Appendices - City of Bunbury

City of Bunbury 4 Stephen Street

Bunbury WA 6230 Western Australia

Correspondence to: Post Office Box 21

Bunbury WA 6231

Telephone: (08) 9792 7000 ◌ Facsimile: (08) 9792 7184 ◌ TTY: (08) 9792 7370 ◌ www.bunbury.wa.gov.au

Appendices Council Meeting 13 May 2014

Appendix MTBN-1 Withers Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 11.04.14

Appendix MTBN-2 Youth Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 9.04.14

Appendix CEO-1 Summary of Submissions Received

Appendix CEO-2 Results of Online Surveys

Appendix DCS-1 Landgate Current Record of Geographe Way and Latreille Road

Appendix DCS-2 Site Location Plan Lot 361 Geographe Way

Appendix DCS-3 Market Valuation Lot 361 Geographe Way

Appendix DCS-4 Unimproved Market Valuation Lot 361 Geographe Way

Appendix DCS-5 Site Location Plan Lot 1028 Latreille Road

Appendix DCS-6 Future Site Plan Options Lot 1028 Latreille Road

Appendix DCS-7 Scheme Amendment Map 50 Withers Crescent

Appendix DPDS-1 Scheme Amendment Report 71

Appendix DPDS-2 Location Plan Lot 3 #205 Ocean Drive South Bunbury

Appendix DPDS-3 Local Planning Policy

Appendix DPDS-4 Schedule of Submissions – Scheme Amendment 71

Appendix DWS-1 Hay Park Pavilion Project Design Brief

Appendix DWS-2 Hay Park Pavilion Concept Plan

Appendix DWS-3 Hay Park Pavilion Preliminary Cost Estimate

Appendix DWS-4 Proclamation Plan – Declared Roads

Appendix DWS-5 Cantwell Court Sound Attenuation Wall

www.bunbury.wa.gov.au

Telephone: (08) 9792 7000 ◌ Facsimile: (08) 9792 7184 ◌ TTY: 133 677 ◌ www.bunbury.wa.gov.au

City of Bunbury 4 Stephen Street

Bunbury WA 6230 Western Australia

Correspondence to:

Post Office Box 21 Bunbury WA 6231

Withers Advisory Committee Minutes Friday 11 April 2014 Committee Terms of Reference 1. To review and progress the Withers Action Plan. 2. Make priority recommendations to Council. 3. Receive information from Council and the Withers Community Reference Group to assist decision

making. 4. To provide stronger community relations in Withers.

jpezzaniti

Text Box

APPENDIX MTBN-1 13 May 2014

Table of Contents

Item No Subject Page

1. Declaration of Opening / Announcements of Visitors ...............................................................................1

2. Disclaimer ...................................................................................................................................................1

3. Announcements from the Presiding Member ............................................................................................1

4. Attendance .................................................................................................................................................2

4.1 Apologies ............................................................................................................................................2

4.2 Approved Leave of Absence ...............................................................................................................2

5. Declaration of Interest ................................................................................................................................2

6. Public Question Time ..................................................................................................................................3

6.1 Public Question Time ..........................................................................................................................3

6.2 Responses to Public Questions Taken ‘On Notice’ .............................................................................4

7. Confirmation of Minutes ............................................................................................................................4

8. Petitions, Presentations and Deputations ..................................................................................................6

8.1 Petitions ..............................................................................................................................................6

8.2 Presentations ......................................................................................................................................6

8.3 Deputations ........................................................................................................................................6

9. Reports .......................................................................................................................................................6

9.1 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................................6

9.2 CCTV Installation .................................................................................................................................9

Table of Contents

Item No Subject Page

9.3 Update on Laneway / Public Access Ways Closures ........................................................................ 13

10. General Business ................................................................................................................................. 16

10.1 Financial Reporting ...................................................................................................................... 16

10.2 Update on Withers Projects ........................................................................................................ 16

10.3 Community Garden ..................................................................................................................... 17

11. Urgent Business ................................................................................................................................... 17

12. Date of Next Meeting .......................................................................................................................... 17

13. Close of Meeting .................................................................................................................................. 17

Page 1

Withers Advisory Committee Minutes

Minutes of the Withers Advisory Committee Meeting held in at the Withers Action Group Building, Wilkinson Way Bunbury held Friday 11 April 2014.

Minutes Friday 11 April 2014

The Withers Advisory Committee has delegated authority as per Council Decision 34/14. Note: These minutes are subject to confirmation at the next Withers Advisory Committee Meeting.

1. Declaration of Opening / Announcements of Visitors

Cr James Hayward welcomed attendees to the Withers Advisory Committee meeting and thanked the Withers Action Group for the use of their premises. The Committee Members and City staff were introduced, Cr Cook attendance was acknowledged.

2. Disclaimer All persons present are advised that the proceedings of this meeting will be recorded for record keeping purposes and to ensure accuracy in the minute taking process.

3. Announcements from the Presiding Member

Cr James Hayward advised that the meeting was open to the Public but not a public meeting and explained the structure of the meeting as per Council’s Standing Orders. Cr James Hayward thanked and acknowledged the South West Police for bringing the Mounted Section to Withers last week. Cr James Hayward addressed the committee and a summary is below:- This is the Committee member’s time to shine. The WAC members are Community Leaders for Withers because they are making decisions on how the Withers Action Plan monies are spent. Each have been charged with the responsibility of spending money and finding the best path forward to see the aspirations of this community achieved. Nobody else can make these decisions. It is up to the Committee members to discover individual strengths, to harness those strengths to achieve the best outcomes of the community. We can’t fail at doing this, it’s too important, we won’t fail. We have started to get some momentum on the ground, some projects have commenced. Cr James Hayward urged all of the Committee to work together in unity to achieve the best outcomes for the community.

11 April 2014 Minutes – Withers Advisory Committee ______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

4. Attendance

Present:

Member Name Representing

Cr James Hayward Presiding Member

Cr Jaysen Miguel City of Bunbury Council

Douglas Fimister Withers Action Group

Mary Dunlop Withers Action Group

Ken Warnes Acting Convenor Withers Action Group

Joanna Hugues-Dit-Ciles Community Member

Jayden Prosser Community Member

Ex-officio Members:

Member Name Representing

Phil Harris Director Works and Services

Support Staff:

Name Title

James Shepherd Manager Civil and Open Space Operations

Alison Baker (Minute Taker) Executive Officer Works and Services

4.1 Apologies

Cr Michelle Steck

4.2 Approved Leave of Absence

5. Declaration of Interest

Members should fill in Disclosure of Interest forms for items in which they have a financial, proximity or impartiality interest and forward these to the Presiding Member before the meeting commences.

Section 5.60A: “a person has a financial interest in a matter if it is reasonable to expect that the matter will, if dealt with by the local government, or an employee or committee of the local government or member of the council of the local government, in a particular way, result in a financial gain, loss, benefit or detriment for the person.” Section 5.60B: “a person has a proximity interest in a matter if the matter concerns –

(a) a proposed change to a planning scheme affecting land that adjoins the person’s land; or

(b) a proposed change to the zoning or use of land that adjoins the person’s land; or


Page 3

(c) a proposed development (as defined in section 5.63(5)) of land that adjoins the person’s land.”

Regulation 34C (Impartiality): “interest means an interest that could, or could reasonably be perceived to, adversely affect the impartiality of the person having the interest and includes an interest arising from kinship, friendship or membership of an association.”

Outcome – Withers Advisory Committee 11 April 2014 Mr Doug Fimister declared an impartiality interest in Item 9.3 Update on Laneway / Public Access Ways closures. Mr Fimister’s partner owns a property adjacent to a Public Access Way (A). Mr Fimister will remain for the discussion and vote on the matter.

6. Public Question Time

In accordance with Reg. 7(4)(a) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, members of the public in attendance at the meeting may stand, state aloud their name and address, and ask a question in relation to any matter over which the municipality of Bunbury has jurisdiction or involvement. In accordance with Standing Order 6.7(3)(a) a person wishing to ask a question, must complete a question form which is provided in the trays at the back of the public gallery and on the City’s website. The completed form must include your name and address and contain no more than three (3) questions. If your question requires research or cannot be answered at the meeting, it will be taken on notice and you will receive a written response and a summary of your question (and any responses provided) will be printed in the minutes of the meeting.

6.1 Public Question Time

Mr Dick Fearon, 28 Wilkerson Way, Withers Question 1: What is the current balance of the Withers Reserve Account? Answer: The Withers Reserve opening balance for 2013/2014 was $385,813. To date

$129,000 has been transfer from the Reserve. Depending on the outcome of today’s meeting further transfers may be requested. Council will be producing a full financial report at the next Withers Advisory Committee meeting.

Question 2: Why are the laneways closed by fences and not dealt with completely? Answer; Five laneways have been endorsed for closure with fencing while process to close

laneways continues. Two laneways will be closed but there is a process involving the adjoining landowners need to purchase the land, once that is completed fencing will be removed. Three laneways have underground services that require ongoing access via lockable gates and will not be closed permanently.


Page 4

Mr Ron Fitch, 12 Mawson Place, Withers Question 1: When will the CCTV be installed? Answer: This is a challenge for the community as the process takes time. Subject to decision

made at today’s meeting, will be a step closer. An indicative time of 12 weeks would be realistic.

6.2 Responses to Public Questions Taken ‘On Notice’

Sonia Dye (on behalf of Hon. Adele Farina MLC), 4/31 Victoria Street, Bunbury

Question 1: On March 18 this year Council was presented with a list of five projects from the Withers Advisory Committee with a total budget of $429,000. Council approved $129,000 to be transferred from the Withers Reserve Account which combined the 2013/14 $300,000 operational budget provides the $429,000 required for these projects. These projects did not include the CCTV project previously approved by the Committee yet today’s agenda indicates there is already $40,000 of WAP funding available and asks that a further $75,000 be transferred from the reserve. Given this financial year’s $300,000 has already been committed, where is the $40,000 already committed by the Committee for the CCTV project coming from?

Answer: The Withers Reserve Question 2: What is the total cost for each the purchase, installation and removal of the

temporary fencing erected on 2 April at the PAWs that will now be removed and replaced with permanent fencing?

Answer: The total cost is still to be confirmed due to the ongoing repair and replacement. A

detailed report on the cost of the erecting and maintaining the temporary fencing will be provided to the WAC when it becomes available.

Question 3: The agenda states that a budget provision of $50,000 was originally budget for the

permanent closure of the lane ways although it is now known the total cost will be $130,860. Does this mean the Withers Advisory Committee will now be asking Council to transfer an additional $80,860 from the Withers Reserve Account to fund this project?

Answer: No, the cost of fencing has been reduced with alternative products/suppliers

identified. Refer WAC Decision 22/14 of 11 April 2014.

7. Confirmation of Minutes

The minutes for the Withers Advisory Committee meeting held on 23 December 2013 and 14 March 2014 have been circulated. Suggested amendments to the 23 December 2013 minutes with Council’s officer’s response have been circulated and are attached DWS - 1.

At the Withers Advisory Committee Meeting held 14 March 2014, Withers Advisory Committee resolved the following:


Page 5

“WAC Decision 10/14 Pursuant to clause 11.1(b) of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders the debate regarding the Confirmation of the minutes of the Withers Advisory Committee Meeting held 23 December 2013 be adjourned until the next Withers Advisory Committee Meeting to be held 11 April 2014.” Recommendation A Pursuant to clause 11.6 of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders 2012, the debate be resumed in order for further discussion to be undertaken.

Recommendation The minutes of the Withers Advisory Committee held on 23 December 2013 and the 14 March 2014 be confirmed as a true and accurate record.

Outcome – Withers Advisory Committee 11 April 2014 Recommendation A was moved by Mr Ken Warnes and seconded by Cr Jaysen Miguel. Cr James Hayward put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s decision on the matter.

WAC Decision 16/14 Pursuant to clause 11.6 of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders 2012, the debate was resumed on Confirmation of Minutes 23.12.13. Carried 7 votes ‘for’ / nil votes ‘against’

The Recommendation was moved by Mr Ken Warnes and seconded by Mrs Mary Dunlop. Cr James Hayward put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s decision on the matter.

WAC Decision 17/14 The minutes of the Withers Advisory Committee held on 23 December 2013 and the 14 March 2014 be accepted and the minutes be confirmed as a true and accurate record. Carried 7 votes ‘for’ / nil votes ‘against’


Page 6

8. Petitions, Presentations and Deputations

8.1 Petitions

Nil

8.2 Presentations

Nil

8.3 Deputations

Nil

9. Reports

9.1 Terms of Reference

File Ref: A05937

Applicant/Proponent: Internal Report

Author: Phil Harris

Executive: Phil Harris, Director Works and Services

Attachments:

Summary The Terms of Reference for the Withers Advisory Committee refer to an entity that does not exist. The Withers Community Reference Group was never established although the potential to establish the group was subject to discussion at the time when Council were involved in the Withers Urban Renewal Strategy development. The error requires Council approval to amend the Terms of Reference and as such a report was presented to Council on 18 March 2014. At the meeting held on 18 March 2014 Council resolved the following:- “Council Decision 98/14 Pursuant to clause 11.1(b) of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders the debate regarding the Withers Advisory Committee Terms of Reference be adjourned until the next Withers Advisory Committee Meeting” At the Withers Advisory Committee Meeting held 14 March 2014, the Withers Advisory Committee resolved the following: “WAC 12/14 Pursuant to clause 11.1(b) of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders the debate regarding the Terms of Reference for the Withers Advisory Committee be adjourned until the next Withers Advisory Committee Meeting to be held 11 April 2014.”

Recommendation A Pursuant to clause 11.6 of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders 2012, the debate be resumed in order for further discussion to be undertaken.


Page 7

Executive Recommendation That the Committee endorse the revised Terms of Reference:-

1. To review and progress the Withers Action Plan. 2. Make priority recommendations to Council. 3. Receive information from Council and the Withers Community to assist decision making. 4. To provide stronger community relations in Withers.

Background The Terms of Reference for the Withers Advisory Committee was originally endorsed by Council as part of decision 350/13 as follows:

1. To review and progress the Withers Action Plan. 2. Make priority recommendations to Council. 3. Receive information from Council and the Withers Community Reference Group to assist

decision making. 4. To provide stronger community relations in Withers.

The Withers Community Reference Group was originally proposed as part of the Withers Urban Renewal Strategy and considered during the development of the original Terms of Reference for the Withers Advisory Committee. With the formation of the WAC, the composition of the Committee has representation from the Withers Action Group, Withers Community members and Elected Members. At its inaugural meeting, the WAC endorsed the following Terms of Reference

1. To review and progress the Withers Action Plan. 2. Make priority recommendations to Council. 3. Receive information from Council and the Withers Community to assist decision making. 4. To provide stronger community relations in Withers.

The error was noted by a committee member at the 14 February 2014 WAC meeting with a report prepared for inclusion in the 18 March 2014 Council meeting to rectify the error. At the meeting held on 18 March 2014 Council resolved to adjourn the debate until after the next Withers Advisory Committee Meeting. The intent of the agenda item is to correct a fault that was identified by Ben Kemps in the December minutes. Specifically the only issue is the fact that a WITHERS COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP does not exist nor was it ever established. The establishment of a Withers Community Reference Group was conceived when it was recognised that the two entities – the Withers Action Plan and the Withers Urban Renewal Strategy had overlapping benefits for the people of Withers. The Withers Advisory Committee has been formed to progress the Withers Action Plan. Council Policy Compliance Not Applicable


Page 8

Legislative Compliance Subdivision 2 of Division 2 of Part 5 of the Local Government Act 1995 deals with the establishment of Committees. Officer Comments Minutes of the unconfirmed December and February meetings of the Withers Advisory Committee have been amended to reflect the correct Terms of Reference. All future agendas and minutes will continue to reflect the existing Terms of Reference until the Council resolves to amend the Terms of Reference. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications Not Applicable Community Consultation

Not Applicable

Council Policy Compliance Not Applicable

Outcome – Withers Advisory Committee 11 April 2014 Recommendation A was moved by Mr Ken Warnes and seconded by Mrs Mary Dunlop. Cr James Hayward put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s decision on the matter.

