2014 ELECTION RESULT – BROMPTON SWINGS BACK TO LABOR

.

Atkinson Labor gained a 9.4% swing in the Brompton booth against the tide of a statewide 1.7% (2 party prefered) move to the Liberals.

Various factors – the current low interest rate coupled with rising house prices, effective locality work and lack of any local and organised electoral alternative – contributed to this achievement.

The Facebook based campaign “Save St Clair” pinned their hopes on a SA Liberal win, rather than putting up a candidate. The Liberal's release of their franchise reforms for local government – admittedly post-mortem – demonstrates how misguided this reliance was. Their conspicuous absenteeism leaves their friends on Charles Sturt Council looking very exposed in the run up to the Council elections later this year. Atkinson may choose to support a non-ALP candidate for Mayor and sweep the board there, when a voluntary-voting election places a premium on getting the voters out.

PUBLIC WORKSHOP BOWDEN VILLAGE DPA

"A community initiated and run workshop on the Bowden Urban Village Development Plan Amendement (DPA) will be held at 1pm on Saturday, 24 March 2012 at the Governor Hindmarsh Hotel. The workshop will allow the community to discuss their concerns, but will also provide residents with advice on the process and how to prepare submissions. On behalf of the workshops organisers Council has invited representatives of both the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure who have prepared the DPA and the newly formed Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to attend."

COMPARISON: EXISTING and PROPSED VISUAL PRIVACY POLICIES, Bowden Village DPA

The Ministers’ proposed changes to Council Development Policies are outlined below – the existing policies are highlighted green.

The Ministerial changes in  this Council wide change are self evidently designed to remove safeguards against unreasonable overlooking which the residents present (at least in theory) enjoy.

DPA POPOSED AMENDMENT

(in “Design & Appearance  General  Section”)

Visual Privacy

10 Development should minimise direct overlooking of the main internal living areas and private open spaces of dwellings through measures such as:

(a) off-setting the location of balconies and windows of habitable rooms with those of other buildings so that views are oblique rather than direct

(b) building setbacks from boundaries (including building boundary to boundary where appropriate) that interrupt views or that provide a spatial separation between balconies or windows of habitable rooms

(c) screening devices (including fencing, obscure glazing, screens, external ventilation blinds, window hoods and shutters) that are integrated into the building design and have minimal negative effect on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.

11 Permanently fixed external screening devices should be designed and coloured to complement the associated building’s external materials and finishes.

CHARLES STURT DPA – CURRENT VERSION

(in “Residential Dev. General Sec.)

Visual Privacy

32 Direct overlooking into habitable room windows and onto the useable private open spaces of other dwellings from windows, especially from upper-level habitable rooms and external balconies, terraces and decks, should be minimised through the adoption of one or more of the following:

(a) building layout

(b) location and design of windows and balconies

(c) screening devices

(d) landscaping

(e) adequate separation.

33 Permanently fixed external screening devices should be designed and coloured to blend with the associated building’s external material and finishes.

DPA POPOSED AMENDMENT

Visual Privacy

(GENERAL  SECTION, Medium or Highrise Developments, 3 or more storeys):

4 The visual privacy of ground floor dwellings within multi-storey buildings should be protected through the use of design features such as the elevation of ground floors above street level, setbacks from the street and the location of verandas, windows, porticos or the like.

Visual Privacy

(GENERAL  SECTION, Residential Development.)

22 Except for buildings of 3 or more storeys, upper level windows, balconies, terraces and decks that overlook habitable room windows or private open space of dwellings should maximise visual privacy through the use of measures such as sill heights of not less than 1.5 metres or permanent screens having a height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level.

CHARLES STURT DPA – CURRENT VERSION

(Charles Sturt Council   Table Section
Table ChSt/1- Conditions for Complying Development)

Visual Privacy

15 Windows of habitable rooms at or above the second storey and which face side or rear site boundaries have:

(a) permanently fixed translucent glazing in any part of the window below 1.7 metres above floor level; or

(b) sill heights of at least 1.7 metres above floor level.

