Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 4

16/11/2016

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting (Open Portion) held Wednesday, 16 November 2016 at 5:00 pm in the Lady Osborne Room, Town Hall.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Burnet (Chairman)

Deputy Lord Mayor Christie

Reynolds

Denison

Harvey

APOLOGIES:

LEAVE OF ABSENCE: Nil

ALDERMEN

Lord Mayor Hickey

Zucco

Briscoe

Ruzicka

Sexton

Cocker

Thomas

1. Co-Option of a Committee Member in the event of a vacancy

2. Confirmation of Minutes

The minutes of the Open Portion of the City Infrastructure Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 26 October 2016, are submitted for confirming as an accurate record.

3. Consideration of Supplementary Items

Ref: Part 2, Regulation 8(6) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

Recommendation

That the Committee resolve to deal with any supplementary items not appearing on the agenda, as reported by the General Manager.

4. Indications of Pecuniary and Conflicts of Interest

Ref: Part 2, Regulation 8(7) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

Aldermen are requested to indicate where they may have any pecuniary or conflict of interest in respect to any matter appearing on the agenda, or any supplementary item to the agenda, which the committee has resolved to deal with.

5. Transfer of Agenda Items

Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

A committee may close a part of a meeting to the public where a matter to be discussed falls within 15(2) of the above regulations.

In the event that the committee transfer an item to the closed portion, the reasons for doing so should be stated.

Are there any items which should be transferred from this agenda to the closed portion of the agenda, or from the closed to the open portion of the agenda?

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 7

16/11/2016

REPORT TITLE: McRobies Gully Waste Management Centre - Draft Good Neighbour Agreement

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Cleansing & Solid Waste Policy Coordinator

Manager Cleansing & Solid Waste

Director Parks and City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement to release the Draft McRobies Gully Waste Management Centre Good Neighbour Agreement (“the Agreement”), for public comment.

1.2. The report provides information regarding the development of the Draft Agreement between the City and representatives of the South Hobart Community, and includes a copy of the Draft Agreement (refer Attachment A).

1.3. The development of a Good Neighbour Agreement is detailed within the City’s Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030.

2. Report Summary

2.1. During the public consultation process associated with the Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030, it was identified that the development of a Good Neighbour Agreement for the McRobies Gully Waste Management Centre (“the Centre) would be beneficial.

2.2. The Draft Agreement outlines the City’s commitment to operate the Centre in a manner that manages and minimises the local impacts of associated operations such as noise, traffic, and environmental impacts. The Draft Agreement also aims to encourage the community to engage with the City to raise issues and work out solutions through a structured meeting format.

2.3. The Agreement will lead to an enhanced relationship between the City and neighbours of the Centre.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Draft McRobies Gully Waste Management Centre Good Neighbour Agreement, marked as Attachment A to the report, be endorsed for release for public comment.

2. Following the public comment period, a final version of the Agreement be submitted to the Council for adoption.

4. Background

4.1. The public consultation process undertaken during the development of the Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030 indicated a strong community interest in the management and operations of the McRobies Gully Waste Management Centre.

4.2. The idea of developing a Good Neighbour Agreement was discussed at public forums held to inform the development of the Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030 receiving significant community support.

4.3. The consultant undertaking the waste strategy public consultation process for the City (MRA Consulting Group) was subsequently engaged to facilitate the development of such an Agreement.

4.4. Key stakeholders were identified (the Good Neighbour Working Group) to participate in scoping and then drafting the Agreement with a view to then participate in future meetings as representatives of the community. The Good Neighbour Working Group (GNWG) representatives have networks in South Hobart enabling provision of information and feedback on issues relevant to the operations of the waste management centre.

4.5. The GNWG consisted of Anna Reynolds and representatives of the South Hobart Sustainable Community, South Hobart Progress Association, and the Port Arthur Historic Site (Cascades Female Factory).

