Council Agenda 8 February 2011 - City of Bunbury and Minutes...8 February 2011 Agenda - Bunbury City Council Page 3 existing road alignment, The works are expected to recommence in

City of Bunbury 4 Stephen Street

Bunbury WA 6230 Western Australia

Correspondence to: Post Office Box 21

Bunbury WA 6231

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

Bunbury City Council Notice of Meeting & Agenda 8 February 2011

Table of Contents

Item No Subject Page

1. Declaration of Opening by the Mayor ........................................................... 1

2. Record of Attendance, Apologies and Leave of Absence ........................ 1

3. Responses to Public Questions Taken 'On Notice' at the Previous Council Meeting ............................................................................... 2

4. Public Question Time ...................................................................................... 2

5. Questions on Notice from Council Members (No Discussion Permitted).......................................................................................................... 2

6. Confirmation of Previous Minutes ................................................................. 4

7. Disclosures of Interest Under the Local Government Act 1995 ............... 4

8. Announcements by the Mayor (No Discussion Permitted) ....................... 4

9. Chief Executive Officer Reports/Discussion Topics................................... 5

9.1 Request For Leave of Absence – Councillor Helen Punch ...................... 5

9.2 Groovin the Moo 2011..................................................................................... 6

10. Reception of Formal Petitions and Memorials ............................................ 9

11. Reception of Reports and Recommendations from the Council (Standing) Committee Meeting held 1 February 2011............................... 9

11.1 Petition – Bunbury Glade Caravan Park .................................................... 10

11.2 Appointment of a Representative from Bunbury Historical Society – City of Bunbury Museum Advisory Committee........................ 11

11.3 Proposed Bed and Breakfast – Lot 115 (DP 10147) No. 9 Dunbarton Way Withers ............................................................................... 13

11.4 Scheme Amendment 29 to Town Planning Scheme No. 7 – Special Use Zone 54 - Gateway Commercial Precinct Close of Advertising and Final Adoption .................................................................... 16

11.5 Scheme Amendment 46 to Town Planning Scheme No. 7 - Proposed Rezoning Lots 11 to 14 South Western Highway from Special Use Zone 8 (SU 8) to Industry Zone ................................... 29

11.6 Scheme Amendment 43 to Town Planning Scheme No. 7 – Close of Advertising and Final Adoption .................................................... 32

11.7 Scheme Amendment 44 to Town Planning Scheme No. 7 – Operation of Structure Plans........................................................................ 38

Table of Contents


11.8 Proposed Detailed Area Planning and Subdivision of the Former Punchbowl Caravan Park - Lot 210 Holywell Street and Lot 211 Pendal Street, South Bunbury............................................... 42

11.9 Bunbury Regional Arts Management Board Representation on the Foreshore Art Gallery Advisory Committee ........................................ 49

11.10 Blair Street – National Blackspot Funding 2011/2012 ............................. 51

11.11 Port Access Road (Stage 2) and Bunbury Outer Ring Road (Stage 1) – Land Acquisition and Dedication ............................................ 55

11.12 Tender for Creek Street Pipe Relining RFT 2010 2011-09 .................... 57

11.13 Bunbury Dynamos Soccer Club Inc./Bunbury & Districts Cricket Association – Proposed Extension of Lease over Portion Lot 73 (on Diagram 2224) Forrest Avenue, Bunbury (Forrest Park).................................................................................................. 59

11.14 Lease – Bunbury and Districts Dog Club Inc. ........................................... 62

11.15 On-Road Radio Control Car Club Inc. – Proposed Extension of Lease over Portion of Reserve 30601 (on Deposited Plan 43554) Bunbury (Hay Park) ......................................................................... 65

11.16 Ian G Humphryson – Proposed Deed of Lease over Hangar Site No. 40, Bunbury Airport, Lot 501 (P62343) South Western Highway, Bunbury.......................................................................... 68

11.17 C’Quel Café/Restaurant (Formerly Cosenza’s Seafood Restaurant) – Proposed Deed of Assignment of Non-Exclusive Licence over Portion Reserve 7891 “Guppy Park” Lot 808 (on Deposited Plan 219169) Victoria Street, Bunbury .............. 71

11.18 Report on Strategic Activities for the Period 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2010.............................................................................................. 74

11.19 South West Sports Centre Master Plan ..................................................... 76

11.20 Financial Statements – December 2010.................................................... 79

11.21 Advisory Committee Minutes to be Noted at the Council Committee Meeting ....................................................................................... 81

11.22 Tender for Consultancy Engineering Service – Bunbury Timber Jetty (RFT 2010 2011-22)............................................................... 82

11.23 Motion on Notice – Request that the Land Rationalisation Committee to Allow Development on Lots 605 and 688 (Withers Reserves 34727 & 39609) ........................................................... 86

Table of Contents


11.24 Motion on Notice – Modifications and Realignment of Moriarity Park to Help Control Anti-Social Behaviour............................................... 88

11.25 Motion on Notice – Bike Path Funding Review......................................... 91

11.26 Items to be Noted (No Discussion) at the Council Committee Meeting ............................................................................................................ 93

12. Motions on Notice .......................................................................................... 94

12.1 Motion on Notice – Additional Funding Required For Bunbury-Setagaya Sister Cities Committee .............................................................. 94

12.2 Motion on Notice – Proposal of the Future Reduction of Council Representatives............................................................................... 95

13. Urgent Business (With Approval of Majority of Members Present as Permitted Under Standing Order 5.1.13)............................... 98

14. Items to be Noted or Endorsed ................................................................... 98

15. Confidential Business as Stipulated Under Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995.................................................................. 99

15.1 Endorsement of Contract of Employment of the New Chief Executive Officer under the Provisions of Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995.................................................................. 99

16. Close of Meeting ............................................................................................ 99

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATED TERMS

Term Explanation

1:100 Ratio of 'one in one hundred' AD Acceptable Development ARI Annual Recurrence Interval AHD Australian Height Datum ANEF Australian Noise Exposure Forecast AWARE All West Australians Reducing Emergencies (grant funding) BCA Building Code of Australia BCCI Bunbury Chamber of Commerce & Industries BCRAB Bunbury Community Recreation Association Board BEAC Built Environment Advisory Committee BESAC Bunbury Environment and Sustainability Advisory Committee BHRC Bunbury Harvey Regional Council BPA Bunbury Port Authority BRAG Bunbury Regional Art Galleries BRAMB Bunbury Regional Arts Management Board BREC Bunbury Regional Entertainment Centre BSSC Big Swamp Steering Committee BWEA Bunbury Wellington Economic Alliance CALM Department of Conservation and Land Management CBD Central Business District CCAFF Community Cultural and Arts Facilities Fund CERM Centre of Environmental and Recreation Management CPI Consumer Price Index CSRFF Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund DADAAWA Disability in the Arts Disadvantage in the Arts Australia, Western Australia DAP Detailed Area Plan (required by WA Planning Commission) DCU Development Coordinating Unit DEC Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly CALM) DEWCP Department for Environment, Water and Catchment Protection DLI Department of Land Information DoE Department of Environment DOLA Department of Land Administration DoPI Department of Primary Industry DoW Department of Water DPI Department for Planning and Infrastructure DSR Department of Sport and Recreation DUP Dual-use Path ECT Enforcement Computer Technology EDAC Economic Development Advisory Committee EDWA Education Department of Western Australia EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EPA Environmental Protection Authority ERMP Environmental Review and Management Program ESL Emergency Services Levy FESA Fire and Emergency Services Authority FFL Finished Floor Level GBPG Greater Bunbury Progress Group GBRP Greater Bunbury Resource Plan report GBRS Greater Bunbury Region Scheme GL Gigalitres GRV Gross Rental Value GST Goods and Services Tax HCWA Heritage Council of Western Australia ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives ICT Information and Communications Technology IP Internet Protocol IT Information Technology ITC In Town Centre ITLC Former In-Town Lunch Centre (now the "In Town Centre") LAP Local Action Plan LCC Leschenault Catchment Council

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATED TERMS

Term Explanation

LEMC Bunbury Local Emergency Management Committee LIA Light Industrial Area LN (2000) Liveable Neighbourhoods Policy (2000) LSNA Local Significant Natural Area MHDG Marlston Hill Design Guidelines MRWA Main Roads Western Australia NDMP National Disaster Mitigation Program NEEDAC Noongar Employment & Enterprise Development Aboriginal Corp. NRM Natural Resource Management NRMO Natural Resource Management Officer ODP Outline Development Plan PAW Public Access Way PHCC Peel-Harvey Catchment Council PR Plot Ratio R-IC Residential Inner City (Housing) - special density provisions RDC Residential Design Codes RDG Residential Design Guidelines Residential R15 Town Planning Zone – up to 15 residential dwellings per hectare Residential R20 Town Planning Zone – up to 20 residential dwellings per hectare Residential R40 Town Planning Zone – up to 40 residential dwellings per hectare Residential R60 Town Planning Zone – up to 60 residential dwellings per hectare RFDS Royal Flying Doctor Service RMFFL Recommended Minimum Finished Floor Levels ROS Regional Open Space ROW Right-of-Way RSL Returned Services League SBCC South Bunbury Cricket Club Inc. SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SGDC Sportsgrounds Development Committee SW South West SWACC South Western Area Consultative Committee SWAMS South West Aboriginal Medical Service SWBP South West Biodiversity Project SWCC South West Catchments Council SWDC South West Development Commission SWDRP South West Dolphin Research Program SWEL South West Electronic Library SWSC South West Sports Centre TME Thompson McRobert Edgeloe TPS Town Planning Scheme USBA Union Bank of Switzerland Australia VGO Valuer General’s Office VOIP Voice-Over Internet Protocol WALGA Western Australian Local Government Association WAPC Western Australian Planning Commission WAPRES Western Australian Plantation Resources WAWA Water Authority of Western Australia WC Water Corporation WML WML Consultants WRC Waters and Rivers Commission

Page 1

Bunbury City Council Notice of Meeting

TO: Council Members The next Ordinary Meeting of the Bunbury City Council will be held in the Council Chambers, City of Bunbury Administration Building, 4 Stephen Street, Bunbury on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 at 6.00pm. Geoff Klem Acting Chief Executive Officer (Date of Issue: 03/02/2011)

Agenda 8 February 2011

NOTE: The recommendations contained in this document are not final and are subject to adoption, amendment (or otherwise) at the meeting.

Council Members: His Worship the Mayor, Mr D Smith Deputy Mayor - Councillor Brendan Kelly Councillor Judy Jones Councillor Wayne Major Councillor Stephen Craddock Councillor Alfred Leigh Councillor Helen Punch Councillor Noel Whittle Councillor Ross Slater Councillor Michelle Steck Councillor Juliet Harrop Councillor Derek Spencer Councillor Karen Steele

1. Declaration of Opening by the Mayor

2. Record of Attendance, Apologies and Leave of Absence

8 February 2011 Agenda - Bunbury City Council

Page 2

3. Responses to Public Questions Taken 'On Notice' at the Previous Council Meeting

4. Public Question Time

In accordance with Reg. 7(4)(a) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, members of the public in attendance at the meeting may stand, state aloud their name and address, and ask a question in relation to any matter over which the municipality of Bunbury has jurisdiction or involvement.

5. Questions on Notice from Council Members (No Discussion Permitted)

Cr Craddock submitted the following question (in writing) prior to the close of the meeting agenda. A response has been provided by the Executive Manager City Services: Question 1: When did the modifications to the Washington Avenue / Parade Road

intersection commence? Response 1: The project was included as a priority late item in the 2009/10 Budget

(it was originally suggested for inclusion in the 2010/11 Budget). The design commenced in mid 2009 and was not completed before pressure to open Parade Road required undertaking preliminary works as early as possible. The project was to have substantially commenced before the 2010 school year (January). As the project progressed complications with several service providers were encountered – including AqWest, AlintaGas, Telstra, Water Corp and Western Power. Between mid 2009 and early 2010 the design went through a number of reviews to meet Main Roads WA approvals and to address technical deficiencies. The works were terminated in mid 2010 to complete the design issues and to obtain quotes from Western Power for the undergrounding of overhead power lines and quotes from Downers to install the traffic control signals.

Question 2: What is the anticipated completion date of this project? Response 2: The design issues have now been resolved and quotes obtained from

Downer and Western Power to make a revised project schedule. The Western Power works are complex as it will have to install infrastructure on the new road alignment which is in the way of


Page 3

existing road alignment, The works are expected to recommence in February 2011 and be completed in July 2011.

Question 3: Why is the project taking so long and how has Council attempted to

speed up completion? Response 3: The project was started too early as the design and project planning

had not been completed before it was included in the budget. This has been the subject of a discussion at the Council’s Five Year Planning meeting. It was a strongly held view that the City of Bunbury could not allow Dalyellup traffic to come into Bunbury without addressing the perceived political risk of not commencing the project. The (then) CEO supported this view. Once EMT had approved the project in the budget, insufficient time was allowed to complete the design, obtain quotes, update the delivery schedule and implement a project plan. Council has been working closely with Western Power to work out the delivery logistics. Council has accepted the risk of taking on the traffic management planning for Western Power to ensure they can focus on their infrastructure delivery. Council has liaised with St Josephs Primary School to inform them of progress. Council has won Regional Road Group funding for this project to ensure it can be completed.

The bund blocking access to Parade Road at the boundary of Capel

Shire was not sufficient to prevent Dalyellup residents from entering Parade Road from the south. Failure to open Parade Road to the south was likely to impact negatively on the City of Bunbury even though the situation had been forced by actions external to its control. The SAT resolution acknowledging the impact of the Dalyellup development on traffic movement onto Parade Road was premised on a requirement to undertake works to accommodate this. The City of Bunbury was thus in a position where it could not ignore the potential safety issues arising from a matter that it knew about. The corner of Washington Avenue and Parade Road was considered a priority on the schedule of works derived from the SAT resolution because of the primary school located there. The delays experienced in this project are an example of allowing sufficient lead time for planning projects. Having to bring forward works because of external factors in inherently problematic.


Page 4

6. Confirmation of Previous Minutes

The minutes of the Special Council Meeting held 6 December 2010, have been circulated. The minutes of the Council Meeting held 14 December 2010, have been circulated. The minutes of the Special Council Meeting held 20 December 2010, have been circulated. Recommendation 1. The minutes of the Special Council Meeting held 6 December 2010, be

confirmed as a true and accurate record.

2. The minutes of the Council Meeting held 14 December 2010, be confirmed as a true and accurate record.

3. The minutes of the Special Council Meeting held 20 December 2010, be confirmed as a true and accurate record.

7. Disclosures of Interest Under the Local Government Act 1995

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

8. Announcements by the Mayor (No Discussion Permitted)


Page 5

9. Chief Executive Officer Reports/Discussion Topics

9.1 Request For Leave of Absence – Councillor Helen Punch File Ref: A00215

Applicant/Proponent: Councillor Helen Punch

Author: Geoff Klem, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Executive: Geoff Klem, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: Nil

Recommendation Pursuant to Section 2.25 of the Local Government Act 1995, Councillor Helen Punch is granted leave of absence from all Council-related business from 3 February to 31 March 2011 inclusive. Summary/Background Councillor Helen Punch requests leave of absence from all Council-related business from 3 February to 31 March 2011 inclusive. Section 2.25 of the Local Government Act 1995, allows a council to grant leave of absence to one of its members provided that the period of leave does not exceed six consecutive ordinary meetings of the Council.


Page 6

9.2 Groovin the Moo 2011

File Ref: A03619

Applicant/Proponent: Sunset Events

Author: Felicity Anderson, Manager Economic & Social Development

Executive: Domenic Marzano, Executive Manager City Life

Attachments: Nil

Recommendation 1. Council agree to amend its agreement with Sunset Events to increase

the point of return for ticket sales from 12,000 - 15,000 to 13,000 – 16,000. Leaving the return value at $20 per ticket. (Council will receive $20 per patron from 13,000 attendees to a maximum of $60,000 for 16,000 attendees).

2. Council’s previous decision to contribute a maximum of $120,000 to the

event remains unchanged, including the potential rebate of $60,000, reducing Council’s net cost to $60,000.

Summary

At the time of the Council decision, Sunset Events were looking for financial contributions toward the Bunbury GTM event from a range of sources. This included the City of Bunbury and the South West Development Commission (SWDC). The SWDC was considering a proposal to contribute $30,000 towards the event and has recently advised that it has declined this proposal. Upon receiving notification from the SWDC the City of Bunbury advised Mr Andrew Chernov of Sunset Events that the SWDC proposal was unsuccessful. Mr Chernov, noted that this would have an impact given that the anticipated SWDC support and the City of Bunbury Agreement was to underwrite the event for a total of $150,000, with a possible return of $60,000 to the City of Bunbury. This provided Sunset with $90,000 expected to cover expenses and costs.

Background Outcome – Council Meeting 30 November 2010 The Committee recommendation (as printed) was moved Deputy Mayor Cr Kelly seconded Cr Jones.

It was requested that the vote on the motion be taken in separate parts.

The Mayor put the motion to the vote in separate parts and was adopted to become the Council’s decision on this matter.

Point 1: 11 votes “for” / Nil votes “against” CARRIED Point 2: 7 votes “for’ / 4 votes “against” CARRIED.


Page 7

It was requested that the votes be recorded as follows:

For: Mayor D Smith, Deputy Mayor Cr Kelly, Cr Craddock, Cr Major, Cr Jones, Cr Whittle, Cr Steck

Against: Cr Steele, Cr Slater, Cr Leigh, Cr Harrop

Council Decision 247/10 1. Council accept the proposal from Sunset Events to hold a Groovin’

the Moo (GTM) concert in Bunbury on 14 May 2011; 2. Council contribute $120,000 towards the cost of holding the GTM

concert in 2011. The City will be repaid a portion of the sponsorship amount ($20 per patron from 12,000 attendees to a maximum of $60,000 for 15,000 attendees).

Mr Chernov has advised that with the loss of the expected $30,000 from SWDC this has left them short to underwrite the event and cover their expenses. Mr Chernov suggested the following options to address the situation: a) Change the value of the return per ticket from $20 to $10. Note: This would result in a loss of $30,000 in reimbursement to the City of

Bunbury should 15,000 tickets sales be achieved.

b) Change and increase the point of return for ticket sales from 12,000 - 15,000 to 13,000 – 16,000. Leaving the return value at $20 per ticket. Note: Discussions at stakeholder meetings have indicated that Sunset Events expect to apply for approval for up to a 20,000 person capacity. If 16,000 sales are achieved the City of Bunbury would still receive their $60,000 reimbursement.

