SHIRE OF JERRAMUNGUP October 2009 Minutes... · The Shire President requested that the Chief Executive ... as well as scouring of ... Shire of Jerramungup has been issued with management

1

SHIRE OF JERRAMUNGUP

MINUTES

COUNCIL ORDINARY MEETING

20th October 2009

NOT CONFIRMED BY COUNCIL

2

SHIRE OF JERRAMUNGUP

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD IN THE TOWN HALL, BREMER BAY ON TUESDAY 20TH OCTOBER 2009, COMMENCING AT 10.30AM. 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS The Chief Executive Officer declared the meeting open at 10:30am. 2. ELECTION OF PRESIDENT & DEPUTY PRESIDENT

The Chief Executive Officer called for nominations for the position of Shire President. Councillor Trevaskis was nominated in writing for the position of Shire President by Councillor Barrett. Councillor Trevaskis accepted this nomination. There being no further nominations Councillor Trevaskis was elected to the position of Shire President for a period of two years.

Councillor Trevaskis completed the Declaration for the office of Shire President in the presence of Ex-Shire President Mrs Glenyse Garnett and then presided over the meeting.

The Shire President requested that the Chief Executive Officer conduct the election for the position of Deputy Shire President. The Chief Executive Officer called for nominations for the position of Deputy Shire President. Councillor Bailey was nominated in writing for the position of Deputy Shire President by Councillor Trevaskis. Councillor Bailey accepted this nomination. There being no further nominations Councillor Bailey was elected to the position of Deputy Shire President for a period of two years.

Councillor Bailey completed the Declaration for the Office of Deputy Shire President.

Glenyse Garnett left the meeting at 10:35am 3. ATTENDANCE Cr B Trevaskis President Cr W Bailey Deputy President Cr R Williams Member Cr C Hobbs Member Cr J Iffla Member Cr B Atkin Member Mr W Parker Chief Executive Officer Mr B Bailey Deputy Chief Executive Officer

3

Mr G Edwards Executive Manager – Infrastructure Services 4. APOLOGIES Nil 5. LEAVE OF ABSENCE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED

Cr Barrett had an approved leave of absence for the October 2009 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

6. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil 7. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil 8. DECLARATIONS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST

Councillor Iffla declared an Impartiality Interest relating to item 10.4.4. Cr Iffla assisted in the compilation of the Bremer Bay Sports Club Business Plan.

9. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

9.1 Ordinary Council Meeting of 15th September 2009

OC100901 Moved Cr Bailey / Seconded Cr Iffla That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 15th September 2009 be confirmed.

Carried 6-0

4

W O R K S

5

SUBMISSION TO: Works AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.1.1 SUBJECT: Works Report LOCATION/ADDRESS: Shire of Jerramungup NAME OF APPLICANT: N/A FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Graham Edwards DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Nil DATE OF REPORT: 12 October 2009 CONSTRUCTION

The 2009 / 2010 Road Construction and Flood Damage Programme is continuing with work in progress on the forming and gravel sheeting of Jacup North Road.

As harvest and the Christmas holiday season approach, attention will switch to flood damage repairs and response to maintenance requests.

MAINTENANCE

During September maintenance was undertaken on: Barnes Drive Bowra Road Boxwood-Borden Road Bremer Bay Road Brook Road Brown Road Brown South Road Buck Street Cameron Road Cardinniniup Road Carlawillup Road Carlawillup South Road Carney Road Corackerup Road Cowellelup Road Cuneo Drive Devils Creek Road Devils Creek South Road Dillon Bay Road Don Ende Drive Doubtful Island Road Exchange Road Fisheries Beach Road Fitzgerald Road Gully Road Horse Hill Road Jerramungup North Road John Street Kokoda Road Lake Road Lancaster Road Little Boat Harbour Road Mallee Road Margaret Street Marnigarup Road Marnigarup South Road Marnigarup West Road Meechi Road Melaleuca Court Millers Point Road Monjebup Road Monkey Rock Road Mount Joy Road Murray Road Native Dog Beach Road Needilup North Road Norman Road Peniup Road Point Gordon Road Point Henry Road Rabbit Proof Fence Road Reid Road Ridgeway Drive Short Beach Road South Coast Hwy Stock Road Swamp Road Taidia Road Through Road Vasey Street Wellstead Road JERRAMUNGUP SEWER SYSTEM

The Economic Regulation Authority recently conducted a Water Operating License Audit and Asset Management Review of the Jerramungup sewerage system. Generally the Shire of Jerramungup was seen to be operating the sewer system adequately however a number of recommendations have been proposed. These include

6

those detailed in the extract from the report, which is attached for information purposes only. RECOMMENDATION That the Works Report be received. OC100902 Moved Cr Williams / Seconded Cr Atkin That the Works Report be received.

Carried 6-0

7

SUBMISSION TO: Works AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.1.2 SUBJECT: Policy – Sandbar Opening LOCATION/ADDRESS: Wellstead Estuary NAME OF APPLICANT: Department of Water FILE REFERENCE: 10.1.3 AUTHOR: Graham Edwards DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Nil DATE OF REPORT: 14 October 2009 SUMMARY The purpose of the report is to consider a Draft Wellstead Estuary Sandbar Opening Policy proposed by the Department of Water. ATTACHMENT Attached are:

1. The Department of Water’s Draft Wellstead Estuary Sandbar Policy.

2. Photographs of flooding at the Bremer Bay Caravan Park as a result of a high water level in the Wellstead Estuary from the rainfall event between 30 March and 2 April 2005.

BACKGROUND The Wellstead Estuary Management Plan includes the following. Action FV7: Promote policy of non intervention in sandbar openings, in order to

encourage seasonal inundation of fringing vegetation and maximise water exchange.

Priority: 1 Lead Agency: Department of Environment Time Period: Ongoing Explanation: Artificial sandbar openings can reduce estuarine water levels and

inundation of fringing vegetation. Water exchange with the ocean can be reduced, as well as scouring of channels. Debate about artificial openings can be wasteful use of limited resources and any artificial openings increase maintenance costs over time. There should be presumption against development in floodplain, to allow natural bar openings.

Additional background information is provided in the Department of Water’s Draft Policy.

8

CONSULTATION The Council is being consulted regarding the Department of Water’s Draft Wellstead Estuary Sandbar Opening Policy. The Draft policy has been endorsed by the Wellstead Estuary Advisory Committee. COMMENT As advised in the Department of Water’s Draft Policy document the:

1. Shire of Jerramungup has been issued with management orders for Reserve 21646, which includes the Wellstead Estuary.

2. Department of Water has management responsibility for the State’s water

resources, which includes the Wellstead Estuary. It is recommended that the Council supports the Department of Water Policy, which is consistent with Action FV7 of the Wellstead Estuary Management Plan, subject to the following clarifications.

1. The Sandbar Opening Procedure proposes “Shire to develop a flood mitigation procedure for affected areas”.

An engineering solution for the mitigation of flooding, such as that shown at the caravan park in the attached photographs, would be a major undertaking involving substantial modification of the Wellstead Estuary foreshore. For environmental, social and financial reasons a strategic approach involving planning and development control solutions is required for the flood mitigation. It is also suggested that regardless of the time of year, it demonstrates responsibility as a management authority that the Shire of Jerramungup consults with the Department of Water before any opening of the Wellstead Estuary proceeds.

2. The Summary of Stakeholder Responsibilities nominates:

a) That the Shire of Jerramungup “Determines timing and location of bar openings” with the Department of Water to “Provide advice to the Shire of Jerramungup on timing of sandbar opening”.

It is suggested that: • The Department of Water is the statutory agency and has the

expertise regarding the issue of Wellstead Estuary water quality, rather than the Shire of Jerramungup.

• The Department of Environment (Water) is nominated as the lead

agency with regard to sandbar openings in the Wellstead Estuary Management Plan.

• Determining the timing and location of bar openings should rest with

the Department of Water.

9

• The Shire of Jerramungup implements opening of the sandbar only

upon Department of Water advice.

b) That the Wellstead Estuary Advisory Committee (WEAC) “Oversees implementation of the Wellstead Estuary management plan”.

The Wellstead Estuary Management Plan nominates some 32 Actions for lead agencies being: • Department of Environment (Water) 10 Actions • Fitzgerald Biosphere Group 10 Actions

• Shire of Jerramungup 9 Actions • Department for Planning and Infrastructure 1 Action

• Department of Fisheries 1 Action

• Department for Food and Agriculture 1 Action

The Plan also states that: A management group is to be established to co-ordinate implementation of this plan. This management group is expected to include agencies such as the Department of Environment, Department of Agriculture and Shire of Jerramungup as well as local community (including indigenous) representatives. The group will be serviced by the Fitzgerald Biosphere Group and a dedicated person will be appointed by this group to oversee the plan’s implementation. The Wellstead Estuary Management Plan has been developed without an identifying a reliable source of committed revenue for implementation and therefore consideration to the reality of competing interests and financial constraint faced by the various agencies. This factor is common to many asset management plans and does not lessen their value, but simply alters the timeframe for implementation. For the Shire of Jerramungup at least, there has been considerable angst arising from implementation of the Wellstead Estuary Management Plan with timeframe expectations exceeding resource and financial capacity. Involvement has also at times extended to issues beyond the plan actions. It is suggested that: • As its title nominates, WEAC is an advisory committee providing a

means for the combined input of community and agency opinion into implementation of the Wellstead Estuary Management Plan.

10

• WEAC has neither the authority, resources nor funding required for implementation of the Wellstead Estuary Management Plan. Regardless of decisions for implementation by WEAC or the person appointed by the Fitzgerald Biosphere Group, neither Shire of Jerramungup nor government agency officers can proceed contrary to the financial or other directives of the Council or Department.

• WEAC has a valuable role for collective consultation and a

collaborative rather than adversarial stakeholder relationship is essential, for the most beneficial implementation of the Wellstead Estuary Management Plan.

• The nominated lead agencies are responsible for implementation of

the actions agreed in the Wellstead Estuary Management Plan. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS There are numerous potential legislative associations which might be drawn with opening of the Wellstead Estuary sandbar. Generally however the requirements fall within the statutory obligations of the authorities responsible for managing the Wellstead Estuary and the associated reserve. These authorities are the Shire of Jerramungup and the Department of Water. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The following associations are drawn from the Shire of Jerramungup’s 2009-2014 Strategic Plan regarding management of the Wellstead Estuary. Key Focus Area One: Ongoing social, economic and financial viability. The Shire of Jerramungup will continue to grow and prosper whilst maintaining its identity and sense of place by:

1. Identifying alternative revenue sources.

2. Providing a range of recreational and sporting opportunities.

3. Recognising our heritage and the contributions that war settlement and indigenous people have made to the community.

Key Focus Area Two: Service Delivery & the Environment The Shire of Jerramungup will deliver a range of excellent community services whilst minimising our impact on the environment by:

4. Supporting a range of community services that enhances the community fabric. 5. Working in partnership with key agencies to deliver environmentally responsible

services.

11

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There is no specific budgetary allocation for opening of the Wellstead Estuary sandbar however it will be an infrequent occurrence, with costs not anticipated as being prohibitive. The Department of Water has no funds to support the costs of bar openings at Wellstead or other estuaries POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple majority

RECOMMENDATION That the Department of Water is advised:

1. Of Jerramungup Shire Council support for the Department of Water’s Draft Wellstead Estuary Sandbar Opening Policy.

2. That support for the Draft Policy is subject to clarification regarding the various

roles including that of the Wellstead Estuary Advisory Committee and the person appointed by the Fitzgerald Biosphere Group to oversee the plan’s implementation.

3. That as the authority responsible for management of the Wellstead Estuary

Reserve 21646 it is a Shire of Jerramungup policy:

a) To consult with and support the development of achievable policies by the Department of Water for management of the Wellstead Estuary.

b) That breaching of the Wellstead Estuary sandbar by the Shire of

Jerramungup is at a location and at all times only as advised by the Department of Water.

OC100903 Moved: Cr Williams / Seconded Cr Bailey That the Department of Water is advised:

1. Of the Jerramungup Shire Council’s support for the Department of Water’s Draft Wellstead Estuary Sandbar Opening Policy.

2. That support for the Draft Policy is subject to clarification regarding the

various roles including that of the Wellstead Estuary Advisory Committee and the person appointed by the Fitzgerald Biosphere Group to oversee the plan’s implementation.

12

3. That as the authority responsible for management of the Wellstead Estuary Reserve 21646 it is a Shire of Jerramungup policy:

a) To consult with and support the development of achievable policies

by the Department of Water for management of the Wellstead Estuary.

b) That breaching of the Wellstead Estuary sandbar by the Shire of

Jerramungup is at a location and at all times only as advised by the Department of Water.

Carried 6-0

13

SUBMISSION TO: Works AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.1.3 SUBJECT: Proposed Change of Purpose LOCATION/ADDRESS: Reserve 15802 Needilup North Road NAME OF APPLICANT: N/A FILE REFERENCE: 10.13 AUTHOR: Graham Edwards DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Nil DATE OF REPORT: 7 October 2009 SUMMARY The purpose of the report is to reconsider part 10 of Council resolution OC100213 from the Ordinary Council Meeting on 15 October 2002 when it was proposed to “Seek a change of use for Reserve 15802 from ‘Cemetery’ to ‘Refuse Disposal Site.” ATTACHMENT Attached are:

1. Correspondence from the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (State Land Services) to the Shire of Jerramungup. This includes a letter dated 27 March 2003, from the Shire of Jerramungup to State Land Services (formerly Department of Land Administration).

2. The Jerramungup Shire Council resolution OC100213 of 15 October 2002.

3. Photographs of the pioneer grave and typical, site vegetation.

BACKGROUND At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 15 October 2002 the Jerramungup Shire Council resolved to “Seek a change of use for Reserve 15802 from Cemetery to Refuse Disposal Site.” State Land services recently raised the matter which is subject to Native Title considerations and has remained dormant for several years. CONSULTATION Council is being consulted to confirm that it wishes to proceed with the resolution to change the purpose for Reserve 15802. COMMENT Reserve 15802 is located on the western side of Needilup North Road approximately 2.4 km north of the Broomehill-Jerramungup Road. The attached correspondence indicates that Reserve 15802 has:

1. Been used as a landfill facility since the early 1950’s.

14

2. Been registered as a landfill facility by the Department of Environment and

Conservation.

3. Never received any burials or had any gravesites at the location. The existing situation is however that:

1. The active Needilup landfill facility is located in the north western corner of the Needilup Townsite, approximately 2km to the south of Reserve 15802.

2. Reserve 15802 is well vegetated and there is very little evidence of past use as a

landfill facility.

3. Whilst it may be in the road reserve, there is a pioneer grave near the south eastern corner of Reserve 15802.

Additionally:

1. Reserve 15802 is a small reserve with an area of 2.02 hectares.

2. The Environmental Protection (Rural Landfill) Regulations 2002 require that unless otherwise approved in writing the occupier of a site must ensure that there is no waste within:

a) 35 metres from the fence surrounding the site.

b) 100 metres of any surface water body at the site.

c) 3 metres of the highest level of the water table aquifer at the site.

Compliance with the Environmental Protection (Rural Landfill) Regulations 2002 will mean that at least 1.50 hectares of the site will be required to satisfy the boundary buffer requirement. It is probable that this area will be greater as there is also a creek line adjacent to the southern boundary of the reserve.

3. Reserve 15802 is a highly visible location with environmental concerns for operation as a landfill facility.

4. Closure of the Needilup waste facility has been foreshadowed in the Draft

Strategic Waste Management Plan for the Stirling Group of Councils. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS If the Council decides to proceed with the change of purpose and development of Reserve 15802 as a waste facility legislation that will apply includes:

1. Land Administration Act 1997.

2. Native Title Act 1993 Future.

3. Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.

15

4. Environmental Protection (Rural Landfill) Regulations 2002 and development conditions imposed by the Department of Environment and Conservation.

If the Council decides against proceeding with the change of purpose and development of Reserve 15802 as a waste facility then the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 will apply. 10. Revoking or changing decisions made at council or committee meetings —

s. 5.25(1)(e)

1. If a decision has been made at a council or a committee meeting then any motion to revoke or change the decision must be supported:

a) In the case where an attempt to revoke or change the decision had been

made within the previous 3 months but had failed, by an absolute majority; or

b) In any other case, by at least 1/3 of the number of offices (whether vacant

or not) of members of the council or committee, inclusive of the mover.

1a. Notice of a motion to revoke or change a decision referred to in subregulation (1) is to be signed by members of the council or committee numbering at least 1/3 of the number of offices (whether vacant or not) of members of the council or committee, inclusive of the mover.

2. If a decision has been made at a council or a committee meeting then any

decision to revoke or change the first-mentioned decision must be made:

a) in the case where the decision to be revoked or changed was required to be made by an absolute majority or by a special majority, by that kind of majority; or

b) In any other case, by an absolute majority.

