ordinary council - shire of augusta-margaret river...that council receives the elva street footpath...

Ordinary Council

MINUTES

FOR THE MEETING HELD WEDNESDAY, 25 MARCH 2015

IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, WALLCLIFFE ROAD, MARGARET RIVER

COMMENCING AT 5:30PM

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 25 MARCH 2015

2

Meeting Notice

Dear Councillor I advise that an Ordinary Council Meeting of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River will be held in Council Chambers, 41 Wallcliffe Road, Margaret River, on Wednesday 25 March 2015, commencing at 5:30pm. Yours faithfully

GARY EVERSHED CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


3

ATTENTION/DISCLAIMER

These minutes will be confirmed at the next Ordinary Council Meeting. The minutes should be read to ascertain the decision of the Council. In certain circumstances members of the public are not entitled to inspect material, which in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer is confidential, and relates to a meeting or a part of a meeting that is likely to be closed to members of the public. No responsibility whatsoever is implied or accepted by the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River for any act, omission, statement or intimation occurring during Council or Committee meetings. The Shire of Augusta-Margaret River disclaims any liability for any loss whatsoever and howsoever caused arising out of reliance by any person or legal entity on any such act, omission or statement of intimation occurring during Council or Committee meetings. Any person or legal entity who acts or fails to act in reliance upon any statement, act or omission made in a Council or Committee meeting does so at that person’s or legal entity’s own risk. In particular and without derogating in any way from the broad disclaimer above, in any discussion regarding any planning application or application for a licence, any statement or intimation of approval made by any member or Officer of the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River during the course of any meeting is not intended to be and is not taken as notice of approval from the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River. The Shire of Augusta-Margaret River advises that anyone who has any application lodged with the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River must obtain and should only rely on WRITTEN CONFIRMATION of the outcome of the application and any conditions attaching to the decision made by the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River in respect of the application. The Shire of Augusta-Margaret River advises that any plans or documents contained within these minutes may be subject to copyright law provisions (Copyright Act 1968, as amended) and that the express permission of the copyright owner(s) should be sought prior to their reproduction. It should be noted that Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against any persons who infringe their copyright. A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may represent a copyright infringement.


4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO. SUBJECT PAGE NO.

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING ............................................................................................ 5

2. ATTENDANCE...................................................................................................................... 5 2.1. APOLOGIES ......................................................................................................................... 5 2.2. APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE ..................................................................................... 5

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST ........................................................................................... 5

4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................... 6 4.1. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE .......................... 6 4.2. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME .................................................................................................... 6

5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ..................................................................... 6

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING ................................................ 6 6.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD 11 MARCH 2015 ................................................. 6

7. DEPUTATIONS .................................................................................................................... 6

8. PETITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 6 8.1 ELVA STREET FOOTPATH – SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF ELVA

STREET, MARGARET RIVER. ............................................................................................. 6

9. ANNOUCEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDING MEMBER ..................................................... 7

10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN .............................................. 7 10.1 PERCENTAGE VOTE FOR TOWN WARD – CR LYN SERVENTY .................................... 7

11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND EMPLOYEE REPORTS ............................................. 8

11.1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ........................................................................................... 10 11.1.1 ASBESTOS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .......................................................................... 10

11.2. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 23 11.2.1 DRAFT AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY - FOR APPROVAL TO

ADVERTISE ........................................................................................................................ 23 11.2.2 AUGUSTA LEISURE CENTRE TENDER ........................................................................... 30 11.2.3 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 24 - LOT 2 ASHTON STREET, MARGARET

RIVER - FINAL APPROVAL ............................................................................................... 35

11.3. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES ........................................................................................ 45

11.4. CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES .................................................................. 47 11.4.1 COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN 2033 (REVIEWED 2015) ............................................. 47 11.4.2 LIST OF PAYMENTS FOR FEBRUARY 2015 ................................................................... 50 11.4.3 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENT REPORT - FEBRUARY 2015 ................................. 53

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ...................................... 62

13. MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AT NEXT MEETING ................................................. 62

14. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE .................................................................... 62 14.1. MEMBERS .......................................................................................................................... 62 14.2. CEO ..................................................................................................................................... 62

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS .............................................................................................. 62

16. CLOSURE OF MEETING ................................................................................................... 62


5

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Wednesday 25 March 2015, in Council Chambers,

41 Wallcliffe Road, Margaret River, commencing at 5.30pm.

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Deputy Shire President welcomed all in attendance and declared the meeting open at 5.30pm.

2. ATTENDANCE

Deputy Shire President (Chair) : Cr Lyn Serventy North Ward Councillors : Cr Ian Earl North Ward

Cr Kylie Kennaugh North Ward Cr Felicity Haynes Town Ward Cr Neville Veitch Town Ward Cr Kim Hastie Leeuwin Ward

Chief Executive Officer : Mr Gary Evershed Director Corporate and Community Services : Ms Annie Riordan Director Infrastructure Services : Mr Johan Louw Director Sustainable Development : Mr Iliya Hastings Manager Planning and Development : Mr Nick Logan Minute Secretary : Ms Zoe Cunningham

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 2 MEMBERS OF THE PRESS Augusta Margaret River Mail : Nil Augusta Margaret River Times : Mr Warren Hately

2.1. Apologies

Cr Michael Smart, Shire President

2.2. Approved Leave of Absence

Nil

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

Nil


6

4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS

4.1. Response to Previous Public Questions Taken on Notice

Nil

4.2. Public Question Time

Nil

5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr Ian Earl requested that the Council grant him leave of absence for the first Ordinary Meeting in April.

MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR EARL, CR KENNAUGH OM2015/48 That Council grants Cr Ian Earl leave of absence from the 8 April 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

CARRIED 6/0

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

6.1 Ordinary Council Meeting held 11 March 2015


CR EARL, CR HASTIE OM2015/49 That Council confirms the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held 11 March 2015 to be a true and correct record of the meeting.

CARRIED 6/0

7. DEPUTATIONS

Nil

8. PETITIONS

8.1 Elva Street Footpath – submitted by the residents of Elva Street, Margaret River

Cr Veitch presented the following petition regarding the installation of a footpath along Elva Street, Margaret River, and containing 74 signatures, to the CEO. The petition read as follows: We, the undersigned, would appreciate Council considering the installation of a footpath along Elva Street between Willmott Drive and Forrest Road. Cr Veitch spoke to the meeting, noting that Elva Street has become more widely used in recent years, with parking having been developed on the eastern boundary of the Margaret River Primary School and the Woolworths supermarket attracting more vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the area. He noted that it is a wide road, but that the paths are sandy, uneven and unsafe, which has led to many school children and parents using the road, which is often very busy, to access their destination. MOTION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR VEITCH, CR HAYNES OM2015/50 That Council receives the Elva Street Footpath petition, and recommends that the CEO considers works for the proposed footpath in the 2015-2016 budget.

CARRIED 6/0


7

REASON: Cr Veitch spoke to the motion, noting the proximity of the street to the Primary School, Woolworths and other newly established services which are in-turn attracting heavier traffic to the street. He also stated that given the seemingly unsafe condition of the current footpath, he would like to see works considered in the next budget.

9. ANNOUCEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDING MEMBER

Nil

10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

10.1 Percentage vote for Town Ward – Cr Lyn Serventy

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council 11 March 2015, Cr Serventy asked Acting CEO, Ms Annie Riordan, if the percentage vote for the Town Ward had dropped since the introduction of postal voting for Local Government Elections within the Shire. Governance Officer, Ms Emma Rogers, has provided the following response: The first postal election conducted by the Western Australian Electoral Commission (WAEC) for the Shire of Augusta Margaret River was held in 1999. The number of persons enrolled to vote in the Margaret River Town Ward in 1999 was1943, the voter turnout was 971, giving a participation rate of 50%. Shire records of the 1997 AMRSC elections have been disposed of in accordance with General Disposal Authority under the State Records Act, and the matching statistics are also unavailable from WAEC for comparison. However the following State-wide statistics are available from WAEC. The average participation rate state-wide for in person elections in 1999 was 20% (considerably lower that the MR Town Ward postal election participation rate of 50%) and for state-wide postal voting in 1999 was 42%. Following the 1999 AMRSC Elections, all of the Shire’s Ordinary and Extraordinary Council Elections have been managed by the WAEC by the postal voting method. In 2001, Council carried out a review of Ward Boundaries following a period of governance under a Commissioner, resulting in a reduction of wards from 8 to 4 and a reduction in the number of Councillors from 11 to 7. The number of Council representatives for the Margaret River Town Ward remained at 2. A further review was undertaken in 2009, which resulted in a reduction of 4 wards to 3, the number of Councillors remaining at 7, and a smaller Margaret River Ward represented by 2 Councillors. Participation rates In the Margaret River Ward are as follows:

2001 (Ordinary Election)


2003 (Extraordinary Election)



85% 43% 38.7% 36.5% 45.59%






Elected unopposed

39.2% 42.18% Elected unopposed

34.44%

(The above statistics were obtained from the Western Australian Electoral Commission)


8

Cr Serventy thanked the officer for providing the response and suggested that some further notification of the upcoming Local Government elections be advertised in the local papers to ensure that members of the community are aware of how and when to vote.

11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND EMPLOYEE REPORTS


9

11.1 Chief Executive Officer


10

11.1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 11.1.1 ASBESTOS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

LOCATION/ADDRESS Various Shire Reserves and Freehold Land APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE PTY/3899 PTY/3800 RES/24653 REPORT AUTHOR David Gunn, Coordinator Building Assets and Maintenance

Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Gary Evershed, Chief Executive Officer

IN BRIEF

The Shire has over 21 buildings identified as consisting of asbestos containing material (ACM).

Asbestos is a dangerous carcinogenic material which needs to be handled with extreme caution as there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos (World Health Organisation).

The CEO and Council have onerous responsibilities under various pieces of legislation for the provision of a safe workplace and for the safe management of ACM to protect community members from harm.

An ACM management program is being developed to ensure full compliance with the legislative requirements and to ensure community and staff safety is paramount.

Council should seek to become ACM free as a strategic goal as soon as practicable and a benchmarked National Strategic Goal of 2030 is appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1) Notes the progress of Asbestos Management Planning for Shire buildings; 2) In accordance with the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Awareness and Management 2013-

2018, adopts as an aspirational goal the removal of all asbestos products from Shire owned facilities by 2030 prioritised on the basis of the relative condition of the asbestos containing material, the relative importance of the Shire facility and the number of users of the facility and its immediate precinct;

3) Considers the allocation of funds annually in the Long Term Financial Plan to remove asbestos as the preferred option in preference to encapsulation;

4) Notes that Developer Contributions are not permitted to be used for maintenance purposes such as the encapsulation or removal and replacement of ACM; and

5) Monitors the progress of the Asbestos Management Program through the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

LOCATION PLAN Various locations TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND The Shire of Augusta Margaret River, directly through the CEO and vicariously through the elected Council, is responsible for the management and control of asbestos in the workplace. This responsibility will pose an ongoing cost until the ultimate goal of removing all asbestos materials from Shire owned buildings is achieved. In accordance with the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Awareness and Management 2013-2018 (see attachment), published by the Australian Government Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, the Shire should strive to achieve an aspirational target to remove asbestos from government occupied and controlled buildings, and commercial buildings by 2030. The Shire has over 21 buildings


11

identified as containing asbestos containing material (ACM) in the most recent survey carried out in November 2014 by Site Environment and Remediation Services (SERS). The extent of the asbestos varies considerably from site to site and can range from less than 1m

2 to

over 2000m2 (Augusta and Margaret River Recreation Centre/Squash Courts/former

crèche/Agricultural Society, etc.). The condition of ACM also varies from being in good condition to being in poor condition to requiring short term attention. The sites covered by this recent inspection are as listed in alphabetical order, as follows: Augusta Bowling Club Augusta Museum Augusta Recreation Centre including squash courts, basketball courts, cricket/junior football room, gymnasium, toilets Community Resource Centre (CRC) Artist Residence building Community Resource Centre (CRC) Church building Community Resource Centre (CRC) Community Health building Community Resource Centre (CRC) Doctors Surgery building Community Resource Centre (CRC) Isaacs building Community Resource Centre (CRC) Kindergarten building Community Resource Centre (CRC) Laundry Room building Community Resource Centre (CRC) Main building Community Resource Centre (CRC) Morgue building Cowaramup Childcare Centre Cowaramup Hall Cowaramup Tennis Club Flinders Bay Caravan Park Karridale Hall Kudardup Landcare Office Margaret River Cultural Centre Margaret River Football Clubrooms / Hall Margaret River Kindy Margaret River Recreation Centre Old Settlement Bramley School House Old Settlement Group House Turner Caravan Park Witchcliffe CWA Hall Poor Condition rated locations in alphabetical order include: Augusta Recreation Centre buildings

Internal power board room – packers to staircase

External to toilet block. High level fibre cement gutter edging.

External to toilet block. Debris to ground below high level fibre-cement gutter edging.

Internal to squash court. Store room below stair. Loose fibre-cement sheeting to ground.

