proposals ldquoif that fee is consistent with a scale or structure of fees set out in a
ldquo[T]hat is one method in our submission whereby return or reward or fees for services may be set and enforced but it does not on its face in our respectful submission exclude the entitlement of the council to charge for matters which may include fees if the mechanism whereby those fees are derived is through a process of negotiation and consensual process In other words this is not the exclusive mechanism for the council being entitled to perform a service and charge money for it if somebody wants to agree with itrdquo
It pointed to the words ldquoif it determines the amount of a fee for a servicerdquo in
ldquoThus fees captured by Division 2 must be set in accordance with s 610B But other fees for services may be set under Division 3 but only if the Council determines to set a fixed amount and follows the procedures to give lsquopublic notice of the amountrsquo set out in s 610Frdquo (original emphasis)
Councilrsquos submission to the contrary pays no regard to the generality of s 608
which is in Division 1 headed ldquoCouncil fees for servicerdquo and provides that ldquo[a]
Councilrsquos submission also ignores s 610C Section 610C makes it plain beyond
argument that any fee to which Division 2 does not apply is governed by
Division 3
47 The second indication to the contrary is the provision for exhibition and
consultation Spigelman CJ observed (in the context of formulating local
environmental plans) that ldquothe detailed scheme of consultation and public
exhibition indicates the significance attached by Parliament to such public
involvement in order to ensure the integrity of the processrdquo Smith v Wyong
Shire Council [2003] NSWCA 322 132 LGERA 148 at [59] see also Vanmeld
Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council [1999] NSWCA 6 46 NSWLR 78 at [37]-[38]
Those considerations are regularly invoked in a Project Blue Sky analysis but
they likewise undermine the Councilrsquos submission
48 There are further textual indications tending against Councilrsquos submission One
may be seen in the express power to reach an agreement between council and
the owner or occupier of private land to carry on work in s 67 Another may be
seen in the express provision in ss 67A and 67B to remove graffiti work either
by agreement with the owner or occupier or unilaterally so long as it may be
carried out from a public place and the council bears the cost of doing so In
contrast the carrying out of graffiti removal work pursuant to agreement with
the owner is governed by the regime in Division 2 of Part 10 of Chapter 15 and
the fee to be charged accordingly must be determined either (a) in accordance
with a pricing methodology adopted by the council in its management plan or
(b) adopted by council by a determination made by a resolution at an open
meeting s 610B That is to say even when the Local Government Act confers
a power in terms upon councils to reach an agreement or arrangement with a
landowner the price it can charge for work performed by it remains subject to
Part 10 of Chapter 15 To that extent at least the ldquogeneral power to contractrdquo
cannot permit a council to escape the statutory restrictions upon it Why ever
would the position be any different in the case of track hire fees
49 The next two matters are basal The Local Government Act distinguishes rates
and charges (which are compulsory exactions and therefore conventionally
regarded as taxes) and fees for services A person such as a landowner has
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 192
no choice but to pay a rate on his or her land or a charge (for example for
sewerage or waste collection) but may have a choice to pay the fee for a
service provided by a council True it is that the ldquochoicerdquo may in any particular
case be more or less real People may for example more or less readily
choose to use (and pay a fee) or else not to use a councilrsquos swimming pool or
community hall On the other hand a developer may have little practical choice
but to pay fees for work zones (so as to use part of a road for construction
purposes - typically loading or unloading construction materials) see Meriton
Apartments Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney (No 3) [2011] NSWLEC 65
80 NSWLR 541 In both cases Council is providing a service ndash the temporary
use of public land and facilities ndash for which it charges a fee Yet the Local
Government Act imposes substantially the same level of transparency and
consultation upon all fees for services as is imposed on rates and charges
Both forms of revenue were required to be included in a draft management
plan Both were required to be exhibited Neither rates and charges nor fees
for services could be imposed until submissions following the exhibition of the
draft proposal had been considered by Council Section 377(1) prevented
Council from delegating its powers to make rates and charges and to fix a fee
All this tells against Councilrsquos submissions that it is freed from the constraints of
Part 10 of Chapter 15 of the Local Government Act when it comes to services
provided by it more or less consensually In short fees for services are
regulated in essentially the same way as rates and charges even though the
latter are compulsive and the former are in a sense consensual
50 It is also a basal principle of construction that when statute confers a power
subject to qualifications and conditions general expressions in the statute are
to be read as subject to those qualifications and conditions The basic
approach was stated by Gavan Duffy CJ and Dixon J in Anthony Hordern amp
Sons Ltd v Amalgamated Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia (1932)
47 CLR 1 at 7
ldquoWhen the Legislature explicitly gives a power by a particular provision which prescribes the mode in which it shall be exercised and the conditions and restrictions which must be observed it excludes the operation of general expressions in the same instrument which might otherwise have been relied upon for the same powerrdquo
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 193
51 The principle has been applied on many occasions such that it must be taken
to be appreciated by the Legislature The joint judgment in Plaintiff S42014 v
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 34 88 ALJR 847
referred at [43] to what had become known as the Anthony Hordern principle to
the effect that
ldquo[A]n enactment in affirmative words appointing a course to be followed usually may be understood as importing a negative namely that the same matter is not to be done according to some other courserdquo
52 Here there is elaborate affirmative language imposing conditions and
restrictions on local councils which the Council seeks to outflank by resort to
another source of power It is a very clear case where the principle applies
53 Next there is nothing to suggest that the fact that a separate statute the Mount
