of COUNCIL MEETING - City of Playford · of COUNCIL MEETING Pursuant to the ... (from 7:13pm) Cr...

of

COUNCIL MEETINGPursuant to the provisions of Section 91(3) of the

Local Government Act, 1999 as amended.

HELD IN

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ELIZABETH SERVICE CENTREWINDSOR SQUARE, ELIZABETH

ON

TUESDAY 26 MARCH 2002 at 7.00 PM

1. Attendance Record

1.1 Present

Mayor Marilyn Baker, JP Cr Julie NorrisCr Nick Cava (from 7:13pm) Cr Max O’Reilly JPCr Andrew Craig, JP (from 7:12pm) Cr Dennis Ryan JPCr Coral Gooley Cr Iris Shaw JPCr Don Levitt Cr David SnewinCr Duncan MacMillan Cr Shirley WissellCr Mick MorrisCr Dino Musolino (from 7.10 pm)

Chief Executive Officer Mr Tim JacksonGeneral Manager Strategy Coordinator & Support Mr Leigh Hall, JPGroup Manager Corporate Planning and Performance Mr Ken Daniel, JPGroup Manager Social Planning & Community Development Ms Ingrid MarshallGroup Manager Civil Operations Mr Mark TemmeGroup Manager Parks & Recreation Mr Kevin LoweGroup Manager External & Internal Relations Mr Matthew PearsGroup Manager Asset Strategy & Projects Mr Robert PrideGovernance & Public Relations Advisor Ms Johanne SmithSenior Planner Mr Rino PaceSenior Accountant Mr Stephen MounceMinute Secretary Ms Liz Hall

The meeting commenced at 700 pm

1.2 Apologies

Cr Julie Bebbington, Cr Matthew Hayden

Council Meeting Minutes - 2- 26/3/02

March 26

2. Confirmation of Minutes

COUNCIL RESOLUTION 582

Moved: Cr Shaw Seconded: Cr Gooley

The minutes of the Special Council Meeting held Tuesday 19 February 2002 and5 March 2002 and Council Meeting held Tuesday 26 February 2002 be confirmed as atrue and accurate record of proceedings.

CARRIED

3. Declarations of

3.1 Interest

Nil

3.2 Conflict of Interest

Nil

4. Mayor’s Report

Some of the Mayor’s activities for the month included attendance at:• Meeting with Richard Hearn (Chief Executive Officer of Resthaven) and

Tim Jackson regarding nursing home accommodation• Rotary Club Meetings within Playford • Official launch of “Restraining Order Information” Booklet at Elizabeth Police

Station• Launch of the Phoenix Society – Elizabeth Premises• Bendigo Bank Meeting with Frank Tassone and Ken Turner

Other items of interest included:• City of Playford entered a team in this year’s LGMA Management Challenge. • Central Districts Football Club has presented a plaque to the Mayor in

appreciation of our continued support as a Premier Partner 2002.• Cr Levitt will be an apology for all meetings between 29 April 2002 and

17 May 2002 as he will be overseas.

5. Reports of Representatives of Council on Other Organisations

Cr Norris• Virginia Institute Committee Meeting• Adelaide Plains Plant & Control Board AGM

Cr Levitt• NAWMA progress of issues


March 26

Cr Gooley• Murray Darling Association Region 7 Meeting at Port Augusta• Playford Bushfire Committee Meeting• Youth Forum will be held on World Environment Day in June

Cr Ryan• Community Land Working Party continuing review of community land

Cr MacMillan• Northern Adelaide Development Board Meeting and updated Council on

opportunities underway at the Edinburgh Park

Cr Craig• Attended the Launch of the Phoenix Society – Elizabeth Premises• Attended the opening of the Interpretive Trail within the City of Salisbury• LGA AGM and workshops

6. Questions Without Notice

Nil

7. Questions On Notice

Nil

8. Petitions

Petition received from 56 parents/carers of children attending the Angle Vale Pre-school regarding their concerns of inadequate parking facilities at the pre-school(refer item 13.4)

9. Deputations / Representations

Nil

10. Motions on Notice

From Cr MacMillan (refer item 13.5)RESOLUTION TO BE MOVED:

1. Under the powers to make orders pursuant to the Local Government Act (OrderMaking Policy) Council develop/amend that policy to include unsightly conditions ofland and that the policy be put to the April Full Council Meeting prior to going topublic consultation.

2. Council staff prepare the draft policy to provide Council with powers to order aperson to ameliorate an unsightly condition, where land, or a structure or object onland, is unsightly and detracts significantly from the amenity of the locality in whichthe land is situated. The owner or occupier of the land may then be heldresponsible for the actions necessary to ameliorate an unsightly condition.

11. Motions Without Notice

Nil.


March 26

Strategy and Policy


March 26

12.1 NEXT GENERATION BUILDINGS COMMITTEE CHARTER S/726

(Contact Person: Robert Pride)

See Attachment: (1- Next Generation Buildings Committee Charter)

Purpose

To review the Charter for the Next Generation Buildings Committee.

RECOMMENDATION

The amended Next Generation Buildings Committee Charter be endorsed.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation be adopted.


Moved: Cr O’Reilly Seconded: Cr Ryan

1. The amended Next Generation Buildings Committee Charter be endorsed.

2. Guidelines for environmental sustainable use of water be included in theCharter.

CARRIED

Relevance to Community Plan

Objective 1.3 – Assets which contribute to the prosperity of the CityObjective 2.3 – Assets which serve the needs of the community

Relevance to Community Involvement Policy

The community will continue to be consulted as the Committee deems appropriate and asrequired by the Local Government Act 1999.

Background

At the July 2001 Full Council meeting, Council resolved that;

“1. The ‘Next Generation Buildings Committee’ be established as a Committee ofCouncil under Chapter 4 Section 41 of the Local Government Act 1999.

2. The Terms of Reference of the Committee and its reporting and otheraccountability requirements be determined as in Attachment 1.

3. The membership of the Committee shall consist of the following:


March 26

(1) Marilyn Baker Mayor(2) Don Levitt Elected Member(3) Shirley Wissell Elected Member(4) Duncan MacMillan Elected Member(5) Leigh Hall Staff(6) Ray Pincombe Staff(7) Don Venn Independent External Member”

Acting under delegated authority of Council, the Next Generation Buildings Committee(NGBC) was primarily established to deliver the Elizabeth Regional Centre (ERC) CivicProject. The Committee’s fundamental purpose was to provide direction to the project andexpedite the decision making process to ensure a successful outcome.

In reference to the original Terms of Reference endorsed by Council in July 2001, theCommittee’s key project responsibilities for the Civic Centre project were:

1. Services Definition – Recommend Council Services to be included in the project.2. Project Definition – Recommend to Council site options and building design solutions.3. Project Procurement – Oversee project delivery (design, tendering and construction).

Analysis of Issue/s

In reference to the existing Terms of Reference, the term of the Next Generation BuildingCommittee (NGBC) covers the period to the end of June 2003, which is short of the expectedproject completion in December 2003.

Since the commencement of the Civic Centre project and the completion of the ERCRevitalisation Strategy, it has been reconfirmed that Council’s building assets throughout theCity of Playford are ageing and nearing the end of their economic/design life. Hence, this willbe a catalyst for Council to undertake further building asset redevelopment projects in thefuture. Examples of such projects may include Aquadome, Youth Hub, Sporting Hubfacilities, Skate Park etc.

