Minutes of Ordinary Council

22 March 2022 Page 5

SHIRE OF ESPERANCE

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting HELD IN Council Chambers ON
22 March 2022.

COMMENCING AT 4pm

1. OFFICIAL OPENING

The Shire President declared the meeting open at 4:01pm and did an acknowledgement to country.

The Shire of Esperance acknowledges the Kepa Kurl Wudjari people of the Nyungar nation and Ngadju people who are the Traditional Owners 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 video recorded. The recording will be made publicly available as soon as practical following the meeting.

2. ATTENDANCE

Members

Cr I Mickel, AM JP President Rural Ward

Cr R Chambers Deputy President Town Ward

Cr J O’Donnell Town Ward

Cr S McMullen Town Ward

Cr J Obourne Town Ward

Cr L de Haas Town Ward

Cr W Graham Rural Ward

Cr R Horan Town Ward

Cr S Flanagan 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 A Palmer Trainee Administration Assistant – Executive Services

Miss E Godwin Trainee Administration Officer

Members of the Public & Press

Mrs T Campbell Item 7

Mr A Campbell Observing

Dr K Nieukerke Item 7

Mrs L Saunders Media Esperance Weekender

Ms Y Li Media Esperance Weekender

Miss E Smith Media ABC

3. APOLOGIES & NOTIFICATION OF GRANTED LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

4. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion

Moved: Cr Chambers

Seconded: Cr de Haas

O0322-052

That Council accept the following leave of absence:

Cr McMullen 10-19 April 2022

Cr Obourne 1-5 April 2022

Cr O’Donnell 25-30 March and 11-22 April

CARRIED

F9 - A0

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PERSON PRESIDING WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Nil

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS INTERESTS

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

Cr Chambers declared a financial interest in item 16.1 as he is the owner of Pink Lake IGA.

Cr Graham declared a financial interest in item 12.1.6 as he owns a holiday house in Esperance.

Cr de Haas declared a financial interest in item 16.1 as she owns Just One More Stitch, a small business in Esperance.

Cr Mickel declared a financial interest in item 17.1 a he has signed an expression of interest to purchase an undeveloped block on the same estate.

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

Cr de Haas declared a proximity interest in item 12.1.1 as she owns property in Nulsen which is in, or adjacent to, one or more of the mapped areas referred to in the report.

Cr Graham declared a proximity interest in item 12.1.1 as he owns property which is in, or adjacent to, one or more of the mapped areas referred to in the report and in in item 17.4 as he farms land which is opposite the property in question.

Cr Chambers declared a proximity interest in item 12.1.1 as he leases a property within one of the mapped areas within the report and in item 12.2.1 as his wife owns property in the strata which is supporting the application.

Cr Obourne declared a proximity interest in item 12.1.1 as she owns property in Sinclair which is in one of the mapped areas referred to in the report.

Cr Flanagan declared a proximity interest in item 12.1.1 as he owns property which is adjacent to one or more of the mapped areas referred to in the report.

Cr McMullen declared a proximity interest in item 12.1.1 as owns or leases property in one or more of the mapped areas referred to in the report and in item 16.1 as he owns a business, Witches Brew Coffee, which is adjacent to the applicants.

6.3 Declarations of Impartiality Interests – Admin Regulations Section 34c

Cr Obourne declared an impartiality interest in item 12.1.1 as she attends a local church which falls under ‘Places of Worship’ and is therefore potentially affected by this item.

Mr Walker declared an impartiality interest in item 12.1.3 as he is a member of the Esperance bay Yacht Club.

7. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

1. Mrs T Campbell – Budget/Annual report and Home Care – Questions on Notice

The following questions were provided in the February Ordinary Council Meeting and were taken on notice by Mrs Phillips. The below response has also been to Mrs Campbell by email.

Good afternoon Terri,

Thank you for your questions taken on notice art the February Ordinary Council Meeting (OCM). My initial responses (italics) have already been published in the OCM minutes, and I offer further clarification in Blue. Your questions are included in Bold.

Mrs Campbell asked what is being done to address the staff shortages at Home Care, which are identified in the Annual Report?

Mrs Phillips advised that Esperance Home Care is trying a range of measures to ensure they are attracting and maintaining the right staff, and the challenges of attracting and retaining staff are well understood. However, as an operational matter, Ms Phillips stated the question would be taken on notice.

Further response:

There are significant issues faced by the national aged care industry, and the challenges to Esperance Home Care in attracting and retaining staff are not unique. Just some of the many strategies being implemented by EHC in response to this are reviewing remuneration levels, stabilising shift patterns for casual staff, and providing extensive training to assist the workforce to improve their skills sets. This is in addition to agency collaboration, and the broad promotion of available roles and career pathways in the industry.

Mrs Campbell asked about the reduction in services to level 4 package recipients, who are the highest need clients, and what steps are being made to ensure they are receiving the correct service level.

Mrs Phillips responded that she is not aware specifically of level 4 services being disproportionally reduced to other services. Level 4 services are maximised wherever possible as priority high needs clients. As service levels can periodically change due to resourcing, Mrs Phillips took the question on notice to provide an accurate update.

Further response:

Services at Esperance Home Care are prioritised on the basis of the services required by clients. Regardless of the client package level, medication supports receive the first priority, followed by personal care, shopping assistance, domestic assistance and social support. In instances of high demand and reduced staffing, some lower priority services, such as social support may be temporarily reduced to accommodate high priority needs of other clients. Further, some clients request increased services beyond the reasonable capacity of staff to deliver.

Thank you for your interest in relation to aged care issues in Esperance.

2. Mrs T Campbell – Further Home Care Staffing Concerns

Mrs Campbell asked the Shire and Councillors the below questions, noting that she has already sent this information to Mr Burge and Mrs Phillips:

a) Please provide clarification surrounding who is undertaking the review of remuneration levels mentioned in your reply, if this is being done by an external third party and in consultation with the existing workforce?

b) As per the current job advertisement, penalty rates are not offered for casual staff. Can you please explain why this is the case, and how the decision not to offer penalty rates was made?

c) Considering there is a clear and identified need for staff, and the fact that offering job security is a well know strategy for both attracting and retaining staff, can you please clarify why the current job advertisement is for casual positions and not permanent part time?

d) Can you please confirm if the extensive training you mention in your response is referring to industry standard nationally accredited training (such as Certificate 3 in individual support), or in-house non-accredited training?

e) Is anyone exploring options for traineeships for utilizing the local TAFE?

f) Can you please explain why exit interviews are not conducted with all Homecare staff?

Cr Mickel responded that Council is unable to comment on remunerations at this time and that all other questions will be taken on notice for Shire staff to provide a reply.

3. Dr K Nieukerke – Cash Investments

Dr Nieukerke asked about information provided on page 144 of the Agenda, in relation to cash investment, requesting information on why the maximum for investing with one institution (as per policy) has been surpassed and why it has not been reduced as per the discussion at the February OCM.

Mrs Baxter took the question taken on notice.

4. Dr K Nieukerke – Local Recovery Committee Funds

Dr Nieukerke asked what happened to the remaining funding from the Local Recovery Committee, noting that the last minutes approved $2,240 funding spend, but there would still be a substantial amount left.

Mrs Baxter responded that it is held in trust. The question was also question taken on notice to provide further clarification.

Mr Mickel also responded that the money remains allocated for that purpose. He notes that IGO allocated the funds to Esperance and Dundas Shires, and some of these funds have been used for COVID issues in line with applications received. No further applications are being received for this funding.

Dr Nieukerke suggested letting the community know that these funds may be available.

5. Dr Nieukerke – Ratepayers Association Questions from the AEM and ‘Pink Lake’

Dr Nieukerke noted that he had not yet received a response to the questions from the Ratepayers association at the Annual Elector’s Meeting, and posed the following questions which were provided to the minutes secretary:

1. When can we expect the written response?

2. Can a lookout at Lake warden be included in the coming budget?

3. Can a ‘Pink’ Pink Lake be included in the Community Strategic Plan?

Cr Mickel responded that there is a possibility to put a lookout at Lake Warden but not at Pink Lake. He clarified that colours of the lakes are indeed not as their names currently suggest, but the Shire is looking at solutions for the colour of Pink lake. The Shire is also looking for financial support for these matters.

8. PUBLIC ADDRESSES / DEPUTATIONS

Nil

9. Petitions

Nil

10. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved: Cr O’Donnell

Seconded: Cr Horan

O0322-053

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of the 22 February 2022 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED

F9 - A0

11. DELEGATES’ REPORTS WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Cr Obourne

22 Feb Attended Royal Life Saving – Integrated Shark Tower System

22 Mar Attended Meeting Re: French Weekend

Cr Flanagan

23 Feb Attended Reconciliation Action Plan Working Group Meeting

4 Mar Attended ESHS Upgrade Meeting with Hon Shelley Payne and Peter Rundle

8 Mar Attended Audit Committee Meeting

21 Mar Attended RAP Meeting

Cr O’Donnell

4 Mar Attended ESHS Upgrade Meeting with Hon Shelley Payne and Peter Rundle

8 Mar Attended Audit Committee Meeting

21 Mar Visited Esperance Home Care

Cr Graham

22 Feb Attended Royal Life Saving – Integrated Shark Tower System

Cr de Haas

22 Feb Attended Royal Life Saving – Integrated Shark Tower System

2 Mar Attended ECCI Meeting

2 Mar Met with member of public regarding concerns.

4 Mar Attended ESHS Upgrade Meeting with Hon Shelley Payne and Peter Rundle

10 Mar Attended Small Business Forum

11 Mar Met with member of public regarding concerns

11 Mar Attended function for Hon. Stephen Dawson and Commissioner Darren Klemm who handed over seven new fire fighting vehicles to the Shire of Esperance

16 Mar Attended ECCI Meeting

Cr Horan

4 Mar Attended ESHS Upgrade Meeting with Hon Shelley Payne and Peter Rundle

11 Mar Attended function for Hon. Stephen Dawson and Commissioner Darren Klemm who handed over seven new fire fighting vehicles to the Shire of Esperance

14 Mar Attended Roadwise meeting

Cr McMullen

8 Mar Attended Audit Committee Meeting

Cr Chambers

1 Mar Attended meeting with CEO and Cory Hogg from Minerva Foods.

10 Mar Attended function for Hon. Stephen Dawson and Commissioner Darren Klemm who handed over seven new fire fighting vehicles to the Shire of Esperance

Cr Mickel

1 Mar Attended to meet with Cr Chambers, CEO and Cory Hogg from Minerva Foods

2 Mar Attended to meet Hon. Martin Aldridge MLC

4 Mar Attended ESHS Upgrade Meeting with Hon Shelley Payne and Peter Rundle

9 Mar Attended meeting with Toni Hawkins – Chair of EACF Board

10 Mar Attended meeting with Les Andrews and Jen Spencer from Woody Island Tours

10 Mar Attended function for Hon. Stephen Dawson and Commissioner Darren Klemm who handed over seven new fire fighting vehicles to the Shire of Esperance

16 Mar Attended to Esperance Senior High School presentation

16 Mar Attended meeting with Superintendent Steve Thomson and Inspector Justin Tarasinki from Goldfields Esperance WA Police District Office

12. MATTERS REQUIRING A DETERMINATION OF COUNCIL

12.1 External Services

Item: 12.1.1

Local Planning Scheme No. 24 - Amendment No. 8

Cr de Haas, Cr Graham, Cr Chambers, Cr Obourne, Cr Flanagan and Cr McMullen declared an interest in this item.

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

File Ref: D21/40085

Applicant

Internal

Location/Address

Shire of Esperance

Executive Summary

For Council to consider Amendment 8 to Local Planning Scheme No. 24 by incorporating various changes, including:

· A range of new provisions;

· Updating the Scheme Map to reflect omissions and changes to reserves since the gazettal of the Scheme;

· Introduction of new Additional Uses;

· Revising the effluent disposal provisions of the Scheme to be consistent with the Government Sewerage Policy; and

· Amendments to Schedule 7 regarding parking standards.

