Table of Contents - SA Parliament

Table of ContentsCity of Charles SturtRenewal SARenewal SA - Supporting documentationMayor Kirsten Alexander, City of Charles SturtCr Robert Randall, City of Charles SturtCr Robert Randall - Supporting documentationCr Robert GrantCr Tolley Wasylenko, City of Charles SturtMr Kevin and Mrs Maureen HamiltonMr Peter StanfordMr Peter Stanford - Supporting documentationSt Clair Reserve Residents AssociationCheltenham Park Residents Association IncMr Carlo Meschino

21217425662

221227233243247277283289

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ST CLAIR LAND SWAP

Plaza Room, Parliament House, Adelaide

Thursday 3 October 2013 at 10:40am

BY AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ST CLAIR LAND SWAP Page 1

MEMBERS:

Hon. J.M.A. Lensink MLC (Chairperson)Hon. K.J. Maher MLCHon. M. Parnell MLC

Hon. D.W. Ridgway MLCHon. R.P. Wortley MLC

WITNESS:

MARK WITHERS, Chief Executive Officer, City of Charles Sturt, called and examined:

1 The CHAIRPERSON: Welcome to the meeting. The Legislative Council has giventhe authority for this committee to hold public meetings. A transcript of your evidence today will beforwarded to you for your examination for any clerical correction. Should you wish at any time topresent confidential evidence to the committee, please indicate and the committee will consideryour request. Parliamentary privilege is accorded all evidence presented to a select committee.However, witnesses should be aware that privilege does not extend to statements made outside ofthis meeting. All persons, including members of the media, are reminded that the same rules applyas in the reporting of parliament. Thank you very much for your submission, which will be publishedon our website. Do you have any opening statement that you wish to make?

Mr WITHERS: I have probably about three or four minutes worth of openingstatement, but I don't have any more presentation or submission past that. So, if the committee ishappy I can just read this and get the pain over with.

2 The CHAIRPERSON: Proceed, yes.

Mr WITHERS: I have provided a large volume of information to the committeewhich tried to, I guess, address some of the terms of reference, although it was difficult to, if youlike, frame that information in a way that responded to them, as opposed to just giving you a bit ofcontext and history.

There are some excellent summaries of events that relate to the land swap and itstime, one of which is obviously the Ombudsman's enquiry that was conducted and also I think theevidence that I provided on behalf of council to the Ombudsman, which is a chronological order ofquestions and history, so that has been provided to the committee, as well.

As I said, I don't have a submission as such, other than to provide some overviewof the purpose behind the land swap from council's perspective, which has been, I guess,overshadowed to some extent by the events related to the community land revocation processassociated with the St Clair Reserve. The motivation for the land swap goes back well before theevents of 2009. The first discussions occurred around and during 2004, shortly after the SAJCdecided to vacate the Cheltenham racecourse site and sell the land for housing.

Council's response at that time was to form a group of councillors to act as a forumto deal with issues relating to the development of the Cheltenham racecourse. Subsequently, thestate government, through what was then the Land Management Corporation, which is nowRenewal SA or the Urban Renewal Authority, depending on which title it goes by, agreed toestablish a consultancy which was to basically look at the issues and opportunities the siteprovided. The first discussions of a transit-oriented development (TOD) at the St Clair land swapsite occurred at that time.

Subsequent to this, the council engaged another consultancy post the results ofthe QED original consultancy to look more specifically at master planning and to develop a policyframework, which was to respond to the impending DPA and rezoning process. Once again, anumber of objectives fell out of this process, one of which was the potential of the land close to theWoodville train station for the development of a mixed-use housing and retail development.

Council at the time was undertaking its own strategic planning process, whichpromoted the types of concepts being supported by the state government planning strategy. Forcouncil, one of the key drivers behind its interests was to support the regeneration of the Woodville

M. WITHERS


Road precinct. This precinct had been marred by a steady decline over the previous 20 years—empty shops—and it ceased to really be a hub of any activity whatsoever. The state's planningstrategy, which was focused on transit-oriented development and ultimately led to the 30-YearPlan, provided a complementary platform that would support council's objectives.

From this, council established a number of further objectives and principles that itwanted to achieve as a result of the Cheltenham land being sold for housing. One thing led toanother, and eventually the state government agreed to rezone the site and in the course ofrezoning provide 35 per cent of that site as open space. What this meant was that the precinctbounded by the Outer Harbour rail line, Woodville Road, Torrens Road and Cheltenham Paradewould have the equivalent of around 28 hectares of open space. This was often referred to at thetime as 14 AAMI Stadiums.

This fact alone had a significant influence on the way council was thinking aroundthe future development, because traditionally councils would only receive around 12.5 per centopen space as a result, and this obviously established a whole pile of opportunities that the councilcould embark on. So, as a result of all that work, the council really established a number of keyobjectives that it wanted to achieve: the revitalisation and regeneration of Woodville Road and thesurrounding precincts, and the creation of economic drivers for local businesses.

The council wanted new facilities to replace the rundown sport and recreationfacilities on the existing St Clair Reserve. The council also desired to reconfigure the ovals fromtheir current form into creating two additional playing surfaces for local sporting clubs, because thecouncil had been consistently lobbied over a number of years from sporting groups that they werehaving to turn away new players—young kids—from actually playing sport.

The council didn't want the open space all concentrated in one part of the site, andbelieved that a continuous green belt from Woodville Road to Torrens Road, connecting the arterialroads, would be the best option. This would give greater access to the open space to the newcommunity coming in and improve bicycle and pedestrian movements and connections. Thisapproach supported an integration between the old and the new communities rather than providingall of the open space which traditionally happens in these kinds of developments just for the newcommunity.

Council also wanted to encourage the use of public transport and the setting asideof land for the development of a mixed-use, transit-oriented development adjacent the Woodvilletrain station facilitated that opportunity. Council was also very keen to see the upgrade of the OuterHarbor rail line to improve transport options, and another driver that fell out of this process was thepursuit of affordable housing and, subsequently, the council was very successful in getting a$12 million grant to undertake an affordable housing project in that precinct.

Council was also very mindful at the time about the development beingenvironmentally sustainable. Another driver was the Woodville High School. It had lobbied thecouncil hard for some time around keeping Brocas Avenue closed, which was the connectionbetween the school and its recreation facilities at the St Clair Reserve. Also, the council had beendeveloping both a stormwater management strategy and water harvesting project calledWaterproofing the West. Ultimately, this also piggybacked off the development but were stronglysupported by the contiguous shape of the open space previously discussed.

What has happened to date? The new open space has been created, new facilitieshave been provided with more ovals available for sport, new floodlights, irrigation system, a newset of change rooms and the ancillary recreation amenity. Brocas Avenue is still closed to traffic,allowing the Woodville High School students to move freely into the recreation space.

The Waterproofing the West project is being implemented and is only severalmonths away from being completed. As discussed, the $12 million affordable housing project isbeing implemented in the St Clair development and the green belt of open space is progressing asthe development at St Clair progresses to the Cheltenham Parade. We have also seen thedevelopment of new facilities and a thriving shopping centre at Cheltenham Parade which servesnot only the new community but also the west of Cheltenham Parade.

I think it's important to also acknowledge what hasn't happened. What hasn'thappened is that the land that was swapped has not been rezoned to facilitate the TODdevelopment at this stage. The connecting road between Cheltenham and Woodville roads has not

M. WITHERS


happened, and I think it's fair to say that the regeneration of the Woodville Road precinct, whilewe're starting to see some movement and some new development there, hasn't progressed asquickly as council had originally planned.

3 The CHAIRPERSON: In relation to the things that haven't happened, can you giveus an explanation as to why that has not taken place yet?

Mr WITHERS: I think the downturn in the economy has affected investment in theWoodville precinct. I think that's a pretty obvious answer to that question. However, the otherancillaries things that haven't happened—I guess the original intent of the land swap was to allowthe rezoning of the St Clare Reserve to facilitate a mixed-use housing development. Without thathappening I guess it restricts people's enthusiasm to invest in Woodville Road because alongsidethat the Woodville train station hasn't been upgraded.

A lot of this is clearly outside the control of council. The land is no longer incouncil's ownership; the government owns the land. The rezoning process—I think the publichearing for that was in March of this year and I guess the rest of it is sitting on the minister's desk interms of how it's to be rezoned. Until that happens, of course, we won't see anything transpire onthat green space.

4 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Have you had any discussions at all with the ministeras to why it's taking so long? What is the reason for the rezoning not occurring?

Mr WITHERS: We have had the normal conversations. We haven't lobbied theminister per se to speed it up. We have stayed in touch with the department around the process.When we saw it occur in March of this year we expected that something would happen reasonablyquickly after that but, to date, nothing has been announced.

5 The CHAIRPERSON: Are you able to shed some light as to who actually came upwith the idea of the land swap in the first place?

Mr WITHERS: To put my finger on someone's forehead and say he or she did it, Idon't think I could actually do that. I think it was more of a compounding of all the information andthe thinking around the time as to how we were going to respond to the redevelopment of theCheltenham Racecourse.

Both reports that were commissioned into looking at the issues and theredevelopment opportunities highlighted the potential for a mixed-use development—a TOD—adjacent to the Woodville train station. I think it had its own life from those recommendations andthat inquiry. It's fair to say that council was embracing the development potential and thereforethought more directly about the recommendations that came out of those reports and then turnedthem into objectives. Once the council had adopted that platform, staff went off and started todeliver on the ideas.

People focused on the land swap, but a lot of other ideas—like the affordablehousing, the waterproofing projects, the new facilities—also transpired as a result of council'sobjectives and resolutions. It's the land swap that was actually controversial, and therefore wentthrough, as is probably obvious to everybody in the room: some public scrutiny—fairly—but I thinkif I was to say who came up with the idea, you could probably put the blame on a couple ofconsultants who decided that a TOD was a good idea by the Woodville train station and then thecouncil and then the staff facilitating that to actually take place.

6 The CHAIRPERSON: At what points did council do valuations on thevarious sites?

Mr WITHERS: The only valuation that occurred was post the actual physical landswap itself, so once the minister had agreed. Assessment of the value of the land prior to the landswap was largely undertaken by the Land Management Corporation around what they were goingto pay for the land that they acquired on the old Sheridan/Actil site. At that time it was almost anonsense to say that, if you like, recreational land would be of the same value or there could be anegotiation based on the values of the two parcels when one was actually zoned for urbandevelopment and housing and the other was actually recreational.

It is obvious that they have very different values, so it was decided by governmentand by council to see the two parcels of land in terms of their geography, rather than in terms of

M. WITHERS


their value, because they were contiguous and we were virtually swapping the opportunities thatoccurred—putting housing, if you like, where reserve land was and putting reserve land wherehousing was. There is a value of, I think, around $15 million that is in the contracts of exchange,but at the time I imagine that the reserve land was valued at somewhere between $7 million and$8 million and once we got valuations on it, that's what came out afterwards.

7 The Hon. M. PARNELL: One of the big controversies in this whole issue waswhether or not the community was being dudded by getting a less than one-for-one land swap. Myunderstanding is that the intention was always stated to be like for like and that would it be one forone. Residents did their own calculations. People took into account roads and car parks and triedto work out usable open space versus technical open space.

In appendix 4 of your submission to us, there is a memo to you from Craig Daniel,a staff member. It is dated last week—24 September—and I just want you to clarify whether I haveunderstood this properly. What this document says to me is that the residents who werecomplaining about being dudded were correct that there was less than one for one. In fact, thememo talks about an overall deficit of 1,434 square metres post land swap. That is correct, isn't it?

Mr WITHERS: Yes.

8 The Hon. M. PARNELL: And then the memo goes on to say that, since that time,further things have happened and further commitments have been made, including in thedevelopment plan amendment, so that now, if those other bits of open space come to pass, theoverall result will be a very slight increase in overall open space—on my back of envelopecalculation, about 1,200 square metres. Is that effectively a reasonable summary of that situation:the residents were correct, they were getting less than one for one and subsequently things havebeen put in train to make it slightly better than one for one?

Mr WITHERS: The reason I facilitated that memo was to give a context to whatwas originally an agreement between the parties to swap like for like and that no loss of openspace would occur, so at any point along the continuum that you just outlined, yes, I think it is fairto say that at one point the council had agreed to like for like and no open space would be lost andat another point in time when the actual subdivision was actually laid out, there was a minor deficit,as we saw it at the time.

Subsequent to that we've clearly lobbied and negotiated very hard to getRenewal SA to agree to that like for like, and given that no rezoning has taken place in the processI think it's a fair outcome that we delivered on the original promise, but I absolutely agree with you.One of the reasons the community got very concerned was that it looked like at that point at therevocation stage that they were going to lose 1,400 square metres of open space.

That was a hard pill to swallow against the council's thinking at the time that theywere about to get 28 hectares of open space, so I think the council was actually weighing up, 'Well,we're going to lose a little bit here, but we're going to get a demonstrable amount in this precinct',which was probably unheard of in developments in South Australia. So, they weighed up thebalance of all of those other objectives that I talked about against that. But, look, if I put my hand onmy heart I would have to say at a point in time there was a 1,400 square metre deficit that isn'tgoing to come to fruition now; it will be the other way.

9 The Hon. M. PARNELL: One of the conclusions that I drew from this exercise is,leaving aside any social or historical significance attached to the current St Clair Reserve, itseemed to me that if the government had gone to the community with two for one, or three for oneor the proverbial offer you can't refuse there might have been less angst in the existing community.I guess my question is: was there ever any consideration of trying to do better than one for one?

Mr WITHERS: I guess in selling the idea to the community we tried to put all ofthose other objectives on the table because the government was, in fact, doing exactly what you'resaying in terms of providing more than it was required to as part of the development, but it was verydifficult to cut through with these arguments when, rightfully, people were very upset about losing apiece of open space that they had an attachment to. Trying to sell to them that there was greaterbenefit in going through this process and creating more opportunities at that stage wasn't gettingmuch gravitas, I'm afraid.

M. WITHERS


10 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Is it probably fair to say that part of the problem that thecouncil and the state government had is that the existing open space is proximate to existinghouses and the future open space was going to be closer to houses that were not yet built or to bebuilt so, the existing community could see their open space moving further away? Did you thinkthat was part of the problem?

Mr WITHERS: No doubt that was one of the issues that was raised. What we triedto present was that the model, if you like for, and the concept for implementing the open spacethroughout the whole of the precinct, would actually give everybody better access. Yes, there wasthe argument that somebody who lived east of Woodville Road would have to travel a further150-odd metres to get to what they saw as the replacement, but it was reasonable nonsensebecause there was closer open space to them anyway.

We weren't actually getting rid of all the open space: it was just that parcel of landwhich I think you would have seen on your tour out there. Right adjacent to that is just as muchgreen space so they, in fact, wouldn't have to travel any further but, to be fair, they were suggestingthat if you are moving this piece of open space, which they're attached to, to there, then they haveto legitimately travel further.

11 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In relation to the open space, Mr Withers, I can't recallexact figures, but it has been suggested to me that there has been a study done for the City ofCharles Sturt on the population growth projected and the number of sporting grounds—whether it isfooty, soccer, cricket, whatever—and there is a significant deficit. Is that the case or not?

Mr WITHERS: Yes, but to be fair if you did the analysis on every council inmetropolitan Adelaide, there would be a significant deficit of open space.

12 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I guess we are looking at this particular issue to say,well, if there is going to be a deficit of open space, what was the rationale (and I guess you cannotspeak for the council) for its agreeing to the land swap, knowing that it was a parcel of land thathad a significant community legacy and was close to the railway station, where I assume that whenpeople play footy and cricket on the existing oval people do travel there by train from visiting sides,etc? What was council's thought process?

Mr WITHERS: Okay, I get the question now. The reality was that we were thinkingabout the deficit of open space, and part of the deal was that we would not reduce the amount ofopen space, but to reconfigure it we got the opportunity to develop two more sporting facilities thatwere not available. If you take the argument that there is a deficit of playing facilities for a growingpopulation, we were saying that we recognise that but the only way to deliver those in a systematicway and to give people access to them was to create contiguous parcels of land where we couldactually generate more ovals.

The way this open space and the subdivision had been developed on Actil Avenue,there would have been a huge gap between the current playing facilities and any new playingfacilities that were actually in the St Clair development or the old Cheltenham racecourse. In asense we answered that concern by saying, 'Well, here are two more playing facilities you aregoing to get that you would not have had if this deal hadn't gone through', and now those ovalshave been developed. The short answer is: yes, Charles Sturt has a deficit of playing facilities for agrowing population, and this arrangement in an initial way actually went some way to dealing withsome that shortage.

13 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In relation to the Woodville railway station, in the earlystages the government and, it is fair to say, the opposition were (and are) supportive of the conceptof TODs and that development in and around railway stations, as a potential sensible use of highdensity areas in and around transport. My understanding is that nothing much has been proposedon the other side of Woodville railway station.

You have Woodville Road and you might want to refresh my memory. It appearsthat the main focus was that we have a parcel of open space and land, we can swap it and then wecan do something on it, and effectively its being a greenfield site rather than rejuvenation of olderbuilding stock on the southern side of the railway line. That might be too simplistic, but myrecollection is that not much has been talked about on the southern side of the railway line.

M. WITHERS


Mr WITHERS: On the southern side, yes. At the time one of the initial discussionswe had was about how we actually get the southern side, which is council-owned land, integratedinto the TOD development either side of the Woodville train station. If you have been out there youcan see that it is still sitting there dormant, but we are looking at that as a potential key driver forthe whole of the Woodville precinct.

So, whether the government upgrades the railway station, whether the TOD goesahead or not, we see that we can necessarily facilitate something on the southern side. It was partof the master planning for the whole Woodville precinct, and would have happened in somesystematic way with the redevelopment of the St Clair reserve land. It is all part of the master plan,is a simple way of saying it.

14 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: But clearly the priority has been put on the St Clairland, yet council has land, by the sound of it—we did actually look at the St Clair site the other daywith one of your officers, but we didn't look at the other side, and I apologise for that—and if it island you own there would have been a real opportunity to do something there.

In this whole debate (and I have had discussions with various members ofgovernment) it is about community concern, almost a fear of the unknown. Whether it is BowdenVillage, Cheltenham, St Clair or wherever it is, if people can actually see something, they think,'Gee, this is actually a pretty nice development; I'd like this', whereas it is just the fear of theunknown. Why was not some extra consideration given to developing that side of the railway lineas part of the process rather than having all the focus on St Clair?

Mr WITHERS: There are two answers. First, if you look at the master plan forWoodville Road, it is clearly identified as a development opportunity there in relation to theTOD site. The second answer is that, I think, ironically, given all the controversy around St Clair,council's appetite for risk on developing that site at that time was not very enthusiastic, largelybecause it wanted to see other development take place first and then invest in its own land, ratherthan take all the risk up-front and nothing else happen and then council have a development.

Historically—and I've always said this to the council—we are not very goodentrepreneurs and we should be the last agency taking a risk on these sorts of ventures, and I thinkthe council adopted that. If the TOD had gone ahead more quickly, we probably then could havehad a better perspective, if you like, on what we could do with that site.

Having said all of that, we have seen on Woodville Road other developments thatare starting to give us more confidence that we could develop that site commercially, with the newmental health facility that is adjacent the Town Hall, and also we've got a couple of proposals fromprivate developers to upgrade some of the old buildings. So, in theory, it's starting to happen and,once that investment comes, I am sure the council will say, 'Now we have got land adjacent to thisrailway station; we can do something with it.'

15 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The railway station itself: the government hasn't doneany work on that yet. I am intrigued as to why we have a Woodville Railway Station DPA. It's notintended; it's not part of it. It's St Clair land rather than the Woodville railway station. That is myunderstanding.

Mr WITHERS: I guess somebody in government decided that calling it the St ClairReserve DPA wasn't probably the greatest of ideas.

16 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That may be and it's not for you to comment, but I'llmake a comment. It's fairly misleading if you are going to call it something it's not, I would havethought, given that a fair amount of goodwill has been tarnished and damaged in that community,to then call it something it is not. That's my comment, not yours, and you don't have to respond tothat. The TOD itself: I've seen a number of different proposals but not anything that is final andwhat it will be like. Can you throw some light on what the proposed TOD, if and when it's ever built,will look like?

The member for Croydon—I will put that on the record here—and I had adiscussion with prior to the last election and he said, 'Where the two railway lines come together,the one that comes to Grange and the other, there's a big triangle and that's where we should havea development. It should have been around there.' I said, 'But you've never spoken of that so no

M. WITHERS


wonder the community is concerned and outraged with what's going on.' Are you able to throwsome light on the magnitude of the TOD and the sort of development that has been discussed?

Mr WITHERS: I think it's fair to say that what is being proposed now isn't what wasproposed that facilitated the initial decision to undertake a land swap. Like all concepts, by the timeyou get to implementation, they are manipulated, watered down and massaged, but I think what'sproposed there now, because of the concern around losing the open space, is that there is agreater concentration of open space on Woodville Road. The housing/mixed use will actually takeplace further from Woodville Road, which probably diminishes, to some extent, the notion ofa TOD.

I think if you can get the densities right in there and you can get access to therailway station right, we can still see a reasonable development taking place. All I can go by isthe DPA and how that's being prescribed. You are talking four to six storeys in the core of the zoneand down to probably two and one where they integrate with the existing open space andresidential development to the west. But this desire and commitment from government to preservesome open space at the Woodville Road frontage has ultimately diminished some of the ability todevelop the TOD in its original form.

17 The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. Youanswer in your very helpful two volumes of papers under term of reference C about the land lost toroads as a consequence of the swap. The way I read it is in the original plan in 2010, once youtake out roads and things like car parks that give you access to these open spaces, the totalamount of other open space, not including roads and car parks, would have been very slightly lessthan before the land swap but, as a consequence of where we are up to now, even when you takeout roads and car parks, it is slightly more with the land swap. Is that right?

Mr WITHERS: Yes, that's right. The other thing is that, in the initial negotiations,rightly or wrongly, a lot of the time when you are looking at these sorts of subdivisions, and I havebeen involved in many of them, you have to take on good faith and goodwill at some stage that youneed to get a road in there to get to the open space. You always appreciate that there will besome shrinkage or some loss or, alternatively, there will be some growth, depending on howthe subdivision is ultimately rolled out. So, naively, we said, 'Here is 4.7 hectares of space, hereis 4.7, we'll transfer those and we'll have to, in the mix, work out a fair transfer.' It has taken a fewyears to get to that point, but I think we're there now.

18 The Hon. M. PARNELL: One of the debates around this whole exercise hasrevolved around the role of ministerial DPAs and the fact that there were three separate rezoningexercises for what was clear to everyone was going to have to be an integrated form ofdevelopment. So, we had the Cheltenham Racecourse being rezoned, then the old Sheridan siteand now the St Clair/Woodville station.

19 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: There's no stroke; it's just the Woodville station.

20 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Certainly, when I raised it with the former planningminister one of the answers that came back was, 'Well, we had to do them separately becausethey were in different ownership.' Now, of course, that's completely irrelevant. The ownership ofland isn't a determinant of what its best use is. Another answer that came back was that thegovernment's commitment to open space was different. In other words, they had promised moreopen space on the racecourse, and could get away with the minimum statutory open space forSheridan and Woodville station. So, I guess my question is: in hindsight—two questions. First of all,do you believe that council should have been allowed to manage the whole of this exercise, sofrom the racecourse right through to Woodville Road, and whether or not you think the council wasbest placed to do it, do you think, in hindsight, it would have made more sense to have doneone DPA that covered what was always going to be an integrated development?

Mr WITHERS: I don't even need hindsight because that was the council's position.The reason we went out and got a consultant to actually draw up a master plan for the whole of theprecinct is because we were very grumpy about the fact that the government wouldn't consider thewhole of the precinct in the rezoning exercise. Your analysis is completely factual: that's how itrolled out and those were the excuses that were given. We didn't have control of that. All we coulddo was try to facilitate a more integrated approach. At that stage though, it's fair to say also, theland swap wasn't in our thinking. The notion of the TOD was there but the actual transfer of land

M. WITHERS


was never actually in our thinking. What we were more concerned about is: how do you get thesurrounding residential interface integrated into this design? How do you make the racecourse,Actil Avenue and the land to the east all make sense? That's what we pursued in our master planfor the whole precinct. Then, ironically, that's the thing that rolled out the objectives that led us tothe land swap.

21 The CHAIRPERSON: Can we just talk a little bit about the process of what led tothe Ombudsman's report. It has been put to me by some community members that—I'm not sure ifit was the day on which the vote was taken or not—they were physically locked out of the galleryand staff of the council took the places that they had expected to be able to occupy. Can youcomment on that at all?

Mr WITHERS: I don't know why people would actually say that because that'scompletely false. We went out of our way to accommodate as many people as possible into thoseopen public meetings. Unfortunately, the gallery holds about 45 to 50 people and we hadabout 350. So, what we had to do was set up amplified, if you like, speakers out into the mainthoroughfare where, if you come into the chamber, there's an internal road. We just didn't haveenough space to hold people, so we said, 'Well, we can only'—with all the safety issues that wehad to deal with—'contain the maximum number of people in here.'

Yes, there were staff in there because staff are always required to be in themeeting to answer questions. People, rightfully, got upset that they couldn't actually be in the room,but if you look at some of the film footage at the time, we had hundreds of people. We had toaccommodate them outside looking through windows, in the internal street. We did our best toprovide them with amplified sort of transcripts, if you like, of the process of the meeting. Whoevergot in there first got in there; I guess that's the simple way to answer that. We didn't throw anybodyout, at all.

22 The CHAIRPERSON: In terms of the Ombudsman's report, there are code ofconduct issues and comments about prudential requirements, as well. What have been theconsequences of the Ombudsman's report as far as the operations of council and any councillorswith whom the Ombudsman indicated there might have been some issues to be dealt with? Whathas taken place since then?

Mr WITHERS: We've followed chapter and verse, if you like, the LocalGovernment Act and how we're supposed to deal with all of that. I think I have supplied to you acopy of our tabled response to the Ombudsman and what actions we have taken, and some ofthose have led to significant internal improvements in the way we conduct prudential investigationsand how we manage the process.

But I would have to say that his report also went to the heart of a whole pile offailings in the Local Government Act which he has made recommendations to the government tochange. I don't think they were particularly related to the land swap; they were more about theprocess that council has used. I was the first one to put my hand up and say, 'Yes, okay; wefollowed what we thought was a legitimate process, the Ombudsman has found some failings inthat and we'll fix it,' and that is what we did.

I don't want to go through this; there were about 25 different things that we did. Interms of the code of conduct issues, we are required to take the Ombudsman's recommendationsand put them before council and then council decides what action it wants to take. We did that, andthe new council—so this is a council post-2010, with new people on council—decided, having readand seen and investigated everything, to take no further action on any of those code of conductissues, because they didn't see that they warranted further investigation.

23 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I'm just refreshing my memory again. It really probablywas the rezoning or the sale of Cheltenham that was the catalyst for all of this activity to happen.So, it was at that point that, once the SAJC had made its decision to sell the land, which it owned,then was it council's wish, following from the Hon. Mark Parnell's question, to have a DPA thatcovered the whole area, rather than this sort of fragmented approach that we've had?

Mr WITHERS: I probably haven't supplied it to you, but I recollect that at the timethere was an exchange of correspondence between us and the government suggesting that wehad a preference for a more holistic DPA process. I am struggling to remember—it was a long timeago—but I think in 2007, once the sale had progressed to a point that it was actually going to take

M. WITHERS


place and the minister was seriously looking at a DPA, we did write to him at that stage and say,'We encourage you to rethink the boundaries of the DPA and to take in a more holistic approach.'

He decided at that stage not to do that, and that is partly why we did the masterplanning process, so that we could actually then put that into the mix around our input into the DPAto encourage a broader view about that.

That has had some spin-offs, because what that has shown is that, initially, theopen space on the Cheltenham racecourse was going to be all concentrated in one tight littlebundle, and only the new community was going to get access to it. Part of our master planningshowed that that was not the best outcome for the whole community, and therefore that led to achange in the DPA, which showed the open space being stretched and manoeuvred through thedevelopment so that more people could get access to it.

24 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I just want to revisit—I know it's probably out of yourcontrol—this naming of the DPA, as the Woodville Railway Station DPA. I probably should knowthis as a former shadow minister for planning, but when the minister initiates a DPA, and clearly thename is probably not strictly prescriptive about the area that has been done, is there anyopportunity for council or anybody else to get involved and say, 'Actually, minister, it would bebetter if you called it something else,'? Or, once they undertake it, whatever they choose to call it,that's what it is?

Mr WITHERS: Well, the first time we see it is when it's been named. We don't getan option. I think it is reasonable to expect that government or council, if they are initiating a DPA,would actually accurately define what the DPA is specifically about. I guess we try to do thatwherever possible.

25 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: This seemed to me one of the first—not the only timebut certainly pretty unique in my time where you have the name of a DPA that really has nothing todo with what is being impacted by the Development Plan Amendment. I wonder if you might beable to take this question on notice. The correspondence you mentioned that you didn't include,urging the government to look at it in a much broader scope: I wonder if you could provide a copyof that to the committee, as well.

Mr WITHERS: Absolutely.

26 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Along with the other volumes that you have done.

27 The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It might be in there.

28 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It might be, but Mr Withers said he didn't think it was.

Mr WITHERS: I don't think it is; I can't be certain though.

29 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: If one of us finds it we will let you know and if you findit let us know.

30 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your time, Mr Withers.

THE WITNESS WITHDREW


WITNESSES:

FRED HANSEN, Chief Executive, and STEPHEN SMITH, Senior Strategy Planner, both of

Renewal SA, called and examined:

31 The CHAIRPERSON: Welcome to the meeting. The Legislative Council has giventhe authority for this committee to hold public meetings. A transcript of your evidence today will beforwarded to you for your examination for any clerical corrections. Should you wish at any time topresent confidential evidence to the committee, please indicate that and the committee willconsider your request.

Parliamentary privilege is accorded all evidence presented to a select committee;however, witnesses should be aware that privilege does not extend to statements made outside ofthis meeting. All persons, including members of the media, are reminded that the same rules applyas in the reporting of parliament. Thank you for providing us with a submission. Do you have anopening statement that you wish to make or will you just proceed to questions?

Mr HANSEN: Nothing formal but, if I may, for the record I am Fred Hansen, ChiefExecutive, Renewal SA, and with me is Stephen Smith who is one of our project people. I wouldonly say that, obviously, I was not here during the period and no-one at Renewal SA who was apart of that is still at Renewal SA, although I know the Ombudsman had interviewed individuals. Imay have to take a number of things on notice, but I will be happy to answer any questions thatI can.

32 The CHAIRPERSON: We will proceed to questions then.

33 The Hon. M. PARNELL: One of the questions that you didn't hear—or the answerto it, but I'll put it to you as well—is that this area of Adelaide, in my submission, was always goingto need to be developed as an integrated parcel. When I say 'this area', there was a racecourse,there was an old industrial site at Sheridan, and then there was this notion of the St Clair/Woodvillestation area.

I asked the council, first: did it believe that, rather than three separate ministerialrezonings or three separate ministerial DPAs, the council should have been given its head; shouldit have been allowed to conduct it? Regardless of that answer, should it have at least been a singleexercise rather than three separate rezoning exercises? My question of you—and you can take it ageneral question if you like—is that, when faced with this situation, you have said that differentpeople are now in charge and it's not the same Land Management Corporation; it is differentpeople, but does it make sense to you, as Renewal SA, to be doing exercises like this as threeseparate exercises or should they have been integrated, in your view?

Mr HANSEN: From my perspective I would look at it like this, without havingdetailed knowledge of all the steps that were taken and the reasons why one would havepotentially broken them into three separate options. When I was a thinker in residence, this is anarea that I at least had some view about, so my comment would probably be as much from that asbeing specific to Renewal SA. I always believe that you should be able to look morecomprehensively, certainly as a 30-year plan was being developed, as this was one of six, then 11,then ultimately 14 areas that were identified for a particular development.

To be able to look at them in a comprehensive fashion, so that they really areintegrated to create the kind of space that people want, I think always makes best sense. However,that is said without the specific knowledge of whether there were compelling reasons why it wouldmake sense to have done it in a piecemeal fashion.

34 The Hon. M. PARNELL: What about the bit about the state governmentundertaking these exercises, rather than a local council doing it? Is a local council incapable ofdoing this sort of exercise, in your view?

Mr HANSEN: Absolutely not. I think that the partnership that must be createdbetween state government and council is in fact very appropriate and, at least as I review therecord in this case, there was a lot of work that was jointly done between state government or

F. HANSENS. SMITH


between the former land management corporation and council to be able to bring together and toachieve mutual goals and outcomes for the site.

35 The Hon. M. PARNELL: This is part of a bigger debate, obviously, about wheredecision-making and authority should lie, especially as we debate the urban renewal bill in theLegislative Council. One of the questions is: to what extent should local council be the primarydriver of urban renewal, or should it always be the minister, using either a ministerial DPA or, if thelegislation passes, one of these new precinct planning processes?

You've mentioned the importance of the council and the state government workingtogether and cooperating, but ultimately the buck has been stopping with the minister. It has been aministerial rezoning and councils haven't necessarily been entirely happy. They just have to goalong with it. I'm just trying to work out: is it the future direction, do you think, that the stategovernment will take control of these exercises and take the responsibility away from localcouncils?

Mr HANSEN: My view is a very strong one. I think that these types of processeswork best when in fact there is both a common vision and a cooperative effort to be able toachieve. I think that the new proposed legislation that is here before the Legislative Council reallyallows for a mechanism to ensure that one can get to conclusion but it really is built on thepartnership. I think that the concept of being able to have somebody who really is able to dictateand ignore others just isn't the way government either should or can work effectively.

It is not a direct answer, but I think also that each setting produces different typesof answers about how best to be able to proceed. In this case it seemed to me that the partnershipwas a really strong one. Even with the urban renewal bill in place, had this been faced, I wouldhave thought that it would have progressed in much the same sort of way, that is, the working withcouncil.

36 The CHAIRPERSON: What is the involvement of Renewal SA in the project now?

Mr HANSEN: Our direct involvement is with the joint venture that is in factdeveloping parts of the land directly. Secondly, we have certainly been in touch with council andthe mayor—and others; I have—regarding whether we could in fact achieve some additionalbenefits for the community around creating such a proposed junior soccer pitch in a part of the areathat was going to be slated for development. It is on that concept that we have worked very closelywith council as well as their elected mayor.

37 The CHAIRPERSON: How do you see the current status of the project—how it isproceeding?

Mr HANSEN: Well, there are a number of steps yet to be taken. Once the DPA isable to be finalised, the joint venture has the optional right to be able to purchase additional land.They must make that decision within a certain number of days after the DPA has been finalised, sothose parts of it are things that are yet to be able to play out, I would hope in the relatively nearfuture. Our proposal, and certainly the part that I have been directly involved in as chief executive,has been around that ability to be able to create additional open space around the concept of ajunior soccer pitch and then how to be able to best accommodate that within the development.

38 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: A junior soccer pitch—is that a smaller footprint than asenior soccer pitch?

Mr HANSEN: Yes.

39 The CHAIRPERSON: Shorter legs.

40 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I guessed there had to be a difference between juniorand normal. Regarding the DPA, Mr Hansen, I asked Mr Withers this question: the name 'WoodvilleRailway Station DPA' seems to be somewhat misleading when in actual fact it is the St ClairLand Development DPA. Do you have a view as to why it was called the Woodville RailwayStation DPA?

Mr HANSEN: I have absolutely no idea.

F. HANSENS. SMITH


41 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So, you think it's quite fine to call something it's not?Mr Hansen, it was well before your time, and I understand this and you've put in your openingremarks that all of this happened prior to you, but all of the community angst still exists or a lot of itstill exists and community concern. Clearly having a misleading title or name of a DPA—we'retalking about a railway station but, in actual fact, in the DPA name it's actually over here as theparcel of land affected—to me, doesn't encourage the community to have some faith in theprocess. It is clearly misleading in my view.

Mr HANSEN: The only thing I would be able to comment upon is that since mytime at Renewal SA I've always thought of this area as the St Clair area and have dealt with itaccordingly. Not until I reviewed the records was I aware of the actual formal title of the railwaystation DPA.

42 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In your role as the chief executive—and I askedMr Withers about the future of the TOD development, the railway station and the land and I've beenable to bring up my aerial map here and I can see the land that the council owns—clearly there aresome opportunities in and around that that haven't been explained to the community in any detail.Will it be something that Renewal SA would be keen to progress—the proper TOD concept?

Mr HANSEN: Yes, I think that, as least as I understand what had been originallyconceived of in terms of building heights and various other things, until the final DPA is lodged whatwe certainly would expect then is to be able to work with the community about how best to be ableto do whatever development takes place—how to be able to preserve trees, all the things that, infact, the community has been very strongly expressing. In fact, when Stephen and I were outmaybe three weeks ago with some of the community activists who have been involved in this andreally talking about how best to be able to do that, although there certainly was, I think, anexpression of interest on their part of, 'Couldn't we have no change?', I expressed that I felt thatthat probably wasn't going to be possible, but that we would want to work very closely with them tohelp achieve mutual goals as much as we could.

43 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In that pursuit of mutual goals, and I know we will haveevidence in the coming weeks in relation to it, but there were some ashes of a returnedserviceman—I think it was ashes—either scattered or placed there, and I think that's an importantaspect, in that a lot of our country's history has been our recognition of the contributions and often,sadly, the sacrifices that many people in the armed forces, from a whole range of countries, havemade. Is it going to be possible, in what you're discussing, to be able to identify some area ofsomething so that can be preserved?

Mr HANSEN: The answer is we have relied upon the council to be able to evaluatethat. That is to whom the petition was lodged and with whom the decision to be able to make anyrecommendation to us rests and so I would rely upon that. I know that there are conflicting actionsthat have been taken by council in relation specifically to the memorial. I have been relying upontheir most recent action which was to not designate that as a memorial. I probably didn't say thewording quite as their resolution was, but I think to the same outcome. We would rely upon whataction the council took in that regard.

44 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Finally, given, as Mark Parnell indicated, we have theurban renewal bill before the Legislative Council, if we put ourselves in a time machine and weactually had the urban renewal bill and the powers that that confers, if this development wasstarting from day one with the sale of Cheltenham, this would have been a logical site for an urbanrenewal authority or a precinct planning process to take place, I would assume. Would you makesome comments on that?

Mr HANSEN: I would agree with that absolutely.

45 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Going through some of the old documents that you haveprovided that go back to the Land Management Corporation days—this is a little bit out of leftfield—there is a lot of discussion about land called the Trident Plastics land. Did that end up beingacquired and incorporated into this development or is it still an industrial site? I am not familiar withthat block.

Mr SMITH: No, it wasn't acquired, but there were certainly discussions at the timeto acquire that site.

F. HANSENS. SMITH


46 The Hon. M. PARNELL: So is that still an island of industry in an otherwiseresidential precinct now?

Mr SMITH: Yes, that is correct.

47 The CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hansen, how is the TOD concept going? It was verymuch in vogue a few years ago, but are there other TOD proposals around metropolitan SouthAustralia and how are they all progressing?

Mr HANSEN: I have always been one who has not particularly liked theterminology TOD (transit oriented development). How do we really create great urban places thatare more compact, as a result more dense, and that are connected by public transport but alsoconnected by bike paths, footpaths and really are integrated with mixed use? That to me that is abroader kind of concept than transit oriented development. It is really about creating places, andthat is a very alive concept, certainly one we are seeing across the world become more and morerelevant and more focused. Certainly what we are doing at Bowden is reflective of that.

48 The CHAIRPERSON: What other sort of areas are you looking at? What else onyour agenda as far as that is concerned?

Mr HANSEN: We have a number of other areas that are under tender right now, atthe Evanston land releases. I cannot speak of the specifics of that because it is in the tenderprocess, but really how to be able to create a different urban form in that area, certainly areas thatare in the inner city, the inner city EOI, the expression of interest we have underway right now.Again, I cannot speak to the specifics, but looking at former Housing Trust sites within the inner cityabout how to create those special places. Bowden, obviously, is there, the work we are doing inPlayford Alive in the north, and a series of other places as well.

49 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: There's a new railway station that has been built atCheltenham for the development—and I have my Google Maps here. What has happened to theold Cheltenham railway station? Has it been closed down or removed?

Mr SMITH: My understanding is that that station only opened on race days, andgiven that there is no racing at Cheltenham Park any more it is no longer used.

50 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That was further across Cheltenham Parade, though,wasn't it?

Mr SMITH: That's right, yes.

51 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Having travelled a number of times on the Belair line,quite a number of railway stations along that line were closed down for efficiency reasons andtimetabling reasons. Is there a risk now that with the new railway station at Cheltenham—I assumeit is called? What is the new railway station called—we saw it the other day?

Mr HANSEN: St Clair, I am told.

52 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Is there a risk that the government will say, 'Well, hangon, we've got a new railway station at St Clair, and Woodville's is old,' and that therefore, forscheduling and timetabling reasons there is a risk that Woodville railway station will be closed aswell?

Mr HANSEN: Not our area, because DPTI obviously has that responsibility. Ibelieve it is very important to be able to have station platforms in places where people can accessthem. This is an area that is important. I am aware of no plans to close it, nothing that we areaware of. Most people who ride transit—and I am a regular rider of transit—always want the stopthey get on to be the last stop until they get off, and are frustrated by anything in between.

53 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: But in the TOD planning is it 800 metres that isdeemed to be a satisfactory distance to walk to public transport and that beyond that people resistit? That is my recollection—you might be able to throw some light on that.

Mr HANSEN: Generally, the rule of thumb that is used across the world issomething probably closer to maybe 900 metres for steel wheels; probably about half of that forrubber tyres. But even those boundaries are being pushed, because people are wanting to be able

F. HANSENS. SMITH


to find ways to be able to do something else other than hop into that automobile, so thosedistances are, in fact, getting pushed out even further than that—800 to 900 metres for a rail.

54 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You might not know this, but I'll ask you anyway.Maybe you can measure it on a map. What is the distance between the existing Woodville railwaystation and the new St Clair railway station? If you happen to know that, great, but if you don't—

Mr HANSEN: We can get it for the record.

55 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am lip reading behind you. Is it 1,200 metres? If youcan get that for me, that would be good.

Mr HANSEN: We would be happy to.

56 The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have just an observation first in relation to theHon. David Ridgway's question that the disadvantage with the Belair line was that it under wassingle track running, which meant it was overtaking loops and that's why they ultimately closedthose stations. So, with a dual track running out to Outer Harbor and Grange, I would be amazed ifa timetabling excuse would ever be given for closing a station.

Coming back to TODs and the Woodville station, I don't have the DPA in front ofme but my recollection is that, whilst it provided for housing, it didn't cover the south side of thestation, and the council has referred to that. I don't think it also covered the station itself and the airspace over the station.

Certainly, on another committee that I sit on, the Environment, Resources andDevelopment Committee, we've had presentations, for example, from New South Wales where thesale of air space over railway stations is seen as a way to raise revenue to upgrade publictransport. Without having the DPA in front of me, do you know whether there is any intention ofactually developing the railway station itself for potential multiple uses?

Mr HANSEN: I'll let Stephen speak to the specifics. I've really focused on the draftDPA from the standpoint of the development in the St Clair area rather than the specifics aroundthe station itself. Are you recalling anything in the DPA?

Mr SMITH: The only thing I can add is that council is considering a separatedevelopment plan amendment which will include that area, so it may be that that DPA considersfuture zoning provisions for Woodville station.

Mr HANSEN: Air space is always a very attractive opportunity, but the economicsof land value versus costs to be able to create a buildable platform is a challenge, particularly in amore suburban area such as this.

57 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Nonetheless, the opportunity would exist in the futurefor quite significant development above railway lines, and especially where this is a V between twolines so it is a broader, more expansive area. The opportunity would exist to build across the top,once full electrification takes place and we haven't got diesel puffing up into people's lounge rooms.

Mr HANSEN: The answer is yes, but the costs of the land economics are the onesthat really work hardest against that; but the possibility is there. From around the world, generallyspeaking, you have to have a level of density to be able to make those land economics stack upbut, in terms of options for the future; absolutely, and to change some of those railway stations thatwould, in my judgement, make a World War II bunker look good, would be very nice.

58 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: On the World War II bunker, are there some heritageissues that would preclude Woodville railway station being demolished and rebuilt?

Mr SMITH: My understanding is that it is local heritage listed. The details of thatare in the DPA so I couldn't give you the specifics of that.

59 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You mean, there is something about the railwaystation that is in the DPA?

Mr SMITH: Yes.

60 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That's refreshing. My understanding was that it was allabout St Clair.

F. HANSENS. SMITH


Mr SMITH: It may be part of the separate attachments to the DPA—theinvestigations. I believe that there is a document.

61 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: if you could provide that, I would appreciate that.

Mr HANSEN: So there is a nexus with the title.

62 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You learn something every day!

63 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your time.

THE WITNESSES WITHDREW

Archived: Wednesday, 23 October 2013 10:57:58 AMFrom: Smith, Stephen (Renewal SA)Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013 12:10:36 PMTo: Beasley, AnthonyCc: Hansen, Fred (Renewal SA)Subject: Select Committee, St Clair Land Swap - Questions on noticeImportance: Normal

Hi Anthony

I provide the following response on the questions that we took on notice today:

· The new St Clair Station is approximately 950 metres from Woodville Station· A report on the heritage value of Woodville Station can be downloaded from the Woodville Station DPA site:

http://www.sa.gov.au/upload/franchise/Housing,%20property%20and%20land/PLG/Woodville_Station_DPA/21022004_Woodville_Station_Heritage_Value_Assessment_Report_2010.doc

RegardsStephen SmithSenior Strategic PlannerUrban & Portfolio PlanningP: 08 8207 1410M: 0423 828 316F: 08 8207 [email protected]

This e-mail may contain confidential information, which may be legally privileged. Only the intended recipient(s) may access, use, distribute or copy this e-mail. If this e-mail is received in error, please inform the sender by return e-mail and delete the original. It is the recipient's responsibility to check the e-mailand any attached files for viruses. In order to comply with Renewal SA's statutory obligations, e-mail messages sent by Renewal SA may be monitored oraccessed by Renewal SA staff other than the sender.Think before you print – consider the environment

Urban Renewal Authority trading as Renewal SA.Level 9 (West), Riverside Centre, North Terrace,Adelaide, South Australia 5000GPO Box 698, Adelaide 5001

WOODVILLE RAILWAY STATION

HERITAGE VALUE ASSESSMENT

May 2010

McDougall & VinesConservation and Heritage Consultants

27 Sydenham Road, Norwood, South Australia, 5067Ph (08) 8362 6399 Fax (08) 8363 0121 Email: [email protected]

HERITAGE VALUE ASSESSMENT WOODVILLE RAILWAY STATION MCDOUGALL & VINES 27 SYDENHAM ROAD, NORWOOD, SA, 5067

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 11.1 Background1.2 Objectives of Report1.3 Existing Heritage Listings1.4 Location of Site1.5 Current Ownership and Management of Station Site

2.0 HISTORICAL OUTLINE AND ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS 32.1 Introduction2.2 Historical Development of the City to Port Adelaide Railway2.3 Physical History of Woodville Station2.4 Comparative Analysis with other Railway Stations

3.0 BUILDING AND SITE ANALYSIS 113.1 Site Analysis and Condition

3.1.1 General3.1.2 Platforms

3.2 Existing Buildings3.2.1 Building One - Kiosk3.2.2 Building Two – Platform 3 Shelter3.2.3 Building Three - Platforms One and Two Shelter3.2.4 Building Four – Train Control and Storage

4.0 STATEMENT OF HERITAGE VALUE 174.1 General Statement4.2 Relative Heritage Value within Charles Sturt and South Australia4.2 Delineation of Significant Fabric and Components

5.0 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS 185.1 Heritage Value5.2 External Statutory Requirements5.3 Development Opportunities for the Site5.4 Expectations of Stakeholders

6.0 CONCLUSIONS 206.1 General Approach to Retention of Heritage Value6.2 Policy for Site and Structures6.3 Adaptation and Interpretation Policies

APPENDICES 211. Sources of Information2. List of early photographs3. List of Archival Drawings

Page


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

This reassessment of the heritage value of the Woodville Railway Station has been prepared atthe request of the Charles Sturt Council planning department. The Woodville Station is closelyassociated with the planning for a transit-oriented development (TOD) by the South AustralianLand Management Corporation (LMC) on the land immediately north of the station/rail corridor.[and the proposed land swap of the former Actil factory site for the St Clair Reserve ]

1.2 Objectives of Report

This reassessment of the heritage value of Woodville Railway Station will determine itssignificance and importance in the establishment of the transit-oriented development adjacent tothe Station Precinct. The current level of documentation is minimal and does not give Council orLMC sufficient information to make appropriate planning decisions about the site.

1.3 Existing Heritage Listings

The Woodville Railway Station was identified in the Woodville Heritage Survey 1994, preparedby Danvers Architects for the City of Hindmarsh and Woodville and the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources. It is included in the Development Plan of the City ofCharles Sturt as a Local Heritage Place.

1.4 Location of Site

The Woodville Railway Station is located 7.5 kilometres from Adelaide Railway Station, on thenorth-west side of Woodville Road. The Adelaide-Port Adelaide rail line runs between Port Roadand Torrens Road.

N▲ Location Plan

Page


2

1.5 Current Ownership and Management of Station Site

The rail corridor and station are owned by the Minister for Transport and managed byTransAdelaide

Aerial view of station area - Railway corridor outlined in blue

(Note former Holden factory site in triangular section)

Page


3

2.0 HISTORICAL OUTLINE AND ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS

2.1 Introduction

The development of a railway system in South Australia reflected the economic and socialdevelopment of the state. The concepts for early rail lines, designed for both freight andpassengers, were based on the experience in Britain, and the South Australian RailwayCompany was set up in London in 1839. A number of other railway companies were alsoestablished in the early years of settlement. These included the Adelaide Railway Company(1845), the South Australian Colonial Railway Company (1849) and the City and Port RailwayCompany (1848). The colonial government was encouraging, but opposition to a new form oftransportation frustrated the attempts of these early companies to establish rail lines, and itbecame the responsibility of the colonial government to initiate and complete rail projects.

The Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, March 1847, which was passed to regulate theconstruction and operation of railways in South Australia, was the first piece of legislation inAustralia to do this.

2.2 Historical Development of the City to Port Adelaide Railway

After a select committee had investigated the matter, a Private Act was passed by the LegislativeCouncil in 1851 enabling the construction of the Port Adelaide Line. This legislation authorised aBoard of Undertakers to oversee the construction of a railway from Adelaide to Port Adelaidewithin five years. On 8 February 1856 a small steam engine, ‘Adelaide’, hauled the first train in atrial from the Adelaide Railway Station yard, and it became the first locomotive to be derailed inSouth Australia.

The initial design for the line had no level crossings included and after many complaints fromresidents around the railway line, level crossings were eventually installed at Morphett Street,Bowden, Croydon, Kilkenny, Woodville, Cheltenham and Yatala.

In September 1856 the Woodville Railway Station was opened. It was the second station on theline after Bowden. The third station was located at Alberton. As the only station in the district,the station at Woodville proved to be a focal point for the development as the centre of the area.

There were three classes of travel on the new railway line, with corresponding fares: first class toAdelaide was ten pence, second class was seven pence and third class was five pence. Sixtrains each week day meant that Woodville station was very busy, particularly as the next stationwas some miles away at Alberton. In April 1865 there was a railway accident at Woodville, whenthe carriages of a special train carrying the Governor, Bishop Short, and their daughters, LadyCharlotte Bacon, and the Railway Manger left the line and overturned. Fortunately no one washurt, and the accident was blamed on recent incomplete relaying of the railway tracks betweenBowden and Woodville. (Register, 14/4/1865).

The first telegraph office in the district was opened at the Woodville Railway Station in 1867 andpiped water was laid on to the station site in 1869. By this stage the railway was managed by theRailways Department which became the South Australian Railways (SAR).

The railway line was to prove an advantage to developers in the district as a whole. As thedistrict's only railway station, Woodville's position as 'the centre of everything' was reinforced.People who worked at the Port or in the city could live at Woodville because travel in eitherdirection was so convenient. (Marsden p73) New subdivisions such as Woodville Park wereundertaken in the late 1870s and advertised as being situated within three or four minutes walkof the Woodville Railway Station. Between 1880 and 1883, subdivision in Woodville was a majoractivity as a direct result of the existence of the railway station. There were horse tram servicesalong sections of Port Road, but residents in the district continued to rely on the railway services.

The line between Bowden and Port Adelaide was duplicated in September 1880. Previous tothat all trains had to cross at Woodville because the service had been set up as a single line from

Page


4

the city to the port. In July of 1882 the Woodville Grange Line opened as a private railway butwas taken over by SAR in 1893.

Adelaide Railway Station in 1863(Source: State Library of South Australia B 9875)

1895 view of Alberton Railway Station(Source: State Library of South Australia B 27135)

Port Adelaide Railway Station in 1870(Source: State Library of South Australia B 1868)

The other station buildings on the 1856 railway line

Page


5

1942 view of Woodville Railway Station, just prior to demolition(Source: State Library of South Australia B 11391)

New stations, including Croydon and Cheltenham, were constructed on the line during 1910-1920 as the population of this part of Adelaide grew. The next period of industrial developmentsupported by the railway was in the 1920s, when the Holden company established their motorbody builders plant in Woodville in the triangle between the Grange line and the original line.Hundreds of Holden’s workers living outside Woodville were able to catch the daily trains into thearea. By 1925 the Holden Plant had expanded to forty acres, most of the land between theGrange and Port railway lines.

Railway lines and stations in 1926

(Source: extract from Reconnaissance Surveys, c1926, Sheets 1 and 4, W H Edmunds)

Page


6

The Woodville Railway Station was rebuilt in the 1940s as part of infrastructure upgrades duringthe Second World War. A spur to Finsbury Munitions Factory was built in 1941 and industrialdevelopment continued in the area after the war because of the availability of rail transport andlarge tracts of land to develop as industrial sites. The Finsbury line has been taken up, thusremoving evidence of the response to the War requirements.

The unfortunate outcome of an accident at the Woodville Railway Station crossing in 1925(Source: State Library of South Australia B 34593)

2.3 Physical History of Woodville Station

Woodville Station has changed greatly as a consideration of historic photographs indicates.

The original station building at Woodville followed the design of the first stations along the line. Itwas a small stone building with an arcaded front which provided shelter for passengers. This1856 building was adapted over time, until in the mid 1940s it was demolished and newpassenger shelters were constructed on each platform.

The significant elements of first station were:

Two lines to allow for trains crossing, and two platforms (three lines after opening ofGrange line)

Large signal cabin at Woodville Road

Station building on southern platform, with arched/arcaded front elevation typical of otherearly stations on this line

Pedestrian bridge from northern platform to southern platform

Level crossing gates at Woodville Road

Page


7

N▲

Layout of the station precinct

Historic Photographs of Woodville Station

The following photographs provide some indication of the character of the station during theperiod 1890 to 1942.