WAC Decision 18/14 Pursuant to clause 11.6 of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders 2012, the debate was resumed on Withers Terms of Reference. Carried 7 votes ‘for’ / nil votes ‘against’


Page 9

An Alternative motion was presented by Mr Ken Warnes and seconded by Mrs Mary Dunlop to amend point 3 as follows:-

3. Receive information from Council, Withers Community and the Withers Action Group to assist decision making.

Mrs Joanna Hugues-dit-Ciles spoke against the motion:- The change is only semantics. The Committee consists of the Council, Withers Action Group members and Community members therefore all are represented. Mr Ken Warnes spoke for the motion:- Matter was raised at the Withers Action Group meeting. The WAG would like to be included not excluded. WAC consists of Council, Withers Community and Withers Action Group and the Terms of Reference should reflect this. Mrs Mary Dunlop spoke for the motion:- Understand that it is semantics but the WAG wanted to be recognised. Cr James Hayward spoke for the motion:- Agrees with Joanna in principle that it is covered but encourage the committee to support the motion. Cr James Hayward put the alternative motion to the vote and it was adopted to become the Committee’s decision on the matter.

WAC Decision 19/14 That the committee endorse the revised Terms of Reference:-

1. To review and progress the Withers Action Plan. 2. Make priority recommendations to Council. 3. Receive information from Council, Withers Community and the Withers Action Group to

assist decision making. 4. To provide stronger community relations in Withers.

Carried 7 votes ‘for’ / nil votes ‘against’

9.2 CCTV Installation

File Ref: A05937


Author: Phil Harris


Attachments: DWS 7

Summary Withers Advisory Committee Decision 7/14 deferred discussion on the CCTV project until the next round to allow for a tour of the City’s CCTV network and receive further information. This report provides an update on the CCTV project since the 14 February 2014.


Page 10

At the Withers Advisory Committee Meeting held 14 March 2014, the Withers Advisory Committee resolved the following: “WAC 14/14 Pursuant to clause 11.1(b) of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders the debate regarding the CCTV Installation be adjourned until the next Withers Advisory Committee Meeting to be held 11 April 2014.” Recommendation A Pursuant to clause 11.6 of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders 2012, the debate be resumed in order for further discussion to be undertaken.

Executive Recommendation

1. That the committee approve the installation of CCTV in :-

a. Uplink from Library to Stephen Street Office $50,583 ex. GST b. Zone one (Red) on DWS 7 at a cost of $64,833 ex. GST c. Zone two (Purple) on DWS 7 at a cost of $58,558 ex. GST d. Zone three (Blue) on DWS 7 at a cost of $46,170 ex. GST e. Zone four (Yellow) on DWS 7 at a cost of $55,493 ex. GST

2. Endorse the transfer of $75,000 from the Withers Reserve to the CCTV project.

3. Request officers continue to seek grant funding to supplement and accelerate the

extension of the CCTV network in the Withers area. Background At the Withers Advisory Committee meeting 23 December 2013, 9 (nine) projects that were able to be delivered in the short term were presented to the Withers Advisory Committee. The Committee endorsed the commencement of 3 (three) projects including this CCTV project. Works & Services staff have been working closely with Police, the City’s Community Law and Information Technology staff to investigate and develop a program for the installation of a CCTV network in the Withers area. The network would be hosted at the Withers Library with a wireless link to the City’s CCTV data storage and monitoring area in the Stephen Street offices and the Bunbury Police Station. The CCTV systems within the City are monitored on a limited basis with all vision recorded for review should an incident occur outside monitoring periods. Four distinct zones have been identified and reviewed by two independent consultants to confirm the suitability and cost of the proposed network. The cost of the four zones installed individually is $275,637 if completed as a single project with all zones installed at the same time the overall cost is reduced to $211,081, a saving of $64,556. The uplink from the Withers Library to the Stephen Street Office is required for one or all zones.


Page 11

Council Policy Compliance The Withers Advisory Committee has delegated authority to endorse recommendations or to amend recommendations subject to conditions as per Council Decisions 34/14. Legislative Compliance There is legislation covering the use and monitoring of CCTV networks Officer Comments Tours of the CCTV facilities were scheduled for four occasions during between the February and March WAC meeting. Unfortunately due to City officer having to attend fires the tour of 25 February did not proceed. Committee members were offered the opportunity to attend at other pre-arranged times. Further work has occurred with CCTV experts who advice that the number of camera locations identified in attachment DWS 7 could be reduced and better coverage provided with more appropriate equipment. The type, quantity and cost of the equipment has been confirmed with the WALGA preferred suppliers indicating a saving of approximately $64,556 by undertaking all four zones as a single project due to the larger quantities and single mobilisation. The City is investigating other funding options at a State and Federal level to supplement and accelerate the CCTV program in Withers. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications In accordance with Council Decision 34/14 funding is available within the approved Withers Action Plan Projects Available funding WAP $40,000 WAP (Ex Graffiti Wall or Reserve) $75,000 Grant (Unconfirmed) $100,000 The SWDC have been approached for funding to supplement this project. Details are being finalised with an update to be provide to Committee members during the meeting. Community Consultation

The following feedback has been received from Committee member Joanna Hugues-dit-Ciles

Construct Graffiti Wall – Stage 1 $60,000

As the Withers Committee all agreed at our inaugural meeting that the graffiti wall was not needed and certainly not a priority, could the money be diverted to more urgent matters such as more CCTV cameras and also towards maybe footpaths.


Page 12

Outcome – Withers Advisory Committee 11 April 2014 Recommendation A was moved by Mrs Mary Dunlop and seconded by Cr Jaysen Miguel. Cr James Hayward put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s decision on the matter.

WAC Decision 20/14 Pursuant to clause 11.6 of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders 2012, the debate was resumed on CCTV Installation. Carried 7 votes ‘for’ / nil votes ‘against’

An Alternative motion was presented to add point 4 as follows:-

4. The additional $75,000 is subject to confirmation of external funding. Mr Doug Fimister moved the amended motion seconded by Mrs Mary Dunlop. Cr James Hayward put the alternative motion to the vote and it was adopted to become the Committee’s decision on the matter.

WAC Decision 21/14

1. That the committee approve the installation of CCTV in :-

a. Uplink from Library to Stephen Street Office $50,583 ex. GST b. Zone one (Red) on DWS 7 at a cost of $64,833 ex. GST c. Zone two (Purple) on DWS 7 at a cost of $58,558 ex. GST d. Zone three (Blue) on DWS 7 at a cost of $46,170 ex. GST e. Zone four (Yellow) on DWS 7 at a cost of $55,493 ex. GST

2. Endorse the transfer of $75,000 from the Withers Reserve to the CCTV

project.

3. Request officers continue to seek grant funding to supplement and accelerate the extension of the CCTV network in the Withers area.

4. The additional $75,000 is subject to confirmation of external funding

Carried 7 votes ‘for’ / Nil votes ‘against’


Page 13

9.3 Update on Laneway / Public Access Ways Closures

File Ref: SF/2535


Author: Phil Harris


Attachments:

Summary On 1 April 2014 Council approved the closure of five public access way as requested in the Withers Action Plan and following the required consultation. On Wednesday 2 April 2014, City staff commenced installing temporary fencing at the five sites to affect the closures. More permanent durable fencing is proposed with design drawings completed and quotations sought. Executive Recommendation That the committee approve :-

1. The installation of the permanent fencing to the closed public access ways at a total cost of $130,860 ex. GST

Background The closure of ten of the public access ways (PAWs) was identified as the number one priority of the Withers Action Group. Following the required consultation Council resolved at its Ordinary Meeting of 1 April 2014 to approve the closure of five of the PAWs. The alternate routes were identified prior to the commencing the consultation process with the main concern during the consultation being the adjoining property boundaries in two of the PAWs where pedestrians will be diverted. Three of the PAW’s contain services that require ongoing access via locked gates. The service providers and Council staff will have keys to access and maintain the closed PAWs. The two PAWs with no services will need to go through the appropriate land disposal process which may take five to six months with all costs associated with Land dealings, survey and titles being borne by this project. Funds from the disposal of the PAWs will revert to the crown. The individual summary of feedback and cost estimates for PAW closures are

Jacaranda Crescent to Whitley Place (C) Alternate route: Jacaranda Crescent to Hudson Road path Issues identified: The portion of Public Access Way (PAW) between number 12 & 14 Jacaranda Crescent contains City of Bunbury stormwater infrastructure and will require ongoing gated access for maintenance purposes. The Whitley Place end of the PAW forms part of City of Bunbury Reserve – Lot 5449 Cost of fencing and gates is estimated to be $9,540


Page 14

Jacaranda Crescent to Wilkerson Way (D) Alternate route: Jacaranda Crescent to Davenport Way (A) or Jacaranda Crescent to Hudson Road path. Issues Identified: Owners of properties adjacent to the PAW (A) have expressed concern in writing and attended the office on several occasions with concerns of increased pedestrian traffic resulting from the closure of this PAW (D). The property owner has requested the erection of barrier fencing to prevent the ongoing damage to his property and unauthorised entries. Cost of fencing on adjacent properties on PAW (A) is estimated to be $41,120 Cost of fencing of PAW (D) is estimated to be $5,000

Davenport Way to Open Space (G) Alternate route: Jacaranda Crescent to Davenport Way (A) Issues Identified: This PAW connects to Open Space reserve with no connecting path network to either Hester Place or Poinciana Place. City of Bunbury stormwater infrastructure is located within the PAW and will require ongoing gated access for maintenance purposes. Fences can be erected at either end of this PAW to prevent pedestrian access. Cost of fencing and gates is estimated to be $9,540 Littlefair Drive to Crews Court (H) Alternate route: via existing road networks Issues Identified: This PAW has Aqwest water mains which require ongoing access. The PAW can only be closed by fencing with gates for access purposes. Cost of fencing and gates is estimated to be $9,540

Whitley Place to Hudson Road (E) Alternative route: via Whitley Place to Reserve. Issues Identified: This PAW has an ATCO gas main that requires termination. Existing solar lights will be relocated. Residents in the adjoining properties to PAW (F) have expressed concern at the potential concentration of pedestrian movements past their properties once PAW (E) is closed and have requested secure fencing and additional solar lighting be erected in this area. Cost of fencing on adjacent properties on PAW (F) is estimated to be $41,120 Cost of fencing of PAW (E) is estimated to be $5,000. The cost of the gas main termination is $10,000. Council Policy Compliance Not Applicable


Page 15

Legislative Compliance Closure of public access ways is subject to provisions of Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997. Procurement and installation of the permanent fencing will be in accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. Officer Comments The temporarily construction fencing that has been erected has only been partially effective as it is of lightweight construction and can be climbed and damaged. The fencing has been pulled down or damaged almost daily since it was installed. Neighbours also report people climbing the temporary fencing. The project has approved funding of $50,000 based on figures provided midway through 2013 on advertising and simple colour bond fencing costs. As the consultation process progressed and specific areas of closures and alternate routes were developed officers have been able to refine the costs of implementing closures. All costs associated with the erection, removal and maintenance of the temporary fencing are funded from the public access way closure project. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications All costs associated with public access way closures are funded from the Withers Reserve. Community Consultation Not Applicable Outcome – Withers Advisory Committee 11 April 2014 As advised by Mr Phil Harris, Director Works and Services the cost of the fencing has been reduced with alternative product/suppliers identified. Mr Phil Harris recommends amending the Executive Recommendation to:- That the committee approve :-

1. The installation of the permanent fencing to the closed public access up to a maximum of $40,000 ex. GST

The alternative motion was moved by Mrs Mary Dunlop and seconded by Mr Jayden Prosser. Cr James Hayward put the alternative motion to the vote and it was adopted to become the Committee’s decision on the matter.


Page 16

WAC Decision 22/14 That the committee approve :-

1. The installation of the permanent fencing to the closed public access ways up to a

maximum of $40,000 ex. GST


10. General Business

10.1 Financial Reporting

Mr Ken Warnes put the following motion to the Committee and was seconded by Mrs Mary Dunlop.

That the Committee endorse:-

1. Financial report be made available monthly. 2. Financial report to include breakdown of monies spent and how funded. 3. Financial report to include current available balance. 4. Financial report to be made publicly available.

Cr James Hayward put the motion to the vote and it was adopted to become the Committee’s decision on the matter.

WAC Decision 23/14 That the Committee endorse:-

1. Financial report be made available monthly. 2. Financial report to include breakdown of monies spent and how funded. 3. Financial report to include current available balance. 4. Financial report to be made publicly available.


10.2 Update on Withers Projects

Mr James Shepherd, Manager Civil and Open Space Operations gave an update on the current Withers Projects. Laneways Temporary fencing has been erected and monitored each day. Footpaths The path at the library has been completed. Littlefair Drive is underway. Four panels to be removed and replaced once path is completed to ensure there is no further damage. Devonshire Street will commence once Littlefair has been completed.


Page 17

Parks Tree planting with members of WAC occurred at DC Forster Park on 10.04.14. Des Ugle Park is progressing well, however some issues with vandalism. The footpath connection and installation of solar lighting at Moriarty Park will commence after Easter. Mr Phil Harris, Director Works and Services advise the following:- Grants The City currently has three grant applications with the SWDC:-

1. CCTV 2. Park upgrades – Moriarty, DC Foster, Les Wilson and Mason 3. CPTED Auditing Training for WAC members. Possible additional funding from the

Police.

10.3 Community Garden

Mr Ken Warnes requested an update on the Community Garden. Mr Phil Harris advised that the concept plan has been sent to the commission. This project is funded by SWDC and the City and is not funded by the Withers Action Plan. The project is expected to be completed by the end of the financial year. Mr Warnes asked if the location is the best place, it was suggested that a meeting be arranged with Mr Warnes and City staff involved in the project.

11. Urgent Business

Nil

12. Date of Next Meeting

Friday 9 May 2014 Withers Community Room, Withers Library, Hudson Road Bunbury at 1.00 pm

13. Close of Meeting

Actions Required after Meeting 1. Minutes of meeting to be sent to Council for noting. 2. Items to be raised for Council following requests/recommendations/motions by committee 3. Any other actions required - Nil

jpezzaniti

Text Box

APPENDIX MTBN-2 13 May 2014

Review of Elected Member Representation Summary of Submissions

SUBMITTER AND SUMMARY OF POSITION

COMMENTS

1 Alfred Leigh

Not opposed to the concept of reduction of elected members as long as the decision is put to the public via a referendum.

After reading the Council Representation Discussion Paper proposal which has been put out for submissions to the public. I have several issues with the proposed reduction of councillors that I think need to be addressed. These are my views with reference to the proposal: (1) Social media as a means of public consultation disenfranchises many people who cannot afford a computer and internet services,

especially people who are financially disadvantaged. (2) Proper consultation with the Community is best achieved through democratic processes. (3) Therefore, holding a referendum to determine the number of Councillors for the City of Bunbury, in the October 2015 Council Elections,

would be a fairer way for the whole community to have a say. (4) Reducing the number of councillors to eight would seriously undermine the representation of councillors per electors when compared

to similar sized councils that currently have around 12 councillors. (5) A larger Council composed of people from different walks of life will provide a diverse range of ideas, skills and views leading to more

healthy discussion and improved decision making. I believe the people of Bunbury should have the final say on the number of Councillors by referendum in the October 2015 Council Elections. So join me in pressuring the Bunbury City Council into delivering a fairer democratic process to the Bunbury community.

2 Kim Fildes I have just completed the “survey monkey” survey that was emailed to me as part of the Householders panel. Does this count as a “Full Submission”? Or will I submit a submission also?

3 Juliana Frisina

Supportive of a reduction to 10 councillors plus the Mayor

I feel the number of councillors should sit at 10 plus the mayor.

4 Mr K. Warnes

Opposed to the reduction

I have read the paper produced by the council for a reduction in councillor numbers.

The paper is less impressive if put into the correct perspective, i.e.

1. The paper keeps referring to wards, we don't have wards.

2. The paper keeps referring to the local government act for number of councillors, we are within the requirement, with 12.

3. The paper keeps referring to work load and number of councillors, I believe a reduction will discourage people to nominating for council

4. The paper keeps referring to the huge saving with the cost of a councillor at $37,840 pa! Scare tactics.

When I went to school we could read and write,. so with that skill I placed the amount of $37,840 into my calculator and divided it by the number of electors per councillor at this time and arrived at the princely sum of $3.21 per rate payer pa.

Next I worked the same figures with the new 8 member council and you are right we have the huge saving of, wait for it 11 cents per rate payer pa.

So, we have a well written paper to sell the rate payer the idea of less is better when the truth is more is better because to have 12 instead of 8 councillors at the cost of 11 cents is surely better.

The finial and not mentioned problem with reducing the council is, the increase in the city of Bunbury, Australind, Eaton and Dalyellup to one

jpezzaniti

Text Box

APPENDIX CEO-1 13 May 2014

super council.

