|
|
Minutes
Annual General
Meeting
|
Page 4
|
|
|
21/11/2016
|
|
Ms Jane Turner
Mr Robert Vincent
Mr Antonio Wang
Ms Penny Webb
Mr Mark Wise
Mr Cliff Iles, Association of Independent Retirees Ltd, Hobart
Branch
Dr Lei Si, Australia Chinese Association of Biomedical Sciences
Tasmania Branch
Ms Anne Reed, Battery Point Community Association
Ms Elizabeth McKay, Buckingham Bowls Club
Mr Brian Chung, Chinese Community Association of Tasmania Inc.
Mr Harry Chung, Chinese Community Association of Tasmania Inc.
Ms Lili Sun, Chinese Community Association
of Tasmania Inc. & Tasmanian Chinese Art & Communication Society
Dr Wei Hu, Chinese Community Association of Tasmania Inc.
Mr Chen Ping, Chinese Contemporary Art Tasmania, International
Artists’ Network
Ms Diana Carter, Colony Outreach Support Service
Mr Eric Pinkard, Council of Hobart Community
Association
Mr David Daniels, Drug Education Network
Inc.
Mr Glen Hoppit, Fin Swimming
Ms Helen Lane, Fin Swimming
Mr Paul Munting, Hobart Football Club
Mr Patrick Barlow, Jacaranda Communications
Ms Ros Cornish, Lady Gowrie
Ms Dorothy Kelly, National Council of Women
Coalition (Tas) Inc.
Ms Melissa Harvey, Rotary Club of Salamanca
Mr John Wise, Sandy Bay Senior Citizens
Club
Mr David Halse Rogers, South Hobart
Progress Association
Mr Kevin Wilson, South Hobart Progress
Association & Council of Hobart Community Association
Mr Derek Harnwell, Speak Out Advocacy
Mr Andy Chen, Tasmanian Chinese Art &
Communication Society
Mr Arman Bratamidjaja, Tasmanian Indonesian
Cultural & Art Society & Indonesian Student Association of Tasmania
Mr Randy Felim, Tasmanian Indonesian
Cultural and Art Society & Indonesian Student Association of Tasmania
Ms Janet Carding, Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery
Mr Shane Fenner, Tasmanians with Disabilities
Mr Paul Turvey, West Hobart / City West Neighbourhood Watch
APOLOGIES
Alderman P S Cocker
Ms Jessica Norton, Young Citizen of the
Year
Mr David Hudson, Hobart City Council Risk
and Audit Panel
Mr Joss Fenton, Hobart City Council Risk
and Audit Panel
Dr Clare Allen
Ms Leanne Groombridge, Advocacy Tasmania
Inc.
Ms Kerry McMin, Albuera Street Primary
School
Mr Chris Jones, Anglicare Tasmania Inc.
Mr Robert Wallace, The Anglican Diocese of
Tasmania
Mrs Jackie Slyp, Arthritis Tasmania
Ms Gabby Steele, Athletics Tasmania Inc.
Ms Yi Yang, Australian Chinese Association
of Biomedical Sciences
Mr Yuan Zhou, Australian Chinese
Association of Biomedical Sciences
(Tasmania Branch)
Mr Frans Sakul, Australian Indonesian Association of Tasmania
Mr Stuart Nettlefold, Business Events
Tasmania
Ms Janine Arnold, Carers Tasmania
Mr. Ron Ward, CatholicCare
Ms Helen Smith, The Catholic Church Office
Ms Judith Gibbens, Catholic Women’s
League Tasmania Inc.
Mr Daniel Chan, Chinese Community
Association of Tasmania Inc.
Ms Lily Chan, Chinese Community Association
of Tasmania Inc.
Ms Yongbei Tang, Chinese Cultural Society
of Tasmania
Mr Danny Sutton, Colony 47 Inc.
Mr Shannan Bavage, Cosgrove High School
Mr Stephen Burk, Cricket Tasmania
Mary McParland, Cycling South
Mr Carl Harris, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Dr Steve Chau, Derwent Sailing Squadron
Dr Vicki Gardiner, Engineers Australia
Mr Nelson File, The Friends’ School
Mr John Stubley, Hobart City Mission Inc.
Ms Helen Watling, Hobart Legacy
Ms Sarah Charlton, Holyoake Tasmania Inc.
