we would like to - amazon s3 · 18.08.2016 · mr daniel tregenza – sempac ms nicole halsey -...

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

MINUTES OF SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING

FOR THE TOWN OF GAWLER HELD 18 AUGUST 2016, ELDERLY CENTRE

37 FOURTEENTH STREET, GAWLER SOUTH, COMMENCING AT 7:00PM

1. Statement of Acknowledgement

The Mayor read the statement of acknowledgement: We would like to acknowledge this land that we meet on today is the traditional lands for the Kaurna people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Kaurna people as the custodians of the greater Adelaide region and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still as important to the living Kaurna people today.

2. Attendance Record 2.1 Present Mayor Karen Redman Deputy Mayor David Hughes Area Councillors Kevin Fischer

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

Staff in Attendance Henry Inat Chief Executive Officer Sam Dilena Manager Infrastructure & Engineering

Services Ryan Viney Acting Manager Economic

Development, Regulatory Services & Communications

Paul Horwood Manager Finance & Corporate Services

Erin Findlay Manager Library & Community Services

Angelo Lanzilli Special Projects Manager Marie Bickley PA to Manager Infrastructure &

Engineering Services Austin Swindley IT Support Officer Chris Haynes Minute Taker

KrKr

https://gawler.na1.documents.adobe.com/verifier?tx=CBJCHBCAABAAeYX-ygR66Gc9wJe5YrGOuxMF8C9yy4wc

TOWN OF GAWLER SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

2.2 Apologies Nil 2.3 Motions to Grant Leave of Absence Nil 2.4 Leave of Absence Nil

3. Public Open Forum

(Limited to a total time of up to 20 minutes)

Ms Jenny Hughes spoke to Council Members re Gawler East Link Road. Mr Graeme Williamson spoke to Council Members re Gawler East Link Road. Ms Penny Williamson spoke to Council Members re Gawler East Link Road.

4. Business

Item 4.1 – Gawler East Link Road Update (CC11/778) Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services gave a presentation to Council. The following consultants were available to assist in answering questions from Council Members regarding aspects of the Gawler East Link Road report and presentation: Mr Robert Bremert – Tonkin Consulting Mr Chris Turnbull – Sonus Ms Julia Bignall – EBS Ecology Mr Andrew Lucas – Property and Advisory Mr Daniel Tregenza – Sempac Ms Nicole Halsey - URPS Moved by Cr A Shackley Seconded by Cr B Gidman Motion No: 2016:08:314 That meeting procedures be suspended to allow informal discussion to take place regarding the Gawler East Link Road.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Mayor, with approval of the members present suspended the meeting procedures pursuant to the Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2013, for a period sufficient to facilitate informal discussion in relation to the Gawler East Link Road and will resume at the discretion of the Mayor. 8.36pm meeting procedures suspended 9.02pm meeting procedures resumed

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

Moved by Cr K Fischer That the Gawler East Link Road matter be deferred Cr Fischer withdrew the Motion. Moved by Cr A Shackley Seconded by Cr R Symes Motion No: 2016:08:315 That Council: 1. Notes the Gawler East Link Road Update Report and thanks all residents

who have provided input to assist Council considerations. 2. Receives the results of the Multi Criteria Analysis and all supporting

investigations that have been undertaken to support the determination of a preferred alignment for the Gawler East Link Road.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

11. Request the Council staff work with Department of Planning, Transportand Infrastructure through the detailed design phase on determining themost beneficial outcome for the bridge over the South Para River in termsof visual and environmental impacts and report back to the Council asappropriate.

12. In respect to the bridge proposed over the South Para River, that Counciladvises the relevant State Government Minister that the ownership,management and maintenance of the bridge structure should be retainedby the State Government for the reasons detailed in the report.

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

CARRIED

5. Questions without Notice Nil

6. Motions Without Notice Nil

7. Confidential Reports Nil

8. Close Meeting closed at 9.30pm

9. Next Ordinary Meeting Tuesday 23 August 2016 commencing 7:00pm

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

ATTACHMENT 1 DATE COMMENT / RESPONSE August 18 2016

Email 1: Cr Shackley – Query: “It seems that for new houses facing the GELR that noise will be a problem because all the adjacent houses would be expected to have facades within 35m of the road centre. Given that fences up to 2.1m are not required to get development approval can we expect a canyon of fences to appear along the GELR as people follow the example set out in the agenda documents and erect solid barriers and gates. That is not a pleasant thought.”