Officer Comments The event has been discussed with relevant officers including the Marketing Officer, the Events Officer, the Events Scheduling Officer and the Manager Environmental Health. Working group and stakeholder meetings have commenced to progress the event. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications

Option 1 Should Council agree to amend its agreement with Sunset Events to increase the point of return for ticket sales from 12,000 - 15,000 to 13,000 – 16,000. Leaving the return value at $20 per ticket and 16,000 sales are achieved there would be no further budget implications.


Page 8

Option 2 Should Council decide to change the value of the return per ticket from $20 to $10 this would result in a loss of $30,000 in reimbursement to the City of Bunbury should 15,000 tickets sales be achieved. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 Change the value of the return per ticket from $20 to $10. Note: This would result in a loss of $30,000 in reimbursement to the City of Bunbury should 15,000 tickets sales be achieved Option 3 As per the recommendation with amendments. Option 4 Not to proceed with the proposal from Sunset Events to hold a GTM concert in Bunbury in May 2011.


Page 9

10. Reception of Formal Petitions and Memorials

11. Reception of Reports and Recommendations from the Council (Standing) Committee Meeting held 1 February 2011

Standing Order 16.1.1 permits the Council to adopt the Committee Recommendations listed in Section 11 of this agenda "en bloc".

At the meeting, councillors to identify any items requiring individual attention.


Page 10

11.1 Petition – Bunbury Glade Caravan Park

File Ref: R00066-04

Applicant/Proponent: Mr Geoffrey Brady

Author: Councillor Alfred Leigh

Executive: If petitions adopted by Council refer to: Michael Scott, Executive Manager City Services

Attachments: Nil.

Committee Recommendation In accordance with City of Bunbury Standing Orders 9.4(c), the letter and petition received from Mr Geoffrey Brady, Bunbury Glade Caravan Park requesting a traffic calming device be installed along Timperley Road, be accepted and referred to a committee for consideration and report. A letter and petition have been received from Mr Geoffrey Brady, Bunbury Glade Caravan Park in relation to the installation of a traffic calming device along Timperley Road. Pursuant to City of Bunbury Standing Order 9.4, the only questions to be considered at the Council Meeting upon presentation of a petition are:

(a) That the petition shall be accepted; or

(b) That the petition not be accepted; or

(c) That the petition be accepted and referred to a committee for consideration and report; or

(d) That the petition be accepted and be dealt with by the full council. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 Cr Leigh tabled a petition from Mr Geoffrey Brady from the Bunbury Glade Caravan Park. The petition contains approximately 100 signatures from Bunbury residents. A copy of the letter and petition can be obtained from Council’s Administration Building. In accordance with City of Bunbury Standing Order 9.4(c), Cr Major moved, Cr Slater seconded that the petition be accepted and referred to a committee for consideration and report. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 11

11.2 Appointment of a Representative from Bunbury Historical Society – City of Bunbury Museum Advisory Committee

File Ref: A01262-06

Applicant/Proponent: Internal Report

Author: Jenelle Dunn, Acting Executive Officer Bunbury Museum Advisory Committee

Executive: Domenic Marzano, Executive Manager City Life

Attachments: Confidential report

Committee Recommendation 1. That a standing representative of the Bunbury Historical Society be

appointed to the City of Bunbury Museum Advisory Committee; 2. That Mrs Margaret Fleay President of the Bunbury Historical Society be

appointed to the City of Bunbury Museum Advisory Committee for a term that expires on the 15 October 2011.

Summary As per Council Decision 242/10 on 30 November 2010, Council approved the membership of the Bunbury Museum Advisory Committee, which includes five (5) community members. Members of the Bunbury Historical Society have also expressed their interest in having a representative on this Committee. A copy of the application is circulated as a Confidential Report under separate cover. Background At its meeting on 8 June 2010, Council resolved to approve the establishment of a Bunbury Museum Advisory Committee for the purposes of further investigating possible sites for a Bunbury Museum (Council Decision 107/10).

At this same meeting, Council adopted the terms of reference as listed below (under “Officer Comments” section). As per Council Decision 242/10 on 30 November 2010, Council approved the membership of the Bunbury Museum Advisory Committee, which currently includes five (5) community members. The inaugural meeting of the Bunbury Museum Advisory Committee will be held once the Museum Curator has been appointed, as this person will act as the Executive Officer for this Committee.


Page 12

Officer Comments The appointment of appropriate Committee members completes the official membership process and will allow the Committee to put in effect its approved terms of reference (agreed to by Council on 8 June 2010) which are to:

1. To develop criteria for the selection of a site for a Bunbury Museum.

2. To identify a range of possible sites with regards to the above criteria.

3. To investigate feasibility of sites and report back to Council on findings. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications Appointment of an additional position to the Bunbury Museum Advisory Committee is not expected to have any financial or budgetary impact on Council. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 As per the recommendation with amendment. Option 3 Council do not support the recommendation. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 Cr Harrop moved Cr Craddock seconded option 2 with amendments as follows; 1. That a standing representative of the Bunbury Historical Society be appointed

to the City of Bunbury Museum Advisory Committee; 2. That Mrs Margaret Fleay President of the Bunbury Historical Society be

appointed to the City of Bunbury Museum Advisory Committee for a term that expires on the 15 October 2011.

The Mayor put the motion as amended to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 13

11.3 Proposed Bed and Breakfast – Lot 115 (DP 10147) No. 9 Dunbarton Way Withers

File Ref: P02528

Applicant/Proponent: Heather Mary Paton

Author: Ann-Kristin Jank, Acting Senior Town Planning Officer

Executive: Gary Fitzgerald, Acting Executive Manager City Development

Attachments: Appendix 1, 2 & 3

Committee Recommendation 1. Council, under and by virtue of the powers conferred upon it in that

behalf pursuant to the Planning and Development Act 2005 (as amended), hereby resolves to grant planning approval to Heather Mary Paton for the proposed Bed & Breakfast Accommodation at Lot 115 (No. 9) Dunbarton Way subject to conditions as determined by the Senior Manager Development Services.

2. Note the submissions received. Summary An application has been received requesting that a Bed & Breakfast Accommodation be permitted at Lot 115 (No. 9) Dunbarton Way, Withers. The proposal has been considered in light of the City’s Local Planning Policy – Bed and Breakfast Accommodation. Following assessment of the application, it was determined that the proposal satisfies the criteria as outlined under the policy. It is recommended that Council support the proposal. A location plan is attached at Appendix 1. Background Lot 115 (No. 9) Dunbarton Way is zoned Residential R15. The use-class “Bed and Breakfast” is an “A” use in a Residential Zone under Town Planning Scheme No. 7 (TPS7) and accordingly, the proposal was advertised for 21 days. Two submissions were received, whereby one submission supports the proposal. One objection is based on amenity related matters and property value. Officer Comments The proposed Bed & Breakfast Accommodation will provide the use of one bedroom (guest room) and a lounge room renovating an existing garage and games room on site. A floor plan, elevations and sections are attached at Appendix 2. The City’s Local Planning Policy – Bed and Breakfast Accommodation specifies that the following matters are to be taken into consideration by Council when determining the suitability of a Bed and Breakfast proposal:


Page 14

- Location of adequate public transport facilities;

- Location of shopping facilities in the vicinity;

- Location of recreation and tourist facilities or other similar type of activity;

- Potential impact on the adjoining properties and surrounding residential area;

- Car parking to be provided on-site is to be one car bay for every two guest rooms and two spaces for the dwelling itself;

- Bed and Breakfast Accommodation shall not consist of self-contained rooms but ensuite and bathroom facilities may be provided within each room. Access to communal laundry, bathrooms and breakfast eating areas should also be catered for within the building.

The subject land is located in the southern portion of the City. The proposal is within reach of public transport (approximately 300m to the nearest bus stop), with bus stops located along Hudson Road and Minninup Road. Minninup Forum Shopping Centre is close by (approximately 600m). The proposal is also located close to the beach, Maidens Park and Hay Park. Regarding amenity-related matters, it is considered that the provision of one guest room is not expected to result in a significant increase in the number of vehicles in the area and therefore does not result in decrease of safety. One additional car parking bay can be accommodated on the existing driveway. In summary, it is considered that the proposal would not compromise the amenity of the immediate locality and that the proposal adequately satisfies the selection criteria as specified in the Policy. Community Consultation The proposal was advertised for 21 days in accordance with Clause 9.4 of TPS 7. Two submissions were received, whereby one submission supports the proposal. One objection was received based on amenity related matters (traffic and noise increase) and property value. A table of submissions is attached at Appendix 3 In response to the objection, it is considered that the proposal would have minimal impact on surrounding properties, as there is only one guest room proposed. There are no additional crossovers proposed. Furthermore existing buildings and infrastructure is proposed to be renovated and used. Satisfactory noise levels are regulated by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulation 1997. A Bed & Breakfast Accommodation can only be used in conjunction with a residential dwelling, managed by a resident of the dwelling. Furthermore, the proposed location of this Bed & Breakfast Accommodation is considered adequate as the proposal complies with all location criteria as stipulated within the Local Planning Policy – Bed and Breakfast Accommodation. The proposal cannot be directly linked to a possible devaluation of properties in the area. Devaluation would be the result of many factors, not just one isolated incident such as change of use in the locality. Council Policy Compliance The proposal complies with the criteria specified under the Local Planning Policy – Bed and Breakfast Accommodation.


Page 15

Relevant Precedents Council previously approved a proposed Bed and Breakfast Accommodation, which is located in the vicinity, at Lot 659 (No. 24) Payton Way, Usher, at its meeting of 7 August 2007. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications There are no financial or budgetary implications associated with this application. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 Refuse the proposal. Should Council resolve to proceed with this option, the suggested format is as follows: Council, under by virtue of the powers conferred upon it in that behalf of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (as amended), hereby resolves to refuse the proposed Bed & Breakfast Accommodation at Lot 115 (No. 9) Dunbarton Way, for the reason that the proposed activity would be detrimental to the amenity of residents in the locality. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Major seconded Cr Leigh. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 16

11.4 Scheme Amendment 29 to Town Planning Scheme No. 7 – Special Use Zone 54 - Gateway Commercial Precinct Close of Advertising and Final Adoption File Ref: A03522

Applicant/Proponent: City of Bunbury

Author: Neville Dowling, Consulting Strategic Planner & Thor Farnworth, Acting Manager Development Services


Attachments: Report Under Separate Cover

Committee Recommendation That Council: 1. Modifies the scheme amendment documentation by limiting the

floorspace area of the “Produce Market” special use to having a maximum net lettable display area of 1,550 m², and “Showroom” and “Office” uses to having a maximum net lettable area of 1,000 m² in order to encourage low to medium traffic generating development in the Gateway Commercial Precinct, as detailed in the modified scheme amendment document;

2. In accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 resolves to

adopt Scheme Amendment Number 29 to the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 in accordance with the modified Scheme Amendment Number 29 documentation (refer to Attachment 1 of the report under separate cover); and

3. Refers the Scheme Amendment Number 29 documentation to the

Western Australian Planning Commission for final approval in accordance with the provisions of the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

Summary This scheme amendment proposal will establish Special Use Zone 54 - Gateway Commercial Precinct, which enables the land to be developed for general commercial businesses that do not normally locate within either the City Centre or a shopping centre. The proposal is therefore for the creation of a Special Use Zone, due to the absence of a general “commercial zone” under Town Planning Scheme No. 7 (TPS7), that prescribes land use and development controls for built form, urban design, car parking and landscaping. Despite concerns relating to high traffic generating uses, the scheme amendment proposal was generally supported by the submissions received during the public advertising period. Nevertheless, progressing the amendment has been delayed due to the need to address the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) requirements relating to impacts on the region’s activity centre hierarchy and Main


Page 17

Roads Western Australia (MRWA) requirements relating to impacts on the Australind Bypass. Background At its meeting on 6 September 2005, Council resolved to prepare a comprehensive and integrated plan for the suburb of Glen Iris and Moorlands (Council Decision: 206/05). The final version of the Glen Iris - Moorlands Local Area Plan was presented to Council in December 2007, and this included the concept for a Gateway Commercial Precinct as an adjunct to a local Neighbourhood Centre. This has been further consolidated in terms of land use proposals and detailed requirements by the Glen Iris – Moorlands Local Area Plan: Study document (adopted by Council on 16 December 2008) and the revised Glen Iris Structure Plan (approved by WAPC on 22 September 2010). At its meeting on 9 September 2008, Council initiated Scheme Amendment 29 to create Special Use Zone 54 - Gateway Commercial Precinct (Council Decision: 163/08). The desired development outcomes for the Gateway Commercial Precinct (Special Use Zone 54) are to provide for a range of general commercial uses that complement, but does not compete with, the City Centre and established shopping centres in terms of regional primacy of the City Centre (as the principal retail, office, civic, cultural, entertainment and administrative centre) nor the main retail and related functions of shopping centres. The Special Use Zone provisions allow for a broad range of commercial activities that find it impractical or uneconomic to locate within the City Centre or shopping centre given their size and car-parking requirements, low employment densities and need for freight vehicle access. This scheme amendment proposal included a special use of “Produce Market”, which was primarily to allow for the relocation of the Bunbury Farmers Market. The decision to include the special use of “Produce Market” was as a result of a submission made to Council and the Department of Planning (DoP) by the consulting firm Thompson McRobert Edgeloe Group Pty Ltd on behalf of the owners of the Bunbury Farmers Market business. Scheme Amendment 29 sought to specify the range of land uses permitted within the Gateway Commercial Precinct and also prescribe the various development controls that would apply. A copy of the Scheme Amendment 29 document (as modified) can be viewed in Attachment 1 under separate cover to this report. On 26 March 2009 the WAPC gave its consent to publicly advertise the scheme amendment proposal. This was however subject to a number of conditions, which included: - The need for justification of the proposed “Produce Market” (size and

location) and supporting evidence that the resulting retail floorspace would not impact on surrounding activity centres; and

- Traffic analysis needed to give effect to any required traffic management measures.

A copy of the WAPC’s letter can be found in Attachment 2 under separate cover to this report.


Page 18

Scheme Amendment 29 was then advertised for public comment between 22 April and 9 June 2009, with 17 submissions being received. There were three (3) non objections and 14 submissions in support of the proposed scheme amendment. There were no submissions against the amendment; however, some concerns were raised regarding issues of parking, access and drainage. The main outcome of the submissions was the requirement by MRWA for a comprehensive traffic study to assess the impact of the proposal on local traffic flows and especially upon the Australind Bypass. A copy of the MRWA submission is provided in the Schedule of Submissions which can be found in Attachment 3 under separate cover to this report. As a result of the WAPC’s comments and the MRWA requirement for a traffic study, a request for quotation was sought from five consultancy firms with experience in traffic engineering and management (with a preference for local firms that would also have knowledge of the issues the area of the study and the City of Bunbury in general). Following assessment of the quotes, the engineering consultancy Worley Parsons Limited was chosen to undertake the study. The study was commenced in August 2009; however, the project was significantly delayed in obtaining updated future traffic modelling data from MRWA. As a result the first draft of the report was not received until May 2010. A copy of the Traffic Study Report can be found in Attachment 4 under separate cover to this report. The conclusions of the Traffic Study Report are as follows: 1. The deletion of the Estuary Drive connection to Koombana Drive (planned as

part of the longer term development of the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour) will lead to an increase in traffic volumes along the Australind Bypass between Old Coast Road and Koombana Drive. There is no set timeline for the road closure although it is not likely to occur within the next 10 years.

2. Traffic forecasts provided by MRWA for 2011 and 2031 (with the exception of

2031 Option 3C) assumes that the Estuary Drive connection is severed. Traffic forecasts for 2011 are therefore likely to be an overestimate given that the closure of Estuary Drive has not yet occurred.

3. The predicted traffic volumes, even for the lowest traffic generating scenario

in 2011 (i.e. with no rezoning of the Gateway Commercial Precinct) are sufficiently high to warrant the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Australind Bypass with Vittoria Road. Therefore the requirement for traffic signals is independent of any commercial development within the Gateway Commercial Precinct, and instead due to the high traffic volume predicted on the Australind Bypass.

4. However, as stated in point 2, it is likely that 2011 traffic forecasts for the

Australind Bypass are an overestimate. The traffic volumes likely to warrant the installation of the traffic signals at the intersection with Vittoria Road are likely to occur after 2011.

5. The rezoning of the subject land to a Special Use Zone to permit commercial

development would require the installation of traffic signals at the intersection with Vittoria Road, if they had not already been installed. Commercial development would also require an additional right turning lane be constructed for traffic on Vittoria Road.


Page 19

6. The main difference in traffic generating behaviour between the potentially

low traffic generating uses and the high traffic generating uses (i.e. including the Bunbury Farmers Market) in the Gateway Commercial Precinct is predicted to occur during the Saturday peak period. This is outside of the busiest times for the Australind Bypass.

7. MRWA advised that the installation of traffic signals at the Australind Bypass

and Vittoria Road intersection is planned in the short to medium term, but is currently unfunded.

8. By 2031, the SIDRA traffic modelling predicts the signalised intersection of

Australind Bypass and Vittoria Road will fail - experiencing traffic congestion and delays. This is predicted to occur in all scenarios for the year 2031, even without the proposed rezoning.

9. MRWA indicated that they have very serious concerns about high traffic

generating uses being proposed in the vicinity of the Australind Bypass and Vittoria Road intersection.

MRWA commented as follows:

“- The establishment of high traffic generating businesses such as the Farmers Market have the potential to severely impact on the function of the Australind Bypass which is the major arterial leading into the City and whose function will be even more critical to the City once Estuary Drive is severed. Such developments in this area are therefore highly undesirable and should be strongly opposed.

- The establishment of the Farmers Market will have serious safety implications for the Vittoria Road / Australind Bypass intersection and these could only be overcome by the immediate installation of traffic signals.

- Main Roads have indicated that they have very serious concerns about high traffic generating businesses being developed in this area and would like to be consulted before any decisions are made.”

In addition to the MRWA advice given above, comments were also sought from the DoP’s Infrastructure Branch. Their emailed advice is summarised as follows: - The eventual closure of Estuary Drive would be a major contributor to the

Australind Bypass becoming unworkable in the future as a regional road link.

- The significance of these impacts may not have been adequately considered in the Bunbury Port Inner Harbour Structure Plan.

