Special Council Meeting
Minutes
16 April 2014
Our Vision
A City which values its heritage, cultural diversity,
sense of place and natural environment.
A progressive City which is prosperous, sustainable
and socially cohesive, with a strong community spirit.
City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 16 April 2014
Index Page
Page No.
1.
CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES ........................................................................................................ 1
2.
STAFF REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1
CORK OAK TREE LOCATED AT 166A THE PARADE, NORWOOD........................................... 2
3.
CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS .....................................................................................................................11
4.
CLOSURE ................................................................................................................................................11
City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 16 April 2014
VENUE
Council Chambers, Norwood Town Hall
HOUR
7.30pm
PRESENT
Council Members
Mayor Robert Bria
Cr Lucy Marcuccitti
Cr Geoff Rundle
Cr Connie Granozio
Cr Sophia MacRae
Cr Carlo Dottore
Cr Kevin Duke
Cr Isaac Pasalidis
Cr John Frogley
Cr Garry Knoblauch
Cr Sue Whitington
Cr Paul Wormald
Staff
Mario Barone (Chief Executive Officer)
Peter Perilli (General Manager, Urban Services)
Carlos Buzzetti (General Manager, Urban Planning & Environment)
Lisa Mara (General Manager, Governance & Community Affairs)
Sharon Perkins (Acting General Manager, Corporate Services)
Claude Malak (Manager, City Assets)
Joel Ashforth (Horticultural & Arboricultural Services Co-ordinator)
Tina Zullo (Administration Officer, Governance & Community Affairs)
APOLOGIES
Cr John Minney
ABSENT
Nil
1.
CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES
There were no minutes confirmed at this meeting.
2.
STAFF REPORTS
Page 1
City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 16 April 2014
Item 2.1
2.1
CORK OAK TREE LOCATED AT 166A THE PARADE, NORWOOD
REPORT AUTHOR:
GENERAL MANAGER:
CONTACT NUMBER:
FILE REFERENCE:
ATTACHMENTS:
Manager, City Assets
General Manager, Urban Services
8366 4542
S/03125 P/19479
A
PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of this report is to present to the Council for its consideration, the results of testing which has
been undertaken on the Cork Oak Tree that is located within the Coles, Norwood premises located at 166A
The Parade, Norwood.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting held on 19 March 2014, the Council considered a report regarding the Cork Oak Tree.
The report presented information regarding a proposed Memorandum of Agreement between the Council
and the Coles Group Property Development Ltd (“Coles”), regarding the Cork Oak Tree.
Essentially, the purpose of the Memorandum of Agreement, is to ensure that notwithstanding the decision
that would be made by the Council’s Development Assessment Panel regarding the Development
Application lodged by Coles, which included the removal of the Cork Oak Tree, Coles would not remove the
Cork Oak Tree until a final decision regarding its transplantation was made by the Council.
The Memorandum of Agreement also facilitates the undertaking of the necessary testing, as recommended
by the Council’s Consulting Arborist, Treevolution. The testing was required to determine if any unknown
aspects such as the health and structure of the Cork Oak Tree, would affect its transplantation.
Following consideration of the report, the Council resolved the following:
1. That the Council agrees to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (as contained in Attachment C) with
Coles Group Property Development Ltd, to transplant the Cork Oak Tree, located at 166A The Parade,
Norwood to Coke Park, Norwood.
2. That the Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to sign the Memorandum of Agreement
contained within Attachment C to this report, on behalf of the Council.
3. That the Council notes that a diagnostic investigation will now be undertaken to determine if any
unknown aspects of the health and structure of the Cork Oak Tree will affect the transplantation of the
Cork Oak Tree.
4. That the Council approves expenditure of up to $15,000, to undertake a diagnostic assessment of the
Cork Oak Tree, as recommended in the Treevolution Report dated 12 March 2014.
