[note: these minutes are unconfirmed until 22 october 2012] · city of charles sturt 2. cl minutes...

City of Charles Sturt 1. CL Minutes 8/10/12

[Note: These minutes are unconfirmed until 22 October 2012]

MINUTES OF THE CITY OF CHARLES STURT

COUNCIL MEETING

HELD ON MONDAY, 8 OCTOBER 2012

MEMBERS: Present: Her Worship the Mayor, Mrs K Alexander

Councillors Andriani, Ghent, Scheffler, Hanley, Fitzpatrick, Randall, Grant, Nguyen, Wasylenko, Keneally, Coppola, Ienco, Alexandrides, Auricht, Agius and Harley

STAFF: Present: Chief Executive Officer – M Withers General Manager Corporate Services – P Sutton General Manager Asset Management Services

– J Cornish General Manager City Services – H Inat Manager Library Services – J Stretton Manager Planning & Development – J Vanco Manager Open Space & Recreation – A Bretones Manager Urban Projects – C Daniels A/Manager Customer & Community Services – C

Gray Community Engagement Coordinator – V

Morphett TL Governance & Business Support – I Cooper Communication Advisor – K Johnson Urban Designer Open Space – D Chirappurathu MEMBERS: Apologies: Nil MEMBERS: Leave of Absence: Nil 1. COUNCIL OPENING The meeting commenced at 7.00 pm. [Note: A minutes silence was observed for both former Council Members Derek Cratchley and Lyle Gilligan.] 1.1 CONDOLENCE MOTION – DEATH OF FORMER COUNCILLOR DEREK CRATCHLEY

Motion

That Council acknowledge the death of Former Councillor A. D. (Derek) Cratchley on 18th September 2012 aged 89 years and condolences be extended to his immediate family.

Moved Councillor Grant, Seconded Councillor Wasylenko Carried Unanimously



1.2 CONDOLENCE MOTION – DEATH OF FORMER DEPUTY MAYOR LYLE GILLIGAN

Motion

That Council acknowledge the death of Former Deputy Mayor L. J. (Lyle) Gilligan OAM on 4th October 2012 aged 86 years and condolences be extended to his immediate family.

Moved Councillor Grant, Seconded Councillor Wasylenko Carried Unanimously 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the previous meeting held on Monday, 24 September 2012

be taken as read and confirmed. Moved Councillor Hanley, Seconded Councillor Fitzpatrick Carried Unanimously 3. REPORTS 3.1 REPORTS OF MEMBERS AND COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES ON EXTERNAL

ORGANISATIONS 1 Leave of the meeting was sought for Councillor Keneally to make a personal explanation. Leave was granted. The personal explanation is included in the Minutes as Appendix A. Point of Order Councillor Grant raised a Point of Order against Councillor Keneally stating that the personal explanation was not relevant to any item of business considered. Mayor Alexander ruled against the Point of Order.



COUNCILLOR KENEALLY – PERSONAL EXPLANATION APPENDIX A




Continued



At 7.13 pm Councillor Grant left the meeting.

Motion

That the report for Item 3.1 be received and noted. Moved Councillor Fitzpatrick, Seconded Councillor Ghent Carried Unanimously At 7.20 pm Councillor Grant resumed his seat. 4. DEPUTATIONS 4.16 DEPUTATION – HENLEY SOUTH COAST PARK (B106) 3

Brief

A deputation has been received from Mervyn Allen in regards to the Henley South Coast Park Redevelopment.

At 7.21 pm Councillor Keneally left the meeting. At 7.23 pm Councillor Keneally resumed her seat.

Motion

1. That the report be received, noted and Mr Allen’s notes be included in the minutes as Appendix A.

2. That Mr Allen is thanked for his presentation.

Moved Councillor Ienco, Seconded Councillor Hanley Carried Unanimously



DEPUTATION – HENLEY SOUTH COAST PARK Item 4.16 APPENDIX A




Continued



4.17 DEPUTATION – HENLEY SOUTH BIKE PATH (B106) 6

Brief

A deputation has been received from Geoff Wallbridge to speak along with Melissa Mellen to Council about the Henley South Bike Path and safety audit on the Two Way option.

Motion

1. That the report be received and noted.

2. That Mr Wallbridge and Ms Mellen are thanked for their presentation.

Moved Councillor Ienco, Seconded Councillor Keneally Carried Unanimously Leave of the meeting was sought to hear a third deputation on the Henley South Coast Park Development. Leave was granted. 4.18 DEPUTATION – HENLEY SOUTH COAST PARK (B106)

Brief

A deputation has been received from John Caldecott in regards to the Henley South Coast Park Redevelopment.

At 7.59 pm leave of the meeting was sought to grant Mr Caldecott and Mr Lange an additional 5 minutes to finalise their deputation. Leave was granted.

Motion

1. That the report be received, noted and the presentation notes be included in the Minutes as Appendix A.

2. That Mr Caldecott and Mr Lange are thanked for their presentation.

Moved Councillor Fitzpatrick, Seconded Councillor Wasylenko Carried Unanimously



DEPUTATION – HENLEY SOUTH COAST PARK Item 4.18

APPENDIX A Appendix A consists of 37 pages.

Improving without Radical Change 8th October 2012

FHE 1

City of Charles Sturt : Friends of Henley Esplanades 8th October 2012

FHE

Henley South Esplanade

Preserving Current Two-Way Use

Prevent Glenelg South (Somerton)Esplanade One-Way Debacle

Grant Lange&

John Caldecott1

My name is Grant Lange. I am a lifelong local resident and thank thecouncil for the opportunity to introduce a potential improvement to theshared path issue without requiring radical change to the way HenleySouth Esplanade is used. This arose when John Caldecott (engineer &local resident) mentioned he has done some survey work and foundthat the top of the sea wall represented an opportunity to gain someextra width for the shared path.John Caldecott has been a Henley Beach Resident for over 40 years,former chair Henley High School Council, led the working party thatestablished the community courts at the school, Engineer withbackground in Defence private sector. For the last 11 years has run hisown consulting business specialising in quality assurance systems.Member Australian Organisation for Quality SA Council, ConvenorWater Action Coalition and former President Friends Gulf St Vincent.We came together with John to form the “Friends of HenleyEsplanades” to ensure the voice of those who enjoy the public freedomof access to our esplanades and coast are heard.So without stealing too much of John’s thunder I’ll handover to Johnfor more details.


FHE 2


FHE Topics

Introduction - GL

Henley South Esplanade – Story of Variability - JC

What Can be Learnt from Established Coastal Paths? - JC

Recommendations – GL

2File No: Henley South Coastal Park_CCS-001_2.0, 5/10/12

Ref: Observations by Henley Beach Resident

All members of Council should have received issue 2.0, dated 5th

October 2012 document prepared by John Caldecott “Observationsby Henley Beach Resident”.The way it is, is fine and only improvements should be made that donot compromise the public’s two-way freedom of access that hasbeen in place for many decades.Very concerned with the radical proposal to change the road to one-way proposed by some members of the community.In short the above report and this presentation are about the need forthe Council and Community to focus on ensuring the right decisionsare made in the interest of the wider community who enjoy thisfantastic resource.


