Town of Gawler Council Meeting Agenda

Town of Gawler Council Meeting Agenda

22 March 2016

ATTACHMENTS UNDER SEPARATE COVER

Item 5.1 – Petition – Roadside Maintenance Paternoster Road, Reid

ATTACHMENT 1 Letter from Member for Light with associated petition

Item 8.1 – Infrastructure Australia Submission - Electrification of the Adelaide to Gawler Train Line and Future Extension to Concordia

ATTACHMENT 1 Concordia Land, Gawler Transport Initiative Correspondence

ATTACHMENTS 2 to 9 Various Concordia Land and Sierra Leyton Submissions to Council

ATTACHMENT 10 Concordia Land, Concordia Urban Framework Correspondence

Item 8.2 – Gawler East Link Road Update ATTACHMENT 1 Draft Gawler East Precinct Plan Social and Recreational

Infrastructure Requirements

ATTACHMENT 2 Rider Levett Bucknall Estimates

ATTACHMENT 3 Gawler East Stormwater Infrastructure Study

ATTACHMENT 4 Meeting Agenda

ATTACHMENT 5 URPS – Gawler East Precinct Plan Infrastructure Funding Discussion Paper

TOWN OF GAWLER COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ATTACHMENTS - 22 MARCH 2016

of 236

Item 8.3 – Gawler Connect – Digital/Business Hub and Multi-Function Space Tender Brief

ATTACHMENT 1 Tender Brief for Digital/Business Hub

ATTACHMENT 2 Tender Brief for Multi-Function Space

Item 8.4 – Monthly Finance Report – February 2016 ATTACHMENT 1 Monthly Finance Report – February 2016

Item 8.5 – National General Assembly of Local Government – Call for Motions

ATTACHMENT 1 Letter from Australian Local Government Association

ATTACHMENT 2 Call for Motions Discussion Paper


of 236


Item 5.1 – Petition – Roadside Maintenance Paternoster Road, Reid

ATTACHMENT 1 Letter from Member for Light with associated petition


of 236


of 236

Mr Henry matChief Executive OfficerTown of GawlerP 0 Box 130GAWLER SA 5118

Dear Mr 'iñi

Roadside Maintenance, Paternoster RoadOur reference: 42151029Ef150205

Anthony Markowski of 33 Chignell Crct, Reid, has lodged a petition, signed by 26 people, withmy office about the condition and lack of maintenance the road side on Paternoster Road.

Mr Markowski has requested that an approach to the subdivision in Reid, along PaternosterRoad, receive some landscaping treatment to add to the overall amenity of the area. I enclose acopy of Mr Markowski complaint and petition for your information.

Could you please investigate Mr Markowski's concerns and provide me with a response sothat I may respond directly to Mr Markowski and Co.

If you would like to discuss this matter further or for any other enquiry please do not hesitateto contact me or Joel Wemmer of my office on 8522 2878 or via email atlight@parliament sa gov au

Kind regards.1

TônyPiccolo MPMember for LightPl−February 2016

TOwflOt Gawier"anned

Record


of 236

The Honourable Mr. Tony PiccoloMember for light

Dear Mr PiccoloWe, the undersigned on the attached petition have an issue with the poor condition and lack ofmaintenance of the weeds along Paternoster Road, mostly at the northern western end leading tothe entrance of Chignell Circuit in the suburb of Reid. (Gawler west, next to the freeway)

About a year ago, or maybe a little longer, I contacted you and you kindly spoke to DPTI on ourbehalf and they sent out a crew, who made a feeble effort in cleaning up the dead trees, weeds andrubbish, mostly at the southern end of Paternoster Road, but as soon as a little rain fell, they packedup and left, never to return.

The problem we have is that the road divides two areas of responsibility. The western side by OPTIand the eastern side which is the responsibility of the Gawler council.

I have spoken to DPTI Peter Mathews on about a month before Christmas, and hepromised to send out a person to inspect the area again, but I have not heard any more nor hasthere been any cleanup. The area's grass is managed under contract and I asked that the contractarea be extended to include the whole of Paternoster Road. This has fallen on deaf ears.

The Gawler council has been working on the landscaping on the south eastern side of PaternosterRoad off and on, more off than on. I assume that the people in Reids View have also complained.

When I drive out of Chignell Circuit onto Paternoster Road, I see a wall of dead weeds and rubbishfour metres tall and weeds on either side of the road, for the full length of the road. Please refer tothe pictures attached.

When we initially enquired about buying our land, we were promised a fancy entrance gate into ourarea, like you find in most new developments and a fully landscaped park. We have a bush park,with a bitumen path through it, a foot bridge on the eastern side to cross the Gawler River and alittle bit of development on the southern side, mostly to do with storm water management.

We feel let down by all concerned. It is an embarrassment to invite friends to visit our new home.We pay top dollar in our rates to the Gawler Council, but the approach to the Wingfield Dump hasbetter landscaping that what we have. The developments around Gawler have growndisproportionally to that of the council and it is time for the council to take responsibility in fulfillingits obligations.

We hope that with your support, we may end up with a suburb we can be proud of and a fulfilmentof the promises that were made.

Thanking you once again for your continued hard work in our electorate.Yours sincerely,

Anthony Markowski JP33 ChigneIl CircuitReid SA 5188


of 236

PETITIONWe the undersigned residents of Reid are not happy that there stilt remain undeveloped vacantblocks of land in the suburb of Reid well beyond the time frame stipulated in the encumbrance(2.5years) for development.

We are also not happy with the poor maintenance of Paternoster Road, especially betweenRichardson Drive and Chigriell Circuit Reid and the condition of the entrance to our suburb.

We ask the Honourable Minister Mr Tony Piccolo to look into these matters on our behalf.

NAME SIGNA

5 I c O t & t − 3 C t 4 i U C

be, 2 5 Ci),clnt(I ( C fr

r n \ M h I i r ti\ji

ED J45 Ci AdA t ic_i

− −

'l koc\ S\ C/k1ñ72—r/AJ 31 t i (−tJtW Ci1

Ii,pno 1un€r 55 Ch9nQH cc EiciS 11W i9v i i<c LvC(p7 ?CAI

'S.

) I ( d L . CLT5

OZ VzF L " i − −YT /44

pcjL.!\ OU f CT WT)


of 236


of 236


Item 8.1 – Infrastructure Australia Submission - Electrification of the Adelaide to Gawler Train Line and Future Extension to Concordia

ATTACHMENT 1 Concordia Land, Gawler Transport Initiative Correspondence

ATTACHMENTS 2 to 9 Various Concordia Land and Sierra Leyton Submissions to Council

ATTACHMENT 10 Concordia Land, Concordia Urban Framework Correspondence


of 236


of 236

1 February 2016

Mr Henry Inat Chief Executive Officer Town of Gawler PO Box 130 GAWLER SA 5118

Dear Henry,

Gawler Transport Initiatives

I write in regard to the future planning for the provision of transport infrastructure to Gawler and Concordia, and how Concordia Land might work together with Council to maximize the outcomes for the community and the region.

Sierra Leyton is a Property Investment Funds Management Group that owns amongst its national portfolio the Gawler Central Shopping Centre, directly adjoining the Gawler Central Train Station and current terminal of the Adelaide Gawler Rail Line, as well as some 550 hectares of future urban land at Concordia within the Urban Growth Boundary and the subject of DPTI Strategic Transport visioning for future Rail Electrification extension to Concordia. Concordia Land is the management company which is overseeing the day to day management and orderly rezoning of the land.

The Concordia growth area is approximately 900 hectares in total and is located immediately north-east of the township of Gawler. The vision of Concordia Land is to transform the Concordia land into a master planned community that will form a logical, natural and sequential extension to the existing Gawler Township and environs. The growth area can accommodate approximately 8,000 dwellings with a population of 20,000 persons and would be developed over 20 years.

The key objective of our proposal is to “futureproof” the growth of Gawler and surrounding regions (including Concordia, Springwood, the Barossa, northern Adelaide Hills and Roseworthy), and make it a truly connected community, by planning for and seeking funding to deliver key public rail transport infrastructure.

The Federal Governments’ renewed interest in both cities and public transport provides Gawler and Concordia with a significant opportunity to attract, and lead investment for infrastructure and projects which can demonstrate benefits to the community.

This rail infrastructure initiative has five elements that have, as a primary purpose, the delivery of a modern connected community in the north of Adelaide. The first of these, which we refer to as Phase 1 is of specific concern to the Town of Gawler as it lies within the Councils’ boundary. Phase 2 relates to the extension of the line to Concordia, which lies within the District Council of Barossa.

ATTACHMENT 1TOWN OF GAWLER

COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ATTACHMENTS - 22 MARCH 2016

of 236

2

• Phase 1: o Duplicating the rail line at Gawler Central station and lowering it to enable electrification of

the line to its current terminus and rebuilding the station to integrate it with surrounding built form, including provision of additional park and ride facilities. Lowering the rail line means that it can travel underneath the King Street Bridge and in the future Murray Street before continuing on to Concordia.

• Phase 2: o Extending the passenger rail line along the recently disbanded rail freight line to Concordia. o Construction of a rail station at Concordia. o Relocating the train depot to a new terminus at Concordia that will enable expansion of

stabling facilities for trains in a cost effective manner. o Provision of substantial park and ride facilities to meet excess demand for accessing train

services.

Significant progress has been made in recent times with getting this Rail Transport Initiative on the agenda with all levels of Government including:

• Positive meeting with Mayor of Gawler on 12 October 2015 who has expressed her support. • Presentation to Gawler Council on 27 October 2015. • Meeting with yourself on 22 December 2015, to provide an update on the transport initiatives. • Two meetings with DPTI staff in late 2015. While they acknowledged that this project is not a priority

for the Department at this time under current strategic plans, they did offer an appropriate level of engagement and advice from DPTI during the process of Concordia Land preparing a 'business case'.

• Positive meeting with Minister Mulligan at Community Cabinet session. A follow up letter has been written to the Minister and his response received confirming his acknowledgement that Departmental staff will assist in the planning for transport infrastructure for Gawler/Concordia (refer attachment).

• Meeting with Mark Williams of the Office of the Co-ordinator General at which it was recommended that we pursue an Unsolicited Bid proposal for the transport initiative package, because we require access to Government owned assets.

However, of concern are the indications that the electrification of the line may stop at Gawler Station with a bus service or alternate diesel trains to Murray Street. We note that the Northern Economic Plan refers to the electrification of the line between “Adelaide CBD and Gawler interchange”, which seems to confirm this position. If it is true, it would certainly be a sub-optimal outcome for the Gawler community. As a result of these discussions and investigations Concordia Land seeks to move ahead with preparation of a business case for submission to Infrastructure Australia (IA) and would see significant benefit in the Town of Gawler being a partner in this process, providing strategic support and possibly a financial contribution to the work required. I have attached a copy of the Unsolicited Bid submission which outlines the proposal we have put to Government seeking their endorsement for preparation of a submission to IA. The submission also includes links to the plan showing the transport initiatives in spatial form, and also the computer generated fly through of what the Gawler Central station redevelopment could deliver, as we have previously provided to Council. While private parties can make submissions to IA, having State and Local Government support is an important element in demonstrating the strategic importance of the proposal. A submission to IA involves a number of steps, with the complexity of information required increasing as each step is reached. Concordia Land wishes to proceed with the preparation of firstly, a P90 costing and secondly, a ‘Rapid Benefit/Cost’ analysis as a first step in making a submission to IA, noting that IA only deals with projects of $100M or more in value. This proposed project exceeds $100m we are advised. Tony List of Costplan has been recommended to prepare the P90 costing, being someone who is well respected by DPTI. This work will cost $7,800 + GST. We have been able to engage the services of recently retired Head of Strategic Transport Planning DPTI, Phil Saunders, to assist in driving this project, scope definition and lodgment. Phil will be responsible for leading and directing project scope, analysis and report writing in and about the IA submission.


of 236

3

The Rapid Benefit Cost analysis will determine whether the project has a positive return on investment (ROI) taking into account all of the project benefits. Initial advice is that same is the case. While DPTI is able to prepare such an analysis; they do not currently have the resources, prioritization or financial capacity to do so. Therefore we will need to engage suitable consultants to assist to avoid this opportunity being lost. To this end we have received a proposal from Dr Scott Elaurant of Jacobs SKM to undertake the Rapid Benefit Cost. Working with Phil Saunders, and supported by DPTI, we believe this team will be best positioned to build a strong and cogent case to IA. The preparation of the rapid Benefit Cost analysis and finalization of the IA documentation will cost $37,000 +GST making a total project cost of $44,800 +GST. The outcome of this work will determine whether we can proceed to IA with a submission, supported by State and Local Government. If a positive response to this stage of the work is received from IA, we would hope that the State and Federal Government would agree to participate financially in the subsequent stages of work required to complete the IA process. The not insignificant cost of this proposal is acknowledged however significant competition is anticipated from communities’ right around Australia as this much heralded change in infrastructure policy takes affect and opportunities are proven up. Waiting for State Government to initiate this type of proposal could be well into 2016 or beyond at which time the race may be well over. The imminent release of the 30 Year Plan as well as the Ministerial planning reforms and significant announcement around a whole new infrastructure delivery model will be consistent with this proposal and position Springwood and Concordia well, in the mind of Government, as forward thinking and proactive in terms of urban growth planning. The proposed electric rail service is absolutely consistent with the State Government’s own strategic Integrated Land Use and Transport Plan (ITLUP). Without doubt, an electrified train service through Gawler to Concordia ensures the town can become a truly connected and vital destination to live, work, learn and play. We have secured support from all relevant State and Federal politicians as well as the Directors of the Springwood Development, who clearly see the benefits which the transport infrastructure can deliver to their community. We hope to have feedback on the Unsolicited Bid proposal by the end of February. Having the Town of Gawler on board with our efforts in this area is logical and important, and we would welcome your participation, both strategic and hopefully financial, in working toward transport outcomes which will have significant benefits for the Town of Gawler and the region. Thanking you in participation and we would appreciate Council’s consideration of our proposal for collaboration. Should you require any further information or see any benefit in us attending a Council meeting we are more than happy to assist. You will remember that we also discussed the benefit of having a meeting with yourself and relevant staff on these issues as well as the program and governance arrangements for future planning work as we move forward on Concordia. We would like to set a date for this meeting, perhaps toward the end of February if you could provide a preferred time. We can then work on an agreed agenda for the meeting. Yours sincerely,

Anne Highet Project Manager


of 236


of 236

Organisation/ Consortium Name:

Sierra Leyton

Address:

PO Box 7126, Hutt Street Adelaide, SA 5000. Level 1, 22-28 Vardon Avenue, Adelaide SA 5000

Identity:

Company

Type of Organisation/ Consortium:

Profit

Contact person(s) details for evaluation purposes:

Mr Damien Brown, Co-founding Director

Date of Submission:

22 December 2015

Concise title and abstract of proposal (approx.200 words) Gawler and Concordia Public Transport Initiative The purpose of this proposal is to seek the support of the SA State Government to the forward planning and investigation of funding options for: 1) the electrification of the rail service to Gawler Central station, 2) the redevelopment of the Gawler Central train station and 3) the extension of the rail electrification through to Concordia with associated station, park and ride facility and train depot. This proposal would be undertaken concurrently with master planning for the Concordia Growth Area which is planned to house around 20,000 people over the next 30 years, thereby doubling the size of the Town of Gawler. A key component of this work is the preparation of a submission to Infrastructure Australia seeking Federal funding for the infrastructure. An opportunity exists for the Federal Government and private enterprise, in association with State and Local Government, to co-invest and work together to not only deliver high quality public transport to a regional centre but also significant private capital investment and in turn create jobs in the region. While a submission to Infrastructure Australia can be made by a private party, it is critical that all levels of Government are in support of the proposal and that the State Government has given approval for the use of its rail assets to deliver the transport outcomes. Proposal Details Objectives of the Proposal

Sierra Leyton is a Property Investment Funds Management Group (http://sierraleyton.com.au) that owns amongst its national portfolio the Gawler Central Shopping Centre, directly adjoining the Gawler Central Train Station and current terminal of the Adelaide Gawler Rail Line, as well as some 550 hectares of future urban land at Concordia (http://concordialand.com.au) within the Urban Growth Boundary and the subject of DPTI Strategic Transport visioning for future Rail Electrification extension to Concordia. Concordia Land is the management company which is overseeing the day to day management and orderly rezoning of the land.

The Concordia growth area is approximately 900 hectares in total and is located immediately north-east of the township of Gawler. The vision of Concordia Land is to transform the Concordia land into a master planned community that will form a logical, natural and sequential extension to the existing Gawler Township and environs. The growth area can accommodate approximately 8,000 dwellings with a population of 20,000 persons and would be developed over 20 years. The current population of Gawler (including Hewett) is 25,000 persons. The key objective of this proposal is to “futureproof” the growth of Gawler and surrounding regions (including Concordia, Springwood, the Barossa, northern Adelaide Hills and Roseworthy), and make it a truly connected community, by planning for and seeking funding to deliver key public rail transport infrastructure. Of critical importance is the need to lower the rail track through to Gawler Central so it can then be continued on to


of 236

Concordia under Murray Street.

Method of Approach

The Federal Governments’ renewed interest in both cities and public transport provides South Australia with a significant opportunity to attract investment for infrastructure and projects which can demonstrate benefits to the community. An opportunity exists for the Federal Government and private enterprise, in association with State and Local Government, to co-invest and work together, to deliver high quality public transport to a regional centre which is planned to double in size over the next 25 years.

Our approach is to prepare a business case for the provision of the rail infrastructure to support a submission to Infrastructure Australia seeking Federal Government funding for the project. A submission to Infrastructure Australia involves a number of steps, with the complexity of information required increasing as each step is reached. The first step in this process is the preparation of a business case including a P90 costing and a ‘Rapid Benefit/Cost’ analysis, noting that IA only deals with projects of $100M or more in value. The outcome of this step will determine whether the submission will proceed on to subsequent stages of assessment by Infrastructure Australia.

We have identified a team of well-regarded consultants including Tony List of CostplanPty Ltd and Dr Scott Elaurant of Jacobs SKM to assist in the preparation of these studies which will cost in the order of $45,000. Sierra Leyton is prepared to fund this work.

Concurrently, Sierra Leyton would proceed with master planning work for the Concordia Growth Area because of the integral link between land use planning and the provision of transport infrastructure. The Planning Division of DPTI have agreed to engage with us in undertaking this work. Again, this work will be funded by Sierra Leyton.

Nature and extent of anticipated outcomes

This rail infrastructure initiative has four elements that have, as a primary purpose, the delivery of a modern connected community in the north of Adelaide:

• Phase 1: o Duplicating the rail line at Gawler Central station and lowering it to enable electrification of the

line to its current terminus and rebuilding the station to integrate it with surrounding built form, including provision of additional park and ride facilities. Lowering the rail line means that it can travel underneath the King Street Bridge and in the future Murray Street before continuing on to Concordia.

o A concept animation for the future redevelopment of Gawler Central station can be viewed at:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vjy4ywdwj7zx2r3/Gawler%20Central%20Fly%20Around.mp4?dl=0

o • Phase 2:

o Extending the passenger rail line along the recently disbanded rail freight line to Concordia. o Construction of a rail station at Concordia. o Relocating the train depot to a new terminus at Concordia that will enable expansion of stabling

facilities for trains in a cost effective manner. o Provision of substantial park and ride facilities to meet excess demand for accessing train

services.

These elements will be integrated with the master plan for the Concordia growth area and the ongoing development of the Springwood estate which is located within 800 metres of the proposed Concordia station, in order to maximize the benefits of the rail service. The master planning will involve engagement with key stakeholders and the community to ensure outcomes are in line with government priorities and community needs. A plan showing the four rail infrastructure initiatives can be viewed at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vginuthsvydkyiu/Gawler%20Transport%20Initiative%20Plan%20Oct%2015.pdf?dl=0


of 236

Benefits the proposal will bring to the State

Extending the electrification of the rail line with associated infrastructure through to Concordia and redevelopment of the Gawler Central station will provide a number of significant benefits to Gawler, the region and the State, including:

• Creating a connected, sustainable region of Greater Gawler. • Making a contribution to carbon reduction and the State’s climate change goals, specifically the

increased electrification of transport to achieve emission reduction. • Provision of rail services to a significant current and future growth area that are fully integrated in the

early stages of development. • The creation of construction jobs from the rail infrastructure project itself. • The creation of permanent local jobs as a result of investment which will leverage off the rail service

including education, health, social, retail and residential development. Investment in public infrastructure, and particularly transport services, is guaranteed to attract further private investment.

• Improving equity in access to public transport for a regional community. • Significantly improving train patronage through the provision of expanded and improved park and ride

facilities. • More efficient rail operations through the provision of a new train depot at the terminus of the Gawler

line. • Making better use of existing infrastructure, that is the existing but disused freight rail line. • Freeing up of Government owned land for redevelopment at Gawler station with the removal of the

existing train depot. • Reduction of traffic congestion in the Gawler town centre with improved public transport and park and

ride facilities. • Creating a safer more user-friendly rail service to Gawler, by designing and delivering active, safe and

convenient pedestrian movement linkages. • Attraction of private capital investment on the back of an electrified rail service both in proximity to the

train stations and as a result of the improvements to the conditions in the main street of Gawler. • Enabling Gawler to become a Regional Activity Centre bringing a broader range of community services

to the Gawler/Barossa region.

Assessment Criteria 1. Competing Proposals

There are no competing proposals. Sierra Leyton is the immediate landowner adjacent both the Gawler Central Station and the proposed Concordia Station.

2. Community Need/Government Priority

South Australia’s Seven Strategic Priorities The proposal is consistent with, and supportive of, two of the seven state economic priorities:

• An affordable place to live – provision of public transport services can significantly reduce the cost of living of households through savings on fuel and the need for a second family car.

• Safe communities, healthy neighbourhoods – provision of well-designed and integrated public transport services encourage walking and interaction by residents and reduce road congestion.

South Australia’s Climate Change Strategy 2015 - 2050 – Towards a low carbon economy The project makes a contribution to the States’ Climate Change Strategy Theme 2: Towards Zero Emissions – Decarbonising the Transport Network, by increasing electrification of public transport to achieve emission reduction.


of 236

30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide

The 30YP identifies a total of 933 hectares of land at Concordia within the urban growth boundary designated as ‘planned urban lands to 2038’. Of the total land, 488 hectares were identified as developable in the short term (0-15 years), with a further 445 hectares identified as a ‘future urban growth area’. The Plan also shows the proposed extension of rail services to Concordia. (The map below shows the now outdated proposal to extend the rail line in a north east direction based on a previous development option. This proposal is not viable and no longer required. The current proposal utilizes the existing rail corridor). It should be noted that the 30YP (which is part of the South Australian Planning Strategy) is currently under review by the State Government, pursuant to the Development Act, 1993 [‘Act’]. Pursuant to the Act, the Minister must ensure that the various parts of the Planning Strategy are reviewed at least once in every five years. We understand that the 30YP is regarded by the State Government as robust and fundamentally sound and does not require a wholesale change, but directions and principles are to be evolved and refined. The release of the updated 30 Year Plan is now likely to occur in 2016 however, the release of the Environment & Food Production Areas map by the Minister has now confirmed the inclusion of Concordia within the urban area of Greater Adelaide.


of 236

Housing and Employment Land Supply Program (2010 and 2012)

The Housing and Employment Land Supply Program (HELSP) guides the effective management of land supply in South Australia for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. The Government’s intention is to publish this document every five years. It is expected and updated Program will be released following the updating of the 30YP. At a glance: • Land supply – Between 250 to 400 hectares of broad acre land is consumed annually. This reinforces

the importance of timely rezoning to reach and maintain a rolling 15 year supply of land to the market. The majority of future land supply from new growth areas is in the Northern and Barossa regions. They account for about 10,300 hectares.

• Housing demand – In 2008-2009, South Australia had its highest population growth (19,200) and highest net migration level in 35 years. Population growth is currently exceeding South Australia’s Strategic Plan targets. The number of households is currently growing at a faster rate than the population. The estimated dwelling target for Greater Adelaide over the next 15 years is 131,000 - representing 51% of the total 258,000 dwellings targeted in the Plan.

The 2010 Program includes portion of the Concordia land (488 hectares) within the 0-15 year supply of urban land and the remaining 445 identified as a future growth area with a Development Plan Amendment (rezoning) to commence between 2014/15 - 2018/19. In 2012 the HELSP Monitoring Report was released, the purpose of which was to monitor the demand and supply of land for residential, industrial and retail use. It was intended that these monitoring reports would be released annually, however the 2012 report has been the only report released to date. The status of Concordia remains the same in the 2012 report as it was in 2010. Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan (2015)

In July 2015, the State Government released South Australia's first Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan (ITLUP). The purpose of ITLUP is to provide guidance in relation to the provision of transport infrastructure to support land use development. The document establishes a functional hierarchy of transport corridors and modes. An implementation plan sets out the solutions and actions required to achieve the integrated transport and land use vision. Concordia is identified in ITLUP as a ‘long term potential future growth area’ (15 years +). In regard to infrastructure provision extension of the train line to Concordia is identified as a ‘potential’ solution with corridors to be preserved to Concordia. The construction of the north east bypass, contingent upon the development of Concordia, is also identified as a long term action.


of 236

Local Government Strategic Plans Whilst the Concordia growth area represents a logical and natural extension of the Town of Gawler, it falls under the administrative control of the Barossa Council. This creates a unique geo-political environment, with a new growth area that is spatially, geographically, demographically and economically aligned and linked with the Township of Gawler, but under the political and administrative control of the Barossa Council. While the Barossa Council has not yet turned its mind to strategic planning for the Concordia area, the Town of Gawler has done so and acknowledges the need for planning to address the future development of the area in its Strategic Directions Report 2013-2017. The Town of Gawler is also currently undertaking the preparation of a number of strategic planning documents including a Social Infrastructure Plan and a Stormwater Management Plan. Each of these reports identifies Concordia as a future growth area and considers the impact of the area on future infrastructure needs.

3. Uniqueness of the proposal

The uniqueness of the proposal is quite simple, in that Sierra Leyton owns all of the land assets adjoining the Gawler Central station and the proposed Concordia station. Therefore:

• the proposal cannot be delivered by competitors;

• the proponent has ownership of strategic assets in the form of real property that places it in a unique position to deliver the aims of the proposal, which other parties could not deliver;

• the proponent is in a position to financially support the proposal; and

• the proponent has a unique ability to deliver outcomes which support the achievement of the Government’s strategic priorities as outlined in detail above.

4. Value for money

For the proposal outlined above, Sierra Leyton is not seeking any financial commitment from Government. Sierra Leyton is prepared to fund the initial phases of the preparation of business case to support a submission to Infrastructure Australia. If a positive response to this stage of the work is received from Infrastructure Australia, we would hope that the State and Federal Government would agree to participate financially in the subsequent stages of work required to complete the Infrastructure Australia application process. We do however, seek the Governments’ commitment to support and participate in the preparation of a business case and subsequently an application to Infrastructure Australia.

5. Organisational Capacity and Capability

Sierra Leyton is a property investment manager and holds an Australian Financial Securities Licence (AFSL) issued by the Australian Securities Commission (ASIC) 401882. We currently own assets in NSW, WA, Victoria and SA.

Concordia Land is the management company who will oversee the preparation of the business case for the rail initiatives on behalf of Sierra Leyton. Concordia Land has access to funds which have been raised to assist with the strategic planning for the Concordia growth area. The project will be managed on a day to day basis by our Project Manager, Anne Highet.

Financial and commercial details As outlined above Sierra Leyton is not seeking to enter into commercial arrangements at this time. The proposal seeks Government support to investigate forward planning and funding options for the rail transport initiatives outlined in this submission. If we were successful in gaining support from the Federal Government for this


of 236

project we would seek further discussions with the State Government as to the resources necessary to progress the project. Costs and requirements of government Government Support and Financing Arrangements Sierra Leyton is seeking the support of Government and specifically the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) to participate in the preparation of a business case to support an application to Infrastructure Australia. No financial support is sought at this time however; we seek the appropriate engagement with key staff and the provision of relevant information and data to support the proposal. If the business case investigations demonstrate that a submission to Infrastructure Australia is warranted then we would seek the support of Government in making that submission. Subsequent to any submission being lodged with Infrastructure Australia, it is not possible to determine at this time what level of support would be required moving forward, as it would also depend on the success of that submission and any contribution made by the Federal Government to further investigations. Access to Government Assets If the project was successful in securing funding for the transport initiatives outlined in this proposal, Sierra Leyton would seek to participate in an integrated redevelopment of the Gawler Central station which may involve access to land and air rights, and possibly other land transactions to achieve the desired outcomes for a transit oriented development. Provision of Infrastructure Sierra Leyton is in a position at both Gawler Central and Concordia to provide access to land for the development of the rail stations and park and ride facilities, and at Concordia for the train depot. These arrangements would be subject to commercial negotiations at the appropriate time. At Concordia there are significant areas of land available under the high tension power line corridor which could be used very cost effectively for such infrastructure. Risks The risk to the proponent is that the money expended is wasted. However, we are prepared to take that risk as we believe the project is worthy of investigation. The risk to Government is minimal but we appreciate that the project is not considered a strategic priority at this time. However, the lead times in these projects are considerable and we do not wish to miss the opportunity of achieving an optimal transport solution for the community. We would propose that the biggest risk to both the proponent and Government is in not pursuing this opportunity on behalf of the community of Gawler/Barossa and the State. Intellectual Property details Not applicable. Other Statements Nil.


of 236

Preferred Contractual Arrangements Not applicable Agency Points of Contact The following persons have been briefed in regard to this proposal Hon. Stephen Mullighan, Minister for Transport and Infrastructure Don Hogben, Phil Lawes, Mike Wilde, Lindsay Oxlad, DPTI Transport Division Andrew McKeegan and Sally Smith, DPTI, Planning Division Mayor Karen Redman and CEO Henry Inat, Town of Gawler Period of time for which the proposal is valid

Unlimited

Proposed duration of the arrangement

We would anticipate the key tasks will occur over the next 6-12 months

Name: Damien Brown Position: Co-Director, Sierra Leyton Signature:

Date: 21 December 2016


of 236



of 236

Concordia Land Management

ABN 61 152 547 398 Level 1, 296 Rundle Street, Adelaide SA 5000

Ph: (08) 8227 2444

31 March 2014

The Chief Executive

Town of Gawler

PO Box 130

GAWLER SA 5118

Dear Sir,

RE: GAWLER TOWN CENTRE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK REPORT- CONCORDIA GROWTH AREA.

We write on behalf of Concordia Land Management (CLM) in response to the ‘Gawler Town Centre Strategic

Framework Report’ (GTCSFR) that was released for public consultation on Monday 24 February 2014. CLM has

an interest in approximately 600 hectares of undercapitalised agricultural land within the suburb of Concordia, in

The Barossa Council. The land is located to the immediate north-east of the township of Gawler and is identified

as a ‘Long-term urban growth area’ within the ‘30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide’.

The land under the general control of the CLM (area of interest) is identified spatially in Figure 1 below. The

vision of CLM is to transform the Concordia area into a master planned community that will form a logical, natural

and sequential extension to the existing Gawler township and environs. The land has the capacity to

accommodate up to 8,000 dwellings and 18,000 people in a master planned community that is fully integrated

with the township of Gawler to facilitate and support its role as a ‘Major District Centre’ on the Gawler major

transit corridor whilst simultaneously maintaining the town’s essential character.

At its closest point the land is only 790 metres from Murray Street (Main Street) within the Town of Gawler.

Given the proximity and spatial relationship of the Concordia growth area with the Town of Gawler and the

inevitable future inter-relationship between the Town of Gawler and the future Concordia community, it is

considered appropriate that the GTCSFR should acknowledge, address and capitalise on the future opportunities

arising from this logical township expansion.

Council is commended for the development of a strategy and framework for the Gawler town centre and for

undertaking extensive research and investigations to underpin and inform key recommendations to achieve town

centre revitalisation.



of 236

2 | P a g e

Figure 1: Concordia Growth Area

The purpose of this submission is to support the key objectives and recommendations of the GTCSFR and in

particular Council’s desire to reinforce the predominance and primacy of the Gawler Town Centre.

This submission identifies and addresses some of the implications of growth and development of the Concordia

Growth area on the Gawler Town Centre but also identifies some elements of the GTCSFR that require further

attention and consideration.


of 236

3 | P a g e

Planned Future Retail Centres:

The development of the Concordia growth area is highly aligned with the ‘30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide’ as

both a designated growth area and ‘urban expansion priority’ as well as development that supports and sits

within a designated ‘major transit corridor’.

In accordance with the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, the GTCSFR correctly identifies that Concordia will

need to accommodate a future ‘District Centre’ to support the future residents of Concordia with a range of retail,

office, community and entertainment facilities (page 7). CLM also support the findings of the GTCSFR that the

new District Centre should not undermine the ‘Major District Centre’ function of the Gawler Town Centre.

In an apparent oversight, it appears that the independent retail analysis undertaken by SGS Economics and

Planning to inform GTCSFR does not identify a future District Centre within the Concordia Growth Area. In

contrast, ‘Planned Major Centres’ are identified in Roseworthy and Buckland Park – both outside of the Council

area. It appears that the catchment analysis undertaken by SGS Economics & Planning appears to neglect the

likely future development of a ‘Planned Major Centre’ in Concordia together with the concomitant future

population in this growth area.

Given the proximity and direct linkages of the Concordia Growth area with the Gawler Town Centre and the need

and stated objective to reinforce the primacy of the Gawler town centre, consideration should be given to all

future planned retail centres in the region – inclusive of a future District Centre in Concordia.

A Solution for Future Traffic Demands:

The GTCSFR identifies that future traffic demands in Murray Street would be affected by the development of

future growth areas including Concordia. Further, it is noted that an expansion of retail and commercial floor

space along Murray Street will also result in traffic volumes exceeding the capacity of Murray Street and

associated key intersections (resulting in excessive queues and delays).

The GTCSFR identifies that it will be an essential requirement to provide necessary connector roads as part of

the full development of the current urban growth boundary - to ensure that traffic volumes on Murray Street are

‘contained’. The future development of Concordia has the potential to assist with the delivery of the ‘north-east

connector road’ (between the Barossa Valley Way and the Sturt Highway). In isolation, and when combined with

the ‘eastern connector’ road, it offers a clear and essential solution to traffic congestion in the Gawler Town

Centre, including Murray Street.

In addition, a potential new passenger rail connection and extension to Concordia, an extension of future bus

services to Concordia, as well as a future linear park/paths along the North Para River to provide a strong

pedestrian and cycle connection from Concordia to Murray Street (via Clonlea Reserve) will also assist to deliver

alternative and more sustainable transport options in the region. This will assist to further reduce congestion in


of 236

4 | P a g e

the town centre and assist to manage and improve both parking options within the town centre as well as traffic

circulation over all.

The Concordia growth area therefore offers and provides effective tangible solutions to manage future traffic

demands attributable to both the incremental growth of retail and commercial floor spaces in the Gawler town

centre as well as the growth derived from full development of the Urban Growth Boundary (including Evanston

South, Evanston Gardens, Gawler East, Roseworthy and Concordia etc.).