Platform 1 and pedestrian bridge - c 1890(Source: State Library of South Australia B 20174)

Page


8

Station building and Woodville Road level crossing - c1920(Source: State Library of South Australia B 31383)

East of Woodville Road - c1920(Source: State Library of South Australia B 30324)

Station building and signal box from Woodville Road - 1942(Source: State Library of South Australia B 21376 )

Page


9

Platforms and pedestrian bridge - 1942(Source: State Library of South Australia B 21377)

1942 view of Woodville Railway Station, just prior to demolition(Source: State Library of South Australia B 11391)

Page


10

2.4 Comparative Analysis with other Railway Stations

The design of the original 1850s station building had close similarities with the other earlystations on the Port Adelaide line. All were designed with arcaded front sections to providepassenger shelter. Alberton (in Port Adelaide Enfield) and Bowden (in Charles Sturt) are the twostations on the Adelaide-Port Adelaide line which remain intact, and this form of design can stillbe seen in the early station buildings which remain, even though both these station buildings areused for other purposes now. These two stations State Heritage places.

Alberton and Bowden Station buildings 2010

Early stations also typically had large signal boxes for the station master to control train and trackmovements. These have all been removed with the automation of train control. All stations withmore than one platform had a pedestrian crossover bridge with metal railings. The onlycrossover that remains is at Alberton.The design of later station buildings changed over time and the relative importance of the stationalso dictated the type of building constructed. The typical station building from the 1880s wasconstructed in bluestone with gable end wings and timber post verandah between, such as thosestill extant on the 1883 Hills line. Also from 1880 to about 1910 small stations along suburbanpassenger lines were provided with weatherboard structures known as Class 2 station buildings(see the early photo of Croydon railway station below). By the 1920s major new stationsfollowed the architectural trends of the time with expansive roofs with bracketed awnings/wideeaves for passenger shelter, such as those at Angaston and Penola. Small stations continued tobe served by small weatherboard structures.

Along the Adelaide-Port Adelaide line only Bowden and Alberton retain early structures. All otherstations have recent passenger shelters of an extremely minimalist design, replacing earlierstation buildings.

Croydon Station c1910(Source: State Library of South Australia B46592)

Page


11

3.0 BUILDING AND SITE ANALYSIS

3.1 Site Analysis and Condition

3.1.1 General

Analysis

The rail reserve has been fenced with simple recent metal picket fencing on the southernside and wire mesh fencing on the northern side.

The Grange track divides east of Woodville Road. Signal gates operate across WoodvilleRoad.

Bike lockers are provided on the northern side of the crossing point.

There is a ten metre wide unused part of the rail reserve on the northern side before themesh fencing. Commuter parking is provided on both sides of the station reserve.

Page


12

3.1.2 Platforms

Analysis

Platform One is faced with off the form concrete.

Platforms Two and Three are faced with masonry (sandstone and bluestone) which hasbeen painted at various times.

Platform levels have been adapted for disabled access in certain sections

The tracks have been relaid on concrete sleepers

Detail of stonework to platform walls

Page


13

3.2 Existing Buildings

3.2.1 Building One - Kiosk

Analysis

This is a simple recent structure at the eastern end of the railway platform, constructed ofpreformed concrete panels. Elements of the design have been sourced from the existingstation structures to blend this recent structure into the station surrounds.

Page


14

3.2.2 Building Two – Platform 3 Shelter

Analysis

This building is constructed using railway irons for vertical supports and timber roof trusses andbrackets. The roof has recently been reclad in Colorbond, but the end elements are still earlyheavy gauge corrugated iron. (This possibly dates from 1940s)

This building serves as a passenger shelter for Platform 3.

Page


15

3.2.3 Building Three - Platforms One and Two Shelter

Analysis

This shelter is a long structure with two enclosed sections. The eastern section is clad inweatherboard, with a central open section between this and a western section constructed inbrick.

The structure is similar to Building Two, with railway irons as vertical columns with timber rooftrusses and bracketing. The roof has been recently reclad in red Colorbond with 'D' gutters, butretains end panels of early heavy gauge corrugated iron. (This possibly dates from 1940s).

The enclosed weatherboard section of the shelter served as a ticket office and the ticketwindows with counters and brackets still remain. The enclosed brick section served as aStation Master's office. The brickwork is now painted and all doors and windows sealed orbarred.

Page


16

3.2.4 Building Four – Train Control and Storage

Analysis

This is a small service building associated with the station and possibly served as toilets andstorage. The building now houses electronic train control equipment. It is constructed of facebrick, now painted, with five doors and four windows to the northern elevation. The southernelevation retains unpainted face red brickwork.

The roof is a simple hipped roof with wide unlined eaves. The building has recently been re-roofed in Colorbond steel. The downpipes to the northern end have corroded.

This building probably dates from the1940s (to be confirmed from SAR plans and drawings).

Detail to Building Four

Page


17

4.0 STATEMENT OF HERITAGE VALUE

4.1 General Statement

The Statement of Heritage Value for the Woodville Station in the City of Woodville HeritageSurvey 1994 is as follows:

Associated with the Adelaide to Port Adelaide Railway Line. Woodville Station wasone of the few early stations on the line and helped to reinforce Woodville as apopulation base.

The Woodville Railway Station is included in the Development Plan for the City of Charles Sturtas a Local Heritage Place. It is assessed as fulfilling criteria a) and c) under Section 23 (4) ofthe Development Act, 1993 and the extent of the listed place is as follows:

Woodville Railway Station; Down platform shelter, Up platform shelter withweatherboard ticket office, single storey brick building.

Relevant criteriaa) it displays historical, economic or social themes that are of importance to the localareac) it has played an important part in the lives of local residents.

4.2 Relative Heritage Value within Charles Sturt and South Australia

As the first station within Woodville, the site of the station has particular significance within theCharles Sturt Council area. The existing structures have limited significance as they replacedthe original structures in the 1940s. There are no other similar buildings at other stations withinCharles Sturt.

The station site is significant at a state level, as a station on the first railway line in SouthAustralia. However the buildings and structures have no state significance.

4.3 Delineation of Significant Fabric and Components

The heritage value of the Woodville Station derives from its use and location. It is notconsidered that the existing fabric of the place has a high level of significance. Consequently,the delineation of significant fabric is not required.

Page


18

5.0 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

5.1 Heritage Value

The heritage value of Woodville Railway Station resides in its representation of an economictheme of importance to the local area, that of the development of the railway line from Adelaideto Port Adelaide and its role in the expansion of subdivision and settlement in the 1880s andindustrial activity in the Inter War and Second World War years.

It has also played an important part in the lives of local residents as it was one of the originalstations on the Adelaide to Port Adelaide Railway Line and created a residential developmentnode around the station, particularly in the 1880s.

However, the current buildings at Woodville are not representative of these particularly significantperiods of development and do not directly illustrate the criteria for which the station was listed.Buildings have changed significantly since the station was first opened and the site does notretain any of the early structures. The WW2 spur line to the Finsbury Munitions factory has beentaken up, removing the physical evidence of the link between this station and wartime activities.

5.2 External Statutory Requirements

The provisions of the Development Act and Council's Development Plan impose somedevelopment controls over a place which is scheduled as a local heritage place.

Heritage PlacesPrinciples of Development Control 1 states that: '… local heritage places should not bedemolished, destroyed or removed, in total or in part, unless either of the following applies(a) that portion of the place to be demolished, destroyed or removed is excluded from theextent of the places identified in the Tables; or(b) the structural condition of the place represents an unacceptable risk to public or privatesafety.

Principle of Development Control 3 lists the elements to be retained in development of anyState or local heritage place and these include:(a) principal elevations;(b) important vistas and views to and from the place;(c) setting and setbacks;(d) building materials;(e) outbuildings and walls;(f) trees and other landscaping elements;(g) access conditions (driveway form/width/material);(h) architectural treatments;(i) the use of the place.

Principle of Development Control 4 requires that development of a local heritage place shouldbe compatible with the heritage value of the place.

The Development Guidelines for Local Heritage Places in Table ChSt/4 deal mainly withresidential places and do not refer directly to buildings other than houses.

Application of Development Plan provisionsWhile in most cases retention of significant fabric ensures the retention of the heritage value of aplace, this is not necessarily the over-riding requirement here. It is possible to develop theWoodville Railway Station if the significant elements of its heritage value and qualities, that is itslocation and use, are retained or reinforced.

Page


19

5.3 Development Opportunities for the Site

The site is constrained by the width of the railway corridor. Development which reinforces theuse of the station site can be appropriately and carefully located within the corridor. Anydevelopment not related to railway use will need to be on adjacent land.

There is also an opportunity to reinforce the early landscaping tradition of avenue planting oftrees along the rail corridor. Those avenues which remain from earlier planting programs greatlyenhance the amenity of residences adjacent to the rail corridor.

5.4 Expectations of Stakeholders

The Woodville Railway Station is a key element in the transit-oriented development (TOD)proposed for this area by the Land Management Corporation and Charles Sturt Council. Therailway corridor runs along the southern boundary of the Woodville Road precinct which includesthe St Clair Reserve.

A LMC report of December 2009 notes that

A proposed transit-oriented development (TOD) around Woodville Station would not include‘high rise development’ but would contain a mix of residential, retail and commercial uses thatare designed to encourage walking, cycling, the use of public transport and more public openspace.

Page


20

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 General Approach to Retention of Heritage Value

In most cases retention of significant fabric ensures the retention of the heritage value of a place.At the Woodville Station site, it is considered that it is not essential to retain the existingstructures of the Woodville Railway Station in order to retain its heritage value. The value of theplace resides in its function as a railway station and its location on the Adelaide to Port Adelaideline.

6.2 Policy for Site and Structures

Redevelopment of the railway station should respect its location immediately adjacent toWoodville Road, its historic layout with up and down platforms and its links to Adelaide and PortAdelaide.

The extent of listing for the place in the Development Plan could be amended to read:

Woodville Station site and associated rail corridor, platform and rail location.

The reuse of existing structures is to be encouraged but not essential. Any new platformshelters required could be designed to reflect the earlier form of the platform shelters, or couldbe a completely new form of shelter which is appropriate and compatible with the site. The bricktrain control building, which is at normal ground level may be the easiest building to reuse.

6.3 Adaptation and Interpretation Policies

It is not appropriate to adapt the Woodville Railway Station site to another use. It should remainas a railway station and as a local transport node for this area.

Interpretation of the railway station and its history would be appropriate, particularly through theuse of early photos indicating the appearance of the original station building and its function asthe central station on the 1856 Adelaide to Port Adelaide line.

Page


21

APPENDIX 1. SOURCES OF INFORMATION\

Donovan and Associates, Railway Heritage of South Australia, 1992, National Trust of SAMarsden, Susan, A History of Woodville, 1977, City of WoodvilleDanvers Architects, Heritage Survey of the City of Woodville, 1994, Dept Environment andNatural Resources.

State Records [SAR information still to be located]Woodville Council Property FilesLands Titles Office, CTs 845/109, 882/50, 18000/86, 1805/26, 4361/941

APPENDIX 2. LIST OF EARLY PHOTOGRAPHS

State Library of South Australia:

B 20174 c1890 Woodville Railway Station

B 27135 1895 Alberton Railway Station

B 9875 1863 Adelaide Railway Station

B 1868 1870 1856 Port Adelaide Railway Building

B 41715 1910 Croydon Railway Station opening

B 46592 1915 Croydon

B 30324 c1920 Woodville Railway Station - Adelaide to Port Adelaide line

B 31383 c1920 Woodville Railway Station - Adelaide to Port Adelaide line

B 34593 c1925 Car Accident, Woodville - A 6 cylinder Buick collided with atrain at a Woodville crossing

B 4750 1928 Glenelg Railway Station

B 4926 1928 Glenelg Railway Station

B 11391 1942 Woodville Railway Station

B 21376 1942 Woodville Railway Station signal box

B 21377 c1942 Woodville Railway Station

B 34551 c1950 Train Accident, Woodville - Accident between a train and atruck on the Grange Line, Woodville

APPENDIX 3. LIST OF ARCHIVAL DRAWINGS

[The South Australian Railways drawings collection has been dispersed and State RecordsArchivists are searching for the relevant drawings for this report. These should be availablesoon]

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



Monday 21 October 2013 at 2:40pm



MEMBERS:


Hon. R.P. Wortley MLC

WITNESS:

KIRSTEN ALEXANDER, Mayor, City of Charles Sturt, called and examined:

64 The CHAIRPERSON: Welcome to the meeting. The Legislative Council has giventhe authority for this committee to hold public meetings. A transcript of your evidence today will beforwarded to you for your examination for any clerical corrections. Should you wish at any time topresent confidential evidence to the committee, please indicate and the committee will consideryour request.

Parliamentary privilege is accorded all evidence presented to a select committee.However, witnesses should be aware that that privilege does not extend to statements madeoutside this meeting. All persons, including members of the media, are reminded that the samerules apply as in the reporting of parliament. Whenever you are ready, you may proceed.

Ms ALEXANDER: Thank you. For those who have not had the opportunity to bethere, this shows St Clair Park. As you can see, there is quite a nice open green space; it is quitewell used for community events and festivals. The key points I would like to make are up on thescreen—basically, that the council failed in their duty to ratepayers and did not get a propervaluation of the land. That was also a finding of the Ombudsman.

A key point I made to the council very early on in the piece as a resident was thattheir documentation was misleading, and there are inaccuracies and falsehoods in it which werenot corrected, despite this being highlighted to council by myself and by, I would have to say, avery wide range of residents. The land swap was based on a lie. Consistently, we were told at alltimes during the land swap consultation process and afterwards that there was no net loss ofcommunity land, but we know that there was.

The Ombudsman actually found that some councillors were dishonest in theirevidence, and I must admit that I was a bit surprised to see that that wasn't, I guess, followedthrough because we have a duty to be honest under the Local Government Act. Councillors, Ibelieve, were compromised due to their ALP affiliations and had an agenda beyond representingtheir community. They routinely voted as a bloc and this is still going on in our present council, I amsorry to say.

Councillors failed to declare their conflicts of interest, and they failed to properlyinvestigate the residents' concerns. That, to me, is a key point because, if I reflect on what happenson council now, if a resident contacts me with an issue, (and I get them contacting me every day), Igo down the burrow on that issue and I look into it. I ask questions of the staff and, if I don't get areasonable answer and feel like I am not being told the full story, I ask some more questions until Iam satisfied that what I have been given is a reasonable response.

I saw no evidence, as a resident, of that happening in response to the concernsthat I raised—and I've got copies of all of them here—and to the concerns that were raised bymany other residents. We were getting fobbed off, we were not being listened to and, despite somevery sincere deputations that were given to the council before they took the decision and manysubmissions—and I've got them here too—I don't believe that the councillors fulfilled their duty tofollow up on the concerns the residents were raising and to make sure they had the full answer andthe full truth.

I think the key point is that there was absolutely no change made to the proposal,despite the significant number of residents' submissions, petitions, deputations and, I guess youwould have to say, demonstrations—absolutely no change. When you actually look at what wasproposed and what finally happened, it did not change one bit. So, I don't call this the land swap: I

K. ALEXANDER


call it the land swindle. I think it was unmistakably an ALP-controlled Charles Sturt council, andthey voted to advantage the government and disadvantage their community despite a strong localopposition.

I have in there, 'See video'. I understand that is going to be presented by amember of the community—the video of the protests that happened—so that you can see firsthandjust how many people did turn up repeatedly to those council meetings. We were told that we werea minority, but the silent majority never materialised, even after it had got into the media.

I think a key concern here is that most residents didn't know what was going onuntil it was too late. They didn't get the opportunity to make a submission but, to be honest, giventhe number of submissions that were actually made—and this is the report and they are all in here.There is page after page after page of residents' submissions, which were just fantastic, I mightadd. The submissions that were made were well thought out, they were well argued and theirquestions were never answered. So, despite all this, it wouldn't have mattered, presumably, if wehad had 10 times this amount because they weren't going to be listened to anyway. It was aforegone conclusion.

It was a land swindle. There was a net loss of open space, despite the communitysaying being told there was no net loss of community land. The Ombudsman found that there were7,250 square metres lost to roads. It is interesting how that figure moves around as you see thevarious reports from council, actually. It varies from anywhere from an increase of 281 squaremetres on one calculation, which I will talk about a bit later—

65 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Kirsten, I think we have had evidence to say that,where there was initially not quite the same as in the swap, that was rectified later; is that right?

Ms ALEXANDER: No, and I will talk about that a bit later.

66 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: And where did the $30 million come from?

Ms ALEXANDER: That's my estimate, and it's based on discussions I have hadwith local real estate people. It is just based on the value of land in Woodville and also based onvaluations that we have had put in front of us in council when we have gone to purchase land, so Idon't believe it's an unreasonable estimate. If you look at that land being rezoned to be residentialland, the valuation of the other piece of land was much, much less, even though it was alreadyallowed to be valued as residential land. I will talk about that a bit more.

Councillors were evasive and dishonest in their evidence to the Ombudsman, andthat was in his report. I think the question needs to be asked: who were those councillors? I thinkthe community has a right to know who was dishonest because some of those people may havebeen re-elected.

Councillor Rau was not interviewed and was permitted not to give evidence,despite the powers of the royal commission. I think that's a big failing. The advice that was given tome by former council staff, and also my own observations in the meetings at the time, was thatcouncillor Rau was a ringleader in that council, ably abetted by councillor Fitzpatrick and councillorWasylenko, from what I saw in the meetings. They were the three who were consistently asking thequestions. I must say, the way that those questions were asked was pretty intimidating towardsresidents at the time when they came to give their deputations.

I think another question that needs to be asked is: why were some of the councilstaff so intent on getting the land swap through, despite errors having been pointed out to them atthe time, despite concerns having been raised about the consultation materials that were put outthere? I will show you at this point what was put out there. This is what we were given.

As a resident, this is what I was given: 'What's happening in Woodville?' You see anice green area. This is a view from Woodville Road. We don't see any multistorey buildings here,do we? There is no mention of multistorey or high density anywhere in this pamphlet. You open itup. I would be interested to pass it round the table, for anyone who hasn't actually had anyengineering training, or in that sort of field—

67 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Do you want to put this in to the committee and submitit?

K. ALEXANDER


Ms ALEXANDER: Absolutely. I will be submitting a lot. Hand it around and justhave a look at it, because I showed that brochure to resident after resident after resident, and noneof them could work out what was going on because most people, if they haven't been trained toread a drawing, when they see a map like that, they can't visualise what's happening. You'll noticethat where the park actually is, the park isn't shown. It's a big white square.

So there are a lot of inconsistencies and misleading information in that brochure.I've written at length to the Ombudsman about that, and to the council at the time, and nothing wasdone to correct it.

68 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: It's got here: 'This could then be the site for the futuretransit-oriented development.' The TODs were always multistorey buildings, and the like.

Ms ALEXANDER: You have to think back to the time at which that was said. Atthat point, nobody had really heard of a TOD. The first time I heard of it was in that brochure, and Iwasn't dissimilar to any other resident. One resident said to me, 'What's a TOD?' 'A transit-orienteddevelopment.' He said, 'Is that a garage?' There's no description of what a TOD is.

69 The CHAIRPERSON: Why don't we let the mayor proceed with her evidence andwe will keep the questions to the end. I think she has a lot she would like to say. In the interests ofbrevity, perhaps you will proceed.

Ms ALEXANDER: There are a number of failings in there and I won't labour thepoint right now but I will go through that a bit later on. I think the key point is that that brochure wasthe trigger for the consultation. Council was required to provide a document which identified theproposal. That document did not clearly identify the proposal. Reading that document, it's alldesigned to dumb it down and for residents not to get alarmed by it. I think that's backed up by thefact that, up until that point, everything had been kept confidential, pretty much, or the key reportsthat related to it. Even some of them were kept confidential until after the end of the consultationperiod, which is just amazing.

One point I wanted to make is that I started this as a local mum concerned aboutthe loss of her park but, as an experienced engineer and project manager with over 25 yearsexperience, I do know what I'm talking about. I've been involved in site remediation projects andmany other engineering projects, from bridges to multistorey buildings to greenfields development,and I probably had an advantage, unlike a lot of other residents who got that pamphlet, because Iactually knew how to read drawings. I think I was possibly one of the only residents that actuallypicked up what was going on in the 500-metre radius that they consulted over—which has a fewissues, in any case. The other person who did was an architect, and that was Sandy McLeahy whoalso, thankfully, happened to live within the 500-metre radius, which didn't actually take in muchresidential area at all.

If you just look at this one here, this is what I actually ended up putting out on apamphlet to residents to make sure that they were aware of what was actually happening. It wasbasically this aerial photo with some words to say that there was going to be high densityresidential development on that piece of land.

So, it's not that hard to put out a brochure which clearly identifies that you're goingto lose this piece of land and in it's place you're going to have a piece of land over here wherewe're just going to roll out some grass and put some trees around it. So, you're losing your park,you're going to get a park that's further away, and in place of your park you're going to getmultistorey buildings. I mean, it's not that hard, is it, to say that and to show people what they'regoing to lose? All you need to do is put in an aerial view.

There was a number of other things that were misleading in that. Just looking atthis view, that shows green space all around the rec centre, when there's car parks and, clearly, it'snot surrounded by green space. They showed a big, white, blank square where the oval actuallywas, and a lot of people had problems identifying where it was in orientation. They didn't realisethat they were just talking about St Clair Oval. I didn't find one resident, who I spoke to, thatactually understood what was happening in that brochure. They just treated it like a newsletter. 'Oh,yeah, got a newsletter from the council—in the bin!'

Once I created that picture, residents had no problems understanding it. They sawexactly what it was and they were angry about it. Every single resident that I doorknocked—and I

K. ALEXANDER


doorknocked a lot of them, (and we would never have got the response to that we did to the councilmeetings if I hadn't)—was angry. They felt that they should have been properly informed, and theyfelt that they weren't.

I must admit, I was pretty disappointed with Jay Weatherill's interview comments.He made some comments—I think he was down at the river at the time—about residents justneeding to understand. Yes, well, they did understand, and once they understood they were nothappy. I am disappointed that Jay Weatherill has not represented his community and try to argueand represent the residents there, because I haven't seen much evidence of that. Basically, he wasmissing in action when it came to representing his residents on the St Clair issue.

Moving on, this is the consultation brochure. That's the inside of the brochure, thatyou've all seen. It was sent to residents within 500 metres; it was sent to residents only in closeproximity. It's interesting that in the council's own material, when it talks about parks the size ofSt Clair, it talks about the catchment of those parks—and this is stuff that predates the St Clairconsultation. Under 'Public open space objectives'—I think this is out of the development plan—itsays, 'minor district open spaces, preferably about 10 hectares'(which is what St Clair is)'servingthe people living within one kilometre radius of the site.'

Interesting. So, it serves the people within a kilometre, but when we come to achoice about what we're going to do on it, we only consult within a radius of 500 metres. If youconsulted within a kilometre, because of the catchment that that would've taken in, it would havetaken in possibly eight times as many residents as what were actually consulted with. I would bevery interested to know what the valid argument is for not having consulted in a kilometre whencouncil knew that that was the catchment area of the park.

This one is a very telling comment on that brochure: 'Red dotted lines show equalsized parcels of land to be swapped.' Not true. We will come to it a little bit later, but the red dottedline that's shown around the Actil Park, in the middle there, is not a true representation of the actualblock of land that was swapped. There were little stubs that came off it that went off into thesubdivision that made up part of the 4.7 hectares. So, that was the first lie.

As I said, it was the 'site of a future transit-oriented development'—no explanationof what that was can be found anywhere in that pamphlet. And even the frequently asked questionsthat are referred to as providing 'other information' are quite confusing and don't really give a clearoutline of what's actually proposed there.

The key point about that brochure is that if it doesn't raise your alarm when youlook at it as a resident, or if it doesn't raise your concerns, or if you don't really understand what it'ssaying, then anything that flows from that you don't engage in. So it is really important for a councilto get that right so that people do have a fair opportunity.

It has sort of been excused after the fact by saying, 'Oh well, it's just graphicdesign, so what?' that sort of thing. Well, I don't agree with that. The council had a responsibility tomake sure that what was being put out in the community adequately informed them, and they didn'tdo that. They failed to do that. So it was based on false and misleading information right from thestart. The process was not transparent and accountable.

Their public consultation policy, which I have a copy of here, required them, as onewould expect, to: support transparent and accountable decision-making practices; considercommunity views; ensure that through the appropriate application of community consultationprinciples, the affected community views are recognised and taken into account in the decision-making process (I didn't see any evidence of that); ensure that information is easily understood,relevant, consistent and accessible to identified stakeholders; give consideration to the removal ofbarriers to access due to language, literacy, disability, cultural issues and time constraints (I didn'treally see much evidence of that either); ensure that submissions by stakeholders are listened toand responded to respectfully; consider the results of relevant consultations when makingdecisions. It's all in there; it just wasn't followed.

One other thing: under the Local Government Act—I think it's section 193(1)—roads are not considered to be community land, yet they were included in the area that wasswapped. The ombudsman said, 'That's okay. It's not unreasonable that they considered roads aspart of that land.' I disagree. It's actually in the act. In my submission on the ombudsman'sprovisional report, I advised him of that. You can only ask why.

K. ALEXANDER


Another thing that I think was relevant in relation to consultation was that it was notmade clear to the community through that brochure on what's happening in Woodville as to whatinfluence they could actually have or what even the purpose of the consultation was. Was theregoing to be any influence? I would argue that if we had no ability to influence the outcome of theland swap or if they would proceed with the land swap, then why was the consultation held at all?

If you look at some principles that were available at the time, admittedly not fromthe South Australian government but from the Victorian government—I did a search on the web atthe time to try to find out what a local government should do when it is consulting with itscommunity. On top of their checklist is—from the Victorian local government consultation andengagement principles—why is this consultation being done? You know, tell your community. Whyis it being done? What exactly am I consulting about? How will the consultation improve the finaloutcome? It didn't change the final outcome at all, did it? What information am I providing to thesepeople who are being consulted? Is the information adequate to ensure that they can express aninformed opinion? Is the information provided in a way which is easily understandable, meaningfuland fun? I mean, it's all there. Is the decision-making process clear and has this beencommunicated with respondents? Some of these issues I actually included in my deputation tocouncil and raised those issues with them in terms of my concerns about the consultation. Nothingwas ever done.

70 The CHAIRPERSON: How many more slides do we have?

Ms ALEXANDER: There's lots.

71 The CHAIRPERSON: Okay; because we've allocated half an hour for you.

Ms ALEXANDER: Can I come back?

72 The CHAIRPERSON: Maybe if you just give us a bit of a vignette of what you thinkthe most important issues are in your presentation, because I assume that everything you have,including your PowerPoint, is going to be formally submitted as evidence.

Ms ALEXANDER: Yes, but I probably need you to talk me through some of it.Alright, I will move on to the next one. I won't read through this.

73 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I will be leaving in two minutes, but I'll read that.

74 The CHAIRPERSON: Russell is very thorough.

Ms ALEXANDER: Sure, okay. So the key points are that there were petitions putup that were saying it was misleading. Residents were saying to the council before they took thedecision that it's misleading. Emails went to them saying that it's misleading. Nothing was everdone. Nothing was ever changed.

If you have a look at the map and see where 500 metres covers, Woodville High,the racecourse and Holden's are in around 180 degrees of that, so it is actually a small residentialcatchment, which I mentioned. The Ombudsman found that there was a net loss of land, but therewas no action taken; the land swap was not reversed. I guess I am concerned about not only themisleading of the public but also the fact that they made an error, it was not addressed, nor hasthere ever been an honest accounting of those two areas of land to this day. You get differentanswers every time you ask the question.

The Ombudsman sort of said in his report, 'Oh well, it's all a bit confusing, sotherefore we won't worry about that.' Well, I'm sorry, but that's not the point. The point is, that was akey point that I emphasised over and over and over again: there should have been a clear andhonest accounting to the community on what land was going to be lost in the transfer.

The latest version, which we got in questions on notice just recently in council, wasI think there was around 5,000 square metres that was a shortfall. That took into account the ActilAvenue closure which they sort of threw into the mix. If you notice, in that brochure, Actil Avenuewas not closed in that original brochure which we were first consulted on. So, they threw that backin the mix, and I will go through that—but still, 5,000 square metres short.

But then, they have picked on a suggestion that I made to them probably within thelast 12 months that we should approach the Rail Operations people and try and look at whetherthey would transfer a strip of land along the rail corridor, because it was quite clear to me that that

K. ALEXANDER


land was now surplus. So, they threw that back into the mix to try and offset against the 5,000. Imean, it is just amazing.

Sandy McLeahy was another resident who tried to get that issue corrected, and hesent a number of emails that were answered by Tolley Wasylenko and Henry Inat. He got to a pointwhere he had sort of pinned them down and they did not really know what answer to give, andbasically all communication stopped at that point; he could not get anything else out of them. Theissue was never corrected, and they went ahead with the land swap in any case.

The letter from Minister Hill after Gail Gago had considered the case in court tomyself and a group of other residents again relies on no net loss of community land, but there was.The whole approval was flawed. They reapproved the swap without talking to residents, and thenthey went into a big sell about how wonderful it was for the community, still saying, 'No net loss ofcommunity land.'

We raised our concerns with Jay Weatherill, and we took him through what I amabout to just take you through quickly now. This is the original land management agreement for theActil site, and you can see the black areas; they are the park areas. It provided 12½ per cent openspace. When the land swap happened, that black area in the middle was superimposed—and youmight be able to see it, but Sandy has highlighted it in pink there, because this was a slide out ofhis deputation to council—it was superimposed by the land that came off of the oval. So we, inessence, lost that park that was always going to be there, as well as losing land to roads.

So, no net loss—well, there is that issue that I was talking about before where thered dotted outline doesn't match the actual outline of the block. This was presented to council atthe time. Sandy presented all this information to them; they did nothing about it. This was more ofhis presentation to show how, before and after, that there was less open space than what therewas.

I think the concern for me and for many others in the community was that it was aforegone conclusion that it would go ahead. They had been working on it since 2004, and there is alot of evidence here that says that it was a foregone conclusion. They ignored the heritagesignificance; they made no effort really to investigate, and that came out much later in the piece.There was deputation refused from Peter Stanford, who is the ex-vice president of the state RSL,and reports were kept confidential.

It is interesting that when Sandy and I put the petition in to council saying that theconsultation was misleading, Councillor Fitzpatrick said, 'Oh, well, if we don't do this, thegovernment will do it anyway.' I mean, that is not the point. The point is: you are there as acouncillor to make a proper decision on the matter.

I won't go through too much of this; this is all fairly self-explanatory. I think the keyissue for me was that no risk assessment and no cost-benefit analysis were ever put in front of thecommunity. They kept saying that there was a reason why it should happen, but we were nevergiven a proper explanation of how the community was going to benefit from this other than just, 'It'sgoing to revitalise Woodville Road.' Well, I'm sorry, as we well know, just putting multistoreyapartment buildings in an area doesn't magically revitalise it. In fact, it could have the oppositeeffect, which is what a lot of residents were arguing—that there is a significant loss of amenity bythat piece of land being developed.

There were some quite cute statements made about the TOD, that it couldn't beput on Actil because that wasn't within 400 metres of the station and it needed to be right alongsidethe station, when there was information available from the UK at the time that said that anythingwithin 800 metres of the station was acceptable. So, I think the TOD justification for the land swapwas a bit of a red herring.

Something that concerned me was how the delivery of the 30-year plan was a bitlike a religion—you couldn't question it. There was a real culture there, I believe, amongst both thestaff and the elected members of the day that you can't question what the staff put in front of youand you can't question the 30-year plan, and you can't look at how that applies to your communityand whether the decisions you are making based on the 30-year plan are the right decisions tomake.

K. ALEXANDER


The principles in the plan might be right, but it is how you deliver it, and this was areally poor example of how to deliver it. There was no justification, it wasn't necessary to build onthe oval; I won't go through all of that, but I think it goes without saying. A key point here is thatfrom a very early time onwards the lack of open space in Woodville, Cheltenham, Albert Park andWoodville Park was known both to the state government and to the council, and yet here they weredoing nothing to increase it. They had an opportunity to increase it and it's been argued that byputting the wetlands on Cheltenham they increased open space. Theoretically, yes, but you can'tuse a wetland to play tennis or soccer or football, and through removing an oval they are in a sensereducing open space.

One thing that sticks out for me, with my mayoral hat on, is that I now understandhow a council works much more than I did at the time when I was a resident, and I believe that thatcouncil failed totally its community. It failed in its role as council to act as a representative and aninformed and responsible decision-maker and, in terms of being openly responsible andaccountable, they totally failed.

I think individual members also failed in their responsibility to their residents. In factsome of them—rather than properly investigating the issues raised—they actively attacked theresidents who had made submissions to them, both in emails in response or publicly through themedia. They called them names and really the behaviour was just appalling.

The concern for me is some of the links between the state government and thecouncil. We had councillors who were working directly for Rau and Atkinson. One councillor wasmarried to Minister Rau, one councillor was a close friend of Michael Atkinson, and MichaelAtkinson said that on radio. He is the godfather to another councillor's child. Both the electorateoffices of Atkinson and Weatherill were used to print the land swap letters. It just goes on and on.

There is a lot of evidence in the Ombudsman's report about what sort of assistancewas given to certain selected members of the council who happened to be ALP councillors, and Ithink that created a sense of obligation, that they couldn't question what was going on because todo so might have meant that they wouldn't be picked next time to run for council. It's clear as thenose on your face.

In the Ombudsman's report, you have evidence that one councillor says, 'We'vegot to help Mick out on this.' Councillor Wasylenko was reported as having said that. The nightbefore the vote was taken, he was reassured that the vote would be passed by a large majority.How did they know it was going to be passed by a large majority if they hadn't caucused on itbefore? What do you say?

75 The CHAIRPERSON: Your Worship, we might pause for a moment because oneof our witnesses has agreed not to give evidence today and be rescheduled in order to give yousome extra time, but we have two other witnesses as well. I know councillor Randall is here; iscouncillor Hanley here? Would it be alright if we put you on in half an hour? We've lost our lastwitness for the day, so we probably have time for you to be today. Let's proceed; you have moretime.

Ms ALEXANDER: Thank you; it's appreciated. I guess it's a key evidence that theydidn't bring an open mind to their decision, that they had a sense of obligation. They were gettingmonetary reward through their position on council. They were getting assistance in theircampaigns. This was key government policy; they were not going to challenge it. What amazed meat the time, from the first time I walked into that council chamber, was how there was just so littledebate over it. The only person who seemed to be saying anything was councillor Grant, and in theend there were only three councillors who voted against it.

The Ombudsman in his report said that the voting patterns were not consistent witha bloc operating or them not being biased about the decision, but actually that's not true. When youlook at those voting patterns, they were very consistent, and I broke that down for him to showhow, at each vote in relation to this land swap issue, there was always a large majority ofALP councillors there voting that way. It was never in doubt, and they knew that they had such alarge majority. There was evidence in the Ombudsman's report from the other non-ALP councillorsthat said that they had difficulty getting anything through if the ALP didn't agree with it. Of coursethey didn't—because it was 12 out of 17. That's a huge number.

K. ALEXANDER


I'm very sorry to say that the same thing is happening now—exactly the samething—and I have evidence to show you on the voting patterns in this council today. Pretty muchfrom day one, there was a key group that was consistently voting together, and as time went onthey picked up a few so that they could get a majority of one, so by the time we came to the voteon the rezoning of St Clair there was no going back, was there? There's evidence about the deputymayor positions and how they are allocated.

I will just reinforce that councillors have a duty to behave ethically; some weredishonest some had undeclared conflicts, one refused under legal advice to be questioned, and allof this went unchallenged. Why did this not get followed up? We even had councillors sayingafterwards and in this term of council—Councillor Wasylenko was one of them—standing up,saying, 'We were vindicated by the Ombudsman's report.' Sorry, but that's not what I read. I wouldhave to say that some would argue that there is a conflict right there now—the fact that CouncillorRau was on the council at the time and Minister Rau is now the one who is making a decision onthe rezoning. How can that be?

In actual fact, legal proceedings challenging the Ombudsman's jurisdiction wereused as a delaying tactic. These were instigated by Councillor Rau and Councillor Angelino, who, Iunderstand, worked in Minister Rau's office. Those legal proceedings were introduced on16 June 2010, and the effect of those legal proceedings was that the Ombudsman's report wasdelayed until after the council elections, so residents never got the opportunity to see any of thisevidence, to know who did what or even to know really some of the issues that had already beenraised.

I am concerned particularly that Councillor Rau was not interviewed. TheOmbudsman was satisfied that her evidence would be minimal. Well, that wasn't my observationfrom watching the council, and it certainly wasn't the observation I got from a former council staffer,who said that as far as she was aware all the councillors were routinely caucusing in MichaelAtkinson's office and they would come into council on the Monday night with their decisions alreadysorted out.

It was clear from my observations at the council meeting that even when it came tothe St Clair vote that it was orchestrated. You know, there was a 'put motion' call so that RobertGrant—I don't think he even got a chance to speak at one of the meetings. It was all orchestratedbeforehand; no-one really spoke; debate was cut off and that was the end of that. It was justincredible.

As I said in the deputations, Councillor Rau, Councillor Fitzpatrick and CouncillorWasylenko were the three people who were asking questions, not to clarify things, not to pullinformation out of people but more to try to, I would say, undermine them, to question andchallenge what they were saying, to make it look like what they were saying was not true, todiscredit them. That was the thrust of the questions.

In fact, some of the questions that Councillor Rau asked I thought my God—therewas a poor, elderly gentleman sitting there who could hardly speak into the microphone and it waslike she was cross-examining him as if he was in court. The whole approach to it was just awful, inwhat is a very intimidating thing in any case.

The Ombudsman said in his report that councillors should be prepared toreconsider their views based on all the arguments and evidence presented. We never saw any ofthat happening; it was just consistently railroaded through, meeting after meeting after meeting. Inever saw any evidence of councillors following up. I think there was one email I saw fromcouncillor Wasylenko, which I have a copy of, where he asked about the areas of land thing butthen, once he got the answer from Henry Inat, that was it, despite Sandy having responded andsaying, 'Well, actually, no, that's not right, Mr Inat. You know, you've got it wrong.' It was neverfollowed up again.

I think there was a sense of urgency introduced by the staff report. I think even thestaff reports were not unbalanced. They were quite pro land swap, pro TOD, they did not reallyever cover the negative aspects of it and what the concerns of the community might be. It wasintroduced as a shining example to the community. That is the sort of language that was used.

I think initially some of the councillors that perhaps were not so familiar with theissue went along with it. A good example would be Councillor Harley because he said, 'Oh, yeah,

K. ALEXANDER


that doesn't sound unreasonable,' but as soon as he saw the residents' reaction he changed hismind. That is what an independent councillor would do—they would change their mind. I have seenit happen in this council.

The CEO said to me at various times that he was surprised that the councillorsdidn't change their minds, because normally when a council gets 20 residents in the gallery whoare upset about something they change their minds or they at least work through with the residentsto try to work through the issues. They sit down with them and they discuss it with them—none ofthat happened with St Clair. There was never any effort made other than from people like RobertGrant.

I think it is disappointing that the Ombudsman initially dismissed the fourcomplaints that had been made and accepted council feedback at face value. I don't think heshould have; I think he was only being told part of the story and I think he should have looked into ita bit more carefully.

As I said before, the long-term influence of Michael Atkinson over the council waswell known to council staff, and you can even see that coming through in the Ombudsman's reportwhere he says he has been running people for council back since 1993 I think he said. I can'tremember the date but it was something like that. There is evidence there that he takes an activeinterest in who is elected to council—well, why? I don't see any evidence of any other of my localstate MPs taking that sort of interest or having that sort of influence. I just find it amazing.

There were regular email loops between the ALP councillors, as councillors votingas a block, that evidence was given by some of the independent councillors that that washappening well before the St Clair land swap. It's quite interesting how, in the Ombudsman's report,there are a number of statements where they say that these people eventually admitted things.There was a real unwillingness to talk about their relationship with Michael Atkinson.

I believe that there would have been repercussions if councillors had voted thewrong way. There is every chance that those councillors who were employed in electorate officeswould not have retained their jobs and there would not have been any assistance provided for there-election campaigns because they wouldn't have done the right thing.

The councillors were not open to persuasion. You just look at the difference inresponses between the way the ALP councillors were responding to emails and those who wereindependent were responding to emails. It was just a total difference. They voted blindly in supportof the party position. They even expressed some concern over how 12 of them getting togetherwould look prior to the final decision. This is all in the Ombudsman's report.

I think there was an overemphasis by the Ombudsman on what he called thethreshold decision on 9 November. They had several opportunities after that to change their mindbased on what they were being told by the community, by the significant community response.There were 300 people there on 9 November when they took that decision.

On 23 November when they took the same decision, they had 600 to 700 peoplethere at the council. That is unprecedented. When has a council ever got that many people turningup? I don't know. It is just huge, so to say that it wasn't a majority of residents is just lunacy, really.

I think that really if the council was open to being convinced or open to persuasionor had an open mind in relation to the matter they would have changed their mind because clearlyCouncillor Ghent did and Councillor Harley did—the two independent councillors who changedtheir mind. Interestingly enough, Brian Massey changed his mind back the other way and locked inwith the rest of the ALP. The question has to be asked: what was he told at the time? As I said, Ithink the Ombudsman got it wrong about the voting pattern. I think there is conclusive evidenceand their majority was never in doubt.

They had letters ready to go and they were having discussions about that on17 November, so again they had a predetermined position. There was another vote taken on the23

rdand then there was another vote taken on the 14

th. At multiple times, they could have

reconsidered their decisions. Councillor Grant put up rescission motion after recession motionabout the consultation; he wasn't listened to either. Councillor Fitzpatrick attacked residentspersonally in letters to the press. He sent an email to my employer and I think it was to try to haveme disciplined or possibly even dismissed from my employer.

K. ALEXANDER


I also understand that the ALP, possibly through the RTBU, were trying toundertake research into my background to see what they could pull out to discredit me because Iwas the spokesperson for the residents at the time. It was just atrocious. Rather than trying to helpthese residents, they're attacking them, researching them, digging up dirt files. It is just amazing—all from public officers who have a duty to represent their residents and to understand and properlyact on their concerns.

76 The CHAIRPERSON: Mayor, are we going to have time to ask you questions?

Ms ALEXANDER: Do you want me to finish up?

77 The CHAIRPERSON: Every word you have on your slide will be tabled as officialevidence.

Ms ALEXANDER: Okay, I will go on. That's all I need to talk about there. I will justhighlight a bit about the memorial park. I believe there was a bit of a spin put on some of the stuffthat was put in front of council in the initial history of the site. I didn't really even fully understandthe significance of that to the community until we were in the DPAC submissions. What we havefound out since—I just want emphasise this—is that there are a number of early residents who hadgiven eyewitness accounts of a white cross, and that includes John Dyer, the former mayor.

There was a white cross that stood in the park at which they had ANZAC Daydawn services. None of that was dug up beforehand. They made no attempt really to pursue that,even though Peter Standford, who was ex-vice-president of the RSL, had asked them for adeputation, and I know Robert Grant had raised it as well. Why not? If you know that something isof significance to the veteran community, if you know that a councillor's ashes are scattered there,how on earth could you ever envisage developing that site? It is a sacred site. It is just amazing.

So, I did put in my mayor's report all the information that was in the early councilreports, and I will give you a copy of that. All of this was available to council at the time, but theyignored it. They could have had that information.

There is a clear connection. There is correspondence between the RSL and thecouncil. When I presented my report, I think it was Councillor Randall who actually stood up incouncil and basically said—I can't remember his exact words—you could put a differentinterpretation on that. Well, not really, because there were thank you letters between the RSL andthe mayor of the day, once the land was acquired.

Clearly, they set out to acquire the land because of the 1942 petition. Theyacquired the land, and then the RSL thanked them, then there was a big white cross put up in thepark at which the RSL had their ANZAC dawn services. How black and white does it have to be? Idon't think there are really any shades of grey there.

In summary, what needs to be done is that I ask that the committee find that therezoning should not proceed. I guess there are a number of options of how we address thesituation, given it's pretty messy and the land has been transferred. We could reverse the swapand basically develop part of the Actil land. I don't think that would be a good idea because thatmeans you essentially lose open space in comparison to what we could achieve.

What I think the government should do is either gift or sell the additional openspace—the actual additional open space—on a fair, honest and accountable accounting of that atthe Valuer-General's valuation, and come to a resolution with council over the basis on which theywill return that land. I think that land should then be dedicated as a memorial park because, nowthat we know that history about the 1942 petition, and the subsequent history of the use of the parkby the community, we know how much this park means to the community, and we need to increaseopen space in an area where it is sorely needed.

I haven't talked a lot about the issues with some of the code of conduct stuff, butsome of the stuff that has come up during this term of council has just been appalling. The sorts ofpressure, the bullying, the harassment that has been aimed at the non-ALP councillors is just anabsolute disgrace, and I think we need some mechanisms to address that.

I don't think elected members should be allowed to work in MPs' electorate officersand neither does the Ombudsman, but nothing has been done on that. I think there are goodreasons for that because they become conflicted and, because of a threat of loss of employment,

K. ALEXANDER


they can't really challenge government policy when perhaps they should and perhaps they shouldencourage their council to sit down with the government of the day and work it through.

It doesn't mean that things can't happen, but what it does mean is that peopleshould be able to have a fair say and sit down, ask the questions and get their questions answered.I think people should absolutely have to declare their political affiliations when they run for councils,because the community has a right to make up its mind about who they really want on a council.The last thing we want is a council with another 12 of 17. I am open to questions.

78 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I think you have answered a coupleof my questions already about what you would like to see done in the future. Is it your view that thewill of the community is that the St Clair park be retained and not be rezoned?

Ms ALEXANDER: Yes, absolutely.

79 The CHAIRPERSON: Is it still proposed that there be high-density residential onthat site?

Ms ALEXANDER: In the DPAC submission, I think it was up to eight storeys. It'squite interesting, actually. There was a plan that was put out after they did the Woodville villageconsultation showing different options. That sort of thing could easily have been put out with theoriginal pamphlet. It's not hard to put some blocks on a map, is it, and just say, conceptually, that'swhat we are doing, but none of that ever came out beforehand.

So, yes, it's a high-density development. There were various options that werelooked at, but they all look much the same really, don't they? I think there has been some sort ofpulling back from that. I had some discussions with the URA just to try, on behalf on the residents,to get some sort of discussion going about how we could get a better result for this. I encouragedthe URA to come back to the residents with another proposal, and they did start to do that—theyactually included another soccer field on the oval.

Unfortunately, that was sideswiped by the rezoning then going out to thecommunity and there was never, as far as I am aware, any real discussion between thegovernment and the residents to say, 'Yes, that's something we are happy with.' The residentswere happy to sit down and talk with the council, although I must say that was before weunderstood the returned servicemen significance and, once we understood that, I must say, myview of it changed a bit.

Before then, I thought, 'Well, you know, we're getting some extra open space onthe Actil site. Perhaps they could push the development back on St Clair and put it at the rear ofthe oval and there's a win there. If we get to keep a smaller oval and that bit along Woodville Road,there's a win for the community, we haven't completely lost out.' But, once I found out about thesignificance to the servicemen and the history of the park and the reason why the park was there—it was intended to be a memorial park—I thought, 'No, that's not just not right.'

80 The Hon. M. PARNELL: What you've just said has echoes of the racecourseredevelopment where, by the time the community wanted to talk turkey with government aboutpossible options, or compromise, if you want to use that word, it was too late because everyonewas locked in. I want to touch on a couple of things you raise. One of them which is quitechallenging for us in state parliament is in relation to the quality of decisions made by councillors.

What your presentation has said is that there was political interference, councillorsrefusing to budge in the face of clear contrary evidence, failure to exercise independent judgement,and bias. They were just some of the notes I took. To which my response is: welcome to stateparliament, because none of those things invalidates any decisions that are made in this place.When we come to make recommendations, we will have to think carefully about how we managethat quality of decision making part of it, because it's tricky.

I want to ask you about the process a little bit. The way it works is that, becausethe park was community land, that status of community land had to be undone before anything elsecould happen. So they go through the Local Government Act, section 194, the revocation ofcommunity land process, and when you read that section it is pretty clear that what was generallyintended was that the council would have an idea to get rid of some community land and theywould have to convince the state government. They would have to convince the minister. It's not

K. ALEXANDER


really worded in such a way where the original decision, or the motivation, is actually coming fromthe state government rather than being driven by local council.

When you look at section 194, it basically says that there are various statutorydocuments the council has to prepare and then they have to follow their public consultation plan,and that's it. If a council's public consultation plan isn't up to scratch, then the revocationconsultation isn't up to scratch, either.

Do you have any thoughts—and maybe it's in the material you are going to giveus—on how that revocation of land system could be reformed and perhaps a different processfollowed, when the driving force is, in fact, the state government rather than it being driven by alocal council?

Ms ALEXANDER: I think there are a number of things aligned there. The fact thatthere was such a strong affiliation within the council and the fact that the government happened tobe the same political affiliation. I think sometimes you get some checks and balances.

In answer to that question, there was a proposal put forward—it also comes backto your first question as well: in parliament, what checks and balances do you have here? Youhave an upper house, which is a house of review, and potentially there's an ability that if residentsare overlooked in the lower house they can go to the upper house, as here today, and get theircase revisited and say, 'Hang on a minute, there have been some things overlooked here.' So Ithink, in parliament, there are some checks and balances. In council, or in this case, there wasn't.The minister made the decision, again, the Minister for the Southern Suburbs, within, I think it wasa week, and there were no meetings with residents in the meantime.

How could you improve the process? Maybe have a requirement that, if a certainnumber of people do sign a petition against a plan like this, there has to be a wider poll.

Another thing I found a bit disappointing was the fact that I had made a complaintto the Ombudsman (and I've got my complaints all here) which raised a lot of these issues, and Idon't believe those complaints were really taken seriously enough. I think there is a tendency tobelieve what the administration is saying compared to what the residents are saying, and I reallywasn't taken seriously, I don't think, until it came out of the Legislative Council, and even then Ithink the residents struck some resistance in getting that area of land stuff looked into. But finallyhe came up with the finding that there was a loss, but it took a lot of effort.

I would have to say that I think there does need to be an independent party whenit's a state government project. The council, I think, was also made to feel a little bit like, 'You can'tchallenge this because its state government policy.' There was a big flavour of that coming throughthe reports, and that's not right. You have a duty to consider state government policy and torespond to it, but if it doesn't make sense in the area that you are doing something, well, thenyou've got to take up the baton with the state government and say, 'Well, hang on a minute, I thinkwe're overlooking something here. There's a real deficiency of open space in this area; we need toaddress that, and this is not a good thing. There's all these other industrial sites that we coulddevelop.'

81 The CHAIRPERSON: We will need to wrap up. Did you have anything else?

82 The Hon. M. PARNELL: That will do me for now.

83 The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to be clear, you think there were deficiencies in theprocess, the outcome, but not just that: the Ombudsman's report, you don't think the Ombudsmanproperly investigated and reached the proper conclusions?

Ms ALEXANDER: Yes, I would probably say the latter. He actually did quite athorough investigation in the end. I think—

84 The Hon. K.J. MAHER: So it was a thorough investigation?

Ms ALEXANDER: I think it's the conclusions that he drew. Sorry, I'll just clarifythat. There were two investigations. I made a complaint initially, and he pretty much sort of knockedthat one on the head. He responded to it, but he didn't really look into it, that issue. My complaintwas mainly about the loss of community land, and he pretty much accepted what the council stafftold him at the time, but it wasn't right. There's an amazing memo from Henry Inat, which you readthat—

K. ALEXANDER


85 The Hon. K.J. MAHER: But just in terms of the second Ombudsman's report, youdon't think the Ombudsman reached the correct conclusions?

Ms ALEXANDER: I think he could have been stronger in his conclusions and, yes,there are a number of points in that report where I disagree with him; yes, I do. He is givenevidence at various times in the report, and then he says, 'Oh, well, I don't find any evidence ofthat,' or, 'I see no reason to challenge that.' Well, I disagree. I think there was enough evidencethere, and I think there should have been more action. And I'm disappointed, too, with the actionthat council took when it came to addressing the code of conduct matters, and I think that theresidents were disappointed about that too.

It was difficult for the new councillors because none of them were on council whenany of this happened. The new councillors came on and all the continuing councillors who werenamed in the report had to excuse themselves, and they were just left there going, 'Well, what wedo about this?' I think it could have been dealt with more strongly by the Ombudsman rather thanjust referring it back to council. I think there should have been action taken to say, 'Well, if thesepeople were dishonest, why were they not named? That's a breach of the act.'

86 The CHAIRPERSON: I've read that report, too. Without wishing to put any wordsin anyone's mouth, I think the Ombudsman makes a number of recommendations about reformsneeded to the Local Government Act.

Ms ALEXANDER: Yes, and they haven't been taken up. On the whole, I think hedid a good job of his report. I wasn't happy with what he did with my earlier complaint, and that'swhat my comments were reflecting, that I didn't think he took my earlier complaints seriouslyenough.

Interestingly enough, I didn't respond to his provisional report on my earliercomplaint because by that time this investigation had already been launched, and if I hadresponded to it I would have highlighted all the issues that I thought he had overlooked, but Ithought I was going to get the opportunity to do it here so I wouldn't worry about responding to hisprovisional report. I was a bit disappointed that the council then took those reports—because hefinalised them and put them all out—and used that as a media opportunity to say, 'Oh, we've beenvindicated.' I've got the media reports here. I mean, it was just incredible.

87 The CHAIRPERSON: Alright, we need to finish there. Thank you for coming in andproviding such a comprehensive amount of evidence.

88 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Can we work out which documents are being left behind?

89 The CHAIRPERSON: Are you basically going to table all of that? You can if youlike.

Ms ALEXANDER: There's a lot. I've got to get copies of it. What I will do is getcopies and bring it back. I might try to trim it back a little.

90 The CHAIRPERSON: We will receive that at a future date then. Thank you verymuch.

Ms ALEXANDER: No worries; thank you very much.



WITNESS:

ROBERT RANDALL, Councillor, City of Charles Sturt, called and examined:

91 The CHAIRPERSON: Councillor Randall, thank you for coming in. You probablyheard me give the official screed at the start, which applies to any witnesses who wish to giveevidence today. I have done the introductions as well, so you can proceed to give your evidencewhenever you are ready.

Mr RANDALL: Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I thank you forthe opportunity to appear before you today and provide a different viewpoint for your consideration.Let me introduce myself briefly. I have been involved in community advocacy for about 30 years,commencing when I was first elected as a ward councillor on the Henley and Grange council in1975. Since then I have spent time as a member of parliament representing the state electorate ofHenley Beach (now known as Colton).

I completed service on the Henley and Grange council as a councillor, aldermanand finally mayor. I have worked in employment for the Hon. John Olsen when he was the leader ofthe opposition, the Hon. Ian Wilson MP (federal Minister for Environment and Aboriginal Affairs)and the Hon. Senator Nick Minchin during his time as finance minister. During this period I wasalso fortunate to serve as the Liberal Party president of the South Australian division. Today I am amember of the executive of Family First and Henley Ward councillor on the Charles Sturt council.

At the 2010 election there were significant changes to the council and I waselected with seven new council members and a new mayor. My presentation today will focus on thelast three years as an elected member on council. I have had no prior involvement with the St Clairissue.

The Charles Sturt council has not resolved at any time that its spokesperson, themayor or any councillors seek to make a representation of the issues it faces in relation to theSt Clair land swap, or any other matter. I therefore speak on my own behalf without any authorityfrom council, making my own observations about the St Clair issue. I am here because I believe analternate viewpoint needs to be heard. I have supplied supporting documentation for the points Iwish to make, and they are in the folders and suitably marked.