16 Dwellings have no balconies, terraces or decks at or above the second storey.

NB: Table Reference “ChSt/1 above is to the whole council area. This condition was inserted as a special policy by the Charles  Sturt Council and is not a metropolitan wide policy

CODE OF SILENCE

Charles Sturt Council will consider in confidence a report dealing with the Ombudsman’s recommendations regarding suggested breaches of the Council’s own “Council Member Code of Conduct Policy”. Assorted behaviours of Councillors “K”, “P”, “A”, “G”(two counts), “M” (three counts) and Councillor “B” were raised as the subject of concerns by the Ombudsman. The Council report however advises that no action be pursued in the matter of “A” and “G” on the grounds that they are no longer members of the Charles Sturt Council. This recommendation, if adopted by the Council at its December 12th meeting, will have the consequence of clearing these former members ex gratia if they should present themselves for public election on Charles Sturt or any other Council in the future. It is the same as saying “Let bygones be bygones”. More serious is the secrecy provision that the Council report recomends – that the whole matter be dealt with confidentially. This is obviously incongruent with open and accountable government, in as much as it has been used as a cover-all to conceal the administrative methods Council is proposing to follow, not just personal details which do deserve consideration. For example, the public is given no information as whether the suggested breaches of Code of Conduct Policy have been classified Level One or Level Two, or whether they have been classified in any manner at all. If they have been classified as level two breaches, they must, according to the Council’s Code, be assessed by an independent body and that this assessment, along with proposed remedies from the independent investigator, should be presented to Council for consideration. The electors have been given no information on any of this. Nor, under the recommendation going to Council, will we ever hear if any of the Alphabetic Councillors have been found to have breached the code, and if so, who they are. Next time you cast your vote - if you are worried at all by the Ombudsman’s findings that is - you will have to vote for a candidate who was not on Council from 2006 to 2010, as this may well be the only way of holding councillors to account. Resident "C"

A TALE OF TWO TODS

A report  on the agenda of Charles Sturt Council’s  Finance, Policy and  Delegations Committee meeting tonight estimates that the  costs of the ground breaking new development in Bowden   on  the council budget would amount to  approximately $800,000 .

The report proposes that these costs ought to be “ring fenced” from the town as a whole, either by way of a ‘differential rate’ or a sinking fund financed by the developers.

Co-incidentally, the Minister is due to release the  Bowden Village Development Plan Amendment on the Tuesday following the Council’s meeting.

The Council report admits that previous major developments, such as the St Clair  TOD, have not been  ‘ring fenced’ in this way by council.

By C D

Suspension of the Charles Sturt Council?

RESIGNATION OF CR KENEALLY AS DEPUTY MAYOR.

Last Thursday night’s special Council meeting, which saw the Deputy Mayor submit her resignation from the position, indicates that the Council is experiencing difficulty facing up to the tasks set it by the Ombudsmans Final Report.
The report was publicly released earlier this month, but a draft had been circulated to affected Council members earlier in the year.

Councillor Keneally in her resignation speech to the meeting, indicated that she felt unable to carry out her duties in the position of Deputy Mayor. She made a  passionate declaration that she would continue as ward councillor:

" I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the community for their very warm welcome, support and encouragement during the period I have been involved in the Deputy Mayors' role, and I'd also note the value that they place, and the  respect that they have for the role of deputy mayor.  In the role of  elected member however, I look forward to the remainder of  the term of council.  I continue to focus on the core business of council, as well as look for as many opportunities to be accessible and available to the residents as I always have been. My passion has been, and continues to be "Keep rates low" and to ensure that  residents throughout the City of Charles Sturt are supported and well represented. Thank you, and I ask that this   be included in the minutes"

She told HI that her difficulties were more general than merely the arguments concerning the street corner meeting “Turf Wars” which had attracted high profile media coverage recently. Several councilors agreed during the special meeting that this was the case.
(The question of the  street corner meetings organised by the local state member were examined in depth in the Ombudsmans Report)

Tensions boiled over during the debate on Councillor Agius’ motion which called for the Council to develop a policy on  “Street Corner Meetings” to include protocols and guidelines, and be adopted by the Finance Policy and Delegations Committee.

