Felice D'Agostino Norman Waterhouse Lawyers · 2018-04-01 · management of the queuing of parked vehicles; ... FXD\Moo2888i5F04543468. Docx The May Report suggests the Council consider

$Page 1: Felice D'Agostino Norman Waterhouse Lawyers · 2018-04-01 · management of the queuing of parked vehicles; ... FXD\Moo2888i5F04543468. Docx The May Report suggests the Council consider$
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF cooBER PEDY

SECTION 270 REVIEW REPORT

MATTER OF REVIEW OF DECISION To CLOSE

ROAD

Felice D'AgostinoNorman Waterhouse Lawyers

27 March 2017

FXD\Moo2888i5F04543468. Docx

SECTION 270 APPLICATION

1.1 Mr Paul At hanasiadis for the Stun Range Outback Resort (the Applicant) has,

pursuant to Section 270 of the Local Government Act 7999 (the Act), sought a

review of the Council's decision in regards to an unnamed road, being an

existing unsealed road link to the Stuart Range Outback Resort (previously

known as the Stuart Range Caravan Park (the Resort) via F1inders Street

which was used during construction of the Resort (referred to in this report as

the Unnamed Road). A copy of the Applicant's request is attached at

Appendix A (the Review Application).

1.2 Although not expressly referred to in the Applicant's request, it appears that the

Applicant seeking a review of the decisions of the Council regarding the

Unnamed Road made at its meetings of 17 February 2015 (the February

Decision), 21 April2015 (the April Decision) and 19 May 2015 (the May

Decision) collectively referred to in this report as the Original Decisions. The

February Decision, April Decision and the May Decision are the only decisions

of which we are aware that have been made by the Council recently regarding

the Unnamed Road.

Further, the Applicant complains that the Council:

' (a) acted contrary to the advice of their own lawyers;

(b) ignored the concerns raised by the InfraPlan report without the benefit

of any advice regard^^g the safety issues raised in the report, '

(0) has spent significant public funds with no apparent benefit to Council

or ratepayers, '

(d) potentially acted in a way that demonstrates substantive prejudice

against me and other adjoining landowners. '

The Council has engaged Norman Waterhouse to assist it with its consideration

and determination of the Review Application.


2. SECTION 270 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1999

Section 270 of the Act requires the Council to, amongst other things, establish

procedures for the review of decisions of the Council, employees of the Council and

other persons acting on behalf of the Council.

The then Ombudsman stated in 2011:

'Internal review is a key accountability mechanism for local government.

enables people to test the merits of decisions that affect them. ""

Further, the current Ombudsman has confirmed that Section 270 requires

councils to consider the merits of the decision. 1'1

-3-

Therefore a review of a decision under Section 270 of the Act must include a

review of the merits of the decision.

A merits review requires all aspects of a decision to be reviewed and a

determination to be made as to the correct and preferable decision. All the

evidence is reconsidered as well as any new evidence.

Accordingly, a review of a decision under Section 270 of the Act encompasses a

review of the processes leading up to the making of the decision as well as

whether the decision itself was the best or preferable decision. In reviewing the

merits of a decision under Section 270, the Council ought to consider all the

information that it considered in making the Original Decision from a fresh

perspective, as well as any new information and determine the best or preferable

decision. This may result in the Council am rining, varying or setting aside the

Original Decision. If appropriate, the Council should be prepared to set aside or

vary the Original Decision, ie if the Council determines on review the Original

Decision was not the best or preferred decision.

BACKGROUND3.

3.1 The agenda for the Council meeting of 17 February 2015 included an item

numbered 55.5 titled 'Stun Range Outback Applicant Traffic Management and

Safety Issue'.

Valuing Complaints: An Audit of Complaint Handling in South Australian Councils, November 2011, page 61.

Right of Review: An audit of Local Government Internal Review of Council Decisions Procedures, November 2016, page 44


3.2 A report was prepared from the Council's Acting Chief Executive Officer in

relation to item 55.5 which states its purpose as follows:

'To provide information about Traffic Management and Safety Issues for

Stuart Range Outback Applicant and the proposed solutions that are

available such as re-opening the 'un-named road' via F1inders Street.

3.3

For Information ConsideratIbn and Resolution. '

(the February Report).

The February Report referred to and annexed letters from the Applicant to the

Council, one dated 3 December 2014 and two dated 10 February 2015.

Enclosed with the letter from the Applicant dated 3 December 2014 was a letter

to the Applicant from InfraPlan dated 5 November 2014 (the InfraPlan letter).

The February Report and its annexures are attached at Appendix B.

3.4 The letter from the Applicant dated 3 December 2014 refers to an email from

Grant Riches dated 26 September 2014 which has not been provided to me. It

appears from the reference to the email from Mr Riches that a discussion had

occurred and/or correspondence had been exchanged prior to 3 December

2014 between the Council and the Applicant regarding traffic management and

traffic safety with respect to access to the Resort.

3.5 The InfraPlan letter recommends that the Council be approached regarding the

reinstating of the Unnamed Road as the secondary access point to the Resort.

3.6 The February Report states the cost to construct the Unnamed Road would be

$93,725 with Council's contribution to be $29,678 and the Applicant's

contribution to be $64,048. The February Report states that if the Council

proceeded with constructing the Unnamed Road there would need to be an

amendment to the Council's budget as provision did not exist in the 20/4/15

budget for the costs associated with construction of the Unnamed Road. The

February Report also stated that if construction of the Unnamed Road occurred

in the 20/4/15 year that other work, for which there was provision in the

budget, may need to be delayed.

3.7 I have been provided with a spreadsheet titled 'Proposed roads to resurface,

seal and kerb in 2013 to 202310 year plan' which I understand to comprise the

Council's plan for the resurfacing, sealing and kerning of roads in its area (the

FXD\Moo2888t5F04543468. Docx

10 Year Road Plan) for the period 2013 - 2023. The Unnamed Road does not

appear in the I O Year Road Plan

3.8 The minutes of the Council meeting record that the Council resolved at its 17

February 2015 meeting as follows in relation to item 5.55

' That Council reject the recommendations as presented by InfraPlan via

Stuart Range Outback Park and do not re-open the un-named road via

F1inders Street. ' (siC)

A copy of the minutes of the Council meeting of 17 February 2015 in relation to

item 5.5 is attached at Appendix C

3.9 The agenda for the Council meeting of 21 April2015 includes the following

motion on notice received from Councillor Baines

That Councilresolution C25-75 made on the 77'' February 2075 berescinded.

That Council reject the recommendations as presented by InfraPlan

via Sturt Range Outback Park and do not construct and seal the un-

named road via F1inders Street

That Council enter into a formal road closure program for the un-

named road via F1inders Street?. ' (siC)

3.10

(Cr Baines' Motion).

DMAW Lawyers, the solicitors for At hanasiadis Nominees Pty Ltd (which we

understand to be the entity operating the Resort) sent a letter to the Acting

Chief Executive Officer dated 20 April2015 regarding Cr Baines' Motion and

suggesting the Council defer consideration of Cr Baines' Motion. A copy of the

letter from DMAW Lawyers to the Acting Chief Executive Officer is attached at

Appendix D

3.1 I The minutes of the Council meeting of 21 April2015 record that Cr Baines'

Motion was carried. A copy of the minutes of the Council meeting of 21 April

2015 in relation to Cr Baines' Motion is attached at Appendix E


3.12 The agenda for the Council meeting of I9 May 2015 included an item

numbered 5.5.4 and titled 'Formal Road Closure Program for Unnamed Road

via F1inders Street. '

3.13 A report was prepared from the Council's Acting Chief Executive Office at the

time in relation to item 5.5.4 which states its purpose as follows:

'To provide to Council with information re the Road Closure of the

Unnamed Road via F1inders Street

3.14

For Information and ConsideratIbn. '

(the May Report)

The May Report referred to legal advice obtained by the Acting Chief Executive

Officer in relation to the closure of the Unnamed Road. The May Report also

annexed

the letter from DMAW Lawyers to the Acting Chief Executive Officer dated

20 April2015;

a letter from Steve Zagar on behalf of the Croatian Club undated but date

stamped 11 May 2015; and

. a letter from the Applicant dated 9 May 2015.

A copy of the May report and its annexures is attached at Appendix F

The Acting Chief Executive Officer, by memo to the elected members dated 15

May 2015, provided to the elected members a letter from Coober Pedy Miners

Association dated 8 May 2015 and a further letter from DMAW Lawyers dated

28 April2015. A copy of the memo and its annexures is attached at Appendix

G

3.15

3.16 The minutes of the Council meeting of 19 May 2015 record that the following

motion on notice received from Cr Rapaic was lost

'That Councilresolution C63-75 made on the 21st April2015 be rescinded. '

(Cr Rapaic's Motion)


4.

A copy of the minutes of the Council meeting of I9 May 2015 is attached at

Appendix H.

THE UNNAMED ROAD

4.1 The Unnamed Road was at the relevant time and is currently a public road.

Notwithstanding the Acting Chief Executive Officer's reference in the February

Report to 're-opening' the Unnamed Road, it was in fact already 'open'.

4.2 The February Report outlines the history regarding the Unnamed Road and

appears to accept the statements in the InfraPlan letter that the growth in the

number of people accessing the Resort has increased leading to increased

congestion on Yanikas Drive being the current access road to the Resort.

However, it is not clear in the February Report if it was accepted by the Acting

Chief Executive Officer, as set out in the InfraPlan letter, that there is a

necessity to provide a secondary access/egress point to the Resort and that

the secondary access/egress point should be by way of the 'reinstatement' of

the Unnamed Road.

4.3 The Applicant outlined in its letter dated 10 February 2015 the following

benefits to constructing the Unnamed Road to a standard acceptable for its use

as a secondary access/egress to the Resort

alleviation of the congestion on Yanikas Drive through the improved

management of the queuing of parked vehicles;

reduction in the potential for incidents on Yanikas Drive by reducing

the need to overtake queued vehicles on entry to Applicant,

improvement in safety, operations and functionality of the resort for

traffic movement and circulation;

4.4

better accessibility and connectivity for people moving between the

resort and the township.

The Applicant also stated in its letter dated 10 February 2015 that there had

been a number of complaints from local residents on F1inders Street due to

vehicles undertaking u-turns.

4.5


The May Report suggests the Council consider installing a traffic counter on

Yanikas Drive to assess the traffic to and from the Applicant and that the

Council engage an independent traffic consultant It does not appear that this

suggestion was adopted by the Council.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

5.1 Roads (Opening & Closing) Act 1991

The Roads (Opening & Closing) Act 1991 (the Roc Act) sets out a5.11

statutory process to close (and open) roads which we do not consider

necessary to set out in full in this report. We note the May Report

contained a detailed discussion of the process under the Roc Act.

There are a number of steps and procedures the Council must

undertake prior to making an order to close a road, including providing

public notice of the proposed road closure and notice to each person

affected by the proposed road closure.

Before any order by the Council to close a road takes effect, the order

must be confirmed by the Minister. The Minister may refuse to confirm

an order to close a road and in such instances, the order does not take

effect.

It is noted that the Council has not commenced any of the statutory

steps set out in the Roc Act in relation to the Unnamed Road.

Whilst it is not entirely clear what is meant or intended by that part and

the Council's resolution made at its meeting of 21 April that states the

Council 'enter into a formal road closure program' for the Unnamed

Road, it is possible to infer that the Council intended to commence a

process to undertake a permanent closure of the Unnamed Road.

This can be inferred from the fact the Council was provided with

detailed information regarding the process under the Roc Act in the

May Report and further that Cr Rapaic's Motion which was to rescind

the Council's resolution to commence the formal road closure process

was lost at the Council meeting of 19 May 2015.

6. REVIEW

6.1 Review Process

FXD\Moo2888i5F04543468 Docx

61.1 The Original decisions being the subject of internal review were made

by the elected body of the Council.

Clause 6.1 of the Council's Internal Review of Council Decisions Policy

and Procedure (the Review Policy) provides the elected Council will

be the reviewer where, amongst other circumstances, the decision

being reviewed was made by the 'elected Council'. This clause further

provides the Council is also responsible for determining who will

undertake the investigation and the preparation of a report for

Council's consideration.

Clause 6.3 of the Review Policy provides that in carrying out a review

of a decision, the reviewer will:

consider all the information and material that was before the

original decision-maker and any additional relevant information or

material provided by the applicant;

stand in the shoes of the original decision-maker and make the

best decision available on the evidence;

do more than simply consider whether the decision is legally and

proceduralIy correct;

consider whether a different decision would be better, based on

the evidence.

This investigation has not considered whether there were any

administrative errors in the Council making the Original Decisions as

the Ombudsman has investigated the Original Decisions and found no

administrative error for the purposes of the Ombudsman Act. A copy

of the Ombudsman's letter to Mayor Stephen Staines dated 23 July

2015 is attached at Appendix I. This investigation is therefore limited

to undertaking a review of the substantive merits of the Original

Decisions. This investigation has also considered the matters set out

in clause 1.3 of this report raised by Applicant.

The purpose of this report is to assist the Council to make a decision in

relation to the Review Application in this context.


A schedule of documents considered by us in preparing this report and

making our recommendations to the Council is attached at Appendix J.

We met with the Applicant on 11 March 2017 to discuss the Review

Application and to enable the Applicant to provide any additional

information relevant to the Review Application. We have considered,

where relevant, the information provided and submissions made by the

Applicant at our meeting. In particular, the Applicant stated as follows:

Linsky Drive was formed and sealed within the period of the

10 Year Road Plan notwithstanding that provision was not

made in the 10 Year Road Plan for Linsky Drive to be

formed and sealed. We presume at the time there was also

no budget provision for Linsky Drive to be formed and

sealed. The Applicant also states the decision to form and

seal Linsky Drive was not made by the elected body of the

Council by way of a Council resolution.

In around 1995 the Council entered into a cost sharing

arrangement for the sealing of MCKenzie Close.

The approximate costs to construct the Unnamed Road

were grossly inflated.

-10-

7. MERITS REVIEW

It is clear from the Review Application that the Applicant is aggrieved that the7.1

Council has decided not to accept the Applicant's proposal to form and seal the

Unnamed Road. The Applicant considers there are safety issues regarding

Yanikas Drive which the Council has failed to consider. The Applicant also

considers the Council has failed to consider other matters including legal

advice it obtained.

