16 october 2007 contents - city of bunbury and... · page 1 council meeting minutes minutes of an...

16 October 2007

CONTENTS

Council Meeting Minutes Item No Subject Page

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER ................ 1

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF

ABSENCE .......................................................................................................... 1

3. RESPONSES TO 'PUBLIC QUESTIONS' FROM THE PREVIOUS

COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING (WHERE THEY COULD

NOT BE ANSWERED AT THAT MEETING) ................................................. 2

4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ............................................................................... 2

5. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM MEMBERS OF THE

COMMITTEE (WITHOUT DISCUSSION) ...................................................... 5

5.1 QUESTION ON NOTICE – PROPOSED COMMERCIAL AND

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT 20 (NO 22) STEPHEN

STREET, BUNBURY ........................................................................................ 5

6. CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES ................................................. 6

7. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST UNDER THE LOCAL

GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 .............................................................................. 7

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER

(WITHOUT DISCUSSION) ............................................................................... 7

9. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REPORTS/DISCUSSION TOPICS .............. 8

9.1 CITY VISION - SPECIAL MEETING OF ELECTORS HELD 20

SEPTEMBER 2007 ............................................................................................ 8

9.2 REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE – COUNCILLOR SHANE

ROONEY .......................................................................................................... 15

9.3 RE-CONSIDERATION – PROPOSED MIXED-USE

COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT 20

(NO. 22) STEPHEN STREET, BUNBURY .................................................... 16

10. RECEPTION OF FORMAL PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS ..................... 41

11. RECEPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM

THE COUNCIL (STANDING) COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 9

OCTOBER 2007 ............................................................................................... 42

11.1 BUNBURY WATERFRONT PROJECT - BUNBURY TIMBER

JETTY - COUNCIL COMMITMENT TO THE PROJECT ............................ 42

11.2 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT LOT 20 (NO 22) STEPHEN STREET,

BUNBURY ....................................................................................................... 47

11.3 BUNBURY AIRPORT SITE NO 29B PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT

OF LEASE ........................................................................................................ 48

11.4 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR MONTHS OF JULY, AUGUST

& SEPTEMBER 2007 (WAS LISTED AS ITEM 11.5 IN THE

MEETING AGENDA) ....................................................................................... 54

11.5 2007/2008-01 TENDER FOR THE SUPPLY OF BULK AND EX-

BOWSER FUELS (WAS LISTED AS ITEM 11.8 IN THE MEETING

AGENDA) ......................................................................................................... 56

11.6 PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE TO A HOME BUSINESS

(ACCOUNTING/CONSULTING) – LOT 328 (NO 4) BERGERSEN

COURT, CAREY PARK (WAS LISTED AS ITEM 11.10 IN THE

MEETING AGENDA) ....................................................................................... 61

11.7 APPLICATION BY AQWEST (BUNBURY WATER BOARD) TO

PURCHASE CITY OF BUNBURY-OWNED FREEHOLD LAND

CURRENTLY LEASED TO AQWEST (WAS LISTED AS ITEM

11.12 IN THE MEETING AGENDA) ............................................................... 69

11.8 COMMUNITY SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITY FUND

("CSRFF") APPLICATION - BUNBURY BOWLING CLUB INC.

(WAS LISTED AS ITEM 11.4 IN THE MEETING AGENDA) ......................... 76

11.9 RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPROVAL, PROPOSED

LANDFILL – LOTS 218 AND 219 ELIZABETH CRESCENT,

SOUTH BUNBURY (WAS LISTED AS ITEM 11.6 IN THE

MEETING AGENDA) ....................................................................................... 81

11.10 PROPOSED 14 STOREY MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL

AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT 34 (NO 12)

VICTORIA STREET, BUNBURY (WAS LISTED AS ITEM 11.7 IN

THE MEETING AGENDA) .............................................................................. 89

11.11 BUSINESS PLAN - PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT ON PORTION LOT 4 PRESTONWOOD

STREET, BUNBURY (WAS LISTED AS ITEM 11.9 IN THE

MEETING AGENDA) ..................................................................................... 113

11.12 NORTHERN ENTRY STATEMENT PUBLIC ART

COMMISSION (WAS LISTED AS ITEM 11.11 IN THE MEETING

AGENDA) ....................................................................................................... 120

12. MOTIONS (OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN

GIVEN) TO BE DISCUSSED & RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE

REFERRED TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING .................................... 125

13. "URGENT" BUSINESS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE

MAJORITY OF MEMBERS PRESENT ....................................................... 125

14. ITEMS TO BE NOTED ................................................................................. 125

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS AS STIPULATED UNDER

SECTION 5.23(2) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 ............... 125

16. CLOSE OF MEETING ................................................................................... 125

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATED TERMS

Term Explanation

1:100 Ratio of 'one in one hundred'

AD Acceptable Development

ARI Annual Recurrence Interval

AHD Australian Height Datum

ANEF Australian Noise Exposure Forecast

AWARE All West Australians Reducing Emergencies (grant funding)

BCA Building Code of Australia

BCCI Bunbury Chamber of Commerce & Industries

BCRAB Bunbury Community Recreation Association Board

BEAC Built Environment Advisory Committee

BESAC Bunbury Environment and Sustainability Advisory Committee

BHRC Bunbury Harvey Regional Council

BPA Bunbury Port Authority

BRAG Bunbury Regional Art Galleries

BRAMB Bunbury Regional Arts Management Board

BREC Bunbury Regional Entertainment Centre

BSSC Big Swamp Steering Committee

BWEA Bunbury Wellington Economic Alliance

CALM Department of Conservation and Land Management

CBD Central Business District

Term Explanation

CCAFF Community Cultural and Arts Facilities Fund

CERM Centre of Environmental and Recreation Management

CPI Consumer Price Index

CSRFF Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund

DADAAWA Disability in the Arts Disadvantage in the Arts Australia, Western Australia

DAP Detailed Area Plan (required by WA Planning Commission)

DCU Development Coordinating Unit

DEC Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly CALM)

DEWCP Department for Environment, Water and Catchment Protection

DLI Department of Land Information

DoE Department of Environment

DOLA Department of Land Administration

DoPI Department of Primary Industry

DoW Department of Water

DPI Department for Planning and Infrastructure

DSR Department of Sport and Recreation

DUP Dual-use Path

ECT Enforcement Computer Technology

EDAC Economic Development Advisory Committee

EDWA Education Department of Western Australia

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

ERMP Environmental Review and Management Program

ESL Emergency Services Levy

FESA Fire and Emergency Services Authority

FFL Finished Floor Level

GNC Geographic Names Committee

GBPG Greater Bunbury Progress Group

GBRP Greater Bunbury Resource Plan report

GBRS Greater Bunbury Region Scheme

GL Gigalitres

GRV Gross Rental Value

GST Goods and Services Tax

HCWA Heritage Council of Western Australia

ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

ICT Information and Communications Technology

IP Internet Protocol

IT Information Technology

ITC In Town Centre

ITLC Former In-Town Lunch Centre (now the "In Town Centre")

LAP Local Action Plan

LCC Leschenault Catchment Council

LEMC Bunbury Local Emergency Management Committee

LIA Light Industrial Area

LN (2000) Liveable Neighbourhoods Policy (2000)

LSNA Local Significant Natural Area

MHDG Marlston Hill Design Guidelines

MRWA Main Roads Western Australia

NDMP National Disaster Mitigation Program

NEEDAC Noongar Employment & Enterprise Development Aboriginal Corp.

Term Explanation

NRM Natural Resource Management

NRMO Natural Resource Management Officer

ODP Outline Development Plan

PAW Public Access Way

PHCC Peel-Harvey Catchment Council

PR Plot Ratio

R-IC Residential Inner City (Housing) - special density provisions

RDC Residential Design Codes

RDG Residential Design Guidelines

Residential R15 Town Planning Zone – up to 15 residential dwellings per hectare




RFDS Royal Flying Doctor Service

RMFFL Recommended Minimum Finished Floor Levels

ROS Regional Open Space

ROW Right-of-Way

RSL Returned Services League

SBCC South Bunbury Cricket Club Inc.

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

SGDC Sportsgrounds Development Committee

SW South West

SWACC South Western Area Consultative Committee

SWAMS South West Aboriginal Medical Service

SWBP South West Biodiversity Project

SWCC South West Catchments Council

SWDC South West Development Commission

SWDRP South West Dolphin Research Program

SWEL South West Electronic Library

SWSC South West Sports Centre

TME Thompson McRobert Edgeloe

TPS Town Planning Scheme

USBA Union Bank of Switzerland Australia

VGO Valuer General’s Office

VOIP Voice-Over Internet Protocol

WALGA Western Australian Local Government Association

WAPC Western Australian Planning Commission

WAPRES Western Australian Plantation Resources

WAWA Water Authority of Western Australia

WC Water Corporation

WML WML Consultants

WRC Waters and Rivers Commission

COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

Minutes of an Ordinary Meeting of the Bunbury City Council held in the Council Chambers,

City of Bunbury Administration Building, 4 Stephen Street, Bunbury, on Tuesday,

16 October 2007 at 6.00pm.

MINUTES

NOTE: The minutes are subject to confirmation at the Council Meeting on 6 November 2007.

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER

The Presiding Member, Deputy Mayor Judy Jones, declared the meeting open at 6.08pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

PRESENT:

Council Committee Members

Presiding Member: His Worship the Mayor, Mr D Smith (arrived

at 6.12pm at Item 4.0)

Deputy Presiding Member: Deputy Mayor, Councillor J Jones

Members: Councillor W Lambert

Councillor A Leigh

Councillor D Wenn

Councillor S Craddock

Councillor S Rooney

Councillor N McCleary

Councillor T Smith

Councillor W Major

Councillor T Dillon

Councillor R Frisina

Executive Management Team (Non-Voting)

Chief Executive Officer: Mr G Trevaskis

Executive Manager Corporate Services: Mr K Weary

Executive Manager City Services: Mr M Scott

Executive Manager City Development: Mr G Klem

Executive Manager City Life: Mr D Marzano

16 October 2007 Minutes - Council Meeting _________________________________________________________________________________

Page 2

Council Officers (Non-Voting):

A/Manager Development Services Mr S McNeilly

Planning Officer Mr K Townroe

Senior Engineer Mr C Gibberd

Administration Officer Corporate Services: Ms D Ryan & Ms S Crowd

Others (Non-Voting):

Members of the Public: 18 (approx)

Members of the Press: 2

APOLOGIES:

The Deputy Mayor advised members that Cr Rose has resigned from Council as she is an

officially endorsed parliamentary candidate.

3. RESPONSES TO 'PUBLIC QUESTIONS' FROM THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL

COMMITTEE MEETING (WHERE THEY COULD NOT BE ANSWERED AT

THAT MEETING)

Not applicable.

4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Mrs Wenda Pritchard, 147 Stirling Street, Bunbury

Question 1: Mrs Wenda Pritchard requested to speak on behalf of ratepayers and thank all

councillors, especially those that are retiring and those up for re-election, for

their commitment to council over the past few years and their approachability

to the ratepayers when needed.

Response: The Deputy Mayor, Cr J Jones, thanked Mrs Pritchard for her comments.

Mr Robert Brooksbank, 25 Mary Street, Bunbury (in relation to Proposed Development

of Lot 34 (No 12) Victoria Street, Bunbury)

Question 1: What will the principles and restrictions be for future buildings to comply with

the provisions of the Marlston Hill Stage 2 Development Guidelines, the

requirements of the State Planning Policy and the newly implemented City

Vision Strategy where the height is restricted to 8 storeys?

Question 2: Is the Council aware that when considering the issues of overshadowing by a

building, the greater shadows will be cast west and east and not south as

planned by the City’s Executive Manager City Development. Have the

residents of Clifton, Carey and Wittenoom Streets been informed that they will


Page 3

be in shadow for the major part of the morning and, if so, what have been their

reactions?

Response: In his response, the Executive Manager City Development raised the following

points:

- In relation to your question about sustainability principles, the City

Vision Strategy is in fact based on sustainability principles. As you are

probably aware, it is a “triple bottom line” approach – economic, social

and environmental objectives set for the City as a whole.

- Lot 34 (No 12) Victoria Street is located within the central core of the

CBD in the City Vision Strategy. When a proponent comes forward

with a proposal for a high rise building in this central core, they must

demonstrate “in a civic design sense” how it fits in with the city scape.

- In relation to the Marlston Hill guidelines, the applicability of these

guidelines on the residential component of this development is very

limited as this portion of the CBD relates more to the commercial heart

of the City rather than the Marlston Hill residential area.

- For areas outside the central core of the CBD, the Council sees

5 storeys as a general rule and considers that the principles that apply in

the State Coastal Planning Policy in relation to 5 to 8 storeys are

reasonable for the balance of the CBD area.

- The intent of the State Coastal Planning Policy is very much related to

the actual coast/ocean. It is likely that the policy’s inclusion of a 300

metre wide strip around the outer harbour and Koombana Bay is an

anomaly as the policy’s applicability to this land is limited.

- With regard to your query concerning overshadowing, if you look at the

model the building is a very slim building which is set back

substantially from Victoria Street. Overshadowing to the east will not

be an issue as other large buildings are in close proximity. In relation

to overshadowing to the west, we have been advised by the architects

that it is unlikely that the residents in Carey Street will be affected by

overshadowing.

Mrs Judith Wall, 4 Carey Street, Bunbury (in relation to Proposed Development of

Lot 34 (No 12) Victoria Street, Bunbury

Question 1: Has Council considered urban design principles articulated in such policies as

Green Street Housing, Sustainable Urban Design & Climate, Liveable Cities,

Liveable Neighbourhoods, New Urbanism, that have been generally accepted

in Europe, North America and some parts of Australia? These design

principles create SAFE (Safe Attractive Friendly Efficient) street networks

where buildings face the streets increasing activity and personal security and


Page 4

where 10-15% of all dwellings in new developments are set aside for social or

affordable. Does the proposed 14 storey building meet these minimum

standards?

Response 1: During his response, the Executive Manager City Development raised the

following points:

- The City of Bunbury does include Liveable Neighbourhoods principles

in its planning considerations. However, in this instance, the principles

(which mainly relate to residential suburbs) do not apply as the building

is located in the CBD. The project does meet important urban design

principles such as the building’s relationship to the street scape (e.g. it

does not alienate pedestrians as its ground level includes cafes,

restaurants and a small piazza that links it to Guppy Park).

- In terms of heritage the building has also incorporated some design

elements to actually try and reflect the character of the site as an

historic hotel.

- The building has been designed to be energy efficient and reduce the

amount of wind shear.

- Our City Vision Strategy does encourage social housing in our

residential suburbs, but it is not expected that social housing will form

a component of this particular project.

Question 2: With the Council election approaching on 20 October 2007, is it morally

correct for such a momentous decision to be made by a body where 8 of its

members may soon be replaced by people with no working knowledge of this

project?

Response 2: The Mayor advised that Council must continue its business regardless of any

election process. Any member of the public are entitled to make submissions

and have them properly considered by Council.

Question 3: Of the 11 storeys, how much do you think is going to be permanent residents

or how much is going to be fly in/fly out?

Response 3: The Executive Manager City Development advised that the Council does not

have control over who is housed in the residential component. We understand

that it is not a “short stay” situation like a hotel. We understand that it is a

permanent residential occupancy situation.


Page 5

Mr Brendan Kelly, 10 Turner Street, Bunbury (in relation to Proposed Development of

Lot 34 (No 12) Victoria Street, Bunbury

Question 1: Does the building meet any particular green star rating?

Response 1: The Acting Manager Development Services indicated that he is not aware of

the level of green star rating that would be applicable at this stage. The Mayor

advised Mr Kelly that this question will be taken on notice and he will be

provided with a response in writing.

Question 2: Who did the environmental impact statement that is referred to on page 67 of

the Agenda?

Response 2: The Acting Manager Development Services indicated that there is a “standard

heading” in the City’s template for reports to the Council which require a

statement concerning any social, heritage, economic or environmental factors

that need to be addressed. The author of this report has determined that there

are no known significant environmental factors to consider in construction of

the building

5. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE (WITHOUT

DISCUSSION)

5.1 QUESTION ON NOTICE – PROPOSED COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT LOT 20 (NO 22) STEPHEN STREET, BUNBURY

File Ref: P08976

Applicant/Proponent: Internal Report

Author: Ken Weary, Acting Chief Executive Officer, and Geoff Klem,

Executive Manager City Development

Executive: Geoff Klem, Executive Manager City Development

The following question has been received from Cr T Dillon. The Executive has provided a

response as printed below:

Question: On what basis and by whose authority has the item in regard to the Stirling

Centre redevelopment application been dropped from Council Committee

Agenda (Tuesday, 9 October 2007), given that I had personally asked the

question of Mr Klem if it was to be an agenda item along with the application

for the Reef Hotel agenda item at Council Briefing session (Tuesday, 25

September 2007), to which I was given an affirmative response? Why could it

not have been listed as an agenda item and, if all Councillors were not

satisfied with information to hand, passed a recommendation for more

information to be provided prior to the full Council meeting scheduled for

Tuesday, 16 October 2007?


Page 6

Response: The Stirling Centre redevelopment was presented to Council at its meeting of

18 September 2007. Council Decision 194/07 is:

“The application for planning approval for development of Lot 20 (No 22)

Stephen Street, Bunbury, be referred back to Committee for further

consideration.”

Further consideration will be largely directed at traffic management, building

height and the provision of parking. In addition, the legality of the application

of City Vision outcomes to decision making was also highlighted.

Council was advised at its meeting of 18 September of a legal opinion received

from McLeods Barrister and Solicitor that addressed the issue of the

relationship between TPS7 and City Vision. After reviewing this advice,

Cr Shane Rooney raised further concerns as to Council’s legal position in an

appeal situation in a memo to the Chief Executive Officer dated 2 October and

3 October. The Executive has concluded that further advice is appropriate and

a request in writing has been forwarded to McLeods.

As a consequence of the request for further advice, it will not be possible to

have a further opinion available for the forthcoming meeting. Given this

situation, the Mayor and Acting CEO have agreed that the item should be

withdrawn from this agenda and listed for the next round of Council meetings.

NOTE: The subject content of Cr Dillon’s question was discussed at the Council

Committee Meeting of 9 October 2007, where it was recommended that the proposed

development at Lot 20 (No. 22) Stephen Street be listed on the agenda for this meeting –

refer to item 9.3.

6. CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

The recommendation to confirm the minutes was moved Cr Frisina, seconded Cr Wenn, and

adopted to become the Council’s decision on this matter.

COUNCIL DECISION 199/07

The minutes of the Council Meeting held 18 September 2007 are confirmed as a true and

accurate record.

CARRIED

12 Votes “For”/Nil Votes “Against”


Page 7

7. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995

Cr Craddock disclosed an interest-in-common in the item titled “Re-consideration –

Proposed Mixed Use Commercial and Residential Development Lot 20 (No 22) Stephen

Street, Bunbury” as he is an owner of a business in the CBD.

Cr Frisina disclosed a financial and proximity interest in the item titled “Re-consideration –

Proposed Mixed Use Commercial and Residential Development Lot 20 (No 22) Stephen

Street, Bunbury” as he owns a business in close proximity to the proposed development.

Cr Leigh disclosed an impartiality interest in the item titled “Bunbury Airport Site No 29B

Partial Assignment of Lease” as he is known to the applicant.

Cr Leigh disclosed a financial and proximity interest in the item titled “Business Plan –

Proposed Residential Development on Portion Lot 4 Prestonwood Street, Bunbury” as he

lives in close proximity to the proposed development.

Cr Dillon disclosed an impartiality interest in the item titled “Community Sport and

Recreation Facility Fund (“CSRFF”) Application – Bunbury Bowling Club Inc.” as he is a

financial member of another bowling club.

Cr T Smith disclosed a financial and proximity interest in the item titled “Proposed 14 Storey

Mixed Use Residential, Retail and Commercial Development Lot 34 (No 12) Victoria Street,

Bunbury” as he owns a property in Victoria Street.

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER (WITHOUT DISCUSSION)

1. His Worship the Mayor announced that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure,

Alannah MacTiernan, was in Bunbury today to announce the Greater Bunbury

Regional Scheme will be tabled in Parliament on 17 October 2007 for approval by the

State Government. Once endorsed by Parliament, the Scheme will become a legal

document.

2. The Mayor also announced that six (6) members of Council will be retiring from

Council at the election on 20 October 2007. He congratulated the existing members

of Council for their outstanding efforts throughout the term. He indicated that the

current Council has acted diligently and made a substantial and real contribution to the

community of Bunbury.

3. The Mayor recently visited China as part of the Sister Port relationship between the

Bunbury Port Authority and the Port of Jiaixing, China. He announced that while he

was there he was made an honorary citizen of Jiaixing.


Page 8

9. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REPORTS/DISCUSSION TOPICS

9.1 CITY VISION - SPECIAL MEETING OF ELECTORS HELD 20 SEPTEMBER 2007

File Ref: A02175


Author: Geoff Klem, Executive Manager City Development


Summary

Pursuant to Sections 5.32 and 5.33 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Council is to

consider recommendations made by electors that attended the Special Electors Meeting held

on 20 September 2007. A copy of the minutes is attached at Appendix 20.

The Special Electors Meeting had been requested by electors under Section 5.28 of the Local

Government Act 1995, for the purpose of discussing "Matters related to the status of the final

draft of the City Vision Strategy voted on by the Bunbury City Council at its Council Meeting

on 28 August 2007."

Background

The minutes of the Special Electors Meeting held 20 September 2007, contained two

recommendations for consideration by the Council - for ease of reference, these electors'

recommendations are printed in the table overleaf. The table shows:

1. each electors' recommendation;

2. a comment by the relevant Council officer, and;

3. the officer's recommendation for consideration by the Council.

(turn the page)

16 October 2007 Minutes - Council Meeting ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 9

Breakdown of Electors' Recommendation No. 1

Electors' Recommendation Officer's Comment(s) Officer's Recommendation

1. The Bunbury City Council to rescind

its endorsement of the City Vision

Strategy until the completion of a 4-

week public comment phase - any

submissions received are to be

referred to a meeting of the Council

together with comments supplied by

the City's executive staff and/or

consultants.

In answer to Public Questions at the Council Meeting of 28

August 2007 concerning advertising of the City Vision

document and public engagement in development of the

Strategy, the following answers were provided:

“The City Vision Taskforce (as a committee of the Council)

conducted extensive industry and community consultation in

formulating the draft City Vision Strategy. Each component of

the Strategy, which was supported by material produced by ad

hoc consultancies, was synthesized into one coherent strategy

document.

The material produced by consultants was placed on the City

Vision website and presented at the Summit Workshop in July

2005. No significantly new or different concepts have been

introduced since then.

Given that all the issues and major structural elements had

been comprehensively canvassed over a four-year period, the

Taskforce (and subsequently Council) concluded that it was

appropriate to finalise the document and release it for public

information. This decision was made in the knowledge that

more detailed planning would follow that would include public

comment periods. Council therefore did not consider it

necessary, given the history, to further advertise the content of

the document for public comment.”

Council does not support the proposal to

rescind endorsement of the City Vision

Strategy (August 2007).


Page 10


2. The City of Bunbury to table for

public information, any legal

opinions received in relation to the

City Vision Strategy.

The Chief Executive officer and Mayor have determined that

legal advice in relation to City Vision is for internal

administrative purposes; however Councillors may access that

advice on request.

The City of Bunbury will determine on a case

by case basis what legal advice should be

made available to the public - current advice

relating to City Vision is not available for

public information.

3. The Bunbury City Council to

confirm that should it refuse to call

for public submissions as requested

in Part 1 above, the City Vision

Strategy will not be cited (in any

agenda item) in order to deny or

alter any Development Approval that

is allowable under the existing Town

Planning Scheme.

