DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE - Shire of … Chief Executive Officer Mr. S. Collie Acting Executive Manager Corporate Services Mr. R. Scantlebury Executive Manager Technical Services

SIGNED DATED 6th February 2018.

SHIRE OF HARVEY

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE HELD ON TUESDAY, 16TH JANUARY 2018, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, MULGARA STREET, AUSTRALIND COMMENCING AT 4.00P.M. ATTENDANCE Shire President Cr. T.G. Jackson Deputy Shire President Cr. P. Beech Cr. M. Boylan Cr. F. Burgoyne 4.00p.m. – 4.11p.m.

4.18p.m. – 4.30p.m. Cr. A. Lovitt Cr. D. Simpson STAFF Acting Chief Executive Officer Mr. S. Collie Acting Executive Manager Corporate Services

Mr. R. Scantlebury

Executive Manager Technical Services Mr. R. Lotznicker Principal Building Surveyor Mr. M. Stewart Principal Environmental Health Officer Mr. S. Dandridge Acting Manager of Planning Services Ms. E. Edwards OBSERVERS Cr. A. Shortland Cr. B. Adams Cr. P. Gillett Planning Officer Mr. N. Dowling 4.00p.m. – 4.28p.m. GALLERY Mr. T. Culloton 4.00p.m. – 4.11p.m. Ms. C. Gelmi 4.08p.m. – 4.30p.m. Mr. L. Sorgiovanni 4.13p.m. – 4.21p.m.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES 16th January 2018. Page 2

SIGNED DATED 6th February 2018.

1. OFFICIAL OPENING

The Shire President opened the meeting at 4.00p.m. 2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES

Nil. 3. DECLARATIONS OF MEMBERS’ AND OFFICER’S PERSONAL INTEREST

• Financial Interest

Cr. Burgoyne declared a financial interest in Planning Item 8.1.3 – Application for Development Approval and Extractive Industry Licence Application – Sand Extraction & Inert Landfill – Peel Resource Recovery Pty Ltd – Lot 43 Stanley Road, Wellesley (A005839/EX/004). Reason

Cr. Burgoyne advised that his employer is involved with Extractive Industries. Cr. Burgoyne advised that he would leave the meeting for the duration of this item.

4. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil. 5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil. 6. PETITIONS/DEPUTATIONS/PRESENTATIONS/SUBMISSIONS

Nil. 7. CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

7.1 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING – Tuesday, 5th December 2017.

That the Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, 5th December 2017, be confirmed. RECOMMENDATION That the Minutes of the Meeting, held on Tuesday, 5th December 2017, as printed be confirmed as a true and correct record.

DS–18/001. Simpson/Burgoyne

“That the Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, 5th December 2017, as printed be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

CARRIED 6-0

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES 16th January 2018. Planning Report Page 3

8IGNED DATED 6th February 2018.

8. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 8.1 PLANNING REPORT (Green) Item No. 8.1.1 Subject: Application for Amendment of a Development Approval – Single

Dwelling (Setback Reduction) Proponent: Mr A. Ferris Location: Lot 50 (1) Perren Road, Brunswick Reporting Officer: Senior Planning Officer (EE) File No.: A014838 Attachment Reg. No. 17/36787

Summary An application pursuant to regulation 77 (r.77) of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011 (Regulations) has been received seeking an amendment to the approved reduced setbacks for a single dwelling on Lot 50 (1) Perren Road (corner of Melville Road), Brunswick (refer Attachment 1). Staff do not currently have delegation to determine the application as the original Development Approval was determined by Council. Approval for the revised setbacks and retention of the previous conditions is recommended. Background Site Description Lot 50 (1) Perren Road (corner of Melville Road), Brunswick is zoned “Intensive Farming” under the Shire’s District Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme) and is located within a designated Bushfire Prone Area. The site is 5,780m2 with minimal vegetation and contains an existing weatherboard dwelling, concrete water tank and a dam which is located in the south western corner (refer Attachment 2). The existing dwelling is located approximately 18m from the Melville Road boundary and 5m from the Perren Road boundary. However, the front verandah of the existing dwelling is approximately 1m from the Perren Road boundary. History An Application for Development Approval for reduced setbacks of not less than 15m from Perren Road and 8.5m from Melville Road boundaries was previously approved by Council at its meeting on 31st October 2017, subject to a range of conditions (refer Attachment 3). Proposal The landowner has advised that their original intention was to position the new dwelling so the alfresco area was overlooking the dam. However, when the Builder pegged out the site of the proposed new dwelling, it became evident to the landowners that, due to a misunderstanding with the Builder, the plans submitted to the Shire did not correctly reflect the landowner’s intentions. This misunderstanding resulted in the proposed new dwelling being located too close to the existing dam. This application has been submitted to further reduce the setbacks in order to move the new dwelling further away from the existing dam. The application seeks to reduce the setback to Perren Road from 15m to 13.4m and reduce the setback to Melville Road from 8m to 4.97m.



The proposed reduced setbacks will result in the partial demolition (rear portion) of the existing dwelling in order for the new dwelling to be constructed. Upon completion of the proposed dwelling the remainder of the existing dwelling will be removed. Comment The Scheme requires dwellings on land zoned “Intensive Farming” to be setback 20m from all property boundaries. Council’s Local Planning Policy 4.1.10 – Setbacks for Structures on Farming Land (the Policy) refers to setback requirements for structures (other than dwellings) and makes provision for the reduction of setbacks for structures to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Whilst the Policy doesn’t specifically apply to dwellings, given the size of the subject property and the intent of the Policy, it is considered that a reduction of the setbacks for the proposed dwelling can appropriately be contemplated. The proposed setback to Perren Road for the new dwelling is 12m greater than for the existing dwelling. The proposed setback to Melville Road is considered comparable to the setback of existing structures along Melville Road (refer Attachment 4), such as:

• Lot 3: Shed setback at approximately 2m; and • Lot 101: Sheds setback at approximately 6.5m and 3.5m.

The majority of landholdings on Melville Road are large farming lots that are currently vacant with minimal traffic using Melville Road (traffic counts from 2013 indicates an average of 72 vehicle movements per day 250m east of Wellesley Road). Therefore, staff consider that the proposed reduced setbacks are unlikely to have a negative impact on the surrounding environs. Conclusion Given the size of the property, the impracticalities of complying with the Scheme required setbacks of 20m from all property boundaries and that the proposed reduced setback to Melville Road is comparable to setbacks of existing structures along Melville Road, it is recommended that Council approves the application in accordance with r.77 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Statutory/Policy Environment Planning and Development Act 2005 Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 The following are portions of Schedule 2 – Deemed Provisions that are relevant to this application: • Regulation 77 – Amending or Cancelling Development Approval

“(1) An owner of land in respect of which development approval has been granted by the

local government may make an application to the local government requesting the local government to do any or all of the following — (a) to amend the approval so as to extend the period within which any

development approved must be substantially commenced; (b) to amend or delete any condition to which the approval is subject; (c) to amend an aspect of the development approved which, if amended, would

not substantially change the development approved; (d) to cancel the approval.



(2) An application under subclause (1) —

(a) is to be made in accordance with the requirements in Part 8 and dealt with under this Part as if it were an application for development approval; and

(b) may be made during or after the period within which the development approved must be substantially commenced.

(3) Despite subclause (2), the local government may waive or vary a requirement in

Part 8 or this Part in respect of an application if the local government is satisfied that the application relates to a minor amendment to the development approval.

(4) The local government may determine an application made under subclause (1) by

— (a) approving the application without conditions; or (b) approving the application with conditions; or (c) refusing the application.”

Shire of Harvey District Planning Scheme No.1 The following are portions of the Scheme that are relevant to this application:

Table 25 – Zoning and Development Standards. Minimum Boundary Setbacks – Dwelling: Front 20m, Rear 20m, Sides 20m.

Shire of Harvey Local Planning Policy The following are portions of the Policy that are relevant to this application: 4.1.10 – Setbacks for Structures on Farming Land

“2) A reduction of the setback from property boundaries may be considered by Council with such assessment being merit-based and on a case-by-case basis.”

Strategic Framework Within the Shire’s Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027, Strategy 2.3.1 states:

“Continue to implement integrated environmental, social and land use planning which will: • minimise land use conflict.”

Risk Management The Risk Theme Profile identified as part of this report is Providing Inaccurate Advice/Information. The Consequence could be Financial, Reputational or Compliance if incorrect advice is given or a condition missed. The Risk is mitigated by the report being thoroughly researched, peer reviewed and provided by a qualified Council officer, resulting in LOW Risk being present. Budget Implications Nil.



Officer’s Recommendation That Council:

1. In accordance with regulation 77 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, approves the Application to Amend the Development Approval on Lot 50 (1) Perren Road, Brunswick, for a Single Dwelling with reduced setbacks of not less than 13.3m from Perren Road and 4.9m from Melville Road boundaries, subject to the following conditions:

a. The development and/or use shall be generally in accordance with the

attached approved plans, subject to modifications required as a consequence of any condition(s) of this approval. The approved plans shall not be modified or altered without first obtaining approval from the Shire;

b. This approval is valid for a period of two (2) years. If the development is

not substantially commenced within this period, a new approval must be obtained before commencing or continuing development;

c. The existing crossover shall be removed and the verge reinstated prior to

occupation and/or use of the approved development to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager of Technical Services;

d. A new crossover shall be constructed, and thereafter maintained, in

accordance with Policy 5.1.5 Crossovers - Subsidy to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager of Technical Services prior to the occupation and/or use of the approved development. The new crossover shall be located a minimum distance of 6m from the ‘tangent point’ of either Perren Road or Melville Road in accordance with Australian Standards 2890.1 – Parking Facilities, Part 1 Off Street Car Parking;

e. The approved development shall be connected to an on-site effluent

disposal system as approved by the Principal Environmental Health Officer;

f. The existing on-site effluent disposal system shall be decommissioned to

the satisfaction of the Principal Environmental Health Officer within 90 days of the completion of the approved development; and

g. The existing dwelling shall be demolished to the satisfaction of the

Principal Building Surveyor within 90 days of the completion of the approved development.