Community Resource Centre

Laundry Room – Washing room ceiling throughout Gloucester Park

Rec Centre Court 3 & Squash Courts – damaged fibre cement internal wall linings

Rec Centre Court 3 & Squash Courts – associated cement debris to internal guttering

Rec Centre – external fibre cement debris surrounding perimeter

Football Club / Hall – internal fibre cement debris to ceiling voids

Football Club kitchen – wall linings to kitchen, fibre cement damaged in ceiling void

Karridale Hall

Storage area cupboard walls – All

The survey highlighted a number of areas using a risk matrix that require short term attention to control the risk associated with asbestos fibre release. A plan to deal with these short term action


12

items only, is currently being finalised. A detailed Asbestos Management Plan will be developed to assist persons with control of premises to prevent exposure to airborne asbestos fibres while ACM remain in the work place. The Shire’s responsibility for the management and control of asbestos in the workplace will be an ongoing cost until we achieve the ultimate goal of the elimination/removal of all ACM in the Shire owned buildings. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation City of Busselton

Asbestos Diseases Society – The president of the ADS, Mr Robert Vojakovic AM JP, in a letter of

support for the Cultural Centre redevelopment project made the following statements:

“Asbestos is a dangerous carcinogenic material that needs to be handled with extreme caution. Asbestos roofs are subject to weathering in addition to the usual breakdown of asbestos cement products that begins to occur within 15 years of manufacture. The age of the roof on the Margaret River Cultural Centre at 30 years or more indicates that it would be a significant health risk for employees and users of the Centre and well overdue for removal.

The risk of disease from weathered and deteriorating asbestos cement products presents an ongoing responsibility to protect the public as there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos fibres. The removal of the asbestos roof on the Margaret River Cultural Centre will protect the community and users from this threat.”

Internal Consultation Executive Leadership Team Manager Finance DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The Australian Government Asbestos Management Review 2012 (see attachment) states as follows: “Asbestos is a naturally occurring substance that has been mined and processed for thousands of years. It came into widespread industrial use in Australia during the second half of the 20th century, largely due its extraordinary tensile strength, low heat conduction and its chemical and termite resistance. Asbestos was widely used for insulation and as the key ingredient in products such as asbestos cement (AC or ‘fibro’) sheeting and roofing, water pipes, fire blankets, fillers and packing, as well as in items like motor vehicle clutches and brake linings, gaskets and pads. Asbestos-related diseases (such as mesothelioma) can be contracted by breathing in tiny airborne particles when asbestos containing material is disturbed. Mesothelioma is fatal and incurable. The mortality rates associated with other asbestos-related diseases, such as lung cancer and asbestosis, are also very high. The World Health Organization has stated that there is no minimum safe exposure level for any form of asbestos fibres. The National Health and Medical Research Council likewise has noted that ‘... asbestos is ... a highly toxic, insidious and environmentally persistent material that has killed thousands of Australians, and will kill thousands more this century’. Australia was one of the highest users of asbestos in the world prior to the mid-1980s. Use of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) was banned in this country from 31 December 2003. Not surprisingly, Australia has the highest reported per capita incidence of asbestos-related disease in the world. Due to extensive asbestos use throughout the nation, and incubation periods of up to 50 years or more between exposure and the manifestation of disease, the sad reality is that Australians will continue to contract and die from asbestos-related diseases for many years to come.” When manufactured the asbestos fibres are embedded in cement but with wear and tear over time can become friable and asbestos particles can be released into the atmosphere and carried on the wind for considerable distances. Damage to asbestos sheeting is most likely to be caused to external areas such as roofing and external cladding through expansion and contraction due to sun, the


13

impacts of wind, rain and hail, and the growth of mosses and lichen and other plants cracking and damaging the surface of the sheeting. Internal surfaces can be impacted by balls in recreational areas which can damage the surface releasing fibres. Additionally any maintenance work involving cutting, sawing, drilling, sanding, cleaning, pressure water spraying and other processes can all potentially release fibres, and these processes are either banned or need to be carried out under strict operational guidelines. The Shire, in recent times, sought not to renew the lease of the community kindergarten for a variety of reasons including the fact that the building contained asbestos. The asbestos was fully encapsulated and posed no risk to any children or adults as it had been maintained in an exemplary manner by the not for profit parent committee. The kindergarten age cohort is now housed in a purpose built facility at the Margaret River Primary School. This property is currently on the market so that the sale may realise funds for the upgrading of the main street, post the construction of the Perimeter Road. The sale of the kindergarten will remove a building from the Shire’s Asbestos register. Similarly, the former SES Head Quarters in Le Souef Street is being sold with the buildings likely to be demolished prior to sale. The Council also resolved not to accept ownership of the Kudardup hall from the Department of Lands (DoL) this financial year unless the building was made safe by the removal of all ACM. DoL offered $5,000 towards asbestos removal which was declined. The community have now written to Council stating that the facility is no longer required. As a result of the Shire assessments, maintenance works are scheduled to minimise the release of asbestos fibres identified. These works may be assessed as requiring short term action, in which case they are prioritised to be carried out as soon as practicable. The specialist nature of the works may require that it be carried out by a person qualified to remove asbestos. In 2013/2014, asbestos removal works were identified as requiring short term action at the Margaret River Football Clubrooms, Turner Caravan Park and Flinders Bay Caravan Park. This work consisted mainly of debris removal from previous asbestos replacement works and some encapsulation, and was carried out by a suitably qualified ACM removal contractor, which cost in excess of $9,000. In the budget review, $50,000 was ear-marked as part of a funding package for the possible restoration of the Augusta Squash Courts, which will include the removal of asbestos and replacement and renovation of the facilities. Further discussion on the future of the Squash Courts and the continued use / conversion will be subject to further Council consideration. Category 1 Items – Short Term Action Required The 2014/2015 assessment has identified 19 items as requiring short term action ranging from sheet removal, debris removal, repair, encapsulation and signage. The Shire has been undertaking a remedial program to address the issues listed below: Augusta Rec Centre

Debris to ground below high level fibre cement gutter edging to be removed

External to rear of court structure. Fibre cement debris to be ground to be removed

Internal power board room below stairs. Packers to staircase to be removed

Internal first floor gym store room. Fibre-cement wall linings. Assess activities for further damage and if activities are likely to cause further damage to encapsulate as a minimum.

Internal squash court. First floor court balcony far side fibre cement partition wall repair and encapsulate as a minimum

Internal squash court store room below stairs. Loose fibre-cement sheeting to ground to be removed.

Community Resource Centre

CRC Morgue - Encapsulate ceilings & walls

CRC Laundry Room - Repair at 2 x locations Encapsulation

CRC Main Building - Encapsulate south side of unisex toilet to where plastic strip lighting is situated

Old Cowaramup Hall

Encapsulate panels in electrical box on West side wall


14

Karridale Hall and Supper Room

Encapsulate internal electrical box lining

Repair North side storage cupboard doors

Encapsulate external electrical box beside storeroom Margaret River Rec Centre (Oldest Section of Complex)

Includes court 3, squash courts - fibre cement debris to internal guttering to be removed

Includes court 3, squash courts and kids club - store room fibre cement internal roof linings showing visible fibres should be encapsulated as a minimum

External fibre cement debris surrounding perimeter to be removed Margaret River Football Club

Football Club / Hall - debris from ground to be removed

Football Club kitchen damaged wall linings to kitchen in ceiling void to be repaired

External to rear of structure. Fibre cement debris on ground to be removed Category 2 Items – Action Required ‘Category 2 risks are characterised by an elevated risk due to likely disturbance and the control measure is designed to reduce or eliminate the possibility of disturbance:

Remove Source of Disturbance; or

Isolate Asbestos Containing Material’ The following have been identified as Category 2 risks in the SERS assessment report but not identified as short term action required: Augusta Recreation Centre

Internal Squash Court - Wall lining Margaret River Rec Centre

Damaged fibre cement internal wall linings to Court 3 Margaret River Football Club

Football / Hall. Internal fibre cement debris to ceiling voids Category 3 Items – Renovations and Planned Maintenance ‘Category 3 risks items are programmed for removal prior to a time of likely disturbance for another purpose, such as renovation. Management decision is necessary as to when this should be done. Refurbishment, improvement, programmed or planned maintenance programs must include an assessment plan to remove ACM where the work has a medium to high risk of disturbance. This assessment should consider maximising asbestos removal to minimise future disruption and must be document and updated on the Asbestos Register at completion of works.

Remove before possible disturbance, such as demolition, partial demolition, renovation or refurbishment to ensure potential health risks do not arise

Monitor risk Until Remedial Action Is Completed. The following have been identified as Category 3 risks with a medium to high risk of disturbance: Augusta Recreation Centre

External to squash courts. Fibre cement wall linings.

Internal squash court. Fibre cement wall linings.

Internal squash court. Store room fibre cement wall linings. Margaret River Recreation Centre

Court 3 and Squash Courts - Internal fibre cement wall linings. Margaret River Football Club

Football / Hall. External eaves linings. Fibre Cement


15

Signage Requirements Signage is required on every Shire building that has ACM present. The installation of signage has a twofold effect, it raises awareness but it can also evoke fear which will be unfounded if ACM is being correctly managed. Examples of signage include the following:

To have an asbestos removal program in place shows that the Shire is working towards the ultimate goal of having the workplace ACM free. As an example works that have been identified as requiring removal or encapsulation include the wall and roof linings at the Augusta and Margaret River Recreation centre. Due to the nature of the sporting activities conducted in these buildings the potential for the release of fibre is ongoing. Please see below from excerpt from SERS report: “The roofs were all in a reasonable condition, typical for the age of the buildings. The wall linings observed within the Main Hall at Augusta & Margaret River Rec Centre (includes court 3,squash courts etc) at Margaret River Gloucester Park were all unsealed and showing signs of wear and damage presumably from sporting activities throughout the years. It is recommended that the activities within these building are assessed for likely further damage to the wall linings. If the activities are likely to cause further damage the wall linings should be encapsulated as a minimum. The roof linings within the storeroom within Court 3/ Squash Courts at Margaret River Gloucester Park were unsealed with visible fibres at the time of the inspection. It is recommended that these roof linings are encapsulated as a minimum. The asbestos works should be undertaken by an asbestos removalist licensed by Worksafe WA using localised control conditions. The asbestos removalist should hold a Restricted License as a minimum.” Asbestos Register and Asbestos Management Plan The Asbestos Register is currently updated annually and is carried out by a contractor who is suitably qualified to carry out this work. Quotes are sought for provision of this service. From this document priorities for the works required as needing short term action are assessed and programmed to be carried out. This year’s assessment included all Shire buildings assumed to have ACM present.


16

The Code of Practice for the Management and Control of Asbestos in Workplaces (NOHSC: 2018 (2005) (see attachment) states the following: Register of ACM Persons with control of premises must keep an accurate register of ACM on the premises. The register should contain the following information

Identification:

The date(s) on which the inspection/identification was made and details on the competent person)s) who carried out the inspection/identification;

Details on the locations, types (i.e. friable or non-friable) and condition (i.e. damaged or intact) of any ACM identified on the premises, including ACM in items of plant and equipment, and the type of asbestos involved (i.e. blue, brown or white);

Details on any material presumed to contain asbestos (see section 9.2);

Any inaccessible areas that are likely to contain ACM (see section 9.2); and the results of any analysis that has confirmed a material in the workplace is or is not an ACM.

Risk assessment (see Part 10):

The date when the risk assessment was made, and details on the competent person(s) who carried out the assessment;

The findings and conclusions of the risk assessment, including any reviews or revision of the risk assessment; and

The results of any air monitoring for airborne asbestos fibres and an assessment of these results.

Control measures (see Part 11):

The control measures recommended and decided upon as a result of the risk assessment;

Any maintenance or service work on an ACM, including the company or persons involved, the date and scope of the work undertaken and details on clearance certificates.

The person with control should ensure workers at the workplace are informed about the register of ACM. Before any work that may be expose persons to airborne asbestos fibres is performed, the register should be made readily accessible to:

Workers and their representatives;

Any other employers within the premises;

Any person removing ACM; any person engaged to perform work that may disturb ACM, including presumed ACM (see section 9.2); and

Any other person who might be exposed. The following are segments from the Code of Practice for the Management and Control of Asbestos in Workplaces (NOHSC:2018 (2005)) which highlight the preference for removal of ACM from the workplace. “The ultimate goal is for all workplaces to be free of ACM. Where practicable, consideration should be given to the removal of ACM during renovation, refurbishment and maintenance rather than other control measures such as enclosure, encapsulation or sealing.” (pg 2) The management and control of in situ ACM in workplaces, in compliance with the national prohibition, should be based on:

Identifying ACM (see Part 9 of this code of practice);

Assessing the risks posed by the ACM identified (see Part 10); and

Implementing control measures to eliminate the risks arising from ACM and prevent exposure to airborne asbestos fibres (see Part 11).

These control measures should reflect the following hierarchy of controls: 1) Elimination/removal (most preferred) 2) Isolation/enclosure/sealing 3) Engineering controls 4) Safe Work Practices (administrative controls); and 5) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) (least preferred) (pg 14)


17

Staff Training As per the Code of Practice for the Management and Control of Asbestos in Workplaces (NOHSC:2018(2005)) ‘Information and training must be provided to workers, contractors and others who may come into contact with ACM in a workplace, either directly or indirectly. Depending on the circumstances this asbestos awareness training may include

The purpose of the training;

The health risks of asbestos;

The types, uses and likely occurrence of ACM in buildings, plant and/or equipment in the workplace;

The trainees’ role and responsibilities under the workplaces asbestos management plan (see Part 8);

Where the workplace’s register of ACM (see Part 9) is located and how it can be accessed;

The timetable for removal of ACM from the workplace;

The process and procedures to be followed to prevent exposure, including exposure from any accidental release of asbestos dust into the workplace;

Where applicable, the correct use of maintenance and control measures, protective equipment and work methods to minimise the risks from asbestos, limit the exposure or workers and limit the spread of asbestos fibres outside any asbestos work area;

The NES and control levels for asbestos; and

The purpose of any air monitoring or health surveillance that may occur.’ Training of managers and supervisory staff at workplaces where ACM is present and an asbestos register is kept is due to be carried out prior to the end of the financial year. This training is still being negotiated and will include some of the above elements. The purpose of the training is to give managers and supervisors the knowledge to make staff working in buildings where ACM is present aware of their responsibilities when it comes to ACM in the workplace. Staff to be included in the training will come from the following workplaces:

Shire of Augusta Margaret River Administration

Margaret River Recreation Centre

Margaret River Cultural Centre

Margaret River Community Resource Centre

Augusta Museum

Augusta Bowling Club

Cowaramup Childcare Centre

Flinders Bay Caravan Park

Turner Caravan Park Training will also assist in the development of a more comprehensive Asbestos Management Plan. There is a basic plan in place however it needs to be updated and include a timetable for the removal of ACM from the Shire buildings identified in the Asbestos Register. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 5.43 states: ‘The person having control of the workplace must ensure that

a) The presence and location of asbestos at the workplace is identified; and

b) The process of identification referred to in paragraph (a) and the assessment of risks arising

from hazards in relation to asbestos at the workplace are conducted in accordance with the

Code of Practice for the Management and Control of Asbestos in Workplaces (NOHSC: 2018

(2005)).’