Mr Gary Neal, IPWEA
Ms Debbie Evans, Lifeline Hobart
Ms Kim Newstead, Maritime Museum Tasmania
Inc.
Ms Elizabeth Jack, Macquarie Point
Development Corporation
Ms Connie Digolis, Mental Health Council
Mr Noel Mundy, Mission Australia –
Tasmania Branch
Mr Ralph Doedens, Mosaic Support Services
Mr Damon Wise, The Mercury, Sunday
Tasmanian, Tas Country, The Gazette
Ms Allison O’Niell, Migrant Resource
Centre
Ms Mandy Reynolds-Smith, Montrose Bay High
School
Mr David Clements, National Disability
Services
Mr Graeme Lynch, National Heart Foundation
(Tasmania Division)
Ms Julia Phillipas, Netball Tasmania
Ms Maisie Dobson, New Town Senior Citizens
Club Inc.
Mr Victor Folloso, Philippines-Australia
Community of Tasmania Inc.
Mrs Raquel Folloso, Philippines-Australia
Community of Tasmania Inc.
Mr Harvey Lennon, RACT
Ms Penny Richardson, Ronald McDonald House, Hobart
Mrs Mary Langdon, Royal Guide Dogs
Association
Mr Alec Young, Royal Hobart Regatta Association
Mr Terry Roe, RSL of Australia (Tasmania
Branch)
Ms Ann Shield, Sandy Bay Bowls Club
Mr Roy Savage, Seabrook Christian School
Mrs Elaine Doran, St Aloysius Catholic
College (Senior School)
Ms Marina Campbell, St Vincent De Paul
Society
Mr Damien Messer, St Virgil’s College
Mr Tony van den Enden, Surf Life Saving
Tasmania
Mr Jamie McIntyre, Swimming Tasmania
Ms Angela Yao, Tasmanian Chinese Art & Communication Society
Ms Kym Goodes, Tasmanian Council of Social
Services (TasCoss)
Mr Paul Austin, Tasmanian Institute of
Sport
Rhonda O’Sign, Tasmanian Little
Athletics
Mr Nick Di Giovanni, Tilford Zebras
Football Club
Mr John Fitzgerald, Tourism Tasmania
Mr Christopher Wright, Underwater Hockey
Tasmania
Ms Lindy O’Neill, Unitingcare
Tasmania
Ms Sally Gill, Waimea Heights Primary
School
Mr Richard Latham, Waterfront Business
Community
Mr Geoff Frost, Wesley Hobart Uniting
Church
LEAVE
OF ABSENCE
Aldermen
J R Briscoe, H C Burnet and D C Thomas.
The Lord Mayor
opened the meeting at 7.00 pm, welcomed those in attendance and noted the
apologies.
|
The Chairman noted the
minutes of the 2015 Annual General Meeting held on 23 November 2015, which
were endorsed by the Council at its meeting held on 7 December 2015.
|
|
Attachments
ATTACHMENT A Meeting
Procedures
The Lord Mayor noted that the procedures for the conduct
of the meeting were attached to the agenda.
|
4.1 Lord
Mayor’s address in respect to the 2016 Annual Report.
The
Lord Mayor addressed the meeting in relation to the City’s achievements
for the 2015/2016 year in review and the Annual Report.
The Lord
Mayor’s full address is noted into the minutes of the meeting.
4.2 Acknowledgement
of written submissions from electors of the City of Hobart in relation to the
2015/2016 Annual Report.
There were no written submissions
received in relation to the 2015/2016 Annual Report.
4.3 Invitation
to the community to ask questions in relation to the Annual Report and
Council’s activities.
The Deputy Lord Mayor invited
questions from those in attendance at the meeting which are summarised below,
together with the responses provided:
Question 1
Mr David Halse Rogers
South Hobart
Progress Association
With reference to PD 4.1, or the
equivalent in the Interim Scheme why doesn’t the Hobart City Council
limit the extent of the Inner City Provisions of the Interim Planning Scheme to
an area between Bathurst, Burnett and Argyle Streets – a mixed use area
already?” What have been the unforseen consequences to adjoining
suburbs, such as South, West and North Hobart by not defining this area?