FHE 3


FHE Coastal Path Entrance – Southern End

3

RoadWidth12.5 to

12.7metres

Note the Community Consultation Sign doesn’t warn thecommunity that the road could be change to one-way and is onlysuitable for walkers and no other users of the esplanade. Variation of the physical characteristics of Henley SouthEsplanade is a core finding of the research done to prepare thereferenced report and this presentation:

Southern end eastern verge is 6.2 metres wide & relativelyflat,Heading North, past No. 53 eastern verge is 4.9 metres andwidth of the walking path 1.6 metres, the path height and fallto the road varies considerably the further north you go,Width of road (between kerb and white line) ranges from12.5 metres (Southern End) to 12.7 metres (Northern End)Adjacent Sea Wall is steep (30 degrees), wide and has quite afall to Lexington Road.North of Lexington Road, significantly less of the Sea Wall isexposed and its slope is about 20 degrees.

Most of the time, less than 50% of the car parking spaces are used,and nearly all car parking is on the eastern side of the road.


FHE 4


FHE Sea Wall – Southern End

4

Slope ~30

Degrees

Note the steepness of the sea wall, its width and fall. Little wonderthere is a road-safety crash barrier to protect drivers turning into theesplanade from Ozone Street.


FHE 5


FHE Sea Wall – Northern End

5

Slope ~20

Degrees

This is how most of the Sea Wall north to Lexington Road appearsto varying degrees. Visible width of the Sea Wall is about 2.2metres and depth to the sand is about 0.5 metres in the foreground ofthis photo.


FHE 6


FHE Sea Wall – Between Gilmore & Lexington Road

6

CappingSlope ~

10Degrees

Width

1.0 m

Only last week between Gilmore Street and Lexington Road Inoticed this additional capping on the Sea Wall that is about 1.0metres wide and reduces the slope to around 10 degrees.The top of the Sea Wall represents an opportunity to gain someextra width for the shared path, which is essentially about adding awide footpath on the western verge, particularly under a MinimalOption, to minimise changing the current pattern of use.The focus needs to be using the opportunity to improve theesplanade and not making radical changes.Some common sense needs to be applied to applying shared pathstandards by acknowledging that the current esplanade essentiallyfulfils this role as it is.Basically the new shared path is the patch of verge occupied by theseagulls.


FHE 7


FHE Eastern Verge – South End

7

SouthNo. 53

Width6.2

metres

South of Lexington Road the eastern verge is significantly flatter,becomes wider past No. 53 and represents an opportunity toimprove the shared path connectivity to the shared path to theTorrens Outlet.Note that the houses down this end have driveway access to theEsplanade and will be significantly inconvenienced by a one-wayroad..


FHE 8


FHE Eastern Verge – North Gilmore St

8

Width4.9

metres

PathWidth

1.6metres

North of Gilmore Street, you can see the footpath is significantlymore elevated, the gutters are quite deep and there is a significantslope.Many of the houses have steps and paths with gradients in order toaccess to their properties and their elevation above the road issignificant.


FHE 9


FHE Dune Erosion – Near Gilmore St

9

This is near Gilmore Street and shows the current state of theerosion of the dunes which has exposed the rocks that are a featureof the bottom of the Sea Wall.The dunes also vary significantly along the esplanade and they areperhaps at their narrowest point here.


FHE 10


FHE Glenelg North Esplanade – Shared Path

10

Strongly recommend that all members of Council and City ofCharles Sturt staff take a guided tour of the shared path betweenJoe’s Kiosk and Somerton Surf Club.I for one, feel very exposed on a bike along the high section of thepath at Glenelg North. The shared path along this section slopesslightly towards the road.Understand all the Holdfast Bay shared paths meet Australianstandards.


FHE 11


FHE Glenelg South (Somerton) EsplanadeShared Path

11

This is a view of the Glenelg South or Somerton Shared Path thattoday is a two-way road. It started out life as a one-way trial andaccording to people I have spoken with from Glenelg, it was adebacle that took 7 years to sort out.This underscores the importance of Council making the right keydecisions early and the need to consult with other councils on theirexperiences with establishing shared paths particularly if there areproposals to radically change existing patterns of use.The City of Charles Sturt would face a similar fiasco if HenleySouth Esplanade was changed to one-way use.Henley South Esplanade is part of a two-way system of esplanaderoads that extend south to Seacliff and North to Outer Harbour thatis a magnificent feature of the Adelaide coastline.


FHE 12


FHE West Beach - Shared Path

12

Width2.6

metres

BlackEdge

0.42metres

Note the Shared Path established just South of West Beach SurfClub is just 2.6 metres wide.For Henley South Esplanade, given the footpath on the eastern vergeand the adjacent road of 1.6 metres, I would like to suggest that theshared path for the western verge could in fact be 2.5 metres. Itdoesn’t have to be 3.0 metres wide, just optimised to suit a coastalpath solution that minimises changes and where feasible andaffordable addressing existing or expected problems with the currentesplanade.


FHE 13


FHE Why it Works?

13

The width of the road at the northern end is 12.7 metres widebetween the kerb and the continuous white line.The distance from the continuous white line to the beginning of theslope on the Sea Wall is 1.3 metres, giving a total width of 14.0metres. If you add the 4.9 metres of the eastern verge, the totalwidth is 18.9 metres.Allowing for vehicle road with of 3.0 metres and a ranking space of2.6 metres for the two-way road = 11.2 metres.This gives a surplus of 2.8 metres for a new shared path.I’ve assumed that the Council have made a practical decision andplanned for a shared path of 2.5 metres + 1.0 metres for car parking= 3.5 metres.For this scenario just 0.7 metres needs to be found from either theeastern verge or by capping the top of the sea wall or by acombination of the two to create a new path 3.5 metres wide.


FHE 14


FHE Key Recommendations

Critical for Key Decisions to be Right the First Time. Av oid 7 Year Debacle of One-way Road Trial Glenelg South &

cost.

Council Keep Current Two-way Road Capability

Reveal all problems, safety risks and issues with currentesplanade & mitigation strategies: Easternv erge,

Road,

Western verge,

Sea Wall, and

Threats from Sea

Include Minium Option(s) and explain how above matters willbe addressed including shared path interconnectivity fromboth North & South and Variation.

Recommend All Councillors and Staff involved in project takea bicycle tour from Henley Beach to Somerton Surf Club andback.

14

Further to the points made in the slide above:• Maximise use of sea wall capping for the shared path to minimiseimpacts.• Be flexible about applying the shared path standard to minimiseimpacts without affecting functionality.In summary it is critical that key decisions, such as proposing tochange the two-way use of the esplanade to one-way are dealt withseparately from the coastal park if the seven year debacleexperienced by Holdfast Bay council is to be avoided.Thanks again for the opportunity to share our thoughts with Counciland the members of council who have been supportive.

Issue Date Issue Document No.

5 October 2012 2.0 CCS-001FHE

Henley South Coastal Park_CCS-001_2.0 Page 1 of 23

Community Consultation 18/9/12

Observations by Henley Beach Resident

Henley South Esplanade Coastal Path




COPY RESTRICTED

All Rights Reserved. The Intellectual Property rights in the material included in the items(s) ofSupplies provided herein.

Only the relevant owner(s) or licensee(s) have the right to use, reproduce, adapt or modify thematerial unless permitted by express written consent.

REVISION RECORD

Date Issue Application Author Description of Revision

24/9/12 1.0 Word 2003 SP1 JEC First issue

5/10/12 2.0 Word 2003 SP1 JEC Issue 2.0 supersedes Issue 1.0. Accuracy of Table 1improved, add Minimal Option, Further Questionsfor Council, Public Distribution list and generaledits.

