NOTICE OF MEETING - City of Charles Sturt · NOTICE OF MEETING To ... 3.106 WEST LAKES ASSOCIATION OF TOUR PROFESSIONALS CHALLENGER TENNIS EVENT ... 3.112 WASTE CARE SA MINUTES (B5420)

NOTICE OF MEETING

To All Members of Asset Management Committee Her Worship the Mayor, Ms K Alexander (ex officio) Councillor Grant Councillor Ghent – Presiding Member Councillor Wasylenko Councillor Auricht – Deputy Presiding Member Councillor Harley Councillor Scheffler Councillor Fitzpatrick Councillor Ienco I wish to advise that a meeting of the Asset Management Committee will be held in the:

Committee Meeting Rooms 2 and 3 (CC2 & CC3) 72 Woodville Road, Woodville

commencing at 6.00 pm on Monday, 19 November 2012

JAN CORNISH GENERAL MANAGER ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES Dated 15 November 2012 Please advise Kerrie Jackson if you are unable to attend this meeting or will be late. Telephone 8408 1115. We acknowledge that the land we meet on today is the traditional land of the Kaurna people. We respect their spiritual relationship with this land. We also acknowledge the Kaurna people as traditional custodians of the Kaurna land. We will endeavour, as Council, to act in a way that respects Kaurna heritage and the cultural beliefs of the Kaurna people.

City of Charles Sturt 1. AM Agenda 19/11/2012

AGENDA 1. COMMITTEE OPENING 1.1 Apologies for absence. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Confirmation of the minutes of the previous meeting held on Monday, 15 October

2012. 3. BUSINESS Page No. (i) Items to be starred. (ii) All unstarred items to be adopted.

“That having read and considered the reports in the agenda related to items (list the number of each item and its title) adopt the recommendations as printed.”

3.105 PROPOSED SPORT FACILITY SUPPLY AND DEMAND STUDY (B435) 1

Brief

Over the past 12 months Council has received requests from several sporting clubs to provide facilities to meet growing demand.

This report recommends that Council approach the City of Port Adelaide Enfield, the City of West Torrens and the Adelaide Shores with a view to undertake a sporting facility supply and demand study for the western region of Adelaide, and that application be made to the Office for Recreation and Sport for contributions funding to undertake the Study.

3.106 WEST LAKES ASSOCIATION OF TOUR PROFESSIONALS CHALLENGER TENNIS EVENT (B4214) 5

Brief

Tennis Australia (TA) in joint venture with Tennis SA (TSA) would like to host the US $50,000 ATP Challenger event at the West Lakes Tennis Club (WLTC) from the 2–10 February 2013. The ATP (Association of Tour Professionals) which is the governing body of this category of event has formally approved the venue and the application to hold this event has been endorsed by TSA (Appendix A).


3.107 BMX TRACK HINDMARSH WARD (B435) 10

Brief

A new location at 30‐60 Torrens Road, Renown Park has been suggested for the construction of a BMX Track in the Hindmarsh Ward. The land is owned by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, who have given their ‘in principle’ support to commence community consultation with respect to this location.

3.108 TREES LOCATED IN MANTON STREET HINDMARSH (B535) 16

Brief

To report on the outcome of investigation into the Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) located on the road reserve in Manton Street, Hindmarsh.

3.109 REMOVING OBSTRUCTIONS IN FIRST STREET HINDMARSH (B71,B4638) 30

Brief

First Street was obstructed in the mid 1970’s without formal agreement. Recent projects and development plans for the Hindmarsh and Bowden mean that the obstructions should be removed so the occupation would cease allowing improved public circulation and access to Port Road and the Bowden Railway Station. This report seeks endorsement of the Council to consult with surrounding businesses and property owners about removing the obstructions across First Street.

3.110 ROAD CLOSURE FOR EVENT ‐ CHRISTMAS AT OUR PLACE ‐ NORMAN STREET, WOODVILLE (B3904) 46

Brief

The City of Charles Sturt is organising a community Christmas function in the Civic Centre and Town Hall which will flow onto the lawns and carpark. To manage safe access into the site, Norman Street, Woodville, will be closed to traffic other than local residents and customers of the Royal India Restaurant, who will be allowed entry by an authorised traffic control officer at the entrance at/near Woodville Road. The closure to traffic will occur on Saturday 8 December 2012 between 2:00pm and 10:00pm. It is recommended that Council make the order to close Norman Street for the purpose of this event, in line with the Notice to Councils from the Minister.

3.111 PUBLIC TOILET, HENLEY KIOSK (B430) 52

Brief

To consider written submissions, following public consultation in respect of a public toilet proposed to be attached to the Henley Kiosk, Esplanade, Henley Beach.


3.112 WASTE CARE SA MINUTES (B5420) 65

Brief

To provide members with a copy of the Waste Care SA Board minutes of Thursday 18 October 2012.

3.113 WASTE CARE SA ANNUAL REPORT 2011/2012 (B1534) 69

Brief

To provide members with a copy of the Waste Care SA Annual Report 2011/2012.

3.114 WESTERN REGION WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2011/2012 (B5420) 71

Brief

To provide members with a copy of the Western Region Waste Management Authority Annual Report 2011/2012.

4. MOTIONS ON NOTICE 5. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 6. MOTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE [As previously identified and agreed by the Presiding Member] 7. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 8. GENERAL BUSINESS [As previously identified]


9. BUSINESS – PART II – CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Recommendation ‐ Exclusion of the Public That pursuant to Section 90(2) of the Local Government Act 1999, Council hereby orders that the public be excluded from attendance at this meeting with the exception of the Chief Executive and administrative staff currently in attendance in order to consider ITEM 9.01 – FEASIBILITY STUDY ON PURCHASE OF LAND FOR OPEN SPACE in confidence as the matter falls within the ambit of Section 90(3)(b) namely: (b) information the disclosure which: –

(i) Could reasonably be expected to confer a commercial advantage on a person whom the Council is conducting, or proposing to conduct, business, or to prejudice the commercial position of the Council; and

(ii) Would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

9.1 FEASIBILITY STUDY ON PURCHASE OF LAND FOR OPEN SPACE Brief At the Council meeting on the 22 October 2012, Cr Auricht moved that a feasibility study be undertaken to investigate the purchase of land in Brompton for the purpose of increasing open space.

10. MEETING CLOSURE

City of Charles Sturt 1. AM Report 19/11/2012

TO: Asset Management Committee FROM: Strategic Planner Recreation & Sport DATE: 19 November 2012

3.105 PROPOSED SPORT FACILITY SUPPLY AND DEMAND STUDY (B435)

Brief

Over the past 12 months Council has received requests from several sporting clubs to provide facilities to meet growing demand.

This report recommends that Council approach the City of Port Adelaide Enfield, the City of West Torrens and the Adelaide Shores with a view to undertake a sporting facility supply and demand study for the western region of Adelaide, and that application be made to the Office for Recreation and Sport for contributions funding to undertake the Study.

Recommendation

1. That the report is received. 2. That staff approach the City of Port Adelaide Enfield, the City of West

Torrens and the Adelaide Shores with a view to undertaking a regional sporting facility supply and demand study.

3. That Council endorses preparation of a grant application for a sporting

facility supply and demand study through the ‘Office for Recreation Sports – Community & Sporting Facilities Program’, for the western region of Adelaide subject to the regional partners agreeing to participate.

4. That a $20k budget bid is prepared as part of Council’s 2013/14 budget

deliberation process to contribute towards this study.

Status This report relates to or impacts upon the following Community Plan Outcomes:

A safe and healthy City that supports vibrant community life ‐ Encourage strong, supportive local communities ‐ Contribute to the quality of life of all individuals in the community ‐ Encourage healthy lifestyle pursuits


PROPOSED SPORT FACILITY SUPPLY AND DEMAND STUDY Item 3.105 Continued

An economically prosperous, attractive and functional City ‐ Support and encourage a diverse mix of complementary land uses ‐ Establish and maintain a linked system of open space ‐ Manage the community’s infrastructure

A local organisation providing progressive leadership, accountable governance and quality services to the community

‐ Ensure the organisation is financially accountable and sustainable Relevant Council policies are:

Sporting and Community Clubs Fees Policy Background The provision of sporting facilities within the City of Charles Sturt in the past has generally catered for the demands of more traditional sports and activities such as Australian Rules Football, Cricket, Tennis and Soccer. These sports are predominantly male‐oriented and very few sporting facilities provide for female sport. Council has been approached by several netball clubs and one gymnastic club over the last 12 months, expressing their concern about the increase in demand for their sport and the strain on existing facilities. In addition, soccer continues to grow and has an increasing number of girls playing at both junior and senior levels. All of these groups have expressed their view that demand for similar facilities within the western suburbs of Adelaide is exceeding the supply. Council has limited number of sporting facilities or land available to address the demand for sport. The Cities of West Torrens and Port Adelaide Enfield and Adelaide Shores are also providers of sporting facilities, along with several public and private schools within the region. With the population anticipated to increase and demand for facilities to increase, it is timely to work with other providers to plan for existing and future sports demand. Report Over the last 12 months the City of Charles Sturt has been approached by both the Garville Netball Club and the St Michaels All Angels Netball Club expressing a need for additional netball facilities. A discussion has also been held with Grange Baptist Netball Club. The Garville Netball Club, which currently participates within the State League with over 350 members, has approached Council looking to re‐establish their Club within the western suburbs of Adelaide. The St Michaels All Angels Netball Club, situated on Henley High School land, is at capacity and requires additional courts to cater for the existing demand of their sport. While each Club’s situation is different, the underlying issue is the lack of available netball courts, Council‐owned or private, available within the western suburbs to enable the Clubs to establish and/or grow.


PROPOSED SPORT FACILITY SUPPLY AND DEMAND STUDY Item 3.105 Continued GymWest, a purpose‐built gymnasium constructed within the grounds of the Henley High School, is another sporting code which has shown significant growth over the last 3 – 5 years. Much of this can be attributed to their focus on the development of gross motor skills in children. The popularity of gymnastics has also grown due to media exposure through the Olympic movement. GymWest has three defined areas of operation; kinder gym, recreational gym programs and competition squads. GymWest have advised that they are experiencing significant waiting lists for all of their programs, in particular, kindergym where there is currently in excess of 250 waiting to participate in these programs. Council also continues to receive numerous enquires each year regarding the availability of additional soccer grounds and also requests from emerging sports such as Rugby League and Lacrosse for additional playing fields. The requirement for additional netball, soccer, rugby, lacrosse and gymnastics facilities by these Clubs highlights the need for Council to undertake a strategic review of current facility provision, usage levels and future demand, determining where the pressure points are and seeking to address this on a regional basis, in collaboration with the Cities of Port Adelaide Enfield and West Torrens, along with Adelaide Shores and other sport facility providers. As a study is undertaken we will continue working with these Clubs to continue exploring other opportunities within the City where shared use of existing facilities may be achieved as an interim measure. In order to ascertain the scale of the issue in facility provision, it is recommended that Council undertakes a supply and demand study to determine what facilities are currently available and where the gaps in provision lie. It is suggested that Port Adelaide Enfield and West Torrens Councils, along with Adelaide Shores be invited to participate in the Study. The proposed study would seek to explore the following scope of work:

The existing sporting facilities within the region (including Schools and Churches), including current usage levels and capacity;

Current participation numbers of each sport within the region, compared to State participation rates;

Future participation trends, including population growth and likely impacts on supply and demand;

Gaps in provision;

Options and funding implications;

Shared use of facilities;


PROPOSED SPORT FACILITY SUPPLY AND DEMAND STUDY Item 3.105 Continued Financial and Resource Implications It is envisaged that a Study of this size would require a consultancy fee in the vicinity of $100k. The Office for Recreation & Sport funding criteria towards a feasibility study does not require a 50/50 contribution from the applicant; however applications are usually more successful if a substantial financial contribution is made. It is proposed that discussions be undertaken with the Cities of Port Adelaide Enfield and West Torrens, along with the Adelaide Shores, with a view to each party contributing $20k towards the study. It is also recommended that a budget bid for $20k is prepared for Council consideration within the 2013/14 budget. Community Engagement/Consultation Council staff have met with representatives from the Garville Netball Club, St.Michaels All Angels Netball Club and the Grange Baptist Netball Club. All of these Clubs have shown significant growth in participation numbers in the last 3 ‐5 years. The Clubs have also shown concern at the lack of available purpose‐built netball facilities within the City. Clubs have noted that the popularity of their sports is high, with the demand for courts exceeding supply. Council staff have also met with members of both Gymwest and the Henley High School to discuss the current demand for gymnastic facilities within Council, and how these demands could be managed giving consideration to the projected growth in student enrolment numbers within the School. Numerous other sporting codes such as Soccer, Rugby League and Lacrosse have also expressed their interest in acquiring the use of additional sporting facilities within the City. Conclusion Council recognises the important role that sport can play in enhancing the overall quality of life for the residents of the City of Charles Sturt. Sport not only improves ones health and wellbeing, but will also help create stronger and more vibrant communities. Council has recently been approached by several sporting codes that are experiencing a significant demand for additional facilities. It is recommended that Adelaide Shores and both the Cities of Port Adelaide Enfield and West Torrens be approached by Council to contribute towards a ‘Region Sporting Facility Supply and Demand Study, and that funding for the Study is also sought from Office for Recreation and Sport. It is also proposed that Council endorses the preparation of a $20k budget bid to be considered within the 2013/14 budget process. In the interim, it is recommended that Council continues to work with these particular codes to assist, where possible, in helping to deliver recreational opportunities with existing Council‐owned facilities.