I think, know the paper you have produced is biases and not a fair discussion tool for people to work with.

There is no reason other than power hungry people who want to reduce the number of councillors and thereby increase their power.

The argument is flawed.

5 Joan Birkett

Support for reduction to 10 councillors plus the Mayor

As a ratepayer I would prefer that the number of councilors be sufficient to represent the various areas of Bunbury more effectively.

At present, I feel there are 10 areas within the boundaries of the city:

Dalyellup, College Grove, Usher, Withers,S.Bunbury, E. Bunbury, Pelican Pt, Wollaston, Carey Pk and the CBD which includes Marlsdon Hill.

Each area has different concerns and needs. I know of only one councillor who is prepared to make a regular commitment to be available face to face to ratepayers on a weekly basis.

I would like to see more community meetings with councillors so that they can personally appreciate how residents feel about their immediate area as well as a broader view of how they feel the City should grow.

Since there are no longer any Wards within the city, it is even more important that there is a more personal contact between councillors and ratepayers outside the confines of the Council Offices.

If there were 10 councillors, this would ease the times when there might be illness or another inability to attend meetings.

When voting on a specific item, it is important that each member of the team, including those not present, casts an informed vote.

6 Elizabeth Thornton

Retain the status quo

I support the retention of 12 Councillors representing the City of Bunbury. To lessen would affect the type of people who represent us. As a rate payer I would like to see other cost-cutting than cutting the person/s that will be my voice on matters that influences decision making in Bunbury.

7 Mark Fields


I do NOT support the reduction of the number of council representatives from 12 to 8. I believe a reduction to 8 will not give a broad enough representation to the community. If reduced to 8, the main representation will be commercial & business orientated councillors, so residents will find it hard to get support in smaller residential concerns. My other concern is if reduced to 8 councillors, sometimes several councillors cannot vote due to conflict of interest, remove these from voting on these issues and you have a very small number of people making important decisions. I don't believe it will save costs, extra hours for the remaining councillors will probably see increases wages. I would prefer other cost savings measures introduced.

8 Roger Stubbs

Support for a reduction to 10 councillors plus the mayor

I accept that there MAY be a case to reduce the number of Elected Members from twelve to ten but believe that to reduce the numbers further to eight would not be in the best interests of the City of Bunbury. Bunbury is a key location which as it grows, will need to reconcile economic and development issues of regional, state and local importance with the desire of its residents to enjoy a good quality of life. To ensure that the best decisions are made, it is important to ensure that the numbers of elected members are sufficient to ensure that the diversity of views that exist within any community are properly represented and considered.

The expression of a diversity of views may produce robust debate with which some are uncomfortable but that is the very stuff of local democracy. The intention should not be to create a small group which agrees on everything, either because it is a homogenous group or because of peer pressure.

The suggestion that the numbers of Elected Members be reduced was first made at the time when the significant increase in allowances for Elected Members was foreshadowed. I seem to remember a comment that the numbers should be reduced in order that Council may more easily agree to higher allowances and to avoid any impact on the budget or adverse comment from the community.

This concern seems to be reflected in the Discussion Paper on page 4 when the cost of per Councillor is foregrounded. I would be most

disappointed if the numbers of Elected Members was decided on this basis. The most important thing, is to ensure that the community is properly represented. If it comes at a cost so be it. Within the totality of the Council’s budget, the savings in reducing the numbers of Elected Members is not especially significant. I have read the Discussion Paper and offer the following commentary.

General

In my opinion the Discussion Paper does not sufficiently address the issues of representation associated with reducing the numbers of Elected Members, a number of statements for a reduction being assertions rather than supported argument.

I am concerned that at least, part of the Discussion Paper has been prepared by “cutting and pasting” a previous Discussion Paper rather than presenting a current evaluation of the issues. For example, on page 6, under the major heading Changing Councillor Representation from twelve (12)

to eight (8) the discussion under sub-headings Demographic trends- and Economic Factors_, clearly refers to the debate that occurred in 2004 when Council considered a proposal to abolish the ward system. When considering this issue the Community deserves better than a rehash of a 10 year old debate. At the very least there should be a genuine attempt to assess the situation as it exists in 2014.

Matters under the heading Introduction

Paragraph two states that in 2004 there was a ratio of “1 Councillor to each 1,731 electors”. In the subsequent table the ratio of Councillors to electors in 2004 is given as “1.1731”.

Presumably the table provides the correct figure. There has been a typographical error which in itself is not a major issue except in the extent to which it reflects upon the care with which the issues associated with the Discussion Paper have been considered.

Matters under the heading Comparison with other local governments

The table provides some interesting statistics that suggest, superficially, that it would not be out of place to reduce the numbers of Elected Members. For example Bunbury has a relatively small area which may tempt people to think that the task of representation is not so great compared with others of greater area. But because of its regional importance, the residents of Bunbury are affected by issues and influences far beyond its immediate boundaries; export of coal from Collie, road transport and subsequent export of grains from Kojonup and beyond, the health of the estuary system, the impact on Bunbury of development in the Shires of Harvey, Dardanup and Capel, regional health services, transport links to south west tourist attractions and other government services provided at a regional level. (list is not exhaustive). Few of the Councils on the list have the same diversity of issues as those listed above. It may be argued that a number of issues listed are not the direct responsibility of local government but it is the local government and its Elected Members that the community relies upon to actively represent its interests in those matters. It is my submission that there must be sufficient elected members to ensure that the community is adequately represented and to take responsibility for the complex range of tasks necessary in Bunbury. The fewer the number of Elected Members the less likely it is that there will be Elected Members with a necessary knowledge of issues important to the residents of Bunbury.

Rather than the table it would be better if there had been an analysis of the representative “task” in Bunbury and an evaluation of the kinds of things Elected Members should be expected to do if those things to which Bunbury aspires are to be achieved.

Matters under the heading Financial Information

It is an Australian tradition to complain about the level of remuneration offered Elected Members at any level of government but those who are critical of the allowances offered at Local Government level should be comforted that the Salaries and Allowances tribunal now has some influence. I submit that the cost per Elected Member is not unreasonable nor onerous within the context of the total Council budget. The cost of an individual Elected Member should not be used to inform the case for a reduction in their numbers. If there were say twenty four Elected Members on Council then yes, but there are only twelve. To provide a context for the financial costs of Elected Members, perhaps the Discussion Paper should have included the financial costs of employing each of the Executive Staff members?

Matters Under the heading Advantages

Point 1

Effective or efficient decision making does not necessarily occur because it is quicker to consider the views of fewer people and decision making may be easier. Bad decisions may be made because a sufficient diversity of views has not been considered.

Point 2.

The council is not a football team. Team spirit and cooperation is far less important than mutual respect and a willingness to engage, with sincerity and application, the issues affecting the community. At times the robust debate which sometimes characterises the decision making process may present challenges and create a certain level of discomfort but it is through the robust testing of ideas through debate that good decisions are most often made.

Point 3

The current costs of providing allowances for Elected Members is not excessive or onerous.

Point 4

The ratio of Elected Members to electors is only one aspect to consider. What is significant is the nature of the representative task that each Elected Members needs to undertake. There are many challenges facing Bunbury and the task of representing electors is not limited to Council meetings. There is a need for Elected Members to serve on a number of community, regional and state representative bodies ranging from the Committees of the WA Planning Commission, Waste Management, WALGA and so on. These bodies are important for regional centres like Bunbury. There needs to be sufficient Elected Members to accept these roles and to perform at a high level.

Point 5

I believe that it is most desirable that residents should have every opportunity to consult with the representatives that they have elected. That is the cornerstone of responsible representative government and has always been the strength of local government, especially when compared to Federal representatives. Certainly the nature of that consultation may change through the use of social media but nonetheless the ability to consult ones elected representative is important. It is arguable that since the abolition of the ward system the ability of residents to adequately consult with Elected Members has been compromised. For example, the furore over the proposal to redevelop parts of the Stirling Street Arts centre may not have occurred if a properly briefed and local Elected Member had been consulting with residents. Similarly the criticism of the Council that occurred when it was discovered that funds committed for the Withers area had not been expended may not have occurred if a local Elected Member had been monitoring the issue.

Point 6

I cannot follow the argument advanced.

Point 7

Fewer elected members may be more readily identifiable to the community but will they better represent it? One does not necessarily follow the other. The issue is not who is better known or who gets their photo in the South West Times more often. The issue is how well we are being represented?

Point 8

Disagree, except that if the reduction in the number of Elected Members produces poor and unrepresentative decisions, then yes, there will be fiercely contested elections.

Point 9

Certainly there has been a trend driven by some pressure from Ministers for Local Government. It is open to argue that there are some who seek to diminish the influence and effectiveness of local government’s Elected Members. Argument would be strengthened by including examples to support the assertion “many local governments have found that fewer elected members work well.”

Matters under the heading Disadvantages

Point 1

Agree

Point 2

Agree. Especially in the absence of ward representation, it is too easy for pressure groups and special interest groups to “hijack” a Council by preparing tickets of candidates when the number of positions contested at an election is low. The existence of wards does to some extent provide protection from such attempts. When Councils are dominated by such interest groups then the diversity of views expressed is limited to the detriment of good decision making. For a time such an interest group may create harmony on Council, have a good team spirit and engender cooperation but the consequences for the community will not be good. Within a small group of Elected Members it is too easy to marginalise or ostracise any voice which offers an alternative view to the disadvantage of the decision making process.

Point 3

Agree, strongly.

Point 4

Agree.

Point 5

Agree, but as expressed in earlier points, the ratio is not the issue, rather it is the nature of the tasks required to be undertaken.

Matters under the heading Changing Representation from twelve (12) to eight (8)

May I respectfully suggest that the imperatives required by Schedule 2.2 of the Act have not been addressed with the necessary diligence. Here is an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing representative structure that has not been taken. See my earlier comments re the material under the headings Demographic Trends and Economic Factors which appear to have been cut and pasted from a 2004 report and are irrelevant. Perhaps the Council could consider if the current or proposed representative structure is adequate to engage with the following issues of which I am immediately aware (there will be others).

1. Notwithstanding the excellent streetscape enhancements, the ongoing decline of the CBD.

2. The impact of the expansion of Bunbury Port and its impact on residents.

3. The contingent liability for the City’s drainage system.

4. The unresolved issue of the open drainage system in Blair St.

5. The impact of coal and grain exports from the Port of Bunbury and its impact on local traffic systems.

6. Community development with the Withers Area.

7. Restoration of the “Cut”.

8. Managing the planning issues associated with Bunbury Farmer’s Market (it’s not fixed yet!) and the proposed Masters store

within the context of maintaining the effectiveness of the Australind By-pass.

Conclusion

I do not support the reduction in the number of Elected Members to eight. The Council should be sufficiently large, to undertake the task of representation effectively, to ensure that a diversity of views is represented, to avoid the dominance of special interest groups and to provide a check and balance against the activities of the Council Executive and Staff.

There are advantages in having a popularly elected mayor but there have been too many examples of problems occurring when such mayors are tempted to assume executive powers for which they have no legislative authority. A strong and effective Council with sufficient Elected members should provide the necessary balance to avoid problems. I believe that the Council should consider the reintroduction of the ward system as a means of increasing the accountability and effectiveness of individual Elected Members and of improving the opportunities for residents to engage with and consult a councillor. While Elected Members should be across city wide issues, it must benefit the deliberations of council to have ward representatives who know an area in depth. Elected Members who are ward representatives, when they take their oath of office, commit to serve the whole city. In the past some did not always do so and remained parochial but the current requirements for forward and strategic planning and forward financial plans limit the opportunities for such behaviour.

If the Council is concerned about the cost of representation then perhaps it may consider changing its meeting processes. To hold a briefing session, followed a week later by a meeting of a committee of the whole council followed a week later by a council meeting, each meeting considering the same agenda is an expensive and time consuming process characterised by much repetition. Is there a more efficient and effective way?

9 Hon. Adele Farina MLC Not supportive of a change unless it is considered as part of an overall review an re-introduction of the Ward system

This submission is made in response to the City of Bunbury’s call for submissions on its proposal to reduce the number of Councillors elected to the Bunbury City Council from 12 to eight.

A reduction in the number of elected members on the city of Bunbury should only be considered in the context of the re-introduction of the ward system.

The lack of ward system within the City of Bunbury has resulted in a lack of diversity within the elected members and reduced elector access to their elected representative.

I contend the City of Bunbury has failed to adequately engage the community on the question of reducing the number of elected representatives and should undertake further and more extensive community engagement before considering this question. Further, the City of Bunbury should undertake a thorough and public review of the re-introduction of a ward system before any consideration is given to the appropriate number of elected members for the district.

Even if Council determines not to reduce the number of elected representatives, Council should undertake a thorough review of the benefits of re-introducing the wards system in the District of Bunbury.

Summary

The key reasons for my position are as follows;

The current Council is not reflective of the diversity of the community of Bunbury, a circumstance attributable to the absence of wards.

Research demonstrates the ward system is the system that best supports the principles of representative democracy.

Council’s primary concern should be the provision of good governance that is reflective of the aspirations of the community and this is

best served by a ward system.

A reduction in the number of Councillors without the re-introduction of wards will exacerbate the narrow representation of the Bunbury community.

The vast majority, 93.5%, of local government authorities in Western Australia with a large number of electors, more than 15,000, maintain the ward system which ensures the best possible representation for their electors. Bunbury should guard the right to effective representation of its electors in the same manner.

The ward system is best placed to promote engagement with local government processes. Fewer elected members without the reintroduction of the ward system will further reduce community engagement and increase apathy within the community.

Wards promote diversity, encourage prospective candidates and encourage community engagement in a manner that supports effective decision making.

Justification

Any review of Council representation should have as its first and foremost concern the improvement of the representation of electors. The current makeup of the Bunbury City Council cannot be argued to be representative of the social and cultural diversity of the community it represents. For example, if we consider simply where Councillors reside, almost 70% of current Councillors live in just two suburbs in Bunbury. Also, just five of Bunbury’s eleven suburbs, less than 50%, are represented by a resident Councillor. Reducing the number of Councillors without introducing measures to improve representative diversity will exacerbate this issue. The reintroduction of the ward system offers an opportunity to correct this representative imbalance.

Wards support the ideal of representative democracy by improving the opportunity for community diversity to be represented on Council. This is true in terms not only of residency but also of socio economic and cultural groups. The increased connectedness of community members to their ward representatives improves the perceived relevance of local government to those sectors of the community that may otherwise feel they have no direct representation within their elected body. Wards have the capacity to improve the participation of otherwise disaffected communities in local government processes.

The at large electoral system requires candidates to campaign throughout the electoral district, an expensive and difficult task. The financial burden acts as an impediment to many potential candidates, leaving low socio economic groups under represented. The requirement to establish effective campaign networks throughout the broader community can be daunting, deterring many potential candidates from minority groups from pursuing election to Council.

Wards create a realistic opportunity for people to be elected to Council. The capacity to campaign effectively is more achievable within a ward than throughout the district at large meaning effective community advocates currently deterred from running for Council may well then consider their candidacy viable and engage in the electoral process. Wards do not just deliver great representative diversity, they also encourage broader participation.

The reduction of the number of Councillors without simultaneously reintroducing the wards system in Bunbury will further undermine the principle of representative democracy in Bunbury. Fewer elected positions with an at large electoral system will require greater resources and improved networks for candidates to be successful, further reducing the capacity of many in our community to even stand for local government elections, let alone be elected to Council.

The “Review of Council Representative Discussion Paper”, prepared by the City of Bunbury has at the centre of its justification for the reduction of the number of Councillors the ratio of councillor to elector and the comparison of Bunbury with other local governments. Of the 13 local governments cited as being similar to the City of Bunbury, nine, or 69%, maintain the ward system. Three of the four who operate under an at large electoral system have the lowest Councillor to elector ratios of all the examples provided. In other words, with the exception of Busselton and Bunbury, it is only small local governments with low councillor to elector ratios that operate without wards. As the ratio of councillor to

elector rises, effective representation becomes a significant issue and it is apparent that wards are seen as a mechanism to promote effective representation.

It is true that over the past 12 years there has been a significant increase in the number of local governments in Western Australia operating without a ward system. The increase is enough to say there is a distinct trend toward doing away with wards, however, it is important to examine the nature of those local governments who have undertaken this electoral reform.