- Development of some type will occur in the Gateway Commercial Precinct vicinity and whatever that development is will contribute to the predicted traffic congestion on the Australind Bypass.

- Widening the bypass to six (6) lanes will bring improvements but positive impacts will be limited as the intersections will constrain the overall capacity of the road network.


Page 20

- Traffic impacts should be considered on a peak hour basis (i.e. trading hours) in relation to the volume generated by the Gateway Commercial Precinct and its impacts on the Australind Bypass, but these may not coincide with peak demands generated by regional and intra-state traffic movement along the Australind Bypass (i.e. peak commuting times in the morning and evening).

The conclusion of the DoP’s Infrastructure Branch was that:

“On the basis of the available information I concur with Main Roads advising against approving the Gateway Precinct (incl. the Farmers Market) proposal at this location.”

A copy of the emailed advice from the Infrastructure Planning Manager of the DoP Infrastructure Branch can be found in Attachment 5 under separate cover to this report. Following the above comments received by MRWA and the WAPC the proponents of the Bunbury Farmers Market commissioned Worley Parsons Limited to revisit their original findings. Worley Parsons Limited then came to the conclusion that based on its revised analysis that:

“the Vittoria Road/Australind Bypass intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service even in the highest traffic volume scenario for 2031, with the rezoning of the Gateway Precinct to include the Farmers market and other high traffic generation land uses.”

The rationale for this conclusion was given by Worley Parsons Limited as being based upon: - A re-adjustment of peak hour times given more careful consideration of hours

of operation (may not be relevant given that the Bunbury Farmers Market operates seven days per week from 8 am to 6 pm Monday to Friday);

- A reduction in the maximum retail floorspace area from 1,700 m2 down to

1,550 m2 net lettable area (the initially desired floorspace area requested by

the Bunbury Farmers Market was 3,000 m2 as given in the original scheme

amendment proposal); and

- The assumption that “peak spreading” would naturally occur; whereby the percentage of peak hour traffic is likely to reduce over time as traffic volumes increase (this assumes that people choose not to drive to the Bunbury Farmers Market during peak periods due to the high volume of traffic and potential for delay).

A copy of the Gateway Traffic Study – Revised Analysis report can be found in Attachment 6 under separate cover to this report. The Gateway Traffic Study – Revised Analysis report was accompanied by a submission from the consulting firm Thompson McRobert Edgeloe Group Pty Ltd. A copy of the full submission can be found in Attachment 7 under separate cover to this report. Both MRWA and the DoP Infrastructure Branch were sent a copy of the Gateway Traffic Study – Revised Analysis report prepared by Worley Parsons Limited. During ensuing discussions MRWA staff again expressed significant concern at the


Page 21

introduction of high traffic generation land uses at the Australind Bypass and Vittoria Road intersection. At a meeting held on 25 October 2010 with senior staff of the south west office of the MRWA, it was indicated by MRWA that it would not support any further high traffic generating land uses at this location as the Australind Bypass would eventually fail with the closure of Estuary Drive. The DoP Infrastructure Branch declined from providing any further written comments at this stage until there was a formal referral to them by the South West office of the WAPC. Referral to the South West office of the WAPC will occur following the Council’s decision to either adopt or not adopt the scheme amendment proposal. Community Consultation The scheme amendment proposal underwent formal public advertising for a period of not less than 42 days, commencing on 17 April and closing on 9 June 2009. The outcomes of public advertising have been summarised in the background section of this report (refer to the Schedule of Submissions in Attachment 3 under separate cover to this report). The concept of the Gateway Commercial Precinct was also advertised as a component of the adopted Glen Iris – Moorlands Local Area Plan: Study and more recently in the revised Glen Iris Structure Plan that was adopted by Council and endorsed by the WAPC. More background information on these can be found in the reports relating to Council resolutions 246/08 and 7/10. Councillor/Officer Consultation This scheme amendment proposal is the first in a schedule of amendments that implement the recommendations of the Glen Iris - Moorlands Local Area Plan: Study and associated revised Glen Iris Structure Plan. Compilation of both the Glen Iris - Moorlands Local Area Plan: Study and the Glen Iris Structure Plan have undergone significant Councillor and officer engagement since 2005. Strategic and/or Regional Outcomes In terms of strategic guidance the justification for a Gateway Commercial Precinct is referred to in the following land use planning documents:

Interim Greater Bunbury Commercial Centres Strategy (April 2007)

The sole reference made to the subject site is given in “Appendix 1 Centres Policy Hierarchy: Hierarchy of Centres in the Greater Bunbury Structure Plan Area” on page 11 of the document. The “Gateway” is listed under the “Mixed Business” category for “Other Centres”.

The intent of this designation is to allow for primarily mixed business or general commercial style of uses. It should be noted that the amount of floorspace allowed for “Retail Other” is not stipulated, but that an incidental amount


Page 22

of retail shopping floorspace of less than 300 m

2 nla is specified.

The separate and distinct Glen Iris - Moorlands Neighbourhood Centre, which is planned at the intersection of Vittoria and Jeffrey Roads, is listed as a “Local Centre”. Whilst a nominal figure of 1,000m

2 nla is given in the table, the

actual size is to be determined relative to the population of the local catchment and existing or proposed provision of shopping in neighbouring catchments.

Draft Local Planning Strategy for Activity Centres & Neighbourhoods (July 2009)

The Gateway Commercial Precinct is classified as part of “Other Mixed Business Areas” under the Hierarchy of Centres (page 49). The function of the future Gateway Commercial Precinct is intended to provide alternative opportunities for a range of “Other Retail” and low intensity “Office / Business” uses in a strategic location on one of the main approaches into Bunbury. Any retail shopping floorspace would only be incidental to other uses and generally be less than 300 m

2 nla.

The Glen Iris - Moorlands Neighbourhood Centre is listed as a “Neighbourhood Centre”, which the recommended retail floorspace guidelines (Table 9, page 51) has a default maximum of up to 6,000 m

2 nla.

However, in the specific case of Glen Iris - Moorlands the modelled demand is for 4,500 m

2 nla at this point in time.

Glen – Iris Moorlands Local Area Plan: Study (December 2008)

The Gateway Commercial Precinct was identified in prior drafts of the Study going back to 2005 before being officially endorsed by Council on 16 December 2008.

Glen Iris Structure Plan (September 2010)

The Gateway Commercial Precinct was designated on the revised Glen Iris Structure Plan as per the Local Area Plan. The revised Structure Plan was granted final approval by the WAPC on 22 September 2010.


Page 23

Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications There are not considered to be any direct financial or budgetary implications to the City of Bunbury. Officer Comments The recent approval of the revised Glen Iris Structure Plan confirms the concept and location of the Gateway Commercial Precinct and its acceptance by Council, the WAPC, the local community and other government agencies. In summary, the main contentious issues that have arisen from the public advertising of the proposal and referral to other government agencies are: - The impact of retail floorspace in relation to the “Produce Market” on the

established activity centre hierarchy (expressed by the WAPC); and - The impact of traffic in relation to certain high traffic generating activities on

Australind Bypass (expressed by MRWA). It should be noted that the exact mix of land uses and urban design permitted in this location is yet to be determined by subsequent detailed area planning, subject to the finalisation of Scheme Amendment 29. Consequently, the proposed Special Use Zone 54 provisions require that a Detailed Area Plan (DAP) be prepared to the specifications and satisfaction of Council in order to guide the future development and infrastructure servicing of the area prior to approval of any further subdivision or development. The Special Use Zone provisions outline the following issues to be addressed in the DAP: - Standards and requirements for development site planning and building

design;

- Lot layout of subdivision design and building envelopes;

- Extent of land uses in accordance with the Zoning Table of the Scheme;

- Any required limitations on floor areas related to particular land uses;

- Interface and buffer treatments between the surrounding residential uses and the development site;

- Urban design treatment of streetscapes and residential interfaces;

- Traffic management, including accessways and internal circulation;

- Vehicle parking and circulation areas and treatments;

- Pedestrian access and movement;

- Building height and scale;

- Development setbacks from boundaries; and

- Landscaping within setback areas and between buildings. Traffic Generation Impacts The matter of final adoption of Scheme Amendment 29 is now dependant on whether or not high traffic generating land uses should be included at this location. Specifically, in relation to the land uses of:


Page 24

- “Showroom”; and - “Produce Market” (i.e. Bunbury Farmer’s Market), which Worley Parsons

Limited and MRWA consider to have the same level of traffic generation as a supermarket.

It is understood from correspondence and meetings with MRWA staff that the MRWA are firmly opposed to high traffic generating uses such as a “Produce Market” being permitted at the Australind Bypass and Vittoria Road intersection. This is regardless of the future of traffic planning initiatives relating to the northern entry into Bunbury and whether Estuary Drive is eventually closed. In a meeting with MRWA (held on 25 October 2010) it was mutually agreed that not all types of showrooms are high traffic generating, especially those that deal with bulky items of a specialist nature. Therefore, the high traffic generating showrooms are generally thought to be those that deal with a wide range of domestic appliances and home entertainment products. The difficulty in this regard is determining in a workable manner what types of showrooms can locate within the Gateway Commercial Precinct in regard to their potential level of traffic generation. As it is not feasible to accurately specify or determine which types of showroom businesses can and cannot locate in the Gateway Commercial Precinct based on their potential for being high traffic generating - it is proposed to limit the net lettable area of “Other Retail” floorspace to a maximum of 1,000 m

2 per lot / strata lot /

tenancy, with no “Shop / Retail” permitted. This simpler to administer and statutorily robust approach is then expected to encourage showrooms that deal in either bulky goods or specialist goods, and therefore having a low to medium level of traffic generation. It is also considered, in relation to traffic conflict that the uses of “Educational Establishment”, “Hotel” and “Tavern” are inappropriate at this location and have therefore been recommended for deletion from the modified “Special Use(s)” column of the proposed Special Use Zone 54 (S.U.54). “Cinema” and “Motel” have remained in the list of special uses as they are considered by Worley Parsons Limited to be low traffic generating uses given that most of their traffic generation occurs outside of road network peaks. The above assumptions are supported by the WAPC “Transport Assessment Guidelines (pages 16 and 17 of Volume 5 – Technical Appendix, August 2006). Impacts on Activity Centre Hierarchy The Local Planning Strategy for Activity Centres & Neighbourhoods (LPSACN), which underwent public advertising from 27 January to 29 March 2010, provides guidance on the creation of additional mixed business or general commercial land opportunities to meet projected demand. The Strategy states that assuming the regional population continues to grow at the rate the DoP expects, then Bunbury could accommodate an additional 32,500 m

2 of “Shop / Retail” floorspace and an

extra 16,500 m2 of “Other Retail” floorspace and 29,000 m

2 of “Office / Business”

floorspace by the year 2031.


Page 25

In addition to the existing Strickland Street and Sandridge Road mixed business areas, the LPSACN nominates the Gateway Commercial Precinct along with two other future mixed business areas. The Gateway Commercial Precinct is indicated on the Strategy Map as complex number 28 and is classified under the Hierarchy of Centres as “Other Mixed Business Areas”. The three additional mixed business areas, which are outside the Strategic Regional Centre, are proposed in order to help cater for the future demand for “Other Retail” floorspace and, to a limited extent, “Office / Business” floorspace, as indicated in Table 7 on page 37. It is important to appreciate that, given the primacy of the City Centre for regionally significant business activities (e.g. head offices), it is intended that any “Office / Business” floorspace outside the City Centre should mainly cater for locally serving small to medium sized businesses. With the exception of the Gateway Commercial Precinct, it will be the mixed use areas outside the City Centre that will be the preferred location for more affordable office floorspace opportunities for the small to medium sized businesses that service the local population. As such, the Gateway Commercial Precinct is intended to provide a distinctive mixed business commercial area at a strategic location on one of the main approaches into Bunbury. It is intended that this area will provide alternative opportunities for a range of “Other Retail” and low intensity “Office / Business” uses. As indicated on the Strategy Map, it is intended that the Gateway Commercial Precinct will form the northern section of a small activity corridor that will transition into a more urban-intensive mixed use area towards the south, where it will terminate within the future separate and distinct Glen Iris - Moorlands Neighbourhood Centre. The rationale for this proposal is supported by State Planning Policy 4.2 Activity Centres for Perth and Peel, which states under clause 5.6.1 dealing with bulky goods retailing and mixed business that:

“(1) The responsible authority should ensure that shop-retail uses are located in a pedestrian friendly urban environment. In general, bulky goods retailing is unsuited to the walkable catchment or the core of activity centres given their size and car-parking requirements, low employment densities and need for freight vehicle access.

(2) Bulky goods are displayed and sold from retail showrooms that typically comprise extensive display and storage areas with direct vehicle access and car parking. Bulky goods retailing does not include the sale of food, clothing or personal effects goods.

(3) The responsible authority should promote clusters of bulky goods retail adjacent to, or in close proximity to activity centres and the regional road and public transport networks. This should maximise the use of infrastructure, including the shared use of car parking; limit the number of car trips; and economically support other activity centre business.”

The City's commercial planning consultant Shrapnel Urban Planning prepared a letter of advice upon request that gave his professional opinion on the matter of including a “Produce Market”, which is effectively a large shop-retail use, in the Gateway Commercial Precinct (refer to Attachment 8 under separate cover to this report). Shrapnel Urban Planning’s advice was that a “Produce Market” in this location would potentially result in the delay of the development of the Glen Iris -


Page 26

Moorlands Neighbourhood Centre or could ultimately supplant it altogether. In the opinion of Shrapnel Urban Planning, a produce market like use would be better situated within the planned Neighbourhood Centre (e.g. on Lots 120 and 121 DP: 30084 and Lot 33 Vittoria Road), as it would fulfil the function of a neighbourhood scale shopping centre. It was also considered that whilst the City had sought to define the strict meaning of “Produce Market”, that this would be impracticable to enforce, and hence, it could be expected that such a use would inevitably evolve into a broader supermarket activity over time (allowing for changes in business ownership and management). Therefore, it is recommended that if the special use of “Produce Market” is to be included in Special Use Zone 54, then it should at least be limited to a maximum retail floorspace of 1,550 m

2 net lettable area.

It is worth noting that a number of options for the location of a future Neighbourhood Centre was the focus of early workshop sessions held with all of the key stakeholders (including DoP) at the outset of the Glen Iris - Moorlands local area planning project. The desired location of the Neighbourhood Centre at the intersection of Vittoria and Jeffrey Roads was chosen as the best option by all workshop participants in-line with the WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhoods operational policy. This conclusion was based on a balanced consideration of what would result in an optimal centre design (i.e. situated on all four corners of the internal main road hub with good urban design that supports pedestrian movement and social interaction). The option of locating the Neighbourhood Centre immediately on the corner of Vittoria Road and the Australind Bypass (the location of the Gateway Commercial Precinct) was discounted by workshop participants as not being appropriate (a position that was subsequently ratified by the Project Control Group and confirmed by other stakeholders). The principal reasons being: - That this site only allowed for two road corners / frontages to be utilised; - Was likely to be overly dominated by vehicular traffic, with extensive areas of

car parking being the defining urban design feature; - Would not encourage good urban design that fostered walkability and a

sense of place; and - Was not central to the future Glen Iris - Moorlands community. Conclusion The decision to adopt Scheme Amendment 29 to allow for the establishment of the Gateway Commercial Precinct is recommended based on a balanced consideration of the proposal’s merits and alternatives. The alternative of developing the subject area for residential use, as originally intended before the completion of the Glen Iris - Moorlands Local Area Plan, is self evidently not desirable given its proximity to a Primary Regional Road intersection and an expanding Bunbury Inner Harbour. The principal issue for Council’s decision comes down to whether or not to permit a “Produce Market” special use in this location and how to best manage the potential ramifications.


Page 27

Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 Council resolves to adopt a modified scheme amendment that deletes the “Produce Market” (i.e. Bunbury Farmers Market) use from the list of special uses permitted in the Gateway Commercial Precinct, along with the use classes of “Showroom” and “Office” having a maximum net lettable area of 1,000 m

2 in order to encourage low to

medium traffic generating development in the Gateway Commercial Precinct. Option 3 Council resolves to adopt the original scheme amendment proposal without modification, which includes the “Produce Market” (i.e. Bunbury Farmers Market) use with a maximum floorspace of 3,000 m

2 net lettable area and unlimited “Showroom”

use floorspace area within the Gateway Commercial Precinct. Option 4 Council resolves not to proceed with the scheme amendment proposal. A resolution not to proceed with a proposed amendment still requires the amendment documents to be forwarded on to the Commission together with a summary of the reasons for not wishing to proceed with the amendment, in accordance with the requirements of regulation 18 of the Town Planning Regulations 1967. In such circumstances the Minister would still determine the outcome of the proposed amendment. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The Mayor asked if there were any members of the public that wished to address the Committee. Mr Gary Barber from Thompson McRobert Edgeloe (TME), addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the recommendation. The following is a summary of his submission. Mr Barber advised that the Bunbury Farmers Market has been successfully operating for 8 years and supports local growers. The Farmers Market is out growing the current site and is currently operating over 2 sites which is proving to be very difficult. He advised that the market needs to relocate to continue to be a successful business. TME has been working with Council for over four (4) years to identify a new site, being Waldecks. They have also worked with other agencies such as Main Roads to resolve any issues they may have with traffic. He further advised that TME supports the amendment to the recommendation. The author of the report requested that the following amendments to the officer’s recommendation be made:


Page 28

- Add the word “display” between the word lettable and area in regards to the Produce Market in point 1.

The recommendation (as amended) was moved Cr Major seconded Cr Spencer. The Mayor put the amended motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 29

11.5 Scheme Amendment 46 to Town Planning Scheme No. 7 - Proposed Rezoning Lots 11 to 14 South Western Highway from Special Use Zone 8 (SU 8) to Industry Zone

File Ref: A04240

Applicant/Proponent: MPM Development Consultants

Author: Kevin Townroe, Planning Officer



Committee Recommendation That Council: 1. In accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 resolve to

initiate Scheme Amendment 46 to the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 to rezone Lots 11 to 14 South Western Highway from “Special Use Zone 8” for Hotel to “Industry Zone” (refer to Attachment 1 of the report circulated under separate cover).

2. Refer the proposed Scheme Amendment 46 documentation to the

Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for approval to advertise for public comment.

3. Refer the proposed Scheme Amendment 46 documentation to the

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for approval to advertise for public comment.

4. Subject to the approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission

and Environmental Protection Authority, advertise the proposed Scheme Amendment 46 for a period of at least 42 days.

