AGENDA PAPERS for the Special Meeting of LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL TUESDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 2020 at 5:00Pm

VISION Respecting the Past, Creating our Future.

CORE PRINCIPLES Light Regional Council is guided by a focus on ‘Core Principles’ of Growth; Reform; Innovation and Discipline.

AGENDA PAPERS

for the Special Meeting of

LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL

in the HEWETT CENTRE 28 Kingfisher Drive, Hewett

TUESDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 2020 at 5:00pm

Principal Office: 93 Main Street Branch Office: 12 Hanson Street Kapunda 5373 Freeling 5372 Telephone: 8525 3200 Facsimile: 8566 3262

TABLE OF CONTENTS for the Special Meeting of LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL

TUESDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 2020

Reports for Decision:

5.1 Roseworthy Township Expansion – New Component Proposal- Zarmen Pty. Ltd...... 1 7.1 RTE-KRIE Water Scheme ...... 17

NOTICE OF MEETING

Mayor and Councillors,

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the provisions of Section 83 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1999, that Special Meeting of Council will be held in the Hewett Centre, 28 Kingfisher Drive, Hewett on Tuesday, 17 November 2020 at 5:00pm

A copy of the Agenda for the above meeting is supplied as prescribed by Section 83 (3) of the said Act.

...... Brian Carr CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AGENDA

SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON TUESDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 2020, IN THE HEWETT CENTRE, 28 KINGFISHER DRIVE, HEWETT, COMMENCING AT 5:00PM

1. PRESENT 2. OPENING 3. APOLOGIES 4. DEPUTATIONS & PRESENTATIONS 5. REPORTS FOR DECISION 5.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 5.2 GENERAL MANAGERS, BUSINESS & FINANCE, & GOVERNANCE 5.3 GENERAL MANAGER, STRATEGY & DEVELOPMENT 5.4 GENERAL MANAGER, INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENT 5.5. GENERAL MANAGER, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 6. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 6.1 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 6.2 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 6.3 NOTICE OF MOTION 6.4 MOTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 7. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS 8. MEETINGS The next ordinary meeting of Light Regional Council will be held on Tuesday, 24 November 2020, commencing at 5:00pm in the Council Chamber, 93 Main Street, Kapunda.

9. CLOSURE Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/1

4. DEPUTATIONS & PRESENTATIONS

5. REPORTS FOR DECISION

5.1 Roseworthy Township Expansion – New Component Proposal- Zarmen Pty. Ltd.

Folder ID: 55250

Appendix: 5.A – Zarmen Pty. Ltd Proposal (in 3 parts) – • 21 June 2019 + attachments • 9 September 2019 + attachments; and • DPTI and DPTI/ MFY correspondence (5 April 2019, 29 May 2020 + 29 November 2017) 5.B - Concept Plan Map Lig/13 – Roseworthy Township Expansion 5.C – Deed of Variation to Final Road Infrastructure Deed – Roseworthy Township Expansion Excerpt 5.D Submissions opposed to the New Component Proposal: • K & D Halliday (27 March 2020) • M Virgara (27 March 2020) • Platinum Property Retirement Pty. Ltd. (30 March 2020) + attachments 5.E – Submissions in favour of the New Component • Mr. Trevor and Mrs. Wendy Wilson (24 March 2020) • Mr. Michael Hickinbotham (27 March 2020) + attachments including legal and technical advice 5.F – Independent Case Manager Report – Rod Hook and Associates (8 September 2020) 5.G – Independent Peer Review Report - Emeritus Professor Michael Taylor (23 October 2020) Author: Craig Doyle – General Manager, Strategy & Development

Report Presenter: Craig Doyle – General Manager, Strategy & Development

Executive Summary

This report is provided to enable Council to determine whether it will permit the replacement of a Road Infrastructure Component with a New Component, as proposed by Zarmen Pty. Ltd. (a Hickinbotham company – hereafter ‘Zarmen/ Hickinbotham) at the Roseworthy Township Expansion (RTE) (refer to Appendix 5.A).

Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/2

With respect to the Zarmen/ Hickinbotham roundabout proposal, the process outlined in the Deed of Variation to Final Road Infrastructure Deed – Roseworthy Township Expansion (hereafter the ‘DOV’) has been followed. The threshold requirements, namely:

▪ Provision of a request;

▪ Endorsement of the Receiving Authority (Department of Infrastructure and Transport – ‘DIT’);

▪ Provision of required information;

▪ Commitment to cover any cost difference;

▪ Consultation with Other Landowners; and

▪ Assessment by the Independent Case Manager (ICM)

▪ Provision of the ICM recommendation to the Landowners (on 2 November 2020) have been satisfied as required by the Road Deed.

Additionally, Council sought an independent Peer Review, by Professor Michael Taylor.

In correspondence dated 29 May 2020 (within Appendix 5.A), the DIT advised MFY (Traffic Consultants) on behalf of Zarmen/ HIckinbotham:

The roundabout proposal described in DA 313/D026/2018 has been agreed in principle by the Commissioner of Highways in the Schedule 8 referral response and its associated conditions (dated 5 April 2019).

The Department of Planning, Transport and lnfrastructure (DPTI) endorses the roundabout proposal as described within the Development Application and referral response.

The ICM has recommended (refer to Appendix 5.F):

1. That Council note my advice and the advice of DPTI that a roundabout on Horrocks Highway to provide access into the Zarmen/Hickinbotham land is considered an acceptable transport solution.

2. That Council support DPTI’ s position for future planning to be based around a future 80kph speed limit on Horrocks Highway south of the existing Roseworthy township.

3. That Council note the need to address the planning implications associated with the various proposed intersections of the RTE development and Horrocks Highway.

4. That Council advise both Zarmen/Hickinbotham and LVG/Platinum of its expectation that the developers will ensure early and equitable delivery of internal roads directly linking the residential land in the Zarmen/Hickinbotham project to the town centre for the RTE.

Professor Taylor has recommended (refer to Appendix 5.G):

1. That Council supports DIT’s position for future planning for the RTE to be based around a future 80 km/h speed limit on Horrocks Highway south of the existing Roseworthy township

Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/3

2. That Council advise both Zarmen/Hickinbotham and LVG/Platinum of its expectation that the developers will ensure early and equitable delivery of the internal collector roads directly linking the residential land in the Zarmen/Hickinbotham project to the town centre for the RTE, to establish proper connectivity in the internal road network

3. That Council note the advice of the ICM, DIT and this reviewer that a roundabout on Horrocks Highway to provide access to the Zarmen/Hickinbotham land (intersection #7) is an acceptable and desirable traffic and transport solution

4. That Council note the need to address the planning implications associated with the various proposed intersections of the RTE development and Horrocks Highway, and especially the gateway status of intersection #5

5. That Council collate (from all existing sources) or commission, as necessary, an integrated traffic impact analysis considering the whole RTE development in its final, completed form.

It seems however that the roundabout has been proposed without the potential provision of the internal connector road having first been explored, and any reasons being provided as to why this is not achievable. Both the ICM and Professor Taylor have separately reflected on the importance of this to avoid fragmentation becoming established in the earliest phases of the RTE and avoid the need for future residents to have to enter and leave Horrocks Highway to access the Town Centre.

Council’s management is also mindful that the support offered to the New Component by the ICM and Professor Taylor each respectively refers to a roundabout also being provided at the access to the Town Centre, which has not occurred.

The complexity of this matter and the fact that Council is considering it on behalf of the DIT/ State Government, as the ultimate recipient of the infrastructure, has been closely contemplated by Council’s management during the consideration of this matter.

It is considered appropriate to advise the State Government and industry bodies about the difficulties that have been experienced in this matter.

Budget Impact Estimated Cost: $Nil to Council for infrastructure $Costs for legal advice

Recommendation That Council: 1. Receives this report and attachments. 2. Notes: a. the advice of the Independent Case Manager (ICM) b. the Independent Peer Review advice from Professor Michael Taylor;

Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/4

c. that it does not appear that the provision of the internal collector road has been discussed at this time between Zarmen Pty Ltd (Hickinbotham) and the Land Vision Group (Platinum Property Retirement Pty. Ltd.);

d. the importance placed on the provision of this internal connection as expressed by the ICM and Professor Taylor, to avoid fragmentation in the development of the Roseworthy Township Expansion and avoid the need for future residents to have to enter and leave Horrocks Highway to access the Town Centre;

e. that the support offered to the New Component by the ICM and Professor Taylor each respectively refers to a roundabout also being provided at the access to the Town Centre, which has not occurred; and

That accordingly, Council authorises the Chief Executive, who may delegate to specific staff as necessary, to request that Zarmen Pty. Ltd. (Hickinbotham) and the Land Vision Group (Platinum Property Retirement Pty. Ltd.) hold discussions to explore the alternative of bringing forward the construction of the internal connector road and to provide a further report to inform Council with respect to this matter.

3. Advises Zarmen Pty. Ltd. (Hickinbotham) and the Land Vision Group (Platinum Property Retirement Pty. Ltd.) that they have two weeks to submit a mutual position on the internal collector road matter (as per Item 2 above) and that Council will make a final determination on the roundabout proposal taking into account any mutual position received, if any, from Zarmen Pty. Ltd. and Land Vision Group (Platinum Property Retirement Pty. Ltd.).

4. Instructs the Chief Executive Officer, who may delegate to specific staff as necessary, to refer this report and its attachments to:

a. The Minister for Transport, advising of the weaknesses in the system in this instance, when the Department of Infrastructure and Transport refuses to be a party to Deeds which are providing State infrastructure;

b. The Minister for Planning and the Chair of the State Planning Commission, seeking legislative reform mandating State Agencies to be a party to infrastructure deeds that involve State infrastructure; and

c. The Chair of the Urban Development Institute of Australia (South Australia) (UDIA (SA)) encouraging the UDIA to establish intervention protocols when members are not acting in the public interest.

Reasons for the decision

To progress consideration of a New Component proposal under the Deed of Variation to Final Road Infrastructure Deed – Roseworthy Township Expansion.

Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/5

Detailed Report

Purpose

Background

In support of the rezoning of land to the south of Roseworthy, Council executed certain Deeds with each respective Landowners. The:

• Final Road Infrastructure Deed – Roseworthy Township Expansion (Road Deed); and

• Deed of Variation to Final Road Infrastructure Deed – Roseworthy Township Expansion (hereafter the ‘DOV’) reflect the requirements of the Concept Plan Map Lig/13 – Roseworthy Township Expansion (‘Concept Plan’ - refer to Appendix 5.B) contained in the Development Plan for Light Regional Council and outline the arrangements for the delivery of the required ‘Road Infrastructure Components’.

The Road Deed and related Deed of Variation (DOV) include a process for a request made by a Landowner to replace a Road Infrastructure Component to be determined by Council. This process is outlined in the DOV at clause 18.17 (refer to Appendix 5.C).

Zarmen/ Hickinbotham Proposal

Zarmen/ Hickinbotham owns Lot 4 in DP 45110, which is sometimes described as the ‘Marker’ land, but hereafter is referred to as the ‘Zarmen/ Hickinbotham land’.

The Zarmen/ Hickinbotham land is an allotment of 40.78Ha located directly south of the existing Roseworthy Township. There is a potential, albeit narrow (7.2 metre seal width), street connection to the existing Roseworthy Township provided from this land via Shamrock Way. Otherwise road/ vehicle access to this land is via Horrocks Highway to the east and intended via the ‘St Yves’ development by Land Vision Group/ Platinum Property Retirement Pty. Ltd. (hereafter LVG/ PPR) to the south.

For the Horrocks Highway intersection, the Concept Plan (Appendix 5.B) indicates the following treatment affecting the Zarmen/ HIckinbotham land:

Channelised junction – Seagull (100 km/hr) to Employment plus left turn into Residential

The ‘left turn into Residential’ refers to the Zarmen/ Hickinbotham land.

Egress from the Zarmen/ Hickinbotham land is to be provided via an internal ‘Collector Road’ (at #19).

Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/6

The Road Deed divides this into Road Infrastructure Components:

• 7A = Horrocks Highway: Channelised Intersection - 'Seagull' (100km/h) to Urban Employment Zone

• 7B = Horrocks Highway: Channelised Intersection - Left-Turn into Suburban Neighbourhood Zone (100km/h)

On 21 December 2018, Zarmen lodged Development Application (DA) 313/D026/2018 via surveyors ‘Fyfe Pty Ltd’, proposing 48 new allotments and a new connection to Horrocks Highway.

This application shows a roundabout as access from Horrocks Highway, instead of Road Infrastructure Component ‘7B’ as is assigned to this Site in the Road Deed.

Zarmen/ Hickinbotham notes that neither the internal collector road, nor the alternative access points to Horrocks Highway, are available to provide egress from its land.

Accordingly, Zarmen/ Hickinbotham proposes to replace both Road Infrastructure Components ‘7A’ and ‘7B’ with a new roundabout, in replacement of these agreed components. Component ‘7A’ is assigned to ‘Other Landowners’ but triggered when those Sites are developed.

Common law principles ensuring availability of both access and egress from a public road are cited by Zarmen/ Hickinbotham in support of its proposal. Other reasons and potential benefits of its proposal are outlined in the Zarmen/ Hickinbotham documents within Appendix 5.E.

On 21 June 2019, Zarmen/Hickinbotham made a corresponding request to the Independent Case Manager and Council for a ‘New Component’ to the under the terms of the DOV. The request and its supporting information are attached as Appendix 5.A.

The proposed roundabout would be accommodated on existing road reserve and Zarmen/ HIckinbotham land, so as not to affect Other Landowners. Zarmen/ HIckinbotham has committed to covering the cost difference between Road Infrastructure Components ‘7A’ and ‘7B’ and the new roundabout, which it estimates amounts to approximately $166,000.

The assessment of DA 313/D026/2018 has awaited the consideration of the ‘New Component’ request. At the appropriate time, this application will be considered by the Council Assessment Panel (CAP). In this, the consideration of planning matters is delegated to the CAP.

History

8 December 2015 Item 12.4.2 – Report for Decision – Roseworthy Township Expansion DPA – Infrastructure Funding Paper

23 February 2016 STR7.1/2016 – Roseworthy Township Expansion Development Plan Amendment – Infrastructure Negotiations Preparations

26 July 2016 STR9.4.1/2016 – Roseworthy Township Expansion DPA – Public Exhibition Outcomes and Next Steps

26 July 2016 Item 13.3.2 – Roseworthy Township Expansion DPA – Additional DPTI Comments

16 August 2016 Item 7.1 (Confidential) – Roseworthy Township Expansion – Project Briefing

23 August 2016 Item 13.3.4 – Roseworthy Township Expansion – DPA

Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/7

29 August 2016 Item 5.3.1 – Roseworthy Township Expansion Development Plan Amendment – Summary of Consultation and Proposed Amendments

29 August 2016 Item 5.3.2 – Roseworthy Township Expansion Development Plan Amendment – Infrastructure Deed Package

27 September 2016 Item 13.3.2 – Roseworthy Township Expansion Development Plan Amendment – Ministerial Amendments

27 September 2016 Item 13.3.3 – Roseworthy Township Expansion Development Plan Amendment – Infrastructure Deeds and Land Management Agreements for Execution

28 March 2017 Item 13.3.1 - Roseworthy Township Expansion - Infrastructure Deeds

26 April 2017 Item 11.2 - Roseworthy Township Expansion – Progression of Final Deeds

26 April 2017 Item 13.3.1 - Roseworthy Township Expansion - Infrastructure Deeds

26 September 2017 Item STR9.3.3/2017 Roseworthy Township Expansion – Updates

24 October 2017 Item 12.3.2 - Roseworthy Township Expansion – Roads Deed - Third Party Management Authority and Funding Mechanism

12 December 2017 Item 13.3.4 Roseworthy Township Expansion – Roads Deed - Third Party Management Authority and Funding Mechanism – Update and Further Considerations

26 June 2018 Item 13.3.4 Roseworthy Township Expansion – Roads Deed – Deed of Variation – Independent Case Manager and Funding Mechanism

28 August 2018 13.3.8 Roseworthy Township Expansion – Roads Deed – Deed of Variation – Independent Case Manager and Funding Mechanism

Discussion/Analysis

Clause 18.17 of the DOV outlines an agreed process with respect to a proposed ‘New Component’.

In summary, this requires the receipt by both the Independent Case Manager (ICM – Rod Hook and Associates) and the Council, of (refer to Appendix 5.C):

• a request from a ‘Proposing Landowner’ to deliver or procure a New Component (received);

• an explanation as to why the New Component is required or desirable in the context of applicable law, prevailing standards, and safety considerations;

• an explanation as to how the New Component will achieve or exceed the traffic movement outcomes that would have been achieved by the Road Infrastructure Component it is proposed to replace;

• an explanation as to how the New Component might affect the Landowner and any Other Landowner;

• detailed plans and cost-estimates for both the Road Infrastructure Component and New Component to the extent required for independent cost comparison; and

Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/8

• a commitment from the Proposing Landowner to cover any increased cost between the Road Infrastructure Component and the New Component.

On receipt of this information, the ICM provides copies to the Other Landowners and 10 business days to make a submission to the ICM for consideration. In respect of this matter:

• Initial consultation on the proposed roundabout occurred with Other Landowners between 3 March 2020 and 27 March 2020 (extended for Piper Alderman to 30 March 2020), and

• Additional consultation on the proposed roundabout occurred with Other Landowners between 15 June 2020 and 30 June 2020.

The ICM then makes an assessment and recommendation, which has been received by Council (refer to Appendix 5.F).

As was reported to Council in July 2020, on 28 April 2020 Council received a formal written complaint under the relevant clause of the DOV with respect to the Independent Case Manager (ICM) and the request by Zarmen/ Hickinbotham. In August 2020 Council resolved to have the draft recommendation of the ICM peer reviewed. This review, by Emeritus Professor Michael Taylor, is attached as Appendix 5.G.

Considerations

Current Land Division Plans

Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/9

The land division applications involved are shown on the excerpt from the South Australian Property and Planning Atlas (SAPPA) below:

The Zarmen/ Hickinbotham land is identified on the preceding plan as ‘D45110 A4’, shown just south of Roseworthy (blue allotments). The land being developed by the Land Vision Group/ Platinum Property Retirement Pty. Ltd. (hereafter ‘LVG/PPR’) are allotments 61 and 62 in D114625, shown to the south of the Zarmen/ HIckinbotham land.

An initial observation is that neither of the developments on these parcels are connected. However, the LVG/PPR applications, which have been approved separately, indicate the future connection points.

Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/10

Objections

Other Landowners have indicated that they are opposed to the proposed roundabout (refer to Appendix 5.D), including:

• Mrs. Kerry Halliday on behalf of Employment Land Landowners;

• Mr. Michael Virgara on behalf of the Virgara Family; and

• Platinum Property Retirement Pty. Ltd. (c/ Piper Alderman Lawyers).

The ICM Report outlines the concerns that have been expressed.

It is noted that these concerns relate to:

• Why the proposed change was not raised during the DOV negotiations;

• Financial impacts;

• Council’s awareness of the roundabout during DOV negotiations; and

• Concern that there were discussions between Council and the DIT prior to Other Affected Landowners being consulted.

LVG/ PPR has objected to the proposed roundabout, citing:

• improper process under the Road Deed and DOV;

• no need for the proposed roundabout (noting that egress could be provided either by a temporary egress to Horrocks Highway or otherwise via Shamrock Way until the internal collector road is available);

• The effect of the proposal to have a negative impact on the performance and delivery of the Activity Centre on LVG/ PPR land; and

• Actual or perceived bias by Council, based upon Council originally supporting the Activity Centre on the ‘Quindoo’ land (south of the LVG/PPR land as a part of the Development Plan Amendment (DPA) in 2016. Also mentioned is an understanding that Council has already indicated its support for the New Component relating to the Hickinbotham DA 313/D026/2018. Based on this, LVG/PPR indicate that the State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP) should become the entity responsible for assessment of a New Component application.

Response to Objections

In response to this, the following is noted:

• The documents received with respect to the proposed roundabout show that the DPTI/ DIT held discussions with Zarmen/ Hickinbotham in late 2017, however Council was not involved. First advice to the Council came in the lodgement of Development Application (DA) 313/D026/2018.

• Matters concerning the DPA are on the public record and can be reviewed in various Council agenda items and minutes in August and September 2016.

• The Council has not previously indicated any position with respect to the New Component. This meeting now provides the first opportunity for such a position to be determined.

• As a party to all Road Deeds with all Landowners, it is not recommended that the Council seeks to amend the Deeds to make the SCAP the entity responsible for assessment of a New

Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/11

Component application, mainly as it is not likely that the SCAP would or could play such a role in the Road Deed and DOV.

Submissions in support

The ICM received submissions in support of the roundabout from:

• Mr. Trevor and Mrs. Wendy Wilson

• Mr. Michael Hickinbotham

And these are included as Appendix 5.E.

Verbal submissions

Landowners have been invited to make verbal submission to the Council with respect to the roundabout proposal if they would like to do so. At the time of writing:

• Kerry and David Halliday

• Toby Ryan; and

• Michael Hickinbotham have indicated that they would like to address Council with respect to this matter.

ICM Assessment

The ICM’s report (refer to Appendix 5.F) provides:

• Background relevant to the ICM’s consideration of this matter; and

• Observations with respect to ‘Transport’:

o The DIT has confirmed its endorsement of a roundabout on Horrocks Highway to provide access to and from the Zarmen/ Hickinbotham land;

o ‘Left-in’ access (only) does appear to be an inadequate transport solution for this component of the RTE development, noting that the major movement of people out of the development area will be towards the south;

o That if the DIT considers the roundabout proposal is suitable, the ICM would have no basis other than to support the proposal from a transport perspective;

o That the roundabout offers a future, cost-effective access for the Urban Employment Zone properties, however the affected landowners have been strongly opposed to the proposed roundabout during consultation.

