlier amendment.

2. The amendment is standard under the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for the following reason(s):

(b) an amendment that is consistent with a local planning strategy for the scheme that has been endorsed by the Commission;

(g) any other amendment that is not a complex or basic amendment.

3. Refer Amendment 7 to the EPA under Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and resolve to proceed to advertising of the amendment for public inspection after referral to the EPA.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Item: 12.1.3

Development Application - Single House, Outbuilding (Shed), Water Tanks, Retaining Walls and associated works - Lot 17 (5) Cornell Street, West Beach

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

File Ref: D21/6731

Applicant

Wells Building Designers and Consultants on behalf of B & A Landers

Location/Address

Lot 17 (5) Cornell Street, West Beach

Executive Summary

That Council consider Development Application 10.2021.4604.1 for a Single House, Outbuilding (Shed), Water Tanks, Retaining Walls and associated Earthworks at Lot 17 (5) Cornell Street, West Beach.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council approve Development Application 10.2021.4604.1 for a Single House, Outbuilding (Shed), Water Tanks, Retaining Walls and associated Earthworks at Lot 17 (5) Cornell Street, West Beach subject to conditions.

Background

A development application for a Single House, Outbuilding (Shed), Water Tanks, Retaining Walls and associated Earthworks at Lot 17 (5) Cornell Street, West Beach was received by Planning Services on 11 February 2021.

The application was subsequently advertised to the adjoining landowners for variations to the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 24 and the Residential Design Codes, including front and side setback variations, earthworks in proximity to boundaries, and variations to overlooking and privacy criteria.

Two objections, one from an adjoining landowner and one from a landowner across the road, were received as a result of the advertising. The adjoining landowner to the south (Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage) indicated no objection so long as all works on the lot are to be contained within Lot 17 and no encroachments onto the adjoining Crown land are permitted.

When an objection is received it means that Delegated Authority cannot be utilised, hence it is referred to Council for determination.

Officer’s Comment

Lot 17 (5) Cornell Street is a Residential (No R-Code) zoned property with a lot area of 1,782 square metres. It is affected by Special Control Area 4 – Public Drinking Water Source Protection Areas, and Special Control Area 7E – Blue Haven and Second Beach.

The variations to Local Planning Scheme No. 24 and the Residential Design Codes are as follows:

- A Front setback proposed of 5 metres (10 metres required as per Special Control Area 7E of Local Planning Scheme No. 24);

- A nil (0 metre) boundary setback for the proposed retaining walls (1.5 metres required by the Residential Design Codes);

- Up to 2.25 metres of earthworks within 1 metre of a common boundary is proposed (Up to 0.5 metres of earthworks may be considered under the Residential Design Codes).

- A 6.76 metre cone of vision setback for an unenclosed, elevated outdoor living area from a common boundary is proposed (A 7.5 metre cone of vision setback is required under the Residential Design Codes).

The variation to scheme standards for the front setback automatically triggers a requirement for Council determination, with both objections also requiring the determination of Council.

There is a precedent for front setbacks of less than 10 metres along Cornell Street. Adjoining Lot 18 (7) Cornell Street has been constructed at an approximate 5 metre distance from the front boundary and Lot 40 (12) Cornell was approved at a 7.5 metre front setback.

It is noted that Lot 17 (5) Cornell Street is substantially elevated in the front portion of the property with an ground level elevation of 34 metres above sea level near Cornell Street where the house is proposed before dropping to 23 metres above sea level at the rear of the property. This means that the proposed house will be on roughly the same level as adjoining Lot 18 (7) Cornell Street, and a couple of metres higher floor level compared to Lot 40 (12) Cornell Street. This means that the proposed House will be visually prominent to both properties. The proposed retaining walls, water tanks and outbuildings are unlikely to impact on adjoining properties in terms of visual amenity due to the lower ground levels.

Reasons for Recommendation:

- There is a precedent for reduced setbacks along Cornell Street.

- The proposal is consistent with the objections of the Residential zone.

- The topography of Lot 17 (5) Cornell Street results in a need to locate development forward on the property unless a developer is willing to pay substantial amounts to build on or around a very steep slope.

Consultation

The application was advertised to the adjoining non-government landowner between 16 February 2021 and 9 March 2021, with a 42 day advertising period given to Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage. Advertising was for variations to the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 24 and the Residential Design Codes, including front and side setback variations, earthworks in proximity to boundaries, and variations to overlooking and privacy criteria.

The objections received were on the following grounds:

Objection:	Officer Comment:
Front Setback variation	Noted. Special Control Area 7E specifies a 10 metre front setback. The issue here is that approvals have been granted for setbacks of less than 10 metres on several occasions since 1988, including to the properties of both objectors which sets a precedent. Adjoining Lot 18 (7) Cornell Street has been constructed at an approximate 5 metre distance from the front boundary and Lot 40 (12) Cornell was approved at a 7.5 metre front setback.
Blocking of views	Noted. Special Control Area 7 – Blue Haven and Second Beach includes the following provision: (i) 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 design of the proposed Single House with a visually prominent front garage, while a logical response to the constraints of the property, will impact on other landowners along Cornell Street and on visual amenity and will block views. Other the other than were an alternate design proposed that moved the proposed House further back on the property, the increased slope is likely to result in a substantial increase in development cost for the owner of Lot 17 (5) Cornell Street which may result in development not being viable. It is noted that topography of the surrounding area indicates that views for Lot 16 (5) Cornell Street are only available from the front half of the property.
Concerns regarding drainage	Noted. The developer will be required to retain stormwater from roofed and impervious surfaces to site. A condition has also been added that the development is not to direct stormwater onto adjacent properties.

Financial Implications

Application fees totalling $1248.00 have been received as part of this application.

Asset Management Implications

Nil.

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications associated with this item are:

1.) Planning and Development Act 2005; and

2.) Local Planning Scheme No. 24

Policy Implications

The policy implications arising from this report are:

1. Local Planning Strategy

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 ⇩.	Outbuilding Plans
c ⇩.	Objection (Littlefair)
d ⇩.	Objection (Flood)

Ordinary Council: Minutes

23 March 2021 Page 55

PDF Creator

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.1.3 Development Application - Single House, Outbuilding (Shed), Water Tanks, Retaining Walls and associated works - Lot 17 (5) Cornell Street, West Beach

Moved: Cr Piercey

Seconded: Cr Parker

O0321-068

Council Resolution

That Council approve Development Application 10.2021.4604.1 for a Single House, Outbuilding (Shed), Water Tanks, Retaining Walls and associated Earthworks at Lot 17 (5) Cornell Street, West Beach subject to the following conditions:

2. The land and buildings the subject of this approval shall be used for the purposes of Dwelling only and for no other purpose unless otherwise approved in accordance with the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 24 (refer below definition as extracted from the Residential Design Codes).

- Dwelling – A building or portion of a building being used, adapted, or designed or intended to be used for the purpose of human habitation on a permanent basis by a single person, a single family, or no more than six persons who do not comprise a single family.

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

4. The approved Outbuilding (Shed) shall be used for purposes incidental and ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling on the land only, and shall not be used for human habitation, commercial or industrial uses.

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

6. All retaining walls, earthworks and/or associated drainage shall be undertaken in accordance plans and specifications certified by a qualified Engineer as being consistent with standard engineering practices, as approved by the Shire of Esperance.

7. The vehicle crossover is to be constructed, drained and sealed to the satisfaction and specifications of the Shire of Esperance – refer enclosed vehicle crossover application form.

8. 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.

9. A minimum of two (2) 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.

10. 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.

11. No stormwater is to be directed onto an adjoining property in such a way as to cause nuisance or erosion.

12. 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.

13. The approved development shall provide a potable water supply with a capacity of not less than 120,000 litres. A building permit is required for a water storage tank with a capacity of over 5,000 Litres.

14. Prior to any application for a Building Permit or BUILDING APPROVAL BEING RECEIVED, an application to construct or install an apparatus for the treatment of sewage and the disposal of effluent and liquid wastes must be submitted for the approval of the Shire of Esperance, in accordance with the Health (Treatment of Sewage and Disposal of Effluent and Liquid Waste) Regulations 1974.

15. 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.

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

17. 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).

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

19. The approved development is to comply with the provisions of Australian Standard 3959 – Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas and is to achieve a BAL-29 rating or lower.

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.

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.

7. A licence from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) may be required to install a water bore on-site. Consultation should occur with the DWER for further information in this regard.

8. The Shire of Esperance strongly recommends that vehicle parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas be suitably constructed, sealed (asphalt, concrete or brickpavers), drained and thereafter maintained.

9. Please be aware that all development on the property, including the erection of fencing, requires the issuance of Development Approval by the Shire of Esperance

10. A Bushfire Attack Level Assessment as undertaken by an Accredited Bush Fire Attack Level (BAL) Assessor is to be supplied with any application for a Building Permit.

11. The approved development is to comply with the requirements of the Health (Treatment of Sewage and Disposal of Effluent and Liquid Waste) Regulations 1974, including the following criteria:

- All effluent must be contained and disposed of wholly within the boundary of the strata title lot where it is produced.

- Disposal of septic effluent may require an amended soil disposal system or an approved alternative treatment unit for the treatment of sewage as approved by the Department of Health.

- Disposal of septic effluent may require inverted drainage depending on site conditions.

- A person shall not, without the permission of the relevant local government, cause or permit a receptacle for drainage -

- to be subject to vehicular traffic or be located less than 1.2m from an area that is subject to vehicular traffic; or

- to be paved or covered with a surface treatment.

- Septic tank to be located a minimum of 1.2 metres from all buildings, footings and boundaries. Leach drains to be 1.8 metres from all buildings, any septic tanks, any other leach drains or soak wells and boundaries.