Panorama Motor Racing Act is involved in any way alters the position The
permit granted by the Minister expressly permitted Council to enter into
contracts or arrangements with organisers of racing events and owners and
occupiers of land affected by the holding of motor racing meetings in each
case in accordance with the Local Government Act s 5(2)(b) and (c)
reproduced above The permits granted expressly conferred such powers
Once again it would be strange if the expressly qualified conferral of power
upon Council to enter into a contract or arrangement with an organiser ldquoin
accordance with the Local Government Actrdquo could be side-stepped by a
general power to enter into any contract it chose
54 Against all of the above Council asserted that it had a ldquogeneral power to
contractrdquo and that in any event the track hire fees were not fees for services
Both submissions should be rejected
55 Councilrsquos submissions based on a general power to enter into contracts were
founded on it having the legal capacity and powers of a natural person (prior to
20 November 2008 Council was a body corporate by reason of s 220 of the
Local Government Act to which s 50 of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
applied Thereafter following the Local Government Amendment (Legal
Status) Act 2008 (NSW) the Council became a body politic and s 220(1)
directly conferred upon it the legal capacity and powers of a natural person) But that submission collides with the qualification upon councilsrsquo powers in
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 194
s 24 which ensures that the powers on which Council relied are made subject
to the Local Government Act Section 24 of the Local Government Act provides
that
ldquoA council may provide goods services and facilities and carry out activities appropriate to the current and future needs within its local community and of the wider public subject to this Act the regulations and any other lawrdquo
56 The words ldquosubject tordquo are ldquothe standard way of making clearrdquo that the
unqualified provision prevails Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v The
Commonwealth [1997] HCA 38 190 CLR 513 at 580-581 (McHugh J) citing
Harding v Coburn [1976] 2 NZLR 577 at 582
57 In Peregrine Mineral Sands Pty Ltd v Wentworth Shire Council [2014] NSWCA
429 (a decision post-dating that of the primary judge but on which Trackcorp
relied on appeal) this Court rejected a submission that a local council had a
general power in respect of its revenue raising activities to side-step the
requirements of the Local Government Act The leading judgment was
delivered by Ward JA with whom McColl and Meagher JJA agreed Her
Honour said at [151]
ldquoIt cannot be said that the general power to enter into contracts overcomes this difficulty In Darkinjung Pty Ltd v Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council [2006] NSWSC 1008 Barrett J (as his Honour then was) said at [72]
In all cases where a corporation owes its existence to a statute it is open to the corporation to do only those things that the statute contemplates are to be done by it It is commonplace for a founding and enabling statute to contain express statements with respect to the purposes objects functions powers and duties of the corporation Those express statements together with the necessary implications to which they give rise are the source of the corporations authority and capacity and the limits upon them Where the corporation purports to act beyond the field of its authority and capacity thus defined its acts are void
and at [129]
These cases proceed on the basis of three main principles First it is recognised that a grant of incorporation by Parliament carries with it not only rights and privileges but also duties and responsibilities Second the duties and responsibilities as well as existing for the benefit of the section of the population directly affected are of a public or quasi-public nature Third the corporation may not act to abdicate or evade its statutory duties and responsibilities even if the means by which it purports to do so otherwise appear to lie within the scope of its objects functions and powersrdquo
Unsurprisingly I agree with Ward JA
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 195
58 McColl JA also observed of the qualified grant of power in s 24 that
Campbell J (as his Honour then was) had said in Sanpine v Koompahtoo Local
Aboriginal Land Council [2005] NSWSC 365 at [332] that substantially the
same language in the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) demonstrated a
legislative intention that a councils powers will be broad but not unlimited at
[21] Her Honour said that ldquoa council does not have power to do away with a
mandatory requirement imposed by the Local Government Actrdquo It was in that
context that her Honour said of the attempt to fix rates outside the regime
established in the Local Government Act at [22]
ldquo[T]he mandatory requirements of the exercise of the Councils rate-making function accordingly are at least that it undertake that exercise annually that it do so after setting out its proposals for its revenue policy in a draft management plan which is explicit as to proposed ordinary rates including the proposed ad valorem rate that that plan is subject to public scrutiny and only adopted after any submissions received have been considered The requirement that the rates only be made after public submissions and only by the elected council demonstrates the public interest in the proper exercise of the rate-making power Such public interest is readily comprehensible as the exercise of the rate-making power affects every owner of rateable land in the councils areardquo
59 Substantially the same applies in my view to the exercise of the Councilrsquos fee-
fixing function As has already been observed there are strong similarities in
the legislative regime governing councilsrsquo powers to levy rates and charges
and to impose fees for services I do not accept Councilrsquos submission that the
former are a ldquovery different statutory structurerdquo
60 True it is that these principles do not apply where there are two separate
powers conferred see Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZKTI [2009]
HCA 30 238 CLR 489 at [45]-[48] Trackcorp gave prominence to the fact that
so far as appears from the evidence all involved in Council at the time
proceeded on the assumption that the provisions of Chapter 15 Part 10
applied For that reason there was reference in the negotiations to the costing
of component fees so as to produce a total fee of $258000 to the drafting of
heads of agreement which ldquonow includes the 200708 fees amp charges which
werenrsquot [previously] availablerdquo The clearest indication of the fact that Council
officers considered they were complying with the provisions of Part 10 of
Chapter 15 emerges from the statement of revenue policy 20072008 for