Pursuant to Part 10 of Town Planning Scheme No 7, the

members of the Council may take into consideration any

matter that they consider relevant when determining

Development Approvals. The long history of the development

of the City Vision Strategy document (which included major

technical and professional research together with extensive

community engagement) makes its contents both relevant and

important during any decision making process.

Council to determine (on a case by case basis)

the relevance and application of statements

contained in the City Vision Strategy when

determining applications for Development

Approval.

Recommendation No. 2


1. The City of Bunbury to distribute a

questionnaire to all residents

affected by the proposed Tree Street

Heritage Precinct in order to

establish the percentage of residents

that are in agreement with the City

Vision Strategy proposals for the

area.

The City Vision Strategy makes a statement based on a

professional report on the heritage value of the Tree Street

area. It states: “The report on the heritage value of the Tree

Street Area has concluded that the proposed precinct is

important as a good example of an early 20th Century

residential subdivision with a clear pattern of timber housing

development and an attractive public setting, enhanced wide

verges, street trees and house types.”

The draft Local Planning Strategy for Heritage and Character,

which has completed a public consultation phase, makes the

(a) Council does not support distribution of a

questionnaire to all Tree Street residents

to establish whether they agree with the

City Vision Strategy proposals for the

area.

(b) Council supports comprehensive

community engagement in the event that

the Council (in the future) agrees to

progress the establishment of a Heritage

Precinct for the Tree Street Area - such


Page 11


following statement in relation to the Tree Street area: “Some

considerable negotiation has taken place between the City of

Bunbury and the community with respect to the designation of

a Heritage Area in the Tree Street area although a

determination is yet to be made.”

The endorsed City Vision Strategy statement of direction

ICLW4 states: “Include appropriate provisions in the City’s

Local Planning Scheme to guide decision making associated

with developments in the proposed Tree Street Heritage

Area.”

It is intended that the City Vision Statement be read in

conjunction with the draft Local Planning Strategy for

Heritage and Character. The Local Planning Strategy provides

the basis for a Local Planning Policy for the assessment and

designation of Heritage Areas pursuant to Part 2 of Town

Planning Scheme No 7.

In summary, City Vision makes the case for Council to

consider the introduction of a Local Planning Policy for the

Tree Streets Area (consistent with the Local Planning Strategy

for Heritage and Character when finally endorsed) and should

it resolve to do so (noting the need for further research and

assessment by the City's Heritage Advisory Committee), the

proposal must go through a formal planning procedure that

includes full public consultation followed by a review by the

members of the Council through the committee/council

meeting process.

decision to be consistent with the Local

Planning Strategy for Heritage and

Character when finally endorsed.


Page 12


2. The results of the survey to be

printed for public information in the

"City Beat".

Any public consultation associated with establishment of a

draft Heritage Area for the Tree Street Area will be

comprehensive and publicly available.

No recommendation is proposed as (should the

officer's recommendation for Part 1. of

Recommendation No. 2 above be adopted by

the Council) no survey will be undertaken.


Page 13

Community Consultation

Notices inviting members of the public to attend the Special Council Meeting were published

in the Bunbury Mail on Wednesday, 5 September 2007 and in the South Western Times on

Thursday, 6 September 2006. Notices were also placed on notice boards at the Council

Administration Centre and City Libraries.

Following the meeting, a copy of the minutes was provided to:

- All councillors.

- Each elector that registered their attendance at the meeting (posted 2 October 2007).

- City's website - for public information.

Councillor/Officer Consultation

Officers in the City Development Division have considered the recommendations made by

electors and have provided comments and (where applicable) an alternative recommendation.

Legislative Compliance

The City of Bunbury has complied with all provisions for calling and conducting a Special

Meeting of Electors as contained in Sections 5.26 to 5.33 of the Local Government Act 1995.

This section of the Act also outlines the procedure for dealing with decisions made by

electors at these meetings.

Recommendation

In consideration of recommendations made by City of Bunbury electors at the Special

Meeting of Electors held 20 September 2007:

1. Council does not support the proposal to rescind endorsement of the City Vision


2. The City of Bunbury will determine on a case by case basis what legal advice should

be made available to the public - current advice relating to City Vision is not available

for public information.

3. Council to determine (on a case by case basis) the relevance and application of

statements contained in the City Vision Strategy when determining applications for

Development Approval.

4. (a) Council does not support distribution of a questionnaire to all Tree Street

residents to establish whether they agree with the City Vision Strategy proposals

for the area.


Page 14

(b) Council supports comprehensive community engagement in the event that the

Council (in the future) agrees to progress the establishment of a Heritage

Precinct for the Tree Street Area - such decision to be consistent with the Local

Planning Strategy for Heritage and Character when finally endorsed.

AT THE COUNCIL MEETING

The recommendation was moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr Major.

Cr Craddock requested that the word “when” in point 4(b) of the motion be replaced with the

word “if”. The mover and seconder agreed to include this in their motion.

The Presiding Member put the (amended) motion to the vote and it was adopted to become

the Council’s decision on this issue.


In consideration of recommendations made by City of Bunbury electors at the Special

Meeting of Electors held 20 September 2007:

1. Council does not support the proposal to rescind endorsement of the City Vision


2. The City of Bunbury will determine on a case by case basis what legal advice should

be made available to the public - current advice relating to City Vision is not

available for public information.

3. Council to determine (on a case by case basis) the relevance and application of

statements contained in the City Vision Strategy when determining applications for

Development Approval.

4. (a) Council does not support distribution of a questionnaire to all Tree Street

residents to establish whether they agree with the City Vision Strategy

proposals for the area.

(b) Council supports comprehensive community engagement in the event that the

Council (in the future) agrees to progress the establishment of a Heritage

Precinct for the Tree Street Area - such decision to be consistent with the Local

Planning Strategy for Heritage and Character if finally endorsed.

CARRIED

10 Votes “For”/2 Votes “Against”

Crs Rooney and Jones requested that their vote “against” the Council Decision be recorded.


Page 15

9.2 REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE – COUNCILLOR SHANE ROONEY

File Ref: A00215

Applicant/Proponent: Councillor Shane Rooney

Author: Ken Weary, Executive Manager Corporate Services

Executive: Ken Weary, Executive Manager Corporate Services

Summary

Cr S Rooney has requested leave of absence from all Council-related business from 5

November to 16 November 2007 (inclusive).

Section 2.25 of the Local Government Act 1995 allows a Council to grant leave of absence to

one of its members provided that the period of leave does not exceed six consecutive ordinary

meetings of the Council.

Recommendation

Pursuant to Section 2.25 of the Local Government Act 1995, Cr S Rooney is granted leave of

absence from all Council-related business from 5 November to 16 November 2007

(inclusive).


The recommendation was moved Cr Major, seconded Cr Leigh.

The Presiding Member put the motion to the vote and it was adopted to become the Council’s

decision on this issue.


Pursuant to Section 2.25 of the Local Government Act 1995, Cr S Rooney is granted leave of

absence from all Council-related business from 5 November to 16 November 2007

(inclusive).

CARRIED



Page 16

9.3 RE-CONSIDERATION – PROPOSED MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL AND

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT 20 (NO. 22) STEPHEN STREET, BUNBURY

File Ref: P08976

Applicant/Proponent: Mr Tony Brun, Brenta Property Group Pty Ltd

Author: Ann Jank, Planning Officer


Summary

IMPORTANT: Could Council Members please bring with them the Report Under

Separate Cover that contained 6 attachments, previously circulated on this subject for

the Council Committee Meeting of 11 September and the Council Meeting of

18 September 2007.

The memorandum distributed under separate cover as Attachment No. 1, provides

supplementary information following discussion at the Council (Standing) Committee

Meeting of Tuesday, 9 October 2007 and advice from Notebook Investments Pty Ltd that

withdraws the residential component of the project.

The application was last considered by the Council at the Council Meeting on 18 September

2007, at which time it was resolved to refer the matter back to the Council (Standing)

Committee for further consideration.

Based on further discussion of the matter by members of the Council Committee on

9 October 2007 (and as part of deliberations at the most recent briefing on the matter on 25

September 2007), the Development Services Division has analysed the prior report to Council

and has endeavoured to address issues of concern raised.

A further supplementary report will be provided for Council’s Meeting on 16 October 2007.

Background

The City is in receipt of a Development Application from Brenta Property Group Pty Ltd for

development of a multi-storey Mixed-Use commercial and residential development ($55M

approximately) at Lot 20 (No. 22) Stephen Street, Bunbury. The proposed building will

include ground level commercial areas – 2 levels of car parking, a 9-storey office tower and a

14-storey residential tower with 51 multiple dwellings.

The applicant seeks variations to a number of requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 7

(TPS 7) and the Residential Design Codes 2002 in regard to car parking requirements and

building setbacks. The issue of building height considerations per the recommendations of

the City Vision Strategy adopted by Council at its meeting in August 2007 must also be

considered.


Page 17

The proposed development was advertised for public comment for a 28-day period including

advertising notices on-site, letters to adjoining owners and notices in the local newspaper.

Eight (8) submissions have been received.

The principal planning issues resulting from a study of the proposed development and the

public submissions have been considered and, on balance, Development Services has formed

the view that the proposed development can be supported subject (in particular) to an eight

storey height limit and modifications as determined in the report recommendation.

The site is currently occupied by the Stirlings Centre (a retail shopping centre) which is a one

storey development that includes car-parking bays at street level.

In accordance with TPS 7, the site is zoned “City Centre” and the proposed Mixed Use

commercial and residential development (as well as land uses such as Office, Shop,

Restaurant, Lunch Bar and Multiple Dwelling) are permitted uses.

City Vision Strategy

Council adopted the Bunbury City Vision Framework Strategy on 13 December 2005

(Decision No. 289/05). This Framework considered height limits for the Greater Central

Business District Precinct. A five-storey limit for buildings is generally planned to be

established for areas outside of the central core, which includes the subject lot.

The City Vision Strategy document was adopted by the City of Bunbury, subject to

amendments, at the Council meeting of 12 December 2006 (Decision No. 241/06). The City

Vision Strategy (Draft) recommended a maximum building height of 5 storeys (or 21 metres)

for coastal areas (including the Bay and Inlet). Under certain conditions and subject to

criteria, including broad community support, the draft strategy permitted consideration to

developments up to eight storeys (or 32 metres).

Proposal

The proposed development is comprised of three distinct elements – a commercial tower, a

residential tower and the existing retail area including the provision of 2 car-parking decks

and new retail space fronting Prinsep Street. On top of this three-storey basement the

developer proposes a six-level office tower (plus a one-level plant and equipment, lift over-

run and services for the office tower) and a twelve-level residential tower. The residential

tower contains 51 apartments, including 19 one-bedroom, 29 two-bedroom and 3 three-

bedroom units. The complex also contains leisure facilities including a swimming pool on

the third level and a barbecue area on top of the residential tower for the exclusive use of the

occupants.

The proposal includes part demolition of the existing building and internal refurbishment to

the existing retail area to the south of the lot. Pedestrian access to the new retail area is off

Prinsep Street with the existing access off Stephen Street to be maintained. The developers

have proposed enhanced open space between the existing Stirlings and Centrepoint Shopping

Centres via a link between the two developments with alfresco development.


Page 18

The location plan, floor plans, elevations, sections and a front perspective form Attachment

No. 1 in the report that has been circulated under separate cover.

The following criteria are considered relevant in terms of properly considering the matter, and

as to whether Council should grant planning approval to the applicant:

Clause 10.2 of TPS 7 “Matters to be Considered by Local Government”

The most significant matters are as follows:

Clause 10.2.1 of TPS 7

(n) the preservation of the amenity of the locality.

Clause 10.2.1of TPS 7

(p) whether the proposed means of access to and egress from the site are adequate and

whether adequate provision has been made for the loading, unloading, manoeuvring

and parking of vehicles.

(q) the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the proposal, particularly in relation to

the capacity of the road system in the locality and the probable effect on traffic flow

and safety.

Car Parking and Access

The development proposes all vehicle access from Prinsep Street with the majority of parking

on two parking decks.

In accordance with TPS 7, and the Residential Design Codes 2002, a total of 269 car parking

spaces are required containing 55 spaces for retail (ground floor), 131 spaces for offices and

83 spaces for the residential component. The existing retail area on the ground floor will be

effectively reduced. Therefore the existing 55 car parking bays are required to be relocated

and include a concession for existing floor space as part of the redevelopment consistent with

recent determinations by Council.

Whereas the developer has on plan provided (in terms of actual numbers) 272 car parking

spaces, in fact, Development Services has determined that 13 spaces are unworkable, in

effect, in that they do not meet Australian Standards requirements such as manoeuvring

depth. Development Services has also determined that on that basis the applicant is, in

reality, able to supply only 259 car parking spaces. This leaves a deficit of 10 spaces to the

required 269 car parking spaces. Development Services acknowledges that although there is

a shortfall in car parking numbers it is anticipated that, as the proponent progresses to

working drawings, it is likely that amended plans will be provided addressing the minor

shortfall in car parking numbers. However, to ensure compliance with TPS 7 requirements it

is recommended that any grant of approval by the City is subject to the developer contributing

$250,000 ($25,000 per car parking space in deficit).


Page 19

It is also noted that the developer has proposed that 22 car parking spaces (Car Park Deck

Level 1) are set aside as ‘tandem’ car parking spaces for commercial tenancies within the

complex. Whilst it is not ideal to allow tandem car parking spaces for commercial

development (tandem spaces work for residential development in that 2 spaces can be made

to relate to specific residential units) in that such spaces should be capable of being used at all

times. In this case, nonetheless, it is considered that the parking format is broadly acceptable,

in that such spaces can be allocated to specific tenancies. It is important therefore, at a

practical level, to condition any grant of planning approval such that Council’s support would

be subject to the submission of a management plan to address this issue.

It is noted that the applicant has proposed a reformulation of the established public car-

parking layout in the area between the subject lot and Centrepoint. Notwithstanding, there is

no net loss of car parking in this area as a result of the proposed development.

Development Services has determined that it is appropriate that car parking numbers should

be calculated on the basis of the principle of actual “demand” for car parking. In terms of

clarification, it is noted that Table No. 2 – Car Parking Guidelines states that “…the local

government may (emphasis by writer) impose conditions regarding the required number

and/or method of provision of car parking spaces...”. The key use-class under consideration

in respect of car parking is that of “office”. Table 2 states that Council may require (for

offices) one space for every 50 square metres of gross floor area. In respect of the fact that

TPS 7 does not define the term “gross floor area”, and in that it references and defines “gross

leasable area”, it is considered that car parking should be calculated on the basis of gross

leasable area. Development Services also notes that in fact car parking “demand” is

determined by the actual floor area used for offices [per se] and not on the amount, say, of

core area – for uses such as toilets and lifts, etc. In summary, therefore, demand for car

parking is calculated on gross leasable area.

It is noted that in light of the fact that Clause 5.7.1.6 uses the word “may”, this allows

Council to require a lesser amount of car parking than that stated in Table 2 (Car Parking

Guidelines). Table 2 forms Attachment 2 in the report that has been circulated under separate

cover.

This ability for Council to allow the development to proceed with a lesser level of car parking

is also represented in Clause 5.7.1.9 which reads as follows: “Within the City Centre zone,

car parking spaces associated with developments of up to 2,000 sq.m gross floor area may

not be required, however, any development in excess of 2,000 sq.m gross floor area is to

provide for adequate on-site car parking as determined by the local government.” This

clause allowed the existing site to get a discount in parking. Therefore, this discount is

already included in the concession in car parking for the ground floor of the redevelopment.

Traffic Study

The applicant has submitted, as part of his development application, a Traffic Management

Study. The most recent submission in this regard was considered by the Council at its

meeting on 18 September 2007 (refer to Attachment No. 4 issued for meetings of 11 and 18

September 2007). The City’s Engineering Section has analysed Version 2 (Version 4 was not

submitted in time to allow detailed analysis prior to the finalisation of this report) and has


Page 20

found that there are some unresolved issues that could have a significant impact on the road

upgrade requirements. In addition to this, the current traffic management study does not

address the requirement to complete a traffic safety audit.

Council’s Engineering Section has outlined the extent of amendments required to allow the

Traffic Study to be used in a meaningful way in terms of determining the possible impact of

the proposed development on the current traffic arrangements in the CBD.

The following are concerns with regards to Traffic Management Study:

The Traffic Management Study is based on 1994 traffic data. This is 13 years out of date

hence it cannot be extrapolated.

It is stated that there is no information available regarding traffic volumes for

intersections like Prinsep/Victoria Streets and/or what is required to complete this

analysis. This is an important intersection that needs to be analysed by traffic counts or

other acceptable methods to determine the existing traffic situation.

Confirmation is required that the central bus depot’s bus movements have been taken into

account in the traffic study.

The trip distribution diagram indicates that all vehicles exiting the proposed development

would go to Victoria Street and no vehicles would go to Blair Street. This is not realistic.

As the traffic distribution figures needs to be reviewed so will the percentage of increase

in daily traffic table.

It is noted that the proposed development is likely to have a very significant impact on the

established traffic arrangements and street infrastructure within the central area of the City.

Upgrading of the existing street infrastructure may be required to cope with the additional

daily vehicular movements and to measure this impact, and to pass on any upgrading costs to

the applicant, requires an adequate traffic management study.

It is understood that the developer is endeavouring to meet a tender process deadline and an

early decision is therefore required on the status of the development proposal to allow the

developer to meet the specific requirements of their client body. It is proposed, therefore, that

the matter of the development application be determined, but subject to the applicant being

aware that, prior to the issue of a building licence, a traffic management study and safety

audit to the satisfaction of the City Engineer will be required, and that all costs associated

with the required upgrades will be passed on to the applicant.

To meet all requirements regarding the Traffic Study the developer agreed to an Extended

Scope of Works for Transport Impact and Access Assessment as determined and directed by

the City’s Senior Engineer Design and Development on 5 October 2007.


(y) any relevant submissions received on the application.


Page 21

One particular submitter (Centrepoint) has taken a contra position in respect of the proposed

development. Centrepoint’s submissions, including the submission by its planning

consultancy (Allerding & Associates), form Attachment 3 in the report circulated under

separate cover to members of the 11 and 18 September Council Meetings. One key point

raised by Centrepoint is that the applicant for the Stirlings Redevelopment has not provided

sufficient car parking to cater for the existing retail floor space. It is noted that in fact

Development Services has specifically addressed this point by allowing the applicant a credit

on the existing floor space. This is similar to the method of analysing the Arrio Building

development application which was considered by Council recently (refer Item 11.14 - 3 July

2007). It is considered that this position is realistic and practical in a redevelopment situation

such as the one currently being considered, in that if a developer is at one point in time

operating with an established level of car parking, then it would arguably be penalistic to

remove what is essentially a development right. In the case at hand, therefore, the applicant

has 5,813 sq.m of existing floor space; this level of floor space is therefore excluded from the

calculations for car parking. However, it is noted that the existing 55 car parking spaces are

required to be provided as part of the development proposal.

In terms of completeness of information, however, it is noted that Council has the power to

actually require the applicant to provide additional car parking spaces to serve this “existing”

retail floor space, but this is not the position taken by Development Services.


(o) the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in

the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale,

orientation and appearance of the proposal.

(za) any other planning consideration the local government considers relevant.

Building Height

Plot Ratio

The development meets plot ratio requirements per TPS 7 and the Residential Design Codes

2002 as part of the site remains undeveloped and the new tower development occupies a

limited footprint.

The principal controlling mechanism for height within the City Centre Zone is plot ratio.

TPS 7 requires a maximum plot ratio of 3.5. However, with the adoption of the City Vision

Strategy on 13 December 2006, Development Services is of the opinion that the relevant

recommendations related to height controls are required to be considered.

City Vision Strategy

The City Vision Strategy recommends (clause CBD28) a maximum building height of five

storeys (or 21 metres) for coastal areas (including the inlet) and under certain conditions and


Page 22

subject to criteria including broad community support, consideration may be given to

developments up to eight storeys (or 32 metres).

The proposed office tower is approximately 37 metres high. The proposed residential tower is

approximately 48.5 metres high. Therefore, the development exceeds the strategy

recommendation for this area by 5 metres (office tower) and 16.5 metres (residential tower)

respectively.

A key consideration in the development of the recommendations in respect of height is set out

as follows: “The community values its open space and water views, its access to foreshore

areas and recreation options. It is unlikely that development around the coast, inlet and bays

that was higher than low rise could achieve this objective/strategy.”

Attachment 5 in the report circulated under separate cover on 11 and 18 September 2007,

indicates the perspective of the proposed development viewed from the Leschenault Inlet and

from Boulters Heights Lookout.

Applicant’s Justification Relative to the City Vision Strategy

In summary the applicant has presented the following data in terms of justifying his design

relative to height.

The heights of the proposed buildings are considered in regard to three future Focal Points

with high rise buildings. “The Northern Focal Point has already commenced being formed by

the Silos Project with its various stages.” The Central Focal Point is set out as the area

around the Bunbury Tower with Lord Forrest Hotel and Bunbury Entertainment Centre next

to it. The proposed mixed use development is considered to assist creating the Southern

Focal Point as main retail centre of the CBD.

The City Vision document states in clause CBD29: “That height in the commercial core of

the CBD defined as both sides of Wittenoom, Stephen, Victoria and Carey Streets is

determined on the basis of complementary development with the Bunbury Tower and the Old

Silos hotel development.”

The developer further states that: “The subject site is located on Stephen Street is considered

to therefore be within the commercial core of the CBD. This is further reinforced given the

adjacent Centrepoint Shopping Centre.”

The applicant’s submission in respect of height is quoted verbatim (refer Attachment 5 in the

report circulated under separate cover for Council Meetings on 11 and 18 September 2007).

WAPC Statement of Planning Policy No. 2.6 – The State Coastal Planning Policy

Importantly Clause 5.3 of the Amendment to State Planning Policy 2.6 states:

“The height of buildings should be limited to a maximum of five storeys (and not exceeding

21 metres) in height”. Higher structures up to a maximum of eight storeys (and not

exceeding 32 metres) in height may be permitted where:


Page 23

(a) there is broad community support for the higher buildings following a process of full

consultation;

(b) the proposed development(s) is suitable for the location taking into account the built

form, topography and landscape character of the surrounding area;

(c) the location is part of a major tourist or activity node;

(d) the amenity of the coastal foreshore is not detrimentally affected by any significant

overshadowing of the foreshore;

(e) there is visual permeability of the foreshore and ocean from nearby residential areas,

roads and public spaces.”

Applicant’s Justification relative to SPP 2.6

The applicant has presented the following data in terms of justifying his design relative to

Clause 5.3 of Amendment to State Planning Policy 2.6.

“(a) The proposal has been advertised for a period of 28 days and the proponents are not

aware of any significant objections relating to the proposed height and bulk of the

development. It is also noted that the proposal received extensive coverage in the local

media with prominent pictures and “vox pop” public input. It is the proponent’s belief that

given the extensive exposure of this proposal that it can be assumed that the proposal has

received sufficient support from the community as required in condition a) above.”

“Additionally during the City Vision process there were a number of public workshops and

the issue of height of the further development of the CBD and the Outer Harbour were

discussed and a number of sketches were displayed including those prepared by Cox. These

sketches included numerous multi-storey buildings as high as 20 plus floors. At the time

there was overwhelming support for the inclusion of tall structures in the CBD.”

“(b) The built form of the proposal has been designed to enhance the visual impact of the

CBD by assisting in the creation of the Southern Focal Point which is located with Boulters

Heights in the background. There are several sites in the area each of which is capable of

substantial Mixed Use/Commercial developments which will add to the visual impact to the

cityscape of the CBD and also reinforce the importance of the main retail centre of the CBD.

This is shown in the North-South section of the CBD that has been provided.”

“(c) The location is at the southern entry point to the CBD and is the retail focus of the city

and therefore the Greater Bunbury and the South West Region. It is of the utmost importance

to the maintenance and enhancement of the vibrancy of the CBD that substantial Mixed

Use/Residential projects are encouraged to be developed. These projects will reinforce the

importance of the Bunbury CBD for the entire region.”


