09 September 2015

Burnside happy to wait

Last night I made a representation to the Burnside Council meeting regarding Brown Hill creek. It my impassioned speech I asked that they defer making a decision on their preferred treatment of the  creek. The motion put to them is heavily biased toward Option D (widening and clearing). This is the same motion that Unley will be asked to vote on next week. my fear was that if Burnside set a precedent for Option D at this stage it might  guide the decision making of the other 4 councils.
Mitcham agreed to defer the motion and debate it at their next meeting. This buys a little time for the lobbying and politicking in Unley to continue. The motion I intend to put reads;

That the Report be received.

2.         That Council receives the report titled ‘Consultation Findings on the Brown Hill Keswick Creek Stormwater Project: Part B Report’ dated August 2015 from the Brown Hill Keswick Creek Stormwater Project Group (the Project) contained within Attachment A of this report.

3.         That Council notes that the Consultation Findings report in Attachment A makes no recommendations related to the project, but provides a comprehensive summary of the feedback received during the May/June 2015 consultation process.

4.         That Council, having regard to the Notice issued by the Stormwater Management Authority dated 19 May 2015 which requires the Cities of Adelaide, Burnside, Unley, Mitcham, and West Torrens to prepare a revised Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) in respect of the Brown Hill Keswick Creek Catchment by 30 September 2015; the Part B report; and community consultation and feedback, hereby determines that Option B2 (including further opportunities for water harvesting) – Creek Capacity Upgrade is the recommended solution for Part B Works under the Stormwater Management Plan (SMP 2012) given:

4.1.      The most recent consultation gave little direction from creek owners to inform Council’s decision;

4.2.      Option B2 is likely to have the lowest capital cost, the lowest annual maintenance cost and the lowest present value whole of life cost when compared against the other available options when the true cost of obtaining easements in Option D are  calculated;

            4.3.      Option B2 provides in excess of the required level (100 year ARI) of flood   protection;

4.4.      That for the most likely rain events in the future, especially given the effects of climate change, Option B2 the highest ARI level of flood protection;

4.5       Option B2 provides the best environmental protection solution in that the creek bed and riparian zones will be least affected, allowing for the continuation of a wildlife corridor along the creek

4.6.      Option B2 does not require bypass culverts in suburban streets;

4.7.      Option B2 preserves sites of cultural and heritage significance;

4.8       Option B2 provides the greatest opportunity to detain and harvest water, during any rain event, and thus protect the aquifer and marine environment.

5.         That the Chief Executive Officer is delegated authority to do all things necessary to prepare a revised Stormwater Management Plan in respect of the Brown Hill and Keswick Creek Catchment for submission to the Stormwater Management Authority for approval.

6.         That in the event that all five catchment Councils are not able to agree on Option B2, the Chief Executive Officer is authorised to write to the Stormwater Management Authority and advise the Presiding Member that Council would like further investigation into;

a)      Detailed design and costing associated with both the B2 and D Options to allow a better understanding of the impact of the proposed work on creel owners properties
b)      Quantitative (megalitres) and financial benefits and the opportunities for water harvesting and reuse (as per UCC resolution of August 2012)
c)      The potential  impact of both Option B2 and D to the marine environment

7.         That the project  Councils continue to investigate a Regional Subsidiary as the vehicle for project delivery and ongoing care and management of the Brown Hill Keswick Creek flood mitigation scheme.

8.          That in respect of funding for implementation of the finalised and gazetted Stormwater Management Plan, Council reaffirms the cost sharing proposal between the three spheres of government as described in the SMP 2012.

9.         That in the event that the cost sharing proposal involving the other levels of Government as referred to in paragraph 7 above is not materialised, the catchment Councils reserve their rights to review the scope of work, delivery timelines and funding model under the SMP 2012. This should prioritise the essential clearing work in the creek at the earliest possible time so as to reduce impacts of flooding on selected properties within the Brown Hill Keswick Creek catchment.

10.       Unley Council expresses concern to the Minister responsible and the Chair of the Natural Resources Management Board that the NRM has abrogated its responsibility in the flood management in Brown Hill and Keswick Creeks in that it has not exercised its legislative powers to require creek owners to maintain the creek in good condition.

11         We believe that Councils are best placed to make a decision and that a further report should be bought to all five councils after additional costings and investigations have been completed.

12.        This report is presented to Councils by April 2016.      

This is what people have been telling me they want, I hope it is? I just need to convince my fellow Councillors that it is time to make decision, and the best decision is a dam (Option B2)

No comments:

Post a Comment