• Observations with respect to ‘Planning’:

o While noting that he does not anticipate advising Council on planning matters, the ICM advised that it is relevant for Council to note that the Town Centre is located on a different allotment (62 in DP 114625), which is owned by PPR and being developed by LVG.

o The access to the Town Centre should be constructed as the principal gateway to the development from Horrocks Highway;

Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/12

o The DIT has indicated that it is supportive of reducing speeds on the Horrocks Highway south of Roseworthy to 80 km/h and is prepared to consider a two-roundabout solution on Horrocks Highway for access to the RTE land; and

o It is imperative that the Council and the developers ensure early attention is given to the construction of the internal roads linking the Zarmen/ Hickinbotham land and the LVG/PPR land so that future residents do not have to enter and leave Horrocks Highway to access the Town Centre.

• With these observations, the ICM recommends that:

1. That Council note my advice and the advice of DPTI that a roundabout on Horrocks Highway to provide access into the Zarmen/Hickinbotham land is considered an acceptable transport solution.

2. That Council support DPTI’s position for future planning to be based around a future 80kph speed limit on Horrocks Highway south of the existing Roseworthy township.

3. That Council note the need to address the planning implications associated with the various proposed intersections of the RTE development and Horrocks Highway.

Independent Peer Review

Professor Taylor has reviewed this matter and the ICM report and offered the following observations (refer to Appendix 5.G).

Professor Taylor notes:

• The reduction in speed limit from 100km/h to 80km/h south of Roseworthy is essential due to the planned changes in the land use environment;

• Provision of a roundabout instead of Road Infrastructure Components 7A and 7B would offer safer and more convenient access;

• Under the Road Deed, egress from the Zarmen/Hickinbotham land is only possible, for any direction of travel, at intersection #5. The internal north-south collector road and its east-west links do not yet exist.

• A left turn-in access only for Zarmen/Hickinbotham is an inadequate transport solution for this component unless the internal collector road were to be in place.

• Provision of the roundabout solution at #7 reduces the immediacy requirement for the construction of the north-south connector but does not obviate it. Professor Taylor agrees with the ICM in that future residents within the Zarmen/Hickinbotham development should have full access the town centre without having to leave the development via the highway.

• A full traffic impact analysis of the RTE is warranted, to ensure that predicted traffic volumes on the internal network do not exceed the accepted thresholds for different road classes and that the network can satisfactorily serve all the needs of all residents of the development and not

Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/13

lead to future environmental problems. Provision of a second full access point from Horrocks Highway, such as intersection #7, would serve to alleviate any potential problems in this regard.

• Observations with respect to ‘planning’

o The intersection configuration and design for the LVG/ PPR land (Road Infrastructure Component #5) needs to reflect its prime status, with the Town Centre close to that intersection. Professor Taylor adds that design measures to ensure the primacy of this intersection are imperative and that an intersection treatment of at least equivalent to that of other RTE intersections along Horrocks Highway is required.

o Professor Taylor agrees with the ICM that, should a roundabout be installed at #7, one should also be considered at #5, noting the DIT has indicated its preparedness to consider a two-roundabout solution for Horrocks Highway and access to the RTE.

o Notes that for proper integration of the whole residential development and the necessary connectivity within the RTE, early construction of the internal collector road sub-network is essential, citing the risks of the RTE developing in a fragmented form rather than as an integrated whole otherwise.

Professor Taylor recommends:

1. That Council supports DIT’s position for future planning for the RTE to be based around a future 80 km/h speed limit on Horrocks Highway south of the existing Roseworthy township

5. That Council collate (from all existing sources) or commission, as necessary, an integrated traffic impact analysis considering the whole RTE development in its final, completed form.

Department for Infrastructure and Transport

The Department of Infrastructure and Transport (‘DIT’ - formerly the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure) has provided a Schedule 8 Referral response with respect to DA 313/D026/2018.

In correspondence dated 29 May 2020 (within Appendix 5.A), the DIT advised MFY on behalf of Zarmen/ HIckinbotham:

Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/14

The Department of Planning, Transport and lnfrastructure (DPTI) endorses the roundabout proposal as described within the Development Application and referral response.

The DIT will ultimately receive the infrastructure that is constructed as an asset; however, it is not a party to the RTE Deeds.

General Observations

LVG/ PPR has advanced its construction of its ‘seagull’ (Road Infrastructure Component #5) as the access to its land to the south of the Zarmen/ Hickinbotham land.

There is presently no intention (or pathway) to replace the LVG/PPR ‘seagull’ with a roundabout, and Council is not responsible for such an upgrade.

Zarmen/ Hickinbotham does not describe any discussions having been conducted between the respective Landowners (in this case LVG/ PPR and itself) about egress being provided to the Zarmen/ Hickinbotham land through the coordinated delivery of the internal collector road, as envisaged in the Concept Plan and Road Deed.

Equally, the LVG/ PPR submission mentions alternative solutions such as Shamrock Way and a ‘temporary egress’ to Horrocks Highway, but the option to discuss the coordinated delivery of the internal collector road is not mentioned. This appears to be a lost opportunity, as such an approach would presumably provide egress for the Zarmen/ Hickinbotham development and access from that land to the Activity Centre being developed by the LVG.

The provision of the internal collector road is not a part of the Road Deed or DOV.

In related matters, at clause 18.6.2, the DOV provides that a Landowner, in this case Zarmen/ Hickinbotham, may elect to deliver a Road Infrastructure Component voluntarily (through ‘Independent Delivery’ – in this case ‘7A’), but this is subject to the agreement of the Other Affected Landowner(s) for that Road Infrastructure Component, which in this case are Mr. and Mrs. Halliday and Mr. and Mrs. Ryan. Both property owners are understood to be opposed to the roundabout.

Zarmen/ Hickinbotham has provided a legal view that it avoids the need to secure the agreement from Mr. and Mrs. Halliday and Mr. and Mrs. Ryan because, if its roundabout proposal is supported by Council, it will have taken on the responsibility to deliver a ‘new’ Road Infrastructure Component ‘7’ by and of itself.

Future Legal Challenge

The history of this matter has seen:

• A formal legal complaint against the ICM;

• The potential for a future legal complaint if Council supports the New Component;

• The potential for a future legal complaint if Council does not support the New Component;

• The potential for a future legal complaint regarding whether the agreement of the Other Affected Landowners is required if the New Component is permitted.

Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/15

It is considered appropriate to advise the State Government and industry bodies about the difficulties that have been experienced in this matter. Conclusion

With respect to the Zarmen/ Hickinbotham roundabout proposal, the process outlined in the DOV has been followed. The threshold requirements, namely:

▪ Provision of a request;

▪ Endorsement of the Receiving Authority (DIT);

▪ Provision of required information;

▪ Commitment to cover any cost difference;

▪ Consultation with Other Landowners; and

▪ Assessment by the ICM

▪ Provision of the ICM recommendation to the Landowners (on 2 November 2020) have been satisfied as required by the Road Deed.

Additionally, Council sought an independent Peer Review, by Professor Michael Taylor.

It seems however that the roundabout has been proposed without the potential provision of the internal connector road having first been explored, and any reasons being provided as to why this is not achievable. Both the ICM and Professor Taylor have separately reflected on the importance of this to avoid fragmentation becoming established in the earliest phases of the Roseworthy Township Expansion and avoid the need for future residents to have to enter and leave Horrocks Highway to access the Town Centre.

Legislation

Development Act, 1993

Council Policies

Nil.

Strategic Plan

Nil.

Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/16

6. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 6.1 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Rules per Regulations - • Questions and replies are not entered in the minute book unless expressly required by resolution. • No debate shall be allowed on any question or the reply to any question. • If required by the Mayor, such questions shall be put in writing. • The Mayor may direct that a reply be given at the next meeting.

6.2 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Rules per Regulations – • These questions must be in writing and given to the Chief Executive Officer five (5) clear days prior to the meeting. • Chief Executive Officer shall place these items in the agenda. • They shall be answered by the Mayor at the meeting. • Questions and replies shall be entered into the minute book.

6.3 NOTICE OF MOTION 6.4 MOTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Rules per Regulations • A member may bring forward a motion without notice and if required by the Mayor, put it in writing. • Before addressing the meeting, the member shall state the purpose of the motion. • A member cannot move more than one motion without notice on the same subject at any meeting.

Council Agenda Special Meeting of Council – Tuesday, 17 November 2020 2020/17

7. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

7.1 RTE-KRIE Water Scheme

Folder ID: 55250

Author and Simon Sherriff, Chair RTE Infrastructure Taskforce & Manager Report Presenter Strategic Projects

Recommendation

1. That under the provisions of Section 90(2) and (3)(d) of the Local Government Act 1999, an order be made that with the exception of those persons listed all other persons present and the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in order to consider in confidence a report Item 7.1 - RTE-KRIE Water Scheme relative to the provision of :

(d) commercial information of a confidential nature (not being a trade secret) the disclosure of which— (i) could reasonably be expected to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the information, or to confer a commercial advantage on a third party; and (ii) would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest; 2 That accordingly, on this basis, the principle that meetings of Light Regional Council should be conducted in a place open to the public has been outweighed by the need to keep the discussion confidential.

Recommendation

Pursuant to Section 91(7) of the Local Government Act 1999, the Council orders that the report, minute and associated documents pertaining to Item 7.1 - RTE-KRIE Water Scheme of the meeting held on 17 November 2020, relating to a matter that was considered in confidence pursuant to Section 90(2) and (3)(d) be kept confidential until the matter is finalised.

8. NEXT MEETING

9. CLOSURE

I T ickinbotham

25 NorthTenre. Hrckrcy SorthArdrata 5069

PO Box 63, Slep0ey HICK20l9-0024.docx SorlhAudrala 5069 Tdehone ({P} $66 m0 f rCmile {$l 8062 7812 2l June2019 rrtf,wlickhbdhamcomau hf@hi*hbolhamcoma,

Mr Brian Carr Chief Executive Officer Light Regional Council PO Box 72 KAPUNDA SA 5373

And by Email: [email protected]

Mr Rod Hook Rod Hook & Associates Level 1, Studio 105 Adelaide Arcade ADELAIDE SA 5OOO

And by Email: [email protected]

Dear Brian and Rod

Roseworthy Township Expansion - Request for Replacement of Road Infrastructure Component

Introduction and request (FRI Deed schedule 2 clause 18.17.1.1(a))

1 We refer to the final road infrastructure deed between Zarmen Pty Ltd (Hickinbotham) and Light Regional Council (Council) dated 22 May 2017 in relation to the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title 53461755 (Hickinbotham Land). We note that deed was varied by a deed of variation to final road infrastructure deed dated 18 December 2018. The final road infrastructure deed, as varied, is referred to in this letter as the FRI Deed.

2. The purpose of this letter is to request delivery of a "New Component" in accordance with clause 18.17.1 of Schedule 2tothe FRI Deed.

3 Hickinbotham requests Council permit Hickinbotham to deliver the roundabout depicted in Schedule I to this letter (New Component) and described in the letter from MFY Pty Ltd appearing in Schedule 2 to this letter (MFY Report), in place of:

3.1 the Road Infrastructure Component referred to in the FRI Deed as 7B (which consists of a channelised intersection with left-in ingress from Horrocks Highway onto the Hickinbotham Land for northbound traffrc only) (Component 7B); and

3.2 the Road Infrastructure Component referred to in the FRI Deed as 7A (which consists of a channelised seagull intersection into the urban employment zone land) (ComponentTA),

(together, the Existing Components). APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 1

Hickinbotham croup Hickinbotham Holdings Pty Ltd (ABN 88007 717 446), Alan Hickinbotham Pty Ltd (ABN 13O07 567 222), Hickinbotham Homes Pty Ltd (ABN 24 007 618 797), Statesman Homes Australia, Construction Services Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 99 007 641 787),land Australia Estates, Concrete Systems Pty Ltd (ABN 16 007 663 247) 2

4 We wish to deliver the New Component within the area of land comprising a portion of the existing road reserve and a portion of the Hickinbotham Land.

5 The New Component will be designed and constructed to cater for PBS Level 3,{ vehicles along the Horrocks Highway.

6 The speed limit along the Horrocks Highway between the New Component (roundabout) and the existing Roseworthy township will also be reduced to 80 kilometres per hour in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI).

7 For clarity, Hickinbotham's proposal is to deliver the New Component in place of both Component 78 and Component 7A. We will deliver the New Component in its entirety, with works commencing immediately following approval. On that basis, Hickinbotham elects, for the purposes of clause 18.16.2 of schedule 2 to the FRI Deed, to voluntarily deliver the New Component in place of ComponentTA. This election is subject to the agreement of the Other Affected Landowners as required by that clause, which we will obtain as soon as practicable.

8 Our request is made on the basis described below and in the MFY Report. We address each of the requirements of clause 18.17.1 of Schedule 2 to the FRI Deed under separate headings below.

DPTI position (FRI Deed schedule 2 clause 18.17.1 preamble)

9 DPTI has endorsed delivery of the New Component instead of the Existing Components. Evidence of DPTI's endorsement appears in Schedule 3. The circumstances of DPTI's endorsement are described the MFY Report.

Why the New Component is required and desirable (FRI Deed schedule 2 clause 18.17.1.1(b))

10. We have lodged an application for development approval in respect of stage 1 of our proposed development of the Hickinbotham Land. The only existing road frontage for that proposed development is Horrocks Highway. The development will require points of ingress and egress from and to (respectively) Horrocks Highway.

11. The Component 78 design provides for ingress to the Hickinbotham Land via a left-in from Horrocks Highway and, ultimately, envisages an internal connection through adjacent land towards the south, which would ultimately connect to an alternative access tolfrom the Horrocks Highway.

t2 However, neither the internal road connection to the south nor the alternative connections to Horrocks Highway are currently in place, and an access solution which facilitates entry and exit movements to and from the Hickinbotham Land is required.

13 The New Component will facilitate safe access to and from both the Hickinbotham Land and the urban employment land opposite.

14. Additionally, the New Component will assist in improving safety on the Horrocks Highway

15. The New Component will also remove the potential conflict point within the existing Roseworthy township, which would have been created by the acceleration lane merge proposed as part of ComponentTA.

I6 The New Component will result in the following improved road safety and traffic outcomes for the relevant development sites, the existing Roseworthy township and Horrocks Highway:

16.1 reduced traffic speeds on Horrocks Highway. This will be consistent with the requirements of the Austroads Road Safety and Design Guidelines which prescribe APPENDIX 5.A desirable traffic speed zones adjacent developed areas;SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 2

Hicklnbotham croup Hickinbotham Holdings Pty Ltd (ABN 88 OO7 71 7 446), Alan Hickinbotham Pty Ltd (ABN 13 OO7 567 222), Hickinbotham Homes Pty Ltd (ABt{ 24 007 61 8 797), Statesman Homes Australia, Construction Services Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 99 007 M1 787), Land Australia Estates, Concrete Systems Pty Ltd (ABN 16 OO7 663 247) 3

16.2 provision of a slower speed environment and the potential for traffic control devices to facilitate crossing movements for pedestrians and cyclists between the urban employment zone and the residential land. This will improve safety for high risk road users;

16.3 provision of traffic control at the access which will comply with best practice road safety and satisfy the requirements of the Road Trffic Act as prescribed in the Minister's Notice and the Code of Technical Requirements;

16.4 provision of a right of access to and from the Hickinbotham Land, which is required by law;

16.5 a controlled intersection, which will reduce the potential for a right angle crash (which is a high-risk crash incident), and which is a much safer solution for local road users;

16.6 increased distribution opporlunities for drivers (and hence a reduction in the number of uncontrolled right turn movements). This is consistent with safe engineering road design as detailed in Austroads design guidelines; and

16.7 reduced need for through movements within the Hickinbotham Land, a residential area, which will improve safety and amenity internal to the development.

Traffic movement outcomes (FRI Deed schedule 2 clause 18.17.1.1(c))

17. The New Component will achieve or exceed the traffic movement outcomes that would have been achieved by the Existing Components, in that it will:

l7.I provide ingress movements to the suburban neighbourhood zone and ingress movements to the urban employmentzone opposite;

17 .2 provide egress movements from the suburban neighbourhood zone land (Hickinbotham Land) and egress movements from the urban employment zone opposite; and

17.3 maintain appropriate separation to other (future) access points on Horrocks Highway.

18. The New Component will also result in the improved road safety and traffic outcomes described in paragraph 16, above).

Effect on the Landowner and any Other Landowner @RI Deed schedule 2 clause 18.17.1.1(d))

19. Because the New Component will be delivered within the area of the existing road reserve and the Hickinbotham Land, the New Component:

I9.l will reduce the area of the Hickinbotham Land available for development; but

19.2 will not affect land owned by any Other Landowner.

20. The New Component will facilitate a safer and more convenient access to the urban employment zone land owned by Other Landowners on the basis that a roundabout will provide superior traffic movement outcomes to the seagull intersection proposed as ComponentT A.

2I. Our commitment (below) to cover any excess cost means the New Component will increase our cost to develop the Hickinbotham Land but will have no adverse cost impact on any Other Landowner. The Other Landowners will benefit from an improved item of road infrastructure being provided at no additional cost to the Other Landowners.

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 3

Hickinbotham Group Hickinbotham Holdings Pty Ltd (ABN 88 007 71 7 446), Alan Hickinbotham Pty Ltd (ABN 13 007 567 222), Hickinbotham Homes Pty Ltd (ABN 24 OO7 618797), Statesman Homes Australia, Construction Services Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 99 007 641 787), Land Australia Estates, Concrete Systems Ply Ltd (ABN 16 007 663247) 4

Plans and cost estimates @RI Deed schedule 2 clause 18.17.1.2)

22. Plans and cost estimates for each of the Existing Components (for cost comparison purposes) and the New Component are currently being prepared and we will provide them to Council and the Independent Case Manager as soon as they are available.

Commitment to cover any increased costs (FRI Deed schedule 2 clause 18.17.1.3)

23. ZarmenPty Ltd agrees to cover any increased cost to deliver the New Component in accordance with our proposal set out in this letter, beyond what it would have cost to deliver the Existing Components.

Contact

24. Please contact Julie Dixon if you have any questions or need any further information in relation to this request.

25. Thank you for considering our request in accordance with clause 18.17.1 of Schedule 2 to the FRI Deed. We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely Zrrmen Pty Ltd

Michael Hickinbotham Managing Director

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 4

Hickinbotham croup Hickinbotham Holdings Pty Ltd (ABN 88 007 717 446), Alan Hickinbotham Pry Ltd (ABN 13 OO7 567 222), Hickinbotham Homes Pty Ltd (ABN 24 OO7 618797), Statesman Homes Australia, Constrirction Services Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 99 0OZ &11 787), Land Australia Estates, Concrete Systems Pty Ltd (ABN 16 007 663 247) 5

Schedule 1 - Goncept Plan for New Gomponent

21 I :{ } I I t , I 22 :t ;l I I

,F 23 3 I I I g I r e {

t r I 1 i

lI IT I l#I 1 rn ##8FI* I f,r 5$5J#.f v i

! !

1 t i I \ I t 1 l {

tl_ I 1.1' I l{ l L{- APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 5

Hickinbotham croup Hickinbotham Holdings Pty Ltd (ABN 88 OO7 717 446), Alan Hickinbotham Pty Ltd (ABN 13 0O7 567 222), Hickinbotham Homes Pty Ltd (ABN 24 007 618 797), Statesman Homes Australia, Constructioi Services Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 99 007 641 787), Land Australia Estates, Concrete Systems Pty Ltd (ABN 16 007 663 247) 6

Schedule 2 -MFY Report

nrfg MLM/16-004s

Traflic ' Parking ' Traniport

13 December 2018 Unit 6, 224 Glen Oslnond Road FULIAR]ON SA 5063

T: ,6] 8 B3lB 8BB8 Mr Michael Osborn F: +61 8 8338 8880 E: ntya(ddr{y..oil au Fyfe Pty Ltd W: mfy.corn.ar Level 1, 124 South Terrace ADELAIDE SA 5OOO MrY Piy Ltd A8N 79 102 630 759

Dear Michael,

ROSEWORTHY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MARKER STAGE 1

I refer to the proposed residential development at Roseworthy which is on land that was recently rezoned as part of a Council Development Plan Amendment (DPA).

The DPA assessment included development of, amongst other agreements, an lnfrastructure Deed. This Deed, which has recently been finalised between Council and relevant parties, identifies works required to facilitate access to the land at a number of locations and additional upgrade requirements to ensure the traffic growth associated with the development area can be accommodated on the existing road network.

The attached spread sheet was prepared during the development of the lnfrastructure Agreement and summarises the proposed treatments and the timing of their delivery. Subject to the provision of these works during the identified stages of the residential development, the traffic requirements for development of the land will be satisfied.

A number of the infrastructure requirements will be on roads under the care and control of the Department of Planning, Transport and lnfrastructure (DPTI). Accordingly, the extent and timing of treatments was negotiated with DPTI, The identification of infrastructure requirements, particularly in relation to access for the site, however, considered a holistic approach for the access arrangements and relies on the construction of a road link which will connect separate development areas internal ly,

The dilemma with this type of transport planning approach is that it relies on delivery of infrastructure by other parties and selective staging of development areas. The Deed, therefore, also provides for the infrastructure components to be varied if required to satisfy lawful access requirements or meet relevant current day Standards should they have varied.