The election of mayor Alexander is worth considering given her continuingdetermination to be an advocate for the Save the St Clair Reserve residents association. The totalnumber of eligible voters at the 2010 election was 75,273. Kirsten Alexander received just11,006 primary votes (that is 14.62 per cent of the total voters eligible). Harold Anderson, theformer mayor, received 7,017 primary votes (just 9.3 per cent of total votes). Ms Alexander and hersupporters have said on a number of occasions that she was elected on the St Clair issue and hasa mandate to return the reserve to open space.

The Local Government Act details the role of the mayor. Section 58 determines,under the heading Principal Member, that the mayor is to:

(a) to preside at meetings of the Council;

(b) if requested, to provide advice to the Chief Executive Officer between Council meetingson the implementation of a decision of the Council;

(c) to act as the principal spokesperson of the Council;

(d) to exercise other functions of the Council as the Council determines;

(e) to carry out the civic and ceremonial duties of the office of principal member.

I make the following observations: Ms Alexander was elected mayor without any prior experienceas an elected member in local government; she is a manager of staff in her workplace. Uponelection, Ms Alexander, as mayor, believed that she had the right to expect elected members andstaff to conform to her directions. I believe it is this inexperience that continues to cause CharlesSturt council to be dysfunctional under her leadership, particularly relating to issues of St Clair.

The mayor, as presiding officer, continues to be involved in the debate, and oftenmisuses her position as presiding officer to achieve outcomes for her advocacy of the Save theSt Clair position. It is my belief that on matters for debate relating to St Clair, the mayor has a

R. RANDALL


conflict of interest and is unable to preside over meetings in an impartial manner. It is my belief thatthe mayor and the St Clair Residents Association continue to oppose any resolution of the landowned by Renewal SA in the hope that at the state election in March 2014, there will be a changeof government—one that is sympathetic to their cause; one that will return the land to thecommunity. The Liberal Party needs to clarify its position before the election.

I wish to provide the committee information that demonstrates these observations.Section 1, which is in front of you, page 1. I understand that the mayor and Save the St Clairmembers, prior to 2010, had previously presented to Charles Sturt council an alternativedevelopment proposed for the land that is now owned by the LMC (or Renewal SA)—a ChristieWalk-type development. Students of Carnegie Mellon University participated in a replicabilityanalysis of Christie Walk to be located at the Woodville Station precinct. The mayor was acontributor to this project, as you can see in the acknowledgements, and a strong supporter.

Council received its report at its meeting on 11 July 2010 (item 6.127). I alsosupport this design concept as a development possibility for the land owned by Renewal SA.

92 The CHAIRPERSON: Councillor Randall, as interesting as this is, we have gotsome fairly specific terms of reference. Are you going to be addressing those in your presentation?

Mr RANDALL: Yes, I am , Madam Chair. I am, because on the basis that we aretalking about the inquiry, as of where we are today, that is my presentation. You have heard themayor's presentation about what happened previously. What I am telling you today is where we aretoday as a result of that. That issue of the Carnegie Mellon University study resolved around whatthe land will be used for in the future, and I hope to demonstrate to you further into my presentationabout the DPA.

The second section that I wanted to refer to you is under the yellow tab. On22 August, item 6.146 provides information about the access from Woodville Road to the proposeddevelopment via St Clair Avenue. Council unanimously agreed for a study to take place. Thisdiscussion was a result of the mayor's advocacy within council workshops that the proposed roadwas inappropriate. After much community consultation, council resolved on 22 October 2012 tonegotiate with Renew SA—that is item 6.123 in the minutes, as attached. What I'm saying to youthere, again, influences the need to review the previous council's action regarding the purchase ofthe St Clair land.

Madam Chair, we heard earlier this afternoon a bit about the Ombudsman'sinvestigation into the St Clair land swap. That is under the orange tab and I now want to present toyou some information relating to that. On 12 December 2012, the Ombudsman's report waspresented to council as two agenda items, one being confidential, and a detailed report wasprepared by staff containing two tables for consideration, and that report in its whole, in its totalincluding the tables, is included for your information.

Table 1 detailed the 27 opinions expressed by the Ombudsman, providingrecommended action for each opinion. Table 2 proposed action by council responding to theOmbudsman's 13 recommendations to change legislation. It is my observation that those electedmembers and the mayor who had been subject to investigation by the Ombudsman participated inthe debate. The minutes indicate that the motion was carried as per the recommendations.

Under the green tab is a second item which was dealt with by council in aconfidential manner later in the evening. The minutes record that the mayor, and councillorsFitzpatrick, Wasylenko and Agius declared a conflict of interest and withdrew from the meeting. Imoved a motion that essentially resulted in no further action being taken by council against the re-elected members who may have breached council's code of conduct in the former council. I did sobecause it was my belief that, after 12 months of a new council operation, it was time to draw a linein the sand and hopefully move on as a united council. All other members agreed and the motionwas carried unanimously.

I now move to the item entitled Woodville Station Ministerial DPA under the redtab. Council's strategic development committee met on 17 December 2012 and discussed theWoodville Station Ministerial DPA, item 3.79. At that meeting, the mayor moved, as recommendedby staff, but added an additional clause No. 4. While I supported clauses 1 to 3, I disagreed thatclause 4 be included because I did not agree there was significant community concern.

R. RANDALL


During the debate the mayor responded to my objection by saying words to theeffect of, 'If you are going to move for a compromise, you have to give something to both parties.' Ivoted against the motion. Upon reflection after the meeting, it occurred to me that the mayor andthe CEO or other staff had met with Mr Hansen from Renewal SA in the weeks prior in order to finda solution. This was confirmed by Mr Hansen's comments when he appeared before this committeeearlier. I also came to the view that at last we had come to find a solution that would be acceptableto the mayor.

We now move to the blue tab. I received my agenda on January 2013 and read thereport re the Woodville Station Ministerial DPA, item 6.3. The full report is included. The report withits recommendations for a low height development, open space and much more, if accepted by theminister for his DPA, could result in a Christie Walk-type development at Woodville Station.

Despite the report attempting to meet all the community demands re buildingheight, open space etc., in the proposed policy submission, an attempt was made to destroy thisopportunity. If you look at the yellow tab, at the council meeting the mayor took the unusual step ofmoving straight to the item, giving councillor Grant the opportunity to move a motion. Normalcouncil practice is to move to general business and allow members to star items they wish todebate.

Councillor Grant moved a motion that was contrary to the staff recommendationsand the recommendations from the strategic development committee. It was designed to reject theDPA and, again, politicise the issue, if you look at the motion and look at the points that thecouncillor was moving. I noted during councillor Grant's speech that he was reading from an email.The minutes show his motion was lost 8 to 7. One member of council had declared a conflict ofinterest. The original recommendations were then endorsed by council, thereby indicating councilsupport for the ministerial DPA.

Move to the orange tab. On the matter of the email, I submitted a freedom ofinformation request and received a response on 28 March 2013. A copy is provided for yourinformation. The email shows communication between the mayor and councillor Grant on theafternoon prior to the council meeting, suggesting the words that he should move. Electedmembers copied into this email were the strategic development committee chairman, councillorCoppola, committee members, councillors Handley and councillor Andriani.

This email was initiated from the mayor's work email address and sent to othercouncil members' private or work email addresses. It demonstrates a desire to collude on anoutcome and keep it secret until councillor Grant moved the motion. It also indicated a change indirection from the support of the DPA to one of rejection by members of the strategic developmentcommittee. This is an example of partisan leadership.

I express concern that the mayor as presiding member acted in a manner contraryto that of the impartial chairman. Why should she be permitted to preside over this item in a councilmeeting when she has a conflict of interest? Why should she be allowed to participate in thedebate supporting the motion? If there had been a dispute about the wording of the motion, howcould she make a determination, given it was her suggested words? I had previously suspectedthat the mayor was providing motions for some elected members to move on her behalf, and Ibelieve she continues to do so. However, apart from the email, I have no evidence to confirm it.

In March a public meeting was organised as part of the process enabling thosemembers of the public who wished to speak in relation to the ministerial DPA to do so. On thatoccasion, I witnessed the mayor of Charles Sturt speak against the council's position of support forthe DPA. She was joined by councillor Grant, St Clair Residents Association, and some othermembers of the public, speaking against the DPA and calling for the land owned by Renewal SA tobe returned as public open space.

I ask you now to turn to the green tab, which deals with the issue that the mayorraised earlier this afternoon, the issue of the St Clair Reserve memorial. This is the last item that Ihave. On 20 March this year, councillor Grant moved a motion without notice to recognise St ClairReserve as a war memorial. The motion is detailed in item 9.3 in the documents supplied. Again,this was an action condoned by the mayor. It is normal practice, as per the council's code ofpractice for meeting procedures, to advise the presiding member of the desire to move a motion

R. RANDALL


without notice. The presiding member then determines if the matter is of an urgent nature andagrees whether to include it in the agenda.

The minutes will show that I did not agree that the matter was urgent and moved aformal motion that the matter be laid on the table until the next council meeting. This was lost onthe casting vote of the mayor. It is my belief that an experienced presiding member would havesupported the motion in order to allow elected members time to do some research, have theirquestions answered and prepare for the motion.

The fact that the debate still continues today is relevant. Councillor Grant's motionwas carried with the casting vote of the mayor. To guillotine the motion through council showsapprehended bias. A recision motion was carried on 13 May 2013. On 3 June 2013, anothermotion to establish a war memorial on council land was successfully moved by councillorWasylenko.

I personally do not agree with the establishment of a memorial on council land, nordo I support the St Clair Reserve being set aside as a war memorial park, and I have votedaccordingly. My observation is that the original motion moved by councillor Grant was a politicalaction designed to negate the DPA. Political condemnation of the Premier by a council isinappropriate.

I turn now to discussion on the basis for councillor Grant's motion. I found itinteresting that after 26 years of service as a councillor, the councillor suddenly found it necessaryto move such a motion. It was councillor Grant and former vice-president of the RSL, Mr PeterStanford, who took up the advocacy convincing the RSL sub-branches to call upon the governmentfor recognition of the land as a memorial park. It is true that a petition exists and called upon theestablishment of a memorial. However, the assumption that this is why the land was set aside iswrong.

If you look at the red tab, I have included a copy of the mayor's report to council onthis matter which appears to be the basis for this political action. It is a comprehensive report andlays out her grounds for belief. I quote:

St Clair Reserve is and was always intended to be a memorial to those who fought and made theultimate sacrifice. The park itself is the memorial, as was clearly stated in the 1942 petition.

Page 5 of the report is where that quote comes from, and it's her underlining, not mine.

This report clearly identifies the basis of community action taken by some othercouncillors, members of the RSL and the general public. The report presents a biased viewpoint.The mayor attached some of the relevant historical documents to her report but not all.

Turning to the blue tab: I have included additional information that should beconsidered. First, a copy of the minutes of 20 May 1937, a special committee appointed re thepurchase of Bower's estate for use as a recreation park, held in the town clerk's office. In 1937these minutes record that it was resolved that members of the committee meet with the premier todiscuss securing a portion of Bower's estate adjacent to Woodville Road and the WoodvilleRailway Station for the purpose of the provision of a recreation park—five years before any petitionwas activated. Why wasn't this document included?

Secondly, a report to the previous council details the history pertaining to theSt Clair Reserve at Woodville. Thirdly, a confirmation letter from the Crown Solicitor's Office dated10 January 1951 confirming that documents relating to a joint scheme between the stategovernment and the Woodville council in relation to Bower's estate had been signed. I also includea copy of the joint scheme and its associated legislation.

My assessment is that in 1937 the need for extra recreation space was identifiedand the process to achieve it commenced. The history document records activity in 1942 that couldhave resulted in the petition being lodged. My research in the Parliamentary Library ofHansard debates surrounding the introduction of the Recreation Grounds Joint Schemes Act 1947indicates to me, after reading the second reading speech of the then minister for education theHon. A.J. Rudall in the Legislative Council, that there was concern about the shortage of openspace and the need to find a way of purchasing more.

R. RANDALL


It is my impression that councils of the day were reluctant to compulsorily acquireland because of the difficulties they faced, particularly the need to seek approval via a ratepayerpoll to borrow funds. The 1947 bill—

93 The PRESIDING MEMBER: Councillor Randall, are you going to be wrapping upsoon because we would like an opportunity to ask you questions.

Mr RANDALL: Yes, sure. In 1947 the bill provided the vehicle for state and localgovernment to enter into joint agreements. A joint scheme between the state government and theWoodville council was negotiated in the late forties and signed off in 1951. The joint scheme, asyou will read, clearly defines the reason for the purchase of this land, of said 25 acres. There is nomention in those documents or any reference of the establishment of a memorial park; instead, it isall about tennis courts and recreation space to the adjoining Woodville High School students. Themayor writes on page 4 of her report:

It should be understood by all elected members that the above motion merely requests that thegovernment is notified of the council's intention to recognise the St Clair Reserve as a war memorial.

The difficulty for me and all the emotional debate that has occurred is to reconcile why, after81 years, it is necessary to action a petition. The other difficulty is how council can take such actionon land it does not own. I am cautious and I fear that political reasons are the main driving force.One only has to listen to members of the RSL and others speak about the sacred site. I have seenit all before, the use of sacred land has been an argument used to delay or stop other projects.

In conclusion, I believe that this committee has one of two directions it can headwith its findings: it can find reasons to continue the negative political harassment of the local MPand now Premier, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, or it can determine findings such as that either theLabor Party or the Liberal party in government will support a ministerial DPA of the land owned byRenewal SA.

This finding, I believe, would encourage the mayor to take up her leadership role atCharles Sturt council as well as achieve her goals: an environmentally-friendly. sustainabledevelopment such as Christie Walk being built adjacent to the Woodville Railway Station, as shehas previously advocated; a new access road from Woodville Road via St Clair Avenue to theSt Clair development—again, an issue she has been a strong advocate for; increased open space,with 22 per cent of the Renewal SA land added to the existing open space achieved in the landswap, along with a new junior soccer oval; and dedication of Brocas House as a historic site.

I can assure this committee that the mayor has a council ready to support herleadership in this direction. Madam Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to make a submission.I look forward to reading your committee's findings and I am happy to answer any questions.

94 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, councillor Randall. Do members havequestions?

95 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Thank you, councillor Randall. It is good to get anotherviewpoint. One element that underpins most of what you have told us today is what you havedescribed as the current mayor's conflict of interest, but what you admitted early on is thatmayor Alexander campaigned for election pretty much on this issue and said to local people, 'Votefor me. I'll do what I can to stop the land swap; I'll do what I can to increase open space, I'll do whatI can to get the outcome.'

My question of you is: do you really think that once elected the mayor—and youtalked about partisan leadership—somehow should have stepped away from the fray and said to allthose people who voted for her, 'Look, I know that's why you voted for me, but now that I'm mayorI'm not really allowed to bring those viewpoints to the position.' Is that what you're saying?

Mr RANDALL: The dilemma I had with the whole process is that here we have aperson who quite rightly was elected on her issue of saving St Clair, and I acknowledge that. Thedifficulty was that instead of being elected as a councillor who would be a strong advocate oncouncil for that position, she became mayor.

What I tried to demonstrate to you earlier is that the role of the mayor is different toa councillor as an advocate. When you sit in the chair of being mayor, you are a chairperson, justas the President or the Speaker of the house is. Your role is to guide the debate and manage thedebate, not to influence the debate, not to speak in debate.

R. RANDALL


96 The Hon. M. PARNELL: So you think that if mayor Alexander really wanted toadvocate for her community, she should have run for a regular councillor position rather than aleadership position?

Mr RANDALL: Sure. I don't think it is fair to say that she should have done this orshould have done that. She did what she thought was necessary to raise the St Clair issue. Thefact that she was elected mayor quite rightly is acknowledged that she believes that she is electedas mayor on the basis of people who saw that debate and supported her. The dilemma, of course,of this whole thing is that, when I came onto council, I found that the decision had already beenmade by council, so in a sense the election campaign was about a decision that had already beenmade, so we really couldn't reverse the decision.

97 The Hon. M. PARNELL: One other very quick one: I wasn't aware that you are onthe executive of the Family First party, so I thought it is a good opportunity to ask you: do you thinkthe disclosure of political affiliations that I think was in the mayor's evidence should become a partof local council elections, that when someone puts themselves forward they make that declaration?

Mr RANDALL: We already do in our returns—

98 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Before you are elected, in material that goes to voters.

Mr RANDALL: Again, I don't have an issue with that. I suspect that most peopleknow where I'm coming from. In my local community, many unfortunately still think I'm a LiberalParty member, but that's alright.

99 The CHAIRPERSON: It's bad for both our reputations.

Mr RANDALL: But at the end of the day, it's a good suggestion. The thing thathurts me most is that when the mayor says that there's a Labor faction on council and I'm part of it,that's the part that I just disagree with. It's quite clear that I'm not a member of the Labor Party.

100 The CHAIRPERSON: We're out of time, but thank you very much for yourattendance today.

Mr RANDALL: Thank you.


City of Charles Stu rt 20. CL Report 11/07/11

TO: Council

FROM: Governance Officer

DATE: 11July 2011

6.127* PRESENTATION - SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY PROJECT REPORT (B35)

Brief

Student representatives Monica Jeevaraj and Adriana Espejo Sanchez, from

Carnegie Mellon University will present to Council their Sustainable Community

Project Report.

Recommendation

That the report be received and noted.

Status

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

• A safe and healthy City that supports vibrant community life

- Encourage strong, supportive local communities

- . Contribute to the quality of life of all individuals in the community

• A local organisation providing progressive leadership, accountable governance and

quality services to the community

- Ensure the community is well informed and actively engaged

Relevant Council policies are:

• Nil

Relevant statutory provisions are:

• Nil

Background

The attached report (Appendix A) and presentation (Appendix B) was prepared by Carnegie

Mellon students focussing on Christie Walk, which is a sustainable residential development

located in the City of Adelaide.


PRESENTATION - SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY PROJECT REPORT Item 6.127 Continued

Financial and Resource Implications

Nil

Customer Service and Community Implications

Nil

Environmental Implications

Nil

Community Engagement/Consultation

N/A

Risk Management/Legislative Implications

N/A

Conclusion

Representatives from the student group at Carnegie Mellon University, will present the

group's findings to Council.


PRESENTATION - SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY PROJECT REPORT Item 6.127

APPENDIX A

Appendix A contains 52 pages.

90-789: SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Spring 2011 - Heinz College, School of Public Policy and Management

City of Charles Sturt Housing Development Assessment A Replicability Analysis of Christie Walk

Co ?ki PtViAl-%A?)LE Uc)oi--■ Q.E0uFST .

Adelaide Campus Team:

Achmad Mujab

Adriana Espejo Sanchez

lwan Faddilah

Manuel Solis

Mary Ndari

Monica Jeevaraj

Tevi M Obed

Carnegie Mellon Universi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Authors wish to acknowledge:

1. Dr. Paul F. Downton

2. Andrew Tidswell

3. Effie Best

4. Christie Walk Community and Urban Ecology Australia

5. Mayor Kristen Alexander

For providing data, insightful interview and discussion sessions during the project.

V. CONCLUSION

Recommendations

Finding the way that the eco-living

principles and features embedded in Christie

Walk can be replicated in the City of

Charles Sturt and the Woodville Village

Master Plan should start by analysing the

concerns of the community and how they

can be addressed by the Council.

I "The greatest things ever done on

Earth have been clone little by

little."

- William Jennings Bryan

It is evident that the Woodville community have been involved in all the process of the Master

Plan and values cultural diversity, open space, active and passive recreation, transparency in

decision making, and the history of local built form and culture. Nevertheless, implementation

and the compliance on the master plan are more complicated than sketch on the paper. Based on

our analysis we found area of improvement that can be used as a path to follow Christie Walk

way of development. Our idea is to start the change by applying the small change in each area, a

propagated efforts eventually will attained to the main sustainability objective for the City of

Charles Sturt and St. Clair housing particularly.

Community Process

While the St Clair development plans indicate a vibrant community plan complete with wetlands,

walkways, playing fields and transport options, perhaps the most contrasting feature in

comparison to Christie Walk is the sense of belonging as part of the community system and

practicality of some of the proposed features of the St Clair Development.

To nurture sense of community among residents, some features should be considered:

• Adopt "pocket neighbourhood" concept where a relatively small number of nearby

neighbours, share a common open space together (courtyard, pedestrian street, joined

backyard, alley etc.)

• Provide facilities and design structure that enhance social interaction and maximize social

use of land and spaces;

• Communal facilities (function hall, library), communal gardens etc.

Building Design

In terms of design, several ways can be adopted in order to attract prospective buyers of

sustainable housing:

Mandate the developers to use a mixture of green technologies, energy efficient design and

infrastructure, and onsite waste recycling and reuse to create an environment that is

economically and socially self-sustaining;

• Demonstrate costs involved for adopting eco-friendly features to the residence in a clear and

transparent way;

• Provide a tangible and realistic benefit from those features;

• Undertake social impact assessment when choosing eco and low-carbon features;

• Exploit the potential of saving and incentives provided by government for using sustainable

features (Appendix 1).

Governance Structure for Empowering Community Participation

One of lessons from Christie Walk is that community-private partnership is insufficient without

government support. However, sustainability issues has now been adopted in government

policies, opportunity for sustainable development is greater than before. Community

participation should be enhanced with government support to provide necessary resources for

strengthening capacity of the community, such as:

• Establish a mechanism in which all parties are represented i.e. boards in a civic organization;

• Local council to foster community empowerment i.e. provide training/consultation in critical

areas of community-based projects such as financial and managerial aspect;

• All residential development projects should include indicators for measuring environmental

and social results as well as economic profits.

Transportation Aspect

Urban planning and design must incorporate strategies for energy efficient means of

transportation to reduce carbon footprint and to enable residents to traverse their surroundings at

a pace that encourages interaction and face to face communication, eventually this will help to

build a sense of community. St. Clair housing development planned to demonstrate the best use

of implementation on Transport Oriented Development concept, thus the developer should

incorporate a design and facility to support the plan. Some environmental features of the Christie

Walk that can be adopted in other future housing development include:

• Integrate pedestrian friendly streets with walk and bicycle paths to the nearest public

transport station. Walkways and cycle routes are an effective way of encouraging healthy

activities, linking mixed-use hubs and encouraging residents to support local businesses;

• Provide a bicycle park near the out path of the housing block;

• Provide inner block semi-mass transportation to transport people regularly to the nearest

public transportation;

• Shared car facilities, carpooling (shared car with residences).

ELLow \ .

City of Charles Sturt

5. CL Minutes 8/08/11

[Note: These minutes are unconfirmed until 22 August 2011]

6.146* WOODVILLE VILLAGE AND ENVIRONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND ST CLAIR AVENUE ALIGNMENT (B6095) 23

Brief

The previous Council had at a meeting in September 2010 endorsed the

commencement to change the Charles Sturt Development Plan as it pertains to the

Woodville Road precinct as informed by the Woodville Village Master Plan.

The Minister for Urban Development, Planning and the City of Adelaide has

authorised the Statement of Intent for the Woodville Village and Environs

Development Plan Amendment (DPA). The DPA will update Council's Development

Plan policy to allow for the revitalisation of Woodville Road. Council's Statement of

Intent endorsed by the Minister is presented for information.

Following 2 Elected Member workshops principally regarding the LMC land, and

based on the matters raised in the workshops Council Administration has had

discussions with Land Management Corporation (LMC) regarding a potential

alternative alignment of the new road required to connect the development of the

former Sheridan/Actil factory and Cheltenham Racecourse sites with Woodville

Road. Any alternative alignment of St Clair Avenue outside of the LMC land and

into St Clair Reserve will require community land revocation. Traffic modelling is

also required to understand the traffic impacts and safety of an intersection in this

location.

Motion

1. That the report is received and noted.

Option 1:

1) That Council further investigates an alternative road alignment for St

Clair Avenue and commence traffic modelling for both a new

northern alignment and access point closer to St Clair Recreation

Centre and the current St Clair Road alignment as in the endorsed

Woodville Village Master Plan.

2) That Council writes to the Land Management Corporation (LMC)

requesting formal support for further investigating and undertaking

traffic modelling for both the current endorsed and possible

alternative road alignment, and to identify what their requirements

are noting that preliminary feedback from LMC is that the following

condition precedents would need to be satisfied should an

alternative road alignment be pursued:

• Revocation of the community land to facilitate an alternate public

road alignment to be completed by December 2011.

• Appropriate amendment to the Brocas Avenue Agreement given that

the alternative road alignment is outside the LMC Land boundary.

Approval of the Woodville Joint Venture would also be required.

Motion

1. That the report be noted and received.

City of Charles Sturt 6. CL Minutes 8/08/11

[Note: These minutes are unconfirmed until 22 August 2011]

• A minimum of 18 months lead time to prepare a detailed

engineering design for DTEI/Council approval and to commission the

construction of St Clair Avenue to ensure practical completion by

August 2013.

• LMC is prepared to review the allocation of open space on the LMC

site to ensure no net loss of open space as a result of a new

alignment.

• LMC is not prepared to bear any additional costs associated with the

alternative alignment of St Clair Avenue over and above what the

current proposed alignment of St Clair Avenue would otherwise cost.

That the result of this investigation is presented back to Council for

consideration including a detailed community engagement strategy

to be implemented.

Moved Councillor Grant, Seconded Councillor Coppola Carried Unanimously

6.147 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY/ DIGITAL ECONOMY STRATEGY (B5728) 39

Brief

To advise Council of commencement of an Economic Development Strate as per

Council's 2011/12 Annual Business Plan and Budget.

In the context of economic development seek approval to p pare a digital

economy strategy and action plan to position the City as a early mover and

adopter of high speed optical fibre infrastructure; and id tify actions to build

capacity in the community to maximise the benefits of th echnology.

5. That the preparation of the Econ ic Development Strategy as endorsed

in the 2011/12 budget com ence as per the draft consultant brief

contained in Appendix A.

6. That Council seek to apitalise on the impending National Broadband

Network roll out by eveloping a Digital Economy Strategy to position the

City as an early ver and adopter of high speed optical fibre broadband

infrastructure; nd to identify actions to build capacity in the community to

maximise t benefits of the technology. The formulation of the Digital

Econom Strategy will occur in parallel and be integrated with the

form9jtion of the Economic Development Strategy. A copy of the Digital

Str egy Brief is contained in Appendix B.

7. fThat should Council support Motion 3 a budget of $30,000 be approved for

the 2011/12 financial year and that the source of this funding be identified

within the first 2011/12 budget review to be conducted in October 2011.


[Note: These minutes are unconfirmed until 22 October 20121

At 11.05 pm Councillor Harley left the meeting seat.

The motion was carried.

[Note: Item 6.165 was considered next.]

6.162 ONE CARD INTEGRATED LIBRARY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ILMS) REPLACEMENT (B2461) 30

Brief

To provide information to Council about the "One Card — One Library Management

System" project currently being rolled out across South Australian public libraries

and the future participation of City of Charles Sturt Library Service in this project.

Motion

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

Moved Councillor Wasylenko, Seconded Councillor Keneally

[Note: Item passed en bloc by Council]

6.163* ST CLAIR AVENUE ALIGNMENT (B6977)

Brief

Carried Unanimously

34

To update Council on the negotiations between City of Charles Sturt and the Urban

Renewal Authority (formally Land Management Corporation) over the preferred

alignment of the proposed St Clair Avenue.

Motion

1. That Council informs Urban Renewal Authority that it is prepared to

contribute up to a maximum of $300,000 to facilitate the construction of St Clair Avenue on road alignment Option 2.

2. That Urban Renewal Authority obtain all necessary Department of

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

3. That subject to DPTI approval being obtained in accordance with Recommendation 2 Council authorises the Mayor and the Chief Executive to affix Council's common seal to an agreement or deed varying the Brocas Avenue Agreement ("Brocas Avenue Agreement Variation") if the terms of

the Brocas Avenue Agreement Variation are substantially in accordance with the proposed Points of Agreement as detailed in Appendix A.


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

ST CLAIR AVENUE ALIGNMENT Item 6.163 Continued

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

5. Subject to DPTI approval being obtained in accordance with

Recomendation 2 and subject to a further survey after completion of the detailed design of St Clair Avenue identifying the portion of the area shown in Appendix B actually required for the construction of the road ("Relevant

Land") Council authorises the Mayor and the Chief Executive to affix the Council's common seal to an agreement under the Recreation Grounds (Joint Schemes) Act 1947 varying the existing Scheme under that Act only to the extent necessary to exclude all of the relevant Land from that Scheme and including;

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

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

6. That subject to:

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

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

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

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

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


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

StCLAIR AVENUE ALIGNMENT Item 6.163 Continued

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

open space to offset the road reserve.

Moved Councillor Grant, Seconded Councillor Nguyen

At 10.01 pm Councillor Keneally left the meeting.

At 10.03 pm Councillor Keneally resumed her seat.

Point of Order

Councillor Auricht raised a Point of Order against Councillor Grant on the basis that he had

made disparaging comments about previous or sitting members.

Mayor Alexander ruled against the Point of Order.

The motion for Item 6.163 was carried.

Division

Councillor Fitzpatrick called for a Division.

Those voting in the affirmative were:

Councillors Ghent, Scheffler, Hanley, Fitzpatrick, Randall, Nguyen, Grant,

Wasylenko, Keneally, lenco, Alexand rides, Au richt, Agius and Harley (14).

Those voting in the negative were:

Councillors Andriani and Coppola (2).


[Note: Item 6.160 was considered after Item 6.163]

6.164* HENLEY SOUTH COAST PARK (B7706)

50

Brief

Council engaged an independent facilitator, Ethos Consulting, to undertake further

community engagement on three design options for Coast Park, Henley South. This

report analyses the issues raised during the consultation process and summarises

the findings.

Motion

That the report be received and noted.

Moved Councillor Randall, Seconded Councillor Fitzpatrick

0 -E


35. CL Agenda 12/12/11

TO: Council

FROM: Chief Executive Officer

DATE: 12 December 2011

6.216 RESPONSE TO THE OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ST CLAIR LAND SWAP (B35)

Brief

The Ombudsman has finalised the investigation into the St Clair Land Swap and the

complete report has been publically released. The report made certain

recommendations in relation to Council processes and the Ombudsman has

written to the Mayor requesting that Council report back within 8 weeks (by 10

January 2012) on what steps Council has taken to give effect to the Ombudsman's

recom mendations.

Recommendation

1. That Council notes the opinions and recommendations received from the

Ombudsman.

2. That Council responds to the Ombudsman's recommendations for action

as detailed in Table 1 in this report.

3. That Council writes to the Local Government Association (LGA) noting

Council's comments in Table 2 in this report of support or non-support for

the Ombudsman's recommendation for amendment to legislation.

Status





- Recognition as a leading organisation delivering best practice in local

government management

- Ensure the organisation is financially accountable and sustainable

- Deliver quality service to our customers

City of Charles Sturt 36. CL Agenda 12/12/11

RESPONSE TO THE OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ST CLAIR LAND SWAP Item 6.216 Continued

Relevant Council policies are:

• Council Member Code of Conduct


• Local Government Act 1999

• Ombudsman Act 1972

Background

In December 2009 the Legislative Council referred an investigation to the office of the

Ombudsman of South Australia concerning the St Clair revocation and land swap. The

Ombudsman completed this report in November 2011 and the final report has been

published and copies have been provided to the Mayor, Chief Executive Officer and key

parties to the report. A copy of this report is available on the Ombudsman SA website.

(refer www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au ).

The report made certain recommendations in relation to Council processes and the

Ombudsman has written to the Mayor (refer Appendix A) requesting that Council report

back within 8 weeks (by 10 January 2012) on what steps Council has taken to give effect to

the Ombudsman's recommendations.

Report

The report prepared by the Ombudsman detailed these findings and specifically noted 27

opinions and 13 recommendations for amendment to the law. These opinions and

recommendations have grouped into the area covered by the Ombudsman's investigation.

The opinions (refer Appendix B) cover the following 6 areas:

1. Conflict of Interest

2. Bias and Open Mind

3. Code of Conduct *

4. The Consulation Process

5. Confidentiality of Meetings & Documents

6. Prudential Requirements

*Note: the Code of Conduct recommendations will be considered in a confidential report

being presented to Council on 12 December 2012 (refer Item13.12). This is in accordance

with the Council Member Code of Conduct Policy that states "All deliberations relating to a code of conduct complaint will be conducted in confidence "

City of Charles Sturt 37. CL Agenda 12/12/11

RESPONSE TO THE OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ST CLAIR LAND SWAP Item 6.216 Continued

The recommendations for the amendment to the law (refer Appendix C) cover the following

4 areas:

1. Register of Interest

2. Conflict of Interest

3. Code of Conduct

4. Valuation of Community Land

The Ombudsman's request for Council to report back on the steps taken to give effect to

these recommendations only relates to the 6 areas detailed in the Ombudsman's opinions.

Of the 27 opinions detailed by the Ombudsman, there were 14 that the Ombudsman did not

find that the Council or Council members had acted in a manner that was unlawful,

unreasonable or outside the confines of the duties under the Local Government Act 1999.

The remaining 13 opinions include a recommendation for Council to act on or consider.

These opinions relate to Council Members Code of Conduct, Confidentiality provisions and

Prudential reporting requirements.


38. CL Agenda 12/12/11.

RESPONSE TO THE OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ST CLAIR LAND SWAP Item 6.216

Continued

Table 1 details the 27 opinions and where application the recommendation for action from the Ombudsman and the proposed action for Council to consideration.

OMBUDMSAN'S OPINIONS

TABLE 1 CONFLICT OF INTEREST Ombudsman Opinion Ombudsman Recommendation

for Action Proposed Action for Council

Opinion 1

Councillor K had an interest in a matter before the council in Item

6.121 on 9 November 2009, which directly concerned the

councillor's employing agency (the Department of Planning and

Local Government) within the meaning of section 73(3) of the

Local Government Act.

However, this interest was unknown to Councillor K and the

councillor acted reasonably on the basis of legal advice which

indicated that there was no conflict of interest. Consequently

Councillor K did not contravene section 74 of the Local

Government Act.

Councillor C, Councillor D, Councillor G, Councillor J and Councillor

P, as members, officers or employees of the Attorney General's

Department, the Department of Primary Industries and Resources,

the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure and the

Department of

Treasury and Finance respectively, did not have an interest in the

matter under section 73(3).

There was no administrative error

made by the council arising from

these councillors' actions.

No action required

Opinion 2

The 12 councillors who were members of the ALP did not have an

interest in a matter before the council on 9 November 2009 (or 14 December 2009) within the meaning of section 73(1) of the Local

Government Act, due to their membership of the ALP.

No recommendation made No action required

.


39. CL Agenda 12/12/11


Continued

CONFLICT OF INTEREST Ombudsman Opinion Ombudsman Recommendation


Opinion 3

Councillor.) and Councillor P did not have an interest in a matter

before the council on 9 November 2009 (or 14 December 2009)

within the meaning of section 73(1) of the Local Government Act,

due to their employment in the Enfield electorate office.

Further, neither Councillor K,

Councillor C, Councillor G nor

Councillor D had an interest under

section 73(1).

No action required

BIAS AND OPEN MIND Opinion 4 .

On balance, the evidence does not support a conclusion that the

ALP councillors approached their decision-making on 9 November

2009 with apprehended bias.


CODE OF CONDUCT Opinion 5

In allowing the Member for Croydon and the Croydon electorate office to assist in drafting, producing and distributing their

constituent letters supporting the land swap, Councillor K,

Councillor P, Councillor A and Councillor G may have acted in a

manner that was contrary to the code of conduct.

In accordance with section 18(5) of

the Ombudsman Act, I report this

evidence to the principal officer of

the council.

This recommendation will be considered in a

confidential report being presented to Council

on 12 December 2012 (refer Item13.12). This is

in accordance with the Council Member Code

of Conduct Policy that states "All deliberations

relating to a code of conduct complaint will be

conducted in confidence "

Note: Councillor A and G are previous members

of Council this action will relate to Councillor P

only.

City of Charles Stu rt

40. CL Agenda 12/12/11


Continued

Ombudsman Opinion Ombudsman Recommendation for Action

Proposed Action for Council

Opinion 6

In writing, as a councillor, an intemperate letter about the St Clair

protestors to the press, Councillor M may have acted in a manner

that was contrary to the code of conduct.




the council.








Opinion 7

In communicating, as a councillor, with a St Clair protestor's

employer in order to cause detriment to the protestor, Councillor

M may have acted in a manner that was contrary to the code of

conduct.




the council.








Opinion 8

In seeking, as a councillor, a person to research a St Clair protestor

with the intention of gathering information which was detrimental

to the protestor, Councillor M may have acted in a manner that

was contrary to the code of conduct.




the council.









41. CL Agenda 12/12/11


Continued



Opinion 9

In forwarding a community member's email to the Member for

Croydon, which was received in their councillor capacity,

Councillor B may have acted in a manner that was contrary to the

code of conduct.




the council.








Opinion 10

In forwarding a community member's email to the Member for

Croydon, which was received in their councillor capacity,

Councillor G may have acted in a manner that was contrary to the

code of conduct.




the council.

It is recommendation that no action is taken on

this recommendation as Councillor G is a

previous member of Council

THE CONSULTATION PROCESS Ombudsman Opinion Ombudsman Recommendation


Opinion 11

The council complied with its obligation under section 194(2)(a) of

the Local Government Act to make a report available, and in this

respect did not act in a way that was unlawful, unreasonable or

wrong within the meaning of section 25(1) of the Ombudsman Act.


Opinion 12

The council complied with the requirement in section 194(2)(b) of

the Local Government Act to follow the steps in its public

consultation policy, and in this respect did not act in a way that

was unlawful, unreasonable or wrong within the meaning of

section 25(1) of the Ombudsman Act.



42. CL Agenda 12/12/11


Continued



Opinion 13

In failing to engage and consult with its community earlier than it

did, in accordance with good administrative practice, the council

acted in a way that was wrong within the meaning of section

25(1)(g) of the Ombudsman Act.


Opinion 14

In writing directly only to the land owners within 500 metres of the

subject land during the consultation process, the council did not

act in a way that was unlawful, unreasonable or wrong within the

meaning of section 25(1) of the Ombudsman Act.


Opinion 15

The council made sufficient information available to enable the

community to make a reasonably informed judgement about the

St Clair revocation and land swap; and in this respect the council

did not act in a way that was unlawful, unreasonable or wrong

within the meaning of section 25(1) of the Ombudsman Act.


Opinion 16

By describing the proposed exchange of the St Clair land and the

Sheridan land areas as a 'same for same' swap, the council did not

act in a way that was unlawful, unreasonable or wrong within the

meaning of section 25(1) of the Ombudsman Act.


Opinion 17

In accepting late submissions in relation to consultation with the

community about the St Clair revocation and land swap, the

council did not act in a way that was unlawful, unreasonable or

wrong within the meaning of section 25(1) of the Ombudsman Act.



43. CL Agenda 12/12/11


Continued



Opinion 18

In making a decision to proceed with the land swap

notwithstanding the disagreement expressed during the

consultation period by some community members, the council did

not act in a way that was unlawful, unreasonable or wrong within

the meaning of section 25(1) of the Ombudsman Act.


CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEETINGS & DOCUMENTS Opinion 19

The council's failure to provide details of its reasons to exclude the

public under section 90(2) and 90(3)(d) of the Local Government

Act in the meetings of 28 April 2008, 11 August 2008, and 9 June

2009 was contrary to law within the meaning of section 25(1)(a) of

the Ombudsman Act.

I recommend under section 25(2) of

the Ombudsman Act that in future,

the council record details of its

reasons for excluding the public in

council meetings under section 90(2)

and the relevant paragraphs of

section 90(3) of the Local

Government Act.

Council's Code of Practice — Public Access to

Meetings & Associated Documents states:

"There are very strict circumstances in which a discussion or document considered in a Council or Committee meeting can be kept confidential".

It is recommended that Council staff review the

Confidentiality Report template to ensure the

confidentiality provisions are considered and 1

the reasons clearly detailed in the 1 recommendation.


44. CL Agenda 12/12/11


Continued



Opinion 20

In relation to the meeting of 28 April 2008, the council's order to I recommend under section 25(2) of . Council's Code of Practice — Public Access to keep the council's report, appendices and minutes confidential had the Ombudsman Act that the council Meetings & Associated Documents states: no basis in law, as the council had not resolved to order that they ensure in the future to formally "There are very strict circumstances in which a be so kept under section 91(7)(b) of the Local Government Act. adopt and record recommendations discussion or document considered in a Council The council therefore acted contrary to law within the meaning of of the council administration where or Committee meeting can be kept section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. appropriate. confidential".



confidentiality provisions are considered and the reasons clearly detailed in the recommendation.

Opinion 21

There was an insufficient basis for the council moving into I recommend under section 25(2) of Council's Code of Practice — Public Access to confidence under section 90(2) and 90(3)(d) of the Local the Ombudsman Act that in future, Meetings & Associated Documents states: Government Act at the council meeting of 9 June 2009. In doing so,

the council acted contrary to law within the meaning of section

the council carefully consider the

wording in the paragraphs of section

"There are very strict circumstances in which a

discussion or document considered in a Council 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. 90(3) before resolving to exclude the or Committee meeting can be kept

public from its meetings. confidential".



confidentiality provisions are considered and

the reasons clearly detailed in the

recommendation.


45. CL Agenda 12/12/11


Continued



Opinion 22

In resolving to keep the council's report and minutes confidential I recommend under section 25(2) of Council's Code of Practice — Public Access to at the council's meeting of 9 June 2009 under section 91(7) the the Ombudsman Act that the council Meetings & Associated Documents states: Local Government Act, the council acted contrary to law within the in future carefully consider the "There are very strict circumstances in which a meaning of section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. contents of the relevant documents discussion or document considered in a Council

before placing them under a or Committee meeting can be kept confidentiality order under the Local confidential". Government Act.


Confidentiality Report template to ensure the confidentiality provisions are considered and


recommendation. Opinion 23

In ordering that the appendices of the council's report be kept I recommend under section 25(2) of Council's Code of Practice — Public Access to confidential at the meeting of 9 June 2009 under section 91(7) of the Ombudsman Act that the council Meetings & Associated Documents states: the Local Government Act, the council acted contrary to law under in future carefully consider the "There are very strict circumstances in which a section 25(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act. contents of the relevant documents discussion or document considered in a Council

before placing them under a or Committee meeting can be kept confidentiality order under the Local confidential". Government Act.



confidentiality provisions are considered and


recommendation.


46. CL Agenda 12/12/11


Continued



Opinion 24

In not expressly alerting the public to the accessibility of the

council's report and minutes of its 9 June 2009 meeting during the

consultation period, the council did not act in a way that was

No recommendation made No action required.

Note: Council's public website has a Register of unlawful, unreasonable or wrong within the meaning of section Confidential Items and this register details on 25(1) of the Ombudsman Act. the confidentiality provision and a list of

release items.. A quarterly review of

Confidential Items is presented to Council and

the public register is updated.


47. CL Agenda 12/12/11


Continued

PRUDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS Ombudsman Opinion Ombudsman Recommendation


Opinion 25 In failing to consider governance risks such as conflict of interest in

the prudential report, the council failed to comply with the intent

of section 48(2)(h) of the Local Government Act and acted in a

manner that was wrong within the meaning of section 25(1)(g) of

the Ombudsman

Act.

I recommend under section 25(2) of

the Ombudsman Act that the council

review the prudential requirements

in section 48(2)(h) of the Local

Government Act, and in future

consider addressing conflict of

interest risks where relevant.

The Local Government (Accountability

Framework) Amendment Act 2009 includes

several changes to Section 48 of the Local

Government Act and it is intended that these

changes will be effective from 10 December

2011.

The LGA is currently preparing a Draft Prudential Management Information Paper and

a Model Prudential Management Policy based

on the amendments arising form the Local

Government (Accountability Framework)

Amendment Act 2009 . This will be circulated

to all Councils for consideration and comment.

However, neither the current provisions nor

the revised provisions require Councils to take

the potential for a conflict of interest into

consideration when prepared a Prudential

report. As administration cannot know of all

the potential conflicts of interest that may exist

for individual members. Further, awareness of

conflict of interest is a standing duty at all times for all members as individuals.

When the draft paper and policy is released

consideration will be given to the Ombudsman

recommendation for inclusion in the City of

Charles Sturt Prudential Management Policy

(yet to be developed)


48. CL Agenda 12/12/11


Continued



Opinion 26

In failing to identify the date and author of the prudential report While noting the proposed The Local Government (Accountability and their credentials, the council acted in a manner that was amendments to section 48 under the Framework) Amendment Act 2009 includes wrong within the meaning of section 25(1)(g) of the Ombudsman Local Government (Accountability several changes to Section 48 of the Local Act. Framework) Amendment Act 2009 Government Act and it is intended that these Further, in failing to engage an independent person to prepare the (section 8(7) and (8)), I recommend changes will be effective from 10 December prudential report, the council acted in a way that was wrong within under section 25(2) of the 2011. the meaning of section 25(1)(g) of the Ombudsman Act that in the interests

Ombudsman Act. of accountability and probity, the The LGA is currently preparing a Draft council should in future: Prudential Management Information Paper and

a Model Prudential Management Policy based

1. consider engaging an independent on the amendments arising form the Local

party to prepare a prudential report Government (Accountability Framework)

for larger projects which have Amendment Act 2009 . This will be circulated

involved significant prior contribution

by council staff



2. be able to identify not only the the revised provisions require Councils engage

author and date of its prudential an independent party to prepare a prudential

report, but also report.

3. be able to demonstrate that the When the draft paper and policy is released

council has turned its mind to the consideration will be given to the Ombudsman

qualifications of the author of the recommendations for inclusion in the City of

report (section 48(4) of the Local Charles Sturts Prudential Management Policy

Government Act). (yet to be developed)


49. CL Agenda 12/12/11


Continued

Ombudsman Opinion Ombudsman Recommendation


Opinion 27

The council's failure to obtain land valuations considering future I recommend under section 25(2) of The Local Government (Accountability land use in relation to the St Clair land and the Sheridan land, and the Ombudsman Act that the council Framework) Amendment Act 2009 includes to address these matters in the prudential report, was familiarise itself with the prudential several changes to Section 48 of the Local unreasonable within the meaning of section 25(1)(b) of the issues which should be addressed in Government Act and it is intended that these Ombudsman Act. section 48(2) of the Local changes will be effective from 10 December

• Government Act, especially in

relation to obtaining valuations prior

2011.

to disposal of land and land swap The LGA is currently preparing a Draft arrangements. Prudential Management Information Paper and

a Model Prudential Report Policy based on the

amendments arising form the Local Government (Accountability Framework)

Amendment Act 2009 . This will be circulated



the revised provisions require Councils to

obtain valuations of land prior to disposal or

land swap arrangements.

When the draft paper and policy is released

consideration will be given to the Ombudsman

recommendation for inclusion in the City of

Charles Sturt Prudential Management Policy

(yet to be developed)


50. CL Agenda 12/12/11


Continued

Table 2 details the 13 recommendations for amendment of the law. It is proposed that Council take these recommendations into consideration and forward the Council position on the recommended changes to the LGA.

OMBUDSMAN RECOMMENDATIONS TO AMEND LEGISLATION

TABLE 2 REGISTER OF INTEREST Ombudsman Recommendation for change Proposed Action for Council Recommendation 1

Consideration should be given to amending the Local Government Act to require that council The Local Government Act 1999 (Sc67 as detailed below) members notify the Chief Executive Officer of any changes to their information which must be currently allows Council Members to notify the Chief recorded on the Register of Interests, as soon as practicable. Failure to do so without reasonable Executive Officer of a change or variation to their register excuse should attract a penalty. of Interest.

Sc67—Form and content of returns

A member of a council who has submitted a return under this

Division may at any time notify the chief executive officer of a

change or variation in the information appearing on the

Register in respect of the member or a person related to the

member within the meaning of Schedule 3.

In addition to this Council Members are also required to

lodge an ordinary return within 60 days after 30 June

each year (Sc66).

It is recommended that Council support this proposal as it

adds clarity to a Council Members obligation.

Note: Council Members also have an obligation to

disclose an interest for items presented at a Council or

Committee meeting.


51. CL Agenda 12/12/11


Continued

Ombudsman Recommendation for change Proposed Action for Council Recommendation 2 Consideration should be given to amending the Local Government Act so that the public is not

required to lodge a written application to access a copy of certain parts of a council's Register of

Interests, such as income sources, membership of any political party, any body or association

formed for political purposes, any trade or professional organisation, hospitality benefits, and pecuniary gifts.

Consideration should be given to amending the Local Government Act to require that councils

provide immediate access to this information via their website.

It is recommended that Council support this proposed amendment.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST Recommendation 3 Consideration should be given to amending the Local Government Act to include an objective test for council members' conflicts of interest,

Consideration should be given to amending the Local Government Act to allow those in

attendance at a council meeting to decide whether a particular council member has a conflict of

interest or could reasonably be taken to have a conflict of interest.

I propose an objective test as has been adopted by Queensland in section 173(4) of the Local Government Act 2009 (Old).

The Local Government Act (Sc73) clearly details the requirements of a Council Member to disclose an interest

during Council and Committee meetings.

It seems unreasonable for the Council to make this determination on someone else's personal circumstances.

It is recommended that this proposal is not supported.


52. CL Agenda 12/12/11


Continued

Ombudsman Recommendation for change Proposed Action for Council Recommendation 4 Consideration should be given to amending section 73(3) of the Local Government Act to

include a council member who is a member, officer or employee of any organisation, not just

an agency or instrumentality of the Crown.

It is recommended that Council support this proposed

amendment.

In practical terms Council Members have generally declared an interest based on their employment.

Recommendation 5 Consideration should be given to amending section 73(3) of the Local Government Act to provide

that where a matter directly concerns any organisation of which a council member is a member,

officer or employee, the council member will be regarded as having an interest which they must

disclose under section 74.

In conjunction, consideration should be given to amending the Local Government Act so that a

councillor who has an interest is required to abstain from voting only if they are actually involved

in the matter within the organisation of which they are a member, officer or employee,

If a member discloses an interest under Sc74 then they

are not to be in the room during the debate and vote,

therefore, there is no requirement to amend the Act as it

already has a provision to cover this recommendation.

If this recommendation is supported it may be hard to

manage the perceived conflict of the member by the

community.

It is recommended that this proposal is not supported.

Recommendation 6 There exists a potential for elected members of a council who are also electorate officers (and

others engaged under section 72 of the Public Sector Act) to have a conflict of interest in the

exercise of their duties

This potential conflict of interest undermines the integrity of local government.

In my view the public sector code of ethics prevents full time public sector employees, such as

electorate officers, from becoming elected members of a council because of the potential for a

conflict of interest.

I intend to refer this matter to the Under Treasurer for his consideration.

Consideration should be given to amending the Local Government Act to prohibit electorate

officers (and others engaged under section 72 of the Public Sector Act) from becoming a

council member or nominating as a candidate for council at an election under the Local

Government Act.

The Ombudsman has indicated that his recommendation

will be referred to the Under Treasurer for his

consideration.

No action required.

.

Recommendation 7 Consideration should be given to amending the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 to require

disclosure of political affiliation prior to election.


amendment.


53. CL Agenda 12/12/11


Continued

Ombudsman Recommendation for change Proposed Action for Council Recommendation 8 .

Consideration should be given to amending the Local Government Act to remove the application

of section 74(4) to some types of non-pecuniary benefits, and to benefits or detriments shared

with other ratepayers.

It is recommended that Council support this proposal

Recommendation 9

Consideration should be given to amending the Local Government Act to introduce ongoing

mandatory training in relation to conflict of interest for council members.

The LGA provides regular training for Council Members

and this includes Conflict of Interest. It is recommended

that Council support this proposed amendment.

Recommendation 10

Consideration should be given to amending the conflict of interest provisions in the Local

Government Act to include past benefits / inducements,


amendment with a historical period of 4 years (equivalent to one Council term)


54. CL Agenda 12/12/11


Continued

CODE OF CONDUCT Ombudsman Recommendation for change Proposed Action for Council Recommendation 11 Consideration should be given to amending the Local Government Act to provide for a single

code of conduct with coercive sanctions for breaches, in accordance with the proposals in An

Integrated Model — A Review of the Public Integrity Institutions in South Australia and an

Integrated Model for the Future, Discussion Paper, 25 November 2010.


amendment.

Recommendation 12 Consideration should be given to amending the Local Government Act to introduce mandatory

training for council members to better appreciate their public officer roles and responsibilities,

and the significance of the declaration on taking office

The LGA provides regular training for Council Members

and this includes the roles and responsibilities of Council

Members. It is recommended that Council support this

proposed amendment.

VALUATION OF COMMUNITY LAND Recommendation 13 Consideration should be given to amending the Local Government Act to require councils to

obtain a land valuation before selling or exchanging land, other than where the land is sold for

unpaid rates or is transferred without consideration.


amendment.

City of Charles Stu rt 55. CL Agenda 12/12/11



Not applicable


Not applicable


Not applicable


Not applicable


In accordance with the Ombudsman Act 1972 (Sc25(4)) the principal officer of an agency to

which a recommendation is made, must at the request of the Ombudsman, report to the

Ombudsman within a time allowed in the request. The Ombudsman has requested Council

respond within 8 weeks and this date is the 10 January 2012.

Conclusion

It is recommended that the Council respond the Ombudsman with the actions detailed in

Table 1 in this report and write to the LGA indicating Council support or non-support of his

recommendations for amendment to legislation as detailed in Table 2 in this report.

City of Charles Stu rt 56. CL Agenda 12/12/11

RESPONSE TO THE OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ST CLAIR LAND SWAP

Item 6.216

APPENDIX A

OrnbucismanSA

Enquiries: Megan Phi'pot Telephone: (08) 8226 8699 Ombudsman reference: 2010/00143

Mayor Kirsten Alexander City of Charles Sturt PO Box 1 WOODVILLE SA 5011

RECEIVED

5 NO"J 2CA

arr. of, opni.Es swa-r

Dear Mayor Alexander

Investigation of City of Charles Sturt and the St Clair land swap

You will have received my final report in this matter.

You will note that in my report I made certain recommendations in relation to the council under section 25(2) of the Ombudsman Act 1972

I also referred to you Instances where I consider there may be evidence that certain councillors breached the council's code of conduct. I referred this information to you under my obligation under section 18(5) of the Ombudsman Act 1972.

Firstly, I am aware that some of these councillors are no longer members of the council. However, in relation to those who remain on the council, I advise that Councillor P, Councillor B and Councillor M are

Secondly, I now ask you to report to me within 8 weeks, the steps which the council has taken to give effect to my recommendations in my report (see section 25(4) of the Ombudsman Act 1.97.

Yours sincerely

Date 11 November 2011

Cc. Mr Mark Withers

Level 5 Bast Ung 50 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000

Telephone 0882268699 Facsimile 08 82268602 Toll free 1800 182 180

GPO Box 3651 Rundle Mall SA 5000 werwernbudsmansa.gov.au onibudsman@ombcdsmen_se.goveu

City of Charles Sturt 6 CL Minutes 12/12/11

[Note: These minutes are unconfirmed until 23 January 2011]

6.216* RESPONSE TO THE OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ST CLAIR LAND SWAP (B35) 35

Brief



recommendations in relation to Council processes and the Ombudsman has

written to the Mayor requesting that Council report back within 8 weeks (by 10

January 2012) on what steps Council has taken to give effect to the Ombudsman's

recommendations.

