Minutes of Ordinary Council

28 September 2021 Page 5

SHIRE OF ESPERANCE

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting HELD IN Condingup Community Centre ON
28 September 2021.

COMMENCING AT 4pm

1. OFFICIAL OPENING

The Shire President declared the meeting open at 4:00pm and did 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. The President advised the meeting will be recorded.

2. ATTENDANCE

Members

Cr I Mickel, AM JP President Rural Ward

Cr J O’Donnell Town 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

Vacant Town Ward

Shire Officers

Mr S Burge Chief Executive Officer

Mr M Walker Director Asset Management

Mrs H Phillips Director External Services

Mrs F Baxter Director Corporate & Community Services

Mr R Hindley Manager Strategic Planning & Land Projects

Miss E Hegney Executive Assistant

Miss S Hawke Trainee Administration Assistant – Executive Services

Members of the Public & Press

Mrs L De Hass Observing

Mrs M Daniels Observing

Mr T Young Observing

Mr M Hill Observing

Mr N Ruddenklau Observing

Mr D Inkster Item 7

Mrs V Mickel Observing

Mr C Inkster Observing

Mr M Biven Item 7

Ms K Perks Item 7

Mrs A Hill Observing

Mrs J Inkster Observing

Mrs S McDonald Observing

Ms M Fowler Observing

Mr A Fowler Observing

Ms R Fowler Observing

3. APOLOGIES & NOTIFICATION OF GRANTED LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr B Parker Apology

4. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion

Moved: Cr Chambers

Seconded: Cr Obourne

O0921-162

That Council accept the following leave of absence:

Cr O’Donnell 2 October until 9 October

Cr Graham 29 September until 4 October

CARRIED

F7 - A0

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PERSON PRESIDING WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Cr Mickel thanked the present members from the local community for attending the Council meeting. He then congratulated the wider Condingup community on their beautiful community centre.

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS INTERESTS

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

Cr McMullen declared a financial interest in item 12.1.1 as one of the objectors is a commercial landlord of his.

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

Nil

6.3 Declarations of Impartiality Interests – Admin Regulations Section 34c

Nil

7. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

1. Mr K O’ Dwyer – DWER Prosecution – Clearing of Native Vegetation

The following questions were provided in advance to the meeting and a written response has been given to Mr O’ Dwyer. The below questions were answered by the Chief Executive Officer.

On which date was the Esperance Shire Council informed of the DWER notice to prosecute Council for illegal land clearing and the subsequent conviction on 25 May 2021 with the penalty being a $50,000 fine?

The Shire was informed by the State Solicitor’s Office of the Prosecution Notice on 29 January 2021. The Notice was signed on 22 January 2021.

Councillors attended a briefing session regarding the impending Prosecution Notice on 16 February 2021, and were informed of the outcome before the Ordinary Council Meeting on Tuesday 25 May 2021. The Shire issued a media release to the public on 26 May 2021 explaining the outcome.

On which dates was the Esperance Shire Council informed of any of the events relating to the illegal land clearing before or since the application to clear was first lodged in March 2016?

The Shire had a valid native vegetation clearing permit issued on 25 October 2012, with duration to 16 November 2020. The Shire President and Chief Executive Officer at the time, discussed this matter as part of their weekly catch ups.

Residing Councillors at that time were informed in August 2019 of the investigation into the alleged native vegetation clearing breaches. Subsequent Councillors were informed during their inductions after the 2019 Elections.

In which Council minutes is that information recorded?

This information did not go to a formal Council Meeting.

What is the formal court case citation for the decision in the Magistrates Court proceedings wherein the Shire of Esperance pleaded guilty to the land clearing?

ES 112 of 2021 and ES 113 of 2021.

Is the land that was cleared a reserve managed by the Shire of Esperance? What is its street address? What is its land title name and what is it zoned?

The land cleared was on Reserve 32804, the street address of this Reserve is Lot 262 Fisheries Road. Reserve 32804 is an unmanaged reserve under the administration of the Minister for Land. The land parcel in question is reserved for Infrastructure Services under Local Planning Scheme No.24.

2. Dr K Nieukerke –

The following questions were provided in advance to the meeting and were taken on notice by the Shire President.

A response will be given to Dr Nieukerke in writing and will be published in the October Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda.

We ask that Council determines a proper deadline for their completion:

· El Fresco in front of the bike shop.

Council determined that the trail of the el-fresco area in front of the bike shop would be discontinued, and the structure be removed. Some two months after this decision the structure is still there, taking up parking space soon needed for the anticipated influx of tourists. Can the temporary structure be removed in the next three weeks?

· James St Groin furniture

Tables and chairs were removed from the James St Groin to create a helipad for scenic flights during the summer season. At the end of the ‘flight’ season’ Shire failed to return the furniture. It would have seemed appropriate to ‘adjust’ the fixtures so that they could be more readily returned during the autumn/winter months. Maybe they need some additional wind and rain covers to protect users/visitors. At no stage was there an understanding that the removal of furniture would be a permanent feature for the duration of the contract (5 years?). Will Council seek the return of furniture at the end of the coming ‘flight season’?

· Street Lighting at the Boulevard/Library crossing

We have raised this issue with the Director of Asset Management, who advised that this is now with Horizon Power to complete. We have been in contact with Horizon Power and they are unable to confirm a date for this task to be commenced. This is a safety issue for pedestrians who are placed at risk, particularly during late night shopping. Considering that this has been outstanding for at least three months can Council now insist on a due date by which it wants to see this addressed?