The subject DA is for Stage 1 of the residential land design within Allotment 4 in DA5110 at 33 Horrocks Highway, Roseworthy, as illustrated on Fyfe Drawing No. 18881P02R15. ln accordance with the lnfrastructure Agreement, this land would be accessed via a left-in ingress from the Horrocks Highway and, ultimately, via an internal connection through adjacent land towards the

F:\76-0045 Michael Osborn 73 Dec 78.docx

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 6

Hickinbotham Group Hickinbotham Holdings Pty Ltd (ABN 88 007 717 446),Alan Hickinbotham Pty Ltd (ABN 130O7 567 222\, Hickinbotham Homes Pty Ltd (ABN 24 007 618 797)' Statesman Homes Australia, Constrlctioi Services Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 99 007 641 787), Land Australia Estates, Concrete Systems Pty Ltd (ABN 16 007 663 247) 7

16-0045 73 December 2078 Page 2 of 3 nrftl

south (which would ultimately connect to an alternative access tolfrom the Horrocks Highway). However, neither the internal road connection to the south nor the alternative connections to Horrocks Highway are currently provided. Accordingly, as the road frontage option for the subject land division is Horrocks Highway, an access solution which facilitates entry and exit movements to/from the land is required.

ln order to resolve this access issue, discussions were undertaken with officers at DPTI to identify the preferred access solution for the subject land. ln doing this, consideration was given to short and long term solutions which did not adversely impact the proposed access arrangements for the employment lands opposite and that met appropriate Austroads design and safety standards.

Asa resultof these negotiations, DPTI identified thatthe preferred solution would beto provide a roundabout in lieu of the proposed deceleration/acceleration lane solution, given that it would facilitate safe access to and from both the subject site and the employment lands and would not require modifications in the longer term. Such a device would also assist in improving safety on the Horrocks Highway and would remove the potential conflict point within the Roseworthy Township which would have been created by the previously proposed acceleration lane merge. Figure 1 illustrates a concept plan of the DPTI agreed roundabout solution which will provide access to the subject site.

?3 gs -r a I

t 'a)t

x w

Figure 7: Concept plan for DPTI agreed roundobout

The roundabout will be provided within the existing road reserve and the subject land and will be designed and constructed to cater for PBS Level 3A vehicles. The speed limit between the roundabout and Roseworthy will be reduced to 80km/h, as directed by DPTI. Resolution of this alternative access arrangement with DPTI will facilitate access for the proposed land division. Further, it will provide for a safer and more convenient longer term access for the

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 7

Hickinbotham croup Hickinbotham Holdings Pty Ltd (ABN 88007 717 446), Alan Hickinbotham Pty Ltd (ABN 130O7 567 222), Hickinbotham Homes Pty Ltd (ABN 24 0O7 618797), Statesman Hbmes Australia, Constructioir Services Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 99 007 641 787), Land Australia Estates, Concrete Systems Pty Ltd (ABN 16 007 663247) 8

76-0045 f 13 December 2078 n1( U Page 3 of 3 J

broader Roseworthy development, including the employment lands and will facilitate movements in all directions. The proposed roundabout solution will be consistent with the lnfrastructure Agreement in that:

o it will provide ingress movements to both the residential and employment land;

a it will facilitate egress movements from the employment lands; and

o it will maintain appropriate separation to other (future) access points on Horrocks Highway

The roundabout solution will also result in the following improved road safety and traffic outcomes for both the development sites and Horrocks Highway;

a the treatment will result in result in reduced traffic speeds on Horrocks Highway;

a the proposal will provide for a controlled intersection which reduces both the potentialfor a right angle turn crash (which is a high risk crash incident) and will increase distribution opportunities for drivers (and hence reduce the number of uncontrolled right turn movements); and

a the treatment will reduce the need for through movements within the residential area which will improve safety and amenity internal to the development.

ln regards to the internal design of the land division, the proposed road reserve widths will facilitate delivery of carriageways and other infrastructure in accordance with Council's design requirements, including the provision of a potential collector road on the approach to the roundabout. Minimum sightlines will be able to be provided at all intersections.

While the current stage incorporates a series of dead-end roads, these will be extended when adjacent areas are developed and turning can be facilitated through the construction of temporary turning areas, if required.

Accordingly, the proposed development will provide for traffic infrastructure in accordance with the intent of the DPA, including an upgraded access arrangement which will provide for a safer and more convenient access solution which has been endorsed by DPTI. lt will also resolve the staging of access arrangements and delivery of connections which are scheduled in later development stages.

Yours sincerely, MFY PTY ITD a*A--

MELISSA METLEN Director BIJ: iN: !3 w0Me t{': AwAa}: Encl. lnfrastructureSummary 7ls 2010 NAt!0NAtwlNNfR 2OIO ICLSIRA SOUTH AUSTMIIAN NUSTNTSSWOMAN Or THr VtAi

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 8

Hickinbotham croup Hickinbotham Holdings Pty Ltd (ABN 88 007 7'l 7 446), Alan Hickinbotham Pty Ltd (ABN 1 3 007 567 222), Hickinbotham Homes Pty Ltd (ABN 24 O07 618 797), Statesman Homes Australia, Constructioir Services Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 99 007 U1787), Land Australia Estates, Concrele Systems Pty Ltd (ABN 16 007 663247\ o- 4 aor AoQ' nrfg 6: do REVIS€D INFRASTRUCruRE WORKS SUMMARY IC OE lnftrrtnxttrF $rg{tt f- l€tion Lctin Trtrrsffi Cqupt D?Tl.mom, Couidlffirc tH i: trtudv idcittft.d rffid >=' ilorGxs Heh{ay ExistinB interction 1 Upgrade ard stnJie Aeptd Aicepted lNorthern lnteehanre) oit P3 Fo. cbrity a conc€pt design c)I Road up8€de andsjden oo When Twlrtr i@d in acordancewiti should be provided, 2 Redbanks Road Road !pg6de and wids @nnection Leifected ' A.cept€d 4= appopriatedsiSn 1,700 allotmenb. 6a standards. =.7 (nl=< OF Ref: MM D-352 tuX.-5t(.00 13 Fd !o t; o aio-o It is noted th3l the prcpo*d O{ The roundabout mus! cater for T-i eMe in iie'AM', with this AAOT > vpd 9,740 on movemenls, For this slze vehhle, 'AM' Frak likelyto coincide ao Redbanks Road Up8r.de interection with Redbanks Road (N) or Upgrade and signdie it b likely th3t the sia ot the withthe $h@lpeak, >b lnterch3nEe Fundabout. >50ovph on Gmp from efr Hbhway. r@ndaboutwill be in the order of Council are sutportve ol the @+@- 4Om. This nayhave ;mplkations 40m 6 id€ntified by the ^o <3!<- for cos'tln8. OPTI a thiswill impro€ the lavel of *ry|c. 5=CDo N @J{= NT Etent ol workr illustsated oo MFY-16OOI5-12-SH0I D.don in tr.drh.e with Aoshatsand RS I€Fl ?A crit.ria. OL-- horp{ts HElNay Exist'ng intersection fo 4 Upgrade and dgndi* Ac@pEd o^ lkrth*n lhtefrh:neel Acepted 9zPE 4a Design of inteEectiqn must rct OO Channelised inte€ction- R€q0ired for e*to mO seagull to Residential. Channelised inteRction cidstial zone - Stage 1 t" prslud€ l€Jt turn inb tomerly 6\ Horrcck Hbhw.y - t6 residential. ofland Accepted Plus lefl tlm into reagull to oldwelopdent proposed Emdoymst Zohe at a ae employ@nt zone immediately adjaen| .N later iag€ xN dxo=' (t 6i=- 0d TI Reqlired for c$to D6ign of inter*ction must rct eidstid zone - Stage I Hor@ks Hfhway/ Cfiannelised inteediotu ChaMeliFd inteectbn- [email protected] turn into fomerlv _= 6 otdelopmentof land Acepbd Kag{@ Fht Road Fagull to Residential !eag!ll tq i6id$tial. o@ idmedistely adi.cent proposed Emdoymdt?one at 3 .T 6q aees- later stage jo Enent of works illosbated on MFY_160045_09_SHO1 XE?t ON ooos APPENDIX 5.A NO F:\Rqi*d lnlt*ttucture Wo*s Suffiory Ag !7_hev F Poge 1 ol 4 Jo5{ SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 @ ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 9 @{ Ya 6' 5 (nor D' g's do5r IE OE nrfg 3r 6P >=' Tdatrr H hDt a8 ffiElrld.ndfu dJ _o3 OI oo sb8ed {EquiEd tor D6bn nedr b Cham.lis€d lilediaF Chrnneli*d ifreedbn- 6= acesto adjacant *aull b EmpbFst qul b Empbfiefi ecofrmgdd€ Fnfudbn -@ 1 Ho@ls Highway residential and urben No .han8c - &aaptld 6a plus lett furn to piu3 left bm io emdoylm206s tnffi. 6brin& includirg :! n6idedhl RBd.dirl. t< and*henthryw*d). thhi (t- Ed :> ffiofstuillurffiedonMry 1ffi5 07 S1 @ziri tt, Do a: p@vided infomed commst on nio concept fid age b land Cou&ll aere commefl on r{liffint5. Thbcan be !+ Ens@ grffciant land Ensurc ertfdent bnd el Hor@l3 HiShway €bined forfuore cbicd to r tuBc grade seFcted interdFn!3, povided as Fr DPTI's ao Note thd it b 0Pn'3 wdiljon that tie hnd will be €ned 6 gfr ...... , F @r sF drc @nb DPTI. 6= G.4rudion of ;nt (iane ndinrluded in [email protected] P* {# 5=oo o {5 Aepkd - nota thnt a riltrt turn For codpletens, an @J !t Inddk inltrnel in tie ffrre (by othersr. The connedion be*€n the pL-_ thleb XlgtNry / Areent fd I Chamelised iileedon No upgEde r{u,.ed. pobdial to in*l thts riiit ftn q^ Road PE sh@ld be sh8n, ahhowh 6Z other work dory tlE Thi.lc not fundad 6r Frt of the Hthwry {* 1O}. o.edr. AO9a mq *s lffi G SO2 .N AN 5Y ll€ Etgd Fln! tor thli ghould BR As requhed tor at6 lnEecion be 67 The lerdon of lhis as poin! updrbd b .ead ".3 Lodion o, 10 fiod;fi.d b pDvblon .equircd for b6 Tllkl€ Hi8hwry !rb.n to enr!.e thil tlE of a 6@ when Ch.nnell*d T pmrlde ace$ of 10 @hnenclt orwhs riSht turn lana inb ABent Rord i3 thc 06an hdorent :om dranneli*d T-int#ion =o 50',of the to emplorent ene. r!*thrn not pelldad in the luarc (at redeElopmntcommdG E{ Sokry'br d.sie 9€d), or wh.n 8r# tfian 5096 of LO dewbFd. th tobl u*rn amplolnant da 2de hai ben devcloFd' -T z=eq tunt olwo*stlultded on MFY 16O45 06 SHOI o-Jg ts@{z F:\aaed hfuIturcWo*tsuffiw A9r17-n r r PW 2 oJ4 osON OO APPENDIX 5.A 5{NO SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 Jo o ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 10 I J@ 6' 4: utor ot gs do=- n'rfg otl-tr o=3T Z=3X ldon letion Trilt r Poim Cdapt DPll @6nerc co0ililffinena ac s5 -t _o3=o ooo- J- irEE The roundabout hu* cder{or f< t (t- neuhed wheo Tware Road is upgraded and moverents. Forthis size vehicle, Cro$*ction to aonform to Ed Twart.R@d / Redhanks 18 Roundabout - sin8le lane Roundabolt sin8le lane. conneted to Redbanks s_c Road it is likelythatthe size ofthe altached standadsfor Road (i.e. at ,,,700 86 f roundaboutwill be in the order of boulevard az Do allothsts). a2 4Om. This mav haw impli@tioni d6 tor cortim. o! T-i Ks ri Enent of wo.ks illusuaEd on MFY-1C1DO45-13-SH01$ Ao Desitn in accordaMe with Aurlroadg and PBS fevel 2A c.iteria. E; In conivnction rith Cro$sction toconfomto @- s!burban Final mss sedion will be slbjd to negotiation with Coun.jl during DAsbges and will @= 19 Collector r€d ediacentdevebpment Accepted attached Neirhbourh@d zone division d6ign- .ddr€sscivil engine€ring requiremenbend reet PBS Level 2Adesign cribria. sndardsior P* staSes, 1+ channelised T o)6 2A Thiele Iighway Eisting situation reuift d. {:rd- inteedion Acepted Aceted @JNT

DL-_ q^ tazPB SO4a mQ 5i6 .s3 AN 5- o=' o- (t 6i=* 9d !T LO .T z=6q ro x@I5 ON o5 @O APPENDIX 5.A NO F:\revi*d lnfr*treturc works Sumdry Apr 77-tuv F Page 4 or 4 J9E1 SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 @ ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 11 a J@ 12 Schedule 3 - DPTI Endorsement

6sYrmmrnt o{ lorrlft Aurlrdh L]epdrtmont o{ Planoing, #r 6umt* l01efi0!53, l5rllflm tO S6{Sll d5h*r* Trnnr,pur t nrnrl lnf t arl r ur I rxr fnq'rai*r ta l*rllltsir Smrll ffi fs&prr*rr {04} ?r00 7E?5 FolF[, friAll[Yll3 fffflss hxftt.grv,ru Filoilttu srutllpillll? ftrnrFcill*glrrl .til FclleTfrtom mlf, $F$ Pfi llilfl $iplfl ,rdrhln X illtu inH m ttil,5t

Tnr Fvr-rbfn thfibrlr Slfi Gsnrnfthn Arrrrrmnt Putl Gffi Ecr tBlS AnETATOE g[ Fg01

trir lt fogffiy"

&CHEPULE G " NEFGRRII NPTFOT{fi:

bnt*.afmxti Xo, i sitjFolHlE"tii fplf,crni tlil iiil nlist trun' Eror+ o trcrd$fr l.lomodu l'{[hw,ry, norr*ur$ry Lnnd Dirluur tl i@!f8j

| rr|rr h trr. thstil drvriopmrni rpfllslllon isrfrdld b thl Eommlnlsnrr CIl Hgfurrrp t$ollt ln ffifdtnru uti& 8icll6fi 5? ol Ftt nslrnpns* /rd t9*3, Thl proporrd Cfietormcr{ hdofvl* d*uhpnrrnl r{rai{{ r ril*t mrd * dxcrfrrd rbout, Thr hltr*rg rrrFonn h prorddrd ln rwrdru ffit 8.dton 37FXbl ol lht Sambpmnnl lld l$&?rrrd Scfirduh 0 of lhr Fawffimsfflfuidftx !008- IfrPFO:lAL

Tfrir rmfefun Fropgru* 40 nnr rurldiilif dhb-nir*r *d r brlrner rllstmrrd {opmprHng nrE- p.lflc! lr fu nmr&drr ol lhr *r$cu frnd Tll* *ar I |t/!ti6l b m lrlt$buctur* Diul rih l-i$* Hrnhnrl trounqll, O0lltaDCBlTlOtl

?hr |rhgl rill rhillr Hsrrockr Hlgtm-ry, rn rrfrd rcrd undtr il'!t c|rf, sf,nFpl rnd rfitCIfitdrf,rlt d lh €eH rnd Slrrmrsch lUry. r lscrl rcd ur6tr llil offG, oonlrol rnd nnd.gr*nrnt dl Lrgfrl Rrglonrl fisuncll, T!r. rqFrnl rrdhn sl l'lormckr Hfthtr*ry ir A*$diC.r* r HSor Trrlf*c Roulr, Prtury Filaet* Rsur rnd Tsul*t Rs4J{r u*dx thr DrFrtlrlt *l Fhrurng. Tronrpsrt *M lnfirflnr*rt {OFn"}'A Ffir*tfurml tlfurrnrafty ttr Sor#l Audla$.l Land lrrnqpod I'ta{n#*l ft F$ lo{{lsn, }hrrschr i,{Ohrny srrht rgprudflSly [,100 rrhlchr prr dry {71$ mnunrcfl rrf*dr} rrd hrr r p6ill6d rprtd lknl d tm hrnlh, I'ls$qckr Highmry h gruthd fo* urr bf el$r* up b FBS Lsr.ia tA {l,t uillrtF up lo t[,fi m{llrr ln hogthl, lhl ififi Sqs ol lhr o*rm[ dcvtiopmert hn rtl n5. brd lhr ranrtruc{lon ol r nr* rqrd*or* ils trfsi lh*l dl*, lnhrnql slonscilonr to ltrt tlrmf 'trrbql rord nrlwnrk wfll fulhff fui r$t|qttr{ |rryr. Ulttli! ihl prupslrd rs.sd$c.l* nni fofirtrllnt uffi mr Rfriffilttxy Towr €qprmisn Cancrpt Flrn blrp Llgfl3. EPTI hn rg'uidU iir fi.tdlrtisl h-plnclp*

tl tfit{r !0

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 12

Hickinbotham croup Hickinbotham Holdings Pty Ltd (ABN 88 007 717 446), Alan Hickinbotham Pty Ltd (ABN 13007 567 222J, Hickinbotham Homes Pty Ltd (ABN 24 007 618 797), Statesman Homes Australia, Constiuctioi Services Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 99 007 641 787), Land Australia Estates, Concrete Systems Pty Ltd (ABN 16 OO7 663 247) Hickinbotham

25 North Terrace. Hackney b C SouthAustraka5069 PO Box 63. Stepney HICK2019-0033.docx 1 2 SEP 70N Souin Austrata 5069

9 September 2019 Uuh and Councu usasswww hi ckin coo20 bot ham com au info@hickin botham co m au Mr Brian Carr Chief Executive Officer Light Regional Council PO Box 72 KAPUNDA SA 5373

And by Email: [email protected]

Mr Rod Hook Rod Hook & Associates Level 1, Studio 105 Adelaide Arcade ADELAIDE SA 5000

And by Email: [email protected]

Dear Brian and Rod

Roseworthy Township Expansion - Request for Replacement of Road Infrastructure Component - Further Information

1. We refer to our letter dated 21 June 2019 in relation to the delivery of a "New Component" in accordance with clause 18.17.1 of Schedule 2 to the FRI Deed, comprising a roundabout (New Component) to be delivered in place of:

1.1 the Road Infrastructure Component referred to in the FRI Deed as 7B (which consists of a channelised intersection with left-in ingress from Horrocks Highway onto the Hickinbotham (Zarmen) land for northbound traffic only) (Component 7B); and

1.2 the Road Infrastructure Component referred to in the FRI Deed as 7A (which consists of a channelised seagull intersection mto the urban employment zone land) (Component 7A),

(together, the Existing Components).

2. Our letter indicated plans and cost estimates for the Existing Components (for cost comparison purposes) and the New Component were being prepared would be provided as soon as they are available.

3. Please now find enclosed those plans and cost estimates, as follows:

3.1 plan for the Existing Components, which appears in Schedule 1 (ref MFY_160045_07_SH01); APPENDIX 5.A 3.2 cost opinion for the Existing Components, which appearsSPECIAL COUNCILin Schedule 17 NOVEMBER 2 (ref 17-1557); 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 13

Hickinbotham Group Hickinbotham Holdings Pty Ltd (ABN 88 007 717 446), Alan Hickinbotham Pty Ltd (ABN 13 007 567 222), Hickinbotham Homes Pty Ltd (ABN 24 007 618 797) Statesman Homes Australia, Construction Services Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 99 007 641 787), Land Australia Estates, Concrete Systems Pty Ltd (ABN 16 007 663 247) 2

3.3 plan for the New Component, which appears in Schedule 3 (ref 171785);

3.4 cost estimate for the New Component, which appears in Schedule 4 (ref 190652).

4. We confirm, as stated in our previous letter, that Zarmen Pty Ltd agrees to cover any increased cost to deliver the New Component in accordance with our proposal, beyond what it would have cost to deliver the Existing Components. Based on the enclosed cost estimates, we note that difference is currently estimated to be $165,801.

5. Please contact Julie Dixon if you have any questions or need any further information in relation to this request.

6. Thank you for considering our request in accordance with clause 18.17.1 of Schedule 2 to the FRI Deed. We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely Zarmen Pty Ltd

Michael Hickinbotham Managing Director

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 14

Schedule 1 - Plan for Existing Components

ommwecu.er

OcllOkm h Designt er.ti Speec Lal .xation M 7 ain knh Roa d Ac e s "*" '..J,."'