Since 2002, 58 local governments have abolished the ward system. The majority of these, however, have a relatively small number of electors. The average number of electors within those local governments that have abolished wards is just 3,488. This point is further proved by the fact that only four of those local governments to abolish wards, including Bunbury, have more than 15,000 electors and only two have a greater number of electors than the City of Bunbury.

Prior to the review conducted by the Department of Local Government in 2002, the 21 shires in Western Australia operated without wards. Two have since reverted to a ward system and of the 19 continuing to operate without wards, only one is home to more than 15,000 electors.

This means that currently in Western Australia I have identified 77 shires operating without wards. The majority are small shires with only five, or 6.5%, having more than 15,000 electors. It is clear that best electoral practice in Western Australia for larger local government authorities is the maintenance of the ward system.

The discussion paper also considers the impact of the reduction of elected members on electors and their relationship with their constituents. It agrees that “the key point for electors is whether Councillors are able to be in contact with the community and if they are accessible to the community”. The paper goes on to claim that modern technology, particularly online communications, ensures Councillors will be accessible. This premise assumes all engaged electors have access to such technology. This is quite simply not the case. It also assumes that methods of communication are the key factor in accessibility, another false premise. Councillors must have the time, as well as the means to be contacted, to be accessible to electors. Accessibility is also about the capacity of Councillors to actively participate in community activities and events, again requiring Councillors to have the time to engage with their community. The discussion paper acknowledges the reduction of the number of Councillors will lead to an increased workload for elected members, it follows they will be less accessible.

The ward system would improve the accessibility of Councillors with each holding special responsibility for particular geographical areas. Not in dispute is the responsibility of all Councillors to be responsible for the entire district of Bunbury, however the capacity to develop specialist knowledge of, and contacts within, individual wards will lead to better representation for those important local neighbourhood issues that can be overlooked or misunderstood within an at large electoral system. The effectiveness of Councillors in representing their constituents will be increased as they seek to focus greater attention on their individual ward.

City of Bunbury Discussion Paper

The City of Bunbury discussion paper lists a number of advantages and disadvantages to be created by the reduction of the number of Councillors whilst maintaining the at large electoral system. Each of these advantages and disadvantages have been considered below within the context of the re-introduction of the ward system.

Advantages:

1. The decision making process may be more effective and efficient if the number of elected members is reduced. It is more timely to

ascertain the views of a fewer number of people and decision making may be easier.

The discussion paper provides no evidence to support this proposition. The basis for this perceived advantage is simply that with reduced elected members there will be fewer views to canvas, resulting in more efficient decision making. When coupled with the lesser diversity of views generated by the at large electoral system, it follows that the timeliness will in fact be generated by a greater confluence of views. Fewer views may, in some instances, make for a more time efficient decision making process but does the community a great disservice when the result a decision made in ignorance and lack of

representation of the diversity of views held in the community. The purpose of Local Government is to generate decisions that are representative of the views of the community and in the best interest of the community. Reduced numbers of elected members will not deliver this, unless measures are taken to increase the diversity of representation on Council. A broader range of views, as would be delivered by wards, may mean, in some instances, that effective decision making takes longer as all views are considered, but it does ensure Council does not become narrow in its thinking. Efficiency in decision making is best addressed by improved training, information provision and committee structures, not by reducing representation. Equally, it could be argued with reduced elected members, the burden on elected members to canvass the different views of the community will be greater, requiring more time to adequately canvass those views and making the decision making less efficient and effective. There is simply no evidence to support the proposition that reduced elected members results in more effective and efficient decision making. Certainly, the comparison against similar local government’s provided in the City’s discussion paper shows of the thirteen local governments listed, eight have 12 or more elected members. The City has provided no evidence that could reasonably support the proposition that the decision making process of the eight local authorities is inefficient and ineffective due to the number of elected members. To the contrary, the evidence would suggest that reducing the number of elected representatives would put the City of Bunbury out of step with those local authorities. Council’s primary concern should be the delivery of good governance that is reflective of the community.. Its preoccupation should not be simplicity and reducing the time commitment of elected members or the time taken to make good decisions, but instead meeting its obligations to properly represent all of the community.

2. There is more scope for team spirit and co-operation amongst a smaller number of people.

There is no basis for this assertion. Strong leadership and a sense of common purpose to deliver the best outcomes for all of Bunbury is the environment that will engender team spirit and co-operation. Such an outcome is not dependent on the number of elected representatives but rather the manner in which they are encouraged to identify with that common purpose.

3. The cost of maintaining elected members is likely to be reduced.

While it is true that a reduction in the number of elected members will result in some financial savings, the discussion paper fails to fully canvass all elected member expenses making it difficult to properly assess the financial savings. For example, while reducing the number of elected members will result in reduced sitting fees, it is likely they will require more funding for communications and vehicle travel reimbursement if electors are to receive the same level of representation with fewer elected members. Again, however, the Council’s primary concern should be the delivery of good governance that is reflective of the community, not seeking cost savings that have the potential to negatively impact on the effectiveness of that governance as a consequence of reduced diversity and reduced elector access to elected members. These issues could, however, be restored through the re-introduction of wards.

4. The increase in the ratio of Councillors to electors is unlikely to be significant.

The discussion paper provides no evidence to support this proposition. A reduction in the number of elected members will significantly increase the ratio of electors to Councillors. The addition of an additional 1000 electors per Councillor is significant and will result in reduced elector access to their elected member. The re-introduction of wards would minimise the impact of the increased ratio as the perception, and the reality, of the community’s access to their elected members would increase, with individual Councillors seen to be responsible for specific areas and therefore more accessible to those electors within the area.

5. Consultation with the community can be achieved through a variety of means in addition to individuals and groups contacting their

local elected member.

This statement tacitly implies reducing the number of elected members on Council will result in the access of electors to elected members being reduced. It then follows that Councillors will have less direct contact with a diverse range of people from the community. Surveys and household panels may be excellent complementary tools to ascertain the views of the community but they run a poor second to direct conversations about issues with electors and participation in community events. Such conversations provide background and context, something not available through other means. To suggest consultation through mass means alone can replace direct contact between elected members and their constituents is again doing the community a great disservice. Information gathered by surveys is not always representative of all community views due to the nature of the survey, how it is conducted or the survey questions. Community panels that do not comprise representatives of all interest groups in the community may also fail to deliver a true and accurate reflection of community views. Wards require Councillors to have extensive contact primarily with the residents of their wards. There will always be the requirement for Councillors to be available to all members of the community, however they will be sought out, primarily, by residents of their ward. This enables Councillors to have greater contact with their direct constituents without any great additional impost on their time. It will also provide elected members with the ability to develop a comprehensive understanding of local issues. In this scenario, broad mass consultation provides the views of the community at large, and often sensitised and while constituent contact generates a greater understanding of specific local issues, impacts and views. This mix is well placed to provide for better informed Councillors and improved decision making and is able to be delivered by the re-introduction of the ward system.

6. A reduction in the number of elected members may result in an increased commitment from those elected reflected in greater interest

and participation in Council’s affairs.

There is no basis for this assertion and no evidence in support of this assertion is provided in the City’s discussion paper. The level of commitment of elected members is determined by the character of those elected members and their level of engagement with Council affairs. It is in no way determined by the number of elected members. It may be argued, however, that members elected to represent an individual ward will be more directly engaged with the issues in that ward and are more likely to form strong networks within that ward. It follows that the ward system offers greater opportunity for an increased commitment from elected members.

7. Fewer elected members are more readily identifiable to the community

The discussion paper provides no evidence in support of this assertion. Even if one accepts that this may be true, it would follow that while they may be more identifiable to the community they would also be less accessible due to the higher ratio of electors to elected members. Certainly, if a smaller number of elected members are more identifiable it stands to reason that Councillors elected to represent a particular ward, of which there is likely to only be two if a reduction is the number of elected members is achieved, will certainly be more identifiable to their direct constituents. If the capacity of the community to identify its elected representatives is seen as an advantage, the greatest advantage is to be derived via the re-introduction of the ward system.

8. Fewer positions on Council may lead to greater interest in elections with contested elections and those elected obtaining a greater

level of support from the community.

There is no basis for this assertion and no evidence in support is provided in the discussion paper. Members of the community increase their interest in elections relative to how relevant they perceive that election to be to their day to day lives and to the likelihood of elected members representing their views. Disaffection does not come from the number of elected members but from the level of genuine engagement those members have with their constituents and their capacity to deliver on elector expectations, combined with the perception of the community of the degree to which it can influence and participate in local

government processes. The re-introduction of the ward system would ensure electors feel a greater connection with their elected members as they have shared experience, living in the same area, dealing with the same local issues. It is this connection that has the potential to generate a greater interest in elections. In terms of contested elections, research demonstrates it is those who live in more affluent suburbs and enjoy higher levels of education who are more engaged with the electoral process. Candidates with greater resources are more equipped to contest at large electoral system elections. Elections may be contested but they are likely to be contested by a demographically narrow field of candidates and voted on by a demographically narrow representation of the electorate. This purported advantage is actually reflective of the likelihood of the reduction of the number of elected members without the reintroduction of wards leading to a less representative Council that is characterised by a lack of diversity.

9. There is State-wide trend for reductions in the number of elected members and many local governments have found that fewer

elected members works well.

This is certainly not supported by the discussion paper. As previously noted eight of the thirteen local governments identified in the comparison table of similar local governments, as identified by the City of Bunbury, have 12 or more elected members. My research shows of the local government districts in Western Australia with more than 20,000 electors, only three do not have a ward system. It follows that the trend is for larger Councils, regardless of whether or not they reduce the number of elected members, to maintain the ward system to improve the representation of the diversity of their large communities. This should be the focus, not the number of elected representatives.

Disadvantages

A general observation is that the City of Bunbury discussion paper may identify these potential disadvantages of the reduction of the number of elected members however it does little to counter them. The community is left to assume these disadvantages are simply a necessary evil resulting from fewer elected members when in fact they are able to be countered by the re-introduction of the ward system. The ward system would enable a reduction of the number of Councillors without significant detrimental impacts on community engagement or representation.

1. A smaller number of elected members may result in an increased workload and may lessen effectiveness. A demanding role may

discourage others from nominating for Council.

The re-introduction of the ward system would enable elected members to tackle a more focussed workload. Numerous synergies between a range of specific local issues is likely to generate working efficiencies for elected members. It is of course true they will still be required to address strategic and City wide issues, but the greater scope for focussed activity in their ward would assist with workload management.

2. There is the potential for dominance in the Council by a particular interest group.

This disadvantage is of particular concern and the simplest way to overcome it is to re-introduce the ward system. If concerns raised about the lack of diversity, a requirement for significant resources to campaign and voter disaffection generated by the at large electoral system are accepted, the dominance of Council by a particular interest group is a genuine and real threat to good governance at the City of Bunbury. The fact that this issue is raised as a disadvantage in the discussion paper is a recognition of the lack of diversity this proposal will create and the difficulty grassroots and community candidates will face in the electoral process. These are significant issues that must be addressed by the Bunbury City Council. The ward system and the requirement for elected members to represent a particular geographical area and address local issues reduces the capacity of particular interests groups to dominated Council.

3. A reduction in the number of elected members may limit the diversity of interests around the Council table.

This is one of the most significant disadvantages as it is a clear undermining of the principles of representative democracy. A diversity of interests and knowledge within an elected body is essential for effective and good decision making that genuinely reflects the aspirations of the community. The re-introduction of wards will promote diversity within the elected members and as such the number of elected members could be reduced simultaneously with the re-introduction of wards with a minimal net impact on diversity.

4. Opportunities for community participation in Council’s affairs may be reduced if there are fewer elected members for the community

to contact.

This point acknowledges opportunities for community members to access their elected representatives will be reduced by this proposal. The re-introduction of the ward system and the fact this would provide electors with an automatic contact point for local issues counters this concern.

5. An increase in the ratio of councillors to electors may place too many demands on elected members.

This is essentially a restating of the disadvantage listed at point one.

In essence, the discussion paper offers a number of advantages that are in fact double edged swords that have the potential to generate inequality and compromise the good governance of the community of Bunbury. The disadvantages raised are significant yet no counter measures are proposed to minimise their impact. It is my submission that the re-introduction of the ward system would go a large way to countering the disadvantages.

Council should not proceed with its proposal to reduce the number of elected members until solutions are found to the many negative impacts it will create. Many of those solutions are to be found in the re-introduction of the ward system.

Section 1.3.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 states

This Act is intended to result in –

(a) better decision-making by local governments; and

(b) greater community participation in the decisions and affairs of local governments; and

(c) greater accountability of local government to their communities; and

(d) more efficient and effective local government.

This submission has demonstrated this intent is best met by the re-introduction of a ward system at the City of Bunbury.

A ward based electoral system is best practice for larger sized local government authorities in Western Australia. The improved diversity it generates and the support it offers to the ideals of representative democracy make it an obvious platform on which to base electoral reform. The re-introduction of the ward system would negate the disadvantages to be encountered with a reduction in the number of elected representatives and enable a full electoral review considering a wide range of options to be undertaken.

The City of Bunbury has failed to make a compelling case for the reduction of the number of elected members under the current at large electoral system. I contend consideration of this proposal should not proceed until there is greater community engagement, by way of workshops and public forums, on this issue and a complete and public review of the re-introduction of the ward system is undertaken together with community engagement.

If combined with the re-introduction of a ward system, Council will be able to benefit from the economic efficiencies to be gained from a reduction in the number of elected members while upholding the principles of representative democracy.

A reduction in the number of elected members should only be considered in the context of the re-introduction of the ward system. To reduce

the number of elected members and not re-introduce the ward system would be a disservice to the community and would not be in keeping with the spirit of the Local Government Act.

11 R M Slater


I do not agree with the City of Bunbury’s resolve to review Council Representative numbers. 13 elected members should remain as the appropriate time for a review of councillor numbers, is after amalgamation. A study of the annual budget will provide a long list of important issues that need addressing. Council should get on with its role as defined in the LG Act 1995, which states in Schedule 2.7:-

(1) ‘The council - (a) directs and controls the local government’s affairs: and

(b) is responsible for the performance of the local government’s functions.’

(2) ‘The council is to – (a) oversee the allocation of the local government’s finances and resources: and

(b) determine the local government’s policies.’

S. 2.10. of the Act also defines the role of councillors, which doesn’t include removing themselves.

I was extremely disappointed with the 7 pages of ‘information provided to the public’ and suggest that once a correct and substantiated discussion paper is produced, another 30 day public submission period is approved.

Information provided for the community in Council’s Discussion Paper, is misleading and confusing. It lacks the professionalism expected from an organisation that represents the community’s interests.

The Local Government Act, is misquoted and much of the information presented in the Paper refers to ‘wards’ and irrelevant ratios rather than The City’s resolve, which is to ‘undertake a review of Council Representatives’.

Most of the paper’s content is made up of erroneous statements, non factors and unsubstantiated claims.

Example (1);- Stating that wards were abolished in 2004 – ‘so that all councillors represent and are elected by the whole of the district covered by the City of Bunbury,’ is naïve, contrary to the intent of (a) to (e) in Schedule 2.10 of the Act and an insult to previously elected members serving in our original 4 ward structure.

The Local Government Act 1995 clearly states in Schedule 2.10, quote;

“A councillor - represents the interests of electors, ratepayers and residents of the district.”

To assume ward councillors were not representing the ‘whole district’ demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Act, together with little comprehension of community consultation and the democratic election processes.

Example (2):- Council’s continual reference in the paper, to just electors and associated ratios, rather than the more relevant councillor/resident ratio, contradicts council’s claim that wards were abolished so that councillors could ‘represent the whole of the district.’

Council needs to abolish the councillor/elector ratio preference, in favour of councillor/resident ratio.

Example (3):- Stating that “The ideal number of elected members for a local government is for that local government to determine….” is correct. However, it misleads the public because the Minister has previously dictated that not only will there be a reduction in elected members, but reduced to between 6 and 9.

That direction prevents local governments, or the community they seek direction from, from determining their own number of elected representatives between 5 and 14, according to the Act.

Example (4):- Stating in the paragraph on the third page, above the Comparison table, that:- “Therefore, the Council must have a minimum of six (6) and a maximum of fifteen (15) councillors,” is incorrect information and refers to Schedule 2.17 (2) of the Act.

Schedule 2.17. (1), should have been presented to the citizens of Bunbury, for their information, which states;- “…the council is to consist of – a)

the mayor or president

b) not less than 5 nor more than 14 councillors…”

Again, the lack of professionalism reflects poorly on the City.