7.2 Safety Concerns

72.1 The Applicant considers there are safety concerns regarding Yanikas

Drive being the only current access to and egress from the Resort and

relies on the InfraPlan letter to support its view.

The InfraPlan letter was annexed to the February Report.7.22

72.3


The InfraPlan letter does recommend the Unnamed Road be used as

a secondary access/egress for the Resort, and states:

'It is understood that Yanikas Drive regularly features queues of

parking vehicles waiting to check-in or check-out of the resort.

This congestion on the existing entry road is further

exacerbated by the left-hand bend in the entry road, impedrng

sight lines for oncoming traffic and making overtaking an

unsafe, but often dangerously/ tried manoeuvre. '

However, the InfraPlan findings and recommendations contained in

the InfraPlan letter must be considered in light of the following notation

in paragraph one of the InfraPlan letter:

'In providing this advice however, ^t should be noted that no site

inspection has been undertaken to date, and therefore our

comments are confined to conclusions drawn from discussions,

desktop analysis and readily available digital imagery. '

Whilst it may be that the conclusions drawn by InfraPlan are

supported, the absence of information provided by InfraPlan

concerning the discussions and information relied on and considered

by InfraPlan in reaching its conclusions, does affect the weight that

ought to be given to the InfraPlan letter. We are particularly concerned

as to the absence of information and details concerning the basis upon

which InfraPlan reached its conclusions.

The February Report does not, unfortunately, assist in our

understanding of the extent of the safety issues as it appears to merely

accept the conclusions reached by InfraPlan. As outlined above, we

do not consider the InfraPlan letter adequately explains the basis for

the conclusions reached. We are also concerned that InfraPlan may

not be basing its conclusions on information gathered and

investigations undertaken by it directly.

7.3

For the reasons set out above, we consider that an appropriate degree

of caution be applied to the conclusions set out in the InfraPlan letter.

Costs

73.1


As set out in the February Report, the cost to construct and seal the

Unnamed Road were to be partly contributed by the Applicant and

partly by the Council.

The Council's contribution was not budgeted for in the 20/4/15 year

and the February Report brings this to the Council's attention. The

February Report also cautions the Council that if the Unnamed Road

were to be sealed in 20/4/15, other work that had been budgeted to

occur may need to be delayed.

-12-

It was appropriate that the February Report consider the budgetary

and potential schedule of work issues associated with sealing the

Unnamed Road in the 20/4/15 year, ahead of other roads works as

scheduled in the 10 Year Road Plan.

The sealing of the Unnamed Road does not appear in the 10 Year

Road Plan and presumably the February Report statement that other

work possibly needing to be delayed was made with regard to the I O

Year Road Plan.

7.4 Road Closure

7.41 The April Decision commences a formal statutory process to close the

Unnamed Road which will include a comprehensive consultation

process in which the Applicant and other adjoining landowners would

be able to participate.

The April Decision does not have the effect of closing the Unnamed

Road and indeed the outcome of the statutory process under the Roc

Act is far from a fait accompli, not the least because the Council

requires the Minister's confirmation of any order to close the Unnamed

Road under the Roc Act. Further, the Applicant and other affected

landowners will be given the opportunity to make submissions on the

proposed closure of the Unnamed Road, which the Council will be

required to take into account in making a decision whether or not to

make an order to close the Unnamed Road.

However, there is certainly an absence of information about the

rationale for the April Decision. We would have expected some

information to have been presented to and considered by the Council

to support the commencement of a process to permanently close the

Unnamed Road, notwithstanding the matters we have raised in clause

64.2.


7.5 Other Matters

7.51 We have also specifically considered the matters set out in the Review

Application as complaints and which we have replicated at clause I. 3.

' Council has acted contrary to the advice of their own

lawyers'

We do not consider this raises any error in the Original

Decisions. Whilst acting contrary to legal advice may be a

risk for the Council, it is a matter entirely for the Council. In

any event, if the legal advice the Applicant is referring to is

the legal advice set out in the May Report, that legal advice

merely notes possible risks to the Council.

'Council has ignored the concerns raised by the InfraPlan

report without the benefit of any advice regarding the safety

issues raised in the report'

The InfraPlan letter was attached to the May Report and

discussed in the May Report. As outlined in clause 6.2, we

consider there is cause to treat the InfraPlan report with

some caution.

' Council has spent significant public funds with no apparent

benefit to Council or ratepayers'

We do not consider this is relevant to the merits of the

Original Decisions.

7.51 .4 ' Council has potentially acted in a way that demonstrates

substantive prejudice against me and other adjoining land

owners


We do not consider there is any evidence of such prejudice

by the Council. If there is a complaint regarding the conduct

of a particular Council member(s) then it ought to be made

under the Code of Conduct for Council Members.

Following our meeting with the Applicant, it is clear the Applicant is

concerned and frustrated with the manner in which the Council has

engaged with him in relation to the Unnamed Road and the decisions

made by the Council which the Applicant considers are motivated by

prejudice and bias against him. Whilst we have not investigated if the

Original Decisions were made for an improper purpose, we do not

have any evidence to support the Applicant's allegation in this regard.

In any event, a merits review requires a reconsideration of the matter

and the decision to be made following a merits review must not be

made for any improper purpose.

8. CONCLUSION

8.1 February Decision

8.1. I In our opinion the February Decision was not the best decision in the

circumstances for the reasons that it refers to the Unnamed Road

being re-opened which is incorrect as the Unnamed Road is already

'open' as a public road

As an additional comment, but not affecting our conclusion in clause

7.11, the February Report ought to have criticalIy analysed the

InfraPlan letter and administration ought to have included in the

February Report advice to the Council about the conclusions reached

in the InfraPlan letter. As discussed in clause 6.2, we consider the

InfraPlan report is not adequate in and of itself to support the

Applicant's assertions of traffic management issues on Yanikas Drive.

8.2 April Decision

In our opinion, the April Decision in relation to the commencement of

the formal road closure process was not the best decision in the

circumstances for the following reasons:

8.21

the basis for commencing the formal road closure program

has not been communicated;


the Council ought to have sought a report from

Administration as to the road closure process and the merits

of commencing such a process in relation to the Unnamed

Road. It is difficult to find that the Council has made an

informed decision in the absence of any information

However, we do consider that the decision not to construct and seal

the Unnamed Road was the best decision as there is insufficient

information to support the traffic safety issues which the Applicant

relies on as the basis for requiring a secondary access/egress for the

Resort. Further, the Council had not budgeted for the costs to

construct and seal the road and there is currently an insufficient basis

to depart from the Council's 10 Year Road Plan.

regarding the merits, costs and impact of the closure of the

Unnamed Road

-15-

8.3 May Decision

In our opinion, the May Decision was not the best decision in the

circumstances for the following reasons:

8.31

having received and considered the letters from Coober

Pedy Miners, DMAW Lawyers and the Croatian Club and

the May Report prepared by the Acting Chief Executive

Officer, it does not appear that the closure of the Unnamed

Road is the preferable and best decision. In particular, the

May Report outlines legal advice regarding risk and other

matters associated with closing the Unnamed Road. It is not

clear if the Council considered the legal advice and other

matters associated with closing the Unnamed Road;

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 It is our recommendation that:

there is no information as to the Council's intention in

relation to the Unnamed Road once it is closed.

9.11 the Council revoke part of its resolution made at its meeting of 21 April

2015 by deleting paragraphs 2 and 3 of that resolution;

if the Council is considering closing the Unnamed Road it obtain and

consider detailed advice and information regarding the merits and

implications of closing the Unnamed Road and proposals for dealing

with the Unnamed Road once it is closed, ie to be retained by the

Council, sold, etc;


if the Council is considering the forming and sealing of the Unnamed

Road to enable a secondary access/egress to the Resort it obtain and

consider detailed advice and information regarding the merits and

implications of forming and sealing the Unnamed Road to provide a

secondary access/egress to the Resort including in relation to:

' costs;

-16-

. potential cost recovery from the Applicant and/or the Resort;

safety issues associated with Yanikas Drive;

impact on the Council's 10 Year Road Plan.

.

.


APPENDIX A


Hutchison Street , Coober Pedy, 5A 5723Just off the S+uorf HighwayPO Box 345

cooBER PEDv sA 5723

P: 0886725179 I F: 0886725148a admin@studrtrongecorovanpork. coin. ou

29 February 2016

Mr Tony RenshawDistrict Council of Coober PedyPO Box 425

Coober Redy SA 5723

Dear Tony

Re: Request for review of council decision(s) pursuant to section 270 of the Local Govern-merit Act

The Stuart Range Outback Resort (SROR) requests a review of Council's decisions in regards tothe "unnamed road" pursuant to section 270 of the Local Government Act (1999) and in accordancewith Council's Internal Review of Council Decisions Policy and Procedui'e.

The issue of forming and sealing the "unnamed road" has been ongoing since November 2013. Iallege that Council has acted in a manner that is unfair, inconsistent and irresponsible

The SROR presented a document to Council from Infraplan in February 2015. The report highlight-ed safety concerns regarding Yanikas Drive and a proposal to remedy the issues as well as an offerto Council from SROR to pay 68% of the costs.

Prior to the presentation of the proposal, Coundl employees prepared 4 different costings over a 23-day period for the formation and sealing of an unnamed road. The four costings varied greatly andappeared exorbitant when compared to historical costs of forming and sealing roads of a similarlength and width. One of the costings was outrageously inflated with no adequate justification. Thecostings were as follows:

Version I (dated 14'' January 2015)

Version 2 (dated 2" February 2015)

Version 3 (dated 5th February 2015)

Version 4 (dated 5th February 2015)

<

STUART RANGOUTBACK RESORT

154 SIua, I Ra. tee garb cklie*or:

$77,442

$78,274.80

$231,988.80

$93,726.68

lipa. e

The significant reduction in Version 3 when compared to Version 4 was the result of me explainingto Mr Darnien Clark and Mr Jan Van Der Me Ivye the numerous errors in their calculations. I am of

the belief that the costings were deliberately inflated in order to make the construction of the roadfinancially unattractive to Elected Members and ratepayers.

Version 4 consisted of a known cost of $78, , 04 plus $15,622 for "Contingencies". These contingen-cies were an unjustifiable inclusion in the quote in my opinion.

Despite my concerns regarding Version 4, I submitted a proposal to Council offering to pay 68% ofoverall costs to form and seal the road. Traditionally Council has required a 50% contribution frombusinesses for the development of public infrastructure (e. g. paving) on Council, and in some casesprivate, land. My offer was substantially higher than what has been expected in the past.

Council rejected the proposal and recommendations contained within the InfraPlan report and failedto obtain any advice concerning the safety issues raised in the report. Further to this, Council deter-

mined to close the road when there was no relevant information or evidence presented at that meet-ing to suggest that there was any benefit to the community or Council in closing the road.

On the 21st April2015 Councilignored my invitation to discuss a potentially cost neutralsolutioi\ forCouncil that would not delay existing planned council works or otherwise disadvantage ratepayers(as had been alleged by some Elected Members). By ignoring my letter, Council failed to explorealternative option prior to making the decision to close the road. Further to this, Council made thedecision to close the road with no understanding of what the associated costs would be to Council

or the impact upon my business or other adjoining property owners.

At the meeting of 19th May 2015 Elected Members were advised that the cost to close the roadwould be in the vicinity of $45,000. Council's proposed contribution to form and seal the road wasonly $29,678. Council had the opportunity to reverse their decision to close the road and simply re-ject my original offer and explore alternative options. Council failed to take advantage of this option

At the meeting on the I 9th May Elected Members were made aware of a previous instance(Lookout Cave Motel/MCKenzie Close) in which a proposal of very similar nature was presented toCouncil. Council rejected the Lookout Cave's proposal which resulted in legal action against Coun-cil. Council lost the case.

Prior to 19th May 20151 submitted a letter to Council offering to discuss the purchase of the landthat contains the road pursuant to Council's Disposal of Land and Assets Policy and any other rele-vant legislation. 9 months have passed and Council has failed to respond to my offer to discuss thisoption.

The decisions made and actions taken, o1' lack thereof, by Council in regards to this matter werecontrary to expert advice (!nfraplan), my legal representative's advice (DMAW La\wers) and Coun-cil's own legal advice (Kelledy Jones).

Range Outback Resoit 2I P a s-e riseoutbackresort. coin. au

As of November 2015, the District Council of Coober Pedy had spent $32,564 on legal costs solelyin regards to this matter. No doubt these costs have escalated further in the past three months. Theoriginal contribution costs for the forming and sealing of the road was only $29,678.

The SROR has expended approximately $20,000 in legal fees in regards to this matter since theoriginal proposal was submitted in February 2015.

I am of the belief that some Elected Members \, oted for or against motions ill order to prevent thefuture re-surfacing and use of the road with intent to cause detriment to my business

Council has continuously failed to respond to my countless letters regarding this matter including mywritten request that any decision regarding road closure be deferred until alternative solutions couldbe explored.

I allege that the manner in which Council has handled this matter has resulted in a significant delayto the further development of the Stuart Range Outback Resort.

In summary, Council has'

a. acted contrary to the advice of their own lawyers;

b. ignored the concerns raised by the InfraPlan report without the benefit of any advice re-garding the safety issues raised in the report;

c. has spent significant public funds with no apparent benefit to Council or ratepayers;

d. potentially acted in a way that demonstrates substantive prejudice against me and otheradjoining land owners.

Based on the conduct of Council to date, I am of the opinion that an external review of Council's de-cisions in regards to this matter are justifiable pursuant to section 270 of the Local Government Act.

I look forward to your timely response to this letter

Yours sincerely

Mr Paul Athanasiadis.

BIG A SIuaittHange Outbac!, Koso, t 31Page vJ, Jw:5111a, 'trangeou:backresort. coll, .au

APPENDl B


5.5.5 Stuart Ran e Outback Resort Traffic Maria ement And SafeIssues

Reo

From:Date:

Subject:

^

^

^

47

e~

O:

File:

Council

Darnien Clark, Acting Chief Executive Officer, 7102/20,5

Stuart Range Outback Resort Traffic Management andSafety IssuesGR. 689

Purpose of Report

To provide information about Traffic Management and Safety Issues forStuart Range Outback Resort, and the proposed solutions that are available,such as re-opening the "un-named road" via F1inders Street.