Regional Population Growth and Infrastructure:

CLM fully supports and agrees with the following key recommendations of the GTCSFR with respect to ‘Regional

Population Growth and Infrastructure’:

2.1 Having regard to the 30-Year Plan’s allocation of Concordia as a ‘future urban growth area’ and

a ‘potential transit corridor to Concordia’, ensure such development is progressed in a manner

that enhances the catchment of, viability and services provided in the Gawler Town Centre,

ensuring the Town Centre remains as main focus of retail and service provision within the

Council area.

2.2 While encouraging commercial and residential developments within and outside of the Town

Centre area in appropriately considered locations, ensure the associated retail developments are

constructed at a level / scale that does not erode the role and function of the Town Centre

(including significant public sector investment such as the train station and bus facilities, TAFE

etc.)

2.3 Advocate and plan for the construction of the Eastern and North-Eastern Connector Bypass

Roads.

2.4 Advocate and plan for the upgrade of rail infrastructure and improve the standard of services on

the Gawler Line (including the electrification of the Gawler Line)

2.5 Advocate for investigations to extend passenger rail services on the “Penrice Soda Limestone

train line” (related to Concordia and the 30-Year Plan’s objectives).

2.6 Advocate and plan for integrated regional cycling connections / networks that facilitate bike use

within Gawler’s Town Centre (including open spaces and train stations) and well designed and

secure bike parking facilities. This includes a review of the Town of Gawler Walking and Cycling

Plan 2008 and the spatial representation of these regional cycling and connection/networks as

part of the Town of Gawler Structure Plan.

These recommendations are clearly most relevant to the future development of the Concordia Growth area and

its relationship to the Gawler Town Centre and are fully supported by CLM.


of 236

5 | P a g e

We commend the Council for their strong leadership in initiation and delivery of the Draft GTCSFR and would be

pleased to meet at your convenience to discuss this submission and our plans and vision for a future master

planned community at Concordia.

Please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned on 08 8227 2444 should you have any questions or queries in

relation to this submission.

Yours sincerely

Richard Osborne Director - CLM cc The Deputy Chief Executive, DPTI

Damien Brown, Director CLM


of 236

23 July 2014

The Chief Executive Town of Gawler PO Box 130 GAWLER SA 5118

Dear Sir,

RE: GAWLER COMMUNITY PLAN 2014-2024

We write on behalf of Concordia Land Management [‘CLM’] in response to the ‘Gawler Community Plan – 2014-2024’ [‘GCP’] that was released for public consultation on Monday 24 February 2014. CLM has an interest in approximately 600 hectares of undercapitalised agricultural land within the suburb of Concordia, in The Barossa Council. The land is located to the immediate north-east of the township of Gawler and is identified as a ‘Long-term urban growth area’ within the ‘30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide’.

The land under the general control of the CLM (area of interest) is identified spatially in Figure 1 below. The vision of CLM is to transform the Concordia area into a master planned community that will form a logical, natural and sequential extension to the existing Gawler Township and environs. The land has the capacity to accommodate up to 8,000 dwellings and 18,000 people in a master planned community that is fully integrated with the Township of Gawler to facilitate and support its role as a Regional and Cultural Centre on the Gawler major transit corridor.

At its closest point the land is only 790 metres from Murray Street (Main Street) within the Town of Gawler. Given the proximity, spatial relationship and inevitable future inter-relationship between the Town of Gawler and the Concordia growth area, it is appropriate that the GCP acknowledges the important influence of the Concordia growth area on the future of Gawler.

Council is commended for the preparation of the GCP which is a progressive document to plan for and guide Council decision making and proactively shape the future of the Gawler community and township. Importantly,

ATTACHMENT 4TOWN OF GAWLER COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ATTACHMENTS - 22 MARCH 2016

of 236

the GCP can be used as a tool to advocate for future infrastructure and services provided by other spheres of government, non-government organisations and the private sector to ensure sustainable growth with physical and social infrastructure to match projected population growth.

The following submission responds to the identified ‘Vision’ for Gawler in the GCP as well as the five (5) key themes and goals for Gawler. Each matter is addressed respectively below.

Figure 1: Concordia Growth Area

Vision for Gawler:

The GCP identifies the following vision for Gawler:

‘A liveable Community – serving todays community for tomorrow. Building an even stronger community. A creative, cohesive and conserving community”.

Whilst CLM support the proposed vision for Gawler, consideration could be given to expanding the vision to capture the historic past and desired future role of Gawler as a ‘Regional Activity Centre’ servicing communities to the north of Adelaide including the nearby agricultural and horticultural communities located in the mid north, the northern Adelaide Plains and Barossa Valley.

CLM suggest and advocate an expansion of the vision for Gawler as follows:


of 236

‘A liveable Community – serving todays community for tomorrow. Building an even stronger, resilient, creative, cohesive and conserving community and a robust, vibrant and sustainable regional activity centre serving the mid north, northern Adelaide Plains and Barossa Valley.

It is important to clearly articulate and identify the vision for Gawler to act as a true regional activity centre, as this will position Gawler as a priority centre for major Government and private investments and drive opportunities and decision making for commercial businesses, Government offices and Government services relocating to Gawler.

For example, designation of Gawler as a ‘Regional Activity Centre’ rather than a ‘Major District Centre’ (as designated by the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide) will guide private and public sector decision making for investment and development of key land uses, services and activities that serve regional catchments such as universities, hospitals, arts, culture and sporting facilities. This will in turn generate a regional economic node and ‘cluster’ which will generate substantial employment and provide an opportunity for the provision of locally-available jobs for the surrounding residential population – assisting with employment containment and self-sufficiency.

1) Our Identity – A Uniquely Identifiable Township.

CLM support Objective 1.1 to ‘Maintain a clearly defined township, one which is distinctly separate from neighbouring areas’ and in particular strongly supports the following strategies to achieve this objective:

• Strategy 1.1.1 ‘Development or Regional and Local Town Planning Policies that ensure Gawlermaintains a real sense of distinction from its surrounding areas.’

• Strategy 1.1.2 ‘Safeguard views and vistas to retain Gawler’s open space landscape character throughthe provision of open space, and to maintain Gawler’s town identity and a sense of arrival from alldirections’.

• Strategy 1.1.3 ‘Promote Local Government boundary realignments to more accurately reflect Gawler’spopulation and reinforce its sense of community’.

Further, as discussed in our suggested modifications to the ‘Vision’ for Gawler (above), CLM strongly support Objective 1.4 to ‘Build a vibrant and active, event filled Council area’ and in particular Strategy 1.4.4 to ‘Position and promote Gawler as a Regional Centre’.

The original Township of Gawler was sited and planned by Colonel William Light in 1839 and was South Australia’s first country town. The local community strongly value the historic character of the township and want to hold onto its historic character by reinforcing its distinctiveness and retaining its status as a metropolitan township, rather than a northern suburb of Adelaide.

Future growth of the township should therefore retain its unique and distinct character and identity as a separate town and not a suburb of Adelaide.


of 236

The Concordia growth area can be developed as a logical sequential extension of the Township of Gawler and will not result in the conurbation of metropolitan Adelaide with Gawler. It can also be developed to retain the sense of place and identify of Gawler, preserving a strong sense of arrival into the township from both metropolitan Adelaide and the Barossa Region.

The development of the Concordia growth area will result in a ‘concentric urban township’ around a core, formed by the town centre of Murray Street. The growth area will provide ‘balance’ to the township within a clearly defined township boundary. It will capitalise on and contribute to the existing physical and social infrastructure of the township whilst providing a critical population mass to support and underpin the economic strength and viability of local businesses, services and institutions. This is the vision and preferred outcome of CLM, who do not support the development of a self-contained satellite city at Concordia that competes, challenges and undermines the primacy of the Gawler Township.

Arguably, the natural growth and expansion of the township of Gawler has been historically and artificially constrained by administrative Local Government boundaries, which have placed land near the Gawler Town Centre under the control and administration of both the Barossa Council (Concordia) and Light Regional Council (Hewett). At its closest point, the land is only 790 metres from Murray Street (Main Street) within the Town of Gawler. In contrast, the land is more than nine kilometres from Lyndoch, the closest township within The Barossa Council and more than four kilometres from the Township of Roseworthy, within the Light Regional Council.

Whilst the area of Hewett has been developed (under the control and administration of the Light Regional Council), the area of Concordia remains relatively undeveloped, with limited agricultural activities and rural living. This land is directly contiguous with the Town of Gawler, but has been historically managed as agricultural and rural land rather than a natural urban extension of the Gawler Township.

A historic and administrative anomaly has therefore had a profound impact on the spatial and economic growth of the Gawler Township, which has been artificially constrained. Traditional geographical economic theory identifies that, in an isolated state, a city or town will grow concentrically. In the context of the Town of Gawler, the logical concentric growth of the township has however been artificial constrained by the administrative Local Government boundaries of both the Barossa Council (Concordia) and, to a lesser extent, the Light Regional Council (Hewett). Without this artificial constraint, spatial economic theory would suggest that Gawler would have rationally developed as a concentric township.

The opportunity therefore exists, through local Government Boundary reform as well as coordinated structure planning and infrastructure planning, for the Concordia Growth area to facilitate the natural spatial economic growth of the township by removing existing artificial and administrative constraints and barriers to balanced concentric township growth. By allowing the natural spatial and economic growth of the township, it will consolidate the primacy of the Gawler Town Centre and retain the unique and distinct character and identity of Gawler as a separate town and not a suburb or extension of Metropolitan Adelaide.

Local Government boundary reform to include both Concordia and Hewett into the administrative boundary of the Town of Gawler acknowledges the role Gawler plays as a regional centre servicing a broader catchment than the


of 236

existing township. It will also ensure that Gawler Council is better positioned to control, manage, fund and deliver coordinated services and infrastructure in support of the future population that will inevitably use and rely on services, facilities and infrastructure provided within the Gawler Township. 2) Our Growth – Sustainable Growth Management CLM support the Goal of ‘Sustainable Growth Management’ and key objectives to achieve sustainable growth of Gawler including:

• Objective 2.1 ‘Physical and social infrastructure to match population growth’ • Objective 2.3 ‘Urban Growth that is sustainably managed’.

CLM understand and agree that population growth must be underpinned by the provision of essential physical and social infrastructure and services in advance of need. In particular, the Concordia Growth area can assist with the implementation of identified strategies to achieve the delivery of physical and social infrastructure that matches population growth by:

• Assisting with the supply of well-located and affordable residential land; • Assisting with the timely provision of community services and facilities; and • Assisting with the implementation of traffic and transport management measures in Concordia that will

ensure integration with existing areas and relieve pressure on existing and ‘overburdened’ infrastructure.

The Concordia Growth area could directly and indirectly facilitate the following critical infrastructure identified in the GCP in order to meet the current and future needs of the community:

• Gawler East Link Road – Gawler East to Main North Road; • North-Eastern Bypass – Lyndoch Road to Sturt Highway • Electrification of the Gawler Rail Line; • New/expanded sporting hubs, • New/expanded entertainment precincts • New/expanded healthcare services; • New/expanded arts and culture hub; • Increase cycling and walking trails (including the Jack Bobridge Track); • Tourism infrastructure, including visitor accommodation; • Possible stormwater harvest and reuse opportunities; and • Improved public transport (including a rail spur and terminus/station at Concordia).

As a master planned community, the Concordia growth area can also assist to implement Objective 2.3 ‘Urban growth that is sustainably managed’ through infill development that supports and retains the primacy of the Gawler Township, capitalises on existing services and optimises infrastructure efficiencies. The potential new passenger rail connection and extension to Concordia as well as a future linear park/paths along the North Para River will provide a strong pedestrian and cycle connection from Concordia to Murray Street (including a possible extension of the Jack Bobridge Bike trail through Concordia and Clonlea Reserve)


of 236

and will assist to deliver alternative and more sustainable transport options, reduce congestion in the town centre and directly facilitate Objective 2.5 for ‘Growth that promotes real connection between people and places’. In particular, new ‘rail and trail’ infrastructure will assist to implement the following identified strategies in the GCP:

• Strategy 2.51 ‘Advocate and plan for the upgrading of rail infrastructure for improved standards ofservice’;

• Strategy 2.5.4 ‘Develop a safe and interconnected network of cycle/walking paths to key destinationssuch as schools.’

• Strategy 2.5.5 ‘Encourage proposals for the redevelopment of all train station precincts, including theGawler Central Train Station and nearby commercial precinct.’

CLM also strongly support Objective 2.6 ‘Creation of local economic activity, job opportunities and local community wealth creation’ and recognise that the Concordia growth area will only be successful as infill growth around a vibrant activity centre and employment hub that services not only the Gawler district and environs, but the mid north as well as the Barossa and even the Riverland.

Retail services alone should not drive the Regional Activity Centre. The role and function of Gawler as a Regional Activity Centre should be examined with respect to retail, education, health/medical services, Government services, sporting facilities, tourism, entertainment, arts and culture to ensure sustainable future employment self-sufficiency and containment as well as a diverse and resilient economy.

CLM firmly believe that employment and economic growth will provide the ‘demand drivers’ for the growth of the township and region and then land supply should logically follow demand.

3.0 Our Community - A healthy, active, safe engaged community.

CLM support all objectives and strategies identified in the GCP ‘To create a healthy, active, safe and engaged community’.

In particular, CLM firmly believe there are strong opportunities for improved health care facilities in the Gawler Township and that Gawler should reclaim it historic role and function as a regional health hub.

4.0 Our Environment – To respect and nurture the environment

CLM support all objectives and strategies identified in the GCP ‘To respect and nurture the environment’.

In particular, CLM strongly support Strategy 4.2.4 to ‘Limit urban sprawl, reduce car dependency and improve energy efficiencies and water conservation, including the facilitation of higher residential densities in transport corridors.’

The Concordia Growth area will not represent ‘urban sprawl’ nor will it result in a separate ‘new town’ or ‘gated community’ on the fringe of Gawler. CLM have a vision for a master planned community at Concordia that


of 236

represents best practice in urban development and is recognised as a logical, sequential and natural extension of the Town of Gawler.

The future master planned community at Concordia will provide the energy for achievement of the full potential of Gawler as a Regional Activity Centre, while maintaining and enhancing the unique historic and community identity of the town, as well as environmental habitat and local biodiversity conservation.

CLM support the protection and enhancement of river corridors in the region and recognise the benefits of a linear park that preserves endemic and intact vegetation communities along the North Para River corridor and provides scenic linear trails that utilise this natural asset and ecological corridor in the broader pedestrian and cycle network.

5.0 Our Leadership – A strong vibrant community

CLM support all objectives and strategies identified in the GCP to create ‘A Strong, Vibrant Community’.

CLM commend a governance approach, with Council working collaboratively with all sectors of the community to implement the GCP.

We commend the Council for their strong leadership in initiation and preparation of the GCP and would be pleased to meet at your convenience to discuss this submission and our plans and vision for a future master planned community at Concordia.

Please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned on 08 8227 2444 should you have any questions or queries in relation to this submission.

Yours sincerely

Damien Brown Director - CLM

cc The Deputy Chief Executive, DPTI Richard Osborne, Director CLM


of 236



of 236

1

31 March 2014

The Chief Executive

Town of Gawler

PO Box 130

GAWLER SA 5118

Dear Sir,

RE: GAWLER TOWN CENTRE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK REPORT - CONCORDIA GROWTH AREA

We write on behalf of Sierra Leyton in response to the ‘Gawler Town Centre Strategic Framework Report’ (GTCSFR)

that was released for public consultation on 24th

February 2014.

Sierra Leyton is an Investment Property Management company (AFSL 401882) who owns and manages the Gawler

Central Shopping Centre (previously named the Gawler Northern Markets) on the corner of Murray Street, Cowan

Street and King Street Gawler.

1.0 The Gawler Central Shopping Centre

The Gawler Central Shopping centre has a site area of approximately 20,000m2 and is currently occupied by a Coles

supermarket, specialty retail shops, and offices. Approval was also recently obtained from the Town of Gawler for a

new medical centre fronting Cowan Street. The centre has a total gross leasable floor area in the order of 6,000 m2.

The Gawler Central shopping centre is located at the northern end of Murray Street and provides a ‘book-end’ to

the Gawler Town Centre, the principal retail and activity centre for the Council area.

To the immediate north of the Gawler Central shopping centre is the Gawler Central railway station, the terminus of

the Adelaide – Gawler railway line. To the south of the Gawler Central shopping centre Cowan Street and Murray

Street are utilised as a bus interchange for frequent local bus networks and services. Pioneer Park is located

diagonally opposite the site, over Murray Street.

Figure 1 below shows the spatial location of The Gawler Central shopping centre in the Town of Gawler.



of 236

2

Figure 1: Spatial Context - Gawler Central Shopping Centre

Council is commended for the development of a strategy and framework for the Gawler Town Centre and for

undertaking extensive research and investigations to underpin and inform key recommendations to achieve town

centre revitalisation.

The purpose of this submission is to support the key objectives and recommendations of the GTCSFR and in

particular Council’s desire to reinforce the primacy of the Gawler Town Centre and to establish a clear policy

framework for the Gawler Town Centre as a ‘Major District Centre’.

2.0 Whole of Government and Community Approach

Sierra Leyton supports and endorses Recommendation 1.2 identifying the need for structured and on-going active

engagement of Council with the ‘Gawler Business Development Group’, existing Government agencies and key land

owners and business operators (including Sierra Leyton) to work to promote the vision and principles for the Gawler

Town Centre.

Business strategies should be adopted by Council that galvanise business community support to work towards a

positive future. Key landowners and business operators are the key to future economic growth and development

and can be instrumental in the development of catalytic projects that can assist to revitalise the town centre whilst

also delivering and implementing associated urban design and place making strategies and objectives.


of 236

3

3.0 Regional Population Growth and Infrastructure

Sierra Leyton supports and endorses Recommendation 2.2 and Recommendation 8.6 which encourage commercial

development within and outside of the town centre in appropriately considered locations whilst ensuring that

associated retail developments are constructed at a level and scale that do not erode the role, function and primacy

of the Town Centre.

There are strong economic, social and environmental benefits when a wide range of uses are ‘clustered’ within

activity centres, particularly where there is strong integration between land use and transport, thereby generating

efficiencies through a reduction in travel trips as well as the equitable delivery and support of public transport

infrastructure (such as the Gawler Central Train Station).

Accordingly, the Gawler Town Centre should remain the focus for service delivery, employment and social

interaction – whilst discouraging the dispersal and dilution of these uses throughout the urban area.

4.0 Urban Design / Place Making

Sierra Leyton strongly supports and endorses Recommendation 3.4 which seeks to encourage the redevelopment

of the Gawler Central Train Station and associated commercial centre to facilitate better integration and activation

of Cowan Street, Murray Street and Pioneer Park.

The opportunity exists at Gawler Central to develop a mixed use and compact activity centre utilising transit

orientated development principles to reduce vehicle dependence, encourage economic development, and increase

housing and lifestyle choice and diversity within the Gawler Town Centre.

The redevelopment of the Gawler Central Train Station and associated commercial centre represents a unique

opportunity to:

• Create opportunities for integrated commercial and economic investment and development within the

core of the town centre – on an integrated fixed rail and bus transit node;

• Concentrate employment, housing, services and amenities around the Gawler Central train station –

integrating land use and transport; and

• ‘Bury’ the rail corridor (with developable ‘air space’ above the rail corridor) at Gawler Central and deliver

an underground rail solution that will remove existing physical barriers (at-grade rail corridor) to

pedestrian movement and connectivity to Cowan Street, Murray Street and Pioneer Park and improve

pedestrian permeability, linkages and integration with the balance of the Town Centre.

5.0 Entry Statements

Sierra Leyton supports and endorses Recommendation 4.3 to facilitate the development of key gateway/entry

statements including the northern end of Murray Street at the intersection of the Cowan Street (adjacent Gawler

Central).

6.0 Heritage

Sierra Leyton strongly supports and endorses Recommendation 5.3 to actively promote/publicise appropriate infill

development opportunities near heritage places including the Railway Station / Coles Precinct (Gawler Central).

The opportunity exists to develop contemporary built form that complements but does not necessarily replicate

heritage places and character sites. Sierra Leyton supports the proposition that heritage does not preclude new


of 236

4

development and that the opportunity exists at Gawler Central to conserve and enhance the past whilst embracing

the future.

Sierra Leyton also supports Recommendation 5.4 and Recommendation 8.1 to review the extent of heritage listings

and related policies in the Gawler Development Plan to ensure that a balanced policy regime exists to conserve and

protect important historic places (to retain the historic character and enduring sense of place of the town centre)

without overtly restricting, limiting, frustrating and protracting the delivery of new sensitive and innovative

architecture and economic development.

7.0 Traffic and Car Parking

Sierra Leyton strongly supports and endorses Recommendation 6.2 to advocate and plan for the upgrade of the

Gawler Central railway train station and environs. The opportunity exists for a coordinated approach to the

development of the Gawler Central train station and environs with a partnership between State Government, the

Town of Gawler and private land owners to deliver a shared vision for a mixed use and compact activity centre

utilising transit orientated development principles.

Land to the south of Gawler Central Station is under the single ownership of Sierra Leyton with land north of Gawler

Central Station under the control of the State Government (Park ‘n’ Ride). This provides a unique opportunity to

deliver an underground rail solution at Gawler Central with associated physical, social and economic benefits for the

Gawler town centre and broader region.

This opportunity should be embraced, in association with the state government’s announcement to electrify the

Gawler Rail Corridor to ensure a purpose built station that is adaptable and configured for electrification. The

opportunity also exists to capture and utilise state and federal funding to deliver an electrified north-south rail

corridor in association with the South Australian ‘Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan’.

The opportunity for a transit-orientated and mixed development outcome at Gawler Central should also be

facilitated by a local policy regime that attracts and encourages a mix of land uses and density of development

sought for the centre and surrounds as well as decision making mechanisms that avoid delays, obstructions and

third party interventions. The policy regime should avoid disincentives to development such as highly prescriptive

policies or the application of levies (such as car parking funds) and imposts on development outcomes sought in and

around the centre.

Sierra Leyton also strongly supports and endorses Recommendation 6.7 and Recommendation 8.1 to reduce the

required car-parking ratios for shops, restaurants and serviced apartments.

The current car parking rate for a ‘shop’ in the Gawler Development plan is 7 spaces/100m2 of floor area and this is

considered excessive and does not reflect contemporary standards. For a number of years the peak parking rate at

retail centres has been decreasing, with smaller peak demands occurring more often. This reflects (amongst other

things) deregulated shopping hours, changing shopping habits and the complementary or shared use of car parking

with different peak parking demands.

Whilst the recommended reduction of the car parking rate from 7.0 to 5.5 spaces/100m2 of floor area is supported,

a car parking design rate of 5.0 car spaces per 100 sqm is considered more appropriate for a shopping centre given

the body of empirical evidence supporting lower car parking demand rates for shopping centres.


of 236

5

8.0 Development Plan Updates

Sierra Leyton supports and endorses Recommendation 8.2 and Recommendation 8.3 to update the current Town

of Gawler Development Plan to introduce the ‘South Australian Planning Policy Library’ modules, avoid policy

duplication and promote more user friendly planning ordinance.

The Gawler town centre is currently governed and controlled by an antiquated and complex policy framework with

Zoning and associated instruments of development control that are restrictive and do not pro-actively promote or

encourage strong mixed use activity centres. Sierra Leyton therefore strongly supports the initiation of a ‘Town

Centre DPA’ to introduce a more contemporary policy framework to ensure that Gawler operates as a ‘Major

District Centre’.

In particular, the adoption of an ‘Urban Core Zone’ (or similar) from the South Australian Planning Policy Library –

Version 6 could be successfully applied to land around Gawler Central railway station and could include the

following key objectives:

OBJ 1 A mixed use zone accommodating a mix of employment generating land uses and medium to

high density residential development in close proximity to a high frequency public transport

corridor.

OBJ 2 Development within a mixed use environment that is compatible with surrounding development

and which does not unreasonably compromise the amenity of the zone or any adjoining

residential zone.

OBJ 3 Smaller dwellings, including innovative housing designs, located close to local services and public

transport stops.

OBJ 4 Mixed use development integrated with a high quality public realm that promotes walking,

cycling, public transport patronage and positive social interaction.

OBJ 5 A zone that provides a spatial separation, or transitions down, in scale and intensity to adjacent

lower density residential zones.

We would be pleased to work with Council to potentially assist with background investigations in support of a

future ‘Town Centre DPA’ (and / or a ‘Transit Oriented Development DPA’) which could be utilised as the mechanism

to introduce a more flexible and suitable policy framework in support of a mixed use activity centre incorporating

transport orientated development principles.

9.0 Funding Opportunities

Sierra Leyton supports and endorses Recommendation 9.1 to seek sustainable and targeted government funding

and grants to deliver key strategies and recommendations of the GTCSFR including ‘places for People’ and ‘Open

Space’ funding (available via the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure) which could be successfully

utilised to deliver open space and public realm improvements to the Gawler Central/railway station precinct – in

partnership the State Government and private land owners.

Consideration should also be given to procurement of third party funds to undertake investigations required to

change and amend the Town of Gawler Development Plan (i.e. privately funded Development Plan Amendments).

An up to date Development Plan is important to ensure that the City grows in an orderly and prosperous manner.


of 236

6

Up to date planning policies also assist with ensuring that potential conflicts and impacts from development are

minimised. High quality development will improve the wellbeing, prosperity and general amenity of the Gawler

township.

The Town of Gawler is current experiencing significant infrastructure investment and population growth and this

will require substantial and timely improvements to Development Plan policy. Privately Funded DPA’s are one

model that can be used to complement Council and State Government funded rezonings. The preparation of a

‘Privately Funded Development Plan Amendment Policy’ would also guide Council in the assessment and processing

of privately funded DPAs in a clear and transparent manner.

Sierra Leyton would be willing to enter into discussions with Council regarding potential opportunities to fund (or

proportionally fund) costs of the initiation and preparation of a separate ‘Transit Orientated Development DPA’ for

the Gawler Central/railway station precinct. This would include possible engagement of suitably qualified

consultants (who meet the requirements of the Development Act and Regulations) to prepare the draft DPA.

Irrespective of any potential funding or resource arrangements that may be negotiated to assist with the

preparation and management of a DPA of this nature, Sierra Leyton acknowledges and recognises that:

• Council would maintain control of the DPA which will be ultimately adopted, modified or rejected at the

absolute discretion of Council;

• The management, policy oversight and processing of the DPA will be required to be undertaken by Council

staff (inclusive of required public consultation) and therefore the DPA would be managed according to

Council’s priorities and subsequent timeframes; and

• While Council may initiate the DPA, ultimately the decision on its authorisation is a decision of the

Minister for Planning, and not the Council, and that Council has no control over this process.

We commend Council for initiation of the GTCSFR and would be pleased to meet at your convenience to discuss this

submission and our plans and vision for Gawler Central Shopping Centre. We and would welcome the opportunity

to present to Council elected representatives in support of this submission - at the absolute discretion of Council.

Please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned on 08 8227 2444 should you have any questions or queries in

relation to this submission.

Yours sincerely,

Damien Brown

Director – Sierra Leyton


of 236

30 July 2014

The Chief Executive

Town of Gawler

PO Box 130

GAWLER SA 5118

Via email: [email protected]

Dear Sir,

DRAFT GAWLER COMMUNITY PLAN 2014‐2024 – GAWLER CENTRAL SHOPPING CENTRE

We write on behalf of Sierra Leyton in response to the Draft Gawler Community Plan 2014‐2024 which was released for

public consultation in early July 2014.

Further to our previous submissions made in response to the Town of Gawler ‘Strategic Directions Report’ in September

2013 and more recently the Gawler Town Centre Strategic Framework Report in March 2014, Sierra Leyton strongly

commends Council’s visionary and proactive approach to forward planning and strategic project delivery for the Town

of Gawler as well as the robust consultation undertaken with all stakeholders.

As a key stakeholder, Sierra Leyton, an Investment Property Management company (AFSL 401882), owns and manages

the Gawler Central Shopping Centre on the corner of Murray Street, Cowan Street and King Street Gawler.

Recognising the importance of the town as a valued and growing northern Major District Centre we note the emphasis

on ‘sustainable growth management’ within the draft Community Plan and in particular, the following key objective

and associated strategy:

Objective Strategies

2.5 Growth that promotes real

connection between people and places 2.5.5

Encourage proposals for the redevelopment of all train station

precincts, including the Gawler Central Train Station and nearby

commercial precinct.

Council would be familiar with the strategic location of the Gawler Central Shopping Centre, located to the immediate north of the Gawler Central railway station, the terminus of the Adelaide – Gawler railway line. Redevelopment of the shopping centre land and surrounds in the form of a transit orientated mixed use hub represents a genuinely achievable and tangible growth and service delivery opportunity for Gawler and one Sierra Leyton is committed to in partnership with Council.

The opportunity to concentrate employment, housing, services and amenities around the Gawler station is a logical next step for this location and reminiscent of that captured by the Subiaco Central TOD in Perth, Western Australia. Of significance is the arrangement of this development and its concentration around the Subiaco train station and a supermarket‐based node. Since the rail undergrounding in 1999, station patronage at Subiaco Central has nearly tripled and significant structural changes can be seen in the broader Subiaco business district as a result, with the northern end of Rokeby Road undergoing a renaissance. Murray Street Gawler could share a similar destiny



of 236

2

The Subiaco example has many correlations with the Gawler Central Shopping Centre and Train Station site. A future integrated development scheme could similarly include the Gawler Station as a subterranean railway station which removes the existing at‐grade rail corridor which currently acts as a physical barrier to pedestrian movement and connectivity (particularly to Murray Street), and creates opportunities for integrated commercial and economic investment and development within the core of the town centre – on an integrated fixed rail and bus transit node.

In the context of these tangible and exciting prospects, we fully support strategy 2.5.5 and congratulate Council on

identifying the potential of the strategically important area around the Gawler Central Train Station and adjoining

commercial precinct.

With respect to delivery of this strategy, we strongly encourage Council to review the Town of Gawler Development

Plan to introduce the ‘South Australian Planning Policy Library’ modules and in appropriate locations, such as in

proximity to the Gawler Central Train Station, endorse a new zoning framework, such as an ‘Urban Core Zone’ or

similar, which actively promotes and encourages strong mixed use activity centres.

As previously proposed Sierra Leyton would be pleased to work with Council to potentially assist with background

investigations and/or consider a financial contribution as part of a privately funded Development Plan Amendment

(DPA) in support of a future DPA or precinct plan, either of which could be a potential mechanism to support a mixed

use activity centre incorporating transport orientated development principles.

Council is clearly cognisant of the extent of change which Gawler is experiencing through development potential,

population expansion and infrastructure investment and that to ensure this growth occurs in an orderly and prosperous

manner, substantial and timely improvements to its Development Plan policy are critical. Development Plan

Amendments however can be costly (i.e. specialist investigations), resource hungry (i.e. Council staff time) and as a

result, can take considerable time to deliver. Privately Funded DPA’s are one model that can be used to complement

Council and State Government funded rezonings, relieve the associated financial pressures, provide for greater

efficiency in terms of progressive Development Plan policy change which keeps abreast of market trends, while still

ensuring that Council (or the State Government) maintains control of the DPA which would be ultimately adopted,

modified or rejected at the absolute discretion of Council (and ultimately the Minister for Planning).

Further the management, policy oversight and processing tasks associated with Privately Funded DPA’s remain the

responsibility of Council staff (inclusive of required public consultation) and therefore any such DPA would be managed

according to Council’s priorities and subsequent timeframes.

In summary, Sierra Leyton wishes to confirm its strong support for the Draft Gawler Community Plan 2014‐2024 and in

particular strategy 2.5.5 which seeks to encourage proposals associated with the redevelopment of all train station

precinct, including the Gawler Central Train Station and nearby commercial precinct.

We would be pleased to meet at your convenience to discuss this submission and would welcome the opportunity to

make a presentation at the Council’s Public Meeting to be held on Tuesday 5 August 2014.

Please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned on 08 8227 2444 should you have any questions or queries in relation

to this submission.

Yours sincerely

Damien Brown

Director – Sierra Leyton


of 236

Mr Henry Inat Chief Executive Officer Town of Gawler Town of Gawler Integrated Urban Design Framework Report PO Box 130 GAWLER SA 5118

Via email: [email protected]

Dear Henry,

Town of Gawler Integrated Urban Design Framework Report

We write on behalf of Sierra Leyton, the Property Investment Funds Management Group that owns the Gawler Central Shopping Centre, as well as some 1200 acres of future urban land at Concordia and thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the Town of Gawler Integrated Urban Design Framework Report.

We commend Council for preparing the Integrated Urban Design Framework Report and in particular for identifying the opportunities associated with the Gawler Central Shopping Centre, rail station and extension of rail services to Concordia.

We are very pleased to see that the report identifies the opportunity for the Gawler North precinct to develop into a vibrant mixed use area with scope for residential, commercial and retail uses integrated with a transport hub centred on the Gawler Central train station. As outlined in the report there is also opportunity for significant improvement of pedestrian connections, urban spaces and the streetscape. Gawler Central Shopping Centre and its future interrelationship with the train station is critical to achieving a successful transit oriented outcome and Sierra Leyton is committed to working with State and Local Government to this end.

Also critical to forward planning is the identification of the potential to lower the rail line through the Gawler Central station allowing for a grade separated crossing at Murray Street and extension of the electrified rail service through to Concordia. We are pleased to see this is identified in the precinct actions for the transport interchange. We are continuing to liaise with State Government regarding the planning and funding for this rail infrastructure initiative and are currently pursuing a potential submission to Infrastructure Australia.

Sierra Leyton supports the draft document issued for consultation and we look forward to working with Council on the implementation of the actions and outcomes identified in the report.

Yours sincerely,

Damien Brown Director



of 236



of 236

10 February 2016

Mr Henry Inat Chief Executive Officer Town of Gawler PO Box 130 GAWLER SA 5118

Dear Henry,

Concordia Urban Framework

Further to our recent correspondence regarding the status of the Gawler/Concordia transport initiatives, we write to outline more broadly our strategy for moving forward with strategic planning for the Concordia growth area over the course of 2016.

As outlined in our letter of 1 February, we have held regular discussions with the Transport Division of the Department of Transport, Planning and Infrastructure (DPTI) in relation to planning for the electrification of the Gawler line, the future redevelopment of Gawler Central station and the extension of the line to Concordia, and as previously advised have recently received acknowledgment from Minister Mullighan of our desire to move forward with this task. This work is of course closely related to the nature of the future population, demographic profile and spatial layout of the Concordia site. Therefore, we also approached the Planning Division of DPTI regarding our desire to commence preliminary planning work; that is the preparation of an Urban Framework for Concordia while acknowledging that the site is still identified as a longer term growth area.

Just prior to Christmas a significant milestone was reach as, the Planning Division through Sally Smith and Andrew McKeegan, confirmed that DPTI would support a process to prepare an Urban Framework for Concordia, which will be led and resourced by the landowner. In agreeing to participate in this process it is acknowledged that at this time there is no commitment from Government as to the timing of the rezoning of the Concordia growth area.

Concordia Land has always been clear about not wanting to pre-empt any policy outcomes which might emerge from the 30 Year Plan revision. Although the release of the updated 30 Year Plan is now likely to occur later in 2016, the release of the Environment & Food Production Areas map by the Minister in late 2015 has now confirmed the inclusion of Concordia within the urban area of Greater Adelaide.