Response: I agree with the sentiment that having large sections of colorbond steel sheet fencing facing the GELR is not a particularly desirable outcome, and should be avoided from a urban design perspective. This will be of particular importance when assessing future land division applications along the GELR, as once approved a plan of division determines the orientation of the future built form, and will ultimately dictate the streetscape character. Avoiding colorbond steel sheet fencing along road corridors is consistent with the type of standard design advice and guidance provided by planning staff to developers during the assessment phase. In situations where fences do front public roads planning staff generally seek to address this issue by seeking to enter into a Land Management Agreement with the developer to ensure the design of these fences incorporates an open style character, as well as vertical and horizontal elements to create visual interest and articulation. It is also important to note that the assessment of any future land division application along the GELR will have to be in accordance with the provisions of the Gawler East and Residential Hills Zones, within the Gawler Development Plan. With this in mind, the existing Gawler Development Plan, in particular the Gawler East Residential and Residential Hills Zones provides the following guidance in relation to new dwelling orientations and the GELR:

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

Residential (Gawler East) Zone:

Desired Character Statement: No more than 1000 allotments should be created within the area defined by Gawler East Development Constraints Concept Plan Figure CoP/5 until such time as the collector road is complete. The collector road shown on Structure Plan Map Ga/1 (Overlay 1) Enlargement G is intended to have a boulevard character comprising wide footpaths and cycle paths on both sides and substantive street tree plantings. Dwellings will front and address the road with setbacks to contribute to the boulevard character. Principles of Development: Objective 5 Development that contributes to the desired character of the zone.

3. Development should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for the zone.

12. Development with frontage to the eastern side of the Gawler – One Tree Hill scenic road should be established on allotments of no less than 1000 square metres in area and incorporate screen planting between buildings and the road in order to provide a distinctive landscape character along this corridor.

Residential Hills Zone: Desired Character Statement: No more than 1000 allotments should be created within the area defined by Gawler East Development Constraints Concept Plan Figure CoP/5 until such time as the collector road is completed.

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

The collector road shown on Structure Plan Map Ga/1 (Overlay 1) Enlargement G is intended to have a boulevard character comprising wide footpaths and cycle paths on both sides and substantive street tree plantings. Dwellings will front and address the road with setbacks to contribute to the boulevard character. Principle of Development Control: Objective 4 Development that contributes to the desired character of the zone.

10. Development should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for the zone.

As you would appreciate, and consistent with the Minister’s handling of this issue, this level of investigations should have been undertaken prior to the Minister rezoning the land, and thus should have been incorporated in the formation of policy in the Development Plan. Notwithstanding this point, once the alignment of the GELR has been determined works associated with the preparation of a revised structure plan for the entire Gawler East Zone will continue. This structure plan will spatially represent the outcomes of a number of recent investigations, such as the provision of open space, internal road networks as well as the provision of stormwater, recreation, community and social infrastructure. It is envisaged that this structure plan will be inserted in the Gawler Development Plan via a future Development Plan Amendment to guide development within the area. This will also provide the opportunity for council to revise all policy pertaining to the Gawler East Zone. Additional policy could also be added to specifically address the issue of the dwelling orientation. It is also envisaged that Council would seek to insert the State Government Noise and Air Emissions Overlay over the GELR to ensure the design of future dwellings meets the ministers specification for acoustic treatments for new dwellings.

18 August 2016

Email 2: Cr Shackley – Query: 1. Could a breakdown please be provided on the Table 12 produced on Page 22 of 69 Agenda paper of the

remnant trees and other native vegetation in different areas and the SEB estimates provided for each area

2. Given that the Eckerman alignment only covers vegetation close to the South Para related to Native Vegetation Act coverage, how did you derive a total of 100 plus "remnant trees" as listed in the Table (note at page 83 in the EBS report where about 50 scattered trees are shown but including sapling red gums in the river).

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

3. Relative to the remnant native vegetation - the GEHA submission (attached). EBS do not refer to these in their assessment. These may assist further consideration (although the regional flora assessments have now been replaced by IBRA region assessments). EBS does refer (page 14 of their report, page 107 in the MCA attachment) to a paper I presented in 2012 on Pre-european vegetation in the region (available on Salisbury Council website as part of a 2012 Conference Report). The reference on page 14 should refer to a 2 (not 20) ha irongrass site - that is the EPBC referral site on the creek running into the South Para from the north which Council will be familiar with.

Response:

Given the little time available to address this request, a draft breakdown of scattered trees covered under the NV Act that fall within the batter and buffer for Eastern (separated for gully and South Para River) and Eckerman (South Para River) is provided in the tables below.

As you can see from the tables, given the large batter/buffer, the total number of remnant trees for Eckerman within South Para River is 114, as per Table 12.

In relation to the comment " page 83 in the EBS report where about 50 scattered trees are shown but including sapling red gums in the river." Note that on the maps, one data point can relate to a group of many trees, as is shown in the tables below.

Providing an SEB breakdown for different areas would take more time as it requires data manipulation to come up with figures for the separate areas - the SEB is relative to the overall clearance so I think it is sufficient at this stage to consider the overall number of trees/NV areas. Obviously the clearance is higher for Eastern and hence so is the SEB. The SEB estimates provided in Table 12 Page 22 factor for both scattered trees and vegetation assessed as areas (e.g. native grassland areas). The overall estimation is sufficient to show that the Eckerman alignment is more beneficial in terms of overall clearance of NVA trees/SEB.

