July 2009 - District Council of Elliston
July 2009 - District Council of Elliston
July 2009 - District Council of Elliston
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
The <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong><br />
Monday 20 <strong>July</strong> <strong>2009</strong><br />
<strong>Elliston</strong> <strong>Council</strong> Chambers
The <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong><br />
Date: Monday 20 <strong>July</strong> <strong>2009</strong><br />
Time: 9.30am<br />
Venue: <strong>Elliston</strong> <strong>Council</strong> Chambers<br />
........................................................<br />
ROB GREGOR<br />
Chief Executive Officer<br />
AGENDA<br />
9.30am<br />
Welcome<br />
1 Public Question Time<br />
9.40am 2 Apologies<br />
9.45am 3 Confirmation <strong>of</strong> Minutes<br />
That the minutes <strong>of</strong> the Special Meeting held on the 4 June <strong>2009</strong>, Ordinary<br />
Meeting held on 15 June <strong>2009</strong> as circulated and tabled in the minute book be<br />
taken as read and confirmed.<br />
9.50am 4 Conflict <strong>of</strong> Interest<br />
Elected Member and Officers Declaration <strong>of</strong> matters that may constitute<br />
Conflict <strong>of</strong> Interest, in relation to the Agenda business <strong>of</strong> this meeting.<br />
5 Business Arising from Minutes<br />
Lock & <strong>District</strong> Heritage Museum<br />
275.2008 That a information flyer be distributed to the Lock and districts community<br />
followed by a community information meeting to be held in February <strong>2009</strong> to<br />
inform the public <strong>of</strong> the current issues with a public survey to then be<br />
distributed outlining the background <strong>of</strong> the situation and future management<br />
options.<br />
Cr Burrows/ Cr Hancock<br />
CARRIED<br />
Motion 275.2008-Lock & <strong>District</strong> Heritage Museum<br />
285.2008 That action on motion 275.2008 be deferred until September <strong>2009</strong>.<br />
Cr Ridgway/Cr Hancock<br />
CARRIED<br />
Commodity Route Applications<br />
008.<strong>2009</strong> That the Question lay on the Table until after the planned roads assessment has<br />
been completed.<br />
Cr Burrows/Cr Hancock<br />
CARRIED<br />
National Urban Water and Desalination Plan<br />
022.<strong>2009</strong> That administration closely monitors the National Water Security Plan for Cities<br />
and Towns website for information on the new program.<br />
Cr Hitchcock/Cr Ridgway<br />
CARRIED
Rates Exemption Request<br />
That <strong>Council</strong> authorise the write <strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> rates amounting to $269.10 on Assessment<br />
Number 93 70435504, being allotment 3 Railway Terrace, Lock due to the<br />
property being exempt from rates pursuant to the Railways (Operation & Access)<br />
Act 1997.<br />
195.<strong>2009</strong> That the motion lay on the table, until further investigation on use <strong>of</strong> the land is<br />
undertaken.<br />
Cr Hancock /Cr Hitchcock<br />
CARRIED<br />
6 Rescinding <strong>of</strong> Resolutions<br />
Nil<br />
7 Motion with Notice<br />
Nil<br />
10.00am 8 Environmental Development Assessment Manager Report<br />
* Information and Action<br />
o Delegated Powers<br />
o Glendale Pastoral Draft Licence<br />
o CWMS Agreement<br />
o Musgrave Groundwater Observation Network – Inspecting & Monitoring<br />
Agreements<br />
o Coastal Development Plan Amendment – Coastal Conservation Zone<br />
o Development Application 933/003/09 – B Rogers<br />
o Correspondence in Relation to the Development Application<br />
* Information Only<br />
o Planning & Building Approvals<br />
o Food & Health Inspections<br />
o SA Health - Food Act 2007<br />
o Mount Camel Staircase – Wirangu # 2<br />
That the Environmental Development Assessment Manager’s Report as printed<br />
in the Agenda, circulated and tabled be accepted<br />
10.30 am Morning Tea<br />
10.45am 9 Works Co-ordinator Report<br />
* Information and Action<br />
o Road Rubble for Terre Dam Road<br />
o Amendment to Dog Management Fees<br />
o Amendment to Lock Transfer Station Opening Times<br />
o Letter from Kristy Newton regarding Wooden Boat Request<br />
o Draft Scope <strong>of</strong> Works Lone Graves<br />
o Letter received from Mr Andrew Polkinghorne regarding Roadside<br />
Vegetation Clearance<br />
o Letter from Meyers Household<br />
* For Information Only<br />
o Email received from Ron Hope regarding Proposed State Road Names,<br />
Rural Property Addressing Project for <strong>Council</strong> Comment<br />
o Letter received from Mr Paul Wright regarding Waste Collection Service<br />
for Spindrift Road<br />
o Letter received from MK & BA Sheridan regarding Signage on Tooligie<br />
Road, Missing Mallee Fowl Road Sign & Waste Service Charge<br />
o Letter received from Mr Noel Grace requesting Funding be Allocated for<br />
Sealing <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong> Aerodrome Runway<br />
o Letter sent to Fosters Earthmoving congratulating on Work at the Lock<br />
Hall Toilets<br />
o Road Program <strong>July</strong> <strong>2009</strong><br />
o Letters and Correspondence
* Reports<br />
o Road Construction Expenditure<br />
- Resheeting<br />
- Pr<strong>of</strong>iling/Variation<br />
- R2R Projects<br />
o Road Maintenance – Grading & Other<br />
o RCLIP<br />
That the Works Co-ordinator Report, as printed in the Agenda, circulated and<br />
tabled, be accepted.<br />
11.30am 10<br />
11.31am 11<br />
12.00noon 12<br />
12.30pm<br />
1.30pm<br />
Relieving Deputy CEO Report’s<br />
No Report at time <strong>of</strong> Printing Agendas<br />
Corporate Services Manager Report<br />
* Information and Action<br />
o Suggestion on Annual Business Plan<br />
o <strong>Council</strong>’s Agreement with Regional Development Australia (RDA)<br />
o Letter from Tramountanas – North Association Inc (T-NA)<br />
* Information Only<br />
o $ 220 million – Community Infrastructure Program<br />
o Budget Meeting Date<br />
* Financial Reports<br />
o Monthly Income Statement and Balance Sheet<br />
o Monthly Income and Expenditure by Function<br />
o Community Support Register<br />
That the Corporate Services Manager Report, as printed in the Agenda,<br />
circulated and tabled, be accepted.<br />
Chief Executive Officers Report<br />
* Information and Action<br />
o Court appeal & Award Modernisation<br />
* Information Only<br />
o DC <strong>Elliston</strong> sets an all Time Record for Unsealed Road Construction<br />
o Independent Assessment Undertaken on DC <strong>Elliston</strong> Road Network<br />
o Storm Water Disruption<br />
o ECIC/<strong>Elliston</strong> Hall Committee Toilets<br />
o Maintenance <strong>of</strong> Port Kenny Town Firebreak<br />
o Lone Graves Project<br />
o WJ & RD Southern, Venus Bay Caravan Park. – Proposal to Change<br />
Lease/Sale Conditions<br />
o Risk Management- Gap Analysis<br />
o Three Interesting Letters<br />
o<br />
That the Chief Executive Officers Report, as printed in the Agenda, circulated<br />
and tabled, be accepted.<br />
LUNCH BREAK<br />
CEO Report Continued<br />
2.15pm 13 Chairman’s Report<br />
14 Petitions:<br />
Nil<br />
15 Tenders / Expression <strong>of</strong> Interests:<br />
Nil
2.20pm 16 Questions with Notice<br />
17 Questions without Notice<br />
2.30pm 18 Other Business<br />
2.55pm 19 Date <strong>of</strong> Next Meeting<br />
3.00pm 20 Closure
The <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong><br />
Environmental Development Assessment<br />
Managers Report<br />
To <strong>Council</strong> Meeting<br />
20 th <strong>July</strong> <strong>2009</strong><br />
INFORMATION & ACTION<br />
Delegated Powers<br />
Moved Cr. xxx, Seconded Cr. xxx that the development applications as approved by the<br />
Environmental & Development Assessment Manager, in accordance to Section 20 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Development Act, 1993 as amended, be ratified by <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Assessment<br />
Number<br />
933/032/09<br />
Planning Only<br />
Applicant Address Development<br />
C SAMPSON Lot 57 English St, Venus Bay SA 5607 Extensions to<br />
Existing<br />
Residence<br />
933/010/09 LOCK RACING CLUB Pt Sec 118, Hd McLachlan, Lock SA 5633 Ablution Block -<br />
Jockeys Room<br />
933/010/09 (s) LOCK RACING CLUB Pt Sec 118, Hd McLachlan, Lock SA 5633 Septic System &<br />
Soakage Trench<br />
933/013/09 T DALTON Lot 2, South West Tce, Sheringa SA 5670 Shed<br />
Glendale Pastoral Draft Licence<br />
As per <strong>Council</strong> resolution 271.2008, a template water licence has been produced for Glendale<br />
Pastoral to locate equipment on the Thulnippie Water Reserve at Port Kenny.<br />
This licence is based on the template provided by The Local Government Association, which were<br />
originally developed by Norman Waterhouse Lawyers. The section <strong>of</strong> land where the water<br />
reserve is situated is listed on <strong>Council</strong>s Community Lands Register therefore the standard<br />
community lands licence template has been used.<br />
Recommendation: That <strong>Council</strong> accepts the Draft Licence between the <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong><br />
and Glendale Pastoral for Thulnippie Water Reserve as tabled. Further the licence is provided to<br />
Glendale Pastoral for countersigning.<br />
CWMS Agreement<br />
The Agreement between Furnell Plumbing and the <strong>Council</strong> has been renewed to undertake the<br />
tank de-sludging <strong>of</strong> the CWMS at Lock for stage 2 in <strong>2009</strong> and stage 3 in 2010.<br />
Recommendation: That <strong>Council</strong> directs the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer to sign the<br />
Agreements and affix the Common Seal <strong>of</strong> the <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong>.<br />
Musgrave Groundwater Observation Network – Inspecting & Monitoring Agreements<br />
The Agreement between the Department <strong>of</strong> Water, Land & Biodiversity Conservation and <strong>Council</strong><br />
has been renewed 12 months. The annual service charge has been increased in line with the<br />
Local Government CPI. <strong>Council</strong> has subcontracted the Agreement to Mr Graham Spiers for the<br />
<strong>Elliston</strong> area and Mr Stefan Sach & Ms Sue Burns for the Venus Bay area. The subcontracted<br />
Agreement’s have been increased accordingly to the Local Government CPI.<br />
Recommendation: That <strong>Council</strong> directs the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer to sign the<br />
three Agreements and affix the Common Seal <strong>of</strong> the <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong>.