4.6. The GNWG met several times to scope the intent and then draft the Agreement. A recent draft of the Agreement was made available to the wider community for comment by members of the group prior to the development of the final draft Agreement presented in this report.

4.7. The scope of the Agreement is for the operations and management of the Centre and how this inter-relates with neighbours in the South Hobart Community.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed to release the Draft Agreement for public comment, for a period of 4 weeks.

5.2. Following the public comment period, City Officers will assess any comments received and make any changes considered necessary, and provide a final Agreement to Council for adoption.

5.3. After final adoption of the Agreement, the GNWG will be invited to meet with City Officers on a quarterly basis.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The development of a Good Neighbour Agreement is detailed in the Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030, as Action 3.12, and planned to be implemented in the 2016/2017 year.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Preparation of the Agreement was funded from the Solid Waste Strategy and Projects Budget Function (240).

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. No Impact

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. There are no legal, risk and legislative considerations associated with this report.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. The Agreement will provide information to the public on a range of environmental considerations associated with the waste management centre, including waste data, water monitoring data and resource recovery and reuse information.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. The Agreement has been developed to improve the relationship and flow of information between the City and the South Hobart Community (both ways).

10.2. The process will increase the ability for members of the South Hobart Community to engage with the City on matters associated with the Centre and provide a direct, face to face point of contact.

11. Marketing and Media

11.1. The Agreement will require marketing for its release for public comment, in addition to advising the public of upcoming meetings.

12. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

12.1. The Agreement has been developed through discussion with key representatives of the South Hobart community neighbouring the Centre.

The stakeholder group consisted of Anna Reynolds and representatives of the South Hobart Sustainable Community, South Hobart Progress Association, and the Port Arthur Historic Site (Cascades Female Factory).

12.2. A recent draft of the Agreement was circulated by members of the GNWG group to the wider community for comment, prior to the development of the final draft version of the agreement which is attached to this report.

13. Delegation

13.1. This matter is delegated to the Council.

As signatory to this report, I certify that, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, I hold no interest, as referred to in Section 49 of the Local Government Act 1993, in matters contained in this report.

Jeff Holmes

Cleansing & Solid Waste Policy Coordinator

David Holman

Manager Cleansing & Solid Waste

Glenn Doyle

Director Parks and City Amenity

Date: 11 November 2016

File Reference: F16/124967; 44-1-1

Attachment a: Draft McRobies Gully Waste Management Centre Good Neighbour Agreement ⇩

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 19

16/11/2016

REPORT TITLE: Road Naming - Amendment to Policy

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Road and Environmental Engineering

Director City Infrastructure

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Council’s policy on road naming be amended to:

1.1.1. give preference to names which have an historical connection with an area and which better reflect the City’s cultural diversity, and

1.1.2. reflect the Nomenclature Board’s Rules for Place Names in Tasmania and the requirements of the Australian Standard.

1.2. The proposed amendment to the policy would give clearer guidance to people proposing new road names and would provide an opportunity for the city’s cultural diversity to be better reflected.

2. Report Summary

2.1. In considering a proposal to name new roads created by a subdivision in Lenah Valley, the Council resolved on 21 December 2015 (inter alia) that:

“The Council’s policy on road naming be reviewed to give preference to road names which have an historical connection with the area and provide opportunities to better represent the city’s cultural diversity”.

2.2. The Council’s current policy on road naming is provided as Attachment A to this report.

2.3. In reviewing the policy it is also recommended that the policy refer to both the Nomenclature Board’s Rules for Place Names in Tasmania (Attachment B) and the relevant Australian Standard for street name signs to ensure that the road names being approved by the Council are consistent with statewide and national controls.

2.4. The proposed revision to the policy in revisions format is provided as Attachment C.

2.5. Due to the significant revision proposed to the policy, the proposed policy is provided as Attachment D.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council’s Road Naming policy be amended as shown in Attachment D to this report.

4. Background

4.1. The Council has approved a number of larger scale subdivisions in the last two years which have also involved the creation of new public roads.