As a consequence of the above issues, this is an opportunity to review the role and terms ofreference of the Next Generation Buildings Committee (NGBC). The advantages ofbroadening the future role of the NGBC to make decisions / recommendations in relation tomajor land and buildings projects are as follows;

! Provide strategic direction! Expedient project decision making! Balanced decision making due to elected member, senior management and independent

input.

It is considered appropriate that the NGBC role is to be broadened to include all major landand building projects which fit the following criteria;

1. Budget > $500,000, or,2. CEO decides to defer the decision making for a land and building project to the

NGBC

The $500,000 limit is based on the CEO’s existing delegation issued by Council pursuant toSection 44 of the Local Government Act 1999.

The proposed NGBC Charter (Attachment No 1) has been amended to reflect the aboveproposed role.


March 26

Options

Option 1Broaden the Role and Terms of Reference for the NGBC Committee

Option 2Establish the NGBC as a working party under the Community Corporate and AuditCommittee.

Option 3Status quo

Analysis of Options

Option Advantage Disadvantage1 ! Delegated authority of Council

! Expedient decision making forprojects

! Strategic direction! Effective decision making due to

Elected Member and Senior staffinput

! Land and building project decision –making responsibility

! Maintenance of existingCommittee

! Increased administrative costsand staff resourcing.

2 ! One less Committee! Reduced administrative costs –

Committee reporting

! No delegated authority ofCouncil

! Slow decision making process! Increased beauracy

3 ! No change to existing administrativeprocesses

! NGBC role will end uponcompletion of Civic CentreProject.

! Limited role

Preferred Options and Justification

Option 1 will give greater focus on the strategic land and building issues facing Council.


March 26

Operational


March 26

12.2 CIVIC CENTRE PROJECT MANAGER APPOINTMENT – STAGE 2S/789 & S/726


Purpose

To inform the Committee of the appointment of the project manager for Stage 2 of theElizabeth Regional Centre (ERC) Civic project.

RECOMMENDATION

The information to be received.


The recommendation be adopted and note that Clifton Coney Stevens has been appointed as theproject manager for Stage 2.


Moved: Cr Shaw Seconded: Cr Norris

The recommendation be adopted.CARRIED


Objective 1.3 – Assets which contribute to the prosperity of the City.Objective 2.3 – Assets which serve the needs of the community.


No requirement to undertake consultation in accordance to Council’s CommunityInvolvement Policy.

Background

In accordance to Council’s Purchasing policy, a public tender process was used to select theproject manager to deliver the ERC Civic Centre project. The public tender processcommenced in January 2001 via an expression of interest process followed by a tenderevaluation process which concluded in April 2001 with the appointment of Clifton ConeyStevens in association with Hames Sharley Architects.

The project manager was appointed to Stage 1 to ‘prove up’ a preferred building assetsolution. Following Council approval at the end of Stage 1, Council reserved the right tore appoint the project manager Clifton Coney Stevens to deliver Stage 2, the design andconstruction phase, or put Stage 2 through a tender process.

As a consequence, Council exercised its right by proceeding with a select tender processand invited the three (3) tenderers shortlisted during the first public tender process.


March 26

Current Situation

To project manage the design and construction phase (stage 2) of the ERC Civic Centreproject, the following firms were invited to submit a tender;

1. Clifton Coney Stevens2. Halliburton KBR (ex Brown & Root)3. Gutteridge Haskins Davies (GHD)

The tender period and evaluation process was undertaken during January to February 2002.The evaluation process was based on a ‘value’ management matrix and was utilised by theevaluation panel members. The evaluation panel members were:

! Leigh Hall – General Manager, Strategy Coordination & Support! Robert Pride – Manager, Asset Strategy! Kevin Lowe – Manager, Parks & Recreation (proxy for Ray Pincombe)! David Ninio – Special Projects Officer

As a result of the tender evaluation process, the selected tenderer for the projectmanagement services is Clifton Coney Stevens Pty Ltd.

Future Action

To finalise the project management consultancy agreement with Clifton Coney Stevens andcommence the design development phase (Stage 2) of the ERC Civic Centre project.


March 26

12.3 ELIZABETH REGIONAL CENTRE – CIVIC CENTRE – PROJECT MANAGERSFINAL REPORT STAGE 1 S/726


See Attachment: (1-Executive Summary of Final Report – Stage 1)

Purpose

To update the Committee on progress with the Elizabeth Regional Centre - Civic CentreProject.

RECOMMENDATION

The Project Managers Final Report – Stage 1 be received.







Objective 1.3Assets which contribute to the prosperity of the city.

Objective 2.3Assets which serve the needs of the community.


The community and staff were consulted extensively during Stage 1 of this project.

Background

At the Council meeting of 24 April 2001, Council selected a preferred services model (thehybrid’) and approved that a preferred building solution for this model be developed.

The project managers, Clifton Coney Stevens in association with Hames Sharley Architectswere engaged to assist Council in establishing and ‘prove up’ the preferred building assetsolution during stage 1 of the ERC Civic Centre Project.

During Stage 1, a process of consultation, research/benchmarking and design development,resulted in a preferred asset solution. The preferred asset solution was Option F, which wasendorsed by Council in November 2001.


March 26

Current Situation

The executive summary of the project manager’s final report for Stage 1 is attached(Attachment 1). A full copy of the report is available to Elected Members upon request. Thereport provides a summary of the following issues;

1. Consultation Process2. Site Selection3. Project Budget4. Design, Development Process for each Service (ie; Library, Theatre, Function Centre,

Elected Members Area, Customer Service Centre)5. Project Procurement Future Recommended Actions

Future Action

The project manager for the Design and Construction phase (Stage 2) of the project will beselected in late February 2002.

Following the appointment of the project manager, the following subsequent actions will beaddressed during March/April 2002;

• Project procurement strategy• Preparation of consultant briefs• Appointment of consultant team which will consist of the architect, quantity surveyor,

civil/structural engineer, services engineer and building surveyor.

The project is on Target to be completed by December 2003.


March 26

COMMUNITY CORPORATE & AUDIT COMMITTEE

Strategy and Policy


March 26

12.4 ELECTED MEMBERS ACCESS TO INFORMATION POLICY S/85

(Contact Person: Matthew Pears)

See Attachment: (1-Policy)

Purpose

Endorse the revised Elected Members Access to Information Policy.

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the Elected Members Access to Information Policy.







The adoption of an Elected Members Access to Information Policy forms part of Council’scorporate governance and clearly articulates when information shall be released to ElectedMembers and under what circumstances.

Section 61 of the Local Government Act covers Elected Members access to information toenable them to undertake their roles and duties.

Although Council is not required under Section 61 of the Local Government Act to have apolicy on the provision of information to Elected Members it is considered best practice toadopt a policy for the issuing of information.


There is no requirement to consult with the community as this is a corporate governanceissue.

Background

In the past there have been discrepancies regarding the range of information to be providedto Elected Members and in particular the request by some Elected Members to gaininformation on matters before Council and not have this information distributed to all ElectedMembers.

This caused problems with the decision making process as some Elected Members hadadditional information whereas others were unaware of various aspects and were not fullyinformed of all information on an issue before Council.


March 26

By ensuring consistent and equal access to information by all Elected Members there is aneven playing field to enable open debate and decisions to be made in the most democraticmanner without opportunity for public embarrassment being caused to another ElectedMember who is less informed than another.

The adoption of an Elected Members Access to Information policy in March 2001 enabledguidelines to be set which clarified the issuing of information to Elected Members fromCouncil staff. The policy is to be reviewed annually to ensure it is still applicable.

