Norman Waterhouse
   
Norman Waterhouse

 

 

Normans Briefly

In this issue

Welcome to the April edition of our Local Government Briefly.

Save the Date
Norman Waterhouse Annual Local Government Conference
Friday 8th August
Sanctuary Adelaide Zoo 

Norman Waterhouse are celebrating 25 years of the Normans Local Government Conference, South Australia's leading conference for local government.

Click here to view the Save the Date.

Full program available soon on www.normans.com.au.

Upcoming events and training

Please click here to view our May 2014 Event and Training Calendar.

>   Work Health and Safety — Tips from a successfully defended prosecution
>   Land Division – Standard bonding agreement
>   Local Government – Follow-up confidentiality review by the Ombudsman
>   Employment – Do you have an implied right to require medical information from an employee?
>   Town Planning & Building – When exempt development is no longer exempt
>   Property, Infrastructure & Development – Building upgrade agreements
>   Local Government – Removal of committee members
>   Town Planning & Building Regulation – New swimming pool regulations – Update
>   Certificate IV in Local Government (Planning)
>   Certificate IV in Local Government (Administration)
>   Certificate IV Local Government (Regulatory Services)

article image

Work Health and Safety — Tips from a successfully defended prosecution

It is the usual course in work safety prosecutions that the defendant will plead guilty.  Where wrongdoing is clear, a plea of guilty has merit, in that it will lead to lesser penalties for the defendant/s.  However, a recent South Australian decision in which a defendant employer pleaded not guilty and successfully defended a prosecution has demonstrated that an employer does not necessarily need to attract criminal liability where a worker is injured due to substandard work practices.

The case

The decision in Perry v Exactmix Pty Ltd [2014] SAIRC 7 dealt with circumstances where an employee sustained a hand injury while trying to clear a blockage from a large piece of equipment known as a rock-crusher. The rock-crusher had an attachment on it called a rock-breaker, the purpose of which was to break up such blockages. However, this attachment was not operative and had not been for some time.  As an alternative, employees regularly threw more rocks in to dislodge any rocks causing blockages. It was in such circumstance that the injury arose.

In the prosecutor’s complaint against the relevant employer, the following was alleged:

  • The defendant failed to provide and maintain, so far as was reasonably practicable, plant in a safe condition, in that it failed to install and maintain a rock-breaker on the plant which was capable of clearing rock blockages and thereby reduce or eliminate the need to clear such blockages by manual means; and
  • The defendant failed to implement and maintain, so far as was reasonably practicable, a safe system of work that used mechanical means to clear rock blockages on the plant and which did not require manual clearance of such blockages. 

The prosecution was not able to make out these complaints against the defendant.

The element of the prosecution’s complaint regarding failure to maintain plant in a safe condition was dismissed due to the presence of other, properly functioning mobile rock breakers, which the employees were trained and instructed to use. The other element of the prosecution’s complaint, being that the systems of work in place did not sufficiently eliminate the requirement for manual clearance of blockages, was also dismissed. It was dismissed because the other equipment existed and employees were trained and instructed to use it in such circumstances. Employees were not, in fact, required to ever clear blockages manually, as the prosecution contended. Rather, this was simply an informal practice of the employees, which the employer in no way endorsed and, in fact, actively discouraged.

Implications of the decision

It is interesting to note that the second part of the prosecution’s complaint was dismissed due to the prosecution wrongly contending that manual clearance was ‘required’. It is certainly conceivable that if the prosecution had framed their complaint differently, the employer may have been found guilty of failing to provide a safe system of work. This case is therefore a useful reminder that employers should closely examine any complaint against them and respond to the complaint against them as it is specifically worded.

Another interesting side note is that this prosecution was conducted under the old Occupational Heath, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 (SA), due to the incident having occurred while that Act remained in force.  Had the circumstances been prosecuted under the new Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA), the prosecutor may have exercised scope to spread blame to the ‘officers’ of the organisation for the cultural problem of manual clearance (of which certain officers must have been aware).

Norman Waterhouse has significant experience in defending safety prosecutions and in work health and safety matters generally.  Employers should seek legal advice upon receiving any formal notices or complaints and summonses in relation to workplace safety matters. 