2. Advises the Applicant of the following additional requirements that are not

included as conditions of this approval:

a. In accordance with the Building Act 2011, a Building Permit is required to be obtained prior to the commencement of any works on the site;

b. The development is required to comply with the Building Code of

Australia, Building Regulations 2012 and the Local Government Act 1995; and



c. In accordance with the Building Act 2011, a Demolition Permit is required

to be obtained prior to the partial or full demolition of the existing dwelling.

DS–18/002. Simpson/Boylan

“That the Officer’s Recommendation be adopted.” CARRIED 6-0

Ms. Gelmi entered the Chamber at 4.08p.m during the following Item. Item No. 8.1.2 Subject: Application for Development Approval – Building Envelope

Modification Proponent: Mr. T. & Mrs L. Culloton Location: Lot 126 (8) Sandpiper Parade, Australind Reporting Officer: Senior Planning Officer (EE) File No.: A11676 Attachment Reg. 17/37770

Summary An Application for Development Approval has been received for Lot 126 (8) Sandpiper Parade, Australind. The application is to increase the overall size of the building envelope by 100m2 from 960m2 to 1,060m2 (refer Attachment 1). The current building envelope is not capable of accommodating the proposed dwelling and associated ancillary structures due to the applicant’s requirement for the development of the lot to be designed to cater for increased accessibility. Staff do not have delegation to increase the size of a building envelope and therefore the application requires Council determination. It is recommended the application be approved subject to relevant conditions. Background Site Description Lot 126 (8) Sandpiper Parade, Australind is zoned “Residential Development” under the Shire’s District Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme). The site is of irregular shape with an area of 1,756m2 and has a slope of approximately 3.5% from the front (east) to the rear (west). It has some existing vegetation on the eastern and southern boundaries and is subject to a Building Envelope of 960m2 (refer Attachment 2). History The land was rezoned from “Residential R15/30/50” to “Residential Development” and subdivided in 2004. As part of the subdivision, building envelopes were imposed as a measure to protect some of the existing vegetation.



The original building envelope was 860m2 and an application to increase the building envelope to 960m2 was approved by Council in 2011 (refer Attachment 3). Shire records indicate that some vegetation outside the original building envelope may have been removed illegally which resulted in Council imposing conditions requiring revegetation to occur as part of the 2011 building envelope modification. However, the proposed dwelling did not proceed and therefore the conditions of the 2011 approval were never implemented. The conditions relating to revegetation required:

• The submission of a revegetation plan; • The rear portion of the property was to be revegetated prior to a Building Permit being

issued; • The north eastern boundary and front portion of the property (excluding the driveway)

were to be revegetated within 60 days of occupation of the dwelling; • Lodgement of a $2,000 bond for the revegetation; and • The bond being retained for a period of two (2) years.

Proposal The application proposes to increase the rear of the building envelope by an approximate area of 100m2. The applicant’s daughter requires the use of a wheelchair for mobility and as such the proposed dwelling covers a greater portion of the site than a standard house due to the rooms and circulation areas being designed larger to cater for wheelchair usage. Therefore, the proposed dwelling utilises the majority of the current building envelope. To support their application for the increased building envelope, the applicant has advised that the proposed increase at the rear of the existing building envelope will:

• Allow for the construction of a shed at the rear of the proposed dwelling to store additional mobility and exercise equipment for their daughter; and

• Provide a more accessible and flat outdoor area for their daughter. The applicant also proposes to install a hydrotherapy pool for their daughter on the northern side of the proposed dwelling (adjacent to the living areas of the proposed dwelling) which would prevent them from removing this portion of the building envelope to offset the proposed additional 100m2 at the rear. Comment The Scheme makes provision for Council to “modify the size, shape or position of any building envelope on a lot provided it is satisfied that such action would result in less disturbance to existing vegetation on the lot and would not increase the exposure of any development from outside the lot”. The proposed building envelope modification will not result in the removal of existing vegetation and will not increase the exposure of any development from outside of the lot. With respect to the previous conditions requiring revegetation works outside of the building envelope, the applicant has previously advised that they do plan to undertake some revegetation but this is unlikely to occur within the timeframe specified in the previous condition (within 60 days of occupation). Aerial photography indicates that vegetation at the rear of the property was removed some time prior to 2004 (aerial photography is only available from 2004). Therefore, Staff consider that the current owners should not be liable for revegetating the rear portion of the property. Notwithstanding this, the owners have indicated that they do plan to landscape the rear portion.



Staff acknowledge that traditional-style revegetation has the potential to increase the bushfire risk to the property and surrounding properties given the extent of existing vegetation in the area. Therefore, it is considered appropriate that any revegetation outside the building envelope be consistent with the ‘Standards for Asset Protection Zones’ contained within ‘Appendix 4, Element 2, Schedule 1’ of the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas. Staff consider that the reasons provided to justify the proposed increased building envelope are acceptable given the accessibility requirements of the applicant’s daughter. As this situation is considered specific to the applicants, should the current owners not proceed with their proposed dwelling and sell the land, it would be appropriate that the approval to increase the size of the envelope be applicable to the development of this dwelling only. Regulation 72 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, provides the ability for a condition limiting this approval to the current proposal and owners. Hence, if the current owners did not proceed with their proposed dwelling and ancillary structures and sold the land still vacant, the applicable building envelope would revert back to the 2011 960m2 modified building envelope. Conclusion The proposed building envelope will not result in additional vegetation being removed and the applicant has advised of their intentions to undertake some revegetation of the property. The proposed increase of 100m2 is considered by Staff to be acceptable given the justification for the proposed increase which is specific to the applicants’ needs. It is therefore recommended that Council approve the application subject to appropriate conditions. Statutory/Policy Environment Planning and Development Act 2005 Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 • Regulation 67 – Matters to be Considered by Local Government

“In considering an application for development approval the local government is to have due regard to the following matters to the extent that, in the opinion of the local government, those matters are relevant to the development the subject of the application —

(a) the aims and provisions of this Scheme and any other local planning scheme

operating within the Scheme area;

(b) the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any proposed local planning scheme or amendment to this Scheme that has been advertised under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 or any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving;”

“(g) any local planning policy for the Scheme area;”

“(m) the compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including, but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the development;



(n) the amenity of the locality including the following —

(ii) the character of the locality;”

“(s) the adequacy of –

(i) the proposed means of access to and egress from the site;”

“(w) the history of the site where the development is to be located;”

“(zb) any other planning consideration the local government considers appropriate.”

• Regulation 72 – Temporary Development Approval

“The local government may impose conditions limiting the period of time for which development approval is granted.”

Shire of Harvey District Planning Scheme No.1 Clause 6.2.6 of District Planning Scheme No. 1 states that:

“Council may modify the size, shape or position of any building envelope on a lot provided it is satisfied that such action would result in less disturbance to existing vegetation on the lot and would not increase the exposure of any development from outside the lot.”


“Continue to implement integrated environmental, social and land use planning which will: • minimise land use conflict; • protect significant vegetation, where possible.”

Budget Implications Nil. Risk Management The Risk Theme Profile identified as part of this report is Providing Inaccurate Advice/Information. The Consequence could be Environmental, Financial, Reputational or Compliance if incorrect advice is given or a condition missed. The Risk is mitigated by the report being thoroughly researched, peer reviewed and provided by a qualified Council officer, resulting in LOW Risk being present.



Officer’s Recommendation That Council:

1. Approves the Application for Development Approval to modify the Building Envelope on Lot 126 (8) Sandpiper Parade, Australind from 960m2 to 1,060m2 in accordance with the plan (refer Attachment 1), subject to the following conditions:

a. All development (including outbuildings, batters and associated

earthworks and retaining walls) shall be contained within the allocated building envelope as indicated on the approved plan to the satisfaction of the Principal Building Surveyor;

b. The building envelope is approved on a temporary basis pursuant to

regulation 72 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. At any time in the future, if ownership of the property changes prior to the proposed dwelling on the approved plan being developed, the hereby approved building envelope will be invalid;

c. Areas outside of the building envelope along the north-eastern boundary

and the front portion of the property shall be suitably revegetated to be consistent with the ‘Standards for Asset Protection Zones’ contained within ‘Appendix 4, Element 2, Schedule 1’ of the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas to the satisfaction of the Manager of Planning Services; and

d. No vegetation shall be removed from outside the building envelope.


included as conditions of the approval:

a. The landowner is advised that any future vehicle access outside of the building envelope would need to be of a temporary nature (e.g. gravel/limestone) in order to not be considered as ‘development’; and

b. The landowner is reminded that vehicle access onto Pearce Road is not

permitted as the rear property boundary adjoins a Pedestrian Access Way and therefore does not have a property boundary abutting the road reserve.

DS–18/003. Burgoyne/Lovitt




Cr. Burgoyne and Mr. Culloton left the Chamber at 4.11pm. Mr. Sorgiovanni entered the meeting at 4.13pm during the following Item. Item No. 8.1.3 Subject: Application for Development Approval and Extractive Industry

Licence Application – Sand Extraction & Inert Landfill Proponent: Peel Resource Recovery Pty Ltd Location: Lot 43 Stanley Road, Wellesley Reporting Officer: Planning Officer (ND) File No.: A005839/EX/004 Attachment Reg. No. 17/26225

Summary An Application for Development Approval and an Extractive Industry Licence Application has been received for the extraction of 28,800m3 of sand from an area of 0.97ha at Lot 43 Stanley Road, Wellesley (refer Attachment 1). Staff recommends that Development Approval be granted for the sand extraction and authorises the Manager of Planning Services to issue the Extractive Industry Licence following satisfactory completion of the relevant Development Approval conditions. The applicant is also to be advised that the landfill proposal cannot be approved as inert landfill has recently been classified as “Industry” by the State Administrative Tribunal. “Industry” is not a permitted use in the Kemerton Industry Buffer zone. Background Lot 43 Stanley Road, Wellesley (the site) is zoned “Kemerton Industry Buffer” under District Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme) and is approximately 77.16ha in area. The site adjoins the Bunbury-Harvey Regional Waste Disposal site to the east, the Brunswick River to the south, Agspread and a vacant area of Landcorp land to the west. Stanley Road runs adjacent to the western boundary. Remnant native vegetation occupies the southern portion of the site being about 50ha or about two thirds of the site area. The Dampier – Bunbury Natural Gas pipeline runs through the site parallel to Stanley Road from the east boundary for 700m then north-south through the centre of the site but does not impact on the proposal. The extraction area being the subject of this application is contained within Attachments 2 and Attachment 3 with the full application in Attachment 4. The Proposal The Applicant states the proposal to be as follows:

“1. Project area will be excavated over approximately 5 years.

