Minutes of Ordinary Council - 13 February 2014

“That Council adopt the recommendations contained in the Council Officers and Committee Reports on pages 1 – 94 of the Agenda with the exception of:

9.1.1	Proposed Cidery/Brewery at Lot 9358 (614) Middlesex Road, Middlesex
9.1.5	Consideration of Lot Access Formalisation Options at Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 Sparsa Close, Crowea
9.4.1	The Keeping of More Than Two Cats 23 O'Connor Street Manjimup
9.5.3	Access Issue for Site 53, Windy Harbour Resulting From Decision of Council on 23 January 2014 relating to Site 54, Windy Harbour
9.5.4	Outcome of Final Consultation and Proposal for Authority to Progress Actions to Create Additional Windy Harbour Infill Leasehold Sites
9.5.7	Budget Review Adjustments - December 2013

CARRIED: 11/0

Items passed by En Bloc Resolution

9.1.2 Retrospective Planning Application for Outbuilding on Vacant Lot 19 Norna Drive, Crowea

9.1.3 Proposed Outbuilding on Vacant Lot 126 (10) Meerup Street, Northcliffe

9.1.4 Proposed Overheight Outbuilding on Vacant Lot 3 (21) Zamia Street, Northcliffe

9.3.1 Review of Council Policies - 5.1.1 Sewerage Connections - Pensioners and 5.1.2 Sewerage Connections - Request for Loans

9.4.2 Emergency Services Levy Capital Grant Walpole SES New Building and Site Works

9.5.1 Manjimup Timber and Heritage Park Cafe - New Lease to Vista Entertainment Pty Ltd

9.5.2 Windy Harbour Lease Transfer - Site 265

9.5.5 Council Financial Payments December 2013

9.5.6 Monthly Financial Activity Statement - December 2013

9.6.1 July - August and September - December 2013 Quarterly Report - Works and Services

9.7.1 Closure of Road Reserves: Ralston Road, Wetherall Road and Jones Road

9.7.2 Contract Extension for Road Side Rubbish and Bulk Waste Bin Collection

9.13.1 Review of the Draft South West Regional Blueprint

9.14.1 Review of Policy 8.1.2 Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Systems Acceptable Use Policy

9.15.1 Minutes of the Airfield Management Committee Meeting held 11 December 2013

ATTACHMENT

9.1.2 Retrospective Planning Application for Outbuilding on Vacant Lot 19 Norna Drive, Crowea

PROPONENT	MF Klein
OWNER	MF Klein
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	Lot 19 Norna Drive, Crowea
WARD:	Coastal
ZONE:	Rural Residential (RR21)
DIVISION:	Statutory Services
FILE REFERENCE:	P57634
LEGISLATION:	Planning & Development Act 2005
AUTHOR:	Jason Giadresco
DATE OF REPORT:	31 January 2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

Council is requested to consider an application for retrospective planning approval of an outbuilding on vacant Lot 19 Norna Drive, Crowea. The lot is 2 hectares in size and is located within the Rural Residential zoned D’Entrecasteaux Springs Estate. Location, site and development plans are attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.2(1)

The proposal will be assessed against clause 5.12.8 Outbuildings of Shire of Manjimup Local Planning Scheme No.4 and the D’Entrecasteaux Springs Estate Structure Plan.

This matter requires Council determination as:

1. the application is retrospective in nature: and

2. an outbuilding on a vacant Rural Residential lot is proposed which requires discretionary Council approval.

PUBLIC Consultation Undertaken:

Nil.

COMMENT (Includes Options):

Proposal Details

The application asks for the retrospective approval for a 6m by 4m (24m²) timber outbuilding constructed prior to June 2012. The wall height of the unapproved outbuilding is 2.2m and 2.7m at the ridge and is to be used for storage purposes by the proponent. The materials used in the construction are sprucewood with green tin roofing. A photograph of the unapproved outbuilding on site is attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.2(2)

Evidence of Habitation on Lot 19

A site visit conducted by Shire staff conducted 29 November 2013 determined that the outbuilding and its immediate surrounds appear to have been used for habitation. The proponent was contacted immediately in regards to the visit, advising that further approvals from the Shire would be required to make the outbuilding habitable. A written response to the Shire within a two week period, ending 16 December 2013 was not provided by the proponent. Photographs taken during the site visit are attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.2(3)

D’Entrecasteaux Springs Estate Structure Plan

The unapproved outbuilding is located within the prescribed building envelope for Lot 19 as designated by the D’Entrecasteaux Springs Estate Structure Plan. The location of the unapproved outbuilding on the Structure Plan is attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.2(4)

Retrospective Building Licence

It should be noted that a retrospective Class 10 building licence (outbuilding) has been granted but not issued to the proponent for the outbuilding. The issuing of the building licence is reliant on Council issuing a planning approval.

To guide Council on the exercise of discretionary approval for an outbuilding on a vacant lot, the following matters are recommended to be considered:

1. Impact on development potential of site;

2. Compliance with relevant provisions of the Scheme and Policy; and

3. Impact on residential amenity and streetscape

Impact on Development Potential of the Site

The proposed outbuilding is located on the prescribed building envelope, being sited at its rear. Should a dwelling be constructed on Lot 19 in the future, the siting of the outbuilding is within design requirements. The siting of the proposed outbuilding on the property will allow for a dwelling to be constructed on site without compromising the ability to adequately site it on the lot.

Scheme Requirements

Clause 5.12.8 Outbuildings

Clause 5.12.8 (ii) of the Scheme states that planning approval will not be granted for any outbuildings in any Rural Residential lot that does not contain a residence unless otherwise approved by the local government. The intent of the clause is to place a general presumption against outbuildings on vacant lots within rural residential areas.

Clause 5.12.8 (iii) of the Scheme states the design and construction of outbuildings should be in accordance with the provisions of Local Planning Policy 6.1.1 Domestic Outbuildings. An assessment of the outbuilding is attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.2(5)

Given the variation to the Policy, the outbuilding will be assessed against the performance criteria which is as follows;

“Outbuildings that do not detract from the streetscape or the visual amenity of residents or neighbouring properties.”

Impact on the residential amenity and streetscape of Norna Drive

Shire staff are of the opinion that the development meets the performance criteria as outlined at clause 3.1 of the Policy. The outbuilding is in the building envelope and not overly conspicuous when viewed from Norna Drive. The neighbouring dwelling on Lot 18 Norna Drive is located over 120m from the site of the outbuilding. The dwelling on Lot 13 is located 180m from the outbuilding. These distances to the dwelling of the adjoining properties have the effect of reducing its visual impact. No habitable buildings exist on adjoining lots 9001 and 10291. The impact on visual amenity of the local residents and the streetscape is surmised to be minimal by Shire staff. To demonstrate this minimal impact, photographs of the outbuilding from the front boundary of Lot 19 are attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.2(6)

Habitation of the Outbuilding

Given the evidence of habitation on site, the proponent will be directed to obtain the relevant Shire approvals should they wish to continue habitation of the outbuilding. Until these approvals have been granted, no further habitation of the outbuilding is permitted. This will be conditioned on any retrospective approval granted by Council.

Conclusion

Given the consideration above, Shire staff are of the opinion that the outbuilding can continue to be sited as indicated on the plan. This recommendation is on the grounds that the outbuilding’s approval will not adversely affect the residential amenity of the locality given that the proposal has minimal impact on the streetscape and is sited sufficiently from neighbouring dwellings. The habitation of the outbuilding can be further approved provided the proponent complies with the relevant sections of the Heath Act 1911 (as Amended) and the Building Code of Australia 2012.

Given the above, Shire staff recommend Council exercise its discretion and grant conditional retrospective planning approval to allow the outbuilding on vacant Lot 19, Norna Drive, Northcliffe.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

Planning & Development Act 2005 and Shire of Manjimup Local Planning Scheme No.4.

Policy / Strategic Implications:

Compliance with Shire of Manjimup Local Planning Policy 6.1.1 Domestic Outbuildings as discussed above.

Financial Implications:

Nil.

Sustainability:

Environmental: This retrospective application is not expected to present any environmental issues.

Economic: Nil.

Social: The retrospective approval of this outbuilding is expected to have minimal impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: SIMPLE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with clause 8.6 and Part 10 of Shire of Manjimup Local Planning Scheme No.4 grants retrospective planning approval to the outbuilding on vacant Lot 19 Norna Drive, Crowea (Application TP164/2013) in accordance with the submitted plans as attached at 9.1.2(1) and subject to the following conditions:

a) The development hereby approved must be carried out generally in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted with the application and these shall not be altered and/or modified without the prior knowledge and written consent of local government. (Planning and Sustainability); and

b) Human habitation of the approved outbuilding is not permitted unless further approval issued by the Shire of Manjimup under the Health Act, 1911 (as Amended) and Building Code of Australia 2012 is sought and obtained before its use for that purpose is commenced. (Planning and Sustainability)

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Omodei, P Seconded: Bavich, D

25910

ADOPTED BY EN BLOC RESOLUTION: 11/0

ATTACHMENT

9.1.3 Proposed Outbuilding on Vacant Lot 126 (10) Meerup Street, Northcliffe

PROPONENT	S Jones
OWNER	S Jones
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	Lot 126 (10) Meerup Street, Northcliffe
WARD:	Coastal
ZONE:	Residential
DIVISION:	Statutory Services
FILE REFERENCE:	P52575
LEGISLATION:	Planning & Development Act 2005
AUTHOR:	Jason Giadresco
DATE OF REPORT:	29 January 2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

Council is requested to consider an application for planning approval for the establishment of an overheight outbuilding on Lot 126 Meerup Street, Northcliffe. The lot is currently vacant. Location, site and development plans are attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.3(1)

The lot has an area of 1681m² and is zoned Residential by Shire of Manjimup Local Planning Scheme No.4 (the Scheme), with a density code of R10/20.

Council reviewed the revised Local Planning Policy 6.1.1 Domestic Outbuildings (the Policy) at its 12 December 2013 Ordinary Meeting. Currently the revised Policy is nearing the end of the public comment phase. This application would be determined under delegated authority by the revised Policy and given no objections have been received from affected neighbouring property owners, and Shire staff are satisfied that the proposal reasonably meets the design principles and Policy objectives.

Clause 5.12.8 (ii) of Shire of Manjimup Local Planning Scheme No.4 (the Scheme) states that planning approval will not be granted for any outbuildings on any townsite lot that does not contain a residence unless otherwise approved by the local government. The intent of the clause is to require a greater level of scrutiny to be placed upon any proposal to construct an outbuilding on a vacant lot within a townsite, by requiring discretionary approval to be granted.

The application is referred to Council for determination as Council is required to exercise its discretion in consideration of:

· varying the acceptable development provisions of Local Planning Policy 6.1.1 Domestic Outbuildings to construct an overheight outbuilding; and

· clause 10.2 of the Scheme to grant planning approval to construct an outbuilding on a vacant lot.

Shire staff currently do not have delegated authority to determine applications that seek to vary from an acceptable development provision of the Policy, nor to approve outbuildings upon vacant residential land.

PUBLIC Consultation Undertaken:

The application was advertised in accordance with clause 9.6 of the Scheme and Level ‘C’ of Local Planning Policy LPS4 6.1.4 Advertising of Planning Proposals for a 14 day period to the immediately adjoining landowners. Letters were sent out from Shire offices 22 January 2014 and submissions closed on the 5 February 2014. At the time of writing no submissions have been received.

COMMENT (Includes Options):

Proposal Details

The development application proposes the construction of a 54m² outbuilding, with a wall height of 3.12m and ridge height of 3.76m. The shed is to be constructed out of “Zincalume”. The proposed outbuilding is sited as to maximise the use of land on the lot. The outbuilding is to be used for the storage of a caravan and personal effects prior to the construction of a dwelling on Lot 126. The outbuilding is required to be overheight to accommodate these assets comfortably.

To guide Council on the exercise of discretionary approval for an outbuilding on a vacant lot, the following matters are recommended to be considered:

1. Impact on development potential of site;

2. Compliance with relevant provisions of the Scheme and Policy; and

3. Impact on residential amenity and streetscape

Impact on Development Potential of the Site

The proposed outbuilding is not located within the primary street setback area, being sited primarily on North Street. Should a dwelling be constructed on Lot 126 in the future, the siting of the outbuilding is within design requirements. The siting of the proposed outbuilding on the property will allow for a dwelling to be constructed on site without compromising the ability to adequately site it on the lot.

Compliance with the Scheme

There are a number of amenity provisions that relate to this proposed development as determined in the Scheme. Clause 5.12.8 (ii) is largely designed to prevent the habitation or commercial use of outbuildings and maintain the amenity of residential areas. Clause 5.12.8 (ii) of the Scheme stipulates:

“Planning approval will not be granted for any outbuildings in any Townsite or on Rural Residential and Rural Smallholdings zoned lot that does not contain a residence unless otherwise approved by the local government.”

Compliance with clause 5.12.8 (ii)

It is noted in clause 5.12.8 (ii) that specific approval will be required for the construction of an outbuilding on a vacant lot. The outbuilding design and construction will be assessed below.

Compliance with the Policy

The outbuilding is largely compliant with the Policy, aside from the overheight 0.12m walls. An assessment of the outbuilding is attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.3(2)

Given this variation, the outbuilding will be assessed against the performance criteria of the Policy which is as follows;

“Outbuildings that do not detract from the streetscape or the visual amenity of residents or neighbouring properties.”

Impact on residential amenity and streetscape

Shire staff are of the opinion that the development meets the performance criteria as outlined at clause 3.1 of the Policy. A site visit conducted on 20 January 2014 determined that the outbuilding will be largely concealed from both Meerup and North Streets by a strip of vegetation along the front boundary of the property. Lot 143 North Street has a 1.8m high “Colorbond” fence that runs along its southern boundary that largely screens view of the outbuilding from the dwelling. Lots 165 and 222 Banksia Street are located 34 meters or more from the proposed site of the outbuilding, reducing its visual impact. The impact on visual amenity of the local residents and the streetscape is surmised to be minimal. Photographs of the streetscape at the front of Lot 126 are attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.3(3)

Conclusion

The proposed overheight outbuilding requires a variation to the Policy. Approval is supported on the grounds that the outbuilding is associated in the construction of a future dwelling and that the habitation of this building can be further approved. This recommendation is on the grounds that the overheight outbuilding’s approval will not adversely affect the residential amenity of the locality given that the proposal has minimal impact on the streetscape.

Given the above, Shire staff recommend Council exercise its discretion and grant conditional planning approval to allow the construction of an overheight outbuilding on vacant Lot 126, Meerup Street, Northcliffe.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

Planning & Development Act 2005

Policy / Strategic Implications:

Compliance with Local Planning Policy LPS4 6.1.1 Domestic Outbuildings and Shire of Manjimup Local Planning Scheme No.4 as discussed above.

Financial Implications:

Nil.

Sustainability:

Environmental: It is considered that the subject application will not create any significant environmental concerns.

Economic: Nil.

Social: The proposed development is expected to have minimal impact upon the visual amenity of the neighbouring landowners and street visibility.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: SIMPLE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

That Council:

In accordance with Part 10 of Shire of Manjimup Local Planning Scheme No.4 grants planning approval to the proposed outbuilding on vacant Lot 126 (10) Meerup Street, Northcliffe (Application TP 08/2014) in accordance with the submitted plans as attached at 9.1.3(1) and subject to the following conditions:

b) Human habitation of the approved outbuilding is not permitted unless the further approval of the local government is sought and obtained before its use for that purpose is commenced. (Planning and Sustainability)

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Omodei, P Seconded: Bavich, D

25911

That Council:

b) Human habitation of the approved outbuilding is not permitted unless the further approval of the local government is sought and obtained before its use for that purpose is commenced. (Planning and Sustainability)

ADOPTED BY EN BLOC RESOLUTION: 11/0

ATTACHMENT

9.1.4 Proposed Overheight Outbuilding on Vacant Lot 3 (21) Zamia Street, Northcliffe

PROPONENT	AT Windsor
OWNER	AT Windsor
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	Lot 3 (21) Zamia Street, Northcliffe
WARD:	Coastal
ZONE:	Residential
DIVISION:	Statutory Services
FILE REFERENCE:	P57746
LEGISLATION:	Planning and Development Act 2005
AUTHOR:	Jason Giadresco
DATE OF REPORT:	29 January 2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

Council is requested to consider an application for planning approval for the establishment of an overheight outbuilding on Lot 3 (21) Zamia Street, Northcliffe. The lot is currently vacant. Location, site and development plans are attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.4(1)

The lot has an area of 2257m² and is zoned Residential by Shire of Manjimup Local Planning Scheme No.4 (the Scheme), with a density code of R10/20.

The application is referred to Council for determination as Council is required to exercise its discretion in consideration of:

· varying the acceptable development provisions of Local Planning Policy 6.1.1 Domestic Outbuildings to construct an overheight outbuilding; and

· clause 10.2 of the Scheme to grant planning approval to construct an outbuilding on a vacant lot.

PUBLIC Consultation Undertaken:

The proponent has obtained agreement to the proposal from the adjoining landowners at Lots 17 and 23 Zamia Street. Considering this, Shire staff believed it not necessary to advertise this application for public comment in accordance with clause 9.6 of the Scheme. The submissions from the adjoining landowners are attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.4(2)

COMMENT (Includes Options):

Proposal details

The development application proposes the construction of a 72m² outbuilding, with a wall height of 3.4m and ridge height of 4.2m. The shed is to be constructed out of “Colorbond”. The proposed outbuilding is sited as to maximise the use of land on the lot. The outbuilding is to be used for the storage of a caravan, boat, motorcycle and personal effects prior to the construction of a dwelling on Lot 3. The outbuilding is required to be overheight to accommodate these assets comfortably. Attached is a letter the proponent has provided detailing the proposal’s use.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.4(3)

To guide Council on the exercise of discretionary approval for an outbuilding on a vacant lot, the following matters are recommended to be considered:

1. Impact on development potential of site;

2. Compliance with relevant provisions of the Scheme and Policy; and

3. Impact on residential amenity and streetscape

Impact on Development Potential of the Site

The site of the proposal is on a recently subdivided lot with a 64m battle axe to Zamia Street. Should a dwelling be constructed on Lot 3 in the future, the siting of the outbuilding is within design requirements. The siting of the proposed outbuilding on the property will allow for a dwelling to be constructed on site without compromising the ability to adequately site it on the lot.