Document & Photographs by:

John CaldecottPO Box 190,

Henley Beach SA 5022

[email protected] 0427 976 503

Public Distribution Details Remarks

Cityof Charles Sturt Councillors, including Mayor Cityof Charles Sturt Wardsand Council Members

Cityof Charles Sturt Staff Mark Withers CEO

Jan Cornish , Allison Br etones, Phil Hewitt , DenyChirappur athu

HenleySouth Coastal Par kC onsultation MarkDouglas Counsultant

Weekl yTi mes M essenger Coastal Editi on Michelle Etheridge Editor

Coast Pr otecti on Branch of Coast Protecti on Boar d Rob Tucker DEWNR

WACRA Jim Douglas

Minister Caica Hon Paul Caica Member for Colton

Friends of Henl eyEsplanades (FHE)New organisation formed to stand up for thepublic's freedom of access and rights to ouresplanades.

http://www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Wards_and_Council_Members_Contact_Details.pdf

http://www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Wards_and_Council_Members_Contact_Details.pdf

http://www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au/page.aspx?u=45

http://www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au/page.aspx?u=190&c=9558

http://digitaledition.wktmessengercoastal.com.au/



http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/conservation/coastal_marine/coast_protection_board

http://www.wacra.org.au/

http://www.sa.gov.au/government/minister/16




TABLE O F CO NTENTS

Section Page

1 INTRO DUCTIO N.......................................................................................................51.1 Background .............................................................................................................51.2 Purpose....................................................................................................................5

2 ESPLANARD CO MPARISONS .................................................................................82.1 Esplanade Comparison Summary ..............................................................................82.1.1 Henley Beach (South Street to Harvey's Hotel)...........................................................92.1.2 Henley Beach Esplanade.........................................................................................102.1.3 Shared Path in Dunes..............................................................................................152.1.4 Glenelg North Esplanade........................................................................................152.1.5 Glenelg South Esplanade........................................................................................16

3 RECO MMENDATIO NS...........................................................................................183.1 Henley South Esplanade – Minimal Option..............................................................183.1.1 Henley South Esplanade – Minimal Option Layout...................................................203.2 Councils Regard for Community Consultation 18/9/12 .............................................203.3 Further Questions for Council .................................................................................21

4 REFERENCES & DEFINITIO NS ............................................................................234.1 Applicable Documents............................................................................................234.2 Definitions And Acronyms .....................................................................................23

List of Figures

Figure 1. Photo-Esplanade Resident One Way Poster.......................................................................... 5

Figure 2. Photo-Henley Esplanade-South from Harvey's Hotel .............................................................. 9

Figure 3. Photo-Henley Esplanade-Public Toilets ............................................................................... 9

Figure 4. Photo-Henley South Esplanade from Eastern Verge ..............................................................10

Figure 5. Photo-Vehicles Travel Adjacent Centre of Road...................................................................10

Figure 6. Photo-Western Verge & Steps to Residences .......................................................................11

Figure 7. Photo-Henley South Esplanade from Southern End...............................................................11

Figure 8. Photo-Vehicle Traffic & Available Space Western Verge.......................................................12

Figure 9. Photo-Western Verge – North End.....................................................................................12

Figure 10. Photo-Western Verge – South End.....................................................................................13

Figure 11. Photo-Cudmore Terrace, Harvey Street & Seaview Road .......................................................14

Figure 12. Photo-Sea Wall (Southern vs. Northern Ends)......................................................................14

Figure 13. Photo-Shared Path South Side of Torrens Outlet...................................................................15

Figure 14. Photo-Glenelg North Esplanade Elevation from Beach ..........................................................15

Figure 15. Photo-Glenelg North Esplanade –Northern End....................................................................16

Figure 16. Photo-Glenelg South Esplanade Elevation from Beach ..........................................................16

Figure 17. Photo-Glenelg North Esplanade - Balustrade & Walls ...........................................................17

Figure 18. Photo-House South Esplanade-Improve Western Verge .........................................................18




Figure 19. Photo-Sand Dune Erosion (North of Gilmore Road)..............................................................18

List of Tables

Table 1. Esplanade Width Comparisons........................................................................................... 8

Table 2. HSE – Minimal Option....................................................................................................20




1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

I have been a full-time resident of Henley Beach since 1970 and currently reside inHarvey Street, Henley Beach.

During all of this time I have been a regular two-way user of Henley South Esplanade(HSE) using a variety of means of transport:

a. Motor vehicle,b. Motor cycle,

c. Bicycle (since early 1990's).

I have also been a regular user of the coastal park between Henley Beach and Somerton,as it has been progressively established, and clearly it is a wonderful development forwhich the governments and communities can be justifiably proud.

1.2 Purpose

Figure 1. Photo-Esplanade Resident One Way Poster

I have not been previously involved in the development of coastal paths but became veryconcerned with the one-way road proposal by some HSE residents that appeared on theHSE eastern verge in the days leading up to the Community Consultation (CC) at theHenley Beach Bowling Club (HBBC) on Tuesday 18th September 2012.

I attended this workshop and put forward two questions:a. Why arethe options being planned when the HSE works perfectly well now, as a

shared two-way resource under its current configuration?

i. There needs to be an option that preserves the unique character andflexibility of HSE for all users and keeps changes to a minimum.




ii. It is likely there would be substantial costs savings for both the City ofCharles Sturt and the State Government with this approach if required worksonly involve the western verge and part of the sea wall.

iii. In addition the unique two-way esplanade road system between Brighton andHenley Beach would be preserved for the benefit of the common good of notonly the City of Charles Sturt, but the general public at large.

b. Has the council compared the proposals with other coastal path developments? Forexample at Glenelg South Esplanade (GSE)? GSE was initially established as aone-way road but this was over-turned and is now a two-way road Figure 16.

As a result of attending the CC I have some significant concerns:

c. The Community Consultation Process:

i. As you can see from the photo on the front cover, the signage advertising themeeting was designed for foot traffic and not road users using the road fortwo-way use; such as motor vehicles, motorcycles or road cyclists.

1. In addition, the signage contain no information warning users that theCommunity Consultation was going to consider a one-way vehicleproposal.

ii. A one-way road is a radical change to the use of the HSE, which has beenunchanged for many decades and will need full disclosure and openconsultation with all stakeholders, particularly the residents of the HenleyWard. Such a change will have many unintended consequences and result inmany angry people who would be expecting improvements to be made not aradical redesign of the operation of the esplanade that will disadvantage thefreedom of the public to choose the direction they travel. Also note that aone-way road arrangement was unsuccessfully trialled for the Glenelg SouthEsplanade (Somerton) Coastal Park.

iii. A Minimal Option was not included in the options to essentially preserve thecurrent character and utility of HSE, recognising it is already an operationalshared path that works well as a two-way road and shared path for all HSEstakeholders.The improvements suggested are to:

1. Improve the utility of the western verge, including partial use of thesea wall for foot-traffic and families with young children only Figure9. I would like to suggest that most road & recreational bike riderswill continue to use both sides of the road.