We appreciate that Concordia may not be an immediate priority for Government; however we are concerned that if forward planning for the rail infrastructure (and by association the growth area) in particular does not occur in the short term, then the opportunity may be lost or unnecessarily delayed with project costs increasing as the years go by.

The purpose of preparing an Urban Framework is to position Concordia for future urban growth supported by appropriate infrastructure, commencing with broad background investigations and analysis to better understand the opportunities and constraints for urban development. This process will involve identifying a transparent and robust governance and management structure for project delivery, with respect to all key stakeholders including Local and State Government liaison. This governance structure will also address and respond to issues of probity, as well as communication protocols and stakeholder engagement.



of 236

2

Project tasks and deliverables will include:

• The identification of all the relevant factors that will need to be considered and addressed in determining the direction and timing of future urban development in Concordia;

• An information base in the form of preliminary background investigations to support the proposition for urban development in Concordia;

• Consideration of environmental, social and economic issues and technological developments that will deliver a ‘resilient Concordia’;

• An ‘Urban Framework Plan’ which will provide the basis for the proposed rezoning, as well as a datum to understand and calculate required infrastructure to support future urban development; and

• An ‘Infrastructure Servicing Strategy’ and ‘Infrastructure Precinct Plan’ for land release that will form the basis of State and Local Infrastructure negotiations, agreements and contributions.

We have engaged Richard Dwyer of Ekistics in association with a range of specialist sub consultants to co-ordinate the preparation of the Urban Framework, reporting to Anne Highet, Concordia Project Manager. Separately, but related to this work we have engaged Kelvin Trimper to prepare an Education Strategy for Concordia addressing the education and training needs of the future community, particularly investigating innovative and best practice ways of delivering education services. Also Concordia Land has partnered with the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board to undertake a vegetation rehabilitation and protection project across the Concordia project site. This project will conclude in May and provide a survey of the area and mapping of current flora and fauna biodiversity species; analysis and recommendations on future land use; a weed control program and a plan to maintain and restore the riparian areas and creek lines. We are currently in the implementation phase of the Urban Framework project and will shortly be in a position to discuss in detail with Council the governance and management arrangements proposed so all parties are comfortable in moving forward. We propose this can form part of the discussion at the workshop we have suggested for the end of February, when we can address all current activities associated with Concordia. Moving forward our meetings regarding the Urban Framework will require the involvement of both the Town of Gawler and District Council of Barossa given our unique geo-political situation. To this end, we would seek your feedback on whether you prefer us to invite DC Barossa to this initial workshop or alternatively we can meet with each Council separately in the first instance. The Town of Gawler is a very important partner in the preparation of the Concordia Urban Framework and we look forward to working closely with your team over the course of 2016. Should you wish to discuss any aspect of the proposal we have set out above please do not hesitate to contact me directly. I will be in contact with you shortly to discuss the logistics of the workshop. Yours sincerely,

Anne Highet Project Manager


of 236


Item 8.2 – Gawler East Link Road Update ATTACHMENT 1 Draft Gawler East Precinct Plan Social and Recreational

Infrastructure Requirements

ATTACHMENT 2 Rider Levett Bucknall Estimates

ATTACHMENT 3 Gawler East Stormwater Infrastructure Study

ATTACHMENT 4 Meeting Agenda

ATTACHMENT 5 URPS – Gawler East Precinct Plan Infrastructure Funding Discussion Paper


of 236


of 236

Town of Gawler 2015-0273

14 OCTOBER 2015

“Draft” Gawler East Precinct Plan

Social and Recreational Infrastructure Requirements



of 236


of 236

“Draft” Gawler East Precinct Plan

Social and Recreational Infrastructure

Requirements 14 October 2015

Lead consultant URPS

Prepared for Town of Gawler

Consultant Project Manager Grazio Maiorano, Director

Michael Arman, Associate

Suite 12/154 Fullarton Road

(cnr Alexandra Ave)

Rose Park, SA 5067

Tel: (08) 8333 7999

Email: [email protected]

URPS Ref 2015-0273

Document history and status

© URPS All rights reserved; these materials are copyright. No part may be reproduced or copied in any way, form or by any means without prior permission. This report has been prepared for URPS’ client. URPS and its associated consultants are not liable to any person or entity for any damage or loss that has occurred, or may occur, in relation to that person or entity taking or not taking action in respect of any representation, statement, opinion or advice referred to herein. www.urps.com.au ABN 55 640 546 010 \\sbs\data\Synergy\Projects\2015\2015-0273 Gawler East Social & Recreational Infrastructure\Draft Reports\R001_v2_151006_Draft_Social_Recreation_Infrastructure_Report (003).docx

Revision Date Reviewed Approved Details

1 13/10/15 GM


of 236

Contents 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1

1.1 Gawler East Precinct Plan ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Social and Recreational Infrastructure Requirements ................................................................... 1

1.3 Scope and Limitations of this Paper ............................................................................................... 1

2.0 Background: Planning for Social and Recreational Infrastructure ...............................................2

2.1 What is considered social and recreational infrastructure? .......................................................... 2

2.2 What are the roles of Council in the provision of social and recreational infrastructure? ............ 3

2.3 Typical methodology for planning for social and recreational infrastructure ............................... 4

2.3.1 Town of Gawler Social Infrastructure and Services Study ................................................................. 4

2.3.2 Town of Gawler Open Space, Sport and Recreation Plan 2025 ......................................................... 4

2.3.3 Open Space provision in the Development Act 1993 ........................................................................ 5

2.3.4 City of Playford Social Plan for Services and Infrastructure .............................................................. 5

2.3.5 Human Service Infrastructure Summary for Roseworthy.................................................................. 5

3.0 Social and Recreation Infrastructure Requirements for Gawler East ...........................................6

3.1 Determining appropriate catchments for Gawler East .................................................................. 6

3.2 Social and Recreation Infrastructure Requirements for Gawler East ............................................ 6

3.3 Summary of requirements for Gawler East.................................................................................. 10

3.4 Knowledge gaps ........................................................................................................................... 11

3.5 Considerations for the Concept Plan ........................................................................................... 12

4.0 Funding and Implementation Options ..................................................................................... 13

4.1 Principles to inform funding decision making .............................................................................. 13

4.2 Funding Options ........................................................................................................................... 14

4.2.1 Infrastructure Deeds ........................................................................................................................ 14

4.2.2 Developer Contributions ................................................................................................................. 15

4.2.3 Separate Rate .................................................................................................................................. 16

4.2.4 Draft Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill ...................................................................... 17


of 236

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Gawler East Precinct Plan

The Town of Gawler is in the process of undertaking concept planning for the Gawler East development

area. The boundaries of Gawler East are defined by “Gawler East Structure Plan Map Ga/1 (Overlay 1)

Enlargement G” within the DC of Gawler Council’s Development Plan.

The precinct plan is an important document for Council to help ensure the orderly development of new

residential communities in Gawler East and the coordinated provision of the necessary infrastructure.

1.2 Social and Recreational Infrastructure Requirements

This report considers the social and recreational infrastructure, including open space that will be required

to support development of Gawler East. In particular, this report addresses the following questions:

1. What social infrastructure, open space and recreation facilities are required in Gawler East at full

development?

2. What is the likely first order capital cost to develop these facilities?

3. What may be an appropriate portion of these costs that should be borne by Council, developers

and land owners?

1.3 Scope and Limitations of this Paper

This report has been prepared within the context of determining the required social and recreational

infrastructure once the area is fully developed, as one component of the broader concept planning for

Gawler East.

The paper begins with a summary of the process for planning for social and recreational infrastructure,

based upon practice elsewhere as well as existing studies commissioned by the Town of Gawler.

The paper then outlines the social and recreation infrastructure requirements for Gawler East based on

these practices/studies. Social and recreational infrastructure have been identified for the discrete

Gawler East project area, considered the primary catchment.

The final section of the report discusses principles to guide funding decisions and funding options.

This report is a desktop study and has not involved any engagement with service providers, developers or

other stakeholders.


of 236

2.0 Background: Planning for Social and Recreational Infrastructure

2.1 What is considered social and recreational infrastructure?

South Australia has no co-ordinated framework which formally outlines the social and recreational

infrastructure that can be expected in any given community, the population triggers for the provision of

new facilities or the roles and responsibilities for provision and ongoing maintenance/operation of

services and facilities.

In this absence, Table 2-1 contains a summary of the facilities and services that are typically considered

social and recreational infrastructure, along with the usual provider.

Table 2-1¶ Social and recreational infrastructure, and usual providers

Facility or Service Usual provider in SA

Neighbourhood Houses and Community Centres Local government

Halls and Meeting Places Local government

Libraries Local government

Spaces for performing and visual arts Local government

Facilities for specific community groups (e.g. youth, older people)

Local government

Neighbourhood development programs Local government and developers

Playgroups and Kindergartens Private sector

Childcare Private sector

Schools State government and private sector

GPs and allied health services Private sector

Residential aged care facilities Private sector

Public transport State government

Emergency management services State government

Open Space Developers, and transferred to local government

Playing fields and courts Local government

Recreation centres Local Government

Playspaces, skate parks and BMX

It should be noted that different jurisdictions use different definition of social and recreational

infrastructure. For example, the City of Playford focus on the built infrastructure (i.e. actual facilities),

while also acknowledging the importance of service provision and community development.


of 236

2.2 What are the roles of Council in the provision of social and recreational infrastructure?

The Town of Gawler plays a number of different roles in the planning for, provision of and ongoing

maintenance/operation of social infrastructure, open space and recreational services and facilities.

The Town of Gawler Community Plan 2014-2024 outlines the different roles of Council. Table 2-2 contains

these roles along with social and recreational infrastructure examples of these roles.

Table 2-2¶ Roles of the Town of Gawler

Role Description Social and recreational

infrastructure example

Service provider - direct

Directly responsible for providing a service to the community

Provision of library services

Service provider - partner

Contribution of funds and/or other resources towards a service or initiative that is delivered in partnership

Contribution of resources towards new community centres

Service provider – agent

Provides a service funded by or on behalf of others that involve hosting or other in-kind use of Council resources to fill particular needs in the community

Provision of in-home services to older people on behalf of the Commonwealth Government

Regulator Required by legislation to fulfil a particular role or function in the interest of the public on behalf of the State Government. This requires Council to exercise, perform and discharge statutory powers, function and duties.

The provision of 12.5% open space as part of the development approval process

Owner custodian Owns and/or manages public infrastructure, community facilities, reserves, parks and gardens

Ongoing maintenance of parks and gardens

Advocator Represent the interest of the community in situations where Council is not the service provider by lobbying other tiers of government and the private sector for improved services and amenity.

Advocacy to the State Government about public transport requirements of new communities

Facilitator Bringing together or connecting stakeholders to work collaboratively to pursue issues, opportunity or shared interests.

Bringing together regional health stakeholders to facilitate the provision of new facilities

Leader Provider of leadership and guidance to the community in the pursuit of common goals and opportunities.

Guidance to the community in establishing new groups and activities to operate out of new community facilities


of 236

2.3 Typical methodology for planning for social and recreational infrastructure

Although practice varies from place to place, the following steps are normally adopted by local

government in planning for social and recreational infrastructure in growing communities:

1. Determine the catchment of the growth area, having regard to the expected population of the

area once it is fully developed, and the likely demographic characteristics of that community. It is

also important to have a regard to any secondary catchment, for example, neighbouring areas

that may benefit from new facilities.

2. Identify appropriate population triggers for provision based on those generally accepted

elsewhere

3. Develop strategies for the provision of the required facilities and services, having regard to those

available elsewhere in the Council area, opportunities for partnership/facility sharing and a

workable funding/implementation model.

4. Ensure that appropriate sites for social and recreation infrastructure is set aside in structure

planning processes and DPAs.

To help inform the general process described above, the following documents have been considered:

2.3.1 Town of Gawler Social Infrastructure and Services Study

This study, currently being prepared for Council by Jensen Planning + Design, outlines the current supply,

future trends and existing/future community profile of the Town of Gawler as it relates to social

infrastructure and services. This study’s first report includes population thresholds for a range of social

infrastructure, and compares this to current capacities and likely future demands.

The study’s next report is expected to provide a framework for social infrastructure that considers

Roles and responsibilities in the provision of social infrastructure and services

Trigger points for new facilities and services

Guiding principles

Timelines and staging.

2.3.2 Town of Gawler Open Space, Sport and Recreation Plan 2025

This plan, prepared for Council by FYFE and Suter Planners, contains benchmarks for the provision of

sporting and recreation infrastructure sourced from Parks and Leisure Australia. The strategy

recommends the use of these benchmarks, along with assessment of existing facilities and an

understanding of local participation rates, in determining sports and recreation requirements.


of 236

2.3.3 Open Space provision in the Development Act 1993

Section 50 of the Development Act 1993 promotes the provision of 12.5% open space for land division of

greater than 20 allotments. For residential subdivisions, this open space is typically developed by the

developer, and transferred to Council. When this open space is not provided, applicants are required to

make a financial contribution into the State’s Open Space fund.

The Gawler (CT) Development Plan contains policies relating to the location, design of size of open space

having regard to the catchment it services (refer to Council Wide Section: Open Space and Recreation).

Council also has the ability to discount the 12.5% open space allocation if additional land is required for

drainage reserves and/or other community purposes – the focus is on quality places rather than quantity

of land.

2.3.4 City of Playford Social Plan for Services and Infrastructure

The City of Playford in 2013 commissioned Elton Consulting to develop a blueprint for social infrastructure

provision to 2050.

The plan includes a framework for social infrastructure provision, which, unlike other approaches which

apply population triggers for facilities and services, is built around a planning hierarchy. The hierarchy

levels (regional, district, neighbourhood and local) are based upon population levels, with each level

having a different servicing level for social infrastructure and services. For example:

Neighbourhood level services and facilities are more locally focussed and are usually planned to serve

a population from about 5,000 and up to 20,000 people. Neighbourhood level facilities provide a

basis for community involvement and the development of social capital through opportunities for

voluntary work and the development of social networks. Neighbourhood level facilities typically

include:

A B-7 school

A community centre

A community hall

Child care centre or kindergarten

Some form of access point for family support, health, and other forms of support services1.

2.3.5 Human Service Infrastructure Summary for Roseworthy

To inform the Structure Plan for Roseworthy Garden Town Project, Connor Holmes in 2011 prepared an

investigations report into human services. This report took a wider definition of human services,

encompassing health facilities, entertainment, aged care services and public transport in addition to those

services traditionally understood as part of social infrastructure. The report identified likely human

service requirements based upon the various standards/triggers available at that time, as well as

consultation with key stakeholders.

1 City of Playford Social Plan for Services and Infrastructure, prepared by Elton Consulting, page 20.


of 236

3.0 Social and Recreation Infrastructure Requirements for Gawler East

3.1 Determining appropriate catchments for Gawler East

For the purpose of this analysis, the primary catchment is defined as Gawler East, while the secondary

catchment is defined as Gawler East and Concordia development area in the Light Regional Council.

It is assumed that Gawler East, with a site area of 350ha, will be home to 4,000 households when fully

developed. Covering an area of around 625ha, Concordia is expected to accommodate 7500-8000

households2.

The current average household size in the Town of Gawler is 2.4 people/household3. If it is assumed that

this continues in Gawler East, the area will be home to approximately 9,600 people when fully developed,

while Concordia will be home to 18,000-19,200 people.

Table 3-1 summarises this information.

Table 3-1¶ Primary and Secondary Catchments for Social and Recreational Infrastructure.

Primary Catchment Secondary Catchment

Area Gawler East Gawler East and Concordia

Land Area 350ha2 975ha3

Households when fully developed

4,0002 11,500-12,0003

Population when fully developed

9,6002 27,600-28,8003

3.2 Social and Recreation Infrastructure Requirements for Gawler East

Table 3-2 summarises the population thresholds for different social infrastructure from the Town of

Galwer Social Infrastructure and Services Study, City of Playford Social Infrastructure Planning

Framework and the Roseworthy Human Service Infrastructure planning, and uses this to identify

requirements for Gawler East.

Table 3-3 contains the same for recreational infrastructure, drawing upon Council’s Open Space,

Sport and Recreation Plan 2025. These tables are followed by Section 3.3 which contains a summary

table and discussion about likely requirements for Gawler East.

2 Source: Social Infrastructure and Services Study within the Town of Gawler, prepared by Jensen Planning + Design, September 2015, page 13 3 Ibid.


of 236

Table 3-2¶ Social infrastructure requirements for Gawler East, based on population thresholds

4 All floor or site areas were sourced from the City of Playford Social Infrastructure Planning Framework prepared by Elton Consulting, unless otherwise referenced.

Facility or Service Town of Gawler

Social Infrastructure

and Services Study

City of Playford


Planning Framework

Roseworthy Human

Service

Infrastructure

Requirement

for Gawler East

Comments4

Neighbourhood Houses and Community Meeting Room

1:2,500-3,000 1:2,000-5,000 1 Up to 500sqm gross floor area (GFA) and 1,500sqm land area (could be standalone or form part of multi-purpose community centre)

Multi-purpose Community Centre 1:6,000-10,000 1:8,000-10,000 1:7,000-10,000 1 500-1,500sqm GFA and 1,500 to 4,500sqm land area

Halls and Meeting Space 1:8,000-10,000 1 Up to 250sqm GFA and 750sma land area (could be incorporated into multi-purpose Community Centre)

Libraries 1:15,000-30,000 1:20,000-50,000 1:5,000-10,000 0.5 39sqm per 1,000 people for populations of 25,000-35,000

Spaces for performing and visual arts 1:30,000-50,000 1:8,000-10,000 1:40,000-60,000 0 Incorporated into multi-purpose Community Centre

Facilities for specific community groups (e.g. youth, older people)

1:20,000-50,000 (youth)

1:8,000-10,000 (youth)

1:8,000-10,000 (older people)

1 Incorporated into multi-purpose Community Centre

Playgroups 1:5,000 2 Possibly operated out of community centre


of 236

5 Source: Roseworthy Garden Town Human Services Infrastructure Summary prepared by Connor Holmes. 6 Ibid.

Kindergartens 1:8,000-12,000 (kindi) 1 x 60 place kindergarten:10,000 people

1:8,000-9,000 1 8,000sqm land area as standalone, or incorporated into larger school site

Childcare Centre 1:4,000-9,000 1x 120 place centre:8,000-10,000

1 2,500sqm land area

Out of School Hours Care 1:5,000-6,000 2 Generally operated out of primary schools and sometimes out of childcare centres

Public Primary Schools 1:7,500-9,000 1:6,500 1:6,500 1 3.5-4.0 ha land area

Existing Gawler East Primary School (may/may not have capacity)

Public Secondary Schools 1:15,000-25,000 1:26,000-30,000 0

Catholic Primary 1:15,000-25,000 0.5

Independent Primary 1:25,000 0

GPs 1.1:1,000 1.1:1000

Tigger for first facility 10,000 people5

1 shared facility 10,000sqm land area for shared medical facility accommodating GPs and allied health professionals6

Allied health services 0.5:1000 for dentist 1 shared facility See above

Residential aged care facilities 1:20,000-30,000 95 beds per 1000 people over 70 years of age

Access to approximately 120 beds

Land area of 150sqm per bed = 1.8ha

By 2026, 13.2% of the Town of Gawler’s population will be aged over 70 years. Therefore, Gawler East when fully development may contain 1,248 people over the age of 70, requiring approximately 118 beds.


of 236

Table 3-3¶ Open Space and Recreation

7 Source: City of Playford Social Infrastructure Planning Framework prepared by Elton Consulting 8 Source: Town of Gawler Open Space, Sport and Recreation Plan prepared by Suter Planners and Fyfe.

Facility or Service Town of Gawler

Open Space,

Sport and

Recreation Plan

City of Playford


Planning

Framework

Requirement

for Gawler

East

Comments

Open Space --Development Act requirement for 12.5% open space for land divisions greater than 20 allotments –(Refer to Council Development Plan Policies relating to sizes of

neighbourhood and local scale open spaces )

Clubrooms Clubrooms 1:4,500 2 1200sqm GFA7 located within general sport space

General sports space 1:4,000-5,000 2 Minimum 3.5ha8 (part of open space)

AFL Oval 3:15,000 2

--O

pp

ort

un

ity

for

co-l

oca

tio

n o

f fa

cilit

ies

into

inte

grat

ed s

po

rts

hu

bs-

-

Cricket Oval 1:8,000-10,000 1

Soccer Oval 1:3,000-4,000 2

Tennis Courts 8courts:15,000 5-6 courts

Netball Courts 1:3,000-4,000 2

Lawn Bowls 1:25,000-50,000 0

Golf Course 1:30,000 0

Skate park 1:5,000-10,000 for local facility

1

BMX 1:10,000-30,000 1

Playspaces 1:2,000 (local)

1:8,000 (district)

5 local

1 district

Indoor sport and recreation

1:50,000-100,000 (min 3 courts)

0

Indoor aquatic 1:30,000 (25m leisure)

0


of 236

3.3 Summary of requirements for Gawler East

Table 3-4 provides a summary of social and recreational infrastructure requirements for Gawler East

based on the standards included in a number of frameworks, studies and plans. However, requirements

identified based on these standards should be seen as a starting point for the social infrastructure

planning process, to be balanced by local, social, political and economic conditions, needs and priorities.

Table 3-4¶ Summary of Social and Recreational Infrastructure Requirements for Gawler East.

9 All floor or site areas were sourced from the City of Playford Social Infrastructure Planning Framework prepared by Elton Consulting, unless otherwise referenced. 10 Source: Roseworthy Garden Town Human Services Infrastructure Summary prepared by Connor Holmes.

Facility or Service Area9 Role of Council

Neighbourhood House/ Community Meeting Room

Up to 500sqm GFA ≈ 1,500sqm land area

Service provider –partner; owner custodian

Multipurpose Community Centre

- Community programs and groups

- Outreach services

- Hall/meeting space

- Local arts/cultural expression

- Specific user groups (e.g. older people)

- Playgroups

500-1500sqm GFA ≈ 1,500 to 7,500sqm land area

Service provider – direct and partner; owner custodian

Kindergarten 8,000sqm land area Advocator

Childcare centre 2,500sqm land area Advocator; Regulator (through planning policy)

Primary School (incorporating space for OSHC) 3.5-4.0ha land area Advocator; Regulator (through planning policy)

Shared medical facility 10,000sqm land area10 Facilitator; Regulator (through planning policy)

Residential aged care facility 1.8ha land area Advocator; Regulator (through planning policy)

Open space 12.5% of 350ha = 43.75ha

(Neighbourhood parks should be 0.5 to 1 ha in size and local parks should be min of 0.2 ha in size)

Owner custodian

General sports space (and clubrooms) 7ha land area Owner custodian

Integrated Sports Hub Integrated sports facility located outside of Gawler East

Service provider – direct; owner custodian

5 local and 1 district playspaces Within open space

Service provider – direct; owner custodian


of 236

The Gawler East community, once the area is fully developed, will require a multi-purpose community

centre that provides space/facilities for community gatherings, the activities of various community

groups, allows for Council-run community development activities and also provides space for outreach

services from various service providers.

It is also apparent that a smaller community meeting space will be required in the early stages of

development, once the community reaches a size of around 2,000-3,000 residents. The timely provision

of this space is important to facilitate neighbourhood development activities, especially if the much larger

multipurpose community centre is not developed until the community is much larger. There are a range

of options to facilitate this meeting space, such as the use of another facility (e.g. in Mawson Lakes, the

community used a room at the hotel) or through the use of a residential dwelling that can be sold once a

larger community centre is constructed.

Kindergartens and childcare centres will be needed in Gawler East. While not traditionally provided by

local government in South Australia, Council needs to ensure the correct amount of land, and the best

locations are set aside through land use planning.

Gawler East will have a population that warrants the provision of a new public primary school. However

we understand that the Department of Education and Child Development does not intend constructing a

new facility but expanding the existing Gawler East Primary School with transportable buildings. If this is

the case, there may be an opportunity to attract catholic or independent school, through

advocacy/investment attraction as well as planning for it through the Concept Plan and subsequent

planning policy.

Similarly, Council’s role with respect to a shared health facility and residential aged care facility is through

land use planning, for example by setting aside a portion of the Neighbourhood Centre Zone (or nearby

land) for these uses. In these areas, Council could also act as an advocate in attracting service providers

and investors to the area.

Gawler East will require around 44ha of open space, some of which may include drainage or playing fields.

This open space will require 1 district level play space, 5 local play spaces, 1 local scale skate park and 1

BMX facility. It is expected that general sports space in the order of 7ha would be provided in Gawler

East, with the other needs being met by a larger integrated sports facility located elsewhere in the Council

area. Basic clubroom facilities would be constructed on this space to service local clubs. Council also has

the ability to discount the 12.5% open space allocation if additional land is required for drainage reserves

and/or other community purposes – the focus is on quality places rather than quantity of land.

3.4 Knowledge gaps

In order to progress these investigations, the following knowledge gaps should be addressed:

Floor and site areas for all facility types, noting that the figures quoted are based upon strategic

documents and planning frameworks from other jurisdictions and therefore require local validation

First order cost estimates for all facilities based on the indicative floor/site areas

Local skate park and BMX facility Within open space Service provider – direct; owner custodian


of 236

DECD intentions with respect to Gawler East Primary School (i.e. is there capacity to significantly

expand and/or should land be set aside in the Precinct Plan for a new school).

3.5 Considerations for the Concept Plan

All social and recreational infrastructure, and open space, will be located in a particular location within

Gawler East. Concept planning provides an opportunity to identify and, where relevant, recommend

development plan policy to protect those sites for that particular purpose. Some key considerations for

the concept plan arising from this study include:

Facilitating a community hub to provide a multipurpose public gathering and activity place with a

colocation of services, programs and activities to provide a local focal/activity point and increase

convenience and safety

Incorporation of the higher quality playspace and open space into this community hub

Identifying a localised community meeting space/neighbourhood house in the portion of Gawler

East earmarked for the first stage of development

Using open space to provide pedestrian and cycle connections to the community hub

Identifying the best location for a school and health facilities

Consideration of existing and future public transport routes/access points.


of 236

4.0 Funding and Implementation Options This section of the report considers funding and implementation options, having regard to what may be

an appropriate portion of these costs to be borne by Council, developers and land owners. This is done by

outlining suggested principles to be adopted by Council to inform decision making, followed by a

summary of existing funding options and opportunities that may arise out of the new Planning,

Development and Infrastructure Bill.

4.1 Principles to inform funding decision making

Guiding Principles are often used in Government decision making to assist in complex decision making

regardless of the specific project or activity. Principles are important as, once agreed upon, they can

provide a stable reference point across multiple situations.

Infrastructure Funding requires principles that speak to specific challenges associated with funding

infrastructure, where Councils, Government agencies, landowners and developers must determine what

is an appropriate ‘fair share’ between communities that directly benefit from such infrastructure versus

the broader community who received indirect benefits of such infrastructure.

The 2014 South Australian Planning Reforms – The Planning System We Want – identifies thirteen

principles for infrastructure funding. Embedded within these principles are broader principles about

rating/taxation, such as equity, benefit and simplicity, however they are tailored to infrastructure funding

and provision. The principles are:

1. Critical infrastructure should keep pace with urban development.

2. Infrastructure should be planned with land use planning, not as an afterthought.

3. Infrastructure should be defined broadly and include public spaces as well as services.

4. There should be various mechanisms to secure funding for necessary infrastructure.

5. Those who benefit most from infrastructure, including land owners and developers, should be

required to fund a reasonable proportion of its costs.

6. Developer contributions should only be required where the infrastructure need is directly

connected to the development.

7. Negotiating processes and frameworks should be transparent and accountable.

8. Infrastructure funding should be calculated across the life of the asset, not overly weighted

towards initial costs.

9. Mechanisms should enable different ways of attributing cost sharing, including value increase.

10. Revenues should be transparently administered and pooled in nominated funds.

11. Clear pathways should support inbound investment in infrastructure.


of 236

12. Market based signals should be used to prevent gold-plating and price gouging.

13. Funding of infrastructure should dovetail with wider taxation reform.

It is recommended that Council adopt these as guiding principles in its own decision making about

infrastructure funding. Doing so would provide Council with an important reference point when, for

example, determining what portion of infrastructure costs should be borne by the Gawler East locality,

and what portion should be borne by the entire Town of Gawler.

4.2 Funding Options

4.2.1 Infrastructure Deeds

An Infrastructure Deed is the most commonly used infrastructure funding option in South Australia. It

constitutes a legal agreement between two or more parties, typically Councils and landowners and/or

developers to fund the construction of infrastructure. The deeds typically outline the cost of the

infrastructure needed, the timeframe for construction and the contribution to be made by the different

parties. They also outline what which parties will absorb the risk if there is a cost over-run with the

project.

Infrastructure Deeds can be considered a voluntary form of Developer Contributions. Such a voluntary

system, as compared with mandatory developer contributions (see Section 4.2) has advantages and

disadvantages. KBR (2006) found that in South Australia it is:

“…common practice for a local authority to negotiate with the developer the possible inclusion of

contributions to cover perceived external costs. It is apparent that the success of these

negotiations to provide the necessary infrastructure is dependent on the negotiating skills of all

parties. There is anecdotal information that indicates that elements of bluff, the use of process

and legislative “blocks” and the costs of delay are factors that are sometimes brought to bear on

the negotiating process. This is not fulfilling the objectives of transparency and equity” (KBR

2006).

Advantages of negotiated contributions include:

Flexibility – can be adapted to individual circumstances;

Voluntary – legally enforceable agreements that are entered into ‘voluntarily’ removing from them

the risk of political or legal challenge;

Certainty – agreements can be made enforceable against local government – exempting the

development from future claims for contributions.

(Productivity Commission, 2009)

Disadvantages of negotiated contributions include:

Increased cost uncertainty – for both developers and governments because the outcome depends

on the relative skills and bargaining positions of participants;

Reduced transparency and accountability – negotiations can exclude stakeholders with a legitimate

interest in the development;


of 236

Does not have a nexus – relationship between the development and the infrastructure financed by

the contributions becomes blurred;

Increased transaction costs – costs to developer and local government can be high in terms of effort

and delays. There can also be a cost to society if planning authorities misuse planning permission as

a bargaining, rather than compliance tool.

(Productivity Commission, 2009)

The quality of infrastructure provided may also vary as a result of negotiated contributions, such as

Infrastructure Deeds. Developers have an incentive to provide infrastructure that is highly marketable,

easily recovered from homebuyers or low in initial up-front cost if charges cannot be passed on.

This, in turn means that ongoing maintenance/operating costs could be higher than optimal (Productivity

Commission, 2009). A local example of this is the Golden Grove development, the substantial landscaping

associated with this development helped to achieve premium prices for the joint venture partners, but

left the Council with high water and maintenance costs.

The Infrastructure Deed pathway is also risky for Council, particularly smaller Councils with a relatively

small number of major developments, because every situation is treated differently. Under this model,

there is no standard pathway or guide for Councils in negotiating the infrastructure deed. It is also risky

for developers who may enter into agreements that see them responsible for an expanded range of

infrastructure provision.

Similarly, there is no guide or standards about an acceptable standard of infrastructure for new residential

developments. While this might not be needed for some infrastructure, such as roads which are site

specific, standards and thresholds in other States assist Local Government to negotiate for contributions

towards larger catchment infrastructure, such as community facilities.

4.2.2 Developer Contributions

Developer contributions are up-front contributions that property developers are required to make to

infrastructure associated with the land they develop. Such contributions can take three forms:

land transfer – land ceded or ‘gifted’ to the Government by the developer for roads, public open

space, primary school sites, drainage and other reserves

work-in-kind – infrastructure works and facilities constructed by developers and subsequently

transferred to public authorities on completion, such as reserves or neighbourhood houses

developer charges – financial contributions to the cost of acquiring land for public use, or the

provision of infrastructure by others (Can et al. 2009).

Developer contributions have been contentious because many infrastructure costs previously recovered

over time from home owners through utility charges and Council rates are now recovered up-front from

developers.

However, the Productivity Commission believes that such a shift can be justified on economic grounds. It

gives developers an incentive to take account of a wider range of infrastructure costs when deciding


of 236

where and how to develop land, which could facilitate more efficient provision of housing and associated

infrastructure.

Another often-expressed concern is that developer contributions increase the cost of housing. However,

when the supply of land for housing is restricted, as is typically the case in Australia, the Productivity

Commission believes developer charges are most likely to reduce the above-average sale price

expectations of landowners of undeveloped land.

A further concern is when developer contributions are greater than the cost of providing the

infrastructure, making it a tax on development. Among the most frequent criticism of developer

contributions in New South Wales is that it is not always possible to see the direct effect of the

contribution, that is, there is not a clear nexus between the contribution and built infrastructure.

The Productivity Commission states that developer contributions should only be made to the extent that

infrastructure is attributable to the properties being developed. This is straight forward for infrastructure

that is clearly related to a developed property, but can be harder to demonstrate for some types of

infrastructure, especially social infrastructure.

The principle of apportioning only attributable costs to developers has been embodied in legislation

arrangements in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania.

The UDIA, in their “Infrastructure Funding for Growth Areas in Greater Adelaide” from 2012 outlined

principles for assessing contribution requirements, as follows:

Nexus – establishes link between the development, the need for the service, the location of the

service and the time in which the service is being provided;

Fair Appointment – only the share attributable to the development should be charged;

Reasonableness – amount of contribution required relative to overall development;

Transparency – calculation and application of development contributions;

Affordability – NSW affordability threshold set at $20k per lot but many Councils levy above this rate.

In South Australia, there is no system for mandatory developer contributions other than Infrastructure

Agreements, which are voluntary process, insofar as they are currently required to be linked to draft

Development Plan Amendments.

4.2.3 Separate Rate

Section 154 of the Local Government Act 1999 enables a Council to declare a separate rate on rateable

land for the purposes of planning and carry out an activity that is of particular benefit to the land or the

occupiers of the land.

The adoption of a separate rate should ideally be undertaken after all parties have a robust understanding

of what is to be planned and constructed, at what cost (including contingency) and over what time period.

Issues that would need to be considered in considering a separate rate include:

Is the separate rate the most appropriate mechanism to address the funding issue?


of 236

When should the separate rate be collected (e.g. prior, during or post road construction);

Which properties the subject rate would apply to, having regard to the need to clearly demonstrate

the benefit the properties would receive from the proposed infrastructure;

If appropriate, how will third parties such as the State Government or neighbouring Council’s

contributions be formalised, bearing in mind that it is possible to run a separate rate and Funding

Infrastructure Deed negotiation concurrently;

The need for the separate rate to be re-endorsed by Council each year;

The need for a public consultation process before the separate rate is gazetted.

Central to any discussion about separate rates is determining whether the cost of providing the

infrastructure should be borne by those who will directly benefit, or by the entire community.

Historically, many outer metropolitan Councils around Adelaide have higher general rates than inner

metropolitan Councils to help cover the cost of providing infrastructure and services to growing

communities. The Henry Tax review held the position that a broad based land tax is an efficient taxation

process and that Council rates are generally a relatively efficient, simple and fair tax (assumption that they

are based on land value and not capital/improved value).