Analysis of Issue/s

After a great deal of debate, an Elected Members Access to Council Information policy wasadopted by Council in March 2001. At that time it was determined that the policy should bereviewed in March 2002.

The policy has enabled staff to be fully aware of their role in providing information to ElectedMembers and has ensured all Elected Members are provided with consistent information toenable them to debate issues openly at Council and Committee Meetings.

OptionsOption 1 Adopt the Elected Members Access to Information Policy (attachment 1).Option 2 Adopt the Elected Members Access to Information Policy with amendments.

Analysis of OptionsOption 1The policy provided has been in operation for over 12 months, although it has beenreformatted into Council’s new policy format. During this 12 month period staff have foundthe policy useful as a guide to providing information to Elected Members in a fair andequitable manner.Option 2Elected Members have also experienced the operation of this policy for 12 months and mayfeel that additional elements need to be added to the policy to ensure further clarification ofthe provision of information to Elected Members.


Option 1 is the preferred option as there does not appear to have been any confusionregarding the release of information to Elected Members over the past 12 months.


March 26

DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

Strategy and Policy


March 26

12.5 MINISTERIAL URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY & AMENDMENTS TOMETROPOLITAN ADELAIDE PLANNING STRATEGY S/586

(Contact Person: Cate Atkinson)

See Attachment: (Draft Planning Strategy is available upon request.)

Purpose

To inform and seek Council comment in respect to the Minister for Urban Development andPlanning introducing an Urban Growth Boundary and amendments to the MetropolitanAdelaide Planning Strategy.

RECOMMENDATION

To provide comments to the Minister, Urban Development & Planning that identifies thefollowing:

In regards to the Metropolitan Adelaide Planning Strategy:

• Request the Strategy should include statements about influencing the social context ofurban form in addition to those statements about urban structure.

• Request the Planning Strategy be amended to ensure it identifies public housing as awhole of metropolitan issue, and not one that is provided for in ‘affordable’ areas.

In regards to the concept of an ‘Urban Growth Boundary’:

• Support the establishment of an appropriate ‘urban growth boundary’ on the metropolitanfringe.

• Support the introduction of management principles within the urban and rural zones onthe metropolitan urban fringe that will provide:• within urban areas – a review of the ‘land bank’; and

direction in relation to appropriately staged land releases;• within rural areas - promote flexibility in the types of agricultural activities (eg

horticulture) but in a manner that ensures that interface issuesare addressed.

• Investigate opportunities to address urban regeneration as an integral part of future urbanplanning on the urban fringe.

• Amend Structure Plans to reflect current and future development scenarios.




Moved: Cr Gooley Seconded: Cr Levitt



March 26


The amendments to the Metropolitan Adelaide Planning Strategy relate to Goal 1 –Economic Prosperity and Goal 2 – Environmental Care.

The issue of an ‘urban growth boundary’ relates to Goal 2 – Environmental Care – “ a citywith a well planned blend of built and natural environment.


Council is not required to consult with the community. Consultation is the responsibility of theMinister, Urban Development & Planning.

Council is however provided the opportunity to make formal comment by close of businesson the 2 April 2002.

Background

On 18 January 2002 the Minister, Transport & Urban Planning released a Ministerial PlanAmendment proposing a metropolitan urban growth boundary as well as draft amendmentsto the Metropolitan Adelaide Planning Strategy.

• Metropolitan Adelaide Planning Strategy

The Planning Strategy provides a basis for the integration of economic, environmental andsocial strategies so that planning is directed towards an integrated and shared vision.

Aimed at improving Adelaide’s metropolitan areas, amendments have been prepared tofurther promote the State’s policy direction of revitalisation and regeneration. In particular,strategies that promote a more definitive urban boundary have been introduced.

The following summary highlights the key changes proposed for the Planning Strategy:

• Defining an ‘urban growth boundary’ for metropolitan Adelaide and supporting welldesigned, sensitive ‘infill development’, particularly in the more central establishedsuburbs;

• Supporting urban regeneration activities that revitalise neighbourhoods and make betteruse of existing infrastructure and services;

• Promoting good design and greater understanding of the character and heritage ofexisting neighbourhoods and public places.

• Protecting the Hills Face Zone;• Including strong policies for the planning and development of industrial land;• Focusing opportunities for new industry in the northern region;• Promoting integrated transport and land use planning;• Producing clearer policies on ‘centre’ and retail development, including greater support

for the Adelaide City Centre and the redevelopment of regional centres; and• Updating major urban and tourism projects.

Urban Growth Boundary PAR

An urban growth boundary is an urban management tool that defines the limits of urbangrowth. It provides a clear distinction to the community to what the form of Adelaide andfuture areas will be.

At the end of 2001, the then Minister for Transport & Urban Planning (Minister Laidlaw)identified that, due to changing circumstances identified in the Strategy, it was necessary to


March 26

introduce a number of policy changes. These policy changes were designed to clarify theextent of the “urban boundary” of metropolitan Adelaide and to provide clear developmentguidance on both sides of the boundary.

An Urban Growth Boundary PAR was placed on “interim effect” to allow changes to bediscussed in a public manner without generating speculative reactions to the proposedpolicies. The public consultation period began on the 18 January 2002 and was to continuefor a period of two months.

As part of the consultation process, the Corporation of the Town of Gawler instigated judicialreview proceedings that directly challenged the validity of the Ministerial Urban GrowthBoundary PAR. On Tuesday 5 March 2002, the ERD Court found in favour of the Town ofGawler.

The Orders made by the Court identified that the: • Urban Growth Boundaries PAR released for public consultation was invalid. • decision to allow the PAR to be placed on ‘interim affect’ was now quashed; and• the Minister would need to recommence the process for putting in place a PAR to deal

with the Urban Growth Boundaries. Essentially the Court found that Minister Laidlaw had not been able to prove that she hadformed the relevant opinion necessary under the Development Act to give her the power toprepare the PAR and that none of the provisions used were relevant. This means thatCouncil is no longer able to make formal comment on the Ministerial Urban Growth BoundaryPAR

Given that there is now a new Minister for Urban Development and Planning, it remains to beseen what the new government’s attitude is to the concept of an urban growth boundary.

However, it is considered appropriate for Council to indicate to the new Minister for UrbanDevelopment and Planning its views in relation to the concept of an urban growth boundaryto continue to pursue the urban regeneration agenda for Playford.

Analysis of Issue/s

Planning Strategy

Like Council’s Community Plan the State’s Planning Strategy provides a broad strategicdirection for which it envisages the future growth and development of Metropolitan Adelaide.

The proposed Strategy amendments impact on Playford in the following way:

1. Reinforces Regional Centre revitalisation.2. Promotes a regeneration approach to urban development.3. Promotes the continued protection of the Hills Face Zone.

For Playford, this translates into the following outcomes:

1. Support for Councils focus on ERC and regeneration.2. Support for industrial development & integrated planning in the northern region.3. Still a need for a greater focus on a metro-wide public housing policy.

The draft amendments to the Planning Strategy reinforce the importance of regenerating theElizabeth Regional Centre and surrounds, as well as the protection of the Hills Face Zone.These strategies are consistent with Council’s current strategic directions, as identified withinits Strategic and Community Plans.


March 26

However it is felt that the Planning Strategy should be promoting the need to create a socialbalance within areas where there is a low percentage of public housing, rather thanpinpointing public housing in “affordable” areas, which in most cases already have a highpercentage of public housing. This will allow a greater spread of public housing in all areas,and assist in reducing the continued concentration of public housing in certain areas such asElizabeth. In this sense, public housing becomes a whole of metropolitan Adelaide issue.