Page 24

“The placement of additional office space and residential immediately adjacent and above

the core CBD retail precinct will add a great deal of vibrancy and economic stimulus to

existing outlets (shops and food outlets).”

“(d) Shadow drawings have been provided (within the planning report) and these confirm

there is no overshadowing of the foreshore.”

“(e) The visual permeability of the foreshore and coast from nearby residential areas, roads

and public spaces are retained. Refer to the 3D drawings that have been provided.”

Although the State Coastal Planning Policy does not directly affect this site, our assessment

relative to other coastal developments is to apply the principle of this policy.

Development Services has analysed the matter of height in terms of reaching a position

whereby it can make a meaningful recommendation to Council.

The core principles on which a determination can be made on the matter of the height of the

proposed building complex are as follows:

Firstly, in terms of the basic provisions of the current TPS 7, the fact is that there is no

specific height limit listed in this part of the City. In the past, the City has qualified the

provisions of the current Scheme by enacting a policy which quantified the matter of, for

example, height relative to certain parts of the City.

Council has, however, taken the relatively pivotal step of progressing the City Vision study

with a view to establishing new development parameters for the entire City. The key

milestones in this regard are as follows:

Adoption of the Bunbury City Vision Framework Strategy on 13 December 2005, whereby it

was determined to adopt the relevant documentation in the following terms:

Council Decision 289/05 – 13 December 2005 Meeting

That Council:

1. Notes the extensive consultation undertaken to date;

2. Receives the report from the Bunbury City Vision Dialogue held on 30 July 2005;

3. Resolves to adopt the Bunbury City Vision Framework Strategy.

4. The Bunbury City Vision Framework Strategy be formally referred to the Western

Australia Planning Commission.

The City Vision Strategy document was adopted by the City of Bunbury, subject to

amendments, at the Council meeting of 12 December 2006 (Decision No. 241). The key

provisions of this document, in respect of height, are listed as follows:


Page 25

Clarity around height limits is essential to attracting investment in commercial

development. Outside of the ‘core commercial area’ where buildings higher than eight

storeys could be considered, other areas should be planned and designed in the two to five

storey range and depending on topography, accessibility and community acceptance up to

eight storeys.

The community values its open space and water views, its access to foreshore areas and

recreation options. It is unlikely that development around the coast, inlet and bays that

was higher than low rise could achieve this objective/strategy.

The State Coastal Planning Policy (SPP 2.6) amendment relating to height is supported

where the maximum height for coastal areas (including the bay and inlet) should five

storeys (or 21 metres) and under certain conditions and subject to criteria including broad

community support, consideration may be given to developments up to eight storeys (or

32 metres).

Council Decision 241/06 – 12 December 2006

That Council:

1. Agrees to the amendments to the City Vision Strategy as discussed at Council Briefing

on 13 November 2006 as follows:

1.1 Blair Street Modifications

CBD 19 - That Symmons Street be developed as a key pedestrian and visual

connection between the “cappuccino strip” north to Clifton Street and the Inlet.

Note: Council also agreed that the Clifton/Blair Street roundabout needs to be

redesigned to take account of the downgrading of Blair Street. The downgrading of

Casuarina Drive to a two-lane boulevard was also supported to facilitate better

connectivity between the CBD and Marlston Hill waterfront.

1.2 Bus and rail Terminals

CBD22 - Retain the option of an intermodal transport facility at the Eelup

Roundabout and undertake a detailed cost/benefit analysis to establish that there will

be an improvement in economic, social and environmental outcomes.

Note: Council also agreed that the current terminus would be ideal to accommodate

light rail/cat bus options.

1.3 Decked Parking Sites

CBD24 - That the existing stations at the Entertainment Centre, Souths/Arts Complex

and Blair Street No. 1 be programmed for development consistent with a demand and

financial analysis.


Page 26

Note: Council also agreed that mixed uses for the parking sites is better than just a

Parking Station.

1.4 Building Height

CBD26 - Last sentence deleted and replaced with the following:

“The Ocean Drive coastal strip between Fawlty Towers and The Lighthouse Beach

Resort and inland to approximately 300 metres is defined as a coastal tourism and

recreation precinct containing key sites that have the potential to accommodate major

tourism development that optimises views for all developments and includes up to a

25% component for residential development.”

Note: Council also agreed that reference to height in metres must be linked to

natural ground level as a datum.

In relation to higher rise buildings, Council agreed that at street level buildings must

be at a human scale and the higher components set back.

1.5 Leschenault Inlet and Koombana Bay Foreshore Reserves

CBD29 - Subject to detailed site analysis, endorse the location of a museum, Noongar

Cultural Centre and new visitor centre between the mangrove colony and Koombana

Drive as part of a tourism node that includes the Dolphin Discovery Centre. Subject

to further investigation, consideration be given to locating the Art Gallery at this

location.

1.6 Pennant Road and Sandridge Park

OBD8 - Council agreed to add the following:

“That Pennant Road between Sandridge Road and Strickland Street be investigated

as to whether the alignment can be straightened without adversely affecting the

amenity of the adjoining residential area.”

1.7 Strickland Street West to Spencer Street and the Plaza Commercial area

OBD9 - Progress planning for the connection of Strickland Street west to Beach

Road and Plaza Street as part of an approved comprehensive redevelopment plan for

the Plaza commercial area.

1.8 Punchbowl Caravan Park and Proposed Big Swamp Short Stay

Accommodation

ICLW10 - That alternative tourist/commercial uses be investigated for the Punchbowl

Caravan Park site.


Page 27

1.9 College Grove Residential Expansion & Tuart Brook & TAFE/ECU/Health

Campus Structure Planning for Adjoining Areas

SS15 - Add an additional point:

“that proposals for development on the Health and Education campuses not

compromise the expansion of ECU, TAFE or the Health campus.”

1.10 Airport

IND9 - The existing airport being planned for improvements to support recreational

flying, light commercial flights and emergency services;

1.11 CBD

That a staged CBD Streetscape Strategy be programmed by Council.

2. Adopts the City Vision strategy (as amended) in principle and agrees to the

preparation of a further report that provides details of an Action Plan that

incorporates information on financial and budget implications as well as a

Communication Strategy preferably by 31 March 2007.

3. a) That the Mayor be requested to write, on behalf of Council, to all members of

the City Vision Taskforce thanking them for their contribution to the

preparation of the strategy.

b) That Council gratefully acknowledge the efforts of all staff in the preparation

of the City Vision Strategy for their fine contribution in writing the draft policy

document.

Whilst City Vision Strategy is not a statutory document, it is the culmination of work on

“City Vision” over the past four years.

The issue of height in the CBD has been extensively canvassed with the community and the

current Vision statements have been developed from that input, as well as the analysis

undertaken by consultants (e.g. Cox and TME) and the work associated with the State Coastal

Planning Policy.

In the absence of appropriate town planning scheme provisions to deal with height, bulk,

scale and appearance of the new generation of major CBD developments, the most recent

research (which includes public input) should be applied consistent with Part 10 of TPS 7 -

Procedure for Dealing with Applications.

Setbacks

Clause 4.2.1 of the Residential Design Codes 2002 allows a nil street setback for mixed use

developments and other boundary setbacks as set out in Table 1. Therefore a 26 metre side


Page 28

setback is required for the residential tower. The proposal only provides 13 metres to the

western boundary adjacent to Lot 10; a building which is included on the 2001 Municipal

Heritage Inventory List of the City of Bunbury.

Applicant’s Justification Relative to Setbacks

The proponent is seeking a variation of the Residential Design Codes 2002 under

Performance Criteria of Clause 3.3.1 for the proposed setback to the western boundary.

Clause 3.3.1 ‘Building Set Back from the Boundary’ requires adequate sunlight to be

provided to adjacent properties and the amelioration of building bulk.

The proponents stated furthermore that, as demonstrated in the overshadowing diagrams, the

proposed residential tower does not provide any significant overshadowing to adjacent

properties and the building bulk is adequately addressed through the modulation of the

building planes and provision of windows and balconies to create depth to the façade.

Development Services is of the opinion that the setbacks proposed by the applicant, in terms

of consideration as variations under the Residential Design Codes 2002, are in order.

Strategic Outcomes

It is considered that the broad direction of the City’s 2007-2012 Strategic Plan would not be

compromised to any significant extent by supporting the proposed development.



advertising notices on-site, letters to adjoining owners and advertising in the local newspaper.

Eight (8) submissions have been received.

Submitters’ Data

Eight (8) submissions have been received. Submissions are detailed on the Schedule of

Submissions (refer Attachment 6 in the report that was circulated to members under separate

cover for the meetings on 11 and 18 September 2007).

The key issues arising from a study of the submissions are as follows:

Building Height

Car Parking

Access to the site

Damage to the wall adjacent to the R.O.W. due to truck and vehicle traffic

Damage of the fabric of the Women’s Club building during the demolition works

Access to Women’s Club during the construction works

Noise and dust impact during the construction

Façade of existing retail to Stephen Street


Page 29

Applicant Consultation

In order to progress the matter, discussions have been undertaken with the applicant on a

number of occasions.


This matter has been reviewed by Council staff within the Development Coordination Unit

Meetings consisting of officers from Engineering, Planning, Building and Health. Further

discussions have taken place with Manager Development Services, Senior Planner (Statutory)

and Executive Manager City Development.

Council was provided with a preliminary briefing on 3 July 2007.

Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications

The Recommendation will not impact on the current Annual Budget, nor are there any

expenses associated with the requests from a Council perspective.

Economic, Social, Environmental and Heritage Issues

In economic terms, the proposal will provide economic benefit during the construction phase

of the development and also future employment opportunities in the proposed commercial

tenancies.

There are no known environmental impacts that would result from the construction of the

development.

The proposed development is adjacent to the former Anglican Deanery, now the Bunbury

Women’s Club, which is noted as having local significance and is included on the 2001

Municipal Inventory List.


Legislative requirements relating to the Local Government Act 1995 or any other Act, Local

Law or Regulations have been complied with. The proposal will be required to comply with

the requirements of the Health Act 1911 and the City of Bunbury Health Local Laws 2001.

Delegation of Authority

It is considered that delegation of authority would not apply in this case.

Relevant Precedents

There are no known precisely relevant precedents in this case.


Page 30

Options

Option 1: Per the Recommendation.

Option 2: Refusal

Should Council determine not to resolve to issue a grant of planning approval for the

proposed development, a suggested format for such action is as follows:

“Council under and by virtue of the powers conferred upon it in that behalf pursuant to the

Planning and Development Act 2005 hereby resolves that it refuses to grant planning

approval to Brenta Property Group Pty Ltd (on behalf of Notebook Investments Pty Ltd) for

the proposed Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential Development at Lot 20 (No. 22)

Stephen Street, Bunbury for the following reasons:

(Reasons to be determined by Council per deliberations on the matter after referring to the

Supplementary Report)

Option 3: Approval as submitted.

Should Council determine to resolve to issue a grant of planning approval for the proposed

development as submitted, a suggested format for such action is as follows:

“Council under and by virtue of the powers conferred upon it in that behalf pursuant to the

Planning and Development Act 2005 hereby resolves to grant planning approval to Brenta

Property Group Pty Ltd (on behalf of Notebook Investments Pty Ltd) for the proposed Mixed

Use Commercial and Residential Development at Lot 20 (No 22) Stephen Street Bunbury,

subject to standard conditions and to the satisfaction of Manager Development Services.”

Conclusion

Development Services has reached a conclusion on the matter on the following basis.

The City Vision Strategy (Draft July 2007) states that “the State Coastal Planning Policy

amendment relating to height is supported where the maximum height for coastal areas

(including the bay and inlet) should be five storeys or 21 metres and under certain conditions

and subject to criteria including broad community support, consideration may be given to

developments up to eight storeys or 32 metres.”

Essentially, the Council has reached a position in that it adopted the City Vision Strategy in

principle to the effect that there would be a “core commercial area” in the CBD that would

host buildings being complementary with the Bunbury Tower and the Silos.

The applicant has argued, in submissions so far, that the “core commercial area” of the City

should be considered as extending to the subject land (the Stirling Shopping Centre site);

thereby opening up the possibility of Council considering a 14-storey building.


Page 31

The applicant’s argument is based on the fact that City Vision Strategy documentation is

generalist in description – for example it states that Carey Street, Wittenoom Street, Victoria

Street and Stephen Street form the bounds of the “core commercial area”. The applicant

therefore contends that both sides of all of Stephen Street should be included in the “core

commercial area” irrespective of the fact that it was the intention of the drafter of the

provisions that the “core commercial area” would be precisely rectangular in shape.

The applicant also contends that the subject land should be included in the “core commercial

area” in that the Stephen Street site in fact, forms an integral part in reality, of the commercial

part of the City.

Development Services has endeavoured to take a balanced position on the matter bearing in

mind the provisions of the current TPS 7 and the current position of Council in terms of

resolutions on the matter of City Vision.

The development proposal is in compliance with a key provision of the Scheme – plot ratio;

other key matters are subject of detailed considerations as outlined above.

Whilst the Scheme [per se] does not specify a maximum height that should be permitted in

the City Centre zone, in fact Council has the power to make a determination on height on the

basis of the provisions of Clause 10.2.1 of TPS 7.

This Clause states that in making a planning determination on any matter Council “is to have

due regard” to matters such as, “the compatibility of a use or development and its setting”

(logically, this may include height), “the likely effect of height, bulk, scale, orientation and

appearance of the proposal”, and “any other planning consideration the local government

considers relevant”.

It is important to note that this provision of the Scheme actually requires Council to have

regard to the matters listed as part of the making of a planning determination – in that this

particular Scheme provision uses the phrase “is to have due regard…”.

In that Council is required to “have due regard” to the relevant matters listed in Clause 10.2.1,

it is logical for Council to take into consideration its work over the last four years on the

matter of City Vision, in light of two key milestones. Namely, when it resolved

(13 December 2005 – Decision No. 289/05) to adopt the Bunbury Framework Strategy

whereby it opted for a five-storey height limit in the Greater CBD (i.e. the Stirlings Centre),

and for a “downtown” sub-precinct (bounded essentially by Victoria Street, Carey Street,

Wittenoom Street and Stephen Street), and the later (12 December 2006 – Decision No.

241/06) City Vision Strategy whereby Council developed its position further, and defined in

more precise terms the “core commercial area” of the City whereby relatively tall buildings (8

to 14 storeys) may be permitted and the non-core area where 5 to 8 storey buildings may be

permitted.

Very clearly, Council has over the past few years developed a position on the matter of height

in the CBD and this essentially points to an ideal height limit of 8 storeys for the proposed

development.


Page 32

It is on that basis that Development Services has formulated its recommendation to Council.

Recommendation

Council, under and by virtue of the powers conferred upon it in that behalf pursuant to the

Planning and Development Act 2005, hereby resolves to grant planning approval to Brenta

Property Group Pty Ltd (on behalf of Notebook Investments Pty Ltd) for the propose Mixed

Use Commercial and Residential Development at Lot 20 (No. 22) Stephen Street, Bunbury,

with the following conditions:

1. Use and Development

1.1 The premises being used only in accordance with the definition of Office,

Shop, Restaurant, Lunch Bar & Multiple Dwelling contained in Schedule 1 of

Town Planning Scheme No. 7 unless otherwise approved by Council.

1.2 All development shall be in accordance with the approved development plans

which form part of this Planning Approval.

1.3 This approval shall expire unless the works hereby authorised have been

commenced within twelve months and completed within two years of the date

of issue, or within any extended period for which Council has granted written

consent. Any application for such consent shall be received within one month

prior to the expiration of the Planning Approval.

1.4 The height of the proposed development being limited to eight storeys (or 32

metres).

1.5 The developer is required to pay to the City the monetary sum of $250,000 in

respect of the considered shortfall in car parking spaces. Such monetary sum

is to be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a building licence.

1.6 The applicant to submit a management plan (to be to the satisfaction of the

Manager Development Services), to clarify the operation and the management

of all car parking within the facility.

1.7 A schedule of exterior colours and finishes for the proposed development is to

be submitted to (and approved by) Council’s Manager Development Services

prior to the issuance of a building licence.

1.8 The applicant is to submit a proposal for all operational and security lighting

which is to be to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Services. The

purpose of this proposal (to be approved prior the issuance of a building

licence) is to ensure as far as possible that there is minimum adverse impact on

adjoining properties in terms of lighting for the proposed facility.


Page 33

1.9 The applicant ensuring full compliance with current legislation/regulations in

respect of acid sulphate soils to the satisfaction of the Manager Development

Services.

1.10 The developer is required to comply with all relevant legislation in respect of

ensuring minimum impact on adjoining/nearby businesses, residences and club

premises due to vibration during the construction process.

1.11 Relative to a public submission, the applicant is required to address the matter

of protection of adjoining properties by way of a permanent barrier along all

adjoining walls and any such proposal is to be submitted prior to the approval

of the relevant building licence and the proposals are to be to the satisfaction

of the Manager Development Services.

2 Drainage & Road Requirements

2.1 Arrangements shall be made to the satisfaction of the City Engineer for the

submission of an approved independent traffic planning study for the

development of the subject land together with the necessary traffic

management measures being installed at the cost of the applicant prior to the

building licence being issued.

An independent qualified Professional Engineer shall prepare the traffic study.

The City Engineer shall approve the consultants brief. The brief shall include:

- Traffic volumes including pre development and post development traffic

volumes to and from accesses to the development and on surrounding

streets.

- Level of service of accesses

- Impact of the development on the surrounding streets and intersections,

including level of service pre and post development.

- Recommendations for measures to address impacts and maintain

satisfactory levels of service

- Safety Audit and recommendations to address any safety issues

- Assessment of pedestrian access to and from the site including proposed

pedestrian routes, road crossings and an access audit

- Assessment of public transport access to and from the site including

pedestrian access to the nearest bus stop.

2.2 Payment of the Path Network contribution of $17,424.00 prior to the issue of a

building licence. The contribution will be used to fund Council’s Path

Replacement & Expansion Programme. The contribution may, at the City


Page 34

Engineer’s discretion, be used to upgrade/construct paths on the property

frontage.

2.3 Any alterations or relocation of existing infrastructure within the road reserve

shall be carried out and reinstated to the specification and satisfaction of the

City Engineer at the developer’s expense.

2.4 A Traffic Management Plan, prepared in accordance with Main Roads

Western Australia’s Code of Practice, shall be submitted and approved by the

City Engineer prior to works on roads commencing. (Note: Any activity

within a road reserve associated with building or construction works e.g.,

loading, off-loading, movement of construction vehicles, etc., which may

impact on pedestrian or vehicular traffic, is deemed to require traffic

management.)

2.5 Road Assets Damage Bond of $5,000.00 shall be paid by the applicant prior to

the issue of the building licence per Council’s Local Planning Policy “Bonds”.

2.6 The access way(s), parking areas(s), turning area(s) shall be constructed,

kerbed, formed, graded, drained, linemarked and finished with a sealed or

paved surface or equivalent by the developer to an approved design to the

satisfaction of the City Engineer. Once constructed, the access way(s), parking

area(s) and turning area(s) shall be maintained at all times to the satisfaction of

the City Engineer. (Advice Note: Design and construction shall be in

accordance with the City of Bunbury Engineering Design and Construction

Standards , Austroads Part 11 Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice: Parking,

Australian Standard AS2890.1-2004 Off-street car parking & Australian

Standard AS2890.2-2002 – Off-street commercial vehicle facilities)

The design shall be approved prior to the issue of a building licence

2.7 Street lighting shall be provided for the access way(s), parking areas(s) and

turning area(s) by the developer. (Advice Note: Design and construction

standards shall be in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards)

2.8 The applicant shall construct and maintain vehicle crossovers to the

development. Existing crossovers not required for the proposed development

shall be removed, the verge made good and kerbing reinstated, immediately

upon completion of the building. Advice Note: Crossovers shall be in

accordance with Council’s Standard Drawings MISC–01-03; MISC-01-04,

MISC-01-05 or approved alternative design.

Crossovers shall not vary from the standard designs without written approval

from the City Engineer. Pedestrian access across the crossover shall be free of

tripping hazards (e.g., no raised kerbing). Paths shall take priority over

crossovers. In accordance with Local Planning Policy “ Vehicle Crossovers “,

Council’s crossover rebate will only be issued where construction has been

completed in accordance with the standard drawings.


Page 35

2.9 Satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City of Bunbury for the

upgrading/construction of Prinsep Street, Stephen Street & Blair Street (extent

to be determined) including grading, kerbing, draining, sealing, bus stops,

pedestrian crossing & lighting, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

2.10 Site stormwater overflow shall be connected to the City’s stormwater drainage

system to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Plans and specifications are to

be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issue of a building

licence.

2.11 This property is situated in the Five Mile Brook Flood Study Area and may be

susceptible to flooding. Habitable rooms in any building construction shall

have a minimum finished floor level of 2.3 metres AHD.

3. Health Requirements

3.1 The property shall be connected to Water Corporation sewer.

3.2 All existing and proposed food tenancies must comply with the provisions of

the Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations 1993 and in particular the proponent

must comply with the following:

16. Provision of grease traps

A grease trap used in connection with food premises must, where practicable,

be located outside the food premises and maintained in a clean and sanitary

condition.

20. Provision of sanitary conveniences for public

1) Sanitary conveniences must be provided in food premises for persons

using the food premises in accordance with the Building Code of

Australia as at 14 June 1993.

2) Access to sanitary conveniences must not be through areas where food

is prepared, packed, stored or handled.

21. Sanitary Conveniences – Staff

1) Sanitary conveniences for staff must be provide in all food premises in

accordance with the building code of Australia as at 14 June 1993.

2) Staff and public sanitary conveniences may be combined except that

staff facilities must be segregated and locked, and at no time be

available to the public.

22. Change room facilities must be provided


Page 36

1) Separate male and female change room facilities for the use of persons

engaged in food handling must be provided in Class 1 and Class 2 food

premises.

2) The change rooms must be -

(a) at least 3 square metres, with an additional 0.75 square metres

for each person in excess of 4, and separated from the food

handling area; and

(b) provided with locker storage facilities for the storage of

clothing, footwear and other personal effects.

3.3 The applicant to develop and provide a noise management plan and a

demolition and construction dust management plan to the satisfaction of the

Manager Health.

3.4 Prior to the issue of a building licence, the proponent is to supply a plan that

indicates where and how the waste, recycling and garbage from the existing

and proposed residential, retail, food and commercial office tenancies

including the access to the site for and operation of collection vehicles to the

satisfaction of the Manager Health and the Manger Waste Services.

4. Any other operational conditional to the satisfaction of the Manager Development

Services.

Notes:

This is not a Building Licence. This development is subject to a building licence approval – an application

shall be made with Council’s Building Services prior to commencement of works on-site.

Until a Certificate of Classification has been issued by the Department of Development Services under

Regulation 20 of the Building Regulations 1989, there shall be no approval to use the land for the purposes

in accordance with this approval.

The Plans and Specifications must be submitted to the Water Corporation for approval.

Prior to the removal of any structure, a Demolition Licence shall be obtained from the Council pursuant to

the Building Regulations 1989.

The applicant is reminded of their obligations to ensure that all sand drift, waste, building materials and

equipment is contained within the boundaries of the site during the construction period.

All documentation submitted with the application shall be in accordance with the Building Regulations 1989

and the Building Code of Australia – Volume 1, including in particular, detailed plans and specifications for

the site works (including finished ground and floor levels), storm water and roof run-off disposal, existing

easements, parking areas (including pavement type), to the satisfaction of Council.

The Plans and Specifications must be submitted to the Fire Emergency and Safety Authority (FESA).


Page 37

The Plans and Specifications must indicate the positions of any Exit Doors and Exit Signs and they are to be

in accordance with the BCA – Parts D1 and E4 (Volume 1).