- Site identified as being located within the Priority 3 area within a public drinking water source area only one on site effluent disposal system is permitted and furthermore effluent disposal is limited by Water Quality Protection Note 25 - Land Use Compatibility in Public Drinking Water Source Areas and Water Quality Protection Note No. 70 – Wastewater Treatment and Disposal – Domestic Systems.’

12. A detailed soil report with water table height is required to be submitted with any application for an effluent disposal system.

13. Any Applications for the on-site treatment of effluent must be submitted to Shire of Esperance demonstrating that a system of suitable capacity can be accommodated within the site and that adequate land area will be set aside for the system, and shall include the following information:

Two (2) copies of a modified site plan drawn to a 1:100 scale are requested within 21 days from the date of this correspondence detailing the following information:

A. Proposed location of the onsite waste water treatment and disposal system; and

B. Setbacks of the system to buildings, boundaries, trafficable areas, bores and water courses.

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

- Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911

- Sewerage (Lighting, Ventilation & Construction) Regulations 1971

- Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997

- Health Act (Laundries and Bathrooms) Regulations 1971

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

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Mr Landers, Mrs Landers and Mr Flood left the Chamber at 4.21pm and did not return.

12.2 Asset Management

Item: 12.2.1

Jetty Public Artwork

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

File Ref: D21/6196

Applicant

H+H Architects on behalf of Esperance Tjaltjraak Native Title Aboriginal Corporation

Location/Address

Esperance Jetty

Executive Summary

For Council to consider the donation of Public Artwork on the Esperance Jetty.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council accept the donation of the Leafy Sea Dragon Public Artwork on the Esperance Jetty Head from Esperance Tjaltjraak Native Title Aboriginal Corporation as per the proposal attached.

Background

As part of the Esperance Jetty project, the Shire has been working with H+H Architects to deliver the required artwork included as part of the various interpretive nodes along the Jetty. Some of these nodes have required the input from Esperance Tjaltjraak Native Title Aboriginal Corporation (Esperance Tjaltjraak). Esperance Tjaltjraak have seen an opportunity to value add to the public artwork that is on the Esperance Jetty by a 2-dimensional artwork to be applied directly to the concrete deck illustrating the Leafy Sea Dragon on the Jetty head (Proposed Public Artwork). The proposed Artwork Design Concept is included in attachment A and a letter outlining the proposal from H+H Architects is included in attachment B.

Officer’s Comment

The Proposed Public Artwork donation is in line with Council’s Public Art policy’s objectives of creating a sense of place, promoting the expression of local identity, and reflect on the shared values of the community. The letter from H+H Architects adequately addresses the consideration required from the Council Policy ASS 026 Public Art, except for any expectation on the Shire to restore the Proposed Public Artwork if it does degrade over time. Further clarification was sort regarding this expectation, with the below repose from Esperance Tjaltjraak.

“ETNTAC acknowledges that it will be entirely a matter for the Shire as the owner of the site to decide whether to restore the artwork if it does degrade. While the artist will retain moral rights in the artwork arising from the Copyright Act; ETNTAC acknowledges that those rights do not extend to requiring the Shire to restore the work if it degrades.”

Proposed Public Artwork also aligns with the Shires Reflect Reconciliation Action Plan Aug 2019 – Aug 2020, in particular around the action of “Cultural interpretation / promotion through art, interpretative materials and information in public spaces including those with high tourist visitation”. The Proposed Public Artwork will help celebrate Esperance Nyungar culture and instil pride.

It is recommend Council support the donation of the Leafy Sea Dragon Public Artwork on the Esperance Jetty Head, given the alignment with both the Councils Public Art Policy and Reflect Reconciliation Action Plan.

Consultation

Esperance Tjaltjraak Native Title Aboriginal Corporation

H+H Architects

Financial Implications

Nil

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Nil

Policy Implications

Council has a Public Art Policy ASS 026, with the objective to guide the delivery of public art projects that contribute to creating a sense of place, promote the expression of local identity, and reflect on the shared values of the community. The Policy specifically addresses the donation of public artwork, as extracted below:

Donations and Gifts

The Shire will consider suitable donations and gifts of artworks intended for public display at the

discretion of Council subject to the following consideration:

· Artistic Merit;

· Public safety;

· Certification as required;

· Maintenance requirements;

· Suitability of the location; and

· Deaccession plan.

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027

Community Connection

A Community where everyone feels welcome, involved and connected to each other

Provide services, facilities and information that are inclusive and accessible

Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24

B1.8 Construct Esperance Waterfront Stage 3 – Tanker Jetty Replacement

Reflect Reconciliation Action Plan Aug 2019 – Aug 2020

C3.4 Cultural interpretation / promotion through art, interpretative materials and information in public spaces including those with high tourist visitation

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a.	Proposed Public Artwork Concept Design
b ⇩.	Letter - H+H Architects - Proposed Public Artwork

Ordinary Council: Minutes

23 March 2021 Page 64

PDF Creator

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.2.1 Jetty Public Artwork

Moved: Cr Parker

Seconded: Cr McMullen

O0321-069

Council Resolution

That Council accept the donation of the Leafy Sea Dragon Public Artwork on the Esperance Jetty Head from Esperance Tjaltjraak Native Title Aboriginal Corporation as per the proposal attached.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

12.3 Corporate & Community Services

Item: 12.3.1

Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates

Author/s	Sarah Walsh	Coordinator Governance & Corporate Support
Authorisor/s	Felicity Baxter	Director Corporate & Community Services

File Ref: D21/5797

Applicant

Internal

Location/Address

N/A

Executive Summary

For Council to consider adopting the Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council agrees to adopt the Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates.

Background

A code of conduct sets out the expected behaviour of the individuals within an organisation. Given that the local government is a public entity, and the possible wide ranging consequences and impacts of Council and committee decisions, it is important that the standard of conduct is set high to preserve the Shire’s reputation.

Section 5.103 of the Local Government Act 1995, requires all local governments to prepare and adopt a Code of Conduct to be observed by Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates.

Currently, the Shire of Esperance operates under one Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Employees. This Code was endorsed by Council in April 2013 in line with the Local Governments (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007.

In February 2021, the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 were introduced which repealed the Local Governments (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007.

Officer’s Comment

Under Section 5.104 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Shire must prepare and adopt a Code of Conduct to be observed by Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates that incorporates the model code within 3 months of the regulations coming into operation.

The new model code regulations have been reviewed by officers and the attached draft Code of Conduct has been developed accordingly. The model has been updated to include Volunteers.

Should Council adopt the Code, it is expected that all Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates will be provided with a copy of this Code of Conduct and sign an acknowledgement form as evidence of agreeance to these terms.

A separate code of conduct for employees will be developed in due course and be put to a subsequent council meeting for adoption.

Consultation

Manager Human Resources

Executive Management Team

Financial Implications

Nil

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Local Government Act 1995 – s.5.103

Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Leadership

Work together to enhance trust, participation and community pride

Actively engage and communicate with the community to ensure informed decision making

Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24

Facilitate Councillors Requirements to Represent the Community.

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

Draft Code of Conduct - Council Members, Committee Members & Candidates

PDF Creator

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.3.1 Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates

Moved: Cr Parker

Seconded: Cr Piercey

O0321-070

Council Resolution

That Council adopt the Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Item: 12.3.2

Licence Renewal Request - Southern Ports Authority - Environmental Monitoring Station

Author/s	Sarah Walsh	Coordinator Governance & Corporate Support
Authorisor/s	Felicity Baxter	Director Corporate & Community Services

File Ref: D21/5000

Applicant

Southern Ports Authority

Location/Address

Lot 12, (77) Windich Street Esperance WA

Executive Summary

For Council to consider renewing the Licence with Southern Ports Authority for the Environmental Monitoring Station located on a portion of Lot 12 (77) Windich Street, Esperance.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council agrees to renew the Licence with Southern Ports Authority for the Environmental Monitoring Station located on a portion of Lot 12 (77) Windich Street, Esperance.

Background

Southern Ports Authority current have a High Volume Air Sampler (HVAS) located on the premises, which was installed in 2009. The current licence between the Shire of Esperance and Southern Ports Authority is due to expire 31 March 2021.

Southern Ports Authority have requested to renew the licence for a term of 10 years with an option for a further 10 year period. They have also requested that the licence have a 3 month notice period for termination in the event that this station is no longer required.

Officer’s Comment

Discussion with officers has determined that there are no concerns with the Southern Ports Authority utilising the premises for the proposed term as the Shire do not currently have any plans to develop the area.

The annual license fee is proposed to be charged as per the Council approved minimum rate, currently $1,166.00 Inc GST for the 2020/2021 financial year. The annual fee is subject to change annually at the discretion of Council.

This annual fee is considered to be appropriate as this is the minimum fee that any property would be required to pay for land owned in Esperance, regardless of the property value.

Consultation

Southern Ports Authority

Manager Strategic Planning and Land Projects

Financial Implications

Lease preparation fee of $570 Inc GST

Annual license fee of $1,166 Inc GST

Asset Management Implications

The Southern Ports Authority, Port of Esperance (Licensee) will be responsible for the management, repairs, maintenance and renewal of all assets on the Licenced premises.

Statutory Implications

Local Government Act 1995 – s.3.58 Disposing of Property

Policy Implications

COR 004: Building and Property Leases

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Growth And Prosperity

Esperance is seen as a destination of choice to live and work

Promote the Esperance lifestyle using environmental, built, cultural and social assets

Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24

Manage Shire Leases and Insurance

Environmental Considerations

The HVAS is required to capture respirable dust which will be sampled and assessed for levels of metals and compared to relevant criteria in order to confirm that levels of metal in the dust pose no significant risk to the environment or community.