· Road marking on Leven Mile Beach Rd (Tourist loop)

This issue is similar to the one above in that it was also brought to the attention of the Director of Asset Management. There are now 4 separate stretches along the Tourist loop that have been resurfaced/widened and where the centre of the road still needs lines painted. Marking the road (a task apparently performed by a Main Roads crew) was delayed as there was still gravel at the centre section of the road. 8 weeks later the gravel still hasn’t been cleared. Traveling, particularly in the section between the lookout and Helmes Drive is dangerous, when there is oncoming traffic in the night-time - headlights make identifying one’s precise location on the road difficult. Maybe police should confirm the urgency of resolving this hazard. Considering that this has been outstanding for some months can Council now insist that it is resolved before the end of October? Alternatively, could ‘cats-eyes’ be placed in these sections of the road as an interim measure?

· Annual Budget 2021/2022

All budget preparations and discussions, as per standard practice by Shire were held with staff and Councillors. The ‘background’ comments as part of the Adoption of the 2021/2022 Annual Budget refer to motion2 at the Annual Electors meeting. It is noted that Shire comments on the various components identified at the AEM. The motion itself, in particular requested:

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

No feedback was sought on any of the following:

• The 3% rate increase

• The level of the minimum rate

• The balance between rate collection from local and rural ratepayers

While there is a new Communication Policy the Association will continue its drive to see improved consultation with the community in this area. Council is requested to clarify why this consultation did not take place this year.

· CCTV MOU

It is noted that the CCTV MOU is still not finalised. This raises the question whether data is made available to police under temporary/interim arrangements, what these are and why they are not made public. The alternate would be to suspend any access to CCTV data till such time that the MOU is executed. Can Council confirm

• Any access to data has been provided to police since the CCTV became operational

• Under what conditions this data has been made available

• What deadline Council will adopt for finalising the MOU and how it will enforce this.

Questions relating to Agenda items:

12.2.1 Wrought Iron Seat

Page 166 – Were any other options considered by H&H?

• Chip grooves in the concrete and use steel to support the bench

• Rods into the soil

• Add sections to increase the diameter

Will there be some form of communication with the public and seek their input?

When will the Streetscape committee meet and declare their view on the matter?

What is the cost of the H&H report.

12.3.1 Financial Services Report

Page 85 – Crossview, Tanker Jetty or New Jetty $144,397.

What is the payment for and how many more payments/tasks are still outstanding?

12.4.1 Information Bulletin – August 2021

Page 114 – G1.2 James St Precinct. Does not mention a presentation /consultation with the community?

Page 120 – L3.3 Investigate the organisations Effectiveness and Services. Is there/ will there be an investigation into efficiency and productivity as well?

3. Ms K Perks – Road Closures, Corrections and Sealing

Ms K Perks questioned council plans for local road closures and corrections, including Exchange Road. She also asked about the Coolingup Road sealing schedule.

Cr Mickel responded that after the closure of the meeting we will have an open forum discussion relating to the Condingup community questions and concerns.

8. PUBLIC ADDRESSES / DEPUTATIONS

Nil

9. Petitions

Nil

10. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved: Cr McMullen

Seconded: Cr Chambers

O0921-163

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of the 24 August 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

11. DELEGATES’ REPORTS WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Cr Chambers

8 Sep Attended Port Emergency Management Meeting

8 Sep Attended LEMC Meeting

9 Sep Attended meeting with Fisheries and DBCA Marine Park

19-22 Sep Attended Local Government Conference Perth

26 Sep Attended Helispirit Launch 2021

Cr Obourne

26 Aug Attended ABC interview regarding election, key dates and rural ward

26 Aug Attended Official Opening Esperance Tafe Campus

2 Sep Attended WASO Southern Symphony Tour

3 Sep Met with grant writer regarding homelessness partnership

14 Sep Attended meeting with community organisations regarding homelessness partnership

20 Sep Attended Local Government Conference Perth

Cr O’Donnell

26 Aug Attended Official Opening Esperance Tafe Campus

2 Sep Attended Webinar; Electric Vehicles, Charging Infrastructure and Zero Emissions

2 Sep Attended WASO’s Southern Symphony Tour

8 Sep Attended Salvation Army Emergency Services Information Session at CWA Hall

9 Sep Attended Fishery and Marine Park Meeting

17 Sep Host speaker of week three of the Early Birds Rates Draw

17 Sep Attended ECCI Esperance Women’s Leadership Network event

17 Sep Attended Indoor Stadium and Civic Centre Art Launch

20-22 Sep Attended Local Government Conference Perth

Cr Graham

17 Sep Attended Indoor Stadium and Civic Centre Art Launch

26 Aug Attended the Rotary Club of Esperance Official Launch of the new Driving Simulator

Cr McMullen

17 Sep Attended Indoor Stadium and Civic Centre Art Launch

20-22 Sep Attended Local Government Conference Perth

26 Sep Attended Helispirit Launch 2021

26 Aug Attended the Rotary Club of Esperance Official Launch of the new Driving Simulator

Cr Piercey

2 Sep Attended Webinar; Electric Vehicles, Charging Infrastructure and Zero Emissions

2 Sep Attended WASO Southern Symphony Tour

14 Sep Attended the State Budget breakfast

17 Sep Attended Indoor Stadium and Civic Centre Art Launch

17 Sep Attended presentation of Hot Shots Tennis Trophies

20-22 Sep Attended Local Government Conference Perth

Cr Mickel

25 Aug Attended briefing by Horizon Power regarding the potential use of 10 Mile wind farm for research of Hydrogen production

25 Aug Attended the handover of Lottery West funding for Home & Community Care building extensions to Black St. facilities

26 Aug Attended Official Opening Esperance Tafe Campus

26 Aug Attended the Rotary Club of Esperance Official Launch of the new Driving Simulator

6 Sep Met with the operators and stakeholders involved with the Esperance Fuel Farm to discuss the design of a new access road from Harbour Road

8 Sep Met with the President & Deputy President from Esperance Professional Fisherman Assoc. regarding the proposed Marine Park.