3. This regulation does not apply to the change of a decision unless the effect of the

change would be that the decision would be revoked or would become substantially different.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The following associations are drawn with the Shire of Jerramungup’s 2009-2014 Strategic Plan. Key Focus Area One: Ongoing social, economic and financial viability. The Shire of Jerramungup will continue to grow and prosper whilst maintaining its identity and sense of place by:

6. Establishing partnerships with neighbouring councils to achieve service delivery efficiencies.

7. Recognising our heritage and the contributions that war settlement and

indigenous people have made to the community.

16

Key Focus Area Two: Service Delivery & the Environment The Shire of Jerramungup will deliver a range of excellent community services whilst minimising our impact on the environment by:

1. Ensuring that growth occurs in a controlled and sustainable manner.


services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There is no budgetary allocation for the change of purpose and development of Reserve 15802 as a refuse disposal facility.

1. Advice from State Land Services is that the Shire of Jerramungup will need to accept all Native Title and Aboriginal Heritage costs.

2. The Department of Environment and Conservation approval for use of the

reserve is conditional upon flora surveys and any other approvals which may be required.

3. Development costs for operation of the site as a compliant waste management

facility will be significant. It is It is suggested that the cost / benefit ratio for proceeding is prohibitive. POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no policy implications from this matter. VOTING REQUIREMENTS A simple majority will apply if the Council reaffirms decision OC100213 of 15 October 2002. If the Council revokes part 10 of resolution OC100213 of 15 October 2002, which is substantially different to the original decision then:

1. Any motion to revoke or change the decision must be supported by at least 1/3 of the number of offices (whether vacant or not) of members of the council, inclusive of the mover.

2. An absolute majority is required for Point 1 of the recommendation.

3. An simple majority is required for Point 2 of the recommendation

17

RECOMMENDATION That:

1. Part 10 of resolution OC100213 from the Ordinary Council Meeting of 15 October 2002 when it was decided to “Seek a change of use for Reserve 15802 from ‘Cemetery’ to ‘Refuse Disposal Site” is revoked.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority 2. State Land Services be advised that the Shire of Jerramungup no longer

wishes to proceed with the change of purpose for Reserve 15802 from “Cemetery” to “Rubbish and Sanitary Disposal”.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority OC100904 Moved Cr Iffla / Seconded Cr Hobbs

That:

1. Part 10 of resolution OC100213 from the Ordinary Council Meeting of 15 October 2002 when it was decided to “Seek a change of use for Reserve 15802 from ‘Cemetery’ to ‘Refuse Disposal Site” is revoked.

Carried by Absolute Majority 6-0

OC100905 Moved Cr Williams / Cr Bailey That:

2. State Land Services be advised that the Shire of Jerramungup no

longer wishes to proceed with the change of purpose for Reserve 15802 from “Cemetery” to “Rubbish and Sanitary Disposal”.

Carried 6-0

18

SUBMISSION TO: Works AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.1.4 SUBJECT: Bremer Bay UCL Lots 32 & 129. LOCATION/ADDRESS: Muir’s Point, Bremer Bay. NAME OF APPLICANT: N/A FILE REFERENCE: 12.12.1 AUTHOR: Graham Edwards DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Nil DATE OF REPORT: 10 October 2009 SUMMARY The purpose of the report is to further consider the proposed reservation and issuing of a Management Order in favour of the Shire of Jerramungup, from the consolidation of UCL lot 32, UCL lot 129 and a portion of Bennett Street, Bremer Bay. ATTACHMENT Attached are:

1. Correspondence from the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (State Land Services).

2. Minutes from the Ordinary Council Meetings of October and December 2007.

3. The Wellstead Estuary Advisory Committee Muir’s Point Draft Upgrade Plan.

4. The Muir’s Point Boating Access Improvement Report prepared by Paul

Robertson and Associates. BACKGROUND In recent years there has been a demand for the substantial upgrading of facilities at Muir’s Point, Bremer Bay. The demand is supported by Action R2 of the Wellstead Estuary Management Plan which states that: Boat launching area at Muir’s Point to be enhanced with larger car parking area and improved facilities for canoe users. Council has considered the matter previously and the following is provided as background information.

1. At the Council Ordinary Meeting of October 2007 a proposal by the Wellstead Estuary Advisory Committee for upgrading at Muir’s Point was considered and it was resolved:

19

That Council refer the Wellstead Estuary Advisory Committee’s Muir’s Point Boat Facility Draft Upgrade Plan to the Bremer Bay Community Development Committee for comment.

2. The agenda item of October 2007 was then presented to the December 2007

meeting of the Bremer Community Development Committee, when it was recommended and subsequently resolved at the December 2007 Council Ordinary Meeting:

a) That Council be advised that the Bremer Bay Community Development

Committee supports the Wellstead Estuary Advisory Committee’s Muir’s Point project and requests that planning include a picnic area.

b) Recommended that Council follow the following steps:

• Continue with Council’s application for the adjoining UCL to be made

into a reserve under Council’s management and control.

• Seek funding assistance from DoW to engage a consultant to design and cost the proposed works.

• As part of the 2008/09 budget process, prepare a staged plan for the project that relies on grant funding and includes works on the adjoining UCL once the land is under Council control.

3. Paul Robertson and Associates was engaged and a number of minor

improvements were recommended, at a total estimated value of $3,150. This was substantially less than the upgrading sought by the Wellstead Estuary Advisory Committee.

4. Funding assistance was sought from the Department of Water with $5,000 being

contributed and used for engaging of the consultant and implementation of the recommendations.

5. Grant funding was not forthcoming and the 2008/2009 budget did not include an

allocation for the preparation of a staged development plan. The area nominated for upgrading comprises:

1. Road reserve managed by the Shire of Jerramungup.

2. The Wellstead Estuary Reserve 21646 where management orders have been issued in favour of the Shire of Jerramungup.

3. UCL lots 32 and 129, where management orders have not been issued.

The attached correspondence between State Land Services and the former Chief Executive Officer indicates current progress regarding the creation of a reserve and issuing of management orders. State Land Services is seeking comment to the suggestion that either:

20

1. Lots 32 and 129 and the portion of Bennett Street Road Reserve comprise a separate reserve for the purpose of “Parklands and Lookout”, with a management order issued in favour of the Shire of Jerramungup; or

2. The subject area is included into the adjoining Wellstead Estuary Reserve 21646

for “Recreation and Camping”, with management by the Shire of Jerramungup. State Land Services also:

1. Seeks advice regarding progress towards the closure of Bennett Street, pursuant to section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997, being a prerequisite to the creation of the proposed reserve.

2. Has confirmed that lots 32 and 129 are subject to Native Title considerations.

3. Suggests imposing as a condition of the management order that “The

Management Body (Shire of Jerramungup) must ensure that all provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 with respect to the use and development of the reserve are complied with”.

CONSULTATION Formal and informal consultation has included the:

1. Wellstead Estuary Advisory Committee. 2. Department of Water. 3. Concerned residents.

4. Bremer Bay Community Development Committee.

At this stage the issue is land tenure rather than the development of facilities. It is suggested that further consultation is unnecessary and will prolong a decision. COMMENT Although some development is on unallocated crown land the existing usage at Muir’s Point is primarily on the Bennett Street road reserve, which is managed by the Shire of Jerramungup. Generally the maintenance undertaken to this area is basic and financially manageable. The present priorities are reserve creation, defined purpose and management authority however pressure for the upgrading of facilities might increase with the acceptance of responsibility by the Council. The acceptance of management orders however does not compel the Council to acquiesce and it is suggested that no further improvements are considered at Muir’s Point before: 1. Native Title issues are resolved. 2. The reserve and management responsibilities are established in favour of the

Shire of Jerramungup.

21

3. Recommendations of the Wellstead Estuary Management Plan, the Coastal Management Plan and various other reserve documents are consolidated into a Reserves Asset Management Strategy and integrated with the 10 Year Financial Plan.

4. Funds are available for the preparation of a Muir’s Point Development Plan,

implementation of that plan and continuing maintenance of the facilities installed. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Compliance is required with: 1. Section 46 of the Land Administration Act 1997 which states that:

The Minister may by order place with any one person or jointly with any 2 or more persons the care, control and management of a reserve for the same purpose as that for which the relevant crown land is reserved under section 41 and for purposes ancillary or beneficial to that purpose and may in that order subject that care, control and management to such conditions as the Minister specifies.

2. Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 for the closure of Bennett Street, which is a prerequisite to the creation of the reserve as proposed.

3. The Native Title Act 1993 prior to the designation of lots 32 and 129 as reserve. 4. The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 for the use and development of the proposed

reserve.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

The creation of a reserve and acceptance of management orders is the first stage in a long term objective for the development of facilities at Muir’s Point. Associations with the 2009-2014 Strategic Plan include: Key Focus Area One: Ongoing social, economic and financial viability. The Shire of Jerramungup will continue to grow and prosper whilst maintaining its identity and sense of place by:

8. Identifying alternative revenue sources.

9. Providing a range of recreational and sporting opportunities.

10. Recognising our heritage and the contributions that war settlement and indigenous people have made to the community.

Key Focus Area Two: Service delivery & the environment The Shire of Jerramungup will deliver a range of excellent community services whilst minimising our impact on the environment by:


22


services. Key Focus Area Three: Building and road infrastructure The Shire of Jerramungup will provide the community with quality road and building infrastructure by:

14. Ensuring that built infrastructure is well utilised and maintained.

15. Adopting whole of life asset management principles. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The recommendations of the Bremer Bay Community Development Committee have been made without consideration of financial constraints and subject to grant funding. There is an element of ambiguity about the Council resolution however by adopting the BBCDC recommendations the Council has indicated a desire to gain control of the land and prepare a staged plan for the upgrading of Muir’s Point subject to grant funding. The Shire of Jerramungup is required to action the closure of Bennett Street pursuant to section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997. It is also expected that the Shire will meet the costs associated with Native Title considerations. These actions are required before reservation and the issuing of management orders in favour of the Shire of Jerramungup proceeds. The cost of these immediate expenses is uncertain but estimated to be in the vicinity of $15,000 to $20,000. Whilst perhaps not prohibitive, funds were not allocated for the purpose in either the 2008/2009 or 2009/2010 budgets. Assistance received from the Department of Water was insufficient for implementation of the Council resolution. The 2009/2010 budget includes an allocation of $2,964 for Muir’s Point of which $1,500 is designated for contract mowing. The dilemma is that State Land Services has been mobilised by the Shire of Jerramungup, before funds were forthcoming for the project. POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no policy implications. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority.

23

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. State Land Services is advised:

a) Of Jerramungup Shire Council support for UCL lots 32 and 129 and the adjoining portion of Bennett Street, to the north of George Street, being consolidated into a separate reserve for the purpose of “Parklands and Lookout” with a Management Order issued in favour of the Shire of Jerramungup including the condition that “The Management Body (Shire of Jerramungup) must ensure compliance with all provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 with respect to the use and development of the reserve”.

b) That to date there has been no action towards closing the northern portion

of Bennett Street, nor have funds been allocated for the purpose of Native Title considerations.

The Jerramungup Shire Council requests that this matter rests for the time being.

2. The Bremer Bay Community Development Committee is advised that no further

consideration will be given to the upgrading of facilities at Muir’s Point before:

a) Native Title issues are resolved.

b) The reserve is created and management responsibilities are established in favour of the Shire of Jerramungup.

c) Recommendations of the Wellstead Estuary Management Plan, the

Coastal Management Plan and various other reserve documents are consolidated into a Reserves Asset Management Strategy and integrated with the 10 Year Financial Plan.

d) Revenue is sourced for the reserve creation, Native Title considerations,

preparation of a Muir’s Point Development Plan, implementing of that plan and the continuing maintenance of the upgraded facilities.

OC100906 Moved Cr Bailey / Seconded Cr Atkin That:

1. State Land Services is advised:

a) Of Jerramungup Shire Council support for UCL lots 32 and 129 and the adjoining portion of Bennett Street, to the north of George Street, being consolidated into a separate reserve for the purpose of “Parklands and Lookout” with a Management Order issued in favour of the Shire of Jerramungup including the condition that “The Management Body (Shire of Jerramungup) must ensure compliance

24

with all provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 with respect to the use and development of the reserve”.

b) That to date there has been no action towards closing the northern

portion of Bennett Street, nor have funds been allocated for the purpose of Native Title considerations.

The Jerramungup Shire Council requests that this matter rests for the time being.

2. The Bremer Bay Community Development Committee is advised that no

further consideration will be given to the upgrading of facilities at Muir’s Point before:

a) Native Title issues are resolved.

b) The reserve is created and management responsibilities are

established in favour of the Shire of Jerramungup.

c) Recommendations of the Wellstead Estuary Management Plan, the Coastal Management Plan and various other reserve documents are consolidated into a Reserves Asset Management Strategy and integrated with the 10 Year Financial Plan.

d) Revenue is sourced for the reserve creation, Native Title

considerations, preparation of a Muir’s Point Development Plan, implementing of that plan and the continuing maintenance of the upgraded facilities.

Carried 6-0

25

F I N A N C E

26

SUBMISSION TO: Finance AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.2.1 SUBJECT: Accounts Payable LOCATION/ADDRESS: Shire of Jerramungup NAME OF APPLICANT: FILE REFERENCE: 16.7 AUTHOR: Kirsty Hodgins DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: DATE OF REPORT: 9th October 2009 ATTACHMENT BACKGROUND

FUND

VOUCHERS

AMOUNTS

Municipal Account 25791 Last cheque used

EFT2520 – EFT2592 $132,914.97

EFT2593 Cancelled

EFT2594 – EFT26 10 $145,299.56

EFT2611 Cancelled

EFT2612 – EFT2615 $2,239.75

25719 - 25770 $67,812.33

25771 Cancelled

25772 – 25774 $2,937.89

25775 Cancelled

25776-25791 $19,299.95

Direct Debits $114,817.67

Trust Account 000163 $444.00

Municipal Account Total $733,353.71

Trust Account Total $444.00

GRAND TOTAL $733,797.71

CERTIFICATE This schedule of accounts as presented, which was submitted to each member of the Council, has been checked and is fully supported by vouchers and invoices which are submitted herewith and which have been duly certified as to the receipt of goods and the rendition of services and as to prices computation, and costings and the amounts shown have been paid.

27

VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority. RECOMMENDATION That the schedule of direct debits and accounts payable, totalling $733,797.71 which was submitted to the Full Council on 20th October 2009 be endorsed. SIGNATURES ____________________ ____________________ Author Chief Executive Officer

OC100907 Moved Cr Williams / Cr Hobbs That the schedule of direct debits and accounts payable, totalling $733,797.71 which was submitted to the Full Council on 20th October 2009 be endorsed.

Carried 6/0

28

SUBMISSION TO: Finance AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.2.2 SUBJECT: Monthly Financial Report LOCATION/ADDRESS: Shire of Jerramungup AUTHOR: Brent Bailey DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Nil DATE OF REPORT: 5 October 2009 SUMMARY This report presents the monthly financial report to Council which is provided as an attachment to the agenda. The recommendation is to receive the monthly financial report. ATTACHMENT Monthly Financial Report – Period Ending 30 September 2009

BACKGROUND As per the Financial Management Regulation 34 each Local Government is to prepare each month a statement of financial activity reporting on the sources and applications of funds, as set out in the annual budget under regulation 22(1) (d), for that month with the following detail

� The annual budget estimates, � The operating revenue, operating income, and all other income and expenses, � Any significant variations between year to date income and expenditure and the

relevant budget provisions to the end of the relevant reporting period, � Identify any significant areas where activities are not in accordance with budget

estimates for the relevant reporting period, � Provide likely financial projections to 30 June for those highlighted significant

variations and their effect on the end of year result, � Include an operating statement, and � Any other required supporting notes.

CONSULTATION Council financial records. COMMENT This report contains annual budget estimates, actual amounts of expenditure, revenue and income to the end of the month. It shows the material differences between the budget and actual amounts where they are not associated to timing differences for the purpose of keeping Council abreast of the current financial position. The road construction and maintenance graphs have been added to the financial report to give Council an indication of the progress of each programme. Council should note that due to the delay between committed costs and invoices being received the graph level for the current month will be behind total expenditure.

29

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 require that financial activity statement reports are provided each month reporting on the sources and applications of funds, as set out in the annual budget under regulation 22(1)(d) for that month. The report is to be presented at either the next ordinary meeting after the end of the month, or if not prepared in time to the next ordinary meeting after that meeting. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Key Focus Area One: Ongoing social, economic and financial viability. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As detailed within the Monthly Financial Report POLICY IMPLICATIONS Finance Policy 2: Detailed within Monthly Financial Report VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority. RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive the Monthly Financial Report for the period ending 30 September 2009 in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995.