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 15

Hickinbotham Group Hickinbotham Holdings Pty Ltd (ABN 88 007 717 446), Alan Hickinbotham Pty Ltd (ABN 13 007 567 222), Hickinbotham Homes Pty Ltd (ABN 24 007 618 797), Statesman Homes Australia, Construction Services Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 99 007 641 787), Land Australia Estates, Concrete Systems Pty Ltd (ABN 16 007 663 247) Client: Hickinbotham Group Revision A Project:Project Roseworth Number: Township 17-1557 Expansion Date: Author:10/03/2017 KLM Reviewed: PT Cost Opinion Cost Opinion based on MFY Drawings MFY_160045_07_SH01 Revision A - Horrock Highway Location 1

Summary of Works CIVIL WORKS Preliminaries $ 153,000 StreetStormwaterEarthworksRoad Construction Lighting Drainage $ $114,756 $351,000 $855,847 31,600 TOTALContingencySundries CONSTRUCTION (20%) COST $ (exci,70,000 $ GST) 315,300GST $ 10%1,891,600 $ 189,160 Subtotal $ 1,576,300Total $ 2,080,760

Establishment, Insurances, CITB Levies, Contract Administration / Project Item $ 143,000 1 $ 143 000 ManagementPreliminaries Survey Setout etc (10% of Construction Unit Cost) Rate Quantity Amount Service Location & Depthing (Provisional Sum) Item $ 10,000 1 $ 10,000 Subrotal $ 153,000 Earthworks Site Clearing/Grubbing including tree removal item $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Strip and stockpile 100mm topsoil m2 $ 0.85 13,360 $ 11,356 Respread stockpiled topsoil m2 $ 1.50 13,360 $ 20,040 CutShape and disposedrainage of off channel site (7km Lin.m lead) m° $ 6$ 201,160 3,520 $ $ 6,960 70,400 Compaction Testing item $ 1,000Subrotal 1 $ $ 1,000114,756 Road Construction Sawcut 100mm from edge of existing pavement Lin.m $ 10 1,940 $ 19,400 Scarify, tyne and shape existing pavement m' $ 8 3,870 $ 30,960 Remove and dipose of existing pavement m2 $ 25 200 $ 5,000 TrimProof and roll compact Subgrade subgrade m2 m2$ 0.40 $ 3.20 9,850 9,850 $ $ 3,94031,520 TrimCheck and compactSurvey remnant - Subgrade pavement m2material 5 0.85 m2 $ 3.209,850 3,870 $ $ 8,373 12,384 SupplyProof and Lay roll remnant pavement material m2 $ 0.40 3,870 $ 1,548 - HorrickNew Horrocks Highway HighwayPavement PavementReinstatement m2 m2 $ 40$ 15 4,970 1,940 $ $ 198,800 29,100 - NewSealed Intersection Shoulder Pavement m2 $ m2 25 $ 2,020 30 1,530 $ 50,500$ 45,900 Supply- Unsealed and Lay primerShoulder to basecourse m2 $ m220 $ 1,3203.9 11,780 $ 26,400$ 45,942 Double150mm Coat Asphalt Spray m2Seal $ m2 70 5 1,528 10 8,930 $ 106,960 $ 89,300 Median In-Fill Kerb (PM2/20 Lin.m QG) $ 55m2 1,620$ 15 2,620 $ 89,100 $ 39,300 Compaction Testing Item $ 21,420Subtotal 1 $ $21,420 855,847 Stormwater Drainage Pipework - Excavate trench, supply, lay and backfill Headwalls- 450mm and Scour Protection RCP Lin.m $ 180 70 $ 12,600 Extend existing SW culvert item $ 10,000 1 $ 10,000 Compaction- 450 dia Testing No. $ item 2,000 $ 1,000 4Subtotal $ 1 8,000$ $1,000 31,600

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 16 14513 cost Opinion Spreadsheet - Horrocks Highway Location 1 1 ProjectClient: HickinbothamNumber: 17-1557 Group Date: Revision 10/03/2017 A Project: Roseworth Township Expansion Author:Reviewed: KLM PT Cost Opinion Cost Opinion based on MFY Drawings MFY_160045_07_SH01 Revision A - Horrock Highway Location 1

Street Lighting Street Lighting (Provisional Sum) Item $ 13,500Subtotal 26 $ $351,000 351,000 Sundries Pavement Marking and Signs (Provisional Sum) ltem $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 Traffic management/control (Provisional Sum) ltem $ 40,000 1 $ 40,000 As-Constructed Survey item $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Clean Up Site and Demobilise Item $ 5,000Subtotal 1 $$ 70,0005,000

Disclaimer The rates associated with our opinions are based on market rates for similar construction activities at the time of this report. As these costs are estimated only from existing information at the time this report was prepared, final costs of construction will be affected by the economic climate at the time of tender, price escalation, final detailed designs and investigation, the size or staging of the final developments and the civil construction industry activity.

The information contained in this document is solely for the use of the Client identified on the cover sheet, for the purpose for which it has been prepared, and no representation is made or is to be implied as being made to any third party. The information, cost opinion and recommendations contained in this document result from a concept study based on very limited geotechnical data and other information obtained from the Client and other parties and shall be read in recognition of the limited time and input by Greenhill Engineers in their work leading up to the preparation of this document.

Allowance for these limitations must be made when applying these costs to any final budgets.

Please note that Greenhill Engineers are not Quantity Surveyors and do not purport to have the expertise of quantity surveyors. An opinion of probable cost can only be an estimation which may vary at the time of construction. Greenhill Engineers recommends the use of a quantity surveyor prior to finalising the construction budget.

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 17 t4513 Cost Opinion Spreadsheet - Horrocks Highway Location 1 2 k L í L L 6

Schedule 3 - Plan for New Component

t.EGN aner usurra X -

'" "'" "' PRE4.ARNARY-- WGA HORROCKS ISSUE ROADHIGHWAY No 3150 2 .w.= m,. - 48 ROSEWORTHY

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 18

CONSTRUCTION CONCEPT COST ESTIMATE, Roseworthy Marker Development Roundabout Consultant: Walibridge & Gilbert Job No.: 190652 Revision: A Date: 26 August 2019Eng: JGH ltem1 PRELIMINARIES DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY RATE ($) AMOUNT ($) 1.31.21.1 Quality DetailSurvey Control/Site Design % 1.00 Admin/Safety% 1.00 $15,000.00 $30,000.00 % 1.00 $20,000.00 $15.000.00 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 1.41.5 EstablishmentInsurances % 0.02% 1.00 $1,541,810.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00$30,836.00 1.71.6 TrainingAs Constructed Levy (0.25%) Survey % 0.0025 item 1.00 $1,541,810.00 $6,000.00 $3,855.00 $6,000.00 1.91.8 TrafficSite Compound Management item item 1.00 1.00 $12,000.00 $30,000.00 $12,000.00 $30,000.00 1.10 Demobilisation and Clean Up item 1.00 $10,000.00Subtotal $10,000.00 $172,691.00 2 EARTHWORKS 2.22.1 StripRemove topsoil vegetation (300mm) & itemstockpile 1.00 m2 $ 3500.0015,000.00 $ 1.50 $15,000.00 $5,250.00 2.42.3 Remove Respread and dispose topsoil of existing (100mm) stormwater m3 infrastructure 1000.00 item $ 0.002.00 $ 7,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 2.5 Remove and dispose of existing road pavements, signage m2 3600.00 $ 20.00 $72,000.00 2.72.6Cut 5000 0 - 5000- to10000 fill m3 m3 onsite m3m3 0.00$ 20.00 $ 20.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2.92.8 Cut0 5000 - 5000 to - m3 10000stockpile m3 2000.00 m3 m3 onsite$ 10.00$ 10.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2.10Remove 0 - 5000 Surplus m3 m3 Material $ 30.00 $0.00$0.00 2.122.11 Trim 5000 batters - 10000 item 1.00 m3 $ m310,000 $ 30.0000 $10,000.00 $0.00 2.13 Compaction testing item 1.00 $ 15,000.00 Subtotal$15,000.00 $139,250.00 3 ROADWORKS 3.23.1 ProofTrim rolland subgrade, compact subbase subgrade and m2base 7100 m2 7100 $ 3.00 $ 0.50 $ 21,300.00 $ 3,550.00 OtherDeeplift Pavement $0.00 3.43.3 60mm40mm AC14AC10 m2m2 43004750 $$ 30.0025.00 $$ 129,000.00118,750.00 3.63.5 70mm65mm AC14 m2m3 35004300 $ 38.0034.00 $ 133,000.00146,200.00 3.7 Road75mmAC14 Base Layer (PM 1/20) m2 4300 $ 42.00 $ 180,600.00 3.8 150Shoulder/Median mm Layer thick (PM 2/20) fine crushed rock m2 4750 $ 20.00 $ 95,000.00 3.9 200Kerbing mm thick fine crushed rock m2 2350 $ 20.00 $ 47.000.00 3.10 Kerb and gutter (150mm semi-mountable) m 385 $ 100.00 $ 38,500.00 3.11 Roundabout annulus kerb m 160 $ 70.00 $ 11,200.00 3.133.12 Driveway Kerb outlet invert each each 00 $$ 2,000.0040.00 $ $ 3.14Spoon Median Drains kerb m 494 $ 65.00 $ 32,110.00 3.15Traffic items 600 mm wide m 0 $ 85.00 $ 3.173.16 Pram Street crossing signs with Item tactiles 1 $ 12,500.00each 0 $ 1,500.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 3.18Making Line Good marking item 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 3.19Concrete Match road to existing m 25 $ 100.00 $ 2,500.00 3.20 200mmother N32 Concrete Slab with SL82 Mesh m2 0 $ 120.00 $ 3.213.22 Subgrade/subbase/base DSEP aprons verification each survey 0 $ item 350.00 1 $ 5,000.00 $ $ 5,000.00 3.243.23 Roundabout/Median Roundabout concrete infill (topsoillgrass) infill m2 300 m2 $1660 110.00 $ 40.00 $ 33,000.00$ 66,400.00 3.25 Compaction testing item 1 $ 10,000.00 $Subtotal 10,000.00 $1,095,610.00 5 STORMWATER DRAINAGE Supply and Lay Pipes Class 4 RRJ

Supply and Install Side Entry Pits (pits and lids complete) 4.2Supply 450 and Install mmDriveable Headwall RC m 150 $ 240.00 $ 36,000.00 4.7Swales 450 mm each 8 $ 2,000.00 $ 16,000.00 4.10 OtherRock pitching/rock lined channel m 100 $ 200.00 $ 20,000.00 4.11 Supply and install reno mattress m2 0 $ 180.00 $ bubtotal $H,000.UU 4.14COMMON Compaction SERVICE TRENCHING AND testing LIGHTING item 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Trench in verges APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 19 WGA

CONSTRUCTION CONCEPT COST ESTIMATE, Roseworthy Marker DeveIOpment Roundabout Consultant: Wallbridge & Gilbert Job No.: 190652 Revision: A Date: 26 August 2019Eng: JGH ltem5.1 DESCRIPTION600 mm wide UNIT m QUANTITY 400 $ 50.00 RATE ($)$20,000.00 AMOUNT ($) 5.2 DPTl Pits m 6 $ 500.00 $3,000.00 5.35.4 80mmDPTlconduit50mm DPTl conduit m m350 50 $ $ 14.00 11.00 $4,900.00 $550.00 5.55.6 Transformer/switchingDPTi LED Single Outreach cubicle padeach item 6 $ 1 10,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $60,000.00$1,500.00 ConduitsPits $0.00 $0.00bubtotal $1u4,96d.0u 5.7 DPTl LED 4Way Outreach each 1 $ 15,000.00 $15,000.00 ?ËRVlÜÈ? 6.1 RelocationRelocation of 2of Telstra 2 X P100 Pits / transverseTelstra/NBN road cablescrossing mitem 600 2 $10,000.00 $125.00 $75,000.00$20,000.00 6.2 ServicesOther Design allowance, locating, management $0.00 etc item 1 $2,500.00Subiotal $9140u.uu $2,500.00 7 MlsebLLAkboUs 10.210.3 VacuumDeistablishment excavation item item 1 $ 110,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 10,000.00$ 2,500.00 10.4Footpaths Arborist and shared paths item 1 S 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 10.5 ExposedSoll erosion and aggdrainage footpath management (SL72) inicuding 100mm PM2/20 m2 $ 120.00 $ bublotal $2/Abd.uu 10.6 SEDMP ltem 1 $ 10,000.00TOTAL (ex. GST $ & Contingency)10,000.00 $1,714,501.00 Contingency 20% $342,900.20 GST $205,740.12 TOTAL CONTRACT SUM $2,263,141.32

This estimate was prepared based on estimated quantities from the concept design. Rates have been sourced from similar projects in the area. WGA does not accept any liability for actual costs varying from those estimated.

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 20 Government of South Australia

reply p/ease quote 2A191OO253, Process /D; 558083 Department of Planning, ln Tril;iliand'rniraiiiuiiure Enquiries fo Matthew Small Telephone (08) 71 09 7875 E-mail dpti. luc@sa. gov, au POLICY, STRATEGY AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Transport As6sssmont and Pollcy Roform

5 April 2019 GPO Box 1533 Adelaide SA 5001

ABN 92 366 288 135

The Presiding Member State Commission Assessment Panel GPO Box 1815 ADELAIDE SA 5OO1

Dear Ms Fogarty,

SCHEDULE 8 . REFERRAL RESPONSE

Development No 313/D026118 ,Applicant H m Gro of Loeation Horrocks Hiqhwav. Roseworthv Proposal Land Division 1 into 49)

I refer to the above development application fonruarded to the Commissioner of Highways (CoH) in accordance with Section 37 of lhe Development Act 1993. The proposed development involves development adjacent a main road as described above.

The following respon$e is provided in accordance with Section 37(4)(b) of the Development Act 1993 and Schedule I of the Development Regulations 2008.

PROPOSAL

This application proposes 48 new residential allotments and a balance allotment (comprising two pieces) for the remainder of the subject land. This site is subject to an lnfrastructure Deed with Light Regional Council,

CONSIDERATION

The subject site abuts Horrocks Highway, an arterial road under the care, control and management of the CoH and Shamrock Way, a local road under the care, control and management of Light Regional Council. The adjacent section of Horrocks Highway is designated as a Major Traffic Route, Primary Freight Route and Tourist Route under the Department of Planning, Transport and lnfrastructure (DPTI's) 'A Functional Hierarchy for Sauth Australia's Land Transport Network'. At this location, Horrocks Highway carries approximately 6,300 vehicles per day (7o/o comrnercial vehicles) and has a posted speed limit of 100 km/h. Horrocks Highway is gazetted for use by vehicles up to PBS Level 3A (i.e. vehicles up to 36.5 metres in length).

This initial stage of the overall development has set aside land for the construction of a new roundabout to serve this site. lnternal connections ts the existing local road network will follow in subsequent stages. Whilst the proposed roundabout is not consistent with the Rosewofthy Town Expansion Concept Plan Map Lig/13, DPTI has agreed to its installation in-principle.

#13634160

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 21 2

The proposed roundabout will be constructed to cater for PBS Level 3A vehicles, with the speed limit reduced along Horrocks Highway to 8Okmih (between the proposed roundabout and Roseworthy). The land set aside for the proposed roundabout is consistent with the concept plan shown in Figure 1 of the MFY report dated 20 December 2018 (Reference MLM/16-0045). The proposed roundabout must be completed prior to Section 51 certificates being issued for this land division.

CONCLUSION

The planning authority is directed to attach the following condition to any approval given:

1. The proposed roundabout at the Horrocks Highway/New Road (Road A and Road H) junction shall be designed and conslructed in accordance with Austroads Guides/Australian Standards and to DPTI's satisfaction. All associated costs (including project management and any necessary road lighting and drainage upgrades) shall be borne by the applicant. These road works shall be completed prior to Section 51 certificates being issued for the development.

The applicani shall contact DPTI's, Traffic Services Section, Network Planning Engineer, Ms Teresa Xavier on (08) 8226 8389 or via email at Teresa.Xavier@sa,gov.au, to discuss the proposed road works prior to undertaking any detailed design. Furthermore, the applicant shall enter into a "Developer Agreement" to undertake the above works.

Additionally, it is recommended that the following conditions be attached to any approval given:

1. A traffic management plan for the construction phase of the development shall be developed in consultation with and to the satisfaction of DPTI and Council. All access shall be in accordance this plan.

2. Stormwater run-off shall be collected on-site and discharged without jeopardising the safety and integrity of Horrocks Highway. Any alterations to the Honocks Highway drainage infrastructure required to facilitate this shall be at the applicant's expense.

Yours sincerely,

MANAGER, TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT AND POLICY REFORM ftfor COMMI$SIONER OF HIGHWAYS

#1 36341 60

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 22 Government ol South Australia Department of Planning, 'lransport and lnf rastructure ln reply please quote 2019/00253, Process lD: 558083 Enquiries Jim Psyridis Telephone 8343 02096 TRANSPORT PLANNING AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 29May 202Q Transport Assessment

GPO Box 1533 AOELAIDE SA 5OO1

Ms Melissa Mellen ABN 92 366 288 1 35 Director MFY Pty Ltd Unil61224 Glen Osmond Road Fullarton SA 5063

Dear Ms Mellen

ROSEWORTHY TOWNSHIP EXPANSION INFRASTRUCTURE

Thank you for your email correspondence of 13 May 2020 regarding the proposed roundabout treatment on Horrocks Highway related to Development Application DA 3131D026118.

This relates to the junction identif ied as number 7 in the "Concept Plan Map Lig/13 Roseworthy Township Expansion" per the Roseworthy Township Expansion Development Plan Amendment.

The roundabout proposal described in DA g13l}026118, has been agreed in- principle by the Commissioner of Highways in the Schedule 8 refenal response and its associated conditions (dated 5 April 2019).

The Department of Planning, Transport and lnfrastructure (DPTI) endorses the roundabout proposal as described within the Development Application and referral response.

I also advise that the position of Manager, Transport Assessment and specific DPTI officer positions (and their administrative predecessors) are delegates of the Commissioner of Highways for these purposes.

Yours sincerely,

A/MANAGER, TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT for

#1 5553064

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 23 From: Melissa Mellen < [email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:52 PM To: Melissa Mellen Subject: FW: Proposed Northern Roseworthy Access

Melissa Mellen I Oirector I MFY Ptyttd

nliw &fi-JOTIE t$**s,Iulla0( {s YG*T# Unit 5/224 Glen Osmond Road, Fullarton SA 5063 t: 08 8338 8888 | m:0413 8C0 135 I e: melirra@tnf{.rom,au I w: mhrl.co_lTr,,qU

t','11i! r i : ':'a::,. }w :otoillr$R tYflr{}ltl d$lt r&stftr$ilnt#JSTr uArr l{st!{EssvJ{M$r ss Ytd[ Tfirt

From; Gelston, Pa ul (DPTI) Sen$ Wednesday, 29 November 2017 8:32 PM To: Olivia louw Cc: Melissa Mellen ; Morias, George (DPTI) ; Carbone, Tony (DPTI); Bennett, Paul (DPTI) Subject Re: Proposed Northern Roseworthy Access thank you Olivia

Approval in principle is provided for the roundabout proposalas shown on MFY drawing 160045 07 02 Sh I Rev D.. I believe this also reflects the discussions held with the Coordinator General for this location. regards

PaulGelston

On 29 Nov 2017, at 3:55 pm, Olivia Louw wrote:

Dear Paul,

Please find attached the report from Melissa regarding the above proJect.

Kind regards,

Olivia Louw I Office Manag*r I MFY Pty Ltd

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 24 Unit 6/224 Glon Osnrond Road, Fuilarton 5A 5063 r: 0B 833il88Bg I e: olivia(dmfy.com.au I w: 4ly.s_on1,gg nl w fr.ffis . P{,rkinF . TllnrpFrl

<16-0045 PaulGelston 29 Nov 17.pdf>

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 25 nrffg

MLM/16-0045 ?aff,ie . P*rking' lf anrport

llnit $, ??4 {ilen t)snr$ntj R{kId rut.t..Aur()N 5A i0{i3 29 NovemberZOLT 1: rsi S $338 Bli&S t: i iii $ SlilJ 8{l$il li": r'rtfya*.ilnr{y.ru,;r.;:rr.; W: mfy.torr.ari Mr PaulGelston Department of Planning, Transport and lnfrastructure MFY Pty Lt{i GPO Box 1533 ASN /$ 10? ri30 ?5S ADELAIDE SA 5OO1

Dear Paul

PROPOSED NORTH ERN ROSEWORTHY ACCESS

I refer to our meeting in relation to access to the northern portion of development land within the land subject to the recently approved Development Plan Amendment (DPA) south of Roseworthy. At this meeting the following was identified: a the access would provide to the Horrocks Highway would be treated with a roundabout and would be considered a permanent solution; a the roundabout would need to be designed to cater for PBS Level 3A vehicles; a the speed limit on the road would be reduced to 80 km/h, south of the roundabout; a the roundabout would need to be designed to facilitate all turning movements and provide for future access to the employment lands opposite; and the roundabout should be located as far north as practicable to minimise the extent of the 80 km/h zone, while still achieving a practical development solution.

Further to this meeting, please find attached the following plans:

. Fyfe Drawing No. 1888LPO2-rLt which represents the current master plan proposal for development on the subject land; , Fyfe Drawing No, 18881P02-rLl which illustrates the Stage l land division application plans which will be lodged with Council; and . MFY Drawing No. MFY_16OO45_O7_02_SH01 Rev D which is a concept plan of a roundabout at the proposed access location. ln determining the proposed access location and associated concept design, the following has been considered:

F:\16-0045 Poul Gelston 29 Nov 77 APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 26 16-0045 29 November 2U7/ nrffg Page 2 of 2

a the design facilitates the access to the development area, approximately 220 m south of the existing Roseworthy Township boundary. This location is generally opposite the area where the land widens to enable a collector road to be developed within the subject land and extend to the access; a the width of the land take required within the employment lands will be no greater than previously identified (and nominated on-site by the location of the existing fence); and a the roundabout has been designed to cater for PBS Level 34 vehicles, with a design speed of 90 km/h (posted speed 80 km/h) on the approach to the roundabout.

I believe the access proposal represents an improved outcome for the subject land and will resolve the staging issue in respect to accessibility for the residential area, west of Horrocks Highway.

It would, therefore, be appreciated if you could confirm that the accompanying plans reflect the Department of Planning, Transport and lnfrastructure's (DPTI) agreed position (in principle) in relation to the access treatment and location for the subject site, as illustrated on Fyfe Drawing No. 18881P02-rLL. Subject to this, the Stage L land division plans will be lodged with Council for Development Approval.

I believe the plans illustrate the subject proposal clearly but would be pleased to respond to any additional queries, if required.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter and I look forward to receiving a response at your earliest possible convenience.