In terms of remnant vegetation outside the NV Act, estimates have been provided for the different areas in the Tables in Section 6 of the report.

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

The attached map mark-ups provided (by the Councillor) have been looked at, but it is not clear how they relate here. If it is related to additional native grassland areas, in the overall scheme of comparing the alignments, it wouldn't change the SEB much. Eckerman - South Para River Scattered tree #

Species/area Comment E N No. in group

294 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 1 tree leans north west. 294429.6 6167937 2

296 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 294428.5 6167923 1

298 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Tree has a bird box along the main stem.

294448.5 6167895 1

299 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Tree has numerous hollows, varying in size. See additional photo

294453.8 6167881 1

300 Acacia pycnantha A large Lomandra sp., occurs near the base of the shrub.

294452.2 6167857 1


302 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Photo shows 1 main tree and 4 smaller trees.

294469.7 6167868 5

303 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Large dead tree, important roosting habitat for birds.

294472 6167848 1


305 Area exotic / native grassland

The east facing hill slope contains good native grasses. Area approx 50m by 20m. Species: Austrostipa sp, Austrodanthonia sp., Enneapogon nigricans and Lomandra sp. However Olea europaea are common. Some Olea europaea control works are evident in this area.

294462.1 6167840

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials


307 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Group of young trees, likely to be more than 10 in the group.

294490.1 6167818 10

308 Eucalyptus camaldulensis A small Pleurosorus rutifolius was observed under the canopy, amongst the rocks.

294476.9 6167789 1

309 Eucalyptus camaldulensis

Group of young trees in the centre of the creek over thick Phragmities. Likely to be over 50 trees in the group.

294513.3 6167790 50

310 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Group of young trees in the edge of the thick Phragmities area. Likely to be over 20 in the group.

294495.2 6167778 20


The east facing hill slope contains good native grasses. Area approx 175m by 20m. Species: Austrostipa sp, Austrodanthonia sp., Enneapogon nigricans. However, Olea europaea are very common in the area.

294481 6167781

341 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Occurs over Phragmities and Olea europaea.

294525.2 6167803 2


343 Eucalyptus camaldulensis The tree has several hollows. 294529.1 6167781 1


354 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Group occurs over good area of Austrostipa sp., Austrodanthonia sp., Phragmities sp., Cyperus sp.

294491.5 6167877 1



KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

362 Eucalyptus porosa 294504.2 6167933 1

364 Eucalyptus porosa Trees has hollows in the main stem, 1 has bees in it.

294555.5 6167898 1

419 Eucalyptus porosa Tree has several hollows along the stems.

294707.3 6168130 1

TOTAL 114

Eastern - South Para River Scattered tree #


298 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Tree has a bird box along the main stem.

294448.5 6167895 1

299 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Tree has numerous hollows, varying in size. See additional photo

294453.8 6167881 1

300 Acacia pycnantha A large Lomandra sp., occurs near the base of the shrub.

294452.2 6167857 1


302 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Photo shows 1 main tree and 4 smaller trees.

294469.7 6167868 5

303 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Large dead tree, important roosting habitat for birds.

294472 6167848 1


KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials


The east facing hill slope contains good native grasses. Area approx 50m by 20m. Species: Austrostipa sp, Austrodanthonia sp., Enneapogon nigricans and Lomandra sp. However Olea europaea are common. Some Olea europaea control works are evident in this area.

294462.1 6167840


307 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Group of young trees, likely to be more than 10 in the group.

294490.1 6167818 10

308 Eucalyptus camaldulensis A small Pleurosorus rutifolius was observed under the canopy, amongst the rocks.

294476.9 6167789 1


Group of young trees in the centre of the creek over thick Phragmities. Likely to be over 50 trees in the group.

294513.3 6167790 50

310 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Group of young trees in the edge of the thick Phragmities area. Likely to be over 20 in the group.

294495.2 6167778 20


The east facing hill slope contains good native grasses. Area approx 175m by 20m. Species: Austrostipa sp, Austrodanthonia sp., Enneapogon nigricans. However, Olea europaea are very common in the area.

294481 6167781

336 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Group occurs over Phragmities and Olea europaea.

294553.8 6167792 1

336 Eucalyptus sp. Tree provides important roosting habitat.

294553.8 6167792 1

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials


A few Olea europaea at the base, these have been included within the group of Olea europaea discussed at photo 335.

294541.2 6167788 1


341 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Occurs over Phragmities and Olea europaea.