Although there are benefits associated with a broad based tax approach, opponents to the approach are

likely to indicate that they should not be required to fund infrastructure upgrades if the infrastructure is

solely for the enjoyment / use of smaller neighborhood and not the entire Council area.

Preliminary legal advice indicates that there is a level of risk associated with the incorporation of a

Separate Rate to recouple infrastructure costs11. If Council progress with this option it will need to obtain

more comprehensive advice.

4.2.4 Draft Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

The Draft Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill is proposing significant changes to the planning,

coordination and delivery of infrastructure in South Australia.

We understand the draft Bill is proposing a single integrated framework for infrastructure, planning and

development, with finance/funding to be locked in prior to development and to be equitably apportioned

between developers, councils and government.

Other components of the proposed infrastructure funding system include:

for the first time in this state, new ‘infrastructure delivery schemes’ will allow for long-term funding

arrangements to be agreed and finalised before a development begins

these schemes will be based on funding defined infrastructure, not on an infrastructure charge or

levy

development costs will be equitably spread across all beneficiaries of the development with costs

being recovered via a ‘charge on land’, collected by councils

11 Refer to learnings of (Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd et al v Town of Gawler District Court Action No. 865 of 2012)


of 236

where agreement cannot be reached, the charge will be independently reviewed and set

infrastructure design standards must be agreed upon upfront to avoid cost blow-outs and ensure

consistent outcomes

councils will be able to supplement infrastructure delivery schemes with off-set schemes in their

local area

urban tree funds and carparking funds will continue

contribution off-set schemes will only be applied where they support a ‘provide or pay’ requirement

of the Planning and Design Code, and could relate to public art, publicly accessible areas or

affordable housing

the open space contribution scheme will continue in a fairer manner12.

The draft bill is currently being considered by Parliament. It is expected that there will be changes to the

Bill before it is passed into law in 2016. It is recommended that Council continue to monitor the proposed

infrastructure delivery schemes within the bill, although the timing of development in Gawler East may

mean that another funding mechanism is needed to prevent unnecessary delays.

12 Source: Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, Information Sheet 7 “Renewing Our Planning System Unlocking South Australia’s Potential: Better coordination and delivery of infrastructure”


of 236

20th January 2016

Town of Gawler Council PO Box 130 Gawler, SA, 5118

Attention: Ms David Petruzzella

Dear David,

GAWLER EAST SOCIAL & RECREATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE ORDER OF COST ESTIMATE

As requested, we have prepared the following Order of Cost Estimate for the development of Gawler East Social and Recreational Infrastructure at Gawler East.

Our estimate can be summarised as follow with further detail included in the attached report:

Order of Cost Estimate Summary $

Community Centre

Community Centre Building $12,401,000

External Building Services $438,000

Total Cost of Community Centre (Excl GST) $12,839,000

External Works

External Works $12,547,000

Total Cost of External Works (Excl GST) $12,547,000

Total Order of Cost Estimate (Excl GST) $25,386,000

We trust this is of assistance, however, should you require further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Knowles Director Rider Levett Bucknall [email protected]

ATTACHMENT 2TOWN OF GAWLER COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ATTACHMENTS - 22 MARCH 2016

of 236

Order of Cost Estimate

Gawler East Social & Recreational Infrastructure

Description

Project Details

Basis of Estimate

This estimate is based upon measured quantities to which we have applied rates and conditions we currently believe applicable as at January 2016. We assumed that the project will be competitively tendered under standard industry conditions and form of contract.

This cost estimate is based on the documentation listed under the ‘Documents” section and does not at this stage provide a direct comparison with tenders received for the work at any future date. To enable monitoring of costs this estimate should be updated regularly during the design and documentation phases of this project.Scope of Works / AssumptionsIn preparing this estimate we, in conjunction with the project team, have assumed the following scope of works;

·Site area

·Site landscape

·No existing service to site

·No demolition required

·Minimal tree removal

·Extent of roadways

·Extent of landscaping and physical links

·No site contamination

Limitation of EstimateThis estimate should be viewed as a Concept Cost Plan for use in strategic master planning review and options analysis. It should not be used for decision making analysis to commit to a project (including acquisition, finance approval, equity approval or the like). We recommend that a more detailed elemental cost plan be prepared before such commitment is to be considered.

The majority of the cost allowances used within this estimate have generally been agreed in-consultation with the Town of Gawler Council and the wider project design team, and as such, potentially do not yet reflect the a design that will be developed in the future.

Items Specifically Included

This estimate specifically includes the following:

· Builders Preliminaries· Builders Margin· Design Contingency· Construction Contingency· Professional Fees· CITB levy charge

Page 1 of 1216937-1 Printed 20 January 2016 5:12 PM


of 236



Description

Project Details

Contingencies & Escalation

The estimate includes the following contingency allowances:

·Design Development Contingency which allows for issues that will arise during the design and documentation period as the design team develops the design through to 100% documentation

·Construction Contingency which allows for issues that will arise during the construction period including for latent conditions, design errors and omissions, design changes, client changes, extension of time costs and provisional sum adjustments.

Items Specifically Excluded

The estimate specifically excludes the following which should be considered in an overall project feasibility study:

Project Scope Exclusions

·Demolition

·Gym Equipment

·Sports Equipment

·Contaminated soil or materials

·Murals and works of art

·Wiring for entertainment / automation systems including music, audio/visual and security

·Smart ‘C-Bus’ or equivalent control system

·In-ground services upgrade / relocation

·Gas Infrastructure

·Stormwater storage tanks

·Work outside site boundaries

Scope Exclusions for works by others

·Loose, soft and hard furnishings

·Vertical blinds, curtains or other window treatments

·Tenant fitout

·Operators set up costs

·Retail area fitout

·Kitchen and cooking equipment including stainless steel shelving to coolrooms and store rooms

·Beer and post mix equipment, fonts, post mixes, beer and soft drinks pythons/lines, temprites etc.

·Bar equipment including dishwashers, glass washers, coffee machines, etc.



of 236



Description

Project Details

Risk Exclusions

·Relocation and upgrade of existing services

·Contaminated ground Removal and Reinstatement

·Asbestos and Hazardous Materials Removal

·Piled foundation systems

·Rock excavation

·De-watering

·Staging / Phasing costs

Other Project Cost Exclusions

·Escalation in costs

·Land costs

·Legal fees

·Goods and Services Taxation

·Marketing, sales and leasing costs

·Development margin / profit

·Holding costs and finance charges

Documents

The following documents have been used in preparing this estimate:

·Email correspondence between the Town of Gawler Council and Rider Levett Bucknall



of 236



Total CostCost/m²GFA m²Location

GFA: Gross Floor AreaRates Current At January 2016Location Summary

COMMUNITY CENTREA

12,400,500.003,5943,450Community Centre BuildingA1438,000.00External Building ServicesA2

$12,838,500.00$3,7213,450A - COMMUNITY CENTRE

12,547,420.00EXTERNAL WORKSB

$25,385,920.00$7,3583,450ESTIMATED NET COST



of 236



TotalRateQtyUnitDescription

Rates Current At January 2016A1 Community Centre BuildingA COMMUNITY CENTRE

Location Elements Item

Alterations and RenovationsAR

Excl.NoteNo allowance for demolition or removal of contaminated materials

86

Excl.Alterations and Renovations

Community CentreCC

4,200,000.002,800.001,500m²Multi-Purpose Community Centre including substructure, superstructure, services, site preparation, etc.

2

875,000.001,750.00500m²Community Meeting room including substructure, superstructure, services, site preparation, etc.

3

287,500.001,150.00250m²Community Hall and Meeting Space including substructure, superstructure, services, site preparation, etc.

4

Incl.NoteFacilities for specific Community Groups including substructure, superstructure, services, site preparation, etc.

5

Incl.NotePlaygroup including substructure, superstructure, services, site preparation, etc.

6

2,640,000.002,200.001,200m²Clubrooms including substructure, superstructure, services, site preparation, etc.

7

$8,002,500.00Community Centre

PreliminariesPR

810,000.00ItemBuilding Preliminaries & Supervision - 10% 8

$810,000.00Preliminaries

Builders MarginMA

357,000.00ItemBuilders Margin & Overheads - 4%9

$357,000.00Builders Margin

Furniture, Fittings & EquipmentFE

100,000.00ItemAllowance for Furniture, Fixtures and Fittings10Excl.ItemNo allowance for Gym equpment11

$100,000.00Furniture, Fittings & Equipment

Contingency AllowanceCT

927,000.00ItemDesign Contingency - 10%121,020,000.00ItemConstruction Contingency - 10%13

$1,947,000.00Contingency Allowance

EscalationES

Excl.NoteNo allowance for Escalation14

Excl.Escalation

Professional FeesPF

1,122,000.00ItemProfessional Fees - 10%15

$1,122,000.00Professional Fees

Statutory ChargesST

62,000.00ItemStatutory Authority Fees and Charges including CITB levy, etc. - 0.5%

16

$62,000.00Statutory Charges



of 236




Rates Current At January 2016A1 Community Centre Building (continued)A COMMUNITY CENTRE


Goods & Services TaxationGT

Excl.NoteGood and Services Taxation17

Excl.Goods & Services Taxation

$12,400,500.00COMMUNITY CENTRE BUILDING



of 236




Rates Current At January 2016A2 External Building ServicesA COMMUNITY CENTRE



Excl.NoteNo allowance for demolition or removal of contaminated materials

86

Excl.Alterations and Renovations

External Stormwater DrainageXK

30,000.00ItemAllowance for new stormwater retention/detention infrastructure

18

$30,000.00External Stormwater Drainage

External Sewer DrainageXD

30,000.00ItemAllowance for new sewer infrastructure19

$30,000.00External Sewer Drainage

External Water SupplyXW

30,000.00ItemAllowance for new water infrastruture20

$30,000.00External Water Supply

External GasXG

Excl.NoteNo allowance for gas infastructure21

Excl.External Gas

External Fire ProtectionXF

50,000.00ItemAllowance for new fire water main and hydrant infrastructure22Excl.NoteNo allowance for sprinklers and associated infrastructure23

$50,000.00External Fire Protection

External Electric Light and PowerXE

15,000.00ItemAllowance for electrical infrastructure2465,000.00ItemAllowance for transformer2565,000.00ItemSAPN Augmentation charges26

$145,000.00External Electric Light and Power

PreliminariesPR



Builders MarginMA




33,000.00ItemDesign Contingency - 10%1236,000.00ItemConstruction Contingency - 10%13

$69,000.00Contingency Allowance

EscalationES


Excl.Escalation



of 236




Rates Current At January 2016A2 External Building Services (continued)A COMMUNITY CENTRE


Professional FeesPF

40,000.00ItemProfessional Fees - 10%15

$40,000.00Professional Fees

Statutory ChargesST


16





$438,000.00EXTERNAL BUILDING SERVICES



of 236




Rates Current At January 2016B EXTERNAL WORKS



20,000.00ItemAllowance to remove existing trees from site including grubbing of roots

27

Excl.NoteNo allowance for protection of existing trees28Excl.NoteNo allowance for demolition or removal of contaminated

materials86

$20,000.00Alterations and Renovations

EarthworksEW

106,000.001.00106,000m²Strip 50mm of existing site surface and remove from site5890,100.000.85106,000m²Excavate 200mm of topsoil and stockpile on site (scraper)59

1,696,000.0016.00106,000m²Cut to fill to site6074,250.005.0014,850m³Cultivate and place excess spoil material to AFL oval and

soccer pitches (500mm deep) - stockpile excess spoil on site for future re-use

61

42,400.004.0010,600m²Trim and grade batters (10% of site area)6235,000.00ItemAllowance for treatment of perched water issues including well

points etc.63

Excl.NoteNo allowance for imported material for conditioning64Excl.NoteNo allowance for removal of contaminated soil65Excl.NoteNo allowance for removal of contaminated soil/materials87

$2,043,750.00Earthworks

FitmentsFT

50,000.00ItemAllowance for bench seating, signage, bins, drink fountains to surrounds

69

10,000.00ItemAllowance for bollards, armco railings, etc70

$60,000.00Fitments

Roads, Footpaths and Paved AreasXR

385,000.00110.003,500m²Bitumen carparking including fine crushed rock, quarry rubble sub base, trimming, compaction, proof rolling, kerbing, wheel stops, linemarking, lighting, etc. (Assumed 3500m2 carparking or 120 cars)

84

30,000.00ItemAllowance for service roads to carparks (design to cost)8535,000.00ItemAllowance for gravel pedestrian/bike paths throughout sporting

precinct (design to cost)89

$450,000.00Roads, Footpaths and Paved Areas

Boundary Walls, Fencing and GatesXN

39,900.00150.00266mAllowance for fencing to netball / tennis courts (assumed 4.5m high)

72

200,000.00ItemAllowance for retaining walls, perimeter fences, gates, etc.7125,000.00ItemAllowance for childproof fence to perimeter of playground

including gates, fixings, etc.92

$264,900.00Boundary Walls, Fencing and Gates

Landscaping and ImprovementsXL

100,000.00ItemAllowance for general landscaping (design to cost)73



of 236




Rates Current At January 2016B EXTERNAL WORKS (continued)


90,000.00ItemAllowance for landscaping infill between building / playing fields/ play space etc. - 50/50, Paved/Landscpaed (design to cost)

88

100,000.00ItemAllowance for playground - PC Sum91

$290,000.00Landscaping and Improvements

External Stormwater DrainageXK

100,000.00ItemAllowance for stormwater drainage infrastructure74Excl.NoteNo allowance for stormwater retention or detention77

$100,000.00External Stormwater Drainage

External Sewer DrainageXD

30,000.00ItemAllowance for new sewer infrastructure to public toilets, etc.78

$30,000.00External Sewer Drainage

External Electric Light and PowerXE

480,000.0030,000.0016NoAllowance to supply and install light poles to AFL ovals (2 No.) / Soccer Pitches (2 No.) including luminaries, cabling, distribution board, termination and testing - amateur lighting 115 lux to ovals / pitches (4 poles per oval/pitch)

82

Excl.NoteNo allowance for distribution boards to inter-change benches80Excl.NoteNo allowance for augmentation costs81

$480,000.00External Electric Light and Power

AFL Ovals and Cricket PitchOV

11,880.000.5023,760m²Respread topsoil 200mm deep to ovals2920,790.003.505,940m²Allowance for 20% sandy loam for soil conditioning30

475,200.0016.0029,700m²Supply and place turf 50mm thick to 2 No. ovals including line marking and drainage

31

386,100.0013.0029,700m²Allowance for irrigation3215,000.005,000.003NoTurf cricket pitch including preparation (3 per oval)3350,000.0012,500.004SetAllowance for AFL goal posts, padding etc.3480,000.0010,000.008NoAllowance for inter-change bench37

5,000.00ItemAllowance for linemarking (2 No. ovals)45Excl.NoteNo allowance for basic scoreboard35Excl.NoteNo allowance for shelters to oval79Excl.NoteNo allowance for cricket practice nets90

$1,043,970.00AFL Ovals and Cricket Pitch

Soccer Pitch (Turf)TP

6,800.000.5013,600m²Respread topsoil 200mm deep to pitches3811,900.003.503,400m²Allowance for 20% sandy loam for soil conditioning39

272,000.0016.0017,000m²Supply and place turf 50mm thick to 2 No. pitches including line marking and drainage

40

221,000.0013.0017,000m²Allowance for irrigation4120,000.0010,000.002NoAllowance for non-electronic scoreboard4228,000.007,000.004NoAllowance for inter-change bench (basic)43



of 236






10,000.00ItemAllowance for new equipment (goals, nets, flags etc.)445,000.00ItemAllowance for linemarking (2 No. pitches)46

$574,700.00Soccer Pitch (Turf)

Netball & Tennis CourtsNT

41,400.009.004,600m²Supply and place quarry rubble 150mm subbase including trimming and compacting (netball and tennis courts)

47

46,000.0010.004,600m²Supply and place 150mm thick fine crushed rock as a base course including trimming and compacting

48

69,000.0015.004,600m²30mm thick AC10 asphalt4982,800.0018.004,600m²Acrylic surface finish including line marking50

6,900.001.504,600m²Allowance for line marking to tennis courts / additional netball courts

51

2,000.001,000.002NoAllowance for tennis nets including posts and footings529,000.00750.0012NoAllowance for netball goal posts including padding and netting53

Excl.NoteNo allowance for scoreboard to netball / tennis courts54Excl.NoteNo allowance for inter-change bench55Excl.NoteNo allowance for new equipment56

$257,100.00Netball & Tennis Courts

Skate ParkSP

850,000.00ItemAllowance for local level Youth Park - Skate/BMX (design to cost)

57

$850,000.00Skate Park

Builders Work in Connection With Specialist ServicesBW

35,000.00ItemAllowance for builders work in connection with services83

$35,000.00Builders Work in Connection With Specialist Services

PlayspacesPY

1,200,000.0040.0030,000m²District level playspace including water fountain, toilets, benches, facilities, etc.

67

500,000.0025.0020,000m²Local Level Play Space including play equipment and park bench in each (4000m2 each)

68

$1,700,000.00Playspaces

PreliminariesPR



Builders MarginMA




938,000.00ItemDesign Contingency - 10%121,032,000.00ItemConstruction Contingency - 10%13

$1,970,000.00Contingency Allowance



of 236






EscalationES


Excl.Escalation

Professional FeesPF

1,135,000.00ItemProfessional Fees - 10%15

$1,135,000.00Professional Fees

Statutory ChargesST


16





$12,547,420.00EXTERNAL WORKS



of 236

Gawler East

Stormwater Infrastructure Study

Town of Gawler

March 2016

Ref No. 20141387R001B



of 236

Ref No. 20141387R001B Gawler East Stormwater Infrastructure Study

© Tonkin Consulting 2015 This document is, and shall remain, the property of Tonkin Consulting. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Document History and Status Rev Description Author Reviewed Approved Date

A For Client Comment TAK KSS TAK 9/11/15

B Final TAK KSS TAK 10/03/16


of 236


Contents 1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Catchment Description 1 1.2.1 Potts Road East 1 1.2.2 Potts Road West 1 1.2.3 Corey Street 1 1.2.4 Miller Road 1 1.2.5 Southern Tributaries 1 1.2.6 South Para West 2 1.2.7 South Para East 2 1.2.8 South Para North 2 1.2.9 Eastern Tributary 2 1.2.10 Calton Street 2

2 Catchment Management Issues 4 2.1 Flood Management 4 2.1.1 Introduction 4 2.1.2 Hydrological Modelling 4 2.1.3 Potts Road East 4 2.1.4 Potts Road West 6 2.1.5 Corey Street 6 2.1.6 Miller Road 6 2.1.7 Southern Tributaries 7 2.1.8 South Para West 7 2.1.9 South Para East 7 2.1.10 South Para North 7 2.1.11 Eastern Tributary 7 2.1.12 Calton Street 8

2.2 Water Quality Management 8 2.2.1 Introduction 8 2.2.2 Potts Road East 8 2.2.3 Potts Road West 10 2.2.4 Corey Street 10 2.2.5 Miller Street 10 2.2.6 Southern Tributaries 10 2.2.7 South Para West 11 2.2.8 South Para East 11 2.2.9 South Para North 11 2.2.10 Eastern Tributary 11 2.2.11 Calton Street 11

2.3 Water Harvesting and Reuse 12 2.3.1 Water Harvesting 12 2.3.2 Water Distribution 12

3 Implementation of SMP 13 3.1 Introduction 13

3.2 Construction Timing and Equity Issues 13 3.3 Maintenance 14


of 236


3.4 Steep Grades 14

3.5 Easements 14

3.6 Dam Failure Risk 14

3.7 Existing Water Main 14

4 Cost Estimates 15 4.1 Costs 15

Tables Table 4-1 Capital Costs for Trunk Drainage Infrastructure 15

Figures Figure 1.1 Study Area 3 Figure 2.1 Flood Management Works 5 Figure 2.2 Water Quality Management Works 9

Appendices Appendix A Cost Estimate Summary


of 236

Ref No. 20141387R001B Gawler East Stormwater Infrastructure Study 1

1 Introduction 1.1 Background

The Town of Gawler has a number of developers proposing residential developers in the Gawler East area. These developments will all be upstream of the main Gawler Township and in some areas would have the potential to increase downstream flood risk if they are not managed appropriately. Runoff will also be along flow paths that currently take relatively minor flows and have the potential to cause erosion if not managed appropriately. The Town of Gawler has requested the Gawler East area Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) be implemented such that they can be in a position to strategically manage stormwater runoff generated by future development within the Gawler East area.

1.2 Catchment Description The Study Area for the Gawler East area is shown in Figure 1.1. The area has been broken up into 11 sub-catchments or precincts based on their location and where they discharge. The eastern portion of the Cory Street and Ports Road precincts are zoned rural living. The majority of the Corey Street and Potts Road West precinct is zoned Residential (Hills) while the remainder of the area is predominantly zoned Residential (Gawler East).

Each sub-catchment / precinct is described below.

1.2.1 Potts Road East

This 7 hectare area grades steadily towards Potts Road. Runoff is currently intercepted by Potts Road where it drains to a double side entry pit in the road verge which directs the flow into a channel on the southern side of Potts Road. The channel then drains into a larger channel which is a tributary of the Gawler River.

1.2.2 Potts Road West

This 20 hectare catchment drains towards the Potts Road road reserve. The eastern portion of the sub-catchment drains under Bowman Court via a shallow culvert. The western portion is directed to Potts Road along the edge of the existing residential development. It spills as a surface flow along Potts Road and eventually is diverted via a short underground system into a Gawler River tributary 350m further along Potts Road.

1.2.3 Corey Street

This 50 hectare region is upstream of a relatively large flood control dam at the downstream boundary of the catchment. It also has a further 16 hectares of undeveloped catchment upstream of the study area. A relatively well formed valley runs through the centre of the area.

1.2.4 Miller Road

This relatively small 5 hectare catchment currently drains from east to west and drains along the eastern edge of residential areas into a detention basin adjacent to Miller Road. A 300mm diameter pipe serves as the outlet to the basin. The basin currently serves an upstream residential catchment to the east.

1.2.5 Southern Tributaries

This 56 hectare region currently drains to two well-formed gullies that grade from north to south. The two gullies join together a short distance upstream of the point where they discharge directly into the South Para River. It also has a further 9 hectares of undeveloped catchment upstream of the study area.


of 236


1.2.6 South Para West

This 21 hectare catchment is located directly to the west of the South Para River. Water from the catchment currently sheets from the land directly into the river other than in a couple of locations where minor gullies have been formed.

1.2.7 South Para East

This 25 hectare catchment is located directly to the east of the South Para River. A large proportion of the catchment drains into a local gully that discharges into the river. The remaining areas sheet directly into the river. This area was covered in the Gawler East Residential Stormwater Management Strategy Report (W&G, 2010).

1.2.8 South Para North

The western portion of this 23 hectare catchment drains directly to the South Para River. The eastern portion drains directly into the downstream end of the eastern tributary which is described below, just prior to where it connects into the South Para River.

1.2.9 Eastern Tributary

This 154 hectare catchment drains into a relatively large tributary of the South Para River. The tributary also has a large upstream catchment that is likely to remain undeveloped. This precinct was covered by the Gawler East Residential Stormwater Management Strategy Report (W&G, 2010). A portion of the site includes a former quarry.

1.2.10 Calton Street

This 31 hectare catchment is currently being developed and is covered in detail by the Gawler East Residential Stormwater Management Strategy Northern Catchment (W&G, 2011). It discharges under Calton Street and then into an open channel that passes through residential areas to the north.


of 236


of 236


2 Catchment Management Issues 2.1 Flood Management

2.1.1 Introduction

The Gawler East area is currently undeveloped with little or no runoff generated during the majority of rainfall events. There is no formal drainage in the area with water typically sheeting off the catchment until it drains into a natural gully or water course. Roads within the area typically create a local barrier to sheet flows and divert water longitudinally along them.

There are two distinct regions within the Gawler East area from a flood management perspective. The western portion is located upstream of existing development. Detention will be required to prevent increasing flood risk to the areas of existing development. The central and eastern areas drain either directly into the South Para River or into well-defined tributaries. In these areas there is less of a need to reduce peak flows as there is likely to be little increase in downstream flood risk.

Flood management works required within the Gawler East area for the various precincts is discussed in the following sections. The recommended works are shown in Figure 2.1. These works would be required to facilitate development within the catchment and provides the minimal infrastructure such that all existing land parcels are provided with an outlet point and basins are in place to prevent an increase in downstream flood risk.

2.1.2 Hydrological Modelling

To enable preliminary sizing of infrastructure some hydrological modelling has been undertaken for the Gawler East area as a part of this investigation.

A trunk drainage system will be required to enable stormwater runoff from a number of the precincts to drain across adjacent private properties to the downstream collection point (such as a gully, river or basin). On the assumption that the internal road network will be used to convey major flows it is assumed that the underground drainage system will have a 10 year average recurrence interval (ARI) standard. The trunk drainage system has been sized based on a 15 minute time of concentration for the developed catchments and a 0.65 runoff coefficient. Pipe capacities have been based on 5% effective hydraulic grade.

Where basins have been modelled the following assumptions have been made:

Runoff coefficient of 0.65 for developed portions of the catchment

Runoff coefficient of 0 for undeveloped portions of the catchment (the rural areas upstream from the precinct boundaries)

Pervious area initial loss = 30mm

Pervious area continuing loss = 3mm

Basin depths of 1.2-2.2m

The approximate basin footprints are shown on Figure 2.1 based on an assumed average basin depth ranging from 1.2m to 2.2m.


Development of the catchment will produce flows well in excess of the capacity of the existing outlet for the catchment under Potts Road. It is proposed that a combination of detention basins to reduce peak flows and an upgrade to the downstream infrastructure is used to manage the increase in flow brought about by development of the upstream catchment. The basin would need to be located a short distance upstream of Potts Road. A basin of approximately 3,500m3


of 236


of 236


is required at this location to limit the post development outflow to 100L/s in a 100 year ARI event (approximately equivalent to the predevelopment flow rate from the area).

A trunk drain running parallel with Potts Road will be required to drain the eastern allotments into the proposed basin.


There is very limited infrastructure downstream of the Potts Road West catchment with flows passing as surface flows along Potts Road. To prevent the requirement for significant retention storage or overloading of the surface flow capacity of Potts Road it is recommended that additional underground infrastructure is provided along Potts Road to the Gawler River tributary to the south of Potts Road. The route with the shortest distance (180m) for this drain would be via private property to the south of Potts Road. However this will require relatively deep excavation (~4m deep) due to there being some higher ground between Potts Road and the creek. Therefore it is proposed that a new drain is constructed following the natural grade along Potts Road and discharging into the creek near Sunnyside Drive (380m length of drain).

To manage the outflow from the site once developed, a detention basin of approximately 7,500m3 is required. Through use of an orifice, a basin of this size allows outflow to be restricted to 300L/s in a 100 year ARI event which is equivalent to the flow rate which could reasonably be conveyed by a relatively small pipe (375mm diameter) along Potts Road.

A series of trunk drains would be required within this precinct to enable all allotments to drain to the basin.

2.1.5 Corey Street

This catchment is already served by an existing detention basin at the downstream end of the large gully that runs through the centre of the catchment.

A small section at the western end of the precinct is below the top level of the existing embankment and would therefore not be able to be served by it unless substantial site filling was introduced.

The existing basin of 25,000m3 is currently sized to manage the upstream catchment during a 100 year ARI event. Development of the catchment is likely to increase peak levels in the basin by approximately 2.5m which increase the peak discharge rate by 30% (from 1.6 to 2.1m3/s) through the existing 600mm diameter outlet pipe. Existing downstream infrastructure is likely to be able to manage with the moderate increase in flows downstream from the basin.

Modelling indicates that development of the upstream catchment is unlikely to result in levels in the basin reaching the high level outlet (level of high level outlet has been assumed to be 1.5m below crest of embankment level). Peak discharge rates would increase significantly should the high level outlet become engaged.

A number of short sections of lateral underground drains would be required to enable allotments to be able to discharge into the main gully.

2.1.6 Miller Road

This catchment naturally grades into an existing detention basin to the south of Miller Road. This basin is likely to have been sized for the existing upstream developed catchment and only has a relatively small 300mm diameter outlet that is estimated to have a capacity of 200L/s (based on inlet control at 1.5m of head).

To limit the post development 100 year ARI flow rate to a peak flow of 200L/s a 3,500m3 basin would be required. Due to the steep topography in the area it would be challenging to try and increase the capacity of the basin (the embankment would need to be up to 6m high). Therefore it is recommended that the majority of the catchment is diverted across the contours and


of 236


discharges into adjacent Corey Street catchment. This would require a relatively small increase in the size of the Corey Street basin.

A small portion of land at the western end of the catchment is too low and would not be able to be diverted to the Corey Street catchment. This area would either need to remain undeveloped or drain into the existing Miller Road basin.

A new underground drain along the northern boundary of the area would be required to provide the eastern allotment within the precinct with an outlet. This would have to pass through the southern allotment and into the adjacent Corey Street catchment.


This precinct discharges into two gullies that join a short distance upstream of where they spill into the South Para River at the northern end of the precinct. A buffer strip along the gullies should be provided such that any future development is kept away from any flood waters that may pass along the gullies. The buffer should be kept to a minimum width of 10 metres.

Peak flow management is not a key consideration for the catchment as flows will discharge into the creek line, which will be kept free from development, and subsequently into the South Para River. The increase in peak flows within the South Para River, due to development within the precinct, is considered to be relatively insignificant. The management of flows from the catchment is more driven by managing the increase in the frequency of flow along the existing gullies to manage the potential for increased erosion and to improve water quality.

Most of the allotments in the area have direct access to the existing gullies in the area. However some allotments would require relatively short sections of drain to allow them to drain into the gullies via adjacent private properties.


Peak flow management is not considered to be a priority as flows will discharge directly into the South Para River which would have ample capacity to take the additional flow from the area. However water quality measures should be put in place to reduce downstream impacts.


Flood management for this area is the same as for the South Para West area given the very similar topography and discharge directly into the South Para River.


Flood management for this area is the same as for the South Para West area given the very similar topography and discharge is either directly into the South Para River or a short distance from the discharge point of a major tributary.


The eastern tributary is covered by the Gawler East Residential Stormwater Management Strategy Report (W&G, 2010). It proposes a flood control dam at the downstream end of the development area to reduce peak flows from the upstream developed catchment to the pre development 100-yr ARI flow rate (of 14.9m3/s). The basin is only a short distance upstream of the discharge into the South Para River. It is questionable as to what impact the basin would have on reducing downstream flood risk. Peak flows from the catchment are likely to occur within an hour or so while the peak flows in the South Para River are likely to take many hours to arrive. Detention storage within the catchment has the potential to increase the likelihood of having the peak flows coincide.


of 236



The flood management strategy for this catchment is already detailed in the Gawler East Residential Stormwater Management Strategy Northern Catchment report ((W&G, 2011). Due to a lack of downstream infrastructure and downstream development strict controls were required for discharge from the catchment. A large detention basin has been incorporated to reduce post development 100-yr ARI flows back to 5-yr ARI predevelopment flow rates.

2.2 Water Quality Management

2.2.1 Introduction

Virtually the entire Gawler East area is steep with surface grades typically in the range of 5-15%. This limits the opportunity for water quality improvement measures as systems such as shallow wetland and biofiltration systems typically require flatter grades. The existing gullies in the study area are currently poorly vegetated and typically comprise of scattered native trees growing over exotic invasive species and grasses. Uncontrolled development of the upstream catchments will result in a significant increase in both the frequency and volume of runoff. These increase in flows has the potential to increase erosion along the existing gullies and would need to be managed.

Water quality measures for each of the precincts is discussed below and shown in Figure 2.2. Where possible wetland ponds and detention basins have been proposed at the downstream end of the catchments in locations where there are well formed gullies that would facilitate the construction of a basin across the gully within private property, upstream and off line from the receiving watercourse. GPTs are proposed upstream of the basins such that all water entering them has some form of pre-treatment prior to discharge.

Due to uncertainty in the likely future internal drainage layout within future land divisions the locations of other GPTs is not shown. However it would be anticipated that GPTs are placed at the downstream end of each land division, prior to discharge.

The strategy has broadly attempted to be consistent with the measures recommended for the Eastern Tributary precinct that is discussed within the Gawler East Residential Stormwater Management Strategy Report (W&G, 2010) such that there is a degree of consistency across the area.

While not shown on the plans it is envisaged that development within the area would need to incorporate bio-filtration systems within the land division to encourage on-site infiltration (and thereby reduce the frequency and volume of discharge) and improve water quality. Steep grades may make the installation of systems challenging in some areas and the long term maintenance of the systems, such that they continue to operate effectively, needs to be considered.

A large portion of the Gawler East area drains into the South Para River. This river is of a high environmental value and as such water quality measures for new development in areas discharging into the river will need to be managed carefully such that the area is protected. Future MUSIC or water quality modelling as part of development in the area would be required to ensure that discharge into the river meets the appropriate water quality guidelines.


There are no existing water courses within this region and the ultimate drainage of the area is likely to be entirely underground to the point where it would discharge into a tributary of the Gawler River. Prior to discharge the area will need to go via a basin for flood mitigation purposes. Prior to discharge into the basin the flows would need to pass through a gross pollutant trap (GPT) that would allow for the capture of gross pollutants, coarse sediments and free oils.

The basin should form a dual function of reducing flood risk and improving water quality by introducing a section of permanent water into the basin below the detention storage component


of 236


of 236


of the basin and including aquatic and riparian vegetation. Infiltration should be encouraged to provide on-site retention and reduce the frequency of downstream discharge.


Water quality management for this area would be similar to the Potts Road East area as it has very similar catchment characteristics and also ultimately discharges into a tributary of the Gawler River.

2.2.4 Corey Street

Retention storage could be retrofitted into the base of the existing detention basin to provide water quality improvements. However this would require additional excavation below the invert of the basin outlet. Given the relatively steep environment (20-30% grade) significant excavation would be required to chase the grade up the existing embankments. A more suitable option would be to incorporate a new retention basin upstream of the existing basin.

Two existing natural gullies are located within the precinct. The main gully runs east-west while a more minor gully runs north-south towards the western end of the precinct and discharges into the main gully just upstream of the existing basin. It is recommended that the main gully is retained.

Development from the area will discharge into the gullies. In-stream works are recommended within the main gully including planting of riparian vegetation and weed control. In-stream ephemeral ponds would also be recommended to create shallow pools which would help to retain flows, would provide aquatic habitat and reduce the effective bed grades (currently at about 7%) which would slow up flow velocities.

2.2.5 Miller Street

Water quality management for this area would be similar to the Potts Road East area as it has very similar catchment characteristics. It is likely that this catchment would be diverted into the proposed Corey Street catchment basin. The retention component of the basin would need to serve both the Miller Street catchment and the existing large catchment that drains into the basin.


The southern tributaries catchment is comprised of two main gullies that run in a north-south direction and join together a short distance of the upstream point where they discharge into the South Para River. There are also two minor gullies that feed into the western side of the main gullies. It is recommended that the main gullies be retained. In-stream works are recommended within the gullies including planting of riparian vegetation and weed control. This will help to minimise the risk of erosion within the gullies. In-stream ephemeral ponds would also be recommended to create shallow pools which would help to retain flows, would provide aquatic habitat and reduce the effective bed grades (currently at 6-7%) which would slow up flow velocities.

