Agenda of Governance Committee Meeting

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

Governance Committee Meeting

Page 36

31/1/2017

REPORT TITLE: Aldermanic Representation on Internal and External Bodies - Vacancies

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager City Government

Deputy General Manager

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to advise the committee of a number of Aldermanic resignations which have been submitted in relation to Council representation on internal and external bodies, and to enable the Council to consider appointing Aldermen to fill these vacant positions.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The Council appoints Aldermanic representatives to represent the Council on a number of internal and external bodies and committees.

2.1.1. The Council last considered representation on internal and external bodies at its meeting of 24 November 2014, following the local government election.

2.2. A number of resignations have been received which require noting by the committee and consideration in relation to the appointment of Aldermanic representatives to fill these vacancies.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council receive and note the resignation of Alderman Zucco from the following internal committees:

· Glebe Residents’ Traffic Committee;

· Lenah Valley Residents’ Traffic Committee;

· Mount Stuart Residents’ Traffic Committee;

· Sandy Bay Residents’ and Traders’ Traffic Committee;

· South Hobart Residents’ Traffic Committee; and the

· West Hobart Residents’ Traffic Committee.

2. In the event that any Aldermen wish to represent the Council on any of the committees listed, they so nominate.

3. The Council receive and note the resignation of Alderman Denison from the Greater Hobart Reference Group Committee – Destination Southern Tasmania, and further note that this Committee is no longer in operation.

4. Background

4.1. The Council last considered this matter at its meeting of 24 November 2014, following the 2014 Local Government election.

4.2. Alderman Zucco has submitted his resignation from a number of traffic committees to which he was appointed, specifically as follows:

· Glebe Residents’ Traffic Committee;

· Lenah Valley Residents’ Traffic Committee;

· Mount Stuart Residents’ Traffic Committee;

· Sandy Bay Residents’ and Traders Traffic Committee;

· South Hobart Residents’ Traffic Committee; and the

· West Hobart Residents’ Traffic Committee.

4.3. Alderman Denison has also provided her resignation from the Greater Hobart Reference Group Committee – Destination Southern Tasmania.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The number of positions on the Council’s traffic committees is not specified, with each having multiple Aldermanic representatives, and on this basis it is not imperative from an operational perspective to replace Alderman Zucco.

5.2. Council officers have consulted with Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority (STCA) in respect to whether a new Aldermanic representation is appropriate for this committee.

5.3. The STCA have advised that this committee was initially appointed during the establishment of Destination Southern Tasmania and that with its subsequent implementation now completed, the committee no longer meet and therefore there is no need for Aldermanic representation.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. This matter is aligned to the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 in respect to Goal 5 – Governance.

· Strategic Objective 5.1 – The organisation is relevant to the community and provides good governance.

· Strategic Objective 5.5 – Capital City leadership is provided.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

8. Delegation

8.1. This matter is delegated to the Council as the body which appoints Aldermanic representations.

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.

Margaret Johns

Manager City Government

Heather Salisbury

Deputy General Manager

Date: 25 January 2017

File Reference: F17/6764

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

Governance Committee Meeting

Page 40

31/1/2017

REPORT TITLE: UniverCities Conference and Study Tour

REPORT PROVIDED BY: General Manager

Director City Planning

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an account of the City of Hobart’s participation in the UniverCities Conference in Budapest, Hungary and subsequent study tour of Freiburg, Germany; Bristol and Cambridge in England.

2. Report Summary

2.1. A delegation consisting of Council and University of Tasmania representatives attended the UniverCities Conference in Budapest and subsequent study tour of Freiburg, Bristol and Cambridge.

2.2. The delegation explored four main themes each of which are separately addressed in this report, namely City Deal learnings, strategic alliances, university-specific learnings and city/urban transformation.

2.3. From a relationship point of view, the tour provided an ideal opportunity to build on the already excellent relationship with the university and more particularly, to better understand the university’s vision and reasoning for moving into the heart of our city.

2.4. The delegation also had the opportunity to meet a number of key players in the development of Freiburg as a university town as well as senior elected members and bureaucrats associated with the Greater Cambridge City Deal.

2.5. The timing of the delegation was ideal given the journey that both the City of Hobart and the university are on and there are a number of pertinent learnings for our city as the relationship between the city and the university continues to mature.