Council which contains two pages directed to fees charged in respect of
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 196
ldquoMount Panoramardquo which fell within the ldquobusiness and economic developmentrdquo
category of fees That category also included fees for saleyards and tourism
and promotion Consistently with what was agreed in the Track Hire
Agreement a line item for ldquoMount Panorama Racing Circuit Hirerdquo was included
in the following terms
ldquoFull Circuit Closure - actual fees on negotiation
Per day (minimum fee stated) $6000 (20062007)
$6222 (20072008)rdquo
61 That fee was described to fall within category 3 of the pricing policy principles
contained within the statement of revenue policy Category 3 was described as
follows
ldquoCategory 3 - Market Pricing
When Council provides a similar service lsquoin competitionrsquo with other councils or agencies eg saleyard fees hall hire etc where alternative service providers are available This category also includes prescribed or recommended fees
Council will not use subsidies to aggressively price others out of the market or compete unfairlyrdquo
62 In short Trackcorp demonstrated that Council officers brought into existence a
series of documents consistent with their contemporaneous view that Part 10
of Chapter 15 applied
63 I give little weight to this The question is one of power and the difficulty with
Trackcorprsquos reliance on what Council officers did at the time is that in certain
circumstances it does not matter if the donee of executive power purports to
exercise an inappropriate head of power when another was available the
principles are analysed by Spigelman CJ in VAW (Kurri Kurri) Pty Ltd v
Scientific Committee [2003] NSWCA 297 58 NSWLR 631 and John Holland
Pty Ltd v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2010] NSWCA 338 at [95]
64 This appeal does not turn on what Council officers believed at the time It is
decided on the basis that when Council was given a special power to hold or
authorise the holding of a motor racing meetings on the Mount Panorama
Circuit it was required to comply with the Local Government Act That made
the position no different from that which obtained when it supplied other
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 197
services It was free to set fees for the services it applied but to the extent that
it did so it had to comply with the general provisions applicable to all fees
65 Council also submitted it may in fairness be said weakly that the track hire
fees were not ldquofees for servicesrdquo essentially because (a) the fee was
negotiated and (b) the ldquobundle of contractual and commercial rights written into
the Track Hire Agreement was not and is not the supply by the respondent
Council of a service product or commodityrdquo Both aspects of Councilrsquos
submission are with respect plainly wrong In relation to the first an architect
or a lawyer may supply services for a negotiated fee that does not deny to
what is supplied its character as a service In relation to the second a licence
to use particular real property (consider the booking of a hotel room or the hire
of a hall) is readily regarded as a service Moreover Trackcorp received not
merely the use of the circuit but a suite of services identified as ldquoinclusionsrdquo in
the Track Hire Agreement (for example the use of a medical centre a Race
Control Tower a media centre toilets various grandstands a bunded fuel
compound a crash crew for race track and barrier repair ticketing gates ldquopre-
cleaningrdquo and many other services) In oral submissions senior counsel
conceded properly that ldquoI accept that itrsquos a fee for a whole lot of things that
would very likely be servicesrdquo Services are very often bundled together
the fact that the constituents of a bundle are themselves services reinforces
rather than detracts from the character of the bundle as a whole
66 For those reasons I have concluded that the primary judge was wrong to
regard Councilrsquos ldquogeneral power to contractrdquo as permitting it to stand outside of
Part 10 of Chapter 15 and that Councilrsquos primary submission on appeal must
be rejected
The Recovery of Imposts Act 1963 (NSW) 67 At no stage during the trial was attention given to the operation of the Recovery
of Imposts Act 1963 (NSW) Perhaps that was because Council was keen to
submit that it had not imposed a fee although even then it would have been
open to invoke the legislation in the alternative
68 The Recovery of Imposts Act applies to ldquotaxesrdquo ldquofeesrdquo ldquochargesrdquo and
ldquoimpostsrdquo It is established that s 94 contributions imposed by councils engaged
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 198
the provisions of that Act because they are ldquoimpostsrdquo Baulkham Hills Shire
Council v Wrights Road Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 152 153 LGERA 219 This
Court (Spigelman CJ McColl JA and Gzell J agreeing) held at [15] that
ldquoSection 2(1) of the Imposts Act extends to any amount lsquopaid under the authority or purported authority of any Actrsquo Each of the words lsquotaxrsquo lsquofeersquo lsquochargersquo and lsquoimpostrsquo are confined in their possible scope by this definite criterion The words whilst wide are not of extraordinary scope There is no warrant to give them a meaning of the character for which the Respondent contends The directly relevant inquiry is whether a payment was made under the authority of an Actrdquo
69 Plainly enough a ldquofeerdquo imposed under Part 10 of Chapter 15 answers the
description in the Recovery of Imposts Act at least as clearly as a s 94
contribution paid upon the grant of development consent The decision in
Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney (No 3) [2011]
NSWLEC 65 80 NSWLR 541 is correct so to hold
70 The Recovery of Imposts Act imposes a 12 month period to recover fees
paid s 2(1) It will be recalled that the restitutionary claim was first advanced in
August 2012 more than 12 months after the final payment Moreover s 4 of
the Act obliges the claimant to satisfy the court that it has not charged to or
recovered from and will not charge to or recover from any other person any
amount in respect of the whole or any part paid That is to say it places an
onus upon the person who has paid the fee to demonstrate that it has not been
passed on It may be doubted that Trackcorp would have been able to
discharge that onus certainly it did not attempt to do so However neither
change in position nor passing on were pleaded by the Council in its defence
even for the general restitutionary claim which it faced
71 The fact that neither passing on nor change of position had been pleaded
means that the appeal cannot be decided on those bases However s 5 goes
further It provides that that right to recover money is extinguished
ldquo5 Ending of right of recovery