For Information, Consideration and Resolution

Report

Council is in receipt of a letter from the Stuart Range Outback Resort reTraffic Management and Safety Issues in and around the access to theirproperty.

The letter also has a report attached from infraPLAN (AUSt) Pty Ltd outliningthe history of the park, the previous access used by the park, the currentaccess used by the park, the issues relating to the current access and thecase for Secondary Access to the property to be used to alleviate the TrafficManagement and Safety Issues.

< HISTORY

The Stuart Range Outback Resort (previously Stuart Range Caravan Park)opened in I 988 and since that time Yanikas Drive has been used for allaccess and egress. The "un-named road" was used during the initialconstruction of the park, however the road was never constructed, it wasutilised as a track. Since that period of time the road has not been used bythe Stuart Range Outback Resort. This "un-named road" is gazetted,however unformed and obviously un-named.

Over the past 26 year Yanikas Drive has served the Stuart Iânge OutbackResort. However as rioted in the infraPlan report the growth in the numberusing and accessing the park has now meant there is increased congestionon Yanikas Drive which causes traffic management and safety issues. Thisproblem is deemed to only increase based on the growth number forecast inthe future.

48

-named roa

.

,vi

PROPOSED SOLUTION

The report from infraP!an believes that the best solution to the issuespresented is to reopen the un-named road via F1inders St. This would notmean the closing of Yanikas Drive, but leaving Yanikas Drive as the PrimaryAccess and opening the "Un-named Road" as the secondary access.

infraP!an believe the benefits include:

o Better accessibility and connectivity for people moving between theresort and town

, Alleviation of congestion on Yanikas Drive through improved queuingof parked vehicles

. Improved safetyo Reduction in potential incidents, Ability for resort to expand into the future.

ISSUES WITH U AMED ROAD

As stated previously in this report the "un-named road" is untormed at thispoint. The current topography of road mean that all water, silt and runoffhave settled on or adjacent to the "un-named road". This has meant thatCouncil has surveyed the proposed road and looked at engineering asolution. The solution would entail the removal of between 300-500mm of the

re:=I

./ .

.- - .

. .J,

.,, .\

,

,

31

.

,.

..

,

:. ^:,a_

.

,.

..

.

0'

,

.

o

.\

.

.

C

.

.

..,

.

,

..

.

..

.

,

,

.

.

.

.

.

existing ground and replacement with appropriate fill materials (biscuiVtigerpark etc). The removal of such a large amount of material is necessarybecause of the clay content in existing base structure. The base needs to bestable, which clay does not provide. The road has also been designed sothat it will not cause any more local flooding on adjacent properties than itdoes now.

C

49

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

We have completed a costing for the construction of the road includingsealing to reduce dust.

Summary of Costs (Ex GST):Clearing and RemovingFill and ConstructionPrime CoatI6/14mm SealI017mm Seal

ContingenciesTotal

$25,287$35,365

$2, , 00$8,253$7,099

'15,621$93,725

The costing above are done under the following assumptions.. The aggregate can be sourced via Council's quarry. The cost of biscuiUtiger park is $10.50 per tonne.

Stuart Rage Outback Resort are proposing to contribute to the constructionof the road in the amount of $64,048. Their contribution would be done byengaging the contractors to perform Clearing and Removing, Fill andConstruction. Council's contribution would be the Prime Coat, '61/4mmseal, 10/7mm seal, supply of roller, supply of standpipe water (non-potable),survey of site and any other contingencies.

Council's contribution to this project would be $29,678.

Obviously this amount has riot been budgeted for in the 2014/45 budget andtherefore if Council were to go ahead with this project an amendment to thebudget would need to be done.

In the past Council has shared costs of paths/paving with local businesses.Examples of this include BP/Miners Store, Caltex (Mobil), Stuart RangeOutback Resort and Opal Inn Hotel. These sharing of cost were generallydone on a 50/50 basis.

Council has the choice if it wants to proceed with this opening of the un-named road of getting its work done (sealing) this financial year, or doing itnext financial year. Obviously if the sealing was done at the time ofconstruction there is less maintenance and trim work to do. However if theseal is done this year Council needs to be aware this may delay other workthat has been budgeted for this financial year.

ROAD NAME

Council is also in receipt of a letter from Stuart Range Outback Resort aboutthe naming of the un-named-road:-They-are-asking-to. hare this named afterthe late Jenny Athanasiadis. The letter is attached for your consideration.Council has a Street Naming Policy and at this stage this road has beendeemed to be called Ferrell Extension. This has riot yet been finalised.

50

Maria ement Plan Drivers

Strategic Plan Reference. Goal 5 - Sustain local government services

Finance I Budget. Unbudgeted expense of $29,678

Risk I Asset Management. Low

FORINFORMATION CONSIDERATION AND RESOLUTION

Hutc!lison Street , Coobei. Pedy, SA 5723Just off tile Stunrt HighwayPO Box 345

cooBER FEDv sA 5723

P: 0886725179 I F: 0886725148a odinii, @SIuoi. fruitgecoi'0\, Gripni'k. coin. ou

C3rd December 20L4

Mr Phil Cameroii

Chief Executive Officer

District Council of Coober PedyPO Box 425

Coober Pedy SA 5723

Dear Mr Cameron

Re: Traffic Management and Safety Issues

In response to Grant Riches email I received via you dated 26' September 2014, I seek your advice in order to expedite the ex-is ting traffic nTanageinent and consequentialtralfic safety issues in relation to access to the Stuart Range Outback Resort.

MY jininediate queries are as follows:

Do You require anyfurtlierinformation from me before Councilcan commence road construction planning?What is tile expected timeframe for road completion?

I have sourced independent advice from George Giannakodakis (BE MIEAust MAITPM MPIAj of infraPlan Innst) Ply. Ltd.

infraPlan IAust) Ply. Ltd. provides a range of consultancy services including urban, infrastructure and transport planning expertise,strategic planning and sustainability advice, economic analysis and traffic engineering services and movement planning services.

Mr George Giannakodakis has over 25 years' experience In urban and regional policy ISOCial, environinental and economic),transport and infrastructure planning and econoinic analysis. Prior to establishing infraP!an IAustj in 2005/1e Ileld several seniorInariagement and project director positions in SA State Governnient including Manager, Metropolitan Planning Strategy, ProjectManager, Urban Regeneration, Manager, Urban Development and Social Policy, Manager, State Transport Strategy and NetworkStrategy Manager, Department of Transport, Energy andlnfrastructure. During his career he hasled the strategic development ostate transport strategies, the Planning Strategy for Adelalde, Too projects and feasibility studies, urban and regional policy devel-opment projects; in all over 90 strategies and projects and over 20 major infrastructure projects. George has served on a numberof State and National Committees including econon, IC evaluation, National Greenhouse Taskforce (AGO), AUStroads, National In-

<

s*I^V^;^'^'^^Ê

telllgentTransport Systems Committee and the National Working Group for Affordable Housing.

I attach Mr Ginnnakodakisôrrespondence for Your review.

In around April2015 the Stuart Range Outback Resort \. fill be officially opening our ne\. J accommodation, the largest dedicatedtourism development in Coober Pedy in over 20 Years' We are expecting the Federal Minister for Industry 11ncl. Tourism), tile HonMrlan Macfarlane and the SoutliAustralian Minister for Tourism, Hon Mr Leon Bignell MP to be our guests at tile opening.

BIG 4'51uai. t. Railso till Ib;:C;: Recoil ,, p"'

During tile 20/3/14 tollrist season \,, e experienced a largeincrease in visitor nights. I attribute this largely to tile Stuart Railge Out-back Resort being offered, and subsequently accepting, an opportunity to liecoine a niember of tile BIG4 cliain. we are expectinga funlier 1596 increase in visitor nights duniig Ilext Years' tourist season due to the Imjiniient I'elease of the 20/4/15 BIG41{o11dayGuide. Tile BIG4 Stuart Range Outback Resoitfeatures in tile UPConiing edition.

Based on last years' traffic congestion during peak periods, tilere is a real and present traffic mallagenieiit issue \. nth regards toYaiiikas Olive. I attach photos for Your revievJ demonstrating this fact.

Description of each photo is as follows:

Images A & B are a sequence:

Driver \, ie\,, \.., nilst \, eliicle travelling east on Yaiiikas Drive to\.., ards resort entrance bellind cal'avan

Drivers vievfj. ,inst o\, ertaking caravan

linage C demonstrates poorliite of signt around banked tip veilic!eslinage D demonstrates lack of parking space available to mitigate lisklinage E demonstrates ITUinber of \, chicles that are banked up at ally given time <1ui'ing peak tourist seasoii

I look fon, lard to Your s\, Jilt, \. Jritten response in order to facilitate a timely soili!ion to tile current traffic managenient relatedsafety issues regarding access to tile BIG4 Stuart Range Outback Resoit.

Yours sincerely

PaillAtlianasiadis

Director

Stunrt Range Outback Resort

BIG 4 SIu;,, I Haltg, , Outback Resnit . 21 P a 13. e

i f^'^^ Pia nI ,I' F1)Ply 1:6 gelh2958/603072

5 Novellibei' 2014

Mr Paill At hanasiadis

BIG A Stuart Range Out!)ack Resoit11utchisoi, Street

cooBEn PEDYSA 5723

Dear PaL!I,

RE: STUART RANGE OUTBACK RESORT -IMPROVING ACCESS AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

Further to our I'econt meeting, InfraPlaii has unidertakeii detailed revie\\, of the traffic managementissues faciiig tile Stuait Range Outback Resort, and offers commentary and advice as set out below.In PI'ovidiiig tliis advice 110wever, it 5/10/11d lie rioted that 110 site inspection has heel, 11ndei'taken todate, and tilerefore our comments ai'e confined to conclusions drawn from discussions, desktoj)analysis and readily available digital jinagery.

It is 1/1/<1erstood that tilestuart Range Caravan Pal'k trio\v ti'adjng as tile Stuart Range OutbackResort) openecl in 1988. Access anti egress to and from tile Pal'k occui's \, Ia Yamkas Road, a nulliose-built access road that vras considered to provide the most SIIitab!e veilicular access/egress for tilesite. During construction, all existing uiisealed road link to tile site knowii as Unnamed Road viarimders Street was used for the eiitry and exit of all plant and equipment for tlie Park s construction.Upon coinpletion tile 'Un-named Road' was 110 longer deemed LISeful as all elm'Y point and insteadtraffic was switched to using Vanikas Drive foi' all elmy and exit moventents to tile site. Yankas Di'ivehas beeii deemed to have eitoug!I capacity to cater for the last 204- yeai's of growth at tile resort.

ADEU, IDE1102 '., 31/10/1 I . ,, I. ,! I 'tie $A 5000

a 081 ';?270372 a .!lain ', 111 p!"Iconi u

MELROURI Eit 11 I. 11'hY 11a \'IC I I13 6 <1.1

Riotj O on, ,. r -. jinj, .!jari nc in. ,, I

In', V. ,. finial, I. 11. Loin. all

In 1997/1998 an area of road covered by Allotments 1606,1604 and 1606 'A Public Road' tliatessentially linking the Hutchinsoii Street/F1inders Sti'eet intersection to Stuart Highway was closed.The adjacent 11n-named road' linking to tile north of the site adjacentto the curl'ant Croation Clubwas left open nut has not been used since tliat time as an access point to tile I'esort.

Tile Stuart Range Outback Resoi't 11as been opei'atillg successfully with entry and exit \, ia VanikasRoad for tile past 26 years' During this time 110wevei', tile Pal'k has grown coilsiderably ill itsoperations, I'egularly accommodating up 10 200 caravans a day, plus hotel stavers and resort visitoi's.It is understood that Yamkas Drive regularly features queues of parking vehicles waiting to check-illor clieck-out of the resort. TITis congestion on the existing entry road is furtlier exacerbated by theleft-hand bend in the eiItry road, impeding sight lines for o11coming traffic alld makiitg overtakiiig anunsafe, nut often dangerously tried manoeuvre.

.U t. !n'end P trip!it, letj, COE, :,, a' F1^><<: D, .tic'In*',: ' 0:5:9,

.

.

Allstralia as a witole has experienced all increase in caravan alld campei'van registrations in recentyears, and registrations indicate a combined total of more titan 11alf a million RV's across thecountry. Between January 3, ., 201.1, and January 31,201.2 alone, the ITUmber increased by 27,219vehicles or by 5.73% per an 11/11^.

Over time, it is expected that this evergrowing 'grey-noinad' business of retired travellers and othercal'avail enthusiasts will continue. Foi' the Stuart Park Outback Resort, tilese additional business

demands will be met titrougli a series of planned changes to tile internal layout of infrastructurewith ill the Outback Resort to provide exj>andecl and improved accommodation. These changeshowever vJill further restrict the availability of parking in the vicinity of the resort's receptionbuilding and the capacity of Yanikas Drive.

While we concur tliat Vanikas Di'ive should remain as the main address for entiy and exit to and

from the site, vJe consider tliat tilere is a very real Ileecl now to provide a secoiidary access/egresspoint. This is also in pal't driven by the location of tlie gate and house relative to the proposed newswimming pool and function space, WITicli will Inake it challenging to expand the current entranceroad. TITat is tilere is 110 scope to connect to a circulation load belliiid tlie curient Ironse location i. e.110 rooii\ to expand the circulation loadways bellind the entrance IioiiIt and/or traffic managementchalleiiges would be lead to design challenges tliat we believe cannot lie easily resolved.

Therefore, our recommendation is that the secondary access/ egress location 5/10/11(I now be re-instated (Ie the 'un-named road'). This will relieve the site constraints and growth pressuresunderpinning tile internal traffic circulation issues and allow the resort to continue to appropriate Iyrespond to the demands of the growing market.

Benefits of a secondary access/egress I, oint include the following:, Better accessibility and connectivity for people inoviitg between tlie I'esort an <1 the towiis!lip. Improved safety, operation and fLiiictionality of tile resort for traffic movement and

circulation

@ Alleviation of the congestion on Vanikas Road till'ough improved nianagement of thequeuing of parked \, eliic!es (by providing an altei'native access for those vehicles that are notrequired to queue)

o Reduced potential for incidents o11 Vanikas Road by ledticing the need to overtake queuedvehicles on entry to the site, and

o Greater scope for tlie I'esort to fillther expand, alld to potentially incorjiorate a perimeter'circulation loon' to PI ovide even greater balance in the LISe of the two entiy/exit points.