Coastal Development Plan Amendment – Coastal Conservation Zone<br />
On the 16 th <strong>of</strong> June <strong>2009</strong>, the CEO and <strong>Council</strong>’s Trainee EDAM met with the Planning SA staff to<br />
discuss the development and progress <strong>of</strong> the Coastal Development Plan Amendment for the<br />
<strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong>.<br />
Planning SA is proposing a modified version <strong>of</strong> their original Coastal Development Plan which it<br />
presented to <strong>Council</strong> firstly in November 2007 and then again in March 2008, some <strong>of</strong> the potential<br />
changes which were discussed are below;<br />
(1) In the original concept plan, if an owner wanted to demolish an existing dwelling in the<br />
Coastal Conservation Zone (CCZ) they were unable to replace it. However, Planning SA is<br />
now suggesting to it to be changed to the “existing use clause” and new dwelling may be<br />
constructed however it will need to be located in the same location and consist <strong>of</strong> the same<br />
size.<br />
(2) In the original concept there was to be no modification to existing buildings and no<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> new buildings e.g. outbuildings. However, Planning SA is now suggesting<br />
modification <strong>of</strong> the buildings, plus 20% replacement and also the construction <strong>of</strong><br />
outbuildings to be allowed.<br />
(3) With the original concept there was to be no installation <strong>of</strong> dams, tanks or windmills<br />
however, the department is now suggesting that the landowner will be able to install these<br />
items and this clause would be removed from the Coastal Development Plan Amendment<br />
in the CCZ.<br />
Planning SA brought their reviewed maps for the whole coastal region for the <strong>Council</strong> and it<br />
appears that the CCZ has now been reduced by 50% from the original concept which the <strong>Council</strong><br />
received in November 2007. It emerged that Planning SA has now used GPS points to determine<br />
the zones and boundaries which is important to the <strong>Council</strong> and the landowners to determine the<br />
exact locations in question. However, without undertaking a full cadastral survey it is hard to<br />
determine the correct locations.<br />
While Planning SA was present, their personal informed administration that the <strong>Council</strong> will need to<br />
propose the ratification <strong>of</strong> its camping locations at Sheringa, Walkers, Talia and Locks Well for it to<br />
be included in the Development Plan Amendment. This would therefore enable the <strong>Council</strong> to<br />
undertake any future development and modification <strong>of</strong> its facilities at these locations.<br />
Planning SA has been requested to present the modified plans and maps to Administration Staff in<br />
the near future for comment and review. It will then be presented to <strong>Council</strong> for examination.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> may also be required to contract its consultant planners at Aurecon (Connell Wagner) to<br />
examine the maps and the development plan amendments, due to EDAM’s absence.<br />
While examining the maps and discussing the plan with Planning SA the following points were<br />
raised:<br />
(1) It appears that the proposal concept is not too excessive with the restrictions on existing<br />
dwellings and the <strong>Council</strong> infrastructure which will be within the CCZ. However, the<br />
concept has not been formally approved by other government departments and it will be<br />
important for <strong>Council</strong> to examine the changes against the present <strong>Council</strong> resolution, which<br />
may need to be rescinded or modified if <strong>Council</strong> agrees to the proposal. If <strong>Council</strong> does not<br />
accept the changes and prefers the <strong>Council</strong>s proposed draft CCZ, then it is possible that<br />
the Development Plan Amendment proposed by Planning SA will be ratified by the Minister<br />
or departments and may be implemented via a ministerial PAR.<br />
(2) This modified plan does not comply with <strong>Council</strong>s resolution 56.2008 and the decision<br />
facing the council is that most <strong>of</strong> the Eyre Peninsula <strong>Council</strong>s appear to have signed <strong>of</strong>f on<br />
some compromise.<br />
(3) The alternative is to say NO to the proposal from Planning SA and continue with the original<br />
<strong>Council</strong>s Draft Proposal.
However this will probably force the Minister for Planning and Local Government to<br />
consider the support from the other EP <strong>Council</strong>s and apply versions <strong>of</strong> other <strong>Council</strong>’s<br />
concepts to the <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong> Development Plan.<br />
Please note:<br />
The recent Planning SA proposal will not meet all present Landowners aspirations<br />
(however there is an exemption for owners who have Developments Applications lodged<br />
with <strong>Council</strong> or footings in place). However, the proposal from Planning SA seems to be<br />
more flexible on existing dwellings and the moving <strong>of</strong> the boundaries back is a significant<br />
compromised <strong>of</strong>fer.<br />
If the <strong>Council</strong> feels that this should be accepted subject to; final review <strong>of</strong> the PSA proposal (plans<br />
and clauses) the current resolution would need to be rescinded and replaced with another motion.<br />
Recommendation: That <strong>Council</strong> directs the CEO to arrange for correspondence to be sent to the<br />
stakeholders involved with an update on the progress <strong>of</strong> the Coastal Development Plan<br />
Amendment.<br />
Further the <strong>Council</strong> directs the CEO to inform Planning SA that the <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong> will<br />
be unable to examine this proposal until after the budget process.<br />
Development Application 933 / 003 / 09 – B Rogers<br />
<strong>Council</strong> will recently have received correspondence from Mr Bruce Rogers, in relation to<br />
Development Application 933-003-09, for backfill at Lot 31 Wandana Road, <strong>Elliston</strong>.<br />
The following report has been prepared by Aurecon on behalf <strong>of</strong> the <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong> to<br />
provide background detail in response to this letter, and to obtain a <strong>Council</strong> resolution as to the<br />
preferred course <strong>of</strong> action.<br />
Please note that Mr Rogers’s correspondence also raises a number <strong>of</strong> other issues in relation to<br />
the Native Vegetation <strong>Council</strong> and the Category 3 assessment process, which has been addressed<br />
via a reply from Joanne Stevens, dated 6 th <strong>July</strong> <strong>2009</strong>.<br />
Background<br />
Mr and Mrs Rogers purchased Lot 31 Wandana Road, <strong>Elliston</strong> in 2007, this property is located<br />
within the Links sub division and as such there is a Land Management Agreement (LMA) (<strong>Elliston</strong><br />
Links Development) registered on the title. Mr and Mrs Rogers have obtained approval from the<br />
Native Vegetation <strong>Council</strong> to clear the allotment. Development approval to locate a transportable<br />
style dwelling on the allotment has also been obtained. Mr Rogers was advised during the<br />
assessment process for the dwelling that Development Approval for the associated earthworks<br />
would be required; Mr Rogers chose to do this via a separate application.<br />
In January <strong>2009</strong> an application was received for 450m3 <strong>of</strong> backfill (detail which was not included in<br />
their initial application). Under the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Development Act (1993) the application was<br />
determined to be a Category 3 application for public notification purposes and was duly notified.<br />
Three representations were received in response to these notification and the applicant (Mr<br />
Rogers) responded to the issues raised. No contoured site plans were provided with the<br />
application.<br />
During the final assessment process, it was established that the height <strong>of</strong> the proposed fill at 1.5<br />
metres does not fulfil the requirements <strong>of</strong> the LMA; dot point 10 <strong>of</strong> Annexure B to the LMA reads:<br />
No excavation for construction will exceed one metre in cut and fill unless approved by <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Finished Floor levels <strong>of</strong> all buildings will not exceed the average level by more than 0.15 metres.<br />
As Lot 31 Wandana Road is a sloping allotment the backfill is intended to fill the sloped area to<br />
create a level house site, and as such not all <strong>of</strong> the required fill will exceed the one metre limit.