2. Total area of excavation will be 0.97ha and sand excavation volume is estimated at approximately 28,800m3.

3. Excavation will be at 1:1 batters, with excavation floor level from 10.83m

Australian Height Datum (AHD) in the west rising to 11.33m AHD in the east.



4. Topsoil will be removed prior to excavation and temporarily stored in designated

areas within the site prior to reuse on site for rehabilitation and landscaping in accordance with the site EIP (Environmental Improvement Plan).

5. Project area will be back filled with approximately 55 000m3 of inert fill material

to create a level surface at 21 m AHD to align with existing surface to the east, and grade down at 1:6 batters to the west to align with existing surface at 15m AHD (refer Attachment 4 – Appendix 3 – Final Contour Plan).

6. Final land form of Project area will be used for material laydown and stockpiling

to support site resource recovery operations.” History of Development and Environmental Considerations A Conservation Category Wetland (CCW) is located within the eastern part of the site (mid-green hatched area in Attachment 5). The remainder of the site is a combination of previously extracted areas and areas used in conjunction with a retrospectively approved waste disposal/recycling facility (approved 28/10/2014 Ref 13/25061) which also operates on the property. The site, which was originally covered entirely with native vegetation, was granted an Extractive Industry Licence (EIL) in 1991. Consistent with all EILs granted at this time, the licence ran for a period of 21 years and expired in 2012. The original EIL permitted the extraction of sand on the property in a grid pattern of 200m by 50m cells (1ha) which were to be progressively rehabilitated and revegetated with native vegetation. The approvals permitted two (2) cells to be open at any time. A new cell was not permitted to commence extraction until the previously completed cell was satisfactorily rehabilitated with native vegetation. Under this approach, there would be a maximum of 2ha cleared at any one time and it would be expected at this point in time that those portions of the site which formed the early stages of extraction would have been re-planted nearly 20 years ago and would now contain mature native vegetation. During an assessment of the previous application it was estimated that approximately 22ha of cleared area existed on the site. The report submitted with this application indicates that approximately 3ha was rehabilitated in 2012. In December 2012, Council considered the initial application for an extension of the Extractive Industry Licence which involved the clearing of approximately 1.52ha of vegetation and Council refused the Application due to it being within 200m of the Brunswick River, to limit further clearing in the area, that there was evidence of groundwater contamination and the potential for unacceptable visual impacts on the southern side of the Brunswick River. Following the refusal by Council of the application in December 2012, a revised Application for Planning Consent was received in September 2013, which once again proposed an extension to the existing extraction pit. The Applicant was subsequently advised that Staff would most likely recommend refusal unless the proposal was modified. The Applicant agreed to this request and then provided an amended proposal which achieved a 200m setback from the Brunswick River which was in accordance with Department of Water advice and Council recommendations. This area contained approximately 0.47ha of vegetation which would be cleared on approval of the application and was approved on the 28th October 2014 (refer Attachment 6 – reference: 13/25061 & 14/11312). The associated Extractive Industry Licence was granted on the 16th November 2015 (13/25060). The 0.97ha of land subject to this application was identified on the approved rehabilitation plan as “Voluntary Planting Undertaken by Owner” (refer Attachment 7 – Rehabilitation Plan).



An application from Peel Resource Recovery Pty Ltd for a Purpose Permit to clear 0.97 hectares of native vegetation was referred to the Shire by the Department of Environment Regulation on the 9th August 2016. The Shire was unable to comment due to no development approval having been granted in relation to this land. Subsequently, an Application for Development Approval and an Extractive Industry Licence Application was submitted on the 25th August 2017, although the required documentation to the application was not received until the 30th August 2017. Environmental Considerations Map Attachment 5 shows the current environmental considerations. The white area shown in the north west portion of this site is without consideration as this is the area that has already been extracted from and all environmental assets have therefore been removed. The eastern half of Lot 43 has not been developed and consists of remnant native vegetation as it has not been the subject of any development. In terms of the land subject of this application, circled in red on Attachment 5, it is already degraded by the activities around it hence no understorey is present and many native species are in poor condition (refer Attachment 8 for photos). Being within the Bassendean Complex of Swan Coastal Plain the vegetation consists of remnant woodland – jarrah-marri (low woodland) but with no healthy or intact understorey. Comment The 0.97ha of land subject to this extraction application lies within the previously excavated area as an ‘island’ of degraded bushland, having no intact understorey and with many trees in poor condition. The area subject of the extraction is degraded and distant from the more intact native bush land on the eastern portion of Lot 43. Summary of Government Agency Comment Although providing a considerable volume of comment, none of the government agencies have submitted an objection to the proposal. For details refer to Attachment 9 – Table of Submissions. The following summary table is provided to aid in explaining the derivation of the conditions of approval: Agency Comments Conditions Imposed

(In brief) Western Power No objection.

Standard advice re the danger of work near electrical installations and powerlines.

Nil

Dept. of Fire & Emergency Services

No comment required. Nil

Water Corporation No objection. No assets in or near site.

Nil



Agency Comments Conditions Imposed (In brief)

Dept. of Planning section of Dept. of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPL&H)

No objection.

Under the GBRS Lot 43 is: • partially zoned Rural; • partially reserved

Regional Open Space; • within the Special Control

Area No. 2 - Kemerton Industrial Zone Buffer Area (SCA No. 2);

• within the Strategic Minerals and Basis Raw Materials Policy Area;

• within the Floodplain Management Policy Area; and

• within the State Planning Policy No. 3.7 - Planning In Bushfire Prone Areas.

The proposed sand extraction at a new location on the lot is considered to be ancillary and incidental to the existing sand extraction that already occurs on the lot. As such, the determination of the development application is delegated to the local government as stated by Clause 3 of Schedule 1 of Instrument of Delegation (DEL 2014/01). The applicant is required to submit a GBRS development application form (Form 1) to the Shire of Harvey.

No conditions – delegated to Shire. GBRS Form submitted 8/8/2017.

Aboriginal Heritage Directorate of DPL&H

No objection. Does not intersect with any aboriginal sites or heritage places. No further approvals required.

Advice Note required regarding the State’s Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Guidelines.

Dept. of Lands section of DPL&H

In principle support. Does not impact on the Dampier – Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline east of the extraction areas.

Nil




Dampier Bunbury Pipeline

No objection. Nil

Parks and Wildlife Service of Dept. of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA)

Refers to EIP whereby 75% survival rate to be achieved with rehab. DBCA recommends that inert material fill is not used for the batters of the western proposal area, as the inert material may impede the success of the proposed rehabilitation works.

• Preparation of a progress report on the required EIP rehabilitation. The EIP progress report should include details of completed, ongoing and future rehabilitation areas, photos of rehabilitated areas and monitoring and reporting details if available. It should also include start and completion dates, and expected start dates if applicable, and include a map depicting the rehabilitation areas and their completion progress.

• Implementation of the EIP weed management requirements, particularly along the Lot 43 northern and eastern pit boundaries.

• The inert material fill condition cannot be applied as further filling cannot be approved.

• Sufficient top soil and extracted sand is retained from the proposed extraction area to construct the proposed western batters, to provide a more suitable base for the proposed rehabilitation works.

• A Dieback Hygiene Management Plan (DHMP) be prepared and implemented for the whole pit, and for the removal of sand from the site.

• No extraction activities occur within 15m of any native tree crown drip zones along the boundaries of the proposed extraction areas.



Agency Comments Conditions Imposed (In brief) • A suitable temporary

demarcation barrier be erected 15m from the crown drip zone of retained trees to protect the trees and root systems from accidental machinery damage.

• At no time should machinery be allowed into the remnant bushland between the Brunswick River and the extraction pit.

Dept. of Water section of Dept. of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER)

At some point the entire site will need to be considered holistically with respect to the current operations. Ongoing planning and management of rehabilitation will need to be weighed up against long term closure outcomes, requiring detailed on-ground study and information. Supporting document should refer to Maximum Seasonal Groundwater levels rather than Annual Average Maximum Seasonal Groundwater levels.

• Extraction not to intercept groundwater.

• Excavation depth max. of 0.3 metres above the MSGL.

• MSGL shall be investigated and confirmed.

• Dewatering not permitted. • No standing water at the

end of the extractive operation / post rehabilitation.

• If interception of groundwater, work shall cease, DWER advised within 48 hours, followed by agreed remedial action.

• No storage of hydrocarbons, coolants or lubricants on-site.

• On-site refuelling of equipment will be from a mobile service vehicle carrying appropriate spill prevention and clean-up equipment.

• No major repairs or maintenance on the site.

• No stormwater is to leave the active extraction areas.

• All site stormwater is to be managed on site.




Dept. Environment Regulation section of DWER 1. Re: Inert Fill (Works Approvals)

2. Re: Clearing Permit

3. Re: Contaminated Sites

4. Re: Existing Bore

Backfilling of the sand extraction pits consistent with Category 63 approved activities however a new disposal area will need to be applied for by way of license amendment. A clearing permit decision is likely to be deferred on CPS 7765/1 until the applicant has the necessary amendment determined and obtains an extractive industry license from the Shire. Contaminated Sites has no objection to the proposed sand extraction, provided that excavations do not extend to depths greater than 0.5 meters above the annual average groundwater level in the extraction area. Excavations are proposed close to an existing monitoring bore (GQ5).

• Excavations do not extend

to depths greater than 0.5 metres above annual average groundwater level. (Note that this condition should be overruled by the Down sections conditions which state “ max. of 0.3 metres above the MSGL.”

• Reinstatement of Bore

required if damaged/removed.