It is proposed that 'Un-named Road' be reopened to provide this secondary entry/exit point. Theintersection of this road with F1inders Road and the relative proxiiiTity of this to Hutchison Street

should be subject to the requireinents of detailed design in accordance with relevant AustralianStandards. It is also 110ted that any detailed design shoulcl also address environmental inIPacts tsuas dust management via activities such as pavement sealing).

We theI'efore recoinmenclthat the Cound! be approached regarding tile re-instating of the'Unnamed Road' as tile secondary access point to the Resort, WITich is an open public road intended

toI' this use. We also note that Yiniikas Olive shoulcl continue to o1)erate as the primal'y access pointto the site.

We trList tliat the above ajivice is satisfactory, 110\\, ever 5/10/11d You have any cluei'ies or wigdiscuss tile matter fill'titer, please do 110t hesitate to contact me o11 (08) 8227 0372.

Yotii's faithfully

CGeorge Giannakoda!:isManaging Directorlnfraplan

<

r43,

...\

If^!I, ,

\"

^

14V??

e

,a^^.

I*!,!q^.\,

<-

e^

e::^'â

,,,

,. "

..^' V , "' ' ,

* I

!^.^s-: #-. *;

.. , ,,.

,^^^' * "

'~, I

\-i{*, ' ' ', I, ^

./,.

..$!' ',>

,

,

"

,, ....

o.

,, .

.,.

I

I '

,

~/

,I

Bun a

\

I

1.1

\\\ \

\\^\^\C';* ,.^.. \\\~\ .

^

(~

Disti'ict Council of Coober Pedy

Hutchison Street, Cooliei' Pedy, 5723 SA

10/02/2015

To whoni it may conceitt,

This is regarding the open gazetted road lullniitg Noi'tli west to BIG4 Stunrt Range Outback Resoit.This road has lieei\ open for the last 25 years, but in an uniformed, unseale(! and also urinalnetl state.

This road tecltitically only sei'vices BIG4 SLuart Railge Outback Resoi't.

Given v4e are willing to conti'jinite fillaiicially to this council road, and that the key role of tile road isto service our site we would like to request the 11aming rights for this road in question i. e. JaniiyDrive, Genovefa or smallai'. (After the late leiiny At hanasiadis).

Yours sincerely

STUARTRANGT0111/1AtX RIS, XI

BIG4 Sttiai't Range 011tbackResort, PO Box 345, Cooliei'

Pedy 5723 SA

Paul Atha 16siadis

Representing BIG4 Stuai't Range Outback Resort.

Disti'ict Collncil of Coobei' Pedy Hutchisoii Sti'eet,

Coober Pedy, 5723 SA

10/02/2015

To whoin it Inay colicein,

As per our previoiis coi'respondence in 1997/1998 all ai'ea of 1'0acl covei'ec! by I\110tments 1606,1604and 1606 'A Public Road' that esseiitially linking tile Hutchinsoi\ Street/Flint!ei's Sti'eet into I'Sectioit toStuai'I Higliway v!as closed.

Howevei', the adjacent kiri-named road' (10 the closed Public Roa(I) linking to the 1101/11 of 1/10 siteatIjaceiit to tile CUI'rent Croalioii Club was left oneii nut has not been used sillce that tillre as anaccess point to the I'esort. This is a report in regard to the works required to letui'11 this Razettedroa(I back to a standard for use as a secondaiy acces</ egi'ess location. We also note that Yiniikas

Di'ive will colltiiiue to operate as the InitItaly access point to tile site, As outliiietl in o111' pieviouscori'espoii(lance this will lead to:

SI^GE

BIG4 Striai't Range OutbackResort, PO Box 345, Cooliei'

Pedy 5723 SA

Alleviation of the congestion on Yanikas Di'ive till'ough jinjii'ove(I managemeiit of thequeuing of Iiai'ked vehicles (1)y PIOvic!ing an alter 11ative access to I' those vehicles titat ale notI'eqtiii'e(I to queue)

Reducecl potential foi' incidents on Yanikas Di'ive by leducing the Ileecl to oveitake clue!ledvehicles on anti'y to the site, and

Improved safety, opei'ation and functionality of the I'esoi't for' traffic movement andciiculatioii

Bettei' accessibility and connectivity foi neople moving netween the resort and tile township

There have also been a number of complaints from local residents on Flitiders Street wlIere vehiclestowing cal'avans have uiidertaken a U-turn as they have discovered tiley were using the wrong road.

Our previous Mayor had also mentioned putting a sign up on the corner stating the distance to ourentrance.

To expedite this 171'0cess \, Ie lielieve the following items/tasks need to be undertaken by DCCP.

Safety sigitage installation at both ends of the unnamed road.Deliver matei'iai, road I, ase (biscuit)

Establish a location at ti'langle pit for ovei' burden

Supply roller to compact the road base material to an agreed standard

Water availability will be made from a Standpipe forthe water cart to assist in thecompaction process

Surveying of the site

The overall cost has been estimated at $93,726 to complete the works.

According to DCCP budgetary expenses for this project, it is estimated that the DCCP will contribute$29,678 to undertake this work; this would equate to approximately two years of BIG4 Stuart RangeOutback Resorts council rates. The remainder $64,048 would be a contribution in private contractedworks untaken by BIG4 Stuart Range Outback Resort.

We relterate the fact that it is already a gazetted road and an open road that can be utilised today asan access point.

Yours sincerely

PaulAthanasiadis

Representing BIG4 Stuart Range Outback Resort.

CAPPENDIX C

FXD\Moo2888,5F04543468. Docx

5.5. ADMINISTRATION

5.5. , Annual Report_201 3114

Moved: Cr A MCCormack

'.^:,==^!^,~*. jj, *"^*. I^;;^-^;, j^-^fi*^:^:-j^^:^;^::^^*"I^*;;;^,^"$^,"^^:;^,$,*:^^^^1:3^^*j, ^.;,,:,.^^,^;='.,*"E;^:;,'^^^.^',-^4. ^h,*,. ~",*:^^:, 3^;S',;^'. '.:5\$^:\a=^'. * t's*,^^, Q^3^^'\, Is:*^, I;,,,.{-, X:;'*:a^,^^;!^^:^!. 0, ^,^!^,^^..9:1^^!!11:19!^.,,,.^^.^^,..^,,^g^*^^:^t^^^.^^9:1^!^^.^^p^^t!..^g;!^.;,ê. ,^,î, &.*,*g. .,**$:q;^SI"*;a. :*,: ,- ,;S'*.^;.;71;j:$.::^;*',. ,,!;54^;,^*;;:it~.:^ ^^'!':!!;.,.:^^;*?*j^::^t ^. E;11^"^::. 'I;:;j;.,:, 34!*?*..; . - ;:,\!:."^^'^â. a;ite:;!:;5:51-,, j;.^t;:\,^*;!;\:.;^;^;^^^%^;^;^!^:;,^*I!;;, F. :-^^:j\ip>}^. 3:3 ^^~^:;^^',:^.ts'=-;.. I, *' ^:;;;., t Say' "-',;*':j;^;::=-':::;,?:JR^.!,;' <. 91!<'_=-- e:r=:,*,:a-'!:.,:^^^: .^.,*:*:*:,,,,<. t*%>, a:Î, '\;!j-^:;'5. %*:!*<,,'* " ";:g' . ' ' - ' :-&.*:

5.5.2 Council Meetinq . Recordinq The Minutes

Received and Noted

Seconded: Cr S Baines

5.5.3 Council Member Essential Online Modules IMandatorv Training)

Seconded: Cr S BainesMoved: Cr M Provatidis

C24-,'5 ' " -. ,, ":'-*'-,' -. , - - -

Th;^t. q6Î'm:i! PI!relia^^^. a. I^ '!^t!ntljS. it, ; lie^!6'^:. jr!jin-I, GA'^ûcatjqn &'Th;^t. q6Î'm:i! PI!relia^^^. a. I^ '!^t!ntljS. it, ; lie^!c^'. jr!jin-I, GA'^ûcatjqn &'itîîn^; ^^^Vi66 f6t$5^.gf:?r!><I. !1.6îl, mein6^;iES^;entia1'01/1i^^. ti^thin^j. :

5.5.4 Airport Access - General Aviation & RFDS

Received and Noted

CARRIED

5.5.5 Stuart Ranqe Outback Resort Traffic Mariaqement And SafetyIssues

Mayor S Staines declared a conflict as he had been paid to draft a letter onthis matter.

Cr A MCCormack declared a conflict as a potential contractor.

Mayor S Staines and Cr A MCCormack left the meeting at 7.23 pin

Deputy Mayor M Provatidis took the Chair.

^

17'' February 2015

CARRIED

At 7.23 pin The Deputy Mayor, with approval of two-thirds of the memberspresent suspended the meeting procedures pursuant to Regulation 20(I) ofthe Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2013, for aperiod of 15 minutes to facilitate informal discussion in relation to this matter.

Meeting Procedure resumed at 7.47 pin.

Moved: Cr S Baines^

i^,^^în-;^;^.^^.^^:^*%^;,,,^^^.,,;^.^.,^-^;.^31- .-- *;;-;^;^^$,^j-#-;;if^$^;^^<^;^:"\^.^.^.îll^!!^;, StUa RangeÔiltb^, c P .., an no re-o1?^!!f^^^;^';^;,"^^!ro^^^-' , . . ^^^:i^^*^,*;^-~^^^ ' ;^$': -- ...,: ;^ , " ^^^^Î^^^,;^$^^^^^.'*\;^:;;Î^^g^^^:^! ^ -, :^^t^^^'^^?^^- ^^^:^^;,;;^.^,'-;.,^!!^-^'^;:^^;^.;.^^:,^.,!*;>,;..,..^^t^.:,^,,^ *;,., g^ .,:,, b;;>:^. c^..;j^.*;.**I^;^,$ ,a. . , , ., .A^,,, i:,.^-,,,,=,^,.!:*:,*,,. {,.,*,;*.<,,,., .,

7.55 Mayor S Staines and Cr A MCCormack returned to the meeting.Mayor S Staines resumed the Chair.

FINANCE5.6.

5.6. ,

(~

Seconded: Cr I Crombie

Bank_Reconcilliation For The Month Of Januarv 2015

Received and Noted

5.6.2

DEPUTATIONS

MOTION CARRIED BY CASTING VOTE

Pavments For The Month Of Januarv 2015

Received and Noted

COMMUNITY DISCUSSIONS - Beginning at 7.30 pin - 30 minutes maximum.(members of the public welcome and His Worship will allow each speaker 5minutes to present their discussion topic to Council)

Mr George Russell addressed Council on the matter of the access road to theStuart Range Caravan Park.

Mr Dale Price addressed Council on supporting the Coober Pedy Regional Times.Mr Price also requested that the Council celebrate the Centenary year with theemphasis on Mining riot Multiculturalism.Also requested that Council double its Community Donation Grant to The MinersAssociation and increase it by CPI annually.

7.

17th February 2015

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE - Nil

APPENDIX D

FXDiM002888i5F04543468. Docx

Our Ref:

Your Ref:

File Principal:Contad:

Direct Email:

'50/82

20 April20,5

Rainsey Andary - (08) 8210 2229Pau! Dugan - (08) 8210 2266pdugan@dinawlawyers. coin. au

By Email:

CFor the Urgent Attention ofThe Acting Chief Executive OfficerDistrict Council of Coober PedyHutchison StreetCooBER PEDY SA 5723

dccp@cpcouncil. sa. gov. au

Dear Sir

Proposal to close un-named road - Council meeting 21 April20,5

I. We act for Athanasiadis Nominees Pty Ltd (ANPL) which operates the BIG4 StoatRange Outback Resort at Coober Pedy (Park) and its Managing Director PaulAt hanasiadis. Mr At hanasiadis is a member of the District Council of Coober Pedy.

As you would be aware a proposal put forward by ANPL for the construction and re-surfacing of an un-named road to provide a secondary means of access to the Parkwas considered at a meeting of the District Council of Coober Pedy on I7 February2015. The proposal involved the sharing of the construction costs in respect of theroad on the basis that the Park operator contributed $64,048 and the Councilcontributed $29,678 towards the budgeted costs. A report concerning safety issuesassociated with the existing access road and traffic volumes prepared by Infra-planwas submitted to Council in support of the proposal.

A purported motion against the proposal was passed. As far as our client is awareno separate advice has been obtained concerning the safety issues raised in theInfra-plan report.

Our client has since become aware that a motion has been proposed by CouncillorBaines (Agenda Item I O) for consideration at the meeting on Tuesday 21 April2015that:

IMIAlwAWYE R S

DMAW LAWYERS PTY LTD

ABN 26 159621 194

Le*e13.80 King William StreetAdebide Salth Nicholia 5000

Phone +6186210???2Facsimile *6188?109933

Email: dinaw6. dr. a*{awaseom. au

4.1

4.2

Council resolution C25-, 5 made on the I7th February 2015 be rescinded;

Council reject the recommendations as presented by infra Plan via StuartRange Outback Park and do not construct and seal the un-named road viaF1inders St;

Council enter into a formal road closure program for the un-named road viaF1inders St.

4.3

PND Doc: 8,7599Uab"i!y limited by a scheme approved under the Profosstonal Standards Leg, skition

20 April2015RA 1501 82

Our client is particularly concerned at the third proposed resolution concerning theclosure of the road.

Whilst our client understands that the resolution does riot constitute a final decisionon the status of the road, rather it is the first step in the process for that potentialoutcome, it nevertheless seems premature for steps to be taken in commencing thatprocess before there is an opportunity for our client and council to consideralternative options.

We respectfully suggest that it is appropriate for council to defer consideration of theresolution until our client and Council have had the opportunity to explorealternatives

Yours faithfullyDMAW Lawyers Pty Ltd

a^,^Paul Dugan

PND Doc: 8,7599

C

(-

APPENDIX E


Why are the old electricity meters being superceded?What is the cost?

What is being done with the working ones being removed?Can Council have a report by next meeting in May?

PETITIONS - Nil9.

10.

Received from: Cr S Baines20'' March 2015Received on:

Mayor Steve Staines declared a conflict as he had declared an interest at the meeting on17'' February and left the meeting at 8.38 pin.Cr P At hanasiadis declared an interest and left the meeting at 8.38 pin.

Deputy Mayor M Provatidis took the Chair.