Compliance with the Scheme

Compliance with clause 5.12.8 (ii)

It is noted in clause 5.12.8 (ii) that specific approval will be required for the construction of an outbuilding on a vacant lot. The outbuilding design and construction will be assessed below.

Compliance with the Policy

The outbuilding is largely compliant with the Policy, aside from the overheight 0.4m walls. An assessment of the outbuilding is attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.4(4)

Given this variation, the outbuilding will be assessed against the performance criteria of the Policy which is as follows;

“Outbuildings that do not detract from the streetscape or the visual amenity of residents or neighbouring properties.”

Impact on residential amenity and streetscape

Shire staff are of the opinion that the development meets the performance criteria as outlined at clause 3.1 of the Policy. The outbuilding is sited adequately from all lot boundaries, and over 70m from Zamia Street. In combination with the existing development on Lots 17 and 23, the outbuilding is sited as to not disturb the streetscape of Zamia Street significantly. The outbuilding will be screened by vegetation from the Boronia Street road reserve at the rear of the lot. As discussed in the public consultation section above, the immediate adjoining lot landholders present no issue with the proposal and are supportive.

Conclusion

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

Planning & Development Act 2005

Policy / Strategic Implications:

Compliance with Local Planning Policy LPS4 6.1.1 Domestic Outbuildings and Shire of Manjimup Local Planning Scheme No.4 as discussed above.

Financial Implications:

Nil.

Sustainability:

Environmental: It is considered that the subject application will not create any significant environmental concerns.

Economic: Nil.

Social: The proposed development is expected to have minimal impact upon the visual amenity of the neighbouring landowners and street visibility.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: SIMPLE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

That Council:

In accordance with Part 10 of Shire of Manjimup Local Planning Scheme No.4 grants planning approval to the proposed outbuilding on vacant Lot 3 (21) Zamia Street, Northcliffe (Application TP 16/2014) in accordance with the submitted plans as attached at 9.1.4(1)and subject to the following conditions:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Omodei, P Seconded: Bavich, D

25912

That Council:

ADOPTED BY EN BLOC RESOLUTION: 11/0

ATTACHMENT

APPENDIX

9.3.1 Review of Council Policies - 5.1.1 Sewerage Connections - Pensioners and 5.1.2 Sewerage Connections - Request for Loans

PROPONENT	Shire of Manjimup
OWNER	Enter text
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	Whole of Shire
WARD:	All
ZONE:	All
DIVISION:	Statutory Services
FILE REFERENCE:	HLT 21
LEGISLATION:	Local Government Act, Health Act 1911
AUTHOR:	Evon Smith
DATE OF REPORT:	2/12/2013
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

Council’s policies require review every four years. At times it is also necessary to introduce new or review policies due to need for change and legislative amendments.

This report contains a review of Council’s policies 5.1.1 Sewerage Connections - Pensioners and 5.1.2 Sewerage Connections – Request for Loans.

PUBLIC Consultation Undertaken:

Nil

COMMENT (Includes Options):

The policy review is intended to make adjustments to existing policies based on past performance, future demands and amendments of relevant legislation.

While conducting this review it was deemed prudent to combine both policies 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 into the one policy, thus rescinding policy 5.1.2.

Copies of the existing policies are included in the appendix.

APPENDIX: 9.3.1(A)

APPENDIX: 9.3.1(B)

Aside from the major change of incorporating the previous two policies into the one, this review includes two key changes and several minor changes. The key changes are:

1) Shire Staff to be able to assess and allow for deferment of connection to sewer for non pensioner resident owners for up to 12 months. Previously deferment to sewer was only granted to pensioners and therefore is viewed as more equitable.

2) The inclusion of the requirement for a report to accompany a request for a loans and is presented to Council for their consideration rather than the delegation as in policy 5.1.2. This inclusion is necessary as provision of this type of financial assistance is unbudgeted and therefore warrants a decision of Council.

Other minor changes which have been made to the new combined policy are as follows;

a) Change of title to ‘Sewerage Connections’;

b) Applying the new policy format to align with current policies; and

c) The inclusion in the section “Area of Application” that the policy applies to resident owners of property only and that Changes to an owner’s place of residence and / or sale of the property will advance the connection to sewer requirement date”.

The proposed Council Policy 5.1.1 Sewerage Connections can be found in the attachment.

ATTACHMENT: 9.3.1(1)

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

The Health Act 1911and subsidiary legislation set out the requirements for sanitary conveniences and effluent disposal.

The Local Government Act 1995 and subsidiary legislation creates the platform for local government operations. Policies provide direction for staff to conduct business on behalf of local government within the constraints of statutory provisions.

Policy / Strategic Implications:

Regular reviews are undertaken of Local Government operations and policies and are necessary to provide strategic direction and improve operations. Combining the policies is seen as a streamlining future review process while maintaining the necessary policy framework used for guiding Shire Staff.

Financial Implications:

It is thought to be minimal as since the last review in 2002 it is believed that only one loan has been granted. Future loans will only occur if Council approved finance and would be in the form of a self supporting loan. It is anticipated that a loan would be struck in the order of $3500 - $5000 dependent on the amount of work required to make a connection and pay for the legal fees to establish the Caveat and Deed of Agreement.

Sustainability:

Environmental:

The Sewerage Connections policy 5.1.1- provides staff with clear guidance to assess and control hazards which have a potential public health threat.

Economic:

Through the Sewerage Connections policy Council has the ability, with the necessary security, to ease the financial burden to those ratepayers who may be having severe financial stress to make a connection possible.

Social:

Deferment to sewer connection is only applicable to premises which have septic systems which continue to operate satisfactorily. A malfunctioning septic system may impact directly on neighbouring properties as well as pose public health issues.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: SIMPLE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

That Council:

1. Rescind Council Policy 5.1.2 Sewerage Connections Requests for Loans as per Appendix: 9.3.1(B); and

2. Adopt the reviewed Council Policy 5.1.1 Sewerage Connections as contained in Attachment: 9.3.1(1).

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Omodei, P Seconded: Bavich, D

25913

That Council:

1. Rescind Council Policy 5.1.2 Sewerage Connections Requests for Loans as per Appendix: 9.3.1(B); and

2. Adopt the reviewed Council Policy 5.1.1 Sewerage Connections as contained in Attachment: 9.3.1(1).

ADOPTED BY EN BLOC RESOLUTION: 11/0

9.4.2 Emergency Services Levy Capital Grant Walpole SES New Building and Site Works

PROPONENT	Shire of Manjimup
OWNER	Shire of Manjimup
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	Lot 10 Chugg Street Walpole
WARD:	South
ZONE:	Public Purpose
DIVISION:	Statutory Services
FILE REFERENCE:	FRC 4/1
LEGISLATION:	Fire & Emergency Services Act 1998
AUTHOR:	Todd Ridley; Andrew Campbell
DATE OF REPORT:	31 January 2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

Currently Local Governments are responsible for the administration of the State Emergency Services (SES) allocation of Emergency Services Levy (ESL). However there are no statutory responsibilities given to Local Government for SES operations as is with Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades (BFB). The Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) have full operational control for SES units.

In 2011 the existing SES headquarters in Walpole was deemed not fit for purpose by the then Fire and Emergency Services Authority (FESA). The building had limited room for expansion and many items of equipment are stored off site on private property. The current building was inadequate for the training needs of volunteers and was unsuitable for operating as a small incident control facility.

The Shire of Manjimup was approached by the Lower South West Region of the Department of Fire and Emergency Services through the ESL budget period of 2011/12 with a proposal to construct a new SES facility in Walpole. The proposal was submitted as a capital grant for the 2012 / 2013 period. The application was successful to the value of $320,000 on the proviso that the Shire of Manjimup acquire a self supporting loan that would be funded by the ESL.

Currently the Local Government Grants Scheme states that site works for new buildings are ineligible expenditure and cannot be claimed by Local Government as part of the Capital Grant. Meaning, Local Governments are responsible for the cost of the site works component of the construction of new buildings for both BFB and SES units. Site works by definition may include car parking, landscaping, boundary fencing, demolition or removal of existing buildings, road works, removal of vegetation and topsoil from site, grading and compacting sub grade, importing sand fill, removal of soil not needed, grading of the site to final levels, compaction of pad, provision of engineer’s compaction certificate, and construction of retaining structures.

At the time of accepting the grant the Shire of Manjimup was not fully aware of the extent of the site works required to complete the construction of the proposed facility. Staff became aware of the monetary value once a concept and design had been completed. It is estimated that site works will cost over $30,000. Site works in this case, would be clearing of the site, leveling, completion of the sand pad and construction of the hard stand surrounding the building. Council’s current 2013/14 budget would only allow for clearing and leveling of the site.

PUBLIC Consultation Undertaken:

Nil

COMMENT (Includes Options):

It is worth noting that the land the proposed new building is going to be built on is vested with the Shire of Manjimup for the construction of a Walpole BFB shed. At the time of constructing the Walpole BFB shed the BFB identified an alternate location on North Walpole Road where the Brigade and the Appliances are housed now, leaving this site vacant for Emergency Services purposes. The contribution of the land to this project by Council is considered to be considerable and more than adequate as a contribution to a State controlled volunteer group.

The Walpole SES unit is in a rebuilding stage and is currently on a recruitment drive as are many other volunteer organisations. The new facility would enable the unit to carry out in house training of new and existing volunteers, store and garage all the required equipment safely and entice and encourage new members with a modern building and amenities, allowing the unit to become sustainable and equipped for natural disasters and other incidents like land search and supporting BFB’s as required.

Whilst the building will predominantly be used by the unit, the facility could be utilised in the event of a bushfire as a mustering point for BFB personnel and be converted to accommodate a small level one incident management team.

Options

1. Defer the construction of the Walpole SES facility until the financial responsibility for site works is agreed;

2. Call for construction tender with the proviso that the construction cannot commence until the 2014/15 Council budget has been approved and Council allocate within that budget for the provision to complete all site works attached with the construction of the Walpole SES facility;

3. Identify and allocate funding from the 2013/14 Council budget to complete all site works for the proposed Walpole SES facility; or

4. Hand back the Capital Emergency Services Levy grant for the proposed Walpole SES facility on the basis that Council should not be responsible for site works for new buildings utilised by State controlled volunteer agencies.

It is recommended that Council defer the construction of the Walpole SES facility until the financial responsibility for site works is agreed but proceed with the funded clearing and leveling of the site in accordance with the allocated budget.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

Fire & Emergency Services Act 1998 and the Local Government Grants Scheme for Bush Fire and State Emergency Services.

Policy / Strategic Implications:

The Shire of Manjimup is dedicated to supporting Emergency Services Volunteers as outlined in the Strategic Community Plan.

Financial Implications:

The current Council budget allocation for site works is inadequate to fully complete the Walpole State Emergency Services Building site works. The current allocated budget is being utilised to complete site works for the Shire of Manjimup BFB shed sites in Linfarne / Ringbarkers and Springfield.

However it is predicted that site clearing and leveling can be met within the current budget. This will leave the construction of the sand pad and hard stand surrounding the building unachievable in this financial year due to cost.

Sustainability:

Environmental: Storm damage has the potential to decimate the natural and built environment if preventative and operational strategies are not adequate and volunteers are not equipped with modern resources.

Economic: Not having a well-equipped and sustainable SES unit in the Walpole area may have economic consequence on the public if the unit cannot respond to weather events in a timely manner. A well equipment SES unit has the ability to engage mitigation strategies and as well as lessen the structural damage to building as a result of storm damage.

Social: Volunteers are the back bone of any Emergency Service, the social aspect of volunteering is enhanced and new members are more likely to join if the unit or brigade is equipped with modern and up to date resources and facilities.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: SIMPLE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

That Council:

1. Complete clearing and leveling of the Walpole State Emergency Services facility site in accordance with the allocated 2013/14 budget;

2. Defer any further “site works” and the construction of Walpole State Emergency Services facility until the financial responsibility for site works is agreed and fully funded;

3. Write to the Department of Fire and Emergency Services to:

a) strongly express that site works required for the establishment of State Emergency Services facilities should be funded by the Emergency Services Levy; and

b) seek approval to fund the site works from the existing project funds; and

4. Report back to Council when a response is received from the Department of Fire and Emergency Services.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Omodei, P Seconded: Bavich, D

25914

That Council:

1. Complete clearing and leveling of the Walpole State Emergency Services facility site in accordance with the allocated 2013/14 budget;

2. Defer any further “site works” and the construction of Walpole State Emergency Services facility until the financial responsibility for site works is agreed and fully funded;

3. Write to the Department of Fire and Emergency Services to:

a) strongly express that site works required for the establishment of State Emergency Services facilities should be funded by the Emergency Services Levy; and

b) seek approval to fund the site works from the existing project funds; and

4. Report back to Council when a response is received from the Department of Fire and Emergency Services.

ADOPTED BY EN BLOC RESOLUTION: 11/0

9.5.1 Manjimup Timber and Heritage Park Cafe - New Lease to Vista Entertainment Pty Ltd

PROPONENT	Vista Entertainment Pty Ltd
OWNER	Crown (Management Order to Shire)
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	Reserve 26199, Lot 628 Edwards St, Manjimup
WARD:	Central
ZONE:	Parks and Recreation
DIVISION:	Statutory Services
FILE REFERENCE:	P53584
LEGISLATION:	Local Government Act 1995 Land Administration Act 1997
AUTHOR:	Jasmine Bamess
DATE OF REPORT:	30 January 2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

Council holds the management order for Reserve 26199, being the Manjimup Timber and Heritage Park, for the purpose of ‘heritage buildings and park’, with the power to lease any portion.

Council leases the cafe building to Vista Entertainment Pty Ltd for the permitted use of ‘cafe/restaurant and gift/craft shop’. The lease commenced 5 February 1999 for a term of five years, followed by two renewal options of five years. The lease was assigned to Vista Entertainment on 6 April 2010 as approved by Council on 25 March 2010.

The lease will expire 4 February 2014 and Council is requested to consider a new lease. The current directors of Vista Entertainment Pty Ltd are Sue McSharer and Kristy Waller. They have indicated that the directors may change in the near future, however the lease will continue to be held by Vista Entertainment Pty Ltd.

PUBLIC Consultation Undertaken:

Prior to Council approving the lease, Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires Council to give public notice of intention to lease and to allow a two week period for submissions.

COMMENT (Includes Options):

It is intended that funding will be sourced for a new cafe facility to be constructed by the Shire of Manjimup in the Manjimup Timber and Heritage Park within the next five years. In consideration of these plans Vista Entertainment have requested a new lease with a term of five years, provided this also includes the first right of refusal for new lease over the new cafe. This will provide Vista Entertainment with security of tenure to continue developing their business. The terms and conditions of a lease over the new cafe will need to be determined at that time.

There are some outstanding improvements required for the current premises to meet health standards, being installation of a grease trap and a new toilet and bin store. These are to be undertaken at the Shire’s expense and will be considered in the 2014/15 budget. The estimated cost is $35,000. These items were identified as being required five years ago and should be completed for the premises to continue operating for the new lease term.

Aside from the above items, the new lease to be granted by Council is for the existing condition of the premises which meets the current use. If the lessee wishes to increase or expand their business beyond the current use, any subsequent improvements required would be at the lessee’s expense, including statutory compliance.

Vista Entertainment have advised that they wish to make improvements to the existing cafe within the five year lease term. This would be funded by them and subject to approval by the Shire. For example, enhancing the front entrance, installing lighting to and enhancing the surrounds of the veranda area, and rearranging the counter and layout in the cafe. These improvements are specific to their use of the building as a cafe.

In accord with the Local Government Act and Property Leasing Policy 4.2.8 a market valuation for the lease fee has been obtained from the Valuer General’s Office. The market valuation received is $21,000 per annum including GST. The valuer has taken into consideration the size and location of the premises in comparison to other commercial properties within the Manjimup town site.

The previous market valuation dated 28 February 2006 was $15,002 per annum including GST. This was reviewed 20 February 2010 by applying a CPI increase of 3%, which remains the current annual lease fee paid by Vista Entertainment, being $15,452. The original lease allowed for the lease fee to be reviewed by CPI every second year, however this did not occur.

The market valuation of $21,000 is an increase of approximately 36% over the existing lease fee of $15,452. Had CPI increases of 3% been applied annually from 2006 the current lease fee would have been approximately $19,000. If this were the case the increase to $21,000 would not have been as significant.

Council’s Property Leasing Policy 4.2.8 states for that for buildings owned by Council and leased to “commercial enterprises, such as the Timber Park Gallery Café, the annual lease fee is to be set by Council based on a market value established by the Valuer General’s Office. This figure is to be reviewed annually in accordance with CPI adjustments”. Accordingly the recommendation is for the lease fee to be initially set at $21,000 per annum, including GST.

In the public notice for the proposed lease Council must detail the lease fee to be received by Council and the market valuation.

To date rates have not been levied to the lessee, although as a commercial activity the lessee would be responsible for rates and the standard lease conditions allow for this. Council’s Rating Policy 4.1.9 states that where a commercial activity is being conducted on Council controlled land, rates will apply based on the nature of the activity being undertaken. Rates and rubbish collection fees should now be paid by the lessee in addition to the annual lease fee.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 outlines the requirements for disposing of Council controlled land. To meet these requirements Council will give local public notice of the proposed lease and allow for submissions.

Policy / Strategic Implications:

Property Leasing Policy 4.2.8.