TO: Asset Management Committee FROM: Sport and Recreation Project Officer DATE: 19 November 2012

3.106 WEST LAKES ASSOCIATION OF TOUR PROFESSIONALS CHALLENGER TENNIS

EVENT (B4214)

Brief

Tennis Australia (TA) in joint venture with Tennis SA (TSA) would like to host the US $50,000 ATP Challenger event at the West Lakes Tennis Club (WLTC) from the 2–10 February 2013. The ATP (Association of Tour Professionals) which is the governing body of this category of event has formally approved the venue and the application to hold this event has been endorsed by TSA (Appendix A).

Recommendation

1. That this report be received. 2. That Council acknowledge and agree to the naming rights of the ATP

Challenger event being the City of Charles Sturt Challenger. 3. That Council support the ATP Challenger event by providing assistance and

avenues of marketing, where required.


A safe and healthy City that supports vibrant community life ‐ Encourage strong, supportive local communities ‐ Contribute to the quality of life of all individuals in the community ‐ Encourage healthy lifestyle pursuits ‐ Encourage sharing and celebration of our cultural diversity


‐ Ensure the community is well informed and actively engaged


WEST LAKES ASSOCIATION OF TOUR PROFESSIONALS CHALLENGER TENNIS EVENT Item 3.106 Continued Background The West Lakes Tennis Club (WLTC) is one of the biggest Tennis Clubs within the City. They have a total membership base of over 300 with 120 junior players registered. They have a very strong program offering junior and senior tennis competitions along with individual coaching. The Club also has a very strong night tennis competition in the summer. The Club is based at Jubilee Reserve, West Lakes Shores and is under the banner of Club West Lakes, an overarching administrative body which incorporates Tennis, Lawn bowls, Croquet and various social clubs. They have recently had a major building upgrade, with Council contributing significant funds towards this. This facility is now one of the best in the City and offers members and the local community a place to meet, socialise and recreate. Report The West Lakes Tennis Club (WLTC) has been hosting a very successful Australian Money Tournament (AMT) since 2010, with Council contributing $5000 towards the event each year. This event will continue to be held in January of each year, showcasing some of Australia’s best tennis players and offering the community a chance to attend a free high class event. Due to the success of this event, TA in conjunction with TSA have suggested that the WLTC would be a suitable venue for an ATP event, bringing South Australia the chance to see some of the best Tennis players in the World. This event being held shortly after the Australian Open should encourage world class tennis players to come to Adelaide to compete. The ATP Challenger events are the highest category of event on the Pro Tour calendar and a fantastic opportunity to showcase both the City of Charles Sturt and one of its’ local Tennis Clubs. This event is a great opportunity for the City of Charles Sturt to showcase its facilities, features and in particular our local Sporting Clubs. The City has been given the opportunity to have naming rights for this event, which will be called the City of Charles Sturt Challenger. This is a significant acknowledgement and will ensure the City is recognised. The event has been given full support from the Licence holder, Club West Lakes, who are excited at the chance to showcase their facilities (Appendix B). The event will be televised live on the Internet and attract significant media coverage throughout the tournament. There will be opportunity for Council to promote itself via signage at the event and through promotion leading up to the event. A subcommittee working group will be set up with representatives from TSA, WLTC and Council, in order to plan the details of the event and ensure the event is promoted positively. It will be necessary for Council to offer promotional avenues for the event, including, Port Road Banners, the Messenger newspaper column and a section on our Website. It will also be a requirement that Council assist the WLTC to ensure that their courts and facilities are in suitable condition.


WEST LAKES ASSOCIATION OF TOUR PROFESSIONALS CHALLENGER TENNIS EVENT Item 3.106 Continued Financial and Resource Implications Whilst this event is only for a one year arrangement, there is a possibility that WLTC will host similar Challenger events in the future. Should the WLTC, Council, TA and TSA all be agreeable the event could potentially see a further three years at this venue. While there is a host fee of $50,000 required, Council has not been asked to contribute financially at this stage. Should Council be asked to contribute to this fee in the future, a separate report will be put to Council requesting consideration of funds in appropriate budget considerations. Customer Service and Community Implications There are no customer service or community implications. Environmental Implications There are no environmental implications. Community Engagement/Consultation There is no requirement for Community engagement or consultation. Risk Management/Legislative Implications There are no risk management or legislative implications. Conclusion Hosting an ATP Challenger event such as this is a great opportunity for the City of Charles Sturt, the WLTC and Club West Lakes to be promoted on a National and International stage with visitors expected from all over the world. It is an event promoting health and well being, and is free for the community to attend. The WLTC is excited to be given this opportunity and is looking forward to working closely with Council to ensure the event is both successful and ongoing.


WEST LAKES ASSOCIATION OF TOUR PROFESSIONALS CHALLENGER TENNIS EVENT Item 3.106

APPENDIX A


WEST LAKES ASSOCIATION OF TOUR PROFESSIONALS CHALLENGER TENNIS EVENT Item 3.106

APPENDIX B


TO: Asset Management Committee FROM: Sport and Recreation Project officer DATE: 19 November 2012

3.107 BMX TRACK HINDMARSH WARD (B435)

Brief

A new location at 30‐60 Torrens Road, Renown Park has been suggested for the construction of a BMX Track in the Hindmarsh Ward. The land is owned by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, who have given their ‘in principle’ support to commence community consultation with respect to this location.

Recommendation

1. That the report be received. 2. That community consultation be undertaken in consideration of a BMX

Track to be located at 30‐60 Torrens Road, Renown Park. 3. That a further report be brought back to the Asset Management

Committee at the conclusion of the consultation process.


A safe and healthy City that supports vibrant community life ‐ Encourage strong, supportive local communities ‐ Contribute to the quality of life of all individuals in the community ‐ Encourage healthy lifestyle pursuits ‐ Encourage sharing and celebration of our cultural diversity

An economically prosperous, attractive and functional City ‐ Support and encourage a diverse mix of complementary land uses ‐ Create attractive, well maintained streetscapes ‐ Establish and maintain a linked system of open space ‐ Manage the community’s infrastructure




BMX TRACK HINDMARSH WARD Item 3.107 Continued Relevant Council policies are:

Public Consultation Policy Background In November 2011, a report was prepared for Council’s Asset Management Services Committee (AM 14/11/11 Item 3.80) to discuss possible locations for the BMX Track. A compatibility assessment of all of the prominent parcels of open space within the Hindmarsh Ward was presented. Sam Johnson Reserve was considered the most appropriate due to the larger amount of useable space available on the Reserve. The Committee also endorsed initial public consultation to be undertaken with residents that surround Sam Johnson Reserve. In February 2012 Council staff surveyed the adjoining residents of Sam Johnson Reserve to ascertain their feedback on the provision of a BMX track at this location. The mailout saw a total of 436 households consulted. There were 50 responses received with 12 submissions strongly objecting to the facility at this location. In March 2012, Council’s Asset Management Services Committee recommended that further consultation be undertaken. In July 2012 a public consultation meeting took place on site in the Football Club at Sam Johnson Reserve. A total of 20 residents attended the consultation session, with Council Officers and Ward Councillors also attending. Of these a total of 15 residents were opposed to the project going forward feeling that the location of the facility was not suitable and could cause issues in relation to safety of local residents and an increase in noise. A debrief with Council Officers and the Ward Councillors concluded that the location of Sam Johnson Reserve should still be considered for the BMX Track. However, other locations should be sought that could prove more suitable in relation to the environment and proposed use, with less concern from the local residents. These findings were presented to the Asset Management Committee in August 2012 and the recommendation was to consider other locations within the Hindmarsh Ward for this facility (AM 20/08/12 Item 3.68) Report Various other locations were considered within the Hindmarsh Ward with one particular site potentially providing a solution for the location of a BMX Facility. The site is located at 30‐60 Torrens Road, Renown Park and is owned by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI). Council currently has ‘care and control’ of this land (Appendix A). The land was originally purchased by DPTI in August 1972 with the intention of constructing the Ovingham Railway Overpass. This project has not commenced as yet and it is unlikely to take place now that state government priorities have changed. The land is ideally suited as it is facing a main road and there are not too many local residents surrounding the property. There is also a large area that could be used for a BMX Track facility.


BMX TRACK HINDMARSH WARD Item 3.107 Continued Contact has been made with the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure who have given ‘in principle’ support for Council to consider this location for the BMX Track as per the following conditions: (Appendix B).

No direct access from Torrens Road into the track facility from Torrens Road.

Consideration to be given for car and bike access from Exeter Terrace.

Bike only access from Napier Street.

Consideration to be given for safe access to facility for bikes and pedestrians:‐ ‐ i.e. Proposed implementation of pedestrian activated crossing adjacent to the

level crossing (eastern side of level crossing) for the greenways may provide safe access to the track facility.

‐ Further analysis is required to look into safe pedestrian/cycling crossing facilities with respect to origin and destination of track facility users.

DPTI may need set back requirements of 5m for future upgrade of Torrens Road – No proposed plan at this stage.

When the land is required by DPTI for potential road works in the future, Council will be required to remove the facility from the subject land at no cost to DPTI.

It is anticipated that a subsequent report will be presented back to the Asset Management Committee once the consultation stage is complete. Council will also need to endorse a formal contract with DPTI to construct the BMX Track and its ongoing use as a recreational facility. This site is considered to be ideal for a BMX Track facility as it is readily accessible, has a high level of passive surveillance from the adjacent road, provides a large area for the track to be constructed and is located some distance from local residents. Financial and Resource Implications There is currently a budget of $100,000 for the installation of this BMX Track in the 2012/13 financial year. It is unlikely that this facility will be completed prior to the end of this financial year, and it is anticipated that there will be a WIP into 2013/14. Customer Service and Community Implications There are no customer service or community implications. Environmental Implications There are no environmental implications.


BMX TRACK HINDMARSH WARD Item 3.107 Continued Community Engagement/Consultation It is anticipated that community consultation will take place in the form of a ‘mail out’ and ‘survey’ to residents within a 300m radius of the proposed location. A consultation workshop will also take place at the school inviting residents to attend to gain more information about the project. Recent consultation on facilities such as BMX tracks has indicated that residents have concerns about increase in crime, increase in noise and unacceptable behaviour. However this location offers the chance for such facilities to be constructed and utilised in a way that will not greatly impact on local residents due to its suitable size and its proximity along a main road. Local residents are also some distance from where the facility would be located on the reserve, which should minimise issues in relation to noise. The facility will not have lighting hence it will only be used during daylight hours. Risk Management/Legislative Implications There are no risk management or legislative implications. Conclusion There is a need to provide facilities for young people to enjoy and be active in the Hindmarsh Ward. Facilities such as a BMX Track will be widely used by local young people and offer a chance for youth to recreate together in a safe environment. This particular location is deemed very suitable due to its size and its position, being accessible and visible. It is recommended that this location is considered for the BMX Track and that consultation take place in order to obtain community feedback on the proposal.


BMX TRACK HINDMARSH WARD Item 3.107

APPENDIX A


BMX TRACK HINDMARSH WARD Item 3.107

APPENDIX B


TO: Asset Management Committee FROM: Technical Officer Arboriculture DATE: 19 November 2012

3.108 TREES LOCATED IN MANTON STREET HINDMARSH (B535)

Brief

To report on the outcome of investigation into the Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) located on the road reserve in Manton Street, Hindmarsh.

Recommendation

1. That the 36 Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) located on the road

reserve in Manton Street, Hindmarsh assessed against Council’s Tree and Streetscape Policy be retained.

