Leisure centre report 'devalued'

Gosford Council has described a report by the Department of Local Government about the Peninsula Leisure Centre project as "devalued", due to the number of errors of fact and "reliance on unsupported assertions".

The report dated December 2005 questioned the adequacy of project and budget management, the adequacy of council's role as consent authority and the process for keeping the public informed of the project and of dealing with public complaints about the project.

The December report stated that "where appropriate" errors of fact identified by the council in its response had been corrected in the report.

The response was released to Peninsula News by the Department of Local Government.

In the point-by-point response made to the draft report in June last year, council general manager Mr Peter Wilson rebuked claims made by department's reviewers.

In response to concerns about council assessing its own development, Mr Wilson stated that councils commonly assessed their own developments, citing a number of other projects, and noted that the department asserted "without support" that the leisure centre was a "particular" project.

Mr Wilson stated that a construction certificate was issued when the documentation provided by the architect met the requirements of council.

"The standard of documentation for the construction certificate was identical to the tender documentation, and arguably of a superior standard to most developments," Mr Wilson stated.

He also stated that the combined architect-design and contract administration role was a common method of managing a project, citing Lane Cove and Emerton facilities as similar projects.

"This is particularly appropriate given the complexity and specialisation required building an aquatic facility," Mr Wilson stated.

He responded to comments regarding a "cost blowout" stating that the original scope of the project had only been for the construction of a basketball facility on the same site as the original Woy Woy Pool.

A presentation of masterplans, requested by councillors for the redevelopment of the site, was done by a number of firms or architects.

"However, it was the dilapidated condition of the original pool that demanded that the scope of the project change," Mr Wilson stated.

"Council decided that it was appropriate to utilize the services of the appointed architect as he had presented the best option in the presentation of various masterplans.

"The fee proposal was below that recommended by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects.

"The architect's fees also include all the sub-consultants costs.

"The engagement of the quantity surveyor was increased as the scope of the project was revised.

"Council also increased the extent of this work by resolving to do a 'Bill of Quantities' for the building tender process."

Mr Wilson stated that once council decided to replace the existing dilapidated facility, it was committed to using the engaged consultants, on the basis of "intellectual property".

"Council decided not to stage the redevelopment and this decision was from the floor of council, not based on any staff recommendation," Mr Wilson stated.

"The architect-design and contract administration cost is $1.7 m, inclusive of all consultants including hydraulic engineering, structural engineering, pavement and traffic studies, environmental studies etc.

"The quantity surveyor was $0.2m for the three stages including concept costing, project costing and bill of quantities.

"Additional studies, contingencies, fees and charges, connection of utilities make up the remainder of the project."

Mr Wilson said council believed it had provided "sufficient information about these costs" on a number of occasions, including when a councillor made available to the media a list of consultants that council had engaged prior to the last council elections.

Mr Wilson stated that council had followed all requirements of tender legislation, with the assistance of its internal and external consultants and that, contrary to the department's report, Multiplex and Plumes did lodge expressions of interest (EOIs).

"The consultant was advised that some of the firms that were successful in the EOI would not submit a tender and to ensure a competitive tender the number was increased," Mr Wilson stated.

"The report notes that only four tenders were received."

Mr Wilson defended council's process for keeping the public informed and of dealing with public complaints about the project, stating that media coverage was extensive.

"Council provided adequate information through public meetings, facilitations, public information sessions and staff visits to individual properties at the request of neighbours for briefings.

"In addition, brochures, newsletters and press releases have been made, as well as roadside signage on the site and in Gosford on the Pacific Highway."

Mr Wilson stated that only $100,000, compared to the $400,000 reported by department, had been used from council's sewer fund, and this was "not in breach of Sections 409 and 410 of the Act".

Mr Wilson also stated that auditors Freeman Kennedy had carried out a full audit in January last year of expenditures, finding no issues, to meet the requirements of a Commonwealth Government grant.

He also stated that council's development assessment unit considered that the changes were consistent with being suitable for a Section 96 determination and did not require a new development application.

The council's response was not incorporated in the report available on the department's website at the time the last issue of Peninsula News went to press.

The report on the webstie has since been updated and now includes the council's response.

Fax, September 15 Department of Local Government