Financial Implications:

The lessee will be responsible for Council’s lease preparation fee and the costs of obtaining the market valuation and publishing the public notice.

The lessee is responsible for utilities usage costs and maintenance as per the schedule in the property leasing policy in addition to the annual lease fee. To date the water usage charges have not been separated to be able to be recouped from the Lessee, this should be rectified in the future.

The Lessee is responsible for rates and rubbish collection fees in addition to the annual lease fee. This would be estimated at $3,500 for 2013/14, including four rubbish and one recycling bin collections.

Council’s outgoings for the building include insurance, depreciation and structural maintenance. There will also be expenses for outstanding works included in the 2014/15 budget, estimated at $35,000.

Sustainability:

Environmental: Nil

Economic: The cafe is within the Manjimup Timber and Heritage Park and this is a significant attraction for tourism.

Social: The cafe is frequented by many visitors to the park and the playground.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: SIMPLE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

That Council advertise intention to lease the Timber and Heritage Park Cafe, portion of Reserve 26199, to Vista Entertainment Pty Ltd with the following conditions:

1. lease term of five years from 5 February 2014 to 4 February 2019;

2. lease fee of $21,000 per annum including GST, being the current market value, to be reviewed annually in accord with CPI increases;

3. the lessee to pay rates and bin collection fees, commencing 1 July 2014;

4. upon expiration, first right of refusal for a new lease over a new cafe facility within Reserve 26199 (or the existing cafe only if a new cafe is not established) on terms and conditions set by the Shire of Manjimup;

5. consideration of any submissions received within a two week period in accord with Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995; and

6. subject to approval of the Minister for Lands.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Omodei, P Seconded: Bavich, D

25915

That Council advertise intention to lease the Timber and Heritage Park Cafe, portion of Reserve 26199, to Vista Entertainment Pty Ltd with the following conditions:

1. lease term of five years from 5 February 2014 to 4 February 2019;

2. lease fee of $21,000 per annum including GST, being the current market value, to be reviewed annually in accord with CPI increases;

3. the lessee to pay rates and bin collection fees, commencing 1 July 2014;

5. consideration of any submissions received within a two week period in accord with Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995; and

6. subject to approval of the Minister for Lands.

ADOPTED BY EN BLOC RESOLUTION: 11/0

9.5.2 Windy Harbour Lease Transfer - Site 265

PROPONENT	Raymond Bolitho, Jay Higgins
OWNER	Crown (Management Order to Shire)
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	Site 265 Evans Loop, Windy Harbour
WARD:	Coastal
ZONE:	Special Use Zone No 5
DIVISION:	Statutory Services
FILE REFERENCE:	P57264
LEGISLATION:	Local Government Act 1995 Land Administration Act 1997
AUTHOR:	Jasmine Bamess
DATE OF REPORT:	28 January 2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

Reserve 38881 (Nelson Locs 12439 and 13304) Windy Harbour is vested in the Shire of Manjimup for the purpose of “Recreation, Camping, Caravan Park and Holiday Cottages” with the power, subject to the consent of the Minister for Lands, to lease all or any portion of Nelson Loc 12439 and Sites 307, 308 and 309 on Nelson Loc 13304, for any term not exceeding 21 years. Since 2001 Council has been granting 20 year leases.

Ray Bolitho holds a 20 year lease over Site 265 Windy Harbour and has entered a contract for sale of the lease to Jay Higgins.

PUBLIC Consultation Undertaken:

Nil

COMMENT (Includes Options):

Prior to the issue or transfer of a lease, or once every five years, each lease site is to be inspected in accordance with Policy 3.4.2. A building inspection for this site was last completed for the initial 20 year lease approval in 2004, as is the case with a number of Windy Harbour leases. Council may approve the transfer, subject to an inspection at a later date being complied with.

Jay Higgins has requested Council terminate the existing 20 year lease, from 22 January 2004 to 21 January 2024, and grant him a new lease with a full 20 year term.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

The Department of Local Government has previously advised that Windy Harbour leases are considered residential and therefore exempt from s3.58 (Disposing of Property) of the Local Government Act 1995 under s30(2)(g) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

The Department of Local Government has also advised that a transfer/assignment of an existing lease does not constitute a ‘disposition of property’ from the Local Government’s point of view.

Each lease and any subsequent transfers must receive the approval of the Minister for Lands in accordance with section 18 of the Land Administration Act 1997.

Policy / Strategic Implications:

The lease transfer is in accord with Council Policy 3.4.2 Windy Harbour Leases, which allows for the existing lease to be terminated and a new 20 year lease to be granted upon request.

Financial Implications:

Leaseholders are required to pay Council’s lease preparation fee to offset the administration costs of preparing and lodging each lease or lease transfer. In this instance the purchaser will also be responsible for the cost of surrendering the existing lease.

Council imposes rates and an annual lease fee on each Windy Harbour site.

Sustainability:

Environmental: The lease sites are well established and there are no environmental effects anticipated from transferring the lease.

Economic: Reserve funds have been created to ensure the Windy Harbour infrastructure becomes economically sustainable.

Social: The 20 year lease allows for the structured occupation and management of the Windy Harbour settlement and cultivates a greater sense of security amongst the Windy Harbour leaseholders.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: SIMPLE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

That Council:

1. Terminate, by mutual consent, the 20 year lease over Site 265 Windy Harbour between the Shire of Manjimup and Raymond John Bolitho; and

2. Approve a 20 year lease over Site 265 Windy Harbour, commencing 13 February 2014, between the Shire of Manjimup and Jay Christopher Higgins; subject to:

a) compliance with the inspection report requirements for Site 265 Windy Harbour within 90 days of the settlement date; and

b) consent from the Minister for Lands.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Omodei, P Seconded: Bavich, D

25916

That Council:

1. Terminate, by mutual consent, the 20 year lease over Site 265 Windy Harbour between the Shire of Manjimup and Raymond John Bolitho; and

2. Approve a 20 year lease over Site 265 Windy Harbour, commencing 13 February 2014, between the Shire of Manjimup and Jay Christopher Higgins; subject to:

a) compliance with the inspection report requirements for Site 265 Windy Harbour within 90 days of the settlement date; and

b) consent from the Minister for Lands.

ADOPTED BY EN BLOC RESOLUTION: 11/0

ATTACHMENT

9.5.5 Council Financial Payments December 2013

PROPONENT	Shire of Manjimup
OWNER	N/A
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	Whole of Shire
WARD:
ZONE:	Whole of Shire
DIVISION:	Statutory Services
FILE REFERENCE:	FNC9
LEGISLATION:	Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996
AUTHOR:	Kaylee Blee
DATE OF REPORT:	30 January 2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

It is a statutory requirement for a list of payments from the Municipal and Trust Funds to be presented to Council and included in the minutes.

Consultation Undertaken:

Nil

COMMENT (Includes Options):

The accounts for payment totalling $1,077,670.70 for the month of December 2013 are itemised in the attachment.

ATTACHMENT: 9.5.5(1)

Vouchers for the expenditure are available for inspection at the Council Meeting of 6 March 2014.

Fund	Vouchers	Amount
Municipal	80705 - 81069	$1,076,940.70
Trust Fund	2863 - 2865	$730.00
Total Cheques for Month of December 2013		$1,077,670.70

Corporate Credit Card December 2013 – Municipal Account

20059.197.57	Dick Smith Online CHULLORA 5x Telstra Nokia Mobile Phones for IT stock		$245.00
20245.198.52	Australian Institute of Engineering... GORDON Building standards registration – P. Krispyn		$105.00
20245.198.52	Australian Institute of Engineering... GORDON Building standards training – J. Jones		$145.00
20247.196.57	ABCB CANBERRA BCA 2014 (hard copy & online NCC 2014)		$510.00
20031.29.52	Adina Apartment Hotel PERTH DSS Accommodation for Recovery MGMT Course & other meetings		$193.36
76.4070.3240.57	Promotions Only LANE COVE 250x Green Evac bags for Quinninup settlement		$332.75
20033.197.58	Manjimup Courthouse MANJIMUP Bailiff Service – J D Love		$106.15
20047.130.52	Apple Online Store SYDNEY 1x Macbook Pro Retina (J. Hubble Sal Sac)		$2324.30
180.9337.70.57	Hartway Galvanizers CANNING VALE 2x Kerb Grates		$50.00
20026.42.58	Apple Online Store SYDNEY 1x Ipad – Carla Logan CNL Fees Sacrifice		$574.09
87.4999.7320.57	Woolworths MANJIMUP Water & Cool Drinks for staff Christmas party		$219.83
700.6207.7000.62	Apple Online Store SYDNEY Ipad – Salary Sac – Stephanie Carstairs		$1007.05
P264.2.57	BP Service Station MANJIMUP Fuel for 1000WA		$78.40
20026.766.58	Ascot Quays Apartment Hotel ASCOT Accomm & Breakfast CR Winfield training		$278.00
20026.766.58	Ascot Quays Apartment Hotel ASCOT Accomm & Breakfast CR Logan training		$272.00
20049.197.57	Blue Tiger Cafe MANJIMUP FACSHIA meeting RE: property care team		$41.30
20049.197.57	Top Notch Cafe MJP SMT meeting		$52.30
700.6206.7333.57	Blue Tiger Cafe MJP DAFWA meeting		$25.00
87.4999.7337.57	Manjimup Motors Customer Service Award		$219.85
87.4999.7337.57	Australia Post MJP Customer Service Award		$317.85
87.4999.7337.57	Mega Pix Councillor Award		$51.00
20221.847.57	Cafe Portico DONNYBROOK Meal – Alcohol Management meeting St1		$21.10
20221.735.57	Blue Tiger Cafe MJP Banner installation breakfast St3		$48.50
20219.198.52	Kings Perth Hotel Acommodation – Grant application training CDO		$225.00
87.4999.7320.57	Woolworths MJP Staff Christmas Function		$7.06
501.6203.6218.58	Telstra MELB Mobile Broadband recharge – Healthy communities		$180.00
87.4999.350.57	Blue Tiger Cafe MJP Rio Tinto Lunch – traineeships launch		$43.00
20221.197.57	Donnybrook Supa IGA CS team network breakfast st14		$13.14
20221.197.57	Bunbury Farmers Markets GLEN IRIS CS team network breakfast st14		$66.71
20215.356.57	Future Publishing 1 yr subscription to Mollie Makes Magazine		$147.15
87.4999.7320.57	Fluke Enterprises MJP Staff Christmas Function		$37.00
87.4999.7320.57	Alexanders Sports Power MJP Staff Christmas Function		$79.95
87.4999.7320.57	Serendipity Staff Christmas Function		$125.00
Total Credit Card Payment			$8141.84
Total Payments for the month December 2013		$1,085,812.54

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Regulations

(12) and (13).

Policy / Strategic Implications:

Nil

Financial Implications:

As stated.

Sustainability:

Environmental: Nil

Economic: Nil

Social: Nil

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: SIMPLE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

That Council receive the accounts paid during December 2013 totalling $1,085,812.54 as detailed in Attachment: 9.5.5(1).

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Omodei, P Seconded: Bavich, D

25917

That Council receive the accounts paid during December 2013 totalling $1,085,812.54 as detailed in Attachment: 9.5.5(1).

ADOPTED BY EN BLOC RESOLUTION: 11/0

ATTACHMENT

9.5.6 Monthly Financial Activity Statement - December 2013

PROPONENT	Shire of Manjimup
OWNER	Whole Shire
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	Whole Shire
WARD:	Whole Shire
ZONE:	N/A
DIVISION:	Statutory Services
FILE REFERENCE:	FNC3/3
LEGISLATION:	Local Government Act 1995; Local Government (Financial Management ) Regulations 1996
AUTHOR:	Greg Lockwood
DATE OF REPORT:	30 January 2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

The Financial Management Regulations require monthly Financial Activity Statement reports to be prepared and presented to Council, containing the following information;

ü Annual budget estimates

ü Estimates to end of month

ü Actual expenditure

ü Actual income

ü Material variances

ü Net current assets

The Financial Activity Statement report for the period to 31 December 2013 is attached. The report is summarised by Function/Activity and Department with detailed reports by Department.

ATTACHMENT: 9.5.6(1)

Consultation Undertaken:

Nil

COMMENT (Includes Options):

The Financial Activity Statement will comment on Council’s cash, loans, debtors and overall performance for the 2013/2014 financial year to 31 December 2013.

The financial performance for the Shire of Manjimup to the 31 December 2013 is projected to have a deficit position of $96,546.

The $96,546 deficit is a projection based on a conservative approach highlighting possible issues as they occur, which in most cases can be rectified or offset with under expenditure in other areas as we progress through the financial year.

In brief the projected figures in most cases, assumes that the expenditure to 31 December 2013 will continue at the same rate to 30 June 2013. Where an asterix appears in the “Adj” column in the Management Reports, the formula has been changed to reflect the irregular purchase, or seasonal nature of that particular account. It should be noted that where a projected under expenditure might occur, the budgeted figure is still maintained.

A good indication of how the Shire of Manjimup is performing is the year to date position of normal Operating Income and Expenditure. These categories are those line items that involve the normal operations of Council and whilst we have projected over expenditure, the year to date balances show there is significant room in budgets to absorb the over expenditure.

Items that have emerged as possible future issues are;

Storm Damage

An expenditure item that will possibly have an effect on Council’s surplus / deficit position at 30 June 2014 will be Storm Damage. The first part of the 2013/2014 financial year has seen several significant storm events, with the $111,500 budget already exceeded by $103,171, with more cleanup still being required. The State do offer support funding dependent upon the financial level of damage, final costs are now being assessed, with a possible claim being made back to the State of $75,000.

General Purpose Grant - $34,816 reduction

The attached accounts show a loss of $34,816 of General Purpose Funding. This loss came about after receiving advice from the Grants Commission that the total funding pool was reduced for all Western Australian Local Governments by $2.8m. The reduction came about due to the Western Australian population not increasing by the predicted amount in the funding models.

The reduction in the General Purpose funding will be adjusted out of the Shire of Manjimup accounts as part of the December 2013 Review.

Insurance

When setting the 2013/2014 budget significant increases were expected for Council’s insurance needs and adjusted for when adopting the budget. After receiving the final insurance premium accounts it is projected insurance will be approximately $19,000 over budget. Motor Vehicle and Building insurance are the main contributors to the increase. Insurance is an overhead to the whole organisation so this increase will be charged back across all departments.

In summary, challenges already exist putting pressure on Council’s end of year position. The areas listed above will need to be monitored carefully and budget adjustments made if required, to keep control of the accounts moving forward. Council staff strive to maintain a neutral or minor surplus position, so with sound financial management this should be achieved heading towards 30 June 2014.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

Section 6.8 Local Government Act and Financial Management Regulation 34

Policy / Strategic Implications:

Nil

Financial Implications:

As described in above summary.

Sustainability:

Environmental: Nil

Economic: Nil

Social: Nil

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: SIMPLE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

That Council receive the Financial Activity Statement Report to the end of December 2013 as per Attachment: 9.5.6 (1).

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Omodei, P Seconded: Bavich, D

25918

That Council receive the Financial Activity Statement Report to the end of December 2013 as per Attachment: 9.5.6 (1).

ADOPTED BY EN BLOC RESOLUTION: 11/0

ATTACHMENT

9.7.1 Closure of Road Reserves: Ralston Road, Wetherall Road and Jones Road

PROPONENT	Shire of Manjimup, Faith Jones & Glen Ryan
OWNER	Shire of Manjimup, Mr GM & Mrs F Jones & G Ryan
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	Ralston Road Ringbark, Jones Road Yanmah & Wetherall Road Quinninup
WARD:	North/East
ZONE:	Priority Agriculture
DIVISION:	Works & Services
FILE REFERENCE:	P52968, P52870, P56265, WRK12/2
LEGISLATION:	Land Administration Act 1997
AUTHOR:	Jade Pedlar
DATE OF REPORT:	17/01/2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 14 November 2013 Council resolved to in-principal support the proposed road closures, subject to the statutory public consultation process. The public consultation process is now complete and Council is asked to consider formally resolving to close the roads.

The following is a background of each proposed road closure.

Ralston Road – Proponent – Shire of Manjimup

For an undetermined reason there is a land tenure anomaly adjacent to the Manjimup Landfill facility and adjacent to Shire reserve 47739. The included attached plan shows the section of land in question. For some reason, the entirety of the hatched area is road reserve. Closing the hatched portion of the road, and amalgamating with the adjacent reserve, will overcome the anomaly.

ATTACHMENT: 9.7.1(1)

Jones Road – Proponent – Faith Jones

In this case, it appears as though a road reserve was created as part of a proposal to develop a cemetery on Jones Road. At a later date, the land set aside for use as a cemetery, was purchased by the adjacent landowner and farmed with the remainder of the property. The existence of the road appears to have been overlooked by the owner such that it was treated as part of the property.

Subsequently, the owner of the property developed an extractive industry, selling sand. The extractive industry extended over the road reserve such that the owner has failed to comply with the setback requirements under the scheme and has removed and sold soil from the Shire’s road. Closing the road and amalgamating into the property will resolve this anomaly and the indiscretion relating to removal and sale of soil from the Shire’s land.

In this case the road has not been constructed. A plan showing the location of the road reserve is included in the attachment.

ATTACHMENT: 9.7.1(2)

Wetherall Road – Proponent – Glen Ryan

In this case a landowner has requested the road be closed and amalgamated for the purpose of constructing a dam. The attachment shows the location of the road requested to be closed. Note that lots 7 and 8, in the attachment, have a road frontage to the constructed Greys Road.

ATTACHMENT: 9.7.1(3)

PUBLIC Consultation Undertaken:

The proposed road closures were advertised in the Manjimup Bridgetown Times on the 27 November 2013, with the public consultation period extending until 3 January 2014.

Correspondence has been sent to public utility service providers and relevant Government agencies to confirm their agreement to the proposed closure. Six replies have been received, with all correspondence confirming support for the road closure.

Letters were also sent to the adjoining property owners of the road reserves requesting comment. No submissions were received.

