notice of council meeting - amazon s3 · 6.1 council meeting 27 september 2016 7. business arising...

NOTICE OF COUNCIL MEETING

TO: Mayor Deputy Mayor

Karen Redman David Hughes

Councillors Kevin Fischer Beverley Gidman Paul Koch Merilyn Nicolson Adrian Shackley Robin Symes Ian Tooley Jim Vallelonga

NOTICE is hereby given pursuant to the provisions of Section 83 (1) of the Local Government Act 1999, that the next ordinary meeting of the Council for the Town of Gawler will be held in the Institute, 91 Murray Street, Gawler, on Tuesday 25 October 2016, commencing at 7:00pm.

A copy of the Agenda for the above meeting is supplied as prescribed by Section 83 (3) of the said Act.

......................................... Henry Inat Chief Executive Officer 20 October 2016

of 84

TOWN OF GAWLER COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA - 25 OCTOBER 2016

of 84

1. Statement of Acknowledgement

Mayor: We would like to acknowledge this land that we meet on today is thetraditional lands for the Kaurna people and that we respect their spiritualrelationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Kaurna people as thecustodians of the greater Adelaide region and that their cultural and heritagebeliefs are still as important to the living Kaurna people today.

2. Attendance Record

2.1 Roll Call 2.2 Apologies 2.3 Motions to grant Leave of Absence 2.4 Leave of Absence

3. Public Open Forum(Limited to a total time of up to 20 minutes)

4. Deputations

4.1 Ellen Steyn, Gawler Community Gallery – Gawler Art Prize Winning Painting to be added to the Gawler Heritage Collection

5. Petitions

Nil

6. Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Council Meeting 27 September 2016

7. Business Arising from Minutes

Meeting of the Council for the Town of Gawler to be held on Tuesday 25 October 2016 at 7:00pm in the Institute, 91 Murray Street, Gawler.

AGENDA


of 84

8. Officer Reports Page No.

8.1 6

8.2 57

8.3 62

8.4 66

8.5 71

8.6 74

8.7

Gawler East Link Road Update Draft 30 Year Plan for

Greater Adelaide 2016 Update

Endorsement of Boundary Treatment Land Management Agreements for Springwood

Council Operating Hours – Christmas and New Year 2016/17

Council and Committee Meeting Date Changes

2017/2018 Budget / Business Plan Timetable

Monthly Finance Report – September 2016 77

9. Recommendations from Committees Page No.

• External Funds Committee – meeting held 4 October 2016 79 • Audit Committee – meeting held 5 October 2016 80 • Elderly Centre Advisory Committee – meeting held 7 October

201682

10. Council Member Reports

Nil

11. Questions on Notice

Nil

12. Questions without Notice

13. Motions on Notice

13.1 Cr Adrian Shackley intends to move the following motion:

That Council applies to the Minister for Local Government for an exemption from the Material Conflict of Interest Provision (Section 74 of the Local Government Act) as it affects Council Members participating in Council meetings relating to subsidiary bodies or bodies which Council is a constituent member or Council Members participating in meetings of a subsidiary or bodies of which Council is a constituent member.

14. Motions without Notice


of 84

15. Confidential Reports Page No.

15.1 Gawler East Link Road Update 83

16. Close 17. Next Ordinary Meeting

Tuesday 22 November 2016, commencing 7:00pm


of 84

REPORTS BY OFFICERS

Item Number 8.1 Title GAWLER EAST LINK ROAD UPDATE Date 25 October 2016

Author(s) Henry Inat, Chief Executive Officer Sam Dilena, Manager Infrastructure and Engineering Services Ryan Viney, Acting Manager Economic Development, Regulator Services and Communications Paul Horwood, Manager Finance

Reference CR16/52619, CC11/778; CR16/40094, CR16/40149; CR16/40165 CR16/40086, CR16/40115, CR16/40094, CR16/40090, CR16/40091, CR16/40085,

Previous Motion Council Meeting, 18/08/2016, Motion No: 2016:08:315 Council Meeting, 5/07/2016, Motion No:2016:07:285 Council Meeting, 26/04/2016, Motion No:2016:04:110 Council Meeting, 23/02/2016, Motion No:2016:02:21 Council Meeting, 22/12/2015, Motion No:2015:12:506 Council Meeting, 24/11/2015, Motion No:2015:11:412 Council Meeting, 27/10/2015, Motion No:2015:10:371 Council Meeting, 22/09/2015, Motion No:2015:09:349 Council Meeting, 30/06/2015, Motion No’s:2015:06:254-266

Attachment/s Under Separate Cover

Attachment 1 – Engagement Summary Report Attachment 2 – Potts Road Intervention Upgrade Report Attachment 3 – Letter from State Government’s MP Mullighan Attachment 4 – Letter from Springwood Communities

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION Item 8.1 – Gawler East Link Road Update (CC11/778) That Council: 1. Receives the report of the Chief Executive Officer titled ‘Gawler East Link Road

Update Report’.

2. Notes the letter received from the Hon Stephen Mulligan MP, Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, on behalf of the State Government providing support for the State Government funding the entire extent of the Link Road alignment from Calton Road (at the location of the proposed Retail Centre) through to Potts Road incorporating the Council’s nominated preferred alignment.

3. Receives the Engagement Report summarising the Phase 3 community

consultation undertaken on the Council’s Eastern Alternative Alignment, Revised Eckerman Alignment and State Government (Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure) alignment for the Gawler East Link Road.


of 84

4. Adopts the Eastern Alignment Alternative as the preferred alignment for the

Gawler East Link Road Project, which this alignment is consistent with the long term strategic objective of a future direct extension of the Gawler East Link Road over Potts Road to the intersection of Tiver Road/Main North Road generally along the Bentley Road corridor and Tiver Road.

5. Writes to all members of the community who have participated in the most

recent public consultation process relating to this matter to advise them of the Council’s decisions, and thanking them for their input and contributions.

6. Notes that whilst the Tiver Road extension is not funded within the current

project budget, the Council remains committed to ensuring this extension as a high priority and to this end is investigating the development of this GELR extension through a feasibility review being undertaken in 2016/17 with a further report to be presented to the Council.

7. Acknowledges the ‘value engineering management’ approach which has derived

savings through scope enhancements, design changes, project delivery integration and the staged delivery of deferred infrastructure by the Council in the future for the Link Road.

8. Acknowledges the funding of the entire cost of the Link Road between Calton

Road and Potts Road by the State Government (estimated at $54m in total), with a reimbursement to the State Government of $4.9m from the section of road within Springwood and $3.3 million from other developers (inclusive of an upfront capital contribution by Council of $2.4m); excluding any contribution attributable to the Commissioner of Highways land; will deliver an overall net saving of $8.2m to the State Government.

9. Seeks commitments from the developers of Springwood for the following:

a) Approval for the GELR to be constructed on land controlled by the developers of Springwood.

b) $4.9m total contribution payable to Council and reimbursed to the State Government by way of a per allotment contribution for the GELR within Springwood.

c) $2m total contribution payable by way of per allotment contribution for the GELR deferred non-essential infrastructure within Springwood

d) Other infrastructure contributions payable to Council by way of a per allotment contribution for traffic interventions and community infrastructure; and

e) Bringing forward the development of the Retail Centre precinct estimated to cost between $15-$20m.

10. Notes that the infrastructure contribution funding scheme is proposed to be

based upon the ‘beneficiary pays’ principle and will be comprised of a legally-binding Deed and the application of a separate rate on rateable land as a means of financial security with an appropriate relief policy, with the full detail of the mechanism to be formulated / developed and subject to a further report to the Council


of 84

11. Notes that the infrastructure contribution funding scheme is predicated on the

following parameters, namely: a) Funding or in-kind Contributions being made by developers at the time that

land division occurs and prior to Section 51 Clearance being provided by the Council;

b) Contributions from developers being secured through a Deed in the first instance;

c) The separate rate as a secondary security mechanism to the Deed to secure the funding or in-kind contributions from developers; and

d) As far as reasonably possible, that the scheme achieves equitable infrastructure contributions across the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones on a ‘beneficiary pays’ basis.

12. Provides ’in principle’ support for the infrastructure contribution funding

scheme, including the use of a separate rate being levied against the relevant land of the developer as a means of providing, if necessary, for the recovery of infrastructure costs in Gawler East and Residential Hills Zone and acknowledges that investigations into this matter will now commence and the outcomes, including the undertaking of community consultation in respect of the proposed separate rate, will be the subject of a further report to the Council for consideration in due course.

13. Notes that the Development (Infrastructure) Deed payment breakdown per

allotment contribution analysis as presented as being fair and equitable but noting that further refinement is required and this will continue to be progressed with a detailed report to the Council at its meeting in December 2016.

14. Revokes Motion No: 2015:06:256 of the Special Council meeting held on 30 June

2015 and Amends Motion No: 2016:08:315 (Item 12 only) of the Special Council meeting held on 18 August 2016, to the following: • Accepts the ownership and responsibility for the bridge over the South Para

River in all aspects. However, it is notes that Council will and seek assistance from the Department of Planning Transport & Infrastructure in respect to the regular inspection and maintenance of the bridge super structure as detailed in this report.

15. Agrees that by adopting the propositions as set out in this report and

recommendations arising there from the Council has: a) considered a preferred alignment that does not diminish the benefit of its

strategic objective of a future direct extension of the Gawler East Link Road through to Tiver Road;

b) reduced the ‘upfront’ payment for the extra costs to facilitate its strategic alignment ($5.6M) plus its cost towards the Potts Road (lower) intervention ($2.4M) together totalling $8M to now only $2.4M, noting $2.04M is currently allocated on the Long Term Financial Plan;

c) achieved ongoing savings of $0.46M from not funding the interest repayments necessary for a $5.6M loan;

d) ensured that the Gawler East Link Road is constructed to Calton Road adjacent the Village Centre in Springwood at its opening which will facilitate further economic stimulus and lead to job creation outcomes being realised through the early development of the Retail Centre; and

e) realised an opportunity saving towards the cost of constructing Potts Road (upper) through collaborative procurement and construction of this section of roadway concurrently with the Gawler East Link Road.


of 84

16. By adopting this proposition, the Council also acknowledges that it has assisted

the State Government in the following ways: a) ensuring that a connection of the Link Road occurs between Calton Road

and Potts Road which will facilitate further development in the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones;

b) establishing a means for achieving a net saving of $8.2m to the State Government for this project;

c) facilitating a further net saving of $2m on the basis of the proposed current DPTI alignment ‘ultimate scope’ being estimated to be $56m in 2016 dollars;

d) establishing a collaborative model that allows all parties to continue to work together on the construction of the project;

e) establishing a mechanism whereby all developers in the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones can equitably contribute to the Gawler East Link Road construction costs;

f) facilitating an integrated approach to the procurement and construction of the Link Road in its entirety by way of a ‘one contract/one build’ delivery model resulting in the most optimum cost efficiencies being realised;

g) facilitating the private sector bringing forward the $15-20M retail precinct eith the consequential early economic stimulus and employment opportunities for the broader region; and

h) accepting ownership of both the Link Road and the bridge crossing over the South Para River as a substantial commitment to achieving the multiple benefits associated with this joint initiative with the State Government and the developers of Springwood

17. Accepts the additional responsibilities for the management of the infrastructure

contribution funding scheme and the coordination of the installation of the deferred infrastructure as and when necessary.

18. Allocates a further $140,000 to the 2016/17 Budget for the required costs

necessary to achieve continued progression of the Gawler East Link Road matter, including $30,000 for a Gawler East & Residential Hills Zone Development Plan Amendment.

19. Notes that the State Government will be responsible for administering the Land

Acquisition powers and processes required for this project and that the Council will assist in facilitating this process where relevant under the Local Government Act.

20. Based on Councils adopted GELR alignment requests staff to prepare an

updated Gawler East Structure Plan to be presented to Council, incorporating the outcomes of various other infrastructure investigations pertaining to the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zone, for the purpose of undertaking a possible Development Plan Amendment.


of 84

BACKGROUND At its meeting held on 18 August 2016 the Council considered an update report on the Gawler East Link Road (GELR) and resolved the following;

Moved by Cr A Shackley Seconded by Cr R Symes Motion No: 2016:08:315

That Council:

1. Notes the Gawler East Link Road Update Report and thanks all residents who have provided input to assist Council considerations.

2. Receives the results of the Multi Criteria Analysis and all supporting investigations that have been undertaken to support the determination of a preferred alignment for the Gawler East Link Road.

3. Notes a new Eastern Alignment (Alternative) has been proposed by Council staff that would run to One Tree Hill Road from the north, and then south and then parallel with One Tree Hill Road towards and deviating at the property located at 137 Potts Road. This alignment achieves a number of improvements compared with the first Eastern alignment option.

4. Notes a revised Eckerman Alignment has been considered by Council staff which includes variations south of One Tree Hill Road and similar changes on the approach to Potts Road.

5. Notes that the Eastern Alignment (Alternative)and revised Eckerman Alignment are consistent with the long term strategic objective of a future direct extension of the Gawler East Link Road to the intersection of Tiver Road/Main North Road.

6. Allow an additional period of 3 weeks for public consultation on the revised plans and for further information to be prepared for Council consideration, including in comparison with the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure alignment.

7. Notes legal advice that it is possible for the State Government to have responsibility for the overall management of the preferred alignment potentially including land acquisition, advice that there could be significant benefits in providing for a single project to build the Link Road from Calton Road (proposed Centre) to Potts Road and noting that new provisions of the Development Act may be appropriate in relation to such a significant infrastructure project.

8. Notes that Council may be required to pay additional costs (estimated at up to $5.6m but subject to competitive tendering and the matters set out above in 6. And 7.), and requests a report on the preferred legal instruments and other such mechanisms required for the project and the allocation of costs of the Link Road project.

9. Accept that the Council will have the ultimate ownership of the Gawler East Link Road for reasons detailed in the Gawler East Link Road Update Report.

10. Requests a report on how a partnership arrangement between Council, the State Government and the company managing the main Gawler East development site to finalise planning and construct and fund the Link Road from Calton Road (proposed Centre) to Potts Road could operate for the mutual benefit of all parties.

11. Request the Council staff work with Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure through the detailed design phase on determining the most beneficial outcome for the bridge over the South Para River in terms of visual and environmental impacts and report back to the Council as appropriate.


of 84

12. In respect to the bridge proposed over the South Para River, that Council advises the

relevant State Government Minister that the ownership, management and maintenance of the bridge structure should be retained by the State Government for the reasons detailed in the report.

13. Adds the tabled letters from residents, correspondence received from SEA Gas and Elected Members questions and Council officer provided responses in the Minutes.

Several update reports have been present to Council on this matter, particularly at the Council meetings held on 30 June 2015, 22 September 2015, 27 October 2015, 24 November 2015, 22 December 2015, 23 February 2016, 26 April 2016, 5 July 2016 and 18 August respectively. All these previous Council reports detailed above are publicly available. The purpose of this report is to update the Council on this matter, namely:

1. To present an Engagement Report summarising the outcomes of the Phase 3

community consultation for Council consideration. 2. To present a comparison of Council’s Eastern Alternative and Eckerman Alignments

with the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure Alignment for Council consideration.

3. To update the Council on a partnership arrangement which has been developed by Council staff, the State Government and developers of Springwood for the benefit of all parties and the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones in general.

4. To present a report on the preferred legal instruments and other such mechanisms required for the project and the allocation of costs of the Gawler East Link Road project, including the proposed partnership arrangement between Council, the State Government and Springwood.

5. Detail the conclusions and next steps associated with this project. COMMENTS/DISCUSSION Council Agenda 18 August 2016 – Preferred Alignment Outcome On the 18 August 2016, Council staff provided a report which included the following key matters relating to the Gawler East Link Road:

1. The results of the Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) and the supporting subject matter expert investigations/analysis that had been undertaken to support the decision making.

2. A recommendation on the preferred alignment for the Gawler East Link Road (GELR).

A Multi-Criteria Analysis was undertaken to determine a preferred alignment of the GELR based on the evaluation criteria and subsequent key result areas which were endorsed by the Council at its meeting held on 26 April 2016, namely:

1. Traffic – Safety, Travel Time, Accessibility and Convenience 2. Environment – Local Heritage, Flora and Fauna, Air Quality, Social Effects and Noise

Effects 3. Land and Property – Property and dwelling acquisition 4. Cost of implementation and Asset Management – Total costs to Council.


of 84

To enable the MCA Evaluation Team to fully appreciate the quantum of impacts associated with each criterion being evaluated, the Key Result Areas were expanded to enable measurement of the criteria (where this was possible), with specific desk-top and field investigation/analysis undertaken and applied to each criterion. The MCA was initially undertaken on Council’s original Eastern and Eckerman Alignments with the outcomes showing both alignments being of equal impact with respect to the MCA criteria. A sensitivity test (or test of reasonableness) was subsequently undertaken by the MCA Team which involved reviewing and debating each of the initial scores and to ascertain whether the rankings were reasonable. Key adjustments were applied to both flora and air quality with the revised results showing no change, with both the Eckerman Alignment and Eastern Alignment being of equal impact with respect to the MCA criteria. Subsequent to the MCA sensitivity test, a more detailed macro-analysis of the impacts of each alignment as they relate to the criteria was undertaken. More specifically, design refinements (design improvements) were explored at targeted or critical locations that might further reduce the range of impacts identified and result in an improved overall alignment outcome. The Team identified three (3) design refinements as the most optimum opportunities to minimise the overall impacts of the Council’s preferred alignments and these were analysed accordingly within the MCA process. The options included:

1. 137 Potts Road Diversion (associated with both the Eckerman & Eastern Alignments) 2. Revised Eckerman Alignment (referred to as ‘Eckerman Avenue Alignment –

Southern Shift’) 3. Eastern Alternative Alignment

In terms of the cost comparison for each of the respective alignments, a cost estimate summary is presented in the Table 1 below. The costs are as estimated at 18 August 2016 and highlight the major components of the Link Road based inclusive of the following principles:

a) value engineering opportunities to realise immediate savings through scope and design enhancements

b) project procurement and construction integration by undertaking all components as one project (rather than individual projects), thus realising economies through delivery

c) ability to defer non-essential infrastructure, thereby negating over-capitalisation from early investment in infrastructure (which can progressively be brought on as development evolves in Gawler East).


of 84

TABLE 1: COST COMPARISON OF GELR ALIGNMENTS

Link Road Segments DPTI Eastern

Eckerman or Revised Eckerman

Eastern Alternative

Main Alignment 27,805,474 30,465,875 30,107,695 29,704,284

Potts Road - Lower Section (DPTI alignment interface with Potts Road to Adelaide Road Intersection)

4,806,255 4,806,255 4,806,255 4,806,255

Potts Road / Adelaide Road Intersection

11,646,189 11,646,189 11,646,189 11,646,189

Sub-total: $ 44,257,918 $ 46,918,319 $ 46,560,139 $ 46,156,728

Potts Road - Upper Section (Council alignment to the DPTI alignment interface with Potts Road)

N/A 3,735,666 3,735,666 3,735,666

TOTAL: $ 44,257,918 $ 50,653,985 $ 50,295,805 $ 49,892,394

The Council’s alignments incur additional costs on the Main Alignment and also costs associated with upgrading an additional 500m of Potts Road from 137 Potts Road to the interface point of the DPTI alignment / Potts Road intersection. This section of Potts Road is referred to as Potts Road (Upper). The additional cost is the difference between the cost of these two components and the cost of the DPTI Main Alignment. The upgrade to Potts Road (Upper Section) is required to satisfy the requirements of the Gawler Development Plan associated with the 1000 lot trigger. This requires an upgrade of Potts Road to occur from the GELR connection through to Main North Road/Potts Road intersection. This upgrade is also required to improve its function and performance characteristics from a low volume local roadway to a collector road standard able to cater for the anticipated traffic volumes which will utilise this roadway. The MCA and Cost analysis concluded that the most optimum alignment when assessed against the criteria endorsed by the Council was the Eastern Alternative Alignment including the diversion at 137 Potts Road, based on: a) No dwellings are required to be acquired; b) It is the most economical route; c) The impact of the road on the existing established private properties, either through or

adjacent, is reduced to the full extent possible; d) The full extent of the State Government’s land is utilised for this alignment;


of 84

e) It provides the safest overall route and removes the need for an additional roundabout on One Tree Hill Road;

f) Preserves the majority of the trees located along this section of One Tree Hill Road; and g) Is considerate of the Local Heritage listed property (Bentley) located at 228 One Tree Hill

Road. The additional cost to Council over the State Government’s alignment was estimated at the time to be in the order of $5.6M for this alignment, which also represents the most economical cost of all alignments considered in the MCA process. The Eastern Alternative Alignment was recommended to the Council at its meeting on 18 August 2016. The Council considered the officers recommendation and resolved to undertaken further community consultation on the Eastern Alternative and Revised Eckerman alignments, including the State Government (DPTI) alignment for the GELR, as per Motion No: 2016:08:315, Resolution 6:

Allow an additional period of 3 weeks for public consultation on the revised plans and for further information to be prepared for Council consideration, including in comparison with the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure alignment.