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. Determine 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 8 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

Notice of Final Approval of the Shire of Esperance Local Planning Scheme No. 24 (‘the Scheme’) was published in the Government Gazette on 2 August 2017. Like any such document, it is subjected to statutory review and review by Council as circumstances dictate.

The proposed modifications fall into broad categories as follows:

· Amending use permissibility within the ‘Rural Townsite’ zone and inserting associated provisions;

· Amending a Special Use zone to take into account usage of a site;

· Introducing exemptions into a Special Control Areas;

· Modifying the Scheme Map to account for omissions and changes to reserves;

· Replacing the effluent disposal clause to be consistent with the Government Sewerage Policy and draft Statement of Planning Policy 2.9;

· Introducing new Additional Uses to take into account non-conforming uses; and

· Amending Schedule 7 in relation to parking standards.

Officer’s Comment

The following is a summary of the points contained within the amendment document and for clarity, should be read with Attachment A.

The proposed amendment is consistent with the Local Planning Strategy.

Amend Clause 17, Table 4 – Zoning and Land Use Table by replacing the ‘X’ with a ‘D+’ for ‘Grouped dwelling’ in the ‘Rural Townsite’ zone.

This modification changes the permissibility of a ‘Grouped dwelling’ in the ‘Rural Townsite’ zone. The ‘+’ is added to link to a new footnote to Clause 17, Table 4 – Zoning and Land Use Table that limits the permissibility of the use to lots that meet the minimum lot size requirements in Schedule 6 of the Scheme.

Amend Clause 17 by inserting ‘+ Grouped dwelling is only permitted where each dwelling complies with Minimum Lot Area Sq. m within Schedule 6.’ below Table 4 – Zoning and Land Use Table:

This modification relates to modification 2.1. This provision applies a restriction on ‘Grouped dwellings’ so that no more than one (1) dwelling is permitted on the minimum lot size provided for the zone under Schedule 6 of the Scheme.

Amend Schedule 2 Clause 4.(c) by introducing new exempted development

This modification exempts the following development from gaining development approval within SCA4 - Public Drinking Water Source Protection Areas:

(q) one satellite dish with a diameter of less than 1.2 metres;

(s) one flagpole not exceeding 6 metres in height with the flags not used for commercial advertising;

(v) any retaining wall less than 500mm high constructed of masonry materials located to the rear of a building associated with the primary use of the site and certified by a qualified Engineer as being suitable for surcharge loads where applicable;

(w) the signage and advertisements contained in Schedule 10 of this Scheme do not require development approval;

(x) the erection of a boundary fence in accordance with an adopted Fencing Local Law;

(aa) the carrying out of works urgently necessary to ensure public safety, for the safety or security of plant or equipment or for the maintenance of essential services;

(bb) A renewable energy facility that is incidental in nature to the use of the land; and

(cc) a solar hot water system.

These uses are considered minor development (or urgent for public safety) that will no longer require an application to be made or for such an application to be referred to the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation as the nature of the development will not impact on the Public Drinking Water Source Protection Area.

The current exemption for an Outbuilding with an area of 10m² or less and a height of 2.4m or less is retained.

Amend Schedule 2 Clause 5.(c)(i) by introducing new exempted development

This modification exempts the following development from gaining development approval within SCA5 - Wetlands of Significance and Lake Warden Recovery Catchment:

(q) one satellite dish with a diameter of less than 1.2 metres;

(s) one flagpole not exceeding 6 metres in height with the flags not used for commercial advertising;

(w) the signage and advertisements contained in Schedule 10 of this Scheme do not require development approval;

(x) the erection of a boundary fence in accordance with an adopted Fencing Local Law;

(aa) the carrying out of works urgently necessary to ensure public safety, for the safety or security of plant or equipment or for the maintenance of essential services;

(bb) A renewable energy facility that is incidental in nature to the use of the land; and

(cc) a solar hot water system.

These uses are considered minor development (or urgent for public safety) that will no longer require an application to be made or for such an application to be referred to the Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions and the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation.

The current exemption for an Outbuilding with an area of 10m² or less and a height of 2.4m or less is retained.

Amend Schedule 2 Clause 9.(c)(i) by introducing new exempted development

This modification exempts the following development from gaining development approval within SCA9 – Coastal Erosion and Inundation Risk:

(q) one satellite dish with a diameter of less than 1.2 metres;

(r) street trading and outdoor eating facilities on public places in accordance with the local laws on trading in thoroughfares and public places;

(w) the signage and advertisements contained in Schedule 10 of this Scheme do not require development approval;

(x) the erection of a boundary fence in accordance with an adopted Fencing Local Law;

(aa) the carrying out of works urgently necessary to ensure public safety, for the safety or security of plant or equipment or for the maintenance of essential services;

(bb) A renewable energy facility that is incidental in nature to the use of the land; and

(cc) a solar hot water system.

These uses are considered minor development (or urgent for public safety) that will no longer require an application to be taken to apply a Section 70A notification advising of a ‘Vulnerable Coastal Area’.

Amend the Scheme Map by reclassifying the portion of Mungan Street between the two sections of Lot 51 on Plan 9505 from ‘Local Road’ to ‘Railways’

The portion of Mungan Street between the two sections of Lot 51 on Plan 0505 has not been developed as a road and forms part of the rail corridor.

P422#yIS1

Amend the Scheme Map by reclassifying Lot 2113 on Deposited Plan 193502 Bishop Road, Grass Patch from ‘Local Road’ to ‘Infrastructure Services’

This Lot is currently leased by Telstra Corporation Ltd and has been developed with a Radio Translator/Mobile Phone Facility. The proposed modification reflects the use of the land.

P426#yIS1

Amend the Scheme Map by reclassifying Lot 320 on Deposited Plan 418247 from ‘Oceans/Waterways’ to ‘Public Open Space’

Lot 320 on Deposited Plan 418247 has recently been created to cover the footprint and boating exclusion area around the Jetty. The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage – Land Services is currently amending this lot with Reserve 27318 and as such the proposal is to extend the current reservation and additional use to this reserve.

P430#yIS1

Amend the Scheme Map by reclassifying Lot 2105 on Deposited Plan 21055 from ‘Rural Residential’ to ‘Local Road’

Lot 2105 on Deposited Plan 21055 is part of Reserve 42630 that is currently with the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage – Land Services for a road dedication. The proposed classification as a ‘local road’ is consistent with this request.

P434#yIS1

Amend the Scheme Map by rezoning the portion of Lot 111 Cudgee Close Myrup zoned ‘Rural Smallholdings’ and ‘RS2’ to ‘Rural Residential’ and ‘RR3’ and a portion of Lot 110 from Rural Residential’ and ‘RR3’ to ‘Rural Smallholdings’ and ‘RS2’

An estimated area was zoned ‘Rural Residential’ and ‘RR3’ as a result of a submission on Local Planning Scheme No. 24 when it was open for consultation. The lot has now been created so this amendment extends the zone over the entire lot.

P439#yIS1

Amend the Scheme by replacing Clause 15. in Schedule 1 relating to Schedule 7 and car parking spaces

It is proposed to replace Clause 15 within Schedule 1 with a new clause which clarifies when the parking standards apply.

In particular it clarifies the link to Schedule 7 and provide guidance as to how apply parking standards when a use is expanded.

Amend the Scheme by replacing Clause 17.(a) within Schedule 1 with a new effluent disposal clause

Local Planning Scheme No. 24 currently contains a clause that requires a 2 metre separation between the base of a leach drain and the highest recorded groundwater level or bedrock. This clause is not consistent with the provisions of the Government Sewerage Policy or the draft State Planning Policy 2.9 Planning for Water (SPP 2.9) and Planning for Water Guidelines.

Provisions are also inserted into the Scheme that place limits on development that can occur on lots under 2000m² that are not connected to a reticulated sewerage system.

The proposed provision is consistent with the Government Sewerage Policy and draft State Planning Policy 2.9 Planning for Water (SPP 2.9) and Planning for Water Guidelines maintaining appropriate controls based on soil type and location.

Amend Schedule 5 by replacing ‘Small Bar’ with ‘Tavern’ in the ‘Special use’ of SU7

It is proposed to replace the use of ‘Small Bar’ with ‘Tavern’ as the land use is more representative of the type of Liquor Licence that the site could achieve and alleviate some of the issues associated with operating under a Producers Licence.

The ‘Tavern’ Liquor Licence will allow Lucky Bay Brewing to continue operations as per the current licence which allows consumption on the premises by the glass as well as takeaway sales for packaged product.

The main reasons Lucky Bay Brewing seeks a ‘Tavern’ Licence are:

· The current ‘Producers’ Licence conditions only allow the serving of wine and cider ancillary to a meal. While the serving of a meal is desirable for the responsible service of alcohol this condition does cause significant angst and confusion amongst visiting tourists who have within their group a non-beer drinker. Lucky Bay Brewing seeks to further promote regional tourism as part of the Esperance region, and the ‘Tavern’ Licence would allow the serving of alcohol not manufactured by the brewery to be in a similar style patrons experience in other parts of the State. For example many of the other breweries in the south west hold ‘Tavern’ licences.

· The current licence conditions limit the venue to close at 10:00pm. While this is more than adequate for most of the time, private functions such as weddings often request serving of alcohol until 11:00 pm or midnight. The ‘Tavern’ Licence conditions would allow the venue to meet the patrons request under normal licence conditions. As is currently, Lucky Bay Brewing is required to apply for an Occasional Licence for each of these specific events. The granting of a ‘Tavern’ Licence would eliminate the ongoing application administration of this process.

Lucky Bay Brewing does not seek to increase the venue capacity and will use the toilet and water systems approved in December 2019 for the venue for 288 patrons. Lucky Bay Brewing is currently improving its kitchen facility and has a long-term commitment to the serving of food at the venue.

The proposed amendment supports the change of Liquor Licence for Lucky Bay Brewery.

Amend Schedule 3 by inserting at the end of the Location for A6 the following ‘, Lots 1, 2, 31, 32, 60, 63 Dempster Street, Lots 158, 160 – 162 Taylor Street’.

It is proposed to expand Additional Use A6 to cover the area adjacent the current A6 area and caters for a range of land uses that including a non-conforming land use for a ‘Restaurant/Cafe’.

P468#yIS1

Amend Schedule 3 and the Scheme Map as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map by adding an Additional Use

It is proposed to introduce a new additional use to accommodate what is currently a non-conforming land use for ‘Holiday Accommodation.

Amend Schedule 3 and the Scheme Map as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map by adding an Additional Use

It is proposed to introduce a new additional use to accommodate what is currently a non-conforming land use for ‘Caravan Park.

P477#yIS1

Amend Schedule 3 and the Scheme Map as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map by adding an Additional Use

It is proposed to introduce a new additional use to accommodate what is currently developed on the site in particular a Tavern, Hotel and Restaurant/Café.

P482#yIS1

Amend Schedule 7 by replacing the Minimum Car Spaces (Space/Sq. Metre unless otherwise stated) for specified land uses

This modification makes amendment to Schedule 7 by revising several parking standards and incorporating bicycle parking based on land use.

Amend Schedule 7 by inserting a new footnote underneath the table after point (i)

A new footnote has been added that is applied to Amusement parlour, Child care premise, Cinema/theatre, Consulting rooms, Convenience store, Exhibition centre, Fast food outlet, Liquor store – small, Medical centre, Motel and Place of worship. The footnote states: the local government may take into consideration any parking areas available in the public domain in proximity to the development.

Consultation

A 42-day advertising period applies for the amendment that 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 2021/22 – 2024/25

B3 Encourage innovation and support new development

B3.3 Update and Implement Local Planning Scheme and Policies

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a ⇨.

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 24 - Amendment No. 8 - Under Separate Cover

This item was not considered as there were six Councillors who declared a proximity interest and therefore a quorum could not be reached.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

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

I. Amending Clause 17, Table 4 – Zoning and Land Use Table by replacing the ‘X’ with a ‘D+’ for ‘Grouped Dwelling in the ‘Rural Townsite zone.