Attachments

Licence Request - Southern Ports Authority

PDF Creator

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.3.2 Licence Renewal Request - Southern Ports Authority - Environmental Monitoring Station

Moved: Cr McMullen

Seconded: Cr Piercey

O0321-071

Council Resolution

That Council, subject to Southern Ports Authority Board and Ministerial approval;

1. Enter into a new Licence with Southern Ports Authority for the Environmental Monitoring Station located on portion of Lot 12 (77) Windich Street, Esperance;

2. Term of the Licence being 10 years, with a further term option of 10 years;

3. Charge a lease preparation fee of $570 Inc GST;

4. Charge annual rent as per the Council approved minimum rate, currently $1,166 Inc GST per annum; and

5. The disposition being advertised in accordance with s3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 for Disposing of Property.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Item: 12.3.3

Financial Services Report - February 2021

Author/s	Beth O'Callaghan	Manager Financial Services
Authorisor/s	Felicity Baxter	Director Corporate & Community Services

File Ref: D21/5830

Attachments

Financial Services Report - February 2021

PDF Creator

Ordinary Council: Minutes

23 March 2021 Page 128

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.3.3 Financial Services Report - February 2021

Moved: Cr Chambers

Seconded: Cr Piercey

O0321-072

Council Resolution

That the report entitled Monthly Financial Management Report (incorporating the Statement of Financial Activity) for the month of February 2021 as attached be received.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Item: 12.3.4

Corporate Business Plan 2021/2022 - 2024/2025

Author/s	Sarah Walsh	Coordinator Governance & Corporate Support
Authorisor/s	Felicity Baxter	Director Corporate & Community Services

File Ref: D21/6054

Applicant

Shire of Esperance

Location/Address

Not required

Executive Summary

For Council to consider adopting the Corporate Business Plan 2021/2022 – 2024/25.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council adopt the Corporate Business Plan 2021/2022 – 2024/25.

Background

The Corporate Business Plan is a part of the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework and a key operational document that takes into consideration other planning documents including the Strategic Community Plan, Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Plans, Operational Plans and Business Unit Plans.

The Corporate Business Plan identifies Council priorities and details current services, future operations and major projects expected to be undertaken by the Shire over the next four years. The Plan also outlines the operational activities that will be undertaken to achieve the desired outcomes of the Strategic Community Plan.

To ensure the Corporate Business Plan and the Annual Budget are aligned, the review of the Corporate Business Plan is collated in conjunction with the annual budget ensuring projects are appropriately resourced. Monthly and quarterly reports are prepared for Council and included in the Ordinary Council Meeting Agendas, these reports contain information directly related to the progress being achieved on the actions outlined in the Plan.

The current Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24 was adopted at the Ordinary Council Meeting in July 2020.

Officer’s Comment

This year’s annual review centered on updates that align with outcomes from a workshop with Council, which was held in December 2020. Some of these changes include separating initiatives from business as usual and highlighting the CEO KPIs for 2021. Graphics and updates for the timing of completed, in progress, and new initiatives have also been incorporated.

Council and the Executive Management Team have been involved with the review to ensure it is achievable and reflects where the Shire currently is and where it needs to be in order to meet the goals outlined within the Shire’s Strategic Community Plan.

Consultation

Executive Management Team

Middle Management Team

Council

Financial Implications

Nil

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Section 5.56(1) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1995 requires that each local government is ‘to plan for the future of the district’, by developing plans in accordance with the regulations. Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 (s19DA) outlines what is required of a Corporate Business plan and the requirement to develop asset management, workforce and long term financial plans.

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

Annual Review of Corporate Business Plan

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

Corporate Business Plan 2021-2025 Annual Review 8 March 2021

PDF Creator

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.3.4 Corporate Business Plan 2021/2022 - 2024/2025

Moved: Cr Graham

Seconded: Cr McMullen

O0321-073

Council Resolution

That Council adopt the Corporate Business Plan 2021/22 – 2024/25.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Item: 12.3.5

Appointment of Representative - Council Committee

Author/s	Sarah Walsh	Coordinator Governance & Corporate Support
Authorisor/s	Felicity Baxter	Director Corporate & Community Services

File Ref: D21/6157

Applicant

Richelle Lee-Steere

Anaelle Talelo Donjio

Location/Address

N/A

Executive Summary

To remove and replace the Esperance Senior High School organisational representative to the Twin Towns Committee.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council agree to remove and replace the Esperance Senior High School organisational representative to the Twin Towns Committee.

Background

On the 28 April 2020, Anaelle Talelo Donjio nominated to be an organisational representative on the Twin Towns Committee on behalf of the Esperance Senior High School.

Ms Talelo Donjio is no longer working at the Esperance Senior High School and has forwarded her resignation from the committee – Attachment A.

A nomination has been received from Richelle Lee-Steere to replace Ms Talelo Donjio as the Esperance Senior High School representative on the Twin Towns Committee – Attachment B.

Officer’s Comment

As Ms Talelo Donjio is no longer employed at the Esperance Senior High School, it is recommended to accept her resignation from the committee and appoint Ms Lee-Steere as the School’s new representative on this committee.

Consultation

Anaelle Talelo Donjio

Richelle Lee-Steere

Financial Implications

Nil

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Local Government Act 1995 – s.5.10

Policy Implications

Terms of Reference – Council Committees

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Leadership

Community confidence and trust in Council

Encourage community participation and insight into activities and decisions

Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24

Facilitate Councillors requirements to represent the community

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a.	Anaelle Talelo Donjio Resignation
b ⇩.	Richelle Lee-Steere Nomination

PDF Creator

Ordinary Council: Minutes

23 March 2021 Page 189

PDF Creator

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.3.5 Appointment of Representative - Council Committee

Moved: Cr Obourne

Seconded: Cr Chambers

O0321-074

Council Resolution

That Council;

1. Accepts the resignation of Anaelle Talelo Donjio from the Twin Towns Committee; and

2. Appoints Richelle Lee-Steere as the Esperance Senior High School organisational representative on the Twin Towns Committee.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Item: 12.3.6

Self Supporting Loan - Esperance Tennis Club Inc

Author/s	Beth O'Callaghan	Manager Financial Services
Authorisor/s	Felicity Baxter	Director Corporate & Community Services

File Ref: D21/6387

Applicant

Esperance Tennis Club Inc

Location/Address

Jane Street, Esperance

Executive Summary

For Council to consider approving a new self-supporting loan of $20,000 for the purpose of completing the boundary fencing project at the Esperance Tennis Club Inc.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council provide a self-supporting loan of $20,000 to Esperance Tennis Club Inc for a term of 4 years for the purpose of completing the boundary fencing project. Council is also to provide one month’s public notice of the proposed borrowings and will approve the loan subject to Esperance Tennis Club Inc providing personal guarantors.

Background

Esperance Tennis Club Inc (Club) have requested from Council a self-supporting loan to complete their Boundary Fencing Project. The project budget is approximately $55,000 (GST inclusive) of which the Club has $43,000 in savings. Therefore their shortfall is approximately $12,000.

They are requesting a self-supporting loan for $20,000 (the minimum amount West Australian Treasury Corporation will lend) to complete this project. The Club is requesting a 4 year term with repayments to be paid annually. The annual repayment will be approximately $5,000.

Attached is the letter from the Club requesting a self-supporting loan and a copy of the quote provided to the them from Wrinkly Tin.

Officer’s Comment

In making determination with regards to this self-supporting loan application the repayment ability and security need to be addressed.

Repayment Ability: Financial Statements for the last 4 years have been provided in support of the application. After reviewing the financial statements and excluding ad-hoc income and expenses the Club’s average net profit over 4 years would easily support the yearly loan repayment required. In addition to this, the Club’s final yearly hire purchase payment for their vehicle is due in July. After this payment the Club will have approximately $7,000 extra per year to assist towards servicing the loan.

Esperance Tennis Club Inc have had self-supporting loans in the past with the Shire and have never defaulted on their repayments.

Security: Standard practice for a self-supporting loan is that personal guarantors are sought from within the membership group who will benefit from the loan provision. Esperance Tennis Club Inc have at least two guarantors at time of writing.

Loan documents between the Shire and the Club must be signed along with all guarantors before any funds are released.

Advertising for this loan will be required prior to applying for the funds from Western Australian Treasury Corporation in accordance to Section 6.3 (2) of the Local Government Act (1995).

Consultation

Western Australian Treasury Corporation

Financial Implications

All self-supporting loans are included as a total liability of the Shire regardless of any loan agreements and guarantors that it has with community group or club. This means that any increases in self-supporting loans will decrease the borrowing capacity of the Shire.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Section 6.20 (1) of the Local Government Act (1995) provides the power to borrow. Section 6.20 (2) requires that where the establishment of a loan occurs outside the budget adoption process, that one month’s public notice of the proposal be given and must be resolved by an absolute majority.

Policy Implications

The policy implications arising from this report are CORP 002: Financial Management. Council will consider loan funding that is prudent and within guidelines and ratios as identified by the Department of Local Government. Loan funding will be guided by those loans that are proposed in the Long Term Financial Plan. An exception to this is self-supporting loans.

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Leadership

A financially sustainable and supportive organisation achieving operational excellence

Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24

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

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a.	Esperance Tennis Club Letter of Request
b ⇩.	Wrinkly Tin Quote

Beth O’Callaghan

Manager of Financial Services

Shire of Esperance

PO Box 507

Esperance 6450

beth.ocallaghan@esperance.wa.gov.au

Esperance Tennis Club Inc

PO Box 552

Esperance WA 6450

19/2/2021

Dear Beth,

I’m writing on behalf of the Esperance Tennis Club to enquired about a shire loan to make up the short fall for the Boundary Fencing Project.

The invoice for the fencing project is $54,860. We have $43,407 in savings so have a short fall of $11,453.

We would like to take the minimum of $20,000 as a shire loan.

The clubs major commitment is the HP payment for the Club van. The last payment of $7216 is due in July 2021. The club have been paying the HP since 2016.