GPTs should be located on the outlet points from the new underground drainage systems that will be in the area to serve new development.

Small retention basins at the downstream end of the two minor gullies would help to reduce the frequency and volume of discharge from the catchments that discharge downstream of these gullies. Given the relatively minor nature of the gullies they could potentially be developed with an underground drain passing along the alignments of the existing gullies.


of 236



The majority of the South Para West precinct drains directly into the South Para River. The main requirement for development in this area would be to provide, as a minimum, gross pollutant traps on the underground drainage systems, prior to discharge into the River.

The region also contains three minor gullies. These gullies are likely to be developed and contain an underground drain that will serve the local area. The downstream end of these gullies would be suitable for the construction of retention basins which would help to reduce the frequency and volume of discharge into the South Para River. However the most suitable location for these basins is in an area zoned as open space which may impact on where they can be placed.

All development, including the proposed basins in the precinct would need to be kept outside of the 100-yr ARI flood extents of the South Para River which would need to be modelled through the area.


The majority of this precinct drains to a natural gully that discharges directly into the South Para River. The downstream end of this gully would be suitable for the construction of a retention basin which would help to reduce the frequency and volume of discharge into the South Para River. GPTs should be installed on any outlets that discharge into the basin and on any outlets that will discharge directly into the South Para River.

All development, including the proposed basin would need to be kept outside of the 100-yr ARI flood extents of the South Para River.


This precinct is very similar in nature to the South Para East precinct. A large proportion of the site drains to an existing natural gully that discharges directly into the South Para River. This gully would also be a suitable location for the construction of a retention basin which would help to reduce the frequency and volume of discharge from the precinct. GPTs should be installed on any outlets that discharge into the basin and on any outlets that will discharge directly into the South Para River.

Some of this precinct will discharge into the lower reaches of the eastern tributary that is outlined below. It is understood that an existing irongrass community has established along this section of water course due to a natural spring providing some aquatic habitat in the area. Disturbance of this area would need to minimised as part of development of the adjacent area.

All development, including the proposed basins in the precinct would need to be kept outside of the 100-yr ARI flood extents of the South Para River.


Existing water quality measures for this catchment have already been detailed within the Gawler East Residential Stormwater Management Strategy Report (W&G, 2010). It includes a wide range of measures including GPTs and wetland ponds in the flatter areas away from the main tributary and a number of in-stream works including ephemeral ponds, macrophyte plantings and bio-retention systems. The measures are consistent with attempting to effectively manage the quality and quantity of stormwater produced by the proposed development such that pollutant reduction targets are met.


Existing water quality measure for this catchment have already been detailed within the Gawler East Residential Stormwater Management Strategy Northern Catchment report ((W&G, 2011) and include GPTs and wetlands.


of 236


2.3 Water Harvesting and Reuse

2.3.1 Water Harvesting

The Gawler East area is split up into a number of distinct catchment areas, as outlined in Figure 1.1. Each of these areas are relatively small (ranging between 7 & 150 hectares) and therefore it would not be economically viable to construct a water harvesting scheme given the high capital costs and small yields that would be available. A treatment scheme would also need land to store and treat the water, before it could be harvested. Given the steepness of the terrain (typically 5-15% grade) the construction of a treatment system would be challenging. However some of the catchments (Miller Road and Corey Street) are upstream of the proposed Gawler Racecourse water harvesting scheme while other areas would eventually make their way into the Gawler River upstream of where harvesting is also proposed. Therefore additional runoff from the Gawler East area could potentially be harvested at these locations.

On-site capture and reuse of water through tanks is a legislative requirement for new residential development. Tanks sizes larger than the minimum size (of 1kL) would be recommended to further reduce mains water demand but also to reduce the frequency and volume of discharge from the areas of new development.

2.3.2 Water Distribution

A distribution system could be incorporated into future development in the Gawler East area. It would need to be constructed as part of the internal road design such that it could be constructed in parallel with other services (such as water). Most of the areas have a significant elevation differential (typically 40-50m) which would make it necessary to have a number of pressure zones such that all areas were supplied with water at a suitable pressure. To provide adequate pressure the area would either need a header tank or pumps feeding into a distribution system. The water could be supplied from the Gawler Water Reuse Project. It is likely that the areas west of the South Para River could be supplied by one system (the Potts Road East, Potts Road, Corey Street, Miller Road, Southern Tributaries and South Para West regions) while a second system could supply areas to the east (South Para East, South Para North and Eastern Tributary). The Calton Street system has already commenced construction. Retrofitting a non-potable water system into this area would be more costly.

The main connection points into the Gawler Water Reuse Project would need to be determined. It is likely that the western area could potentially be fed by a connection near Sheriff Street while the eastern system could be fed from a new pipe along Calton Street.


of 236


3 Implementation of SMP 3.1 Introduction

The construction of stormwater infrastructure within the Gawler East area has a number of issues that would need to be considered. The issues that have been identified are:

Construction timing and equity issues

Maintenance

Steep grades

Easements

Dam failure risk

Existing water main.

Each of these items is discussed in more detail below.

3.2 Construction Timing and Equity Issues The Gawler East area is comprised of almost 100 different property parcels that are owned by numerous different people. Parcels sizes typically range from 1,000m2 to 5,000m2 other than some larger blocks to the east of the South Para River. The stormwater management strategies will have different impacts on the different land owners, depending on their location within the local catchment.

In some areas the properties on the downstream boundaries are likely to have to give up a significant portion of their land for the construction of a regional scale detention basin. Properties that contain existing natural gullies that will be retained would need to facilitate in stream works for water quality purposes and to prevent erosion.

Properties that are upstream of other properties cannot be developed in isolation as discharge from their site would have to pass through downstream properties. If infrastructure is not already in place within the downstream properties an increase in the frequency, rate and volume of discharge through downstream properties would not be acceptable and would therefore require large amounts of land to be set aside for on-site retention.

Downstream properties will need to provide for drainage infrastructure from upstream properties which would be inequitable as their infrastructure costs would be higher, as they would need to install larger pipes than upstream developments. There would need to be some contribution from upstream developers such that they partly offset the higher infrastructure costs for the downstream developments.

Based on the above issues it is likely that the various regions or precincts discussed in Section 1.2 of the report would ideally need to be developed in an integrated manner such that as a bare minimum the trunk stormwater infrastructure is in place to allow for development to occur at any location throughout the precinct. The cost to provide this trunk infrastructure would need to be determined and then spread across the various developments on an areal proportional basis. However this would mean that if only some of the precinct is being developed it is likely that Council would need to fund the shortfall which would only be recouped as other areas within the precinct are developed.

Alternatively the first developer within a precinct could be asked to fund the trunk infrastructure. In some precincts, this is likely to mean that it would not be viable for them to proceed if the extent of the works was significant (such as in the Potts Road West precinct).

The issue of multiple owners is particularly apparent in the following precincts where there are multiple properties that would need to cooperate to enable an integrated scheme to be viable:


of 236


Potts Road East

Potts Road West

Corey Street

Southern Tributaries

3.3 Maintenance A number of stormwater quality elements recommended for implementation within the Gawler East area will require ongoing maintenance to ensure that they are able to operate effectively into the future. For this reason more centralised infrastructure, such as one basin serving a precinct, rather than one on each property and one outlet with one GPT, rather than multiple outlets with multiple GPTs, will help to reduce the maintenance burden in the future. It is likely that the infrastructure will come under the control of Council and that ongoing maintenance could become a long term burden for Council.

3.4 Steep Grades Some areas of the Gawler East area are particularly steep (above 20% grade), particularly within the vicinity of the existing natural gullies. In these areas it may not be practical to easily develop these areas into residential allotments. It may be beneficial to include relatively wide linear parks along the alignments of the existing gullies. This would allow for more scope in providing water quality measures along the gullies. Steep grades will also mean that basins will potentially require large amounts of space due to the need to “chase the grade” on the high side of the basins. They may also need steep batters or other treatments (such as gabions) to limit the extents of the basins.

3.5 Easements Unless all of the precincts are developed as integrated areas, it is likely that drainage easements are going to be required through a number of properties. This will primarily be required for the construction of the trunk drainage network that would allow individual developments to be able to connect to a discharge point.

Due to the steep grades in the area rear of allotment drains are going to be needed in the majority of the Gawler East area at the rear of allotments that are located on the low sides of the internal roads.

3.6 Dam Failure Risk A number of relatively large detention basins will be required to reduce peak flows upstream of the developed portions of the Gawler East area. These dams potentially introduce the risk of dam failure if the dams were to overtop and have the embankment washed away. While the risk of occurrence is relatively low the consequences are potentially catastrophic and could include significant loss of life. Adequate spillways would need to be incorporated into the basins to ensure that they comply with current dam safety requirements. This has the potential to significantly increase the cost of the dams.

3.7 Existing Water Main A large above ground water main runs through the Gawler East area and may impact on the internal design of development in the area (for example internal roads would not be able to cross over the service unless it was modified to be locally placed underground). In some locations it is likely that stormwater infrastructure will need to pass under the service.


of 236


4 Cost Estimates 4.1 Costs

As discussed in Section 3.2 trunk stormwater infrastructure that would need to be installed in each precinct to enable upstream development to proceed. The preliminary cost estimate for each precinct is summarised in Table 4-1 and includes the infrastructure shown in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 such as trunk drainage systems, detention basins, GPTs, in-stream plantings and basins. It does not include any costs for drainage infrastructure that would be incorporated into individual developments that is likely to include the internal drainage network and GPTs at the outlet pipes. A breakdown of the costs is shown in Appendix A and includes 10% design contingency, 20% construction contingency, 20% general contingency and 10% GST.

Table 4-1 Capital Costs for Trunk Drainage Infrastructure

Catchment Drainage Capital Costs (‘000s)

Potts Road East 880

Potts Road West 2,380

Corey Street 1,360

Miller Road 270

Southern Tributaries 1,560

South Para West 790

South Para East 440

South Para North 530

Eastern Tributary Not costed

Calton Street Not costed

TOTAL 8,210


of 236


Appendix A Cost Estimate Summary


of 236

Project: Gawler East SMPJob No: 2014.1387Date: 10/03/2016Revision: BSummary of works:

Estimated: TAKReview:

Item No Description Comment Unit Qty Rate Cost

Preliminaries

Make 15% of total cost Item $ - $ 70,770.00

Sub-Total $ 70,770.00

Stormwater Drainage

Supply and install stormwater pipelines

375 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m 350 $ 400.00 $ 140,000.00 450 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 470.00 $ - 525 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 530.00 $ - 600 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 600.00 $ - 675 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 700.00 $ - 750 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 750.00 $ - HeadwallSuit Pipe 375 mm Each 1 $ 800.00 $ 800.00 Suit Pipe 450 mm Each $ 800.00 $ - Suit Pipe 525 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 600 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 675 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 750 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Supply and install Junction Box/Grated Inlet Pit900 sq Junction Box/Grated Inlet Pit up to 2.0 m deep

Each 3 $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000.00

Sub-Total $ 149,800.00

GPTAssumed HG 18, $27,000 supply and install and $15,000 civil works

Each 1 $ 42,000.00 $ 42,000.00

In-stream plaintingsAssume 10m width at $8/m2 for jute matting and planting.

m $ 80.00 $ -

In-stream wetland pondsAssume about 1.5m total height and 10m wide span across valley with downstream rock scour protection

Each $ 40,000.00 $ -

Local basinAssume 200m3 per hectare of catchment to store the 1 in 1 yr 24 hour runoff volume

m3 $ 80.00 $ -

Detention basin Assume inclusive rate of $80 per m3 of storage m3 3500 $ 80.00 $ 280,000.00

Sub-Total $ 322,000.00

Miscellaneous

$ - $ -

$ - $ - $ - $ -

Sub-Total $ - Sub-Total 542,570.00$ Design 10% 54,257.00$ Construction contingency 20% 108,514.00$ General Contingency 20% 108,514.00$ GST 10% 65,108.40$ CITF Levy 0.25% 2,197.41$

Grand Total 881,160.81$

Note:

PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

Potts Road East Trunk drainage and water quality infrastructure

- No allowance for tree removal, assumed to occur during pre-strip phase of project - No allowance has been made for the staging of these works

These estimates are to be considered as indicative only, and are not purported to represent anything more than an indication of the cost of the scope of the work. Tonkin Consulting recommend that an appropriately qualified quantity surveyor be consulted to provide detailed market cost inputs.

Cost estimates provided by Tonkin Consulting are based upon historic cost information and experience, and do not allow for: - Latent conditions - Changes in scope - Market conditions (i.e. competition, escalation) - No allowance for approvals for these works - No allowance for site contamination and remediation


of 236




Preliminaries


Sub-Total $ 191,070.00

Stormwater Drainage


375 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m 950 $ 400.00 $ 380,000.00 450 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m 200 $ 470.00 $ 94,000.00 525 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 530.00 $ - 600 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m 150 $ 600.00 $ 90,000.00 675 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 700.00 $ - 750 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 750.00 $ - HeadwallSuit Pipe 375 mm Each 1 $ 800.00 $ 800.00 Suit Pipe 450 mm Each $ 800.00 $ - Suit Pipe 525 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 600 mm Each 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Suit Pipe 675 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 750 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Supply and install Junction Box/Grated Inlet Pit900 sq Junction Box/Grated Inlet Pit up to 2.0 m deep

Each 8 $ 3,000.00 $ 24,000.00

Sub-Total $ 589,800.00


Each 2 $ 42,000.00 $ 84,000.00


m $ 80.00 $ -


Each $ 40,000.00 $ -

Local basinAssume 200m3 per hectare of catchment to store the 1 in 1 yr 24 hour runoff volume. Allow $100 per m3 of storage

m3 $ 100.00 $ -

Detention basin Assume inclusive rate of $80 per m3 of storage m3 7500 $ 80.00 $ 600,000.00

Sub-Total $ 684,000.00

Miscellaneous

$ - $ -

$ - $ - $ - $ -

Sub-Total $ - Sub-Total 1,464,870.00$ Design 10% 146,487.00$ Construction contingency 20% 292,974.00$ General Contingency 20% 292,974.00$ GST 10% 175,784.40$ CITF Levy 0.25% 5,932.72$

Grand Total 2,379,022.12$

Note:

Tonkin Consulting recommend that an appropriately qualified quantity surveyor be consulted to provide detailed market cost inputs.


Potts Road West Trunk drainage and water quality infrastructure

Cost estimates provided by Tonkin Consulting are based upon historic cost information and experience, and do not allow for: - Latent conditions - Changes in scope - Market conditions (i.e. competition, escalation) - No allowance for approvals for these works - No allowance for site contamination and remediation - No allowance for tree removal, assumed to occur during pre-strip phase of project - No allowance has been made for the staging of these works

These estimates are to be considered as indicative only, and are not purported to represent anything more than an indication of the cost of the scope of the work.


of 236




Preliminaries


Sub-Total $ 108,810.00

Stormwater Drainage


375 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m 530 $ 400.00 $ 212,000.00 450 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m 220 $ 470.00 $ 103,400.00 525 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 530.00 $ - 600 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 600.00 $ - 675 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 700.00 $ - 750 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 750.00 $ - HeadwallSuit Pipe 375 mm Each 5 $ 800.00 $ 4,000.00 Suit Pipe 450 mm Each $ 800.00 $ - Suit Pipe 525 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 600 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 675 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 750 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Supply and install Junction Box/Grated Inlet Pit900 sq Junction Box/Grated Inlet Pit up to 2.0 m deep

Each 8 $ 3,000.00 $ 24,000.00

Sub-Total $ 343,400.00


Each 1 $ 42,000.00 $ 42,000.00


m 850 $ 80.00 $ 68,000.00


Each 4 $ 40,000.00 $ 160,000.00


m3 1400 $ 80.00 $ 112,000.00

Detention basin m3 $ -

Sub-Total $ 382,000.00

Miscellaneous

$ - $ -

$ - $ - $ - $ -



Note:


Corey Street Trunk drainage and water quality infrastructure





of 236




Preliminaries


Sub-Total $ 21,735.00

Stormwater Drainage


375 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m 140 $ 400.00 $ 56,000.00 450 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m 170 $ 470.00 $ 79,900.00 525 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 530.00 $ - 600 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 600.00 $ - 675 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 700.00 $ - 750 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 750.00 $ - HeadwallSuit Pipe 375 mm Each $ 800.00 $ - Suit Pipe 450 mm Each $ 800.00 $ - Suit Pipe 525 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 600 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 675 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 750 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Supply and install Junction Box/Grated Inlet Pit900 sq Junction Box/Grated Inlet Pit up to 2.0 m deep

Each 3 $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000.00

Sub-Total $ 144,900.00


Each $ 42,000.00 $ -


m $ 80.00 $ -


Each $ 40,000.00 $ -


m3 $ 80.00 $ -

Detention basin Assume inclusive rate of $80 per m3 of storage m3 $ 80.00 $ -

Sub-Total $ -

Miscellaneous

$ - $ -

$ - $ - $ - $ -

Sub-Total $ - Sub-Total 166,635.00$ Design 10% 16,663.50$ Construction contingency 20% 33,327.00$ General Contingency 20% 33,327.00$ GST 10% 19,996.20$ CITF Levy 0.25% 674.87$


Note:


Miller Road Trunk drainage infrastructure





of 236




Preliminaries


Sub-Total $ 125,130.00

Stormwater Drainage


375 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m 230 $ 400.00 $ 92,000.00 450 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 470.00 $ - 525 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 530.00 $ - 600 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 600.00 $ - 675 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 700.00 $ - 750 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 750.00 $ - HeadwallSuit Pipe 375 mm Each 4 $ 800.00 $ 3,200.00 Suit Pipe 450 mm Each $ 800.00 $ - Suit Pipe 525 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 600 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 675 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 750 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Supply and install Junction Box/Grated Inlet Pit900 sq Junction Box/Grated Inlet Pit up to 2.0 m deep

Each 5 $ 3,000.00 $ 15,000.00

Sub-Total $ 110,200.00


Each 2 $ 42,000.00 $ 84,000.00


m 1700 $ 80.00 $ 136,000.00


Each 11 $ 40,000.00 $ 440,000.00


m3 800 $ 80.00 $ 64,000.00


Sub-Total $ 724,000.00

Miscellaneous

$ - $ -

$ - $ - $ - $ -



Note:


Southern Tributaries Trunk drainage and water quality infrastructure





of 236




Preliminaries


Sub-Total $ 63,690.00

Stormwater Drainage


375 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m 200 $ 400.00 $ 80,000.00 450 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 470.00 $ - 525 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 530.00 $ - 600 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 600.00 $ - 675 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 700.00 $ - 750 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 750.00 $ - HeadwallSuit Pipe 375 mm Each 2 $ 800.00 $ 1,600.00 Suit Pipe 450 mm Each $ 800.00 $ - Suit Pipe 525 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 600 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 675 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 750 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Supply and install Junction Box/Grated Inlet Pit900 sq Junction Box/Grated Inlet Pit up to 2.0 m deep

Each 3 $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000.00

Sub-Total $ 90,600.00


Each 3 $ 42,000.00 $ 126,000.00


m $ 80.00 $ -


Each $ 40,000.00 $ -


m3 2600 $ 80.00 $ 208,000.00


Sub-Total $ 334,000.00

Miscellaneous

$ - $ -

$ - $ - $ - $ -



Note:


South Para West Trunk drainage and water quality infrastructure





of 236




Preliminaries


Sub-Total $ 35,100.00

Stormwater Drainage


375 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 400.00 $ - 450 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 470.00 $ - 525 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 530.00 $ - 600 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 600.00 $ - 675 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 700.00 $ - 750 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 750.00 $ - HeadwallSuit Pipe 375 mm Each $ 800.00 $ - Suit Pipe 450 mm Each $ 800.00 $ - Suit Pipe 525 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 600 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 675 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 750 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Supply and install Junction Box/Grated Inlet Pit900 sq Junction Box/Grated Inlet Pit up to 2.0 m deep

Each $ 3,000.00 $ -

Sub-Total $ -


Each 1 $ 42,000.00 $ 42,000.00


m $ 80.00 $ -


Each $ 40,000.00 $ -


m3 2400 $ 80.00 $ 192,000.00


Sub-Total $ 234,000.00

Miscellaneous

$ - $ -

$ - $ - $ - $ -



Note:


South Para East Trunk drainage and water quality infrastructure





of 236




Preliminaries


Sub-Total $ 42,630.00

Stormwater Drainage


375 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m 60 $ 400.00 $ 24,000.00 450 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m 180 $ 470.00 $ 84,600.00 525 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 530.00 $ - 600 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 600.00 $ - 675 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 700.00 $ - 750 mm RCP, class 3, up to 2.0 m deep. Lin m $ 750.00 $ - HeadwallSuit Pipe 375 mm Each 1 $ 800.00 $ 800.00 Suit Pipe 450 mm Each 1 $ 800.00 $ 800.00 Suit Pipe 525 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 600 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 675 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Suit Pipe 750 mm Each $ 1,000.00 $ - Supply and install Junction Box/Grated Inlet Pit900 sq Junction Box/Grated Inlet Pit up to 2.0 m deep

Each 4 $ 3,000.00 $ 12,000.00

Sub-Total $ 122,200.00


Each 1 $ 42,000.00 $ 42,000.00


m $ 80.00 $ -


Each $ 40,000.00 $ -


m3 1500 $ 80.00 $ 120,000.00


Sub-Total $ 162,000.00

Miscellaneous

$ - $ -

$ - $ - $ - $ -



Note:


South Para North Trunk drainage and water quality infrastructure





of 236

Overview of discussion points

Springwood Estate

The following is an overview of discussion points to be had with the new land owners of the Springwood Estate development as announced on 27 January 2016.

The subject areas presented below should not be considered as exclusive and will be added to by the developer’s representatives in anticipation of a first joint meeting between Council and the new Springwood Estate developers in the coming weeks.

Governance Parameters

• Introductory workshop to be held with Council (Elected Members) and developerrepresentatives in the coming period as to be determined. Purpose and outcomes to beachieved at this first workshop need to be agreed. Other follow up workshops and or reportsto Council on the ‘new Springwood Estate’ to be considered thereafter.

• Following this initial introductory phase it is proposed that Twice yearly progress updates beprovided to Council (Elected Members) on the development, addressing key issues asidentified. Focus of which will be strategic elements.

• Joint Executive meetings – during early phases of this transition period (say first 6 months)joint monthly meetings between Council’s and Developer’s Executive teams are to be held.Focus of discussions will be on strategic matters. These meetings would then defer to bi-monthly and then quarterly towards the end of 2017 and beginning 2018.

• Operational meetings – fortnightly meetings to be held between relevant staff from bothCouncil and developers to progress land division and land use applications and relatedmatters. Planning officers and Engineering Staff are critical for these meetings. ManagerRyan Viney would be in attendance at these meetings on an ongoing basis to ensureappropriate senior representation and continuity in dealing with issues. This will provide a“case management” approach to the Springwood Estate, Sam Dilena, ManagerInfrastructure & Engineering Services will participate on a as needs basis.

Suggest in the first instance a ‘status workshop’ on individual Development Applications be held as soon as possible to progress current development applications in the system.

• MOU - Consider possible merits in formulating a MOU to address the above and such othermatters regarding governance relationships between the two parties to ensure consistencyof approach over the life of the development having regard to fact that individuals involvedon both sides will change.



of 236

• Communication protocols/Stakeholder Engagement. • Probity issues.

Development Master Plan

• A Master Plan for the development needs to be formulated to provide a clear message and direction for the development. Key elements of which including but not limited to demonstrating a integrated approach to as follows:

o Housing options and diversity o Open space and recreational outcomes o Community capacity building o Retail/commercial services to be provided. – employment/economic consequences

to be generated o Social/ Community Services o Creek environs system management o Road network o Stormwater management o Environmental management o Timing of relevant infrastructure delivery to the staging of the development (ie

linked to lot numbers, key development areas, etc) o Other

• The lack of such a document to date has been problematic.

• The Master Plan will act as a common reference point as the development progresses over

the years.

• The Master plan will be used as a primary point of reference and discussion point with Council (Elected Members) for the purpose of annual/bi-annual updates on progress and changes to the Plan.

• The Master Plan will provide a strong context to ensure individual stages to the development (as reflected in corresponding development applications) are progressed according and deliberated by Council administration and or CDAP.

• By creating confidence in the Plan by Council (Elected Members) then other associated matters that will over time need to be presented to Council (Elected Members) for deliberations such as, but not limited to, LMAs, financial contributions, joint initiatives etc will be more readily progressed.

• Master Plan to address original project deliverables (when the site was first presented for rezoning) that are to continue to be provided. Also importantly the need to address those original key elements of the project (such as the mine site) that may or may not be progressed as original presented to the community. This is an important junction for the project in respect to addressing community expectations moving forward.


of 236

Economic

• What are the economic consequences of the development relative to investment and job creation to occur over the life of the project?

• Will the development be smart – NBN connected.

• How will the development facilitate business activities and create ongoing employment opportunities. Approach to be taken in regards to home based businesses.

• Potential relationship with Gawler Connect Project’s digital hub.

Transport Infrastructure

• Gawler East Link Road – o overview Council’s position on Link Road (30 June 2015 Resolutions) o Carlton Road not an option as an alternative to internal road link. o Lend Lease’s recent correspondence in this regard. o Decision in this respect is critical to delivery of State Government portion of Link

Road. o Interrelationship with the Road Infrastructure Delivery Deed (RIDD) & further Traffic

Interventions. Current progress/status on the RIDD & its importance.

Social/Community Services

• Social and community services study for whole of Gawler. Need to consider relationship to Springwood Estate. Refer Attachment 1.

• Case study assessment undertaken on Open Space, Sport and Recreation Services and Facilities required for Springwood Estate. Refer Attachment 2. This study has been recently progressed to inform requirements relative to Infrastructure Deed. Refer comments below.

• Quantity surveyor initial estimates of social/community infrastructure costs have been compiled. Estimated at $25m. Refer Attachment 3.

• Community Development activities and services – need to consider relationship with Council functions relative to whole of community initiative in this respect.

• Animal Management Plan and what it means for Springwood Estate. Refer Attachment 4.

Environmental

• Gawler Open Space, Sport and Recreation Plan undertaken relative to whole of Town of Gawler has implications on Springwood Estate. Refer Attachment 5

• What are the developments environmental credentials?


of 236

• Refer Council’s Environment Management Plan. Attachment 6. How will Springwood Estate

contribute to these outcomes.

• Preservation of creek environs. Needs to be a focus. Recommend formulation of Corridor Biodiversity Plan, linked to Stormwater Management Plan given interrelationship. Council will be requiring that all creek environs are rehabilitated in accordance with acceptable adopted management plans prior to being handed over to Council through any given land division processes that presents such areas as open space and then to be Councils responsibility. A strategic approach to this aspect will need to be considered.

• Development of undulating land. Recent allotment creations and dwelling configurations relative to nature of cut and fill are considered problematic. Improvements need to be made. What is best practice in this regard? Needs further consideration.

• Stormwater Management – overview status of catchment investigations underway by Tonkin Consulting on Gawler East and considerations are needed in this respect moving forward. Refer Attachment 7 Relevant to note that the draft Stormwater Management Strategy by W & G has not been endorsed by the Council. Key aspect for consideration moving forward.

• Recycled Water – status of deliberations in this respect. Long term objective to have ‘purple pipe’ network through the development. Community expectation that reserves and public spaces are irrigated via recycled water. Private land holdings access to recycled water to be discussed. Update will be provided on regional discussions in this regard.

Cultural

• How will the development ‘belong’ to the greater Gawler community. Needs to be natural expansion both physically, socially and culturally.

• Creating Springwood Estate as a destination. How do we activate Springwood Estate during its evolution.

• Refer Councils current Art and Culture Strategy. Refer Attachment 8 How can Springwood Estate work with Council to achieve identified art and cultural outcomes.

Financial

• Council requires that the RIDD addresses Community Infrastructure requirements to be

provided.

• As above, The Gawler East Case Study, provides initial cost estimates for the provision of identified social/community infrastructure to be provided. Total cost estimate is $25m.


of 236

• Need to discuss mechanisms for contributions from relevant parties ie Council, developer, state and federal government others in this regard.

• Application of provisions within current Development Bill to be considered. Council has commenced investigations relative to introduction of a separate rate. To be applicable to the whole of Gawler East.

Development Application

Planning - overview of current development applications and learnings, concerns that need to be addressed moving forward.

• Stages – 1 to 10 approved, with construction occurring in Stages 1-8. • Significant amount of amendments/variations occurring to approved land divisions – quite

resource intensive. • Commercial site – land division approved with prelim discussions about built form. Initial

proposal was in variance with the desired character of the precinct. • Open Space LMA – recently registered to allow lodgement and approval of minor land

divisions to avoid ad-hoc areas of open space (voids pocket parks) • Boundary Treatments LMA - requires of the construction of open and solid fencing on the

external boundaries of the project, and requires rear dwelling treatments to match the front facades.

• Retaining wall – the level of cut and fill on site and height of retaining walls. Not the best urban design and planning practise (drive access/overlooking/ 3-4metre – needed for increased number of split level homes

• Lack of master plan and clear direction to guide development • Sewer/drainage issues associated with Stage 1-4 – impact associated with existing detention

basis, and properties to on north of Calton Road • Stage 1-8 draining to the existing basis, 10 to open swale in adjacent property Hemaford

Crescent. Stormwater for remaining stage is located in alternative catchment.

Sam – to provide an overview of current development applications and learnings, concerns etc to enable improved service delivery by the Council and outcomes on site by the Developer.


of 236

Gawler East Precinct Plan Infrastructure Funding Discussion Paper

Town of Gawler 2014-0040

17 June 2015



of 236

Gawler East Precinct Plan 17 June 2015

Lead consultant URPS

Prepared for Tonkin Consulting

Consultant Project Manager Grazio Maiorano, Director, FPIA Suite 12/154 Fullarton Road (cnr Alexandra Ave) Rose Park, SA 5067 Tel: (08) 8333 7999 Email: [email protected]

URPS Ref 2014-0040

Document history and status

© URPS All rights reserved; these materials are copyright. No part may be reproduced or copied in any way, form or by any means without prior permission. This report has been prepared for URPS’ client. URPS and its associated consultants are not liable to any person or entity for any damage or loss that has occurred, or may occur, in relation to that person or entity taking or not taking action in respect of any representation, statement, opinion or advice referred to herein. www.urps.com.au ABN 55 640 546 010

Revision Date Reviewed Approved Details


of 236

Contents 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1

1.1 The 1000 Lot Trigger ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope and Limitations of this Paper ............................................................................................... 2

2.0 Background: Local Government Role in Infrastructure Provision ...............................................3

2.1 Typical Developer Funded Infrastructure ...................................................................................... 3

2.2 Traditional Government and/or External Funded Infrastructure .................................................. 3

2.3 Typical Methodology for Determining Infrastructure Funding ...................................................... 4

2.4 What does the Planning Reform say about Infrastructure Funding? ............................................ 4

2.5 Where are we now? ....................................................................................................................... 5

3.0 What Principles Should Guide our Infrastructure Funding Model? .............................................7

4.0 What are our Infrastructure Funding Options? ..........................................................................9

4.1 Infrastructure Deeds ...................................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Developer Contributions .............................................................................................................. 10

4.3 Separate Rate ............................................................................................................................... 11

4.4 Betterment Levy ........................................................................................................................... 12

4.5 Tax Increment Financing .............................................................................................................. 12

5.0 Infrastructure Funding Experiences ......................................................................................... 13

5.1 Town of Gawler ............................................................................................................................ 13 5.1.1 Infrastructure Deeds ........................................................................................................................ 13 5.1.2 Separate Rate .................................................................................................................................. 13

5.2 City of Playford Growth Areas ...................................................................................................... 13 5.2.1 Road Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................... 13 5.2.2 Interim Stormwater Infrastructure Deed between the City of Playford and the landowners. ....... 14 5.2.3 Social Infrastructure Deed between the City of Playford and the landowners. .............................. 14 5.2.4 Land Management Agreement ........................................................................................................ 15

5.3 District Council of Mallala - Two Wells Residential Development ............................................... 15

5.4 District Council of Mount Barker Growth Areas .......................................................................... 16

6.0 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 17

6.1 Questions to be considered by Council ........................................................................................ 17

6.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 19

Appendix A: Gawler East Concept and Zone Plans .............................................................................. 20

Appendix B: Principles of Local Government Taxation/Rating Policies ................................................. 21


of 236

1.0 Introduction The Town of Gawler is in the process of undertaking Concept Planning for the Gawler East development.

A critical component of this involves considering whether there is merit in pursuing an extension south from Potts Road to Tiver Road, generally along Bentley Road, to complete an eastern bypass route around Gawler.

Should this occur, this may require an alternative alignment for the southern portion of the Gawler East Collector Road to ensure a more direct link to Bentley Road.

To help guide these decisions, the consultant team was requested to prepare a paper identifying options for the equitable funding of the collector road, including the Potts/Tiver extension if required.

1.1 The 1000 Lot Trigger

The “1,000 lot” threshold was introduced into Council’s Development Plan on 26 August 2010, by the Ministerial Gawler East Development Plan Amendment (DPA). The DPA introduced the “Residential (Gawler East) Zone1

Desired Character - Residential (Gawler East) Zone

and the associated Overlay and Development Constraints Concept Plan. Key extracts from the Development Plan include the following:

The Residential (Gawler East) Zone is located within both the Town of Gawler and The Barossa Council. The Gawler East area encompasses broad hectare land which is expected to support a population of approximately 10,000 people.

The zone will develop in accordance with Structure Plan Map Ga/1 (Overlay 1) Enlargement G and be undertaken in an orderly manner that achieves the most efficient use of land, the extension or expansion of infrastructure services and the timely provision of community facilities. No more than 1000 allotments should be created within the area defined by Gawler East Development Constraints Concept Plan Figure CoP/5 until such time as the collector road is complete

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

.

Appendix A contains a copy of Concept Plan Figure CoP/5 and Structure Plan.

Principles of Development Control

9. Land Division

(a) should not exceed 1,000 allotments until at least the following infrastructure indicated by Structure Plan Map Ga/1 (Overlay 1) Enlargement G has been constructed:

(i) a collector road between Calton Road and One Tree Hill Road; and

(ii) A collector road between One Tree Hill Road and Potts Road; and

(iii) an upgrade of Potts Road and its intersection with Main North Road to accommodate the traffic flows associated with further continued development.

(b) should not prejudice the construction of the collector road indicated by Structure Plan Map Ga/1 (Overlay 1) Enlargement G.

Non-Complying Principle

37 Development (including building work, a change in the use of land, or division of an allotment) for the following is non-complying:

1 Similar policies also exist within the Residential Hills Zone


of 236

Development in the form of land division in the area defined by the Gawler East Development Constraints Concept Plan Figure CoP/5 is non-complying if;

(a) there exist 1,000 allotments within the area defined by the Gawler East Development Constraints Concept Plan Figure CoP/5; and

(b) the following infrastructure has not been completed in full:

(i) a collector road between Calton Road and One Tree Hill Road;

(ii) a collector road between One Tree Hill Road and Potts Road;

(iii) an upgrade of Potts Road and its intersection with Main North Road to accommodate the traffic flows associated with further continued development.