294525.2 6167803 2


343 Eucalyptus camaldulensis The tree has several hollows. 294529.1 6167781 1

344 Eucalyptus camaldulensis The tree has lots of hollows (5+) and deadwood.

294536.9 6167775 1


354 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Group occurs over good area of Austrostipa sp., Austrodanthonia sp., Phragmities sp., Cyperus sp.

294491.5 6167877 1


364 Eucalyptus porosa Trees has hollows in the main stem, 1 has bees in it.

294555.5 6167898 1

371 Eucalyptus porosa 2 Olea europaea (under TSD size) occur near the tree.

294573.6 6167867 1

372 Eucalyptus porosa 1 Lycium ferocissimum (under TSD size) occurs at the base. Some good Austrodanthonia sp.

294581.3 6167862 1

373 Eucalyptus porosa A Olea europaea (under TSD size) occurs near the tree.

294577.9 6167854 2

374 Eucalyptus porosa An Acacia acinacaea occurs at the base.

294562.8 6167856 1

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials


294570.2 6167850 1


294570.1 6167845 1

419 Eucalyptus porosa Tree has several hollows along the stems.

294707.3 6168130 1

TOTAL 121

Eastern - Gully south of river Scattered tree #


202 Eucalyptus porosa

3 trees in the group. The tree near the base of the creek is single stemmed and has a large hollow at the base. Several undersized Olea europaea occur in the understorey.

294282.3 6167340 3

203 Eucalyptus porosa Several skinks observed on the tree. 294261.8 6167329 1



212 Eucalyptus porosa 4 single stemmed and 1 multi-stemmed tree.

294254.4 6167363 5

213a Eucalyptus porosa 294246 6167349 1

213b Eucalyptus porosa 294246 6167349 1

214 Eucalyptus porosa Tree has a large lignotuber. 294245.7 6167362 1


216 Eucalyptus porosa Deadwood in the canopy. 294234.7 6167383 1

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

217 Eucalyptus porosa Tree has a swollen base with deadwood and hollows in the canopy.

294231.3 6167366 1

218 Eucalyptus porosa All trees occur within a shallow rock face. 1 tree has fallen over, but still alive.

294225.3 6167377 4

219 Eucalyptus porosa Good hollows varying from 0.1m - 0.03m diameter.

294227.7 6167397 1

220 Eucalyptus porosa

Tree roots are cracking the rock face. The trees occur amongst several large Olea europaea discussed individually below.

294213.8 6167397 2

220 Pittosporum angustifolium Occurs on the western side of the 2 E. porosa discussed above.

294213.8 6167397 1

223 Eucalyptus porosa Group occurs on the north west facing slope. 1 large tree and 13 smaller trees.

294198.7 6167386 14

223 Pittosporum angustifolium Occur on the north eastern side of the group.

294198.7 6167386 2

230 Eucalyptus porosa 294203 6167401 3


283 Eucalyptus porosa Hollows occur in the main stems, 294252.5 6167442 1

284 Eucalyptus porosa Hollows occur in the main stems, 294252.3 6167453 1

TOTAL 49

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

Eastern - Gully south of river

In terms of the GEHA Submission, Ebs is not aware of this submission but is open to receiving further explanatory notes or information that compliments what was initially provided (which were just the marked up maps). It should be noted that in the ground-truthing exercise, the DPTI data was reflective of what was visually seen and reported (noting the winter survey timing). Ebs have noted that the Irongrass site should be 2 ha not 20 ha and notes the location marked on the GEHA map mark-up provided (outside the GELR alignment).

August 17 2016

Email 3: Cr Shackley: Query: Can the new EBS data on trees on One Tree Hill Road, gully crossing north of OTH Road and South Para numbered on maps on page 174 and 175 please be provided. I take it that no new tree data is available for the revised Eastern Alignment? Response: Appendix 8 at Page 156 of the EBS Report contains the relevant tables summarising the significant and regulated trees, and remnant trees impacted. These are to be read in conjunction with the maps contained in Appendix 9 at Page 170. Regarding the Eastern Alternative Alignment and impacts to vegetation. The tree impacts at property 226 One Tree Hill Road (based on a Council staff review) is limited to an area of re-vegetated non-regulated trees adjacent the western property boundary and Two (2) regulated trees where the alignment crosses the property boundary. For 228 One Tree Hill Road, an area of Peppercorn Tees and one Melaleuca tree planted in a re-vegetation manner adjacent the boundary fence is impacted where the alignment crosses the property boundary between 226 and 228 One Tree Hill Road. The tree impact at the new bridge is largely the same as the existing Eastern Alignment. The extent of the additional flora information by staff was sufficient to enable the consideration of the difference in impacts on the criteria to be provided for the purposes of the MCA. A plan is attached for your information.