2. That the trees be further assessed for selective removal during the

construction of footpaths, kerb and gutters at which time the impact on the trees can be determined.


A safe and healthy City that supports vibrant community life ‐ Encourage strong, supportive local communities ‐ Contribute to the quality of life of all individuals in the community

An economically prosperous, attractive and functional City ‐ Protect the history, heritage and character of the City ‐ Create attractive, well maintained streetscapes ‐ Establish and maintain a linked system of open space

A City which values, protects and enhances the natural environment ‐ Protect and restore the City’s biodiversity, natural ecosystems and water

courses ‐ Encourage our community to better manage and reduce their impact on the

environment ‐ Promote ecologically sustainable urban development within the City ‐ Reduce the environmental impact of Council’s operations


TREES LOCATED IN MANTON STREET HINDMARSH Item 3.108 Continued


‐ Ensure the community is well informed and actively engaged ‐ Recognition as a leading organisation delivering best practice in local

government management ‐ Deliver quality service to our customers Relevant Council policies are:

Tree and Streetscape Policy Executive Summary The Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) is undertaking the resurfacing of Manton Street, Hindmarsh in 2012/2013. As an integrated project, prior to the works being completed by DPTI, the City of Charles Sturt will undertake the following major engineering works including; the reconstruction of the kerb and gutter, reconstruction of footpaths, reconstruction of some centre medians and bus bay indents. To ensure the needs of the local community was acknowledged, consultation was undertaken with the residents/business owners in June 2011 with a series of options for the streetscape upgrade including feedback regarding a proposal to replant new street trees. The responses received were divided in relation to supporting the removal/replanting of street trees and the retention of the trees in Manton Street. In addition a Community Information Session was held in November 2011 seeking further comments regarding the concept plans and for an opportunity for the local community to discuss the upgrade with Council’s Project Team. Correspondence was received in September 2012 from the Ward Councillor on behalf of some business owners in Manton Street requesting the removal of the Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) for the following reasons;

Associated mess the trees create in relation to the leaves and in particular the seed capsules

The seed capsules which are deposited onto the hard surfaced footpaths increase the risk of people slipping on the capsules

In total, there are 66 street trees located on both sides of Manton Street. There are 36 primarily mature Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus), 26 Plane trees (Platanus acerifolia) located in front of Hindmarsh Stadium and 3 Ash trees (Fraxinus angustifolia) located at the south‐western end of Manton Street. The 36 Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) were overall assessed as being in good health and in good structural condition and do not pose an unacceptable risk to personal safety or property. The trees were assessed against Council’s Tree and Streetscape Policy and it is recommended that the trees be retained.


TREES LOCATED IN MANTON STREET HINDMARSH Item 3.108 Continued Some trees will require further assessment at the time of engineering works being undertaken for the reconstruction of footpaths, kerb and gutters to comprehensively ascertain construction impacts on the trees. It is to be demonstrated all remedial treatments and measures have been determined to be ineffective, to prevent substantial tree‐damaging activity occurring, including tree removal. Background Manton Street, Hindmarsh is an arterial road under the care and control of the State Government, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI). Manton Street provides a link for vehicles and cyclists travelling between Grange Road and the City of Adelaide. The street experiences high pedestrian traffic events at the Hindmarsh Stadium and the Adelaide Entertainment Centre. DPTI advised Council that it will be undertaking road rehabilitation works on Manton Street in 2012/13. Consequently as an integrated project and following consultation with the local community, Council will be undertaking the following engineering works prior to the resealing of the road;

Reconstruction of kerb and gutter which emulates the existing alignments

Construction of compliant footpaths and bus stops on both northern and southern sides

Reconstruction of centre medians including amendments to existing configuration which provides additional pedestrian refuge and shortening of turning lanes

Construction of bus bay indents (subject to DPTI approval)

Construction of median island in Holden Street (subject to DPTI approval)

Verge widening around veranda posts of Joiners Arms Hotel on both Manton Street and Mary Street (subject to DPTI approval).

To ensure the needs of the local community was acknowledged, consultation was undertaken with the residents/business owners in June 2011 with a series of options for the streetscape upgrade including feedback regarding lighting, bicycle lanes, parking, indenting bus stops, footpaths, other traffic issue and replanting new street trees. Approximately 600 letters were issued to the local community and 7% provided responses to the overall survey. The responses received in relation to supporting the removal/replanting of street trees and the retention of the trees in Manton Street were divided as per graph below;



Street Trees - What are your thoughts about removing and replanting the street trees with a different species?

Support

No Support

Neutral

In addition a Community Information Session was held in November 2011 seeking further comments regarding the concept plans and for an opportunity for the local community to discuss the upgrade with Council’s Project Team. A small group of local residents and business owners attended and did not raise issues that were significantly different from the initial consultation The budget allocation for the Manton Street Project is $650,000 which will include the reconstruction of kerb and gutter, centre medians and a majority for footpath reconstruction. The balance of footpath reconstruction is forecast for the 2013/14 financial year. Detailed design for this project is scheduled for November 2012 followed by final approval being sought by DPTI in December. Correspondence was received in September 2012 from the Ward Councillor on behalf of some business owners in Manton Street requesting the removal of the Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) for the following reasons;

Associated mess the trees create in relation to the leaves and in particular the seed capsules

The seed capsules which are deposited onto the hard surfaced footpaths increase the risk of people slipping on the capsules


TREES LOCATED IN MANTON STREET HINDMARSH Item 3.108 Continued Report Manton Street, Hindmarsh is located between South Road and Adam Street, Hindmarsh (refer to Appendix A). In total there are 66 street trees located on the both sides of the road. There are primarily 36 mature Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus), 26 Plane trees (Platanus acerifolia) located in front of Hindmarsh Stadium and 3 Ash trees (Fraxinus angustifolia) located at the south‐western end of Manton Street. Description of the species The tree species, Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) is a medium sized evergreen tree which is native to the tablelands and coastal areas of northern New South Wales and Queensland. The tree forms a densely foliaged crown with slightly glossy leaves and pinkish brown peeling bark. The eucalyptus like white flowers develops during the summer months. It is tolerant of pollution and drought conditions. The Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) is an ideal street tree as it has good establishment rates in a variety of soils and environmental conditions. The species provides good shade and survives with minimal summer irrigation. It is uniform in habit, easily pruned and maintained from an arboricultural perspective and generally non‐invasive. The tree species has the propensity to shed large volumes of semi‐spherical capsules largely due to Adelaide’s drier climate compared to its natural environment. The lack of water particularly during drought conditions can exacerbate the shedding of capsules. Council’s Street Tree Register indicates there are over 2000 Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) within the streets of the City of Charles Sturt which equates to less than 5% of the overall street tree population. Tree replacement of this species is limited to being planted where an existing avenue has established and is appropriate for the location. As a commonly planted tree species in the metropolitan area, knowledge of this species is readily available to evaluate tree health. The 36 Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) are predominantly mature specimens which are generally in good health and good structural condition (refer to Appendix B). The tree species are not renowned to develop any significant structural flaws. Canopy height varies between 4 metres on semi‐mature trees to 9 metres on mature specimens. The street trees in Manton Street are not classified as being regulated (formerly significant) under the Development Act 1993. The landscape character of Manton Street is dominated by Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) primarily on the northern side and the Plane trees (Plantanus x acerifolia) adjacent to the Hindmarsh Stadium on the southern side. The trees in question form a moderate visual element to the local area (refer to Appendix C).


TREES LOCATED IN MANTON STREET HINDMARSH Item 3.108 Continued In some locations, it is evident that tree root activity has lifted the existing concrete footpaths, kerb and gutter. The proposed reinstatement works provide an opportunity at the time of excavation to fully determine if root pruning is a viable option to ascertain successful tree retention. All remedial treatments and measures are to be determined to be ineffective prior to undertaking tree‐damaging activity including tree removal.

The footpath design will increase the extent of hard footpath surfaces around the trees, consequently compounding the level of risk associated with the seed capsules. Limiting exposure to liability would require an increase in maintenance resulting in footpath sweeping maintenance during peak times of seed drop and events from the adjoining Entertainment Centre and Hindmarsh Stadium. Alternative pavement treatments are available such as rubberised bitumen which may reduce the potential of slipping on the seed capsules however the cost inhibits extensive use of the material and may compromise the aesthetic appeal of the proposed paving. Assessment of the Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) resolved that they pose a low risk to personal safety and to property (refer to Appendix D) resulting in the trees being retained as they did not meet the criteria for removal when assessed against Council’s Tree and Streetscape Policy. Tree and Streetscape Policy ‐ 3.5.2 ‐ Delegated Authority The exercise of Council’s delegated authority to approve the removal of trees on Council property is to be in accordance with the following:

Trees that are dead and assessed as being structurally unsound or not contributing to the habitat value of an area, forming a notable visual element to the landscape of the local area or providing links to other vegetation which forms a wildlife corridor of trees.

Trees that are dying, deformed or in poor health and all reasonable, remedial treatments and measures have been determined as being ineffective in increasing the trees life expectancy.



Council approved projects where; a. All remedial treatments and measures have been determined to be ineffective. b. Where it is demonstrated that all reasonable, alternative development options

and design solutions have been considered to prevent substantial tree‐damaging activity occurring.

Trees showing clear evidence of damage to private property, where it can be demonstrated by the applicant, with supporting documentation from a qualified engineer that the tree is the cause of the damage and there are no appropriate remedial options. (In accordance with 6.5.3.)

Trees posing an unacceptable risk to the health of individuals. Where a request for tree removal is based on an allergic reaction, evidence from a medical specialist, which attributes persistent allergic reaction to a particular species of tree, the species of tree is uncommon in the vicinity of the applicant's residence and all alternative measures have been considered and are deemed inappropriate.

In addition to the exercise of Council’s delegated authority to approve the removal of trees on Council property, a valid reason for the removal of the trees will not include;

Complaints about leaf litter, twigs or other debris

Complaints about appearance (unless related to very poor tree health or structure)

Complaints relating to tree roots protruding above the ground or competing with lawns.

The Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) therefore do not fall into a category that would allow Council staff to remove them under delegated authority other than the following;

Council approved projects where; a. All remedial treatments and measures have been determined to be ineffective. b. Where it is demonstrated that all reasonable, alternative development options

and design solutions have been considered to prevent substantial tree‐damaging activity occurring.

Financial and Resource Implications

As a result of limited works associated with tree removal and replanting for Manton Street, no specific budget is allocated for tree removal and replacement. The Arboriculture recurrent budget funds all other tree maintenance activities.

Customer Service and Community Implications

The Customer Service Team will be notified in relation to the outcome of the report.


TREES LOCATED IN MANTON STREET HINDMARSH Item 3.108 Continued Environmental Implications

The Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) provides moderate visual qualities to the local area. The removal of 36 healthy and functional Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) will have a negative environmental and aesthetic impact on Manton Street.

Community Engagement/Consultation (including with community, Council members and staff)

N/A

Risk Management/Legislative Implications

The trees do not pose an uncceptable risk to personal safety and to private property (refer to Appendix C). Conclusion The 36 Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) were overall assessed as being in good health and in good structural condition and do not pose an unacceptable risk to personal safety or property. The trees were assessed against Council’s Tree and Streetscape Policy and it is recommended that the trees be retained. Some trees will require further assessment at the time of engineering works being undertaken for the reconstruction of footpaths, kerb and gutters to comprehensively ascertain constructions impacts on the trees. It is to be demonstrated all remedial treatments and measures have been determined to be ineffective, to prevent substantial tree‐damaging activity occurring, including tree removal.