ldquoIf because of this Act money paid by way of tax or purported tax ceases to be or is not recoverable the right to recover the money is extinguishedrdquo
72 The extinguishment of Trackcorprsquos causes of action effected by s 5 is in a
different category from the unpleaded consequences of the other provisions of
the Recovery of Imposts Act It is not up to a party to choose to rely or not to
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 199
rely on a provision which extinguishes a right of action ldquoIf a claim is
extinguished it cannot be brought An omission to plead the statute does not
revive the claimrdquo Carr v Thomas [2009] NSWCA 208 at [35] When this Court
determines an appeal by way of rehearing in accordance with s 75A of the
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) it cannot ignore a statute which potentially
extinguishes the appellantrsquos claim
73 If I were otherwise minded to allow the appeal I would have required further
submissions as to why s 5 had not extinguished any rights Trackcorp had
However the appeal can and therefore should be decided on issues which
were argued by the parties
Councilrsquos notice of contention Councilrsquos Project Blue Sky submission
74 The first ground in Councilrsquos original notice of contention is that the admitted
contravention of the Local Government Act does not entail that the exaction of
fees by it was void or ultra vires in accordance with Project Blue Sky Inc v
Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 194 CLR 355 That is a pure
question of law but one which as I see it is complex important and not fully
argued What was not argued included the effect of s 729 of the Local
Government Act mentioned by neither party and whose effect is not absolute
and the Recovery of Imposts Act The fact that the question is not
straightforward may be seen in the analyses in respect of other powers of
councils see Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Marrickville Council
[2010] NSWCA 145 174 LGERA 67 at [176]-[194] and [214]-[222] (power to
levy rate) and Burwood Council v Ralan Burwood Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014]
NSWCA 404 206 LGERA 40 at [153]-[193] (power to issue construction
certificate)
75 Where as here the question is important but was not fully argued was not free
from difficulty was not determined by the primary judge and need not be
determined on appeal it is appropriate not to deal with it Environment
Protection Authority v Condon as Liquidator for Orchard Holdings (NSW) Pty
Ltd (in liq) [2014] NSWCA 149 86 NSWLR 499 at [69]-[70]
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 200
Councilrsquos proposed change of position defence
76 This is a matter that was raised by Trackcorprsquos counsel at first instance in final
address (ldquothey could put on a defence such as change of position but there
are no such defences that have been pleadedrdquo) It is sufficient that it be
possible that evidence which stood in the way of the defence succeeding might
have been adduced and I would readily infer that the cross-examination of
Council officers and the production of documents sought by Trackcorp not
merely could have been but would have been affected had such a defence
been pleaded
77 It follows that Trackcorp is correct to submit that it is too late now on appeal to
advance such a claim see Cassegrain v Gerard Cassegrain amp Co Pty Ltd
[2015] HCA 2 89 ALJR 312 at [64] and Attorney General of New South Wales
v Homeland Community Ltd [2015] NSWCA 15 at [59]
Trackcorp received good consideration
78 At the hearing of the appeal Council maintained that there was a ldquogood
considerationrdquo defence because the payments were made pursuant to a
contract That is true except in respect of the first half of the first payment
(which was made prior to entry into the Track Hire Agreement) This was not
the subject of detailed submissions below or written submissions in advance of
the appeal being heard It was implicit in the exchanges in final addresses at
trial reproduced above But Council acknowledged properly that it had not
been put to the trial judge
79 In Ovidio Carrideo Nominees Pty Ltd v The Dog Depot Pty Ltd [2006] VSCA 6
V ConvR 54-713 a landlord had been ordered to repay to its tenant amounts
mistakenly paid by its tenant as rent under a commercial lease Section 8(2) of
the Retail Tenancies Reform Act 1998 (Vic) provided that the tenant was not
liable to pay the rent attributable to the period before the landlord gave the
tenant a copy of a disclosure statement The tenant claimed that it had paid
rent and was ignorant of its rights under the provision
80 The Victorian Court of Appeal held that the landlord had a good defence to the
tenants claim for restitution because the tenant had received good
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 201
consideration for the money it paid namely exclusive possession of the
premises that were of use and benefit to it Chernov JA said at [21]
ldquo[U]nlike the position of the payers in David Securities and Roxborough the tenant here has received good consideration for the money it paid namely exclusive possession of the premises that were obviously of use and benefit to it as is demonstrated not only by the fact that it occupied them since entry for its business purposes but also by its continued possession of them after it became entitled to terminate the lease pursuant to s 8(2)(c) of the Act And it is irrelevant that the landlord might have been under an obligation to provide the premises under the lease The question is not whether the landlord was under such an obligation but rather whether the tenant gained or accepted a benefit in the form of exclusive use of the premises (as a quid pro quo for the payments in question) As I have said on the evidence it is apparent that the tenant received such a benefit and thus from its point of view it received good consideration for its paymentsrdquo
81 Similarly Nettle JA said at [33]
ldquoWhereas in Davids Securities the borrower got nothing in return for its payment of the grossing-up amount and in Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall the tobacco retailer got nothing in return for its payment of the tobacco licence fees in this case the respondent got the benefit of the use and occupation of the demised premises in return for the rent which it paid As I see it that is the benefit which it had in view - the benefit for which it bargained - when it agreed to pay the rent It is true that the respondent was not under a legal duty to pay the rent and therefore it is true that the payment of what it perceived to be rent did not discharge it from an obligation to pay rent But as I have said I do not consider that s 8(2) prohibits the lessor receiving or recovering any consideration in respect of the lessees use and occupation of the demised premises There does not seem to be any statutory imperative for concluding that the tenant was intended to have the benefit of free use and occupationrdquo