Example (5):- Although stating, ‘This phase of the community consultation’ is also “to invite alternative proposals for consideration at the completion of the consultation process,” no information or guidance is given to explain why those alternative proposals are not considered during the consultation process, nor why alternative proposals are absent from all the steps of the review process.

Example (6):- The paper’s Background line stating, ‘The City of Bunbury has resolved to undertake a review of Council Representation numbers,’ is also confusing and ambiguous. Most of the paper is taken up by wards, (abolished in 2004) and ratios, (no relevance to Community of interest, Physical and Topographical features, Demographic trends and Economic factors).

Example (7):- The whole page headed Factors to be considered, is totally irrelevant to the discussion paper and the public. All 5 factors relate to the Act’s Schedule 2.2 cl.8;- ‘Matters to be considered in respect to wards’ and nothing to do with councillor numbers in a non ward electorate.

Example (8):- The conclusion in the second table that the ‘proposed’ ratio of council/elector, shall be 1:2655 is also contrary to the claimed Schedule 2.2 of the Act None of the 5 listed factors that, quote;- ‘must be taken into account when considering changes to representation,’ have been considered when determining the proposed ratio. The ratio has been determined by the number 8. Even factor (g) in Schedule 2.2 cl.8 of the Act relates to a ratio ‘in the various wards’ and as stated in Council’s factor 5, ‘is not currently a factor.’ This gives the incorrect assumption that the previous 4 are current. They are not. To include a full page of factors (in respect of wards), that are not relevant factors, beggars belief.

Example (9):- Confusion and contradiction continues throughout the paper with Council stating:- “It is more timely to ascertain the views of a fewer number of people and decision making may be easier.”

In other words, council now states that less councillor and community views are desired, so that its decision making is made easier.

Council’s credibility is lost when on one hand, the City of Bunbury claims that decision making processes may be more efficient and effective if the number of elected members (12) is reduced to (8), then goes off to the public inviting community input from hundreds, potentially thousands to help make a decision.

Example (10):- Council appears obsessed with the councillor/elector ratio and ignorant of the more important councillor/resident (1:2750) and councillor/employee ratio (1:102), which are far more relevant to the ‘whole of the district’ and its residents. These are conveniently absent, with no table comparisons to other local governments presented, nor a list of costs incurred by employees travel, training, conference fees, printing, refreshments, overtime, etc., to compare with councillors.

Example (11):- To also include the statement, ‘The above figures do not include staff support or minor purchases such as Councillor Badges, Vehicle Travel Reimbursement etc.’ smacks of desperation. Incidental staff expenses (that far outweigh councillors), must also be presented to the public, to remove some of the bias prevalent throughout council’s discussion paper.

Example (12):- To persistently push the councillor/elector ratio, openly isolates and disregards the rest of the community in the ‘whole of the district.’ 30% of Bunbury residents are not electors. Responses submitted by residents, who appear insignificant as non electors, may also be insignificant and council hasn’t informed the community as to its preference of electors over residents?

Other examples of ‘selective synthesizing.’ include firstly, the mention of Cr Bridges’ resignation, which only has relevance if the public is informed that his replacement was considered unnecessary because of the cost to the City of an extraordinary election and not a trial period of 11 rather than 12 councillors.

Secondly, itemised financial costs per councillor, apart from being a ‘factual red herring’ pale to insignificance when one considers financial costs incurred by over 300 council staff.

Employees not only enjoy an attractive wage package,

but are also eligible for overtime, annual leave, sick leave and public holidays, none of which are afforded to elected members who incidentally, must pay tax on their sitting allowance, rely in a majority vote to do anything, can’t always rely on a team leader’s support and don’t get a uniform, safety gear or wet weather equipment.

Thirdly, the incomplete comparison table with 13 other Local Governments is devised to display select data, rather than present relevant facts to the community.

The following section is has been computed from the council’s comparison table to illustrate that councillor/elector ratios have nothing to do with governance, policy, leadership, guidance, community communication, reform, sustainability or elected member representation.

The City of Bunbury has resolved to increase the councillor/elector ratio, from 1:1770 to 1:2655, similar to that of Victoria Park with an area, a third of Bunbury’s. To copy Mandurah and improve on that ratio figure would result in 5 Bunbury councillors and a much more attractive ratio of 1: 4000. This would be acceptable according to section 2.17 of the Local Government Act 1995.

For Bunbury to have the same ratio as Geraldton, which also plans to retain its 14 councillors, Bunbury must increase to 13 councillors. To copy Albany, Bunbury only has to reduce to 11 councillors, and so on.

It is understandable why Bunbury cannot copy the likes of Capel Shire and the Cities of Joondalup or Stirling. Stirling has a super attractive ratio of 1:9027 while also maintaining 14 councillors. To attain Stirling’s ratio, Bunbury would have to reduce its councillors to two (2) which would not only be ridiculous, but contrary to section 2.17 of the Act.

To emulate Capel’s representation, Bunbury would have to elect 20 members, also contrary to the Act.

What relevance does comparing councillor/elector ratios have? Absolutely none. It is also a red herring.

What the public is not being told, or asked to comment on, is the comparison ratios of employee/resident or employee/elector, with the thirteen mentioned local governments. The city of Bunbury would save millions of ratepayers dollars annually, if it reformed its employee numbers to aligned with the average ratio of all the other local governments.

Using the latest WA Local Government Directory statistics, the average council employee/elector ratio of the paper’s 13 tabled local governments, is 1:101. Bunbury’s is 1:65. Those same 13 Local governments have an average employee/resident ratio of 1:164 while Bunbury’s is 1:102.

Continuing to use Capel, Joondalup and Stirling for example, they have 1 employee for over 200 residents, more than double Bunbury’s ratio. They also employ 1 employee for over 100 electors, when Bunbury employs 1 for every 65 electors.

The significance of this ratio, is that for Bunbury to responsibly economise in the City’s annual budget, its employee/resident or employee/elector ratio should at least equal the average ratio of all other similar WA local governments. Then, a saving of around $5M each year will realise a massive $50M saving over ten years.

To fit the standard state mould, Bunbury has to either increase its resident population by 20,000 or reduce its staff by 120. Increasing its population to 53,000 is not an option outside the amalgamation scenario. That leaves reducing employees, not a couple of councillors.

According to the South West Regional Blueprint Draft, August 2013, page 8 we read,

Our priorities;- “Strengthen Greater Bunbury as the SW capital, supporting commerce, international trade, arts, culture, education and human services with a population of 300,000 by 2050”.

On page 10 of the Blueprint, we are asked to imagine a SW population of 500,000 by 2050 supported by 200,000 new jobs. The City of Bunbury’s priority is the reduction of elected representatives while responsible reform and progressing to potential is ignored.

There is no indication by council that the number of elected members may be increased in future to a max of 14 when the City’s populat ion increases. Eight councillors representing 300,000 future residents equates to a ridiculous ratio of 1:37,500.

To keep the ratio of the Council’s ‘proposed’ 1:2655, the Greater Bunbury Local Government would have to increase its councillors to 113. Even trying to align with Stirling’s ratio of 1:9027, Greater Bunbury would have to support 33 elected members.

It is important to note that the projected and desired ratio of 1:2655, computed by offloading 4 councillors, has nothing to do with anything, especially governance, sustainability, reform, community consultation or logic.

As stated in the last paragraph on the second last page of council’s information paper, quote;-

‘It is expected that reducing the number of elected representatives would produce financial savings, would move the City of Bunbury elector/councillor ratio (should be councillor/elector ratio) closer to that of other Councils of similar elector size and yet not be detrimental to effective and efficient decision making.’

With that reasoning, it is expected that other reductions will automatically follow such as employees, if only to produce financial savings and move the City of Bunbury employee/elector ratio closer to that of other Councils of similar elector size.

Between 6 and 9 councillors was initiated by a State Minister for Local Government, ignored by the Local Government Advisory Board in its recommendations on page 351 and devised around political objectives rather than sustainable, efficient and effective local government reform.

Eventual amalgamation of the 4 Greater Bunbury Local Governments will result in the loss of at least 30 elected representatives, while realising an increased population larger than Mandurah’s. If Bunbury wishes to become the State’s second city, it should retain its elected members, look to the future demographic trends, increased areas and wards, as suggested in the act, rather than focusing on a figure between 6 and 9, to give a pointless ratio.

The following pages contain my response to the 9 advantages and 5 disadvantages listed in the discussion paper.

1) ‘The decision making process’ is not more effective and efficient if the number of elected members is reduced. The claim that reduced numbers ‘MAY be’, is not good enough and demands factual data as support, before being included as a factor. Conference statistics over many years support two main group phenomena. The first, is that a large cross section of a community makes a more ‘judged’ decision on average than a minor, select group. The second is that a cross section of the community makes a more ‘judged’ decision than a similar number of identical professionals.

2) Team spirit has nothing to do with the team’s numbers. Team spirit is affected by personalities, leadership, dedication, training, goals, respect, knowledge, communication, appreciation, understanding and acceptance of one’s fellow man and team mate. I suggest the composer of the advantages list, does some proper research before stating bogus claims.

3) The argument that, ‘the cost of maintaining elected members is likely to be reduced,’ is the same as stating to the public, that reducing Council employee numbers will reduce the wages costs. True, but reduction in one area will save thousands, reduction in the other will save millions.

4) The increased ratio of councillor to electors IS significant at 50%. Reduce council employees by 50% and the wages cost per year is reduced by approx $8M. That is significant. Also, 30%, is the percentage of human beings residing in Bunbury, that are not electors. That is also significant. The composer of this point has expresses a personal opinion and not delivered factual data.

5) Stating that there are a ‘variety of means’, in addition to the personal touch, to achieve community consultation is like stating that there are a variety of routes that one can take travelling from Bunbury’s CBD to the Health Campus. A true statement, but unfortunately has nothing to do with the issue, especially when the alternative means are not listed for comparison.

6) ‘The reduction in the number of elected members MAY (?) result in an increased commitment from those elected reflected in greater interest and participation in Council affairs’ is an insult to present and previous Councillors. Commitment, greater interest and participation are

dependant on the character of the individual and not how many individuals. FACT, - two dozen committed, interested and participating councillors are far more acceptable and productive to the community, than half a dozen intent on wheeling their own barrow.

7) ‘Fewer elected members are more readily identifiable to the community’, is untrue and another statement of desperation. It’s as relevant as stating that fewer coffee shops are more readily identifiable in our café strip. Not even relevant to State and Federal members who are elected to and represent a local ‘seat’ (area, ward), even though they are responsible for and represent the ‘whole’ state and country, respectively.

8) Fewer positions on councils, leads to dominant minority groups ‘stacking’ those reduced positions, as suggested in disadvantages, point 2 and evident around Australia. Whether organisations such as Chambers of Commerce, political parties, business owners or one issue protesters, the safety of numbers, as in the jury system, greatly reduces ‘select group control’ and is far more acceptable to the total community. Research proves the opposite to item eight’s claim.

9) The so called ‘State-wide trend for reductions in the number of elected members,’ is a nonsense. It was initiated by the Minister for local Government under the political push for reform.

Councillor numbers vary greatly across the state, as indicated by the table. They are in accordance with the Act and individual council preferences, not an organised or recognised state ‘trend’.

1) A smaller number of elected members will result in an increased workload because each councillor ratio has been increased by almost 1000 electors. That fact will also lessen councillor effectiveness and may discourage others from nominating.

2) The dominance of particular interest groups is greatly increased especially as only 4 positions will be normally available every second year rather than the current 6.

3) Not only will the diversity of interests around the council table be limited, by reducing the number of elected members, but experience, skills, knowledge and attendance regularity will suffer.

4) Taking away more than 30% of the public’s elected representation, is a decision that should be made by referendum and not by 13 elected, to represent.

5) Councillors on approved leave or absent from meetings (due to events, functions, boards, committees, advisory bodies, illness, family commitments, conferences, councillor courses or conflict of interest will definitely result in decisions being made by a small group.

The key point for the electors is whether councillors perform their duties according to the act, not how many performing.

12 ALAN SUMMERS

Supportive of a gradual reduction in the numbers subject the introduction of alternative arrangements.

INTRODUCTION

This submission is being prepared with the maxims "If a job is worth doing it is worth doing properly" and "If something of value is taken away it must be replaced with something of equal value" well and truly in mind. In the regard to doing a job properly, the job of reducing the number of Councillors is far from being done properly if it is confined to the task of the reduction process only. The exercise presents the opportunity for the City of Bunbury to be really innovative and progressive and change the way Local Government operates in terms of the role of Councillor, and community representation and community participation in the decision making process. In regard to replacing something of value. The proposal is that in terms of representation, there will be fewer Councillors with whom electors can communicate, and who will represent them on matters relating to Council activities. In these respects a reduction in the number of Councillors will be regarded by many as a loss of something of value. The discussion paper makes a brief reference to the discontinuance of the Ward system in 2004. Many electors would have considered the loss of Wards as the loss of something of value. This loss should have been replaced with something of equal value and was not. As was pointed out in at least one of my submissions to Council, the replacement of value could have been in the form of Councillor Portfolios.

DISCUSSION PAPER

As was the case with the discussion paper concerning the change in the rating basis, it is considered that this discussion paper has been well prepared and contains all of the appropriate information relative to a "reduction" exercise only. It is considered, however, the introduction of the "cost" element, as commendable as this might be, as a reason for the reduction of the number of Councillors, was unwise. Instead the emphasis should have been on improving elector representation, and access to and input into the Council decision making process in a meaningful way, all of this being achievable at no extra cost if the number of Councillors was reduced. In regard to the annual cost to ratepayers per Councillor, it is considered that the item "General (Discretionary Funds)" of $5,000 should not have been included. These funds, it is understood, form part of the City's overall expenditure on the provision of services and facilities, but do not form part of the specific allocation to this expenditure in the Budget. Instead individual Councillors, to the extent of $5,000 annually, are afforded the right to nominate the service or facility on which the sum may be expended.

SUPPORT FOR THE REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF COUNCILLORS

Support for the proposition that the number of Councillors at the Bunbury City Council be progressively reduced from twelve to eight is conditional upon appropriate action being taken to ensure that the "job" is done properly, and that something of value is created to compensate for the loss of value which will occur as a result of the reduction.

THE JOB DONE PROPERLY

Administratively the reduction in the number of Councillors, if the proposition is undertaken as a single exercise, should be a relatively easy. However the exercise is being presented as a review of Council representation. A review of Council representation cannot be confined to considering only how many Councillors should represent the community, and the number of electors represented by each Councillor, or the Councillor/Elector ratio as this is referred to in the discussion paper. The review must embrace all aspects of representation, and most electors would expect this. By confining the review to the number of Councillors who will constitute the Council, and seeking only to change this number, is an action that can be interpreted as a move to entrench power in one small group for whatever reasons. It could be a means of enhancing the power of the Executive with a lesser number of Councillors to hold them to account. It could be a means of manipulating the power of a Council to the extent that this is delivered to Councillors representing a particular interest with a particular agenda. For instance, if the majority of the Councillors comprising the smaller Council were CBD property owners or business proprietors, then it would be an easy matter to impose rates in such a manner as CBD properties, ratewise, would be advantaged at the expense of residential ratepayers. A smaller number of Councillors would make Councillor/Executive collusion more difficult to avoid, and could even provide political advantage if a particular Political Party chose to take control of the "reduced number of Councillors" Council. So, to achieve a "job done properly" status the "review of Council representation" project must be a considerably more far reaching review than the discussion paper indicates. Perhaps it would be preferable to promote the reduction in the number of Councillors not as an exercise in saving ratepayers money, as commendable as this may be, but as an attempt to:-

• Redefine the role of Councillor as perceived by the community from one of representative to one of decision maker and director of one or several sections of Council operations.

• Have the Council function more as a Cabinet under the Westminster System, but with greater transparency. • In their role as Cabinet Members, have Councillors make decisions on recommendations submitted to them by the community as well as

all other matters on which a decision of Council is required. • Improve the decision making processes of Council and the general efficiency of the decision making processes. • Institute a positive means by which the community can make recommendations to Council, and participation in the Council decision

making process through the creation of properly constituted and resourced Community Precinct Committees or the like. • Improve the the manner in which Councillors can be made aware of community concerns through Community Precinct Committees. • Finance the administration and operation of Community Precincts through the savings achieved as a result of reducing the number of

Councillors. • Introduce a part-time Internal Ombudsman Service as a means of reducing the amount of time spent by Councillors on dealing with

complaints made to them by members of the community, and finance the operation of the service through the savings achieved as a result of reducing the number of Councillors.