5. That a report be provided to the Council on the findings of the diagnostic assessment.
The Memorandum of Agreement was executed by both parties on 20 March 2014.
The testing of the Cork Oak Tree was carried out by ENSPEC on 1 April 2014. The key findings of the tests
are outlined in this report for the Council’s consideration. A copy of the report prepared by ENSPEC is
contained in Attachment A.
RELEVANT STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS & POLICIES
The relevant Outcomes and Objectives of the Council’s City Plan 2030 - Shaping Our Future are provided
below:
Page 2
City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 16 April 2014
Item 2.1
Outcome 2: Cultural Vitality
A culturally rich and diverse City with a strong identity, history and sense of place.
Objectives:
4.
Pleasant, well designed, sustainable urban environments.
Outcome 4: Environmental Sustainability
A leader in environmental sustainability.
Objectives:
1.
Sustainable and efficient management of water, energy and other resources.
There are numerous issues and factors involved with this matter. As such, all relevant factors and issues
need to be carefully considered by the Council in making its decision as to whether or not it will pursue the
transplanting of the Tree and under what circumstances.
FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS
The report prepared by Treevolution and considered by the Council at its meeting held on 19 March 2014,
provided a first order estimate of the costs associated with the transplantation of the Cork Oak Tree. The
estimate proposed by Treevolution is $150,000 (GST Exclusive,) plus or minus 50%, given the unknowns, as
only a visual inspection of the Cork Oak Tree undertaken at the time of preparing the report.
As part of the discussions leading up to the execution of the Memorandum of Agreement, Coles advised that
it is prepared to contribute to the costs of transplanting the Cork Oak Tree, on a shared basis with the
Council, with a contribution upwards to a maximum of $80,000. If, however, the costs to transplant the Cork
Oak Tree are in excess of $160,000, Coles have advised that they would only contribute a maximum of
$80,000. This was outlined to the Council in the report considered by the Council at its meeting held on 19
March 2014.
As outlined in the report considered by the Council at its meeting held on 19 March 2014, the Council has
not allocated funds for this project within its 2013-2014 Budget (i.e. the cost of transplantation). As such,
should the Council decide to pursue the transplantation of the Cork Oak Tree, whether that be in the 20132014 financial year or beyond, funds would need to be allocated.
At its meeting held on 20 March 2014, the Council’s Development Assessment Panel refused Coles’
Development Application to redevelop the site. In this respect, should the Council wish to pursue the
transplantation of the Cork Oak Tree, it is recommended that this should only occur in the event that a
redevelopment of the Coles site is approved, be that through a court process (an appeal against the
Council’s Development Assessment Panel decision), or through the lodgment of a new Development
Application.
In terms of the costs which have been incurred to date, at the time of preparing this report, invoices had not
been received from the Council’s Consultants. However, it is expected that approximately $11,100 (GST
Exclusive) has been incurred to date.
A summary of the cost is provided in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF COSTS TO DATE
Treevolution report and investigation
$1,500
Site preparation for ENSPEC testing and reinstatement
$3,800
ENSPEC testing, assessment and report
$5,800
Total
$11,100
EXTERNAL ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS
Not applicable.
Page 3
City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 16 April 2014
Item 2.1
SOCIAL ISSUES
Not applicable.
CULTURAL ISSUES
The cultural issues associated with the Tree were outlined in the report considered by the Council at its
meeting held on 19 March 2014.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Not applicable.
RESOURCE ISSUES
Not applicable.
RISK MANAGEMENT
There are numerous issues associated with the transplantation of a tree of that size and therefore, a detailed
management plan would need to be prepared to ensure all of the associated risks are identified and
managed. The identified risks are outlined in the reports which have been prepared by the Council’s
consultants.
CONSULTATION