8 Sep Attended LMEC Meeting

9 Sep Attended Fishery and Marine Park Meeting

14 Sep Attended the State Budget breakfast

14 Sep Chaired meeting with community organisations regarding homelessness

12. MATTERS REQUIRING A DETERMINATION OF COUNCIL

12.1 External Services

Item: 12.1.1

Development Application - Consulting Rooms - Lot 545 (24) Dempster Street, Esperance

Author/s	Richard Hindley	Manager Strategic Planning & Land Projects
Authorisor/s	Holly Phillips	Director External Services

File Ref: D21/28754

Applicant

Lionel Trotman on behalf of M Elliot and E Cooper.

Location/Address

Lot 545 (24) Dempster Street, Esperance.

P350#yIS1

Executive Summary

For Council to consider Development Application 10.2021.4729.1 for Consulting Rooms at Lot 545 (24) Dempster Street, Esperance.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council approve Development Application 10.2021.4729.1 for Consulting Rooms at Lot 545 (24) Dempster Street, Esperance subject to conditions.

Background

An application for Development Approval was received by Planning Services on 7 July 2021 for the change of use of the existing dwelling at Lot 545 (24) Dempster Street, Esperance to consulting rooms for use by two chiropractors. Included in the proposed works would be the conversion of the front and rear yards to car parking, along with sealing of car parking, and accesses and the containment of stormwater to the property.

Consulting Rooms is an ‘A’ use as per the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 24 (LPS 24). An ‘A’ use means that the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting development approval after giving notice in accordance with clause 64 of the deemed provisions.

The application was subsequently referred to the adjoining landowners for comment in accordance with the Shire’s Advertising Schedule, with advertising occurring between 14 July 2021 and 4 August 2021. Four objections were received from adjoining landowners.

Due to the objections received, the application was put to Council for determination at its August Ordinary Council Meeting where Council resolved (0821-134):

That Council lay this matter on the table until the October Ordinary Council Meeting to enable alternative parking arrangements to be formulated by the proponent.

Subsequent to this an alternative parking arrangement has been provided and is included as Attachment B.

Officer’s Comment

Lot 545 (24) Dempster Street, Esperance is zoned Residential R40 with Additional Use 6. It is further affected by Special Control Area 9 – Coastal Inundation and Erosion Zone. In this area Consulting Rooms is designated as an ‘A’ land use and requires advertising as per the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 24.

In accordance with Local Planning Scheme No. 24, Consulting Rooms is defined as follows:

Consulting Rooms means premises used by no more than 2 health practitioners at the same time for the investigation or treatment of human injuries or ailments and for general outpatient care;

Information provided indicates that the proposed Consulting Rooms will only employ three (3) people, being two (2) health practitioners and a receptionist, complying with this definition.

Nine (9) car parking bays are provided, which is a relaxation of one less than the Scheme Requirement. It is unlikely that all will be in use at any one time as the chiropractors can only handle one person each at a time. Vehicle movements are thus likely to be limited. However discussion must include the access easement being used to access the rear of Lot 545 (24) Dempster Street, Esperance.

This easement (shown as ‘A’ in the following diagram) is registered on the property titles of both the subject land and adjoining property Lot 544 (26) Dempster Street for the benefit of Lot 545 (24) Dempster Street as a right of carriageway to access Lot 545. It can only be removed with the consent of both sets of landowners, and may require the consent of any other body with an interest in the land, such as the bank of someone who holds a mortgage on one of the properties.

P383#y1

The easement conditions on the property title are summarised (the full Deed of Easement is included under Confidential Cover as Attachment F) as follows:

· The person who owns and occupies the dominant land (and all persons authorised by the owners and occupiers) being Lot 545, have permission to enter upon the servient land (Lot 544) via the easement for both vehicles and pedestrians;

· There shall be minimal interference with Lot 544;

· No buildings shall be erected, nor changes made to the grades and contours of the easement by the owner of Lot 544; and

· Lot 545 may hold and enjoy all rights and liberty granted without hindrance.

No limitations were placed on the numbers, or size of vehicles, or times of usage pursuant to the easement

The proposal will not result in the use of an essential service greater than that normally required by a single dwelling.

Four (4) objections were received from adjoining and nearby landowners on the following grounds:

Objection:	Planning Comment:
New Business in the Residential/Tourist zone. This proposal completely changes the use of this building, from a dwelling to a business	Noted. The land use ‘Consulting Rooms’ was permitted under previous Local Planning Scheme No. 22 and 23, and as such could have considered on the property as far back as 2010 (when LPS 23 came into effect) and potentially as far back as 1991 (when LPS 22 came into effect). The planning framework allows land uses such as Consulting Rooms and Medical Centre in the area, there has also been previous cases for such land uses being approved in the zone and area. The dentist at Lot 1 (8) Dempster Street, Esperance is an example of this.
Alternative premises could be more appropriately used.	The only proposal that can be assessed is the one currently before Council.
Vehicle access via narrow easement	Noted. The access easement for the benefit of Lot 545 (24) Dempster Street is 3 metres wide. This is wide enough to permit access by a single vehicle travelling in one direction, but is not wide enough to allow for two-way traffic.
Do not agree with easement being used for business purposes. It wasn't designed for two way traffic so therefore those people who don't want to, or aren't able to use the laneway, being fearful of being able to turn around and exit will park in Brazier Street. Many elderly people are fearful of parking and backing in restricted spaces.	Dismissed. The access easement for the benefit of Lot 545 (24) Dempster Street is 3 metres wide. This is wide enough to permit access by a single vehicle travelling in one direction, but is not wide enough to allow for two-way traffic. The proposal include traffic control to address this issue.
Impact on views	Dismissed There is no consideration given for impact on views as a result of passing vehicles under Planning Legislation.
Impact from traffic.	Noted. It is acknowledged that there will be some form of impact from traffic travelling to and from the property, particularly via the easement. The applicant is intending to install a traffic management system to reduce conflict between vehicles entering and exiting and also will assist with safety of pedestrians. The application was referred to Asset Management due to safety concerns with their comments worked into the application.
Asbestos concerns in the existing building.	Noted. Any removal of asbestos will need to be done by an appropriately qualified and licensed contractor.
Lack of Privacy	Noted. There is no consideration given for impact on privacy from commercial business under Planning Legislation only from other residential dwellings.
If present owners decide to sell in the future, there will be no control of what business goes in there.	Dismissed. Any new development will be the subject of a new development application.
Impact on property value	This is not a valid planning consideration.

The applicant and the landowner also provided their own letters of justification for the proposal on 6 August 2021.

It should also be noted that the amended plan provided will reduce the vehicle movements through the right of carriage way as it will enable two vehicles to be parked as well as a drop of area at the front of the property all of which can egress the property in a forward gear.

The applicant (Lionel Trotman) indicates that the large number of car parking bays is to appease the local planning scheme and does not reflect the business requirements. Planning Services acknowledges that car parking requirements for consulting rooms may be higher than necessary in this instance, however the applicant did not ask for a reduction in car parking provision. Mr Trotman further goes on to explain that this isn’t a public car park, that they expect the front entrance along Dempster Street to be heavily used by persons with limited mobility which makes up a large proportion of the customer base.

Mr Trotman further goes on to explain that they are looking to install an electronic traffic management system and to limit vehicle speed to 5kph to assist with vehicle and pedestrian safety, as well as volunteering to erect a fence on the western side of the property if it would assist in ameliorating some of the objectors concerns.

The justification supplied by Dr Evelyn Cooper goes on to explain that the proposal is relatively low impact and that they intention is not to impact on the adjoining landowners.

It is noted that Amendment 7 to Local Planning Scheme No. 24 was adopted by Council at the August Ordinary Meeting of Council. It should be noted that the matters outlined in this amendment are to be considered by the local government under Clause 67.(b) of the Deemed Provisions. Under this Amendment a Consulting Room with the land use permissibility a ‘D’ use is introduced to Additional Use 6 (A6) area which included the subject land.

It is also noted that ‘D’ or ‘Discretionary’ land uses do not possess mandatory advertising requirements, and as such if the proposal had included one additional health practitioner, the application would not have required advertising to adjoining landowners and likely would have been approved under delegated authority.

Reasons for recommendation

· The proposed use meets the definition of consulting rooms which means premises used by no more than two (2) health practitioners at the same time for the investigation or treatment of human injuries or ailments and for general outpatient care;

· The land use is an ‘A’ use means that the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting development approval after giving notice in accordance with clause 64 of the deemed provisions;

· The proposal is consistent with the objectives for the Residential zone which states to provide for a range of non-residential uses, which are compatible with and complementary to residential development.

· The proposed Consulting Rooms, at the indicated level of operation, will be a relatively low impact Consulting Rooms well suited to a residential area; and

· Expansion (i.e. additional therapists) of the business will either require a return to commercial premises due to it exceeding the maximum therapists for a consulting room or a change of use to a full Medical Centre land use.

Consultation

In accordance with Council’s advertising schedule, the application was referred to the adjoining landowners between 14 July 2021 and 4 August 2021.

Four (4) objections were received as part of the application.

In response to the amended site plan one (1) additional objection was received.