SOMETHING OF VALUE

As has already been indicated, it is contended that as was the case when the Ward system was abolished, the community, and even Councillors, lost something of value. The reduction in the number of Councillors is considered to be a loss of something of value to the community, and a great number of community members are certainly likely to be of this view, The project "Review of Council representation" presents the ideal opportunity to make amends for the loss of something of value when Wards were abolished, and ensure that the same does not occur if the number of Councillors constituting the Bunbury City Council is reduced. To achieve these ends it is respectfully suggested that the "Review of Council representation" project be extended to include all of the investigation etc. necessary to implement the following:-

• The Councillor Portfolio System • Integrated Local Area Councils • Appointment of an Internal ombudsman

COUNCILLOR PORTFOLIO SYSTEM

In regard to the implementation of a Councillor Portfolio System, a section of my submission to the "Bunbury 2030 — Your City Your Say" project provides a reasonable explanation as to how this system would operate. It reads:-"Under the Councillor Portfolio system each Councillor would accept responsibility for the general oversight of a particular Council activity or activities, and would be responsible for dealing with problems experienced by members of the community relative to the activity or activities covered by the portfolio. Under the Ward System Councillors developed an "ownership" for their Ward and occurrences within that Ward. The abolition of Wards may well have left many Councillors feeling deprived as a result of this loss of ownership. Under the Councillor Portfolio system there would be an ownership of a Council activity or activities. There must be an awareness of that important principle which states that when something of value is taken away it must be replaced with something of equal value. When Councillors ceased to have responsibility for a Ward they may well have felt that they had lost something of value. That value could well be replaced by awarding individual Councillors a portfolio relative to a particular Council function.

In the case of members of the community, they may consider they have lost something of value when they no longer have a Ward Councillor whom they can regard as their "own", and to whom they can go when they have a problem. A satisfactory replacement for this value may well be a Councillor having responsibility for a particular Council function. A Council operating a Councillor Portfolio system could be regarded as operating under one of the principles applying to the Westminster System of Government in so much as every Councillor would in effect be a Minister in charge of a portfolio. It is contended that under the Councillor Portfolio system there would be less likelihood of the Executive exceeding their authority under the separation of powers provisions which apply to the system. As the City of Bunbury is now operating under an arrangement sometimes referred to as the "New Regime", the introduction of a Councillor Portfolio system may have more appeal to Councillors than it did previously. It is considered that there is a very strong case for arguing that the introduction of the system would improve the quality of service delivery. Under these circumstances it is contended that the inclusion in the Community Plan of an undertaking to introduce the Councillor Portfolio

system as soon as possible after the adoption of the Plan would be entirely appropriate."

INTEGRATED LOCAL AREA COUNCILS

It is understood that when the matter of the reintroduction of the Ward system for the City of Bunbury was canvassed recently as a means of addressing problems which might arise if the number of Councillors was reduced, His Worship the Mayor indicated a preference for the introduction of Community Precinct Committees to allay such fears. In this respect the Mayor's suggestion is supported. Their establishment, and their development to Integrated Local Area Council status should form part of the review of Council representation. Therefore it is considered that a section of my submission to the "Bunbury 2030 — Your City Your Say" project regarding the development of Community Reference Panels has considerable relevance. The section referred to reads:-"It is understood that in reviewing the manner in which the Bunbury City Council engages with the community, the present Chief Executive Officer, Mr Andrew Brien, is investigating the establishment of Community Reference Panels. Perhaps these Panels, appropriately constituted, could serve as Customer Feedback Groups as they were envisaged by the City's Chief Executive Officer of October 1999. There is every reason to believe that these Panels, again appropriately constituted, could provide for real community participation in the decisions and affairs of the Bunbury City Council by members of the public, and lend themselves to elevation to Integrated Local Area Council (ILAC) status at a later and appropriate time.. Recent statements attributed to Premier Colin Barnett suggest that he is determined to see the City of Bunbury merged with the Shires of Capel, Dardanup and Harvey to form one Local Government District for the Greater Bunbury Region. Whilst the present Bunbury City Council may support a merger along these lines, it is highly unlikely that such support will be forthcoming from the Councils of the neighbouring Shires. Such a merger will therefore only occur if it is forced upon the three Shires, and their residents, as a result of intervention by the State Government. A forced merger under these circumstances would hardly produce a Council comprised of Councillors who could work harmoniously with each other, so the new Local Government district would likely be administered by Commissioners for a number of years. The following comments on Integrated Local Area Councils (ILAC's) made at Pages 32 and 35 respectively of the then Aboriginal Affairs Department Final Report — August 1998, titled "Improving Local Government Access to Aboriginal Communities in the Dampier Peninsula", are probably very relevant to the possible merger of the City of Bunbury with its three neighbouring Shires:-"The sub-Council or local level council option is based on the Integrated Local Area Council Model (ILAC) which seeks to resolve the dilemma within local governments where small local governments provide advantages for effective representation of local communities but may not be financially viable, and large local governments can be more viable but may not enable effective representation. The model suggests that small local area councils with specific functions and their own representative structure could co-exist within a larger system where functions such as administration, capital acquisition, contracting, and regional activities are provided across all councils. There would also be a number of shared responsibilities such as policy formation, community services, public order and safety." and "The ILAC model is an innovative but untested model within Western Australia. Whether the Local Government Advisory Board or the Local Government Grants Commission would be prepared to support local level authorities is also untested." When offering reasons for opposing a merger with the City of Bunbury neighbouring Shires would no doubt make perceived losses of identity, autonomy and representation key issues. The establishment of Integrated Local Area Councils (ILAC's) would go a considerable way towards addressing these concerns. In view of the foregoing It is respectfully suggested that in developing the Strategic Community Plan due regard be given to enshrinement in the Plan the development of Community Reference Groups with the capacity to be elevated to Integrated Local Area Councils (ILAC'S) with limited statutory powers at a later date."

APPOINTMENT OF AN INTERNAL OMBUDSMAN

In describing the functions of an Internal Ombudsman service and the advantages it provides to both the community and Councillors, and indeed the Council Administration, it is appropriate that the whole of my submission to the "Bunbury 2030 — Your

City Your Say" project regarding the implementation of an internal Ombudsman service be repeated as under:-"Early in 2004 the City of Perth, as a demonstration of its commitment to improving customer service, advertised for expressions of interest from appropriately qualified organisations and individuals in performing the functions of Internal Ombudsman, the primary purpose of the service to be provided being described as investigating complaints, providing a conciliation service and making recommendations on actions to be taken to address complaints

Following are points which it is considered support the appointment of an Internal Ombudsman:-

• When dealing with complaints Local Government Officers are always seeking to defend the interests and reputation of their Local Government employer, and this is the way it should be. However in defending the interests and reputation of the affected Local Government, its Officers tend to overlook points which could be advantageous to the complainant, and quite unconsciously develop a biased attitude. An Internal Ombudsman dealing with complaints from members of the community would be able to do so in an independent and unbiased manner.

• Under the current situation where people with complaints about a Local Government have to make these to its Officers, they are often made to feel that the official reaction is quite unsympathetic, and that they are just knocking their heads against a brick wall. They leave dissatisfied and disgruntled and harbouring grudges, all of which does no good whatsoever for the public image of Local Government. An Internal

• Ombudsman would be able to deal sympathetically but fairly with complaints, and complainants would leave with a feeling that at least they had been listened to, and if the ensuing investigation produced an adverse result for the complainant, it is more likely to be accepted in an unprejudiced manner.

• Because of the protective attitude displayed towards their employer's interests Local Government Officers unintentionally discourage those members of the community inexperienced in dealing with the bureaucracy from lodging complaints. The attitude of the complainant is then "what is the use." This produces a simmering resentment in the community which is also not good for the public image of Local Government. The availability of an Internal Ombudsman service would give those community members who have a fear of the bureaucracy and the bureaucratic process the confidence to lodge complaints. • Those individuals or organisations providing an Internal Ombudsman service would have unrestricted and free access to all departments and sections of the Local Government concerned, and to its Officers, and would not be given the "run around". This is a privilege sometimes not enjoyed by members of the community.

• The availability of a conciliation service, which would form part of the Internal Ombudsman service, must be regarded as of great benefit to both the Local Government concerned and the community. The independence of the conciliation service would give confidence to Officers that they would not be unfairly blamed or maligned, and to the community in so much as they would consider that their interests were not disadvantaged because of bias.

• Presently people who are not satisfied with the manner in which they have been dealt with by a Local Government administration are obliged to complain to either the Department of Local Government, the Minister for Local Government, or the State Ombudsman, and many disgruntled individuals, for a number of reasons, would feel neither competent nor confident to do this. In any case the Department, the Minister and the State Ombudsman, because of the many other matters with which they must deal, are usually unable to deal quickly with complaints against individual Local Governments.

In the interests of continued improvement to the quality of service delivery and accountable and transparent governance at the City of Bunbury, it is contended that the inclusion in the Strategic Community Plan of an undertaking to appoint an Internal Ombudsman as soon as possible after the adoption of the Plan would be entirely appropriate. The City may well argue that the small number of complaints it receives would not warrant the appointment of an Internal Ombudsman, and may even be able to produce statistics to this effect. However the production of such statistics would not necessarily prove that if the appropriate mechanism was in place, many people who presently regard the lodgement of a complaint as being too complicated, or who are of the view that under the present arrangement there is little point in lodging a complaint, may feel more inclined to lodge one. It is noted that the

Administration, on occasions tends, when asked for information which may be embarrassing to the City, or information which it would much rather not provide, applies the Freedom of Information process to such requests. The applicant for the information could well feel that grounds for applying the Freedom of Information process are somewhat shaky, and in consequence forms an unfavourable view of the Administration. The presence of an Internal Ombudsman service would enable those who consider they have been unfairly dealt with in this regard, to take their complaint to the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman rules that the Administration was justified in requiring the matter of the enquiry to be dealt with under the Freedom of Information process, then there are no grounds for further complaint. It is accepted that the introduction of an Internal Ombudsman service would involve some cost, but if the the City of Bunbury receives few complaints, then the cost of operating the service should be minimal."

CONCLUSION

It is contended that the foregoing comments provide very sound reasons for the Bunbury City Council to seriously consider the maxims "If a job is worth doing it is worth doing properly" and "If something of value is taken away it must be replaced with something of equal value" when dealing with the proposition that the number of Bunbury City Councillors should be progressively reduced from twelve to eight. It is also considered that the comments provide a sound argument for the considerations listed at Pages 2 and 3 of this submissions to be included as part of the review of Council representation.

ReviewofCouncilRepresentation

1/1

20.80% 26

79.20% 99

Q1DoyousupportthereductionofCouncillornumbersfromtwelve(12)to

eight(8)overafouryearperiod?Answered:125 Skipped:0

Total 125

Yes

No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

AnswerChoices Responses

Yes

No

jpezzaniti

Text Box

APPENDIX CEO-2 13 May 2014

ResponseResponseResponseResponse CommentsCommentsCommentsComments

No

Concern that numbers could be stacked by an over powering member. Need a broad view of what reae payers want. I have heard the mayor is friends with a helicopter pilot that is why their is such a big push for helipad in city centre, these type of things will be easier to pass with small numbers and maybe more easily influenced councillors

NoYes

No

Lower numbers make it too easy to manipulate by vested interest. One biased mayor would only need 4 votes so that he/she would be able to use his /her casting vote to push through any proposals on their agenda.

YesYesNo

No

The listed advantages of a reduction in Councillors do not convince me that it would be a good idea. I believe the range of ages, occupations, experience of elected members would be significantly reduced and the broad interests of the community would be less likely to be served by a smaller number. The allowances currently paid to elected members are extremely generous and certainly there would be significant savings if a reduction in Councillors went ahead. Financial considerations should not be paramount when making such decisions. I would like to see the ward system re-instated.This would increase the chance of electors contacting (or even knowing) their elected representative. The wards (with populations of between 4,500 and 6000) are manageable areas for prospective Councillors to canvas. They are true communities of interest and do not detract from the Councillors' business of serving the city as a whole. Your discussion paper refers to wards in its Demographic and Economic Considerations. Does that mean wards are back on the agenda? I hope so.

Yes

No

I think the reduction should be from 12 Councillors to 10 councillors plus the Mayor, and the old Ward system should be reintroduced so that rate payers have a personal elected member they can approach and discuss their concerns with. This would be better for the elected councillors too. Thank you and kind regards Anna Huxtable 53 Stockley Road BUNBURY

NoNoNoNoYesNoNo We should have at least 12, it keeps everyone honest.

NoNo It's a big city you need 12 Councillers

NoNoNo its a disgrace to the community that this is even being voted on. I definitely vote NO

No

I vote no because I believe that democratically the council runs well with 12 councillors. I think it would be detrimental to Bunbury's future if the amount was reduced. Especially allowing for "disclosure of interest" and absentees

No

I think that this is a ploy from the current mayor to have all his mates from the Chamber of Commerce voted in .. less representation from "real" people to get issues pushed through that aren't in the best interest of the community. I vote a STRONG NO

Do you support the reduction of Councillor numbers from twelve (12) to eight (8) over a four year period?

No

I support a reduction in council executives and staff but not councillors. We need to have our opinions heard as a community. This currently achieved very objectively, I wouldn't like to see numbers reduced and in turn reducing ratepayers representation.

No

This will end up in Bunbury's constitutes represented by a select few, presumably the old grey men that we once saw as councillors in years gone by. The diversity that is currently in council is a wonderful situation and a situation that will most definitely not be emulated should numbers be reduced so drastically

No

No I do not. I believe this will impact on the quality of councillors, it will impact on the variety of councillors. I believe the roles that the councillors are expected to perform will suffer as the same amount of duties will fall to less councillors. I believe that for perceived "smaller" issues it is possible that the everyday rate payer may find the councillors less accessible. I don't believe that it will make decision making quicker or easier. I believe that the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" should be applied in this instance.

NoNoNoYes

No

Particularly since the removal of wards Bunbury Councillors are perceived NOT to be local representatives. When I have issues I want to be able to speak with my local elected representative who is easy to contact and who knows about my area. My impression is that Bunbury Councillors, with one, maybe two exceptions, (like those in other areas) have been seduced into thinking that they are "members of the board", concerned only with policy, not with the issues that affect the daily lives of those they represent. To further reduce councillor numbers will compound the problem. The strength of local government has always been that it is local and the easy access of residents to councillors provides the necessary check and balance against the sometimes indifference of the bureaucracy to local concerns.

No I think the number of councillors we have now provides a good representation of our city's rate payers, any fewer would put this at jeopardy.

Yes

No

A reduction to 10 would be more acceptable. A reduction to 8 seems rather extreme. It would be a real concern if the workload became too much thereby causing a drop in candidates running for office.

No

It should be increased from 12 to 13. This would enable a spread of the work load and sub committee's across more councillors. Additionally having and "odd" number would enable a majority vote with the need for the Mayor to have a casting vote.

YesNoNo emphatically NO it is so great to see a decent representation currently.

NoYes too big council is always an obstruction not a help.

Yes

Some Councillors are not heard of and a few others seem to be everywhere. Why does it seem the workload is not evenly/fairly balanced?? Any Councillor not doing/carrying their share of the workload, should be asked why, given the opportunity to 'lift their game' or be dismissed. A cleansing of the dead wood [perhaps by reduction to 8] would appear to be a step in the right direction. The re-introduction of the ward system is a very good idea, with Councillors being rotated each year from one ward to the next......keeps interest up and gives all the opportunity to shine across all the wards. 4 wards 4 years rotating left and right so the same two Councillors don't work together........mix it up.

Yes

No

I believe that it reduces the diversity of viewpoint and will not enable the City to make considered decisons abut a very diverse community in terms of gender, culture, socio economic group and value system. It also does not enable as much contact with the community as a small group of 8 will find it harder to respond to the requests for contact and support from Councillors on different issues.

No Councillors aren't paid. 12 is a good number to get a healthy cross section of ideas for the community. 12 councillors could provide a variety in age groups.

No

No

I would prefer to see a re-introduction of a ward system at the City of Bunbury - keeping the numbers of Councillors at 12 this would allow better representation for local communities by members of that local community. I believe a ward system will better represent the needs of the community as Councillors would be more accessible to the community, would be more aware of the local issues, would be better informed and better able to represent the City holisitically.

No

Representation of the diversity in the community should be increased. The reduction of the number of Councillors will not achieve greater diversity, if anything it will further narrow the representation on Council.