82 The third member of the Court agreed Ashley JA agreed with both Chernov
and Nettle JJA (at [55])
83 The authors of Mason and Carterrsquos Restitution Law in Australia (2nd ed
LexisNexis Butterworths 2008) write at [2041] that ldquo[r]ecovery of the (invalid)
licence fee after enjoyment of the right for which it was the consideration would
result in unjust enrichment not its preventionrdquo That passage was applied by
Pepper J in Meriton at [172] to conclude that the developerrsquos recovery of fees
would be inequitable where Meriton had enjoyed the benefit of the exclusive
use of the kerb and road for its construction
84 So too here Trackcorp received precisely what it bargained for True it is that
at trial Trackcorp contended that Council was in breach and that it had been
misled but these claims have fallen away Indeed Trackcorp prepared a
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 202
budget which projected a profit despite the $250000 fee it paid It would create
unjust enrichment were Trackcorp having enjoyed the benefit of the Mount
Panorama circuit over five years to recover the fees it agreed to pay and did
pay in order to secure that benefit
85 The only possible point of distinction between this appeal and Ovidio is the fact
that half of the first yearrsquos track hire fee was paid prior to the Track Hire
Agreement being executed But nothing turns on that That payment was
expressly treated by the parties (in cl 35(a)) as ldquothe first instalment of 50 of
such fees from the Promoter in respect of the first Eventrdquo and evidently was
part of the consideration for what Trackcorp received in December 2007 It is in
the same category as the payments made after the agreement had been
executed
86 Accordingly Trackcorp must be taken to have received precisely what it
bargained for (for it did not seek to reagitate its failed claims for breach and
rectification on appeal) It obtained good consideration for the fees it paid each
year Irrespective of whether its claim was extinguished by the Recovery of
Imposts Act there can be no injustice in Council retaining the monies paid by
Trackcorp for services bargained for and received by Trackcorp
87 Finally no question of fact prevents Council from relying on this defence on
appeal The position resembles that in Ford v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd
[2009] NSWCA 186 75 NSWLR 42 where no restitutionary defence had been
pleaded Allsop P and Young JA said at [119]-[121] that there was no injustice
in the retention by the payee such that the restitutionary claim was dismissed
(1) ldquo119 It is the case that the right to recovery is prima facie enlivened by the relevant legal circumstance accompanying the payment here mistake or the request for the loan (if made by Mr Ford) David Securities Pty Limited v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1992] HCA 48 175 CLR 353 at 379 Nevertheless underpinning recovery is the ldquounifying legal conceptrdquo of unjust enrichment
(2) 120 No separate defence of change of position or any other particular restitutionary defence was pleaded
(3) 121 The relevant enquiry as to the availability of the order for payment or repayment does not cease with the identification of the relevant qualifying consideration such as mistake The enquiry is as to the
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 203
injustice of the retention of any money or benefit This lies at the root of the claim and of any defence such as change of positionrdquo
The same considerations may be seen in Ovidio at [22] and [47]-[50] They
suffice to dispose of the appeal
Councilrsquos proposed causation defence
88 Council also sought leave to amend its notice of contention to include the
ground that Trackcorp did not prove that any mistake of fact was causative of
the payments made by it Although Trackcorp must be taken on this appeal to
have received the benefits for which it had bargained it is plain that the
question whether a belief as to the Councilrsquos compliance with the Local
Government Act caused the entry into the Track Hire Agreement gives rise to
factual questions Council should not be permitted to raise this issue in its
notice of contention
Orders and costs 89 For those reasons I propose that the appeal be dismissed Given that (a) parts
of Councilrsquos submissions at first instance were not sought to be maintained on
appeal and appear to have contributed to leading the primary judge into error
(b) Councilrsquos primary submission on appeal about a general contractual power
has been rejected and (c) the dispositive ground was only raised by way of an
amended notice of contention filed after the appeal was heard the appropriate
order is that there be no order as to costs of the appeal That accords with the
rule stated in the reserved decisions of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Great
Gulf Company v Sutherland (1873) 4 AJR 164 and more recently in Armstrong
v Boulton [1990] VR 215 at 223 Although I have concluded that not all aspects
of the reasoning of the primary judge can be sustained there is no occasion to
interfere with the costs ordered at first instance
90 The formal orders I propose are
1 Grant leave to the respondent to rely on ground 1B of its proposed Amended
Notice of Contention dated 1 April 2015 and direct the Council to file within
7 days an Amended Notice of Contention in accordance with that leave
2 Appeal dismissed
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 204
Amendments 19 December 2018 - [12] fourth sentence ldquofeesrdquo changed to ldquofeerdquo
[13] first sentence ldquomaintainingrdquo changed to ldquoremainingrdquo
[58] ldquoCampbell JArdquo changed to Campbell J (as his Honour then wasrdquo
[65] fifth sentence ldquoMedical centrerdquo changed to ldquomedia centrerdquo final sentence
ldquothat factrdquo changed to ldquothe factrdquo
[89] case citation ldquoThe Great Gulfrdquo changed to ldquoGreat Gulfrdquo ldquo4rdquo inserted
before ldquoAJRrdquo
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 205
1510 RESOLUTIONS REGISTER ACTION STATUS
Department General Managerrsquos Office Prepared by Executive Assistant TRIM Reference UINT2110050 Attachment UINT2110120
LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK
Goal 41 A strong accountable and representative Council
Strategy 411 Provide clear direction for the community through the development of the Community Strategic Plan Delivery Program and Operational Plan
SUMMARY 1 The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the Resolution Action Status updates as at 18
August 2021
RECOMMENDATION
That Council receive the Resolution Action Status as at 18 August 2021
REPORT 2 Following every council meeting the resolutions of Council which require action are
compiled into a single document This document is referred to as the Resolution ActionStatus
3 The purpose of the Resolution Action Status is to track the progress of actions andprovide confirmation to Council when these actions are complete