Motion

1. That Council notes the opinions and recommendations received from the

Ombudsman.

2. That Council responds to the Ombudsman's recommendations for action as

detailed in Table 1 in this report.

3. That Council writes to the Local Government Association (LGA) noting

Council's comments in Table 2 in this report of support or non-support for

the Ombudsman's recommendations for amendment to legislation.

Moved Councillor Wasylenko, Seconded Councillor Grant Carried

Motion

1. That Council formulates a policy to obtain an independent valuation on

disposal of community land.

2. That Council recognises that 7,250m2 of community land was lost to

roadways in the land swap.

Moved Councillor Grant

At 9.34 pm Councillor Coppola left the meeting.

Seconded Councillor lenco

At 9.37 pm Councillor Coppola resumed her seat.

With leave of the meeting the motion was withdrawn.

7- (Net, City of Charles Sturt

20. CL Minutes 12/12/11


13.12 RESPONSE TO THE OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ST CLAIR LAND SWAP — COUNCIL MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT (B35)

Recommendation - Exclusion of the Public

That pursuant to Section 90(2) of the Local Government Act 1999, Council hereby

orders that the public be excluded from attendance at this meeting with the

exception of the Chief Executive and administrative staff currently in attendance

in order to consider ITEM 13.12 RESPONSE TO THE OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ST CLAIR LAND SWAP — COUNCIL MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT in

confidence as the matter falls within the ambit of:

• Section 90(3) information the disclosure of which would involve the

unreasonable disclosure of information concerning the personal affairs of

any person (living or dead);

In addition to this the Council Member Code of Conduct that states "All deliberations relating to a code of conduct complaint will be conducted in confidence....."

Declaration of Interest

Mayor Alexander, Councillors Fitzpatrick, Wasylenko and Agius disclosed an interest in Item

13.12 due to their involvement in aspects of the report to be presented and left the meeting

at 11.53 pm.

In absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor the CEO took control of the meeting until the

appointment of a chairperson.

Motion

That Councillor Scheffler take the Chair in absence of both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

Moved Councillor Alexandrides, Seconded Councillor Hanley Carried

Brief



recommendations in relation to Council processes and also referred to instances

where the Ombudsman considered that there may have been possible breaches of

the Council Member Code of Conduct. The Ombudsman has written to the Mayor

requesting that Council report back within 8 weeks (by 10 January 2012) on what

steps Council has taken to give effect to the Ombudsman's recommendations.

This report is only dealing with the possible breaches of the Council Member Code

of Conduct. All other recommendations made by the Ombudsman are contained in

a report to Council on 12 December 2011 (refer Item 6.215).



Motion

1. That Council respond to the Ombudsman that having assessed and

considered the possible breaches of the Council's Code of Conduct by

Councillors P. M, and B, the Council believes given the category level of the

possible breach and the significant time that has passed since these events

took place that further action or initiating a further investigation is

unwarranted at this time.

Moved Councillor Randall, Seconded Councillor Keneally Carried Unanimously

At 12.00 am Mayor Alexander, Councillors Wasylenko, Fitzpatrick and Agius resumed their

seats.

14. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES — PART II — CONFIDENTIAL

Nil

15. MEETING CLOSURE

The meeting concluded at 12.01 am (Tuesday, 13 December 2011).

The foregoing minutes were taken as read and confirmed at the meeting of Council on

Monday, 23 January 2012.

K ALEXANDER, MAYOR

DATED / /

4?• ‘47els


6. SD Minutes 17/12/12

[Note: These minutes are unconfirmed until 18 February 2013]

3.79* WOODVILLE STATION MINISTERIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (DPA) (B7262) 34

Brief

The Minster for Planning has initiated a Ministerial Development Plan Amendment

(DPA) encompassing the land now owned by Renewal SA, located adjacent to the

Woodville Station (commonly referred to as the St Clair Reserve) and also the

existing recreation and educational land further to the north east, bound by the

railway line, Actil Avenue, Woodville Road and Leslie Street West.

The report presents the DPA and provides an initial summary of the policy changes

proposed and initial commentary from staff.

Motion

1. The report be received and noted.

2. That a report be provided to the 29 January 2013 Council meeting where staff will present its final assessment and commentary on the draft

Ministerial Development Plan Amendment and that the report includes consideration of issued raised by the Community at the 12 December information session.

3. That Council authorise staff to commence further negotiations with Renewal SA to enter into a legally binding agreement to secure a minimum of 22% open space and additional land required for the purpose of a junior soccer pitch as detailed in the letter dated 30 November 2012 from RSA forming Appendix B, this forming a total of approximately 46% open space along the Woodville Road frontage.

4. That Council recognises the significant and ongoing community concern over the potential loss of open space on the St Clair Oval site and that this concern will be included in the Council submission on the DPA.

At 7.24 pm Councillor Hanley left the meeting.

At 7.27 pm Councillor Hanley resumed her seat.

Moved Mayor Alexander

At 7.32 pm Councillor Agius left the meeting.

Seconded Councillor Hanley

At 7.35 pm Councillor Agius resumed his seat.

The motion was carried

City of Charles Sturt 7. SD Minutes 17/12/12


Division

Councillor Nguyen called for a Division.


Councillors Andriani, Hanley, Agius, Coppola and Mayor Alexander (5)


Councillors Randall and Nguyen (2)



3.80 INNER WEST BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRE (B4862)

46

Brief

The report provides and update on the progress of the Inner West Business

Enterprise Centre.

Motion

1. That the report is received and noted.

2. That Council write a letter of congratulations to the Inner West Business

Enterprise Centre on receipt of $223,568 from the Commonwealth

Government's Auslndustry agency. This will see the Centre continue to

operate and provide much needed support to local start ups and small

businesses in the Western Region.

Moved Councillor Agius, Seconded Councillor Andriani

Carried Unanimously

[Note: Item was passed en bloc by Committee]

Ref: 05-21-07-11-0059

Mr Mark Withers Chief Executive Officer City of Charles Sturt PO Box 1 Woodville SA 5001

10/12/12

IN\ Al 'Of

• • ••••••• ••• •• • •

Renewal people part nershIps progress

Dear Mark,

Proposed Renewal SA development adjacent Woodville Station

Thank you for your letter of 19 October 2012 regarding Renewal SA's site at Woodville.

This letter provides an update on our previous correspondence.

Renewal SA has made a number of commitments in relation to open space and it is appropriate to formalise these commitments via exchange of letters.

The former Land Management Corporation (LMC) had previously written to Council confirming the intention to set aside 22% of the site as open space with the balance of the site being developed for residential and commercial use. I can confirm that Renewal SA will deliver on that commitment as part of the approved development.

On 8 October 2012, Council endorsed an alignment for the extension of St Clair Avenue that will enter into St Clair Reserve. I can confirm that the area of community land to be taken up by the road reserve servicing the proposed development, will be provided in addition to the 22% commitment on the Renewal SA site. This commitment will be reinforced through a Deed of Variation to the Brocas Avenue Agreement following approvals by DPTI regarding the intersection treatment.

More recently Renewal SA has received a request to consider setting aside further land for a junior soccer pitch. Renewal SA is prepared to vest the land for a pitch. or other suitable recreation use that may emerge during the consultation, in addition to other open space commitments as part of the approved development.

This letter is evidence of our commitment to deliver open space within the development. Renewal SA will consider the need for a legally binding agreement following decisions on how the development of the site will be delivered.

Government of South Australia

Renewal SA is currently refining the draft Concept Plan for the site that will include the a bovementioned open space commitments.

To seek community feedback I expect that promotion for an open house session in February 2013 will commence in January 2013 and will include local advertising, web site information and a letter box drop.

I can also confirm that a meeting with the St Clair Residents Association has been scheduled for 18 December 2012.

I would appreciate you informing elected members of this and we would welcome your further input on ensuring the consultation is meaningful and thorough.

I trust that this provides the assurances sought on these matters.

If you wish to discuss further please do not hesitate to contact me,

Yours sincerely

..— --

Fred Hansen Chief Executive Renewal SA

SLva City of Charles Sturt 36. CL Report 29/01/13

TO: Council

FROM: Senior Policy Planner

DATE: 29 January 2013

6.3 WOODVILLE STATION MINISTERIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT - POLICY SUBMISSION (B7262)

Brief

The Minister for Planning has prepared the Woodville Station Development Plan

Amendment (DPA). The Ministerial DPA was released by the Minister for public

consultation on 13 November 2012 for a period of twelve weeks. The consultation

for the draft Ministerial DPA closes on 14 February 2013.

This report provides an overview of the proposed policy amendments and a draft

submission on the Ministerial DPA for Council's endorsement.

Recommendation

1. That the report be received and noted.

2. That Council supports the Woodville Station DPA and endorse the

submission contained in Appendix B and C, to be forwarded to the

Development Policy Advisory Committee outlining the City's comments in

relation to the draft Ministerial Woodville Station Development Plan

Amendment (DPA).

3. That Council staff attend the Development Policy Advisory Committee

(DPAC) Public Hearing to provide verbal feedback further to Council's

written submission.

Status


• A safe and healthy City that supports vibrant community life

- Encourage strong, supportive local communities

Contribute to the quality of life of all individuals in the community

- Encourage healthy lifestyle pursuits

- Contribute to an improved sense of safety

Encourage sharing and celebration of our cultural diversity

• An economically prosperous, attractive and functional City

City of Charles Sturt 37. CL Report 29/01/13

WOODVILLE STATION MINISTERIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT - POLICY SUBMISSION Item 6.3 Continued

- Protect the history, heritage and character of the City

- Support and encourage a diverse mix of complementary land uses

- Provide and facilitate a safe, connected and well maintained transport network

- Create attractive, well maintained streetscapes

- Establish and maintain a linked system of open space

- Manage the community's infrastructure

- Encourage local business and employment opportunities




Ensure the organisation is financially accountable and sustainable

Relevant Council policies.are:

• The Charles Sturt Council Development Plan


• The Development Act 1993

• The Development Regulations 2008

• 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide

Executive Summary

The draft policy contained within the Ministerial Woodville Station DPA will facilitate mixed

use development on the Renewal SA land adjacent to the Woodville Station.

The main components of the draft policy are:

• Land use mix

• Form, scale and mix of land uses

• Spread of intensity of land uses

• Pedestrian and cycling linkages

• Road and traffic management

• Open space

• Built form design requirements

• Environmental design considerations

Quantitatively the draft policy proposes some specific changes pertaining to residential net

densities, building heights and commercial floor areas.



The general policy intent of the DPA is supported however it is recommended a formal

submission be made to the Development Policy Advisory Commission (DPAC) requesting a

number of matters be modified in the policy. Specifically those outlined below, and more

generally the comments provided in Appendix B:

Reduced Building Heights

A reduction in building heights from eight to four storeys is recommended. Specifically;

The commentary in the Desired Character Statement for Precinct 21 relating to the 'Core

Area' (outlined on Concept Plan Map ChSt/24) should be amended to state "the form, scale and mix of development will be at its greatest intensity in the Core Area where buildings of four storeys in height are envisaged".

It is recommended that the reference made to maximum heights in Principle of

Development Control 40 be reduced to a four storey building height of 16.5 metres in both

the Core and Transition Area.

It is recommended that the draft policy reference to 'high' density housing within Policy

Area 5 be removed. This increase in density would apply to the remainder of Woodville Road

if endorsed, and should be subject to further investigations currently being undertaken as

part of the Woodville Village DPA and endorsed Statement of Investigations.

Open Space

Greater emphasis on the provision of open space be included in the Desired Character

Statement, Objectives and Principles of Development Control for Precinct 21 and also within

the Non Complying list. Specifically;

A statement be written in to the Desired Character Statement stating that "there will be a minimum of 22% open space provided on the site to be located in a single parcel extending from Woodville Road". In addition quantitative clarification should be provided in the Objectives, Principles of Development Control and Non Complying list to ensure 22% open space is provided.

Increased setbacks

Principle of Development Control 43 provides guidance for primary road setbacks. There is

no minimum in the Core Area and a three metre setback in the Transition Area. It is

recommended that provision also be made separately for garaging except where rear access

is provided. A minimum of 5.5 metres would be required as a front setback to a garage in

normal circumstances to allow for an additional off street vehicle car park. This would assist

in providing additional car parking within the Precinct and it is recommended this policy be

amended accordingly.



Limited Residential Development

Restricting Residential Development to within the Core and Transition Areas identified by

Precinct 21.

It is recommended that an amendment to the second paragraph of the Desired Character

Statement be made to state "residential development should only occur in the Core and

Transition Areas identified on Concept Plan Map ChSt/24". This will ensure there is no

residential development in the remainder of Precinct 21.

It is also recommended that an additional policy statement be included requiring the

development of commercial uses to occur only in association with residential uses. This will

ensure the mixed use development of the Core Area is realised. A Principle of Development

Control should be included and reference made within the Desired Character Statement.

Transition Area

There should be no commercial uses in the 'Transition Area'.

The focus of commercial and mixed use activities should be limited to the area identified as

the Core Area and not permitted within the Transition Area. This will ensure the extent of

commercial activities are contained and focused around the railway station. It is

recommended the Desired Character Statement be amended to state "Land should be developed only for residential purposes within the Transition Area as outlined in Concept

Plan Map ChSt/24. The Transition Area will be developed with building heights of between

three and four storeys with three storey dwellings fronting Actil Avenue".

The draft policy will allow for mixed use development in the Core Area and it should be

limited to the Core Area. It is recommended the reference to small scale shops and offices in

Principle 22 and 25 be removed from the Transition Area to ensure an interactive

environment adjacent to the railway station and minimise adverse impacts to the

surrounding residential environment.

Recreation and Educational Facilities

Increased opportunities for expansion of Recreation and Educational Facilities should be

promoted.

The proposed policy in Principle 41 seeks to limit the building height of development within

the Recreation and Educational area. It is recommended this policy be removed. The future

expansion of recreational and educational uses does not need to be limited given the space

available in which to develop future facilities.



Access

Limitation of Vehicular Access Points to ensure the safe and efficient movement of

pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.

It is recommended the Desired Character Statement be amended to include a statement

outlining that "there be no additional access points provided onto Woodville Road, Actil Avenue or St Clair Avenue".

The coordination of access points is suggested in the Principle of Development Control 54

pertaining to land divisions. It is recommended the policy also suggest access points should

not be provided onto Actil Avenue, St Clair Avenue or Woodville Road unless consistent with

the Concept Plan Map ChSt/24.

Brocas House

The existing policy through Principle of Development Control 31 states development should

be located and designed to:

(a) Maintain the cultural significance and architectural integrity of the Brocas State

Heritage place (situated on 111 Woodville Road, Woodville);

(b) Protect the historical and visual character of the Brocas State Heritage Place and its

setting.

It is recommended that this policy be retained. Development should enhance and respect

the Brocas and this should be substantiated through policy.

Background

Description of the Subject Site

The area affected by the DPA is comprised of the current St Clair oval, open space and

Recreation Centre, 'Brocas House' State Heritage place and the Woodville High School

Complex. The land is bounded by Woodville Road to the south east, Leslie Street West to

the north east, Actil Avenue to the north west and the Outer Harbour Rail Reserve to the

south west (refer Concept Plan Map ChSt/5 within the Development Plan Amendment

Document). A copy of the DPA is provided in Appendix A.

Previous Reports

At the meeting held 17 December 2012 (item 3.79), Council's Strategic Development

Committee considered a report which provided a preliminary overview of the Ministerial

DPA. The information was provided to give Member's an opportunity to receive and review

the DPA in anticipation of this final report to be considered by Council.



At this meeting the Committee endorsed as follows:

"1. The report be received and noted.

2. That a report be provided to the 29 January 2013 Council meeting where staff will

present its final assessment and commentary on the draft Ministerial Development

Plan Amendment and that the report includes consideration of issues raised by the

Community at the 12 December information session.

3. That Council authorise staff to commence further negotiations with Renewal SA to

enter into a legally binding agreement to secure a minimum of 22% open space and

additional land required for the purpose of a junior soccer pitch as detailed in the

letter dated 30 November 2012 from RSA forming Appendix B, this forming a total of

approximately 46% open space along the Woodville Road frontage.

4. That Council recognises the significant and ongoing community concern over the

potential loss of open space on the St Clair Oval site and that this concern will be included in the Council submission on the DPA."

Community Information Night

An information evening was held by Council Staff on 12 December 2012 to provide

interested members of the community with pertinent information required to make a

formal submission of the DPA. Key concerns identified at this meeting included:

• The proposed height of the development

• Additional traffic generation and car parking demand

• Potential reduction in open space

These issues have been considered by Council staff in the context to the review of the

proposed policy amendments.

Woodville Village Masterplan

The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide (The Plan) identifies Woodville as one of 14 Transit

Oriented Developments (TODs) proposed for the metropolitan area. The Plan intends that

the TOD will be centred around the existing Woodville Railway Station and will be the

catalyst for a significant improvement to the urban environment along Woodville Road

stretching from Port Road to Torrens Road.

In response to the directions contained in The Plan, the City of Charles Sturt and Renewal SA

(formerly the Land Management Corporation) commissioned a consultancy team led by

Jensen Planning & Design to prepare a comprehensive planning study for the area. The

resulting document, the Woodville Village Masterplan, identifies seven key precincts

between Port Road and Torrens Road to be developed in a coordinated manner to revitalise

the entire area to "create a vibrant heart for the local community".



The Woodville Village Masterplan encompassed an engagement process with the

community and stakeholders. This involved regular community newsletters, meetings with

specific interest groups, visioning workshops, a six-day urban design workshop, an open day

and a four-week exhibition period.

The matters raised through this consultation process and subsequent discussions held with

the community have been considered in context to the review of the proposed policy

amendments.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

The information in this report is structured as follows to provide an overview of key

elements as follows:

1. Report

2. Development Plan Amendment (DPA)

3. Policy Analysis and Key Impacts

4. Review of the draft Ministerial DPA

4.1 Proposed Development Plan Amendments — District Centre Zone

4.2 Proposed Development Plan Amendments — Woodville Policy Area 5

4.3 Proposed Development Plan Amendments — Precinct 21 Woodville Station

4.3.1 Desired Character Statement

4.3.1.1 Residential Development

4.3.1.2 Movement Networks and Car parking

4.3.1.3 Open Space

4.3.1.4 Development in the Core Area

4.3.1.5 General building Design

4.4 Proposed Development Plan Amendments - Precinct 21 Woodville Station

4.4.1 Principles of Development Control

4.4.1.1 Land Use

4.4.1.2 Educational and Recreational Facilities

4.4.1.3 Core Area

4.4.1.4 Form of Development — Core and Transition Area

4.4.1.5 Commercial Uses adjacent Woodville Road

4.4.1.6 Commercial Floor Areas

4.4.1.7 Residential Density

4.4.1.8 General Building Design

4.4.1.9 Building Height

4.4.1.10 Height in recreation and Educational zone

4.4.1.11 Setbacks

4.4.1.12 Incentives

4.4.1.13 Off Street Parking

4.4.4.14 Land Division

4.4.1.15 Brocas House

4.5 Proposed Development Plan Amendments — Non Complying Development



4.6 Proposed Development Plan Amendments — Mapping

5. Next Steps

6. Financial and Resource Implications

7. Customer Service and Community Implications

8. Environmental Implications

9. Community Engagement! Consultation

10. Ministerial Approval Process

City of Charles Stull 45. CL Report 29/01/13


1. Report

Members were emailed by Administration on 22 November 2012, to advise them of the

release of the Ministerial Woodville Station DPA for consultation. A hard copy of the

document was provided to all Members' for information. A report was then formally

presented to the Members of the Strategic Development Committee on 17 December 2012,

including a copy of the Ministerial Woodville Station DPA.

The purpose of this report is to present the findings of the review of the Minister's

Woodville Station Development Plan Amendment (DPA) undertaken by Administration for

Members' consideration and to seek endorsement on the draft submission to be forwarded

to DPAC prior to the closure of the Government's DPA consultation process on 14 February

2013.

This report has been presented to Council and not to the Strategic Development Committee

due to the time constraints on Council to present comments back to the State Government

prior to the closure of consultation.

2. Development Plan Amendment (DPA)

Following Councils approval of the Masterplan for the Woodville Village Policy Area, the

preparation of a Development Plan Amendment (DPA) is the next step to provide the

necessary policy to guide the future development of the Renewal SA land (Woodville

Station) .. Council Administration is in the process of preparing a DPA for the remainder of

the Woodville Road Precinct (Woodville Village Policy Area).

The Minister is separately undertaking the Woodville Station DPA because he is of the

opinion that the matter is of significant social, economic or environmental importance

(Section 24(1)(g) of the Development Act 1993).

A Development Plan contains the zones, maps and policies, which guide what can and

cannot be developed in the future with any piece of land within the area covered by the

Plan. These zones, maps and policies provide the criteria against which development

applications are assessed. A DPA is a document that describes changes proposed to a

Development Plan.

The Ministerial Policy DPA was gazetted on 22 November 2012, for a twelve week

consultation period until 14 February 2013.

While the area of affected land can be viewed in the DPA document forming part of

Appendix A, the location of the land affected by the DPA is located below in Figure 1, for

Member's information.



3. Policy Analysis and Key Impacts

The draft DPA essentially proposes policy changes to the new Precinct 21 area, however also

presents proposed minor policy changes to the wider District Centre Zone provisions.

In summary the Ministerial DPA seeks to modify the Development Plan by introducing

policies that will facilitate more immediate elements of the Woodville Village Master Plan

and introduce a specific Character Statement to the study area (Precinct 21) as it relates to

the Renewal SA (Woodville Station) land, formally the St Clair oval, to the north east of the

railway line. Specifically;

• Allow high density housing supported by a mix of compatible land uses on the

Renewal SA land

• Allow office, retail, restaurant and residential activities on the Renewal SA land

concentrated near the Woodville Railway Station

• Encourage a mixed use precinct with a walkable urban form including pedestrian and

cyclist friendly streetscapes, active street frontages and accessible public transport

use

• The development of the site for medium to high density residential purposes

achieving a minimum net density of 60 - 85 dwellings per hectare

The Concept Plan separates specific areas resulting in different development outcomes.

Specifically:

Within the 'Core' Area policies have been developed for the following:

• Offices and shops with a floor area up to 1000m2

• Residential development

• Buildings between three to eight storeys in height

Within the 'Transition' Area policies have been developed for the following:

• Offices and shops with a floor area up to 250m2

• Residential development

• Buildings between two to five storeys in height

The remainder of the RSA site will be dedicated to public open space purposes. The Concept

Plan suggests a minimum of 22% (10,340m2) of the site will be dedicated to open space and

be located adjacent to Woodville Road.

S har.7- , • , Ini•-•

mum.



:

imp

:71

all 09e.. all S:at,, 'Heritsgt•.4

—

X X P. ■ 1:1 ■ 1

Concept Plan Map ChSt/24 PRECINCT 21

RAILWAY STATION _

Figure 1— Development Plan Amendment Study Area and Proposed Concept Plan



The DPA introduces policies extracted from the 'Suburban Activity Node Zone' contained

within the South Australian Planning Policy Library. This policy module was formulated

specifically for areas where there is a desire for a change in form around a fixed transit stop.

The DPA includes a new Concept Plan relating specifically to the DPA study area, to provide

broad guidance in relation to the potential location of the main vehicle access points, open

space and recreational links to surrounding areas. The Concept Plan identifies 'Core' and

'Transition' areas within the precinct to guide the intensity of the built form.

4. Review of the draft Ministerial DPA

A complete list of policy changes and a comparison to the Woodville Village Masterplan has

been completed and is contained within Appendix B for Members' information, The

following matters are issues considered most pertinent to the submission to be made to

DPAC and will form the basis of the letter outlining Councils submission contained within

Appendix C for Members' endorsement.

4.1 Proposed Development Plan Amendments — District Centre Zone

The extent of the District Centre Zone is outlined in Concept Plan Map.ChSt/5 contained

within Appendix A.

Principle of Development Control 1 - Land Use

The proposed changes to the council wide District Centre Zone will allow for aged care

accommodation within all District Centre Zones (Fulham Gardens, Hindnnarsh, Kilkenny,

West Lakes and Woodville).

Provision is made in the proposed policy amendments for affordable housing, mixed use

development, residential flat buildings, row dwellings and tourist accommodation in

Precinct 21 (Renewal SA land) only.

The additional land uses listed will facilitate the objectives of the Woodville Village

Masterplan and are considered appropriate in the context and location they are proposed

(Precinct 21 only). The uses proposed will allow for medium density residential

development and commercial uses.

The list of proposed land uses will allow for ongoing open space, recreation and educational

uses in the remainder of the study area and the restriction of residential uses to Precinct 21,

will ensure the recreation and educational uses are not compromised.

The incorporation of aged care accommodation is supported in all other District Centre

Zones providing good access to services for those residing in the accommodation and

support to the commercial uses within the Zone, without undermining the commercial /

local service function of the zone.



4.2 Proposed Development Plan Amendments — Woodville Policy Area 5

The extent of the District Centre Zone is outlined in Concept Plan Map ChSt/5 contained

within Appendix A.

Woodville Policy Area 5 - Objective 2 — Mixed Use Development

The changes to Objective 2 will allow for mixed use development within the entire

Woodville District Centre Zone and medium to high density housing.

The 30 Year Plan provides a definition of medium to high density housing. Medium density

housing is considered to be between 35-70 dwellings / hectare, high density housing being

greater than 70 dwellings per hectare.

It is recommended that the reference to 'high' density housing within Policy Area 5 be

removed. This increase in density would apply to the remainder of Woodville Road if

endorsed, and should be subject to further investigations being undertaken as part of

Council's own Woodville Village DPA.

Woodville Policy Area 5 - Objective 3 — Woodville Road Precinct

This policy approach will ensure the commercial precinct of Woodville Road — between Port

Road and the Renewal SA land, is developed for commercial and residential purposes. The

land uses to either side of this commercial heart (recreation, educational, medical) will not

be affected and will remain.

Woodville Policy Area 5 - Objective 5 - Connectivity

The policy focus is changed to emphasise pedestrian and cyclist friendly streetscapes

throughout the policy area, to encourage social interaction. This will ensure this is a major

focus for future development and is supported. The focus urban design is included in

Objective 6.

Woodville Policy Area 5- Desired Character Statement

The changes proposed to the entire policy area are considered minor, the local addition for

Precinct 21 will ensure the portion of the Renewal SA site fronting Woodville Road will

remain open as reserve and will not be developed with buildings, as is encouraged along the

remainder of Woodville Road. This is considered appropriate and consistent with the

Masterplan and associated Concept Plan.

No other changes are considered necessary to the Desired Character Statement for Policy

Area 5. Further detail is included in the specific provisions for Precinct 21.




The majority of changes proposed by the DPA are contained in the proposed new policies

for Precinct 21.

The new Precinct 21 is based on the policies contained within the South Australian Planning

Policy Library for the Suburban Activity Node Zone, which was prepared specifically for areas

where there is a desire for a change in form around a fixed transit stop (such as a railway

station) or other focal point.

A new comprehensive Desired Character Statement (DCS) is proposed for the new Precinct

21. The new DCS retains the relevant content relating to the open space and educational

areas of the Precinct, and provides a new comprehensive 'picture' of the future

development of the Renewal SA land. The DCS includes a description of desired:

• Land use mix

• Form, scale and mix of land uses

• Spread of intensity of land uses

• Pedestrian and cycling linkages

• Road and traffic management

• Open space

• Built form design requirements

• Environmental design considerations

4.3.1 Precinct 21— Desired Character Statement

The proposed name change implies flexibility for the development of the entire precinct,

focused around the railway station.

The statement generically describes the development of the Precinct, emphasising

residential development integrated with local service commercial uses. The further

development of open space and community use of such spaces is implied. The future

development of the recreation and education facilities is encouraged.

4.3.1.1 Residential Development

It is recommended that an amendment to the second paragraph of the statement be made

to state "residential development should only occur in the Core and Transition Areas

identified on Concept Plan Map ChSt/24".



The mixture and density of dwellings is supported by the Masterplan. The Masterplan

envisioned a density of 92 dwellings per hectare (430 dwellings on 4.676 hectares of land).

The policy now proposes a minimum net density of 85 dwellings per hectare. Whilst this is

not significantly different, and the development site will still be considered to be "high

density", this will result in a minimum dwelling yield of 400 dwellings. Given the intent of

the 30 Year plan and the location of the development adjacent to the railway station, this

will provide opportunity for residential development in a strategic location to achieve the

population targets required with the City of Charles Sturt. The increased population will also

support the revitalisation of Woodville Road.

4.3.1.2 Movement Networks & Car parking

The proposed policy associated with vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist linkages through to the

St Clair Development are consistent with the traffic studies undertaken in association with

the Masterplan and more recent Council deliberations in this respect. It is recommended

the policy be amended to include a statement outlining that "there be no additional access

points provided onto Woodville Road, Actil Avenue or St Clair Avenue".

Car parking will be provided beneath buildings, at grade parking only provided in association

with recreation and educational uses. This will provide a visual benefit and ensure the

streetscapes created within the development are pedestrian friendly and interactive.

The proposed carparking rates are less than the existing rates for the District Centre Zone.

4.3.1.3 Open Space

The proposed policy supports a substantial amount of open space being provided and is

considered to reflect the aspirations of the community and the Masterplan. It is

recommended an additional statement be written in to the Desired Character Statement

specifically that "there will be a minimum of 22% open space provided on the site to be located in a single parcel extending from Woodville Road".

The community has expressed concerns regarding the provision of open space within the

development area and for the entire area of the former St Clair Reserve be retained. The

area of land now owned by Renewal SA (formally the St Clair Reserve) is a parcel of land

with an area of approximately 4.6 hectares. This former reserve land formed part of the St

Clair land swap and has now been provided on the former Sheridan site. The total provision

of open space in the area was not reduced as a result of the land swap. The provision of an

additional 10,279m2 of open space on the Renewal SA land (22%) will increase the amount

of open space available to the community and is considered to be a successful outcome for

the community.



The Local Government Research Project into Best Practice Open Space Provision for Higher

Density InfiII Development ('The Study') was initiated by the City of Charles Sturt and funded

through the Local Government Research and Development Fund. The project developed

practical and research based principles, guidelines and directions that will guide the

appropriate provision, design and management of open space in future higher density urban

developments including Trans-Oriented Developments. The project was undertaken in

collaboration with other Councils, state government representatives including Renewal SA

and the Local Government Association.

The intent of Council's involvement in this Study was to better inform Council and relevant

stakeholders as to the quantity and quality of open space in these forms of developments

for future consideration and assist in defining Council's future position on the provision and

nature of open space in high density precincts. Key findings from the Study have included:

• The research recommends a generous provision of open space in high density areas to

compensate for the increased population density and the lack of private open space.

• The appropriateness of the current legislative requirement for 12.5% of development

for open space is questioned.

• The need for a balanced provision of public and private spaces in -higher density

development areas is noted, including the importance of plazas and activated spaces

to create a sense of integrated communities.

• The importance of engaging the community in the detailed provision and design of

open space.

• The research highlights the need to consider the population character and related

community needs, societal trends in the context of the area and links to other open

space and facility opportunities. A 'one size fits all' approach is consistently

recommended against.

• A needs based approach to planning for open space in higher density areas is

consistently recommended in the research, where the potential character of the

population and community needs should be taken into consideration to determine the

appropriate types of open space and related facilities.

• Consideration should be given to planning for sporting needs and this is potentially a

major gap in the future as urban populations increase and demand for sport becomes

greater.

The proposed changes to Precinct 21 seeks to facilitate the development of the Renewal SA

site and details the proposed areas of open space equating to 22% of the site. The Study

recognises that in high density areas the provision of 12.5% open space may not be

appropriate, and in this instance a higher figure has been achieved and is considered to be a

positive outcome for the community.

It is important to use the findings of this Study to reinforce improvements to open space

issues within high density areas particular as further large infill sites are developed within

the City in the future such as the Woodville Station site. This should be reiterated through

Council's submission.


, WOODVILLE STATION MINISTERIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT - POLICY SUBMISSION Item 6.3 Continued

4.3.1.4 Development in the Core Area

The commentary relating to the 'Core Area' outlined on Concept Plan Map ChSt/24 should

be amended to state that "the form, scale and mix of development will be at its greatest

intensity in the Core Area where buildings of four storeys in height are envisaged".

Eight stories are not considered appropriate in this location and this has been reflected by

the community on numerous occasions. Taking into consideration the height of the

surrounding built form and the visual permeability through the site, eight stories is

considered excessive and out of character in this suburban location. The application of four

storey height controls could be applied to the extent of the Core and Transition area to

achieve similar densities in accordance with the 30 Year Plan Targets and Councils Strategic

Direction Report. The calculations outlined in Section 4.4.1.7 of this report outline how the

policy direction associated with minimum net densities can be achieved.

The following figures provide indicative dwelling yields based on the number of storeys. (It

should be noted that a number of assumptions have been made and these figures are

indicative only).

2 Storeys = 280 dwellings




6 storeys = 840 dwellings



The anticipated impacts associated with a four storey building height throughout the extent

of the developable area are considered minimal in comparison to an eight storey

development outcome. The four storey height maximum would still allow for mixed use

development and complement the character of the surrounding suburban environment.

Development in excess of four storeys may start to impact the character of the locality,

result in adverse traffic movements and change the amenity of the locality.

The focus of commercial and mixed use activities should be limited to the area identified as

the Core Area and not permitted within the Transition Area. This will ensure the extent of

commercial activities are contained and focused around the railway station. It is

recommended the policy be amended to state that "Land should be developed

predominantly for residential purposes within the Transition Area as outlined in Concept Plan

Map ChSt/24. The Transition Area will be developed with building heights of between three

and four storeys with three storey row dwellings fronting Actil Avenue".



4.3.1.5 General Building Design

The policy is considered appropriate with respect to the guidance it provides for building

design. Consideration is given to the existing built form in Woodville and also written to

ensure the contemporary building design reflects the intent of the Masterplan.


4.4.1— Precinct 21— Principles of Development Control

The numbering and the sequence of the District Centre Zone Principles of Development

Control relating to other policy areas has been amended however the content has not.

Policy changes have been proposed to the Principles of Development Control specifically

relating to Precinct 21 as outlined below.

4.4.1.1— Principle of Development Control 17 — Land Use

The policy outlined for the Core Area is considered appropriate as it will allow for a mixed

use development. The land uses encouraged within the Transition Area should remove the

reference to offices and shops to ensure these uses are contained centrally within the Core

Area.

The uses specified for the Recreation and Educational areas are considered appropriate to

reinforce the existing function.

4.4.1.2 — Principle of Development Control 19— Educational and Recreational Facilities

The policy proposes that with the exception of the St Clair Recreation Centre and Woodville

High School where a district focus is appropriate, non-residential land uses should:

(a) Have a local or neighbourhood focus to their scale of activity and intended market

catchment;

(b) Encourage walking to local shopping, community services and other activities;

(c) Not detrimentally impact on the amenity of nearby residents.

The commercial uses within the precinct will need to be compatible with residential uses.

This policy is considered appropriate.

4.4.1.3 — Principle of Development Control 21- Proposed Core Area

The proposed policy recommends the Core Area be developed to include a range of land

uses that are high pedestrian generators, directly promote public transport use and provide

opportunities for multi-purpose trips.

The Core Area should provide a focus for increased levels of activity through a mixture of

land uses. The policy is supported as it will ensure this outcome is achieved.



4.4.1.4— Principle of Development Control 22 — Form of Development, Core and Transition Area

The proposed policy recommends development should primarily take the form of:

(a) In the Core Area - residential flat buildings, non-residential buildings and buildings

comprising two or more land uses with non-residential land uses on the ground floor;

(b) In the Transition Area - residential flat buildings and row dwellings, with small scale

shops and office.

The policy will allow for mixed use development in the Core Area. It is recommended the reference to small scale shops and offices should be removed from the Transition Area to

ensure an interactive environment adjacent to the railway station and minimise adverse

impacts to the surrounding residential environment.

, 4.4.1.5— Principle of Development Control 23— Commercial Uses adjacent to Woodville Road

It is suggested that retail and office land uses should be concentrated near the Woodville

Railway Station as well as in buildings that provide a visible frontage to Woodville Road.

It is not considered necessary to have commercial development abutting Woodville Road.

The original Masterplan provided opportunity for commercial development adjacent to

Woodville Road. Whilst the proposed policy is inconsistent with the Masterplan in this

respect, the additional open space and visual permeability is considered desirable from a

community perspective.

4.4.1.6— Principle of Development Control 25— Commercial Floor Areas

Principle of Development Control 25 outlines the maximum floor areas proposed within

Precinct 21 for shops and offices of 1000m2 in the Core Area and 250m2 in the Transition

Area. Shops or groups of shops are currently listed as non-complying in the Precinct 21 area

under current Development Plan policy.

The revised policy introducing commercial uses is supported to encourage activity and

vibrancy around the railway station and to provide local services to the residents in the

medium to high density environment. Consideration should be given to the commercial

viability and the surrounding commercial areas. A 1000m2 shop was recommended in the

Masterplan based on a market analysis undertaken. A shop of this size will not undermine

larger supermarkets located at Arndale, in St Clair or on the corner of Port and Woodville

Road.

The focus of commercial activities should only be in the Core Area. It is therefore

recommended that the policy be amended to remove the reference to offices and shops being allowed in the Transition Area.



It is also recommended that an additional policy statement be included requiring the

development of commercial uses in association with residential uses.

4.4.1.7— Principle of Development Control 27— Residential Density

The proposed policy outlines the minimum net residential densities proposed for the

Renewal SA land at 85 dwellings per hectare in the Core Area and 60 dwellings per hectare

in the Transition Area which is considered appropriate.

The City of Charles Sturt Strategic Directions Report identifies between 350 — 600 dwellings

(665 — 1140) people for the Woodville Station site (table 5)

Net densities are calculated excluding all roads, reserves and commercial space. The net

residential densities are calculated taking into consideration the amount of area /

allotments available only for residential development.

To determine the potential development yield based on the proposed net densities — the

following assumptions have been made:

• Total site area = 46,727m2, minus 22% open space (10,279m2) leaves 36448

remaining for development purposes.

• Of this assume 25% for roads (9,112m2), and 3000m2 commercial area, leaves

approximately 24,336m2 of development area for residential purposes.

Assuming 50% of this land will be provided between the Core Area and the Transition Area

(12,168m2 respectively) and approximately 20% (2,433m2) of this developable land

required for services, rear access, pedestrian linkages, landscaping etc, the land available on

which to build is again reduced to 9753m2. Based on the proposed minimum net densities

there would be minimum of 82 dwellings in the Core Area and 58 in the Transition Area if

only single storey construction were to occur. The potential floor areas of the dwellings

could be between 118 and 167m2.

Should residential development be constructed over multiple levels, the dwelling yields

increase. The following figures provide indicative dwelling yields based on the number of

storeys. (It should be noted that a number of assumptions have been made and these

figures are indicative only).










It should be noted that the indicative figures quoted exclude the inclusion of commercial

development and differing building heights. It is unlikely that the area would be developed,

for instance, with eight storey development across the entire site.

These figures are considered realistic for a TOD development . Taking into consideration a

portion of the developable area will be developed for commercial purposes and car parking,

this again reduces the potential number of dwellings. These figures are also based on floor

areas of between 118m2 and 167m2. It is anticipated there would be a mixture of dwelling

types, with differing floor areas, again reducing the total numbers of dwellings. Based on

these assumptions four storeys is considered appropriate for the Renewal SA land.

These figures do not however meet the targets in the Strategic Directions Report, or the

densities recommended in the Masterplan (400 —430 dwellings), but the assumptions made

and market forces may allow for additional dwelling numbers to be provided on the site.

The approximate dwelling yield calculated above is the minimum number of dwellings which

could be realistically achieved on the site.

4.4.1.8— Principle of Development Control 36 — 39 - General Building Design

The policy contains a number of new Principles of Development Control which provide

guidance for building design. Contemporary design, the use of materials, fenestration, and

articulation, the development of a high quality public realm and the development of

laneways are all considered and written into the draft policy. The proposed policies are

considered appropriate to guide the future development of the area to ensure sustainable

and high quality development is constructed.

4.4.1.9— Principle of Development Control 40— Building Height •

The policy proposes a minimum building height of three storeys in the Core Area and a

maximum height of eight storeys. In the Transition Area, a minimum of 2 storeys and a

maximum of 5 storeys are proposed.

It is recommended that the maximum heights be reduced to a four storey building height of

16.5 metres in both the Core and Transition Area.

Eight storeys in height is not considered necessary to achieve the minimum densities

proposed in the policy and will be out of character with the surrounding area. Whist the

future development along Woodville Road is probable in the future, it is not anticipated it

will provide the context or character necessary to accommodate buildings of eight storeys.

The community has expressed concern on a number of occasions regarding the proposed

height of development on the Renewal SA land.

It should be noted that the provisions relating to incentives, will allow for additional building

height (up to one storey) where it can be demonstrated that specific development outcomes

are achieved by way of sustainability measures or affordability. This would potentially allow

for five storey development in certain circumstances where merit is demonstrated.



4.4.1.10— Principle of Development Control 41— Height in Recreation and Education Zone

The proposed policy seeks to limit the building height of development within the Recreation

and Educational area. It is recommended this policy be removed. The future expansion of

recreational and educational uses does not need to be limited given the space available in

which to develop future facilities.

4.4.1.11— Principle of Development Control 42 - Setbacks

Principle of Development Control 43 provides guidance for primary road setbacks. There is

no minimum in the Core Area and a three metre setback in the Transition Area. It is

recommended that provision also be made separately for garaging except where rear access

is provided. A minimum of 5.5 metres would be required as a front setback to a garage in

normal circumstances to allow for an additional off street vehicle car park. This would assist

in providing additional car parking within the Precinct.

4.4.1.12— Principle of Development Control 46- Incentives

The incentives will allow up to one storey additional height or reduced car parking numbers

where development included affordable housing, under croft car parking, mixed use

development, child care facilities or a rooftop garden. All of these uses are highly desirable

in the Core and Transition area and should be encouraged. The increase in height or

reduction in car parking is not excessive and would add visual difference and a mixture of

development types within the area.

The incentives are considered appropriate given the nature of activities they support.

4.4.1.13— Principle of Development Control 47 & 48— Off Street Parking

Current Development Plan provisions require between 0.75 and 1.25 spaces for dwellings

(depending on the total floor area and number of bedrooms) plus 0.25 spaces per dwelling

for visitors - also 7 spaces per 100m2 of floor area for shops.

The policy, proposes vehicle parking be provided at the following rates:

(a) For residential development, 0.75 car parking spaces per dwelling

(b) For shops, 3 car parking spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area

(c) For tourist accommodation, 1 car parking space for every 4 bedrooms up to 100

bedrooms and 1 car parking space for every 5 bedrooms over 100 bedrooms

(d) All other non-residential uses, 3 car parking spaces per 100 square metres of gross

leasable floor area at ground floor level and 1.5 car parking spaces per 100 square

metres of gross leasable floor area above ground floor level.



The proposed rates are not significantly below what is currently required by the policy in the

District Centre Zone. The lesser residential rate is justified given the proximity of the railway

station and given that there will be opportunities for shared car parking with mixed use

commercial activities. The rates proposed are comparable to Bowden and Woodville West

developments. The recommendation regarding the primary setbacks would also influence

the number of off street car parks available for residential use.

Principle 48 allows for flexibility in car parking numbers for development in certain

circumstances such as where public transport is highly accessible or shared car parking

opportunities exist. This is considered reasonable given the opportunities for mixed use

within the precinct. This will also encourage joint development opportunities and accessible

car parking opportunities.

It is recommended that this policy be supported and that it also be applied to all District

Centre Zones.

4.4.1.14— Principle of Development Control 53 — Land Division

The coordination of vehicular access points is suggested in the policy. It is recommended

the policy also suggest access points should not be provided onto Actil Avenue, St Clair

Avenue or Woodville Road unless consistent with the Concept Plan 24

4.4.1.15— Brocas House

The existing [policy contains a Principle which states development should be located and

designed to:

(a) Maintain the cultural significance and architectural integrity of the Brocas State

Heritage place (situated on 111 Woodville Road, Woodville)

(b) Protect the historical and visual character of the Brocas State Heritage Place and its

setting.

It is recommended that this objective be retained. Development should enhance and

respect the Brocas and this should be reinforced through policy.

4.5 Proposed Development Plan Amendments — Precinct 21 Woodville Station — Non

Complying Development

The list is comprehensive however it is recommended that detached and semi detached

dwellings be listed as non complying to ensure the densities proposed are envisaged in

future developments and that dwellings be listed as non-complying in the area north east of

the new St Clair Avenue extension as shown on Concept Plan Map ChSt/24.



4.6 Proposed Development Plan Amendments — Mapping

The DPA:

• Amends Location Map ChSt/9 to remove the `local reserve' status from the land south

of the new connector road

• Amends Concept Plan Map ChSt/5- Woodville Policy Area 5 to refer to the new more

detailed concept plan for Precinct 21

• Introduces a new Concept Plan Map ChSt/24

• Introduces a new Overlay Map ChSt/9- Affordable Housing in order to apply the

existing affordable housing provisions to the residential component of Precinct 21

• Introduces a new Overlay Map ChSt/9- Noise and Air Emissions in order to apply the

existing noise and air emissions policies to the land south-west of the new collector

road in Precinct 21 (as illustrated by the new Concept Plan)

Location Map ChSt/9

Location of Reserves shown on the revised Location Map Chst/9 is incorrect as it currently

includes Council owned properties which are not 'local reserves'. It is recommended this be

fixed as part of the DPA.

Concept Plan Map ChSt/5

The Masterplan identifies the core and transition areas as being suitable for future

residential growth. The master plan also encourages the expansion and multi disciplinary

growth of the recreation and educational precinct.

Concept Plan Map ChSt/24

The new Concept Plan is appropriate as it clearly identifies areas for open space, residential

development, educational and recreational uses.

Overlay Map ChSt/9 Affordable Housing

It is recommended reference be made to this map in the policy text.

Overlay Map ChSt/9 Noise and Air Emissions

It is recommended reference be made to this map in the policy text.

Other policy matters concerned with the future development of the Precinct are contained

within the General Section of the Development Plan. Specific reference has been made to

pertinent matters in the proposed policy module, and subsequent to the recommended

changes, it is considered appropriate.


WOODVILLE STATION MINISTERIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT - POLICY

SUBMISSION Item 6.3 Continued

The following matters are contained within the General Section of the Development Plan:

• Crime Prevention

• Design and Appearance

• Energy Efficiency

• Hazards

• Heritage

• Infrastructure

• Natural resources

• Orderly and Sustainable Development

• Transportation and Access, and

• Waste.

Next Steps

All submissions on the draft Ministerial DPA are required to be submitted to DPAC by 14

February 2013.

As will be expressed in the draft response, Council has the opportunity to be heard at a

public meeting held by DPAC to hear submissions on the DPA, to be held on 5 March 2013,

7pm at the Murree Smith Memorial Hall.

The process following the close of consultation and the public meeting is for DPAC to

provide a report to the Minister for Planning. The Minister will consider whether to make

amendments to the DPA and then whether to proceed with its implementation. If the DPA

is adopted the policy and mapping changes proposed will be made to the Development Plan.


The DPA process is being undertaken by the Minister for Planning. The review of the draft

Ministerial DPA has occurred within existing resources.


The draft DPA proposes approximately 10,200m2 of public open space to be created as

community land. The policy proposes the continuation of existing community facilities

associated with sport and recreation and also maintains the educational uses within the

Precinct.


The proposed policy amendments take into consideration the provision of open space and

the retention of healthy significant trees within the study area. General Development Plan

provisions will guide the sustainable development within the precinct.




The draft Ministerial DPA has been on display and available for viewing at Council offices

during the consultation period. A link to the Ministerial DPA has been accessible from

Councils web site.

A notice was also published by Council in its regular Messenger column and published in the

Messenger edition on 5 December 2012 to expand coverage of the draft Ministerial DPA to

the community. Signs were erected on the St Clair Reserve and Port Road advising the

community of the DPA. An electronic mail out was also sent to members of the public who

registered their interest in the Community Plan on the 3 December 2012. Information on

the draft Ministerial DPA was also posted on Council's website to further inform the

community.

An information evening was held by Council Staff on 12 December 2012 to provide

interested members of the community with pertinent information required to make a

formal submission of the DPA. Key concerns identified at this meeting included:

• The proposed height of the development

• Additional traffic generation and car parking demand

• Potential reduction in open space.

These issues have been considered in context to the review of the proposed policy

amendments.

Consideration has also been given to the comments received from the community as part of

the Woodville Village Masterplan.

A comprehensive community engagement process was undertaken in three stages,

commencing with the creation of a vision for the area. Community newsletters, meetings

with specific interest groups and visioning workshops were held to help shape the

community's vision for the precinct.

The second stage included a comprehensive six day urban design workshop with

stakeholders and members of the public to work through design options for the different

precincts within the project area. These design options were further worked through in

meetings with specific interest groups, Council and the then Land Management Corporation

(now Renewal SA).



The following is a summary of the comments received specifically for the Renewal SA land:

• Specific opposition to the proposed 8 storey building, and the impact this will have on

residents living to the east of the rail line

• Concern among some respondents for any development over 4 storeys

• Impact of overshadowing on nearby existing residences on the south western side of

the rail line

• A view that higher rise buildings are out of character with the area and will not create

a 'village' feel

• Housing will not be affordable

• A view that high-rise development may turn the area into a 'slum' or 'rental ghetto'

• Generation of additional traffic leading to more congestion of Woodville Road

• Insufficient access to open space relative to the increased population

• New housing may be poorly designed like that at Port Adelaide

• The inability of Council to dictate the heights and types of building once the land is

handed over to a developer

• The proposal does not include a playground for children on the LMC land

• Developers will reap the financial benefit of developing the reserve — instead of

retaining it as a community asset

• The enlargement of retail threshold will negatively impact on the viability of existing

• Woodville Road retail outlets located closer to Port Road.

Concerns relating to the height, over shadowing, character and housing design are to be

addressed as part of Councils submission to the DPAC recommending a reduction in heights.

As it has been demonstrated this will not significantly influence the minimum net dwelling

densities. The reduction in height will however impart the potential maximum dwelling yield

for the site, these are not specified in policy. This proposed amendment to draft policy is

considered reasonable and will address the concerns of the community.

Provisions pertaining to affordable housing have been incorporated into the policy. Open

space has also been included at a rate significantly higher that the 12.5% statutory

minimum. A total of 22% of the site will be dedicated to open space. Council's submission

recommends additional policy statements be included in the DPA to strengthen this

position.

The concerns of the community have been considered in preparing this report. Community

members also have opportunity to make an independent submission as part of the DPA

process directly to DPAC.


The Minister for Planning may or may not, approve the DPA and this decision may or may

not, be consistent with the formal submission made by Council. It is possible the

amendment may be incorporated into Council's Development Plan and the policies are not

reflective of the Council's direction.



Ministerial Approval Process

Council's submission to the Development Policy Advisory Committee will be considered by

the Minister when assessing the proposed DPA. The Minister may then:

a) Approve the amendment; or

b) Alter the amendment and approve the amendment as altered; or -

c) Decline to approve the amendment; or

d) Divide the amendment into separate amendments (with or without alterations) and

approve one or more of those amendments and, as to the remaining amendment or

amendments, give further consideration to any outstanding issues and then, if or

when the Minister thinks fit, reconsider the amendment or amendments (with or

without alterations) and exercise, in relation to the amendment or amendments, any

power conferred on the Minister under this subsection to approve, or to decline to

approve, the amendment or amendments.

The approval is then subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. If the Minister approves an

amendment the Minister must, within 28 days, refer the amendment to the Environment,

Resources and Development Committee of the Parliament.

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee must, after receipt of an

amendment under subsection:

a) Resolve that it does not object to the amendment; or

b) Resolve to suggest amendments to the relevant Development Plan (as amended); or

c) Resolve to object to the amendment.

Council's comments may be taken into consideration as part of the assessment process.

Conclusion

The draft policy contained within the Ministerial Woodville Station Development Plan

Amendment will facilitate the development of the land owned by Renewal SA adjacent to

the Woodville Station.

The majority of policies proposed are consistent with Residential and Urban Core Zone

policies which have been applied in other areas throughout the City. The recommended

matters for inclusion in Council's formal submission to DPAC will better facilitate outcomes

desired by the community and ensure the development of the site is compatible with

surrounding areas and open space is maximised.


[Note: These minutes are unconfirmed until 11 February 20131

6.3* WOODVILLE STATION MINISTERIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT - POLICY

SUBMISSION (B7262) 36

Brief

The Minister for Planning has prepared the Woodville Station Development Plan

Amendment (DPA). The Ministerial DPA was released by the Minister for public

consultation on 13 November 2012 for a period of twelve weeks. The consultation for the draft Ministerial DPA closes on 14 February 2013.

This report provides an overview of the proposed policy amendments and a draft

submission on the Ministerial DPA for Council's endorsement.

Motion


2. That Council does not support the re-zoning of St Clair Oval for development, and therefore does not support the DPA in its current form.

3. That Council requests that the submission in Appendix B and C is amended to reflect point 2 above, and to reflect both Council and community concern over the loss of necessary open space from St Clair Reserve, given the projected increase in population proposed for Charles Sturt under the 30 Year Plan.

4. That Council acknowledges and supports the 28% open space and junior soccer pitch proposed on the oval site by Renewal SA, as a minimum.

5. That Council writes to the Premier and Member for Cheltenham, Jay Weatherill, and to the Minister for Planning and Member for Enfield, John Rau, requesting that St Clair Oval and surrounding parklands be retained as open space for use by current and future generations, and placed under the care and control of Council.

6. That Council staff attend the Development Policy Advisory Committee (DPAC) Public Hearing to provide verbal feedback further to Council's written submission.



Councillor Agius declared an interest in Item 6.3 due to his employment with the Member for Enfield and left the meeting at 8.40 pm.

Mayor Alexander requested Councillor Agius to properly remove himself from the chamber

and Councillor Agius complied with this request.

Mayor Alexander sought leave of the meeting for Councillor Grant to continue his debate for

a further minute. Leave was granted.



Seconded Councillor Harley

The motion to Item 6.3 was lost.

Division

Councillor Randall called for a Division.


Councillors Andriani, Ghent, Hanley, Grant, Coppola, lenco and Harley (7).


Councillors Scheffler, Fitzpatrick, Randall, Nguyen, Wasylenko, Keneally,

Alexandrides and Auricht (8).

The motion was lost.

Motion


2. That Council supports the Woodville Station DPA and endorse the

submission contained in Appendix B and C, to be forwarded to the

Development Policy Advisory Committee outlining the City's comments in

relation to the draft Ministerial Woodville Station Development Plan Amendment (DPA).

3. That Council staff attend the Development Policy Advisory Committee

(DPAC) Public Hearing to provide verbal feedback further to Council's

written submission.

Moved Councillor Randall, Seconded Councillor Wasylenko

Point of Order

Councillor Wasylenko called a Point of Order against Mayor Alexander stating that the

Mayor was reflecting on Council. Mayor Alexander ruled against the Point of Order.

The motion to Item 6.3 was carried.

Avenue, Grange to Terminus Stre maphore Park incorporating the Tennyson

Dunes.

The followin port outlines a proposed phase of project research and a pre-



Division









Acrournment - 9.37 pm

That Council adjourn for a 10 minute break.