1.2 Scope and Limitations of this Paper

This paper has been prepared within the context of determining a short-term funding process associated with road infrastructure for Gawler East, especially given that residential development and land division has already commenced.

However, the options considered are also relevant for Council in longer term infrastructural decision making, especially for situations when it must deal with multiple private landowners in developing workable and equitable funding options.

The paper discussion begins with a discussion of the role of Local Government in infrastructure provision before a range of issues and opportunities associated with the infrastructure funding are discussed in terms of:

• Infrastructure Funding Principles;

• Specific models of infrastructure funding; and

• Infrastructure Funding Experiences in Gawler and similar outer-urban Councils.

Within this context, the paper has not considered the following funding models:

• Existing General Council Rate revenue;

• Government Infrastructure Bonds;

• Growth Area Differential Charges;

• Rezoning Uplift Charge; and

• User Charge (eg tolls).


of 236

2.0 Background: Local Government Role in Infrastructure Provision

South Australia has no legislation2

2.1 Typical Developer Funded Infrastructure

which formally outlines roles and responsibilities for infrastructure provision in growing neighbourhoods. In this absence, the following is considered to be standard practice:

It is generally accepted that the following infrastructure costs are fully borne by the land developer at the time of construction:

• Water (SA Water);

• Wastewater (SA Water / Private Operator);

• Electricity (Power SA);

• Gas (APA);

• Telecommunications;

• Internal walking and cycling trails;

• Internal stormwater management;

• Local open space;

• Local roads.

Development approvals will typically not be issued land developers have satisfactory addressed how the abovementioned infrastructure will be provided.

2.2 Traditional Government and/or External Funded Infrastructure

In growing neighbourhoods, many Council’s believe funding mechanisms are needed to cover infrastructure that traditionally has been provided by Local Government via general rates and government funding grants, such as:

• Upgrade of existing public roads within or external to the land division site, assuming that the rezoned land’s occupiers will benefit from these roads;

• Upgrade of existing / proposed external stormwater management systems, assuming that the rezoned land’s occupiers will benefit from these improved stormwater management systems;

• Where there is no SA Water system in place, a waste water management system;

• social infrastructure that may include a neighbourhood/community house, library, public art, recreation and/or community development programs.

2 The exception is the Development Act’s requirement regarding the provision of an open space contribution (land area or financial)


of 236

Given that there is no formal legislative process available in South Australia, each Councils typically manage each funding project on a case-by-case basis.

2.3 Typical Methodology for Determining Infrastructure Funding

It has been URPS experience that the following approaches are typically adopted to address infrastructure funding issues.

1. Council in collaboration with agencies and landowners/developers determines:

• Principles to discuss infrastructure funding.

• What / where infrastructure is required;

• The scope / standard of infrastructure;

• Anticipated cost of infrastructure;

• Anticipated contingency level regarding costs (Typically the more detailed plans available regarding the infrastructure is likely to result in a lower contingency figure).

2. Council in association with State Agencies (i.e. Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure – Transport Services) and landowners negotiate all items in point 1 and who should pay for what portion of the infrastructure (refer to principles).

3. Council in association with State Agencies and landowners (with early legal advice) determines what the most appropriate mechanisms are to source the funding (such as legal agreements and/or separate rates).

4. Pursuant to Section 48 of the Local Government Act, Councils are likely to undertake a prudential report that considers the financial impacts of the development on Council’s rate payers.

5 All parties (i.e. council, state government agencies and landowners) engage lawyers to formalise infrastructure funding deeds and associated land management agreements.

Recent practices indicate that Development Plan Amendments are typically not endorsed by Councils or the Minister, unless a funding mechanism has been formalised and adopted. In the case of Gawler East, although the Development Plan Amendment has been approved (without a finalised funding deed), the ‘1000 lot threshold’ will ensure that the connector road, the biggest piece of infrastructure associated with Gawler East, is provided before most of the development proceeds.

2.4 What does the Planning Reform say about Infrastructure Funding?

The South Australian Expert Panel, the planning system we want – on Planning Reform (2014) made the following six recommendations with respect to infrastructure funding:

1. The Government should develop a comprehensive legislative framework to govern the planning, integration, funding and delivery of infrastructure for urban development. This should replace existing ad hoc funding tools such as augmentation charges.

2. Legislation should provide mechanisms to identify infrastructure needs and triggers. These will be identified as part of regional planning schemes, with funding and financing issues dealt with separately.

3. The legislation should provide for strong Government oversight and co-ordination to support infrastructure delivery. Tools such as infrastructure levies, bond products and metropolitan-wide improvement levies should be considered.


of 236

4. Oversight of any levies must be, and be seen to be, independent and directly linked to the infrastructure required. This could operate in a similar way to existing price-setting regimes involving the Essential Services Commission.

5. Statutory augmentation charges for infrastructure should be reviewed and standardised with clear criteria for their use.

6. Clear infrastructure design standards should be developed to prevent ‘gold-plating’ to provide certainty and enable alignment with planning and urban design outcomes through practices such as common trenching that minimise disruption.

These points provide an indication of the likely future direction for infrastructure planning in South Australia, especially the establishment of legislative framework to govern the planning, integration, funding and delivery of infrastructure and mechanisms to identify infrastructure needs and triggers.

Such a legislative framework would bring South Australia into line with some other Sates, such as New South Wales and Queensland, which have an established framework to govern the planning, funding and delivery of infrastructure to support growing communities.

The State Government’s response to the recommendations of the Expert Panel (March 2015) in respect to infrastructure funding includes the following:

The Government agrees with the Expert Panel that there is a pressing need for a single statutory framework that brings together planning, prioritisation, coordination, funding and delivery of infrastructure under one umbrella that is integrated with zoning and assessment decisions. In our view, it is imperative that this legislation -

• is fully integrated with the planning legislation;

• minimises punitive upfront imposts that drive up the price of housing for first home buyers and deter new development;

• spreads the cost burden of new infrastructure by using cost-effective and equitable funding models such as long-term value capture or improvement levies and tax increment financing;

• provides a standardised framework for augmentation charging;

• links with the State budget process, taxation and finance frameworks; and

• is integrated with existing pricing regulation of essential services.

The State agrees that the legislation should seek to spread costs for infrastructure fairly over time using innovative funding techniques. Generally speaking, the Government does not support infrastructure charging that seeks to recover the full cost of a long-lived asset solely from the first users of that asset. Delivering an infrastructure funding framework consistent with the above will respond directly to the work of the Economic Development Board. More broadly, it should dovetail with the Government’s wider taxation reform agenda.

The State has committed to introducing head powers for infrastructure funding in updated planning legislation. A bill is targeted to introduction to Parliament in July 2015.

In the absence of such legislation in the present moment, the Gawler East project should proceed on the pathway described in Section 2.3.

2.5 Where are we now?


of 236

A draft Road Infrastructure Design and Delivery Deed (Draft Deed) between Lend Lease, Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Commissioner of Highways, the Town of Gawler and Barossa Council was prepared in 2014.

However, the Draft Deed has not been executed. The Draft Deed contains a Traffic Intervention Plan (to be included as Annexure 1) that includes estimated costs of various works in 2011 dollar values. The Annexure also proposes to set out which organisation is responsible for paying what proportion of costs. These details have not yet been fully included in the Deed.

It is understood that Council (or potentially Lend Lease) is looking to ‘cap’ its contribution to road infrastructure. If a cap is proposed some party will need to agree to accept the risk of any potential costs over-run in excess of the ‘cap’.

A future link road between Gawler Terrace/One Tree Hill Road and Potts Road may require the acquisition of land. It is not clear if this will be undertaken by State or Local Government and if these costs have been included in the proposed Annexure 1.


of 236

3.0 What Principles Should Guide our Infrastructure Funding Model?

Guiding Principles are often used in Government decision making to assist in complex decision making regardless of the specific project or activity. Principles are important as, once agreed upon, they can provide a stable reference point across multiple situations.

Similarly, Local Government rating policies are typically underpinned by a range of guiding principles, examples of which are included in Appendix B.

Infrastructure Funding, however, requires principles that speak to specific challenges associated with funding infrastructure, where Councils, Government agencies, landowners and developers must determine what is an appropriate ‘fair share’ between communities that directly benefit from such infrastructure versus the broader community who received indirect benefits of such infrastructure.

The 2014 South Australian Planning Reforms – The Planning System We Want – identifies thirteen principles for infrastructure funding. Embedded within these principles are broader principles about rating/taxation, such as equity, benefit and simplicity, however they are tailored to infrastructure funding and provision. The principles are:

1. Critical infrastructure should keep pace with urban development.

2. Infrastructure should be planned with land use planning, not as an afterthought.

3. Infrastructure should be defined broadly and include public spaces as well as services.

4. There should be various mechanisms to secure funding for necessary infrastructure.

5. Those who benefit most from infrastructure, including land owners and developers, should be required to fund a reasonable proportion of its costs.

6. Developer contributions should only be required where the infrastructure need is directly connected to the development.

7. Negotiating processes and frameworks should be transparent and accountable.

8. Infrastructure funding should be calculated across the life of the asset, not overly weighted towards initial costs.

9. Mechanisms should enable different ways of attributing cost sharing, including value increase.

10. Revenues should be transparently administered and pooled in nominated funds.

11. Clear pathways should support inbound investment in infrastructure.

12. Market based signals should be used to prevent gold-plating and price gouging.

13. Funding of infrastructure should dovetail with wider taxation reform.

It is recommended that Council adopt these as guiding principles in its own decision making about infrastructure funding. Doing so would provide Council with an important reference point when, for


of 236

example, determining what portion of infrastructure costs should be borne by the Gawler East locality, and what portion should be borne by the entire Town of Gawler.


of 236

4.0 What are our Infrastructure Funding Options?

4.1 Infrastructure Deeds

An Infrastructure Deed is the most commonly used infrastructure funding option in South Australia. It constitutes a legal agreement between two or more parties, typically Councils and landowners and/or developers to fund the construction of infrastructure. The deeds typically outline the cost of the infrastructure needed, the timeframe for construction and the contribution to be made by the different parties. They also outline what which parties will absorb the risk if there is a cost over-run with the project.

Infrastructure Deeds can be considered a voluntary form of Developer Contributions. Such a voluntary system, as compared with mandatory developer contributions (see Section 4.2) has advantages and disadvantages. KBR (2006) found that in South Australia it is:

“…common practice for a local authority to negotiate with the developer the possible inclusion of contributions to cover perceived external costs. It is apparent that the success of these negotiations to provide the necessary infrastructure is dependent on the negotiating skills of all parties. There is anecdotal information that indicates that elements of bluff, the use of process and legislative “blocks” and the costs of delay are factors that are sometimes brought to bear on the negotiating process. This is not fulfilling the objectives of transparency and equity” (KBR 2006).

Advantages of negotiated contributions include:

• Flexibility – can be adapted to individual circumstances;

• Voluntary – legally enforceable agreements that are entered into ‘voluntarily’ removing from them the risk of political or legal challenge;

• Certainty – agreements can be made enforceable against local government – exempting the development from future claims for contributions. (Productivity Commission, 2009)

Disadvantages of negotiated contributions include:

• Increased cost uncertainty – for both developers and governments because the outcome depends on the relative skills and bargaining positions of participants;

• Reduced transparency and accountability – negotiations can exclude stakeholders with a legitimate interest in the development;

• Does not have a nexus – relationship between the development and the infrastructure financed by the contributions becomes blurred;

• Increased transaction costs – costs to developer and local government can be high in terms of effort and delays. There can also be a cost to society if planning authorities misuse planning permission as a bargaining, rather than compliance tool. (Productivity Commission, 2009)


of 236

The quality of infrastructure provided may also vary as a result of negotiated contributions, such as Infrastructure Deeds. Developers have an incentive to provide infrastructure that is highly marketable, easily recovered from homebuyers or low in initial up-front cost if charges cannot be passed on. This, in turn means that ongoing maintenance/operating costs could be higher than optimal (Productivity Commission, 2009). A local example of this is the Golden Grove development, the substantial landscaping associated with this development helped to achieve premium prices for the joint venture partners, but left the Council with high water and maintenance costs. The Infrastructure Deed pathway is also risky for Council, particularly smaller Councils with a relatively small number of major developments, because every situation is treated differently. Under this model, there is no standard pathway or guide for Councils in negotiating the infrastructure deed. It is also risky for developers who may enter into agreements that see them responsible for an expanded range of infrastructure provision. Similarly, there is no guide or standards about an acceptable standard of infrastructure for new residential developments. While this might not be needed for some infrastructure, such as roads which are site specific, standards and thresholds in other States assist Local Government to negotiate for contributions towards larger catchment infrastructure, such as community facilities.

4.2 Developer Contributions

Developer contributions are up-front contributions that property developers are required to make to infrastructure associated with the land they develop. Such contributions can take three forms:

• land transfer – land ceded or ‘gifted’ to the Government by the developer for roads, public open space, primary school sites, drainage and other reserves

• work-in-kind – infrastructure works and facilities constructed by developers and subsequently transferred to public authorities on completion, such as reserves or neighbourhood houses

• developer charges – financial contributions to the cost of acquiring land for public use, or the provision of infrastructure by others (Can et al. 2009).

Developer contributions have been contentious because many infrastructure costs previously recovered over time from home owners through utility charges and Council rates are now recovered up-front from developers.

However, the Productivity Commission believes that such a shift can be justified on economic grounds. It gives developers an incentive to take account of a wider range of infrastructure costs when deciding where and how to develop land, which could facilitate more efficient provision of housing and associated infrastructure.

Another often-expressed concern is that developer contributions increase the cost of housing. However, when the supply of land for housing is restricted, as is typically the case in Australia, the Productivity Commission believes developer charges are most likely to reduce the above-average sale price expectations of landowners of undeveloped land.

A further concern is when developer contributions are greater than the cost of providing the infrastructure, making it a tax on development. Among the most frequent criticism of developer contributions in New South Wales is that it is not always possible to see the direct effect of the contribution, that is, there is not a clear nexus between the contribution and built infrastructure.


of 236

The Productivity Commission states that developer contributions should only be made to the extent that infrastructure is attributable to the properties being developed. This is straight forward for infrastructure that is clearly related to a developed property, but can be harder to demonstrate for some types of infrastructure, especially social infrastructure.

The principle of apportioning only attributable costs to developers has been embodied in legislation arrangements in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania.

The UDIA, in their “Infrastructure Funding for Growth Areas in Greater Adelaide” from 2012 outlined principles for assessing contribution requirements, as follows:

• Nexus – establishes link between the development, the need for the service, the location of the service and the time in which the service is being provided;

• Fair Appointment – only the share attributable to the development should be charged;

• Reasonableness – amount of contribution required relative to overall development;

• Transparency – calculation and application of development contributions;

• Affordability – NSW affordability threshold set at $20k per lot but many Councils levy above this rate.

In South Australia, there is no system for mandatory developer contributions other than Infrastructure Agreements, which are voluntary process, insofar as they are currently required to be linked to draft Development Plan Amendments.

4.3 Separate Rate

Section 154 of the Local Government Act 1999 enables a Council to declare a separate rate on rateable land for the purposes of planning and carry out an activity that is of particular benefit to the land or the occupiers of the land.

The adoption of a separate rate should ideally be undertaken after all parties have a robust understanding of what is to be planned and constructed, at what cost (including contingency) and over what time period.

Issues that would need to be considered in considering a separate rate include:

• Is the separate rate the most appropriate mechanism to address the funding issue?

• When should the separate rate be collected (e.g. prior, during or post road construction);

• Which properties the subject rate would apply to, having regard to the need to clearly demonstrate the benefit the properties would receive from the proposed infrastructure;

• If appropriate, how will third parties such as the State Government or neighbouring Council’s contributions be formalised, bearing in mind that it is possible to run a separate rate and Funding Infrastructure Deed negotiation concurrently;

• The need for the separate rate to be re-endorsed by Council each year;

• The need for a public consultation process before the separate rate is gazetted.

Central to any discussion about separate rates is determining whether the cost of providing the infrastructure should be borne by those who will directly benefit, or by the entire community.

Historically, many outer metropolitan Councils around Adelaide have higher general rates than inner metropolitan Councils to help cover the cost of providing infrastructure and services to growing communities. The Henry Tax


of 236

review held the position that a broad based land tax is an efficient taxation process and that Council rates are generally a relatively efficient, simple and fair tax (assumption that they are based on land value and not capital/improved value).

Although there are benefits associated with a broad based tax approach, opponents to the approach are likely to indicate that they should not be required to fund infrastructure upgrades if the infrastructure is solely for the enjoyment / use of smaller neighborhood and not the entire Council area.

4.4 Betterment Levy

Another infrastructure funding option is the Betterment Levy. Governments interstate can compel individuals and businesses in a given area to fund specific infrastructure through a betterment levy, in the form of a supplement on property rates. The underlying values and business activity and a betterment level provides a means of readily capturing part of those benefits to fund the infrastructure.

A betterment levy can be based on land tax or Council rates. In their comprehensive review of the tax system, Henry et al. (2009) found that land taxes and Council rates had among the lowest efficiency losses.

4.5 Tax Increment Financing

The Productivity Commission notes that the revenue collected from existing property taxes will tend to increase when new infrastructure raises the value of properties. Tax increment financing (TIF) uses the expected increase in property tax revenue as security to finance the infrastructure. This involves hypothecating a portion of future revenue from property taxes to underwrite loans and/or bonds that finance a project. The hypothecation usually ends after a fixed period, such as 25 years.

The Productivity Commission considered that Governments should be cautious, but not ignore, the TIF approach.


of 236

5.0 Infrastructure Funding Experiences

5.1 Town of Gawler

5.1.1 Infrastructure Deeds

The Town of Gawler has experienced success in the past by negotiating Infrastructure Deeds with major developers. There was an Infrastructure Agreement between Council and Urban Pacific/Lancer Communities to fund the upgrade of roads. In this situation, the negotiation was relatively straightforward because there was a clear nexus between the financial contribution and the infrastructure being provided. It was also a relatively straightforward activity because Council was negotiating with a single developer consortium.

5.1.2 Separate Rate

The Gawler East and Environs Separate Rate was legally challenged (Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd et al v Town of Gawler District Court Action No. 865 of 2012). It is our understanding that the legal challenge was based on the following alleged flaws:

• The Separate rate was not linked to a specific Development Plan Zone;

• There was a lack of clarity regarding the specific activity (i.e. infrastructure and services) to be funded by the separate rate;

• There was a lack of Council resolution to provide infrastructure to the area subject to the separate rate;

• The area gazetted for the separate rate did not directly relate to the proposed infrastructure and services, that is, there was not a clear nexus between area affected, the infrastructure to be provided and the value of the separate rate;

• The area subject to the separate rate was not located within a separate zone within Council’s Development Plan, meaning the land did not constitute a separate locality for the purpose of the separate rate.

Within the current environment, the preferred approach to addressing infrastructure funding issues is via negotiated infrastructure deeds and Land Management Agreements. However, this approach is often only successful where the land has not yet been rezoned or in the case of rezoned land, there are non-complying triggers in place to encourage the execution of infrastructure deeds and Land Management Agreements.

5.2 City of Playford Growth Areas

5.2.1 Road Infrastructure

The process that cumulated in the preparation of the Road Infrastructure Funding Agreement generally adopted the following stages:


of 236

1. Proponents of the rezoning/future development determined what road infrastructure was required.

2. Discussions undertaken with proponents (their planners and transport engineers) with Council and DPTI to agree on the extent and quality of infrastructure required.

3. Council prepared and distributed a document titled ‘Road Infrastructure Cost Sharing Principles’

4. A DPTI template was adapted to identify all new road infrastructure; by treatment, by quantity and cost contingency. The process to determine final costs involved considerable negotiation between all parties. The level of contingency that reflected the level of risk to the cost estimate varied from 20% to 60%. Lower contingency estimates were provided when detailed near working drawings were prepared that illustrated relatively high levels of details.

5. Once the conceptual design of road infrastructure was agreed to, all parties agreed (based in part on the Playford Road Infrastructure Cost Sharing Principles) to who should pay for what proportion of infrastructure.

6. An Infrastructure Funding Deed and associated Land Management Agreement (LMA) was then negotiated between legal representatives of all parties and executed prior to the approval of the DPA.

In this model, infrastructure costs are triggered at the time of the landowner depositing land division approval plans.

5.2.2 Interim Stormwater Infrastructure Deed between the City of Playford and the landowners.

An Interim Stormwater Infrastructure Deed was required by Council prior to the land being rezoned, to provide Council with sufficient time to complete the “Smith Creek Floodplain Study”. The current agreement states that the “Landowner must not – make or permit to be made an application to enable the deposit of a Plan of Division creating allotments in relation to any portion of the Site.... until such time as the Final Stormwater Infrastructure Deed is entered into and then in accordance with the Final Stormwater Infrastructure Deed... (Clause 4.2)”.

The implication of this clause is that, irrespective of the current Development Plan Zone (e.g. Suburban Neighbourhood Zone), the land cannot be divided (therefore developed), until a Final Stormwater Infrastructure Deed has been executed.

5.2.3 Social Infrastructure Deed between the City of Playford and the landowners.

A Social Infrastructure Deed was required by Council prior to the land being rezoned to enable a mechanism to fund the following desired social infrastructure:

• Purchase of land and construction of a Community House;

• Expansion of Sports Field / Facility;

• Indoor Recreation Centre;

• Develop of MOSS land.


of 236

Subject to further review, the Deed requires landowners at the land division to make a payment of (or choose to enter into a bond, requiring the landowner) to pay Council 0.5% of Gross Land Sales in the relevant Plan of Division.

5.2.4 Land Management Agreement

Council required all infrastructure deeds o be linked to a Land Management Agreement (LMA). The LMA essentially links the Road Infrastructure Deed, Stormwater Deed and Social Infrastructure Deed to the title.

Additional key aspects of the LMA include:

• Requirement for landowners to ensure created allotments are provided “with a connection for the collection and disposal of sewage from the allotment to the satisfaction of the Council and any other authority” (Clause 2.2);

• Requirement for the landowner to enter “into bonding or other appropriate authority in accordance with the Act and the Development Regulations 2008” (Clause 2.4).

5.3 District Council of Mallala - Two Wells Residential Development

The Two Wells Residential expansion started with a heads-of-agreement between Council and Hickinbotham, which created a shared vision, key principles and outputs.

This led to the formation of two infrastructure agreements – one between Council and Hickinbotham, and the other between Council, Hickinbotham and DPTI. Following the creation of the infrastructure deeds, Land Management Agreements were created for the land parcels to ensure the agreements remain in place if Hickinbotham is no longer involved in the project.

With respect to the infrastructure funding agreements:

• Council did not deal with any individual landowners and instead dealt only with the developer, Hickinbotham;

• The deeds include caps on costs for all parties, thresholds for further negation in case costs exceed agreed funding arrangements;

• A non-complying trigger relating to dwelling numbers acts as a threshold for major infrastructure;

• The deeds covers road infrastructure, including connection to Port Wakefield Road;

• Wastewater is included in the deed and required the developer to fund the entire system, and this has to be provided prior to the occupancy of the first house;

• Stormwater and flood protection infrastructure are also included;

• A social infrastructure fund is included in the deed with needs based upon two studies, although the developer will be excluded from paying into the fund if it provides a Lutheran School within a set timeframe;

• The deed identifies future negotiation points, such as a bike path to connect the new development with the Town Centre.


of 236

5.4 District Council of Mount Barker Growth Areas

The District Council of Mount Barker negotiated Infrastructure Deeds with land owners and developers before the rezoning of land that was subject to its 2006 Council initiated DPA. As with Two Wells, these Infrastructure Deeds were supported by Land Management Agreements over the land parcels to provide greater security.

For these agreements, the developer can procure the required infrastructure to Council’s standards, or the developer can provide payment to Council. Triggers were in place related to stages of development to ensure the major infrastructure was provided at the right time.

To deal with indirect infrastructure, such as recreational facilities or deck car parking in the Mount Barker town centre, developers make payment to Council when development is undertaken based on an amount per new allotment. These payments are a contribution and do not fully fund the infrastructure.

A different approach has been used to fund infrastructure associated with the 2010 Ministerial DPA.

Prior to the rezoning of land, the State Government secured a Heads of Agreement with several developers to contribute at a rate of $50,000 per hectare (indexed) to fund major transportation infrastructure that required upgrading as a result of the development.

In addition, following the rezoning of the land, Council declared a separate rare for three classes of infrastructure over all the land that was subject to the Ministerial DPA, as follows:

• Approximately $50,000 contribution to per hectare for road infrastructure payable prior to issuing titles;

• Approximately $6,500 contribution per created allotment for wastewater (there is no SA Water wastewater system in Mt Barker township and wastewater is managed by Council);

• Approximately $1,400 contribution per created allotment for community and recreation facilities payable prior to issuing titles.

Since the introduction of the separate rate, it is understood that an Infrastructure Deed exists between some (but not all) developers and Councils with respect to wastewater infrastructure. If developers maintain their commitment to these deeds, there will be a reduction of their separate rate.


of 236

6.0 Summary

6.1 Questions to be considered by Council

As a result of the investigations contained within this report, it is recommended that Council consider the following questions.

1. What Principles will we use to guide our decision making?

The Infrastructure Provision Principles from the South Australian Planning Reforms (refer Section 3.0) provide a good starting point for identifying principles for Council.

2. Should Council ratify the existing Infrastructure Deed?

Ratification of the existing Infrastructure Deed between Lend Lease, Council and DPTI will see that Lend Lease make a major financial contribution to the infrastructure which supports their residential development.

An unintended consequence of this, however, is that a number of smaller landowners in the precinct will benefit from the infrastructure through improved development potential of their own land and possibly an increased property value. This presents an equity issue insomuch as some landowners in the precinct are financially contributing to the road construction while others are not.

If Council proceeds with this Infrastructure Agreement, it should also seek Land Management Agreement over the affected land parcels to ensure the Deed is linked to the land and all future landowners.

3. Should Council seek Infrastructure Agreements with those land owners who will receive a direct benefit from the proposed Collector/Ring Road?

Given that negotiated infrastructure agreements is the preferred approach, Council should consider negotiating with those land owners who will receive a direct benefit from the proposed Collector/Ring Road and encourage these landowners make a financial contribution (at the point of land division)to the infrastructure that is in proportion to the benefit they will receive.

However, in considering this possibility, Council would need to identify properties affected very carefully, ensuring to only identify those who will receive a direct benefit. Council should only consider this once it has detailed information about the cost and timing of the proposed Collector/Ring Road. Some landowners may not wish to enter into an Infrastructure Agreement and perceive that the new road is not in their interest. In this case, Council has the option (subject to the Minister for Planning’s support) to initiative a DPA to ‘back zone’ their properties to remove any substantive development potential until such a time as an infrastructure agreement is in place – this is likely to be a very unpopular option. This option comes with risks. That is, there is a time lag between Council resolve such an approach and the Minister authorising the ‘back zone’ DPA. During this time lag, landowners/developers could lodge land division development applications based on the existing Development Plan3

policies and no associated infrastructure agreements.

3 Land divisions up to 1000 lots will be accessed via the on-merit pathway.


of 236

4. Should a separate rate be introduced for those land owners who will receive a direct benefit from the proposed Collector/Ring Road?

If an infrastructure deed and LMA cannot be negotiated, a separate rate for those land owners who will receive a direct benefit from the proposed Collector/Ring Road can be investigated to ensure that these landowners make a financial contribution to the infrastructure that is in proportion to the benefit they will receive.

In considering this possibility, Council would need to identify properties affected very carefully, ensuring to only identify those who will receive a direct benefit. Council should only consider this once it has detailed information about the cost and timing of the proposed road.

This process may require a DPA to introduce a specific Development Plan Zone (refer to Regulation 10 (1) and (3) of the Local Government (General) Regulations 1999).

If Council is to proceed via the Separate Rate, it is recommended that legal advice is considered early in the process to minimise the likelihood of a successful legal challenge.

In addition, Council should allocate resources to appropriate engage its community to explain the reasons, benefits and costs associated in the proposed separate rate in a highly transparent manner.

At this stage, URPS is of the opinion, that the focus should be on negotiating infrastructure agreements within the current Development plan framework, and consider the Separate Rate approach as a “fall-back” position.

5. Should a separate rate and/or additional Infrastructure Agreements be sought with landowners to cover the costs of other infrastructure and services?

The existing Infrastructure Deed between Council, Lend Lease and DPTI addresses the major road infrastructure needed to support development in the Gawler East area.

The Gawler East development will, in the long term, require Council to upgrade a range of infrastructure and services that sit outside the existing infrastructure agreement. Much of this is indirect or cumulative infrastructure, that is, infrastructure needs that will slowly accumulate over time, such as demand for recreational facilities, community centres and library services.

Council may determine that this indirect infrastructure is best funded by the community at large, and may therefore seek to increase its overall rates to help pay for this infrastructure. Alternatively, it may determine that a user-pay model is appropriate, and consider additional infrastructure agreements or a separate rate to generate the needed funds. Before doing so, however, Council would need to have a clear indication of the likely infrastructural needs, and be able to demonstrate a clear nexus between any user-pay charge and the infrastructure being provided.

6. If the realignment of the Potts/Tiver Road extension is in Council’s Strategic interests, how will it be funded?

If Council determines that the Potts/Tiver Road extension should be realigned to better meet Council’s longer term goals, it must determine an appropriate funding source. Given that this realignment is not directly connected with the shorter term development of Gawler East, it is unlikely that Lend Lease and DPTI will contribute to this cost.

If Council determines that there is a long term community benefit of this realignment, options include:

• Negotiated with landowners / developers infrastructure agreements and land management agreements;


of 236

• Carefully consider the “pros” and “cons” of a separate rate based on the principles contained in this paper;

• Increase Council’s general rate base across the Council area.

• Seek State or Federal Government funding (this option is applicable to all above three options)

7. Regardless of the option(s) adopted, how will Council engage effected landowners?

Each of these key decisions for Council will have a significant impact on landowners in the Gawler East area, especially as it impacts on the value of their property and the associated development potential. It is essential that Council has a clear strategy to appropriately engage and involve these landowners in the decision making. The nature of this engagement will have a significant bearing on the overall success of the chosen option.

6.2 Conclusion

The existing Development Plan policies indicate that once a 1,000 lot threshold has been achieved within either/or the Residential (Gawler East) and Residential Hills Zones, no further land divisions could be approved via the on-merit process until the road infrastructure requirements have been met (refer to section 1.1).4

Landowners within the Residential (Gawler East) and Residential Hills Zones can develop their sites for residential purposes up to the 1,000 lot threshold. The threshold is not tied solely to the “Springwood” development.

Land developers / landowners desire certainty with respect to infrastructure costs and agreements. Certainty is also desired by Councils to ensure long term financial plans are appropriately maintained.

The preference is to negotiate infrastructure deeds and associated land management agreements with landowners based on the principles / guidelines contained in sections 2.3 and 3.0.

Irrespective of the funding mechanism adopted by Council, a robust community engagement process is critical.

4 It still may be possible to gain approval for lots more the 1,000 threshold as non-complying developments, subject to receiving the approval of Council’s Development Assessment Panel and the concurrence of the State’s Development Assessment Commission.


of 236

Appendix A: Gawler East Concept and Zone Plans


of 236

NCe

LCe

Con

GAWLER (CT)GAWLER EAST

STRUCTURE PLANMAP Ga/1 (Overlay 1)

Enlargement G

Conservation Area

Development Plan Boundary

Structure Plan Boundary

Linear Open Space

Arterial Road

Collector Road

Proposed Collector Road Traffic Management

Neighbourhood Centre

Creek Alignment incorporatingstormwater detention basins

Mixed Use Centre

Living

NCe

Local CentreLCe

THE BAROSSA COUNCIL

PLAYFORD (CC)

Major Transmission Infractructure (132kV)Corridor (30 Metres)

Major Transmission Infractructure (275kV)Corridor (50 Metres)

Gas Pipeline

1500m300 600 900 12000

Con

Consolidated - 30 April 2015


of 236

CALTON RD

GAWLER-ONE TREE HILL RD

SEVENTH

ST

MU

RR

AY S

T

ADEL

AIDE

RD

BAROSSA VALLEY WYBALM

ORAL RD

POTTS RD

TOWN OF GAWLER

THE BAROSSA COUNCIL

CITY OF PLAYFORD

1:20,000

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 metres±GAWLER (CT)

GAWLER EASTDEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTSCONCEPT PLAN FIGURE CoP/5Development Plan Boundary

Concept Plan Boundary

Arterial Road

Collector Road

Proposed Collector Road Traffic Management

Proposed Vehicle access



of 236

Enlargement A(See MAP Ga/20)

O SS A V A LL EY H W Y

BAROSSA VALLEY HWY

BAROSSA VALLEY HWY

BALMORAL RD

CALTON RD

CALTON RD

CONC

ORDI

A R

D

BA ROSS A A V E

BAS SETT

CR ES

BELLA ST

BERRET T RD

BISH OPST

B R IG H T T CE

COCK

SHEL

L D

R

CONGDON ST

C ORKRD

CREE

K A

VE

CROWN ST

DELAND AVE

D IEC K M A N N D R

T TCE

HARRIS RD

HEMA

FORD

GR

HOLN

ESS

AVE

HUR S

TRD

LAWSON RD

MARION DR

MA RY

ST

PEACOCK AVEPH ILL IPS A V E

POPHAM AVE

POWELL DR

STIT H IA

NS

DR

SUNN

YDAL

E A

VE

MARTIN ST

LEWIS AVE

MCLEAN RD

ATHENS TCE

TAYLOR ST

CALTON RD

CULLEN AVE

QUARTON RD

LALLY DR

NORMANCRT

OS

RH(C)

R

R

R

R(GE)

R(H)

THEBAROSSA

COUNCIL

R(GE)

MA

P G

a/5

AD

JOIN

S

MAP Ga/9 ADJOINS

NOTE : For Policy Areas See MAP Ga/15 R

RH(C) RuL

Residential

Residential Historic (Conservation)

R(GE) Residential (Gawler East) R(H) Residential (Hills)

Rural Living OS Open Space

Zone BoundaryDevelopment Plan Boundary

GAWLER (CT)

1km0

Scale 1:15000

ZONESMAP Ga/6



of 236

Enlargement A(See MAP Ga/20)

GAWLER - ONE TREE HILL RD

GAWLER - ONE TREE HILL RD

ALEXANDER AVE

BARNET RD

BENTL

EY R

D

D

BOWMAN

CRT

EAGLE NES

ECKERMAN AVE

EDWARD

CRES

LER TCE

HIGHFIELD RD

HILL

ST

KENTISH RD

KRIEG RD

MILLERS RD

MOUN

T TC

E

NEWKREE RD

PANOR A M A RD

POTTS RD

POTTS RD

PURCELL GR

SOMER

TON R

D

SPRING RD

SUNNYSIDE DR

SUNNYSIDE DR

SUNNYS

IDE DR

TINGARARD

URLW

INAVE

WEST D

OWN RD

180

OS

MAIN NORT

H RD

Ru

R

R

R

BPLAYFORD (CC)

THEBAROSSA COUNCIL

R(GE)

R(H)

RuL

SU

Rec

NCe

R

LCe

LCe Local Centre

MA

P G

a/8

AD

JOIN

SMAP Ga/5 ADJOINS MAP Ga/6 ADJOINS

MAP Ga/11 ADJOINS

Zone BoundaryDevelopment Plan Boundary

GAWLER (CT)

1km0

Scale 1:15000

ZONESMAP Ga/9

B R

RuL SU

Business Residential

Ru Rural

R(GE) Residential (Gawler East) R(H) Residential (Hills)

Rural Living Special Uses

DU Deferred Urban

OS Open Space

NCe Neighbourhood Centre

NOTE : For Policy Areas See MAP Ga/17

Rec Recreation

281.52

66m

271m

69°13’

90°



of 236

Appendix B: Principles of Local Government Taxation/Rating Policies

The Local Government Act requires each Council to prepare a rating policy. Considerable research has been undertaken by individual councils, the Local Government Association and relevant State Government agencies into rating policies and their impacts.