II. Amending Clause 17 by inserting the following below Table 4 – Zoning and Land Use Table:

‘+ Grouped dwelling is only permitted where each dwelling complies with Minimum Lot Area Sq. m within Schedule 6.’

III. Amending Schedule 2 Clause 4.(c) by replacing it with:

‘(i) Despite any other provision of the Scheme development approval is required for all development except for development exempted under clause 61. (q), (s), (v), (w), (x), (aa), (bb) and (cc) of Schedule A.

(ii) Outbuildings with an area of 10m² or less and a height of 2.4m or less do not require approval unless otherwise specified in the Scheme (other than in this clause).’

IV. Amending Schedule 2 Clause 5.(c)(i) by replacing it with:

‘Despite any other provision of the Scheme development approval is required for all development except for development exempted under clause 61. (q), (s), (v), (w), (x), (aa), (bb) and (cc) of Schedule A.’

V. Amending Schedule 2 Clause 9.(c)(i) by replacing it with:

‘Despite any other provision of the Scheme development approval is required for all development except for development exempted under clause 61. (q), (r), (w), (x), (aa), (bb) and (cc) of Schedule A.’

VI. Amending the Scheme Map by reclassifying the portion of Mungan Street between the two sections of Lot 51 on Plan 9505 from ‘Local Road’ to ‘Railways’ as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

VII. Amending the Scheme Map by reclassifying Lot 2113 on Deposited Plan 193502 Bishop Road, Grass Patch from ‘Local Road’ to ‘Infrastructure Services’ as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

VIII. Amending the Scheme Map by reclassifying Lot 320 on Deposited Plan 418247 from ‘Oceans/Waterways’ to ‘Public Open Space’ and ‘Additional Use Reserve AR3’ as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

IX. Amending the Scheme Map by reclassifying Lot 2105 on Deposited Plan 21055 from ‘Rural Residential’ to ‘Local Road’ as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

X. Amending the Scheme Map by rezoning the portion of Lot 111 Cudgee Close Myrup zoned ‘Rural Smallholdings’ and ‘RS2’ to ‘Rural Residential’ and ‘RR3’ as depicted on the Scheme Amendment map.

XI. Amending the Scheme by replacing Clause 15. in Schedule 1 with the following:

‘15 (a) A person shall not use land for a purpose specified in Schedule 7 unless car parking spaces of the number specified in Schedule are provided and sealed, drained and marked to the local government's specifications prior to occupancy of development or commencement of a use and maintained to the satisfaction of the local government thereafter.

(b) Where the floor area occupied by an existing use is increased, the parking requirement will be calculated on the basis of the floor area of the extension only or the area subject to the change of use of the site provided the existing number of car spaces is not reduced.

(c) Where the development is a use not listed within Schedule 7 or where a variation to the car parking requirements listed under Schedule 6 and/or Schedule 7, the number of parking spaces is to be determined by the local government having due regard to:

(i) the nature of the proposed development;

(ii) the number of employees or others likely to be engaged in the use of the land;

(iii) the anticipated demand for visitor parking;

(iv) the availability of on street parking; and

(v) the orderly, proper and sustainable planning of the area.

(d) Where a proposed development is adjacent to on street parking and is within the Commercial zone or Additional Use A6, the local government may approve a reduced number of bays specified in Schedule 6 or 7 having due regard to subclause (d) when considering the total number of parking spaces required for the development.

XII. Amending the Scheme by replacing Clause 17.(a) within Schedule 1 with the following and renumbering the clause accordingly:

‘(a) Where existing and proposed lots within the Scheme Area are not connected to a reticulated sewerage system, on-site wastewater systems shall be to the specifications and satisfaction of the local government.

(b) Within Public Drinking Water Source Areas and sensitive water resource areas secondary treatment systems with nutrient removal will be required on any lot less than 1ha or where soils have low capacity to retain nutrients.

(c) The discharge point of the on-site wastewater system should be at least the following distances above the highest groundwater level, taking into account long-term variability, possible groundwater rise following development and perched water tables:

(i) Public Drinking Water Source Area - 2 metres; and

(ii) All other areas –

a) loams and clay soils - 0.6 metres

b) gravels - 1 metre

c) sands - 1.5 metres.

(d) Unless in accordance with subclause (e) an on-site wastewater system is not to be located within:

(i) a wellhead protection zone

(ii) 100 metres of any bore used for public drinking water supply where existing lots would be rendered undevelopable by the wellhead protection zone;

(iii) 30 metres of a private bore used for household/ drinking water purposes;

(iv) 100 metres of a waterway or wetland and not within a waterway foreshore area or wetland buffer.

(v) 100 metres of a drainage system that:

a) is located down-groundwater-gradient;

b) discharges directly into a waterway or significant wetland without treatment; or

c) intersects groundwater; or

(vi) any area subject to inundation and/or flooding in a 10 per cent AEP rainfall event.

(e) Smaller setbacks may be considered where a proponent demonstrates to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, in consultation with the relevant advisory agencies, that the reduced setbacks will not have a significant impact on the environment or public health. In seeking a reduced setback, secondary treatment systems with nutrient removal may be required.’

(f) Smaller setbacks to bores used for public drinking water supply will not be supported under any circumstances.

(g) On residential zoned lots under 2000m², Aged Care Facility, Child Care Premises, Civic Use, Educational Establishment, Grouped Dwelling, Multiple Dwelling, Holiday House, Place of Worship and Small Bar will not be permitted unless connection to a reticulated sewerage system is proposed.

(h) On Rural Townsite zoned lots under 2000m², Aged Care Facility, Child Care Premises, Civic Use, Club Premises, Educational Establishment, Exhibition Centre, Fast Food Outlet, Holiday House, Hotel, Holiday Accommodation, Lunch Bar, Motel, Motor Vehicle Wash, Place of Worship, Reception Centre, Restaurant/café, Road House, Service Station, Small Bar and Tavern will not be permitted unless connection to a reticulated sewerage system is proposed.

Note: Reticulated Sewerage System has the same meaning as a mains sewerage system.’

XIII. Amending Schedule 5 by replacing ‘Small Bar’ with ‘Tavern’ in the ‘Special use’ of SU7.

XIV. Amending Schedule 3 by inserting at the end of the Location for A6 the following ‘, Lots 1, 2, 31, 32, 60, 63 Dempster Street, Lots 158, 160 – 162 Taylor Street’ and the Scheme Map as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

XV. 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

A26

Lot 905 Goldfields Road

Residential

As a ‘D’ use

· Holiday Accommodation

As determined by the local government.

XVI. 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

A27

Lots 29, 537 Mitchell Street, Lots 25 – 28 Westmacott Street

Residential

As a ‘D’ use

· Caravan Park

As determined by the local government.

XVII. 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

A28

Lot 50 Goldfields Road, Lot 16 Phyllis Street

Tourism

As a ‘D’ use

· Hostel

· Hotel

· Restaurant/Café

· Serviced Apartment

· Tavern

1. Where development adjoins a Residential zone the minimum setback will be at the discretion of the local government.

2. Where overlooking occurs as defined in the R-Codes of the adjoining Residential zone screening is to be applied in accordance with the R-Codes

XVIII. Amending Schedule 6 by inserting ‘ (iii)’ after 2000(i) in the Minimum Lot Areas Sq. m for Rural Townsite and add a new point below point (ii) as follows:

‘(iii) Where a lot is connected to a reticulated sewerage system or a suitable package treatment system the R20 density will apply’

XIX. Amending Schedule 7 by replacing the Minimum Car Spaces (Space/Sq. Metre unless otherwise stated) for the following land uses:

Land Use	Minimum Car Spaces (Space/Sq. Metre unless otherwise stated)
Child care premises	1 bay per employee and 1 bay per 5 children(ii)
Club premises	1 bay per employee and 1 bay per 4 persons accommodated
Community purpose	1 bay per employee and 1 bay per 4 persons accommodated
Consulting rooms	3 bays per consulting room plus 1 bay per staff member(ii)
Convenience Store	1 bay per 25m² gross floor area(ii)
Fuel depot	1 bay per 45 m² of office facilities
Garden centre	1 bay per 75 m² public floor area
Home store	1 bay per 40m² of gross floor area or part thereof of the use
Medical centre	3 bays per consulting room plus 1 bay per employee(ii)
Motor vehicle wash	1 bay per employee and 1 bay per wash bay
Park home park	1 bay per accommodation unit Visitor car parking 1 bay per 10 long stay site 1 bay per 20 short stay site
Recreation – private	To be assessed by the local government with regard to the facilities required
Service station	1 bays per pump plus 1 bay per employee plus 1 per 15m² shop
Supermarket	1 bay per 10m² public floor area
Tourist development	1 bay per accommodation unit plus 1 bay per employee plus 1 bay per 4m² restaurant
Transport depot	1 bays per commercial vehicle garaged plus 1 bay per on-site employee
Veterinary centre	3 bays per consulting room plus 1 bay per staff member
Warehouse/storage	1 bay per 100m² gross floor area
Workforce accommodation	1 bay per accommodation unit

XX. Amending Schedule 7 by inserting a new footnote underneath the table after point (i) as follows:

‘(ii) the local government may take into consideration any parking areas available in the public domain in proximity to the development.’

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 8 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.

Voting Requirement Simple Majority

Ordinary Council: Minutes

22 March 2022 Page 26

Item: 12.1.2

Proposed Naming of Reserve 41097

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

File Ref: D22/5572

Applicant

Esperance Tjaltjraak Native Title Aboriginal Corporation

Location/Address

Reserve 41097, the area informally known as Duke of Orleans Bay Regional Park.

P735#yIS1

Executive Summary

For Council to consider naming Reserve 41097 as Tjaltjraak Boodja Park.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council accept a proposal from Esperance Tjaltjraak Native Title Aboriginal Corporation (ETNTAC) to formally name Reserve 41097 as Tjaltjraak Boodja Park and to request Landgate to support the application of the proposed name to the Reserve.

Background

ETNTAC have submitted a request to the Shire to formally name Reserve 41097 (the area informally known as Duke of Orleans Bay Regional Park) as Tjaltjraak Boodja Park.

The translation of this name is Tjaltjraak Country Park, attributed to the local blue gum species growing within the Reserve. The original request from ETNTAC (Attachment A) was to apply the name of Tjaltjraak Boodjara Park. However, it has since been confirmed with Aboriginal Elders that their preference is for ‘Boodja’ (Boodja/Boodjara are the same word spelt differently).

Council initially considered the matter at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 23 November 2021, where it resolved (O1121-187) That Council lay this item on the table until the March Ordinary Council Meeting 2022 to enable for community consultation on the proposed naming of Reserve 41097 to be undertaken.

Consequently, public consultation occurred between 24 November 2021 and 25 February 2022. A total of five (5) submissions (Attachment B) were received during the consultation period.

Officer’s Comment

The name Duke of Orleans Bay Regional Park was intended to be applied to Reserve 41097 as outlined in the Duke of Orleans Bay Regional Park Plan of Development and Management (noted as Bulletin 138 dated March 1983). However, this name was never formally applied.

The proposed naming of the Reserve recognises the cultural significance of the land. There are currently a number of Registered Aboriginal Heritage Sites as well as a number of Lodged Sites on Reserve 41097 as shown on the below map.

P756#yIS1

The comments received to the proposed naming of Reserve 41097 are presented below:

Comment

Planning Comment:

Supports the naming of reserve 41097 as Tjaltjraak Boodja Park.

Naming the reserve would be a great step towards recognising the significance of the area for Aboriginal Australians.

Having a formal name for the reserve is also an important step as people will recognise the land for its significance, rather than just another reserve. By naming the reserve, it helps people recognise the significance of the land they are entering, and they are more likely to treat it respectfully

Submitter supports the proposal.

I think that it is an entirely appropriate thing to apply Tjaltjraak Boodja Park to this reserve, marking the continuity of local Aboriginal love of and bonding to this area. It is also a special place to me as a relative new-comer.