4.2. The Council has the responsibility for naming roads and it has been the City’s practice to give the developer of the subdivision the opportunity to suggest a name for any new road, noting that the name must be in accordance with the Nomenclature Board’s Rules for Place Names in Tasmania.

4.2.1. Members of the public can also suggest road names for a subdivision, which officers would then provide to the developer for consideration.

4.3. Proposed road names must be in accordance with Nomenclature Board’s Rules for Place Names in Tasmania.

4.4. When names are suggested, officers consult with Australia Post and adjoining councils to ensure that the proposed name does not conflict with or is likely to cause confusion with road names which have already been approved for use in other areas.

4.4.1. The Rules for Place Names in Tasmania states that “the duplication of place-names in Tasmania must not occur.”

4.4.2. Historically a number of roads have been given the same or similar names – such as King, Beach, Hill, Jetty, Franklin and Smith which causes confusion for visitors, taxis, Australia Post and emergency services. There is a community and public safety benefit in preventing such duplication.

4.5. The Council then considers the proposal to name the new roads.

4.6. The City Infrastructure Committee has recently noted the lack of diversity in the new road names that have been suggested, specifically noting the under representation of women and people from non-English speaking backgrounds.

4.7. The Australian Standard AS1742.5 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices - Street Name and Community Facility Name Signs, specifically Section 2 described the minimum and maximum road name sign length, which should also be considered when selecting a name for a new road to ensure that the name is not overly long.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed to amend the Council’s road naming policy to:

5.1.1. give preference to names which have an historical connection with an area and which better reflect the City’s cultural diversity, and

5.1.2. reflect the Nomenclature Board’s Rules for Place Names in Tasmania and the requirements of the Australian Standard AS1742.5.

5.2. Some administrative amendments are also proposed to the policy to clarify the role of the Committee and the Council in naming roads.

5.3. The amended policy would apply from the date of the Council’s decision.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. Strategic objective 5.1 is relevant in considering this report – “The organisation is relevant to the community and provides good governance and decision making”.

6.2. Strategic objective 4.4 is also relevant – “Community diversity is encouraged and celebrated”.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. There are no financial implications associated with the proposed amendment to the policy.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. Section 20E of the Survey Coordination Act 1944 allows the Council to assign names to new roads and requires that the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania be advised of the Council’s decision.

8.2. Similarly, the Survey Coordination Act 1944 allows the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania to create and adopt the rules for place names in Tasmania.

9. Social and Customer Considerations

9.1. The proposed amendment to the policy will provide clarity and direction to people proposing new road names and states the Council’s preference for a more socially inclusive policy which reflects the cultural and linguistic diversity of the city.

10. Delegation

10.1. This is a matter for the Council to determine.

John Holmes

Manager Road and Environmental Engineering

Mark Painter

Director City Infrastructure

Date: 11 November 2016

File Reference: F16/118341

Attachment a: Road Naming Policy - Current ⇩

Attachment b: Rules for Place Names in Tasmania ⇩

Attachment c: Road Naming Policy - Revisions ⇩

Attachment d: Road Naming Policy - Proposed ⇩

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting - 16/11/2016

Page 25

ATTACHMENT b

PDF Creator

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 87

16/11/2016

REPORT TITLE: D'Arcy Street Roundabout Upgrade - Response to Petition

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Traffic Engineering

Director City Infrastructure

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report is provided in response to a petition tabled at the Council meeting of 14 October 2016 regarding the D’Arcy Street / Washington Street / Macquarie Street intersection.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The petition, with 296 signatories (copy included as Attachment A), requested that the Council undertake some maintenance works at the D’Arcy Street / Washington Street / Macquarie Street intersection and improve the pedestrian crossing points. Furthermore, the petition requests the intersection is upgraded to improve safety, slow vehicle speeds and create clearer pedestrian crossing points.