An Urban Growth Boundary

Minister Laidlaw had identified within the now invalid Ministerial Urban Growth BoundaryPAR that there was a need to implement an urban growth boundary because there was:• no longer a need for the current amount of land to be “deferred” for future urban

development purposes;• now a greater focus on new development in central and middle ring suburbs;• a need for policies to clearly show that land outside of the urban boundary was for rural

activities and land inside the urban boundary for urban development.

The new Minister Urban Development and Planning will now need to determine whether hewishes to proceed with the introduction of an urban growth boundary. For Playford, the impact of introducing an urban growth boundary would potentially be:

1. Reduced land for urban development.2. Opportunities for additional horticulture development and possible value-adding

industries.3. A re-defining of the urban / rural interface.4. Ability to introduce reciprocal buffer policy to address urban/rural interface.5. Potential for a greater focus on urban regeneration.

For Playford, there are both rural and urban outcomes that would result if an urban growthboundary were to be introduced.

From an urban perspective:

It is undoubtedly the urban area that is most significantly impacted by the introduction of anurban growth boundary. In some respects an urban growth boundary can be considered asignificant re-direction of our current growth policies.

When examining the appropriateness of an urban growth boundary consideration should begiven to:

1. Is there a need to retain a land bank for the orderly development of MetropolitanAdelaide?

2. How much land should be retained in the land bank? 3. How should the land bank (greenfield areas) be managed?

Traditional approaches to planning and urban development have relied on the availability ofland for the development of affordable housing, usually on the metropolitan fringe. In SouthAustralia, a land bank is used to control the release of land for such development in anorderly manner. Council needs to determine whether it firstly supports the concept of a urbangrowth boundary, and secondly, the preferred location that will provide sufficient land within aland bank to adequately address future housing needs, but also addresses Councils issuesrelating to the urban regeneration.

In the PAR investigations, the State had indicated that there is currently 5000 hectares ofland identified for future urban growth on the metropolitan fringe. Of this, approximately 2000


March 26

hectares is located in Playford. As such the potential for new urban areas developing withinPlayford is significant.

For Playford, when determining the appropriateness of an urban boundary considerationshould be given to the:

• need for some land bank to prevent an urban development ‘leap frog’ into Gawler.• need for some land to offer as a funding opportunity for urban regeneration.• need to retain opportunity for an expanded rate base.

One of the most significant development issues facing Playford is that of urban regeneration.Urban regeneration however will require major changes in emphasis on state policy, and howmetropolitan Adelaide is managed in terms of the future allocation of resources andinfrastructure, including reduction in fringe growth.

There is no guarantee that regeneration opportunities in existing suburbs are going to becreated solely by removing all future greenfield fringe development within Playford. Bysupporting an urban growth boundary that continues to include a land bank it potentiallyprovides Council with an opportunity to develop a more comprehensive approach toaddressing urban regeneration as part of a comprehensive program of urban development

The land bank, and new concept planning for these future urban areas, should be reviewedbased on best practice sustainable community planning principles.

The need for workable neighbourhoods needs to be a key determinant in the application ofthe urban boundary, particularly in ensuring that isolation of communities from keyinfrastructure and services does not occur. It is however important to make sure that policywork, particularly in respect to Structure Plans clearly identifies how this can be achieved.Land release mechanisms become a critical element in this sense.

An urban growth boundary may generate additional pressure for township expansions.

A reduction in the area available for new housing development may result in One Tree Hilland Angle Vale experiencing pressure to expand the township boundaries in order to meetdemand for the new home market. Any changes to these boundaries however will impact onthese townships current unique character, sense of community and separateness from urbansuburbs. Policies will need to be further developed that protect these areas and ensure thatfuture development does not ‘leap frog’ into these areas.

From a rural perspective:

Traditionally residential development has been seen as providing the highest land valuereturn. In recent times the changing nature of agricultural activities has challenged this.

The concept of an urban growth boundary is aimed at clearly identifying that rural land will beprotected for rural activities, and hence provide greater certainty to these landowners.However this approach needs to also take into account the need for productive returns forthese rural owners, hence the need to ensure flexibility in terms of types of rural activities.

The interface area, in particular the increasing residential expectations on the urban fringe,that results however needs to also be carefully considered when examining what types ofactivities are suitable. Policies need to be developed that support the changing nature ofagricultural activities, but address the changing expectations on the interface between bothrural and urban areas.Options


March 26

Option 1Provide comment to the Minister, Urban Development & Planning.

Option 2Do not provide comment to the Minister, Urban Development & Planning.

Analysis of Options

Strengths WeaknessesOption 1 • Opportunity to identify Council

position on changes.

• Opportunity to express toPlanning SA the need toinclude urban regeneration asa key element in determiningfuture development directions.

Option 2 • Impact of changes on Council arenot acknowledged, or potentiallyidentified.

Council is not seen at the State levelas being pro-active.


Option 1 is the preferred option. In providing comment to the Minister for UrbanDevelopment and Planning, issues currently being raised by Council, in respect toregeneration and growth on the urban fringe can be acknowledged. Council is in a betterposition for these issues to be recognised and addressed.


March 26

12.6 EXCLUSION OF COMMUNITY LAND S/699


Purpose

To inform Council that a public consultation process will be undertaken for the listedproperties recommended for exclusion of Community Land Classification.

RECOMMENDATION

1. The public consultation process be undertaken during March 2002 indicating Council’sproposal to exclude / revoke Community Land Classification for the following properties;

a) Carclew Church CT 5417/461b) Langford Drive Screen Reserve CT 5338/105c) Hilcott Street Reserve CT 3958/189

2. Upon completion of the public consultation process and analysis of community feedback,a report will be presented to Council for a decision.




Moved: Cr Ryan Seconded: Cr O’Rielly

The recommendation be adoptedCARRIED

Notation:

Cr Hayden requested the inclusion of a map highlighting the area detailing the location ofthose properties being considered for exclusion from the Community Land classification beprovided in any relevant future reports.

Relevance to Council’s Community Plan

This issue relates to Goal 2 - Environmental Care and has links with objective 2.1 - harmonybetween the built and natural environment and objective 2.3 - assets which serve the needsof the community.

Relevance to Council’s Community Involvement Policy

Public consultation will be undertaken during March / April 2002 to allow the community tocomment on the proposed exclusion / revocation of community land.

The Local Government Act 1999 requires Council to consult with the community overproposals to exclude or revoke land from Community Land Classification.


March 26

Background

The Local Government Act 1999 requires that Council decide by 1 January 2003 whichCouncil land is to be classified Community Land and which is to be excluded / revoked.

In general terms if land is classified as Community Land, a management plan must be put inplace which preserves the community’s right to access and use the land. If excluded fromCommunity Land Classification it is regarded that:

• The community does not have existing rights of general access (eg Council’s operationalproperties), or

• There is likelihood that the status of the land will change in the future (eg new use, sale,etc) to preclude community use.

Council has 706 parcels of land. Maloney Field Services (MFS) were engaged to preparethe Land Register and provide classification recommendations for each parcel. In addition, aworking party, consisting of three Elected Members and staff was established to assess theclassification of each parcel and recommend to Council via the Community & CorporateCommittee.

Pursuant to Section 193 of the Local Government Act, any property owned by Council(freehold), the key steps in the exclusion process are:

1. Preparation of Land Register.2. Property assessed against exclusion criteria.3. Recommendation for exclusion of Community Land Classification by the working Party.4. Public Consultation as per Council’s Community Involvement Policy.5. Council report and adoption.