2. Improve the shared path flow capability between HSE and HenleyEsplanade Figure 3, particularly for recreational bike users.

iv. It was disappointing to find that Council has not performed any comparisonswith other recent initiatives that have been implemented at nearby Glenelgthat are relevant to the issues being discussed.

v. Councillor Bob Randall's survey of people along the Esplanade reported inpage 3 of the Weekly Times Messenger, 19th September 2012 is to beapplauded. However it raises the question as to whether Council hasperformed any comprehensive survey of two-way user's attitudes to plans toconvert HSE to a one-way road?




vi. It also appears that Council has allowed itself to be influenced by a numberof influential HSE residents who no doubt have done a good job lobbyingcouncil to force another round of community consultation and more time toadvocate their one-way solution. In addition the HSE residents lobby wasclearly in the majority at the recent CC held on the 18/9/12. If safety is anissue, then what is the evidence exists of traffic incidents on HSE that haveresulted in injury to justify a one-way road?

vii. I also found it strange that submissions closed before the CC was heldinstead of sometime after the CC to allow residents time to consider thediscussions held.




2 ESPLANARD COMPARISONS

2.1 Esplanade Comparison Summary

Table 1. Esplanade Width Comparisons

Esplanade

(metres)

EastVerge

EastParking

SouthRoad

NorthRoad

W estParking

Total

RoadW idth

RightVerge

BordertoBeach

Remarks

HenleyBeach

(South Streetto HenleyBeach Road

2.3 None 4.0 4.5

5.0

(anglepar king)

13.5

4.5

(sharedpath)

Stonebrick

wall 0.6high

East verge not used forwal king

40 km/hr

HenleySouthEsplanade

(Northern Endadjacent N o149)

4.9

Yes, notmar ked,residentssignificant

users

6.7 6.0

Yes, notmar ked,public

mostl y use

12.7 1.3 None

Right verge merges withsea wall, which slopesaway(approx 20 degrees).

Sea wall horizontal widthto sand 2.2 and depth orfall approx 0.5 metres

40 km/hr


(SouthernEnd adj acentNo. 45-43)

4.9 to6.2

Yes, notmar ked,residents

use

6.3 6.2

Yes, notmar ked,visitors

use

12.5 1.3 None

Road merges with seawall, which slopes awaysignificantly from 20 to 30degrees).

Total width of bitumen13.5 metres.

Sea wall width estimate 6to 9 metres. Road Safetybarrier at entrance to H SE.

South of 53 Esplanade,eastern verge widens by1.4 metres.

40 km/hr

Glenelg NorthEsplanade(GNE)

(NorthernEnd)

32.8

(ranking)3 3

2.6

(ranking)11.4

3.5

(sharedpath)

None

Steep slope to rocks andbeach

Total western verge widthvaries consi derably.

Parki ng allowed bothways, however par king oneastern verge has 3 hourtime li mit.

50 km/hr

Glenelg SouthEsplanade 2.8 None 3.5 3.4

2.6

(ranking)9.5

3.5

(sharedpath)

Varies 50 km/hr

Measurements performed with tape measure and are approximate. All photographs havebeen taken sincethe CC on the 18th September 2012.

For HSE topography of both the eastern verge and sea wall fall to sand variessignificantly from 20 to 30 degrees. Opposite No. 103, patching on top of sea wallreduces slope to about 10 degrees.

Note total width of bitumen of HSE at Southern end is 13.5 metres; this is 2.1 metreswider that the width of the road measured at the northern end of GNE of 11.4 metres.




2.1.1 Henley Beach (South Street to Harvey's Hotel)

a. Angle Parking on western boundary and shared path works well.

Figure 2. Photo-Henley Esplanade-South from Harvey's Hotel

b. Road Bike Riders use road and only recreational riders use shared path.

Figure 3. Photo-Henley Esplanade-Public Toilets

c. Southern end continuity to HSE is poor due to location of toilets, particularly forrecreational bike riders who haveto re-enter road from the shared path in thebottom left of the picture.

d. Note that the sign for the CC meeting is only designed to suit walkers. Those ridingbicycles or using vehicles are giving no warning that the CC could result in HSEbecoming a one-way road which would be a radical departure from currentpractices.




2.1.2 Henley Beach Esplanade

Figure 4. Photo-Henley South Esplanade from Eastern Verge

a. Walking path on eastern verge attracts walkers and runners. Note significantelevation above road and how the road slopes down to the western verge. Manyhouses have substantial boundary fences. The substantial width of this verge of 4.9metres should be put to better public use.

Figure 5. Photo-Vehicles Travel AdjacentCentre of Road

b. Vehicles tend to travel adjacent to the centre of the road. Note red vehicle partiallyparked into western verge (between white line and top edge of sea wall). Noticealso the uneven surface of where the bitumen ends to where the sea wall begins.From my observations less than half the parking space is used most of the time andmost vehicles park on the eastern side. Recommend that parking spaces not bemarked and there is no need for speed humps given road speed limit of 40 km/hr.




Figure 6. Photo-Western Verge & Steps to Residences

c. Eastern verge is elevated abovethe road with entrances to many of the esplanadehouses requiring steps and sloping paths.

Figure 7. Photo-Henley South Esplanade from Southern End

d. Eastern verge towards southern end of HSE is not as elevated and increases inwidth south of number 53 from 4.9 metres to 6.2 metres (1.3 metres).




Figure 8. Photo-Vehicle Traffic & Available Space Western Verge

e. All types of bike riders use both sides of the road which provides ample width of12.5 metres for sharing by moving vehicles, car parking and bicycle traffic.Theverge to right of the white line of 1.2 metres has not been included in the roadwidth of 12.5 metres.

Figure 9. Photo-Western Verge – North End

f. Footpath for western border of road was not designed for when the road and seawall was built .




Figure 10. Photo-Western Verge – South End

g. The western verge is only about 1.3 metres wide, from centre line of bitumen towhere the sea wall begins, and is used by walkers and runners. Cars tend to parkover the line and encroach into this area.

h. My overall observations is that over 40 years of using the HSE as a two-way roadby vehicle, foot and bicycle during all seasons is that it already works as a sharedpath and doesn't require significant change. Some of the reasons for this are:

i. For the vast majority of the time, the road is relatively free of parked cars,particularly the western side,

ii. 40 km/hr speed limit,

iii. The road markings are basic and allow road users to make their owndecisions about what part of the road they use depending upon conditions(weather and usage by the public).




Figure 11. Photo-Cudmore Terrace, Harvey Street & Seaview Road

iv. Compared to the width of roads adjacent to my place, Harvey Street (7.9metres) and Cudmore Terrace (11.75 metres), HSE bitumen road width of13.5 metres, which doesn't include the entire western verge, is reasonablygenerous for a two-way road that allows parking Figure 8 on both sides ofthe road. Seaview Road south of the bridge over the Torrens Outlet is only11 metres wide.

Figure 12. Photo-Sea Wall (Southern vs. Northern Ends)

i. The topography of the sea wall (width and depth of fall to sand) varies considerablefrom the southern end to the northern end (30 to 20 degrees). Building up the top ofthe sea wall is one of the key ways to provide for a coastal path without majorimpacts on the eastern verge. What I don't recall being discussed at the CC is therisks to the sea wall from climate change into the foreseeable future and naturalclimate variability Figure 19. This is a critical aspect to consider. In addition noneof the options considered building on the sea wall itself to strengthen thetopsection and improved the level of the shared path. I would also like to suggest thatmaintaining the fall of the road in the design of the shared path is a significant riskfor young children riding bikes. The practicalit ies of establishing a shared path willmean that some sort of barrier will be required along the length of the path. Asignificant road safety barrier is already established at the southern end of theesplanade.