Looks forward to seeing new signage in the area.

Submitter supports the proposal.

I support the proposal of the Esperance Tjaltjraak Native Title Corporation to add the name of Tjaltjraak Boodja Park to Reserve 41097 for the purpose of Parklands Recreation and Limestone Extraction.

I believe naming parts of Australia with a symbolic reflection of the cultural significance of the first nation’s people who have lived on these lands for hundreds of years is more appropriate than some rich, royal white guy from France. I would love more and more places in Esperance and Australia to be named as their indigenous names rather than obscure and odd Frenchman’s Peak, Recherche Archipelago, Cape Le Grande and more.

It’s such an important start to reconciliation. Hideous really that these places were re-named when they already had names to start with. A good start to making amends. More of it please.

Submitter supports the proposal.

The intention to rename Reserve 41097 is quite understandable but questions the desire to include Lot 1 Alexander Road into the renamed reserve area.

Lot 1 was the original settled farming area in the Condingup district and so was fenced and cleared as an operating farm by William Hannett in 1890. The farming activity was continued until the lease was relinquished in 1962.

As a result of Hannett taking up the 500 acre farm, removing the original bush, building a cottage, fencing the property, re-pasturing, grazing his sheep, setting up gardens, etc, Lot 1 is far from being in the same condition as the original bush over the remainder of R41097. After the 70 years of farming, some of the original fence still remains, remnants of Hannett's Hut still remain, and other introduced plant species are present and propagating on the block

In addition to the above comments regarding the history of Lot 1, there seems to be very little, if any, blue-green mallee on Lot 1. The dominant original plant species that have regrown, since the cleared area began to revegetate, include Banksia, Hakea, Leucopogan, Melaleuca and some others. Consequently the relevance of this particular area for blue-green mallee is likely of minimal significance compared to the remainder of R41097.

In addition, your comment in your letter under sub-heading "Why is the Shire considering the proposal?" , where you state that one of the main reasons that the Esperance Shire is considering the renaming is because the Shire together with ETNTAC plan to develop environmental stewardship of R41097. Obviously the detail of this plan for R41097 will be of particular importance, especially to Lot 1, and to my adjacent farm (Lot 248). I am particularly concerned about some of the remnant introduced species on Lot 1.

Consequently, the specifics of your planned environmental management program for R41097, and particularly for Lot 1, may go some way toward alleviating my concerns regarding your intended change of emphasis for R41097. I would certainly be keen to see a detailed copy of the environmental plan and associated rehabilitation programme and timeline.

Submitter supports the proposal in part, though questions desire to include Lot 1 Alexander Road (which is part of Reserve 41097).

Noted.

The site is listed in the Local Heritage Survey.

Noted. However, Lot 1 does form part of the wider area of Reserve 41097.

The proposal only relates to the naming of the Reserve.

Noted – if an environmental management program is developed. The proposal it to apply a name to Reserve 41097 it is not changing the emphasis of the Reserve.

In response to the tabled community consultation for renaming the reserve 41097, Duke of Orleans Bay Regional Park, we are submitting an application for your consideration.

All locals and business owners in the Esperance Shire region are familiar and know the above reserve as ‘The Duke of Orleans Bay’, mainly known as ‘THE DUKE’.

We propose that you keep the familiar name as it always has been, ‘Duke of Orleans Bay Regional Park’.

Awaiting application for consideration.

The name is colloquially known although was never formalised.

Local Aboriginal names are given preference in the naming of any geographical feature or place that does not already have an official place name. Comments on alternative names have not been sought by Council as part of the consultation process.

Option One - Recommended

That Council:

1. Accept the proposal to formally name Reserve 41097 as Tjaltjraak Boodja Park;

2. Request Landgate to support the application of the proposed name to the Reserve; and

3. Subject to approval, install signage to reflect the name of Tjaltjraak Boodja Park

This reflects the majority of public submissions received and is consistent with the requirements of the Aboriginal Naming Guidelines.

Option Two

That Council:

1. Formally name Reserve 41097 with a dual name, being Tjaltjraak Boodja Park / Duke of Orleans Bay Regional Park;

2. Request Landgate to support the application of the proposed dual name to the Reserve; and

3. Subject to approval, install signage to reflect the dual name of Tjaltjraak Boodja Park / Duke of Orleans Bay Regional Park.

Dual naming of the Reserve may be possible. However, this option is not recommended as it does not reflect the majority of submissions received and the length of the name may be an issue. Council should also note that Local Aboriginal names are given preference under the Aboriginal Naming Guidelines in the naming of any geographical feature or place that does not already have an official place name.

Further, a dual name may be considered by Geographic Names as an intermediary step to transition to an Aboriginal name. The Aboriginal component of the dual name is also required to appear first in all references to the Reserve.

Consultation

Internal

Parks and Environment Team

Executive Management Team

Development Coordination Unit

External

Esperance Tjaltjraak Native Title Aboriginal Corporation

Landgate’s Location Data Maintenance Team

Public consultation for the proposed naming of the reserve occurred between 24 November 2021 and 25 February 2022.

The consultation process included:

· Advertisements in Esperance Weekender (14 January 2022) and Kalgoorlie Miner (15 January 2022);

· Media release on 25 November 2021;

· Frequently Asked Questions and Community Consultation section on Shire website (December 2021 to February 2022);

· Direct letter to stakeholders in the affected area on 7 January 2022; and

· Promotion across Shire social media and e-news.

Financial Implications

There will be some marginal costs involved with installing new signage within the Reserve to reflect the name.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Land Administration Act 1997

Policy Implications

Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia

The Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia includes a number of fundamental requirements for the naming of roads, administrative boundaries, cultural and topographical features. They include legislative considerations, external policies and cultural factors to ensure a sound toponymic heritage for future generations of Western Australians.

Aboriginal Naming (Attachment C)

A guideline to Aboriginal naming and dual naming of geographic features and places in Western Australia

· Any individual, group or organisation can propose an Aboriginal name be restored and recognised as an official name. Such proposals must be endorsed by the relevant Traditional Owner group(s) and have local government support.

· Local Aboriginal names are given preference in the naming if any geographical feature or place that does not already have an official place name.

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 2021/22 – 2024/25

L4 Actively engage and communicate with the community to ensure informed decision making

L4.1 Implement the Reconciliation Action Plan

L4.4 Initiate the next stage of the Reflect Reconciliation Action Plan

Reconciliation Act Plan

C3 Promote reconciliation through our sphere of influence

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

Environmental Considerations

N/A

Attachments

a ⇩.	Request to Name Reserve 41097
b ⇩.	Submissions
c ⇩.	Aboriginal Naming Guidelines
D.	Landgate Advice

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.1.2 Proposed Naming of Reserve 41097

Moved: Cr Flanagan

Seconded: Cr McMullen

O0322-054

Council Resolution

That Council:

1. Accept the proposal to formally name Reserve 41097 as Tjaltjraak Boodja Park;

2. Request Landgate to support the application of the proposed name to the Reserve; and

3. Subject to approval, install signage to reflect the name of Tjaltjraak Boodja Park.

CARRIED

F9 - A0

Ordinary Council: Minutes

22 March 2022 Page 69

Item: 12.1.5

Development Application - Outbuilding (Shed) - Lot 837 (90) Stable Road, Chadwick

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

File Ref: D22/6082

Applicant

Andrew Harris

Location/Address

Lot 837 (90) Stable Road, Chadwick

P1232#yIS1

Executive Summary

For Council to consider Development Application 10.2022.4946.1 for an Outbuilding (Shed) at Lot 837 (90) Stable Road, Chadwick.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council approve Development Application 10.2022.4946.1 for an Outbuilding (Shed) at Lot 837 (90) Stable Road, Chadwick subject to conditions.

Background

An application for planning approval for an Outbuilding (Shed) at Lot 837 (90) Stable Road, Chadwick was received by Planning Services on 1 March 2022.

Lot 837 (90) Stable Road, Chadwick is zoned ‘Residential’ R2 and has an area of 7128m².

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 landowners.

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

This proposal calls for a new Outbuilding to be constructed on the property where this is already a 308m² approved Outbuilding. The proposed new 96m² Outbuilding with a wall height of 3.0 metres and a ridge height of 3.6 metres. when combined with the existing Outbuilding (Shed) the proposal results in a total of 404m² of Outbuildings on a Residential zoned property where only 125m² (100m² plus a 25% variation) can be considered. As the applicant proposes a site area variation that results in more than 125m², this proposal requires the consent of Council.

Furthermore the applicant proposes a side setback variation with a 2.5 metres to the eastern side boundary where the standard requirement for the Residential R2 density is 10 metres.

The applicant approached both non-industrial landowners prior to lodging the development application and was able to provide the Shire with non-objections from both. As such advertising was not required.

This matter is now referred to Council for determination.

Officer’s Comment

The proposed site area for Outbuildings far exceeds the standard maximum of 100m² for Residential zoned properties, and the 125 m² maximum variation with a total of 404m² proposed which requires the consent of Council.

The applicant has indicated that the proposed Outbuilding is for domestic storage, notably for a vehicle, motorbikes and similar items. The existing Outbuilding is for vehicle storage and a workshop for the landowners woodworking/metalworking hobby.

The proposed new Outbuilding will have a wall height of 3.0 metres and a ridge height of 3.6 meters both of which comply with the provisions of LPP: Outbuildings.

In regards to the side setback variation, taken separately from the proposed height variation this could have been determined under delegated authority, however when included with an application with building heights exceeding the maximum variations the consent of Council is still required. It should be noted however that it is very common for Outbuildings to be placed in close proximity to the side and rear boundaries of Residential properties to maximise the available area of useable land. Planning Officers raise no objection to the proposed side setback variation.

The officer’s recommendation is for approval of the proposed Outbuilding (Shed) as the location and orientation of the proposed outbuilding will minimize impact on the locality and adjoining landowners. This is primarily due to the proposed Outbuilding being located at the rear of the property behind the dwelling on the property which will help conceal the Outbuilding from view. The applicant’s justification that the proposed Outbuilding is for a combination of domestic storage and storage of vehicles is considered acceptable.

Consultation

As the applicant obtained non-objections from the two (2) adjoining residential landowners and provided these to the Shire as part of the development application, advertising was not undertaken to these landowners.

The rear landowner is Co-operative Bulk Handling Pty Ltd (CBH), specifically their Chadwick Grain Receival Site. As the proposal does not impact the operation of this site, referral to CBH was deemed unnecessary.

Financial Implications

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

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

The statutory implications arising from this report are:

· Planning and Development Act 2005

· Local Planning Scheme No. 24

· Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

Policy Implications

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

Strategic Implications

Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027

Built Environment

New developments that enhance the existing built environment

Encourage innovation and support new development

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a ⇩.

Plans

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.1.5 Development Application - Outbuilding (Shed) - Lot 837 (90) Stable Road, Chadwick

Moved: Cr Horan

Seconded: Cr O'Donnell

O0322-057

Council Resolution

That Council approve Development Application 10.2022.4946.1 for an Outbuilding (Shed) at Lot 837 (90) Stable Road, Chadwick, 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

F9 - A0

Ordinary Council: Minutes

22 March 2022 Page 78

Item: 12.1.6

Development Application - Change of Use - Dwelling to Holiday House - Lot 716 (35) Twilight Beach Road, West Beach

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

Cr Graham declared an interest in this item.

File Ref: D22/6189

Applicant

J Whitman

Location/Address

Lot 716 (35) Twilight Beach Road, West Beach

P1392#yIS1

Executive Summary

That Council consider Development Application 10.2021.4886.1 for a Change of Use for the existing Dwelling to a Holiday House at Lot 716 (35) Twilight Beach Road, West Beach.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council approve Development Application 10.2021.4886.1 for a Change of Use for the existing Dwelling to a Holiday House at Lot 716 (35) Twilight Beach Road, West Beach subject to conditions.