The Plans and Specifications must indicate all provisions of Access for People With Disabilities, into and

within the building, in accordance with the BCA – Part D3 (Volume 1) and AS 1428.1.

The Plans and Specifications for the Building Application must provide Sanitary Facilities for people with

disabilities in accordance with the BCA – F2 (Volume 1) and AS 1428.1.

Any demolition work involving asbestos shall be in accordance with the Health (Asbestos) Regulations

1992.

Owners, Builders and Developers undertaking development and/or construction of any kind are hereby

advised of their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

For any further information on this Act, inquiries are to be directed to the Disability Services Commission

The buildings in this mixed use development are classified as being Class 2, 5, 6 and 7a in accordance with

BCA Part A3.

The building shall comply with BCA Part C1.1 for Type A construction.

Fire resistance and stability to be in accordance with BCA Part C1.

Compartmentation and separation to be in accordance with BCA Part C2.

Protection of openings (including shafts and services) to be in accordance with BCA Part C3.

Provision for escape to be in accordance with BCA Part D1.

Construction of exits to be in accordance with BCA Part D2.

Access for persons with disabilities to be in accordance with BCA Part D3.

Fire fighting equipment (including fire hydrants, boosters, tanks and pumps, hose reels, sprinklers and

portable fire extinguishers) to be in accordance with BCA Part E1.

Smoke hazard management (including smoke detection and occupant warning system and stair

pressurisation) to be in accordance with BCA Part E2.2.

Lift installations to be in accordance with BCA Part E3.

Emergency lighting and exit signs to be in accordance with BCA Part E4.

Sanitary facilities (including sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities) to be in accordance with BCA

Part F2.

Light and ventilation (including car park ventilation) to be in accordance with BCA Part F4.

Sound transmission and insulation for Class 2 part of building to be in accordance with BCA Part F5.

Buildings to comply with energy efficiency requirements of BCA Part J.

Pool Barrier to comply with AS 1926.1.


Page 38

Compliance with the Health (Swimming Pools) Regulations 1964 will be required. Construction shall not

commence until the written approval of the Executive Director, Public Health has been obtained.

Compliance with the Health Act 1911 is required.

Compliance with the City of Bunbury Health Local Laws 2001 is required.

The City of Bunbury contains many places of Aboriginal Heritage significance. Proponents are advised to

consider Aboriginal heritage issues and their obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 at an early

stage of planning.

This Planning Consent issued by the City of Bunbury does not remove any responsibility the applicant may

have in obtaining a vegetation Clearing Permit from the Department of Environment in accordance with the

Environment Protection Act 1986.

This Planning Consent issued by the City of Bunbury does not remove any responsibility the applicant may

have in notifying Department of Environment and Heritage of the proposal for consideration of impacts in

accordance with the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.


Cr Frisina disclosed a financial and proximity interest as he owns a business in close

proximity to the proposed development. Cr Frisina left the room at 6.50pm for the duration

of the discussion and vote on this item.

Cr Craddock disclosed an interest-in-common as he is an owner of a business in the CBD.

Cr Craddock left the room at 6.52pm and did not take part in the voting of the procedural

motion below.

Cr Jones moved, Cr T Smith seconded, a procedural motion under Clause 15.6 of the

Standing Orders for the Council to move into a “Committee of the Whole” to permit open

discussion on this subject.

The Presiding Member put the motion to the vote and it was carried 8 votes “for” to 2 votes

“against”.

Cr Craddock returned to the meeting at 6.54pm.

The Presiding Member called for public speakers to this item.

- Mr Tony Brun, representing the Brenta Property Group (the proponents), spoke to

members about the history of this item and how recent meetings between the parties

(i.e. Brenta Property Group and City of Bunbury planning staff) had resulted in the

withdrawal of the residential component of the proposed development.

As there are still issues/concerns with aspects of the proposed development

(i.e. building height, car parking bays and traffic management), the developers have

modified the proposed development to a 9 storey office and retail complex with the

total height being 40.7 metres. This conflicts with conditions set out in the City

Vision Strategy which permitted consideration to developments up to 8 storeys (or


Page 39

32 metres). Mr Brun also believed that the developers were entitled to parking bay

concessions similar to those that were granted to the Arrio Building site and Fast

Eddy’s.

- Speakers against the proposed development were Mr Jim Litis and Mr Mark Werrett

representing Crestway Nominees (the owners of the Centrepoint Shopping Centre).

They reiterated that the Council should consider this a new development; not a

redevelopment. Mr Litis spoke to members about concerns with regards to parking

and traffic management, and how this will affect the retailers of Centrepoint as well as

the community in general. Mr Werrett added that he was not aware of any amended

plans that had been submitted to Council by the developers. Therefore, there did not

appear to be any changes from the last time this item was put before Council for

consideration.

After lengthy open discussion on this item during which Council members questioned the

proponents, the objectors and City planning staff, Cr Dillon moved, Cr Wenn seconded, that

the Committee move back into Council mode as the members were now ready to debate this

issue. The motion was adopted 11 votes “for” and nil votes “against”.

The meeting referred to the alternative recommendation provided in the memorandum

distributed under separate cover as Attachment No 1 which reads as follows:

“1. Note the advice from Notebook Investments Pty Ltd that the residential component of

the project has been withdrawn.

2. Note the request for concessions in relation to height and parking (as previously

submitted).

3. Supports in principle the revised project subject to an amended report being

presented to the next Committee meeting that provides details of the amended project

plan and the necessary conditions that would form part of a Development Approval.”

This recommendation had been provided by officers after detailed re-analysis of the proposed

development where it was decided that the best approach may be to refuse to grant planning

approval at this point in time (and to provide detailed reasons in this regard), but to make it

very clear to the proponents that Council would be prepared to grant planning approval for an

8 storey development subject to the submission of further amended drawings and

demonstration that the matter of car parking and traffic management can be resolved to the

satisfaction of City staff and to Council’s subsequent satisfaction.

The Mayor called for a mover.

Cr Dillon moved, Cr Major seconded, points 1 to 3 of the alternative recommendation (as

printed above).

The Mayor put each point of the motion to the vote separately and the results are as follows:

Points 1 & 2: Carried 11 votes “for” to nil votes “against”


Page 40

Point 3: Carried 4 votes “for” to 7 votes “against” and there was a request to record the

vote as follows:

For: Cr T Smith

Cr Dillon

Cr Jones

Cr Major

Against: Mayor D Smith

Cr Lambert

Cr Leigh

Cr Craddock

Cr McCleary

Cr Wenn

Cr Rooney

Discussion ensued in relation to the motion during which Cr Rooney foreshadowed an

alternative to point 3 of the motion as follows:

“3. The applicant to provide an amended report for the revised project to the next

Briefing Session that provides details of the amended project plan and the necessary

conditions that would form part of a Development Approval.”

Cr Rooney moved, Cr Major seconded, Cr Rooney’s foreshadowed motion as follows:

“3. The applicant to provide an amended report for the revised project to the next


conditions that would form part of a Development Approval.”

The motion was put to the vote and adopted 11 votes “for” to nil votes “against”.

For ease of reference the Council decision is printed below:


Council resolves as follows in relation to an application for planning approval received from

Brenta Property Group Pty Ltd (on behalf of Notebook Investments Pty Ltd) for the purpose

of a Mixed Use Commercial and Residential Development at Lot 20 (No. 22) Stephen Street,

Bunbury.

1. Note the advice from Notebook Investments Pty Ltd that the residential component of

the project has been withdrawn.

2. Note the request for concessions in relation to height and parking (as previously

submitted).


Page 41

3. The applicant to provide an amended report for the revised project to the next


conditions that would form part of a Development Approval.

CARRIED

At this point in proceedings Cr Dillon moved and Cr Major seconded the following addition

to Council Decision 202/07 (that had been provided by the proponents):

“4. That Council endorses the principle that existing buildings within the City Centre

zone have parking rights to the extent that in any redevelopment proposal the

equivalent number of parking bays shall be provided as a concession (deduction)

against the required amount of parking.”

The Mayor put the motion to the vote and it was defeated 3 votes “for” to 8 votes “against”

and there was a request to record the vote as follows:

For: Cr Dillon

Cr Jones

Cr Major

Against: Mayor D Smith

Cr Lambert

Cr Leigh

Cr Craddock

Cr McCleary

Cr Wenn

Cr Rooney

Cr T Smith

Cr Frisina returned to the meeting at 8.57pm.

10. RECEPTION OF FORMAL PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS

Nil.


Page 42

11. RECEPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COUNCIL

(STANDING) COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 9 OCTOBER 2007

11.1 BUNBURY WATERFRONT PROJECT - BUNBURY TIMBER JETTY - COUNCIL

COMMITMENT TO THE PROJECT

File Ref: A00502


Author: Ken Weary, Acting Chief Executive Officer, and Geoff Klem,

Executive Manager City Development


Summary

It is proposed that the City of Bunbury advise Landcorp that it will contribute $3.5(M)

towards the jetty component of Stage 1 of the Bunbury Waterfront Project and prepare a

sustainable business plan for ongoing management and maintenance of the jetty.

Background

Landcorp (State Government) having completed a feasibility study and a community

consultation program, has announced the redevelopment of the Bunbury Outer Harbour –

now known as the Bunbury Waterfront Project. The Bunbury Waterfront Project will include

a mix of tourism, residential, retail and commercial development opportunities. Landcorp has

briefed Council on the proposal and preliminary works are currently being undertaken.

The Cabinet Submission for the Development of Stage 1 – Koombana Bay Precinct within

the Bunbury Waterfront Project includes an amount of $7(M) – (which includes the City of

Bunbury’s $3.5(M) contribution) for the partial demolition and refurbishment of the Bunbury

Timber Jetty. Landcorp is seeking approval to go to tender and award a contract to

commence jetty works in mid 2008. The contract is proposed to be in two separate portions

comprising demolition and refurbishment. In accordance with the Cabinet approval for Stage

1 of the Bunbury Waterfront Project, Landcorp’s expenditure of $3.5(M) on the jetty remains

subject to:

• The City of Bunbury matching and having available a matching contribution; and

• The City preparing a sustainable business plan for the ongoing management and

maintenance of the jetty.

Landcorp is unable to commence the demolition and restoration works on the jetty until the

City satisfies the conditions of the Cabinet approval.

In respect to Council contributing $3.5(M) towards the jetty component of Stage 1 of the

Bunbury Waterfront Project, it is intended, that Council give Landcorp a commitment to the


Page 43

funding to allow part of the project to proceed. Council has committed the $3.5(M) in its 5

Year Finance Plan and has identified part proceeds of the sale of the Lots 210 and 211

Holywell Street (the Punchbowl Caravan Park site) to be utilised for this purpose. Landcorp

will be advised accordingly.

In respect to the City preparing a sustainable Business Plan for the ongoing management and

maintenance of the Jetty, Landcorp will be advised that the City is aware that subsequent

stages of the Bunbury Waterfront Project will include development of the foreshore areas

around the Old jetty. Although Project definition is not completed, it is expected that

opportunities to generate revenue through particularly leasehold agreements will emerge in

relation to water based and tourism related activities.

The City has canvassed the possibility of entering into a partnership with the State

Government to secure recurrent funding for the Jetty management and maintenance through a

share of lease revenue at the City of Bunbury Integration Meetings hosted by Landcorp. The

general view of the meeting group was that this proposal had merit and should be progressed.

Given the implications of the above proposal on the development of a sustainable Business

Plan, the City will seek advice as to whether the State is prepared to enter into a partnership

which will include a dedicated revenue stream from leasehold (or other income generating

options) associated with subsequent stages of the Bunbury Waterfront Project.

Recommendation

1. Council advise Landcorp it will contribute $3.5(M) towards the Bunbury Timber Jetty

component of Stage 1 of the Bunbury Waterfront Project noting that Council’s

commitment will be part of the proceeds of the sale of Lots 210 and 211 Holywell

Street (formerly the Punchbowl Caravan Park site).

2. In respect to the City preparing a sustainable Business Plan for the ongoing

management and maintenance of the Bunbury Timber Jetty - Landcorp to be advised

that the City is aware that subsequent stages of the Bunbury Waterfront Project will

include development of the foreshore areas around the old jetty. Although Project

definition is not completed, it is expected that opportunities to generate revenue

through particular leasehold agreements will emerge in relation to water-based and

tourism related activities.

Given the implications of the above proposal on the development of a sustainable

Business Plan, the City will seek advice as to whether the State is prepared to enter

into a partnership which will include a dedicated revenue stream from leasehold (or

other income generating options) associated with subsequent stages of the Bunbury

Waterfront Project.

Outcome of the Council Committee Meeting – 9 October 2007

The Presiding Member called on Mrs Manea (member of the Bunbury Timber Jetty

Environment and Conservation Society Inc.) to provide comment in relation to the

recommendation listed in the report. Mrs Manea raised the following points:


Page 44

1. The engineering firm that are doing all the planning for the demolition and

reconstruction of the jetty are extremely efficient and most cooperative. However, the

Society considers the proposed start date for works of April 2008 as being too late due

to inclement weather at that time of year. This could possibly result in more expense

to restore the jetty.

2. The Society has an agreement with the Council to look after the jetty for 10 years.

The 10 years is up on 31 December 2007.

Cr Dillon moved, Cr Major seconded the recommendation (as listed in the report) and it

became the motion under discussion.

During discussion Cr Craddock suggested that the following points 3 and 4 be added to the

motion:

“3. Council to request of Landcorp to make every genuine endeavour to bring forth the

commencement of works to an earliest-start date given the inclement conditions which

prevail in Bunbury as from April.

4. CEO to liaise with the Bunbury Timber Jetty Environment and Conservation Society

to arrange for an ongoing agreement for maintenance of the Jetty once the current

arrangement is complete.”

The mover and seconder agreed to include these points in their motion.

The Presiding Member put points 1 and 2 of the motion to the vote and it was adopted to

become the Committee’s recommendation on this issue.


The Presiding Member then put points 3 and 4 of the motion to the vote and it was adopted to

become the Committee’s recommendation on this issue.


For ease of reference, the full Committee recommendation is provided below:

Committee Recommendation









Page 45





3. Council to request of Landcorp to make every genuine endeavour to bring forth the

commencement of works to an earliest-start date given the inclement conditions

which prevail in Bunbury as from April.

4. CEO to liaise with the Bunbury Timber Jetty Society to arrange for an ongoing

agreement for maintenance of the Jetty once the current arrangement is complete.


The Committee’s recommendation was moved Cr Wenn, seconded Cr Leigh.















3. Council to request of Landcorp to make every genuine endeavour to bring forth the

commencement of works to an earliest-start date given the inclement conditions which

prevail in Bunbury as from April.

4. CEO to liaise with the Bunbury Timber Jetty Society to arrange for an ongoing

agreement for maintenance of the Jetty once the current arrangement is complete.

CARRIED

10 Votes “For”/2 Votes “Against”


Page 46

There was a request for the vote to be recorded:

For: Mayor D Smith

Cr Major

Cr Leigh

Cr Craddock

Cr Dillon

Cr Rooney

Cr Wenn

Cr Frisina

Cr Lambert

Cr T Smith

Against: Cr Jones

Cr McCleary


Page 47

11.2 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT 20

(NO 22) STEPHEN STREET, BUNBURY

File Ref: P08976

Applicant/Proponent: Cr Tom Dillon

Author: Not applicable

Executive: Ken Weary, Acting Chief Executive Officer

At the Council Committee meeting of 9 October 2007, Cr Dillon brought forward as a matter

of urgent business (requiring confidential discussion) a request to place the Stirling Centre

Redevelopment proposal on the Agenda for the forthcoming Council Meeting of 16 October

2007.

Following discussion, the following motion was moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr Major, and

adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on this issue.


The proposed commercial and residential development of Lot 20 (No 22) Stephen Street,

Bunbury, be placed on the Agenda for the Council Meeting on 16 October 2007.


The Committee’s recommendation was moved Cr Major, seconded Cr Dillon.




The proposed commercial and residential development of Lot 20 (No 22) Stephen Street,

Bunbury, be placed on the Agenda for the Council Meeting on 16 October 2007.

CARRIED



Page 48

11.3 BUNBURY AIRPORT SITE NO 29B PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE

File Ref: F00162 (L121)

Applicant/Proponent: Peter Heyworth, Dharmendran Chelvanayagam and Lester Northey

Author: Liz Allan, Administration Officer Corporate Services


Summary

An application has been received from Messrs Peter Heyworth, Dharmendran

Chelvanayagam and Lester Northey (“Lessees”) seeking Council’s consideration to assign Mr

Northey’s Partial Lease over Bunbury Airport Site No. 29B South Western Highway,

Bunbury, to Mr David Offer (“Assignee”). The Lease is due to expire on 30 June 2011 with

no further option.

It is the Assignee’s intention to continue to use the site for the storage of aircraft. A copy of

the site plan is attached at Appendix 1.

Background

The Lessees hold a Lease over Site No. 29B (525m2) for the storage of aircraft.

The Bunbury Airport is located on reserve 27383 (Lot 455 South Western Highway). The

land is held by the City of Bunbury under Management Order Crown Land Record 3040/63

(Crown Land Title Vol. 3007 Fol. 583) for the purpose of an “Aerodrome” with the power to

lease for a term of up to twenty one (21) years.

The term of the lease has been determined pursuant to the Bunbury Airport Strategic Plan

Directions 2000–2010 which requires all leases at the airport to have corresponding expiry

dates, terms and conditions.

Fees for airport hangar sites have previously been endorsed by Council.

Lease Details

Current Lease Commenced: 1 July 2001 (exercised option in 1 July 2006)

Current Lessees: Peter Heyworth, Dharmendran Chelvanayagam and Lester

Northey

Proposed Lessees: Peter Heyworth, Dharmendran Chelvanayagam and David Offer

Term: Five (5) years with a further (5) years

Expiry Date: 30 June 2006 (with an option to 2011)

Annual Rental: $1961.11 plus GST

Administration Fee: $32.53 per annum plus GST


Page 49

Rent Review Annual Rental is adjusted annually in accordance with Council’s

Commercial and Industrial Municipal Rate.

The Administration Fee is adjusted annually in accordance with

the Consumer Price Index.

Permitted Use: Storage of Aircraft

Lease Area: 42m x 12.5m (525m2)

Outgoings: Responsibility of Lessee

Insurance: Lessee to maintain Public Risk Insurance and General Insurance

on the building. Public Liability to be set at $5(M)

Preparation of Lease: $250 includes documentation, registration and advertising

The City’s Executive, the Lessees and Assignee have mutually agreed on the Terms and

Conditions of Partial Assignment for the unexpired term of the lease.

Strategic and/or Regional Outcomes

Strategic Outcomes

Leasing proposals are considered with reference to the Council’s 2007-2012 Strategic Plan

through Strategic Direction 2.4 which states that the City will “develop a property strategy

that benefits the City's residents, businesses, community and sporting organisations”.

This proposal also complies with the Bunbury Airport Strategic Directions Plan 2000–2010.

Regional Outcomes

The proposal provides opportunities to interested persons from the Greater Bunbury Region

to use the Bunbury Airport.


The proposal to grant the Partial Assignment must be advertised pursuant to Section 3.58 of

the Local Government Act 1995 and requires a public submission period of fourteen (14)

days.


Council officers have held discussions with the Lessees and Assignee and have mutually

agreed on the Terms and Conditions of Partial Assignment for the unexpired term.


Fees for airport hangar sites have previously been endorsed by Council. The Annual Lease

Rental is to be increased annually in line with Council's Commercial and Industrial Rate

increases throughout the lease term. The Administration Fee is to be increased annually in

line with the Consumer Price Index. Municipal Rates are paid on airport hangar sites.


Page 50


Economic Issues

The use of aircraft provides economic benefits to suppliers.

Social Issues

The activity provides an avenue for like-minded enthusiasts to participate.

Environmental Issues

The application does not conflict with the “Bunbury Airport Location Analysis Study City of

Bunbury” complied by Connell Wagner Pty Ltd in April 2004.

The activity is in keeping with the amenities of the area.

Heritage Issues

There are no known heritage issues associated with the proposal.

Council Policy Compliance

All leases at the Bunbury Airport expire on the common expiry date of 30 June 2011.


The intention for a Partial Assignment of the Lease will be advertised for a period of fourteen

(14) days in accordance with Section 3.58 (3) and (4) of the Local Government Act 1995.


The Chief Executive Officer has the delegated authority to negotiate the terms and conditions

of property leases provided the settled terms/conditions are presented to Council for

endorsement before documentation is finalised.

It is proposed that subject to no objecting submissions being received as a result of public

advertising, the Chief Executive Officer will proceed with preparation of the necessary

documentation.

Relevant Precedents

Council currently leases thirty five (35) hangar sites at the Bunbury Airport and regularly

considers requests for new and assigned leases due to the growing demand for hangar space at

the facility.

Various airport Leases and Assignments have been approved by Council.


Page 51

Options

Option 1: Per the recommendation.

Option 2: Council not support the proposal for Partial Assignment of the Lease over

Bunbury Airport Site No. 29B Reserve 27686, Lot 455 South Western Highway,

Bunbury.

Conclusion

Messrs Heyworth, Chelvanayagam and Northey and Pantlin are seeking Council approval for

Partial Assignment over the unexpired term of Lease over Site No. 29B to Mr David Offer for

the purpose of storage of aircraft.

The proposal to enter into the Partial Assignment meets the following objectives.

1. The City will meet its responsibilities for the management, care and control of

Reserve 27686, Lot 455 South Western Highway, Bunbury, for the benefit of an

“Airport”.

2. Mr David Offer will enter into a lease arrangement with Peter Heyworth and

Dharmendran Chelvanayagam which will provide him with security of tenure and

protection of assets.

3. The Terms and Conditions of the Partial Assignment have been mutually agreed to

by the City’s Executive, the Lessees and the Assignee.

Recommendation

1. Council agrees to grant an Assignment of Lease over portion of Bunbury Airport Site

No. 29B, Reserve 27686, Lot 455 South Western Highway, Bunbury, to David Offer

for the unexpired term of the lease in accordance with the terms and conditions

specified in the report.

2. Public notice of the intention to Assign the Lease will be provided in accordance

with Section 3.58(3) and (4) of the Local Government Act 1995, through notices

displayed on Public Notice Boards at the City’s Administration Centre and Libraries,

and a notice published in the “City Update” column of the Bunbury Mail Newspaper.

3. Approval for the Partial Assignment of Lease be sought from the Minister for Lands.

4. Subject to no objecting submissions being received, the Chief Executive Officer be

authorised to proceed with the Deed of Partial Assignment of Lease.


Cr Leigh disclosed an impartiality interest as he knows the applicants.


Page 52


The Presiding Member put the motion to the vote and it was adopted to become the

Committee’s recommendation on this issue.


1. Council agrees to grant an Assignment of Lease over portion of Bunbury Airport Site

No. 29B, Reserve 27686, Lot 455 South Western Highway, Bunbury, to David Offer

for the unexpired term of the lease in accordance with the terms and conditions

specified in the report.



displayed on Public Notice Boards at the City’s Administration Centre and Libraries,

and a notice published in the “City Update” column of the Bunbury Mail Newspaper.





Cr Leigh disclosed an impartiality interest as he is known to the applicant. Cr Leigh left the

room at 9.14pm for the duration of the discussion and vote on this item.

The Committee’s recommendation was moved Cr Major, seconded Cr Dillon.




1. Council agrees to grant an Assignment of Lease over portion of Bunbury Airport

Site No. 29B, Reserve 27686, Lot 455 South Western Highway, Bunbury, to David

Offer for the unexpired term of the lease in accordance with the terms and

conditions specified in the report.



displayed on Public Notice Boards at the City’s Administration Centre and

Libraries, and a notice published in the “City Update” column of the Bunbury Mail

Newspaper.



Page 53



CARRIED


Cr Leigh returned at 9.15pm.