Answer
provided by James McIlhenny, Acting Director City Planning:
The
area between Bathurst, Burnett and Argyle (and Elizabeth) Streets is zoned
Central Business, Commercial, Urban Mixed Use or Inner Residential in the
Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2105.
It
would not be appropriate to apply the Inner Residential Zone provisions to all
of this area given the intensive commercial development within it and would not
have been an appropriate translation from the previous Planning Scheme.
Question
2
Mr David Halse Rogers
South Hobart
Progress Association
Why have plot
ratios in effect increased by a factor of 2.5 to 3 thus unbalancing the
property market?
Answer
provided by James McIlhenny, Acting Director City Planning:
Plot
ratio is not used as a development control in the Hobart Interim Planning
Scheme 2015. Development densities in the Inner Residential Zone are
controlled through height and site coverage standards. The maximum
permitted height is 9.5m and the maximum permitted site coverage is 50%.
Under the previous Planning Scheme the maximum permitted height was 9.0m and
the maximum permitted site coverage was 40% in most of the Residential 1, 3 and
4 Zone Precincts.
The Interim Scheme was required to
provide for an increase in residential densities in order to be consistent with
the Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy declared by the Minister for
Planning.
Question 3
Mr David Halse Rogers
South Hobart
Progress Association
Does the HCC
realise the negative impacts on surrounding properties due to the fact that
there has not been a like-for-like rezoning in the transition from the previous
planning Scheme to the interim Scheme? Will Council consider amending the
interim Scheme to address this inconsistency?
Answer
provided by James McIlhenny, Acting Director City Planning:
The
Inner Residential Zone in the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 was applied
to the areas previously zoned Residential 1, 3 or 4 under the City of Hobart
Planning Scheme 1982. These zones provided for higher residential
densities than the Residential 2 Zone and the Inner Residential Zone was the
most similar replacement zone from those available in the Planning Scheme
Template.
The
Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 required the Interim Scheme to be
consistent with the Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy. This
Strategy required an increase in residential densities in order to meet the
target of 50% of new residential development in the region to be infill
development and to encourage a greater mix of dwelling types to cater for demographic
change including an ageing population.
Question 4
Ms Penny Webb
In reference to resident
concerns that the entrance to the development at 337 Churchill Avenue was
dangerous.
The stated aim of the Hobart
City Council’s Future Directions Policy is to ‘achieve good quality
development and urban management’. Does this not imply a
development should enhance a neighbourhood and not create further problems? How
is this possible to achieve with an Interim Planning Scheme which can allow
approval for high density development whilst disregarding its impact on the
characteristics of the neighbourhood as well as ignoring significant safety
issues? Please explain.
Answer
provided by James McIlhenny, Acting Director City Planning:
The Hobart
City Council strives to achieve good quality development and urban management
within the legislative constraints imposed on it. The standards for
residential development in the General Residential Zone (Hobart Interim
Planning Scheme 2015) are mandated by the State Government through Planning
Directive 4.1. These standards do not require specific consideration of
neighbourhood character where the relevant development standards are met.
The PD4.1 standards do address amenity impacts on adjoining
properties.
Safety issues related to the
design of vehicular access points are addressed through standards in the Road
and Railways Assets Code and the Parking and Access Code. The recent
development application at 337 Churchill Ave was assessed against these
standards and Council’s Traffic Engineer was of the opinion that the
access location would be safe.
Question 5
Ms Penny Webb
Will Council
consider amending the Interim Planning Scheme to ensure it can fulfil its
stated policies?
Answer
provided by James McIlhenny, Acting Director City Planning:
The standards for
residential development in the General Residential Zone (Hobart Interim
Planning Scheme 2015) are mandated by the State Government through Planning
Directive 4.1. Council does not have the ability to amend these standards
in the Interim Planning Scheme.
Question 6
Mr Michael Meredith
I understand
that the State Government has legislated that Tasmanian Councils administer
this interim planning scheme, this arrangement means that it is the
Councils’, are the public face of the Interim Planning Scheme and not the
State Government which has instigated it and this doesn’t seem to be
understood by the community.
There
is a great deal of public concern about the Interim Planning Scheme, partly
because the government has not explained to its citizens what the provisions of
the act are.
Why doesn’t the Hobart
City Council make a point of informing its ratepayers what the provisions of
the act are as far as its own jurisdiction is concerned?