Background

Planning Services received a Development Application for a Change of Use of the existing Dwelling to a Holiday House at Lot 716 (35) Twilight Beach Road, West Beach on 5 December 2021.

Holiday House is an ‘A’ use in the Scheme, and has a mandatory advertising requirement to landowners that may be affected by the proposal. In this instance it was determined that all adjoining landowners would be impacted by the proposal and should be notified.

Advertising was undertaken between 6 December 2021 and 4 January 2022 with two (2) objections being received.

The application was put to Council at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 22 February 2022, where Council resolved as follows:

That Council lay Development Application 10.2021.4886.1 for a Change of Use for the existing Dwelling to a Holiday House at Lot 716 (35) Twilight Beach Road, West Beach on the table pending confirmation that laundry facilities have been provided in accordance with the NCC 2016 Building Code of Australia – Volume Two and the Health Act (Laundries and Bathrooms) Regulations.

The applicant has since provided adequate proof to Planning Officers of provision of appropriate laundry facilities, and as such the application is returned to Council for determination.

Officer’s Comment

Lot 716 (35) Twilight Beach Road, West Beach is zoned Residential R12.5 with a lot size of 815m² and is not affected by any special control areas. It is in a declared bushfire prone area.

A Bushfire Attack Level assessment has not been requested as part of this application due to a Bushfire Attack Level assessment being previously submitted as part of a recent application for the dwelling.

Holiday House means a Single Dwelling on one lot used to provide short term accommodation but does not include a bed and breakfast. Short term accommodation means temporary accommodation either provided continuously or from time to time with no guest accommodated for periods tolling more than three (3) months in any twelve (12) month period.

The relevant objective of the Residential zone in this instance is to provide for a range of non-residential uses, which are compatible with and complementary to residential development.

Of the two (2) objections, it is noted that there is a degree of separation between Lot 716 (35) Twilight Beach Road and the properties owned by the objectors which will assist in mitigating some issues. Lot 714 (37) Twilight Beach Road (Jeffreys) is separated from Lot 716 (35) Twilight Beach Road by an unconstructed Public Access Way (Lot 715), and Lot 718 (31) Twilight Beach Road (Mottershead) is separated from Lot 716 (35) Twilight Beach Road by an 810m²undeveloped property designated as Lot 717 (33) Twilight Beach Road.

The objections received to the application were on the following grounds:

Objection:	Planning Comment:
Lack of screening/fencing.	Noted. Boundary fencing falls under the Dividing Fences Act 1961, and is not a matter for the Shire unless a variation is proposed to the Local Laws related to Fencing.
Proximity of the building to the boundary.	Noted. The existing building complies with the side setback requirements under the Residential Design Codes, and furthermore adjoins an unconstructed public access way which reduces setback requirements by 50%.
Small size of the building.	Noted. There is no minimum or maximum size for a Single House in Western Australia. Nor is there a minimum or maximum size for a Holiday House. A larger house has been approved on the property but has yet to be constructed, with the area to be used as a holiday house originally meant to serve as a studio/granny flat. As such this is not considered to be valid grounds of objection.
Lack of on-site supervision, security and privacy.	Noted. The property manager lives nearby and will be responsible for the handling of any issues that arise on the property including problem tenants. Should the property manager not be available, an alternate manager is to be nominated to handle any complaints or concerns relating to the property.
Noise and amenity impact.	Noted. It is acknowledged that noise and amenity impact from holiday houses can be an issue. Noise was one of the primary reasons why the Shire adopted Local Planning Policy: Holiday Homes to ensure that a local caretaker was provided for Holiday House applications where the landowner themselves may not be able to respond to any issue or complaint arising from the activity including excessive noise.
Fire risk from fire pit.	Noted. This matter would need to be dealt with by the property manager. If the fire pit remains, care will need to be taken by guests when operating the fire pit so as to not cause nuisance or risk. If the fire pit is of the type to require an open flame, the property manager will also need to ensure that guests are aware of restricted burning periods and day where a total fire ban is declared.
Parking and access.	Noted. The section this property on is a slip road with a limited width pavement. Situations may arise which limit traffic flows.

Given the investment of the applicant in providing infrastructure in accordance to the wishes of Council, it is the position of Planning Officers that the proposed Change of Use – Dwelling to Holiday House can be supported so long as it is adequately managed.

Option One

That Council approve Development Application 10.2021.4886.1 for a Change of Use for the existing Dwelling to a Holiday House at Lot 716 (35) Twilight Beach Road, West Beach subject to conditions.

Option Two – Not Recommended

That Council refuse Development Application 10.2021.4886.1 for a Change of Use for the existing Dwelling to a Holiday House at Lot 716 (35) Twilight Beach Road, West Beach for the following reasons:

1. Amenity impact specifically the social impacts of the development on the adjoining property; and

2. Insufficient road width for parking of vehicles to maintain safe access and egress to the site.

This option is not recommended by officers as the applicant has made considerable efforts to comply with requirements, including undertaking property upgrades, to achieve the requisite approval.

Consultation

Advertising was undertaken between 6 December 2021 and the 4 January 2022 with two (2) objections being received.

Financial Implications

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

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Local Planning Scheme No. 24

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

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

Policy Implications

Local Planning Policy: Holiday Homes

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 ⇩.	Objection (Jeffreys)
b ⇩.	Objection (Mottershead)
c ⇩.	Application for Development Approval
d ⇩.	Supporting Letter from Applicant

Cr Graham declared a financial interest and left the Chamber at 4:37pm.

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.1.6 Development Application - Change of Use - Dwelling to Holiday House - Lot 716 (35) Twilight Beach Road, West Beach

Officers Recommendation

That Council approve Development Application 10.2021.4886.1 for a Change of Use for the existing Dwelling to a Holiday House at Lot 716 (35) Twilight Beach Road, West Beach subject to the following conditions:

1. The land and buildings the subject of this approval shall be used for the purposes of Dwelling and Holiday 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 Schedule 1 – Definitions of LPS 24 and Appendix 1 of the Residential Design Codes):

· Dwelling means 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.

· Holiday House means a single dwelling on one lot used to provide short-term accommodation but does not include a bed and breakfast;

2. The approved Holiday House must not display a sign exceeding 0.2 square metres in area.

3. Lighting to assist evacuation and smoke alarms must be hard wired to mains power and be installed in the rooms and associated areas in accordance with Part 3.7 of the Building Code of Australia.

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 (Building Services).

6. 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.

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

8. This planning approval relates to the land the subject of the application and the applicant only, and cannot be assigned to any other person or transferred to any other property or premises.

9. In the event that the Manager is unavailable or unable to respond to complaints and issues in a timely manner, an alternate manager is to be nominated to handle any complaints or concerns relating to the property.

10. A copy of the Holiday Home Management Plan is to be provided to the adjoining landowners.

AND the following advice notes:

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

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

5. 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.

6. Due to issues surrounding control of animals in unfamiliar environments and the lack of boundary fencing, use of the property as a ‘petsit’ or animal inclusive holiday house is not recommended.

7. In accordance with National Construction Code 2019 Volume Two - Part 3.8.3 – Access to clothes washing facilities are required for all occupants.

MOTION

Moved: Cr Obourne

Seconded: Cr de Haas

O0322-058

Council Resolution

That Council approve Development Application 10.2021.4886.1 for a Change of Use for the existing Dwelling to a Holiday House at Lot 716 (35) Twilight Beach Road, West Beach subject to the following conditions:

· Dwelling means 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.

· Holiday House means a single dwelling on one lot used to provide short-term accommodation but does not include a bed and breakfast;

2. The approved Holiday House must not display a sign exceeding 0.2 square metres in area.

3. Lighting to assist evacuation and smoke alarms must be hard wired to mains power and be installed in the rooms and associated areas in accordance with Part 3.7 of the Building Code of Australia.

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 (Building Services).

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

8. This planning approval relates to the land the subject of the application and the applicant only, and cannot be assigned to any other person or transferred to any other property or premises.

10. A copy of the Holiday Home Management Plan is to be provided to the adjoining landowners.

11. That the fire pit be removed before the first guests stay at the property

AND the following advice notes:

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

2. 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.

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

5. 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.

7. In accordance with National Construction Code 2019 Volume Two - Part 3.8.3 – Access to clothes washing facilities are required for all occupants.

CARRIED

F8 - A0

Reason: Council wanted to ensure that the fire pit was not left on the property and therefore not able to be used.

Cr Graham returned to the Chamber at 4:44pm.

Ordinary Council: Minutes

22 March 2022 Page 97

Item: 12.1.7

Adoption of Compliance and Enforcement Policy

Author/s	Holly Phillips	Director External Services
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Chief Executive Officer

File Ref: D22/6292

Applicant

Internal

Location/Address

N/A

Executive Summary

For Council to consider the adoption of a Compliance and Enforcement Policy (the Policy) to guide compliance and enforcement actions for the Shire.

Recommendation in Brief

For Council to adopt the Compliance Enforcement Policy, and to proactively educate the community on compliance and enforcement requirements. Further, the report recommends Council resolve an administrative anomaly in relation to written directions issued by the Chief Executive Officer.

Background

At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 20 September 2021, Council requested officers to prepare a briefing for the incoming Council on current compliance practices to guide the future development of the Policy for the Shire.

On 14 December 2021, Council received a briefing from officers regarding activities, and considered current approaches and opportunities to resolve non-compliances. On 15 February 2022, Council received a further briefing from officers, and workshopped the Policy inclusions.

The applicable Policy has since been updated and is provided for Council’s consideration and adoption.

Officer’s Comment

The Shire has enhanced its compliance and enforcement practices in various ways over the past eight (8) years. Compliance functions are generally undertaken by officers spread across various statutory functions, with the additional support of one (1) part time compliance officer.

The Shire’s regulatory responsibilities apply to both illegal activities and alleged illegal activities. Compliance issues span the areas of Building Services, Planning Services, Environmental Health Services, Rangers, and Development and Statutory Services.

Effective compliance and enforcement activities are critical for improving amenity and minimising harm to health, welfare, safety, property and the environment across the Esperance community. Officers are tasked with a complex decision-making process and justifiable considerations are required to balance competing public interests and priorities with statutory obligations.

Between 2013 and 2021, officers carried out 1,469 investigations into various non-compliances across the Shire with the majority of investigations resolved in less than 30 days. Most offences were resolved through a process of communication, education and information provision.

P1618#yIS1

However, 7.5 per cent (111) of investigations remain unresolved at this time. This represents an increasing risk profile to both the Shire and the community if left unattended.

Some of these matters include:

· Unauthorised Dwellings;

· Significant Unauthorised Development;

· Unapproved Occupancy;

· Unauthorised Property Use;

· Condition Breaches; and

· Dangerous Structures.

A key factor in resolving issues is having a formal Policy to increase the use of formal enforcement tools, and/or to prosecute offenders when circumstances dictate. A Policy will also guide consistency and transparency in decision making, and facilitate proportional responses to illegal activities.

Officers are not limited by the proposed Policy in their use of discretion and in exercising official functions, as the full circumstances of each matter must be considered and acted upon in accordance with applicable legislation and standards.

Thus, the Policy is not a substitute for the Shire’s management practices, rather a workable guideline to underpin Council’s desired positioning on the compliance continuum.

Community Perceptions

Due to several factors, including historic resourcing levels and the requirement for legal representation in complex matters, officers have historically targeted mid or low-range compliance offences.

This has led to a general community perception of inequality and unfairness in the Shire’s practices. This is not reflected in the actual practice of officers who operate with considerable internal management practices and best-practice industry frameworks. However, it is evident that greater education is required to inform the community about their compliance obligations.

The Shire has made recent improvements in this regard including appointing a Client Services officer to drive continuous improvement projects across the External Services Directorate with a focus on customer service, stakeholder engagement and community consultation.

To extend on this, officers intend to undertake a program to educate the community about a range of compliance matters, including improving materials, advice and guidelines on common issues. This program will include workshops with target groups on how and why to comply in an effort to proactive address matters before they potentially escalate.