There are two (2) components of the applicant’s proposal that require further comment: Excavation Batter Slopes

“3. Excavation will be at 1:1batters, with excavation floor level from 10.83m Australian Height Datum (AHD) in the west rising to 11.33m AHD in the east”

The proposal to have 1:1 batters during extraction should only be carried out if it is practicable and safe. The matter of batters at the extraction stage should be discussed with the Shire’s Engineering Department staff and be carried out to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager of Technical Services prior to commencement of extraction. The rehabilitated site will need to be at 1:6 batters which is standard for extractive industry area rehabilitation throughout the State and a standard condition on all of the Shire’s extractive industry development approvals and EILs.



Inert Waste Disposal

“5. Project area will be back filled with approximately 55 000m3 of inert fill material to create a level surface at 21 m AHD to align with existing surface to the east, and grade down at 1:6 batters to the west to align with existing surface at 15m AHD”

A Works Approval exists for inert landfill applying to the site however the area proposed for extraction on Lot 43 is not included in the areas in which the disposal of waste for landfilling may take place (refer Attachment 10). This is prescribed in Licence L7060/1997/13 issued on the 21st August 2014 by the then Department of Environmental Regulation (now DWER). On 18th September 2017, a decision of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) was made public in regard to Di Trento and the Shire of Northam [2017] WASAT 121 (refer Attachment 11 for the full SAT report) in which the SAT determined that a similar development described as a ‘materials recycling facility’ was not a ‘use not listed’ but, rather was a form of “Industry”. It was not necessary for the Tribunal to conclude whether it was ‘General’ or ‘Light Industry’ as both industrial use classes were prohibited in the zone relevant to the appeal. Neither ‘General’ or ‘Light Industry’ uses are permitted within the Kemerton Industry Buffer zone and as such approval can no longer be considered by Council. This does not mean that the existing inert waste and recycling activities can no longer operate, but that no new inert waste and/or recycling activities can be approved. Statutory/Policy Environment District Planning Scheme No. 1 – zones the property as ‘Kemerton Industry Buffer’ within which an Extractive Industry is an ‘SA’ use. Clause 8.12.2 – sets out the requirements for lodging an extractive industry application. Shire of Harvey Extractive Industries Local Law 2017 requires the issue of an Extractive Industry Licence prior to the commencement of any site works. Strategic Framework Within the Shire’s Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027, Strategies 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 state (in part): 2.3.1 “Continue to implement integrated environmental, social and land use planning which

will: • Minimise land use conflict. • Protect significant vegetation, where possible.”

2.3.2 “Ensure compliance of rehabilitation plans for extractive industry areas.” Risk Management The Risk Theme Profile identified as part of this report is Providing Inaccurate Advice/Information. The Consequence could be Financial, Reputational or Compliance if an incorrect approval is given or a condition is missed. The risk is mitigated by the report being thoroughly researched, peer reviewed and provided by a qualified Council officer, resulting in LOW risk being present.



Budget Implications Nil. Officer’s Recommendation That Council, in respect of the application for Development Approval and an Extractive Industry Licence for Lot 43 Stanley Road, Wellesley, advises the applicant;

1. The inert waste landfill component of the proposal is not capable of approval as this use has recently been classified as “Industry” by the State Administrative Tribunal and “Industry - General” or “Industry – Light” uses are not permitted in the Kemerton Industry Buffer zone pursuant to the Shire of Harvey District Planning Scheme No. 1;

2. Upon receipt of a revised Application Report that excludes all references to

utilise the proposed 0.97ha extraction area for inert waste landfill, approves the Application for Development Approval for the extraction of 28,800m3 of sand from Lot 43 Stanley Road (Ref: 17/26225), subject to the following conditions:

a. No extraction works associated with this Development Approval are

permitted to occur on the property until such time as all conditions as required under this Development Approval have been satisfactorily achieved and an Extractive Industry Licence has been issued by the Manager of Planning Services;

Conditions to be Fulfilled Prior to the Issue of an Extractive Industry Licence

b. A Dust Management Plan is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager of Technical Services, prior to the issue of an Extractive Industry Licence;

c. Detailed plans demonstrating the management of the proposed 1:1

batters during the extraction stage shall be submitted for approval by the Executive Manager of Technical Services, prior to the issue of an Extractive Industry Licence;

d. A Rehabilitation Management and Monitoring Plan (RMMP) is to be

submitted to the satisfaction of the Manager of Planning Services. The RMMP is to include:

i) All slopes of the batters at the end of excavation, being retained

at no more than 1:6 vertical to horizontal;

ii) Revegetation and rehabilitation of the extraction area to bushland similar to the adjoining remnant bushland to the satisfaction of the Manager of Planning Services;

e. A detailed Water Management Plan (WMP) shall be submitted for

approval by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) and the Executive Manager of Technical Services prior to the issue of an Extractive Industry Licence. The WMP should contain monitoring and management measures to address the following items:



i) The extractive industry shall not intercept the water table at any

time;

ii) Excavation is permitted only to a depth that is 0.3m above the maximum seasonal groundwater level (MSGL);

iii) The MSGL shall be investigated and confirmed;

iv) Dewatering of the extraction area is not permitted without

authorisation under the ‘Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914’;

v) There shall be no standing water occurring at the end of the extractive operation / post rehabilitation;

vi) If any interception of groundwater occurs, work shall cease and

an advice notice provided to the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation within 48 hours, followed by agreed remedial action;

vii) There will be no storage of hydrocarbons, coolants or lubricants

on-site;

viii) On-site refueling of equipment will be from a mobile service vehicle carrying appropriate spill prevention and clean-up equipment;

ix) No major repairs or maintenance will take place on the site;

x) No stormwater is to leave the extraction areas; and

xi) All stormwater is to be managed on site And mapping contained within the WMP should be at a scale of no less than 1:500 indicating:

i) Contours;

ii) Watershed boundaries;

iii) Property boundaries;

iv) Proposed extraction areas; and

v) Availability of water for the purposes of rehabilitation and dust

suppression; f. The Applicant is to submit an Information Brochure, which has been

prepared to the satisfaction of the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions and the Manager of Planning Services, and which will be provided to all purchasers of material intended for landfill detailing the following:



i) The extracted material is considered to be ‘uninterpretable’ and may therefore contain Phytopthora Dieback;

ii) The material should not be used adjoining any vegetation which

is known to be susceptible to Phytopthora Dieback; and

iii) A list of vegetation which is known to be susceptible is to be attached.

g. An updated Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) shall be submitted

for approval by the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions and the Manager of Planning Services and such EIP shall include weed management, particularly along the Lot 43 northern and eastern pit boundaries;

h. A reinstatement bond calculated at a rate of $5,000 per hectare, is to be

received by the Shire prior to the issue of an Extractive Industry Licence and retained for up to three (3) years beyond the completion of the rehabilitation works, to ensure success of planting;

i. A contribution shall be made towards the maintenance and upgrading of

Stanley Road in accordance with the methodology adopted by WALGA in the document “Estimating the Incremental Cost Impact on Sealed Local Roads from Additional Freight Tasks, May 2015” to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager of Technical Services, prior to an Extractive Industry Licence being issued;

j. A suitable temporary demarcation barrier shall be erected 15m from the

crown drip zone of retained trees to protect the trees and root systems from accidental machinery damage to the satisfaction of the Manager of Planning Services, prior to an Extractive Industry Licence being issued;

Ongoing Conditions

k. A person shall not without the written approval of Council, undertake a land use in respect of which Council has granted Development Approval subject to conditions, until all of those conditions have been complied with to the satisfaction of Council;

l. This approval is valid for a period of five (5) years. If development is not

completed within this period, a new approval must be obtained before commencing or continuing development;

m. The Approved Development shall, at all times, comply with the approved

plans submitted on 25th August 2017, by Peel Resource Recovery Pty Ltd (17/26225);

n. All extraction shall achieve compliance with:

i) The Shire of Harvey Extractive Industry Local Law 2017,

including the holding of a valid licence for all periods of operation; and



ii) The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation’s “Water Resource Considerations for Extractive Industries 2014”.

o. Stockpiles shall be kept to a maximum height of 5m to avoid visual

impact and/or material wind drift;

p. Operating hours shall be restricted to 7.00am – 6.00pm, Monday to Friday and 7.00am – 12 noon Saturday. No activities shall occur on Sundays or Public Holidays;

q. Any proposed clearing of native vegetation is prohibited unless done

under a clearing permit issued in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986, or the clearing is exempt from the need for a clearing permit;

r. No extraction shall occur within 15m of any native tree crown drip zones

along the boundaries of the extraction areas;

s. Sufficient top soil and extracted sand shall be retained from the proposed extraction area to construct the proposed western batters, to provide a more suitable base for the proposed rehabilitation works;

t. At no time shall any machinery be permitted into the remnant bushland

between the Brunswick River and the extraction pit;

u. Any refuelling activities shall be undertaken in accordance with the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation’s Water Quality Protection Note - Toxic and Hazardous Substance Storage and Use. There shall be no storage of hydrocarbons on-site and no major vehicle or machinery repairs or maintenance is to take place on-site;

v. The Applicant shall engage a suitably qualified independent expert to

carry out an Annual Audit of Compliance (AAC) of the conditions of Development Approval and Extractive Industry Licence and the AAC shall include a progress report on the approved Environmental Improvement Plan including:

i. Details of completed, ongoing and future rehabilitation areas; ii. Photos of rehabilitated areas;

iii. Monitoring and reporting details if available;

iv. Start and completion dates, and expected start dates if

applicable; and

v. A map depicting the rehabilitation areas and their completion progress.