The person having control of the workplace is the Shire CEO who is charged with the responsibility for the employment of staff under section 5.41 (g) of the Local Govt Act 1995 with Council being responsible for the employment of the CEO under section 5.36 of the Local Govt Act 1995 and under


18

section 2.7 for the governance of the Shire’s affairs, the allocation of finances and resources and determining the local government’s policies. The Code of Practice for the Management and Control of Asbestos in Workplaces (NOHSC: 2018 (2005)) states the following: Under the Legislation Persons with control of premises (ie CEO and Councillors) have a duty of care to:

Develop and implement and maintain an asbestos management plan (see Part 8 of this code of practice);

Investigate the premises for the presence or possible presence of ACM (see Part 9);

Develop and maintain a register of the identified or presumed ACM, including details on their locations, accessibility, condition, risk assessments and control measures (see Part 9);

Assess the condition of any ACM that are found and the associated asbestos risks (see Part 10);

Develop measures to remove the ACM or otherwise to minimise the risks and prevent exposure to asbestos (see Part 11); and

Ensure the control measure are implemented as soon as possible and are maintained as long as the ACM remain in the workplace (see Part 11).

The Shire’s current responsibilities include the following:

Carrying out annual inspections

Updating the Asbestos Register and development of a more comprehensive Asbestos Management Plan

Scheduling maintenance works identified from inspections

Training of staff Relevant documents referenced in this report are:

Code of Practice for the Management and Control of Asbestos in Workplaces (NOHSC:2018(2005))

Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 5.43

Site Environmental and Remediation Services Asbestos Materials Re-survey STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2014-2018 Goal 5: Effective Leadership and Governance Community Outcome 2: Effective strategy, planning and asset management Strategic Response 2.2: Develop Long Term Resourcing Strategy aligned to the Community Strategic Plan Service level strategy/plan: Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Plan and Risk Management Plan PLANNING FRAMEWORK Long Term Financial Plan Asset Management Plan Risk Management Framework FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS In January 2014, the annual inspection cost was $7,205 for the Gloucester Park precinct, Turner and Flinders Bay Caravan Parks and the Augusta Recreation Centre only. In January 2015 this cost increased to $15,532 to assess all Shire owned buildings presumed to contain ACM. The cost associated for encapsulation using the Rawlinson’s Construction Cost Guide as a reference is between $27.50m2 and $33.75m2 plus scaffolding costs. The cost of removal of the same asbestos roofing is $27.12m2 using the same guide plus an additional $72 m2 to install new colorbond roofing, including roof insulation and safety mesh plus disposal costs. Costs associated with replacement will only increase over time and the condition of asbestos roof sheeting will continue to decline.


19

The Margaret River and Augusta Recreation Centre buildings are problematic in that they warrant encapsulation both internally and externally as there is no internal lining in many places and additionally in some cases they are being exposed to contact from balls hitting against the surfaces. The cost to encapsulate both sides is a less costly short term solution at $55 - $67.50 per m2 compared to approximately $100 for removal and replacement. It should also emphasised that encapsulation is a temporary measure aimed at postponing the inevitable permanent removal sometime in the future. The length of time for an encapsulated product to be effective before requiring to be redone will depend on the product used and the location of the material. Roofing material is exposed to wind, rain and sun as well as the growth of lichen and mosses which break down the material. Removal is the most cost effective long term and inevitable solution depending on the management of Shire cash flows. In establishing priorities for funding the removal and/or encapsulation of asbestos the allocation of resources will be based on the weighting of the following criteria: 1) The condition of the asbestos with poor condition being the most urgent through to good condition

the least urgent; 2) The number of people using the facility and the surrounding precinct who may be exposed to air

borne or ground contaminated asbestos fibres with most number of users being the most urgent through to the least used being the least urgent;

3) The importance of the building to the Shire in terms of its hierarchy of importance with the Civic Centre being the most important and a single room building such as a storage shed being a lower priority; and

4) Relative cost of the works with an assessment of best value for money being made in consideration of the above 3 items.

For example the Quantity Surveying estimates conducted by Wilde and Woollard in October 2014 estimate that the cost of the removal and replacement of asbestos cement sheeting from the entire older recreation centre complex (Court 3, squash courts, former crèche, Ag Society, etc.) and Cultural Centre building will cost approximately $890,000 including all contingencies. This is broken down into approximately $200,000 for removal and $690,000 for replacement including insulation. The complete removal of asbestos sheeting is incorporated in Council’s application for funding under the Royalties for Regions program for the upgrading of the Cultural Centre and conversion of the adjacent squash courts into a Hub of Entertainment, Arts and Regional Tourism (HEART). This priority was assessed using the above assessment criteria in that the condition of the ACM tends to be at the poorer end of condition assessment and removal is recommended when major redevelopment and refurbishment are being undertaken, there are over 100,000 annual users of the facilities and adjacent precinct and the buildings (Rec Centre and Cultural Centre -Town Hall) are ranked second in importance after the Civic Centre buildings. The area where ACM is to be replaced is expansive so the cost is proportionately high. In this case there are 2 clear options, firstly to seek government assistance to remove the ACM through the grant funding process as has already been decided by Council or if that is unsuccessful develop a staged program for the removal/encapsulation of ACM. Removal without government assistance would be through a 5, 10 or 15 year plan by the allocation of funds annually, e.g. 5yrs x $180,000 pa, 10yrs x $90,000pa or 15yrs x $60,000pa. Alternatively, the Shire could use funds from reserves to have works carried out as promptly as possible, as this would save on costs related to the mobilisation of resources and avoid the doubling up of works (i.e. encapsulation and then later removal). During the longer time frames it is likely that encapsulation treatment would also need to be carried out on remaining areas if areas deteriorate badly during the period of time taken to remove and replace ACM resulting in additional costs if a longer timeframe for removal is adopted. The City of Busselton has made a policy decision to allocate $207,000 plus CPI annually for asbestos removal. The Council should include an annual allocation in the Long Term Financial Plan for the staged removal of ACM from Shire buildings. The Use of Developer Contributions Council is contributing $1.08 (Draft Long Term Financial Plan) million from a loan to be repaid by developer contributions towards the Cultural Centre redevelopment project. State Planning Policy strongly suggests that developer contributions cannot be used for asbestos cement sheeting removal


20

as it is a maintenance item. State Planning Policy 3.6 sets out guiding principles indicating that developer contributions can only be taken for the following:

A new item of infrastructure;

Land for infrastructure;

An upgrade in the standard of provision of an existing item of infrastructure;

An extension to existing infrastructure;

The total replacement of infrastructure once it has reached the end of its economic life; and

Other costs reasonably associated with the preparation, implementation and administration of a development contribution plan.

Contributions cannot be used for maintenance as contributions must only be for the initial capital costs, not for ongoing maintenance or operating costs of the infrastructure. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental As asbestos is a known carcinogen and its control and management needs to be carefully undertaken. Ultimately the Shire should strive for its buildings to be ACM free in line with National guidelines included in the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Awareness and Management 2013-2018. Social The CEO and Council have a legal responsibility to ensure the community and staff are not exposed to harmful asbestos fibres released from Shire buildings. Economic The costs associated with the management of asbestos are considerable and a strategic approach is required to budget for the inspection, removal and encapsulation of asbestos materials according to priorities. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1) Notes the progress of Asbestos Management Planning for Shire buildings; 2) In accordance with the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Awareness and Management 2013-

2018, adopts as an aspirational goal the removal of all asbestos products from Shire owned facilities by 2030 prioritised on the basis of the relative condition of the asbestos containing material, the relative importance of the Shire facility and the number of users of the facility and its immediate precinct;




ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Awareness and Management 2013-2018 2. Code of Practice for the Management and Control of Asbestos in Workplaces 3. Asbestos Management Review 2012 RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR EARL, CR HASTIE OM2015/51 That Council: 1) Notes the progress of Asbestos Management Planning for Shire buildings;


21

2) In accordance with the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Awareness and Management 2013-2018, adopts as an aspirational goal the removal of all asbestos products from Shire owned facilities by 2030 prioritised on the basis of the relative condition of the asbestos containing material, the relative importance of the Shire facility and the number of users of the facility and its immediate precinct;




CARRIED 6/0


22

11.2 Sustainable Development


23

11.2. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 11.2.1 DRAFT AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY - FOR APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE

LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire wide APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE CSV/155 REPORT AUTHOR Matt Cuthbert, Strategic Project Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Iliya Hastings, Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF

Adequate and secure housing is widely regarded as being central to a safe, healthy and meaningful life for its inhabitants. However, the cost of housing can be difficult or impossible for some to meet and puts others in significant ‘housing stress’.

Council’s Corporate Plan requires the preparation of an Affordable Housing Strategy in the 2014/15 financial year.

The need for the Strategy arises from an acknowledgement by Council that housing in the Augusta Margaret River Shire is demonstrably high relative to income levels.

The Strategy explores the problem and makes practical recommendations aimed at helping to address the issue.

RECOMMENDATION That Council advertises the Draft Affordable Housing Strategy for the purpose of seeking community input.

TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND The term ‘affordable housing’ is often and widely used but its meaning varies dependant on the context it is used in. For the purposes of the Strategy, affordable housing is housing which is affordable for households in lower or middle parts of the income scale. This housing must also be reasonably adequate in its standard and location and “not cost so much that such a household is unlikely to be able to meet other basic living costs on a sustainable basis” (Disney, 2007). Affordable housing refers to housing available for both purchase and rental and can be provided by the public, community or private sectors. When the total burden of unaffordable housing is combined with the other financial commitments of a household, the inhabitants can be said to be in ‘housing stress’. This can occur when low and moderate income households are required to spend a disproportionate amount of their income on housing costs (for example rent and mortgage payments). The generally accepted measure of housing stress is the ‘30/40 rule’: When a household in the bottom 40% of the income distribution spends more than 30% of its gross income on housing costs. “Higher income households who choose to allocate more than 30% of their income on housing costs are not in housing stress. They may have a high housing cost to income ratio but they will still have sufficient income left for life’s necessities” (Winter, 2008). THE STRATEGY An affordable housing strategy is a means of identifying the need for and availability of affordable housing, and sets out a series of measures aimed at assisting with the delivery of affordable housing of a type and quantity sufficient to meet with the defined demand. Importantly, the draft Strategy will focus only on outcomes which can feasibly be delivered by the Shire of Augusta Margaret River,


24

acknowledging that the challenge is multi-faceted and requires involvement by all levels of government and the private sector. The objectives of this Strategy are:

A better understanding of the need for affordable housing in the Shire;

Improved connections between the Shire and other stakeholders involved with the facilitation and provision of affordable housing; and

A set of achievable recommendations which can be actioned by the Shire to generate a greater supply of affordable housing.