Moved Councillor Wasylenko, Seconded Councillor Fitzpatrick

Resumption - 9. 50 pm

That Council resume.

Moved Councillor lenco, Seconded Councillor Fitzpatrick

Carried

Carried Unanimously

Councillors Grant and Harley were not in their seats at the time of resumption.

At 9.51 pm Councillors Grant and Harley resumed their seats.

6.4* COAST PARK PROJECT REPORT (B7572) 68

Brief

The final section of Coast Park to be constructed -is the 4.7km section from Third

enga:- - nt process to commence the project.

c.elzett-kqe

• 72 Woodville Road, Woodville South Australia 5011 PO Box 1, Woodville SA 5011

T08 8408 111 F 08 8408 112 charlesstu rt.sa gov.au 4,

28 March 2013

Cr Robert Randall

19 Lexington Road

HENLEY BEACH SOUTH SA 5022

Dear Cr Randall

Notice of Determination — Freedom of Informa

I refer to your application for access to docume

29 January 2013 in relation to the St Clair motio

On 28 March 2013 the following determinatio

Freedom of Information Officer of the City of Ch

Refer to Attachment 1 detailing the documen

has been released to you as part of your applica

If you are aggrieved by this determination y

conferred by the Freedom of Information Act,

information sheet.

Yours sincerely

o'■oaDe

Merissa Decelis

Accredited Freedom of Information Officer

Our Ref: B7889

ion Application Number: 26/2012/2013

ts sent to Cr Grant from Mayor Alexander on

, under the Freedom of Information Act 1991.

was made by Merissa Decelis, an accredited

rles Sturt.

that is included with this determination and

u have the rights of review and appeal as

efer to attached Rights of Review and Appeal

••• • •••• • ••• • ••••••• • ••• te4..A.A.A1.4?.....A.41. ■■ •■■ .4, ■ •■ •■■

•••• • ••• • ••••••• • ••• • •• I ...A, 4. A. I • ■ 3 Alk. AL A. A. A.

• de•• •• ••• ••••• • • • • • • • • • •••••• • •• • •• • • •• • • • • • ••• • •••• ••• • * *. • • • • ** ** •

Freedom of Information

Your Rights to Review and Appeal

Internal Review

Under Division 3, Section 29 of the Freedom of Informatio Act (SA) 1991, if you are dissatisfied or "aggrieved" by a

determination made by an agency (regarding access to doc ments or amendment to records) you can apply to the

agency concerned for an internal review of its' determinati n.

• An application for review of a determination must e made in writing.

- – - — • It must be accompanied by an application fee as pr scribed in the Freedom on Information Regulations.

• It must be addressed to the principal officer of the gency.

• It must specify an address in Australia to which not es under this Act should be sent.

• An application for review of a determination must se lodged at the agency within 30 days after receiving the notice of determination from the agency.

• An agency must respond to an application for Inte al Review within 14 days of receipt.

• An agency that fails to respond within the 14 day ti efra me is taken to have confirmed the original

determination.

• The agency may confirm, vary or reverse the deter ination.

• If the determination is varied or reversed so that a cess to a document is to be given, the agency must

refund any application fee paid in respect of the re iew.

Where there is an entitlement for an internal review this ust be sought before an application for external

review can be made.

External Review

— investigation by the Ombudsman

If, after an internal review has been completed, you are still dissatisfied with the agencies determination you can

request an investigation by the Ombudsman (External Revie ) of the determination. The Ombudsman is

empowered to investigate the conduct of any person or bo • in relation to a determination made by an agency

under this Act.

Provided you have had an internal review, you can apply for an investigation by the Ombudsman within 30 days of

receiving the internal review determination. Requests to th Ombudsman must be in writing, an application form

is not required. Investigations by the Ombudsman are free. Further information is available from the Office of the

Ombudsman, telephone (08) 8226 8699 or visit their websit – www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au

City of Charles Sturt 72 Woodville Road, Woodville, South Australia 5 11 1 08 8408 1111 F 08 8408 1122 www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au

Email 1

Glen Heaysman

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Robert Grant <[email protected] >

Tuesday, 29 January 2013 2:58 PM

Cr Robert Grant

FW: Motion on 6.3

SED UN

FREEDOM OF INFOROVAION

Original Message

From: Kirsten Alexander [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, 29 January 2013 2:00 PM

To: '[email protected] .aul

Cc: I [email protected] '; '[email protected] .a

Subject: Motion on 6.3

; [email protected] '

Suggested words, as discussed:

1. As is.

2. That Council does not support the re-zoning of St Clair Ov.

DPA in its current form.

3. That Council requests that the submission in Appendix 8 a

both Council and community concern over the loss of necess

projected increase in population proposed for Charles Sturt

4. That Council acknowledges and supports the 28% open s

Renewal SA, as a minimum.

5. That Council writes to the Premier and Member for Chelte

and Member for Enfield, John Rau, requesting that St Clair 0

future generations, and placed under the care and control of

6. As per point 3

I for development, and therefore does not support the

d C is amended to reflect point 2 above, and to reflect

ry open space from St Clair Reserve, given the

nder the 30 Year Plan.

ce and junior soccer pitch proposed on the oval site by

ham, Jay Weatherill, and to the Minister for Planning

al be retained as open space for use by current and

Council.

C. cZEC.-_-k


27. CL Minutes 25/03/13

[Note: These minutes are unconfirmed until 8 April 2013]

9. MOTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

9.3 ST CLAIR RESERVE WAR MEMORIAL

Motion

1. That Council acknowledges the petition received by Council in 1942 signed

by 1,072 citizens asking "that Council take immediate steps to acquire the

land known as Bower's Estate to create a fitting Memorial to the manhood

and womanhood of our Town who fought and sacrificed their lives.

2. That Council further acknowledges that this land was subsequently

purchased by the Council in 1953.

3. That Council takes steps to complete the process commenced in 1953 to

dedicate St Clair reserve as a war Memorial to all those who served the

municipality from 1939 until 1945 and sacrificed their lives for their

country.

4. That Council notifies Planning Minister John Rau and Premier Jay

Weatherill of its intentions.


Motion

That Councillor Grant be granted an extension of 5 minutes to conclude his

debate.

Moved Councillor Hanley, Seconded Councillor Fitzpatrick Carried

Seconded Councillor Harley (for Item 9.3)

At 10.16 pm Councillor Randall left the meeting. At 10.17 pm Councillor Randall resumed his seat.

Formal Motion

That Item 9.3 lie on the table until the next Council Meeting to be held on 8 April

2013.

Moved Councillor Randall, Seconded Councillor Keneally

The votes for the formal motion were tied and the Mayor had the casting vote. The formal motion was lost.



Division

Councillor Fitzpatrick called for a Division.


Councillors Fitzpatrick, Randall, Nguyen, Wasylenko, Keneally, Alexandrides and Auricht (7).


Councillors Andriani, Ghent, Hanley, Grant, Coppola, lenco, Harley and Mayor Alexander (8).

The formal motion was lost.

Formal Motion

That the motion be put.

Moved Councillor Coppola, Seconded Councillor Hanley

The votes for Item 9.3 were tied and the Mayor had the casting vote.

That the motion to Item 9.3 was carried.

Division

Councillor Harley called for a Division.

Carried


Councillors Andriani, Ghent, Hanley, Coppola, lenco, Grant, Harley and Mayor Alexander (8).




Councillor Auricht sought leave of the meeting to move a Motion without Notice. Leave was granted.

Motion

That a report be brought back to Council outlining the legal implications and any other relevant information relating to the Motion without Notice, Item 9.3 posed by Councillor Grant.

Moved Councillor Auricht



Point of Order

Councillor lenco called a Point of Order against Councillor Auricht, stating that it was past

10:30 pm and the Code of Practice for Meeting Procedures stipulates that Council and

Committee meetings will conclude at or before 10:30 pm, unless the meeting formally

resolves to continue beyond that time. Mayor Alexander ruled in favour.

Motion

That Council continue past 10.30 pm in accordance with the Code of Practice for Meeting Procedures until the conclusion of business.

Moved Councillor Wasylenko, Seconded Councillor Ghent Carried

Seconded Councillor Alexandrides

Formal Motion

That the motion be put.

Moved Councillor Coppola, Seconded Councillor Hanley Carried

The votes for the motion were tied and the Mayor had the casting vote. The motion was lost.

Division





Councillors Andriani, Ghent, Hanley, Grant, Coppola, lenco, Harley and Mayor

Alexander (8).

The motion was lost.

10. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Nil

11. GENERAL BUSINESS

Nil

City of Charles Stu rt 2. CL Minutes 22/04/13

[Note: These minutes are unconfirmed until 13 May 2013]

7.9 ADJOURNED ITEM - NOTICE OF MOTION — RESCISSION MOTION, ITEM 9.3 MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE 25 MARCH 2013 (B53)

Brief

A Notice of Motion has been received from Councillor Wasylenko to rescind the

previous Motion without Motion, Item 9.3 that went to Council on 25 March 2013.


Councillor Agius disclosed an interest in Item 7.9 due to his employment with the Member

for Enfield and left the meeting at 7.44 pm.

Motion

That Council rescind Item 9.3 Motion without Notice as printed below and

presented by Councillor Grant late in the evening at the Council meeting Monday 25 March 2013.

9.3 MOTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE (as previously presented on 25 March 2013)

1. That Council acknowledges the petition received by Council in 1942 signed

by 1,072 citizens asking "that Council take immediate steps to acquire the

land known as Bower's Estate to create a fitting Memorial to the manhood

and womanhood of our Town who fought and sacrificed their lives".

2. That Council further acknowledges that this land was subsequently

purchased by the Council in 1953.

3. That Council takes steps to complete the process commenced in 1953 to

dedicate St Clair reserve as a war Memorial to all those who served the

municipality from 1939 until 1945 and sacrificed their lives for their

country.

4. That Council notifies Planning Minister John Rau and Premier Jay Weatherill of its intentions.

Moved Councillor Wasylenko, Seconded Councillor Keneally

At 7.47 pm Councillor Randall left the meeting.

At 7.50 pm Councillor Randall resumed his seat.

Point of Order

A Point of Order was raised by Councillor Alexandrides under regulation 29 of the Local

Government (Procedures at Meetings) 2000, objection to Councillor lenco's comments.

Councillor lenco withdrew his comments.



Formal Motion

That the item be adjourned until legal advice / additional information has been sourced.

Moved Councillor Coppola, Seconded Councillor Randall

The mayor used her casting vote and voted in favour of the formal motion.

The formal motion was carried.

Division

Councillor Alexandrides called for a Division.


Councillors Andriani, Hanley, Randall, Grant, Coppola, lenco and Harley (7).


Councillors Scheffler, Fitzpatrick, Nguyen, Wasylenko, Keneally, Alexandrides and Auricht (7).

The mayor used her casting vote and voted in favour of the formal motion.

The formal motion was carried.

[Note: A motion to include Appendix A was carried under Item 6 Business — refer page 24.]


[Note: These minutes are unconfirmed until 13 May 20131

7.9 ADJOURNED ITEM - NOTICE OF MOTION — RESCISSION MOTION, ITEM 9.3 MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE 25 MARCH 2013 (B53)

APPENDIX A

Appendix A consists of 10 pages.



MINUTES OF THE CITY OF CHARLES STURT

COUNCIL MEETING

HELD ON MONDAY, 13 MAY 2013

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

Councillors Andriani, Ghent, Scheffler, Hanley,

Fitzpatrick, Randall, Grant, Nguyen, Wasylenko,

Keneally, Coppola, lenco, Alexandrides, Auricht,

Agius and Harley

STAFF: Present: Chief Executive Officer— M Withers

General Manager Corporate Services — P Sutton

General Manager Asset Management Services

—J Cornish

Acting General Manager City Services — C Daniel

Manager Governance & Operational Support

— K Jackson

Manager Financial Services — A Martin

Manager Planning & Development —J Vanco

Manager Open Space & Recreation — A Bretones

Manager Engineering & Construction — P Hewitt

Coordinator Asset Management - R Harrison

Communication Advisor — K Johnson

Governance Officer— S Riggs

MEMBERS: Apologies: Nil

MEMBERS: Leave of Absence: Nil

1. COUNCIL OPENING

The meeting commenced at 7.03 pm.

[Note: Item 4.16 was considered after Item 11

2.1 ADJOURNED ITEM — COUNCIL MEETING 22 APRIL 2013 7.9 NOTICE OF MOTION — RESCISSION MOTION, ITEM 9.3 MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE

25 MARCH 2013 (B53)


Councillor Agius declared an interest in Item 7.9 due to his employment with the Member of Enfield and left the meeting at 7.27 pm.



Suspension of Proceedings — 7.27 pm

That Council suspend the operation of Division 2 of the Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2000 to facilitate informal discussions on the St Clair Reserve War Memorial for a period of 20 minutes.

Moved Councillor lenco, Seconded Councillor Hanley Carried

Those voting for the suspension of proceedings were 12. Those voting against the

suspension of proceedings were 3.

Point of Order

Councillor Keneally called a Point of Order on a member of the public in the gallery for

interrupting. Mayor Alexander ruled against the Point of Order as Councillor Keneally had

finished speaking and it was therefore not an interruption.


That Council continue with the suspension of operation of Division 2 of the Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2000 to facilitate informal discussions on the St Clair Reserve War Memorial for an additional 5 minutes.

Moved Councillor Keneally, Seconded Councillor Coppola Carried

Those voting for the suspension of proceedings were 13. Those voting against the suspension of proceedings were 2.

At 7.55 pm Councillor Fitzpatrick left the meeting.

At 7.56 pm Councillor Fitzpatrick resumed his seat.


That Council continue with the suspension of operation of Division 2 of the Local

Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2000 to facilitate informal discussions on the St Clair Reserve War Memorial for an additional 5 minutes.

Moved Councillor lenco, Seconded Councillor Hanley

Motion lapsed for the lack of two thirds of the members voting for the suspension of

proceedings. The motion was lost.

Resumption of Proceedings — 8.01 pm

That the period of suspension be brought to an end.

Moved Councillor Randall, Seconded Councillor lenco

Carried Unanimously



Brief

A Notice of Motion has been received from Councillor Wasylenko to rescind the

previous Motion without Notice, Item 9.3 that went to Council on 25 March 2013.

Motion

That Council rescind Item 9.3 Motion without Notice as printed below and presented by Councillor Grant late in the evening at the Council meeting Monday 25 March 2013.

9.3 MOTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE (as previously presented on 25 March 2013)

1. That Council acknowledges the petition received by Council in 1942 signed by 1,072 citizens asking "that Council take immediate steps to acquire the land known as Bower's Estate to create a fitting Memorial to the manhood and womanhood of our Town who fought and sacrificed their lives".

2. That Council further acknowledges that this land was subsequently purchased by the Council in 1953.

3. That Council takes steps to complete the process commenced in 1953 to dedicate St Clair reserve as a war Memorial to all those who served the

municipality from 1939 until 1945 and sacrificed their lives for their country.


Moved Councillor Wasylenko, Seconded Councillor Keneally (at the Council IVteeting 22 April 2013)

At 8.05 pm Councillor Randall left the meeting.

At 8.08 pm Councillor Randall resumed his seat.

Councillor lenco sought leave of the meeting to speak a second time. Leave was not granted.

Division

Councillor lenco called for a Division.




Councillors Scheffler, Randall, Fitzpatrick, Nguyen, Keneally, Wasylenko,


Leave of the meeting was not granted.



Motion — 8.16 pm

That Councillor Grant be granted an extension of 5 minutes to conclude his debate.

Moved Councillor Fitzpatrick, Seconded Councillor Hanley

Carried

The motion to Item 2.1 adjourned Item 7.9 was carried.

Division

Councillor lenco called for a Division.


Councillors Scheffler, Randall, Fitzpatrick, Nguyen, Wasylenko, Keneally,





At 8.32 pm Councillors Andriani and Grant left the meeting.

At 8.33 pm Councillors Coppola and Hanley left the meeting.

At 8.33 pm Councillor Agius resumed his seat.

At 8.34 pm Councillors Harley and lenco left the meeting.

At 8.35 pm Councillor Andriani resumed her seat.

2.2 ADJOURNED ITEM - COUNCIL MEETING 22 APRIL 201

6.67 UPDATE ON SAJC LICENSED FACILITY AND PO IBLE OPTIONS FOR ACTION

(B136)

To provide Council with an update o taff action in relation to licensing associated

with the SAJC facility at St Clair nd legal advice on possible options for future

action.

At 8.36 pm Councillors Hanley an arley resumed their seats.

At 8.38 pm Councillor lenco r-= nned his seat.

At 8.42 pm Councillor Copp • a resumed her seat.

At 8.55 pm Councillor G nt resumed his seat.

At 8.55 pm Councillo oppola left the meeting.

At 9.00 pm Coun or Coppola resumed her seat.


[Note: These minutes are unconfirmed until 11 June 2013]

Adiournment — 9.01 pm

That Council adjourn for a period of 10 minutes.

Moved Councillor lenco, Seconded Councillor Fitzpatrick Carried

Resumption — 9.11 pm

That Council resume.

Moved Councillor lenco, Seconded Councillor Andriani Carried Unanimously

7. MOTIONS ON NOTICE

7.14 DEFERRED ITEM - COUNCIL MEETING 27 MAY 2013 NOTICE OF MOTION - ST CLAIR RESERVE WAR MEMORIAL (B53) 109

Brief

A Notice of Motion has been received by Councillor Wasylenko in regards to the St Clair Reserve War Memorial

Motion

1. That Council set aside a suitable parcel of council owned land within the St Clair Reserve adjacent and parallel to Woodville Road within Volume: 6063

— Folio: 757. That, within this council owned land a dedicated St Clair War Memorial is formally established. (Map attached).

2. That the Chief Executive Officer / delegate write to the State Executive of the Returned Service League (SA/NT & Broken Hill) for the purpose of inviting any contributory comments. The CEO may give consideration to any received comments, in creating the St Clair War Memorial on council owned land as per part one above for the purpose of a War Memorial for all veterans and recognising peace time engagements.

3. That the Chief Executive Officer / delegate apply for support funding for the dedication and creation of the St Clair War Memorial from the Commemorations Group Department of Veteran Affairs or other

responsible sections within the Federal Department of Veteran Affairs. That these commemorations comply with any requirements as prescribed within the Commemorations Act or other relative legislation.

4. That the Chief Executive Officer / delegate write to the Hon Jay Weatherill

MP, State Treasurer, Premier and Cabinet, Minister for Public Sector to formally apply for funding support towards the development and

recognition of a War Memorial on Council owned land as per part one above.

5. That the Chief Executive Officer updates council for information purposes.

Moved Councillor Wasylenko



Point of Order

Councillor lenco raised a Point of Order against Councillor Wasylenko that his motion was

ultra vires. Mayor Alexander ruled against the Point of Order.

Point of Order

Councillor Keneally raised a Point of Order against Mayor Alexander, that the Mayor raised

her voice. Mayor Alexander ruled against the Point of Order as she needed to raise her voice

due to being interrupted.

Extension of Time

That Councillor Wasylenko be granted an additional minute to finalise his debate.

Moved Councillor Fitzpatrick, Seconded Councillor Wasylenko

Seconded Councillor Fitzpatrick

Point of Order

Carried

Councillor Grant raised a Point of Order that Councillor Alexandrides misrepresented Mr

Brian Walker as not supporting the memorial park. Mayor Alexander ruled in favour of the

Point of Order.

Point of Order

Councillor Randall raised a Point of Order against Councillor Grant that he did not specify

which part of the Act or regulation was breached. Mayor Alexander ruled against the Point

of Order.

Motion

That Council not agree with the Mayor's ruling on the point of order.

Moved Councillor Randall, Seconded Councillor Wasylenko

Division

Councillor Andriani called for a Division.

Carried



Alexandrides, Au richt, and Agius (9).


Councillors Andriani, Ghent, Hanley, Grant, lenco and Harley (6).

The motion on the point of order ruling was carried.

Brief

Questions on Notice have been received fri Councillor Keneally in regards to an

item of Council at the meeting held on April 2013; Item 6.59 Council Member

Allowance & Support — Data Use of I p

City of Charles Sturt 14. CL. Minutes 3/06/13


At 9.47 pm Councillor lenco left the meeting.


Division

Councillor Grant called for a Division.


Councillors Scheffler, Fitzpatrick, Nguyen, Wasylenko, Keneally, Alexandrides,

Auricht and Agius (8).


Councillors Andriani, Ghent, Hanley, Randall, Grant and Harley (6).


At 9.49 pm Councillor lenco resumed his seat.

At 9.50 pm Councillor Agius left the meeting.

8. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

8.5 DEFERRED ITEM — COUNCIL MEETING 13 MAY 2013 UESTIONS ON NOTICE — ITEM 6.59 COUNCIL MEMBER A •WANCE & SUPPORT

- DATA USE OF IPAD (B57) 112

Please provide information garding the training and information provided or offered to the identified councillor relation to the use and maintenance of said councillor's iPad data usage.

A consiste approach was applied to all Councillors who took 'up the option of an iPad

followin he initial trial (which was undertaken by Cr Hanley and Mayor Alexander), that is

in ter s of deployment of the device, applications pre-loaded onto it and the provision of trai ng / support.


A- 3

TO: Council

FROM: Mayor Alexander

DATE: 13 May 2013

3.1 MAYORAL REPORT — ST CLAIR MEMORIAL PARK

Purpose

To provide Elected Members and the Charles Sturt Community with information relevant to the proposal to dedicate St Clair Reserve as a War Memorial Park.

Report As Members are aware, a motion was passed by Council on 25 March 2013 as follows:

9.3 ST CLAIR RESERVE WAR MEMORIAL

Motion

1. That Council acknowledges the petition received by Council in 1942 signed by 1,072 citizens asking "that Council take immediate steps to acquire the land known as Bower's Estate to create a fitting Memorial to the manhood and womanhood of our Town who fought and sacrificed their lives.

2. That Council further acknowledges that this land was subsequently purchased by the Council in 1953.

3. That Council takes steps to complete the process commenced in 1953 to dedicate St Clair reserve as a war Memorial to all those who served the municipality from 1939 until 1945 and sacrificed their lives for their country.


Moved Councillor Grant, Seconded Councillor Harley

The votes for Item 9.3 were tied and the Mayor had the casting vote. The motion to Item 9.3 was carried.

Division

Councillor Harley called for a Division.


Councillors Andriani, Ghent, Hanley, Coppola, lenco, Grant, Harley and Mayor Alexander (8).





MAYORAL REPORT Item 3.1 Continued

In accordance with the above motion the Mayor wrote to Premier Jay Weatherill MP, and

Planning Minister John Rau MP. A copy of these letters are attached in Appendix A. No response to the proposal for dedication of the land as a Memorial Park has been received at

this stage from the State Government; however it is a matter that requires time for serious

consideration by the Premier and by the Planning Minister, and for discussion between the State Government, the RSL, local veterans and community representatives.

Subsequent to this motion being passed by Council, the Mayor received letters of support

and congratulations from the CEO of the State RSL HQ, and from the local RSL sub-branches, including Henley & Grange, West Croydon & Kilkenny, Seaton Park and Semaphore & Port Adelaide.

As members can observe for themselves, the above motion contains no commitment or

proposal for the City of Charles Sturt to buy back land on St Clair Reserve from the State Government, nor does it involve the expenditure of millions of ratepayer dollars. What it

does do is acknowledge the wishes of 1072 residents, who in the middle of the Second

World War in 1942 petitioned their Council to purchase the land then known as "Bower's

Estate" in memory of those who fought and sacrificed their lives for their country. After the

war, this is exactly what the Council did; the land was compulsorily acquired by the

Government and the Council for the purposes of creating a recreational park.

It appears from recent media reports (refer Appendix B), and from correspondence

forwarded to the Mayor's office, that some Elected Members may have become confused over the content of this motion, with suggestions that Council would need to spend $20

million to buy back the land. This is an interesting suggestion, given that the land was

swapped at a value much less than this in the first place, for land of lesser value; however that is beside the point. Although entertaining, the suggestion is not factually correct and the media have been advised accordingly.

To avoid any further misunderstandings, it should be understood by all Elected Members

that the above motion merely requests that the Government is notified of Council's intentions to recognise the St Clair Reserve land as a War Memorial. There is no need to buy

land back; given the history of the land and its significance to the local veterans and the

broader community, the Government may decide not to rezone the land for development, and to keep it as much needed open space for peaceful reflection and enjoyment by all. That is a decision for the State Government.

If this occurs, the land could remain under Government ownership, with a Licence for Council to use and maintain it on behalf of the community. Alternatively, the Government

could gift the land back to Council as an essential infrastructure contribution to offset the significant increase in the local population as a result of the Cheltenham Racecourse rezoning, and as proposed in the Western Suburbs under the 30 Year Plan.

This would be a welcome decision in an area already deficient in open space, with as little as 6 or 7% open space total in the suburbs surrounding St Clair Reserve (this total includes the "new" open space on the Racecourse site).



It has also been suggested by some Elected Members that they would support the

installation of a new memorial; this is unnecessary. St Clair Reserve is, and was always intended to be, a memorial to those who fought and made the ultimate sacrifice. The park itself is the Memorial, as was clearly stated in the 1942 petition.

The ashes of Councillor Harry Guy (a veteran himself), together with the ashes of his wife,

are scattered in the park. It appears that there was a good reason for this, as there are many letters from Mr Guy to the Woodville Council, on behalf of the Woodville High School

Council, seeking to have the land acquired for use as a recreational park. It is no wonder that having invested so much time in its acquisition and establishment that he wanted to rest in peace forever on this beautiful park.

The attached letters and media report from 1942 clearly identify the reasons for its

acquisition (see Appendix C). It is now known (from numerous eye witness accounts) that a large cross stood in St Clair Reserve, at which dawn services were held on ANZAC Day for

many years. This land has a very special significance to the local community. This was

reinforced recently at the memorial service recently held on St Clair Oval "at the going down

of the sun" when around 300 local residents, RSL representatives and veterans attended to remember those for whom the park was created.

From correspondence in Appendix C there are many statements that stand out; a few have

been reproduced below. The first is from Mr W.A. Norman of Norman Waterhouse &

Sutton, who was not a local resident but felt impelled to write the following on 18 October 1948:

"Whilst I am generally opposed to schemes which involve a mortgage to be repaid by posterity I regard the provision of adequate Recreation reserves and playing grounds as an imperative duty for Local Governing bodies. Woodville has a golden opportunity now to acquire an area of ground for an oval and if the chance is not seized at the present time it may never recur."

There was similar recognition of the importance of retaining this land as open space by the City Engineer Mr Fowler, who wrote in 1941:

"It is feared that unless some prompt action is taken, the delightful area immediately north of the Woodville Station may be lost for all time as a "breathing space". Now more than ever does it seem necessary that some substantial reserve should be created in this area to serve as a public park, and a buffer between the large adjoining manufactories, and some of the best residential portions of the Town."



The following statement was written to Council by Mr Bowes of the Woodville Ward Ratepayers Progressive Association on 11 December 1946:

"I might add that the late Hon. J.A. Lyons, when visiting Woodville in December 1938 at the time he was Prime Minister, the Hon. E.J. Ward who visited Woodville about 1941 when it was contemplated to place cabin cottages on Bower's Estate, and the Premier of S.A. when visiting Woodville between 1936 and 1939, all expressed the view that it would be against the interests of Woodville to permit the area to be developed and not retained as a park.

About 1941 a petition was presented to Council signed by 1072 residents from every part of the municipality, asking "that the land be acquired for the Town of Woodville and its citizens in perpetuity and be used to create a fitting memorial to the manhood and womanhood of our Town who fought and sacrificed their lives to preserve Australia as a free land and part of the great democracy of the British Empire."

This petition is referred to a number of times, including in a report to Council on 10 January 1949, which includes the following statements:

"During the two years ended 30th June 1943 a petition was presented containing 1072 signatures of residents from practically every part of the Municipality asking that the Town Council take immediate steps to acquire the land and that it be acquired for the Town of Woodville and its citizens in perpetuity and used to create a fitting Memorial to the manhood and womanhood of our Town who fought and sacrificed their lives to preserve Australia as a free land and part of the great democracy of the British Empire.

In 1941 when the Commonwealth Government proposed placing wartime cottages on the land a successful effort was made to prevent this and an approach was made to the Premier asking if he would advance the necessary funds for the purchase of the area. He received this approach sympathetically but the Council of the time was not prepared to proceed with the acquisition. In 1946 Council decided to compulsorily acquire the area and instructed its Solicitors to proceed for compulsory acquisition."



It is clear that the wartime petition and request to create the park as a memorial provided the impetus to proceed with the acquisition of the land.

From later correspondence it appears that the Woodville High School then approached the

Council, and as a result of this it was agreed to carry out a joint acquisition between the

Council and the Minister for Education..... "in order that this very desirable property may be available to High School students and the peoples of Woodville for all time." (Refer to the January 1950 letter from the Town Clerk of Woodville to the Premier).

Our predecessors were indeed an insightful group. They clearly recognised the increasing intensity of development in the local area and the need to plan ahead to establish

recreational grounds. They also clearly acted on the petition that they received from 1072

residents in 1942/1943 to remember those who sacrificed all for their country, by creating a lovely park in which was placed a large memorial cross.

As the Mayor of the day wrote in 1950:

"The matter of the vesting of this beautiful Estate in the people of Woodville is an accomplished fact, and only details of acquisition have to be arranged. The Government will pay half the purchase money, the remaining half will be spread for payment over a period of 30 years, and the Estate will, by agreement with the Government be used only as a Public Park and Recreational Ground for all time, and will be an advantage to all the people both present and future."

I am sure that this Council is capable of showing the same foresight and carrying on their legacy, on behalf of the residents and ratepayers of the City of Charles Sturt.

Mayor Kirsten Alexander


MAYORAL REPORT Item 3.1

APPENDIX A

Appendix A consists of 4 pages.

27 March 2013

Honourable John Rau MP

Minister for Planning

GPO Box 464

ADELAIDE SA 5001

Dear Minister

St Clair Reserve War Memorial

Council at its meeting of 25 March 2013 resolved the following:

1. That Council acknowledges the petition received by Council in 1942 signed by 1,072

citizens asking "that Council take immediate steps to acquire the land known as Bower's

Estate to create a fitting Memorial to the manhood and womanhood of our Town who

fought and sacrificed their lives.

2. That Council further acknowledges that this land was subsequently purchased by the

Council in 1953.

3. That Council takes steps to complete the process commenced in 1952 to dedicate St

Clair reserve as a war memorial to all those who served the municipality from 1939 until

1945 and sacrificed their lives for their country.

4. That Council notifies Planning Minister John Rau and Premier Jay Weatherill of its

intentions.

The impetus for doing so came from a Motion from Councillor Grant, himself a veteran of the

Vietnam War. Both Councillor Grant and I were present at the recent Woodville Station DPA

DPAC hearing where a number of Veterans presented their genuine and sincere wish that the

petition from 1942 be enacted resulting in the St Clair recreation grounds (as depicted on the

map attached - this includes the area of land bounded by Actil Avenue, Brocas Avenue,

Woodville Road and the railway line) being formally recognised as a war memorial. Council

intends to pursue this to the best of its ability.

ANZAC Day Memorial services were held in the park for a number of years, and the park has

great significance to the local veteran community and their families, as well as to the broader

Charles Sturt community. It is understood that the ANZAC Day Memorial services took place at

a large cross that formerly stood in the park, and the ashes of former Councillor Harry Guy, a

returned serviceman himself, were scattered in the park.

Our ref. 13/74356

As such, Council believes it essential to bring Council's and the community's expressed desire

for this park to be formally recognised as a war memorial to your immediate attention. This is

to ensure that you give it your full attention when considering the Woodville Station DPA so

that the long held wishes of Council and its community can finally be recognised and the

necessary policy in recognition of such enacted.

A meeting between all parties should be called to discuss the above. I should be pleased if

you would contact my office on 8408 1397 in order to make arrangements for us to meet.

Yours sincerely

Kirsten Alexander Mayor

cc Jack Snelling, Minister for Veterans' Affairs

Fred Hansen, Chief Executive, Renewal SA

Mario Barone, Presiding Member, Development Policy Advisory Committee

Our ref. 13/74356

27 March 2013

Premier Jay Weatherill

Office of the Premier

GPO Box 2343

ADELAIDE SA 5001

Dear Premier

St Clair Reserve War Memorial

Council at its meeting of 25 March 2013 resolved the following;

1. That Council acknowledges the petition received by Council in 1942 signed by 1,072

citizens asking "that Council take immediate steps to acquire the land known as Bower's

Estate to create a fitting Memorial to the manhood and womanhood of our Town who

fought and sacrificed their lives.

2. That Council further acknowledges that this land was subsequently purchased by the

Council in 1953.

3. That Council takes steps to complete the process commenced in 1952 to dedicate St

Clair reserve as a war memorial to all those who served the municipality from 1939 until

1945 and sacrificed their lives for their country.

4. That Council notifies Planning Minister John Rau and Premier Jay Weatherill of its

intentions.

The impetus for doing so came from a Motion from Councillor Grant, himself a veteran of the

Vietnam War. Both Councillor Grant and I were present at the recent Woodville Station DPA

DPAC hearing where a number of Veterans presented their genuine and sincere wish that the

petition from 1942 be enacted resulting in the St Clair recreation grounds (as depicted on the

map attached - this includes the area of land bounded by Actil Avenue, Brocas Avenue,

Woodville Road and the railway line) being formally recognised as a war memorial. Council

intends to pursue this to the best of its ability.

ANZAC Day Memorial services were held in the park for a number of years, and the park has

great significance to the local veteran community and their families, as well as to the broader

Charles Sturt community. It is understood that the ANZAC Day Memorial services took place at

a large cross that formerly stood in the park, and the ashes of former Councillor Harry Guy, a

returned serviceman himself, were scattered in the park.

Our ref. 13/74357

As such, Council believes it essential to bring Council's and the community's expressed desire

for this park to be formally recognised as a war memorial to your immediate attention. This is

to ensure that you give it your full attention when considering the Woodville Station DPA so

that the long held wishes of Council and its community can finally be recognised and the

necessary policy in recognition of such enacted.

A meeting between all parties should be called to discuss the above. I should be pleased if

you would contact my office on 8408 1397 in order to make arrangements for us to meet.

Yours sincerely

Kirsten Alexander Mayor

cc Jack Snelling, Minister for Veterans' Affairs

Fred Hansen, Chief Executive, Renewal SA

Mario Barone, Presiding Member, Development Policy Advisory Committee

Our ref. 13/74357

Mayor Alexander


MAYORAL REPORT Item 3.1.

APPENDIX B

Weekly Times 1 May 2013

Weekly Times Messenger: mp aign KEN McGREGOR

mcxrcitor . 1 news tarn Aar

SI kift M;1.4 KNen

tinder has reps( ied

rosatjuns ut phIt ing the wishos

wv. ‘Y•10Y%/11',4 11. jitt.t?1P1. 111 t1.41t1

:soti-Lnotic developMent .on St

(lair RP.serv.p,

S,01„eral votertins. with I h.. sup

port of 'he Settiarbire and Poll

Adelaide RSI., have handed the

- i help presets... I he

Vcrt ..otiville Rd reserve as a Y..ar

memorial..

%favor Kirsten Ale. der camt

hPr rli'lIni v tit* i,) pass a in. a ri

which asks the State Government

to hair the Itutistng ileveloptivnt

at their meeting on Nfonilas ,

\tarc

Hut Ssst Woodville ward i'r

Angela Keneally hth hisli0d hut

al chi, derlsion dainnng Nhz

exandrv appeared intent on hold

ing bark the development awl

hit-idling the proposed mernorial

" - atitrtigeoustly extravagant,"

"Mayor Alexander has ixditi

ts4-fl war veterarn, ti, 10413104 I

i.sue aWnda. -

al a eosi I,' try.

Cu) 1 , 1 Charles

Stull ratenas.er. -

She suid it •Ivi)ulti

cost rho 4.-otincil

14.1 latv.

baid, th, land.

iotri. ■

I. etorati William Swan, Wisp Lakes, thi .

...upport for the itioniertal pork

push seertieit more allow stoppitr,....

the proposed development than

hetiourinv, lite nation's soklior..,

'1here til...stO rounril land

41,11Pri' I PU1

Small

Mrs Kerte:ill! , said 'she bad alst ,

been approaebect trs many other

veterans. tiLtt S31 1.1 ShO IA ;TS IltlatIly

iii divtilv their tia me-

!Mk Alexander. howrsosr. m.:'4111

the majorit .. ol the controunit‘

behind the push to

pro-serve the land

She saul vi ,loratrti, 50j1 , 4; :u.;

Stanford, had provrotish. :

speak in favour of preserN Lnt the

zp

YikabighWainffialtaidial il) 3.F.'!7‘S N. as [wenn!: on Ni,HiLfa v

Shopping vii KEN McGREGOR

Nit)RE Ono tell v. III ;a y.() .A.h k,n the it:ims million St (lair

Village opons 1

The viIligi ururustik oles su

pm-market and ici sper Lan shops,

inrliidtm;1 ph.irmar ■ . hair anti

beaut3 salon, travel :Nero and a

Sushi Train restaurant. WONWRI Futures chief exec in lye. ri

Andrew Worrall uttl the (ippo lag, almal. with .aher retail pro. gi

Wets in the ..sestern solidi-hi., 01

would 'PAP orlso rooPnt w

lit itiaitufacruripri.

- The beautv ol rola tl pile; is that el you ran learn :IS V011

W


MAYORAL REPORT Item 3.1

APPENDIX C

Appendix C consists of 17 pages.


Extract from the Adelaide Advertiser 18 th April 1942 page 6:

Memorial To Forces At Woodville Suggested

The Mayor of Woodville (Mr. F. A. Box) suggested yesterday that a memorial to local citizens who had served in the 1914-18 war and the present war should be established on the property known as Bower's Estate, and he hoped that a future council would endorse the scheme and acquire portion of the property. Mr. Box said that lithe park were suitably laid out it would be an excellent site for a memorial of simple and dignified architecture. To ensure having a complete list of enlistments the council had asked for the collaboration of RSA sub-branches.

Letter from Town Clerk in December 1942 advising that it was decided that no further action be taken during the period of the War (see below). At the end of the War, in August 1945 Council immediately approached the Executors of Bower's Estate regarding use of the land.


12. CL Report 13/05/13

11Kh December, 1942.

Des:

Fer to my letter of the 16th Gatober ' regarding the prosentAti of a petition in connection with the aouisitioi of Land known De Bower's Estate, 1 have to advise that the matter wee before Council it its Ueeting On the 23rd Nuvember, when it was decided that no further action be taken during the od of the War.

Yours teithf 1

Mr, 0.E. Sage, Rervey Street, tDODVILLE PARK.


30th AlAgtSt, 1945,

Dear sir,

t bo ikust meeting of Zouncil I tmE 'lir 0..t.od to Oppr=Oh your Company an the Trustees or the above ;Estate, solaria if you weu14 agree to a Conference regarding the use of the balance of Bar's Estate on the northern side of the k)odville latilway Station.

- The 208t convenient tine for LLenhars of Council woUld be in the afternoon about 4 p.a any day except Thursday or 7ridny.

roars faithttaly, ,

TO U LL

The 14anagar, Bxeeutor Truetoe Agency d.,

22 Orenfell Street, ADSLAIDE.

L

'1'31E ?ft

ORS', SOLDIERS' 8IL MITT IMPERIAL LEAGUE OF AUSTRALIA

Trimmor 54ATZ tABE„

rimi7 Jane 50 1

Ace Town Caork l Olty et qoodville,

Gouneril OhOmbilra, 170"4111'LLE.

ater *ir, am direotea -oy Ihia dut-branoh to write ad ,z,ommeJ

tho (=ounall 1'0. WO purollaae ar proposed p,Irobalo of howevr8 l'alidook for use by r,b-o 61neral 1Jub7„lo in the nesr fottxe.

Tao many 7.1M8 tho C;oun-tlil d6ina i ,n .oar atsluvon0:::ury CrittOiaM,n1 this olubwhc.-Jaboarteiti '1145r:Wco Your r.1. on..

laaro

Bon. tsry 3ELTON PAAL 311B .aktAvez

,

o


14. CL Report 13/05/13


20th Jtme 195 .

IDnr Mr. Cox,

The Town Clerk has drawn my attention to your letter regarding the purchase or Bower's Estate. The letter will or course, coma before the next meeting of Council l but feel that 1 should write and lot you, your Committee, and Members know how muCh 1, and those associated with me, appreciate your very encouraging letter.

The matter of the veeting or this beautiful Estate in the people of Woodville is an accomplished ract and only dotalls of acquisition have to be arranged.

The Government will y half the purchase money, the remaining half will be spread for payment over a period or 30 year

the Estate will, by agreement with the varnment be used ooly as a Public Park and

Recreational Ground for all LiMe l and will be an advantage to all the people bath present and future.

Thanking you again for your letter. Wit kind regards,

Mr * P. Cox o 40n. Secretary Seaton Park Sub-BranCh R.S.

MAYOR.

1 am, Tours faithfully,


16. CL Report 13/05/13

$rd EtL O.

star*

In conneatias with the acsulsition of Rower's Estate at toedville, 1 advise that the Agreement between the ul .eleter Of Idnoatien arid the COrporation ie in the Mel nape 0: preparation far signature by both parties immersed.

There is * however, a clause in the proposed Agreement which requires the Corporation to forthwith pay to the Minister ece half cif the Torches, price thereof or of the sum paid to tho owner at the land aa compensation upon eempulacry acquisition as the ease may be.

Too wtil * 81r, readily ulderetsrl that trim financing cif any proJost where the ultimate import Involvod la ustnews * es in this nem, is iapossible under the pr0121111010 of tha ioeel Goverment Ant,

Under these circumstances * thrfor I ivbeen 451rected oppresch you to eacertoin If you wlll meou:nt Iraqi available under the Recreation Groullde (Toint Schemes1 1949 repayable over a period of say 30 yeare at an interest

retain be decided on the r:rimait roacier bu*Is.

Bia Worship end Membsre would very auch appreciate yomar favourable 'consideration of this request in order thetthis very desirable property may bo available for Ele School atudonto and the peoples of Woodville for all tine.

The Eon. the Premier, Treasury aUildingn, King Willies Stre.t, ADELAIDE.


17. CL Report 13/05/13

zr!R7 OF mu•au• • .q.,:rTE Sm.rzE231 Ya

Rya jorahtyl the Volue. Mk. Pereivairl. Ryan', Cauncllior Lewin, 34eatra. TrametbiAp PrALir, 5E01 1 40 1 y, auogley and Janne, An. apology- mam

• r.tended on liehnIT be Cau-heMar

rLuy r Bram premed tht meting 0, 8,0'7 pi#. HBO 'iliaCoriled =t11:a pra-shmt. Th40 cmopirropeg land :nen convened far the purpete of 4ret444g At AM weemen bemete ,lwre51 Amd tba di. ri Schaol1. Councti 1,n ounnection toEth the devoloment orKI nointrqnnee ar Rcemur R00-4(4a, UPujit a appro1o4m5 to Op, 3t4viwrimptat it &All new prupamed 0404 '.401',! . af tha climate he aclulred by the fftnister of Fejut47.5,0. Ahd tho belante bf w4:110 Corperetpm of the 'City af %nodvilie uindtr 114104011.c!an, lt bacano meteaaviry fiur tha Wdiee reprnsiented here to form-- Late plane for the developerm of the ante an A whb5JA wad ta sabait thrnm pzrerti•mlls ta Lhe It, niatar far keproval,

rh, Tom Mfrec rreed e draft hgrameamt prepared mome roont)la reeie144*1y relatlng to deTel.dxstOML of p0.'tlmm ef tea araannd atlFolottns sec

ke hc.i Hie. School Studente and the zedeTel FulvlSc ups the .7.rm,1 tagOtbar iritA poetioularz relgtim; ta the 'Dearing Of

2o..locillor Lewis drTill atteriF:ion km the feet that the agraepeoL Li heart dramnu often, it was prorated that nomme11. acouire th1! , L'hule area. rOm Vbel Oa arta %mold be -meted in the nem" of the hiniatar of Xducation proUer konli1 ,4 .4,-e-Ae in the emN*WO.y hod), hawlmg patter to effect inprovereme qe land vested in the name of the other. A. diaoussioa took place on pormtAl 2104set in PL Draft afser Ai& Treitlothi;:k t,b ,d'Od chat- the Draft Agri.e,t/ort t•y 7coh Clerk together 9it h rertain aimarationt mc ,7 ,Ini2ttmtled ky tha mz!din or

Ltii Ase ,NeUtitted :0 ::'4D hidindir Ok 6d1.117.41ADEI U b0,0if4 in !support af wrviOrt4tem1 big authman the , CIty Camelia mnd the High $chooli Council and the Hmsh 01 thete 1100A0A txj elurairt Bt4er RecptA fu,P the Denettt Of the people pf WaxlvilLe and students af the WmmdYillr, H401 !3nhoci1 Further that a Sua,Caealtust comprising Lie WOrehio the lisydr, ahai7edge. CounsiVm Figh0410 's.:WAidlCzoo r and the Bead Naetur or Oa Rig.•Saadi be appolntea to comeider the ref.WbAed eltdoellams, Seeeddod hr,r John*. C

W14,he 41(44d '3./5

Raad und comfireeid thie 51tit 0Ay of actonber 190.

1142/1:16 øi FA:01

klm, t7-11

AiYi*Ak

ktir s1:11

City of Charles Stun 18. CL Report 13/05/13

AUSTRAAAA

Off :4g .05 110 Mi D3tT of

Acklaikla,

5;11 ,7uly, 1914;:0,.

Tcwn

Dar C

FollowinE Lhe deputation fro=', 1h4 WPddvillp GarppPat -An to fix 1ic4r5. the PrTmic-r on the ist June, 2 have now to inform you LIARt appnoval has heen fGr the follosinE proponta tob p/orma '7.- ef9re,t VNO muthoritioN O11, numely, tho loodville Corporbtion c-hd r,hd E'Ochtion Dep, Coli t4.4812t -

Tr.iPt f C ibi ntcipp,Niy!”,. of I.:tic a! of approximately 2Ei mores of the Dower Est-nto virider the Recm.setirn: ripouhds (joint. achmee, Act, 1947,

porty yAlying zirle Rtlf i thc purche pt1c.ft. 1 164STi t.M 1zi D-C 7eStcl ,r1 ttic 2,12.7-41z,ter or 8aupe ti pct.) who endiiitwee 1..;c'i11.e cor.T.ral "

r0.- arcE, Cripproxrzia -r-el,y) rev .; red ot, Lae. d clwal

16 omniEr(5 LW, a mnr.u91 iden for cif the wh.ale aree bc arrn=zed wlth the enrponstion.

Eid :UM wo'41..1 ht-' thl F0 I:1'00-0S Chi tht! tiC0:11/ J. 11 et Ge1i/C.1'e ttn :3-CNarl TJEK, M

If th Oorporstion g7nces to thie p0 ,4020., then the fivt-lt step will bc for the r:::orporation to roet Met !ligh atiunnil ane the HeElOwistcr Qf iJ C0d71110 317h001 Lo f, onsidc:r dnt. -&it ,F, of 4h1E, vut110 Citn fpr ihe use or ttm land.

0--

Your::

4.44-4..04d

r.cir.11 95'5".12


REFORT CA; .'1.-ETINGT, -*REACEQ. P,-,41GitL53 'ADE IT COWI TCI

vri iltietings have been held of the :',;ommittee comprlsing His the iaynr and the Chairmen or GOrrmitteon in dOhnettiml with thie, mntter and following Wor5hip r t; verbal cpmnunicatior th0 7.0eting COIJRG held on the llth April last, the Premier had replied that he cpold npt Seahi Way olear to aake an hi tin of the property and suggested thst rA4 submissiona 4hich nurcil desired to make ehould be :-:ade in writing,

The 6:1ffinittee considered that lh wiew of the fact that i=igh School 5tudents would use t.he Land for recreation purposes ttat the ',7, overnment shf)uld acnept finoni!tal veciDnsibility 1:eyond m2;ling milount, re ,quirad for acev.;slition aveilablo on an interest arng wriowit raTA4yable weer s period of :IC years.

The Prsnier, at the rut ef Comcal, then Agrbed to rccoive a duputaCtob, which wais.ed oft ?tiffi an the let JUDO and comprised 1119

rip the nklygr, CpuW:illor 5ith Jind th2 Town Clerk,

During the conference, Ii S vforEhip cointed out that to land coffin nct be Acquired unlmEa bytorexquie.ition. It -1/ou1d be used by 5chpol Students, n grPat many- of uhum ee$1de -notelde of the boundaries of Woodville, ln.lustrial developrent in nTndville hi- been very rapid tn re ,cent years and-approaches have been mlic by nportinK bodier tOrmed IL the vair'LOUE IfiCtr.krie for 9pornng a large propArti9n of Hioneemployeer or; .. not reidente of n:9 -dville And few tho7-11: rea7hin, Craopq1 RUGidmrbd 0 -int thd loYernnent wculd be Justified in rxentind soffrUgretance, Ho pint'd opt thit thn Education Department had enquired Into the purchase of one haaf of

entate fOr High Sth00. nUrph9eli..

1Te Premier, in ray, E-rkld that he understood thRt it hei boar, Agreall that the ITRe in acuired bfpuld be vested in the Wondville corrpratinn ard that, under these cirownstances, the Government could not he called upon 11.0 purchaee lend khich would be veesed in a Corporatson.

Hir rr.:!hi_p then nUgpeNted Lh2t the ii'0.4e:'hglibitt salould pUrehnee half of the area and the Corporation the other half arld that a 2110Uld be drawn up Aareby the Corporation developed tbe whole,

imi nergracon the 'eremiE,tr diCtOted a minute to the Lininter or EdochLion Walong in lined ,I,A3L,Sted by :t!ir Worbbip and aOmd that, he, the Lnier

investigate t-to question anl subit.i; to l'iahinet rk7,7" cqnzitleratLon,

Jtgan and cllnfirmftd th ithelay of June 194,

;4,4n1R.

aple-r-pheme


20. CL Report 13/05/13

Prerder. Yc4twall were of the 11 l'''."u4t401,u1 t.nrN•igh vatiet ,7(v1-11,14 1 irv pa:Faline. 17tykiy 'fiut'i.! 6 vor7 'terms 1c7e::.omiental expeta.lture in the pro.= ,nairan aublie rii3rks which. cre macs frrAV CY *nth. the rorAd res,--Adant.5K1Iu 11.01 , :sItiel

wtt tueli ± pInce.

Th'Jt t* 1tt Ii1i3N,tuta Jed tbat 1 r creestz on.cr ordt.nnry 74.srecaua and rAberefare vre era required no .:onnelsant,F cc ,..luIre rind egienrvujontLy purchase pride earl, erriV.04 SI. I have. atrived kb a Va2,-..mt1ca of the projcierty fr.= ayam konallertIzia al' tea eraz and I les-pant that. the pi.a.ete,ea Tir',oe to Ne dater -alma .enai rca.,peirk ramirwit F.,1,Evx Fer EMPUM over ft par$04 af 30 yAlfr RI 3ifk thI4f.set.

itE evar expanding dereionntra -: Inking ;duce, Ina protrasL.ca of lrind for the purpose: recreation arid epan :qtecres f.s: not conrined ma riar virt, <1r GAT-

k114 Ihor*far0 7141 JAI AO. 'As. OJT wasiltmnbs.: La ttS;t• 0.1AnelYtir.d..

The State Lead Tex ersmsead valuer ttris nraTerV vrnict. was node In L942 te

t- :1e4ettiiikt tbkr.glt tb* It4;14witient .F1.800 Tivr kairtixt 1:; I:evtot yio=t:.

:'n ir OR TR1ll*,t5QE j.7i £?

Watia-NOcrke E-nr: Ogfjp,

,,1Dor,Rt.1 EE, valnoni


Town VDOWILL4.

100 4%4:war:) , 19&9.

Hla Worshmp tta ),LEyDr amd Chairnon or :unmittees.

Gentlemem,

At tLii twetlAL, Qoun.01 h4.04 cr Oth JaMdary 1.7oat tnmpritin4 1.11O, .7.hairroKI of ComiAms

waa alvot.7.0 4m.plor9 the potibilitiea in -connection with Coun7:i'S ".7.(...Ar.:1crn of:" DOWar EatA=n a=ld radOrt taokto %;:mu.nif,

n m7;t1derim rjr;15 ree-nutl 1 do not knov if th41N. 1e siny't•if:c iir1 th rti1 ir.* than that which rointom to

- or nnmee. Ii r i1rc:zare,! rm;lr be thn antPritlon maJia a.1 approach to the Han. Nhe v:renier ,;;1- !AM uf

EducAtion in connocttan therewith. If thir ir ro,J. rel 1:hat it Lto aeplAtEtiOn rS'.4y lez,tt on s:_711er = t'4o5e rich .L5 to mAko IA:ut u50 Of T:ToeQntekt, 01.iws :91,,kah NTA;ta-t1O0 /lust n= i",<:.9;9Q*50n of wnar.

for 4 er4-aida. tie numbor of Tearnvjmii lem tima-tr, time hAve invent,itrited thm liimmtion of tkio turlameor oc:Taizir,ion of approx tc.* 7acrer of thlr oetste,

Pamerour conferences wurt I: 1d with the FAccator rrun.coo rid tacy ;: ,24-P:ny And 1,:xx ii.- r- Several approseLee wero itTle

to the framiar arr. thb :-;inintcor of Lo ,.aal ':ov. croment. The outcome 7.11e tiontqtrennes pmvad tha t.t would not be ponsiale to

pliren,74me tha land by pegotiata and that if it yra to ba, -4 ,71autred L 1 t yriwatloh that', it wulit have *tc.! t,e hy ccx14:11r3' acquieition.

11.J.tia,,. the two yeate trAen .50th •une 190 a petition woz preeenek.,: eonta1yi1i4 'Urn niontlx-e8 t‘e.eiderita &ON practicall7 every part of - the MaimitiTality arkIng that the Towel Council take- immiWtate *taps :4:17luire the laM aod Oat it be a.ollotrel 7own 01WI>0,04111i(; ar6 67,1eils 14 wTettilty - aol 1:48 ■24 m fitting 140. t.lal ta the nanhOoi arA wsmanhood or our TDUM "einC! f'QUght ,Rna tt..*trti ta proaerve AUtrEl19 ES a lAhd er.d, part of tka 11,Trp,at dqlwo:;nQy or the - BrItiell Kt -pire

• In 19141 wtiem the GOmalopmmeth Government proppsed. ttlm10 -CdttaF)Fqi On land a ;51.4eet7W. reffOtt was made to prevebt title 'mr,) 1rr ttde to PAle fretier oar.in. if he weliid oiwatite the netts:tar., Pa:ride for the: nurekato of tht arqa,, ilm eacalvod thi,5 .ppponeh :FeyikitkthAtteally bc..t tho; clowiol or v i e !Ade wel hat' promr40 to mceee'l -",4*

046 ..FiYua:!ti I iip 1 ri 1..! -„e are-i. ond inatrutte4 itSolizitern tro pt,oaead. 7RIT .2i4mph.1.*:er7

lt abbut th ,u, nottm,tirte the' Ednciticn "flaFnrtmtet tr1 iJ 0:lat HoUll. b 1rit ib the butchatt of a portion nf thie land.