2.6. Additionally the city is to be invited to express interest in the European Union’s ‘Twin Cities Urban Sustainability’ project that will seek to match four to seven Australian cities with EU cities to look at best practice and to share learning and knowledge. Cities selected need to have political ownership and the capacity to deliver. This will be the subject of a further report on receipt of the proposal, however it is considered that the UniverCities initiative would strengthen an application should the Council proceed in the project.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council participate in regular meetings with the University Council and pursue an amendment to the existing memorandum of understanding with the University of Tasmania that seeks to strengthen the strategic relationship between the parties and focus on:

a) Joint research initiatives, including the socio-economic impacts of the University’s move into the City and the movement of people in and around the City;

b) Public realm improvements, and;

c) City activation.

2. The development of the new vision for the City of Hobart involve extensive consultation with the University of Tasmania as well as other key stakeholders and acknowledge the importance of higher education in the City.

3. When contemplating a possible City Deal for the Greater Hobart region, the following be taken into consideration:

i) The City Deal be well thought through and recognise what it is hoping to achieve; identify the issues it is seeking to address; is well resourced with appropriate, qualified staff; has a strong leadership structure and appropriate communication and PR support, and involve regional cooperation as well as commitment from the State and Australian Governments.

4. The Council pursue a submission to the Smart Cities and Suburbs Program to gather data to assist the community with travel to work information, address congestion and improve the wider movement of people in the City.

5. An invitation be extended to Gehl Architects to visit the City for the purposes of reviewing the urban transformation work the City has done to date and to provide a public lecture.

6. On receipt of the details of European Union’s ‘Twin Cities Urban Sustainability’ project that a further report be prepared for the Council that considers the cost benefit of the project and identifies potential partner cities, including Freiburg, with whom the Council may partner.

7. A visual presentation of the city design learnings from Bristol and Freiburg be provided to the Council.

4. Background

4.1. At its meeting held on 24 October 2016, the Council resolved inter alia that:

The Council approve the City of Hobart’s participation in the UniverCities Conference in Budapest from 20-22 November 2016, and a subsequent study tour to Freiburg and Cambridge.

Alderman Briscoe, subject to confirmation of his availability, and Alderman Burnet be nominated to attend the conference as the Council’s representatives.

The Council also support the participation of the General Manager and/or his nominee.

4.2. The delegation commenced on Friday 18 November 2016 and concluded on Friday 25 November. A copy of the itinerary is attached (attachment A).

4.3. The delegation consisted of five representatives from the City of Hobart and six representatives from the University of Tasmania, namely:

Alderman Jeff Briscoe
Alderman Helen Burnet
General Manager
Director City Planning
Executive Manager City Design (George Wilkie)

The Vice Chancellor
Chair, University Built Environment Committee (Dr. Peter Davis)
Executive Director, Commercial Services & Development, UTAS (Jacinta Young)
Sustainability Manager, UTAS (Corey Peterson)
Northern Expansion Project Director, UTAS (James McKee)
Associate Director, UTAS (Angela Castles)

UniverCities Conference

The UniverCities conference explored the relationship between universities/colleges and the cities, towns and regions where they are located.

Debate around this relationship is the source of great discussion with the question being asked which ‘habitats’ do higher education institutions and the knowledge industries require; where do they thrive?

The conference addressed all of the different ‘habitats’, including big cities, small towns and remote and challenged regions. It explored the relationship between higher education institutions and municipalities as well as university-enterprise interaction and cooperation between academic institutions and civil society.

Interestingly, whilst the conference theme was entitled ‘UniverCities’ there were limited examples from any of the speakers of strong strategic relationships between universities and the local council. There were some good examples of where universities and councils had collaborated on particular projects, such as housing, but no examples where the Council and the University actually had a deep and value adding relationship.

The keynote address at the conference was delivered by Professor Margie Waters, Deputy Head for Higher Education Policy, Brussels University. Dr Waters placed much emphasis on the ability of universities to drive innovation and economic development not only in cities but also in a regional context. She did identify a challenge for universities to become more involved in critical thinking in society and identified that in some instances universities may not completely embed themselves in the society that surrounds them.

Dr Waters also suggested that the next frontier for universities was to review their overall objectives and priorities to ensure that universities can contribute more to regional innovations and cooperate and integrate more into society.

Students also need to be better tracked and monitored once they leave higher education. There is no research to provide evidence on what students actually contribute to society once they leave a higher education institution. There is anecdotal evidence, through alumni, but no thorough research in this area.