The AAC shall be submitted prior to an annual renewal licence being issued by the Shire;

w. The approved Dust Management Plan shall be implemented to the

satisfaction of the Executive Manager of Technical Services;



x. The approved plans demonstrating the management of the batters during

the extraction stage shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager of Technical Services;

y. The Rehabilitation Management and Monitoring Plan shall be

implemented to the satisfaction of the Manager of Planning Services;

z. The Water Management Plan shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager of Technical Services;

aa. The Information Brochure shall be provided to all purchasers of material

intended for landfill and the Applicant shall retain a list of purchasers to which the Information Brochure has been provided, a copy of which is to be included in the Annual Audit of Compliance report;

ab. The approved updated Environmental Improvement Plan shall be

implemented to the satisfaction of the Manager of Planning Services; Advice Notes:

i. Areas currently licenced for inert land fill as per the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation’s Licence L7060/1997/13 may continue to operate as such;

ii. In accordance with its delegation under Clause 27 Notice and

Delegations Instruments advises the Applicant that Application 17/26225 shall be deemed to be approved under the Greater Bunbury Region Scheme;

iii. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs recommends that reference

be made to the State’s Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Guidelines; and

Iv. If the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation

approve a clearing permit and require offsets, the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions suggests that offset planting could be undertaken within existing cleared areas along the southern portion of the Lot 43 Environmental Improvement Plan Figure 11 "Ongoing use for Resource Recovery Operations" area, immediately to the north of the retained native vegetation. Any offset planting should be undertaken as per the Environmental Improvement Plan.

3. Upon satisfactory completion of the conditions of the Development Approval

required to be fulfilled prior to the issue of an Extractive Industry Licence, authorises the Manager of Planning Services to issue an Extractive Industry Licence to Peel Resource Recovery for the extraction of sand at 28,800m3 of sand from Lot 43 Stanley Road (Ref: 17/26225), subject to relevant conditions.

DS–18/004 Beech/Boylan




Cr. Burgoyne returned to the Chamber at 4.18pm. Item 8.1.4 – Application for Development Approval – Rural Workers Accommodation – L and A Sorgiovanni Pty Ltd – Lot 14 Eighth Street, Harvey (A002664). Mr. Sorgiovanni addresses the Committee in relation to this Item. He advised that the limestone river track was not used as his access, but requested that this remain in place for fire emergency access. He requested the track remain open and the condition that it be closed be removed from the Officer’s Recommendation. Mr. Sorgiovanni left the meeting at 4.21pm during the following Item. Item No. 8.1.4 Subject: Application for Development Approval – Rural Workers

Accommodation Proponent: L and A Sorgiovanni Pty Ltd Location: Lot 14 Eighth Street, Harvey Reporting Officer: Planning Officer (ND) File No.: A002664 Attachment Reg. No. 17/30127

Summary At its meeting on the 21st November 2017, Council resolved that the proposed “Rural Workers Accommodation”, being a “Use Not Listed” under the Scheme, may be consistent with the objectives and purposes of the “Intensive Farming” zone and could therefore be advertised for public comment. Accordingly, the proposal, which included a setback reduction to 11m, was advertised for comment from nearby/possibly affected landowners for a minimum of 14 days. Staff do not have delegation to determine an application for a “Use Not Listed” and the application is therefore referred for Council’s determination. No objections were received and Staff recommends approval subject to conditions. Background Site Description Lot 14 Eighth Street, Harvey has an area of 3.42 hectares and is zoned “Intensive Farming” under the Shire of Harvey District Planning Scheme No.1 (the Scheme). The location and context in relation to surrounding properties and access can be seen in Attachment 1 – Location & Context Plan. It is to be noted that the owner of Lot 14 also owns Lots 1, 2 and 26 as shown on Attachment 1. Most of the lot is covered by an orange tree orchard (refer Attachment 2 – Aerial) with the proposed workers accommodation to be located in the cleared area in the south eastern corner of Lot 14. Currently, the main access to the site is via a limestone access road which skirts the western side of the river within the Harvey River reserve. The access road also encroaches into Lot 13 Eighth Street which is under separate ownership to Lot 14. The use of this reserve for road access by private landowners is not an appropriate use of the river reserve area and as such it is recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiring this access to be closed.



Proposal It is proposed to locate a 12m long x 3m wide x 2.9m high transportable building at a location 33m from the eastern boundary and 11m from the southern boundary of Lot 14 (refer Attachment 3 – Site Plan). Staff discussed with the applicant the need for a revised site plan that achieves compliance with the 20m setback required by the Scheme. However, the applicant requested that the setback as proposed (11m) be considered as locating the building with a reduced setback would avoid the need for any fruit trees to be removed. Workers Accommodation History Accommodation for rural workers has previously been considered by Council on the following occasions: • June 2007, Council approved “Workers Accommodation” on an “Intensive Farming” zoned

property in Cookernup; • February 2008, Council approved “Workers Accommodation” on a “General Farming” zoned

property in Uduc; and • September 2008, Council approved “Workers Accommodation” on a “General Farming”

zoned property in Myalup. Comment Clause 4.2.4(c) of the Scheme makes provision for a “Use Not Listed” to be considered and provides that Council can “determine by absolute majority that the proposed use may be consistent with the objectives and purpose of the zone”. Given that Lot 14 is an operating citrus orchard and the proposal will assist with the seasonal operation of the intensive farming use, it was determined by Council at its meeting on the 27th November 2017 that the proposal may be consistent with the objectives and purposes of the zone. As Council determined that the proposed “Rural Workers Accommodation” use may be consistent with the objectives and purposes of the Intensive Farming zone, the application was required to be advertised for a period of at least 14 days and then referred back to Council for determination. The advertising period closed on the 7th December 2017 and, as no submissions were received, it can be considered that there are no objections to the proposal. Current Access Vehicle access in the past has been via the Harvey River reserve area which is Unallocated Crown Land. Lot 14 cannot legally utilise the Harvey River reserve area for access as it is Crown Land for the purpose of accommodating the Harvey River and its immediate environs which form an essential part of protecting the River’s natural attributes. The compacted limestone track currently occupies the river reserve area and also encroaches into adjacent Lot 13 which is in separate ownership to Lot 14. It is necessary that the current limestone access track be closed and not used as a method of vehicle access to the adjoining lots.



Future Legal Access The only possibility for legal access is to utilise Lots 1 and 2 whereby vehicular access can be achieved through to Eighth Street. Lots 1 and 2 (refer Attachment 1 - Location and Context Map) are in the same ownership as Lot 14 and it is feasible for them to be used for access for Lot 14 without consent of other landowners. Nevertheless, the possibility of either both or one of Lots 1 and 2 being sold in the future means that the access arrangement at that time could be jeopardised. In order to cater for this possibility, it is recommended that the following condition of approval be imposed:

“Prior to occupation of the proposed workers accommodation a caveat is to be lodged on the Certificate of Title for Lots 1 and 2 Eighth Street which reads as follows: In the event of either one or both of Lots 1 or 2 being sold, then the matter of legal access for Lot 14 will need to be formally resolved to the satisfaction of the Shire of Harvey.”

A caveat is considered the most appropriate instrument to achieve legal access at the time either of the lots are sold. It also ensures that all parties are aware of the need for access to be resolved.

The other possibility is that Lots 14, 1 and 2 be amalgamated. Staff would support amalgamation of the lots, however this may not be in the best interests the landowner. Conclusion The proposed “Rural Workers Accommodation”, which will support the Intensive Farming activity on the property, is considered by Staff to be consistent with the objectives of the zone. There have been no objections to the proposal and no perceived impacts on adjoining properties, therefore it is recommended that Council approve the application subject to appropriate conditions. Statutory/Policy Environment Planning and Development Act 2005 Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 The following are portions of Schedule 2 – Deemed Provisions that are relevant to this application:

Section 64 – Advertising Applications The application has been advertised in accordance with this section and no objections were received.

Greater Bunbury Region Scheme – Strategic Agricultural Resource Policy 2005 The following are portions of the Strategic Agricultural Resource Policy that are relevant to this application:



“1.3 …This policy aims to prevent development which may adversely affect the efficient and ongoing use of the policy areas for existing and potential agricultural production.” “5.5 The following land use permissibilities are appropriate for the rural land and related land uses in any current rural zones within the policy areas… Farm workers accommodation ‘D’ or ‘A’…”

The subject site is located within a “Strategic Resource Policy Area”. The Policy aims to prevent developments, within areas identified as a strategic agricultural area which may adversely affect the efficient and ongoing use of the areas for agricultural production. The Policy provides guidance on appropriate land uses within the strategic agricultural areas with “farm workers accommodation” being included as a suitable use. The GBRS referred to “farm workers accommodation” being defined in a previous version of Statement of Planning Policy No. 2.5 – Agricultural and Rural Land Use Planning provided. This definition was:

“accommodation for workers employed for agricultural and intensive agricultural activities on that holding”.

The accommodation proposed by the subject application is consistent with this definition. Shire of Harvey District Planning Scheme No.1 The following are portions of the Scheme that are relevant to this application: • Clause 4.2.4 – Zoning and Development Tables

“If the use of land for a particular purpose is not specifically mentioned in the Zoning Table and cannot reasonably be determined as falling within the interpretation of one of the land use categories the Council may:-“

“(c) determine by absolute majority that the proposed use may be consistent

with the objectives and purpose of the zone and thereafter follow the advertising procedures of Clause 2.3 in considering an application consent. In approving such an application the Council may apply any conditions or development standards it deems necessary.”

• Table 25 – Zoning and Development Standards (Intensive Farming)

“Policy Statement: Council has identified by zoning and intends to protect from inappropriate use the valuable irrigated farmland in the Scheme area.”





Risk Management The Risk Theme Profile identified as part of this report is Providing Inaccurate Advice/Information. The Consequence could be Reputational or Compliance if incorrect advice is given or a condition of approval missed. The Risk is mitigated by the report being thoroughly researched, peer reviewed and provided by a qualified Council officer, resulting in LOW Risk being present. Budget Implications Nil. Officer’s Recommendation That Council:

1. Approves the Application for Development Approval for “Rural Workers Accommodation” at Lot 14 Eighth Street, Harvey subject to the following conditions:




not substantially commenced within this period, a new approval must be obtained before commencing or continuing development.

c. The building is restricted to use for accommodation only by workers

employed for agricultural and intensive agricultural activities on Lots 1, 2, 14 and 26 Eighth Street, Harvey;

d. Prior to occupation of the proposed workers accommodation a caveat is

to be lodged on the Certificate of Title for Lots 1 and 2 Eighth Street which reads as follows:

“In the event of either one or both of Lots 1 or 2 Eighth Street being sold and having separate ownership from the owner of Lot 14 Eighth Street, the matter of legal access for Lot 14 Eighth Street will need to be formally resolved to the satisfaction of the Shire of Harvey.”

e. The limestone vehicle access track located within the Unallocated Crown

Land of the Harvey River reserve is to be physically closed to prevent vehicular access to the adjoining lots from Yamballup Avenue within 60 days of the date of this approval, to the satisfaction of the Manager of Planning Services; and

f. The approved development shall be connected to an effluent disposal

system as approved by Principal Environmental Health Officer.




included as conditions of the approval:

a. In accordance with the Building Act 2011, a Building Permit is required to be obtained prior to the commencement of any works on the site; and

b. The development is required to comply with the Building Code of

Australia, Building Regulations 2012 and the Local Government Act 1995.