Community Consultation (Phase 3) Council staff has since worked with its consultants to finalise the consultation materials and undertake the consultation, which occurred from 31 August to 21 September 2016. The process utilised engagement methods that were previously endorsed by the Council and tailored to the defined catchments used in prior consultations for the project, but with the addition of a new catchment, namely Potts Road. The catchments were defined by the following principles;

• Primary catchment – those residents (owner occupiers and tenants) and landowners whose property directly adjoins the proposed alignment options and/or is traversed by an alignment option

• Secondary catchment – comprised of people who previously participated in consultation processes undertaken by Council regarding the Link Road project including those that participated in the May 2016 engagement on the Link Road options (and were not already part of the primary catchment) and other stakeholders and relevant agencies and organisations likely to have an interest in the project

• Potts Road catchment – comprising land abutting Potts Road • Broader community

As Potts Road forms part of the GELR alignment, it was deemed necessary to isolate out the properties that abutted Potts Rd as a separate catchment. They were consulted specifically on the need to reconstruct and upgrade this section of the road, including the requirement for noise attenuation, as part of the overall GELR project. A copy of the Engagement Report including the outcomes, consultation materials and feedback is contained in Attachment 1.


of 84

The objectives of the Phase 3 consultation involved seeking feedback from the community and stakeholders by way of a ‘Feedback Form’ to nominate a preference from the three (3) proposed alignments; being the Eastern Alternative, Revised Eckerman or State Government (DPTI) alignment, and provide reasons for their preference. The catchments were engaged based on the following approaches: Catchment Consultation activities Primary catchment Letter directly mailed by post or emailed outlining Council’s

resolution to consult on three options Invitation to complete online or hard copy feedback form

Secondary catchment

Letter directly mailed by post or emailed outlining Council’s resolution to consult on three options Invitation to complete online or hard copy feedback form

Potts Road catchment

Letter directly mailed by post outlining Council’s resolution to consult on three options plus additional details regarding the Potts Road upgrade and noise attenuation required through this section road Invitation to complete online or hard copy feedback form

Broader community Invitation to complete online feedback form Media Advertisements in The Herald, Bunyip and Leader (31 August

2016) Website page for duration of consultation

A total of 335 people/organisations participated in the consultation as shown in Table 2 below, by providing submissions. Copies of these submissions are contained in Attachment 1. TABLE 2: PARTICIPATION BY CATCHMENT Catchment Participation Number directly

mailed/emailed Primary catchment 19 46 Secondary catchment 41 96 Potts Road catchment 26 89 Broader community 249 n/a Total 335

Although Phase 3 community and stakeholder feedback was requested via the ‘Feedback Form’, a small number of separate written submissions were also received, which is shown in Table 3 below. TABLE 3: PARTICIPATION BY FEEDBACK METHOD Catchment Written submissions Feedback form Primary catchment 1 18 Secondary catchment 6 35 Potts Road catchment 0 26 Broader community 2 247 Total 9 326

It should be noted that there was some duplication between participation approaches; for example, some people who provided a written submission also completed a feedback form.


of 84

Therefore, in collating responses, information from the same respondent has been registered as one overall response. Consultation Outcomes The overall results of the community and stakeholder feedback across all catchments (as shown in Table 4 below) indicates significant support for the State Government (DPTI) alignment at 75% of all respondents, followed by the Revised Eckerman alignment at 13% and 9% for the Eastern Alternative alignment. The remaining 3% did not support any of the alignments or had no preference stated. TABLE 4: ALIGNMENT PREFERENCE – OVERALL RESULTS Alignment option Number identifying

support for the Alignment option

Preference as a proportion of overall respondents

Support State Government alignment 251 75% Support Revised Eckerman alignment

45 13%

Support Eastern Alternative alignment

29 9%

Support no alignment option 4 1% No preference stated 6 2% Total 335 100%

To gain a greater and more refined appreciation of the feedback, the results were apportioned to their respective catchments as shown in Figure 1 below. FIGURE 1: ALIGNMENT PREFERENCE – BY CATCHMENT

207

6

17

21

19

4

2

4

1

1

2

2

1

3

20

14

11

0 50 100 150 200 250

Broadercommunity

Potts Road

Primary

Secondary

Number of respondents

DPTI

Eastern Alignment

Neither

Not stated

Revised Eckerman


of 84

Broader Catchment The results showed the majority of feedback and support for the State Government alignment from the Broader Community catchment, and with relative equal but lesser support for both the Eastern Alternative and Eckerman alignment. The key reasons provided for supporting the respective alignments is shown in Table 5 below: TABLE 5: BROADER COMMUNITY ALIGNMENT PREFERENCE – KEY REASONS State Government (DPTI) Revised Eckerman Eastern Alternative • Cost (107

respondents) • Impact on the

environment (49 respondents)

• Travel time (39 respondents)

• Requirement for land acquisition (35 respondents)

• Social effects and reduced amenity (16 respondents)

• Impacts of other alignments on the hobby farm (14 respondents)

Note: 53 people did not state any reason for their preference.


• Noise impacts (9 respondents)

• Road safety (8 respondents)

• Traffic impacts (8 respondents)

• Cost (6 respondents)

• Cost (4 respondents) • Requirements for land

acquisition (3 respondents)

• Benefits to extend to Tiver Road (3 respondents)

• Other alignment impacts on hobby farm (3 respondents)

• Impact on the environment (2 respondents)


Primary Catchment The results showed the majority of feedback and support for the State Government alignment, and little support for the Eastern Alternative and no support for Eckerman alignment. The key reasons provided for supporting the respective alignments is shown in Table 6 below: TABLE 6: PRIMARY CATCHMENT: ALIGNMENT PREFERENCE – KEY REASONS State Government (DPTI) Revised Eckerman Eastern Alternative • Cost (16 respondents) • Requirement for land

acquisition (8 respondents)


• Less land acquisition compared to the Revised Eckerman alignment

• Alignment does not pass through respondent’s property

• Less noise than the DPTI alignment for residents of the retirement village


of 84

Secondary Catchment The results showed the majority of feedback and support for the State Government alignment, and moderate support for the Revised Eckerman and very little support for the Eastern Alternative alignment. The key reasons provided for supporting the respective alignments is shown in Table 7 below: TABLE 7: SECONDARY CATCHMENT: ALIGNMENT PREFERENCE – KEY REASONS State Government (DPTI)

Revised Eckerman Eastern Alternative

• Cost (15 respondents)

• Requirements for land acquisition (13 respondents)

• Impact on the environment (13 respondents)

• Travel time (12 respondents)


• Better potential for connection to Tiver Road (4 respondents)

• Noise impacts (2 respondents)

• Use of the existing road (2 respondents)

• Lesser impact on the environment, including significant trees and Flinders Ranges work lizard habitat

• Greater distance to and therefore lesser impact on the Vines Retirement Village

• Less property acquisition than Eckerman alignment

• Better for future connection to Tiver Road

Potts Road Catchment The results showed the majority of feedback and support for the Revised Eckerman alignment, and moderate support for the State Government and to a lesser degree, the Eastern Alternative alignment. It is important to note that of those 14 people that supported the Revised Eckerman alignment option, 12 included a ‘standard’ attachment describing 15 objections to traffic being diverted to Potts Road. This ‘standard’ attachment which was circulated to residents in the surrounds of the Gawler East Development Zone are contained Appendix E of Engagement Summary Report in Attachment 1.


of 84

The key reasons provided for supporting the respective alignments is shown in Table 8 below: TABLE 8: POTTS ROAD CATCHMENT: ALIGNMENT PREFERENCE – KEY REASONS State Government (DPTI) Revised Eckerman Eastern Alternative • Cost (6 respondents) • Impact on the

environment (4 respondents)

• Requirements for land acquisition (2 respondents)

• Reduced travel time (2 respondents)

• Impacts on property value

• Impacts of noise barriers on property owners, access to properties, street appeal

• Impacts of additional traffic, particularly at Potts Road and Main North Road intersection.

• The alignment will encourage people to use Tiver Road rather than Potts Road

• Belief that the road will be used more frequently than the DPTI alignment.

Summary The Phase 3 community and stakeholder consultation showed an overwhelming support for the State Government alignment (75%) particularly from the broader community. The key reasons include;

• Cost (i.e. will not require additional funding by Council and therefore the community) • Less requirement for land acquisition and therefore reduced impact on existing

landowners residents, when compared to the other alignment options • Social effects and reduced amenity will be less than the other alignment options • Impact on the environment with be less compared to the other alignment options • Travel time will be better compared to the other alignment options

Specific to the Potts Road, the most commonly cited reasons included;

• Objections to traffic being diverted to Potts Road, which would be resolved if the Link Road followed the Revised Eckerman alignment and is eventually connected to the Tiver Road extension (when constructed)

• Impacts on property value • Impacts of noise barriers on property owners, access to properties and street appeal

were the most commonly cited reasons • Impacts of additional traffic, particularly at Potts Road and Main North Road

intersection. Although the preference for the Potts Road catchment favoured the Revised Eckerman alignment (second to the State Government alignment), it should be noted that the key reasons provided above are common across all three (3) alignments. It is relevant to note that at the time the Community Consultation was undertaken the State Government’s position on an alternate funding proposition as presented in this report was not known. Should this have been the case the consultation result may well have been different given the overwhelming majority of those respondents that selected the DPTI alignment did so stating their reason being the additional cost incurred by the Council. Council administration have taken this into account in nominating a preferred alignment for the Gawler East Link Road as detailed later in this report.


of 84

Alignment Comparison In addition to the Phase 3 community consultation outcomes described above, at its meeting held on 18 August 2016 the Council resolved amongst other things, that a comparison also be undertaken of its Eastern Alternative and Revised Eckerman Alignments with the State Government’s (Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI)) Alignment for the Council’s consideration.

Moved by Cr A Shackley Seconded by Cr R Symes Motion No: 2016:08:315

That Council:

6. Allow an additional period of 3 weeks for public consultation on the revised plans

and for further information to be prepared for Council consideration, including in comparison with the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure alignment.

All supporting documentation and investigations undertaken as part of the Multi Criteria Analysis which was prepared and presented to Special Council Meeting held on 18 August 2016 will not be presented to the Council again at this time. A high level summary of those findings for the purpose of a comparison being made is presented in the tables below. Relevant information pertaining to the DPTI alignment has been provided by staff and consultants. This is based on review of information provided by both DPTI as part of their consultation undertaken in early 2013 as well as the Council’s own investigations. Comparison tables using key parameters, including those used for the MCA criteria is shown in Table 9 and 10 below as it relates to the consideration of a future Tiver Road extension.


of 84

TABLE 9: ALIGNMENT COMPARISON TABLE – NO CONSIDERATION TO A FUTURE TIVER ROAD EXTENSION Comparative Parameters

Measurement DPTI Eastern Alternative

Revised Eckerman

Travel from Springwood to Main North Road (Adelaide Road)

Minutes & seconds

3min 27sec 4min 4sec 4min 9sec

Significant/regulated trees

Number to be removed

4 14 17

Flinders Ranges Worm Lizard

Number of locations Identified

1

2

1

EPBC Referral EPBC (Yes/No) Yes Yes Yes Local Heritage Degree of

impact None Marginal

(Link Rd now 100m from property)

None

Air quality Degree of impact

Marginal differences - considered to be the same across all alignments

Noise Attenuation – Link Road

Required (Yes/No)

Yes

Yes Yes

Number

~ 20 properties (immediately behind Mueller Dr and Vines Lifestyle Village)

1 property (adjacent 137 Potts Road)

7 properties (Eckerman Ave, One Tree Hill Rd, and adjacent 137 Potts Rd)

Degree of Impact

Moderate (to the rear of most properties)

Marginal (to the side of 1 property)

Moderate/Significant (varies - front and sides of the property)

Noise – Potts Road (Lower Section - Adelaide Rd to immediately east of Muller Dr)

Required (Yes/No)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Number All properties (both sides)

All properties (both sides)

All properties (both sides)

Degree of Impact

Significant Significant Significant


of 84

Comparative Parameters


Revised Eckerman

Noise – Potts Road (Upper – Immediately east of Muller Dr to proposed Council alignment Interface point on Potts Rd)

Required (Yes/No)

No

Yes

Yes

Number 0 All properties (south side of Potts road)

All properties (south side of Potts road)

Degree of Impact

None Significant Significant

Impact on existing community

Degree of impact along Link Rd alignment (Springwood to Potts Rd)

Low (rear of 4 properties – lowest impacts of all alignments)

Medium (passes via 5 properties south of One Tree Hill Rd – considerable impact on properties affected by this alignment)

High (passes via 13 properties on Eckerman Ave plus 5 properties south of One Tree Hill Rd - considerable impacts on properties affected by this alignment and quantum of properties impacted)

Impact along Potts Rd (Lower Section)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Impact along Potts Rd (Upper Section)

No Yes Yes

Dwellings acquisition

Number required

0 0 0

Cost $ million 44.3 49.9 50.3 The comparison of the State Government alignment clearly demonstrates, on balance, less impact overall when compared to Council’s alignments when no consideration is provided for a future extension to Tiver Road.


of 84

TABLE 10: ALIGNMENT COMPARISON TABLE – CONSIDERATION TO A FUTURE TIVER ROAD EXTENSION Comparative Parameters2


Revised Eckerman

Strategic Objective: Future Extension to Tiver Road

Direct connection

No

Yes

Yes

Travel from Springwood to Tiver Road Intersection (via future Tiver Rd extension)

Minutes & seconds

7min 20 sec 6min 38sec 6min 45sec

Estimated traffic distribution along Potts Road with a Tiver Road Extension (Gawler East & Concordia Full Development)

Vehicles per day

13,500 7,400 7,400

Noise Requirements – Potts Road (Upper)

Required (Yes/No)

Yes Yes

Number All properties (500m on south side of Potts Road)

All properties (500m on south side of Potts Road)

Degree of Impact

Significant Significant

Impact on existing community

Degree of impact along Link Rd alignment (Springwood to Potts Rd)

No change – as per short-term

Impact along Potts Rd (Lower Section)

No No No

Impact along Potts Rd (Upper Section)

Yes No No

Cost $ million 47.3 (incl additional $3.8M cost1 to Council)

49.9 50.3

Notes:

1. The additional $3.8 million is discussed later in the report 2. The following parameters are considered to remain unchanged for the long-term

scenario: Significant/regulated trees, Flinders Range Worm Lizard & EPBC Referral, Local Heritage, Air quality, Noise – Link Road, Noise – Potts Road (Lower), Property acquisition, Dwellings acquisition


of 84

Under the long-term comparison, both the Eastern Alternative and Revised Eckerman Alignments meet Council’s Strategic Objective of connecting to a future Tiver Rd Extension, whereas the DPTI alignment will require an additional 500m upgrade of the upper section of Potts Road to be undertaken later. The future ‘out-of-pocket’ cost to the Council of $3.8 million would be incurred under the DPTI alignment for the upgrade of the upper section of Potts Road (incl noise attenuation) at that time. The travel times from Springwood to the Tiver Road intersection are considered to be very similar with marginal differences between alignments. A benefit of the Council’s alignments is that it enables Potts Road (Upper) to be established to meet the requirements of the adjoining northern side of Potts Road land use in the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones. Should the Council support the DPTI alignment as its preferred alignment for the GELR then Potts Road (Upper) will need to be considered as an additional traffic intervention. This is as this section of road will need to be upgraded to cater for the future adjoining land development in the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones. It is proposed under this scenario that the cost of this intervention would need to be recovered from the future developers in the Gawler East Development Zone under an equitable infrastructure contribution regime as detailed later in this report. It is also relevant to note that the cost of this intervention undertaken in isolation would incur higher costs than if delivered as part of the GELR project in one procurement package. State Government’s GELR Alignment At its Special Council Meeting held on 30 June 2015 the Council resolved that it did not support the State Government’s proposed GELR alignment. The relevant motion supporting this position is detailed below.

Moved by Cr A Shackley Seconded by Deputy Mayor I Tooley Motion No: 2015:06:260

7. Inform the State Government (and other interested parties) that the Council does not support the alignment of the Link Road as set out in the DPTI documents for public consultation some time ago. Council considers that a link to Tiver Road is the preferred option and that the alignment at Potts Road should facilitate this. Council requests DPTI to consider Route alignment 1 Eastern alignment and Route alignment 2 Eckerman alignment set out in the report to Council and documentation provided by Tonkin and URPS and assist in resolving a preferred alignment. Council considers that there may be a number of potential benefits with the proposed options to assist with traffic movement and overall community outcomes.