DISCUSSION / DRAFT STRATEGY In chapter 1 ‘Explaining the Problem’ the draft Strategy provides detailed demographic analysis of the population, labour force and housing market in the Shire, and investigates the nature and extent of the housing affordability problem within the Shire and its causes. Housing affordability is commonly expressed using a ‘median multiple’, that is the number of times the median income in any given study area needs to be multiplied by to achieve the median house price. A median multiple of less than 3 is said to be affordable. The AMR Shire has a median multiple of 8.4, which is equivalent to that of Melbourne, Australia’s second most unaffordable city whereas regional WA as a whole has a median multiple of approximately 5. In the inter-censal period between 2006 and 2011, the median cost of housing rose 38.2%, the median rental cost rose 44.4% whilst the median household income rose 18.9%. The factors which influence the cost of housing are varied, and many are not within the Shire’s field of influence. Those discussed in the draft Strategy are:

Federal tax system

Interest Rates

Availability of finance

Population growth and demand

Supply of Land for Housing

Housing Supply

Cost of production In chapter 2, ‘Formulating a Response’, the draft Strategy explores how other jurisdictions (both international and Australian) have attempted to address the affordable housing problem. Importantly, the measures currently being undertaken by the Department of Housing, through its ‘Opening Doors 2010-2020’ programme, are examined, as are planning measures being considered by the WAPC. A suite of possible options are explored as follows: The Shire acts as developer Perhaps the highest degree of intervention into the housing market available to Local Government is to build and sell or rent housing according to agreed affordability benchmarks. Land for this option could be sourced from the State Government, ceded free of cost by developers or bought in freehold on the private market. The construction of housing could be sourced from local builders and the resultant dwellings either sold, managed by the Shire for long term secure and affordable rental, or managed by a not for profit affordable housing manager. The benefits of this option are that the Local Government would assume the highest level of input into the design and quality of housing, and controls the timing and extent of housing delivery. However it necessarily requires the Shire to dedicate significant amounts of capital and in the case of rental accommodation, staff resources for the ongoing tenant and housing management. To be sustainable in the long term this option would require that some dwellings be sold, and this raises the prospect that whilst the first purchaser may buy the house for an affordable rate (from the Shire), the next purchaser may not. It would not be in the Shire’s interests to deliver a ‘win fall’ gain to some but not others. It is for these reasons that there has been a trend away from Local Government in WA getting involved in this level of housing intervention. It is therefore recommended that this option not be pursued. The Department of Housing and a range of not for profit organisations already operate in the community housing ‘space’ and it would be more efficient for the Shire to work with these existing


25

providers to achieve the same outcomes. This does not rule out the possibility of the Shire facilitating the transfer of land towards affordable housing projects which would be built and managed by others. Small lot/housing size as a proxy for affordability Whilst this is a measure which is promoted by the WAPC, it is not considered to be a useful tool in the AMR Shire context. In some circumstances, small lots may be able to be delivered and sold more cheaply than larger lots in the same area. However their cost per sq. m. is often more than a larger lot and in some instances so too is their overall cost, owing to treatments such as retaining, fencing and rear laneways associated with small lot developments. Small lots are also often located near areas of high amenity such as locations with attractive views, adjacent parkland or bushland. These areas often command a premium price. It is recommended that the Shire continue to use the planning process as a way of delivering a variety of lot and housing types to suit differing family and lifestyle choices; however this mechanism should not be relied upon to make significant impacts to housing affordability. Alternative Building Materials The range of building materials and methods available to construct a residential dwelling is large and continually growing. Despite this, the predominant dwelling style in the Shire is a conventional brick or timber frame with tile or tin roof. Other materials such as straw, rammed earth and mudbrick are represented but not often used. Modular housing and the use of prefabricated / prefinished panels are available but appear not to have been used often in the Shire. It would appear that as yet, non-conventional methods are not available at a sufficient discount to traditional methods to encourage their widespread use. Importantly, there are no inhibiting requirements of the planning or building framework which would prevent the use of alternative building materials and methods, subject to compliance with the Building Code of Australia and generic planning requirements. As such, there is no further role for the Shire to play in altering the legislative conditions to cater for alternative building measures which are or could in the future provide a more affordable means of constructing housing. Planning Measures The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) released a discussion paper entitled ‘Planning Provisions for Affordable Housing’ in October 2013. The paper puts forward 4 potential options for future implementation in WA which seek to increase the provision of affordable housing through changes to the land use planning system. The four options are explained below: Option 1 – diversity is used as a proxy for affordability This option is effectively a continuation of current planning practice, which is to seek to achieve a wide variety of lot sizes which can then accommodate various types of built form, including housing of a type which is more affordable. Option 2 – Allow voluntary incentives This option would allow the introduction of incentives (for example density bonuses) into Local Planning Schemes to encourage but not require the provision of affordable housing by developers. Option 3 - Allow mandatory provisions in selected areas Similar to option 2 however mandatory provision of affordable housing by developers would be required in selected areas identified as a having a significant need. This option would require legislative change. Option 4 – Allow mandatory provisions in all areas. Similar to option 3 however mandatory provisions could be utilised in all areas where the size of a development reached a certain threshold. The paper produced by the WAPC deals with the mechanisms through which affordable housing could be sought but with the exception of option 1, does not assist with the practical implementation of affordable housing outcomes at this time. If after the consultation period the Government elects to pursue Options 2 – 4, policy and legislation will need to be amended, and therefore it could be some time before the measures take effect.


26

Clearly, the WAPC foresee private developers playing a significant role in affordable housing provision, and it is recommended that the Shire support and implement planning options as they become available. In the first instance, this will involve entering into negotiations with developers where a significant number of lots are being developed (over 50 lots) to agree upon scheme provisions which will reflect an agreed commitment to affordable housing within the development. Land Release and Rates A critical factor in land price and therefore housing affordability is not the amount of land available for development but rather the rate at which land is released onto the market. In the Margaret River context the ‘roll out’ of major greenfield subdivisions is undertaken by a relatively small group of development companies. The unsubdivided portion of a greenfield subdivision is often referred to as a balance lot. It is land which is zoned and (structure) planned for development but which has not yet been divided into saleable lots. Rates are payable by the developer on balance lots, calculated by ascertaining the market value of the land, the gross rental value (5% of the market value) and multiplying by 10.5664 cents in every resultant dollar. The rates on balance lots are marginally higher than on subdivided and developed land. Whilst it is within Council’s powers to use the rating system to increase the rate in the dollar charged against balance lots in order to promote more timely release of land for housing, the effectiveness of this measure in achieving the Shire’s affordable housing goals is unlikely to be significant. It is therefore recommended that this measure not be implemented at this time. The timely release of land however should be closely monitored, so that intervention can be considered by the Shire if needed. Partnering with DoH to achieve better utilisation of existing assets. The Department of Housing recognises the need for additional public and affordable housing in the Shire of Augusta Margaret River. One way to achieve additional accommodation in the area is through the DoH housing redevelopment programme which is a $130 million project to be implemented over 3 years to 2017. Its objective is to deliver 500 dwellings on under-utilised land currently owned by DoH. Fifty per cent of the new homes will be sold through the State Government’s Shared Equity program and 50 per cent sold on the open market. Discussions have begun with DoH regarding potential DoH sites in Margaret River which are vacant or which are under-developed, for example where one house exists on a large lot, which would otherwise have the potential for 4 or more dwellings such as the case in the Henning Avenue Precinct. Redevelopment of areas fitting this description would:

Increase the amount of affordable housing available in Margaret River

Provide an opportunity for DoH to update an ageing development stock

Increase housing density in close proximity to the town centre in accordance with the applicable density code

Reduce the concentration of public housing in one small area in line with current DoH policy

Create the potential for DoH to sell some of the resultant dwellings as affordable housing thus releasing capital to be reinvested in DoH rental accommodation in other areas of the town.

Lift the amenity and sustainability of areas currently characterised by older and inefficient housing.

Affordable Housing for aged persons The high proportion of elderly people residing in Augusta requires special attention in regards to ensuring that there is affordable and purpose built housing available for this age group. In response the Shire is currently progressing a proposal to develop aged persons accommodation on a Crown Reserve (Reserve 20761) on Allnutt Terrace in Augusta. A Feasibility Study and Business Case have been completed and the Department of Lands have given in principle support to granting Conditional Title to the land to allow the development to proceed. In this instance, the land will be the Shire’s contribution towards a joint venture partnership with a government agency or not for profit organisation that would develop and manage the accommodation. To date, discussions have been held with the DoH, who may be willing to develop the land. Grant funding will be required in order to pay for the servicing of the land which requires an extension to the sewer line estimated to cost $400,000 and an application has been made to the State Government in


27

this regard. Subject to the land being serviced, expressions of interest will be sought from not for profit housing providers. This project is an excellent example of how the Shire can facilitate affordable housing outcomes without major capital investment. Affordable living For housing to be truly affordable it should be located and designed to minimise the ongoing cost of living. Traditionally, affordable housing has only considered the cost of paying rent or a mortgage as an indication of affordability. Other expenses which should be taken into account include the consumption of water, gas and electricity, property fees and taxes, the cost of transport (to work, education and shopping) and the price of food. In regard to the location of housing, the Shire should use its influence to ensure public/affordable housing is located as close to amenities and employment as is practical, notwithstanding that, in many cases, land which is remote from facilities can be cheaper to acquire. The energy efficiency of all new homes is assessed at the building permit stage to ensure the dwelling meets the Building Code ‘6 star’ standards. However, measures which go beyond those necessary to achieve compliance with the building code should be advocated for by the Shire and negotiated with proponents, particularly in respect to housing which is being purpose built for low income tenants. Ancillary/ Single bedrooms and Aged and Dependant Persons Dwellings The Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) currently provide an incentive for owners to provide complementary accommodation additional to a house, in the form of a 70m

2 ancillary dwelling,

commonly referred to as a granny flat. Similar to ancillary dwellings, single bedroom dwellings are limited in their size to 70m

2. The land upon which they are constructed can be subdivided so that the

dwelling may be sold to an owner occupier. A one-third reduction to the minimum and average lot size otherwise required for conventional dwellings is provided by the R-Codes, Aged and Dependant Persons Dwellings receive an identical relaxation to the required site area requirements of the R-Codes, to that of single bedroom dwellings. They can however be larger in their size, up to 100m

2. They may also be subdivided from the parent title so can be useful in providing

both affordable rental and/or affordable owner occupier housing. Aged and dependant persons dwellings must be built to incorporate specified requirements of AS4299 ‘Adaptable Housing’ and can only be occupied by physically dependant persons or persons over the age of 55. Importantly, the ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions of the R-Codes limit the application of the relaxed site area requirements for this type of development to proposals which include a minimum number of 5 dwellings. It is recommended that this restriction has limited the uptake of this development option in the AMR Shire, given that interested landowners generally do not have the required land area to support 5 dwellings. However, the Shire have the opportunity to vary from this requirement subject to a proposal complying with the applicable ‘Performance Criteria’ which amongst other things, requires that a development respond to a demonstrated need for aged or dependant persons accommodation as set out in the applicable local planning framework, which would include then contents of this Strategy. DRAFT STRATEGY – KEY RECOMENDATIONS Drawing from the wide variety of options examined by the draft Strategy, the following recommendations are arrived at: Short Term 1. Continue the partnership established with the Department of Housing to grow the amount of

social housing available in the Shire. This would logically include the redevelopment of the ‘Henning Ave Precinct’ with the intention of:

Developing vacant sites held by DoH

Achieving a mix of affordable owner occupier and rental accommodation which is more in line with DoH policy; and

Reinvesting any capital achieved through the sale of dwellings in additional social housing in other areas of the Shire.


28

2. Relax the current restrictions applicable to ‘aged and dependant persons dwellings’ from a minimum of 5 dwellings, to a minimum of 1 dwelling.

3. Continue to establish voluntary agreements with land developers for developments over 50 lots. Negotiations should ideally occur prior to initiation of Scheme amendments to rezone the land (where necessary) and agreements secured through Scheme provisions. For the purpose of conducting negotiations, the following definition of ‘affordable housing’ should be utilised:

Rent 20% below the median market rate; or

Land price of approximately $100,000 (as at 2014); and

Per sq. m build cost of approximately $1,000 (as at 2014); or

House and land price 40% below the median market rate ($280,000 as at 2014). Medium term 4. Require that the Augusta retirement village project and any other future housing projects whereby

the Shire is a project partner include an affordable housing component of at least 10% of the dwelling units.

5. Continue to engage with the community through programmes associated with the Local Energy Action Plan to raise awareness of mechanisms to minimise energy and water use in the home and thus reduce the cost of living.

Long Term 6. Monitor the release of land for sale by the private sector to determine whether there is a need for

the Shire to intervene to facilitate its early release.

7. Work with the WAPC and WALGA to support legislative change to enable the mandatory provision of a component of affordable housing within new housing developments.

CONSULTATION AND ADVICE The draft strategy will be publicly advertised subject to Council’s approval. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2014-2018 Goal 3: Managing Growth Sustainably Community Outcome: Liveable and well-designed places. Strategic Response: Address the need for affordable housing and accommodation now and in the future Service level strategy/plan: Develop an Affordable Housing strategy SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The Strategy introduces the concept of ‘affordable living’ as being complimentary to affordable housing. Affordable living has positive environmental outcomes because it necessarily requires making better use of resources such as water and electricity. Social The ability to adequately house people of all income levels enhances community through supporting diversity. Economic Housing for key workers is integral to sustaining a healthy local economy. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority


29

RECOMMENDATION That Council advertises the Draft Affordable Housing Strategy (Attachment 1) for the purpose of seeking community input. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT N/A ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Affordable Housing Strategy. RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR HAYNES, CR KENNAUGH OM2015/52 That Council advertises the Draft Affordable Housing Strategy (Attachment 1) for the purpose of seeking community input.

CARRIED 6/0


30

11.2.2 AUGUSTA LEISURE CENTRE TENDER

LOCATION/ADDRESS Reserve 11533 Albany Terrace, Augusta APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE RES/11533 REPORT AUTHOR Amelia Englert, Planning Legal Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Iliya Hastings, Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF

The Shire of Augusta Margaret River (Shire) recently advertised for tenders to lease the portion of Reserve 11533 Albany Terrace, Augusta (Reserve) currently known as the Augusta Leisure Centre.

One tender (Tender) was received during the advertising period.

The Tender has been assessed in accordance with the tender process clearly outlined in the ‘Request For Tender’ document and has been found to satisfy all requirements.

Justin and Belinda Robinson are recommended as the preferred tenderers for the lease of the Augusta Leisure Centre.

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Determines that the tender offered by Justin and Belinda Robinson as the most acceptable tender

for the lease of the Augusta Leisure Centre in accordance with section 3.58(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995; and

2. Enters into an agreement with Justin and Belinda Robinson, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, for the lease of the Augusta Leisure Centre for a period of 5 years commencing after the expiration of the current lease.

