committee 22 november 2011 minutes - city of bunbury and... · 2011/2012 (was listed as item 11.7...

CITY OF BUNBURY 4 Stephen Street

Bunbury WA 6230 Western Australia

Correspondence to: Post Office Box 21

Bunbury WA 6231

Telephone: (08) 9792 7234 & Facsimile: (08) 9792 7184 & TTY: (08) 9792 7370 & www.bunbury.wa.gov.au

Council (Standing) Committee Minutes 22 November 2011

Committee Terms of Reference (last updated 18/10/11) 1. To review reports and recommendations that are to be submitted to a meeting of the

Council and (where appropriate) make alternative recommendations to those recommendations listed in the reports.

2. To request additional information necessary to assist the members of Council in making a

decisions. 3. To make reference to appropriate legislation, Council's policies, local laws and the Strategic

Plan when making Committee Recommendations to Council.

Table of Contents

Item No Subject Page

1. Declaration of Opening by the Presiding Member ..................................... 1

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

3. Responses to 'Public Questions' from the Previous Council Committee Meeting not Answered at that Meeting .................................... 2

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

5. Questions on Notice from Committee Members (No Discussion Permitted) ..................................................................................... 4

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

7. Disclosures of Interest Under the Local Government Act 1995 ............... 5

8. Announcements by the Presiding Member (No Discussion Permitted).......................................................................................................... 5

9. Chief Executive Officer Reports/Discussion Topics................................... 6

9.1 Request for Leave of Absence – Councillor Cameron Bridges (was listed as item 9.1 on the meeting agenda) ......................................... 6

9.2 Review of Committee Structure (this item was dealt with as the last item for the night after item 11.13) .................................................. 7

10. Reception of Formal Petitions and Memorials .......................................... 21

11. Reception of Reports and Recommendations from Officers & Advisory Committees .................................................................................... 21

11.1 Blair Street / Forrest Avenue Blackspot Project (item was not on the original agenda. Was listed as a late item 11.14) ........................ 21

11.2 Leschenault Inlet Masterplan (was listed as item 11.1 on the meeting agenda) ............................................................................................ 29

11.3 Department of Regional Development and Lands – Proposed transfer of Management Order for Drainage Reserves, Five Mile Brook to the City of Bunbury (was listed as item 11.2 on the meeting agenda) ..................................................................................... 36

11.4 South West Senior Expo Inc. – Picton Agricultural Hall, Portion of Reserve 14588, South Western Highway, Bunbury (was listed as item 11.3 on the meeting agenda)..................................... 39

11.5 Amendment to Deed of License Bicentennial Square Markets (was listed as item 11.4 on the meeting agenda)..................................... 42

Table of Contents


11.6 Local Government Development Assessment Panels (DAPs) – Replacement Councillor for former Cr Wayne Major (was listed as item 11.5 on the meeting agenda) .............................................. 44

11.7 Appointments to the Bunbury Regional Arts Management Board (was listed as item 11.6 on the meeting agenda) ......................... 46

11.8 City of Bunbury Healthy Clubs Grants Scheme – Summer 2011/2012 (was listed as item 11.7 on the meeting agenda)................. 49

11.9 Scheme Review Initiation (was listed as item 11.8 on the meeting agenda) ............................................................................................ 52

11.10 Delegated Authority for the Roof Covering Replacement Tender, King Cottage Building (was listed as item 11.9 on the meeting agenda) ............................................................................................ 59

11.11 Tender for Road Reconstruction and Drainage Upgrade Works to Minninup Road, Bunbury - RFT 2011 2012-08 (was listed as item 11.10 on the meeting agenda) ............................................ 62

11.12 Tender for Road Reconstruction and Drainage Upgrade Works to Stuart Street, Bunbury - RFT 2011 2012-10 (was listed as item 11.12 on the meeting agenda) ............................................ 65

11.13 Advisory Committee Minutes to be Noted at the Council Committee Meeting (was listed as item 11.13 on the meeting agenda) ........................................................................................................... 68

11.14 Tender for Road Reconstruction and Drainage Upgrade Works to Forrest Avenue, Bunbury - RFT 2011 2012-09 (was listed as item 11.11 on the meeting agenda) ............................................ 69

12. Motions on Notice .......................................................................................... 73

12.1 Motion on Notice – Rescission of Council Decision 254/11 – Proposed Scheme Amendment 60............................................................. 73

13. Urgent Business (With Approval of Majority of Members Present as Permitted Under Standing Order 5.1.13)............................... 75

14. Items to be Noted or Endorsed ................................................................... 75

14.1 Items to be Noted (No Discussion) at the Council Committee Meeting ............................................................................................................ 75

14.2 Items to be Endorsed (No Discussion) at the Council Committee Meeting ....................................................................................... 76

Table of Contents


15. Confidential Business as Stipulated Under Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995.................................................................. 76

16. Close of Meeting ............................................................................................ 76

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATED TERMS

Term Explanation

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

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATED TERMS

Term Explanation

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

Council (Standing) Committee Minutes

Minutes of an Ordinary Meeting of the Council (Standing) Committee held in the Council Chambers, City of Bunbury Administration Building, 4 Stephen Street, Bunbury on Tuesday, 22 November 2011.

Minutes 22 November 2011

Members of the public to note that recommendations made by this committee are not final and will be subject to adoption (or otherwise) at a future meeting of the Bunbury City Council.

1. Declaration of Opening by the Presiding Member

His Worship the Mayor, Mr David Smith, declared the meeting open at 6.03pm.

2. Record of Attendance, Apologies and Leave of Absence

PRESENT

Council Committee Members Presiding Member: His Worship the Mayor, Mr D Smith Deputy Presiding Member: Deputy Mayor, Councillor S Craddock

Councillor J Jones Councillor D Prosser Councillor A Leigh Councillor R Slater Councillor K Steele Councillor C Bridges Councillor B Kelly Councillor N McNeill Councillor M Cook

Members:

Councillor S Morris Executive Management Team (Non-Voting) Chief Executive Officer: Mr A Brien Director Strategic Integration Mr G Klem Director Corporate Services Mr W Wright Director Works and Services Mr P Harris Director Planning and Development Mr B Karaszkewych Director Community and Customer Services

Ms S Addison-Brown

22 November 2011 Minutes - Council Committee Meeting

Page 2

Council Officers (Non-Voting): Senior Administration Officer Mr J Dyson Admin. Officer Corporate Services: Ms N Hribar Others (Non-Voting): Members of the Public: 8 Members of the Press: 2 APOLOGIES: Nil LEAVE OF ABSENCE: Nil Cr Steck was absent from the meeting.

3. Responses to 'Public Questions' from the Previous Council Committee Meeting not Answered at that Meeting

Nil

4. Public Question Time

Mrs Tresslyn Smith, 8 Picton Crescent, Bunbury Questions: In regards to item 9.2 – Which Committees does the Council envisage

will be cancelled? In particular reference to the City of Bunbury Art Collection Management Committee – how many other Committees have created such a valuable asset as the Art Collection Committee has? Why would Council seek to destroy such a successful model that has been in existence for 63 years? Is Council aware that until the Curator became ill, the City Executive rarely attended the meetings? Is the Council aware that the Committee is made of mostly volunteers? If this motion is passed what is the next step? Is the Council aware that the volunteers have been working on weekends to get a collection ready for exhibition in January as there are no curator or anyone else able to do it? Am I allowed to speak at length when this item comes up for discussion?

Response: The Mayor – The CEO will outline the proposed changes when this

item is dealt with. The future management of the Collection is to be covered by a policy and implementation of that policy is to be by staff. The intention is to have input from the reference group in relation to specialist areas. How that reference group is to be formed and how it would function that is it would be merely someone with the staff would


Page 3

consult with or seek input from and that would be limited to those specialist areas. The specialist areas are not identified.

It would take a very in depth analysis of all the committees histories to find out what other committees have contributed to the Council. Do note however that since 1948 when the Regional bequest was made by Claude Hotchin the collection has now built up to something like 800 pieces of movable art and the value of the collection is somewhere between $3M and $3.5M. It does not of course include the public art which would have to be subjected to a separate analysis identifying the separate pieces of public art and having them valued. Without going through the minutes of the Art Collection Committee I could not confirm how many times the Executive have attended any of the meetings. All community members that are on Council committees are all voluntary. No one is paid to be on a committee. I encourage you to remain and listen to the debate. Council has not decided anything as yet. You will be able to speak to this item when it comes up.

Ms Juliet Harrop, Unit 2/53 Moore Street, Bunbury Question: In regards to item 9.2 with reference to the City of Bunbury Art

Collection Management Committee – How would you envisage a policy situation with staff and what staff as there is no Curator and when would the policies be developed? How would the reference group work?

Response: Mayor – I will interpret that as in relation to the policies that are

referred to in the committee items how it is proposed that Council will interpret those policies and when would it be likely to expect that would happen? That is if we are going to operate under a policy rather than a committee when might the policies be developed and what would be the procedure and timetable of that development? CEO – in relation to the Policy the Council staff will develop up policy based on what other organisations have in place at the moment, what is identified as best practice across local government and also what is contained in the current Terms of Reference. We will then bring that back to Council for consideration. Council will then need to sign off on that and we are hoping to do that in either the December, if Council endorse the recommendation tonight, or first round of meetings in January. We have the timetable for that. In relation to how the reference groups and everything else will operate is something the Council will still need to consider. We have some ideas on that but at this stage we haven’t put anything forward to Council.


Page 4

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

Nil

6. Confirmation of Previous Minutes

The minutes of the Council (Standing) Committee Meeting held 1 November 2011, have been circulated. At the Council meeting held 8 November 2011, Cr Slater requested that the minutes of the Committee meeting be amended. The amendments have been made. Recommendation The minutes (as amended) of the Council (Standing) Committee Meeting held 1 November 2011, be confirmed as a true and accurate record. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Cook, seconded Cr Slater. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation The minutes (as amended) of the Council (Standing) Committee Meeting held 1 November 2011, be confirmed as a true and accurate record. CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”


Page 5

7. Disclosures of Interest Under the Local Government Act 1995

Cr Jones disclosed an impartial interest in the item titled ‘Department of Regional Development and Lands – Proposed transfer of Management Order for Drainage Reserves, Five Mile Brook to the City of Bunbury’ as she is a member of the Aqwest Board. She believes that her interest is trivial in nature and intends to stay in the chambers, participate in discussion and vote on the item. Cr Kelly disclosed an impartial interest in the item titled ‘Department of Regional Development and Lands – Proposed transfer of Management Order for Drainage Reserves, Five Mile Brook to the City of Bunbury’ as he is an employee of the Department of Water. He believes that his interest is trivial in nature as he does not work or has never worked on the drainage system and intends to stay in the chambers, participate in discussion and vote on the item. The Mayor ruled that neither interest is “an interest that needs to be declared”.

8. Announcements by the Presiding Member (No Discussion Permitted)

The Mayor made mention of a meeting that the CEO, Director Strategic Integration and himself attended with the Minister for Transport and Housing, Mr Troy Buswell and the Minister for Local Government , Heritage, Citizenship and Multicultural Interests, Mr John Castrilli. There was no substantial outcome of the meeting but if any Councillor would like to know what was discussed then the Mayor will be happy to discuss with them individually. The Mayor made mention of a meeting that Director Strategic Integration, the Manager Community Law and Safety and himself attended with representatives of FESA in regards to the Emergency Services Hub. The outcome of which will be a matter of discussion at a Briefing session. The Mayor reminded Councillors that there is a Civic Reception this week to honour the City of Bunbury Surf Lifesaving Club for being named “Club of the Year” for all of Australia and Lyn Ventriss for being named “Master Athlete of the World” and urge all Councillors to attend if they are able.


Page 6

9. Chief Executive Officer Reports/Discussion Topics

9.1 Request for Leave of Absence – Councillor Cameron Bridges (was listed as item 9.1 on the meeting agenda) File Ref: A00215

Applicant/Proponent: Councillor Cameron Bridges

Author: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer

Director: Andrew Brien, Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: Nil

Recommendation Pursuant to Section 2.25 of the Local Government Act 1995, Councillor Cameron Bridges is granted leave of absence from all Council-related business from 27 February to 19 March 2012 inclusive. Summary/Background Councillor Cameron Bridges requests leave of absence from all Council-related business from 27 February to 19 March 2011 inclusive. Section 2.25 of the Local Government Act 1995, allows a council to grant leave of absence to one of its members provided that the period of leave does not exceed six consecutive ordinary meetings of the Council. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Leigh, seconded Cr Morris. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation Pursuant to Section 2.25 of the Local Government Act 1995, Councillor Cameron Bridges is granted leave of absence from all Council-related business from 27 February to 19 March 2012 inclusive. CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”


Page 7

9.2 Review of Committee Structure (this item was dealt with as the last item for the night after item 11.13)

File Ref: A04854

Applicant/Proponent: Internal Report



Attachments: Nil

Recommendation 1. That Council adopt the following structure for meetings commencing from

January 2012: a) First Tuesday of each month – information briefing (Councillors and

Executive staff, plus invited presenters) b) Second Tuesday of each month – reserved for project briefings and

reference groups (Councillors and Executive staff, plus invited presenters)

c) Third Tuesday of each month – Agenda forum (open to public, Councillors and Executive)

d) Fourth Tuesday of each month – Ordinary Council Meeting

2. In addition to the above meetings, Council continue with legislative or statutory committees;

3. In addition to the above meeting structure, additional reference and project meetings will be held throughout the month.

4. That an immediate review of the Council Standing Orders be commenced;

5. A further report be provided to Council outlining the future direction in relation to each of the existing Council Committees.

6. Council continue to maintain appropriate representation on external committees and boards as required from time to time.

Background The Local Government Act 1995 provides the legislative basis for the Council meetings. Section 5.3 states: 5.3 Ordinary and special council meetings

(1) A council is to hold ordinary meetings and may hold special meetings (2) Ordinary meetings are to be held not more than 3 months apart (3) If a council fails to meet as required by subsection (2) the CEO is to

notify the Minister of that failure. Further, the Local Government Act under section 5.8 to 5.10 states that: 5.8 Establishment of committees

A local government may establish* committees of 3 or more persons to assist the council and to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government that can be delegated to committees * Absolute majority required.