P f fdatation waittd on, the Pranier and, nt a romat the h6StEr

rr'ri Lo t:he Minister of Education,

.ht ataut ii tite a Fill. was drawn far presentation tn PRr1t,q- nent whi,ch °Itle Otheme) BLIIn i and it lohN th.noidad r-rlat thQ 0, 011:4ne4) pTc4eed tor

A;h:i '.!1(1i i jiiii Periarmi woulA advan,L, e the goL:,thama nor-ley t.o bu. repaid by thorporAtion ovor A p-ortod

m-ari‹tt on m 1 - - timataly , '1;474 at0VrInr.M4A :!4:! , :.c.ved by Farliannt and t f)entma was draw 21:r4;osill 1n the ?a', by tite C..2rocrztiom Sicidicr* th4.1 AtLsi6te.ht, Soalcitor ihtE wae apmvad by Council late Jr 1 .W :::*1 pmvidea, iA au ,::itioh to the mileverAntionel.t pointA7, that t'O- c,inztruet 10 ,iigiphRlt VOTWAte Coldrks ahrl aRckptd,p*,,rj X1At or t4tAth,COartruation boring enr1L4 -halt ziy t470 mini4iter of adn-eivar, ouar:Let each by the Hip% School

4


r

Council al7,4 tri rportion . rhe .tudent,t,. a the lih to horp thm usc sf theae Coutqt.5 du.6ftg :certaAn koors sAd, in ad41.04.1on, to nave the ume of t.he Ovsl during 0,;erta1v, hours dWym, t.aeL Uownell losuld Ove faVoureleneidernLion

PAe c,0-c4 tructie,0 of ac,, AlratW) court; on the area if demired tht: High SeM;.: ,O1 Cououl, 1.-,N0 t11.:„roviniono of thin

..he • it Will I:06 Paon that Council ia reeponsible

th repaymeht Of purasse ai) , Ricy invcilveth on parthame aoneym

agd cimstruction of- tennis coUrte. pravimiott ebd Irsi:in;eraPc9 of an oVal.

(tamalr, si*intenanee camtm or the tennis ,:loorts.

'while,: the 40(.1* Ft4qnDepartmen lad the Hi 800 gh .0.1:muncil mtuld be rstponeol-ltp: for ?Ai% of the tor„..o.ructtor of tennis; courts. Only.

:n 1941, 71•. Meloonka man a valuation thV4- and eitamated the nurtnau pr140 A:1% 0:45, 1,4C cm a rowao(1 At T:he reoPe;5t 6f 1:1:uncili ij 4 1:ttom made a vaIliat,in IA

hol efAtml me purcheav oritt) 449 ,'ACT comoulteily- a,;!,70:Lnld, 7h.117 w,s7c lada mirauatt Ni:;tttonn) SecariLl

whio. i. An4q-r0,7ald, iri r 14;41F., in f:°7CC Lr. n.!eN0 ta nhLs particar

a ,t1a!„lo on :.hi EtLi !i'1 Ifl:Minieter Edutlah 'lads an mor,*ea) t* -4N1 Karion Coryceasin A:7kitg if i=c.-,114, into: a sohe.ne piLrpou., a -acf;I:YirEL uid In th -1.*.;

tte Dspartmenz, Nas ap;r-6 ,ndo cpot:.'1W-A ,Am.aunt evial thql Otato Laft4 Ticx Asago,5owht on tfH4 alane.4 the (.:;ountil cont ,r1t4.4q4) the balw:C. In tht Lae/0, .f;, " &State tha Land T. 'Fr*Ie the pronert,f aEoe*-Eed at a valv.i? ' ft(t1; valuation wse M616: in 1960,

Ma a7ce 5 .atn1ttil for the= lktormian a Maninkva who neve b--oln aptotnted rzw'm a depitt.a! tne prercler or thq Minieter,

Tour-6% raISTectf61141

1+

4+ 5.


23. CL Report 13/05/13

lEi th O s tnber,

iniS TOW CLERK, 002Totatiof Woadville o L', 12t4,4apet,

'ciear

-7114.11:11.21111

I ftd writing this 1.etter in ry prigate ciapaolty as one who hOte been engaged in Local Governilent for over a quarter ofa eentUry.

Mhilsit I tall genex411Y tn Ni- whion tnvolge a moge.ta he rep41d by posterity regard 1C provielon of adequate recreetiOn TeSerVet and playlna round &B an imperelve duty for 400.1 Dpvcrning bodies. Toodville has 0, golden nppnt tunity now to acq4ire an area of gxwand for ah 0?- aa lhcl if Van' chinos is r4ot seized at the pTesent niny -flavor rour.

In my W0 axed of ilitc'Jmv we have spent wail eyver ,0013 In the 14at ten ytars out of mevenue ln 'the purohase nf

land an.d in alditio7m hays contracted to pumehase 14'd to thn 7a1ue of i10,00 a11 fer what may be appmprlittely omlada to-clreation purp*ses.

If this is ,pJetified it Mito!nam whero PV havo so much (Ten oallatry 41101; as the Waite ReseftrOh InatItuto, the Brown Hill Oree'A Rissort' and the Vational 170.:a alrelady Nei anidc iJsurely beboves 770:1:kviTie where settlement is so dM.011 o maks provision for the futuvo.

I litTdrqly zJTO-8 the Oeupoil not to let tiLe opportunity par.of acir1 eri ostate


24. CL Report 13/05/13

ilth December 1946.

NV Sir,

071.5 'Qat ye.L.r latter a the t.hknat. ma not reaakvea ia01.;,Criaiabl, tip* te hat borani 71.-41p41.1 as itn adeletiml, anA in TLeer: of &he tact

that C.ukAteil bwo 13a. f.1.1thed ott33 tba 13Va JaRa4ri P074, Ka ilLr4.04it ttert, 1 rtp.17 41C ,3=AEZICTI with a repurtTIutrflv) ztiarottt ,;)6 f.; ,-3att; eat WM. Litt ult.,

"Fw t.-Eutit porkt ,;(,katel Ivial eioaL ti.risl =",:C(4.10t).t1.1t6y.1 U1I. COO tiLJerod the

ikvitsthilLay e ac:,airlag Ole prapjridi far i pu.4 pan , and: tbc: ri doeided ebFroach the Ee.auto:ra tilos D...11p3t-e %lie Lbri

onatang ar Caannii. 25,tk, :inm.,..atri 1346 ...ii 't' tbutani ropnrtinr, ba za;:alt NIA teaha att:, 7.7.-gacgtora *tahe4 that sick ixamtbrs and honefinea.ries ;pare 1141,1;04m. ji.A jp„ow IN) !Mr!. 7+. ■

1uiriF.r ly hljt had ns thjoiALcn. t onst,:.0.1.1s mp,piLying far or_ogruit..Iry acsalw..1.3o.a.

Er, .3„E, C.: JUL rA:, viic ,.fonrunry L3441, ebtluated that the Ja c maret .cea.lc; pa4.A .:.edtrat Ireer-sL.Tar at i!....r?,0-110, i:mt

th!Lti trok.1..1 preh:51t1,?

7.70,1 1946 by n ILIVal)1M01.2:1 daelsian :71c.mna11 ur.nr.ad to citroamOrily uiir bei ,,...,t4em5ele1 ria lestrueted its GELleitar'M tc. 70e:tea Pith the Ilk:creaser-I

wharpn, Tto Feitaveet::: 1:::14.s'.4e,,,,,o1 that aetatu.1 purpose maid be larved ty

avgrvOv::.iap„ th0- T=r4rii.4 ,1r, 6411 Li-On mi., tioao 'A'ay rinpantio71. rzo.41116 the

prar,rett; ot therse c..csaez mv,I1 Tvitibr "e I eV= e::101 al 00 1:;-:e '; 71EL çi

1.191,Rttz124t VMS donice.me ac,itairing appeuxid,atety nere9 ,-Jr tor it Li1 1tLiahacti Cwal. tbla requtniq, beiba cr*.atori, :he rue'dliue la..414 halt Lkotja inhdi1411411 ru 'ioteacil"m p6r .p.caft.

The Preniar /*rp.quad; Zbat the z-, teto a. nrerravazit aMouln anquirr. LLe?h k, ner4ei, 17,ri

s babod,

That t_ha to qovarar•aat abouli flaanee tha e,ual racovar t: 'Ahem./ 17pon: .3.aar.ft::•1 lealth:jr tarn 'It IQ! '.nk,ernali,

eobelLtIonally t,jt 7vart2ti undert.eita Lu ELnOt Ot, LI 70141, 11-1er Sebaal 17..cana1.1 la tile matter or aportleA fme.tlitlav."

At tlitimmari,s 1,*$ osiveo.reallci 'Aith tha ':t.a or

nan Dal d.I.Scueattti 1 , 10410114w- fix -

I acid. that 17, Lan 'Eon. i4ons, wtta. rmabriber thA, he Mr' ?rim ;:ialatar, tha f..1.rIoh-:, visitor'

'.77ootiville about 1941 Atem iS 7.1nA czaarApi,eitati sc pin ii 7:...-rt.thzer.. an ;lever , e 1:state, 0:4 tbe 7remier !". them Liu; 9GLAVIILII tAtlatog,,:) 1936 mila 1,

eapresaad the Tien,/ tlint It Toni:: :Yr ;:otxtvi. Lk; c. 11-A rmt to '44 developed ae.,a mot EP a Pir%,

City of Charles &tort 25. CL Report 13/05/13

;

On.1 id P. ,sserre6 ,N.ttrP,J. ,

Frar,-nead "9-or.orvo at

tt:1 1:1,:v2 reu ,-21:4 tn.! it ,71,1,:ix:ar ,1

c.c:aeraktt , 0q1.114-9 DOwiirto

=-11,ELPV, kr, wr,:rKsz.,:t.0 )2, k:, tse 1.: is ut rucl 12 PluuTilc..sd ilt

rorthar rt.Iwj tia t} 5:1 vort on Of '4M -;.: y...P. npsrty rm. :ilanerTo.

A 7,rKy t 2f .61, acres birintl ,Thicra t f

aovir ed k+Alla zi rJ.i1 t ,t Ii Intl!

alaTis Unz; f" ,f' aTiProx, 14,

d f ,vet1 hai 14 eha:1-no-

A„ Tar's to: .F yITAI ,R,:xj,„I 1,104 the: ... zrott wr.Ne'?

8frrc cr. tox,etaa: se,th N LL 1jif' W111.11 i -Arto omid tse rkidt

nirio rtiatTr.y, to4",:frJr; Via Ti7611

Is 0.15 auFze t. itL r ijt4t rL Tinde to tt True, l,c* r,Lo

307.:Ita tc oarLnir.'orii ruturt trai brilralca ti-At Rat etc t

prriv.; t?, ) ,0,11 or ti LliEritti al Inrir,, !Imp, JiTi 1 109 MA 1 5 50' (ii

eliUto 7, ti CrATn ,"4"1:4-dr to ;i:JO

tiaa trontr.473a ILS '31:7.5M;b10,


26. CL Report 13/05/13

EMeitear'm 11U-Mtb17 Report - 54tn Jfteo,

sow*O8 84kte: ,armet Litroodu boye h000 re.ntu T-pleontly ou 07,[z,;

tathAe woLut I1 en bnon oh. ')11:ItithON in =kill- ilia - rl.r5f- the Mi i

Ralk*ey 1,in 0.nd o*0 30 Acrat bave been schulreLl by the Pato -4xt):Ln 3oripmny,

1% 10 CeRred thet unine aces prn,upt nottun t,n 1,0kert, th4 001tg-Wal hre

talneliimtai'y north 4. 141 W40AY.L114o St.atin mhy be laet far mil time ea u

0 1-440At1ttA4, hp4tel. Now TO7t: tame Vier dpea it peon nocamoarI tbut

evbetmntiel reeorre annuld he oranto0 1;1 1,6 onme*e au m peep,

erid n bUrrur batun)kU -rine IerEe edjOine Imaufmgtorieo. awl .v.t the neeh

reSid4eIlkid partioe a thy Tom., ,it La remaaptfuily mnAsuotel tiLut on

monrooeb On medo both tr tem qi,caurrnent uhn r4 }L) ri tfa,-)

„ na ,k0,1:,W4)t jt Z:RA he oilteimed on 2ci oree or mcco or tbe lund

tivnei1jia8 viniun edjuiam Le mtutton end 4omiythe Maud ta be fetft[nit44 h

[erk,

?outz ,

Towler OLignedf

Town. FAtinenr,,


27. CL Report 13/05/13

t.& FtMA.E. PrAPOOM Ii uMp Srreec.

.iF2r7,41 eVafee ••=1

/ ‘. ee:Siexxe

,

WOODVII..LE 51:J8-BRANCH

Hri Siomp:sey FL1.15

r;oruxr, itrtAL. 040:401-3n1

Pt,3rws . 1 1-4 ,1

!.-1 7401

nr F Allem Box.. HI a. Vo.rshi:: "The " Wo-od 7111c: air .-..or:74“. on +

Vowlic/*:: 2Dcla

Iroe4r

A z the; fort.inthl:/ ot1i L:r.1 :ei.c.0-1 on. o 1 t te

ha.ii ,terme 1:-.3 I W1L:T1t DiOtjtJL J. i re zled ir.iform yin,z t;11 ,4te trry.,

atostborD who attended. .rnee t 11'4 f,y tivir owiL or.: 0 ctober 26th

the ::1-ur,t10 -aa I hearitus, the d Dmaai on regard ingt tli3 pentad

re IAtiv tc- thfp 4oLp...ki 3i - I-jot of ---.-plwer E*.t-ate " 4t.; a. 1,(ern t our

Sal -ior solA re Airme.1) a,nd :ea or rIY.11.7

faori ot wc•ro m oet di Witt real:rd. r.,c: the mm.r.-..rw 5,147.1 1.)11 scap

dtlalt-) failed T. deal mi.i.th VrLi..tiill iniitq.-14n - L

• .tua-tAtar gate r havi.o4 a;f:..10.0 t".r, L-.717171 .

r•f. on Itlfaci re-4 ,40cp.„i 0-4-uJ, 1

r t o on oF: pro c,te 411. ,:;.C, T, oattOyQ tO1Atith

Lh.t ei t4te for. tilt fumed. 11:14i4t riokl unaanafirtkaly•

e rarct Ary

22nd Mayt 3.937

• REPORT OF MEETING OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE APPOINTED RE THE PURCHASE OF PORTION OF BOWER'S ESTATE FOR USE AS A RECREATION PARK HELD IN THE TOWN CLERK'S . OFFICE - THURSDAY. 20TH MAY, 1937 at 4430 P.M.

•PRESEliT His:Worship the Mayor (J. S. Butler, Esq.) Councillors- Box and Sage.

The Town Clerk supplied information to the Committee re Hazelwood and Heywood Parks.

A plan was submitted showing position and area of Bower's Estate and adjacent lands.

After discussing the propose/ fully, it was resolved that conference be arranged between the Hon. the Premier and members of the Committee re securing a portion of Bower's Estate adjacent to Woodville Road, Woodville 2 and the Woodville Railviay Station for the purpose of the provision of a Recreation Park.

MAYOR

r

22nd Melt 3.937.

REPORT OF MEETING OF SPECIAL CommITTEE APPOINTED RTHE PURCHASE OF PORTION OF BOWER'S ESTATE FOR USE AS A RECREATION pox HELD 33 THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE - THURSDAY - 20TH MAY, IA= a 4 o p

MUM His Worship the Mayor (J. 8. Butler, Esq.) Councillors Box and Sage.

The Town Clerk supplied information to the Committee re Bezebwood and Reprood. Parks.

A plan was submitted showing position and area of Bower's Estate and adjacent lands.

After discussing the pOoposal fully, it was resolved that a conference be arranged between the Non. the Premier and members of the Committee re securing a portion of Bower's Estate adjacent to Woodville Road. Woodville, and the Woodville Railway Station for the purpose of the provision of a Recreation Park.

MAYOR

History Pertaining to St Clair Reserve Woodville

Comments have been made in the media asserting that the history of St Clair Reserve includes the following:

• a memorial to the returned servicemen, • was bequeathed to the people; and

• the Memorial Gardens in the St Clair Reserve are for those who went to defend Australia.

In summary:

• there is no evidence that St Clair Reserve is a memorial to returned servicemen; • St Clair was not bequeathed to the people, rather the Minister for Education sold

the land to Council; and • St Clair is not on Council's register of Memorial Sites or Gardens (though there is a

memorial plaque to former Councillor Harry Guy and Olympian Glynis Nunn and a missing plaque for which Council has no records (we don't believe this missing plaque is a dedicated 'war' plaque, rather a memorial for other reasons or possibly a donor plaque

Early History—pre 1950

Comprehensive details are set out below. However, in summary:

• The St Clair land now proposed to be swapped was purchased by Council (in partnership with the Education Department) in 1953.

• A search has revealed no evidence that this land was a 'memorial' other than a petition received by Council in 1943 from the community that the land be purchased for this purpose. The Council decided not to purchase the land as a memorial.

• The Soldiers' Memorial Recreation Ground was established in 1919-20 on land purchased by Council in Woodville South which is now known as Woodville Oval. The possibility exists that Woodville Oval is confused with St Clair Reserve, Woodville.

Timeline of land ownership

c1849 - 1953

• SR Clarke owns the 5 acre property 'St Clair' (this is the St Clair house site — now approximately where the recreation centre stands).

1854

• John Bristow Hughes purchases Clark's property and acquires a further 345 acres of land. This land becomes known as Woodville Estate.

• Hughes sets about establishing the village of Woodville on his land, building a number of properties including St Margaret's Church and Woodville Railway Station.

• 'St Clair' mansion built.

1860

• Robert Barr Smith purchases St Clair Mansion and Estate

1869

• Barr Smiths sell whole of Estate (including St Clair Mansion) to Lewis Hanson.

c1875

• David Bower purchases Estate (including St Clair Mansion) from Hanson. • David Bower reserves 50 acres of land between St Clair Mansion and the railway

station. Law dictated that he could only reserve sections of land until the death of the beneficiaries of his Estate. This becomes known locally as 'Bower's Paddock'. (Part of this 'paddock' is now the proposed St Clair land swap site).

• Bower donates some parts of his Estate to Council, most notably the site of the first Council building on Port Road. He also donates land at Semaphore Park for Bowers Cottages.

1898

• David Bower dies.

• There are provisions in his will as to how Woodville Estate land should be disposed. • Land should be divided into building blocks and every third block should be retained

by the Estate. It is not clear why, but possibly to build homes owned by Estate as he states that money acquired from the sale of blocks should be used in building homes.

• These restrictions prevented the Executors disposing of large blocks. • Beneficiaries wanted to sell larger blocks so a Bill through Parliament was obtained

to do this.

1911

• Subdivision of Bower's Estate begins. • Trustees hold onto as much land as possible (assume to be able to sell bigger

allotments — worked out well for them with the housing boom of 1920s).

1915

• Portion of land given to Council for Town Hall property as a gift. • Woodville High School opens — land made over to Education Department by

Trustees of Bowers Estate.

1920

• Executors obtain a private Act of Parliament (David Bower Estate Act 1920) giving power of sale of any portion of Estate in whatever size blocks they might determine.

• High school purchased more land.

1921

• Port Adelaide Racing Club purchased 137 acres.

1923

• Holden's purchased 23 acres.

1941

• Actil Cotton Mill purchased land. Railways acquired land for Finsbury rail line.

1942

• Woodville Council hears of attempt by War Workers Housing Trust to compulsorily acquire land to build housing for munition workers.

• Council is successful in preventing this going ahead.

• Council receives a petition signed by 1,072 citizens asking "that Council take immediate steps to acquire the land known as Bower's Estate to create a fitting Memorial to the manhood and womanhood of our Town who fought and sacrificed their lives to preserve Australia as a free land and part of the great Democracy of the British Empire".

• Council considers the request and after deferring the question decides to take no action until after the present conflict (WW2)

1946

• Council makes a definite offer for the land to Trustee's of Bowers Estate.

1947

• Under the Recreation Grounds (Joint Schemes) Act 1947 a scheme was entered into by Council with the education department for the acquisition of land to be vested in the Corporation and used as a recreation ground and public park.

1953

• 24 acres of land were purchased and developed as a sports area for the playing of football, cricket, tennis and for other recreation purposes. In addition an area has been developed as public gardens. (This is St Clair Reserve including the part proposed to be swapped).

• The cost of the land (E20,440) was shared equally between the Council and the Education Department.

1956

• Annual report for Council states:

"St Clair acquisition: The legal procedure involved in compulsorily acquiring this property has been practically completed. I understand from the Solicitors that the

• final notice has been prepared and will be submitted for signature at an early date.

As soon as this property is in the hands of Council, it will be enabled to proceed with the construction of the 10 tennis courts as agreed between the Education Department and this Council." (This refers specifically to the St Clair mansion site — now the St Clair Recreation Centre site.)

1957:

• Annual report for Council states:

"St Clair acquisition: The necessary notices for the compulsory acquisition of the above property have been served.

The Executors of the Estate have submitted a claim of £15,000 as compensation. Council has to date received two valuations from independent valuators stating the amount of their valuations which are much below that required by the trustees. At the present time a further evaluation is being obtained in an endeavour to arrive at an amicable agreement in connection with the amount of compensation paid." (This refers specifically to the St Clair mansion site — now the St Clair Recreation Centre site.)

1958

St Clair homestead and remaining land (2 acres) purchased by Council for use as a district community centre (this is now the St Clair recreation centre)

Recreational Grounds (Joint Scheme) Act Details

A Joint Scheme was established under the Recreation Grounds (Joint Schemes) Act 1947 on 23 November 1950 by the Minister for Education and the Council (then known as the Corporation of the City of Woodville).

The original Scheme provided Woodville High School access to St Clair Oval for sporting and recreational purposes.

The 1950 Joint Scheme agreement was varied by a number of subsequent agreements as follows:

• On 11 April 1960 the Scheme was varied by agreement to exclude a portion of the land under the Scheme and to include, in lieu thereof, another piece of land under the Scheme.

• On 25 November 1965, the Scheme was varied by agreement to permit the Minister to construct change rooms on the land.

• On 5 August 1971 there was a further variation by agreement whereby it was agreed that the Minister would construct a gymnasium on the land.

• On 11 March 1974 there was a further variation by agreement varying the land to which the Scheme relates.

Certificate of Title Volume 5754 Folio 81 (previously CT 40351384)

City of Charles tuft Certificate of Tilki 57503 I II/111200S

•

7.

..

6 ,

4.7'..;

- *

...

.

......;.!4„

• F 4,

.

,e..

.,.

at.

At

, ..,.

4. ./.

' IV

1110.

1

V.,i

NC S.

',4'.' 44' .;.'‹ . .,‘,.

'..4„. 0.4.4 Ir. ,

' ,

.t,,,,,

,:, ,c, JC. ...

7

•

Lot 70

1 ,

L ":'

v

les

`,.;,..

4. •

.2

jr„,

..

y. ,, i.., , l-

at g

1

4t4ic:, . / ...

•-

- ,.. . -

f'.6 '

. -.,

, ...

'9•4

l'...i? .

' 5 • ..

, J.N 1,,.-'-'

• le .-

- 1 1, , 9.f.,C

/

.

•

:

.

.

'7. >" - / 48 p

il....:,

.

-I

. •.

. ,,

A ,

5.,... 1 ,

, -;.-

4 1.

••••?•" ' '' r% ,... .

•

Scale 1A351 Created by anwolek

e(MITIIIR44. 0: 7,21.21m,r. . . . - •

, .

-Ne

This Title were originally transferred to the Corporation of the City of Woodville from the Minister for Education vide registered Transfer No. 1756362 dated 13 November 1952. This Transfer was for a consideration of Twenty Thousand Four Hundred and Forty One Pounds Ten Shillings and Ten Pence, which was to be paid by equal annual instalments over a period of thirty years. This Transfer was pursuant to the provisions of the Recreation Grounds (Joint Schemes) Act 1947, and I now enclose a copy of that transfer for your information.

(Source: Legal Advice provided by Norman Waterhouse Lawyers, 2001 —Refer to TRIM Ref

08/142129)

Lot131 .•• 10038 Lot68,,e;

L0C133 ..10t137 Lot67„ Lot46 Lot1.36 L0t651

Lot44 Ldt135 Lo[65

L0t43 t.:O;47 Lot63 ot42 L 6t4S Lot62

1 LA:stag Lot61I

S00„- L0t60

Lo1140 ‘Lot,7 L0t139 Lott4, ,

2



This Title was originally transferred to the Corporation of the City of Woodville from 4ecutor Trustee and Agency Company of South Australia Limited as Executor of the Will o David Bower vide registered Transfer No. 2060810 dated 13 May 1958. This Transfer w for a consideration of £11,000.

(Source: Legal Advice provided by Norman Waterhouse Lawyers, 2001 —Refer to TRIM Ref 08/142129)

11111. P.O. BOX 296A

PHONE Ce.13243-1

IN REPLY PLEASE QUOTE

E.D.1142/46 RMIOIMB.

AUSTRALIA

STATE CROWN SOLICITOR'S OFFICE

24 FLINDERS STREET,

ADELAIDE 10th January_l19 51,

The Town Clerk, Corporation of the City of Woodville, Woodville Road, WOODVILTR.

Dear Sir,

• Re Bower's Estate.

The Joint Scheme has been confirmed by the Governor, and I forward herewith for retention by you a copy of the Scheme. The original, which I am holding, has been duly stamped as an agreement.

• The Minister of Education is taking the necessary action to acquire the land referred to in the scheme.

liJ,4„at,„

Yours faithfully,

Cro Solicitor.

JIMA' 13th Dar:61951#

Dear Sir,

I am direota-bliouncil to eommunicato with you a° the Trusteo ,CaakPanY Of OD Hata° of tho into David Br, and advise that it Is dociroco ofynototiating for the purchace of the Homestead known as "Et, Claim terpthor with the aroa of land, approximating 3 acres,

. ehieh surround° ita

'Misr° aware that the Covoramont is already negotiating with the Company for the purchase of the balance of this lmad aoataining approximately 23 acres for rocroational and public park facilitios.

It is the detain of Council that the Hamastond should to preserved and used for Charitable amd Community purpose°, such as /lathers and Babies Health Association. District aad Buob BUrsing Society, St. :ohn Ambulance Brigade, Too Ho Child Voltam, and aimilar Organisations, It nuot be admitted that all of those Or;.anisations ore worthy of public support because of the .orcollont VOrk whioh they are doing far citizens,

Wet theca circumatancos, thoreforo, it 'amid be approelated if you will favourably condidor Milo approach and advice the amount at till ,* the property undor roviertuay be purchasod#

I am also dixected to advise that Council is insietent that this property shall be made available for the general rolfare of the Citizens in the VMpicipality but sincerely hopes that amioahla negotiatiems can be entered into in order that its deoires can be brought to fruition,

'Council is also desirous of any early reply In order that the matter can be further investigated,

Thanking YOU in antieipatica of your favourahao consideration or this roquoet in the ittoneta of the Citizens ottleelvilUtt

am, Yours faithfully,

?CCM CIERK.

The ranagor, Exeoutor ;Aster° & Agency Co,. of S.A., Ltd., 22 Openfell St., ADELAIDB„

41 10\

RECR:ATION GROUNDS (JOINT SCH -MS) ACT 1947

JP

Scheme for the acquisition of the land at Woodville by the

Corporation of the City of Joodville.

This Scheme is made between the Linister of Lducation

and the Corporation of the City of Woodville pursuant

to the Recreation Grounds (Joint Schemes) Act 1947.

1. In this Scheme -

"the Act" means the Recreation Grounds (Joint Schemes)

Act 1947.

"the Minister means the Minister of Education.

"the Corporation" means the Corporation of the City

of Woodville.

"the Land" means that piece of land situated in the

hundred of Yatala being portion of Section 34 comprising

26 acres 2 roods and 12 perches or thereabouts and

being the whole of the land corprised in T-artially

cancelled Certificate of Title Register Book Volume 1 001

Folio 129.

"the School" means the Woodville High School.

"the School Council" means the Council of the Woodville

High School.

"the Purchase money" means the price payable to the

vendor of the land or the compensation fixed under

the provisions of the compulsory acquisition of Land

Act 1925 as the case may be together with in each

case the costs incurred by the Corporation for

purchasing or acquiring the land.

2. The Corporation shall acquire the land pursuant to

the provisions of the Act either by Agreement or by

covpulsory acquisition.

3. The Ninister shall pay the purchase money payable

to the owner of the raid land immediately after the

purchase thereof or so soon as the compensation shall

have been fixed pursuant to the Compulsory Acquisition

of Land Act 1925 if the land shall be compulsorily

acquired.

ifl annum by equal fixed annual pa , ments extending over „.

a period of 30 years.

5. The said land shall on purchase or acquisition be

vested in the Corporation. .

6. The Corporation shall construct 10 asphalt tennis

courts on the said land at a site or sites to be

selected by the Corporation. The said tennis courts

shall have back-stops constructed of steel uprights

with 2" mesh chain wire fixed thereon. The Minister

shall pay to the Corporation one half of the cost of

the Construction of the said Tennis Courts and back

stops and in addition the School Council shall pay to

the Corporation one quarter of such cost by 5 equal

annual instalments commencing from the date of completion

of the construction of the said tennis courts.

7. The Corporation shall keep the said tennis courts and

backstops in good order and condition for a period of

10 years from the date of the construction thereof and

shall during such period make the said tennis courts

available to the School Council on Mondays to Fridays

inclusive of each week between the hours of 9 a.m.

and 5 p.m. The Corporation shall be at liberty . to

let the saidtennis courts to other persons or bodies

outside the hours when the same are available to the

School Council.

The Cost of maintaining the said t.mnis courts in good

order and condition shall be paid in the first place

out of rental received by the CorDoration for th -.3 us

4. The Corporation shall repay to the Minister the ,

purchase money paid by him for the said land together

with interest thereon at the rate of per cent per

3 -

of the tennis courts by persons and bodies other

than the School Council, but in so far as the cost of

so maintaining the said tennis courts shall exceed the

rental received by the Corporation from the use thereof

the expense of so maintaining such courts shall be borne

equally by the Corporation and the School Council and a

settlement in respect thereof shall be made half yearly

on the 1st day of July and 1st day of January in every

year between the Corporation and the School Council.

8. The land shall be used by the Corporation as a Recreation

Ground and for such other purposes as the Corporation

may from time to time determine, but so that not less

than 5 acres shall at all times be maintained as an

oval by the Corporation and the Corpoi.ation shall make

the said oval available to the School Council for a

maximum period of one and one half hours per day on

Mondays to Fridays inclusive of each week between the

hours of 12.30 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. whilst the school is

in session but notwithstanding this provision the Corpor-

ation shall be at liberty to prevent the use of the Oval

by the School Council during the hours aforesaid on not

more than 90 days in every year . Until the said Oval

is planted with turf the School Council shall be at

liberty to use the same for, football on Saturday mornings

from the let day of April until the second Saturday in

September in each and every year between the hours of

9 a.m. and noon on every Saturday morning. After the

said Oval shall have been planted with turf the Corpor-

ation shall so far as practicable permit the Oval to be

used by the School Council on Saturday mornings during

the football season, but so that such use shall not

interfere in any way the use of the said Oval for football

on Saturday afternoons.

9. The Corporation will give favourable oondideration to

the use by the School Council of portion of the said

land for the purpose of basketball grounds.

-4-

10. Save as herein before otherwisd provided the

'Corporation shall be at liberty to use the land for

any purposes it deems proper.

; Version: 11.12.1947

South Australia

Recreation Grounds (Joint Schemes) Act 1947

An Act relating to the provision of recreation grounds.

Contents Short titles

2 Interpretation 3 Incorporation with Compulsory Acquisition of Land Act 4 Joint schemes 5 Confirmation of scheme 6 Execution of scheme 7 Variation of schemes 8 Termination of schemes 9 Payments by councils 10 Payments by Minister

Legislative history

The Parliament of South Australia enacts as follows:

1—Short titles

This Act may be cited as the Recreation Grounds (Joint Schemes) Act 1947.

2—Interpretation

In this Act—

council means council of a municipality or a district council district;

the Minister means the Minister of Education;

party means the Minister and any council which is a party to a scheme;

scheme means scheme prepared under section 4 of this Act.

3—Incorporation with Compulsory Acquisition of Land Act

(1) This Act is incorporated with the Compulsory Acquisition of Land Act 1925.

(2) For the purposes of the Compulsory Acquisition of Land Act 1925—

(a) a party acquiring land pursuant to a scheme shall be deemed to be the promoter of an undertaking;

(b) the preparation or making available of land for use pursuant to the terms of a scheme shall be deemed to be works, and an undertaking.

This version is not published under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002 1

Recreation Grounds (Joint Schemes) Act 1947-11.12.1947

4—Joint schemes

(1) The Minister and any one or more councils may join in preparing a scheme under this section.

(2) A scheme may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:

(a) the purchase or compulsory acquisition of land by all or any of the parties;

(b) the payment of the purchase money or compensation, and the shares thereof or contributions thereto, to be paid by the parties;

(c) that upon purchase the land will be vested in any one or more of the parties for the estates or interests specified in the scheme;

(d) subject to subsection (3) of this section, that each party and all persons authorised by a party, shall have such rights to the use and occupation of the land, and on such terms and conditions, and for such periods, as are specified in the scheme;

that any party shall make a loan to any other party to the scheme on terms and conditions specified in the scheme as to repayment, interest and other matters;

the construction of improvements on the land, and the maintenance and repair of any such improvements;

any other matters incidental to those mentioned above.

(3 ) A scheme shall not be valid unless it provides among other things that the land to be purchased or acquired thereunder shall be available during the hours specified in the scheme for use by children attending a public school, as a school playground, or for the purposes of sport, recreation, physical culture or other activities.

(4) In preparing a scheme any person authorised by a party may act on behalf of that party.

5—Confirmation of scheme

A scheme prepared under this Act shall not be carried into effect until it has been confirmed by the Governor, and by every council which is a party to the scheme, at a duly convened meeting of that council.

6—Execution of scheme

When a scheme has been confirmed—

(a) every party thereto shall have power to carry it into effect and for that purpose may acquire land either by compulsory process or otherwise, enter into any other transaction, and do any other act, matter or thing which it is necessary or convenient to enter into or do for the purpose of carrying the scheme into effect;

(b) any land purchased or acquired under the scheme shall be used in accordance with the scheme.

7—Variation of schemes

A scheme under this Act may be varied by a subsequent scheme confirmed as mentioned in section 5, but every scheme as so varied shall be subject to subsection (3) of section 4 of this Act.

2 This version is not published under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002

11.12.1947—Recreation Grounds (Joint Schemes) Act 1947

8—Termination of schemes

A scheme may be terminated by a subsequent scheme, confirmed as mentioned in section 5. The terminating scheme shall provide for the sale or other disposal of the land and improvements, and the distribution of any proceeds of such sale or disposal.

9—Payments by councils

This Act shall be a sufficient authority for a council which is party to a scheme to make any payments out of its revenue required for the purpose of carrying out the scheme.

10—Payments by Minister

Any money required by the Minister for carrying out a scheme shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament for that purpose.

This version is not published under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002 3

Recreation Grounds (Joint Schemes) Act 1947-11.12.1947 Legislative history

Legislative history

Notes

• For further information relating to the Act and subordinate legislation made under the Act see the Index of South Australian Statutes.

Principal Act

Year No Title Assent Commencement

1947 39 Recreation Grounds (Joint Schemes) 11.12.1947 11.12.1947 Act 1947

4 This version is not published under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



Tuesday 5 November 2013 at 10:15am



MEMBERS:


WITNESS:

ROBERT GRANT, Councillor, City of Charles Sturt, called and examined:

114 The CHAIRPERSON: We have witnesses in the gallery, so I will read this andassume that you are listening. Welcome to the meeting. The Legislative Council has given theauthority for this committee to hold public meetings. A transcript of your evidence today will beforwarded to you for your examination for any clerical corrections. Should you wish at any time topresent confidential evidence to the committee, please indicate and the committee will consideryour request. Parliamentary privilege is accorded all evidence presented to a select committee;however, witnesses should be aware that privilege does not extend to statements made outside ofthis hearing. All persons, including members of the media, are reminded that the same rules applyas in the reporting of parliament. Welcome councillor Grant; proceed whenever you are ready.

Mr GRANT: Thank you very much. I would like firstly to say that I have been aresident and/or ratepayer in the City of Charles Sturt since 1976. I am and have been an electedmember of the City of Charles Sturt and its predecessor councils continuously since Saturday2 May 1987. As a councillor, I have been a member of the Woodville High School GoverningCouncil for some 10 years. In civilian occupation I am an indentured electrical fitter, having servedmy apprenticeship with the Electricity Trust of South Australia.

I am and have been a financial member of the Communications, Electrical andPlumbing Union continuously since 1963. I am unaware of this union having any industrialcoverage within the local government employment sector. I am and have been a financial memberof the Australian Labor Party continuously since my national service training and Vietnam Warservice. I was a company director of the former Labor Party-owned Colac Hotel Port Adelaide,which was a state and federal election campaign fundraising venture.

I have actively opposed state Labor government policy relating to the sale andredevelopment of the Cheltenham Park racecourse both within the Labor Party and on the CharlesSturt Council. I have actively opposed the state Labor government policy relating to the land swapof council-owned St Clair Reserve for the Land Management Corporation-owned former Actilindustrial property both within the Labor Party and on the Charles Sturt council.

I was present at a meeting of the Port Adelaide federal electorate council of theAustralian Labor Party on 26 August 2007 when it was resolved to write to parliamentary leaderKevin Rudd for a commitment to acquire the Cheltenham Park racecourse for the community. In2011, as an elected member, I addressed the state Ombudsman inquiry relating to the City ofCharles Sturt. Some 16 elected members out of a total of 17 elected members addressed the stateOmbudsman inquiry relating to the City of Charles Sturt.

I ask that I be allowed by this committee to table my confidential transcript ofinterview before it and in camera, but I will do that in a minute, if I am so allowed. I ask that thiscommittee give due consideration to summoning all the confidential transcripts of evidence fromthe same Ombudsman inquiry before it and in camera. I ask that this committee give dueconsideration to summoning the elected member before it and in camera who did not address thesame Ombudsman inquiry.

The final report of the Ombudsman dated November 2011 deals with the issues ofthe Australian Labor Party influence on the decision of the elected body of the City of Charles Sturt,but this honourable committee has separate terms of reference and its ultimate finding may be atvariance to that report.

The separate issue of trade union interference within the elected body of the City ofCharles Sturt by an ALP affiliated union is introduced for the first time by a letter written by the then

R. GRANT


chief executive officer Ms Susan Law, dated 11 May 2000. The letter is addressed to Mr JohnWishart at the registered state office of the Australian Services Union, 5-9 Rundle Street, KentTown, South Australia 5007. Perhaps I could read you the letter which I have tabled. The letterstates:

Dear John,

Inappropriate electioneering

I have been advised that at yesterday's meeting of staff to discuss EB matters you, on behalf ofthe ASU, encouraged those staff present who are residents of the City of Charles Sturt to vote for a particularcandidate in the current mayoral elections.

I am concerned at this action, particularly as it occurred on Council premises, in Council paidtime, and at a meeting approved by myself to advance the current EB negotiations.

It is totally inappropriate that the ASU should use a forum such as this to promote one particularcandidate over another. While each voter is entitled to their opinions as to the merits or otherwise of the candidatesand will exercise these at the ballot box, Council staff have an obligation to work with whichever members areelected in a democratic process. At the City of Charles Sturt we have gone to considerable effort to maintain animpartial position with regard to all candidates and pride ourselves on the Team work that has been developed andpromoted between staff and the elected Council. Actions such as yours have the potential to undo much of this goodwork with the next Council, whoever is elected.

I must ask that you not repeat this action at any subsequent meeting you or other representativesof the ASU may have with Council staff.

Yours sincerely

It's signed by Susan Law. Up until the 2003 periodic council elections, this union had traditionallywritten to all candidates to survey their voting intentions on matters pertaining to wages andworking conditions of their membership, and the results were published prior to the councilelections.

At the council meeting held on Monday 10 July 2006, some 187 members of thisparticular union had broken ranks with the Australian Labor Party and tabled a petition in support ofthen chief executive officer Peter Lockett in defiance of the elected member body. Peter Lockettresigned from office as a result of that council meeting.

In the matter of the City of Charles Sturt v Richard Bingham (Ombudsman) SouthAustralian Supreme Court dated 8 July 2010, I make the statement that Mr George Karzis wasengaged as independent legal council by the City of Charles Sturt, and perhaps I will just table aresume in confidence if I'm permitted to do so.

The Woodville District High School has been a longstanding supporter of theSt Clair Reserve. In their 75

thanniversary publication, Woodville High School 1915-1990, referring

to the period 1951 to 1954, it stated:

Secondly, the School Council was successful in persuading the Education Department to join theWoodville Council in purchasing the remains of the Bower Estate to develop recreational facilities for school andcommunity use. This initiative eventually saw the development of the St Clair Complex and adjacent facilitiesenjoyed today, and while progress was slow at the beginning it represents one of the most significant moves inimproving the amenities of the school.

The publication also features an illustrated article on former Woodville councillor Mr Harry Guy, aschool council member for 13 years from 1950 until 1963, serving as the secretary of the counciland the gymkhana organiser. Indeed, his ashes were spread on St Clair Reserve during themid-1990s.

Councillor L.V. Board of the Cheltenham Ward, in a page 8 letter to the editor ofThe Advertiser on 4 May 1964, stated:

The St Clair area was bought about 1960 and clause 3 the purchase agreement states the saidland shall be held and used solely for the purposes of a recreational ground and public park.

A page 1 article in The Advertiser on 11 May 1964, referring to a proposal for league football atSt Clair, stated:

The Town Clerk (Mr M.L. Smith) said on Saturday night that 8,687 had voted in favour of theproposal and 29,150 had voted against. There were 1,525 informal votes. Mr Smith said the vote represented a pollof 23.4 per cent.

R. GRANT


A report of a special meeting appointed re the purchase of portion of Bower's Estate for use as arecreation park, held in the Town Clerk's office on Thursday 20 May 1937 at 4.30pm—and whichhas been tabled at this committee—identified the shortage of recreational park at Woodville andoffered a remedy. Unfortunately, Australia was suffering the great economic depression of the1930s.

The 1942 council reports already tabled at this committee, detailing the1942 petition signed by 1,072 petitioners, provides council with both a sense of patriotic duty and arealistic opportunity to raise the necessary public funds to purchase the land at the end of the war,either solely or in conjunction with the government. The reports of the mayor, tabled at thiscommittee, detail the wideranging unfaltering community support over the past 70 years from localschools, the education department, all the ex-service communities for council to acquire anddedicate all St Clair Reserve as a war memorial community park.

In relation to St Clair Reserve, at the meeting of council held on 9 March 2010 Iunsuccessfully moved the following motion:

To commemorate the 65th anniversary of the cessation of hostilities of the Second World War in1945 and to act upon a petition received by council in 1942 signed by 1,072 citizens asking that council takeimmediate steps to acquire the land known as Bower's Estate to create a fitting memorial to the manhood andwomanhood of our town who fought and sacrificed their lives to preserve Australia as a free land and part of thegreat democracy of the British Empire, and noting the purchase of the said land by council from 1953, the City ofCharles Sturt dedicates the St Clair Reserve as a war memorial for all those who served the municipality from1939 to 1945.

I mention that meeting of council of 9 March 2010 because I believe there was somemisunderstanding with previous people who have been before this committee, who said that thismatter had not been raised until the current Woodville Station DAP. That is incorrect, because youcan refer to the minutes of the council of 9 March 2010.

There was also a subsequent motion moved the same year on 9 August in relationto that. The motion simply was:

1. That council staff undertake research and discussions with relevant interested partiesand bring back to council a proposal for a memorial/s at locations and of a form that reflects the significance ofsoldiers, peacekeepers and the many that have the supported the effort at home.

2. That the report cover possible alternatives (locations and form) together with capitalcosting and any potential ongoing maintenance costs and a summary of the discussions held with variousstakeholders.

3. That the report be brought back by the second meeting in July 2010.

In a follow-up letter of response of 18 August 2010 from RSL state president Mr Jock Statton,addressed to the editor of the Weekly Times Messenger, he was quite scathing of theWasylenko/Fitzpatrick resolution. So there was quite a lot of discussion: twice at council in2010 and indeed in the press in relation to a war memorial and matters at St Clair Reserve. So thematter had been discussed prior to the life of this current council and, of course, prior to the currentDAP being considered at the moment.

The other point I would like to make is that on 14 February of this year, on behalf ofthe local community, I submitted a written submission to the presiding member of DPAC in relationto the Woodville station plan amendment. Perhaps I might just quickly read you a covering letter Isent with that.

115 The CHAIRPERSON: In your remarks you have referred to a number of things.Have you got any other documents you would like to table in support of those comments?

Mr GRANT: Yes, I have.

116 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Would your covering letter be on the website still,because I am just thinking that the submissions that were made to the Woodville station DPA havebeen published?

Mr GRANT: Yes, it is.

117 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Could we get that online? Yes; we have access to thosedocuments.

R. GRANT


Mr GRANT: Yes; no worries. So, it's a covering letter and it's online. I put in quitean extensive submission in relation to that matter and then a covering letter I wrote as a follow up.It is addressed to the presiding member and it simply says:

On Thursday 14 February in the fading evening light on my way home from Council after meetingthe 5.00pm dead line to despatch my submission to you I parked my car in Stanley Street and walked directly acrossWoodville Road onto beautiful St Clair Reserve and sat down respectfully under the shade of the tree which at itsfoot bears a memorial plaque to Councillor Harry Guy and his spread ashes.

My thoughts turned to his World War two service and thousands like him who served overseas toprotect Australia from Japanese invasion and those 1,072 of his wife's generation who back home petitioned theWoodville Council in 1942 to purchase St Clair Reserve as a memorial to these brave men.

A grateful Council and South Australian Education Department conjointly commenced thatpurchase in 1953 under the purpose enacted Recreation Grounds (Joint Schemes) Act 1947 to the benefit of thewider Community and the children attending the Woodville High School.

Council had the courage in 1958 to compulsory acquire St Clair Homestead and remaining landall amounting to 2 acres to make the purchase of the reserve complete.

City Electors in 1964 through a plebiscite polled 28,000 votes to 8000 votes to disallow thealienation of their St Clair Reserve for the purposes of League Football with user pay access.

My thoughts then turned to recent events and the Land Swap of their pristine St Clair Reserve forland that was contaminated by World War two Military Cotton Mills and Railway Lines feeding the FinsburyAmmunition Works and the stressful memories Mrs Gwen Guy and other women have of essential employment inboth these industries.

The handful of these women that still survive could not comprehend the taking of pristine land thatto them meant peace and tranquillity to be substituted by soiled land that brought back memories of war andsacrifice. The building of Transit Orientated Development on their St Clair Reserve represented a trespass upon theirtreasured soil.

Park benches a legacy of Councillor Lyall Aird a World War two Soldier and member of thePost War Burial Parties will no longer sit on the reserve in the places known in the hearts and minds of grieving warwidows and families. The comfort offered to them during those times by his dear wife Gwen will never be forgotten.

As I walked back to my car I reflected on that autumn day in March 1962 when as a student fromLeFevre Boys Technical High School I attended the Official Opening of St Clair Youth Centre and surroundingreserve by the Premier Sir Thomas Playford himself a veteran of the First World War.

I listened intently to his speech and recognition of the 1942 petitioners as it was to be part of bothour English and History Studies [at school].

Later as a young adult being told by the Government the difference between a democracy and adictatorship was the fundamental right of plebiscite I was conscripted to Vietnam.

I took the words of broken promises from Australian Politicians with me into combat but as aSouth Australian I remained proud of our State Politicians unbroken promises to the ex-service community.

The current members of State Parliament who support the Woodville Station Development PlanAmendment should bow their heads in shame and the State Minister for Veterans Affairs should resign forthwith,Lest We Forget.

And that was the submission that I wrote to him in disgust.

118 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, councillor Grant. We are running out of time.

Mr GRANT: I've got my submission.

119 The CHAIRPERSON: There are things which you can table and which we willreceive as evidence.

Mr GRANT: Yes, I will. I'll just perhaps tell you my closing statement. It won'ttake long.

120 The CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

Mr GRANT: This is really what I've come here to ask. I ask that the stateparliament enact amendments to the Local Government Act 1999, as discussed in the2011 Ombudsman's report, removing the eligibility of paid employees engaged in the offices ofmembers of parliament and/or ministers of the Crown from candidacy in council elections as is thecase in Victoria.

R. GRANT


I ask that state parliament enact amendments to the Development Act 1993 toenshrine in council development plans minimum amounts of open space required to overcome thecurrent shortage of ovals and playing fields for the community needs. I ask that the state parliamentenact the proposed December 2009 amendments to the Local Government Act 1999 enshrining anelectors' poll before a council sells community land that lapsed at the joint house deadlockconference when the Liberal opposition withdrew their support.

I ask that the state parliament re-enact the 1934 Local Government Act provisionsauthorising a mayor to call a public meeting and to be directed by the results of any poll conductedat the meeting by the mayor. I ask that the state parliament not support the Woodville StationDevelopment Plan Amendment 2013 that dedicates St Clair Reserve as a war memorial park as abenefit for future generations of all our citizens and respect for all its past generations of deceasedservice men and women.

I ask that in the public interest, if the state parliament is prorogued for theMarch 2014 state election prior to this honourable committee completing its deliberations, that ajudicial officer be appointed to complete its work and reach a finding.

121 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, councillor Grant. You would have beeninterviewed as part of the Ombudsman's report.

Mr GRANT: I was.

122 The CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any comments about the Ombudsman'sreport?

Mr GRANT: I've got my transcript and I have some comment. The report involvesmembers of parliament and spouses of members of parliament. I can see there is going to bedefamation, so I would rather do it in camera because I'm not going to start a war, but it's up to you.

123 The CHAIRPERSON: Councillor Grant, we can receive documents underparliamentary privilege, and we can receive it in confidence as well, if that would suit you.

Mr GRANT: Yes, I'll do that. The other thing I will touch on in these documents is aletter relating to the Anti-Corruption Branch of the South Australian police force. The letter justsimply says:

The Anti-Corruption Branch has conducted inquiries into allegations of impropriety in the ballot forthe election of deputy mayor concerning concerns relating to an anomaly in a series of statutory declarationssubmitted by some councillors. The matter has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It has beendecided no criminal charges will be laid in relation to the allegations. In line with the ruling, the Anti-CorruptionBranch will not conduct any further inquiries. There are some concerns as to the appropriateness of the actions ofone of the councillors after the ballot. This will be addressed directly with that person. I thank you for your patienceand understanding in this matter.

That's dated 18 September 2006.

124 The CHAIRPERSON: As a member of the Australian Labor Party, which is theparty of government, what commitments do you understand were made regarding St Clair orCheltenham or any of those parcels of land?

Mr GRANT: It's very difficult if I'm a member of the Australian Labor Party to go ona council and make a decision which is at variance with the state government or thecommonwealth government. If I was employed by a minister or a member of parliament and I wasin the local government and I had to get up and say, 'Well, I'm going to vote on council contrary towhat the state government is doing or what the federal government is doing,' I could just imaginewhat would happen. What would happen is they would say to this poor old member of parliament,'Even your own staff do the opposite of what you say.' You would put yourself in an awful, invidioussituation.

You shouldn't be in that situation. So, that is why, in Victoria, the Ombudsman—and I've got it in that recommendation—if you work for a member of parliament or a minister of thecrown, you get excluded from local government because there is a straight out conflict of interest;that's a problem.

125 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Leaving aside the issue of the war memorial nature of thepark, you did refer to earlier historical documents which have led people to believe that this is a

R. GRANT


park, it is for the people of the area, it is for recreation; it is not for anything else. But, what we oftenfind is that, whilst that might have been the intention, it can be undone, and that is what we haveseen in the case here: it was undone by virtue of the land swap. In fact, I was thinking of one whereI think there was a bequest of land and it was 130 years old, and it now has flats on it—that wasdown at Glenelg, but that's just by the way. These things can be undone.

The question, I think, for us in relation to land swaps and alienating communityland, is: what test should apply? I just want to make it clear what your recommendation was at theend, because I think you alluded to it. You said you preferred the method that was used under the1934 local government act, where you would have effectively an electors poll, and local peoplewould decide what the fate of the land to be.

At present, as you well know, it is basically the council and the minister, and theyeffectively between them decide whether or not community land classification will be removed. Isyour recommendation to us that we need to revisit the community land revocation mechanism andgo back to something that is more locally democratic, where local people get to vote on whetherparks should be swapped, for example, for other pieces of land? Is that your recommendation?

Mr GRANT: That is exactly what I am saying, because it needs to have some localcommunity involvement. As a councillor, in my council area I know at the moment we are 18 to19 playing fields or oval short for our current population. If we double the population, what's thatgoing to make us? It will make us 36 ovals or playgrounds short. The children we have got now,what are going to do with them? They are going to play on the streets, play on the railway lines. Wejust haven't got anywhere for them to play; they can't do anything. We are not doing anything aboutit, and it is just making it worse.

Eventually, something is going to have to be done, because we just cannot keepgoing the way we're going, and we are not making an honest attempt to address the 18 or 19 ovalsshort that we have at the moment. It doesn't have to be for professional sport, it can just be forrecreational purposes. And that is why you should be speaking to the local community, and askthem, 'Have you got anywhere for the kids to go and play? Have you got anywhere for mum to goand have a picnic?'

126 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, councillor Grant. I think we are out of time, sothank you for your presentation.

Mr GRANT: Thank you.



MEMBERS:


WITNESS:

TOLLEY WASYLENKO, Councillor, City of Charles Sturt, called and examined:

127 The CHAIRPERSON: Councillor Wasylenko, welcome to the meeting.

Mr WASYLENKO: Good morning.

128 The CHAIRPERSON: I don't think you were here when I read the screed out to thegallery, but you might have been here at the last one—

Mr WASYLENKO: Last two.

129 The CHAIRPERSON: —so you know the context. We are trying to speed thingsup a bit, so I assume you understand the general content of it. Councillor Wasylenko, do youunderstand the principle of parliamentary privilege and those things?

Mr WASYLENKO: Yes.

130 The CHAIRPERSON: Okay, great; proceed whenever you are ready.

Mr WASYLENKO: Thank you. I have two issues I wish to raise, in bundle form.One is—because of the timeframe and by the time I got the letter—the transcripts of radio station5AA of 25/10, 30/10 and 4/11. I am happy to submit those in USB form, but I am waiting for theactual written transcripts. I understand, from Anthony, that I can submit those; if I can get themback, it would be handy, and, if not, you can have them.

131 The Hon. M. PARNELL: If they are radio transcripts and you have got the dates,and they were 5AA, then we all get government Media Monitoring so we actually do get thesetranscripts anyway; we just need the dates.

Mr WASYLENKO: We asked for it from council, because of the significance of theissue, and they said, 'Yep, fine; you can give me $730.' Well, that's not going to happen.

132 The Hon. M. PARNELL: We have the dates. I reckon we could get the transcriptsourselves.

Mr WASYLENKO: I am happy to submit it in this context because that is relevantto your terms of reference and also I will submit this file with the supporting documents of mycommentary and statements I am about to make. I was advised—again, because I haven't got thecopies. I have most of it but I understood that I could have this back. If I can, I thank the selectcommittee on the land exchange and the land realignment of St Clair for the invitation to make thecomments and present submissions supporting my comments and opinions.