2.1.3 Shared Path in Dunes.

Note that on the southern side of the River Torrens Outlet is a shared path for both footand bicycle traffic that is only 2.4 metres wide for two-way traffic by foot and cycletraffic.The point I want to make is that can the 3.0 metre width of the shared path bereduced given that most bike riders are likely to ride on the road as they currently do?

Figure 13. Photo-Shared Path South Side of Torrens Outlet

2.1.4 Glenelg North Esplanade

a. Works well, but note that the shared path is significantly elevated about the sea.No safety fences or walls are used, however the path is level.

Figure 14. Photo-Glenelg North Esplanade Elevation from Beach




b. Road is two-way with 50 km/hr speed limit and note this road is not as wide asHSE (Table 1).

Figure 15. Photo-Glenelg North Esplanade –Northern End

2.1.5 Glenelg South Esplanade

Figure 16. Photo-Glenelg South Esplanade Elevation from Beach

a. Works well, but note that the shared path is elevated about the sea and is level. Nosafety walls or fences are used although there is some use of rock walls andbalustrades around steps to beach. The GSE was initially trialled as a one-way roadwith angle parking but this trial was terminated, presumably after outcry from roadusers and the road reverted back to two-way use with mostly a series of rankparking on the western side. Talking to local residents at Glenelg the commonword heard is that the one-way trial was a fiasco. It took seven years to completethe project.




Figure 17. Photo-Glenelg North Esplanade - Balustrade & Walls

b. Road is two-way with 50 km/hr speed limit and the shared path is level.




3 RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Henley South Esplanade – Minimal Option

Figure 18. Photo-House South Esplanade-Improve Western Verge

a. Investigate better utilisation of the western verge, including use of the sea wall, tothe immediate right of the road boundary white line, for use by pedestrian trafficand families with young children without making major changes to the current two-way configuration that has been in place for decades.

i. A nominal width of up to 2 to 3 metres should be adequate with a levelsurface for the shared path,

Figure 19. Photo-Sand Dune Erosion (North of Gilmore Road)

ii. The Coast Protection Board need to be consulted on the future risks to thesea wall from climate change and natural climate variability. Clearly there isan opportunity to strengthen the sea wall north of Lexington Road.




iii. Ideally all changes should be made by improving the western verge past thewhite line at the edge of the road and to build on the top of the sea wall toensure the shared path is level to ensure the safety of young children onbikes and mothers with prams.

iv. If some form of safety barrier is required by applicable safety standards,recommend a stone wall used for the Henley Esplanade and West Beachshould be considered Figure 3 or a balustrade such as has been used at GSEFigure 17. It is worth noting that HSE residents are in elevated positions wellabove the road and many have high front walls Figure 4.

b. By focussing improvements on the western verge, the total cost of the MinimalOption should be considerable less that the current budget cost of $2.5 million forthe one-way road option or the $2.9 million for thetwo-way road tabled at the CC.Costs are based on 2009 quantity survey estimates and will be considerably highertoday.

c. The proposed Minimal Option is likely to not require any incursions into theeastern verge, or at the very least it will be minimal. It is worth noting thatcompared to the eastern verges of the esplanades used in the comparisons; thecurrent width of the eastern verge of HSE is extremely generous Table 1 and ispublic land.

d. Those living on HSE need to respect the public's right of access, particularly giventhe two-way system of esplanade roads that exists between Brighton and HenleyBeach, Semaphore to Outer Harbour.




3.1.1 Henley South Esplanade – Minimal Option Layout

Given the speed limit of 40 km/hr is significantly less than the 50 km/hr speed limits ofGNE and GSE, the lowest values of the road widths of Table 1 have been used toillustrate the feasibility of a Minimal Option for HSE whilst providing for a level sharedpath of 4.0 metres on the western verge. This will maintain the current public andemergency services freedom of two-way usage on the esplanade, including footpaths. Useof the sea wall south of Lexington Road has been avoided given it becomes progressivelystepper (approx 20 to 30 degrees) the further south you go. Instead of the sea wall use ismade of the eastern verge.

Table 2. HSE – Minimal O ption

Esplanade

(metres)

EastVerge

EastParking

SouthRoad

NorthRoad

W estParking

TotalRoadW idth

NewSharedPath

Border toBeach

Remarks


HenleyBeachRoad toLexingtonRoad

4.9 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.6 11.2 4.0

Dependson coastal

risks tosea walland risks

to users ofshared

path

Border recommendation,rock wall as used Northof HSE.

Shared Path made up ofthe followingcomponents;

Road Surplus 1.3

Existi ng Verge 1.3

Use of Sea Wall 1.4


LexingtonRoad toOzone Road

3.7 to5.0 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.6 11.2 4.0

Risks tousers ofsharedpath &

road usersgiven

slope ofsea wall

Border recommendation,rock wall has used Northof HSE.

Shared Path made up ofthe followingcomponents;

Road Surplus 1.5

Existi ng Verge 1.3

Use of Eastern Verge1.2

3.2 Councils Regard for Community Consultation 18/9/12

a. I am aware that many members of council attending this meeting would havewitnessed that the majority of attendees were supporters of the HSE residents whosupport the one-way option. This is not unsurprising given the distribution of thesignage and the Community Consultation itself was a result of lobbying that forcedCouncil to hold a further round of Community Consultation. I would hope that theCouncil requires the consultant Mark Douglas to report the distribution ofattendees at this meeting within the city.

b. Critically the Council would be wise to separate the radical idea to turn HSE into aone-way road and seek significantly wider community consultation which purelyfocuses on the one-way or two-road issue. Any consultation needs to ask actualroad users and the wider community of not only Henley Beach Ward but the widerCity of Adelaide whether they approve HSE being turned into a one-way road. Thisalso needs to include emergency services.




c. Council consults with City of Holdfast Bay to determinethe circumstances that ledto the establishment of the one-way trial on GSE, decision documented in Report621/03 dated 9th December 2003 [2], and the reversal back to atwo-way roadincluding costs and the length of time it took the City of Holdfast Bay to completethis project.

3.3 Further Questions for Council

There are a number of questions that need clarification:a. Does Council have the flexibility to specify the scope of the coastal path on HSE to

suit local circumstances and still continue to receive a share of governmentfunding?

b. Does Council have responsibility and authority to make all necessary changes toHSE including its components? Has this been made clear in all City of CharlesSturt documentation and specifically communicated to HSE Esplanade residents:i. Eastern verge (i.e. decrease width and re-landscape verge)?

ii. Roadway (raise road to better interface with eastern verge)? andiii. Western verge (including building up the top of the sea wall).

c. Has Council conducted a formal and documented survey of existing road and pathusers of HSE, including during peak periods to ask them whether they support one-way or two-way road use?

d. Has Council conducted a study of the existing pattern of usage by all users of HSEthat takes into account not only peak seasonal use but changing patterns of usedepending upon weather conditions including. Any traffic study needs to includeSeaview Road?

e. Has Council conducted a formal and documented statistical survey of allhouseholds of Henley Ward to determine whether they support one-way or two-way road use?

f. Has Council investigated the circumstances of the one-way trial conducted atGlenelg South Esplanade and the reasons why it reverted back to atwo-way roadinto costs of conversion and thetime taken to complete the project?

g. Has the Coast Protection Board been asked for advice as to future risks to the seawall due to climate change and detailed any changes that need to be made? What istheir responsibility and authority?

h. Has Council conducted an operational assessment of the existing HSE and of theproposed options in terms of their safety for all users and taken into considerationthe full range of weather conditions experienced on the esplanade?

i. Has Council developed a "Minimal Option" that maintains two-way use, minimisesuse of the eastern verge and modifies the sea-wall to enable a level shared path tobe build on the western verge without encroaching into the sand dunes withoutrequiring a Boardwalk or Cantilevered Design?

j. Has Council documented all safety risks with the current HSE and all proposedoptions and determined what steps can be taken to mitigate those risks?

k. Has Council analysed the accident statistics for HSE, determined likely causes andaddressed them in the design?