The Club van is paid for by sponsorship, with clients advertising on the side of the van. Approx $9000 is collected yearly now for the space.

Our major tournament the Esperance March Open played beginning of March during the long weekend, makes the club approx. $8,000.

The club could make payments for the loan at $5000 yearly at the end of March.

Kind Regards

Jill Wehr

Treasurer.

Esperance Tennis Club INC

PDF Creator

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.3.6 Self Supporting Loan - Esperance Tennis Club Inc

Moved: Cr Piercey

Seconded: Cr Graham

O0321-075

Council Resolution

That Council

1. Provide a self-supporting loan of $20,000 to Esperance Tennis Club Inc for a term of 4 years for the purpose of completing their boundary fence project;

2. Provide one month’s public notice of the proposed borrowings; and

3. Approves the loan subject to Esperance Tennis Club Inc providing personal guarantors.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Item: 12.3.7

Esperance Airport Hangar 5 Reassignment Request - Andrew Burns to Theunis Dreyer

Author/s	Sarah Walsh	Coordinator Governance & Corporate Support
Authorisor/s	Felicity Baxter	Director Corporate & Community Services

File Ref: D21/6478

Applicant

Andrew Burns

Theunis Dreyer

Location/Address

Hangar 5, Portion Lot 15 Coolgardie-Esperance Highway Gibson

Executive Summary

For Council to consider reassigning the lease for Hangar 5 at the Esperance Airport from Andrew Burns to Theunis Dreyer.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council reassign the lease for Hangar 5 at the Esperance Airport from Andrew Burns to Theunis Dreyer.

Background

Andrew Burns began leasing the premises in July 2017 following a reassignment request being received from the previous tenant.

Mr Burns has advised that he is selling the hangar so Mr Dreyer has a space available to hangar his aircraft.

Mr Dreyer has requested to take over the lease for the hangar as his current hangar arrangement at Myrup Fly In Estate is ending shortly.

Officer’s Comment

Discussion with the Airport Operations Coordinator has determined that there are no concerns with this proposal being approved.

Mr Dreyer has confirmed that he has reviewed a copy of the lease and is agreeable to the existing terms and conditions.

Mr Burns has agreed to allow Mr Dreyer to park his aircraft in the hangar while the lease reassignment request is processed. This is considered to be a low risk activity as the existing lease will remain in place during this time, with Mr Burns being responsible for the premises until the lease reassignment is finalised.

Consultation

Theunis Dreyer

Andrew Burns

Airport Operations Coordinator

Acting Director External Services

Financial Implications

Lease variation fee of $215 Inc GST

Asset Management Implications

Nil – Lessee is responsible for all maintenance and repairs to the hangar.

Statutory Implications

Local Government Act 1995

Policy Implications

COR 004: Building and Property Leases

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Growth And Prosperity

Esperance is seen as a destination of choice to live and work

Promote the Esperance lifestyle using environmental, built, cultural and social assets

Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24

Manage Shire Leases and Insurance

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

Reassignment Request - Andrew Burns and Theunis Dreyer

PDF Creator

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.3.7 Esperance Airport Hangar 5 Reassignment Request - Andrew Burns to Theunis Dreyer

Moved: Cr McMullen

Seconded: Cr Parker

O0321-076

Council Resolution

That Council;

1. Reassign the lease with Andrew Burns for Esperance Airport Hangar 5, portion of Lot 15 Coolgardie-Esperance Highway Gibson to Theunis Dreyer; and

2. Charge a lease variation fee of $215 Inc GST.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Item: 12.3.8

Prioritisation of CSRFF Grant Applications

Author/s	Shane Tobin	Community Development & Events Coordinator
Authorisor/s	Felicity Baxter	Director Corporate & Community Services

File Ref: D21/6236

Applicant

Internal Report

Location/Address

N/A

Executive Summary

Council is required to endorse and prioritise applications for the current Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) Small Grants Round, to enable them to be submitted to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSCI).

This round there is only one application to be considered in this round.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council endorse the CSRFF Small Grant Funding application from the Ports Football Clubs – Lighting Project to the CSRFF Small Grant Funding round for $59,406.80 (ex GST) and advise that it is Council‘s first priority.

Background

The Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSCI) through the CSRFF to provide financial assistance to community groups and local governments to develop infrastructure for sport and recreation. The program aims to increase participation in sport and recreation with an emphasis on increasing physical activity through well planned facilities. The 2021/22 funding round has $12 million available for allocation.

This application relates to the DLGSCI Small Grants category:

Small Grants (opened February 2021).

The CSRFF small grants program targets projects involving a basic level of planning. The total project cost for grant must not exceed $300,000.

Applications must be completed with all required documentation and submitted to your local government by the end of February 2021 for presentation to Council at the March Council Meeting. Applications are then forwarded to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries Office by the local government by 4pm 31^st March 2021. Applicants are notified of the outcome around June 2021.

The following was resolved at the January 2021 Ordinary Council meeting:

Council pre-allocate one third of the project costs (up to a maximum of $65,355.76 inc GST) to Ports Football Club from the 2021/22 Community Grant Program for the replacement and upgrade of oval lighting at the Ports Oval on the Greater Sports Ground.

Applications must be endorsed by Council and prioritised and submitted to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries by the advertised closure dates.

Officer’s Comment

There is only one application for this round of CSRFF Small Grants funding. The application process requires the applicable Local Government to endorse and prioritise the applications from within the local area. Following review by officer’s this application is believed to be worthy of support, with Council having already committed funds previously. The Ports Football Clubs – Lighting Project is recommended due the poor state of the current lights and the opportunity to create and increase the membership for a variety of Sports. Also the safety of the patrons using the Greater Sports Ground (GSG) will improve significantly.

The Ports Football Club applied for funding under the previous CSRFF process in the previous funding round but was unsuccessful. With shortfalls addressed (including securing a pre-allocation of funds from the Shire) from the previous application.

Consultation

Applicants have liaised with Shire Officers and with the DLGSCI and Goldfields Regional Manager as is required under the grant application process.

The applications have been reviewed by the Community Development & Events Coordinator and Manager Community and Economic Development.

Ports Football Club has previously presented to Council with regards to this project.

Financial Implications

Financial implications will be dealt with as part of the 2021/22 budget process, with Council’s contribution being pre-committed previously.

Asset Management Implications

Management of any new infrastructure will be the responsibility of Ports Football Club.

Statutory Implications

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Community Connection

A variety of accessible sport and recreation opportunities and activities

Develop and promote active and passive sport and recreation opportunities for all ages and abilities

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a .

CSRFF Small Grants Application - Ports Football Club - Lighting Project - Confidential

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.3.8 Prioritisation of CSRFF Grant Applications

Moved: Cr Piercey

Seconded: Cr McMullen

O0321-077

Council Resolution

CARRIED

F7 - A0

12.4 Executive Services

Item: 12.4.1

Refund of Building and Development Fees - Esperance Goldfields Surf Life Saving Club

Author/s	Alli McArthur	Executive Assistant
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: D20/34909

Applicant

Esperance Goldfields Surf Life Saving Club (EGSLSC)

Location/Address

Lot 2102 Twilight Beach Road, West Beach (Reserve 41860)

Executive Summary

For Council to consider refunding all Development fees and waive Building Shire fees applicable to the Esperance Goldfields Surf Life Saving Clubs Development Application.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council approve the request to refund all Development fees and waive Building Shire fees applicable with Esperance Goldfields Surf Life Saving Clubs Development Application for the refurbishment of their club house.

Background

On 24 November 2020 EGSLSC wrote to the Chief Executive Officer, requesting the Shire to waive all building application fees and charges associated with their upcoming renovations to their club house.

Esperance Goldfields Surf Lifesaving Club have re-commenced actions to work toward obtaining an Occupancy Permit for the premises at Lot 2102 Twilight Beach Road, West Beach. These works have been outstanding since 1995.

An initial request to obtain an Occupancy Permit was made in 2014, it was indicated that the building should be used for club purposes only, no public events should be held and no gatherings of any kind should occur on the balcony.

During November 2019, Statewide Building Certification WA inspected the property and subsequently made recommendation for to the Club. Currently, under that section 41(2) of the Building Act 2011 states that ‘an owner or occupier of a completed building must not occupy or use, or permit the occupation or use of, the building unless an occupancy permit, other than a temporary permit, is in effect for the building’. As such, the Shire cannot condone any continued use or occupancy of the building. This position is not in any way superseded by any lease agreement or Public Building certification that has or may occur.

Since the EGSLSC’s request in November Council has endorsed to allocate funds towards the project through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Fund. It is the EGSLSC’s intention to proceed with the development approvals, so they are in a better position to apply for additional funding for the project.

Officer’s Comment

It is being recommended to refund the development fees and waive the Building Shire fees associated with the upcoming applications for the EGSLSC. Though the fees may be minor in comparison to the whole project, the Shire would like to see this remedial works completed and believes this project will have a community benefit.

Options

Option 1

That Council approve to refund all Development and Building Shire fees applicable with Esperance Goldfields Surf Life Saving Clubs Development Application for the refurbishment of their club house.

This is the officer’s recommendation for the reason outlined in this report.

Option 2

That Council reject the request to waive all Shire fees and charges applicable with Esperance Goldfields Surf Life Saving Clubs Development Application for the refurbishment of their club house.

This recommendation is provided should Council wish to reject the request.

Consultation

Manager Strategic Planning & Land Projects

Financial Implications

The financial implications arising from this report is the refund of a $960 Development fee and waiving of a $270 Building fee.