2.2. The petition also seeks a speed limit reduction to 40 km/h along Macquarie Street between D’Arcy Street and the Southern Outlet.

2.3. The City has maintenance and minor upgrade works programmed at the D’Arcy Street / Washington Street / Macquarie Street intersection commencing in January 2017. The works include pavement repairs; the installation of pram ramps; improved pedestrian islands in D’Arcy Street, Washington Street and Cascade Road; some footpath repaving; and new bicycle parking.

2.4. The Local Retail Precinct Plan adopted by the Council in December 2015 included consideration of Macquarie Street between the Southern Outlet and D’Arcy Street. The streetscape improvement works in South Hobart are programmed to be undertaken in the 2020-2021 financial year, with design development to occur in the preceding year. The concept design for the South Hobart Retail Precinct includes consideration of changes to the traffic management arrangements at the D’Arcy Street / Washington Street / Macquarie Street intersection.

2.5. Works to improve the existing pedestrian islands in Macquarie Street (between the Southern Outlet and Elboden Street) is also programmed to be completed this financial year through a combination of Council funding and an Australian Government grant through the Black Spot program.

2.6. Speed limits are set by the Department of State Growth. The Department has indicated that a 40 km/h speed limit would be considered in the Local Retail Precinct areas once changes have been implemented in the road environment to support the lower speed limit.

2.7. All matters highlighted in the petition are already projects identified in the Council’s maintenance program or the 10‑year capital works program. It is not proposed to change the scope of timing of the programmed works in this area.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council endorse that the projects currently proposed at the intersection of D’Arcy Street / Washington Street / Macquarie Streets, South Hobart, continue as programmed.

2. The organiser of the petition be notified of the Council’s decision.

4. Background

4.1. A petition with 296 signatories (Attachment A), requested that the Council undertake some maintenance works at the D’Arcy Street / Washington Street / Macquarie Street intersection and improve the pedestrian crossing points. Furthermore, the petition requests the intersection is upgraded to improve safety, slow vehicle speeds and create clearer pedestrian crossing points.

4.2. The petition also seeks a speed limit reduction to 40 km/h along Macquarie Street between D’Arcy Street and the Southern Outlet.

4.3. The intersection of D’Arcy Street / Washington Street / Macquarie Street is shown in Figure 1 below. The intersection is controlled by a series of traffic islands (colloquially termed the “half-roundabout”).

Figure 1 – Plan of the D’Arcy Street / Washington Street / Macquarie Street intersection

4.4. In the last five years there have been only five crashes reported at this location. All crashes involved two cars and resulted in property damage only. None of the crashes involved a pedestrian, bicycle or motorbike. Although many people consider the intersection is confusing, this is not translating into a road safety issue at the junction.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The petition raised concerns about “the very poor condition of the roundabout at the corner of D’Arcy, Washington and Macquarie Streets in South Hobart – the pavement and road are disintegrating and it’s not clear where the pedestrians can safely cross. This crossing point is used by many residents to walk between the D’Arcy Street park, community centre, the South Hobart Oval and around the shopping area. There are many children walking and riding to school who cross here”.

5.2. The City’s officers are well aware of these issues and maintenance and minor upgrade works are programmed to be undertaken at this location, commencing in January 2017. The works include:

a) Pavement repairs in D’Arcy Street and Washington Street.

b) The installation of pram ramps along Macquarie Street (through the “half roundabout”), across D’Arcy Street and Washington Street (around the “half roundabout”) and across Cascade Road. A total of eight pram ramps will be constructed.

c) Improved pedestrian islands in D’Arcy Street, Washington Street and Cascade Road.

d) Repaving the asphalt footpath on the corner of Macquarie Street and D’Arcy Street.

e) The installation of three new “Street Art” bicycle parking racks – two on the corner of Macquarie Street and D’Arcy Street and one outside the Vinnie’s Store at 462 Macquarie Street.

These works are shown on the plan included as Attachment B.