Page 54

11.4 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR MONTHS OF JULY, AUGUST & SEPTEMBER

2007 (WAS LISTED AS ITEM 11.5 IN THE MEETING AGENDA)

File Ref: A02838


Author: David Ransom, City Accountant


Financial Statements for September 2007 have been circulated to members under separate

cover. The statements included the following details:

- Income Statement

- Balance Sheet

- Statement of Changes in Equity

- Statement of Financial Activity

- Statement of General Purpose Income

- Statement of Rating Information

Note 1 Significant Accounting Policies

Note 2 Description of Programmes

Note 3 Net Current Assets

Note 4 Receivables

Note 5 Other Financial Assets

Note 6 Payables

Note 7 Provisions

Note 8 Trust Funds

Note 9 Capital Expenditure

Note 10 Key Operating Expenditure and Income (budget exceeding $20,000)

Note 11 Loan Funds

Note 12 Reserve Funds

Note 13 Bunbury Timber Jetty

Note 14 Investment Funds (rate of return benchmarked against International Index)

Financial Statements for the month of July and August 2007 will be tabled at the meeting for

the information of members.

Recommendation

Financial Statements for the months of July, August and September 2007, be received.


The recommendation was moved Cr Major, seconded Cr Leigh.


Page 55






The Committee’s recommendation was moved Cr Major, seconded Cr Leigh.


decision on this issue



CARRIED



Page 56

11.5 2007/2008-01 TENDER FOR THE SUPPLY OF BULK AND EX-BOWSER FUELS (WAS LISTED AS ITEM 11.8 IN THE MEETING AGENDA)

File Ref: New File

Applicant/Proponent: N/A

Author: Steve Stirton, Manager Building Construction and Maintenance

Executive: Michael Scott, Executive Manager City Services

Summary

Council invited suitable companies to supply and deliver bulk distillate/blended fuels, and/or

ex-bowser ULP, LPG, distillate and blended fuels for the Council’s vehicle fleet.

Background

Tenders were prepared and advertised in the West Australian and the South Western Times

on 29 and 30 August 2007.

The tender was split into two sections; being:

Part “A” the supply and delivery of:

- Bulk distillate/blended to the Parks and Recreation’s above ground tank at the

McCoombe Street Depot.

- Bulk distillate/blended to the Council Engineering’s above ground tank at the Nuytsia

Avenue Depot.

Part “B” the supply of:

- Ex-bowser unleaded petrol, distillate/blended and automotive LP gas at country and

metropolitan outlets.

Tenders closed at 3:00pm on Thursday, 13 September 2007. Steve Stirton, Manager Building

Construction and Maintenance, and Mark Robson, Contracts Coordinator, opened the tender

box.

Three (3) enquires were registered for the tender with only one (1) tender received by closing

time.

The tender received was from BP City and Regional Fuels, Lot 24 Weatherly Street, Picton.

Term of Contract

The contract shall be in force for a period of one (1) year. The principal (City of Bunbury) at

its sole discretion, can elect to extend the duration of this contract either in whole or in part

for a further three (3) years.


Page 57

A panel comprising the Manager, Building Construction and Maintenance, and the Contracts

Coordinator assessed the responses. The tender was assessed for compliance, qualitative

criteria and price.

Compliance Criteria

(a) Will you be able to comply with the specification contained in this request?

(b) Have you complied with the conditions of responding contained in this request?

(c) Have you complied with and completed the qualitative and price schedule?

Tenderer Compliance with

Specification

Compliance with

Conditions

Completed

Qualitative and

Price Schedule

BP City and Regional Yes Yes Yes

Qualitative Criteria

Description of Qualitative Criteria Weighting

(a) Available outlets 4

(b) Vehicle performance 3

(c) Purchase restrictions 3

(d) System security 2

(e) Documentation 2

Price

Price assessment has been carried out by ranking tenders from lowest price to highest price.

The evaluation of the tenderer’s prices and ranking has been assessed and, because they are

commercial-in-confidence, details have been provided under confidential cover.


The proposal reflects the Council’s strategic plan which will “facilitate the provision of

engineering services in the design and construction of capital works and the maintenance of

civil works and related infrastructure”.


The tender was advertised for public information as required under legislation.


The Contracts Coordinator and Fleet Officer were consulted during the tender and evaluation

process.


Page 58


All costs for the purchase of fuel will come from the fleet operating budget.


Economic

The recommended company is located in Bunbury and the contract will benefit employment

opportunities in the region.

Social

There are no known social issues.

Heritage

There are no known heritage issues.

Environment

There are no known environmental issues.

Policy Compliance

The tender process complies with the requirements of Work Procedure WP4.6 – Tender

Procedure and associated legislation.

Where applicable the Local Buying Compact 5% preference has been applied.


Advertising and processing of tenders has been conducted in accordance with the Local

Government (Function and General) Regulation 1996, Part 4 – Tenders for Providing Goods

or Services (S.3.57).


The total cost of the contract will exceed $100,000.00 as exact costs were not known. The

contract has been dealt with in accordance with the Local Government (Function and

General) Regulation 1996, Part 4 – Tenders for Providing Goods or Services (S.3.57) and be

considered by the “local authority”.

Relevant Precedents

Council has dealt with all tenders previously called.


Page 59

Conclusion

Under the Local Government Regulations section (11.2, part G) Council is not required to

tender for fuel. However, tenders were called to test the market and, at the same time, give

local companies the opportunity to respond.

BP City and Regional Fuels currently supply the bulk distillate to the depots and already have

the infrastructure in place; therefore, continuing the contract with this company has proven

savings. However, their tender for ex-bowser fuel did not include the supply of LP Gas and

the discounts for ULP applied only to fuel purchased from local outlets.

Other avenues exist through which Council can purchase fuels, such as the Department of

Treasury administered “Common Use Arrangement 31101”.

Options


Option 2: Reject all tenders and re-advertise.

Recommendation

Council to undertake the following with respect to Tender 2007/2008-01 for the supply of

bulk and ex-bowser fuels:

1. Accept Part “A” of the tender (and enter into a contract) from BP City and Regional

Fuels for the supply of bulk distillate to McCoombe Road and Nuytsia Ave Depots for

a period of one (1) year with the option to extend a further three (3) years.

2. Reject part “B” of the tender from BP City and Regional Fuels for the supply of

ex-bowser fuels and negotiate with suppliers for the purchase of ex-bowser fuel.

3. Record the successful tender price in the Council minutes.


The recommendation was moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr Major







Page 60








The recommendation was moved Cr Frisina, seconded Cr McCleary.


Council’s decision on this issue.










CARRIED



Page 61

11.6 PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE TO A HOME BUSINESS

(ACCOUNTING/CONSULTING) – LOT 328 (NO 4) BERGERSEN COURT, CAREY

PARK (WAS LISTED AS ITEM 11.10 IN THE MEETING AGENDA)

File Ref: A00401

Applicant/Proponent: Rezolt Pty Ltd

Author: Teshome Tadesse, Planning Officer


Summary

An application has been received for a Home Business (Accounting/Consulting) at Lot 328

(No 4) Bergersen Court. During the advertisement period two (2) objections were received in

relation to traffic and parking related matters. It is considered that the substance of the

submissions are speculative and cannot be possibly justified given the size and scale of

operation proposed under the current application. The applicant will be required to provide

an additional parking space as specified under the City’s Local Planning Policy – Home

Based Business.

The proposal is consistent with Town Planning Scheme No 7 (TPS 7) and its associated

policy and, therefore, Development Services recommends approval to the proposed Home

Business (Accounting/Consulting) on the subject land.

Background

The proposal is, principally, to use a portion of a dwelling (lounge room) at Lot 328 (No 4)

Bergersen Court for a home business operation. The specifics of the proposed home business

include accounting activities and management consulting. The occupier of the dwelling will

run the business with the help of a personal assistant.

A location plan is attached at Appendix 10.

The proposal has been categorised as a home business for the reason that it is a professional

activity proposed to be undertaken from a dwelling. A home business in a residential zone is

an “A” use under the current Scheme. In accordance with the Scheme requirements, the

proposal was advertised for 21 days and two (2) objections were received. The two

submitters have objected to the proposal on the basis of traffic related matters and on the

grounds of perceived on-street parking problems in the area. Attached at Appendix 11 is a

Schedule of Submissions received. Both submitters have indicated that increase in traffic and

on-street parking would be problematic in this small cul de sac location.

Pursuant to the City’s Local Planning Policy –Development Applications Assessment

Processes: Rights of the Applicant and the Community, “upon closure of the advertising

period, all submissions are compiled and incorporated into agenda item to Council for their

consideration.” In this instance, two (2) objections were received and, therefore, Council

will have to determine the proposal accordingly.


Page 62

Proposal

The proposal is a change of use to a Home Business (Accounting/Consulting) at Lot 328

(No 4) Bergersen Court, Carey Park. Attached at Appendix 12 is a site plan.

The proposed home business will employ one personal assistant in addition to the occupier of

the dwelling for about 20 hours per week. The business is professional in nature and that one

person will be employed to run the business. The proposal, therefore, can be comfortably

categorised as a home business.

The following are the main features of a home business as outlined in the Scheme:

- It is a business, service or profession carried in a dwelling or land around a dwelling;

- It does not employ more than two (2) people outside of the family;

- Will not compromise the amenity of the neighbourhood;

- Restricted to an area not more than 50m2;

- Does not involve retail sale, display or hire of goods;

- Does not create traffic difficulties in terms of shortage of parking provisions and

increase in traffic volume; and

- Will not require more essential services than normally required in the area.

The applicant has provided the following justifications in support of the proposal:

- That the proposal will only employ one personal assistant;

- That the property has adequate parking spaces (at least 4 spaces on the driveway)

The details of the proposal reveal that the existing lounge room will be used principally as an

office area for the business operation. In addition, minor storage and shelving sites will be

dedicated inside the dwelling to run the business. It is considered that the proposed area

coverage is within the 50m2 area limit as specified under the home business category in the

Scheme. All in all, the proposal satisfies the above mentioned features of a home business as

listed in the Scheme.

Attached at Appendix 13 is a floor plan.

The submissions on the matter of traffic and parking problems (street parking) cannot be

possibly justified given the proposed area of the business and the scale of operation within the

allowable extent in a residential zone. The applicant claims that 4 parking spaces on the

driveway can be accounted for the proposal. In practice, this is not the case as the driveway

cannot be considered as part of parking spaces. Rather, it is a means of access to the site.

The applicant will be required to provide one additional car parking space on the subject and

it is expected that this action will minimise the risk of street parking in the immediate

locality.

Development Services is of the opinion that a home business venture with a size of the

current proposal is unlikely to generate significant traffic in the locality and cause on-street

parking problem.


Page 63

It is recommended that Council support the proposal.

Strategic Outcomes

It is considered that the proposal, by implication, can be considered within the general

direction of the City’s 2007 – 2012 Strategic Plan in respect of Strategy 5.3 “Provide a

cohesive system of integrated land use planning”, which outlines the importance of a

comprehensive and integrated planning system to meet community expectations.

The recommendation has had regard to City’s 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.


The proposal was advertised for public consultation for a period of 21 days in accordance

with the requirements of the current Scheme. At the end of the advertising period, two (2)

submissions were received.


The concerned officers within the Development Services discussed the proposal prior to the

finalisation of the report for Council consideration.


The recommendation will not impact on the existing Annual Budget, nor are there any



Economic Issues

The economic implication is that it will create an employment opportunity for the occupier of

the dwelling and one other person.

Social Issues

There are no foreseeable concerns as a result of this proposal.


There are no known environmental implications regarding the proposal.

Heritage Issues

The proposal is within relatively new residential development sites; therefore, there is no

heritage concern.


Page 64


The proposal is consistent with City’s Local Planning Policy – Home Based Business in the

category of home business in terms of the maximum number of people allowable for

employment (two permitted one proposed), the maximum area of operation, etc.


The proposal complies with the current Scheme requirement, specifically with the land use

designation which is an “A” use in the residential zone. It also satisfies the definition of a

home business as outlined in the Scheme.


The authority to approve/refuse the application in the case of submissions from the public is a

mandate for Council.

Relevant Precedents

There are no known precedents exactly the same proposal in this case.

Options


Option 2: Approve the proposal conditionally for a one-year trial period. Should Council

determine to adopt this option, a suggested format for such action is as follows:

"Council, under and by virtue of the powers conferred upon it in that behalf of the

Planning and Development Act 2005, hereby resolves to approve the proposal

conditionally for a one-year trial period subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval is only for twelve months from the date of this approval

after which time a fresh application shall be lodged with Development

Services for reconsideration in light of any issues that have arisen during

the approval period.

2. The business does not employ more than two (2) people who are not

members of the occupier’s household.

3. The business will not cause injury to or adversely affect the amenity of

the neighbourhood.

4. The business does not occupy an area greater than 50 square metres.

5. The business does not involve the retail sale, display or hire of goods of

any nature.


Page 65

6. In relation to vehicles and car parking, the business does not result in

traffic difficulties as a result of parking inadequacy or an increase in

traffic volumes in the neighbourhood and does not involve the presence,

use or calling of a vehicle more than 3.5 tonnes tare weight.

7. The business does not involve the use of essential services of greater

capacity than normally required in the zone.

8. One additional parking space is to be provided.”

Option 3: Refuse the proposed Home Business (Accounting/Consulting) at Lot 328 (No 4)

Bergersen Court.

Should Council determine to refuse to grant Planning Approval pursuant to this

option, a suggested format for such action is as follows:

“Council, under and by virtue of the powers conferred upon it in that behalf of the

Planning and Development Act 2005, hereby resolves to refuse the proposed

Home Business (Accounting/Consulting) for Rezolt Pty Ltd at Lot 328 (No 4)

Bergersen Court, Carey Park, on the basis that the proposal would compromise

the amenity of the area due to traffic generation and on-street parking in the

immediate locality.”

Conclusion

The proposed home business is in line with the Scheme provisions and the associated Local

Planning Policy – Home Based Business. It is an income-generating activity which is

proposed to be carried out within a dwelling environment and it can be supported under the

current Scheme.

Recommendation

Council, under and by virtue of the powers conferred upon it in that behalf of the Planning

and Development Act 2005, hereby resolves to:

1. Grant Planning Approval to the proposed Home Business (Accounting/Consulting) for

Rezolt Pty Ltd at Lot 328 (No 4) Bergersen Court, Carey Park, subject to the

following conditions:

1.1 The business does not employ more than two (2) people who are not members

of the occupier’s household.

1.2 The business will not cause injury to or adversely affect the amenity of the

neighbourhood.

1.3 The business does not occupy an area greater than 50 square metres.


Page 66

1.4 The business does not involve the retail sale, display or hire of goods of any

nature.

1.5 In relation to vehicles and car parking, the business does not result in traffic

difficulties as a result of parking inadequacy or an increase in traffic volumes

in the neighbourhood and does not involve the presence, use or calling of a

vehicle more than 3.5 tonnes tare weight.

1.6 The business does not involve the use of essential services of greater capacity

than normally required in the zone.

1.7 One additional parking space is to be provided on site.

2. Advise the applicant and submitters of Council’s decision.


The recommendation was moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr Wenn.






1. Grant Planning Approval to the proposed Home Business (Accounting/Consulting) for

Rezolt Pty Ltd at Lot 328 (No 4) Bergersen Court, Carey Park, subject to the





neighbourhood.



nature.






Page 67






The recommendation was moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr Jones.






1. Grant Planning Approval to the proposed Home Business (Accounting/Consulting)

for Rezolt Pty Ltd at Lot 328 (No 4) Bergersen Court, Carey Park, subject to the





neighbourhood.



nature.









Page 68


CARRIED



Page 69

11.7 APPLICATION BY AQWEST (BUNBURY WATER BOARD) TO PURCHASE CITY

OF BUNBURY-OWNED FREEHOLD LAND CURRENTLY LEASED TO AQWEST (WAS LISTED AS ITEM 11.12 IN THE MEETING AGENDA)

File Ref: A00420

Applicant/Proponent: Aqwest (also known as the Bunbury Water Board)

Author: John Beaton, Manager Administration & Property Services


Summary

A Business Plan proposing the sale of City of Bunbury owned freehold land to Aqwest was

advertised for public information in June and August 2007. Aqwest currently leases the land

from the City of Bunbury for water supply purposes. One (1) objecting submission was

received by the end of the submission period on 1 October 2007.

A Schedule of Submissions responding to the lone submitter's list of queries is attached at

Appendix 19. A copy of the submission (in full) has been circulated to members in a

Confidential Report issued under separate cover.

As required by Section 3.59(5) the Council must now consider the submission received in

relation to the proposal to sell the following land to Aqwest:

Location Facilities On-site Value (inc. GST)

Lot 46 Roberts Crescent (1.47 ha)

C/T Vol. 1309 Fol. 584

Reservoir $3,600,000

Part Lot 167 Spencer Street (2,647m2)

C/T Vol. 1022 Fol. 68

Treatment Plant $330,000

Part Lot 521 Robertson Drive (2,372m2)

C/T Vol. 551 Fol. 28A


TOTAL: **$4,025,000

**Note: This total differs from that adopted by Council on 1 May 2007 as Aqwest has since advised that it no

longer requires Lots 28 and 29 Mangles Street for water supply purposes. The leases that Aqwest holds over

these two pieces of land will be surrendered to the City of Bunbury in the near future.

Background

The proposal to sell Lot 46 Roberts Crescent, Part Lot 167 Spencer Street and Part Lot 521

Robertson Drive to Aqwest was considered by Council at its meetings held on 11 July 2006

and 1 May 2007. Aqwest currently leases these sites from the City of Bunbury for water

supply purposes and it is proposed to sell the land to Aqwest on the following conditions:


Page 70

1. Aqwest is to give the City of Bunbury first right of refusal to re-purchase the land

should it cease to be used by Aqwest for water supply purposes in the future. The

price of re-purchase is to be at the Valuer General's valuation based on the same

valuation methodology used in determining the current land sale arrangements.

2. Aqwest is to improve the landscape of Lot 46 Roberts Crescent.

3. The area of land to be purchased by Aqwest on Part Lot 167 Spencer Street is 2,647m2

and Part Lot 521 is 2,372m2.

Aqwest has advised that the Minister for Water Resources has approved its proposal to

purchase the land.

Statutory Advertising

Pursuant to Council's decision of 1 May 2007, a Business Plan was prepared and advertised

for public information in the South Western Times on 28 June 2007 - one (1) submission was

received. The business plan was revised in line with comments made in the public

submission and the revised edition advertised in The West Australian on 18 August 2007 and

in the Bunbury Mail on 22 August 2007. Submissions closed on 1 October 2007.

Notices inviting members of the public to inspect the business plan were also displayed on

the City's website and on notice boards at the Customer Service Centre and both libraries.


The proposal complies with Council’s 2007-2012 Strategic Plan through Strategic Objective

1 which directs “Improve the Relationship with State, Federal and Other Local

Governments”, which states that “improved relationship with state and federal governments

is vital in gaining commitment for increased funding for major capital projects that would

improve the attractiveness of Bunbury from an industry, employment and lifestyle

perspective”.

Income from the sale of the land will provide funding to assist in development of Bunbury’s

regional infrastructure including the new City Library and a proposal for redevelopment of

the Stephen Street Precinct.


The Business Plan outlining the City's intention to enter into a major land transaction has

been advertised for public information pursuant to Section 3.58 and 3.59 of the Local

Government Act 1995.


Page 71


Council has previously considered the sale and lease proposal for the subject land at its

meetings on 11 July 2006 and 1 May 2007.

Council has been kept informed during negotiations with Aqwest by Memorandum and

Council Briefing Session.


As reported to the Council Meeting of 1 May 2007, the Valuer General’s Office valuation

report detailing the valuation method employed for negotiation was received on 30 June

2006.

Income from the sale of the land will provide funding to assist in development of Bunbury’s

regional infrastructure including the new City Library and a proposal for redevelopment of

the Stephen Street Precinct.


Economic Issues

The income from the sale of these properties will promote construction of regional

infrastructure projects identified in Council’s future Capital Works Programme and provide

employment and further economic activity.

Social Issues

The sale retains the land parcels as a community asset held by Aqwest.


Each of the facilities are licensed and comply with the requirements stipulated by the

Department of Minerals and Energy.

Heritage Issues

There are no known heritage issues associated with the proposal.


There is no Council policy relating to the sale of these properties.


Page 72


Following Council’s decision to sell the land (refer to Council Meeting of 1 May 2007) a

Business Plan was advertised for public information. Pursuant to Section 3.59(5) the Council

is now to consider the objecting submission received before making a formal decision on

whether (or not) to proceed with the land transaction as proposed.


The Chief Executive Officer does not have the delegated authority to sell these properties.

Relevant Precedents

The City has previously entered into other major land transactions including College Grove

and Bunbury Business Park - proceeds from the sale of this property was utilised to assist in

funding construction of the South West Sports Centre, the City’s new Civic/Administration

Centre, and; the proposed new City/Regional Library.

Options

Option 1: Per the recommendation

Option 2: Per the recommendation with minor amendments to the land transaction

proposal so that it is not significantly different to what is outlined in the

Business Plan.

Option 3: Council refuses the application from Aqwest (Bunbury Water Board) to enter

into negotiations to purchase the subject land.

Conclusion

In order for the City to meet its strategic objectives of planning future growth and meeting

community needs, the sites have been identified for sale but will be retained by Aqwest in the

community’s interest. The proceeds from the sale will assist funding projects of regional

significance.

Recommendation

In relation to the major land transaction outlined in the Business Plan titled "Sale of Aqwest

Water Treatment Sites (Bunbury)":

1. The submission received from Mr Summers (and the Executive's responses), be noted.


Page 73

2. The City to proceed with the sale of the following land to Aqwest (a State

Government entity) at the Valuer General’s Market Valuation of 30 June 2006:



C/T Vol. 1309 Fol. 584



C/T Vol. 1022 Fol. 68


Part Lot 521 Robertson Drive

(2,372m2)



TOTAL: $4,025,000

3. The land sale to be subject to the following conditions:

3.1 Aqwest is to give the City of Bunbury first right of refusal to re-purchase the

land should it cease to be used by Aqwest for water supply purposes in the

future. The price of re-purchase is to be at the Valuer General's valuation

based on the same valuation methodology used in determining the current land

sale arrangements.

3.2 Aqwest is to improve the landscape of Lot 46 Roberts Crescent.

4. Aqwest to surrender its leases for Lots 28 and 29 Mangles Street to the City of

Bunbury as it no longer requires this land for water supply purposes.










Page 74

2. The City to proceed with the sale of the following land to Aqwest (a State

Government entity) at the Valuer General’s Market Valuation of 30 June 2006:



C/T Vol. 1309 Fol. 584



C/T Vol. 1022 Fol. 68


Part Lot 521 Robertson Drive

(2,372m2)



TOTAL: $4,025,000






sale arrangements.





The recommendation was moved Cr McCleary, seconded Cr Jones.







2. The City to proceed with the sale of the following land to Aqwest (a State Government

entity) at the Valuer General’s Market Valuation of 30 June 2006:


Page 75



C/T Vol. 1309 Fol. 584



C/T Vol. 1022 Fol. 68


Part Lot 521 Robertson Drive (2,372m2)



TOTAL: $4,025,000






sale arrangements.




CARRIED



Page 76

11.8 COMMUNITY SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITY FUND ("CSRFF")

APPLICATION - BUNBURY BOWLING CLUB INC. (WAS LISTED AS ITEM 11.4 IN THE

MEETING AGENDA)

File Ref: A02912


Author: Bill Carlsen, Recreation Planner

Executive: Domenic Marzano, Executive Manager City Life

Summary

Council has received a Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund ("CSRFF") grant

application from a local sporting body - Bunbury Bowling Club Inc. – and, before the

application can proceed further, it requires Council support. A copy of the application is

attached at Appendix 2.