Throughout the ongoing consideration of this matter, the Council has been transparent as to the reasons why it does not support the State Government’s alignment; through the previous Council reports on this matter as well as the community consultation which provided specific information on the Council’s rationale behind this decision.


of 84

Broadly the reasons for the Council’s position are as follows: • It will significantly change the character of Potts Road from a local road to a major local

collector road once the Gawler East Development area is fully developed due to increasing traffic (i.e. 2,500 vehicles/ day at present to at least 13,000 vehicles/day).

• At that point Potts Road will be at/or approaching capacity, resulting in property egress difficulty in peak periods, worsened by further growth in the region.

• Investigations indicate that if the DPTI Alignment occurs then the benefit of a future GELR Tiver Road extension is significantly diminished. Under these conditions and at full development of Gawler East & Concordia, traffic volumes on Potts Road would only reduce to about 13,500 vehicles per day, almost double the estimated traffic volume compared to Council’s GELR alignment options once the GELR Tiver Road extension occurs. The Council’s alignment options would result in approximately 7,400 vehicles per day once the GELR Tiver Road extension has occurred.

• In addition noise levels from traffic would increase significantly on Potts Road property owners and remain higher permanently than would result from the Council’s alignments.

• Access to Main North Road at the Potts Road intersection under full development scenarios of Gawler East and Concordia will exacerbate existing traffic congestion along Main North Road, particularly during peak daily traffic periods.

• The proposed State Government alignment does not provide a long term strategic approach to traffic management in Gawler, particularly as development occurs in neighbouring areas.

• Council is of the opinion that the Link Road should have the ability to be readily extended to the recently upgraded Tiver Road intersection to cater for growth ($13.7m upgrade completed by the State Government).

Whilst the State Government’s alignment would provide for the requirements of the Gawler Development Plan, thus enable creation of more than 1,000 allotments in Gawler East Development Zone, it does not meet the Council long term strategic objective for the GELR. This objective provides a preferential, non-stop extension of the GELR through to the Tiver Road/Main North Road intersection that its preferred alignments support. This has the benefit of minimising impacts from increasing traffic volumes on Potts road and Main North Road as development occurs in the Gawler East Development Zone and the greater region. The Council in selecting a preferred alignment is effectively resolving that the long term benefits of its choice of alignment in all things, on balance, out ways the impacts on the existing directly affected community from this decision. Should Council seek to consider a motion to now support the DPTI alignment as its preferred alignment, a motion will need to be put first to rescind Motion No 2015:06:260 (as detailed above) will first need to occur.


of 84

Conclusion of Preferred Alignment When analysing the benefits of the DPTI alignment compared to Council’s alignments it is heavily biased on the long term objective of the future Tiver Road extension being considered. That is, should the Tiver Road extension not be an option in the future then the DPTI alignment demonstrates a more favourable option based on the following reasons:

• Significantly less travel time; some 30 seconds less when compared to both Council’s preferred alignments to Main North Road;

• Minimal impact on the environment by virtue of a reduced number of significant and/regulate trees requiring removal, and reduced interaction with locations identified as potential habitats for the Flinders Ranges Worm Lizard;

• The distance of the GELR from the local heritage listed Bentley property results in nil impact;

• No requirement for noise attenuation measures for the upper section of Potts Road as the GELR intersects Potts Road between Mueller Drive and Bowman Court;

• Property acquisition is limited to five (5) partial acquisitions of properties between One Tree Hill Road and Potts Road; and

• The GELR can be constructed within the allocated $55m budget. This is tempered somewhat by the need for noise attenuation along the southern most section of the GELR, namely for properties that back onto its corridor which are predominately from the Retirement Village. The recent Phase 3 community consultation also concluded DPTI as being the most supported alignment by the community (75%), for the reasons of cost (i.e. no requirement for additional funding by Council and therefore the community) and least amount of land acquisition. The issue of cost has been addressed later in this report under a proposed funding proposition which will now significantly reduce the financial impacts of the GELR on the Council should it adopt the Eastern Alternative or Revised Eckerman Avenue alignment. However, a fundamental aspect of the DPTI alignment is that it does not meet Council’s long term strategic approach to the management of traffic in Gawler by way of a future direct, non stop extension of the GELR along Bentley Avenue and onto Tiver Rd (at Main North Road). That is, the benefit of a future Tiver Road connection is diminished under the DPTI alignment. The traffic redistribution which would occur would not realise the full benefit of a Tiver Road extension under Council’s other proposed alignments. This is due to the intersect point proposed on Potts Road on the DPTI alignment which does not facilitate a future direct, non stop extension of the GELR through to Tiver Road. Under this alignment Potts Road would continue to receive a significant proportion of traffic due to increased vehicle traffic on Potts Road to Main North Rd in lieu of the Potts Road / Tiver Extension route (refer to Table 10 for details).

As indicated in the recent Phase 3 community consultation undertaken, property owners along Potts Rd cited extra traffic diverted down Potts Road as being a primary cause of concern. Whilst this traffic will occur irrespective of which alignment is adopted in the short-term (i.e. all traffic from Link Road is diverted down Potts Road), property owners along Potts would continue to feel the extra effects of traffic in the long term under the DPTI alignment even when a future Tiver Rd extension comes into effect. At this time it is relevant to reiterate the Council’s resolution from its Special Council Meeting held on 30 June 2015, whereby Council resolved that it did not support the State Government’s proposed GELR alignment (as quoted below):


of 84

Moved by Cr A Shackley Seconded by Deputy Mayor I Tooley Motion No: 2015:06:260

7. Inform the State Government (and other interested parties) that the Council does not support the alignment of the Link Road as set out in the DPTI documents for public consultation some time ago. Council considers that a link to Tiver Road is the preferred option and that the alignment at Potts Road should facilitate this. Council requests DPTI to consider Route alignment 1 Eastern alignment and Route alignment 2 Eckerman alignment set out in the report to Council and documentation provided by Tonkin and URPS and assist in resolving a preferred alignment. Council considers that there may be a number of potential benefits with the proposed options to assist with traffic movement and overall community outcomes.

On this basis, with a long term strategic objective endorsed by the Council, staff have re-iterated the Eastern Alternative and Revised Eckerman Alignments as Council’s preferred alignments, and in the context of both meeting the short-term and long-term objectives for the Gawler east rezoning and the wider management of traffic in the Gawler area. Revised Eckerman Alignment The Revised Eckerman option follows the same alignment for the majority of the route (utilises the existing Eckerman Avenue) with a minor shift further south-east once past the house at property 236 One Tree Hill Road and large sheds at property 244 One Tree Hill Road. The rationale behind this design refinement was to avoid five (5) large remnant Mallee Box (Eucalyptus Porosa) trees within the property at 242 One Tree Hill Road. Specific changes to impacts of the proposed refinement at this location are:

• Flora & Fauna - The net change in flora impacts is the preservation of 5 Mallee Box (Eucalyptus Porosa) trees

• Social Effects - The amenity impacts to the existing dwellings is greater to property 244 One Tree Hill Road, and to a lesser extent 242 One Tree Hill Road as the alignment is now closer to these properties. A nominal improvement would result in 236 One Tree Hill Road.

• Land Acquisition - The shift in alignment will also require additional land acquisition from 242 and 244 One Tree Hill Road as well as 159 Potts Road. This will result in an overall increase in property acquisition required by 0.66ha.

Whilst there was an improvement to the reduction in impacts to flora through this refinement, the overall outcome did not result a material difference in the assessment of the overall preferred route for the Council’s alignments. Eastern Alternative Alignment The Eastern Alternative Alignment adopts the original alignment proposed by DPTI from the Springwood Boundary through to One Tree Hill Road and then follows an off-road alignment from the roundabout intersection at Link Road / Kelly Road / One Tree Road to the new bridge over the watercourse to rear of property 228 One Tree Hill Road. The alignment passes through State Government owned land to the west of One Tree Hill and the rear properties of 226 and 228 One Tree Hill Road.


of 84

The key features of this change that resulted in improvements to the impacts included:

• Safety - One roundabout intersection and reduced traffic interactions between Link Road

and existing One Tree Hill Road users through (i.e. local movements and predominant GELR movements)

- Removal of conflict with entry/exit from existing properties along One Tree Hill Road (whereas the Revised Eckerman Alignment has conflicts with entry/exit from existing properties along Eckerman Avenue)

• Flora

- No impacts to the majority of existing large trees on One Tree Hill Rd section from Kelly Road to Eckerman Avenue. These trees form a character statement for the entry into Gawler as well as being a mix of regulated & significant trees.

- The tree impact through properties 226 and 228 One Tree Hill Road is limited.

• Local Heritage - The GELR is now approximately 100m away from the heritage property, and clear

of the defined heritage significant curtilage (similar to the Revised Eckerman Alignment).

• Noise

- Noise attenuation measures are not required (which is significantly less when compared to the Revised Eckerman Alignment).

• Social Effects

- Whilst not material in terms of an alteration of the ranking the refinement does provide an improved amenity to existing properties along One Tree Hill Road due to the proposed citing of the roadway.

• Property

- Extent of acquisition is the same, although includes an additional parcel of State Government land (which is substantially less compared Revised Eckerman Alignment).

When undertaking major infrastructure projects such as the Gawler East Link Road, an integrated approach is used to consider both the technical inputs and analyses, as well as feedback from the community to understand the impacts on the environment, the community and financially. It is common however, that these impacts (whether identified by the community or through technical analyses) cannot be completely removed or mitigated. The ultimate objective though, is to seek a solution that demonstrates an overall balanced outcome that manages the environmental, social and financial impacts. On this basis and when comparing the two (2) Council alignments, the Eastern Alternative Alignment clearly continues to provide for the most optimum alignment.


of 84

Synergies between the Eastern Alternative Alignment & State Government Alignment The Eastern Alternative Alignment adopts the original alignment proposed by DPTI from the Springwood Boundary through to One Tree Hill Road. Therefore, approximately 60% of the GELR alignments are exactly the same. In addition, adopting a large proportion of the DPTI alignment as the Eastern Alternative alignment is also in keeping with the feedback received from the recent community consultation which supported the DPTI alignment. The predominant difference occurs south of One Tree Hill Road, whereby the route is aligned to a point on Potts Road that allows for a direct connection to a future Tiver Road Extension, and thus satisfying Council’s long-term strategic objectives. In terms of cost, which was a significant concern raised by the community in the recent consultation, the Eastern Alternative alignment does not result in a need for additional Council funds as it can be delivered within the State Government allocation of $55 million dollars under a funding mechanism which is detailed later in this report. The Eastern Alternative alignment thus demonstrates on balance, a more beneficial outcome from an environmental, social and financial perspective, and is recommended as the preferred alignment for the GELR. Land Acquisition Responsibilities & Formal Property Valuations As discussed in the Council Agenda Report 18 August 2016, DPTI is considered to be the responsible party for the acquisition of land associated with GELR Project. The GELR Project is a State Government funded project to be delivered by the Department of Planning, Transport & Infrastructure (DPTI) via the legal entity; Commissioner of Highways under the Highways Act. Therefore, the creation of the road corridor (for the purposes of building the GELR) whether through Council, private or public lands, is the responsibility of Commissioner of Highways. The process of acquiring land would involve the Commissioner of Highways (with approval of the Minister for Transport) exercising his power under section 20 of the Highways Act 1926 to acquire land for the purposes of “future roadwork”. The land acquired by compulsory acquisition process would occur under the Land Acquisition Act 1969. It is relevant to note that property can be acquired by agreement or through the compulsory acquisition process. Acquisition by agreement occurs when the owner and government negotiate and achieve agreement about the value and acquisition of the property. This process can commence at any time and may result in an early resolution. Acquisition by compulsory acquisition is undertaken by the giving of formal legal notices under the Land Acquisition Act, 1969. In both cases, compensation entitlements are provided over the land value itself. The compulsory land acquisition process follows specific steps as set out by the Land Acquisition Act 1969 to arrive at an agreed position between the acquirer and the property owner. A critical step in the process is the determination of the property value and compensation. When the Commissioner of Highways issues the Notice of Acquisition to the owner, it is also required to make an offer stating the amount of compensation it has determined and pay that amount into the Supreme Court of South Australia. The owner is still entitled to negotiate an agreed amount of compensation with the Commissioner of Highways.


of 84

Within this process, compensation for a property (whether by monetary or non-monetary means) must adequately compensate a person for any loss they have suffered by reason of the acquisition. This includes the actual value of the property/land to be acquired, any loss to the remaining land caused by partial acquisition, any other loss due to disturbance and special value, including business based uses.

In assessing the actual value of the land, consideration is given to the market value of the property which is determined by experienced independent valuers based on market sale evidence of similar properties. The market value is assessed as if the road upgrade was not occurring, to ensure an accurate unaffected value is obtained. The owner is also entitled to obtain their own valuation and professional advice such as legal advice and conveyancing, with reasonable costs reimbursed by the Commissioner of Highways. If agreement cannot be reached between the owner and DPTI, it may be required to seek the assistance of the courts. The process is previously discussed in detail at Item 2.4 of Council Agenda Report 18 August 2016. DPTI will allocate staff to assist property owners throughout the process and be the primary point of contact to discuss any issues and address any questions owners may have. Council will not be directly involved with the land acquisition process, but will assist in facilitating the process where its powers under the Local Government Act are required. Property Costings As previously advised in the Council Agenda Report 18 August 2016, Property & Advisory were engaged to undertake a desk-top value analysis of the properties that were directly affected by each alignment via land acquisition requirements, and indirectly affected by way of developable areas depending on the alignment. The analysis was specifically undertaken for the purposes of informing the Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) and to reconcile against the cost estimates, and were not to be used or referred to for the future land acquisition for the project which follows a more stringent and formal process under the Land Acquisitions Act (1999). The approach used by Property and Advisory to inform the MCA considered sales evidence, the establishment of value ranges for the different categories of land under review (principally according to zoning and size), viewing properties from a distance and then applying the analysed value ranges to the ‘acquired land’ under each alignment. In considering individual properties, regard has been given to zoning, size, topography, accessibility, level of improvements (if any) and other pertinent factors observed during inspection. Therefore, the values determined have been undertaken primarily on a ‘simplistic’ basis, meaning that a rate per hectare has been applied to the acquired land to establish a land value, to which has been added the depreciated replacement cost of any improvements lost through acquisition. It was considered that this would produce results of sufficient accuracy, given the comparative nature of the exercise for the purposes of the MCA. For the current cost estimates produced for each alignment, appropriate allowances have been made within the overall risk allocation costs within the estimates for land acquisition and property values. That is, contingency costs have been allocated into the overall risk profile of the cost estimate to account for the current level of confidence in these valuations.


of 84

The final costs associated with land acquisition will not be determined until the formal acquisition process is commissioned as part of the GELR project and will have specific regard to any existing options developers may have over land, contracts in place, the state of any Development Applications is place and any other pertinent factor which would affect the value of any land parcel required for acquisition. Land acquisition requirements for the GELR will require formal property valuations and follow the requirements of the Land Acquisition Act (1999), which is discussed earlier in this Report. Cost of GELR Alignments and Value Management Opportunities As previously discussed in the Council Agenda Report 18 August 2016, revised cost estimates for the GELR have been prepared for each of the proposed Council alignments and the State Government (DPTI) alignment. This has allowed Council to understand the cost impact should a Council preferred alignment be adopted in lieu of the DPTI alignment. The costing process for the alignments also implemented ‘value management opportunities’ to realise cost savings and arrive at a revised position with respect to the project’s objectives and scope. The ‘value management opportunities’ include savings realised through the following principles:

a) Scope Enhancements & Design Improvements by altering the design without compromising the asset’s ultimate objective and functionality;

b) Project Integration – delivery as one project c) Deferral of non-essential infrastructure – delayed investment in infrastructure until

required in the future. A value management workshop was undertaken during the costing process to determine where possible savings could be made through the above principles. The workshop included representatives from the developer of Springwood, Council staff, Cost Consultant Sempac, and Design Consultant Wallbridge & Gilbert (who completed the previous more advanced design for the DPTI alignment and therefore have sound knowledge of the project). The outcomes are discussed below. (a) Scope Enhancements & Design Improvements The workshop derived several opportunities whereby the design could be altered, thus realising immediate and permanent cost savings. The most significant saving is through constructing a granular pavement with bitumen hotmix overlay (in lieu of full-depth asphalt pavement) which does not alter the design life of the pavement but requires asset management practices in line with the Council’s existing asset base. Further savings were realized by removing parking bays, removing a footpath and changing its type, use of targeted street lighting in lieu of full road lighting, reduced services allocations to extent necessary to facilitate development and further elements.


of 84

(b) Project Integration Initial delivery (and therefore costings) of GELR will be based on constructing the road as separable parts, namely the sections of:

• Springwood (Developer) • Link Road (from Springwood to Potts Road) • Potts Road Upgrade (to form part of GELR) • Main North Road/Potts Road Intersection Upgrade

It is recognised that the procurement and construction of the entire alignment as one (1) project, rather than as four (4) separate parts, would realise significant cost savings. These savings are attributed by the following;

• Reduced procurement administration costs through one tender process instead of multiple tenders

• The purchasing power and therefore savings on large projects for plant, labour and materials is greater than for smaller projects, which typically attract higher rates for these items.

