HCC Coat of Arms.jpg
City of hobart

 

 

 

 

AGENDA

City Planning Committee Meeting

 

Open Portion

 

Monday, 27 March 2017

 

at 5.00 pm

Lady Osborne Room, Town Hall


 

 

 

 

THE MISSION

Our mission is to ensure good governance of our capital City.

THE VALUES

The Council is:

 

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.

 

 


 

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 3

 

27/3/2017

 

 

ORDER OF BUSINESS

 

Business listed on the agenda is to be conducted in the order in which it is set out, unless the committee by simple majority determines otherwise.

 

APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

1.        Co-Option of a Committee Member in the event of a vacancy  5

2.        Confirmation of Minutes. 5

3.        Consideration of Supplementary Items. 5

4.        Indications of Pecuniary and Conflicts of Interest. 5

5.        Transfer of Agenda Items. 6

6.        Planning Authority Items - Consideration of Items With Deputations. 6

7.        Committee Acting as Planning Authority. 7

7.1     Applications under the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997  8

7.1.1       20 McVilly Drive, 1 McVilly Drive and 2 Davies Avenue Hobart - Alterations to Car Park and Associated Hydraulic Infrastructure. 8

7.2     Applications under the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015  93

7.2.1       325 Elizabeth Street, 321-323A Elizabeth Street and Adjacent Right of Way, North Hobart – PLN-14-00639 - Request for an Extension of Time to Permit 93

8          Reports. 121

8.1     Tasmanian Planning Scheme - State Planning Provisions. 121

8.2     Petition - Flashing Sign -  381 Elizabeth Street, North Hobart 565

8.3     Delegated Decisions Report (Planning) 581

8.4     City Planning - Advertising List 584

9          Committee Action Status Report. 590

9.1     Committee Actions - Status Report 590

10.     Questions Without Notice. 597

11.     Closed Portion Of The Meeting.. 598

 


 

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 5

 

27/3/2017

 

 

City Planning Committee Meeting (Open Portion) held Monday, 27 March 2017 at 5.00 pm in the Lady Osborne Room, Town Hall.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Briscoe (Chairman)

Ruzicka

Burnet

Denison

 

ALDERMEN

Lord Mayor Hickey

Deputy Lord Mayor Christie

Zucco

Sexton

Cocker

Thomas

Reynolds

Harvey

Apologies:

 

 

Leave of Absence: Nil.

 

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 Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 14 March 2017 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?

 

6.       Planning Authority Items - Consideration of Items With Deputations

 

In accordance with the requirements of Part 2 Regulation 8(3) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, the General Manager is to arrange the agenda so that the planning authority items are sequential.

 

In accordance with Part 2 Regulation 8(4) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, the Committee by simple majority may change the order of any of the items listed on the agenda, but in the case of planning items they must still be considered sequentially – in other words they still have to be dealt with as a single group on the agenda.

 

Where deputations are to be received in respect to planning items, past practice has been to move consideration of these items to the beginning of the meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That in accordance with Regulation 8(4) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, the Committee resolve to deal with any items which have deputations by members of the public regarding any planning matter listed on the agenda, to be taken out of sequence in order to deal with deputations at the beginning of the meeting.

 


 

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 7

 

27/3/2017

 

 

7.       Committee Acting as Planning Authority

 

In accordance with the provisions of Part 2 Regulation 25 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, the intention of the Committee to act as a planning authority pursuant to the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 is to be noted.

 

In accordance with Regulation 25, the Committee will act as a planning authority in respect to those matters appearing under this heading on the agenda, inclusive of any supplementary items.

 

The Committee is reminded that in order to comply with Regulation 25(2), the General Manager is to ensure that the reasons for a decision by a Council or Council Committee acting as a planning authority are recorded in the minutes.

 


Item No. 7.1.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 8

 

27/3/2017

 

 

7.1     Applications under the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997

 

7.1.1   20 McVilly Drive, 1 McVilly Drive and 2 Davies Avenue Hobart - Alterations to Car Park and Associated Hydraulic Infrastructure

            PLN-16-1185 - FILE REF: F17/28750

Address:                         20 McVilly Drive, 1 McVilly Drive, 2 Davies Avenue, Hobart

Proposal:                       Alterations to Car Park and Associated Hydraulic Infrastructure

Expiry Date:                   10 May 2017

Extension of Time:       Not applicable

Author:                           Michaela Nolan

 

 

REcommendation

That pursuant to the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997, the Council approve the application for alterations to car park and associated hydraulic infrastructure at 20 McVilly Drive, 1 McVilly Drive and 2 Davies Avenue, Hobart for the reasons outlined in the officer’s report and a permit containing the following conditions be issued:

 

GEN

 

The use and/or development must be substantially in accordance with the documents and drawings that comprise PLN­16­1185 ­ 20 McVilly Drive, Hobart ­ 1 McVilly Drive ­ 2 Davies Avenue ­ Final Planning Documents except where modified below.