Moved: Cr S Baines

MOTIONS ON NOTICE

C6315 .' .. ' . - -~. *

I- ~ 'T^^! !^.:i^1:1qj!!^^g!ajion !;^^-, 5 made o11the ,7th Eel!jq^.!^;2^15. .b^ rest;illded. , .' ' '.*t^* , a I".'g* ' ' , . ,.*. ..'". 2 =* ,,,' . , * , ^,,'. , . . I. . ' t a .*' ,:.', ' ,. . t ' ... ' ,. ,. ., . .. . ' ' a

'j^'^^^^j':j5jj^;!'^:^^:;i^^,I^**:^'it^!::^^ 11^t. Cgh^trUbf a^^:^^^:^^^^1:1^j^^j^j^!^d. rp^cjti^'. Elmder^St, ^*':. :'.,**:!. 4, .,,;. t, -:i's. .,, .. * .. -,*..;,,;*.-.:,,;.:. :j. ,:*,*:':: ' ; ' '- "'

,>. ., ,^,,.,. 0!!ripi, ên er, rip a qrma .ro^c! clogûrq pro^ram font!j^.în;named toa'e!.... "..*q .,,.... ,,,.. . . . . . .

CARRIED BY CASTING VOTE

Cr P At hanasiadis and Mayor Steve Staines returned to the meeting at 8.45 pin and theMayor resumed the Chair.

Received from: Cr M Provatidis

14'' April2015Received on:

Moved: Cr M Provatidis

Seconded: Cr R Ber

C64-, 5 ,- I ' ' " " " ' "' " ,' I, ' ' ,,

pro6eSs . grid, jh^t'-. 'fh^j .' a^se^^merit proce, 55 ^. e , pies^î^^'. lid Council' I'qirconsid6jafibr, on 6rI^^f^r'621" Jiny ^q1.5. ';: ' "' fit'.:';:' "': ;.- '.*-'T'~ : ,,' ~ ..

21'' April20,5


CARRIED

~ .

11

Moved: Cr M Provatidis^

1'6^5^"15::' ' If. '.: ' 'v' * , _; . ,' ' ' "'.\..,*,*.,;,**,,.:<;:t;. , * . , ^ *:.: '. :~,,, I $^,. ;,,.,*,,,?,..*,, ; ; ,:;... .& . , *, ., ,t, ,*;.,.*, ,*., . ,, 5, . , . .

,.,*^^^g^j;^!i^!I'r^,^Î^1, ^!,*rot^.^;^.j^^^:.^^:;,,^;:t;^.g^.j^^.^^, t!,^;,^^;g^!^^^'^,^^^;^9191i,^,!;^.i^!g, ^!.;',..' T!jin^'**"""'! I*',~-'**'**I^:".;'*,'*-"*"-^:-61*'"', j^jj-'$"--^:^^^^j^-;^'.'*'-13, '~"' '*",*' "':".",'if^"" "*e!î^j'^,^:^j^:^^!^ ^^.^;;6^îi:'6'^;^^'^;;I. ^;î^::I^!Î^;I^;^^, j^.'*jj^"8rd^'^^^^':^Î;^^t^Îi^!j"^..h'i!â;^^'r^. I^jj^^^;^Îf^v^;^:îti^;:^;^'^^bit^:iitii6^::a^jin~^'^!^j^!j!^,'tj^^^jÎe:f^!^ti^:In^î^'!^::î!'i^:^:,^';âd'^.^!C n^!ite ^!I. ^. 11^^:ôilncil'de\I'^j^^:^"^jj^'j^11Îîn^tit^;' a, ^,:!,:^^^!it^^:;'^jîn"^" ^. i!Iad'^. qq n^!ite ^.!I. ^. in. ^j:ô14ncii'dev^jq^s aji^ jty'!IÎîn^tit^' a, ^!!^^^ûr^::^^jîn^'Anti!I2015'I^^jê ûj'!?jcjs^*.!^fer!s*jinn^, that^^^ Co. un^Li!j^!s^s:e!it^^:f;^;!!Ijîr;e^êrge, half-j, ag^ offunp^^^'^'a:C'^11!0'fi^^'êj^î, 'I^'^^t"^13ît^'If^:f6'^ît^^tie^t^'I^:re^^^^j!;;, ,,';.,;

<--Received from: Cr B Rapaic


Moved: Cr B Rapaic

C66-, 5 ' " ' ' ' ' 'That' 'Council seek quotes to engage a Queen's Counsel in order to gjv'e a,professionai, independent assessment of the Îative Title consent determinatij>jj ofthe Ante!kirinjq ^, at^^Y^!;unitj'atjara Over the toyiir!shi^ Of Coob^r Pedy a^-'Î^!11";^S'provide ^n opinion o:1 the be^t Goutse of action for Council to ensure that any fÎt^!re,decisions regarding these matters are in the best interests Of all the people linchin'the community thît. Council retiresentS. : . ,

Seconded: Cr S Bames

Received from: Cr P Athanasiadis


Moved: Cr P Athanasiadis

C67-, 5 ' ' " . ,That the administi'atiqh produces an Evaluation Report for the 201.5 Coober Pedy. -Centenary celebrations that occurred Over Easter and that all committee membersthat 519ryed on the Co. ober- Pedy Centenary Committee be given an opportunity toprovide feedback as Well as the organisations that. formed part Of the committ^^' 'Pursu^!, t. t^^ tji^ t'^nits pf Ref6, relice. Tile Eii^, IU^tion Rel^'bit win also'c6ntai, I a . ::tinîjciÎ rept!it reârdiijg. the 29^5 0âiF^Sti^, aj ^rid associated ,;^rifeii^ry eveiit^,The financial fopoit will Clearly separate the cbst of each event (i. e. OpÎ' Ball, 0âtFestival all^ We'ICOirie Back to Coober Pedy) an. d i. noonie and expenditure therebf.^.

With cash and in-kind support clearly separated. Expendit!. 11'e figures will be

21st April2015

Seconded: Cr B Pantslis

CARRIED

Seconded: Cr M Provatidis

CARRIED

12

. .. ,,,, .. r .. , , , .. - * , . .'.,.*.*C, *,*..'\., 35 .'4^;,~a. . SE. ::.:~;*';*-'?;',/,. t ~~.^,~g. ".**"?S~,,~~,,;,,.', e. e

;i^:!!anî^^$^'!^v'11, inÎt^î'I^'^'ît^f^j^j^"^j^:^'^^:^^^;^^;,^^^.^^!^^!^^^,,,^!!^^;^g^^, r^^^^^^*^^^j^^..^,^^p^.^^;^:^,^;^;,,,,^.^,^^**^,^^",^^^;^-^^î-^Î-^^^,^^,*^'^-~"^^+^-'^^^j^^,^^-:^^;^^$^jit;^^,^^^:^:!^^î^)6^*I!;^Î^î'^:^!,^^g;,^^;!^^^j;^^.!!^^::^^:^^^:Î^;^"^'^,^"'^ja^,. a In^^'^^j^ 'Î-'^'^^;^';toI^^^.!Î^^'^^'^^^"'^"^'if^;^î^'Î^;^9^^',^^^.^!^yf^^' '^^'^^,^;s^,,^^^!^!^,.^^:^,g^;^^g^.^^:,.'^;^'*:^$^:;^-^:I^^*,.. ^,!^Y^^;^,^*.* ^^,:^-,^25^^,-,^.,^^^^^^,^^.^^^-^53>~^,^^^$*^;^^;^,.^;:^:;.^.;^\.^*, s:^^^-x^.!!^^^'!;., !^^^;s!g^-^^;^:9:5^;^;989^-I^^r:^^:y^;^t^r^\^^,,,$^.^!!^.!;j^^.., ,._;,,*-a. _. ^. ,,-*^. I, ,., r, ;*..,"..;;. ; -:,;,., I;: ;., - <.^,,.,. J- '*F;!"7^ * -, -: "~'? ' VC-r',.,- * " '. *-',~ âj a' ,,;33. ..!.;'. a~ :',:*!,"<,.*.,?a'**-. g $.*r tj: :^!, in^111, ^vît^!I;ît^!!^^;;;;^6(îi^jj^Î:^!^Î^î^î^^f^^!^tif^^^Îi$^:t^^.^^Î^;;îîn;;;:-:I-.:,'.:

'ê^^t;'^;i^4, ^^.^^,^!^^^^:^!I^^^!:^:I, êi5îllÎ-ill^!^, tâirovii^!^^^;^:i^^,!ii^^t^^^;.ita'^161: *;:. '-;*'^;$3',':;;:$;;";$""'. ::&;3''42':;a'!^,,:-"::*!^'!;;';'.\^.<:;tg ' .3' ' "' '* * ''-<% - - . ^ "?~:? a t^',^^^*^, 12-'?'>?;3;^t!S ':*L lie^' '* "E, .;;"!'^t^mirin. îf^, j^"Ij. 11nÎ'^^j6^*^6tj'iÎ'^^;:;^:.s. -th^. Ieygi-:^^Su^. e^!^^;^, ith'^:^^:^^^^!"ei^^j^^.^^.'";.th^'^!fu'i;.6.;^:^Î^^:i^^'Î^î'!^61îiîntr^;îaiîn^finî. ^h^, dÎi^^;flit. "In^:^'^^j^^)',:~ ."?\;',


C68,5. ' ' "'^ ...

!h. lightoftheinformation reCeiv'led ^y. (;onin;illorsin December ^0141. ^^^:^î:^^:tit^".*,"~.. ".' " "^', e' ".'. ' '.'= ...,' ~,:~.'. *.."".. ' '.* f .,.:'., L "".. "

inj^,!!11^tjgj!'Was preêntêl. to Cq. !Inc. i! ^y filetStat^. Gotîn. !heritwjtiii:^ga!d$. t6. thisinatt. Î'. ' ' -,' - ' - ' "' ' -, . .. I. .-. *..,^ .... ......,.. .. .. .. .. ^

CARRIED


C69', 5. . . . . . .

I:î^t. Cqi, ^,;!!*j. ^vif^. the Côb, er Fedylêtai!.^!Ism!a^s ^. h^. TouriS!h'A^50.6iatj. Oil and', 't^, 66Îb. Î. ^;^Î^*, nitiîs A^So^j^fibjtf;^'ûl!Ifjitj;rq^t^^Î^ f^r:conîd. ej^!fio. ^,:^'^tile. .20,511'6 hitah'^j^!:year b^dge^ ^maniat the Iîtet^ ate s^'it'Oil of before the 23" A "ri!-20.5. . " , .. ,. .. . .*, .. ., *.


AMENDMENT

Moved: Cr B Rapaic

CARRIED

That the date forthe letters to'be seht be changed to 30 'April20,5,. *.

21 '' April2015

Seconded: Cr B Pantelis

J.


CARRIED

13

RIOTi@ 1:669^: SASAiÊ ~I^"' 61^,,<^.^.;;,^^t, ^^^t>,;;^*^;,,^.^.^:^*?$^,;'*^-^:^;;,^*?;:*^îs^^"~^^,:;;;^^;^;^ê*^:*!^z*55^.,^,t^'^;'^;ît^înpît^:tiî^:6'66^~^^!^^;^:^^';^j^^^'î^î;^^^;^'^j^j^^^:^^$. I,^^^$:^:^^,,^!ripîte, !;^^:Ôbe^!^.^^^;ît^jr!^;^^;i'.^^!'all, a;^^:14. @SI^,îss^:^jatj^,dand;^.111^.!^9.01, e^;^^^:^j:, ers. Ass6^"ati^!ito'^'^b^~i Fig6"OSa ' 6'^'^^^^;, d^^îi^î'î;'t^;;::;.111^.^9.01, e^.;^^^:^j:, ers. Ass6c"ati^!itOSub :i Fig010s^!;^:; 6'^'^^', j^;, derati^";^'î;'t!!^;*;.^j^{^j^Î^3.7 : ^j, ,,.,,-,;95^^9*^^^:^^, a^:^'9^^9;;i',^',^^::^;a^'$3'. .,. .$1;!;;a*.;^.^!^^;^;tg^^*4^;^.'.:^^j!^!tîn!^!.!!^, I^;^^^^^^!!^g$^:^!!,;!,^^,,^^^^.^^^.^^.!!^.^!^,^;^!I^q. ^;^Î^'iî^tbÎ^^^;4^^j!::;. J . I, ' . . ~'*~ ' *.. .. . ~ .'. ;*" '. A*,..;;,, ' t. ,-t3, :.* ',., VC .<. 3 = 36~:,'.. *,..". ' ,SL 51', '. FF. I. I ' . .* . t .^ 73. . . '. . '

Moved: Cr P At hanasiadis

^'7'^' , ^- . -. , : - at. ,.= = :I. - --: , ,,. ~ - * - ,. ., .. . - ; . - . . I - . \.. ,, . - ,. s- .,,,.. f. ,-, ;!~ t-- . ,. ,. L . + ~ - - -. , : ' '.,,,. .,.-. '.=^-,. v',=;....<..\:" '.,. f ., _,.;..= ' ;*;r;',, %..". t. 14:1'=.:t. ,, f;^*,':,;,'*3. **'. .'. r

h'^t:^;0^!1.1^. ii, ^g'^^:^.^!illii!!in!!!!, of ti^re^'În^teSf6rt'h^.^. h^j^geni^^tin^-. tite^. ia'.' ' 'C:in^:I^!t^litî'ti^'^^^^j6^th'6.0'lifta6^;ba^'i^f6jfê:I^\In^^>^^^^f ^r<iyidi^~.'as^1st^^ê-t'tile ^flay6i't^,^:ilfilhiSI^"^îaiiVe dt!ê's'a^:SPCk^;'Sêj^<, litor. :36/1^^â^'!Îât!Hequotes are Iî'^'seijied to C6uticiifpr cbtiîd^ration in. th^ 20'151i66'tinge^,. " ' '

AMENDMENT

Moved: Cr S Baines

That the word^ "On a I2 month contract basis" be' removed.


MOTION c70-, 5 As AMENDED

That Council seeks a minimii!ii of t!, ree quotes for the engage. iteht of a media..,. ..,. ..., .. ..

ConÛltar!t for the putpoês'6f provit!in^ ^$5istanc^ to the ,I!ayor to fulfil hi^' ' 'legislative d^tie^ as. SôkeSp'6rsoii for Couhcil and that the quotes are ^resented toCouncil for consid^ration in the 20,5/161, udget. .