Delegated Authority

The Chief Executive Officer has delegated authority to issue a written direction under Section 214(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (the Act) to any person undertaking a development that contravenes a Planning Scheme or planning Control Area requirements, to stop and not recommence, the development or part of the development that is undertaken in contravention of the planning scheme or planning control area requirements.

However, this delegation does not currently extend to issuing a written notice in accordance with Section 214(3) of the Act. An extension of delegation will enable the CEO to give written direction to the owner or any other person who undertook development in contravention of a planning scheme or interim development order or in contravention of planning control area requirements.

This would enable the CEO to direct an offender to:

a) remove, pull down, take up, or alter the development; and

b) restore the land as nearly as practicable to its condition immediately before the development started, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

As a typical Direction Notice contains tripartite directions pursuant to both Section 214(2) and Section 214(3) of the Act, it is recommended Council resolve this anomaly.

Thus, the CEO would be able to, where practical, issue one Notice requiring an offender, to:

a) to stop and not recommence, the development or part of the development that is undertaken in contravention of the planning scheme or planning control area requirements;

b) remove, pull down, take up, or alter the development; and

c) restore the land as nearly as practicable to its condition immediately before the development started, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Consultation

The Draft Policy is the result of consultation with Council, the Executive Management Team and areas responsible for compliance functions.

Financial Implications

The financial implications arising from this report are Nil.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

The proposed Policy will apply to the Shire’s compliance responsibilities with respect to the following Acts (and any subsidiary legislation made under the Acts):

· Building Act 2011;

· Bush Fires Act 1954;

· Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Act 1995;

· Cat Act 2011;

· Cemeteries Act 1986;

· Dog Act 1976 1976;

· Emergency Management Act 2005;

· Environmental Protection Act 1986 (Public Health component only);

· Food Act 2008;

· Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911;

· Litter Act 1979;

· Local Government Act 1995;

· Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960;

· Planning and Development Act 2005; and

· Public Health Act 2016.

Policy Implications

The policy implications arising from this report are the creation of a new Policy.

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 2021/22 – 2024/25

L2.4 Manage development and statutory services.

Environmental Considerations

The environmental considerations arising from this report are the potential to provide timely and proportionate responses to significant environmental non-compliances through enaction of the Policy.

Attachments

a ⇩.

Draft Compliance and Enforcement Policy

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.1.7 Adoption of Compliance and Enforcement Policy

Moved: Cr Obourne

Seconded: Cr O'Donnell

O0322-059

Council Resolution

That Council

1. Adopt the Compliance and Enforcement Policy;

2. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to issue written directions under Section 214(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005, in addition to general administrative powers pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Delegated Authority Register; and

3. Undertake a community education program to proactively inform the Esperance community, businesses and stakeholders on the Shire’s compliance and enforcement activities and requirements.

4. Reassess all current compliance and enforcement action in accordance with the adopted Policy and address matters accordingly.

CARRIED

F8 – A1

(Against Cr Chambers)

Ordinary Council: Minutes

22 March 2022 Page 110

12.2 Asset Management

Item: 12.2.1

Request to Remove Street Trees - Randell Street

Author/s	Dylan Gleave	Manager of Parks & Environment
Authorisor/s	Mathew Walker	Director Asset Management

Cr Chambers declared an interest in this item.

File Ref: D22/6018

Applicant

Jeff Buckman, Randell Street

Location/Address

Randell Street, Esperance

P1753#yIS1

Executive Summary

For Council to consider the request from Mr Jeff Buckman, to remove all the Tuart street trees along Randell Street.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council:

1. Refuse the request from Mr Jeff Buckman, to remove all the Tuart street trees along Randell Street, as the grounds for the request are not sufficient for the removal of the street trees in line with the Shire of Esperance’s Street Tree Policy – ASS 019 Street Tree.

2. Request CEO to continue to monitor the trees along Randell Street and implement maintenance and community amenity works as required in line with the Shire of Esperance’s Street Tree Policy – ASS 019 Street Tree and the Parks and Reserves Maintenance Budgets.

Background

An initial Customer Service Request and then follow up letter was received by the Shire of Esperance on 22 February 2022 from Mr Jeff Buckman, requesting the removal of all street trees along Randell Street.

A stand of 35 mature Eucalyptus gomphocephala (Tuart) Trees are located on the Randell Street road verge (noting that some of these may actually be in the Hospital Reserve). The trees are located on the opposite side to residential properties on Randell and the property owner by Mr Buckman. There is also a very large stand of Tuart trees located within the Esperance Hospital Grounds.

The Shire of Esperance - Parks and Reserves manage and maintain street trees in line with the Shire of Esperance Street Tree Policy – ASS 019 Street Tree and Parks and Reserves Maintenance Budgets. The Street Tree Policy is designed to protect and preserve trees in streets. It provides rules to determine what species can be planted, circumstances under which they can be removed or pruned, and their ongoing management.

The Shire recognises the significant contribution made by street trees to both the aesthetic and environment aspects of existing streetscapes within the Shire. The Shire recognises street trees as a Shire asset and the retention of street trees will be considered as a priority.

The following are not considered sufficient reason for the removal of trees:

· The tree obscures or potentially obscures views (other than traffic/pedestrian sight lines);

· The tree variety is disliked;

· The tree variety is a nuisance by way of leaf, fruit and/or bark shedding or the like;

· The tree causes allergy and/or health problems;

· The tree is in the way of a non-essential crossover or verge paving option; or

· The tree shades private gardens, solar hot water installations or the like.

Shire of Esperance Parks and Reserves staff and Shire of Esperance CEO have meet on-site with Mr Buckman to discuss his issues with the street trees along Randell Street and the Shire of Esperance Street Tree Policy and maintenance options in line with the Street Tree Policy and Parks and Reserves Street Tree Management and Maintenance Programs.

At the on-site meeting with Mr Buckman the Shire of Esperance CEO and the Parks and Reserves Team agreed to implement tree maintenance works as required based on tree health and public safety on a small number of trees along with leaf litter maintenance works on the Randell Street verge and footpath, works are scheduled to be completed in the March maintenance schedule.

A follow up letter was then receive by the Shire of Esperance from Mr Buckman and some Randell Street Residents again highlighting issues relating to the street tree along Randell St and requesting the removal of the trees on the basis of leaf litter, nuisance and the species of tree is disliked.

This matter is now referred to Council for consideration and determination.

Officer’s Comment

The main concerns raised by Mr Buckman were the issues of leaf litter and nuisance relating to maintaining his property, gutters and verge. In line with the Street Tree Policy these are not grounds that support the removal of street trees.

This has been communicated to Mr Buckman and he was encouraged to contact council further if he wanted to discuss options outside the scope of the Street Tree Policy and current maintenance programs and budgets. Mr Buckman was also advised that works outside the street tree policy and current maintenance programs would have budget constraints and policy implications that would need to be considered by council.

Prior to the on-site meeting with Mr Buckman. A ground based visual inspection was completed on the stand of 35 Eucalyptus gomphocephala (Tuart) Trees on the Randall Street road verge was undertaken to assess the risk posed to road, footpath and verge users. The trees have previously been inspected as part of maintenance programs and at the request of the property owner in the past.

Quantified Tree Risk Assessment (QTRA) is an internationally recognised approach to informing decisions on whether risks are broadly acceptable, unacceptable or tolerable. The risk is tolerable only if it is as low as reasonably practical. Tree risk inspections are based on reasonably practicable assessment methods, and every condition that could possibly lead to stem or tree failure cannot expect to be detected. The Risk of Harm from the Tuart trees assessed in this inspection, calculated from the input fields for both occupancy and property, is deemed broadly acceptable.

The Tuart trees are located in close proximity to one another in a relatively sheltered position, early mature to mature in age, ranging in height from 15-25m, with an average Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) of 0.7m. Overall the trees display good vitality as evidenced by good foliage size and colour, reactive growth and wound response growth. Only a small percentage of deadwood is present in the stand, with an average diameter of 80-100mm in diameter.

The inspection identified one tree in decline (defoliated), and a number of trees exhibiting water shoots which can be an indicator of stress. One tree has been pollarded in the past, and the resulting epicormic growth is in excess of 200mm in diameter. This tree has two limbs within the Horizon Power clearance zone, and one occluded branch union that may be of concern.

Of the 35 Tuart trees, there are approximately 10 trees between the verge and footpath on the opposite site to property, there is also a very large stand of Tuart trees located within the Hospital Grounds. The management or removal of these trees may not actually help to deal with issues relating to leaf litter in the broader context and landscape.

Trees confer a wide range of benefits including habitat, climate control, and physical and mental wellbeing. The Maurer-Hoffman Formulae is a method for assigning a monetary value to a tree based on its amenity contribution. Based on this formulae, the average value of each Tuart tree in this stand is $15,945.

Following the meeting on site with Mr Buckman the Shire of Esperance Parks and Reserves Staff have been contacted by three individual Randall Street residents who have indicated that did not support the request from Mr Buckman for the removal of the trees.

Taking into consideration Council Street Tree Policy, the demographic of the area, results of the tree inspection and the issues raised by Mr Buckman the following recommendations have been actioned in line with the Shire of Esperance Street Tree Policy – ASS 019 Street Tree and Parks and Reserves Maintenance Budgets:

· Remove the tree in decline (defoliated). Action in line with Street Tree Policy with works scheduled in March.

· Re-pollard (or remove) pollarded tree. Action in line with Street Tree Policy with works scheduled in March.

· Continue to monitor trees for signs of decline. Implement maintenance works as required within current street tree maintenance budget and schedule.

· Increasing level of service to maintain clear footpath under Tuart trees and clean the street periodically.

The removal of individual trees are estimated to cost approximately $5,000 per tree so approximately $175,000 would be required to remove all the trees along Randell Street. This is not in line with the Street Tree Policy or the current Street Tree Maintenance Budget which and would need to be considered by Council for a budget allocation.

It is recommended that Council refuse the request from Jeff Buckman, to remove the street trees along Randell Street as the grounds for the request are not sufficient for the removal of street trees in line with the Shire of Esperance Street Tree Policy – ASS 019 Street Tree.

Consultation

Parks and Reserves – Asset Management

Financial Implications

The financial implications arising from this report are relating to budget implications to the 2021/23 Street Tree Maintenance Program budget. The requested works are not budgeted or resourced as part of the 2021/23 Street Tree Maintenance Program budget. If the request was approved by Council, a budget variation of an additional $175,000 would need to be included in the Street Tree Maintenance Program budget.

Statutory Implications

Nil

Policy Implications

The policy implications arising from this report are in relation to the Shire of Esperance Street Tree Policy Ass 019: Street Tree.

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 are in relation to the potential removal of established street trees.

Against

Attachments

a ⇩.

Letter - Tuart Trees on Randell Street - Jeff Buckman

Cr Chambers declared a proximity interest in item 12.2.1 and left the chambers at 4:55pm.

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.2.1 Request to Remove Street Trees - Randell Street

Officers Recommendation

That Council:

MOTION

Moved: Cr Flanagan

Seconded: Cr de Haas

O0322-060

Council Resolution

That Council

1. Review Street Tree Policy ASS:019

2. Lay this item on the table until after the review and endorsement by Council of the Street Tree Policy (ASS:019) .

CARRIED

F8-A0

Reason: Council wanted to recognise that the relevant Street Tree policy is subject to change under another report item and it would be premature to consider the item before endorsing and reviewing the policy.

Cr Chambers returned to the chambers at 5:09pm.

Ordinary Council: Minutes

22 March 2022 Page 124

Item: 12.3.3

James Street Cultural Precinct Development Plan

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

File Ref: D22/5877

Applicant

Internal report

Location/Address

P2145#yIS1

Executive Summary

For Council to consider endorsement of the James Street Cultural Precinct Development Plan and the next steps to progress the project towards delivery of the plan.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council

1. Endorse the attached James Street Cultural Precinct Development Plan;

2. Progress the following priority development packages to detailed concept design, business case and costing stage:

a. Package 1 – Cultural and Tourism Hub;

b. Package 2 – Goods Shed Redevelopment; and

c. Package 3(b) – Village Green.