TREES LOCATED IN MANTON STREET HINDMARSH Item 3.108

APPENDIX A



APPENDIX B

No Location Species Health Structure Height Spread Circum. Age T‐1 11 Manton St Lophostemon

confertus Good Good 8m 6m 1.24m Mature

T‐2 13‐15 Manton Lophostemon confertus

Good Good 8m 3m 0.66m Early maturity





T‐5 21 Manton St Lophostemon onfertus

Good Good 9m 7m 1.2m Mature

T‐6 25 Manton St Lophostemon onfertus

Fair Good 5m 5m 0.85m Early maturity

T‐7 27 Manton St Lophostemon confertus



Good Good 5m 3m 0.79m Semi‐mature


Fair Fair 5m 6m 1.12m Semi‐mature



T‐11 37b Manton St Lophostemon confertus



Fair Fair 4m 2m 0.32m Semi‐mature

T‐13 39a Manton St Lophostemon confertus







Fair Good 8m 8m 1.46m Mature



T‐18 Orsmond St carpark

Lophostemon confertus

Fair Good 5m 4m 0.76m Early maturity

T‐19 Orsmond St carpark



T‐20 Orsmond St Carpark











APPENDIX B Continued

No Location Species Health Structure Height Spread Circum. Age T‐24 61 Manton St Lophostemon

confertus Good Good 6m 6m 0.72m Early

maturity





T‐27 75 Manton St Fraxinus angustifolia






Southern Side – Manton Street

No Location Species Health Structure Height Spread Circum. Age


Good Good 6m 4m 0.63m Semi‐mature


Fair Good 4m 6m 0.92 Early maturity









T‐36 Hindmarsh Stadium

Platanus acerifolia



Platanus acerifolia



Platanus acerifolia



Platanus acerifolia



Platanus acerifolia



Platanus acerifolia



Platanus acerifolia



Platanus acerifolia

Good Poor 11m 7m 1.17m Early maturity


Platanus acerifolia





T‐45 Hindmarsh

Stadium Platanus acerifolia



Platanus acerifolia



Platanus acerifolia



Platanus acerifolia



Platanus acerifolia



Platanus acerifolia



Platanus Acerifolia



Platanus Acerifolia



Platanus Acerifolia



Platanus Acerifolia



Platanus Acerifolia



Platanus Acerifolia



Platanus Acerifolia



Platanus Acerifolia



Platanus acerifolia



Platanus acerifolia



Platanus acerifolia


T‐62 Cnr 1 Holden Lophostemon confertus










APPENDIX C

Queensland Box (Lophostemon confertus) on northern side

Plane trees (Platanus acerifolia) located in front of Hindmarsh Stadium



APPENDIX D Continued

A tree hazard assessment adapted by Matheny and Clark (1994) identifies three key components. Failure Potential:

The trees do not have identifiable significant structural flaws.

The trees do not have a history of branch failure. Size of Part (an environment that may contribute to that failure):

The primary and secondary unions have not developed structurally flaws. Target Rating (a person or object that would be injured or damaged):

The trees are located on the road reserve The following table is a guide for risk assessment:

Failure Potential 1 = Low

2 = Medium 3 = High 4 = Severe

Size of Part (branches)

1 = 150mm 2 = 150‐450 mm 3 = 450‐750mm 4 = >750mm

Target Rating 1 = Occasional Use

2 = Intermediate Use 3 = Frequent Use 4 = Constant Use

Any tree with a rating of 10 or over requires immediate attention. Risk Appraisal for two Plane trees (Platanus x acerifolia) Failure potential 1 + Size of part 1 + Target 3 = 3 Hazard Rating. In summary, the hazard rating is 5/12.


TO: Asset Management Committee FROM: Manager Engineering Services DATE: 19 November 2012

3.109 REMOVING OBSTRUCTIONS IN FIRST STREET HINDMARSH (B71, B4638)

Brief

First Street was obstructed in the mid 1970’s without formal agreement. Recent projects and development plans for the Hindmarsh and Bowden mean that the obstructions should be removed so the occupation would cease allowing improved public circulation and access to Port Road and the Bowden Railway Station. This report seeks endorsement of the Council to consult with surrounding businesses and property owners about removing the obstructions across First Street.

Recommendation

1. That Council remove the obstructions across the western section of First

Street Hindmarsh so that it can be reopened to the public. 2. That Council write to SA Power Networks and surrounding businesses and

property owners stating the intention to remove the obstruction and seeking comments.

3. That a further report be received by the Asset Management Committee

about the outcomes of the consultation.


An economically prosperous, attractive and functional City ‐ Support and encourage a diverse mix of complementary land uses ‐ Provide and facilitate a safe, connected and well maintained transport network Relevant Council policies are:

N/A Relevant statutory provisions are:

N/A


REMOVING OBSTRUCTIONS IN FIRST STREET HINDMARSH Item 3.109 Continued Executive Summary In the late 1980s a number of streets in Hindmarsh were to be closed subject to negotiation and sale to adjacent owners. A section of First Street between Station Place and Drayton Street was intended to be closed and sold to Hallett Brick. Hallett Brick occupied the western end of First Street by constructing a masonry wall at the Station Place end and installed an electric gate across the Drayton Street end, but the closure and sale to the owners did not occur. In 2009 the State Government invested in Hindmarsh by extending the tram and updating the Adelaide Entertainment Centre. The extension of the tram required the road across Port Road opposite Gibson Street to be closed so that Gibson Street became left‐in, left‐out only. The project team requested that Council investigate re‐opening First Street to Drayton Street to allow access to and from the western suburbs into the precinct. This request was again reiterated in 2010 when the State Government purchased the ‘Clipsal’ site in Bowden. This report seeks approval to undertake consultation before reporting back to the Committee seeking approval to remove the obstructions. Background There have been no previous reports about this matter. Report An office building and car park called Brompton Square was approved for construction in 1989 at the western end of First Street with its junction with Drayton Street. Under normal process the construction should have commenced within 12‐months and car park finished in 1990, but this has not been able to be confirmed. Between the office building and the car park First Street remained open, but it was occupied by the tenants by installing an electric gate at the boundary with Drayton Street and constructing a 1.8 metre high solid brick wall at the boundary with Station Place. Refer Appendix A. The history is not clear, but the available records show that there was intent for the then owners of the land to purchase this section of First Street, however they did not make an application to the City of Hindmarsh to purchase the land which would have triggered the road closure process and sale. At some stage the property was sold to Sandhurst Trustees Ltd who had agents managing it, including Knight Frank (SA) Pty Limited and then Colliers International. During that time, the tenants, Hallett Brick were taken over by the Boral group of companies and known as Nubrick. At a later date, Nubrick ceased to operate and the property was occupied under the Boral banner.


REMOVING OBSTRUCTIONS IN FIRST STREET HINDMARSH Item 3.109 Continued In 2009 and 2010 the State Government undertook three major initiatives that have, or will have impact on First Street. The first was the extension of the Light Rail to the Adelaide Entertainment Centre, which required the link across Port Road to be closed so Gibson Street became left‐in/left‐out only and reconstructing the link opposite Drayton Street as a two‐way road. The second was the upgrade of the Adelaide Entertainment Centre with improved crossing of Port Road for pedestrians at Station Place. The third was the acquisition of the Clipsal industrial site for mixed use development; which is expected to generate large number of transport (walking, cycling and motor vehicle) movements north of Port Road. Both of these initiatives affect the need for First Street to be reopened to the public. In 2010, Council Officers sought confirmation from the State Government Land Services Group that the occupied section of First Street between the obstructions is public roadway. This was confirmed. Refer Appendix B. In 2010, Council Officers spoke with passed City of Hindmarsh Director, John Hunt who was aware of the situation and confirmed that the history about the obstructions and occupation is correct. It was pointed out that Raptis had gone through with a request to purchase another section of First Street which ran along the back of their property between Gibson Street and Park Terrace. That section of First Street was formally closed and sold to Raptis. Several phone calls, e‐mails and letters were sent to the Boral and Colliers International stating that the section of First Street was being illegally obstructed and occupied and that, should they have information to the contrary, it should be forwarded to us prior to a report being prepared for the Council to resolve a position about the occupation. We were advised that the letter had been forwarded to Sandhurst Trustees (the owners of the land) for consideration and reply. In 2011 the property was sold to CKI Utilities Development Limited, HEI Utilities and Spark Infrastructure which operated in South Australia as ETSA Utilities. This name has recently changed to SA Power Networks. We wrote to this company on 28 February 2012. Refer Appendix C. ETSA Utilities replied to this letter and met with Council Officers stating that the Vendor did not declare that this section of First Street was public land and that their due diligence search did not identify this either. We received a formal reply dated 12 April 2012. Refer Appendix D. In June 2012 we wrote to the Department of Planning Transport & Infrastructure (DPTI) and the Urban Renewal Authority as both these agencies had requested Council investigate the occupation. A reply was received dated 29 June 2012, setting out its objection to closing the road and selling the land. Refer Appendix E. Council Officers consider that First Street should be opened so that public circulation (by walking, cycling and motor vehicles) and access to Port Road and the Bowden Railway Station can be improved.


REMOVING OBSTRUCTIONS IN FIRST STREET HINDMARSH Item 3.109 Continued Financial and Resource Implications The work anticipated is the removal of the electric gate and masonry wall and some minor repairs and level adjustments as required. The estimated cost of this work is $20,000 and this can be met through reallocation of existing annual budgets at a quarterly budget review once responses for, or against the proposal have been received.

Funding source related to this recommendation / initiative [Recurrent Budget, Capital Project, Operating Project, Grant Funded].

Recurrent Budgets

Bid Name and Bid ID:

Not applicable

Full Year / Budget Bid Amount:

Previously expended/ committed:

Costs of this recommendation

$10,000

Anticipated Future Costs

Budget / Resource Impact arising from this report’s recommendation: eg. project completed within budget, staff to undertake activities as part of ordinary work program etc

Letters will be sent to surrounding property owners and occupiers advising of Council decision. Survey to ascertain levels and small design may be required. Works will include removing the electric gate and masonry wall and their disposal. Repairing the roadway ‐ some level adjusted may be required.

Other Financial / Resource Implications Commentary related to this Project / Budget: None

Total project is expected to fall within budget: Yes No

Any anticipated WIP Implication (positive or Negative) nil


REMOVING OBSTRUCTIONS IN FIRST STREET HINDMARSH Item 3.109 Continued Customer Service and Community Implications It is recommended that we write to all properties in the area bound by Port Road, Gibson Street, the Outer Harbour Railway and Drayton Street of our intention to remove the obstruction of First Street. Subject to another report to the Asset Management Committee, and where the response is favourable, a letter will be sent to SA Power Networks stating our intention to open the road to the public and that we will remove the electric gate and masonry wall, and undertake minor repairs in 3‐months and at our own cost. Should the response not be favourable, a letter will be sent to SA Power Networks stating the value of the land (as determined by our Licensed Valuers) and the cost of closing the road and transferring the land to it, seeking their agreement to enter into a contract to purchase the land, should the Road Closure Process be successfully completed. Subject to receiving this agreement, a report will be prepared for Council to commence the Road Closure Process. Details of the process form Appendix F. Environmental Implications There are no environmental implications. Community Engagement/Consultation (including with community, Council members and staff) At this stage only the affected property owner, SA Power Networks has been advised of the occupation and comments sought from two key stakeholders, the Department of Planning Transport & Infrastructure (DPTI) and the Urban Renewal Authority. When Gibson Street was reduced to left‐in/left‐out requests were received from The Governor Hotel and Housing Industry Association (HIA) for First Street to be reopened. Subject to Council endorsing the recommendations, wider community consultation is proposed before this matter is progressed further. Risk Management/Legislative Implications There is no legislative requirement for the Council to remove the obstructions allowing the occupation of this ection of First Street, however it is polite to do so. There is a risk that the opinions of local businesses and key stakeholders will vary and that Council may need to resolve these before continuing along either path outlined in this report.


REMOVING OBSTRUCTIONS IN FIRST STREET HINDMARSH Item 3.109 Continued Conclusion No agreement exists for the obstructions across the western section of First Street Hindmarsh which allow adjacent property owner to occupy this section of First Street. The demand for improved public circulation has recently increased and it is now desirable to remove the obstructions so the road can again be used by the public. Subject to wider consultation, the owner of the property, SA Power Networks be advised of the need to remove the obstructions a further report be prepared for the Asset Management Committee.


REMOVING OBSTRUCTIONS IN FIRST STREET HINDMARSH Item 3.109

APPENDIX A



APPENDIX B






APPENDIX C

TRIM 12/42459 28 February 2012 CKI Utilities Development Limited, HEI Utilities and Spark Infrastructure 1 Anzac Highway KESWICK SA 5035 Dear Sir/Madam Occupation of First Street Hindmarsh We have recently had several approaches about the occupation of First Street between Station Place and Drayton Street. This is the section between the Boral Building and the car park adjacent to the Outer Harbour Railway. I cannot find any evidence of the road being closed under the Roads Opening (& Closing) Act. The State Government Lands Title’s Office, the Land Register and Valuer General data all show this section of First Street to be Public Road. I have searched City of Hindmarsh and City of Charles Sturt archival records for any agreement for this section of First Street to be occupied; or any approvals issued to erect the masonary wall across First Street at the boundary of Station Place, or the gates at the boundary with Drayton Street, but have not found any. I have spoken with senior staff who worked at either Council at the time when there were several road closures in the Hindmarsh area. They recollect that they did inform Nubrick (the previous owner, or occupier) of the process, but Nubrick never made a request for the road to be closed. These people are aware of the obstructions across First Street, but do not recall information about they came to be there. The recent changes to the road network caused by the extension of the Adelaide Tram to the Adelaide Entertainment Centre has resulted in changes to access into the area and there is now a greater need to remove the obstructions over First Street. In February 2010, I approached Colliers International which act on behalf of the owners, Sandhurst Trustees giving an opportunity to provide evidence of any formal right to occupy this section of First Street. As no response was received, I then forwarded a letter on 13 December 2010. Again no response was received. Before Council undertakes this work, Council is giving you, the owner, an opportunity to provide evidence of a formal right for you to occupy this section of First Street. I would appreciate your reply with the evidence, or acknowledgement that one does not exist, by Friday 16 March 2012.