5.3. The petition goes on to suggest that “this intersection needs to be upgraded to improve safety, slow vehicles and create a clearer crossing point. We know that money has been set aside in the budget for improving South Hobart crossings, so we ask the Council improve the safety of this intersection with a significant upgrade and consult with the South Hobart community before the changes are finalised”.

5.4. The Local Retail Precinct Plan adopted by Council in December 2015 included consideration of Macquarie Street between the Southern Outlet and D’Arcy Street. The streetscape improvement works in South Hobart are programmed to be undertaken in the 2020-2021 financial year, with design development to occur in the preceding year. The concept design developed for the South Hobart Retail Precinct includes consideration of changes to the traffic management arrangements at the D’Arcy Street / Washington Street / Macquarie Street intersection. Any significant changes to the intersection would be considered and undertaken as part of the Local Retail Precincts project.

5.5. Works to improve the existing pedestrian islands in Macquarie Street (between the Southern Outlet and Elboden Street) is also programmed to be completed this financial year through a combination of Council funding and an Australian Government grant through the Black Spot program. The Black Spot Program funding application (which was supported by the South Hobart Progress Association) and subsequent grant is specifically for pedestrian crossing improvements in the section of Macquarie Street between the Southern Outlet and Elboden Street – it is not transferrable.

5.6. Finally, the petition requests “40 km/h along the South Hobart shopping strip from around this area down to the Southern Outlet, and we ask that the Council also take steps to support this change”.

5.7. Requests to reduce speed limits on Macquarie Street have been on the record of the South Hobart Resident Traffic Committee for many years.

5.8. Speed limits are set by the Department of State Growth (DSG). The DSG has indicated that a 40 km/h speed limit would be considered in South Hobart (and also the other Local Retail Precinct areas) once changes have been implemented in the road environment to support the lower speed limit.

5.9. The streetscape improvement works proposed to occur through the Local Retail Precinct Plan would likely constitute an appropriate change to the road environment to support a lower speed limit.

5.10. All matters highlighted in the petition are already projects identified in the Council’s maintenance program or the 10‑year capital works program. It is not proposed to change the scope or timing of the programmed works in this area.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. A review of traffic access across the south western part of the CBD supports the following element from the Capital City Strategic Plan:

6.1.1. Goal 1 – Economic Development, Vibrancy and Culture, (Strategic Objective 1.3 Vibrant city centre and suburban precincts), specifically activity 1.3.3 Develop and implement local retail precinct plans.

6.1.2. Goal 2 – Urban Management, specifically activity 2.1.3 Identify and implement infrastructure improvements to enhance road safety and activity 2.2.2 Develop, manage and maintain the city’s urban spaces and infrastructure.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. The maintenance and minor upgrade works at the D’Arcy Street/ Washington Street / Macquarie Street intersection will be undertaken at a cost of around $55,000 and are already budgeted for and programmed for completion in the 2016-2017 financial year.

7.1.2. The pedestrian crossing improvements in Macquarie Street between the Southern Outlet and Elboden Street will be undertaken at a cost of around $310,000 (including a $20,000 contribution from the Black Spot program) which is also budgeted for and programmed for completion in the 2016-17 financial year.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. The South Hobart Local Retail Precinct project has a proposed budget of approximately $2,000,000 to be used for the design and construction of these works. Design is programmed for 2019-2020 and construction is programmed to be undertaken during the 2020-2021 financial year.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. Not applicable.

9. Social and Customer Considerations

9.1. Over many years there has been interest from the South Hobart community in providing improved safety for pedestrians (particularly crossing Macquarie Street) and also to reduce the speed limit on Macquarie Street. Although several projects are programmed to be undertaken this financial year, with further substantial works to be undertaken in 2020-2021, there may be disappointment that no changes to the planned program are recommended.

10. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

10.1. The Manager Traffic Engineering has met with the petitioner on-site to discuss the concerns raised in the petition. The programmed works were discussed and it was generally agreed that the improvements scheduled to be undertaken in the 2016-2017 financial year would address many of the pedestrian and safety issues at the D’Arcy Street / Washington Street / Macquarie Street intersection.

11. Delegation

11.1. This matter is a matter for the Council to consider.

Angela Moore

Manager Traffic Engineering

Mark Painter

Director City Infrastructure

Date: 11 November 2016

File Reference: F16/126016

Attachment a: Petition - D'Arcy Street Roundabout Upgrade, October 2016 ⇩

Attachment b: Construction Plans - D'Arcy Street / Washington Street / Macquarie Street Intersection ⇩

Item No. 7.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 124

16/11/2016

7 Motions of which Notice has been Given

7.1 Plastic Pollution

FILE REF: F16/128271

Aldermen Phillip Cocker and Bill Harvey

Motion

“That: 1. A report be prepared on amendments to the Health and Environmental Services By-law 2008 (or other relevant policy area) to examine the effectiveness of a phase out and subsequent ban on non-compostable single-use food packaging in reducing the impacts of plastic on human health, biodiversity and ocean ecology.

2. The report include a time line for implementation of appropriate measures by 2020.

3. The report also address the requirement for retailers to phase out the sale of identified problem plastic items and replace them with more appropriate items to reduce domestic single-use of plastics.

Rationale:

Plastic pollution is now widely recognised as a major threat to human health, biodiversity and ocean ecology. Much of the disposable items society uses, ends up as landfill, but much becomes litter that makes its way to the ocean, where over time it breaks down into smaller digestible pieces. It is well understood that this is a threat to marine and sea bird species and also human health as it bio-accumulates its way through the food chain.

Plastics and micro plastics are found in all parts of the world including remote beaches in Tasmania. The South West Marine Debris Clean-up has been documenting the issue for the last 14 years and have collected and recorded enormous amounts of data.

The Australian not-for-profit Tangaroablue has been running an inventory and collecting data on marine pollution since 2004 and estimate there are more than 18,000 pieces of plastic in every square kilometre of ocean.

Source: www.tangaroablue.org

UNESCO see marine pollution as a serious threat to biodiversity and human health.

“Marine plastic pollution poses a direct threat to the balance of marine ecosystems and human health. Plastic has direct and indirect negative impacts on biodiversity, and as plastic waste enters the food chain through unsuspecting channels such as micro-particles, an environmental issue transforms into a major challenge to human health and livelihood. It has therefore become essential to better understand the causes and effects of marine plastic pollution, in order to take effective action towards reducing its impacts. Preserving ocean health means preserving human well-being.”

Source: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/events/prizes-and-celebrations/celebrations/international-days/world-oceans-day-2016/resources/plastic-pollution/

The US not-for-profit ‘Plastic Pollution Coalition’ is another organisation that has been raising awareness and calling for action for a number of years. The following information is an informative overview and applicable to Australia. http://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/

Why is plastic harmful?

Plastic never goes away.

Plastic is a durable material made to last forever, yet illogically, 33 percent of it is used once and then thrown away.

Plastic cannot biodegrade; it breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces. Disposed plastic materials can remain in the environment for up to 2,000 years and longer.

Source: DiGregorio, Barry E. "Biobased Performance Bioplastic: Mirel," Chemistry & Biology 2009

Plastic spoils our groundwater.

There are thousands of landfills in the United States [and Australia]. Buried beneath each one of them, plastic leachate full of toxic chemicals is seeping into groundwater and flowing downstream into lakes and rivers.

There are long-term risks of contamination of soils and groundwater by some additives and breakdown by-products in plastics, which can become persistent organic pollutants.

Source: Hopewell, Jefferson; Dvorak, Robert; Kosior, Edward. "Plastics Recycling: Challenges and Opportunities," Biological Sciences 14 June 2009

Plastic attracts other pollutants.