• a coordinated delivery programme allows efficiencies to be gained through common construction practices and resourcing

• reduced project management and administration costs as resources are common and can be allocated across the entire project

• project risks can be spread and managed across one large project. Potential issues in part area of a project will allow works to be reprogrammed and continue in other areas

• reduced project interfacing risks across four (4) contractors which can attract significant delay costs should one project impact another

(c) Deferral of non-essential infrastructure (at day opening) The Gawler East Link Road is required to be constructed by 30 June 2019. When opened, the road is likely to be operational within an environment that is predominantly rural in nature, whilst residential development progressively occurs over the future years. In light of this, there are advantages of progressively staging the implementation of some of the road’s infrastructure in parallel to future residential development and with co-contributions by Developers. Examples include footpaths, lighting and some drainage. This approach has the distinct advantages through the installation of infrastructure at a time when it is needed, ensuring road and verge-side infrastructure is not damaged by the construction of future development activities, and negates over-capitalisation from early investment in non-essential infrastructure. It also reduces operating costs for the Council associated with these assets (ie depreciation, power, maintenance) until such time as they are actually required to be delivered. The deferral of non-essential infrastructure as described in the aforementioned is not necessarily a direct saving to the overall GELR required for Gawler East Development Zone; but rather a delayed and transferred cost which will be borne by future Developers. In simplistic terms, any road and verge-side infrastructure that is not required at the time when the GELR is first operational will be progressively implemented over time by Council (and/or developers as development occurs) through funds obtained by the Council from Developers to fund the works as and when they fall due.


of 84

Sufficient verge width will need to be allowed for the future infrastructure such as additional drainage, lighting, footpaths, soft and hard landscape requirements (i.e. the road footprint will be constructed to its ultimate width thus future-proofing any allowances for the additional infrastructure) This mechanism deferring non-essential infrastructure and cost recovery through a charge-out rate on Developers is further discussed later in this report. A pictorial representation for the application of the value management opportunities described above is provided in Figure 2 below: FIGURE 2 : DEFERRED INFRASTRUCTURE OVERVIEW

Cost Estimate Summary for Each Alignment Based on the above, a cost estimate summary for each alignment is presented in the Tables below. The costs associated with the deferred costs are based on an initial assessment with additional analysis required to confirm final costs attributable.


of 84

TABLE 11 – COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY STATE GOVERNMENT (DPTI) ALIGNMENT ($2016) Link Road Components Ultimate

Full Scope GELR

Value Managed GELR (1)

Proposed Council Contributions

Main Alignment (Springwood Boundary to Potts Rd)

37,729,043 27,805,474

Potts Road (Lower Section) 5,959,046 3,994,5863 2,377,7024 Potts Road (Upper Section) N/A5 N/A5 Potts Road / Adelaide Road Intersection

12,279,187 11,646,189

Subtotal: 55,967,275 43,446,249 $2,377,702 Link Road – Springwood Community

9,184,137 4,895,196 -

TOTAL: 65,1517,412 48,341,445(2) $2,377,702 Notes:

1. “Value Management” represents the total savings realised by delivery method, value engineering opportunities and deferring non-essential infrastructure.

2. The $48m construction cost based on this scenario is predicated on Council facilitating the completed value engineering solution to the entire DPTI alignment, including the delayed provision of non-essential Link Road elements (i.e. ~$3.8m).

3. Savings realised by constructing granular pavement in lieu of full-depth asphalt, and deleting the common services trench.

4. Cost to council for upgrading Potts Road that would have otherwise been required and thus forms a reasonable basis for Council to make this contribution.

5. Cost is not applicable as DPTI alignment intersects midway along Potts Road. TABLE 12 – COST ESTIMATE FOR EASTERN ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT Link Road Components Ultimate

Full Scope Link Road

Value Management Link Road


39,028,378 29,704,284*

Potts Road (Lower Section) 5,959,046 3,994,586A Potts Road (Upper Section) 5,374,873 3,735,666* Potts Road / Adelaide Road Intersection 12,279,187 11,646,189* Subtotal: 62,641,187 49,080,725 Link Road – Springwood Community: 9,184,137 4,895,196 TOTAL: 71,825,324 53,975,921 Deferred Costs [Link Road - from Springwood (i.e. Calton Rd) to Potts Rd]:

- 6,195,871

Notes: 1. ‘*’ = the total savings realised by delivery method, value engineering & management

opportunities and deferring non-essential infrastructure: a) Scope & design changes – savings realised today. b) Deferred costs – infrastructure deferred to a later date as development comes

on-line (i.e. deferred non-essential infrastructure).


of 84

c) Project Integration – coordinated project approach with procurement, project management, construction, programming, etc.

2. ‘A’ = Savings to Potts Road (lower section) realised by constructing granular pavement in lieu of full-depth asphalt, and deleting the common services trench.

3. Cost Difference between DPTI & Council Alignment (Valued Engineered) = $1,898,810 4. Potts Road (lower section) - cost for upgrading Potts Road that would have otherwise

been required and thus forms a reasonable basis for Council to make this contribution = $2,377,702.

5. Costs are based on 2016 dollars. Deferred costs to be indexed accordingly. TABLE 13 – COST ESTIMATE FOR REVISED ECKERMAN ALIGNMENT Link Road Components Ultimate

Full Scope Link Road

Value Management Link Road


39,049,528 30,107,695*

Potts Road (Lower Section) 5,959,046 3,994,586A Potts Road (Upper Section) 5,374,873 3,735,666* Potts Road / Adelaide Road Intersection 12,279,187 11,646,189* Subtotal: 62,662,634 49,484,136 Link Road – Springwood Community: 9,184,137 4,895,196 TOTAL: 71,846,771 54,379,332 Deferred Costs [Link Road - from Springwood (i.e. Calton Rd) to Potts Rd]:

- 6,195,871

Notes: 1. ‘*’ = the total savings realised by delivery method, value engineering & management

opportunities and deferring non-essential infrastructure: d) Scope & design changes – savings realised today e) Deferred costs – infrastructure deferred to a later date as development comes

on-line (i.e. deferred non-essential infrastructure) f) Project Integration – coordinated project approach with procurement, project

management, construction, programming, etc 2. ‘A’ = Savings to Potts Road (lower section) realised by constructing granular pavement in

lieu of full-depth asphalt, and deleting the common services trench 3. Cost Difference between DPTI & Council Alignment (Valued Engineered) = $1,898,810 4. Potts Road (lower section) - cost for upgrading Potts Road that would have otherwise

been required and thus forms a reasonable basis for Council to make this contribution = $2,377,702

5. Costs are based on 2016 dollars. Deferred costs to be indexed accordingly Risk Allowances in Project Costs The incorporation of risk allowances into major infrastructure projects follows the guidance of the “Best Practice Cost Estimation Standard for Publicly Funded Road and Rail Construction, May 2011” published by the Federal Government’s Department of Infrastructure and Transport.


of 84

There are 2 categories of risk that are determined:

• Inherent risk: This is the uncertainty of the cost of items that will be required in the construction of the works and is documented in the range of both quantity and cost rate for a particular item

• Contingent risk: This is the uncertainty of the cost of items that may be required in the design & construction of the works and is documented in the range of quantity and cost rate for a particular item as well as a likelihood of occurrence.

Examples of inherent risks include; uncertainty in the cost of pavement (due to exact quantities / supply rates / production rates) & property valuations (value per sqm), and contingent risks are the costs associated with contaminated materials, unexpected storm damage etc. The method of analysis uses a probabilistic analysis technique which recognises that all risks will not all occur at once and develops a frequency / value distribution (‘probability density function’ – i.e. a bell curve is an example of a probability density function). The current risk allowances in the estimates vary depending on the alignment, but are generally in the order $6.5 M to $7.5M. As the designs evolves, construction appreciation becomes more detailed, and the project progresses through procurement; the confidence levels around the risk (both nature, type, materiality and quantum) is expected to increase. For this cost estimates provided for the GELR alignments a Monte Carlo estimation method has been utilised which is seen as best practice in the construction industry. Put simply this method adopts probabilistic type evaluations aligned to the statistical confidence level for each discrete estimated item. The costs estimates provided are based on a P90 standard within this method, that is, 90% of the time the tendered price will be lower than the estimate provided. This provides a very high level of confidence on a projects ability to meet the nominated budget based on the known project scope and confidence in various discrete project elements at the time of the estimate being undertaken. Traffic Interventions As part of the Gawler East Rezoning and the GELR, there have been several analyses undertaken to assess the broader impacts from the rezoning & GELR on the broader Gawler network. These include;

• Gawler East DPA Traffic Assessment - QED Report December 2008 • Gawler Growth Areas Transport Framework – DPTI Report May 2009 • Tonkin Review of the Traffic Modelling – Tonkin Report July 2010 • Gawler East Urban Development Local Road Traffic Assessment – Tonkin Report

2009 • SMEC Review of Gawler East Mastem Model – SMEC Report March 2015 • DPTI Main North Road/Adelaide Road Management Plan – DPTI Report 2008

The resultant output from these analyses derived a series of traffic interventions across the broader road network ranging from intersection and road upgrade works, through to road sealing and the installation of traffic control devices. These interventions have not been considered by the Council formally to this point however budget allocation of $3.7M has been made in accordance with previous resolutions on this matter.


of 84

A more recent draft study termed Gawler Transport & Traffic Management Plan (by Mott MacDonald) had also been commissioned by Council to provide guidance and strategic policy direction for transport and traffic measures for Gawler, in response to the future expansion of new growth areas such as Gawler East, New Southern Urban Areas and Concordia. The report also identified a functional road hierarchy for Gawler which provides a framework for the development of future transport infrastructure. Given the age of the previous studies (that led to the initial list of traffic interventions), and to ensure alignment with the most recent Transport & Traffic Management Plan for Gawler, it is necessary to review and confirm the list of traffic interventions. Tonkin Consulting and Sempac Cost Consultants have been engaged to analyse all relevant prior documentation associated with Gawler East Rezoning and the GELR and to determine the validity and/or relevance, as well as the cost, of the Traffic Interventions identified. The work will also make recommendations on any new or proposed changes to the interventions, and identify the key generators (or ‘drivers’) for each existing, new or changed intervention. This work will ultimately allow the appropriate and more accurate apportionment of responsibility and costs to be made between Council, other developers and the State Government. In respect to the current cost of the traffic interventions as they have been prepared to date is in the order of $5.74M for Council, $7.45M for other Developers and $18.65M the State Government. Council have a budget allocated in its Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) of $3.7M for these works at present. The cost allocated in the LTFP is reflective of the previous resolutions of the Council on this matter but will need to be updated based on the final allocation of Council’s costs associated with the Gawler East Link Road Traffic Interventions. The work is expected to be completed within the next month or so and allow the parties to continue to work collaboratively on deriving an equitable outcome. This matter will be presented to the Council in the near future as part of its deliberations and prior to finalising any legal deeds for this project. Potts Road (Lower) - Intervention The lower section of Potts Road forms part of the overall GELR alignment and must be delivered as part of the project to satisfy the 1000 lot non complying trigger in the Gawler Development Plan. This intervention has been analysed in isolation to the remaining interventions which are further discussed earlier. The Potts Road (Lower) intervention is predicated on a historical arrangement between Council, State Government and the Springwood developer, whereby the reasonability’s and cost associated with upgrading this section of the road is based on a cost sharing arrangement between the parties. The original (unapproved) shared arrangement consisted of a 40% contribution by Springwood, 10% contribution by the State Government and 50% contribution by Council. Council’s contribution is based on its responsibility for upgrading Potts Road that would have otherwise been required based on natural growth in Gawler and without the Gawler East rezoning. Within the Council’s current Long Term Capital Works Program an allocation of $2.04M is provided for road, stormwater and drainage upgrades to Potts Road (Lower) over the next two (2) financial years.


of 84

Council staff commissioned an Investigations Report (undertaken by Tonkin Consulting) which sought to validate the intervention requirements for Potts Road, and allow a more thorough understanding of Council’s responsibilities with respect to the prior commitment for Link Road. The report is contained in Attachment 2 and considered the following:

• Strategic nature of the Potts Road within Gawler • Expected growth or changes in surrounding conditions • Road classification type • Traffic volumes current and future • Pedestrian and cyclist movements • Parking requirements • Remaining asset (pavement) life • Adequacy of drainage and lighting

The investigations determined that, based on natural growth in the Gawler area and without the Gawler East rezoning, Potts Road (Lower) would need to be upgraded to ‘Collector Road 1’ standards in accordance with Council’s Traffic and Transport Standards and Guidelines. The pavement will also require full reconstruction given that the existing pavement is in poor condition and is predominantly deteriorated, and at the end of its asset life. The cost to upgrade Potts Rd to ‘Collector Road 1’ was determined to be in the order of $2.4 million (by Sempac Consulting), with a value managed overlay allocated to the scope. As discussed earlier, the lower section of Potts Road forms part of the overall Gawler East Link Road alignment and will be delivered as part of the overall GELR project. The final cross section for Potts Road upgrade (as part of the GELR) is typically consistent with the remaining GELR Alignment in its ultimate form (traffic lanes, cycle lanes, footpaths on both sides, on street parking bays, lighting and drainage). Given the roadway is within an existing residential community the opportunity to defer infrastructure is not applicable in this instance. The cost of upgrading Potts Rd (Lower) is approximately $4 million (post value-management) as shown in the concept sketch below:


of 84

In summary, council contribution for Potts Road (Lower) is based on upgrading the road to ‘Collector Road 1’ standards in accordance with Council’s Traffic and Transport Standards and Guidelines. The cost of the upgrade is in the order $2.4 million and forms a reasonable basis for Council to make this contribution to the GELR project which would have otherwise been required without the Gawler East Development. Project Costs, Legal Instruments, Separate Rate On 5 October 2016, and in collaboration with DPTI and Springwood Communities, Council met with the Minister for Infrastructure to present its optimum funding model for delivering the preferred GELR alignment (Village Centre on Calton Rd to Potts Rd at the Bentley Road Reserve). This proposed funding model, which received in-principle support from the Minister, was simply to provide the total cost of the preferred GELR within the $55 million allocated in the State Government budget. Please refer to Attachment 3. In this optimum scenario the State Government would essentially ‘bank roll’ the total cost of the preferred alignment upfront, enabling Council to achieve its preferred long term strategic alignment to the Bentley Road/Tiver Road intersection to the south, without the necessity for Council to borrow funds. This would ultimately save Council approximately $450,000 in interest repayments on an annual basis, as Council’s preferred strategic alignment to Bentley Road/Tiver Road intersection in the south is estimated to cost $5.6 million. This would also allow Springwood Communities to bring forward the construction of the GELR within their estate in the north, ensuring a connection to Calton Road at the proposed village centre and avoiding the possibility of Springwood Communities either providing an suboptimum connection to Calton Road at Cheek Ave or no connection is facilitated and the State Government withdraws their funding. The cost of this section of the GELR is valued at $4.9 million. However, it is not required until 1000 allotments exist in the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones, and based on existing demand this will not be required until approximately 2020. To ensure the preferred GELR alignment can be achieved within the $55 million budget, Council has ultimately agreed to value engineer the scope of the road, defer non-essential infrastructure and achieve significant efficiencies through a collaborative approach to the roads procurement and construction. The has ultimately achieved significant upfront savings across the entire length of Council’s preferred alignments, to the extent that the total cost of the preferred GELR is within the $55 million allocated by the State Government. Under this optimum funding model it was also suggested to the Minister that a mechanism to reimburse the State Government for its upfront expenditure on a per allotment basis overtime time would be facilitated by Council in order to deliver net savings to the State Government, and ultimately provide a return on investment. This payment back to the State Government has been put as a non-negotiable element of the proposition. In essence a road that was anticipated to cost the State Government $55 million will now cost significantly less due to the collective and collaborative efforts of Council, DPTI and Springwood Communities, which the State Government will realise overtime as development occurs.


of 84

This reimbursement to the State Government would occur via an Infrastructure Agreement with all developers in the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones requiring a per allotment contribution which is payable upon the creation of each new allotment prior to Section 51 clearance. It is important to note that by applying this contribution before individual allotments are created, the cost is immediately attributed to the developer and not the eventual resident. Likewise, if the land is not subdivided no such contribution would be required to the land owner. This is a true “developer pays principle”. This would require the use of a Land Management Agreement (LMA) linking the Infrastructure Agreement to the Certificate of Title (Land). These monies would then be passed onto the State Government overtime if and when development occurs, this is consistent with the principles of the new Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Council would also seek to facilitate a Separate Rate over all land in the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones as a further layer of security for the State Government, ensuring payments are made as development occurs. Separate Rates can be applied by a Council, pursuant to Section 154 of the Local Government Act 1999, which prescribes:

Sec 154 (1): A council may declare a separate rate on rateable land within a part of the area of the council for the purpose of planning, carrying out, making available, supporting, maintaining or improving an activity that is, or is intended to be, of particular benefit to the land, or the occupiers of the land, within that part of the area, or to visitors to that part of the area.

The key element relating to a Separate Rate is that it can only be levied against a part of the Council area to which the fund delivers a defined outcome (i.e. unlike General rates which are applied against the whole Council area). Further, the part of the Council area that incurs a Separate Rate is levied the tax on the basis that such properties are to receive a particular benefit from the purpose for which the Separate Rate is established. Pursuant to Section 154(5)(b), a Separate Rate can be applied for a period exceeding one year. It is intended that this Separate Rate would be set over all land within the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones but automatically rebated to $0, such that payment of this Separate Rate would only eventuate should the land be subdivided without the primary legal instrument being established to attract the per allotment contribution, ie the Infrastructure Agreement. In essence, the per allotment contribution payable under the Infrastructure Agreement, and or the payment of the Separate Rate, would only occur if and when the land is subdivided. If the land is not divided, no payment would be required by the land owner. While the Minister, in his correspondence to Council, provided in-principle support for the above mentioned optimum funding model, this was subject to Council agreeing to the following conditions:

1. Finalising the road alignment at its meeting on 25 October 2016, so procurement processes can commence;

2. Agree to accept responsibility for the proposed bridge over the South Para River as part of accepting responsibility for the entire Gawler East Link Road once constructed

3. Making a substantial commitment to the upgrade of Potts Road through a funding contribution to the construction cost;

4. Negotiating a funding contribution to the construction cost of the Link Road through the Springwood development from Springwood Communities, in particular for the section that connects the community centre with Calton Road and;


of 84

5. Securing, through Deed arrangements (or similar), a commitment from Springwood Communities to accelerate of the development, especially the proposed community centre and facilities.

In relations to points 1 and 2 of the Minister’s letter, relating to Council’s preferred alignment for the GELR and ownership of the Bridge over the South Para River, this is quite straight forward with commentary provided in this report to assist Council in this decision making process. However, in summary it is recommended that the Eastern Alternative Alignment be adopted by Council, and that Council accepts ownership of the bridge over the South Para River. In relations to points 3 and 4 of the Minister’s letter relating to Council making a substantial contribution to the upgrade of Potts Road, and the funding contribution to be negotiated with Springwood Communities for the construction cost of the GELR through the Springwood development, it is recommended Council proposed to provide back to the State Government a net savings/reimbursement of approximately $8,167,000. This consists of a $2,400,000 upfront contribution made by Council for the upgrading of Potts Road, of which $2,000,000 is already within the Long Term Financial Plan for upgrading Potts Road. This is regardless of any development occurring in the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones. In addition, a total of $5,767,000 to be progressively reimbursed back to State Government over the life of the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zone on a per allotment basis if and when development occurs. This $5,767,000 includes the full cost of the GELR within the Springwood Communities estate of $4,900,000, which Springwood Communities has agreed to pay on a per allotment contribution of $3,267 over the next 1500 allotments. To ensure an equitable approach to developer contributions is provided for the GELR in both the north and south, it is proposed that this same per allotment contribution rate be applied to all other developers, excluding that of the Commissioner of Highways land. It therefore anticipated based on a yield of approximately 1000 allotments that $3,267,000 will be generated by all other developers, with $867,000 to be provided back to the State Government for a total of $5,767,000. The remaining $2,400,000 will be retained by Council to cover its initial $400,000 shortfall identified in the Long Term Financial Plan for upgrading Potts Road, and to cover the deferred infrastructure costs (approx. $2,000,000) associated with the section of the GELR through the Commissioner of Highways land. In addition to the reimbursement back to the State Government there is also the added requirement to further secure an additional per allotment contribution from all other future developers for infrastructure that has been deferred. The total cost of this defer infrastructure is valued at $4,200,000. These monies would be held by Council to deliver infrastructure in a sequential manner as development occurs along the GELR. In regards to point 5, which relates to securing a commitment from Springwood Communities to accelerate development, Springwood Communities have agreed to reimburse the State Government for 100% of the cost of the GELR within Springwood ($4,900,000) over next 700 , rather than 1500. They have also proposed to provide a lump sum upfront payment of $500,000 for the Village Centre connection to Calton Road, and to enter into a Deed(s) creating a positive obligation to further accelerate the delivery of a tenant for the proposed supermarket tenancy. A letter from Springwood Communities is contained in Attachment 4.


of 84

Other Critical Infrastructure and Funding Models In addition the use of the above funding model, which is designed to facilitate a per allotment contribution, it is proposed that similar scheme of Infrastructure Agreements and Separate Rates be established for the provision and funding of other critical infrastructure. This includes Local Traffic Interventions as well as the provision and funding of Community Infrastructure. A critical element to any developer contribution scheme is that equity is applied in regards to the total payments made throughout the Gawler East area. Refer to the ‘Development (Infrastructure) Deed – Payment breakdown per allotment contribution’ table below. This details the individual categories of infrastructure and corresponding contributions that will be compiled. Importantly an overall contribution rate of $9,000 -11,000 is proposed, which is considered to be sustainable.