Council rating policies are typically underpinned by a range of guiding principles, such as:

• Accountability, transparency and simplicity;

• Efficiency, effectiveness and timeliness;

• Equitable distribution of the rate responsibility across the community;

• Consistency with Council’s strategic, corporate and financial directions and budgetary requirements; and

• Compliance with the requirements and intent of relevant legislation and accepted professional conventions and ethics.”

These types of Council Principles are quoted within the context of generally acceptable principles relating to taxation systems. These principles are:

• Equity – the principle that taxpayers of similar financial means should pay similar amounts of tax, and taxpayers of greater financial means than others should pay a proportionately greater amount. [This can also be referred to as taxpayers with the same income pay the same tax (horizontal equity), wealthier taxpayers pay more (vertical equity)];

• Benefit – the concept that there should be some relationship between the tax paid and the benefits received;

• Capacity to pay – requires that some consideration be given to the ability of the taxpayer to pay the tax because no single measure of financial means can provide an absolutely reliable guide to the circumstances of individual taxpayers;

• Efficiency – i.e. does the tax produce desired results (if any). If the tax is being imposed to raise revenue without charging taxpayers’ economic behaviour but it has this effect then the tax is inefficient;

• Simplicity – refers to the extent to which the tax is readily understood and accepted, its certainty of application, and its ease of collection.

To some extent these principles conflict with each other in practice, and governments, including councils, must balance the application of the principles, the policy objectives of taxation, the need to raise revenue through tax, and the effects of the tax on the community.5

5 Office for State / Local Government Relations, Council Rating www.localgovt.sa.gov.au/how_councils_work/council_rating (26 April 2012)


of 236

http://www.localgovt.sa.gov.au/how_councils_work/council_rating%20(26�


Item 8.3 – Gawler Connect – Digital/Business Hub and Multi-Function Space Tender Brief

ATTACHMENT 1 Tender Brief for Digital/Business Hub

ATTACHMENT 2 Tender Brief for Multi-Function Space


of 236


of 236

+

TENDER FOR

Development of Management Framework for the Digital/Business Hub

at the Gawler Connect Project

OPEN REQUEST FOR TENDERS

February 26, 2016

ATTACHMENT 1


of 236

Structure of this Request for Tender

This Request for Tender (RFT) is comprised of five sections, being:

Section A - Background and General Information for Tenderers

Section B - Conditions of Tendering

Section C - Specifications

Section D - Tender Response Schedules

Section E - Contract for Services

Contents

Section A - Background and General information for tenderers .................................................. 4

Section B - Conditions of Tendering ................................................................................................... 5

Section C - Specifications ................................................................................................................... 8

Section D - Tender Response Schedules ......................................................................................... 13

Section E - Contract for Services ...................................................................................................... 15


of 236

Section A - Background and General information for tenderers

General information for tenderers

The Town of Gawler, ABN 29 861 749 581 of 89 – 91 Murray Street, Gawler (Council) invites tenders for the provision of research and management framework development for a digital hub. Council will enter into a Contract for Services with the successful Tenderer.

Council is seeking the services of qualified and suitably experienced professionals who can research and formulate a Management Framework for the Digital/Business Hub at the Gawler Connect Project.

Council invites tenders from industry leaders with demonstrated capability and experience to deliver project requirements and outcomes.

Background

The Town of Gawler is a local government authority situated approximately 42 kilometres north of Adelaide at the edge of the metropolitan area. The council area comprises a mix of residential, town centre, industrial, commercial and primary production lands.

Corporate Values: Teamwork: Respectful and collaborative to all, listening, engaging and

responding

Creativity: Encourage, source and deliver creative outcomes

Happiness: Promote a caring and optimistic environment where staff are happy to work

Integrity: Responsible and accountable for our actions

Inclusion: Foster positive relationships within the organisation and greater community


of 236


Request for Tenders Council seeks Tenders for the provision of the Services, which are further described in Section C below.

The proposed timing for the Tender Process is as follows:

Request for Tenders April 2016 Closing Date April 2016 Notification to successful Tenderer May 2016 Execution of Contract for Services May 2016 Commencement of Provision of Services

May 2016

Contract completion August 2016

Enquiries / Requests for Information / Clarification Project Manager Gawler Connect, Mr. Richard Wunderlich, will be the key contact for this review. Any questions regarding this Request for Tender are to be addressed to Mr. Wunderlich via email to [email protected].

If Council provides any information to a Tenderer by way of clarification, then Council reserves the right to provide that information to other Tenderers.

The Tenderer and its representatives must not attempt to discuss its Tender with Elected Members or employees of Council (other than the nominated key contact). Council reserves the right to reject any Tender submitted by a Tenderer which breaches this requirement.

Electronic Lodgment of Tenders Tenders must be lodged via email to Acting Manager, Economic Development, Environment and Regulatory Services and Marketing and Communications, Mr. Ryan Viney at [email protected] by 5pm on ? 2016. Council may, at its discretion, no less than two business days before the Closing Date, extend the Closing Date by notice in writing to the Tenderers.

Tender Validity Period All Tenders will remain open for acceptance by Council for a period of not less than three months after the Closing Date.

Tender preparation: Content of tenders: Tenderers are requested to (at a minimum) provide a tender document that sets out how it will address the Specifications for this review (as set out in Section C) and provide information as required in the Tender Response Schedules in Section D.


of 236

mailto:[email protected]


Conflict of Interest: Tenderers must inform Council of any circumstances or relationships which could or will constitute a conflict or a potential conflict of interest if the Tenderer is successful. If any conflict (or potential conflict) exists, the Tenderer must provide details of the interest, relationship or clients to which the conflict relates; the issue to which the conflict relates; and how it proposes to address this.

Use of Sub-contractors: Where a Tenderer proposes to use sub-contracted resources towards any part of the review, information relating to the sub-contractual arrangements must be detailed in the Tender, together with information on the relevant qualifications, skills and experience of those sub-contracted resources.

Collusion: The Tenderer must not collude with any other Tenderers or potential Tenderers.

Confidentiality: Council will treat all tenders submitted as confidential; sharing of information will be limited to Council staff members, advisors and Elected Members associated with tender evaluations.

Content of tenders: Tenderers are required to complete the Tender Response Schedules set out in Section D below and can also submit any other additional information as desired.

Tender evaluation: All tenders will be assessed against the key selection criteria set out below:

Criteria Total Assessment Value

Experience: • Previous experience and demonstrated track record in delivering similar

services • Qualifications, expertise and evidence of skills and experience required

35%

Methodology: Suitability of proposed methodology to meet tender requirements including:

• Explanation of how outcomes will be achieved • Project management approach and setting of timelines and milestones

to achieve required outcomes and project deadline • Change management and business improvement approach; and • Innovative nature of approach and delivery

35%

Value for money: • A competitive cost structure and demonstrated value added

30%


of 236

Contract for Services The successful Tenderer will be required to enter into a Contract for Services (refer Section E below). As a part of that contract, the successful Tenderer will be requested to acknowledge and agree that all intellectual property created arising out of the provision of the Services will belong to Council.

Acknowledgement by Tenderers Tenderers acknowledge that Council:

• Makes no representations and offers no undertakings in issuing this RFT; • Is not required to accept the lowest Tender or to accept any Tender; and may

accept all or part of a Tender; • May require one or more Tenderers to supply further information and/or attend an

interview / make a presentation; • May undertake due diligence checks on any Tenderer, including verifying

references; • Will not be responsible for any costs incurred by the Tenderer arising from the

preparation and submission of its Tender; • Has no legal obligation to purchase the Services from the Tenderers resulting from

this RFT.


of 236


Overview This project involves the development of a Management Framework for the Digital/Business Hub located within the newly developed Gawler Connect Project. The Digital/Business Hub facility is designed to provide the Gawler community with a high-quality, high-tech space for a range of commercial and community activities. The physical design of the space and the equipment provided within the facility will service a variety of activities such as business meetings, co-working, training and education sessions, semi-permanent office space use and workshops.

The Framework will include research information on best-practice models from similar facilities around the country and globally and provide a range of options and recommendations for Gawler Council to consider. A preferred delivery model having regard to the Gawler context is to be recommended. Management of the facility aims to maximize small business, community and commercial use of the space, ensure its long-term sustainability and encourage collaboration with other services located within the Hub and the broader community. A Financial Management model framework for the recommended model is to be presented.

Project background In 2015 the Town of Gawler Council was successful in its bid for federal government funding to support the redevelopment the Gawler Town Hall and Institute building into the Gawler Connect Project Located in the main street of Gawler, the Hub is an ambitious project, which sees the establishment of a contemporary public facility designed to meet the business, cultural and community needs of Gawler both now and into the future.

Construction of the facility is expected to take eighteen months and will commence in September 2016. It will showcase successful adaptive use of heritage-listed buildings ensuring the Town Hall, constructed in 1927 and the Institute, constructed in 1870, maintains their cultural and historic integrity. Renovations to the buildings will focus on sustainable and progressive design technology with Heritage Architect, Jason Pruszinski to work alongside Principal architect Tony Materne (MPH).

The services currently delivered from the existing site will remain with increased floor space for the library, improved meeting rooms and a Digital/Business hub incorporating up-to-date technology for training and business needs. In terms of community and cultural services, the Hub will include a heritage exhibition space to improve access to the Gawler Heritage collection, a youth space and the Multi-function facility.

The development of the Hub is a “game changer” not only for the Gawler community but also for the broader region. The redevelopment project incorporates a range of economic drivers that will create employment, improve cultural tourism opportunities and support innovation and business development.


of 236

Funding of $5.6 million has been confirmed from the Federal Government Stronger Regions Fund, which will be matched with $7.2 million from the Town of Gawler. Further information about the Government fund can be found via this web link http://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/funding/NSRF/ .

Gawler Connect Project Facilities

• Digital/Business Hub • A Regional Smart Library including IT Access Facilities, Reading Room, Research

room and a courtyard. • Meeting rooms suitable for meetings and gatherings both large and small. • Heritage Gallery • Multipurpose Space • Council Administration Offices • Video Conference Training room. • Youth Space • Café

Purpose The purpose of this project is to produce a Management Framework for the Digital/ Business Hub at the Gawler Connect Project. The Framework will enable Gawler Council to make an informed decision in relation to the long-term development and management of the Digital/Business Hub facility.

Council’s planning and the implementation of a suitable management model will ensure the Digital/Business Hub facility realises its full potential, meeting the local/regional business and commercial needs of the Gawler community.

The recommended Framework for the Town of Gawler will include recommendations in the context of medium/long term financial viability and sustainability, and future growth projections in terms of technology trends and developments.

Objectives:

Whilst a broader strategic plan outlining long term objectives for the Digital/business Hub facility will be developed at a later date, the broader objectives for the space include:

• Flexibility and the capacity to cater to a broad range of business needs and activities including but not restricted to;

o Coworking space o Formal and informal Meeting space incorporating interactive video and

audio communications o Interactive and local discussion groups o Business education sessions and information sharing o Casual and permanent use office/work space o Smart Office access


of 236

http://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/funding/NSRF/

• Collaboration and interactivity within the larger Gawler Connect Project and with the broader community.

• Long-term business and financial and cultural sustainability incorporating a sense of community ownership and commercial engagement.

• Fostering innovation, creativity and engagement culturally, socially and economically.

It is important to note that The Digital/business Hub facility is a key component of much larger development and the Management Framework should reflect the needs and objectives of the space as an individual facility but also as part of a large and diverse hub providing services and facilities.

Outcome: A fully informed Council that is equipped to implement the Management Framework for the Digital/Business Hub as part of the Gawler Connect Project which effectively achieves the above objectives.

Deliverables The successful tenderer will produce a detailed Management Framework for the Digital/Business hub facility that includes the following:

• Research detailing management models utilised in similar facilities both in South Australia and further abroad.

• Recommendations regarding the Management Framework for the Digital/Business Hub facility.

• A sample program and development overview for the space for the first three years, including commercial and community opportunities.

• Indicative financials for medium/long term financial planning projections. Inclusive of the following reports;

1. Statement of Comprehensive Income; 2. Balance Sheet; 3. Cash Flow Statement; and 4. Long Term Financial Plan

• Justification as to the preferred model focusing on economic viability relative to insourcing or outsourcing of the hub activities

• Recommendations in relation to equipment, facilities and sponsors. • Identification of possible partners / supporters for the space. • Recommendations relating to how the Digital/Business Hub will interact with and

complement the other services offered at the Gawler Connect Project. The Management Framework is to be received electronically in Word and PDF formats as per timeframes outlined in the Contract. Tenderers are requested to note that they may be required to provide a presentation to Council and/or Council Executive Management. NB: Tenderers are requested to note that the intellectual property developed by the


of 236

successful Tenderer in delivery of the Services under this RFT will belong to The Town of Gawler.

Methodology The successful tenderers will develop the Management Framework. Adequate research and consultation with suitably qualified parties will need to be reflected in the final document.

Project management and reporting: Tenderers are requested to set out key stages for the delivery of the services and corresponding milestones and timeframes for reporting and completion of each stage for delivery of outcomes and achievement of deliverables. The successful tenderer will be expected to submit a detailed project plan setting out stages and dates for delivery of the project and a reporting schedule for regular reporting to Project Manager. The proposed content of reports should be set out in the tender proposal.

The contractor shall, submit a detailed project plan setting out the stages and dates for delivery of the program. The contractor shall be required to provide periodic written reports during the program, and a final report at the end of the program. The Contractor should set out the timing and content of these reports in their proposal.

Required qualifications, key skills and experience The successful tenderer will have qualifications and/or suitable experience in:

• Digital/Business Hub Management – particularly facilities that support business incubation, coworking space and business education.

• Business and strategic planning – particularly in the context of technology and innovation

Other areas of knowledge that would be desirable include:

• New business startups • Entrepreneurship and creative industries. • Principles of regional development. • Facilities management that incorporates digital services

Resources to be applied Tenderers are requested to provide the following in the proposal:

• Details and CVs of appropriately qualified staff to be engaged in each aspect of the work

• Evidence of expertise and experience of allocated staff per requirements above

• Client references for similar work

Pricing Quotes should be provided on a deliverables basis. Please provide separate costings


of 236

for key stages / milestone activities (refer Tender Response Schedule 8 below). The budget for the project is set at $10,000 - 20,000 (GST inclusive).


of 236


Schedule 1: Formal Offer I/We (Tenderer) on (insert date) having fully informed myself/ourselves/itself of the requirements of this Request for Tender, tender to provide the Services as specified for the amounts set out in the Tender Response Schedule below.

The undersigned undertakes that if selected as the successful Tenderer, I/we/it will execute and be bound by the Contract in accordance with the Conditions of Tendering.

Tenderer to insert:

• Signatures of officeholders as required based on the type of entity (please indicate i.e. company, individual or partnership); and

• Names of persons signing this offer and their positions with the organisation.

Schedule 2: Tenderer’s Details Name of Tenderer

ABN

Contact Person

Registered address

Postal address

Telephone

Email

Schedule 3: Insurance Tenderer to provide details of all relevant insurance currently held including insurance held by any proposed sub-contractors that will provide cover for the Services to be delivered. Please provide the following details:

• Insurance type (public & products liability, professional indemnity, workers compensation, other)

• Policy number • Extent of cover (per incident and in aggregate) • Expiry date • Name of insurer

Schedule 4: Work, Health & Safety Tenderer to provide details of its Work Health and Safety Management System including an outline of that system, a copy of its Work, Health and Safety Policy if available and an indication of its safety performance over the last three years.


of 236

Schedule 5: Referees & experience Tenderer to provide details of its experience in delivering similar projects in line with the Specifications and outcomes to be achieved via this work.

Tenderer to provide the following details for at least two references for similar work:

• Client name, address, contact name and telephone number • Timing and a brief summary of the work undertaken

Schedule 6: Human Resources to be applied Tenderer to provide details of the staff who will deliver the Services as set out in this RFT. For each staff member please indicate:

• Qualifications, skills and experience relevant to this RFT • What work each will be undertaking in delivering services per this RFT

Tenderer to provide details of any subcontractors or other representatives to be engaged by the Tenderer in delivery of the Services per this RFT including:

• Name and address • Qualifications, skills and experience relevant to this RFT • What work subcontractors will be undertaking in delivering services per this RFT

Schedule 7: Project management Tenderer to outline the project management framework to be applied.

Tenderers must provide a detailed project plan setting out activities to be undertaken, key milestones, timelines and resources to be applied.

Schedule 8: Pricing Tenderers must provide a breakdown of the costs for provision of the Services in line with its Project Plan and achievement of key milestones / staging of the work.

Tenderers are encouraged to also provide details of any other benefits you can offer to improve the level of service or value of your Tender.


of 236


Refer to Sample Professional Services Agreement on Town of Gawler website.

http://www.gawler.sa.gov.au/webdata/respurces/files/Sample%20Professional%20Services%20Agreement.pdf


of 236




of 236

TENDER FOR

Development of Management Framework for the Multi-Function Space

at the Gawler Connect Project

OPEN REQUEST FOR TENDERS

January 4, 2016

ATTACHMENT 2


of 236

Structure of this Request for Tender

This Request for Tender (RFT) is comprised of five sections, being:

Section A - Background and General Information for Tenderers





Contents

Section A - Background and General information for tenderers .................................................. 4

Section B - Conditions of Tendering ................................................................................................... 5

Section C - Specifications ................................................................................................................... 8

Section D - Tender Response Schedules ......................................................................................... 13

Section E - Contract for Services ...................................................................................................... 15


of 236

Section A - Background and General information for tenderers

General information for tenderers

The Town of Gawler, ABN 29 861 749 581 of 89 – 91 Murray Street, Gawler (Council) invites tenders for the provision of research and management framework development. Council will enter into a Contract for Services with the successful Tenderer.

Council is seeking the services of qualified and suitably experienced professionals who can research and formulate a Management Framework for the Multi-Function Space at the Gawler Connect Hub.

Council invites tenders from industry leaders with demonstrated capability and experience to deliver project requirements and outcomes.

Background

The Town of Gawler is a local government authority situated approximately 42 kilometres north of Adelaide at the edge of the metropolitan area. The council area comprises a mix of residential, town centre, industrial, commercial and primary production lands.

Corporate Values: Teamwork: Respectful and collaborative to all, listening, engaging and

responding

Creativity: Encourage, source and deliver creative outcomes

Happiness: Promote a caring and optimistic environment where staff are happy to work

Integrity: Responsible and accountable for our actions

Inclusion: Foster positive relationships within the organisation and greater community


of 236


Request for Tenders Council seeks Tenders for the provision of the Services, which are further described in Section C below.

The proposed timing for the Tender Process is as follows:

Request for Tenders April 2016 Closing Date April 2016 Notification to successful Tenderer May 2016 Execution of Contract for Services May 2016 Commencement of Provision of Services

May 2016

Contract completion August 2016

Enquiries / Requests for Information / Clarification Gawler Connect Project Manager, Mr. Richard Wunderlich, will be the key contact for this review. Any questions regarding this Request for Tender are to be addressed to Mr. Wunderlich via email to [email protected].

If Council provides any information to a Tenderer by way of clarification, then Council reserves the right to provide that information to other Tenderers.

The Tenderer and its representatives must not attempt to discuss its Tender with Elected Members or employees of Council (other than the nominated key contact). Council reserves the right to reject any Tender submitted by a Tenderer which breaches this requirement.

Electronic Lodgment of Tenders Tenders must be lodged via email to Gawler Connect Project Manager, Mr. Richard Wunderlich at [email protected] by 5pm on ? 2016. Council may, at its discretion, no less than two business days before the Closing Date, extend the Closing Date by notice in writing to the Tenderers.

Tender Validity Period All Tenders will remain open for acceptance by Council for a period of not less than three months after the Closing Date.

Tender preparation: Content of tenders: Tenderers are requested to (at a minimum) provide a tender document that sets out how it will address the Specifications for this review (as set out in Section C) and provide information as required in the Tender Response Schedules in Section D.


of 236



Conflict of Interest: Tenderers must inform Council of any circumstances or relationships which could or will constitute a conflict or a potential conflict of interest if the Tenderer is successful. If any conflict (or potential conflict) exists, the Tenderer must provide details of the interest, relationship or clients to which the conflict relates; the issue to which the conflict relates; and how it proposes to address this.

Use of Sub-contractors: Where a Tenderer proposes to use sub-contracted resources towards any part of the review, information relating to the sub-contractual arrangements must be detailed in the Tender, together with information on the relevant qualifications, skills and experience of those sub-contracted resources.

Collusion: The Tenderer must not collude with any other Tenderers or potential Tenderers.

Confidentiality: Council will treat all tenders submitted as confidential; sharing of information will be limited to Council staff members, advisors and Elected Members associated with tender evaluations.

Content of tenders: Tenderers are required to complete the Tender Response Schedules set out in Section D below and can also submit any other additional information as desired.

Tender evaluation: All tenders will be assessed against the key selection criteria set out below:

Criteria Total Assessment Value

Experience: • Previous experience and demonstrated track record in delivering similar

services • Qualifications, expertise and evidence of skills and experience required

35%

Methodology: Suitability of proposed methodology to meet tender requirements including:

• Explanation of how outcomes will be achieved • Project management approach and setting of timelines and milestones

to achieve required outcomes and project deadline • Change management and business improvement approach; and • Innovative nature of approach and delivery

35%

Value for money: • A competitive cost structure and demonstrated value added

30%


of 236

Contract for Services The successful Tenderer will be required to enter into a Contract for Services (refer Section E below). As a part of that contract, the successful Tenderer will be requested to acknowledge and agree that all intellectual property created arising out of the provision of the Services will belong to Council.

Acknowledgement by Tenderers Tenderers acknowledge that Council:

• Makes no representations and offers no undertakings in issuing this RFT; • Is not required to accept the lowest Tender or to accept any Tender; and may

accept all or part of a Tender; • May require one or more Tenderers to supply further information and/or attend an

interview / make a presentation; • May undertake due diligence checks on any Tenderer, including verifying

references; • Will not be responsible for any costs incurred by the Tenderer arising from the

preparation and submission of its Tender; • Has no legal obligation to purchase the Services from the Tenderers resulting from

this RFT.


of 236


Overview This project requires the development of a Management Framework for the Multi-function space located within the newly developed Gawler Connect Hub. The Multi-purpose space is designed to provide the Gawler community with a high-quality space for a range of community, cultural and commercial activities. The physical design of the space and the equipment provided within the facility will service a variety of activities such as performances, exhibitions, civic receptions, conferences, forums and workshops.

The Framework will include research information on best-practice models from similar facilities around the country and provide a range of options and recommendations for Gawler Council to consider. Management of the facility aims to maximize community and commercial use of the space, ensure its long-term sustainability and encourage collaboration with other services located within the Hub and the broader community.

Project background In 2015 the Town of Gawler Council was successful in its bid for federal government funding to support the redevelopment the Gawler Town Hall and Institute building into the Gawler Connect Hub (the Hub). Located in the main street of Gawler, the Hub is an ambitious project, which sees the establishment of a contemporary public facility designed to meet the cultural and community needs of Gawler both now and into the future.

Construction of the facility is expected to take eighteen months and will commence in September 2016. It will showcase successful adaptive use of heritage-listed buildings ensuring the Town Hall, constructed in 1927 and the Institute, constructed in 1870, maintains their cultural and historic integrity. Renovations to the buildings will focus on sustainable and progressive design technology with Heritage Architect, Jason Pruszinski to work alongside Principal architect Tony Materne (MPH).

The services currently delivered from the existing site will remain with increased floor space for the library, improved meeting rooms and a digital/business hub incorporating up-to-date technology for training and business needs. In terms of community and cultural services, the Hub will include a heritage exhibition space to improve access to the Gawler Heritage collection, a youth space and the Multi-function facility.

Ease of access throughout the Hub is a key element of the design encouraging connectivity between the various spaces and services. The development of the Hub is a “game changer” not only for the Gawler community but also for the broader region. The redevelopment project incorporates a range of economic drivers that will create employment, improve cultural tourism opportunities and support innovation and business development.

Funding of $5.6 million has been confirmed from the Federal Government Stronger Regions Fund, which will be matched with $7.2 million from the Town of Gawler. Further


of 236

information about the Government fund can be found via this web link http://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/funding/NSRF/ .

Gawler Connect Hub Facilities

• Multi-Function Space • Council Administration Offices • Digital/business Hub • Video Conference Training room. • Youth Space • Café • A Regional Smart Library including IT Access Facilities, Reading Room, Research

room • Meeting rooms suitable for meetings and gatherings both large and small • Heritage Gallery

Purpose The purpose of this project is to produce a Management Framework for the Multi-purpose space at the Gawler Connect Hub. The Framework will enable Gawler Council to make an informed decision in relation to the long-term development and management of the Multi-purpose space.

Council’s planning and the implementation of a suitable management model will ensure the Multi-purpose facility realises its full potential, meeting the cultural and commercial needs of the Gawler community. The Framework will provide detailed information regarding management models utilised in similar facilities and make recommendations in the context of financial sustainability and the location of the space within the larger Gawler Connect Hub.

Objectives:

The broader objectives for the Multi function space include:

• Flexibility and the capacity to cater to a broad range of activities including but not restricted to;

o Meetings and Forums – of various sizes e.g. Keynote presentations, conferences, discussion groups or community gatherings.

o Art and Social History exhibitions incorporating content that is produced professionally and in a community context.

o Performances including music recitals and drama or dance presentations. o Workshops and training seminars o Private and public functions e.g. weddings and civic receptions o Expos e.g. trade fair or industry showcase

• Collaboration and interactivity within the larger Gawler Connect Hub and with

the broader community.


of 236

http://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/funding/NSRF/

• Long-term financial and cultural sustainability incorporating a sense of community ownership and commercial engagement.

• Fostering innovation, creativity and engagement culturally, socially and economically.

It is important to note that The Multi-function space is a key component of much larger development and the Management Framework should reflect the needs and objectives of the space as an individual facility but also as part of a large and diverse hub providing services and facilities. The Heritage Exhibition Space, the Library, Youth Space and the Digital / business spaces are all expected to interact regularly with the Multi-purpose space. Market feedback in respect to the management of the Multi Function Space will also seek research and recommendations in respect to the operations of the proposed Café. Advice in this regard will also seek possibilities of the Café operating as a Social Enterprise. This could provide opportunities for unemployed youth and the disadvantaged persons assisting them to build future job prospects.

Outcome: A fully informed Council that is equipped to develop and implement a management model for the Multi-function space at the Gawler Connect Hub that can effectively achieve the above objectives.

Deliverables The successful tenderer will produce a detailed Management Framework for the Multi-function space that includes the following:

• Research detailing management models utilised in similar facilities both in South Australia and further abroad.

• Recommendations regarding the application of a model or models for the Multi-function facility.

• A sample program and development overview for the space for the first three years, including commercial and community opportunities.

• Indicative financials for the first three years and medium/long term financial planning projections. Inclusive of the following reports;

1. Statement of Comprehensive Income; 2. Balance Sheet; 3. Cash Flow Statement; and 4. Long term Financial Plan.

• Justification as to the preferred model, focusing on economic viability relative to insourcing or outsourcing of the facility’s activities.

• Recommendations in relation to equipment and facilities. • Identification of possible partners / supporters/ sponsors for the space. • Recommendations relating to how the Multi-purpose facility will interact with

and complement the other services offered at the Gawler Connect Hub. • Market feedback in respect to the management of the Multi Function Space will

also seek research and recommendations in respect to the operations of the


of 236

proposed Café. Advice in this regard will also seek possibilities of the Café operating as a Social Enterprise. This could provide opportunities for unemployed youth and the disadvantaged persons assisting them to build future job prospects

The Management Framework is to be received electronically in Word PDF formats as per timeframes outlined in the Contract. NB: Tenderers are requested to note that the intellectual property developed by the successful Tenderer in delivery of the Services under this RFT will belong to Town of Gawler.

Methodology The successful tenderers will develop the Management Framework. Adequate research and consultation with suitably qualified parties will need to be reflected in the final document.

Project management and reporting: Tenderers are requested to set out key stages for the delivery of the services and corresponding milestones and timeframes for reporting and completion of each stage for delivery of outcomes and achievement of deliverables. The successful tenderer will be expected to submit a detailed project plan setting out stages and dates for delivery of the project and a reporting schedule for regular reporting to the Gawler Connect Project Manager. The proposed content of reports should be set out in the tender proposal.

The contractor shall, upon being appointed, submit a detailed project plan setting out the stages and dates for delivery of the program. The contractor shall be required to provide periodic written reports during the program, and a final report at the end of the program. The Contractor should set out the timing and content of these reports in their proposal.

Required qualifications, key skills and experience The successful tenderer will have qualifications and/or suitable experience in:

• Facilities Management – particularly facilities that support events and functions and cultural programming.

• Business and strategic planning – particularly in the context of cultural and community based facilities.

Other areas of knowledge that would be desirable include:

• Community and cultural development. • Cultural tourism and creative industries. • Principles of regional development.


of 236

Resources to be applied Tenderers are requested to provide the following in the proposal:

• Details and CVs of appropriately qualified staff to be engaged in each aspect of the work

• Evidence of expertise and experience of allocated staff per requirements above

• Client references for similar work

Pricing Quotes should be provided on a deliverables basis. Please provide separate costings for key stages / milestone activities (refer Tender Response Schedule 8 below).

The Budget for the project is set at $10,000 - $20,000 (GST inclusive).


of 236


Schedule 1: Formal Offer I/We (Tenderer) on (insert date) having fully informed myself/ourselves/itself of the requirements of this Request for Tender, tender to provide the Services as specified for the amounts set out in the Tender Response Schedule below.

The undersigned undertakes that if selected as the successful Tenderer, I/we/it will execute and be bound by the Contract in accordance with the Conditions of Tendering.

Tenderer to insert:

• Signatures of officeholders as required based on the type of entity (please indicate i.e. company, individual or partnership); and

• Names of persons signing this offer and their positions with the organisation.

Schedule 2: Tenderer’s Details Name of Tenderer

ABN

Contact Person

Registered address

Postal address

Telephone

Email

Schedule 3: Insurance Tenderer to provide details of all relevant insurance currently held including insurance held by any proposed sub-contractors that will provide cover for the Services to be delivered. Please provide the following details:

• Insurance type (public & products liability, professional indemnity, workers compensation, other)

• Policy number • Extent of cover (per incident and in aggregate) • Expiry date • Name of insurer

Schedule 4: Work, Health & Safety Tenderer to provide details of its Work Health and Safety Management System including an outline of that system, a copy of its Work, Health and Safety Policy if available and an indication of its safety performance over the last three years.


of 236

Schedule 5: Referees & experience Tenderer to provide details of its experience in delivering similar projects in line with the Specifications and outcomes to be achieved via this work.

Tenderer to provide the following details for at least two references for similar work:

• Client name, address, contact name and telephone number • Timing and a brief summary of the work undertaken

Schedule 6: Human Resources to be applied Tenderer to provide details of the staff who will deliver the Services as set out in this RFT. For each staff member please indicate:

• Qualifications, skills and experience relevant to this RFT • What work each will be undertaking in delivering services per this RFT

Tenderer to provide details of any subcontractors or other representatives to be engaged by the Tenderer in delivery of the Services per this RFT including:

• Name and address • Qualifications, skills and experience relevant to this RFT • What work subcontractors will be undertaking in delivering services per this RFT

Schedule 7: Project management Tenderer to outline the project management framework to be applied.

Tenderers must provide a detailed project plan setting out activities to be undertaken, key milestones, timelines and resources to be applied.

Schedule 8: Pricing Tenderers must provide a breakdown of the costs for provision of the Services in line with its Project Plan and achievement of key milestones / staging of the work.

Tenderers are encouraged to also provide details of any other benefits you can offer to improve the level of service or value of your Tender.


of 236


[Council to insert example contract for services]


of 236


of 236


Item 8.4 – Monthly Finance Report – February 2016 ATTACHMENT 1 Monthly Finance Report – February 2016


of 236


of 236

TOWN OF GAWLER MONTHLY FINANCE REPORT

29 FEBRUARY 2016 FOR YEAR ENDING 30 JUNE 2016

CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary 2-3

Statement of Comprehensive Income 4

Income Statement by Service Provided 5-11


of 236

Executive Summary

The following report details Town of Gawler’s YTD operating performance. All variances exceeding $5,000 and 5% have been identified and explanatory notes have been provided. All variances are closely monitored by budget managers and finance staff.

(a) Income

Graph 1 below shows a summary of the actual operating income performance against the year-to-date (YTD) budget

Graph 1 – Operating Income Performance against Budget

Overall, the YTD actual operating income of $23.094M is $125K lower than the YTD Budget of $23.219M. Details of significant YTD budget variances at income statement level are provided below:

1. Statutory Charges – The unfavourable variance of $73K is primarily due to the reductionin dog registrations ($19K), parking expiations issued ($44K) and planning/buildingapplication fees collected ($11K).

The unregistered dog door knock is continuing to progress and anticipated is to becompleted in the coming months. As at the reporting date, 5,179 dogs have beenregistered with an estimated 600 unregistered dogs to be verified in the coming weeks asthe door knock is finalised.

Following the reallocation of resource of a contract Ranger position has been created, which was incorporated in the 1st Qtr. Budget Review adopted at the 24 November 2015 meeting. This Ranger will continue on from the positive work completed by seperate contractors last year, to provide Town of Gawler with a dedicated resource for parking control and traffic safety. Council predicated the 2015-2016 Annual Adopted Budget on 1,800 expiations being issued per annum (1,200 YTD) with 757 actually being issued at the reporting date.

0.0%

-13.0%

-1.5%-1.0%

-11.5%

-3.1%

-11.0%

(80)

(70)

(60)

(50)

(40)

(30)

(20)

(10)

-

10

-14%

-12%

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

Rates Statutory charges User charges Grants, subsidiesand contributions

Investment income Reimbursements Other income

Varia

nce

($,0

00)

YTD

Varia

nce

(%)

REVENUE ITEM

REVENUE BUDGET PERFORMANCE AS AT 29 FEBRUARY 2016 - % AND $ VARIANCE TO YTD BUDGET

Variance % Variance $


of 236

Internal KPI’s and the implementation of the Pinforce devices have seen significant improvements over the last 5 months.

Council staff will monitor the revenue collected from planning and building application fees. However, the nature of these activities means the YTD revenue collected can never be precisely forecast throughout the year.