I will start by advising the committee that as far back as 2000—and I think it isrelevant to get the full picture of where it went, how it started and what actually went on—as one ofthe councillors covering the Cheltenham suburb, I got wind that the SAJC was about to announcethe restructuring of its industry. I heard that three existing racetracks were not sustainable in SouthAustralia and moves were about to take place to cease racing at Victoria Park and the sale of theCheltenham racecourse despite the sale of the TAB by the then state Liberal government.

Over the proceeding decade and even more, water use, drought and flooding werealways the hot topics within our council. The City of Charles Sturt had problems of flooding aroundthe city, but more noticeable were the catchment drains down Old Port Road and Port Road itself.The existing drains could simply not cope. The overflow and backwash were causing localbusiness infrastructure and road safety traffic problems. The City of Charles Sturt drainage systemcaptured and dumped millions of litres of water into the Port River. Over the next few years debate

T. WASYLENKO


hotted up about the catchment but the City of Charles Sturt was always outbid for water projectsabove other councils. They could not get all the boxes ticked, and I was part of that on the assets.

In the first instance, along with many residents, we voiced our concerns over thesale of Cheltenham racecourse. As the months progressed it became clear it was on—that is, thesale of the Cheltenham racecourse—subject to its membership agreeing and eventually it passedto sell the course. My first reaction was: what was going to happen to approximately 50 hectares ofland and were we going to get heavy industry? Were we going to get a combination of housingindustry and some leftover additional open space? Nobody was very sure but what I and manyothers were sure about was that the council, the City of Charles Sturt, would nearly bankrupt itself ifit tried to buy via borrowings the whole parcel of land and construct it for other uses.

Councillor Grant told a subsequent council meeting that then the MHR RodSawford was going to secure federal funding. Nothing happened. Many believed at the time thatnothing would happen. The issue of Sheridan/Actil also came into the mix later. In the electionof 2003 we saw new younger, well-accredited academic councillors come on board, and that iswhat really started the protest over the hard asks—questions and commitments towards the futurefrom a holistic point of view. After the decision and eventual sale of the Cheltenham racecoursewith the approval of its SAJC members, the council position had to change from opposing the saleto how we could get the best outcomes for our city and from the former construction firm,Stockland.

The land was sold to the current joint ventures and discussions began, rezoningfrom one special use to other zoned uses to suit. To the best of my knowledge, the staff contractorsand maybe some consultants put forward some conceptual ideas at a workshop which at this pointthere had been more open discussions about open space, transport needs, housing, TODs, andthe big water problem. As the clock moved forward the state government and federal governingcouncil got into some really serious talks about the project, now known as Water Proofing theWest. Council then entered into discussions with the Grange golf course to divert stormwater fromthe newly constructed wetlands through its stormwater system. This came on the back of newlyconstructed stormwater pipes due to the noxious weed, Caulerpa taxifolia, that was discovered inthe lakes in West Lakes and threatened to go into the Barcoo Inlet and Port River.

Moving on, eventually the state and federal government, joint ventures and councilgot all the boxes ticked to enhance the areas bounded by Torrens Road, Cheltenham Parade, therailway line and Woodville Road. This construction included affordable housing, award-winninghouses, new businesses and, best of all, finally capturing and storing stormwater that was currentlybeing dumped. The Water Proofing the West project was ambitious and the largest project of itskind in South Australia for a metropolitan council. It was envisaged to span works overapproximately seven years. The project in whole would cost approximately $85 to $95 million ofvarious stages combined. The council was successful in its application and negotiations for the firsttime and subsequently a plan was formulated to take to the people.

The key points mentioned above were that everything viewed was viewed as acomplete project and not just pockets of segments of land. Sections or groups had their ownpersonal agenda. Some protest groups tried to impose their will upon others who were simplytrying to get involved, contribute and understand the project that was put before them.

This was evident when council held meetings, charrettes and other smaller publichearing meetings around the city. The protest groups ensured that they dominated debate,dominated input and dominated the language used around the project during those communityconsultation processes.

Mayor Kirsten Alexander claimed in this committee that the former councillor AnnaRau and current councillors Jim Fitzpatrick and I were ringleaders. I respond by way of absolutelyrejecting such ridiculous claims. Councillor Anna Rau, during her term on council, was a highlyrespected and sought after person due not only to her extensive legal credentials as a barrister, herplanning expertise and other academic qualifications; she was a senior councillor and, of course,people would seek the opinion of such a highly respected person.

In relation to my being part of the ringleaders at the time, I have been on thecouncil for 11 years and, as a former public servant of 27 years with extensive knowledge of local

T. WASYLENKO


government, my opinion and comment was sought by many of the younger councillors who camein in 2000 and 2003, and I happily gave it. Not everything I said was taken up, but I got a hearing.

Mayor Kirsten Alexander's unsubstantiated claims are rejected as fanciful andunsubstantiated. Mayor Kirsten Alexander should apologise to this committee for making suchridiculous claims. However, at the same time, I felt quite flattered that I could ever command such ahold on many highly credentialled councillors at the time. In fact, I sought opinions to try to get abalanced view from other council members, not the other way around.

I draw the committee's attention to the submission, itemised Nos 1 to 15, which areincluded for reference. In my index 1, it outlines the factual details of the many benefits that theproject and the area have captured. I also have enclosed a map clearly showing details of theparcel of land that is the subject matter of this committee's inquiry. I think it is important to point outthat this map shows the actual parcel of land we are discussing.

All the green areas in this section (part A) of the map are currently council-ownedland. In relation to the St Clair land swap, there are some stories going around that the communityis going to lose all of that land. Well, that is absolutely not true either. The parcel of land wasdivided in half. This was exchanged for the Actil site after two environmental studies and anindependent auditor cleared the land of some contamination, which was proven not to be leachableor which would hurt people or endanger people's lives. But that is not the perception they have putabout. They talk about a pristine park. In actual fact, we don't even know, from my understanding,what is even underneath this particular parcel of land.

After the council's endorsement of the DPA and it had put its wish list to the DPAC,this is the section of the land. The reason I am mentioning this is that there is 13,200 squaremetres that we are going to get back—the 12½ per cent, the additional 9 per cent plus, dependingon the yield, between 22 and 28 per cent. That more than covers the 1,400 square metres they arealleging we were duped in relation to the roads that were to come into this development site.

When you look at things as a whole project, you have to look at it as a project. Nogovernment, authority or endorsed body would take something piecemeal and say, 'Here is thepicture.' It is like a jigsaw puzzle: you have to put the whole picture to make it look the wholepicture, and this exactly what happens. In my submission, that is in index 1.

On top of that, the information in index 2 provides the actual motion and preamblethat the majority of council endorsed to create the St Clair memorial on council-owned land. This isa motion that I put up to council, after eight weeks of delay, to get the motion before it. It was finallyendorsed and accepted by council that we would create a memorial on council-owned land. Wehad no authority to do it on government land.

There was an original motion put up by councillor Grant late at night, taken withoutnotice, after councillors asked for information, officer comment, officer report, and we were deniedthat. A motion was put up, it was rescinded, and then it was put up again by, I think, councillorGrant, and that went unchallenged because, at the same time, I put the motion up for council to doits bit.

That was on the back of several reports that came forward within index 3 and 4.They wanted a small area that they could reflect on, for remembrance, but for all the veterans, notjust a select group. Granted, there was a petition in 1942. If you count the number of petitionsbetween 1942 and probably now (70-odd years) there are probably thousands. Not everything getstaken up. I've read—and I'm actually a tragic for reading Hansard—petitions that have come to thisparliament—

133 The CHAIRPERSON: That's a worry.

Mr WASYLENKO: Well, I think it should be mandatory in school educationprograms. We do learn a lot out of them, but what I look at is the debate and the request that is putforward. I don't see every one of them being put up. I don't see every petition that is put before thehouse endorsed and the house condemned for not endorsing it. It happens. I think one of yourcommittee members said earlier that requests are made all the time. Over 70 years, if there isn'tsome form of event on a community park, whether it be a ceremonial event or an endorsed event, Iwould be surprised. But there is a big difference between an event being held on a community park

T. WASYLENKO


and then claiming that that becomes sacrosanct and sacred land. That's outrageous. That's not theproper application of that type of event that is being held.

I understand that the dawn service they had recently—I will stand corrected on theinformation I have, until I can get it in writing—was not an endorsed RSL event. Fine, they canhave their event and, if that's the case, that could happen. In my submission, in index 3, thereshould—

There being a disturbance:

Mr WASYLENKO: Can I have this without interruption? Thanks. The originalrequest by councillor Grant put before the council late at night, without any regard of notice, offersa comment or sought after information. This motion was subsequently rescinded as council had nocontrol of the land it did not own. A letter was sent to the Premier on the basis that we would get acomment and a response. It was never an instruction, it was never an endorsement that we weregoing to do what we're doing. The motion was very clear.

This was an unprecedented move considering that council's policy clearly outlinesthat only motions of urgency should ever be accepted without notice. After it was rescinded the firsttime, it was put up without notice once again and accepted by the mayor. This was notrechallenged. It was on the same night of 3 June 2013; a motion to create the St Clair WarMemorial for all veterans was appropriately put on notice after eight weeks of delays and acceptedby council and endorsed.

In index 3, there have been allegations by Mayor Kirsten Alexander that councildumbed down this consultation and the community didn't understand what was happening. Well, Itotally refute that because, within my index, there are six pages of the actual consultation processthat was carried out in accordance with council-endorsed communication and the engagement planof 9 June 2009. And in accordance with the opinion of the ombudsman, council did more than itwas required to do under the revocation process as well. Council met its prudential requirements,council met its probity requirements; nobody was dumbed down. There were charrettes, there werecommunity meetings, there were banners put up on parks. For anybody to suggest that peopledidn't understand I think is an insult to the intelligence of those community people.

As I said, in the index 3, there have been allegations by Mayor Kirsten Alexanderthat council dumbed down this consultation and that the community didn't understand what washappening. This index clearly shows the extent of the many various forms that council had in thisengagement plan. They thoroughly consulted in many different forms. The ombudsman clearlystated that council did not deceive or intend to deceive throughout this consultation process. Yes,the council was vindicated, not only in law but also for its application to create a new suburb andget as many opportunities as it could for its current and future generations.

There have been some within the St Clair faction, in council and outside, thatperpetuated that the community were dudded. How can we dud the community when we startedwith 104,000 square metres—and you have to take it in a holistic view from Torrens Road toWoodville Road to the railway line to Cheltenham Parade. Council owned 104,000 square metres.We have ended up with over 300,000 square metres of open space in various forms ofaccessibility, bike tracks, walking trails, waterways. And, on top of that, 480 Olympic-sizedswimming pools of water is going to be saved a year, going back to those communities in St Clair.They weren't dudded. They got a good deal. Dudding in the geographical sense of 4.7 from 4.7—geographically, it is exactly the same.

The next question is: okay, what happens after that? 'Oh, you didn't tell them youwere going to lose roads.' Well, if you're going to add another piece to the equation, you have toadd the other components of the equation. But, hang on, we not only know of the 4.7 that werealigned the oval to get a contiguous piece of land all the way through to Cheltenham Parade, weare going to get 12½ per cent back; we knew that. We got an extra 9 per cent back from thegovernment to make it 22 per cent. That's in the DPA, and that's agreed, but then there is the yieldfactor, again, between 22 and 28 that they going to get set. Nearly 13,000 square metres we aregoing to get back in exchange for 1,400 lost on roads. But that is adding another question.

The question was asked: were they dudded? They weren't. The land was what itwas. But, when you add up the other components, as I said earlier if you're going to add in another,component of the 1,400 square metres of roads, you've got to add the other components of what

T. WASYLENKO


also transpired after that. So I totally reject that claim based on what I have just said. As the claimsuggested, a deliberate deception by the Corporation of the City of Charles Sturt was formulatedand acted on. I put to you the claim is untrue, based on the figures that we've got.

Well, the figures clearly do not support the claims, and they are in appendix 3,which shows you the land, square metre by square metre, that we got that we never used to have.There was always a scare, as I mentioned in my first point, of what was going to happen to that50 hectares of land, what was going to happen to the Actil site. At one stage, the then racingminister, Iain Evans, was curious. I don't think he actually said there was going to be heavyindustrial, but the SAJC were in the best place to make that decision, and discussions were in thecommunity about it was going to be industrial land.

We didn't want that. For the first time ever in a metropolitan area we nearly had ablank canvas to work from. And our job was to get the best deal we could for the people; and byrealignment, they never lost it. We exchanged a parcel of land, realigned it; it is still there for abigger, better park, and even touted by Stephen Waugh as the best suburban playing surface thathe's ever played cricket on, at two Waugh in the West programs which promote sport. Not only dowe get millions of dollars of the waterway projects, not only do we get new facilities, but, hopefully,depending on the outcomes of the DPA, we will get a brand-new Woodville station. St Clair stationwas approved recently; and the station plaza, we got extra land out of there. The whole area as apackage is an unbelievable project.

The visionary project, I believe, has exceeded all expectations, which would servethe communities with immediate benefits and for generations to come. As one astute person said,'St Clair is a diamond in the rough and every day a new facet is created and another sparkleshines.' What a wonderful description to a whole project, and it does require to be taken as aproject in whole. To sectionalise the whole project is, in effect, quoting out of context from a pageor a report—you can't. You can't concentrate on one aspect and say this is it. I had a group ofladies from Woodville say, 'We walk around this section of St Clair all the time,' and they said, 'Nowlook what you've done. We've got to walk another 100 metres.' Well, isn't that the point? But that'sokay. Some people had difficulty in accepting some change.

The effort engaged to try and discredit the SAJC and the award-winning designand massive increase in open space and the millions of dollars of ancillary benefits, the biggestwater project in the western suburbs by council, by those hell-bent on stopping the project, did notstop there. Mayor Kirsten Alexander, Councillor Robert Grant, Nancy Fahey and Kelly Thomaswent further and actually created a mechanism and a device to fabricate the spreading of theashes of Harry Guy.

In the transcript here is John Guy himself on radio totally rejecting it. He said, 'Theashes of my father are not spread over the oval and over the reserves.' They are at the bottom ofthe tree in two cylinders of Gwyneth, the wife, and Harry, the subject, John's father—they are incylinders at the bottom of the tree. That particular tree off Stanley Street—when you go into StanleyStreet opposite the reserve—walk across the road, stand on the back of the curb, and walk directlyin front of you west 70 metres, that is where the tree is. And, guess where it is? It's on council land.But regardless of that, whether the government ends up with it or we end up with it, depending onthe DPA outcome, it's always been said that that would be preserved, and I'm with John Guy onthat basis.

134 The CHAIRPERSON: Councillor Wasylenko, do you have much more that you—

Mr WASYLENKO: No. I would like to just finish a couple of points. There itself, Ieven heard in here this morning the spreading of the ashes when I walked across the park inremembrance. It took Paul Makin one phone call. We had been telling them for ages that there areno ashes on that oval and Guy's ashes are not there. It took Paul Makin one phone call to talk tothe son and he came down and showed him where his father's cylinder was at the bottom of thetree and said, 'There's no ashes'—because they had had enough of it. Talk to them. I ask thiscommittee to ring them up because that is an outrageous lie.

That was part of the foundation for creating public hysteria and making peoplebelieve it. If it was true I would be the first one saying, 'Hey, don't.' But they have been exposedand now we're all waiting for what the next episode will be. On the exposure of the lie about thespreading of the ashes by mayor Kirsten Alexander—quote, 'Councillors Robert Grant, Nancy

T. WASYLENKO


Fahey and Kelly Thomas and her faction group, many believe that the public apology not only tothe surviving Guy family but to all the members and the people that were infected by theirstatements.' On and on again they played on the merits and the lives of those people that servedthis country. I believe that that is disgusting.

I believe that this exposed lie will take a long time to heal and mayor KirstenAlexander and councillor Robert Grant should resign immediately from council, out of allconscience for what they have done. They knew, but persisted and one only needs to look at thesubmissions made to DPAC for the Woodville DPA—even the RSL did a 180-degree turn on itsopinion compared to what was originally said. On the research and statements and the conclusionsin appendix 4 and appendix 5 there are letters where the RSL said it didn't want a memorial.

In council itself—and there's a letter from a former veteran, William Swan, an emailof 22 April, 2013 condemning councillor Grant for the way he was behaving—and he is a veteranhimself. The St Clair community land revocation engagement summary, appendix 6; a reportrequired under section 194 is in appendix 7; in index 8, council minutes of 9 August, confirm theresults of a research that we did in combination with all the RSL sub-branches and the RSL on9 August 2010, and they themselves said it is not a war memorial park. They themselves said it isnot a war memorial and they also—in additional material I've got here—said out of the16 memorials that we have within our city, most of the RSLs if not all, hold their meetings at theirRSL clubs.

Events can be held up there. There's a history in index 9 pertaining to the St ClairWoodville, including the site map, extracts and comment from the state president, not supporting awar memorial and the statement that the site was a dedicated memorial in the area were incorrect.They themselves said it. The Messenger Weekly Times article of 24 March quoting statementsabout the memorial issue—again, condemning that it's not a memorial.

135 The CHAIRPERSON: Councillor Wasylenko, I think you have made your pointthere. We would like a few minutes, if possible, to ask you some questions. Were there any otherpoints that you really needed to make? I assume that everything you have is contained in yoursubmission.

Mr WASYLENKO: If I could just make my concluding statement and then I willgo to—there is an index.

136 The CHAIRPERSON: Very quickly.

Mr WASYLENKO: I believe that mayor Kirsten Alexander, who lives close to theWoodville railway intersection—only 175 metres if the numbers are correct—will capture thebenefits on the outcomes of the railway station because that is a major—and the only exit and entryinto that thing on the west side and the east side from the St Clair development, and has engagedin a personal campaign to involve not only apprehended bias, which is evident from the use of hercasting vote and continual interruptions during council meetings and council committees, andpersonal vendettas towards councillors who are not in line with her faction group, and her failure tobe fair and impartial on the balance in her rulings on points of order; excluding selected councillorsto represent the City of Charles Sturt from functions where she personally selects, excludingothers, to go and represent to more than likely—and in my opinion—to enhance and for them toreceive kudos in the public area. Note that the council invitations are for the city and the office, theyare not hers personally.

137 The CHAIRPERSON: Councillor Wasylenko, these issues are really outside of ourterms of reference.

Mr WASYLENKO: It said 'and relative matters'. This is how the behaviour of thearguments of the St Clair whole process works.

138 The CHAIRPERSON: I'm not interested in the personalities of the City of CharlesSturt—I'm really not. I'm only interested in facts.

Mr WASYLENKO: No, and they are the facts on how it's all being pushed.

139 The CHAIRPERSON: That is your opinion—

Mr WASYLENKO: No, I am saying this is how it all gets pushed towards theSt Clair—

T. WASYLENKO


140 The CHAIRPERSON: We need to wrap up. I'm going to stop you there.

Mr WASYLENKO: Okay. I'm happy to answer questions.

141 The CHAIRPERSON: My question is: in your contribution you said that the entiretyof what is happening within the council needs to be taken as a package, is that correct?

Mr WASYLENKO: That is correct, on St Clair.

142 The CHAIRPERSON: My understanding, in relation to St Clair, is that it was drivenby the transport-oriented development, and I think, from memory, that is what the council CEO hadsaid. Do you have any comment on that?

Mr WASYLENKO: No; the whole lot was debated, in its entirety. Because youcan't debate everything at once you debate things as sectional things, but from a holistic view wewere always of the mind of, 'What is the whole package going to give the community?'

143 The CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying, then, that if Water Proofing the West didn'ttake place then the St Clair land swap wouldn't take place?

Mr WASYLENKO: That is hypothetical. I'm not sure what would have eventuatedout of that; but it would certainly have changed the whole complex, the whole process. There was a30-year plan, there was a transport discussion. TODs are not new; I had people saying that TODswere a new thing but they've been around for quite a while, Adelaide is just catching up with someof the other cities.

I believe things would probably have stagnated a fair bit, had that not happened.But there were moments, at the time, and I agree with you, that we had to seize the opportunities ofeverything as a parcel. It couldn't be taken as a sector because everything flowed on from one tothe other; the whole of the wetlands, the whole of the open space, capturing, the exchange and therealignment of the oval, which produced a bigger and better park, and the creation then of an extra181.3 per cent of open space that we never used to have—

144 The CHAIRPERSON: You have made these points.

Mr WASYLENKO: So that includes the land realignment.

145 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Earlier in your presentation you mentioned that protestgroups dominated the debate; they didn't win the debate, but in your view they dominated thedebate. You have defended the process and you have defended the outcome, saying that you thinkit is a good outcome for your city. My question is whether, in hindsight, things might have been ableto be done a little bit differently that may have satisfied different parts of the community?

For example, it often struck me that rather than having a debate about how manysquare metres people were dudded or not, if the issue had been a two for one land swap, or athree for one land swap, or something radically different do you think, in hindsight, if council hadtried to err on the side of more rather than less open space—bearing in mind councillor Grant'sanalysis of the western suburbs being short-changed with open space—could this have been doneany better?

Mr WASYLENKO: On the first point about the shortage of open space, thewestern suburbs, as you would be aware from history, was one of the earliest suburbs established.This is an established suburb. How are you going to uproot areas of Hindmarsh, Croydon,Woodville and all those and suddenly say, 'Look, we're short'? There were homes, businesses andeverything else; this was an established area. To suggest that after all this establishment that on asquare metre basis we are short; well, not really.

To answer your question, there is a report out now saying that South Australia, inits park lands and conservation zones, is the highest out of the mainland states per square metreor something (I don't have the exact words). We should be proud of that, but you can't go aroundclaiming that we are 20 ovals short in an area. If you take the square metres of 20 ovals, by thenormal definition of the size of an oval, and try to place it around our city, you would probably wantto have half a billion dollars to go and uproot all these established suburbs and homes. It isunrealistic.

146 The Hon. M. PARNELL: But isn't that why people wanted to hang on to more openspace where it already existed?

T. WASYLENKO


Mr WASYLENKO: That is exactly right, and that is why we did originally own104,000 square metres. We increased the content as a whole in the new St Clair suburb by181.3 per cent. That is a fantastic outcome. It was at risk of becoming industrial land; that was theconcern. We had no control. Stocklands had sold it to the joint venturers. Had those negotiationsnot happened and had we not ticked all those boxes, not only would we still be dumping480 Olympic-sized swimming pools of water down the Port River, we would still have Port Roadflooding, we would still have everything flooding. That was part of the package that I'm saying hadto be taken into consideration.

147 The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just very quickly, and this might even be a one wordanswer: particularly from reading the Ombudsman's report, this has been difficult for, I think, a lot ofpeople involved in the council. Are you optimistic about how the new St Clair area is going todevelop over time?

Mr WASYLENKO: I read out a statement that I heard from a very astute personthat today it is a diamond—well, as you know, about three years ago it was a diamond in the rough.Every day I've had people who are moving from Fulham, an established area with lots of parksdown there, uprooting where they've lived and going to St Clair. I have one of the members of theLegislative Council who has a friend, I think it is Tammy Franks, who said that her friend isuprooting where she lives and is established and is moving to St Clair. The future is very clear.

Again, hypothetically—if I could ever use the hypothetical visionary things: couldhave, should have, would have—it is the same application, with respect to this committee, thatapplies to the parliament when you make your laws and the courts are overturning them. You havemade stuff-ups, and you have the best brains trust before you, crown law and everything, givingyou advice. Things happen.

Could we have done something better? Using hindsight, yes, I should have pickedlast week's lotto numbers too if I knew they were the ones. I think, in hindsight, we can alwaysimprove on using after event known facts that we could have, should have, would have. But I think,talking about the domination—I don't think those particular faction groups that are aligned, andprobably mayor Kirsten Alexander owes a high debt to for her election campaign when she stoodfor state parliament in the upper house, along with David Winderlich—they expected a return.There wasn't much room to move. It was all or nothing. We saw them, they plastered those walls,but that was the essence of the community engagement. You are talking about getting a fairbalance. How can you get a balance when it's dominated like that?




WITNESSES:

KEVIN HAMILTON and MAUREEN HAMILTON, called and examined:

149 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. You were here when I read out thebit at the beginning?

Mr HAMILTON: Yes, and I understand the parliamentary procedure, having beenin this crazy place for many years.

150 The Hon. M. PARNELL: It hasn't changed.

151 The CHAIRPERSON: So, when did you serve, Mr Hamilton?

Mr HAMILTON: I served from 1979 to 1993. I was the member for Albert Park. Ilived in the area since 1968. I doorknocked every house on every street. I know the westernsuburbs of Adelaide very well and I still communicate very strongly, as my wife and I do.

152 The CHAIRPERSON: Do you have some opening remarks you would like tomake?

Mr HAMILTON: I have plenty. Unlike the previous speaker, Mr Wasylenko, anapologist for the Labor Party, I would like to—I was watching a program the other night which said,'The greatest deceiver is one who lies to himself.' My formal submission is this: thank you for theopportunity to place before this select committee my deep and profound conviction that the St ClairReserve should be retained in perpetuity to honour our servicemen and women who fought inWorld Wars I and II and other global conflicts in which the Australian forces have served, many ofwhom made the supreme sacrifice for us.

No doubt your committee is aware that the St Clair Reserve was the subject ofpetition in 1942 by 1,072 ratepayers of Woodville to dedicate this land to our servicemen andwomen in World War II and those who had fought and served during World War I.

At this juncture, I must declare an emotional and passionate interest in recognisingour war veterans, as my grandfather, from my mother's side, and my grandfather's brother Louisboth served in World War I. The latter lost his life in France and was buried in an unmarked grave,later discovered by my nephew Gary Turner, who is still serving his country, and see the attachedcutting which I have marked for you. Moreover, my uncle, Sergeant Robert Hamilton, the originaldigger on the post in World War I, enlisted and joined the SA 10

thRegiment (see the attached

newspaper cuttings). You will see in the articles that he was hit by shrapnel and blinded in Gallipoli.

Similarly, my father Cyril Hamilton, like his brother Robert Hamilton, was born and bred inSemaphore/Port Adelaide. He enlisted in World War I (underage) and World War II. From the ageof seven years I personally witnessed the impact on my father from the aftermath of World War IIand the lack of government assistance to deal with the horrors of war. Like many others, hesuffered in silence. Now it is called post-traumatic stress syndrome. In memory of my forebearsand other servicemen and servicewomen, I made four submissions to the Charles Sturt council,one in which I said, in part:

I do not belong to any political party. I am angry and disillusioned with the current Labor Party—state and federal. I have been a lifelong supporter of the Labor Party and served the Labor Party in this place. Irefuse to rejoin the Labor Party this year because of their policies and what I believe. They weren't serving thewishes of the community at large.

It gives me no pleasure to make statements of that nature when you serve an organisation for somany years. I was once called an old Labor warhorse—Dunstan and Hamilton. I wore that as abadge of honour, but, unfortunately, that's been disabused by some of the comments that I havereceived and the machinations of those people who I believe are a Labor block on the CharlesSturt council.

We have received numerous representations and positive feedback about the needfor this park, St Clair, to be preserved. Contrary to what has been said here in this committee, thereis strong support from the RSL headquarters and sub branches of the RSL and other serviceorganisations in South Australia.

K. HAMILTONM. HAMILTON


153 The CHAIRPERSON: Just on that point, do you know what the status of St Clair isin relation to whether it has formal status within the RSL?

Mr HAMILTON: Sorry?

154 The CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether there is a particular status associatedwith the St Clair Reserve?

Mr HAMILTON: From the RSL? Yes, I think I'll leave that to the following speakerbecause he is the full bottle on it.

155 The CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

Mr HAMILTON: The decision to rescind the motion put up by councillor Grantpreviously to retain that park in perpetuity, in my opinion, was a disgrace—and why do I say that?For very obvious reasons. I challenged all the Charles Sturt councillors: had they conducted asurvey of ratepayers in their respective wards to determine support or otherwise for the St ClairReserve to remain as is to commemorate the sacrifices of our servicemen and servicewomen whofought, etc?

Not one councillor could put his or her hand up to say they had. Not one. How thehell can they sit on that council and say, 'This is what the community wants'? They can't say that,yet they opposed the plebiscite proposal I put forward; a plebiscite to determine once and for allwhat the community wants in the Charles Sturt council. Not one. Not one had the intestinalfortitude—and if I was in the pub I would use other words, but I won't—to determine once and forall to clear the air.

Let's find out what the community wants—not the diatribe that we have just heard amoment ago; let's find out once and for all what the community wants. Is it beyond the width of thecouncil to support a reasonable proposition that the community can have input into this? In thewestern suburbs, I was told by the late Mick Young, the relationship in the community is almostincestuous; the connections are so strong. And so it is within the returned servicemen andservicewomen, and those who have made those sacrifices.

On the St Clair Reserve, much to the chagrin of certain councillors, they deny theywould vote as a bloc, which stretches credibility to its limits. You can see in the attachmentscriticism of myself about the number of submissions that I had made. I am a passionate person; Ibelieve very strongly in those people who gave their all for this country, and those who sacrificed—who lost their loved ones and had to pick up the pieces after the war. That is why I am so bloodypassionate (excuse the language). I am so passionate about it!

Then we have the temerity of one of the councillors (councillor Auricht) in the presscutting which is attached, giving the mayor and I a serve about the number of presentations that Imade—so what? These are passionate issues. These strike at the very heart of our democracy,where people are passionate and have gone away to war and expect that, when they return, theyshould be looked after, and I concur 100 per cent with that. My wife, to her credit, together withother people, took up a petition which you are well aware of and which has been presented here tothis parliament.

I would like to digress for just one minute about the attacks upon the mayor. Neverbefore in my years in public life, including my 10 years in the trade union movement (the AustralianRailways Union), as state president, national executive member, international delegate, andincluding my two years that I served on the Charles Sturt council, have I ever witnessed suchdisrespect and blatant antagonism towards a chairperson. Deriding laughter, scoffing and outrightdisrespectful language was not uncommon. Moreover, two councillors sought advice from my wifeand I in relation to what they believe were bullying tactics by other councillors.

We suggested they should seek advice, both medical and legal, because I believefrom the stories they had told us that they were being bullied, and that is an offence if that beproven. Arrogance comes with knowing the bloc had the numbers on council. Irrespective of theargument—and you people know better than I, perhaps, that in the parliamentary arena there is anold saying: 'You can win all the arguments but give me the numbers every time.' That is what hashappened down there at that council.



For the previous Speaker to attack the mayor with his diatribe, I reckon it isreprehensible, and I can't sit here—I have no allegiance to any grouping, political party ororganisation; nor does my wife. I say it as I see it, and I think it is disgusting and outrageous that hewould attack the mayor. This is a democratic country: okay, he can have his say, but he doesn'thave to get down into the gutter and make these personal attacks.

In addition to that, there is no tape recording of the minutes of the Charles Sturtcouncil—no tape recording minutes. So, some of the councillors, unlike in Victoria, can make thesesnide remarks and snickers and all that sort of stuff, and then deny they said that afterwards, ormeant that. We have personally witnessed from the gallery these sorts of responses, and evenmyself accosted outside the chamber by one of the councillors who had a dip at me.

I believe that the recording of the council minutes should be restored as it waswhen I served on that council between 1997 and 1999. I left there because a family member had ahealth scare and she came first. Moreover, as you will see from my submissions, as with a numberof ratepayers who made submissions on this subject, there was an attempt by two councillors toharass and bully me during their questioning to me on this matter. I hit back by saying I am too oldin the head to fall for their harassing tactics and I think, honourable members, you can see by mydemeanour that I am not the sort of bloke who will be bloody bullied by anyone—no way.

I had some handwritten notes from that particular evening but I have misplacedthem. Councillor Auricht used words to myself and other assembled members in the gallery. Hecalled us repugnant and repulsive. These provocative and inflammatory remarks led me to lodge acode of conduct against Auricht. I am still waiting for a public apology. There are other matters hereI will come back to later on in terms of the flyer sent out by the Charles Sturt council, promoting thisdevelopment, which I believe was outrageous. That is enclosed here for your information. Also, theDPA notes are further on in my submission.

In response to the attack made upon me by Councillor Auricht, I wrote to theMessenger Press and I said that the comments by Councillors Auricht and Fitzpatrick could not gounanswered. They weren't printed; however, for the record, I said in part (which you havebefore you):

However both of you sat like stunned mullets when I sat in a previous Council Meeting if either ofyou and other Councillors had carried out a survey of your Ratepayers in your wards to determine whether or notthey supported or otherwise the retention of St. Clair Reserve as a Memorial Park in Perpetuity to Honour our fallenService men and Women who made the supreme sacrifice...

Then I said:

If it upsets you...TOUGH!...Hopefully our request for a Select Committee of the LegislativeCouncil of the State Parliament to enquire into all aspects of the land Swap, and the desire to retain The St. ClairReserve (for those who protected us) will provide you both with the opportunity to answer my basic questions. (1)Did you or did you not survey your ratepayers on this issue? (2) If not how can you represent the views of yourRatepayers? I trust the Legislative Select Committee will invite you to respond to these and many other questions.

Moreover, attached here I have a press cutting: 'What is the future for the Cheltenhamracecourse?' We have heard nothing but silence from the Libs. This is Councillor Wasylenko withhis finger pointing in the air with the candidate for Cheltenham, the now Premier. Leaflets were putout: 'Trust Jay? Sure can't.'

I wrote to the mayor in relation to the attacks made upon myself and my wife andall those people in the community. That is the letter of 20 May 2013. I said in that:

Since the last meeting of your Council on the 13th May 2013 I have reflected and considered atlength the utterances of Councillor Auricht in relation to the public debate surrounding the need to retain St. ClairReserve as a Memorial Park...In particular he claimed sections of the community were taking advantage of warveterans to meet their aims of saving St. Clair Reserve. If Councillor Auricht had any evidence of that before themeeting he did not produce it. He continued that he found the community's behaviour 'Repugnant' and 'Disgusting'.These assertions coupled with his aggressive presentation to other Councillors, and the large number of the public inattendance, drew an immediate hostile response, which they the public obviously found offensive including my wifeand myself.

These assertions drew interjections from the gallery, including myself, and clearly was deemedinsulting to well meaning people which I believe is a violation of 'Councils Code of Conduct Policy' [reference No.given].



Clearly, Your Worship, passions are running high in the community, on the issue of St. ClairReserve from passionate and sincere ratepayers from all walks of life, including Veterans at this Council meetingand it ill behoves any Councillor, to impute improper motives to those members of the community, who obviously,have a different opinion and or understanding on this matter.

Moreover by implication, persons like myself find such remarks as provocative, inflammatory,insulting and inappropriate remarks. Clearly these remarks by Cr Auricht were further inflamed by Cr Fitzpatrick, whorepeatedly tried to invoke a section of some document that enabled imposition of $500 fines on those assembled, forany disruption of proceedings and tried repeatedly, and in my view, to inappropriately invoke same.

Assertions made about the community's reasons and motives for supporting this Park andexploiting War Veterans are to the best....[of my] knowledge untrue. Councillor Auricht has seemingly failed torecognise the community's concern about this piece of heritage.

I go on further, which I will leave Legislative Councillors to read. I also have correspondence herefrom councillor Auricht to one Nancy Fahey, who is a prolific Letter to the Editor writer. In hiscorrespondence, he responded to Nancy Fahey. I think that is self-explanatory without my goinginto it. He further reiterate, I find his extreme language, 'this bile and nonsense distasteful in theextreme.' I received from lieutenant-commander RAN (retired) Paul Shiels, the following:

The Charles Sturt Council has not accepted the motion to dedicate the grounds of St Clair. Butthe fight is not over! The Council may have won this battle but, they have yet to win the war. Interestingly, themajority of those who voted against the motion were members of the ALP and it's the...Labor Government whowants to develop a housing and transport 'hub' on this site. It appears, as if this was a 'block' vote, to conform to thestate government's wishes.

Some councillors voting against the motion berated supporters of the motion, including veterans,calling them 'repugnant' and 'disgusting' and were extremely critical of any attempt to retain the present site....

I am using parts of his remarks, which I have tried to highlight. He goes on to say:

As a 20+ year veteran I feel insulted by the remarks. It is an indication of how these councillorshave manipulated the veterans position! Also, it appears that these councillors have little or no respect or concern forveterans voicing their opinion.

With the exception of ONE councillor who proposed the motion, those councillors who votedagainst it have never served in the Armed Forces and have absolutely no conception of the veteran's point of view.But they are very happy to join ex-service clubs, attend service funerals, attend Anzac Day services, but are verycagey in giving any recognition to veterans in return. How dare they then, 'label' veterans who supported the motionin the terms previously mentioned. I consider it is they who can be described in such terms and their total hypocrisyis patently obvious!

Many statements by these councillors on this issue are abhorrent and in fact have no veracity atall—they have assumed to interpret veterans thinking on this matter—they are totally and utterly wrong. As anex-serviceman I take...umbrage to their behaviour. Many ex-service organisations have tendered their support forthe retention of the park to council. It goes against the grain that these organisations would countenance lendingtheir support or ex-servicemen/women signing a petition, if influenced by a 'lobby' group.

In response to the letter forwarded to me that was passed on, the code of conduct, that informationis contained for honourable members and it details the local governance panel, in which they detailtheir investigation of the allegations that I made. In part it says—and I am being selective in part:

Other witnesses...assert that the public gallery was not unruly or disruptive by simply reacting (insome shock) at the level of heated debate and vitriol over this sensitive issue including Cr Auricht's use of thedescriptions 'repugnant and disgusting'.

It goes on to talk about the attempt to invoke the specific penalties outlined by councillorFitzpatrick. It goes on further:

Having considered all the evidence, the panel finds that in Matter 1, Cr Auricht has breachedSection 3 of the City of Charles Sturt Council Members Code of Conduct—

Then it goes on to the recommendations.

156 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Did you get your apology?

Mr HAMILTON: Not as yet. It says in part under the recommendations:

requires that Cr Auricht issue a public apology in a meeting of Council by way of Personal Explanation (LGProcedures at Meetings Regulation 16(2)) to Mr Hamilton and other members in the public gallery whowere offended by his remarks;



requires that Cr Fitzpatrick together with all Council Members attend professional development in theinappropriate behaviour under the Code of Conduct—

And so it goes on. It says here, 'adhere to its policy of allowing a maximum of two delegations permeeting,' which was fair and reasonable. I responded on 1 October, in which I said:

Dear Mayor,

I apologise for not responding as quickly from the correspondence sent from the CEO.

I said:

In response I wish to advise that Cr Auricht should issue an unqualified apology to

(1) Myself and my Wife

(2) To other Members of the public gallery who were offended by his remarks.

In addition I believe apologies as outlined above should occur within a half hour of the start of Council sitting.Moreover such apology should be accompanied by a press release by The Charles Sturt Council so as to remind allCouncillors and The Ratepayers of Charles Sturt of such findings and that such remarks are totally unacceptableand do little to enhance the reputation and confidence in The Charles Sturt Council.

In a subsequent deputation I raised a whole number of questions which are contained in thesubmission for you in relation to the history and the deeds, and my wife is a full bottle on that, morethan what I am. She's a lot more intelligent than I am, but anyhow. I asked a whole range ofquestions about—

157 The CHAIRPERSON: It's on the record.

Mr HAMILTON: It is, and I believe it very strongly. She is a very, very astute andvery clever woman, and that's on the public record, and I'm proud to put it on there because I loveher dearly. I point out again about the—

158 The CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hamilton, your evidence is formally tabled so it is goingto be received. Is there anything that is not in your tabled things?

Mr HAMILTON: Yes, there's a few things. I haven't mentioned that, but I will tablethat about the land and what they, and particularly councillor Wasylenko, said—his exact wordswere, 'What I want'—in terms of that park. It's not what he wants, honourable members, it's whatthe community wants and specifically the returned service men and women of this state. It's whatthey want and the organisations that represent them—what they want. But has anyone theintelligence to say, 'Let's sit down together with the council, the state government, the serviceorganisations and the community representatives to find out what they want'? No, they will not doit. I say to honourable members that I believe they are locked in, that is, these people on thecouncil, Labor supporters—and it hurts me to say that, but I call a spade a spade. I believe they arelocked in. They have been convinced that this is the way to go. Well, I refute that.

I believe in democracy. I opposed—as an aside—the royal commission into thelighting of Football Park in 1978. I was a Labor candidate for the seat at the time (which I won witha handful of votes, that is just as an aside), but with community support we overturned the decisionof Justice Allen in the lighting of Football Park, and that's a point I wanted to make.

I have also highlighted, throughout here, the DPA notes—the long version—andthe involvement of the Premier, who is strangely quiet. The local member is strangely quiet, a manI supported and endorsed, much to my chagrin today. I don't believe he is doing justice to hiscommunity any more than some of the other Labor people are. Why won't they carry out aplebiscite? Why won't they? Use the democratic tools that are available to determine, once and forall, what the community wants. No; they have been locked in. When you go through, inchronological order, the negotiations which took place, which is all there for you, I believe that thecommunity has been dudded. I believe that.

Finally, I believe that the heat is starting to have an impact—and I will wind up onthis. After my first deputation I received, from the Premier's office, the following day at 6pm, fromhis secretary, an invitation for my wife and I—

159 The CHAIRPERSON: That's in here, I think.



Mr HAMILTON: There's no such thing as a free lunch. Similarly later, and aftersubsequent deputations, from the Speaker of the House of Assembly, was a handwritten invitationfor my wife and I to join him in a meal in the Speaker's Dining Room. In part I would just like to saythis: honestly and frankly speaking, to break bread with someone whom we understand supportsthe Weatherill government's stance on the St Clair Reserve controversy would not serve any goodpurpose at this time.

Last but not least, the thing that really annoys me immensely, that angers me, isthis nonsense that has been peddled around by the proponents of that development. This is fromcouncillor Wasylenko on 23 April, when he said:

There is definitely a clear perception within the community that the abuse of the veteransargument after 70 years was disgraceful and was used to further the original anti development protest group withtheir all or nothing position.

I find that repugnant; if I can use the words of councillor Auricht, I find it offensive. Was theevidence produced at the council meeting, produced here in this honourable place? No, it was not.

I believe that those ringleaders, if you like, on the council, and the heavies in theLabor Party, including the Premier and the Speaker of the House, are greatly concerned about theimpact this is having out there in the community. There is no question. There has not been onepresentation to the Charles Sturt council in the time that I've been going along there by anyonesupporting council's proposition; not one. I haven't heard one. I would have thought that if therewas such support out there in the community why wouldn't they come along and argue the case, assome of these councillors are?

Last but not least, may I be so bold as to suggest that this issue could be thesubject of a commission of inquiry for further detailed investigations—that is, should yourcommittee deem it so necessary. It is my belief that the ratepayers of the City of Charles Sturt havebeen misled big time. It seems to me that obfuscation—misleading and plainly dishonestinformation has been foisted on the community of Charles Sturt. I thank honourable membersfor listening.

160 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hamilton. Mrs Hamilton, did you wish tomake any remarks?

Mrs HAMILTON: Yes.

161 The CHAIRPERSON: They will need to be quick.

Mrs HAMILTON: I won't be long, I hope. You have my folders there.

162 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We started late and we have one more witness so Ibetter give you two minutes.

Mrs HAMILTON: Two minutes?

163 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Seriously, we have gone over time.

Mrs HAMILTON: Basically you have what I have got there. My main thing andwhat I have witnessed when I went to the council meetings with my husband on the St Clair issueis the disrespect for the mayor. I mentioned that in my submission to you after page 1. Thedisrespect for the mayor, where Bob Randall, one of the councillors, sits with his feet on the deskand leans back in his chair like that, and they fumble, talk, laugh and giggle while she is chairing.

You might not like her, but for God's sake you have to respect her for the positionshe holds. After all, she was voted in by all of us in the Charles Sturt council. She received11,000 votes. Now, that is a good majority of people who voted for her. Why? Because on theissue of St Clair she had issues she stood for and people respected that, and that is why theyvoted for her as the mayor of Charles Sturt.

There were six other people who they could have voted for but none of them werevoted for because they had no issue and did not stand up for anything, whereas, even before theSt Clair park was mentioned as a memorial, she stood up for greenery in that area, of which wehardly have any. If you have a look at what's going to happen at West Lakes, where they're goingto put up 12 to 15-storey high buildings. We have Woodville West, half of it hasn't even been sold



and yet they're talking about putting another 300 homes on our St Clair park. I mean, what is goingon? That is why we have become so passionate about this issue.

After my first page, on the second page you will see the intimidation by themember for Croydon, Michael Atkinson. I have highlighted a lot of information there and I have alsogiven you a lot of stuff that you could read through. I will go to my third page because we areconstrained by time. The council was debating the St Clair Reserve when my husband and Iattended. I found, in all the council meetings we went to, not one person (and I mean not one)—wehad the gallery full of 200 to 300 people listening to the St Clair issue and everyone in that gallerywas for the park to remain as the St Clair Reserve park—came and spoke for Tolley Wasylenko'smotion—not one.

I then decided to get a petition together and I collected, with our supporters,3,059 signatures in 10 days, which we presented to Steven Marshall on the steps of ParliamentHouse, which Vickie Chapman tabled. My husband asked for a plebiscite—not one person stoodup and could offer any evidence that people were against the reserve to remain as a memorial parkfor our returned servicemen and servicewomen. That is why we are so passionate about this issue.We would like the community to be consulted, not like Tolley and his ilk wants.

Then my last thing is where I got in touch with the Bower family. Mr Bower was94 years old. I have also spoken to the other Bower member. You will find there's a photograph ofMr David Bower who was in this parliament for the Liberal Party from 1865 to 1887. It details thathe was a member of the Liberal Party in this parliament. I was also told by his nephew that therewere two wills—I've enclosed the wills—a written copy and also a will that is typewritten.

Then I received a letter. On my last page is a letter from Mr David Bower, who isnow 94 and living in Western Australia, telling me what David Bower, his uncle, went through tocome to this country and do what they have done. You read the letter and you will find it is a veryemotional letter.

In conclusion, I would like to ask you all, the committee and the chair, to pleasefind it in your conscience to make the right decision for us to save St Clair Reserve in memory ofour returned servicemen and women. That is all I am asking. Thank you.

164 The CHAIRPERSON: I have a question from the document you provided to us,Mrs Hamilton. It relates to the comments Mr Hamilton made that the minutes of the City of CharlesSturt are not recorded—

Mr HAMILTON: Yes.

165 The CHAIRPERSON: —but there is an email here from the member for Croydonto councillor Andriani, and its first sentence says 'I have perused the minutes and division list of theCharles Sturt council meeting of 8 April 2013 and listened to a recording of the debate.'

Mr HAMILTON: You are very perceptive, because—

166 The CHAIRPERSON: Can I say, please explain.

Mr HAMILTON: Yes, we will both explain.

Mrs HAMILTON: I will explain it to you. The lady who was sitting in the gallerytoday, she comes in with a tape recorder and she records it and then she goes and plays it back tothe member. That is how he gets it, because minutes do not get recorded in the council chambers.I witnessed that myself. She sits right next to Mr Wasylenko's wife, and then she would record itwith a small tape recorder.

So, while the councillors are talking and the debates are going on, it all gets playedback to him. That is how he knows what goes on in that chamber.

167 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Is there anything illegal about that? I don't know the LocalGovernment Act very well, but—

Mrs HAMILTON: I think it is. Surely, it should be. If you give evidence in a council,or my husband made deputations. After, when we were in parliament, he said to us, 'I know whatyou are saying.' How does he know what we are saying unless he listens to the tapes? He proves it



himself. That is why I said to you the intimidatory tactics of Mr Atkinson are all explained to youthere, so you can really have a look through it.

That is the reason I made these folders, to make it go into detail for you, and youcan have a look at that. Thank you very much, and thanks for having us. I really appreciate that.




WITNESS:

PETER STANFORD, called and examined:

169 The CHAIRPERSON: Welcome. I believe you were here when I read out thestatement to the earlier witnesses. Do you understand what we said in that statement, and are youhappy to proceed?

Mr STANFORD: Yes.

170 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Whenever you are ready.

Mr STANFORD: First, thank you for allowing me to address you this morning. I willstart by saying that I am not affiliated with any political body, nor have I sought advice frompoliticians or solicitors relative to this issue. I am a returned serviceman, and fought as aninfantryman for 12 months in South Vietnam during 1966-67. I reside with my wife at Cheltenham,South Australia, in a residence we purchased during 1978. We both attended the Woodville HighSchool from 1959. I also played sport on the then Bower's Estate, which is now St Clair.

I joined the Returned Services League of Australia, the RSL, in 1967, and am anawarded life member of this organisation. Having served as a state councillor from 1994 to1996 and as a state vice president from 1996 to 2006. I was the deputy state president from1992 to 1994. Part of my duties involved liaising with RSL sub-branches in the westernmetropolitan area; this included the West Croydon/Kilkenny, Seaton, Henley and Grange, and PortAdelaide/Semaphore sub-branches.

I am currently the president of the South Australian Police RSL Sub Branch. I havealso been a legatee with the Legacy Club of Adelaide since 1986. I am currently the chairperson ofthe Port Adelaide Legacy group. I liaise with West Croydon, Seaton, Port Adelaide and Largs BayLegacy widows clubs. As such, I believe I have much knowledge of and am able to speak on behalfof the ex-service community.

During my time on the state board of the RSL, I had many discussions withreturned servicemen and women and their partners. I had heard comments in relation to theSt Clair Reserve, which was commonly referred to as the St Clair Memorial Park. Late in 2009, Iread an article in the media indicating that the Charles Sturt council was considering a proposal toswap this memorial park for another portion of land, being the former Actil and rail corridor sitenearby. I made inquiries with the four mentioned RSL sub-branches and members of the Legacywidows clubs as to what consultation had taken place relative to the land swap. To my dismay, Iwas advised that no club or member of any ex-service organisation had been contacted by anyoneabout this matter.

On 13 November 2009, I submitted a deputation request form to the office of theCharles Sturt council indicating that I wished to speak on behalf of the ex-service community on thetopic as follows: concern regarding the community land revocation at St Clair, which I believe wasset aside as a memorial to those men and women who served this country during World War II.There is a copy of that which I will make available. It is date stamped at the council office at 3pm on13 November 2009. This request was submitted well before the cut-off date for such submissions,and a copy of the form, as I have mentioned, is submitted.

In response, I received a letter dated 18 November on the Charles Sturt councilletterhead addressed to me with the following comments:

Dear Mr Stanford, I refer to your request to address Council on Monday, 23 November 2009 byway of a deputation in regard to the St Clair Reserve land swap.

Mayor Anderson has given consideration to your request. However on the basis that Council hasalready provided a sufficient opportunity for people to be heard on this particular matter at its meeting held on26 October 2009, he has made a decision that on this occasion your deputation will not be heard. Yours sincerely,Anna Tropeano, Governance Officer.

A copy of that letter—the original is here, but I have made a copy. I was dismayed by this responseand I made contact with my local Charles Sturt councillor, Mr Robert Grant, asking if there was anyway for my submission to be heard prior to the council voting on the land swap issue. I was advised

P. STANFORD


that if I was present at that council meeting he would move a motion for me to presentmy deputation.

On the evening of 23 November 2009, I attended at the Charles Sturt counciloffice, together with approximately 700 other persons who were all protesting the proposed landswap. I found the doors leading to the council chamber were closed and I was barred from enteringby council staff and many police officers in attendance. I was able to hear the debate over aPA system. I heard councillor Robert Grant mention my name and move a motion for me toaddress council. I was able to show police and staff my identification and the deputation which Iwished to present. I gained entry to within sight of the council chambers.

I could see some empty seats within and also that the annexe, which is generallyopen to the public, was empty except for council employees. I was held at this point until a votewas taken. I was denied the opportunity to address council and immediately turned around andescorted back to the foyer. I had not been disruptive and I was appropriately dressed, similar to mycurrent attire. A copy of my deputation to be presented on that night is submitted also for yourconsideration.

In December 2010, our local MP, Jay Weatherill, invited himself to the Good NewsLutheran Church Christmas luncheon, which is at Albert Park. I was the congregational chairpersonat that time. When he came in I did inform him that there were no free lunches, but on seeing mehe smiled and shook my hand. During a conversation I stated to him, 'Jay, you are veryconspicuous by your absence.' He questioned what I meant and I stated, 'St Clair.' He immediatelyresponded with the comment, 'Not my portfolio.' To which I stated, 'Jay, it's smack bang in themiddle of your bloody electorate.' Pardon my French, but they were my comments.

I went on to state that about 98 per cent of the people—over 100 in attendance atthat luncheon—would have signed the petition at that stage to preserve the park. The conversationwas terminated and he walked away. By the way, he has since relocated his electoral office fromWoodville Road, Woodville to Findon Road, Findon.

Since that time I have made a deputation to the DPAC at Woodville and two furtherdeputations to the Charles Sturt Council. Copies are, again, submitted for your information. I haveattended council meetings and observed how matters are dealt with. It appears that there is a blockof councillors who continually vote as one on the issue of St Clair.

Councillor Tolley Wasylenko—I'm sorry he's left—has sought me out on a fewoccasions asking what he could get for our church and he has actually been instrumental in gaininggrants from the Discretionary Ward Allowance to benefit our congregation. Prior to the last councilelections, Tolley dropped into the kitchen of our church and handed a member a batch of how-to-vote brochures showing Tolley Wasylenko to be the first preference. He indicated that thebrochures were for me to distribute and he stated, 'I scratch his back and he scratches mine.' I canidentify that person if necessary. She handed me the brochures later and advised me of hiscomments.

A motion to erect a war memorial on council owned land, which was not indicatedat the time, was proposed by councillor Wasylenko early in 2010. Contact at that time was madewith RSL state headquarters in Adelaide seeking their comment. In response, the then statepresident, Mr Jock Statton, stated:

I advise the council that the RSL would not support a war memorial for the sake of havinganother memorial.

Unfortunately Mr Wasylenko and some other councillors have taken this to mean that theRSL does not support the concept of the St Clair Reserve being a memorial park. More recent RSLcorrespondence to council supports the concept of a memorial park. In fact, a motion was put tothe RSL state sub branch conference in July this year to pressure the state government to honourthe petition put to the then Woodville Council during 1942 to create a memorial park in honour ofthe sacrifice during World War II. This motion was carried unanimously by 138 sub-branches of theRSL. The RSL, nor any member of the ex-service community, have ever requested awar memorial.

We just want the park left as it was intended: a memorial park for the benefit ofthose who have fought, the families of those who have died, and the relatives of all service and ex-service persons to enjoy and to benefit the whole community.

P. STANFORD


Mr Wasylenko again attended our church building's 50th

anniversary service in Aprilthis year. I was about to enter for the service when he started telling me that Robert Grant waswrong and misleading council, which should not be prevented from making progress, erecting awar memorial, etc. He also suggested that our church could do with a couple of ceiling fans and heprobably had some funds left in his ward allowance. I broke off the conversation.

Mr Wasylenko is not a member of our congregation, or in fact the Lutheran Church.He attended on one prior occasion when we invited the then mayor and our local MP (JayWeatherill) to officially open a new shed on the property. Mr Wasylenko has prepared a brochure,mailboxed to the West Woodville ward residents concerning a war memorial to be erected. This ismisleading and against our intentions to keep the entire park as a memorial. Again, there is a copyavailable for your perusal.

My first deposition to council regarding the St Clair land swap was made on 8 Aprilthis year. I was granted five minutes to speak, and then questioned in depth for more than30 minutes over various aspects, with some having no relevance to the issue. I was not impressed,and believed that many councillors were not paying attention. Councillor Randall held up a picturefrom around six metres away and questioned if this was the land to which I was referring.