OC100908 Moved Cr Iffla / Seconded Cr Bailey

That Council receive the Monthly Financial Report for the period ending 30 September 2009 in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Carried 6-0

30

SUBMISSION TO: Finance AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.2.3 SUBJECT: Review of Finance Policies LOCATION/ADDRESS: NAME OF APPLICANT: Shire of Jerramungup FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Brent Bailey DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Nil DATE OF REPORT: 8 October 2009 SUMMARY This item seeks to review Council’s current finance policies. The recommendation is to adopt a revised set of finance policies. ATTACHMENT Attachment 10.2.3 (a) Current Finance Policies Attachment 10.2.3 (b) Revised Finance Policies to be adopted

BACKGROUND Council’s current finance policies have been recently reviewed, with the aim of removing unnecessary policies and enhancing existing required policies. Attached to the agenda are the current policies and a set of revised finance policies for Council adoption. CONSULTATION Senior Officers Industry Standards COMMENT

The following policies are recommended for removal from the policy manual as they are either covered by legislation, employee contract or are required procedures which do not need to be governed by Council policy.

1) Finance Policy 1: Budget a. This policy is simply a procedure for the compilation of the annual budget

which is more appropriately documented at an internal administration level. The policy of having the draft budget ready in the first week in July is also restrictive and doesn’t fit with current practices.

2) Finance Policy 5: Bank Authorities a. This is not required as a Council policy as it is a requirement of the Bank

to provide specimen signatures at regular intervals following staff changeover or Council member changeover.

3) Finance Policy 7: Staff Conference a. This policy duplicates content already included in Senior Staff contracts

and has the potential to operate in conflict should the staff conference item be negotiated out of an employee contract.

4) Finance Policy 8: Responsible Employee

31

a. The reference to Financial Management Regulation 51(3) is no longer relevant as the regulation was amended in June 2008 and removed. There is no longer a requirement to designate an employee responsible for completion of the annual report.

The attached new set of Council policies is presented for adoption and inclusion in Council’s policy manual. The following commentary is provided on amendments and new inclusions:

1) Finance Policy 1: Depreciation and Capitalisation of Assets a. Policy purpose and objective included. b. This policy has been updated to change the percentages of depreciation

rates to years over which the assets will be depreciated. This simply provides better understanding of the period over which an asset is depreciated.

c. The capitalisation amounts for assets have also been increased slightly to reflect appropriate levels.

2) Finance Policy 2: Rates and Accounts Collection a. Amended slightly to reflect current collection procedures.

3) Finance Policy 3: Investments a. Policy purpose and objective included. b. Investment policy in line with current conservative practices of investing

funds in local bank in Jerramungup. c. Council may like to consider more aggressive approaches to investing

funds however this is not recommended in the current economic climate. d. Policy has also specified local banking institutions in an effort to support

and maintain a local bank branch. 4) Finance Policy 4: Grants to Community and Sporting Groups

a. Policy purpose and objective included. b. Policy undertaken slight procedural amendments to reflect current

practices and to conform with Department of Sport and Recreation grant processes.

c. Council may like to review the percentage allowance for this grant funding policy as recent funding rounds have been in excess of the 2.5% contribution level. Council should note that increases in this percentage will require additional funding from other areas of the budget.

5) Finance Policy 5: Corporate Credit Card Policy a. To be included in the finance section of the policy manual. b. Reference to a fixed amount of $1,500 has been removed and provides

for larger purchases where a line of credit is not established with the supplier, provided they are budgeted for and don’t exceed the officers credit card limit ($3000-$4000).

Each policy has also been provided with a review date and responsible officer. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Local Government Act 1995 – Financial Management Regulations STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Finance Policy 4 relates to Key Focus Area One:

32

1.2 Providing a range of ongoing, social, economic and financial viability. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Each policy addresses particular financial issues. POLICY IMPLICATIONS New policies as attached. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority. RECOMMENDATION That Council retract all previous finance policies and Corporate Credit Card Policy and adopt the following finance policies as presented: Finance Policy 1: Depreciation and Capitalisation of Assets Finance Policy 2: Rates and Accounts Collection Finance Policy 3: Investments Finance Policy 4: Grants to Community and Sporting Groups Finance Policy 5: Corporate Credit Card Policy OC100909 Moved Cr Williams/ Seconded Cr Bailey That Council retract all previous finance policies and Corporate Credit Card Policy and adopt the following finance policies as presented: Finance Policy 1: Depreciation and Capitalisation of Assets Finance Policy 2: Rates and Accounts Collection Finance Policy 3: Investments Finance Policy 4: Grants to Community and Sporting Groups

Amended : “e) 2. Applications must be submitted no later than 31st May each year for funds under $2000”

Finance Policy 5: Corporate Credit Card Policy

Carried 6-0

33

H E A L T H,

B U I L D I N G &

T O W N P L A N N I N G

34

SUBMISSION TO: Health, Building and Town Planning AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.3.1 SUBJECT: Information Item for discussion on proposed

Development Assessment Panels in WA LOCATION/ADDRESS: N/A NAME OF APPLICANT: N/A FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Gray & Lewis Landuse Planners DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Gray & Lewis receive planning fees for

advice to the Shire therefore declare a Financial Interest – Section 5.65 of Local Government Act 1995

DATE OF REPORT: 12 October 2009 SUMMARY

• The Department for Planning has released a discussion paper on ‘Implementing Development Assessment Panels in Western Australia’.

• This is an information item only and has been put forward for Council consideration and discussion.

• Submissions close on the Discussion Paper close on the 2 November 2009. • Gray & Lewis recommends that Council carefully consider its position and

implications of the proposal for the community and future development. ATTACHMENT The Discussion paper is not attached as it is 42 pages, however Gray & Lewis recommends that Councillors view the paper on the WAPC website – www.planning.gov.au – under the ‘Public Comment’ section.

BACKGROUND

• Development Assessment Panels The discussion paper outlines the development assessment panel model that the State Government is committed to implementing in Western Australia. Development assessment panels are a mix of independent experts and elected representatives, created to be the decision making body for development applications. These panels will have the power to determine applications for development approval, instead of the relevant decision making authority, for development of a certain class and value. The DPI discussion paper outlines the objectives of the proposed development assessment panel model as being to:

35

• streamline the determination process for particular types of development applications, by eliminating the requirement for dual approval under both the local and region schemes;

• involve independent technical experts in the determination process; • encourage an appropriate balance between independent professional advice and

local representation in decision-making for significant projects; and • reduce the number of complex development applications being determined by

local governments, to allow local governments to focus their resources on strategic planning.

COMMENT

• Summary of main DAP proposal By way of background, a description of the main points in the Discussion Paper are first explained.

− Joint Development Assessment Panels (for non metropolitan areas) will be established to determine applications made to two or more small local governments that are not high growth local governments.

− The Discussion Paper suggests that a joint DAP is proposed for the Great Southern Region inclusive of Albany, Broomehill-Tambellup, Cranbrook, Denmark, Gnowangerup, Jerramungup, Katanning, Kent, Kojonup, Plantagenet and Woodanilling.

− The exact formation of non metropolitan joint DAP’s will depend on growth rates and may be affected by any Council amalgamations.

− The DAP will take over the role of the local Council as decision making authority for certain types of applications, within the confines of the Shires Scheme and Policy framework.

− The DAP will consist of a chairman, 2 experts, and 2 Councillor representatives. DAP experts will be selected by the Minister for Planning for a minimum 2 year term and be paid sitting fees by the Shire using the application fee.

− Where there is more than one participating Council in a DAP, then each local government will have two Council representatives on the panel. Those 2 Councillors will sit on the panel for applications in the Shire of Jerramungup.

− Where an application traverses local government boundaries, Councillor representatives from each local government can co-sit on the DAP (2 per Shire).

− Nomination of the 2 Councillor representatives for a DAP will be the responsibility of the local government.

− The Shire will still undergo the normal development process in terms of advertising, assessment, and compilation of a report. The report is required to be presented to the DAP by the planning officer.

− The Discussion Paper outlines intentions that DAP’s will deal with complex applications that require specialist determination, and includes criteria such as applications with a value exceeding one million dollars. The final criteria will be identified in Regulations.

− The new regulations propose flexibility to allow regional local governments to use joint DAP’s for all development decisions, regardless of size or monetary value. The Paper suggests that the Shire will have the opportunity to enter into an agreement with another local government to pool resources.

36

− Meetings of DAP’s will be held in local government meeting rooms, and will be open to the public. Any person who has lodged a submission will be invited to attend and make a presentation.

− Local governments will be required to provide resources and secretarial support for DAP meetings. Secriat support for joint DAP’s will be rotated on a six monthly basis and include advertising, invitations to meetings, minute taking etc

− There will be training for panel members and a Code of Conduct with requirements to declare any personal or financial interest.

− Applicants will still have a right of review to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) if aggrieved by a decision made by a DAP. The local government will be the respondent on the appeal.

− The Minister for Planning will have the ability to ‘call in’ any application considered to be of state significance (subject to the DAP application criteria) and will determine the application having regard for a recommendation by a DAP.

− If the Minister refuses to approve a development application, there will be no right of review to the State Administrative Tribunal.

− The Discussion Paper cites the benefits of DAP’s as timeliness, efficiency, simplicity, transparency, sustainability, accountability, fairness, consistency and suitability.

• Issues identified in discussions with other local governments

Gray & Lewis is of the understanding that Council may be supportive of the proposed DAP and seeks to highlight some of concerns raised by other local governments, in order to give Council an understanding of some of the topical issues associated with the proposed changes. McLeods Barristers and Solicitors, which is one of the top planning law firms in WA and services the majority of local governments with legal advice, held a recent breakfast discussion on the proposed DAP system. The breakfast was attended by local government planners and elected members, from a broad range of metropolitan and regional areas. Whilst Gray & Lewis cannot cover all the issues raised, the following general issues and concerns were raised by various attendees in general discussion; Timeliness of decision making

− The main thrust of the discussion paper focuses on untimely delays and perceived inefficiencies by local governments in processing larger development applications.

− The majority of local governments likely deal with development applications in a timely manner. Many metropolitan local governments have a high level of delegated authority resulting in quick and efficient decision making. There is concern that this added ‘layer’ of decision making will actually slow down processing times for those progressive Councils.

− Delays in the application process are often caused by either insufficient information being provided by an applicant for an informed decision, or where applications are required to be referred to government agencies for comment.

− There is a perception that the state government is introducing the DAP’s as a result of complaints by the development industry, however the actual number of ‘problematic’ local governments is the minority. There was some discussion that

37

local governments should have mandatory reporting to state government and ‘benchmarking’.

− There was also some discussion that DAP’s should be limited to those local governments who are not performing, or where the local government wishes to use a DAP process. Other views were expressed that local governments should unitedly oppose the DAP system.

− The process up to presentation of the report is the same as currently practiced. The only difference is that the paper suggests that reports should be submitted to the DAP by the 55 day timeframe so a decision can be made in 60 days. It is not clear that there will actually be any time saving benefits from a DAP.

Local Government Resources

− The DAP’s are being introduced by State Government however local governments are to provide all the resources, funding, secriat services, and funding. If local expertise is not available the local government will have to pay for expert advice as required by the DAP.

− There are questions as to how the panel members will be sourced given the general shortage of planners in WA, and the implications of this on local government. There is also concern over the greater potential for conflict of interest depending on how the expert panel members are sourced.

Implications for the community There was concern over the impact of DAP’s on development outcomes and representation of the community;

− Local Councillors have a high level of accountability to their local community as elected representatives. If a local Councillor does not perform then they are unlikely to be re-elected and they are directly answerable to the community.

− Expert panel members will be engaged by the Minister for Planning who is aligned with a political party and political influences.

− The panel number of 5 means that the Council members will be in the minority. − Panel members may not have the same level of investment in the local

community as elected members. In the case of joint DAP’s, there are questions as to how 3 panel members will be able to actively consider the local issues and understand the community values between different local government areas.

− The largest developments in an area are the usually the ones that most communities want to be involved in.

Implications for Councillors and staff

− Whilst the panel makes provision for attendance by 2 councillors, it is questioned whether individual Councillors will be able to confidently represent their views in an expert panel forum. The Councillors may or may not be aware of the whole Councils position on an application.

− It is not clear if Councillors are to represent the community view, Council view or their individual views as voting members.

− The planning officer (employed by the local government) is to present their report to the panel, and be available to answer any questions. The officer will be placed in a difficult position if their view / recommendation differs substantially to the Councils view or the sitting Councillor members view.

38

It should be noted that the above points were discussed in a general manner and do not represent any one local authority view. A Paper written by Denis McLeods is available to Councillors on request, and has been given to the Chief Executive Officer.

• Comments by Gray & Lewis On face value it could be understood if the Council formed the view that the DAP may not have a large influence on the Shire of Jerramungup as the application values are in the main currently lower then the nominated one million dollar threshold. The writer however would caution the Council in being complacent about the proposed changes based solely on the current application criteria for DAP’s or perception that it will only affect a small portion of applications as;

− One million dollars is not a high threshold when dealing with industrial and commercial applications. It is hoped that there may be some opportunity for new industrial activity once Amendment 6 is progressed and larger industrial developments may be captured by the DAP.

− Once regulations or legislation has been introduced for DAP’s there is potential that their scope / powers could be increased through future amendments, and be subject to change with different Ministers views.

− There may be cases where Council wants to have significant input into a development or project (eg. Bremer Bay Town Centre). The role of the Council as a decision maker will be diminished by the DAP system. It is likely that the Council will still be able to advise a DAP of its view as a Shire (as an addendum to an officer report).

− Currently Council has an opportunity to change an officer recommendation and make an independent decision. The Council as a whole will have much less influence over the decision in a panel situation.

− The Shire is relatively progressive in assisting applicants and dealing with planning applications as quickly as the system allows. There is no real evidence that suggests that a DAP system will be faster and the Shire still has to follow the normal planning process.

The Council is capable of determining its own position on the DAP however Gray & Lewis recommends Council particularly consider the following; • There may be an opportunity for resource pooling if several large local

governments share resources to compile and present reports to a DAP. This is more likely to be the case if the Shire sends other lower scale applications to the DAP (which will reduce Councils role in dealing with development as a whole).

• The Council may have greater access to experts in the form of panel members, particularly in dealing with environmental issues. It is however noted that if additional local expertise is required it will be paid for by the Council.

• The shared DAP suggested for the Shire includes 11 local governments all of varying size and distance. It is not clear whether DAP meetings will be held somewhere central or be rotated between the participating Councils. The logistics of this is of a concern to Gray & Lewis as;

- The two sitting Councillors may have to travel to another local government office to attend a DAP meeting. The discussion panel suggests that there

39

will be one meeting a month to service the whole great southern region area which is vast.

- A planning officer has to present the report to a DAP. This may be problematic for the Shire unless they are able to ‘share’ an adjacent local governments’ planner to compile and present reports on the larger developments. Gray & Lewis would recommend the Shire explore ‘sharing’ opportunities prior to DAP’s being introduced.

- Members of the public may also have to travel to attend a meeting. Gray & Lewis considers it important that the public still have a high accessibility to meetings.

• The Shire will be responsible for dealing with any dispute over conditions imposed by a DAP, and any application for review to SAT (regardless of whether the Shire agreed with the DAP decision or conditions). Gray & Lewis is concerned that whilst a DAP determines applications, it will not be dealing with the impact of the conditions imposed or defence of a decision to SAT.

• The proposal will introduce powers for the Minister for Planning to be able to ‘call in’ any application. Gray & Lewis recommends opposition to the Ministers ‘call in’ power as it increases potential for political decisions. Gray & Lewis notes that an applicant will not have any right of appeal to SAT against any Ministerial decision. This does not provide an applicant with any natural justice and takes away a basic appeal right.

• The DAP meetings will be open to the public however it is not clear if members of the public are limited to presentations, or can ask questions of the panel members (as would ordinarily be the case at a Council meeting). Gray & Lewis considers that the public should have the same level of accessibility to meetings as currently exists.

• There are general concerns over the wider implications for local governments across the board as explained in the section above.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The Discussion Paper cites that a DAP system will free up local government resources to concentrate on strategic planning. However, the local government still has to carry out the normal planning process, and provide additional secriat resources. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS The normal statutory requirements would apply to a DAP, and the normal appeal rights would also apply. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Discussion Paper cites that there may be resource sharing opportunities between non metropolitan local governments if they can enter an agreement with another Shire. There will be financial implications through the payment of sitting fees to a DAP, payment of any expert advice required by a DAP, travelling of Councillors to attend DAP meetings, and provision of resources to the DAP such as meeting rooms and secretarial services.

40

POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Discussion Paper cites that the DAP will make decisions within the confines of local government planning policies.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That the information be noted. Note: Gray & Lewis has compiled this report for Councillor discussion and debate. Council has an opportunity to form a position on the proposed DAP and lodge a submission to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. OC100910 Moved Cr Williams / Seconded Cr Hobbs That Council lodge a submission to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure noting the following issues:

1. One million dollars is not a high threshold when dealing with industrial and commercial applications. The threshold for applications dealt with by DAP’s should be consistent across the whole state.

2. Once regulations or legislation has been introduced for DAP’s there is potential that their scope / powers could be increased through future amendments, and be subject to change with different Ministers views.

3. There may be cases where Council wants to have significant input into a development or project (eg. Bremer Bay Town Centre). The role of the Council as a decision maker will be diminished by the DAP system.

4. Currently Council has an opportunity to change an officer recommendation and make an independent decision. The Council as a whole will have much less influence over the decision in a panel situation.