A development application also requires a BCITF and Building Services Levy, however as these are not Shire fees and charges therefore cannot be waived.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Nil

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

Letter - Request to Waive Fees - Esperance Goldfields Surf Life Saving Club

PDF Creator

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.4.1 Refund of Building and Development Fees - Esperance Goldfields Surf Life Saving Club

Moved: Cr Chambers

Seconded: Cr Obourne

O0321-078

Council Resolution

That Council approve the request to refund all Development fees and waive Building Shire fees (excluding BCITF and Building Services Levy) applicable with Esperance Goldfields Surf Life Saving Clubs Development Application for the refurbishment of their club house.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Item: 12.4.2

Common Seal Usage November 2020 to February 2021

Author/s	Alli McArthur	Executive Assistant
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: D21/4962

Applicant

Executive Services

Location/Address

Windich Street, Esperance.

Executive Summary

For Council to receive the Common Seal Register.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council receive the register containing information relating to the use of the Shire of Esperance Common Seal.

Background

The Chief Executive Officer and the Shire President are jointly authorised to affix all seals jointly to documents for dealings initiated by a Council resolution. In this regard, the Council resolution need not refer to the sealing action and may only express its wish for certain action which may, ultimately, require the affixing of the seal to a document to achieve the Council’s intention.

Exceptions to the above are:

1. Council staff may take independent action in the use of the seal if, in the opinion of the Shire President and Chief Executive Officer jointly such action is necessary to protect Council’s interest; e.g. Lodging of caveats and easements and being of the opinion that the protection is no longer necessary, the Shire President and Chief Executive Officer may jointly withdraw the protection.

2. The disposition of Council property for which a Council resolution is required expressly stating that the final document be signed and sealed and the transaction finalised.

A detail of all instances where the seal has been affixed is recorded in both a signed register and an electronic register, which is available for inspection by Councillors during normal office hours. This register will be tabled at an Ordinary Council Meeting biannually to be received by Council.

Officer’s Comment

Both the signed register and the electronic register are available for inspection by Councillors during normal office hours. A copy of the electronic register will be tabled at an Ordinary Council Meeting to be received by Council.

Consultation

WALGA

Financial Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

LGA – 9.49a Execution of Documents

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

Common Seal Register - November 2020 to February 2021

PDF Creator

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.4.2 Common Seal Usage November 2020 to February 2021

Moved: Cr Chambers

Seconded: Cr Parker

O0321-079

Council Resolution

That Council receive the report titled The Shire of Esperance Common Seal Usage for the period of November 2020 to February 2021.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Item: 12.4.3

Information Bulletin - February 2021

Author/s	Sofie Hawke	Trainee Administration Assistant - Executive Services
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: D21/5828

Applicant

Internal

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Leadership

Work together to enhance trust, participation and community pride

Actively engage and communicate with the community to ensure informed decision making

Attachments

a.	Information Bulletin - February 2021
b ⇩.	Corporate Performance Report - February 2021
c ⇩.	Delegations Discharge – Corporate Resources

PDF Creator

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.4.3 Information Bulletin - February 2021

Moved: Cr Piercey

Seconded: Cr Obourne

O0321-080

Council Resolution

That Council accepts:

1. Information Bulletin - February 2021

2. Corporate Performance Report – February 2021

3. Delegations Discharge - Corporate Resources

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Item: 12.4.4

GVROC Records Facility

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

File Ref: D21/5998

Applicant

Shire of Esperance

Location/Address

N/A

Executive Summary

For Council to consider its future involvement with the GVROC Records Storage Facility joint venture.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council note the GVROC decision to sell the Regional Records Facility to City of Kalgoorlie Boulder and accepts the value of the Shire of Esperance interest in the joint venture in cash.

Background

Since 2012/13 the Shire of Esperance has been in a joint venture with the other Goldfields local governments through a 1/10^th share in the Goldfields Records Storage facility.

The purpose of the Joint Venture was to-

(1) to raise the overall level of records management capacity within local governments in the Region in a manner that provides maximum efficiency but does not raise the overall cost of records management activities for any one or more of the Participants; and

(2) to develop and maintain a commercial records storage business that is easily accessed by the Participants, and which services the Region, and which will provide a commercial rate of return to the Participants.

The facility was originally managed by the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder whilst they were the chair of GVROC. The management has within the last few years transferred across to the Shire of Coolgardie when they became the chair of GVROC. The building is technically owned by the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder as GVROC is unable to own assets in its own right. The Joint Venture arrangement is then formalised with the other local governments through a management agreement.

Over the past few years the management of the facility has been challenging with staff turnover at the facility, differing levels of usage and engagement by member local governments and also with the formal withdrawal of the Shire of Ravensthorpe from GVROC.

Discussions at GVROC around disposal options and the Shire’s who benefit/use the facility has caused considerable debate over the past few years.

At the GVROC meeting held in Esperance on the 5^th February 2021 the following resolution was resolved by GVROC.

That the GVROC Council as representative of the Original Parties to the Records Facility Agreement:

1. Agree to sell the Facility to the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder for a purchase price of $450,000.

2. Note after the disposal of the Facility the Joint Venture will be promptly wound up.

3. Note that each of the original parties will be entitled to a one tenth share of this purchase price ($45,000) less all third-party costs of the sale of the Facility and the winding up of the Joint Venture.

4. Note for those Original Parties still interested in utilising the facility for records storage post the sale that the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder will work with those parties to negotiate and make necessary arrangements for its continued use.

5. Note this will remove the matter from the GVROC.

Officer’s Comment

Following the GVROC resolution in February the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder is now seeking interest from those local governments who are interested in continuing involvement with the records facility.

The Shire of Esperance has not utilised the Kalgoorlie Records for a number of years since it increased its record keeping capacity within the Shire Administration building. The distance to Kalgoorlie also makes it difficult to access records documents if the need arises.

It is therefore the officers recommendation that we note the GVROC decision to dispose of the Records Facility to the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder, advise the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder that the Shire of Esperance is not interested utilising the records facility post sale and accept in cash the value of the Shire of Esperance interest in the Joint Venture.

Consultation

GVROC local governments

Financial Implications

The financial implications arising from this report is income from the sale of $45,000 less the sale costs and cost to wind up the joint venture.

Asset Management Implications

Nil as the building was under the responsibility of the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder

Statutory Implications

Nil

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

Manage Shire Records

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

Nil

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.4.4 GVROC Records Facility

Moved: Cr McMullen

Seconded: Cr Parker

O0321-081

Council Resolution

That Council:

1. Note the decision of the GVROC to dispose of the Goldfields Records Facility to the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder;

2. Advise the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder that the Shire of Esperance is not interested in utilising the records facility post the disposal; and

3. Accept in cash the value of the Shire of Esperance joint venture interest in the GVROC Records facility.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Item: 12.4.5

2021 Annual Meeting of Electors Motions

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

File Ref: D21/6056

Applicant

Internal

Location/Address

N/A

Executive Summary

For Council to consider the motions from electors that were carried at the Annual Meeting of Electors, held on 9 February 2021.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council request the CEO to review the effectiveness of the Dempster Street Roundabout (Motion 1), note Motion 2 and request the CEO to develop a policy for CCTV (Motion 3) from the 2021 Annual Meeting of Electors.

Background

Subsequent to accepting the 2019/20 Annual Report, the Shire of Esperance held its Annual Meeting of Electors (AME), on 9 February 2021, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 and associated regulations. At the AME, three (3) motions in General Business were moved and subsequently carried by electors at the meeting, being:

Motion 1

That Council initiate a formal review of the operational effectiveness of the ‘black spot’ Dempster Street Roundabout, and;

1. Investigate the number of recorded accidents since commissioning, the severity of these and in particular if anyone has needed transfer to hospital,

2. Repeats a comparable traffic movement study that was carried out prior to construction,

3. Makes a formal assessment on the traffic flow as a result of changing crossing to formal zebra crossings (thereby shifting right of way from cars to pedestrians);

4. Invite the Streetscape Advisory Committee for input on improving the ambiance of this area. Seek guidance on items such as concrete pots that can serve a dual purpose; enhance the safety of pedestrians and provide plants and colour to the busy town centre.

Motion 2

That Council formally communicates with the community as soon as practical, but well before it initiates calculations on rates on:

1. Any indications that the State Government will enforce further restrictions to the Local Government budget this year, Annual Electors Meeting: Minutes 9 February 2021

2. We note that current CPI is 0.7%. Considering that COVID-19 is still impacting/restricting business activity, will the Shire aim to stay at or below CPI in its rate increase?

3. Whether catching up on foregone revenue and or deferred projects is a key element of the parameters that will drive the current budget preparations?

4. The impact of last year’s freeze on the asset management gap. The intent on catching up this year;

5. Whether the budget contains specific savings driven by improved efficiency and increased productivity. That Council advises how much these are to contribute to budget savings

Motion 3

That Council develop appropriate policies, procedures and practices for CCTV equipment and information used in public surveillance in the Shire of Esperance to ensure the protection is kept of individual privacy.

Officer’s Comment

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

1. Reject the motion(s)

2. Support the motion(s)

3. Amending the motion(s)

4. Note the motion(s)

5. Or a combination of the above

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

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

Consultation

The attendance of 8 electors at the AME is considered to be the community consultation on this matter.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications associated with this item are:

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

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Community Leadership

Community confidence and trust in Council

Provide transparent and accountable leadership

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

Nil

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Moved: Cr Obourne

Seconded: Cr Piercey

O0321-083

That Section 3.3 of the Standing Orders be suspended to allow for discussion of item 12.4.5 Motion 1.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Resumption of Standing Orders

Moved: Cr Obourne

Seconded: Cr McMullen

O0321-084

That Standing Orders be resumed.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

12.4.5 2021 Annual Meeting of Electors Motions

Moved: Cr Obourne

Seconded: Cr Chambers

Officer’s Recommendation - Motion 1

That Council:

1. Note Motion 1 from the Annual Meeting of Electors (February 2021);

2. Request the CEO investigate the effectiveness of the new Dempster/Andrew Street Roundabout; and

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

WITHDRAWN

Moved: Cr Obourne

Seconded: Cr Chambers

O0321-082

Council Resolution

That Council:

1. Note Motion 1 from the Annual Meeting of Electors (February 2021);

2. Request the CEO to:

a) Investigate the number of recorded accidents since commissioning, the severity of these and in particular if anyone has needed transfer to hospital,

b) Repeats a comparable traffic movement study that was carried out prior to construction,

c) Make a formal assessment on the traffic flow as a result of changing crossing to formal zebra crossings (thereby shifting right of way from cars to pedestrians);

d) Invite the Streetscape Advisory Committee for input on improving the ambiance of this area. Seek guidance on items such as concrete pots that can serve a dual purpose; enhance the safety of pedestrians and provide plants and colour to the busy town centre.