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/conservation/coastal_marine/coast_protection_board




l. The designs presented for Community Consultation do not recognise that the widthof the eastern verge, the road and the visible width & depth of the sea wall all varyconsiderably from North to South

i. Eastern verge from 4.9 to 6.2 metres,ii. Road width from 12.5 to 12.7 metres, and

iii. Width (3 to 9 metres), Slope (20 to 30 degrees) and Depth of sea wall (2 to 9metres). All figures are approximate.

iv. Accordingly has Council studied thetopography of the esplanade, publiclydisclosed this information and considered design concepts that vary alongthe esplanade to taken into account location specific physical characteristicsas demonstrated by the "Minimal Option" of Table 2?




4 REFERENCES & DEFINITIONS

4.1 Applicable Documents

Identification Issue Title

[1] Weekly TimesMessenger 19/9/12 Path with Perils

[2] Report No: 621/039/12/2003

City of Holdfast Shores Report to Engineering andEnvironment Committee, Coast Park – SomertonPark

4.2 Definitions And Acronyms

Term Description

CC Community Consultation 18/9/12

FHE Friends of Henley Esplanades

GNE Glenelg North Esplanade

GSE Glenelg South Esplanade

HBBC Henley Beach Bowling Club

HSE Henley South Esplanade

JEC John Caldecott – Henley Resident since 1970

http://digitaledition.wktmessengercoastal.com.au/default.aspx?iid=68230&startpage=page0000003

http://digitaledition.wktmessengercoastal.com.au/default.aspx?iid=68230&startpage=page0000003

http://www.holdfast.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/1709_62103_-_EE_Coast_Park.pdf



[Note: Item 7.33 was considered after Item 4.18] 5. PETITIONS Nil 6. BUSINESS Motion That having read and considered the reports in the agenda related to items:

6.162 ONE CARD INTEGRATED LIBRARY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ILMS) REPLACEMENT

6.168 DISCRETIONARY WARD ALLOWANCE - APPROVAL PROCESS Council adopt the motions as printed. Moved Councillor Wasylenko, Seconded Councillor Keneally Carried Unanimously [Note: Item 6.164 was considered after Item 6] 6.160* REPRESENTATION REVIEW - OPTIONS PAPER STAGE 1 (B7421) 9

Brief

To receive a presentation from CL Rowe & Associates Pty Ltd on the Representation Review Options Paper and for Council to make a determination on the options to be presented for the first round of Community Consultation.

Motion

1. That the Representation Review Options Paper is received.

2. That Council endorse the 6 options as detailed in Appendix A to this report for Stage 1 of the public consultation process for the City of Charles Sturt’s Representation Review.

3. That Council endorse the Representation Review process as described in this report.

Moved Councillor Wasylenko, Seconded Councillor Keneally At 10.24 pm Councillor Randall left the meeting. At 10.28 pm Councillor Fitzpatrick left the meeting. At 10.30 pm Councillor Fitzpatrick resumed his seat. At 10.34 pm Councillor Randall resumed his seat.



Point of Order Councillor Wasylenko raised a Point of Order that Council are currently in breach of Section 2.5 of Council’s Code of Practice for Meeting Procedures (Length of Council Meetings) as a Motion has not been put to the meeting to continue or adjourn consideration of business past 10:00 pm. The Mayor ruled in favour of the Point of Order. At 10.42 pm Councillor Alexandrides left the meeting. Motion That Council business be concluded after consideration of this Item (6.160) as

well as 6.161, 6.165, 6.167 and 8.1 Audit Committee Minutes, with others items of business to be deferred.

Moved Councillor Wasylenko, Seconded Councillor Coppola Carried

Division Councillor Grant called for a Division. Those voting in the affirmative were: Councillors Andriani, Hanley, Nguyen, Wasylenko, Keneally, Coppola, Ienco, Agius and Harley (9). Those voting in the negative were: Councillors Ghent, Scheffler, Fitzpatrick, Randall, Grant and Auricht (6).

The Motion for consideration of specific items of Council business prior to meeting

closure was carried. At 10.45 pm Councillor Alexandrides resumed his seat. At 10.46 pm Councillor Ienco left the meeting. At 10.49 pm Councillor Ienco resumed his seat. At 10.49 pm Councillors Agius and Coppola left the meeting. At 10.50 pm Councillor Coppola resumed her seat. At 10.52 pm Councillor Nguyen left the meeting. At 10.56 pm Councillor Agius resumed his seat. The motion for Item 6.160 was carried. At 11.01 pm Councillor Nguyen resumed her seat.



6.161* REVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT DONATION SCHEME POLICY (B57, B6865) 15

Brief

To consider amendments to the City Benefit Donation Scheme Policy as a result of the program review. The Policy currently provides for three categories of funding:

1. City Benefit Donations 2. Youth Donations 3. SALA Festival Registration Subsidy Program 4. Personal Development Program (over 25 years old)

The funding available to the program in the 2012/13 financial year totals $74,400.

Motion

1. That the updated Community Benefit Donation Scheme Policy as detailed in Appendix B, including the renaming of the funding categories with the corresponding funding allocated as follows be adopted:

• Minor Community Events (currently titled City Benefit Donation Program)- $29,400 annual budget

• Youth Development and Sports Program (currently titled Youth Donation Program)- $35,000 annual budget

• Special Opportunity Arts Grants for Individuals, $7,000 annual budget (currently titled South Australia Living Artists (SALA) Festival Registration Subsidy Program)

• Residents Grant, over 25 years old- $3,000 annual budget (currently titled Personal Development Program, 25 years or older)

Total funds available in the 2012/13 financial year totals $74.400.

2. That the updated Community Benefit Donation Scheme Policy take effect, and will be applied in the first advertised round of the 2012/13 year, being 1 November 2012.

3. The new Community Benefit Donation Scheme Policy and guidelines, along with the Discretionary Ward Allowance (DWA) be widely promoted to the community through mechanisms including the Messenger, Council’s website, mail out to previous applicants in 2011/12 and through networks.

4. That a report listing breaches of the Community Benefit Donation Scheme Policy be presented to each meeting of the Audit Committee (similar to the Discretionary Ward Allowance breaches report).

5. That Council commend staff for an excellent report.

Moved Councillor Fitzpatrick, Seconded Councillor Auricht



At 11.05 pm Councillor Harley left the meeting seat. The motion was carried. [Note: Item 6.165 was considered next.] 6.162 ONE CARD INTEGRATED LIBRARY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ILMS) REPLACEMENT

(B2461) 30

Brief

To provide information to Council about the “One Card – One Library Management System” project currently being rolled out across South Australian public libraries and the future participation of City of Charles Sturt Library Service in this project.

Motion

That Council consider the potential for that the City of Charles Sturt Library Service to join the One Card – One Library Management System consortium as part of Council’s first quarter 12/13 Budget review.