Page 8

5.9 Types of committees

(1) In this section – “Other person” means a person who is not a council member or an

employee. (2) A committee is to comprise –

(a) Council members only; (b) Council members and employees; (c) Council members, employees and other persons; (d) Council members and other persons; (e) Employees and other persons; or (f) Other persons only.

5.10 Appointment of committee members

(1) A committee is to have as its members – (a) persons appointed* by the local government to be members of

the committee (other than those referred to in paragraph (b)); and

(b) persons who are appointed to be members of the committee under subsection (4) or (5)

*Absolute majority required

(2) At any given time each council member is entitled to be a member of at least one committee referred to in section 5.9(2)(a) or (b) and if a council member nominates himself or herself to be a member of such a committee or committees, the local government is to include that council member in the persons appointed under subsection (1) (a) to at least one of those committees as the local government decides.

(3) Section 52 of the Interpretation Act 1984 applies to appointments of committee members other than those appointed under subsection (4) or (5) but any power exercised under section 52(1) of that Act can only be exercised on the decision of an absolute majority of the local government.

(4) If at a meeting of the council a local government is to make an appointment to a committee that has or could have a council members as a member and the mayor or president informs the local government of his or her wish to be a member of the committee, the local government is to appoint the mayor or president to be a member of the committee.

(5) If at a meeting of the council a local government is to make an appointment to a committee that has or will have an employee as a member and the CEO informs the local government of his or her wish – (a) To be a member of the committee; or (b) That a representative of the CEO be a member of the

committee, the local government is to appoint the CEO or the CEO’s representative, as the case may be, to be a member of the committee.

The Council has previously had a number of committees which have comprised a mixture of staff, councillors and community representatives. None of these


Page 9

committees have been delegated decision making power. The following outlines the previous committee framework and the role of members: Roles of Councillors & Officers Appointed to Committees / Management

Boards 1. Advisory Committees and Project Control Groups Appointed by the Council

Role of Committee Member - Attend meetings and act in accordance with Council’s Code of

Conduct (2008).

- Consider only those matters that are within the committee’s adopted Terms of Reference.

- Report to Council on the activities of the committee (if requested to do so by the Council)

- Disclose financial (or other) “interests” at meetings as stipulated under the Local Government Act 1995 and the City’s Standing Orders Local Law

Role of Presiding Member (Essentially the same as the role for a Committee Member except for the following points: - Determine meeting dates together with the Executive Officer

- Preside at meetings of the committee, ensuring the debate and meeting procedures comply with the Council’s Standing Orders

- Check and sign-off meeting minutes

- Liaise with members and/or the Executive Officer

Role of an Executive Officer - Convene meetings of the committee

- Prepare meeting agendas, record minutes of meetings and ensure minutes are recorded in accordance with the City’s Records Management practices

- Regularly lodge copies of the committee’s minutes for noting by Councillors at Council Meetings

- Refer recommendations of the committee for inclusion in a Council Meeting agenda to obtain a formal Council Decision on the issue

- Expend budgeted funds (if authorised to do so)

Role of a Budget Officer - Oversee and/or authorise expenditure of budgeted funds by the

Executive Officer for operation of the committee

- Make an application for appropriate funding on the Annual Budget each year on behalf of the committee

- Immediately report any anomalies or budget shortfalls for the attention of Executive Management

- Provide a report on the committee’s financial status as part of the quarterly Council Budget review process

Role of the Bunbury City Council


Page 10

- Appoint members to the committee during its term of operation as and when required

- Make formal decisions on reports and recommendations received from the committee

- Conduct an annual review of the committee’s Terms of Reference [and Delegation(s) of Authority if applicable] to determine whether they are relevant and whether the committee is still required

2. Committees Appointed by (and Reporting to) External Bodies

Role of Councillors Appointed to External Groups as Representatives of the City of Bunbury - Attend meetings or advise the proxy to attend in the Councillor’s

absence (if a proxy has been designated)

- Provide the committee/group with guidance on Council procedures and activities

- Liaise regularly with coordinators of the committee/group so as to be fully informed of its current activities, aims and objectives

- Liaise regularly with the nominated Liaison Officer at the City of Bunbury

- Report to Councillors at Council Meetings on the activities of the committee/group if requested

Role of the Liaison Officer - Act as a point of contact between the coordinator of the

committee/group and any Bunbury Councillors who are members of the committee/group

- Attend meetings of the committee/group (only if invited to do so)

- Liaise regularly with coordinators of the committee/group so as to be fully informed of its current activities, aims and objectives

- Provide regular written reports on the activities of the committee/group and submit these for noting by Councillors at Council Meetings

- Where the committee/group receives Council funding, authorise and/or oversee expenditure of budget funds and ensure Council’s financial reporting requirements are met

- When necessary or when required by the committee/group, obtain formal decisions on relevant issues from the City’s Executive Management Team or Council

- Assist members of the public with queries relating to the activities of the committee/group

3. Management Boards (Appointed by Legal Agreement) & Regional Councils

Role of the Liaison Officer


Page 11

- Act as a point of contact between the Chairman/Secretary of the Board and any Bunbury Councillors that have been appointed to the Board to represent the interests of the City of Bunbury

- Attend meetings of the Board (if necessary)

- Liaise regularly with the Chairman/Secretary of the Board so as to be fully informed of its current activities, aims and objectives

- If membership of the Board or its Rules or Constitution are subject to endorsement by Council, report to Council on any amendments required

- Submit all financial and annual reports produced by the Board for noting by Councillors at Council Meetings

- When necessary or when required by the Board, obtain formal decisions on relevant issues from the City’s Executive Management Team or Council

(and where the Board receives Council funding) - Make application for appropriate funding on the Annual Budget each

year on behalf of the committee

- Immediately report any anomalies or budget shortfalls for the attention of Executive Management

- Provide a report on the committee’s financial status as part of the quarterly Council Budget review process

Role of Councillors Appointed to the Board to Represent the City of Bunbury - Make every effort to attend meetings and lodge a formal apology for

those meetings that cannot be attended

- Represent the City’s interest on the Board and provide guidance to the Board on Council activities when requested

- Comply with the aims, objectives and rules set out in the Board’s Constitution

- Liaise regularly with the Board Chairman/Secretary so as to be fully informed of its current activities

- Where a Board oversees a Council asset or receives Council funding, refer any perceived anomalies in the Board’s operation to the City’s Executive Management Team

- Report to Council at Council Meetings on the activities of the Board if requested

Officer Comments Section 5.11 requires that Council review the membership of all committees after each Ordinary Election Day. Rather than simply reviewing the membership, it is more appropriate to review the entire committee structure to try and provide a more effective process. 5.11 Tenure of committee membership


Page 12

(1) Where a person is appointed as a member of a committee under section 5.10(4) or (5), the person’s membership of the committee continues until – (a) the person no longer holds the office by virtue of which the

person became a member, or is no longer the CEO, or the CEO’s representative, as the case may be;

(b) the person resigns from membership of the committee; (c) the committee is disbanded; or (d) the next ordinary elections day, whichever happens first.

(2) Where a person is appointed as a member of a committee other than under section 5.10(4) or (5), the person’s membership of the committee continues until – (a) the term of the person’s appointment as a committee member

expires; (b) the local government removes the person from the office of

committee members or the office of committee member otherwise becomes vacant;

(c) the committee is disbanded; or (d) the next ordinary elections day. whichever happens first.

In order to progress the restructure of the committees it is proposed to reduce the total number of committees and have the Council deal with the majority of the matters. One of the keys to making this approach successful is to ensure that the matters are progressed on a regular basis. The new systems that are being put in place at present will capture all of the current activities of the existing committees and ensure that they are reported on in a more structured format. This reporting will allow Councillors and the community to be kept better informed and engaged in the process. The other benefit of reducing the number of committees is that it will allow staff to more effectively resource them and with the structure associated with formal committees it will provide for better outcomes when combined with the proposed portfolio arrangements. Should Council decide that there is a requirement to establish specific reference groups or project teams to deal with a particular matter outside of the proposed structure, this should only be done with the use of appropriately delegated powers. Sections 5.16 and 5.17 of the Act provide the basis for delegating powers to a committee of Council as outlined below: 5.16 Delegation of some powers and duties to certain committees

(1) Under and subject to section 5.17, a local government may delegate* to a committee any of its powers and duties other than this power of delegation. * Absolute majority required.

(2) A delegation under this section is to be in writing and may be general or as otherwise provided in the instrument of delegation.


Page 13

(3) Without limiting the application of sections 58 and 59 of the Interpretation Act 1984 - (a) a delegation made under this section has effect for the period

of time specified in the delegation or if no period has been specified, indefinitely; and

(b) any decision to amend or revoke a delegation under this section is to be by an absolute majority.

(4) Nothing in this section is to be read as preventing a local government from performing any of its functions by acting through another person.

5.17. Limits on delegation of powers and duties to certain committees

(1) A local government can delegate - (a) to a committee comprising council members only, any of the

council’s powers or duties under this Act except - i) any power or duty that requires a decision of an

absolute majority or a 75% majority of the local government; and

(ii) any other power or duty that is prescribed; (b) to a committee comprising council members and employees,

any of the local government’s powers or duties that can be delegated to the CEO under Division 4; and

(c) to a committee referred to in section 5.9(2)(c), (d) or (e), any of the local government’s powers or duties that are necessary or convenient for the proper management of - (i) the local government’s property; or (ii) an event in which the local government is involved.

(2) A local government cannot delegate any of its powers or duties to a committee referred to in section 5.9(2)(f). [Section 5.17 amended by No. 49 of 2004 s.16 (2).]

If Council is supportive of this approach then the committee delegation would need to be specific and can easily be constructed to meet the Council needs based specifically on the expected outcomes of each committee. It is also suggested that Council consider the following format for the running of the committees:

a. First Tuesday of each month – information briefing (Councillors and Executive staff, plus invited presenters)

b. Second Tuesday of each month – reserved for project briefings (Councillors and Executive staff, plus invited presenters)

c. Third Tuesday of each month – Agenda forum (open to public, Councillors and Executive)

d. Fourth Tuesday of each month – Ordinary Council Meeting Another aspect of the process that needs to be considered to effectively streamline meetings is the review of the Council’s Standing Orders. Whilst this matter is not essential to the achievement of the committee restructure, it may provide for more effective running of meetings. As an example, the timeframe of ten minutes for each member to speak potentially means that a single item could be discussed for over two hours. Whilst this may be required on a major issue, generally it could be achieved in a significantly shorter time period. Another area that could be considered is in relation to the way that items are dealt with. For example, if there is a mover and


Page 14

seconder and there is no opposition to the matter, then the motion could simply be put. This is common practice in many other local governments across Australia. The final matter to be addressed relates to the structure and level of information contained within the reports that are provided to Councillors. This is a matter that the Council will need to provide some further direction on as to the level of detail that the Council want to assist in guiding decisions. The process to move to the streamlined committee is as outlined below: - Stage 1 – Council resolution to adopt the new structure - Stage 2 – Executive Officers to prepare a report on the existing committees

and any outstanding matters - Stage 3 – Recognition of the members that have been included to date and

outlining how they can still be involved in the future - Stage 4 – implementation of new structure The Local Government Operational Guideline – Number 05 issued by the Department of Local Government provides an overview of how the process operates and is outlined below: Principles of the Act Part 5 of the Act sets out the framework whereby elected members meet as the governing body for the purpose of decision-making on behalf of the local government. It is an intention of the Act that councils conduct business and make decisions – - openly and transparently; - with a high level of accountability to their community; - efficiently and effectively; - with due probity and integrity; - acknowledging relevant community input; - with all available information and professional advice; and - with the fullest possible participation of elected members. The Act establishes ordinary, special and committee meetings. Each council must decide the meeting structure it will adopt within the legal framework for it to achieve the most efficient and effective decision-making process. It is a legal requirement that all decisions made on behalf of the local government are to be made at meetings called and convened under the provisions of the Act. In addition to ordinary and special meetings, elected members can meet as a committee, membership of which may vary in number from three to all members of council. Committees can discuss matters and make recommendations to the council or, if given delegated authority by the council, can make decisions on its behalf. A council does not need to have committees and can have all matters presented to it directly for decision. A recent trend has been for councils to abolish the system of standing committees or limit the number and/or range of committees and adopt a forum approach.


Page 15

Council Forums Local government forums range from a once-only event to discuss and explore a particular issue, a number of sessions to address matters such as a specific project or the compilation of a report for internal or external use, through to forums held at regular intervals with a consistent structure and objectives. Regular forums run in local government’s exhibit two broad categories which we have titled agenda and concept. They are differentiated by the stage of development of issues which are discussed by elected members and staff. The two types are described below along with the variations in procedural controls and processes suggested for each. Concept Forums

Concept forums involve elected members and staff meeting to propose, discuss and formulate philosophies, ideas, strategies and concepts for the development of the local government and the district. Such forums often involve projects that are in the early planning stage and are some time away from being presented to council for decision. In discussing such issues, staff are looking for guidance from the elected members as they research the matter and draft the report. Elected members and staff are also looking to present ideas and concepts for future consideration. If the response is favourable staff can proceed with their research and eventual report on the matter. Examples of the type of issues concept forums may cover include -

- current matters of a local or regional significance; - matters relating to the future development of the local government; - significant revenue-raising requirements or expenditure needs; - the development of internal strategic, planning, management and financial

documents; and - development of the selection criteria and performance objectives for the Chief

Executive Officer (CEO). Behind closed doors and in a relatively informal manner are the two notable characteristics of concept forums. Holding such meetings behind closed doors is justified in that many of the ideas and concepts are preliminary and while looking for that creative gem some may be extreme, expensive or impractical and never adopted. Discussion on such proposals in a public forum would be counter-productive. Privacy and informality allows elected members to propose ideas, ask questions and discuss issues for the better understanding of those in attendance. Such forums assist individuals to become better informed and to clarify their views. The privacy and informality of concept forums also has pitfalls including the risk of neglecting proper standards of probity and public accountability. Over time, participants can become too familiar, and therefore more lax, with the procedure and purpose of the meeting. Unless procedures are adopted and rigorously applied to these forums, there is a danger that collective or collaborative decisions may be made, implied and otherwise.