Elected Members
The Council considered reports regarding this matter at its meetings held on 3 February 2014 and 19
March 2014.

Community
A petition signed by seventeen (17) citizens requesting the retention or transplantation of the Cork Oak
Tree was considered by the Council at its meeting held on 3 February 2014.

Staff
Chief Executive Officer;
General Manager, Urban Services; and
Horticultural & Aboricultural Services Coordinator

Other Agencies
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
ENSPEC Assessment
ENSPEC have been engaged by Council staff to conduct a full assessment of the Cork Oak Tree, as
recommended by Treevolution. This required the undertaking of a ground based visual tree assessment
(VTA), Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and Picus© Sonic Tomograph (ST) test. A written report has been
prepared by ENSPEC outlining the findings of these tests, a copy of which is contained in Attachment A.
The primary objective of the tests and assessments which have been undertaken by ENSPEC, is to confirm
the feasibility of transplanting the Cork Oak Tree, based upon its current condition, the existing site and the
intended recipient site which is James Coke Park.
Page 4
City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 16 April 2014
Item 2.1
In respect to the issue of location, Coke Park was considered to be the most practical location, given its
close proximity to the current location of the Cork Oak Tree. Transplantation to Coke Park would also
reduce the total costs of the exercise. Both Treevolution and ENSPEC have not been asked to consider
other locations, given that it is viable to transplant the Cork Oak Tree to Coke Park.
ENSPEC’s report has identified that the Cork Oak Tree displays good vigour and structure and no significant
or obvious structural issues have been identified. The condition of the trunk was determined to be structurally
sound, based upon the Picus© Sonic Tomograph (ST) results and the root plate was identified by the
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), to extend beyond the garden bed area to provide structural stability
protecting the tree from an overturning moment.
Based upon the condition of the Cork Oak Tree, the existing site and the intended recipient site (ie Coke
Park), ENSPEC has identified that the Cork Oak Tree is suitable for transplantation and the project is highly
feasible.
ENSPEC estimates that the cost of transplanting the Cork Oak Tree, based upon current site conditions and
restraints, will be between $150,000 and $180,000 (GST Exclusive).
The estimated cost includes:





existing site preparation;
existing site excavation;
tree transplantation;
excavation of relocation site; and
planting of the Cork Oak Tree in relocation site
The cost estimates do not include:



removal or temporary relocation of impedances (i.e. trees, poles, seats, etc.);
aftercare maintenance; and
reinstatement of existing site, relocation site or other affected areas.
Council staff have considered the estimated cost of the items stated above and which have not been
included in the ENSPEC report and it is estimated that approximately $25,000 (GST Exclusive) would be
required. Therefore the total estimated costs for the transplantation of the Cork Oak Tree are in the order of
$175,000 to $205,000.
ENSPEC has recommended that only techniques that use a below ground root plate lift method be
employed. ENSPEC has also advised that under no circumstances should a method be engaged that would
result in any physical damage to the trunk, any above ground tree structure including drilling holes in the
trunk, or within the identified root ball.
ENSPEC recommends that the Cork Oak Tree be transplanted in the exact same orientation as its existing
location. Given the species, its condition and its trunk size, it is estimated that a minimum area of excavation
should be eight (8) metres in diameter around the Cork Oak Tree and to a minimum depth of 1.25 metres.
However, ENSPEC has recommended that the optimum area of ten (10) metres in diameter around the Cork
Oak Tree be excavated to prepare the root ball, in order to accommodate the extend of roots identified by the
GPR. It is estimated that the Cork Oak Tree (together with the tree root ball), will equate to a load of
approximately 100 tonnes. However, this will be dependent on soil conditions, moisture and the size of the
root plate which is extracted.
ENSPEC has also recommended that an Australian Qualifications Framework Level 5 Arborist, experienced
in the transplantation of large trees, be present on-site during all excavation, relocation and transplanting
works to ensure that the contractor follows the work method statements.
To this end, ENSPEC has recommended that all quotations and tenders for the proposed works to transplant
the Cork Oak Tree should include as a minimum, a detailed and full transplanting and re-establishment
methodology and work method statement for each part of the transplant process.
Page 5
City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 16 April 2014
Item 2.1
ENSPEC has also recommended that the transplantation process must also include, but not be limited to the
following:

details of existing site preparations including pre-pruning of tree roots and the required time frame prior
to the lift occurring (e.g. soil testing, service location, etc);

details of transplanting site preparations required (e.g. soil testing, service location, infrastructure
relocation, drainage, etc);

techniques that will not damage the Cork Oak Tree above or below ground, including no drilling of the
trunk to create a lifting point;

techniques that use pneumatic lifting systems;

techniques that ensure the load bearing capacity does not exceed a maximum of 20 Psi ground pressure
while the Tree is being moved from its existing location to the proposed new location;

details of relocation route preparations required (e.g. infrastructure removal, adjacent tree
pruning and removal, use of Elevated Work Platform);