Moved Councillor Wasylenko, Seconded Councillor Keneally Carried Unanimously [Note: Item passed en bloc by Council] 6.163* ST CLAIR AVENUE ALIGNMENT (B6977) 34

Brief

To update Council on the negotiations between City of Charles Sturt and the Urban Renewal Authority (formally Land Management Corporation) over the preferred alignment of the proposed St Clair Avenue.

Motion

1. That Council informs Urban Renewal Authority that it is prepared to contribute up to a maximum of $300,000 to facilitate the construction of St Clair Avenue on road alignment Option 2.

2. That Urban Renewal Authority obtain all necessary Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) approvals for the design and construction of St Clair Avenue wholly within the portion of Allotment 2 DP 8924922 as shown on Appendix B. Should approval from DPTI not be obtained for the construction of St Clair Avenue within the portion of Allotment 2 a subsequent report be presented to Council.

3. That subject to DPTI approval being obtained in accordance with Recommendation 2 Council authorises the Mayor and the Chief Executive to affix Council’s common seal to an agreement or deed varying the Brocas Avenue Agreement (“Brocas Avenue Agreement Variation”) if the terms of the Brocas Avenue Agreement Variation are substantially in accordance with the proposed Points of Agreement as detailed in Appendix A.



ST CLAIR AVENUE ALIGNMENT Item 6.163 Continued

4. That if in finalising the terms of the Brocas Avenue Agreement Variation those terms vary to the extent that they materially affect Council’s preferred alignment, cost contribution or design, risk or liability then a subsequent report be presented to Council prior to finalising the Brocas Avenue Agreement Variation.

5. Subject to DPTI approval being obtained in accordance with Recomendation 2 and subject to a further survey after completion of the detailed design of St Clair Avenue identifying the portion of the area shown in Appendix B actually required for the construction of the road (“Relevant Land”) Council authorises the Mayor and the Chief Executive to affix the Council’s common seal to an agreement under the Recreation Grounds (Joint Schemes) Act 1947 varying the existing Scheme under that Act only to the extent necessary to exclude all of the relevant Land from that Scheme and including;

a. A provision requiring the parties to enter into a further Scheme Variation Agreement to re-include the Relevant Land in the Scheme if the community land classification of the land is not revoked or if St Clair Avenue is not constructed on the Relevant Land, and

b. provisions relating to any matters of a consequential or incidental nature.

6. That subject to:

a. DPTI approval being obtained for the detailed design in accordance with Recommendation 2;

b. The execution by the Council and URA of the Brocas Avenue Agreement Variation; and

c. The variation of the Joint Scheme to exclude the Relevant Land from the Scheme;

Council undertakes the formal community land revocation procedures to revoke the classification of the Relevant Land in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act and Council’s public consultation policy.

7. That subject to the approval by the Minister of the proposal to revoke the community land classification of the Relevant Land, a further report be provided to Council to consider formally whether or not it should revoke the community land classification of that Land. Should Council fail to revocate the required land Council will be required to reimburse Urban Renewal Authority an estimated $120,000



ST CLAIR AVENUE ALIGNMENT Item 6.163 Continued

8. That upon revocation of community land classification of the Relevant Land a further report be presented to Council identifying the exact portion of land for road construction purposes. This report must also identify the exact portion of Urban Renewal Authority land that will be committed as open space to offset the road reserve.

Moved Councillor Grant, Seconded Councillor Nguyen At 10.01 pm Councillor Keneally left the meeting. At 10.03 pm Councillor Keneally resumed her seat.

Point of Order Councillor Auricht raised a Point of Order against Councillor Grant on the basis that he had made disparaging comments about previous or sitting members. Mayor Alexander ruled against the Point of Order. The motion for Item 6.163 was carried.

Division Councillor Fitzpatrick called for a Division. Those voting in the affirmative were: Councillors Ghent, Scheffler, Hanley, Fitzpatrick, Randall, Nguyen, Grant, Wasylenko, Keneally, Ienco, Alexandrides, Auricht, Agius and Harley (14). Those voting in the negative were: Councillors Andriani and Coppola (2).

The motion for Item 6.163 was carried. [Note: Item 6.160 was considered after Item 6.163]

6.164* HENLEY SOUTH COAST PARK (B7706) 50

Brief

Council engaged an independent facilitator, Ethos Consulting, to undertake further community engagement on three design options for Coast Park, Henley South. This report analyses the issues raised during the consultation process and summarises the findings.

Motion

That the report be received and noted.

Moved Councillor Randall, Seconded Councillor Fitzpatrick



At 9.29 pm Councillors Agius and Harley left the meeting. At 9.31 pm Councillors Agius and Harley resumed their seats. The motion was carried.

Division Councillor Fitzpatrick called for a Division. Those voting in the affirmative were: Councillors Ghent, Scheffler, Fitzpatrick, Randall, Nguyen, Wasylenko, Keneally, Alexandrides, Auricht and Agius (10). Those voting in the negative were: Councillors Andriani, Hanley, Grant, Coppola, Ienco and Harley (6).

The motion for Item 6.164 was carried.

Motion

That the design of the two-way option planned for the Esplanade at Henley Beach South, be altered to remove the “wombat crossings” (speed humps) and that they be replaced by a textured road surface.

Moved Councillor Randall, Seconded Councillor Fitzpatrick

Formal Motion

That the motion lie on the table.

Moved Councillor Ghent, Seconded Councillor Hanley Carried

Point of Order Councillor Wasylenko raised a Point of Order against Council Randall on the basis that a Motion Without Notice either needs to be accepted for consideration or referred to the next meeting as a Motion on Notice. Mayor Alexander ruled in favour of the Point of Order. [Note: Item 6.163 was considered after Item 6.164] 6.165* CYCLING OPPORTUNITIES BETWEEN THE CITY AND PORT ADELAIDE (B4127) 68

Brief

The City of Port Adelaide Enfield has expressed interest in developing a dedicated safe bike path along the Port Road median. In addition the State Government has plans for the development of Greenways along rail corridors to accommodate cyclists. This report seeks Council support to commence discussions and preliminary investigations with the Port Adelaide Enfield Council and Adelaide City Council about such projects.



Motion

1. That the Manager Engineering & Construction meet with relevant staff of the Cities of Port Adelaide Enfield and Adelaide to discuss transport and recreational activities along the Old Port Road and Port Road and between Port Adelaide and into the Adelaide Parklands and along the Outer Harbour Rail Corridor (Greenway).

2. That the discussions include options for recreational paths, commuter cycling lanes and off-road shared paths.

3. That a report be presented back to Council on the outcomes and options discussed and possible future strategies to progress any potential agreed proposals.

Moved Councillor Wasylenko, Seconded Councillor Fitzpatrick Carried Unanimously [Note: Item 6.167 was considered after Item 6.165] 6.166 FLYING THE EUREKA STOCKADE FLAG - 29 NOVEMBER TO 3 DECEMBER 2012

(B35) 72

Brief

A letter has been received from the Spirit of Eureka Committee requesting that Council fly the Eureka Stockade Flag from 29 November to 3 December 2012 inclusive.

[Note: This item was deferred to the next Ordinary Meeting of Council on 22 October 2012.] 6.167* NOMINATIONS FOR THE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT FACILITATION PANEL –

CIRCULAR 39.13 (B35) 76

Brief

The Minister for State/Local Government Relations, the Hon Russell Wortley MLC, has requested the LGA to seek nominations for two Local Government Members on the Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel for a two year term commencing 31 December 2012.

Motion

That Council nominates Councillor Grant for the vacant position of a Local Government Member on the Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel and that the nomination be passed on to the Local Government Association for consideration.