Page 16

Agenda Forums

For proper decision-making, elected members must have the opportunity to gain maximum knowledge and understanding of any issue presented to the Council on which they must vote. It is reasonable for elected members to expect that they will be provided with all the relevant information they need to understand issues listed on the agenda for the next or following ordinary council meetings. The complexity of many items means that elected members may need to be given information additional to that in a staff report and/or they may need an opportunity to ask questions of relevant staff members. Many local governments have determined that this can be achieved by the elected members convening as a body to become better informed on issues listed for council decision. Such assemblies have been termed agenda forums. It is considered they are much more efficient and effective than elected members meeting staff on an individual basis for such a purpose with the added benefit that all elected members hear the same questions and answers. To protect the integrity of the decision-making process it is essential that agenda forums are run with strict procedures. Principles Governing Procedural and Behavioural Controls for Forums Local governments that conduct forums or are considering doing so have the right to implement a forum system that best suits their needs. The principles and associated procedures set out below, if adopted by local governments when conducting forums, will ensure that all requirements of accountability, openness and transparency are satisfied. The identified principles and associated procedures are accountability, openness and transparency, probity and integrity, authority for the chair and meeting notification. Each of these is explained below. Accountability The Act requires that ordinary and special council meetings and committee meetings that have delegated authority must be open to the public. Most local governments also open committee meetings even where there is no delegated authority. This openness allows the community to view the decision-making process from the time an issue is first presented to elected members through to the final decision. There must be no opportunity for a collective council decision or implied decision that binds the local government to be made during a forum. Agenda forums should be for staff presenting information and elected members asking questions, not opportunities to debate the issues. A council should have clearly stated rules that prohibit debate or vigorous discussion between elected members that could be interpreted as debate. Rules such as questions through the chair and no free-flowing discussion between elected members should be applied. If there is minimum debate in the ordinary meeting because the elected member attitudes have been established through the item being thoroughly canvassed in the agenda forum then the community is denied the opportunity to witness any debate and understand how the council reached its decision. Other concerns relate to elected members agreeing on movers, seconders and/or amendments. Such an


Page 17

approach must not be allowed by the council whether the agenda forum is open or closed to the public but a closed forum will almost certainly generate a perception by the community of secret meetings where the decisions are made beyond public scrutiny. Councils, when considering conducting closed forums, need to consider their reasons for justification against the likely damage to their public standing from the perception of secrecy. A policy that the forums will generally be open to the public will make a significant contribution to the community perception of council accountability. A clearly delineated distinction between agenda and concept forums is important for these reasons. Openness and Transparency A significant strength of local government is the openness and accessibility of its processes to the community. In conducting forums each local government should make a conscious decision to promote the community perception that it embraces the concept of openness and transparency. Therefore, whenever appropriate, forums should be open to the public. Probity and Integrity The legislation provides that in ordinary meetings and committee meetings elected members must disclose conflicts of interest and exclude themselves from proceedings where they have a financial interest. Disclosure in forums is a matter of ethics. The disclosure requirements only apply to meetings that are convened under the provisions of the Act. Elected members can legally participate at forums without being in breach of the legislation even where they have a clear financial interest or conflict of interest. Such participation is ethically unacceptable and is clearly at odds with the probity and accountability principles of the Act and codes of conduct. It is essential that councils adopt standards for forums that stipulate that disclosure rules applying to meetings constituted under the Act also apply at all forums. Disclosure should lead to an individual departing the forum. Authority for the Chair Many Council's have established a forum process without specifying how the forums should be chaired and what authority the chair is given to control proceedings. In some local governments, the CEO chairs the forums in certain circumstances. This latter approach is not supported because it confuses the roles and relationships established in the Act. It is recommended that the mayor or president or, if appropriate, another elected member, chairs all forums that involve elected members. Properly managed forums rely on strength and leadership from the chair. Therefore, a forum’s chair should be supported by established rules similar to the standing orders that apply to formal meetings. Meeting Notification The provisions of the Act are designed to ensure that members are given timely notice of, and information for, council and committee meetings. Formal provisions do not apply to forums but the principles remain the same. Adequate notice needs to be


Page 18

given of the time, location and content of the forum. The forum process is most successful in those local governments where forums are held on a regular basis such as on the alternative weeks to the ordinary council meeting (where they are held fortnightly) or a week before the ordinary council meeting. By setting the dates for forums well in advance, elected members, staff and the community can plan for their attendance. Model Procedures for Forums Before introducing, or continuing with forums, councils have a responsibility to weigh carefully the risks as well as the benefits associated with such a process and consider if there are better, alternative ways of achieving the desired outcomes. Councils that hold forums should adopt meeting rules and processes to ensure that proper standards of probity and public accountability are adhered to. Particular emphasis must be placed on ensuring that there is no decision-making during these forums and that this is rigidly enforced. Procedures Applying to Both Concept and Agenda Forums The Department recommends that councils adopt a set of procedures for both types of forums which include the following – - Dates and times for forums should be set well in advance where practical; - The CEO will ensure timely written notice and the agenda for each forum is

provided to all members; - Forum papers should be distributed to members at least three days prior to

the meeting; - The mayor/president or other designated elected member is to be the

presiding member at all forums; - Elected members, employees, consultants and other participants shall

disclose their financial and conflicts of interest in matters to be discussed; - Interests are to be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of the Act as

they apply to ordinary council meetings. Persons disclosing a financial interest will not participate in that part of a forum relating to their interest and leave the meeting room;

- There is to be no opportunity for a person with an interest to request that they continue in the forum; and

- A record should be kept of all forums. As no decisions will be made, the record need only be a general record of items covered but should record disclosures of interest with appropriate departures/returns.

Procedures Specific to Concept Forums The Department recommends that councils adopt specific procedures for concept forums which include the following – - Concept forums may be open to the public when an issue is being discussed

that council believes would benefit from public awareness and debate; - Discussion between members is to be limited to those issues which are in the

preliminary development stages. Items already listed on a council meeting agenda are not to be discussed; and

- As discussion items are not completely predictable there is to be some flexibility as to disclosures of interest. A person may disclose an interest at


Page 19

the time discussion commences on an issue not specifically included on the agenda.

Procedures Specific to Agenda Forums The Department recommends that councils adopt specific procedures for agenda forums which include the following – - Agenda forums should be open to the public unless the forum is being briefed

on a matter for which a formal council meeting may be closed; - Items to be addressed will be limited to matters listed on the forthcoming

agenda or completed and scheduled to be listed within the next two meetings (or period deemed appropriate);

- Briefings will only be given by staff or consultants for the purpose of ensuring that elected members and the public are more fully informed; and

- All questions and discussions will be directed through the chair. There will be no debate style discussion as this needs to take place in the ordinary meeting of council when the issue is set for decision.

Options Option 1 As per the recommendation Option 2 1. Council adopt a three weekly meeting cycle based around the following:

a) Week 1 – Information Briefing b) Week 2 – Agenda Forum c) Week 3 – Ordinary Meeting

2. In addition the above meetings, Council continue with legislative or statutory committees;

3. In addition to the above meeting structure, additional reference and project meetings will be held throughout the month.

4. That an immediate review of the Council Standing Orders be commenced;

5. A further report be provided to Council outlining the future direction in relation to each of the existing Council Committees.

Option 3 Council do not support the recommendation and maintains the current arrangements. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 The Mayor stated at the beginning of the meeting that this matter will be discussed as the last item on the nights agenda. This item was discussed after item 11.13 listed on the agenda. At this point in proceedings (9pm), the Mayor adjourned the meeting for a short break. The meeting resumed in open session at 9.08pm.


Page 20

The Mayor invited members of the public who wish to speak to this item to come forward and make an address to the Committee. Mrs Tresslyn Smith, 8 Picton Crescent Bunbury addressed the Committee and the following is a summary of her address: The City Art Collection Committee has been operating for over 63 years and the members do not want to see it discarded. This is not an ad-hoc committee, its members brings years of experience at no cost to the Council. Until a Curator is appointed, the committee act in their place with organising the art works for exhibitions. It started out with the donation of 22 pieces from Sir Claude Hotchin. He donated the pieces to the City to be housed, maintained and looked after which is what the committee has done. We are very disappointed that you are looking at disbanding the committee as we don’t cost the Council anything but we add to it”. The recommendation was moved Cr Slater, seconded Cr Craddock with the following amendments:

In point 1(b) remove the words “and reference groups” and add the words “policy development, strategic planning and major project” after the words “reserved for”. Cr Slater requested that the title of the item be changed to read “Review of Meeting Structures” rather than “Review of Committee Structures” as this is what the item is really about, the review of committees will come later. This amendment was agreed to. The Mayor put the motion (as amended) to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation 1. That Council adopt the following structure for meetings commencing

from January 2012: a) First Tuesday of each month – information briefing (Councillors

and Executive staff, plus invited presenters) b) Second Tuesday of each month – reserved for policy

development, strategic planning and major project briefings (Councillors and Executive staff, plus invited presenters)

c) Third Tuesday of each month – Agenda forum (open to public, Councillors and Executive)

d) Fourth Tuesday of each month – Ordinary Council Meeting 2. In addition to the above meetings, Council continue with legislative or

statutory committees; 3. In addition to the above meeting structure, additional reference and

project meetings will be held throughout the month. 4. That an immediate review of the Council Standing Orders be

commenced; 5. A further report be provided to Council outlining the future direction in

relation to each of the existing Council Committees. 6. Council continue to maintain appropriate representation on external

committees and boards as required from time to time. CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”


Page 21

10. Reception of Formal Petitions and Memorials

Nil

11. Reception of Reports and Recommendations from Officers & Advisory Committees

11.1 Blair Street / Forrest Avenue Blackspot Project (item was not on the original agenda. Was listed as a late item 11.14)

File Ref: R00041-05

Applicant/Proponent: Engineering Services / RoadWise Committee

Author: Jason Gick, City Engineer

Director: Phil Harris, Director Works and Services

Attachments: Appendix 5

At the Council meeting held 8 November 2011 it was moved that this motion “lie on the table” until the next Committee/Council round (22 and 29 November 2011) in order for further options, as indicated by Cr’s Slater and Steck, be investigated. In order for further discussion to be made on this item, it will need to be raised from the table in accordance with Standing Order 15.9(2). Recommendation Pursuant to City of Bunbury Standing Orders 15.9(2) the matter is “raised from the table” in order for further discussion to continue. Committee Recommendation 1. That the Council adopt Option 5 as a compromised “left in / left out”

intersection configuration at Forrest Avenue and Mary Street, including an extended median on Forrest Avenue, up to, but not including a modified Bunbury Drive In Chemist driveway on Forrest Avenue, with a painted median between the Bunbury Drive In Chemist and the Forrest Avenue Dental Centre to honour its 2011/2012 Nation Building Blackspot grant.

2. That a report be provided to Council no later than four (4) months from

completion of the Blackspot project and the changes to the Forrest Avenue / Blair Street intersection upgrade, of any flow-on effects caused to the intersection of Blair Street / Albert Road / Sandridge Road and any other associated issues.

Summary The Blair Street / Forrest Avenue intersection is over represented in crash statistics and is eligible for Nation Building Blackspot funding for intersection improvements.


Page 22

Funding has been secured through the Regional Road Group and design of the intersection is proceeding. Consultation with affected land owners has highlighted concerns with the proposal as it will restrict right turning into and out of their properties. The Council recently received a petition from the Forrest Avenue Dental Centre objecting to the proposal. Council decision 205/11 requires the petition to be referred to Council for further consideration. Since that time the Council has received another petition from the Bunbury Drive In Chemist. Background The Nation Building Blackspot program is a road funding program to encourage local authorities to address intersections and road sections that exhibit high crash rates. There were 54 reported crashes at the Blair Street / Forrest Avenue intersection for the period 2005 – 2009, including 25 “thru / right” type crashes. These crashes under green signal filter conditions are significantly over represented compared to the network average. The high casualty rate and associated benefit cost ratio of the proposed intersection treatment makes the proposal eligible for Nation Building Blackspot funding. Blackspot funding has been secured through the Regional Road Group and the proposal is supported by the Bunbury Region RoadWise Committee. These “thru / right” crashes are targeted in the proposal by modifying the existing Traffic Control Signals (TCS) to remove the right turn filter option under green signal. Removing the right turn filter option under green signal ensures that right turns are carried out under a dedicated green right turn arrow signal or not at all. This treatment is recognised as dramatically reducing the number of right turn crashes under filter conditions. The removal of the right turn filter, whilst safer, increases the stacking distance required for vehicles queuing to turn right. This in turn requires the extension of existing dedicated right turn lanes. The dedicated right turn lane on the western leg of Forrest Avenue needs to be extended by approximately 40m to ensure the intersection will continue to perform to a satisfactory level of service, without causing long queues during peak times. This extends the lane past Mary Street, the Bunbury Drive In Chemist (the Chemist) and the Forrest Avenue Dental Centre (the Dental Centre). It is good practice to physically separate opposing traffic lanes at TCS’s. Extending the existing median to protect the proposed lane extension will convert the Forrest Avenue / Mary Street intersection into a left in / left out (LILO) configuration. This proposal also contributes to a safer road environment by addressing all crashes that occurred at that intersection in the 2005 – 2009 period. The proposal to convert the Forrest Avenue / Mary Street intersection to a LILO configuration was supported by the Council at its 8 February 2011 meeting:

“Council Decision 28/11 – That the Council adopt “left in / left out” intersection configurations at Blair Street and Ward Street; Forrest Avenue and Mary Street; Blair Street, Sandridge Road and Albert Road to realise available 2011/2012 Nation Building Blackspot grants.”


Page 23

In March 2011, the City sent correspondence to nearby residents, businesses and schools outlining the proposal and requesting feedback. The City received three (3) comments in favour of the proposal from two businesses and St Mary’s Primary School. Objecting to the proposal, the Chemist was concerned that its access would be compromised and that ambulance access would be restricted. The Bunbury Motel (the Motel) did not object to the proposal, but is concerned that its U shaped driveway could be used for U-turns. Given these concerns, the City has been working with Main Roads WA to develop some design options that could lessen the impact on the Chemist, the Dental Centre and the Motel. The design options maintained the extension of the right turn slip lane, maintained the LILO configuration at Forrest Avenue / Mary Street and then explored options for access to the properties. The options are: - Option 1 - Extend the median island past Mary Street, past the Chemist, past

the Dental Centre and terminate it before the Motel. This option renders access to the Chemist and the Dental Centre to LILO (Refer to appendix 5 as attached)

- Option 2 - Extend the median island past Mary Street, past the Chemist and

terminate it at a re-located access to the Dental Centre. This option closes the Chemist access and relies of reciprocal rights of access through the Dental Centre (Refer to appendix 5 as attached).