Seconded: Cr R Ber

21st April20,5

CARRIED

14

11. COMMITTEE MINUTES

Coober Ped Alcohol Maria ement Plan Workin Pa

Minutes of the meeting - 24'' March 2015

Moved: Cr M Provatidis

07/15 ... ..,. . .

,',,:.~...'*,*;%" ,f",. a' ^.:*.: .*..' * t. ".,,..\.'..' ..'."14. -.'.=. ...... .. '". ~

.. ~.. ...

Coober Ped Centena Committee


Moved: Cr B Rapaic

672. ,5-̂

That. 'Council receive the minutes of the Coober Pedy Centenary Committeein. IêtinÎ of I 6'' March 2015. ' ' '


Coober Ped Tourism & Events Committee


Moved: Cr R Berry

073-, 5' 'Th^t ' Coqhcil receive; the minutes of the Coober 15edy. tourism & EventsCornmi. tree meeting Of 16'' Match 2015. : " " '

...,.

..

CARRIED


I2. DELEGATES REPORTS

Cr P At hanasiadis - Coober Ped Gem Trade ShowAdvised that this years Gem Trade Show was an outstanding success with takingsof I2 million dollars and that all booths are booked for next year.

21" April2015

...

CARRIED


CARRIED

15

NEXT CoUNC L EETING - 19'' May 2015

14. CLOSURE - 9.1 I in

(--

21'' April20,5 16

APPENDIX F

FXD\Moo2888,5F04543468. Docx

5.5.4 Formal Road Closure Pro ram For Unnamed Road Via F1indersStreet

eport to:From:Date:

Subject:

File:

^

^

^

39

Council

Darnien Clark, Acting Chief Executive Officer19/05/20,5

Formal Road Closure Program for Unnamed Road ViaF1inders StreetGR. 689

^

Purp_OSe of Report

To provide to Council with information re the Road Closure of the Unnamedroad via F1inders Street.

For Information and Consideration

Re p o rt

From the meeting held on the 21'' April20,5 the follow motion was passed:

.@6^':^ QU:^'

77. a "@ouhcl e 0 0 4,256lese'rided.

T .at^,@ÎUnCil E!Ie Co e attoS ^- 'Range @utbac ' a nametl road Ia, F1in e S^

2 73hat. *@'urici e e I t'oa - I F1i dels

As Councillors are aware this issue began at the February Council meeting.Part I and 2 of the motion above were made to correct the incorrect motionfrom that meeting.

Part 2.1 of the motion above was an addition to the February meetingmotions.

Since that time I have sought advice as to what the next steps for Councilwill be on this issue.

Added to this report I will present the follow pieces of information to Council

I . Advice from Michael Kel!edy re road Closure Issues2. Email letter from DNIAW re road closure which was sent to Council the

day before the last meeting on the 21'' of April20153. Letter from Steve Zagar (on behalf of the Croatian Club)4. Letter from Stuart Range Outback Resort

,

*.. ' .'S-,

o t 7t . !^:.e , ary 20. :^,,

as prese!!it^d Ij'-OS C 'ad

P' re toG-

,.

~

,..

in a^!a vj .:.;B, .^^., . ;6a e'u

.

^

e,

,

,;

n-

,^

~-

d

5. Council infrastructure on existing unnamed road, road reserve

You will also be aware that there is a "motion on notice" to rescind the abovemotion C63-15.

40

I. Advice from Michael Kel!edy re Road Closure Issues

As you will be aware, for the Council to tonnally close the road in accordancewith the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991, it must undertake andcomplete a 'road process'.

The process that the Council must undertake for this purpose is set outbelow.

Preliminary Plan (section 9)

On the basis that the Council proposes to close the road, it must cause to beprepared:

. a preliminary plan of the land subject to the proposed closure (in a formapproved by the SurveyorGeneral); and

. a statement containing:

. the name and address of any person affected; and

. such other information in relation to the land as is required bythe Surveyor-General.

A copy of the preliminary plan and the statement (and the associated fee)must be deposited at the Adelaide office of the Surveyor-General.

Execution of Agreement to Transfer (section I2)

If the land is proposed to be transferred to a third party the Council shouldconsider whether it wishes to enter into a preliminary agreement with thatparty. This can only occur after the Council has or relevant) first invitedofficers from the owners of all land adjoining the road subject of theproposed closure.

Notification of Proposed Road Process (section to)

Once the requirements above have been complied with, the Council mustgive public notice of the proposed road closure. The public notice must:

describe, with reasonable particularly, the nature of the proposal; and

,.

specify, by means of a clear and accurate diagram, the land subject tothe proposal; and

specify the manner in which it is intended to deal with the land subjectto the proposal (i. e. if it will be transferred to a third party and mergedwith the title of their adjoining land); and

state the address of an office of the Council and the times at whichthe preliminary plan and statement prepared by the Council (asmentioned above) are available for examination by the public andindicate that the plan and statement are also available for inspectionon request at the Adelaide office of the SurveyorGeneral duringnormal office hours; and

41

state that any person who objects to the proposal may lodge a writtenobjection for the consideration of the Council at a meeting of theCouncil, and indicate:

. the time within which such an objection must be made; and

. where the objection should be lodged; and

. the information that the objection should contain.

<

The notice must be published in the Government Gazette and in anewspaper circulating generally in the area in which the proposed roadclosure is to occur. A copy of the notice must also be deposited at the officeof the SurveyorGeneral.

At the time in which the notice is published in the Gazette and a newspapercirculating in the area, notice must also be served on each person affectedby the proposal.

Dealings with Objections (section ,4)

Where the Council receives an objection in relation to the proposed roadprocess, a meeting must be arranged to consider the objection(s) and to givethe objector(s) an opportunity to, personally or by representative, attend themeeting and make submissions in support of his/her objection. The Councilmust notify the objector(s) (in writing) of the time and place at which theCouncil will meet to consider the objection(s).

Determination of Proposed Road Process Order (sections I 5-17)

Upon the expiration of the time allowed for the making of objections andapplications and after considering the objections and applications Of any),the Council must (as soon as practicable):

make a road process order in relation to all or part of the land to whichthe proposed road closure relates; or

. determine that a road process order will not be made.

Before resolving to make a road process order, if the Council is intendingthat the subject land be transferred to a third party or if the Council isintending to otherwise 'deal' with the land, it must resolve to exclude the landsubject of the proposed closure from classification as community land (refersection 193(4a) of the Local Government Act 1999). Failure to take this stepwill result in the land being classified as community land and subject to thestatutory restrictions on dealings with community land, including an inabilityto transfer it to a third party, unless the Council has first successfullycompleted the revocation process under section 194 of the LocalGovernment Act I 999.

42

Note that the Act prescribes that the Council must have regard to thefollowing in determining whether to make the road process order (i. e. whichmatters must, therefore, be addressed in the Council report in relation to thematter):

. any objections made by any person; and

. the plans, principles, regulations and other matters to whichregard must be had for determining applications to develop entauthorisation under the Development Act 1993 in relation todevelopments in the area to which the proposed road processorder relates; and

whether the land subject to the closure is reasonably required asa road for public use in view of present and likely future needs inthe area; and

alternative uses of the land that would benefit the public or asection of the public; and

. any other matter that the authority considers relevant.

In addition, the Council's policy relating to the disposal of land and otherassets that is adopted pursuant to section 49 of the LG Act is also a relevantconsideration to which the Council must have regard in determining to makethe proposed road process order.

If the Council determines to make the road process order, it must also makean order in the terms set out under section 17 of the Act in relation to theland subject of the road closure. In the circumstances, this will be an orderpursuant to section 17(a) of the Act that the land be added to other land inaccordance with the agreement for transfer.

6. Notification of Road Process Order and Deposit of Documents(sections , 9 and 20)

As soon as practicable after making the road process order the Councilmust:

. give notice in writing to any person who made an objection; and

deliver to the SurveyorGeneral a copy of the minutes of all meetingsheld by Council in relation to the proposed road process, which mustbe certified by the CEO.

Further, the Council must, within three months after a road processorder is made, deposit at the office of the Surveyor-General-

. two copies of the order; and

. survey plans as required by the Registrar-General; and

. in the case of an order for a road closure that includes an order thatland be added to other land in accordance with an agreement fortransfer-a copy of the agreement for transfer on which is denoted allstamp duty payable in respect of the agreement; and

any other document that may be required by the SurveyorGeneral;and

. the prescribed fee

7. Confirmation of Road Process Order (section 24)

Following the SurveyorGeneral's receipt of the above documents theSurveyor General will make a recommendation to the Minister to eitherconfirm or decline the road process order. If the Minister confirms the orderthe Council is required to give notice in writing of the decision to any personwho objected to the proposed road process. Further, the Surveyor-General isrequired to publish notice of the confirmation of the order in the Gazette -once this has occurred, the road process order takes effect.

Separately from the above, it is my opinion and advice that by the Councildetermining, upon the basis of a notice of motion alone (i. e. without anysupporting information from the Administration, in particular, the 'pros' and'cons' of the proposal and an analysis of and advice as to its impact uponaffected persons), the Council does indeed carry a risk of exposure. This riskis accentuated by the fact that legal representation had been made byDMAW.

e

43

.

<

In this regard, section 6(a) of the LG Act places an obligation upon theCouncil to make decisions on a representative, informed and responsiblebasis. In my opinion, it is difficult to satisfy this obligation in circumstanceswhere a motion is carried without any further relevant information.Separately, but equally relevant, there are principles of administrative lawwhich apply to all public authority decision-makers, particularly where aproposed decision will impact the rights and interests of a third party orparties - in this instance the business or businesses that, I understand usethe un-made road, fall into this category and, in my opinion, these partieswere required to be consulted before the resolution was made. The verypoint of the DMAW letter.

Considering the above, my view is that, regardless of the fact that thirdparties may object to the road process, they may also, as a measure ofaccountability, seek a statement of reasons for commencing the roadprocess, make a section 270 application and/or refer the matter to theOmbudsman and/or the Minister and assert a denial of procedural fairnessand a breach of the decision-making requirements of the LG Act. Suchconcerns may also be repeated as part of the road process. The risk is thatwhere this occurs the Council may be required to recommence the roadprocess and in so doing to address the issues raised above.

44

2. Email letter from DMAW re road closure which was sent to Council theday before the last meeting on the 21'' of April2015

At the time of preparing the last agenda we did riot have the letter attachedfrom DMAW Lawyers acting on behalf of At hanasiadis Nominees Pty Ltd.

As Council did not go out of session there was no opportunity to present thisletter to the Council.

Points 5 and 6 of the letter state the issues DMAW see with the resolutionthat was passed by Council at the April2, " meeting.

They believe that their client has not had enough consultation about theclosing of the road before Council passed the motion.

C

45

<

46

3. Letter from Stove Zagar (on behalf of the Croatian Club)

Attached is a letter re the closing of and not upgrading of the unnamed road viaF1inders Street.

As you will see they have concerns in the road closing and the road not beingupgraded.

Until I received this letter I was unaware that the Croatian Club was built to utilisethis unnamed road.

I have included some photos of the western side of the building with the 2pedestrian gates and I vehicle entrance. You will also notice that the building doeshave an entrance that faces the unnamed road.

It is obvious from the letter attached they are in favour of not only leaving the roadopen but have it upgraded and utilising times the club needs it.

47

<

.

, .*;;^ ,

;""s',

Pedestrian Entrance on North West Fence

r.

r. .

,-

;5*!.Î\. , ~-,, *,. ..,

I 11:1 ' 'I .' ;.!. . , - I !. ! i- -.. .---

48

I -.

==: 11 . .. t.

. ..

Pedestrian Entrance on West Fence

Vehicle Entrance on West Fence

4. Letter from Stuart Range Outback Resort

We are in receipt of a letter from Stuart Range Outback Resort about the Proposalfor the unnamed road via F1inders street.

The letter raises the issue that the safety concerns presented by infraPlan have notbeen addressed or called into question from any other advice.

The main point that the letter raises is for Council to sell the land to the StuartRange Outback Resort if the road is closed.

If Council were to proceed with closing the road and then look at selling the land,would have to do so via its "Disposal of Land and Assets Policy".

The policy states that council must consider the following :

4. f the usefulness of the Land or Asset'4.2 the current market value of the Land orAsset;4.3 the annual cost of maintenance;4.4 any alternative future use of the Land or Asset;4.5 any duplication of the Land or Asset or the service provided by the Land or

Asset'anyirnpact the disposal of the Land orAsset may have on the community;any cultural or historical significance of the Land or Asset;the positive and negative impacts the disposal of the Land or Asset mayhave on the operations of the Council'

4.9 the long term plans and strategic direction of the Council'4. I 0 the remaining useful 11fo, particularly of an Asset, '4. I I a benefit and risk analysis of the proposed disposal;4.72 the results of any community consultation process;4.73 any restrictions on the proposed disposal;4.74 the content of any community land management plan; and4. f 5 any other relevant policies of the Council, including:4.15.7 its Internal Financial Controls Policy and Prudential Management Policy.

If Council is still to proceed with the sale of the land (unnamed road) it has thefollowing alternatives for the sale methods:

open market sale - advertisement for disposal of the Land through thelocal paper and where appropriate, a paper circulating in the State, or byprocuring the services of a licensed real estate agent an of or auctioneerdullowing compliance with the Council^ Procurement Policy);

5.7.5.2 expressions of Ihterest - seeking expressions of interest forthe Land;5.7.5.3 select tender - seeking tenders from a selected group of persons or

companies;tender openly seeking bids through tenders, including publicopen

auction, '5.7.5.5 by negotiation - with owners of land acjoinirig the Land or others with a

pre-existing interest in the Land, or where the Land is to be used by a

C

49

4.6

4.7

4.8

<

5.7.5.4

.

purchaser whose purpose for the Land is consistent with the Council'sstrategic o^leetives for the Land.

As you can see Council has the ability to sell the land to an adjoining land holder,being Stuart Range Outback Resort. The negotiation of this price will be done viathe clause 5.1.11. It reads as follows:

If the disposal is not to be on the open market, the disposal should be ator above the current market valuation (with due regard to all associatedcosts to achieve the transaction or such other amount as the Councilresolves).

This is in line with the letter from Stuart Range Outback Resort which states "at aprice to be agreed or determined by independent valuation".