The theme of universities giving back to communities was also emphasised by Dr Murray Pratt. Dr Pratt was very keen to see universities tap into existing city projects and to think holistically – as Dr Pratt said, ‘universities need to do away with unsee’. Aside from suggesting that universities need to be ‘at the table’ with city councils, Dr Pratt did not point to any practical examples of universities and councils working together ‘at the table’.

The speakers from Barcelona University identified the need to work in a more proactive way with cities and conceded that there were too many ivory towers in universities.

Freiburg provided probably the best example of a university and city working together. Professor Bernt Kortmann from Freiburg University talked about the university buying into Frieburg’s vision to develop a city of education, science, technology and as a business hub – a sustainable city by 2030. The university has embraced this vision and recently opened a new library in the city centre (which hosts 12,000 students/ visitors per day). The university is also working in partnership with the local council on the redevelopment of the old Freiburg airport site.

The City of Freiburg has a strong connection with its higher education institutions through a number of means, including:

· An Innovation Charter between the University of Freiburg, the city and ‘Freiburg Economy Tourism and Exhibitions (FWTM) which was signed in 2011;

· The goal of the charter is the joint development of Freiburg as a city of education, science, technology and as a business hub. A joint development plan has been established for the Freiburg airfield / exhibition area / industrial area. The innovation charter aims to develop this area as an energy and resource efficient industrial area, giving it status as an exemplar project of sustainability for the region;

· An advisory board which was established in 2008 to assist the city to implement its sustainability goals. The board is comprised of five members of higher education and research institutions (including the Rector of the University of Freiburg), the city mayor, ten city councillors, fifteen members of civil society and ten members representing the regional economy and trade associations;

· A cooperative approach to urban development which sees the city of Freiburg undertake its infrastructure and city planning in close cooperation with the university with the following recent developments either completed or underway:

o New tramway connecting the facilities;

o New university library in the heart of the city;

o Development of the industrial area and exhibition site of the Freiburg Fair in cooperation with the University’s Technical Faculty;

o Sustainable development of city districts in cooperation with the University (e.g. Haslach).

4.4. In summary, Council delegates who attended the conference felt that it was very well organised and had a good range of speakers (copies of notes taken at the conference by Aldermen Briscoe and Burnet are attached to this report at attachment B).

4.5. The key learning from the conference is to not let the university evolve and move into the City without there being a strong relationship between the two parties. A memorandum of understanding currently exists between the Council and University; attachment C. The MOU has proven to be invaluable in terms of a relationship tool but it is very much operational and does not involve all key decision makers getting together on a regular basis.

4.6. The University Council and the Hobart City Council need to meet on a regular basis (at least annually) in order that the two can understand each others’ thinking and more importantly, plan for each others’ needs; insular thinking will lead to poor outcomes.

4.7. As indicated earlier, the conference did not identify any best practice city university relationships so the opportunity does exist for Hobart to lead the way. The Vice-Chancellor was particularly keen on this initiative and it forms the primary recommendation from the conference.

4.8. A further learning from the conference is to make sure that the university is consulted extensively in developing a new vision for our city. The lesson of Freiburg is that a clear articulate vision allowed the university to buy into that vision and more importantly to embrace the vision.

4.9. Following on from the UniverCities conference, the delegation participated in a study tour of Freiburg, Germany and Bristol and Cambridge in England.

Freiburg

4.10. Freiburg is a vibrant university city located in the south west corner of Germany on the edge of the Black Forest and has a population of 220,000 with employment for 130,000 people and 33,000 students (of which 15per cent are international students).

4.11. Freiburg is known as Germany’s ‘ecological capital’ having implemented energy efficient building regulations as early as the mid-1990s. The city has received numerous awards for its efforts and is home to the European headquarters of Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) and the City Mayors Foundation.

4.12. Freiburg has five separate universities, with the University of Freiburg by far the largest (25,000 students) and most comprehensive offering undergraduate, post graduate and research opportunities.

4.13. It has the highest proportion of academic researchers in Germany with its local football team’s fan base one of the most educated in the world with 73.4per cent having an undergraduate degree.

4.14. It has an unemployment rate of 4.3per cent with the University of Freiburg the largest employer in the city.

4.15. Whilst Freiburg has a similar population size as Greater Hobart it has a settlement footprint half the size. It has a traditional building stock of four to six storeys with few buildings exceeding sic storeys in height.