Answer
provided by James McIlhenny, Acting Director City Planning:
The
Interim Planning Scheme is based on the state government’s planning
scheme template and so it has state wide components, as well as Southern
Tasmanian regional components. The 12 Councils in the Southern region
have developed a lot of the scheme in a consistent manner and there are local
components within each of those schemes as well.
That
scheme has been through a number of consultation processes and has been subject
to both informal comment and formal representations and hearings before the
planning commission.
In
regard to the Statewide planning scheme, this was placed on public exhibition
earlier this year by the State Government and the Council made a detailed
representation in relation to its concerns about that scheme to the planning
commission.
Over
the last few months the planning commission has been considering over 300
representations statewide made in relation to the State Planning provisions and
is to report to the Minister for Planning by the end of the year. Once
the Minister is happy with the final version of the State Planning Scheme its
then up to each Council in Tasmania to prepare a local provision schedule and
that will go through Council’s approval process and have a public
exhibition and hearing process. It is anticipated that Hobart Council
will undertake this around the middle of next year and there will be
opportunity for public consultation.
The existing scheme is a very
lengthy and complex document of over 800 pages and it is not an easy document
to explain and it is understandable that members of the public find the
Tasmanian planning system complex, particularly at the moment when we’re
operating the interim scheme. The City would welcome suggestions as to
how we could explain those provisions to the public.
Question 7
Mr Bryan Core
Lenah Valley Community Association
In
regards to the development at 119 New Town Road, there was a report on the 26
July in The Mercury which detailed that development quoted:
“Hobart
Lord Mayor Sue Hickey rubbished a suggestion that New Town Road is a heritage
precinct. To say that’s a heritage precinct defines
imagination”
I
would like to know where does the Lord Mayor stand on the issue of heritage, in
particular along that strip?
Answer
provided by the Lord Mayor, Alderman Sue Hickey:
As
a previous resident of New Town for over 12 years, I lived in the old New Town
Hall which I cherished and restored, respecting its valuable heritage despite
not being on the heritage register at the time. I am a true believer in true
heritage and I am dead against ‘facadism’ – just keeping a
facade and gutting the history of a building.
I’m
a firm believer in heritage and I do stand by what I said. I don’t
believe that all of New Town Road is a heritage strip, despite having some
heritage gems, including the building I owned.
I
will always fight to protect true heritage and you have my word on that.
Especially in sacred areas like Battery Point and South Hobart. I believe there
should be a law, that owners of true heritage buildings should be obliged to
maintain them.
The
Council is faced with a juggling act day in day out and we had to weigh it up
with our professional officers’ advice. The new development would
allow improvements to a completely run down building, meet our criteria for
density and would allow for more people to live in our City.
Question 8
Mr Bryan Core
Lenah Valley Community Association
What is the
status of the current development? Has it gone to the tribunal? Has the City
prepared it’d defence? Will the decision go back to Council?
Answer
provided by James McIlhenny, Acting Director City Planning:
The current
status of the development is unknown and the question is taken on notice.
Question 9
Mr Leo Foley
In
respect to the Taste of Tasmania, I’m pleased to the see that the State
Government has come on board as a sponsor to the value of $50,000 but I’m
less pleased to see that the Council has given the money away.
Why
after years of saying that the ratepayers are supporting the Taste, when we
finally get a donation from the State Government do we then direct it on to the
stall holders.
How
would the State Government view us giving away their money?
How would the North Hobart
restaurant strip feel about us supporting another group of food businesses over
the Christmas period?
Answer
provided by Mr Philip Holliday, Director Community Development:
The
Taste of Tasmania is committed to ensuring we have a truly statewide event and
we are forging a very strong partnership with our stallholders. The City
sees the stallholders as critical to the event and as part of our very
extensive consultation that was undertaken at the conclusion of last
year’s event, it became very clear that some of those stallholders were
finding it very difficult to participate in the event, and particularly so from
elsewhere in the state.
While
the event is held in Hobart, it is a representation of the entire state and we
are promoting the success of our food and beverage sector nationally and
internationally. To ensure the very best quality and the broadest breadth
of product we wanted to provide some cost relief for those stallholder fees.
We’re
also partnering with the state government to do some regional promotion for
producers around the state. It was very clear that stallholders were feeling
the pinch and the City was keen not to compromise on the quality of this event
and as such provided some financial relief.