Yours sincerely, MFY PW tTD ffi*-

METISSA MEttEN Director

Encl: Fyfe Drawing No. 18881P02-rlt Fyfe Drawing No. 18881P02-r11 MFY Drawing No. MFY-L60045-07-02-SH01Rev D

si*3s'Ni5$ Wt?i"41;|.,|'5 AWAIt*5 ?ls no:s tuAllnl'rAt sblNHt 201r! tljlErit Soulit a$s{*Arxil $g$rNfss wairAN of llts YrAR

APPENDIX 5.A SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 27 ,& Fl bl- g" td E -II I jFli-lu E5 RN 6 6 Ei EEc IE -Ee dE E i fi 5 ul E FFEi;iE : iFE Eg t d f @ erHl- u F E E:EIA ul EEEii{i dFl 5 6? g EI 5 si zi I EE Ei ETi c U] 6tlt6 FigEE E F- l t z- { Et ci a o )64- e36 HE t & < EF 3qff g; ul !IiEgEE o z9t ; r: UI () 5H8Fb d5l gEEgE E i E E3 EI o = zs*30 F F 9EE 5= F o <;ZHU ii itu€i! d O z 9d:z

J oz o= o de 9i I (96 i UJ E F n (,I = APPENDIX 5.A A*i SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 28 6 9E b .x ! f s3q 6 rooEoo* E' gs* 6 = EB s 6 E6i a a p5E @ Ig i!5 & z. 6 i$ iiE o &qd E d I 6OOFOFF :Ti 0, 6Pg l Ci F 619laE !Q p69 5 E! gF o EEI E; ae o- EE !i$ o d6 €u CEE d. q-1 sa 5: z E E J{ c U] FE B til tE l tz iiFx i F $:t 2o{ gHI E H a* e o u G t d M. o c 'vt6 sT a E$ o t HXt i -i qF Eg;s s U fr€ g*g '. E c bE gt 3rl PP 66rA gI N ;E eS = I q ttrrttE rr 5E I o z. F F sEi F o {o@tso6FoNoooFo Fh Bl !s$i o Uz J @ s;? E w z F tr!trwEttrN F56 z E o na J JI I uo = = e LU F o 6 z 9 l E I gI o- -lu d6oo6oo pH F

vi HE dj=lg o s I fr 6

6 E a b

APPENDIX 5.A asl SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 29 rgj lr'

.t& 25n itAi:lt ill' iritrniil..\]ti f'Jlill Lifl: Wi ):;:. i) iqi.:\.l i. A1 lllt:.;, i\{) i\::r,j\! [t '' tr.lil:i

'I ,&

"$tLw- riE W 'ln ffiu.

a,&

Roseworthy Township Expansion noad or.wlng: MFY-IWS-0/-Q2_SH0I Projr.tNhb.r: l@5 Unit6,224 6len Osmond Proiod N.n.: R6ewhrToMihbESnsDd Or.w.: CJH i"*eati*x ? - {*crc*pt i{*u r:*i* b*r;t T: +61 S83388888 cllent: FditurhMcrcw Daf.: 8112011 ffiary Stsg* I * F Fa&urs, l\q:q:*r".rl W APPENDIXTrol{ic'Parking! 5.A Tronspod SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 30 RC LIn RuL

ROSE DR PrPro FLETT ROAD

PALPALOMINOOMINO CRT RO AD 13 KRIEG ROROADAD PrPro 7 AD THIELE HIGHWAYHIGHWAY 14 BEST RO

19 HORROCKS HIGHHIGHW In

KANGAROO FLAT ROADRO AD 16 15 6 11 8

AD 12 STURT HIGHWAYHIGHWAY

17 PrPro 20 ARTZ ROADRO

SCOT 12 T ROROADAD LIGHT REDBANKS ROADRO REGIONAL AD BERNARD CT 18 EDWARD ROAD COUNCIL ROAD 1

GAGAWLERWLER 2 BYPASSBYPASS RuL LIGHT 4 REGIONAL R BAROSSA COUNCIL COUNCIL R GAWLER(CT) 3 Development Plan Zones/ Land Use Surburban Neighbourhood Zone 0 2km Large Residential Lots Urban Employment 1 3 4 Upgrade and signalise existing intersection Drainage Reserves/ Open Space 2 Road upgrade and widen Activity Centre 5 Channelised junction - Seagull (100km/hr) to Residential plus left turn into Employment Zone Detention Basins 6 Retention Basins Channelised junction - Seagull (100km/hr) to Residential Drainage Paths 7 Channelised junction - Seagull (100km/hr) to Employment plus left turn into Residential Items of land 8 Ensure sufficient land retained for future flyover contamination interest Arterial Road 9 11 Channelised intersection - all movements allowed (80km/hr) Concept Plan Collector Road 10 20 Channelised T- junction - all movements allowed (80km/hr) Existing Railway Line 12 Road and shoulder widening Cadastre Map Lig/13 Zone Boundary 13 15 17 Upgrade to sealed road Development Plan Boundary 14 Channelised T- junction - all movements allowed (50km/hr) Pedestrian Cycle way ROSEWORTHY 16 Collector Road Retain land for new road link Future East West freight link 18 Roundabout - single lane TOWN EXPANSION 20m wide Landscaped Buffer 19 Collector road APPENDIX 5.B LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 Consolidated - 8 December 2016 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 1

project completion and reporting.

Independent Delivery is to be reported in a Project Report to the ICM including:

confirmation that the Independent Works or Collaborative Works have been completed to the specifications of and accepted by the Receiving Authority;

a description of any variations from or defects (except minor defects as may have been accepted by the Receiving Authority) associated with the Independent Works or Collaborative Works;

‘as Constructed’ drawings;

approval documentation from Receiving Authority;

procurement report;

documentation of actual costs suitable for auditing purposes; and

practical completion report and a record of handover of all public assets, including details of any applicable defects liability period and associated security (bond/bank guarantees).

Project Reports will be provided by the Landowner to the ICM after practical completion of the Independent Works or Collaborative Works and the ICM will provide a copy of the Project Report to all other Landowners and Council within 10 Business Days of receipt.

Replacement of Road Infrastructure Component

The parties agree that in the event the Receiving Authority, acting in accordance with its relevant powers or authority at law, requires or endorses delivery of a different item of road infrastructure (New Component) instead of a Road Infrastructure Component, this may be permitted by Council subject only to:

receipt by the ICM and Council of:

(a) a request from the Landowner or an Other Landowner (as applicable) (Proposing Landowner) to deliver or procure the New Component;

(b) an explanation as to why the New Component is required or desirable in the context of applicable law, prevailing standards and safety considerations;

(c) an explanation as to how the New Component will achieve or exceed the traffic movement outcomes that would have been achieved by the Road

RTE - FINAL VARIATION DEED (AMENDED 7-12-2018) 11 APPENDIX 5.C SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 1

Infrastructure Component it is proposed to replace; and

(d) an explanation as to how the New Component might affect the Landowner and any Other Landowner;

the provision by the Proposing Landowner to the ICM and Council of detailed plans and cost-estimates for both the Road Infrastructure Component and New Component to the extent required for independent cost comparison;

a commitment from the Proposing Landowner to cover any increased cost between the Road Infrastructure Component and the New Component;

provision by the ICM to the Landowner and Other Landowners of copies of the documents provided in paragraphs 18.17.1.1 to 18.17.1.3;

The Landowner and Other Landowners having not less than 10 Business Days to provide a submission to the ICM for consideration with respect to the proposed New Component;

an assessment and recommendation from the ICM supporting the replacement of the Road Infrastructure Component with the New Component;

Council providing notice to the Landowner and Other Landowners of the recommendation of the ICM under paragraph 18.17.1.5;

Council (acting reasonably) determining to permit replacement of the Road Infrastructure Component with the New Component under this paragraph 18.17.1 (New Component Determination), with such determination being made no sooner than 10 Business Days after Council has provided notice under paragraph 18.17.1.7; and

Council providing notice to the Landowner and Other Landowners of the New Component Determination within 10 Business Days.

If Council’s New Component Determination is challenged by any person other than the Proposing Landowner (Challenge) and it is reasonably necessary for Council to incur costs associated with:

obtaining advice and/or representation of a professional or technical nature;

litigation (including court fees, legal fees, costs orders); or

dispute resolution (including legal fees, expert fees, room hire fees);

RTE - FINAL VARIATION DEED (AMENDED 7-12-2018) 12 APPENDIX 5.C SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 2

(collectively Unanticipated Costs),

then Council will consult with the Proposing Landowner before incurring such Unanticipated Costs and the Proposing Landowner must indicate whether or not it agrees to those costs being incurred.

If the Proposing Landowner agrees it is necessary to incur the Unanticipated Costs, the Council may at the Proposing Landowner’s cost respond to the Challenge to defend the New Component Determination.

If the Proposing Landowner disagrees it is necessary to incur Unanticipated Costs, the Council may at its own cost respond to the Challenge but is not obliged to respond, or to respond in any way favourable to the Proposing Landowner.

Any Challenge to a New Component Determination may only be made on the basis that the New Component Determination does not comply with the requirements paragraph 18.17.1 and must be commenced by providing notice to the Council and the Proposing Landowner within 15 Business Days of receipt of the notice issued by Council under paragraph 18.17.1.9.

Any Challenge will be deemed to be a single Dispute for the purposes of clause 7 of:

the deed between Council and the Proposing Landowner; and

the deed(s) between Council and any Landowner or Other Landowner who has made the Challenge (Challenger);

and Council, the Proposing Landowner and the Challenger will all be entitled to be involved in that deemed Dispute as parties to that deemed Dispute in accordance with clause 7 of the applicable deed(s).

The parties agree that:

a New Component Determination will become operative unless it is subject to a Challenge; and

where there is a Challenge to a New Component Determination, the New Component Determination will be subject to the determination of the Challenge.

Analysis of Project Reports

On receipt of the Project Report from a Landowner for Independent Delivery the ICM must do the following:

verify that all statutory requirements for the Road Infrastructure Component are satisfied;

RTE - FINAL VARIATION DEED (AMENDED 7-12-2018) 13 APPENDIX 5.C SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 3 APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 1 APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 2

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PLATINUM PROPERTY RETIREMENT (PPR) PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 18.17.1.5 OF THE DEED OF VARIATION TO FINAL ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEED (DOV)

Submitted on behalf of Platinum Property Retirement by: Piper Alderman

Level 16, 70 Franklin Street ADELAIDE SA 5000 Telephone: (08) 8205 3402 Facsimile: (08) 8205 3300 Email: [email protected]

Mr Brian Hayes QC Settled by: Murray Chambers 12 Coglin Street ADELAIDE SA 5000

Date: 30 March 2020

36197653v1 APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 3

Our Ref: KW.413981 Your Ref:

30 March 2020

By Email: [email protected]

Mr Rod Hook Rod Hook & Associates Level 1, Studio 105 Adelaide Arcade ADELAIDE SA 5000

Dear Mr Hook

Submissions on behalf of Platinum Property Retirement (PPR) pursuant Lawyers to Clause 18.17.1.5 of the Deed of Variation to Final Road Infrastructure Adelaide . Brisbane Deed (DOV) Melbourne . Sydney ABN 42 843 327 183 We act on behalf of PPR. Level 16 70 Franklin Street PPR make the following submission in respect of the request made by Zarmen Adelaide SA 5000 Australia Pty Ltd (Hickinbotham) to deliver or procure a new component of road infrastructure pursuant to clause 18.17.1 of the DOV. All correspondence to: GPO Box 65 Adelaide SA 5001 1. Inadequacies in the proposal Australia

DX 102 Adelaide 1.1 Pursuant to clause 18.17.1 of the DOV where the Receiving Authority, acting in accordance with its relevant powers or t +61 8 8205 3333 f +61 8 8205 3300 authority at law, requires or endorses delivery of a different item of road infrastructure (New Component), instead of a www.piperalderman.com.au Road Infrastructure Component, this may be permitted by Partner: Council subject to compliance with clause 18.17.1.1. Kathryn Walker t +61 8 8205 3402 [email protected] 1.2 Receiving Authority is defined in the DOV as either Council or

DPTI.

1.3 Before clause 18.17.1.1 of the DOV can be triggered, either DPTI or Council must either require or endorse a New Component in accordance with:

(a) Its relevant powers; or

(b) Authority at law.

1.4 On 3 March 2020, the ICM provided PPR with Hickinbotham’s request for a New Component with the purported endorsement of DPTI in compliance with clause 18.17.1.1 of the DOV.

1.5 It would appear that a party, we assume Hickinbotham has titled the purported endorsement of DPTI as “Schedule 3 - DPTI Endorsement”. Clearly, the DPTI document is not an

36197653v1 APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 4 To: Rod Hook & Associates Date: 30 March 2020 Our Ref: KW.413981 Page: 3

endorsement for a New Component. Rather, the DPTI document is a Schedule 8 Statutory Referral addressed to the State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP) in response to a development application made by Hickinbotham for land division for the creation of 48 additional allotments.

1.6 The nature of the development application is unknown, as despite requesting a copy from the ICM, the ICM has declined to request it from the Hickinbotham Group.

1.7 By extension, what is purported to be a DPTI endorsement of a New Component cannot be confirmed, fully considered or responded to by any party the subject of the DOV because it relates to a development application made to SCAP, the nature of which is unknown.

1.8 Further, the purported endorsement is incomplete and does not identify what in particular, DPTI has provided in-principle support for. A full copy of the purported DPTI endorsement has been requested from the ICM, again the ICM has refused to request a copy from Hickinbotham.

1.9 By proceeding with a New Component application without:

(a) Providing the development application to which the referral relates;

(b) Contains an incomplete purported endorsement; and

both the ICM and the Light Regional Council (Council) are denying the Landowners procedural fairness.

1.10 It is clear that administrative decision-makers must afford procedural fairness to those affected by their decisions (see Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH [2015] HCA 40).

1.11 Without providing the application to which the purported endorsement relates and by not providing a completed copy of the purported endorsement does not give PPR a reasonable opportunity to make submissions in response to the Hickinbotham proposal (see Kioa v West (1985) 15A CLR).

1.12 It is PPR’s submission that for the reasons set out above, the Hickinbotham proposal does not meet the requirements of clause 18.17.1 such that the provisions of that clause have not been triggered to enable a New Component to be put forward.

1.13 Should the ICM proceed to assess the New Component and Council proceed to make a determination on same, they do so in breach of the DOV, procedural fairness requirements and in breach of the terms of reference in part D of the DOV and are clearly failing to act in good faith and in accordance with Council’s code of conduct.

36197653v1 APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 5 To: Rod Hook & Associates Date: 30 March 2020 Our Ref: KW.413981 Page: 4

2. Actual or Perceived Bias by Council

2.1 Under clause 18.17.1.8, Council makes the determination in respect of approval or rejection of the New Component.

2.2 By its previous actions in rejecting the Minister’s specific advice in relation to the DPA, the Council has overtly displayed its bias in favour of the Hickinbotham proposal. Furthermore we understand that Council have already indicated their support for the New Component relating to the Hickinbotham development application.

2.3 In the circumstances, Council has clearly demonstrated actual or perceived bias towards the New Component.

2.4 It is clear that independence and the absence of bias is fundamental in any decision making process, the actions of Council to date do not meet this fundamental requirement.

2.5 The DOV requires the ICM to make an assessment and recommendation in respect of a New Component to the Council for Council to then make a determination on that New Component. A Council which lacks independence in the determination process because it has already indicated its support for the New Component means that it cannot proceed under the DOV to make a determination because to do so would be actual or perceived bias towards one party, in this case Hickinbotham.

2.6 On the basis of 2.5 above, the DOV process cannot proceed because an alternative relevant authority should be appointed to assess the New Component, namely SCAP. As SCAP are not defined as a Receiving Authority under the DOV, the DOV will need to be amended to include them as such.

2.7 Accordingly, the New Component cannot be assessed under the DOV as it is currently worded.

3. New Component not required or desirable

3.1 The road infrastructure for the Roseworthy redevelopment has been the subject of much negotiation and discussion since 2014.

3.2 The proposal for a roundabout on Hickinbotham land is in a form substantially the same as that rejected by the Planning Minister at the time, Mr John Rau and DPTI.

3.3 Council Development Plan Map Lig/13 specifically identifies:

(a) that the proposed Activity Centre is located on PPR land adjacent to the proposed Horrocks Highway intersection;

(b) the PPR land is to be served by a full movement intersection from Horrocks Highway; and

36197653v1 APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 6 To: Rod Hook & Associates Date: 30 March 2020 Our Ref: KW.413981 Page: 5

3.4 The effect of the New Component will be to have a negative impact on the performance and delivery of the Activity Centre on PPR land.

3.5 The Development Plan defines the forms of access from Horrocks Highway to the residential land and a system of internal collector roads to ensure that the Activity Centre receives the full benefit of traffic movement.

3.6 The Hickinbotham proposal is contrary to the objectives of the traffic movements contemplated in the Development Plan.

3.7 The Development Plan also dictates the internal collector road networks that would be required to be created as part of PPR’s Stage 1A/1B Master Plan and CAP approval.

3.8 The Hickinbotham proposal would have a significant impact on the purpose of the internal collector roads and the access which those roads intend to maintain.

3.9 The Hickinbotham proposal states at paragraph 16.4 of the 21 June 2019 letter that the “provision of a right of access to and from the Hickinbotham land, which is required by law”. This statement is without supporting evidence, is contrary to submissions made by Hickinbotham during negotiations for the Development Plan Amendment and fails to address the fact that access to the Hickinbotham land is already available as set out in Map L1g/13 of the Development Plan, should roads be created.

3.10 In particular, the Hickinbotham land has alternative vehicle access via Shamrock Way to the Roseworthy Township and then to Horrocks Highway or Cliff Road/Twartz Road. This access opportunity has been noted by Council, DPTI and the Hickinbotham Group in various reports and representations made during negotiations associated with the Development Plan Amendment process. Two-way access to the Hickinbotham land can be obtained in the interim while the internal north south collector road is being built via the above pathway.

3.11 Further details of the impact of the New Component are set out in the attached letter marked Annexure A from Holmes Dyer.

4. Access to the Hickinbotham land

4.1 Paragraph 12 of the Hickinbotham’s letter dated 21 June 2019 and the 13 December 2018 Murray Young report refers to the internal road connection through adjacent land towards the south and a left-in ingress from Horrocks Highway as not being constructed and therefore causing an access issue.

4.2 Such an access issue does not need to be resolved by a New Component. As with many master planned developments, access can be managed via

36197653v1 APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 7 To: Rod Hook & Associates Date: 30 March 2020 Our Ref: KW.413981 Page: 6

temporary road infrastructure which can be removed when all internal connector roads are in place.

4.3 In addition, we refer to the matters in paragraph 3.10 above.

4.4 Further, the location of the connector roads and likely timing of construction was well known by all parties when the Interim Road Infrastructure Deed was negotiated in 2016. The application is therefore an attempt to have a “second bite at the cherry” given the then Planning Minister’s rejection of a roundabout at substantially the same location as the Hickinbotham proposal.

4.5 Further details of the impact of the New Component are set out in the attached letter marked Annexure B from Mott MacDonnell.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The Purported endorsement is the first page of a letter from DPTI responding to a Schedule 8 referral under the Development Act for a subdivision by Hickinbotham for the division of an Allotment into 49 allotments. It would appear that the application includes providing access to the allotments via a new roundabout on both Horrocks Highway and Hickinbotham private land. The incomplete letter from DPTI dated 5 April 2019 states that “Whilst the proposed roundabout is not consistent with the Roseworthy Town Expansion Concept Plan Lig13 DPTI has agreed to the installation in principle.”

5.2 The Deed provides a process in Clause 18 for other landowners to make a submission to the ICM with respect to a New Component. As part of the New Component application, the ICM has provided incomplete documentation. PPR have written to the ICM seeking:

(a) the full application for subdivision and supporting documents; and

(b) the complete letter from DPTI responding to the referral from SACP.

5.3 The ICM has declined to provide these documents.

5.4 These documents are necessary to firstly comply with the requirements of clause18 to enable the ICM to properly assess the proposal and secondly such compliance is required in order to enable the other landowners to properly formulate their submission to the ICM to assist him in his consideration of the proposal.

5.5 In proceeding as he is, the ICM is relying on an incomplete letter from DPTI to establish his jurisdiction to embark upon a consideration of the proposal.

5.6 Clause 18 of the DOV requires the Receiving Authority, which according to the ICM is DPTI in this case, to require or endorse the delivery of a different item of road infrastructure. The provision of an incomplete referral does not allow clause 18 of the DOV to be triggered.

36197653v1 APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 8 To: Rod Hook & Associates Date: 30 March 2020 Our Ref: KW.413981 Page: 7

5.7 Further, depriving PPR of all the relevant information to enable it to make a worthwhile submission would give rise to an application for compliance with the requests made to the ICM, if assessed by Council and approved, an application for Judicial Review.

5.8 The DOV process cannot proceed because an alternative relevant authority must be appointed to assess the New Component, namely SCAP. As SCAP are not defined as a Receiving Authority under the DOV, the DOV will need to be amended to include them as such. Accordingly, the New Component cannot be assessed under the DOV as it is currently worded.

5.9 The Hickinbotham proposal is contrary to the objectives of the traffic movements contemplated in the Development Plan .One might ask rhetorically, how and why would the ICM recommend approval of a new component which is specifically contrary to the authorised Development Plan.

5.10 The effect of the proposal will be to have a negative impact on the performance and delivery of the Activity Centre on PPR land.

5.11 The Hickinbotham proposal would have a significant impact on the purpose of the internal collector roads and the access which those road intend to maintain.

5.12 Alternative vehicle access can be achieved via Shamrock Way to the Roseworthy Township and then to Horrocks Highway or Cliff Road/Twartz Road.

5.13 Further, the access issue identified by Hickinbotham does not need to be resolved by a New Component. As with many master planned developments, access can be managed via temporary road infrastructure which can be removed when all internal connector roads are in place.

