[Webmaster: See at the bottom of this page links to other posts from 2013 in relation with the Penneshaw planned sewerage]

Kangaroo Island, 2013.12.02

Dear Webmaster,

Council is due to give consideration to a report from its CEO on the outcome of public consultation on Penneshaw CWMS at its next meeting to be held on 11 December 2013, to decide on whether the preferred proposal with or without change will be referred to a ‘prudential review‘, before its final determination to proceed with the Scheme or otherwise (refer to page 15 of Newsletter #9: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/201308%20CWMS%20Newsletter%20FINAL.pdf).

During the public consultation process, concerns have been raised with me from a number of community members in relation to the credibility of the prudential review process, in particular whether their issues raised with the CEO will be properly considered and how the reviewer will conduct the investigations.  In light of these concerns expressed to me, I put the following ‘questions on notice’ to the December Council meeting to elicit the information on behalf of my constituents:

Question 1:

Does Council have a ‘prudential management policy’ for the assessment of projects, a legislative requirement under Section 48 (aa1)* of the Local Government Act 1999 as amended?  If so,

(a) why isn’t it available on Council’s website for public inspection; and

(b) when was this policy adopted by the Council?

*48 – Prudential requirements for certain activities 

(aa1) A council must develop and maintain prudential management policies, practices and procedures for the assessment of projects to ensure that the council— 

(a) acts with due care, diligence and foresight; and 

(b) identifies and manages risks associated with a project; and 

(c) makes informed decisions; and 

(d) is accountable for the use of council and other public resources. 

Question 2:

If the answer to Question 1 above is ‘No’ and in the event that Council has decided to put the Penneshaw CWMS to prudential review on the completion of the public consultation process:-

(a) When will a prudential management policy as required by the Act be developed and approved by Council in order to facilitate the prudential review, as without it, how will the assessment of the project be undertaken to ensure that Council is able to (i) act with due care, diligence and foresight; (ii) identify and manage risks associated with each project and (iii) make informed decisions and is accountable for the use of Council and public resources as required by Section 48 of the Act?

(b) Has Council approved a brief with selection criteria in place for the appointment of an independent ‘prudential reviewer’ to comply with the Act?  If so, please provide a copy of the brief.

Question 3:

Will the local community, particularly those property owners affected by the Penneshaw CWMS proposal be given the opportunity to raise their concerns and issues directly to or in person with the person who is appointed to undertake the prudential review to comply with the requirement of Section 48(2)(d) of the Act?  If so, how and when will the local community be informed of these arrangements?

Question 4:

As a requirement of Section 48(2)(h) of the Act relating to risks associated with the proposal, what measures has Council put in place to assure the Penneshaw community that the prudential reviewer: (i) will be fully informed of the identified possible risks; (ii) has the appropriate qualifications or formal training (Subsection 48.4)** and (iii) is confident to make fair and proper judgement on the acceptable steps required to eliminate or reduce those risks to ensure public safety, health and wellbeing of the local community?

**48.4 – A report under subsection (1) must be prepared by a person whom the council reasonably believes to be qualified to address the prudential issues set out in subsection (2).

Please note: Clause 10(2) of Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2000 requires the CEO to place the above ‘questions on notice’ on the meeting agenda and the subsequent reply entered in the minutes of the relevant meeting.  The answers to these questions must be published on Council’s website: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/councilmeetings within 5 days after the meeting.

In addition to the above ‘prudential review’ issues, strong opposition to the selection of the WWPT and storage dam site at Cheopis Street and whether alternative sites on rural land along south of Cape Willoughby Road have been thoroughly investigated were raised at both public meetings held at Penneshaw and Adelaide. (Refer to Q&A #9 of Penneshaw public meeting notes: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20131014%20CWMS%20Meeting%20Notes%20-%20Penneshaw%20V2.pdf and Q&A #3-7 of Adelaide public meeting notes: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20131015%20CWMS%20Meeting%20Notes%20-%20Adelaide.pdf)

The concerns about health, safety and other social impacts on the local community by building large dams on the hillside, being too close to residential properties and highly visible from the surrounding areas were the key issues expressed at these meetings.  Cr Walkom upon request asked questions on behalf of these concerned ratepayers at the 13 November 2013 Council meeting endeavouring to seek further information, to ensure that Council is able to make an informed and responsible decision on this matter as required under Section 6(a)^ of the LG Act at the conclusion of the public consultation process.