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

August 17 2016

Email 4: Cr Shackley - Query: We have now been provided with significant changes to the expected noise impacts of GELR and suggesting various acoustic barriers. I'm not sure I understand exactly the reasons for the different distances involved in Table 10 on page 19 of the Agenda document. Can we have some explanation as to why Potts Road and One Tree Hill Road have 25m acoustic impacts but the other section of the GELR have 35 - 40m. Is the speed limit along the GELR standard 60kph for the purpose of these noise assessments? What is the effect of lower speed limit? We now have a Sonus proposal in various parts of the documents for colourbond or masonry fences between 1.8 and 3m high to reduce sound to existing buildings. Starting on Potts Road - suggested 1.8m colourbond fencing. Plus where fencing is involved there should be gates with similar noise protection qualities ie pretty solid. Who were the noise consultants who provided advice to DPTI a couple of years ago? I don't recall any suggestions about walls along Potts Road. I do recall a suggested c.1m earth wall for noise benefits adjacent the Vines Village eastern boundary. It will be quite a shock if the development approved only a few years ago fronting Potts Road (sold by DPTI) has to be changed in such a way. Similarly for existing houses along Eastern & Eckerman options there are suggested acoustic barriers up to about 3m. With the Table 10 showing setback of 25m for One Tree Hill Road it appears that some of the new houses along OTH Road in Woodvale may also be suggested for acoustic barriers. Not sure where that leaves the Gawler East DPA 10m from property boundary setbacks to protect the Scenic Route along OTH Road? There is discussion about road surfaces - is the suggested alteration to road surface to reduce costs also having an affect on noise projections? I would like to know whether retro fitting houses with acoustic glazing and other less visually intrusive options are available. Under what circumstance could Council ensure that retro-fitting rather than barriers are provided? Do we have comparable costs for this to occur?

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

It seems that for new houses facing the GELR that noise will be a problem because all the adjacent houses would be expected to have facades within 35m of the road centre. Given that fences up to 2.1m are not required to get development approval can we expect a canyon of fences to appear along the GELR as people follow the example set out in the agenda documents and erect solid barriers and gates. That is not a pleasant thought. Thanks for the information and also Ryan for related email. Couple of questions that are not clear from the email response. My understanding is that the GELR assessment is based on 60kph and therefore figures in the report eg Table 10 reflect this. What is the effect in noise reduction requirements, for example Potts Road existing developed area, in working with a speed limit of 50 cf 60 kph? What is a reasonable estimate of the cost of retrofitting within a property rather than using boundary fences - either colourbond or masonry? Response : The community brochure provided during the May consultation period showed an initial indication of possible dwellings that may be affected by noise impacts and thus require Noise Attenuation (i.e. noise wall). Eastern alignment had 2 properties requiring noise attenuation, whereas the Eckerman alignment requires 6. The Council Report at page 20 refers to 1 property for Eastern alignment and 6 for Eckerman alignment requiring noise attenuation. This follows further more detailed analysis, including noise loggers being paced on site in various areas to ascertain background noise levels. The preliminary noise assessment undertaken for GELR follows the DPTI Road Traffic Noise Guidelines for noise attenuation requirements. In simple terms, a relevant road (project) type is selected. The selection of road type (denoted new road or redeveloped road) is dependent on the area the alignment traverses; whether in greenfield or utilising the existing road. For example, The section of Eastern Alignment north of One Tree Hill Rd is classified as “New Road” as it is in a rural (greenfield) area whereas the section of GELR along One Tree Hill Road is classified as “Existing Road”, being an existing road. The noise thresholds are then set according to road classification.

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

To derive the distance from the road to the dwelling whereby noise attenuation is required, the consultant produced several tables extrapolating the existing noise data (based on the noise loggers described at Page 17 of the Council Report) against the incremental distance from the road (i.e. the change in noise emulation depending on the distance from the road). These are shown at Page 7 to 13 of the Sonus Consulting Report. The appropriate distance is then correlated to the pre-determined thresholds to arrive at the maximum distance that noise attenuation is required. Note that the requirement for acoustic treatment is based on comparison of the criteria with the predicted noise level at opening (2018) but the extent of acoustic treatment is based on the predicted noise level 10 years after opening (2028). This is what the Guidelines prescribe. For example: Section of Eastern Alignment – North of One Tree Hill Road Classified as ‘New Road’Thresholds are: LAeq day of 55 dB(A) and LAeq night of 50 dB(A) Using the table: ‘Predicted Noise level in 2018 at Opening Eastern Alignment’ [note that both thresholds must be satisfied for the given distance]: At 40m the daytime threshold is satisfied (52< 55) and the night time threshold is satisfied (49 < 50) At 30m the daytime threshold is satisfied (55 = 55) but the night time threshold is not satisfied (51 > 50) Therefore choose 35m Noise assessment is a complex process of establishing a detailed model that accounts for various inputs and assumptions such as design speeds, geometry of road (vertical and horizontal), other impediments such as concrete barriers and mounds, traffic volumes, topography, surface types, vehicle types. At this stage of project, the noise assessment undertaken is quite preliminary and small changes in these inputs may or may not result in an improved outcome. More importantly, once a preferred alignment is determined, a more detailed and formal assessment will need to be undertaken with additional noise monitoring in addition to the development of the noise model. Query: We now have a Sonus proposal in various parts of the documents for colourbond or masonry fences between 1.8 and 3m high to reduce sound to existing buildings.