Manufacturers' additives in plastics, like flame retardants, BPAs and PVCs, can leach their own toxicants. These oily poisons repel water and stick to petroleum-based objects like plastic debris.

Fish, exposed to a mixture of polyethylene with chemical pollutants absorbed from the marine environment, bioaccumulate these chemical pollutants and suffer liver toxicity and pathology.

Source: Rochman, Chelsea "Ingested Plastic Transfers Hazardous Chemicals to Fish and Induces Hepatic Stress," Scientific Reports 2013

Plastic threatens wildlife.

Entanglement, ingestion and habitat disruption all result from plastic ending up in the spaces where animals live. In our oceans alone, plastic debris outweighs zooplankton by a ratio of 36-to-1.

Over 260 species, including invertebrates, turtles, fish, seabirds and mammals, have been reported to ingest or become entangled in plastic debris, resulting in impaired movement and feeding, reduced reproductive output, lacerations, ulcers and death.

Source: Thompson, Richard C.; Moore, Charles J.; vom Saal, Frederick S.; Swan, Shanna H. "Plastics, the Environment and Human Health: Current Consensus and Future Trends," Biological Sciences 14 June 2009

Plastic piles up in the environment.

Americans discard more than 30 million tons of plastic a year. Only 8 percent of that gets recycled. The rest ends up in landfills, is incinerated, or becomes the invasive species known as 'litter.’

More than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea.

Source: Eriksen, Marcus; Lebreton, Laurent C. M.; Carson, Henry S.; Thiel, Martin; Moore, Charles J.; Borerro, Jose C.; Galgani, Francois; Ryan, Peter G.; Reisser, Julia. "Plastic Pollution in the World's Oceans," PLoS One 10 Dec. 2014

Plastic poisons our food chain.

Even plankton, the tiniest creatures in our oceans, are eating microplastics and absorbing their toxins. The substance displaces nutritive algae that creatures up the food chain require.

Contaminated plastics when ingested by marine species present a credible route by which the POPs can enter the marine food web.

Source: Andrady, Anthony L. "Microplastics in the Marine Environment," Marine Pollution Bulletin 2011

Plastic affects human health.

Chemicals leached by plastics are in the blood and tissue of nearly all of us. Exposure to them is linked to cancers, birth defects, impaired immunity, endocrine disruption and other ailments.

Two broad classes of plastic-related chemicals are of critical concern for human health—bisphenol-A or BPA, and additives used in the synthesis of plastics, which are known as phthalates.

Source: "Perils of Plastics: Risks to Human Health and the Environment," Arizona State University Biodesign Institute 18 March 2010.

Plastic costs billions to abate.

Everything suffers: tourism, recreation, business, the health of humans, animals, fish and birds—because of plastic pollution. The financial damage continuously being inflicted is inestimable.

The overall natural capital cost of plastic use in the consumer goods sector each year is US$75 billion.

Source: United Nations Environment Programme "Plastic Waste Causes Financial Damage of US$13 Billion to Marine”

The City of Hobart already insists that compostable packaging is used at the Taste Festival and many food vans and cafes operating in Hobart would already comply with such a regulation.

Nevertheless, numerous food outlets still continue to use throw-a-way plastic containers and other single use plastic items.

Insisting that compostable packaging is used across the city seems a logical step in reducing plastic consumption and pollution.

It would demonstrate our commitment to reducing non-organic waste from being created and support the councils Zero Waste to Landfill Strategy 2030.

In September this year France, announced that it would introduce a ban on all disposable plastic dishes, cups and utensils. This is a groundbreaking initiative and they are to be congratulated.

While France may be the first country to act, many cities across the USA have also introduced local regulations to prevent plastics and Styrofoam pollution.

Hobart City would not be a pioneer in this area globally, but could set the ball rolling in Australia to curb a major source of plastic pollution.”

The General Manager reports:

“In line with the Council’s policy in relation to Notices of Motion, I advise that the matter is considered to be within the jurisdiction of the Hobart City Council as it aligns with Goal 3.2 of Council’s strategic plan Strong environmental stewardship.”