The proposed fill is likely to exceed one metre at its highest point but overall may be an ‘average’<br />
<strong>of</strong> one metre. A legal opinion was sought to determine whether or not excavation with an ‘average’<br />
level <strong>of</strong> one metre would fulfil the requirements <strong>of</strong> the LMA.<br />
The opinion provided by Mr Paul Leadbeter <strong>of</strong> Norman Waterhouse Lawyers, concurred with that<br />
<strong>of</strong> the EDAM that the provision relates to a maximum height and not an average height, and the<br />
proposal in its current form does not fulfil the requirements established in the LMA.<br />
Mr Leadbeter also advised that an LMA requires all clauses contained within it to be considered,<br />
and that Annexure B is concerned with the importance <strong>of</strong> views within the subdivision and seeks to<br />
prevent building heights and forms from restricting such views.<br />
Mr Rogers is now seeking <strong>Council</strong> approval to vary the LMA in order to allow for backfill up to a<br />
maximum height <strong>of</strong> 1.5 metres for his allotment.<br />
Inspection and Assessment Detail<br />
The subject land at Lot 31 Wandana Road is approximately 900m 2 in size, the application detail<br />
indicates that 24.5 metres <strong>of</strong> the allotment will be backfilled to some degree. This provides for<br />
450m 3 <strong>of</strong> fill over approximately 54.4 per cent <strong>of</strong> the allotment. The applicant has advised that the<br />
height <strong>of</strong> the dwelling, inclusive <strong>of</strong> fill, will be 950mm below the height requirements stipulated<br />
within LMA.<br />
Mr Rogers has indicated in his application that the maximum height will be approximately 1.5<br />
metres high, although drawings provided with and forming part <strong>of</strong> the application do not make this<br />
completely clear.<br />
• Drawing One - dated 15 January <strong>2009</strong> and titled ‘side view <strong>of</strong> pad and dwelling at lot 31<br />
Wandana Rd <strong>Elliston</strong>” shows backfill at ‘approximately 1.5 metres high”.<br />
• Drawing Two – which is unnamed and undated, shows what appears to be the footprint <strong>of</strong><br />
the dwelling on the subject land. It also indicates that the fall from the footprint to natural<br />
ground is 1.45metres in the north eastern corner and 1.75 metres in the north western<br />
corner.<br />
An inspection <strong>of</strong> the site undertaken by <strong>Council</strong> staff raised concerns regarding the slope <strong>of</strong> the<br />
allotment and the ability for the site to be levelled by using a maximum <strong>of</strong> 1.5 metres <strong>of</strong> fill. A visual<br />
inspection suggests that the height <strong>of</strong> the fill required would actually be much higher possibly to a<br />
height <strong>of</strong> between 1.7 and 2 metres.<br />
The site inspection also highlighted that in order to provide for a maximum <strong>of</strong> 1.5 metres <strong>of</strong> ‘fill’<br />
then some amount <strong>of</strong> ‘cut’ may be required at the higher end <strong>of</strong> the allotment. There is no detail <strong>of</strong><br />
‘cut’ within the application documents.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> should note that under the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Development Act (1993) it is the responsibility<br />
<strong>of</strong> the applicant to provide the appropriate level <strong>of</strong> detail required to undertake a full and proper<br />
assessment <strong>of</strong> their proposal<br />
Land Management Agreements and Development Approval<br />
<strong>Council</strong> are aware that LMA’s and development approval are two separate although intertwined<br />
processes. The Development Act (1993) allows for parties to enter into a Land Management<br />
Agreement in order to provide further mechanisms for controlling appropriate development over<br />
one or more parcels <strong>of</strong> land. The LMA in this instance is an agreement between individual land<br />
owners within the <strong>Elliston</strong> Links Development, and <strong>Council</strong>. Land owners agree to the provisions <strong>of</strong><br />
the LMA when they purchase an allotment.<br />
The Development Act requires that a full and proper assessment be undertaken <strong>of</strong> a proposal. If a<br />
LMA exists on a title then the application must conform with the provisions <strong>of</strong> the LMA before an<br />
assessment can be finalised.
In this particular instance, as a Category 3 application, the decision regarding the application itself<br />
will be made by <strong>Council</strong>s Development Assessment Panel, who will make their decision in line with<br />
the <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong> Development Plan.<br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s is currently being asked is to determine whether or not they will allow a variation to the<br />
existing LMA in order for the development assessment process to continue.<br />
Should <strong>Council</strong> determine not to vary the LMA the applicant is able to amend the current<br />
application or submit a new dwelling application that will meet the requirements <strong>of</strong> LMA.<br />
Due process and Potential Delays<br />
In the Correspondence received from Mr Rogers he has expressed his frustration at the long<br />
process involved with his development application process. However, what may not be clear to Mr<br />
Rogers is that in seeking to obtain approval for house, he is involved in more than one process.<br />
Although these processes are <strong>of</strong>ten interlinked they are separate processes and must be managed<br />
separately and handled by different authorities.<br />
Firstly, as Mr and Mrs Rogers purchased an allotment that contained a considerable amount <strong>of</strong><br />
remnant native vegetation, they must obtain approval from the Native Vegetation <strong>Council</strong> for<br />
clearance <strong>of</strong> this vegetation before they can undertake development on the property. This process<br />
is out <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>s control and is managed by the Native Vegetation <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Secondly, Mr and Mrs Rogers purchased an allotment on which there was a LMA registered on the<br />
title. On purchasing this allotment Mr and Mrs Rogers should have familiarised themselves with the<br />
requirements <strong>of</strong> the LMA. As described above, LMA’s add an additional layer <strong>of</strong> complexity to the<br />
development assessment process, as an application for development must meet the provisions <strong>of</strong><br />
the LMA as well as the requirements <strong>of</strong> the development plan.<br />
Additionally, the allotment purchased by Mr and Mrs Rogers contains a steep slope. In purchasing<br />
this allotment it is not known whether or not Mr and Mrs Rogers made themselves aware <strong>of</strong> the<br />
construction issues that are inherent with constructing a dwelling on such a slope. The slope <strong>of</strong> an<br />
allotment can have significant impacts on stormwater drainage issues, the amount <strong>of</strong> cut and fill<br />
required and the design <strong>of</strong> any dwelling.<br />
Mr and Mrs Rodgers have chosen a dwelling type that when sited on the allotment requires a<br />
considerable amount <strong>of</strong> backfill. Under the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Development Act (1993) when<br />
assessing an application for this degree <strong>of</strong> fill, Category 3 public notification is required. The<br />
Development Act (1993) therefore requires that the final decision for this application be made by<br />
<strong>Council</strong>s Development Assessment Panel (CDAP), this is a body formed by <strong>Council</strong> but which acts<br />
independently to the <strong>Council</strong> and is required under Legislation. Had the amount <strong>of</strong> fill required<br />
been less it is unlikely this stage would be required.<br />
As Mr and Mrs Rogers submitted an application that does not meet the provisions <strong>of</strong> the LMA on<br />
their title, a further layer <strong>of</strong> complexity has been added. That is, the requirement for <strong>Council</strong> to<br />
agree to amend the LMA before any assessment <strong>of</strong> the current application can be completed. Had<br />
Mr and Mrs Rogers application met the provisions <strong>of</strong> the LMA this stage would not be necessary.<br />
Please note Mr and Mrs Rogers have the option <strong>of</strong> altering their existing application, or submitting<br />
a new application should they desire and should <strong>Council</strong> not agree to vary the LMA<br />
It is unfortunate that this process is so complex, but this is outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>’s control and it is<br />
understandable that Mr and Mrs Rogers have become frustrated with the process. Ultimately<br />
however the onus is on the purchaser when buying land to ensure they are fully aware <strong>of</strong> the<br />
requirements and legislative processes involved. Further <strong>Council</strong> can not be held responsible for<br />
the dwelling type Mr and Mrs Rogers have chosen to place on their property and the further flow on<br />
impacts this has had.