Additional Information The Acting Manager of Planning Services provided the following additional information in regards to Item 8.1.4; The applicant’s surveyor (Thompson Surveying Consultants) has today provided the following comments in regard to Item 8.1.4 and specifically with regard to condition “(e)” of the recommended development approval conditions:

“Our clients would like to advise the following in regard to the Officer’s recommendations:

1. a. – d. & f. Our clients have no problems with these items. In particular

Item 1.d requires a caveat to be lodged on the CT’s for Lots 1 & 2 to ensure continued access through these lots to Lot 14. The caveat can be drafted and submitted to the Council for their review and approval asap after Development Approval is granted;

e. The limestone track has been in existence for a long time and

extends all the way from Yamballup Avenue to Eighth Street and is a secondary access to not only Lot 14 but also Lot 13 to the south and Lots 2 & 4 to the north. The track is also an emergency fire access for fire fighters and must remain open and not closed off as required under this item. Hence our clients request item 1.d. be removed from the any resolution presented to the Council for approval.

2. Our clients have no problems with item 2.”

Staff Comment In relation to condition “(e)” it is agreed to retain the limestone track for emergency access use either for people leaving the site in an emergency or for emergency services personnel having trafficable access in the immediate area in case of a bushfire. The key consideration on this matter is that the “river access track” is not condoned by Council as the main or primary access to the properties.



Amended Officer’s Recommendation That Council:

1. Approves the Application for Development Approval for “Rural Workers Accommodation” at Lot 14 Eighth Street, Harvey subject to the following conditions:




not substantially commenced within this period, a new approval must be obtained before commencing or continuing development.

c. The building is restricted to use for accommodation only by workers

employed for agricultural and intensive agricultural activities on Lots 1, 2, 14 and 26 Eighth Street, Harvey;

d. Prior to occupation of the proposed workers accommodation a caveat is

to be lodged on the Certificate of Title for Lots 1 and 2 Eighth Street which reads as follows:

In the event of either one or both of Lots 1 or 2 Eighth Street being sold and having separate ownership from the owner of Lot 14 Eighth Street, the matter of legal access for Lot 14 Eighth Street will need to be formally resolved to the satisfaction of the Shire of Harvey;

e. Prior to occupation of the proposed workers accommodation a caveat is

to be lodged on the Certificate of Title for Lot 14 Eighth Street which reads as follows:

Lot 14 has no frontage to a gazetted road. Vehicle access via the access track within the adjoining Unallocated Crown Land of the Harvey River does not constitute formal access and is not supported by the Shire of Harvey.; and

f. The approved development shall be connected to an effluent disposal

system as approved by Principal Environmental Health Officer.

2. Advises the Applicant of the following additional requirements that are not included as conditions of the approval:

a. In accordance with the Building Act 2011, a Building Permit is required to

be obtained prior to the commencement of any works on the site; and

b. The development is required to comply with the Building Code of Australia, Building Regulations 2012 and the Local Government Act 1995.

DS–18/005 Burgoyne/Boylan

“That the Amended Officer’s Recommendation be adopted.” CARRIED 6-0



Item No. 8.1.5 Subject: Proposed Road Names – Treendale Proponent: Treendale Location: Lots 9527 & 9509 (portion of) Grand Entrance, Australind Reporting Officer: Senior Planning Officer (EE) File No.: S155476 Attachment Reg. 17/27805 & 18/00411

Summary Council has received a request from Treendale for the approval of a number of new road names and the extension of two (2) existing names within a portion of the Treendale Estate (refer Attachment 1). The request is referred for Council’s determination as Staff do not have delegation to approve the use of road names that are not included on the Shire’s Reserved Road Names Register. It is recommended that Council approves the request and forwards its support to the Geographic Names Team for final approval. Background Subdivision approval for a portion of the Treendale Estate was granted by the Western Australian Planning Commission on 17th November 2017. Prior to seeking subdivision clearances for the proposed lots, the Applicant seeks approval of the proposed road names. Once approved by Council, the road names will then need the approval of Landgate’s Geographic Names Team (GNT). The proposed road names are based on the existing “constellation” theme. The Applicant seeks approval of the following new road names:

CHAMAELEON Crescent DORADO Road INDUS Way SERPENS Road VOLANS Lane

The following names are submitted as alternative names should any of the proposed names not be approved by the GNT:

DRACO LYNX SCULPTOR

The following existing road names are also proposed to be extended:

CENTAURUS Avenue LUNAR Avenue

Comment The proposed road names have ‘passed preliminary validation’ query using the GNT’s online road name query (refer Attachment 2). Once approved by Council, a formal request for approval of the road names can then be submitted with the GNT.



Statutory/Policy Environment Land Administration Act 1997 Section 26A – New subdivisions, names of roads and areas in

“(1) If a person delivers a diagram or plan of survey of a subdivision of land approved by the Planning Commission to a local government, and the proposed subdivision includes the provision of a road for use by the public, that person must also deliver to the local government the name proposed to be given to the road.

(2) The local government may require the person so subdividing the land —

(a) to propose a name for the proposed road or, if a name has already been proposed, to alter that name; and

(b) to propose a name for the area the subject of the proposed subdivision, or if a name has already been proposed, to alter that name.

(3) If the local government approves a name proposed under subsection (1) or (2),

the local government is to forward the proposal to the Minister.” Shire of Harvey Delegation Register Delegation 4.1.15 of Council’s Delegation Register allows the Chief Executive Officer (on delegated to the Manager of Planning Services) to approve the use of any road name included on the Shire of Harvey Reserved Road Names Register. The proposed road names do not appear on the Reserved Road Names Register and as such, approval from Council and Geographic Names is required. Geographic Names Team GNT Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia outline the criteria for the naming of streets and places. Proposals submitted to GNT need to include a plan showing the extent of the proposed names and details of the origin of the names. The GNT has a system whereby all road name requests are submitted using an online form. Part of this online system allows proposed road names to be queried for their availability. Strategic Framework Within the Shire’s Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027, Strategy 4.3.4 states:

“Monitor and ensure compliance with the regulatory framework for local government business.”

Budget Implications Nil.



Risk Management The Risk Theme Profile identified as part of this report is Providing Inaccurate Advice/Information. The Consequence could be Financial, Reputational or Compliance if incorrect approval is given. The Risk is mitigated by the report being thoroughly researched, peer reviewed and provided by a qualified Council officer, resulting in LOW Risk being present. Officer’s Recommendation That Council:

1. Approves the use of the following names for the proposed roads within the approved subdivision of a portion of Lots 9527 and 9509 Grand Entrance, Australind (Treendale):

CHAMAELEON Crescent DORADO Road INDUS Way SERPENS Road VOLANS Lane

2. Approves the extension of the following existing road names within the approved

subdivision of a portion of Lots 9527 and 9509 Grand Entrance, Australind (Treendale):

CENTAURUS Avenue LUNAR Avenue

3. Approves the following alternative road names for use within the approved

subdivision of a portion of Lots 9527 and 9509 Grand Entrance, Australind (Treendale) and includes these on the Shire’s Reserved Road Names Register:

DRACO LYNX SCULPTOR

4. Forwards the request to Landgate’s Geographic Names Team for final approval.

DS–18/006. Simpson/Burgoyne




Item No. 8.1.6 Subject: Subdivision Referral (No. 2) – Lot 9508 Ditchingham Place,

Australind (Treendale) Proponent: Megara Location: Lot 9508 Ditchingham Place, Australind (Treendale) Reporting Officer: Planning Officer (ND) File No.: S155389 Attachment Reg. No. 17/20428

Summary Council has been requested by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) to provide its recommendation on an amended light industrial/other commercial subdivision proposal of five (5) superlots varying in size from between 0.44ha to 5.12ha within Lot 9508 Ditchingham Place, Australind (Treendale) (refer Attachment 1 – Location Map). Refusal is recommended due to inconsistencies with the approved structure plan and a number of unresolved concerns with the workability, convenience and safety of the road layout. Staff do not have delegation to recommend refusal of a subdivision under these circumstances and the request is therefore referred for Council’s determination. Background Site Description Lot 9508 (the site) is located approximately 500m east of the Treendale District Centre and has an area of 8.4532ha. It is zoned “Other Commercial – Showroom A10” under the Shire’s District Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme), with the exception of a 20m width strip adjacent to the Forrest Highway reserve which is a local recreation reserve. Current Landuse The site is vacant, having been cleared of all significant vegetation and previously used for grazing. It is bounded by industrial development to the north that is zoned “Light Industry” under the Scheme. Activities in the Light Industry zone and nearby to the site include various automotive services, storage of concrete products, building material supplies, milk distribution, landscaping supplies, and stonemasonry and pipe/culvert manufacturers. East of the site is the Forrest Highway road reserve, varying in width from between 50 – 90m, there is an extensively treed bushland area that lies between the site and the sealed road surface. To the south-east is land kept for Main Roads’ purposes to eventually accommodate a flyover across Forrest Highway that will connect with Raymond Road to the east. South-west of the site is land for the extension of the Treendale Residential Estate (which received conditional subdivision approval from the WAPC in November 2017). Land west of the site forms the first stage of the Treendale Commercial – Light Industrial area and accommodates land uses associated with the “Other Commercial – Showroom” zoning tables in the Scheme as well as the following additional uses:



• Factory Unit Building • Community Purpose • Motor Vehicle Repair Station • Car Wash • Civic Use • Public Purpose • Educational Establishment • Product Market Structure Plan Subdivision and development of the site is generally guided by the Treendale Commercial – Light Industrial Local Structure Plan (The LSP) (refer Attachment 2) which was endorsed by the WAPC on the 12th August 2013. The design philosophy for the area includes the following statements:

“The proposed layout ensures that no lots back directly onto the landscaped highway buffers.