4.16. It has an extensive public transport system with the core system of 30km long tramway connected to 168km network of bus routes. The tram runs every 7.5 minutes during peak hour and the vast majority of residents are within 500m of a tram stop.

4.16.1. 54,000 commuters come into the city per day.

4.17. Topographically the city lies within a valley floor and is relatively flat with the surrounding hills either wooded or farmland.

4.18. The city centre of approximately 1km² is a pedestrian, tram and cycling-only zone.

4.19. One of the most striking things with the large central pedestrian zone is the relatively quiet environment not normally associated with a central CBD. The absence of vehicles presents a greatly enhanced acoustic experience for pedestrians.

4.20. The cycling network is extensive with over 400km of separate bicycle paths and reflects the high proportion of people choosing cycling as their means of transport.

4.21. The change in modal shift in Freiburg over the last 40 years is outlined in the graphic below:

4.22. As highlighted previously, the City of Freiburg has a strong connection with its higher education institutions through an innovation charter, sustainability board and cooperative approach to urban development. It also has an extensive outreach program particularly for school aged children, including;

· Bi-annual Science Fair held at Cathedral Square organised with support from the City of Freiburg and Freiburg Wirtschaft Touristik und Messe (FWTM) under the topic of ‘Learn, Marvel, Participate’;

· Five science days for school children of all ages which has been held in October since 2001 and is organised by the University of Freiburg, several local companies and the Europa Park Trust;

· ‘Schnupperstudium’ which is a study program for school children during Easter break, and;

· School visits organised by the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics and open house days.

4.23. Freiburg is a prominent example of a city that has used its status as a university town, tourism gateway and historic centre to push for sustainability features which allow the city to retain its core values.

4.24. Its similar size, economic profile and status as a university city makes Freiburg a relevant exemplar in considering Hobart’s long-range vision.

Bristol

4.25. The City of Bristol was chosen in addition to the suggested cities as it was awarded the EU Green Capital for 2015 and has been embarking on a transformative public realm improvement program particularly along its waterways and CBD.

4.26. The City of Bristol has a population of approximately 450,000 people at a density approximately 50per cent greater than Hobart. One third of the city’s building stock is heritage listed (4000) with 99 additional historic parks and gardens. The city has two major universities within its boundaries.

4.27. Bristol was awarded the EU Green Capital for 2015 not so much for its exemplar initiatives but for the progress it has made in a relatively short period of time. This progress has been centred on getting as many people involved whether it be the general community, business or academia.

4.28. The focus of the various programs is not remarkable or novel but rather a commitment to strong rational sustainability and liveability initiatives.

4.29. Bristol City Council has five directorates, including Place, People, Neighbourhoods, Business Change and City Director’s Office. Bristol has a very active City Design Group which has three areas of focus:

· The Inherited City – the history and natural environment;

· The Public Realm – the streets and open spaces that bind the city together, and;

· The Legible City – how people experience and navigate through the city.

4.30. Bristol City has developed, (with the assistance of funding from English Heritage,) a website called ‘Know Your Place, an open source heritage resource. The website is an extensive resource for the wider community as well as for proponents of development to allow them to better inform themselves of the particular historic qualities of a site and its surroundings.

4.31. The Legible City is focused on creating a unique and coherent identity, one that can expand beyond signage to encompass a range of street furniture and structures. It has a program of developing playful connections, coupled with an open source map resource for use by individuals, communities and business and finally the physical signage with integrated sensor technology.

4.32. Bristol is also embarking on public realm improvement programs focusing on three distinct inner city precincts, the largest of which is the Temple Quarter surrounding the central train station. They have established the precinct as an enterprise zone providing a clear spatial and urban design framework coupled with a streamlined regulatory approvals process for developments compliant with the urban design framework. Interestingly car parking is purposely restricted within the central business districts to essential vehicles-only, noting that the street network is limited in capacity and to allow for additional car parking would simply exacerbate traffic congestion. Also of note is the requirement for a proportion of car parking spaces (1 in 5) that are provided to have electric vehicle charge points.

4.33. A clear realisation by Bristol to acknowledge its limited road capacity has allowed it to focus more within its CBD on improving pedestrian, cycling and bus connections rather than the often futile attempts to increase road and car parking capacity at the expense of public amenity.

Cambridge

4.34. The visit to Cambridge provided an opportunity to visit a city in the United Kingdom that has a long history as a university town.

4.34.1. One of the main issues confronting Cambridge is not how to cope with a university moving into the City but quite the opposite.