Options for <strong>Council</strong><br />
Clause 3.6 <strong>of</strong> the LMA allows that:<br />
The <strong>Council</strong> may waive compliance by the Owner with the whole or any part <strong>of</strong> the obligations on<br />
the Owner’s part herein contained provided that no such waiver shall be effective unless expressed<br />
in writing and signed by the <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> should seek to satisfy themselves that in waiving the whole or any part Owners obligations<br />
they are not allowing a major change to the intent <strong>of</strong> the LMA itself.<br />
Due to the discrepancy between the details provided in the application and opinion formed from<br />
visual inspections it is strongly recommended that <strong>Council</strong> view the site to assist them in the<br />
decision making progress.<br />
It is further suggested that <strong>Council</strong> require the applicant to provide either an engineers report or a<br />
surveyed contoured site plan to fully clarify the amount and level <strong>of</strong> fill required prior to making a<br />
decision. The degree <strong>of</strong> fill required could not only impact upon visual amenity and views but also<br />
on stormwater run<strong>of</strong>f and slump risks upon adjoining owners and others within the locality. The<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> a contoured site plan is standard practice when submitting an application, particularly<br />
where earthworks are involved.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> should also take note <strong>of</strong> Clause 2.14 <strong>of</strong> the LMA which reads:<br />
When undertaking any development on the land the Owner shall ensure that such development is<br />
undertaken with the minimum effect on the natural features and topography <strong>of</strong> the land.<br />
Recommendations:<br />
That <strong>Council</strong> undertake a site visit to the Lot 31 Wandana Road <strong>Elliston</strong> in order to gain a proper<br />
understanding <strong>of</strong> slope <strong>of</strong> the allotment.<br />
a) Require Mr Rogers to provide an engineers report, detailing the exact amount, height and level<br />
<strong>of</strong> fill required and potential impacts upon stormwater and slump risk within the locality.<br />
OR<br />
b) Require Mr Rogers to provide a contoured site plan prepared by qualified and independent<br />
surveyor showing the location <strong>of</strong> the proposed dwelling and details <strong>of</strong> the required cut and fill at a<br />
level .548 below existing road level. Additionally a side elevation plan to be provided, showing land<br />
contours, finished floor levels and details <strong>of</strong> proposed cut and fill.<br />
Upon receipt <strong>of</strong> this additional information <strong>Council</strong> should feel satisfied they have sufficient detail in<br />
order to make a decision in relation to varying the existing LMA on Lot 31 Wandana Road <strong>Elliston</strong>.<br />
Correspondence in Relation to the Development Application<br />
Please find attached correspondence in relation to the Development Application for the Backfill <strong>of</strong><br />
Allotment 31 Wandana Road, <strong>Elliston</strong> SA 5670.<br />
• Letter sent to all <strong>Council</strong>lors via email 25 th June 09, from Mr B Rogers with complaints in<br />
regards to his Development Application.<br />
• Response from Trainee EDAM which was sent on the 6 th <strong>July</strong> 09, in regards to Mr Roger’s<br />
letter outlining his concerns raised in relation to the following points;<br />
Native Vegetation Clearance,<br />
The Submission letters which <strong>Council</strong> received in relation to the Development<br />
Application,<br />
The Stipulated Height <strong>of</strong> the allotment,<br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s Development Assessment Panel<br />
Altering the Land Management Agreement which is on the Lands Title.
• Email received from Mr Rogers dated 7 th <strong>July</strong> <strong>2009</strong> requesting staff seek exemption on his<br />
behalf for the LMA.<br />
• Email response sent to Mr Rogers 8 th <strong>July</strong> <strong>2009</strong>, explaining that administration are unable<br />
to apply for the LMA exemption on his behalf and that it is his responsibility to seek this<br />
from the <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
INFORMATION ONLY<br />
Planning & Building Approvals<br />
Administration has received notification from <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> Ceduna that their building inspector<br />
will assess the Building Approvals during Environmental Development Assessment Manager’s<br />
absence. Please find attached a copy <strong>of</strong> the correspondence which has been forwarded to DC<br />
Ceduna in regards to the delegations.<br />
Aurecon (formally Connell Wagner) will be assisting and undertaking the major planning<br />
development applications and approvals during Environmental Development Assessment<br />
Manager’s absence. Please find attached a copy <strong>of</strong> the correspondence which has been forwarded<br />
to Aurecon in regards to the delegations.<br />
Food & Health Inspections<br />
Administration has received confirmation from the <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> Tumby Bay that their<br />
Environmental Health <strong>of</strong>ficer will assist the <strong>Council</strong> with the onsite food inspections until the end <strong>of</strong><br />
the year and also with Environmental Health issues during Environmental Development<br />
Assessment Manager’s Absence. Please find attached a copy <strong>of</strong> the correspondence which has<br />
been forwarded to DC Tumby Bay in regards to the delegations.<br />
SA Health – Food Act 2007<br />
Please find attached correspondence from SA Health in relation to the increasing demand for Local<br />
Government to release information relating to the food business’ how have been issues<br />
improvement notices, Prohibition Orders, or Expiations.<br />
Under the Food Act 2001 Section 93 (2) <strong>Council</strong>s are required to forward relevant information in<br />
regards to food business that are being prosecuted by the <strong>Council</strong>. As from the 1 st <strong>July</strong> <strong>2009</strong> the<br />
<strong>Council</strong> must provide the relevant information to the Food Policy & Programs Branch <strong>of</strong> any<br />
breaches and then this is displayed on a public website.<br />
Mount Camel Staircase – Wirangu # 2<br />
Please find attached correspondence from the Native Title Solicitors whom represents the Wirangu<br />
# 2 claimants in regards to the proposed boardwalk at the Mount Camel Beach area. Included is a<br />
letter <strong>of</strong> reply from the <strong>Council</strong>’s Chief Executive Officer in relation to the Native Title claim for that<br />
area.<br />
Recommendation: That the Environmental Development Assessment Manager’s Report as<br />
printed in the Agenda, circulated and tabled be accepted.<br />
Rob Gregor<br />
(Currently supervising the EDAM position)
The <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong><br />
Works Coordinator’s Report<br />
INFORMATION AND ACTION<br />
To <strong>Council</strong> Meeting<br />
20 <strong>July</strong> <strong>2009</strong><br />
Road Rubble for Terre Dam Road<br />
The Road rubble chosen for the Terre Dam Road meets the conditions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>’s Road Infrastructure<br />
Policy. The full details <strong>of</strong> the rubble assessment will not arrive until next week.<br />
I seek councils authorisation for the use <strong>of</strong> rubble from XXX ‘s property for the construction on Terre Dam<br />
Road (Rubble assessment will be provided as a late agenda item)<br />
Action: That council authorise the use <strong>of</strong> rubble from XXX’s property for the resheeting on Terre Dam<br />
Road.<br />
Amendment to Dog Management Fees<br />
The Dog Management Act and regulations provide provision for <strong>Council</strong>s to charge impound and kennel<br />
fees to recover costs <strong>of</strong> impoundment.<br />
As <strong>Council</strong> currently has no provision in place to charge fees to recover costs, it is recommended that a<br />
$30 impound fee plus $10 kennel fee (per day) be included in <strong>Council</strong>s schedule <strong>of</strong> fees and that<br />
administration advise the Dog and Cat Management Board <strong>of</strong> the fees and update.<br />
Dog and Cat Management Act 1995<br />
Section 62-Limits on entitlement to return <strong>of</strong> dog<br />
A person is not entitled to the return <strong>of</strong> a dog seized under this Division unless the person—<br />
(b) pays—<br />
(i) the charges that are payable under the regulations in relation to the seizure and detention<br />
<strong>of</strong> the dog; and<br />
(ii) any other outstanding charges or fees payable under this Act in relation to the dog; and<br />
(c) in the case <strong>of</strong> an unregistered dog—registers the dog if so requested by the person responsible<br />
for the dog while detained.<br />
Action: I recommend that <strong>Council</strong> adopt a Dog impound fee <strong>of</strong> $30.00 plus a Kennel fee <strong>of</strong> $10 per day<br />
and the fees be included in the schedule <strong>of</strong> fees and charges in the final budget process.<br />
Amendment to Lock Transfer Station Opening Times<br />
The Lock transfer station is currently opened by <strong>Council</strong> staff on Wednesdays for 2 hours and Saturdays for<br />
2 hours, however due to the lack <strong>of</strong> public utilisation <strong>of</strong> the facility during the Wednesday opening it is<br />
recommended that the Wednesday opening is cancelled and the Lock Transfer Station only opens on<br />
Saturdays.<br />
Action: I seek <strong>Council</strong>’s direction to amend the Lock Transfer Station site opening times to open from<br />
9am to11am on Saturdays and issue public notices advising <strong>of</strong> the changes.<br />
Letter from Kristy Newton regarding Wooden Boat Request<br />
Please find attached letter received from Kristy Newton requesting that <strong>Council</strong> donate the old wooden boat<br />
to the <strong>Elliston</strong> Sports Complex. The boat was removed from the <strong>Elliston</strong> playground due to potential risk<br />
management issues. Kristy has advised that if <strong>Council</strong> donated the boat, that they would make necessary<br />
repairs to the equipment to ensure safety to users.