For the reasons set out above the New Component cannot be assessed by the ICM under the DOV at this time and therefore Council cannot assess and/or approve the New Component.

PPR reserves its rights to make further submissions once the requested documents have been provided.

Yours faithfully Piper Alderman

Per:

Kathryn Walker Partner

Enc. Annexure A - Holmes Dyer Annexure B – Mott MacDonnell

36197653v1 APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 9

HOLMES DYER PTY LTD ABN: 30 608 975 391 Telephone: 08 7231 1889 Level 3/15 Featherstone Place Adelaide SA 5000

27 March 2020

Reference: 0021

Platinum Property Retirement Pty Ltd Land Vision Group 231 Greenhill Road DULWICH SA 5065

Attention: Joe Oppedisano

By Email: [email protected]

Dear Joe IMPACT OF ROUNDABOUT ON TOWN CENTRE

We have been asked to evaluate the consequences of the establishment of a roundabout providing all direction movement on land owned by Zarmen Pty Ltd, being Certificate of Title 5346/755 (Hickinbotham land) upon the performance of the proposed Town Centre on the land owned by Platinum Property Retirement Pty Ltd (the PPR land).

By way of background, both parties are located in the Suburban Neighbourhood Zone of the Light Regional Council. This zone and its associated Concept Plan Map Lig/13 identify the proposed nature and structure of development, including key transport interventions. Map Lig/13 specifically identifies the following: • The proposed Activity Centre is located on the PPR land adjacent to the proposed Horrocks Highway intersection; • The PPR land is to be served by a full movement intersection from Horrocks Highway; and • The Hickinbotham land is to be served by a left in only intersection with Horrocks Highway. This is not the first time the Hickinbotham landowner has sought to alter the access arrangements to his site. During the period of DPA preparation, Hickinbotham made representations seeking alternative access arrangements and yet DPTI maintained a position of left in only on the basis of the safety and efficiency of operation of Horrocks Highway. The then Minister, The Honourable John Rau, provided unequivocal advice to the Council in relation to centres and transport outcomes for the Roseworthy DPA. The Minister’s advice is contained in correspondence of 8 February 2014, 2 May 2014 and 2 September 2016. A copy of his last advice is attached herewith. In essence, it directs Council to locate the Activity Centre on the LVG land and to amend access arrangements from Horrocks Highway consistent with the manner ultimately depicted in Map Lig/13.

The Minister’s correspondence clearly identifies the preferred location of the Activity Centre and cites a range of reasons for this preferred location, and reinforces the

APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 10

importance of this location through an access strategy that seeks to direct the majority of traffic past the Activity Centre. We note that the Hickinbotham land has potential vehicle access via Shamrock Way to Roseworthy Township and thence to Horrocks Highway or Cliff Road/Twartz Road. This access opportunity has been noted by Council, DPTI and the Hickinbotham Group in various reports and representations over time. It can provide two-way access in the interim while the internal north south collector road is being built. Clearly, this existing access point has influenced DPTI’s position on promoting the safety and free flow of traffic along Horrocks Highway, knowing that the Hickinbotham land is not restricted in its ability to be developed. The proposal to provide full access to the Hickinbotham land via a roundabout on Horrocks Highway is clearly at odds with the Development Plan, with the Minister’s directions and with the intention to maintain the primacy of the Activity Centre on the PPR land. This latter point is of particular concern. The owner of the PPR land has spent significant time and money to establish the Activity Centre on his land, including agreements and negotiations with anchor tenants to establish a supermarket, a medical centre, a health and wellness precinct, a civic centre and other facilities, agreement to establish a campus of Trinity College adjacent to the Activity Centre, negotiations with Light Regional Council regarding the delivery of a multi-use sports and recreation complex and ongoing discussions regarding provision of a range of other facilities. We believe that opening up the Hickinbotham land to all way movement to/from Horrocks Highway may have a potentially negative impact upon the performance and delivery of the designated Activity Centre on the PPR land. We note that Map Lig/13 not only defines the form of access from Horrocks Highway to the residential land at Roseworthy but also quite deliberately defines an internal collector road network within the Suburban Neighbourhood Zone in order to ensure internal connectivity between key land parcels. This has been done in order to avoid unnecessary turning movements onto and off of Horrocks Highway and extra traffic along Horrocks Highway for movements that would otherwise be internal to the Roseworthy Expansion Area. The collector road network therefore works in concert with the limited access arrangement from Horrocks Highway to the Hickinbotham land. It is a deliberate strategy, which in its entirety, directs the maximum amount of traffic past the proposed Activity Centre on the PPR land. Stage 1B of the master plan over the PPR land (DA 313/D021/2018), which was approved by CAP on 7 August 2019, creates the collector road network sought by Map Lig/13 and actually delivers two collector road connection points to land to both the north and the south of the PPR land. This connectivity was specifically requested by Council and was duly provided by PPR. The eastern-most of these two collector roads provides direct access from the Hickinbotham land, past the proposed Activity Centre, to the all movement exit to Horrocks Highway, which has been designed in accordance with the specific intentions expressed by Map Lig/13. Greenhill Engineers have predicted that some 1500 trips generated by the Hickinbotham land which would otherwise be expected to pass the PPR Activity Centre along the internal collector road network could be expected to be diverted to Horrocks Highway by virtue of the introduction of the Hickinbotham roundabout. (Refer to email from Dean Mathews, Greenhill Australia, dated 13 March 2020.) This

REF # 0021 Page | 2

APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 11

loss of passing vehicle movements could be expected to have an impact on the trading conditions of the future Activity Centre in a number of ways, namely: • Reduced impulse buying as a result of not moving past the access points to the Activity Centre; • Reduced major shopping trips because alternative convenient Activity Centres are accessed in preference to the PPR Activity Centre; and • Reduced investment in the centre and a reduction in the critical mass of the centre as a result of lower activity levels, which in turn, make the Activity Centre less competitive with other centres. We estimate that this reduction in passing trade could impact the proposed PPR Activity Centre by around 5.0% of centre turnover in the establishment years. This is based upon previous primary research undertaken by the author into the spending patterns of catchments for a range of centre types and locations. This is a significant factor in the establishment years of the Activity Centre, which are crucial to the initial investment decision to establish the Centre and therefore has major implications for the successful development of an integrated, well serviced community at Roseworthy. We are available to provide further commentary if required.

Your sincerely

Stephen Holmes

Director

Encl: Letter from The Hon John Rau

REF # 0021 Page | 3

APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 12 APPENDIXAPPENDIX 5.D COUNCIL 11.1A-27MAY2014 SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020PAGE 1 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE AGENDA 13 ITEM COUNCIL 11.1 APPENDIXAPPENDIX 5.D COUNCIL 11.1A-27MAY2014 SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020PAGE 2 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE AGENDA 14 ITEM COUNCIL 11.1 APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 15 APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 16 APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 17 APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 18

Joe Oppendisano 231 Greenhill Rd Dulwich SA 5065

30 March 2020 Mott MacDonald 22 King William Street Dear Joe, Adelaide SA 5000 I refer to your previous engagement of Mott MacDonald to advise you regarding Australia access to your Roseworthy Town Expansion Activity Centre which concluded with the inclusion of a channelised junction access at intersection 5 along Horrocks T +61 (0)8 7325 7325 mottmac.com Highway as shown in document 1. At our meeting on Friday 6 March 2020 you informed me of recent developments in relation to the Roseworthy Town Expansion and provided the following documents which are numbered for reference;

1. Concept Plan Map Lig/13 – 8 December 2016 – 1 page 2. RHA letter dated 3 March 2020 – 2 pages 3. Michael Hickinbotham letter dated 21 June 2019 addressed to Mr Brian Carr and Mr Rod Hook – 4 pages a. Schedule 1 – concept plan for new component (Roundabout sketch) – 1 page b. Schedule 2 – MFY report – 6 pages c. Schedule 3 – DPTI Endorsement letter dated 5 April 2019, ref 2019/00253 addressed to Ms Fogarty – first page only – incomplete 4. Michael Hickinbotham letter dated 9 September 2019 2 pages a. Schedules 1 – 4, 6 pages 5. Norman Waterhouse - Deed of variation to final road infrastructure deed cover pages and pages 11,12 and 13

At our meeting you requested that Mott MacDonald provide its opinion on the above and recommend further steps. We are pleased to respond as follows;

• Document 3, schedule 3 DPTI letter shows that DPTI appears to have agreed in principle to the installation of a roundabout intersection at location 7 on Horrocks highway. Whilst this form of intersection will allow Horrocks highway to continue to perform its strategic functions as described within the letter the change of form of this intersection will lead to a reduction in the speed environment and enable local turning traffic to delay strategic movements. • Document 3, schedule 2 MFY report lists the benefits to local road users of the roundabout treatment and signals a change in the DPTI position on Horrocks highway priority and that the signed speed will be reduced to 80 km/h. The report highlights that the roundabout will provide a low level of service in the am peak and refers to a DPTI 40 m? (illegible) requirement which we are unable to comment upon without further information. The

Mott MacDonald Australia Pty report does not address the relative hierarchy of adjacent developments Limited is a subsidiary of Mott such as your Activity centre or the concern that intersection 7 and local MacDonald International Limited. Registered in Australia, ABN 13 134 120 353

APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 19

roads will be used for traffic entering or exiting the activity centre because the roundabout gives priority to local traffic over Horrocks highway traffic.

Following our review of these documents we recommend that you;

• Consult DPTI to confirm changes to Horrocks Highway/ local access relative priority and the Horrocks highway speed environment • Request a full, fully legible copy of document 3, schedule c such that DPTI advice, including the 40 m recommendation can be fully understood • Request a fully legible copy of the MFY report • Commission an assessment of likely vehicle turning volumes at intersections 5 and 7 given different priority levels that they provide to local traffic and review of the most appropriate form of intersection at the activity centre and location 7 given the above changes

I hope that this initial review is of assistance in delivering a successful Roseworthy Township Expansion. We look forward to assisting you further once information is able to be obtained.

Yours sincerely,

Brad Moyes

p.p.

Robi Jones

Executive Assistant

Brad Moyes Transport Sector Leader, Australia +61873257302 +61401766896 [email protected]

Joe Oppendisano |30 March 2020 | Page 2 of 2 APPENDIX 5.D SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 20 APPENDIX 5.E SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 1 T I ickinbotham

25 North Terrxe, Hackney SodhAu$rala 5069

PO Box 63, Stepney Sqlh Auslrala 5069

Tdephone (00) g166 0q!0 racdmile{0Bl W27812 w rr4r.hickhbdhamcomau hl@hhkhbolhamcoma,

HICK2020-0018 .docx

27 March2020

Mr Rod Hook Rod Hook & Associates Level l, Studio 105 Adelaide Arcade ADELAIDE SA 5OOO

By Email: [email protected]

Dear Rod

Final Road Infrastructure Deed - Roseworthy Township Expansion

Thank you for your letter dated 3 March 2020 in relation to our proposal to deliver a New Component in accordance with clause 18.17 of the Deed of Variation to Final Road Infrastructure Deed - Roseworthy Township Expansion.

Please find enclosed copies of the following letters by way of our submission in support of the proposal:

a Letter from Botten Levinson Lawyers dated 20 March 2020, relating primarily to the issue of whether the agreement of any other landowners is required in connection with delivery of the New Component.

a Letter from Botten Levinson Lawyers dated 20 March 2020, relating to rights of access and egress in respect ofpublic roads.

a Letter from MFY dated 127 March2020l.

Letter from Future Urban dated 127 March2020l.

We kindly request that you have regard to the matters set out in the enclosed letters, in addition to the information contained in our proposal, in making an assessment and recommendation under clause 18.17.1.6 of the Deed.

APPENDIX 5.E Pty Ltd (ABN 13007 222), Hickinbotham Homes Pty Ltd (ABN 24 007 618 797), Hickinbotham Group Hickinbotham Holdings Pty Ltd (ABN 88 007 717 446), Alan Hickinbotham SPECIAL567 COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 Statesman Homes Australia, Construction Services Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 99 007 641 787), Land Australia Estates, Concrete Systems Pty Ltd (ABN 16 007 663 247) ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 2 2

Please, of course, do not hesitate to contact Michael Hickinbotham or Julie Dixon with any queries or if you require any further information.

Yours sincerely Zarmen Pty Ltd /h/L L Michael Hickinbotham Managing Director

Encl

APPENDIX 5.E (ABN OA7 Homes Ltd (ABN 24 007 618 797), Htcktnbotham croup Hickinbotham Holdings Pty Ltd (ABN 88 007 71 7 446), Alan Hickinbotham Pty Ltd fi SPECIAL567 222), COUNCIL Hickinbotham 17 NOVEMBERPty 2020 Statesman Homes Australia, Construclion Services Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 99 007 641 787), Land Australia Estates, Concrete Syslems Pty Ltd (ABN 16 007 663 247) ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 3

Our ref: THG/219184

20 March 2020

Ms Julie Dixon Chief Financial Officer Hickinbotham Group of Companies PO Box 63 STEPNEY SA 5069

By email: [email protected]

Dear Julie

Re: Roseworthy - Replacement Infrastructure & Independent Delivery

You have requested our advice on the process for Independent Delivery of the Road Infrastructure for which Hickinbotham Group will be responsible in the event that your current proposal for replacement of Road Infrastructure is permitted by the Council. In particular, you ask whether Hickinbotham will need the agreement of any other landowners prior to voluntarily delivering the proposed replacement road infrastructure.

For the following reasons, and on the basis set out below, I am of the view that if the New Component (ie. the roundabout) is permitted by the Council on the terms proposed by Hickinbotham, there will be no additional requirement for the agreement of other landowners in order for Hickinbotham to voluntarily deliver or procure the New Component.

Background

1. Hickinbotham has submitted a proposal to the Independent Case Manager (ICM) pursuant to clause 18.17 of the Deed of Variation to Final Road Infrastructure Deed – Roseworthy Township Expansion dated 18 December 2018 to deliver a different item of road infrastructure, namely a round-about (the New Component), in place of both items 7A and 7B (Annexure A to the Final Road Infrastructure Deed Roseworthy Town Expansion dated 22 May 2017) of the Road Infrastructure required under the Deed.

2. Both item 7A and 7B comprise road infrastructure for the Horrocks Highway Channelised Intersection. Item 7A is a 'Seagull' access to the Urban Employment Zone land and is currently the responsibility of the owners of that land. Item 7B is a left-turn into the Suburban Neighbourhood Zone and is currently the responsibility of Hickinbotham Group.

3. The ‘Receiving Authority’ (Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure - DPTI) has indicated its endorsement of the delivery of the New Component.

asf:p219184_012.docx APPENDIX 5.E SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 4 2

4. Hickinbotham proposes to deliver the New Component and as part of that proposal has committed to covering the increased cost between the Road Infrastructure Components (Items 7A and 7B) and the New Component. Hickinbotham expects that the Urban Employment Zone landowner(s) will retain liability for their baseline developer contribution by reference to their area of land.

5. This proposal is necessary to secure egress (and ingress) to the Hickinbotham land that is independent of the development of the neighbouring land (and the associated road infrastructure that is currently critical to egress from the Hickinbotham land) immediately to the south of Hickinbotham's land.

6. It is intended that through the Replacement Infrastructure Process under clause 18.17 of the Varied Agreement, the delivery of the New Component will be allocated solely to the Hickinbotham site for the purposes of Table B to the Final Agreement.

Independent Delivery of New Component

Assuming Hickinbotham's proposal for the Replacement Infrastructure is accepted by the Council in the manner set out above, the New Component will be assigned solely to Hickinbotham for the purposes of Table B. I will refer to that New Component as replacement Item 7 in Table B.

Clause 18.16 governs the Independent Delivery of the Road Infrastructure Components required under the Agreement. Independent Delivery:

1. must occur upon the trigger point specified in Table B in respect of development of the Site; and

2. may occur in the event that Hickinbotham elects to voluntarily deliver itself or procure the New Component subject to the agreement of the Other Affected Landowners.

Delivery required upon trigger point in Table B

Clause 18.16.1 will compel Hickinbotham to Independently Deliver replacement Item 7 prior to developing its land:

"the Landowner must provide Independent Delivery of the Independent Works upon the trigger points in respect of development of the Site that are contained in the Table in Annexure B".

The trigger point for development of the Hickinbotham site is a zero allotment threshold meaning Hickinbotham must Independently deliver the road infrastructure prior to any development of its land. There is no reason that this will change following replacement of current infrastructure with the New Component. Clause 18.16 sets out the requirements for Independent Delivery of the infrastructure.

Voluntary Delivery

Clause 18.16.2 permits Hickinbotham to "elect voluntarily to deliver itself or procure any Independent Works subject to the agreement of the Other Affected Landowner(s) for that Road Infrastructure Component".

asf:p219184_012.docx APPENDIX 5.E SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 5 – 3 –

In turn, Other Affected Landowner(s) is defined as "a landowner or landowners of land in the Rezone Area who own a parcel of land to which the particular Road Infrastructure Component:

15.1.26.1 is assigned in the Table; or 15.1.26.2 will be undertaken (in whole or in part)."

As the New Component will be allocated solely to Hickinbotham for the purposes of Table B, and the land on which the New Component is to be constructed is partly owned by Hickinbotham and partly vested in the relevant receiving authority, there will be no Other Affected Landowners within the meaning given in clause 15.1.26 for the purposes of this clause.

Given the operation of clause 18.16.1 and the fact that delivery of the New Component is to be allocated solely to Hickinbotham, it may not be necessary for Hickinbotham to rely on clause 18.16.2. However, whether Independent Delivery is undertaken by Hickinbotham pursuant to clause 18.16.1, or by voluntary election under clause 18.16.2, there will be no requirement for consent from any other landowner under the Agreement.

DPTI endorsement

The process for delivery of a New Component is triggered by the Receiving Authority, in this case DPTI (Commissioner of Highways), requiring or endorsing delivery of a different item of road infrastructure.

By letter dated 5 April 2019 DPTI (on behalf of the Commissioner) provided a referral response for DA 313/D026/18 relating to the division of the Hickinbotham land. The letter expressly addresses the proposed roundabout and confirms that "DPTI has agreed to its installation in-principle". The letter then goes on to provide direction about the design and delivery of the roundabout.

In my view the DPTI letter of 5 April 2019 constitutes endorsement of the New Component for the purposes of clause 18.17.1 of the Deed of Variation.

Conclusion

If the New Component is permitted by Council and assigned solely to Hickinbotham as proposed through the Replacement infrastructure process, Hickinbotham can deliver the New Component with no need for agreement from any other landowner. This is consistent with the evident objective of the Road Infrastructure Deed to facilitate the provision of road infrastructure necessary for the orderly development of the Re-Zone land.

Yours faithfully

Tom Game BOTTEN LEVINSON Mob: 0419 809 361 Email: [email protected]

thg:p219184_012.docx v2 APPENDIX 5.E SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 6

Our ref: THG/219184

20 March 2020

Ms Julie Dixon Chief Financial Officer Hickinbotham Group of Companies PO Box 63 STEPNEY SA 5069

By email: [email protected]

Dear Julie

Advice – public road access and egress – Horrocks Highway, Roseworthy

You have sought my opinion on whether Hickinbotham has the right to enter and exit its land at Roseworthy via the Horrocks Highway.

For the reasons that follow, in my view Hickinbotham has rights of access to and from Horrocks Highway from its land implied by the common law.

Background

Hickinbotham is the proponent of a residential sub-division and community development south of the township of Roseworthy. The land the subject of the development is part of a larger area of land in the Light Regional Council area that has been re-zoned for residential development (the "Re-zone area"). The Re-zone area comprises multiple parcels of land with multiple owners.

Approval for development of the sub-division is conditional upon the delivery by Hickinbotham of road infrastructure facilitating access to the land from the Horrocks Highway. The delivery of road infrastructure for the development of the Rezone area is the subject of a Road Infrastructure Deed (as varied by subsequent Deed of Variation) executed between each owner of land within the Re-zone area (separately but in identical terms) with the Light Regional Council.

Under the Road Infrastructure Deed ingress to the Hickinbotham land is facilitated from Horrocks Highway by a left-turn only ingress point (Road Infrastructure component Item 7B) but egress from the Hickinbotham land is facilitated only via adjoining land owned and controlled by another party.

There is some uncertainty about the timing of the development of the adjoining land over which Hickinbotham would under the concept planning obtain its egress onto Horrocks Highway.

thg:p219184_009.docx APPENDIX 5.E SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 7 – 2 –

Hickinbotham has, pursuant to clause 18.17 of the Road Infrastructure Deed (as varied) requested permission from the Council to deliver a roundabout in place of the left-turn only in order to facilitate ingress to and egress from the Hickinbotham land (referred to under the Infrastructure Deed as a New Component). The New Component would also replace the road infrastructure required for land on the other side of Horrocks Highway (Road Infrastructure component item 7A).

The process for determining Hickinbotham's request is underway in accordance with clause 18.17 of the Deed, with the request to be the subject of representations by interested affected parties followed by a hearing before the Council prior to Council determining whether to permit the replacement of items 7A and 7B with the New Component.

The relevant section of the Horrocks Highway (which also lies within the area of the Light Regional Council) is not a “controlled-access road” for the purposes of the Highways Act 1926.

The common law

At common law a public road is a corridor of land over which the general public have rights of way. It is necessarily implied by the common law that there are rights of access to and from privately owned land to any adjacent road.Horrocks Highway is a public road. The common law therefore applies to Horrocks Highway to the extent that the common law has not been excluded or modified by statute.

It is well-established that the common law can only be extinguished by legislation if that is the express intention of the Parliament.

Unless and until the Parliament expresses such an intention, common law rights continue in existence.