Summary MPM Development Consultants, who act on behalf of Picton Hotel Pty Ltd, has lodged a submission with the City requesting initiation of a scheme amendment to the current City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 (TPS7). The purpose of this scheme amendment proposal is to facilitate a rezoning of Lots 11 to 14 (street address 238) South Western Highway, Picton, from “Special Use 8” for Hotel to “Industry Zone”. The draft Scheme Amendment Report can be found at Attachment 1 in the report circulated under separate cover. Background The former Picton Hotel that once occupied the subject site has now been demolished and the land is cleared of debris.


Page 30

Officer Comments The subject land comprises of four lots of approximately 7,860m

2 in total area, and is

located on the South Western Highway approximately 5.5km south east of the Bunbury CBD. The abutting land to the north, south and west of the subject site is included in the “Industry Zone”. As it is both undesirable and unlikely that the subject site will be used as a hotel in the future, it is therefore considered that the proposed rezoning to “Industry Zone” would be more consistent with the strategic objectives for the locality. Economic, Social, Environmental and Heritage Issues Economic There are no known or expected adverse economic impacts generated by the proposal. Social There are no known or expected social impacts generated by the proposal. Environmental There are no significant environmental impacts generated by the proposal. Heritage The subject site is not included on the City’s Municipal Inventory or the associated Heritage List. The adjacent property to the east (Lot 10, number 246 South Western Highway) was recently rezoned from “Industry Zone” to “Public Purpose Reserve” through gazetted Scheme Amendment number 39 to TPS7. Lot 10 encompasses the Picton Agricultural Hall, which is currently undergoing consideration for inclusion on the Heritage List. A heritage conservation plan is expected to be prepared for the protection and maintenance of the Hall and its curtilage, and that the building will be utilised for community purposes appropriate to the locality. The implications of the Hall’s retention for proposed Scheme Amendment 46 are limited, as it can be expected that subsequent development of Lots 11 - 14 will be subject to an application for planning approval. The development assessment process will then consider the potential offsite impacts of any proposal and will specify appropriate setback distance as necessary in accordance with the “Industry Zone” provisions of the Scheme. Community Consultation The proposed scheme amendment will be required to be advertised for public comment in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and associated Town Planning Regulations 1967.


Page 31

Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications There are no known financial and budgetary implications associated with this application. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 Council may resolve to not initiate the proposed Scheme Amendment. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Spencer seconded Cr Craddock. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 32

11.6 Scheme Amendment 43 to Town Planning Scheme No. 7 – Close of Advertising and Final Adoption File Ref: A03939





Committee Recommendation That Council: 1. In accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 resolves to

adopt Scheme Amendment Number 43 to the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 in accordance with the modified Scheme Amendment Number 43 documentation (refer to Attachment 1 of the report circulated under separate cover); and

2. Refers the Scheme Amendment Number 43 documentation to the

Western Australian Planning Commission for final approval in accordance with the provisions of the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

Summary This scheme amendment is to rezone Lot 50 South Western Highway, Davenport, form “Rural Zone” to “Industry Zone”. The amendment is in accordance with a direction given by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) to the City of Bunbury to reflect their resolution to rezone Lot 50 from “Rural Zone” to “Industrial Zone” under the Greater Bunbury Region Scheme (GBRS). Therefore, the primary rationale for Scheme Amendment 43 is to ensure conformity with GBRS with respect to Lot 50. The GBRS Amendment has been approved by the Minister for Planning and was gazetted on 14 December 2010. In accordance with orderly and proper planning, Lot 50 will also be incorporated into a “Development Investigation Policy Area” (DIPA) to ensure that structure planning is finalised prior to any subdivision or development being approved within the DIPA area. Background Background of this amendment can be found in the Council Minutes dated 3 August 2010. The resolution was as follows (Decision No. 141/10): 1. Council, in pursuance of section 75 of the Planning and Development

Act 2005 (as amended), resolves to initiate Scheme Amendment 43 to the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 by:


Page 33

(a) rezoning portion of Lot 50 South Western Highway, Davenport, from “Rural Zone” to “Industry Zone” as shown on the scheme amendment map; and

(b) incorporating Portion Lot 50 South Western Highway, Davenport, within a “Development Investigation Policy Area” as shown on the scheme amendment map; in accordance with the Scheme Amendment documentation issued as report under separate cover and identified as Appendix 1.

2. Subject to authorisation by the Western Australian Planning Commission and the advice of the Environmental Protection Authority, the proposed Scheme Amendment is to be advertised for public comment during a submission period of not less than 42 days in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

3. Following public advertising of the proposed Scheme Amendment 43, the proposal and any public submissions lodged with the City during the advertising period is to be returned to Council for further consideration.

4. That the landowner of Lot 50 Bussell Highway, Davenport, be advised that any Structure Plan submitted for adoption by Council and endorsement by the Western Australian Planning Commission must be accompanied by a Local Water Management Strategy that is compiled in accordance with the Better Urban Water Management (October 2008) guidelines to the satisfaction of the Local Government, the Commission and the Department of Water (DoW).

It should be noted that Scheme Amendment 43 is required in order to comply with the rezoning of the land from “Rural Zone” to “Industrial Zone” under the GBRS (Amendment Number 0014/57), which has been approved by the Minister for Planning and was gazetted on 14 December 2010. Community Consultation Formal advertising was undertaken for 42 days from 20 September 2010 up to and including 1 November 2010. At close of advertising a total of 12 submissions were received. Three (3) of the submissions were letters of no objection received from the Department of Regional Development and Lands, the Department of Water and Telstra. For details on the individual submissions and officer comments on each submission please refer the full Schedule of Submissions found at Attachment 2 of the report circulated under separate cover. A brief summary of the nature of the submissions is given below.

Issue Comment Potable water and sewerage reticulation.

Water Corporation’s submission objected to the rezoning of the land to industry at this time as it is considered that it is:

“… too costly to service with integrated wastewater services and that this places significant pressure on the Water


Page 34

Corporation to provide alternative wastewater options which would be inappropriate adjacent to the Preston River”.

It is understood by the proponents that subdivision and development of the land will be subject to the provision of reticulated sewerage. The proponents have indicated as follows:

“A comprehensive investigation of the supply of services to Lot 50 has been conducted by Connell Wagner Pty Ltd. In brief, the services investigation revealed that all major services could be supplied or extended to Lot 50. The estimate of costs for the provision of services to Lot 50 is such that the proposed industrial development of the site is feasible.”

The matter of servicing will need to be carefully considered by the proponent at the later subdivision stage. It is also in part reliant on the staging of development of Lot 15 South Western Highway, which lies to the north of the subject site across the proposed Bunbury Outer Ring Road. If Lot 15 is developed prior to Lot 50 then servicing of Lot 50 may presumably be more feasible in terms of cost. The Department of Health indicated that they could not provide comment until a geotechnical report was carried out over the subject site. The geotechnical report would be carried out as a standard condition of subdivision approval, and as such, the Department of Health will provide comment at the subdivision stage.

Presence and appropriate treatment of Potential Acid Sulfate Soils (PASS) or Actual Acid Sulfate Soils (PASS).

The site has a “Moderate to Low” PASS disturbance risk as indicated by DEC mapping. PASS testing has been carried out over the site by the consultancy Bioscience and their conclusions indicated that there was no significant PASS risk in relation to the proposed industrial development. The process of detecting and managing any occurrence of AASS is mainly addressed within the subdivision application process. Also during the subdivision process the DEC will assess if any further testing will be required.

Appropriate buffers being incorporated to minimise land use conflict with agricultural land and concerns about the impact of any emissions (smoke, noise & odour) on nearby residential land.

Planning approvals are to take into consideration the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA) guidelines titled Separation Distances between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses, June 2005 whereby buffer distances are specified for various types of


Page 35

industry. Most industries that are detrimental in terms of emissions, and therefore may cause land use conflict, are under the land use category of “Hazardous Industry” which is an “X” or use not permitted in the Industry zone. Any industries that are not in this category that may create any issues in this regard should be assessed in conjunction with the EPA’s guidelines. It is also to be taken into consideration that the nearest residence to the boundary of the subject land is over 500 metres away. Given that the majority of uses permitted in the “Industry Zone” have buffer distances less than 500 metres under the EPA’s guidelines, then the majority of permissible uses in the “Industry Zone” would be acceptable in this location. Nevertheless, other industry uses that have any possibility of causing emissions that may impact on adjoining land should be considered with careful regard to the EPA’s guidelines.

Officer Comments Given that the primary rationale for the amendment is to ensure conformity with GBRS with regard to Lot 50, Council does not have an option to refuse adoption of the amendment. Under clauses 5.9.13 and 6.2.1 of Town Planning Scheme No. 7 (TPS7), the inclusion of the subject land within a DIPA will ensure that the subdivision of the land will occur in accordance with a structure plan that is adopted by the City of Bunbury and endorsed by the WAPC. Subsequent applications for planning approval to permit the development of general industry uses within the site shall be required to conform with the EPA’s guidelines in relation to buffer distances to sensitive land uses. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications There are not considered to be any financial or budget implications. Where more than 10% of a lot is ultimately reserved, the process for reserving and acquiring the land will be the responsibility of the State Government; which is to be expedited through the amending of the GBRS where required. Other normal conditions of land subdivision include, but are not limited to, the following items that are to be dedicated / constructed at the subdivider’s / developer’s cost and to the specification and satisfaction of the relevant public authorities: (a) all lots with frontage to a constructed and drained subdivisional road that is

connected to the local road system; (b) a contribute towards traffic calming measures, including intersection


Page 36

treatments connecting to main roads; (c) a contribute towards cycle ways, dual use paths and footpaths; (d) land being filled, drained and connected to the City’s stormwater drainage

system; and (e) all lots with connection to the reticulated potable water and sewerage

systems. Strategic Relevance The proposed amendment is considered consistent with the aims and goals of Council’s 2007–2012 Strategic Plan and the objectives and recommendations of the City Vision Strategy (2007). As explained under the section headings of “Background” and “Proposal” above, the amendment is also consistent with the administration of the GBRS. Councillor/Officer Consultation Up until the time of presenting this report to Council the Scheme Amendment has been compiled by Council’s Development Services department in consultation with its Engineering Services Department. Consultation has also occurred with representatives of DoP, MRWA and DoW. Economic, Social and Environmental Issues Economic The eventual rezoning, structure planning and subdivision of the land for industry can be assumed to have a net benefit to Bunbury’s local and regional economy. This is partly because over recent years there has been a shortage of suitable land available for light and general industry - with growing demand for new industries seeking to locate in proximity of Bunbury’s Strategic Regional Centre and Port. Hence, the subject area is optimally located for the development of industrial activities given that it is situated approximately seven kilometres of Bunbury’s CBD, five kilometres of the Inner Harbour and at the intersection of two regional road corridors. Social There are no known negative impacts on the social environment. Environmental The impacts on the physical (natural and built) environment are summarised in the Local Planning Scheme Amendment Report a copy of which was provided as Appendix 1 to the item to Council dated 3 August 2010. Heritage The subject site is not included on the City’s Municipal Inventory or the associated Heritage List.


Page 37

Legislative Compliance The amendment has been advertised for a minimum of 42 days in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967. Submissions are analysed and the amendment is then submitted back to Council for adoption with or without modifications. Should Council resolve to adopt the amendment, the scheme amending documentation, together with the schedule of submissions and Council’s resolution will be referred to the WAPC for its endorsement and referral to the Minister for Planning for final approval and gazettal. Options Option 1 As per the Recommendation. It should be noted that Council is obliged to undertake the scheme amendment compliant with Part 9 of the Planning and Development Act 2005; specifically clause 123 of the Act, which stipulates that Local Planning Schemes are to be consistent with the overriding Region Planning Scheme (i.e. the GBRS). Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Leigh seconded Cr Major. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s Recommendation on the matter.


Page 38

11.7 Scheme Amendment 44 to Town Planning Scheme No. 7 – Operation of Structure Plans File Ref: A03973





Committee Recommendation That Council:

1. In accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 resolves to adopt Scheme Amendment number 44 to the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 in accordance with Scheme Amendment No. 44 documentation (refer to Attachment 1 of the report circulated under separate cover); and

2. Refers the Scheme Amendment No. 44 documentation to the Western

Australian Planning Commission for final approval in accordance with the provisions of the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

Summary Council, at its meeting on 14 September 2010 resolved to initiate and publicly advertise Scheme Amendment 44 to the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 (Council Decision 187/10). The advertising period closed on 1 December 2010 and no objections were received (see Community Consultation section for more details). Scheme Amendment number 44 to Town Planning Scheme No. 7 (TPS7) seeks to rationalise the disparate provisions of the Scheme dealing with structure planning by consolidating them into one part of the Scheme in a standardised format that accords with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Planning Bulletin #37 - Draft Model Text Provisions for Structure Plans (February 2000). A copy of the Scheme Amendment Report has been provided at Attachment 1 of the report circulated under separate cover. Background The requirement and procedure for making and amending structure plans is currently administered by clauses 5.8, 5.9.13 and 6.2 of TPS7. Although the basic structure planning procedure is provided in the Scheme, there is a lack of detail as to the manner in which each step of the process is carried out and the timing related to each step. There is also no direction as to the purpose of structure plans and the scope of minimum information required to be provided in the structure plan


Page 39

documentation. In addition, the existing text provisions do not provide adequate guidance as to how the Local Government deals with variations or modifications to adopted structure plans, which inevitably arise over the life of a structure plan where it has been in place for some time prior to the commencement or completion of subdivision. Finally, the existing structure plan provisions do not provide a head of power for approving subdivision and development within a structure plan area where it differs from the zoning under the Scheme. Officer Comments By allowing for structure plans to prescribe the zonings of land, and hence the relevant development controls, there will be greater certainty regarding the timeframes that apply to structure plans; and as such, should assist in reducing delays throughout the structure plan process by bridging the gap between the adoption of a structure plan and when the Scheme is updated. A crucial benefit of employing the Draft Model Text Provisions for Structure Plans is that it enables adopted and endorsed structure plans to assign the zoning of land up until such time as the Scheme Map is updated accordingly - thereby facilitating the subdivision and development of the land as soon as the structure plan is finalised. Whereas, at present there can be a lengthy period of time delay between when the structure plan is finalised and when proponents can apply to subdivide and develop their land for new land uses. It should be noted that public advertising of Scheme Amendment 44 was initiated concurrently with the proposed draft Tuart Brook Structure Plan, which was prepared by the Department of Housing (DoH). It is advised that 20 submissions were lodged during the formal advertising period, with a late submission from the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) still expected. Given that some of the submissions requested significant variations to the draft structure plan map, which also necessitates DoH consideration; it is not possible to return this proposal for Council’s consideration at this time. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications There are not considered to be any direct financial or budgetary implications for Council, although the elimination of the need for the rezoning of land following approval of a structure plan will improve administrative efficiency and demands on staff resources. Strategic Relevance The proposed revision of structure plan provisions is consistent with the aims and goals of Council’s 2007 – 2012 Strategic Plan and the objectives and recommendations of the City Vision Strategy (2007). These changes will increase efficiency and certainty in relation to structure planning projects in the City. Community Consultation Written approval to advertise the amendment was provided by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) on 12 October 2010 (i.e. no formal environmental assessment required). Advertising was carried out for a period of 42 days in


Page 40

accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Town Planning Regulations 1967. The advertising period closed on 1 December 2010 with two submissions being received. Both submissions were from government agencies - being the Department of Water (DoW) and the DEC. Both agencies had no objection to the amendment. For details on the individual submissions and officer comments on each submission please refer the full Schedule of Submissions found at Attachment 2 of the report circulated under separate cover. Councillor/Officer Consultation There has been no Councillor/Officer consultation with this amendment other than presentation to Council for its consideration at the September 7 and 14, 2010 Committee and Council meetings. Economic, Social and Environmental Issues Economic The ability for the zoning of land to be prescribed by the structure plan rather than undergoing the additional step of a rezoning will be time saving and hence economic value to landowners and developers. Social There are no known or expected social impacts generated by the proposal. Environmental There are no significant environmental impacts generated by the proposal. Heritage Not relevant. Legislative Compliance The procedure for initiating and advertising structure plans is currently set out under clause 5.9.13 of TPS No. 7. This amendment will replace the existing legal procedures with Draft Model Text Provisions for Structure Plans as prescribed by the WAPC. Conclusion Scheme Amendment 44 will ensure consistency of approach in the specifying, adoption and operation of structure plans to ensure a more coherent and effective mechanism for dealing with applications for planning approval in accordance with adopted and endorsed structure plans. Most local governments in Western Australia undertaking Scheme reviews since February 2000 have adopted the Draft Model Text Provisions for Structure Plans as prescribed by the WAPC.


Page 41

Given that no objections have been received and that the amendment provides greater clarity and efficiency for the structure planning process and conformity with the state planning system, it is recommended that Council adopt the amendment and refer it to the WAPC with a request for final approval. Options Option 1 As per the Recommendation. Option 2 That Council does not adopt the proposed scheme amendment. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Jones seconded Cr Major. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 42

11.8 Proposed Detailed Area Planning and Subdivision of the Former Punchbowl Caravan Park - Lot 210 Holywell Street and Lot 211 Pendal Street, South Bunbury File Ref: P05893-02




Attachments: Appendix 16 & 17

Committee Recommendation That Council: 1. Resolves to delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to

undertake the finalisation of the draft Punchbowl Residential Detailed Area Plan for Council’s consideration for adoption and endorsement by the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

2. Resolves to consider the allocation of the necessary funds for the

finalisation of the draft Punchbowl Residential Detailed Area Plan and preparation of the associated Subdivision Plan in the 2011/2012 Annual Budget.

Summary Lot 210 Holywell Street and Lot 211 Pendal Street, South Bunbury (formerly the Punchbowl Caravan Park), are owned in freehold by the City of Bunbury and zoned “Special Use Zone 7” (S.U.7) for the purposes of tourism and residential development. Since January 2010 the two properties have been advertised for sale as a single development site. However, there has been no significant market interest in the properties in their present configuration. It has therefore been proposed that the residential component of the land be subdivided and developed as an initial stage, so as to:

- promote the subsequent development of the balance of the site as an integrated short-stay tourism facility; and

- permit Council to realise a financial return by way of subdividing and developing the site in the shorter term.

This is bearing in mind that there are development costs associated with the administrative procedures and construction works necessary in order to create the new land titles for sale to the private sector. Nevertheless, the net financial gain is estimated to be significantly greater than would be achieved by the sale of the site with its exiting land titles and condition.