The application is in line with recommendations contained within the City of Bunbury

Recreation Plan and specifically the strategic aim to "increase recreation objectives for the

community".

A Council decision is required urgently to allow the CSRFF application to be submitted to the

Department of Sport and Recreation before the 1 November 2007 deadline.

Background

The Department of Sport and Recreation ("DSR") administers the CSRFF grant-funding

programme for annual or forward-planning grants. Priority is given to projects that lead to

facility sharing and rationalisation. Multi-purpose facilities reduce the infrastructure required

to meet similar needs and increase sustainability.

The CSRFF programme operates on a reimbursement system. Grantees are required to

demonstrate that their project is complete and that they have expended the funds equivalent to

the full cost of the project before a CSRFF grant is paid in full. CSRFF grants are paid to the

grantee only. Applicants will need to ensure they are able to carry the full cost of the project

for the period between project completion and CSRFF grant payment.

Applicants first discuss their proposal with the DSR's Regional Manager for receipt of a

formal CSRFF application form. The DSR takes this opportunity to identify any shortcomings

and offer assistance to bring an application up to an acceptable standard. The relevant local

government is then required to vet the application, allocate priorities and rank the application

prior to making submission to the DSR. CSRFF applications for the 2007/2008 financial year

close at the end of October 2007 and the South West Regional Manager is prepared to accept

submissions from Bunbury on Thursday, 1 November 2007. Successful applicants are

expected to be advised in February/March 2007.


Page 77

The cost (including GST) of the project and the source of funding are provided below:

Funding Source: Bunbury Bowling Club Inc.

Council Contribution: $0

Applicant's Cash Contribution: $32,935

Volunteer Labour: $0

Other (e.g., self-supporting loan) $0

Donated Materials: $0

CSRFF Application: $16,468

Total Cost of Project: $49,404

The DSR requires projects to be rated and ranked by Council using the following criteria:

Project Rating

- Well planned and needed by the municipality

- Well planned and needed by the applicant

- Needed by the municipality - more planning required

- Needed by the applicant – more planning required

- Idea has merit – more preliminary work needed

- Not recommended

Priority Ranking

Each proposal is to be listed as a 1, 2 or 3 priority.

A summary of the applications received together with the proposed project rating and priority

ranking is provided in the table below. Council has the opportunity to amend the project

rating and re-prioritise the proposed ranking. Council is not required to go through this

process in this round of CSRFF funding as only one application has been received.

Applicant: Bunbury Bowling Club Inc.

Project Summary: Installation of light towers for one bowling green

Council Funds Required: Nil

Proposed Project Rating: Well planned and needed by the applicant - the project is

in accordance with recommendations in the City of

Bunbury Recreation Plan.

Proposed Priority Ranking: 1

It is proposed that the Council approve the Bunbury Bowling Club's CSRFF application.


The proposed construction of lighting at the Bunbury Bowling Club is consistent with the

City's Recreation Plan in that it will facilitate the growth and provision of increased

recreational opportunities for the benefit and well being of the community.


Page 78


Council is not required to undertake community consultation associated with developments

proposed under the CSRFF programme as the applicants must describe the consultation

processes undertaken in relation to their own project.


While putting together its application, the Bunbury Bowling Club Inc. consulted extensively

with the City's Sport and Recreation Club Development Officer, Recreation Planner and

Manager of the Southwest Region of the DSR.


Additional funding in the 2007/2008 budget is not required.

If the CSRFF application is approved the applicant does not require any Council funding and

it will have no impact on the 2008/2009 budget.


Apart from those discussed above, no other economic or social issues have been identified.

No heritage issues have been identified.


There are no Council policies applicable to CSRFF applications.


The proposal does not contravene any legislative requirements.


Council officers do not have delegated authority to finalise the processing of CSRFF grant

applications.

Relevant Precedents

The maximum CSRFF grant approved by the State Government will be no greater than one

third of the total estimated cost of the applicant’s project and must be matched by the

applicant’s own cash contribution. Furthermore the balances of one third funds required are

to be sourced by the applicant.

Council has previously considered CSRFF grant applications for third parties. However, the

Bunbury Bowling Club Inc. is not seeking any financial contributions from Council as part of

its CSRFF application.


Page 79

Options

There are no known alternative options in relation to the processing of CSRFF grant

applications.

Conclusion

A decision is required to allow for this CSRFF application to be submitted to the DSR by the

deadline of 1 November 2007. The Bunbury Bowling Club Inc. has shown the drive to

increase its membership by planning to install lights on its greens which will cater for the

Club’s future needs and expansion. The Club has actively sought the advice of the City's

Club Development Officer and DSR staff in completing its application.

With sound management of its club the Bunbury Bowling Club Inc. has put aside a

substantial amount of cash to pay for the project and has not asked for any financial assistance

for this project from the Council. Given the Club’s strong financial support for the project

and that it will facilitate the growth and provision of increased recreational opportunities for

the Bunbury community, it is recommended that Council approve the application and give a

number one ranking to the project.

Recommendation

The Bunbury City Council ranks the Bunbury Bowling and Social Club Inc. proposal as

"CSRFF Priority 1" and approves the CSRFF application from the Bunbury Bowling and

Social Club Inc.


Cr Dillon disclosed an impartiality interest as he belongs to another bowling club. Cr Dillon

left the room at 6.29pm for the duration of the discussion and vote on this item.

Cr Wenn disclosed an impartiality interest as he belongs to another bowling club. He elected

to remain at the meeting and take part in the discussion and vote on this subject.

The recommendation was moved Cr Major, seconded Cr Craddock.






Social Club Inc.


Page 80


Cr Dillon disclosed an impartiality interest as he is a financial member of another bowling

club. Cr Dillon left the room at 9.16pm for the duration of the discussion and vote on this

item.

The Committee’s recommendation was moved Cr Lambert, seconded Cr T Smith.


decision on this matter.




Social Club Inc.

CARRIED


Cr Dillon returned at 9.18pm.


Page 81

11.9 RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPROVAL, PROPOSED LANDFILL – LOTS 218

AND 219 ELIZABETH CRESCENT, SOUTH BUNBURY (WAS LISTED AS ITEM 11.6 IN

THE MEETING AGENDA)

File Ref: P02803

Applicant/Proponent: Peter Neville Farnell

Author: P Davies, Planning Consultant


Summary

This item was referred back from the Council Meeting held on 18 September 2007

(Item 11.1) to the current Council Committee meeting.

An application has been received from Mr P N Farnell for retrospective Planning Approval

for landfill on Lots 218 and 219 Elizabeth Crescent. The subject land has been significantly

filled over a number of years by up to approximately 7 - 8 metres over the lowest part of the

site.

The proposal was advertised for public comment and adjoining neighbour comment, and four

(4) submissions were received. The submissions generally objected to the level of fill on the

site and/or outlined concerns with the fill level and detrimental impacts on adjoining

properties.

The current level of fill is not considered appropriate for the site. It is recommended that

Council approve the application, subject to appropriate conditions to reduce the maximum fill

level to a level consistent with the existing kerb level for Elizabeth Crescent adjacent to the

site.

Conditions are required to advise lot owners that future development on the site will be

limited to 9 metres from the original ground level. Also, the proponent is required to provide

a geotechnical report and compaction certificate for the level of fill with appropriate

stabilisation of the site to avoid sand drift.

Reducing the site level to be consistent with the existing kerb level for Elizabeth Crescent

will require the proponent to remove approximately 2 metres of fill from the highest fill part

of the site.

Future applications for development of the site will need to be assessed on their merits in

accordance with the Residential Design Codes and maximum 9 metre height limit.

Background

The subject site originally rose very steeply from the lowest corner, approximately 5 metres,

rising to approximately 21 metres at the highest point. Attached plan at Appendix 3

indicates the original ground levels over the subject site.


Page 82

The subject land has been significantly filled (without approval) over a number of years so

that the current fill level is up to approximately 7 - 8 metres above the original ground level

over the lowest part of the site. Appendix 4 includes photographs of the current levels of the

site.

Some large concrete blocks and other scattered building material have also been left on the

site generally at the base of the fill embankment.

Proposal

An application has been received from Mr P N Farnell for retrospective Planning Approval

for landfill on Lots 218 and 219 Elizabeth Crescent. The applicant requests that Council

approve the fill level as currently complete with any modifications to levels to be addressed at

the development or subdivision approval stage.

The proponent advises that all filling works ceased long ago and they have been diligent to

ensure no further fill is placed. Further, they advise that future development of the lots is

being reconsidered and, prior to any further works on site, a Development Application or

Subdivisional Application will be made.

The existing fill level generally reaches a height of approximately 14 metres AHD with some

mounds of earth up to approximately 15 metres AHD over the lowest part of the site.

The proposal was advertised for public comment and adjoining owners were requested to

provide comment with the submission period closing on 1 June 2007, and four (4)

submissions were received. Details of the submissions are outlined in the attached Schedule

of Submissions included at Appendix 5. The principle issues raised in the submissions

include:

- Neighbours adjoining to the rear of the property are concerned with the height of the

fill and impacts of overlooking and privacy from future development of the site.

- Concerns are raised in regard to mess on the site with building materials being thrown

onto properties and dust and dirt being blown onto adjoining properties.

- Further issues raised include fill material used on the site including vegetation

material covered by sand, soil encroaching onto adjoining properties and the adjacent

public open space, and complaints with unauthorised fill being undertaken on the site.

Other comments suggest that the land should be returned to the original levels.

As outlined previously the original site was very steeply sloping. The current earthworks

which have been undertaken provide one option for development of the land. It is anticipated

that any development proposal for the lots would require significant earthworks to achieve

suitable building levels and driveway access.

The issue of retaining and fill levels would generally be assessed as part of an overall

development application for the site. In general building setbacks are determined through the


Page 83

Residential Design Codes (R Codes). Under the Residential R15 code a minimum rear

setback of 6 metres is required for single residential dwellings.

Also, it is noted that there is an existing sewer line located along the rear boundary of the lot

which would require a 3 metre easement. No fill or retaining walls would be permitted on the

sewer easement hence any retaining wall or fill would need to be a minimum of 3 metres

from the rear boundary.

Further, minimum setbacks for balconies are 7.5 metres with windows to habitable rooms

6 metres and windows 4.5 metres. Where fill levels exceeds 0.5 metres, retaining walls are

required to be set back from boundaries in accordance with the R Codes. The setback to the

boundaries for retaining walls increases with the height of the retaining wall.

In this case the top of the fill level is between 12 and 22 metres from the rear boundary of the

site. The current fill level does not, however, provide adequate area for building on the site.

Hence, additional earthworks and retaining walls will be required to facilitate future

development of the site.

For the purpose of the current application it is considered that the fill level should be reduced

to be no higher than the existing kerb level of Elizabeth Crescent. This would require the

existing fill level to be reduced by approximately 2 metres on the northern side of the

property and approximately 1 metre on the southern side.

The current embankment will need to be stabilised to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and

building material and rubble removed. Also, a geotechnical report and compaction certificate

is required to ensure that the compaction of the existing fill and fill materials are appropriate.

Currently, Clause 5.9.1.2 of Town Planning Scheme No 7 generally requires a maximum

building height of 9 metres for residential dwellings from existing ground level.

Development proposals in excess of 9 metres are generally required to be advertised for

neighbour and community comment.

It is proposed that a Section 70A notice be included on the title of the lots advising that the

maximum height for residential dwellings of 9 metres from the original ground level of the

site. Future applications for development of the lots would then need to be considered on

their merits in accordance with R Codes requirements and height limit as outlined above.

It is anticipated that proposals for development on some parts of the subject land will require

further reduction of the fill level to achieve development within the overall 9 metre height

limit from the original ground level.


Council’s 2002 – 2007 Strategic Plan states that Bunbury City Council has a goal to “have a

built environment which is safe, accessible, functional, attractive and sympathetic with the

natural environment”. To achieve this goal, the Strategic Plan specifies assessment and

approvals of all development proposals within the context of the Town Planning Scheme.


Page 84


The proposal was advertised for public comment and adjoining owners were requested to

provide comment with the submission period closing on 1 June 2007 and four (4)

submissions were received. Details of the submissions are outlined in the attached Schedule

of Submissions. The principle issues raised in the submissions include:

- Neighbours adjoining to the rear of the property are concerned with the height of the

fill and impacts of overlooking and privacy from future development of the site.

- Concerns are raised in regard mess on the site with building materials being thrown

onto the properties and dust and dirt being blown onto adjoining properties.

- Further issues raised include fill material used on the site including vegetation

material covered by sand, soil encroaching onto adjoining properties and the adjacent

public open space and complaints with unauthorised fill being undertaken on the site.

Other comments suggest that the land should be returned to the original levels.



meetings consisting of officers from Engineering, Planning, Building and Health. Further

discussions have taken place with Manager Development Services, Senior Planner (Statutory)

and Executive Manager City Development.


The recommendation will not impact on the existing Annual Budget; nor are there any



There are no significant economic, social, environmental or heritage impacts of the

development.


It is considered that the recommendation does not contravene any known Council policy.


Previously under the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 retrospective applications

could not be approved. However, the planning application can be considered in accordance

with the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2005.


Page 85


Delegation of decision-making is not an option in this instance.

Relevant Precedents

There are no known absolutely relevant precedents in respect of the specific matter being

considered by Council.

Options


Option 2: Council, under and by virtue of the powers conferred upon it in that behalf by

the Planning and Development Act 2005, hereby resolves not to grant

retrospective approval to Mr P N Farnell for landfill on Lots 218 and 219

Elizabeth Crescent and requires the proponent to remove all unauthorised fill

material and building rubble from the site and to reinstate the site to its original

ground level.

Conclusion

The current level of fill is not considered appropriate for the site. It is recommended that

Council approve the application subject to appropriate conditions to reduce the maximum fill

level to a level consistent with the existing kerb for Elizabeth Crescent.

Reducing the site level to be consistent with the existing kerb level for Elizabeth Crescent

will require the proponent to remove approximately 2 metres of fill from the highest fill part

of the site.

Further conditions are required to advise current and future lot owners that future

development on the site will be limited to 9 metres from the original ground level. Also, the

proponent will need to provide a geotechnical report and compaction certificate for the level

of fill with appropriate stabilisation of the site to avoid sand drift.

Future applications for development of the site will need to be assessed on their merits in

accordance with the Residential Design Codes and the maximum 9 metre height limit.

Recommendation

Council, under and by virtue of the powers conferred upon it in that behalf by the Planning

and Development Act 2005, hereby resolves to grant retrospective planning approval to

Mr P N Farnell for landfill on Lots 218 and 219 Elizabeth Crescent subject to the following

conditions:

1. All development shall be in accordance with the approved development plans, which

form part of this Planning Approval. (Copy of plan attached at Appendix 6.)


Page 86

2. This approval shall expire unless the works authorised have been commenced within

three months and completed within six months of the date of issue, or within any

extended period for which Council has granted written consent. Any application for

such consent shall be received within one month prior to the expiration of the

Planning Approval.

3. The proponent to remove fill material to achieve a maximum fill level on the site to

a level the same as the existing kerb level for Elizabeth Crescent adjacent to the site

to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

4. The proponent removes all rubbish and building material from the site to the

satisfaction of the City Engineer.

5. The proponent to undertake stabilisation works on the batter slopes and finished site

level of the site to avoid sand drift and any potential dust nuisance to the satisfaction

of the City Engineer.

6. The proponent to provide a geotechnical report and compaction certificate for the

finished fill level of the site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

7. The proponent to include a Section 70A notification to the satisfaction of the

Manager Development Services on the title of the property to advise potential

purchasers of the property that the maximum height for building development is

limited to 9 metres from the original ground level of the site as defined on the

original ground level plan attached to the notification.

Notes: The Water Corporation advises that a minimum 750mm cover is required to be maintained over the

existing sewer. If future plans are proposed for retaining walls special foundations may be required

dependent on the height of the wall and distance to the centre of the sewer. The proponent is advised

to liaise with the Water Corporation in regard to future development proposals for the subject land.


The Presiding Member called for public speakers.

Mr David Jones of Insitu Planning and Design (acting on behalf of the applicant) addressed

the Committee in favour of the recommendation and responded to questions from Committee

members.

The City’s Planning Consultant responded to questions from Committee members concerning

the history of this site, the legality of the landfill situated on it and the landfill levels.

The recommendation was moved Cr Major, seconded Cr Craddock.

During discussion, Cr Dillon suggested the following amendment:


Page 87

“8. Council to give serious consideration to its divestment of the adjoining land on the

western end of the filled site, being a Council-owned reserve, with a playground in

place. This property has many trees which may well be proven to be dangerous.”

The mover and seconder did not agree to include this in the motion.

After some discussion on members’ concerns over health and safety at the site (content and

retaining of the fill), the motion (unamended) was put to the vote and defeated 3 votes

“for”/8 votes “against”.

The following new motion was moved Cr T Smith, seconded Cr Dillon:

“That a subdivision site plan be prepared and referred back to Council within three (3)

months.”

Following further discussion, the Presiding Member put the motion to the vote and it was

adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on this issue.


That a subdivision site plan be prepared for Lots 218 and 219 Elizabeth Crescent, Bunbury,

and referred back to Council within three (3) months.


The Committee’s recommendation was moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr Major.

During discussion on this item, Cr Craddock requested an addition to the motion that reads as

follows:

“2. In the event that the subdivision site plans are not available for referral back to

Council within 3 months, the matter be immediately returned to Council.”

The mover and seconder agreed to include this wording in their motion.


the Council’s decision on this matter.


1. That a subdivision site plan be prepared for Lots 218 and 219 Elizabeth Crescent,

Bunbury, and referred back to Council within three (3) months.


Page 88

2. In the event that a subdivision site plan is not available for referral back to Council

within three (3) months, the matter be immediately returned to Council.

CARRIED



Page 89

11.10 PROPOSED 14 STOREY MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL AND

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT 34 (NO 12) VICTORIA STREET,

BUNBURY (WAS LISTED AS ITEM 11.7 IN THE MEETING AGENDA)

File Ref: P10178

Applicant/Proponent: Development Services

Author: Paul Davies, Planning Consultant


Summary

The City has recently received a Planning Application from Hartree and Associates,

Architects on behalf of Raeside Pty Ltd (see Directors names under separate cover), for a

new 14 Storey Mixed Use Residential, Retail and Commercial development on the current

Reef Hotel site.

The proposed development comprises 14 storeys with ground floor retail including a small

supermarket and a café, second and third floor comprises commercial (office) and 11 storeys

of residential apartments comprising a total of 27 x 3 bedroom apartments. The development

includes three levels of car parking on ground, first and second floors.

The proposed development achieves an overall plot ratio of 3.92 which is in accordance with

the overall plot ratio requirements under Town Planning Scheme No 7 (TPS 7). The Scheme

provides for a plot ratio of 3.5 in the City Centre Zone with up to a 20% bonus in accordance

with Clause 5.9.2.2.1.

In accordance with the City Centre Zone residential plot ratio is limited to 1.25 in accordance

with the R100 requirements of the Residential Design Codes. The proposed development

includes a plot ratio of 2 for the Residential component. It is considered that the increased

residential plot ratio is appropriate for the proposed development.

It is recommended that Council approve the proposed development including the plot ratio of

2 for the Residential component. The building design includes three residential units on

floors 4 to 8 and two residential units on floors 9 to 14. On this basis, the residential units are

well set back from adjoining site boundaries and the development is considered adequate in

regard to access to sunlight and overall residential amenity.


advertising notices onsite, letters to adjoining owners and in the local newspaper, and eleven

(11) submissions have been received from nearby property owners and other organisations.

The proposed design is generally considered acceptable and it is recommended that Council

approve the development with a plot ratio of 3.92 for the overall development including a plot

ratio of 2 for the Residential component.


Page 90

Background

In accordance with TPS 7 the site is zoned ‘City Centre’ and the proposed Mixed Use

Residential, Retail and Commercial development is a use that can be permitted subject to

compliance with City of Bunbury, TPS 7 and the Residential Design Codes.

The site is currently developed with the Reef Hotel which is listed on the City of Bunbury

Municipal Inventory and Heritage List under TPS 7.

The City of Bunbury, Heritage Committee advises it recommends that a professionally

prepared interpretation plan be prepared by the applicant for consideration by the Heritage

Committee.

The Heritage Committee also recommends that the interpretation plan include reference to the

former Pier Hotel which was located on the site and that an archival and photographic record

of the place be prepared and submitted for consideration.

It is recommended that a condition be included on the approval requiring provision of a

professionally prepared interpretation plan prior to issue of a building licence or demolition

permit for the existing building.

Proposal

The City has recently received a Planning Application from Hartree and Associates,

Architects on behalf of Raeside Pty Ltd, for a new 14 Storey Mixed Use Residential, Retail

and Commercial development on the current Reef Hotel site.

The proposed development comprises 14 storeys with ground floor retail including a small

supermarket and a café, second and third floor comprises commercial (office) and 11 storeys

of residential apartments comprising a total of 27 x 3 bedroom apartments. The development

includes three levels of car parking on ground and first and second floors.

The proponents advise that the intention of the building design is to create a design that

provides a combination of forms, materials and details, with pragmatic resolution of the

special requirements of light, ventilation, climate and privacy.

Further, the proponents advise that the overall plan of the ground floor is based around an

internal street that divides uses and provides access to shopper parking, service loading,

rubbish pick up and access to an anticipated express-style supermarket/delicatessen.

The other half accommodates the commercial and residential lobby and specialty retail. The

Victoria Street elevation pays homage to the existing hotel by providing a pedestrian

colonnade with an upper verandah. To the north, an open sun court/alfresco space provides a

natural extension to the public open space of Guppy Park opposite.

The proponents advise that the proposal is for a multi-storey mixed use development of

sufficient overall height to provide a visual bookend to the north end of Victoria Street to

identify the extent of the CBD and counter the Bunbury Tower to the south.


Page 91

Attached plan 1 at Appendix 7 shows the elevations of the proposed development. Attached

plan 2 at Appendix 8 shows the ground floor, first and second floors, and typical layout for

floors 4 to 14 of the proposed development.

State Coastal Planning Strategy

The subject land partially falls within the 300 metre area from the State coastline, measured

from the horizontal datum (HSD) determined in accordance with the Western Australian

Planning Commission, Statement of Planning Policy No 2.6.(SPP).

The City and developers are required to have “due regard” to the Statement of Planning

Policy for consideration of any development proposals within the 300 metre area, however,

do not need to comply precisely with the provisions of the policy.

The SPP generally states that the height of buildings should be limited to 5 storeys, although

higher structures up to 8 storeys could be considered subject to consideration of various

requirements including the following:

1. There is broad community support for higher buildings following a process of full

consultation.

2. The proposed development is suitable for the location taking into account the built

form, topography and landscape character of the surrounding area.

3. The location is part of a major tourist or activity node.

4. The amenity of the coastal foreshore is not detrimentally affected by any significant

overshadowing of the foreshore area.

5. There is visual permeability of the foreshore and ocean from nearby residential areas,

roads and public spaces.

The SPP outlines that a varied distance from the horizontal setback datum may be approved

as part of controls set out in a local planning scheme, on the basis of appropriate analysis with

reference to built form, amenity, landscape and topography having regard to cadastral

boundaries.

Having “due regard” to the SPP it is considered that given the sites location in the CBD

central core area and negligible impact on the foreshore the proposal can be exempt from the

requirements of the State Coastal Planning Strategy.

The SPP outlines the following exemption:

“(e) The need for provision of development nodes on the coast is recognised and should

provide for a range of facilities to benefit the broader public. Such nodes may be

developed within the setback but should only be located where necessary ancillary

coastal protection structures would not result in erosion or destabilisation of adjacent


Page 92

coast. Nodes should be located on stable areas and should avoid areas of high

natural landscape or resource value.”

The SPP outlines that development which falls within the above possible exemption type will

be assessed on a case by case basis and in consultation with other relevant agencies and the

community as considered appropriate.