4 The Resolution Action Status is presented to Council at its ordinary meetings
5 Actions which were completed as at the date of the report to the last Council ordinarymeeting where the full resolution has been completed have been removed from thedocument
CONCLUSION 6 The Resolution Action Status shows actions which are currently pending in progress or
completed since the last report
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 206
TR
ES
OLU
TIO
N
No
RE
PO
RT
TIT
LE
CO
UN
CIL
RE
SO
LUT
ION
RE
SP
ON
SIB
LE
OF
FIC
ER
AC
TIO
N
DA
TE
CO
MM
EN
TS
ST
AT
US
23
03
20
15
26
03
15
Lan
d D
isp
osa
l ndash K
ara
va
Pla
ce
Ura
llaT
ha
t C
ou
nci
l
1
Giv
e t
he
Ge
ne
ral M
an
ag
er
de
leg
ati
on
to
ne
go
tia
te p
aym
en
t o
pti
on
s a
nd
DID
Lot
10
3 ndash
No
ag
ree
me
nt
ma
de
P
rop
ert
y
ow
ne
rs h
ave
so
fa
r d
ecl
ine
d t
o e
nte
r
ag
ree
me
nt
B
2
En
do
rse
th
e f
ixin
g o
f th
e C
ou
nci
l Se
al o
n a
ny
ne
cess
ary
do
cum
en
tati
on
re
lati
ng
to
th
e s
ub
div
isio
n
an
d s
ale
D
ID
Co
un
cils
so
licit
or
en
ga
gin
g w
ith
pro
pe
rty
ow
ne
rs t
o p
rog
ress
U
nlik
ely
to
pro
cee
d t
o
fin
alis
ati
on
fo
r Lo
t 1
03
R
ep
ort
to
be
pre
pa
red
for
Se
pte
mb
er
Co
un
cil m
ee
tin
g t
o c
lose
ou
t th
e
reso
luti
on
B
23
11
20
15
24
11
15
Be
rge
n R
oa
d L
an
d
Acq
uis
itio
n a
nd
Exc
ha
ng
e
for
Ro
ad
Wo
rks
Th
at
the
Co
un
cil a
pp
rove
fo
r th
e e
xch
an
ge
of
lan
d a
sso
cia
ted
wit
h t
he
re
con
stru
ctio
n o
f B
erg
en
Ro
ad
an
d
au
tho
rise
th
e G
en
era
l Ma
na
ge
r to
co
mp
lete
all
do
cum
en
tati
on
D
IDJu
n-2
1
Su
rve
y p
lan
s co
mp
lete
d
Co
un
cils
so
licit
ors
to
pro
gre
ss
De
lays
ass
oci
ate
d w
ith
ch
an
ge
s to
roa
d c
losu
re p
roce
ss a
nd
re
sou
rcin
g
Fu
rth
er
en
ga
ge
me
nt
wit
h s
olic
ito
r in
Ma
y to
co
nfi
rm
wa
y fo
rwa
rd
B
25
07
20
16
18
07
16
21
80
61
0
Ga
zett
ing
of
Lan
d A
cqu
ire
d
for
ap
pro
ach
es
to n
ew
Em
u
Cro
ssin
g B
rid
ge
Th
at
Co
un
cil
1
Pro
cee
dw
ith
the
com
pu
lso
rya
cqu
isit
ion
of
the
Lan
dd
esc
rib
ed
as
Lot
1
2a
nd
3in
De
po
site
dP
lan
12
08
20
4(a
nd
form
erl
ykn
ow
na
sp
art
of
Lot
38
inD
ep
osi
ted
Pla
n7
53
66
2a
nd
pa
rto
fth
eC
row
nLa
nd
de
scri
be
da
sLo
t1
10
inD
ep
osi
ted
Pla
n7
53
65
6)
for
the
pu
rpo
seo
fa
pu
blic
roa
din
acc
ord
an
cew
ith
the
req
uir
em
en
ts o
f th
e L
an
d A
cqu
isit
ion
(Ju
st T
erm
s C
om
pe
nsa
tio
n)
Act
19
91
DID
Jun
-21
1
No
ted
B
2
Ma
ke a
n a
pp
lica
tio
n t
o t
he
Min
iste
r a
nd
th
e G
ove
rno
r fo
r a
pp
rova
l to
acq
uir
e t
he
La
nd
de
scri
be
d a
s
Lot
1
2 a
nd
3 in
De
po
site
d P
lan
12
08
20
4 (
an
d f
orm
erl
y kn
ow
n a
s p
art
of
Lot
38
in D
ep
osi
ted
Pla
n 7
53
66
2
an
d p
art
of
the
Cro
wn
La
nd
de
scri
be
d a
s Lo
t 1
10
in D
ep
osi
ted
Pla
n 7
53
65
6)
by
com
pu
lso
ry p
roce
ss u
nd
er
Sect
ion
17
7 o
f th
e R
oa
ds
Act
19
93
DID
2
Au
gu
st 2
01
9
De
pa
rtm
en
t o
f P
lan
nin
g
Ind
ust
ry a
nd
En
viro
nm
en
t L
an
ds
an
d W
ate
r
ha
s a
dvi
sed
of
no
ob
ject
ion
to
th
e c
om
pu
lso
ry
acq
uis
itio
n o
f Lo
t 1
10
Ad
vice
re
ferr
ed
to
Co
un
cil s
olic
ito
rs t
o
pro
gre
ss
Fu
rth
er
en
ga
ge
me
nt
wit
h s
olic
ito
r in
Ma
y to
co
nfi
rm w
ay
forw
ard
B
25
07
20
17
22
07
17
Re
po
rt 1
1 -
Ura
lla S
po
rtin
g
Co
mp
lex
Th
at
Co
un
cil
(a)
en
do
rse
th
e p
rop
ose
d u
pg
rad
es
to t
he
Ura
lla S
po
rts
com
ple
x in
clu
din
g t
he
co
nst
ruct
ion
of
the
can
tee
n f
aci
litie
s a
nd
dis
ab
led
to
ilets
an
d a
cce
ss
MD
Pa
) C
om
ple
ted
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
(b)
pro
vid
e a
dd
itio
na
l se
ati
ng
aro
un
d t
he
pe
rim
ete
rs o
f th
e f
ield
s a
nd
ova
l if
resi
du
al f
un
din
g is
ava
ilab
le
an
dM
DP
b)
Se
ati
ng
pro
vid
ed
th
rou
gh
SC
CF
Ro
un
d 2
fun
din
g
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
(c )
de
velo
p a
pla
n o
f m
an
ag
em
en
t fo
r th
e s
ha
rin
g o
f th
e f
aci
litie
s a
mo
ng
th
e u
ser
gro
up
sM
DP
c) d
raft
co
mp
lete
d
To
be
co
nsi
de
red
in
con
jun
ctio
n w
ith
th
e c
urr
en
t p
rep
ara
tio
n o
f th
e
Op
en
Sp
ace
s S
tra
teg
y O
SS
cu
rre
ntl
y b
ein
g
revi
sed
B
(d)
sta
ff in
vest
iga
te r
elo
cati
on
an
d r
ed
eve
lop
me
nt
of
the
pla
ygro
un
d a
rea
MD
P
d)
Pla
ygro
un
d c
om
ple
ted
ndash t
urf
to
be
pla
ced
in
the
sp
rin
g
Fu
nd
ed
un
de
r S
tro
ng
er
Co
un
try
Co
mm
un
itie
s F
un
d R
ou
nd
1
Fu
rth
er
wo
rks
to t
he
pla
ygro
un
d h
ave
be
en
un
de
rta
ken
un
de
r S
CC
F R
ou
nd
2
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
20
62
01
5
ATTA
CHM
ENT
1510
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 207
TR
ES
OLU
TIO
N
No
RE
PO
RT
TIT
LE
CO
UN
CIL
RE
SO
LUT
ION
RE
SP
ON
SIB
LE
OF
FIC
ER
AC
TIO
N
DA
TE
CO
MM
EN
TS
ST
AT
US
24
04
20
18
50
04
18
La
te R
ep
ort
2 ndash
In
du
stri
al
Lan
d S
ub
div
isio
nT
ha
t C
ou
nci
l re
solv
e t
o
1
En
do
rse
op
tio
n 2
of
the
Ke
ho
e M
yers
re
po
rt d
ate
d 6
Ap
ril 2
01
8 f
or
the
su
bd
ivis
ion
of
the
Ura
lla I
nd
ust
ria
l Est
ate
b
ein
g L
ot
14
DP
78
74
77
R
ow
an
Ave
nu
e U
ralla
D
IDN
ote
d
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
2
Pro
gre
ss d
eta
iled
de
sig
n o
f th
e s
ub
div
isio
n a
nd
th
e c
on
stru
ctio
n o
f St
ag
e 1
D
ID
De
taile
d d
esi
gn
co
mp
lete
d
Sig
na
ge
inst
alle
d
Va
lua
tio
n r
ece
ive
d
Pro
bit
y
ad
vice
re
ceiv
ed
an
d p
rob
ity
pla
n d
eve
lop
ed
Th
ree
sta
ge
layo
ut
de
velo
pe
d a
nd
co
ste
d
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
3
Inst
all
bill
bo
ard
sig
na
ge
at
the
pro
pe
rty
ind
ica
tin
g t
he
en
do
rse
d la
you
t a
nd
un
de
rta
ke a
dd
itio
na
l ma
rke
tin
g o
f th
e p
roje
ct
DID
DA
Co
nse
nt
con
clu
de
d
Gra
nt
fun
din
g
ap
plic
ati
on
lod
ge
du
nd
er
the
Bu
ildin
gB
ett
er
Re
gio
ns
Fu
nd
Ro
un
d4
wa
su
nsu
cce
ssfu
l
Fu
rth
er
ma
rke
tin
gp
en
din
gfu
nd
ing
an
d
ap
pro
val
Fu
nd
ing
ap
plie
dfo
ru
nd
er
the
BLE
RF
gra
nt
Fe
bru
ary
20
21
A
pp
lica
tio
nlo
dg
ed
for
Sta
ge
1b
ala
nce
fun
din
gth
rou
gh
BB
R5
-M
arc
h
20
21
B
BR
5A
nn
ou
nce
me
nts
pe
nd
ing
-Q
3
20
21
B
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 208
TR
ES
OLU
TIO
N
No
RE
PO
RT
TIT
LE
CO
UN
CIL
RE
SO
LUT
ION
RE
SP
ON
SIB
LE
OF
FIC
ER
AC
TIO
N
DA
TE
CO
MM
EN
TS
ST
AT
US
25
09
20
18
30
09
18
Re
po
rt 1
6 ndash
Re
com
me
nd
ati
on
s o
f U
ralla
To
wn
ship
an
d E
nvi
ron
s
Co
mm
itte
e J
uly
an
d A
ug
ust
20
18
me
eti
ng
s
Th
at
Co
un
cil r
eso
lve
to
1
Co
nsi
de
rre
ad
op
tio
no
fth
ela
pse
dsl
og
an
ldquoF
ind
Yo
urs
elf
InU
ralla
rdquoa
nd
the
styl
ise
dco
pp
erp
late
ldquoUra
llardquo
log
o
in t
he
co
nte
xt o
f th
e d
eve
lop
me
nt
of
a D
est
ina
tio
n M
ark
eti
ng
Pla
n
MD
P1
N
ote
d
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
2
Co
nsi
de
rin
sta
llati
on
of
ldquoFin
dY
ou
rse
lfrdquo
stre
et
ba
nn
ers
inU
ralla
sho
uld
the
slo
ga
nb
ere
ad
op
ted
thro
ug
h t
he
fu
ture
de
velo
pm
en
t o
f a
De
stin
ati
on
Ma
rke
tin
g P
lan
M
DP
2
No
ted
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
3
En
ga
ge
wit
hU
ralla
Art
sin
rela
tio
nto
the
irp
rop
osa
lto
de
sig
na
ma
keo
ver
for
Th
eG
len
recr
ea
tio
n
are
a in
form
ati
on
sh
elt
er
MD
P3
T
o o
ccu
r a
s p
art
of
Pu