3. Approve the CEO to procure a suitably qualified consultant to deliver the detailed concept design, business case and costings for the priority development packages, with the preferred consultant to be endorsed by Council prior to appointment; and

4. The detailed concept design, business case and costings to be presented to Council once completed.

Background

The James Street Cultural Precinct Development Plan was commenced in early 2020. Prior to the advertising period just undertaken, two rounds of comprehensive community engagement were undertaken to ensure the development plan met community needs and aspirations, with the draft development plan being presented to Council in November 2021.

The key elements of the plan are:

· New collocated facility built to house library, visitor information centre, volunteer support centre, flexible community and arts spaces, commercial hospitality offering, and museum (further work still needs to be done to determine if this is the majority of the collection or just the portion requiring a higher level of care than can be provided in the existing facility).

· Flexible approach to the Goods Shed depending on level of museum relocation to new collocated facility.

· Ensure a high degree of heritage interpretation throughout the precinct.

· Replacement playground for Grace Darling Park on Dempster Street (incorporating the positive features of Grace Darling Park).

· Provide a replacement performance area for the demolished sound shell to support more events and improved eventgoer experience.

· Retain Museum Village in its current form/location, with the option to relocate into the precinct core, pending a review of operations following initial precinct upgrades. Improve connectivity with the rest of the precinct in the meantime.

· Improve vehicle and pedestrian access and connections.

· General improvements to grounds surrounding the RSL building and ANZAC memorial.

· Demolish Sports House. Retain the CWA building in its current form and functions.

· Improve landscape outcomes including a potential new water feature.

The attached James Street Cultural Precinct Development Plan (October 2021) provides full details on the proposed plan along with staging and implementation recommendations. The limited remaining effective life of the existing library has been a major informing element within the staging process.

At the November 2021 Ordinary Council Meeting Council resolved the following:

That Council;

1. Receive the James Street Cultural Precinct Development Plan (October 2021).

2. Request the Chief Executive Officer to advertise the James Street Cultural Development Precinct Development Plan (October 2021) for public submissions for a period of 6 weeks.

The Development Plan was advertised for public comment on the 30^th November 2021 with the submission period not closing until the 14^th January 2022. The extended period available for submissions was due to the Christmas period, with a desire to provide the maximum opportunity for people to provide comment.

At the conclusion of the submission period a total of 20 submissions were received (see Attachment B). Of these the majority were positive, with a number of the comments relating to suggestions that can be considered during the development of business cases and following detailed design processes. The majority of these suggestions related to the museum, with comments also relating to community spaces, park areas (including trees) and parking.

Officer’s Comment

With the majority of the submissions being supportive of the Development Plan and the concerns that were raised having already been raised and considered during the previous engagement processes, no changes to the Development Plan are proposed.

The priority project for delivery is the Cultural and Tourism Hub, with a major component of this being a new library. With the existing library coming to the end of its life it is important that a replacement facility be progressed.

The Staging and Implementation section of the development plan splits the redevelopment in to a series of packages. The Cultural and Tourism Hub is identified as Package 1. In order to progress this detailed planning will also need to be undertaken on package 2 – Goods Shed Redevelopment and Package 3(b) – Village Green. While the delivery of these elements can be staged the initial planning for each element is interlinked.

A cross-disciplinary project team will also be generated to ensure that all relevant work areas across the Shire have input into this project. Input from external sources will be sourced as is appropriate.

Consultation

In addition to the significant community engagement undertaken during development of the Development Plan, a further 20 submissions were received from the public during the advertising period of this final plan.

The Director Corporate and Community Services, Manager Community and Economic Development and Manager Community Support discussed the development of the Belmont Hub with the City of Belmont’s Director Development and Communities to inform the process for moving forward from the current concept development stage.

Discussion on the next steps have also occurred with the Executive Management Team.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications arising from this report. The budget required for undertaking the detailed concept design, business case and costings will be presented to Council as part of the appointment of the suitable qualified consultant.

Asset Management Implications

Nil

Statutory Implications

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

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

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a ⇨.	James Street Cultural Precinct Development Plan (October 2021) - Under Separate Cover
b ⇨.	Submissions Received from Final Advertising Period - Under Separate Cover

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

12.3.3 James Street Cultural Precinct Development Plan

Officers Recommendation

That Council;

1. Endorse the attached James Street Cultural Precinct Development Plan;

2. Progress the following priority development packages to detailed concept design, business case and costing stage:

a. Package 1 – Cultural and Tourism Hub;

b. Package 2 – Goods Shed Redevelopment; and

c. Package 3(b) – Village Green.

4. The detailed concept design, business case and costings to be presented to Council once completed by the appointed consultant.

MOTION

Moved: Cr Flanagan

Seconded: Cr Chambers

O0322-063

Council Resolution

That Council

1. Endorse the attached James Street Cultural Precinct Development Plan;

2. Acknowledge the submissions received in relation to the James Street Cultural Precinct Development Plan and endorse the accompanying actions as detailed in the officer’s comments to be followed up in relation to the James Street Cultural Development Plan.

3. Progress the following priority development packages to detailed concept design, business case and costing stage:

a. Package 1 – Cultural and Tourism Hub;

b. Package 2 – Goods Shed Redevelopment; and

c. Package 3(b) – Village Green.

4. Approve the CEO to procure a suitably qualified consultant to deliver the detailed concept design, business case and costings for the priority development packages, with the preferred consultant to be endorsed by Council prior to appointment; and

5. The detailed concept design, business case and costings to be presented to Council once completed by the appointed consultant.

CARRIED

F9 - A0

Reason: Council wanted to reflect that under Attachment B, there are officer’s comments which give actions to the submissions which have been made, and it is important to endorse these comments.

Ordinary Council: Minutes

22 March 2022 Page 242

Item: 13.4

2021/22 Budget Review

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

File Ref: D22/6439

Applicant

Corporate and Community Services

Location/Address

Internal

Executive Summary

That Council consider adopting the 2021/22 Budget Review as per the legislative requirement.

Recommendation in Brief

That Council adopt the 2021/22 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 2021 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 accounts 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 $6,584 deficit by 30 June 2022.

Officer’s Comment

The Budget Review has been compiled in the statutory reporting program format 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 2021

3. The third column contains the actual result recorded to 28 February 2022

4. The fourth column being the predicted result to 20 June 2022.

Expenditure is presented without brackets and revenue is presented in brackets eg (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 balance budget was adopted by Council for the 2021/22 Budget. Since adoption, budget amendments have been presented and adopted by Council however this has still resulted in a balanced position.

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

· The net movement for depreciation is $1.6 million increase. This is largely the increase in roads and street capitalisation from the previous year. The budgeted depreciation for this category was not increased at budget time as it was unknown what the increase would be at time of budget adoption. 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 throughout the document. This heading will also include Loss on Sale if applicable for that area.

· Employment expenses has had an overall decrease of $93,000. Although a 2.5% increase across the board was provided to staff in December, there has been a number of savings due to vacant positions and difficulty in recruiting staff. Employment expenses includes other expenses besides wages, such as superannuation, uniforms, travel allowances, training, workers compensation insurance, recruitment costs, fringe benefits tax, salary sacrifice rent and leave accruals.

· Building maintenance program across all departments has had a slight increase of $72,000 resulting in increases and decreases across the schedules.

General Purpose Funding

· Financial Assistance Grant funding was $717,000 more than expected.

· Interest earnings has decreased by $66,000 resulting from very low interest rates.

· Mining tenements is higher than expected by $36,000, this is for 4 new tenements that have come onto the rating system.

Governance

· Employee costs for Corporate Support increased by $284,000 for performance based insurance. This is for claims outstanding and may not all be paid this financial year. This is partly offset by a reserve transfer in from Governance and Workers Compensation Reserve of $150,000.

· Employee costs for Corporate Performance decreased by $60,000 due to a vacancy in this area.

· Employee costs for Corporate Resources has increased by $43,000 for a Business Improvement Analyst assisting in a number of areas across the departments. This has been funded by a decrease in consultancy budgets for Corporate Resources, Executive Services, Information Management and Planning Services.

· Employee costs for External Services has decreased by $42,000 due to not replacing a vacancy in the area.

· Employee costs for Human Services has increased by $59,000. This is in response to high workload with a large number of vacancies and Employee Bargaining Agreement in process. Also included in this area is a salary sacrifice rent expense which is 100% offset with an increase in contribution income.

· In turn with high recruitment activity the recruitment expenses have also increased by $15,000.

· Employee costs for Information Technology has decreased by $42,000 due to a vacant position and an employee taking long service leave resulting in a lower leave accrual.

· Computer/IT costs has increased by $25,000 to cover operating costs for the new TEAMS setup. Offsetting this is a reduction in capital purchases for the same amount.

· Under Information Technology – Capital there is an increase in grants of $390,000 which is a Safer Communities Fund grant for CCTV. Infrastructure expenditure has increased by the same amount.

Law, Order & Public Safety

· As per budget amendment in January the Emergency Management grants has increased for Mitigation Activity Funding (MAF) by $34,500. This is offset by an increase in Fire Mitigation Works.

· During January Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) provided a reimbursement of $31,452 for Wattle Camp Track firebreak. This increase in reimbursements is offset by an increase in Fire Mitigation Works.

· Rural house numbering project has an increase in funds to $30,000 to complete this project.

· Funding from DFES for fire prevention has increased by $93,000 to assist towards maintaining fire vehicles and brigades. This cost centre is self-funded.

· New dog pound expenditure has increased by $102,000 due to contract variations. Building maintenance reserve transfer into municipal has been increased to equal the expenditure.

Health

· Environmental Health grants has increased by $100,000 for WA Primary Health Alliance grant for suicide prevention. This has increased a special project expenditure by the same name.

· Employee costs for Environmental Health has been reduced by $60,000 due to vacant positions in this area.

Education and Welfare

· As required, the accounting treatment for recognition of funds received in prior years has been processed. This brings what has been recorded as a contract liability for prior years into the Homecare Program on the income statement. This accounting process brings in the existing liability as increased Homecare Program Income, with an equivalent increase to the administration expenses by $368,000.

· A further reallocation of Homecare Employee to administration expenses by $321,000 is included in this review, resulting in a total increase to administration expenses of approx. $689,000. At the end of the financial year, a full review of unspent Homecare Program funding will be done, recording any unspent balance as a contract liability. Homecare is a self-funded cost centre and has no impact on the municipal budget bottom line.

· Volunteer Resource Centre has successfully received a further $84,000 from Volunteering WA that was unexpected. Therefore, grant income has increased with offsetting increases in employee costs and administration expenses. Volunteer Resource Centre was a self-funded cost centre however funding in recent years has been unpredictable. Council adopted budget in August with the knowledge that it will be assisting towards funding the Volunteer Resource Centre. With the unexpected additional funding since budget adoption the revised budget sees a smaller cost to Council.

Community Amenities

· Cemetery fees and charges has had an increase of $40,000 based on year to date actuals.

· Burial ground expenses have increased in line with income by $26,000.

· Grants, subsidies and contributions for Environmental Services has increased by $66,000. $50,000 is to fund the GVROC Climate Change Coordinator. $16,000 is for salary sacrifice rent contribution from one of the environmental officers.

· Special projects for Environmental Services has increased by $50,000 for the GVROC Climate Change Coordinator expenses.

· Planning Services employee costs have reduced by $51,000 due to vacant positions in the area.

· Planning Services allocation for the development of online application submission $30,000 has been reallocated to assist funding for the Business Improvement Officer resource, whilst this project is reviewed with Civica.

· Strategic Planning and Land Projects grants has decreased by $33,000 for the Dual Naming Project as the application for Lotterywest funding was unsuccessful. Subsequently the project will not be going ahead and the expenditure has been reduced.

· Land Project Survey costs $20,000, under special projects for Strategic Planning and Land Projects has also been removed as this will not go ahead this financial year.