The City wrote to the Chemist, the Dental Centre and the Motel on 30 August 2011 to seek feedback on preferences. The Dental Centre has responded advising that it does not support either option and that it will not entertain an access to be shared by the Chemist. The Dental Centre expressed concern over ambulance access. A copy of the Dental Centres communication was previously circulated as Appendix 3. The Chemist has responded advising that it would like to see the City’s design modified to allow full access to its premises. The Chemist is concerned with ambulance access and heavy vehicle access for the blood bank. The Chemist argues that the motivation for the proposal is ill founded and threatens the Council with legal action if the proposal is pursued. A copy of the Chemists communication was previously circulated as Appendix 4. The City has communicated with St John’s Ambulance services, both informally and formally, through the RoadWise Committee, to determine its stance on this proposal. St John’s has advised that it supports the road safety initiative as long as the median is constructed using semi-mountable or mountable kerbing so that ambulances can cross it. In its design, the City has introduced a lower profile kerb to ensure ambulances can cross the median at any time.


Page 24

At its 13 September 2011 meeting the Council considered a petition presented by Cr Kelly on behalf of the Dental Centre opposing the proposed works on this section of Forrest Avenue.

“Council Decision 205/11 – Pursuant to Standing Order 9.4 (d) of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders, the petition from the Forrest Avenue Dental Centre be accepted and dealt with by full Council.”

This report addresses Council Decision 205/11. Officer Comments The proposal to improve the safety of right turn movements at this intersection is supported by the Council, Main Roads WA and the Bunbury Region RoadWise Committee. A similar proposal featured as an approved Blackspot project for the City previously, but was not implemented. The previous proposal sought to modify the TCS phasing without addressing the civil layout of the intersection. This could not be achieved and the project was terminated. Blackspot project eligibility is based on the most recent five year traffic crash statistics. The fact that this site has been eligible previously and is again eligible now demonstrates that this intersection has a significant crash history that needs to be addressed. For the current proposal to work, the Forrest Avenue western leg needs to be modified to accommodate a 70m dedicated right turn lane to reduce the impact of peak hour stacking. This requires the Forrest Avenue / Mary Street intersection to be modified to a LILO configuration, which extends the median past the Chemist access and the Dental Centre access. The median island extension is a design consequence addressing the Blackspot criteria. Reducing the median island is likely to result in the following consequences: - It will diminish the effect of the Forrest Avenue / Mary Street LILO

configuration temping motorists to make illegal right turns; - It will create an undesirable intersection environment tempting motorists to

make illegal U-turns to access the Chemist; - It will increase grid lock scenarios where right turns into the Dental Centre will

cause long queues into the Blair Street / Forrest Avenue intersection, particularly in peak times; and

- Motorists driving west along Forrest Avenue may not expect right turn out movements from the Dental Centre so close to the end of the median.

The proposal that has been funded is a project that is designed to improve road safety. Compromising the median island at the existing Dental Centre access is likely to result in a number of un-acceptable knock on affects that could potentially undermine the intent of the Blair Street / Forrest Avenue Blackspot project. Compromising the median at the Chemist exacerbates these problems even more and should not be supported. Individual motorists making U-turns or illegal right turns or blocking traffic to turn right will create an illegible road environment.


Page 25

The City has recently consulted with Main Roads to test three (3) new configurations that would allow access to the Dentist and the Chemist. These were presented at the 25 October 2011 Briefing Session as Options 3, 4 and 5 (attached at Appendix 5) showed a compromised carriageway pattern that provides access to the Dentist and Chemist but introduce problems with carriageway definition and legibility along Forrest Avenue. As part of a growing urban centre and a developing road network it is not uncommon to create safer, more efficient roads and road intersections that may cause some disruption to individual land owners or businesses. In recent times, the accesses on Strickland Street (Blair Street to Albert Road) have been modified as the median has been developed and some movements have been restricted. Further back in time, accesses along Blair Street (Stirling Street to Albert Road) were restricted as a single carriageway was developed into a dual carriageway with medians. Possibly, the most famous example of this type in Western Australia was the introduction of a narrow solid median along Great Eastern Highway through Belmont and Rivervale. This proposal created a lot of community debate at the time, but has been successful in reducing traffic crashes, particularly right turn crashes. The Blair Street / Forrest Avenue project has been approved for delivery in 2011/12 and the City has it scheduled for commencement in January 2012. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications This project has been scoped using preliminary cost estimates to determine a Benefit / Cost Ratio (BCR). The preliminary cost estimates for the project was $286,000 including the Mary Street treatment. The project has been funded 100% through the National Blackspot program and endorsed by the South West Regional Road Group. There is no financial imposition on the City. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 That the Council adopt Option 5 as a compromised “left in / left out” intersection configuration at Forrest Avenue and Mary Street, including an extended median on Forrest Avenue, up to, but not including a modified Bunbury Drive In Chemist driveway on Forrest Avenue, with a painted median between the Bunbury Drive In Chemist and the Forrest Avenue Dental Centre to honour its 2011/2012 Nation Building Blackspot grant.


Page 26

Option 3 That the Council defer the project and return Nation Building Blackspot grant monies to the Regional Road Group. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 1 November 2011 The Mayor asked if there were any members of the public that wished to address the Committee on this item. Mr Bob Schurmann, owner of Bunbury Drive In Chemist, addressed the Committee. He spoke against the Officer’s recommendation and the following is a summary of his address; Mr Schurmann advised he has been an owner of a pharmacy on that corner for 40 years and putting a median strip out the front of the chemist will cause harm to his business. He further advised that the traffic is worse in the mornings and afternoons during school hours which is approximately 2 hours a day compared to the 14 hours a day 7 days a week that the Chemist is trading. Mr Schurmann asked the Committee to please vote for option 2. The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Slater seconded Cr Kelly. After much discussion, the Mayor put the motion to the vote and was LOST – 3 votes “for” / 8 votes “against”. Cr Bridges moved, Cr Morris seconded Option 2. Cr Bridges moved, Cr Leigh seconded a foreshadowed amendment to Option 2; Point 2: That a report be provided to Council no later than 4 months from


The Mayor put Option 2 to the vote and was CARRIED – 8 votes “for” / 3 votes “against”. It was requested the vote be recorded as follows; For: Mayor D Smith, Cr Leigh, Cr Steele, Cr Cook, Cr Bridges, Cr McNeill,

Cr Morris, Cr Prosser Against: Cr Kelly, Cr Slater, Cr Jones The Mayor put the amendment to the vote and was CARRIED – 11 votes “for” / Nil votes “against”. Outcome – Council Meeting 8 November 2011 The Committee recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Bridges, seconded Cr Cook.


Page 27

During the discussion of this item Cr Slater moved procedural motion 15.9 of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders that the “matter lies on the table” until the next Committee/Council round of meetings to enable further options highlighted by Cr’s Slater and Steck to be investigated. The Mayor put the procedural motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Council’s decision on the matter. Council Decision 263/11 - Pursuant to procedural motion 15.9 of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders the matter is to lie on the table until the next Committee/Council round of meetings to enable further options to be investigated. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 Pursuant to City of Bunbury Standing Orders 15.9(2) Cr Leigh moved, Cr Cook seconded the procedural motion that the matter be raised from the table for further discussion to be undertaken. The Mayor put the procedural motion to the vote and was CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”. The Mayor asked Mr Bob Schurmann (Bunbury Drive In Chemist) if he was happy with the Option 5 or was there any other options that he would like the City to explore. Mr Schurmann indicated that he was happy with the Option 5 and that he did not have any other options in mind. He felt that this was the best option for all concerned. The Committee recommendation (as printed) from the meeting held 1 November 2011 was moved Cr Bridges, seconded Cr Morris. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation 1. That the Council adopt Option 5 as a compromised “left in / left out”

intersection configuration at Forrest Avenue and Mary Street, including an extended median on Forrest Avenue, up to, but not including a modified Bunbury Drive In Chemist driveway on Forrest Avenue, with a painted median between the Bunbury Drive In Chemist and the Forrest Avenue Dental Centre to honour its 2011/2012 Nation Building Blackspot grant.

2. That a report be provided to Council no later than four (4) months from


CARRIED 8 votes “for” / 4 votes “against”

It was requested that the votes be recorded as follows:


Page 28

For: Mayor D Smith, Cr Prosser , Cr Leigh, Cr Steele, Cr Bridges, Cr

McNeill, Cr Cook, Cr Morris Against: Deputy Mayor Cr Craddock, Cr Jones, Cr Slater, Cr Kelly


Page 29

11.2 Leschenault Inlet Masterplan (was listed as item 11.1 on the meeting agenda)

File Ref:


Author: Geoff Klem, Director Strategic Integration

Director: Geoff Klem, Director Strategic Integration


Recommendation That Council

1. Note the formation of a Project Management Group to progress the development of the Leschenault Inlet Masterplan;

2. Endorse the Leschenault Inlet Masterplan report as the basis for the calling of Expressions of Interest (EOI) to prepare a draft Masterplan for consideration by Council prior to public comment;

3. Appoint Cr __________________ Cr __________________ as Council members of the Project Management Group Report There are few cities in the world that have the diversity of outlooks across water that the city of Bunbury enjoys including the Leschenault Inlet, the Indian Ocean, Outer Bunbury Harbour and Koombana Bay. The Leschenault Inlet is particularly important because of its close proximity to the Central Business District of the city. The Council endorsed City Vision Strategy and Action Plan makes the following statement about the management of the Inlet: “… Allocate sufficient resources for the planning and development of the Leschenault Inlet Regional Park so that the area is established as a major tourist and recreation attraction.” The regional park reference is in recognition of the designation of the Inlet foreshore areas as Regional Open Space under the Greater Bunbury Region Scheme. As such, management and development of the Reserve requires the endorsement and/or approval of the W.A. Planning Commission. The City Vision Strategy also provided a clear preference for civic, cultural and tourist orientated uses and for any development to be low impact. A key step in progressing the establishment of a strategy for the planning and development of a Regional Park, is to define the nature and extent of existing development and management in the project area, key natural attributes and any seriously entertained proposals for development.


Page 30

The project area has been divided into 10 precincts that reflect the unique physical (built and natural) characteristics of each area. With reference to Appendix 1 (as attached) the precincts are:

1. Koombana North 2. Koombana South 3. City Square 4. Queen’s Gardens 5. Frank Buswell Foreshore 6. The Quays 7. Inlet Entrance 8. Mangrove Conservation 9. Koombana Tourism 10. Koombana Mixed Use. The following descriptions and statements for each precinct are based on the known physical and built attributes, relevant planning and regulatory statements and proposed projects. 1) Koombana North and 2) Koombana South These precincts are part of three amendments to the Greater Bunbury Region Scheme that were linked to the Bunbury Waterfront Project managed by Landcorp. The amendments in essence sought to change areas of foreshore Regional Open Space to a Regional Centre Zone to permit a mixed use outcome. The process of assessment and decision making for these amendments has recently concluded with the Minister for Planning deciding not to proceed with Koombana South and for Koombana North and Marlston North to be amended to Regional Centre Zone. Amendments to Town Planning Scheme No 7 are now in preparation to provide the detailed planning necessary for the amendment areas to be made ready for development. Although the Koombana South Amendment did not progress as proposed, the Minister for Planning directed that the Bunbury Waterfront Taskforce and associated Technical Advisory Group investigate possible land uses for Koombana South that could support a Bunbury Regional Art Gallery and be consistent with a Masterplan for the Leschenault Inlet. At its meeting on the 29 June 2011, the Ministerial Taskforce resolved as follows: “The Taskforce approves the conclusion of the Technical Advisory Group that there is no need at this stage to progress an amendment to the Greater Bunbury Region Scheme for Koombana South and, The Taskforce supports the initiation by the City of Bunbury of the Leschenault Inlet Master planning process…….” 3) City Square This precinct comprises Bicentennial Square, the Graeme Bricknell Music Shell, the City Bus Station and a boat landing facility. It is the focus of major community events such as Australia Day and regular Sunday markets. A Visitor Information Centre operates from the historic old railway station which also houses a Bunbury City Transit office and café.


Page 31

The open, uninterrupted connection between the square and the Inlet is highly valued and the management emphasis is on improving the amenity of the area for events and other recreational activities. 4) Queen’s Gardens Current uses within this precinct include the Bunbury Rowing Club, Bunbury Croquet Club, Stirling Street Arts Centre, Bunbury Yacht Club, Bunbury City Band, a Skate Park, a major drainage retention basin and pump, Cobblestone Street Parking area and a Scout Hall. The various uses have not been well integrated and plans for improvements have been promoted on an ad hoc basis. The most significant of these are the replacement of the Railway Institute Building (adjacent to the Bunbury Rowing Club) with a function centre and restaurant, the proposed redevelopment of the Stirling Street Arts Centre and the expansion of the Cobblestone Street parking area and foreshore landscaping. 5) Frank Buswell Foreshore This is largely a long narrow open space area that connects the CBD with the Quays activity node and the East Bunbury residential area. Stirling Street separates the foreshore park from the residential area to the south. This area of the city has major historical significance and the buildings and place value is carefully managed through a statutory policy that aims to conserve the essential historical character and amenity of this locality. The current standard of landscaping and public facilities for this foreshore area is not in keeping with the significance of the area and the important role it plays in connecting the city to an inner urban area. There are also issues in relation to the integrity of the seawalls (part of which has recently been replaced) and boat launching facilities. 6) The Quays The small local shopping centre and Parade Hotel have created a distinctive and attractive activity node which has the potential to be further enhanced. It is ideally located not only to service the East Bunbury community but to also act as an attraction in a proposed tourist circuit for the Inlet. 7) Inlet Entrance This area is a high quality low density residential area that stands between a continuous foreshore path for the Inlet. It is part of an entry statement to the city and provides diversity in the view-sheds across the water areas. The George Baxter Boardwalk also forms part of the entry statement to the city and provides a safe and attractive pedestrian link between the residential area to the East and the Mangrove Conservation area to the West.