Objection:	Planning Comment:
Bays 1 and 2 as shown on Site Plan (Drawing No. AlOl, Revision E) within the primary street setback area to Dempster Street are not compliant with Australian Standard AS2890.1 Parking facilities Part 1: Off-street car parking (AS2890.1) as the bays are required to be treated as a blind aisle (refer Figure 2.3 from AS2890.1 below). Therefore, there needs to be 1m available beyond the aisle (towards the building) between the parking bay and the edge of the parking area.	Noted – a 1m gap is required to comply with AS2890.1 Parking facilities Part 1: Off-street car parking. It should be noted that two bays (a width of 3m per bay is required to achieve a turning circle) and a 1m path against the building has an overall width of 7m – this will not fit in the front setback area.
There should only be a single access driveway onto Dempster Street as parking is provided for less than 25 vehicles only. If the drainage needs changing, then this should be undertaken as part of these works and should not prevent the provision of a combined driveway in this location.	Noted – however this completely ignores a drop off location in the assessment.
Positioning of the bays 1m off from the building and four (4) 6m x 2.5m bays with a 6m wide aisle would be in accordance with AS2890.1. The 1m blind aisle extension provides sufficient manoeuvrability within the parking area when combined with the 6m wide aisle.	Dismissed – A vehicle that enters a full carpark will have no alternative but to reverse out of the property. A 3m wide bay is required to achieve the turning circle to exit the site in a forward gear. Two bays and a 1m path against the building has an overall width of 7m – this will not fit in the front setback area.
With regard to the parking arrangement to the rear of the property, it is suggested that rather than providing traffic signals, a sign should be installed on the right hand side of the exit driveway to tell drivers to "GIVE WAY TO ONCOMING TRAFFIC". Under this arrangement, anyone entering should have right of way. Also, exiting drivers will be able to see 30m to know if it is clear to exit.	Dismissed – the proposed solution by the proponent is considered more appropriate.
It Is also anticipated that if the rear parking area is made available to clients, then there is likely to be an increase in client parking on neighbouring properties or along the verge on Brazier Street to avoid the narrow lane.	Dismissed – this is conjecture.
The solution to this would be to ensure staff and disabled patrons park in the rear parking area and customers are directed to park in the four (4) bays at the front of the building via Dempster Street. Otherwise it is likely that staff will also utilise the parking bays at the front of the building as these provide for a more convenient location and are easier to navigate.	Note – staff parking and a disabled bay are located at the rear of the premises.
It is anticipated that the bays to the front of the building will be the preferred location for clients (and staff) due to the convenience to the users. Accessing parking to the rear of the building is anticipated to be problematic for clients from a functionality and safety perspective.	Noted – however it does remove the potential for a drop off area at the front of the premise.
The creation of additional bays to the front of the building to be provided as client only parking, with the remainder of the parking bays to the rear of the building for staff only. This would also reduce the daily vehicle movement frequency along the laneway, thereby reducing the potential for traffic conflict associated with one-way movements.	Dismissed - Two bays (a width of 3m per bay is required to achieve a turning circle) and a 1m path against the building has an overall width of 7m – this will not fit in the front setback area.
Question the validity of the application for planning approval (to the extent that it relates to Lot 544) and whether the Shire of Esperance has the legal ability to grant planning approval for the portion of the proposal relating to your property. If the proposed sealing and draining of the right of carriageway easement on your property is not permitted without your signature on the planning approval form, then the proposal could reasonably be considered without the draining and sealing of the right of carriageway easement with the land being maintained as an unsealed laneway.	Noted - the proposed sealing and draining of the right of carriageway easement is not a condition of the development is only a recommendation in an Advice Note.
The use of the property when the right of carriageway easement was created was residential. With the commercialisation of the land use under this current proposal, any increase in traffic generated by the new use along the laneway is likely to result in increased "interference" to you and the use and enjoyment of your property. This appears to be at odds with Clause 2 of the Easement conditions and ought to be given weight in the consideration of this proposal.	Dismissed – The right of carriage way was granted to Lot 545 with full right and liberty to enter the easement for the purpose of gaining entry to Lot 545. In relation to the issue of minimal interference any upgrade to the easement surface will reduce impacts from dust and noise from vehicle access Lot 545 by the right of carriageway.
At the time the right of carriageway easement was created, it is unlikely that the owners of each property would have anticipated that the laneway would be used for anything other than domestic activities associated with the residential land. The proposal now involves the formalisation of the laneway as a regular access point for staff and clients to the consulting rooms, which has potential to result in significant and adverse impacts on the amenity of Lot 544 as a result of increased traffic, noise and dust generation.	Dismissed – The right of carriage way was granted to Lot 545 with full right and liberty to enter the easement for the purpose of gaining entry to Lot 545.

Financial Implications

Application Fees totalling $295.00 were received as part of this application.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications arising from this report are:

· Planning and Development Act 2005

· Local Planning Scheme No. 24

· Local Planning Scheme No. 24 – Deemed Provisions

67. Consideration of application by local government

(2) In considering an application for development approval (other than an application on which approval cannot be granted under subclause (1)), the local government is to have due regard to the following matters to the extent that, in the opinion of the local government, those matters are relevant to the development the subject of the application —

(b) the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any proposed local planning scheme or amendment to this Scheme that has been advertised under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 or any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving;

· Shire of Esperance Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law

3.5 General prohibitions on parking

(2) A person shall not park a vehicle so that any portion of the vehicle is:

(f) on any footpath or pedestrian crossing;

· Road Traffic Code 2000:

57. Giving way when entering carriageway from land abutting carriageway or road

(1) A driver entering a carriageway from land abutting the carriageway, without a traffic-control signal or a “stop” sign, stop line, “give way” sign or give way line, must give way to —

(a) any vehicle travelling on the carriageway or turning into the carriageway (except a vehicle turning right into the carriageway from land abutting the carriageway); and

(b) any pedestrian on the carriageway; and

(c) any vehicle or pedestrian on any land abutting the carriageway (including a path) that the driver crosses to enter the carriageway.

Points: 3 Modified penalty: 4 PU

Example Driver entering a carriageway from land abutting the carriageway giving way to a pedestrian on the footpath and a vehicle on the carriageway.

P540#yIS1

Policy Implications

The policy implications arising from this report are:

WALGA Guidelines and Specification for Residential Crossovers

3.6 Assessment Criteria

Crossovers shall provide unobstructed vehicle access to the individual lots and motorists must be able to enter or reverse from the lot in a single movement. (For roads with more than 5,000 vpd, all vehicles must be able to exit in forward gear).

Electoral Caretaker Period Policy Statement

The Officer Recommendation has been reviewed in context of the Shire of Esperance’s Electoral Caretaker Period Policy and the CEO has determined that it does not constitute a Major Policy Decision. The CEO therefore provides this report for Council’s consideration.