COMMENT (Includes Options):

Council has already confirmed in-principle support for the road closures. The result of the public consultation process has been support from relevant Government agencies and no objection. As adjacent property owners received specific letters, it is considered that there is general support for the roads to be closed. Accordingly, in accordance with Council’s previous resolution, it is recommended that Council formally resolve to close Ralston Road, Manjimup, Jones Road, Yanmah and Wetherell Road, Quinninup.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

The process of closing roads is detailed in the Land Administration Act 1997 and the associated regulations. The requirements, in brief, for a road closure are for Council to publicly advertise its intention to close a road, and after consideration of any objections, make a resolution requesting the Minister for Lands to close the road.

Policy / Strategic Implications:

Closing anomalous road reserves and unnecessary road reserves serves to reduce the overall land management burden on Council.

Financial Implications:

Nil. The progression of the road closure is on the basis that the applicant pays all the fees and assumes all the associated costs.

Sustainability:

Environmental: Nil

Economic: In the case of Wetherall Road, the closure is intended to facilitate the construction of a dam. This will support the agricultural industry of the Shire.

Social: Nil

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: SIMPLE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

That Council:

1. Request the Minister for Lands close a section of Ralston Road and incorporate it into Reserve 47739, in accordance with attachment 9.7.1(1);

2. Request the Minister for Lands close a section of road reserve off Jones Road with the land under the closed road to be sold to the adjoining property owners, in accordance with attachment 9.7.1(2); and

3. Request the Minister for Lands close a section of road reserve off Wetherall Road, with the land under the closed road to be sold to the adjoining property owners, in accordance with attachment 9.7.1(3).

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Omodei, P Seconded: Bavich, D

25920

That Council:

1. Request the Minister for Lands close a section of Ralston Road and incorporate it into Reserve 47739, in accordance with attachment 9.7.1(1);

ADOPTED BY EN BLOC RESOLUTION: 11/0

ATTACHMENT

9.7.2 Contract Extension for Road Side Rubbish and Bulk Waste Bin Collection

PROPONENT	Shire of Manjimup
OWNER	Shire of Manjimup
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	Enter text
WARD:	Whole of Shire
ZONE:	NA
DIVISION:	Works and Services
FILE REFERENCE:	WRK 16/4
LEGISLATION:	Health Act 1911 Part 6-Division 3, section 66 and 67 of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007. Section 6.38 of the Local Government Act 1995 Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 Manjimup Health Local Laws 2000
AUTHOR:	Klaus Mueller
DATE OF REPORT:	23/01/2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

The present contracts, between Warren Blackwood Waste and Council, for Road Side Rubbish and Bulk Waste Hook Bin Collection ended on 30 June 2013. Due predominately to human resource constraints the existing contract has been extended on rolling month extensions until such time as new contract documentation could be finalised.

In the past, these contracts have been awarded by public tender through a Council tender process. However, during the period of the previous contract, the West Australian Local Government Association (‘WALGA’) has undertaken a tender process for waste collection services. As a result, it is now possible to appoint a contractor directly from the panel contract without the formality of a tender process. While using the WALGA panel contract does not require a Council decision, as this contract requires forward financial commitments by Council, and is of a high value and community interest, it is still considered appropriate for Council to make a determination. Accordingly, Council is requested to consider endorsing the appointment of Warren Blackwood Waste as the Road Side Rubbish and Bulk Hook Bin Collection contractor, under the WALGA contract, for a period of 5 years and 4 months with an option for a three year extension.

PUBLIC Consultation Undertaken:

None

COMMENT (Includes Options):

Usually, when WALGA panel contracts are used, such as in the case of the purchase of heavy plant, a number of suppliers are approached to provide equipment demonstrations and pricing. A final decision is then made based on a combination of equipment suitability and price. In this case only Warren Blackwood Waste has been approached for a price. While this is not normal practice, as the WALGA contract panel has been through a public tender process, this is an acceptable practice. Unlike plant, waste pickup services are essentially homogenous, other than actual performance under the contract.

Warren Blackwood Waste have been the Council’s pick up contractor for a number of years, and in that time they have performed the contract to a high level of service (Officer’s are aware of other local government authorities were contract performance by competitor contractors is a problem). Warren Blackwood Waste is the only local Contractor, and a local employer, and has grown a Manjimup based business into one of the larger waste collection contractors operating in the State. Ordinarily, additional pricing would be sought, however, in this case, Warren Blackwood Waste have confirmed that their pricing will be unchanged from the current contract (other than increases for CPI as already allowed for under the current contract). A copy of the price offer is attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.7.2(1)

Although Warren Blackwood Waste have confirmed that they will maintain existing pricing, there have been some minor modifications to the contract. The following is a list of the relevant changes.

Road Side Rubbish:

· Option to repair damaged bins included;

· Include a requirement for timely repair or replacement of bins;

· Clarification as to who will pay for lost or damaged bins; and

· Restriction on pick-up hours to between 7 am and 5 pm.

Hook Lift Bulk Bin Collection:

· Add the requirement to cover bulk bins in the case that the normal tarpaulin is stuck or damaged; and

· Include the pickup of 30m³ recycling bulk bins.

A copy of each specification is attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.7.2(2)

ATTACHMENT: 9.7.2(3)

Based on Warren Blackwood Waste successful completing the current waste contracts, being the only local contractor, being a local employer and maintaining their current pricing, it is recommended that Council endorse the award of the Road Side Rubbish and Bulk Waste Hook Bin Collection contracts to Warren Blackwood Waste, for a period of five years and four months, with a three year extension option, commencing 1 March 2014.

While not considered a reasonable basis on which to make this decision, it is relevant that Warren Blackwood Waste own the roadside domestic rubbish bins. An alternative contractor would result in a significant inconvenience with a changeover of the bins, or a need to purchase the bins from Warren Blackwood Waste, in addition to the loss of a local employer.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

Health Act 1911

Part 6-Division 3, section 66 and 67 of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007.

Section 6.38 of the Local Government Act 1995

Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996

Manjimup Health Local Laws 2000

Policy / Strategic Implications:

Policy 9.2.2 Waste Collection Policy

Financial Implications:

The costs and charges for the proposed future contract extension will be the same as the present contract price subject to CPI adjustment. The combined contracts incur a cost in the order of $400,000 pa.

Waste Collection fees are charged per annum as part of Council Rates. These charges are subject to review annually in accordance with the relevant service contracts, CPI and works related to waste disposal. Rural rates do not include any waste management charges.

Sustainability:

Environmental: The Shire of Manjimup has a duty of care under the Health Act 1911 and Shire of Manjimup Health Local Laws 2000 to facilitate the efficient and effective collection and disposal of domestic waste within the prescribed areas of the Shire of Manjimup. It is essential that the transport of rubbish is conducted in an efficient and environmentally safe manner.

Economic: Power to levy a waste charge is provided through Part 6-Division 3, section 66 and 67 of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007. The power to charge the cost of the waste services provided by the Shire is provided under section 6.38 of the Local Government Act 1995. The proposed charges for the proposed contracts are the same as the existing contracts; subject to 2014-15 CPI adjustment.

Social: Warren Blackwood Waste has provided a professional service that has had very few complaints during the quite lengthy term of the present contracts. Public confidence is very high in the service that has been provided. With the ongoing increase in waste management costs it is essential that an ongoing efficient reliable service is seen to be provided to ratepayers and clients.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: SIMPLE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

That Council endorse the appointment of Warren Blackwood Waste to the Road Side Rubbish and Bulk Waste Hook Bin Collection contracts, under the West Australian Local Government Association Waste Panel Contract, for a period of five years and four months, with a three year extension, commencing 1 March 2014, in accordance with the contract specifications included in attachment 9.7.2(2) and attachment 9.7.2(3).

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Omodei, P Seconded: Bavich, D

25921

ADOPTED BY EN BLOC RESOLUTION: 11/0

ATTACHMENT

9.13.1 Review of the Draft South West Regional Blueprint

PROPONENT	South West Development Commission and Regional Development Australia – South West
OWNER
LOCATION / ADDRESS:
WARD:	Whole of Shire
ZONE:
DIVISION:	Corporate Services
FILE REFERENCE:	DEP20
LEGISLATION:	Nil
AUTHOR:	Jeremy Hubble
DATE OF REPORT:	31/01/2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

Previously, the key plans guiding South West regional development were the:

· South West Development Commission – Strategic Plan 2010 – 2025, and

· Regional Development Australia South West – South West Regional Plan 2012 – 2013.

A process to review and integrate these into one South West Regional Blueprint (the “Blueprint”) commenced mid 2011 with sub-regional workshops (the Warren Blackwood workshop was held in Manjimup 13 July 2011).

Upon request, in May 2013, the Shire of Manjimup provided a detailed (18 page) submission during the drafting phase of the Blueprint. A copy of this submission is available on request.

The draft Blueprint (of 114 pages) was recently released on the 13^th January 2014 for public comment until the 16^th February 2014.

Key points highlighted when the draft Blueprint was released were:

· It’s a joint publication of RDA-SW and SWDC (ie Federal and State regional development agencies);

· It targets actions with the potential to transform and grow employment and highlights key economic notes of activity in the region;

· It outlines a series of actions and includes a tool for evaluating projects;

· It contains no funding information. Funding is a matter for individual business cases;

· It takes an aspirational view of the future, providing a clear strategy for growth based on infrastructure, industry & business, people & place and our communities;

· It recognizes that without intervention, population will grow faster than employment; and

· It is a document that can be used to support projects contributing to quality of life and employment.

At the 23 January 2014 Council Briefing, an overview of the plan and a summary of specific inclusions relating to the Shire of Manjimup were discussed.

ATTACHMENT: 9.13.1(1)

The Chief Executive Officer of the South West Development Commission will attend the 13 February 2014 Council Briefing session to further discuss the Blueprint.

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s response to the draft Blueprint and to identify priority project.

PUBLIC Consultation Undertaken:

Nil. This report provides the basis of Council’s own submission on a document that is currently out for public comment.

COMMENT (Includes Options):

The development of a joint Federal and State regional development plan is welcomed reflecting the approach taken by other progressive regions in Australia. The SWDC and RDASW should be commended on their co-operation.

It is highly likely that the Blueprint will be a key factor determining future projects and associated funding support. It is critical therefore that projects of significance to the Shire of Manjimup are reflected in the Blueprint.

Supertowns

It is pleasing to note the draft Blueprint acknowledges Manjimup as the sub-regional centre, a Supertown and an economic node of activity for agriculture. Many of the identified Supertown projects have been included.

Regionally significant projects

The Shire’s May 2013 submission advocated a large number of projects of which 13 were identified as being “regionally” significant. An assessment of the draft Blueprint indicates a high level of success having these regionally significant projects recognised as follows:

Projects considered regionally significant to the Shire of Manjimup	Included in the draft Blueprint? Yes / No / Part
Manjimup airfield expansion	Yes (widen to 30m)
Bunbury to Albany gas pipeline	Yes (connect by spur?)
Power overhead cable bundling	No
Renewable energy generation	Yes
Picton- Lambert rail line reopening	Part (Picton-Greenbushes)
Passing lanes on South West highway	Yes
NBN rollout	Yes
Mobile phone base stations	Yes (8 locations identified)
Infill sewerage program	Yes (Manjimup & Northcliffe)
Securing town water supplies	No
Agriculture integrated water network	Yes
Public art regional strategy	No

Basis for intended submission to the draft Blueprint

Specific comments

(a) Page 11. Supertown Growth Plans are a 20 year plan extending out to 2032 (not 2025).

(b) Page 6. Land for industry appears focused on heavy industry, (overlooking Greenbushes and Diamond Mill). No mention of addressing light industry gaps.

(d) Page 25. Wetlands of international significance under the RAMSAR convention should include Lake Muir. Coastal comments similarly overlook the Walpole Nornalup Inlets Marine Park.

(e) Page 28. States “the six megatrends listed here …” however only five megatrends are actually listed in the Blueprint.

(f) Page 38. A key determinant in the value of local timber is the exchange rate, not merely consumer demand for sustainable practices.

(g) Page 39. The decline in the level of plantation establishment is predominately due to the demise of managed investment schemes (ie government stimulus) rather than competition for high quality land. Also statement about tourism in right hand box is more relevant to page 37.

(h) Page 43. The section about the Picton – Lambert rail line should be located in the rail section (page 41). This line has been out of use for a decade, not a few years ago.

(i) Page 44. Graph Port of Bunbury throughput right hand column should be 2030 not 2012.

(j) Page 45. The size of aircraft at Manjimup is currently limited by the width rather than the length of the runway. Suggest also include the Manjimup airfields role in safety and bush fire response together with potential expanded role in FIFO, tourism, training and light aircraft storage/maintenance.

(k) Page 68. Question the need for a review of flood risk response in the Warren River catchment given the drying climate and lack of tidal or sea level influence.

(l) Page 76. Clarify the comment “Construct the Bunbury – Albany Gas Pipeline to Manjimup. Link Manjimup via a spur and connect Kojonup to create a southern pipeline network”. It is understood the proposed route for the pipeline is intended to pass through Bridgetown to Manjimup before turning east across to Mt Barker and Albany.

(m) Page 77. Include development of timber precinct at Diamond Mill site.

(n) Page 81. Timber. Suggest inclusion of veneering / lamination plant. As there are now only two large jarrah mills (Deanmill and Nannup) and one large karri mill (Pemberton) question the merits of a common log landing as this will be hard to achieve without the closure of one of these mills which will have a bearing on those communities.

(o) Page 82. Manjimup supertown plans. 3-15 years: spelling “alfresco”.

(p) Page 86. Education. 3-15 years: The Manjimup supertown Agriculture Expansion Project contemplates a “Horticultural Centre of Excellence” in Manjimup, and

(q) Page 106. Rejuvenation of existing attractions and development of new attractions. Identified projects include: … “Pemberton Pool Artwalk”. This project is unknown to the Shire of Manjimup.

General comments

(a) Vision, Mission, Priorities and Objectives

The Vision is supported.

The Missions are supported however greater consideration of providing a safe environment should be reflected.

The Priorities are supported however public safety whilst high in the community’s priorities is missing from the Blueprint priorities.

The Objectives are supported but lack mention of safety initiatives concerning fire and drugs and alcohol.

(b) Structure of the Blueprint

At 114 pages, the Blueprint is a lengthy document. The size of the document could be reduced by altering the structure to include transformational opportunities (currently grouped together in section 4) within the various sub categories in section 3. Reasons supporting this include:

· The flow to the reader improves as all information relevant to that matter is contained in the same section;

· Avoids duplication (currently much of section 4 is largely a repeat of the same background / rationale outlined in section 3. This unnecessarily makes the report long-winded).

· Avoids contradiction (currently certain statements in section 4 vary or contradict statements in section 3).

The Blueprint is very light on regarding emergency services and public safety, in particular fire. Most of the region is heavily vegetated and likely to be classified as fire prone. In recent years we have experienced devastating fires in Bridgetown, Nannup, Northcliffe, Manjimup and Margaret River and yet there is no mention or identification of related projects despite this being a dominant point of public discussion in the South West each year over the summer period. The types of projects worthy of consideration may include:

· Support expanded communication systems (such as Whispr);

· Support for volunteers (mentioned in the priorities and objectives but not expanded further upon in the report and no actions listed); and

· Support for response resources to be centrally located in Manjimup servicing the high fuel load region (such as rescue helicopter, airborne and land based fire-fighting equipment).

There also is a notable lack of consideration of policing requirements, particularly in respect of the prevalence of drugs and alcohol within the South West.

(d) Health

Whilst the Blueprint reflects the Southern Inland Health Initiative infrastructure projects and the need for expanded capacity to accommodate mental health patients in Bunbury, it does not address the real practical issues of:

· the GP shortage in some communities (ie Walpole); and

· with the growing centralisation of health services to Bunbury, the need to support visiting specialists to outer regions and patient transport for ambulatory hospitals.

(e) Active ageing

Whilst the report identifies an Active ageing objective being “Enable people to age in place and transition to higher levels of care as needed”, the actions are vague and generalized. It would be beneficial for a State or South West Aged Housing Strategy to be developed to provide direction.

(f) Environmental issues

The environmental issues section lacks detail and likely major initiatives. There is also little mention of coastal management.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

Nil

Policy / Strategic Implications:

The Blueprint presents a roadmap that is consistent with the objectives of the WA draft State Planning Strategy. The Blueprint recommends a methodology for assessing prospective projects against the regional imperatives and immediate opportunities for action in the first fifteen years.

Page 90 of the Blueprint states “In short, reference to this Blueprint will help to build a stronger rationale for funding from State and Commonwealth sources”. The Shire of Manjimup should therefore be well served by the Blueprint given the weight Manjimup receives in the document.

Financial Implications:

The Blueprint does not provide any indication of the extent of financial support for specific projects as each project is to be considered on the merits of a Business Case. Typically, project proponents are required to demonstrate the level of financial commitment they bring to any project.

Sustainability:

Environmental: The Blueprint recognizes the environment as important to residents. “People and Place” is a key component of the vision.

Economic: The Blueprint recognizes the need to stimulate economic activity in order to provide greater employment opportunities as it is envisaged the population growth in the South West is likely to exceed the employment growth. “Industry and Business” is a key component of the vision.

Social: “Community” is a key component of the vision.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: SIMPLE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

That Council:

1) Express appreciation to the South West Development Commission and Regional Development Australia – South West for working collaboratively in the preparation of the Draft South West Regional Blueprint;

2) Make a submission on the Draft South West Regional Blueprint reflecting the comments contained in this report;

3) Indicate a preference for priority to be directed towards progressing the following projects:

a) Maintaining momentum on current initiatives underway such as the Supertown Town Centre (including northern round about) and Agricultural Expansion projects;

b) Manjimup airfield expansion;

c) Manjimup Timber and Heritage Park development encompassing the World of Energy display;

d) Accommodation options for seniors; and

e) Overtaking lanes and shoulder improvements on South West Highway between the Vasse Highway intersection and Walpole.