In the context of rights over public roads, the Victorian Supreme Court recently said that the common law is therefore:

"the base upon which this legal pyramid is founded, and the legislative provisions cannot be applied without an assessment of the common law position".1

It is therefore necessary to consider whether the common law rights have been excluded or modified by statute.

Local Government Act 1999

Section 208(1) of the Local Government Act 1999 (the LGA) vests the title to all public roads in a council’s area in that council.

A council has certain powers in relation to its public roads, which are set out in Chapter 11 Part 2 of the LGA. This includes an indirect power to control alterations to a public road in section 221. However, section 238(2) specifically prohibits a council from making by-laws about access to or use of a public road.

It follows that a council only has indirect power to control access in relation to the location of an access point. A council cannot deny access to a public road.

1 Anderson v City of Stonnington and Victorian Rail Track [2016] VSC 374 at paragraph 60. thg:p219184_009.docx APPENDIX 5.E SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 8 – 3 –

Highways Act 1926

The Governor may proclaim that a road is a “controlled-access road” under Part 2A of the Highways Act 1926. If so proclaimed, it is an offence to enter or leave a “controlled- access road” other than as specified.

However, except for a section adjacent to the Sturt Highway at Gawler, the Horrocks Highway is not a “controlled-access road”.

Conclusion

As the owner of land adjacent to the Horrocks Highway, Hickinbotham enjoys common law rights of access to and from that road. Those rights have not been extinguished by statute.

Given that firstly, the Road Infrastructure Deed contemplates the need for and/or desirability of a change in the agreed road infrastructure by the inclusion of a specific process for doing so, and secondly, that the Commissioner of Highways has endorsed the replacement New Component proposed by Hickinbotham, it would be unreasonable (and possibly unlawful at common law) for an authority to deny Hickinbotham access to and from Horrocks Highway from its land, either now or in the course of its development.

I trust that this advice is of assistance.

Yours faithfully

Tom Game BOTTEN LEVINSON Mob: 0419 809 361 Email: [email protected]

thg:p219184_009.docx APPENDIX 5.E SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 9

MLM/16-0045

27 March 2020

Ms Julie Dixon Chief Financial Officer Hickinbotham Group of Companies 25 North Terrace HACKNEY SA 5069

Dear Julie,

ROSEWORTHY ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEED – VARIATION TO INFRASTRUCTURE

I refer to the Road Infrastructure Deed associated with the delivery of infrastructure required to service development lands at Roseworthy and, specifically, the correspondence from the Case Manager, Mr Rod Hook, in relation to the proposal to provide a ‘New Component’ in lieu of components 7a and 7b. As requested, I provide the following advice in respect to the proposed ‘New Component’ as it relates to traffic engineering requirements.

The previously proposed infrastructure components identified in the Deed, specifically Components 7a and 7b, were identified as an access solution for the purpose of rezoning of land at Roseworthy. The reasons that informed the decision in relation to the access solution that would effect Components 7a and 7b was not articulated in detail in the original Deed but it would appear that it was based on balancing the transport requirements on Horrocks Highway, which is identified as a freight route, and safe access requirements to and from the highway for land that is to be developed.

The Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DPTI) initially confirmed its in-principle support for the proposed infrastructure interventions to be delivered in conjunction with development of the land the subject of the (then) Development Plan Amendment (DPA). These interventions, however, would have only resulted in an ingress for the subject land.

I am instructed that there is a common law requirement for access (being entry and egress) to be provided to land. While the master plan for the broader development lands considered alternative egress, no such connection currently exists and would require construction of road infrastructure through adjacent land. Alternative options therefore needed to be considered which could be effected and still achieve the intent of the access solution previously developed.

F:\16-0045 Julie Dixon 27 Mar 20.docx APPENDIX 5.E SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 10 16-0045 27 March 2020 Page 2 of 3

Consideration was given to alternative left-in/left-out design options for the site which would be the minimum access requirements for the land. These options were considered in detail, having regard to the design parameters of DPTI, including the Austroads suite of documents. Upon progression of the design options at a more detailed level, there were a number of safety issues identified, including;

• the length of the acceleration lane for an exit at location 7A (and the right turn acceleration lane for 7B as identified in the Infrastructure Agreement) would extend into the reduced speed environment in Roseworthy. This would mean that the road infrastructure would be catering for a merge environment for traffic at a speed on 100km/h within a township where the posted speed limit is 60km/h. This is not only confusing for drivers (where the design parameters for the merge are at a higher speed than the lawful speed limit) but will potentially also result in a higher speed differential between vehicles than recommended in Austroads, particularly having regard to the 85th percentile speed on the approach to Roseworthy township;

• pedestrian crossing movements between the eastern and western sides of Horrocks Highway would be even further compromised. Upon development of the employment lands there will be a demand for pedestrians to cross the highway. The infrastructure necessary to create both acceleration lanes would result in an unsafe environment for pedestrians and cyclists;

• the majority of drivers exiting the site would wish to travel south. Should a northbound only egress be provided, this would result in drivers executing a U-turn within the Roseworthy township. Such a requirement would be undesirable, particularly within close proximity of the acceleration merge points, and would be a potential crash risk;

• should a solution be developed that would permit right turn movements from the site within a right turn lane (which would be desirable given the anticipated traffic distribution), the design would need to account for a right turn acceleration lane. This would mean that the left turn acceleration lane associated with 7B would be opposite the merge for the right turn acceleration lane associated with the egress for the subject site, thus adding complexity to the road environment and an increased crash risk.

Following a number of meetings with DPTI, it was considered that a more innovative solution to provide for access to the subject site and to do so with a safe traffic control treatment was warranted, rather than accept a solution that would potentially compromise the safety of road users. It was on this basis that the proposed roundabout solution was developed. It will provide a number of benefits for access for the proposal, including:

• a reduced speed environment on Horrocks Highway on approach to Roseworthy, thus reducing potential high speed crash risk;

• potential for a safer pedestrian and cyclist crossing environment, with the ability to provide for protected storage in a median;

• provision for all turning movements to remove the need for U-turns within Roseworthy;

APPENDIX 5.E SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 11 16-0045 27 March 2020 Page 3 of 3

• reduced conflict which would be created by the right or left turn acceleration lane from future 7B infrastructure or a left turn egress at the 7A location; and

• improved safety on Horrocks Highway by the reduction of the number of potential conflict points created by removal of one intersection.

The proposed roundabout will also provide traffic related improvements to the internal road network as it will provide for a greater distribution to the arterial road network, rather than rely on drivers using the collector roads to travel through the residential area to access Horrocks Highway. This will be beneficial from an amenity and intersection capacity perspective.

As identified in the correspondence from Mr Rod Hook, the roundabout proposal has been endorsed by DPTI. Further, the design of the roundabout complies with all DPTI criteria and will represent best practice in respect to road safety requirements, as currently defined in Austroads Guide to Road Design documents. It will result in a significantly safer solution and will improve fundamental transport planning for the broader Roseworthy development.

Yours sincerely, MFY PTY LTD

MELISSA MELLEN Director

APPENDIX 5.E SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 12

REF : PO848

27 March 2020 Ground Floor, 89 King William Street

GPO Box 2403 Adelaide SA 5001 PH: 08 8221 5511 Julie Dixon W: www.futureurbangroup.com Chief Financial Officer E: [email protected] Hickinbotham Group of Companies ABN: 34 452 110 398

email - [email protected]

Dear Daniel,

ROSEWORTHY ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEED – NEW COMPONENT

We write in relation to the letter from Rod Hook dated 3 March 2020 offering the opportunity to provide a submission regarding the proposed ‘New Component’ pursuant to the Deed of Variation to Final Road Infrastructure Deed – Roseworthy Township Expansion.

As requested, we provided the following advice in respect to the ‘New Component’ as it relates to town planning.

The agreed infrastructure components identified in the Deed, specifically Components 7a and 7b, were identified as an access solution for the purpose of rezoning of the Roseworthy Township Expansion Area.

Via a Development Plan Amendment (DPA), Concept Plan Map Lig/13 Roseworthy Township Expansion (attached) was incorporated within the Light Regional Council Development Plan (consolidated 8 December 2016).

The Concept Plan incorporates both general and specific planning and infrastructure outcomes in respect to:

• Land use;

• Stormwater;

• Interface management/buffers;

• Access points;

• Future collector roads;

• Future freight link:

• Traffic management including intersection treatments.

In respect to the land which is the subject of the Deed of Variation (CT 53467/755 - 333 Horrocks Highway, Roseworthy), we note that the Concept Plan identifies the following:

• Residential land use;

• In term of access – left turn into residential (Intersection 7);

REF PO848 | 27 March 2020 1

APPENDIX 5.E SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 13

• In addition, it envisages that the road network will continue south through the adjoining land with a ‘channelised junction – Seagull (100km/h) to Residential plus left turn into Employment Zone’ (i.e. instersection number 5). Should such eventuate, the land will only be able to gain egress through the adjoining land to the south. We note that the adjoining land is yet to be developed.

We are instructed that there is a common law requirement for access (being entry and egress) to be provided to land. Therefore, whilst Concept Plan Map Lig/13 suggests that such should be provided through adjoining land, no such connection currently exists and would require the construction of road infrastructure through adjacent land.

From a planning perspective, the Light Regional Council Development Plan is the relevant planning instrument which guides the assessment of the development of the land. The New Component straddles both the Suburban Neighbourhood Zone to the west and the Urban Employment Zone to the east.

We note that both Zones contemplate variations to the infrastructure items specified on the Concept Plan Map Lig/13 within Suburban Neighbourhood Zone Principle of Development Control (PDC) 32 and Urban Employment Zone PDC 26, which both state:

“Development, including land division, within the Roseworthy Town Expansion area should only occur once the infrastructure items identified for the area (or a specified part of the area) identified on Concept Plan Map Lig/13 - Roseworthy Township Expansion are either provided, or a legally binding agreement has been executed for the provision of those infrastructure items, (or alternative infrastructure items that achieve the same outcome have been provided or a legally binding agreement has been executed for the provision of these alternative infrastructure items) for the construction of the following infrastructure:

… (c) road and intersection upgrades’.

MFY have engaged with the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) in relation to this issue and the need to provide dual entry and exit to service the land. As part of this discussion, design progressed at a more detailed level which also identified a number of safety issues with the arrangement proposed by the Concept Plan Map Lig/13. These are detailed under separate cover by MFY (letter dated 19 March 2020, reference MLM/16-0045). Consequently, MFY have confirmed:

‘Following a number of meetings with DPTI, it was considered that a more innovative solution to provide for access to the subject site and to do so with a safe traffic control treatment was warranted, rather than accept a solution that would potentially compromise the safety of road users. It was on this basis that the proposed roundabout solution was developed.’

The roundabout is the ‘New Component’ currently proposed. As identified in the abovementioned correspondence from Rod Hook, the roundabout proposal has been endorsed by DPTI.

The New Component provides ingress to Suburban Neighbourhood Zone and both ingress and egress to the Urban Employment Zone as envisaged by the Concept Plan Map Lig/13. In our opinion this is a logical and sensible planning outcome. Such maintains the orderly planning and coordination of infrastructure sought by both Zones.

With respect to providing new roads as part of land divisions, the Development Plan also envisages that:

• Land division incorporates roads that result in safe and convenient linkages with the surrounding environment (General Section Land Division PDC 4); and,

REF PO848 | 27 March 2020 2

APPENDIX 5.E SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 14

• Layout of land divisions incorporates street patterns that enhance efficient movement of traffic and minimise trip lengths (General Section Land Division PDC 19).

MFY have confirmed the following:

‘The proposed roundabout will also provide traffic related improvements to the internal road network as it will provide for a greater distribution to the arterial road network, rather than rely on drivers using the collector roads to travel through the residential areas to access Horrocks Highway…

Further, the design of the roundabout complies with all DPTI criteria and will represent best practice in respect to road safety requirements, as currently defined in Austroads Guide to Road Design documents. It will result in a significantly safer solution and will improve fundamental transport planning for the broader Roseworthy development’.

Based on the above, the New Component is considered to create a safe and convenient linkage with the surrounding environment, enhance efficient movement of traffic and minimise trip lengths in accordance with the above PDCs.

In conclusion, we are of the opinion that the New Component is consistent with the intent of the Light Regional Council Development Plan and represents an orderly and efficient planning outcome.

Yours sincerely

Michael Osborn National Planning Manager

Enclosed: Concept Plan Map Lig/13

REF PO848 | 27 March 2020 3

APPENDIX 5.E SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 15 RC LIn RuL

ROSE DR PrPro FLETT ROAD

PALPALOMINOOMINO CRT RO AD 13 KRIEG ROROAD PrPro 7 AD THIELE HIGHWAYHIGHWAY 14 BEST RO

9 ARARGENT ROAD GENT

12 RO AD

10 5

PrPro 12

19 HORROCKS HIGHHIGHW In

KANGAROO FLAT ROADRO AD 16 15 6 11 8

AD 12 STURT HIGHWAYHIGHWAY

17 PrPro 20 ARTZ ROADRO

SCOT 12 T ROROADAD LIGHT REDBANKS ROADRO REGIONAL AD BERNARD CT 18 EDWARD ROAD COUNCIL ROAD 1

GAGAWLERWLER 2 BYPASSBYPASS RuL LIGHT 4 REGIONAL R BAROSSA COUNCIL COUNCIL R GAWLER(CT) 3 Development Plan Zones/ Land Use 1 3 4 2 5 6 7 8 9 11 Concept Plan 10 20 12 Map Lig/13 13 15 17 14 ROSEWORTHY 16 18 TOWN EXPANSION 19 APPENDIX 5.E SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 16 1

REPORT TO LIGHT REGIONAL COUNCIL FROM RTE ICM

September 2020.

BACKGROUND

1. Early planning advice from the State Government, Andrew McKeegan, in 2014 was that the intersection of Kangaroo Flat Road with Horrocks Highway would be the only uncontrolled intersection along Horrocks Highway. All other intersections at that time were to be left-in/left-out only.

2. By 2016, the position had changed and the following was then adopted for the Roseworthy Township Expansion (RTE) development area west of Horrocks Highway. This was incorporated into the area’s Concept Plan. • A channelized junction - Seagull was proposed for access to and from the LVG/Platinum land. This land includes the proposed Centre Zone for the development as well as residential land. • A left turn only was proposed for the Zarmen/Hickinbotham residential land.

3. In 2019, I was engaged by the Light Regional Council, as the Independent Case Manager for the Final Road Infrastructure Deed for the RTE. This requires me to implement certain procedures to independently evaluate road infrastructure issues that may arise from time to time between landowners/developers on the RTE project. Where necessary my task is to provide advice for Council on matters requiring resolution.

4. Also during 2019, Hickinbotham provided documentation to the Council and me requesting a variation to the Concept Plan under the Road Infrastructure Deed to change the left-in access from Horrocks Highway into the Zarmen/Hickinbotham residential land to a roundabout.

5. This report sets out my advice and recommendations to Council pursuant to my engagement as the Independent Case Manager for the RTE development.

PROCESS TO CONSIDER VARIATION

6. The process to consider the application requires me to consult with all landowners and provide a report/advice to Council on a way forward.

7. I initiated the formal process under the Deed on 3 March 2020, but prior to that date I took the opportunity to participate in two meetings, either of which may have helped me bring about an earlier resolution of the matter before me.

9. On 21 October 2019, I made independent arrangements to meet with officers of the Department of Transport, Planning and Infrastructure (DPTI). At that stage, I was aware that Hickinbotham had provided advice to the effect that DPTI was in favour of a roundabout at the Horrocks Highway intersection.

APPENDIX 5.F SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 1 2

I wanted to independently verify DPTI’s position directly with the relevant, responsible officers from the Department. Had I gleaned any information in that meeting that questioned DPTI’s support, I would have immediately passed that observation onto Council. As it turned out DPTI’s advice in favour of the roundabout proposal was documented in minutes of my meeting with the relevant DPTI officers, which have been made available to Council.

10. The second meeting was held on 17 December 2019 at the Roseworthy Hotel. I was advised by Council that Julie Dixon from Hickinbotham had arranged a meeting on that date with the Halliday and Ryan families, both of whom are landowners on the eastern side of Horrocks Highway generally opposite the Zarmen/Hickinbotham land. I was advised that the Hallidays and Ryans both opposed Hickinbotham’s roundabout proposal. Council asked me to consider whether I wanted to attend this meeting. My interest in attending was to understand why the landowners were opposing the proposal and in particular to see if there were any design issues or any unreasonable financial expectations being imposed on them by the Hickinbotham group. Had this been the case I would have quickly called that out and reported accordingly.

11. Following these meetings, I was required to allow the process envisaged by the Deed to take its full course and worked with the Council to ensure we had all the relevant documentation available to us to proceed.

12. On 3 March 2020, I referred details of the Zarmen/Hickinbotham proposed variation to each landowner as required under the relevant Deed. Five submissions were received, two supporting the proposed variation and three opposing it. A summary of advice received from landowners is included as an attachment to this report.

13. I note here, the approach adopted by the LVG/Platinum group to intercede in the process by recourse to legal argument and legal challenges. This has included challenges to me personally on my independence.

14. Having noted the legal challenges Council requested I take no further action on the Hickinbotham proposal until Council had considered its position. In June 2020, Council asked me to forward a further submission to all RTE landowners, enclosing some additional correspondence from Hickinbotham and its consultants and DPTI.

15. This additional information was sent to landowners on 15 June 2020. Two acknowledgements were received. One of these questioned my independence.

OBSERVATIONS

16. There are two key components of the assessment in relation to the Zarmen/Hickinbotham proposal, namely (1) transport and (2) planning considerations.

APPENDIX 5.F SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 2 3

Transport 17. From a transport perspective, since my involvement as ICM, DPTI has consistently confirmed to me, including as recently as 6 July, its support and endorsement for a roundabout on Horrocks Highway to provide access to and from the Zarmen/Hickinbotham land.

18. Left in access only for the Zarmen/Hickinbotham residential land development does appear to be an inadequate transport solution for this component of the RTE development. The major movement of people out of the development area will be towards the south. I have taken the view that if DPTI considers Hickinbotham’s roundabout proposal is a suitable transport solution for the project, I would have no basis other than to support the proposal from a transport perspective.

19. A roundabout at the location proposed by Zarmen/Hickinbotham also offers a future, cost-effective solution for access to the future employment lands on the eastern side of Horrocks Highway, when development of that area comes onto the agenda. However, I reiterate for Council’s consideration that the land owners in the future employment area have been strongly opposed to the proposed roundabout during consultation.

Planning 20. My task as ICM is to advise Council on infrastructure issues associated with the RTE. I do not anticipate advising Council on planning matters.

21. However, from a planning perspective, it is relevant for Council to note and accept that the LVG/Platinum land includes the town centre for the development. Access to the town centre should be constructed as the principal gateway to the development area from Horrocks Highway.

22. It is therefore considered important that the access to and from Horrocks Highway into the LVG/Platinum component of the project should be at least the equivalent of the access into the Zarmen/Hickinbotham development. It would look strange for residential development in the Zarmen/Hickinbotham component of the project to be given a more prominent gateway access than the entry into the town centre.

23. The current proposal is for access to and from the LVG/Platinum development to incorporate a seagull intersection with Horrocks Highway.

24. If Council supports a roundabout for access to and from the Zarmen/Hickinbotham development, it could consider offering a second roundabout on Horrocks Highway for access into the LVG/Platinum land

25. DPTI has advised that it supports reducing speeds on the Horrocks Highway south of the existing Roseworthy Township to 80 kph and that it is prepared to consider a two roundabout solution on Horrocks Highway for access to the RTE project land, which is again a significant shift from the position in 2016.

APPENDIX 5.F SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 3 4

26. Irrespective of the intersection solution adopted by Council, I consider it also imperative that Council and the developers ensure early attention is given to construction of the roads which will directly link the Zarmen/Hickinbotham residential area to the town centre which is to be located on the LVG/Platinum land. Future residents within the Zarmen/Hickinbotham development should not have to enter and leave Horrocks Highway to access the town centre.

RECOMMENDATIONS

27. That Council note my advice and the advice of DPTI that a roundabout on Horrocks Highway to provide access into the Zarmen/Hickinbotham land is considered an acceptable transport solution.

28. That Council support DPTI’s position for future planning to be based around a future 80kph speed limit on Horrocks Highway south of the existing Roseworthy township.

29. That Council note the need to address the planning implications associated with the various proposed intersections of the RTE development and Horrocks Highway.

30. That Council advise both Zarmen/Hickinbotham and LVG/Platinum of its expectation that the developers will ensure early and equitable delivery of internal roads directly linking the residential land in the Zarmen/Hickinbotham project to the town centre for the RTE.

Rod Hook Independent Case Manager RTE Road Infrastructure Deed 8 September 2020.

APPENDIX 5.F SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 4 5

ATTACHMENT

CONSULTATION WITH LANDOWNERS IN RESPONSE TO MARCH 2020 INVITATION

Five submissions were received from RTE Landowners. Three were opposed to Hicknbotham’s proposal. Two were in favour.

Landowners Opposing Hickinbotham’s Proposal

1. Kerry Halliday per Employment Land Landowners

• Wishes to object and oppose the proposed variation • Expresses concern that Zarmen Pty Ltd was in discussion with the Council before the ink had dried on the original deed • Considers it should have been brought up earlier • Provides notice that the proposed change will directly affect them, being detrimental both financially and for the development of the Employment Land • Points out that even though there were discussions between Council and DPTI about this in June 2019, they were not informed until mid November

2. Michael Virgara on behalf of Virgara family

• Advises they object and oppose the proposed roundabout • Notes they signed a deed based on a plan that they all agreed on and are concerned this was not brought to their attention. • Puts Council on notice that the proposed change will affect their expenses under the road infrastructure deed, which they entered into in good faith • They reserve their rights and reiterate their objection and opposition to the Zarmen/Hickinbotham proposal

3. Kathryn Walker on behalf of Platinum Property Retirements

• Refers to inadequacies of the Hickinbotham proposal, which denies them procedural fairness in making a submission • Accuses Council of actual or perceived bias and claims the new component cannot be assessed under the DOV as it is currently worded and that a new authority, namely SCAP, should be appointed. • Notes that the new component is not required or desirable, pointing out it is in the form substantially the same as that rejected previously by Mr John Rau and DPTI. • Claims that Hickinbotham can gain access to his land by temporary road infrastructure that can subsequently be removed.