APPENDIX C Continued

Should you wish to discuss this matter, please contact me on (08) 8408 1291, or [email protected]. Yours sincerely Philip Hewitt Manager Engineering & Construction

mailto:[email protected]



APPENDIX D TRIM 12/77262






APPENDIX E TRIM 12/178150



APPENDIX E Continued



APPENDIX F


TO: Asset Management Committee FROM: Transport Engineer DATE: 19 November 2012

3.110 ROAD CLOSURE FOR EVENT ‐ CHRISTMAS AT OUR PLACE ‐ NORMAN STREET,

WOODVILLE (B3904)

Brief The City of Charles Sturt is organising a community Christmas function in the Civic Centre and Town Hall which will flow onto the lawns and carpark. To manage safe access into the site, Norman Street, Woodville, will be closed to traffic other than local residents and customers of the Royal India Restaurant, who will be allowed entry by an authorised traffic control officer at the entrance at/near Woodville Road. The closure to traffic will occur on Saturday 8 December 2012 between 2:00pm and 10:00pm. It is recommended that Council make the order to close Norman Street for the purpose of this event, in line with the Notice to Councils from the Minister.

Recommendation

1. That Council exercise the power delegated to it by the Minister for

Transport and Urban Planning under Section 11(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act and through the Instrument of General Approval, Part 1, Clause F: Delegation of Power to Close Roads and Grant Exemptions for Road Events to:

(a) Declare the ‘Christmas at Our Place’ function on Saturday 8

December 2012 an event to which Section 33(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 applies.

(b) Make an order to close the road specified in the schedule (refer

Appendix A) to vehicles as provided in Section 33(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

(c) Make exemption for: (i) Australian Road Rule 230 (Crossing a road –

general) (ii) Australian Road Rule 238 (Pedestrians travelling

along a road). (iii) Australian Road Rule 238: Pedestrians travelling

along a road (except in or on a wheeled recreational device or toy).


ROAD CLOSURE FOR EVENT ‐ CHRISTMAS AT OUR PLACE ‐ NORMAN STREET, WOODVILLE Item 3.110 Continued Status This report relates to or impacts upon the following Community Plan Outcomes:

A safe and healthy City that supports vibrant community life ‐ Encourage strong, supportive local communities ‐ Contribute to the quality of life of all individuals in the community ‐ Contribute to an improved sense of safety

An economically prosperous, attractive and functional City ‐ Provide and facilitate a safe, connected and well maintained transport network


‐ Deliver quality service to our customers Relevant Council policies are:

N/A Relevant statutory provisions are:

Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) Section 33 and Section 11

Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 1999 Part 1A

The Australian Road Rules 1999 Background On Saturday 8 December 2012 The City of Charles Sturt is holding ‘Christmas at Our Place’, a community Christmas event for residents and visitors. The function was held for the first time in 2011 and attracted around 1000 people. This year visitor numbers are expected to increase to around 2000 people. The event will be held in areas inside the Civic Centre at 72 Woodville Road, Woodville, including the Council Chamber, CC1, internal street, Town Hall and on the lawn and carpark at the rear of building. The event will involve a variety of local artists and community groups and include performing arts, interactive entertainment and the display and selling of arts and crafts. Some activities will run concurrently across the various venues within Civic Centre and food and drink stalls will be set‐up in an area within the Civic Centre carpark (just off Norman Street). During the event the remainder of the Civic Centre carpark will designated for use by participating staff and volunteers only due to the limited parking space available and the difficulty for vehicles in circulating through the reconfigured carpark. Parking for visitors will be available in the public carpark adjacent Woodville Station and in adjacent residential streets. Section 33 of the Road Traffic Act (RTA) provides the Minister with the power to make orders for roads to be closed to traffic for the purposes of an event. The Minister has, by the Notice, delegated the power to make such orders to the Council. The term ‘event’ is defined by the RTA as ‘an organised sporting, recreational, political, artistic, cultural or other activity, and includes a street function’.


ROAD CLOSURE FOR EVENT ‐ CHRISTMAS AT OUR PLACE ‐ NORMAN STREET, WOODVILLE Item 3.110 Continued Report The function will include entertainment and food stalls located on the lawn and carpark along the southern side of the Civic Centre and is expected to attract around 2000 visitors. As the event will flow into the Civic Centre lawn area and a section of the carpark, with the remainder of the Civic Centre carpark available for the vehicles of participating staff and volunteers, vehicular access to the site via both Norman and Kemp Streets should be restricted in the interests of public safety. Preventing drivers from turning from Woodville Road into Norman Street and Kemp Street, both of which have permanent traffic controls that prevent access for southbound through traffic, will remove congestion and the need for three‐point turns in the narrow and confined roadways. Norman Street will be closed between Woodville Road for about 140 metres to the traffic control outside house number 10 Norman Street There will also be traffic restrictions at the junction of Kemp Street and Woodville Road preventing drivers from entering Kemp Street from Woodville Road, finding that they cannot access the Civic Centre carpark and having to perform three‐point turns in the narrow roadway. There is no requirement for a full road closure at this location as it would unnecessarily inconvenience residents of properties south of the permanent partial road closure outside number 8 Kemp Street and access to Woodville Road for northbound through traffic will be maintained. Furthermore, high levels of pedestrian activity in Kemp Street are not expected due to the distance to the lawn and the area of the Civic Centre carpark that will be occupied by stalls. As this restriction does not involve the full closure of Kemp Street it does not require an order for closure or an exemption from the Australian Road Rules. Refer to Appendix B for map showing all proposed closures. The function will be held on Saturday 8 December 2012 commencing at 4:00pm and finishing at 9:00pm. Norman Street is proposed to be closed at 2:00pm, to allow time for event preparation, and reopened at 10:00pm, allowing time for people to disperse, the road to be cleaned and staging and stalls to be removed after the event. A Traffic Management Plan will be prepared showing barriers and signs at the junction Woodville Road and Kemp Street and at the junction of Woodville Road and Norman Street, where traffic control officers will be in attendance at all times. Access into Norman Street will be allowed for customers seeking access to the Royal India Restaurant carpark and for residents of house numbers 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 Norman Street.


ROAD CLOSURE FOR EVENT ‐ CHRISTMAS AT OUR PLACE ‐ NORMAN STREET, WOODVILLE Item 3.110 Continued Financial and Resource Implications Advertisement in Messenger Newspaper – approximate cost $200. Traffic management plan and control for the event – estimated cost (internal $200). Traffic control setup/removal and traffic control officer – estimated cost (internal $1,500). These costs can be covered from existing Council budgets. Customer Service and Community Implications There are no customer service or community implications. Environmental Implications There are no environmental implications. Community Engagement/Consultation Subject to Council agreeing to the recommendations in this report, consultation with adjoining property owners will occur. In accordance with paragraphs F.6 to F.9 of the Delegation of Power to Close Roads and Grant Exemptions for Road Events under the Road Traffic Act, 1961, notification that the order to close the road(s) has been made will be sent to the Commissioner of Highways, Emergency Services, the Public Transport Division, the Traffic Control Centre, Metropolitan Region and the Commissioner of Police. In accordance with Section 33(3) of the Road Traffic Act, at least two clear days before the order to close the road to traffic takes effect a copy of this order is to be published in the local newspaper. Risk Management/Legislative Implications Traffic controls to make the road closure come into effect will be installed by an approved traffic control officer in accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1961. Conclusion It is recommended that Council make the order to close Norman Street, Woodville, between Woodville Road and the traffic control outside house number 10 Norman Street for the purpose of a community event.


ROAD CLOSURE FOR EVENT ‐ CHRISTMAS AT OUR PLACE ‐ NORMAN STREET, WOODVILLE Item 3.110

APPENDIX A

Location

From To

Norman Street, Woodville, between Woodville Road and the traffic control outside house number 10 Norman Street

Saturday 8 December 2012, 2.00pm

Saturday 8 December 2012, 10.00pm


ROAD CLOSURE FOR EVENT ‐ CHRISTMAS AT OUR PLACE ‐ NORMAN STREET, WOODVILLE Item 3.110

APPENDIX B


TO: Asset Management Committee FROM: Project Coordinator Property Services DATE: 19 November 2012

3.111 PUBLIC TOILET, HENLEY KIOSK (B430)

Brief

To consider written submissions, following public consultation in respect of a public toilet proposed to be attached to the Henley Kiosk, Esplanade, Henley Beach.

Recommendation 1. That Council note the written submissions in respect of the proposed

toilet, following public consultation. 2. That Council proceed with the proposal and lodge a development

application with the Development Assessment Commission. 3. That the opening hours of the proposed public toilet be limited to 7.30am

to 8pm each day. 4. That those residents who lodged written submissions with Council, be

advised of the Council resolution.


A safe and healthy City that supports vibrant community life ‐ Encourage strong, supportive local communities ‐ Contribute to the quality of life of all individuals in the community ‐ Encourage healthy lifestyle pursuits




PUBLIC TOILET, HENLEY KIOSK Item 3.111 Continued Relevant Council policies are:

Community Engagement Model Executive Summary Council included $250,000 in the 2012/13 Budget to provide for a public toilet to be built attached to the Henley kiosk for the use of kiosk staff, patrons and the general public. Following public consultation, a number of residents living opposite the kiosk expressed opposition to the proposal. Limiting opening hours of the public toilet should reduce those concerns. The location of the toilet extension under the main roof will ensure that the overall building still looks pleasing, with minimal impact on restricting existing views of the coast. The planning authority for the project will be the Development Assessment Commission which will provide the opportunity for public comment and submissions. Background Council/Committee Reports CL 25/6/2012 – Adoption of 2013/14 Budget ‘Toilet installation at Henley Kiosk‐$250,000 Project Description Construction of a single cubicle Automated or other Public toilet next to the Henley Kiosk for the public use, staff and Henley Kiosk customers. At present there is not a sewer connection in the area. SA Water will need to install a new sewer from Seaview Road.’ Report Prior to lodging a formal development application for this proposal, it was considered appropriate to consult with the local community. Public Consultation was undertaken as follows:

Notice in Weekly Times and Portside Messenger

Project placed on Council’s website

Letters were sent to property owners and occupiers within a 180 metre radius of the site which resulted in 37 submissions being received by Council with 15 being in support, 4 giving qualified support, 1 (representing 4 properties) requiring operating details, with 17 being opposed to the development (refer Appendix A).

A plan showing the location of those who lodged submissions is attached. (Refer Appendix B)


PUBLIC TOILET, HENLEY KIOSK Item 3.111 Continued Comment With this proposal, the possible impact on residential properties close to the proposed toilet is significantly greater than those living further away because of the larger building footprint, reduced views and extra activity when the kiosk is closed. The submissions received by Council addressed a number of issues, including: Reference to the possible presence of an ‘agreement’ or ‘understanding’ having been struck between Council, residents and the operator of the kiosk in relation to a previous development application and ‘endorsed’ by the Environment Resources and Development Court. Comment A development application for extensions to the kiosk came before the Environment Resources and Development Court, on appeal by third parties, in 2000. A settlement was reached between the applicant and third party appellants that modified the proposal. That application included the enclosure and roofing of the outdoor area on the western side of the existing kiosk building, decking (with outdoor tables) on the southern, western and northern sides and internal changes: but did not include any toilet facilities. Interestingly, however, the ERD Court granted consent (now lapsed) to the proposal subject to a number of ‘conditions’, including: “3. Condition 1 shall not permit the construction of toilets at the kiosk despite any

requirements imposed following an application under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997”. However, that application/approval was not acted upon by the applicant and has now lapsed. Any subsequent development application (eg the current toilet proposal) is required to be considered on its merits, in accordance with the relevant legislation. Will attract undesirable behaviour from patrons of nearby (late night) commercial premises Comment The current toilet management and cleaning contract contains provision for public toilets located in high use areas (such as Henley Square) to remain open later in the summer period. Summer: (below 32 deg) open 5.30‐7.30 am close 8.30‐10‐30 pm (above 32 deg) open 5.30‐7.30 am close 10‐12 pm Winter: open 5.30‐7.30 am close 6.30‐9.30 pm It is considered that any adverse impact on nearby residents could be minimised if the hours of opening were restricted to 7.30am to 8pm each day. This would however reduce the convenience to the public on summer nights when there is likely to be high public use of the beach and environs.