The proposed public open space corridor provides high levels of accessibility through the subject land to future “Community Purpose” sites and provides a safe linkage to the adjoining District Centre site.

The proposal depicts a range of lot sizes to ensure that a wide range of activities can be accommodated on the subject land.”

The LSP is proposed to have a “complementary and integrated transition” of land uses between “District Centre” uses on the western side and the established light industrial land to the north. It is proposed that the “south western section”, being land to the west of the subject site “will interface with the proposed fast food site within the district centre”. The fast food area is now occupied by McDonalds, KFC and various other food and café outlets. The LSP also requires that there be a 20m wide public open space (POS) strip and a 20m wide internal access road to maximise the opportunities for buffering and screening development from the Forrest Highway, while providing for passive surveillance. Regulation 27 (r.27) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) provides that a decision-maker is not bound by an approved structure plan but is to have due regard to the structure plan. As provided in planning case law, “due regard” can be considered as meaning that the decision-maker should apply the provisions of the structure plan unless there is a good planning reason to depart from it. Applicant’s Justification for Superlots In support of the superlot design, the Applicant provided the following supporting justification: • “This is a much more efficient layout for a commercial / light industrial subdivision.

Unfortunately the initial indicative subdivision layout shown on the 2012 Structure Plan does not match with the ultimate development objectives for commercial/ light industrial land uses (lots were too small).”



• “Does not prejudice the future use of the lots and is generally consistent with the Structure

Plan (See overlay plan at Appendix F), acknowledging that the Structure Plan was prepared pre Town Planning Regulations 2015 and the Structure Plan is no longer enforced as part of the Scheme, but instead must be given ‘due regard’ in any planning decision.”

• “The superlot subdivision also addresses factors associated with the landscape bund/buffer

required in the Structure Plan and also shows the parks and recreation reserve in the western portion of the site.”

• “The superlot subdivision will not prejudice the further subdivision of the land (i.e. affect

road access to other lots etc.)”; and • “The superlot subdivision is consistent with the orderly assembly of land for land uses that

are consistent with the Structure Plan and Local planning Scheme.” Subdivision Design History 10th October 2017 Council resolved to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision (refer Attachment 3) of Lot 9508 Ditchingham Place, Australind (WAPC Ref: 155389 – application dated 3rd July 2017 Our ref: 17/20428), subject to model subdivision conditions and non-standard conditions. 27th October 2017 The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) forwarded an amended subdivision plan to the Shire (refer Attachment 4) for consideration. 13th November 2017 The following comments and queries were emailed to the Applicant and the DPLH/WAPC from the Shire’s Planning Department: • “The plan is a fairly significant departure from the Treendale Commercial – Light Industrial

Structure Plan (attached). Is this subdivision on the basis of giving regard to the approved structure plan?

• What are the intentions for the Balance lot in terms of further subdivision and land use? • What are Lots 1 – 4 intended for? Are their land uses already identified for these lots? • Could you please elaborate on the proposed easement for future road and where is it

providing access to? • What is proposed for the triangular shaped lot south of the proposed future road easement. • What land use is intended for the road to be closed area and the rest of the land that abuts

the drainage reserve area on the western side of the subdivision area. • The cadastre in the western portion of the plan does not reflect the actual cadastre,

especially around the shape of the drain (please see attachment) • Is public road access to the whole of balance lot limited to the cul de sac road (ROAD 1)?

There appears to be little in the way of road connectivity within this area. What are the benefits of having little connectivity?



• What is the proposed use/zoning of the triangular area west of Lot 2? • The lot for the DAP approved service station has increased in size. Please elaborate on

this change. • I take it this means the former concept plans are to be disregarded.” No response to the above comments was provided by the Applicant. 27th November 2017 Another amended plan (Rev 8) was forwarded to the Shire via the DPLH (refer Attachment 5). The plan did not address, or mention, the concerns raised by Staff regarding the previous amended plan. 30th November 2017 The DPLH provided a plan showing the errors on the Rev 8 plan (refer Attachment 6). It is to be noted that there were many errors regarding the accuracy of the cadastre and dimensions that were incorrect. 6th December 2017 The DPLH forwarded to the Shire another amended plan (refer Attachment 7a). This plan was also considered deficient in terms of the road layout being too tenuous with regards to large vehicles negotiating the many twists and turns. Additionally the offset T intersection was too close to the Saltwater Drive intersection and should either become a roundabout or be offset at a greater distance. The 6th December 2017 subdivision plan was accompanied by a ‘Site Plan’ (refer Attachment 7b) which showed the proposed street layout as well as building and parking area footprints and proposed land uses. Another anomaly however, is that the ‘site plan’ does not match with the subdivision plan in relation to the cadastre and road layout and indicates land uses that are inconsistent with the Scheme. It is therefore considered that the plan should not be referred to in terms of this subdivision assessment. 18th December 2017 The Shire compiled a suggested modified plan (date stamped 7th December 2017) which showed two (2) roundabouts (refer Attachment 8). After further consideration of the plan it was considered that it was not appropriate in terms of vehicle manoeuvring and the high costs of an additional roundabout. Attachment 9 is provided to show the site of the approved service station approved by the Southern Joint Development Assessment Panel on the 25th August 2017. Any subdivision design must have due regard to this approved development. Comment Structure Plan It is clearly evident that the amended subdivision plans have not been consistent with the approved LPS and each amended plan that has been put forward has not resulted in a reasonable design option. Staff are also aware that the WAPC are not supportive of the proposed amended subdivision plans, especially with regard to road connectivity. If Council were to recommend approval of the proposed amended plans, there is a possibility they would not be supported by the WAPC.



Pursuant to r.27 of the Regulations, Staff consider that ‘no good planning reasons’ have been provided to support a departure from the approved LPS. Land Uses It is to be noted that a number of the proposed uses do not form part of this proposal and can only be considered if the Scheme is amended. Documentation for proposed Scheme Amendment No. 120 has been received by the Shire however the proposed scheme amendment cannot yet be initiated by the Shire until a subdivision design has been approved by the WAPC. Road Layout It is evident that the matter of the road layout has still not been resolved and that the layout, as indicated on the approved LSP, is the preferred layout in terms of connectivity, legibility, vehicle manoeuvring and safety considerations. In accordance with clause 3.5.6 of WAPC Policy DC 4.1 – ‘Industrial Subdivision’ (DC4.1) for heavily trafficked/major through routes, a minimum road reserve width of 25m should be applied to the main north-south connector road between Ditchingham Place and Grand Entrance. It is also considered that there should be a perimeter road adjoining the local open space area that runs parallel with the Forrest Highway road reserve for appropriate connectivity and efficient vehicle access as per the approved structure plan for the site. Also, clause 3.5.4 of DC4.1 recommends against the use of cul de sacs in industrial subdivisions. Another important consideration is that the five (5) way intersection in the southern central portion of the subject land is not desirable in terms of vehicle manoeuvring and safety considerations, especially considering large trucks will be entering and leaving the precinct. Supporting ‘Site Plan’ (refer Attachment 7b) The “site plan” does not provide a supportive basis for the amended subdivision design and is inconsistent with the subdivision plan in regard to the location of the central north-south access road and does not provided for the road adjacent to the drainage area that services Lot 9527 and is the subject of a separate subdivision application (S155931 recommended for approval) which appears to be consistent with the approved LSP. The ‘Site Plan’ should therefore be disregarded in terms of the subdivision application. Conclusion Each of the submitted amended plans have been notably inconsistent with the approved LSP and there has been no valid alternative structure plan design provided. The concerns regarding the legibility and workability of the road system have not been adequately addressed. It is therefore recommended that Council refuse the amended subdivision plan. Statutory/Policy Environment Planning and Development Act 2005 Section 135. No subdivision etc. without approval

“(1) A person is not to —



(a) subdivide any lot; or (b) amalgamate any lot with any other lot, whether within the same district or

otherwise; or (c) lay out, grant or convey a road, without the approval of the Commission.”

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 Section 21. Matters to be considered on application for subdivision

“When considering a section 135 application, the Commission must have regard to all relevant matters including but not limited to these —

(a) the size, shape and dimensions of each lot; (b) the services available to each lot; (c) drainage of the land; (d) access to each lot; (e) the amount of public open space to be provided; (f) any relevant planning scheme; (g) any relevant regulations made by the Minister under the Act; (h) any relevant local laws relating to town planning.”

Section 27. Effect of Structure Plan

“(1) A decision-maker for an application for development approval or subdivision approval in an area that is covered by a structure plan that has been approved by the Commission is to have due regard to, but is not bound by, the structure plan when deciding the application.”

Development Control Policy DC 4.1 Industrial Subdivision This gives guidance for industrial subdivision in terms of the relationship to adjacent development, lot sizes and shapes, flexibility and staging, access and road layout, public open space, and services. Minimum road reserve widths of 25m are to apply where there is a “heavily trafficked/major through routes” and the north-south road that connects Ditchingham Place and Grand Entrance is viewed as a major access way in this regard. Shire of Harvey and Shire of Dardanup Joint Town Planning Scheme No.1 Clause 17.0 Payment of the Shared Costs

“17.1 Each owner of land shall prior to endorsement of the final approval of the Commission to the subdivision of his/her land shall pay to the Authorities the owners proportion of the Shared Costs calculated on the nett area of the super lot or the land area being subdivided.”