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

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Reason: Council wanted to include the moved motion from the Annual Electors Meeting in the resolution.

Motion 2

Moved: Cr Obourne

Seconded: Cr McMullen

O0321-085

Officers Recommendation - Motion 2

That Council note Motion 2 from the Annual Meeting of Electors (February 2021) and instruct the CEO to advise the Mover and Seconder of the Motion of Council’s resolution.

Council Resolution

That Council:

1. Note Motion 2 from the Annual Meeting of Electors (February 2021) being:

That Council formally communicates with the community as soon as practical, but well before it initiates calculations on rates on:

1. Any indications that the State Government will enforce further restrictions to the Local Government budget this year, Annual Electors Meeting: Minutes 9 February 2021

2. We note that current CPI is 0.7%. Considering that COVID-19 is still impacting/restricting business activity, will the Shire aim to stay at or below CPI in its rate increase?

3. Whether catching up on foregone revenue and or deferred projects is a key element of the parameters that will drive the current budget preparations?

4. The impact of last year’s freeze on the asset management gap. The intent on catching up this year;

5. Whether the budget contains specific savings driven by improved efficiency and increased productivity. That Council advises how much these are to contribute to budget savings

2. Instruct the CEO to advise Council of the impacts of Motion 2 of the Annual Electors Meeting being implemented.

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

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Reason: Council wanted to include the moved motion from the Annual Electors Meeting in the resolution.

Cr Piercey left the Chamber at 5.07pm.

Motion 3

Moved: Cr Obourne

Seconded: Cr Graham

O0321-086

Officer Recommendation - Motion 3

That Council:

1. Note Motion 3 from the Annual Meeting of Electors (February 2021);

2. Request the CEO to develop a policy for CCTV equipment and information used in public surveillance to ensure individual privacy is maintained; and

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

Council Resolution

That Council:

1. Note Motion 3 from the Annual Meeting of Electors (February 2021) being;

2. Request the CEO to develop a policy for CCTV equipment and information used in public surveillance to ensure individual privacy is maintained; and

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

CARRIED

F6 - A0

Reason: Council wanted to include the moved motion from the Annual Electors Meeting in the resolution.

Cr Piercey returned to the Chamber at 5.09pm.

13. Reports Of Committees

Item: 13.1

Compliance Audit Return 2020

Author/s	Sarah Walsh	Coordinator Governance & Corporate Support
Authorisor/s	Felicity Baxter	Director Corporate & Community Services

File Ref: D21/4178

Applicant

Corporate Resources

Location/Address

Shire of Esperance

Executive Summary

For Council to consider the recommendation from the Audit Committee and adopt the 2020 Shire of Esperance Compliance Audit Return (CAR) as required pursuant to Section 7.13(1)(i) of the Local Government Act 1995, and Regulation 14 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council adopt the 2020 Shire of Esperance Compliance Audit Return pursuant to Regulation 14(3) of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 as attached.

Background

As in previous years, local governments are required to complete a CAR by the Department of Local Government and Communities for each calendar year.

The 2020 CAR contains 102 questions across 11 categories formulated around the Local Government Act 1995 and associated regulations. Categories and questions are completed by the relevant Shire Officers and presented to Council through the Audit Committee for adoption.

A copy of the 2020 Shire of Esperance CAR is attached for reference.

The Audit Committee met on 9 February 2021 and resolved the following;

Moved: Cr Mickel

Seconded: Mr Mills

AU0221-087

That the Audit Committee recommend that Council adopt the 2020 Shire of Esperance Compliance Audit Return pursuant to Regulation 14(3) of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996.

Officer’s Comment

The CAR has identified one area of non-compliance within the Shire of Esperance for 2020, being adoption of a policy in relation to the continuing professional development of council members.

The process for development of this policy has begun and it is anticipated that this will be adopted in 2021.

It should also be noted that this particular question is included in the Optional Questions category within the CAR.

Consultation

Asset Management

Corporate Resources

Executive Services

External Services

Financial Implications

Nil

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Local Government Act 1995 – Section 7.13(1)(i)

Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 – Regulation 14

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Community Leadership

Community confidence and trust in Council

Provide transparent and accountable leadership

Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24

Manage Corporate Reporting

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

Compliance Audit Return 2020

PDF Creator

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

13.1 Compliance Audit Return 2020

Moved: Cr McMullen

Seconded: Cr Obourne

O0321-088

Council Resolution

That Council adopt the 2020 Shire of Esperance Compliance Audit Return pursuant to Regulation 14(3) of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Item: 13.2

Airport Master Plan - 2021 to 2040

Author/s	Nicholas Kleinig	Airport Operations Coordinator \| Security Contact Officer
Authorisor/s	Scott McKenzie	Acting Director External Services

File Ref: D21/5292

Applicant

Internal

Location/Address

Esperance Airport

Executive Summary

This report recommends the acceptance of the Airport Master Plan that defines the upgrade requirements of airport infrastructure over the next 20 year period to 2040.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council adopt the Airport Master Plan 2020 as prepared by Aviation Projects.

Background

Airport Master Plans are a requirement under the Airports Act 1996 seeking to inform and guide development over a 20 year planning period. Under the Act, the intent of developing and reviewing an Airport Master Plan is:

a. To establish the strategic direction for efficient and economic development at the airport over the planning period of the plan; and

b. To provide for the development of additional uses of the airport site; and

c. To indicate to the public the intended uses of the airport site; and

d. To reduce potential conflicts between uses of the airport site, and to ensure that uses of the airport site are compatible with the areas surrounding the airport; and

e. To ensure that all operations at the airport are undertaken in accordance with relevant environmental legislation and standards; and

f. To establish a framework for assessing compliance at the airport with relevant environmental legislation and standards; and

g. To promote the continual improvement of environmental management at the airport.

Typically Airport Master Plan reviews are encouraged by the Australian Airports Association to be conducted every 5 years or as significant changes occur at an airport. Historically, the Shire of Esperance has prepared Master Plans every 10 years (in 2001 and 2011), with this review (finalised 2021) seeking to inform the direction of Esperance Airport for the period 2021 to 2040.

Officer’s Comment

Based on independent professional analysis, passenger growth and extensive industry and community consultation, the Airport Master Plan 2020 looks to guide and inform strategic direction and development at the Esperance Airport for the 20 years to 2040.

Section 14 (page 49) of the Master Plan details infrastructure improvements that are recommended to be made in order to improve operations and safety at Esperance Airport in the short and long term, including:

The following tables are extracted from the Draft Masterplan.

Short term:

No	Aspect	Description	Timeframe	Desired outcome	Indicative costs
1	GA Apron, Taxiway and Fire Bomber Area	Additional apron space required for GA and hangar users. Required for access from runway to hangar precinct. Reconfigure and consider providing landside access.	Within the next 5 years	Improved operational and safety proficiency	$200,000 - gravel
2	Main runway	Consider pavement strength upgrade to accommodate larger aircraft, during the next runway overlay	Within the next 5 years	Improved operational and safety proficiency and minor increase in operational capacity	$5,000,000
3	Runway lighting system upgrade	Replace runway lighting system	Within the next 5 years	Improved operational and safety proficiency	$1,000,000

Long term (allowed for by the end of the 20-year master planning period):

No	Aspect	Description	Trigger for requirement	Timeframe	Desired outcome	Indicative costs
1	Main parking apron expansion, sealing of hangar area and connecting stub taxiway	Expand main parking apron if required according to demand	Increased frequency of RPT services	5-10 years	Increase in operational capacity	$7,000,000
2	Terminal building	Plan for incorporation of security screening	Aircraft with >40 passenger seats	10-20 years	Regulatory requirement	TBC as or if required
3	Utilities	Upgrade utilities and civil infrastructure as required in relation to additional services, and changes made to site capacity and demand	As necessary with regard to capacity of current utilities being exhausted	10–20 years	Provide utilities and civil infrastructure which support operations and demand	TBC as or if required
4	Aeronautical infrastructure	Upgrade infrastructure in line with operational requirements, and safety regulations as capacity is increased at the airport	When required, to cater to increased capacity and operations	10–20 years	Support aeronautical operations through required infrastructure	TBC as or if required

Although not raised by stakeholders within the community consultation phase, the Author is aware of concerns from the farming community on the lack of freight capacity with the Regular Passenger Transport (RPT) Operator Rex Airlines. The size of the SAAB 340 aircraft & length of the route means that the opportunity to carry freight is limited and therefore the local community are using road transport, this can create an additional 24 hour delay in the provision of some freight. The State Government control the RPT service provision and there may be an opportunity for Council to raise this concern with the Department of Transport as part of the Master Planning process.

Consultation

Aviation Industry Participants (refer Master Plan Section 2 attached)

Esperance Community

Financial Implications

The financial implications arising from this report are detailed above.

Asset Management Implications

N/A

Statutory Implications

N/A

Policy Implications

N/A

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 Deliver a diverse, efficient and safe transport system

B2.6 Manage the Esperance Airport

B2.7 Review the Airport Masterplan

Environmental Considerations

N/A

Attachments

a ⇨.