If <strong>Council</strong> was to donate the boat, a letter <strong>of</strong> agreement must be signed by the Sports Centre stating that<br />
the equipment is no longer compliant with relevant standards and that the Sports Centre accepts all risk<br />
associated from use <strong>of</strong> the equipment.<br />
Action: I seek <strong>Council</strong>’s direction regarding this matter.<br />
Draft Scope <strong>of</strong> Works Lone Graves<br />
Please find attached a draft scope <strong>of</strong> works for the <strong>Council</strong>’s Lone Graves project. Please also refer to the<br />
attached correspondence from Mrs Wiseman and a response email to her regarding <strong>Council</strong> resolutions.<br />
Action:<br />
a) That <strong>Council</strong> approve or modify the scope <strong>of</strong> works as they feel fit<br />
b) That <strong>Council</strong> direct the CEO to arrange for new public notices asking for expressions <strong>of</strong><br />
interest for the lone graves project, to be placed in local newspapers regarding this project<br />
and that the final scope <strong>of</strong> works is to be provided to those persons/ organisations<br />
expressing interest.<br />
Letter received from Mr Andrew Polkinghorne regarding Roadside Vegetation Clearance<br />
The letter received from Mr Andrew Polkinghorne regarding roadside vegetation clearance carried out by<br />
<strong>Council</strong> (copy <strong>of</strong> letter and response included in the Information Pack).<br />
Please refer to <strong>Council</strong>’s Native Vegetation Plan for Roadworks Policy in the <strong>Council</strong>lor Information Pack.<br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s policy allows clearance <strong>of</strong> up to three meters from the edge <strong>of</strong> the road and all commodity routes<br />
should be a minimum <strong>of</strong> 12 meters wide.<br />
Last financial year, <strong>Council</strong> cleared approximately 60km <strong>of</strong> roadside vegetation with the available budget <strong>of</strong><br />
$15000 (approx $250 per kilometre).<br />
The current process involves Contractors removing vegetation and <strong>of</strong>fending limbs with an articulated<br />
loader and stump rake bucket from the roadside as required and depositing them on the verge between the<br />
road and the adjoining property where appropriate.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> has previously utilised the services <strong>of</strong> a contractor with an arm mounted rotating saw as a trial on<br />
the Murlong Murdinga Road several years ago, however although this process is very tidy leaving the area<br />
neat and clean with minimal damage to the vegetation, the foliage has grown back vigorously and the saw<br />
does not remove problem trees on the shoulders and the trimmed foliage remains on the verge unless a<br />
chipper is used or the trimmings are removed to another area adding additional cost. A flailing machine is<br />
also available to cut <strong>of</strong>f shrubs and low foliage at additional cost.<br />
Two contractors with a rotating, extendable arm mounted saw were contacted and pricing ranged from<br />
between $260- $500 per km depending on the density <strong>of</strong> the vegetation. This figure does not include<br />
relocation costs.<br />
Action: I seek <strong>Council</strong>s direction on this issue and which practice it would prefer the works department to<br />
undertake.<br />
Letter from Meyers Household<br />
Mrs Meyers has requested that council install a gate to stop unauthorised use <strong>of</strong> the closed section <strong>of</strong><br />
Waratah Road, the following information is provided for <strong>Council</strong>s information:<br />
• Waratah road was closed by <strong>Council</strong> many years ago and it is a closed road corridor<br />
• No bike track exists on the corridor, however staff have raised to <strong>Council</strong> requests for a bike track to<br />
be installed on the corridor on several occasions but it has never become a budget priority<br />
• A gate can be installed by <strong>Council</strong> at Mrs Meyers expense<br />
• <strong>Council</strong> can budget to place a gate on the corridor<br />
• If a gate is placed on the corridor the utilities with services on the corridor will require keys.<br />
Action: I seek <strong>Council</strong>s direction on this issue.
INFORMATION ONLY<br />
Email received from Ron Hope regarding Proposed State Road Names, Rural Property Addressing<br />
Project for <strong>Council</strong> Comment<br />
Please find attached email and spreadsheet and unless <strong>Council</strong> has any objections a response will be<br />
provided to Mr Hope accepting the proposed state road names.<br />
Letter received from Mr Paul Wright regarding Waste Collection Service for Spindrift Road<br />
Please find attached letter and response sent to Mr Paul Wright regarding waste collection at Spindrift<br />
Road.<br />
Letter received from MK & BA Sheridan regarding Signage on Tooligie Road, Missing Mallee Fowl<br />
Road Sign & Waste Service Charge<br />
Please find attached letter and response sent to Mr and Mrs Sheridan regarding the above matters.<br />
Letter received from Mr Noel Grace requesting Funding be Allocated for Sealing <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong><br />
Aerodrome Runway<br />
Please find attached letter and response sent to Mr Grace regarding this matter (included in CEO budget<br />
items in recent budget meeting).<br />
Letter sent to Fosters Earthmoving congratulating on Work at the Lock Hall Toilets<br />
Please find attached congratulations sent to Contractors who carried out good work at the Lock Hall Toilets<br />
(noted in May <strong>Council</strong> minutes).<br />
Road Program <strong>July</strong> <strong>2009</strong><br />
Gantt chart attached.<br />
Construction<br />
Reports Attached<br />
Road Construction Expenditure<br />
- Resheeting<br />
- Pr<strong>of</strong>iling/Variation<br />
- R2R Projects<br />
Road Maintenance – Grading & Other<br />
RLCIP Projects Expenditure<br />
Letters and Correspondence<br />
Letter From:<br />
Regarding:<br />
Response:<br />
Letter From:<br />
Regarding:<br />
Response:<br />
Letter From:<br />
Regarding:<br />
Response:<br />
Letter From:<br />
Regarding:<br />
Response:<br />
Mrs Kristy Newton<br />
Redundent playground equipment<br />
Awaiting <strong>Council</strong>s decision<br />
The Meyers Household<br />
Installation <strong>of</strong> gate on Waratah<br />
Acknowledgement and awaiting <strong>Council</strong>s decision<br />
Mr Paul Wright<br />
Waste collection service for Spindrift Road <strong>Elliston</strong><br />
Letter attached<br />
MK & BA Sheridan<br />
Signage on Tooligie Road<br />
Letter attached
Letter From:<br />
Regarding:<br />
Response:<br />
Mr Noel Grace<br />
Allocating budget to Aerodrome runway sealing<br />
Acknowledgement<br />
Recommendation: That the Works Coordinator’s Report as printed in the Agenda, circulated and tabled<br />
be accepted.<br />
Wayne Scholz<br />
Works Coordinator<br />
Ian Miller<br />
Relieving Works Manager
INFORMATION & ACTION<br />
The <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong><br />
Corporate Services Manager Report<br />
To <strong>Council</strong> Meeting<br />
20 <strong>July</strong> <strong>2009</strong><br />
Suggestion on Annual Business Plan<br />
As per Local Government Regulation Act, each <strong>Council</strong> needs to complete their Rates<br />
Declaration process by 31 August <strong>2009</strong> and before this date each <strong>Council</strong> needs to adopt<br />
their Annual Business Plan.<br />
Action: That, I seek <strong>Council</strong>’s suggestion on items/points to be included so that I can resent<br />
the Final Copy <strong>of</strong> <strong>2009</strong> /10 Annual Business Plan in the next Budget Meeting.<br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s Agreement with Regional Development Australia (RDA) (Four related letters<br />
are attached)<br />
The <strong>Council</strong> had received four letters in regards to <strong>Council</strong>’s agreement with RDA.<br />
Letter 1: From Jan Lowe, Acting Director <strong>of</strong> “Office <strong>of</strong> Small Business and Regional<br />
Development” (Dated 23 June <strong>2009</strong>), asking <strong>Council</strong> to amend the payments to allow the<br />
new RDA to be placed. (Note: We assume this actually means transfer the residual payment<br />
to the new body however it does not provide any content on the new agreement).<br />
Letter 2: From Timothy Deer (DTED) (Dated 02 <strong>July</strong>, <strong>2009</strong>) .This letter ask for <strong>Council</strong>’s<br />
support to provide residual fund to maintain services during the transition.<br />
Letter 3: From Chris Russel LGA (Dated June 30, <strong>2009</strong>) – The letter is regarding<br />
Memorandum <strong>of</strong> Understanding for RDA. This e-mail is self explanatory. If the <strong>Council</strong> is<br />
satisfied and agreed with MOU proposed by LGA it should formally advised EPLGA as the<br />
matter is also discuss in that organisation. At this point <strong>of</strong> time we do not have the copy <strong>of</strong><br />
LGA’s proposed MOU, however it is summarised in their E-mail.<br />
Letter 4: From Diana Laube, Executive Officer, Eyre Peninsula Local Government Assoc.<br />
(Dated : 04,June ,<strong>2009</strong>). This letter highlights on the recent developments on RDA.<br />
Action: That I seek <strong>Council</strong>’s direction in this matter.<br />
Letter from Tramountanas – North Association Inc (T-NA) (A copy Attached)<br />
The representatives from Tramountanas North Association wishes to discuss with <strong>Council</strong><br />
regarding the Panegyri Greek Festival funds which is kept in the <strong>Elliston</strong> Airport Reserve<br />
Account and as per T-NA’s letter it seems, they wants to finance a most suitable community<br />
project with their Panegyri Greek Festival funds which is kept in the <strong>Elliston</strong> Airport Reserve<br />
Fund. In this regard they wish to involve in a discussion with <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Action: That I seek <strong>Council</strong>’s direction in this matter, so that I can response to T-NA’s letter<br />
accordingly.