5. The Shire is relatively progressive in assisting applicants and dealing with planning applications as quickly as the system allows. There is no real evidence that suggests that a DAP system will be faster and the Shire still has to follow the normal planning process.

Carried 6-0

41

SUBMISSION TO: Health, Building and Town Planning AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.3.2 SUBJECT: Proposed building envelope relocation and

transported building/dwelling LOCATION/ADDRESS: Lot 34 Ridgeway Drive, Bremer Bay NAME OF APPLICANT: Nordic Homes Pty Ltd for Paul and Lesley

Molyneux (owners) FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Gray & Lewis Landuse Planners DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Gray & Lewis receive planning fees for


DATE OF REPORT: 12 October 2009 ATTACHMENT Confidential Attachment 10.3.2 (a) – site plan and elevations Confidential Attachment 10.3.2 (b) – example of similar types/ styles of transported buildings Confidential Attachment 10.3.2 (c) – examples of the proposed colorbond colours Attachment 10.3.2 – Submission table BACKGROUND Site Description Lot 34 is located on the southern side of Ridgeway Drive and is currently vacant. There is an existing cleared area on the north west portion of the lot which appears may have been the original building envelope, however the owner advises they were told it was for an orchard when they purchased the land. Building Envelope A Subdivision Guide Plan (SGP) with building envelopes applies to all lots in Point Henry. The building envelopes on the approved guide plan are relatively nominal as shown below. In this case the approved building envelope shown on the SGP is somewhat obsolete as the final cadasta / lot shape configuration differs reasonably significantly from the SGP.

42

Above – SGP Above – Cadasta COMMENT Application An application has been lodged for a new transported building (single residence) and associated water tank. The application is summarised below;

• The transported building will be purpose built and transported to the lot. • The building will be constructed our of colorbond materials. • The building envelope will be relocated to the south and was already installed

prior to purchase of the lot by the current owner. The applicant has lodged 2 sets of amended plans during the application process, to address concerns raised during advertising. A copy of the current plans are included in Attachment 10.3.2(a), and some example colour elevations of similar transported buildings are included as Attachment 10.3.2(b) (to show the quality). Zoning The lot is zoned ‘Rural Residential 1’ under the Shire of Jerramungup Local Planning Scheme No 2. All development in this zone requires planning approval. Scheme Requirements There are specific provisions applicable to the Rural Residential zone and Council can have regard for matters such as colours, materials, building height and bulk, architectural design, relationship to surrounding development and bush fire control. General compliance with the Scheme is summarised below; Clause Summary Comment Compliance 5.25.3(e) All buildings to be

contained in the building envelope

The building envelope is proposed to be relocated and that forms part of the application.

The building envelope relocation is supported.

43

5.25.3(h) Driveways to be located to minimise soil erosion and visibility of driveways

There is an existing driveway and it has a slight angle at the entry to minimise visual impact.

Complies.

5.23.3(i) Materials to be non reflective and blend with the environment

The applicant proposes colorbond materials with a ‘Bushland’ colour for the walls and a ‘Shale Grey’ colour for the roof.

Considered to comply however discussed in more detail below for Council consideration

5.23.3(j) Buildings are not to exceed 5 metres in height from natural ground level to the apex of the roof unless the local government is satisfied a higher building will not be visually obtrusive

The dwelling height does not exceed 5 metres.

Complies.

Clause Summary Comment Compliance 5.23.3(l) Require 92 kilolitre tank

and on site effluent disposal prior to occupation of dwelling.

There is an existing 15 kilolitre water tank on site and a new 80 kilolitre tank is also proposed.

Complies Has also been included as a condition.

Schedule 2

20 metre front setback and 15 metre setback from all other boundaries

The setbacks comply. Complies.

Proposed colour selection Under Clause 5.25.3 (i) of the Scheme it states: ‘The materials and colours of external walls and the roofs of all buildings are to

be non reflective and, blend with the landscape to the satisfaction of the local government, and are to be constructed out of materials that are relatively fire resistant’.

Some colours such as zinculume, white or crème have obvious potential for glare, however in most assessments there is a level of subjectivity in assessing ‘glare’ and whether a colour ‘blends with the environment’. Gray & Lewis relies on colorbond websites for visual samples of proposed colours. The applicant originally proposed a red cedar wall colour and ‘surfmist’ roof colour. To address neighbours concerns, the applicant has amended the proposed colours to ‘shale grey’ for the roof and ‘Bushland’ for the walls. The ‘shale grey’ wall colour is described as ‘evocative of Gulf coast mud plains, pale grey pebbles reflecting the sun, the ethereal grey mist rising from a surf beach, the silver grey leaves of native flora and the shimmering outcrops of rocks on the Great Dividing Range’. 1

It basically appears to be a soft grey colour and Gray & Lewis considers that this will blend with the natural environment and be unobtrusive. Whilst some whiter/ cream colours have potential for glare, this grey colour does not appear to be reflective.

44

The ‘bushland’ wall colour is described as ‘a warm, mid grey/green hue inspired by the varying greens of our native flora: eucalypts, melaleucas, grevilleas and native tea trees.’ 1 The darker ‘bushland’ grey is also not considered to be reflective and is considered compatible with the natural environment.

It is noted that some relatively bold colours have been approved in the Rural Residential area (such as deep ocean blue) which may not necessarily ‘blend’ however do fit in with the seaside nature of the area. Colour is often an issue of personal choice and Gray & Lewis is mindful that personal opinions and preferences should not be imposed, and owners should be given a certain amount of free choice within reason of the limitations of the Scheme. Gray & Lewis has downloaded colour samples for the benefit of Councillors and included them in Attachment 10.3.2 (c) . Note: 1 Source: Colour Centre website – www. colourbondcolours.com.au

Local Planning Policy No 15 – Transported Buildings The proposed residence has been assessed in accordance with the Draft Policy requirements for residential lots as follows; Policy Requirement Officer Comment Compliance 7.1 The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that any second hand transported building is structurally sound

Not Applicable as the dwelling is brand new however the plans have been signed by an engineer.

Not Applicable.

7.2 Council needs to be satisfied that the external appearance of a transported building is equivalent to that of a new dwelling or that its appearance is not discernable from existing development in the street.

The standard and quality is equivalent to that of a new dwelling. The building is new but has been pre-constructed off site, rather than being erected on the property.

Complies.

7.3 Any transported building needs to complement and fit in with the existing streetscape in terms of the quality of elevations, roof pitch, building height, scale and bulk.

The dwelling does include architectural features such as a verandah. Aesthetics are subjective however the elevations are considered good quality.

Complies.

7.3 The use of new transported dwellings is preferred over use of second hand transported dwellings.

The Policy promotes the use of new transported dwellings.

Complies.

45

The Policy is a guideline only and each application should still be assessed on it individual merit. Consultation The application was referred to nearby and adjacent landowners for comment. Three objections were received and the main concerns are; - The original plan proposed a 10 metre side setback to the new building envelope

and there was concern that it was too close to the side boundary and did not comply with the scheme requirement of 15 metres.

- The owners originally proposed a ‘surfmist’ colorbond roof and there was concern over potential glare as it was a creamy/ light colour.

- The owners also originally proposed a ‘cedar red’ colour for external walls and neighbours were concerned that it would not blend with the environment.

Gray & Lewis liaised with the applicant who lodged amended plans and colours. 1. The (first) amended plan increased the side setback to the building envelope

from 10 to 15 metres. One neighbour still objected to the 15 metre setback and the applicant has since lodged a second amended plan with a 30 metre side setback to the building envelope, and a 40 metre side setback to the dwelling.

2. The wall and roof colours have been changed to ‘bushland’ and ‘shale grey’ respectively – the colours are discussed in detail in this report. There are two objections to the roof colour with concern over potential glare.

A full summary of submissions is included in Attachment 10.3.2. Conclusion The application generally complies with the Scheme requirements and conditional approval is recommended. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS The applicant has a right of review to the State Administrative Tribunal if aggrieved by any decision made by the Council. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Not applicable. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Explained in the body of this report.

46

VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council; 1. Approve the application (and amended site plan dated 10-09-09) lodged by

Nordic Homes for on behalf of Paul and Lesley Molyneux (owners) for a transported building (single house), relocated building envelope and water tank on Lot 34 Ridgeway Drive, Bremer Bay subject to the following conditions;

(i) The external walls and roof of the residence are to be constructed out of

non reflective materials as stated in the information lodged as part of the application (such as bushland and shale grey).

(ii) The driveway to be maintained at a trafficable standard at all times. (iii) Water tank(s) with a minimum capacity of 92 kilolitres and approved on

site effluent disposal must be installed and in operation prior to occupation of dwelling.

(iv) The height of the dwelling is not to exceed 5 metres as measured from natural ground level as stated in the application and on the plans submitted.

2. Advise the applicant in footnotes on the planning approval that; (a) Owners need to ensure that sufficient turnaround is provided for fire safety

and building protection areas are maintained in accordance with ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection’ produced by FESA /WA Planning Commission.

(b) It is noted that there is an existing water tank on site which is proposed to form part of the total required 92 kilolitres.

(c) Planning approval is not consent for site works or construction. A building licence is required prior to any commencement of works.

OC100911 Moved Cr Iffla / Seconded Cr Bailey That Council; 1. Approve the application (and amended site plan dated 10-09-09) lodged by

Nordic Homes for on behalf of Paul and Lesley Molyneux (owners) for a transported building (single house), relocated building envelope and water tank on Lot 34 Ridgeway Drive, Bremer Bay subject to the following conditions;

(i) The external walls and roof of the residence are to be constructed

out of non reflective materials as stated in the information lodged as part of the application (such as bushland and shale grey).

(ii) The driveway to be maintained at a trafficable standard at all times. (iii) Water tank(s) with a minimum capacity of 92 kilolitres and approved

on site effluent disposal must be installed and in operation prior to occupation of dwelling.

47


2. Advise the applicant in footnotes on the planning approval that; (a) Owners need to ensure that sufficient turnaround is provided for fire

safety and building protection areas are maintained in accordance with ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection’ produced by FESA /WA Planning Commission.



Carried 6-0

48

SUBMISSION TO: Health, Building and Town Planning AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.3.3 SUBJECT: Proposed building envelope relocation, new

dwelling and outbuilding LOCATION/ADDRESS: Lot 77 Black Rocks Road, Bremer Bay NAME OF APPLICANT: Concept Building Design for Paul and Karina

Mitchell (owners) FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Gray & Lewis Landuse Planners DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Gray & Lewis receive planning fees for


DATE OF REPORT: 9 October 2009 ATTACHMENT Confidential Attachment 10.3.3 – site plan and elevations Attachment 10.3.3 (a) – Owners submission with photographs Attachment 10.3.3 (b) – Submission Table BACKGROUND Site Description Lot 77 is located on the southern side of Black Rocks Road and is currently vacant. Building Envelope A Subdivision Guide Plan (SGP) with building envelopes applies to all lots in Point Henry. The building envelopes on the approved guide plan are relatively nominal as shown below. Owners of Lots 77 and 67 have advised that the envelopes existing on site were established by the developer at subdivision.

49

There is an existing cleared area on the south west portion of the lot, and the owners were of the understanding that this cleared area was the building envelope, however it varies from the Subdivision Guide Plan. There has been some anecdotal advice from current owners that the modified building envelopes were installed by the developer as part of the subdivision, however Gray & Lewis is not privy to any records of approvals for the modified envelopes which vary from the Subdivision Guide Plan. Accordingly each application is being treated technically as a relocated building envelope. COMMENT Application An application has been lodged for a new dwelling, outbuilding and associated water tank. The application is summarised below;

• The building envelope will be relocated to the south and was already installed prior to purchase of the lot by the current owner.

• The external walls of the proposed dwelling will be constructed either out of full weatherboard or a combination of weatherboard and colorbond. A colorbond roof is proposed.

• The colorbond wall cladding will be ‘deep ocean’ blue or ‘paper bark’, the weatherboard will be ‘paper bark’ or ‘dune’, and the roof will be ‘dune’.

• The outbuilding measures 3.3 metres by 7.9 metres (26.07m2) and will be constructed out of colorbond in colours to match the dwelling (Deep ocean’ or ‘Dune’).

A copy of plans is included in Confidential Attachment 10.3.3, and the applicant has lodged information on the building envelope with photographs – refer Attachment 10.3.3(a). Zoning The lot is zoned ‘Rural Residential 1’ under the Shire of Jerramungup Local Planning Scheme No 2. All development in this zone requires planning approval. Scheme Requirements There are specific provisions applicable to the Rural Residential zone and Council can have regard for matters such as colours, materials, building height and bulk, architectural design, relationship to surrounding development and bush fire control. General compliance with the Scheme is summarised below; Clause Summary Comment Compliance 5.25.3(e) All buildings to be

contained in the building envelope

The building envelope is proposed to be relocated and that forms part of the application.

The building envelope relocation is supported.

50

Clause Summary Comment Compliance 5.25.3(h) Driveways to be

located to minimise soil erosion and visibility of driveways

There is an existing driveway and it has a slight angle at the entry to minimise visual impact.

Complies.

5.23.3(i) Materials to be non reflective and blend with the environment

The proposed colorbond colours are earthy tones and considered suitable.

Complies.

5.23.3(j) Buildings are not to exceed 5 metres in height from natural ground level to the apex of the roof unless the local government is satisfied a higher building will not be visually obtrusive

The dwelling height does not exceed 5 metres.

Complies.

5.23.3(l) Require 92 kilolitre tank and on site effluent disposal prior to occupation of dwelling.

Two tanks with 92, 000L capacity.

Complies Has also been included as a condition.

Schedule 2

20 metre front setback and 15 metre setback from all other boundaries

The setbacks comply. Complies.

Outbuilding – Local Planning Policy No 16 The application includes an outbuilding (shed) to the rear which complies with Local Planning Policy No 16 - Outbuildings. Setback Permitted Proposed Compliance Size for one outbuilding

Aggregate of 240m2

26.7 m2 Complies

Wall height 4.2 metres 3.3 metres Complies Ridge Height

5 metres 5 metre dimension shown on NE elevation by applicant, and 5.1 metres measured on SW elevation (to natural ground level).

Complies – minor variation for SW elevation due to natural topography.

Consultation

51

The application was referred to nearby and adjacent landowners for comment. Advertising closed on the 12 October 2009, and the time of writing this report one objection had been received. The objection is from the owner of Lot 67 which is to the south west of Lot 77, and is based on the fact that they have relocated their envelope on Lot 67 to the far north east corner, and are concerned that the new dwelling on Lot 77 will be too close and may interfere with their views. The envelope proposed for Lot 67 appears relatively close to the common boundary and varies from that shown on the SGP. Gray & Lewis does not consider that there should be a ‘first in, first serve’ approach to building envelopes and all owners should have equal and fair opportunity to apply for relocations within reason. An aerial below may assist Councillors in dealing with this matter.

Gray& Lewis has provided comments in response to the matters raised during consultation – refer Attachment 10.3.3 (b) (Submission Table). Support for the proposed development is recommended having regard that the new dwelling on Lot 77 will be between 58 - 79 metres from the boundary shared with Lot 67 (as measured to the dwelling rear deck area), and a more northern building envelope would result in additional clearing. Conclusion The application generally complies with the Scheme requirements and conditional approval is recommended. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil.

Lot 77

Lot 67

52

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS The applicant has a right of review to the State Administrative Tribunal if aggrieved by any decision made by the Council. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Not applicable. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Explained in the body of this report.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council; 1. Approve the application (and amended plan dated 23/09/2009) lodged by

Concept Building Design for Paul and Karina Mitchell (owners) for a single house, relocated building envelope, outbuilding and associated water tanks on Lot 77 Black Rocks Road, Bremer Bay subject to the following conditions;

(i) The external walls and roof of the residence and outbuilding are to be

constructed out of non reflective materials as stated in the information lodged as part of the application (applicant letter dated 24 September 2009).

(ii) The driveway to be maintained at a trafficable standard at all times. (iii) Water tank(s) with a minimum capacity of 92 kilolitres and approved on

site effluent disposal must be installed and in operation prior to occupation of dwelling.


2. Advise the applicant in footnotes on the planning approval that; (a) Owners need to ensure that sufficient turnaround is provided for fire safety

and building separation and hazard separation zones are maintained in accordance with ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection’ produced by FESA /WA Planning Commission.



53

OC100912 Moved Cr Iffla / Seconded Cr Hobbs That Council; 1. Approve the application (and amended plan dated 23/09/2009) lodged by

Concept Building Design for Paul and Karina Mitchell (owners) for a single house, relocated building envelope, outbuilding and associated water tanks on Lot 77 Black Rocks Road, Bremer Bay subject to the following conditions;

(i) The external walls and roof of the residence and outbuilding are to

be constructed out of non reflective materials as stated in the information lodged as part of the application (applicant letter dated 24 September 2009).

(ii) The driveway to be maintained at a trafficable standard at all times. (iii) Water tank(s) with a minimum capacity of 92 kilolitres and approved

on site effluent disposal must be installed and in operation prior to occupation of dwelling.