^ 6—Principal role of a council: A council is, under the system of local government established by this Act, established to provide for the government and management of its area at the local level and, in particular—  (a) to act as a representative, informed and responsible decision-maker in the interests of its community.

The questions referred to was on Item 8.1.6 of the meeting agenda: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20131113%20Council%20Agenda.pdf under the heading of ‘Penneshaw CWMS Site Options’:

Questions 1:

Is it correct that the rural land near the Council works depot in Penneshaw was included in the “significant review” of possible treatment plant sites as stated in the record of the Community consultation meeting at Penneshaw 14th October 2013?

Question 2:

When was this area (Q1) determined to be unsuitable for the current treatment system and storage?

Question 3:

What are the cost/benefit comparisons between the chosen hillside dam on Cheopis Street and the general area referred to in Q1 for the treatment system as currently proposed?

However, Council resolved, “That Questions on Notice 8.1.3-8.1.7 be answered within six months due to the current workload on the Chief Executive Officer.”  (Minutes of November 2013 meeting: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20131113%20Council%20Minutes.pdf).  Cr Walkom’s questions were subsequently taken on notice and not answered at the meeting.

While Cr Walkom is currently absent on leave, I have been approached to raise this matter with the Council on their behalf with a view to defer decisions on approving the proposal until credible information on the alternative sites is available for public inspection.  Subsequently, I have issued a written notice of motion under Regulation 13(1) for consideration at the December Council meeting, namely:

“Given the reply to QoN Item 8.1.6 by Cr Walkom was taken on notice and not answered to at the 13 November 2013 Council meeting, Council defers consideration of all reports recommending Penneshaw CWMS proposal to ‘prudential review’, pending receipt of a full report on siting the WWPT and Storage dam(s) on rural land along the south side of Cape Willoughby Road near Council’s Depot, to enable Elected Members to act as representative, informed and responsible decision-makers in the interests of its community per Section 6(a) of the LG Act.”

Please note: Council’s decision on my notice of motion will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting on Council’s website: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/councilmeetings within 5 days after the meeting.

 

Kind regards.

Cr Ken Liu
PO Box 80,  KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: 8553 2823 & Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com

See also:

Sewerage plans for Penneshaw, prudential review — comments by Shirley Knight, 2013.11.30

Penneshaw sewerage dam safety questions need an answer — Cr Liu 2013.09.13

Complaint against Kangaroo Island Council for failing to answer a question — Cr Liu 2013.06.28

Transparency and respect for community by Kangaroo Island council are at low ebb — Knight, Shirley, 2013.07.27

CWMS Management Committee meeting 2013.06.17

Penneshaw sewage dam location: why did the CEO omit an important document? — QoN Cr Liu 2013.08.14

Earthquake impact on a planned sewage dam overlooking Penneshaw — QoNs Cr Liu, 2013.07.10

Penneshaw sewage plans: health, environmental and financial issues — QoNs Cr Liu 2013.06.12

The man-hours spent not seeing the obvious has been a drain on the finances of this council — Knight, Shirley, 2013.05.25

Penneshaw : the LGA CWMS committee (2013.03.25) is not prepared to subsidise the full scheme

Penneshaw planned sewerage dam, QoNs by Cr Liu 2013.04.10 — and sort of answers

Council shooting the messenger — Knight, Shirley, 2013.04.14

Sewerage endless plans for Penneshaw: years later, the public is still kept in the dark — QoN Cr Liu, 2013.03.13

Penneshaw threatened by proposed sewage dam — Knight, Shirley, 2013.03.03

Council administration censors Councillor’s Question on Notice — Bittar G. 2013.01.11