blic
Sp
ace
s Le
ga
cy
Fu
nd
gra
nt
pro
gra
m in
20
21
22
B
4
En
ga
ge
wit
hU
ralla
Art
sin
rela
tio
nto
the
irp
rop
osa
lto
pro
vid
ea
stra
teg
yfo
rth
eco
mp
leti
on
of
ldquoCo
nst
ella
tio
ns
of
the
So
uth
rdquo in
sta
llati
on
at
Th
e G
len
re
cre
ati
on
are
a
MD
P4
U
nsu
cce
ssfu
l ap
plic
ati
on
lod
ge
d u
nd
er
SC
C
Ro
un
d 3
by
Ura
lla A
rts
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
5
En
ga
ge
wit
hU
ralla
Art
sin
rela
tio
nto
the
irp
rop
osa
lto
pro
vid
esp
eci
fica
tio
ns
an
dco
ste
stim
ate
sfo
r
wa
lkin
g t
rack
wo
rks
an
d e
xerc
ise
sta
tio
ns
at
Th
e G
len
re
cre
ati
on
are
a
MD
P
5
In
pro
gre
ss
Last
me
nti
on
at
the
pre
sen
tati
on
of
the
dra
ft O
pe
n S
pa
ce S
tra
teg
y
to U
TE
C 2
23
20
21
T
o b
e a
dd
ress
ed
as
pa
rt o
f
Pu
blic
Sp
ace
s Le
ga
cy F
un
d g
ran
t p
rog
ram
in
20
21
22
B
6
Inco
rpo
rate
min
or
ldquoFib
on
acc
irdquod
esi
gn
com
po
ne
nts
wit
hin
ap
rom
ine
nt
exi
stin
gp
ark
or
oth
er
pu
blic
are
a w
ith
in U
ralla
to
ga
ug
e p
ub
lic in
tere
st in
th
e c
on
cep
tM
DP
6
To
be
ad
dre
sse
d a
s p
art
of
Pu
blic
Sp
ace
s
Leg
acy
Fu
nd
gra
nt
pro
gra
m in
20
21
22
B
7
Wri
teto
the
Ura
llaT
ow
nsh
ipa
nd
En
viro
ns
Co
mm
itte
ea
nd
ad
vise
tha
tn
ofu
nd
ing
isa
vaila
ble
un
de
rth
eR
eg
ion
al
To
uri
smP
rod
uct
De
velo
pm
en
tP
rog
ram
for
up
gra
din
go
rd
eve
lop
ing
me
eti
ng
an
do
r
loca
lco
mm
un
ity
faci
litie
smdashin
clu
din
gp
icn
ico
rp
layg
rou
nd
are
as
loca
lp
ark
sb
arb
eq
ue
sm
ee
tin
g
faci
litie
s a
nd
re
gio
na
l an
d t
ow
n e
ntr
y fe
atu
res
MD
P7
C
om
ple
te
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
8
Ad
vert
ise
the
Ura
llaT
ow
nsh
ipa
nd
En
viro
ns
Co
mm
itte
em
em
be
rva
can
cyre
sult
ing
fro
mth
e
resi
gn
ati
on
of
Fa
y P
ort
er
MD
P8
C
om
ple
te
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
9
Pro
vid
ea
cop
yo
fth
isre
po
rta
nd
Co
un
cilrsquo
sre
solu
tio
nto
the
Ura
llaT
ow
nsh
ipa
nd
En
viro
ns
Co
mm
itte
e
MD
P9
C
om
ple
te
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 209
TR
ES
OLU
TIO
N
No
RE
PO
RT
TIT
LE
CO
UN
CIL
RE
SO
LUT
ION
RE
SP
ON
SIB
LE
OF
FIC
ER
AC
TIO
N
DA
TE
CO
MM
EN
TS
ST
AT
US
18
12
20
18
34
12
18
Su
bm
itte
d b
y C
r T
ara
To
om
ey
Th
at
No
tice
of
Mo
tio
n 1
ndash
Bri
dg
e S
t D
esi
gn
Pro
ject
Sho
uld
fu
nd
ing
be
re
ceiv
ed
fo
r th
e H
igh
Pe
de
stri
an
Act
ivit
y A
rea
-Bri
dg
e S
tre
et
De
taile
d D
esi
gn
C
ou
nci
l
reso
lve
to
D
IDN
ote
d
Fu
nd
ing
no
t ye
t re
ceiv
ed
B
1
As
pa
rt o
f th
e c
om
mu
nit
y e
ng
ag
em
en
t st
rate
gy
for
the
pro
ject
a)
Pu
blic
ise
pro
po
sed
de
sig
ns
of
the
pro
ject
to
th
e U
ralla
Sh
ire
co
mm
un
ity
via
Co
un
cilrsquo
s
ne
wsl
ett
er
an
d F
ace
bo
ok
pa
ge
an
d o
the
r p
rin
t m
ed
ia w
he
re r
ele
van
t
DID
B
b)
Pro
vid
e r
ele
van
t a
dd
itio
na
l in
form
ati
on
to
an
y a
dd
ress
wh
ere
str
ee
t fr
on
tag
e is
imp
act
ed
by
the
de
sig
n
DID
B
c)
Giv
e c
on
sid
era
tio
n t
o s
ug
ge
stio
ns
an
do
r id
ea
s w
hic
h c
om
e f
rom
co
mm
un
ity
con
sult
ati
on
act
ivit
ies
an
d p
rovi
de
fe
ed
ba
ck t
o t
he
co
mm
un
ity
wh
ich
art
icu
late
s th
at
con
sid
era
tio
n
DID
B
2
Giv
e c
on
sid
era
tio
n t
o t
he
de
sig
n in
ten
t o
f th
e C
rea
tive
Vill
ag
e p
roje
ct a
nd
co
nfi
rm t
o t
he
de
sig
n c
on
sult
an
t th
e e
lem
en
ts o
f th
e C
rea
tive
Vill
ag
e p
roje
ct C
ou
nci
l wo
uld
like
to
se
e
inco
rpo
rate
d in
to t
he
de
taile
d d
esi
gn
DID
B
3
Re
qu
est
th
e d
esi
gn
co
nsu
lta
nt
ad
dre
ss t
he
po
ten
tia
l fo
r th
e p
roje
ct t
o
incr
ea
se t
raff
ic o
n lo
cal s
tre
ets
pa
ralle
l to
Bri
dg
e S
tre
et
DID
B
4
Re
fer
the
dra
ft d
eta
iled
de
sig
n t
o t
he
UT
EC
co
mm
itte
e f
or
com
me
nt
DID
B
5
Re
vie
w t
raff
ic a
nd
acc
ide
nt
da
ta f
or
loca
l str
ee
ts p
ara
llel t
o B
rid
ge
Str
ee
t to
de
term
ine
if
th
ere
ha
s b
ee
n a
n in
cre
ase
in t
raff
ic n
um
be
rs a
nd
acc
ide
nts
ove
r ti
me
D
IDB
6
Re
ceiv
e a
dvi
ce f
rom
th
e G
en
era
l Ma
na
ge
r a
bo
ut
the
arr
an
ge
me
nts
fo
r th
e p
lan
tin
g a
nd
ma
inte
na
nce
of
tho
se b
liste
rs in
Bri
dg
e S
tre
et
no
t cu
rre
ntl
y m
ain
tain
ed
by
the
ge
ne
rosi
ty o
f
vo
lun
tee
rs
DID
B
7
De
fin
e t
he
imp
act
of
an
y p
rop
ose
d p
roje
ct d
esi
gn
on
ou
r Lo
ng
Te
rm F
ina
nci
al P
lan
an
d t
he
ne
xt a
nn
ua
l bu
dg
et
aft
er
imp
lem
en
tati
on
of
the
de
sig
n is
co
mm
en
ced
D
IDB
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 210
TR
ES
OLU
TIO
N
No
RE
PO
RT
TIT
LE
CO
UN
CIL
RE
SO
LUT
ION
RE
SP
ON
SIB
LE
OF
FIC
ER
AC
TIO
N
DA
TE
CO
MM
EN
TS
ST
AT
US
26
11
20
19
20
11
19
Su
bm
itte
d b
y C
r N
Led
ge
r
Re
fS
ub
ject
N
oti
ce o
f
Mo
tio
n 3
- W
ate
r m
oti
on
sew
ag
e t
rea
tme
nt
op
tio
ns
Th
at
cou
nci
l exp
lore
ave
nu
es
to r
eu
se w
ate
r fr
om
th
e t
rea
ted
se
wa
ge
eff
lue
nt
DID
Fe
b-2
0T
o b
e a
dd
ress
ed
by
the
In
teg
rate
d W
ate
r
Ca
tch
me
nt
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
Str
ate
gy
B
26
11
20
19
39
11
19
Re
po
rt 7
- W
ork
s P
rog
ress
Re
po
rt a
s a
t 3
1 O
cto
be
r
20
19
Th
at
1
t
he
re
po
rt b
e r
ece
ive
d a
nd
no
ted
fo
r th
e w
ork
s co
mp
lete
d o
r p
rog
ress
ed
du
rin
g O
cto
be
r 2
01
9
an
d
wo
rks
pro
gra
mm
ed
fo
r N
ove
mb
er
20
19
MC
IF
eb
-20
1
No
ted
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
2
Co
un
cil r
evi
ew
th
e u
pd
ate
d t
ran
spo
rt a
sse
t m
an
ag
em
en
t p
lan
in t
he
Ne
w Y
ea
r to
co
nfi
rm p
rio
riti
es
MC
I2
U
nd
erw
ay
B
17
12
20
19
18
12
19
Th
at
Co
un
cil
1
Re
vie
w t
he
to
p 1
0 t
o 2
0 w
ate
r u
sers
in U
ralla
an
d w
ork
wit
h t
he
m t
o r
ed
uce
th
eir
wa
ter
use
D
IDD
ec-
19
1
Use
rs h
ave
be
en
ide
nti
fie
d
Lett
er
ha
s b
ee
n
forw
ard
ed
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
2
In
vest
iga
te S
tate
or
Fe
de
ral f
un
din
g f
or
incr
ea
sin
g t
he
we
ir s
tora
ge
at
Bu
nd
arr
a a
nd
oth
er
alt
ern
ati
ve
wa
ter
sou
rce
s fo
r U
ralla
D
ID
2
Le
tte
r se
nt
To
be
incl
ud
ed
in I
WC
M
stra
teg
y F
un
din
g o
f $
15
mill
ion
re
ceiv
ed
fo
r
Ura
lla g
rou
nd
wa
ter
inve
stig
ati
on
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
3
Pla
ce in
form
ati
on
on
wa
ter
usa
ge
on
line
in a
n e
asi
ly a
cce
ssib
le lo
cati
on
3
C
om
ple
te
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
4
In
clu
de
co
nti
ng
en
cy p
lan
nin
g t
rig
ge
rs in
th
e D
rou
gh
t M
an
ag
em
en
t P
lan
1
00
da
ys o
ut
of
da
y 0
fo
r
no
rma
l usa
ge
an
d 4
0 d
ays
fo
r e
me
rge
ncy
fir
efi
gh
tin
g
DID
4
Re
po
rt t
o A
ug
ust
Co
un
cil m
ee
tin
g
C
5
Re
vie
w a
lte
rna
tive
wa
ter
sup
ply
op
tio
ns
DID
5
Sco
pe
fo
r g
rou
nd
wa
ter
pro
ject
fo
r U
ralla
ha
s
be
en
fin
alis
ed
wit
h s
taff
fro
m D
PIE
-Wa
ter
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
6
In
vest
iga
te t
he
use
of
sma
rt m
ete
rs
DID
6
Un
de
rwa
y T
o b
e r
eco
mm
en
ced
wit
h n
ew
MW
WS
B
17
12
20
19
34
12
19
Re
po
rt 1
7 ndash
Tre
ate
d
Se
wa
ge
Eff
lue
nt
Op
tio
ns
Re
po
rt D
ece
mb
er
20
19
Th
at
Co
un
cil a
pp
rove
fu
nd
ing
fro
m t
he
Wa
ter
Fu
nd
re
serv
es
of
$5
00
00
to
fu
nd
a s
tud
y to
inve
stig
ate
eff
lue
nt
reu
se a
nd
de
term
ine
op
tim
al o
pti
on
s fo
r re
use
of
the
Ura
lla S
ew
ag
e T