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 ⇩.	Floor Plans and Elevations
b ⇩.	Revised Site Plan showing Amended Parking and Traffic Management System
c ⇩.	Submissions
d ⇩.	Applicants Justification
e ⇩.	Landowners Justification
f .	Deed of Easement and Transfer - Right of Carriageway - Confidential
g ⇩.	Submission - Revised Site Plan
Cr McMullen declared his financial interest and left the room at 4:20pm. RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION 12.1.1 Development Application - Consulting Rooms - Lot 545 (24) Dempster Street, Esperance Moved: Cr Obourne Seconded: Cr Piercey O0921-164 Council Resolution That Council: 1) Note that the proponent has now provided an alternative parking arrangement in accordance with Council Resolution 0821-134 at the August Ordinary Meeting of Council. 2) Approve Development Application 10.2021.4729.1 for Consulting Rooms at Lot 545 (24) Dempster Street, Esperance subject to the following conditions: a) Development shall be carried out and fully implemented in accordance with the details indicated on the stamped approved plan(s) unless otherwise required or agreed in writing by the Shire of Esperance (Planning Services). b) During construction/implementation/remediation stages, adjoining lots are not to be disturbed without the prior written consent of the affected owner(s). c) The approved consulting rooms must not cause injury to or prejudicially affect the amenity of the neighbourhood. d) The approved consulting rooms shall not employ more than two health specialists. e) The approved consulting rooms must not display a sign exceeding 0.2 square metres in area. f) The approved consulting rooms must not require the provision of any essential service main of a greater capacity than normally required in the zone in which it is located. g) A minimum of nine (9) 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. h) Vehicle parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas shall be suitably constructed, sealed (asphalt, concrete or brickpavers), drained and thereafter maintained. i) All car parking areas and access ways shall be maintained for their stated purpose at all times and shall not be used for display or general storage purposes. j) All delivery vehicles must be located entirely on the site during loading and unloading of goods associated with the use of the site. k) All stormwater and drainage run off is to be retained on-site to the satisfaction of the Shire of Esperance unless otherwise agreed upon by the Shire of Esperance. l) 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. m) 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. n) *The proposed operations, during and after construction, are required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.* o) Any asbestos containing material either to be removed, or damaged as part of the implementation of the Consulting Rooms, is to be removed and appropriately disposed of by a licensed asbestos contractor. p) All fencing shall be in accordance with the Shire of Esperance Fencing Local Law. q) A Section 70A Notification under the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (as amended) must be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development advising the owners and successors in title that: VULNERABLE COASTAL AREA - This lot is located in an area likely to be subject to coastal erosion and/or inundation over the next 100 years. The Section 70A Notification is to be registered on the Certificate of Title prior to the commencement of use, with all costs associated with preparing and lodging the Section 70A Notification on the Certificate of Title at the applicant's/owner's expense. r) 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. And the following advice notes: a) 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. b) The upgrade of the right of carriageway over Lot 544 Dempster Street is recommended in line with the approved plan. c) The development is to comply with the National Construction Code, Building Act 2011, Building Regulations 2012 and the Local Government Act 1995 d) It is the responsibility of the developer to search the title of the property to ascertain the presence of any easements and/or restrictive covenants that may apply. e) Horizon Power has requested the Shire to advise Applicants that Horizon Power has certain restrictions regarding the installation of conductive materials near its network assets. Applicants are advised to contact Horizon Power’s Esperance office to ascertain whether any of Horizon Power’s restrictions affect their proposed development. f) The developer is to liaise with Shire of Esperance (Statutory Compliance) to determine any requirement for additional approvals for any signage proposed to be erected on site. CARRIED F6 - A0

Cr McMullen returned to the room at 4:22pm.

Ordinary Council: Minutes

28 September 2021 Page 39

Item: 12.1.2

Development Application - Oversized Outbuilding (Shed) - Lot 5 (16) Barron Close, Pink Lake

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

File Ref: D21/29598

Applicant

Luke and Caroline O’Shannessy

Location/Address

Lot 5 (16) Barron Close, Pink Lake

P679#yIS1

Executive Summary

For Council to consider Development Application 10.2021.4747.1 for an Oversized Outbuilding (Shed) at Lot 5 (16) Barron Close, Pink Lake.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council approve Development Application 10.2021.4747.1 for an Oversized Outbuilding (Shed) at Lot 5 (16) Barron Close, Pink Lake subject to conditions.

Background

An application for development approval for an Oversized Outbuilding (Shed) at Lot 5 (16) Barron Close, Pink Lake was received by Planning Services on 23 July 2021.

The application was subsequently advertised to adjoining landowners between 26 July 2021 and 16 August 2021, with no comments or objections being received.

Lot 5 (16) Barron Close is zoned ‘Residential’ R2 and has an area of 6177m².

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

Outbuildings in Residential and Future Residential Zones

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Comments from the affected adjoining landowner’s.

If the Maximum Variation is exceeded the matter will be referred to Council.

This proposal calls for 126 square metres of new Outbuilding to be constructed on the property in addition to an existing Outbuilding of approximately 114 square metres, for a total of 240 square metres of Outbuildings where Council has permitted a maximum of 125 square metres (100 square metres plus a 25% site area variation) under its Local Planning Policy: Outbuildings.

The proposal further exceeds the maximum wall and ridge height. In the Residential zone a maximum wall height of 3.6 metres and maximum ridge height of 4.2 metres applies, a 10% variation is also available subject to advertising. In this instance the applicant proposes a wall height of 4.6 metres and a ridge height of 5.47 metres.

As the proposal exceeds maximum site area, wall height and ridge height the application requires the consent of Council.

Thus the matter is referred to Council for determination.