4) Seek guidance on the methodology to be followed by local governments to progress “proponent driven investment initiatives” that would normally be within the domain of a State Government Agency.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Omodei, P Seconded: Bavich, D

25922

That Council:

2) Make a submission on the Draft South West Regional Blueprint reflecting the comments contained in this report;

3) Indicate a preference for priority to be directed towards progressing the following projects:

a) Maintaining momentum on current initiatives underway such as the SuperTown Town Centre (including northern round about) and Agricultural Expansion projects;

b) Manjimup airfield expansion;

c) Manjimup Timber and Heritage Park development encompassing the World of Energy display;

d) Accommodation options for seniors; and

e) Overtaking lanes and shoulder improvements on South West Highway between the Vasse Highway intersection and Walpole.

ADOPTED BY EN BLOC RESOLUTION: 11/0

ATTACHMENT

APPENDIX

9.14.1 Review of Policy 8.1.2 Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Systems Acceptable Use Policy

PROPONENT	Shire of Manjimup
OWNER
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	Shire of Manjimup
WARD:
ZONE:
DIVISION:	Corporate
FILE REFERENCE:	CNL
LEGISLATION:	Local Government Act 1995
AUTHOR:	Chris Yovkoff
DATE OF REPORT:	10/01/2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

Council Policy 8.1.2 – “Information & Communication Technology Systems Acceptable Use” has been reviewed in response to changing electronic communication demands. The existing Council Policy is appended.

APPENDIX: 9.14.1(A)

PUBLIC Consultation Undertaken:

Nil

COMMENT (Includes Options):

The major changes to the policy are:

Section 8 – Monitoring

Shire employees shall have no expectation of privacy in anything they store, send or receive on the Shire’s information systems. The Shire may monitor messages without prior notice. The Shire is not obliged to monitor email messages.

Section 21 – Social Media (Current)

This section has been removed and will be placed in the proposed 8.1.3 Social Media Policy.

Section 21 – Passwords (New)

The policy now defines the usage of passwords for accessing the Shire’s various computer systems.

Section 22 – Remote Access

The policy now defines the usage of remote access into the Shire’s computer network, in order to access the various computer systems.

The proposed new Council Policy 8.1.2 – “Information & Communications Technology Systems Acceptable Use” is attached for Council’s Consideration.

ATTACHMENT: 9.14.1(1)

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

Privacy Act 1988 Commonwealth of Australia

Freedom from Information Act 1982 Commonwealth of Australia

Freedom from Information Act 1992 State of Western Australia

Crime Act 1914 Commonwealth of Australia

Criminal Code Act 1995 Commonwealth of Australia

Australian Crimes Commission Act 2002 Commonwealth of Australia

Policy / Strategic Implications:

The social media section has been moved into a policy specific for use of Social Media.

Guidelines for the usage of passwords; to be kept a secret, to have some complexity in order to prevent easy access to the shire’s computer system’s/ stored information.

Guidelines of remotely accessing the shire computer network, explaining how users must understand, that their machines will become a de facto extension of the Shire's network, and as such are subject to the same rules and regulations that apply to the Shire’s owned equipment.

That is, their machines must be configured to comply with this procedure. The employee, contractor, vendor or agent bears responsibility for the consequences if this access is misused.

Financial Implications:

Nil

Sustainability:

Environmental: Nil

Economic: Nil

Social: Nil

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: SIMPLE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

That Council adopts the amended Policy 8.1.2 – Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Systems Acceptable Use as contained in Attachment: 9.14.1(1)

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Omodei, P Seconded: Bavich, D

25923

That Council adopts the amended Policy 8.1.2 – Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Systems Acceptable Use as contained in Attachment: 9.14.1(1)

ADOPTED BY EN BLOC RESOLUTION: 11/0

ATTACHMENT

9.1.1 Proposed Cidery/Brewery at Lot 9358 (614) Middlesex Road, Middlesex

PROPONENT	DA Baker
OWNER	DA Baker
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	Lot 9358 (614) Middlesex Road, Middlesex
WARD:	East
ZONE:	Priority Agriculture
DIVISION:	Statutory Services
FILE REFERENCE:	P54855
LEGISLATION:	Planning & Development Act 2005
AUTHOR:	Jason Giadresco
DATE OF REPORT:	23 January 2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

Council is asked to consider a planning application for a proposed Cidery/Brewery at Lot 9358 (614) Middlesex Road, Middlesex. Location, site and development plans are attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.1(1)

The site is 42.3 hectares in area and zoned by the Shire of Manjimup Local Planning Scheme No.4 (the Scheme) as Priority Agriculture. Currently the lot contains a dwelling and three (3) outbuildings. The proposal is designed to be complimentary to the productive apple and avocado orchard sited on the lot.

The proposal requires the 3 existing outbuildings on site adjacent to Middlesex Road to be removed and a 655m² cidery/brewery plant, a café and associated waste management infrastructure to be constructed on site. The undulating topography of the site will require some earthworks to create a level area to contain the proposal.

The application is referred to Council as the Scheme requires Council’s discretionary planning approval to be granted to allow this proposed development in a Priority Agriculture zone.

PUBLIC Consultation Undertaken:

The application was advertised for a period of 14 days to neighbouring landholders in accordance with clause 9.6 of the Scheme. Given that the proposal site is located within a rural area, a sign was not required to be placed on site. Letters inviting comment were sent from Shire offices on 7 January 2014 with submissions closing 21 January 2014. During this time, one submission was received from an adjoining landowner. This submission will be discussed in the Comment section of this report. The submission is attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.1(2)

COMMENT (Includes Options):

Proposal Description

The proponent wishes to establish a boutique cidery/brewery on site to produce apple juice and alcoholic and non-alcoholic cider from the apples grown on the lot and sourced locally. Alcoholic beer is to be eventually produced on site as well. All brewing and pasteurising tanks, bottling and juicing equipment and storage is to be housed within a 4.8m high, 342m² outbuilding. A 209m² café/tasting area is to be adjoined to the outbuilding to cater to customers on-site. A description of the proposal and operating plan is attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.1(3)

Scheme Requirements

This application will be assessed against clause 5.34.2.4 Priority Agriculture Development Requirements and clause 5.17 Car Parking Requirements of the Scheme.

Compliance with Scheme clause 5.34.2.4

Boundary Setbacks

The proposal is setback to property boundaries and road reserves as follows:

Setback to:	Required	Actual
Pipe Clay Gully Road	30m	100m
Middlesex Road	30m	55m
Lot 4 Middlesex Road	10m	210m
Lot 6 Pipe Clay Gully Road	10m	770m

The proposed boundary setbacks are considered compliant in accordance with the Scheme.

Setback to Agricultural Production

The Scheme at clause 5.34.2.4 (4)(a) requires that where the proposed development is for a non-agricultural purpose, a minimum 100m setback to existing intensive agricultural activities on any adjoining lots is required.

The proposal is sited over 200m from the apple and avocado orchard on the lot, and the same distance from any intensive agricultural activities sited on properties along Middlesex Road. This setback is considered compliant in accordance with the Scheme.

Waste Management System

The Scheme requires effluent or waste disposal systems to be setback 30m from any property boundary or water body. The proposal has indicated that a 5000 litre waste storage tank and septic system servicing the café are to be located on the proposal site. The proponent has also indicated to Shire staff that a waste treatment system, appropriate to the nature of the development and sensitive to site conditions will be utilised. The proponent is currently in the process of determining the appropriate waste water system to use. Further approval of any waste treatment system will be required, and conditioned on any approval given by Council.

Effluent Setback

A natural creek on the lot runs parallel to Middlesex Road 40m from the site. Should effluent from the development reach this creek, potential contamination of downstream water bodies could occur. To ensure that no effluent disposal system connected to either the café or processing operation is located within vicinity of this creek, a condition requiring a 30m setback to the waterway is recommended to be placed on any approval given by Council. In addition to this condition, an advice note requiring that the on-site wastewater system be constructed on hardstand and drained so all effluent from the processing, crushing, bottling are directed into the waste water system on site.

Impact of Proposal on Visual Amenity

The site of the proposal is significantly screened from Middlesex Road by well developed vegetation located along the creek line, effectively removing any strong visual impact from the road. The 100m setback of the development to Pipe Clay Gully Road will reduce the bulk of the proposed development to this road by means of distance. Given the above, Shire staff are confident that the visual amenity of the locality will not be disturbed significantly by the proposal.

Compliance with Scheme clause 5.17

The scale of the proposal generates the need to have adequate car parking as per clause 5.17 of the Scheme. The proponent has indicated 15 parking bays including 1 disabled parking bay will be constructed as part of the development.

As a Cidery/Brewery is considered as a “use not listed” in Table 2 of Scheme clause 5.17, the amount of car parking required by a development is at the discretion of Council. Considering the proponent has stated that at a maximum 40 people may be on-site at one time, 15 bays are considered adequate for on-site parking. The disabled bay must be sealed in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia 2012. An advice note with regard to this will be attached to any approval granted by Council.

Impact on Access/Local Roads

Middlesex Road is to be used as the main thoroughfare to access the cidery/brewery. Generally, the condition and geometry of Middlesex Road could be described as adequate. However, it is possible that the road geometry and condition will not suit the development of a tourism business. It should be recognised that the upgrade of Middlesex Road, for the purpose of supporting this development, at the proponent’s cost, is not supported due to the low anticipated traffic volumes and the likelihood that a road upgrade will make the proposal unviable. However, it is likely that Council will continue to upgrade Middlesex Road over time, and it should be recognised that the road is provided in an ‘as-is’ condition, in that, the road condition may not be ideal for the development and Council’s plans for Middlesex Road will not be changed as a result of this private business.

While it is not considered necessary to contribute to a road upgrade for the currently proposed development, should the development be successful, it is likely that traffic volumes, and particularly heavy vehicle volumes will grow. While any development expansion will be assessed on its merits, growth in traffic volumes will be assessed on the basis of the whole of the development, each time an expansion proposal is assessed. This is to ensure that there is no avoidance of legitimate contributions to infrastructure through incremental development.

Crossover

The proponent will be required to formalize the crossover from Middlesex Road into the lot as per normal practice. A site visit conducted on 22 January 2014 confirmed the siting of the crossover with the proponent. This is will be conditioned on any approval given by Council.

Pipe Clay Gully Road

Pipe Clay Gully Road offers access to the cidery/brewery. Shire staff consider that tourist traffic should not be encouraged to use this road as it is constructed of gravel and is relatively narrow. Given this, access to the cidery/brewery from South West Highway should be encouraged through directional signage or otherwise making use of sealed Middlesex Road.

Consideration of Submission

A submission on the proposal was received from an adjoining landowner on Pipe Clay Gully Road. The submission expressed that the landowner is supportive of the proposal, but highlighted that the gravel Pipe Clay Gully Road is not of a suitable standard to be used as a thoroughfare for patrons of the cidery/brewery. Both the proponent and Shire staff agree with the content of the submission. Any directional signage to the proposed development site will encourage the use of the sealed Middlesex Road to access the cidery/brewery. This will be placed as an advice note on any approval given by Council.

Future Development/Expansion of Development

Current Shire data available for benchmark traffic counts of vehicles using Middlesex Road stands at an average of 52 cars per day. Should the business be successful, the impact on Middlesex Road will increase in terms of both pavement deterioration and the geometric capacity of Middlesex Road to accommodate the increased level of traffic. Each expansion of the business will need to be considered based on the difference between the current status quo and the whole of the development, not just the individual expansion, so that if the business overall develops to the point that a road upgrade is required, this is to be conditioned on a future planning approval. Shire staff recommend an advice note to this effect should be included should Council grant approval so that it can be used in any appeal in the case of a road upgrade condition on a future planning approval.

Liquor Licensing

The proponent will be required to obtain a liquor licence issued under the Liquor Licensing Act 1988 from the appropriate authority to be able to sell their alcoholic products on site. An advice note will be attached to any approval in this regard.

Fire Control

Although the site is predominantly cleared, vegetation that could pose a fire risk is located on nearby road reserves and adjoining properties. Fire management of the property in concert with the Shire’s Fuel Hazard and Firebreak Notice is recommended to be attached as an advice note in the event of Council approval.

Removal of Existing Outbuildings

The 3 existing outbuildings earmarked to be removed to allow this development to proceed will require a demolition permit to be issued prior to the removal of any structure. This requirement will be attached as an advice note in the event of any approval given by Council.

Conclusion

The proposal is considered compliant with the Scheme. All access and development issues have been adequately addressed by the proponent, or can be conditioned by Council to ensure compliance. In light of the above, it is recommended that Council grant conditional approval for this application.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

Planning and Development Act 2005 and Shire of Manjimup Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

Policy / Strategic Implications:

Nil.

Financial Implications:

If Council should approve the proposed development, a review of the rates levied on Lot 9358 Middlesex Road, Middlesex will be undertaken due to the intensification of development. An advice note with regard to this will be attached to any approval granted by Council.

Sustainability:

Environmental: No environmental impact on the lot or surrounding area is expected to be generated by this development. No vegetation is proposed to be cleared as part of this proposal. Effluent disposal and waste water systems have been conditioned to be sited appropriately away from water bodies on the lot.

Economic: Approval of this proposal is expected to create economic benefit to the Shire. The proposal is ‘value-adding’ to the existing agricultural operations on the lot. The proposal is expected by the proponent to generate employment and potentially offer apple orchardists within and outside the Shire another avenue to sell or process their product. The proposal also presents a unique “selling point” for local produce and may encourage tourists to visit the Shire.

Social: Only one submission was received and was generally supportive of the proposal. The proposal if approved is not expected to disrupt the amenity of the locality detrimentally.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: SIMPLE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

1. That Council, in accordance with clause 9.6 of Shire of Manjimup Local Planning Scheme No.4, grants planning approval for the construction of a Cidery/Brewery at Lot 9358 (614) Middlesex Road, Middlesex (Application TP 212/2013) in accordance with the plans and specifications attached at 9.1.1(1) and subject to the following conditions:

a) The development hereby approved must be carried out generally in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted with the application and these shall not be altered and/or modified without the prior knowledge and written consent from the local government; (Planning and Sustainability)

b) A waste water disposal system acceptable to the local government and/or the Department of Health shall be installed prior to occupation of the development to the satisfaction of the local government; (Environmental Health Services)

c) The vehicular crossover between the subject land and Middlesex Road is to be located, designed, constructed, sealed and drained to the satisfaction of the local government prior to occupation of the development; (Technical Services)

d) The location of any effluent disposal or waste water system used by the proposed development is not to occur within 30 meters of any watercourse or water body to the satisfaction of Council; and (Planning & Sustainability)

e) The car parking spaces, access ways and vehicle manoeuvring areas, shown on the approved plan, shall be laid out and constructed at the time of the development, and prior to the occupation of the land and/or buildings, for their approved purpose, and those areas shall thereafter be permanently maintained by the owner/occupier as vehicle parking and manoeuvring areas to the satisfaction of the local government. (Technical Services)

2. Advises the proponent that:

a) In the event of any future expansion of the development on Lot 9358 (614) Middlesex Road, Middlesex, each application will be assessed on its merits however, assessment of traffic and heavy vehicle volumes for the purpose of determining any road upgrading contributions will be based on the whole of the development and not being just limited to the expansion;

b) A demolition licence must be sought and issued by local government before any buildings are removed from the land or any development is commenced on the land;

c) Firebreaks and low fuel zones are to be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the local government around all boundaries and buildings on the subject property, in accordance with the requirements of the Annual Shire Firebreak Notice endorsed by local government;

d) If public consumption of alcohol is likely to occur on the subject premises, additional requirements may be imposed by the Liquor Licensing Division of the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor;

e) Health requirements with regard to the Cidery/Brewery will be that the premises be designed and constructed such that all crushing, processing, bottling, effluent solids collection and storage areas are located on a hardstand pad (preferably concrete) which is drained such that all wastewaters are directed to the wastewater treatment system;

f) A minimum of one (1) disabled car bay designed in accordance with the Australian Standard 2890.1 – 1993 will be required to be provided in a location convenient to, and connected to a continuous accessible path to the main entrance of the building or facility. The design and signage of the bay and path are to be in accordance with the Australian Standard 1428.1 – 1993;

g) Council will not support the installation of any business advertising or directional signage directing traffic to use Pipe Clay Gully Road to access the property;

h) This Planning Approval may impact on the rates levies on your property. Please contact the Rates Department for more information;

i) The approved development must comply with all relevant provisions of the Health Act, 1911 and the Building Code of Australia, 2004; and

j) Middlesex Road may not be ideally suited for the development of a tourism business. Any requirements for road upgrading, beyond Council’s normal road maintenance procedures and practices and current road upgrade plans, will need to be funded by the proponent.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Omodei, P Seconded: Bavich, D

25925

a) The development hereby approved must be carried out generally in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted with the application and these shall not be altered and/or modified without the prior knowledge and written consent from the local government; (Planning and Sustainability)

2. Advises the proponent that:

b) A demolition licence must be sought and issued by local government before any buildings are removed from the land or any development is commenced on the land;

d) If public consumption of alcohol is likely to occur on the subject premises, additional requirements may be imposed by the Liquor Licensing Division of the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor;

g) Council will not support the installation of any business advertising or directional signage directing traffic to use Pipe Clay Gully Road to access the property;

h) This Planning Approval may impact on the rates levies on your property. Please contact the Rates Department for more information;

i) The approved development must comply with all relevant provisions of the Health Act, 1911 and the Building Code of Australia, 2004; and

CARRIED: 11/0

ATTACHMENT

9.1.5 Consideration of Lot Access Formalisation Options at Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 Sparsa Close, Crowea

PROPONENT	Shire of Manjimup
OWNER	Various
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	Lots 5-8 (47-53) Sparsa Close, Crowea
WARD:	Coastal
ZONE:	Rural Residential RR11
DIVISION:	Statutory Services
FILE REFERENCE:	P55727; P55801; P55885; P55958
LEGISLATION:	Planning and Development Act 2005 Transfer of Land Act 1893
AUTHOR:	Roy Winslow / Jeremy Hubble
DATE OF REPORT:	30 January 2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

This report has been prepared to advise Council of the background to the current un-formalised access arrangements in place for Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 (47-53) Sparsa Close, Crowea. The report will then identify a number of options available to formalise access arrangements to ensure each lot is afforded legal access as originally intended, but not properly acted upon, by the subdivision approval that created the lots in 1994.