Strategic Framework Within the Shire’s Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027, Strategy 2.3.1 states:


Risk Management The Risk Theme Profile identified as part of this report is Providing Inaccurate Advice/Information. The Consequence could be Financial, Reputational or Compliance if an approval is granted. The Risk is mitigated by the report being thoroughly researched, peer reviewed and provided by a qualified Council officer recommending refusal, resulting in LOW Risk being present. Budget Implications Nil. Officer’s Recommendation That Council:

1. Advises the Western Australian Planning Commission that it recommends refusal of the proposed amended subdivision plans of Lot 9508 Ditchingham Place, Australind (WAPC Ref: 155389 –ref: 17/33219, 17/36930 and 17/3826), for the following reasons:

a. The plan is not consistent with the Treendale Commercial – Light

Industrial Structure Plan in terms of road layout and lot configuration;

b. Clause 3.5.4 of WAPC Policy DC 4.1 – Industrial Subdivision, recommends against the use of cul de sacs in industrial subdivisions;

c. The “site plan” that has been provided by the Applicant in support of the

proposed subdivision is not consistent with the subdivision plan in regard to the location of the central north-south access road and does not provided for the road adjacent to the drainage area that services Lot 9527, being the subject of another subdivision application S155931 which complies with the approved structure plan;

d. The five (5) way intersection in the southern central portion of the subject

land is not considered practical in terms of large vehicles manoeuvring and safety;

e. It is considered that there should be a perimeter road adjoining the local

open space area that runs parallel with the Forrest Highway road reserve for appropriate connectivity and efficient vehicle access as indicated in the approved Treendale Commercial – Light Industrial Structure Plan; and



f. In accordance with clause 3.5.6 of WAPC Policy DC 4.1 – Industrial

Subdivision for heavily trafficked/major through routes, a minimum road reserve width of 25m is required and this standard should be applied to the main north-south connector road between Ditchingham Place and Grand Entrance.

DS–18/007. Lovitt/Simpson

“That Council withdraws this Item at the request of the Applicant.” CARRIED 6-0

Mr. Dowling left the meeting at 4.28pm.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES 16th January 2018. Building Report Page 43


8.2 BUILDING REPORT (Gold) Item No. 8.2.1 Subject: Proposed Over Size Outbuilding Proponent: J & S Hendriks Location: Lot 93 (3) Gladstone Street, Cookernup Reporting Officer: Principal Building Surveyor File No.: A000257 Attachment Reg. No.

Summary An application has been received requesting Council’s consideration for the issue of a Building Permit for the construction of a steel framed clad outbuilding with a floor area of 90m2 which has a wall height of 4.2m and overall height of 5.406m (refer Attachment 1). Staff support the proposal as it meets the requirements of Council’s Building Policy 4.2.6 (3) and recommends approval subject to conditions. Background Lot 93 (3) Gladstone Street, Cookernup is zoned “Special Rural” under the provisions of Council’s District Planning Scheme (DPS) No.1 and consists of 10,000m2 in area. This application is referred to Council for determination as the outbuilding area exceeds staff’s delegated authority. Staff delegation permits approval of outbuildings up to 150m2 with a wall height of 3m and an over all ridge height of 4.5m. The additional outbuilding area is sought for the secure storage of farm machinery and a boat. The outbuilding aggregate on the property is currently 108m2, this includes a 90m2 steel framed clad shed and a 18m2 sea container. Removal of the sea container is required so the 190m2 maximum outbuilding aggregate is not exceeded (refer Attachment 2). Comment The proposed development has been advertised in accordance with Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulation 2015 Section 64 seeking public comment prior to Council consideration. Public Comment has been sought through advertising in the Harvey Reporter for a 21 day period. No comments were received at the closure of the public comment period. It is noted that under Council’s Building Policy 4.2.6 (3) ‘Oversized Outbuildings: Special Rural Zone’ wall height and ridge height are limited as follows:

4.2.6 (3) Oversize Outbuildings Special Rural Zone The Principal Building Surveyor has delegated authority to approve Outbuildings on lots zoned ‘Special Rural’ and ‘Special Rural and Landscape Protection’ that do not exceed 150m2 in area total, subject to sheds being constructed of non reflective materials and not being used for commercial purposes. Any application for outbuildings in these zones which in total are in excess of 150m2 but do not exceed 190m2 is required to be submitted to Council for approval and treated in accordance with Clause 2.3 of District Planning Scheme No. 1, requiring public comment on the proposal prior to Council considering the matter.



Statutory/Policy Environment District Planning Scheme No.1 Council Policy 4.2.6 (3) directs Council should the need to exercise discretion arise.

4.2.6 (3) Outbuildings in Special Rural Zones The Principal Building Surveyor has delegated authority to approve Outbuildings on lots zoned ‘Special Rural’ and ‘Special Rural and Landscape Protection’ that do not exceed 150m2 in area total, subject to sheds being constructed of non reflective materials and not being used for commercial purposes. Any application for outbuildings in these zones which in total are in excess of 150m2 but do not exceed 190m2 is required to be submitted to Council for approval and treated in accordance with Clause 2.3 of District Planning Scheme No. 1, requiring public comment on the proposal prior to Council considering the matter.



Risk Management The Risk Theme Profile identified as part of this report is Providing Inaccurate Advice/information. The Consequence could be Financial, Reputational or Compliance if an incorrect approval is given or a condition is missed. The risk is mitigated by the report being thoroughly researched, reviewed and provided by a qualified Council Officer, resulting in LOW risk being present. Budget Implications Nil. Officer’s Recommendation That Council authorises the Principal Building Surveyor to issue the Building Permit for a steel framed clad outbuilding with a floor area of 90m2 which has a wall height of 4.2m and overall height of 5.406m on Lot 93 (3) Gladstone Street, Cookernup resulting in a total outbuilding aggregate of 180m2 subject to:

1. The outbuilding shall be clad in non-reflective materials i.e factory applied colours excluding white and off white;

2. The outbuilding shall not be used for human habitation or commercial purposes; and

3. The existing 18m2 sea container be removed from the property prior to

completion of the shed.

DS–18/008. Simpson/Beech “That the Officer’s Recommendation be adopted.”

CARRIED 6-0



Item No. 8.2.2 Subject: Proposed Over Size Outbuilding Proponent: S Slemint Location: Lot 11 (13) Sherlock Place, Uduc Reporting Officer: Building Surveyor File No.: A005347 Attachment Reg. No.

Summary An application has been received requesting Council’s consideration for the issue of a Building Permit for erection of a 17.5m x 10.8m x 4.3m steel framed and clad outbuilding on Lot 11 (13) Sherlock Place, Uduc. The proposed 189m2 outbuilding is to be the only outbuilding on the site and is to be utilised for secure storage of materials and equipment. Staff support the proposal as it meets the requirements of Council Policy 4.2.6 (3) ‘Oversized Outbuildings: Special Rural Zone’. Background Lot 11 (13) Sherlock Place, Uduc is zoned “Special Rural” under the provisions of Council’s District Planning Scheme (DPS) No.1, consists of 100,287m2 in area and has an existing dwelling and water tank on the lot. An application for Planning Consent was received on the 4th June 2015 for consideration of a front setback reduction for the proposed outbuilding from the required 100m setback to the Forestry Road boundary under previous Clause 8.1 (now 7.1) of the DPS to 81m. The proposal was presented to Council at a meeting on 14th July 2015 with a resolution to grant Planning Consent for the setback reduction which was subsequently issued on 15th July 2015. On 27th September 2016, the applicant made a further request to amend the setback to 76m from the Forestry Road boundary. The proposal was presented to Council on a meeting held 8th November 2016 with a resolution to grant a further setback reduction. An amended Planning Consent was issued on 15th November 2016 to reflect the 76m setback. A Building Permit application was not received following the issuing of the Planning Consent. The new proposal displays the outbuilding setback 111m from the Forestry Road boundary (refer Attachment 1) in compliance with Clause 7.1 of the DPS, however the architectural design of the building remains the same as the original proposal made on 4th June 2015 (refer Attachment 2). This application is referred to Council as the outbuilding area exceeds delegated authority. Comment Council’s Building Department has approached the adjoining land owners seeking comment in relation to the proposed works on 13th October 2017. No comments have been received in relation to the proposed outbuilding. Staff support this application as it meets all guidelines of Council’s Building Policy 4.2.6 (3).



Statutory/Policy Environment District Planning Scheme No.1 Council Policy 4.2.6 (3) ‘Oversized Outbuildings: Special Rural Zone’ directs Council should the need to exercise discretion arise.

4.2.6 (3) Oversize Outbuildings Special Rural Zone The Principal Building Surveyor has delegated authority to approve Outbuildings on lots zoned ‘Special Rural’ and ‘Special Rural and Landscape Protection’ that do not exceed 150m2 in area total, subject to sheds being constructed of non reflective materials and not being used for commercial purposes. Any application for outbuildings in these zones which in total are in excess of 150m2 but do not exceed 190m2 is required to be submitted to Council for approval and treated in accordance with Clause 2.3 of District Planning Scheme No. 1, requiring public comment on the proposal prior to Council considering the matter.



Risk Management The Risk Theme Profile identified as part of this report is Providing Inaccurate Advice/information. The Consequence could be Financial, Reputational or Compliance if an incorrect approval is given or a condition is missed. The risk is mitigated by the report being thoroughly researched, reviewed and provided by a qualified Council officer, resulting in LOW risk being present. Budget Implications Nil. Officer’s Recommendation That Council authorises the Principal Building Surveyor to issue the Building Permit for the erection of the proposed oversize outbuilding on Lot 11 (13) Sherlock Place, Uduc, with an area of 189m2 subject to:

1. Structure not to be used for habitable or commercial purposes; 2. The structure is setback at least 100m from the Forestry Road boundary; and 3. The outbuilding shall be clad in non-reflective materials i.e. factory applied

colours excluding white and off-white. DS–18/009. Simpson/Boylan




Item No. 8.2.3 Subject: Building Permit Applications Received – Building Permits Issued –

December 2017 Proponent: Shire of Harvey Reporting Officer: Principal Building Surveyor File No.: BSR017 (15) Attachment Reg. No. 18/00211

42 Building Applications have been received and 79 Building Permits issued for the month of December 2017. Details of Building Permits approved are attached.

ATTACHMENT Officer’s Recommendation That Council receives the report on building activity over the month of December 2017. DS–18/010. Beech/Simpson


DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES 16th January 2018. Page 48


9. MATTERS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

Nil. 10. CLOSURE

There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was declared closed at 4.30p.m.

Documents

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE - Shire of … Chief Executive Officer Mr. S. Collie Acting Executive Manager Corporate Services Mr. R. Scantlebury Executive Manager Technical Services