2. Advise the applicant in footnotes on the planning approval that; (a) Owners need to ensure that sufficient turnaround is provided for fire

safety and building separation and hazard separation zones are maintained in accordance with ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection’ produced by FESA /WA Planning Commission.



Carried 6-0

54

SUBMISSION TO: Health, Building and Town Planning AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.3.4 SUBJECT: Proposed news signs in road reserve LOCATION/ADDRESS: N/A NAME OF APPLICANT: N/A FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Gray & Lewis Landuse Planners DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Gray & Lewis receive planning fees for


DATE OF REPORT: 9 October 2009 SUMMARY − A written proposal has been lodged requesting two signs in the road reserve. − One sign is proposed on the corner of Borden Bremer Bay Road and Gnombup

Terrace and another at the intersection of Gnombup Terrace and Wellstead Road, Bremer Bay.

− The signs have been requested to provide directions to the Bremer Bay Roadhouse.

− This report recommends that the signs be supported. ATTACHMENT Attachment 10.3.4 (a) - Copy of plan Attachment 10.3.4(b)– Town Planning Policy 19 BACKGROUND The Shire of Jerramungup Town Planning Scheme No 2 (“the Scheme”) only deals with signs located within private property on zoned land. This application is for directional signage within road reserve which is unzoned land. There are no relevant planning considerations in dealing with this request. COMMENT Application Although a formal planning application has been lodged for the proposed signs, planning approval is not required and cannot be issued as signs in the road reserve are outside of the Schemes control. The applicant has provided photographs of an existing sign for the Bremer Bay Beaches Resort and Tourist Park – refer Attachment 10.3.4 The applicant requests 2 similar signs to service the Bremer Bay Roadhouse with the words ‘Food, Fuel, Ice, Bait’ or representative symbols – refer Attachment 10.3.4.

55

The request is for one sign on the corner of Borden Bremer Bay Road and Gnombup Terrace and another at the intersection of Gnombup Terrace and Wellstead Road, Bremer Bay. Signage within the road reserve can support local businesses and the owners of the roadhouse have obviously identified a need for additional signage to assist customers. Gray & Lewis recommend approval for the signage. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Signage within the road reserve is not a planning matter. As outlined in this item the Scheme provisions do not apply to land not zoned or reserved. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Associations with the 2009-2014 Strategic Plan include: Key Focus Area Two: Service delivery & the environment The Shire of Jerramungup will deliver a range of excellent community services whilst minimising our impact on the environment by:


17. Supporting a range of community services that enhances the community fabric.

One of the strategic issues is Council’s long term objectives and guidelines for signs in the road reserve. Where there is an opportunity for co –location of signage then those opportunities should be maximised. Sign proliferation should also be avoided as it will diminish the impact and value of the signs. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS It is assumed that the signs would be erected at the Shires costs unless a contribution from the landowner can be negotiated. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The existing Town Planning Policy No 19 refers to advertising signs and states in part that:

a) The principal purpose of this policy is to provide assistance to the local government when determining an application for planning approval to erect, place or display and advertisement under the Shire of Jerramungup (the “Scheme”).

b) Council will not approve any advertising sign application, where the applicant

seeks to erect a sign within a townsite on land that is not directly associated with the business being advertised.

c) Council will support the use of blue background directional signs constructed by

MRWA standards, by businesses to direct patrons to their businesses, at locations approved by Council.

56

The Policy is inconsistent with the Local Planning Scheme, Australian and Main Roads Standards and requires a review. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple RECOMMENDATION That the Jerramungup Shire Council:

1. Approves the request for 2 new signs in the road reserve to service the Bremer Bay Roadhouse on the intersections of Borden Bremer Bay Road/ Gnombup Terrace, and Gnombup Terrace / Wellstead Road, Bremer Bay.

2. Advises the applicant that the approval is subject to a review and implementation

of signage policy throughout the Shire of Jerramungup. OC100913 Moved Cr Williams / Seconded Cr Iffla That the Jerramungup Shire Council:

1. Approves the request for 2 new signs in the road reserve to service the Bremer Bay Roadhouse on the intersections of Borden Bremer Bay Road/ Gnombup Terrace, and Gnombup Terrace / Wellstead Road, Bremer Bay.

2. Advises the applicant that the approval is subject to a review and

implementation of signage policy throughout the Shire of Jerramungup.

Carried 6-0

57

SUBMISSION TO: Health, Building and Town Planning AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.3.5 SUBJECT: Proposed building / campers kitchen LOCATION/ADDRESS: Lot 130 (No. 72) Bremer Bay Road, Bremer

Bay (Reserve 21496) NAME OF APPLICANT: Kosters Steel Constructions FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Gray & Lewis Landuse Planners DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Gray & Lewis receive planning fees for



− The proposed building / campers kitchen is to service the existing Bremer Bay caravan park located on Reserve 21496.

− There is an existing management order over the Reserve to the Shire of Jerramungup for caravan park, camping and recreation. Accordingly the Shires Chief Executive Officer has signed the planning application on behalf of the Shire as owner of the land.

− This report recommends conditional approval. ATTACHMENT Attachment 10.3.5 (a) – site plan and elevations Attachment 10.3.5 (b) – aerial photograph BACKGROUND Location / site description The subject property is a Department for Planning and Infrastructure Class C reserve with a Management Order to the Shire of Jerramungup. The land is operated as the Bremer Bay Caravan Park inclusive of reception building, a kiosk, tennis courts and ancillary development. Zoning The subject land is zoned ‘Special Use (4)’ under the Shire of Jerramungup Local Planning Scheme No 2 for ‘caravan park and ancillary uses including kiosk, art gallery and café, chalet development’. Under Schedule 4 of the Scheme special conditions apply to the land including; 1. Development is to be sited and designed to minimise the need for clearing of

native vegetation for development access, and fire protection. 2. Proposals for expansion of the caravan park or for new significant uses are to be

referred to the Environmental Protection Authority for its advice.

58

3. Other conditions as set by the local government. COMMENT Description of proposal The application has been lodged for construction of a 54m2 building proposed to be used as a kitchen to service the existing caravan park. The proposed development is minor and cannot be construed as ‘significant’ warranting referral to the EPA as outlined in Condition 2 of Schedule 4 of the Scheme. The site plan provided is general and no setbacks/ dimensions are provided. The aerial photograph shows that the proposed building will be located to the south east of the kiosk area. Gray & Lewis contacted the Bremer Bay Caravan Park to ascertain if any native vegetation requires removal, and they verbally advised that some trees will need to be removed (approximately 2-3) however they are self seeded peppermint trees. Councils role In dealing with this proposal Council has two separate roles. The first role is as the owner of the land therefore to formalise the proposal into a valid planning application the Shires CEO has signed a planning application form. Council’s second role is as the determining authority of the planning application (for zoned land). Conclusion The proposed building is supported as it is a minor and ancillary development, will improve provision of tourist amenities to support the existing caravan park use, and is setback a substantial distance from the street. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS There are clear tourism and community benefits through the provision of additional facilities to support the caravan park use. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS The applicant has a right of review to the State Administrative Tribunal if aggrieved by any decision made by the Council. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There may be economic benefits associated with any tourism use.

59

POLICY IMPLICATIONS Not applicable.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council; 1. Approve the application compiled by Kosters Steel Constructions (for Rob

Maroni) on Lot 130 (No. 77) Bremer Bay Road, Bremer Bay (Reserve 21496) subject to the following condition;

(i) The applicant to undertake adequate precautions to the satisfaction of the

Chief Executive Officer to protect significant native trees on site (outside of the building area for the new kitchen building) during construction works on site.

2. Advise the applicant that planning approval is not consent for site works or

construction. A separate building licence is required prior to any commencement of works.

OC100914 Moved Cr Atkin / Seconded Cr Williams That Council; 1. Approve the application compiled by Kosters Steel Constructions (for Rob

Maroni) on Lot 130 (No. 77) Bremer Bay Road, Bremer Bay (Reserve 21496) subject to the following condition;

(i) The applicant to undertake adequate precautions to the satisfaction

of the Chief Executive Officer to protect significant native trees on site (outside of the building area for the new kitchen building) during construction works on site.

2. Advise the applicant that planning approval is not consent for site works or

construction. A separate building licence is required prior to any commencement of works.

Carried 6-0

60

SUBMISSION TO: Health, Building and Town Planning AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.3.6 SUBJECT: Proposed rear grouped dwelling unit LOCATION/ADDRESS: Strata lot 2 (No 15) George Street, Bremer

Bay NAME OF APPLICANT: Ian Weir Architect on behalf of Mr Craig

Lebens (owner) FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Gray & Lewis Landuse Planners DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Gray & Lewis receive planning fees for



• Council is to consider an application for a new single storey dwelling to the rear of an existing house at 15 George Street, Bremer Bay.

• The lot has a flexible code of ‘R15/30’ under the Shire of Jerramungup Local Planning Scheme No 2 (“the Scheme”).

• The new dwelling is proposed on a rear strata lot, and has been assessed in accordance with the R20 requirements.

• The application complies with the Residential Design Codes with the exception of a minor side privacy setback variation (east).

• It is recommended that the application be conditionally approved. ATTACHMENT Confidential Attachment 10.3.6 (a) - copy of plans Confidential Attachment 10.3.6 (b) - Assessment copy showing variation BACKGROUND Zoning The lot is zoned Residential and has a flexible code of ‘R15/30’ under the Shire of Jerramungup Local Planning Scheme No 2 (“the Scheme”). The base code of R15 requires a minimum of 580m2 and average of 666m2 per dwelling. There is an opportunity to apply to develop up to a higher density not exceeding R30. The R30 code allows for a minimum of 270m2 and average of 300m2 per dwelling. Site Description and development classification The original lot has been divided into two strata lots with a shared common property driveway. There is an existing dwelling located on the front strata lot and the proposed development is a new dwelling unit on the rear strata lot (2).

61

The development is construed as ‘grouped dwelling’ under the Residential Design Codes as the definition includes ‘a dwelling on a survey strata with common property’. The application has been assessed in accordance with the grouped dwelling requirements which differ from a single house on a green title or strata lot (without any common property). COMMENT Application The applicant proposes a single storey dwelling on the rear strata lot (behind the existing house facing George Street) with a front verandah, side driveway and rear carport with storeroom. The plans are included as Confidential Attachment 10.3.6(a). Residential Design Codes (‘the Codes’) There is some discretion over application of the development requirements due to the ‘R15/30’ flexible code. The land has been subdivided into strata lots at a density equating to R20 (based on the lot sizes – minimum 450m2 per dwelling unit and average of 500m2). Accordingly the development has been assessed using the R20 requirements. Compliance with the Codes is discussed under relevant headings below;

• Building Setbacks The dwelling complies with the building setbacks as demonstrated in the table below. Setback Required Proposed

(Residence) Compliance

Front setback 6 metres 6.79 metres Complies Side Setback (west) 1 metre

1.5 metres Complies

Side Setback (east) 1 metre

5.75 metre Complies

Rear 6 metres 6.3 metres Complies

• Privacy requirements In addition to building setbacks, the Residential Design Codes also include privacy setbacks to any windows where the floor level exceeds 500mm above the natural ground level. The setbacks are aimed at minimising overlooking, and the distances vary depending on the use of the room/ area as follows;

• 4.5 metres in the case of bedrooms and studies • 6 metres in the case of habitable rooms other then bedrooms and studies; and

62

• 7.5 metres in the case of unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces. The finished floor level (for the west and east elevation) ranges from 400mm to 1 metre above the natural ground level as a result of the sloping nature of the lot. Description Required Proposed


West elevation 4.5 metres 1.5 metres Complies as the windows on the west elevation are ‘highlight’ windows which restrict views and interrupt any direct line of sight.

Rear Elevation (south) Bedroom window

4.5 metres

4.5 – 6.3 metres

Complies

East Elevation Living area/ dining

6 metres 5.75 metres Minor variation – discussed below.

Privacy setbacks apply for the windows on the east elevation for the section of floor levels exceeding 500mm from natural ground level. The application therefore seeks a variation as a 5.75 metre east side setback is proposed in lieu of 6 metres. The privacy encroachment is considered a minor variation (25 centimetres) and is supported having regard that; - The lot is constrained with no street view therefore some windows need to be

included to provide some outlook. - The available building envelope is also constrained due an easement along the

rear property boundary. - The variation is minor and does not involve a major ‘encroachment’ into the

adjacent lot. There will still be sufficient space on the adjacent lot to accommodate an outdoor area.

- If the side (east) setback was increased to 6 metres it would be fully compliant. In reality the 25 centimetres privacy setback variation is likely to be indistinguishable on site.

The minor variation is illustrated in the officer assessment plan – refer Confidential Attachment 10.3.6 (b) (red hatched area).

• Carparking Under the Residential Design Codes a minimum of 2 car parking spaces is required per dwelling unit. The application includes one bay to the front and rear of the proposed dwelling respectively. Clause A4.4 of the Codes requires provision for vehicles to enter the street in forward gear where the distance from a car space to the street alignment is more than 15 metres. This is applicable as the car parking for the new dwelling is over 28 metres from George Street, and it would be undesirable to require vehicles to reverse for the length of the battleaxe driveway.

63

Gray & Lewis has checked manoeuvrability and reversing areas for the proposed car parking spaces, and the design does allow for cars to depart the site in forward gear.

• Outdoor Living Area (courtyard) and storeroom The Codes require each grouped dwelling to have a 30m2 outdoor living area (courtyard) with a minimum width of 4 metres, which can be accessed from a habitable room. The application complies and an outdoor living area has been provided to the front of the proposed dwelling. A 4m2 storeroom is also required and has been provided as part of the rear carport.

• Existing dwelling Under Clause 6.2.9 A9 of the Codes it states ‘where an existing dwelling is retained as part of a grouped dwelling development, the dwelling appearance is upgraded externally to an equivalent maintenance standard to the rest of the development’. As the land has already been divided into strata lots it is difficult to impose conditions relating to the existing residence (which has not been included in the development application). In any event, it appears that the existing dwelling is in good condition. Consultation and Amended plans The Scheme requires any development above the base R15 code to be advertised for public comment. Whilst a density of R20 has obviously been supported at the subdivision / strata stage, the proposed development still technically requires advertising. The original plans submitted were advertised for public comment until 12 October 2009. The applicant was requested to obtain Water Corporation approval during advertising, as there is a sewer line along the rear of the property. The applicant lodged amended plans (dated 26 September 2009) to address Water Corporation requirements. The amended plans were not re-advertised for another 14 days, however adjacent owners were notified of receipt of the amended plans before close of advertising so still had an opportunity to comment. No submissions were received at the time of writing this report and changes in the amended plans were minor. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Not applicable. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS The applicant has a right of review to the State Administrative Tribunal if aggrieved by any decision made by the Council.

64

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Not applicable. POLICY IMPLICATIONS There is a draft Local Planning Policy No 2 which was specifically developed for the R15/30 flexible coded areas. The draft Policy proposed to; 1. Expand on the existing Scheme criteria for higher densities above the base code

of R15. 2. Place greater restrictions on subdivision or strata above the base code of R15

unless (i) a development application for the lots had been approved or (ii) the applicant demonstrated the Scheme criteria could be met through a Detailed Area Plan.

Council has greater control over development as part of a grouped dwelling application, as opposed to development after a subdivision or strata has been created. Gray & Lewis considers that the highest density should be used to achieve good development and design outcomes with less emphasis on subdivision / strata. Draft Local Planning Policy No 2 was referred to Council for initiation of advertising in May 2008 (refer Item 11.3.2). Council resolved ‘That the matter lay on the table until the town planning consultants briefs Council on the matter.’ Further development on the Draft Policy has been stalled as Gray & Lewis has only visited the Shire on limited occasions, and there has been no opportunity for any Councillor briefing. To maximise costs it would be best be planned as part of a multi purpose visit. As this lot has already been strata’d the Draft Local Planning Policy has limited application. In essence, a density of R20 has already been supported as part of the strata / subdivision process.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council;

1. Approve the application and amended plans dated 26 September 2009 for a new grouped dwelling unit on strata lot 2 (No. 15) George Street, Bremer Bay lodged by Ian Weir Architect on behalf of Mr Craig Lebens (owner) subject to the following conditions; (i) All stormwater from roofed and paved areas shall be collected and

disposed of on-site to the satisfaction of Council unless otherwise agreed to in writing and approved by the Shire.

(ii) Vehicle parking shall be constructed on site to accommodate a minimum of 2 car parking spaces (as per Clause 6.5.1 A1(i) of the Residential

65

Design Codes) to the satisfaction of Council in accordance with the plans submitted.

(iii) Prior to occupation or use of the development, vehicle crossovers shall be constructed in bitumen, asphalt, in-situ concrete, concrete or clay brick pavers in accordance with the Shire of Jerramungup crossover guidelines to the satisfaction of Council.

(iv) No clothes drying devices shall be erected or clothes dried outside which is visible from a street or public place.

(v) The residence and carport to be constructed in non reflective materials to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

(vi) The applicant to lodge a detailed colour schedule prior to the issue of a building licence to demonstrate compliance with Condition (v) above.