The purpose of the report is to allow Council to identify its preferred response to the issue. This in turn will then be adopted by Shire staff in formalising lot access arrangements for the affected lots.

PUBLIC Consultation Undertaken:

Shire staff have met and corresponded with the owners of each of the lots affected.

COMMENT (Includes Options):

Current Situation

Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 currently share a single access point onto Sparsa Close, as shown in the attached aerial photographs from February 2013.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.5 (1)

This driveway is located primarily within Lot 7, although some portions are located within Lot 8’s access leg. In practice, the driveway is considered owned by Lot 7. Currently, Lot 5 utilises approximately 40m of the driveway, Lot 8 approximately 225m and Lot 6 approximately 270m.

A check of the Certificate of Titles of all four properties on 31 January 2014 shows that there are no easements, covenants or notifications on any of the titles that provides for shared access. The lack of a suitable mechanism on the titles means that only Lot 7 has a legal ‘right’ to use the driveway at this time. Use of the driveway by the other lots is currently unprotected and reliant on the willingness of Lot 7 to allow access.

Original Subdivision Requirements

The lots subject to this report were created as part of the then-State Planning Commission’s (the Commission) conditional subdivision approval 93524 granted on 9 June 1994. A copy of the approval conditions and the plan of subdivision are attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.1.5(2)

As was common practice at the time, the subdivision design employed battleaxe legs on a number of lots to provide for utilities and vehicle access. The battleaxe legs were supported by the Commission subject to Condition 11, which read as follows:

The battleaxe leg(s) being constructed and drained at the subdivider’s cost to the specification and satisfaction of the Local Authority.

This condition required the battleaxe legs to be constructed to the specifications and satisfaction of the Shire of Manjimup as the relevant ‘Local Authority’.

The subdivision approval included two separate situations where battleaxe legs from different lots abutted one another. Where this occurs, it is common to allow for a single driveway to be constructed and shared by two or more lots rather than have a number of driveways side-by-side. To accommodate this, the Commission placed Condition 12 on the approval as follows:

The applicant entering into an agreement with the Local Authority to ensure reciprocal rights of access over adjoining battleaxe legs.

The above condition essentially refers to a reciprocal right-of-carriageway easement being placed over the access legs and driveway and shown on the future Certificates of Title for the affected lots. The mechanism employed to ensure reciprocal rights of access is examined in detail below.

Reciprocal Rights of Access Mechanism

At the time the subdivision was approved and the conditions cleared, the legislation surrounding reciprocal rights of access was different to the system in place today. Since 14 November 1996, section 136C of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 has allowed for easements, including a reciprocal right-of-carriageway easement to be shown on the Deposited Plan before conditions are cleared by the relevant agencies. This process allows the local government and the Commission to be certain that a right-of-carriageway easement has been properly established to protect all interests in it. Once on the Deposited Plan approved by the Commission, the easement is then registered on the titles of all affected lots when these are created.

Section 136C was not in operation at the time the Sparsa Close subdivision was approved. The Plan of Survey was approved by the Commission on 15 April 1996 and pre-dates the ability to show the right-of-carriageway easement on the Plan.

Given the current process of ensuring reciprocal rights of access was not available to the Shire at the time of the subdivision, Shire staff have investigated what the process was at the time of subdivision, which is summarised below:

1. The condition requiring reciprocal rights of access is placed on the approval;

2. In order to clear the condition, a subdivider provided an undertaking to the relevant local government that they would place an access easement over the new lots at the time of title creation;

3. The local authority would clear the condition (without the easement in place as there was no ability to create the easement without the titles being created at the same time);

4. The Diagram or Plan of Survey would be approved by the Commission, opening up the ability to apply for new titles; and

5. The subdivider then lodges a suitable easement when applying for the new titles.

The above process required a considerable amount of trust that a subdivider would indeed create the required easement. There was no ability to formally create an easement until after the Shire was required to clear the condition and essentially give up its interest in the matter. The form of undertaking a subdivider gave to a local government that they would indeed create the easement appears to have varied from Shire-to-Shire. The undertaking varied from a simple “letter of undertaking” advising the relevant Shire that the required easement would be created, to a fully-drafted Deed of Easement prepared by a solicitor that would then be lodged at the appropriate time by the subdivider.

A check of the Shire’s records for the subdivision has established that the Shire staff of the time advised the subdivider’s representative on 10 May 1995 that a “letter of undertaking to carry out this matter” would be sufficient. However, there appears to be no such letter of undertaking on the files. Given that there is evidence that the subdivision file is incomplete, current Shire staff are unable to ascertain if such a letter was received, but misfiled, or not received at all. The fact of the matter is that Shire staff did indeed clear the subdivision with or without this letter of undertaking.

Regardless of whether a letter of undertaking had been received by the Shire, it is clear that no easement was ever lodged on Lots 5, 6, 7 or 8 at the time the titles were created in 1996. If a letter of undertaking had been received by the Shire but not acted on by the subdivider, the Shire would have been powerless to act in any case, as its control of the matter ended once the condition had been cleared. It is noted that the advent of section 136C of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 in November 1996 has removed this undertaking requirement and provided local government and the Commission a greater level of surety that easements would indeed be put in place.

Placing an Easement Now

The only method now available to place a reciprocal right-of-carriageway easement over the affected lots is for all four parties to enter into a Deed of Agreement that sets out the rights and obligations of each of the four lots. This agreement then enables a sketch to be produced that shows the location of the easement and the extent each lot has a benefit / burden from the easement. Where all parties affected by the easement agree, the process is a relatively straight-forward administrative procedure.

In the event that one or more parties does not agree, no easement can be lodged that affects this party. In this case, the critical lot is Lot 7 given the location of the existing driveway. Should the owners of this lot not agree to an easement, it cannot proceed.

Access Conclusions

After review of the file and in the light of the current situation, Shire staff have made the following key conclusions in relation to the subdivision:

1. Driveways were to be provided by the subdivider along battleaxe legs as a condition of subdivision;

2. Shared use of a single driveway by two or more lots was envisaged, but was to be protected by reciprocal rights of access arrangements;

3. A single driveway was constructed predominantly within Lot 7 with ‘take-off points’ for Lots 5, 6 and 8 at the end of their relevant access legs. However, the subsequent development of the lots has lead to a greater proportion of the Lot 7 driveway being shared than what would have normally been provided for at subdivision stage. For instance, Lot 6 uses approximately 270m of the driveway, whereas its take off point would be approximately 90m from Sparsa Close;

4. This access arrangement was not provided with reciprocal rights of access to ensure each of the four lots had a legal ‘right’ to use of the driveway, as intended by Condition 12 of the subdivision approval; and

5. Only Lot 7 appears currently to have a legal (and trafficable) access onto Sparsa Close. All other lots sharing the driveway essentially do so at the pleasure of Lot 7.

Previous Proposal Rejected by the Parties

In December 2013, Shire staff met with all four lot owners on site to discuss the situation and to identify a mutually-acceptable solution. The proposal put to the owners by Shire staff provided for an easement being prepared at the Shire’s cost that protected the current access arrangements, namely:

· The existing driveway on Lot 7 remaining available to all 4 lots;

· Lot 5 having an easement benefit for the approximately 40m of Lot 7’s driveway it uses;

· Lot 6 having an easement benefit for the approximately 270m of Lot 7’s driveway it uses;

· Lot 8 having an easement benefit for the approximately 225m of Lot 7’s driveway it uses;

· A maintenance contribution obligation being calculated and agreed to for Lots 5, 6 and 8 to have enjoyment of Lot 7’s driveway.

Due to a number of reasons, this proposal was rejected by all parties and is not considered as part of the options outlined below.

Options Available to Council

Shire staff have prepared the following options based on the assumption that Council is prepared to attempt to rectify the access issue at its cost given that it could be reasonably argued that the Shire may not have taken all steps available to it to ensure the subdivider ensured reciprocal rights of access to the affected lots.

Four main options have been identified. It should be noted that there could be a number of additional options or modifications to the options presented to cover all available outcomes. Given this, it is recommended that should Council adopt an option that it allows for minor refinement of the chosen option to reflect any agreement between the four parties involved.

The options presented below have been framed as what Council is prepared to do to assist the parties rectify the matter. The options reflect the Shire’s legislation and financial parameters and need to ensure an unsustainable precedent is not set. Any chosen option would then be presented to the parties as the Shire’s “offer”. Should this offer not be acceptable, it would then fall to the four landowners to resolve the matter themselves.

The four main options are outlined below.

Option 1: Placement of easement on Lot 7 driveway based on standard subdivision practice.

This option includes the following elements:

· Easement benefit to Lot 5 for 40m of Lot 7 driveway (i.e. to the current culvert crossing into Lot 5) and over the portion of Lot 6’s battleaxe leg the Lot 5 driveway crosses from Lot 7 into Lot 5;

· Easement benefit to Lot 6 for 90m of Lot 7 driveway (i.e. to a point at the southern end of the Lot 6 battleaxe leg);

· Easement benefit to Lot 8 for 125m of Lot 7 driveway (i.e. to the end of the Lot 8 battleaxe leg);

· Easement burden on Lot 7 requiring access to Lots 5, 6 and 8 to be provided as outlined above;

· Easement burden on Lot 8 for the portions of Lot 7 driveway within its battleaxe leg;

· Easement burden on Lot 6 for the Lot 5 driveway across the Lot 6 battleaxe leg;

· Shire to pay for all easement costs;

· Shire to pay for construction of a culvert crossing into Lot 6 at the 90m point along the Lot 7 driveway; and

· Landowners to be responsible for any costs associated with relocation of driveways to meet the new ‘take-off-points’, particularly on Lots 6 and 8.

This option has the benefit of being the lowest-cost option available to Council. It is also based on established subdivision principles and is highly likely to have been the outcome had an easement been placed on the titles in 1996 as intended by the subdivision approval.

Shire staff have inspected the site and are satisfied that construction of a new culvert crossing into Lot 6 is feasible on engineering grounds and will not affect existing electricity services and drainage located within the access legs. This option also avoids Lot 6 having to twice cross the drainage line that traverses the property and any new driveway would remain on the northern and eastern side of the drainage line.

The costs to Council associated with this option are estimated at approximately $10,000 for survey and legal costs and construction of a culvert crossing into Lot 6.

Based on discussions to date, it is likely that this option will not be supported by Lot 6. This will be due to the need to construct approximately 200-250m of new driveway to link the existing house site to the new crossover location. The cost of a new driveway to the Shire’s standard requirements is estimated at $15,000 to $20,000.

Although untested, it is possible that Lot 8 would also not be supportive given they too would need to construct a new driveway through their property. However, as it appears that both Lot 7 and Lot 8 are satisfied with the existing driveway arrangement, this option could be modified to provide Lot 8 a benefit over a longer section of the Lot 7 driveway to avoid the need for driveway construction. However, based on the discussions Shire staff have had to date, this is unlikely to be offered to Lot 6 by Lot 7.

Option 2: Construct new 90m driveway for Lots 5 and 6

This option includes:

· Separation of the driveway arrangements of Lots 5 and 6 from those for Lots 7 and 8;

· Construction of 90m of new 4m wide driveway within the Lot 5 and 6 battleaxe leg at the Shire’s cost;

· Construction of a new crossover onto Sparsa Close at the Shire’s cost;

· Relocation of an existing Western Power supply pole and/or stay cable at the Shire’s cost if required;

· Protection of the Lot 5/6 driveway by easement at the Shire’s cost;

· Protection of the existing Lot 7/8 driveway by easement at the Shire’s cost; and

· Construction of a new driveway into Lot 6 by the landowner, as per Option 1 above.

This option has the benefit of reducing the number of properties using a single driveway from 4 to 2. This reduces the overall complexity of the easement arrangements, as well as reduce the traffic impact on the driveways themselves.

This option is likely to require considerable site and drainage works to ensure the new driveway on Lots 5 and 6 does not impact on the existing driveway. It may also require an existing Western Power supply pole (including a transformer) to be relocated to allow for access onto Sparsa Close.

Whilst the earthworks, drainage and service issues can be resolved by appropriate engineering solutions, this option will have a considerable cost that is unlikely to be offset by the benefits above. Costs of construction are estimated at $30,000 to $60,000. Easement costs are likely to be similar to Option 1, notwithstanding two separate documents would be needed.

This option is likely to be acceptable to Lots 7 and 8 as it simply formalises the existing access arrangement these two properties have already. It is likely that Lot 6 will raise similar concerns with this option as with Option 1 given the need for them to construct a new driveway.

Option 3: Construct new 275m driveway for Lots 5 and 6

This is similar to Option 2 in so far that Lots 5 and 6 would have a separate driveway. However, this option would see Council construct a 275m-long driveway along the Lot 6 battleaxe leg and western boundary of Lot 6 to link Sparsa Close to the point where the existing Lot 6 driveway enters Lot 7.

The engineering issues associated with Option 2 also apply to this option, but are considerably increased by the need to replace existing drainage along the existing driveway and to construct a second drainage line crossing. Consequently, the estimated construction cost of this option is higher than Option 2 ($75,000 to $80,000). The environmental impact of the engineering that would be required is considered greater than any other option.

The main benefit of this option is that this is the preferred option of Lot 6 as it links in to the existing driveway that they have constructed into their property. However, this benefit is offset by the high cost and the net impact on drainage and vegetation for what is essentially a duplicate of the existing Lot 7 driveway.

Option 4: Creation of a road reserve (Cul-de-Sac)

This option includes:

· The four battleaxe legs being acquired by the Shire at no cost and dedicated as a road reserve for a length of approximately 125m (i.e. to the point where the Lot 8 battleaxe leg ends). In the case of Lot 5 which has an irregularly-shaped access leg, a 5m portion of the property along its western boundary would be taken;

· The Shire paying all costs associated with the modification to the lots, surveying, creation of new titles and dedication of the road reserve through a ‘road widening’ subdivision process;

· The existing driveway within the new road reserve being upgraded over time and in accordance with the Shire’s Road Programme to a public road standard, including the construction of a cul-de-sac head that allows vehicles to turn around; and

· Construction of a culvert crossing into Lot 6 at the Shire’s cost, as per Option 1.

In discussions with the landowners, it became apparent that the maintenance of the existing driveway is problematic. Whilst a future easement could put in place a mechanism that requires Lots 5, 6 and 8 to contribute to the maintenance of the driveway on Lot 7, there is some concern amongst the parties about how this would actually work in practice. This option removes this issue entirely with Council taking on maintenance obligations.

Lot 6 would need to construct a new driveway as per Options 1 and 2. Lot 8 could either construct a new driveway, or enter into an easement agreement with Lot 7 should this be acceptable to both parties.

This option has an estimated up-front cost to Council of approximately $50,000. Essentially this option is a form of subdivision requiring survey, titles, land exchanges, service realignments to new property boundaries, possible lifting of any mortgages and road construction. There may also be a cost associated with relocation of existing electricity supply poles if Western Power requires this to occur. There has been insufficient time in order to ascertain if this is likely. Shire staff would undertake this due diligence in the event Council resolves to adopt this option and report back to Council should there be a significant cost to be borne by the Shire.

Should this subdivision be considered for approval and construction today, it is highly likely that a small cul-de-sac would be required rather than the four side-by-side access legs afforded the 1994 approval.

It is noted that the 125m length of the potential cul-de-sac is less than the maximum length of 200m recommended for culs-de-sac in fire prone areas by the Planning for Bush Fire Protection Guidelines. The cul-de-sac would allow for greater accessibility for fire fighting vehicles in the event of a bush fire affecting the properties.

In order to be successful, all four parties would need to agree for the taking of the land. Although a compulsory acquisition process is available to the Shire under the Land Administration Act 1997, this is not considered an appropriate proposal to warrant the use of this complex and onerous process.

This option will also require an ongoing upgrading and maintenance cost to Council as it will take on care and control of the 125m portion of the existing driveway.

It is debatable if this option is reasonable in the broader public interest given the battleaxe only provides access to four private properties and there is little if no likelihood of broader public use of such a road reserve. This would therefore create precedence for other similar subdivisions where there are legacy disputes over access or the sharing of costs for the maintenance of access.

General comment in respect of options

The subdivision was problematic with the original developer besieged with financial difficulties. The overview of the history relating to this subdivision is inconclusive if the Shire of Manjimup took reasonable steps when clearing subdivision conditions, in particular, whether a letter of undertaking by the developer was ever received and pursued.

Given the passage of time, the Statute of Limitations and principle of Caveat Emptor, it is arguable the Shire of Manjimup no longer has any legal obligation to address the situation. It is likewise arguable, given the Shire’s involvement in the subdivision whether the Shire / Council has a moral obligation to assist current landowners resolve access issues.

If Council supports the proposal to intervene and assist resolve the access issues it is recommended the level of such support reflect the extent of the Shire’s obligation at the time of subdivision, and no more. At the time of subdivision, the Shire was required to confirm (a) if a battleaxe leg(s) was constructed and drained (it appears so) and (b) the existence of an agreement to ensure reciprocal rights of access over adjoining battleaxe legs (it appears unlikely and even if an agreement was created, it cannot be found and was not put into effect).

Staff Recommendation

Shire staff recommend Option 1 be adopted by Council.

It is acknowledged however that success implementing Option 1 is reliant on agreement being reached with all the landowners to entertain this option. In the event agreement cannot be reached, the most likely resultant course of action is for individual landowners to pursue civil action.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

Subdivision and development of the land is governed by the Planning and Development Act 2005.