Page 32

8) Mangrove Conservation The white Mangroves that have colonised this area are unique in terms of their occurrence at such high southern latitude. They are a significant part of both the history and current attractiveness of the Inlet and must be protected from any adverse impacts. Further improvements to the Mangroves boardwalk and access will enhance this environmental feature. 9) Koombana Tourism Currently this precinct includes a major caravan and tourist Accommodation Park and areas identified for further tourism development and a new visitor information centre. The two projects identified above are dependent upon a land exchange between the City and the State Government (as compensation for lost revenue form the College Grove Joint Venture development). There are issues with the proposed areas for development including contamination from previous heavy mineral sands stockpiling and shipwrecks that are known to be buried in this area. The City is currently managing an archaeological dig in the area of the car park to establish whether there are remnants of vessel/s and the level of protection (if any) that is required. 10) Koombana Mixed Use The combination of high quality single residential, short stay accommodation and community purposes (Power Boat Club, Playground) has created a high standard of amenity for this area and an attractive entry to the Central Business District. There are areas available for an expansion of tourist accommodation and the Power Boat Club site may become available if negotiations with the Koombana Bay Sailing Club for co-location are successful. Process for the Preparation of the Masterplan Currently there is no overall vision for the foreshore areas that can inform a strategy to achieve the development of a park of national and international quality. Further, the aforementioned precincts have developed without the benefit of a plan and strategy that integrates and connects key elements as well as coordinating management effort to achieve overall objectives for the Inlet foreshore. Draft Vision and Objectives Vision To develop and promote the Leschenault Inlet Regional Park to become an attraction of National and International quality and significant contributor to the continuous improvement of the character and amenity of the Bunbury City Centre.


Page 33

Objectives 1. Protect and enhance the natural attributes of the Inlet environment. 2. Provide for a diverse range of accessible activity areas that promote and

facilitate community engagement, active and passive recreation and civic and cultural activities.

3. Promote the park as a major attraction to support investment and growth of

the tourism industry in particular and City Centre business generally. Matters to be Addressed in the Masterplan (But not limited to) 1. Environment and Heritage Management (i) Protection of White Mangroves (ii) Provision for Sea Level Rise (iii) Water Quality (iv) Maritime History 2. Public Buildings and Utilities (i) Foreshore Art Gallery (proposed) (ii) Three Waters Centre (proposed) (iii) Stirling Arts Centre Redevelopment (proposed) (iv) Drainage (Flood gates, drainage outlets, retention basin and pump) (v) Toilets (vi) Parking areas (vii) Power and water supply 3. Marine Infrastructure (i) Jetties (ii) Boat Ramps (iii) Sea walls (iv) Railing 4. Landscape Architecture (Noting Queensland Study Tour Findings) (i) Theme for Park (e.g. Maritime) (ii) Vegetation (iii) Lighting (Noting current “Lighting up Bunbury” project) (iv) Paths and Access (Dual use, Disabled Access) (v) Seating (vi) Public Art (Noting Offer from Past Councillor to Donate) (vii) Signage and Interpretation (Noting Walkability Project) (viii) Entry Statement (ix) Playgrounds/Play Equipment 5. Activities/Events (i) Australia Day (ii) Sunday Markets (iii) Kids Festival (iv) Rowing Regattas (v) Aqua Spectacular


Page 34

6. Statutory Planning and Land Tenure (i) Greater Bunbury Region Scheme Requirements (ii) TPS 7 Requirements (iii) Reserve Vesting and Management Orders (iv) Leases and Licences Project Management, Budget and Timing It is proposed that the project be managed through a group of senior professional and technical officers (including representatives from the Department of Planning and other agencies as required) and two Councillors. There is $100,000 allocated to this project in the 2011/12 budget. A draft plan will be completed in the second quarter of 2012 and Council will receive regular updates on progress through the strategic project reporting arrangements currently being established. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 The recommendation was moved Cr Slater, seconded Deputy Mayor Cr Craddock with the following amendment:

The Mayor and three (3) Councillors (to be named) to be appointed to the Project Management Group as Council representatives and add a point 4 which reads as follows:

4. The Project Management Group is to provide quarterly reports to Council and complete the project within twelve (12) months.

Five Councillors nominated for the three (3) available positions: - Cr Steele - Cr Morris - Cr Slater - Deputy Mayor Cr Craddock - Cr Steck (submitted via email previously) A ballot vote was undertaken and the successful candidates were as follows: - Deputy Mayor Cr Craddock - Cr Steele - Cr Morris The Mayor put the motion (as amended) to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation That Council 1. Note the formation of a Project Management Group to progress the

development of the Leschenault Inlet Masterplan;

2. Endorse the Leschenault Inlet Masterplan report as the basis for the calling of Expressions of Interest (EOI) to prepare a draft Masterplan for consideration by Council prior to public comment;


Page 35

3. Appoint the Mayor, David Smith and the following Councillors: - Deputy Mayor Cr Stephen Craddock - Councillor Karen Steele - Councillor Sam Morris as Council members of the Project Management Group

4. The Project Management Group is to provide quarterly reports to Council and complete the project within twelve (12) months.

CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”


Page 36

11.3 Department of Regional Development and Lands – Proposed transfer of Management Order for Drainage Reserves, Five Mile Brook to the City of Bunbury (was listed as item 11.2 on the meeting agenda) File Ref: F00101

Applicant/Proponent: Department of Regional Development and Lands

Author: Jane Porter, Property Officer

Director: Wayne Wright, Director Corporate Services


Recommendation Council accepts the Department of Regional Development and Lands transfer of the following twelve (12) Drainage Reserves to the City of Bunbury under Management Order, subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the Management order:

- Reserve 34234 Parry Street, South Bunbury - Reserve 25355 Goldsmith Street, South Bunbury - Reserve 34726 Nyabing Way, Bunbury - Reserve 31869 Flynn Street, East Bunbury - Reserve 32106 Bryant Street, East Bunbury - Reserve 35849 Davenport Way, Withers - Reserve 35850 Davenport Way, Withers - Reserve 38150 Barr Road, Carey Park - Reserve 33333 MacQueen Crescent, South Bunbury - Reserve 31583 Wallrodt Crescent, Glen Iris - Reserve 33003 Dawson Place, South Bunbury - Reserve 40056 Dodson Road, Davenport Summary The Department of Water (DoW) has been reviewing the appropriateness of their reserves for which they hold a Management Order over or are the Responsible Agency. DoW has recommended to the Department of Regional Development and Lands that twelve (12) drainage reserves be transferred to the City of Bunbury under Management as they believe they are not related to their current business and wish to be removed as the Responsible Agency. A summary of comments and individual location plans identifying the drainage reserves are attached at Appendix 2. Background The request to accept the Management Order was referred to the City Engineer and Manager of Operations for comment. It was advised that due to the twelve drainage reserves containing various drainage infrastructure, it would be in the City of Bunbury’s interest to manage these drainage reserves as part of the 5 Mile Brook drainage system.


Page 37

Officer Comments We recommend the Management Order over these reserves be accepted, based upon the advice of the City’s Engineering Department. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications The City of Bunbury will be responsible for the maintenance of the drainage reserves. Options Option 1 Per the recommendation as listed in this report. Option 2 Per the recommendation as listed in this report, with amendments as suggested by council members. Option 3 Council refuses the proposal to accept the transfer of twelve (12) drainage reserves at Five Mile Brook by the Department of Regional Development and Lands. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 Cr Slater moved procedural motion 15.9 of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders that the matter lie on the table until as such time as costs of maintaining the Reserves can be presented to Council. The Mayor put the procedural motion to the vote and was LOST 3 votes “for” / 9 votes “against”. The recommendation (as printed) was moved Deputy Mayor Cr Craddock, seconded Cr Jones. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation Council accepts the Department of Regional Development and Lands transfer of the following twelve (12) Drainage Reserves to the City of Bunbury under Management Order, subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the Management order: - Reserve 34234 Parry Street, South Bunbury - Reserve 25355 Goldsmith Street, South Bunbury - Reserve 34726 Nyabing Way, Bunbury - Reserve 31869 Flynn Street, East Bunbury - Reserve 32106 Bryant Street, East Bunbury


Page 38

- Reserve 35849 Davenport Way, Withers - Reserve 35850 Davenport Way, Withers - Reserve 38150 Barr Road, Carey Park - Reserve 33333 MacQueen Crescent, South Bunbury - Reserve 31583 Wallrodt Crescent, Glen Iris - Reserve 33003 Dawson Place, South Bunbury - Reserve 40056 Dodson Road, Davenport CARRIED 10 votes “for” / 2 votes “against”


Page 39

11.4 South West Senior Expo Inc. – Picton Agricultural Hall, Portion of Reserve 14588, South Western Highway, Bunbury (was listed as item 11.3 on the meeting agenda) File Ref: A03518

Applicant/Proponent: South West Senior Expo Inc.

Author: Jane Porter, Property Officer

Director: Wayne Wright, Director Corporate Services


Recommendation Council agrees to grant a Deed of Licence to the South West Senior Expo Inc. over Portion of Reserve 14588 (Picton Agricultural Hall) South Western Highway, Bunbury, subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the licence agreement and the following:

1. The Licence being for use of storage of equipment and goods only.

2. The term of the Licence is to be for one (1) year.

3. The Licence is subject to the approval of the Minister for Lands and advertised in accordance with the provision of Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Summary South West Senior Expo Inc. (the applicant) has requested the City grant a one (1) year Licence over a portion of Reserve 14588 for the use of storage of equipment and goods only. A location plan is attached at Appendix 3. Background South West Senior Expo Inc. has been granted one (1) year tenancy agreements over Portion of Reserve 14588 since 2009. The current tenancy agreement between the City of Bunbury and South West Senior Expo Inc expires on 25 November 2011. Current Tenancy and Proposed New Deed of Licence Details are as follows: Current Tenancy Agreement Details Commencement: 26 November 2010 Term: One (1) year Expiry Date: 25 November 2011 Rental: Peppercorn Outgoings: Responsibility of the applicant Insurance: Tenant to maintain Public Risk and General Insurance cover

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


Page 40

Proposed New Deed of Licence Details Commencement: 26 November 2011 Term: One (1) year Expiry Date: 25 November 2012 Rental: Peppercorn Outgoings: Responsibility of the applicant Insurance: The Applicant to maintain Public Risk and General Insurance

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

Special Conditions: In the event that the City of Bunbury requires the premises at a future time, the City of Bunbury shall give the Applicant three (3) months notice, in writing, to vacate the premises. The Applicant has been granted development approval to store a sea container at the property for the term of the Licence, one (1) year.

The City’s Executive and the applicant have mutually agreed on the proposed term and conditions of the Licence. Officer Comments The applicant has tenanted the site since 2009 and has satisfactorily fulfilled its obligations and responsibilities under the Tenancy Agreement during this time. The applicant provides like-minded participation from local community members and visitors. The City of Bunbury will be proceeding with works in relation to the Conservation plan in place for the Hall; the anticipated works including re-roofing are likely to occur this financial year. A longer Licence term is not recommended at this stage, due to the requirement for further works to the premises. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications The Licence rental is Peppercorn. Options Option 1 Per the recommendation as listed in this report. Option 2 Per the recommendation as listed in this report, with amendments as suggested by council members.


Page 41

Option 3 Council resolves not to grant a Deed of Licence to the South West Senior Expo Inc. over portion of Reserve 14588 (Picton Agricultural Hall) South Western Highway, Bunbury. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Morris, seconded Cr Cook. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation Council agrees to grant a Deed of Licence to the South West Senior Expo Inc. over Portion of Reserve 14588 (Picton Agricultural Hall) South Western Highway, Bunbury, subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the licence agreement and the following:

1. The Licence being for use of storage of equipment and goods only.

2. The term of the Licence is to be for one (1) year.

3. The Licence is subject to the approval of the Minister for Lands and advertised in accordance with the provision of Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.

CARRIED 10 votes “for” / 2 votes “against”

It was requested that the votes be recorded as follows: For: Mayor D Smith, Deputy Mayor Cr Craddock, Cr Prosser, Cr Leigh, Cr

Steele, Cr Bridges, Cr Kelly, Cr McNeill, Cr Cook, Cr Morris Against: Cr Jones, Cr Slater


Page 42

11.5 Amendment to Deed of License Bicentennial Square Markets (was listed as item 11.4 on the meeting agenda)

File Ref: A04580

Applicant/Proponent: Mr Paul McBride




Recommendation That the Executed Deed of License be amended to permit the Bicentennial Square Markets, as run by operator Paul McBride, to operate each Saturday instead of Sunday. Summary Mr McBride contacted the Chief Executive Officer on the 7 November 2011 to advise that during the time Council were assessing the Expressions of Interest for operating a market in Bunbury, the Busselton Markets operator signed a majority of the quality stall holders to the Busselton Markets. These markets also operate each Sunday, and as a result, Mr McBride is concerned that the quality of the Bicentennial Square Markets would be compromised through a lack of available stallholders and produce. As such, Mr McBride is requesting that he be allowed to operate on Saturdays rather than Sundays, to enable him to secure quality stall holders. An email from Mr McBride justifying his request is attached at Appendix 4 Background On the 28 June 2011, Council resolved as per Resolution 142/11 that Mr Paul McBride be appointed the Market Operator for an initial period of 12 months. Since then, a Deed of License has been signed and executed, specifying: “Permitted Market Days” means all Sundays during the Term except those in respect of which the City has given to the Licensee a notice in accordance with Clause 2.3. Officer Comments There are some concerns as to the effect that operating on a Saturday will have on local business. The Bicentennial Square Markets will be in direct competition with businesses in the CBD, and may attract people away from the CBD retail outlets. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications There are no financial and budget implications for the City of Bunbury.