Development (Infrastructure) Deed - Payment Breakdown/Per Allotment Contribution Link Road (Preferred Alignment to Village Centre)

Total

Northern Section - Springwood Communities $4,900,000 Central Section - Commissioner of Highways (CoH) N/A

Southern Section - Council/Other Future Developers (OFD) $3,267,000 Subtotal $8,167,000

Link Road Non-essential Infrastructure (value engineering)

Deferred Infrastructure Costs (index in accordance with RBCI) $4,200,000 Subtotal $4,200,000 Traffic Intervention Total

Potts Rd Upgrade (Lower Section) $1,600,000 Cheek Ave Upgrade $830,000 Barossa Valley Way/Cheek Ave Intersection Interim 0 Calton Rd Upgrade (Cheek to project entrance) $2,740,000 Calton Rd (Murray St to Cheek Ave) - pavement marking $260,000 Calton Rd (Murray St to Cheek Ave)- pavement rehabilitation 0 Calton Rd Murray St intersection $180,000 Calton Rd Link Rd at Hamilton Reserve $130,000 Calton Rd and Link Rd at Cheek Ave $660,000 Bike Pathway (Calton to Barossa Valley Way) $220,000 Calton Rd upgrade project entrance to Balmoral Rd $730,000 Link Rd Balmoral Rd Intersection $660,000 Frist Street/Fifth/Hill Intersection $200,000 Subtotal 8,210,000

* It is envisaged that all cost will be index in accordance with RBCI. The traffic intervention cost exclude expenditure that would otherwise be required by Council regardless of future development occurring in Gawler East.


of 84

Development (Infrastructure) Deed - Payment Breakdown/Per Allotment Contribution Community Infrastructure Total

1 x District Play Space $1,200,000 1 x General (junior) Sporting Space $500,000 2 x Multi Use Courts $70,000 1 x Community Hub $6,148,000 *It is envisaged that all cost will be index in accordance with CPI Subtotal $7,918,000

TOTAL PER ALLOTMENT CONTRIBUTION ACROSS GAWLER EAST AND RESIDENTIAL HILLS ZONES OF APPROXIMATELY $9,000-11,000

* CoH land will not attract a per allotment contribution for the GELR or deferred Infrastructure components.

STATE GOVERNMENT PROPOSITION Potts Road Upgrade – Upfront contribution on completion of GELR $2,400,000 Per Allotment reimbursement to State Government $5,767,000 TOTAL NET SAVINGS/REIMBURSEMENT TO STATE GOVERNMENT $8,167,000

Community Infrastructure Based on various strategic investigations (Gawler Open Space, Sport and Recreation Plan, draft Gawler Social Infrastructure and Services Study and Gawler East Community Infrastructure Case Study) the following “base level” community infrastructure is required to be provided within the mandatory 12.5% usable open space provided by developers. This list of base community infrastructure has been designed to service the local community and is to be created in a sequential manner in order to meet community needs based on agreed triggers. Base Infrastructure Requirements for Gawler East Zone Infrastructure Specification Quantity Local Play Space

• Minimum of 0.2 hectares in size • Caters to residents within walking distance (about 300

metres) • Centrally located within a residential area, close to schools

and shops • Typically includes: Play equipment, seating, bins,

irrigation, grassed areas, landscaping and share paths

5

Neighbourhood Play space

• Minimum of 0.5 hectares in size ( As stated in the Development Plan)

• Caters to residents within walking distance (about 500 metres)

• Centrally located within a residential area, close to schools and shops

• Typically includes: Play equipment, seating, bins, shelters, irrigation, tables, BBQs, grassed areas, lighting, landscaping and share paths

3


of 84

Base Infrastructure Requirements for Gawler East Zone Infrastructure Specification Quantity District Play space

• Minimum of 3 hectares in size ( As stated in the Development Plan)

• District Open Space considers the wider community and areas that people deliberately visit for the purpose of a specific activity. They are generally used for multi-use activities and often contain sports fields, courts and other sports infrastructure (goals, nets, etc).

• Typically includes: Play equipment, seating, bins, shelters, irrigation, grassed areas, lighting, landscaping, shared paths, BBQ, Car Parking, toilets.

1

General (junior) Sporting Space

15,000sqm general play fields, top soil, sandy loam, turf, irrigation and sports equipment

1

Multi Use Courts

Netball/Basketball/Tennis courts with associated infrastructure to be located within the district play space.

2

Community Hub

1500sqm multipurpose community centre facility/meeting facilities A single facility or group of facilities co-located together. A community hub provides a broad range of services to the community based on three main functions: • Provide key services to meet local needs. Program activity

responds to the needs of the local community and involves providers of social, health, employment and/or business services.

• Provide accessible community space. The space is open to the public and common areas are available for both formal and unstructured programming.

• Build networks through the co-location of different service providers. The scale and focus of services creates a critical mass that improves overall accessibility for clients and creates synergies for co-locating tenants. Informal social networks among.

1


of 84

The provision of this community infrastructure has been broken down into two categories, conventional and non-conventional community infrastructure. Conventional Community Infrastructure Infrastructure expected to be included as part of the provision of a developer’s 12.5% open space contribution prior it being vested into Council ownership.

Non-Conventional Community Infrastructure Infrastructure required to support a community, but considered over and above that expected by a developer as part of their mandatory 12.5% contribution.

Local Play Space Community Hub Neighbourhood Play Space Sporting Hub – Sporting Infrastructure Pedestrian and Shared Use Pathways District Play Space Landscaping – tress, gardens, lawn. Public Toilets General Activity Greenspace Multi Use Courts Irrigation Barbeque Park Benches Car Parking Tables and Seating Specialised Infrastructure:

• Skate Park, BMX Track • Community Garden • Nature Play Areas

It is envisaged that this Community Infrastructure will be delivered sequentially over the next 10+ years, as the Gawler East community grows. As a result, and based on existing market conditions, the provision of this community infrastructure has been broken down into years 0-5 and years 6-10+, and categorised as either conventional or non-conventional. Base Infrastructure Requirements for Gawler East Zone Implementation Infrastructure Provision

0-5 years Population 5,000

2 x Local Play Space Conventional 1 x Neighbourhood play space Conventional 1 x district play space Non-conventional

6-10+ years Population 10,000

3 x Local Play Space Conventional 2 x Neighbourhood play space Conventional 1 x General (junior) Sporting space

Non-conventional

2 x Multi Use Courts Non-conventional

1x Community Hub Non-conventional As all conventional community infrastructure will be provided by developers as part of their mandatory 12.5% useable open space. All non-conventional community infrastructure has been costed for the purpose of generating a Community Infrastructure Contribution Rate to be paid by developers on the creation of each new allotment in order to fund this necessary Community Infrastructure. The per sqm costs suggested by Rider Levett Bucknall in their original order of cost estimate has been applied in order to generate these cost estimates.


of 84

Community Infrastructure to be funded via proposed per allotment contribution scheme. Non-Conventional Infrastructure Requirements and Associated Costs Implementation Infrastructure Rate Costs Years 0-5 Population 5,000

1 x district play space

$40 per sqm $1,200,000

Years 6-10+ Population 10,000

1 x General (junior) Sporting space

$34 per sqm $500,000

2 x Multi Use Courts

$35,000 per court $70,000

1x Community Hub

$2,800 per sqm + preliminaries, builders margin, furniture, fittings, 20% contingency and professional fees

$6,148,000

As a result the total cost of this non-conventional Community Infrastructure is estimated at $7,918,000. When the cost of this Community Infrastructure is amortised over the life of the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones (expected future residential yield of 3500 allotments) a per allotment contribution rate of $2,262 is required in order to fund the necessary Community Infrastructure. It is also worth noting that by Council agreeing to the overarching GELR funding model, it provides the opportunities to obtain developer contributions for Community Infrastructure that may not have otherwise been achievable. Traffic Interventions As detailed earlier in the report in addition to the GELR, a number of local traffic interventions have been identified, which need to be undertaken as development with the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones occur. In summary, Staff together with its consultants have commenced reviewing the required local traffic interventions in detail as to determine how a fair and reasonable cost apportionment could be achieved between all relevant beneficiaries. Structure Plan and Future Development Plan Amendment Over the last 12-18 months Council has undertaken a number of investigations and studies designed to guide the development of the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones. Council has engaged URPS to not only provide guidance on future land division layouts, but to spatially represent the outcomes of deliberations associated with the preferred alignment of the GELR, and any other critical infrastructure identified by these investigations (stormwater, open space, community infrastructure etc). Once the preferred alignment of the GELR is adopted by Council the outcomes of these other investigations will ultimately be spatially represented via an updated Gawler East Structure Plan. It is envisaged that this updated Structure Plan will be inserted into the Gawler Development Plan via a Development Plan Amendment. This will also provide an opportunity to refine any other policies pertaining the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones that specifically relate to this structure plan.


of 84

While it would be beneficial to undertake this DPA as soon as possible it is not critical, as there is sufficient guidance and protection within the existing development plan to ensure development occurs in an integrated, economically and orderly manner, consistent with the strategic direction of Council. Bridge over the South Para River Bridge Design As discussed in the previous Council Report (18 August 2016), a preliminary desktop review for the bridge over the South Para River was undertaken to determine whether a shorter, lower and therefore less expensive, less intrusive crossing locations were possible along the length of the river in and immediately adjacent to the Gawler East area. High level investigations were also undertaken by DPTI on whether the bridge could also be reduced in height so as to improve visual outcomes and reduce other environmental impacts. The investigations demonstrated that while the visual amenity may be improved by lowering the bridge, the accessibility to the road from adjacent land parcels would be reduced. Overall, DPTI concluded that their current proposed bridge location is in the optimum position. In line with Council’s resolution (Motion No: 2015:06:257), Council staff proposed to continue to work with DPTI through the detailed design phase on determining the most beneficial outcome for the bridge over the South Para River, but within the financial/budget constraints of the project. Broadly, this will be undertaken through the following proposed approach:

• A detailed review of the bridge location (vertically and horizontally) by way of a multi-criteria analysis to ensure the bridge is in its optimum location and height.

• A review of the proposed bridge structure and elements to ensure the most visually appealing structure is adopted that integrates well within the current and future environment.

• An Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) specific to the bridge over the South Para River be undertaken to detail the potential impacts. This will be achieved through assessing the potential impacts the bridge will have on flora and fauna, noise and vibration, air quality, soils and water quality.

• The outcomes of the EIAR be used to assist shape the preferred bridge design • An urban design consultant be engaged to provide input, guidance and advice on the

design and visual amenity of the bridge. • Ensuring key stakeholders such as the EPA and NRM are satisfied with the proposed

bridge with respect to height, location, structure type and potential impacts on the environment.

• An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) be developed to ensure the appropriate management strategies are in place during construction.

Council staff will write to DPTI with the proposed approach as described above, and a further report will be presented to the Council on the final outcomes of this discrete element of the project prior to the design of the bridge being finalised.


of 84

Ownership, Management and Maintenance of the Bridge The bridge over the South Para is a significant piece of infrastructure within the Gawler East Link Road project. It has a total length of approximately 90m (over 3 spans) and height of approximately 15m from the invert of the river. The bridge is of concrete construction, with a superstructure consisting of beams supported by a sub-structure consisting of a combination of abutments, reinforced earth walls, piled footings, and intermediary piers. As detailed to the Council at its 7 July and 18 August meetings, the Classification Review for the GELR was submitted to the Local Roads Advisory Committee (LRAC) and the matter was heard by the Committee on 6 June 2016. At this hearing the Council staff and consultants Tonkin Consulting made a presentation proposing its classification as an urban arterial road (i.e. State owned). Following this, the LRAC determined that the most appropriate classification for the GELR was an urban local road (i.e. Council owned). However, there are several factors that may suggest that the bridge (excluding the road) remain the responsibility of DPTI. These include:

• Typically bridges of this magnitude would not be maintained by a Local Council. They are generally owned and maintained by the State;

• Lack of expertise and resources within Council to manage such large assets, and • Cost burden on the community in terms of ongoing maintenance and renewal at key

stages in the bridge’s lifecycle At its meeting held on 18 August 2016 the Council considered this matter and resolved as follows;

Moved by Cr A Shackley Seconded by Cr R Symes Motion No: 2016:08:315 That Council: 12. In respect to the bridge proposed over the South Para River, that Council

advises the relevant State Government Minister that the ownership, management and maintenance of the bridge structure should be retained by the State Government for the reasons detailed in the report.

In essence this proposed that the Council would retain control of road elements such as:

• Asphalt road surface • Line marking • Traffic signage • Lighting • Conduits and supports for road electrical and communication services (excluding

utility services authority’s infrastructure) • Storm water infrastructure (e.g. pipes, pits and drains) • Batter treatments under the bridge


of 84

With the State Government managing the larger and more complex bridge super-structure and sub-structure components consisting generally of:

• Deck • Safety Barriers • Bridge joints • Beams (including bearing pads and pedestals) • Supports for utility services authority’s infrastructure • Headstocks • Piers • Abutments • Footings

The proposition put forward by the State Government in providing “in-principle support” for allocating the $55M to a greater project scope is dependent, amongst other conditions, on the Council altering its position on this matter. That is, a condition of the State Government in funding the greater project scope of the GELR from Calton Road through to Potts Road is based on Council accepting ownership of this bridge asset. Should the Council adopt a preferred alignment which is not the DPTI alignment additional costs in the order of $5.6M are applicable. Under the proposition that has been achieved through negotiation of all parties, and now the State Government’s support, this cost will no longer be required to be funded by the Council directly. This represents an annual saving in the order of $450k for the repayment of this loan over the 20 year term proposed. This proposition removes the risk to the Council from the requirement that the infrastructure cost recovery received from developers, at the time of land sales, keeps pace with the interest and principal payments. This is entirely based on the market uptake of land in Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones. To that end based on a simplistic depreciation calculation, the annual depreciation charge for the bridge of approximately $60,000 pa (Bridge cost estimated at $6.4M with a 100 year design life) is a reasonably modest cost to the Gawler community in comparison to the overall benefits that are achieved through this collaborative infrastructure approach. Further a detailed maintenance and inspection plan will be requested from DPTI on development of the bridge. As part of the final negotiations for this matter, DPTI’s management of this structure on the Council’s behalf, will need to be formalised given their expertise in this regard. Should the Council support the proposition presented for a collaborative infrastructure funding regime, staff recommend to the Council that the ownership of the bridge be accepted as detailed above. Should Council seek to consider a motion assume ownership of the bridge as proposed by staff, and required by the State Government in order to facilitate this funding proposition, a rescission motion will need to be put first to rescind Motion No: 2016:08:315 from its meeting held on 18 August 2016, as detailed above.


of 84

Conclusions and Next Steps At this juncture the Council has received ten (10) update reports on the Gawler East Link Road since 30 June 2015 and undertaken three (3) Phases of comprehensive Community Consultation. Over this time a significant number of detailed expert investigations have been undertaken and the results of these presented to the Council to assist with its decision making. Further detailed summaries of the community feedback that has been received has also been presented to the Council. Notwithstanding previous resolutions in regards to a preferred alignment of the Gawler East Link Road and the Council’s resolved long term strategic objective of a direct future connection through to Tiver Road, the Council at its meeting held on 18 August the Council determined further consultation be undertaken on three routes, namely the Eastern Alternative, a Revised Eckerman Avenue and the State Government Alignments. At the time this last consultation was undertaken and the results reported back to the Council, an alternative funding proposition (as detailed in this report) had not progressed sufficiently for this to be considered. This proposition at that time was based only on ‘without prejudice’ negotiations between staff of the Council, State Government and developers of Springwood that would result in multiple benefits to all parties being obtained. These negotiations were however completely underpinned by the need to obtain the State Government’s support to ‘bankroll’ the GELR as the key mechanism to present this to the Council as a viable proposition for its consideration. When the Council considered the alignment of the GELR at its last meeting a key issue was the additional direct cost it was required to fund for either of its two (2) strategic alignments over the State Government’s alignment. The staff preferred alignment of the Eastern Alternative required an additional $5.6M of Council funds. Similarly at this time there was no mechanism that enabled Springwood Communities to construct their section of the GELR at this time, nor on the Council’s strategic connection point at Calton Road at Springwood proposed Village Centre. Since this time the parties involved in this proposition have negotiated a new funding arrangement with the State Government for the proposed Gawler East Link Road which would see the entire road, regardless of alignment constructed within the existing $55 million funding already budgeted by the State Government. Under the proposition put by the parties to the State Government’s Infrastructure Minister Stephen Mullighan, they would fund the entire upfront construction of the new GELR from Carlton Road to Potts Road. In return, the State Government would deliver a GELR costing in the order of $54M, and further, receive a return on its upfront investment of approximately $8.2 million. This $8.2M would be funded though future infrastructure charges paid by Springwood and other Gawler East developers, and include an upfront payment by the Council of $2.4M.


of 84

While the Minister, in his correspondence to Council dated 6 October 2016, provided in-principle support for the above mentioned proposition and funding model, this was subject to Council agreeing to the following conditions:

1. Finalising the road alignment at its meeting on 25 October 2016, so procurement processes can commence;

2. Agree to accept responsibility for the proposed bridge over the South Para River as part of accepting responsibility for the entire Gawler East Link Road once constructed

3. Making a substantial commitment to the upgrade of Potts Road through a funding contribution to the construction cost;

4. Negotiating a funding contribution to the construction cost of the Link Road through the Springwood development from Springwood Communities, in particular for the section that connects the community centre with Calton Road and;

5. Securing, through Deed arrangements (or similar), a commitment from Springwood Communities to accelerate of the development, especially the proposed community centre and facilities.