My answer was that I had no idea what he was presenting, but I would repeat myprevious statement for him: I was indicating the land which was bounded by Woodville Road,Brocas Avenue, Actil Avenue and the railway line adjacent to the Woodville railway station. At thattime, Randall also asked me for a copy of my deposition to the DPAC hearing, as he believed itwas different. I made a copy available through the council mayor.

Following that meeting, Randall made further requests per email as to what otherinformation I had. This was supplied, together with a question to him asking, 'What is wrong withthe council requesting the state government to hand the land back as a memorial park?' I wasinformed by him, 'I'm working on it.' At a later council meeting, my wife made a deputation relativeto the St Clair memorial park. Councillor Randall harassed her to a point where other councillorsand the mayor interjected on behalf of my wife. Randall then sat down and turned his back as othercouncillors commended her for her deposition.

Randall later sent an email to me apologising for his comments and stated he onlypursued the issue as he thought she (my wife) was representing the RSL. My wife returned theemail, thanking him for his apology, and questioning what difference it would make if she wererepresenting any organisation. No further response has been received from Randall. I also spoketo councillor Randall at the council meeting where he harassed my wife, asking him, 'What about aresponse to my question about asking the government to hand back the land as a memorial park?'His response was, 'You'll be waiting a long time.' He brushed past me and left the chamber.

During a later council meeting, I saw that Michael Atkinson MP was in attendanceand seated behind councillors Wasylenko and Keneally. Both Wasylenko and Keneally appeared tobe very intent on some object in front of them. It appeared to me that they were sending andreceiving SMS messages on some device; I cannot prove it, but it certainly looked like there wassomething going on—and I am sorry that Mr Wasylenko left.

Copies of all my depositions are presented for your perusal and information. Ibelieve the residents, and particularly the ex-service community of the Charles Sturt council, havenot been consulted properly relative to this matter and the council has been infiltrated by a group ofpersons who are only interested in their own agenda and not representing the wishes of theirratepayers. There are also copies of correspondence from the Woodville RSL sub branch dated1942 and the Seaton RSL sub branch dated 1950, showing that the RSL has been involved in thismatter since that time.

Finally, I request that if this select committee is unable to complete its inquiryrelative to the St Clair land swap by the allocated time, this matter be handed over to a further bodysimilar to the Justice Debelle inquiry with wide ranging powers to fully investigate and hand down afinding and recommendations for the issue to be appropriately dealt with. Members, thank you forthe opportunity to speak on behalf of those who have paid the supreme sacrifice during the warand also to those who have since passed on. Lest we forget.

171 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Thank you, Mr Stanford. One of the nagging questionsthat I think has come out of your evidence and Mr and Mrs Hamilton's evidence as well is a really

P. STANFORD


basic question, and it is: what is a war memorial? Clearly it is the one on the corner of NorthTerrace and King William Street for the Boer War. I think that was the first one in South Australia,at least that I have come across. Some of them involve structures, some of them involve plaques,some of them might involve nothing at all. You also have the question of whether communityrecognition of itself is enough for something to be a war memorial.

You have the RSL as a body that takes an interest in commemorating servicepeople, but I can't see that there is any official statute or regulation or act of parliament—and youcan distinguish war memorials, for example, from burial grounds, because there are acts ofparliament and there are regulations about where human remains can be buried. Ashes have comeup quite a lot, whether they are scattered, whether they are buried in a tin. I know my father-in-law,who is a Second World War veteran from Vietnam, wanted his at Ned's Corner on the River Murraywhere he caught the best fish. I am sure it is probably against the law to sprinkle ashes in the RiverMurray, but leaving that to one side, I would have thought the sprinkling of ashes itself isn't enoughto make something a war memorial.

It comes back, I think, probably to community recognition, but in terms of thiscommittee and recommendations, ought there be something we should think about in terms ofavoiding these arguments happening over and over again, that there be some form of listing,regulation, protected status of places that are war memorials?

Mr STANFORD: As you've stated, there is nothing laid down but it is understoodthroughout the RSL and general ex-service community that a memorial is a structure, a memorialitself, whereas a park is—and you will see them around the state—a memorial park. There may besome gates put up at the entrance or something of that nature. That's it. That is the onlydistinguishing feature between them.

172 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Right. So the fact that a person who comes across it willsee a plaque on a rock, they will see a wrought iron gate or they will see something that tells themthat it is a memorial, there isn't anything of that description at St Clair. So the next question is thatwe have the he said/she said sort of evidence, we have all of this evidence we have to try to cometo grips with but apart from the petition, the evidence of the ashes—and I understand there mayhave been a white cross at some point—are they the key bits of evidence?

Mr STANFORD: Basically, yes. They held memorial services there on ANZAC Dayfor a number of years following the Second World War which I believe finished in the early 1960s.There have been comments made of a cross. I have not seen it, no, but there were commentsmade by ratepayers that there was a cross erected in the oval. I don't know where. There is asuggestion that the land may have been dedicated, but again we cannot find it.

173 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Now a dedication, would that be a religious dedication oran army—

Mr STANFORD: Generally speaking, yes—and that would be acknowledged bygovernment. At this stage all I have to go on, and the majority of the information has come out ofcouncil archives which leads me to wonder why some councillors have not afforded themselves theopportunity of checking their own archives for information.

There is the Woodville RSL sub-branch letter of 20 November 1942 basicallysaying to council 'get on with it', and the one from Seaton sub-branch of the RSL dated 16 June1950 thanking council for getting on with it. There are letters of support, and there is one here fromthe president of the Crystal Brook sub-branch of the RSL which is supportive—his name, by theway, is Ivan Venning.

174 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Let's say that that level of recognition is agreed andaccepted. Let's say that for now, even though it is clearly contested turf. Are there any protocolsaround shifting war memorials? I know that, in my local neighbourhood, there was talk of theWar Memorial up at the Blackwood roundabout perhaps being moved to another council park. Ithink that, in the end, the RSL said that, no, it wasn't going to happen, and I think that is how thesethings go. Are there any protocols in relation to recognising people who have served in a differentlocation, such as have a service and say, 'Well, it used to be here and now we want it to besomewhere else?'

P. STANFORD


Mr STANFORD: The only issues that are ever looked at are safety issues. I canquote Naracoorte as a prime example, where there was a memorial at an intersection. It was foundto be unsafe to hold services in that location, and it has now been relocated back into the middle ofthe town square. I can also quote the Gawler sub-branch of the RSL, which has a memorial outsidethe front doors of the RSL, adjacent to a roundabout. The RSL itself is attempting to get thatrelocated because, of all things, a police vehicle went through the fence, just in front of thememorial, a few years ago. Again, they are looking to relocate it to Pioneer Park in Gawler.

They are the sorts of things that go through council. There is no set protocol, but itis generally by agreement with all parties that they will do these things. In this issue, that is the parkthat was sought by the ratepayers, it is the park that is being sought by the RSL, and that's it, andthere is not a structure.

175 The CHAIRPERSON: In relation to this particular issue, I think that one of thecomments that councillor Wasylenko made was that it was not an endorsed RSL event. I think thatthere was some sort of memorial event that might have been held.

Mr STANFORD: I am not sure what he was referring to there but, again, there iscorrespondence, and I am sure that our mayor would have tendered correspondence previously,from the state headquarters of the RSL supporting or thanking council initially for moving to havethe park declared as a memorial park and then sending another letter, being disappointed whencouncillor Wasylenko moved and successfully rescinded that motion. So, they are certainlyinvolved in that. I am not sure where else I can go with it.

176 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your attendance and for yourtime today.

Mr STANFORD: Thank you.


LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



Monday 25 November 2013 at 10:25am



MEMBERS:

Hon. J.M.A. Lensink MLC (Chairperson)Hon. M. Parnell MLC

Hon. D.W. Ridgway MLCHon. R.P. Wortley MLC

WITNESSES:

LENI BROWN, KELLY THOMAS, and ROBERT BROWN, all of St Clair Reserve Residents

Association, called and examined:


Parliamentary privilege is accorded to all evidence presented to a selectcommittee; however, witnesses should be aware that privilege does not extend to statements madeoutside this meeting. All persons, including members of the media—it doesn't appear that we haveany here this morning—are reminded that the same rules apply as in the reporting of parliament.Perhaps, for the benefit of Hansard, you would like to introduce yourselves, and then you can makeyour presentation.

Mrs BROWN: My name is Leni Brown. I am from the St Clair Reserve ResidentsAssociation. There are just a couple of things that I would like to bring up today. First of all, theSt Clair Reserve Residents Association ended up paying a surveyor to survey the land that wewere swapping because one of the main things that came about was that they said there would beno net loss of land, so we really needed to confirm that that was the case. The person who did itwas from Pyper Leaker Surveying Services. We paid them for it, so it was our independentsurveying. I don't know if you want copies of these, but what we have is that before the land swapthere was a total of 56,667 square metres of land, and then the swapped land ended up being atotal of approximately 47,170 square metres.

178 The CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what was that again?

Mrs BROWN: It was 47,170 square metres, so it actually worked out that therewas a net loss of land. The initial one before the swap was all open space that we had; then, if youhad a look at the open space that was given, it was 39,884 square metres, but then you need totake into account the roads that were also bordering that, so they were taken into account andadded on. There was actually quite a substantial loss of land.

To be fair, they also then said that you needed to factor in that, on the new estate,there had to be 12½ per cent of open space put in there as well. It still didn't work out, and therewas still a net loss of land. According to the calculations here, even with the additional open space,which was 9,551 square metres, there was still a 7,242 square metre loss of open space. So, theactual land swap was the one guarantee that there would be no net loss of land, but there actuallywas. I think maybe as time has gone on they have tried to change that but, at the actual time whenthe land swap happened, it was not equitable at all.

179 The CHAIRPERSON: From evidence we've received I think there has been ajunior soccer oval added and a few other bits and pieces. Do you know how that compares now?

Mrs BROWN: I'm not sure.

Mrs THOMAS: There is still at least 10 square metres short.

180 The CHAIRPERSON: Ten?

Mrs THOMAS: I think it worked out, yes.

L. BROWNK. THOMASR. BROWN


Mrs BROWN: There is still a net loss of land.

Mrs THOMAS: There is still a loss.

Mrs BROWN: You have to take into account who takes actual roads intoconsideration? People do not play on roads and, if you have a look at the Local Government Actand those sorts of things, they shouldn't be included unless they are purposefully for the openspace area, which means that they can then be included, but they would also be roads that weregoing elsewhere, so they are not exclusively for that. I think that this is being generous by actuallyadding in the roads.

181 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Can I ask you about that one-for-one swap. You are notthe only ones who have provided evidence to say that it was not one for one; it was less than thatwhen it was first proposed. I think the council in its evidence admitted that it wasn't quite one forone and so they have now sought to remedy it. Leaving aside whether there is 10 square metresshort or whatever, and let's say that it is now one for one, does that change your association'sattitude to the whole arrangement?

Mrs BROWN: No, because there are other factors that come into it as well. I thinkyou have to look at the initial time when it was done—and that is the point. If you are looking at law,you don't look at how someone has changed something later. It is actually that point of transactionthat really is the pivotal thing. We were told one thing, and it was obviously not—and then itbecomes almost a farce, that they keep changing to try and make it up, and it still doesn't make itup because you've got the qualitative look at what land was. Okay, net loss of land, proven, and itwasn't right, even if it gets down to 10 square metres, but then all that's left for Woodville is thatnarrow strip at the front.

The value of the land fronting Woodville Road is greater than the value of the landon the former Actil site. That wasn't taken into consideration at all; it was just a like-for-like swap,and what we've ended up with is remediated land. You've got the stigma of this land that has beencontaminated, and it was provided in place of non-contaminated. You have to weigh into accountthose things as well, even though the base argument here, I suppose, is the net loss of land—it isthe actual quality and quantity and the cost of the land that need to be taken into consideration aswell.

182 The Hon. M. PARNELL: The reason I ask is that the suggestion was that now theyhave fixed the problem that maybe community concern would evaporate, but clearly it hasn't.

Mrs BROWN: No, it's not right. It's just not right. They should have given us extra.That's all I have to say on that because, not being a surveyor, I can't tell you any more. I have factsand I have a copy of it if you would like it.

183 The Hon. M. PARNELL: We can receive those plans and they can form part of thecommittee's evidence.

Mrs BROWN: There's just another couple of issues that I'd like to bring up, and Idon't know whether you guys deal with this. The increased frustration, I suppose, with Charles Sturtcouncil and other councils—and it's all to do with the land swap—would be that it doesn't seem tomatter how many people write petitions, how many people show up to say that the don't want it,there's absolutely no provision for that to be taken into account.

Clearly, there needs to be some point where if that many people in a communityare upset about something, there should be some regulation that it needs to be put back to thecommunity to take a vote on it. That doesn't seem to be the case, which means that it doesn'tmatter how much you protest or what you do, it just makes no difference. It makes people feelincredibly powerless, I suppose.

I don't know how that can be changed, but I think that it would certainly increasepeople's confidence in their councils that they are actually being heard because it's just veryfrustrating. The same thing has come up again when we are now looking at it as a memorial park.The amount of people who have put forward really strong arguments, the amount of people whohave signed petitions, and it's just completely dissipated. People are really not listened to at all andjust marching on as though that never happened.



184 The Hon. M. PARNELL: The issue that you've raised is one that other people haveraised, and we have to deal with it as a committee. Part of what we've heard already is that therevocation of community land, for example, that process, assumes that it's a council that wants toget rid of some land and the minister sits in judgement. But this was different because it was thestate government that really wanted it to happen, so therefore the state government wasn't animpartial judge of something that a council was trying to unilaterally do.

You said you don't have a solution to the problem—and, if there is anything, we'llhear it—but really what you're saying is frustration that clearly vast numbers of people wereunhappy but there was nothing they could do about it. Is that really what you're saying to us?

Mrs BROWN: Yes, and I think the council should have said no. That was thebottom line. It was just absurd and ludicrous, which then leads onto another part of who and whatare on the council, I suppose, and how much they want to say no against something that thegovernment is saying.

There was just one last point. I think it clearly struck home to me where some ofthe councillors sat, and It was in the council chambers one evening when they were having adiscussion about whether the Charles Sturt council would support or reject the Woodville stationDPA. One the councillors hopped up and said, 'Well, the job of the local council is to support thegovernment of the day.' That happened to be Tolley Wasylenko. It actually quite floored mebecause I thought that that was not what a local councillor was there for. He's there to representthe people not the government. But that was his agenda, I could only assume.

185 The CHAIRPERSON: I don't think I'm telling tales out of school here, but I thinkthere was a whole lot of 'group think' going about transit oriented developments, that justeverybody was rushing to find an example, and this was going to be it.

Mrs BROWN: And now it's proven that it can't even be one. If you look at the railsystem, it's not going to be electrified for a long time. They were talking about that it had to beWoodville station. Well, that's clearly unacceptable to have as a TOD because you just couldn'taccommodate—well, it just only goes one place. So, all the reasoning behind it being a TOD isreally not there any more; it's just gone, but still they press ahead, sadly.

186 The CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Thomas, did you want to make any comments?

Mrs THOMAS: I've got a few things. I'm hoping that you'll let me table asubmission from Kirsten Alexander. She's managed to get some statements from local residents,elderly local residents, in regard to the memorial park. I was hoping that might be able to go on. I'vegot a copy of that. I've also been given another submission from another resident who was involvedright from the beginning. He can't make it today, but he's got photos of the plaques and things thatare on the oval and around the park. If I could just read out some of his and maybe submit that aswell, and then I have a PowerPoint visual video.

187 The CHAIRPERSON: You probably don't need to read things if you are submittingthem to us.

Mrs THOMAS: Yes.

188 The CHAIRPERSON: I thought we were finishing fairly soon but we have about20 minutes.

Mrs THOMAS: I sat in this room a few weeks or a month ago and listened toRobert Randall say that he didn't have anything to do with St Clair beforehand but I just want topoint out that he did run on the St Clair platform and asked to be put on Kirsten's mail out that wedid and things like that, and he did attend our rallies and our fundraising functions. I just wanted toclarify that because I thought that was a little porky. I will read this statement from a resident calledLuciano who stated:

My name is Luciano Agostino and I am writing with regards to the manner in which the City ofCharles Sturt have handled the St Clair Land Swap and the subsequent community discontent which has come outof it. I will attempt to highlight certain points from what I have observed throughout the process and discuss themobjectively and to the best of my recollection.



The St Clair land swap has been a highly controversial issue since early 2009 and there has beenimmense public opposition to the idea. In my opinion it was presented poorly as a viable proposition and lacked anysubstance of community benefit. Apart from all the secrecy and closed door council meetings, the inconsistencieswith land proportions, and the total lack of fair and proper public consultation, there were many other issues broughtout, which were varied and complex. This led to an unprecedented public attendance at council meetings, especiallyat the time preceding the controversy land swap itself and right up until the final decision was made.

Throughout whole series of meetings leading up to the final vote of whether they should swap apristine and much loved public park for a worthless smaller piece of contaminated industrial wasteland, I witnessedhow certain councillors consistently voted in 'blocks' spawning much suspicion among public observers. I noticed thisblock voting continued even after and beyond the land swap decision was made, always the same councillors(Wasylenko, Keneally, Fitzpatrick and others) and always on the side of the 'developers' and ignoring the residentsof which they were elected to serve. Even today there is a clear schism between those same developer motivatorcouncillors and the genuine community minded ones.

So much public outcry ensued that during the council elections that followed a new Mayor waselected on the back of the St Clair protests against the land swap. Such was the enormity of the issue that the publicelected a Mayor who they believed would be true and fair to the people of Charles Sturt with regards to this issueand in general. There were even some candidates who nominated themselves for these elections promising to bringhonesty, transparency and fairness back into the council and using the St Clair platform for this pledge. Indeed theelections brought about some new faces on the council with hopes of a fresh new start, but sadly the old guard stilldominated the landscape.

There was one councillor in particular, Councillor Robert Randall, who started out with so muchpromise, attending many of the public rallies in support of the St Clair group to stop the land swap. I rememberhearing him speak on various occasions saying, if elected he would continue the cause 'to save St Clair'. Sadly,however, after he got elected he seemed to forget about the cause, and what the community really wanted, andspoke against it and voted against any motion related to it. I remember thinking how great he was before theelections, promising to do so much for the community and St Clair and then feeling so disappointed when he did anabout-face after he was elected. So great was his impetus of the Save St Clair movement, that some councillors sawit as an opportunity to ride on its coat tails to get elected but once elected sought to follow their own agendas insteadof serving the community as they proposed to do.

Another great disappointment during this whole unfortunate saga was the apparent correlationbetween the block voting councillors being politically aligned to the party in power at the time. This was clearlyobvious and happened time and time again. It makes you wonder where does the community get a say when suchcrucial decisions are made beyond their grass-roots level. How can one get a say, as an ordinary resident, whenmatters of such importance are elected upon by people who do not represent them? This is not how councils weremeant to function or be administered. It is the community that elects its representatives to serve it in a just and directmanner, and not by way of half-heartedness or ignorance. This whole atmosphere of council behaviour I observedfrom attending many council meetings, especially around the time of the St Clair land swap.

Another disappointing occurrence during the time was the indignity I suffered being the subject ofa law suit by the member of Croydon for something I did not do. It was an incidental comment that somebody elsesaid but the blame was put on me . This caused undue stress and anxiety I did not need at a time when I was caringfor my elderly and very ill mother who recently passed away. Not just myself, but other ordinary family people weremade the subject of legal action by this member during the time of the land swap. One has to ask, why? Are therenot more important things one should be doing as a member of parliament? It is just so sad and disappointing to seea government person going around suing normal everyday family people just like that.

My final point relates to the recent issue of the Memorial Park at St Clair. The subject of a petition,following the war, that the land at St Clair be set aside as a memorial to the fallen, was put to council at that time. Ithas recently been much discussed and debated in council, but has yet to reach a definite resolution as to what is tobe done with this matter. I have recently done some of my own research and interviewed a number of older residentsof Woodville to find out if there was a history of any memorial or service which was held at St Clair, and if on aregular basis. Also, if there was any recollection of a 'white cross' which was put there at the time of the services.Further, if there were or are any memorial plaques in the vicinity with any inscription of details.

In my interviews I came across a few but convincing accounts by very senior residents thatSt Clair nearest the Woodville railway station and Woodville Road was the location where memorial services wereheld. Some of these seniors even recall quite vividly a tall white cross which was put there for the services. Somealso remembered how servicemen in their area all gathered there every year at dawn services to remember thefallen. Others remember seeing plaques there and one former councillor remembers seeing what he believed was amemorial plaque to the fallen.

During 2009, I was given the task of documenting St Clair by taking extensive photographs of thearea for prosperity and history. Recently, while looking through the large collection of photographs, I found someinteresting ones of plaques and one in particular stood out, as what I believe, good evidence of St Clair set aside asa memorial to those who fought in the second World War. Being in my collection of St Clair photographs during the2009 documentation period, I can only conclude that this picture is of a plaque at St Clair. Photograph (a) attached.



This plaque is no longer there as it was either removed or stolen but a patch of dirt and remaining plinth where it wastaken from can be clearly seen in photo (b). St Clair playground can be seen in the background.

There were other plaques as well. This plinth is all that remains of this one in photo (c). WoodvilleRoad can be seen in the distance. Photo (d) is a close-up. Harry Guy's Plaque can be seen in photo (e) with St Clairoval in the background. A close-up of Harry Guy's plaque in photo (f). Harry Guy was a war veteran and councillor ofWest Croydon whose ashes were scattered on St Clair in memoriam.

The photos are attached to that. He says:

As can be seen from the photographic evidence, and the personal accounts of varioussurrounding senior residents, and drawing one's own conclusions, it is in my opinion that this location, namelySt Clair Reserve, was used and set aside as a 'garden of remembrance dedicated to all who served inWorld War II 1939-1945'. Of course, notwithstanding the outcome of the select committee findings, I believe thisforms a good basis for further investigation in the hope of finding more evidence of St Clair as a Memorial Park andin having it established in a truly permanent and deserving way.

Thank you for the opportunity in putting forward my submission.

Yours sincerely,

Luciano Agostino

I will give you a copy of that. Throughout this whole process, it has been said that this is a minoritygroup that and that the community is a minority that want the oval and the park saved, but I have abit of a snippet of a few things that show you it is not a minority.

[Video shown]

Mrs THOMAS: Just on that, there were three councillors who did vote against it—and Michael's best friend Brian Massey ended up changing his vote; so there were four councillorswho voted against it and Brian Massey changed his to swap the land. I'll leave there because I'vegot a disc for you as well, and it is very entertaining, so I would advise to watch it. Robert Brownhas just got a five-minute presentation, if he's allowed to enter my time. Is that okay?

189 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes, sure.

Mrs THOMAS: I'll leave it there, but obviously on there, Jay was worried about theschool more so than the community. Michael's admitted to having best friends on the council, and itgoes into how many councillors he helped. It also goes into a Today Tonight story that says howmany were ALP members on the council and who they worked for and who they were related to.That is actually quite interesting itself.

Mrs BROWN: Why was it actually made?

Mrs THOMAS: This all-put-together media presentation was made by anALP councillor for an Ombudsman's breakfast that Norman Waterhouse put on. I found out—theOmbudsman let me know that he was speaking at this breakfast; and it's $100 a head. So I rangNorman Waterhouse and I said, 'Don't have a community group and I don't really want to pay the$100; is it okay if we sneak in and sit in the back? And he said, 'No, that's fine; you can come.' Sowe were allowed to come. Jim Fitzpatrick had put this together to try and, I guess, humiliate Kirstenfirst thing in the morning, because the breakfast was full of ALP councillors from all councils.

Mrs BROWN: So the suggestion was—

Mrs THOMAS: That we are a rabble.

Mrs BROWN: We'd been waiting in the wings for calls.

Mrs THOMAS: Yes, and we would take over—

Mrs BROWN: Somehow we were all buddies and friends before and had nothingbetter to do with our time.

190 The CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to stay at the table—



Mrs THOMAS: With Robert?

191 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes, while he gives evidence, because we might have somequestions for you at the end. Thanks. Perhaps if you'd like to introduce yourself for the benefit ofHansard and then tell us what you'd like to tell us.

Mr BROWN: Good morning; my name's Robert Brown. I've lived at Woodville——since 1976, and I've spent a fair bit of time on the steps of Parliament

House over the last four years.

192 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: With very creative banners.

Mr BROWN: I made a statement last night, instead of watching The Godfather II,which was on one point in particular on the land swap issue on the lead up to the 2010 localgovernment elections. It goes like this: at the last Charles Sturt council meeting before the localgovernment election in 2010, the Labor faction transferred the title for St Clair Reserve to the LandManagement Corporation. This had the effect of a guarantee for the ALP that in the event that theelection went against them, Kirsten Alexander, who campaigned for mayor on the platform to saveSt Clair, would be prevented from changing the land swap outcome. This action is omitted from thechronology of events in the final report by the Ombudsman.

I questioned Tolley Wasylenko at a Royal Park street corner meeting as to why thecouncil did not allow Kirsten to defend St Clair at the election. I said that if this had happened shecould have stopped the swap proceeding. He replied, 'Not necessarily.' He knew that after theelection he still had the numbers, even though they had been reduced. I also spoke to MichaelAtkinson at his Croydon office on this ALP tactic. I told him it was unethical and lacked integrity. Hereplied, 'It's legal.' I asked both Wasylenko and Atkinson for the name of the person who came upwith this strategy. Neither would give me the name.

This single event of transferring the title before the election subverted democracy.Kirsten won in excess of 11,000 votes against 7,000. The will of the voting public to stop this swap,both fair and democratic vote, was denied. Public trust in our system of government has beenbroken as a result. I believe there has been an abuse of power in public office. Events that haveoccurred since the Ombudsman's final report demonstrate that Mick and Tolley acted in concert.

My positive view on what has happened is that government must pass immediatelegislation to put in place enforceable checks and balances on the incoming planning minister atthe 2014 election to protect significant cultural, historic and agricultural sites from development.Failure to do this will mean the next term of government will experience further publicdisengagement and disenchantment on top of the current 120 land groups in dispute over planning.That's it; thank you.

193 The CHAIRPERSON: As you all know, the minister has signed the DPA now. Doyou have any suggestions about courses of action or potential recommendations for thiscommittee?

Mr BROWN: The land swap I still think was illegal because democracy was deniedand it is as plain as black and white. People just passing over the Ombudsman's report, which allthe evidence needed—I read this from cover to cover a couple of times and I find that there shouldbe a review by the Ombudsman on his findings on Tolley and Michael Atkinson. In the lead up tohis final report, events have happened since that prove that his findings need to be updated.

194 The CHAIRPERSON: Do you think the council might be in a position to purchaseback the land?

Mr BROWN: I think a government—yes, in a word. I was disappointed thatplanning minister, John Rau, has rezoned the land, making it more valuable, yet on the Queen'sBirthday long weekend, at a street corner meeting at Woodville Park, Michael Atkinson, with MarkButler, said to residents, 'We're not interested in the land—they can buy it back. The light rail's notgoing ahead, we don't have the money for it.' Then we have John Rau rezoning it. Now, I'mconfused. Mick is saying one thing and John Rau is saying another.



Mrs THOMAS: In a meeting we had with Fred Hansen recently, he said that if thecouncil made an offer then they would definitely consider it. But, obviously, yes, it is moreexpensive now that it has been rezoned. There was no valuation done on the land before the swap,and they virtually got a more expensive piece of land for nothing. So, we would like to seecouncillors on council without any political affiliation, any party affiliation. That's something that webelieve—that the people on the council should be representing the community and not be politicallymotivated.

Mrs BROWN: They can be on there with a political affiliation but not allow it toaffect—

195 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Let's explore that one a little bit further because I knowthe Local Government Association passed a resolution at one of their meetings—it might haveeven been last year, it was a little while ago—and their approach wasn't to say that just becauseyou are a member of a political party shouldn't disentitle you to be on council, but you should haveto declare up-front to the voters before they cast their ballot whether, in fact, you are a member of apolitical party.

196 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Hasn't the Victorian government gone further to saythat you can't actually be a staffer of a member of parliament and on council? I thought that was astep further.

Mrs THOMAS: Well, you shouldn't be able to. We would like that one as well.

Mr BROWN: On the question of buying the park back, if the community put in a billfor the trauma and time and suffering over the last four years on the park issue, I think the pricewould be substantially reduced. Mick said it was legal, this strategy before that local governmentelection of transferring the title to the Land Management Corporation knowing that Kirsten wasrunning in the community to save that park. There is something morally very wrong there.

Mrs BROWN: Do morals come into it?

Mr BROWN: It's not fair. It's not democratic.

197 The CHAIRPERSON: As there are no further questions, thank you very much foryour time.

Mrs BROWN: Thank you.

Mr BROWN: Thanks.



WITNESSES:

CAROL FAULKNER, Treasurer, and TREVOR WHITE, Chairman, both of the Cheltenham

Park Residents Association Inc., called and examined:

198 The CHAIRPERSON: Welcome to the meeting. The Legislative Council has giventhe authority for this meeting to hold public meetings. A transcript of your evidence today will beforwarded to you for your examination for any clerical corrections. Should you wish at any time topresent confidential evidence to the committee, please indicate and the committee will consideryour request.

Parliamentary privilege is accorded to all evidence presented to a selectcommittee; however, witnesses should be aware that this privilege does not extend to statementsmade outside this meeting. All persons, including members of the media, are reminded that thesame rules apply as in the reporting of parliament. Would you like to introduce yourselves and thenproceed with your presentation?

Mr WHITE: My name is Trevor White. I'm the chairman of the Cheltenham ParkResidents Association, and we abbreviate that at times to CPRA. Carol Faulkner is the treasurer ofthe CPRA. Most importantly, she is the manager of all records associated with our legalproceedings, submissions to the Ombudsman, and representations to council, and she handles therelationship with other organisations and the media.

Ms FAULKNER: I have also been a resident of Cheltenham for 20 years.

Mr WHITE: We have put in a late submission, which covers what we think are themain points of interest to the committee. Can I say that in that we do mention that at least twice, Ithink, that we have further investigations that we're going to be involved with. If any of thequestions relate to those matters, we would ask that we move into a confidential session, perhapsat the end of this session.

199 The CHAIRPERSON: Sure, yes.

Mr WHITE: There are also three minor points I brought along that I could discuss.They are related to some of the queries. The committee wondered what was going on the otherside of the Woodville train station, what was that land. I can talk to that. I have information on thetransport oriented development for Woodville. There is also the subject of site contamination, butwe will leave those and handle the bigger issues to begin with. Rather than us go through, wewould be willing to just take your queries at the outset, if you have any.

200 The CHAIRPERSON: That's fine.

201 The Hon. M. PARNELL: I'll start. One of the common themes in the evidencebefore us has been whether there were in fact three or four separate projects or whether it wasreally always going to be one project. What I mean by that is that we have the Cheltenhamracecourse, then we had the Sheridan site, then there was the Trident plastics factory—whichturned out not to be part of this—and then the fourth one, I guess, was St Clair.

All of the rezonings, with the exception of Trident, which wasn't part of it, weredone as separate exercises, yet there appears to be a fair bit of evidence that it was alwaysintended that they form one precinct. Is that your understanding, from having gone back throughthe history of this?

Mr WHITE: At the time, our attention was focused on what was happening at thatparticular time, but on reflection I think we would say that there's ample evidence that those whowere steering the precinct project had a full intention that it was from Woodville Road toCheltenham Parade.

Ms FAULKNER: In fact, it was more than reflection: it was as a result of anFOI application that we did in 2011. We discovered that council had formed a committee called theCheltenham Racecourse Reference Group. It was the first time we'd heard of that, so we decidedto pursue through FOI what that group did, what it was considering.

C. FAULKNERT. WHITE


Through the documents that were released under that FOI, we were able topresent the information that we have presented, which was that it was always the plan to developthat whole precinct—the racecourse site, the Sheridan site, the Trident factory site (which wasViscount, but that never eventuated, I think purely because the negotiations between Trident andthe LMC didn't reach a satisfactory conclusion) and the St Clair site. It was intended to be part ofthe project from the beginning.

As we have also said in our submissions, it all began when the owners of theSheridan factory approached council and said that they were wanting to sell. I think council wouldhave known that the SAJC have always wanted to sell Cheltenham, but the members' vote in2004 particularly opened up an opportunity so that, definitely, the owners of Sheridan wanted tosell and the owners of the racecourse site wanted to sell, and those sites were adjacent to theSt Clair site.

If you have read the documents, Sheridan seemed to be willing to work withcouncil on the wider precinct project, but the owners of Sheridan met with minister Patrick Conlonin early 2005, and one can only presume that Mr Conlon outlined the issues that had to be resolvedin relation to the racecourse site, which were going to take some time. I think a part of that, too,was the government didn't want to be seen to be in favour of selling off the racecourse so soonafter they had come into power. Of course, they came into power in 2002 and, if they had’ve saidyes and initiated a DPA then, within one term, they would have broken their promise to thecommunity, which was that only Labor will fight to save the racecourse.

202 The Hon. M. PARNELL: My recollection, when asking government officials whythey didn't do the thing as a job lot, is that a number of answers have been given, but the main oneis they were owned by different people, which, of course, from a planning point of view iscompletely irrelevant. Ownership is about what the best use is.

My suspicion is that they made a promise to keep a certain amount of open spaceat Cheltenham—and my recollection is it was 40 per cent originally and then it shrank, I think, downto 35—but they never made that promise in relation to Sheridan. So, if they zoned them separately,they could get away with less open space on the Sheridan site, and then St Clair came later. Doyou have any more intelligence than that as to why it wasn't done properly in the first place?

Ms FAULKNER: The undertaking in relation to the racecourse site was actually,first of all, 30 per cent, and then the former premier Mike Rann came out and said, 'No, we aregoing to do better than that; we are going to make it 40.6 per cent,' which was equal to20 hectares, but they were still only talking about the racecourse site. To my mind, I can't see whythey still couldn't have done a DPA to include both sites but with the provision that the Sheridansite just have the statutory 12.5 per cent and the racecourse site have the larger amount of openspace. To me, it was just another excuse.

Mr WHITE: The Sheridan site was the first one I focused on, because of thecontamination that had to be not only considered but rectified before that could go to residential.You can't put an end time on any remediation process like that. It's what you find is there and whatyou are going to do about it. We actually took that into the ERD Court because we didn't want themto retain all those contaminants on site—that's another issue that was going on at that time.

In my mind, the Sheridan site was very much in mind as a focus for the community,but these other things could have been going on at the time. It's probably a good point for me tomake that I had pursued the FOI process to try to find out the facts after the event, so that I canbetter advise the CPRA on what has gone on. It's only when you can go back and get thatdocumentation that you can actually start to put this all together.

203 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Mr White, in relation to one of the comments you madeearlier about transport oriented development, we have been out to visit and, obviously, there arehouses all over Cheltenham and things have changed significantly—whether you wanted it or not,they have. I'm a bit interested in what information you might have on transport orienteddevelopment. I can't speak for all of the committee, but we're all a bit surprised when we have aWoodville station DPA—the name of it is Woodville station DPA but it's actually not anything at allof the Woodville station, it's the St Clair land. I am just interested to know what new light you mightbe able to throw on that.

C. FAULKNERT. WHITE


Mr WHITE: I have prepared a briefing paper that I can leave with your secretary.While I am talking about this, I would like to have this passed around so that people can see whatI'm talking about, if that is alright, Ms Lensink. In about 2005, a chap called Alexander Mokwinskimade my acquaintance. He was a student at the University of South Australia and he wasundertaking a masters course and his topic was transport orientated development between theBowden station and the Cheltenham station, and through the association with him I was able tolearn his processes which were very physical.

He would go onto stations and measure the number of passengers, alighting atdifferent times and that type of thing, so he did a lot of statistical work. One of the things that cameout of the Woodville one is that it is not the number of dwellings that is important, it is the number ofpeople who are likely to use the station that is the criteria that you are looking for.

I have done one of the calculations, taking information that is in the council report,and it is all detailed here. If you take the core area in the transition area for the development, youend up with 140 dwellings, that would occur if it was single storeys. Then you can say, right, youwould have 1.9 people in each of those, and then the statistic that I got from Alexander Mokwinski'swork is that you can be lucky to get 7 per cent of the people in that area who would be regularusers of the train.

So, if you do that calculation, it works out (and I have that here) that 19 additionalpersons a day would be using the Woodville station. The Woodville station was one of the betterstations for usage between Bowden and Cheltenham. Because it is 450 or 500 (I can't rememberthe statistic) it works out that there is only about a 4 per cent increase if you add single-storeyhouses on that footprint, so then you have to go up, and the maths is quite easy, as each floor yougo up, you can just multiply the number of people. If you go up to four storeys—which I took thatthe council wanted at the time—with undercroft parking, you would get up to something like a17 per cent increase in commuters on the Woodville station from the development. This was thetenure of Mokwinski's thesis—that in the Woodville area you wouldn't find a major benefit comingfrom a development over this site, now that we know this number of dwellings.

There are other places like Kilkenny where there is industrial land and the storycould be different there, but you will see that in the Woodville area, a lot of the dwellings in the400 or 500 metre zone, are in historic conservation areas and the people who live there are notgoing to vacate their houses and put up multi-storey places to increase the amount of dwellings inthe area. Does that answer your question? That's my background.

204 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I just was interested when you made that reference toit in your opening remarks. While we're on that, what about the land on the other side of Woodvillestation?

Mr WHITE: I looked into the history of that from the record of your meeting. I havea vague memory of the other side of the station. I've named it here as the 'Woodville village shops'.There are actually shops in that area. There are two parcels of land there, divided by a lanewaywhich goes through the houses to the back road. One of those parcels has been sealed, so it's aquality car park area; the other one is just a mud puddles and gibbers type of thing, nearer to thetrain line.

The shops were a supermarket, pharmacy, convenience store, jeweller, drycleaner, and hairdresser. People can remember them being there, and they were all demolished.Over time, the council started the acquisition of the sections of land in those two parcels in the1950s and 1960s, and they didn't complete the total acquisition until they did a compulsoryacquisition on a family business there in the 1990s. From the 1990s on, it's been as you see it now.

205 The CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to put to you the same question I put to the lastresidents group we heard from: where to from here? What do you see as potentialrecommendations should council attempt to purchase the land back? What options do you thinkthere are?

Ms FAULKNER: I think we made a suggestion somewhere in there that thecommittee should look at the transactions between the LMC, now Renewal SA, and the council andgovernment, because there just seems to be quite a number of issues that still have questionshanging over them. That's why we're still active. As Mr Ridgway said, there are houses going up

C. FAULKNERT. WHITE


there, so a lot of people are saying, 'Why don't you just give up and go away?' We just want to getto the bottom of it; we want to get to the truth. There are too many questions without answers, Isuppose.

I don't know whether it's been mentioned, but one of the things that I found strangewas the fact that the LMC paid $15.8 million for the 4.7 parcel of the Sheridan land, when it wasonly valued at $7.75 million, based on residential zoning but taking into considerationcontamination, and the St Clair 4.7 parcel was valued at $8 million based on recreation. I don'tknow; do any of the committee members know why the LMC paid more than double what the landwas worth?

206 The CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we received any evidence about that particularissue to this committee.

Ms FAULKNER: Because it looks like they're going to sell it back to the JV, toUrban Pacific and AV Jennings, but I think Mr Hansen gave evidence that they have that optionalright to buy it. But, still, were they paying double the amount so that they were giving them themoney to buy it back? It just seems like a gift, and I don't recall that there has been anyinvestigation into that. Perhaps that's something that the committee could pursue.

207 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I was going to ask a question, and it may be that theHon. Mark Parnell can answer it. In relation to the remediation, when was it remediated?

Ms FAULKNER: Trevor would be the one to answer that.

Mr WHITE: We will never know when the remediation was complete, but the courtcase was in 2007 and it would have taken a year or two after that before the whole thing had beenremediated. If I could just talk to the site contamination, we were aware that on the Sheridan sitetrichloroethylene had been poured on the ground over the years because, back in those times ifyou had a factory with a paddock, that is the way you got rid of all those types of things. We wereaware, from what people had told us, that there was a lot of trich had gone into the ground.

The first day of the trial is always the site visit, and we were amazed to see thishuge earth pile which reeked of dry-cleaning type solvent—you could smell it. The judge told usthat they wouldn't be dealing with the trichloroethylene because all that soil would be taken off siteand its effect on groundwater wouldn't be considered in the court case at all.

208 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Can you just go back one step so that we are all on thesame page. In the court case that you are referring to, my recollection is that—unless there is morethan one case—there was a challenge to the rezoning of the racecourse land on the basis that yourclaim was, I think, that the minister hadn't properly taken into account the impacts on stormwater.

Mr WHITE: It's the Supreme Court.

209 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Sorry, that was a judicial review in the Supreme Court,that's right. Is this part of the same or is this a separate case?

Mr WHITE: No, this is—

210 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Could you perhaps explain what this case was in 2007?

Mr WHITE: They give you the number of it; it's in the notes that I have prepared,right up the front.

Ms FAULKNER: It was basically an appeal against a development applicationapproval for the remediation of the Sheridan site. It was an appeal to the ERD Court.

Mr WHITE: It was 396 and 397 of 2007, as I have that note in here. One of thenotes I have here, the copy documents that you get before the case starts, has a reference to allthe contaminants that are there, and it includes the volatile organic compounds, the TCE. It says onpage 62:

Based on the magnitude and area of the reported VOC concentrations it is considered possiblethat the VOC impact to groundwater extends beyond the site's western boundary with the Cheltenham racecourse.

C. FAULKNERT. WHITE


This is where we were alarmed because we were concerned that, if you had contamination on theCheltenham site, it was going to ruin the potential for stormwater management and doing all thosetypes of things, so we were very interested in finding out more information during that court case.

Let's go to the Cheltenham racecourse. I've got a letter here dated March 2011 thatdeals with the former Cheltenham racecourse. The letter was sent in by Mark Withers, and hementions writing to the EPA, that council officers had a meeting with the developer and the siteauditor and all those involved, and they have considered the detailed risk assessment. MarkWithers notifies that:

...both metals and chromium have been detected in the groundwater of the former Racecoursesite and is projected to move in a westerly direction in the shallow aquifer. Potentially in a 100 years a substantialplume of contaminates will be located beneath the racecourse site.

Then he goes on to outline some eight dot points where the council is terribly concerned. The EPA,according to Mark Withers, should work with the owners of the site and determine whether theliability lies with the original polluter, where the contamination emanated. We get people that tell uswhere that pollution occurred and where the hexavalent chromium and the zinc and phosphate—we know that it was actually dumped on the Cheltenham site. The council was concerned, andMark Withers hadn't dealt with that at all in his brief.

The third site is the swap area, the St Clair land, and that itself was underinvestigation by the EPA back in December 2011 where the original audits have been supplied tothe EPA and the EPA are concerned about what the audits are. I have underlined something: 'Theaudit reports require further attention and may affect the outcome of the audit or result and a delayin completing the EPA administrative review.' Further on, it states: 'It may be necessary for theaudit report and site contamination audit statement to be withdrawn. The EPA recommends thatcouncil defer any decision related to planning and develop initiatives relative to the site.' I havetried to pursue that and I have not been successful in getting any information.

In those three sites, where we started off, it was always 'we have to consider water'but site contamination is the first thing you look at whenever you are going into changing the zoningof the site. It was interesting that the first contact we had with Mr Ploubidis at the open days atCheltenham racecourse, the first thing he wanted to talk to me about was site contamination atCheltenham, so I thought that was rather interesting. The SAJC should have been aware that theyhad been using the site as a location for dumping chemicals because they would not have done itfor nothing. They would have been receiving money for it.

211 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I just want to make a statement. Can I call you Trevor?

Mr WHITE: Yes.

212 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: We had a South Australian Jockey Club inquiry beforethe last election. I think you gave evidence to that, didn't you?

Mr WHITE: That's correct.

213 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I remember rightly, it was established by the oppositionat the time and quite a bit of evidence was taken and legitimate people like yourselves who stronglybelieve there has been an injustice or cover-up or whatever, whether it is true or not, you stronglybelieve it and you are pushing to the very end. You came and gave evidence and after the electionit was dropped like a hot rock and we never met again. So, was there a report? I don't even know ifthere was a report ever given out, but it seemed to me—

Ms FAULKNER: There was an interim report.

214 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: An interim report.

Ms FAULKNER: That's right.

215 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: And then it never met again after the election, but itseemed to me that—

216 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Were you on the committee, Russell?

217 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I was on the committee. Yes, I was on the committee.

C. FAULKNERT. WHITE


218 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You didn't push for it to be re-established?

219 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I didn't start it. I opposed it all the way. What I amgetting at is it was started and it was used by the opposition leading up to the election and then itwas dropped as soon as the election finished, never met again. I suggest to you—and I see youhere legitimately fighting a battle, which I respect, only to see that there may be an interim reportput on this and then after the election you will hear no more of it. I just put a position here that thisis one of the reasons why I opposed this committee coming in because I thought it was just anotherpolitical stunt and people like yourselves will get no justice out of this committee as you reallyshould deserve or get. I just thought I would let you know that. This is the second select committeeI have heard you on. You are decent people, you have strong beliefs in what you are doing, butdon't expect too much from this committee. I am just saying this is how I see it.

220 The CHAIRPERSON: You might want to re-establish it after the election, Russell.

221 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I won't. You established it in the first place for this veryreason, a political stunt.

222 The Hon. M. PARNELL: The other point that the witnesses are well aware of isthat until 8 November when the minister finally gazetted the rezoning of the St Clair area forhousing, this was still a very live issue and people in good faith have made submissions to thiscommittee and they have come along.

223 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: They have.

224 The Hon. M. PARNELL: It wasn't this committee that signed off on that rezoning acouple of weeks ago.

Ms FAULKNER: That's why we're still pursuing the things that we are in otherforums, in the hope that the land swap can be reversed. As to the Cheltenham site, it was in thenorth-west corner that the government promised a regional park the size of four AAMI stadiums,and that was in recognition of a lack of open space for residents north and west of the racecourse.There are earthworks happening there at the moment. They are going ahead with the wetlands,and that's great, but there is going to be a definite lack of recreational open space because that'sbeen eaten into. In fact, one of the documents shows how that open space that we were promisedand fought for has shrunk and shifted to the detriment of the residents that were supposed tobenefit from it.

On the point of the racing select committee, we did have a subsequent meetingwith Terry Stephens and presented some more evidence and his position was that if he could findthe silver bullet he would resurrect that committee.

225 The CHAIRPERSON: Any other questions? If not, thank you very much for yourtime.

Mr WHITE: Could I just ask whether you would wish to accept these—

226 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are more than happy to accept any of thosedocuments.



WITNESS:

CARLO MESCHINO, called and examined:


Parliamentary privilege is accorded to all evidence presented to a selectcommittee; however, witnesses should be aware that privilege does not extend to statements madeoutside this meeting. All persons, including members of the media, are reminded that the samerules apply as in the reporting of parliament. Thank you for coming in. Perhaps you would like tointroduce yourself, for the benefit of Hansard, and then proceed with anything that you wish to tellus today.

Mr MESCHINO: Good morning, everyone. My name is Carlo Meschino. I live atI've come here today to, basically, have my say and give some

thoughts on what's been happening there with St Clair and the land swaps, and probably evenmore so with the precedent along Woodville Road. It saddens me to hear some of the commentsthat were made, but it's really a reflection of the Charles Sturt council with their consultativeprocesses. We go along to them but really they mean nothing, at the end of the day. The decisionsare made way beforehand and the public is given the impression that we participate in our owncommunity, but that's not the case.

Firstly, it also saddened me to hear that the government also rezoned the landbefore this committee had even a chance to finalise their findings, and I find this very disrespectfulto everyone. My thoughts on this are that people should be writing to the South AustralianGovernor voicing their dissatisfaction because the buck stops with the government and theirbehaviour in the parliament, if they wish to conduct themselves in this sort of manner. It doesn'tgive their people confidence in the parliament if the people don't have their feelings and thoughtsbrought out into the open.

Furthermore, I suppose it deters people from having their say, which is probablyeven worse, because then it will wreak havoc in the future, and you would have a breakdown of thewhole system. It's unfortunate even with the Charles Sturt council—and they hold consultations.I've been to a few deputations, and it amazes me that they often insult residents and ratepayerswhen they give their deputations. Not that it's happened to me, but I have seen it happen to others,where they hold them in contempt just for being there, taking up council time.

I think the biggest changes I've seen with Charles Sturt council and the way theyoperate and conduct their business was when they went from Woodville and they amalgamatedwith the Hindmarsh council. In the Woodville days I was a councillor there. I served a bit of timethere and put in my input. In the Woodville days, it was a pretty good council. You had a cross-section of people from the community that wanted to help their community, and so forth.

But once they amalgamated Hindmarsh, you got Michael Atkinson and his mobvirtually taking the council over, and things have been split ever since then. There seems to beparty politics in that council. You have these councils that come from particular parties, and theyseem to rule the roost. To me, it seems like they are out there to please their masters more so thanto please the community that they purport to serve, and that saddens me too.

Getting back to St Clair, I attended Woodville High School as a kid. I did myyear 11 there, and I used to walk from home—because I lived over in Albert Park—and I wouldwalk past St Clair every day. It's a beautiful place, St Clair. I suppose you've all been down thereand had a good look at it. It's a place of serenity; it's very peaceful. There's a nice big piece of openair that's bounded by Woodville Road. So it's not only the residents who enjoy it, but the peoplewho get caught up in the traffic on Woodville Road get to at least look around and vent theirfrustrations out to the open instead of to others in cars and people, things like that.

I always remember on Anzac Day at morning assembly, when the principal wouldaddress all of the students, we were told to pay particular attention and be especially respectful to

C. MESCHINO


the widows and the returned servicemen that were there at St Clair. There was one seat there Iknew of that was on Woodville Road itself that councillor Lyall Aird, one of the previous Woodvillecouncillors, had donated money out of his own pocket to put a seat there, along with other people,because there were seats dotted around St Clair for that very purpose, even back then.

228 The CHAIRPERSON: Mr Meschino, are you saying that there were memorialservices held at St Clair on Anzac Day?

Mr MESCHINO: No, people would go there to reflect. Part of our curriculum atWoodville High School was with the Brocas Museum, which was next door to the high school, andthey took us there for tours, and we got an education program with the past town clerk. He was oneof the presidents there years ago. Doug Hamilton was his name. We were educated on thesethings, about the war and stuff like that, because back in my generation this was important. Wewere the lucky ones.

My mates used to talk about being conscripted to Vietnam. We were the nextgeneration to be conscripted up, but luckily for us that ended and we were spared the grief, and theparents were spared the grief of having their kids taken away and sent off. So, yes, I come from ageneration where the contribution of our forefathers is very important to us being here and enjoyingthe good life, so to speak.

Just on the Brocas Museum, it is flanked by the St Clair Recreational Centre andtennis courts, and the council a number of years ago took that away from its people. That used tobe our museum and used to hold all the artefacts from back in the Woodville days. A lot of peopledonated bits and pieces to that museum. A lot of my community from my Neighbourhood Watchdays donated to that museum and it held quite a variety of bits and pieces that could show thehistory of Woodville from the days of David Bower, when Woodville was first cut up and subdivided.

That was taken away from the historical society, and that was pretty sad becausethey left the society homeless and the people of Woodville and Charles Sturt Council have nomuseum in that section of the area. That was quite sad, because I am a bit of a museum lover, Ilike the past. I reckon it would have been good about living 100 years ago—life would have beenmore simple and easy going than it is today.

229 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: And a lot shorter.

Mr MESCHINO: Of course.

230 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What happened with all of the museum bits ofmemorabilia—where did they go?

Mr MESCHINO: Some of it was sold off by the council itself. A lot was transferredto various other museums around the state, and some of it is down at Port Adelaide. I think theHistorical Society runs a room down at Port Adelaide, at the wharf markets, but it is nothing akin tothe museum that was run at the Brocas. I don't know if you know the Brocas—it is a beautiful two-storey, lovely place. Hopefully one day the council, maybe through a change of its members overtime, might see fit to reinstate that, hopefully.

In my time on the council it was quite comical really, as a kid, because it wouldhave been over 15 years ago. Michael Atkinson used to interfere. I remember one night at acommittee meeting he turned up and stood behind one of his councillors and gave him a note toread out—a motion on Barton Terrace.

231 The CHAIRPERSON: He's still on about that one.

Mr MESCHINO: He hasn't given up in years. The funny part was that the poorcouncillor couldn't read his handwriting and Alderman Bond told Michael, 'Hey, Michael, read it outfor him.' We all cracked up laughing. That has been going on for a long time. My belief is that thecouncil and parliament are there to do good and serve the community, but they should not be ineach other's pockets. There should be a line drawn between the levels of government. They allserve their own particular purpose, and once you start intermingling the different levels, I see it ascorruption—something like St Clair to me is corruption. I was with the Cheltenham group for aperiod of time and with the St Clair group for a period of time, and I have seen it all.

With St Clair I went to the council meeting when it first came up, and I said to thecouncillors, 'Why would you give your beachfront land away for a worthless piece out the back?'

C. MESCHINO


That is the way I see this land swap. I did go to one of the hearings at the ERD Court with theremediation of the Actil site, and participated in that on behalf of the Historical Society. I was one oftheir members and, unfortunately, one of the orders that the ERD Court imposed on the developersat the time was that the land was to be remediated to the point where you could put housing on it.That was never done.

It ended up in the council hands as parks, so the remediation process was half-hearted, and I suppose the ratepayers and residents will be stuck with this piece of land that issomewhat of an unknown, because if it ever leaks or something goes wrong with it, we are theones who have to pay for it at the end of the day. The pièce de résistance, St Clair, was handedover to the developers. That was their lucky day, I suppose, for a swap that they claim wassupposed to be equal, but it wasn't. I see it that way and there would be a lot of people who wouldsay the same sort of thing, hence, I suppose, why this committee is here today, because there area lot of dissatisfied people out there. I can give you my notes if you would like to save you going onand on.

232 The CHAIRPERSON: That would be great.

233 The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am just going to make an observation. I'm not beingrude, but I was just checking the submissions and you did make a submission to the WoodvilleDPA. Did you get a chance to have your say to the Development Policy Advisory Committee attheir hearing?

Mr MESCHINO: No.

234 The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just for your information, on Wednesday this week theparliamentary scrutiny—for want of a better word—of the Woodville station DPA takes place.Unfortunately there are 10 rezonings that are all being dealt with in one 90 minute meeting. Youraised it, as other witnesses have as well. I just thought I'd let you know that the final stage in thatprocess is Wednesday of this week.

Mr MESCHINO: Wednesday of this week. I think I might be down at the beach onWednesday as it's a very hot day.

235 The CHAIRPERSON: Any other questions?

Mr MESCHINO: No, just that as I get older I suppose I'm getting a bit sceptical.But I find that coming to places like here, although it gives me a chance to air my grievances toothers, I get the feeling that nothing really gets done at the end of the day, and that is probably thesaddest part about it all. But I will certainly take the opportunity of writing to the Governor andputting my viewpoint to the Governor and asking the Governor to have a look at things. Hopefullyhe, as our Queen's representative, can take some sort of action over the way that the parliamenthas conducted themselves over St Clair. Apart from that, thank you for hearing me out.


Table of Contents - SA Parliament

Documents

Transcript of Table of Contents - SA Parliament