Additional
comments provided by the Lord Mayor, Alderman Sue Hickey:
From
the Council’s consultation with stallholders several issues were raised:
·
Stallholders coming from elsewhere
in the state were spending $4,000+ per week in accommodation to participate in
the event.
·
During this time of year, there
are four public holidays that stallholders have to take into account when
paying their staff at higher rates.
·
Wine vendors found selling the
City’s glasses was cumbersome, time consuming and of no benefit to stallholders.
As
a result of this feedback the City approached the state government for funding
on behalf of the stallholders and as such the City was able to cap stallholder
fees at $2,000 per stall which is in line with MONA and Festivale.
The
City will also be partnering with the University of Tasmania to fill accommodation
needs.
This is about making businesses
viable in representing the island to both our guests and the local community.
Question 10
Mr Kevin Wilson
South Hobart Progress Association
Does the
Council have any plans to expand the use of the Your Say Hobart webpage,
particularly to allow for something like a Q&A function or an online
debate?
Answer
provided by Mr Philip Holliday, Director Community Development:
The
Council has had a community engagement strategy in place from around 2008 and
we are currently in the process of reviewing that framework. We are
looking at ways to enhance our engagement with the community including our
online capacity.
The
City is looking into a whole range of new methodologies to assist us in
engaging with the community. We have engaged a full time Community
Engagement Advisor and that officer has been imbedded within a range of
projects including the Sandy Bay and Lenah Valley retail precincts.
We see engagement as a combination
of face-to-face engagement as well as enhancing our online capacity over time.
Question 11
Mr Chris Merridew
The
current approach used by the Hobart City Council to advertise development
applications does not distinguish between the various scales of
development such as a carport, signage or a 70m high hotel.
In
addition to this, the 14 advertising period over the Christmas period, does not
take into account all the public holidays, annual leave and flex days for staff
making it difficult for the community to contact the City’s planning
officers about the projects.
Can
the City look to broaden the advertised descriptions of development
applications and lengthen the advertising period?
Answer
provided by James McIlhenny, Acting Director City Planning:
The
advertising period that Council undertakes is done in accordance with the legislative
which is 14 days. While there is scope to extend this period by another
14 days, Council has consistently used the 14 day period because the Council
has only 42 days in which to determine an application.
If
the advertising period were to be extended, it would result in a reduced amount
of time that the City has to assess any representations made, and facilitate consideration
of the application by Council.
The City will take onboard
comments about making individual advertisements more descriptive and therefore
more informative.
Question 12
Mr Peter Black
In
relation to the development application that proposed 75m tower in the City of
Hobart area.
What’s
the use of a planning scheme that isn’t upheld and maintained and if
someone with lots of money can come along to build something of “state
significance”.
Will the Sullivans Cove
Planning Scheme survive the new state-wide planning scheme?
Answer provided
by James McIlhenny, Acting Director City Planning:
Council
has no control over who submits an application or what the nature of that
application is. Council will be required to assess that application in
accordance with the provisions of the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme.
The
Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme will become part of the Hobart Planning Scheme
with special considerations given to these local areas.
The
Battery Point Planning Scheme was incorporated into the Hobart Interim Planning
Scheme, however there are specific provisions and a specific heritage area that
protects the heritage of Battery Point.
It’s intended that the
Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme will become part of the Tasmanian Planning
Scheme, so it will be covered by the local provision schedule and there will be
a series of particular purpose zones and specific area plans which will address
development in Sullivans Cove.
4.4 Call
for a motion to adopt the 2015/2016 City of Hobart Annual Report.
DEPUTY LORD
MAYOR
RUZICKA
That the
City of Hobart Annual Report for 2015/2016 be adopted.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
VOTING
RECORD
|
AYES
|
NOES
|
|
Lord Mayor Hickey
|
|
|
Deputy Lord Mayor Christie
|
|
|
Zucco
|
|
|
Ruzicka
|
|
|
Sexton
|
|
|
Reynolds
|
|
|
Denison
|
|
|
Harvey
|
|
There being no
further business, the Lord Mayor closed the meeting at
8.48 pm.
TAKEN AS READ AND SIGNED AS A CORRECT RECORD
THIS 5th DAY OF december 2016.