(vii) No retaining walls exceeding 500mm from natural ground level shall be installed as stated in the application (unless separately approved).

(viii) The east side setback of 5.75 metres is required to be fully trafficable as the entire width is required to accommodate a driveway and provide manoeuvrability for the reversing of cars. The 5.75 metre side east setback shall be kept clear of any obstruction that may interfere with manoeuvring / reversing areas (such as landscaping or garden beds).

(ix) The bedroom windows on the west elevation are to have a sill height over 1600mm (highlight windows).

2. Advise the applicant that;

(i) Planning approval should not be construed as an approval to commence works as a separate building licence is also required.

OC100915 Moved Cr Hobbs / Seconded Cr Williams That Council;

1. Approve the application and amended plans dated 26 September 2009 for a new grouped dwelling unit on strata lot 2 (No. 15) George Street, Bremer Bay lodged by Ian Weir Architect on behalf of Mr Craig Lebens (owner) subject to the following conditions;

(i) All stormwater from roofed and paved areas shall be collected and disposed of on-site to the satisfaction of Council unless otherwise agreed to in writing and approved by the Shire.

(ii) Vehicle parking shall be constructed on site to accommodate a minimum of 2 car parking spaces (as per Clause 6.5.1 A1(i) of the Residential Design Codes) to the satisfaction of Council in accordance with the plans submitted.



(v) The residence and carport to be constructed in non reflective materials to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.


66

(vii) No retaining walls exceeding 500mm from natural ground level shall be installed as stated in the application (unless separately approved).

(viii) The east side setback of 5.75 metres is required to be fully trafficable as the entire width is required to accommodate a driveway and provide manoeuvrability for the reversing of cars. The 5.75 metre side east setback shall be kept clear of any obstruction that may interfere with manoeuvring / reversing areas (such as landscaping or garden beds).

(ix) The bedroom windows on the west elevation are to have a sill height over 1600mm (highlight windows).



Carried 6-0

67

SUBMISSION TO: Health, Building and Town Planning AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.3.7 SUBJECT: Proposed new two storey house and

outbuilding LOCATION/ADDRESS: Lot 795 Freeman Drive, Bremer Bay NAME OF APPLICANT: Colin Mann (on behalf of the Mann

Superannuation Fund and the Cope Superannuation Fund)

FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Gray & Lewis Landuse Planners DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Gray & Lewis receive planning fees for



• Council is to consider an application for a two storey house and outbuilding on Lot 795 Freeman Drive, Bremer Bay.

• The lot has a flexible code of R2/R15 and whilst larger lots currently exist they have potential for future subdivision to a maximum density of R15 subject to sewer connection.

• The R15 density requirements have been applied for the purpose of assessment and in recognition of future R15 potential. This technically involves variations to the requirements applicable to the base code of R2.

• The application complies with the Residential Design Codes with the exception of a minor side privacy setback variation (west).

• It is recommended that the application be conditionally approved. ATTACHMENT Confidential Attachment 10.3.7 (a) – copy of plans Confidential Attachment 10.3.7 (b) – assessment site plan showing privacy BACKGROUND Zoning The lot is zoned Residential and has a flexible code of ‘R2/15’ under the Shire of Jerramungup Local Planning Scheme No 2 (“the Scheme”). At the base coding of ‘Residential R2’ the minimum lot size is 5000m2, however Council has discretion to support subdivision up to a maximum density of ‘Residential R15’ subject to all new lots being connected to reticulated sewer (Clause 5.3(c) of the Scheme). Although the current lot is at an R2 size/ density, the land in this area has future potential for subdivision at the R15 density. The R15 requirements are therefore being

68

applied for new dwellings, although technically that involves a variation to the base code R2 requirements. Site Description The existing lot has an area of 6603m2 and is currently vacant. The applicant has indicated how future subdivision could occur however subdivision has not been assessed as part of this development COMMENT Application A summary of the application is included below; - The proposed residence has a second storey dining and kitchen area with an

upper storey front balcony. It will be clad in colorbond and has a ‘barn style’ elevation.

- The outbuilding measures 6 metres by 6 metres (36m2). The plans are included as Confidential Attachment 10.3.7(a). Consultation As the R15 requirements are being used to assess new applications (for land currently subject of a base code of R2) all applications in this area are referred to surrounding landowners for comment. Advertising closed on the 21 September 2009 and no submissions were received. Residential Design Codes The single house has been assessed in accordance with the Residential Design Codes and complies with all site requirements as summarised below.

• Setback Compliance based on R15 requirements Setback Required Proposed


Front setback 6 metres 10.32 metres to porch / upper storey balcony and approximately 13 metres to dwelling

Complies

Side Setback / secondary street (house only – east)

1.5 metres

28.5 metres Complies

Side Setback (house only – west)

1.5 metres ground floor 2.8 metres

1.5 metres ground floor 6.04 metres upper

Complies

69

upper storey wall

storey wall

Rear 6 metres 67.48 metres Complies Note: The applicant did not provide any levels on the plans lodged however has confirmed in writing that no retaining walls are proposed and the finished floor level does not exceed 500m above natural ground level. The outbuilding complies with the required setbacks under the Codes – a 1 metre side setback is required and has been provided (as applicable for walls less than 9 metres long without major openings).

• Privacy Setback Compliance based on R15 requirements In addition to building setbacks, the Residential Design Codes also include privacy setbacks to the boundary for upper storey windows and balconies. The setbacks are aimed at minimising privacy and overlooking, and the distances vary depending on the use of the room/ area as follows;

• 4.5 metres in the case of bedrooms and studies • 6 metres in the case of habitable rooms other then bedrooms and studies; and • 7.5 metres in the case of unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces.

Setback Required Proposed


Upper storey kitchen / dining room windows (west elevation)

6 metres 6.04 metres Complies

Upper storey rear kitchen window

6 metres

7.06 metres Complies

Upper Storey dining window (east elevation)

6 metres

Over 40 metres and complies as it is to a street frontage.

Complies

Balcony 7.5 metres 6.04 metres to west boundary

See comments below

The front setback for R15 is 6 metres whereas the proposed dwelling is setback 10.32 metres from Freeman Drive. The proposed front balcony is supported although it technically involves a privacy setback variation as ;

− The Codes allow for balconies which overlook the front setback area as it provides casual surveillance of the street. In this case the front setback is 6 metres so the 7.5 metre side setback technically applies to the area behind the 6 metre front setback line.

− It is not known where a future residence on adjacent Lot 796 to the west will be built. If they build closer to Freeman Drive there may be some minor overlooking into the side of their house however it is unlikely to be an active outdoor area.

70

− The neighbours have not objected to the proposed siting of the dwelling on Lot 795 and the lot sizes mean there is sufficient distance that can be achieved between dwellings.

− The balcony will provide overlooking of the street and casual surveillance can improve security.

The minor variation is illustrated in the officer assessment plan – refer Confidential Attachment 10.3.7 (b) (red hatched area). Local Planning Policy 12 - Outbuildings The table below shows the applicable Policy requirements. Maximum Wall

Height (metres)

Maximum Ridge Height (metres)

Maximum floor area (aggregate)

Requirements of LPP 12

3 4.2 90m2

Provided 2.75 2.19 36m2 The proposed outbuilding complies with Local Planning Policy No 12. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Not applicable. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS The applicant has a right of review to the State Administrative Tribunal if aggrieved by any decision made by the Council. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Not applicable. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Explained in body of this report.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council;

1. Approve the application for a two storey house and ancillary outbuilding on Lot 795 Freeman Drive, Bremer Bay subject to the following conditions;

71

(i) All stormwater from roofed and paved areas shall be collected and disposed of on-site to the satisfaction of Council unless otherwise agreed to in writing and approved by the Shire.

(ii) Vehicle parking shall be constructed on site to accommodate a minimum of 2 car parking spaces (as per Clause 6.5.1 A1(i) of the Residential Design Codes) to the satisfaction of Council.



(v) The residence and outbuilding to be constructed in non reflective materials to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.


(vii) The finished floor level shall not exceed 500mm from natural ground level as stated in the application.



(ii) The Residential Design Codes have specific requirements applicable to front fencing. Any fencing in the front setback area shall be constructed out of visually permeable materials.

(iii) Future subdivision has not been assessed as part of this development application.

OC100916 Moved Cr Bailey/ Seconded Cr Williams That Council;

1. Approve the application for a two storey house and ancillary outbuilding on Lot 795 Freeman Drive, Bremer Bay subject to the following conditions; (i) All stormwater from roofed and paved areas shall be collected and

disposed of on-site to the satisfaction of Council unless otherwise agreed to in writing and approved by the Shire.

(ii) Vehicle parking shall be constructed on site to accommodate a minimum of 2 car parking spaces (as per Clause 6.5.1 A1(i) of the Residential Design Codes) to the satisfaction of Council.



(v) The residence and outbuilding to be constructed in non reflective materials to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

72

(vi) The applicant is to lodge a detailed colour schedule prior to the issue of a building licence to demonstrate compliance with Condition (v) above.

(vii) The finished floor level shall not exceed 500mm from natural ground level as stated in the application.



(ii) The Residential Design Codes have specific requirements applicable to front fencing. Any fencing in the front setback area shall be constructed out of visually permeable materials.

(iii) Future subdivision has not been assessed as part of this development application.

Carried 6-0

73

SUBMISSION TO: Health, Building and Town Planning

AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.3.8 SUBJECT: Proposed subdivision/ boundary re-

alignment between two lots LOCATION/ADDRESS: Lot 9011 and 7 Wellstead Road,

Bremer Bay NAME OF APPLICANT: Harley Survey Group FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Gray & Lewis Landuse Planners DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Gray & Lewis receive planning fees

for advice to the Shire therefore declare a Financial Interest – Section 5.65 of Local Government Act 1995


• Council is to consider an application for a rural subdivision which is essentially a boundary re-alignment between two existing lots.

• The purpose of the subdivision is to improve the boundary configuration as it relates to existing buildings. Currently the dividing lot boundary dissects an existing building (the museum).

• This report recommends that the application be unconditionally approved.

• The Shire is to make recommendations to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is the determining authority.

ATTACHMENT Confidential Attachment 10.3.8 (a) – Subdivision Plan (WAPC – 140558) BACKGROUND Location A location plan is included below for ease of reference.

74

Zoning The subject lots are zoned ‘Rural’ under the Shire of Jerramungup Local Planning Scheme No 2 (‘the Scheme’). Consultation The WAPC has referred the application to Western Power, Water Corporation, Department of Environment and Conservation, the Department of Industry and Resources, Fire and Emergency Services and Authority and the Heritage Council of WA. The Commission has requested comments by the 16 October 2009, however Gray & Lewis has advised that there will be a late response due to the Council meeting date. COMMENT Application The existing western boundary of Lot 7 (adjacent to Lot 9011) runs through the centre of an existing building. The proposed subdivision is a boundary re-alignment between the 2 lots and will ensure that all buildings (including the museum) are fully contained within the expanded Lot 7 area. The area of Lot 7 will increase from 12.473 hectares to 16.1134 hectares to include all the buildings on the one lot. Scheme requirements The Scheme includes general objectives such as to ensure continuation of broad hectare farming land and to allow for facilities for tourists and travellers, and recreation uses.

Lot 7

Lot 9011

75

The Scheme is generally silent on subdivision however applications are assessed in accordance with relevant state planning policies. WAPC DC 3.4 Policy The Western Australian Planning Commissions DC 3.4 Policy which deals with ‘Rural’ land has a general presumption against Rural subdivision however does outline specific circumstances where subdivision may be contemplated including boundary re-alignments between lots to improve farm management (where there is no increase in the number of lots). Whilst the lot boundary change relates to buildings rather than farm management, it is considered to comply with the general intent of the WAPC Policy. Heritage The Wellstead Homestead and surrounding associated buildings such as shearing sheds are located on this land and are identified in the Shire of Jerramungup Municipal Inventory for ‘the highest level of protection’. The application has been referred by WAPC to the Heritage Council who will comment on heritage aspects, however it is considered that retention of the buildings on one lot title will assist in their ongoing protection and not undermine the heritage values. Conclusion The proposed subdivision is supported having regard that it is a minor boundary re-alignment to include all buildings on one lot, the adjustment of 3.6 hectares will not have any major impact, there is no increase in the number of lots, and the new boundary is in a more useable and logical location. Accordingly it is recommended that the application be unconditionally supported. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Not Applicable STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Shire of Jerramungup Local Planning Scheme No 2 Planning and Development Act 2005 – The applicant has a right of appeal if aggrieved by a decision made by the WAPC. Statutory timeframes – The WAPC is required to determine applications within 90 days, and the Shire of Jerramungup is required to provide comments to the WAPC within 42 days (ie by 16 October 2009). The applicant and WAPC has been advised by Gray & Lewis that the Shires response will be late due to the Council meeting date of 20 October 2009.

76

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A POLICY IMPLICATIONS Not applicable.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that the Shire of Jerramungup recommends unconditional approval of the subdivision / boundary re-alignment for Lots 7 and 9011 Wellstead Road, Bremer Bay (WAPC: 140558). OC100917 Moved Cr Hobbs/ Seconded Cr Atkin That Council advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that the Shire of Jerramungup recommends unconditional approval of the subdivision / boundary re-alignment for Lots 7 and 9011 Wellstead Road, Bremer Bay (WAPC: 140558).

Carried 6-0

77

A D M I N

78

SUBMISSION TO: Administration AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.4.1 SUBJECT: Administration Status Report LOCATION/ADDRESS: NAME OF APPLICANT: Shire of Jerramungup FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Bill Parker DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Nil DATE OF REPORT: 12 October 2009 SUMMARY This status report provides Council with an update on current projects of interest being addressed by administration. ATTACHMENT Nil PROJECT UPDATE

1) Bremer Bay Youth Camp This item was discussed at the September Council Meeting and is currently open for public comment. Only one response has been received to date.

2) Jerramungup Residential Land Developments

The Shire has received a management order over the land in Sydney Street. As this is considered as a major land transaction, a business plan is required. Work has commenced on this business plan. Initially, it is proposed that revenue is generated through the sale of property to fund a detailed engineering design that will incorporate drainage, the upgrade of Sydney Street and construction of Cutler Street.

3) Farmland Water Response Planning Quotes have been received and an application lodged with the Water Corporation for funding on this matter.

4) Jerramungup Community Pool

The CEO has discussed this issue with Minister Waldron on a number of occasions. The CEO will provide Council with an update.

5) Police Station and Housing

It is anticipated that the Police Station will be delivered to Jerramungup in late November 2009. The framing has commenced on the residential dwellings. Lock up on all properties is expected to be completed by 30 October 2009.

6) Industrial Land Bremer Bay

The proposed rezoning has been advertised for public comment in response to positive feedback from the EPA.

79

7) Bremer Bay Medical Centre

No further information on this matter.

8) Local Government Amalgamations No further information on this matter.

9) Bremer Bay Town Centre

An expression of interest will be prepared for submission to Landcorp. Some preliminary work has commenced on this submission.

80

SUBMISSION TO: Administration AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.4.2 SUBJECT: Sale of Property LOCATION/ADDRESS: 1 Coral Sea Road NAME OF APPLICANT: Shire of Jerramungup FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Brent Bailey DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Nil DATE OF REPORT: 8 October 2009 SUMMARY With the on-coming development of Sydney Street there will be a funding requirement for preliminary engineering and planning expenses. This proposal seeks to request authorisation to sell 1 Coral Sea Road Jerramungup to finance the preliminary expenses. ATTACHMENT Nil

BACKGROUND In September the Shire of Jerramungup was issued management orders over the Sydney and Cutler Street area earmarked for a residential land development. In order to progress the development there is a need for a number of engineering and planning reports to be undertaken. It is estimated that the preliminary expenses will total approximately $ 60,000 - $80, 000. These resources are currently unbudgeted and it is therefore recommended that Council sell 1 Coral Sea Road and use the funds to cover expenses in the early stages of development. Any surplus funds can be placed in the capital works reserve and utilised to purchase blocks within the development at a later stage. Council has identified in its Strategic Plan that residential land developments within the Shire are an important part of economic development. Council administration has advertised for Expressions of Interest for the purchase of residential blocks. A full business plan will be presented to Council once preliminary engineering has been completed. This plan will analyse;

• Financial viability • Strategic alliance • Associated risks

CONSULTATION Nil

81

COMMENT The residential property proposed to be sold has been rented out privately at least the last 6 years as it has been surplus to Council’s staff housing requirements and is currently in an average standard compared to other Council houses. At present Council spends approximately $1200 - $2500 on the property each year and receives approximately $4000 - $5000 annually in rent depending on occupancy. A qualified valuation has not been undertaken as yet but given other houses on the market and recent sales it is estimated the property will sell for between $100,000 and $120,000. Other options for the financing of the Sydney Street Development include

1. Reallocating funds from Council’s building operating budget 2. Delay the planning stages of the development until next financial year. 3. Utilise funds from the capital works reserve which will leave approximately

$50,000 after budgeted transfers are taken into account. It is recommended that Council resolve to sell 1 Coral Sea Road via private treaty which will allow a more traditional approach to the sale of a property. Significant advertising and consideration of offers will be undertaken and brought back to Council for ratification should the recommendation be supported. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Local Government Act 1995 Part 3 Division 3 Section 3.58

3.58. Disposing of property

(1) In this section —

dispose includes to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of, whether absolutely or not;

property includes the whole or any part of the interest of a local government in property, but does not include money.