Page 43

Options Option 1 As per the recommendation listed in this report. Option 2 Council do not support the recommendation, and the Markets will continue to operate on a Sunday, as per the current Deed of License. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Steele, seconded Cr Leigh (proforma). The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was LOST 1 vote “for” / 10 votes “against”. Option 2 was moved by Cr Slater, seconded Cr Bridges. Cr Kelly moved procedural motion 15.9 of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders that the matter "lie on the table" until the Council meeting 29 November 2011. The Mayor put the procedural motion to the vote and was LOST 5 votes “for” / 7 votes “against” The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation Council do not support the recommendation, and the Markets will continue to operate on a Sunday, as per the current Deed of License. CARRIED 9 votes “for” / 3 votes “against”


Page 44

11.6 Local Government Development Assessment Panels (DAPs) – Replacement Councillor for former Cr Wayne Major (was listed as item 11.5 on the meeting agenda)

File Ref: A04547


Author: Jack Dyson, Senior Administration Officer


Attachments: Nil

Recommendation That Council submit the name of Councillor ____________ as deputy or alternate member to take the place of former Councillor Wayne Major on the Local Government Development Assessment Panels. Summary Cr Major was appointed to the Local Government Development Assessment Panel (DAPs) as a deputy or alternate member. As Cr Major was unsuccessful in being re-elected to Council, an opportunity now exists for another Councillor to take his place. Background Council is aware that under the provisions of recently introduced amendments to the Planning and Development Act 2005 and associated regulations, there is a requirement to establish Local Development Assessment Panels, which will be established to service a single local government, where that local government is deemed to be a high-growth local government with enough development to support its own panel, by determining applications made under the local planning scheme (and if applicable the relevant region planning scheme). At its Council meeting held 17 May 2011, the Bunbury City Council (Council Decision 99/11) submitted the names of His Worship the Mayor, David Smith and Councillor Craddock as its nominees to be local DAP members and the names of Councillors Steele and Major as deputy or alternate members for consideration by the Honourable Minister for Planning, to be appointed as members of the local Development Assessment Panel. Please note that at this meeting when nominations are called Cr Steck had indicated an interest in fulfilling one of the positions. Officer Comments Under the terms and provisions of the aforementioned amendments and introduced regulations, the Minister must establish and maintain a register of local DAP members. Each local government must nominate two (2) local DAP members and two (2) alternate (or deputy) members from its pool of elected members. The Minister then considers nominations received and successful nominees are appointed for a two (2) year term.


Page 45

Due to the results of the recent local government elections and the unsuccessful re-election of Cr Major, the City will need to re-nominate another Councillor as Cr Major’s replacement as a deputy or alternate member. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation Option 2 As per the recommendation with amendment Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 Nominations: - Cr Bridges nominated Cr Steck. - Deputy Mayor Cr Craddock nominated Cr Slater – declined nomination - Cr Steele nominated Cr Bridges – declined nomination - Deputy Mayor Cr Craddock nominated Cr Jones Cr Jones left the chamber at 8.08pm in order for a “show of hands” vote to be taken. The Mayor put the nominations to the vote by a “show of hands”. Results were as follows: - Cr Steck 3 votes - Cr Jones 8 votes Cr Jones was the successful nominee. Cr Jones returned to the chambers at 8.09pm and was present for the vote on the remaining items on the agenda. The Mayor put the motion (as amended) to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation That Council submit the name of Councillor Judy Jones as deputy or alternate member to take the place of former Councillor Wayne Major on the Local Government Development Assessment Panels. CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”


Page 46

11.7 Appointments to the Bunbury Regional Arts Management Board (was listed as item 11.6 on the meeting agenda)

File Ref: A00168

Applicant/Proponent: Internal Proponent

Author: Stephanie Addison-Brown, Director Community and Customer Services

Director: Stephanie Addison-Brown, Director Community and Customer Services

Attachments: Nil

Recommendation That the Council endorse the appointment of the following persons to the Bunbury Regional Arts Management Board (BRAMB) for two (2) year terms:

1. Mr Peter Alexander

2. Mr Peter Hill

3. Dr Donna Mazza; and

4. Ms Beth Ferguson Following the outcome of the impending review of Council Committees, it is further recommended that Council consider whether an appointment of a Councillor to the Board is appropriate Summary The Bunbury City Council has the right to make all appointments to the Board of the BRAMB. There are currently four vacancies, and four suitable nominations have been received. Background The four vacancies have come about because three members of the BRAMB have decided not to pursue another term as Board members, and another has resigned. Further, Ms Juliet Harrop who previously represented the Council on the Board is no longer a Councillor. The City of Bunbury is in receipt of advice from the Director of the Bunbury Regional Art Galleries, Ms Sonya Dye, that “All nominees for the vacant positions have the necessary skills and experience to make important contributions to the Board.” On 31 October 2011 the BRAMB held a special meeting and accepted the nominations listed above, and recommended that they be appointed to the Board. Following the departure of the outgoing members, the Board is unable to obtain a quorum until such time as new members are approved by the Council.


Page 47

Officer Comments Stephanie Addison-Brown was present at both the special meeting of the Board, and the AGM, at which the appointments were accepted by the Board. She would like to thank the outgoing Board members for their work, and looks forward to working with the Board productively into the future. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications No expense will be incurred by the City and no change to the existing Budget is necessary Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 Council elects not to appoint Mr Peter Alexander, Mr Peter Hill, Dr Donna Mazza, and Ms Beth Ferguson to the Board for a two (2) year term and consider, following the impending review of Council Committees, the appropriateness of an appointment of a Councillor to the Board. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 The Mayor asked if there was anyone from the gallery that wished to address the Committee on this matter. Ms Juliet Harrop, Unit 2/53 Moore Street Bunbury made the following address to the Committee: “I feel that it is extremely important for both Council and even the Executives to have a representative on BRAMB as Council is one of the biggest supporters. An elected member can give the Board an overview of the Council’s position and the same with being able to give Council an overview of BRAMB”. The recommendation was moved Deputy Mayor Cr Craddock, seconded Cr Prosser with the following amendment: Remove everything after point 4 and add a point 5 which reads as follows:

“5. Cr Ross Slater as Council’s representative on the Bunbury Regional Arts Management Board”.

Cr Morris moved, Cr Steele seconded procedural motion 15.10 of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders that the meeting exclude members of the public and press to permit Confidential Business to be discussed. The Mayor put the procedural motion to the vote and was CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”. The meeting was closed (8.27pm) to the members of the public and press.


Page 48

During the discussion Cr Steele moved procedural motion 15.9 of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders that the matter “lie on the table” until the Council meeting 29 November 2011. The Mayor put the procedural motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter. Cr Steele moved procedural motion 15.10 of the City of Bunbury Standing Order that the meeting be reopened to the public and press. The Mayor put the procedural motion to the vote and was CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”. The meeting was reopened (8.45pm) to the members of the public and press.

Committee Recommendation Pursuant to City of Bunbury Standing Order 15.9 the matter is to lie on the table until the Council meeting 29 November 2011. CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”


Page 49

11.8 City of Bunbury Healthy Clubs Grants Scheme – Summer 2011/2012 (was listed as item 11.7 on the meeting agenda)

File Ref: F00224


Author: Elizabeth Watkins, Community Recreation Liaison Officer

Director: Stephanie Addison Brown, Director Community and Customer Service

Attachments: Nil

Recommendation That Council endorses the following applications for small equipment grants under the City of Bunbury Summer 2011/2012 Healthy Clubs Grants Scheme:

- Bunbury Regional Athletics Club - $419 towards the purchase of promotional tear drop banners

- Bunbury and Districts Little Athletics Club - $500 towards the purchase of 2 stopwatches with printers

- Bunbury Volleyball Association - $500 towards the purchase of uniforms and beach volleyballs

- Bunbury Swimming Club - $227 towards the purchase of a pole camera

- Bunbury Central Croquet Club - $194 towards the purchase of croquet balls Summary Council has received five (5) external applications for the City of Bunbury Healthy Club Grants Scheme Summer 2011/2012 round. Background The City of Bunbury Healthy Clubs Grants Scheme is a valuable tool in engaging and rewarding local sport and recreation clubs who are proactively developing the health of their clubs. Through the scheme the Sports Club Development Officer receives valuable information on how local sporting groups are being managed to assist the City in better catering for the needs of clubs in the future. The scheme requires clubs to fill in a “Self Assessment Checklist” online and attend two Club Development Workshops to be eligible to apply for the $500 small equipment grant. Clubs may apply for up to $500 and the funds granted must be matched dollar for dollar. Clubs that have not previously applied for funding under the Healthy Club Grant Scheme may receive preference if applications exceed funds available. Bunbury sport and recreation clubs are offered grants in November and March for the summer and winter playing seasons. All year sports can apply in either summer or winter rounds but not in both.


Page 50

Sport and recreation clubs were notified of the grant six weeks prior to the closing date and individual contact has been made with each club. Five applications were received for this summer round. No all year round sporting club applications were received. The clubs that have submitted applications have met the guidelines of the scheme and have either attended at least two workshops in 2011 or will register for two club development workshops before June 2012. Five applications for funding were received with the requested funding totalling $1840 (summarised in table below). Club Name Project

Cost Amount Sought

Amount Granted ($ for $)

Purpose Club Self Assessment received

Workshops attended

Bunbury Regional Athletics Club

$838.00 $419.00 $419.00 Promotional tear drop banners

Yes Speed Dating for Clubs & Boot Camp for Committees

Bunbury and Districts Little Athletics Club

$1090.00 $500.00 $500.00 Stop watches with printers

Yes Agreed to attend 2 in 2012

Bunbury Volleyball Association

$1171.00 $500.00 $500.00 15 Women’s sports uniforms and 8 Beach Volleyballs

Yes Marketing your club Attending second in 2012

Bunbury Swimming Club

$454.00 $227.00 $227.00 Pole camera with 21mm diameter camera

Yes Marketing your club and Boot Camp for Committees

Bunbury Central Croquet Club

$387.00 $194.00 $194.00 Set of International Croquet Balls

Yes Agreed to attend 2 in 2012

TOTALS

$3940.00

$1840.00

$1840.00

All amounts in Table 1 are stated as GST exclusive and have been rounded up to the nearest dollar

Officer Comments The Healthy Clubs Grants Scheme is a valuable opportunity for local clubs and associations to receive funding for small equipment purchases to assist clubs in providing sport and recreation opportunities to City of Bunbury residents. Due to timing of grant rounds and calendar, clubs who have not attended workshops in 2011 will attend in early 2012. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications A total amount of $7,000 for the Healthy Club Grants Scheme was endorsed by Council for the 2011/12 financial year. The winter season has more sports and we usually receive more applications for the winter round.


Page 51

Options Option 1 As per the recommendation listed in this report Option 2 That Council does not endorse the submitted applications for small equipment grants under the City of Bunbury Healthy Clubs Scheme. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Bridges, seconded Cr Slater. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation That Council endorses the following applications for small equipment grants under the City of Bunbury Summer 2011/2012 Healthy Clubs Grants Scheme: - Bunbury Regional Athletics Club - $419 towards the purchase of

promotional tear drop banners - Bunbury and Districts Little Athletics Club - $500 towards the purchase

of 2 stopwatches with printers - Bunbury Volleyball Association - $500 towards the purchase of

uniforms and beach volleyballs - Bunbury Swimming Club - $227 towards the purchase of a pole camera - Bunbury Central Croquet Club - $194 towards the purchase of croquet

balls CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”


Page 52

11.9 Scheme Review Initiation (was listed as item 11.8 on the meeting agenda)

File Ref: A03929


Author: Thor Farnworth, Coordinator Strategic and Environmental Planning

Director Bob Karaszkewych, Director Planning and Development Services

Attachments: Report Under Separate Cover

Recommendation 1. That Council, in accordance with Section 72 and 88(3) of the Planning and

Development Act 2005 and Regulation 4 of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, initiates a review of the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 by resolving to prepare a new Scheme and a Local Planning Strategy.

2. The Western Australian Planning Commission to be advised of Council’s decision, and a copy of Council’s resolution and the Local Planning Scheme Review Report, to be submitted to the Commission for its consideration to permit the public advertising of the resolution deciding to prepare a Local Planning Scheme in accordance with Form No. 1 of Appendix A to the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

3. Subject to the granting of permission by the Western Australian Planning Commission, the notice of the passing by Council of that resolution to be published once in the Government Gazette and also once in a newspaper circulating in the City of Bunbury, in accordance with Form No. 2 of Appendix A to the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

4. In accordance with regulation 5 of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, a copy of the notice and the Local Planning Scheme Review Report to be referred to all relevant public authorities and adjoining local governments for their consideration and comment so as to inform the preparation of the Local Planning Strategy and revised Scheme.

5. Following public advertising of the Form No. 1 and the Local Planning Scheme Review Report for information purposes, undertake the preparation of the new Scheme and inaugural Local Planning Strategy in accordance with the procedure set out in the Planning and Development Act 2005 and Town Planning Regulations 1967.

Summary As a first step towards preparing the inaugural Local Planning Strategy and a new Local Planning Scheme, the City of Bunbury has drafted the Local Planning Scheme Review Report (refer to Attachment 1 of the report circulated under separate cover) for the primary purpose of seeking the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) approval to grant an exemption from the requirement to consolidate the existing City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 (TPS7), and instead permission to publicly advertise Council’s resolution to formally initiate a Scheme review in order to formulate the new City of Bunbury Local Planning Scheme No. 8 (TPS8) and its accompanying Local Planning Strategy.


Page 53

The secondary purpose of the Local Planning Scheme Review Report is to document the scope of the proposed Scheme review at its inception, and as such, it is intended to act in part like a traditional Scheme Report. In isolation Scheme Reports of the past have been technical documents that provide a summary assessment of what is presently known of the existing Scheme’s performance in light of current conditions and circumstances, the likely issues and emerging trends that affect land use planning of the city in the future and a justification for how they should be addressed by the Local Planning Strategy and new Scheme. However, it must be remembered that the Local Planning Scheme Review Report only marks the beginning of the Scheme review process. Further knowledge will be gained during the Scheme review process on what the full extent of key issues are that must be addressed and the possible solutions that can be formulated in response to the identified challenges. Importantly this process will be informed from the outset by the participation of the community and other stakeholders. Nevertheless, Bunbury is fortunate in having adopted its City Vision Strategy in September 2007, which largely anticipated the introduction of the “Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework” requirements to be promulgated by June 2012 under reforms made to the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996. This provides Council with the broad direction and goals that other local governments in the South West do not have the benefit of, and should therefore assist with the expediting of the Scheme review process. Background Local Planning Strategy The requirement for local governments to prepare strategic land use plans in conjunction with town planning schemes was introduced in October 1999 with an amendment to Town Planning Regulations 1967, which replaced the requirement for a “Scheme Report” that were customarily retrospective in nature with a more strategically oriented “Local Planning Strategy”. The Local Planning Strategy is intended to be the principal document of the Local Planning Policy Framework, as prescribed by Part 2 of the Model Scheme Text (MST). Therefore, before a revised Local Planning Scheme can become effective, it is a statutory requirement that there be an associated Local Planning Strategy that is adopted by Council and endorsed by the WAPC in order to guide not only the implementation of the Scheme over the next five years but to also set the direction for the following 15 to 20 years. Despite the fact that Town Planning Scheme No. 7 was adopted by Council on 5 November 2002, there is presently no adopted Local Planning Strategy. Therefore, in Bunbury’s case, as it is with other fast growing regional centres (e.g. Busselton), the Local Planning Strategy is being built up from a suite of supporting topic specific land use planning strategies that break down and deal with the complexity of issues and challenges facing the City’s growth and development over the next couple of decades. These strategies include:

- Local Planning Strategy for Heritage & Character (adopted 6 November 2007);

- Local Planning Strategy for Tourism (adopted 19 May 2009);


Page 54

- Local Planning Strategy for Activity Centres & Neighbourhoods (adopted 22 March 2011);

- Local Planning Strategy for Environmental Assets & Natural Resources (being drafted as per the update provided at Council’s briefing session on 14 June 2011).