Yes I feel that 12 councillors creates a situation of "too many cooks in the kitchen" 8 people will be create a more stream-lined decision-making process.

NoNo

Yes

For majority of the population, especially those aged between 18 and 35, we don't actually know or care what the Councillor's actually do. So needing 12 over 8 doesn't seem to be an issue. - Also I'd like to know how many man hours go in to answering questions asked by Councillor's to the City of Bunbury staff for the purpose of making themselves 'look good' to the numerous committees and club's and neighbourhood watch groups they're all affiliated with.

No It is important to have a number of councillors, with a diversity of backgrounds and experiences, to fairly represent the community.

No

Do not support the change of the number of Councillors. It is important to have a wider representation so that prososals can can be debated. Wards would not work, we are not going backwards when we are thinking about the demographic of Bunbury. Bunbury should still have 12 Coucillors to represent.

Yes

The pay should increase to attract professionals to something around $60K and attract educated thinking people. Of course this will offset any savings but quality councilors should be the aim here

YesNo There should be more councillors to share the work load among them and it should be a odd number so the Mayor does not need to use a casting vote.

No

I think that each district or part of Bunbury eg Wollaston or Carey Park should be equally represented on the Council. I would much prefer to have a local representative available ,able to clarify or look out for the day to day interests of the ratepayers.

Yes

No

The number of councillors' and the amount of work needed to fix the problems in Bunbury is already compromised. For many councillors the work load and special groups being setup because people in Bunbury are not happy is increasing. I feel a reduction in numbers would lead to the rubber stamp approach to many projects and reduce the community input. We need councillors who are not so rushed they just vote through everything that's tabled without input from the rate payers and where relevant input from all residents of the community regardless of renting a house or the owner, rate payer

No Democracy in our community should be treated as a high priority, to reduce numbers is just disrespecting the community.

Yes

Yes

Why wait for 4 years, the time to act is now. There are too many "free loaders" on the council enjoying too many "junket trips" to who knows where at the rate payers expense. The mayor and the councillors need to be made accountable to the rate payers and answer questions honestly when put to them by the media. Particularly the mayor. What they fail to realise is that we rate payers pay for them to represent us.

Yes Only supported if the Councillors have wards to enable real representation and allow a specific person to be contacted in the event of complaint/need/praise.

Yes

It is very difficult to canvas and constructively discuss issues with so many Councillors. Constitutents need to be able to easily access their elected representatives as issues arise and chasing around trying to speak and then manage interactions with and between thirteen people is too hard, time consuming and distracts from the actual issue in contention. So many people involved in the decision making process makes good, consistent governance much harder and more complex than it needs to be. It also makes sense financially to support less Councillors, and spend this money on improving infrastructure and services to the community.

No A reduction in councillor numbers reeks of on attempt to dominate the the direction of council by the mayor.

No

The higher amount of participants promotes diversity of opinion which is important if Bunbury is going to escape its current fate - becoming a ghost town. Bunbury appeals to lower socio-economic groups; in particular, obese, tattooed, loud-mouthed, pubs-based bogans. It's full of them. There are no jobs to be found here so we are also plagued with a huge Centrelink based population. We have reached the lowest common denominator. Let's aim for more sophistication. Try modelling it on the western suburbs in Perth. I am getting out of here as soon as I find employment in Perth; back to the western suburbs to be among the civilised, to clean beaches not littered with cigarette butts and bottles of discarded alcohol, away from foul language, to a sophisticated cafe and restaurant scene, to movie theatres where I will be assured of access to critically acclaimed films, to Myer and David Jones, to streets that haven't had their street trees vandalised by City of Bunbury parks and garden staff (the bogan approach once again). Please, do not allow any more Chinese or Thai

YesNo I am against anything likely to reduce further community representation in council decisions

Yes

No

To maintain the level of representation the number of councillors needs to increase with the population. The salaried staff from CEO down need to be kept to task by a strong council and not be allowed to push their own agenda.

No

Council should reflect the diversity of the community and be able to have face to face contact with as many residents as possible. Otherwise residents and the City of Bunbury are more likely to become alienated from each other.

No I do not support this at all!!!

NoNo Keep at 12

NoNo Cut down on council staff instead, we have so many more than other areas

No my family does not support this

No not a good idea

No Is this about cost cutting or residents having less say

No I do not support this at all

NoNo too few. only business people will be represented

NoNo I think 8 cuts it down too much and we won't all be heard

No 8 is too few

NoNo 8 does provide a broad enough community representation

No I think 8 is too few

No I would prefer 10 or 12

No no I want to keep at 12

No do not support this

No

No

True representation of 45,000 Bunbury residents should require a diverse opinion base not a handful of like minded individuals. A quorum, minus one or two that have to withdraw due to conflict of interest and you could conceivably have only two councillors passing a controversial item that can have a profound impact on residents. Unless we are merging with another shire, 8 is not enough for the demands asked of Councillors time now.

Yes Make the council much more lean, dynamic and hopefully focused

Yes Having 12 Councillors is far too cumbersome in decision making and too costly.

No love it the way it is thanks

No Leave it as thank you

NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo too few

NoNoNo need at least 10

NoNo 8 would not give fair representation of the whole community. It would just be Chamber of Commerce

NoNo We need a wide representation of different opinions on the council. I don't think 8 people would be enough.

NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoYesNoYes

CONSULTATION DATA REPORT - TOWNHALL CITY OFBUNBURY

QUESTION: Do you support a reduction in Councillor numbers?START DATE: 11/03/2014END DATE: 07/04/2014TOTAL VISITS: 327TOTAL UNIQUEVISITS: 152

TOTAL VOTES: 20

CONSULTATION BREAKDOWNYES = 14

Facebook Votes: 14Web Votes: 0

Age Location Sex Education1 17-25 years4 26-35 years5 36-45 years4 45+0 Unknown

2 Unknown2 Perth, WesternAustralia10 Bunbury, WesternAustralia

7 Male7 Female

3 High School10 College1 Unknown

Votes Reason3 representation adequate with fewer2 Reduction in Council expenditure1 More money to spend on councillors (personal development etc

NO = 6

Facebook Votes: 6Web Votes: 0

Age Location Sex Education0 17-25 years3 26-35 years1 36-45 years2 45+0 Unknown

3 Bunbury, WesternAustralia2 Perth, WesternAustralia1 Unknown

5 Female1 Male

2 High School3 College1 Unknown

Votes Reason

3 I believe that our community won't be represented adequetly

jpezzaniti

Text Box

APPENDIX DCS-1 13 May 2014

jpezzaniti

Text Box


jpezzaniti

Text Box


jpezzaniti

Text Box


jpezzaniti

Text Box


jpezzaniti

Text Box


jpezzaniti

Text Box


jpezzaniti

Text Box

APPENDIX DPDS-1 13 May 2014

Digital Mapping Solutions does not warrant the accuracy

of information in this publication and any person using or relying upon such information does so on the basis that

DMS shall bear no responsibility or liability whatsoever

for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the

information.

Location Plan -

#205 Ocean Dr, South Bunbury

Wednesday, 16 April

2014

1:1000

jpezzaniti

Text Box


City of Bunbury Page 1 of 12

Policy Title: Local Planning Policy:

Unrestricted Residential Accommodation (URA)

Policy No.: 2.8

Previous Policy (No.): n/a

Date Adopted: 17 May 2011 (decision no. 98/11)

Date Last Reviewed: n/a

Legal Parent: Planning and Development Act 2005

Legal Subsidiary: City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7, Part 2 – Local Planning Policy Framework.

PART A 1. PRELIMINARY 1.1 Citation

This Local Planning Policy is made under section 2.1 of the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 (the “Scheme”), and may be cited as Local Planning Policy: Unrestricted Residential Accommodation (URA) (herein referred to as the “Local Planning Policy”).

1.2 Commencement

This Local Planning Policy was adopted by the Council of the City of Bunbury (the “City”) on 17 May 2011. The Local Planning Policy commenced operation on 30 June 2011.

1.3 Relationship to the Scheme and other Local Planning Policies 1.3.1 Pursuant to section 2.2 of the Scheme, this Local Planning Policy supplements the

provisions of the Local Planning Scheme. Where a provision of this Local Planning Policy is inconsistent with the Scheme, the Scheme prevails.

1.3.2 Where a provision of this Local Planning Policy is inconsistent with another adopted

Local Planning Policy that relates to a designated area, then the provisions of the Local Planning Policy that relate to design guidelines for a designated area shall prevail.

Notes: For the proposed dual use of specifically designed new build single houses, grouped dwellings and multiple dwellings, or the change of use and modification of existing multiple dwellings, for the optional purpose of providing short term accommodation on a commercial basis.

jpezzaniti

Text Box


Local Planning Policy: Unrestricted Residential Accommodation - URA


1.3.3 The Local Planning Policy is to be read in conjunction with the Scheme.

1. Land use and development within the Local Planning Policy Area is also subject to the Local Planning Scheme.

Notes:

2. A Local Planning Policy is not part of the Scheme and does not bind the Local Government in respect of any application for planning approval but the local government is to have due regard to the provisions of the Policy and the objectives which the Policy is designed to achieve before making its determination.

1.4 Relationship with Local Laws 1.4.1 This Local Planning Policy operates in conjunction with the Local Government’s

Local Laws in the regulation of development and the use of land within the Scheme Area.

1.4.2 Where a provision of the Local Planning Policy is inconsistent with a Local Law, the

provision of the Local Law shall prevail. 2 PURPOSE The purpose of this Local Planning Policy is to:

(a) guide and regulate the implementation of Unrestricted Residential Accommodation (URA) use in accordance with the policy objectives ;

(b) ensure that future planning applications submitted to or referred to the City of Bunbury seeking Unrestricted Residential Accommodation use are considered in accordance with the procedures outlined within the Local Planning Policy and as such ensure assessments are accountable, comparable and consistent.

3 OBJECTIVES

In accordance with the Aims of the Scheme, achievement of the following objectives is sought by facilitating Unrestricted Residential Accommodation use in conjunction with a residential use:

(a) to broaden the scope and number of short stay accommodation options available to those visiting the City;

(b) to enhance the depth and variety of the visitor experience within strategically important tourism locations;

(c) to facilitate the development of dual use permanent residential/short stay accommodation and thus provide landowners and investors with greater flexibility in the use and leasing of residential property;

(d) to seek to ensure that premises with Unrestricted Residential Accommodation use are:

� located within supportive environments; and



� appropriate to their immediate setting; and

� suited to the purpose in terms of building form and design; and

� managed in an orderly and considerate manner.

4 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY AREA This Local Planning Policy applies to all land within the local government district of

the City of Bunbury, and as such, the Local Planning Policy Area is the Scheme Area.

5 APPLICATION 5.1 Subject to the Scheme, development and use of land for the purposes of

Unrestricted Residential Accommodation use shall be in accordance with the standards and requirements of this Local Planning Policy; and except as otherwise provided, shall require the prior planning approval of the Local Government in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme.

5.2 Unrestricted Residential Accommodation is not to be approved as a stand alone use

and shall only be applied as a dual use in conjunction with a single house, grouped dwelling or multiple dwelling.

5.3 In order to promote outcomes in accordance with the objectives of this Local

Planning Policy, residential development seeking to include the Unrestricted Residential Accommodation use shall only be considered by Local Government if the application relates to:

(a) new build development comprising a Single House, new build Grouped Dwellings1 and/or new build Multiple Dwellings; or

(b) an entire block, floor or wing comprising existing Multiple Dwellings. 5.4 The planning fee for applications seeking the additional Unrestricted Residential

Accommodation use in relation to existing Multiple Dwellings shall be commensurate with the fee for a ‘change of use’.

Notes: The applicant will also be required to pay an “Advertising Fee” (set out in the

City of Bunbury’s Schedule of Fees & Charges) prior to the commencement of advertising.

5.5 Where the proposal relates to survey strata lots or lots incorporating common

property, the explicit written support of the appropriate body corporate and/or all other owners with an interest in that land (or their legal representatives) will be required to be submitted at the same time as the making of the planning application.

5.6 A planning application that includes the Unrestricted Residential Accommodation

use shall, in keeping with the overall scale and complexity of the proposal, provide supplementary supporting information/documentation to the satisfaction of the Local

1 Where short stay accommodation is to be proposed in conjunction with the use of an existing single house or existing grouped dwelling, then approval for ‘Unrestricted Residential Occupation’ should be sought.



Government that demonstrates how and to what extent the design requirements of this Local Planning Policy have been incorporated into the proposal.

5.7 In considering an application for planning approval where a variation is proposed to

one or more Acceptable Development requirements prescribed under the Residential Design Codes and/or in order to adequately satisfy requirements under part 5.6 of this Local Planning Policy, the Local Government may require the submission of a Development Impact Statement (with terms of reference determined by the Local Government), which has been undertaken by an appropriately qualified person or body at the applicant’s expense, as part of any application for planning approval.

6 EXEMPTIONS FROM PLANNING APPROVAL

Except where provided for within the provisions of the Residential Design Codes and subject to compliance with the relevant development requirements and standards of the Scheme, there are no other exemptions or exclusions permitted under the Scheme.

7 MEANING OF TERMS 7.1 Unless the context otherwise requires, words and expressions used in this Local

Planning Policy have the same meaning as they have -

(a) in the Planning and Development Act 2005; or

(b) if they are not defined in that Act -

i. in the Dictionary of Defined Words and Expressions in Schedule 1 of the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7; or

ii. in the Residential Design Codes; or

iii. Building Code of Australia; or

iv. in a relevant Australian Standard. 7.2 The meaning of other specific words and expressions relevant to this Local Planning

Policy are given below: (a) General definitions -

Notes: 1. Unrestricted Residential Accommodation (URA) use is not specifically mentioned within the current Zoning Table of the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No.7 and thus is required to be dealt with as a land use “not listed”.

2. Landowners/managers of property incorporating a proposed URA use are advised to seek independent legal advice regarding the intended future use and management of their premises. This would include, but is not limited to checking the requirements of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 and the Fair trading Act 1987.

3. As many residential public liability insurance policies exclude the use of premises for short term rentals, landowners / managers of a property proposing to incorporate a URA use are recommended to check this matter with their insurance providers.



“Dual Use” means the use of land or buildings for activities that fall within two distinct land use classes where neither one of those uses is considered as being incidental to the other.

Notes: Unlike some examples of a dual use where two distinct land uses may operate concurrently, the use of a residence as a dwelling or alternatively as Unrestricted Residential Accommodation is unable to occur simultaneously.

“Short-stay accommodation” means a building or buildings used for the purpose of providing accommodation for a person or persons on a temporary basis for a period of time not exceeding three months in duration within a 12 month period.

“Strategic Tourism Location” means a destination node or area of visitor interest represented by pockets and clusters within the City that hold special appeal and add to the value of the tourism product in Bunbury. (b) Land use definitions - “Unrestricted Residential Accommodation” means: a premises comprising a dwelling or dwellings (either single, grouped or multiple) that benefit from extended rights in that they may be occupied either permanently as a residential dwelling, or temporarily for short-stay accommodation.

“Unrestricted Residential Occupation” means a premises comprising a single house or grouped dwelling that benefits from extended rights in that they may be occupied either permanently as a residential dwelling, or temporarily for short-stay accommodation on a time limited basis.

7.3 Notes, and instructions printed in italics, are not part of the Local Planning Policy.


PART B 8 GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT 8.1 Land Use & Development of Unrestricted Residential Accommodation

The development of premises for the purposes of Unrestricted Residential Accommodation is to be in accordance with the requirements of –

(a) this Local Planning Policy: Unrestricted Residential Accommodation (URA); and

(b) the Residential Design Codes for residential and mixed use developments, subject to the variations; and

(c) the applicable zone provisions under the Scheme; and

(d) relevant Special Control Area(s); and

(e) relevant Local Planning Policies or Local Laws; and

(f) applicable Australian Standards.

Notes: Section 8 “General Standards for Land Use & Development” of this Local Planning Policy sets out the prescriptive provisions against which Unrestricted Residential Accommodation must be evaluated as part of any land use and development within the Scheme Area.

8.2 Dual Use

Proposals seeking approval need to be submitted in the form of a dual use in the following manner:

(a) Single House / Unrestricted Residential Accommodation; or

(b) Grouped Dwelling / Unrestricted Residential Accommodation; or

(c) Multiple Dwelling / Unrestricted Residential Accommodation.