5.7. I7

50

5. Council infrastructure on existing unnamed road, road reserve

One of the issues Council now faces if the unnamed road does get closed is theinfrastructure that is currently situated on the road reserve of the unnamed road iaF1inders St.

We currently have the following infrastructure on the road:

Electricity Distribution located on east side of road reserve

. 3 x Large Stobie Poles

. High Voltage Cables x 3 to Stuart Range Outback Resort

. Neutral Cable to Stuait Range Outback Resort

. Underground power going to street lights on Hutchison street

Water Supply located on east side of road reserve

. Water mains 80mm and service to Stuart Range Outback Resort

Waste Water about to be located on the west side of the road reserve

. 2 x 50mm rising mains (, outflow, , inflow)

C

51

If Council where to proceed with the closure of the road, a survey of the unnamedroad would have to occur. The estimated cost of this process would be between $10-15k

If the land was subsequently sold to Stuart Range Outback Resort as now proposed,Council would have to apply for an easement for the existing and proposed servicesso that we could upgrade/maintain/repair as and when needed.

The cost of this survey and lodgement would be between $7-I Ok for these 2easements needed.

The only other alternative would be to move all infrastructures onto the Hutchinson Stroad reserve. The cost to Council would be high, but also the cost to Stuart RageOutback Resort would also be quite high as connection points into the resort wouldbe different to now so they would have to perform augmentation work to bothElectricity and Water connections to the resort.

I have attached photos showing the current Stobie poles, current water servicelocation and proposed waste water location.

<

\...;' '. ;^:' .-." I -,,:,.'.,,.~h. ., -- - . -A ':6-4

_, E. .,. . ..- .* ~'. " .d.. ....~, . ......

52

. %

I. 'I, .

. ..

-..- . -"-F- I.

---- ^.--,.--- - I ^. -

High Voltage Power & Stobie Poles

.,,,-~. .. * . .. . . . ..,.. .

:-*. =:: tt: ~.,;..<.., t, t;,':'

Water Valve location and water line direction

.

^.

.,.\

--gi \,.. . .,%,,

,

...,

'A ~ .. .t*

." 1. '^: , ' ' 'I',"31 ., . -" . .;^ ' ~

~ ,. .., i, ,' , *,t~ ..

53

.. , --..

.J. . ~ ..

', ~,'*,=~, "~~'v '..=~' " " ' ~,~ ,. ." ' ~

v '-' '.

.A

Water Line entrance to Stuart Range Outback Resort (Phil)

...

,~ *.

=;, - *- ,-

='* . JP '.. ' .' '~ ~ " :"

'" *' . -.. .

..

~-. ~.

:111 '. i, _, ".,, _ , ,,. ,.,* .. ,. ,., .,, * _,," ' I' ~" "' * ' ' ' - .,'.,- I, ,'."" ' " ' '',., ~ --:. "I ';". . ' , " - ' - :" - "~' I' "., :I , - - ;' I' ^'*', '^-. ~ ^,^ '

" '-' .. ' ~ '.-ip=:~!I =~~, ~~~~ -^. ^- -

*;;*:'..:-~ " ,. ..'I',\. ,,.~, I .. I. ,., '.' ' -= ' I - ' " ' !-,,^ ,,*. -. .. I ..,. .. - '- .. _ : -, --.,.;,. = \ J' ,,, I . ' ,';, I .,:3I'. ,,_: '.: _'I. ' 11. ';, . ... .^;

._\-^~,:^,:'_ - , ~," .It, ' ': 1/1~ 'I ,.! , .*, 3-;:j. * :. ^% 12__ . ,,,^'^^--1'<-' -^;_~. i~.'. I~ ."",,'I_. 1'~' , '.'*" ' I. ,,-,,.,.---,,?' ' I ... -" , .-, i'.-91 ' '. ': L!! '.*=. . *~. I? '. - I:e, ;;^; I. . a, -

. * ^:.,^$-; *^ , ^ . .^$ ! ' . ~, -_., . ; . . . ;^,^*, , ^^;! *,~:, . , ,. , ,*'- ' e. \^ t's;'*, ^^';;:Î . '.';I ^, " e 1.55;^;,' ',' * ; - ' '.? ~"-, '^^; !^^;^; ^;:^?j :$^Proposed Waste Water line location

,

~,,. ..

,^

.

: .~--- ,~ .

.~.. ,

..

,

,

Conclusion

This issue has now been subject to Council meetings since February 2015 and Ibelieve that Council wants a "resolution". Individuals may have a different opinion asto what a "resolution" is and I believe that the full complexity of the issue is now clearto see.

At the last meeting the decision was made to "enter into a formal road closureprogram for the un-named road via F1inders Sf'. I believe that if the Council proceedswith the road closing it is putting itself in danger of riot making a decision with allinformation provided to it and as Michael Kelledy has advised may open itself up foran appeal to either the Ombudsman or to a S270 order.

If after consultation, objections and appeals Council still believes it should close theroad then the decision will have to be made as to whether it should keep the land ascommunity land or sell it to the Stuart Ranger Outback Resort.

It is clear that this issue is a difficult one, but from a pure Council provider of servicespoint of view, all managers and myself would not like to see this road closed as it

surveying and planning. Managers are very pleased with the locations of the currentinfrastructure and would not like to see it moved or inhibited in any way.

One of the solutions that Council may want to consider it to have the traffic counterput on Yanikas Drive to assess the traffic going in and out of the resort It will assessthe peak times, speed and traffic numbers.

From that Council could then decide whether or not engage an independent trafficconsultant to assess the needs of the Resort customers.

As I stated earlier there is a motion on notice to rescind the motion from the start ofthis report. In light of this I have not added in a recommendation to this report.

54

Our Ref:

Your Ref

File Principal: RamseyAndary-(081 82102229Pat, Dugan - (08) 8210 2266Conlad:

DireclB, jail: pdLigan@dinawlawyers. cam. au

(...-

55

'50/82

20 April2015

By Email:

For the Urgent Attention ofThe Acting Chief Executive OfficerDistrict Council of Coober FedyHutchlson StreetcooBER FEDY SA 5723

dCcp@GPcoUnCll. sa. goV. au

Dear Sir

Proposal to close un-named road - Councll meeting 21 April20f 5

I. We act for A1hanasiadis Nominees Ply Ltd (ANPL) which operates the BIG4 SmartRange Outback Resort at Coober Pedy (Park) and its Managing Director PaulAUIanasiadls. Mr At hanasladls Is a member of the District Council of Coober Fedy.

2. As you would be aware a proposal put forward by ANPL for the construction and re-surfacing of an un-named road to provide a secondary means of access to the Park

ÎLAWYERS

Iw

was considered at a meeting of the District Council of Coober Pedy on 17 February2015. The proposal involved the sharing of the construction costs In respect of theroad on the basis that the Park operator contributed $64,048 and the Councilcontributed $29,678 towards Ihe budgeted costs. A report concerning safety Issuesassociated with the existing access road and traffic volumes prepared by Infra-planwas submitted to Coundl in support of the proposal.

A purported motion against the proposal was passed. As far as our client is awareno separate advice has been obtained concerning the safety Issues raised in theInfra-plan report.

3.

DMAV, L, WYERS Pry LTD

ABR 20/69G?, 194L. *18,801G, , W""" SI, .elA, .,,* Sadh Au, I, .E. '00/1

P"." us 1082,0222,F. .*"a. 461892102,33areI: ,.., a, ,"they. ,,, o. 00

4. Our client has since become aware that a motion has been proposed by CouncillorBames (Agenda Item toy for conslderatlon at the meeting on Tuesday 21 April2015that:

4.1

4.2

Council resolution 025.5 made on the 47th February 2015 be rescinded;

Council reject the recommendations as presented by infra Plan via SIuartRange Outback Park and do riot construct and seal the un-named road viaF1inders SI;

Council enter into a formal road dosure program for the un-named road viaF1inders SI.

4.3

PND Dog 8,7599LtobMy"in"adby. schema approved under the ProfessfonalSta"foldsLegtstotfon

.

.

20 April2015RA, 50182

Our client is particularly concerned at the third proposed resolut!on concerning theclosure of the road.

Whilst our client understands that the resolution does riot constitute a final decisionon the stattis of the road, rather It is the first step In the process for that potentialoutcome, It nevertheless seems premature for steps to be taken in commencing thatprocess before there Is an opportunity for our client and council to consideralternative options.

We respectfully suggest that it Is approprlate for council to defer consideration of theresolution until our client and Council have had the opportunity to explorealternatives.

56

Yours faithfullyDMAW Lawyers Ply Ltd

2

a^,^~Paul Dugan

PND Doc: 817699

I I MAY an 15, t Zagar am writing this letter on beha o

'^*'we would like to know why council resolved at the asA eal the road in front of our club.

this road and we were of the un e!be maintained and eventually upgra

th t council replies formally to the o o

. Wh was the upgrade on this road halte an

. Wh weren't we included in any discussions

why is there nO Pu'''' '''' -k thi, without the majority of councillorsbeing present?

rt Range Caravan Park has agreed to e p p ycouncil not going ahead?

d Miners Association also support this r t the Gemgreatly assist with par rig, ..Trade Show. ,

57

3.

4.

,

,

Yours Sincer- y,

Steve Zagar (on behalf of the Croatian

^,,

Club) ^;$*19. L^X"""'^, 008ER ?t. 0' -


59

9 May 2015

Chief Executlve OfficerDistrict Council of Coober PedyHutchison StreetcooBER PEDY SA 5723

Dear Sir

Proposal re un-named road - Council meeting 21 April20,5

I refer to my correspondence to Council dated 10 FeÎuary 2015 and the proposal by BIG4Stuarl Range Outback Resort (Stuart Range) for the construction of a sealed roadon the untormed and unnamed road via F1inders Street (the Road). I also refer tothe correspondence from my solicitors (DMAW Lawyers) dated 20 April and 28 April2015. Copies of this correspondence is enclosed.

As you are aware, ajihe meeting on 21 February 2015, Council rejected the proposal forthesealing of the Road. Reasons given for rejecting the proposal were:

the funds required for contribution by Council were riot budgeted for; and

undertaking the works would interfere with Council's programmed road works.

The .issues concerning congestion and safety that are raised in the infraPlan reportsubmitted for Council's consideration have riot been addressed or called intoquestion by any other advice. Closure of the road will riot address those issues andwill involve significant cost and serve no useful purpose, If cost was a factor inrelecling the SIuart Range's proposal for re-surfacing the road I query how the cost ofclosing the road can be justified.

As discussed in my solicitors' letters referred to above it is appropriate and responsible forCouncil to consider other options.

Proposal to acquire land compromising the Road

SIuart Range is prepared to enter into an agreement for the purchase by SIuart Range from

Coober Pedy, South Australia

A

IÎ. it^)"an13,

,

Council of the land comprising'the Road at a price to be agreed or determined byindependent valuation on the basis that

provision for the transfer of the land be incorporated into any closure process;

after transfer of the land, Stuart Range will construct and maintain a private road onthe subject land to provide the ingress/egress recommended in the infraPlanreport. The agreement for purchase of the land will be conditional on thegranting of any necessary approvals for the construction of the private road.

I look forward to confirmation that the above proposal will be an agenda item at the nextmeeting of Council.

60

.

Yours sincerely

,C:^~î:'~~~'. Paul Athanasiadis

DirectorStuart Range Outback Resort

APPEN . I G

FXD\Moo2888t5F04543468. DocX

:,, -. <,,,. ,,*.,..

..^--.. . y,I .rt, 7 ':;'.

I . '. "\. .

Memo

J{

TOB

From=

CGE

Elected Members

Darnien Clark

Judy Williams

May 15,2015Formal Road Closure Program for Unnamed Road Via F1inders StreetReportAdditionalDocuments

DateB

Res

Di trict Council of

ob Fedy

Attached to this memo are two additional documents that need to form part of the "FormalRoad Closure Program for Unnamed Road Via F1inders Street' report.

The first document is a letter from Coober Pedy Miners Association. Their interest in thismatter relates to the fact that the annual Gem Trade Show is located at the Croatian Club.They are looking to in the future utilise the front of the building to therefore display morebooths.

The CPMA is asking Council to maintain the front of the Croatian Club so they can betterutilise the facilities over the Gem Trade weekend.

The second document is a letter from DMAW Lawyers that was prepared after the lastCouncil meeting. Once a decision is made by Council, we will reply to DMAW Lawyerswith an appropriate response to their queries.

I apologise for not have these two documents in the agenda sent out yesterday.

Regards

Darnien Clark

Acting CEO

,th May 2015

Chief Executive Officer

District Coundl of Coober PedyPO Box

Coober PedySA 5723

Dear Sir/Madame

C I am writing to discuss Access to the Croatian Club by peoples and vehicles utilising originally designedfront entrance of the Club which faces north (parallel to Hutchison St).

I have accessed maps of Coober Pedy, Including Development Plan CP (DqConsolidated November 1.5201.2 and am aware there is a 'gazetted 'road which appears to be an extension of FerrallSt running.longitudinal Iy SE towards the Stuart Highway.

Re: Lot 3,261. Croation Club

Eg diagram.

The Gem Trade Show has celebrated its Id' Anniversary in 2015 and was Inundatedwith visitors inApril.

Car parking on the property was fully utilised and people were walking from the Opal Festival located onTown Oval to access the Croatian Club.

I plan and erect booths within the Club and access by the publicdictatesits plan. At a recent meeting ofthe GTS Committee, summarising Mays success, it was discussed if the public were to be directed tofront of building would the current internal design be suitable and could more display booth be enabled.It would. I am VIPresident of the Gem Trade Show Committee and was directed to pursue this action.

I am asking DCCP;Could the front of the Croatian Club be maintained, graded and weeded, allowingaccess by public & cars so the front entrance can be utilised, as planned in the Club's architecturaldesign?

I quote: PR NCIPLESOF DEVELOPMENTCONTROL(Development plan CPIDc)consolidated November 15,2012)(Movement of People and Goods)

OBIECTIVES

Objective 1.2: provision forthe safe and convenient movement of people and goods by road,including the provision of roads, footways and tracks to accommodates at1stactorily the needs oftraffic.

21 Development should be located and designed so that It does not interfere with the free flowof traffic on adjacent roads.

22 Roads and thoroughfares, including walkways, should provide for safe and convenientintercommunication for vehicles and pedestrians with neighbouring localities and with existingroads and thoroughfares.