Other supporting strategic planning projects include:

- City of Bunbury Landscape Character Study (completed 2010), and

- Local Planning Strategy - Integrated Transport Study (being drafted by SKM in conjunction with the Strategic & Environmental Planning team).

With the WAPC’s endorsement of the above finalised strategies, it is not expected that there will be a need to exhaustively revisit the City’s adopted strategic planning position on such matters as the location and extent of heritage areas, tourism sites, hierarchy of local activity centres and residential density coding. Local Planning Scheme The Local Planning Scheme is the core of the Local Planning Policy Framework and is the principal statutory tool for implementing the Local Planning Strategy and achieving the Local Government’s aims and objectives with respect to the development of its municipality. While Schemes deal mainly with regulating the use of land and how it is developed (e.g. granting of planning approval and the setting of conditions), this should be seen in the context of the strategic framework and the broader environmental, social and economic goals and objectives. Section 73 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 specifies that the provisions of a Local Planning Scheme are to:

(a) define in such manner as may be prescribed by the regulations the area to which the scheme is to apply;

(b) specify the local government to be responsible for enforcing the observance of the Scheme and for the execution of any works which, under the scheme or this Act, are to be executed by a local government;

(c) provide for matters which may be dealt with by general provisions prescribed under section 256;

(d) otherwise supplement, exclude or vary the general provisions to the extent approved by the Minister; and

(e) deal with any special circumstances or contingencies for which adequate provision is not made by the general provisions.

Town Planning Scheme No. 7 has now been in operation for nine (9) years and must be reviewed. In its time of operation the Scheme has been subject to over 50 amendments, and while it has largely fulfilled its stated objectives, it is not envisaged that the Scheme in the absence of a Local Planning Strategy will be able to adequately accommodate all future growth of the City nor cope with the expected changes facing it over the next decade. If the ultimate test of a Local Planning Strategy and Scheme is to make the right balance and trade-offs that result in a more sustainable and resilient city over the longer term – then the brief for the Local Planning Strategy & Scheme Review Project is to come up with a plan that achieves the desired environmental and


Page 55

developmental outcomes for a city that is experiencing and dealing with increasingly complex drivers of change (e.g. population growth, rising energy costs, evolving technologies, climate change, sea level rise, natural disasters, etc). Poignantly, it is this next Scheme that is likely to also take the City to a built out stage of its development, and hence, will be a Scheme that deals more with urban renewal (i.e. brown-field development) than urban expansion (i.e. green-field development). Officer Comments Section 88 (1) and (2) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 requires that a local government is to prepare a consolidation of its Local Planning Scheme, incorporating all amendments, every five years. As TPS7 was gazetted on 13 December 2002, a review of the Scheme is now due. Despite this, section 88(3) of the Act states that a Local Government may resolve to prepare a new Scheme instead of preparing a consolidation. Therefore, it is the intention of this report to fulfil the requirements of section 94 to enable the Scheme review to be effected from the outset in accordance with Council’s resolution pursuant to section 88(3) of the Act. Community Consultation Subject to Council’s resolution to initiate the Scheme review and once the WAPC grants permission to publicly advertise Council’s notice of resolution to review the Scheme, the Local Government is to as soon as reasonably practicable publish the notice of resolution once in the Government Gazette and also publicly advertise the notice of resolution at least once in a local newspaper. The Local Government is also required to forward a copy of the notice of Council’s resolution and accompanying Local Planning Scheme Review Report on to all relevant State government agencies likely to be affected by the Scheme and adjoining local governments for their comment on any matters that should be considered during the preparation of the new Scheme. It is envisaged that the next step in preparing the inaugural Local Planning Strategy and new Scheme will be to prepare a Local Planning Strategy: Discussion Paper, which will be a catalyst for deriving the community’s input on the key directions for the future land use planning and development of the City. It is intended that the Discussion Paper will be released as part of a community and stakeholder consultation programme that will run over the course of preparing the Local Planning Strategy and new Scheme. Feedback collected at key stages during the informal community consultation period will then be used to inform the new Scheme’s formulation, and will augment the formal statutory public consultation procedure that must be undertaken at the completion of the process with the finalisation of a draft Local Planning Strategy and revised Scheme. Council must then take into account any submissions received during the formal public advertising period prior to final adoption of the proposed Local Planning Strategy and draft new Local Planning Scheme. The submissions, together with the Scheme documentation and Council’s resolution, will then to be forwarded on to the WAPC for its endorsement and final approval by the Minister for Planning.


Page 56

Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications The known project costs of preparing the Local Planning Strategy and revised Scheme have been accounted for in the present annual Budget. The judicious implementation of the Local Planning Strategy and new Scheme can be expected to have a positive triple-bottom-line net benefit for the City by facilitating more ecologically sustainable development. Managing the growth of the City’s resident population and economic investment activity will then need to occur as a normal part of the Local Government’s administrative and statutory functions. However, it must be noted that the expected growth and change of the City will require concomitant expenditure by both public and private sectors in order to fund the necessary provision of soft and hard infrastructure services. Legislative Compliance The procedure for reviewing the Scheme is prescribed under the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the accompanying Town Planning Regulations 1967. A local government is to either consolidate or review its Scheme, subject to the approval of the Minister for Planning every five years in accordance with the State Planning Framework. Council is yet to adopt a strategic position on how it will manage the future growth and change of the City with the formulation of its first Local Planning Strategy. Logically this should be implemented by a Local Planning Scheme that is based on the findings and strategic intent of a Local Planning Strategy that is also endorsed by the WAPC. The benefit of preparing a new Scheme is that it enables the opportunity for the City to comprehensively address key issues and emerging trends whilst also enabling it to bring the Scheme further into compliance with the MST. It is anticipated that these modifications to the Scheme will constitute significant changes and must therefore be addressed through the creation of a new Scheme. Given recent public consultation initiatives undertaken as part of major amendments to the existing Scheme (e.g. the R-Code Omnibus Amendment), it is considered that advertising for public comment on the desirability of the review as opposed to a consolidation is not necessary. It should be noted that the City will be undertaking a community consultation program during the Scheme review process, which it is envisaged will exceed the legislative requirements, so that all stakeholders and users of the Scheme will have had the opportunity to meaningfully contribute to setting the City’s future strategic directions and statutory regime. The City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 7 has now largely been consolidated, as the City has maintained regular updates of the Scheme Text and Maps and all approved amendments have been incorporated accordingly. It is therefore considered that this requirement has been substantively fulfilled. Therefore, it is recommended that subject to the granting of an exemption from the requirement to consolidate the existing Scheme, Council should resolve to initiate a review of the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 by resolving to prepare a new Scheme and a Local Planning Strategy.


Page 57

Options Option 1 As per the recommendation. Option 2 As per the recommendation with modifications. Option 3 Council may resolve to not proceed with either the review or a consolidation of the Scheme. However, a resolution not to proceed with the proposed review would still need to be forwarded on to the Commission pursuant to the Planning and Development Act 2005 and Town Planning Regulations 1967. In such circumstances the Minister for Planning may then determine the necessity or otherwise of a Scheme review. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Jones, seconded Cr Slater. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation 1. That Council, in accordance with Section 72 and 88(3) of the Planning

and Development Act 2005 and Regulation 4 of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, initiates a review of the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 by resolving to prepare a new Scheme and a Local Planning Strategy.

2. The Western Australian Planning Commission to be advised of Council’s decision, and a copy of Council’s resolution and the Local Planning Scheme Review Report, to be submitted to the Commission for its consideration to permit the public advertising of the resolution deciding to prepare a Local Planning Scheme in accordance with Form No. 1 of Appendix A to the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

3. Subject to the granting of permission by the Western Australian Planning Commission, the notice of the passing by Council of that resolution to be published once in the Government Gazette and also once in a newspaper circulating in the City of Bunbury, in accordance with Form No. 2 of Appendix A to the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

4. In accordance with regulation 5 of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, a copy of the notice and the Local Planning Scheme Review Report to be referred to all relevant public authorities and adjoining local governments for their consideration and comment so as to inform the preparation of the Local Planning Strategy and revised Scheme.


Page 58

5. Following public advertising of the Form No. 1 and the Local Planning Scheme Review Report for information purposes, undertake the preparation of the new Scheme and inaugural Local Planning Strategy in accordance with the procedure set out in the Planning and

Development Act 2005 and Town Planning Regulations 1967. CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”


Page 59

11.10 Delegated Authority for the Roof Covering Replacement Tender, King Cottage Building (was listed as item 11.9 on the meeting agenda)

File Ref: A05184


Author: Mark Robson, Contracts Coordinator

Director: Phil Harris, Director Works and Services

Attachments: Nil

Recommendation 1. Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to award a contract

for the King Cottage Roof Covering Replacement -Tender RFT 2011 2012-11.

2. Record details of the successful tender in the City of Bunbury Tender Register.

Summary The City currently has a tender advertised and closing on 1 December, this tender needs to be awarded prior to the Council Christmas recess. The Christmas recess extends from December to February 2012 and the cut off time for submitting agenda items is now the 29 November. The urgency for this to occur is due to the recently reported three (3) month (minimum) lead up time from placing orders for the unique materials that needs to be sourced, ordered, manufactured and delivered. The replacement of the Timber Sheoak Roof Shingles to the King Cottage building is also required before the onset of unstable weather; a delay in awarding the contract to late February will risk it not being completed before the onset of winter. Heritage issues The scope of works contained in the tender documentation has been developed from the recommendations identified in the Conservation Management Plan – Schedule of Conservation Works (Rev 01) and in consultation with the City’s Planning Officer (Heritage) and Consultants from Heritage and Conservation Professionals. Officer Comments As Council will be in recess from Christmas until February 2012 there is a risk that delaying the awarding of this tender until mid to late February could mean that the project is delayed into the following financial year. The 2011 – 2012 Capital Works Programme has a budgeted sum of $147,910 for this project. It is expected that the limited number of tender responses will not exceed this sum.


Page 60

Council are requested to delegate the authority to the Chief Executive Officer to award this tender to the Contractor that best presents value for money and tender response is within the available budget. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications Funding for this project is provided from a Lottery west grant and the City’s Heritage Building Maintenance Reserve. There are no financial or budget implications outside of the project budget of $147,910. Council Policy Compliance Council approval is required to award a contract for the roof covering replacement tender to the King Cottage Building. Legislative Compliance This complies with the WA Local Government Act 1995 5.52 Delegation of Authority to the CEO. Advertising and processing of tenders has been conducted in accordance with the Local Government (Function and General) Regulations 1996, Part 4 "Tenders for Providing Goods or Services". The tender process complies with the requirements of the City's Work Procedure WP4.12 "Tender Procedure and Associated Legislation." Relevant Precedents Council has previously delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer for expenditure towards the containment boom to the Bunbury Timber Jetty and awarding a contact for the Albert Road reconstruction tender under similar circumstances. Options Option 1 As per the recommendation in this report Option 2 Reject all tender responses Comment: This is not supported by the Tender Evaluation Panel. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Slater, seconded Deputy Mayor Cr Craddock.


Page 61

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

Committee Recommendation 1. Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to award a

contract for the King Cottage Roof Covering Replacement -Tender RFT 2011 2012-11.




Page 62

11.11 Tender for Road Reconstruction and Drainage Upgrade Works to Minninup Road, Bunbury - RFT 2011 2012-08 (was listed as item 11.10 on the meeting agenda)

File Ref: A03532


Author: Mark Robson, Contract Co-ordinator

Director: Phil Harris, Director of Works and Services

Attachments: Confidential Report Recommendation

1. Council to accept the tendered Lump Sum Fee submitted by Geographe Civil

being for the road reconstruction and drainage upgrade works to Minninup Road, Bunbury.


Summary The City of Bunbury has advertised for a suitably qualified and experienced Civil Works contractor to undertake road reconstruction and drainage upgrade works to a section of Minninup Road between Spencer and Constitution streets in Bunbury. Background Tender documents were prepared and advertised in The West Australian newspaper on 15 October 2011 and in the South Western Times newspaper on 13 October 2011. Tenders closed at 3:00pm on Wednesday, 9 November 2011. The City's Senior Engineering Technical Officer, Contract Co-ordinator and Consultant Superintendent opened the tender box. A total of twelve (12) interested companies requested and received the tender documents. By closing, four (4) tenders had been received, as follows.

1. Correctline Contracting: PO Box 6083 Bunbury.

2. S &J Excavations: 7 Ditchingham Place, Australind.

3. Industrial Road Pavers: 10 Sudlow Road, Bibra Lake.

4. Geographe Civil: 11 Hensen Street, Bunbury.

An evaluation panel comprising the City’s Senior Engineering Technical Officer and Consultant Engineer from Coates Civil Consulting assessed the tender responses. The tenders were evaluated using the following criteria: - Compliance


Page 63

- Qualitative - Price Compliance Criteria The following compliance criteria were used to assess the tenders: a) Compliance with the Specifications contained in the request yes/No b) Compliance with the conditions of this request yes/no c) Compliance with the safety requirements yes/no d) Compliance and completion of the price schedule yes/no Qualitative Criteria The following Qualitative Criteria were used to assess the tenders: Weighting a) Relevant experience with similar projects 5 b) Key personnel, skills and experiences. 5 c) Methodology 5 d) Contractors resources 5 Price Evaluation of the tender prices (and ranking) has been assessed but because the results are "commercial in confidence" details are listed in a Confidential Report that has been circulated to members under separate cover. Strategic and/or Regional Outcomes Acceptance of the recommendation listed in this report is consistent with the City of Bunbury Strategic Plan 2007-2012, in continuing to maintain and service its assets, infrastructure and road network. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications Funding for this project is provided by the Regional Roads Group and Councils 2011/2012 Capital Works Program. Council Policy Compliance The tender process complies with the requirements of the City's Work Procedure WP4.12 "Tender Procedure and Associated Legislation." Council's CD2 "Purchasing - Local Preference Policy" was applied during evaluation of the tender but has not affected the outcome. Legislative Compliance Advertising and processing of tenders was conducted in accordance with the Local Government (Function and General) Regulations 1996, Part 4 "Tenders for Providing Goods or Services".