Whereas, pursuant to Section 194 of the Local Government Act 1999, Council ownedproperties which are affected by reservation (ie reserves), dedication or trust, must adhere tothe following process of revocation of Community Land status:

1. Preparation of Land Register.2. Property assessed against exclusion criteria.3. Recommendation for revocation of Community Land Classification by the Working Party.4. Public consultation as per Council’s Community Involvement Policy.5. Council report and adoption.6. Report to Minister for revocation of Community Land Classification.

The key difference between the exclusion process (Section 193) and the revocation process(Section 194) is the requirement in Step 6 to obtain Ministerial approval.

Analysis of Issues

In accordance to Council’s resolution and the Local Government Act 1999, the process ofpublic consultation for a period of 21 days will be undertaken for the three (3) listedproperties below. Hence, in accordance to Council’s Community Involvement Policy andLocal Government Act 1999, advertisements will be placed in the Messenger newspaper andproperty reports will be available to the public upon request.


March 26

The three (3) listed properties have been assessed and recommended for exclusion /revocation by the Community Land Working Party against the following criteria approved byCouncil:

• It is used solely for Council operations (eg drainage reserves, etc).

• It is used solely for commercial purposes.

• Council is intending to dispose of land in the foreseeable future.

• There is no social, historical or cultural significance.

• It is providing a less than acceptable level of community benefit / service and has nolikelihood of increasing in the future.

• It is not available to the general public in its current use.

The public consultation process will commence in March 2002 and the advertisements willindicate Council’s intention of:

(a) Exclusion of Community Land Classification for the following properties:

No. Name Address TitleReference

Reason forExclusion

1 Carclew Church Carclew Road, PenfieldGardens CT 5417/461 4

2 Langford Drive, ScreenReserve Langford Drive, Elizabeth CT 5333/105

6(Extensionof ElizabethBus-stationCar-Park)

(b) Revocation of Community Land Classification for the following properties:

No. Name Address TitleReference

Reason forExclusion

3 Hilcott Street Reserve Hilcott Street, ElizabethNorth CT 3958/189 4

Legend – Reason for Exclusion

1. The land is not available for use by the public as a right (withoutpayment of fee or membership).

2. The land is required for Council’s operational purposes.3. The land was purchased for commercial or strategic purposes.4. The land is in an area sufficiently well equipped with open space and / or

appears surplus to community requirements.5. The predominant use of the land is as part of Council’s drainage

network / system.6. There are future plans in place to change the use of the land.

Options

Option 1

Undertake public consultation for the three listed properties.


March 26

Option 2

No public consultation.

Analysis of Options

Due to the statutory deadline of 1 January 2003 for the exclusion process of CommunityLand, Option 2 would delay the Community Land Classification process unnecessarily.


Option 1.


March 26

12.7 POLICY – THE USE OF PUBLIC ROADS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES S/00132


See Attachment: (1-Interim Policy, 2-Amended Policy)

Purpose

To seek endorsement of the amended policy “The Use of Public Roads for BusinessPurposes” as the preferred policy for circulation for public comment.

RECOMMENDATION

The amended policy “use of public roads for business purposes” be endorsed as thepreferred policy to be presented to the community during the public consultation process.


This report be referred to full council.


Moved: Cr Ryan Seconded: Cr O’Rielly



The relevant Community Plan Goal is “Community Wellbeing – We will engage thecommunity in decision making”, and in particular Objective 3.4, Strategy 3.4.3 “Increaseawareness of Council programs, services policies and procedures”.


While there is no legal requirement on Council to consult the community in this instance,Council has resolved to conduct public consultation.

Background

At the meeting held on 26 June 2001 Council resolved (resolution 331):

(1)

(2)

That the "use of public roads for business purposes" policy be adopted for interimimplementation from July 2001 for a period of twelve months.That a public consultation process be implemented to afford the community theopportunity to comment on the policy.


March 26

Analysis of Issue/s

The above resolutions implemented a policy that enabled Council to continue licensing icecream vendors within the City as an interim measure following the expiry of the By-Law.

The scope of the amended policy is broader than the interim policy in that it includesprovision for licensing outdoors eating areas and food kiosks and would give Council controlof these activities in addition to ice cream vendors.

As the interim policy named in the above resolution has changed, there is a need for Councilto endorse those changes prior to the public consultation process being implemented.

Options

Option 1Do not endorse the amended policy.

Option 2Endorse the amended policy as the preferred policy.

Analysis of Options

1. Non-endorsement of the amended policy will retain control of ice cream vendors but willnot afford Council the scope to consider applications for other activities without additionalpublic consultation.

2. The adoption of the amended policy gives Council greater scope in considering businessactivities on public roads within the City, and no further public consultation will be neededfor any minor policy amendments in the future unless Council desires it.


Option 2 is preferred for the reasons stated above.


March 26

13. Further Reports

Strategy and Policy


March 26

13.1 PERIODIC REVIEW – SELECTION OF PREFERRED WARD STRUCTURE S/85

(Contact Person: Tim Jackson)

See Attachment 1

Purpose

Endorse two preferred elector representative and ward structures to be put to the communityand stakeholders for comment.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Confirm support for the principal member of Council being the Mayor.

2. Continue to divide the City into wards with a set number of Elected Members to representeach ward.

3. Establish an elector ratio of approximately 1:3,550 (15 Councillors).

4. Select option 1 and option 3 as presented in attachment 1 as the preferred electorrepresentative and ward structures to be put out for community consultation.


Moved: Cr Shaw Seconded: Cr Craig


2. Continue to divide the City into wards with a set number of Elected Members torepresent each ward.


4. Select option 1, option 3 and option 4 as presented in attachment 1 as thepreferred elector representative and ward structures to be put out for communityconsultation.

LOST

Moved: Cr Wissell Seconded: Cr MacMillan


2. Continue to divide the City into wards with a set number of Elected Members torepresent each ward.


4. Select option 1 and option 3 as presented in attachment 1 as the preferredelector representative and ward structures to be put out for communityconsultation.


March 26

The MOTION was PUT

Cr Shaw called for a DIVISION

A division was taken with Crs Musolino, Morris, Norris, Cava, Wissell,Snewin, Gooley, O’Rielly and MacMillan voting FOR the motion and Crs Craig, Levitt, Ryan and Shaw voting AGAINST the motion.

The motion (moved by Cr Wissell and seconded by Cr MacMillan) became themotion.

The MOTION was PUT AND

CARRIED


The relevant Community Plan goal is goal 3 - community wellbeing, objective 3.4 “acommunity which participates in decision making about the city.” An effective electorrepresentative structure enables all community members to participate in the decisionmaking process by ensuring equal representative across all communities within the City.


The periodic review officially commenced in November 2001 with the publishing of a publicnotice in the Government Gazette, The Advertiser and the Messenger News Review advisingof the commencement of the review and inviting submissions from interested persons.

Two submissions were received, one from John Eyndhoven and one from the One Tree HillProgress Association. Mr Eyndhoven and Mr Sims (representing the One Tree Hill ProgressAssociation) made deputations to the January Council Meeting to further clarify the viewscontained in their written submissions.

Once Council has endorsed a preferred elector representative and ward structure thecommunity will be provided with opportunities to comment on the proposed model andpeople who make written submissions to Council will have the opportunity to address Councilthrough a verbal presentation.

The community consultation will involve advertising in the Messenger News Review andBunyip and inclusion of information on Council’s web site.

Background

In August 2001, Elected Members were provided with a discussion paper and information ofa general nature pertaining to the periodic review.