· Waste Management fees and charges have increased by $390,000. This is based on year to date actuals for rubbish removal, tip entry charges and sale of recyclable products.

· Employee costs for Waste Management has increased by $76,000 as it appears it was inaccurately budgeted initially based on year to date and compared to previous years.

· Special projects for waste have overall increased by $44,000. Waste Oil relocation came in cheaper than expected and was reduced by $15,000 and the Strategic Waste Initiatives has increased by $60,000. This budget allocation is for operational review and capital needs assessment for the Myrup Liquid Waste and Truckwash in addition to Myrup Transfer Station assessment.

· Waste Management recycling expenditure has increased by $49,000 due to a large amount of green waste processing that has occurred.

· Waste Management maintenance has been decreased by $112,000 which is mainly for the capping that won’t be taking place this financial year.

· A reduction in capital expenditure for Waste Management by $60,000 due to the Truckwash pump shed and equipment not happening this financial year.

· Waste Management is a self-funded cost centre and has no impact on the municipal budget bottom line.

Recreation and Culture

· Employee costs for Bay of Isles Leisure Centre (BOILC) Administration has gone up by $34,000. It appears it was inaccurately budgeted initially based on year to date and compared to previous years prior to COVID-19. The impact of COVID-19 has made it difficult to estimate the wages for the centre with reduced opening times and number of patrons.

· Fees and charges for Swim School has increased by $20,000 based on year to date actuals. Expenses have subsequently increased by $18,000 for the pool operations.

· Fees and charges for the Dry area of BOILC have increased by $15,000 based on year to date actuals. Dry Operations expenses has increased by $10,000.

· Local Roads and Community Infrastructure (LRCI) funds of $550,000 has been reallocated to the BOILC for the plant room and heating upgrade as per budget amendment presented to Council in January.

· Due to the uncertainty of COVID-19 and its current and future impact on the Civic Centre, officers have done a review of show/functions budget line items. This has resulted in a reduction in income of $59,000 and a slight decrease in show expenditure by $5,000. Some shows have cancelled and the shows that do go ahead will have limits on audience based on the latest public health restrictions. The expenditure looks high relative to the income. This is related to deposits for shows delayed to future years. Some performances originally scheduled to the current year have been delayed to future year but have been funded in the current budget. Employee costs have increased by $43,000. The reasons for this include increases in levels for the Coordinator, and qualifying trainee, and 50% of an officer’s wage that was previously budgeted to Community Development, is now costed to the Civic Centre as their tasks are Civic Centre related. There is also the organisation wide 2.5% increase impact.

· Building maintenance for the Civic Centre has increased by $154,000 mainly for lighting upgrades and asbestos removal works when installing the exterior lighting.

· Coastal infrastructure Grants has increased by $300,000 for the funds received from Department of Transport for the Backpass Trial. Although received in the prior year it is not recognised as income until the current year. The offsetting expenditure has been increased by $300,000 accordingly to match up with the income. The Backpass trial has increased by $40,000 for additional works.

· Coastal Infrastructure grants also increased by $10,000 for the Dept of Communities funding towards the Beach Accessibility Project which was a budget amendment approved by Council in January. Special projects for the James Street Beach Inclusive Access has been increased by $32,000. As per the budget amendment the James Street Beach Cleaning work order has been decreased by $22,000.

· The reimbursements, employee costs and administration expenses for Coastal Infrastructure have been reduced by $30,000 as the Max Employment Work for the Dole Program will not be taking place this financial year.

· The capital spending in Coastal Infrastructure projects has increased - $110,000 for the finishing touches on the new jetty and $55,000 to complete the Lap Pontoon.

· Community Grant payments to community events has been reduced by $10,000 for the Escare Kids Fun Day that has been cancelled.

· Administration expenses for Parks has been increase by $19,000 for Covid-19 personal protective equipment (PPE) $9,000 and $10,000 for Land Tax on Adventureland Park.

· Park maintenance costs have increased by $37,000 for the completion of the pods at the jetty.

· The building maintenance on the Condingup Hall has increased by $43,000 for Horizon Power’s fee to carry out a power upgrade and replace the power pillar which had rusted.

· The new Self Supporting loan to the Esperance Bay Yacht Club for $750,000 is now reflected in the budget along with the payment to the Club.

· Employee costs for Sporting Complexes has increased by $19,000 which is mainly an increase in superannuation to cover the Graham Mackenzie Stadium cleaners that was not budgeted.

· Building operations for Sporting Complexes has increased by $63,000 of which $50,000 is the cleaning budget for Graham Mackenzie Stadium that was not budgeted for.

· Fees and charges for Sporting Grounds has increased by $65,000 which is for GSG Overflow Camping fees being higher than expected.

· Ports’ Lighting Project $25,000 has been included as per Council resolution in August with an offsetting Priority Projects reserve transfer into Muni for the same amount.

· The Eastern Suburbs Water Supply (ESWS) pump station/irrigation upgrade has gone over budget by $31,000 because of additional bore works that had to be completed.

Transport

· Licensing commission under fees and charges has increased by $40,000. This was in response to a review of the commission paid on transactions by the Department of Transport (DOT) after request from the Shire. DOT in an effort to increase the commission has adjusted their calculations. DOT will no longer cap the commission received when a certain volume of transactions is reached but will now pay the full commission on all transactions.

· As mentioned above a budget amendment approved the transfer of LRCI funds to the BOILC plant room and heating upgrade, therefore the GPS CORS Network project and grant income, $250,000 under Road Making Plant has been removed.

· Road and Street fees have increased by $64,000 for the Wind Turbine remedial road works reimbursement charge.

· Road and Street operating grants and contributions has increased by $340,000 and this is for rectification works paid by Boral Asphalt.

· Rural road maintenance has had an increase in budget funds of $500,000 funded by a reduction in rural road municipal capital expenditure. This is due to extraordinary harvest impact on rural roads recently. To fund this a number of capital resheet jobs have been reduced.

· Further to rural capital expenditure changes as above, there are reallocation of funds to allow for the purchase of bitumen equipment such as an emulsion road tanker and an emulsion tank at the depot for $245,000. The recently awarded bitumen contract to Bitutek included the purchase of this equipment from them.

· Road and street capital grants have reduced by $217,000 net. This included the removal of $300,000 of LRCI funds for the Town Entry Statements as per budget amendment to increase the budget for BOILC plant room and heating upgrade. It also includes the increase of $83,000 for LRCI funding for River Road upgrade.

· The town road municipal capital expenditure has consequently reduced for the $300,000 Town Entry Statements that is not happening this financial year as per the budget amendment mentioned above.

Economic Services

· Due to vacancies in Building Services the employee costs have been reduced by $14,000 however consultants has increased by $8,000 to assist with the workload.

· As per the budget amendment adopted by Council in November the Worker Accommodation Study is included in the budget under Community and Economic Development. Therefore grants has increased for the $20,000 Goldfields Esperance Development Commission (GEDC) contribution, special projects has increased by $40,000 and Priority Project reserve transfer into municipal for $20,000 is also included.

· Visitor Centre fee income has decreased by $33,000. This constitutes a net of decrease in commissions, DPAW passes and an increase in souvenir sales based on current year to date actuals and estimated impact of COVID-19 on tourism. With the expected decrease in DPAW passes sales the Resale expenditure has also been reduced by $21,000 to reflect this.

· Rural Services income has been reduced by $100,000 for the Esperance Biosecurity Association, offsetting this is a reduction in Wild Dog Control by the same amount.

· Shire Building management reimbursements has been included, $46,000 for workers compensation claim to LGIS for an employee. Partly offsetting this is an increase in employee costs.

· Tourism and Area Promotion fees has increased by $35,000 for Blue Waters Lodge rent as the rental of this building has exceeded initial expectations with the current housing shortage in Esperance. Likewise the expenditure on the building has increased as well by $38,000 to cover operating costs such as electricity, water, insurance and cleaning.

Other Property & Services

· Employee costs for the Depot has increased by $37,000. This is due to supervisor rate increases and the 2.5% increase across the board applied in December and a crossover period where an employee was covering off another who was on extended leave.

· Proceeds on sale of assets for Other Property & Services has increased by $205,000 due to the unexpected sale of 3 Mills Place. Any funds received in this account, generally for land sales other than Flinders Estate and Shark Lake Industrial Park is transferred at the end of the financial year to the Land Purchase and Development Reserve.

· Outside Works administration expenses has increased by $48,800. $9,000 is an increase in PPE for COVID-19 purposes. The remainder is for an increase in vehicle expenses based on year to date actuals.

· Plant and Vehicles employee costs has increased by $63,000. This appears to be a budgeting error for this area. The employee costs that go to this area is the three workshop employees who do maintenance on all of the Shire heavy and light fleet as well as the start-up maintenance each outside works employees do on their plant items each morning.

· Vehicle costs under Plant and Vehicles has been increased by $95,000 and is mainly an increase in fuel costs based on year to date actuals.

In conclusion the original budget commenced as a balance budget (nil surplus/deficit) with subsequent budget amendments resulting in still a balanced budget. After the Budget Review as at 31 December 2021 the expected budget position is now a small deficit of $6,584. This is a good result considering challenges with multiple projects and the continued uncertainty of the impact of COVID-19.

The Budget Review for 2021/22 was presented to the Audit Committee on 8^th March 2022 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 2021/22 – 2024/25

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

Environmental Considerations

Nil

Attachments

a ⇨.

2021/2022 Budget Review - Under Separate Cover

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION

13.4 2021/22 Budget Review

Moved: Cr McMullen

Seconded: Cr de Haas

O0322-071

Council Resolution

That Council adopt the 2021/22 Budget Review.

CARRIED

F9 - A0

Ref No.	Policy Name	Recommended Amendment
ASS 002	Private Connections to Shire Drainage	No change
ASS 005	Property Owners Contribution to Underground Power	No change
ASS 006	Permanent Road Closures	No change
ASS 007	Purchase and Placement of Memorial Seats	Rescind – to be replaced by new policy Memorials in Public Places
ASS 008	Road Verge Development	Update background to specify Shire responsibilities. Include paragraph in Obligations of Owners and Occupiers to specify responsibilities. Minor wording updates throughout.
ASS 010	Mineral Exploration within Road Reserves	No change
ASS 014	Delegated Authority to Approve Off-Site Signage on Main Road	No change
ASS 016	Guidelines for Subdivisional Development	No change
ASS 018	On-Farm Drainage	No change
ASS 019	Street Tree	Update wording to include references to public open space. Include other circumstances under tree pruning sections. Minor changes to wording.
ASS 020	Commercial Wildflower Harvesting	Amend title to include Native Seed Collecting. Include references to native seed collecting/collectors throughout. Minor wording updates throughout.
ASS 021	Asset Management	No change
ASS 022	Esperance Rural Public Toilet Cleaning	No change
ASS 023	Crossover Construction	No change
ASS 024	GPS Fleet Tracking	No change
ASS 025	Internal Drone (Remotely Piloted Aircraft System) Use	No change
ASS 026	Public Art	No change
ASS 027	CCTV	No change
ASS 028	Esperance Tanker Jetty Timber	No change
	Memorials in Public Places	New Policy

a ⇩.	OSS Position On Esperance White Shark Attack Response
b ⇩.	State Government Shark Mitigation Strategy
c ⇩.	Guidelines for Taking Sharks Posing a Serious Threat to Public Safety
d ⇩.	OSS Letter to Shire President

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

a ⇩.	Gibson Football Club Lease Amendment Request
b ⇩.	Proposed Adjustment Area

Author/s	Emily Hegney	Executive Assistant
Authorisor/s	Shane Burge	Chief Executive Officer

a ⇩.	Information Bulletin - February 2021
b ⇩.	Council Priorities Summary - February 2022
c ⇩.	Delegations Discharge - Corporate Resources

a ⇩.	Request for Additional Trading Days - Woolworths Supermarkets
b ⇩.	Esperance Chamber of Commerce and Industry Correspondence