Marlston Hill Stage 2 Design Guidelines

The subject land is located within the Marlston Hill (Stage 2) Design Guidelines (MHS2DG)

area which specifies a maximum building height of 3 storeys with no more that 2 storeys

(7.5 metres to the eaves) for any single wall height where a street frontage exists.

Clause 1.3 of the Guidelines states that Development in accordance with the Guidelines is

deemed to comply. However, alternative designs may be considered subject to demonstration

that the proposed development is in keeping with the objective and intent of the Design

Guidelines and subject to Council approval.

The proposed building includes an overall height of 14 storeys; hence, a variation to the

Guidelines is required. The proposed building height is consistent with the City Vision

recommendations for buildings in the central core area of the CBD and the requirements of

TPS 7 as discussed below. It is recommended that Council approve the proposed building

height.

The MHS2DG also outlines requirements for a pitched roof with a minimum pitch of

25 degrees. The proposed development includes a flat roof; hence, a variation of the roof

pitch requirement is also required.

The proposed design of the building incorporates a mixture of textures and materials with

colonnades along Victoria Street and verandah to Carey Street which contribute to the overall

streetscape and appearance of the development. It is recommended that Council approve

variation of the requirement for provision of a pitched roof.

The MHS2DG outline that Council will encourage the use of Guppy Park as a local landmark

and meeting place by encouraging active building frontages and pursuing an appropriately

high level of landscaping and urban design.

It is considered that the proposed building design with ground floor commercial uses and

setback to Carey Street is consistent with the objectives for Guppy Park as outlined under the

MHS2DG.

Building Height

The proposed development achieves an overall plot ratio of 3.92. This is generally in

accordance with the overall plot ratio requirements under TPS 7 which provide for a plot ratio

of 3.5 in the City Centre Zone. The scheme also allows for up to a 20% bonus in plot ratio in

accordance with Clause 5.9.2.2.1.


Page 93

With a 20% bonus on the 3.5 plot ratio, the site could potentially accommodate an overall

plot ratio of 4.2. On this basis, the proposed development plot ratio of 3.92 is less than the

potential plot ratio which could be achieved on the site.

In accordance with Clause 5.9.2.2.1 the bonus plot ratio may be permitted where the

development includes a colonnade adjacent to a street or is set back from the side boundaries

such that distance that the local government considers justifies an increase in the permissible

plot ratio.

The proposed development includes a colonnade to Victoria Street and the setback to Carey

Street facilitates views and access through to Guppy Park from the development. Also, the

proposed residential units are well set back from adjoining site boundaries which is

considered desirable in regard to access to sunlight and overall residential amenity.

In accordance with the City Centre Zone residential plot ratio is limited to 1.25 in accordance

with the R100 requirements of the Residential Design Codes. The proposed development

includes a plot ratio of 2 for the Residential component. It is considered that the increased

residential plot ratio is appropriate for the proposed development.

The overall plot ratio for the building is retained at 3.92 including the residential component.

The overall building bulk and height including the residential component is the same as could

be accommodated for office and commercial development.

Provision of increased residential densities is consistent with contemporary planning

principles of sustainable urban development. These include increased activity life and vitality

in City centres. Reducing transport, infrastructure costs and travel time with people living

closer to work, services and recreational facilities.


2 for the Residential component. The building design includes three residential units on floors

4 to 8 and two residential units on floors 9 to 14.

The proposed building height is consistent with City Vision framework for buildings in the

central core of the City Centre. The City Vision building height recommendation states:

“That height in the commercial core of the CBD defined as both sides of Wittenoom, Stephen,

Victoria and Carey Streets is determined on the basis of complementary development with the

Bunbury Tower and the Old Silos hotel development”.

The Bunbury Tower has an overall height of 68.7 metres AHD and the Silos Hotel

development has a height of 30.8 metres. The proposed development with an overall height

of 53.5 metres AHD is lower than the Bunbury Tower.

Setbacks

The City Centre Zone provisions of TPS 7 provide for building setbacks as required by the

Local Authority. The building design includes a ground level setback between 4 and 6 metres

to Carey Street and 2 to 3 metres to Victoria Street.


Page 94

Second and third floor levels adjacent to Victoria Street extend to the property boundary with

colonnades along the property boundary. Second and third floor levels adjacent to Carey

Street extend forward of the ground floor retail units.

The building design includes parapet boundary walls along the right of way adjoining to the

north of the site and the eastern boundary for the first three levels.

Setbacks for Residential units achieve in excess of the required setbacks in accordance with

the Residential Design Codes.

The Residential Design Codes (Visual Privacy) “acceptable development” provisions require

a 4.5 metre setback for bedroom windows with major openings, a 6 metre setback for

habitable rooms with major openings and 7.5 metres to balconies to avoid overlooking of

adjoining properties.

Submissions received during the advertising period outlined concerns with the proposed

building height and potential loss of views, wind shear and reduced land values for existing

developments in the area.

In terms of impacts on views for adjoining properties, it is generally acknowledged that views

cannot be guaranteed as a significant planning consideration. The proposed development is

appropriately set back in accordance with TPS 7 and Residential Design Codes Requirements.

Car Parking and Access

In accordance with TPS 7 requirements the proposed development requires a total of 123 car

parking bays. The proposed development plan includes provision of 94 car parking bays

including 2 car parking bays for each multiple dwelling and 40 car parking bays for the

commercial development. On this basis, an additional 29 car parking bays would be required.

It is noted that the proposed car parking layout will require some modification to increase

width of end bays and provide adequate turning areas on each floor which may require

removal of some parking bays.

Also, the proposed development includes two access driveways to Victoria Street which

would require removal of 4 existing verge parking bays from the road reserve. Further, the

proposed bin storage area is required to be increased to a minimum dimension of 3.8 x 4.2

metres which would require removal of one parking bay.

On this basis, overall an additional 34 car parking bays would be required for the

development including 4 bays to replace lost verge parking and one bay for an increased bin

storage area. The proponent advises that the design plans for the development can be

modified to include the required car parking.

Alternatively, the proponent could pay cash in lieu for the entire shortfall in car parking or

provide some additional bays on site with cash in lieu for the balance. It is recommended that


Page 95

a condition be included on the Planning Approval requiring provision of an additional 34 car

parking bays on site or cash in lieu.

Notwithstanding the above, Clause 5.7.1.9 of TPS 7 states: “Within the City Centre Zone,

car parking spaces associated with developments of up to 2,000 square metres gross floor

area may not be required, however, any development in excess of 2,000 square metres gross

floor area is to provide for adequate onsite car parking as determined by the local

government”.

On this basis, the Council could allow for a reduction in the car parking spaces for up to 2000

square metres for the proposed development. The current proposed 94 car parking bays

would then be in excess of the car parking requirements and no additional car parking spaces

would be required.

In 1997 the City acquired the land and developed car parking adjacent to Ommanney Street

from the Specified Central Area Parking Reserve fund. This parking area was provided to

service future car parking requirements in the Marlston Hill area.

Notwithstanding, Development Services is not advocating that this position be taken.

Development Services considers that in light of recent discussions (reference for example the

most recent briefing session on the Stirling Centre redevelopment) regarding CBD

developments and concerns expressed by Councillors, it is considered that the matter of the

provision of car parking deserves to be treated as a priority issue to avoid serious future

shortfalls in car parking in the CBD area.

With recent concerns with availability of car parking in the CBD, the parking provisions

under the Scheme are considered appropriate for new developments to provide the full car

parking provision in accordance with TPS 7 requirements.

Submissions received during the advertising of the proposal outlined concerns with increased

noise levels, increased traffic and potential for traffic conflicts. The proposed access and car

parking arrangement is considered suitable and provision of two crossovers with a one-way

system will minimise potential for traffic conflicts.

Traffic management is not considered to be a significant issue in regard to the proposed

development and can be appropriately addressed as a condition of planning approval.

It is recommended that a condition be included on the approval requiring preparation of a

traffic management plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Also, the design and layout

of the car parking and access will be required to be designed and constructed to the


Strategic Outcomes

Council’s 2002 – 2007 Strategic Plan states that Bunbury City Council has a goal to “Have a

built environment which is safe, accessible, functional, attractive and sympathetic with the

natural environment”. To achieve this goal, the Strategic Plan specifies assessment and


Page 96

approvals of all development proposals within the context of the Scheme. The proposed

policy is consistent with this goal.

The recommendation has had regard to Council’s 2002-2007 Strategic Plan.



advertising notices onsite, letters to adjoining owners and in the local newspaper, and eleven

(11) submissions were received. Appendix 9 attached includes a Schedule of Submissions.

The submissions were generally from residents or owners of nearby existing properties. The

submissions generally outline concerns with the proposed development in regard to:

Proposed building height with potential loss of views and reduced privacy from

existing properties

Reduced property values

Increased traffic conflicts and noise

Wind tunnel effects

Waste and litter

Potential anti social behaviour

Overshadowing

The issues raised in the objections are noted and have been addressed within the submission

schedule, however, the proposed development is considered by Development Services staff to

be satisfactory.

In terms of impact of vehicles and noise generally, access to the development is proposed

from Victoria Street and the rear right of way, and any impact on adjacent properties will be

minimal. In terms of impacts on views for adjoining properties, it is generally acknowledged

that views cannot be guaranteed as a significant planning consideration.

The building height is consistent with the City Vision central core where development is to be

determined on the basis of being complementary with the Bunbury Tower and the Old Silos

development.

Adequate car parking is provided onsite for the proposed development and is generally in

excess of TPS 7 requirements. The design of access to the development aims to minimize

potential for conflict with vehicles and pedestrians.

Issues in regard to wind have been addressed with orientation of the building for prevailing

winds. The design of the building and orientation also addresses issues of shadow of

adjoining buildings. It is anticipated overshadowing will be minimized by the building

boundary setbacks and orientation.

Waste and litter disposal is facilitated within the development. Noise and vandalism issues

associated with dense population are only likely to be similar to current issues in the central


Page 97

area. The proposed development will provide high quality inner city living which has

potential to discourage anti social behaviour.



and meetings consisting of officers from Engineering, Planning, Building and Health.

Further discussions have taken place with Manager Development Services, Senior Planner

(Statutory) and Executive Manager City Development.


The recommendation will not impact on the existing Annual Budget, nor are there any



In economic terms, the proposal will provide economic benefit during the construction phase

of the development and also future employment opportunities in the proposed commercial

tenancies. The proposal will provide for social opportunities for residents and the general

public. There are no significant and environmental impacts of the development. The proposal

includes retaining the existing heritage significance of the site.


The proposal requires variation of provisions of the City’s Local Planning Policy “Marlston

Hill (Stage 2) Design Guidelines” in terms of Clause 3.2 Building Height, and Clause 4.2

Roofscape.

The proposal requires consideration in accordance with the City of Bunbury, Local Planning

Policy, Car Parking Strategy and TPS 7 Clause 5.7.1.9 for the shortfall of 34 car parking

spaces.


The proposal requires variation to the Marlston Hill (Stage 2) Design Guidelines to vary

requirements for building height and roofscape.

The proposal also requires variation of TPS 7 and the Residential Design Codes to increase

the plot ratio provision for the Residential component of the development from 1.25 to 2.


Interpretation of City’s Local Planning Policy – ‘Marlston Hill (Stage2) Design Guidelines’

and City’s Local Planning Policy – car parking is delegated to the Chief Executive Officer,

Executive Manager City Development and Manager Development Services.


Page 98

Relevant Precedents

Council recently approved development of Lot 222 Abrahamson Mews (known as The Shed)

including a 5 storey section of building fronting Casuarina Drive as a variation to the

Marlston Hill Design Guidelines.

There is no known precedent for increase on the plot ratio requirement for the Residential

component of the proposed development.

Options


Option 2: Council resolve not to approve the proposed development for the following

reasons:

1. The proposed residential plot ratio of 2 exceeds the plot ratio

requirement of 1.25 in accordance with the R100 density code required

by Clause 5.9.2.3.1 of the City of Bunbury TPS 7

2. The proposed residential plot ratio of 2 exceeds the plot ratio

requirement of 1.25 in accordance with the R100 density code under

the Residential Design Codes.

Should Council determine to select this option, a suggested format for such

action is as follows:

Council, under and by virtue of the powers conferred upon it in that behalf by

the Town Planning and Development Act 2005, hereby resolves to refuse to

grant approval to Hartree and Associates, Architects on behalf of Raeside Pty

Ltd, for a new 14 Storey Mixed Use, Residential, Retail and Commercial

development on Lot 34 (No 12) Victoria Street, Bunbury, for the following

reasons:

i) The proposed design does not comply with City’s TPS 7 which requires

a maximum plot ratio of 1.25 for multiple dwelling developments

under the R100 Code.

ii) The proposed design does not comply with the Residential Design

Codes which require a maximum plot ratio of 1.25 for multiple

dwelling developments under the R100 Code.

iii) The proposed design does not comply with the provisions of the City’s

Local Planning Policy “Marlston Hill (Stage 2) Design Guidelines” in

terms of Clause 3.2 Building Height, and Clause 4.2 Roofscape.


Page 99

iv) The proposed development does not comply with Western Australian

Planning Commission, Statement of Planning Policy No 2.6. (SPP)

regarding recommended building height.

Conclusion

The proposed development seeks variation of requirements of the Marlston Hill (Stage 2)

Design Guidelines (MHS2DG) in regard to Building Height and Roofscape. The Guidelines

state that Council may consider alternative designs which vary from the guidelines subject to

demonstration that the proposed development is in keeping with the objective and intent of

the Design Guidelines.

The proposed development achieves an overall plot ratio of 3.92. This is generally in

accordance with the overall plot ratio requirements under TPS 7 which provide for a plot ratio

of 3.5 in the City Centre Zone. The scheme also allows for up to a 20% bonus in plot ratio in

accordance with Clause 5.9.2.2.1.


2 for the Residential component. The proposed building height is consistent with City Vision

framework for buildings in the central core of the City Centre to be consistent with the

existing Bunbury Tower and Old Silos building.

In accordance with TPS 7 requirements the proposed development requires a total of 123 car

parking bays. The proposed development plan includes provision of 94 car parking bays

including 2 car parking spaces for each multiple dwelling.

Overall an additional 34 car parking spaces are required for the development including 4 bays

to replace lost verge parking and one bay for an increased bin storage area. It is anticipated

that the design of the building can be modified to include the additional car parking spaces.

Alternatively, the proponent could pay cash in lieu for the entire shortfall in car parking or

provide some additional bays on site with cash in lieu for the balance. It is recommended that

a condition be included on the Planning Approval requiring provision of an additional 34 car

parking bays on site or cash in lieu.

Recommendation

Council, under and by virtue of the powers conferred upon it in that behalf by the Town

Planning and Development Act 2005, hereby resolves to grant approval to Hartree and

Associates, Architects on behalf of Raeside Pty Ltd, for a new 14 Storey Mixed Use,

Residential, Retail and Commercial development on Lot 34 (No 12) Victoria Street, Bunbury

subject to the following conditions;

1. All development shall generally be in accordance with the approved development

plans which form part of this Planning Approval.


twelve months and completed within two years of the date of issue, or within any


Page 100



Planning Approval.

3. Existing trees located in verge areas to be retained except where otherwise approved

for removal by Manager Parks and Recreation. Should removal be approved, costs

associated with the removal to be the responsibility of the developer.

4. Plans submitted with the Building Licence to include a total of 128 onsite car

parking bays designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or provision of cash in

lieu for the current shortfall in car parking of 34 bays to the satisfaction of the

Manger Development Services.

5. Plans submitted with the Building Licence to show detailed design of the proposed

ground level car park shutter doors to the satisfaction of the Manager Development

Services.

6. All external concrete surfaces to be painted. A schedule of colours and finishes to be

submitted with the building licence application to the satisfaction of the Manager

Development Services.

7. Provision of a professionally prepared interpretation plan for the site including

reference to the former Pier Hotel which was located on the site, and an archival and

photographic record of the place to the satisfaction of the Manager Development

Services prior to the issue of a building licence or demolition permit.

8. Arrangements shall be made to the satisfaction of the City Engineer for the

submission of an approved independent traffic planning study for the development of

the subject land together with the necessary traffic management measures being

installed at the cost of the applicant, prior to the building licence being issued.

An independent qualified Professional Engineer shall prepare the traffic study. The

City Engineer shall approve the consultants brief. The brief shall include:


volumes to and from accesses to the development and on surrounding streets;

- Level of service of accesses;


including level of service pre and post development;

- Recommendations for measures to address impacts and maintain satisfactory

levels of service;

- Safety Audit and recommendations to address any safety issues;


Page 101


pedestrian routes, road crossings and an access audit;

- Assessment of public transport access to and from the site including pedestrian

access to the nearest bus stop.

9. Satisfactory arrangements to be made with the City of Bunbury for the

upgrading/construction of Carey and Victoria Streets including grading, kerbing,

draining, sealing, bus stops, footpath, pedestrian crossing and lighting to the


10. Any alterations or relocation of existing infrastructure within the road reserve shall be

carried out and reinstated to the specification and satisfaction of the City Engineer at

the developer’s expense.

11. Road assets Damage Bond of $5,000 shall be paid by the applicant prior to the issue of

the building licence as per Council’s Local Planning Policy “Bonds”.

12. Plans submitted with the building licence to be modified to show additional width for

bays next to solid walls and turn around bays/areas on each level of the car parking

area. The access way(s), parking areas(s), turning area(s) shall be constructed, kerbed,

formed, graded, drained, linemarked and finished with a sealed or paved surface or

equivalent by the developer to an approved design to satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Once constructed, the access way(s), parking area(s) and turning area(s) shall be

maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

(Advice Note: Design and construction shall be in accordance with the City of

Bunbury Engineering Design and Construction Standards & Austroads Part 11 Guide

to Traffic Engineering Practice: Parking.)

13. Street lighting shall be provided for the access way(s), parking areas(s) and turning

area(s) by the developer.

(Advice Note: Design and construction standards shall be in accordance with the

relevant Australian Standards.)

14. The applicant shall construct and maintain vehicle crossovers to the development.

Existing crossovers not required for the proposed development shall be removed, the

verge made good and kerbing reinstated, immediately upon completion of the

building.

(Advice Note: Crossovers shall be in accordance with Council’s Standard Drawings

MISC–01-03; MISC-01-04, MISC-01-05 or approved alternative design.)

15. Crossovers shall not vary from the standard designs without written approval from the

City Engineer. Pedestrian access across the crossover shall be free of tripping hazards

(e.g. no raised kerbing).


Page 102

16. The applicant shall dispose of stormwater onsite. Plans and specifications relating to

the disposal of stormwater and groundwater for the development shall be submitted

and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issue of a building licence. (Refer

Local Planning Policy – Stormwater Disposal From Private Property).

(Advice Note: The applicant to provide for 2m3 of stormwater storage for each 65m

2

of impervious area, including parking, driveways, other paved and sealed areas and

roof area. Minimum of 50% of storage shall be underground and above the annual

average maximum groundwater level, with the balance of the storage on the surface.)

17. A Traffic Management Plan, prepared in accordance with Main Roads Western

Australia’s Code of Practice, shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer

prior to works on roads commencing.

(Note: Any activity within a road reserve associated with building or construction

works (e.g. loading, off-loading, movement of construction vehicles, etc.), which may

impact on pedestrian or vehicular traffic, is deemed to require traffic management.)

18. Site stormwater overflow shall be connected to the Cities stormwater drainage system

to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Plans and specifications are to be submitted

and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issue of a building licence.

19. This property is situated on the Preston River Flood Plain and is susceptible to

flooding. Habitable rooms in any building construction shall have a minimum finished

floor level of 1.9 metres AHD.

20. The development design shall be modified to cater for waste collection via Council’s

bulk bin system to the satisfaction of the Manager Waste Services. The plans to be

approved prior to the issue of a building licence.

21. Property shall be connected to Water Corporation sewer.

22. A landscaping plan is to be prepared to address the area(s) as shown in green on the

approved development plan. The landscaping plan is to be submitted to and approved

by Council, prior to the issuance of a building licence. The landscaping plan is to

include the following:

- Building layout (external walls, windows and roof) and property boundary

- The location, species and size of existing vegetation

- Details of any significant vegetation to be removed.

- Exact location and number of species proposed

- Mature height of any proposed trees

- Treatment of paved areas (parking and pedestrian areas)

- Fence material, height and treatment


Page 103

- A key or legend detailing species type grouped under the subheadings of tree, shrub

and ground cover

- Mulching or similar treatments of garden beds including edges

- Contours including any alternation to natural ground levels

- Details of reticulation of landscaped areas including the source of the water supply

and proposed responsibility of maintenance.

Notes:

(1) This is not a Building Licence. This development is subject to a building licence approval – an

application shall be made with Council’s Building Services prior to commencement of works on-site.

(2) Until a Certificate of Classification has been issued by the Department of Development Services under

Regulation 20 of the Building Regulations 1989, there shall be no approval to use the land for the

purposes in accordance with this approval.

(3) A sign licence application, including a plan or description of all signs for the proposed development

(including signs painted on a building) shall be submitted and approved by the Council’s Department of

Development Services, prior to the erection of any signage on the site and/or building.

(4) The Plans and Specifications must be submitted to the Water Corporation for approval.

(5) A Geotechnical Site Report covering the whole site, must be prepared in accordance with AS 2870, by a

Practising Structural Engineer on behalf of the applicant and must be submitted to ascertain the soil type

and classification and is required prior to the issue of the Building Licence.

(6) Retaining wall(s) are to be constructed for earth banks caused by any required filling or excavation of the

site and the retained area(s) must be landscaped.

(7) Prior to the removal of any structure, a Demolition Licence shall be obtained from the Council pursuant

to the Building Regulations 1989.

(8) The applicant is reminded of their obligations to ensure that all sand drift, waste, building materials and

equipment is contained within the boundaries of the site during the construction period.

(9) All documentation submitted with the application shall be in accordance with the Building Regulations

1989 and the Building Code of Australia – Volume 1, including in particular, detailed plans and

specifications for the site works (including finished ground and floor levels), storm water and roof run-off

disposal, existing easements, parking areas (including pavement type), to the satisfaction of Council.

(10) The Plans and Specifications must be submitted to the Fire Emergency and Safety Authority (FESA),

Postal Address is, PO Box P1174 Perth WA 6844, Contact No: 08) 9323 9300.

(11) The Plans and Specifications must indicate the positions of any Exit Doors and Exit Signs and they are to

be in accordance with the BCA – Parts D1 and E4 (Volume 1).

(12) The Plans and Specifications must indicate the position of and required Fire Hydrants and Fire Hose

Reels and they are to be in accordance with the BCA – Part E1 (Volume 1).

(13) Should the Plans and Specifications indicate that the external walls are within 3 metre of a boundary, then

the walls must have a Fire Resistance Level (FRL) of 90/90/90 in accordance with the BCA – Part C3

(Volume1).

(14) The Plans and Specifications must indicate all provisions of Access for People With Disabilities, into and

within the building, in accordance with the BCA – Part D3 (Volume 1) and AS 1428.1.


Page 104

(15) The Plans and Specifications for the Building Application must provide Sanitary Facilities for people

with disabilities in accordance with the BCA – F2 (Volume 1) and AS 1428.1.

(16) Compliance with the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992 will be required. The building shall not

be opened to the public until a Certificate of Approval has issued in accordance with Section 178 of the

Health Act 1911.

(17) Certificate of Electrical Compliance in accordance with the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992

will be required.

(18) Application for Certificate of Approval or Variation of Certificate of Approval in accordance with the

Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992 will be required.

(19) Compliance with the Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations 1993 will be required. Fit-out plans should be

submitted to the Environmental Health Service of the Council prior to construction.

(20) Compliance with City of Bunbury Health (Eating House) Local Laws 2000 will be required.

(21) Compliance with the Health (Swimming Pools) Regulations 1964 will be required. Construction shall not

commence until the written approval of the Executive Director, Public Health has been obtained.