23 The width of a road should be capable of accommodating satisfactorlly the types of rehidesandvolume of movement likely to use that road.

I am happy to present myselfto discuss this further.

47Yours sincerely

Paul Reyn dsPresident

Coober Pedy Miners Association

MPS:/IVNw. 90091e. corn. atalmaps1@-29,198,134.7567272. ,7z

Our Rat

Your Ref:

File Principal:Contact:Direct Email:

'50/82

28 April2015

Rainsey Andary - (08) 8210 2229Paul Dugan - (08) 8210 2266pdugan@dinawlawyers. corn. au

By Email:

For the Urgent Attention ofThe Acting Chief Executive OfficerDistrict Council of Coober PedyHutchison StreetcooBER PEDY SA 5723

dccp@GPCOUnCil. sa. gov, aU

Dear Sir

Resolution to close un-named road - Council meeting 21 April20,5

I. We refer to our letter dated 20 April2015.

2, We note that notwithstanding our letter a resolution to close the un-named road viaF1inders Street was proposed and carried at the Council's meeting on 21 April20,5.

3, There is no apparentjustifiable basis for this course of action (and on our instructionsnone was advanced at the meeting) particularly in circumstances where our clienthas indicated a willingness to explore alternative options for the un-named road. Thecourse of action adopted is contrary to Independent expert evidence in relation tosafety and detrimental to our client's Interest with no apparent legitimate advantageto Council or rate-payers. There is no basis for Council taking any further steps inrelatlon to the un-named which may foreclose, limit or prejudice the exploration ofalternatives.

Please advise:

4.1 whether any legal, expert or other advice was taken by Council with regard tothe resolution and, if so:

4.1. , what was the advice given;

4. ,. 2 please provide us with a copy of any written advice;

whether our letter of 20 April2015 was:

4.2. I tabled at the meeting;

otherwise provided to Council members;

whether any budget or estimate of the cost associated with closing the roadincluding in relation to survey and consultation:

LAWYERS

4.

DMAV, LAWYERS Pry LTD

ABN 26/69621 194Late13,80 King William Sire. IAdol*de South AUSl, aim 6000

Phone +61882102222Facs!rid. relB8210?289grid: ariav, a, in, winwje, EKG, ,. au

4.2

4.2.2

PND Doc: 825656LiebJ^, linttedbyasdieme approved under the Pro^ssfonelStendardsLegls!8110n

4.3. ,

28 April 2015RA I 50182

has been obtained and, If so, please provide details and a copy ofsame;

4.3.2

We reiterate that our client intends to present a new proposal in respect of the un-named road which we expect will be cost neulral for Council and rate-payers and riototherwise delay existing planned Council works or otherwise disadvantage rate-payers.

C

was tabled at the meeting or otheiwise provided to Councilmembers.

In the meantime, we seek an assurance that no further steps be taken to close theroad.

Please provide us with your response within 7 days to avoid the need for our client totake further steps to protect his interests and/or initiate further enquiries regardingthis matter.

Yours faithfullyDMAW Lawyers Pty' Ltd

I^''l>^, ._.,Paul Dugan

PND Doc: 825656

.

.

.

,

.

APPENDIX H


^ ',*' ^-." .

a PIie a e* e uired t vaca the, reinis, ,-onSUI'jigroom : yth 5 Se tern e 2C!,^.. '~~ {. ,^

' .:<E!19 I. I% . " ,;;!394 17*, , .*:; *.":a^ ~^' 4 xi=,;= .;;,** ^' - -t. ~ .

...

'!^-,t. "

an e e SIon

5.5.4 Formal Road Closure Pro ram For Unnamed Road Via F1indersStreet

Cr P At hanasiadis declared a conflict and left the meeting at 7.37 pin.

With leave of Council Mayor Staines brought the Motion on Notice receivedfrom Cr Rapaic forward as it concerned this matter.

At 7.38 pin The Mayor, with approval of two-thirds of the members presentsuspended the meeting procedures pursuant to Regulation 20(I) of the LocalGovernment (Procedures at eetings) Regulations 2013, for a periodsufficient to facilitate informal discussion in relation to this matter.

Meeting Procedure resumed at 7.48 pin.

Received from: Cr B Rapaic7'' May 2015Received on:

Moved: Cr B Ra aic

" .

^

*e Sec b -8 "E

~

^,...

: " 80^,'5. ^:^^j* ,^;^^,^^;$^f^;,^!^. ^;^.* -:*^.,'^^*^;^^;^:^,'^**;^-i^;^\^,^;^^,,^;^:$^-^^'!^!;e^"^^în^'^!^ I'"Îît^6^;.{^'!^^!!^*^'^;^;""^'^!'^;^^^^$;;^:;^;;^$,^^'^,;;;g^;!^!^^^, I'*t^^;^^$^j, :IP. ^:.^^^Î^;Î. '*?iai^^.!^!;!;^^^;^.^'^f^:^^^;;îi'eÎînd^^!$;^:^^*j^%^!;,f^;^^^;I^^t;\:;î^::;^;;:^^^;4^;'^:;;^^$;;I^^^,,'::!^'*^;:^$'^;$;i^;.^,'^".-' *-^;*".^^;:;."'.' . _ ".~ *..~,. .e. ~

Cr Rapaic called for a division.

The Presiding Member declared the vote set aside.

Members voting in the affirmative: Cr B Rapaic and Cr B Pantelis

,, th May 2015


MOTION LOST

It

Members voting in the negative: Cr I Crombie, Cr R Berry, Cr S Bainesand Cr M Provatidis.

The Presiding Member declared the MOTION LOST

Cr Athanasiadis returned to the meeting at 8.10 pin.

5.6. FINANCE

5.6. , Bank Reconcilliation For The Month Of A ri120,5

Received and Noted

5.6.2 Pa merits For The Month Of A ri12015

Received and Noted

DEPUTATIONS

Ms Ayla-Jane Forman addressed Council on becoming an eXchange student withthe AFS Intercultural programs.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Nil

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

PETITIONS - Nil

IO. MOTIONS ON NOTICE

Received from:Received on:

That Councilresolution C63-, 5 made on the 2, stApri120,5 be rescinded.

Matter dealt with at Item N0: 5.5.4

Cr B Rapaic7'' May 2015

I9'' May 2015 12

C

APPENDIX I

FXD\Moo2888i5F04543468. DocX

I,f

,

,

OmbudsmanSA 'I '^, I ' ' ,^,;> ,, j. .,...Enquiries: Mrsteven Sirelan ÔA"^, '^,re^^,^, ne, 088226^^^^ ,,,<.."' I .Ombudsman reference: 2015/03809 CD " II' ' C>

Mayor Stephen Staines ^,\t'"' "" I"~ ,,District Council of Coober Pedy -*\ . . \, S'"~ ,,,,,POBox425 ,0.1 0 ,.;? I*--- s~PO Box 425 ,.,-~"' ,,,,-* , ,1*-.. s~Coober Pedy SA 5723 ,, I "' C. -^ ,,^.^;!{' ~

Dear Mayor Staines c, \ ^!^" I*^' )Your report about the District Council of Coober Pedy (the council) C^""

oMrsteven Sirelan

08 82268699

2015/03809

Mayor Stephen StainesDistrict Council of Coober PedyPO Box 425

Coober Pedy SA 5723

I refer to your email of 21 May 2015 requesting a review by my Office of various councilresolutions. I confirm that I have also Ieceived an anonymous complaint in relation to thesame resolutions.

You have raised concerns with the following resolutions of the council.

. the 77Februa0/20/5meetfr7gAt a council meeting on 17 February 2015 the council considered a pro OSal on behalfof the Stuart Range Caravan Park to form and surface an existing unused road toprovide alternative access to the caravan park (the original proposal)

The recommendation of council administration was hot followed and an alternativemotion was carried as follows:

C25-, 5I. That Council reject the recommendations as presented by infraPlan via Stuart

Range Outback Park and do not re-open the un-named road via F1inders St

the 2I Aprff 20 75 meetin9At a council meeting on 21 April2015, the council further resolved as 'o110ws:

C63-15I. That Council resolution C25-15 made on the 17'' February 2015 be rescinded.2. That Council reject the recommendations as presented by InfraPlan via Stuart

Range Outback Park and do not construct and seal the un-named road via F1indersSt.

That Council enter into a formal road closure program for the un-named road viaF1inders St.

^"You state that legal advice from Kelledy Jones (the legal advice) was dcompilation of the agenda for the 21 April2015 meeting but that advice was not tabledat the meeting for consideration:^;-

777e 79 May 20 15 meethgAt a council meeting on 19 May 2015, a motion to rescind resolution C63-15 made on21 April20,5 was lost and a division called.

^~:3.

.

Level 955 Cume sireei

PO Box 3651P, Inrllo Anall QA grinh

Telephone 0882268699=., e, ~, In hQ Do', a Ocha a:, ombudsman@ombudsman. sagov. au

...--..

~

*,o1

\

I

You state that further legal advice from Kelledy Jones is to the effect that the loss of therescission motion on 19 May 2015 increases the exposure of the council to litig^tion.

You consider that the report that appeared in the agenda for 19 May 2015 meeting largelyserved as an internal review of the 'decision in the first instance' (presumably the 21 April2015 decision) and, having considered the council's Internal Review of Council DecisionsPolicy & Procedure, you do not consider that an internal review will be effective orappropriate.

You have since received a further motion on notice from Councillor Michelle Provatidis asfollows:

Council note letter from Stuart Range Outback Resort's dated Isicl who is prepared to enter intoan agreement for the purchase Isicj the land comprising the roadNote in order for Stuart Range Outback Resort to purchase the land comprising the road theroad must be closedNote for there to be a public consultation for the sale of the road and that ALL costs of the roadare bourne Isicl by the applicant Stuart Range Outback Resort.

You state that Cr Provatidis attempted to move that motion at the 19 May 2015 meeting butthat you rejected acceptance of the motion on the basis that you did not consider it in the bestinterests of the council 'pursuant to the Guiding Principles .

C

You state:

My primary interest in this matter is to minimise the exposure of Council to litigation. My actionsare also strongly linked to adherence to the Guiding Principles as stated within the LocalGovernment (Procedures at Meetlhgs) Regu/atIbns 2073.

Myenqufr. .^s

In my enquiries, my office:. assessed the information provided by you. considered the relevant legislation, the Council's Code of Conduct and the Council s

Employee Code of Conduct. prepared this letter to you.

My assessment of your report

Page 2

\:*\\

\*

(-,

A

.

..

I note at the outset that it is not' my Office's role to provide legal advice, and that anyconcerns in relation to the council's exposure to litigation should be discussed with yourlawyers. The focus of this assessment is whether or not the information discloses anadministrative error for the purposes of the Ombudsman Act.

In my view, while it may have been good administrative practice for the council to obtainfurther. advice concerning safety issues or to discuss alternative bases upon which the workscould be undertaken before resolving to embark on a road closure program, those mattersare for the discretion of the council. It was ultimately a policy decision for the council as towhether or riot it passed or rejected the various motions.

I note that the information provided does not disclose any impropriety on the part of thecouncillors or council staff involved.

While it is unfortunate that your correspondence and the legal advice were not before thecouncil at the 21 April20,5 meeting, those documents were before the council at the I9 May2015 meeting. I consider that any potential defects in the process of the 21 April2015meeting were addressed at the 19 May 2015 meeting (at which the council effectiveIyconfirmed the resolution of the 20 April 2015 meeting).

L\

\

I have considered the Local Government(Procedures at Meetfngs:, IRegulattons2073 (theRegulations). The Guiding Principles in section 4 of the Regulations are:' I

4-Guiding Principles

The following principles (the GUM"79 Prt"glibs) should be applied with respect to theprocedures to be observed at a meeting of a council or a council committee:

(a) procedures should be fair and contribute to open, transparent and informeddecision-making;

(b) procedures should encourage appropriate community participation in the affairs ofthe council;

(c) procedures should reflect levels of formality appropriate to the nature and scope ofresponsibilities exercised at the meeting;

(d) procedures should be sufficiently certain to give the community and decision-makersconfidence in the deliberations undertaken at the meeting.

In my view, the information provided does not disclose any particular breach of the GuidinPrinciples or otherwise disclose an administrative error on the part of the council.

Ou!^Qine of my myes!I':78170n

In light of my assessment above and on the basis of the evidence available, it a ears thatthe council has riot acted in a way that is unlawful, unreasonable or wrong within the meaninof the Ombudsman Act. Accordingly, I do not consider that further investigation of our re rtor the anonymous complaint is necessary orjustifiable.

I intend to end my consideration of these matters, unless you are able to identify an error inmy assessment of the matter. If you think you are able to identify such an error, I ask you tocontact my office by. 7 August 2015 with your reasoning. If you do not contact in office with'nthat time, I will close the file.

The Ombudsman Act imposes certain obligations' on my office and others, includincomplainants and officers in a council, to keep information about my assessment confidential.

However, if I consider that disclosure of that information is in the public interest, then I inauthorise or require its disclosure.

In my opinion, there is a public interest in disclosure of my decisions under the OmbudsmanAct. Therefore, once I have closed the file, I authorise disclosure of this letter b ousee fit.

Yours sincerely

Page 3

I"~~' " I^,...,Wayne LinesSA OMBUDSMAN

23 July 2015

I

OmbudsmanAct 79Z^ seerion 26.

(

Applicant's request pursuant to Section 270 of the Local Government Act I999

Report to the of the Acting Chief Executive for Council meeting of I7 February 2015and its annexures regarding Item 55.5 - Stuart Range Outback Resort TrafficManagement and Safety Issues.

Copy of the minutes of the Council meeting of 17 February 2015

Letter from DWMA Lawyers to Acting Chief Executive Officer dated 20 April2015.

Copy of the minutes of the Council meeting of 21 April2015

Report to the Council of the Acting Chief Executive Officer for Council meeting of I9May 2015 and its annexures regarding Item 55.4 - Formal Road Closure Program forUnnamed Road via F1inders Street.

Memo from Darnien Clark to Elected Members dated 15 May 2015.

Letter from Ombudsman SA to Mayor Stephen Staines dated 23 July 2015

Proposed roads to resurface, seal and kerb in 2013 to 202310 year plan

3.

4.

5

6

A. .E .I

7.

8.

9.

(-