PUBLIC TOILET, HENLEY KIOSK Item 3.111 Continued The operator may now apply for a liquor licence. Comment Under the terms of the lease with Council, no alcohol may be served or sold without Council approval. The need for a toilet in this location Comment Any new facility of this nature would be required to provide toilets for the use of staff and patrons. In addition, the toilet will provide a service for beach goers and for walkers and cyclists. The closest toilets are at Henley Square or opposite the Henley Beach Hotel. The footprint of the building is gradually increasing over time Comment The toilet addition has been designed to minimise the overall bulk of the building, thus largely preserving existing views of the coast from the properties opposite. The existing roof will be modified such that the finished building will have the appearance of a single structure (refer Appendix C). Toilets in Henley Square should be upgraded Comment There are existing public toilets (male/male/disabled) located in the public carpark at the back of Zoots restaurant. The 2013/14 Budget contains a provision of $50,000 to upgrade these toilets as an interim measure, prior to long term solutions as a component of the Henley Precinct Master Plan. Response to submissions Property Services staff met with the Mayor and Councillors Randall and Fitzpatrick to discuss the submissions. This resulted in a letter being sent to all persons who had lodged a submission commenting on the main issues that had been raised. (Refer Appendix D)

Two responses were received (refer Appendix E).

Development Application (Category 3 Development) Should the project now proceed to a development application, the proposal will be advertised (letters sent to property owners and occupiers within a 60 metre radius and an advertisement placed in the Advertiser), and a decision made by the Development Assessment Commission, with appeal rights being available to any person who lodges a formal submission and who is aggrieved by the decision of the DAC.

Risk Management/Legislative Implications

There are no site‐specific risk management or legislative implications.


PUBLIC TOILET, HENLEY KIOSK Item 3.111 Continued Financial and Resource Implications

Total Lifecycle Resource Implications, Toilet Henley Kiosk

Capital Per year Life of asset Comments

Toilet Sewer Sub Total

$170,000 $80,000 $250,000

Financing Cost

Depreciation ‐ Toilet

$4,250 $170,000 40 years

Operations & Maintenance

$16,500 $660,000 40 years

Total $250,000 $20,750 $830,000

If the toilet is required to be opened/closed outside the range of hours contained in the toilet cleaning contract, then this will attract additional costs. As this will be a public toilet, the cost of constructing or maintaining the building will not impact on the rental paid to Council by the operator of the kiosk. Customer Service and Community Implications The facility will provide a conveniently located public amenity for the benefit of the general public, beach users, and the staff and patrons of the kiosk. Environmental Implications While not directly linked to the toilet proposal, there will be environmental benefits resulting in that the deep sewer connection required for the toilet will enable the ‘grey water’ from the existing kiosk kitchen to be removed directly from the site. The current arrangement caters for the ‘grey water’ to be held in an underground tank that is required to be pumped out as required. Community Engagement/Consultation Community consultation was undertaken as set out above. Risk Management/Legislative Implications There are no specific risk management or legislative implications.


PUBLIC TOILET, HENLEY KIOSK Item 3.111 Continued

Conclusion

This project has been approved by Council as a 2012/13 Budget item. The extension has been designed to architecturally match the existing structure and to minimise the bulk of the overall structure.

Following public consultation, a number of submissions were received from adjoining residents concerned about possible adverse impact on their properties and life style. Some of these concerns can be negated by limiting the opening hours of the public toilet.

The toilet will provide a conveniently located facility for the use of kiosk staff and patrons, beach goers and the general public and will upgrade the facility to meet current day building standards.

The existing kiosk and proposed toilet, while within the environs of the Henley Square Precinct, are sufficiently ‘remote’ as to warrant independent consideration from the future plans for the Square.

The introduction of any new (or upgraded) facility in this type of ‘established’ location will inevitably have some impact on existing residents.


PUBLIC TOILET, HENLEY KIOSK Item 3.111

APPENDIX A [Appendix A consists of 12 pages]

Name: - Open-Ended Address: - Open-Ended Please provide your feedback on the proposed public toilet at Henley Beach Kiosk - Open-Ended Response Response Response

5 October 2012 Jeanne Heather Pither 1/241 Esplanade Having lived at my above address for 20 years I went through a bad time having toilets opposite me, the smell, men

Henley Beach SA 5022 existing doing up flys, unusual behaviour. However away from dwellings facing the sea would be ok for me.

Anthony Psarros 231 Esplanade I'm opposed; The kiosk has a new front extension, take a bit of it and turn it into a toilet. Why should the building Henley Beach SA 5022 be widened, blocking more of the view for residents! Incorporate it into existing extended structure!!

Kathie Muir 231 Esplanade I don't support the current proposal to build a public toilet on the southern side of the Henley Beach Kiosk. Such Henley Beach SA 5022 positioning would interrupt the views of the residents immediately opposite, who I know object to this plan. There

is already heavy imposition on southern Esplanade carpark adjacent residences from traffic, after hours and late

night closing activities and I don't believe this group of residents should have any additional public traffic imposed

upon them. The appropriate location for new public toilets is in Henley Square itself. The kiosk should have one toilet for patrons incorporated inside the existing building.

G. Szyndler 312 Seaview Road Yes I am all for the public toilet at the Henley Beach kiosk, Esplanade Henley Beach Henley Beach SA 5022

S Bajic 4/278 Seaview Road As a regular customer at Joe's Kiosk I believe having toilets at the premises is imperative. This is a social right. If it Henley Beach SA 5022 means modifying his business and increasing patronage, surely that is a 'win, win' situation for both the Council and

Joe. The problem is that people use toilets for other illegal reasons and there too could be issues.

Virginia Sarah 229 Esplanade Fantastic - has full support' Henley Beach SA 5022

Rudi Guse 199A Esplanade As the Henley Beach Surf Living Saving Club is having their premises re built, it will make more economic sense, in my Henley Beach SA 5022 view anyway, to have new public toilets built next to or adjacent to this new complex. This could then make use of

the existing plumbing which I believe is not accessible at the Henley Beach Kiosk site. These public toilets, both for

male and females and perhaps even a changing room facility, near the Surf life saving Club could then service the

public at the Henley Square and environs. There would then be public toilets equal distance between Ozone

Reserve, Henley Beach Road, and Henley Square. As it will most probably be us rate payers footing the bill one way

or another and as the existing public toilets near the Henley Square are in dire need of either repair or upgrade, as is

the Henley Square, it will be far more sensible to have public toilets nearer the square built as a priority. Hopefully

common sense will prevail.

Catherine Paterson 263 Military Road Joes Kiosk is well placed to put a toilet - lots of people have coffee and food and there should be a toilet. While you Henley Beach SA 5022 are renovating the SLSC it would be a great idea to include a public toilet/change rooms accessible from the outside

(as at Semaphore). There is a lack of public toilets of suitable quality along the foreshore.

Jeff Stratfold 3/197 Esplanade The proposal is a very good idea. It will cater for patrons at the kiosk and beach goers. It should be given top Henley Beach SA 5022 priority. It does not address the needs of Henley Square patrons and families basing themselves at the jetty or

Square. Hopefully, a public toilet/change room facility is included in the new Henley Lifesavers building. The

existing toilet facilities near the carpark entrance are very tired and difficult to access. Thought should be given to

refurbishment or demolition and a new facility (with sensitive place a Ia Grange) near the shared footpath/bikeway

D Balaam 2/278 Seaview Road This is necessary. Henley Beach SA 5022

Annette WaIlis 221 Esplanade I think placing a toilet at the kiosk is a bad decision which may help the current owner make his business worth more Henley Beach SA 5022 but its not really going to solve the problem of toilet facilities for the Henley Beach Square area. There is already a

toilet opposite the Henley Hotel. A larger toilet facility (i.e. not just one or 2) would be much better adjacent to the

current life saving development as it would serve all the cafes/Square patrons and not just Joe's and would have

space to provide more than just one toilet. The kiosk is on fragile primary dunes and is large enough. It is not a

restaurant and should not ever be one as it is opposite residential zoning and private homes. As a kiosk it is not

necessary to provide a toilet, but large clear signage could indicate the nearest toilet - re opposite Hotel or 1 block away next to life saving club (which is where they used to be anyway). Putting a toilet at the kiosk is only really

helping improve kiosk saleability and will not really solve the issue of facilities for people coming to the Square as it

will be too small and too far from most people (at the Square).

Rex Wallis 221 Esplanade I am opposed to the proposed toilet at Henley Kiosk. I believe it will have a negative impact on the beach Henley Beach SA 5022 environment and on the nearby residential properties. Henley Square or the Henley Lifesaving Club are obvious and

uncontroversial locations for public toilets. The proposed single uni-sex toilet is a glaring compromise in every way - from the number who can access it, to it's location on the primary dune, to the method of removing effluent - all of which are not an issue in a different location. If it is important for the kiosk's business to be near a toilet, I suggest

bull-dozing the current building and re-locating the whole business to Henley Square.

Rocco & Grace Monaco 304 Seaview Road Yes I think its a great idea for new toilets, it's long overdue. A general upgrade of Henley Square is needed. We Henley Beach SA 5022 moved at above address 3 112 years ago. It is the best move we ever made. I love Henley Square, the new shops,

the lifestyle, our retirement here is fantastic! Hope we live a long time to enjoy it all! Thank you for anything you will do in the future.

David Schofield 227 Esplanade This project looks fine and fills a need for kiosk customers. The extensions shown on the brochure appear to sit well Henley Beach SA 5022 with the existing building and should have little impact on the surrounding area. My wife and I fully support this

project.

Daniel Moriarty 237 Esplanade Sounds fair enough to me. I'd rather have the beach to myself but thats not very community minded. People come Henley Beach SA 5022 from a long way away to enjoy the beach and I believe the facility should be available.

Pali Fu 3/286 Seaview Road I don't think it is very necessary because there has been a toilet about 150 metres away opposite the BWS. Secondly Henley Beach SA 5022 kiosk could share the toilet with the Primo Restaurant. Thirdly, in terms of Feng Shui it is not very good for the

resident who live in the 213 Esplanade, Henley Beach

A Jarman Local resident No, we don't need a public toilet next to a kiosk when a new public surf life saving club is being built which will cater

public toilets for patrons and the community. What a waste of money (taxpayers money) $250k on a toilet give me

a break. Spend it on community programs who really need it not a kiosk that's open 2 days a week!!

Aashlee Bevans Unit 1 1 Good that the proposed toilet will be located at an existing building ie Henley Beach Kiosk. Would it be open all day 174 East Terrace or only when kiosk open?

Henley Beach SA 5022

011ie Kratounis 239 Esplanade Toilets must be kept clean and closed after hours for security and safety of beachgoers and local residents. Times of Henley Beach SA 5022 opening - recommendation 8.30 to 5pm. Day Light Savings 8.30am to 9pm. The risk is that campers will start to

park their cars in the car park and use the facilities instead of paying to stay at a caravan park. Similarly they will use

the carpark overnight to sleep in their campervans. Therefore, overnight carpark restrictions must remain if the

toilets are to be located at this carpark area. Also, lighting to be very strong and bright to avoid inappropriate

behaviour after dark near the premises.

David J Cenko 5 Firbank Avenue I do not consider this structure being a "public" toilet in the true sense of the word, as I assume it will only be Fulham Gardens SA 5024 opened when the Kiosk is open. The Kiosk opening hours are very limited, I believe opening till lunch time three or

four days a week?? Not really constituting a public facility. Under the circumstances believe it is not appropriate to spent ratepayers money on this project, how ever I have no objection in Council approving a plan for the Proprietor

of the Kiosk to go ahead and be responsible himself to fund the facility I do believe a toilet block is appropriate at

the Kiosk, if only for the benefit of the Proprietor, his staff & customers, during his limited trading hours

Adrienne Dobak 16 Stuckey Avenue . I think its a GREAT idea, long -overdue. I have lived on the west side of town for 15 years and have been regular Underdale SA 5032 beach goer summer and winter alike-twice a weekend usually. There is a huge need for another public loo as the two

behind Zoots are NOT ENOUGH, especially if you are female or have small children. Please build it ASAP, many thanks

Constance Dundon 2/2 17 Esplanade I live directly across the road from this kiosk and have done for the last twenty two years. The subject of toilets is Henley Beach SA 5022 bought up by Joe every couple of years and I still do not think they are necessary. There are public toilets at Henley

square and another block of toilets in front of the Henley hotel. The cost of these toilets is astronomical, which will

be coming out of the taxpayers money. My rates are huge already and rising and I don't want the council spending

my money on the frivolous whim of a kiosk operator that is paying next to nothing in rent. I am also very worried

that once Joe gets his toilet he will apply for a liquor license. I already have enough problems with drunks vomiting

on my front step coming back from the square and don't need them across the road as well

Josephine Zotti 2/316 Seaview Road I think it's a good idea. Will it be accessible all the time though? Henley Beach SA 5022

Leah Jeffries 1 Kincaid Road I am in support of the toilets. Is there a possibility of extending the toilets back along the southern wall so that 2 Henley South SA 5022 toilets can be installed?

