NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary Council meeting of the Devonport City Council will be held in the Council Chambers, on Tuesday 26 April 2016, commencing at 6:30pm. The meeting will be open to the public at 6:30pm. QUALIFIED PERSONS In accordance with Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993, I confirm that the reports in this agenda contain advice, information and recommendations given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendation.
Paul West GENERAL MANAGER 20 April 2016
May-June 2016 Meeting Governance & Finance Council Meeting Infrastructure Works & Development
Date 16 May 2016 23 May 2016 14 June 2016
Commencement Time 6:00pm 6.30pm 6:00pm
AGENDA FOR AN ORDINARY MEETING OF DEVONPORT CITY COUNCIL HELD ON TUESDAY 26 APRIL 2016 AT THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 6:30PM Item
Page No.
1.0
APOLOGIES ............................................................................................... 1
2.0
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST ........................................................................ 1
3.0 3.1
PROCEDURAL............................................................................................. 2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES .................................................................................. 2
3.1.1
Council meeting - 21 March 2016 ................................................................................................ 2
3.2
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ...................................................................................................................... 3
3.2.1
Responses to questions raised at prior meetings ....................................................................... 3
3.2.2
Questions on notice from the public ......................................................................................... 12
3.2.3
Question without notice from the public .................................................................................. 52
3.3
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM ALDERMEN ............................................................................................ 52
3.4
NOTICES OF MOTION ..................................................................................................................... 53
3.4.1
Renaming - Roundhouse Park - Notice of Motion - Ald G F Goodwin (D415265) ............. 53
3.4.2
Future Provision of Parking - Larger Vehicles - Notice of Motion - Ald A J Jarman (D416497) ........................................................................................................................................ 54
4.0
PLANNING AUTHORITY MATTERS ................................................................ 55
4.1
AM2016.01 Application to Amend Planning Scheme - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise (D414770) ........................................................................................................................................ 56
4.2
PA2016.0049 Residential (multiple dwellings x 5) - assessment against performance criteria under clause 10.4.1, 10.4.2, 10.4.3, 10.4.4 and Traffic Generating Use and Parking Code (fewer parking spaces than required) - 31 Dana Drive Devonport (D416593) ............................................................................................ 137
5.0
REPORTS .............................................................................................. 180
5.1
Contract 1309 - Fourways car park toilet upgrade (D415625) ............................................ 180
5.2
By-Law to amend Devonport City Council Parking By-Law No. 1 of 2013 (D413800) ..... 183
5.3
Annual Report - Shared Audit Panel (D414366) ..................................................................... 186
5.4
Budget Consultation 2016-2017 Report (D414860) ................................................................ 197
5.5
Lease from Crown Land Services - Land at Formby Road, Devonport (D415477) .......... 232
5.6
LIVING CITY - Advance Devonport Interest Group - LIVING CITY Message to Aldermen (D416372) ................................................................................................................... 237
6.0
INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 246
6.1
General Manager's Report - April 2016 (D408090) ................................................................ 246
6.2
Mayor's Monthly Report (D413644) ........................................................................................... 266
6.3
Workshops and Briefing Sessions held since the last Council meeting (D414178) ........... 268
7.0
SECTION 23 COMMITTEES ....................................................................... 269
7.1
Planning Authority Committee Meeting - 11 April 2016 (D415196) .................................... 269
7.2
Infrastructure Works and Development Committee Meeting - 11 April 2016 (D415260) ...................................................................................................................................... 272
7.3
Community Services Committee Meeting - 18 April 2016 (D416523)................................. 278
8.0
CLOSED SESSION - CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS .............................................. 283 Out Of Closed Session ................................................................................ 284
9.0
CLOSURE .............................................................................................. 284
PAGE 1 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Agenda of an ordinary meeting of the Devonport City Council to be held at the Council Chambers, Fenton Way, Devonport on Tuesday, 26 April 2016 commencing at 6:30pm. PRESENT Present Chair
Apology
Ald S L Martin (Mayor) Ald A L Rockliff (Deputy Mayor) Ald C D Emmerton Ald G F Goodwin Ald A J Jarman Ald J T Keay Ald L M Laycock Ald J F Matthews Ald L M Perry
IN ATTENDANCE All persons in attendance are advised that it is Council policy to record Council Meetings, in accordance with Council’s Audio Recording Policy. The audio recording of this meeting will be made available to the public on Council’s website for a minimum period of six months. Members of the public in attendance at the meeting who do not wish for their words to be recorded and/or published on the website, should contact a relevant Council Officer and advise of their wishes prior to the start of the meeting.
1.0
APOLOGIES
2.0
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
PAGE 2 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
3.0
PROCEDURAL
3.1
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
3.1.1 COUNCIL MEETING - 21 MARCH 2016 RECOMMENDATION That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 21 March 2016 as circulated be confirmed.
PAGE 3 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
3.2
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Members of the public are invited to ask questions in accordance with the following resolution of Council (Min Ref 54/16):
3.2.1
1.
Public participation shall take place at Council meetings in accordance with Regulation 31 of the Local Government (meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
2.
Public participation will be the first agenda item following the formal motions; Apologies, Minutes and Declarations of Interest.
3.
A maximum period of time of 30 minutes in total will be allowed for public participation.
4.
A maximum period of time of 3 minutes will be allowed for each individual.
5.
A member of the public may give written notice to the General Manager 7 days before an ordinary meeting of Council of a question to be asked at that meeting.
6.
A member of the public will be entitled to ask questions relating to the activities of Council, giving an explanation that is necessary to give background to the question and ask supplementary or follow up questions relating to that specific matter that may come to light as a result of the answer.
7.
Questions do not have to be lodged prior to the meeting, however they would be preferably provided in writing.
8.
A question by any member of the public and an answer to that question are not to be debated.
9.
The Chairperson may refuse to accept a question. If the Chairperson refuses to accept a question, the Chairperson is to give reason for doing so.
Responses to questions raised at prior meetings Meeting held - 15 March 2016 - Governance and Finance Committee Reproduced below is the response dated 18 March 2016 to Mr Peter Stegmann’s question: “I write in response to your questions, raised at the Governance and Finance Meeting held on 15 March 2016. Question 1: “What makes the Council believe that they have the support of the ratepayers for this amended plan, because my research indicates that nearly the whole of the City itself is totally opposed to it and I am talking particularly about the CBD because this new plan intends to create a new CBD totally separate which is going to downgrade the valuation of those properties in this area. Answer: I refer you to the report presented to Council at its special meeting held on 15 March 2016 (Item 3.1) which identifies that Council has continued throughout the LIVING CITY journey a strong emphasis on engaging with the community. Council does not accept that your own research referred to in your question is reflective of the broader community. Question 2: “The other question I have is with the contract that you are about to let I believe it is a guaranteed maximum price contract for the design to construct tender submission which the Council has accepted. I
PAGE 4 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
really struggle to believe that you can agree and commence work on a project of this magnitude that you have sold to us with a guaranteed maximum price and yet you are going to continue over the next two months to negotiate with the builder. That is just an appalling management tool, I can’t imagine how anyone would go into a contract like this, start work then start to negotiate and if you can’t agree on the negotiations, you stop work and maybe even sack the builder you have employed. My question is why is it necessary to commence work on this LIVING CITY project prior to finalising the construction contract?” Answer: A GMP contract is a common method of procurement for major infrastructure projects such as this. One of the key benefits of this method is that it allows the builder to bring practical expertise into the design process, ensuring the project is delivered in the most cost effective manner. It also minimises Council’s risk with costs contractually fixed to a set amount. Council is committed to starting works as soon as possible and this may include an early works package while the formalities of the contract are finalised. Any early works package agreed will be within the scope of the GMP contract. The exact commencement date will be determined in conjunction with the builder once an appropriate level of agreement is in place.” Meeting held - 15 March 2016 - Governance and Finance Committee Reproduced below is the response dated 18 March 2016 to Mr Trevor Smith’s question: “I write in response to your questions, raised at the Governance and Finance Meeting held on 15 March 2016. Question 1: “I noticed in your Finance Report for February 2016, that you have omitted to include the amount of interest paid on your loan of $15 million dollars, to purchase buildings in and around the Devonport CBD. This should be a separate item included in your report and not fudged with other figures! After all, the Ratepayers of this LIVING CITY have a right to be informed.” Answer: The February finance report is a reflection of Council’s overall position. The financials specific to the LIVING CITY project are presented to Council on a quarterly basis. The next quarterly report will be presented to Council at its meeting on 21 March 2016. Question 2: “You state in your Strategic Plan Progress Report, ‘That Devonport is the Retail and Service Centre for the North West Tasmania’. Do you judge this outcome on the population of Devonport or the number of shops open for business? Does this also include the growing number of empty shops around this LIVING CITY as well?” Answer: The goal of “Devonport is the retail and service centre for North West Tasmania” was derived from Council’s strategic planning sessions held in 2009 (reviewed 2014). The formation of Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030 involved business owners, community groups and organisations.
PAGE 5 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Meeting held - 15 March 2016 - Governance and Finance Committee Reproduced below is the response dated 18 March 2016 to Mr Tony Butler’s question: “Thank you for your questions raised at the Governance and Finance meeting held on 15 March 2016 regarding 26 Pardoe Street and Bass Street, East Devonport. Both matters require further investigation by Council and I will therefore arrange for a response to be provided to you in due course.” Reproduced below is the response dated 24 March 2016 to Mr Tony Butler’s question: “I refer to your question in relation to the use of premises at 26 Pardoe Street, East Devonport. Council officers have conducted an investigation and have reported as follows. There is an expired development permit attached to this property which was issued under the provisions of a previous planning scheme and which allowed a warehouse operation and associated office. Although this permit has expired the provisions of section 20 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 allow an owner of premises to continue the use as long as it is not expanded or intensified. The investigation has revealed that some timber is currently being cut and transported off the site for other uses. Any work involved with aluminium channelling appears to have ceased. The owner advised Council officers that timber cutting will also shortly cease and that what was previously a joinery shop will be used only for storage of goods associated with a different business. Currently some building work is being carried out at the site to expand the office space so as to accommodate staff associated with the new business. Council is unable to establish any break in activity allowed by the expired development permit that would void the existing use rights of the current owner as set out in the Act. There is therefore no cause for Council to initiate action against the owner of this property for an unlawful use.” Reproduced below is the response dated 24 March 2016 to Mr Tony Butler’s question: “I refer to your question in relation to the accumulation of apparently abandoned vehicles and other assorted auto parts at the southern end of Bass Street, East Devonport. As you are aware Council has written to you on previous occasions and advised that this appears to be a private road, not being in the ownership of either Council or the Crown. Council therefore is not responsible for its maintenance. In relation to the abandoned vehicles and other material left in the street Council has some difficulty in causing its removal.
PAGE 6 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
The Local Government Act 1993 provides that Council may serve an abatement notice in such circumstances but such a notice can only be served on the “owner” of the object which is creating the nuisance or the “owner” of the actual property on which the nuisance is being created. Despite an investigation Council has not been able to establish who owns the abandoned material nor does it have any record of who “owns” the land that comprises this particular section of Bass Street. Council agrees, however, that the abandoned material is unsightly and it will therefore write to all owners whose property boundaries adjoin this section of Bass Street in an effort to have that material removed.” Meeting held - 15 March 2016 - Governance and Finance Committee Reproduced below is the response dated 18 March 2016 to Mr Peter Schulze’s question: “I write in response to your questions, raised at the Governance and Finance Meeting held on 15 March 2016. Question: “My question relates to the LIVING CITY Project and the cost inputs as displayed at the Public meeting on the 29th Feb. being: $578,000 Rentals
$987,000 Parking Fees
and
$1,000,000 Council Rental
Because the Parking fees do not have a reduction because of the lower use of existing meters, and because the Council rental is being paid by council for a building, they will own: does the Council therefore accept that these figures have little relevance to the economic viability of the project, nor do they give any real indication on how the loan can be serviced, so in this sense they were misleading? Answer: I refer you to the report presented to Council on 22nd February 2016, (provided at the Special Council meeting as an attachment to the LIVING CITY report 3.1). This report clearly outlines all financial implications relating to the project and provides the clarity around the issues you have raised.” Meeting held - 15 March 2016 - Governance and Finance Committee Reproduced below is the response dated 17 March 2016 to Mr Bob Vellacott’s question: I write in response to your questions, raised at the Governance and Finance Meeting held on 15 March 2016. Question 1: “Do you Mayor and Aldermen agree with the assessment/ conclusion for points 1 and 2 in regard to the car parking and Council paying itself rental of $1 million per year in rent?” Answer: It has been acknowledged that the car parking is not new income and that the rental amount is notional. Both scenarios have been included in the long term financial plan. I refer you to the report presented to Council on 22nd February 2016, (provided at the Special Council meeting as an attachment to the LIVING CITY report 3.1). This report clearly outlines all financial implications relating to the project. Question 2: “Would you also agree with all the other comments?
PAGE 7 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Answer: Your comments are subjective and based on your opinion. therefore cannot provide a response to this question.
I
Meeting held - 21 March 2016 - Council Reproduced below is the response dated 24 March 2016 to Mr Douglas Janney’s question: “I write in response to your question raised at the Council meeting held on 21 March 2016. Question: “Will the Council include in future LIVING CITY quarterly updates the critical path chart of activities and events for the LIVING CITY project Stage 1?” Answer: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the inclusion of a critical path chart as part of the quarterly LIVING CITY update. Once the construction program is finalised Council will look at including a chart of this type as part of its reporting to the community.” Meeting held - 21 March 2016 - Council Reproduced below is the response dated 24 March 2016 to Mr Bob Vellacott’s question: “I write in response to the question you asked at the Council meeting held on 21 March 2016. Question: “Was the Australian Government misled along with the State Government when the applications were made?“ Answer: No, the Australian Government was not misled. The application required Council to nominate a minimum construction value and a figure of $56,223,292 was submitted. The $70.5 million detailed in the funding model budget is not a direct comparison and includes all likely costs associated with Stage 1, not just the construction value. Question: “Also would you agree ratepayers were also misled at the last election in regard to among other things the cost of stage 1 and the amount Council would borrow?” Answer: No, Council do not agree that ratepayers were misled.” Meeting held - 21 March 2016 - Council Reproduced below is the response dated 4 April 2016 to Mr Bob Vellacott’s question: Question: “Alderman Keay in responding to a ratepayer’s written concerns in regards the 800 seat convention centre you wrote in reply:There is demand for a Conference Centre of this size. Can Alderman Keay please provide in writing the evidence of such demand?” Answer: In response to your question to me raised during public question without notice time at the past council meeting, I can provide the following: The design for the multipurpose civic building has emerged after four years of careful planning, research and stakeholder engagement. To maximise usage it is a fully flexible space designed to operate in as many different formats and layouts as possible.
PAGE 8 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
The top floor of the facility will accommodate 800 people at its maximum in an auditorium setting or 500 in a round table sit down dinner format. The area can be divided into either two or three separate rooms and has capacity for trade and industry shows with access for cars and small vehicles via a lift. It is designed to fill a gap in the current market, being unlike any existing facility in the region. Council recognise that conferences will only form part of the buildings usage. It will be most suited for conferences within the 200 -300 delegate range which can be packaged attractively to complement the food pavilion and other destinations within the region. The objective of the conference facility is much broader than simply the conference market and is a key element in encouraging investment in new hotels and tourism focused activities. The importance of the interrelationships between each of the elements of LIVING CITY is highlighted in the Regional Benefits study undertaken by consultants Hill PDA. This report highlights the importance of considering the conference centre benefits as one element in a broader strategy for economic growth across the North West region. Council’s comprehensive application for National Stronger Regions Funding (NSRF) to the Federal Government was based around the demand and benefits of a large conference facility. Feedback provided on Council’s successful application indicated the proposal ranked in the top handful of the hundreds of applications received. $7 million of the $10 million Stronger Regions funding is being allocated to the conference centre. I would strongly doubt the Federal Government would have considered this project had Council not provided a thorough, evidence based and sound business case for the conference part of this development. You must remember that the final discretionary approval for NSRF funding allocation is by a ministerial council of the Federal Government and has to have been through a very thorough assessment process and deemed value for money by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development prior to being recommended to this Ministerial Council.” Meeting held - 21 March 2016 - Council Reproduced below is the response dated 30 March 2016 to Don Willing’s question: “I write in response to the question you asked at the Council meeting held on 21 March 2016. Question: “Was the Australian Government misled along with the State Government at the Council meeting in February a question asked of Council “What is the expected return of the LIVING CITY food market complex? If not a commercial return, why is it not a commercial return?” The answer to that question was “The project funding model shows that the expected rental yield to Council on its funds employed in the food pavilion will be approximately 7 per cent. This return is based on the expected net cost to Council of $5.6 million and doesn’t include the grants of $3 million contributed to the project. Why should not the charge to tenants be based on the total cost of the facility, to do otherwise is contrary to National Competition Policy and is therefore detrimental to the ratepayers?“
PAGE 9 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Answer: The government funding supports the concept of creating an iconic food tourism experience showcasing Tasmanian produce and allows the development of an attraction beyond what may be commercially viable in its own right. The food pavilion in its current format consists of five anchor tenancies along with a flexible market/event space. Whilst it is expected that the anchors will operate on a purely commercial basis with Council achieving full commercial rents, the market space provides opportunity for a broad range of operators, activities and events. It is this element of the pavilion that has become possible as a result of the Federal Government contribution. Subsequent to the meeting you emailed a further question as noted below. Question: “A further question which relates to this is why DCC have split the Federal Government grant as per page 4 of “Report to Council” dated 22 February 2016. The cynic in me says that you needed to allocate as much of the grant to the “new retail precinct” (so described in your grant application) so that you could reduce the “commercial rent” which should be applied and thereby attract new tenants. I further ask why the value of the land (say $1.0 M) upon which the Food Pavilion is situated is not included in the value of what is intended to be leased? So 7% of a proper total of $9.6 M reflects commercial rentals for that part of the new retail precinct. By my calculation, no café/restaurant food pavilion tenants would be able to afford the rent so calculated. In other words the area is clearly not viable. Are you intending to charge rates on top of the rent?” Answer: Council’s grant application for funding from Round 1 of the National Stronger Regions Fund was based on addressing the grant criteria. The conference centre and food pavilion were identified as the elements most likely to gain Government support and conditions within the grant deed connect the funding to these two elements of Stage 1. With lease agreements and final build costs yet to be finalised it is premature to calculate actual returns on investment, however as previously stated the anchor tenancies will be paying full commercial rent and outgoings.” Meeting held - 21 March 2016 - Council Reproduced below is the response dated 24 March 2016 to Trevor Smith’s question: “I write in response to the question you asked at the Council meeting held on 21 March 2016. Question: “Now that the contracts have been signed to commence construction of the LIVING CITY and multi storey carpark, could you provide me with the days that it will be open? Also, could you provide me the opening hours, especially when there will be stage shows on at the Devonport Entertainment Centre. Will security be provided for the safety of elderly residents using the Multi Storey Car Park at night? Will there be free parking on Saturdays, as well for shopping, that exists now?” Answer: With the opening of the new car park at least 18 months away, operational matters such as security, opening hours and fee structures are still under consideration by Council and have not yet been finalised. The
PAGE 10 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
issues you have raised will be considered by Council in due course through normal reporting and decision making processes.” Meeting held - 21 March 2016 - Council Reproduced below is the response dated 24 March 2016 to Trevor Smith’s question: “Thank you for your questions in regards to the role of the Mayor. In the first instance you inquire as to the Mayor being paid when on a Leave of Absence; to ensure transparency, please note the following
Aldermen and Mayor are not employees of Council, State or Federal Governments.
We do not receive wages, holidays, long service leave, sick leave, compassionate leave, superannuation or other entitlements as local, state or federal employees do. o
We receive a yearly allowance to assist in offsetting costs of performing associated duties. The allowance is not provided in a lump sum, it is spread out over the financial year.
Aldermen and Mayor also have the ability to be employed elsewhere. Most Aldermen do have an occupation along with some Mayors or are retired with other personal interests other than Council. o
An example of how an allowance assists is; in the near future, I have been invited and will be attending the 20 year anniversary of Devonport’s sister city relationship in Minamata, Japan, representing our City. This is a self-funded trip with the cost spread across past and future allocation of the allowance.
I chose to sell my restaurant on being elected as Mayor, to become a full time Mayor for Devonport, on average working around 70 hours per week.
I was elected as an Alderman in 2009, as Mayor in 2011, then reelected in both roles in 2014. o
During this time (approx. 7 years) I have applied for and was granted a Leave of Absence:
In 2016, consecutively; one weeks personal time and then one week (including 2 travel days) to represent Devonport in Minamata Japan – self funded trip to Japan
In 2015 October 1st – 11th representing the Cradle Coast Authority and the region (including Devonport) at the 2015 Australian Masters Games, Adelaide
In 2012 October 16th – 23rd personal time (youth work interstate)
In 2010 October 1st – 19th personal time
Totalling 5 weeks personal time over approx. 7 years In answer to your first question; as allowances do not apply to specific time periods, it is my intention to apply for a Leave of Absence as is and at the
PAGE 11 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
time when my nomination for the Senate becomes official up to and including Election Day. In the second instance you inquire if the Mayor has to resign for the upcoming federal election; so as ensure transparency, please note the following:
In this case (upcoming federal election) it is up to each individual to consider taking any appropriate action should they deem it necessary.
In section 44 of the Australian Constitution it states: o
If any candidate holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth - shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
A Council is described in the Local Government Act 1993 as a Body Corporate
Aldermen and Mayors are not employees of Council, State or Federal Governments. o
We do not receive wages, holidays, long service leave, sick leave, compassionate leave, superannuation or other entitlements as local, state or federal employees do.
o
We receive a yearly allowance to assist in offsetting costs of performing associated duties.
My personal read of this issue (publicly stated) is that it is not necessary to resign from Council as I consider the Office of Alderman and Mayor not being an office of profit under the Crown. This stance was recently backed up by the Senate Clerk Dr Rosemary Laing stating my position of not having to resign was “legally sound”, but acknowledged that “a political opponent may put him to the trouble and expense of defending himself in a legal challenge.” In applying this “legally sound” position, a Mayor could continue in the role of Mayor right up to Election Day, if successful, then up to when the Mayor officially becomes a member of Parliament/Senate. As previously stated, it is my intention to apply for a Leave of Absence as is and at the time when my nomination for the Senate becomes official up to and including Election Day. Mr Smith, you mention also door knocking, yes I do door knock; I have done continually since being elected as an Alderman in 2009, not just at election time. I hope this information is of assistance and I thank you again for your questions.” Meeting held - 21 March 2016 - Council Reproduced below is the response dated 24 March 2016 to Mr Peter Stegmann’s question: “I write in response to the question you asked at the Council meeting held on 21 March 2016.
PAGE 12 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Question: “What is the cost per square metre for the Food Pavilion and does this compare with the rentable food outlets in the Bluff Precinct?” Answer: As with all of Council’s commercial leases the terms and conditions are confidential matters between Council as the Landlord and the respective tenant. Obviously Council is looking to maximise its returns and at least secure agreements that are consistent with projections in the publicly available funding model.” Meeting held - 21 March 2016 - Council Reproduced below is the response dated 6 April 2016 to Peter Schulze’s question: “I write in response to your question raised at the Council Meeting on 21 March 2016. Question: I am aware that there have been a number of complaints about the disgraceful state of the footpath and surrounds of the southern end of Tarleton Street, East Devonport. Requests have been made to the Council to sort out the problem with whomever is responsible for that area. It is not a good look and most of the tourists coming off the Spirit go to and from past that particular area. The footpaths are covered in weeds and rubbish alongside the footpath is the same. I go and spray it with roundup now and again and this has been going on for years. For a Council who espouses a desire for people from the Spirit to visit the town they are not doing very much to help that. It would be pretty low cost compared to building public buildings at a high cost after demolishing others, that won’t attract any tourists to come over, it doesn’t bode well for a Council who can’t manage that sort of thing to think they can manage the type of development like LIVING CITY a type of development that Council shouldn’t be involved with anyway. Does Council have any plans at all to fix that problem? Answer: Council’s current service level for weed spraying in urban streets is 2 times per year. The main roads including the area that you have raised concerns regarding was sprayed in March. The minor roads are still being completed.”
RECOMMENDATION That Council note the responses provided to questions taken on notice at the following meetings:
15 March 2016 Governance & Finance Committee meeting; and 21 March 2016 Council meeting
PAGE 13 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
3.2.2
Questions on notice from the public
MR RAY CHAPLIN - LIVING CITY BACKGROUND Mr Ray Chaplin (Brand Focus) has provided to Council correspondence relating to his concerns regarding the LIVING CITY project. In a covering email Mr Chaplin requested that the letter be circulated to the Mayor and Aldermen for their attention. He also requested that the letter and any response “is officially recorded in the minutes of the Devonport City Council”. A follow up email received from Mr Chaplin on 20 March 2016 indicated that he was disappointed that after “11 full business days” he had yet to receive a response and further he reminded Council that he had requested that the letter be “officially recorded in the Minutes of the Devonport City Council”. By email on 21 March a response was provided to Mr Chaplin. Subsequently he provided a further letter raising additional concerns to which he was advised that all of his correspondence would be listed on the Council meeting agenda for 26 April 2016 as ‘Questions on Notice’. Attached in chronological order are the following items: 1.
Email – 3 March 2016 – from Ray Chaplin – attaching correspondence with a request it be circulated to the Mayor and Aldermen.
2.
Letter – 3 March 2016 – attachment to email from Ray Chaplin.
3.
Email – 3 March 2016 – to Ray Chaplin – acknowledging receipt of correspondence and advising it had been circulated as requested to Mayor and Aldermen.
4.
Email – 3 March 2016 – from Ray Chaplin – advising he had attached an incorrect version of Bryan Whitefield’s letter to his correspondence (incorrect spelling of Devonport).
5.
Email – 20 March 2016 – from Ray Chaplin – raising concerns that he had not received a reply to his correspondence of 3 March.
6.
Email - 21 March 2016 – to Ray Chaplin – responding to his email.
7.
Letter – 21 March 2016 – to Ray Chaplin – formal response to his submission.
8.
Email – 21 March 2016 – providing a response to Council’s email.
9.
Letter – 21 March 2016 – raising further concerns about the project and the response provided.
10.
Email – 22 March 2016 – to Ray Chaplin – acknowledging receipt of his further correspondence and advising the letter would be treated as ‘Questions on Notice’ for the next ordinary Council Meeting on 26 April.
11.
Media Release 23 February 2016 – Saul Eslake Comments on Living City.
12.
Email 20 April 2016 – advice requesting that the document provided to Aldermen on 14 April also be provided on the public agenda.
DISCUSSION Despite responses being provided to Mr Chaplin relating to his concerns regarding LIVING CITY he appears to remains dissatisfied with Council. In relation to his latest correspondence dated 21 March 2016 (refer attachment 9) it is proposed that Mr Chaplin be advised of the following:
PAGE 14 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
In relation to Council procedures for dealing with your letter, the email of 22 March 2016 confirmed that your correspondence would be listed as a “Question on Notice” on the Agenda for the Council meeting on 26 April 2016. Although Council notes your observations in relation to the team engaged by, and supporting Council on LIVING CITY it disagrees with your summation that Council has failed the due diligence test. Council is satisfied that there is a team with appropriate experience and capacity assembled to assist it with the implementation of LIVING CITY, including the P+i Group, Lyons Architects, structural, mechanical, services and acoustic engineering, Hill PDA, geotechnical and other specialists and those engaged to prepare specialist advice in both the retail and hotel aspects of the project. Council is and continues to be satisfied and with the work done by the team and with progress made to date. Council notes but disagrees with your analysis in relation to the anticipated future employment and economic impact of LIVING CITY as we have previously reiterated to you. An important consideration is to ensure the project is consistent with the broader objectives, economic growth and employment. Council understands that it is not possible to predict outcomes in the future with absolute accuracy, particularly where these outcomes are dependent on a large number of variables. In Council’s view State and Federal Government support for LIVING CITY is prima facie evidence of their confidence in the project and a view that the project is soundly based. Council remains of the firm view that, successfully implemented; LIVING CITY will stimulate economic activity and provide new employment opportunities for the benefit of Devonport and the broader regional community. In relation to the financial model, it has been independently reviewed and found to be fundamentally sound. In relation to comments made by Mr Saul Eslake about LIVING CITY these are obviously on the public record as they were printed in the local media. Mr Eslake’s comments were of a general nature and indicated on the basis of the information he had been provided with there was an argument “for some of the costs of this project to be funded by borrowings”. The media release issued by Council (refer attachment 11) was approved by Mr Eslake prior to its release. Any decision by Council to proceed to execute project documentation will be based on decisions made by Council to that point, the advice given to Council at the time including advice in relation to due diligence and risk. RECOMMENDATION That in relation to the correspondence received from Mr Ray Chaplin (Brand Focus) regarding the LIVING CITY Project, Council note the response proposed as outlined in the agenda report and authorise its release.
PAGE 15 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Attachment 1 - Email – 3 March 2016 – from Ray Chaplin with a request it be circulated to the Mayor and Aldermen
PAGE 16 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Attachment 2 - Letter – 3 March 2016 – attachment to email from Ray Chaplin
PAGE 17 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 18 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 19 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 20 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 21 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 22 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 23 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 24 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 25 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 26 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 27 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 28 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 29 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 30 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Attachment 3 - Email – 3 March 2016 – to Ray Chaplin acknowledging receipt of correspondence and advising it had been circulated as requested to Mayor and Aldermen
PAGE 31 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Attachment 4 - Email – 3 March 2016 – from Ray Chaplin – advising he had attached an incorrect version of Bryan Whitefield’s letter to his correspondence (incorrect spelling of Devonport)
PAGE 32 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Attachment 5 - Email – 20 March 2016 – from Ray Chaplin – raising concerns that he had not received a reply to his correspondence of 3 March
PAGE 33 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Attachment 6 - Email - 21 March 2016 – to Ray Chaplin – responding to his email
PAGE 34 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 35 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 36 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 37 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 38 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Attachment 7 - Letter – 21 March 2016 – to Ray Chaplin – formal response to his submission
PAGE 39 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Attachment 8 - Email – 21 March 2016 – providing a response to Council’s email
PAGE 40 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Attachment 9 - Letter – 21 March 2016 – raising further concerns about the project and the response provided
PAGE 41 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 42 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 43 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 44 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Attachment 10 - Email – 22 March 2016 – to Ray Chaplin – acknowledging receipt of his further correspondence and advising the letter would be treated as ‘Questions on Notice’ for the next ordinary Council Meeting on 26 April
PAGE 45 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Attachment 11 - Media Release 23 February 2016 – Saul Eslake Comments on LIVING CITY
PAGE 46 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
Attachment 12 - 20 April 2016 – PowerPoint Presentation
PAGE 47 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 48 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 49 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 50 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 51 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
PAGE 52 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
3.2.3
Question without notice from the public
3.3
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM ALDERMEN At the time of compilation of the agenda no questions on notice from Aldermen were received.
PAGE 53 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
3.4
NOTICES OF MOTION
3.4.1 RENAMING - ROUNDHOUSE PARK - NOTICE OF MOTION - ALD G F GOODWIN File: 26725 D415265
In accordance with Regulation 16(5) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, a notice of motion has been received from Alderman G F Goodwin.
ATTACHMENTS Nil
MOTION “That Council consider renaming Roundhouse Park to a more relevant name and that a Workshop be facilitated to discuss the above.” SUPPORT There were no supporting comments provided.
OFFICER’S COMMENTS As outlined the motion seeks consideration of the renaming of Roundhouse Park. It has been identified that the existing rail line which serviced Launceston to Deloraine was extended to Devonport on 30 May 1885 and then onto Burnie on 15 April 1901. Devonport once had a roundhouse and railway maintenance yards on the foreshore of the Mersey River where the park exists today.
It would appear that the name “Roundhouse Park” has been attached to this area for a long time. An article in the “Devonport City News” on 28 November 1984 outlined that work was underway to remove the old Devonport railway turntable - the last remaining evidence of the railway roundhouse area. Following the removal extensive landscaping of the area was undertaken.
ITEM 3.4.1
PAGE 54 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
3.4.2 FUTURE PROVISION OF PARKING - LARGER VEHICLES - NOTICE OF MOTION - ALD A J JARMAN File: 31342 D416497
In accordance with Regulation 16(5) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, a notice of motion has been received from Alderman A J Jarman.
ATTACHMENTS Nil
MOTION “That Council request that a staff report be prepared relating to the future provision of parking for larger vehicles including caravans and motorhomes in both the Devonport and East Devonport business districts.”
SUPPORT Large motor home and caravan parking facilities are not well accommodated for in Devonport. It is on this basis and considering Council’s investment in LIVING CITY that it is timely for Council to review parking options available on both sides of the river. Lack of access, for example, in the Pay as You Leave car park, no provision at both Coles and Woolworths and a general lack of parking at East Devonport are the main issues. I would like to see this improved upon to encourage the “Grey Nomads” to stay long in our city and this would be a logical encouragement.
OFFICER’S COMMENTS Some preliminary work has already commenced in relation to the future parking and traffic arrangements in Devonport as a result of LIVING CITY. It is proposed to further develop options for Council consideration over the coming 12 months as Stage 1 construction works get underway.
ITEM 3.4.2
PAGE 55 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
4.0
PLANNING AUTHORITY MATTERS
The Mayor will now announce that Council intends to act as a Planning Authority under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 for the consideration of Agenda Items 4.1to 4.2. Council is required by Regulation 8(3) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 to deal with items as a Planning Authority under the LUPA 1993 in a sequential manner. The following items are to be dealt with at the meeting of Council in its capacity as a Planning Authority. 4.1
AM2016.01 Application to Amend Planning Scheme - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise (D414770)
4.2
PA2016.0049 Residential (multiple dwellings x 5) - assessment against performance criteria under clause 10.4.1, 10.4.2, 10.4.3, 10.4.4 and Traffic Generating Use and Parking Code (fewer parking spaces than required) - 31 Dana Drive Devonport (D416593)
ITEM 4.0
PAGE 56 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
4.1
AM2016.01 APPLICATION TO AMEND PLANNING SCHEME - 1 FRIEND STREET STONY RISE File: 32198 D414770
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 2.1.1
Apply and review the Devonport Interim Planning Scheme as required, to ensure it delivers local community character and appropriate land use
Strategy 2.1.2
Provide high quality, consistent and responsive development assessment and compliance processes
Strategy 2.1.3
Work in partnership with neighbouring councils, State Government and other key stakeholders on regional planning and development issues
PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to enable the Planning Authority to make a decision regarding AM2016.01. The purpose of the amendment is:
To remove the Specific Area Plan 2 from the property known as 1 Friend Street, Stony Rise (CT167737 Folio 18) and in its place extend and apply Specific Area Plan 1; and
To delete the Specific Area Plan text known as F2.0 Devonport Homemaker Service Industrial Centre from the planning scheme ordinance in total; and
To modify F1.0 Devonport Regional Homemaker Centre to reflect where applicable the mapping and textural change.
Further details on the textural changes are contained in the applicant’s supporting submission. These receive commentary during this report.
BACKGROUND Planning Instrument: Applicant: Owner: Proposal: Existing Use: Zoning: Decision Due:
Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013 Launceston Gasworks Pty Ltd Launceston Gasworks Pty Ltd Application to amend Planning Scheme under Section 33 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 Undeveloped Commercial 27.04.2016
SITE DESCRIPTION The subject land is part of the overall site identified as the Devonport Regional Homemaker Centre. This multiple tenanted site was initially subject to a major amendment to the Devonport and Environs Planning Scheme 1984 in 2008. The subsequent development opened for business in early 2014. Diagram 1 represents an aerial view of the entire Homemaker site as depicted in March 2014. The land subject to this amendment application (SAP2) is shown hatched.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 57 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
The disturbed site on the eastern side of Friend Street is the proposed Bunnings Site and the circular reservation for the roundabout is also visible in the cadastral overlay. Specific Area Plan 1(SAP1) is the balance of the Homemakers site containing the established buildings as well as the future Bunnings site and two smaller lots facing Stony Rise Road.
Diagram 1 Photo Source: DCC Dekho March 2014
COMMENTARY Historically the site subject to this application was subject to an amendment application to include a ‘Homemaker Service Industrial Zone’. This was approved in October 2011. A planning application for warehouse development was subsequently approved in August 2012. The development has not proceeded and the permit has lapsed. The site remains undeveloped. In 2013 the transition process from the Devonport and Environs Planning Scheme 1984 to the Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013 resulted in the creation of two Specific Area ITEM 4.1
PAGE 58 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
Plans (SAP1 & SAP2) at the Homemakers site with the previous 1984 provisions simply translated across to the interim scheme with no changes made. The underlying zone of the subject land for both SAP1 and SAP2 is ‘Commercial’ under the Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013. The purpose of this zone is to provide for large floor area retailing and service industries. The current SAP2 overlay provides a more defined zone purpose to accommodate uses which are designed to support the Devonport Regional Homemaker Centre. That is, the SAP2 objective is to provide for allied service industry, warehousing and support offices and sales and product distribution on a small scale. As a consequence the Use Table under SAP2 is quite restrictive in its application by only allowing a permit pathway for Service industry, Storage, Vehicle parking and Bulky goods sales (but only if for motor vehicle, boat, caravan sales and garden and landscape supplies). SAP1 in comparison allows the types of uses and bulky goods outlets that are currently observed at the Homemaker site and other activities if they meet the Use Table qualification. The applicant’s submission indicates that the proposed amendment will enable a better consistency in planning controls across the broader Homemakers site and that the current land although having been subject to a considerable marketing campaign by the applicant has not realised the expected demand for service industry based activities. Development Standard comparison – setbacks In regard to the development standards an analysis of the respective controls prescribed under SAP1 and SAP2 confirms that they are specific to those individual sites and simply removing SAP2 in its entirety and expanding SAP1 cannot work for various logistical reasons. For example SAP2 details a permissible building setback of 15m from the Friend Street frontage whereas SAP1 details setbacks of 20m and 6m from the Bass Highway and Stony Rise frontages respectively. Friend Street is not mentioned and some numerical standard should apply otherwise there would in effect be no frontage setback requirement from Friend Street in SAP1. Similarly SAP2 provides Performance Criteria for the discretionary consideration of a lesser setback from the side and rear boundaries but the comparable side and rear setback provisions in SAP1 require an absolute 10m side and rear with no lesser distance accepted. The applicant’s submission proposes a 3m setback from Friend Street which is a significant departure from the current 15m without any building concept, design, carpark or landscaping details known. Development Standard – Floor area SAP1 currently has a total floor area for all tenancies that is not to exceed 46,150m2. This particular development standard has no performance criteria to consider discretion of a greater floor area. If a direct transition occurred without investigating an increase there would be no development opportunity available due to the absolute 46,150m2 maximum floor area threshold. That is, it is calculated that the approximate total floor area of developed and undeveloped approved sites is already approaching this threshold. In summary it is problematic for future development potential given the absence of a nominated future use and development on the subject site to simply apply the SAP1 development standards to the subject site without some increase to the total floor area if in fact that can be justified. ITEM 4.1
PAGE 59 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
The original application was subject to a request for additional information to clarify some identified inconsistencies in simply transferring the SAP1 provisions to the subject site. It was thought worthwhile to prevent confusion by compiling the revised information received into one document rather than a piecemeal approach. This was also to avoid confusion during the reporting and public exhibition phases of the application. The compiled submission and an Economic Impact Assessment (MacroPlanDimasi April 2015) in support of the application is attached as Attachment 1. Although having only the one Specific Area Plan over the entire Homemakers site provides some consistency it does raise some observations requiring further commentary. 1.
Does the Council favour consistency across the entire site or is there a preference to retain the current SAP2? The applicant’s submission indicates that the service industrial land has been available for 5 years and no tenants have been found to occupy the site. They also indicate that very little alternative land exists in Devonport for this type of development. This might be disputed if an analysis of the undeveloped light industrial land elsewhere at Spreyton and Quoiba were to prove contradictory.
2.
Is the proposed amendment as submitted consistent with the commercial/retail strategies proposed under the LIVING CITY Plan? There is a risk that the two undeveloped building pad sites on the Harvey Norman Site and the three sites on the Bunnings land may attract an occupant that the LIVING CITY Project would prefer as an anchor tenant in the LIVING CITY precinct.
3.
Is there sufficient strategic merit to support the amendment given the absence of nominated use(s) for the subject site and the lag in development of the remaining Homemaker Centre land? The Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 does, however, provide a process for amendment applications without details of the anticipated development being known.
Contemplation of these relatively simple issues poses the strategic argument of whether to retain the SAP2 for future service industry activities or remove it because it is not needed and revise SAP1 to accommodate further bulky goods occupation. The applicant has submitted that there is a general decline for service industrial land and is relying on the EIA to support the proposition that further floor space is required for homemaker/bulky goods sales. No other strategic support has been provided. The application seeks to increase the floorspace area from 46,150m2 to 53,000m2. This allows for a net area of .685ha of the subject land’s area of 1.571ha to be potentially developed. The land is burdened by easements which restrict development on the western side. Contrary to the applicant’s submission that all available land within SAP1 has now been completely developed it has been calculated that the total area of undeveloped building pads, vacant tenancies and the undeveloped Bunnings Properties site is approximately 22,500m2. The Bunnings building itself of nearly 13,000m2 is 60% of this area. The Economic Impact Assessment included with the application indicates that a demand supply analysis of homemaker/bulky goods floor space reveals an undersupply of such floor space in the order of 29,000m2 which coincidentally includes the net area of 6,850m2 on the SAP2 site plus the current undeveloped site area of 22,500m2.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 32 of the Land Use Planning & Approvals Act 1993 provides the requirements for preparation of amendments as follows: ITEM 4.1
PAGE 60 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
A draft amendment of a planning scheme, and an amendment of a planning scheme, in the opinion of the relevant decision-maker within the meaning of section 20(2A) (a – d)…. (e)
must, as far as practicable, avoid the potential for land use conflicts with use and development permissible under the planning scheme applying to the adjacent area; and
(ea) must not conflict with the requirements of section 30O; and (f)
must have regard to the impact that the use and development permissible under the amendment will have on the use and development of the region as an entity in environmental, economic and social terms.
Section 30O of the Act goes on to say: (1)
An amendment may only be made under Division 2 or 2A to a local provision of a planning scheme, or to insert a local provision into, or remove a local provision from, such a scheme, if the amendment is, as far as is, in the opinion of the relevant decision-maker within the meaning of section 20(2A), practicable, consistent with the regional land use strategy, if any, for the regional area in which is situated the land to which the scheme applies.
(2)
An amendment, of a planning scheme, that would amend a local provision of the scheme or insert a new provision into the scheme may only be made under Division 2 or 2A if –
(3)
(a)
The amendment is not such that the local provision as amended or inserted would be directly or indirectly inconsistent with the common provision, except in accordance with section 30EA, or an overriding local provision; and
(b)
The amendment does not revoke or amend an overriding local provision; and
(c)
The amendment is not to the effect that a conflicting local provision would, after the amendment, be contained in the scheme.
Subject to section 30EA, an amendment may be made to a local provision if – (a)
The amendment is to the effect that a common provision is not to apply to an area of land; and
(b)
A planning directive allows the planning scheme to specify that some or all of the common provisions are not to apply to such an area of land.
Response – The adjacent areas referred to are the neighboring municipal areas. This is not deemed relevant to this amendment. The impact on the region as an entity in environmental, economic and social terms is a sustainable objective that has to be considered beyond the Devonport municipal boundary. The Cradle Coast Regional Land Strategy 2010-2013 is a comprehensive document that provides a regional perspective on land use planning issues of significance. It is relevant in this application because the economic benefits to the region were the main reason in establishing the Devonport Homemaker Centre. The strategy needs to be read in context rather than selecting relevant portions of significance. It is a statutory document and its importance cannot be underestimated in delivering good planning outcomes. The Executive Summary concludes with a comment that the Strategy is not a framework for radical change but a strategy for sustainable growth and development.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 61 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
The applicant has submitted an Economic Impact Assessment that indicates the Homemakers site is undersupplied with bulky goods floorspace. The EIA also indicates that the Devonport Homemaker Centre trade area is extensive and covers all the major urban areas in Tasmania’s North West Coast that has a current population at 100,000 residents. Section 5 of the Act also provides an obligation for the Planning Authority to perform the function or exercise the power in such a manner as to further the objectives set out in Schedule 1. These objectives can be used to reinforce the final determination of the Council acting as a Planning Authority. These are appended as Attachment 2. Sustainability comes in many guises and forms but in general terms the sustainable land use objectives of the Act are there to ensure the triple bottom line of social, economic and cultural wellbeing of the State flow down into the various planning instruments to assist with good planning outcomes. Historically the original amendment application at the Homemakers site (AM2008/01) included an Economic Impact Study by Deep End Services which indicated the Devonport Homemakers Site could service a catchment of 96,000 people with a cap of 28,000m2 of total floor area. This was peer reviewed by Essential Economics Pty Ltd which was the author of the 2008 Devonport Retail Study. This Study underpins the Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013. The Resource Planning and Development Commission approved this amendment and it became effective on 4 August 2009. In 2011 a further amendment to the planning scheme (AM2011/03) was submitted and this included the proposal to include a Homemaker Service Industrial zone (later to become SAP2) and also stage 2 of the Homemaker Site (an extension to be included later as SAP1). This submission was supported by another economic impact assessment dated January 2011 by Pitney Bowes who concluded that there was an undersupply of 18,150m2 of floorspace, which by coincidence or not is the size of the proposed Bunnings development. The Tasmanian Planning Commission approved this amendment and it came into effect on 5 October 2011. This current application to basically consider replacing SAP2 with SAP1 includes a third economic impact assessment for the site which also now claims a further under supply of floorspace to justify the amendment. Comments – The status quo at the Homemakers site suggests that the current commercial activities which from observation hasn’t involved any significant change of tenancy since the development was completed, has reasonably confirmed the accuracy of the original economic analysis that indicated a 28,000m2 threshold.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS No additional costs beyond currently allocated administrative functions are predicted.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT As the proposal is part of a section 33 application it is yet to be advertised. Should the proposed amendment proposal be certified by Council then the required details and documents are subject to a 28 day public exhibition phase which invites comments.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 62 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
DISCUSSION The Council acting as a Planning Authority appear to have two options to consider. First Option - reject the application outright. There would need to be some reasons given because the applicant can request the Commission to review the process by which the decision was reached. The impetus behind all the amendment applications received in the past eight years has been primarily based on economic grounds. If the Planning Authority contends that it is premature at this time to approve the application then their decision would have to be based on a conclusion that current supply and demand for commercial land is already satisfied. Second Option - accept the application and initiate the amendment because the proponent has demonstrated that there is an under supply of bulky goods floorspace at the Devonport Homemaker Centre site. This vindicates the three economic impact assessments received in eight years for the three amendment applications that included a need to increase the floorspace. This decision would need the Devonport Interim Planning Scheme to be appropriately amended after consideration of the transitioning implications. The applicant’s submission includes details on how this can be achieved. If this option is considered the Planning Authority should as well as considering the permitted uses and increase in floor space consider whether the submitted 3m front setback is suitable for the site or whether the streetscape should include carparking between the boundary and front of the building. Note: The current SAP2 front setback is 15m with no discretion to reduce it further. It is further noted that the frontage boundary has an irregular alignment due to the roundabout under construction.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
2.
Section 5 of the Act - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
RECOMMENDATION That Council acting in its role as a Planning Authority accept the report of the Planning and Environmental Health Coordinator and: Option 1 Refuse to initiate an amendment to the local provisions of the Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013 because there is no strategic justification in doing so and allow due process if the applicant decides to request the Commission to review the process under section 33(2A) of the Act. OR Option 2 Initiate the amendment and agree to certify AM2016.01, subject to setting boundary setbacks at 15m from Friend Street frontage, because it is satisfied that the draft amendment meets the requirements specified in Section 32 of the Act and as a consequence proceed to notify the Commission and publicly exhibit and advertise the application and supporting documentation for 28 days. ITEM 4.1
PAGE 63 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
If option 2 is favoured then a report containing the Planning Authority’s recommendation about the draft amendment to the Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013 and a certified copy is to be forwarded to the Tasmanian Planning Commission to satisfy the requirements of Section 35 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
Author: Position:
Shane Warren Planning & Environmental Coordinator
Health
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 4.1
Matthew Atkins Deputy General Manager
PAGE 64 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 65 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 66 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 67 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 68 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 69 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 70 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 71 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 72 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 73 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 74 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 75 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 76 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 77 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 78 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 79 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 80 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 81 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
PAGE 82
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 83 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 84 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 85 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 86 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 87 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 88 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 89 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 90 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 91 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 92 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 93 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 94 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 95 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 96 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 97 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 98 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 99 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 100 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 101 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 102 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 103 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 104 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 105 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 106 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 107 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 108 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 109 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 110 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 111 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 112 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 113 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 114 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 115 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 116 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 117 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 118 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 119 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 120 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 121 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 122 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 123 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 124 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 125 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 126 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 127 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 128 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 129 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 130 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 131 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 132 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 133 Submission and Economic Impact Assessment - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 134 Section 5 of the Act - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ATTACHMENT [2]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 135 Section 5 of the Act - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ATTACHMENT [2]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 136 Section 5 of the Act - 1 Friend Street Stony Rise
ATTACHMENT [2]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 137 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
4.2
PA2016.0049 RESIDENTIAL (MULTIPLE DWELLINGS X 5) ASSESSMENT AGAINST PERFORMANCE CRITERIA UNDER CLAUSE 10.4.1, 10.4.2, 10.4.3, 10.4.4 AND TRAFFIC GENERATING USE AND PARKING CODE (FEWER PARKING SPACES THAN REQUIRED) - 31 DANA DRIVE DEVONPORT File: 32383 D416593
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 2.1.1
Apply and review the Devonport Interim Planning Scheme as required, to ensure it delivers local community character and appropriate land use
Strategy 2.1.2
Provide high quality, consistent and responsive development assessment and compliance processes
PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to enable Council acting as a Planning Authority to make a decision regarding planning application PA2016.0049.
BACKGROUND Planning Instrument: Applicant: Owner: Proposal:
Existing Use: Zoning: Decision Due:
Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013 Insight (Tas) Pty. Ltd. Lucas Estate (Tas) Pty Ltd Residential (multiple dwellings x 5) - assessment against performance criteria under clause 10.4.1, 10.4.2, 10.4.3, 10.4.4 and Traffic Generating Use and Parking Code (fewer parking spaces than required) Vacant residential land General Residential 02/05/2016
SITE DESCRIPTION The subject lot is an irregularly shaped polygon, 1,020m2 in area and is situated within stage 2 of the Dana Drive building estate. The Reece High School grounds are located to the immediate north and a parcel of land 1,328m2 assigned as public open space in Council ownership adjoins the eastern boundary. The following topographic map, Figure 1, further identifies the property by a red outline with its relationship to other lands and features in the vicinity. The site is reasonably flat and is also transected by variable width pipeline easements which constrain the building envelopes to some degree.
ITEM 4.2
PAGE 138 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
Figure 1 – Location plan (source: thelist.tas.gov.au)
APPLICATION DETAILS The application is to develop the site with five units (multiple dwellings) with the intention for these to be acquired for the purpose of social housing, specifically for people living with disability and for older persons. The applicant has provided advice from the Department of Health and Human Services that units being sought are to achieve compliance with Class C of the Australian Standard for Adaptable Housing (AS 4299) as well as the Housing Tasmanian Minimum Standards for Social Housing, including compliance with the Australian Governments Liveable Housing Design Guidelines. The architectural building form proposed is two separate buildings. One building contains three conjoined units with the other smaller building containing two conjoined units. Each unit has a 75m2 floor space with two of the units having an attached carport with an active and visible frontage to Dana Drive. The walls and hip roof materials are brick veneer and tile respectively.
PLANNING ISSUES The land is zoned General Residential under the Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013 (DIPS). Within this zone the use of land for multiple dwellings is permitted (i.e. must be approved) if the applicable zone and code standards can satisfy the Acceptable Solutions (AS). In general terms this outcome would not be subject to a public scrutiny process and would receive a permit with conditions as deemed appropriate. The zone standards include traditional matters such as residential density, setbacks, building envelopes, site coverage and private open space. The DIPS also includes contemporary standards for sunlight and overshadowing and visual and acoustic privacy. There are also standards in the Traffic Generating and Use and Parking Code that need to be considered for this application. ITEM 4.2
PAGE 139 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
This application has identified five development standards that need to be assessed against the relevant Performance Criteria (PC) for that particular zone or code standard. These PC are the discretionary matters that have to be dealt with and considered by the Planning Authority. These are elaborated on below and include details on how much variation is being sought and whether there is merit in how performance is achieved for that particular standard. In regards to a final determination if the Planning Authority considers that any PC for a standard is not achieved the application must be refused in its entirety. The application in its entirety is appended as Attachment 1. Clause 10.4.1 – Residential density for multiple dwellings The Acceptable Solutions for this standard prescribe a site area per dwelling of not less than one dwelling per 325m2. This proposal is seeking a density of one dwelling per 204m2. The Site Plan submitted is reproduced below as Figure 2.
Figure 2 – Site Plan, RFS projects dated 3/11/15 (north direction is top of page)
The PC indicate that this density can be exceeded if the development will not exceed the capacity of the infrastructure services and: (a)
is compatible with the density of the surrounding area; or
(b)
provides for a significant social or community housing benefit and is in accordance with at least one of the following: (i) the site is wholly or partially within 400m walking distance of a public transport stop; or (ii)
the site is wholly or partially within 400m walking distance of a business, commercial, urban mixed use, village or inner residential zone. ITEM 4.2
PAGE 140 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
Applicant’s submission – The development is adaptable housing built to AS4299 under contract to the Department of Health and Human Services. It is also indicated that the site is situated in the CBD close to public recreational areas adjacent to the walkway to the Reece High School open ground and a flat 183m distance to the Forbes Street Public Bus stop and less than 200m to the Lucas Heights bus stop. Response – Either one of two tests needs to be satisfied. Test one 10.4.1 P1(a) is discounted because the density of the surrounding area is generally one house per site. The proposal in general terms satisfies the preface to 10.4.1 P1(b) above however the distances submitted cannot be verified. Although there is a public footway strategically located within the adjoining public open space lot it does not connect through to Forbes Street via the Reece High School grounds. The applicant was given prior opportunity to satisfy this PC however no consent from the Education Department has been included with the final application to formalise the access to satisfy the PC. It is understood that consent was sought during civil works for the subdivision and was not obtained. Due to this disconnection 10.4.1 P1 (b)(ii) cannot be satisfied. Further to this development standard and no matter how it is measured the nearest public transport stop is greater than 400m distant from the site. This means the PC in its entirety for this development standard cannot be satisfied. If the PC cannot be satisfied the application for the use or development cannot be granted by the Planning Authority no matter how the merits of other standards are evaluated. 10.4.2 – Setbacks and building envelopes for all dwellings The Acceptable Solutions for this standard prescribe a front setback of 5.5m for a garage or carport. This proposal indicates a lesser setback of 2.5m to one corner and 4.4m to the other corner of the carport attached to Unit 1. The following reproduction in Figure 3 amplifies this.
Figure 3 – frontage setback, RFS projects 3/11/15
ITEM 4.2
PAGE 141 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
The Performance Criteria indicate that a garage or carport must have a setback from a frontage that is compatible with existing garages or carports in the street taking into account topographical constraints. Applicant’s submission – The design of the unit complex takes into consideration the neighbour setback from the building at 34 Dana Drive. Unit 1’s carport is placed behind the setback of the building at 34 Dana Drive allowing no impact from the road side. Response – The PC states that a garage or carport must be compatible with the existing garages in the street. Nothing in the objectives for this standard assists in forming a view however the proposed Statewide Planning Scheme has an objective to prevent garage openings being a dominant building feature and visible from the street frontage. There is some thought given to performance being achieved if the carport or garage openings are relatively narrow in proportion, the openings do not face the street and the structure is integrated with the dwelling roof. In this instance the situation is deemed to comply. 10.4.3 – Site coverage and private open space for dwellings The AS for this standard are quite detailed and comprehensive. The relevant standard identified for this site is the area and dimensions of private open space required for each dwelling. For multiple dwellings the total area of private open space is to be not less than 60m2 and to provide some tangible space 24m2 of that amount is to be in one location and have a minimum horizontal dimension of 4m. It is also to be directly accessible and adjacent to a habitable room and receive adequate sunlight. The measurable quantity is taken from a three hour window in the middle of the day on 21 June. A plan of the allocated open space for each of the five units is reproduced in Figure 4.
Figure 4 – Private open space, RFS Projects 3/11/15 (North direction is top of page)
ITEM 4.2
PAGE 142 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
The submitted plan clearly indicates a significantly lesser area than the required proportion of private open space for each dwelling both in overall area and practical dimensions. Applicant’s submission – The design of the complex is for disability clients in the Devonport community and the clients do not wish to have the space required by the planning scheme to maintain. The accompanying letter from the Department of Health and Human Services Portfolio and Supply Unit indicates that unit complexes of up to five units per complex for the purpose of social housing have been sought achieve compliance with Class C of the Australian Standard for Adaptable Housing (AS 4299) as well as Housing Tasmania’s Minimum Standards for Social Housing including compliance with the Australian Governments Liveable Housing Design Guidelines. They further indicate that in respect of private open space it is the opinion of the evaluation committee that the provided space is entirely suitable for the intended clients. Response – The PC for the standard where the 60m2 cannot be achieved relies upon private open space being of a size and dimension that is appropriate for the size of the dwelling and is able to accommodate outdoor space consistent with the projected requirements of the occupants and the operational needs such as clothes drying and storage. This has been satisfied. To satisfy the PC for the dimensional requirement the private open space must include an area that is capable of serving as an extension of the dwelling for outdoor activities and orientated to take advantage of sunlight. Units 4 and 5 each receive morning sunlight and Units 1, 2 and 3 receive afternoon sunlight. This is affected by the building form and the positioning of fencing however it is deemed to satisfy the PC. The access test is also satisfied. Although not a matter addressed in the planning scheme the adjoining public open space land does assist in achieving some spatial consideration for the occupants. 10.4.4 – Sunlight and overshadowing for all dwellings The objective for this standard is to provide opportunity for sunlight to enter all habitable rooms (other than bedrooms) of dwellings. The Acceptable Solutions achieve this by requiring at least one habitable room (other than a bedroom) being suitably orientated to receive sun and be positioned to ensure that other dwellings on the same site do not overshadow the room receiving the sunlight. Due to the orientation of the duplex and triplex buildings and the axis of lot three of the units cannot satisfy the AS and therefore rely upon the performance criteria to satisfy the objective. That is, Units 1, 2 and 5 do not have the acceptable orientation to achieve compliance. Applicant’s submission – The general design of the units and their orientation is based on a similar development in Tasman Street. Response – The PC for this standard requires a site containing multiple dwellings to be designed to not cause unreasonable loss of amenity by overshadowing a window of a habitable room of another dwelling on the same site that faces a certain direction. This has been achieved in some respects by the single story building form and the conjoining of the units. As an observation any building separation would need to be specifically site designed to satisfy the standard which in the overall scheme for this application may have resulted in a lesser number of dwelling units. This may also have assisted in performance of density and setback standards. It is not a perfect outcome and the subjectivity of ‘unreasonable loss’ of amenity is difficult to quantify. ITEM 4.2
PAGE 143 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
Code E9 – Traffic Generating Use and Parking Code The Acceptable Solutions require a prescribed number of spaces for vehicle parking to be provided on site depending on the use class of the development. Multiple dwellings in a General Residential zone require two spaces per dwelling and one dedicated space per four dwellings for visitor parking. To satisfy the AS the site requires twelve spaces which has not been achieved. Figure 4 indicates the parking configuration as proposed by the applicant. This indicates ten spaces however the AS for the aspect (E9.6.2) requires each parking space to be separately accessed from the internal circulation aisle within the site. Applicant’s submission – The design is for a more user friendly driveway and car parking area. Each unit is designed for one person with accommodation for a care professional so the amount of traffic will be minimal. Response – The PC in regard to a lesser number of spaces has two options to consider whether the standard can be satisfied. 1.
It must be unnecessary or unreasonable to require arrangements for the provision of vehicle parking; or
2.
Adequate and appropriate provision must be made for vehicle parking to meet the anticipated requirement of the type, scale and intensity of the use, the likely needs and requirements of site users and the likely type, number, frequency and duration of vehicle parking demand.
What hasn’t been confirmed is whether the occupants have access to their own vehicle or whether there is reliance upon public transport nearby. (Refer to commentary in response to the PC for Clause 10.4.1) The particular standard relating to separate access is to ensure that jockey or tandem parking is not the compliant outcome. Any proposal that indicates such an arrangement has to satisfy the PC which has to pass ten tests. If these cannot be satisfied the application for the use and development cannot be granted a permit. These are that the layout and construction of the manoeuvring area must be adequate and appropriate for: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
The nature and intensity of the use; Effect of size, slope and other physical characteristics and conditions of the site; Likely volume, type and frequency of vehicles accessing the site; Likely demand and turnover for parking; Delivery and collect vehicles; Familiarity of users with the vehicle loading and vehicle parking area; Convenience and safety of access to the site from a road; Safety and convenience of internal vehicle and pedestrian movement; Safety and security of site users; and The collection, drainage and disposal of stormwater
If the Planning Authority contends that the site only requires one parking space per unit then the tests required by E9.6.2 can be deemed to satisfy E9.6.2. The unknown is whether all the future occupants may have the ability to drive. If that is likely should the precautionary principle be used and vehicle spaces are to be designed to accord with AS/NZS 2890.6 Parking Facilities – Off Street Parking for People with Disabilities?
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT On 21/03/2016, Council received an application for the above development. Under Section 57(3) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, the Planning Authority must give notice of an application for a permit. As prescribed at Section 9(1) of the Land
ITEM 4.2
PAGE 144 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
Use Planning and Approvals Regulations 2014, the Planning Authority fulfilled this notification requirement by: (a)
Advertising the application in The Advocate newspaper on 30/03/2016;
(b)
Making a copy of the proposal available in Council Offices from the 30/03/2016;
(c)
Notifying adjoining property owners by mail on 23/03/2016; and
(d)
Erecting a Site Notice for display from the 30/03/2016.
The period for representations to be received by Council closed on 12/04/2016.
REPRESENTATIONS One representation of objection was received within the prescribed 14 day public scrutiny period required by the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. This is reproduced as Attachment 2.
DISCUSSION The points raised in the representation reflect earlier commentary made in regard to the relevant development standards. The measurements calculated and submitted in the representation that are required to satisfy the density standard are accurate and there is no discretion to further consider a variation to these measurements to a public transport stop.
This means that the distances submitted in support of satisfying the PC by the applicant are not comparable.
The representation submits that the private open space and its access from within the respective units are not reasonable and as a consequence cannot satisfy the PC. It is noted that the supporting documentation from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) submits that the allocation of similarly dimensioned private open space to a similar development recently was entirely suitable for the clients allocated to the units.
The Planning Authority has to decide if the DHHS submission is credible and the PC are satisfied or whether support for the representation is valid and the PC are not satisfied which has to result in the application for the use and development to be refused.
A further comment is made in the representation to the discretion attached to the standard for sunlight and overshadowing and notably the absence of shading diagrams to demonstrate compliance. This is a reasonable consideration. The notion of requiring sunlight to enter a habitable room is sensible and in discussions with regional planners it was considered more of a design issue than a planning issue. Notwithstanding how the Statewide Planning Scheme may be structured the PC do not indicate any measurable standard as to how frequently and for how long should sunlight enter a habitable room.
The Planning Authority has to decide whether there is merit in the representation and the loss of amenity is unreasonable or whether the available sunlight although not perfect is still reasonable.
In addition a comment is submitted on the application’s compliance with clause 10.4.6 which relates to a privacy consideration. The particular matter is the separation between the shared driveway and a window or glazed door to a habitable room of another multiple dwelling. The representation indicates that the required Acceptable Solution of 2.5m is not met and reliance on the performance criteria has to be considered. If 2.5m cannot be achieved a lesser distance of 1m is possible if a suitable screen is provided or the window sill height is raised to 1.7m to mitigate the privacy concerns. ITEM 4.2
PAGE 145 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
It is acknowledged that the dimensions are absent however scaling of the drawings quite clearly indicates that 2.5m can be achieved by setting the requirement as a condition on the permit. This matter wasn’t considered a critical component of the application.
The Planning Authority has to decide whether the representation has raised a matter that cannot satisfy the PC or whether the developer ensures the final site works satisfies the compliant separation.
The representation also raises a matter associated with the parking code in that the turning paths to the parking spaces either entering or exiting cannot meet the Australian Standard. In particular the visitor parking space that adjoins the carport to Unit 1 cannot be entered in a forward direction without multiple turning manoeuvres. Likewise the visitor parking space in the southeast corner cannot be exited from the parked position without multiple turning due to the width of the common access and the proximity of the building opposite. There is also some concern expressed with the application’s reliance on the development being designed for people with disabilities and by older persons yet there are no specifications submitted ensuring that the wheelchair accessible parking will be provided. The question of Australian Standard compliance to meet the needs of future occupants was also commented during discuss on compliance with the Code.
The Planning Authority has to decide whether the vehicle parking on site emphasises the needs of the occupants as a primary consideration and that as a minimum the technical requirements of the Australian Standard are adopted. These are mandated as an Acceptable Solution however if the Planning Authority contends that there is not a need for this requirement then the 10 tests in the commentary to Code E9 need to be satisfied.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS No financial implications are predicted unless a Planning Appeal is submitted with the Tribunal and legal counsel is required to represent Council. This could occur as a result of either the Planning Authority approving or refusing the application.
RISK IMPLICATIONS No risks are associated with determining this application.
CONCLUSION If the Performance Criteria of a particular zone or code standard cannot be met then the application for use or development cannot be granted a permit. It has been submitted and verified that the distance between the site and the nearest public transport stop is greater than the 200m as submitted by the applicant and greater than the 400m deemed to comply with the Performance Criteria of Clause 10.4.1 On this basis alone it demonstrates that the density of the development is excessive in this locality. There is no jurisdiction for the Planning Authority to consider a greater distance. If there is some thought given to the density being compatible with the density of the surrounding area then this argument is also flawed due to the current density observed along Dana Drive and Rowena Court.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
2.
Representation - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
PAGE 146 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
RECOMMENDATION
That Council, pursuant to the provisions of the Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013 and Section 57 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, refuse application PA2016.0049 for use and development on land identified as 31 Dana Drive, Devonport for the following purposes: ď€
Residential (multiple dwellings x 5) - assessment against performance criteria under clause 10.4.1, 10.4.2, 10.4.3, 10.4.4 and Traffic Generating Use and Parking Code (fewer parking spaces than required).
Author: Position:
Shane Warren Planning & Environmental Coordinator
Health
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 4.2
Matthew Atkins Deputy General Manager
PAGE 147 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 148 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 149 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 150 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 151 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 152 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 153 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 154 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 155 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 156 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 157 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 158 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 159 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 160 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 161 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 162 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 163 Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
PAGE 164
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
PAGE 165
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
PAGE 166
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
PAGE 167
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
PAGE 168
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
PAGE 169
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
PAGE 170
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
PAGE 171
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
PAGE 172
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
PAGE 173
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
PAGE 174
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
PAGE 175
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
Application - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
PAGE 176
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 177 Representation - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 178 Representation - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 179 Representation - PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
ITEM 4.2
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 180 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
5.0
REPORTS
5.1
CONTRACT 1309 - FOURWAYS CAR PARK TOILET UPGRADE File: 30592 D415625
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 2.3.3
Provide and maintain Council buildings, facilities and amenities to appropriate standards
SUMMARY This report seeks Council’s approval to award Contract 1309 “Fourways car park toilet facility” to AJR Construct.
BACKGROUND Ensuring families have knowledge of and access to child and parenting facilities is a key objective of Council's Family and Children's Services Policy and Strategic Plan. There are presently no parenting facilities in the Fourways area. There have been repeated requests from members of the community for an appropriate safe and private area for men and women to care for their young children. This report considers tenders received for “Fourways car park toilet facility” listed within the 2015/16 capital expenditure budget. The upgrade includes two distinct items. A renovation of the existing toilet facilities and an extension to the north side for accessable toilet and parenting facilities. The renovation includes new fixtures, fittings and partitions as well as paint and new entry security gate. The entire external façade of the building will have an applied textured coat surface treatrment with a paint finish. The extension allows for a baby change area, as well as handwash basin with hand drying facilities, waste containers with lid and easy pram access. The unisex extension provides fully compliant accessablity access. When complete, the renovation of the existing male and female toilets willl commence, and will remain as male and female facitilities upon completion.
ITEM 5.1
PAGE 181 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Council is required to comply with Section 333 of the Local Government Act 1993 and its adopted Code for Tenders and Contracts when considering awarding tenders.
DISCUSSION In accordance with Council’s Code of Tenders and Contracts, a Tender Planning and Evaluation Committee was formed to evaluate the tenders received. Tenders were received from three companies. tenders and are summarised in table 1.
All tenders received were conforming
TABLE 1
1
AJR Construct
Conforming
Tender Price (ex GST) 92,274.46
2
Vos Construction and Joinery
Conforming
107,328.00
3
JDR Homes
Conforming
109,515.00
No.
Tender
Status
As highlighted in the above table, AJR Construct tender of $92,274.46 is the lowest priced. The Tender Planning and Evaluation Committee have considered the tenders against each of the selection criteria, these being;
Relevant Experience Quality, Safety and Environmental Management Methodology Price
The evaluation by the committee indicates that AJR Construct scored highest overall against the selection criteria and therefore offers Council the best value for money. The Tender Planning and Evaluation Committee minutes have been provided to Aldermen as confidential attachments.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT A public advertisement calling for tenders was placed in the Advocate Newspaper on 19 March 2016 and tenders were also advertised on Council’s website.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2015/16 capital expenditure budget includes an allocation for the “Fourways car park toilet facility” project of $160,000. The tender received from AJR Construct is $92,274.46. The breakdown of the budget for this project is summarised below in table 2. TABLE 2 No.
Tender Price (ex GST)
Tender
1
Contract 1309 tender price
92,274.46
2
Design, project management/administration
15,000.00
3
10% construction contingency
9,000.00 TOTAL
ITEM 5.1
116,274.45
PAGE 182 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
The contingency allowance for this project is 10% of the construction cost. The potential for unforeseen construction issues at this site is low. Considering the recently received tender for the Pioneer Park toilet facility, this tender price is reflective of the current construction market and is therefore significantly under budget. During the planning phase it was determined that this facility was structurally sound and therefore ruled out the possibility of spending extra money to completely demolish the building to construct a totally new facility.
RISK IMPLICATIONS To minimise risk the tender administration processes related to this contract comply with Council’s Code for Tenders and Contracts which was developed in compliance with Section 333 of the Local Government Act 1993.
CONCLUSION Taking into account the selection criteria assessment, the Tender Planning and Evaluation Committee has determined that AJR Construct meets Council’s requirements and is therefore most likely to offer “best value” in relation to Contract 1309 Fourways car park toilet facility.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
CB0072 Tender Planning & Evaluation Committee Minutes SIGNED
Confidential
RECOMMENDATION That Council, in relation to Contract 1309 Fourways car park toilet facility: a)
award the contract to AJR Construct for the tendered sum of $92,274.46 (ex GST);
b)
note that design, project management and administration for the project are estimated to cost $15,000 (ex GST); and
c)
note that a construction contingency of $9,000 (ex GST) is included in the budget.
Author: Position:
Jamie Goodwin Technical Support Supervisor
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 5.1
Matthew Atkins Deputy General Manager
PAGE 183 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
5.2
BY-LAW TO AMEND DEVONPORT CITY COUNCIL PARKING BY-LAW NO. 1 OF 2013 File: 18742 D413800
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 5.3.1
Review and amend governance structures, policies and procedures to adapt to changing circumstances
SUMMARY To confirm the sealing of By-Law No. 1 of 2016 (By-Law to amend Devonport City Council Parking By-law No. 1 of 2013).
BACKGROUND At its meeting held on 18 January 2016, Council determined as follows (Min ref 07/16 refers): That Council determine to amend its Parking By-Law No 1 of 2013 to enable parking infringement charges to be rounded down to the nearest dollar.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Council’s Parking By-law No. 1 of 2013 was made under Section 145 of the Local Government Act 1993 for the purpose of regulating and controlling the use of car parks belonging to or controlled by Council and Section 100 of the Local Government (Highways) Act 1982 for the purpose of prescribing compositions under that Section.
DISCUSSION By-Law No. 1 of 2016 (By-law to amend Devonport City Council By-Law No. 1 of 2013) is attached and has been certified by a Legal Practitioner and signed by Council’s General Manager. Once the Common Seal has been affixed by Council, the By-Law will then be published in the Tasmanian Government Gazette, made available for purchase, submitted to the Joint Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation and will then be tabled in Parliament. Council’s legal advice indicates that a Regulatory Impact Statement is not required for the amendment as it does not substantially alter the intent of the original by-law.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT No community engagement has been undertaken as a result of this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The rounding down of parking infringement costs would have some minor impact on Council’s operational budget (ie in the current year 64 cents per infringement issued). However any minor financial impact would be compensated by the expected efficiencies when receiving payments. The costs of amending the Parking By-Law include the legal costs of a solicitor’s advice regarding the intent of the by-law and subsequent certification as well as the costs of advertising in the Tasmanian Government Gazette. Legal costs amount to $589 (GST exclusive).
ITEM 5.2
PAGE 184 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
RISK IMPLICATIONS There are no risks associated with this report.
CONCLUSION The amendment to the Parking By-Law would reduce the cost of parking infringement notices in the current financial year (if paid within 14 days) from $24.64 to $24.00. The amendment is a practical, common sense approach to dealing with parking infringement fees.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
By-Law to amend Parking By-Law No. 1 of 2013 - Certified and signed
RECOMMENDATION That Council authorise the affixing of the Common Seal to By-Law No. 1 of 2016 (By-Law to amend Devonport City Council By-Law No. 1 of 2013).
Author: Position:
Karen Hampton Governance Coordinator
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 5.2
Paul West General Manager
PAGE 185 By-Law to amend Parking By-Law No. 1 of 2013 - Certified and signed
ITEM 5.2
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 186 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
5.3
ANNUAL REPORT - SHARED AUDIT PANEL File: 30196 D414366
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 5.6.4
Provide internal and external audit functions to review Council's performance, risk management, financial governance and reporting
SUMMARY To present the 2015 Annual Report of the Shared Audit Panel prepared by the Chairperson of the panel.
BACKGROUND The Audit Panel is in place to assist Council in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities by providing independent advice and assurance in regard to the Council’s financial management, risk management, internal control and compliance framework. In late 2014, Council determined to establish a shared Audit Panel with Ce ntral Coast Council. The Audit Panel of each Council comprises two elected members and two independent members. The independent members are appointed jointly by both Councils to be shared between each Council’s Audit Panel. As part of the transition to a Shared Audit Panel, current member Ken Clarke’s existing three year term on the Devonport City Council Audit Panel will be honoured until its expiry scheduled for July 2016.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS All Councils must have Audit Panels that operate in accordance with Part 8 of Division 4 of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) and the Local Government (Audit Panels) Order 2014.
DISCUSSION The Annual Report for Central Coast Council and Devonport City Council Shared Audit Panel is attached for Aldermen’s information. This report is for the Shared Panel and for the Devonport City Council specific section. The 2016 Work Plan is attached for information.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT There was no community engagement undertaken as a result of this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications as a result of this report.
RISK IMPLICATIONS
Political/Governance The Audit Panel plays a key oversight role in Council’s Risk Management activities providing elected members with an extra level of comfort that the systems in place are adequate. Within its charter, the primary objectives of the Audit Panel are to consider whether: ITEM 5.3
PAGE 187 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
the annual financial statements of the Council accurately represent the state of affairs of the Council; the Strategic Plan, Annual Plan, long-term financial management plan and long-term strategic asset management plans of the Council are integrated and the processes by which, and assumptions under which, those plans were prepared are sound and justified; the accounting, internal control, anti-fraud, anti-corruption and risk management policies, systems and controls that the Council has in relation to safeguarding its long-term financial position are appropriate; the Council is complying with the provisions of the Act and any other relevant legislation; all strategic and business risks affecting the Council are identified and assessed, and the effectiveness of mitigation controls evaluated; and the Council has taken any action in relation to previous recommendations provided by the Audit Panel to the Council.
CONCLUSION The information in the report and attachments are presented to the Aldermen.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Shared Audit Panel - Annual Report 2015
2.
Shared Audit Panel Annual Work Plan 2016
RECOMMENDATION That the Annual Report for Central Coast Council and Devonport City Council Shared Audit Panel and 2016 Work Plan be received and noted.
Author: Position:
Kym Peebles Executive Manager Performance
Organisational
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 5.3
Paul West General Manager
PAGE 188 Shared Audit Panel - Annual Report 2015
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 5.3
PAGE 189 Shared Audit Panel - Annual Report 2015
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 5.3
PAGE 190 Shared Audit Panel - Annual Report 2015
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 5.3
Shared Audit Panel Annual Work Plan 2016
PAGE 191
ITEM 5.3
ATTACHMENT [2]
Shared Audit Panel Annual Work Plan 2016
PAGE 192
ITEM 5.3
ATTACHMENT [2]
Shared Audit Panel Annual Work Plan 2016
PAGE 193
ITEM 5.3
ATTACHMENT [2]
Shared Audit Panel Annual Work Plan 2016
PAGE 194
ITEM 5.3
ATTACHMENT [2]
Shared Audit Panel Annual Work Plan 2016
PAGE 195
ITEM 5.3
ATTACHMENT [2]
Shared Audit Panel Annual Work Plan 2016
PAGE 196
ITEM 5.3
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 197 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
5.4
BUDGET CONSULTATION 2016-2017 REPORT File: 30420-01 D414860
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 5.2.3
Encourage community action and participation that results in increased well-being and engagement
SUMMARY This report presents the outcomes from community consultation undertaken on the budget priorities for the operating and capital budgets for the 2016/17 financial year.
BACKGROUND In Council’s community satisfaction survey conducted in August 2013, Devonport residents indicated they had a strong desire for greater input into community decision making. They also indicated that financial management, provision of Council information to the community and economic development were of significant importance to them. In considering public consultation approaches for the 2015/16 budget, the framework from Council’s Community Engagement Policy was adopted. A community engagement plan was prepared, with the feedback received to be taken into consideration in the budget decision making process, together with Council’s Strategic Plan and Long Term Financial Plan. Objectives for the community engagement were defined as follows:
Seek community input regarding key priorities for the 2016/17 budget, to assist Council and management in the budget making process; Involve the community in the decision making process for the 2016/17 operating and capital budgets;
Educate the community on the complexity and competitiveness of the budgeting process;
Obtain community buy-in to the difficult process of making choices between projects and services of merit;
Help ensure a better match between community expectations and actual expenditure and delivery of services and projects.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS There are no statutory requirements which relate to this report.
DISCUSSION The 2016/17 budget online consultation consisted of five keys areas and was hosted at www.speakupdevonport.com.au:
Council services information – Information was provided on all Council services including arts, culture and tourism, corporate operations, development and health services, roads and stormwater;
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) – What is the budget process? Where do your Council rates go? How is LIVING CITY being funded? Why is Council asking for community input on the budget? ITEM 5.4
PAGE 198 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
Brainstormer – An online ‘brainstorming’ tool allowing participants to make capital works project idea submissions and ‘vote’ on the ideas submitted by others;
Capital Projects Survey – A survey asking participants to rank the proposed capital works projects in their order of preference;
Council Services Satisfaction Survey – A poll regarding satisfaction with Council’s financial management, potential future voluntary amalgamations/resource sharing and financial support of the Imaginarium Science Centre.
The consultation achieved significant reach and commentary, particularly in relation to the ideas submitted through the ‘Brainstormer’ tool and ‘Capital Works Survey’ was pleasing. Consultation Tool
Number of Responses
Speak Up Devonport – Budget consultation page views Speak Up Devonport – budget consultation engaged visitors (ie. the number of people who have actively contributed to the project) Speak Up Devonport – ‘Brainstormer’ capital project idea submissions: No. of visitors to the ‘Brainstormer’ page Capital project ideas received Project votes received Council Services Satisfaction Survey: No. of visitors to the survey page Completed surveys received Capital Works Ranking Survey: Completed surveys received
436 78
112 31 106 8 7 46
Written submissions received
3
‘Brainstormer’ Ideas Tool: Respondents were asked to submit and ‘vote’ on ideas for potential capital works projects to improve the liveability of Devonport. Of the 31 ideas received, a number were considered potentially viable and were include in the Capital Works Ranking Survey undertaken during Phase 2 of the consultation including additional streetscape landscaping, Victoria Parade shared pathway lighting. Other ideas, such as the Horsehead Creek toilet block, contained dog exercise area, a shared pathway extension from Don Reserve to Forth River and through Devonport to Latrobe, are already listed in Council’s Forward Works Program as part of Bike Riding Strategy. A number of other project ideas received did not relate to areas of Council’s responsibility. The full report of ideas received through the ‘Brainstormer’ can be found in the Attachments. Council Services Satisfaction Survey: The Council’s Services Satisfaction Survey response was limited with only seven responses received, providing minimal feedback. ITEM 5.4
PAGE 199 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
A copy of the survey responses received can be found in the Attachments. Capital Works Ranking Survey: Respondents were asked to rank their preferences of prioritisation projects included in Council’s Five Year Forward Works Program and community project ideas received during Phase 1 of the consultation. The projects listed included public amenities, signage, footpaths, sports & play equipment, pathway lighting, parks & reserves upgrades and arts & culture projects and budget allocations. Of the 46 responses received, there was a strong preference for arts & culture related projects, which indicates higher level of engagement with the consultation from this sector of the community. Those items with a higher index score were of stronger preference collectively from respondents, than those items with a lower index rating (results are weighted based on both number of responses and rankings given).
ITEM 5.4
PAGE 200 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
ITEM 5.4
PAGE 201 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
The Bi-annual Art Acquisition allocation ($10K) ranked the highest at 25.06, closely followed by the Public Art Bi-annual allocation ($10K), TIDAL Art Award ($10K) and proposed Devonport Regional Gallery relocation proposals, Stages 1B ($400K) & 1A ($1.4M). Given the high level of community feedback received during 2015/16 regarding proposed additional Victoria Parade Shared Pathway Lighting and active engagement and promotion of the consultation from the ‘Light Up Victoria Parade’ Facebook group, it was surprising that this project was the lowest ranked of all items considered as part of the survey. Written submissions: Four written submissions were received and are attached to the report. summarised as follows:
They are
Devonport Chamber of Commerce & Industry – A request for funding from the DCCI Retail Sub-committee was received which recommended Council consider the continuation of the ‘Stewart Street’ landscaping treatment around the city centre; funding of up to $20K for the preparation of a consultant’s report on the establishment of a Precinct Association for Devonport and continuation of Free Parking Days. A potential budget allocation of $50K for budget year 2017/18 for web enabled retail shop & services directory was also raised, pending the outcome of discussions regarding the Precinct Association. (Note: the response to DCCI by commercial property owners was previously circulated to Aldermen under separate cover.) Graham Kent – Recommendation that Council make an annual capital works commitment to facilitate the upgrading of the Mersey Bluff Caravan Park over a four year period, to enhance the City’s tourist facilities and complement the Bluff precinct development. Kay Waters – A suggestion that Council install exercise equipment in Pioneer Park, East Devonport or near the Abel Tasman Caravan Park. The suggestion was incorporated into the Capital Works Survey and was relatively well supported.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Community engagement was planned, developed and implemented in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Policy. The level of impact of the budgets is of a high level and is considered to be of high value and interest to the Devonport community. Community engagement was undertaken in two phases between 3 February 2016 and 20 March 2016. The consultation included: Phase 1 – 3 February 2016 to 21 February 2016 (3 week period):
Council Services Survey – The survey provided the opportunity for residents and ratepayers to provide feedback in regard to their satisfaction with Council’s service delivery by completing a survey, available both online and in hard copy formats.
Capital Works ‘Brainstormer’- The community were invited to submit ideas for potential new capital works projects either online or in through a feedback form.
Phase 2 – 1 March 2016 to 20 March 2016 (3 week period):
Capital Works Survey – A survey combining ‘prioritisation’ projects from Council’s Five Year Forward Works Program and community projects ideas submitted through the ‘Brainstormer’ in Phase 1 of the consultation period were combined in a survey, which was made available both online at the Speak Up Devonport website.
ITEM 5.4
PAGE 202 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
The survey provided the opportunity for residents to rank the listed projects in order of their preference, in doing so, letting Council know the projects of greatest ‘value’ to them.
The consultation was promoted through:
Speak Up Devonport website - A Council services satisfaction survey, ‘brainstormer’ tool, capital works projects ranking survey, FAQ’s and information sheets were published at www.speakupdevonport.com.au;
Council’s website – promotion was featured on the home page and news pages and re-directed users to the budget consultation online at www.speakupdevonport.com.au;
Reported in the Mayor’s Message in Coast to Coast;
Two media releases were distributed to Tasmanian media and were reported on by The Advocate, ABC Northern Tasmania, 7AD and Sea FM;
Council’s Facebook page was updated on numerous occasions advising of the survey and promoting the drop-in session;
Twitter – A number @Devonportcity;
E-newsletter – An e-newsletter was distributed to 720 registered participants of www.speakupdevonport.com.au.
An information display was setup within the Customer Service area of Council’s Best Street office;
A Budget Consultation ‘Drop-in’ public information session was held in Council’s offices on Friday, 12 March, providing the opportunity for the community to directly engage with Council officers and Aldermen in relation to the 2016/2017 Budget.
Promotional posters and flyers were placed in the recreation centres, community houses and Devonport LINC.
of
budget
consultation
related
tweets
were
made
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The facilitation and community engagement plan was planned, developed, managed and delivered by Council staff. The design and development for the consultation were developed and printed in-house, with associated costs part of Council’s normal operating expenses. It is considered that after adoption of the 2016/17 capital and operational budgets, that a Budget Consultation Summary will be produced to highlight and publicise how Council has considered and responded to the feedback received through the consultation. This will be produced internally, with no further expenditure incurred.
RISK IMPLICATIONS
Consultation and/or Communication The positive sentiment created for Council through the consultation process needs to be maintained. Council must ensure that the public are kept informed of the budget decisions, any rating changes fully explained and the community feedback received responded to after the budget has been finalised, or risk losing public support.
ITEM 5.4
PAGE 203 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
CONCLUSION The level of feedback received through the community engagement for the 2016/17 budget priorities was reasonable, given the level of promotional activity and previously stated interest from the community to have greater input into Council’s decision making. The feedback received does provide Council with a higher level of community input than in previous years and should be taken into consideration in the budget decision making process, together with Council’s Strategic Plan and Long Term Financial Plan. It should be noted that the volume of responses received for the surveys would not be deemed to be a statistically reliable sample of the broader community. Following Council’s adoption of the 2016/17 budget, it is proposed to prepare a Budget Consultation Summary outlining the key budget measures and how Council responded to the consultation feedback. For future budget consultations increasing the face to face engagement component, producing an in-house video regarding the capital projects under consideration and utilising online discussion forums may be options worth considering.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
2.
Community Project Suggestion - Exercise Equipment in Parks
3.
Capital Works Submission 2016
4.
DCCI - Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Feedback
5.
Budget Considerations 2016-2017 - Mr Douglas Janney
RECOMMENDATION That Council receive and note the Budget Consultation 2016-2017 report.
Author: Position:
Karina Moore Media & Communication Officer
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 5.4
Paul West General Manager
PAGE 204 Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 205 Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 206 Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 207 Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 208 Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 209 Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 210 Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 211 Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 212 Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 213 Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 214 Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 215 Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 216 Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 217 Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 218 Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 219 Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Detailed Project Report
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 220 Community Project Suggestion - Exercise Equipment in Parks
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 221 Community Project Suggestion - Exercise Equipment in Parks
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 222 Community Project Suggestion - Exercise Equipment in Parks
ITEM 5.4
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 223 Capital Works Submission 2016
ATTACHMENT [3]
CAPITAL WORKS SUBMISSION 2016 SUBJECT
MERSEY BLUFF CARAVAN PARK
INTRODUCTION In 2006 a review of the operations and the prevailing occupancy at the park was the catalyst for the Mersey Bluff Development Plan that resulted in the construction of the new surf club, restaurant precinct, children’s play grounds and associated infrastructure. Surveys were conducted to determine the future of the caravan park and the preferred style of facilities with a national caravan consultant being engaged to provide input and ideas for re development. Apart from urgent upgrades to some of the electrical services and other items that were identified during a safety audit of the facility there has only been very limited work undertaken to bring this facility anywhere near an acceptable tourist standard despite funds being allocated in previous budgets. REQUIREMENTS The basic standard for a caravan park in this day and age that caters for tourists and locals alike requires four basic services they are:1. Level sites ideally with concrete pads. (at least for the van or vehicle wheels). 2. Electric Power. 3. Waste water collection pits. 4. Clean toilet, shower and washing facilities. 5. Unpowered camp sites and a camp kitchen. COMMENT The Mersey Bluff Caravan Park is unique in its location and layout in that unlike traditional parks that are laid out on flat land this park is basically on the side of an undulating rocky hill which compounds some of the infrastructure issues but, on the other hand provides a variety of sites that are both sheltered and spacious, it is this alone that visitors continue to return to and enjoy. ITEM 5.4
PAGE 224 Capital Works Submission 2016
ATTACHMENT [3]
SUBMISSION This is to request that council make an annual capital works commitment to facilitate the upgrading of the park to the above standards commencing in July 2016 and spread over a period of four years to ensure that the current growth in intra and interstate tourism is maintained and that the original objective for redevelopment of the Bluff precinct is completed.
SECONDARY ISSUE Council allocated funds for a study on the feasibility of a small number of strategically placed “quality units� being located within the park through private investment. What has been the outcome?
Yours faithfully
041316 Graham Kent 165 Winspears Road East Devonport
.
ITEM 5.4
PAGE 225 DCCI - Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Feedback
ATTACHMENT [4]
ITEM 5.4
PAGE 226 DCCI - Budget Consultation 2016/2017 Feedback
ATTACHMENT [4]
ITEM 5.4
PAGE 227 Budget Considerations 2016-2017 - Mr Douglas Janney
ATTACHMENT [5]
From: djanney39@gmail.com [mailto:djanney39@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 14 April 2016 11:33 AM To: Ald Emmerton; Ald Goodwin; Ald Keay; Ald Jarman; Ald Laycock; Ald Matthews; Mayor Steve Martin; Ald Perry; Ald Rockliff; Paul West; Matthew Atkins Subject: Budget Considerations 2016 2017
23 Watkinson St., Devonport, TAS 7310 14th April 2016 Aldermen General Manager P West Deputy General Manager M Atkins BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS 2016- 2017 The below 5 item are for consideration and action as items which should go into next year’ budget. Some of these items I have raised before. 1.
Traffic lights Summary & Action The majority of traffic light installations have control systems that are out of date and need to be replaced progressively over the next 3 years. Detail The lights along Tarleton St can change to the cross direction and there is no traffic in the cross street to trigger the lights to change. The control would appear to be on a rotary timer! The most recent lights installation at Don Rd and Lovett St has the same problem as above. Today the traffic density is considerably greater than when the various traffic lights were first installed. As traffic light are DIER responsibility then they will have to find the funds to undertake the upgrades. Not an easy task but DIER needs to be put on notice to provide a program of update. The Walk feature needs to have more time as GREEN. At the Don Rd Lovett St lights and crossing Lovett St a quick walking person is not half way across the road before the lights go to blinking RED and that has gone to solid RED before reaching the other side
2.
ROADS - POTHOLES Summary & Action The Council’s practices over time when doing maintenance and reconstruction has inbuilt potholes into the surfaces. It is appreciated that just as these defects have occurred over a considerable time then a program of recovery will take more than one year, however, it is time to start and put in place a program to remove these potholes as well as to stop building them Detail In undertaking resurfacing (maintenance) of the road the manhole and hand hole covers in the road are not lifted to the new road surface level. This results in a pothole. The same practice has resulted in potholes in the reconstruction of roads. The most recent examples of this are Formby Rd rebuild and the Watkinson/Steele St roundabout. ITEM 5.4
PAGE 228 Budget Considerations 2016-2017 - Mr Douglas Janney
ATTACHMENT [5]
Hand hole covers in most instances are probably the responsibility of Cradle Mountain Water (CMW) now, however, it is up to the Council to get them involved and committed to repair these defects as well as any other body that uses the roadway for their service. Manhole covers are most likely to do with storm water so this is the Council’s direct responsibility. 3.
Speed limit-shopping strips
Summary & Action The speed limit in the shopping areas and strips need to be reduced from 50kph to 40kph. The IWDC Agenda Item 5.1(passed unanimously) p47Clause 3 is to have road humps and a 40kph speed limit Get real and do something about the more important Shopping Speed limits Details The current situation certainly does not fit with the Heart Foundation’s “Active living and active travel”. In addition to the below letter the areas and strips are as follows:CBD-the area bounded by Formby Rd Best St Fentons St &Steele St. Four Ways-William St. Oldaker St. Kempling St. Best St. East Devonport-Wright St between Thomas & Murray Murray St Valley Rd at the shops The below letters of 19/03/2014 and 24/02/2011 flagged the issue. 23 Watkinson St., Devonport, TAS 7310 19/03/2014 Aldermen PEDESTRIAN STRATEGY Speed limits in shopping strips. REF:My letter dated 24th Feb 2011 (attached) under General regarding speed limits. Pedestrian Strategy May 2012 and the Action Plan (File 26157) as presented at the May 2012 Council meeting and approved. The Pedestrian Strategy under 6 Recommendations states: “Review speed limits in the CBD, improved crossing treatments at high-use traffic lights, crossing treatments at both official and unofficial crossings, and the creation of new crossings” The Action Plan” 1.5 Review speed limits in the CBD Improve walking environment within CBD to encourage more walking High to Medium ITEM 5.4
PAGE 229 Budget Considerations 2016-2017 - Mr Douglas Janney
ATTACHMENT [5]
1 – 2 Years CI /DIER Items for Budget 2014-2015 1.
While the speed limit may have been reviewed in the Action Plan it only seems to cover the CBD. Action to change the speed limit downwards in all shopping strips has still to happen and needs to be done. 2. With regard to improved walking environment nothing has happened in William St at the Fourways. With regard to the kerb jut outs in William St between Best and Oldaker Streets they are of little use to the pedestrian who still has to negotiate 2 lanes of traffic. A central island for the pedestrian would require only one lane of traffic to be negotiated at a time. The above 2 items need some serious consideration and hurry up! Attach. Letter dated 24th February 2011 e-mailed Attachment 23 Watkinson St., Devonport, TAS 7310 Ph: 03 6424 3753 e-mail: djanney@tsn.cc 24th February 2011 Mr I. McCallum General Manager Devonport City Council 44 Best St Devonport Council meeting 21/02/11 Shopping Strips’ speed limit question Further to my question:-
Q1
“Why isn’t the designated speed limit 40km/h on the roads in Devonport’s shopping strips?”
at the Council meeting on the 21/02/11 and the invitation to write and elaborate I do so now. Below is a legend covering a range of conditions, thereafter some NOTES and then a list of shopping strips each with LEGEND items and some comments NOTES(N): 1. Other than at traffic lights Devonport has no zebra crosswalks so it is important especially in the shopping strips that pedestrians are reasonably safe in crossing the roads other than at traffic lights. 2. Higher traffic speeds and heavy traffic vehicles are certainly not conducive to a good street dining experience. LEGEND(L): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Parking both sides-busy Light(L) to Medium (M) vehicles Light(L) to Heavy(H) vehicles Lights at each end – possible to go at 50kph through the lights Street dining ITEM 5.4
PAGE 230 Budget Considerations 2016-2017 - Mr Douglas Janney
ATTACHMENT [5]
6. Road divider 7. NO road divider 8. Pedestrian – busy 9. Street congested with generally slow moving traffic WILLIAM ST Best St to Oldaker St L1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 N1,2 This shopping strip is actually a U shaped starting in Best St at Kempling St going north into William St and then west into Oldaker St to Kempling St. William St is the through street and has the heaviest traffic flow STEWART ST Formby Rd to Rooke St L1, 2, 4, (from one end only), 5, 6, 8, 9 N1, 2 While there is a road divider the road in each direction is narrow. ROOKE ST L1, 2, 4, 7
Steele St to Stewart St
ROOKE ST Best St to Oldaker St L1, 3, 5, 7 This strip contains the bus station and the exit from the off street car park which generate considerable pedestrian traffic into Rooke St going to the Mall and elsewhere. WRIGHT ST No comment MURRAY ST No comment OTHER STRIPS No comment GENERAL William, Stewart(Formby Rd to Fenton St) and Rooke streets should have a designated speed limit of 40km/h Other strips to stay as they are. PEDESTRIAN NETWORK STRATEGY I attended the Information session on 23/02/11. The ideas espoused by John Grant are the same as I have outlined in the foregoing. As well it seems that DIER is behind the rest of Australia in the use:1. 40 km/h speed zones 2. Of zebra crossings with the yellow legs signs. I suggest that Devonport City Council and other Councils in Tasmania need to join together and get the LGAT to put pressure on the Government to change these matters for the better. For the Council to action Yours faithfully Douglas Janney
ITEM 5.4
PAGE 231 Budget Considerations 2016-2017 - Mr Douglas Janney
ATTACHMENT [5]
4. Transfer Station access cost Summary & Action In the 2014-2015 year rate did not increase however other Council cost did with significant increases. The access cost has increased year on year well in excess of CPI. See the letter below. Any increase need to be CPI or less 16th June 2013 Aldermen, The read of the Advocate on Friday 14th June p3 had 2 articles. The first discussed the likely rate increase of 1.6%. The second read that “Aldermen have final responsibility for budget” I am interested in “Waste Disposal Charges” specifically the charge for “Cars/station wagons (up to 0.5m3)” which will go up to $6.00. From 2008/2009 to 2013/2014(Next financial year) this charge will have been doubled; which amounts to an average increase of 14.87% p.a. No other item cost increases have been reviewed but I suspect that there are many more. Obviously in the past years this massive increase has either escaped notice or has been approved by the Aldermen after consideration. You have a chance for the coming year to do something about this matter of unacceptable percentage increases and look more carefully at the proposed charges (before Monday night’s meeting) and consider amending the increases downwards. In the case of the specific charge item above reduce the increase to zero which would equate to a 5 year increase of 12.89% p.a. Still far too high Yours faithfully Douglas Janney Sent by e-mail
5
STREET PARKING CBD The un- metered busy streets need to have the car plots marked out for more efficient use of the parking space available. Yes there is a cost involved, however the Council has already gone this way in Oldaker St at the Fourways.
6
MERSEY BRIDGE & HIGHWAY runoff to FORMBY RD The down slope road especially on the left hand side needs the surface improved. Presumably this is something to take up with DIER to get action
Yours faithfully Douglas Janney Sent by e-mail
ITEM 5.4
PAGE 232 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
5.5
LEASE FROM CROWN LAND SERVICES - LAND AT FORMBY ROAD, DEVONPORT File: 26939 D415477
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 2.3.4
Provide accessible and sustainable parks, gardens and open spaces to appropriate standards
SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to enable Council to consider a lease from Crown Land Services for land at Formby Road, Devonport.
BACKGROUND Crown Land Services (Crown) has provided Council with a lease of land along the Mersey River foreshore on Formby Road as shown on the attached plans. This land adjoins the area Council also leases for the pontoon. Council will recall that a portion of this area was previously the subject of a Council report at its September 2015 meeting in which an application by Murphy Investments (Tas) Pty Ltd was seeking to lease the land from Crown. Since then, Murphy Investments has advised the Crown and Council that he does not wish to pursue a lease for this area and it has therefore been included in the lease for Council.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS There are no statutory requirements which relate to this report.
DISCUSSION Part of the land is currently parkland and utilised by the public for both passive and active recreation and has been maintained by Council for many years. The southern end is under development at this time. The lease is a standard Crown lease, similar to all other leases entered in to by Council. It is a peppercorn lease with a ten year term. The lease states that the permitted use of the land is “For the purposes of a public walkway and cycle track, rock wall, slipway, pontoon and jetty and public recreation.” The lease does however contain special provisions relating to safety aspects of the area proposed to be leased. The lease provides that: “The Lessee must: (a)
install signage and/or protective fencing or similar along the top of Mersey River embankment on the area marked in yellow on the Plan; and
(b)
manage vegetation adjacent to and within one metre of the Mersey River embankment at a low height to maximise visibility of the embankment over the area marked yellow on the Plan.”
It will cost approximately $30,000 to erect a rock barrier with a concrete plinth similar to Reg Hope Park at East Devonport (see picture below).
ITEM 5.5
PAGE 233 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT No community engagement has been undertaken as a result of this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The estimated cost to erect a rock barrier and concrete plinth is approximately $30,000. This amount has been included for Council’s draft 2016/17 capital works budget. Although the land is Crown Land, Council has managed and maintained it as parkland for many years.
RISK IMPLICATIONS Undertaking the necessary works required by the lease, will ensure any potential health and safety risks will be alleviated.
CONCLUSION The entering in to a lease will formalise Council’s occupation of this section of land, which it has been maintaining for many years.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Locality Plan - Lease - Formby Road
ITEM 5.5
PAGE 234 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
RECOMMENDATION That Council authorise the execution of the Crown Lands Services lease for land at Formby Road, Devonport and note the requirement for a budget allocation of $30,000 to undertake the necessary safety requirements as stipulated in the lease.
Author: Position:
Karen Hampton Governance Coordinator
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 5.5
Paul West General Manager
PAGE 235 Locality Plan - Lease - Formby Road
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 5.5
PAGE 236 Locality Plan - Lease - Formby Road
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 5.5
PAGE 237 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
5.6
LIVING CITY - ADVANCE DEVONPORT INTEREST GROUP - LIVING CITY MESSAGE TO ALDERMEN File: 32161 D416372
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 2.4.3
Implement initiatives to encourage private investment aligned with the outcomes of the LIVING CITY Master Plans
SUMMARY This report is provided to assist Council in considering correspondence received from the Advance Devonport Interest Group (ADIG). The attached ‘forms’ (petition) referred to in the letter will be tabled at the meeting.
BACKGROUND Correspondence has been received (signed by Bob Vellacott and Peter Stegmann) on behalf of ADIG. Attached to the correspondence were copies of ‘forms’ which had been circulated by ADIG around Devonport for interested persons to sign.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS The Local Government Act 1993 outlines a prescribed process in relation to the receipt of petitions as follows: 57. Petitions (1) A person may lodge a petition with a council by presenting it to a councillor or the general manager. (2) A person lodging a petition is to ensure that the petition contains – (a) a clear and concise statement identifying the subject matter; and (b) a heading on each page indicating the subject matter; and (c) a brief statement on each page of the subject matter and the action requested; and (d) a statement specifying the number of signatories; and (e) the full printed name, address and signature of the person lodging the petition at the end of the petition. 58. Tabling petition (1) A councillor who has been presented with a petition is to – (a) table the petition at the next ordinary meeting of the council; or (b) forward it to the general manager within 7 days after receiving it. (2) A general manager who has been presented with a petition or receives a petition under subsection (1)(b) is to table the petition at the next ordinary meeting of the council. (3) A petition is not to be tabled if – (a) it does not comply with section 57; or (b) it is defamatory; or (c) any action it proposes is unlawful. (4) The general manager is to advise the lodger of a petition that is not tabled the reason for not tabling it within 21 days after lodgement.
It is clear that the document presented to Council does not comply with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 relating to petitions. The covering letter though does not refer to the document as a petition, merely refers to ‘forms’. ITEM 5.6
PAGE 238 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
In relation to the conduct of an elector poll, the Act provides the following: 60B. Council-initiated elector polls (1) A council, on its own motion, may hold an elector poll on any issue the council determines. (2) An elector poll under subsection (1) may be conducted in any manner the council determines. 60C. Petition requesting elector poll (1) A council must hold an elector poll if – (a) a petition requesting the elector poll is received within 30 days after a public meeting is held under section 59 in relation to the same subject matter as that contained in the petition requesting that public meeting; and (b) the petition is signed by at least 5% of the electors in the municipal area or 1 000 of those electors, whichever is the lesser; and (c) the petition complies with section 57(2). 60D. Elector polls (1) An elector poll under section 60C is to be – (a) held within 60 days after the receipt of the petition, except as provided under section 60C(2); and (b) held for the whole municipal area; and (c) conducted as determined by the Electoral Commissioner or any other person authorised by the council. (2) An elector poll held in conjunction with an election is to be conducted as determined by the Electoral Commissioner. (3) A matter which is the subject of an elector poll is to be decided by a simple majority of the formal votes cast. (4) The general manager is to ensure that the result of an elector poll is published in a newspaper circulating in the municipal area. (5) A further elector poll on the same issue is not to be held until after the next ordinary election. 60E. Result of elector poll (1) A council is to discuss the result of an elector poll at its next ordinary meeting. (2) The result of an elector poll is not binding on a council.
The request for a ‘ratepayer poll’ as proposed by ADIG does not meet the requirements of the Act. That being said though the Council does have the power under the Act, to hold an elector poll on any issue the Council so determines.
DISCUSSION The correspondence states: Subject – LIVING CITY; Message to Aldermen from ratepayers Dear Mayor and Aldermen, Please find enclosed forms containing the names and addresses of some One Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Four (1,534) ratepayers who object to Stage One of the LIVING CITY Plan. The forms were placed on the counters in limited numbers of business establishments in the CBD of Devonport, Four Ways shopping Centre, East Devonport and Miandetta during several weeks in March and April. There was no coercion for anyone to sign; in fact business owners reported that many ratepayers, when they ITEM 5.6
PAGE 239 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
became aware of same, came into their premises especially to register their concern. Considering the non intrusive manner in which the names were collected and the overwhelming response this is a very good indication to Council that a vast number of ratepayers do not support aspects of the LIVING CITY or the proposed $39 million in borrowings proposed. Indeed it clearly sends a message that Council cannot ignore In view of the response Council has no proven mandate for LIVING CITY Stage 1 and therefore before proceeding must act responsibly on behalf of its constituents by:Undertaking an independent Risk Management Assessment to determine whether all reasonably possible risk mitigation and professional due diligence standards relating to LIVING CITY Stage 1 have in fact been met. Commissioning an independent and transparently audited rate payer poll to determine if the majority of ratepayers want LIVING CITY in its current form to proceed. Should Council determine not to adopt these measures please be fully aware that the Tasmanian Government will be asked to intervene and conduct a full investigation of the Governance Standards of the Devonport City Council in relation to the LIVING CITY Project. Please advise of Council’s determination of this matter prior to proceeding with any construction contracts for LIVING CITY Stage 1. Singed Bob. Vellacott (Ratepayer) 11 Cocker Place, Devonport Peter Stegmann (Ratepayer) 118 River Road, East Devonport On behalf of: ADVANCE DEVONPORT INTEREST GROUP and (over) One Thousand Five Hundred Concerned Ratepayers CC to Premier, Minister for Local Govt, State Treasurer, Tascorp, CCA, State and federal politicians. The ‘forms’ enclosed with the correspondence included the following introductory comments: Message to the Aldermen of Devonport We the undersigned ratepayers of Devonport object to Stage 1 of the LIVING CITY Plan for the following reasons:1.
Demolishes two perfectly serviceable buildings
2.
Incorporates food activities which compete unfairly with existing businesses of ratepayers
3.
Massively increases the debt of Devonport City Council
There are in excess of 1,500 signatures on the ‘forms’. A cursory review of the addresses would indicate that a small number of those that signed actually reside outside of the Devonport municipal area. The signatories have not been verified against the Devonport Municipal Electoral Roll as it does not meet the definition of a ‘petition’. The request of ADIG for Council to undertake an independent risk management assessment and to conduct a ratepayer poll is not reflected in the ‘prayer’ of the ‘forms’. ITEM 5.6
PAGE 240 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
The ‘prayer’ records the signatories’ objection to the demolition of buildings, incorporating food activities which compete with existing businesses and the proposed increase in debt. It does not articulate what the signatories’ request Council to do, merely provides three statements, which on a standalone basis suggests that those who signed the ‘forms’ desire Council to not proceed with Stage 1 of LIVING CITY as each of those issues are fundamental to the current plans. In relation to the points raised in the ‘prayer’ of the ‘forms’: 1.
Demolishes two perfectly serviceable buildings – it has been long established that LIVING CITY would result in the redevelopment of the CBD area with the construction of a multi-storey car park and new civic building incorporating the library (LINC), Service Tasmania and Council offices. Council has previously indicated that the demolition of the buildings were an unfortunate reality if it is to successfully progress the LIVING CITY vision. To be able to secure the required land area for the future retail development (Stage 2), linked to the car park, food pavilion and civic precinct, this was considered the best location resulting in the required demolition of the buildings. Fundamental to LIVING CITY is creating space within the CBD to locate additional retail. The demand that exists for new retail requires a consolidated site of several hectares. While the proposed location does require demolition of several buildings it is considered the most feasible option within the CBD where a consolidated site can be achieved. The proposed site also has the advantage of being situated between the two existing retail precincts.
2.
Incorporates food activities which compete unfairly with existing businesses of ratepayers – the food pavilion is proposed to become a tourist attraction which will entice both visitors and locals who want to experience the best of the region’s produce in both an authentic and interactive environment. A flexible approach to the architectural design of the pavilion will provide opportunities for both permanent retail tenancies and casual uses. The open plan area in the middle of the pavilion is proposed to be an ever changing market and for example, will allow local food producers to promote and sell their seasonal produce direct to the public. Council has previously accepted that the food pavilion will be an added attraction for Devonport and rather than competing unfairly with existing businesses, it will instead be an attractor of new business to the area. Council has previously committed that the food pavilion will only proceed once there is certainty around tenancies.
3.
Massively increases the debt of Devonport City Council - the project funding model adopted by Council demonstrates the viability of the Stage 1 development in its own right. The estimated total cost of Stage 1 is $70M, made up of both equity (45%) and debt (55%). The equity consists of $10M from the Federal Government, $10.5M from the State Government and $11M from Council. The balance of capital funding (up to $39M) is proposed to be sourced from loan borrowings. Council readily accepts that the level of loan debt it will have in comparison to other local governments will be significantly greater. Total loan debt including existing borrowings ($20M) and the proposed balance of capital funding required for Stage 1 (up to $39M) may result in a total indebtedness of $59M at the conclusion of Stage 1.
ITEM 5.6
PAGE 241 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
The projections included in the Long Term Financial Plan for Council demonstrates that it will be able to meet its debt repayment obligations into the future. It is correct that the full extent of the funding model was not publicly released until 24 February 2016. Until confirmation was received from the Department of Treasury and Finance that the Treasurer had approved an increase in Council’s borrowing limits the funding model could not be finalised. Advice was received on 24 December 2015 of the approval. In the General Manager’s report included on the Council agenda at its meeting on 18 January 2016 the following was noted: The Department of Treasury and Finance provided its formal advice to Council on 24 December 2015 that the Treasurer had approved for Council to borrow up to an additional $40 million for the purposes of funding Stage 1 of LIVING CITY. The extent of the actual borrowings which may be required will not be determined until the tenders have been assessed and the funding model completed with the most up to date information available. The funding model will clearly outline the financing arrangements and how the costs associated with the development and the operational impacts will be covered without detrimentally impacting on the level of rates charged to ratepayers. Council in acknowledging the concerns which have been expressed to it in relation to the potential extent of the borrowings continues to explore strategies for how the quantum of borrowings may be reduced. This includes reducing the project scope as part of the ongoing value management discussions with the preferred builder and architect’s; future ownership/tenancy arrangements with the State Government for the parts of the civic building they will occupy; providing additional cash equity into the funding model; disposing of property in future stages; and considering options over the medium term to sell the Stage 1 “food pavilion” once it is operational and financially prudent to do so.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Public consultation has been a significant and important part of LIVING CITY since its inception. A summary of consultation which Council has undertaken since March 2013 is as follows: LIVING CITY Principles Plan - 6/3/13 to 17/4/13
Listening Posts – Rooke Street Mall, Taste the Harvest, Fourways, East Devonport, Spreyton IGA, K&D Warehouse, Sheffield Online consultation at Speak Up Devonport Feedback Forms
LIVING CITY: Should we open the Rooke Street Mall to traffic? – 30/8/13 to 21/9/13
Survey Online consultation at Speak Up Devonport Listening Posts – Rooke Street Mall
Strategic Plan Review 2014 – 17/2/14 to 28/3/14
Online consultation at Speak Up Devonport Listening Posts – Rooke Street Mall Community Survey
LIVING CITY: Changing the heart…Reviving the region – Masterplan consultation – 7/8/14 to 5/9/14
Community Forum Online consultation at Speak Up Devonport ITEM 5.6
PAGE 242 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
Feedback Forms
Have we got the plans for Stage 1 of LIVING CITY right? – 1/7/15 to 21/7/15
Listening Posts – Rooke Street Mall & East Devonport Online consultation at Speak Up Devonport Feedback Form
Feasibility Study into potential new home for the Devonport Regional Gallery – 3/2/16 to 21/2/16
Listening Posts – Devonport Entertainment Centre Online consultation at Speak Up Devonport Feedback Form
Stage 1 Funding Model – 24/2/16 to 9/3/16
Community Information Session – DECC 29 February Online consultation at Speak Up Devonport Feedback Form
There have also been numerous media releases and comment on LIVING CITY over this period. As is evidenced on the current meeting agenda, through Council’s meeting processes a significant number of questions have been raised which have all been responded to outlining Council’s adopted position. Recently following comments made to some Aldermen by members of the public, most likely as a result of the ‘forms’ (petition) being circulated, it was determined that Council would further update the community on LIVING CITY. As a result the following actions are currently in train:
An updated brochure (dated April 2016) delivered to all households in Devonport through Australia Post
Radio advertising
New information magnets (moving billboards) attached to Council’s garbage trucks
Additional media releases relating to the project
Council may also consider the option of publicly communicating its response to the matters raised in the ‘forms’ through a paid advertisement in the local newspaper.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The letter (as distinct from the attached ’forms’) requests that Council undertake two independent actions: 1.
Commissioning an independent Risk Management Assessment to determine whether all reasonably possible risk mitigation and professional due diligence standards relating to LIVING CITY Stage 1 have in fact been met.
2.
Commissioning an independent and transparently audited ratepayer poll to determine if a majority of ratepayers want LIVING CITY in its current form to proceed.
Both of these actions would require a funding allocation. In relation to item 1 there would be a requirement to prepare a scope of works to allow suitably experienced consultants to quote on undertaking such a project. No preliminary estimate of the cost of such a project can be provided until such time as a scope of works has been determined.
ITEM 5.6
PAGE 243 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
In relation to item 2, an elector poll (as distinct from the requested ‘ratepayer poll’) would need to be conducted under the guidance of the Tasmanian Electoral Commission. There are specific requirements in relation to the conduct of Elector Polls. Although the ADIG suggests it should be a poll of ratepayers, to be relevant and independent as they have suggested, an elector poll would be required of all persons currently listed on the Devonport Municipal Electoral Roll. An indicative cost of undertaking a reliable and independent elector poll would be in the vicinity of $55,000 - $65,000. This figure is based on preliminary advice from the Tasmanian Electoral Commission that the cost per elector would range between $3.00 and $3.50. Devonport municipal area has approximately 18,450 electors. Council has spent considerable funds to date in pursuing LIVING CITY. It would appear that it is being encouraged to walk away from the Stage 1 plan by the signatories to the ‘forms’ (petition). If Council were to take this advice it would result in a significant financial loss being recognised in its financial statements. There would also likely be contractual implications to consider in relation to consultants and professional services being provided to Council that may result in damages claims being lodged against Council.
RISK IMPLICATIONS There is no doubt that the LIVING CITY strategy is not without risk. The scale of what Council has embarked upon is challenging and there is no wonder that some people have raised concerns regarding the various components of the project including the issues outlined in the ‘prayer’ of the ‘forms’. Unfortunately there will always be differing views when embarking on a project of this size and scale and trying to get a consistent and factual message out into the community can be challenging. A risk management plan has been developed for the project which identifies the major risks and proposed mitigation strategies. A copy of the risk register has previously been provided formally to Council on its public agenda. The letter suggests that should Council not support the requested measures, the ADIG intends to lobby the State Government to ‘intervene and conduct a full investigation of the Governance Standards of the Devonport City Council in relation to the LIVING CITY Project’. Whether such a request would be favourably considered by the Government would be a matter for them to consider at the time.
CONCLUSION Council has previously indicated to the community that the implementation of LIVING CITY Stage 1 is the catalyst for future stages which seek to stimulate economic benefits and new jobs within the local and regional economy. In responding to the correspondence from ADIG, Council would appear to have a number of options available to it that it may wish to consider. The options outlined below are certainly not the only avenues that Council may wish to pursue but have been listed to stimulate debate on this matter and to cover the main alternatives available to Council in responding not only to the correspondence from ADIG but also the signatories to the ‘forms’. Option 1 Do nothing apart from acknowledge receipt of the correspondence.
ITEM 5.6
PAGE 244 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
Option 2 1.
2.
Advise the Advance Devonport Interest Group that Council: (a)
does not concur with its views in relation to LIVING CITY;
(b)
plans to continue to pursue the implementation of the Master Plan (including proceeding with Stage 1 construction works as soon as practicable);
(c)
intends to finalise the funding model by borrowing up to an additional $39 million;
(d)
will not be conducting an elector poll; and
(e)
does not believe that further independent risk management assessment is required.
Note the current actions taken to inform the community of the facts relating to LIVING CITY and endorse the placement of a paid advertisement in the local newspaper which specifically responds to each of the matters raised within the signed ‘forms’.
Option 3 Advise the Advance Devonport Interest Group that: 1.
Council will commission, at a likely additional cost to the project of $55,000 - $65,000, an elector poll in relation to LIVING CITY; and
2.
develop a project brief for a further independent risk management assessment to allow for an expression of interest process to be undertaken.
3.
note that in pursuing the elector poll and further risk management assessment there will a delay in commencing the project.
Option 4 Based on the correspondence and continued opposition being raised from certain parts of the community, determine to walk away from Stage 1 LIVING CITY all together and: 1.
advise the Australian Government that Stage 1 as approved under the Stronger Regions Fund will not proceed due to community opposition;
2.
advise the State Government that Stage 1 will not proceed in its current form;
3.
acknowledge that such action will require Council to terminate a number of contracts previously entered into in relation to LIVING CITY which may result in claims being made against Council for damages; and
4.
expense in the 2015/16 financial year all capital works in progress amounts allocated towards Stage 1.
ATTACHMENTS Nil
ITEM 5.6
PAGE 245 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
RECOMMENDATION That in relation to correspondence received from the Advance Devonport Interest Group titled ‘LIVING CITY Message to Aldermen’ and the attached signed ‘forms’, that Council ______________________________
Author: Position:
Paul West General Manager
ITEM 5.6
PAGE 246 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
6.0
INFORMATION
6.1
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT - APRIL 2016 File: 29092 D408090
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 5.8.2
Ensure access to Council information that meets user demands, is easy to understand, whilst complying with legislative requirements
SUMMARY This report provides a summary of the activities undertaken by the General Manager, 16 March to 19 April 2016. It also provides information on matters that may be of interest to Aldermen and the community.
BACKGROUND The report is provided on a regular monthly basis and addresses a number of management and strategic issues currently being undertaken by Council. The report also provides regular updates in relation to National, Regional and State based local government matters as well as State and Federal Government programs.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Council is required to comply with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and other legislation. The General Manager is appointed by the Council in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
DISCUSSION 1.
2.
COUNCIL MANAGEMENT 1.1.
Attended and participated in a number of internal staff and management meetings.
1.2.
Attended Workshops, Section 23 Committee and Council Meetings as required.
1.3.
Considerable time was spent during the period in finalising the first draft of Council’s operational and capital works budgets for the 2016/17 financial year. The first draft was made available to Aldermen on 12 April with a Workshop session convened on 18 April.
LIVING CITY 2.1.
Attended a meeting with representatives of the State Government to further progress the financial aspects of the LIVING CITY plan. The State Government continues to assist Council in obtaining the required loan borrowings associated with the development of Stage 1 of LIVING CITY.
2.2.
Continued to participate in a number of Working Group meetings associated with LIVING CITY. A number of actions continue to be followed up including working with the nominated builder on the value management process to secure a building contract which meets with Council’s requirements and within the funding plan; securing a loan borrowing line of credit to underpin the
ITEM 6.1
PAGE 247 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
funding plan; looking to appoint an architectural consultant to prepare concept plans for the proposed hotel and waterfront precinct.
3.
2.3.
With the Mayor met with Nicholas Heyward, Managing Director of the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra. Mr Heyward was in Devonport in conjunction with the TSO’s commitment at Skyfield’s. He was interested in the proposed multi-purpose convention space being developed as part of LIVING CITY and the potential in the future for the venue to be used for TSO activities. Of particular interest was the planned acoustics to be incorporated into the space.
2.4.
With the Acting Mayor met with representatives of the Advance Devonport Interest Group to respond to a number of questions they had in relation to LIVING CITY.
2.5.
Met with representatives of the Coordinator General’s Office to discuss a number of matters relating to LIVING CITY including progressing the funding plan, building contract, and the operational arrangements in the future for the civic building.
2.6.
Met with Mike Gaffney MLC regarding LIVING CITY and an approach that had been made to him by the Advance Devonport Interest Group. The issues raised with Mr Gaffney are similar to the questions and comments provided to Council by the Group. A copy of correspondence prepared on behalf of the Group and forwarded to the Minister for Local Government, the Premier and Deputy Premier was also provided. A copy of this letter is attached for the information of Council.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT (RESIDENTS & COMMUNITY GROUPS) 3.1.
At the invitation of the Inspector of Police attended a meeting with a representative of the owner of the former Maternity Hospital in Steele Street regarding ongoing issues with vandalism and illegal entry into the structure. A number of suggestions were made to the owners’ representative in relation to better securing the facility including permanent fencing repairs.
3.2.
Met with a representative of Football Federation Tasmania (FFT) to discuss the recently held National Soccer Skills Carnival at Valley Road. A proposal was put forward by FFT for a 3-year agreement with Council for Devonport to host the annual National Junior Carnival. The 2016 event attracted 23 teams (with 12 of these from interstate). It is proposed to further grow the event with the inclusion of more interstate and potentially international teams. The economic benefit provided to Devonport as a result of this type of event is considerable and progress on finalising an agreement is underway ensuring its future in Devonport.
3.3.
Met with the Manager of Karingal Retirement Village to discuss the proposed change to the levying of rates on independent living units.
3.4.
Met with a representative of Meercroft Park Committee to discuss the finalisation of their lease of Council land associated with the Hockey Club. It is expected that the lease will be finalised in the near future. At the same time discussion around sealing an area of the land leased to the Committee in conjunction with car park works currently underway was undertaken. It was identified that the cost of the additional works was approximately $8,500 and it was agreed that if the Committee contributed $5,000 Council would arrange for the works to be completed. This work will significantly improve the area and ITEM 6.1
PAGE 248 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
taking advantage of the contractor being onsite was an opportunity to good to miss. The Council contribution would likely be covered from the contingency amount available for the project. 3.5.
4.
5.
Met with the President of Rotary club of Devonport North to discuss the opportunity for the Club to become involved in a major community project. An update on the Mersey Bluff Seawalk Project was also provided. The Club has finalised the contract with consultants to prepare the feasibility study on the project. Total cost of $21,000 of which $15,000 is being contributed by Council.
NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND STATE BASED LOCAL GOVERNMENT 4.1.
As part of the Reference Group appointed by the Cradle Coast Authority Representatives, met to further progress the Shared Services project in the North West region. The Reference Group includes the Mayors of Burnie, Central Coast and King Island; the General Managers of Waratah-Wynyard and Devonport; and the CEO of the Cradle Coast Authority.
4.2.
All Councils in the Cradle Coast Region have signed the Memorandum of Understanding with the State Government in relation to the Shared Services study. The document was forwarded to the Minister for finalisation. Advice received from the Minister’s Office is that the MOU has now been finalised and signed by all parties.
4.3.
Attended a meeting of the Cradle Coast General Managers Group. Matters discussed included:
AirBnB’s - concerns raised by the Devonport & Cradle Country Tourism Inc about the growth of Airbnb and the inherent problems being created for legal and registered accommodation providers;
Targeted Review of the Local Government Act - the proposal to establish a General Managers’ Reference Group to advise the Steering Committee;
Visitor Services – a paper prepared by Ian Waller from the Cradle Coast Authority which requested feedback from the August 2013 Visitor Services Review;
Shared Services MOU – a discussion on refining the benchmarking worksheet prepared to capture relevant information to inform the proposed Shared Services study;
Australian Masters Games – a discussion on the proposed funding model circulated by the Cradle Coast Authority;
Waste Management Governance Update;
Regional Governance Review – a discussion on the briefing paper prepared by Graham Sansom on the Cradle Coast Authority Review.
STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS 5.1.
With the Deputy General Manager attended a public hearing conducted by the State Grants Commission in Burnie. The purpose of public hearings is to allow councils to present their views on the distribution method of the Financial Assistance Grants. This year the Commission was particularly interested in Council’s LIVING CITY plans and the likely impacts it may have on the regional economy.
ITEM 6.1
PAGE 249 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016 5.2.
The Tasmanian Planning Commission has released for public consultation the draft State Planning Provisions. The draft SPPs and relevant exhibition documents can be downloaded from the Commission’s website at www.planning.tas.gov.au Comments can be made until 18 May 2016. Council’s planning staff will contribute to a sector wide response coordinated by the Local Government Association of Tasmania.
5.3.
The Director of Local Government has written to Council advising that the Local Government (Code of Conduct) Act 2015 commenced on 13 April 2016. This Act incorporates a number of amendments including:
Local Government Code of Conduct Framework.
Annual Report to contain code of conduct complaint information.
Change to council notification requirements – Annual General Meetings.
Change to council notification requirements – impounded animals.
New power for the Director of Local Government to dismiss complaints under the Act.
Disclosure of information – refined process regarding a general manager providing a councillor with information relevant to an agenda item.
Change to eligibility criteria for nominating as a councillor in Tasmania.
A copy of the Director’s letter and the Information Sheet provided is attached. A full copy of the other information provided will be circulated to Aldermen under separate cover.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The information included above details any issues relating to community engagement.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Any financial or budgetary implications related to matters discussed in this report will be separately reported to Council. There is not expected to be any impact on the Councils’ operating budget as a result of this recommendation.
RISK IMPLICATIONS Any specific risk implications will be outlined in the commentary above. Any specific issue that may result is any form of risk to Council is likely to be subject of a separate report to Council.
CONCLUSION This report is provided for information purposes only and to allow Council to be updated on matters of interest.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Copy Letter to Minister for Local Government from Advance Devonport Interest Group ( Devonport Concerned Ratepayers Alliance)
2.
Director of Local Government - Local Government (Code of Conduct Amendment Act 2015)
ITEM 6.1
PAGE 250 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
3.
Action Report on Council Resolutions - April 2016
4.
CONFIDENTIAL - Action Report on Council Resolutions - April 2016
RECOMMENDATION That the report of the General Manager be received and noted.
Author: Position:
Paul West General Manager
ITEM 6.1
Confidential
PAGE 251 Copy Letter to Minister for Local Government from Advance Devonport Interest Group ( Devonport Concerned Ratepayers Alliance)
ITEM 6.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 252 Copy Letter to Minister for Local Government from Advance Devonport Interest Group ( Devonport Concerned Ratepayers Alliance)
ITEM 6.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 253 Copy Letter to Minister for Local Government from Advance Devonport Interest Group ( Devonport Concerned Ratepayers Alliance)
ITEM 6.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 254 Copy Letter to Minister for Local Government from Advance Devonport Interest Group ( Devonport Concerned Ratepayers Alliance)
ITEM 6.1
ATTACHMENT [1]
PAGE 255 Director of Local Government - Local Government (Code of Conduct Amendment Act 2015)
ITEM 6.1
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 256 Director of Local Government - Local Government (Code of Conduct Amendment Act 2015)
ITEM 6.1
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 257 Director of Local Government - Local Government (Code of Conduct Amendment Act 2015)
ITEM 6.1
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 258 Director of Local Government - Local Government (Code of Conduct Amendment Act 2015)
ITEM 6.1
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 259 Director of Local Government - Local Government (Code of Conduct Amendment Act 2015)
ITEM 6.1
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 260 Director of Local Government - Local Government (Code of Conduct Amendment Act 2015)
ITEM 6.1
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 261 Director of Local Government - Local Government (Code of Conduct Amendment Act 2015)
ITEM 6.1
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 262 Action Report on Council Resolutions - April 2016
ATTACHMENT [3]
DEVONPORT CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT ON COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS - APRIL 2016 OPEN SESSION MEETING DATE March 2016
RESOLUTION NO
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER DGM
TOPIC
RESOLUTION/ITEM
STATUS
COMMENTS
43/16
DISP2014.03 Rezone from General Residential Zone to Particular Purpose Zone 13&14-15 Victoria Parade & 5 Lower Madden Street Devonport (Elimatta Hotel)
Completed
Resolution made. Statutory report referred to TPC for hearings and decision.
44/16
Request for Funding Contribution ALGWA
Completed
Included in budget figures for 2016/17 Letter written to ALGWA advising of decision
GM
45/16
Relocation of the Devonport Regional Gallery to the Devonport Entertainment and Convention Centre Tiagarra - Lease to Six Rivers Aboriginal Corporation
Supports introduction of a Particular Purpose zone subject to modifications: 1. remove a drive through bottle shop from the Use Table; and 2. exclude nightclub from the Use Table; and 3. reduce the maximum building height to 8.5 metres; and 4. allow ingress and egress from both Victoria Parade and Lower Madden Street; and 5. reduce the hours for commercial vehicle movements to the site. Include a $1,000 contribution towards the Australian Local Government Women’s (Tasmanian Branch) biennial conference to be held 11-13 April 2017 in its 2016/2017 budget. 1. Note the feedback provided as part of the public consultation period; and 2. Consider funding Stage 1 of the project as part of Council’s budget deliberations.
Completed
Has been included for consideration in the 5 Year Capital Program.
DGM
a) Receive and note submission provided during 21 day consultation period. b) Authorise the finalisation of 20 year lease (incl sub-lease) to SRAC general in line with normal lease terms and conditions. c) Authorise General Manager to finalise the transfer of built assets to SRAC once lease agreement is finalised.
In progress
Letter written acknowledging submission and advising of outcome Matter now being progressed by Council’s solicitors
GM
47/16
ITEM 6.1
PAGE 263 Action Report on Council Resolutions - April 2016
MEETING DATE March 2016
RESOLUTION NO 50/16
54/16
ATTACHMENT [3]
TOPIC
RESOLUTION/ITEM
STATUS
COMMENTS
Meercroft Carpark Upgrade
Accept Kentish Construction & Engineering Company P/L $97,161 quotation.
Completed
Contractor has been engaged.
Governance and Finance Committee Meeting - 15 March 2016
GFC 01/16
Public Wi-Fi Expansion Agreed to proceed with provision of free Wi-Fi services to include the Fourways, East Devonport Shopping Precinct, expanded CBD area and Mersey Bluff within existing budget allocation. Dog Management Policy adopted. Renew Devonport to be wound up due to lack of support from landlords.
In progress
Design options and available technology under active review.
Completed
Dulverton Regional Waste Management Authority Amendments to Rules agreed. Council Meeting dates An outline of ordinary meeting schedule will be included in the rates brochure distributed with annual rate notices. Review of Public Question Time guidelines updated. Independent Living Units Rating Arrangements 1. Council consult with aged care providers regarding its intentions. 2. Following feedback a further report be provided to Council for consideration prior to finalisation of 2016/17 budget.
Completed
Dog Management Policy on Council’s website DCCI have informed all relevant bodies, including the State Government and Renew Australia, to close the project Letter sent to DRWMA advising of approval.
GFC 02/16 GFC 03/16
GFC 04/16 GFC 05/16
GFC 07/16 GFC 08/16
ITEM 6.1
Completed
Completed
Will include in rates brochure.
Completed
Public Question time guidelines updated. Aged Care providers advised. Discussions underway. Report on feedback will be provided to Council’s May meeting.
In progress
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER DGM
GM
PAGE 264 Action Report on Council Resolutions - April 2016
ATTACHMENT [3]
Previous Council Resolutions - still being actioned MEETING DATE
RESOLUTION NO
February 2016
30/16
January 2016
07/16
December 2015
255/15
November 2015
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER
TOPIC
RESOLUTION/ITEM
STATUS
COMMENTS
Community Services Committee Meeting - 15 February 2016
CSC 20/16
Overturn previous decision and provide capital funding for East Devonport Bike Safety Park - transferring previous 2015/16 capital works allocation of $80,000 for the Mall Playground Equipment to this project. CSC 25/16 Mersey Community Care Matter deferred pending future Workshop session. Determined to amend its Parking By-Law 1 of 2013 enabling parking infringement charges to be rounded down to the nearest dollar.
In progress
In discussions with EDBSPC and EDCFC regarding external funding. Grant application for dollar difference submitted to the Tas Community Fund.
Proposed Amendment to Parking By-Law No 1 of 2013 State Government Contribution LIVING CITY Stage 1
227/15
Minutes - AGM 28 October 2015
233/15
Harbourmaster’s Cafe
Completed
Discussed in conjunction Budget Workshop.
Completed
Report on current agenda.
Authorise General Manager to finalise negotiations with the State Government generally in accordance with its offer received on 7 December 2015 and sign the grant deed and lease agreement once negotiations are complete. In relation to the motion passed at the AGM that Council advertise to seek expressions of interest from those ratepayers who have paid rates for 50 years plus to ascertain whether there is sufficient interest in such an event being organised.
In progress
Discussions underway.
In progress
Authorise a twelve month licence agreement for the extended operation of the Harbourmaster’s Café in the area directly north of the Café.
In progress
Invitation extended to the community to register their expression of interest via social media, Council’s website and newsletters, as well as the Mayor’s message, Coast to Coast in the Advocate. 12 month licence to use land with appropriate conditions prepared and provided to applicant to consider. Awaiting finalisation of Lease from Crown.
ITEM 6.1
EM (CC&B)
with
GM
DGM
EM (CC&B)
DGM
PAGE 265 Action Report on Council Resolutions - April 2016
MEETING DATE October 2015
July 2015
RESOLUTION NO 220/15
145/15
ATTACHMENT [3]
TOPIC
RESOLUTION/ITEM
STATUS
COMMENTS
Community Services Committee Meeting - 19 October 2015
CSC 30/15 Consideration in 2016-2017 budget of installation of: ablution and BBQ facilities at Horse Head Creek Reserve; and signs to deter unauthorized driving in Pioneer Park and consider implementing infringement process. Seek expressions of interest for the project in line with project brief - further report to be provided to Council once expressions of interest have been received and evaluated.
Completed
Listed for discussion as part of Budget Workshop.
In progress
Sign to be considered as part of Signage Strategy.
In progress
No EOI received. In discussions with UTAS regarding working with Arts Students to possibly deliver a program.
East Devonport Public Art Project Proposal
ITEM 6.1
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER EM (CS)
EM (C&B)
PAGE 266 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
6.2
MAYOR'S MONTHLY REPORT File: 22947 D413644
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 5.3.2
Provide appropriate support to elected members to enable them to discharge their functions
SUMMARY This report details meetings and functions attended by the Mayor.
BACKGROUND This report is provided by the Mayor to provide a list of meetings and functions attended by him for the month of March 2016.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS There are no statutory requirements which relate to this report.
DISCUSSION In his capacity as Mayor, Alderman Steve Martin attended the following meetings and functions during the month of March 2016:
Devonport Playhouse Chris Lacey – Parkinson’s 2016 Charity Gala – Phil Matthews, Rowena Kelly Mersey Community Hospital tour with Labor Party Peter Underwood Institute – “Everyone is a Changemaker in Education” Soroptimist International Club of Devonport – guest speaker Learning Communities Special Interest Group Cradle Coast Authority, Australian Master Games Don College – John Thompson Four 8 Film Festival launch – Devonport Regional Gallery National U/13 Soccer Carnival Official opening Clean Up Australia Day – Coles Beach Nipples on Ripples Regatta Race Apex Regatta – “Make Your Own Outfit” Presentations Don Market Coastal Radio interview – Chris Morris Devonport Community House – Kate Beer & Jay Summers Resident meetings Council Workshop DP World – Burnie Devonport Chaplaincy Gateway Community Care LIVING CITY – concerned citizens Diamonds of Devonport Dinner Nixon Street Primary School breakfast Mersey Leven Emergency Management Committee Jason Clare – Federal Shadow Minister Communications Dog Off-Leash enclosure Cradle Coast Authority launch – “Cradle Way” ITEM 6.2
PAGE 267 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
Radio 7AD interviews Rotary Devonport North – Guest Speaker Hillcrest Primary School – Launch into Learning DFWF Ambassador Dinner Taste the Harvest – Officially Opened Bass Strait Maritime Centre – “Walk the Plank” Devonport Senior Citizen’s Club Special Council Meeting and Governance & Finance Committee Meeting Regional Gallery Special Interest Group State of the State - DCCI Luncheon Community Safety Liaison Group World’s Greatest Shave – Divine Hairdressing Salon Lions Club of Mersey – Guest Speaker CBMC Business Breakfast Harmony Week Luncheon – Alphonse Mulumba Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra - Nicholas Heywood Devonport Regional Gallery – Exhibition launch Cancer Council Relay for Life – Penguin Run Devonport Devonport Motor Show Don Market 40th Year Anniversary Citizenship Ceremony Council Ordinary Meeting Youth Family & Community Connections - Janine Phillis TAS Broadcasting - Brian Carlton East Devonport Primary School – White Ribbon Building Families Special Interest Group Nixon Street Primary School Parents & Friends AGM Play Group TAS – Easter Egg Hunt Home Hill Nixon Street Primary School - Pedlars Parade Arts & Culture Committee ABC Northern TAS interview Australian Junior Squash Open Council of the Ageing – Sue Leitch & Keree Rose Advocate Newspaper – “Walk the Plank”
ATTACHMENTS Nil
RECOMMENDATION That the Mayor’s monthly report be received and noted.