INFORMATION ONLY<br />
$ 220 million – Community Infrastructure Program (Detail attached)<br />
As per Cr Hitchcock’s information on Community Infrastructure Program, I have looked into<br />
the matter and the information regarding Community Infrastructure Program was published<br />
in “West Coast Sentinel”, Thursday 2 <strong>July</strong> <strong>2009</strong> and it was also published in the <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
website <strong>of</strong> Australian <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> Local Government (link: www.aclg.gov.au/cip/index.aspx )<br />
This funding will assist <strong>Council</strong>s to build and modernise community facilities, including town<br />
halls, libraries, community centres, sports grounds and environmental infrastructure .<br />
According to the published information, this funding will help to complete and acquit the<br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s current projects. However, till now no guidelines have been given to DC <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Elliston</strong> in this regards. Under this funding $ 30,000 has been allocated for DC <strong>Elliston</strong> and<br />
<strong>Council</strong> should consider what projects it may wish to Fund, however, it does so in the<br />
knowledge that they may then need to adjust them to fit the eventual Guild lines.<br />
Budget Meeting Date<br />
A consensus Budget meeting date is needed to be fixed up in the coming 20th <strong>July</strong> Ordinary<br />
meeting.<br />
Financial Reports:<br />
• Monthly Income Statement and Balance Sheet.<br />
• Monthly Income and Expenditure by Function.<br />
• Community Support Register<br />
Recommendation: That the Financial Reports which compare Actual with Budgets for the<br />
period to 31 June <strong>2009</strong> and the Community Support Register, be received .<br />
Corporate Services Manager Report<br />
Recommendation: That the Corporate Services Manager Report as printed in the Agenda,<br />
circulated and tabled be accepted.<br />
Kuntal Goswami<br />
Corporate Services Manager
<strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong><br />
Chief Executive Officer's Report<br />
FOR INFORMATION AND ACTION<br />
To <strong>Council</strong> Meeting<br />
20 <strong>July</strong> <strong>2009</strong><br />
Court appeal & Award Modernisation<br />
As per the attached letter from the Local Government Association (LGA) a recent Industrial<br />
court decision has left many <strong>Council</strong>’s potentially at risk <strong>of</strong> substantial claims for back-pay.<br />
This is an important and potentially costly issue and the LGA is mounting a challenge to the<br />
decision and is seeking a contribution from all <strong>Council</strong>’s based on the agreed LGA subscription<br />
formulae.<br />
At this point in time, I do not have a cost from them for the DC <strong>Elliston</strong> apportionment; however,<br />
I seek <strong>Council</strong>’s permission to indicate an ‘in principle” agreement to the LGA..<br />
Action: I seek <strong>Council</strong>’s direction on this matter.<br />
FOR INFORMATION ONLY<br />
DC <strong>Elliston</strong> sets an all Time Record for Unsealed Road Construction<br />
The attached e-mail confirms the excellent results <strong>of</strong> the 2008/09 roads re-sheeting program,<br />
with <strong>Council</strong> Works Staff and its regular Contractors having achieved 54.3 Km <strong>of</strong> road<br />
construction.<br />
This work has been completed using one <strong>of</strong> the smallest work groups amongst the Eyre<br />
Peninsula <strong>Council</strong>s and as recently confirmed by an independent and qualified assessor, it has<br />
been done to a high standard and with excellent unit cost being achieved for all categories <strong>of</strong><br />
roads.<br />
All <strong>Council</strong> staff (from administration through to Works gang and contractors) are congratulated<br />
for this achievement and they should be justifiably proud <strong>of</strong> their efforts; as I am.<br />
Independent Assessment Undertaken on DC <strong>Elliston</strong> Road Network<br />
This is the second voluntary and independent assessment that has been arranged. The<br />
complete and detailed report is available to <strong>Council</strong>lors by request and the Executive Summary<br />
is attached.<br />
The first assessment was related to the traffic safety requirements for <strong>Council</strong>’s busy and in<br />
some places, somewhat unique coastal Roads. The second assessment was broader and it<br />
involved (in summary) an independent and qualified engineer assessing the following:<br />
• The effectiveness <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>’s road works operation<br />
• Compliance to <strong>Council</strong>’s Roads infrastructure Policy<br />
• Assessing <strong>Council</strong>’s Commodity routes for general road safety compliance<br />
• Re-assessing the changes made to <strong>Council</strong>’s coastal road network<br />
• Provision <strong>of</strong> advice on variances and make recommendations which might further<br />
improve the roads and the operation (within the limit <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>’s finances)
The findings <strong>of</strong> this report are very positive regarding the <strong>Council</strong>’s road construction operation<br />
and Key Points are listed in the report. In summary, they are:<br />
• The Policy is well formulated<br />
• Roads made prior to a policy being introduced had greater variation in build and quality<br />
• The quality control process is good<br />
• The work presently being done by <strong>Council</strong> staff and its core contractors is to a high<br />
standard<br />
• The road making operations are efficient<br />
• The unit costs are excellent<br />
• In general, the DC <strong>Elliston</strong> roads are slightly above the average standard when<br />
compared with other <strong>Council</strong>s <strong>of</strong> a small and medium size.<br />
• The presently life cycle being used for the roads can be safely extended<br />
On the negative side, the assessor has pointed out the following important and potentially costly<br />
issues:<br />
• The <strong>Council</strong> is running out <strong>of</strong> easily accessible good quality road rubble.<br />
• Many <strong>of</strong> its roads have historically been constructed to the natural terrain and some<br />
sections lay at the lowest drainage points in the surrounding landscape which<br />
exaggerates moisture problems/damage.<br />
• Most <strong>of</strong> the present Commodity routes will require some upgrading to meet DTEI<br />
standards and specific traffic management controls will need to be implemented.<br />
Storm Water Disruption<br />
The figures provided from the <strong>Elliston</strong> Post Office indicate that during June, the rainfall recorded<br />
was 156.6 mm higher than for the same period in 2008. And generally rainfall across the district<br />
has been higher than average. The result <strong>of</strong> this has been short periods <strong>of</strong> localised flooding on<br />
various roads plus in the town <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong> itself.<br />
The attached report graphically illustrates just how widespread the problems were within the<br />
<strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong> area, and the occasional flooding plus erosion damage to sections <strong>of</strong><br />
DTEI’s high quality Flinders Highway demonstrates that it is simply unrealistic for any person to<br />
expect that every kilometre <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>’s 1,100 (Plus) kilometres <strong>of</strong> unsealed road network can<br />
be built to meet “all weather” standards.<br />
The <strong>Council</strong> also has areas in the towns <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong> and Venus Bay that are prone to flooding<br />
after heavy thunderstorms and while the risk at Venus Bay have been largely alleviated by<br />