(2) Except as stated in this section, a local government can only dispose of property to —

(a) the highest bidder at public auction; or

(b) the person who at public tender called by the local government makes what is, in the opinion of the local government, the most acceptable tender, whether or not it is the highest tender.

(3) A local government can dispose of property other than under subsection (2) if, before agreeing to dispose of the property —

(a) it gives local public notice of the proposed disposition —

(i) describing the property concerned;

(ii) giving details of the proposed disposition; and

82

(iii) inviting submissions to be made to the local government before a date to be specified in the notice, being a date not less than 2 weeks after the notice is first given;

and

(b) it considers any submissions made to it before the date specified in the notice and, if its decision is made by the council or a committee, the decision and the reasons for it are recorded in the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was made.

(4) The details of a proposed disposition that are required by subsection (3)(a)(ii) include —

(a) the names of all other parties concerned;

(b) the consideration to be received by the local government for the disposition; and

(c) the market value of the disposition as ascertained by a valuation carried out not more than 6 months before the proposed disposition.

(5) This section does not apply to —

(a) a disposition of land under section 29 or 29B of the Public Works Act 1902;

(b) a disposition of property in the course of carrying on a trading undertaking as defined in section 3.59;

(c) anything that the local government provides to a particular person, for a fee or otherwise, in the performance of a function that it has under any written law; or

(d) any other disposition that is excluded by regulations from the application of this section.

[Section 3.58 amended by No. 49 of 2004 s. 27.] STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Key Focus Area One:

1.4 Ensuring that the availability of residential, industrial and commercial land meets demand.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Projected Sale of Property to finance development operations. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority.

83

RECOMMENDATION That Council resolve to dispose of 1 Coral Sea Road via private treaty to progress the residential land development on Sydney Street. OC100918 Moved Cr Bailey/ Seconded Cr Williams That Council resolve to dispose of 1 Coral Sea Road via private treaty to progress the residential land development on Sydney Street.

Carried 6-0

84

SUBMISSION TO: Administration AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.4.3 SUBJECT: Introduction of Fee Schedule for

Jerramungup District High School Pool LOCATION/ADDRESS: Jerramungup Swimming Pool Lancaster Rd NAME OF APPLICANT: Shire of Jerramungup FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Brent Bailey DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Financial interest - The author is a key holder

of the Jerramungup Pool. DATE OF REPORT: 8 October 2009 SUMMARY The following pool fee structure is presented to Council for ratification and advertising. ATTACHMENT Nil

BACKGROUND The Shire of Jerramungup currently manages and operates the Jerramungup District High School Pool on license from the Department of Education. The proposed fee structure has been developed based on balancing price demand and revenue generation to offset expenses and minimise operational losses. A financial summary of the pool operations is attached to this item which shows that the swimming pool operates at a significant loss each year – approximately $17,000. Discussions with other Council staff indicate that this net loss is significantly less than other Council operated pools. CONSULTATION Council financial statements and 2009/2010 budget COMMENT The fee structure below is proposed for adoption:

Full Season: October to May Per Household $145.00 School Holiday Season: December, January, February Per Household $100.00 Swimming Lessons Only: Per Household $45.00

85

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Local Government Act 1995 – Subdivision 2 - Sections 16-19 STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Key Focus Area One 1.2 Providing a range of sporting and recreational opportunities. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Revenue generated from pool key purchases / memberships POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority. RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt and advertise the following fee structure for community access to the Jerramungup District High School Pool for the 2009/2010 season:


OC100919 Moved Cr Iffla/ Seconded Cr Bailey That Council adopt and advertise the following fee structure for community access to the Jerramungup District High School Pool for the 2009/2010 season:


Carried 6-0

86

SUBMISSION TO: Administration AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.4.4 SUBJECT: CSRFF – Application for Local Government

Determination LOCATION/ADDRESS: Bremer Bay Sports Club NAME OF APPLICANT: Bremer Bay Sports Club Inc. FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Brent Bailey DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Nil DATE OF REPORT: 2 October 2009 SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to place before Council an application for CSRFF Funding from the Bremer Bay Sport Club. Council is required to complete the Local Government Assessment sheet and provide a ranking with any other submissions. ATTACHMENT CSRFF Application – Bremer Bay Sports Club

BACKGROUND Each year the Department of Sport and recreation calls for grant applications under its CSRFF program. The process is for applicants to complete their applications and lodge them with their Local Government by the end of September. The Local Government’s task is to assess and then rank applications received and lodge them with the Department no later than 4pm on the last working day in October. One application was received from the Bremer Bay Sports Club for upgrades to the Sports Club facilities. Detailed information on the submission is contained in the application package. CONSULTATION Extensive Consultation has been undertaken with the Bremer Bay Sports Club over the past year regarding the upgrading of the Sports Club building. COMMENT Council is now required to consider the applications and complete the project assessment sheet (provided as attachment) to prioritise each project based on the following principles:

1. Project Justification 2. Planned Approach 3. Community Input 4. Management planning 5. Access and Opportunity 6. Design 7. Financial Viability

87

8. Coordination 9. Potential to increase physical activity.

In addition to the above principles, the ranking of each project must also be completed by Council, from one (1) being number one priority, to two (2), being second priority. The Council must also make reference to whether the project has been included in Councils Local Recreation Plan and also assign each proposal a project rating under the following headings:

A) Well planned and needed by municipality B) Well planned and needed by applicant C) Needed by municipality, more planning required D) Needed by applicant, more planning required E) Idea has merit, more preliminary work needed F) Not recommended

The application from the Bremer Bay Sports Club requests a cash contribution of $92,594 exclusive of GST. Council’s policy is to contribute 2.5% of the previous year’s rates (approximately $54,142). Given the scope of projects being submitted to Council over the past two years a review of this policy may be required in the near future. Potential appropriate funding options for the additional funding request include:

1) Utilisation of approximately $27,000 unallocated in the community recreation reserve and balance from general municipal funds requiring service cuts in other areas of the budget.

2) Utilisation of approximately $40,000 in Bremer Bay Youth Camp which is unlikely to be required given the closure of the facility. This would require a reallocation in the 2010/2011 budget or public advertising.

3) Allocation of balance from general municipal funds requiring service cuts in other areas of the budget.

4) Allocation of Royalties for Regions funding in 2010/2011 funding round. The Bremer Bay Sports Club has also applied for the development bonus which equates to $46,297 in this application. Should the bonus not be supported by the Department of Sport and Recreation the Club will need to call on additional funds from bank accounts or other sources to bring their cash contribution up to $108,891. The Bremer Bay Sports Club has submitted their business plan for the next five years which Council administration will use to develop the new Shire of Jerramungup local recreation plan. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Nil STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Key Focus Area 1: Ongoing Social, economic and financial viability 1.2 Providing a range of recreational and sporting opportunities.

88

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Council has forecasted a 2.5% annual contribution to CSRFF projects in the 10 Year Financial Plan. This proposal seeks an additional $38,449 which if the project is supported and approved will require additional funding sources. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Council’s Policy is to contribute 2.5% of the previous year’s rates to CSRFF funding. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority. RECOMMENDATION 1) That Council place the following priorities on the projects submitted for CSRFF

funding:

1. Bremer Bay Sports Club Redevelopment 2) That Council make provision for $92,594 in CSRFF expenditure in the 2010/2011

draft budget and finalise funding sources during the budget process. 3) That the following project assessment sheet be endorsed: 4)

PROJECT ASSESSMENT SHEET

This page is for the use of the relevant Local Government Authority to be used for both community and LGA projects. Please attach copies of council minutes relevant to the project approval.

Name of Local Government Authority: Shire of Jerramungup

Name of Applicant: Bremer Bay Sports Club

Note: The applicant’s name cannot be changed once the application is lodged at DSR. Section A

The CSRFF principles have been considered and the following assessment is provided: (Please include below your assessment of how the applicant has addressed the following criteria) All applications

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Not relevant

Project justification

Planned approach

Community input

Management planning

Access and opportunity

Design

Financial viability

Co-ordination

Potential to increase Physical activity

89

Sustainability

Development applications only


Location

Sustainability

Co-Location

Special Interest Group

Section B

LGA – priority ranking of this project 1

Priority ranking of no of applications received

1 of 1 applications received

Is this project consistent with the Local Plan Regional Plan State Plan

Have all planning and building approvals been given for this project?

Yes No

If no, what approvals are still outstanding?

Building License to be issued on receipt of funding approval.

Project Rating (Please tick the most appropriate box to describe the project)

A Well planned and needed by municipality

B Well planned and needed by applicant

C Needed by municipality, more planning required

D Needed by applicant, more planning required

E Idea has merit, more planning work needed

F Not recommended

OC100920 Moved Cr Hobbs / Seconded Cr Atkin

1) That Council place the following priorities on the projects submitted for CSRFF funding:

1. Bremer Bay Sports Club Redevelopment

2) That Council make provision for $54,145 towards the Bremer Bay Sports

Club Redevelopment and seek to apply for the additional $38,449 funding through the Regional Projects Component of the Royalties for Regions program.

3) That Council encourage the Bremer Bay Sports Club to seek additional funding from other grant providers such as the Lotteries Commission and Great Southern Development Commission.

4) That the following project assessment sheet be endorsed:

90

5)

PROJECT ASSESSMENT SHEET

This page is for the use of the relevant Local Government Authority to be used for both community and LGA projects. Please attach copies of council minutes relevant to the project approval.

Name of Local Government Authority: Shire of Jerramungup

Name of Applicant: Bremer Bay Sports Club

Note: The applicant’s name cannot be changed once the application is lodged at DSR. Section A

The CSRFF principles have been considered and the following assessment is provided: (Please include below your assessment of how the applicant has addressed the following criteria) All applications


Project justification

Planned approach

Community input

Management planning

Access and opportunity

Design

Financial viability

Co-ordination

Potential to increase Physical activity

Sustainability

Development applications only


Location

Sustainability

Co-Location

Special Interest Group

Section B

LGA – priority ranking of this project 1

Priority ranking of no of applications received

1 of 1 applications received

Is this project consistent with the Local Plan Regional Plan State Plan

Have all planning and building approvals been given for this project?

Yes No

If no, what approvals are still outstanding?

Building License to be issued on receipt of funding approval.

91

Project Rating (Please tick the most appropriate box to describe the project)

A Well planned and needed by municipality

B Well planned and needed by applicant

C Needed by municipality, more planning required

D Needed by applicant, more planning required

E Idea has merit, more planning work needed

F Not recommended

Carried 6-0 Reason for Variation: Council reaffirmed their policy on Grants to Community and Sports Groups to provide 2.5% of the previous years rates towards CSRFF projects. The additional funding will need to be achieved from other external funding sources or funded across two financial years in line with Council’s 10 Year Financial Plan.

92

SUBMISSION TO: Administration AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.4.5 SUBJECT: Bremer Bay Community Development

Community Meeting Minutes LOCATION/ADDRESS: N/A NAME OF APPLICANT: N/A FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Bill Parker DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Nil DATE OF REPORT: 7 October 2009 RECOMMENDATION THAT the minutes of the Bremer Bay Community Development Committee meeting held on Friday 2nd October be received (copy of minutes are included in the Attachments 10.4.5) and the following recommendations adopted;

1. That the Phil Hadley plaque be placed on a rock near the fish cleaning station, near the entrance of the walk trail.

2. That the incoming sand to build the shared path, is the responsibility of the Shire of Jerramungup. Sand that is bought in for the foot path is to be checked for and controlled for contaminating weeds.

3. That Council endorse the presented signage designs for the Wellstead Estuary Walk Trail subject to amendments being made to the sign, with the bird hide to be changed to bird viewing area to reflect the application for future planning consent.

OC100921 Moved Cr Williams/ Seconded Cr Bailey

THAT the minutes of the Bremer Bay Community Development Committee

meeting held on Friday 2nd October be received (copy of minutes are included in the Attachments 10.4.5) and the following recommendations adopted;

1. That the Phil Hadley plaque be placed on a rock near the fish cleaning station, near the entrance of the walk trail.

2. That Council endorse the presented signage designs for the Wellstead Estuary Walk Trail subject to amendments being made to the sign, with the bird hide to be changed to bird viewing area to reflect the application for future planning consent.

Carried 6-0

Reason for Variation: Council noted that the sand used for the concrete path was on location prior to the construction of the path and not brought in by the contractor.

93

SUBMISSION TO: Administration AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.4.6 SUBJECT: Bushfire Advisory Committee Meeting

Minutes LOCATION/ADDRESS: N/A NAME OF APPLICANT: N/A FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Bill Parker DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Nil DATE OF REPORT: 7 October 2009 RECOMMENDATION THAT the minutes of the Bushfire Advisory Committee held on 1 October 2009 be received (copy of minutes are in the Attachments 10.4.6).

OC100922 Moved Cr Williams / Seconded Cr Hobbs THAT the minutes of the Bushfire Advisory Committee held on 1 October 2009 be received (copy of minutes are in the Attachments 10.4.6).

Carried 6-0 12:30pm Council convened for lunch. 1:10pm Council reconvened with the following in attendance; Cr Trevaskis, Cr Bailey, Cr Hobbs, Cr Iffla, Cr Williams, Cr Atkin, Mr Parker, Mr Bailey and Mr Edwards.

94

SUBMISSION TO: Administration AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.4.7 SUBJECT: Delegation – Restricted and Prohibited

Burning Times LOCATION/ADDRESS: N/A NAME OF APPLICANT: N/A FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Bill Parker DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Nil DATE OF REPORT: 8 October 2009 SUMMARY On Thursday 1 October 2009, the Bushfire Advisory Committee met to discuss a number of issues including the forthcoming fire season. Enquiries were made during this meeting with regard to varying the restricted and prohibit burning times as prescribed by the Shire of Jerramungup. ATTACHMENT 2009/10 Fire Notice Division 2 and 3 Bushfire Act 1954

BACKGROUND In April 2009, Council endorsed a revision of the Shire’s Fire Notice for the 2009/10 fire season. This review was completed and a new notice was endorsed by Council in September 2009. This notice contains the restricted and prohibited burning times within the Shire of Jerramungup. These periods are summarised below; Restricted Burning Times

(PERMITS REQUIRED)

1 October to 31 October in each year, both dates inclusive and 3 March to 14 May in each year, both dates inclusive.

Prohibited Burning Times

(TOTAL FIRE BAN)

1 November in each year to 2 March the following year, both dates inclusive

Although these dates have been formalised, weather and seasonal conditions may warrant a change to either the restricted or prohibited burning times. The Bush Fire Act 1954 includes provisions for a local government to vary these restricted or prohibited burning times. This item seeks Council’s delegated authority for either the Shire President or Chief Fire Control Officer to vary the restricted or prohibited burning times.

95

CONSULTATION Consultation has occurred with the Regional Manager of FESA and the Shire of Jerramungup Bushfire Advisory Committee. COMMENT Nil STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Division 2 and 3 of the Bush Fire Act 1954 apply to this item. The complete section of this Act has been included within the agenda attachments. Division 2 — Prohibited burning times 17. Prohibited burning times may be declared by Minister (7)(a) Subject to paragraph (b), in any year in which a local government considers that seasonal conditions warrant a variation of the prohibited burning times in its district the local government may, after consultation with an authorised CALM Act officer if forest land is situated in the district, vary the prohibited burning times in respect of that year in the district or a part of the district by —

(i) shortening, extending, suspending or reimposing a period of prohibited burning times; or (ii) imposing a further period of prohibited burning times.

(b) A variation of prohibited burning times shall not be made under this subsection if that variation would have the effect of shortening or suspending those prohibited burning times by, or for, more than 14 successive days.

(8) Where, under subsection (7), a local government makes a variation to the prohibited burning times in respect of its district or a part of its district the following provisions shall apply — (a) the local government —

(i) shall, by the quickest means available to it and not later than 2 days before the first day affected by the variation, give notice of the variation to any local government whose district adjoins that district; (ii) shall, by the quickest means available to it, give particulars of the variation to the Authority and to any Government department or instrumentality which has land in that district under its care, control and management and which has requested the local government to notify it of all variations made from time to time by the local government under this section or section 18; (iii) shall, as soon as is practicable publish particulars of the variation in that district;

(b) the Minister, on the recommendation of the Authority, may give notice in writing to the local government directing it —

(i) to rescind the variation; or (ii) to modify the variation in such manner as is specified in the notice;

(c) on receipt of a notice given under paragraph (b) the local government shall forthwith —

(i) rescind or modify the variation as directed in the notice; and

96

(ii) publish in that district notice of the rescission or particulars of the modification, as the case may require.