The placement and operation of easements is governed by the Transfer of Land Act 1983.

The dedication of a road reserve is governed by the Land Administration Act 1997.

Policy / Strategic Implications:

Nil.

Financial Implications:

The exact financial implication on Council will differ depending upon the Option Council selects as outlined in the report herein.

Currently there is no budget allocation for such works and would need to be drawn from reserve accounts (either the “Road Grant and Latent Conditions Reserve”, “Land Resumption Reserve” or the “Strategic Asset Development Reserve”).

Sustainability:

Environmental: There is minimal difference in the environmental impact between each option. The preferred option has a relatively minor environmental impact, limited to vegetation clearing for construction of a crossover and driveway into Lot 6.

Economic: Nil

Social: As outlined in the report, the Shire / Council has a moral, if not a legal obligation, to assist landowners resolve legal access to their properties on Sparsa Close subdivision.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: SIMPLE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

That Council:

1. Acknowledges that it is unable to prove that it did not fail in its obligations to ensure Condition 12 of the subdivision approval granted on 9 June 1994 for the creation of Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 Sparsa Close, Crowea was adequately addressed to the extent available by the Transfer of Land Act 1893 as it applied at the time of subdivision clearance in early 1996;

2. Accepts that it has a reasonable obligation to ensure the existing access issues suffered by Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 Sparsa Close, Crowea are resolved insofar that reciprocal rights of access would have been applied at the time the titles were created in 1996;

3. Supports Option 1 as outlined in the report being the creation of reciprocal access easements over Lots 5,6,7 and 8 Sparsa Close, Crowea and the construction of culvert crossings into Lot 6 (at the 90m point along the Lot 7 driveway); and

4. Authorises the expenditure of $10,000 from the Land Resumption Reserve towards addressing the above.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Omodei, P Seconded: Jenkins, D

25926

That Council defer this Item to verify comments made.

CARRIED: 11/0

Reasons:

Four battleaxe entries.
Power pole.
Road down middle of battleaxe.
Significant fire access.
Possible amendment to extend road to rear subdivision for fire.
Subject to inundation. Excavation has impacted on owners land.
Could be resolved by mutual agreement.
Allow further information to come forward.
Inherited a problem.
Further 3 weeks delay will not be a problem.

· Councillors should go and have a look and speak to land holders before next meeting.

9.4.1 The Keeping of More Than Two Cats 23 O'Connor Street Manjimup

PROPONENT	Paul McGlinn & Sarah Hockridge
OWNER	Paul McGlinn & Sarah Hockridge
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	23 O’Connor street Manjimup
WARD:	Central
ZONE:	Residential
DIVISION:	Ranger& Emergency Services
FILE REFERENCE:	RGR-1/2
LEGISLATION:	Shire of Manjimup Health Local Laws 1998
AUTHOR:	Stephen Croft
DATE OF REPORT:	20 January 2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

An application has been received from Mr P McGlinn and Ms Sarah Hockridge to keep three sterilised cats over the age of three months at 23 O’Conn0r Street Manjimup.

Section 70 (1) of the Shire of Manjimup Health Local Laws 1998 limits the keeping of 2 cats within the Residential Zones of the Shire of Manjimup Town Planning Schemes.

Section 70 (2) of the Health Local Laws states an owner or occupier of premises may apply in writing to Council for an exemption from the requirements of Section 70 (1).

PUBLIC Consultation Undertaken:

Direct neighbours have been consulted with no concerns in regards to the application having been raised.

COMMENT

All three cats owned by Mr. McGlinn & Ms Hockridge have all been sterilised, microchipped, vaccinated and registered with the Shire of Manjimup. The Shire of Manjimup has no record of complaints against Mr. McGlinn & Ms Hockridge.

The Officers recommendation below provides for the cats to be well kept and good animal husbandry standards remain. Once one of the cats passed away or is moved on, the cat numbers are then to be kept to the amount of two cats.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

Shire of Manjimup Health Local Laws 1998, Section 70 (1) and (2).

Policy / Strategic Implications:

Nil

Financial Implications:

Nil

Sustainability:

Environmental: Domestic cats have potential to impact on the environment if not properly controlled. Both the new Cat Act 2011 and the Shire of Manjimup Health Local Laws mitigate the risk to the environment by a cat control strategy.

Economic: Nil

Social: Nil

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Simple Majority

Officer Recommendation:

That Council:

1. Grant the Mr P McGlinn and Ms S Hockridge of 23 O’Connor Street, Manjimup an exemption pursuant to clause 70(2) Shire of Manjimup Health Local Laws in order to keep three cats on the aforementioned premises;

2. Require that the Cats are all individually licensed with the Shire of Manjimup in accordance with the Cat Act 2011;

3. Ensure the cats are cared for in a manner acceptable to the Shire of Manjimup;

4. Condition the exemption to be able to be revoked or varied by Council at any time;

5. Direct any complaints regarding nuisance cat behaviour to be dealt with under appropriate legislation; and

6. Condition the exemption that once the numbers have been reduced to two cats, the exemption is no longer valid.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Bavich, D Seconded: Chodorowski, C

25927

That Council:

2. Require that the Cats are all individually licensed with the Shire of Manjimup in accordance with the Cat Act 2011;

3. Ensure the cats are cared for in a manner acceptable to the Shire of Manjimup;

4. Condition the exemption to be able to be revoked or varied by Council at any time;

5. Direct any complaints regarding nuisance cat behaviour to be dealt with under appropriate legislation; and

6. Condition the exemption that once the numbers have been reduced to two cats, the exemption is no longer valid.

CARRIED: 11/0

ATTACHMENT

APPENDIX

9.5.3 Access Issue for Site 53, Windy Harbour Resulting From Decision of Council on 23 January 2014 relating to Site 54, Windy Harbour

PROPONENT	Shire of Manjimup
OWNER	Crown (Management Order to Shire)
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	Reserve 38881, Windy Harbour
WARD:	Coastal
ZONE:	Special Use Zone No 5
DIVISION:	Statutory Services
FILE REFERENCE:	P55008; P55074
LEGISLATION:	Local Government Act 1995 Land Administration Act 1997
AUTHOR:	Andrew Campbell
DATE OF REPORT:	29/01/2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

At the meeting 23 January 2014, Council considered a matter relating to a shed and retaining wall built on land outside of Site 54 Windy Harbour. A copy of the relevant Council Minutes is appended. The item includes a site plan plus the relevant detail of Council’s decision.

APPENDIX: 9.5.3 (A)

A consequence of part of the Council decision permitting an approximate 1.5m extension to the northern boundary of Site 54 in exchange for equivalent leasehold land on the southern boundary is that vehicle access to Site 53 has been potentially impacted. The reasons for the decision indicated by Council (some which have relevance to this item) are indicated below:

· Practical solution to inadvertent building over the boundary;

· Additional access tight for Lot 53. Concern safety people and structures;

· Understand Shire needs to undertake works to address access problems;

· Need to revisit access from the camping ground;

· Peg not present at time of building. Single survey $1,800 - $3,000;

· Would be more efficient to undertake survey at same time as creating other 20+ lots; and

· Mr Giblett has already incurred $1,800 for survey works albeit after the event.

This report seeks to resolve the access issue for Site 53 arising from this previous decision of Council.

PUBLIC Consultation Undertaken:

Nil

COMMENT (Includes Options):

Prior to the Council meeting on 14 February 2013, some Councillors and staff travelled to Windy Harbour for a site inspection of Site 54 and to consider the impact of development on Site 53 and the adjacent camping ground prior to making a determination on the original application for the shed on Site 54. The delegation met separately with the owners of Site 54 and Site 53 to assist Councillors in the decision making process. Whilst the Council decision, subsequent State Administrative Tribunal decision, incorrect construction location for the shed by the owner of Site 54, and Council’s recent resolution to resolve the matter has occurred and is now past history, some current sitting Councillors who attended that meeting would recall that the highest priority concern of the owner of Site 53 was to protect vehicle access to the Site including retaining the ability to reverse and store a boat on site.

The current access for Site 53 is firstly via the Windy Harbour Camping Ground that ends by traversing a 17m by 2.8m (narrowest section) wide strip of land under the control of the Shire of Manjimup that adjoins the northern boundary of Site 54. Council’s decision of 23 January 2014 has essentially reduced the Shire controlled access way to 1.3m at the northwest corner and this would be clearly insufficient to be used as a functional vehicular access to Site 53 if the intent of the decision was for vehicular movements to and from Site 53 to be on land other than Site 54.

The reasons behind Council’s decision of 23 January 2014 should be considered and applied in discussion on this matter as they represent Council’s most recent view. On this basis, if the structures on Site 54 are to be protected in their current form and / or if Council’s intent of the extension to the boundary of Site 54 was to preclude vehicular movements from that area in lieu of creating an alternate access arrangement for Site 53 to fix the current tight access arrangement, it is expected that substantial earthworks and retaining would be required to resolve the matter.

Existing Access Way Widening

It is considered that an access way of 3.5m in width would be suitable for vehicular access into Site 53 following the current curving shape of access. It is however proposed that the alignment is created in a straight line at a minimum width of 3m with the northwest corner of Site 54 truncated on a 45º angle at 1m to allow an unimpeded swing into the parking area of Site 53.

Images of the above described scenario are depicted in the attachment with the use of pegs to highlight the new boundary, potential minimum excavation and retaining works and a possible truncation.

ATTACHMENT: 9.5.3(1)

A further image highlights what is recommended to Council showing the straightening of the access was to facilitate easier vehicle access to Site 53.

ATTACHMENT: 9.5.3(2)

The earthworks and retaining resulting from the proposed widening of the access way would require significant funding to achieve. Given that some of the retaining would need to be engineered up to a maximum height of 1.8m at the highest point it is estimated (based on comparable applications for similar height retaining load bearing walls) that the design, approval and construction of a 13m retaining wall of varying height would cost in the order of $15,000. In addition to this it will be necessary to seek Native Vegetation Clearing approvals and potentially Aboriginal Heritage approvals of which the costs have been factored into the above amount.

The existing access way widening appears to be the most practical option.

Other Options - Alternate Access

An assessment of alternate direct site access points was conducted on 29 January 2014 and the assessment concluded that due to the very steep topography and the built environment surrounding Site 53 it is not financially feasible or practical to provide vehicle access other than from the area adjacent to the northern boundary of Site 54.

Irrespective of this, one of Council’s reasons given in the decision of 23 January 2014 was a need to revisit access issues to several Sites from the camping ground. In the case of Site 53 it is quite possible that access from an existing firebreak entering from Windy Harbour Drive and terminating to the immediate east of the existing access way to Site 53 could eliminate the need for the Site owner to traverse the camping ground at all. If this were to happen it may in fact benefit several other Sites in the vicinity however it would require some substantial future upgrades to come to fruition. Regardless of this potential alternate access point, the access way for Site 53 as discussed in this item would still be required.

Other Options - Formalisation of Access Across Site 54

Under the current standard 20 Year Windy Harbour Lease Agreement a clause is included to provide for access:

“4.06 Right of Access

The Lessee shall at all times permit the Lessor and the lessees of other premises in Windy Harbour, and their guests and visitors, right of access to and across that part of the Demised Premises on which no building has been erected so as to permit access to any services or amenities provided by the Lessor for all persons desirous of availing themselves of those services and amenities.”

Whilst it is entirely possible to invoke this clause on Site 54 (and even strengthen the arrangement when the survey is completed and the existing lease amended), to formalise access arrangements for Site 53 through Site 54 would not achieve the desired 1.5m safety and structural clearance for vehicles accessing Site 53 from the existing structures on Site 54. One option to overcome this could be to require the strengthening of the area close to the structures on Site 54 northern boundary to the point where it would be safe to operate a vehicle close by. This option would be much more cost effective (estimated to be $5,000) than the proposed earthworks and retaining but irrespective of this the maneuvering area remains very tight particularly at the narrowest (and most important for vehicle swing) point of 2.8m and ultimately is not a recommended solution as significant potential exists for a vehicle or boat from Site 53 hitting the shed or wall on site 54 when in transit.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

In making a decision on this matter Council would be applying the powers of the Land Administration Act and Local Government Act to affect any change.

Policy / Strategic Implications:

There are several Sites throughout the Windy Harbour settlement that have existing vehicular access issues. It is anticipated that through funding received from the proposed future sale of additional Sites, significant infrastructure works can be undertaken to remedy many of these existing issues.

Financial Implications:

It is anticipated that the cost of the preferred option being the existing access way widening will cost in the order of $15,000. It is proposed that this item is funded from the Windy Harbour Infrastructure Reserve which has an existing balance of $18,478.

Sustainability:

Environmental: Increasing the size of the existing access way or providing a new access for Site 53 could result in substantial changes to the existing landform. Aboriginal heritage clearances and native vegetation removal permits may be required.

Economic: It should not be expected that the owner of Site 53 be liable for any costs associated with changes required to an access way that have arisen from a previous decision of Council.

Social: All leaseholders at Windy Harbour should at least be able to access their Site within close proximity to their hut with their vehicles and other equipment as required.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

That Council:

1. Undertake the widening and associated works of the vehicle access way to Site 53 to ensure a minimum 3m width straight line access way is created on Council managed land;

2. Include a 45º angle at 1m truncation on the northwest corner of Site 54 when boundaries are altered in accordance with the Council decision of 23 January 2014 (Minute No: 25898) which required an approximate increase of 1.5m to the northern boundary of Site 54; and

3. Amend the 2013/14 Budget in accordance with the following table:

Item	Existing Budget	Proposed Budget	Variation
Access way to Site 53	$0	$15,000	$15,000
Windy Harbour Infrastructure Reserve	$18,478	$3,478	($15,000)
net	$18,478	$18,478	$0

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

moved: Bavich, D seconded: Fahey, t

That Council:

1. Undertake the widening and associated works of the vehicle access way to Site 53 to ensure a minimum 3m width straight line access way is created on Council managed land;

3. Amend the 2013/14 Budget in accordance with the following table:

Item	Existing Budget	Proposed Budget	Variation
Access way to Site 53	$0	$15,000	$15,000
Windy Harbour Infrastructure Reserve	$18,478	$3,478	($15,000)
net	$18,478	$18,478	$0

MOTION lost 5/6

FOR	AGAINST
Cr D Bavich	Cr C Chodorowski
Cr L Daubney	Cr S Karamfiles
Cr W DeCampo	Cr C Logan
Cr T Fahey	Cr P Omodei
Cr D Jenkins	Cr D Tapley
	Cr C Winfield

Moved: Omodei, P Seconded: Tapley, D

25928

That status remains per last Council meeting.

MOTION carried 6/5

FOR	AGAINST
Cr C Chodorowski	Cr D Bavich
Cr L Daubney	Cr W DeCampo
Cr C Logan	Cr T Fahey
Cr P Omodei	Cr D Jenkins
Cr D Tapley	Cr S Karamfiles
Cr C Winfield

Reasons:

Access problem identified last meeting.
Management plan allows traverse across peoples land.
Cannot support spending $18,000 to resolve.
Mr Giblett inadvertently built over boundary.
Mr Osboine has been accessing his property.
Only needs co-operation between the landowners.

Councillor Daubney advised that she has a Financial Interest in this Item as she is the leaseholder of Lot 114 Windy Harbour. Councillor Daubney did not speak or vote on the matter and left the Chambers at 6.12pm.

ATTACHMENT

APPENDIX

9.5.4 Outcome of Final Consultation and Proposal for Authority to Progress Actions to Create Additional Windy Harbour Infill Leasehold Sites

PROPONENT	Shire of Manjimup
OWNER	Crown (Management Order to Shire)
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	Reserve 38881, Windy Harbour
WARD:	Coastal
ZONE:	Special Use Zone No 5
DIVISION:	Statutory Services
FILE REFERENCE:	PRO 8/17
LEGISLATION:	Local Government Act 1995 Land Administration Act 1997
AUTHOR:	Andrew Campbell
DATE OF REPORT:	31/01/2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

On 16 June 2011 Council considered preliminary feedback from Windy Harbour leaseholders regarding a proposal to release additional infill leasehold sites at Windy Harbour.

APPENDIX: 9.5.4(A)

The intent of the creation of new infill leases was twofold:

1. To use profit generated from the sale of new infill leases to fund strategic initiatives identified in the Windy Harbour Management Plan 2007 – 2017; and

2. To provide the wider community with an opportunity to acquire and develop vacant leases at Windy Harbour.

Council’s decision in relation to the matter was as follows:

“That Council:

1. Acknowledge the contribution of the Windy Harbour Leaseholders who provided preliminary feedback about additional leases to Council for consideration;

2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to produce a detailed concept lease plan for public consultation after detailed investigations have been undertaken, including consideration of leaseholder submissions from the preliminary feedback phase, in accordance with the Windy Harbour Management Plan 2007-2017; and

3. Consider the concept lease plan and any public submission arising from outcomes derived in point 2 above.”

This resolution facilitated the need to undertake some more detailed conceptual work before the matter was re-consulted with all existing Windy Harbour leaseholders in accordance with the Windy Harbour Management Plan 2007-2017. The consultation documents including the concept plan are attached.

ATTACHMENT: 9.5.4(1)

Councillors were briefed on the consultation submissions and proposed responses at the 23 January 2014 Council Briefing. Copies of all submissions were provided to Councillors at that briefing.

The purpose of this report is to report back to Council on the outcome of the Windy Harbour leaseholder consultation and seek authority from Council to progress the creation of additional Windy Harbour leasehold sites.

PUBLIC Consultation Undertaken:

All existing Windy Harbour Leaseholders were consulted in accordance with Council’s resolution from for a four week period finishing on 20 December 2013. Submissions were made representing thirteen existing leasehold sites to be tabled at the Council meeting for the record. Councillors have already received copies of all of these submissions at the 23 January 2014 Information Briefing Session.