increasing drainage swales and containment areas behind the town; occasional large scale<br />
flushing <strong>of</strong> silt into drainage conduits still presents a risk<br />
Many <strong>Council</strong> roads have been badly affected by the heavy rains and amongst the worst were:<br />
• Colton Back Road<br />
• Rocky Valley Road<br />
• Nowhere else Road<br />
• Sheringa Beach road<br />
• Locks well road<br />
• Hundred Line Road<br />
• Siviour Road<br />
• Barwell Road
Despite the DTEI roads being sealed and built to a very high standard, for short periods they too<br />
were cut by flooding at:<br />
• Colton<br />
• Near Talia<br />
• Just East <strong>of</strong> <strong>Elliston</strong><br />
• Near Mount Wedge<br />
• Near Bramfield<br />
• At Sheringa<br />
Relativity <strong>of</strong> risk and cost impacts:<br />
The <strong>Elliston</strong> town was twice affected by high stormwater flow filling the town swamp and the<br />
storm drains subsequently backed up into the parklands, then flooding into Memorial Drive.<br />
Very fortunately, the storms subsided just when water was flowing across the kerbing and that<br />
avoided serious flood damage occurring to the <strong>Elliston</strong> Supermarket, Bakery and Motel. At this<br />
point in time, we are unsure <strong>of</strong> what damage may have occurred to the Memorial Kindergarten.<br />
The Sheringa Roadhouse was inundated and areas <strong>of</strong> Pt Kenny Township had some <strong>of</strong> its low<br />
properties flooded just short <strong>of</strong> houses being inundated.<br />
The resulting damage to <strong>Council</strong> roads will add a reasonable cost to its annual maintenance<br />
budget, particularly in those areas where roads have been built on the natural terrain in low<br />
lying areas.<br />
As the damage is still continuing, it is difficult to accurately determine a figure, but present<br />
estimates suggest that $30,000 to $40,000 will now have to be diverted from the road resheeting<br />
schedule just to cover reactive maintenance that is required as a result <strong>of</strong> storm-water<br />
damage. Administration will provide an adjustment to the draft 3 budget.<br />
Several letters regarding risk to premises, conditions <strong>of</strong> school bus routes and slippery roads<br />
have been received and they are included in the report.<br />
Perspective:<br />
All the concerns raised and the frustrations expressed within the various letters/e-mails are<br />
genuinely felt and <strong>of</strong>ten the individual feels their particular situation has the highest priority for a<br />
remedy.<br />
However, because I manage <strong>Council</strong>s operations, its risk, understand the costs involved in<br />
remedying the problem plus also feel genuine concern at the present deficit budget position, it is<br />
my job to bring proper perspective to <strong>Council</strong>’s attention.<br />
While the standard <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>s roads receives constant scrutiny and in some areas, a steady<br />
demand for greater build quality; the entire road works operation has just been found by an<br />
independent assessor to be <strong>of</strong> a high quality and the road network within this <strong>Council</strong> district is<br />
generally better on average when compared with similar sized and even larger <strong>Council</strong>’s.<br />
Whenever complaints are received or discussion occurs in chambers regarding the condition <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s unsealed road network, the fact that the present maintenance cost <strong>of</strong> the network<br />
already consumes close to 50 cents in every Dollar that the <strong>Council</strong> receives by way <strong>of</strong> all<br />
revenues, should be kept in mind.<br />
That cost is extremely taxing on ratepayers and yet the <strong>Council</strong> still cannot yet afford to<br />
maintain its roads to the targets that it has set in its own policy.
I believe the risk posed by stormwater flooding to town properties/businesses is presently higher<br />
in priority than those on <strong>Council</strong>’s road network and that is because a relatively straightforward<br />
fix, can be put in place by adding a twin pump system, adjustable sluice and a rising main out to<br />
the large lake area. While that is an expensive option, it is also well overdue and needs to<br />
remain as a number one priority for the <strong>2009</strong>/10 budget.<br />
Regarding the problems on <strong>Council</strong> roads, this is spread widely across its district and a<br />
complete cure to the problem is beyond the <strong>Council</strong>’s present financial ability. Given the normal<br />
public reaction to previous rate increases it is evidently beyond the willingness <strong>of</strong> its citizens to<br />
pay the added cost <strong>of</strong> the build quality which some <strong>of</strong> them are demanding.<br />
Risk Management:<br />
<strong>District</strong> road maintenance and upgrading programs are well established and each year, various<br />
road sections continue to be upgraded on a priority basis.<br />
The risk that may be presented to drivers travelling on wet roads is being managed in<br />
accordance with <strong>Council</strong>’s Risk management practices E.G. the <strong>Council</strong> closes roads that get<br />
into a particularly bad state and it is increasing the “slippery when wet” signposting on sections<br />
<strong>of</strong> low lying roads. Note: This does not mean that no incidents will occur on wet or slippery<br />
roads, but it does mean that <strong>Council</strong> has a remedial program in place plus suitable risk<br />
management practices have been implemented.<br />
In almost all cases, an alternative route exists for regular road users that present s considerably<br />
less risk, but it is obviously much more inconvenient to take the longer and much slower way<br />
than it is to travel the shortest distance at reasonable speeds.<br />
Regarding the claim <strong>of</strong> “risk to School Buses” from flooded and slippery <strong>Council</strong> roads and the<br />
supposed risk <strong>of</strong> subsequent lawsuits which are raised to <strong>Council</strong> from time to time: - the district<br />
road conditions are well known to the Schools and that includes the knowledge that a number <strong>of</strong><br />
sections <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> their regular routes are signposted as ‘slippery when wet” and that these<br />
regularly become so immediately after heavy rainstorms occur.<br />
I am not familiar with the view taken by the DECS Insurer and its Risk Managers but if it is<br />
similar to <strong>Council</strong>’s own insurer, then they would probably be quite concerned to learn that<br />
apparently School Buses are still being regularly sent into areas <strong>of</strong> known risk following rainstorm<br />
events.<br />
That particular view would arise from the knowledge that safer alternatives do exist, but<br />
apparently no formal risk assessment has been done and no routine risk avoidance action has<br />
been put in place (apparently the re-routing <strong>of</strong> School Buses only occurs after road conditions<br />
deteriorate).<br />
In the event <strong>of</strong> children or staff being hurt under those circumstances, it is quite probable that<br />
the first claim for damages would fall on the School/DECS and not the <strong>Council</strong>, who would<br />
simply be included in a later Solicitors “trawling exercise”.<br />
Finances and priorities<br />
I also refer <strong>Council</strong>lors to the attached e-mail response provided to Cr Hitchcock. When<br />
considering this matter.<br />
Given the <strong>Council</strong>’s present financial position, it has few realistic options but to continue with<br />
making decisions based on priority <strong>of</strong> need and within a strictly budgeted regime that does not<br />
further jeopardise its financial stability.