Since that time community consultation has occurred with two submissions received fromcommunity representatives.

Following the broad guidelines set by Elected Members at the Special Council Meeting inAugust 2001, and taking into consideration the submissions made by the two communityrepresentatives, another discussion paper (attachment 1) has been prepared to enable


March 26

Elected Members to debate and endorse a preferred elected representative and wardstructure, to be put out for community comment.

Analysis of Issue/s

Although a number of models have been developed it is now an opportune time for Councilto make a decision on the preferred ward structure and elector representative ratio to enablecommunity comment to be gained and the periodic review to progress further.

The models (refer attachment 1) all comply with the elector ratio quota tolerance levels andenable allowance for elector fluctuations which will see the ward structures sustainable untilthe next periodic review required every six years or earlier if directed by the ElectoralCommission.

Options

Option 1


2. Continue to divide the City into wards with a set number of Elected Members to representeach ward.


4. Select option 1 and option 3 as presented in attachment 1 as the preferred electorrepresentative and ward structures to be put out for community consultation.

Option 2

Adopt one of the other ward options provided in attachment 1.

Option 3

Adopt an alternative ward structure based on the views provided by Elected Members at theCouncil Meeting.

Analysis of Options

During the preliminary discussions in August 2001, Elected Members showed support formaintaining the position of Mayor to be elected by the wider elector representative base andfor a ward structure with a number of Elected Members representing each ward area.

Option 1 (within the Council report) shows support for these important issues and alsoenables Elected Members to take into consideration the unique needs of our many differentcommunities while offering an elector representative and ward structure which complies withSection 12, 26 and 33 of the Local Government Act (attachment 2).

As an alternative Elected Members may determine that one of the other models is preferableor a completely different model should be endorsed for community comment.


Option 1 is the preferred option as it meets the objectives outlined during Elected Memberdiscussions on the periodic review. Elected Members have shown support for continuing withthe Principal Member of Council being the Mayor which is elected by the electors and thatwards provide an improved opportunity for individuals to campaign during elections and also


March 26

enables people with interests or ties with that particular community to represent thatcommunity at a Council level.

Option 3 within attachment 1 shows that Council has considered the needs of all of itscommunities and has taken into consideration the views expressed by the representatives ofthe One Tree Hill Progress Association, a representative resident body of One Tree Hill andsurrounding rural areas.

If option 3 within attachment 1 was endorsed for community consultation, managementrecommend that ward one consist of three ward Councillors and not be broken down to threesingle ward Councillors representing sections of the area. This ensures that if any ElectedMember is absent from duties for a period of time then representation by the other two wardCouncillors can still be provided.

Option 1 within attachment 1 resembles very closely the status quo with ward boundariesamended to ensure that the model fits within the elector ratios.


March 26

13.2 RATING POLICY 2002-03 S/539

(Contact Person: Ken Daniel)

See Attachment: (1 - Draft Rating Policy)

Purpose

To provide Council with a Rating Policy for 2002/2003 in accordance with S 171 of the LocalGovernment Act. This Policy changes from that of 2001/02 in that it provides for theequalisation of all rates by 2006/07 as required by the Amalgamation Proclamation.

RECOMMENDATION

The Rating Policy as attached be adopted.


Moved: Cr Ryan Seconded: Cr Norris



Rates is a Governance matter where Council is required to rate all properties in order toprovide services to the community.


Given the nature of the proposed amendments to the 2002/03 Rating Policy, communityconsultation is not required. Those ratepayers who are affected by the amendments to thePolicy will be contacted individually with a view to implementation.

Following its adoption by Council, a full copy of the 2002/03 Rating Policy will be forwardedto all ratepayers with the first rates notice to be posted in August.

Background

Council is required by the Local Government Act to review and adopt its Rating Policy eachyear.

Whilst at a Special Council meeting of 19 February 2002, Elected Members where advisedthat the formal adoption of this policy would occur in conjunction with the declaration of rateson 25 June 2002, legal advice sought on this matter provides that the phrase “in conjunctionwith” permits Council to adopt its Rating Policy during the process of finalising its rates, whichmay be before its declaration of rates. As such we are seeking adoption of this Policy toenable Council staff to be able to prepare the rates income budget for the 2002/03 year, withcertainty in regards to the issues raised in this paper. At the Special Meeting of 19 February 2002, Council received an officer briefing titled “RatingPolicy 2002/03”. The purpose of this briefing was to provide Elected Members with anopportunity to discuss recommended amendments to the 2002/03 Rating Policy to ensure


March 26

that equalisation of all rateable properties occurs by 2006/07 in accordance with the City ofPlayford Amalgamation Proclamation.

These recommended amendments are summarised as follows:1. Insertion of a section in the policy which states that Council assesses rates on the basis

of separate occupation.

2. amend the basis on which rate equalisation is phased in from the 10% per annum rateincrease limit to a phase in where all properties yet to be equalised incur an additional20% per year from 2002/03 to 2006/07 of the difference between their rate as at 2001/02and the rate required to achieve full equalisation. If the total amount required to achieveequalisation is less than $100 these properties will be equalised in 2002/2003 (CategoryA remission).

3. Creation of a Category B remission to limit the increase in fixed charges imposedbecause of rating based on land occupation to an amount equal to 20% of the differencebetween the 2001/02 fixed charge and 2002/03 fixed charges.

At that officer briefing, Elected Members requested a report which set out the impact of theabove amendments on the affected ratepayers. This report was attached to a separatememo dated 19 March 2002.

Analysis of Issues

Rates EqualisationA key feature of Council’s Rating Policies of 1999/2000 to 2001/2002 has been the provisionof a rate remission which has ensured that ratepayers affected by equalisation had annualrate increases limited to not more than 10%. This has been effective in equalising rates on95% of properties.

As advised at the officer briefing, the continued application of the 10% pa limit is no longerappropriate if full rate equalisation is to be achieved on the remaining unequalised properties(5% of total) within the timeframe set out in the Amalgamation Proclamation (by the 2006/07rating year).

Based on annual rate increases of between 3% and 4% per annum, our forecasts highlightthat the ratepayers in the categories of Munno Para Commercial and Munno ParaCommercial ex Rural will not be equalised until around the year 2015 (133 ratepayers).

As such, it is necessary that the basis on which rate equalisation is phased in be amendedfrom a blanket 10% approach to a ratepayer by ratepayer assessment of the annual rateincreases that will ensure rates are fully equalised by 2006/2007.

Land against which rates may be assessed (tenancy apportionment)In prior years, there has been an inconsistent approach to the rating of properties which havemore than one tenant (i.e. shops, flats) this being a legacy of pre amalgamation ratingapproaches where Munno Para rates were based on land ownership and Elizabeth, withsome exceptions, were based on land occupation.

Given that the Valuer General is now in a position to provide us with comprehensive andconsistent data in regards to tenancies, we are now in a position to proceed with theapplication of a consistent rating approach.

The principle issue in this regard is Council’s compliance with Section 148 of the LocalGovernment Act which states that “rates may be assessed against any piece or section of landsubject to separate ownership or occupation”.