8.3 Location

In order to ensure that the use is established and contained within resilient environments supportive to tourism, the Unrestricted Residential Accommodation use will only be considered for support within:

(a) the City Centre Zone as depicted within the Scheme Map; or

(b) Special Uses Zones subject to specific provisions contained within the Scheme.

Notes: Areas of the City within which Unrestricted Residential Accommodation use may be considered for support by Local Government will be subject to future review and revision in accordance with clause 13.2 of this LPP. In undertaking this review, particular regard shall be paid to guidance contained within the adopted City of Bunbury Local Planning Strategy for Tourism, copies of which are available for viewing at the City of Bunbury Council offices or may be accessed via the City of Bunbury website http://www.bunbury.wa.gov.au/.



8.4 Setting

In order to reduce the incidence of lifestyle conflict and potential for disturbance that

may result from the mixing of short stay occupants (within dual use properties) and permanent residents (in single use properties) at close quarters on the same lot and/or survey strata scheme, the approval of Unrestricted Residential Accommodation use shall only be considered by local government where:

(a) it is proposed to apply to all dwellings forming part of the lot or survey strata scheme; or

(b) within a multiple dwellings setting, it is proposed to apply to a logical and discrete part of an existing or proposed survey strata scheme to the satisfaction of Local Government (e.g. an individual floor, block or wing).

8.5 Building Fitness 8.5.1 Dwellings the subject of a planning application incorporating an Unrestricted

Residential Accommodation use must be fit for the purpose at the time of use.

8.5.2 Dwellings with an approved Unrestricted Residential Accommodation use must comply with the Building Code of Australia (BCA) before the use is commenced.

Notes: 1. In the case of a change (extension) of use, it will be a condition of planning approval that a building licence is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Government before premises are first occupied for the purpose of short stay accommodation. The premises may be required to comply with BCA standards of more than one building class and in such cases the premises shall be required to satisfy the BCA standards relevant to each class.

2. Applicants are advised to obtain professional advice at the earliest opportunity in regard to extent of building modifications and other works that may be necessary in order to fully comply with the BCA and meet any Fire and Emergency Services Authority (FESA) requirements.

8.6 Design Considerations 8.6.1 Development applications seeking Unrestricted Residential Accommodation use

shall provide detailed designs and other supporting information that demonstrates the extent to which physical measures have been introduced (in addition to those required by the Residential Design Codes) that seek to satisfactorily address the following:

(a) achieving and maintaining adequate levels of privacy between the application site and neighbouring dwellings/properties (i.e. in respect of private amenity space provision, boundary treatments and screening); and

(b) noise mitigation measures in the case of grouped dwellings and multiple dwellings.

8.6.2 Where a mix of potential short stay accommodation (dual use properties) and

permanently occupied residences (single use properties) are proposed upon the



same parent lot, the application must adopt a comprehensive approach to design and shall demonstrate that;

(a) key facilities and services (e.g. communal parking and recreation areas, shared entrances, walkways/corridors to units, lifts and stairwell access, waste disposal facilities) are either sympathetically incorporated or segregated, such that potential for lifestyle conflict and disturbance is minimised, and

(b) in the case of new build development, unity is exhibited in external form and appearance, with largely indiscernible differences between the dual use and single use components.

8.6.3 Dwellings approved with a dual use must not be subsequently altered or modified in

such a manner that would be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes).

8.6.4 Car parking provision to a minimum standard shall be in accordance with

requirements of the Residential Design Codes.

Notes: Car parking provision above the minimum standard will potentially allow greater flexibility in establishing the controls that will form part of the Operational Management Plan (e.g. in setting the maximum number of occupiers).

8.7 Operational Management Plan 8.7.1 Unless requested to be submitted and subsequently approved as part of a planning

application, it will be a conditional requirement of any planning approval that an Operational Management Plan shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Government before the development is first occupied and shall be adhered too thereafter. Proposals that involve a change (extension) of use of multiple dwellings will require an Operational Management Plan to be submitted as part of the planning application and the agreed plan shall form part of any subsequent approval of planning approval.

8.7.2 Where the planning application relates to either grouped dwellings or multiple

dwellings, the Operational Management Plan must be agreed and subsequently enforced by the relevant body corporate (or all land owners with an interest in the land). Any changes subsequently proposed to an approved Operational Management Plan must be first agreed by the relevant body corporate (or all owners with an interest in the land) prior to seeking the written approval of Local Government.

8.7.3 The Operational Management Plan shall address the manner in which the short stay

component is to be operated and must include:

(a) a nominated local manager/caretaker with a 24hr contact number who will be responsible for the day to day smooth running of the premises and oversee adherence to the approved Operational Management Plan;

(b) house cleaning/garden maintenance/domestic waste disposal arrangements;



(c) proposed renter (agreement) controls in respect of:

i. maximum number of occupants

ii. gatherings and guest/visitor number limitations at any one time

iii. noise curfews

iv. use of outdoor areas

v. car parking

vi. trailer/equipment storage

vii. pets

(d) details of how reports of nuisance will be followed up and dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner;

(e) a fire and emergency response plan;

(f) the signed agreement of all landowners with an interest in the land (or their legally authorised representatives).

8.8 Signage

Signage shall be limited to and consistent with that normally associated with a dwelling (e.g. a nameplate). Additional advertising signage will not be supported.



PART C 9 VARIATION OF DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 9.1 Development in accordance with this policy is deemed to comply. 9.2 In exercising any discretion the Local Government should ensure that the variation

will not contravene the following provisions of the Scheme -

(a) intent & objectives of this Local Planning Policy;

(b) section 1.6 The Aims of the Scheme;

(c) section 4.2 Zone Objectives; and

(d) section 10.2 Matters to be Considered by Local Government. 10 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT STATEMENT 10.1 In conjunction with part 5.7 of this Local Planning Policy, if a proposal is considered

to have the potential to significantly impact upon residential amenity within the immediate area, the Local Government shall require a Development Impact Statement to be submitted for assessment as part of an application for planning approval, unless this requirement has been waived by the Local Government.

10.2 The Development Impact Statement shall comprise a report that is undertaken to

the satisfaction of the Local Government and contain the following information in sufficient detail to permit the Local Government to make a thorough assessment of the proposal as far as it relates to the proposed Unrestricted Residential Accommodation use, including :

(a) the adequacy of physical measures employed to protect or enhance the level of privacy afforded to occupiers of the proposal and that afforded to the occupants of neighbouring residential premises;

(b) the adequacy of physical noise mitigation measures employed that will act to retain or enhance the residential amenity afforded to occupiers of the proposal and that afforded to the occupants of neighbouring residential premises;

(c) the adequacy of controls to be introduced within the management plan (and within subsequent letting agreements) that seek to ensure that the residential amenity of the area is safeguarded.

11 NOTIFICATION & ADVERTISING

Advertising will be undertaken in accordance with the provisions under Clause 9.4 of

the Scheme.

Notes: 1. Where an application involves a use not listed in the Zoning Table of the Scheme, local government may give notice or require the applicant to give notice in one or more of the following ways:

(a) notice of the proposed use or development served on nearby owners and occupiers who, in the opinion of the local government, are likely to be affected by the granting of planning approval, stating that submissions may be made to the local government by a specified date being not less than 14 days from the day the notice is served;



(b) notice of the proposed use or development published in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme Area stating that submissions may be made to the local government by a specified date being not less than fourteen days from the day the notice is published;

(c) a sign or signs displaying notice of the proposed use or development to be erected in a conspicuous position on the land for a period of not less than 14 days from the day the notice is erected.

2. The applicant shall be required to pay an “Advertising Fee” (as set out in the City of Bunbury’s Schedule of Fees & Charges) prior to the commencement of advertising.

12. GRANTING OF PLANNING APPROVAL 12.1 Where a proposal is acceptable on planning grounds and relates to grouped and/or

multiple dwellings, the agreed Operational Management Plan must be enforced by the appropriate body corporate.

Notes: 1. In retaining the option of residency on a permanent basis, the application of the URA use class should not be interpreted as meeting any tourism accommodation requirement (i.e. in ratio calculations any dual use incorporating URA use would necessarily fall into the permanent residential proportion).

2. Following the granting of planning permission for an URA use, owners /managers are encouraged to seek accreditation from the Tourism Council of Australia. Accreditation is a non-regulatory, voluntary means of addressing customer service and consumer protection issues. Further information is available from the Tourism Council: http://www.tourismcouncilwa.com.au

13 IMPLEMENTATION & REVIEW 13.1 Why a Local Planning Policy?

The Scheme is a prescriptive instrument that sets out the legal provisions for how land may be used and developed. Sole reliance upon it for regulating all forms of development under all circumstances is not always practical and the Scheme makes allowance for this by enabling the Local Government to adopt Local Planning Polices from time to time in order to address specific issues or a range of issues in a specific place. A Local Planning Policy is a tool to assist developers in preparing proposals with a greater understanding of the Council’s desired outcomes for the City. This helps to ensure that developers can invest the time and resources needed in preparing applications for planning approval with increased confidence; and that the City’s staff and Councillors can assess development proposals in a more consistent and transparent manner.



13.2 Policy Review The Local Government will review this Local Planning Policy annually in conjunction with the rest of the Local Planning Policy Framework in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005.

SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS CITY OF BUNBURY TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 7 AMENDMENT NO. 71

No Name/Address Summary of Submission Council's Recommendation

1. South West Development Commission (SWDC)

Consider the impact that a reduction in the tourism potential of the site would result in.

To maximise the tourism benefits the short stay units should be those located on the prime part of the site (i.e. overlooking the ocean rather than the rear units).

An onsite manager will improve the quality of resident and visitor experiences.

Suggest that a management agreement should cover but not be limited to letting agent/manager arrangements, reception, access, security, maintenance, caretaking, refurbishment (for short stay units), marketing (for short stay units) and other services reasonably required for the development to operate as a successful mixed use tourism/residential building.

Upheld/Noted – The use of the majority of units as ‘Multiple Dwelling/Unrestricted Residential Accommodation’ allows for flexibility for the units to either be used for permanent residential accommodation or for short stay accommodation. When considering the impact of the tourism potential of the site there will be no loss of dedicated short stay/tourist accommodation at the site as 14 units will be designated for short stay accommodation, which is the same number of accommodation units which were provided with the former Fawlty Towers motel. There will potentially be an increase of accommodation supply with the remaining units being able to be used as short stay/tourist accommodation or permanent residential. The planning approval issued for the redevelopment in 2007 contains the following conditions which remain applicable:

Management and maintenance of the development to be by an appropriate resort management body to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Services.

A Management Statement being prepared

jpezzaniti

Text Box


and submitted in accordance with the Strata Titles Act 1985.

Additionally clause 4 in Schedule 2 – Special Use Zone 43 of the Scheme also requires a long term management agreement.

4. Operation and Management Where development would result in a strata scheme arrangement, prior to occupation, a long term management agreement will be required to be established between owners of “Unrestricted Residential Accommodation” units and the “Motel” operator in order to ensure the integrated management of all short-stay units.

If proposed Scheme Amendment 71 is endorsed the development would be subject to the provisions of Local Planning Policy: Unrestricted Residential Accommodation (LPP: URA). The purpose of this policy is to ensure that an accommodation development can be flexible and adaptive to meet the relevant short or long stay accommodation demand over time, as well as managing potential amenity impacts within a development. LPP: URA requires an Operational Management Plan to be approved prior to the development being first occupied and shall be adhered to thereafter. The Operations Management Plan is to address issues such as:

A nominated local manager/caretaker with a 24hr contact number who will be responsible for the day to day smooth running of the premises and oversee adherence to the approved Operational Management Plan;

House cleaning/garden

maintenance/domestic waste disposal arrangements;

Proposed renter (agreement) controls in respect of: maximum occupants, gatherings and guest limitations, noise curfews, use of outdoor areas, car parking, trailer/equipment storage and pets;

Details of how reports of nuisance will be followed up and dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner;

A fire and emergency response plan; and, f) The signed agreement of all landowners

with an interest in the land (or their legally authorised representatives).

Further comments are provided in the Officer Comments section of the Agenda Item report.

peter hunt architect

16/04/2014

NEW PROJECT DESIGN BRIEF – OPTION 5

HAY PARK SPORTS PAVILION AND CHANGEROOMS

1.0 Project Budget

1.1 Less than $5,000,000 (exc GST).

1.2 Refer to detail cost estimate for details of inclusions and exclusions.

2.0 External works

2.1 Demolish minor works (eg existing kerbing and roads) to allow for new work integration.

2.2 Relocation of existing light poles.

2.3 New bitumen access road and car parking (approx 33 car bays – note bus bays will be car

bays temporarily marked on the day).

2.4 Car and bus drop off.

2.5 Pedestrian concrete footpath from Rotary drive car park to new facility.

2.6 Vehicular gate to restrict access to new car park when required (note bollard fencing

around fields to prevent access is not included in the scope).

2.7 New lighting to car park and along road and footpath.

2.8 Upgrade to existing bore (modified reticulation not included in scope).

3.0 Building 1 (new pavilion/function room)

3.1 Function room

• to seat approx 160 in banquet mode – 16 tables of 10, or approx area 200sqm net.

• Facility shared by all stakeholders.

• physical and visual access to fields on both sides.

• access to wide verandah and seating plats.

• tea prep to serve directly into space.

• ceiling height 4m (acoustic tiles).

• floor finish commercial carpet.

• general wall finish – plaster painted.

• floor level elevated approx 1.5m above natural ground to improve sightlines and

water table issues.

3.2 Tea Prep

• Prep area only.

• Approx nett area 50sqm.


• To serve externally to both sides and internally.

• Laminated bench with open shelves under.

• Sink.

• Hand basin.

• Roller shutters.

• Access to bins.

• ceiling height 2.7m (flush plasterboard).

• floor finish sheet vinyl.

• general wall finish – plaster painted.

jpezzaniti

Text Box

APPENDIX DWS-1 13 May 2014

3.3 Store

• Approx nett area 10sqm.


3.4 Public toilets

• Provide two unisex ‘accessible toilets’ (one with baby change).

• Access externally from under the verandah.



• floor finish non slip ceramic tiles.

• general wall finish – full height ceramic tiles.

3.5 Bin Store/ HWU


• Wash down facility.

3.6 Verandah

• Min 3m wide.

• Located on both sides facing the playing fields.

• Roof cover over.

• Floor finish – broom finish concrete sealed.

• Seating plats – concrete finish (seating not included in contract) approx 450 high.

• Ceiling – villaboard painted.

3.7 Other misc items

• Building to be located next to carpark.

• Building to be located centrally to the premier soccer pitch.

• Upgrade of power supply if required is only for the new works and not any future

works (eg new field lighting).

• External wall – rendered brickwork painted.

• Glazing – single glazed performance glass.

• Window treatments, loose furniture and FF&E supplied and install by others.

• General statutory signage – way finding and building sign supplied and installed by

others.

4.0 Building 2 (change rooms)

4.1 Change rooms (unisex – include urinals in all)

• Approx area 50sqm nett.

• Facilities include, 3 showers, 2 pans, urinal trough.

• Bench seating approx 9m long with coat hooks above.


• floor finish mono concrete broom finish sealed.

• general wall finish – face blockwork painted.

• ceramic tiles – skirting, splashbacks, 2100 high to showers.

• laminated shower partitions with no doors (curtains by others).

• entry doors to be steel open mesh gates.

• hot water – instantaneous electric units – one to each shower.

• cold water only to hand basins.

• individual mirrors.

• mechanical exhaust only – no A/C.

4.2 First aid room

• Approx area 12 sqm.

• Facilities include sink and cupboard, and hand basin.




• solid core door with steel face.

• A/C spilt system.

• shared by all stakeholders.


4.3 Office

• Approx area 12 sqm.






• A/C spilt system.


4.4 Stores

• Approx area 9 sqm each – minimum of 4.


• mono concrete sealed.




4.5 Public toilet

• Provide unisex ‘accessible toilets’ (with baby change).


• floor finish – ceramic tile.

• general wall finish – full height ceramic tile.

• natural ventilation only.



4.6 Verandah

• Min 2m wide.

• Located on both sides facing the playing fields.

• Roof cover over.

• Floor finish – broom finish concrete sealed.

• Ceiling – villaboard painted.

4.7 Other misc items

• External wall – rendered brickwork painted.

• Glazing – single glazed performance glass.

• General statutory signage – way finding and building sign supplied and installed by

others.

jpezzaniti

Text Box


jpezzaniti

Text Box


jpezzaniti

Text Box


jpezzaniti

Text Box


Documents

Appendices - City of Bunbury