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

Starting on Potts Road - suggested 1.8m colourbond fencing. Plus where fencing is involved there should be gates with similar noise protection qualities ie pretty solid. Who were the noise consultants who provided advice to DPTI a couple of years ago? I don't recall any suggestions about walls along Potts Road. I do recall a suggested c.1m earth wall for noise benefits adjacent the Vines Village eastern boundary. It will be quite a shock if the development approved only a few years ago fronting Potts Road (sold by DPTI) has to be changed in such a way.

Similarly for existing houses along Eastern & Eckerman options there are suggested acoustic barriers up to about 3m.

Response - At this stage we have nominated areas which will require treatment to comply with the Guidelines but further detailed noise modelling work is required to determine the full extent. Our work was to the extent necessary to cover this aspect off appropriately in the MCA process, not a final design solution. In regards to DPTI, they never considered Potts Road itself in their preliminary noise assessment. They never actually undertook a design of Potts Road in determining the budget but a very preliminary estimate. It is only through our design & investigation we have identified that the Potts Rd properties will likely need to be acoustically treatment and this cost has been allowed for in the estimates produced. Regarding the acoustic treatments, the assumed treatments at this concept design stage include Colorbond (or equivalent) sheet steel fencing for heights less than or equal to 2.1m, and masonry, 12mm thick compressed fibre cement or a material with an equivalent surface density for heights greater than 2.1m. The final treatments will be subject to detailed design and discussions with property owners at that time. Cr Shackley - Query With the Table 10 showing setback of 25m for One Tree Hill Road it appears that some of the new houses along OTH Road in Woodvale may also be suggested for acoustic barriers. Not sure where that leaves the Gawler East DPA 10m from property boundary setbacks to protect the Scenic Route along OTH Road?

Response - Noise attenuation resulting from new road projects is only applied to existing dwellings that may be impacted. This has no material impact on further housing development in this area once the location of the roadway is known.

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

At the time a DA is lodged any new dwellings built adjacent noise generating infrastructure (whether roads, rail, and mixed use land) adequately designs and manages noise impacts on those new dwellings if that is required by the standards. Cr Shackley – Query There is discussion about road surfaces - is the suggested alteration to road surface to reduce costs also having an affect on noise projections? Response - The pavement type proposed for GELR is a quarry rubble granular pavement overlayed with an asphaltic surface finish called ‘dense grade asphalt’. Dense grade asphalt has been assumed in the preliminary noise assessment. In some major road projects, a more porous asphalt surface is sometimes applied; termed open grade asphalt (OGA). This surface finish does not add to the structural life of the pavement, but has the properties of being quite porous to allow subsurface drainage (i.e. allows rain to penetrate into the surface and drain horizontally towards the kerbs). OGA is usually used in high speed environments such as freeways and expressways whereby vehicle aquaplaning from surface water is high risk. In order for OGA to drain effectively, the finished surface must be at least 50mm above the lip of the lip of kerb so the penetrated water can drain into the kerb line. This lip is somewhat problematic for pedestrians and cyclists and can pose a safety risk. OGA does has the ability to reduce noise, but given the road type of GELR, the dense grade asphalt is a more suitable option and adopted in the preliminary noise assessment Cr Shackley – Query I would like to know whether retro fitting houses with acoustic glazing and other less visually intrusive options are available. Under what circumstance could Council ensure that retro-fitting rather than barriers are provided? Do we have comparable costs for this to occur? Response – In accordance with the DPTI Road Traffic Noise Guidelines, property noise mitigation measures may replace road corridor mitigation, but is subject to a ‘reasonable and practicable assessment’, and only in the following circumstances:

Isolated single residences or isolated groups of closely spaced residences. Where the affected community expresses a preference for at-property treatment and the cost is less than a combination of a barrier and at-property treatment.

Where noise barriers cannot achieve the level of noise mitigation (insertion loss) required.

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

Where other noise mitigation measures have been shown not to be reasonable or practicable. Typically though, noise attenuation is predominantly undertaken through providing a physical barrier between the source of the noise and the receiver. This is a matter which will need to be worked through with DPTI in the detailed design and obviously will involve the affected community also. This is an area which requires considerable work in its own right due to the extent of the properties potentially affected. Cr Shackley – Query It seems that for new houses facing the GELR that noise will be a problem because all the adjacent houses would be expected to have facades within 35m of the road centre. Given that fences up to 2.1m are not required to get development approval can we expect a canyon of fences to appear along the GELR as people follow the example set out in the agenda documents and erect solid barriers and gates. That is not a pleasant thought. Response - Noise attenuation resulting from new road projects is only applied to existing dwellings that may be impacted, not new. It is generally up to the new DA to ensure that any new dwellings built adjacent noise generating infrastructure (whether roads, rail, and mixed use land) adequately designs and manages noise impacts on those new dwellings to the extent that is required, if at all. Ryan will be providing further guidance on the future urban planning aspects separate to this email.