Page 43

A copy of the proposed draft Punchbowl Residential Detailed Area Plan (DAP) can be found attached at Appendix 16. Background

Scheme Amendment Scheme Amendment 17 to the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 (TPS7) to create “Special Use Zone 7” (S.U.7) was granted final approval by the Minister for Planning on 27 October 2009. This scheme amendment resulted in the site being able to accommodate mixed use development comprising of predominantly short-stay accommodation, unrestricted residential accommodation and tourism oriented non-residential uses. The intended layout of the principal land uses was indicatively given in the publicly advertised version of the Scheme Amendment 17 document, which differentiates the site into the following:

- Residential Interface Area;

- Ocean Drive Frontage Area; and

- Central Core Area. The intent of the Residential Interface Area is to create a frame of residential dwellings (that are physically integrated as part of the whole site and may be utilised for short-stay purposes) around the tourism frontage and core areas. Thereby, providing a transition or buffer to the adjoining residential neighbourhood. The Residential Interface Area, which is the subject of the draft DAP, was conceptually shown in Figure 10 of the Scheme Amendment 17 document (attached at Appendix 17). In accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) policy position, the Residential Interface Area of “Special Use Zone 7” is intended to be developed for either residential or unrestricted residential accommodation uses (which permits both short-stay or permanent occupancy) for up to a maximum of 25% of the total site area. The 25% limitation is pertinent to all tourism related developments in the State, and resulted from the findings of the Tourism Planning Taskforce Report (endorsed by the State Government in January 2006 and the WAPC in June 2006), the recommendations of which were then reflected in Planning Bulletin 83 Planning for Tourism (June 2007) and revised Planning Bulletin 83/2009 Planning for Tourism (June 2009). The intent of the Tourism Planning Taskforce Report and associated Planning Bulletin is to assist in maintaining and promoting adequate supply of short-stay accommodation land available in key coastal and other valuable tourism asset locations. Officer Comments

Scheme Amendment The provisions of “Special Use Zone 7” set out the general requirements and standards for the subdivision and development of the site. The key requirements are as follows:


Page 44

- A Detailed Area Plan (DAP), as discussed below, is to be ultimately adopted by Council and endorsed by the WAPC prior to any subdivision and development.

- A Water Management Strategy is to accompany the DAP. The amendment document gave the title “Stormwater Management Plan”, but since this time the “Better Urban Water Management”(BUWM) document prepared by the Department of Water has been adopted (October 2008) as the state-wide guideline in this regard.

- A Traffic and Parking Management Plan is also required as part of the DAP. This plan is to be prepared in accordance with the WAPC’s “Transport Assessment Guidelines for Developments Volume 3 - Subdivisions” (August 2006).

Detailed Area Planning As set out in the provisions of “Special Use Zone 7”, the DAP is to address the following aspects of development:

- standards and requirements for development site planning and building design;

- lot layout of subdivision design and building envelopes;

- extent of land uses in accordance with the Zoning Table of the Scheme;

- interface and buffer treatments between the surrounding residential uses and the development site;

- residential densities where residential use is permissible;

- urban design treatment of streetscapes and residential interfaces;

- traffic management, including accessways and internal circulation;

- vehicle parking and circulation areas and treatments;

- pedestrian access and movement;

- building height and scale;

- development setbacks from boundaries;

- landscaping within setback areas and between buildings; and

- views to and from the site (e.g. with regard to the effect on inland residential areas).

The proposed draft Punchbowl Residential Detailed Area Plan (attached at Appendix 16) relates to the Residential Interface Area of the overall site, and represents the first stage of what will ultimately be a single integrated DAP for the entire site. The plan makes reference to the tourism components of the site; however, a subsequent update of the DAP for the remaining stage will ultimately be required for the Ocean Drive Frontage Area and the Central Core Area. The need for the remaining stage to be planned as part of a single integrated DAP is considered necessary in order to adequately guide and coordinate development of key urban design and servicing issues associated with:

- pedestrian and vehicular access and parking;


Page 45

- building envelopes and orientation;

- cut and fill levels;

- cost share arrangements for infrastructure and facilities; and

- management arrangements for share recreational spaces and landscaping areas, etc.

The benefit of this approach is that it provides certainty in reinforcing the longer term development outcomes for the entire site, but also the flexibility in allowing the detailed designing of the tourism component to be informed by the vision and nature of the ultimate owner/operator. It is important in this situation then to provide workable integration, both in terms of the overall built form and management, between the tourism and residential development components of the site. Guidance on “Non Strategic Tourism Site” design principles that should inform the granting of any future planning approval (including the setting of conditions) is provided by the following:

- City of Bunbury Local Planning Strategy for Tourism (2009); and

- Tourism Planning Taskforce Report (2006), recommendation 10. The critical factor in a successful integrated tourism and residential development recognized in Tourism Planning Taskforce Report is to allow opportunities for residents within the Residential Interface Area to utilise the recreational spaces and facilities associated with the tourism and short stay uses in the tourism frontage and core areas. This can be achieved by way of requiring that where development would result in a strata scheme arrangement, that a long term management agreement be established between the owners of “Unrestricted Residential Accommodation” units and the “Motel” operator in order to ensure the integrated management of all short-stay units and shared spaces/facilities. The draft Punchbowl Residential Detailed Area Plan has been designed with the following key factors in mind:

- The Residential Interface Area that is available for permanent residential occupancy comprises of a maximum of 25% of the total site area.

- The Residential Interface Area faces inland towards the established neighbourhood, thus ensuring that prime land for tourism purposes with frontage/view of the ocean is retained for short-stay and tourism oriented non-residential uses.

- The lot boundaries shown in the Residential Interface Area are based on a residential density code of R40, but are indicative only, and may be reconfigured (i.e. the lot size increased) taking into account prescribed building orientation, parapet walls, private open space and garage locations. The benefit of this is that even with lot sizes of around 400 m

2 this density

coding permits development of larger dwellings to take advantage of reduced setbacks and open space requirements.

- Direct vehicle access is not to be provided on to Ocean Drive, due to pedestrian and road safety considerations.

- The presence of the Five Mile Brook drain and its affects on limiting access to the site from Holywell and Pendal Streets.


Page 46

- The primary frontage of residential buildings is to be oriented towards the surrounding streets.

- Vehicular access to residential dwellings is to be gained from the internal access road only.

- Appropriate sightlines are to be maintained for safe traffic movement to and from Pendal and Holywell Streets.

- Provision of shared vehicular access and internal circulation road within the site enables adequate separation and minimum disruption to the residential component of the site.

- The primary shared access road forms a design feature (that may be amplified as an entry statement though appropriate built from) that integrates the site.

Subdivision Planning In terms of the eventual subdivision process, the following steps will be required to be undertaken:

1. Compilation of Water Management Strategy by a hydrologist or civil engineer experienced in hydrology in accordance with the BUWM guidelines.

2. Compilation of a Traffic and Parking Management Plan by a suitably qualified traffic engineer.

3. Determination of the optimum lot size that meets market demand and maximises financial return on investment based on the cost of development.

4. Referral and public advertising of the draft DAP for comment.

5. Revision of the DAP design depending on the outcomes of steps 1 to 4 above.

6. Subject to Council adoption and WAPC endorsement of the DAP, undertake feature survey of site by a licensed surveyor as required by the WAPC for all applications for subdivision.

7. Revision of Detailed Area Plan and/or Subdivision Plan design depending on the outcomes of steps 1 to 4 above.

8. Preparation of subdivision application and lodgement with the WAPC for approval. The application will then be referred to a number of government agencies for comment.

9. Approval of the subdivision application by the WAPC with conditions.

10. Depending upon Council’s decision, clearance of subdivision conditions and lodgement of the Deposited Plan for the creation of new land titles.

Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications

Detailed Area Planning The draft Punchbowl Residential Detailed Area Plan presented attached at Appendix 16 is at a concept stage only, and requires further investigations to permit its


Page 47

finalisation for adoption and endorsement by the WAPC. These investigations include:

- preparation of a Water Management Strategy and Traffic and Parking Management Plan;

- obtaining of property market advice on optimal lot sizes / values based on real estate market demand (which will inform the preparation of the Subdivision Plan); and

- site engineering and servicing design and works. The undertaking of the above necessary investigations has budgetary implications that are not accounted for under the current 2010/2011 Annual Budget. Therefore, it will be necessary for additional funds to be allocated through the 2011/2012 budget deliberation process. The estimated cost of undertaking the investigations to finalise the DAP and Subdivision Plan is presently unknown, and will be ascertained through the normal request for quotation/tendering process. Subdivision & Development The sale of the land within the Residential Interface Area as an approved subdivision is expected to yield a significantly greater financial benefit for Council than the sale of the site in its present format. Following endorsement of the draft Punchbowl Residential Detailed Area Plan and the granting of subdivision approval, Council can then decide to either:

- sell the land to a private developer as a complete site; or

- develop the land and sell the individual lots separately. The decision to undertake either option should be subject to a cost benefit analysis following receipt of the conditions of subdivision approval. It should be noted that while some fill is required, the site development costs in comparison to other parts of the City would be comparatively low given that it is flat. The main fill requirements will apply mostly to the core tourism area in the central portion of the site. Also the distance for connection to services such as reticulated sewerage, water and power are considered to be reasonable, given a cursory analysis. However, an engineering feasibility assessment is recommended so as to quantify the actual costs of development (which in turn informs the market price of the land). If a rough estimate $70,000 per lot is applied to cover costs of development (this is given that standard costs per lot for an unconstrained flat site is at present around $50,000 per lot), then possible eventual profits of sale after development of the site can be predicted to be in excess of $2,700,000. This is bearing in mind that this is the residential component only, and that there would still be future sale of the remaining portion of the site for tourism and short-stay accommodation uses. Conclusion In conclusion, it is recommended that further investigation be undertaken to finalise the draft DAP given that the benefits of this approach are expected to:

- provide certainty in reinforcing the longer term development outcomes for the entire site, while still allowing the flexibility for the ultimate owner/operator of the balance area to influence the detailed designing of the tourism


Page 48

component;

- promote the development of the balance of the site as an integrated short-stay tourism facility through the establishment of the framing Residential Interface Area; and

- permits Council to realise a potentially greater financial return by way of subdividing and developing the site in the shorter term.

Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 Council resolves not to pursue endorsement of the draft Punchbowl Residential Detailed Area Plan by the WAPC and/or not proceed with subdivision approval for Lot 210 Holywell Street and Lot 211 Pendal Street, South Bunbury, in accordance with the draft Punchbowl Residential Detailed Area Plan. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Spencer seconded Cr Major (Pro forma). The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter. After the vote was taken - 6 votes “for” / 6 votes “against” - the Mayor used his casting vote and voted in favour of the recommendation. The recommendation was CARRIED.


Page 49

11.9 Bunbury Regional Arts Management Board Representation on the Foreshore Art Gallery Advisory Committee File Ref: A00168-10


Author: Kobi Halbert – Executive Assistant City Life

Executive: Domenic Marzano – Executive Manager City Life

Attachments: Nil

Committee Recommendation 1. That Council appoint Mr Bill Cowan as the Bunbury Regional Arts

Management Board representative to the Foreshore Art Gallery Advisory Committee in the place of Ms Carol Bryson.

Summary The members of the Bunbury Regional Arts Management Board (BRAMB) were very pleased to hear they have been afforded representation on the newly formed Foreshore Art Gallery Advisory Committee, and thank Council for this consideration. The Board understands the Chairperson, Ms Carol Bryson, has been nominated as their representative on this committee. The Board wish to propose the appointment of Mr Bill Cowan to the committee in the place of the Chairperson. Background In recent weeks, Mr Bill Cowan was endorsed by Council as a new member of BRAMB. Mr Cowan has a long history in the resource sector and has extensive experience in multi-million dollar and infrastructure projects. He is noted as a supported of and advocate for the visual arts. Given his vast experience, the Board believes Mr Cowan would have much to offer the Advisory Committee and requests Mr Cowan replace Ms Bryson as the BRAMB representative. Mr Cowan was endorsed as the preferred BRAMB representative as the BRAMB meeting held on 20 December 2010. Further discussion about the makeup of the Advisory Committee also took place at the 20 December meeting. Members of the Board expressed some surprise that no position had been created for a working, practising artist. The Board believes that appointing an artist to the committee would ensure the artists of the region can contribute to the project, and will also enable the Committee to benefit from the artists’ working knowledge of the visual arts industry. Officer Comments The Executive Manager City Life endorses the proposal to appoint Mr Bill Cowan to the Foreshore Art Gallery Advisory Committee.


Page 50

The Executive sees the value in having a working, practising artist on the Committee, and recommends this for Council consideration Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications There are no financial and budget implications. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 As per the recommendation, with amendments. Option 3 Council do not support the recommendation.

Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Harrop, seconded Cr Steck. It was requested that the vote on the motion be taken in separate parts. The Mayor put the motion to the vote in separate parts and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter. Point 1: 11 votes “for” / 1 vote “against” CARRIED It was requested the votes be recorded as follows; For: Mayor D Smith, Deputy Mayor Cr Kelly, Cr Craddock, Cr Leigh, Cr

Harrop, Cr Major, Cr Jones, Cr Whittle, Cr Slater, Cr Steck, Cr Spencer

Against: Cr Steele Point 2: 1 votes “for” / 11 votes “against” LOST


Page 51

11.10 Blair Street – National Blackspot Funding 2011/2012

File Ref: R00041-05

Applicant/Proponent: Engineering Services / RoadWise Committee

Author: Jason Gick, City Engineer

Executive: Michael Scott, Executive Manager City Services


Committee Recommendation That the Council adopt “left in / left out” intersection configurations at Blair Street and Ward Street; Forrest Avenue and Mary Street; Blair Street, Sandridge Road and Albert Road to realise available 2011/2012 Nation Building Blackspot grants. Summary The intersections at Blair Street / Forrest Avenue, Blair Street / Sandridge Road / Albert Road, and Picton Road / Sandridge Road / King Road are over represented in crash statistics and are eligible for Nation Building Blackspot funding for intersection improvements. Background The Nation Building Blackspot program is a road funding program to encourage local authorities to address intersections and road sections that exhibit high crash rates. The Blair Street / Forrest Avenue, Blair Street / Sandridge Road / Albert Road and Picton Road / Sandridge Road / King Road intersections all exhibit high crash rates for the period 2005 – 2009 and are eligible for National Blackspot funding. Eligibility criteria for Nation Building Blackspot project include the need to address road layout issues that could be considered contributing factors to crashes. All projects are supported by the RoadWise Committee. Concept Plans are attached at Appendix 4, 5 and 6. Officer Comments Each of these intersections exhibits a high proportion of right turn / through crashes, which can be partially attributed to incorrect gap selection under the right turn filter signal phase. The appropriate treatment for these crashes is to modify the traffic control signals to remove the right turn filter option. In this way, all right turns are only allowable under a dedicated right turn phase. Removing the right turn filter phase and replacing it with a dedicated right turn only phase causes the right turn vehicle queue length to increase, particularly during peak traffic periods.


Page 52

Each intersection has been assessed and analysed to determine the consequential impact of addressing the right turn / through crashes. In each case the right turn slip lane needs to be extended (by varying lengths) to address the predicted peak hour right turn queue under a dedicated right turn only phase configuration. Approach lanes that have adequate length to accommodate the increased right turn slip lane can be built without any significant change to the carriageway patterns or road configuration. The extensions of the right turn slip lanes past Ward Street and Mary Street are required to ensure the proposed crash treatment meets the Blackspot eligibility criteria. Without these treatments, the projects are unlikely to achieve the necessary Benefit / Cost Ratio’s (BCR’s), thereby jeopardising their success. Blair Street / Forrest Avenue One right turn slip lane along Forrest Avenue needs to be extended past Mary Street to accommodate the required peak hour queue. A concept plan showing the proposed intersection configuration is attached at Appendix 4. Banning all right turns into and out of Mary Street contributes to a safer intersection. In the period 2005 – 2009 there were 4 major property damage crashes that would not have occurred under a left in / left out configuration. Banning all right turn movements into and out of Mary Street will result in a redistribution of traffic to Alexander Street and Clarke Street. Traffic using the Forrest Avenue / Mary Street intersection would still be able to turn left in and left out. The average daily volume of traffic on Mary Street is between 2,000vpd and 3,000 vpd. This includes both travel directions, so the average daily traffic volume affected by the proposed left in left out is about 1,000 – 1,500vpd. Based on an assumed even distribution to Alexander Street and Clarke Street, each road may increase by about 500 – 750vpd. This is a small number of vehicle movements, but there may be a perceived increase at peak times including school drop off and pick up. Blair Street / Sandridge Road / Albert Road One right turn slip lane along Blair Street needs to be extended past Ward Street to accommodate the required peak hour queue. A concept plan showing the proposed intersection configuration is attached at Appendix 5. Banning all right turns into and out of Ward Street contributes to a safer intersection. In the period 2005 – 2009 there were 7 crashes (including two requiring medical attention) that would not have occurred under a left in / left out configuration. The median on this section of Blair Street is only 3 metres wide which is too narrow to act as a refuge for right turning vehicles. This requires right turning vehicles to cross two lanes and merge into a third in a single manoeuvre. This can be unsafe if there are limited gaps in the oncoming and receiving traffic streams. City Services has received numerous anecdotes about near misses at this intersection which can be observed during peak periods when right turning vehicles take risks in gap selection.