Item No. 9.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 147

16/11/2016

Memorandum: Lord Mayor

Deputy Lord Mayor

Aldermen

Response to Question Without Notice

Parking Spaces for Outdoor Dining

Meeting: City Infrastructure Committee

Meeting date: 26 October 2016

Raised by: Alderman Burnet

Question:

In relation to using parking spaces for outdoor dining, can further details be provided in relation to the costs associated with setting up or using parking spaces for this purpose?

Response:

The fees associated with the use of on street parking spaces for outdoor dining are detailed in the Council’s fees and charges booklet as follows:

Occupation Licences - CBD - Outdoor Dining Structures in Public Car Parking Spaces
Type of fee/charge	Fee (inc GST if applicable)	GST applicable (Y/N)	Fee Unit
Initial assessment fee	Nil	NA	Per application
Car Park Occupation Fee - Metered Space	POA	N	Per annum
Dining Structure Construction Costs	An annual fee of 13% of the construction cost of the outdoor dining structure	N	Per annum
Dining Structure Maintenance Fee	An annual fee of 5% of the construction cost of the outdoor dining structure	N	Per annum
Car Park and Footpath Occupation Fee	POA	N	Per annum

The fees which are listed as POA (Price on Application) are calculated based on the occupation licence fees and on street parking charges relevant for the proposed location. The fee structure is also based on the basis that outdoor dining structures for use in these locations are to be constructed by the City.

Additionally the City incurs a cost to have the initial safety assessment conducted at approximately $1200.

This type of outdoor dining structure and the rationale for the associated fees originate from a number of reports to the Infrastructure Services Committee and Council decisions:

ISC 30 May 2012, 26 September 2012 and Council 8 October 2012,

ISC 21 November 2012 and Council 10 December 2012

ISC 28 August 2013

The fees and charges for all activities are subject to review each year as part of the budget process.

Aldermen will also be aware of Alderman Reynolds’ recent Notice of Motion requesting a report to review the Council’s 2012 ‘framework’ regarding the use of parking spaces for outdoor dining.

Mark Painter

Director City Infrastructure

Date: 11 November 2016

File Reference: F16/125872; 13-1-10

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 149

16/11/2016

10. Questions Without Notice

Section 29 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

File Ref: 13-1-10

An Alderman may ask a question without notice of the Chairman, another Alderman, the General Manager or the General Manager’s representative, in line with the following procedures:

1. The Chairman will refuse to accept a question without notice if it does not relate to the Terms of Reference of the Council committee at which it is asked.

2. In putting a question without notice, an Alderman must not:

(i) offer an argument or opinion; or

(ii) draw any inferences or make any imputations – except so far as may be necessary to explain the question.

3. The Chairman must not permit any debate of a question without notice or its answer.

4. The Chairman, Aldermen, General Manager or General Manager’s representative who is asked a question may decline to answer the question, if in the opinion of the respondent it is considered inappropriate due to its being unclear, insulting or improper.

5. The Chairman may require a question to be put in writing.

6. Where a question without notice is asked and answered at a meeting, both the question and the response will be recorded in the minutes of that meeting.

7. Where a response is not able to be provided at the meeting, the question will be taken on notice and

(i) the minutes of the meeting at which the question is asked will record the question and the fact that it has been taken on notice.

(ii) a written response will be provided to all Aldermen, at the appropriate time.

(iii) upon the answer to the question being circulated to Aldermen, both the question and the answer will be listed on the agenda for the next available ordinary meeting of the committee at which it was asked, where it will be listed for noting purposes only.

about people	We value people – our community, our customers and colleagues.
professional	We take pride in our work.
enterprising	We look for ways to create value.
responsive	We’re accessible and focused on service.
inclusive	We respect diversity in people and ideas.
making a difference	We recognise that everything we do shapes Hobart’s future.