Officer’s Comment

The proposal calls for construction of a new Outbuilding of 126m² on a property

It is noted that the Outbuilding(s) do not comply with the acceptable development provisions of the Local Planning Policy – Outbuildings. The Outbuilding proposed exceeds the 100 square metres and 25% maximum variation with neighbour referral permitted in the Residential Zone. That is, under the Local Planning Policy – Outbuildings, within the Residential Zone, up to 125 square metres of Outbuildings is permitted on the property subject to neighbour referral. Combined there will be 240m² of Outbuildings on the property.

The proposed Outbuilding exceeds both the maximum wall, and ridge heights of 3.6 metres and 4.2 metres respectively. Outbuilding permitted wall and ridge heights in the Residential zone and allowing the 10% variation criteria is a wall height of 3.96 metres, and a ridge height of 4.62 metres. The proposed outbuilding has a wall height of 4.6 and a ridge height of 5.47 metres.

The officer’s recommendation is for approval of the proposed Outbuilding (Shed) as the location of the proposed outbuilding will minimize impact on the locality and adjoining landowners in addition to the property being a very low density residential zoning (Residential R2 equates to 1 lot or dwelling per 5000m²). Combined this results in the Outbuilding having minimal impact on adjoining landowners. In addition the larger lot sizes in the area do lend themselves to larger than normal Outbuildings, as well as increased demand for housing tools and machinery required to upkeep the properties. The Outbuilding is proposed for general storage purposes which is acceptable to Planning Services.

Consultation

Advertising to adjoining landowners was undertaken between 26 July 2021 and 16 August 2021, with no comments or objections being received.

Financial Implications

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

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications arising from this report are:

· Planning and Development Act 2005

· Local Planning Scheme No. 24

· Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

Policy Implications

Local Planning Policies are guidelines used to assist the local government in making decisions under the Local Planning Scheme and may address land use as well as development requirements. Although Local Planning Policies are not part of the Local Planning Scheme they must be consistent with, and cannot vary, the intent of the Local Planning Scheme provisions. In considering an application for Planning Approval, the local government must have regard to a Local Planning Policy as required under Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Electoral Caretaker Period Policy Statement

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 ⇩.	Site Plan
b ⇩.	Floor Plans and Elevations

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.1.2 Development Application – Oversized Outbuilding (Shed) – Lot 5 (16) Barron Close, Pink Lake

Moved: Cr Chambers

Seconded: Cr O'Donnell

O0921-165

Council Resolution

That Council approve Development Application 10.2021.4747.1 for an Oversized Outbuilding (Shed) at Lot 5 (16) Barron Close, Pink Lake, 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. During construction stage, adjoining lots are not to be disturbed without the prior written consent of the affected owner(s).

3. The Outbuilding (Shed) hereby approved 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The emission of noise, vibration, odour, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, oil, chemicals and/or any other type if emission that may potentially impact on environmental and/or public health are to be mitigated within the boundaries of the premise and must not impact on public health and/or cause nuisance to users or occupants of adjoining premises.

7. All fencing shall be in accordance with the Shire of Esperance Fencing Local Law

8. 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.

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

AND the following advice notes:

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

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

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

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

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

CARRIED

F7 - A0

12.2 Asset Management

Item: 12.2.1

Wrought Iron Seat - Post Office Square

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

File Ref: D21/31241

Applicant

Internal

Location/Address

Post Office Square, Esperance

Executive Summary

For Council to consider the solution to install the Wrought Iron Seat around the Heritage Listed Norfolk Pine Tree in Post Office Square.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council:

1. Note the investigation into the feasibility of installing the Wrought Iron Seat around the Norfolk Pine Tree;

2. Retain the Wrought Iron Seat around the current Paperbark tree; and

3. The location of the Wrought Iron Seat is reconsidered as part of any redevelopment of the Post Office Square, subject to a new lease being entered into.

Background

The wrought iron seat in Post Office Square was previously around the Norfolk Island Pine tree in the Post Office Square. The Norfolk Island Pine tree in Post Office Square is considered to be the oldest Norfolk Island Pine tree in Esperance with historical evidence indicating the tree was planted in 1896. The Norfolk Island Pine tree in Post Office Square is heritage listed on the Western Australian State Heritage Place 5054. The seat was designed and built locally, the seat was installed in the early 90’s and contains interpretive information on Esperance.

The Shire of Esperance Norfolk Island Pine Tree Management Plan 2016 completed by Arboricultural Consultant Paperbark Technologies, indicated that the permeable area around the structure root zones of the Norfolk Island Pine trees in the CBD needs to be increased. The report indicated that to date this had not happened in relation to the heritage listed Norfolk Island Pine tree in Post Office Square.

The seat was removed and refurbished as part of the recent CBD upgrades to increase the permeable area around the tree and its structural root zone. During the removal of the seat it was found that the fixings on the seat and the seat footings were directly impacting on the root flare and structural root zone of the heritage listed Norfolk Island Pine tree in Post Office Square. It was not recommend that the seat be replaced unmodified around the Norfolk Island Pine tree in Post Office Square as the seat would continue to impact on the structural root zone of the tree.

At the October 2020 Ordinary Council Meeting, Council resolved the following motion:

That Council:

1. Install the wrought iron seat unmodified around the Paperbark tree closest to Dempster Street in Post Office Square including landscaping internally.

2. Request the CEO to find solutions as soon as possible to reinstall the Wrought Iron Seat around the Norfolk Pine giving due consideration to the protection of the Heritage listed Norfolk Pine Tree.