Page 53

Banning all right turn movements into and out of Ward Street will result in a redistribution of traffic to Doris Street and Higgins Street. Traffic using the Blair Street / Ward Street intersection would still be able to turn left in and left out. The average daily volume of traffic on Ward Street is estimated to be between 4,000vpd and 5,000 vpd, but is probably higher on Saturday morning peaks because of the attractiveness of the nearby Farmers Market. No detailed traffic analysis has been undertaken, but the adjoining network is quite permeable and can comfortably absorb the required redistribution of traffic to accommodate the left in / left out intersection proposal. Access to the local road network can be gained from Blair Street / Higgins Street (full T intersection), Forrest Avenue / Higgins Street (full T intersection), Forrest Avenue / Doris Street (full T intersection) and Blair Street / Ward Street (Left in / left out intersection). Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications These projects have been scoped and preliminary cost estimates prepared to allow the City to prepare BCR’s. The preliminary cost estimates for the projects are: Picton Road / Sandridge Road / King Road $247,000 Blair Street / Sandridge Road / Albert Road (incl. Ward Street) $182,000 Blair Street / Forrest Avenue (incl. Mary Street) $286,000 These cost estimates have been submitted to the National Blackspot program for consideration and the projects have been endorsed by the South West Regional Road Group. There is no financial imposition on the City as these projects are funded 100% by the Nation Building Blackspot program. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 That the Council does not adopt “left in / left out” intersection configurations at Blair Street and Ward Street, and Forrest Avenue and Mary Street, and advise the South West Regional Road Group to return available 2011/12 Nation Building Blackspot grants for these project to the National funding pool. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Slater seconded Cr Major. The mover and the seconded were asked if they would agree to amend the motion as follows;


Page 54

Add: After “Ward Street, Forrest Avenue and Mary street” add “Blair Street,

Sandridge Road and Albert Road.” The mover and seconder agreed to the amendment. Cr Major left the Chambers at 8.59pm and was not present for the vote. The Mayor put the amended motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 55

11.11 Port Access Road (Stage 2) and Bunbury Outer Ring Road (Stage 1) – Land Acquisition and Dedication File Ref: R00804

Applicant/Proponent: Main Roads Wester Australia




Committee Recommendation That Council: 1. Support the acquisition / excision of land from Lot 11 and Reserves

31866 and 45201 as depicted in Main Roads Western Australia Land Dealing Plan 201002-0533 and Land Dealing Plan 201002-0547 (attached at Appendix 7) in accordance with provisions of the Land Administration Act.

2. Support the dedication of land as depicted in Main Roads Western

Australia Land Dealing Plan 201002-0531, Land Dealing Plan 201002-0532 (attached at Appendix 8) and Land Dealing Plan 201002-0533 to “road” in accordance with section 56 of the Land Administration Act.

Summary Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) is planning for the Port Access Road (Stage 2) and the Bunbury Outer Ring Road (Stage 1) and requires the City’s support for acquisition and dedication of various parcels of land. Background MRWA is planning to commence construction works for the Port Access Road (Stage 2) and the Bunbury Outer Ring Road (Stage 1) in 2011/12. The proposed works are depicted in yellow on the attached Appendix 9. The land required to accommodate the staged and ultimate road alignments is depicted in dashed blue lines on the attached Appendix 9. MRWA require the land to be properly held by the State to deliver the project. This request focuses on land that is required to accommodate only Stage 2 of the Port Access Road and Stage 1 of the Bunbury Outer Ring Road. Land required for future stages will need to be considered then. Officer Comments The delivery of these road projects is an important transport development for the City and the Greater Bunbury Region. They will improve access to the Bunbury Port,


Page 56

remove a significant number of heavy vehicles from Robertson Drive, Picton Boyanup Road, South Western Highway and the Eelup Rotary. The new roads will also “open” up access to land east of the Preston River for future development and prompt future governments to continue developing the Bunbury Outer Ring Road to a proper City Bypass. The projects will also generate significant local economic activity through direct employment, sub-contracting, servicing and material supply. The City has previously indicated its support of these projects. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications There are no financial implications to the City. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 Oppose the recommendation. This is not recommended as it will frustrate progress of this project. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 Cr Slater left the Chambers at 9.01pm and was not present for the vote. The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Leigh seconded Cr Jones. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 57

11.12 Tender for Creek Street Pipe Relining RFT 2010 2011-09

File Ref: A04313


Author: Mark Robson, Contract Co-ordinator



Committee Recommendation Council accepts the tender response and awards a contract to Interflow Pty Ltd (ABN 34 000 563 208) being for the drainage pipe relining to Creek Street, Bunbury. Summary The City of Bunbury has advertised for a suitably qualified and experienced Civil Works contractor to undertake the relining of two 900mm diameter underground sections of stormwater drainage pipes located at Creek Street and Stirling Street. This tender was also advertised in 2009 but responses were declined due to insufficient funding, the repairs are necessary due to deterioration caused by the age of this infrastructure and antiquated installation methods Background Tender documents were prepared and advertised in The West Australian on 1 December 2010 and in the South Western Times on 2 December 2010. Tenders closed at 3:00pm on Thursday, 13 January 2011. The City's Contract Co-ordinator and Building Construction Officer opened the tender box. A total of ten (10) interested companies requested and received the tender documents. By closing, two tenders had been received, as follows:

1. Veolia Environmental Services 4-6 Rivers Street, Bibra Lake WA 6163

2. Interflow Pty Limited Unit 4/76 Berriman Drive,Wangara WA 6065 An evaluation panel comprising the, Operations Manager, Operations Works Co-ordinator and Contract Co-ordinator assessed the responses on 14, 17 and 18 January 2011. The tenders were evaluated using the following criteria:

- Compliance

- Qualitative

- Price Compliance Criteria The following compliance criteria were used to assess the tender:

a) Compliance with the Specifications contained in the request yes/no


Page 58

b) Compliance with the Conditions of Tendering. yes/no

c) Compliance and completion of the Price Schedules. yes/no Qualitative Criteria The following Qualitative Criteria were used to assess the tender:

Weighting a) Relevant experience with similar projects 5

b) Key personnel, skills and experiences. 5

c) Demonstrated understanding of scope of works 5

d) Contractors Resources - plant, equipment, labour 5 Price Evaluation of the tender prices (and ranking) has been assessed but because the results are "commercial in confidence" details are listed in a Confidential Report that has been circulated to members under separate cover. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications Funding for this project is provided from Councils 2010 2011 Capital Works Program, any funding adjustments are to be reviewed in March 2011. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 Reject all tenders. Comment: This is NOT supported by the Tender Evaluation Panel. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 Cr Major returned to the Chambers at 9.03pm and was present to vote on the remainder of the items. The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Jones seconded Cr Major. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 59

11.13 Bunbury Dynamos Soccer Club Inc./Bunbury & Districts Cricket Association – Proposed Extension of Lease over Portion Lot 73 (on Diagram 2224) Forrest Avenue, Bunbury (Forrest Park)

File Ref: F00056

Applicant/Proponent: Bunbury Dynamos Soccer Club Inc. and Bunbury & Districts Cricket Association

Author: Bill Carlsen, Property Projects Officer

Executive: Ken Weary, Executive Manager Corporate Services

Attachments: Appendix 10

Committee Recommendation Council agrees to renew the lease with the Bunbury Dynamos Soccer Club Inc. and Bunbury & Districts Cricket Association of club rooms on a portion of Lot 73 on Diagram 2224 Forrest Avenue, Bunbury for a term of five (5) years subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the report and the following: 1. The Bunbury Dynamos Soccer Club Inc. and Bunbury & Districts Cricket

Association to pay all costs associated with the application including document preparation, registration and rental assistance.

Summary Since 1998 Bunbury Dynamos Soccer Club Inc. and Bunbury and Districts Cricket Association (“applicants”) have leased premises on a portion of Lot 73 Forrest Avenue, Bunbury for the permitted use as clubrooms and are now seeking Council’s consent to extend the lease for a further five (5) years. A location plan is attached at Appendix 10. Background The applicants have complied with the provisions of the current lease commenced 1998, including the Cricket Association’s responsibilities to maintain and upkeep the turf wickets at both Forrest Park and the Bunbury Recreation Ground. On 30 June 2008 and by mutual agreement the “Holding Over” clause was invoked to ensure the proposal did not conflict with the Hay Park Feasibility study. Bunbury Dynamos Soccer Club continues to grow and have introduced night services to meet growing demand. The Bunbury & District Cricket Association comprises 10 senior clubs and a junior division. At this time there are 34 senior teams competing in 1st -4th Grades and over 60 junior teams competing from Under 10’s through to Under 17’s. Bunbury & Districts Cricket Association holds many events such as Junior Cricket Carnivals with teams representing other country and Perth districts participating.


Page 60

Current Lease Details Commencement: 1 July 1998 Term: Ten (10) years Expiry Date: 30 June 2008 (Holding over Clause invoked) Current Rental: $759.72 + GST per annum Rent Review: CPI annually Outgoings: Responsibility of the applicant Insurance: Lessee to maintain Public Risk and General Insurance cover

over the premises with Public Liability to be set at $5(M) Special Conditions: The Bunbury & Districts Cricket Association responsible for

maintenance and upkeep of the turf wickets at both Forrest Park and the Bunbury Recreation Ground.

Proposed Renewal of Lease Details Commencement: 1 July 2010 Term: Five (5) years Expiry Date: 30 June 2015 Rental: $1,200 per annum exclusive of GST indexed annually by CPI Rent Review: CPI annually Outgoings: Responsibility of the Lessee Insurance: The Lessee to maintain Public Risk and General Insurance

Policies over the premises with Public liability to be set at $10(M)

Special Conditions: The Bunbury & Districts Cricket Association responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the turf wickets at both Forrest Park and the Bunbury Recreation Ground.

Document Preparation:

The applicants to pay full cost of document preparation and registration.

The City’s Executive and the applicant have mutually agreed on the proposed term and conditions of the extension of the Lease. Officer Comments The Bunbury Dynamos Soccer Club Inc. and Bunbury & Districts Cricket Association provide like-minded participation from local community members.

Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 As per the recommendation with amendments.


Page 61

Option 3 Council refuses the proposal by the applicant to renew its lease over portion of Lot 73 on Diagram 2224 Forrest Avenue, Bunbury. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 Cr Slater returned to the Chambers at 9.05pm and was present to vote on the remainder of the items. The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Jones seconded Cr Leigh. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 62

11.14 Lease – Bunbury and Districts Dog Club Inc. File Ref: F00216

Applicant/Proponent: Bunbury and Districts Dog Club Inc.

Author: David Whitfield, Property Officer



Committee Recommendation Council agrees to grant a Lease to the Bunbury and Districts Dog Club Inc. over Portion of Hay Park Reserve 30601 (Lot 3001 on Deposited Plan 43554) Parade Road, Bunbury for a three (3) year term expiring 31 December 2013, subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the report, and the following: 1. The applicant to pay all costs associated with the lease application

including document preparation, rental assessment and registration. 2. Approval of the Minister for Lands. Summary The Bunbury and Districts Dog Club Inc. seeks a three (3) year lease over portion of Hay Park Reserve 30601, Parade Road, Bunbury (249m²). A location plan is attached at Appendix 11. Background The Bunbury and Districts Dog Club Inc. formed in 1965 and was affiliated with the Canine Association (now Dogswest) in 1966. The Club has been in their current location since approximately 1970. The Club currently has 25 members and conducts a number of regional events throughout the year. These annual events include:

- 4 Obedience Trials;

- 4 Agility Trials;

- 1 Open Show; and

- 4 Championship Shows. The Bunbury and Districts Dog Club has used and occupied the facility known as the Kit Keddie pavilion over this period and has over the years carried out minor maintenance on the building as part of its upkeep. Recent years have seen greater usage of the facility as part of community events and shared usage with other sporting clubs.


Page 63

The location of the proposed lease falls under the precinct of Hay Park (North) development plan and will be subject to possible redevelopment in the medium to long term. The Bunbury and Districts Dog Club seeks to secure tenure over the Kit Keddie pavilion, without restricting shared usage of the facility, in the short term whilst ongoing review and development of Hay Park (North) continues. Proposed Renewal of Lease Details Commencement: 1 January 2011 Term: Three (3) Years Expiry Date: 31 December 2013 Annual Rental: $405.65 per annum + GST Rent Review: The Rental is subject to CPI increases on an annual

basis. Permitted Use: Clubrooms Outgoings: Responsibility of Lessee Insurance: Lessee to maintain Public Risk Insurance and General

Insurance on the building. Public Liability to be set at $10(M)

Pursuant to Section 18 of the Land Administration Act 1997, the Office of the Minister for Lands has provided “in principle” approval for the proposal subject to formal approval being granted on receipt of the executed Lease documents. Officer Comments The lease area is comprised with Reserve 30601 (Hay Park) and is held by the City of Bunbury under Management Order 1902/1967 with the power to lease for a term not exceeding 21 years. Reserve (Hay Park is reserved for “Regional Open Space” under the Greater Bunbury Region Scheme. ‘Regional Open Space’ reservations are reserved Ito protect the natural environment, provide recreational opportunities, safeguard important landscapes and provide for public access”; The use of the site by the Bunbury and Districts Dog Club Inc. meets the above criteria. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications There would be no implications to the annual budget. The Club will be responsible for the payment of all outgoings and lease preparation fees. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation.


Page 64

Option 2 As per the recommendation with amendments. Option 3 Council refuses to grant a Lease to the Bunbury and Districts Dog Club Inc. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Jones seconded Cr Leigh. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 65

11.15 On-Road Radio Control Car Club Inc. – Proposed Extension of Lease over Portion of Reserve 30601 (on Deposited Plan 43554) Bunbury (Hay Park) File Ref: F000186

Applicant/Proponent: On-Road Radio Control Car Club Inc

Author: Bill Carlsen, Property Projects Officer



Committee Recommendation Council agrees to renew the lease with the On-Road Radio Control Car Club Inc over portion of Reserve 30601 Hay Park, Bunbury for a term of three (3) years subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the report and the following: 1. The On-Road Radio Control Car Club Inc to pay all costs associated

with the application including document preparation, registration and rental assessment.

2. Approval of the Minister of Lands. Summary Since 2000 the On-Road Radio Control Car Club Inc have leased an area comprising 2880m² of part of Reserve 30601 Hay Park, Bunbury and are now seeking Council’s consent to extend the lease for a further three (3) years. A location plan is attached at Appendix 12. The Minister has provided preliminary approval for the proposed three year extension of lease. Background Since 2000 the applicants have complied with the provisions of the current lease and have no issues with the inclusion of a clause in the extended lease that would require it to reschedule its activities to make way for major community events on Hay Park when requested by the City. Current Lease Details Commencement: 1 August 2000 Term: Ten (10) years Expiry Date: 31 July 2010 (Holding over Clause invoked) Current Rental: $470.61 inclusive of GST per annum Rent Review: CPI annually Outgoings: Responsibility of the applicant Insurance: Lessee to maintain Public Risk and General Insurance cover


Page 66

over the premises with Public Liability to be set at $5(M) Special Conditions: The On-Road Radio Control Car Club Inc is responsible for

the maintenance of the premises in good clean substantial repair and condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Lessor.

Proposed Renewal of Lease Details Commencement: 1 July 2010 Term: Three (3) years Expiry Date: 30 June 2013 Rental: $638 per annum exclusive of GST indexed annually by CPI Rent Review: CPI annually Outgoings: Responsibility of the Lessee Insurance: The Lessee to maintain Public Risk and General Insurance

Policies over the premises with Public liability to be set at $10(M)

Special Conditions: The On-Road Radio Control Car Club Inc is responsible for the maintenance of the premises in good clean substantial repair and condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Lessor.


The applicants to pay full cost of document preparation, registration and rental assessment.

Officer Comments The lease by the On-road Radio-controlled Car Club has allowed greater utilisation of one of Council’s sporting assets. For these reasons and because no other use of the site is proposed within three years, it is appropriate that its continued use by the On-road Radio-Controlled Car Club for this period should be approved. It also further provides opportunity to maximise utilisation of Hay Park facilities by the community. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 As per the recommendation with amendments. Option 3 Council refuses the proposal by the applicant to renew its lease over portion of Reserve 30601 Hay Park, Bunbury. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Jones seconded Cr Leigh.


Page 67

The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 68

11.16 Ian G Humphryson – Proposed Deed of Lease over Hangar Site No. 40, Bunbury Airport, Lot 501 (P62343) South Western Highway, Bunbury

File Ref: F00080

Applicant/Proponent: Ian G Humphryson

Author: Ron Boardley, Property & Rating Coordinator



Committee Recommendation Council agrees to a new Lease with Ian G Humphryson over Hangar Site No. 40, Bunbury Airport, Lot 501 (P62343) South Western Highway, Bunbury for a term of three (3) months to 30 June 2011 with an option of a further term of five (5) years, subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the report, and the following: 1. Advertising in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.58 of the

Local Government Act 1995.

2. The applicant to pay all costs associated with the lease application including document preparation, advertising and registration.

3. Approval of the Minister for Lands. Summary An application has been received from Ian G Humphryson (“applicant”) seeking council’s consent to a new Lease over Hangar Site No. 40 (96m²), Bunbury Airport, Lot 501 on Plan 62343 South Western Highway, Bunbury. A location plan is attached at Appendix 13. Background The Bunbury Airport is located on Reserve 27686, Lot 501 on Plan 62343 South Western Highway, Bunbury. The land is held by the City of Bunbury under Management Order Crown Land Record Volume LR3157 Folio 3 for the purpose of “Airport” with power to lease for any term not exceeding 21 years subject to the consent of the Minister for Lands. The recommended term of the lease has been determined pursuant to the Bunbury Airport Strategic Plan Direction 2000 – 2010 which requires all leases at the airport to have corresponding expiry dates, terms and conditions. The proposed lease rental is in accordance with the Schedule of Fees and Charges contained within the City’s Adopted Budget for 2010/2011.


Page 69

New Lease Details Commencement: 1 March 2011 Term: Three (3) months Expiry Date: 30 June 2011 with an option of a further term of 5

years. Proposed Rental: $437 per annum + GST Area: 96 square metres Rent Review: The Annual Lease Rental and Administration Fee are

adjusted annually in accordance with Council’s Commercial and Industrial Rate.

Outgoings: Responsibility of the applicant Insurance: Lessee to maintain Public Risk and General Insurance

cover over the premises with Public Liability to be set at $10(M)


Applicant to meet the full cost of document preparation, registration and advertising.

The City’s Executive and the applicant have mutually agreed on the proposed term and conditions of the Lease. Officer Comments The applicant intends to erect an aircraft hangar on the site and as the intended use meets the requirements of Deed of Lease, it is considered that the application should be approved. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications Fees associated with the airport hangar sites are set each year as part of Council’s annual budget. The annual lease rental and administration fees are increased annually in line with Council’s Commercial and Industrial Rate increases. The proposal will have minimal impact on the current budget. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 As per the recommendation with amendments. Option 3 Council do not support the proposal to grant a lease to Ian G Humphryson over Hangar Site 40 at the Bunbury Airport.