4.34.2. The City has evolved over many years with the university at the centre of that development, however, space is now at a premium in the city centre itself so the university is seeking to locate on brown field sites on the city’s outer fringe.

4.35. The City of Cambridge is located about 80kms north of London and has a population of around 124,000 which includes approximately 25,000 students.

4.36. There were two main elements to the Cambridge visit, namely gaining a deeper understanding of the Greater Cambridge City Deal and how those learnings may apply to the Hobart context and to visit the new bio-medical development on Cambridge’s fringe to understand more about an expanding university town.

4.37. The Greater Cambridge City Deal is one of twelve that exist throughout the United Kingdom. The agreement, set up with the National Government will provide up to £500M worth of funding over 15 years. A £100M investment over the five years to 2020 has been secured to progress the first tranche of City Deal projects. A further £200M will be available from April 2020 and a final £200M in 2025, if it can be proven successful in driving economic growth from each tranche of the City Deal programme. A consultant has been appointed to assist with preparation for the assessments which will be undertaken.

4.38. The deal itself involves three local councils in Cambridge (Cambridge City Council, Cambridgeshire County Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council) and is overseen by an executive board comprising five members (of which only three have a vote being the three nominated by the local councils). In Cambridge’s case, the other two non-voting members are the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University and a member from a private medical company. An example of a Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board agenda has been made available in the Aldermen’s Room.

4.39. The decision-making executive board receives advice from a 15 member assembly, comprising three members from the three councils, three from business and three from the University.

4.40. The delegation was able to spend an hour talking about the Greater Cambridge City Deal with Councillor Ian Bates from the Cambridgeshire County Council. Whilst spending a degree of time discussing governance and local Cambridgeshire issues, Councillor Bates was asked about the most significant learnings from the Cambridge City Deal. Councillor Bates responded by saying that communications and public relations are critical in terms of advising what the deal is seeking to achieve and to manage community expectations.

4.40.1. In the early days, the Greater Cambridge City Deal had no communications in place and there is a definite need to get key messages across early.

4.41. The other most significant learning was to have a dedicated City Deal team in place from the first day and ensure the deal is properly resourced. It is not an option to resource the deal ‘off the side of your desk’ as dedicated professional advisors are required from the first day.

4.42. Councillor Bates was also insistent on the deal having strong local leadership; someone with excellent media skills who can drive the deal forward. A strong relationship with the central government is also very important.

4.43. The message of Councillor Bates was repeated by the Executive Director of the Greater Cambridge City Deal, Tanya Sheridan. Ms Sheridan is an ex-UK civil servant and was very strong on the deal having a regional focus. Ms Sheridan emphasised some of the social and economic problems faced by Cambridgeshire, stating that Cambridgeshire itself had some of the wealthiest and poorest regions in England.

4.43.1. The area around Cambridge City is extremely wealthy and has very high land prices largely driven by proximity to London (2 hours by car) and the university, with academics/students seeking property close to the city.

4.43.2. In comparison, areas of north Cambridgeshire suffer from isolation brought about by poor public transport and a focus on manufacturing and industrial economies.

4.44. The Greater Cambridge City Deal has five priority areas, namely,

· Securing investment;

· Tackling congestion;

· Housing and affordable homes;

· Shared prosperity, and;

· Protecting the unique quality of life.

4.45. Due to the inequalities in the shire, the Greater Cambridge City Deal focused more on public transport and housing.

4.46. A great deal of time early on was spent developing local authority plans across borders to address the ‘wicked’ issues associated with poor public transport and housing. Ms Sheridan also emphasised the need for the plan development process not to be rushed; the plans and hence the overall City Deal needs time to be put together.

4.46.1. A clear understanding of what the issues are that the deal is seeking to resolve is vital as is the need to invest time and resources in articulating and defining the issues.

4.46.2. The same also goes for any regional councils that seek to participate in a City Deal; all parties at the local level must be working together before one can hope to successfully engage with the central government.

4.47. The success of the Greater Cambridge City Deal relies on a strong governance system and strong local leadership combined with dedicated resources and solid land use and strategic planning. Ms Sheridan was able to point to a number of housing initiatives that all councils were able to agree on that will see a huge amount of housing built on the fringes of Cambridge.

4.48. An integrated public transport plan that will see the use of smart technology combined with junction and route planning is the feature of the Greater Cambridge City Deal and will dominate the deal for the next decade.