ITEM 6.2
PAGE 268 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
6.3
WORKSHOPS AND BRIEFING SESSIONS HELD SINCE THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING
Council is required by Regulation 8(2)(c) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 to include in the Agenda the date and purpose of any Council Workshop held since the last meeting. Date
Description
4/4/2016
Mountain Presentation
Purpose Bike
Trail A briefing was provided on the proposed Mountain Bike tracks being developed between Latrobe and Kentish Councils
Cradle Coast Authority - An overview of Cradle Coast Authority Regional Governance Review Regional Governance Review was provided. Cradle Coast Authority visit to Considered a letter from Cradle Coast Workshop on 7 March 2016 Authority relating to membership. Lease Policy Update
A status update was provided on Council’s lease policy with sporting groups.
Gaming Machines in Pubs and Correspondence from Tasmanian Clubs Hospitality Association relating to thee issue of gaming machines in pubs and clubs.
11/4/2016
18/4/2016
LIVING CITY
Discussion on the Food Pavilion operating model and the Expressions of Interest relating to Architects for the Waterfront Precinct.
LIVING CITY
Representatives of P+i attended the Workshop to provide a comprehensive briefing to Aldermen on activities associated with LIVING CITY
Signage Strategy
Discussion on proposed changes and amendment to the Council’s adopted Signage Strategy.
Rezoning of 1 Friend Street, Aldermen provided with information Devonport relating to proposal for the rezoning. Draft Budget 2016/17
The first of a series of Budget Workshops.
RECOMMENDATION That the report advising of Workshop/Briefing Sessions held since the last Council meeting be received and the information noted. Author: Position:
Robyn Woolsey Administration Officer
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 6.3
Paul West General Manager
PAGE 269 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
7.0
SECTION 23 COMMITTEES
7.1
PLANNING AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEETING - 11 APRIL 2016 File: 29133 D415196
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 5.3.2
Provide appropriate support to elected members to enable them to discharge their functions
SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to receive the minutes provided to Council by the Planning Authority Committee meeting held on Monday, 11 April 2016.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Minutes - Planning Authority Committee - 11 April 2016
RECOMMENDATION That the minutes of the Planning Authority Committee meeting held on Monday, 11 April 2016 be received and the recommendations contained therein be noted. PAC 03/16
Author: Position:
PA2016.0036 2 Lot Subdivision (One Additional Lot) - 246 Brooke Street East Devonport
Robyn Woolsey Administration Officer
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 7.1
Paul West General Manager
PAGE 270 Minutes - Planning Authority Committee - 11 April 2016
ATTACHMENT [1]
MINUTES OF A PLANNING AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE DEVONPORT CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON MONDAY, 11 APRIL 2016 COMMENCING AT 11:00AM PRESENT:
Ald L M Perry in the Chair Ald G F Goodwin Ald J F Matthews
Council Officers: Deputy General Manager, M Atkins Cadet Planner, A Mountney Planning Administration Officer, J Broomhall Audio Recording: All persons in attendance were advised that it is Council policy to record Council meetings, in accordance with Council’s Audio Recording Policy. The audio recording of this meeting will be made available to the public on Council’s website for a minimum period of six months. 1.0
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN PAC 02/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Goodwin Ald Matthews
That Alderman Perry be appointed to Chair the meeting. For
Ald Goodwin Ald Matthews
Against Ald Perry
For
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 2.0
APOLOGIES The following apologies were received for the meeting. Ald S L Martin Ald C D Emmerton
3.0
Leave of Absence Apology
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no Declarations of Interest.
4.0
DEVELOPMENT REPORTS 4.1
PA2016.0036 2 LOT SUBDIVISION (ONE ADDITIONAL LOT) - 246 BROOKE STREET EAST DEVONPORT (D414420) PAC 03/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Goodwin Ald Matthews
That Council, pursuant to the provisions of the Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013 and Section 57 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act ITEM 7.1
PAGE 271 Minutes - Planning Authority Committee - 11 April 2016
ATTACHMENT [1]
1993, approve application PA2016.0036 and grant a Permit to land identified as 246 Brooke Street, East Devonport for the following purposes:
2 lot subdivision (one additional lot)
Subject to the following conditions: 1.
The Use and Development is to proceed generally in accordance with the submitted plans referenced as Proposed Subdivision - DWG. No. 8409 (01-02) by Tasmanian Consulting Service, copies of which are attached and endorsed as documents forming part of this Planning Permit.
2.
The developer is to comply with the conditions contained in the Submission to Planning Authority Notice which TasWater has required to be included in the planning permit, pursuant to section 56P(1) of the Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008.
3.
The proposed property access must be installed in accordance with TSD-R03-v1.
Ald Goodwin Ald Matthews
For
Against Ald Perry
For
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY With no further business on the agenda the Chairman declared the meeting closed at 11:04am. Confirmed
Chairman
ITEM 7.1
PAGE 272 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
7.2
INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS MEETING - 11 APRIL 2016
AND
DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE File: 29528 D415260
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 5.3.2
Provide appropriate support to elected members to enable them to discharge their functions
SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to receive the minutes and endorse the recommendations provided to Council by the Infrastructure Works and Development Committee meeting held on Monday, 11 April 2016.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Minutes - Infrastructure Works and Development Committee - 2016/04/11
RECOMMENDATION That the minutes of the Infrastructure Works and Development Committee meeting held on Monday, 11 April 2016 be received and the recommendations contained therein be adopted. IWC 06/16
Tender Report - Contract 1310 - Mersey Road Footpath Renewal (approved under delegation)
IWC 07/16
Tender Report - Contract 1308 - Pioneer Park Toilet Facility (approved under delegation)
IWC 08/16
Traffic Management Proposals
IWC 09/16
Rainwater Harvesting Investigation
IWC 10/16
Road Network Strategy Update - Adoption of Local Government Road Hierarchy
IWC 11/16
Infrastructure and Works Report
IWC 12/16
Development and Health Services Report
Author: Position:
Robyn Woolsey Administration Officer
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 7.2
Paul West General Manager
PAGE 273 Minutes - Infrastructure Works and Development Committee - 2016/04/11
ATTACHMENT [1]
MINUTES OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE DEVONPORT CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON MONDAY, 11 APRIL 2016 COMMENCING AT 6:00PM PRESENT:
Ald L M Perry (Chairman) Ald C D Emmerton Ald G F Goodwin Ald A J Jarman Ald L M Laycock Ald J F Matthews
Aldermen in Attendance: Ald A L Rockliff Council Officers: General Manager, P West Deputy General Manager, M Atkins Infrastructure and Works Manager, K Lunson City Engineer, M Williams Audio Recording: All persons in attendance were advised that it is Council policy to record Council meetings, in accordance with Council’s Audio Recording Policy. The audio recording of this meeting will be made available to the public on Council’s website for a minimum period of six months. 1.0
APOLOGIES There were no apologies received.
2.0
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no Declarations of Interest.
3.0
PROCEDURAL 3.1 3.1.1
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC
Nil 3.1.2
QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC
MR DOUGLAS JANNEY - 23 WATKINSON STREET, DEVONPORT The recommendation for Agenda Item 5.1 p13 & p40 is to renew the Wright St Norton Way intersection with the existing layout. Q
Why can’t the priority be changed by shifting several signs and some new road marks?
Response The City Engineer advised that option was briefly considered, it was noted that that arrangement would be uncommon and fairly confusing for motorists. With the ITEM 7.2
PAGE 274 Minutes - Infrastructure Works and Development Committee - 2016/04/11
ATTACHMENT [1]
number of heavy vehicles it wasn’t considered appropriate. This was also confirmed by the Department of State Growth. 3.2
QUESTIONS FROM ALDERMEN
Nil
3.3 NOTICES OF MOTION Nil 4.0
TENDERS 4.1
TENDER REPORT - CONTRACT 1310 - MERSEY ROAD FOOTPATH RENEWAL (D412340) IWC 06/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Goodwin Ald Jarman
That the Infrastructure, Works and Development Committee, in relation to Contract 1310 – Mersey Road Footpath Renewal and in accordance with the delegated authority provided to it by Council under Minute 198/15: a)
award the contract to Civilscape Contracting Tasmania for the tendered sum of $113,595 (ex GST);
b)
note that Telstra works are estimated to cost $10,000 (ex GST);
c)
note that design, project management and administration for the project are estimated to cost $12,000 (ex GST); and
d)
note that a construction contingency of $22,000 (ex GST) is included in the budget. For
Ald Perry Ald Emmerton Ald Goodwin
Against Ald Jarman Ald Laycock Ald Matthews
For
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4.2
TENDER REPORT - CONTRACT 1308 - PIONEER PARK TOILET FACILITY (D413762) IWC 07/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Matthews Ald Laycock
That the Infrastructure, Works and Development Committee, in relation to Contract 1308 Pioneer Park Toilet Facility and in accordance with the delegated authority provided to it by Council under Minute 198/15: a)
award the contract to AJR Construct for the tendered sum of $96,809.20 (ex GST);
b)
note that design, project management and administration for the project are estimated to cost $18,000 (ex GST); and
ITEM 7.2
PAGE 275 Minutes - Infrastructure Works and Development Committee - 2016/04/11
c)
ATTACHMENT [1]
note that a construction contingency of $10,000 (ex GST) is included in the budget. For
Ald Perry Ald Emmerton Ald Goodwin
Against Ald Jarman Ald Laycock Ald Matthews
For
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5.0 INFRASTRUCTURE AND WORKS REPORTS 5.1
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS (D390375) IWC 08/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Goodwin Ald Emmerton
That it be a recommended to Council that the report of the City Engineer regarding various traffic management proposals be noted and that Council consider as part of its budget deliberations: 1.
the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Fenton Street and Steele Street;
2.
renewal of the intersection of Wright Street and Norton Way;
3.
installation of road humps on William Street;
4.
installation of a right turn lane and phasing change for the traffic signals at the intersection of Tarleton Street and Wright Street; and
5.
pedestrian and signage improvements along William Street, between Bluff Road and North Street. For
Ald Perry Ald Emmerton Ald Goodwin
Against Ald Jarman Ald Laycock Ald Matthews
For
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5.2
RAINWATER HARVESTING INVESTIGATION (D391760) IWC 09/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Matthews Ald Laycock
That it be recommended to Council that the report of the Infrastructure & Works Manager regarding rainwater harvesting investigation be received and noted and that no further action be taken at this time. Ald Perry Ald Emmerton Ald Goodwin
For
Against Ald Jarman Ald Laycock Ald Matthews
For
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ITEM 7.2
PAGE 276 Minutes - Infrastructure Works and Development Committee - 2016/04/11
5.3
ATTACHMENT [1]
ROAD NETWORK STRATEGY UPDATE - ADOPTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ROAD HIERARCHY (D411909) IWC 10/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Goodwin Ald Emmerton
That it be recommended to Council that the report of the City Engineer be noted and that the Road Network Strategy 2016 be adopted with immediate effect. For
Ald Perry Ald Emmerton Ald Goodwin
Against
For
Ald Jarman Ald Laycock Ald Matthews
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6.0 INFRASTRUCTURE AND WORKS MONTHLY UPDATE 6.1
INFRASTRUCTURE AND WORKS REPORT (D409328) IWC 11/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Laycock Ald Emmerton
That it be recommended to Council that the Infrastructure and Works report be received and noted. For
Ald Perry Ald Emmerton Ald Goodwin
Against
For
Ald Jarman Ald Laycock Ald Matthews
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6.2
DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH SERVICES REPORT (D412076) IWC 12/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Goodwin Ald Jarman
That it be recommended to Council that the Development and Health Services report be received and noted. Ald Perry Ald Emmerton Ald Goodwin
For
Against Ald Jarman Ald Laycock Ald Matthews
For
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ITEM 7.2
PAGE 277 Minutes - Infrastructure Works and Development Committee - 2016/04/11
ATTACHMENT [1]
There being no further business on the agenda the Chairman declared the meeting closed at 6:24pm. Confirmed
Chairman
ITEM 7.2
PAGE 278 Report to Council meeting on 26 April 2016
7.3
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING - 18 APRIL 2016 File: 29530 D416523
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 5.3.2
Provide appropriate support to elected members to enable them to discharge their functions
SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to receive the minutes and endorse the recommendations provided to Council by the Community Services Committee meeting held on Monday, 18 April 2016.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Minutes - Community Services Committee - 2016/04/18
RECOMMENDATION That the minutes of the Community Services Committee meeting held on Monday, 18 April 2016 be received and the recommendations contained therein be adopted. CSC 20/16
Minutes of the Arts Culture and Tourism Strategic Special Committee Meeting - 24 March 2016
CSC 21/16
Minutes of the Sport and Recreation Strategic Special Committee Meeting 6 April 2016
CSC 22/16
Circus Bookings
CSC 23/16
Ten Days on the Island 2017
CSC 24/16
Energy Efficiency Strategy - Year Three Status
CSC 25/16
Environmental Sustainability Strategy - Year Two Status
CSC 26/16
Reallocation of Capital Expenditure - Sister Cities 20 Year Anniversary Commemorative Seat
CSC 27/16
Community Services Report - April 2016
Author: Position:
Robyn Woolsey Administration Officer
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 7.3
Paul West General Manager
PAGE 279 Minutes - Community Services Committee - 2016/04/18
ATTACHMENT [1]
MINUTES OF A COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE DEVONPORT CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON MONDAY, 18 APRIL 2016 COMMENCING AT 6:00PM PRESENT:
Ald A L Rockliff (Chairman) Ald G F Goodwin Ald A J Jarman Ald J T Keay Ald L M Laycock Ald S L Martin
Aldermen in Attendance: Ald C D Emmerton Ald L M Perry Ald J F Matthews Council Officers: General Manager, P West Deputy General Manager, M Atkins Executive Manager Corporate & Business, S Crawford Community and Cultural Development Manager, B de Jong Marketing, Tourism and Recreation Manager, S Jones Audio Recording: All persons in attendance were advised that it is Council policy to record Council meetings, in accordance with Council’s Audio Recording Policy. The audio recording of this meeting will be made available to the public on Council’s website for a minimum period of six months. 1.0
APOLOGIES There were no apologies received.
2.0
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no Declarations of Interest.
3.0
PROCEDURAL 3.1 3.1.1
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC
Nil 3.1.2
QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC
Nil 3.2
QUESTIONS FROM ALDERMEN
Nil
3.3 NOTICES OF MOTION Nil ITEM 7.3
PAGE 280 Minutes - Community Services Committee - 2016/04/18
ATTACHMENT [1]
4.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORTS 4.1
MINUTES OF THE ARTS CULTURE AND TOURISM STRATEGIC SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETING - 24 MARCH 2016 (D413257) CSC 20/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Jarman Ald Laycock
That it be recommended to Council that the minutes of the Arts, Culture and Tourism Strategic Special Committee meeting held on 24 March 2016 be received and noted. Ald Rockliff Ald Goodwin Ald Jarman
For √ √ √
Against Ald Keay Ald Laycock Ald Martin
For √ √ √
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4.2
MINUTES OF THE SPORT AND RECREATION STRATEGIC SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETING - 6 APRIL 2016 (D413710) CSC 21/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Martin Ald Laycock
That it be recommended to Council that the minutes of the Sport and Recreation Strategic Special Committee meeting held on 6 April 2016 be received and noted Ald Rockliff Ald Goodwin Ald Jarman
For √ √ √
Against Ald Keay Ald Laycock Ald Martin
For √ √ √
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4.3
CIRCUS BOOKINGS (D409984) CSC 22/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Goodwin Ald Keay
That it be recommended to Council that the report of the Executive Manager Corporate, Community and Business Services regarding circus bookings be received and noted and that Council: 1.
Approve the existing booking requests for both the Loritz and Great Moscow Circus; and
2.
introduce a six month exclusivity period for circus bookings in Devonport commencing from March 2017.
ITEM 7.3
PAGE 281 Minutes - Community Services Committee - 2016/04/18
Ald Rockliff Ald Goodwin Ald Jarman
For √ √ √
ATTACHMENT [1]
Against Ald Keay Ald Laycock Ald Martin
For √ √ √
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4.4
TEN DAYS ON THE ISLAND 2017 (D407098) CSC 23/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Goodwin Ald Jarman
That it be recommended to Council that the funding request from Ten Days on the Island relating to their 2017 event be declined. Ald Rockliff Ald Goodwin Ald Jarman
For √ √ √
Against
For √ √ √
Ald Keay Ald Laycock Ald Martin
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4.5
ENERGY EFFICIENCY STRATEGY - YEAR THREE STATUS (D413696) CSC 24/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Goodwin Ald Jarman
That it be recommended to Council that the report of the Executive Officer Community Services be received and Council note the status of actions listed in the Devonport Energy Efficiency Strategy. Ald Rockliff Ald Goodwin Ald Jarman
For √ √ √
Against Ald Keay Ald Laycock Ald Martin
For √ √ √
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4.6
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY - YEAR TWO STATUS (D413901) CSC 25/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Martin Ald Goodwin
That it be recommended to Council that the report of the Executive Officer Community Services be received and Council note the status of actions listed in the Devonport Environmental Sustainability Strategy. Ald Rockliff Ald Goodwin Ald Jarman
For √ √ √
Against Ald Keay Ald Laycock Ald Martin
For √ √ √
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ITEM 7.3
PAGE 282 Minutes - Community Services Committee - 2016/04/18
4.7
ATTACHMENT [1]
REALLOCATION OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE - SISTER CITIES 20 YEAR ANNIVERSARY COMMEMORATIVE SEAT (D414545) CSC 26/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Laycock Ald Martin
That it be recommended to Council that capital project CP0120 be modified to allow for the purchase and planting of 20 high (mature) cherry blossoms along Formby Road to commemorate the 20 years of friendship between Minamata and Devonport and note that this will result in expected over expenditure of this budget item of $5,000. Ald Rockliff Ald Goodwin Ald Jarman
For √ √ √
Against Ald Keay Ald Laycock Ald Martin
For √ √ √
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4.8
COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - APRIL 2016 (D411947) CSC 27/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Martin Ald Keay
That it be recommended to Council that the Community Services report be received and noted. Ald Rockliff Ald Goodwin Ald Jarman
For √ √ √
Against Ald Keay Ald Laycock Ald Martin
For √ √ √
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY There being no further business on the agenda the Chairman declared the meeting closed at 6:35pm. Confirmed
Chairman
ITEM 7.3
PAGE 283 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
8.0
CLOSED SESSION
RECOMMENDATION That in accordance with Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, the following be dealt with in Closed Session.
Item No
Matter
Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 Reference
8.1
Application for Leave of Absence
15(2)(i)
8.2
Unconfirmed Minutes - Cradle Coast 15(2)(g) Authority Board Meeting held 8 March 2016
8.3
2-12 Murray Street, East Devonport
15(2)(f)
8.4
17 Fenton Way Potential Tenancy
15(2)(c)
PAGE 284 Council meeting Agenda 26 April 2016
OUT OF CLOSED SESSION RECOMMENDATION That Council: (a)
having met and dealt with its business formally move out of Closed Session; and
(b)
resolves to report that it has determined the following:
Item No
Matter
Outcome
8.1
Application for Leave of Absence
Noted
8.2
Unconfirmed Minutes - Cradle Coast Noted Authority Board Meeting held 8 March 2016
8.3
2-12 Murray Street, East Devonport
8.4
17 Fenton Way Potential Tenancy
9.0
CLOSURE
There being no further business the Mayor declared the meeting closed at <insert time> pm.