LOCATION PLAN

TABLED ITEMS Nil


31

BACKGROUND At its meeting on 27 October 2010 Council resolved to accept the tender of Trevor Thompson and agreed to enter into a lease agreement (Lease) for the occupation of the Augusta Leisure Centre. The Lease commenced on 16 December 2010 and expires on 15 December 2015. On 30 November 2011 the Lease was assigned to Raymond Chuck under a deed of assignment. Raymond Chuck has been operating the business on the Reserve since this date and in 2014 approached the Shire about assigning the Lease and also requested the creation of a new lease because the current lease lapses on 15 December 2015. The Shire determined that it would put a new 5 year lease, commencing from 16 December 2015, out for public tender. A ‘Request for Tender’ document for the new 5 year lease was created and notifications were placed in local and state newspapers. The Shire received one tender on the tender lodgement date. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation As part of the tender process under section 3.58(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 (LGA) the ‘Request for Tender’ was advertised in the West Australian Newspaper on 14 January 2015 and the Margaret River Times on 16 January 2015 with the tender lodgement deadline advertised as being 4:00pm on Wednesday 4 February 2015. Internal Consultation Infrastructure and Corporate and Community Services support the acceptance of the Tender. DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The ‘Request for Tender’ document (Document) sets Selection Criteria which tenderers were requested to respond to as part of the evaluation process. The Document was modelled on the WALGA tender template. It was clearly stated in the Document that tenders would be assessed against:

The community benefit of the proposal to Augusta and region;

Proven experience;

Financial capacity; and

Price (comprising of proposed annual lease payments and costs associated with any proposed upgrades to the facilities or infrastructure to be developed at the Shire’s cost).

Further, tenderers were to provide evidence of their financial position. The only tender received on the deadline date was provided by Justin and Belinda Robinson (Tenderers) who are currently operating the Augusta Leisure Centre. The Tender will remain valid and open for acceptance for a minimum period of ninety (90) days from the deadline date being 4 February 2015. The following information details the Tender submitted by the Tenderers: The community benefit of the proposal to Augusta and region Since operating the business the Tenderers have received a large amount of positive feedback from the general community, tourists and other businesses in the region. Benefits to the area include:

Providing an alternative tourist attraction;

Providing local employment opportunities;

Providing affordable family entertainment; and

Providing a venue for events such as children’s birthday parties and discos. Proven experience The Tenderers are confident in their ability to run the centre successfully and have operated the business since the last school holidays. They have indicated that they have worked in collaboration with the current lessee over 3 years conducting school holiday family discos.


32

The Tenderers already have established businesses which include a family day care business and a marriage celebrant business. The Tenderers’ previous relevant experience includes:

Customer service;

Account management;

Occupational health and safety procedures;

Senior first aid certificates;

Safe food handling;

Writing and implementation of policies and procedures;

Police clearances; and

Working with children clearances. Financial capacity The Tenderers have indicated that their two existing businesses are financially capable of covering the running expenses of the Augusta Leisure Centre. The Tenderers have stated that they are able to pay all debts in full and are not currently involved in any litigation. Price The Tenderers are proposing an annual lease payment of $2580. The Tenderers have outlined some plans for minor development at the premises which include:

An area for younger children;

Redesigning unused areas; and

Establishing more garden areas. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Land Administration Act 1997(LAA) Reserve 11533 is vested in the Shire with the power to lease for a maximum period of 21 years. Any lease agreement made over the Reserve is to be submitted to the Department of Lands for approval by the Minister for Lands pursuant to section 18(2) of the LAA. Local Government Act 1995 (LGA) A lease of property vested in the Shire is considered to be a disposition of property for the purposes of section 3.58 of the LGA. Under section 3.58(2)(b) Council has the ability to dispose of property to the person who makes, in the opinion of local government, the most acceptable tender, whether or not it is the highest tender. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) The lease is consistent with goal 4 of the CSP because it encourages a vibrant and diverse economy by allowing a tenant to operate a business from the Reserve. Corporate Business Plan 2014-2018 Goal 4: Vibrant and diverse economy Community Outcome 4: Sustainable economic development Strategic Response: Retain commercial and retail activities through support programs for year-round stability. Service level strategy/plan: Support development of the small business sector in the Shire. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Augusta Townsite Strategy (Strategy) An objective of the Strategy is to support existing and future tourist attractions which cater to the tourist population within the region. Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1) The site is zoned Reserve for Parks and Recreation under LPS1. The lease is consistent with the Reserve purpose because it enables the operation of a recreational business.


33

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Under the current lease the yearly rental was initially set at $2,109.00 subject to an annual rent review based on CPI. The current annual rent payable for 2015 and which has increased according to the rent reviews and CPI is $2279.98. The Tender offers an annual rent of $2,580 which is an increase of $300.02 (13%) from the current rent. The current lease does not require the lessee to pay rates because it provides the following additional term at Item 9 of the Schedule:

During that period of the year that the Premises is open to the public, the Lessee must maintain the female and male ablution facilities adjacent to the leased Land in a clean and tidy condition subject to Lessor providing the necessary cleaning materials and stores for which consideration will be that the Shire will not levy rates for the leased portion.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental As the facility has already been constructed and no further significant developments are proposed, the granting of a new lease will not cause any environmental implications. Social The granting of a new lease will enable a community focussed business to continue operating. The business provides alternative outdoor recreational activities consistent with the Reserve purpose and which provides health and wellbeing benefits for the community. Economic A new lease lends itself to assisting in delivering a diverse economy for the Augusta area. CONCLUSION The Tenderers have satisfied the Selection Criteria under the ‘Request for Tender’ document and, considering that only one tender was received, it is in the community’s interest that Council accepts the Tender given the positive social and economic implications of the business. If Council accepts the Tender the current lease will be assigned to the Tenderers for the remainder of its term. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Determines that the tender offered by Justin and Belinda Robinson as the most acceptable tender

for the lease of the Augusta Leisure Centre in accordance with section 3.58(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995; and


ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS Nil


34

RECOMMENDATION

CR EARL, CR HAYNES That Council: 1. Determines that the tender offered by Justin and Belinda Robinson as the most acceptable

tender for the lease of the Augusta Leisure Centre in accordance with section 3.58(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995; and


AMENDMENT

CR HASTIE, CR SERVENTY OM2015/53 That the words ‘Chief Executive Officer’ are changed to ‘Council’ in part two of the recommendation.

LOST 2/4 CRS EARL, KENNAUGH, HAYNES AND VEITCH VOTED AGAINST THE AMENDMENT

REASON: Cr Hastie voiced his concern that before a legal document is sealed, it should be sighted

and read by Council, as the seal is effectively the signature of Council, and the legal document

therefore becomes its responsibility. He was concerned that if issues are raised in the future, the

Council would be liable, and that it could be viewed as negligent if the lease is progressed before the

Councillors have sighted and read it.

As the amendment was lost, the primary motion was put to the vote.


CR EARL, CR HAYNES OM2015/54 That Council: 1. Determines that the tender offered by Justin and Belinda Robinson as the most acceptable

tender for the lease of the Augusta Leisure Centre in accordance with section 3.58(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995; and


CARRIED 5/1

CR VOTED HASTIE AGAINST THE MOTION

Cr Hastie wanted it recorded that whilst he was in favour of issuing a lease to the Robinsons, he was

unable to support the motion as he has not seen the lease document.


35

11.2.3 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 24 - LOT 2 ASHTON STREET, MARGARET RIVER - FINAL APPROVAL

LOCATION/ADDRESS Lot 2 Ashton Street, Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Ahola Planning / Hulme Developments Pty Ltd FILE REFERENCE LND/24 REPORT AUTHOR Lucy Gouws, Planning Officer AUTHORISING OFFICER Iliya Hastings, Director Sustainable Development

IN BRIEF

The site is zoned rural residential and has previous approval under the Outline Development Plan (ODP) for Ashton Street (2006) to be subdivided into three (3) 1ha rural residential lots. The site has not undergone subdivision and remains as a single lot.

The proposed Amendment and associated Structure Plan seeks to provide for the further subdivision of the site into five (5) 2000m² residential lots and two (2) 1ha rural residential lots that back onto the Margaret River foreshore.

At the Ordinary Council meeting of the 9 July 2014 Council resolved to initiate Scheme Amendment 24 for advertising.

Seven (7) private submissions were received from surrounding landowners. Three (3) submissions of support, three (3) objections and one (1) indifferent. Matters that have arisen have been addressed with some minor modifications to the Structure Plan, which includes a Landscape Regeneration area in the rear (western) portion of the site adjacent to the Margaret River foreshore.

Subject to the modifications described in this report, Amendment 24 and the associated Structure Plan are considered acceptable for final adoption and recommendation of endorsement to the WAPC.

RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Pursuant to the Planning and Development Act, 2005 (as amended) and part 17 (2) of the Town

Planning Regulations (1967) adopts proposed Amendment No. 24 to Local Planning Scheme No. 1 for the purpose of: a) Rezoning portion of Lot 2 Ashton Street, Margaret River, from ‘Rural Residential’ to

‘Residential R5’ and amending the Scheme maps accordingly: and b) Modifying Schedule 15 – SPA 14 associated provisions.

2. Adopts the proposed Structure Plan for Lot 2 Ashton Street, Margaret River, dated 24 February

2015, subject to the following modifications: a) The proposed Structure Plan shall be incorporated into the current Structure Plan for the

broader Ashton Street area. The Structure Plan shall be in the format of the Department of Planning Structure Planning preparation guidelines (August 2012).

b) Incorporating the following provisions into the statutory section of the Structure Plan as provisions for future subdivisions and development: a) All existing notations on the Ashton Street Structure Plan. b) The proposed Landscape regeneration area shall be incorporated and renamed ‘Tree

Planting Area’ as shown on the current Ashton Street Structure Plan. c) At the time of the subdivision landscaping with the Tress Planting Area shall be

implemented by the subdivider. d) Vegetation contained within the Landscape Protection Areas is to be retained, other than

for the creation of accesses arrangements or for fire protection measures. e) At the time subdivision and development the relevant components of the Fire

Management Plan endorsed by the Local Government and the Department of Fire and Emergency Services shall be implemented.


36

3. The following notations shall be included on Ashton Street Structure Plan, specific to for Lot 2: a) Reciprocal rights of access to apply to the battleaxe driveways to Lots 206 and 207. b) Submission of Local Water Management Plan prior to subdivision.

4. Authorises the affixing of the common seal of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River to the adopted Scheme Amendment.

TABLED ITEMS Nil SITE AND SURROUNDS Lot 2 Ashton Street, Margaret River (the Site), is located approximately 1.5km west from the Margaret River Town Centre. The site is 3ha, and undeveloped. The location of the land is shown in Figure 1. The land is accessed from Ashton Street which is bitumen sealed. All lots in the proposal will have direct access from Ashton Street. The land is serviced with reticulated water and power, but not sewer. The terrain of the site falls away from Ashton Street and relatively steeply to the north-west towards the reserve along the edge of the Margaret River. The site is predominantly cleared for grazing, with an area of vegetation (Marri) in the south western portion of the site, and a stand of mature Eucalyptus trees along the eastern side along Ashton Street. LOCATION PLAN

Figure 1. Location Plan Surrounding land is zoned a mixture of rural residential (consisting of lots 1ha or greater) and residential lots averaging 2000m², as shown in Figure 2 below. The area falls within Structure Plan Area 14 ‘SPA14’ and associated endorsed ODP (2006) that allows for the further subdivision of the site to three (3) 1ha rural residential lots.

The Site


37

Figure 2. Existing Zoning Neighbouring Lot 3, Ashton Street (south) is zoned residential and rural residential, as shown in Figure 2. Lot 3 has the ability to be subdivided into six (6) 2000m² residential lots in a battle axe configuration and one (1) rural residential lot that will contain the existing dwelling. Land immediately on the eastern side of Ashton Street is zoned residential with an area set aside for parks and recreation. Land to the north is zoned rural residential, where most lots have been developed with single dwellings. BACKGROUND Council endorsed Amendment 133 to Town Planning Scheme 11, Amendment 16 to Town Planning Scheme 17 and an associated Outline Development Plan in 2006 to facilitate the re-subdivision of 13 special rural (now referred to as rural residential) lots to create a mixture of 2ha rural residential lots and a number of 2000m² residential lots (see Figure 2). The lots on the eastern and southern sides of Ashton Street were generally on higher ground and were considered suitable for higher density, with proposed residential lots ranging from 2,000 – 3,000m². Lots on the western side of Ashton Street where the land is steeper sloping and abuts the Margaret River were considered better suited to larger lots sizes of 2ha or more. Following from the endorsed amendments, subdivision applications for the majority of the lots that were part of the Structure Plan have been approved and implemented. Lot 2, the subject of this report remains a single rural residential lot. PROPOSAL The proposal consists of an amendment to the Scheme and a separate Structure Plan for Lot 2.

The amendment to the Scheme is to rezone the eastern a portion of the site from rural residential to residential R5, providing for five (5) 2000sqm lots in that area, and two (2) rural residential lots on the eastern balance portion.

A Structure Plan has been prepared by the proponent to demonstrate how the land could be subdivided into five (5) R5 residential lots of 2000sqm and two (2) rural residential lots of 1ha.

Lot 2

Lot 3


38

The Structure Plan also identifies a ‘Landscape Protection Area’, from which development is excluded, and a ‘Landscape Regeneration Area’ where replanting and rehabilitation is required.

The draft Structure Plan can be found at Attachment 1. PLANNING FRAMEWORK The following documents set out the planning framework applicable to assessment of the proposal: 1. Statement of Planning Policy No. 6.1 Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge (LNRSPP); 2. Shire of Augusta Margaret River Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1); and 3. Local Planning Strategy (LPS). The Site is identified for ‘Rural Residential’ purposes by both the LNRSPP and the LPS. Both of these documents support the consolidation of land already committed for this purpose, instead of the creation of new Rural Residential areas and consumption of productive agricultural land. The LPS provides that the maximum density of development in the Rural Residential zone should be one lot/dwelling per hectare. In addition, the western portion of the site is located within the ‘National Park Influence Area’ under the LNRSPP where land use should have due regard to the management practices of the National Park and not affect the management regime of the National Park. The Site is also zoned ‘Rural Residential’ in LPS1. Under the general provisions for this zone the minimum lot size is three hectares unless otherwise provided for by way of an endorsed Structure Plan. In this regards, the site falls within the endorsed Structure Plan Are SP14, where the site has already been identified to be subdivided into three (3) lots of approximately 1 ha. CONSULTATION A total of seventeen (17) submissions were received during the advertisement period, seven (7) from private residents and ten (10) from State Government agencies / service providers. Three (3) submissions were from residents supporting the proposal as a ‘logical and inevitable progression’. The three (3) objections are residents’ concerned with matters such as the loss of trees along Ashton Street, future stormwater management and loss of rural setting on the Margaret River foreshore. A full response to these matters can be found at Attachment 2, and in the ‘Officers Comments’ section of this report. Of the government agencies / service providers, all raised no objections or indicated support subject to specific conditions, with the exception of the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) who raised particular comments. DPaW identifies the sites importance from a nature conservation perspective, given the existing remnant vegetation, the location directly abutting the Margaret River foreshore, and the sites close proximity to the Bramley National Park. The biodiversity values associated with the foreshore is considered to be of importance. DPaW raised the following matters:

Revegetation of the Landscape Protection Area identified in the existing ODP (2006)

The future management and treatment of the Landscape Protection Area.