Page 64

Delegation of Authority The total costs of this contract exceeds $100,000 Therefore it has been dealt with in accordance with Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (Part 4 - Tenders for Providing Goods or Services). Relevant Precedents Council has dealt with all tenders previously called. Conclusion Based on the panels evaluation of the tender documents submitted by all respondents the recommended tenderer is Geographe Civil as this company has provided the City with a competitive offer, demonstrated its ability to provide quality products and services, and its tender is considered to be the most advantageous tender to the City. Options Option 1 Per the recommendation listed in this report. Option 2 Reject all tenders Comment: This is NOT supported by the Tender Evaluation Panel.

Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Slater, seconded Cr Morris. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation 1. Council to accept the tendered Lump Sum Fee submitted by Geographe

Civil being for the road reconstruction and drainage upgrade works to Minninup Road, Bunbury.




Page 65

11.12 Tender for Road Reconstruction and Drainage Upgrade Works to Stuart Street, Bunbury - RFT 2011 2012-10 (was listed as item 11.12 on the meeting agenda) File Ref: A03242




Attachments: Confidential Report Recommendation 1. Council to accept the tendered Lump Sum Fee submitted by J.W Cross and

Sons being for the road reconstruction and drainage upgrade works to Stuart Street, Bunbury.


Summary The City of Bunbury has advertised for a suitably qualified and experienced Civil Works contractor to undertake road reconstruction and drainage upgrade works to a section of Stuart Street between Bourke and George streets in Bunbury. Background Tender documents were prepared and advertised in The West Australian newspaper on 15

th October 2011 and in the South Western Times newspaper on 13

th October

2011. Tenders closed at 3:00pm on Wednesday 9th November 2011. The City's Senior Engineering Technical Officer, Contract Co-ordinator and Consultant Superintendent opened the tender box. A total of twelve (12) interested companies requested and received the tender documents. By closing, four (4) tenders had been received, as follows.


2. S &J Excavations: 7 Ditchingham Place, Australind.


4. J.W Cross and Sons: 11 Yookson Road, Picton.

An evaluation panel comprising the City’s Senior Engineering Technical Officer and Consultant Engineer from Coates Civil Consulting assessed the tender responses. The tenders were evaluated using the following criteria: - Compliance


Page 66

- Qualitative - Price Compliance Criteria The following compliance criteria were used to assess the tenders: a) Compliance with the Specifications contained in the request yes/No b) Compliance with the conditions of this request yes/no c) Compliance with the safety requirements yes/no d) Compliance and completion of the price schedule yes/no Qualitative Criteria The following Qualitative Criteria were used to assess the tenders: Weighting a) Relevant experience with similar projects 5 b) Key personnel, skills and experiences. 5 c) Methodology 5 d) Contractors resources 5 Price Evaluation of the tender prices (and ranking) has been assessed but because the results are "commercial in confidence" details are listed in a Confidential Report that has been circulated to members under separate cover. Strategic and/or Regional Outcomes Acceptance of the recommendation listed in this report is consistent with the City of Bunbury Strategic Plan 2007-2012, in continuing to maintain and service its assets, infrastructure and road network. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications Funding for this project is provided by the Regional Roads Group and Councils 2011/2012 Capital Works Program. Council Policy Compliance The tender process complies with the requirements of the City's Work Procedure WP4.12 "Tender Procedure and Associated Legislation." Council's CD2 "Purchasing - Local Preference Policy" was applied during evaluation of the tender but has not affected the outcome. Legislative Compliance Advertising and processing of tenders was conducted in accordance with the Local Government (Function and General) Regulations 1996, Part 4 "Tenders for Providing Goods or Services".


Page 67

Delegation of Authority The total costs of this contract exceeds $100,000 Therefore it has been dealt with in accordance with Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (Part 4 - Tenders for Providing Goods or Services). Conclusion Based on the panels evaluation of the tender documents submitted by all respondents the recommended tenderer is J.W Cross and Sons as this company has provided the City with a competitive offer, demonstrated its ability to provide quality products and services, and, its tender is considered to be the most advantageous tender to the City. Relevant Precedents Council has dealt with all tenders previously called. Options Option 1 Per the recommendation listed in this report. Option 2 Reject all tenders Comment: This is NOT supported by the Tender Evaluation Panel.

Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Slater, seconded Cr Steele. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation 1. Council to accept the tendered Lump Sum Fee submitted by J.W Cross

and Sons being for the road reconstruction and drainage upgrade works to Stuart Street, Bunbury.




Page 68

11.13 Advisory Committee Minutes to be Noted at the Council Committee Meeting (was listed as item 11.13 on the meeting agenda)

File Ref: Various


Author: Various

Executive: Various

Attachments: Under Separate Cover

Recommendation The following Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes listed in the report circulated under separate cover are noted for information only: 1. Title: Minutes – City of Bunbury Audit Committee (07/11/2011) Author: David Ransom, Manager Financial Services File: A02733

Committee Members to refer to the report circulated under separate cover. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Slater, seconded Cr Leigh. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation The following Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes listed in the report circulated under separate cover are noted for information only: 1. Title: Minutes – City of Bunbury Audit Committee (07/11/2011) Author: David Ransom, Manager Financial Services File: A02733 CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”


Page 69

11.14 Tender for Road Reconstruction and Drainage Upgrade Works to Forrest Avenue, Bunbury - RFT 2011 2012-09 (was listed as item 11.11 on the meeting agenda) File Ref: A03409




Attachments: Confidential Report Recommendation 1. Council to accept the tendered Lump Sum Fee submitted by Correctline

Contracting being for the road reconstruction and drainage upgrade works to Forrest Avenue between Hennessy Road and Ecclestone Streets.


Summary The City of Bunbury has advertised for a suitably qualified and experienced Civil Works contractor to undertake road reconstruction and drainage upgrade works to Forrest Avenue between Hennessy Road and Ecclestone Street, Bunbury. Background Tender documents were prepared and advertised in The West Australian newspaper on 15 October 2011 and in the South Western Times newspaper on 13 October 2011. Tenders closed at 3:00pm on Wednesday 9 November 2011. The City's Senior Engineering Technical Officer, Contract Co-ordinator and Consultant Superintendent opened the tender box. A total of twelve (12) interested companies requested and received the tender documents. By closing, three (3) tenders had been received, as follows.


2. S & J Excavations: 7 Ditchingham Place, Australind.


An evaluation panel comprising the City’s Senior Engineering Technical Officer and a Consultant Engineer from Coates Civil Consulting assessed the tender responses. The tenders were evaluated using the following criteria:

- Compliance


Page 70

- Qualitative

- Price Compliance Criteria The following compliance criteria were used to assess the tenders: a) Compliance with the Specifications contained in the request yes/no b) Compliance with the conditions of this request yes/no c) Compliance with the safety requirements yes/no d) Compliance and completion of the price schedule yes/no Qualitative Criteria The following Qualitative Criteria were used to assess the tenders: Weighting a) Relevant experience with similar projects 5 b) Key personnel, skills and experiences. 5 c) Methodology 5 d) Contractors resources 5 Price Evaluation of the tender prices (and ranking) has been assessed but because the results are "commercial in confidence" details are listed in a Confidential Report that has been circulated to members under separate cover. Strategic and/or Regional Outcomes Acceptance of the recommendation listed in this report is consistent with the City of Bunbury Strategic Plan 2007-2012, in continuing to maintain and service its assets, infrastructure and road network. Analysis of Financial and Budget Implications Funding for this project is provided by the Regional Roads Group and Councils 2011/2012 Capital Works Program. Council Policy Compliance The tender process complies with the requirements of the City's Work Procedure WP4.12 "Tender Procedure and Associated Legislation." Council's CD2 "Purchasing - Local Preference Policy" was applied during evaluation of the tender but has not affected the outcome. Legislative Compliance Advertising and processing of tenders was conducted in accordance with the Local Government (Function and General) Regulations 1996, Part 4 "Tenders for Providing Goods or Services".


Page 71

Delegation of Authority The total costs of this contract exceeds $100,000 Therefore it has been dealt with in accordance with Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (Part 4 - Tenders for Providing Goods or Services). Relevant Precedents Council has dealt with all tenders previously called. Conclusion Based on the panels evaluation of the tender documents submitted by all respondents the recommended tenderer is Correctline Contracting as this company has provided the City with a competitive offer, demonstrated its ability to provide quality products and services, and, its tender is considered to be the most advantageous tender to the City. Options Option 1 Per the recommendation listed in this report. Option 2 Reject all tenders Comment: This is NOT supported by the Tender Evaluation Panel. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Slater, seconded Deputy Mayor Cr Craddock. Cr Leigh moved procedural motion 15.9 of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders that the matter lie on the table until the end of the meeting in order to discuss the matter behind closed doors. The Mayor put the procedural motion to the vote and was CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against” Cr Slater moved procedural motion 15.10 of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders that the meeting exclude members of the public and press to permit confidential business to be discussed. The Mayor put the procedural motion to the vote and was CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”. The meeting was closed to the members of the public and press at 10.20pm. Cr Jones moved procedural motion 15.9.2 of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders that the matter be “raised from the table” in order for discussion to continue.


Page 72

The Mayor put the procedural motion to the vote and was CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”. After some discussion, the Mayor put the motion (as printed) to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation 1. Council to accept the tendered Lump Sum Fee submitted by Correctline

Contracting being for the road reconstruction and drainage upgrade works to Forrest Avenue between Hennessy Road and Ecclestone Streets.



Cr Slater moved procedural motion 15.10 of the City of Bunbury Standing Orders that the meeting be re-opened to the members of the public and press. The Mayor put the procedural motion to the vote and was CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”. The meeting was reopened to the members of the public and press at 10.30pm.


Page 73

12. Motions on Notice

12.1 Motion on Notice – Rescission of Council Decision 254/11 – Proposed Scheme Amendment 60 File Ref: A00217 & A00511

Applicant/Proponent: Councillor Judy Jones

Author: Councillor Judy Jones

Director: If adopted by Council refer to: Bob Karaszkewych, Director Planning and Development

Attachments: Nil

Cr Judy Jones submitted the following motion for the Council Committee Meeting on 22 November 2011: "In accordance with Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 Section 10 and the City of Bunbury Standing Order 16.23(b) Council Decision 254/11 – Proposed Scheme Amendment 60 – Lot 52 (DP 70356), Lot 53 (DP 70356), Lot 51 (DP 61122) No. 12 Vasse Street South Bunbury, No. 68 Adam Road South Bunbury – is hereby rescinded. " Comments - Cr Jones In support of her motion, Cr Jones states that, "Prior to the Council meeting 8 November 2011, a memorandum was placed on Councillors desks notifying the Councillors of the intent to withdraw item 11.9 - Proposed Scheme Amendment 60 – Lot 52 (DP 70356), Lot 53 (DP 70356), Lot 51 (DP 61122) No. 12 Vasse Street South Bunbury, No. 68 Adam Road South Bunbury – from the meeting agenda. Unfortunately this memorandum was overlooked and the recommendation from the Council Committee was passed ‘en-bloc’ (without discussion). This motion is to rescind the decision made by the Council." Executive Comments Note: In accordance with the provision of Clause 10 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, in order for this motion on notice to succeed it needs to be supported by one third of the Council members and needs to attain an Absolute Majority vote at the Council meeting. Accordingly written support has been received. Cr Jones’ Motion In accordance with Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 Section 10 and the City of Bunbury Standing Order 16.23(b) Council Decision 254/11 – Proposed Scheme Amendment 60 – Lot 52 (DP 70356), Lot 53 (DP 70356), Lot 51 (DP 61122) No. 12 Vasse Street South Bunbury, No. 68 Adam Road South Bunbury – is hereby rescinded.


Page 74

Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 The motion on notice (as printed) was moved Cr Jones, seconded Cr Slater to become the motion under discussion. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation In accordance with Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 Section 10 and the City of Bunbury Standing Order 16.23(b) Council Decision 254/11 – Proposed Scheme Amendment 60 – Lot 52 (DP 70356), Lot 53 (DP 70356), Lot 51 (DP 61122) No. 12 Vasse Street South Bunbury, No. 68 Adam Road South Bunbury – is hereby rescinded. CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”


Page 75

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

14. Items to be Noted or Endorsed

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

File Ref: Various


Author: Various

Executive: Various

Attachments: Under Separate Cover

Recommendation The following items listed in the report circulated under separate cover, are noted for information only: 1. Title: Building Applications – 1/10/2011 to 31/10/2011

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

2. Title: Schedule of Accounts Paid for the Period 1 to 31 October 2011 Author: David Ransom, Manager Financial Services File: A00083

Committee Members to refer to the report circulated under separate cover. Outcome – Council Committee Meeting 22 November 2011 The recommendation (as printed) was moved Cr Slater, seconded Cr Leigh. The Mayor put the motion to the vote and was adopted to become the Committee’s recommendation on the matter.

Committee Recommendation The following items listed in the report circulated under separate cover, are noted for information only: 1. Title: Building Applications – 1/10/2011 to 31/10/2011 Author: Gary Fitzgerald, Senior Manager Development Services File: A00088-02


Page 76

2. Title: Schedule of Accounts Paid for the Period 1 to 31 October 2011 Author: David Ransom, Manager Financial Services File: A00083 CARRIED 12 votes “for” / nil votes “against”

14.2 Items to be Endorsed (No Discussion) at the Council Committee Meeting There are no items recommended for endorsement.

15. Confidential Business as Stipulated Under Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 Agenda Item 11.11 was adjourned until this point (10.20pm) and was discussed behind closed doors (refer item 11.14 to these minutes for outcome).

16. Close of Meeting

The meeting was declared closed at 10.31pm.

committee 22 november 2011 minutes - city of bunbury and... · 2011/2012 (was listed as item 11.7...

Documents