Given the conditional proposition proposed Minister is incumbent on the Council resolving a preferred alignment at its meeting held on 25 October 2016 and acceptance of all conditions, it is imperative that a decision occur at this meeting on these matters. The new funding proposition proposed has support from staff of the Council, State Government and Springwood Communities and would help deliver a strategic and a financially sustainable traffic solution for Gawler. The funding proposition addresses the additional cost required by the Council to fund one of its strategic alignments which is a significant concern among the many people who responded to Council’s recent community consultation. Essentially, under this new model, the State Government is being asked to ‘bank roll’ the total cost of the entire link road capital works up front. If the Council adopts this funding proposition, under the new funding model it has achieved the following outcomes:

• Enabled it to consider a preferred alignment that enables its strategic objective of a

future direct extension of the Gawler East Link Road through to Tiver Road. • Reduced the upfront payment for the extra costs to facilitate its strategic alignment

($5.6M) plus its cost towards the Potts Road (lower) intervention ($2.4M) together totalling $8M to now only $2.4M, noting $2.04M is currently allocated on our Long Term Financial Plan.

• Ongoing savings of $0.46M from not having to fund the interest repayments that would have been necessary for a $5.6M loan associated with obtaining one of its strategic alignments.

• Ensured that the Gawler East Link Road is constructed to Calton Road adjacent the Village Centre in Springwood, which will facilitate further economic stimulus and lead to job creation outcomes being realised through the early development of the Retail Centre.

• Realised an opportunity saving towards the cost of constructing Potts Road (upper) obtained through collaborative procurement and construction of this section of roadway together with the Gawler East Link Road.

• Provides an overarching funding framework that will allow for the funding generated towards Community Infrastructure that may otherwise not eventuate.

• Provides an equitable funding framework were all developers in Gawler East contribute to funding of the GELR and traffic interventions required to be contributed to by developers in the Gawler East and Residential Hills.


of 84

The Council under this funding proposition has also assisted the State Government in the following ways:

• Ensured a connection of the Link Road occurs between Calton Road and Potts Road

to facilitate further development in the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones; • Established a means for achieving a net saving of $8.2m to the State Government for

this project; • Facilitated a further net saving of $2m as the proposed current DPTI alignment

‘ultimate scope’ was estimated to be $56m in 2016 dollars. • Established a collaborative model that allows all parties to continue to work together

on the construction of the GELR; • Established a mechanism where all developers in the Gawler East and Residential

Hills Zones can equitably contribute to the Gawler East Link Road construction costs; • Facilitated an integrated approach to the procurement and construction of the Link

Road in its entirety by way of a one contract/one build delivery model which will result in the most optimum cost efficiencies being realised;

• Facilitated the private sector (Springwood Communities) bring forward the $15-20M retail precinct thus providing early economic stimulus and employment opportunities for the broader region.

• Accepted ownership of both the Link Road and the bridge crossing over the South Para River as its substantial commitment to achieving the multiple benefits associated with this joint initiative with the State Government and the developers of Springwood

Further the Council under this funding proposition has assisted the Developers in the Gawler East and Hills Residential Zones in the following ways:

• Removed the need for significant upfront funding by Springwood Communities to achieve the Council desired connection point of the GELR on Calton Road, noting that there is no statutory obligation for Springwood Communities to construct the GELR.

• Provided an equitable infrastructure funding model and a level of certainty in relation to costs for all future developers in the Gawler East and Hills Residential Zones.

• Removed a significant legislative impediment on development by enabling more than 1000 lots to be constructed in the Gawler East and Hills Residential Zones. This will ultimately ensure the full development capacity of land within Zones can now be realised, which will lead to increased land values and accelerate the commercial viability of the village centre in Springwood.

In summary staff believe the outcomes negotiated ‘without prejudice and in good faith’ and as detailed in this report provide the most optimum outcome for the GELR and the Gawler East and Hills Residential Zone in general by delivering multiple benefits for all parties. In respect to the Gawler East Link Road alignment, whilst not all impacts can be entirely mitigated, the ultimate objective is to seek an alignment that is in the long term best interests of the whole community. Further that this demonstrate an overall balanced approach that manages the environmental, social and financial impacts. To this end, the Eastern Alternative Alignment achieves these outcomes and is recommended by staff.


of 84

COMMUNICATION (INTERNAL TO COUNCIL) Chief Executive Officer Manager Infrastructure and Engineering Services Manager Finance & Corporate Services Acting Manager Economic Development, Regulatory Services and Communications Senior Projects Manager A public workshop was held on 11 October 2016 with the Council, together with representatives of the State Government (DPTI) and the developers of Springwood Communities. The purpose of this workshop was for staff to present the alternative funding proposal to the Council which has been agreed in principle by the State Government and forms part of the Council’s deliberations at this time. CONSULTATION (EXTERNAL TO COUNCIL) Council has established a dedicated webpage on the Town of Gawler website for the Gawler East Link Road, which contained a range of useful material for the community including:

1. Council Reports 2. Council Motions 3. PowerPoint Presentations 4. Technical Reports, Investigations and Studies 5. Concept Plans 6. Link to State Government undertaken alignment investigations

Phase 3 of the Community Engagement for the GELR alignments has now occurred between 31 August and 21 September 2016. The specific nature of the community consultation undertaken GELR is detailed in this report. An Engagement Report contained in Attachment 1 provides the details of the consultation and feedback received from its commencement through to the analysis of the feedback. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Community Engagement proposed undertaken has conformed to the requirements of the Council’s Community Consultation Policy. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS It is important to note that all progress by the Council to date has not been required by any legislation specifically. The investigations, consultation and assessment process to date have, and will in the future, inform various legislative matters that will be triggered depending on the Council’s decision on a preferred GELR alignment. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure has recently provided ‘in principle’ support to the funding proposal now presented by Council, which incorporates the following key elements:

1) Utilisation of the existing $55m State Government budget funds to ‘bank roll’ the entire construction of a ‘base’ collector Gawler East Link Road along Council’s preferred alternative alignment (i.e. from the proposed village centre within Springwood on Calton Road to Potts Road adjacent the Bentley Road Reserve);


of 84

2) The revised estimated cost being substantially reduced via a collaborative value engineering exercise undertaken (including the deferment of some non-essential infrastructure costs), and the concept of a ‘one contract-one build’ procurement exercise;

3) A reimbursement from Council to the State Government of $8.2m, incorporating

$2.4m being paid upon completion of the Gawler East Link Road, with the $5.8m remainder being on-forwarded to the State Government, over time, upon receipt of per new allotment contributions received from developers within the Gawler East development zone;

4) The application of fairness and equity principles, relative to developer contributions

sought;

5) The potential to facilitate ‘fast-tracking’ of the proposed neighbourhood retail / community centre within Springwood, thereby realising favourable local economic activity and job creation outcomes.

The fact that it is now estimated that the entire ‘base’ collector Gawler East Link Road can be constructed within the existing $55m State Government budget allocation is a major financial ‘game changer’ for Council, when compared to the $5.6m Council contribution that had previously been foreshadowed at the 18 August 2016 Special Council meeting. Long Term Financial Plan Impact The 2015/16 – 2024/25 Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) currently incorporates funding of $3.7m (across the 2017/18- 2022/23 financial years) towards various identified traffic interventions required by the Council. The LTFP was adopted in June 2016, and has since been updated with the independently audited result from 2015/16, the adopted budget from 2016/17, and the Council-approved tender valuation for the fit out of the new Administration Centre, all of which will marginally impact on long term assumptions incorporated within the LTFP. Taking these factors into consideration, and the revised Gawler East Link Road financial elements outlined above, indicative outcomes within the LTFP (based on current assumptions within the plan) are that the Net Financial Liabilities ratio would peak at 85% in 2018/19, which is comfortably within the 100% maximum threshold disclosed in Council’s Treasury Management Policy. Initial updated LTFP modelling also suggests that only nominal surpluses/deficits would be incurred over the life of the LTFP – with the operating ratio ranging between -1% and 2.9% (Council’s current policy position is that the ratio result should be maintained between 0-10%). The current LTFP already incorporates depreciation of up to $500k p.a. that would be incurred from 2018/19 as a result of Council taking ultimate ownership of the Gawler East Link Road as a local collector road. The various revenue and expenditure assumptions contained within the LTFP will be the subject of review by Council as part of the annual review of the LTFP to be commenced in early 2017.


of 84

Depreciation As the GELR has been determined to be a local road, the financial consequences on Council (pending consideration of available options) are expected to be significant. In undertaking the necessary background investigations associated with the Council’s preferred alignments to inform the MCA process and indeed the Council, a greater understanding of the design and costs associated with the GELR have been obtained. Council staff will investigate the actual financial impact from depreciation as a result of the Council’s final resolutions on this matter. In order to do so, a detailed depreciation analysis will be undertaken and presented back to the Council through its annual budget planning associated with the Long Term Financial Plan updates. Proposed Funding Mechanisms 1) Developer Deeds The primary means of generating the funding for all infrastructure outcomes identified for the Gawler East development zone (i.e. Gawler East Link Road and associated traffic interventions or Community infrastructure) will be via developer contributions. Infrastructure Deed(s) will be prepared and then required to be registered on individual titles (prior to development occurring) by way of Land Management Agreements. Based on the State Government financing the Link Road, the repayment to the State will be facilitated by Council via a defined (and indexed) per allotment contribution from developers. Payment will be required on the creation of each new allotment prior to Section 51 clearance. Such a payment schedule will be prescribed in the Infrastructure Deed. It is important to note that by applying the cost of the contribution before individual allotments are created, the cost is immediately attributed to the developer and not the eventual resident. It is envisaged that reimbursements to the State will occur consistent with the rate of development (i.e. developer contributions will be on-forwarded by Council as they are received). In this regard, approximately 50 new allotments have been created within the Gawler East development zone across each of the last three financial years. However, the rate of development within the Gawler East development zone is expected to increase upon completion of the proposed Springwood neighbourhood retail / community centre. The Gawler East development zone is ultimately earmarked to comprise up to 4,000 allotments, supporting a population of up to 10,000 residents. Naturally, the rate at which such development ultimately unfolds will be determined by external market forces outside of Council’s immediate control. 2) Separate Rate (as a financial security mechanism) In conjunction with the establishment of Developer Deeds (as registered on development titles via Land Management Agreements), Council will seek to apply a Separate Rate regime which will act as a further layer of financial security. The intention would be that although the Separate Rate is in place it will only be effectively enacted if the primary means of collecting the infrastructure contribution, by way of the Developer Deeds, is not realised or challenged.


of 84

In this context, the Separate Rate would appear on future individual rate notices for properties captured by the Separate Rate, but the quantum contribution will be postponed (and then rebated in full upon payment of funds being received by the primary Developer Deed regime). Separate Rates can be applied by a Council, pursuant to Section 154 of the Local Government Act 1999, which prescribes: Sec 154(1): A Council may declare a separate rate on rateable land within a part of the area of the Council for the purpose of planning, carrying out, making available, supporting, maintaining or improving an activity that is, or intended to be, of particular benefit to the land, or occupiers of the land, within that part of the area, or to visitors to that part of the area. The key element relating to a Separate Rate is that it can only be levied against a part of the Council area (i.e. unlike General Rates which are applied against the whole Council area). Further, the part of the Council area that incurs the Separate Rate is levied the tax on the basis that such properties are to receive a benefit from the purpose for which the Separate Rate is established. In this regard, if a Separate Rate is to be established for the Gawler East Link Road, then Council would need to carefully consider the area of the Council that would be captured by such a rate. Further to this, Council would then need to consult with ratepayers who would be affected prior to any decision to formally apply the Separate Rate. 2016/2017 Council Budget A summary of the costs incurred to date and additional estimated costs to the end of 2016/17 financial year, are detailed below. Description 15/16

Actual Costs ($)

15/16 Budget Costs ($)

16/17 Actual Costs ($)

16/17 Budget Costs ($)

Cost incurred $155,000 $207,000 $142,000 $102,000 Additional Costs - - $70,000 - Undertake DPA - - $30,000 $0 TOTAL $155,000 $207,000 $242,000 $102,000 Variance Surplus

$52,000 Deficit

$(140,000) As can be seen from the table above there is a requirement to fund at least a further $140,000 to complete the Planning & Investigation works relating to the Gawler East Link Road project as well as an allocation to undertake a Development Plan Amendment to the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones as detailed in this report. The costs shown in the table above represent those known to staff at present and will be updated based on the progress of various aspects of the project. COMMUNITY PLAN Objective 2.1: Physical and social infrastructure to match population growth Objective 2.3: Urban growth to be sustainably managed


of 84

REPORTS BY OFFICERS

Item Number 8.2 Title DRAFT 30 YEAR PLAN FOR GREATER ADELAIDE 2016

UPDATE Date 25 October 2016 Author(s) David Petruzzella, Land Use Policy Officer

Ryan Viney, Acting Manager Economic, Development, Regulatory Services and Communications

Reference CC10/2156; CR16/48814; CR16/50268; CR16/49182

Previous Motion NIL


Attachment 1 – Draft Response

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION Item 8.2 – Draft 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide 2016 Update (CC10/2156) That Council administration forward the submission regarding the Draft 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide 2016 Update to the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. BACKGROUND In 2010 the State Government released its initial version of the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide as the Planning Strategy under the Development Act 1993. The document provided and continues to provide strategic goals for all tiers of government in endeavouring to achieve a well-planned city which stimulates economic growth, engenders good culture and respects the natural environment. The Development Act 1993 states, “The Minister must ensure that the various parts of the Planning Strategy are reviewed at least once in every 5 years”. As a result the Plan has since been updated and was released by the Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) for community consultation in August 2016 for a two month consultation period. (refer https://livingadelaide.sa.gov.au/) COMMENTS/DISCUSSION DPTI have altered the original 2010 plan significantly resulting in a much higher level document, this update comes in light of the planning reforms currently underway. The updated plan contains a strong focus on increasing rates of infill development. The plan has increased its targets for infill development to 85% to occur within the existing metropolitan boundary and 15% (which Gawler East and Evanston Gardens fall within) to occur around the fringe. This is in an effort to assist with a number of environmental, social and economic concerns.


of 84

https://livingadelaide.sa.gov.au/

The six key targets of the plan (as titled in the document) are: 1. Protecting our resources 2. Smarter Travel 3. Getting Active 4. Walkable Neighbourhoods 5. A Green Liveable City 6. Greater Housing Choice

As per our draft submission (Attachment 1), an overview of the key aspects of the plan’s relevance to Gawler and draft comment is provided as follows: Specific matters of interest/concern to the Town of Gawler: Concordia Map 14 of the plan shows Concordia as a Metro fringe/township area which will make up a considerable part of the proposed 15% Greenfield development to occur over the next 30 years. If there is sufficient justification for the urban footprint to be expanded into Concordia, this expansion should be seen as a natural expansion of Gawler, rather than as a separate settlement on the edge of Gawler. It has also been suggested that any urban development at Concordia should not extend further east than the existing Wheatsheaf Policy Area. If Concordia is incorporated into Gawler, through appropriate land areas and development, while also addressing a potential local government boundary realignment to assist with governance/finance, this would ensure the Gawler Township maintains its integrity as the state’s first regional settlement. Roseworthy Although the Roseworthy DPA is still in the process of being finalised, the area is shown on Map 14 as earmarked for future metro fringe/township development. The Town of Gawler wishes to object to this DPA a further time on the basis of the following:

1. Council would like to see and encourage the future development of Roseworthy to occur in a more centric fashion. This would favour an east/west alignment, to strengthen and build upon the existing township, promoting the use of existing services, rather than develop potentially underutilised infrastructure or rely upon the Town of Gawler.

2. From a historical perspective, the sprawling nature of this development would seriously impede upon Gawler’s buffer zone. Council wishes to maintain a suitable distance between the Town of Gawler and the Roseworthy Township, this to ensure both towns maintain a sense of individual identity and character, and the iconic Gawler ‘green buffer zone’ is retained. A key concern for Council is that the DPA will create a continuous ribbon of development linking the towns.

3. The DPA would allow for a significant parcel of high value prime agricultural land to be lost.

Link Road and Tiver Road Extension The Town of Gawler wishes to see on map 7 (Major transport investments) the inclusion of the Gawler East Link Road as well as the proposed extension of the Link Road to Tiver Road via Bentley Road. This project is a considerable initiative and will connect a substantial population in the Gawler East area, as a result it deserves appropriate recognition in this plan.


of 84

Northern Connector Council wishes to highlight that the Northern Connector alignment shown on Map 7 is not an alignment supported by the Town of Gawler. In accordance with previous correspondence with the department regarding this road, Council’s preferred alignment for the Northern Connector is to travel along Concordia Road from Wheatsheaf to the north east bend in the road then travel in a circular direction to the top of the designated development investigation area and Cross the North Para about 300m north of Hewett at the end of Schmidt Road.