Assessment of existing remnant vegetation.

Preference of a three (3) lot subdivision to reduce overall impacts to the foreshore.

Use of building envelopes. In response, a Revegetation Report, March 2015 has been prepared. The report address the comment presented by DPaW, and provides clear direction on the rehabilitation, revegetation and habitat management of the site over a three (3) year period. The report’s findings and recommendations aim to maximise the conservation and amenity values of the site for the future. It is considered that DPaW’s suggestions to revegetate the 50m Landscape Protection Area (LPA) identified in the ODP (2006) to be not reasonably related to the further subdivision potential proposed for the land adjacent to Ashton Street. The report recommends the introduction of a Landscape Regeneration Zone adjacent to the foreshore. The Landscape Protection Area will consist of an area of approximately 3,990sqm and is proposed to be revegetated with 2400 plants, including 22 locally found native species. The proposed Landscape Regeneration Zone is considered to adequately provide for both a regenerated and revegetated area that will benefit both the site and the foreshore. It is recommended to add an appropriate notation on the Structure Plan that identifies the protection of the existing and future vegetation within both the LZP and the LPA areas.


39

DPaW recommends that the former three (3) Lot subdivision under the ODP (2006) is the preferred option. However, it is worth noting that the ODP allowed for three (3) lots adjacent to the foreshore, and protected only a portion of the remnant vegetation that exists within the site, as shown in Figure 3. Benefits of the proposal include a reduction in the number of lots adjacent to the foreshore, the protection of all remnant vegetation within the site and the retention of the mature Eucalypt trees that line Ashton Street. In regards to the matter of incorporating building envelopes within the Structure Plan, envelopes are not usually applied to land zoned residential, as the necessary provisions of the Residential Design Codes are applied at the development stage. In terms of land zoned rural residential, building envelopes can be applied at the development stage, allowing individual landowners the ability to determine the most appropriate location for development, within setbacks from boundaries and outside of the Landscape Protection areas. This is considered to be the more suitable approach for the development of the two (2) rural residential lots. DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Vegetation Protection / Rehabilitation The consultation process has revealed that surrounding residents value the mature Eucalypts that line the frontage of the site adjacent to Ashton Street. The mature trees contribute to the visual amenity of the streetscape and are valuable in that they soften the shift from residential development through to the rural residential area north of the site. The LPA report recommends that the Eucalypts are to be retained within the defined LPA area, and that Eucalypts west of this area will be removed in order to prevent future spreading and reseeding towards the foreshore. These recommendations are considered to be acceptable, and will allow for the retention of the majority of the Eucalypts. It is acknowledged that some trees will be required to be removed for access arrangements and fire protection measures, but this can be achieved whilst also retaining the majority the vegetation and associated amenity value. Understandably, residents value the rural setting of the foreshore. The proposal presents a reduction in the number of lots adjacent to the foreshore, and the Landscape Protection area protects the

Areas of vegetation not

protected under ODP

Lot 2

Figure 3. Existing ODP (2006)


40

remnant vegetation that links to the foreshore. The site is otherwise clear of vegetation; however the introduction of the Landscape Regeneration Zone adjacent to the foreshore will contribute to the conservation and regeneration of the remnant vegetation within the site. The management and regeneration of this area as outlined in the report (March 2015), and is considered to be acceptable. Modifications: The following notations are recommended to be added to the Structure Plan:

At the time of the subdivision the landscaping within the Landscape Regeneration Zone shall be implemented by the subdivider in accordance with the Revegetation Report dated March 2015.

The vegetation contained within the Landscape Protection area is to be retained unless otherwise for the creation of accesses or for fire protection measures.

Stormwater Management No issues have been raised with the proposal by the Shire’s Infrastructure Development Officer, whom has been involved with previous subdivisions of Lots 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 Ashton Street. The applicants propose changes to the stormwater management arrangements that have been previously developed. It is proposed to manage the stormwater though slow release detention tanks/pit and overland flow to the river. The proposed stormwater management will not require the two (2) existing stormwater easements that traverse Lot 2. A recent Stormwater Management Assessment undertaken as part of the proposal finds that overland flow paths are not formalised, and do not follow the alignment of the easements. Instead, stormwater flows are proposed to be directed to a fire break on the south boundary of the site. The proposed changes to stormwater management are considered to be feasible but will require further refinement through the preparation and submission of a drainage management plan prior to subdivision, and implemented through the subdivision process. Policy PE.54 – Ashton Street Infrastructure Contributions Policy The policy applies to the subdivision within the Ashton Street ODP area and provides for the provision/upgrading of Ashton Street road and kerbing, shared pathway, street lighting, public open space (POS) development, foreshore upgrading, public access way (PAW) upgrading and drainage. It was initially expected that the policy would be reviewed, as reported to Council, at the Ordinary meeting of the 9 July 2014, in the initiation report. Council has adopted Amendment 35 – Developer Contributions and this will be applied to the site at the subdivisions stage. The Developer Contribution will subsequently incorporate and supersede PE.54. Amendment 35 has been designed to establish a clear process of applying developer contributions that will be applied, and calculated on an individual site by site assessment based on the demands that are generated by growth on the infrastructure in that area. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Developer Contributions will be calculated at the time of the subdivision of the site for necessary infrastructure upgrades. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2014-2018 Goal 3: Managing Growth Sustainably Community Outcome: Clearly defined areas for growth and renewal Strategic Response: Implement Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1) Service Level Strategy/Plan: Provide Planning Services SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental An assessment of the environmental features of the site has found that the proposed development can occur without any significant impact. Social The proposed rezoning will allow for more residential development in close proximity to the Margaret River Townsite which provides for a further range of housing options.


41

Economic Essential infrastructure will be provided by the developer. The proposal is consistent with the planning objectives for the area and will add to the number of residential lots available in the development. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Pursuant to the Planning and Development Act, 2005 (as amended) and part 17 (2) of the Town

Planning Regulations (1967) adopts proposed Amendment No. 24 to Local Planning Scheme No. 1 for the purpose of: a) Rezoning portion of Lot 2 Ashton Street, Margaret River, from ‘Rural Residential’ to

‘Residential R5’ and amending the Scheme maps accordingly: and b) Modifying Schedule 15 – SPA 14 associated provisions, by including the following:

Area No. (SPA)

Site Description

Land Use Expectations

Matters to be Addressed in Structure Plans (in addition to clause 6.2.4)

Associated Provisions

14 Ashton Street Lots 1 - 13

Area to be redeveloped into a high standard for rural residential through re-subdivision of existing 3 hectare lots that complements the surrounding land uses, natural character and existing townscapes.

The physical, topographical and environmental characteristics of the land including slope, soil type, vegetation and drainage characteristics and the need to protect such areas as the vegetation corridor along the Margaret River, high erosion areas or areas subject to flooding or inundation.

Existing built development and land uses.

Proposed lot sizes and the location, width and standard of proposed roads and their connection with the road and public recreation network in the locality.

The provision of public open space and drainage reserves and their management to protect the natural qualities of the area.

Where any lots back onto a public road or area of open space the local government will require individual lot access and the standard of fencing deemed compatible with the objectives of protecting visual and landscape

Subdivision and/or development of the area in accordance with the adopted Structure Plan, or a subsequent Structure Plan endorsed by the local government and the Western Australian Planning Commission, in accordance with the process set out in Part 6.2 of the Scheme.

2. Adopts the proposed Structure Plan for Lot 2 Ashton Street, Margaret River, dated 24 February

2015, subject to the following modifications: a) The proposed Structure Plan shall be incorporated into the current Structure Plan for the

broader Ashton Street area. The Structure Plan shall be in the format of the Department of Planning Structure Planning preparation guidelines (August 2012).


42

b) Incorporating the following provisions into the statutory section of the Structure Plan as

provisions for future subdivisions and development: a) All existing notations on the Ashton Street Structure Plan. b) The proposed Landscape regeneration area shall be incorporated and renamed ‘Tree

Planting Area’ as shown on the current Ashton Street Structure Plan. c) At the time of the subdivision landscaping with the Tress Planting Area shall be

implemented by the subdivider. d) Vegetation contained within the Landscape Protection Areas is to be retained, other than

for the creation of accesses arrangements or for fire protection measures. e) At the time subdivision and development the relevant components of the Fire

Management Plan endorsed by the Local Government and the Department of Fire and Emergency Services shall be implemented.

3. The following notations shall be included on Ashton Street Structure Plan, specific to for Lot 2:

a) Reciprocal rights of access to apply to the battleaxe driveways to Lots 206 and 207. b) Submission of Local Water Management Plan prior to subdivision.

4. Authorises the affixing of the common seal of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River to the adopted

Scheme Amendment. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Structure Plan 2. Schedule of Submissions RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR EARL, CR VEITCH OM2015/55 That Council: 1. Pursuant to the Planning and Development Act, 2005 (as amended) and part 17 (2) of the

Town Planning Regulations (1967) adopts proposed Amendment No. 24 to Local Planning Scheme No. 1 for the purpose of: a) Rezoning portion of Lot 2 Ashton Street, Margaret River, from ‘Rural Residential’ to

‘Residential R5’ and amending the Scheme maps accordingly: and b) Modifying Schedule 15 – SPA 14 associated provisions, by including the following:

Area No. (SPA)

Site Description

Land Use Expectations

Matters to be Addressed in Structure Plans (in addition to clause 6.2.4)

Associated Provisions

14 Ashton Street Lots 1 - 13

Area to be redeveloped into a high standard for rural residential through re-subdivision of existing 3 hectare lots that complements the surrounding land uses, natural character and existing townscapes.

The physical, topographical and environmental characteristics of the land including slope, soil type, vegetation and drainage characteristics and the need to protect such areas as the vegetation corridor along the Margaret River, high erosion areas or areas subject to flooding or inundation.

Existing built development and land uses.

Proposed lot sizes and the location, width and standard of proposed roads and their connection

Subdivision and/or development of the area in accordance with the adopted Structure Plan, or a subsequent Structure Plan endorsed by the local government and the Western Australian Planning Commission, in accordance with the process set out in Part 6.2 of the Scheme.


43

with the road and public recreation network in the locality.

The provision of public open space and drainage reserves and their management to protect the natural qualities of the area.

Where any lots back onto a public road or area of open space the local government will require individual lot access and the standard of fencing deemed compatible with the objectives of protecting visual and landscape

2. Adopts the proposed Structure Plan for Lot 2 Ashton Street, Margaret River, dated 24

February 2015, subject to the following modifications: a) The proposed Structure Plan shall be incorporated into the current Structure Plan for

the broader Ashton Street area. The Structure Plan shall be in the format of the Department of Planning Structure Planning preparation guidelines (August 2012).

b) Incorporating the following provisions into the statutory section of the Structure Plan

as provisions for future subdivisions and development: a) All existing notations on the Ashton Street Structure Plan. b) The proposed Landscape regeneration area shall be incorporated and renamed

‘Tree Planting Area’ as shown on the current Ashton Street Structure Plan. c) At the time of the subdivision landscaping with the Tress Planting Area shall be

implemented by the subdivider. d) Vegetation contained within the Landscape Protection Areas is to be retained,

other than for the creation of accesses arrangements or for fire protection measures.

e) At the time subdivision and development the relevant components of the Fire Management Plan endorsed by the Local Government and the Department of Fire and Emergency Services shall be implemented.

3. The following notations shall be included on Ashton Street Structure Plan, specific to for

Lot 2: a) Reciprocal rights of access to apply to the battleaxe driveways to Lots 206 and 207. b) Submission of Local Water Management Plan prior to subdivision.

4. Authorises the affixing of the common seal of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River to the

adopted Scheme Amendment. CARRIED 6/0


44

11.3 Infrastructure Services


45

11.3. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

Nil


46

11.4 Corporate and Community

Services


47

11.4. CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES 11.4.1 COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN 2033 (REVIEWED 2015)

LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE COR/353 REPORT AUTHOR Kirstie Kitis, Corporate Planner AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services

IN BRIEF

Council adopted the Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) at the Ordinary Council Meeting (OM) of 26 February 2013.

The CSP has been prepared in accordance with the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, section 5.56(19BA) and the Department of Local Government and Communities’ (DLGC) Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework.

The revised Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, section 5.56(19CA) states requirements and specifies that community plans be reviewed at least every four years. In addition to this statutory requirement, the DLGC’s Advisory Standard also supports the completion of a biennial desktop review.

At OM 11 February 2015, Council adopted the recommendation to consult with the community on the proposed minor changes to the CSP for a period of 21 days.

The Shire received two public comments via the online community pulse survey. This together with a desktop review and Shire staff input has constituted changes to the review document.

RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the Community Strategic Plan 2033 (Reviewed 2015) as shown in Attachment 1.

LOCATION PLAN N/A TABLED ITEMS T/A BACKGROUND In alignment with the DLGCs Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework the Shire developed a Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) in consultation with Council, community and stakeholders. Following a community consultation process in 2012, Council adopted its first CSP at OM 26 February 2013. The plan drives all services and activities delivered by the Shire, providing high level direction and aspirational targets for achievement over the next 20 years. The CSP outlines the goals that will be achieved through the strategies and actions that are provided in the Corporate Business Plan. A desktop review of the CSP was recently conducted by the Shire, which considered the ongoing relevance of the following:

Vision and Mission

Values

Outcomes, Strategies, Services and Key Projects for each goal

Strategic Key Performance Indicators In addition to reviewing the strategic components of the plan, consideration was also given to grammatical errors and administrative updates within the plan. All amendments were highlighted in a review document and presented to Council for consideration to open the review document to public


48

comment for a period of 21 days. There were two comments received supporting the document as a reflection of community needs that provides overall direction. The desktop review process indicated that strategic components of the plan remained highly relevant to the Shire and were recently translated into projects and actions through the Corporate Business Plan 2014-2018, adopted by Council at OM 23 August 2014. The desktop review process has provided the Shire with the opportunity to assess appropriateness and relevance of its high-level strategic direction. The Shire seeks to retain the overall strategic direction of the plan. Minor amendments: Changes of a minor nature and not considered to be altering the strategic direction of the Shire included:

New Shire President elected 2012

An estimated population growth increase of 2.5%. A 0.5% growth increase since the ABS Census statistics was released in 2011.

It is recommended that Council adopts the new Community Strategic Plan 2033 (Reviewed 2015) with knowledge that a full comprehensive review of the document will occur in the 2016-17 financial year. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Public comment was invited via an advertisement in a local newspaper and through the Community Update Page. The Shire’s Community Pulse online survey also invited public consultation via a short survey. There were two comments received supporting the document as a reflection of community needs that provides overall direction. Internal Consultation Executive Leadership Team Business Unit Managers Shire staff DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The Community Strategic Plan 2033 minor review was the first review under the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework since the plan was first developed in 2013. Staff have been guided in the consultation process to assess relevance and alignment of the high level strategic nature of the plan to everyday operational activities. Managers and Directors had the opportunity to review the long term vision of the Shire in alignment to the Plan. This reflective process has been an opportunity for staff to embrace the vision, mission and values of the Shire and necessary achievements to meet outlined goals. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The Community Strategic Plan 2033 has been prepared in accordance with the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, section 5.56(19BA) and the Department of Local Government and Communities’ (DLGC) Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework. The revised Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, section 5.56(19CA) states requirements and specifies that community plans be reviewed at least every four years. In addition to this statutory requirement, the DLGC’s Advisory Standard also supports the completion of a biennial desktop review. STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2014-2018 Goal 5: Effective Leadership and Governance Community Outcome 2: Effective strategy, planning and asset management Strategic Response: Develop and maintain the Community Strategic Plan that sets long term directions and goals for the future of the Shire


49

PLANNING FRAMEWORK N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no identified financial implications associated with the desktop review process. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental The Community Strategic Plan sets the environmental strategic direction for the Shire until 2033. The review has not revealed any significant changes to the Shire’s environmental future. Social The Community Strategic Plan fosters an identification and integration of social advancement. Economic The Community Strategic Plan fosters an identification and integration of economic prosperity which is enacted through the Corporate and Operational Plans. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council adopts the Community Strategic Plan 2033 (Reviewed 2015) as shown in Attachment 1. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT N/A ATTACHMENTS 1. Community Strategic Plan 2033 (Reviewed 2015) RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR KENNAUGH, CR HASTIE OM2015/56 That Council adopts the Community Strategic Plan 2033 (Reviewed 2015) as shown in Attachment 1.

CARRIED 6/0


50

11.4.2 LIST OF PAYMENTS FOR FEBRUARY 2015

LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/42 REPORT AUTHOR Jaye Lanzini, Finance Officer Accounts Payable AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services

Director Corporate and Community Services discloses an interest in the credit card expenses which are certified by the Chief Executive Officer. IN BRIEF It is a requirement of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 that payments made under delegated authority by the CEO are reported to Council on a monthly basis showing details of each account paid since the last such list was prepared. RECOMMENDATION That Council notes the February 2015 List of Payments of $2,103,174.31 as certified as correct by the Director Corporate and Community Services.

LOCATION PLAN N/A TABLED ITEMS N/A BACKGROUND Where Council has delegated authority to the CEO to make payments from the Shire’s bank accounts then under Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Regulation 13 (1) a list of such payments is to be prepared each month for noting by Council. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Nil Internal Consultation Nil DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS Table 1 below provides a summary of the payments made and Table 2 makes comparison between payments for the 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial years. The List of Payments attachment provides further details as required under Regulation 13 (1). These details are as follows.

(a) The payee’s name; (b) The amount of the payment; (c) The date of the payment; and (d) Sufficient information to identify the transaction.

In order to improve operational efficiency and reduce costs the Shire’s Finance team continually liaise with creditors paid by cheque to encourage them to switch to EFT.


51

TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF PAYMENTS MADE IN THE MONTH

Mode of Payment Cheque / EFT

Numbers Sub-Total Amount

Cheques (includes reimbursement of credit cards)

41780-41803 $22,820.69 $22,820.69

EFT 47050- 47403 $1,355,377.78

Direct Debits $724,975.84 $2,080,353.62

TOTAL $2,103,174.31

TABLE 2 – COMPARISON WITH PRIOR YEAR OF PAYMENTS

MONTH CHEQUES EFT TOTAL PMTS CHEQUES EFT TOTAL PMTS

2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2014/15 2014/15

JULY $33,585.55 $3,403,267.39 $3,436,852.94 $27,627.52 $3,382,878.99 $3,410,506.51

AUGUST $13,478.79 $8,251,231.55 $8,264,710.34 $24,371.61 $1,881,379.90 $1,905,751.51

SEPTEMBER $24,116.63 $8,549,073.97 $8,573,190.60 $29,105.88 $10,523,000.04 $10,552,105.92

OCTOBER $22,159.85 $3,536,806.15 $3,558,966.00 $16,883.83 $3,009,076.16 $3,025,959.99

NOVEMBER $21,331.92 $3,420,684.44 $3,442,016.36 $37,159.65 $2,423,568.91 $2,460,728.56

DECEMBER $21,495.36 $4,327,763.54 $4,349,258.90 $28,403.96 $3,158,418.92 $3,186,822.88

JANUARY $19,932.71 $2,466,975.07 $2,486,907.78 $27,233.40 $2,058,456.34 $2,085,689.74

FEBRUARY $30,263.36 $8,776,712.18 $8,806,975.54 $22,820.69 $2,080,353.62 $2,103,174.31

MARCH $23,803.70 $2,679,343.95 $2,703,147.65

APRIL $23,495.00 $3,181,582.86 $3,205,077.86

MAY $29,084.59 $3,386,392.80 $3,415,477.39

JUNE $44,011.46 $2,830,518.20 $2,874,529.66

$306,758.92 $54,810,352.10 $55,177,111.02 $190,785.85 $26,436,779.26 $26,627,565.11

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Local Government Act 1995, s 6.10, and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, r 13 STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2014-2018 Goal 5: Effective leadership and governance Community Outcome 2: Effective strategy, planning and asset management Strategic Response: Ensure the Shire’s financial performance is well managed and leads to a strong financial position Service level strategy/plan: Continue to monitor and analyse monthly, year to date and annual financial performance PLANNING FRAMEWORK N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental N/A


52

Social N/A Economic N/A VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council notes the February 2015 List of Payments of $2,103,174.31 as certified as correct by the Director Corporate and Community Services. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT N/A ATTACHMENTS 1. List of Payments for February 2015 RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR VEITCH, CR EARL OM2015/57 That Council notes the February 2015 List of Payments of $2,103,174.31 as certified as correct by the Director Corporate and Community Services.

CARRIED 6/0


53

11.4.3 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENT REPORT - FEBRUARY 2015

LOCATION/ADDRESS Shire of Augusta Margaret River APPLICANT/LANDOWNER Shire of Augusta Margaret River FILE REFERENCE FIN/14 REPORT AUTHOR Andrew Ross, Manager Finance AUTHORISING OFFICER Annie Riordan, Director Corporate and Community Services

IN BRIEF

The monthly financial activity statement report is a standard financial reporting item prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

Council is to consider the financial results for the period ending 28 February 2015. RECOMMENDATION That Council receives the Monthly Financial Report – February 2015 in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

LOCATION PLAN Nil TABLED ITEMS Nil BACKGROUND In accordance with Financial Management Regulation 34 the Shire is to prepare each month a Statement of Financial Activity reporting on the sources and applications of funds, as set out in the annual budget under Financial Management Regulation (1) (d), for that month with the following details:

(a) annual budget estimates; (b) budget estimates to the end of the month to which the statement relates; (c) actual amounts of expenditure, revenue and income to the end of the month to which the

statement relates; (d) material variances between the comparable amounts referred to in (b) and (c); and (e) net current assets at the end of the month to which the statement relates.

Also under Financial Management Regulation 34(5) Council are to adopt each year a material variance threshold. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 23 July 2014 (OM2014/163) Council adopted a monthly variance for reporting of material variances, where financial activity is greater than 10% and $10,000. CONSULTATION AND ADVICE External Consultation Nil Internal Consultation Business unit managers were provided the draft monthly financial reports for their business units and have provided their comments on variances greater than 10% and $10,000.


54

DISCUSSION / OFFICER COMMENTS The commentary contained in the body of this report is in line with Financial Management Regulation (2) (b) that requires commentary on material variances to the Statement of Financial Activity at the nature/type, program or business unit level. Budget variances have been calculated against the amended budget for 2014-15 which was approved by Council at their meeting on 25 February 2015. The Statement of Financial Activity shows a year to date actual closing position at 28 February of $13.459 million which was higher than the expected year to date budgeted position of $8.905 million. The main reasons for the variation to Budget are:

Operating expenditure on a year to date basis is $2.558 million or 12% below budget (last month 7%) and is primarily a result of materials expenditure being $1.813 million under budget and employee expenses being $0.632 million under budget;

Operating revenue is $0.183 million or only 0.6% above budget (last month 10%) and is primarily due to due to planning and building activity continuing to generate more fees and charges than were budgeted, interest on investments and increased income for services and facility usage;

Year to date capital expenditure of $4.088 million (after adjusting for the initial recognition of gravel, limesand and grit stocks) was lower than the $7.982 million anticipated in the budget and is primarily a result of projects not commencing in accordance with Budget profiling; and

Grants for capital works are $1.164 million under budget as payment of the grant approved by Lotterywest for Cultural Centre equipment will not be received until project completion and a grant of $1,000,000 was budgeted for the Cultural Centre redevelopment project but is unlikely to occur in this financial year.

Materials expenditure and budgets were compared to determine the main contributors to the year to date under budget result. Expenditure on projects, services and maintenance are not achieving budget profiling expectations for a number of business units. As a contrast, only 4 business units are recording over budget materials expenditure and in total they are only $14,360 over budget. Expectations at mid-year budget review were that budget forecasts would be achieved, therefore the cause of the majority of the under budget variances are timing matters. The following table shows the largest under budget materials variances that were recorded for business units.

Business Unit YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Variance

Aquatics Centre 93,880 32,367 61,513

Asset Services 267,767 90,524 177,243

Community Buildings 829,602 625,593 204,009

Community Development 164,835 64,218 100,617

Fire Prevention 162,774 78,541 84,233

Information Technology 560,271 489,660 70,611

Maintenance 1,612,159 1,334,759 277,400

Parks and Gardens 837,920 767,250 70,670

Town Planning 207,440 115,403 92,037

Waste Services 987,726 826,620 161,106

5,724,374 4,424,935 1,299,439

Employee expenses expenditure and budgets were also compared and it was determined all business units are under budget primarily due to the budget assumptions of full staffing for a full year. Staff vacancies and leave have resulted in lower actual employee costs. Capital expenditure of $0.687 million during the month included:

$13,158 to purchase and install CCTV equipment at the Cowaramup skatepark;

$14,781 for various waste service works;

$7,020 on various community buildings;

$29,010 on the predominantly grant funded works at the Cultural Centre to replace the flytower and make other improvements;

$13,812 on various parks and gardens infrastructure projects;

$7,000 on the Ellis Street boat ramp finger jetty and trailer parking design;


55

$602,261 on various road projects including $112,448 on infrastructure upgrades and was primarily works for Treeton Road, John Archibald Drive and Beech Drive intersection, various drainage projects, Bovell Avenue footpath and Rails to Trails and $489,813 on various infrastructure renewal projects including rural reseals, Leeuwin Road, gravel resheeting, gravel road shouldering, Wallcliffe Road path and kerb works.

Financial performance against budget is shown in the following charts. It should be noted the budget used for comparison from February to June is the revised budget based on the results of the mid-year budget review.

-

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

Liquidity Comparison

2014/15 14/15 Budget 2012/13 2013/14

-

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

Operating Revenue - YTD Budget vs Actual

2013-14 Actual 2014-15 Budget 2014-15 Actual


56

Following is the Statement of Financial Activity for the year ending 28 February 2015.

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

Non Operating Revenue - YTD Budget vs Actual


-

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

Operating Expenditure - YTD Budget vs Actual


-

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

Capital Expenditure - YTD Budget vs Actual



57

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA - MARGARET RIVER

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY

FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 28 February 2015BUSINESS UNITS 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 YTD

Amended Month of YTD YTD Variance

Budget Feb Budget Actual >10% & Comments

$ $ $ $ >$10,000

OPERATING REVENUES

Rates 17,679,025 16,696 17,633,775 17,693,924 0

General Financing 1,827,764 390,408 1,321,963 1,427,917 0

Members of Council 0 0 0 3,770 0

Chief Executive Officer 13,000 0 13,000 18,510 0

Director Corporate & Community 18,340 800 15,840 14,421 0

Director Sustainable Development 0 0 0 4,750 0

Director Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0

Finance 6,000 0 6,000 6,288 0

Records 0 0 0 34 0

Customer and Information Services 5,000 75 5,000 4,878 0

Customer Relations 203,000 3,156 117,000 108,078 0

Information Comm. Technology 0 0 0 562 0

Human Resources 32,446 0 32,446 32,446 0

Community Development 61,800 6,387 56,400 40,400 (16,000) Timing: Project grants

Emergency and Fire Services 380,484 57,426 289,589 297,807 0

Rangers 178,432 19,902 136,008 137,709 0

Libraries 32,200 3,790 23,400 22,836 0

Health 83,441 3,247 75,514 76,063 0

Child Care 264,180 32,127 188,280 216,308 28,028 Perm: Grant and usage fees

Waste Services 4,017,286 50,523 3,848,842 3,873,433 0

Town Planning 376,000 22,252 274,000 281,508 0

Community Buildings 150,000 (633) 130,000 134,737 0

MR Recreation Centre 937,395 75,600 650,395 602,030 0

Cultural Centre 9,400 0 3,400 3,562 0

Augusta Recreation Centre 34,000 3,342 23,600 19,868 0

Gloucester Park 57,200 5,199 36,800 52,213 15,413 Timing: Fees invoiced earlier than expected

Beach Lifeguards 0 0 0 0 0

Parks and Gardens 5,000 0 5,000 4,631 0

Asset Services 110,070 26,024 69,100 60,532 0

Construction 0 0 0 0 0

Maintenance 1,225,384 7,921 1,225,384 1,258,586 0

Plant Program 133,744 20,369 133,744 43,472 (90,272) Timing: Vehicle disposals

Caravan Parks 1,829,340 270,737 1,353,840 1,402,860 0

Building Control 235,000 19,604 166,000 172,040 0

Works Overheads 0 240 0 240 0

Plant Operation Costs 0 0 0 0 0

Other Property and Services 701,300 7,100 681,300 681,984 0

TOTAL REVENUES 30,606,231 1,042,292 28,515,620 28,698,397 182,777

OPERATING EXPENSES

Revenue (461,022) (18,404) (195,161) (181,604) 0

General Financing (620,727) (10,517) (358,778) (334,565) 0

Members of Council (291,795) (17,472) (193,547) (182,111) 0

Chief Executive Officer (959,937) (62,631) (667,079) (607,498) 0

Director Corporate & Community (568,421) (44,840) (419,761) (344,333) 75,428 Timing: Projects

Director Sustainable Development (603,418) (37,211) (404,377) (352,656) 51,721 Timing: Labour costs and projects

Director Infrastructure (293,217) (23,121) (192,149) (179,726) 0

Finance (879,740) (25,733) (737,342) (723,158) 0

Records (161,160) (11,197) (105,466) (93,119) 12,347 Timing: Labour costs

Customer and Information Services (380,767) (35,966) (254,685) (229,501) 25,184 Timing: Utilities and consumables

Customer Relations (452,992) (32,140) (302,732) (270,112) 32,620 Timing : Vehicle registration plate project

Information Comm. Technology (932,937) (39,710) (716,845) (648,012) 68,833 Timing: Projects

Human Resources (650,209) (51,060) (425,963) (387,416) 0

Community Development (526,112) (31,191) (392,023) (288,606) 103,417 Timing: Projects

Emergency and Fire Services (783,780) (52,600) (580,202) (490,332) 89,870 Perm: Contract services and lower depreciation

Rangers (615,870) (41,058) (410,367) (353,272) 57,096 Timing: Labour costs (allowances), consumables

Libraries (811,201) (58,489) (549,948) (485,502) 64,446 Timing: Labour costs and stock purchases

Health (549,004) (34,626) (359,900) (316,585) 43,315 Timing: Labour costs (leave) & projects

Child Care (305,617) (21,975) (207,479) (177,545) 29,934 Timing: Building maintenance, contract services

Waste Services (2,224,580) (153,188) (1,531,618) (1,280,420) 251,198 Timing: Commencement of projects

Town Planning (1,074,158) (72,917) (748,493) (610,015) 138,478 Timing: Labour costs & projects

Community Buildings (2,131,843) (148,801) (1,437,771) (1,233,443) 204,328 Timing: Projects

MR Recreation Centre (2,173,633) (143,073) (1,463,025) (1,240,067) 222,958 Timing: Labour costs & building maintenance

Cultural Centre (366,200) (8,598) (335,850) (332,944) 0

Augusta Recreation Centre (106,582) (2,594) (77,809) (36,381) 41,428 Timing: Labour, building maintenance, depreciation

Gloucester Park (221,550) (15,293) (137,950) (146,211) 0

Beach Lifeguards (138,527) (15,824) (98,229) (55,949) 42,280 Timing: Labour budget profile should be seasonal

Parks and Gardens (2,013,509) (195,023) (1,328,619) (1,247,765) 0

Asset Services (1,235,652) (71,673) (817,497) (605,391) 212,106 Timing: Labour costs and projects

Construction 0 0 0 0 0

Maintenance (7,496,154) (517,318) (5,093,415) (4,771,155) 0

Plant Program (49,368) (1,831) (44,368) (21,211) 23,157 Timing: Vehicle disposals

Caravan Parks (1,201,632) (153,931) (767,482) (721,467) 0

Building Control (226,074) (15,325) (151,275) (124,501) 26,774 Timing: Labour costs

Works Overheads (75,626) 37,265 (40,422) (166,939) (126,517) Timing: Under recovery

Plant Operation Costs 139,653 77,123 108,780 336,549 227,769 Timing: Over recovery

Other Property and Services (433,066) 725 (403,066) (380,835) 0

TOTAL EXPENSES (31,876,426) (2,050,220) (21,841,913) (19,283,797) 2,558,116

NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (1,270,195) (1,007,927) 6,673,707 9,414,600 2,740,893


58

Investments At 28 February 2015 the Shire’s cash on hand, deposits and investments totalled $19,381,100 and total Shire investment interest earned for the month was $47,586. Actual interest earned for the year to date of $370,951 exceeds the year to date budget of $295,000.

Term Deposits – Cash Management At the end of February the Shire had the following short-term facilities (term deposits).

Term Days Maturity Institution (ADI) Principal $

Interest Rate Interest $

90 11/3/15 Bankwest 1,000,000 3.40% 8,384

181 16/3/15 Adelaide Bendigo Bank 1,000,000 3.40% 16,860

182 16/3/15 National Australia Bank 3,000,000 3.60% 53,852

90 16/3/15 Members Equity Bank 1,000,000 3.35% 8,352

273 16/6/15 AMP Bank 1,000,000 3.50% 26,178

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA - MARGARET RIVER

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY

FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 28 February 2015BUSINESS UNITS 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 2014-15 YTD

Amended Month of YTD YTD Variance

Budget Feb Budget Actual >10% & Comments

$ $ $ $ >$10,000

NON OPERATING GRANTS & CONTRIBUTIONS

Emergency and Fire Services 305,152 0 305,152 283,403 0

Town Planning 0 0 0 0

Community Buildings 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 0 (1,000,000) Perm: Possible grant for Cultural Centre project

Cultural Centre 185,500 0 185,500 0 (185,500) Timing: Grant approved, not yet received

Parks and Gardens 124,400 124,400 124,400 124,400 0

Asset Services 37,125 0 0 0 0

Construction 1,540,342 301,252 1,316,500 1,359,570 0

Caravan Parks 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL NON OPERATING REVENUES 3,192,519 425,652 2,931,552 1,767,373 (1,164,179)

NET RESULT 1,922,324 (582,276) 9,605,259 11,181,973 1,576,714

ADJUSTMENTS FOR NON-CASH

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE

Add back Depreciation 7,021,455 (529,745) 4,664,567 4,605,528 0

Add back (Profit)/Loss Asset Disposal (104,376) 20,369 (104,376) (36,127) 68,249 Timing: Asset disposals

Add back Movement in Provisions,etc 0 0 0 0 0

6,917,079 (509,376) 4,560,191 4,569,401 9,210

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

Purchase Land Held for Resale 0 0 0 0 0

Purchase Land and Buildings (2,746,749) (7,020) (1,596,249) (396,759) 1,199,490 Timing: project delays

Purchase Infrastructure Assets - Other (1,652,520) (35,593) (1,399,020) (833,702) 565,318 Timing: Waste Services projects

Purchase Infrastructure Assets - Roads (5,435,229) (602,261) (3,749,397) (1,949,839) 1,799,558 Timing: Works programme recently commenced

Purchase Plant and Equipment (1,452,966) (42,475) (1,200,634) (598,644) 601,990 Timing: Budget profile of vehicle changeovers

Purchase Furniture and Equipment (27,500) 0 (37,000) (16,110) 20,890 Timing: budget profile of purchases

Repayment of Debentures (581,452) (16,856) (331,671) (307,311) 0

Advances to Community Groups (12,768) (12,768) (12,768) (12,768) 0

Transfers to Cash Reserves (2,863,691) (2,456,005) (2,863,691) (2,594,308) 269,383 Timing: transactions not yet processed

(14,772,875) (3,172,978) (11,190,430) (6,709,441) 4,480,989

CAPITAL REVENUE

Proceeds from Disposal of Assets 315,319 50,000 315,319 130,658 (184,661) Timing: Sale of vehicles

Proceeds from Disposal of Investments 0 0 0 0 0

Proceeds from Self-Supporting Loan 13,599 12,768 9,759 9,759 0

Proceeds from New Loan 0 0 0 0 0

Transfers from Cash Reserves 3,171,287 1,843,603 3,171,287 1,843,603 (1,327,684) Timing: Transfers to be processed when required

3,500,205 1,906,371 3,496,365 1,984,020 (1,512,345)

SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) JULY 1 B/FWD 2,433,267 2,433,267 2,433,267 0 Perm: Opening surplus larger than expected

SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) C/FWD (0) (2,358,259) 8,904,652 13,459,220 4,554,568


59


182 17/8/15 Bankwest 4,000,000 3.05% 60,833


15,000,000 280,907

Three Term Deposits matured in February. A $2 million investment with NAB was rolled over for 6 months at 3.45%, a $3 million investment with Bankwest was increased to $4 million and invested for 6 months at 3.05%. The $1 million investment with Bank of Queensland also matured but was rolled over into the Bankwest investment. The Reserve Bank’s decision to lower the cash rate to 2.25% on 3 February 2015 resulted in lower interest rate yields for cash based investments. The average rate of interest to be paid on all of the term deposits has reduced to 3.43% from 3.48%.

Overnight cash facility As a result of Supertowns the Shire has an overnight cash deposit facility with WATC that has a balance of $445,400 including interest earned. $760 interest was earned for the month of February. The OCDF and all interest earned is quarantined for Supertown projects.

A1+ NAB 47%

A1+ Bankwest 33%

A1 - AMP Bank 7%

A2 - Bendigo & ME Banks

13%

Portfolio Diversity

Up to 30days

60 days 90 days 120 days 150 days 180 days 210 days 240 days 270 days

A1+ 4,000,0 2,000,0 4,000,0 2,000,0

A1 1,000,0

A2 2,000,0

- 500,000

1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000

Inve

stm

en

t A

mo

un

t ($

's)

Investment Maturity Timing


60

Held for Trading CDOs The Shire no longer has any CDOs in its investment portfolio. The class action for these CDOs is still in progress and if successful is anticipated to recover a portion of the total loss on this portfolio of $404,547.

In-Kind Support In-Kind support and fee waivers as at 28 February 2015 totalled $11,956 and included $10,400 of fees waived by Council for the Augusta Adventure Race and the Drug Aware Surf Pro and $1,556 of other fees waived under delegation. In addition $2,200 was provided in sponsorships for sports representatives. Reserves Movement to reserves at this stage represent transfers agreed to as part of the mid-year budget review and interest earned on reserve funds for the year to date. Budgeted transfers to and from reserves will occur progressively through the year. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS As per Financial Management Regulation 34 the Shire is to prepare each month a Statement of Financial Activity reporting on the sources and applications of funds, as set out in the annual budget under Financial Management Regulation 22(1) (d). STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY IMPLICATIONS Community Strategic Plan 2033 (CSP) Corporate Business Plan 2014-2018 Goal 5: Effective leadership and governance Community Outcome 2: Effective strategy, planning and asset management Strategic Response: Ensure the Shire’s financial performance is well managed and leads to a strong financial position PLANNING FRAMEWORK Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The overall financial performance of the Shire is as summarised in this report. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS Environmental Nil Social Nil Economic As stated in the report VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority RECOMMENDATION That Council receives the Monthly Financial Report – February 2015 in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. ADVICE TO APPLICANT / PROPONENT Nil ATTACHMENTS 1. Monthly Financial Report consisting of:

a) Notes to and forming part of the Statement of Financial Activity b) Financial Reports by Business Units


61

RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION

CR VEITCH, CR EARL OM2015/58 That Council receives the Monthly Financial Report – February 2015 in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

CARRIED 6/0


62

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil

13. MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AT NEXT MEETING

Nil

14. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE

14.1. MEMBERS

Nil

14.2. CEO

Nil

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

Nil

16. CLOSURE OF MEETING

The Deputy Shire President thanked all in attendance and closed the meeting at 6.10pm.

ordinary council - shire of augusta-margaret river...that council receives the elva street footpath...

Documents