Moved Councillor Andriani



At 11.11 pm Councillors Wasylenko and Keneally left the meeting. Seconded Councillor Ghent Carried Unanimously [Note: Item 8.1 was considered after Item 6.167] 6.168 DISCRETIONARY WARD ALLOWANCE - APPROVAL PROCESS (B6852) 82

Brief

To consider Discretionary Ward Allowance applications.

Motion

That the Discretionary Ward Allowance applications as detailed in Appendix A to this report be approved.

Moved Councillor Wasylenko, Seconded Councillor Keneally Carried Unanimously [Note: Item passed en bloc by Council] 7. MOTIONS ON NOTICE 7.33 NOTICE OF MOTION – RESCISSION MOTION - HENLEY BEACH SOUTH COAST PARK

(B53) 86

Brief

A Notice of Motion has been received from Councillor Ienco to rescind the Motion that went to the Council Meeting held on Monday, 23 April 2012 and move a new Motion in regards to the Henley Beach South Coast Park.

Motion

So that debate and a reconsideration of all options regarding Henley South Coast Park can occur as a result of recent community consultation, Council rescinds the following Council resolution of the 23 April 2012, Item 6.56 COAST PARK - HENLEY SOUTH STAGE 2 OZONE STREET TO HENLEY BEACH ROAD,

1. That the report be received.

2. That Council proceeds to tender and construction for Option 1 – the two way traffic, on road path option, as previously resolved.

Moved Councillor Ienco, Seconded Councillor Andriani Extension of Time - 8.28 pm That Councillor Randall be granted an extra 5 minutes to finalise his debate. Moved Councillor Ghent, Seconded Councillor Fitzpatrick Carried



Formal Motion That the Motion be put. Moved Councillor Auricht, Seconded Councillor Keneally The Mayor used her casting vote and the formal motion was lost. The rescission motion for Item 7.33 was lost.

Division Councillor Ienco called for a Division. Those voting in the affirmative were: Councillors Andriani, Hanley, Grant, Coppola, Ienco and Harley (6). Those voting in the negative were: Councillors Ghent, Scheffler, Fitzpatrick, Randall, Nguyen, Wasylenko, Keneally, Alexandrides, Auricht and Agius (10). The rescission motion for Item 7.33 was lost.

Point of Order Councillor Ienco raised a Point of Order against Councillor Randall for indicating that he would move additional Motions in this part of Council business given that the Motions Without Notice section is intended to be used for this purpose. The Mayor ruled in favour of the Point of Order.

Adjournment – 9.03 pm That Council adjourn for a 10 minute break. Moved Councillor Wasylenko, Seconded Councillor Keneally Carried

Resumption – 9.16 pm That Council resume. Moved Councillor Hanley, Seconded Councillor Andriani Carried Unanimously

[Note: Item 6 was considered after Item 7.33]



8. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES – PART I 8.1 Audit Committee, which met on Tuesday, 2 October 2012. That having considered the recommendations of the Committee which has read

and considered the reports in the agenda related to Items:

3.25 LGA MUTUAL LIABILITY SCHEME RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEW RESULTS 2012

Motion


2. That management and staff be commended for ongoing excellent results.

3.26 INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRAM STATUS UPDATE

Motion


2. That the 2010-2013 Internal Audit Plan be amended as follows:

• Emergency Management Procedures review be deferred to 2013/2014 (previously scheduled 2012/2013).

3.27 BI-ANNUAL INTERNAL AUDIT AGREED ACTIONS STATUS UPDATE

Motion


3.28 ANNUAL CORPORATE RISK ASSESSMENT 2012

Motion


3.29 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT – FOLLOW UP OF AGREED ACTIONS

Motion


3.30 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT ASSURANCE OVER “WATERPROOFING THE WEST” PROJECT

Motion




3.31 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT – FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF PROJECTS

Motion


3.32 INSURANCE PROGRAM 2012/2013

Motion


3.33 QUARTERLY INSURANCE CLAIMS UPDATE – JUNE 2012

Motion


3.34 ANNUAL REGISTER OF VOLUNTEER CLAIMS

Motion


3.35 LGA CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PLAN - CITY OF CHARLES STURT ACTION PLAN

Motion


2. That the action plan as included as Appendix A be endorsed.

3. That a progress update against the actions be provided to the Audit Committee at its January 2013 and then subsequent meetings until issues are signed off as complete.

3.36 DISCRETIONARY WARD ALLOWANCE POLICY BREACHES

Motion


3.37 COUNCIL MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT QUARTERLY REPORT

Motion




3.38 CUSTOMER REQUEST CALL ANALYSIS - QUARTERLY REPORT - JUNE 2012

Motion


Council adopts the motions of the Committee as printed in the Minutes of this Committee.

Moved Councillor Fitzpatrick At 11.13 pm Councillors Auricht and Ghent left the meeting. Seconded Councillor Alexandrides Carried Unanimously [Note: Item 15 was considered after Item 8.1] 9. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 9.24 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE – CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE CALLS (B57) 88

Brief

Questions on Notice have been received from Councillor Ghent in regards to information about the calls received by City of Charles Sturt Customer Service Centre.

Preamble (Councillor Ghent) This information should be useful to all Ward Councillors to identify quantitative assessment of council services that are of concern/interest to the Public and other Councillors in each Ward/suburb. This information should be of value to Ward Councillors when bidding for additional resources to meet the expectations and concerns of the Public. Questions 1. Could you please tabulate preferably by Ward (but at least by suburb) the number of

calls received by City of Charles Sturt’s Customer Service help line from residents and separately by Ward councillors for the previous twelve months?

2. Where possible, could this listing be separated into compliance, open space and

recreation, health and safety, and engineering and construction matters?



QUESTIONS ON NOTICE – CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE CALLS Item 9.24 Continued Answer (General Manager City Services) 1. Could you please tabulate preferably by Ward (but at least by suburb) the number

of calls received by City of Charles Sturt’s Customer Service help line from residents and separately by Ward councillors for the previous twelve months? Council administration can generate the reports requested, however new reporting programs need to be formulated in the first instance. This can be done relatively simply using existing council resources. Once formulated, a report can be generated for the previous 12 months as requested. By way of background, Council administration, and in particular Council’s Customer Service Centre, use two main systems in capturing data on calls received (Mitel Telephone System) and then the subsequent management of customer requests (Customer Request Management System – CRM). Council’s CRM system would be the system that the data requested can be best captured and reported, as opposed to the data resulting from telephone calls. It should be noted that 98% of all incoming calls result in a CRM being logged and as such it is this data base that would be accessed for the purposes of generating the reports requested.

2. Where possible, could this listing be separated into compliance, open space and

recreation, health and safety, and engineering and construction matters?

Yes Council’s administration can generate the report as discussed above based on predetermined categories such as those specified in the question. Quarterly updates of the report could then be run in the future should that be considered appropriate.



10. MOTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE [Note: the meeting concluded without this item being considered] 11. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE [Note: the meeting concluded without this item being considered] 12. GENERAL BUSINESS [Note: the meeting concluded without this item being considered] 13. BUSINESS – PART II – CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS Nil 14. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES – PART II – CONFIDENTIAL Nil 15. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting concluded at 11.15 pm. The foregoing minutes will be taken as read and confirmed at the meeting of Council on Monday, 22 October 2012. K ALEXANDER, MAYOR ............................................................. DATED / /