rea
tme
nt
Pla
nt
eff
lue
nt
Co
un
cillo
rs t
ha
nk
the
sta
ff f
or
the
pre
pa
rati
on
of
the
re
po
rt
DID
Fe
b-2
0
Pe
nd
ing
S
tud
y d
efe
rre
d w
ith
th
e p
rog
ress
ion
of
the
re
use
sch
em
e b
ein
g d
eve
lop
ed
wit
h
UP
C
A
Re
po
rt 7
ndash R
ep
ort
an
d
Re
com
me
nd
ati
on
s fr
om
the
Dro
ug
ht
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
Wo
rksh
op
he
ld 1
0th
De
cem
be
r 2
01
9
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 211
TR
ES
OLU
TIO
N
No
RE
PO
RT
TIT
LE
CO
UN
CIL
RE
SO
LUT
ION
RE
SP
ON
SIB
LE
OF
FIC
ER
AC
TIO
N
DA
TE
CO
MM
EN
TS
ST
AT
US
24
03
20
20
05
03
20
Su
bm
itte
d B
y M
ayo
r C
r M
Pe
arc
e R
efe
ren
ceS
ub
ject
CO
VID
-19
In
stru
me
nt
of
De
leg
ati
on
to
th
e M
ayo
r
(Em
erg
en
cy A
dm
inis
tra
tive
Pro
visi
on
s)
Th
at
1
Co
un
cil a
do
pt
the
In
stru
me
nt
of
De
leg
ati
on
to
th
e M
ayo
r d
ate
d 2
4 M
arc
h 2
02
0 a
s
de
taile
d in
Att
ach
me
nt
1 t
o t
his
Ma
yora
l Min
ute
exc
ep
t a
s d
eve
lop
an
d e
nd
ors
e
th
e c
om
mu
nit
y st
rate
gic
pla
n
de
live
ry p
rog
ram
an
d o
the
r st
rate
gic
pla
ns
pro
gra
ms
str
ate
gie
s a
nd
po
licie
s o
f th
e c
ou
nci
l t
o d
ete
rmin
e a
nd
ad
op
t a
ra
tin
g a
nd
re
ven
ue
po
licy
an
d o
pe
rati
on
al p
lan
s th
at
sup
po
rt t
he
op
tim
al a
lloca
tio
n o
f th
e c
ou
nci
lrsquos
re
sou
rce
s to
imp
lem
en
t th
e s
tra
teg
ic p
lan
s (i
ncl
ud
ing
th
e c
om
mu
nit
y st
rate
gic
pla
n)
of
the
co
un
cil a
nd
fo
r th
e b
en
efi
t o
f th
e lo
cal a
rea
a
nd
GM
Ma
y-2
0
To
da
te
the
Ma
yor
ha
s n
ot
be
en
re
qu
ire
d t
o
take
an
y a
ctio
ns
or
exe
rcis
e a
ny
de
leg
ate
d
au
tho
riti
es
un
de
r th
e E
me
rge
ncy
Ad
min
istr
ati
ve P
rovi
sio
ns
ad
op
ted
by
Co
un
cil
on
24
Ma
rch
20
20
B
(i)
t
o d
ete
rmin
e t
he
pro
cess
fo
r a
pp
oin
tme
nt
of
the
ge
ne
ral m
an
ag
er
by
th
e c
ou
nci
l an
d t
o m
on
ito
r th
e g
en
era
l ma
na
ge
rrsquos
pe
rfo
rma
nce
G
MC
om
ple
ted
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
2
Th
at
the
Ge
ne
ral M
an
ag
er
pro
vid
e a
co
nso
lida
ted
re
po
rt o
nce
a m
on
th t
o a
ll C
ou
nci
llors
sp
eci
fyin
g
an
y a
ctio
ns
take
n u
nd
er
this
de
leg
ati
on
as
ad
op
ted
by
Co
un
cil
GM
No
t a
pp
lica
ble
to
da
teB
3
On
ce a
ctiv
ati
on
of
the
cu
rre
nt
Bu
sin
ess
Co
nti
nu
ity
Pla
n c
ea
ses
a c
on
solid
ate
d r
ep
ort
to
th
e f
irst
ava
ilab
le m
ee
tin
g o
f C
ou
nci
l will
be
su
bm
itte
d w
hic
h li
sts
all
de
cisi
on
s m
ad
e u
nd
er
this
de
leg
ati
on
G
MN
ot
ap
plic
ab
le t
o d
ate
B
26
05
20
20
45
05
20
Th
at
Co
un
cil
Jun
-20
1
No
te t
he
De
bt
Sett
lem
en
t D
ee
d o
f A
gre
em
en
t b
etw
ee
n W
ard
Bro
s a
nd
Ura
lla
Sh
ire
Co
un
cil
MD
P1
N
ote
d
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
2
Au
tho
rise
th
e A
ctin
g G
en
era
l Ma
na
ge
r to
sig
n t
he
de
ed
on
be
ha
lf o
f C
ou
nci
l
an
d
MD
P2
D
eb
t S
ett
lem
en
t
Ag
ree
me
nt
com
ple
te
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
3
Re
vie
w t
he
S9
4 q
ua
rry
op
era
tor
cha
rge
s a
nd
re
po
rtin
g a
rra
ng
em
en
ts t
o
imp
rove
acc
ou
nta
bili
ty a
nd
ad
min
istr
ati
ve o
blig
ati
on
sM
DP
3
Dra
ft 7
11
an
d 7
12
pla
ns
co
mp
lete
Re
po
rt p
rep
are
d f
or
the
Au
gu
st w
ork
sho
p a
nd
Co
un
cil m
ee
tin
g
B
Co
nfi
de
nti
al
Re
po
rt 1
-W
ard
Bro
s
Qu
arr
y
TR
ES
OLU
TIO
N
No
RE
PO
RT
TIT
LE
CO
UN
CIL
RE
SO
LUT
ION
RE
SP
ON
SIB
LE
OF
FIC
ER
AC
TIO
N
DA
TE
CO
MM
EN
TS
ST
AT
US
22
09
20
20
25
09
20
Re
po
rt 7
ndash A
me
nd
me
nts
to
the
Co
de
of
Co
nd
uct
3)
Exp
ress
ion
s o
f In
tere
st b
e s
ou
gh
t fo
r C
od
e o
f C
on
du
ct R
evi
ew
ers
an
d r
ep
ort
ba
ck t
o C
ou
nci
l
MG
EO
I a
dve
rtis
ing
co
mm
en
cin
g A
ug
ust
20
21
B
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 212
TR
ES
OLU
TIO
N
No
RE
PO
RT
TIT
LE
CO
UN
CIL
RE
SO
LUT
ION
RE
SP
ON
SIB
LE
OF
FIC
ER
AC
TIO
N
DA
TE
CO
MM
EN
TS
ST
AT
US
15
12
20
20
10
12
20
14
1 R
ep
ort
of
Co
mm
itte
es
-
Ura
lla T
ow
nsh
ip amp
En
viro
ns
Co
mm
itte
e M
inu
tes
10
No
vem
be
r 2
02
0
Th
at
Co
un
cil
2
Lia
ise
wit
h M
rs G
we
n F
ulle
r U
ralla
Ga
rde
n C
lub
U
TE
C m
em
be
rs a
nd
Ja
me
s Si
ncl
air
to
co
nve
ne
a
wo
rksh
op
fo
r C
ou
nci
llors
to
de
velo
p s
ug
ge
ste
d d
esi
gn
op
tio
ns
for
Fu
ller
Pa
rk
DID
Wo
rksh
op
he
ld o
n J
un
e 1
5 2
02
1
Re
po
rt t
o
Co
un
cil p
en
din
g
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
3
Co
nti
nu
e t
o m
ain
tain
th
e p
ath
fro
m M
ait
lan
d S
tre
et
(Po
rte
r P
ark
) th
rou
gh
Bri
dg
e S
tre
et
un
de
rpa
ss t
o
Ap
ex
Pa
rk f
ollo
win
g r
em
ed
iati
on
wo
rks
by
Tra
nsp
ort
NSW
DID
No
ted
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
4
Lia
ise
wit
hth
ela
nd
ow
ne
ra
nd
Ta
mw
ort
hR
eg
ion
al
Co
un
cil
toe
xplo
reo
pti
on
sfo
rre
mo
val
of
the
old
Ura
lla M
ilita
ry M
use
um
sig
ns
at
the
so
uth
ern
en
d o
f th
e h
igh
wa
y a
pp
roa
ch t
o U
ralla
Sh
ire
a
nd
M
DP
Ow
ne
r d
oe
s n
ot
wis
h t
o r
em
ove
th
e s
ign
ag
e
Ha
s b
ee
n r
efe
rre
d t
o t
he
co
mp
lian
ce s
ect
ion
of
TR
C f
or
inve
stig
ati
on
C
5
Cir
cula
te t
he
de
sig
n t
o c
on
sid
er
the
Ma
in S
tre
et
Be
au
tifi
cati
on
De
sig
n b
y th
e C
rea
tive
Vill
ag
e
Co
mm
itte
e in
th
e p
rep
ara
tio
n o
f th
e U
ralla
Sh
ire
Op
en
Sp
ace
Str
ate
gy
MD
PP
rovi
de
d t
o c
on
sult
an
ts
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
23
02
20
21
04
02
21
14
1 B
ud
ge
t R
evi
ew
amp
Fin
an
ce C
om
mit
tee
Me
eti
ng
s H
eld
14
11
8th
De
cem
be
r 2
02
0
14
12
9th
Fe
bru
ary
20
21
Th
at
Co
un
cil e
nd
ors
e t
he
fo
llow
ing
re
com
me
nd
ati
on
s
a)
Th
at
Co
un
cilu
nd
ert
ake
com
mu
nit
yco
nsu
lta
tio
nre
ga
rdin
gth
esu
sta
ina
bili
tyo
fth
eSh
ire
sw
ate
rsu
pp
ly
wit
h c
on
sid
era
tio
n o
f p
rici
ng
op
tio
ns
(8 D
ece
mb
er
20
20
me
eti
ng
)
CF
O
Th
is f
orm
ed
pa
rt o
f th
e c
om
mu
nit
y
con
sult
ati
on
on
th
e d
raft
ing
of
the
20
21
-22
Bu
dg
et
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
b)
tha
t th
e s
erv
ice
re
vie
w in
form
ati
on
be
de
velo
pe
d in
co
nju
nct
ion
wit
h t
he
In
teg
rate
d W
ate
r C
ycle
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
Stra
teg
y (9
Fe
bru
ary
me
eti
ng
)M
WW
SIn
teg
rate
d W
ate
r C
ycle
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
Str
ate
gy
sco
pe
to
be
fin
alis
ed
B
c) T
ha
t C
ou
nci
l wo
rk w
ith
ZN
et
an
d u
nd
ert
ake
co
mm
un
ity
en
ga
ge
me
nt
on
wa
ter
pri
cin
g m
od
el s
tru
ctu
re
op
tio
ns
as
pa
rt o
f th
e p
rep
ara
tio
n o
f th
e 2
02
12
2 O
pe
rati
on
al P
lan
(9
Fe
bru
ary
me
eti
ng
)C
FO
Th
is f
orm
ed
pa
rt o
f th
e c
om
mu
nit
y
con
sult
ati
on
on
th
e d
raft
ing
of
the
20
21
-22
Bu
dg
et
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
d)
No
te t
he
Bu
dg
et
Re
vie
w C
om
mit
tee
ha
s re
vie
we
d t
he
Ho
rizo
nta
l Se
rvic
e r
evi
ew
- P
rio
rity
3 A
ctio
ns
Sum
ma
ry a
nd
re
com
me
nd
Co
un
cil c
on
firm
th
e p
rop
ose
d a
ctio
nS
ma
rke
d R
ampI
(9 F
eb
rua
ry m
ee
tin
g )
CF
O
Th
is w
as
un
de
rta
ken
as
pa
rt o
f th
e d
raft
ing
of
the
20
21
-22
bu
dg
et
an
do
r in
clu
de
d a
s a
ctio
ns
in t
he
21
22
Op
era
tio
na
l Pla
n
CO
MP
LET
ED
amp
RE
PO
RT
ED
TO
CO
UN
CIL
Business Paper 24 August 2021 Ordinary Meeting 213