APPENDIX 5.F SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 5 6

• Believes that the opening up of the Hickinbotham land to all way movement to/from the Horrocks Highway may have a potentially negative impact upon the performance and delivery of the designated Activity Centre on the PPR land. • Refers to some 1500 trips generated by the Hickinbotham land which would otherwise be expected to pass the PPR Activity Centre along the internal collector road network to be diverted to Horrocks Highway by virtue of the introduction of the Hicknbotham roundabout. • Estimated that this reduction in passing trade could impact the proposed PPR Activity Centre by around 5.0% of turnover in the establishment years.

Landowners Supporting Hickinbotham’s Proposal

1. Wendy and Trevor Wilson

• Considers the roundabout will be beneficial both to Roseworthy Township Expansion as well as existing township • Notes that majority of traffic exiting Roseworthy want to travel south towards Adelaide. The roundabout provides a safe exit to the south • Notes that the roundabout will provide a safe entry/exit for the employment lands when that area is developed. • Considers current position showing only one (seagull) access for movements to the south onto a road with a 100kph speed limit is unsafe. • Advocates safety benefits of 80kph speed limit on Horrocks Highway with the roundabout.

2. Michael Hickinbotham

• Provided advice that if Council permits roundabout proposal, agreement of other landowners is not needed. • Refers to common law requirement for access, being entry and egress, to be provided to the land, rather than through adjoining private land where no such connection currently exists. • Notes that the roundabout design meets DPTI requirements and that it provides traffic related improvements through a greater distribution to the arterial road network, rather than rely on drivers using collector roads top travel through residential roads to access Horrocks Highway.

APPENDIX 5.F SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 6 Peer review final report to Light Regional Council October 2020

Review of ‘Report to Light Regional Council from RTE ICM’

Introduction

In October 2020 the Light Regional Council approached me as an independent expert to undertake a peer review of a proposal to replace a component of proposed traffic infrastructure associated with the Roseworthy Township Expansion (RTE).

The Road Infrastructure Deed (RID) in place for the RTE development area requires the installation of certain infrastructure including intersection upgrades as required by the Department of Infrastructure and Transport (DIT, formerly DPTI), with funding and contribution arrangements coordinated amongst the landowners. However, the deed provides for developers to have the opportunity to seek variations in the nominated infrastructure subject to the acceptance of DIT (where it will become DIT infrastructure) and the overall approval of Council.

The Deed includes the management of a number of processes, including the consideration of variations, by an Independent Case Manager (ICM). The consultancy Rod Hook and Associates performs this function for Council.

A current proposal by Zarmen/Hickinbotham, for the Marker land division at the northern end of the RTE, seeks to replace one of the intersection items. The ICM has investigated this proposal, and provided a report, with recommendations, to Council in September 2020. Prior to this, Council determined it would engage an independent expert to peer review the report from the ICM. This report provides that review.

Declaration

I can assert my independence for this review in that I have had no professional, financial or other associations with any of the RTE landowners or the ICM. I have worked for and in collaboration with (the predecessors of) DIT for many years, in the areas of traffic engineering, transport planning and road safety. In the period 1996-2012 I ran the SA training and accreditation course for road safety auditors, initially for (the then) Transport SA and subsequently at the University of South Australia with the support of Transport SA and its successors. In the period 1999-2002 I acted as independent reviewer for the Minister of Transport, for a number of disputed land acquisition proposals across the state. Since retiring from my substantive position at the University of South Australia in 2012 I have not undertaken any paid work with DIT/DPTI, although I have been involved in discussions with departmental staff, on matters completely unrelated to the RTE, on several occasions.

My only dealing with Light Regional Council is the current peer review.

The proposal for variation

The proposed variation to the Deed concerns the intersection designated as number 7 on the RTE Concept Plan, as shown in Figure 1. In the RID this intersection is listed as a ‘Channelised junction –

APPENDIX 5.G SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 1 Peer review final report to Light Regional Council October 2020

Seagull (100 km/h) to employment plus left turn into residential’, i.e. the Deed provides for a channelized Seagull T-junction for the proposed employment zone on the eastern side of Horrocks Highway with a separate left turn slip lane providing access to the Zarmen/Hickinbotham residential land on the western side. The proposed variation converts this intersection into a roundabout.

In addition, DIT has indicated that it is prepared to reduce the speed limit on Horrocks Highway south of the existing Roseworthy township from 100 km/h to 80 km/h.

The ICM report

The report sets out the request for variation from Hickinbotham and the role of the ICM in terms of providing advice and recommendations to Council. The process requires the ICM to consult with all landowners and provide advice and a report to Council. As a result of the consultation responses were received from five landowners: two in favour of the variation and three opposed to it. Much of the opposition concerned the timing of the request and a perceived lack of communication between the landowners.

The ICM report addresses two key components of the assessment of the proposal, namely (1) transport issues and (2) planning considerations. For transport, the issue is that of access to and egress from the Zarmen/Hickinbotham development, given that the major movement of traffic from the development is expected be to the south. The roundabout proposal is seen as a suitable transport proposal in this regard, and it has the support of DIT. The ICM also indicates that the roundabout would provide a future cost-effective means of access to the proposed employment site to the east of Horrocks Highway. However, the ICM report notes that the landowners of the employment site have indicated opposition to the roundabout proposal. For planning, the main issue of concern is the town centre component for the development, which is contained in the LVG/Platinum land area. Access to the town centre should provide the main gateway to the development area from Horrocks Highway. The ICM argues that to achieve this outcome the access into the LVG/Platinum component should be at least the equivalent of that to Zarmen/Hickinbotham. This could be achieved by providing a second roundabout on Horrocks Highway for access to LVG/Platinum. DIT has indicated that it supports reducing speeds on Horrocks Highway with an 80 km/h speed limit and would consider a two-roundabout solution.

The ICM report indicates the necessity for Council and the developers to undertake the early construction of the collector roads directly linking Zarmen/Hickinbotham to the town centre on LVG/Platinum, irrespective of the intersection solution adopted by Council. The ICM report states that ‘future residents within the Zarmen/Hickinbotham development should not have to enter and leave Horrocks Highway to access the town centre’.

The ICM report made the following recommendations to Council: 1. That Council note the advice of the ICM and the advice of DIT that a roundabout on Horrocks Highway to provide access into the Zarmen/Hickinbotham land is considered an acceptable transport solution 2. That Council support DIT’s position for future planning to be based around a future 80 km/h speed limit on Horrocks Highway south of the existing Roseworthy township 3. That Council note the need to address the planning implications associated with the various proposed intersections of the RTE development and Horrocks Highway, and 4. That Council advise both Zarmen/Hickinbotham and LVG/Platinum of its expectation that the developers will ensure early and equitable delivery of internal roads directly linking the residential land in the Zarmen/Hickinbotham project to the town centre for the RTE.

APPENDIX 5.G SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 2 Peer review final report to Light Regional Council October 2020

Comments

I have read the report by the ICM and the background and supplementary information provided with that report by Council. This supplementary information provides details of the proposed infrastructure variation, including preliminary plans and cost estimates, minutes of meetings of the ICM with DPTI/DIT, correspondence between Hickinbotham and its consultant engineer with DPTI, responses to the proposed variation provided by some of the other landowners, and the Deed itself. Subsequently I sought additional information from Council, firstly concerning the estimated traffic generation for the residential development in RTE and secondly seeking clarification of the original proposed intersection layout for intersection 7 in the concept plan (see Figure 1).

A list of the set of information supplied by Council is attached as Appendix A to this review report.

My review is limited to the traffic engineering, transport and planning issues relating to the proposed variation, as these fall within my area of expertise. I can offer no comment on any legal issues that may be raised.

The first point for consideration is the need for a reduced speed limit (to 80 km/h) for Horrocks Highway south of the existing Roseworthy township. From a traffic engineering and road safety perspective this reduction is essential because the land use environment surrounding this highway section is undergoing a complete change, from essentially rural to developed suburban land use, with a combination of residential and employment activities. While these developments may not have direct frontages on to the highway, the much increased levels of human and traffic activity in the immediate vicinity lead to the need for a reduction in the speed environment. The reduced speed limit will not affect the operations of heavy goods vehicles on the highway, and arguably will enhance operations of both commercial and private vehicles turning on to or off the highway. The information supplied indicates that DIT has reached a similar conclusion.

Provision of a roundabout at intersection #7 is compatible with the reduced speed limit and would offer safer and more convenient access, especially for the future employment site to the east of the highway. Installation of the roundabout would also provide for more complete access to (and the opportunity for egress from) the Zarmen/Hickinbotham development area.

The ICM report notes the opposition to the roundabout proposal by the landowners of the employment site. The reasons for this opposition are not made clear in the available documentation but appear to be concerned with cost and possible limitation of future development opportunities. My interpretation of the information at hand indicates that Zarmen/Hickinbotham will bear the full additional cost of the roundabout installation – above the agreed cost of the original channelised seagull junction – at intersection #7 and that the roundabout would be located in the existing road reserve and inside the Zarmen/Hickinbotham site and therefore not impinge on the employment site.

The main transport issue at stake is the access to (and egress from) the development, noting that the RTE west of Horrocks Highway is split into four separate component areas (see Figure 2). By and large this access will be by motor vehicle, with the predominant traffic movement being to the south and to the established urban areas of Gawler and metropolitan Adelaide beyond.

The Zarmen/Hickinbotham development area abuts the LVG/Platinum area and the latter contains the town centre for the development. The development plan includes an internal north-south

APPENDIX 5.G SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 3 Peer review final report to Light Regional Council October 2020 collector road with east-west links to Horrocks Highway at intersections #5 and #7 (see Figure 1). Under the RID egress from Zarmen/Hickinbotham is only possible, for any direction of travel, at intersection #5. The collector road and its east-west links do not yet exist. I agree with the ICM that left turn in access for Zarmen/Hickinbotham is an inadequate transport solution for this component, unless the collector road were to be in place. The development plan focuses all access to the northern part of RTE residential at intersection #5. Early construction of the complete internal collector road to permit such traffic movement therefore seems essential. This road is the spine providing internal connectivity and drawing the full RTE development together, so ensuring full integration across the component development areas. Provision of the roundabout solution at #7 reduces the immediacy requirement for this construction, but does not obviate it. As noted in the ICM report and previously in this report future residents within the Zarmen/Hickinbotham development should have full access the town centre without having to leave the development via the highway.

While a full traffic impact analysis of the RTE does not appear to have been reported, some analyses for the component areas within the RTE are available, e.g. see the Holmes-Dyer 2019 report to LVG/Platinum as listed in Appendix A. An RTE-wide analysis is perhaps not possible at this stage, given that the development plans for each component area still appear incomplete. However, given the contiguous nature of the internal road network for the full development such an analysis is warranted, to ensure that predicted traffic volumes on the internal network do not exceed the accepted thresholds for different road classes1 and that the network can satisfactorily serve all the needs of all residents of the development and not lead to future environmental problems. Provision of a second full access point from Horrocks Highway, such as intersection #7, would serve to alleviate any potential problems in this regard.

Provision of full access at intersection #7 does however lead to the main planning issue affecting the RTE. The principal gateway to the full development is intersection #5, with the town centre close to that intersection. The intersection configuration and design for #5 needs to reflect its prime status. The ICM report notes the importance of the gateway at #5. It suggests that the treatment employed at intersection #5 should be at least the equivalent of that employed at intersection #7. Thus should a roundabout be installed at #7, one should also be considered at #5. According to ICM, DIT has indicated its preparedness to consider a two-roundabout solution for Horrocks Highway and access to the RTE. The primary gateway status of intersection #5 would be further enhanced by appropriate signage and landscaping. Traffic coming from the south on Horrocks Highway, the expected major movement, will experience intersection #5 as its introduction to the RTE. The importance of local access to the town centre is highlighted in the Holmes-Dyer report. Enhanced gateway status at intersection #5 would help to reinforce this.

Provision of a roundabout at intersection #5 would also facilitate access to the southern end of the proposed employment site east of the highway.

1 For example, established threshold values for Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes on primary collector roads, secondary collector roads and local streets respectively are 6000 veh/day, 3000 veh/day and 1000 veh/day. Volumes exceeding these thresholds are likely to lead to traffic problems in a local area development. See my chapter ‘Local area traffic management’ in the forthcoming International Encyclopedia of Transportation, editor Roger Vickerman, to be published by Elsevier in May 2021. An advance copy of this chapter has been provided to Council. 4

APPENDIX 5.G SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 4 Peer review final report to Light Regional Council October 2020

Conclusions and recommendations

The proposed reduction to 80 km/h for the speed limit on Horrocks Highway in the vicinity of the RTE and the endorsement of that reduced speed limit by DIT provides a significant opportunity to consider the most appropriate intersection treatments for access to the RTE. Roundabouts would provide a suitable treatment for this traffic environment, offering small delays and equitable sharing of those delays for all traffic movements while maintaining adequate total road capacity. A roundabout would not hinder existing traffic movements on the highway. This is important given the substantial increases in total traffic volumes using the Horrocks Highway intersections, with substantial intersecting traffic movements, once the RTE development is complete2. A full capacity analysis would be required to estimate likely delays and capacities, but these would likely be more favourable and equitable under a roundabout traffic regime than at a T-junction with the same traffic volumes for the Horrocks Highway traffic environment. Roundabout operation is also potentially safer. The required analysis is quite straightforward given estimated turning movement flows and preliminary designs for the intersection as inputs, and can be undertaken using established software packages such as the widely available SIDRA package.

On traffic operations and road safety grounds a roundabout would provide an adequate transport solution and offers better versatility in terms of access to the RTE. From a motorist’s perspective two-way operation at an intersection such as #7 for access and egress for Zarmen/Hickinbotham is also more reasonable and in line with community expectations. This would also apply for the proposed employment site on the eastern side of the highway.

In the broader planning context there are two major issues for the RTE.

The first planning issue concerns the provision of the internal north-south collector road and its east- west linkages, especially those to Horrocks Highway. For proper integration of the whole residential development and the necessary connectivity within the RTE, early construction of the internal collector road sub-network is essential. If this network connectivity is not provided right from the start of settlement of the area then there is a high probability that the development will begin as and continue on in fragmented form, i.e. as a number of separated developments rather than an integrated whole. Travel habits once learned – such as how to access the development – are hard to change later on. Such habits are formed in the early days of residents’ occupancy.

The second planning issue concerns the town centre and the recognition of the role of intersection #5 as the main gateway to the RTE. Design measures to ensure the primacy of this intersection are imperative. An intersection treatment of at least equivalent to that of other RTE intersections along Horrocks Highway is required. A roundabout at this location would be suitable in this regard. As noted in the ICM report, DIT has indicated its willingness to consider a two-roundabout traffic solution for Horrocks Highway.

Scope exists within the RID to consider variations to the intersection types set out in the Concept Plan and there is merit in a full consideration of the opportunities presented by a reduced speed environment on Horrocks Highway.

2 The Holmes-Dyer 2019 report indicates that additional traffic volumes between 3000-4000 veh/day will be added to the current 6300 veh/day using Horrocks Highway, i.e. will be feeding on to Horrocks Highway from the RTE. [It is not clear from the report if this additional traffic volume relates only to traffic generated within the LVG/Platinum development or includes traffic generation from Zarmen/Hickinbotham. If it only considers LVG/Platinum traffic then the additional traffic volumes will be higher than those cited in the Holmes-Dyer report.] 5

APPENDIX 5.G SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 5 Peer review final report to Light Regional Council October 2020

The ICM report deals with these issues and presents a set of recommendations to Council. I support these recommendations, although I present them in a different order and would highlight the importance of the main gateway to the RTE. I also add an additional recommendation concerning the need to seek integration of the whole RTE development..

Consequently my recommendations to Council are: 1. That Council supports DIT’s position for future planning for the RTE to be based around a future 80 km/h speed limit on Horrocks Highway south of the existing Roseworthy township 2. That Council advise both Zarmen/Hickinbotham and LVG/Platinum of its expectation that the developers will ensure early and equitable delivery of the internal collector roads directly linking the residential land in the Zarmen/Hickinbotham project to the town centre for the RTE, to establish proper connectivity in the internal road network 3. That Council note the advice of the ICM, DIT and this reviewer that a roundabout on Horrocks Highway to provide access to the Zarmen/Hickinbotham land (intersection #7) is an acceptable and desirable traffic and transport solution 4. That Council note the need to address the planning implications associated with the various proposed intersections of the RTE development and Horrocks Highway, and especially the gateway status of intersection #5 5. That Council collate (from all existing sources) or commission, as necessary, an integrated traffic impact analysis considering the whole RTE development in its final, completed form.

Professor Michael A P Taylor, BEng(Hons) MEngSc PhD CPEng FIEAust FITE MAITPM, NER (EA ID 161437) Emeritus Professor of Transport Planning UniSA STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) University of South Australia

23 October 2020

APPENDIX 5.G SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 6 Peer review final report to Light Regional Council October 2020

Figure 1: Concept plan map Lig/13 Roseworthy Township Expansion, highlighting location of intersection no 7

APPENDIX 5.G SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 7 Peer review final report to Light Regional Council October 2020

Figure 2: Component residential areas of the RTE west of Horrocks Highway, noting that the Hickinbotham/Quindoo/Wilson area has a revised plan of division less dense than as shown here [source: Council Agenda Tuesday 28 July 2020, and https://location.sa.gov.au]

APPENDIX 5.G SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 8 Peer review final report to Light Regional Council October 2020

Appendix A: Documentation provided for the review

The documentation provided for the review was in two parts: 1. Documents provided at meeting on 7 October 2020 with Mr Craig Doyle, General Manager Strategy and Development, and 2. Documentation provided subsequently by Light Regional Council, on my request

Documentation provided at meeting

1. Report to Light Regional Council from RTE ICM, September 2020 2. Letter ‘Schedule 8 – Referral Response’ to State Commission Assessment Panel from Manager, Transport Assessment and Policy Reform, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (2019/00253, Process ID: 558083), 5 April 2019 3. Letter ‘Roseworthy Township Expansion Infrastructure’ to MFY Pty Ltd from Acting Manager, Transport Assessment, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (2019/00253, Process ID: 558083), 29 May 2020 4. Email ‘FW: Proposed Northern Roseworthy Access’, 5 May 2020 from MFY Pty Ltd 5. Letter ‘Proposed Northern Roseworthy Access’ to Paul Gelston, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure from MFY Pty Ltd, 29 November 2017, including Fyfe Drawings nos 18881Po2-r11 (3 sheets) and MFY drawing no MFY_160045_07_02_SH01 Rev D 6. Email ‘Horrocks Highway roundabout’ from Kerry Halliday, Employment Land Landowners to Rod Hook, 27 March 2020 7. Letter ’Roseworthy Township Expansion, Request for Replacement Road Infrastructure Component by the Hickinbotham Group’ from Piper Alderman to Rod Hook, 12 March 2020 8. Report ‘Submissions on behalf of Platinum Property Retirement pursuant to clause 18.17.1.5 of the Deed of Variation to Final Road Infrastructure Deed’ by Piper Alderman, 30 March 2020 9. Minutes of meeting ‘Roseworthy Township Expansion Meeting – Horrocks Highway Intersections’ 21 October 2019, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure 10. Email ‘Doc 431065 Fwd: Roseworthy Township Expansion’ from Rod Hook, with letter sent to all RTE landowners, 15 June 2020, including attached correspondence (2), (3) and (5) above 11. Email ‘Doc 4190044 Doc 419043 Advice to Landowners’ from Rod Hook, with letter sent to all RTE landowners, 15 June 2020 and attachments: Letter ‘Roseworthy Township Expansion – request for replacement of road infrastructure component’ from Hickinbotham to CEO Light Regional Council, 21 June 2019; Letter ‘Roseworthy Township Expansion – request for replacement of road infrastructure component – further information’ from Hickinbotham to CEO Light Regional Council and Road Hook, 9 September 2020; and extract (Clause 18.17) from ‘Deed of Variation to Final Road Infrastructure Deed, Roseworthy Township Expansion’ (amended 7/12/2018) 12. Full version of ‘Deed of Variation to Final Road Infrastructure Deed, Roseworthy Township Expansion’ (amended 7/12/2018) 13. Full version of ‘Final Road Infrastructure Deed, Roseworthy Township Expansion’, 11 May 2017

APPENDIX 5.G SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 9 Peer review final report to Light Regional Council October 2020

Documentation provided subsequent to the meeting

1. Holmes-Dyer report ‘St Yves-Roseworthy-Stage 1C’ DA313/D032/19, prepared for Land Vision Group Pty Ltd, December 2019 2. Tonkin report ‘Roseworthy Township Expansion DPA Infrastructure Investigation URPS (for Light Regional Council)’ ref no 20131255, November 2014 (Appendix Council 11.40 – 9 December 2014) 3. Minutes-Council-Special-29August2016.pdf 4. Minutes-Council-27September2016.pdf 5. Appendix Council 5.3A-29August2016 (Concept Plan Extract).pdf 6. Appendix Council 13.3D-27September2016.pdf

APPENDIX 5.G SPECIAL COUNCIL 17 NOVEMBER 2020 ITEM 5.1 - PAGE 10