Esperance Airport Master Plan 2020 - Under Separate Cover

Ordinary Council: Agenda

23 March 2021 Page 415

PDF Creator

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

13.3 Minutes of Committees

Moved: Cr Piercey

Seconded: Cr Chambers

O0321-090

Council Resolution

That Council accept the following unconfirmed minutes:

1. Greater Sports Ground Redevelopment Committee - 1 February 2021

2. Audit Committee - 9 February 2021

3. Esperance Roadwise Committee - 15 February 2021

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Item: 13.4

2020/2021 Budget Review

Author/s	Beth O'Callaghan	Manager Financial Services
Authorisor/s	Felicity Baxter	Director Corporate & Community Services

File Ref: D21/6552

Applicant

Corporate and Community Services

Location/Address

Internal

Executive Summary

That Council consider adopting the 2020/21 Budget Review as per the legislative requirement.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council adopt the 2020/21 Budget Review.

Background

Council undertakes a Budget Review to assess the impact of actual events upon the adopted budget. The Budget Review document contains actual transactions up to the end of December 2020 and also a predicted figure for each account till the end of the financial year. The predicted figures attempt to quantify the likely difference that invariably occurs between the budget and the end of the financial year actual result.

A detailed dissection of the income and expenditure variations is supplied as an attachment. The report lists all account which have a variance (surplus or deficit) from which was estimated in the annual budget. All of the variances shown require Council approval by Absolute Majority to adjust the original budget. If Council resolves to adjust the budget as per the attachment, it will provide a predicted $4,627 deficit by 30 June 2021.

Officer’s Comment

The Budget Review has been compiled in the statutory reporting program formal similar to the monthly financial report. Four columns of information have been presented as follows:

1. The first column being the Council’s adopted budget

2. The second column contains the actual result recorded to 31 December 2020

3. The third column contains the actual result recorded to 28 February 2021

4. The fourth column being the predicted result to 30 June 2021

Expenditure is presented without brackets and revenue is presented in brackets e.g. (100,000).

The Budget Review process is essentially designed to ensure that the adopted budget is being adhered to and there are no material variances that may cause a deficiency in “cash” to occur at financial year’s end.

A small deficit of $24,650 was adopted by Council for the 2020/21 Budget. Since adoption budget amendments have been presented and adopted by Council resulting in a $51,950 deficit position.

The main variations which have been identified since budget adoption are outlined below:

· The net movement for depreciation is $1.1 million increase. This is largely the increase in roads and street capitalisation from the previous year. Unfortunately the budgeted depreciation for this category was not increased at budget time. This is a non-cash item and is removed from the calculation of the budget surplus/deficit. Depreciation falls under the heading of Non-Cash Expense within the document. This heading will also include Loss on Sale if applicable.

· Employment expenses has had an overall increase of $370,000. The performance based adjustment payable to LGIS (insurers) is usually classified under Insurance when in reality it should be under Employment Expenses. $263,000 has therefore been added to Employment Expenses and Insurances has been reduced accordingly. Employment Expense has increased by $82,000 for the new verge mowing team. Although this new team was included in the original budget it was classified under Materials and Contract. This has now been corrected as we transition across from contractors to an in-house provided verge mowing service.

· The closing position surplus for 2019/2020 was reduced by $211,201 for prepayment of rates. Due to changes in Accounting Standards, prepayment of rates cannot be considered income until after the rates have struck for the next year. Therefore the Surplus brought forward on page 1 has been decreased by this amount. This is a timing difference and although it affects the opening position it has nil effect on the revised budget result because it was recognised as income in early August, also not budgeted. In short the revised budget has an increase in income by the same amount that the brought forward balance was short.

General Purpose Funding

· Financial Assistance Grant funding was $99,000 less than expected.

· Interest Earnings has decreased by $264,000 resulting from very low interest rates.

· Prepaid rates $211,000 has been adjusted in the budget.

Governance

· Employment expenses increased for Corporate Support for the performance based insurance $263,000 adjustment as discussed above. Insurance expense has decreased by the same amount.

· Edge of the Bay funding was less than budgeted by $27,000, and the expenditure was reduced by the same amount.

· Budget for Community Perception Survey has been included for $19,300 as it was not included at time of original budget.

· The installation of a public disabled toilet proposed for the Administration Building has been deferred due to structural limitations, to be addressed. Original budget of $42,000.

· Overall employment expenses in Governance is down by approximately $80,000 due to vacant positions.

Law, Order & Public Safety

· Changeover of Bushfire vehicles of $700,000 not likely to occur this year.

· $14,500 funding and the offsetting expenditure for Coastal Safety Awareness program has now been included in the budget.

· Fire-fighting reimbursement and offsetting expenditure has been reduced based on year to date actuals by $50,000.

· Fire prevention funding has been increased based on notification from Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES). This is to fund bush fire brigades vehicle insurances and the purchase of satellite phones, $36,000.

· Extra expenditure on the Quarry Road Bush Fire Brigade shed of $50,000 has been included for the fit-out. This will be funded by DFES.

· CCTV funding of $310,000 has been included from WA Police and Local Roads and Community Infrastructure (LRCI) with an offsetting expenditure budget.

· Extra expenditure $278,000 for the new Depot Pound building was a budget amendment approved by Council during the year and is reflected in the revised budget, offset by a building maintenance reserve transfer.

Education & Welfare

· Home Care has been advised of more income for Home Care packages therefore the income and expenditure in these areas has been increased by $135,000.

· Delays in Lotterywest funding toward the Home Care building upgrade has resulted in this project being stalled this financial year and has been removed from the revised budget.

Community Amenities

· Cemetery fees and charges have been increased by $25,000 based on year to date actuals.

· Development Application fees and Planning Enquiry fees have increased by $60,000 based on year to date actuals.

· The septic upgrade at Grass Patch Caravan Park will not be occurring this financial year $75,000.

· Observatory Beach Toilet build will not occur this financial year although some budget remains for design plans, reduced by $70,000.

· Fee and charges for Waste Management has increased by $50,000 to cater for an increase in scrap metal sales and income from the sale of bottles and cans.

· Truck-wash facility maintenance has increased by $41,000 due to equipment failure and manual labour required to manually activate equipment.

· Wylie Bay Waste Facility capping budget of $150,000 has been postponed.

· Strategic Waste Initiatives budget has been reduced by $210,000 as it is not likely all the budget will be required this financial year.

· Expenditure for the Perimeter track around the waste facility has been increased by $60,000 as the expenditure was higher than expected.

Recreation & Culture

· The BOILC plant maintenance budget $287,000 has been reallocated from an operating account to a capital account as the expenditure will be capital in nature.

· Swim school fees and pool memberships has been increased due to demand $90,000. The correlating employment expenses has been increased to accommodate the demand.

· BOILC has been successful in obtaining a trainee grant of $35,000 in the Dry area of the centre and this has been included in the budget as income and offset by an increase in employment expenses.

· Civic Centre hire income has been reduced by $22,000 based on actuals to date.

· Civic Centre kiosk sales has increased by $10,000 and kiosk expenses has been increased $7,000.

· Civic Centre show income has been decreased by $30,000 and the show expenses has been reduced accordingly.

· LRCI funding for the new rigging, $192,000 at the Civic Centre has been included in the budget. The rigging project will cost approximately $372,000 of which $180,000 was budgeted against the building maintenance for Civic Centre. These funds have been reallocated to the Civic Centre Capital area as it will require capitalising.

· Income from Department of Planning and Infrastructure for sand renourishment $150,000 has been reallocated as the funding is now going towards the back pass trial.

· Max Solutions (employment agency) income and offsetting expenditure has been reduced by $37,000.

· Tanker jetty deconstruction has been increased to include combined costs associated with the unplanned collapses, heritage requirements and project management costs $104,000. This is funded from the Priority Projects reserve.

· Sand renourishment expenditure has decreased by $50,000.

· The Backpass Trial project has been reclassified from capital to operating in Coastal Infrastructure as it should not be capitalised. The original budget of $300,000 has been increased to $600,000. Department of Planning and Infrastructure (Coastal Adaptation and Protection Grant) funding has increased to $300,000. A further $150,000 will be funded from the roads program.

· The new Tanker Jetty budget has been increased by $220,000 for variations to contract and professional advice from designers.

· The Coastal Infrastructure budgets have increased for the Lap Pontoon $322,000 funded from LRCI and the Beach Enclosure $400,000 state government funded.

· IGO Grant funding of $150,000 for Esperance Business COVID Recovery program has been included with expenditure for the same amount.

· Community Grant Program expenditure has been reduced by $36,500 due to the Esperance Cycling Club withdrawing their application for a new velodrome. The project will no longer go ahead.

· The Cannery sewer upgrade has increased by $100,000 for dewatering that was not originally included in budget.

· The new Pump Track funded from LRCI has been included in budget for $600,000.

· The Gibson Oval irrigation tank upgrade, $50,000 has been postponed to next financial year.

· Grass Patch Hall septics $41,000 will not be occurring this financial year nor will the restoring of the old Dundas Road Board Office $50,000.

· Surf Club Building compliance works for $300,000 has been included in budget funded by LRCI.

· Indoor Sports Stadium has an increase in budget for the mural that is grant funded, $96,235.

· Noel White pavilion has a $442,000 increase due to variations to contract for unknown structural remediation at time of original budget.

· Budget amendment to the Graham Mackenzie Stadium $750,000 is reflected in the budget review.

· GSG Overflow income $120,000 and offsetting expenditure has been included in budget.

· LRCI funding for Esperance Golf Club irrigation $100,000 has been included in budget.

· $139,000 budget for the Esperance Velodrome upgrade has been removed from budget as it will not be going ahead.