a ten (10) year tree health aftercare maintenance program for the Council to administer; and

a guarantee ensuring the Tree’s survival for a minimum of ten (10) years.
It is ENSPEC’s view that if the Cork Oak Tree is transplanted by a competent expert, who works closely with
the Council’s arborist and consultants and if the correct aftercare maintenance is implemented, the Cork Oak
Tree has a greater than 97% chance of survival.
OPTIONS
The Council has three (3) options regarding this matter, as outlined below.
Option 1 - Transplant the Cork Oak Tree Irrespective of What Happens to Coles’ Site
The Council could decide to pursue the transplantation of the Cork Oak Tree irrespective of whether or not
Coles pursues the redevelopment of the site. The transplantation of the Cork Oak Tree into Coke Park is
possible and viable, so the Council could decide to pursue this option. However, this option would be
contingent on Coles agreeing to “give” the Cork Oak Tree to the Council – given that its Development
Application has now been refused.
The advantage of this option is that the issue of the Cork Oak Tree is resolved irrespective of what happens
on the Coles site now or in the future. However, given that as it currently stands, the redevelopment of the
site is not progressing, Coles may not be willing to transfer ownership of the Cork Oak Tree to the Council or
if it did, it may not wish to contribute towards the costs of transplanting the Cork Oak Tree. In this respect,
the Council may be required to fund all of the costs.
There is an element of risk with the transplantation of the Cork Oak Tree as it may not survive in its new
location once transplanted, albeit that this is minimal based on the findings and advice which has been
provided by the Council’s Consultants. There is also an element of risk insofar as the costs are concerned.
That is, that the estimates are first order estimates only and are subject to a tendering process. In this
respect, the Council could be faced with additional costs over and above the current cost estimates.
There is no logical reason why the Council should pursue taking over the Cork Oak Tree at this time, other
than the fact that the issue which has been raised by the petitioners would be resolved, albeit that the
redevelopment may not proceed. As such, this option is not recommended.
Page 6
City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 16 April 2014
Item 2.1
Option 2 - Not Transplant Tree Irrespective of What Happens to Coles’ Site
The Council could decide to not pursue the transplantation of the Cork Oak Tree, irrespective of whether or
not the Coles site is redeveloped. The costs of transplanting the Cork Oak Tree are significant,
notwithstanding the contribution of $80,000 by Coles. Cost alone could be the reason for the Council not to
pursue this matter any further.
At its meeting held on 3 February 2014, the Council considered a report outlining a petition which has been
received, in which the petitioners expressed a desire for the Council to retain the Cork Oak Tree or if
retention of the Cork Oak Tree is not possible, that the tree be transplanted to Coke Park, in light of the
proposed redevelopment of the Coles site. In this respect, there are a number of citizens who have a view
that in the event that the Coles site is redeveloped and the Cork Oak Tree is to be removed, then the Council
should do what it can to retain the Tree by transplanting it to another location.
Option 3 - Transplant Tree if Coles’ Site is Redeveloped and Requires Tree Removal
In the event the Coles Development Application for redevelopment of the Coles site is approved through a
new Development Application (given that the current Development Application has been refused) or in the
event of a successful appeal to the Environment Resources & Development Court AND this approval