August 17 2016

Email 5: – Community Comment: After reading the agenda reports for Thursday 18th August special meeting, I make the following observations: From the MCA report page 37 quote "The bridge across the South Para River is at its optimum location and thus cannot be moved" The bridge is a concrete structure 90 metres long and 15 metres high carrying traffic in both directions 24 hours per day. Its' location is just 20 metres from our property. It is repulsive, not optimum. The words "cannot be moved" do not apply and are irrelevant as nothing has been built, to be moved.

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

From the 'Notice of Special Meeting Report' page 53, Desktop modelling showed that by moving the bridge North from DPTI location resulted in using natural surface topography to reduce cuts on approach and a shorter bridge. A win / win situation. Why has this not been investigated properly? If adopted, would also assist in the as yet unresolved issues around our property due to the Link Rd (all alignments) severing our only access and rendering our property land locked. This whole project has no benefits for us and our property, only negative impacts. Your response, and positive action is expected in a timely manner. Response : The Agenda report that is being presented tonight to the Special Council meeting for consideration discusses the issues which you mention below. In particular the DPTI Council Alignment Review document provided in Attachment 6 goes into a greater extent of detail as to the rationale. Council staff and consultants have reviewed the report and determined that DPTI have undertaken an appropriate level of analysis for the bridge locations and height, sufficient to present to the Council their recommendations. However it is recommended that a further report be presented back to the Council on this bridge and how visual and environmental impacts can be further reduced within the financial constraints of the project. This will occur before the bridge design is finalised. The issues around your property on access are a finer level of detail which needs to be addressed. I have certainly discussed with you that the Council staff are very keen to ensure that a suitable access arrangement occurs for your property. I understand that you have pursued this direct with DPTI also. Once an alignment has been resolved by the Council, it will be provided to DPTI to improve the design to the level required for construction. In doing so further consultation with you, and all affected property owners will occur.

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

17 August 2016

Email 6: – Community Comment: Thank you for arranging the hard copy of the Council report on the Gawler East Link Road. We have read the report and attachments and are unable to find the following information in the reports: What is the size or extent of land acquisition currently identified in the new Eastern alignment for 228 Gawler/One Tree Hill Road (228)? We note on p 43 of the report a partial acquisition of 226 Gawler/One Tree Hill Road of 3.4ha but there is no mention in the report of the extent of acquisition for 228. Please advise the area currently proposed for acquisition under the new Eastern alignment. What land value analysis has been applied to 228? The table on p 25 of the report does not identify which of the categories that 228 has been valued at – has the land acquisition cost for 228 been determined as Open Space, Rural, Rural Living or Residential Hills? Response: The land at 228 Gawler-One Tree Hill Road is zoned Residential (Hills). With reference to Table 15 on Page 25 of the report, the rate that has been applied to the land for the purposes of our alignment selection process (ie MCA) is $150,000 per hectare, which is the top end of the range for that zone in the +/- 4 Ha column. The area we have used is 9,650 sqm for the Eastern Alignment Alternative based on the design concept. The final acquired area (subject to Council’s deliberations) will be based on a detailed design once it is further developed to understand the exact true extent (note we are at 20% design). What we have provided now is suitable for the MCA process and a general understanding of the order of acquisition required. Please note this is not a formal valuation but an indication for the purposes of the level of detail we required to differentiate an option for the Council’s consideration. As discussed with you over the phone on Friday, the final extent of the partial acquisition required (ie balance of land on other side of Link Rd) will be determined in negotiations with affected property owners.

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

Query: Has DPTI been advised that a development application was lodged in 2015 which covers in part land that the Council administration’s preferred Eastern alignment excises or acquires? Response: DPTI have not been involved in this alignment consideration process. All relevant information will be handed over to a DPTI project team once it has been established. Query : Who is responsible for the cost of land acquired as part of Council’s preferred Eastern alignment? If the cost of land acquired is greater than that estimated in the Council report who will pay the additional cost? Council or DPTI? Response: The Council is responsible for any project costs over and above DPTI’s original alignment cost. Currently this is estimated at $5.6M (incl property)

Query: What opportunities exist, if any, for further design changes to the new Eastern alignment so that it crosses the Gully at a more south western point so as to minimise the loss of land and amenity for 226 and 228? Response: It is hoped tomorrow night the Council will make a decision on a preferred alignment. If the Eastern Alignment Alterative is endorsed then it will be largely fixed in this location. However minor alterations within the extent of 226/228 (subject to agreement of all parties) could be considered if it was able to be demonstrated that it would not have any material impact on other property owners, and in doing so further reduced impacts overall from this alignment.