TABLED DOCUMENT

An additional two submissions were received by staff a month after the closing date for submissions and have not been considered in the report but are attached for Council’s information.

ATTACHMENT: 9.5.4 (2)

COMMENT (Includes Options):

The significant delay between the first and second rounds of consultation has arisen due to staff identifying potential fatal flaws in the proposal being that of Aboriginal heritage and rare flora. It was decided at the time to engage consultants to undertake both an Aboriginal Heritage Survey and a Significant Flora Survey to rule out issues that may jeopardise the project. In addition to the two studies, consideration was given to the first round of Windy Harbour leaseholder feedback as part of the development of the detailed concept plan used for the second round of consultation. Time delays were experienced particularly with the Aboriginal Heritage Survey which ultimately delayed the project.

As a result of the Aboriginal Heritage Survey the originally proposed leasehold sites off of Evans Loop were removed in exchange for the area containing Sites 501 to 512 off of Gardiner Road. As this outcome happened after the Significant Flora Survey was completed, a flora survey will be required in this area if these specific leasehold sites are to proceed however it is not expected that significant rare flora will be detected in the area.

In all, submissions were received representing fourteen leasehold sites noting that there were a couple of instances where multiple submissions were received from the same leasehold site. The return rate of submissions was 6.4% of 220 requests for comment representing a very low rate of return. The consultation result can be summarised by the following table:

Objection to the total proposal	Objection to some leases only	Support	Information supplied for consideration
1	9	2	1

A schedule of submission with officer comment has been prepared for Council’s consideration.

ATTACHMENT: 9.5.4(3)

Summary Of Concerns

Full copies of submissions are available upon request and have previously been provided to Councillors.

Sites 501 to 512

Concerns mainly focused on:

1. Sites abutting this area are considered by existing leasehold site owners to be too close and not allow for vehicle movements and enjoyment of their leasehold;

2. Environmental issues including damage and erosion in a sensitive area;

3. Issue with water mains in the area; and

4. Risk of invasion of privacy and theft from extra pedestrians from this area;

Officer response:

1. Agreed and recommended to remove up to two sites and reconfigure the design to create a separation area that can jointly act as a low fuel zone and also allow vehicle parking and maneuvering. Council should note that significant development has occurred in the area outside of the existing leasehold sites without approval (on Windy Harbour Drive adjoining the proposed new area) and it could be expected that there would be some opposition from affected parties;

2. Environmental matters will be addressed as part of the further detailed stages in the project including the need to conduct a flora survey in accordance with the guidance of the Windy Harbour Management Plan 2007-2017 and relevant statute;

3. Easements will be created in any new leasehold site where applicable to protect the water main and allow maintenance access; and

4. Disagree as there is no historical evidence to support such a claim.

Site 513

Multiple strong objections in the following areas:

1. Danger to small children;

2. Removal of rear access to Site 259;

3. Fire safety concern in an emergency as only one way in and one way out;

4. Destruction of the hill at Site 513 with building construction;

5. Site 513 has previously been identified as unsuitable to develop;

6. Site 513 too small to develop;

7. Significant devaluation of Site 259 would occur;

8. Vehicle maneuvering is currently tight especially with a number of new drivers coming into the area and occupying existing leasehold sites;

9. Restricts access for windmill maintenance and gas bottle replacement servicing Site 259;

10. Site 513 development would severely affect adjacent and surrounding leaseholders threatening leaseholder tenure, strong social ties and community spirit;

11. Will affect boat parking and trailer turnaround;

12. A well exists on proposed Site 513 that is utilised by surrounding sites;

13. Development of Site 513 contradicts Shire policies for development at Windy Harbour;

14. “It is an absolutely untenable approach for Council to alienate multiple adjacent leaseholders by forcing on them these unwarranted intrusive aggravations”;

15. Access to Site 259 will be by ramp only;

16. A culture has developed between neighbouring properties and cramming in another property would destroy this; and

17. Previous comments have been dismissed by Shire staff as being to general.

Officer Response:

On balance it is considered that there is no development reason why Site 513 could not be created for the reason that all impacts of that development could be contained on the site and this will be recommended to Council. Given the strong objections to Site 513 particularly from leaseholders in the immediate vicinity (six of thirteen submissions received during the consultation period) Council may wish to not pursue this site by using their discretion on the basis of adverse community consultation feedback.

Sites 514 and 515

Two objections objecting on the following grounds:

1. Area used as parking in busy times;

2. Important for open space to be available nearby;

3. Access to Site 131 may be compromised;

4. Privacy issues may be created from Site 514 given the differing heights; and

5. Site 515 is too small to develop and will result in vegetation removal.

Officer Response

1. Parking is available in many areas throughout the settlement and other parking opportunities are available. A six week peak time at Windy Harbour should not be a reason Council should use to dismiss the creation of these sites. Usually overflow parking on these sites is a result of multiple vehicles and boats being parked outside of leasehold sites because the parking spaces at the sites are already heavily occupied;

2. Within 100m of either site there is significant public open space which the nominal distance is considered more than adequate in any small site residential type development;

3. The access to Site 131 will not be impeded by any proposal;

4. This matter will be adequately addressed by Council processes during the development stage if the site is approved however it is no considered to present any real risk to a development proposal on the site; and

5. Agreed that vegetation removal will occur but as seen with the 330m² development of Site 404 (Site 515 is 328m²), substantial quality development can occur on small sites.

Sites 516-523

No specific objections received.

Sites 524-527

One submission was received expressing concerns about buffer distances from the Professional Fisherman Sites.

Officer Response

The Windy Harbour Management Plan 2007-2017 clearly indicates that buffer distances between the Professional Fisherman Sites and all other leaseholder sites should be maintained to ensure that impacts from professional fishing operations are minimized on other leaseholders. On this basis it is recommended to Council that the Sites 524-527 are reduced to three leasehold sites in a row on the same alignment and abutting Site 231. In doing this the existing buffers between the Professional Fisherman Sites and all other leasehold sites will be maintained.

General Concerns

Concerns are focused on:

1. Sites of 300m² to 400m² are too small;

2. Parking on small sites is problematic;

3. Inconsistent consultation with “off site” indigenous groups does not match that afforded to leaseholders. Indigenous group concerns were addressed but leaseholders were largely ignored;

4. Water supply needs to be adequate;

5. Roads proposed to satisfy the development appear costly;

6. Questions the merit of opening more blocks when limited essential services are under extreme pressure during peak times; and

7. Market is currently satisfied by existing leaseholds on the market.

Officer Response

1. 24 of 27 proposed infill sites exceed 500m² and all sites are considered sufficient to cater for all elements raised in the submission. Site 404 Windy Harbour Drive was the last vacant site leased by Council and at 334m² has comfortably accommodated development that far exceeds many improvements on leaseholds at Windy Harbour.

2. In circumstances where multiple vehicles, boats and trailers are trying to squeeze into certain leaseholds at particular times of the year, it would make sense to provide a secure facility for the purpose of storage. The Windy Harbour Management Plan also contemplates this thinking but it may not be embraced by leaseholders for a number of reasons. If this is the case then modification of behaviour or putting up with arrangements for a short duration by leaseholders may be required.

3. This comment is strongly opposed on the basis that the assessment of Aboriginal culture and history is not only extremely important in society (as reflected in the Windy Harbour Management Plan) but it is also mandated by statute in relation to development on an “A” Class reserve. For the two submitters to indicate favourable treatment for Aboriginal groups involved in this process should be entirely disregarded by Council. In relation to consultation with Windy Harbour leaseholders this is the second time the matter has been consulted. Changes have been made since the previous consultation process and it must be clearly pointed out to the submitters that the Windy Harbour Management Plan is the basis of Windy Harbour leaseholder consultation and Council elected to consult for a second time to ensure all matters were appropriately addressed.

4. The water supply is considered sufficient to cater for additional sites.

5. This matter is unlikely to impact on the viability of the proposal.

6. The only essential services the Shire of Manjimup provides to the Windy Harbour settlement is potable water and rubbish. Both services are sufficient and are adequately managed at all times.

7. The market for vacant leasehold sites is significantly different from the market for existing leasehold property. Regular contact from prospective vacant site leasehold purchasers is evidence of demand.

Summary of Staff Recommended Alterations to the Concept Plan

1. Proposed Site 513 has generated significant numbers of objections from surrounding property leaseholders. Most reasons for the objections are replicated in multiple submissions. Staff will be recommending to Council that the proposed Site 513 remains as part of the proposal on the basis that the site is developable and the whilst the submissions do have some points supported by staff, they are strongly focused on the existing leaseholders and friends in the enclave retaining what could be considered to be exclusive use of the area. Council may wish to remove the proposed site based on the number of objecting submissions however staff will recommend retention.

2. Proposed Sites 501 to 512 Gardiner Road have received several objections against the proposal. It is agreed that the existing sites on Windy Harbour Drive backing onto the proposed sites have limited room to maneuver vehicles, boats and trailers and it will be recommended to Council that one or two proposed sites are removed and the blocks reconfigured to allow a larger cleared fire hazard separation area that can be also used by the existing sites for the purpose above. The water main also traverses through some of the proposed sites and it will be necessary to create appropriate protection for this as well.

3. Proposed Site 514 requires slight modification to cater for access to Site 131.

4. Under the Windy Harbour Management Plan (WHMP) professional fisherman’s leases are considered ancillary component of the settlement. Buffers were originally created to protect the amenity of nearby holiday cottages. The WHMP does suggest the buffers should be maintained and managed to ensure the coexistence between professional fishing operations and holiday cottages and on this basis the submission is supported in part. Nearby existing holiday cottage leaseholds are approximately 40m from Site 306 and no complaints have been received about professional fishing operations from these leaseholders. On this basis it is recommended that a 40m separation between the proposed sites and Site 306 is achieved. To do this it will be necessary to remove Site 526 and 527 and as compensation, re-establish one of those sites alongside Site 524 and Site 525 (including renumbering) plus reconfigure the road layout to suit. The end result will be one less site but a suitable buffer will be created.

5. All other proposed sites will be recommended for approval noting that some objections had been received and should be considered by Council. In total 24 or 25 proposed sites out of 27 are recommended for approval of Council.

Process From Here

The Windy Harbour Management Plan 2007 -2017 sets out a clear process pathway to create additional infill leasehold sites at Windy Harbour. The requirements are shown in the attachment. It is expected that matters outlined in the Windy Harbour Management Plan 2007-2017 will be addressed and reported on back to Council with detailed final reports.

ATTACHMENT: 9.5.4 (4)

Given that some of the proposed leasehold sites are more difficult or expensive than others to create, it is also proposed that the project is grouped into a two step development process whereby stage 1 will be carried out first and stage two will be commenced and completed at a later stage. Staging the project will allow for difficult issues to be addressed appropriately on some sites and it will also allow cash flow to enable development to proceed without budgetary pressure. Further detailed information for each stage will be presented to Council as the project develops including recommendations on the sale method, process and release sequence of each proposed site.

The stages proposed are as follows:

· Stage one – Sites 514, 516 to 523, and 524 to 526; and

· Stage two – Sites 501 to 512 (less one or two lots due to reconfiguration), 513 and 515.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

Land Administration Act 1997 and Local Government Act 1995.

Policy / Strategic Implications:

The WHMP is the guiding document in relation to additional lease development in Windy Harbour. Council should ensure that it follows the guidance of this document wherever possible.

The sale of additional leases in the Windy Harbour settlement may allow Council to realise significant infrastructure improvements in accordance with the WHMP. Without these funds it is unlikely that Council will be in a financial position to fund significant WHMP initiatives for the medium to longer term due to competing budgetary pressures across the district.

Financial Implications:

$70,000 was allocated to this project in 2010/11 in generated from the sale of Site 404 by Council. The carried forward balance of these funds for this project into 2013/14 was $42,430 of which $5,280 has been spent to date leaving a total of $37,150 to continue with the project.

Sustainability:

Environmental: The sale of additional leases may have an impact on the environment although the totality of this affect is yet to be determined. Funding generated from the sale of leasehold sites could be used to improve environmental issues such as drainage and other infrastructure, biodiversity and refuse disposal.

Economic: The sale of additional leases is expected to generate significant funding to progress infrastructure improvements in the Windy Harbour settlement in accordance with the WHMP.

Social: The wider community has demanded the release of additional leases for a considerable amount of time. Polarised views from existing Windy Harbour leaseholders on the release of additional leases are evident.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: SIMPLE MAJORITY

Officer Recommendation:

That Council:

1. Endorse the concept plan as contained in ATTACHMENT: 9.5.4(1) with the following alterations:

· Removal of one or two sites from proposed Sites 501 to 512 and reconfigure the design to create a minimum 15m low fuel area between the proposed sites and the existing leasehold sites on Windy Harbour Drive;

· Ensure access to Site 131 is not impacted by the creation of Site 514;

· Sites 524-527 are reduced to three leasehold sites in a row on the same alignment and abutting Site 231;

2. Give authority to commence the detailed process of creating the proposed Sites as indicated in recommendation 1 in two separate stages in accordance with the following approach:

· Stage one – Sites 514, 516 to 523, and 524 to 526; and

· Stage two – Sites 501 to 512 (less one or two lots due to reconfiguration), 513 and 515;

(Note: Further detailed information for each stage will be presented to Council as the project develops including recommendations on the sale method, process and release sequence of each proposed site); and

3. Thank the Windy Harbour leaseholders who made submissions in the consultation process.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Karamfiles, S Seconded: Logan, C

25929

That Council:

1. Endorse the concept plan as contained in ATTACHMENT: 9.5.4(1) with the following alterations:

· Ensure access to Site 131 is not impacted by the creation of Site 514;

· Sites 524-527 are reduced to three leasehold sites in a row on the same alignment and abutting Site 231;

2. Give authority to commence the detailed process of creating the proposed Sites as indicated in recommendation 1 in two separate stages in accordance with the following approach:

· Stage one – Sites 514, 516 to 523, and 524 to 526; and

· Stage two – Sites 501 to 512 (less one or two lots due to reconfiguration), 513 and 515;

3. Thank the Windy Harbour leaseholders who made submissions in the consultation process.

MOTION CARRIED

WITH PRESIDENT’S CASTING VOTE 6/5

FOR	AGAINST
Cr D Bavich	Cr C Chodorowski
Cr W DeCampo	Cr D Jenkins
Cr T Fahey	Cr P Omodei
Cr S Karamfiles	Cr D Tapley
Cr C Logan	Cr C Winfield

104

Councillor Daubney returned to the Chambers at 6.20pm.

ATTACHMENT

9.5.7 Budget Review Adjustments - December 2013

PROPONENT:	Shire of Manjimup
OWNER:
LOCATION / ADDRESS:
WARD:	All
ZONE:	N/A
DIVISION:	Statutory Services
FILE REFERENCE:	FNC3/3
LEGISLATION:	Section 6.8 Local Government Act 1995,
AUTHOR:	Greg Lockwood
DATE OF REPORT:	30 January 2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE:

Background:

Following a review of the Monthly accounts to 31 December 2013 a budget adjustment sheet is prepared to reflect variations to expenditure and revenue contemplated in the 2013/2014 Annual Budget.

ATTACHMENT: 9.5.7(1)

Consultation Undertaken:

Nil

COMMENT (Includes Options):

The December 2013 Monthly Financial Statement Report has been completed and is the subject of a separate agenda item providing a full explanation of “actual” compared to “budget” for the six months of operation to 31 December 2013.

Adjustments required to the 2013/2014 adopted budget, already approved by Council by way of specific agenda items, are:

o Department of Transports – Successful grant application for Windy Harbour Photo Monitoring Project $13,500;

o Regional Development Australia Fund – Removal of funding $185,821

o Northcliffe Culvert Repairs and Upgrades – reallocation of funds for storm repairs $115,000;

o Department of Industry – Successful grant application for Energy Efficiency Upgrades $30,000;

o Manjimup Regional AquaCentre – Allocation of reserve funding to complete upgrade $44,000.

Other adjustments required but not yet considered by Council (please note that Council has the opportunity to add, veto or amend any of the recommended budget variations below) are:

o Budget adjustments to reflect reduced General Purpose Funding $34,816 – Admin & Finance Salaries ($20,000), Community Services Salaries ($4,816), Inflatable Slide ($10,000);

o Budget adjustment to reflect net increase to Road Maintenance Grants – Road Maintenance $7,492;

o Change in funding source for Home and Community Care capital purchases from Non Recurrent funding to Reserve funding $41,945;

o Department of Social Services – Successful grant application for Broad Band for Seniors $2,000;

o Department of Local Government – Successful grant application for Urban Arts Project $5,000;

o Reallocation of funds to purchase Desktop Computer for Integrated Planning Officer $1,800;

o Reallocation of funds for the creation of Public Relations Officer position $33,743;

o Adjustments made to Infrastructure project budgets to reflect unders and overs year to date – Net result $0.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT:

Section 6.8 (1) of the Local Government Act 1995 requires that expenditure not be incurred for an additional purpose unless authorised by Council.

Policy / Strategic Implications:

Nil

Financial Implications:

Details of the recommended budget adjustments are attached.

Sustainability:

Environmental: Nil

Economic: Nil

Social: Nil

VOTING REQUIREMENTS: ABSOLUTE majority

Officer Recommendation:

That Council adopts the December 2013 budget adjustment as contained in Attachment: 9.5.7(1).

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Moved: Daubney, L Seconded: Bavich, D

25930

That Council adopts the December 2013 budget adjustment as contained in Attachment: 9.5.7(1).

CARRIED: 11/0

PROPONENT	Director Works
OWNER	Whole of Shire
LOCATION / ADDRESS:	N/A
WARD:	Whole of Shire
ZONE:	N/A
DIVISION:	Works and Services
FILE REFERENCE:	CNL 14/1
LEGISLATION:	Nil
AUTHOR:	Doug Elkins
DATE OF REPORT:	31 January 2014
DECLARATION OF INTEREST:	Nil
SIGNATURE: