table of contents 1. attendances & apologies …€¦ · · 2013-04-09rezoning of portion of...

Minutes – Ordinary Council Meeting 11 March 2013

E13/1083

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ATTENDANCES & APOLOGIES (including Leave of Absence): ...................... 2

2. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE: .......... 2

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME: .................................................................................. 8

4. PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME: ............................................................................. 11

5. PETITIONS & DEPUTATIONS: .......................................................................... 13

6. PRESIDENT’S REPORT: ................................................................................... 13

7. DECLARATION OF COUNCILLORS AND OFFICERS INTEREST: .................. 13

8. RECEIPTS OF MINUTES OR REPORTS AND CONSIDERATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:...................................................................................... 14

9. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: .......................................... 15

OCM156/03/13 PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE - LOT 12 JARRAHDALE ROAD, JARRAHDALE (SJ1076) .................................................................... 15

OCM157/03/13 FINAL ADOPTION OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 34 – PLACEMENT OF FILL IN NON-URBAN AREAS (SJ1115) ...................................... 18

OCM158/03/13 FINAL ADOPTION OF SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 159 – REZONE PORTION LOT 81, LOTS 210 and 228 COCKRAM STREET AND LOTS 87 AND 88 MUNDIJONG ROAD, INCLUDING THE SECTION OF UNNAMED ROAD RESERVE SOUTH OF COCKRAM STREET ABUTTING LOT 81, MUNDIJONG (SJ151) ....................................... 20

OCM159/03/13 FINAL ADOPTION OF SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 172 – REZONING OF PORTION OF LOT 3 KILN ROAD, CARDUP FROM ‘RURAL’ TO ‘SPECIAL USE – EXTRACTION/STORAGE SHALE & CLAY’ (SJ614) ................................................................................... 25

OCM160/03/13 FINAL ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT NO. 180 – REZONING FROM TIMBER MANUFACTURE TO TIMBER MANUFACTURE AND CONCRETE CASTING - LOT 60 (#394) ROBERTSON ROAD, CARDUP (SJ1408) ............................................................................ 33

OCM161/03/13 WEST MUNDIJONG INDUSTRIAL AREA - DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN AND METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT (SJ1392-02) ....................................................................................... 39

OCM162/03/13 BUDGET REVIEW 2012/2013 (SJ1080) ............................................ 47

10. URGENT BUSINESS: ........................................................................................ 48

11. COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: ............. 49

12. CLOSURE: ......................................................................................................... 49


E13/1083

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 6 PATERSON STREET, MUNDIJONG ON MONDAY, 11 MARCH 2013. THE SHIRE PRESIDENT DECLARED THE MEETING OPEN AT 7.02PM AND WELCOMED COUNCILLORS, STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE GALLERY. 1. ATTENDANCES & APOLOGIES (including Leave of Absence): IN ATTENDANCE: COUNCILLORS: B Moore ........................................................... Presiding Member D Atwell J Kirkpatrick

S Piipponen M Ricketts B Urban G Wilson OFFICERS: Mr R Gorbunow .................................... Acting Chief Executive Officer Mr B Gleeson ...................................... Director Development Services Mr A Hart Director Corporate Services/Strategic Community Planning Mr U Striepe ............................................. Acting Director Engineering Ms P Kursar .............................................................. Minute Secretary APOLOGIES: Nil OBSERVER: Ms L Jones ............................... Agenda and Minutes Officer Members of the Public - 21 Members of the Press - 1

2. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE:

David Houseman - 17 Clifton Street, Byford

Thank you for keeping your word in regards to using the patching truck on the laneway within the timeframe that you stated.

Q1 What progress has been made with regards to naming the said laneway?

A1 The Shire President responded that the naming of the laneway will take some time

as the land has to be acquired and a list of names forwarded to the Geographic Names Committee.

Shire Officers are currently in discussion with a consultant to assist the Shire in all

matters to do with the laneways in Byford including their naming. Q2 Will the Shire please erect a no through road sign at the end of the laneway? This

will alert motorists of the fact and will stop frustrated ones from reversing out, often at speed and degrading the surface.

A2 The Shire will install a no through way sign. Q3 Also will the Shire please consider installing a post to be offset with the existing

one in order to prevent trail bike riders using the laneway as an access point to the town hall park? This method will still easily allow pedestrian access through the laneway as well as ensuring safety to users of the park and the laneway.


E13/1083

A3 The suggested method will prevent some of the disabled from using the laneway. It is suggested to install a symbolic no motorcycle sign.

Jan Star – 230 Jarrahdale Road, Jarrahdale

While strongly opposing this development I commend the recommendation requiring vegetation planting to screen the site. If the proponents had complied with the original conditions on the pine plantation DA this would already have existed and they would not have to wait. Extending the required planting along Jarrahdale Road would help those living opposite this degrading property. Ensuring a time delay while vegetation gets established also means the fill could also be used as Mundijong develops which would accord with Council’s sustainability aspirations as it is much closer (less greenhouse gas, traffic etc). Note this condition will probably be appealed! If Councillors had visited the site or passed it on Australia Day, as the celebrations were next door, they would have noticed it is very heavily infested with Cotton Weed which within the next month or so will seed and infect the surrounding areas as it is wind blown. Q1 If the landowners cannot fulfil their legal responsibility to control this declared

weed what regard are they going to have for Council conditions? There is an ambiguity in the proponent’s reference to the word ‘site’ – sometimes the excavation site – sometimes the whole site (lots 4-7) and I presume that Condition 29 applies to the whole site but can something be done immediately?

A1 A letter was sent to the landowner on 23 January 2013 requiring them to manage

the weeds on the property (declared weed species) under State Government legislation.

Q2 Given the land speculative approach of the proponents/owners can Council be

sure this whole site is not turned into a quarry for fill and gravel over time, and or urban development?

A2 Council’s draft Rural Land Strategy identifies this site as Landscape – Scarp (no

further subdivision). Q3 The proponent’s documentation refers to “interim rural” and elsewhere “earmarked

for future urban development” (by whom?) when arguing the resource should be used before it is ‘sterilised’ by future development, I note the DA and Extractive Industry Licence applies to the whole site in approvals A and B and there is an extra approval C that seems to have no purpose and only has one condition. Surely the Extractive Industry Licence should only apply to the lots containing the proposed sand pit. Is Council aware that under the current State Planning Strategy this land is mapped as “Agricultural Area” as it is Ridgehill Shelf landform and contrary to the proponent’s assertions in the extra information supplied in the agenda items, it does have a groundwater resource (there was an unirrigated neglected but productive orange orchard on the north slope prior to pines and a spring fed dam), this resource was mapped - with an amount of water available for the existing Rural Strategy. Under the new draft State Planning Strategy there is a continued emphasis on protection of agricultural land (p43) specifically including peri-urban areas?

A3 The applicant’s documents are incorrect in their statement “earmarked for future

urban development” as Council’s draft Rural Land Strategy identifies this site as Landscape – Scarp (no further subdivision). The planning approval would apply to the whole site, as land outside the excavation area needs to be revegetated and contains an access road. The extractive industry licence, would only apply to the


E13/1083

area that is proposed to be excavated. Council is aware of the strategic planning documents that have been prepared by the State Government for this area.

Q4 Is the Council going to take this into consideration and protect the whole site from

further development? Why does the E1 licence cover the whole site?

Director Development Services advised that a letter had been sent to manage and control the weed on the site. Future land uses have been identified as landscape scarp with no further subdivision. The Shire President advised that the questions would be taken on notice and a response will be forwarded in writing.

A4 Refer to answer in 3 above. The land the subject of this application is designated

in the Shire’s strategic planning documents and the Town Planning Scheme for future rural land uses.

Keith Whibley – 22 Cranbourne Way, Byford Q1 Could the Shire do something about the dust and sand that is blowing around the

Glades estate and Byford? When the easterlies blow at night and early in the morning, the dust and sand is unbearable.

It is coming from the new high school site being built in Byford. I know the Shire

can’t stop the wind but the dust management on site after hours from 5pm to 7am Monday to Friday and on the weekend is non existent. It is like living in the desert.

A1 The Shire is currently reviewing the Dust Management Plan and contingencies for

the High school site with the Project Manager. The aim is to include dust mitigation measures during the hours when the weather forecast predicts strong winds. The Shire will also allocate resources to afterhours monitoring of the site and Environmental Health Officers will undertake a number of site visits between 5pm and 7am when forecasts predict strong winds.

Q2 Can something be done as complaints have been made to PS Structures Site

Manager and the Shire offices but nothing is being done? This is a health hazard with sand and dust in the eyes and throat in the mornings when we awake. It also affects some children and adults with asthma. Dust is all over the furniture, tv and air conditioner filters block up etc.

A2 The Shire President advised that these are justifiable concerns and that they will

be acted upon. The Director Development Services has received complaints and the Shire is working with the contractor as they are not living up to their part. An investigation will take place and possibly infringements will be issued. The Shire President extended apologies and advised that follow up will take place as soon as possible.

As part of the review of the Dust Management Plan the Shire has asked PS

Structures to provide a list of complaints and detail responses and to review their complaints response procedures. The Shire will be asking PS Structures to provide an afterhours contact number (Site Manager) to enable local residents to raise issues afterhours and PS Structures to implement contingencies after hours.

Nancy Scade – 141 King Road, Oakford

Q1 Please could you tell all the residents of King Road what is going on with regard to

land use? There appears to be a total lack of consistency, basic fairness and scattered information from the Shire.


E13/1083

A1 Land in the locality of Oakford around King Road is zoned Rural and Rural Groundwater Protection in Council’s Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (TPS 2). Council is currently investigating a number of properties in this area where unauthorised land use activities are being undertaken in contravention of Council’s TPS 2.

There are three properties where Council has issued Notices and Directions in

respect of authorised activities. The landowners are responsible to ensure compliance with these Notices and Directions. If the landowners do not comply with TPS 2, the Council can pursue further legal action in the Courts. One landowner has lodged a development application with the Shire under TPS 2, and the application is currently being assessed by staff.

Council is committed to ensuring that all properties comply with TPS 2 and will

investigate all complaints.

We have a resident being sued by the Council for something that is relatively minor and yet we have landowners obviously carrying out large industrial pursuits seemingly without permission. We have a resident requesting permission retrospectively to have a farm machinery business on his property and rumour has it that the composting business which is on many of our boundaries wants to double in size.

One landowner has been the subject of legal action by the Shire. It is currently the

subject of appeals and Council cannot comment on this matter. Q2 Is this just a rumour or should the Shire have informed all the neighbours? A2 A development application for a ‘Composting Facility’ has been received by the

Shire. Letters have been sent to adjoining landowners and government agencies in accordance with the provisions of Clause 6.2 of the Shire’s TPS 2 and Local Planning Policy No.27 Stakeholder Engagement in Land Use Planning. The development application will also be available on the Shire’s website for viewing.

Q3 What is the Shire policy on informing neighbours? With regard to the farm

machinery application, the owners of the block furthest away got a letter but several of us closer to that block did not receive any letters.

A3 The Shire President is not aware of any formal submission being received by

Council. There are many non-conforming uses within the Shire and we are toughening up on compliance issues and your concerns are shared by Council.

Community consultation occurs in accordance with the provisions of the Shire’s TPS 2 and Local Planning Policy No.27 Stakeholder Engagement in Land Use Planning.

Peter Edmiston – 355 Kiln Road, Karrakup

As you may be aware I am a long term ratepayer concerned with what I see is the lack

of protection of the Darling Scarp. In recent weeks I have seen the approval of a 1.2 kilometre excavation across the face of the scarp, the approval for dumping of overburden on an 11 hectare rural property by a blue metal company and in tonight’s papers (OCM131/02/13) the recommendation for sand mining. Of course these recent approvals sit amongst other current working sites as well as other unrestored old sites creating what will be a giant scar and barrier across the scarp.

My understanding is that the ratepayers would rather not have these developments but

reasonably most would understand that provided these were undertaken sensitively they


E13/1083

will go ahead. I have observed the Council meetings recently and believe that most, if not all councillors have a similar view, however I am perplexed at the dichotomy between the view of the ratepayers, my observation of councillors and the papers presented by staff to Council.

In OCM131/02/13 there is a statement that EPA Guidelines recommend a buffer for sensitive areas of 300 to 500 metres, yet we have a recommendation to accept an application with 200 and 120 metres – all the EPA issues for such a buffer do not seem to be covered but interestingly the applicant intends to turn off the high pitched beepers which one can only guess is an occupational health and safety issue for them. The Council is then in great difficulty if an applicant goes to SAT as it is seen as overriding the professional advice of its staff. SAT as I understand being concerned with the decision process more than the decision. Q1 So my question is, has the elected Council sat down with its CEO (including

Acting) and made it clear its strategy and objectives?

A1 Council and Shire officers are very conscious about the need to protect the Darling Range and the Scarp from inappropriate development that would adversely impact upon the amenity, scenic values, landscapes and beauty of the Shire. Council’s Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (TPS 2) has identified large areas of private and public land in the Shire in the Darling Range and Scarp, as a Landscape Protection Policy Area. This includes most of the land east of the South Western Highway and some areas west of the South Western Highway.

All applications for development approval in this Policy Area are carefully assessed against relevant State Government planning and environment policies and Council’s TPS 2 and Local Planning Policies. Council’s Local Planning Policy – Landscape Protection zone provides policy direction in the assessment of development applications and is used in assist in decision making on such applications.

Council’s professional officers carefully review all technical information submitted with these applications, consult with the community and State Government agencies before making a recommendation to Council. Officers also need to take into account, past decisions made by the State Administrative Tribunal which may have set a legal precedent for similar applications in the future.

Nancy Scade – SJ Landcare (Inc) This is with regard to the Shire’s new policy on the leasing of facilities to the general public. For community groups the rental will be $1.00 per annum on a ‘no cost to the Shire’ basis and the lease will be responsible for the general maintenance. Landcare occupies an old historical school and the maintenance on such an old building could be well beyond what we could afford. I am requesting that we should get an ‘Exclusivity Test’ for Landcare to be able to have use of all or part of the building subject to an appropriate negotiated lease. As Landcare does a considerable amount of work with the Shire and for the Shire, we would appreciate if we could still be considered for the $1.00 per year lease. Q1 Would this be possible? A1 At this stage the Shire does not see any changes in the current tenancy

arrangements with Landcare.


E13/1083

Michelle Rich – Firns Road, Serpentine I read with interest the responses to Cr Kirkpatrick’s questions on notice from the January 29th 2013 OCM. Council approved the building of the skate park in December 2010 and it is now February 2013 (some 27 months later). Q3 from Cr Kirkpatrick asked, “In reply to a question, I was told that the completion date for the Skate Park would be mid 2013, is this still on track and if not, why not?” And the response, “More detailed engineering drawings are currently being developed and are expected at any time, after which we will be applying for further funding from the Department of Sport & Recreation and Lotterywest, using the money currently set aside in the budget for the construction of the Skate Park as matched funding”. Given the fact that there are 4 months left until mid year and the fact it has taken 26 months to have the technical drawings nearly completed and that funding has yet to be applied for to build the skate park; Q1 Do Shire officers think that they can continue to dodge answering questions from

councillors and the community properly and honestly without any backlash from those asking the questions?

A1 The Shire President responded that the Skate Park will certainly not be completed

by June/July 2013 and agrees that it should have been done by now.

The project is on target with each stage happening as planned. Construction was never meant to commence this financial year. Funding cannot be applied for until detailed drawings are complete.

Q2 What is the status of the Serpentine Tennis Club Courts? A letter stated that the

works to be done were not on the board until 2021. This will mean that kids cannot play tennis for 8 years.

A2 The Acting Director Engineering has received quotes for the Tennis Club and work

will begin in the next few weeks. Q3 There is talk that Byford Central works are to be downgraded. Is this true? A3 The Acting Chief Executive Officer responded that Council have called for tenders

which included the full facility as designed with an option to omit the kitchen. Q4 How is Council going to maintain Byford Central and how are we going to maintain

and pay for it? A4 The Acting Chief Executive Officer advised that Byford Central maintenance of

grounds and public utilities is no different from any other public open space. The funds will be used from municipal funding.

Q5 Shouldn’t it have been considered before it came on stream? A5 The Shire President advised that this is an operational matter and will be

discussed when the time arises.


E13/1083

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME: Public question time commenced at 7.02pm

David Houseman – 17 Clifton Street, Byford – Naming of Laneway abutting 17 Clifton Street At the Council meeting on 11 February 2013 I asked what progress had been made with regard to naming the laneway which abuts my property. The Shire President responded that the naming of the laneway will take some time as the land has to be acquired and a list of names forwarded to the Geographic Names Committee. Mr Moore you are aware that I have been asking the Shire to act on this matter for the past six years. When you were elected last year you acknowledged in your own words that the Shire has taken too long to resolve this matter. The land in the old quarter of Byford was rezoned over a decade ago. The naming process should have been undertaken then. The issue of the laneways was brought up in correspondence from the Chief Executive Officer last year and this was distributed to all Councillors. It stated that there was the potential for poor urban design outcome and retention of streetscapes unless the laneway issue was resolved. The said potential is now a reality. The Shire’s inaction has lead to poor urban design which is resulting in the destruction of the streetscape. The laneway in question has a minimum width of just over 5 metres. This width is wide enough to allow naming to occur. Laneways in The Glades are not as wide, yet they are named. My questions are as follows: Q1 Will the Shire name the laneway as a matter of priority? A1 The Director Development Services responded that a meeting has been held with a

consultant experienced in land administration matters. The consultant will be engaged and requested to proceed with the naming of laneways quickly.

Q2 Does the Shire acknowledge that this inaction has lead to poor urban design and

destruction of the streetscape? I can show the Shire a prime example of this. A2 Council is aware of the issues of streetscape and urban design. The Western

Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is the authority responsible for subdivisions and in some cases has overridden Council decisions. Shire offices are currently working with the Department of Planning and the Commission to achieve a good outcome. There is no acquisition of land preventing the Shire proceeding with recommending names to the Geographic Names Committee.

The matter is being treated with the highest priority. It is proposed to engage the consultant and undertake work on this project in the current financial year.

Q3 Does the Shire acknowledge that this inaction is inconsistent with the Byford

Structure Plan in regard to the section covering laneways?

A3 The Shire President advised that the above questions will be taken on notice and a formal written response provided in due course.


E13/1083

Peter Hector – 39 Randall Road, Mundijong – Randall Street Speed Limit Q1 A petition was signed by Randall Street residents two years ago requesting a

reduction of the speed limit to 60kms/hour. The area is highly built up and young motorists are driving at very high speeds.

A1 The Shire President advised that this matter is currently being dealt with and a

written response will be provided. Peter Duck – 274 River Road, Hopeland – Proposed Greyhound Dog Kennel – Lot 1087 (No 324) River Road, Hopeland Q1 A petition was lodged at the Council meeting on 29 January 2013 stating that

landowners/residents of Hopeland are totally against the development of a greyhound dog kennel at Lot 1087 (No 324) River Road, Hopeland. Council advised that results of the development application would be available at this Council meeting. Has anything been done?

A1 The Director Development Services responded that the development application is

currently being assessed by Planning Officers. A community consultation process will be undertaken and a further report presented to Council in due course. All people who signed the petition and lodged submissions will be advised of the process and the date of the relevant Council meeting in due course.

Damian Smith, Lot 13 Dairy Link, Mardella – Tonkin Highway Extension Q1 Is Tonkin Highway to be extended beyond Mundijong Road? A1 The Shire President responded that there are five alternative proposals, one being

extension to the South West Highway, which is favoured by the Community Working Group (CWG); however the proposals have not yet been finalised. It is proposed to engage a consultant to assist the CWG with its final direction to the Minister.

Q2 If so, this has adversely affected values on properties we have developed. The

feasibility study shows it goes through my area. A2 Land has been acquired to the South West Highway and no further land will be

acquired at this stage. Q3 What is the timeframe for this to happen if going ahead? A3 The CWG is not expected to forward its submission to the Minister until June 2013.

The project will involve both Federal and State government funding and the acquisition of land. Council will lobby for funding to undertake the project once the Minister’s report is received and accepted by the State government.

Shona Tocock – Lot 10 Ironguard Road, Mardella – Tonkin Highway Extension Q1 Residents have seen the feasibility study for the proposed Tonkin Highway

extension and railway links and are concerned about how it affects all our properties. What is the time factor for the proposed extension in relation to Mardella?


E13/1083

Q2 The Shire President responded that with the release of the Minister’s report and acceptance by the State Government the report will have clear objectives on Tonkin Hwy extension and the railway link. The CWG report is a work in progress at this point and will be made public in due course. Council accepts that this is disconcerting and inequitable. The Director Development Services referred to the proposed realignment of the railway and Item OCM161/03/13 on this Council agenda. A separate study is being undertaken by the State government for the Department of Transport. This is a long term project and further detailed investigation is needed to determine the best possible outcome. The Director advised that officers are happy to meet with community members individually or as a group if they have any queries relating to the concept plan. CWG Committee members were selected from all areas of expertise and two further meetings are scheduled to be held before the end of May. Outcomes of CWG meetings will form part of the feasibility study to be presented to the Minister in June. The process is confidential at this stage and details are not available to the public.

Q2 How will it affect values of properties? The Shire President advised that the questions would be taken on notice and

responded to it writing. Q3 Who can we talk to regarding the problem to landowners in this subdivision? A3 The Acting Chief Executive Officer advised that this is a State government initiative

and not local government. Residents should contact their State and Federal Members of Parliament if they have any concerns.

Peter Hector – Randall Road, Mardella - Tonkin Highway Extension Q1 We have people coming to look at blocks and when they approach the Shire to ask

if there are any planning issues the Shire says there is potential for a railway line coming further south. This has affected a lot of sales. Could you not say Council is looking at a new system which could go anywhere?

A1 The Shire President responded that until the CWG decision in June, we do not

know what is going to happen. We acknowledge that this is a difficult situation and hopefully we will all have a decision very soon.

Q2 What will happen to us if the railway line does go through? A2 This is a conceptual plan at this point in time. Tonkin Highway stops at Mundijong

Road and the railway line runs through town in the scheme. If the State Government does decide to realign the road and rail this will be a very long term proposal and nothing can happen while the land is in private ownership.

Milessa Watts – 21 Echoveld Close, Mardella – Tonkin Highway Extension Q1 We are deeply concerned about Tonkin Highway and the railway going through our

property. This is our lifetime saving and hard work on this property. When we bought the property we searched the land and there was nothing planned to go


E13/1083

through our property. Now we find out there are potential changes affecting our property and many others in the area.

We all need to know where we stand this is very concerning to all residents. You will make a decision but we are included in the decision? Who can we speak to, to put our concerns forward?

A1 The Shire President reiterated that this is a State government and not local government concept plan. Council understands your dilemma and frustration and will keep you informed as we are informed. Residents should contact their Local Members of Parliament if they have any concerns.

Public question time ended at 7.22pm 4. PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME: Public statement time commenced at 7.22pm Athol Wigg – 36 Old Brickworks Road, Byford – Landcare SJ (Inc)

With the permission of the Chairperson of Landcare SJ (Inc) I wish to stress the importance of retaining Shire funding that will enable the continuing function of the Landcare Centre. The logo of the Shire is and I quote, “Experience the beauty”. People choose the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale because of its natural attractions, not because of the built environment.

The Landcare Centre and its volunteers contribute to the area in many ways. Tree planting and follow up maintenance, fox and rabbit baiting, weed control, verge planting, delivering workshops and field days and supporting eight Landcare units.

A handout including grant funding and a description of projects undertaken by Landcare was tabled for Councillors’ information. OCM058/03/13 Michelle Rich, Firns Road, Serpentine I would like to make a statement for the public record in regards to the rezoning of a portion of Lot 81, and Lots 210 and 228 Cockram Street and Lots 87 and 88 Mundijong Road that is currently POS. There is no question that our communities in the S/J shire are in need of an upgraded police station, court house etc that is planned for this land in the near future. But the question must be asked; what land will the community receive in place of this POS that is rezoned and sold to the government to provide government? It is stated in the agenda item that “The rezoning of Lots 210 and 228 Cockram Street will require the consent of the Minister for Lands as a result of their current classification as POS. A commitment will be required to be made to the Minister that these lot areas will be made up elsewhere in the Mundijong/Whitby urban cell as part of the POS provision.” Will this area be given back to the community and who will give to back? When will we see this land on the plans in the Mundijong/Whitby urban cell? As this is a requirement of the Minister why has this not already been planned? These lot areas must be made up in a usable sized parcel of land that can be used by the community and not wittled away in unusable multi use corridors (drains) and environmental protection areas that are not available to the community to use.


E13/1083

As the shire officers and Councillors are aware (as they were invited to and attended the release of), a study and report was commissioned by the Department of Sport & Recreation and undertaken by Curtin University’s Centre for Sport and Recreation Research. The objective of the research was to find out if the perception that insufficient active reserves are being provided in the newer suburbs of Perth for the purpose of accommodating organised sport is correct. The research categorised and mapped open space within 139 Perth/Peel suburbs in order to gain valuable data and recommendations for the provision of open space suitable for accommodating organised sport. If the perception was correct and this has been found to be true, then the shortfall of active playing fields currently experienced in the outer metropolitan growth areas of Perth will only get worse in the future. The issue needs to be addressed now and planning policies adapted to address this issue. The findings outline some figures on this shortfall of playing space and identify how much open space is adequate in future planning.

Final conclusions from the study 1. The data presented in this study make it clear that the implementation of Bush Forever, WSUD and Liveable Neighbourhoods has resulted in a significant existing shortfall in the supply of active open space in the fringe growth suburbs—notionally, this shortfall is 51.6 ha. Projecting to 2031, using the population prediction in Directions 2031, assuming no changes to the above three polices, and assuming no additional regional active open space is provided, the notional shortfall of active open space in 2031 will be 160.7 ha (equivalent to 73 senior AFL ovals or 225 senior soccer pitches). Directions 2031 - If the provision of the support facilities is taken into account, the total shortfall of open space required for active sport is around 495 ha. 2. Further, if instead of using the population prediction in Directions 2031 the updated figures from WA Tomorrow 2012 are used, the situation is worse: the notional shortfall of active open space in 2031 will be 170.2 ha (equivalent to 77 senior AFL ovals or 238 senior soccer pitches). WA Tomorrow —If the provision of the support facilities is taken into account, the total shortfall of open space required for active sport is around 509 ha. 3. The situation for each of the four outer growth sub-regions identified in Directions 2031 reflects the overall picture for Perth.


E13/1083

It can be concluded with a high degree of certainty that the new suburbs in each of the fringe growth sub-regions of Perth already have a shortage of active playing fields. Without a change to the relevant planning policies and without the State Government stepping in to provide additional active open space as ROS, this shortage can only get worse. Opportunities Of the three planning policies that have likely contributed to the shortages of active playing fields, changes to LN is likely to provide the best opportunities for gains in the future. Both Bush Forever and WSUD design have led to significant environmental benefits, which should not be significantly changed. An additional supplementary measure would be to work with the Education Department so that school ovals are available for joint use (school and community), are large enough and fit for purpose to accommodate senior sport. The new fringe suburbs that have a reduced supply of active open space can be considered active open space poor. There is an opportunity to gain greater insight into these suburbs—it is likely that it will be more costly for these residents to play sport, both financially and also in terms of time. It could also mean that the participation rates in active sport in these suburbs would be significantly less than in suburbs well-supplied with playing fields and may have particular implications for junior sport participation in more vulnerable populations. It is time for our council to be proactive and a leader in providing usable POS in our shire. Public statement time ended at 7.36pm 5. PETITIONS & DEPUTATIONS: Nil 6. PRESIDENT’S REPORT: Nil 7. DECLARATION OF COUNCILLORS AND OFFICERS INTEREST: Cr Atwell declared a financial interest in item OCM161/03/13 as he is a part owner of the subject land. Cr Atwell will leave the room when the item is discussed.


E13/1083

8. RECEIPTS OF MINUTES OR REPORTS AND CONSIDERATION FOR

RECOMMENDATIONS:

8.1 Ordinary Council Meeting – 25 February 2013 Moved Cr Urban, seconded Cr Piipponen The attached minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 25 February 2013 be confirmed. (E13/747) CARRIED 7/0 8.2 Special Council Meetings – 25 February 2013 Moved Cr Kirkpatrick, seconded Cr Piipponen The attached minutes of the Special Council Meeting held on 25 February 2013 be confirmed. (E13/846) CARRIED 7/0 Moved Cr Kirkpatrick, seconded Cr Piipponen The attached minutes of the Special Council Meeting (E13/848) held on 25 February 2013 be confirmed with the following correction to Item SCM007/02/13:

CARRIED 6/1 Cr Kirkpatrick voted against the motion

CARRIED 7/0 Council Note: The item was carried with no voting number indicated. The item should have read CARRIED 6/1 with Cr Kirkpatrick voting against the motion.


E13/1083

9. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: OCM156/03/13 PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE - LOT 12 JARRAHDALE ROAD,

JARRAHDALE (SJ1076) Author: Casey Rose - Planning Assistant Senior Officers: Louise Hughes - Manager Statutory Planning

Brad Gleeson - Director Development Services Date of Report: 14 January 2013 Disclosure of Officers Interest:

No officer involved in the preparation of this report is required to declare an interest in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act.

Proponent: Ron Heeks Owner: Crown Date of Receipt: 15 August 2011 Portion of road area: 500m2 Town Planning Scheme No. 2 Zoning: Rural Metropolitan Region Scheme Zoning: Rural EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The length of unconstructed road reserve is 239 metres. The landowner seeks support to close only a portion of the road reserve being between 50 – 80 metres at the end of the road reserve. This would result in the existing unconstructed road terminating at the entry point to the future building footprint on the eastern boundary of the lot. Council is now required to provide the Department of Regional Development and Lands with a recommendation. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF COUNCIL OCM006/07/12 - Council supported the partial proposed road closure. OCM134/02/13 – Council defer a decision pending the closure of the consultation period. COMMUNITY / STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION The proposal was advertised in accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997 and the Land Administration Regulations 1998. The proposal has been referred to relevant government agencies and adjoining landowners with no objections being received. REPORT Proposal The existing unconstructed road reserve is not currently used by the public. A farm gate erected at the Jarrahdale Road section of the boundary is currently locked and therefore appears to be part of the property in question. There is also no western boundary fence delineating the area of road reserve that is legally excluded from the property. As the road is currently unconstructed and has been for many years, there has been no demand for construction or regular maintenance of the road due to the current owner accessing the subject property from the lower, eastern boundary entry point. Given the landowner seeks to commence using the new entry point, there is the potential for future requests for upgrading to be undertaken by Council as the majority of the road reserve will remain open. Without closing the entire portion of road reserve, this still means legally the public have access to the road reserve unless Council enter into a gate licence arrangement with the landowner which will generally discourage public access. There may


E13/1083

be opportunity for maintenance arrangements to be put in place should the landowner seek a gate licence. Although not permitted to lock the gate, a gate licence will provide the landowner with the permission to keep the gate closed, thus discouraging entry from passing motorists. This will also further reduce use of the public road and alleviate potential ongoing maintenance costs to be worn by Council. In other situations whereby a road reserve generally only services one property, it has been acceptable to close the entire portion of road and amalgamate this with the relevant adjoining property. This alleviates the situation whereby the public can still access a portion of the road and particularly whereby the road is a no through road or surplus to Council’s requirements. Existing and Proposed Development Existing shed structures are located in the central front portion of the property towards Jarrahdale Road and a new 10 horse stable complex has recently been approved near the existing north west entry point from Jarrahdale road. It is understood the owner is intending on constructing a dwelling on the higher side of the lot which is the underlying reason for wanting to establish a second entry point from the eastern boundary. Full Road Closure Where Council receive road closure requests, typically the entire portion of road abutting the relevant property is closed. In this circumstance, closing only a portion of the road would mean the general public could potentially have access if the road was constructed and / or trafficable. Should the land owner wish to use this current access, Council may receive a request for constructing or maintenance of the front section of road in order to provide the landowner with access to the future dwelling. Alternatively, should Council consider closing the entire portion of road and the road being amalgamated into the lot, Council would relinquish their obligation of possible road maintenance costs. Options and Implications Primarily there are three options for Council: Option 1: Support only the partial closure, with or without entering into a maintenance

agreement and / or with or without the granting of a gate licence; Option 2: Recommend a full road closure and amalgamation to Department of Regional

Lands (DRL); or Option 3: Not support any road closure proposal on this occasion. Conclusion Option 2 is recommended. The landowner will need to negotiate with the DRL in relation to purchase of the full road reserve. ATTACHMENTS • OCM156.1/03/13 – Map showing partial and full road closure (E13/928) ALIGNMENT WITH OUR PLAN FOR THE FUTURE The proposal is consistent with Council’s Plan for the Future. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT • Land Administration Act 1997

http://www.sjshire.wa.gov.au/assets/Uploads/OCM/OCM156.1-03-03.pdf


E13/1083

• Land Administration Regulations 1998 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the road reserve is not closed, Council could potentially incur costs to upgrade and maintain the portion from Jarrahdale Road in the future. VOTING REQUIREMENTS ABSOLUTE MAJORITY OCM156/03/13 COUNCIL DECISION / Officer Recommendation Moved Cr Urban, seconded Cr Wilson That Council in accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997, support the finalisation of a full road closure as shown in attachment OCM156.1/03/13 and advise the Department of Regional Lands accordingly. CARRIED 7/0 by absolute majority


E13/1083

OCM157/03/13 FINAL ADOPTION OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 34 – PLACEMENT OF FILL IN NON-URBAN AREAS (SJ1115)

Author: Jocelyn Ullman - Contract Planner Senior Officers: Louise Hughes – Manager Statutory Planning

Brad Gleeson – Director Development Services Date of Report: 6 February 2013 Disclosure of Officers Interest


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The objectives of revised Local Planning Policy 34 – Placement of Fill in Non-Urban Areas (LPP 34) are to: • Ensure that the filling of land does not adversely impact on the amenity, environment

or cultural features of the locality in which it is being undertaken; • Minimise environmental impacts on water resources and vegetation; • Ensure visual impact is minimised on neighbouring properties; • Inform landowners, developers and the community on the important considerations

associated with the placement of fill, while improving customer service; • Ensure that applications for the filling of land are detailed in a consistent manner; and • Detail the information requirements to be supplied by applicants at the development

application stage. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF COUNCIL OCM028/02/11 – Council granted consent to advertise revised LPP 34. COMMUNITY / STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION Revised LPP 34 was advertised in accordance with the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (TPS 2), by way of advertisement in local newspapers and publication on the Shire’s. Three submissions were received during the advertising period, with no submissions raising objections but providing comment on the LPP 34. REPORT Following the advertising period, submissions were considered in drafting the final LPP 34 and the revised document is presented for final Council consideration. The main changes recommended result from the Water Corporations submission and are as follows: * Inclusion of consideration of the potential impact of fill on existing and future

planned infrastructure in Section 2.0 Background of the Policy; and * Inclusion of the Water Corporation as a Government Agencies to be consulted if

filling is to be undertaken in or adjacent to a main drain and/or water service pipeline.

It is considered that the recommended modifications to LPP 34 do not change the original intent of the Policy and only enhance and clarify LPP 34 and it is considered not necessary to readvertise the Policy. Options and Implications Council has options in relation to progressing LPP 34, as follows:


E13/1083

Option 1: Finally adopt the draft Policy with or without modifications; or Option 2: Refuse to adopt the draft Policy. Option 1 is recommended, subject to modification. CONCLUSION It is recommended that Council adopt LPP 34 – Placement of Fill in Non-Urban Areas with modifications. ATTACHMENTS • OCM157.1/03/13 - Local Planning Policy No. 34 – Placement of Fill in Non-Urban

Areas as advertised (E13/709) • OCM157.2/03/13 – Local Planning Policy No. 34 – Placement of Fill in Non-Urban

Areas with modifications (E13/929) • OCM157.3/03/13 - Schedule of Submissions (E13/705) ALIGNMENT WITH OUR PLAN FOR THE FUTURE The final Local Planning Policy 34 is aligned with the Shire’s Plan for the Future. The Policy is in accordance with the Shire’s vision for open and transparent governance and decision making. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT TPS 2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications associated with the proposal. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority OCM157/03/13 COUNCIL DECISION / Officer Recommendation That Council: Moved Cr Moore, seconded Cr Urban 1. Note that the Local Planning Policy 34 – Placement of Fill in Non-Urban Areas

was advertised for public comment as per attachment OCM157.1/03/13. 2. Pursuant to Clause 9.3(b) of Town Planning Scheme No. 2 adopt Local

Planning Policy 34 – Placement of Fill in Non-Urban Areas with modifications as provided in attachment OCM157.2/03/13.

3. Following final adoption of a policy, notification of the final adoption shall be

published once in a newspaper circulating within the Scheme Area, in accordance with Clause 9.3(c) of Town Planning Scheme No. 2.

4. Provide copies of the Policy for public inspection during normal office hours,

in accordance with Clause 9.3(e) of Town Planning Scheme No. 2. CARRIED 7/0





E13/1083

OCM158/03/13 FINAL ADOPTION OF SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 159 – REZONE PORTION LOT 81, LOTS 210 and 228 COCKRAM STREET AND LOTS 87 AND 88 MUNDIJONG ROAD, INCLUDING THE SECTION OF UNNAMED ROAD RESERVE SOUTH OF COCKRAM STREET ABUTTING LOT 81, MUNDIJONG (SJ151)

Author: Mike Wright – Senior Strategic Planner Senior Officers: Deon van der Linde - Executive Manager Strategic Planning

Alan Hart - Director Corporate Services Date of Report: 4 February 2013 Disclosure of Officers Interest:


Advertised: Yes Submissions: Yes Lot Areas: Portion of Lot 81 – 10,128sqm; Lot 210 –

1,011sqm; Lot 228 – 4,984sqm; Lot 87 – 11,363sqm; Lot 88 – 10,347sqm.

Town Planning Scheme No. 2 Zoning: Portion of Lot 81, Lots 210, 228, 87 and 88 – ‘Local Scheme Reserve – Public Open Space’ and section of unnamed ‘Road Reserve’ abutting Lot 81.

Metropolitan Region Scheme Zoning: Urban EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 26 November 2007, Council resolved to initiate Amendment No. 159 which proposes to rezone Portion of Lot 81, Lots 210 and 228 Cockram Street and Lots 87 and 88 Mundijong Road from ‘Local Scheme Reserve – Public Open Space’ to ‘Urban Development’ as well as rezone the section of unnamed ‘Road Reserve’ adjoining Lot 81 to ‘Public Open Space’. Amendment 159 was advertised for public comment including referrals to government agencies and service authorities. The outcome of the advertising and referral process is included in this report. This report provides Council with the opportunity to consider the amendment for final approval with or without modifications. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF COUNCIL SD027/09/09 Council resolved to initiate the Scheme Amendment at its meeting of 26 November 2007. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION Prior to commencement of advertising, Amendment 159 was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under Section 48A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The EPA advised in writing that the Amendment did not warrant assessment under Part IV Division 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) and it was not necessary to provide any advice or recommendations. The Amendment was referred to relevant government authorities for 42 days and advertised for public comment in accordance with the requirements set out in Local Planning Policy 27 – Stakeholder Engagement in Land Use Planning (LPP 27). The Scheme Amendment was advertised in the following manner: • Advertisement in the Examiner newspaper; • Letters to statutory authorities;


E13/1083

• Public display at the Shire’s Administration Centre; • Letters being sent to all landowners within a 100 metre distance from the site; and • Publishing of relevant information on the Shire’s internet webpage. The advertising concluded on 4 January 2013. A total of twelve submissions were received from government referral agencies. No public submissions were received. The Shire received no objections from the government departments to rezone the land. General advice was provided to the Shire relating to the general site characteristics of the subject land, environmental constraints, and recommendations in the event of a development application being lodged. REPORT Proposal The amendment involves the rezoning of portion of Lot 81, and Lots 210 and 228 Cockram Street and Lots 87 and 88 Mundijong Road from ‘Local Scheme Reserve – Public Open Space’ to ‘Urban Development’ and rezone the section of unnamed ‘Road Reserve’ adjoining Lot 81 to ‘Local Scheme Reserve - Public Open Space’, in order to rationalize the Mundijong Oval site into one consolidated space. The Scheme Amendment has implications for the approved Mundijong Whitby District Structure Plan (DSP). The Public Open Space (POS) contribution is calculated on the basis of 10% of purely residential designated land use. In some instances additional land, over and above the standard 10% POS requirement may be required to be provided free of cost at the time of subdivision and/or development to accommodate drainage, recreational, environmental or similar functions. The subject land will not be required for POS given that just over 6ha of reserve directly abuts the subject land and therefore it is considered that there is sufficient POS in this immediate area. The DSP does not designate the Scheme Amendment area as encumbered by potentially locally significant natural areas. In terms of the DSP the area falls within Precinct ‘F’ and comprises essentially the existing Mundijong townsite consisting of the existing town centre plus surrounding residential development. The DSP states that a Local Structure Plan (LSP) shall be prepared for this Precinct. The approved Mundijong-Whitby Implementation Strategy divides Precinct ‘F’ into 8 sub-precincts with sub-precinct ‘F1’ incorporating the ‘activity centre’ precinct and immediate surrounds including most of the Scheme Amendment area. A LSP for sub-precinct ‘F1’ will be prepared by the Shire at a future date. The rezoning of Lots 210 and 228 Cockram Street will require the consent of the Minister for Lands as a result of their current classification as POS. A commitment will be required to be made to the Minister that these lot areas will be made up elsewhere in the Mundijong/Whitby urban cell as part of the POS provision. According to the submission from the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), Lots 87 and 88 adjoin Mundijong Road Reserve which is mapped as a Conservation Category wetland on the DEC Geomorphic Wetlands of the Swan Coastal Plain dataset. The eastern boundary of Lot 88 also adjoins an area mapped as a Conservation Category wetland located on the south western portion of Reserve 4486. The EPA in its Guidance Statement 33 ‘Environmental Guidance for Planning and Development’ (2005) requires that conservation Category wetlands and their buffers be fully protected, and that for wetlands that are to be protected, a minimum 50 metre buffer is required. Given the location of Mundijong Road between the wetland to the south of Mundijong Road and Lots 87 and 88, the DEC has indicated the need for a wetland buffer on Lots 87 and 88 adjoining Mundijong Road may not be necessary.


E13/1083

To be fully consistent with EPA guidance, a 50 metre buffer would be required along the eastern boundary of Lot 88 as it directly adjoins the mapped conservation category wetland. However given the small size and disturbed vegetation of the wetland it might be possible to reclassify the wetland category to resource enhancement. This would provide scope for the Shire to apply discretion to buffer requirements and this issue will be dealt with in the planning approval process for future development on the land. Options There are main options available to Council in respect to this application. These are: Option 1: Adopt the amendment for final approval without modification; Option 2: Adopt the amendment for final approval subject to modifications; or Option 3: Refuse to adopt the amendment and advise the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). The final decision on the amendment will be with the WAPC and Minister of Planning. Option 2 is recommended, the modifications are a change of wording from “rezoning” to “reclassification” and a correction in the wording “Urban Development” to “Road Reserve”. Conclusion Amendment 159 was commenced for the following reasons: • Whilst the zoning of the subject area has a long history, it is unclear why private property

was zoned for POS in the first instance; • The wetland buffer requirement, although onerous, will not preclude development on the

site and discretion can be applied to buffer requirements during the planning approval process for future development on the land; and

• The rezoning of the land will provide the Shire with flexibility when considering designation of future land use requirements within the DSP area at the LSP stage. The subject land will not be required for POS given that just over 6ha of reserve directly abuts the subject land and therefore it is considered that there is sufficient POS in the immediate area.

• On-going discussions have occurred between Shire staff and the Western Australian Police in connection with the acquisition of lots within the Scheme Amendment area for the purposes of erecting a police station.

In the advertised Amendment 159, the resolution refers to amending TPS 2 by ‘Rezoning’. On advice from the Department of Planning, references to ‘rezoning’ are required to be changed within the document to “Reclassification of”, as a ‘Local Scheme Reserve – Public Open Space’ is not a zone but a classification. A further modification to the advertised amendment is required to clarify that the reclassification affects only a portion of Lot 81. It is recommended that Amendment 159 be adopted for final approval. ATTACHMENTS • OCM158.1/03/13 – Map of existing and proposed zoning (E13/674) • OCM158.2/03/13 – Amendment 159 Scheme Amendment documentation (E13/794) • OCM158.3/03/13 - Schedule of Submissions (E12/8285)





E13/1083

ALIGNMENT WITH OUR PLAN FOR THE FUTURE Council’s Plan for the Future has placed an emphasis on the Shire to be leader in sustainable development and enabling built form that reflects the character of each locality. The proposed rezoning is considered to achieve this. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT • Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) • Planning and Development Act 2005 • Town Planning Regulations 1967 • TPS 2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications relating to this Scheme Amendment. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority OCM158/03/13 COUNCIL DECISION / Officer Recommendation Moved Cr Urban, seconded Cr Wilson That Council: 1. Pursuant to Regulation 17(1) of the Town Planning Regulations (1967) (as

amended), note the submissions received in respect of proposed Amendment No. 159 to the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale Town Planning Scheme No. 2, and endorse the Shire officers responses to those submissions as contained in the Schedule of Submissions in attachment OCM158.3/03/13.

2. Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and Regulation

17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations (1967)(as amended) adopt proposed Amendment 159 to the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale Town Planning Scheme No. 2 by:

a) Reclassification of a portion of Lot 81 and Lots 210 and 228 Cockram Street

and Lots 87 and 88 Mundijong Road from ‘Local Scheme Reserve – Public Open Space’ to ‘Urban Development’;

b) Reclassification of the section of unnamed road reserve (south of Cockram

Street, abutting Lot 81) from ‘Road Reserve’ to ‘Local Scheme Reserve - Public Open Space’; and

c) Amending the Scheme Map accordingly.

3. Authorise the Shire President and the Acting Chief Executive Officer to execute the

relevant Amendment No. 159 documentation pursuant to Regulation 22(1) of the Town Planning Regulations (1967) (as amended).

4. Forward the schedule of submissions at attachment OCM158.3/03/13 to the

Western Australian Planning Commission together with three copies of the signed and sealed Amendment No. 159 documents for endorsement pursuant to Regulation 22(2) of the Town Planning Regulations (1967) (as amended).

5. Request the Western Australian Planning Commission and Honourable Minister for

Planning to grant final approval to Amendment No. 159 to the Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire Town Planning Scheme No. 2.


E13/1083

6. Inform all persons and parties who made a submission on Amendment No. 159 to

the Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire Town Planning Scheme No. 2 of its decision. CARRIED 7/0


E13/1083

OCM159/03/13 FINAL ADOPTION OF SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 172 –

REZONING OF PORTION OF LOT 3 KILN ROAD, CARDUP FROM ‘RURAL’ TO ‘SPECIAL USE – EXTRACTION/STORAGE SHALE & CLAY’ (SJ614)

Author: Louise Hughes – Manager Statutory Planning Senior Officers: Brad Gleeson – Director Development Services Date of Report: 6 February 2013 Disclosure of Officers Interest


Proponent: Statewest Surveying & Planning Owner: Austral Bricks WA Pty Ltd Date of Receipt: 7 October 2010 Lot Area: Approximately 27.03 hectares Town Planning Scheme No. 2 Zoning: Rural Metropolitan Region Scheme Zoning: Rural EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A proposed Scheme amendment was submitted to the Shire for initiation to rezone a portion of Lot 3 Kiln Road, Cardup from ‘Rural’ to ‘Special Use – Extraction/Storage Shale & Clay’ under Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS 2) The area of land proposed to be rezoned is the same parcel that was recently granted development approval (June 2012) and an extractive industry licence for the extraction of shale and clay. The general purpose of the application is simply to rationalize the zoning of the Cardup site to reflect the site’s current use as well as its regional significance as a ‘Key Extraction Area’ under State Planning Policy 2.4 – Basic Raw Materials (SPP 2.4).The key objective of the policy is to identify the location and extent of known basic raw material resources and ensure the appropriate mechanisms are put in place for the protection of Key Extraction Areas from being developed for incompatible land uses which could limit future exploitation. The Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 25 June 2012 resolved to consent to advertise the Scheme amendment. A total of 20 submissions were received. The comments raised during the advertising period have been noted in the Schedule of Submissions. It is recommended that the Council resolve to grant final approval to Amendment No.172 to TPS 2 without modification and to forward the amendment documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) with a request that the Minister grant final approval without modification. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF COUNCIL

OCM165/06/12 - Council, at its meeting of 11 June 2012, considered a development application and extractive industry licence, resolving to grant conditional approvals. OCM170/06/12 - Council, at its meeting of 25 June 2012 resolved to refer the subject Scheme amendment to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and advertise the amendment for a period of no less than 42 days for public comment.


E13/1083

COMMUNITY / STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION Prior to commencement of advertising, Amendment 172 was referred to the EPA under Section 48A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The EPA advised in writing that the Amendment did not warrant assessment under Part IV Division 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, nonetheless, provided advice and recommendations. The Amendment was referred to relevant government authorities for 42 days and advertised for public comment in accordance with the requirements set out in Local Planning Policy 27 – Stakeholder Engagement in Land Use Planning (LPP 27). The proposal was advertised in the following manner: • Display of a sign on site; • Advertisement in the Examiner newspaper; • Letters to statutory authorities; • Public display at the Shire’s Administration Centre; • Letters being sent to all landowners within a 1000 metre distance from the site; • Letters being sent to community groups; and • Publishing of relevant information on the Shire’s internet webpage The advertising concluded on the 7 December 2012; a total of twenty (20) submissions were received, thirteen (13) from government agencies and seven (7) from the public. The Shire received three (3) submissions raising concerns/objections and recommending modifications. The majority of concerns raised by the members of the public generally related to the short and long term impacts the extraction activity may have on their amenity and the amenity of the wider locality. Such concerns raised included the visual impact on the existing rural character of the area, the impact of dust and noise, appropriate buffers, impact on traffic and access and the impact on the natural environment. Concern was also raised in regards to appropriate land use and development control. A majority of the issues raised during the submission period have previously been addressed through the application of conditions of approval to the development application that was approved on the 11 June 2012 for the use of the site for an extractive industry. APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION The applicant has provided the following information in support of the proposed scheme amendment: “Lot 3, together with Lot 6 Shale Road and Lot 50 Kiln Road, has been and continues to be used for extraction under an Extractive Industry Licence. Unlike Lots 6 and 50 which are zoned 'Special Use' specifically for extractive industry, Lot 3 is zoned 'Rural'. Extractive industry is a use that may be permitted by the Shire in the 'Rural' zone (ie 'AA' use under TPS 2), as is the case for Lot 3. However, it is probably more appropriate that the part of Lot 3 used for extractive industry be zoned accordingly. Furthermore, the site is identified as a Key Extraction Area (Clay Resource) under the Western Australian Planning Commission's Basic Raw Materials Policy (SPP 2.4). Section 6.1.1 of this Policy states that these areas should be protected in Town Planning Schemes and Section 6.2.3 recommends protection of these resources by appropriate zoning. Hence this application is for that part of Lot 3, as indicated on the proposed zoning plan, to be rezoned from 'Rural' to 'Special Use - Extraction/Storage Shale and Clay'. The boundaries of that part of Lot 3 proposed to be rezoned coincides with the current application for boundary realignment recently submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission for approval. No change of use is proposed on the subject lot, as it is already


E13/1083

used for extractive industry under an Extractive Industry Licence and will be for some years to come.

The purpose of the application is simply to rationalise the zoning of the Austral Bricks Cardup site to reflect the site's current use as well as its regional significance as a Key Clay Extraction Area under State Planning Policy 2.4.” KEY ISSUES Impacts on Amenity Concern was raised in regards to the extraction processes potential impacts on local residents in regards to insufficient buffers, noise, dust, increased traffic and the activities potential to impact local ground water sources and the visual impact the site may have in the short term and long term on the rural ambience of the locality. Concerns were raised that insufficient buffer areas are being provided to adjoining properties. SPP 2.4 advises that due consideration is to be given to buffers between the extractive industry and any ‘sensitive’ land uses. These include residential and rural residential zoned land. Neither of these zones exist within the buffer area of the site and as such the extractive industry is considered to be operating in accordance with the requirements of the SPP 2.4. Concern was also raised in regards to appropriate vehicle access with suggestion being made that Shale Road should be reconsidered as a preferable access to Kiln Road. This was a consideration of planning approval and included as conditions which requires upgrades to Kiln Road in accordance with the recommendations of the Traffic Management Plan. The subject site is identified in SPP 2.4 as a key extraction area. Such areas are required to be protected for extractive industry under the prevailing Town Planning Scheme. This provides the Shire with the ability to impose conditions on Planning Approvals to ensure the appropriate management of the site is undertaken, and the Shire exercised this right in the most recently issued approval for the site in June 2012. Many of the concerns raised by the residents can sufficiently be addressed via the planning conditions imposed: • Noise management plan

• Dust management plan

• Traffic management pan

• Visual and rehabilitation management plan

• Compliance assessment plan

• Water management plan

• Rehabilitation and Mine Closure Plan The above management plans have been required as conditions of approval for the application issued at the site. In addition, screening vegetation has been established to limit the visibility of operation to the public. The extent of operations will also be restricted to the lower levels on the hill so as to limit the visibility from South Western Highway. Loss of Council Discretion Concerns were raised that the rezoning “locks in” a large area of land for a definite period of time without any limitations or conditions on the development and future use of the land and


E13/1083

removes the discretion that Council currently has under TPS 2 to refuse an application for expansion of extractive industries in “Rural” zones where they are listed as discretionary uses. The site is identified in SPP2.4 as a key extraction area and under the policy such areas are required to be protected for such uses under the prevailing Town Planning Schemes:

“6.2.3 Key extraction areas should be protected by appropriate zones in town planning

schemes, priority resource areas and extraction areas should be identified as a Special Control Area in local planning schemes. The Special Control Area should set out the appropriate land use and development controls, arrangements for the referral of applications where appropriate, and specify matters to be considered before deciding on a planning proposal.”

“6.2.4 The Special Control Area provisions should, where appropriate, include extractive

industry as the only Permitted (“P”) use in key extraction areas and priority resource areas designated on the policy map.”

As the site is identified as a key extraction area under SPP 2.4 it would not be consistent with the State Planning Policy or orderly and proper planning for the Council to refuse an application for an extractive industry in this location, solely based on its use class. As a result a “P” use class is considered reasonable and appropriate in this instance. The Councils ability to require planning applications to be submitted and approved prior to the establishment or extension of “Extractive Industry” uses has not been removed. In addition, any manufacturing, storage and distribution uses are also not exempt from requiring planning approval under TPS 2. The requirement for a development application to be submitted over the subject lot will enable the Council to undertake an assessment and apply any relevant conditions deemed appropriate at the time of assessment. Long term land use impacts Concern was raised in regards to the long-term impacts the extractive industry may have on the redevelopment potential of abutting land and on the amenity of the locality. Comments were raised that the insertion of the land into the Scheme significantly increases the scale and timeframes of the extractive industry. The key purpose of the Scheme amendment is to rationalise the zoning of the Austral Bricks site to reflect the sites current use as well as recognising its regional importance as a ‘Key Clay Extraction Area’ under SPP 2.4. The proposed Scheme amendment and the scale and length of the operation are not considered to correlate in any way. The length and scale of operation is however dependent on the amount of resources able to be extracted from the land. ‘Key Clay Extraction Areas’ have been recognised for providing long term supply of basic raw materials and it is therefore anticipated that the site will operate for quite some years. It is therefore important that the Shire zone the land under its Scheme appropriately, as required under SPP 2.4 to recognise the lands special use. Conditions of Special Use zoning One submission requested that a number of conditions be applied to Appendix 2 to control the development of extractive industry at the subject sites. Such suggested modifications included but were not limited to: • No extractive industry activity occurring within 500m of adjoining alternatively zoned

land. • The applicant can demonstrate containment of all dust and noise emissions within the

boundaries of the zone.


E13/1083

• Revegetation and/or bunding works to screen extractive industry activity and storage activity from the surrounding land.

• All trucks included in dispatching clay and/or shale outside of the special use zoning area shall not utilise Kiln Road.

• Preparation and implementation of a water management plan. Although many of the above concerns are relevant considerations, the application of such conditions and requirements within the Scheme is not considered to be the most appropriate mechanism. SPP 2.4 guides local governments in matters to be considered with such applications. In recognising that all extractive industry activities operate differently, the development application process allows for reasonable and appropriate planning conditions to be applied which can be tailored to the nature of the proposed activity, allowing a degree of flexibility. Such flexibility would not be available should such conditions be included into the Scheme. It is therefore not considered appropriate in this instance to include conditions of approval within Appendix 2. Under Clause 9.3 of TPS 2 the Council also has the ability to prepare a local planning policy to guide the development of future extractive industries should it deem it necessary. Other Comments Comments were received requesting that the Council impose conditions being applied to the Special Use zone and that the Scheme amendment include a “sunset clause” to ensure that extraction and storage operations are completed within a reasonable timeframe that is respectful of the surrounding residents. Suggestion was also made that the Scheme amendment be readvertised with the proposed modifications and referred to the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). The inclusion of a “sunset clause” to restrict the timeframe in which extraction is to occur is considered to be contrary to the intent of SPP 2.4. The identification of the area as a key resource is to be protected and any conditions or special clauses that apply restricted time frames to undertake such activity has the potential to impact on the exploitation of such resources. The timeframe for an extractive industry is determined by Council under planning approval conditions. The Scheme amendment was referred to the DEC as part of the 42 day referral period. Comments were received from the DEC advising that they have no objection to the proposed amendment in its current form. In addition, the amendment was required to be referred to the EPA, that advised that they have no objection to the amendment proceeding and that it has been determined that the Scheme amendment does not need to be formally assessed under the EPA Act, with no appeal right against such determination available. OPTIONS Council has the following options in making a decision on Amendment No.172 Option 1: Council could resolve to grant final approval for the proposed Amendment

No.172 and forward the Scheme Amendment documentation to the WAPC with a request that the Hon. Minister for Planning grant final approval without modification. This is the recommended option.

Option 2: Council could resolve not to grant final approval to the proposed Amendment

No.172 and forward the documentation to the WAPC for the consideration of the Hon. Minister for Planning.

CONCLUSION


E13/1083

It is considered that the recommendation for an amendment to TPS 2 is consistent with the State Planning framework to ensure the orderly and proper planning of the area. The rezoning of the land will reflect the site’s current use as well as its regional significance as a Key Clay Extraction Area under the SPP 2.4. Submissions made in regards to the subject amendment have been considered and it is recommended that Council adopt the proposed scheme amendment without modifications. ATTACHMENTS • OCM159.1/03/13 - Proposed Amendment No.172 document as advertised including

map of existing and proposed zoning (IN12/14104) • OCM159.2/03/13 - Schedule of Submissions (E12/7444) ALIGNMENT WITH OUR PLAN FOR THE FUTURE The proposal aligns with the Council’s Plan for the Future with respect to a number of focus areas including industry development, integrated water cycle management and landscape. Council’s Plan for the Future has placed an emphasis on attracting and facilitating appropriate industrial development, improving and maintaining surface and ground water quality and preserving the visual amenity of our landscapes. The implementation of appropriate conditions, specifically with respect to the preparation and approval of a number of management plans, will ensure that the land subject of this amendment complies with these focus areas. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT • Planning and Development Act 2005 • Town Planning Regulations 1967 • TPS 2 • EPA 1986 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct budget implications for Council with the finalisation of Scheme Amendment No.172. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority Officer Recommendation: Moved Cr Urban, seconded Cr Ricketts That Council: 1. Pursuant to Regulation 17(1) of the Town Planning Regulations (1967) (as

amended), note the submissions received in respect of proposed Amendment No.172 to the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale Town Planning Scheme No.2, and endorse the Shire officers responses to those submissions as contained in the schedule of submissions attachment OCM159.2/03/13.

2. Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act (2005) (as amended)

and Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations (1967) (as amended) adopt proposed Amendment No.172 to the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale Town Planning Scheme No.2, without modifications, as follows:




E13/1083

a) Rezoning portion of Lot 3 Kiln Road, Cardup from “Rural” to “Special Use – Extraction/Storage Shale & Clay:;

b) Modifying Appendix 2 – Special Use Zones of Town Planning Scheme No.2 to

reflect the following:

DESCRIPTION OF LAND PERMITTED USES 2. Part Lot 50 of Cockburn Sound

Location 345, Lot 6 of Cockburn Sound Location 22, part of Cockburn Sound Location 22, part of Cockburn Sound Location 521, Lot 10 and 12 of Cockburn Sound Location 521, part of Lot 4 of Cockburn Sound Location 721, part of Lot 3 Kiln Road, Cardup

Extraction and storage of Shale and Clay and manufacture, storage and distribution of Masonry and related products.

c) Amending the Scheme Map by delineating portion of Lot 3 Kiln Road, Cardup

within the Special Use zone and identifying it as “Extractive Storage/Shale Clay” (ESC);

3. Authorise the Shire President and the Acting Chief Executive Officer to execute

the relevant Amendment No. 172 documentation pursuant to Regulation 22(1) of the Town Planning Regulations (1967) (as amended).

4. Forward the schedule of submissions as per attachment OCM159.2/03/13 to the


5. Request the Western Australian Planning Commission and Honourable Minister

for Planning to grant final approval to Amendment No. 172 to the Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire Town Planning Scheme No. 2.

6. Inform all persons and parties who made a submission on Amendment No. 172 to

the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale Town Planning Scheme No. 2 of its decision. LOST 0/7 Council Note: Council and the community are concerned about possible inappropriate development on this land in the form of the manufacture, storage and distribution of Masonry and related products, that could be considered as a future development application. OCM159/03/13 COUNCIL DECISION / New Motion Moved Cr Wilson, seconded Cr Piipponen That Council:

1 Pursuant to Regulation 17(1) of the Town Planning Regulations (1967) (as amended), note the submissions received in respect of proposed Amendment No.172 to the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale Town Planning Scheme No.2, and endorse the Shire officers responses to those submissions as contained in the schedule of submissions attachment OCM159.2/03/13.


E13/1083

2 Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act (2005) (as amended) and Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations (1967) (as amended) adopt proposed Amendment No.172 to the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale Town Planning Scheme No.2, without modifications, as follows:

3 Rezoning portion of Lot 3 Kiln Road, Cardup from “Rural” to “Special Use –

Extraction/Storage Shale & Clay:; 4 Modifying Appendix 2 – Special Use Zones of Town Planning Scheme No.2 to

reflect the following:

DESCRIPTION OF LAND PERMITTED USES 2. Part Lot 50 of Cockburn Sound

Location 345, Lot 6 of Cockburn Sound Location 22, part of Cockburn Sound Location 22, part of Cockburn Sound Location 521, Lot 10 and 12 of Cockburn Sound Location 521, part of Lot 4 of Cockburn Sound Location 721, part of Lot 3 Kiln Road, Cardup

Extraction and storage of Shale and Clay only.

5 Amending the Scheme Map by delineating portion of Lot 3 Kiln Road, Cardup

within the Special Use zone and identifying it as “Extractive Storage/Shale Clay” (ESC);

6 Authorise the Shire President and the Acting Chief Executive Officer to execute


7 Forward the schedule of submissions as per attachment OCM159.2/03/13 to the


8 Request the Western Australian Planning Commission and Honourable Minister


9 Inform all persons and parties who made a submission on Amendment No. 172 to

the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale Town Planning Scheme No. 2 of its decision. CARRIED 7/0 Council Note: Council and the community are concerned about future possible development on this land including the manufacture, storage and distribution of masonry and related products. Council would be limited in its ability to prevent these land uses if Town Planning Scheme No. 2 was not further amended to limit these land uses. Council is concerned about the potential adverse impacts to the surrounding community and the amenity of the area if this land was developed in the future for uses as currently permitted in Town Planning Scheme No. 2.


E13/1083

OCM160/03/13 FINAL ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT NO. 180 – REZONING FROM TIMBER MANUFACTURE TO TIMBER MANUFACTURE AND CONCRETE CASTING - LOT 60 (#394) ROBERTSON ROAD, CARDUP (SJ1408)

Author: Louise Hughes – Manager Statutory Planning Senior Officers: Brad Gleeson – Director Development Services Date of Report: 6 February 2013 Disclosure of Officers Interest


Proponent: Dykstra Planning Owner: Mecca Holdings Pty Ltd Date of Receipt: 20 January 2012 Lot Area: Approx. 46.8ha Town Planning Scheme No. 2 Zoning: Special Use – Manufacture/distribution of timber Metropolitan Region Scheme Zoning: Industrial, Rural and Bush Forever area EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Shire received a proposal for a Scheme amendment to modify the wording to Special Use zone (No.5) of Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS 2) to facilitate the continued use and the proposed expansion of an existing concrete manufacturing business at the subject site. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 11 June 2012, Council resolved to initiate the Scheme amendment 180 resulting in the required advertising being undertaken. A Development Application was lodged in January 2012 for the retrospective concrete manufacturing business and the expansion of the site, including plant and storage shed. Council has resolved as follows:

B. Resolve to seek consent from the applicant for the application for development approval to be deferred for an initial period of months from the date of this decision to enable an amendment to Town Planning Scheme No.2 to be progressed.

This report relates to the Scheme amendment only, providing Council with the opportunity to consider the matter and provide a recommendation to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and the Minister for Planning. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF COUNCIL

• Council, at its meeting of 22 February 2010 (item SD104/02/10), resolved to request an amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and determined that Local Planning Policy (LPP) 44 – Cardup Business Planning Framework was satisfactory for advertising.

• Council, at its meeting of 27 June 2011 (item SD127/06/11), resolved to finalise LPP 44 – Cardup Business Park Planning Framework.

• Council, at its meeting of 11 June 2012 (item SD161/06/12), resolved to defer the

application for development approval associated with the land and resolved to initiate the subject Scheme Amendment to modify the Special Use Zone text to reflect the current use of the land.


E13/1083

COMMUNITY / STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION The MRS amendment was advertised formally for 3 months, with the submission period closing on 20 January 2012. The submissions received were considered by the WAPC ahead of the matter being presented to the Minister for Planning and state parliament. Prior to commencement of advertising, Amendment 180 was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under Section 48A of the Environmental Protection Act. The EPA advised in writing that the Amendment did not warrant assessment under Part IV Division 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Scheme Amendment 180 was advertised for public comment and referred to all government agencies for a period of 42 days starting on 25 October 2012 and closing on 7 December 2012. Advertising was undertaken in the following manner: • All landowners within 300-500 metres and Government Agencies were advised in writing

of the proposal; • Notices were placed on Council’s notice boards; • The proposal was made available on the Shire’s website • An advertisement was placed in the Examiner newspaper; and • A sign was placed on the subject site.

As a result of advertising, 13 submissions were received. 11 submissions were from government agencies and two submissions were from public submissions. The main issues raised in the submissions are as follows: • Potential impact and protection of bush forever sites; • Dust; • Noise; and • Inconsistency with existing MRS Amendment 1215/41. REPORT The subject land is located on the corner of Norman Road and Robertson Road, Cardup. The subject site is currently zone “Special Use (No.5)” under TPS 2. Part of Lot 60 is within Bush Forever area 361 and adjacent to Bush Forever area 350. The subject site is occupied by two related business uses, Permapole which manufactures timber products and Permacast, which manufactures concrete infrastructure products. The purpose of the Scheme amendment is to introduce an additional permitted use within the ‘Special Use (No.5) zone in TPS 2 to cater for the existing concrete manufacturing business and its proposed expansion. The proposed modification to the Scheme text will facilitate the continued use and expansion of the existing business while also establishing relevant provisions to guide future subdivision and development. Key Issues Bush Forever The EPA and the Department of Planning (DoP) have raised concerns regarding the potential impacts on the Bush Forever areas (BFA), including its protection, drainage and fencing requirements.


E13/1083

The DoP have also raised concerns over the Bush Forever areas not being excluded from the Special Use provisions and, therefore, could result in clearing or development that could potentially have direct or indirect impacts on BFA 361. Concern was also raised in regards to the proposed amendments relationship to the recently approved MRS amendment and on this basis, they have requested that an additional sentence be included in the amendment to stipulate that the permissible land uses are restricted to the portions of Lot 60 and Lot 21 not located within BFA 361. There have been instances where conditions have been inserted into the Special Use zone to restrict certain developments or to control the nature and type of development where particular environmental constraints exist. Council, should they resolve, has the option to modify the current amendment provisions to stipulate that the land uses are only permitted within the portion of land not affected by the Bush Forever site. Such modifications are not deemed necessary in this instance, due to the minor nature of the proposed amendment. The proposed text to be inserted into the Special Use zone is considered reasonable in addressing these issues and there are development controls available under TPS 2 and through the standard development application process to ensure that Bush Forever and other environmental issues are adequately addressed and managed. Dust & Noise The EPA has raised concerns in regards to appropriate buffer and separation distances being provided between the existing (and proposed extension) concrete manufacturing and existing residential development. The EPA has advised that minimum distances for such operations should be between 500 and 1000 metres. The subject Scheme amendment does not result in any changes to the zoning of land and it does not introduce any substantially different land uses to the area that are not currently operating from the site. The concrete casting shed proposed as part of the development application is located approximately 465 metres from any residential dwelling. This is only marginally below the suggested 500 metre separation zone. Regardless, any buffer and separation distances can be suitably dealt with through the development assessment process and setting of conditions. The scheme amendment is not considered to have any impact on the ability to impose appropriate buffer and separation distances as part of this development assessment process. Relationship with MRS Amendment (1215/41) An amendment to Council’s TPS 2 will occur in the future to: • Rezone land within the Cardup Business Park area to the urban development zone; • Establish development area provisions; and • Bring the Shire’s TPS 2 into conformity with the MRS. In contrast, Scheme Amendment 180 proposes to: • Extend the permissibility of land uses, to include concrete casting business;

manufacture and distribution of timber and related products at Lot 60 and Lot 21 Robertson Road, Cardup, where previously only timber processing has been permissible.

• Simply amend the provisions of the Special Use zone and not rezone any land.

It is expected that Amendment 180 may come into effect within the next 4-6 months. A development application for concrete manufacturing was also lodged in January 2012. The applicant has agreed to an extension of time for the determination of the application to enable Amendment 180 to be finalised, as the proposed use of the land is not currently


E13/1083

permissible. Once Amendment 180 has been gazetted, the development application can then be considered on its merits. The DoP has raised concern that as the proposed Scheme Amendment 180 does not preclude Bush Forever portions of the subject lots it is therefore not in conformity with the recently approved MRS amendment which purposely excludes these portions of Bush Forever to ensure its protection in the future. However, it must be noted that this Scheme amendment does not involve the rezoning of land, rather it intends to modify the Special Use provisions to accurately reflect the current and future intended land uses at the subject properties. It is expected that the statutory processes to rezone the land will take at least 12 months to finalise. Any development application from that point on would need to be considered in the context of the TPS 2 provisions for the urban development zone, whereby there is a general presumption against development unless it can be demonstrated that it will not be prejudicial to the preparation, finalisation and implementation of a local structure plan. OPTIONS There are essentially three (3) options available to Council in considering the matter, as follows: Option 1: Resolve to adopt Scheme Amendment No.180 as advertised; Option 2: Resolve to adopt Scheme Amendment No.180 with modifications; or Option 3: Refuse to adopt Scheme Amendment No.180. Option 1 is recommended. Amendment No.180 will be forwarded to the WAPC and Minister for Planning for a determination. CONCLUSION The Scheme amendment proposes the introduction of an additional permitted use over the subject site, while establishing relevant provisions to guide future subdivision and development. ATTACHMENTS • OCM160.1/03/13 - Current TPS 2 Appendix 2 provisions (E13/708) • OCM160.2/03/13 - Proposed Scheme Amendment (IN12/9594) • OCM160.3/03/13 - MRS Amendment # 1215/41 (IN13/2518) • OCM160.4/03/13 – MRS Amendment # 1215/41 Map (E13/930) • OCM160.5/03/13 – Schedule of Submissions (E12/7443)

ALIGNMENT WITH OUR PLAN FOR THE FUTURE The proposal is relevant to the implementation of Council’s Plan for the Future with respect to a number of focus areas including industry development, integrated water cycle management and landscape. The proposed amendment will enable planning to continue toward the ultimate establishment of a business park, leading to business development and employment opportunities. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

• Local Government Act 1995 • Planning and Development Act 2005







E13/1083

• Town Planning Regulations 1967 • TPS 2

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The medium-term creation of a business park will assist the Shire, through increased annual rate revenue stemming from the new commercial premises. Industrial and commercial areas are a significant source of rate revenue for a number of local governments across the Perth Metropolitan Area. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority OCM160/03/13 COUNCIL DECISION / Officer Recommendation Moved Cr Kirkpatrick, seconded Cr Atwell That Council resolve to: 1. Pursuant to Regulation 17(1) of the Town Planning Regulations (1967) (as

amended), note the submissions received in respect of proposed Amendment No.180 to the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale Town Planning Scheme No.2, and endorse the Shire officers responses to those submissions as contained in the schedule of submissions attachment OCM160.5/03/13.

2. Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act (2005) (as

amended) and Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations (1967) (as amended) adopt proposed Amendment No.180 to the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale Town Planning Scheme No.2, without modifications, as follows:

a) Deleting from Appendix 2 – Special Use Zones the following text:

5. Lot 2 of Serpentine AA Lot 20 and Lot 60 of Serpentine AA Lot 21 Norman Road, Mundijong

Manufacture and distribution of Timber related products

b) Inserting into Appendix 2 – Special Use Zones the following text:

5. Lot 2 of Serpentine AA Lot 20 and Lot 60 of Serpentine AA Lot 21 Norman Road, Mundijong

Concrete casting business; manufacture and distribution of timber and related products.

1. The concrete casting business is limited to Lot 60. In considering any development application, Council may require conditions addressing management of water quality and quantity, potential noise, dust, traffic and revegetation.

3. Authorise the Shire President and the Acting Chief Executive Officer to execute


4. Forward the schedule of submissions as per attachment OCM160.5/03/13 to the

Western Australian Planning Commission together with three copies of the


E13/1083

signed and sealed Amendment No. 180 documents for endorsement pursuant to Regulation 22(2) of the Town Planning Regulations (1967) (as amended).

5. Request the Western Australian Planning Commission and Honourable Minister


6. Inform all persons and parties who made a submission on Amendment No. 180

to the Shire or Serpentine Jarrahdale Town Planning Scheme No. 2 of its decision.

CARRIED 7/0


E13/1083

Cr Atwell left the room at 8.23pm OCM161/03/13 WEST MUNDIJONG INDUSTRIAL AREA - DISTRICT STRUCTURE

PLAN AND METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT (SJ1392-02)

Author: Peter Varelis – Senior Strategic Planner Senior Officers: Deon van der Linde – Executive Manager Strategic Planning

Alan Hart – Director Corporate Services & Strategic Community Planning

Date of Report: 13 January 2013 Disclosure of Officers Interest


Proponent: Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale Owner: Various Town Planning Scheme No. 2 Zoning: Rural / Farmlet Metropolitan Region Scheme Zoning: Rural EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Council at its Ordinary Meeting held 9 July 2012 resolved to initiate the technical investigations to proceed with a Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) amendment to rezone the West Mundijong Industrial Area (West Mundijong) from Rural to Industrial. Since Council’s resolution the following has occurred: 1. The Shire has consulted with major landowners and their consultants to discuss the

planning and technical investigations to be undertaken for West Mundijong; and 2. The Shire has consulted and engaged with relevant state government agencies

throughout the preparation of the technical investigations; and 3. The following documents were prepared: - Draft District Structure Plan (DSP) - Draft District Water Management Strategy and associated documents (DWMS) - Draft Environmental Assessment Report (including noise modelling) (EA) - Draft Traffic Impact Statement (TIS). It is recommended that Council: • Consider the technical investigations to support the MRS amendment; • Adopt the draft DSP and supporting reports; • Formally request the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) to progress

concurrent amendments to rezone the area, as delineated in the DSP to Industrial in the MRS and the Urban Development Zone in Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS); and

• Notify landowners of Council’s decision. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF COUNCIL OCM098/03/12 – (March 2012) Council’s endorsement of the Feasibility Study. OCM001/07/12 – (July 2012) Intention to Initiate MRS Amendment. COMMUNITY / STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION Extensive and robust consultation has occurred with landowners and their consultants to date. Further consultation will occur with landowners, their consultants, the community and


E13/1083

relevant stakeholders through the progression of the project and relevant statutory processes. Once the MRS and TPS amendment has been considered by the WAPC and any relevant modifications attended to, the MRS / TPS2 amendment and DSP will be advertised accordingly. REPORT Recommendations of the West Mundijong Industrial Area Feasibility Study On behalf of the Shire, town planning and engineering consultants TME were engaged to investigate the potential for industrial development west of the existing Mundijong townsite. The investigations resulted in the West Mundijong Industrial Area Feasibility Study (the Feasibility Study). Broadly the Feasibility Study recommended Council to: 1. Facilitate the progression of an MRS amendment to include the land within the Industrial

zone of the MRS; 2. Continue to explore funding opportunities from state agencies; and 3. Retain an oversight / management role between landowners and the State Government. As part of exploring funding opportunities, the State Government has provided the Shire with financial assistance. The funding has allowed the Shire to progress the recommendations of the Feasibility Study and undertake the technical investigations associated with an MRS amendment. Specifically the following technical investigations were prepared: • Draft DSP • Draft DWMS and associated documents • Draft EA Report • Draft TIS Major Considerations Freight Rail Realignment and Terminal In August 2011, Council resolved to adopt the final Mundijong-Whitby District Structure Plan (M-W DSP). As part of the approval, an illustration of the potential freight rail realignment was shown outside of the Mundijong townsite. The potential realignment was identified parallel with the future Tonkin Highway extension. The Design Philosophy of the M-W DSP states the following: “…The freight line is a significant design element particularly in relation to regional access to infrastructure and quality of life for nearby residents, and is likely to increase in use over time. Realigning the freight line along the Tonkin Highway corridor to the west is critical for Mundijong/Whitby and ultimate maturity of the area.” Subsequent to the approval of the M-W DSP, the Department of Transport (the DoT) undertook a desktop analysis of the potential options for the freight rail realignment. The analysis was prepared by suitably qualified consultants and outlined the opportunities and constraints of various freight rail realignments through the West Mundijong Industrial Area. The analysis was presented to the Infrastructure Coordination Committee (ICC) of the WAPC. The ICC considered the analysis and resolved to identify the alignment with the future Tonkin Highway extension as its preferred option and that further detailed investigation be undertaken. As part of the EA Report for the West Mundijong Industrial Area, a Preliminary Noise Modelling Assessment was undertaken that explored an eastern and a western realignment and intermodal terminal location. Based on the preliminary investigation and best information available the following is noted -


E13/1083

Western Option: - Noise emissions from the proposed industrial development to the planned urban

development directly east of the future Tonkin Highway are comparable in both the eastern and western scenarios;

- The western option is physically constrained by the 330Kv transmission lines traversing north / south on the western portion of the site. Preliminary investigations with Western Power indicate that this would be a significant constraint to the realignment and functionality of the intermodal terminal;

- The western option would require additional road crossings at the future major intersections of Leipold, Scott and Sparkman Road;

- The far western portion of the site as outlined in the draft DWMS is critical to achieving the 1 in 100 year flood storage requirements. This storage is a legislative and policy requirement of the Department of Water;

- Freight traffic traversing east and west from the Tonkin Highway to the intermodal terminal may have adverse impacts on the functionality of other industries proposed in West Mundijong; and

- Additional costs associated with land resumption would be incurred as a result of resuming a second infrastructure corridor within West Mundijong.

Eastern Option: - Noise emissions from the proposed industrial development to the planned urban

development directly east of the future Tonkin Highway are comparable in both the eastern and western scenarios;

- The eastern option is less physically constrained as an existing infrastructure corridor for the proposed Tonkin Highway has been reserved;

- The eastern option would have the realignment and intermodal terminal running parallel with the Tonkin Highway and thus negate the need for additional road crossings and interference with other industries or the internal road network;

- Land efficiencies are gained through the notion of a shared road / rail infrastructure corridor; and

- Existing planning instruments including the Council and WAPC approved M-W DSP shows the potential freight rail re-alignment adjacent to the future Tonkin Highway.

Ultimately the planning, design and provision of the proposed freight rail realignment and intermodal terminal is an initiative and responsibility of the State Government. The Shire can provide no commitment or funding to the initiative, it is for this reason and on this basis that the draft DSP reflects the planning of a proposed future rail realignment. Furthermore, the draft DSP takes into account the findings of the EA Report and states that the ultimate realignment and location of the intermodal terminal will be determined at the advice of the DoT when further investigations have taken place. The draft DSP and associated technical investigations have explored and allowed for the possibility of a freight rail realignment and intermodal terminal at West Mundijong. At the district planning level, the planning for the West Mundijong Industrial Area is robust enough to facilitate such a significant facility and any impacts are dealt with in an appropriate manner in accordance with relevant requirements at appropriate stages of planning. MRS amendments are high level statutory instruments that facilitate the progression of rezoning and strategic issues associated with it. The technical investigations associated with the MRS amendment outline further studies and matters that will need to be considered at further detailed levels of planning. The further particulars associated with the realignment and intermodal terminal need to be attended to by the DoT at further detailed levels of planning. On balance, the matters concerning the proposed freight rail re-alignment and intermodal terminal are long term strategic considerations and are not considered to prejudice the rezoning of the area at an MRS level. Officers are of the understanding that landowners


E13/1083

would like to develop the land for General and Light Industry purposes in the short to medium term. The further particulars associated with the proposed freight rail realignment and intermodal terminal can be dealt with at further detailed stages of planning. As outlined in the Feasibility Study, irrespective of the timing or occurrence of the freight rail realignment, industrial development is required at West Mundijong and can occur in Areas 1, 2 and 3. The Future Tonkin Highway Extension South of Mundijong Road The future Tonkin Highway extension has been identified in the MRS to extend south of Mundijong Road and to connect east around the periphery of the Mundijong-Whitby DSP to South Western Highway. The detailed design and planning for this has commenced and a Tonkin Highway Extension Community Reference Group has been formed. Based on the best information available, it is the Shire’s undertaking that the future freight rail realignment associated with West Mundijong would extend beyond the site and connect to the existing line following the Tonkin Highway extension. The planning for this is considered beyond the scope of the draft DSP and MRS amendment for West Mundijong as it considers areas outside of the subject site. Officers, community representatives and Councillors will continue to work collaboratively to explore matters through the appropriate reference group. The Future Extension of Mundijong Road East For some time at a strategic level there has been discussion around extending Mundijong Road east and to provide it as a major transport linkage to the wheat belt region. It is the Shire’s understanding that the Strategic Policy division of the DoT are currently exploring options within the Peel Region at a desktop level and Mundijong Road is only one of a number of options being evaluated. Road linkages may not be considered desirable, however, in the longer term there may be potential opportunities to explore rail linkages east with existing infrastructure reserves to the intermodal terminal at West Mundijong to maximise its potential as a major transport facility in the region. The planning for this is considered beyond the scope of the draft DSP and MRS amendment and officers will continue to work collaboratively at a strategic level with the DoT. Buffer Requirements and Noise Amelioration Draft State Planning Policy 4.1 – State Industrial Buffer (SPP4.1) requires off site buffers to be considered in the planning of new industrial estates. Section 6 of SPP4.1 deals with mechanisms for securing buffers, it is proposed to secure the buffer for West Mundijong via the Shire’s Rural Land Strategy Review (the Strategy). From information received, the Shire understands that, as a result of the Noise Modelling Report and in consultation with senior officers of the Department of Environment and Conservation (the DEC) and Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (the EPA) the following noise management mitigation measures are proposed at the district level: 1. “Quieter” light industry is to be located at the periphery of the Area to the east and south

to provide a separation and internalised buffer to residential and rural residential development. General industry is to be located in the core of the Area and adjacent to less sensitive rural land uses to the west and north.

2. Consideration should be given at further detailed stages of planning to explore the merits and potential of constructing a noise attenuation barrier to mitigate impacts to residential development.

3. Recommend through the Local Structure Plans associated with Precinct E of the M-W

DSP that Detailed Area Plans be required for those lots adjoining the Water Corporation reservation will need to comply with the requirements of State Planning Policy 5.4.


E13/1083

4. Concurrently with the preparation of the planning for the area, the Shire is undertaking a review of its strategic land use planning framework. The Strategy should identify land to the north, south and west of the Area as a “buffer”.

5. Additionally notifications of rail noise should be added to titles of residents located adjacent to possible future railway.

Securing the future form and function of the land identified for the buffer is a policy requirement of draft SPP4.1 and will be undertaken through the finalisation of the Strategy. The buffer is approximately 1 kilometre in width from the proposed West Mundijong Industrial area and allows for General Industry to be located to the northern and western sides of the area. In the context of existing and approved sensitive land uses, Light Industry is to be located on the eastern and southern sides of the area. Potential light and general industries that may be attracted to the area are identified in the Feasibility Study. The buffer, distance and location has been determined on the basis of a Preliminary Noise Modelling Assessment which has recently been completed and found to be acceptable to the Noise Branch of the DEC. With regard to point 4 above, the Shire will continue to explore potential subdivision and development opportunities within this area with relevant state government agencies / landowners and through the consultation and finalisation process of the Strategy. Environmental Assessment and Reporting The EA Report accompanying the DSP is a desktop assessment of the environmental values of the site. The assessment includes information on the following categories. Physical characteristics including a description of: • Landform; • Drainage and water bodies; • Geological, hydrogeological and hydrological characteristics; and • Acid Sulphate Soil Risk Mapping.

Biological characteristics including: • Declared Rare and Priority Flora and Fauna and Threatened Ecological Community

searches of the DEC Databases; • Results from the Commonwealth Protected Matters Search Tool which will identify

possible matters of National Environmental Significance listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act) that may occur on the sites; and

• A site assessment of the likelihood of conservation significant flora, vegetation and fauna being present on the site.

Recent and present land use including: • Federal, State and Local Government Environmental Policy areas search; • Surrounding land uses and potential impacts (such as noise); • Any records from the Contaminated Sites Database; and • Assessment of current and historical activities on the site and surrounding areas which

have the potential to result in contamination issues. It is estimated that less than 3% of the original vegetation remains. Nevertheless there may be the possibility of rare and endangered flora on the fringes of the site mainly in association with remnant vegetation on the southern side of Mundijong Road. Such vegetation may also support endangered fauna. Given the very limited extent of remnant vegetation, detailed surveys and reporting are not envisaged as required at the DSP and MRS amendment stage. Rather such surveys, if required, can be deferred to the subsequent local structure


E13/1083

planning phase. This approach would be consistent with the development of the M-W DSP and is acceptable to the EPA. The majority of the site is designated a ‘multiple use’ wetland according to DEC’s geomorphic wetland data base. The northern portion of the site is traversed by Manjedal Brook. The eastern portion of the Brook is identified as a Conservation Category Wetland (CCW). The Brook is also identified as an ‘area of natural beauty’ in Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS 2). The Shire is not seeking to de-classify the CCW. Manjedal Brook is proposed to be included into an ecological corridor incorporating rehabilitation, drainage and passive recreation features. The corridor would also seek to make provision for adequate buffers between Manjedal Brook and future industrial development consistent with relevant policy. ATTACHMENTS • OCM161.1/03/13 - West Mundijong Industrial Area Feasibility Study (IN13/2080) • OCM161.2/03/13 – South West Freight Rail Alignment Project Report (IN13/2052,

IN13/2053, IN13/2055, IN13/2056, IN13/2058, and IN13/2060) • OCM161.3/03/13 – Draft West Mundijong Industrial Area DSP (IN13/2638) • OCM161.4/03/13 – Draft West Mundijong Industrial Area DWMS and associated

documentation (IN13/744) • OCM161.5/03/13 - Draft West Mundijong Industrial Area EA Report (including noise

modelling) (IN12/19274) • OCM161.6/03/13 – Draft Traffic Impact Statement (IN13/1818)

ALIGNMENT WITH OUR PLAN FOR THE FUTURE The West Mundijong Industrial Area aligns with the ‘Sustainable Growth’ objective of the Shire’s Plan for the Future. The development proposes to align with the following key actions: 1. Attract appropriate industrial, commercial and retail developments; 2. Foster products that produce renewable energy, products and services; 3. Ensure strategy, policy and land use planning for appropriate industries; and 4. Ensure sustainable growth through the provision of suitable employment industries. As part of responsibly planning for future urban and rural populations, it is vital that strategic industrial and employment nodes are identified in the Shire with planned medium to long term development horizons. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT • Planning and Development Act 2005 • Town Planning Regulations 1967 (as amended) • TPS 2 TPS 2 At the time the MRS amendment is progressed, the Shire will also amend its TPS 2 to enable the implementation of the DSP and detailed stages of planning (i.e. Local Structure Plans and subdivision). This will entail the rezoning of the subject area to Urban Development. The Planning and Development Act 2005 enables local authorities to facilitate concurrent amendments to the MRS and Town Planning Schemes. In the interests of efficiency and certainty it is recommended that this approach be pursued. Officers are currently drafting another TPS 2 amendment for the introduction of a Development Contribution Arrangement (DCA) for the area, the DCA will soon be presented to Council for advertising following adoption of the draft DSP.








E13/1083

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Shire has received significant financial assistance from the State Government which has enabled the Shire to progress the technical investigations for West Mundijong. Officers are providing on-going updates to the State Government in regard to the studies, expenditure and progression of the project. It is recommended that the Shire continue to progress this project with funding from external sources, assist through budgeted funding where possible and provide in kind contribution through ongoing project management. Organisation Amount received to date Peel Development Commission (PDC) $18,000 Department of Planning (DoP) $115,500 Department of Agriculture & Food WA (DAFWA) $22,000 Total $155,500 CONCLUSION Options: Option 1 - Request that the WAPC progress an amendment to the MRS to rezone the area shown in the draft DSP from Rural to Industrial and initiate a concurrent TPS2 amendment to rezone the subject area to Urban Development. Option 2 – Request that the WAPC progress an amendment to the MRS to rezone the area shown in the draft DSP from Rural to Industrial and initiate a concurrent TPS2 amendment to rezone the subject area to Urban Development subject to modifications as recommended by Council. Option 3 - Not support a request that the WAPC progress an amendment to the MRS to rezone the area shown in the draft DSP from Rural to Industrial and initiate a concurrent TPS2 amendment to rezone the subject area to Urban Development and provide reasons why to the DoP, PDC and DAFWA. Option 1 is recommended. So far, progression of the necessary planning for the site has embodied a ‘whole of government approach’. Funding for the proposal has been sourced from a number of state agencies including the DoP and DAFWA. The Shire is committed to collaboration with key agencies in order to progress the planning and ultimately development of West Mundijong. The development of the West Mundijong Industrial Area will have a number of matters (including the buffer and freight rail realignment / intermodal location) that will need to be addressed through detailed stages of planning. On balance, these issues are not considered significant enough to prejudice the progression of a DSP and MRS amendment. The progression of a DSP and MRS amendment will allow these matters to be resolved and provide a statutory process for formal dialogue with relevant stakeholders in an open, transparent and considered manner.


E13/1083

VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority OCM161/03/13 COUNCIL DECISION / Officer Recommendation Moved Cr Wilson, seconded Cr Urban That Council: 1. Pursuant to clause 5.18.3.2(a) of Town Planning Scheme No.2 adopt the draft

District Structure Plan and technical investigations as outlined in attachments OCM161.3/03/13, OCM161.4/03/13, OCM161.5/03/13 and OCM161.6/03/13 for the purposes of advertising.

2. Advertise the draft District Structure Plan and technical investigations as

outlined in attachments OCM161.3/03/13, OCM161.4/03/13, OCM161.5/03/13 and OCM161.6/03/13 in accordance with clause 5.18.3.5(b) of Town Planning Scheme No.2.

3. Pursuant to clause 5.18.3.6 of Town Planning Scheme No.2 forward a copy of the

draft District Structure Plan and technical investigations as outlined in attachments OCM161.3/03/13, OCM161.4/03/13, OCM161.5/03/13 and OCM161.6/03/13 to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

4. Formally request the Western Australian Planning Commission to progress

concurrent amendments to rezone the area, as delineated in the draft West Mundijong District Structure Plan, to Industrial in the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the Urban Development Zone in Town Planning Scheme No.2.

5. Request the Western Australian Planning Commission to advertise the draft

District Structure Plan in parallel with the advertising of the Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment.

6. Notify landowners of Council’s decision. CARRIED 6/0 Cr Atwell was not present and did not vote. Cr Atwell returned to the room at 8.28pm


E13/1083

OCM162/03/13 BUDGET REVIEW 2012/2013 (SJ1080) Author: Casey Mihovilovich - Executive Manager Finance Services Senior Officers: Alan Hart - Director Corporate Services Date of Report: 20 February 2013 Disclosure of Officers Interest


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The budget review is a statutory review that is undertaken in accordance with the Local Government Act (1995). The purpose of this review is to identify significant variations from the Annual Budget and to recommend amendments to the Annual Budget. Changes to the Annual Budget are required during the year as circumstances change from when the Annual Budget was adopted by Council at the beginning of the financial year and amendments to the Annual Budget will ensure that tight fiscal control is maintained on Council’s Finances. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF COUNCIL There is no previous Council decision relating to this issue. COMMUNITY / STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION No community consultation was required. REPORT The review has been undertaken by all Managers and Directors and the effect on service delivery by the proposed amendments has been taken into account. Full details of variance and explanations have been provided in the 2012/2013 budget review report. When undertaking the budget review, actual and committed expenditure was taken into account. Below is a summary of the variances that have been identified and the recommended changes.

Description Budget Review

Original Budget Variance

Opening Surplus at 1 July 2012 1,775,324 1,042,936 732,388 Proceeds from Sale of Assets 851,311 804,000 47,311 Changes to Net Transfers to and from Reserves (307,921) (41,602) (266,319) Changes to Net Transfers to and from Restricted Cash 2,670,827 2,396,678 274,149

Loan Principal Drawdown (New Loans) 2,425,063 2,688,164 (263,101) Capital Expenditure (13,352,392) (12,774,519) (577,873) Capital Revenue (cash items) 6,411,334 6,041,480 369,854 Operating Revenue 20,720,743 21,521,576 (800,833) Operating Expenditure (cash items) (20,094,918) (20,602,449) 507,531

TOTAL SURPLUS ESTIMATED AT 30 JUNE 2013 23,107


E13/1083

Conclusion Following the detailed review that each business unit manager conducted, it is recommended that Council adopt the changes recommended. ATTACHMENTS • OCM162.1/03/13 - 2012/2013 Budget Review Report (E13/883) ALIGNMENT WITH OUR PLAN FOR THE FUTURE This report is a tool for evaluating performance against recognized standards and best practice and meets the needs of the community, elected members, management and staff. It helps the Shire to exercise responsible financial and asset management cognizant of being a hyper-growth council in line with the Plan for the Future. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires that; (1) Between 1 January and 31 March in each year a local government is to carry out a

review of its annual budget for that year. (2A) The review of an annual budget for a financial year must —

(a) consider the local government’s financial performance in the period beginning on 1 July and ending no earlier than 31 December in that financial year; and

(b) consider the local government’s financial position as at the date of the review; and (c) review the outcomes for the end of that financial year that are forecast in the budget.

(2) Within 30 days after a review of the annual budget of a local government is carried out it is to be submitted to the council.

(3) A council is to consider a review submitted to it and is to determine* whether or not to adopt the review, any parts of the review or any recommendations made in the review.

*Absolute majority required (4) Within 30 days after a council has made a determination, a copy of the review and

determination is to be provided to the Department. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The financial implications related to this review are outlined in this report. No additional funds are required from these adjustments. Based on the review there will be a budget surplus at 30 June 2013 of $23,107. VOTING REQUIREMENTS ABSOLUTE MAJORITY OCM162/03/13 COUNCIL DECISION / Officer Recommendation Moved Cr Moore, seconded Cr Wilson That Council receives the 2012/2013 budget review and adopts the budget adjustments to the 2012/2013 statutory budget. CARRIED 7/0 by absolute majority 10. URGENT BUSINESS: Nil



E13/1083

11. COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: Nil 12. CLOSURE: There being no further business the meeting closed at 8.29pm

I certify that these minutes were confirmed at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 25 March 2013.

...................................................................

Presiding Member

................................................................... Date

table of contents 1. attendances & apologies …€¦ · · 2013-04-09rezoning of portion of...

Documents