includes the removal of the Cork Oak Tree, then the Council could pursue transplantation of the Cork Oak
Tree.
This option would require an agreement to be entered into between the Council and Coles to transplant the
Cork Oak Tree. Whether the cost is shared equally or based on the initial position of Coles – that is a
maximum contribution of $80,000, is a matter for negotiation.
This option is recommended.
The recommendation of this option is recommended subject to:
a. approval for the redevelopment of the Coles site is granted AND that this approval includes the removal
of the Cork Oak Tree. If redevelopment of the site is not pursued by Coles or if the redevelopment is
approved on the basis that the Tree is to be retained, then this option would not be pursued by the
Council;
b. the Cork Oak Tree is transplanted from its current location to Coke Park;
c.
an agreement is reached between the Council and Coles on the issue of costs, be that equal sharing of
costs or other; and
d. that all recommendations and advice received from Treevolution and ENSPEC, as outlined in the various
reports, be adhered to.
CONCLUSION
The Council has undertaken a detailed and thorough investigation into the transplantation of the Cork Oak
Tree from its current location to Coke Park.
The results of the investigations which have been undertaken, have concluded that the Cork Oak Tree can
be relocated. The issues and costs associated with such a proposal have been outlined in this report and the
Council can now make an informed decision as to whether or not it wishes to pursue this matter and under
what circumstances.
Staff have recommended that the Council pursue the relocation of the Cork Oak Tree, in the event that
approval for the redevelopment of the Coles site is granted AND that this approval includes the removal of
the Cork Oak Tree. The terms and conditions under which this should be undertaken are outlined in this
report.
If, however, the redevelopment of the site is not pursued by Coles or if the redevelopment is approved on the
basis that the Tree is to be retained, then this option would not be pursued.
Page 7
City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 16 April 2014
Item 2.1
COMMENTS
The first order estimates initially considered by the Council was $150,000 (with a 50% plus or minus) has
now been revised in light of the investigations undertaken on the Tree by ENSPEC. The revised first order
estimate is now in the order of $175,000 to $205,000.
The actual costs for the works to transplant the Cork Oak Tree will be known following the tendering process.
In this respect, it should be noted that the actual costs could vary from the revised first order estimate.
The Council is faced with a difficult and complex decision.
The Council has acceded to the request which has been made by the petitioners insofar as assessing the
feasibility of transplanting the Cork Oak Tree to Coke Park.
The assessments undertaken by consultants engaged by the Council, have concluded that the Cork Oak
Tree can be transplanted with a 97% success – albeit that an absolute guarantee cannot be given.
The basis of the petitioners request is that the Cork Oak Tree is of historical significance. Whilst the history
of the Cork Oak Tree confirms that it was planted by Henry Buttery in circa 1892, the real question is – is the
Cork Oak Tree any more significant that the River Red Gum Tree which is located towards the southern
western corner of the site or indeed any other mature tree within the City.
As such, in reaching a decision as to whether to transplant the Cork Oak Tree to another site is the best
outcome, the Council must consider what is special and significant about this particular tree (aside from the
fact that it is a Cork Oak Tree and is 125 years old), and the fact that Coles also wishes to remove a number
of other Significant and Regulated Trees.
Other issues which the Council should consider are:



Whether the decision in this instance (ie to transplant the Cork Oak Tree) will set a precedent?
What about other Significant and Regulated Trees on the site and indeed across the City?
Whether expenditure of this magnitude is warranted.
It could be speculated that given the level of interest generated by this issue, Coles has sought to resolve the
issue (in partnership with the Council) to ensure that this impediment to the approval of their Development
Application would be removed.
The separation of the transplantation of the Cork Oak Tree and the Development Assessment process is
fundamentally important. At the same time, the petitioners request to retain the Cork Oak Tree is a decision
which only Coles and/or the Council’s Development Assessment Panel can make. In this respect, the Panel
has now refused the Coles Development Application – and a specific reason for the refusal is based upon
the removal of the Cork Oak Tree and a number of other significant Regulated Trees. The decision which
has been made to assess the feasibility of transplanting the Cork Oak Tree, was made on the basis of
ensuring that the Cork Oak Tree was ‘saved’ in the event of the Panel approving the Development
Application, which included removal of the Cork Oak Tree.
The Panel has made a decision to refuse the Development Application, which in part is based upon Coles
not demonstrating that all reasonable development options and design solutions have been considered to
prevent the removal of eight (8) Regulated Trees and four (4) Significant Trees. The refusal is now a matter
for Coles to consider.
The recommendation set out below is therefore based on progressing the Council’s initial decision made at
its meeting held on 3 February 2014. Notwithstanding this, whilst not within the Council’s jurisdiction, the
petitioners have in part achieved one of their objectives – that is, the Cork Oak Tree will not be removed by
virtue of the Development Application being refused. The question that now remains, is whether the Council
still wishes to pursue transplantation of the Cork Oak Tree or whether it wishes to wait and see what path
Coles determines to pursue in respect to its Development Application. To this end, the recommendation is
worded in a manner which will see the process activated in the event of Development Approval for the
redevelopment of the site being achieved.
Page 8
City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 16 April 2014
Item 2.1
RECOMMENDATION
1.
That the Council resolves that it accepts the advice which has been provided regarding the
transplantation of the Cork Oak Tree.
2.
That the Council advise Coles Group Property Developments Limited, that it agrees to work with
Coles to transplant the Cork Oak Tree to Coke Park, subject to the following:
a. Development Approval for Development Application 155/474/13 being granted to Coles Group
Property Development Ltd (or any subsequent Development Application granted in respect to
the re-development of 166A The Parade, Norwood) and on the basis that the approval
incorporates the removal of the Cork Oak Tree. If redevelopment of the site is not pursued by
Coles Group Property Development Ltd or if the redevelopment is approved on the basis that
the Tree is to be retained, then the Council will not pursue the transplantation of the Cork Oak
Tree.
b. That in the event of the Cork Oak Tree being transplanted, it will be transplanted from its current
location to James Coke Park, as recommended by Treevolution and ENSPEC.
c.
An agreement is reached between the Council and Coles Group Property Development Ltd with
respect to the issue of sharing the costs between the Council and Coles required to transplant
the Cork Oak Tree and that the Chief Executive Officer, or his delegate, be authorised to
negotiate and finalise this agreement, for and on behalf of the Council.
d. That all recommendations and advice which has been received from ENSPEC and as outlined in
the report prepared by ENSPC be adhered when the transplantation of the Cork Oak Tree is
activated.
3.
The Council notes that the necessary and required tendering process will be undertaken to engage a
suitable contractor to undertake the works required to transplant the Cork Oak Tree.
4.
That the Coles Group Property Development Ltd be advised of the Council’s decision regarding this
matter.
5.
That Mr Jim Dunk, the convenor of the petition considered by the Council at its meeting held on 3
February 2014, be advised of the Council’s decision regarding this matter.
Page 9
City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 16 April 2014
Item 2.1
Cr Marcuccitti moved:
1.
That the Council resolves that it accepts the advice which has been provided regarding the
transplantation of the Cork Oak Tree.
2.
That in light of the significant cost associated with and that would be incurred by the Council for the
transplantation of the Cork Oak Tree and the precedent which such a decision would have regarding
other Significant or Regulated Trees within the City, the Council not agree to the transplantation of the
Cork Oak Tree and not proceed with any further investigations or negotiations regarding the matter.
3.
That the Council’s decision not to agree to the transplantation of the Cork Oak Tree is irrespective of
whether or not approval is granted for the redevelopment of the Norwood Coles Site and irrespective of
whether or not, as part of any redevelopment of this site, the Cork Oak Tree is removed.
4.
That the Coles Group Property Development Ltd be advised of the Council’s decisions regarding this
matter.
5.
That Mr Jim Dunk, the convenor of the petition considered by the Council at its meeting held on
3 February 2014, be advised of the Council’s decision regarding this matter.
Seconded by Cr Duke and lost.
Division
Cr Marcuccitti called for a division and the decision was set aside.
Those in favour:
Cr Pasalidis, Cr Duke, Cr Rundle, Cr Marcucccitti and Cr Granozio.
Those against.
Cr Wormald, Cr Whitington, Cr Knoblauch, Cr Dottore, Cr MacRae and Cr Frogley.
The Mayor declared the motion lost.
Cr Duke moved:
1.
That the Council resolves that it accepts the advice which has been provided regarding the
transplantation of the Cork Oak Tree.
2.
That the Council accepts no financial responsibility for transplanting the tree.
3.
That Council advises Coles that it is the Council’s preferred position that the tree be retained in its
current location.
Seconded by Cr Knoblauch and carried.
Division
Cr Wormald called for a division and the decision was set aside.
Those in favour:
Cr Knoblauch, Cr Pasalidis, Cr Duke, Cr Frogley, Cr Rundle, Cr Marcuccitti and Cr Granozio.
Those against:
Cr Wormald, Cr Whitington, Cr Dottore and Cr MacRae.
The Mayor declared the motion carried.
Page 10
City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 16 April 2014
3.
CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS
Nil
4.
CLOSURE
There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting closed at 8.21pm.
_______________________________________
Mayor Robert Bria
Minutes Confirmed on ____________________
(date)
Page 11