Councilor Randall opposed the motion, stating that Council needed to respond to the Ombudsman’s Report in a serious fashion, and that this would have to include questions of councilors participation in street corner meetings. He singled out Cr Keneally, who he claimed was not a team player on council:
“my suspicion is, Councillor Keneally, that you are seeking preselection for the Australian Labor Party as a candidate.”
He said that in his opinion, she would make a good parliamentary member, and he wished her every success, but that in this Cr Keneally  had received some very bad political advice.

Cr Randall quoted from page 63 of the Ombudsman’s Report, which section examines the testimony of Councilor “P” regarding street corner meetings and the involvement of the Hon. Michael Atkinson’s electorate office in organising these meetings.

Cr Randall stated:
“The Ombudsmans Report says where we should go.  If you're going to be a candidate, and you start to use member of parliaments’ offices you need to be very careful.
We shouldn't be doing it because it will get us involved in another inquiry.
It's not the way to go”

His peroration was interrupted by a series of points of order regarding relevance and probity, which for the most part were  upheld by the Mayor, who repeatedly warned the Councilor

Cr Keneally demanded that the Cr Randall withdraw imputations of  improper motive,

Cr Randall stated that he had not wished to make any such implication.
A division was called which showed Cr Randall  to be the sole opponent of the motion.

COMMENT
I attended this ‘Special’ meeting of the Council with the expectation that I might discover how well the Council had taken on board the Ombusmans Report. The conclusions I formed do not incline me to the view that the situation is in hand.

It was “business as usual” at town hall.

While it is true that feelings were heated, there can be no excuse for the disrespect shown for the Mayors’ role in chairing the meeting. At one point her activity  in  assisting a fellow councilor was challenged – a remarkable initiative for a councilor to make  given that the Mayor has the responsibility for considering the Ombudsman’s recommendation in relation to code of conduct violations against these same councilors.

If the council is dysfunctional, as Cr Keneallys’ resignation seems to suggest, then the Government will have no option other than to suspend it.

 By D

OMBUDSMAN'S FINAL REPORT

Submission to HI for publication 14th November 2011

The SA Ombudsman's "Investigation into the City of Charles Sturt - Final Report - November 2011" pays close attention to those issues of concern to all of us interested in local government affairs and the St Clair land swap imbroglio. The report can be accessed here:

http://www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au/Final%20Charles%20Sturt%20Report.pdf

It contains numerous quotations from the 118 hours of evidence taken from 28 witnesses, who included 16 councilors from the time in question, as well as the Council CEO and (especially interestingly) the local MP. 

Hopefully the evidence garnered by the investigation will one day be made public, because it will almost certainly provide historians of the future with a valuable resource.

If I had any quibbles to make with the Ombudsman's work, I would point to the sketchiness of the investigation of the relationship between the various development companies operating in the site, and the Charles Sturt Council. However, while Mr. Bingham has seen fit to examine background material from the ALP sub-branch regarding actions of Council and Councilors, for whatever reason no such evidence has been obtained from the developers of the site. 

I find it interesting to note in this respect that the three members of the Council's Development Assessment Panel declared a so called "conflict of interest"  by reason of their DAP membership at the formal vote on the land swap proposal taken in full council on the 28th April 2008. This was one month after the purchase of the Sheridan site by the Cheltenham race course developer, Woodvile JV. 

Prior to this date the development applications considered by the Charles Sturt DAP for the Sheridan site, had been for remediation and minor works and had been submitted by the previous owner, Stockdale. I find it impossible to conceive what conflict of interest the three Council members actually had – whatever was in their minds, they appear to have received no advice to the contrary from the Council CEO at the meeting and excused themselves one by one when a division on the land swap motion was called.

By resident "D"