Page 70

Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Jones seconded Cr Harrop. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 71

11.17 C’Quel Café/Restaurant (Formerly Cosenza’s Seafood Restaurant) – Proposed Deed of Assignment of Non-Exclusive Licence over Portion Reserve 7891 “Guppy Park” Lot 808 (on Deposited Plan 219169) Victoria Street, Bunbury File Ref: F00101

Applicant/Proponent: Lorraine Helen Brant – Assignor Danjen Corporation Pty Ltd - Assignee

Author: Ron Boardley, Property & Rating Coordinator



Committee Recommendation Council agrees to grant a Deed of Assignment of Non-Exclusive Licence to Danjen Corporation Pty Ltd t/a Danny’s Bunbury (Assignee) over portion of Reserve 7891 “Guppy Park”, Victoria Street, Bunbury in accordance with the terms and conditions of this report, and 1. The intention to assign the Non-Exclusive Licence to be advertised

pursuant to Section 3.58(3) of the Local Government Act 1995, in a local newspaper, give notice on the public notice boards at the City’s public libraries and administration centre and on the City of Bunbury website.

2. Subject to no objecting submissions being received as a result of part 2

above, the Deed of Assignment of Non-Exclusive Licence be finalised. 3. Approval of the Minister for Lands. Summary The Non-Exclusive Licence over the subject land was first entered into in 2002. An application has been received from Lorraine Helen Brant on behalf of C’Quel Café/Restaurant (“Licensee/Assignor”) seeking Council consideration to assign the Non-Exclusive Licence over portion of Reserve 7891 “Guppy Park”, Victoria Street, Bunbury (45m2) and Danjen Corporation Pty Ltd (“Assignee”) for the balance of the term of the Licence (Expires 2013). The Licensee/Assignor has agreed to sell the business referred to as C’Quel Café/Restaurant to the Assignee. A Condition of Sale is to obtain the consent of Council and approval of the Minister for Lands to assign the Non-Exclusive Licence. The Non-Exclusive Licence area is located adjacent to the restaurant. A location plan is attached at Appendix 14.


Page 72

Background The Non-Exclusive Licence over the subject land was first entered into in 2002. The land is held by the City of Bunbury under Management Order 182270 with the power to Licence for a term not exceeding four (4) years. Pursuant to Section 18 of the Land Administration Act 1997, the Office of the Minister for Lands has provided “in principle” approval for the proposal. Current Licence Details Commencement: 1 July 2009 Term: Four (4) years Expiry: 30 June 2013 Rental: $3,974.44 per annum inclusive of GST, subject

to CPI on an annual basis Rent Review: Third Anniversary date Outgoings: Responsibility of the applicant Insurance: The applicant to maintain Public Risk Insurance

and General Insurance cover over the premises with Public Liability to be set at $10 (m)

Permitted Use: Alfresco dining Officer Comments A Deed of Assignment from Dominic Cosenza to Lorraine Helen Brant was approved by Council at its meeting of 24 November 2009 (Decision 224/09). As part of the same decision the Deed of Non-Exclusive Licence was renewed effective 1 July 2009 for a period of 4 years expiring in 2013. Council has previously approved transfer of the Non-Exclusive Licence on 29 June 2010 to Erin Fair Pty Ltd, however the sale of the business and consequently the assignment did not proceed. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications The Applicants will be responsible for all costs associated with advertising and the processing of this application. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 Council refuses the proposal by the Licensee/Assignor to transfer the Assignment to its Non-Exclusive Licence over portion of Reserve 7891 ‘Guppy Park’, Victoria Street, Bunbury.


Page 73

Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Jones seconded Cr Leigh. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 74

11.18 Report on Strategic Activities for the Period 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2010 File Ref: A00836


Author: Jack Dyson, Senior Administration Officer



Committee Recommendation The report on Strategic Activities for the period 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2010 be received. Summary Council adopted the Corporate Strategic Plan 2007 – 2012 on 6 March 2007. A report on strategic activities identified in the Strategic Plan for the period 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2010 is attached in the report circulated under separate cover. The report lists progress on individual goals and strategies linked to the City’s Strategic Plan 2007 – 2012, the Principal Plan of Activities and the Annual Budget. The report reflects the six headings contained in the Strategic Plan, as follows: 1. Improve relationships with state, federal and other local governments

1.1 Place Bunbury and the South West on the Agenda for the Federal Regional Development Council

1.2 Develop a program of meetings with key State and Federal Government representatives.

1.3 Develop a regional taskforce with key players.

1.4 Establish a City Vision Implementation Taskforce.

2. Strengthen the City of Bunbury’s governance and leadership improve Accountability

2.1 Develop a councillor professional development program

2.2 Implement 5 Year Financial Planning

2.3 Operate Council’s land and facilities portfolio as a capital efficient investment

2.4 Improve the level and quality of Customer Service.

3. Deliver major capital projects on time and on budget.

3.1 Develop project management framework

3.2 Have well planned, developed and maintained City Infrastructure.


Page 75

4. Implement City Vision

4.1 Finalise City Vision Strategy

4.2 Implement City Vision Strategy

5. Promote ecological sustainable development of the City’s built and natural environment.

5.1 Protect Bunbury’s Natural, Cultural and Built Heritage

5.2 Promote Sustainability and Improve Council’s Environmental Performance

5.3 Provide a cohesive system of integrated land use planning; and

6. Develop Social Capital

6.1 Celebrate and reinforce a positive sense of community

6.2 Community participation, partnership and support

6.3 Community planning and infrastructure

6.4 Community safety

6.5 Social inclusion and needs

6.6 Information and Lifelong Learning. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 As per the recommendation with amendments. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Major seconded Cr Spencer. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted as the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 76

11.19 South West Sports Centre Master Plan

File Ref: F00175


Author: Cameron Woods, Manager South West Sports Centre



Committee Recommendation 1. Council refer to consideration in the 2011/2012 Budget, $60,000 to

undertake a Feasibility Study and Cost Analysis to enable preparation of a South West Sports Centre Master Plan to provide improvements as the Centre including the following stages:

Stage 1

- Improve access, traffic flows, car parking and external presentation of the centre.

- Revitalise the Aquatic Centre with Aqua Play facilities

- Revitalise the Dry Centre by refurbishing poor performance spaces (squash courts) with multi-use activity spaces and gymnasium.

Stages 2 & 3

- Additional indoor multipurpose courts

- New 25 metre by 33 meter outdoor pool with diving platform and twin slide tower.

Stage 4

- Eco-athletes village and affordable short stay accommodation. 2. Council investigate innovative financing options for Stages 1 to 4. Summary Council was presented at its Briefing session Tuesday 25 January 2011 an overview of the South West Sports Centre Master Plan to improve access and traffic flows and car parking, revitalise the aquatic centre and aqua play facilities, revitalise the sports stadium, provision of new outdoor water facilities and indoor multipurpose courts together with establishment of an Eco Athletes village within the Centre’s complex. The item is referred for Council consideration in its 2011/2012 Budget and Five Year Financial Planning considerations.


Page 77

Background The South West Sports Centre (SWSC) is approaching 10 years old in its current format. Its dry facilities which incorporate the stadium and squash courts are now 32 years old. Whilst the Centre is adequately meeting the sporting and health and fitness needs of its immediate catchment, its ability to cater for new markets is already hindered by the current building design constraints. The Centre will also need to cater for the sporting and health and fitness needs of an increasing population into the future. The Centres relevance as a leisure destination particularly for water pay and family activities is already sub standard as clients expectations and requirements for leisure experiences have become more sophisticated. The teenage leisure maker in not being met by current facilities at the SWSC. The South West Sports Centre Master plan involves implementation through 4 stages (attached at Appendix 15) being: Stage1 will improve access, traffic flows, car parking and the external presentation to the Centre. It will also include revitalisation of the Aquatic Centre with both external and internal Aqua Play facilities and the Dry Centre by refurbishing poor performance spaces (squash courts) with multi-use activity spaces and an extension to the gymnasium. Stages 2 and 3 will involve the creation of additional indoor multi-purpose courts (subject to the inclusion of the Bunbury Netball Association and Bunbury Basketball Association) a new 25m x 33m outdoor pool with diving platform, twin slide towers and attractions such as a new ‘Flow Rider’. Stage 4 will include a new Eco Athletes village and affordable short stay accommodation. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications It is proposed $60,000 be allocated for Council consideration in the 2011/2012 Budget to undertake a Feasibility Study and Cost Analysis to enable preparation of a South West Sports Centre Master Plan. Once the Feasibility Study and Cost Analysis has been finalised, the project will be advanced to a stage where it would be eligible for application for Government Funding and inclusion in Council’s 5 Year Financial Plan. Options Option 1 As per the Recommendation.


Page 78

Option 2 As per the Recommendation with amendments Option 3 Council do not support referring $60,000 to the 2011/2012 Budget to undertake a Feasibility Study and Costs Analysis to enable the preparation of a South West Sports Centre Master Plan. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 Cr Jones left the Chambers at 9.14pm and was not present for the vote on this item. The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Major seconded Cr Craddock. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 79

11.20 Financial Statements – December 2010

File Ref: A02838


Author: David Harrison, Acting City Accountant



Committee Recommendation The Financial Statements for the periods ending 31 December 2010 be received.

Summary/Background Financial Statements for the period ending 31 December 2010 have been circulated to members under separate cover. The statements include the following: - Income Statement - Balance Sheet - Statement of Changes in Equity - Statement of Financial Activity - Statement of General Purpose Income - Statement of Rating Information The Financial Statements also contain a number of explanatory notes covering the following topics: - Significant Accounting Policies - Description of Programmes - Net Current Assets - Trade and Other Receivables - Other Current Assets - Trade and Other Payables - Provisions - Trust Funds - Capital Expenditure - Key Operating Expenditure & Income - Loan Funds - Reserve Funds - Bunbury Timber Jetty - Investment Funds Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 Cr Jones returned to the Chambers at 9.16pm and was present to vote on the remainder of the items. The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Major seconded Cr Craddock.


Page 80

The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 81

11.21 Advisory Committee Minutes to be Noted at the Council Committee Meeting

File Ref: Various


Author: Various

Executive: Various

Attachments: Under Separate Cover

Committee Recommendation The following Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes listed in the report circulated under separate cover, are noted for information only:

1. Title: Minutes – Bunbury Setagaya Sister Cities Committee (17/11/2010)

Author: Jenni Brown, Project Officer File: A00443 2. Title: Minutes – Bunbury Environment & Sustainability Advisory

Committee (02/12/2010) Author: Ben Deeley, Environmental Officer File: A02445 3. Title: Minutes – Community Access Committee (15/10/2010 &

10/12/2010) Author: Felicity Anderson, Manager Economic & Social Development File: A01145-05 4. Title: Minutes – Youth Advisory Council (03/11/2010 & 01/12/2010) Author: Andrew Rigg, Youth Development Officer File: A00773-14 Committee Members to refer to the report circulated under separate cover. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The recommendation as printed was moved Cr Harrop seconded Cr Major. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 82

11.22 Tender for Consultancy Engineering Service – Bunbury Timber Jetty (RFT 2010 2011-22) File Ref: A04258




Attachments: Confidential Report

Committee Recommendation With respect to Request for Quote 2010 2011-22 for the preparation of detailed plans, specification and tender documents for the deconstruction / restoration of the Bunbury Timber Jetty, the Council resolves to: 1. Accept the tendered lump sum fee submitted by MP Rogers &

Associates; and 2. Record details of the successful tender in the City of Bunbury Tender

Register. Summary The City of Bunbury has advertised for suitably experienced engineering consultants to prepare detailed plans, specification and tender documents for the deconstruction / restoration of the Bunbury Timber Jetty (the jetty). Background Request for Quote (FRQ) documents were prepared and advertised in The West Australian on 24 November 2010 and in the South Western Times on 25 November 2010. The RFQ closed at 3:00pm on Thursday, 9 December 2010. The City's Contract Coordinator, Building Construction Officer and Customer Service Officer opened the tender box. A total of 20 interested companies requested and received the tender documents. By closing, seven (7) tenders had been received, as follows;

1. Cardno WA Pty Ltd: 2-8, 89 Duchess Street, Busselton WA 6280

2. MP Rogers: Unit 2/133 Main Street, Osborne Park WA 6017

3. ARUP: 11 Harvest Terrace, West Perth WA 6005

4. Lowes Churchill & Associates: PO Box 712 Bunbury WA 6230

5. McGarry & Associates 85B Victoria Street, Bunbury WA 6230 – NON COMPLIANT QUOTE

6. GHD: 10 Victoria Street, Bunbury WA 6230 – LATE QUOTE


Page 83

7. AECOM: 3 Forrest Place, Perth WA 6000 – LATE QUOTE An evaluation panel comprising the City Engineer, Coordinator Program & Budget and Contract Coordinator, assessed the submissions on 14, 15 and 16 December 2010. The tenders were evaluated using the following criteria;

- Compliance

- Qualitative

- Price Compliance Criteria The following compliance criteria were used to assess the tender:

a) Compliance with Specifications contained in the request yes/no

b) Compliance with Personnel requirements yes/no

c) Compliance with Conditions of RFQ response yes/no

d) Compliance with Resources to meet delivery dates yes/no

e) Compliance and completion of the Price Schedule yes/no Qualitative Criteria The following Qualitative Criteria were used to assess the tender:

Weighting

a) Relevant experience with similar projects 5

b) Understanding of the project issues and scope. 5

c) Quality of the submission. 2

Price Evaluation of the tender prices (and ranking) has been assessed but because the results are "commercial in confidence" details are listed in a Confidential Report that has been circulated to members under separate cover. Officer Comments The project plan was developed to address the specific objectives of Council decision 192/10. The project plan was endorsed by the City’s Executive on 29 November 2010. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications Funding for this project is to be sourced from: State Government contribution $3,500,000.00 Sale of land $3,500,000.00 Bunbury Timber Jetty Reserve (as at 4 November 2010) $ 78,200.00


Page 84

Strategic Relevance Acceptance of the recommendation listed in this report is consistent with the City of Bunbury Strategic Plan 2007-2012, in continuing to maintain and service its assets and infrastructure. Community Consultation This project has been subject to many years community comment. Community consultation was not carried out during the RFQ process. Councillor/Officer Consultation The project plan was developed to address the specific objectives of Council decision 192/10. The project plan was endorsed by the City’s Executive on 29 November 2010. Life-cycle Maintenance Costs (Capital Works Projects Only) The deconstruction of the existing jetty will reduce ongoing costs for the floating boom, service fees to the Bunbury Timber Jetty Environment and Conservation Society (BTJECS) and costs incurred by the Bunbury Port Authority for the collection of stray timbers in Koombana Bay. The restoration of part of the existing jetty or construction of a new structure will incur ongoing maintenance costs that are yet to be determined. Economic, Social, Environmental and Heritage Issues The project plan recognises the importance of the jetty to the Bunbury community and requires the consultant to liaise closely with the BTJECS, the Bunbury Port Authority, the Department of Transport and the City. The jetty is recognised as a heritage place by the Heritage Council Western Australia. Liaison with HCWA has been identified as part of the project plan. Council Policy Compliance The tender process complies with the requirements of the City's Work Procedure WP4.12 "Tender Procedure and Associated Legislation." Council's CD2 "Purchasing - Local Preference Policy" was applied during evaluation of the tender, but has not affected the outcome. Legislative Compliance Advertising and processing of tenders was conducted in accordance with the Local Government (Function and General) Regulations 1996, Part 4 "Tenders for Providing Goods or Services".


Page 85

Delegation of Authority The total cost of this contract exceeds $100,000. Therefore it has been dealt with in accordance with Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (Part 4 - Tenders for Providing Goods or Services). Relevant Precedents Council has dealt with all tenders previously called. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 Reject all tenders. Comment: This is NOT supported by the Tender Evaluation Panel. Outcome – Council Committee 1 February 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Craddock seconded Cr Spencer. Pursuant to City of Bunbury Standing Order 15.10, Cr Harrop moved, Cr Leigh seconded "The meeting exclude members of the public to permit Confidential Business (as defined by the Local Government Act 1995 S5.23(2)(c) to be discussed.” The motion was put to the vote and CARRIED. The members of the public and press were asked to leave the chambers. After much discussion, Cr Steck moved Cr Major seconded the procedural motion 15.4 of the City of Bunbury’s Standing Orders that the motion “now be put”. The Mayor put the procedural motion to the vote and was CARRIED – 9 votes “for” / 3 votes “against”. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter. Cr Leigh moved Cr Steck that the meeting be reopened to the press and public. The motion was put to the vote and CARRIED.


Page 86

11.23 Motion on Notice – Request that the Land Rationalisation Committee to Allow Development on Lots 605 and 688 (Withers Reserves 34727 & 39609)

File Ref: A00217-02

Applicant/Proponent: Councillor Wayne Major

Author: Councillor Wayne Major

Executive: If adopted by Council refer to: Ken Weary, Executive Manager Corporate Services


Committee Recommendation It is requested that the Land Rationalisation Committee accelerate planning for the development of Lots 605 Hester Place and 688 Poinciana Place Withers (Withers Reserves 34727 & 39609) as a matter of priority in consultation with the community at the forthcoming Community workshop and Homes West and the Catholic Church. Cr Major submitted the following motion for the Council Committee Meeting on 1 February 2011: “It is requested that the Land Rationalisation Committee prioritise the development of Lots 605 Hester Place and 688 Poinciana Place Withers (Withers Reserves 34727 & 39609).” Comments - Cr Major In support of his motion, Cr Major states that, "These open spaces whilst great for the aesthetics of the area, act as ‘getaway’ points for those people who engage in unlawful activity. It is very difficult for the Police and other law enforcement to pursue. It would also assist the Catholic Church and the Ministry of Housing (Homes West) who own the land lots surrounding these Reserves with a possible intended development date of this land. There is a need to design out some of these ‘ratlines’ that run through this area. If it is to remain as such, the crime rate and acts of vandalism will remain constant. This has been the case for 15 years or more. It is the opinion of the author that the Withers area must be allowed to grown old gracefully as of other suburbs of Bunbury. It has become very difficult with a constantly transit population in and out of public housing.” Executive Comments Please refer to attached Appendix 18 for the Reserves that Cr Major is referring to.