Given that council has just set a record for the amount <strong>of</strong> unsealed roads it has re-sheeted in<br />
any one year and that doing so has consumed almost half <strong>of</strong> its budget and it is presently facing<br />
a sizeable deficit, I strongly recommend that it does not now make any reactive decisions, but<br />
sticks with a managed program that is based on priority <strong>of</strong> need and equity being achieved,<br />
within a carefully thought out expenditure budget.<br />
If any further action should be taken, it is the taking <strong>of</strong> decisions to reduce the size <strong>of</strong> the deficit<br />
that is required.<br />
ECIC/<strong>Elliston</strong> Hall Committee Toilets<br />
In the most recent Budget meeting, Cr Hancock requested that administration recheck the<br />
recent <strong>Council</strong> resolutions/actions on this matter.<br />
I have attached the series <strong>of</strong> recent resolutions relating to this matter plus excerpts <strong>of</strong> an EDAM<br />
report on the condition <strong>of</strong> various public/<strong>Council</strong> infrastructure.<br />
Motion 102:2008 was rescinded and the actions in resolution 308:2008 have been carried out.<br />
Additionally, the <strong>Council</strong> is making sufficient allocation in its Community Support Budget to<br />
assist the ECIC with its ongoing maintenance costs.<br />
The estimated cost for upgrading the ECIC Toilets was put at $35,650 in 2007 and it was based<br />
on <strong>Council</strong> having put in a rising main and effluent dispersal system which would allow treated<br />
waste water to be dispersed in accordance with SA Public Health Regulations.<br />
Such a system is anticipated to be quite costly but it would cater for <strong>Council</strong>s Foreshore Toilets<br />
plus all <strong>of</strong> the sporting and business premises, as they upgraded their systems.<br />
This project is amongst the important projects that I have mentioned in this agenda as overdue<br />
and requiring action.<br />
I remind the <strong>Council</strong> that it still has to find the funds for such projects and to do that it must<br />
ensure that it does not budget for non essential items plus it will need to further trim expenditure<br />
on unsealed roads. Alternatively, it will not be able to undertake those important projects and<br />
remain financially viable, unless it opts to seriously increase its property rates.<br />
Maintenance <strong>of</strong> Port Kenny Town Firebreak<br />
Please find recent correspondence from Mrs I Campbell replying to previous <strong>Council</strong> requests to<br />
access section 20.<br />
Mrs Campbell believes that the Firebreak is maintained in a satisfactory condition without the<br />
need to use chemical sprays or back-burning and she has not provided consent for <strong>Council</strong><br />
contractors to enter her property. However, she has <strong>of</strong>fered to sell the property to <strong>Council</strong> but<br />
has not named a price.<br />
Note: it is not practical or cost effective to manage the firebreak in the manner that Mrs<br />
Campbell is suggesting.<br />
Please also note, a check <strong>of</strong> property maps against Arial photo’s has shown that another<br />
section <strong>of</strong> this firebreak crosses over a further section <strong>of</strong> privately owned land and the owners<br />
have also been approached by Administration regarding implementation <strong>of</strong> a formal access<br />
agreement.<br />
The present situation is quite unfortunate because the Firebreaks do have a benefit, however, it<br />
is another example <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> having historically gained informal agreement for<br />
infrastructure being placed on private property but no attention was being paid to the need for a<br />
formal agreement/encumbrances being put in place that would allow continued maintenance to<br />
be done.
Inevitably with the passing <strong>of</strong> time, the property ownership changes hands and new owners<br />
then want changes to the informally agreed system or they simply do not want the<br />
inconvenience <strong>of</strong> the arrangement at all, as is their right. I stress that these poor practices<br />
should not be repeated by the <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
The importance <strong>of</strong> maintaining the firebreak has been thoroughly explained to Mrs Campbell as<br />
has the <strong>Council</strong>s willingness to pay the cost <strong>of</strong> a formal agreement being put in place for access<br />
across her property to attend maintenance <strong>of</strong> the firebreak. Either the <strong>Council</strong> can achieve a<br />
sensible and formal access agreement with her and within reasonable time frame and cost, or it<br />
cannot. If it cannot, then it needs to move on and attend to other more pressing needs.<br />
Many people are understanding <strong>of</strong> the difficulty <strong>Council</strong> has in stretching its limited budgets and<br />
they have patiently waited for their needs to be attended to. I believe it is now time to make<br />
appropriate adjustments and set the final budget to include attending to some <strong>of</strong> the needs <strong>of</strong><br />
those considerate people.<br />
Lone Graves Project<br />
The earlier resolution (number 186:<strong>2009</strong>) was rescinded at <strong>Council</strong>’s 15 June meeting and a<br />
further resolution (number 187:<strong>2009</strong>) was formulated which directed (amongst other things) a<br />
budget <strong>of</strong> $5,000 be put in place for this project in <strong>2009</strong>/10 and the work undertaken to that<br />
point in time by Mrs Wiseman be paid from that budgeted amount.<br />
Mrs Wiseman has submitted an invoice for $3,000. It itemises her work from 15 May <strong>2009</strong> to 13<br />
June <strong>2009</strong>.<br />
The first <strong>Council</strong> resolution relating to this matter was only formulated on 18 May <strong>2009</strong> and I do<br />
not believe that travel and time involved in preparing a submission for that particular meeting is<br />
reimbursable under later resolution number 187: <strong>2009</strong>, therefore it is my intention to adjust the<br />
payment accordingly and advise Mrs Wiseman that as per the resolution, the payment will be<br />
made following the setting <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>’s budget for <strong>2009</strong>/10 financial Year.<br />
If the <strong>Council</strong> believes any other interpretation <strong>of</strong> its resolution is valid, then please provide that<br />
direction to me by majority resolution.<br />
WJ & RD Southern, Venus Bay Caravan Park. – Proposal to Change Lease/Sale<br />
Conditions<br />
Correspondence from the Solicitor assisting Mr and Mrs Southern was received previously,<br />
which requested various changes be made to the proposed Lease/sale documents.<br />
Advice on the likely consequences from those changes being implemented was provided by<br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s own Solicitor. That advice was then considered under the provisions <strong>of</strong> Section 90 <strong>of</strong><br />
the Local Government Act, as is the normal practice for briefings between Solicitors and their<br />
clients.<br />
As per <strong>Council</strong>s previous resolution (which requires that negotiations on this matter are to be<br />
done in the Public) I have included a copy <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> response to the Southern’s in this<br />
agenda.<br />
I appreciate the Southern’s had indicated in a previous public deputation to the <strong>Council</strong>; that<br />
they did not have issues with this procedure, however, I have some concern that information <strong>of</strong><br />
a commercial nature, is being provided in the Public Agenda which may have potential to<br />
compromise the future sale price <strong>of</strong> their business and I wonder if perhaps they did not properly<br />
considered that risk?
Risk Management- Gap Analysis<br />
The attachment is from our Risk Manager/insurer. It lists in the first column, all <strong>of</strong> the actions<br />
which they desires <strong>Council</strong> administration to undertake.<br />
The second column is the evidence we have supplied <strong>of</strong> the activities that administration<br />
regularly carry out simply in order to prove that good policies and practices are in effect. The<br />
third column is for our own requests and comments.<br />
On the Fourth page I have highlighted their wish for <strong>Council</strong> administration to undertake a prepurchase<br />
risk assessment and control process. That requirement is additional to all <strong>of</strong> the<br />
stringent quality control and safety standards which manufactures must meet when constructing<br />
and selling plant and equipment in Australia and my understanding is that it will apply to lawn<br />
mowers, brush cutters and chainsaws, in addition to major plant.<br />
While I am a strong believer in good Risk Management Practices and have a long record <strong>of</strong><br />
being both prudent in my decisions and successful in my management <strong>of</strong> Risk and OHS, the<br />
time/resources now required <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> administration simply to record its actions in meeting<br />
compliance requirements, has become so great that it is absurd.<br />
Please note:- tit is my firm belief that it is not simply ongoing and successful litigation through<br />
the judicial system that is to blame for this situation, it is also the prevailing culture <strong>of</strong> “no blame”<br />
(i.e. the philosophy and practice <strong>of</strong> not holding individuals responsible for their own decisions)<br />
that has bought insurers and Risk managers to this point.<br />
Six <strong>of</strong> the best seminar:<br />
The attached is the summary items that were included in a recent course that was open to<br />
senior staff and <strong>Council</strong>lors.<br />
The course was intensive, important and very well done and it clearly highlighted that those who<br />
do not play be the rules, then fall victim because <strong>of</strong> them. It also illustrated why our Risk<br />
Managers are so pedantic about having written demonstration <strong>of</strong> policies and practices.<br />
Three Interesting Letters<br />
The attached letters are all “repeats” <strong>of</strong> previous complaints put to this <strong>Council</strong> and they are<br />
provided to illustrate the irregular administration tasks required <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> staff which are quite<br />
time consuming, but rarely seen or appreciated.<br />
The first item had a signature that is difficult to decipher and the repeats have never contained<br />
contact details, therefore <strong>Council</strong>s administration cannot advise the complainant the matter has<br />
been investigated and appropriate action was taken.<br />
The second and third letters are from regular customers who do not appear to understand that<br />
<strong>Council</strong> does not have the power to grant their requests. However, it still has an obligation to<br />
respond to their repeated inquiries/complaints, all <strong>of</strong> which takes time and costs money.<br />
Recommendation: That the Chief Executive Officer’s Report as printed in the Agenda,<br />
circulated and tabled, be accepted.<br />
Rob Gregor<br />
Chief Executive Officer