March 26

Consistent assessment of rates on the basis of land subject to separate occupation (tenancyapportionment) is recommended on the grounds that:

- it is the basis most commonly adopted by metropolitan Councils- is the basis already applied to 60% of City of Playford’s tenancied properties (including

the majority of South Australian Housing Trust tenancies) - it facilitates the most equitable imposition of rates - it will result in the raising of approximately $243,000 in additional fixed charges in 5 years

time, (the recommended phase in will limit this to $49,000 in 2002/03 and subsequentyears subject to any annual rate increases)

- the alternative basis (land ownership) would result in a loss of income of approximately$380,000

In accordance with the recommendation, such properties (77 land owners – 773 tenancies)will incur variable rate increase on the same basis as all properties in their land use categorybut will have increases on the fixed charge component limited to one fifth of the total amountthat would otherwise be required to achieve full equalisation in 2002/03.

Adoption of Rates PolicyAdoption of this Policy will also enable us to write to the affected ratepayers well in advanceof the receipt of their 2002/03 Rates Notice.

In accordance with this Policy, due consideration will be given to ratepayers where it can bedemonstrated that the rate increases will cause hardship or impact on their financial viabilityand continued operations.

Options

Option 1Approve the recommendation.

Option 2Consider an alternative means of achieving rates equalisation by 2006/07.


Option 1 will provide Council with a Rating Policy that is based on the same key principlesthat were established during the extensive 1998/99 rates consultation process.

These key principles include:

- Valuation method of capital value- Land use the basis on which differential rates are levied- fixed charge/variable rating system

The recommended amendments will ensure that rates equalisation is completed by 2006/07.


March 26

Performance


March 26

13.3 COUNCIL PERFORMANCE REPORT S/111

(Contact Person: Ken Daniel)

See Attachment: (1 - Performance Report)

Purpose

To inform Council of organisational performance for the year to date as at February 2002including both financial and non-financial performance measures and advising of anyalterations to the approved Budget that might be required.

RECOMMENDATION

The Council Performance Report be received.


Moved: Cr Gooley Seconded: Cr Ryan



The issue is related to the corporate management and administration of the City of Playfordand is required to be undertaken to ensure there is accountability to Elected Members andthe community in the provision of Council services.


The Organisational Performance Report is principally for internal management purposes andthere is no requirement to consult the community.

Background

The Local Government Act requires accountability to the community in terms of bothfinancial management and service delivery. This has required the development offinancial and non-financial performance measures that can be used to identify areaswithin the organisation where performance improvements can be made.

Current Situation

The development of performance reporting will assist the Continuous Improvementprogram of Council in the achievement of long term financial goals and in the delivery ofimproved services to the community. It will also assist business units in the achievementof specific performance targets that will be set through organisational planning. TheCouncil Performance Report provides the means by which progress to performancetargets can be reported to Council.


March 26

Future Action

The Council Performance Report will continue to be enhanced and presented to Council on amonthly basis.

Service Profile oral presentations (no longer than 20 minutes) will continue to be given atCommittee meetings, to provide Elected Members with detailed knowledge of what eachService Profile does, and the benefits provided to the Community and to the Council.


March 26

Operational


March 26

13.4 PETITION: PARKING FACILITIES – ANGLE VALE PRE-SCHOOL S/381

(Contact Person: Mark Temme)

Purpose

To present a petition from 56 signatories regarding parking facilities at the Angle Vale Pre-School.

RECOMMENDATION

The information be received and a further report be presented to Council once aninvestigation has been undertaken into the issues raised in the petition.


Moved: Cr Shaw Seconded: Cr Wissell



The relevance to the Community Plan is as follows: goal 1 - Economic Prosperity –objective 1.3 - Assets which contribute to the prosperity of the city - strategy 1.2.3 - Provideand maintain transport infrastructure that ensures safe and efficient movement of vehiclesand pedestrians throughout the City. Relevance to Community Involvement Policy

There is no legal or policy requirement to consult with the community on this matter as itinvolves receiving information from a petition.

Background

Council has received a petition from 56 parents and carers of children who attend the AngleVale Pre-school.

The petition states:

“We the undersigned, being parents/carers of children attending Angle Vale Pre-school,request that the Playford Council and DETE conduct an inquiry into the grosslyinadequate parking facilities at the pre-school. The number of children attending thepre-school has close to quadrupled since it was initially opened, and the nine carparksand one handicapped carpark situated at the front of the property is not nearly enoughto accommodate the number of families which currently attend. Parking is furtherrestricted in the street where no parking is permitted at peak times, and although nosign is posted, parking is also not allowed in the area at the side of the premises.Legally and understandably, children attending the centre must be safely accompaniedinto the pre-school by their parents/carers, and a suitable and practical area should bemade available fro parents to leave their vehicles while doing so.”


March 26

Current Situation

Council has received the petition which has raised a number of issues regarding parking andsafety of children at the Angle Vale Pre-school. For Council to make any judgements on theparking issues an investigation is required to identify the issues and make somerecommendations on improving the situation.

Future Action

To undertake a traffic study in the vicinity of the Angle Vale Pre-school to investigate theissues raised in the petition. A further report would then be presented to Council forconsideration.


March 26

13.5 MOTIONS ON NOTICE – CR MACMILLAN S/85


Purpose

To respond to Cr MacMillan’s Notices on Motion.

RECOMMENDATION

The information be received and an investigation into the ability for Council to include theactions within the Notices on Motion from Cr MacMillan into Council’s Order Making Policy beundertaken.


Moved: Cr MacMillan Seconded: Cr O’Rielly



The Order Making Policy is a corporate governance policy that Council is required to produceunder the Local Government Act 1999.


Any significant changes to the Order Making Policy require Council to undertake communityconsultation and this would be undertaken in line with the requirements of the LocalGovernment Act and Council’s Community Involvement Policy.

Background

Cr MacMillan has requested that the following Motions on Notice be considered at the MarchCouncil Meeting:

“RESOLUTION TO BE MOVED:

1. Under the powers to make orders pursuant to the Local Government Act (Order MakingPolicy) Council develop/amend that policy to include unsightly conditions of land and thatthe policy be put to the April Full Council Meeting prior to going to public consultation.

2. Council staff prepare the draft policy to provide Council with powers to order a person toameliorate an unsightly condition, where land, or a structure or object on land, is unsightlyand detracts significantly from the amenity of the locality in which the land is situated. Theowner or occupier of the land may then be held responsible for the actions necessary toameliorate an unsightly condition.”


March 26

Current Situation

Council has an existing Order Making Policy and if Cr MacMillan’s resolutions are endorsedby Council then investigations into the ability for Council to include the elements regardingunsightly condition of land would need to be investigated.

Future Action

An investigation into the ability for Council to include the actions within the Notices on Motionfrom Cr MacMillan into Council’s Order Making Policy be undertaken. A report be presentedto the April Council Meeting on the ability of Council to undertake this type of work from alegal point of view and also the resource implications of introducing this type of service.


March 26

13.6 ELIZABETH CITY CENTRE - RATES AGREEMENT S/688

Strategy and Policy

(Contact Person: Leigh Hall)

See Attachment: 1. Council report dated 26 September 2000; 2. Land Swaps diagram; 3:Council report dated 27 February 2001.

Purpose

• To seek approval for an extension of time for the execution of the Rates Agreement withElizabeth City Centre Pty Ltd (ECC).

• To seek approval to add conditions to the draft Rates Agreement with ECC. The originaldraft Rates Agreement is detailed in the Council papers dated 26 September 2000 (seeattachment 1) and 27 February 2001 (see attachment 3).