(22) Compliance with the Health Act 1911 is required.

(23) Compliance with the City of Bunbury Health Local Laws 2001 is required.

(24) Adequate waste storage and bin wash down areas to be provided.

(25) Laundries to be a minimum of 3m2 width in accordance with Health Local Law.

(26) Car park ventilation to be provided in accordance with Division 5 of the Health Local Law.


Cr T Smith disclosed a financial and proximity interest as he owns a property in Victoria

Street in close proximity to the proposed development. Cr T Smith left the room at 7.20pm

for the duration of the discussion and vote on this item.

Ms Judith Wall, a resident at 4 Carey Street, Bunbury, spoke to members against the proposal

and raised the following concerns:

- Lack of community debate and failure to provide an open forum for decision making

- Possible windshear/wind tunnel effects from the structure and overshadowing of other

buildings in the vicinity

- Parking/traffic management and access

- Potential for anti-social behaviour, increase in noise levels, waste and litter, etc

Mr Bruce Crabb (the proponent) responded to queries from members in relation to timeframe

and replied that, if approved, he expected the structure to commence construction within

12 months or sooner.

The Executive Manager City Development responded to queries from members in relation to

car parking bays, the cash-in-lieu option, traffic management, and height restrictions.


Page 105

After some discussion, the motion was moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr Wenn.

The Presiding Member put the recommendation to the vote and it was adopted to become the







subject to the following conditions:




twelve months and completed within two years of the date of issue, or within any



Planning Approval.




4. Plans submitted with the Building Licence to include a total of 128 onsite car parking

bays designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or provision of cash in lieu for

the current shortfall in car parking of 34 bays to the satisfaction of the Manger




Services.








8. Arrangements shall be made to the satisfaction of the City Engineer for the submission

of an approved independent traffic planning study for the development of the subject


Page 106

land together with the necessary traffic management measures being installed at the

cost of the applicant, prior to the building licence being issued.









levels of service;










10. Any alterations or relocation of existing infrastructure within the road reserve shall be

carried out and reinstated to the specification and satisfaction of the City Engineer at

the developer’s expense.

11. Road assets Damage Bond of $5,000 shall be paid by the applicant prior to the issue of

the building licence as per Council’s Local Planning Policy “Bonds”.



area. The access way(s), parking areas(s), turning area(s) shall be constructed, kerbed,

formed, graded, drained, linemarked and finished with a sealed or paved surface or

equivalent by the developer to an approved design to satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Once constructed, the access way(s), parking area(s) and turning area(s) shall be

maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.





Page 107








building.



15. Crossovers shall not vary from the standard designs without written approval from the

City Engineer. Pedestrian access across the crossover shall be free of tripping hazards

(e.g. no raised kerbing).






2




















Page 108








- Details of any significant vegetation to be removed






and ground cover






Cr T Smith disclosed a financial and proximity interest as he owns a property in Victoria

Street. Cr T Smith left the room at 9.30pm for the duration of the discussion and vote on this

item.

The Committee’s recommendation was moved Cr Leigh, seconded Cr Major.

The Executive Manager City Development requested that Point 2 of the motion be replaced

with the following wording as this is the correct “standard” clause that should apply to this

type of development:

“2. This approval shall expire unless the works hereby authorised have been substantially

commenced within two (2) years of the date of issue or within any extended period for

which Council has granted written consent. Any application for such consent shall be

received within one (1) month prior to the expiration of the Planning Approval.”

The mover and seconder agreed to replace Point 2 of their motion with the standard clause as

suggested.

During further discussion of the motion there was concern as to the level of parking to be

provided for the new development and a request was made for the “cash-in-lieu” provision to

be removed from Point 4 of the motion. Point 4 of the motion to read as follows:

“4. Plans submitted with the Building Licence to include a total of 162* onsite car

parking bays designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.”


Page 109

The mover and seconder agreed to replace Points 4 of their motion with wording as suggested

above.








subject to the following conditions:



2. This approval shall expire unless the works hereby authorised have been substantially

commenced within two (2) years of the date of issue or within any extended period for

which Council has granted written consent. Any application for such consent shall be

received within one (1) month prior to the expiration of the Planning Approval.




4. Plans submitted with the Building Licence to include a total of 162* onsite car

parking bays designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

*Note: Since the meeting, it has been determined that the correct number is 128.



Services.








8. Arrangements shall be made to the satisfaction of the City Engineer for the

submission of an approved independent traffic planning study for the development of


Page 110

the subject land together with the necessary traffic management measures being

installed at the cost of the applicant, prior to the building licence being issued.









levels of service;










10. Any alterations or relocation of existing infrastructure within the road reserve shall

be carried out and reinstated to the specification and satisfaction of the City Engineer

at the developer’s expense.

11. Road assets Damage Bond of $5,000 shall be paid by the applicant prior to the issue

of the building licence as per Council’s Local Planning Policy “Bonds”.



area. The access way(s), parking areas(s), turning area(s) shall be constructed,

kerbed, formed, graded, drained, linemarked and finished with a sealed or paved

surface or equivalent by the developer to an approved design to satisfaction of the

City Engineer. Once constructed, the access way(s), parking area(s) and turning

area(s) shall be maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.





Page 111








building.



15. Crossovers shall not vary from the standard designs without written approval from

the City Engineer. Pedestrian access across the crossover shall be free of tripping

hazards (e.g. no raised kerbing).






2

















Page 112











- Details of any significant vegetation to be removed






and ground cover





CARRIED

10 Votes “For”/1 Vote “Against”

There was a request for the vote to be recorded.

For: Mayor D Smith

Cr Dillon

Cr Jones

Cr Craddock

Cr Wenn

Cr Frisina

Cr Lambert

Cr McCleary

Cr Leigh

Cr Major

Against: Cr Rooney

Cr T Smith returned at 9.43pm.


Page 113

11.11 BUSINESS PLAN - PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PORTION

LOT 4 PRESTONWOOD STREET, BUNBURY (WAS LISTED AS ITEM 11.9 IN THE MEETING

AGENDA)

File Ref: A00420


Author: John Beaton, Manager Administration & Property Services


Summary

The Business Plan for the proposed sixteen-lot residential development on portion of Lot 4

Prestonwood Street, Bunbury, was advertised pursuant to Section 3.59 of the Local

Government Act 1995. At the close of the public submission period on 28 September 2007,

nine submissions had been received eight (8) of which are objections and the issue is now

referred back to the Council for consideration (and a final decision).

The City's Executive draws to the Council's attention that, subsequent to the Business Plan

being advertised, Main Roads WA briefed the Council (on 14 August 2007) concerning

proposed alterations to the Eelup Roundabout. MRWA proposes that the east/west route

through the junction be converted into an underpass with an overpass to be constructed for

the north/south route. Road reserves along approach roads may need to be expanded to

accommodate these changes. Council officers consider that the height of the overpass may

have a significant impact on the current proposal to subdivide part of Lot 4 Prestonwood

Street as it could invalidate existing traffic, noise and emissions studies undertaken as part of

the project.

The Member for Bunbury - Mr John Castrilli, MLA, has also identified this as a major

concern and has lodged a submission specifically relating to the proposed Main Roads re-

development of this roundabout.

Accordingly, it is proposed that the Council defer the proposed subdivision of Lot 4

Prestonwood Street pending construction of the Eelup Roundabout overpass (as outlined to

Council by MRWA on 14 August 2007) and to enable a re-assessment of the road reserve

requirements, traffic, noise and emissions impact on the land.

Background

The development proposal was previously considered by Council at its meeting on 27 March

2007.

Lot 4 Prestonwood Street is located in the area known as Sandridge Park and is bounded on

its eastern side by Robertson Drive. The land (Certificate of Title Vol. 1547 Fol. 596) was

purchased by the City of Bunbury on 5 November 1979 as zoned for "residential

development".


Page 114

It is proposed to subdivide and develop a portion of Lot 4 Prestonwood Street, Bunbury, into

sixteen fully serviced residential lots. The income from the development will contribute to

funding of the new City Library.

A location plan for the development is attached at Appendix 14, Lot 4 Prestonwood Street

has an area of 2.8144 hectares and is zoned Residential R15. It is proposed to develop 1.3180

hectares with the balance of the land (1.4964) retained as public open space.

The Council Decision made on 27 March 2007 is as follows:

Council Decision 57/07 - 27 March 2007

"Council agrees to:

1. Prepare a Subdivision Plan for a sixteen-lot residential subdivision on a 1.3180

hectare portion of Lot 4 Prestonwood Street as identified on Subdivision Plan No.

06046P-06 prepared by TME on 7 March 2007.

2. Release a Business Plan outlining the proposed Prestonwood Street subdivision.

Copies of the Business Plan are to be advertised for public information pursuant to

Section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995 with any objecting submissions

received, referred back to Council for consideration.

3. That in the interim the item be referred to the Bunbury Environment and

Sustainability Advisory Committee (BESAC) for comment."

----------------

Statutory Advertising - Business Plan

A business plan was prepared and advertised for public information via notices published in

the City Update column of the Bunbury Mail on 18 and 25 April and in The West Australian

on 17 August 2007. Members of the Council were supplied with a copy of the business plan

by memorandum dated 20 April 2007.

Notices inviting members of the public to inspect the business plan were also displayed on

the City's website and on notice boards at the Customer Service Centre and both libraries.

Schedule of Submissions - Business Plan

The closing date for submissions was 28 September 2007. Nine (9) submissions have been

received eight (8) of which object to the proposal - a Schedule of Submissions is attached at

Appendix 15. The schedule gives a summary of the main points raised by submitters and lists

responses from Council Officers.

A full copy of each submission has been circulated to councillors in a Confidential Report

circulated under separate cover.


Page 115

Bunbury Environment and Sustainability Advisory Committee

As requested by Council on 27 March 2007, the development proposal was submitted to the

Bunbury Environment and Sustainability Advisory Committee ("BESAC") for comment and

a recommendation.

At its meeting held on 7 June 2007, BESAC considered the proposal and referred a

recommendation for Council's consideration. A copy of the recommendation is attached at

Appendix 16.


The strategic and regional outcomes of the proposed development will need to be re-assessed

upon completion of the overpass at the Eelup Roundabout junction currently proposed by

Main Roads WA.

Public Consultation

An extensive public consultation programme was undertaken pertaining to the proposed

development of portion of Lot 4 Prestonwood Street and the associated business plan. An

outline of the programme is attached at Appendix 17 for Council information.


Council members were briefed on the status of the Prestonwood Street development proposal

at Briefing Sessions on 7 November 2006 and 13 March 2007.

A petition received from residents was tabled for formal receipt by Council at the meeting on

6 March 2007.

Prestonwood Street residents attended the Council Committee Meeting on 20 March 2007 to

brief members with their concerns. The issue was then formally considered by Council at the

subsequent Council Meeting on 27 March 2007.

Subsequent to the Council Meeting of 27 March 2007, members of Council's Bunbury

Environment and Sustainability Advisory Committee ("BESAC") were provided with details

of the development proposal for consideration and recommendation.

Members of the Council were supplied with a copy of the business plan by memorandum

dated 20 April 2007.

Relevant members of Executive Management and City staff have been consulted concerning

preparation of the Business Plan and responses to the objecting submission received.


Should the development proceed, it is anticipated land sales will provide a net return to

Council of $1.2(M). Once the land is fully developed, rate revenue each year is expected to


Page 116

be in the region of $16,000 to $20,000 with this income used to fund the Prestonwood Street

development and the excess contributed to the City's new library project.

It should be noted that the proposed deferral of the Prestonwood Street development pending

construction of an overpass at the Eelup Roundabout, will not impede funding of the new

City Library project.


Economic, social, environmental and heritage issues previously assessed as part of the

development proposal for portion of Lot 4 Prestonwood Street are attached at Appendix 18.

These issues will need to be re-assessed once construction of the overpass at the Eelup

Roundabout has been completed.


There is no relevant Council policy.


The proposal to develop and subdivide a portion of Lot 4 Prestonwood Street complies with

statutory and legislative obligations.


The Chief Executive Officer does not have the delegated authority of the Council to dispose

of land.

Relevant Precedents

Council has undertaken residential land subdivisions previously with the most recent being

College Grove.

Options

Option 1: Per the recommendation listed in this report.

Option 2: Council call tenders for the sale of Lot 4 Prestonwood Street with the

purchaser to develop the subdivision to Council’s advertised Plan within a

three-year period.

Option 3: Council to sell Lot 4 Prestonwood Street to a private purchaser with no

development conditions.

Option 4: 1. Council to prepare a Subdivision Plan for a sixteen-lot residential

subdivision on a 1.3180 hectare portion of Lot 4 Prestonwood Street as

identified on Subdivision Plan No. 06046P-06 prepared by Thompson


Page 117

McRobert Edgeloe ("TME") on 7 March 2007, and following receipt of

statutory approvals, Council proceed with the subdivision.

2. The recommendation made by Council’s Bunbury Environment and

Sustainability Advisory Committee ("BESAC") on 7 June 2007, to be

undertaken prior to commencement of development works.

Conclusion

Due to information provided by Main Roads WA subsequent to advertising of the Business

Plan, it is now recommended that the project be deferred until construction of an overpass on

the Eelup Roundabout junction is completed.

Recommendation

In relation to a proposed sixteen-lot subdivision on part Lot 4 Prestonwood Street, Bunbury:

1. Council notes the community objections to the proposed subdivision and responses

provided by the City's Executive.

2. Council defers the proposed subdivision of Lot 4 Prestonwood Street pending

construction of the Eelup Roundabout overpass (as outlined to Council by Main

Roads WA on 14 August 2007) to enable a re-assessment of the road reserve



Cr Leigh disclosed a proximity interest as he lives near Prestonwood Street.

Mr John Castrilli spoke to the item and advised members that, even though he was for the

proposal, consideration needed to be given to the MRWA’s intention to reconfigure the Eelup

Roundabout; including the proposed overpass/flyover. In light of this, Mr Castrilli urged

members to postpone any decisions regarding Lot 4 Prestonwood Street until such time as

MRWA had finalised their plans.

Cr Dillon moved a motion to amend the recommendation to include a third item which states:

“Council to ensure that its right to develop the land in question on Prestonwood Street

remains as "residential development" firmly in place, throughout the ensuing period of

postponement.”

At this point of proceedings, Cr Major left the room and did not take part in the voting of

Parts 1 and 2 of the amended Committee recommendation.

In light of the amended recommendation, the Presiding Member put each part the motion to

the vote separately. Results of the votes are as follows:

Part 1: Carried 9 votes “for” to nil votes “against”


Page 118

Part 2: Carried 9 votes “for” to nil votes “against”

At this point of the proceedings, Cr Major returned to the room and took part in the voting of

Part 3 of the amended Committee recommendation.

Part 3: Carried 7 votes “for” to 3 votes “against”





2. Council defers the proposed subdivision of Lot 4 Prestonwood Street pending

construction of the Eelup Roundabout overpass (as outlined to Council by Main

Roads WA on 14 August 2007) to enable a re-assessment of the road reserve


3. Council to ensure that its right to develop the land in question on Prestonwood Street

remains as "residential development" firmly in place, throughout the ensuing period of

postponement.


Cr Leigh disclosed a financial and proximity interest as he lives in close proximity to the

proposed development. Cr Leigh left the room at 9.45pm for the duration of the discussion

and vote on this item.

The Committee’s recommendation was moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr Major.

A request was made to replace the word “construction” in Point 2 of the motion with the

words “final design”. The mover and seconder agreed to include this amendment to the

motion.







2. Council defers the proposed subdivision of Lot 4 Prestonwood Street pending final

design of the Eelup Roundabout overpass (as outlined to Council by Main Roads WA


Page 119

on 14 August 2007) to enable a re-assessment of the road reserve requirements,

traffic, noise and emissions impact on the land.

3. Council to ensure that its right to develop the land in question on Prestonwood Street

remains as "residential development" firmly in place, throughout the ensuing period

of postponement.

CARRIED

10 Votes “For”/1 Vote “Against”

There was a request for the vote to be recorded:

For: Mayor D Smith

Cr Jones

Cr T Smith

Cr Craddock

Cr Dillon

Cr Major

Cr Rooney

Cr Wenn

Cr Frisina

Cr McCleary

Against: Cr Lambert

Cr Leigh returned at 9.50pm.


Page 120

11.12 NORTHERN ENTRY STATEMENT PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (WAS LISTED AS

ITEM 11.11 IN THE MEETING AGENDA)

File Ref: A01793

Applicant/Proponent: Internal

Author: Peter Roberts, Manager Parks and Urban Design

Executive: Michael Scott, Executive Manager City Services

Summary

The purpose of the report is to seek Council’s endorsement of the selected artists for the

Northern Entry Statement Art Commission.

Background

The selection process for the public art commission for the Northern Entry Statement is now

complete.

Expressions of Interest (EOI) were called in April 2007 by way of a display advertisement in

the South Western Times on 3 May 2007 The EOI called for a submission detailing the

creation and installation of an artwork to act as a defining statement on the northern entry into

the City of Bunbury.

The commission budget was advertised at $100,000 (ex GST). The expressed vision was to

provide:

- A bold, striking, contemporary and enduring artwork, or series of artworks, that

creates a sense of arrival on the approach to the Eelup roundabout; and

- A sense of Bunbury, the place, and an appreciation of its attributes.

Fourteen (14) submissions were received including local, intrastate and one interstate artist.

A selection panel was appointed in consultation with Cr Warren Lambert and consisted of

representatives from the local art community, community members, elected representatives,

tourism and relevant Council officers. The panel consisted of community representatives

Lloyd Horn & Sascha Turner, Elected Representative Cr Lambert, and Council staff Steve

Stirton, Del Ambrosius and Peter Roberts.

The panel met to review all submissions and six (6) artists were shortlisted to proceed to

Stage 2 of the project that required them to develop a marquette and detailed proposal of their

artwork. The marquettes were displayed for community comment at the Council

Administration Office for a period of two weeks.

The Stage 2 presentations were held on the Friday, 10 August 2007, at which time the panel

considered the community comments received and each design presented. The following

recommendation was made unanimously by the Committee:


Page 121

Council endorse Matt Dickmann and Louise Morrison as the successful

artists for the Northern Entry Statement. The Committee also strongly

recommended that Council consider the lighting at the installation stage of

the project as this will significantly enhance the presence of the artwork at

night.

A memorandum and photographs of the selected artwork was provided to all elected

representatives on the 16 August 2007. A confidential report containing a cost breakdown of

the successful artists’ proposal has been circulated to members under confidential cover.

The idea of the structure was inspired by Bunbury’s identity as the City of Three Waters with

boats, tinnies, runabouts, yachts to cray boats, commercial fishing vessels and cargo ships as

an integral part of the visual landscape in Bunbury for locals and visitors alike. The shape is

reminiscent of boat hulls and sails and will be fabricated using boat building methodologies.

The materials refer to Bunbury’s industrial identity as the world’s leading export port for

alumina and as the home of Australia’s only silica smelter. The materials of aluminium, glass

and stainless steel cable have been chosen for their durability, resistance to vandalism and

low maintenance requirements. Aluminium has exemplary environmental credentials. It is a

natural recyclable product with low embodied energy rating.

The form is a large, bold contemporary structure that is over 8 metres tall and is apparently

hinged and anchored by stainless steel cable. It is a hollow aluminium form with a strip of

glass that can be lit from within in the future.

The artists have proposed for the design documentation phase to commence in September

2007 with the fabrication to be undertaken between mid to late October to February 2008; the

installation being in March 2008.

The Committee selected this artwork as it met the requirements of the brief and is structurally

sound. It was selected for its simplicity as a contemporary artwork and it is a striking piece of

art that is vibrant and readable to the general public. It has a fresh approach representing the

future of Bunbury.


The proposal is consistent with the strategic directions with the vision to enhance our

community’s pride in our City by demonstrating the pursuit of excellence by our leadership,

advocacy, service delivery and facilities.

It is anticipated that the artwork will enhance Bunbury as an attractive, vibrant city of people

from diverse social, cultural, religious and economic backgrounds. The City of Bunbury will

acknowledge and celebrate the character of its community through the design and structure of

the piece

The artwork will depict Bunbury’s industrial and social links to the rest of the region via the

port and the use of locally recognised products such as alumina and silica.


Page 122


During the selection process the Panel consisted of a local community member plus a

representative from Australia’s South West as a third party to the process.

During Stage 2 of the process the marquettes were displayed in the Council Administration

Office for two weeks commencing on 23 July 2007 for community comment and these

comments were considered in the selection process.

A marketing and public relations campaign will be undertaken leading up to the installation

and it is anticipated that there will be an official launch of the artwork.


Cr Lambert has been involved in the project since its inception and was a member of the

selection panel. The Building Department has been consulted regarding any building

requirements and the Planning Department will be involved in the design phase. The

Manager Building Construction and Maintenance has been involved in the selection process

and initial discussion with MRWA.


In the 2007/2008 budget, an amount of $131,961 has been brought forward for the purposes

of the development of the Northern Entry Statement.


No adverse economic, social, environmental or heritage issues are thought likely to arise as a

result of the recommendation. It is anticipated that the artwork will become an icon and

enhance the social and tourism aspects of Bunbury.


The EOI process complies with the requirements of Work Procedure WP-4.6 (Tender

Procedure).


The calling for EOIs was undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Local

Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.


The EOI process complies with the requirements of Work Procedure WP-4.6 (Tender

Procedure).


Page 123

Relevant Precedents

Previous tenders and EOIs have been referred to Council for determination.

Options


Option 2: The Council may elect to reject the EOIs and the selection process, and re-

advertise.

Conclusion

From the information provided and the assessment process undertaken, the selection panel

believes the recommendation will provide the City with the most suitable Entry Statement

Artwork.

Recommendation

With regard to the call for EOIs for the Northern Entry Statement Public Art Commission:

1. Council accept the EOI from Matt Dickmann and Louise Morrison (and enter into a

contract with) as the successful artists for the Northern Entry Statement Commission.

2 The successful price be recorded in the Council minutes.


The recommendation was moved Cr Lambert, seconded Cr Dillon.









The Committee’s recommendation was moved Cr Lambert, seconded Cr Dillon.

Cr Lambert spoke to the item and the history of previous Council members who had worked

on this project.


Page 124

In response to a query, the Executive Manager City Services advised that $24,000.00 will be

required for the lighting component of the project.

During discussion, Cr Craddock suggested that the CEO (on behalf of the Mayor and

Councillors) send a letter to past and present persons associated with the Northern Entry

Statement thanking them for their contribution. The mover and seconder agreed to include

this in their motion.








3. On behalf of the Mayor and Councillors, the CEO to send a letter of thanks to past

and present persons associated with the Northern Entry Statement project.

CARRIED



Page 125

12. MOTIONS (OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN) TO BE

DISCUSSED & RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE REFERRED TO THE NEXT

COUNCIL MEETING

Nil.

13. "URGENT" BUSINESS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE MAJORITY OF

MEMBERS PRESENT

The CEO thanked the current Council for their professional support to the staff over the past

term and for their contribution to the operation of the City of Bunbury. He wished those

Councillors standing for election the best of luck.

His Worship the Mayor took this opportunity to state that this has been a strong Council with

a diversity of skills and experience. He has appreciated the enthusiasm that individual

Councillors have displayed when undertaking tasks assigned to them.

14. ITEMS TO BE NOTED

Nil.

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS AS STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 5.23(2) OF THE

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995

Nil.

16. CLOSE OF MEETING

There being no further business the Mayor declared the meeting closed at 10.10 pm.

-----------------------

CONFIRMED this day 6 November 2007 to be a true and correct record of proceedings of the

Bunbury City Council Meeting held 16 October 2007.

___________________________

MR DAVID SMITH

MAYOR

16 october 2007 contents - city of bunbury and... · page 1 council meeting minutes minutes of an...

Documents