Anita White 58 Main Street Provision of toilet facilities is welcomed. My only comment is, why only one, as they will be well used. Henley Beach SA 5022

Tessa Moorfield 6 Crewe Street Hi Tony. I support the provision of toilet amenities at Joe's Kiosk. To maximise this opportunity and the associated Henley Beach SA 5022 infrastructure, is there room for more than one toilet? It could also be an opportunity to incorporate an outdoor

shower and drink fountain. Regards, Tess

Lucy Bosworth and 1/217 Esplanade On the positive toilets built into Joe's a better option than stand alone ones. On the negative we are all sick of this Andrew Dodman Henley Beach SA 5022 issue continually being revisited. The toilet facilities on the square and near Henley South pub should be upgraded.

Most people are aware that Joe wants to open his venue at night and therefore wants a liquor licence. We are not in favour of this proposal.

There are enough problems with drunken behaviour and noise at night.

Brian Slater 59 Esplanade Previous owner of 213 Esplanade

Henley Beach South SA 5022 I wish to state my strong objection to a Public Toilet at this location and request consideration for the residents

situation and the more appropriate alternative.

You may recall, this exact issue came up in April 2011.At that time, I and my neighbours were devastated to hear of

the proposal for a Public Toilet to be erected opposite our front door and bedroom window. After investigation,

Council rejected the proposal. Now we are faced with the same issue again.

I ask you to consider the following:

-There is undisputed demand for improved toilet facilities at Henley Square and the Lifesaving Club location

previously identified as an obvious site. THIS 186 METRES FROM THE KIOSK, A 2 MINUTE WALK.

-In April 2011, a Report from the Council Manager of Open Space and Recreation (11/4/2011) RECOMMENDED THE

SAME PROPOSAL BE REFUSED. Council voted to confirm this refusal on 27th April 2011.

-The above report considered the need for toilets at the Kiosk to be marginal. It noted strong objections from

residents; the costs ($250,000 capital costs plus $15,875 annual costs); the undisputed need for improved Public

Toilets at Henley Square; and recommended Council locate the toilets at the Lifesaving Club location. This is the

obvious location and I had presumed this was being done. (I don't know whether this is happening)

-This is a Council zoned Residential Area. Public Toilets are most appropriate to a public area. I note other Council

Public Toilets are generally sensitively located eg at the car park adjacent Ozone Street, opposite the Drive-in of the Henley Hotel.

-The Lifesaving Club location is 186 metres from the Kiosk, a 2 minute walk.

-To the south, further toilets are located at Henley Beach Road, 357 metres away.

-I have lived opposite the Kiosk for over 25 years, and there has been no significant demand for a toilet block there - except for that generated by the Kiosk proprietor.

-The Kiosk has been here since about 1970. Being a beach Kiosk, it has always been somewhat seasonal in nature and having limited opening hours. It is not a restaurant. As such, it has fitted in satisfactorily in a residential area. It has never had toilets attached, making use of nearby facilities such as those at the Square.

-Residents have made a considerable financial commitment to live here and we did so for the outlook and the

amenity. We chose to live in a Council zoned Residential area.

No resident in a Residential area wants a Public Toilet opposite their front door.

I am happy to meet anywhere/ anytime if you wish to discuss this further.

Irene & Rod Daniels Lives within 60-80 metres of Firstly, please accept my apologies for the last minute email. I have been overseas and interstate until this previous the site. week end and are replying to the issue of the installation of a public toilet adjacent Joe's Kiosk. Not seeing the

feedback form from the Council until this weekend, left me little time to provide feedback. I would like to express some concerns regarding this proposal. Firstly, I do frequent Joe's Kiosk and enjoy a regular morning coffee there

on a weekend, I live within 60-80 metres of the kiosk. I understand the issues created for the clientele that Joe has

built up over the years, with not having a restroom facility within the building. If this proposed facility is to be built

as an addition to the existing building and only accessible during operating hours of the Kiosk, I have no opposition

to it. This does not appear clear from the diagram I have.

However, if these are to be 24,17 accessible public toilets, I believe such a facility will quickly degenerate into another

run down and smelly location similar to those toilets opposite the Henley Hotel. A more cost effective solution from

a ratepayers perspective would see funds put into an upgrade of these toilets which are already close by Joe's Kiosk

along the path. If the lack of restroom facilities is creating issues for the leaseholder of the kiosk, one could ask why

the council and ratepayers need to know provide the solution. I believe such an option and requirement could have

been considered by the leaseholder and potentially installed restroom facilities at his own expense.

There is little doubt any toilet facility built at this location will receive regular use, however I am concerned that a

significant portion of this use will come from late night departures leaving the bars in Henley Square. Such a facility

will become a source of odours and vandalism simply due to their location and drunken users. The main access path

to the beach is immediately adjacent the proposed facility and while this is convenient, it will become a smelly

eyesore relatively quickly. While I acknowledge the popularity of Joe's Kiosk, it already occupies not only the space

the business currently leases, but also a large portion of the adjacent footpath / cycle ways. Clashes between patrons sitting at tables placed on the footpath and those persons walking dogs, cycling etc are becoming

increasingly frequent as the weather improves. The recent enclosing of the veranda area, has actually served to

boost the patronage of the kiosk to the point that tables are now spread across the footpaths surrounding the

building. Certainly over the recent weekend of good weather, this completely blocked the path with tables running

to the edge of the adjacent carpark. I'm all for a comfortable and functional facility at this location, but such development does need to fit within the

boundaries it has and the needs of all other users of the space.

A D Thorne 235 Esplanade We are happy that the proposed public toilet at the beach kiosk will proceed.

Henley Beach SA 5022

Mignon Wortley 219 Esplanade As a director of Nivek Pty Ltd the owner of units 1,2,3 and 4/219 Esplanade Henley Beach and the occupier of units

Henley Beach SA 5022 1,2. and 3, I would like to respond to your request for comments on the proposed new public toilet facilities for the

kiosk opposite the properties above.

1) The current lessee of the kiosk Mr Joe Weber has advised me on a number of occasions of his Poland for the kiosk.

They were/are as follows a)get a long term lease from the council for the kiosk

b)upgrade kiosk by enclosing the previous open air structure on the beach/western side of the kiosk (Both a and b

above have now been achieved

c)gain permission for a toilet facility which is the subject of your correspondence

d)obtain a liquor license shortly after the toilet facility is completed

e)sell the business shortly after the liquor license is obtained

You should be aware that at a meeting with the Mayor Kirsten Alexander some 18 months ago she advised me that

the council would never agree to a liquor license for the kiosk. This does not seem to have affected the lessees long

term plans I need to know what the council position is regarding a liquor license for the kiosk before I can feel comfortable with

the toilet proposal. You should also be aware that a significant number of beach side residents would be very upset

if a liquor license was ever give to the kiosk 2)The heading of your letter is' Henley Beach Public Toilet Proposal'. Mr Weber has advised me that the toilet will

only be open when the kiosk is open. If this is the case, can it be defined as a public toilet or is it a facility for a

commercial operation? 3)If it is a facility for a commercial operation only, the council should be getting the lessee to pay for the toilet or

else substantially increase the rent of the kiosk to recover the cost of the proposed toilet facilities over the life of the

lease. 4)If it is a facility for a commercial operation will the council be exposed to any ongoing cleaning and maintenance

costs? 5)If it is a facility for a commercial operation which will only be available when the kiosk is open, this proposal does

nothing to solve the long term shortage of public toilet facilities along the West Beach, Henley and Grange beaches.

Surely it would be

cost effective to let the lessee pay for his own toilet facility and for the council to conserve its limited cash resources

to solving the long term public toilet issues along the whole beach area.

You are probably aware that the kiosk is only open for about 25 hours a week so if the toilet is only available during open hours it really does not solve a public requirement font toilet facilities

I trust the above will help you progress the proposal. Please let me know where to from here so I can keep informed

the many residents close by who are concerned with this proposal

Will there be an opportunity for a group of concerned residents to attend a council meeting when this proposal will be discussed.

Christopher Newport 215 Esplanade Dear Mayor and Councillors,

Henley Beach SA 5022 Please see my attached note to the Council on this issue which is now like a festering wound on the neighbourhood relations with the Kiosk and the Council. This issue is particularly annoying as we struck an agreement which has

persistently been incrementally breached and sought to be completely discarded on a regular basis.

Just as a reminder and saying this for the benefit of all new parties to the area / council - we - the residents of the Esplanade - went to the environment court to get a ruling / agreement to avoid this exact outcome yet here we all are again ..... The residents of the Esplanade struck an agreement with the current tenant of the Henley Cream Kiosk at the behest of the council. At the time the grandiose plans of the tenant were clearly inappropriate for a residential area and for an area directly in front of our houses which was in effect Government land.

We went to court and in front of the judge struck an agreement - we agreed the following - we would agree to the Kiosk to be upgraded from an ice cream kiosk to a coffee serving house with facilities to serve breakfasts etc providing / in return for the promise /consideration that there was in future neither vertical nor lateral expansion nor a toilet nor a liquor license - these were key conditions and there was no sunset on this bargain. It appears that all of this has been attempted to be glossed over many times and that by the passing of time we would forget

our agreement or it would some-how become less relevant or meaningful or binding - we made the agreement in the court to settle the matter once and for all and in fact that allowed the tenant to make a better living than would have been possible - this was all very reasonable on our part but there was a bargain / consideration and it was executed.

Of course greed and forgetfulness has once again taken over, promises and agreements conveniently overlooked

and the grandiose plans are back with many degrees of disrespectful behaviour to boot manifesting themselves in

many forms. I am somewhat exasperated by the lack of decency and the superficial pretence of the whole exercise

at the moment which is simply an excuse for an expansion of the Kiosk to restaurant status. This all represents a wilful and deliberate breach / abrogation of our agreement and the rights attached. The argument for a toilet would

have never arisen had we simply not agreed to the expansion of the ice cream kiosk and played hard ball rather than

reaching and approved agreement that enabled the Tenant to make a good return for a very small outlay.

In terms of the need to a toilet - people have been using the beach for a long time (over 120 years) and it is clear the

area around the jetty is the logical place for the said toilet facilities - there is an abundance of coffee houses and

bathrooms in the area so there is no social or economic argument that can sustain the said proposition to build a

toilet block in front of our homes. The safety and utility of our houses has already been significantly compromised

by the developments at the square and the said proposal but for the good of all we have stayed away from

objections on all but protection to drunken louts that inhabit the park and Kiosk area at night - the current

proposal is not justifiable on any reasonable grounds other than on the greed of one tenant at the expense of the

residents. We already suffer the noise an light pollution of current expansion which is beyond the realms of what

was agreed in a court of law. It appears the tenant thinks sway with Council or the passing of time is more

important than agreements struck with residents - Acting in bad faith is what we call this in my trade. It is my personal view that the tenant is seeking to bind the council to the toilet proposition in an attempt to shield himself personally from a damages claim - the real risk to the Council is of course that such a valid claim could indeed be passed onto rate payer as it was the Council that instructed us to reach the agreement in the first place. What is the point of an environment court I ask if parties such as ourselves are taught it has no value at all to the community??

I think there is a reasonable alternative that will suit ratepayers - while this will not suit the Kiosk we say keep the

toilets where the people congregate and that is in Henley square. Good planning suggests that is where the

investment should be made. The Council by its own cost benefit analysis came to this conclusion. We also do not

want and should not have to endure additional light, noise and smell pollution and danger to our families from

hoodlums and drug takers congregating around the area - any further degradation that would be caused by any

further expansion of the Kiosk is unacceptable addition to all of the other trouble caused by drunks from the square.