(9) For the purposes of subsections (7) and (8) publish means to publish in a newspaper circulating in the district of the local government, to broadcast from a radio broadcasting station that gives radio broadcasting coverage to that district, to place notices in prominent positions in that district, or to publish by such other method as the Authority may specify in writing. (10) A local government may by resolution delegate to its mayor, or president, and its Chief Bush Fire Control Officer, jointly its powers and duties under subsections (7) and (8). (11) A local government may by resolution revoke a delegation it has given under subsection (10) and no delegation so given prevents the exercise and discharge by the local government of its powers and duties under subsections (7) and (8). Division 3 — Restricted burning times 18. Restricted burning times may be declared by Authority (5)(a) Subject to paragraph (b) in any year in which a local government considers that seasonal conditions so warrant the local government may, after consultation with an authorised CALM Act officer if forest land is situated in its district —

(i) vary the restricted burning times in respect of that year in the district or a part of the district by —

(A) shortening, extending, suspending or reimposing a period of restricted burning times; or (B) imposing a further period of restricted burning times; or

(ii) vary the prescribed conditions by modifying or suspending all or any of those conditions.

(b) A variation shall not be made under this subsection if that variation would have the effect of —

(i) shortening the restricted burning times by; or (ii) suspending the restricted burning times, or any prescribed condition, for, more than 14 successive days during a period that would, in the absence of the variation under this subsection, be part of the restricted burning times for that zone in that year.

(c) The provisions of section 17(8), (9), (10) and (11), with the necessary adaptations and modifications, apply to and in relation to the variation of restricted burning times or prescribed conditions by a local government, as if those provisions were expressly incorporated in this section. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS This item relates to the following components from the Shire of Jerramungup’s Strategic Plan… Key Focus Area Two: Service Delivery & the Environment The Shire of Jerramungup will deliver a range of excellent community services whilst minimising our impact on the environment by; 2.5 Working in partnership with key agencies to deliver environmentally responsible

services.

97

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council;

In accordance with section 17 (10) of the Bush Fire Act 1954, delegate to the Shire President and the Chief Bush Fire Control Officer the authority to vary restricted and prohibited burning times.

OC100923 Moved Cr Iffla/ Seconded Cr Williams That Council;

In accordance with section 17 (10) of the Bush Fire Act 1954, delegate to the Shire President and the Chief Bush Fire Control Officer the authority to vary restricted and prohibited burning times.

Carried 6-0

98

SUBMISSION TO: Administration AGENDA REFERENCE: 10.4.8 SUBJECT: Council Committees LOCATION/ADDRESS: NAME OF APPLICANT: Shire of Jerramungup FILE REFERENCE: AUTHOR: Brent Bailey DISCLOSURE OF ANY INTEREST: Nil DATE OF REPORT: 5 October 2009 SUMMARY This report addresses Council’s annual review of Committee appointments. Included in this report is a current listing of Council Committees and two proposed committees of which require Council representation. ATTACHMENT

Nil

BACKGROUND The current listing of Council committees and Councillor Delegates is listed below. Council Committees Appointed May 2008 Committee Membership Term Purpose Powers CEO Appointment and Review Committee

All members of Council

2 years with terms of office being aligned with Local Government Councillor elections.

To conduct the recruitment process and periodic reviews.

Nil, the committee will make recommendations to Council. The Shire President may, at his/her option, engage a consultant to assist in any relevant processes to the extent provided for in the annual budget.

Jerramungup Saleyard Committee

One Councillor and one Proxy , Six Community representatives.

Two years with terms of office being aligned with Local Government Councillor elections. All non Councillor members of

To over see the management of the saleyard facility.

Nil, the committee will make recommendations to Council.

99

the committee are reappointed for a two year term

Audit Committee



To receive audit reports and meet annually with Council’s auditors.

Nil, Makes recommendations to Council on the appointment of auditors and matters raised during audits.

Bremer Bay Community Development Committee

Two Councillors and one Proxy. Two member representatives from each community organisation

Two years with terms of office being aligned with Local Government Councillor elections. All non Councillor members of the committee membership is ongoing once Council has accepted their nomination until the organisation they represent advises otherwise or until Council disbands this committee which ever is the sooner.

To advise Council on issues of development within Bremer Bay


Non Council committees

Organisation/Committee Delegate Positions Nominated Councillors Regional Road Group One Councillors and one

Proxy Delegate: Cr Trevaskis Proxy: Cr Barrett or any

100

other Councillor Great Southern Zone of WALGA

Two Councillors and one Proxy

Delegate: Cr Barrett, Cr Trevaskis Proxy: Cr Williams or any other Councillor

Southern Agcare One Councillor and one Proxy

Delegate: Cr Atkin Proxy: Cr Bailey or any other Councillor

Fitzgerald River National Park Advisory Committee

One Councillor and one Proxy

Delegate: Cr Barrett Proxy: Cr Hobbs or any other Councillor

Bremer Bay Boat Harbour Management Committee


Delegate: Cr Hobbs Proxy: Cr Trevaskis or any other Councillor

Bush Fire Advisory Committee


Delegate: Cr Barrett Proxy: Cr Bailey or any other Councillor

Jerramungup Telecentre Committee


Delegate: Cr Atkin Proxy: Cr Barrett or any other Councillor

Fitzgerald Biosphere Group One Councillor and one Proxy

Delegate: Cr Iffla Proxy: Cr Bailey or any other Councillor

Regional Recreation Advisory Committee


Delegate: Cr Iffla Proxy: Cr Hobbs or any other Councillor

Wellstead Estuary Advisory Committee


Delegate: Cr Hobbs Proxy: Cr Williams or any other Councillor

South Coast Management Group


Delegate: Cr Williams, Cr Hobbs Proxy: Cr Iffla or any other Councillor

Fitzgerald Catchment Demonstration Initiative Project Management Committee



Jerramungup FESA Unit Management Committee


Delegate: Cr Bailey Proxy: Cr Atkin or any other Councillor

101

Bremer Bay FESA Unit Management Committee


Delegate: Cr Hobbs Proxy: Cr Iffla or any other Councillor

Health Advisory Committee One Councillor and one Proxy

Delegate: Cr Trevaskis Proxy: Cr Hobbs or any other Councillor

Bremer River Catchment Management Committee


Delegate: Cr Williams Proxy: Cr Hobbs or any other Councillor

Fitzgerald National Park Fire Advisory Committee


Delegate: Cr Barrett Proxy: Cr Atkin or any other Councillor

South East Coastal Shires Alliance

One Councillor and One Proxy

Delegate: Cr Trevaskis Proxy: Cr Bailey or any other Councillor

CONSULTATION Current Committee Delegates Listing COMMENT The listing of committees and Councillor Delegates is presented for confirmation with the following amendments:

1) Reduction in number of members in CEO appointment and review committee to 4 members as this will provide a more efficient process of recruitment and review and the committee makes recommendations to the full Council for resolution which will allow other Council members to make contributions to the process.

2) Removal of South East Coast Shire’s Alliance as this committee is no longer active.

3) Removal of Fitzgerald River Catchment Demonstration Initiative Project Management Committee as this project has been finalised as of 20 October 2009.

4) The addition of a new Jerramungup Streetscape Committee which will guide the implementation of the Jerramungup Townsite Revitalisation project. Advertising will be undertaken to gain community representation for this committee. Council will need to provide one Councillor representative for this committee.

5) The addition of a new Jerramungup Arts and Entertainment Committee which will seek to gain external funding to bring arts and entertainment shows to the Shire. Advertising will be undertaken to gain community representation for this committee. Council will need to provide one Councillor representative for this committee.

102

The Council Committee appointments have been left open in the recommendation for the Council to resolve.

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS The following sections of the Local Government Act have application:

5.8. Establishment of committees A local government may establish* committees of 3 or more persons to assist the council and to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government that can be delegated to committees. * Absolute majority required. 5.9. Types of committees (1) In this section —

other person means a person who is not a council member or an employee.

(2) A committee is to comprise — (a) council members only; (b) council members and employees; (c) council members, employees and other persons; (d) council members and other persons; (e) employees and other persons; or (f) other persons only. 5.10. Appointment of committee members (1) A committee is to have as its members —

(a) persons appointed* by the local government to be members of the committee (other than those referred to in paragraph (b)); and

(b) persons who are appointed to be members of the committee under

subsection (4) or (5). * Absolute majority required.

(2) At any given time each council member is entitled to be a member of at least one committee referred to in section 5.9(2)(a) or (b) and if a council member nominates himself or herself to be a member of such a committee or committees, the local government is to include that council member in the persons appointed under subsection (1)(a) to at least one of those committees as the local government decides.

(3) Section 52 of the Interpretation Act 1984 applies to appointments of

committee members other than those appointed under subsection (4) or (5) but any power exercised under section 52(1) of that Act can only be exercised on the decision of an absolute majority of the local government.

(4) If at a meeting of the council a local government is to make an

appointment to a committee that has or could have a council member as a member and the mayor or president informs the local government of his or

103

her wish to be a member of the committee, the local government is to appoint the mayor or president to be a member of the committee.

(5) If at a meeting of the council a local government is to make an

appointment to a committee that has or will have an employee as a member and the CEO informs the local government of his or her wish —

(a) to be a member of the committee; or (b) that a representative of the CEO be a member of the committee, the local government is to appoint the CEO or the CEO’s representative,

as the case may be, to be a member of the committee. 5.11. Tenure of committee membership

(1) Where a person is appointed as a member of a committee under section 5.10(4) or (5), the person’s membership of the committee continues until —

(a) the person no longer holds the office by virtue of which the person became a member, or is no longer the CEO, or the CEO’s representative, as the case may be;

(b) the person resigns from membership of the committee; (c) the committee is disbanded; or (d) the next ordinary elections day, whichever happens first.

(2) Where a person is appointed as a member of a committee other than under section 5.10(4) or (5), the person’s membership of the committee continues until —

(a) the term of the person’s appointment as a committee member expires; (b) the local government removes the person from the office of committee

member or the office of committee member otherwise becomes vacant; (c) the committee is disbanded; or (d) the next ordinary elections day, whichever happens first.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil VOTING REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority

104

RECOMMENDATION That Council resolve to make the following appointments to Council and community committees. Committee Membersh

ip Term Purpose Nominate

d Councillors

Powers

CEO Appointment and Review Committee

4 Councillors



1) 2) 3) 4)


Jerramungup Saleyard Committee

One Councillor and one Proxy , Six Community representatives.

Two years with terms of office being aligned with Local Government Councillor elections. All non Councillor members of the committee are reappointed for a two year term

To over see the management of the saleyard facility.

1) Proxy)


Audit Committee




All Councillors


Bremer Bay Community Development

Two Councillors and one Proxy.

Two years with terms of office being aligned with Local

To advise Council on issues of

1)

2)

Nil, the committee will make recommendations

105

Committee Two member representatives from each community organisation

Government Councillor elections. All non Councillor members of the committee membership is ongoing once Council has accepted their nomination until the organisation they represent advises otherwise or until Council disbands this committee which ever is the sooner.

development within Bremer Bay

Proxy) to Council.



Proxy Delegate: Cr Trevaskis Proxy: Cr Barrett or any other Councillor

Great Southern Zone of WALGA


Delegate: Cr Barrett, Cr Trevaskis Proxy: Cr Williams or any other Councillor

Southern Agcare One Councillor and one Proxy


Fitzgerald River National Park Advisory Committee


Delegate: Cr Barrett Proxy: Cr Hobbs or any other Councillor

Bremer Bay Boat Harbour Management Committee


Delegate: Cr Hobbs Proxy: Cr Trevaskis or any other Councillor



Delegate: Cr Barrett Proxy: Cr Bailey or any

106

other Councillor Jerramungup Telecentre Committee



Fitzgerald Biosphere Group


Delegate: Cr Iffla Proxy: Cr Bailey or any other Councillor






Delegate: Cr Hobbs Proxy: Cr Williams or any other Councillor






Delegate: Cr Bailey Proxy: Cr Atkin or any other Councillor

Bremer Bay FESA Unit Management Committee


Delegate: Cr Hobbs Proxy: Cr Iffla or any other Councillor









Jerramungup Streetscape Committee


Delegate: Proxy:

Jerramungup Arts and Entertainment Committee


Delegate: Proxy:

107

OC100924 Moved Cr Williams/ Seconded Cr Bailey That Council resolve to make the following appointments to Council and community committees. Committee Membersh

ip Term Purpose Nominated

Councillors Powers

CEO Appointment and Review Committee

All Councillors



All Councillors


Audit Committee




All Councillors


Bremer Bay Community Development Committee

Two Councillors and one Proxy. Two member representatives from each community organisation

Two years with terms of office being aligned with Local Government Councillor elections. All non Councillor members of the committee membership is ongoing once Council has accepted their nomination until the organisation

To advise Council on issues of development within Bremer Bay

1) Cr Trevaskis

2) Cr Williams

Proxy) Any other Councillor


108

they represent advises otherwise or until Council disbands this committee which ever is the sooner.



Proxy Delegate: Cr Trevaskis Proxy: Cr Hobbs or any other Councillor

Great Southern Zone of WALGA


Delegate: Cr Williams, Cr Trevaskis Proxy: Cr Bailey or any other Councillor




Jerramungup Telecentre Committee



Fitzgerald Biosphere Group


Delegate: Cr Bailey Proxy: Cr Iffla or any other Councillor






Delegate: Cr Bailey Proxy: Cr Iffla or any other Councillor






Delegate: Cr Bailey Proxy: Cr Atkin or any

109

other Councillor Bremer Bay FESA Unit Management Committee











Jerramungup Streetscape Committee



Carried 6-0

110

OC100925 Moved Cr Iffla / Seconded Cr Hobbs That the meeting move behind closed doors in accordance with section 5.23 (2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1995 to discuss Item 10.4.9 – Organisational Restructure.

Carried 6-0

ITEM 10.4.9 CONFIDENTIAL OC100926 Moved Cr Hobbs/ Seconded Cr Bailey That Council;

1) Endorse the proposed restructure that will result in the creation of a Manager Works Position that will facilitate and coordinate the delivery of the annual construction and maintenance program.

2) Authorise the reallocation of $15,000 from the Gross Salaries and Wages Allocation to the Redundancy / Termination Payment Allocation within the 2009/2010 budget to cover any redundancy entitlements that may result from the proposed restructure.

3) Endorse the amendments made to Administration Policy No.4 so that the Chief Executive Officer, Deputy Chief Executive Officer and Executive Manager Infrastructure Services are the only officers designated as Senior Employees under S5.37 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Carried 6-0

OC100927 Moved Cr Iffla/ Seconded Cr Hobbs That the meeting come out from behind closed doors and re-open to the public.

Carried 6-0

111

COUNCILLOR REPORTS

112

11. COUNCILLOR REPORTS Cr Hobbs

• Attended the Bremer Bay Community Development Committee Meeting • Special Council Meeting

Cr Iffla • Fitzgerald Biosphere Group AGM • Special Council Meeting

Cr Bailey • Special Council Meeting • Fitzgerald Biosphere Group AGM • CEO Review

Cr Williams

• Attended the Bremer Bay Community Development Committee Meeting • Bremer River Catchment Windup at Gairdner Hall • WA Coastal Conference – South Coast Management Group was

presented an award for coastal planning and management.

Cr Atkin • CEO Review • JMP Telecentre Meeting

Cr Trevaskis

• CEO Review • Special Council Meeting • Attended the Bremer Bay Community Development Committee Meeting • Attended CO2 Plantations Presentation

12. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE INTRODUCED BY LEAVE OF

THE PRESIDING MEMBER

12.1 From Officers

Mr Parker provided Council with an update on the new Administration Gardens which will be installed in the coming month.

12.2 From Elected Members

Cr Hobbs: Requested information on monthly building approvals to be circulated to Councillors. Cr Hobbs requested that a barrier be placed to avoid traffic crossing from Bennett Street to Esplanade through the cul-de-sac.

113

Cr Iffla: Bremer Bay Airstrip – tabled letter from J Garnett regarding the Bremer Bay airstrip and acquiring land through subdivision process to allow for runway extensions. Cr Iffla: Requested information on Ranger replacement. Mr Parker advised that approximately 30 application packages had been sent out and will be considered in the coming weeks.

Cr Trevaskis requested a letter to John Iffla congratulating him on his appointment to the position of President – Volunteer Emergency Services Association.

Cr Trevaskis expressed concern over structure of the steps at Flat Rock and lack of on-going maintenance funding for the site and other coastal reserves within the Shire.

Cr Williams requested that the Shire write a letter of congratulations to the Wellstead Estuary Advisory Committee for their State Coastal Conference award.

Cr Williams advised Councillors that the next South Coast Management Group meeting would be held in Bremer Bay on Friday 13th November 2009.

13. NEXT MEETING/S

Ordinary Meeting –17th November 2009 to be held at the Council Chambers, Jerramungup.

14. CLOSURE

The President closed the meeting at 3:10pm

Documents

SHIRE OF JERRAMUNGUP October 2009 Minutes... · The Shire President requested that the Chief Executive ... as well as scouring of ... Shire of Jerramungup has been issued with management