Page 87

Cr Major’s Motion It is requested that the Land Rationalisation Committee prioritise the development of Lots 605 Hester Place and 688 Poinciana Place Withers (Withers Reserves 34727 & 39609). Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The Mayor asked if there were any members of the public that wished to address the Committee. Mr Glen Willetts, 40 Wilkerson Way, Withers, addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the motion on notice. The following is a summary of his submission. He advised that he is the convenor for the Withers Action Group (WAG) and wished to inform Council that the WAG acting on behalf of the Withers residents with to support Cr Majors motion. Mr Willetts proceeded with a power point presentation pointing out the areas of concern. He advised that for more than 15 years these areas have been degrade due to the lack of maintenance and used for unlawful activities and escape routes. Mr Willets has done consultation with surrounding residents and they all agree that these lots being established as residential and parks would reduce unlawful activities and still retain the native amenity of the area. He also asked if some clean up work could be started straight away in preparation for the redevelopment to residential and park areas of these lots. Ms Sue Grace 36 Wilkerson Way, Withers, addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the motion on notice. The following is a summary of her submission. Ms Grace advised that she is the Secretary of the WAG and supports the motion on notice. She advised that she is a single mother and has lived in this area for 10 years and has witnessed antisocial behaviour. She further advised that hot summer evening encourage youth to be out later and the Police cannot access the areas that the people go through. Ms Grace asked if these lots could be made available to Homes West or first homebuyers. The Motion on Notice was moved Cr Major seconded Cr Craddock with the following amendments to become the motion under discussion: Add: After “Land Rationalisation Committee” the words “accelerate planning for”

and after “(Withers Reserves 34727 & 39609) add “as a matter of priority in consultation with the community at the forthcoming Community workshop and Homes West and the Catholic Church”.

The Mayor put the motion (as amended) to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 88

11.24 Motion on Notice – Modifications and Realignment of Moriarity Park to Help Control Anti-Social Behaviour

File Ref: A00217-02

Applicant/Proponent: Councillor Wayne Major

Author: Councillor Wayne Major

Executive: If adopted by Council refer to: Michael Scott, Executive Manager City Services

Attachments: Nil

Committee Recommendation That this Council investigate immediately the costs to; 1. Modify and realign the play equipment at Moriarty Park to allow a better

line of sight to help control anti social behaviour;

2. Redesign the path way through the park away from the side fences;

3. Move the park benches from the side fences to a more central position where they can be more visible to all surrounding residents; and

4. Install lighting that will stand abuse over a sustained period and a camera that is attached to a CCTV system (including the option of a wireless CCTV system). The camera will have to be placed in an un-obstructive position to be effective.

Cr Major submitted the following motion for the Council Committee Meeting on 1 February 2011: "That this Council 1. Modify and realign the play equipment at Moriarty Park to allow a better line

of sight to help control anti social behaviour;


3. Move the park benches from the side fences to a more central position where they can be more visible to all surrounding residence; and

4. Install lighting that will stand abuse over a sustained period and a camera that is attached to a CCTV system. The camera will have to be placed in an un-obstructive position to be effective.”

Comments - Cr Major In support of his motion, Cr Major states that, “Due to a lot of youth activity, drug transaction the constant harassing of those people who live close to the park, get rocks thrown on roofs, break-ins of cars, house intrusions and small time crime the park has become a meeting place to conduct the business of dividing up the spoils and planning the next job. The activity in this park is quite high. It was suggested by one resident to decommission the park and sell off the land, however the park is used for what it was intended, children to play in the park with


Page 89

their mums and dads. Again it is a small group that drink, fight and harass people day and night. It is the night activity that is of most concern.” Executive Comments Nil Cr Major’s Motion That this Council 1. Modify and realign the play equipment at Moriarty Park to allow a better line

of sight to help control anti social behaviour;


3. Move the park benches from the side fences to a more central position where they can be more visible to all surrounding residents; and

4. Install lighting that will stand abuse over a sustained period and a camera that is attached to a CCTV system. The camera will have to be placed in an un-obstructive position to be effective.

Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The Mayor asked if there were any members of the public that wished to address the Committee. Ms Gloria Kitson, 2/3 Hester Place, Withers, addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the motion on notice. The following is a summary of her submission. Ms Kitson advised that she lives in a Homes West house adjoining Moriarty Park where children throw stones, and rubbish at her house and fence which has been ongoing since 2005. Children also move through the complex and steal plants, break into cars and throw stones at cars, but when approached they run away. She advised that one night she heard loud noises on her roof and when investigated they discovered young kids had climbed onto the fence and from there onto her roof. The same children also grabbed her neighbour and dragged her backwards damaging her shoulder. Most of the residents in the complex are elderly. Ms Kitson had requested her fence be heightened but Homes West advised this was not possible and it would also take 4 years to get moved into another Homes West house. Mr Luke Zaborskis, 29 Jacaranda Crescent, Withers, addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the motion on notice. The following is a summary of his submission. Mr Zaborskis advised that when he first moved into his house the park resembled a rubbish dump so he took it upon himself to spend 6 hours a week cleaning it up. Since starting the clean up his house has been attacked and he has been verbally abused. He has had 6 VROs granted and been to court several times to get justice. His 80 year old female friend was robbed by 4 young men at 9am in the morning when visiting Mr Zaborskis. The night before Australia Day 10 young men (including the same 4) targeted white newcomers by stoning their houses. Mr Zaborskis advised he at witnessed both drug taking and violence in Moriarty Park.


Page 90

The Motion on Notice (as printed) was moved Cr Major seconded Cr Steele to become the motion under discussion. The mover and the seconder were asked if they would agree to amend the motion as follows; Add: After “That this Council” the words “investigate immediately the costs to” Add: Point 4: After “CCTV system” the words “including the option of a wireless

CCTV system” The mover and seconder agreed to the amendment. The Mayor put the motion (as amended) to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 91

11.25 Motion on Notice – Bike Path Funding Review

File Ref: A00217-02

Applicant/Proponent: Councillor Noel Whittle

Author: Councillor Noel Whittle

Executive: If adopted by Council refer to: Michael Scott, Executive Manager City Services

Attachments: Nil

Committee Recommendation Council reiterates that $120,000 allocated in the current 5 Year Financial Plan is for detailed design of a Principal Shared Path and overpasses connecting East Bunbury via the most direct route in the vicinity of the Eelup Roundabout and Australind Bypass Road, to Moorlands, Glen Iris, Vittoria Heights, the future residential node at the Sanctuary and the southwest corner of Eaton. Cr Whittle submitted the following motion for the Council Committee Meeting on 1 February 2011: "Council reiterates that $120,000 allocated in the current 5 Year Financial Plan is for detailed design of a Principal Shared Path and overpasses connecting East Bunbury via the most direct route in the vicinity of the Eelup Roundabout and Australind Bypass Road, to Moorlands, Glen Iris, Vittoria Heights, the future residential node at the Sanctuary and the southwest corner of Eaton." Comments - Cr Whittle In support of his motion, Cr Whittle states that, "Since 2008 I have been promoting to Council the need for a new shared path pedestrian and bicycle route to connect East Bunbury to the localities of the soon to be urbanised Moorlands, the existing suburbs of Glen Iris and Vittoria Heights, the future residential node at the Sanctuary and the southwest corner of the major urban base of Eaton. Logically this route is provided alongside Australind Bypass road, where no pedestrian or cycle infrastructure currently exists. My submission to the 2009/2010 - 2013/2014 5 Year Financial Plan contained the following description;

“This PSP (Principal Shared Path) would follow the alignment of the Australind Bypass and Old Coast Road.”

As a result of my submission $120,000 was allocated in the 5 Year Financial Plan to proceed with detailed design in order to develop the project to a level of detail ready for submission for Royalties for Regions funding as a Regional Project. City documents now indicate that rather than progress the new route along the Australind Bypass Road the City is progressing with an upgrade of the existing shared path along Estuary Drive. My intent of my budget submission was not to


Page 92

allocate funding to an upgrade of the Estuary Drive shared path, but to create an alternative route. The intention of my lobbying in the budget processes was to provide pedestrian and bicycle amenity to residential areas currently un-serviced as they are isolated by the Eelup Roundabout, one of the states worst accident black spots, and isolated by Australind Bypass road which is reportedly almost at maximum vehicle capacity. This proposed pedestrian and bicycle link would provide a viable alternative transport option to the motor vehicle, especially as fuel prices climb and climate change is more and more evident. In terms of funding, this pedestrian and bicycle link is also a major regional project and will be eligible for funding grants but only if detailed design is completed. Without a detailed design we will have no Royalties for Regions Funding, no project, and no pedestrian and bicycle access to those residential areas. In hindsight, it should have been provided years ago. And, due to the complexity and scale of the project it will never get built if Bunbury City Council does not direct its resources explicitly." Executive Comments The route outlined in the Bike Plan presented to the Council has not changed. The map of the intended route indicates that the intention of Cr Whittle's motion remains in place. Please refer to the Bike Plan for this detail. Cr Whittle’s Motion Council reiterates that $120,000 allocated in the current 5 Year Financial Plan is for detailed design of a Principal Shared Path and overpasses connecting East Bunbury via the most direct route in the vicinity of the Eelup Roundabout and Australind Bypass Road, to Moorlands, Glen Iris, Vittoria Heights, the future residential node at the Sanctuary and the southwest corner of Eaton. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 February 2011 The Notice on Motion (as printed) was moved Cr Whittle seconded Cr Steele to become the motion under discussion. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s Recommendation on the matter.


Page 93

11.26 Items to be Noted (No Discussion) at the Council Committee Meeting

File Ref: Various


Author: Various

Executive: Various

Attachments: Under Separate Cover

Committee Recommendation The following items listed in the report circulated under separate cover, are noted for information only: 1. Title: Development Approvals for November and December 2010

Author: Gary Fitzgerald, Manager Development Services File: A00088-02

2. Title: Schedule of Accounts Paid for the Period 1 to 31 December 2010

Author: David Ransom, City Accountant File: A00083

Committee Members to refer to the report circulated under separate cover. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting – 1 February 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Jones seconded Cr Leigh. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.


Page 94

12. Motions on Notice 12.1 Motion on Notice – Additional Funding Required For Bunbury-Setagaya Sister

Cities Committee

File Ref: A00217

Applicant/Proponent: Councillor Alfred Leigh

Author: Councillor Alfred Leigh

Executive: If adopted by Council refer to: Ken Weary, Executive Manager Corporate Services

Attachments: Nil

Cr Leigh submitted the following motion for the Council Meeting on 8 February 2011: "That the Bunbury-Setagaya Sister Cities Committee be allocated $19,094 during the Budget of February / March 2011." Comments - Cr Leigh In support of his motion, Cr Leigh states that, "There is a shortfall of $10,094 for the financial year 2010-2011 (this is to deliver all the planned activities by the Committee and is the difference in the funds originally requested from Council). There has been no identification in the budget or plans to provide for wages or expenses for the 2011 incoming and outgoing visits. It is suggested that if the committee wishes to continue these activities this financial year which I am advised they do, the approx 50% of the expenditure for the 2010 visits needs be sought to provide wages. This is to ensure the continuity of the programs. The value of this is $9,000. In total it is suggested that to meet what the committee requests $19,094 requires be sought from Council to complete the committee activities for 2010/11 1. There is a shortfall of $10,094 for the financial year 2010-2011 being for the

Committee activities (current); 2. There is a shortfall of $9,000 to allocate resources to progress the incoming

and outgoing visits for 2011 (approx 50% of wage expenditure required); and 3. If any financial statements or information is required Ms Felicity Anderson

shall provide the same Note: Should the above funding of $19,094 not be approved by full Council the

activities of the Setagaya Committee will be unable to be delivered. Executive Comments An additional $10,437 was provided in the December 2010 Budget review. This increased the total 2010/2011 budget to $46,057. Cr Leigh’s Motion That the Bunbury-Setagaya Sister Cities Committee be allocated $19,094 during the Budget of February / March 2011.


Page 95

12.2 Motion on Notice – Proposal of the Future Reduction of Council

Representatives

File Ref: A00217

Applicant/Proponent: Councillor Brendan Kelly

Author: Councillor Brendan Kelly

Executive: If adopted by Council refer to: Geoff Klem, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: Nil

Cr Brendan Kelly submitted the following motion for the Council Meeting on 8 February 2011: "1. In accordance with Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996,

Regulation 10(3), Council changes its previously held position “If there is no amalgamation in the Greater Bunbury Region, then the City of Bunbury would not agree to reduce the current number of elected members”, as stated in the ‘City of Bunbury Local Government Reform Submission - September 2009’, and endorsed by Bunbury City Council Decision 200/09.

2. That a request, seeking to reduce the number of elected members at the City

of Bunbury from thirteen to nine be prepared and forwarded to the Department of Local Government, for consideration by the Local Government Advisory Board and a decision by the Minister for Local Government."

Preamble As part of the Western Australian Local Government reform process, the Minister for Local Government has asked Councils to consider reducing the number of elected members to between six and nine. Bunbury City Council Decision 200/09, which endorsed the ‘City of Bunbury Local Government Reform Submission - September 2009’, included the following paragraph:

“If there is no amalgamation in the Greater Bunbury Region, then the City of Bunbury would not agree to reduce the current number of elected members”.

This Motion on Notice, firstly proposes to change that part of Decision 200/09 that “…would not agree to reduce the current number of elected members”, and secondly requests approval from the Minister for Local Government to reduce the number of elected members at the City from thirteen to nine. Following advice from the Department of Local Government (Jenny Law to Cr Brendan Kelly, 18 January 2011) it is understood the following must occur:

- The City of Bunbury resolves by an absolute majority to reduce the current number of elected members (from thirteen to nine).

- A request, seeking to reduce the number of elected members, is forwarded to the Department of Local Government for consideration by the Local Government Advisory Board. It should be noted that:

1. Any such request would need to be made by 31 March 2011 to meet timelines for the local government elections in October 2011.


Page 96

2. If the Minister agrees to the reduction in elected members then this would likely cause a general spill of Councillors at the October election (although this is unlikely to include the position of Mayor.

3. The current Council is entitled to forward its view to the Minister on all matters involving the reduction of elected members, including any proposal for a general spill or otherwise.

- The Local Government Advisory Board considers the request and forwards a recommendation to the Minister for Local Government for his determination.

Comments - Cr Kelly In support of his motion, Cr Kelly states that, "From the 19th century of Town Trusts and Road Boards, Local Government in Western Australia has travelled a great distance to where City and Shire Councils now have much wider powers and responsibilities. Although Councils still play a major role in the fundamentals of “roads, rates and rubbish”, their domain now includes complicated town planning processes and a diverse range of activities from libraries, tourist promotion and recreation to dog control, parking and cemeteries. In all respects, modern Councils - elected representatives and professional staff - are expected to deliver a wider range of services, whilst keeping abreast of changing community needs, in a world of advanced communications. At the same time, it is true to say that local government administrative structures and boundaries in Western Australia have not changed or adapted sufficiently to meet contemporary growth and as a result reform is now considered necessary, indeed, highly desirable. Put simply, like any business, Councils must review and improve their processes - both in advocacy and operations - to ensure that they remain relevant to today’s communities. To instigate the current reform process, the State Government has suggested initiatives to:

- Amalgamate local government areas, where possible and appropriate;

- Reduce the number of Councillors to no more than six to nine per Council;

- Encourage a greater focus on regional long-term planning; and

- Strengthen the ability of local governments to deliver services to their communities.

With respect to the intent of this Motion, to reduce the number of elected members at the City of Bunbury, it is firstly important to understand that the trend towards smaller Councils does not automatically equate to a reduction in representation. The number of Councillors per head of population is not a true indication of the representative role that Councillors play in Local Government. Some elected representatives will always work harder than others and provide easier access to residents and ratepayers in order to advocate on their behalf. It should be added that representation depends on participation of the community and their willingness to contact elected members on the wide range of issues governed by local government. It is only a small percentage of the population that finds the need to contact Councillors, thus the number of electors per Councillor does not truly reflect the work that a Councillor may undertake in fulfilling his or her role.


Page 97

As an illustration of how Bunbury ranks with other Western Australian local government authorities, it is worthwhile comparing the ratio of elected representatives per head of population in different City Councils, Table 1. Table 1: Elected Representatives per head of Population

CITY Rockingham Wanneroo Canning Kalamunda Mandurah Bunbury

RATIO 1:9600 1:8950 1:7720 1:5340 1:4980 1:2620

It should be noted that if Bunbury was to reduce its elected members from thirteen to nine, the ratio would become 1: 3780, remaining lower than all the comparable cities. The decision to reduce the number of elected members is about responsible leadership, tighter governance and better decision making. It is not about who might miss out on being elected in 2011, or any subsequent election. It is true to say that Council aspirants in Bunbury will have to better prove themselves to achieve the number of votes they need to gain one of nine positions. However, this in itself is a very good reason to reduce the number of elected representatives. From the beginning, a person wanting to advocate on behalf of their community will have to demonstrate a higher level of commitment and work harder to earn election. It follows that the calibre of Councillors elected would improve and the community would be better served. It is my view, on balance, that a benchmark number of elected representatives for a Council like the City of Bunbury is nine. Fewer Councillors will ultimately promote and encourage:

- Better quality of representation

- Improved flexibility and responsiveness in decision making

- Keener concentration on the changes and issues facing Bunbury

- Greater scrutiny by citizens. I recommend that Councillors support the Motion." Executive Comments For Council’s consideration. Cr Kelly’s Motion 1. In accordance with Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996,

Regulation 10(3), Council changes its previously held position “If there is no amalgamation in the Greater Bunbury Region, then the City of Bunbury would not agree to reduce the current number of elected members”, as stated in the ‘City of Bunbury Local Government Reform Submission - September 2009’, and endorsed by Bunbury City Council Decision 200/09.

2. That a request, seeking to reduce the number of elected members at the City

of Bunbury from thirteen to nine be prepared and forwarded to the Department of Local Government, for consideration by the Local Government Advisory Board and a decision by the Minister for Local Government.

NOTE: An “Absolute Majority Vote” will be required at the Council meeting to point 2 above.


Page 98

13. Urgent Business (With Approval of Majority of Members Present as Permitted Under Standing Order 5.1.13)

14. Items to be Noted or Endorsed

There are no new items for noting.


Page 99

15. Confidential Business as Stipulated Under Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995

NOTE: Pursuant to Standing Order 15.10, the following Procedural Motion needs to be moved if there are items to be discussed under this heading: "The meeting exclude members of the public to permit Confidential Business (as defined by the Local Government Act 1995) to be discussed."

15.1 Endorsement of Contract of Employment of the New Chief Executive Officer under the Provisions of Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995

File Ref: A04131


Author: Jack Dyson, Senior Administration Officer

Executive: Geoff Klem, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: Confidential Report Under Separate Cover

A confidential report and recommendation has been circulated to members under separate cover.

16. Close of Meeting

Council Agenda 8 February 2011 - City of Bunbury and Minutes...8 February 2011 Agenda - Bunbury City Council Page 3 existing road alignment, The works are expected to recommence in

Documents