Little does the Kiosk care for our well-being or safety or the utility of our homes for which we have worked so hard

for. This is beside the point that such expansion would be a breach of what was agreed and in fact the existing

structure and lighting already is a breach with the lighting not enclosed by bushes and lateral expansion beyond the

original footprint. I think we believe in swings-and=roundabouts and being reasonable but if the roundabout is one

way and the residents are being taken advantage of (as is the case) we do not believe or agree.

The proposal is in summary non-economic and for ratepayers in monetary and social terms (by your own analysis),

puts ratepayers at risk to a significant claim for damages, there are much better alternatives as the Council itself

identified recently for the good of all ratepayers and not just one individual - The Kiosk Tenant. The proposal is

executed would significantly reduce the value of all of the adjacent 7-9 dwellings and impose safety issues and light,

noise and smell pollution on home owners for no good reason but the future gain on sale of the Kiosk by the current tenant.

I hope this issue is dispensed with once and for all as should have been the case a long time ago. The Henley Kiosk was not us not / never will be analogous to the Grange Kiosk for reasons obvious to all. We came to a reasonable

agreement and what is being proposed - besides being a transparent piece of self-interest self-promotion on the

part of the Tenant, will cause substantive damages and we have a right to claim for those. This is a serious matter

and the residents have already agreed to take action as one on this matter to protect our homes and rights should

our rights be abrogated. A lawyer may argue the point, but there was an agreement before a judge, there was

consideration and all of the parties have acted in accordance with the said agreement since that time. This whole

matter is really just a matter of the Tenant looking for a way to breach that agreement with some personal -

protection or insurance which is being sought by virtue of Council endorsement.

All of the above is said with the greatest of respect and with a view to vigorously and rightfully protecting what was agreed at the behest of the Council and protecting what is important to our families - our homes.

Shona Roy 3/241 Esplanade Feedback Comments: Henley Beach SA 5022 I object to the proposed installation of a public toilet ( also referred to as public conveniences) to be located

anywhere on the Esplanade between the Henley Beach Kiosk and the Henley Beach Surf Life Savers Club, in

particular, near the Henley Beach Kiosk Esplanade, Henley Beach for the following reasons:

• The enormous cost to ratepayers for the installation of a public toilet, at current estimates of approximately

$250,000 with ongoing maintenance of approximately $58,000 (ref: Glenelg Public Convenience Plan 2012-

2015, Holdfast Bay Council plan allocates $250,000 for the project of a public convenience; City of Charles

Sturt Asset Management Plan for Public Toilets, January 2008, p19: 79).

• The extensive work that is required to provide the plumbing for the installation of a public toilet at the

Kiosk.

• The associated inconvenience to residents on the Esplanade, Henley Beach and general road users.

• The proposed location of the public toilet is inappropriate.

The close proximity of the public toilet to residences with young families along the Esplanade is a concern,

particularly, in the recognition that public conveniences attract crime, such as graffiti, vandalism and other anti-

social behaviour. While there are Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) established set of

principles, there are no guarantees that these guidelines prevent such criminal acts from taking place at all,

merely at best, a reduction. Installation of a public toilet is very likely to attract these issues where currently

there are none in existence. (seep. 20:79 City of Charles Sturt Asset Management Plan for Public Toilets, January 2008, p19: 79). Design and management techniques may be ineffective if the toilet location is

inappropriate.

• The users of the proposed public toilet are likely to also be the patrons of the Henley Beach Kiosk and,

therefore, the proposed installation of a public toilet at this location is not an appropriate use of ratepayers

funds. it is well known amongst some Henley Beach residents that the current and longstanding lessee of

the Henley Beach Kiosk has an interest in obtaining a liquor license and has informed a number of these

residents of such an interest. Under s.57 of the Liquor Licensing Act SA 1997 requires that any approvals,

consents or exemptions that are required under the law relating to planning to permit the use of the

premises or proposed premises for the sale of liquor have been obtained"., including any building work and

this includes a public convenience(s).

• Increased frequency and occurrence of noise levels associated with activities around the use of the

proposed public toilet.

• Sanitation and cleanliness of the public beach, currently, at a good standard would be impinged.

• The adverse effect on the peace and enjoyment of residents along the Esplanade.

In fact, the proposed installation of a public toilet near the Henley Beach Kiosk is unnecessary, given that other

public conveniences are currently accessible and in proximity along the beachfront, contrary to a recently

published article in the Weekly Messenger Press, 22/8/ 2012, "Loos with a View" p.3. This article reported

incorrectly that there are a lack of public toilets on the beachfront and thereby misinforms the public.

Rather:

• Upgrade and extend existing public conveniences on the Henley Beach Square near the premises known

currently as 'Zoots'; toilets opposite the Public Hotel known as the" Henley Hotel"; and toilets located on

the Ozone Reserve near the Outlet; (Ref: (15) 001364 Henley Beach Road Public Toilets ( beachfront); (16) 001651 Henley Square Public Toilets; (30) 001371 Ozone Street Public Toilets ( beachfront);(17)0 001617 Henley Town Hall Public Toilets cited in City of Charles Sturt Asset Management Plan for Public Toilets, January 2008, 3:79).

• Improve signage about the locations of existing public toilets;

• Improve the maintenance and cleanliness and accessibility of existing public toilets. It is likely that beach

users would use public conveniences currently available if these were better maintained and comparable to

the cleanliness and maintenance of toilets on business premises. Improved standards of cleanliness in

public conveniences would reduce the need of beach going families accessing the toilets of nearby business

premises when they are not patronising the business.

• Additional toilets are available to patrons of business premises located on Henley Beach Square and along

business premises along Seaview Road in the Foodland Shopping Court.

• Reduces the overall cost to ratepayers.

From: Ingrid Keller Current Address: As the owner of 211 Esplanade I am devastated that the issue of public toilets at Joe's Kiosk is being considered Owner 211 Esplanade 183A The Marina Culburra again. Although I no longer live in my residence having moved to NSW 10 years ago, this dwelling represents my Henley Beach 5022 Beach NSW life's savings to date. Placing a public access toilet in front of my view and within metres of my living room will MB: 040480367 potentially devalue my residence by hundreds of thousands of dollars. I wish to put forward my strong objection.

As a ratepayer I also have concerns that the proposed sum of $250000 plus yearly maintenance, is an excessive

spend for a public toilet that would directly benefit a private commercial operator. This will enable the operator of

the Kiosk to morph his business into a restaurant with extending trading and a liquor licence. The consequence of

this for the residents nearby would also be devastating. It is totally inappropriate for the residential zoning of the location. -

10

It would be well know to the councillors that the Kiosk operator has been lobbying support for this toilet through

media releases and stagged events. There was a very worrying article in the local paper earlier this year suggesting

that the toilet proposal was a done deal, when to my knowledge the council rejected the proposal 27 th

April 2011. This is indeed suggestive of ulterior motives on the part of the Kiosk operator. Surely the affected residents and

owners are entitled to prior knowledge of the business plans relating to the kiosk if an attached public toilet were to

be approved?

If there is a proven need for public toilets in Henley Beach, please consider there are other suitable options that

should be investigated. For example, the new Surf Club. This is located 186 metres from the kiosk and closer to

Henley Square where all the commercial action is. Surely this is a better choice for the public and more sensitive for

the residents. Many thanks for your time in considering my very grave concerns.

Bethany Boettcher 243A Esplanade I am opposed to public toilets being installed at the Henley Beach Kiosk, Esplanade, Henley Beach on the following Henley Beach SA 5022 grounds -

1 Toilets would be situated in very close proximity to residents 2 It is well documented toilets "attract" antisocial behaviour 3 Antisocial behaviour and traffic congestion are already ongoing issues for residents 4 Residents are entitled to feel safe in their homes and surrounds and I believe council have a responsibility

to provide same

An urgent upgrade of the existing toilets in the square or new toilets installed in the actual square would be very beneficial for the public and would not impinge on residents

Jodie Boettcher 243 Esplanade I am opposed to the installation of public Toilet's at Joe's café for the following reason's; Henley Beach SA 5022 • Too close to Residents homes.

• Already existing anti-social behaviour in adjacent carpark.

• Toilets have a reputation for attracting anti-social behaviour including drug injecting, drug litter,

inappropriate sexual behaviour and increased nearby theft and home invasions.

• Vast majority of the public congregate within the square therefore council need to update existing or install

new toilets within the actual square, not in front of residents between South St and the square.

• Existing toilets in square need adequate signage so people can actually locate and use same.

Council has a legal responsibility and duty of care to provide residents and their families a safe environment.

Judy & Joe Esposito 213 Esplanade 1. We object strongly to a public toilet (of any size) being attached to Joe's kiosk Henley Beach SA 5022 2. We object in the strongest possible way to the council wanting to pay $250k for a single public toilet

attached to Joe's kiosk

3. The kiosk has functioned perfectly well for the whole time it has existed, without a toilet, so should remain the same.

4. Public toilets are available both north and south of the kiosk, in specific public areas - as they should be (i.e.: Henley Sq and opp Henley pub)

S. This is a residential area and we believe that a public toilet will bring with it a lot of health and safety issues,

and also potentially attract unsavoury and dangerous characters and practices.

11

6. We object strongly as rate-payers, to the council paying for and using our money to finance a toilet that is

specifically for commercial benefit to Joe's kiosk. If a toilet is important to the kiosk, then it should be

funded by the business owner, accessible from within the kiosk and for kiosk patrons only.

7. If council believe that more public toilets are so important and necessary, then the new surf club at Henley

Sq would be a more appropriate location (e.g: public area)

We do not approve and we object strongly to any more public toilets on the Esplanade between Henley Hotel and Henley Square.

Please disregard our comments suggesting that public toilets should be placed at the Surf Lifesaving Club.

12



APPENDIX B



APPENDIX C



APPENDIX D






APPENDIX E



APPENDIX E Continued


TO: Asset Management Committee FROM: General Manager Asset Management Services DATE: 19 November 2012

3.112 WASTE CARE SA MINUTES (B5420)

Brief

To provide members with a copy of the Waste Care SA Board minutes of Thursday 18 October 2012.

Motion That the report be received and noted.


A safe and healthy City that supports vibrant community life

An economically prosperous, attractive and functional City

A City which values, protects and enhances the natural environment


Relevant Council policies are:

Waste Management Authority Report The minutes of the Waste Care SA Board meeting of Thursday 18 October 2012 are attached – refer Appendix A.


WASTE CARE SA MINUTES Item 3.112

APPENDIX A



APPENDIX A Continued



APPENDIX A Continued



3.113 WASTE CARE SA ANNUAL REPORT 2011/2012 (B1534)

Brief

To provide members with a copy of the Waste Care SA Annual Report 2011/2012.

Recommendation That the report be received and noted.







Waste Management Authority Report The Annual Report for 2011/2012 of the Board of Waste Care SA is attached – refer Appendix A.


WASTE CARE SA ANNUAL REPORT 2011/2012 Item 3.113




3.114 WESTERN REGION WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT

2011/2012 (B5420)

Brief

To provide members with a copy of the Western Region Waste Management Authority Annual Report 2011/2012.

Recommendation That the report be received and noted.







Waste Management Authority Report The Annual Report for 2011/2012 of the Board of Western Region Waste Management Authority (WRWMA) is attached – refer Appendix A.


WESTERN REGION WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2011/2012 Item 3.114



9. BUSINESS – PART II – CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Recommendation ‐ Exclusion of the Public That pursuant to Section 90(2) of the Local Government Act 1999, Council hereby orders that the public be excluded from attendance at this meeting with the exception of the Chief Executive and administrative staff currently in attendance in order to consider ITEM 9.01 – FEASIBILITY STUDY ON PURCHASE OF LAND FOR OPEN SPACE in confidence as the matter falls within the ambit of Section 90(3)(b) and (d) namely: (b) information the disclosure which: –

(i) Could reasonably be expected to confer a commercial advantage on a person whom the Council is conducting, or proposing to conduct, business, or to prejudice the commercial position of the Council; and

(ii) Would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

9.01 FEASIBILITY STUDY ON PURCHASE OF LAND FOR OPEN SPACE (B435) Brief At the Council meeting on the 22 October 2012, Cr Auricht moved that a feasibility study be undertaken to investigate the purchase of land in Brompton for the purpose of increasing open space.

Documents

NOTICE OF MEETING - City of Charles Sturt · NOTICE OF MEETING To ... 3.106 WEST LAKES ASSOCIATION OF TOUR PROFESSIONALS CHALLENGER TENNIS EVENT ... 3.112 WASTE CARE SA MINUTES (B5420)