• To advise that arrangements are being made for amendments to the “Deed of Condition ofGrant” with the State Treasurer.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve amendment to the Conditions of the draft “Rate Agreement” between ElizabethCity Centre Pty Ltd and the City of Playford, previously resolved on 26 September 2000and amended on 27 February 2001, as follows:a. Extend the time to 30 June 2002 to sign the Rates Agreement.b. Extend the time to 30 June 2003 to substantially commence construction.c. Extend the time to 31 December 2005 for practical completion.d. ECC will pay the State Government of South Australia and the City of Playford’s

consultancy costs in relation to the Rates Agreement to a maximum value of$40,000.

e. The fixed rates previously negotiated in the draft Rates Agreement for the ten-yearperiod post construction be updated to a current starting point.

2. Upon signing of the Rate Agreement, ECC will:a. Immediately commit to the land transfers as detailed in Attachment 2.b. Immediately make available at market terms and conditions the future “Community

Link” site, being the land identified as “ECC 10195m2” in Attachment 2.3. The Rates Agreement with ECC will not be executed until Playford Council has an

updated “Deed of Conditions of Grant” amounting to $2.26M with the State Governmentof South Australia.

4. Note that we have agreed extensions of dates with a representative from the Departmentof Premier and Cabinet, in respect to the imminent request to the Treasurer foramendments to the “Deed of Condition of Grant” amounting to $2.26M.


Moved: Cr Shaw Seconded: Cr Wissell



March 26


The redevelopment of the Elizabeth City Centre will have a strong impact on our threeCommunity Goals. The Agreement will ensure the ECC redevelopment project is completed,which will enhance all of the objectives of two goals from the Community Plan:

Goal 1 Economic Prosperity“A City with a strong economy which maximises employment opportunities and wealthcreation”

Objective 1.1A diverse range of growing businesses in the city and the northern regionproviding local employment opportunitiesObjective 1.2 A community of employable peopleObjective 1.3 Assets which contribute to the prosperity of the City

Goal 2 Environmental Care“A City with a well planned blend of built and natural environment”Objective 2.1 Harmony between the built and natural environmentObjective 2.2 A community which is actively engaged in caring for the built and natural

environment.Objective 2.3 Assets which serve the needs of the community


Whilst there is no legal requirement to consult the public on this matter, all Council meetingshave been held in public even though the Agreement is a commercial arrangement betweenthe relevant parties. The media has shown significant interest and various media questionshave been quickly and accurately answered.

Background

By way of detailed background please refer to agenda item 13.4 Elizabeth City Centre –Agreement for proposed Re-Development” Council 26 September 2000 (attachment 1). Inaddition, an extension of time for the Rates Agreement was granted at the 27 February 2001Council meeting (attachment 3). The current authority from Council to conclude a RatesAgreement with ECC has lapsed as the Agreement called for ECC to substantiallycommence construction by 30 September 2001.

At the Special Council meeting on 19 July 2002, staff briefed Council that the two parties ofECC, being Gandel Retail Trust and Stockland Trust are having discussions regarding thefuture direction of ECC and a proposed redevelopment of the Centre. The discussionsinclude the potential purchase of the other party’s interest. Further, it was advised that wewere negotiating the purchase of the Advertising Tower from ECC. ECC has subsequentlyindicated that they wish to retain the Tower.

Council is currently closing a series of roads to facilitate a new Civic Centre and possibleCommunity Link building.

The road closure project entails the closure of Frobisher Road and Prince Charles Street andthe creation of a new boulevard through an extension of Grenville Road through to OxenhamDrive. The site and services investigation and design work for the proposed road closureshas now been completed. The land parcels to be swapped with ECC and the creation of twodevelopment sites to cater for the new civic centre and the community link project have beendefined.


March 26

ECC has now been formally introduced to the proposed land swaps and indicated their inprinciple support to the road closures and land swaps. Council is providing details of anyimplications the road closures and land swaps may have for Elizabeth City Centre’sexpansion so that these can be addressed, and is also moving to prepare documentation toeffect the transfers. ECC has also indicated their support for creation of Grenville Boulevardas an active and high profile thoroughfare.

A Community Link Project has been proposed for some time but is now being activelyadvanced through Council’s facilitation with the key stakeholders.

The project will comprise up to 5,000m2 of office with associated carparking to accommodateup to 350 staff from a range of agencies associated with the Department of Human Services(DHS). The Project Team Leader from DHS is undertaking a process of consultation withinhis department with a view to achieving commitment to the project from all agencies by theend of April. Council staffs are participating in that consultation.

DHS is not proposing to build the offices but instead to lease the premises for a minimumperiod of 15 years and has therefore sought a developer/investor to undertake the project ontheir terms. DHS has now committed to the site proposed by Council located immediately to the north ofthe proposed civic centre. DHS has now also committed to using Georges Rich Architectsand Broad Construction to develop the design and feasibility for the project. Both architectand builder were introduced to DHS by Council and both are currently providing their servicewithout charge.

The site which is owned by ECC is being enlarged to cater for the proposed offices throughthe closure of Frobisher Road and Prince Charles Street and the swaps of land parcels beinginitiated by Council. Gandel has indicated that they are supportive of road closures and landswaps

Gandel has now been formally introduced to the project and to the development team. Theyhave now committed in writing to advancing the project on the proposed site. They havecommitted in principle to working with Broad Constructions either as a joint venture partner,as their builder to achieve the project or as an owner investor.

In summary the Community Link project has now reached a stage where it is now possible aproject commitment can be achieved within the short term.

Analysis of Issues

On Friday, 8 March 2002, ECC approached Council to update the draft Rates Agreement, onthe same terms and conditions as previously agreed by Council.

In the time elapsed since Council last agreed to a Rates Agreement, 27 February 2001, twoother important issues have evolved.

Firstly, Council has agreed for the new Civic Centre to be built where the existingShedley/Octagon currently is sited. To achieve the best result for the community a series ofland swaps need to be achieved with ECC. These are detailed in Attachment 2.

Secondly, discussions are well advanced for a 5000m2 building and car parking beingprovided for a community linked Human Services Building on the site north of the new civicbuilding.


March 26

This land is owned by ECC, hence this Agreement to sell the land at a reasonable price orpartake as a joint venture partner with a developer or do the development themselves isparamount to a quality new built form facing a new Grenville Boulevard.

The fixed rates previously negotiated in the draft ECC Agreement for the ten-year period postconstruction will be updated to current starting points based on an 8.5% yield and 11.35%interest rate of return previously agreed in the Council paper of 26 September 2000(Attachment 1). This will result in a rebate of approximately $8M based on current estimatesof future rates in the dollar and capital values.

Options

Option 1Do not give ECC rating relief.

Option 2Extend the date of compliance in the draft Rates Agreement.

Option 3Extend the date of compliance in the draft Rates Agreement and link a requirement of therebate to the land swaps to allow the creation of Grenville Boulevard and the commitment tobuild a new Community Links building.

Analysis of Options

Option Advantage Disadvantage1 If ECC do a redevelopment, there will

be no reduction in the full rate flowing toCouncil once development completed.

$107M ECC redevelopment may notoccur.

2 Simple, as draft Agreement previouslyagreed.

Does not link conditional Agreement tothe land swaps and the development ofthe Community Link building.

3 Achieve a $107M ECC Developmentcoupled with the desirable GrenvilleBoulevard and the Community Linkbuilding.

Approximately $8M of rate rebates isgiven, which may not be necessary ifECC decide to proceed without any raterebate.


Option 3 provides the redevelopment the greatest probability of success and ensures theGrenville Boulevard and Community Link building is developed in harmony with the CityCentre.

The meeting closed at 7:38pm

Date post:	16-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dinhthuy
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

of COUNCIL MEETING - City of Playford · of COUNCIL MEETING Pursuant to the ... (from 7:13pm) Cr...

Documents