· Eastern Suburbs Water Supply income has decreased by $54,000 due to COVID relief where free water was provided to users for a 3 month period.

· Eastern Suburbs Water Supply maintenance has increased by $30,000 due to the effluent pump failure and chlorinator major maintenance. This has been offset by the postponement of the Gibson Oval irrigation tank upgrade, mentioned above.

· Eastern Suburbs Water Supply upgrade has increased by $130,000 for gas pipeline works in conjunction with water mains for RAC Caravan Park. This has been funded by Priority Projects reserve.

Transport

· Aerodrome landing fees have increased by $420,000 based on year to date actuals. At time of original budget adoption the effect of COVID-19 on flights was still unknown. This also impacted on the reserve transfer into muni.

· The aerodrome apron extension of $250,000 has been removed from the budget as it will not occur this financial year.

· Reimbursements for Roads and Streets increased by $24,000 a payment from a farmer for road damage.

· Capital income for Roads and Streets has increased overall by $1,311,688. This is $50,000 for Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Grant and has been allocated to Lease Road - fuel depot access construction. The remaining $1,261,688 is the LRCI funding that has been allocated to Roads and Streets to ensure that funds are expended before the 30 June 2021 cut-off. Funds will be allocated to the original LRCI projects from the road program in the following year.

· The Rural Roads program has been adjusted by an increase in $750,000 for River Road as per a budget amendment in January and a decrease of $510,000 (Reseal Program) to assist in funding overspends to new jetty and sand renourishment / Back-pass Trial.

Economic Services

· Building Services fees and charges have increased by $14,000 based on year to date actuals for licences, registrations and approvals particularly.

· Community and Economic Development grant funding has increased by $15,000 after a successful bid for a Department of Sport and Recreation grant for Club Development.

· Capital grants for Rural Services has been adjusted down by $160,938 as part of the reallocation of LRCI funding to the Roads Program as discussed above. LRCI in this area is funding the Myrup Bore and Salmon Gums water tank refurbishment.

· Blue Water Lodge (Youth Hostel Australia) maintenance budget has increased to $76,000. This has been partly funded by grant from GEDC $40,000 as per budget amendment. A budget for rental income $15,000 has also been included.

Other Property & Services

· Profit of $215,000 and Proceeds on Sale $430,000 for Flinders Development has been increased with better than expected sales in the area. There is at least another two sales pending at time of writing this report.

· Administration Expenses has increased by $15,500 for Flinders Development for Stage 3 subdivision fee and Western Australian Planning Costs (WAPC).

· A budget has been included for valuations at Shark Lake Industrial Park $5,000 which is offset by a Land Purchase and Development reserve transfer.

· A budget has been included for Development Area 3 purchases for $10,000 funded by a Land Purchase and Development reserve transfer.

· Fuel and Oil budget has been reduced by $130,000 based on year to date actuals.

· Private Works has been increased by $28,000 with some invoices pending to be raised.

In conclusion the original budget commenced as a $24,650 deficit with subsequent budget amendments resulting in a $51,950 deficit. After the Budget Review as at 31 December 2020 the expected budget position is now a small deficit of $4,627. This is a good result considering challenges with major projects and the uncertainty of the impact of COVID-19 at original budget adoption.

The Budget Review for 2020/21 was presented to the Audit Committee on 8^th March 2021 and the committee has recommended for Council to adopt as presented.

Consultation

Executive Services

Corporate and Community Services

External Services

Asset Management

Financial Implications

As detailed in the attached Budget Review documentation.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1996 – 33(a) Review of Budget

Policy Implications

Nil

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Leadership

A financially sustainable and supportive organisation achieving operational excellence

Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24

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

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

2020/2021 Budget Review

PDF Creator

Ordinary Council: Minutes

23 March 2021 Page 428

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

13.4 2020/2021 Budget Review

Moved: Cr Chambers

Seconded: Cr Piercey

O0321-091

Council Resolution

That Council adopt the 2020/21 Budget Review.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

14. Motions of which Notice has been Given

Nil

15. MEMBERS QUESTIONS WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE

1. Cr Piercey - Lake Monjingup Pet Cemetery

Cr Piercey questioned if the Lake Monjingup Pet Cemetery which is an A class reserve could have a use as a memorial, as she believes there are many people in the community who would like it open.

Mr Burge responded that the Shire has asked the question to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage and are awaiting confirmation.

Cr Piercey questioned where the process it at.

Mr Burge responded that the Shire has several projects and requests with the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage and these requests take some time to get back, however it is being dealt with.

2. Cr Piercey - Esperance Home Care Men in Sheds

Cr Piercey questioned if the Esperance Home Care Men in Sheds could use their Shed as a craft room rather than a workshop so they could recommence operating.

Mr Burge responded that he would need to take the question on notice.

Subsequent to the meeting, Mr Burge informed Cr Piercey of the below:

The Home Care Shed is that the shed doesn’t have an occupancy permit. Without an occupancy permit public use in any form (including for craft) is not permitted. To gain an occupancy permit significant works are required to bring it up to standard as previously advised to Council.

3. Cr Piercey - Black Jack Andersons

Cr Piercey questioned if the Shire could create a replica of Black Jack Andersons hut and display it on the Foreshore. She believes this replica would assist the potential filming of Black Jacks life and could also be a tourist attraction.

Mr Burge responded that this would be a decision of Council.

4. Cr Piercey - Confidential

Cr Piercey questioned if Council has ever removed items from being classed as confidential.

Mr Burge responded that he is not aware of any time Council has removed an items confidentiality and he doesn’t see why the Shire would do this.

Cr Piercey questioned when items brought to Council are no longer necessary to be confidential, are they released publically.

Cr Obourne questioned what specific item Cr Piercey would like to become public.

Cr Mickel responded that he doesn’t think the item is relevant at this time. Cr Mickel stated he would investigate the process involved in making previous confidential items public.

16. Urgent Business Approved by Decision

Nil

17. Matters behind Closed Doors

Mr Gray left the Chamber at 5.21pm.

Moving behind closed doors

Moved: Cr Graham

Seconded: Cr Chambers

O0321-092

That the meeting proceed behind closed doors in accordance with section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995, to consider the following items, which are considered confidential for the reasons indicated.

17.1 Sublease Request - Old Doctor's Surgery - Brodeine Bratten

This report is considered confidential in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995, as it relates to a matter that if disclosed, would reveal information about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of a person, where the information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government (Section 5.23(2)(e)(iii)).

17.2 Lease Amendment - Old Sergeant's Quarters Museum Village - Dimity Siemer and Brooke Small

CARRIED

F7 - A0

17.1 Sublease Request - Old Doctor's Surgery - Brodeine Bratten

Moved: Cr McMullen

Seconded: Cr Chambers

O0321-093

Council Resolution

That Council approves the request from Brodeine Bratten to sublet the Old Doctor’s Surgery in the Museum Village to Jessica Hudson trading as Esperance Yoga, subject to;

1. A lease variation fee of $215 Inc GST being payable;

2. A development application being approved for change of use for the premises;

3. The COVID-19 safety plan and QR code being submitted by the sub-tenant; and

4. Appropriate social distancing being practiced at the premises while in use for yoga classes.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

17.2 Lease Amendment - Old Sergeant's Quarters Museum Village - Dimity Siemer and Brooke Small

Moved: Cr Piercey

Seconded: Cr Obourne

O0321-094

Council Resolution

That Council, subject to health approval being received;

1. Vary the existing lease with Dimity Siemer for the Old Sergeant’s Quarters at the Museum Village, portion of Lots 58 and 59 Dempster Street Esperance to

a. Include Brooke Small as joint Lessee; and

b. Include hairdressing in the allowed use.

2. Charge a lease variation fee of $215 Inc GST; and

3. Any modifications to the building are to be at the Lessee’s cost and are to be returned to the original condition when the Lessee vacates the premises, also at the Lessee’s cost.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Coming from behind closed doors

Moved: Cr McMullen

Seconded: Cr Parker

O0321-095

That the meeting come from behind closed doors.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Mr Gray returned to the Chamber at 5.27pm.

18. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

1. Mr T Gray – Annual Electors Meeting Minutes

Mr Gray questioned if the Shire has or will be getting an Annual Electors Meeting Policy, which clarifies how Minutes from the meeting can be amended.

Mr Burge responded that Minutes can be amended before they are confirmed at the next Annual Meeting of Electors.

Mr Gray questioned if it would be useful if he sent the text within the Minutes he thinks needs amending to the Administration.

Cr Mickel responded that it would be fine for Mr Gray to send through his queries, however he doesn’t see why we would need to amend the Minutes.

2. Mr T Gray – Code of Conduct

Mr Gray questioned why there is a difference between the gazetted Code of Conduct and the Shire endorsed Code of Conduct. He queried if Councillors received a marked up version of the Code of Conduct to see Shire changes.

Cr Mickel responded that Code of Conduct endorsed was a model version.

Mr Gray stated that the Shire Code of Conduct should have been based off the gazetted version. He questioned if Council knew there were differences between the two documents.

Cr Mickel responded that Council was briefed on what the Shire if proposing to have in the document before it was brought to Council.

Mr Burge stated that the gazetted document Mr Gray is referring to is actually the regulations. The model the Shire created was based off the Department of Local Governments template.

Mr Gray questioned if there is any differences between the Department of Local Governments version.

Mr Burge responded that yes, there is one minor difference which is the inclusion of volunteers.

19. CLOSURE

The President declared the meeting closed at 5.41pm.

These Minutes were confirmed at a meeting held on _____________________

Signed ________________________________________

Presiding Member at the meeting at which the Minutes were confirmed.

Dated_____________________

a.	Greater Sports Ground Redevelopment Committee - 1 February 2021
b ⇩.	Audit Committee - 9 February 2021
c ⇩.	Esperance Roadwise Committee - 15 February 2021