4.49. A key element of resolving the public transport dilemma is the use of smart data. Cambridge has the highest rate of cyclists in the United Kingdom and a very strong economy, but still there are challenges, mainly as indicated earlier around housing, public transport, congestion and skills in remote areas.

4.50. Similar to Hobart, there are over 40,000 vehicle movements per day in and out of the city and whilst there is a cycling culture, the use of vehicles is still an issue.

4.51. There are 5.3 million visitor (tourist) trips per year into Cambridge.

4.52. The Smart Cambridge Program has been established under the City Deal itself in order to obtain data to assist people in their journey to and from work and to make the public transport options more efficient.

4.52.1. The Smart Cambridge Program Team, in consultation with the university, is collecting data from various nodes throughout the city with the idea of developing a Greater Cambridge Smart City Management Platform – allowing for a number of ‘smart platforms’ to ‘talk to each other’ and a data hub to collate and process data from a number of sensors around the city.

4.52.2. The platform will allow members of the public and business to access key data to build applications and for the combined data to plan smart solutions, including making transport systems more reliable and easier to use.

4.52.3. Much of the technology is yet to be developed but the Smart Cambridge Program Team are keen to partner with commercial partners to test the new system.

4.53. The discussions with the Smart Cambridge Program Team reaffirmed the importance of technology in assisting the community to make informed decisions.

4.54. Hobart City Council will be submitting a proposal to the Australian Government’s Smart Cities and Suburbs program, in partnership with the University of Tasmania and Metro, for smart technology to assist with congestion in the greater Hobart context.

4.55. The final part of the visit to Cambridge involved a visit to the 2B Pound bio-medical precinct. This is the largest construction site in the United Kingdom and involves the construction of three new hospitals as well as new research facilities.

4.55.1. The main element being constructed is a £300M AstraZeneca bio-medical research and corporate headquarters complex which is due for completion in early 2018; the site itself is not due for full completion until 2030.

4.55.2. The completion of the AstraZeneca Centre will see a public green space area constructed with bus and light rail coming into the centre of the complex.

4.55.3. The green space is critical as the development itself is dense and the green space provides a respite area for staff and people who may be visiting the hospitals.

4.56. Development on the site is being guided by a masterplan that involves development in two phases with phase one comprising 70 acres and due for completion in 2020.

4.57. The development itself is an example of exemplar master planning with the full vision for the site laid out for all developers to see.

4.58. The site is huge but the essential infrastructure is already in place, including the bus linkage, a site car park and roads.

4.59. The visit enabled the delegation to see first-hand how the presence of a university can lead to huge private investment in a city.

4.60. Interest in the site is huge, largely due to the confidence AstraZeneca has shown in investing in the site but also driven by the fact that a number of Europe’s largest bio medical research institutions are moving into the precinct, together with the university itself.

European Union Delegation to Australia

4.61. The Council recently hosted the EU Environment and Climate Change Consul who was on an Australia-wide study tour investigating best practice in urban sustainability and climate action. The Council held two meetings: one for Aldermen and senior management; and one in the City’s capacity as coordinator of the Southern Tasmanian Council Authority’s Regional Climate Change Initiative.

4.62. The EUs delegation is seeking to undertake a ‘Twin Cities Urban Sustainability’ project. The project will match four - seven Australian cities with EU cities to look at best practice, share learning and knowledge. Cities selected need to have political ownership and the capacity to deliver. It is anticipated that this will include a number of meetings with matched cities as well as collaboration on projects.

4.63. During these meetings the Council was able to present the broad suite of initiatives it was undertaking in areas from climate change mitigation and adaptation, sustainable transport and waste management through to its CBD revitalisation, cultural events and its Memorandum of Understanding with the University. It is considered that the Council’s progressive sustainability program will position it well for an opportunity to participate in the project.

4.64. In terms of the progression of the project the contract to deliver has been awarded to Professor Wilson of Melbourne RMIT and the Council will be contacted in late January to early February to express interest in participation in the project.

4.65. On receipt of the proposal a further report will be prepared for the Council that outlines the cost and benefit of the project and the potential for Freiburg and or other appropriate European Cities to be the Council’s partner in such a project.

Gehl Architects

4.66. It has been 10 years since Gehl Architects first visited Hobart when Lars Gemzoe was invited to present a number of lectures on Public Spaces for Public Life. These lectures provided a greater understanding of the potential benefits of a city that put people first and provided public spaces and connections that improved the city for people.