Regional Centre Status for Gawler On map 2 – Activity Centres and Mass Transit Routes, the Town of Gawler is identified as a District Level Activity Centre. Council wishes to see this status elevated to Regional Centre. Although the Town of Gawler currently has a population of 23,583, our Town Centre services a catchment of approximately 90,000, with people coming from a number of more northern towns to utilise our public transport and community infrastructure. Council considers this service catchment a justification to elevate this status. Other matters of interest/concern to the Town of Gawler include: Role of the Plan relative to new legislative changes The department has altered the original plan significantly resulting in a much higher level document, this update comes in light of the planning reforms currently underway. However what is Council’s role, the role which this plan will play and where it all sits in conjunction with the new legislation remains unclear and would benefit from further clarification. I note figure 1.5, of the plan which states regional directions, have been removed and will be revisited as the new planning system is implemented. Encouraging Infill The Town of Gawler is supportive of the general direction of the plan as its focus is to further encourage infill development in Greater Adelaide to occur within its existing metropolitan boundary. This is in an effort to assist with a number of environmental, social and economic concerns that are a consequence of continued urban sprawl. The wording and intent in this regard is supported. It is noted that the updated draft plan and its targets appear to be far more targeted towards the inner metropolitan areas. Although the updated plan is less detailed than its predecessor, two specific concerns which Council has relating directly to the Town of Gawler include, the removal of any reference to the electrification of the Gawler Rail Line and the removal of any commentary promoting the retention of the Gawler Buffer between Northern Adelaide. Electrification of the Gawler Rail Line Council wishes to stress ongoing support for the electrification of the Gawler Rail Line highlighting the need for quality public transport to service our area efficiently, particularly in light of the imminent closure of the Holden’s manufacturing plant which will see a considerable number of workers who reside in Gawler lose their job and the ever changing shift of our states work force, all of which who would greatly benefit from such infrastructure.


of 84

Not only would the electrification of the Gawler Rail Line be beneficial for the residents of Gawler who travel outside of our Council’s boundary for work, it would also be of benefit to people who travel into Gawler for work. Council recently undertook a study which demonstrated that Gawler contributes considerably to a wider regional economy and provides employment opportunities in its own right. The Town of Gawler has over 1300 employing businesses constituting over 8 per cent across northern Adelaide. This is not insignificant and worthy of tangible support from the State Government. It means Gawler contributes in no small way to both the local and regional economy. Gawler Buffer Regarding the absence of any commentary relating to the retention of the Gawler Buffer, Council is hopeful that this will be addressed by DPTI when the regional directions are revisited during the implementation of the new planning system. The Town of Gawler has a rich and proud heritage and our community remains committed in its desire to protect and reinforce its historic identity, which includes the green buffer. Heritage The policies which recognise the importance of built heritage are promising, however could be added to and further strengthened. As stated above The Town of Gawler has a rich and proud heritage, something which our community places tremendous value on and wishes to see celebrated and enhanced into the future. In regards to Action 12 which discusses exploring “opportunities to review the heritage listing process within a more integrated strategic framework”, we hope the feedback which the Town of Gawler recently provided regarding DPTI’s ‘Local Heritage Discussion Paper’ is seriously considered. Transit Orientated Developments Focusing development along transit corridors remains a key matter of focus in this updated plan and for good reason. However market demand for such developments in Gawler remains largely unknown, with Gawler’s first three storey apartment building located in close proximity to a train platform only receiving development approval earlier this year (2016). However one would assume that higher density living may not be as sort after in the outer metro ring as it would be in the inner, as a result additional policies or more flexible policies should be investigated by the Department to provide further guidance for Council’s in the outer metro ring. Public Housing Areas Policy 40. “Renew neighbourhoods that have high concentrations of old public housing to improve housing stock, increase the diversity of housing options and tenures, and catalyse private investment”, the document also states that “All Housing Trust dwellings built before 1968 will be targeted for renewal over the next 15 years”. The Town of Gawler has a considerable number of Housing Trust dwellings of that period. It would be beneficial for the department to provide approximate time frames around priority suburbs and/or areas over this fifteen year period? Employment Outcomes The Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme along with the Northern Adelaide Food Park are highlighted in a case study as key priorities to promote job growth in Adelaide’s north, pending the demise of the auto manufacturing era. These initiatives are also key elements of the Northern Economic Plan, a key document which the Town of Gawler was excluded from.


of 84

The Town of Gawler contains a considerable amount of land currently zoned ‘Rural’, with the objective of this land to be retained for agricultural purposes. However in recent times Council has received feedback from many residents of our Rural Zone, many of who stated that the current price of water is making it incredibly difficult to pursue primary production enterprises in the area. Gawler’s primary producers would greatly benefit from any involvement in the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme and additional consideration in this revised plan. A draft copy of Council’s response is attached for Council’s review (Attachment 2). Through the attached response Council administration has endeavoured to highlight sections of relevance to the Town of Gawler and provide commentary which will hopefully be considered by the Department as they finalise the document. Council has received a very short extension of time, with submissions due to the Department by October 26 (COB tomorrow), with submissions originally due by October 21. COMMUNICATION (INTERNAL TO COUNCIL) All relevant staff have actively participated in the preparation of this document. On 14 September August 2016 an email from staff to Elected Members was distributed seeking initial thoughts and comments on the plan. CONSULTATION (EXTERNAL TO COUNCIL) Council staff attended a work shop hosted by DPTI on June 10 as a part of an outer metro Council group to discuss the update of the Plan. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Once finalised, Council will be required to update it Strategic Directions Report. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 30 of the Development Act 1993 requires Council to prepare a Strategic Directions report within 12 months after an alteration is made to the Planning Strategy, or within a period agreed to by Minister. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS Nil COMMUNITY PLAN Objective 1.2: Build a local community that is proud of Gawler Objective 2.3: Urban growth to be sustainably managed Objective 2.4: The local environment to be respected Objective 2.6: Local economic activity to create local job opportunities and generate

increased local wealth Objective 4.2: Support development that respects the environment and considers the

impacts of climate change


of 84

REPORTS BY OFFICERS

Item Number 8.3 Title ENDORSEMENT OF BOUNDARY TREATMENT LAND

MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR SPRINGWOOD Date 25 October 2016 Author(s) David Bielatowicz, Acting Team Leader Development

Services

Reference DA16/346; PR16/12864; PR16/12876; PR16/12877; PR16/12878; PR16/12879

Previous Motion Council, 24/05/2016, Motion No. 2016:05:193 Council, 22/07/2014, Motion No. 2014:07:225


Attachment 1 – Previous Land Management Agreement Used for similar boundary treatments within Springwood Attachment 2 – Land Division Application 490/D054/10 Attachment 3 – Land Division Applications 490/D014/16, 490/D015/16 and 490/D016/16 Attachment 4 – Example of Fence Treatments

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION Item 8.3 – Endorsement of Boundary Treatment Land Management Agreements for Springwood (DA16/346) That Council: 1. Agrees to enter into and adopt the proposed Land Management Agreements

for Boundary Treatments for Land Division applications 490/D014/16, 490/D015/16 and 490/D016/16

2. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer as the delegate of Council to sign all relevant documents associated with the above mentioned Land Division Applications and associated Land Management Agreements

BACKGROUND Council previously considered and endorsed three (3) Boundary Treatment Land Management Agreements (LMAs) within a number of Stages within the Springwood Land Division on 22 July, 2014 and 24 May, 2016. The previous LMA’s formed part of three (3) separate Land Division applications and were registered on all new allotments created that adjoined (either backed onto or abutted) but did not access Calton Road.

The rationale behind both the previous LMA’s and the proposed LMA is to ensure that allotments that adjoin but do not front Calton Road are developed to provide a high level of amenity and quality streetscape along the Calton Road frontage. This in return, would avoid long stretches of unattractive fencing that would typically be expected along boundaries where allotments did not front a public road.


of 84

A copy of the previous Land Management Agreement registered on some of the Allotments is contained within Attachment 1. This form of boundary treatment was a positive result from Staff and Developer negotiations and endorsement by the Council’s Development Assessment Panel. COMMENTS/DISCUSSION Since being last presented to Council, the Springwood Development has been sold by the former developer Lend Lease Communities to Springwood Communities (consisting of Arcadian Communities and Burke Urban), whom have indicated a different project vision and direction. The new developer is currently in the process of undertaking a new master plan for the Springwood Development, which has resulted in the previously approved alignment of the Gawler East link road connection from Balmoral road proposed to be shifted further south than the approved alignment (contained within land division application 490/D054/10 (Village 1 – East Riding)). A copy of the original Land Division Plan approved within 490/D054/10 is contained within Attachment 2. As a result of the planned relocated section of link road from Balmoral Road (not yet approved as part of a Development Application), three (3) land division applications have been lodged with Council (Development Application no. 490/D014/16, 490/D015/16 and 490/D016/16). The three land division applications lodged with Council will not impede on future discussions or the future alignment of the Gawler East Link Road (not finalised at the time of writing this report). The three land division applications propose two new allotments at the end of existing cul-de-sacs and the extension of Burford Street over the SEA Gas and SA Water pipeline, within the previously approved road reserve for the section of link road from Balmoral Road (contained within 490/D054/10). The plan of division proposed within the three new land division applications is contained within Attachment 3. It has been indicated by the developer that given the location and constraints of both the SEA Gas and SA water pipeline, no road or allotments will likely be proposed within the vicinity of either the pipes or the previously approved road alignment. This area is envisaged to form part of future open space (potential open space corridor) that will be lodged with Council as part of future land division applications linking the original ‘Village 1’ (East Riding) to other villages (development stages). As per the previous concerns of Council relating to potentially long stretches of unattractive boundary fencing and given the current uncertainty of how the open space area will be developed (i.e. landscaped) in the future, the developer has agreed to provide similar boundary treatments to the new proposed lots associated with the above mentioned land division applications. In particular, the boundary treatment for these allotments will include open style timber fencing from the front of the allotments for a 7 metre portion of the allotment boundary (approximately 25%) with the remainder of the fence consisting of solid fencing with horizontal corrugated colourbond cladding (for occupant privacy). The overall fence design will be similar to the fencing treatments that has been implemented along Calton Road, with the exception of no feature stonework (due to high cost of each pillar).


of 84

Maintenance of the fence, as per previous LMA’s will be the sole responsibility of each individual land owner affected by the LMA. An example of the fencing proposed to form part of the LMA is contained within Attachment 4. The proposed fence appearance is considered by staff to be acceptable on the grounds that it will tie in with other fencing within the project (facilitated through previous LMA’s), delivering a consistent appearance. Whilst a LMA has not yet been drafted for the proposed fencing treatments, it is important to note that the developer has elected to use Council’s solicitors in drafting and executing the LMA (at the Developers cost). As per previous LMAs of this sort, the main components of the LMA will require:

a) That the fence be constructed within a specific time frame to be negotiated between Council and the Developer prior to the Clearance of the Land Division application and registering of the LMA’s.

b) The fence be constructed in accordance with approved fencing plans to the reasonable satisfaction of Council;

c) The fence be completely located within the property boundary (i.e. the external

face of the fence must be positioned on, or inside, the property boundary); and

d) The fence be maintained at all times to the reasonable satisfaction of Council at the owner’s expense in all things.

Unlike previous occasions, the subject boundary treatment will not require a separate Development Approval as the fence will not exceed 2.1 metres in height and not require any masonry component exceeding 1.0 metre. Should any part of the fence require a retaining wall that will result in the combined fence height exceeding 2.1 metres or a masonry component in excess of 1.0 metre, a Development Application will be required. It must be noted that the land division applications will not be presented to Council’s Development Assessment Panel for determination as they are considered to be of a minor nature and fall within Council Staff delegations. The LMA is being presented to Council for endorsement, and will form part of Land Division Consent conditions (should the LMA be endorsed). COMMUNICATION (INTERNAL TO COUNCIL) Communication has occurred with Council’s solicitors, Kelledy Jones Lawyers, in order to draft and finalise the Land Management Agreement. CONSULTATION (EXTERNAL TO COUNCIL) No external consultation has been undertaken POLICY IMPLICATIONS This matter does not impact on Council policy, given that the Town of Gawler Development Plan remains as the primary development control guidelines in relation to this site.


of 84

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS The Land Management Agreement has been enacted by Council pursuant to Section 57 (1) of the Development Act, 1993. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS The applicant has agreed to meet all costs relating to the drafting and lodgement of the proposed Land Management Agreements. Therefore, Council will incur no cost relating to this matter. COMMUNITY PLAN Objective 1.1: Maintain a clearly defined township, one which is distinctly separate from

neighbouring areas Objective 1.2: Build a local community that is proud of Gawler Objective 2.5: Manage growth through the real connection of people and places Objective 3.7: Create a safe community environment Objective 5.2: Be recognised as a ‘best practice’ Local Government organisation


of 84

REPORTS BY OFFICERS

Item Number 8.4 Title COUNCIL OPERATING HOURS – CHRISTMAS AND NEW

YEAR 2016/17 Date 25 October 2016 Author(s) Chris Haynes, Governance Officer

Patricia Coonan, Governance Officer

Reference CC16/195; CR16/37572, CR16/37627

Previous Motion Council, 25/08/2015, Motion No. 2015:08:310


Attachment 1 – Draft Advertisement of closure

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION Item 8.4 – Council Operating Hours – Christmas and New Year 2016/17 (CC16/124) That Council approves the opening and closing times for each of the Council sites during the 2016/2017 Christmas and New Year’s period as detailed: 1. Town of Gawler Administration Centre (43 High Street, Gawler East):

a. Closed 12pm, Friday 23 December 2016 to Monday 2 January 2017 b. Re-opens 9am, Tuesday 3 January 2017

2. Commonwealth Home Support Programme (43 High Street, Gawler East):

a. Closed 12pm, Friday 23 December 2016 to Monday 2 January 2017 b. Re-opens 9am, Tuesday 3 January 2017

3. Gawler Sport and Community Centre (Nixon Terrace, Gawler):

a. Closed Saturday 17 December 2016 to Sunday 8 January 2017 b. Re-opens 9am, Monday 9 January 2017

4. Administration Services (Evanston Gardens Community Centre, 65 Angle

Vale Road, Evanston Gardens): a. Closed 12pm, Friday 23 December 2016 to Monday 2 January 2017 b. Re-opens 9am, Tuesday 3 January 2017

5. Library (Evanston Gardens Community Centre, 65 Angle Vale Road, Evanston

Gardens): a. Closed 12pm to 5pm on Friday 23 December 2016 b. Normal business hours from Saturday 24 December 2016 to Saturday

31 December 2016 (inclusive) c. Closed on Public Holidays

6. Works Depot (Paxton Street, Willaston):

a. Closed 12pm to 4pm on Friday 23 December 2016 b. Normal business hours with reduced staffing from Monday 26

December to Friday 30 December 2016 (inclusive) c. Closed Public Holidays d. Town Maintenance Emergency after hours available 24/7


of 84

7. Visitor Information Centre (2 Lyndoch Road, Gawler):

a. Closed 12pm to 5pm on Friday 23 December 2016 b. Closed Christmas Day Sunday 25 December 2016 c. Normal business hours Saturday 24 December 2016 to Monday 2

January 2017 (inclusive) 8. Gawler Aquatic Centre (Victoria Terrace, Gawler):

a. Closed 12pm to 6pm on Friday 23 December 2016 b. Open Saturday 24 December from 1pm to 5pm c. Closed Christmas Day Sunday 25 December 2016 d. Open Monday 26 December and Tuesday 27 December 2016 from

12pm to 4pm e. Normal business hours from Wednesday 28 December to Saturday 31

December 2016 (inclusive - no hot weather policy of late opening on Saturday 31 December 2016)

f. Closed on Sunday 1 January 2017 (unless temp is over 30c then open from 1pm to 5pm)

g. Open Monday 2 January 2017 from 12pm to 4pm BACKGROUND It is usual practice for Council offices to close for the Christmas/New Year period on all non-public holidays, excluding the Library and the Visitor Information Centre which have normal operating hours (with the exception of 23 December when both close at 12pm). The Depot during this period usually operates with minimal staff to cater for depot functions. As per previous years, Council’s After Hours Call Service is operational throughout the entire Christmas and New Year’s Eve period of closure to assist with any urgent enquiries. Key functional areas are covered by staff who are ‘on call’ and available when required. Council considered the closure of Council offices at its meeting held on 25 August 2015 and resolved the following:

Moved by Cr K Fischer Seconded by Cr D Hughes Motion No: 2015:08:310 That during the 2015/2016 Christmas and New Year’s period: 1. Council notes that the Works Depot is open except for public holidays, the

Main Library is open except for 26 December and Public Holidays and the Visitor Information Centre is open except for 25 December.

2. Council supports the change of operating hours as detailed in the Report for the Main Library, Works Depot, Visitor Information Centre, Gawler Aquatic Centre and potential change of operating hours when there are no Centre bookings for the Gawler Sport and Community Centre.

3. Council supports the closure of: 3.1 Council offices (Murray Street, High Street and Angle Vale Road), the

Home Assist and Community Care office, Evanston Gardens Community Centre and Evanston Gardens Branch Library from 3.00pm Thursday 24 December 2014 to Friday 1 January 2016 (inclusive).


of 84

3.2 The Gawler Sport and Community Centre from 12:00pm Saturday 19 December 2015 to Sunday 3 January 2016 (inclusive).

3.3 The Works Depot for the three (3) public holidays (25 & 28 December 2015 and 1 January 2016).

3.4 All offices, excluding the Visitor Information Centre, Gawler Sport & Community Centre and Gawler Aquatic Centre at 12 noon on 18 December 2015 for staff and Council Members to attend a Christmas luncheon.

4. The date for the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Committee meeting be Tuesday 1 December 2015 and the Council meeting be 15 December 2015.

5. The Corporate and Community Services Committee meeting scheduled for 12 January 2016 be deferred until 2 February 2016.

COMMENTS/DISCUSSION SA Government has declared the following public holidays during the festive season:

• Christmas Day public holiday falls on a Monday, 26 December 2016 • Proclamation Day public holiday falls on a Tuesday, 27 December 2016 • New Year’s Day falls on Sunday 1 January, with an additional public holiday

on Monday, 2 January 2017 Members are advised that all offices will close at 12 noon on 23 December 2016 for staff and Council Members to attend a Christmas luncheon. Town of Gawler Administration Centre (43 High Street, Gawler East) Administration services are scheduled to relocate from the current site at 89 Murray Street to 43 High Street, Gawler East on 16 December 2016. The Town of Gawler Administration Centre will be closed from 12.00pm Friday 23 December 2016 including the three (3) non-public holidays over the Christmas and New Year period and will and reopen on Tuesday 3 January 2017. Commonwealth Home Support Programme (43 High Street, Gawler East) Commonwealth Home Support Programme services are scheduled to relocate from the current site at the Elderly Centre (37 Fourteenth Street, Gawler South) to the new Administration Centre (43 High Street, Gawler East) on 16 December 2016. The Commonwealth Home Support Programme will be closed from 12.00pm Friday 23 December 2016 including the three (3) non-public holidays over the Christmas and New Year period and will and reopen on Tuesday 3 January 2017. Gawler Sport and Community Centre (Nixon Terrace, Gawler) The Gawler Sport and Community Centre will be closed from Saturday 17 December 2016 and Sunday 8 January 2017 (inclusive). The closing hours of the Centre in the lead up to Christmas and the first week of January will not be impacted by regular user groups as they do not utilise the facility over the Christmas and New Year Period. The Centre will close early at times during December 2016 and January 2017 when there are no Centre bookings. This will be communicated at Gawler Sport and Community Centre and on Town of Gawler website and Council Social Media platforms.


of 84

Administration Services (Evanston Gardens Community Centre, 65 Angle Vale Road, Evanston Gardens) The Evanston Gardens Community Centre will be closed from 12.00pm Friday 23 December 2016 including the three (3) non-public holidays over the Christmas and New Year period and will and reopen on Tuesday 3 January 2017. Library (Evanston Gardens Community Centre, 65 Angle Vale Road, Evanston Gardens) Library services are scheduled to relocate from the current site at 91 Murray Street to 65 Angle Vale Road, Evanston Gardens on 16 December 2016. Library Services will continue to operate normal hours during this time with the exception of Friday 23 December when the Library will close for the Christmas luncheon. The Library will be closed on public holidays. Works Depot (Paxton Street, Willaston) The Works Depot will be operational with minimal staff on Wednesday 28, Thursday 29 and Friday 30 December 2016 and closed on the public holidays, with emergency coverage the same as that of the public holidays and after hours. Visitor Information Centre (2 Lyndoch Road, Gawler) The Visitor Information Centre will continue to operate normal hours during this time with the exception of Friday 23 December when the centre will close for the staff and Council Member Christmas luncheon. The Centre will be closed on Christmas Day. Gawler Aquatic Centre (Victoria Terrace, Gawler) The Gawler Aquatic Centre will continue to operate with reduced hours from normal during this time. The Centre will be closed on Christmas Day and will be closed on 1 January (unless the temperature is over 30c then it will be open from 1pm to 5pm). COMMUNICATION (INTERNAL TO COUNCIL) Leadership Group CONSULTATION (EXTERNAL TO COUNCIL) Comprehensive advertising will occur prior to the Christmas period to advise the community of Council’s operating hours during the holidays. Emergency on-call staff will be rostered. Refer Attachment 1 for a draft advertisement to be issued to local newspapers. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Nil


of 84

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS Nil COMMUNITY PLAN Nil


of 84

REPORTS BY OFFICERS

Item Number 8.5 Title COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETING DATE CHANGES Date 25 October 2016 Author(s) Chris Haynes, Governance Officer

Reference CC16/124; CR16/37697

Previous Motion Council, 25/08/2015, Motion No. 2015:08:310


NIL

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION Item 8.5 – Council and Committee Meeting Date Changes (CC16/124) That the:- 1. Ordinary Council meeting be held on Tuesday 13 December 2016 at 7.00pm. 2. Ordinary Infrastructure and Environmental Services Committee meeting be

held on Tuesday 6 December 2016 at 7.00pm and the scheduled External Funds Committee meeting on Tuesday 6 December 2016 to be bought forward to commence at 6.00pm.