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

August 16 2016

Email 7: – Community Comment: Thank you for the invitation to be at the consultation on 18 August inst.I am sorry to have to apologize for this meeting as I have a prior engagement that night that is not possible from which to be absent. As a resident of Potts Road I would like to reinforce my total opposition to the use of Potts Road as a bypass in the terms and for the reasons that I have lodged on a number of occasions in the past. I am thankful that as council under your leadership that you are trying to bring some sense and justice into the ridiculous State Government proposals. I trust that this email at the above address will reach you. Last year when my wife made contact with you in the form of a thanks with the email address above it never reached you. I mention this just in case there is an undiscovered glitch to be discovered.

Thank you for all you do for the citizens of Gawler and for the energy and commitment that you expend.

August 18 2016

Email 8: Community Query:I have been going through the pack of information. The report from Pacific Environment in attachment 2 has divided the alignments into segments as link 1 to link 9 however there is no diagram portraying these which will enable me understand which part of the road these sections relate to.Can you please provide this so that I can understand better what this report is telling me Response: Please find attached an additional plan which describes the ‘Links’ referred to in Tables 3 & 4 of the Appendix C of the Multi Criteria Analysis Report as you have requested.This information will be presented to the Council for consideration of its inclusion in the Minutes of the Council meeting on 18 August 2016.

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

Comment: That makes the understanding of the tables a lot easier. Comment: The diagram show that eastern Link 8 and 9 and Eckerman link 9 cover the same road path from the bridge to Springwood yet the answers for carbon monoxide are 3271 KG/day for eastern and 6.45 Kg/day for Eckerman alignment. This suggest errors of a large magnitude in what has been presented. Response: I will look into this matter. Further to your request on 16 August, the emissions outputs produced are dependent on length and height of the road. The links are allocated differently in the two alignments and have different heights and lengths based on the way the consultant has broken them down– see tables below. Height (m)

Eastern Alignment Eckerman Alignment Start End Differen

ce Start End Differen

ce Link 8 65.33 106.81 41.48 72.73 66.314 -6.42 Link 9 106.81 107.77 0.96 66.314 107.774 41.46

Length (m)

Eastern Alignment Eckerman Alignment Start End Differenc

e Start End Differenc

e Link 8 3650 4200 550 3650 3800 150.0 Link 9 4200 4320 120 3800 4436.51 636.5

I trust this adequately addresses this particular matter and explains why differences have occurred which are not visible without this underlying detail.

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

August 16 2016

Email 9: Community Comment: Thank you for the invitation to be at the consultation on 18 August inst.I am sorry to have to apologize for this meeting as I have a prior engagement that night that is not possible from which to be absent. As a resident of Potts Road I would like to reinforce my total opposition to the use of Potts Road as a bypass in the terms and for the reasons that I have lodged on a number of occasions in the past. I am thankful that as council under your leadership that you are trying to bring some sense and justice into the ridiculous State Government proposals. I trust that this email at the above address will reach you. Last year when my wife made contact with you in the form of a thanks with the email address above it never reached you. I mention this just in case there is an undiscovered glitch to be discovered. Thank you for all you do for the citizens of Gawler and for the energy and commitment that you expend.

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

Email 10: Community Comment

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..…………

Initials

ATTACHMENT 2

KrKr



18 AUGUST 2016

of 33 ……..………… ……………… Chair Date

Confirmed at the meeting held on 23/8/2016

Karen Redman (Sep 27, 2016)Karen Redman Sep 27, 2016


18-08-2016 Special Council MinutesAdobe Sign Document History 09/27/2016

Created: 09/27/2016

By: Chris Haynes ([email protected])

Status: Signed

Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAeYX-ygR66Gc9wJe5YrGOuxMF8C9yy4wc

"18-08-2016 Special Council Minutes" HistoryDocument created by Chris Haynes ([email protected])09/27/2016 - 1:15:51 PM GMT+9.5- IP address: 150.101.91.194

Document emailed to Karen Redman ([email protected]) for signature09/27/2016 - 1:19:06 PM GMT+9.5

Document viewed by Karen Redman ([email protected])09/27/2016 - 4:01:26 PM GMT+9.5- IP address: 150.101.91.194

Document e-signed by Karen Redman ([email protected])Signature Date: 09/27/2016 - 4:03:39 PM GMT+9.5 - Time Source: server- IP address: 150.101.91.194

Signed document emailed to Karen Redman ([email protected]) and Chris Haynes([email protected])09/27/2016 - 4:03:39 PM GMT+9.5

we would like to - amazon s3 · 18.08.2016 · mr daniel tregenza – sempac ms nicole halsey -...

Documents