Following this motion, Shire Officers installed the Wrought Iron Seat around the Paperbark tree as per the Council resolution. Shire Offices also engaged H+H Architects, the consultants used to undertake the Esperance CBD Landscape Concept Design, to investigate a solution to reinstall the Wrought Iron Seat around the Norfolk Pine Tree.

The advice from H+H Architects regarding the Wrought Iron Seat, was that the only feasibility option that didn’t compromise the integrity of the seat and didn’t impact on the heritage listed Norfolk Pine Tree, was to install the seat on a raised deck around the tree. This option has been detailed in Attachment A and a perspective of this is given in Attachment B

Deck design notes from the drawing are given below:

The new deck will be raised approximately 350mm above paving level to allow for large steel support beams minimising the amount of concrete footings required within the structural root zone.

The deck will incorporate 2 steps along the perimeter of the edge.

A minimum of 1500mm circulation zone is recommended between edge of seat and top step of deck. The circulation zone will allow pedestrians to walk safely around the seat. This will increase the size of the deck significantly.

Urban circulation corridors are shown in blue dashed lines. The urban circulation corridors are important pedestrian pathways through post office square linking to other areas of the CBD. Due to the large size of the new deck, if the tree seat deck was incorporated into Post Office Square it will have some impact on the existing circulation corridors.

The overall utilisation of post office square might be compromised with the introduction of the tree seat on a larger deck, as the floor area of post office square will be reduced in size.

Officer’s Comment

H+H Architects have provided a solution to enable the Wrought Iron Seat to be reinstalled around the Norfolk Pine Tree at Post Office Square. The solution is quite a substantial structure with a nominal diameter of around 12m. Below are some consideration Council should take into consideration.

Pros

· The proposed deck would get the Wrought Iron Seat reinstalled around the Norfolk Pine Tree

· The proposed deck would be a potentially be feature piece in the Post Office Square

Cons

· The proposed deck would not be disability friendly, and would exclude a section of the community being able to use the seat.

· Due to the seat now being on a deck the seat may not be as inclusive to the community as it was originally designed and intended.

· The proposed deck would interfere with the urban circulation lines in Post Office Square.

· The proposed deck would be a minimum 350mm above the ground level, which would mean people would be sitting up quite high against the surrounding area. People would be sitting on the seat approximately 1m above ground level. Some community members may not be comfortable sitting at this height in Post Office Square.

The Post Office Square is leased by the Shire from Telstra Corporation, the lease is due to expire on the 30/06/2023. It would be highly recommended before any major investment in Post Office Square occurs a new lease is negotiated.

Given the above information and the generally positive feedback of the Wrought Iron Seat current location around the Paperbark tree, it is recommend Council keep the Wrought Iron Seat in its current location. This could be reconsidered as part of a redevelopment of Post Office Square.

Consultation

Previously the Streetscape Advisory Committee

Council Briefing on the 17^th August 2021

Financial Implications

The estimated cost to install the Wrought Iron Seat on a deck is in the order of $60,000 - $70,000.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Nil

Policy Implications

Electoral Caretaker Period Policy Statement

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Built Environment

Provide infrastructure and places that support the services we provide

Maintain the Shire’s robust asset management practices and maintenance programs

Environmental Considerations

The environmental considerations arising from this report the placement of any street furniture in Post Office Square must not adversely impact on the health of the heritage listed Norfolk Island Pine tree.

Attachments

a ⇩.	H+H Architects - Post Office Square – Feasibility of Wrought Iron Seat on a Deck
b ⇩.	H+H Architects - Post Office Square – Wrought Iron Seat on a Deck Perspective

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.2.1 Wrought Iron Seat – Post Office Square

Suspension of Standing Orders

Moved: Cr McMullen

Seconded: Cr Obourne

That section 3.3 of the Standing Orders be suspended to allow for discussion of 12.2.1

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Resumption of Standing Orders

Moved: Cr McMullen

Seconded: Cr Obourne

That Standing Orders be resumed.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Moved: Cr Piercey

Seconded: Cr Obourne

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

1. Note the investigation into the feasibility of installing the Wrought Iron Seat around the Norfolk Pine Tree;

2. Retain the Wrought Iron Seat around the current Paperbark tree; and

3. The location of the Wrought Iron Seat is reconsidered as part of any redevelopment of the Post Office Square, subject to a new lease being entered into.

Amendment

Moved: Cr O'Donnell

Seconded: Cr Graham

That Council amend point two of the officer’s recommendation to include “and install available existing temporary seating from the Depot to provide seating in shaded areas for the 2021 summer season”.

The amendment became the substantive motion…

O0921-166

Council Resolution

That Council:

1. Note the investigation into the feasibility of installing the Wrought Iron Seat around the Norfolk Pine Tree;

2. Retain the Wrought Iron Seat around the current Paperbark tree and install available existing temporary seating from the Depot to provide seating in shaded areas for the 2021 summer season; and

3. The location of the Wrought Iron Seat is reconsidered as part of any redevelopment of the Post Office Square, subject to a new lease being entered into.

CARRIED

F7 - A0

Reason: Council wanted to include an option for shaded seating for the upcoming summer seasons.

Author/s	Mary Bidstrup	Governance and Corporate Support Officer
Authorisor/s	Sarah Walsh	Coordinator Governance & Corporate Support

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

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

a ⇩.	Information Bulletin - August 2021
b ⇩.	Corporate Performance Report - August 2021
c ⇩.	Outstanding Resolutions - Quarterly Report
d ⇩.	Letter - Minister for Environment; Climate Action; Commerce - Proposed South Coast Marine Park — Recherche Archipelago

Author/s	Mel Ammon	Manager Community Support
Authorisor/s	Holly Phillips	Director External Services