3. Ordinary Corporate and Community Services Committee meeting scheduled for 10 January 2017 be held on Tuesday 7 February 2017 at 7.00pm.

4. Ordinary Council meeting be held on Wednesday 26 April 2017 at 7.00pm. BACKGROUND As part of considerations for the closure of Council offices over the Christmas and New Year period in 2015/16, Council at its meeting held on 25 August 2015 resolved the following:

Moved by Cr K Fischer Seconded by Cr D Hughes Motion No: 2015:08:310 That during the 2015/2016 Christmas and New Year’s period: 1. Council notes that the Works Depot is open except for public holidays, the

Main Library is open except for 26 December and Public Holidays and the Visitor Information Centre is open except for 25 December.

2. Council supports the change of operating hours as detailed in the Report for the Main Library, Works Depot, Visitor Information Centre, Gawler Aquatic Centre and potential change of operating hours when there are no Centre bookings for the Gawler Sport and Community Centre.

3. Council supports the closure of: 3.1 Council offices (Murray Street, High Street and Angle Vale Road), the

Home Assist and Community Care office, Evanston Gardens Community Centre and Evanston Gardens Branch Library from 3.00pm Thursday 24 December 2014 to Friday 1 January 2016 (inclusive).


of 84

3.2 The Gawler Sport and Community Centre from 12:00pm Saturday 19 December 2015 to Sunday 3 January 2016 (inclusive).

3.3 The Works Depot for the three (3) public holidays (25 & 28 December 2015 and 1 January 2016).

3.4 All offices, excluding the Visitor Information Centre, Gawler Sport & Community Centre and Gawler Aquatic Centre at 12 noon on 18 December 2015 for staff and Council Members to attend a Christmas luncheon.

4. The date for the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Committee meeting be Tuesday 1 December 2015 and the Council meeting be 15 December 2015.

5. The Corporate and Community Services Committee meeting scheduled for 12 January 2016 be deferred until 2 February 2016.

COMMENTS/DISCUSSION Due to the Christmas period in December it has been normal practice for Council to bring forward the date of its ordinary meeting to an earlier Tuesday in December. Staff recommend that the ordinary meeting of Council be held on Tuesday 13 December 2016 instead of the scheduled 20 December. The ordinary meeting of the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Committee is scheduled to be held on this date, it is therefore suggested that the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Committee meeting be held on the alternate date of Tuesday 6 December 2016 and the already scheduled External Funds Committee meeting to be held on Tuesday 6 December 2016 be bought forward to commence at 6pm. A meeting of the Corporate and Community Services Committee is scheduled to be held on Tuesday 10 January 2017, it is proposed that this meeting be deferred to the Tuesday 7 February 2017. It is also noted that the April 2017 Council meeting date falls on ANZAC Day public holiday, 25 April. It is proposed that this meeting be held on Wednesday 26 April 2017. COMMUNICATION (INTERNAL TO COUNCIL) Executive Management Group Mayor Chairperson IES Chairperson CCS CONSULTATION (EXTERNAL TO COUNCIL) The dates of Council and Committee meetings are publicly available on Council’s website in the Council Diary. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Local Government Act 1999 Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2013


of 84

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS Proposed changes to the meeting dates will have no impact on Councils budget. COMMUNITY PLAN Nil


of 84

REPORTS BY OFFICERS

Item Number 8.6 Title 2017/2018 BUDGET / BUSINESS PLAN TIMETABLE Date 25 October 2016 Author(s) Paul Horwood, Manager – Finance & Corporate Services


Previous Motion NIL


NIL

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION Item 8.6 – 2017/2018 Budget / Business Plan Timetable (CC16/1307) That the draft 2017/2018 Budget / Business Plan timetable be adopted. BACKGROUND To consider a proposed timetable relating to the preparation and consideration of the 2017/2018 Budget / Business Plan, in accordance with Clause 4.1.1.1 of Policy 6.1 (Budget Management Policy). The proposed Budget / Business Plan timetable below also incorporates the annual review of Council’s Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP), which plays an integral role in Council’s financial management methodology. Table 1 – Draft 2017/2018 Budget / Business Plan timetable

Long Term Financial Plan Budget

Tuesday, 17 January 2017 Workshop 1Tuesday, 31 January 2017 Workshop 2Monday, 13 February 2017 Audit Committee Review

Thursday, 23 February 2017 Workshop 1Tuesday, 28 February 2017 Council Mtg

Monday, 13 March 2017Special Mtg - Endorse for Public

Consultation Workshop 2

Wednesday, 22 March 2017Advert in Bunyip inviting

submissions22 March - 14 April 2017 Public ConsultationMonday, 27 March 2017 Audit Committee ReviewThursday, 13 April 2017 Special Mtg

Wednesday, 26 April 2017Council Mtg (consider

submissions)Council Mtg - Endorse for Public

Consultation

Wednesday, 03 May 2017Advert in Bunyip inviting

submissions3 - 31 May 2017 Public Consultation

Tuesday, 23 May 2017 Council Mtg (Adoption)

Wednesday, 07 June 2017Special Mtg - consider

submissionsTuesday, 27 June 2017 Council Mtg - Adoption

PROJECTDate


of 84

COMMENTS/DISCUSSION In accordance with Council Policy 6.1 (Budget Management Policy) and Section 123 of the Local Government Act, 1999, Council must prepare, consider and adopt a Budget / Business Plan for each financial year. Policy 6.1 incorporates and recommends final adoption of the Annual Budget / Business Plan prior to 30 June each year, so that the budget is adopted prior to the commencement of the related financial year. Similar to previous years, the timetable provides for the review of the LTFP prior to the consideration of the draft 2017/2018 Budget / Business Plan. This is a deliberate approach so that the broad financial parameters pertaining to the 2017/2018 budget (reflected as the 2nd year within the 10 year LTFP) are established before Council’s formal consideration of the 2017/2018 Budget. The approach in drafting the proposed timetable, for both the LTFP and the Budget / Business Plan, is based on the following sequential steps:

a) 2 internal workshops with Elected Members b) Draft document considered by the Audit Committee c) Council meeting to consider draft document d) Council meeting to endorse draft document for purposes of Public Consultation e) Public Consultation period (minimum of 3 weeks) f) Council meeting to consider public submissions received, and to determine

whether changes required to document as a result g) Adoption of document

The proposed timetable reflects the Audit Committee considering each document before the initial Council meeting. COMMUNICATION (INTERNAL TO COUNCIL) Executive Management Team Team Leader – Finance Financial Accountant Governance Staff CONSULTATION (EXTERNAL TO COUNCIL) The Budget / Business Plan and update of the LTFP will require a minimum 3 week public consultation process prior to formal adoption, pursuant to Section 123 of the Local Government Act and Council’s Public Consultation Policy. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Policy 6.1: Budget Management Policy STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1999 Part 2 (Financial Accountability) of Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 2011


of 84

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS The cost of preparing the Budget / Business Plan and LTFP is incorporated within the annual budget. COMMUNITY PLAN Objective 5.2: Be recognised as a ‘best practice’ Local Government organisation Objective 5.3: Deliver ongoing effective and efficient services, including support for

regional collaboration


of 84

REPORTS BY OFFICERS

Item Number 8.7 Title MONTHLY FINANCE REPORT – SEPTEMBER 2016 Date 25 October 2016

Author(s) Erin McGarry – Financial Accountant

Reference CC16/960; CR16/52080; CR16/52083

Previous Motion NIL


Attachment 1 – Monthly Finance Report

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION Item 8.7 – Monthly Finance Report – September 2016 (CC16/960) That the Monthly Finance Report as at 30 September 2016 be noted. BACKGROUND The purpose of this report is to present the Monthly Finance Report in accordance with Clause 4.1.4.6 of Council’s Budget Management Policy. COMMENTS/DISCUSSION As at the end of September, Council is reporting a favourable operating variance of $82K. It is important to note, however, that the financial data provided only relates to three month of operation for the 2016/2017 financial year and that, as a result, no material trends or analysis impacting on the full-year budget can be drawn. COMMUNICATION (INTERNAL TO COUNCIL) Department Managers and Team Leaders CONSULTATION (EXTERNAL TO COUNCIL) Nil POLICY IMPLICATIONS Policy 6.1: Budget Management Policy STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Nil


of 84

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS The cost of preparing the Monthly Finance Report is accommodated within the Employee Costs budget for the Financial Services Team. The preparation of the report promotes financial accountability and transparency of the Council’s financial operations. COMMUNITY PLAN Objective 5.2: Be recognised as a ‘best practice’ Local Government organisation.


of 84

REPORTS BY OFFICERS

Item Number 9 Title RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMITTEES Date 25 October 2016 Author(s) Patricia Coonan, Governance Officer

Chris Haynes, Governance Officer



Attachment 1 – 2015-2016 Annual Financial Statements

EXTERNAL FUNDS COMMITTEE

9.1 Item 4.1 - External Funds Committee Grant Update Report That Council adopts the recommendation from the External Funds

Committee made at item 4.1 of the meeting of that Committee meeting held on 4 October 2016, being:

Motion No: EFC:2016:10:20 That the External Funds Committee recommends to Council that:- 1. The Grants Reconciliation Report as at September 2016 be noted. 2. Staff continue consultation with Gawler Police and obtain quotes for the

installation of a new CCTV system within the Town of Gawler and report back to the next meeting.

3. Council applies for maximum funding from the Saluting their Service’ and ‘ANZAC Day Commemoration Fund’ grant programs in early 2017.

4. Staff assist Gawler Service Clubs with Visitor Information including digital information for example maps and QR Codes at the Visitor Information Centre, Gawler Caravan Park and Town Entrances.

5. Further information on the potential January 2017 open space grants for a natural playground and relocation of Walker Place Toilets and a new bridge to Goose Island.

6. Staff report back to the next External Funds Committee meeting on the completion of the Jack Bobridge Path from Anne Milroy Lane to Central Gawler.

7. Staff prepare a report back to the External Funds Committee on a potential grant application on the AusIndustries Grants in terms of the Business Innovation Hub.


of 84

AUDIT COMMITEE

9.2 Item 7.1 - 2016 Risk Management Review That Council adopts the recommendation from the Audit Committee made

at item 7.1 of the meeting of that Committee meeting held on 5 October 2016, being:

Motion No: AC:2016:10:25 That the Audit Committee recommends to Council that the: 1. 2016 Local Government Association Mutual Liability Scheme – Risk Profile

– Review Data Report be noted; 2. 2016/17 Risk Management Action Plan be noted.

9.3 Item 7.2 - 2015/2016 Annual Financial Statements That Council adopts the recommendation from the Audit Committee made


Motion No: AC:2016:10:26 That the Audit Committee recommends to Council that the: 1. Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2016, subject to

any minor variations requested by the External Auditors, present fairly the state of affairs of the Council and be presented to Council for adoption at its meeting on Tuesday, 25 October, 2016;

2. Certification of Financial Statements be signed by the Chief Executive Officer and the Mayor;

3. Certification of Auditor Independence be reviewed and signed by the Audit Committee Presiding Member and Chief Executive Officer;

4. Auditor’s Certification of Auditor’s Independence be noted; 5. Independent Auditor’s Report to the Members of the Town of Gawler be

received and noted. Note: Please refer Attachment 1

9.4 Item 7.3 - 2015/2016 Financial Performance Summary That Council adopts the recommendation from the Audit Committee made


Motion No: AC:2016:10:27 That the Audit Committee recommends to Council that the 2015/2016 Financial Performance Summary Report be received.


of 84

9.5 Item 7.4 - Council Comparative Data Report (as at 30 June 2015) That Council adopts the recommendation from the Audit Committee made


Motion No: AC:2016:10:28 That the Audit Committee recommends to Council that the Council Comparative Data Report (as at 30 June 2015) be noted.

9.6 Item 7.5 - 2015/2016 Audit Committee Workplan Update & Draft 2016/2017 Audit Committee Workplan

That Council adopts the recommendation from the Audit Committee made


Motion No: AC:2016:10:29 That the Audit Committee recommends to Council that the 2015/2016 Audit Committee Workplan Update and Draft 2016/2017 Audit Committee Workplan be noted.

9.7 Item 7.6 - Debtor Analysis Report That Council adopts the recommendation from the Audit Committee made


Motion No: AC:2016:10:30 That the Audit Committee recommends to Council that the Debtor Analysis Report be noted.

9.8 Item 7.7 - EBA Productivity Review (ASU & AWU) – 2015/16 That Council adopts the recommendation from the Audit Committee made


Motion No: AC:2016:10:31 That the Audit Committee recommends to Council that: 1. The EBA Productivity Review (ASU & AWU) – 2015/16 report be noted; 2. The productivity payment of 0.75% due to the successful implementation of

numerous and ongoing efficiency and effectiveness outcomes which in the 2015/16 financial year resulted in savings of $626,231 being achieved be noted.

9.9 Item 7.8 - Audit Committee 2015/2016 Annual Report That Council adopts the recommendation from the Audit Committee made


Motion No: AC:2016:10:32 That the Audit Committee recommends to Council that the Audit Committee 2015/2016 Annual Report be noted.


of 84

9.10 Item 9.1 - Dean Newbery & Partners – External Audit Management Report –

May 2016 Attendance That Council adopts the recommendation from the Audit Committee made


Motion No: AC:2016:10:33 That the Audit Committee recommends to Council that the following correspondence items from Dean Newbery & Partners be noted: 1. External Audit Management Report & Response – May 2016 Attendance. 2. 2015/16 Balance Date External Audit Attendance & Requirements.

ELDERLY CENTRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

9.11 Item 4.1 - Elderly Centre Advisory Committee Update That Council adopts the recommendation from the Elderly Centre

Advisory Committee made at item 4.1 of the meeting of that Committee meeting held on 7 October 2016, being:

Motion No: ECAC:2016:10:11 That the Elderly Centre Advisory Committee recommends to Council that: Dr Bruce Eastick be appointed as the Community Representative on the Elderly Centre Advisory Committee.

9.12 Item 4.1 - Elderly Centre Advisory Committee Update That Council adopts the recommendation from the Elderly Centre

Advisory Committee made at item 4.1 of the meeting of that Committee meeting held on 7 October 2016, being:

Motion No: ECAC:2016:10:12 That the Elderly Centre Advisory Committee recommends to Council that: Lance Hatcher be appointed as the Independent Chairperson of the Elderly Centre Advisory Committee and he has indicated that he wishes to continue in this role.


of 84

CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS BY OFFICERS

In accordance with Sections 83(5) and 84(6) of the Local Government Act, 1999 – the Chief Executive Officer considers that this item may be considered in confidence by the Council on the grounds set out below (and therefore will remain confidential until the Council resolves how this item is to be classified). A further written report will be considered by Members at the Meeting after the following recommendation is carried. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION Item 15.1 – Gawler East Link Road Update (CC11/778) That: 1. Pursuant to Sections 90(2) and 90(3)(a) and (h) of the Local Government Act 1999

(the Act), the Council orders that the public be excluded from attendance at that part of this meeting relating to Item 15.1, excepting the following persons: Chief Executive Officer Acting Manager Economic Development, Regulatory Services &

Communications Manager Infrastructure & Engineering Services Manager Library & Community Services Manager Finance & Corporate Services Minute Taker to enable the Council to consider Item 15.1 in confidence on the basis the Council considers it necessary and appropriate to act in a meeting closed to the public (excepting those persons listed above) in order to receive, discuss or consider in confidence the following information or matter relating to Item 15.1:

Item Number 15.1 Title GAWLER EAST LINK ROAD UPDATE Date 25 October 2016 Author(s) Chris Haynes, Governance Officer

Reference CC11/778; CR16/53111; CR16/52803, CR16/48334, CR16/52597

Previous Reference/ Motion Council Meeting, 18/08/2016, Motion No: 2016:08:315 Council Meeting, 5/07/2016, Motion No:2016:07:285 Council Meeting, 26/04/2016, Motion No:2016:04:110 Council Meeting, 23/02/2016, Motion No:2016:02:21 Council Meeting, 22/12/2015, Motion No:2015:12:506 Council Meeting, 24/11/2015, Motion No:2015:11:412 Council Meeting, 27/10/2015, Motion No:2015:10:371 Council Meeting, 22/09/2015, Motion No:2015:09:349 Council Meeting, 30/06/2015, Motion No’s:2015:06:254-266


of 84

(a) information the disclosure of which would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information concerning the personal affairs of any person (living or dead);

Specifically, the present matter relates to information pertaining to the personal affairs of a person.

The disclosure of this information would be unreasonable because the information is not relevant to the affairs of the Council, is sensitive to [person] and is not a matter of public knowledge.

(h) legal advice;

Specifically, the present matter relates to legal advice provided by Stuart Henry SC

2. Accordingly, on this basis, the principle that meetings of the Council should be conducted in a place open to the public has been outweighed by the need to keep the information or matter confidential.


of 84

notice of council meeting - amazon s3 · 6.1 council meeting 27 september 2016 7. business arising...

Documents