2. Investment Income – Council’s surplus cash available for investment has been minimalover the last 2 months which has directly impacted the amount of investment incomegenerated through the Local Government Finance Authority. The amount of investmentincome that can be realized will incrementally reduce over the coming years, as Councilutilises its own internal funds first, towards financing major capital investment initiatives.

(b) Expenditure

Graph 2 below shows a summary of the actual operating expenditure performance against the year-to-date (YTD) budget.

Graph 2 – Operating Expenditure Performance against Budget

Overall, the YTD actual operating expenditure of $15.217M is $189K lower than the YTD budget of $15.406M. There are no variances of 5% and $5,000 at the reporting date to disclose.

(c) Overall Analysis

Overall, there is a favourable YTD variance of $58K at the reporting date as disclosed in the Statement of Comprehensive Income, which is immaterial in the context of an annual budget of $25M.

Erin McGarry Financial Accountant

1.0%

1.3%

2.9%

1.3%

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

Employee costs Materials, contracts & otherexpenses

Finance costs Depreciation, amortisation &impairment

Varia

nce

($,0

00)

% V

aria

nce

EXPENDITURE ITEM

EXPENDITURE BUDGET PERFORMANCE AS AT 29 FEBRUARY 2016 - % AND $ VARIANCE TO YTD BUDGET

Variance % Variance $


of 236

Actual Budget

$'000s $'000s $'000s $'000s $'000s %

INCOME

(19,429) (19,500) Rates (19,477) (19,475) 2 0.0%(734) (731) Statutory charges (493) (566) (73) -13.0%

(1,299) (1,298) User charges (906) (920) (14) -1.5%(2,814) (2,975) Grants, subsidies and contributions (1,845) (1,864) (19) -1.0%

(99) (99) Investment income (65) (74) (8) -11.5%(322) (417) Reimbursements (284) (292) (9) -3.1%(51) (51) Other income (25) (28) (3) -11.0%(33) (33) Net gain - Joint ventures & associates - - -

(24,781) (25,104) Total Income (23,094) (23,219) (125) -1%

9,264 9,437 Employee costs 5,984 6,044 60 1.0%10,469 10,399 Materials, contracts & other expenses 6,309 6,386 77 1.2%

690 690 Finance costs 493 508 15 2.9%3,446 4,264 Depreciation, amortisation & impairment 2,430 2,463 32 1.3%

- - Net loss - Joint ventures & associates - - -

23,869 24,790 Total Expenditure 15,217 15,401 184 -1%

(912) (314) OPERATING (SURPLUS) / DEFICIT (7,878) (7,819) 58

24 24 Asset disposal & fair value adjustments 26 26 - 0%

(660) (110) Amounts specifically for new or upgraded assets (60) (50) 10 20%

(14,000) (14,000) Physical resources received free of charge - - -

(15,548) (14,400) NET (SURPLUS) / DEFICIT (7,912) (7,843) 68

TOWN OF GAWLER STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

FOR THE MONTH ENDING 29 FEBRUARY 2016 FOR THE YEAR ENDING 30 JUNE 2016

OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

Year To Date

EXPENDITURE

Annual AdoptedBudget

Variancefav/(unfav)

AnnualRevisedBudget


of 236

Actual Revised Budget***

$ $ $ $ $ %

INCOME

(43,000) (58,200) Building Control (36,139) (38,808) (2,669) -7%

Building Assessment Fees

(112,026) (112,026) Caravan Park (71,740) (75,516) (3,776) -5% Lease fees

(118,000) (148,000) Cemeteries (105,533) (98,664) 6,869 7%

Burial, Lease, Cremation etc. Fees

Cemetery Feescollected have exceeded YTD expectation

(1,550) (1,550)Children & Youth Services (175) (950) (775) -82%

Gawler Youth Film Festival Income

- (80,000)Communication & Marketing (75,000) (75,000) - 0%

GawlerFarmers Market

- - Community Assistance (Volunteer Services) (12) - 12

(999) (999)Community Centres & Halls (917) (999) (82) -8%

Support of Community Groups and Special Events

(3,335) (7,235) Community Support (3,952) (5,883) (1,931) -33%

(46,000) (46,000) Customer Service (30,974) (30,664) 310 1%Property Search Fees

(1,200) (1,200) Depot (1,162) (800) 362 45%

Reimbursement from Agencies for Depot Staff Training Subsidies

(274,012) (274,012) Dog and Cat Control (230,361) (250,015) (19,654) -8%Registrations, Expiation fees

Unregistered dog door knock is currently in progress.

(45,000) (45,000)Elderly Citizens Facilities (26,337) (28,000) (1,663) -6%

Hire of Elderly Centre

(10,000) (10,000)Elected Member Services (7,083) (6,664) 419 6%

Mayoralvehicle contribution

(7,359) (7,359) Emergency Services (4,527) (7,240) (2,713) -37%

Inflammable undergrowth slashing / expiations

Year To Date

Service Description

Variance Comments (if > $5,000 AND 5%)

Variancefav/(unfav)

Annual Revised Budget**

Annual Adopted Budget*

TOWN OF GAWLER MONTHLY FINANCE REPORT - INCOME/EXPENDITURE BY SERVICE



of 236


$ $ $ $ $ %

Year To Date

Service Description


Variancefav/(unfav)





(165,000) (15,000) Engineering Services 10,317 (10,000) (20,317) -203%

Income that was recognised but not received in 2014-2015 has been reversed due to debt not expected to be received until 2016/2017

(1,276,857) (1,271,627) Finance (518,122) (525,991) (7,869) -1%

Investment income, Financial Assistance Grant

(294,000) (309,000) Gawler Aquatic Centre (264,039) (279,750) (15,711) -6%

Unfavourable variance from swimming lessons and passes, but income exceeds previous year YTD by $40K

(176,500) (220,113) General Administration (180,696) (177,246) 3,450 2%

Various insurance scheme rebates etc.

(629,000) (646,000)Home Assistance Scheme (487,357) (492,963) (5,606) -1% Grant Funding

- (5,000) Human Resources (4,682) (5,000) (318) -6%

(25,000) (25,000) Immunisation (8,600) (11,886) (3,286) -28%

Grant funding, user contributions

(7,500) (7,500) Information Technology (5,856) (4,901) 955 19%

Vehicle contribution, etc.

(119,767) (127,767) Investment Properties (70,343) (74,088) (3,745) -5%

Various Property Rentals

(97,550) (116,405) Library (104,839) (104,293) 546 1%

Vehicle contribution, Shared Resources Reimbursement, State Govt Subsidy

- (9,423) Occupancy (5,962) (6,004) (42) -1%Vehicle Contribution

(314,443) (314,443)Other Environmental Services (314,486) (312,907) 1,579 1%

State Govt NRM levy funds collected

- - Other Regulatory Services (434) - 434

Busking Permits


of 236


$ $ $ $ $ %

Year To Date

Service Description


Variancefav/(unfav)





(132,567) (132,567) Parking Control (44,462) (88,376) (43,914) -50%Expiation Fees Collected

Dedicated Parking Officer and Electronic Pinforce Devices implemented at the end of September. Internal KPI's have been implemented to ensure that this unfavourable variance is reduced.

- - Parks & Gardens (239) - 239

(11,750) (11,750) Plant & Machinery (7,392) (7,832) (440) -6%

Fuel Tax Credits Received from ATO

(35,300) (17,300)Preventive Health Services (12,505) (13,964) (1,459) -10%

Food inspections, audits

(100) (100) Records Management (66) (64) 2 3% FOI Request

(729,429) (915,140) Roads (707,145) (701,683) 5,462 1% Grant funding

(440,410) (410,410)Sports Facilities - Indoor (267,012) (272,878) (5,866) -2%

Sport & Community Centre

(52,814) (55,814)Sports Facilities - Outdoor (22,807) (23,721) (914) -4%

(163,000) (163,000)

Support to Local Businesses (Gawler Bus Dev Board) (162,745) (163,000) (255) 0%

Separate Rate Revenue

(75,100) (75,100)Tourism (Visitor Information Centre) (56,313) (51,556) 4,757 9%

(305,200) (351,589) Town Planning (239,678) (233,629) 6,049 3%

Development Application Fees. Etc.

(1,857,877) (1,827,877) Waste Management (1,795,308) (1,795,292) 16 0%

Waste Management Service Charge revenue

(24,780,732) (25,103,757) Total Income (23,093,318) (23,219,478) (126,160) 1%

EXPENDITURE

143,385 192,817 Building Control 110,652 130,840 20,188 15%Building Assessment

Savings from Vacant Position which has now been filled.

148,688 125,188 Car Parks 57,971 69,110 11,139 16%

Savings recognised YTD for Electricity $7K and allowance for depreciation for capital works in 2015-2016


of 236


$ $ $ $ $ %

Year To Date

Service Description


Variancefav/(unfav)





23,082 26,982 Caravan Park 14,358 17,078 2,721 16%

86,110 96,110 Cemeteries 61,121 60,348 (773) -1%

129,847 129,600 Children & Youth Services 79,298 71,725 (7,573) -11%

Youth Activities

Additional salary expense incurred over a handover period when staff member returned from extended leave. This variance is expected to reduce as the staff member returned at reduced hours.

189,726 252,578 Communication & Marketing 171,702 170,736 (966) -1%

Council Communications and Marketing to public, Murray St Banners, Community Magazine etc.

127,091 124,916 Community Assistance (Volunteer Services) 78,632 84,365 5,733 7%

Volunteer Resource Centre, Graffiti removal team

Staff member on Long Service Leave

97,465 94,537 Community Centres & Halls 56,458 58,952 2,494 4%

487,628 500,073 Community Support 279,578 281,120 1,542 1%

Support of various Community events/grants

25,405 21,655 Crime Prevention (CCTV) 11,633 11,902 269 2%

CCTV operating expenses

583,152 582,466 Customer Service 351,910 382,307 30,397 8% Staff Salaries

Savings due to the engagement of casuals on a reduced basis whilst permanent positions remain vacant.

(590,150) (590,600) Depot (292,291) (384,775) (92,484) -32%

Budget includes wages overhead costs recovered

Under-recovery of Wages overhead is offset by savings of depot wages

242,121 211,168 Dog and Cat Control 128,348 118,217 (10,131) -9%

Additional expenses have been incurred for salaries/overtime for higher-than-normal volume of weekend call-outs ($10K).

78,569 78,175 Elderly Citizens Facilities 46,637 49,344 2,707 5%

309,126 303,417 Elected Member Services 193,807 200,942 7,135 4%

Allowances & expenses


of 236


$ $ $ $ $ %

Year To Date

Service Description


Variancefav/(unfav)





15,377 33,994 Emergency Services 26,642 26,458 (184) -1%

Inflammable undergrowth management

1,316,348 1,199,460 Engineering Services 821,100 743,626 (77,474) -10%

Unfinished projects from 14-15 completed in 15-16.

1,306,433 1,275,787 Finance 889,615 896,580 6,965 1%

Accounting services, Audit Committee, Loan repayments

652,284 709,281 Gawler Aquatic Centre 493,846 477,764 (16,082) -3%

1,735,261 1,573,840 General Administration 906,932 927,258 20,326 2%

General admin, WHS, Agenda/Minutes preparation

67,267 87,267 Heritage 15,130 16,848 1,718 10%

Heritage collection maintenance

629,000 645,741 Home Assistance Scheme 391,684 390,542 (1,142) 0%

534,819 536,863 Human Resources 322,860 332,887 10,027 3%

66,034 65,948 Immunisation 20,457 31,601 11,144 35%Immunisation services

Reduction in services requested has resulted in savings from the engagement of contractors

975,640 977,592 Information Technology 677,327 674,543 (2,784) 0%

9,440 9,390 Investment Properties 5,949 6,782 833 12%

998,482 1,034,841 Library 638,135 663,266 25,131 4%

113,400 108,400 Litter Control 58,750 71,082 12,332 17%

Programmed collection of litter/rubbish from litter bins

Review of delivery of service has generated this YTD saving through wages and plant hire

505,227 478,102 Occupancy 273,291 284,902 11,611 4%

Property Management admin, Town Hall maintenance

436,817 417,972 Other Activities NEC 257,961 268,915 10,954 4%

Road Reserves maintenance, Rapid Response Team expenses


of 236


$ $ $ $ $ %

Year To Date

Service Description


Variancefav/(unfav)





550,599 547,808 Other Environmental Services 293,123 298,601 5,478 2%

Includes payment of State Govt NRM board levy collected, Environmental Officer

3,000 3,000 Other Regulatory Services 6,879 2,664 (4,215) -158%

132,567 191,332 Parking Control 84,177 88,807 4,630 5%

1,381,514 1,342,404 Parks & Gardens 738,737 796,015 57,278 7%

Programmed maintenance of parks, gardens & reserves

Due to operational efficiencies, Council has engaged employees to work on capital projects

4,200 4,200 Pest Control 54 2,766 2,712 98%

2,203 164,275 Plant & Machinery 55,869 63,220 7,351 12%

Includes internal plant hire costs recovered

Internal plant usage has been under-utilised YTD ($24K). This has been offset by depreciation not yet incurred ($30K).

148,984 138,566 Preventive Health Services 93,307 92,950 (357) 0%

119,945 125,368 Public Conveniences 67,650 82,310 14,660 18%

Routine cleaning maintenance of 7 sites

Review of delivery of service has generated this YTD saving through wages and plant hire

271,930 273,264 Rates Administration 175,226 196,811 21,585 11%

Debt Collection expenses are $11K underspent. This is due to timing to collect debts.

255,431 280,142 Records Management 176,185 178,108 1,923 1%

3,081,649 3,994,518 Roads 2,313,305 2,367,169 53,864 2%

543,683 547,420 Sports Facilities - Indoor 355,028 350,970 (4,058) -1%

Gawler Sports & Community Centre

745,054 729,817 Sports Facilities - Outdoor 325,886 364,571 38,685 11%

Programmed ovals maintenance

Water Consumption charges less than anticipated YTD ($28K) and wages underspent YTD ($17K)

835,511 772,014 Stormwater Drainage 529,934 528,467 (1,467) 0%

Drain cleaning, repairs & maintenance


of 236


$ $ $ $ $ %

Year To Date

Service Description


Variancefav/(unfav)





110,468 110,468 Street Cleaning 91,238 73,640 (17,598) -24%

Programmed Cleaning of CBD and Urban Streets

Additional cleans required in the town as a result of the recent storm and increase in cost of service.

393,013 393,013 Street Lighting 209,802 229,997 20,195 9%

Public Lighting Invoice for January had not been received at reporting date.

424,722 384,722 Streetscaping 233,410 248,645 15,235 6%

Tree replacement / removal and maintenance, Garden beds maintenance

Works have been diverted from Streetscaping to complete other operating/capital projects. Works will resume in coming months.

163,000 163,000

Support to Local Businesses (Gawler Bus Dev Board) 163,000 163,000 - 0%

Gawler Business Development Group contribution

218,252 217,892 Tourism (Visitor Information Centre) 130,461 139,221 8,760 6%

Employee on Long Service Leave for short period of time

1,011,815 1,105,041 Town Planning 711,598 711,225 (373) 0%

155,879 155,879 Traffic Management 108,833 102,985 (5,848) -6%

Street/traffic control signs maintenance

Depreciation incurred has exceed YTD Budget

12,241 12,241 Transfer Station 5,876 7,083 1,207 17%

Utility Costs associated with former Transfer Station Site

1,860,036 1,830,036 Waste Management 1,197,128 1,176,299 (20,829) -2%

Kerbside waste collection & disposal

- 23,868,770 24,789,980 Total Expenditure 15,216,197 15,400,789 184,592 -1%

(911,962) (313,777)NET OVERALLOPERATING RESULT (7,877,121) (7,818,689) 58,432

*Annual Adopted Budget - This is the Original Budget adopted by Council on 23 June 2015**Annual Revised Budget - This is the revised budget for the whole year incorporating changes included as part of Quarterly Budget Reviews***YTD Revised Budget - This represents the expected revenue/expenditure at the end of the period based on the Annual Revised Budget.


of 236


of 236


Item 8.5 – National General Assembly of Local Government – Call for Motions

ATTACHMENT 1 Letter from Australian Local Government Association

ATTACHMENT 2 Call for Motions Discussion Paper


of 236


of 236

AUSTRALIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION

18 February 2016

Town of Gawler PO Box 130 GAWLER SA 5118

To the Mayor, Councillors and CEO

Town ot Gs.w,er ·~"::t.nned

2 3 FEB 2016

Record No .................... ..

Town of Gawler A~,...,...:, . ._ ,...

2 3 FEB 2016

2016 National General Assembly of Local Government - Call for Motions

The 2016 National General Assembly of Local Government (NGA), to be held at the National Convention Centre in Canberra between 19th and 22nd June, is an opportunity for councils to identify and discuss national issues of priority for the sector and to agree on possible steps which could be taken to address these issues. Every council has the opportunity to raise relevant issues for debate at the NGA and I invite your council to participate in the 2016 NGA by submitting a motion for consideration.

The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) Board is calling for motions for the 2016 NGA under the theme of 'Partners in an Innovative and Prosperous Australia' . This theme reflects the renewed focus across all levels of government on the roles and responsibilities of the public sector and the challenge of meeting our communities' needs.

To be eligible for inclusion in the NGA Business Papers, motions must follow the principles set out by the ALGA Board, namely:

1. Be relevant to the work of local government nationally; 2. Be consistent with the theme of the NGA; 3. Complement or build on the policy objectives of your state and territory local government

association; 4. Propose a clear action and outcome; and 5. Not be advanced on behalf of external third parties which may seek to use the NGA to apply

pressure to Board members, to gain national political exposure for positions that are not directly relevant to the work of, or in the national interests of, the local government sector.

Please be aware that ALGA reserves the right to reject motions which do not meet these conditions. To assist councils in preparing motions, a Discussion Paper has been prepared and is enclosed with this letter. It is also available on the ALGA website at www.alga.asn.au.

Motions should be submitted via the online form on the website at www.alga.asn.au and should be received by ALGA no later than 22 April 2016. Any administrative inquiries can be directed to ALGA by calling 02 6122 9400.

I encourage you to ensure the views of your Council and your community are represented at the 2016 NGA an ccordingly look forward to receiving your Council's motion.

8 Geils Court Deakin ACT 2600 ABN 31008613 876 PHONE 02 6122 9400 FAX 02 6122 9401 EMAIL [email protected] WEB www.alga.asn.au

ATTACHMENT 1


of 236

Call for Motions Guidelines and Background Information

The theme for this year's National General Assembly of Local Government (NGA) is 'Partners in an Innovative and Prosperous Australia'. The NGA theme reflects current issues being debated nationally and priority issues facing local government and is your opportunity to contribute to the development of national local government policy.

The ALGA Board is now calling for motions for the 2016 NGA.

To assist councils in preparing motions, a Discussion Paper has been prepared and is available at www.alga.asn.au.

To be eligible for inclusion in the NGA Business Papers, motions must meet the following conditions:

1. be relevant to the work of local government nationally 2. be consistent with the themes of the Assembly 3. complement or build on the policy objectives of your state or territory local

government association 4. propose a clear action and outcome, and 5. not be advanced on behalf of external third parties that may seek to use the NGA to

apply pressure to Board members or to gain national political exposure for positions that are not directly relevant to the work of, or in the national interests of, local government.

Once submitted, motions will be reviewed by the ALGA Board's NGA Sub-Committee as well as by state and territory local government associations to determine their eligibility for inclusion in the NGA Business Papers. When reviewing motions, the sub-committee considers the importance and relevance of the issue to local government. Please note that motions should not be prescriptive in directing how the matter should be pursued. Any motion deemed to be primarily concerned with local or state issues will be referred to the relevant state or territory local government association, and will not be included in the Business Papers. The sub-committee reserves the right to reject any motions which are not consistent with the conditions set out above, or to allocate these motions to the reserve section of the debate business papers to be dealt with only if time permits.

Through the review process, minor edits may be made to motions to ensure they can be included in the Business Papers. These edits will change the motion to call for action (for example to 'call on the Australian Government' to do something) to ensure relevance to local government nationally by removing state-specific references, or to ensure the wording is consistent with current conventions such as referring to the Australian Government instead of the Federal Government.

To assist in facilitating an efficient and effective debate, motions that cover similar matters will appear grouped together in the Business Papers and the matter will be debated only once with the lead or strategic motion being the one debated.

Motions that are agreed to at the NGA become Resolutions of the NGA. These Resolutions are then considered by the ALGA Board when setting national local government policy,


of 236

when the Board is making representations to the Federal Government at Ministerial Councils, during meetings and in ALGA publications. The ALGA Board is not bound by any Resolution passed at the NGA.

Motions are to be submitted online at www.alga.asn.au and should be received by ALGA no later than 11.59pm Friday 22 April 2016.

The following information will be required when you submit a motion using the online form.

Motion

Text of the Motion

National Objective

Why is this a national issue and why should this be debated at the NGA?

Maximum 100 words

Summary of Key Arguments

Background information Supporting arguments Maximum of 300 words (additional information should be provided as speaking notes to the council representative who will move the motion at the NGA)

Declaration

You will need to declare that the motion has been endorsed by your council.


of 236

National General Assembly of Local

Government

19 - 22 June 2016

Call for Motions Discussion Paper

'Partners in an Innovative and

Prosperous Future'

Motions should be lodged electronically at www.alga.asn.au no later than

11:59pm on Friday 22 April 2016.

ATTACHMENT 2


of 236

2

Submitting Motions

The National General Assembly of Local Government is an important opportunity for you and your council to influence the national policy agenda.

To assist you and your council to identify motions that address the theme of the NGA, the ALGA Secretariat has prepared this short discussion paper. You are encouraged to read all of the sections of the Paper, but are not expected to respond to every question in each section. Your motion/s can address one or all of the issues identified in the discussion paper.

To be eligible for inclusion in the NGA Business Papers, and then debate on the floor of the NGA, motions must be consistent with the following principles:

1. be relevant to the work of local government nationally 2. be consistent with the themes of the Assembly 3. complement or build on the policy objectives of your state and territory local government

association 4. propose a clear action and outcome, and 5. not be advanced on behalf of external third parties that may seek to use the NGA to apply

pressure to Board members or to gain national political exposure for positions that are not directly relevant to the work of, or in the national interests of, local government.

Motions should generally be in a form that seeks the NGA's support for a particular action or policy change at the Federal level which will assist local governments to meet local community needs. For example: That this National General Assembly call on the Federal Government to restore

indexation to local government financial assistance grants.

Motions should be lodged electronically using the online form available on the NGA Website at: www.alga.asn.au. All motions require, among other things, a contact officer, a clear national objective, a summary of the key arguments in support of the motion, and endorsement of your council. Motions should be received by ALGA no later than 11:59pm on Friday 22 April 2016, electronically in the prescribed format.

Please note that for every motion it is important to complete the background section on the form. Submitters of motions should not assume knowledge. The background section helps all delegates, including those with no previous knowledge of the issue, in their consideration of the motion.

All motions submitted will be reviewed by the ALGA Board's NGA Sub-Committee as well as by state and territory local government associations to determine their eligibility for inclusion in the NGA Business Papers. When reviewing motions, the sub-committee considers the importance and relevance of the issue to local government. Please note that motions should not be prescriptive in directing how the matter should be pursued. Motions may be edited before inclusion in the Business Papers to ensure consistency. If there are any questions about the substance or intent of a motion, ALGA will raise these this with the nominated contact officer. Any motion deemed to be primarily concerned with local or state issues will be referred to the relevant state or territory local government association, and will not be included in the Business Papers.

For more information, please contact Clare Hogan at ALGA on (02) 6122 9400.


of 236

3

Preamble

The 2016 National General Assembly (NGA) is most likely to be held in the lead up to the next Federal election. During this time, all national political parties focus on leadership, key messages, marginal seats and political campaigning. National policy initiatives enter the public domain and all Australians are asked to engage in the political process and choose between competing ideas, election promises and the numerous candidates across the nation.

Last year's NGA theme was 'Closest to the People - Local government in the Federation'. The theme reinforced the vital role of local government in Australia's system of government. It built on the Government's Federation White Paper process, which sought to clarify roles and responsibilities of the levels of government and potentially better align funding with respective responsibilities. It also acknowledged the development of a Green Paper on Taxation. The NGA greatly assisted ALGA in its advocacy and participation in the reform process.

Since then there has been much debate on taxation reform, which will culminate at the 2016 Federal election.

In December 2015 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) reset the national political dialogue. COAG committed to:

'... close collaboration in areas of shared responsibility, including competition, tax, innovation, infrastructure, cities and regulation, as well as in health and education. '

COAG leaders agreed the principles for a new national economic reform agenda should be:

'…to deliver for all Australians no matter where they live:

a stronger, more productive and more innovative Australian economy, with more jobs, more opportunities and higher living standards

fairness and equity, with protection for disadvantaged and lower income Australians, and

more efficient and high quality services.'

The theme of the 2016 NGA – 'Partners in an Innovative and Prosperous Future' – invites councils from across Australia to consider the role of local government in this agenda, and how councils can play their role in the delivery of these objectives.

Many of the services and infrastructure provided by councils are not only critical to the social, cultural and environmental well-being of their communities, but also to the economic prosperity of their regions and the nation more broadly.

The NGA debate on motions and associated discussions will seek to highlight how local government can be more agile in delivering those services to communities, as well as send a strong and unified message to the Commonwealth.


of 236

4

Introduction

The 2016 NGA theme is 'Partners in an Innovative and Prosperous Future'.

This year, the NGA debate on motions and associated discussions will seek to highlight how local government can be more efficient and effective. The discussions will look at how local government, working in partnership with other levels of government, the private sector and the not-for-profit sector, can innovate and create a prosperous future for the community it serves.

This year's theme builds on the work of the 2015 NGA which focused on local government's role in the Federation. The Commonwealth Federation Discussion Paper 2015 sets a context in which motions for this year's NGA should be developed.

The theme 'Partners in an Innovative and Prosperous Future' seeks to focus attention on the role that local government can play in creating a prosperous Australia. The Federation Discussion Paper notes that Australia today is very different from the country it was at the time of Federation and poses the fundamental question: '... does [the Federation] provide the system of national governance that Australians need right now, and will it help or hinder efforts to adapt and thrive in the vastly different economic, political and social realities of the 21st century?'

To put this question in a local government context:

Are the government systems (including our own), processes and priorities, in many cases set up decades ago, still appropriate today?

Are they delivering accessible and fair systems and are they a help or hindrance? Do they facilitate business activity and contribute to higher living standards, or are they a drag on the local economy? Are they necessary or do they duplicate effort?

Technological change has created opportunities, making many traditional models of business and government obsolete. Have these opportunities be taken up?

Participatory democracy is being enhanced through empowering individuals and local communities with new knowledge and new ways of engaging with each other and with governments. Are these opportunities been captured?

Australian productivity and living standards are comparatively high by world standards. However, the current national productivity and reform debate recognises that without reform, Australia risks being left behind on the world stage—meaning fewer jobs, lower economic growth, and reduced living standards.

COAG has responded positively to this challenge. All governments have committed to collaborate particularly in areas of shared responsibility, including competition, tax, innovation, infrastructure, cities and regulation, as well as health and education.

The 2016 NGA seeks motions that suggest reform, innovation in government operations and opportunities to partner with local government that will support Australia’s prosperity.


of 236

5

Local government role in national productivity

Over several decades, the NGA has called on the Australian Government to recognise the importance of greater levels of investment in local and regional infrastructure. This advocacy has been, in part, built on equity considerations as well as productivity considerations.

The NGA has called on the Australian Government to increase Financial Assistance Grants and Roads to Recovery (R2R) funding. These calls have been predominantly based on the need for the Commonwealth to help achieve horizontal equity (i.e. an equitable level of municipal services across the country) and the need to assist local councils to rebuild and maintain local infrastructure, particularly roads.

The rationale for permanent R2R funding and additional freight investment is that essentially the purpose of R2R is to restore the capacity of local roads to a standard able to sustain social and economic services, whereas additional funding through freight investment would be required to improve the standard of roads to meet the higher service levels required to handle higher productivity vehicles and significantly higher volumes of freight traffic.

The NGA’s calls to the Australian Government have also sought recognition that local infrastructure provides important economic services. Local roads, for example, are an essential component of the national road network and therefore add to local and regional productivity and, in aggregate, make a significant contribution to state and national productivity.

Community infrastructure also plays an important role in local and regional economic development by enhancing the quality of life for residents as well as helping to attract and retain population, skilled workers and a local and regional workforce. The State of the Regions Report in 2015, commissioned by ALGA and written by National Economics, showed that there is a strong economic rationale for ensuring that all regions in Australia prosper. The report confirmed OECD findings that regional inequality reduces national productivity.

Local government's objectives in local economic development are diverse. They recognise local circumstances, availability of resources and the impact of external factors such as privatisation, technological change, globalisation and structural industry changes. For some councils, particularly in rural and regional areas, the focus is on stemming the decline in population, loss of businesses and local employment. For others, it is a focus on working with local businesses and the local community to optimise economic development and opportunities for the area.

Local government can facilitate and support economic development but it is frequently criticised for impeding economic development by imposing additional costs on business including through regulation, creating red-tape, providing unsuitable infrastructure etc.

Australian councils contribute significantly to the productivity and economy of their regions by focusing their efforts in three key strategic areas:

creating and maintaining the investment environment – ensuring the availability of appropriate physical and social infrastructure, striving to deliver a quality public domain, and ensuring sufficient housing diversity and lobbying on behalf of local and regional communities for sufficient community services such as education and training, health and well-being, community safety and emergency services

facilitating new local investment – actively promoting business development through facilitating local economic development, strategic planning, working with business


of 236

6

associations/main street organisations, and active involvement with tourism or other business activities, and

attracting external investment through the creation of new business and capital – working with regional bodies such as RDA, Austrade and developers to attract and create new businesses and investment.

Local government has a key role to play in the provision of support services and infrastructure that underpins local and regional economic development, and therefore local government plays an essential part in achieving higher productivity. In broad terms, actions geared to creating and maintaining the investment environment in local and regional communities are considered to be of prime importance to a majority of local councils and it is this area that ALGA has focused its greatest attention.

Local government is a natural leader in local economic development because councils know their local business communities, workforce and comparative advantages better than anyone else. Local people and businesses are the key to economic growth and development and councils are perfectly positioned to work with local stakeholders to drive a bottom-up, place-based approach to achieve prosperity. Every council’s economic development activity will be different according to the unique structures and needs of their local economies, as well as the capacity of the council and community.

Questions

Given the importance of local and regional infrastructure are there any national initiatives that could further assist local government to support local and regional productivity?

Are there areas of reform that local government can explore to enhance economic development and productivity?


of 236

7

Partnering

The term partner as a noun is defined as '... a person who takes part in an undertaking with another or others, especially in a business or firm with shared risks and profits.' In the context of the 2016 NGA, it can be interpreted as '.... how councils can take part in an undertaking with others, including sharing the risk, for the benefit of the community'.

Local government provides a vast array of services and local infrastructure, often in partnership with others including other governments, the private sector, the community and not-for-profit sector.

Example of partnerships include:

the provision of a local swimming pool in partnership with the private sector, or a not-for-profit organisation, that provides the management service of that facility

the provision of Meals on Wheels in partnership with the community not-for-profit sector delivering meals to residents at their homes, and

the provision of Home and Community Care (HACC) to targeted groups of clients in the municipality, in partnership with the federal and state governments which provide funding.

Other examples include:

councils partnering with a university to provide locally-relevant research to inform decisions on issues such as development applications in areas that could be effected by sea level change

partnering with other councils to share resources and skills, and

partnering with the private sector to develop new and innovative ways of delivering services, such as electronic planning or apps to report pot holes.

A key feature of each of these examples is that each party brings different expertise, skills, resources and experiences to the specific undertaking. The combination of these skills, expertise and resources frequently results in innovation and the provision of a service in a way that would not be possible by either party separately.

An alliance between local government and other partners creates new opportunities for business as well as innovative services, increased efficiency, cost savings and more accessible service to the benefit of the community.

Questions

Please note, where local government is mentioned in the following questions it refers to local government as a whole, not specific proposals for partnerships at a single council level. Questions are designed to draw out new ideas that could transform the delivery of services and infrastructure at a systemic level.


of 236

8

Are there new opportunities for the Australian Government to partner with local government to deliver Commonwealth services at the local level? What would be the role of the Commonwealth in such a partnership? How would this benefit the community?

Are there partnerships that could be developed to maximise the opportunities to innovate and provide simpler, smarter and more reliable services and infrastructure at the local level? If so, what are these opportunities and what would be the role of the Commonwealth in supporting these partnerships?

Are there opportunities for the private sector to partner with local government to speed up and improve a local government service or function? What role could the Commonwealth play in facilitating these opportunities?

Innovation

The Australian Government has declared its strong support for innovation. The Government's National Innovation and Science Agenda says innovation is:

'... at the heart of a strong economy—from IT to healthcare, defence and transport—it keeps us competitive, at the cutting edge, creates jobs and maintains our high standard of living. It’s not just about new ideas, products and business models; innovation is also about creating a culture where we embrace risk, move quickly to back good ideas and learn from mistakes.'

The statement has a focus on a range of objectives including:

entrepreneurship and leveraging our public research increasing collaboration between industry and researchers to find solutions to real world

problems and to create jobs and growth developing and attracting world-class talent for the jobs of the future, and government leading by example by embracing innovation and agility in the way we do

business.

Questions

What is the role of local government in this innovation agenda?

Are these objectives relevant to local government itself? For example, is its role in increasing collaboration between industry and researchers to find solutions to real-world problems and to create jobs and growth? If so, how can these solutions be shared to the benefit of all councils and their communities. How could the Australian Government help this to occur? What can local government bring to the table as a partner? For example, does local government hold data that, having regard to privacy issues, could be shared with the private sector which could put it to innovative uses? How could the Australian Government support this?

Are there digital innovations that could be introduced to local government that would increase the efficiency of businesses working with local government and vice-versa. How could the Australian Government support this?


of 236

9

Is there a role for local government to help innovative start-ups to rapidly transform their ideas into globally competitive businesses by giving them mentorship, funding, resources, knowledge and access to business networks? If so, how could the Australian Government support this?

Resourcing

In the 2014-15 Federal Budget, the Government committed to provide $2.2867 billion in Local Government Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs). However, the Government also announced it would pause the indexation of FAGs for the three years following that budget.

FAGs are a Commonwealth Specific Purpose Payment to local government paid through the State and Territory Governments. Payments are made to councils by jurisdictional Treasurers on the advice of state and territory Local Government Grants Commissions under the provisions of the

Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995.

The objects of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 enable the Commonwealth Parliament to provide assistance to the states for the purposes of improving:

(a) the financial capacity of local governing bodies

(b) the capacity of local governing bodies to provide their residents with an equitable level of services

(c) the certainty of funding for local governing bodies

(d) the efficiency and effectiveness of local governing bodies, and

(e) the provision by local governing bodies of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

Freezing the indexation of FAG's will reduce Commonwealth expenditures (and grants to councils) by more than $925 million over the forward estimates. The freeze also means that the aggregate level of FAGs will be permanently reduced by almost 13 per cent, unless there is a future government decision to restore this base with a catch-up payment.

Councils are invited to submit motions to address this issue.


of 236

Town of Gawler Council Meeting Agenda

Documents

Transcript of Town of Gawler Council Meeting Agenda