4.67. Council subsequently engaged Gehl Architects in 2009 to undertake the Public Spaces and Public Life report which was ultimately delivered in 2010. The Council then formulated its response to the Gehl report in the form of the Inner City Action Plan made up of 15 individual projects. The Inner City Action Plan was endorsed by the Council in December 2011.

4.68. In the five years since the Council committed to delivering on the Gehl vision, significant progress has been made with more programmed.

4.69. The University Of Tasmania’s move into the city centre is expected to increase with the potential relocation of STEMs, and this development coupled with the increase hotel developments places even greater urgency to deliver improved public spaces and public life opportunities within the inner city.

4.70. Given the above, it is therefore opportune for Gehl Architects to be invited back to review the work undertaken to date as well as the program for future improvements within the Transforming Hobart initiative.

4.71. A visit by Gehl Architects would also assist with identifying what other opportunities the Council could be pursuing to improve public spaces and public life with the shift in development emphasis within the inner city.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The Council use the learnings gained through the attendance at the UniverCities conference and subsequent site visits to Freiburg, Bristol and Cambridge to inform its thinking around the presence of the University of Tasmania in the City and a future City Deal.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. Strategic Objective 1.1.2 of the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 states as follows:

‘Support the University of Tasmania’s continued growth within the City’

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. None arise from the writing of this report.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Not applicable.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. Not applicable.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. None arise from this report.

9. Social and Customer Considerations

9.1. The continued growth of the University within the inner city clearly brings with it a range of social and community considerations.

10. Delegation

10.1. The matter is delegated to the Council.

N.D Heath

General Manager

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 25 January 2017

File Reference: F16/141325

Attachment a: Delegation itinerary ⇩

Attachment b: Aldermanic Reports ⇩

Attachment c: Hobart City Council and University of Tasmanian Memorandum of Understanding ⇩

Item No. 6.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

Governance Committee Meeting

Page 75

31/1/2017

REPORT TITLE: 2016–17 Annual Plan Progress Report - Period Ended 31 October 2016

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Group Manager Executive & Economic Development

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to present the 2016–17 Annual Plan Progress Report for the period ended 31 October 2016. The first report for the 2016-17 financial year (refer Attachment A).

1.2. The Annual Plan Progress Report sets out major actions/initiatives for the second year of the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025. Central to the Strategic Plan is the long-term vision for the City representing a shared understanding of what Hobart should be like in 2025.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The 2016–17 Annual Plan Progress Report for the period ended
31 October 2016 is presented for consideration.

2.2. The report is the first report for the 2016–17 year and details the status of all major actions/initiatives planned to be undertaken during 2016–17.

2.3. It is proposed that the Council endorse the 2016–17 Annual Plan Progress Report for the period ended 31 October 2016.

3. Recommendation

That the Council endorse the 2016-17 Annual Plan Progress Report for the period ended 31 October 2016, marked as Attachment A to this report.

4. Background

4.1. The Annual Plan is required pursuant to S71 of the Local Government Act 1993 that describes the actions to be undertaken to achieve the objectives of the Strategic Plan.

4.2. The Strategic Plan is a requirement pursuant to S66 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2013. The Council is required to develop a strategic plan every ten-years and review at least every four years.

4.3. The Council at its meeting on 9 November 2015 endorsed a new ten-year strategic plan titled Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025.

4.4. A key change in the new ten-year strategic plan is a move away from Priority Areas, to the use of Goals and Strategic Objectives.

4.5. The Council at its meeting on 20 June 2016 adopted the City of Hobart Annual Plan for the 2016–17 year which sets out how the Strategic Objectives of the ten-year strategic plan will be met.

4.6. In October 2016, after a review of the Planning and Reporting Framework, the Executive Leadership Team endorsed moving from quarterly reporting to three reports per year.

As a result, the reporting periods for the 2016–17Annual Plan Progress Reports are as follows:

1. Progress Report – period ending 31 October 2016

2. Progress Report – period ending 28 February 2017

3. Final Report – period ending 30 June 2017

4.7. Accordingly, this report is the first progress report of which details the status of all major actions/initiatives for the period ending 31 October 2016.

Progress

4.8. This report presents the success in implementing the Annual Plan for the first reporting period of the 2016–17 financial year.