For more specific information on any of the material contained in this article please contact Sathish Dasan on 08 8210 1253 or sdasan@normans.com.au.



article image

Land Division – Standard bonding agreement

Rather than incur the substantial cost of constructing roads, footpaths, drains and other infrastructure before obtaining a section 51 certificate, developers will commonly approach councils to enter into bonding arrangements.

In the past, developers and councils have approached this exercise in a variety of ways (and not always in an appropriate, or legally valid, manner).

To assist to bring a level of consistency to this process, the Local Government Association (LGA) has worked with the Urban Development Institute of Australia (SA) to develop a “Standard Bonding Agreement for Prescribed Works” for use by developers and councils.

Norman Waterhouse provided assistance to the LGA in developing that document.

The standard agreement was recently released by the LGA, and is available for use by councils.

Whilst the standard agreement provides a useful starting point for council officers involved in the negotiation and preparation of bonding arrangements, as with any “template” document, it should be handled with care.

Prescribed works vs Non-prescribed works

Perhaps the key message is that the standard agreement is only for “prescribed” works.

Prescribed works are those matters referred to in regulations 51 to 54 of the Development Regulations 2008, including roads and thoroughfares, footpaths, water-tables, kerbing and stormwater or effluent drains and infrastructure within the site of the land division.

It is important to bear in mind that prescribed works generally do not include works outside the relevant land. Thus, where a land division proposes or requires off-site works, these will probably not be “prescribed works”. Common examples include augmentation of off-site stormwater / waste water infrastructure, surfacing of existing unmade roads, upgrade of road intersections or turning lanes, installation of traffic calming devices and so on.

It is also important to bear in mind that not all works proposed within the land division will be prescribed works. For example, street planting, installation of street signs and lighting, landscaping of reserves and open space, construction of recreational facilities, establishment of wetlands and water features are all non-prescribed works commonly proposed as part of a land division. 

Council staff need to be mindful that the LGA standard agreement is only relevant for prescribed works.

Conversely, where a developer wishes to enter into bonding arrangements for non-prescribed works, a different approach is required. Either the standard agreement must be re-worked, or a separate agreement must be entered into. Commonly, non-prescribed works will also require a land management agreement to ensure that the arrangements remain legally binding and enforceable in the event that the project is on-sold to another developer.

In situations involving non-prescribed works, legal assistance should be obtained.

If bonding agreements are not properly prepared, the council risks being exposed down the track. 

It should also be remembered that as part of any bonding negotiation, a council is entitled to ask the developer to agree to reimburse it for reasonable costs incurred in obtaining legal advice or review. If the developer refuses, the council would be entitled to refuse to enter into a bonding arrangement.

For more specific information on any of the material contained in this article please contact Peter Psaltis on 8210 1297 or ppsaltis@normans.com.au or Yari McCall on 8210 1265 or ymccall@normans.com.au.



article image

Local Government – Follow-up confidentiality review by the Ombudsman

In 2012, the Ombudsman published the results of a detailed audit undertaken into the meeting and document confidentiality practices of councils in South Australia. The Ombudsman took the view that the confidentiality provisions of the Local Government Act 1999 (SA) were used too frequently, and were often misapplied. Various recommendations were made by the Ombudsman in the audit report.

The Ombudsman followed-up the extent to which his recommendations were being implemented, and this month published a Recommendations Implementation Report which sets out the extent to which such implementation has occurred.

Since the original audit, the use of orders to exclude the public from meetings appears to have declined markedly across the State. At the time of the audit, an average of 9% of council business was conducted with the public excluded. That average figure has now reduced to 4.6% (however, it is worth noting that the former figure was based on a small cross section of councils, and the latter figure was based on all councils).

Another noteworthy observation in this follow-up report is that more than half of councils have updated their code of practice for access to meetings and documents as recommended by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has, however, continued to observe some errors in the application of meeting and document confidentiality orders, the review of document confidentiality orders and the release of documents.

The use of the confidentiality provisions is a source of many public complaints and Ombudsman investigations. This will continue to be true even in light of the general reduction of their use across the State. In this latest report, the Ombudsman specifically sets out that he will continue to monitor this area, and will make inquiries of councils where he observes potential breaches.

Norman Waterhouse regularly advises councils upon their obligations and best practice regarding the use of the confidentiality provisions. We are happy to provide draft resolution templates, procedural advice and general tips regarding meeting and document confidentiality.

For more specific information on any of the material contained in this article please contact Felice D'Agostino on 8201 1202 or fdagostino@normans.com.au.



article image

Employment – Do you have an implied right to require medical information from an employee?

The prolonged absence of an employee is a scenario which any employer can find difficult to manage. This is particularly so where the apparent reason for the absence is an injury or illness of the employee.

However, one tool which you may have at your disposal is an implied contractual right to require detailed medical information from an employee. Failure by an employee to observe a direction made pursuant to this right may, like any failure to comply with a lawful direction, be met with disciplinary action.

When is the right implied?

The right to require medical information is implied into a contract automatically, unless any relevant Award or Enterprise Agreement, and/or the contract itself, sets out completely the rights of the parties in relation to accessing medical information.

The mere existence of some provisions which deal with medical information does not mean that the subject is covered completely and the right is not implied. The recent Federal Court decision Australian and International Pilots Association v Qantas Airways Ltd [2014] FCA 32 demonstrated that a provision in an Enterprise Agreement permitting the employer to obtain a medical certificate during a prolonged absence did not extinguish the implied right to require medical information of a more detailed nature.

What does the implied right to require medical information entail?

The implied right to require medical information arises out of the necessity for the employer to adjust its future business arrangements to accommodate an absence, and to fulfil its obligation to ensure the health and safety of its workers. The implied right permits an employer to require an employee, where reasonably necessary:

  • To provide evidence affirming the employee’s continuing fitness to undertake duties; and
  • To attend, on reasonable terms, a medical examination to confirm the employee’s fitness if there is a genuine indication that such an examination is necessary.

The implied right can be exercised during paid and unpaid absences. If a direction is made pursuant to this right, the refusal of an employee to follow the direction may attract disciplinary action from the employer.

Practical considerations for employers

Firstly, employers should consider whether this right is indeed implied into their contracts of employment. The right will only be implied into a contract with an employee where the relevant Award, Enterprise Agreement and the contract itself do not completely set out the rights of the employer to obtain medical information.

Secondly, any exercise of the implied right to require medical information (and the extent of the information being sought) must be reasonable in the circumstances. There must be a relevant operational or work health and safety reason for the direction. Other circumstances will also be relevant.

In the recent case Grant v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 1712, the Fair Work Commission found that a direction to undergo a medical assessment was reasonable based upon the fact that an employee’s absence had been for several months, and that the only information being provided in that time were entirely non-specific medical certificates. The same factors were relevant in the above Qantas case, where the employer needed to organise pilot schedules many weeks in advance of flights, and where the employer wished to explore what reasonable accommodations it could make in order to return the employee to work.

Finally, in making a direction pursuant to the implied right to require medical information, employers should ensure that they provide a clear explanation to employees as to why the direction is being made. The employer should also state that disciplinary action may be taken if the direction is not complied with. Upon non-compliance, an employee should also be given an opportunity to account for their failure to observe the direction. This is necessary in order to justify disciplinary action which might be taken as a result of a failure to observe the direction.

Care should be taken before making any direction based upon an implied right to require medical information. The right itself must exist, and the direction must be reasonable in all of the circumstances.

For more specific information on any of the material contained in this article please contact Lincoln Smith on 8201 1203 or lsmith@normans.com.au.



article image

Town Planning & Building – When exempt development is no longer exempt

We are aware that it is a common belief that acts and activities listed in Schedule 3 of the Development Regulations 2008 can be carried out “as of right” and without further consideration or authorisation under the Development Act 1993.

But what about where exempt development cuts across approved plans?  Ordinarily it is not “development” to undertake landscaping works (putting aside regulated trees and special zones like the Hills Face Zone).  However, it is equally common that approved development is saddled with a condition requiring preparation and implementation and ongoing maintenance of a landscape design.

Where does someone stand if they want to plant additional trees, or remove bushes or implement a different scheme entirely?  Can they carry out non-development works?  Or would that be a breach of Section 44(3) which requires development to be used, maintained, and operated in accordance with the relevant approval?  And what about the usual Condition 1 which is almost invariably imposed and which requires development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and details?

So far as we are aware, these questions have not been decided in South Australia.

However, similar questions were considered in two recent Victorian cases, Benedetti v Moonee Valley City Council [2005] VSC 434 and Box v Moreland City Council [2014] VCAT 246.

In Benedetti, the Victorian Supreme Court had to consider whether an extension to a dwelling which ordinarily would have been permissible as of right (complying or building rules consent only, in SA terms) was prevented by two conditions attaching the 1994 planning permit for the original building.  Those conditions were:

  1. The layout of the site and the size of the proposed buildings and works as shown on the endorsed plan, shall not be altered or modified (whether or not in order to comply with any Statute, Statutory Rule or By-law or for any other reason) without the consent of the Responsible Authority.
  2. No new buildings or works shall be erected or constructed and no existing buildings shall be enlarged, rebuilt or extended (whether or not to comply with any Statute, Statutory Rule or By-law or for any other reason) without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

The combined effect of the two conditions is similar to the effect of Section 44(3) and the usual SA Condition 1, but perhaps even more restrictive. 

Each condition adverted to the possibility of further consents granted pursuant to Conditions 1 and 2.  In Victorian planning-speak such consents are called “secondary consents”.

The Court held that Condition 1 was not spent upon completion of the works envisaged by the planning permit, but endured indefinitely for so long as someone took the benefit of the planning permit, unless or until the works were demolished or (curiously) the works were reduced so as to themselves be rendered complying or exempt development.

The Court endorsed the earlier decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s observations:

" It is quite common for conditions to regulate matters on a development site such as fences, landscaping, trees and the like which viewed in themselves and in the absence of the permitted development could be erected, demolished, altered or enlarged ‘as of right’. Once one accepts that these conditions are not ‘spent’ on completion of the development, they operate as an indefinite constraint on what could otherwise be dealt with ‘as of right’ under the relevant Scheme. To hold otherwise would entail the view that items such as landscaping and so forth can be immediately reversed or demolished forthwith upon completion of the development a view of things which would reduce the planning permit process whether at the Responsible Authority level or the Tribunal level to a solemn farce."

The Court held that Condition 2 was valid and had a proper planning purpose, having regard to the planning scheme in force at the time the condition was imposed. 

The Court also held that Condition 2 was not invalid because it sought to regulate matters which would otherwise be permissible as of right.  One of the bases for doing so was:

Permit conditions often regulate matters such as the preservation of landscaping and fences which are not the subject of direct planning control. In so doing, they enable resolution of urban design issues at a higher degree of detail than the planning scheme provisions would otherwise allow. In turn, such conditions by better defining the terms of consent, facilitate outcomes which are potentially in the interest of the permit applicant, the responsible authority, persons directly affected by the proposed development and the public generally. The utility of such outcomes supports a broad construction of the power.

In Box the Tribunal had to consider whether the approved plans for a pair of dwellings controlled later variations carried out in the construction of one of those dwellings including:

  • Construction of a Colorbond rear fence in lieu of timber paling fencing;
  • Construction of a 2 metre high rendered masonry fence to be setback 150mm from the rear title boundary;
  • A new stair case and an increase in the size of the deck area along the western side of the dwelling;
  • The inclusion of a roof area over the deck area adjoining family room;
  • The inclusion of a doorway access from the side setback along the western side of the dwelling;
  • The creation of an external doorway along the western elevation which leads to the basement;
  • An extension to the deck area in order to accommodate the staircase;
  • The inclusion of obscure glazing, in lieu of timber battens to screen the deck area;
  • Minor amendments included as part of the landscape plan.

The applicant claimed all the changes could be made as of right, and no amendment of the previously approved plans was necessary.

At the time the two dwellings were approved (2008), such works required a planning permit.  The underlying land was subsequently divided, and constructing or extending a single dwelling on each new allotment no longer required a planning permit.  The applicant submitted that the previous permit had run its course and no longer operated to control development of his land.

Condition 2 of the 2008 planning permit is sadly not reproduced in the judgment but is apparently similar to Condition 1 mentioned earlier (the layout of the site and size of proposed buildings and works shall not be altered etc).

The Tribunal held the condition to be valid, and determinative of the situation.  Notwithstanding that the works in question could be carried out as of right if the allotment was vacant, Condition 2 meant that a secondary consent was required.  The South Australian equivalent would be a requirement for a variation under Section 39(6) of the Development Act.

In our view, the reasoning of Benedetti is persuasive.  The application of Benedetti in Box seems correct.  We expect that the same conclusions would be reached in relation to this State’s Development Act (apart from the qualification in Benedetti that if on-site works were converted to as-of-right development, conditions would cease to apply).

For more specific information on any of the material contained in this article please contact David Billington on 8210 1263 or dbillington@normans.com.au.



article image

Property, Infrastructure & Development – Building upgrade agreements

Background

The State Government is currently finalising the Local Government (Building Upgrade Agreements) Amendment Bill 2014 (the Bill).  Public consultation on a draft form of the Bill closed on 11 April 2014.  If enacted, the Bill will assist building owners (in association with councils and finance providers) to retrofit existing buildings in a way that improves their energy, water or environmental efficiency or sustainability.  It is intended that regulations (yet to be drafted) will limit the operation of these amendments, at least in the first instance, to commercial buildings (i.e. those used wholly or predominantly for commercial, industrial or other non-residential purposes).

Building upgrade agreements

If enacted, certain amendments will be made to the Local Government Act 1999, which will allow a ‘building upgrade agreement’ to be entered into between a council, building owner and finance provider.  Under this agreement:

  • The building owner would agree to undertake certain environmental ‘upgrade works’ to the building (although regulations may specify certain types of other upgrade works or exclude some types of upgrade works);
  • The finance provider would agree to advance money to the building owner for the purpose of funding the upgrade works;
  • The council would agree to levy a ‘building upgrade charge’ on the land for the purpose of recouping the money advanced by the finance provider; and
  • The building owner would then be required to pay the charge to the council, and the council would then pay the amount received to the finance provider (not including any service fee or late payment fee that the council is permitted to retain).

It is anticipated that there will be a standard building upgrade agreement template developed by the State Government for use by the relevant parties.

Main features

The main features of building upgrade agreements are:

  • An agreement may allow a building owner to recover contributions from a lessee, which will be based on the estimated cost savings to be made by the lessee from the upgrade works. Although this provision is intended to operate despite the Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995 (SA), the draft Bill does not specify this.  This issue has been raised through public comment.
  • An agreement may only be made in respect of a building constructed at least two years prior to the making of the agreement.
  • Agreements must be voluntarily entered into and councils cannot require building owners to enter into such agreements, such as by a condition of development authorisation.
  • The total amount owing on the land (including taxes, rates, charges and mortgages), in addition to the building upgrade charge, cannot exceed the capital value of the land.
  • If a building upgrade charge remains unpaid for more than three years, a council will have the right to sell the land and will then receive priority in the proceeds of the sale.

Considerations for councils

If enacted, the Bill will introduce a new area of work for councils to consider and manage.  This will involve resources, time and expertise in entering into such agreements, charging land, collecting payments and then forwarding those payments to finance providers.  Councils will need to hold all payments received in respect of a charge in trust and will need to determine the amount of any service fee or late payment fee to be withheld by councils.  If a council needed to sell land due to non-payment of a charge, this would involve time and resources as is the case currently for sale of land for non-payment of rates.

Although councils will be required to use their best endeavours to recover building upgrade charges, any failure by a building owner to pay a building upgrade charge will not make a council liable for any outstanding amount owing to the finance provider.  However, councils must still consider what measures will be taken to follow up payments by building owners and what policies will be established to ensure payment is made.

Councils will not be able to delegate the power to enter into, or to vary or terminate, building upgrade agreements or the power to declare and levy a building upgrade charge, except to the CEO (who cannot sub-delegate these powers). This could potentially have an impact on the amount of time required to approve and enter into such agreements.

Responsibility of building upgrade charges

Because a building upgrade charge is levied on the land, any loan obtained by a building owner under a building upgrade agreement will run with the land rather than being personal to the owner.  However, the amount of any liability for such a charge will be displayed on a certificate of liabilities (i.e. under section 187 of the Local Government Act 1999) rather than the Certificate of Title, as is the case with a mortgage.

For more specific information on any of the material contained in this article please contact Yari McCall on 08 8210 1265 or ymccall@normans.com.au.



article image

Local Government – Removal of committee members

Councils establish committees for various purposes. Many councils entrust committees with regulatory powers, and most councils often largely rely on recommendations of specialist committees. However, committees are ultimately created by councils and are entirely subject to the control of the council.

The membership of council committees can sometimes be a contentious issue. The absolute control that councils exercise over their committees includes the ability to remove members of committees for any reason – or for no reason at all.

‘Pleasure’ of council

Section 41(5) of the Local Government Act 1999 (SA) (the Act) provides that ‘[a] member of a committee holds office at the pleasure of the council’. The concept of holding office ‘at pleasure’ is an ancient concept in our legal system, often applied to higher offices appointed by the sovereign. It essentially means that the entity which makes an appointment has an absolute right to remove the relevant officeholder without any reason, beyond the fact that they no longer wish the person to hold the office.

In the case of council committees, the entity which appoints members is the elected body of council, which demonstrates its wishes through resolutions of the majority. All that is required for a person to achieve office in a committee is the confidence of a majority of voting council members. No reasons or qualifications are required for this appointment. It is therefore appropriate that if the majority of voting council members no longer have confidence in the officeholder, they can revoke the appointment.

The appointment of a committee member is a political act. It occurs in the political environment of a council chamber. Unlike the case in an employment relationship, no principles of procedural fairness or other natural justice requirements apply to such a political office.

Removal by committee itself

Section 41(3) of the Act provides that ‘[t]he membership of a committee will be determined by the council’. Accordingly, committees ordinarily do not have the power to remove members, or in any other way regulate their membership. A council could, through the terms of reference of a committee, confer upon a committee the ability to suspend or terminate members, or otherwise regulate their membership. However, this would in no way derogate from the ability of the council to remove a committee member, by resolution.

Ultimately, committee members exist to serve councils, and can be removed from their office purely as a matter of politics should they lose the confidence of the council.

For more specific information on any of the material contained in this article please contact Dale Mazzachi on 8201 1221 or dmazzachi@normans.com.au.



article image

Town Planning & Building Regulation – New swimming pool regulations – Update

In our January 2014 Briefly we drew attention to the variations to the Development Regulations 2008 made by the Development (Swimming Pool Safety) Variation Regulations 2013 (Variations).

The majority of changes arising from the Variations took effect on 1 January 2014. However, there are additional requirements relating to council inspections and inspection policies which have recently come into force on 1 April 2014.

This article provides a brief summary of the Variations now imposed on local councils, and contractors/owners responsible for constructing pools.

Summary of obligations under the Variations

1. Pursuant to Regulation 74(1)(cb) the responsible licensed building work contractor (or owner, if no contractor) must give 1 business day’s notice of:

  • completion of construction of a swimming pool, but before the pool is filled with water;
  • completion of construction of a safety fence or barrier for a swimming pool; and
  • (in relation to building work where other swimming pool safety features are relevant) completion of the building work relating to those safety features;

2. Maximum penalty of $2,500 (expiation fee $210) for a failure to notify the above works (Regulation 74(8));

3. Pursuant to Regulation 76E the responsible licensed building work contractor (or owner, if no contractor) must ensure that construction of all relevant safety fences and barriers is completed within 2 months of the completion of the construction of the swimming pool.  This places an upper limit on the time that temporary fences may be used;

4. Pursuant to Regulation 76D(4a) each council must establish a swimming pool inspection policy; and

5. A swimming pool inspection policy must, pursuant to Regulation 76D(4b), comply with the following minimum level of inspections:

  • At least 80% of swimming pools constructed during the year are to be inspected within two weeks of the council being notified of completion of the associated swimming pool safety fence or barrier (or, if no fence or barrier is to be installed, within two weeks of being notified of the completion of the pool itself); and
  • The remaining 20% are to be inspected within two months of notification.

6. An additional lodgement fee of $170 (in addition to the base lodgement fee) is now found in Schedule 6, item (1)(1)(c) for development applications involving the construction or alteration of:

  • a swimming pool;
  • spa pool; or
  • swimming pool safety fence or barrier.

Key messages for councils

It is imperative that by now, all councils have prepared a swimming pool inspection policy which is ready for its inspectors and compliance officers to implement.

Failure to establish a policy, or failure to comply with a swimming pool inspection policy might amount to maladministration, or become the starting point for an Ombudsman’s investigation. This could have significant political and public relations consequences.

Norman Waterhouse has a model policy available for those councils who are yet to establish a swimming pool inspection policy, or who want to ensure their existing policy fully complies with all relevant obligations.

For more specific information on any of the material contained in this article please contact John Watson on 8210 1245 or jwatson@normans.com.au.



article image

Certificate IV in Local Government (Planning)

The second of the 2014 specialist stream units for Certificate IV in Local Government Planning is scheduled to be delivered here at Norman Waterhouse Lawyers on Friday May 9th 2014.

The subject, 'Draft Planning Permits and Conditions' covers not just the drafting of permits and conditions but students will gain an understaning of what rights and obligations the permit holder has as part of the planning approval process.

"This course is ideal for administrative staff who are wokring or desire to work with and support the planning and development functions of the council. Participants will gain knowledge, skills and a qualification to assist their careers."

Please click here for a copy of a flyer about the course and the other subjects currently on offer. The presenters for the subjects include David Billington and Jacqui Plant.

If you are not already enrolled, it's not too late to enrol for this subject or the entire course.

Enrolment cut off has been extended to Friday 2nd May 2014.

To secure your enrolment, please contact Municipal Training on 8210 1260.



article image

Certificate IV in Local Government (Administration)

The delivery of a 3 day intensive of the specialist stream units for the Certificate IV in Local Government (Administration) is scheduled to commence here at Norman Waterhouse Lawyers on Monday 26th May 2014.

“This course is ideal for employees who support or are responsible for and involved directly in the administration and arrangement of contracts, preparation of tender documentation and community consultation”.

Please click here to view the flyer about the course and the subjects currently on offer which include “Prepare tender documentation” and “Administer contracts”.  Mary- Alice Paton, Partner, Norman Waterhouse Lawyers is presenting the specialist stream subjects.  Mary- Alice was instrumental in assisting South Australia’s LGA Procurement in the development of the recently published suite of model documents covering contracts and policies and the related Procurement Handbook to assist councils make their procurement processes more efficient.

If you are not already enrolled, it's not too late to enrol for this subject or the entire course.

Enrolment cut off has been extended to Friday 9th May 2014.

To secure your enrolment, please contact Municipal Training on 8227 2296.



article image

Certificate IV Local Government (Regulatory Services)

The delivery of a 2 ½ day intensive of the specialist stream units for the Certificate IV in Local Government Regulatory Services is scheduled to commence at Norman Waterhouse Lawyers on Wednesday 21st May 2014

“This course is ideal for employees who enforce legislation in areas such as environmental compliance, food safety, parking control as well as those involved in facilities and animal control”.

Please click here to view the flyer about the course and the subjects currently on offer which include “Investigate alleged breaches of legislation and prepare documentation” and “Provide evidence in court”.  The presenters for the subjects include Paul Kelly, Partner Local Government Governance and Regulatory Services and Dale Mazzachi, Senior Associate Local Government Governance and Regulatory Services.

If you are not already enrolled, it's not too late to enrol for this subject or the entire course.

Enrolment cut off has been extended to Monday 12th May 2014.

To secure your enrolment, please contact Municipal Training on 8227 2296.



© Norman Waterhouse 2014. All Rights Reserved. You may not reproduce all or any part of this newsletter without our prior consent.
We respect your right to privacy. You can view our Privacy Information Notice on our website
The contents of this newsletter are for information only and
should not be taken as advice on the law

Forward this issue

Do you know someone who might be interested in receiving this monthly newsletter?

Forward

Unsubscribe

You're receiving this newsletter because you signed up on the Norman Waterhouse website or you signed the Normans terms of engagement.

Unsubscribe

Contact us

Level 15, 45 Pirie St
Adelaide SA 5000
+ 61 8 8210 1200
www.normans.com.au
normans@normans.com.au


You're receiving this newsletter because you signed up at normans.com.au or you signed the Normans terms of engagement.
Having trouble reading this email? View it in your browser. Not interested anymore? Unsubscribe Instantly.