4.9. The first four months of 2016–17 has seen the commencement of 93 per cent of major actions/initiatives. As illustrated in the following graphs, 83 per cent are underway, 10 per cent complete and 7 per cent are yet to commence.

OVERVIEW OF PROGRESS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL MAJOR ACTIONS/INITIATIVES

OVERVIEW OF PROGRESS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF MAJOR ACTIONS/INITIATIVES
BY GOAL

Completed Actions/Initiatives

4.10. Completed actions/initiatives for each goal for the first reporting period of the 2016–17financial year include:

Goal One - Economic Development, Vibrancy and Culture

4.10.1. The delivery of the Student Ambassador Program in partnership with the University of Tasmania.

Goal Two - Urban Management

4.10.1. Options for improvement of the traffic network capacity within the city centre identified in conjunction with the Transport Commission.

4.10.2. Celebrations of the sesquicentenary of the Town Hall were held in September, including a very successful open day and the publication of the historical book titled Municipal Magnificence: the Hobart Town Hall 1866–2016.

Goal Three - Environment and Natural Resources

Nil

Goal Four - Strong, Safe and Healthy Communities

4.10.1. Several strategies have been implemented to strengthen and develop the Positive Ageing Volunteer Program, including the provision of training opportunities for volunteers.

4.10.2. A successful expo for Adult Learners Week was held in September, supporting the provision of accessible information and lifelong learning.

Goal Five - Governance

4.10.3. The City of Hobart Rates and Charges Policy has been reviewed and updated. A copy of the policy is available on the City of Hobart website and in print from the Customer Service Centre.

4.10.4. The implementation of a new contracted tenancy management system.

4.10.5. Penetration testing has been undertaken to test and assist the Council’s cyber protection along with an upgrade in digital information systems offering greater resilience and data recovery capability.

4.10.6. The implementation of a web based lodgement and application assessment system for the online submission of statutory applications.

4.10.7. The implementation of a project management toolkit.

4.10.8. The finalisation and implementation of the Hobart City Council Enterprise Agreement 2016.

4.10.9. The implementation of the Fitness for Work and the Alcohol and Other Drug policies and procedures.

4.10.10. Active participation in the Council of Capital City Lord Mayors (CCCLM) with the Lord Mayor and the General Manager attending the CCCLM Annual General Meeting during October.

Yet To Commence

4.11. Of the 7 per cent of actions to be commenced, the majority of these will commence early in 2017. However, the following action may not be undertaken this financial year:

4.11.1. Upgrade Bus Mall in Elizabeth Street and consider inclusion of Collins Street as part of the bus interchange facilities, including community engagement; design; and the commencement of construction.

The construction works associated with the new hotel being built in the bus mall and the ongoing negotiations with Metro as to a preferred configuration has meant that it is not possible to proceed with any improvements at this stage. It is hoped that by working with the construction firm of the hotel that the works for the bus mall can coincide with the opening of the hotel and therefore minimising the disruption to the adjacent businesses as much as possible.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the Council endorse the Annual Plan Progress Report for the period ended 31 October 2016.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The preparation of the report provides an account of the progress in achieving the major actions/initiatives identified for the 2016–17 financial year as set out in the Annual Plan.

6.2. These major actions/initiatives progress the City of Hobart in achieving the Goals in the new ten-year strategic plan.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. The Annual Plan is a companion document to the annual budget estimates. All major/actions initiatives identified within the Plan have budget allocations.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. The City of Hobart’s Strategic Risk Register addresses the strategic risks associated with the implementation of the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015–25.

8.2. The successful implementation of the Annual Plan contributes to mitigating these risks.

8.3. The Annual Plan is required pursuant to S71 of the Local Government Act 1993 and sets out how the strategic objectives of the ten-year strategic plan will be met during 2016–17. This report provides detail on the progress of the implementation of the major actions/initiatives for the period ended 31 October 2016.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. None arise from this report.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. The preparation of the Annual Report is a critical activity in communicating to the community the many achievements of the Council as well as fulfilling a number of statutory requirements.

11. Marketing and Media

11.1. Refer to 10.1 above.

12. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

12.1. Executive Officers and responsible officers were consulted in the preparation of this report.

13. Delegation

13.1. This matter is delegated to the Council.

Tim Short

Group Manager Executive & Economic Development

Date: 25 January 2017

File Reference: F17/2297; 21-1-1

Attachment a: 2016–17 Annual Plan Progress Report Period Ended 31 Oct 2016 ⇩

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.