 

Reason for condition

 

To clarify the scope of the permit.

 

TW

 

The use and/or development must comply with the requirements of TasWater as detailed in the form Submission to Planning Authority Notice, Reference No. TWDA 2016/01850­HCC dated 1 December 2016 as attached to the permit.

 

Reason for condition

 

To clarify the scope of the permit.

 

ENG sw5

 

The development must be drained to the River Derwent via the proposed stormwater main extension and diversion at the developer’s cost. The new stormwater infrastructure must be constructed prior to the first use at the developer’s cost.

 

Engineering design drawings must be submitted and approved, prior to commencement of work. The engineering drawings must:

 

1.      Be certified by a qualified and experienced engineer.

2.      Show in both plan and long­section the proposed stormwater mains and outfall, including but not limited to, connections, flows, velocities, hydraulic grade lines, clearances from other services, cover, gradients, sizing, material, pipe class, adequate working platforms around manholes, easements and adequate scour control.  The high water mark and top of embankment must be clearly shown on the outlet plan.

3.      Clearly distinguish between public and private infrastructure.

4.      Be substantially in accordance with the LGAT drawings.

 

All work required by this condition must be undertaken in accordance with the approved engineering design drawings.

 

Advice: Once the engineering design drawings have been approved the Council will issue a condition endorsement (see general advice on how to obtain condition endorsement).

 

Please note that once the condition endorsement has been issued you will need to contact Council’s City Infrastructure Division to obtain a Permit to Construct Public Infrastructure.

 

Reason for condition

 

To ensure Council’s hydraulic infrastructure meets acceptable standards.

 

ENG sw7

 

Stormwater pre­ treatment for stormwater discharges from the development must be installed prior to first use.

 

A stormwater management report and design must be submitted and approved, prior to commencement of works. The stormwater management report and design must:

 

1.      Be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer.

2.      Include detailed design of the proposed treatment train, including final estimations of contaminant removal.

3.      Include a Stormwater Management Summary Plan that outlines the obligations for property owners to stormwater management, including a maintenance plan which outlines the operational and maintenance measures to check and ensure the ongoing effective operation of all systems, such as: inspection frequency; cleanout procedures; descriptions and diagrams of how the installed systems operate; details of the life of assets and replacement requirements.

 

All work required by this condition must be undertaken and maintained in accordance with the approved stormwater management report and design.

Advice: Once the stormwater management report and design has been approved Council will issue a condition endorsement (see general advice on how to obtain condition endorsement).

 

Reason for condition

 

To avoid the possible pollution of drainage systems and natural watercourses, and to comply with relevant State Legislation.

 

ENG 8

 

All parking spaces must be delineated by means of white or yellow lines 80mm to 100mm wide, or white or yellow pavements markers in accordance to Australian/NZS Standard, Parking facilities Part 1: Off­street car parking AS/NZS 2890.1, prior to the commencement of the use.

 

Reason for condition

 

In the interests of vehicle user safety and the amenity of the development.

 

ENG 9

 

All car parking spaces for people with disabilities must be delineated to Australian/NZS Standard, Parking facilities Part 6: Off­street parking for people with disabilities AS/NZS 2890.6: 2009, prior to the commencement of the use.

 

Reason for condition

 

In the interests of vehicle user safety and the amenity of the development.

 

ENG 1

 

The cost of repair of any damage to the Council infrastructure resulting from the implementation of this permit, must be met by the owners within 30 days of the completion of the development or as otherwise determined by the Council. Any damage must be immediately reported to the Council.

 

A photographic record of the Council infrastructure adjacent to the subject site must be provided to the Council prior to any commencement of works.

 

A photographic record of the Council’s infrastructure (e.g. existing property service connection points, roads, buildings, stormwater, footpaths, driveway crossovers and nature strips, including if any, pre existing damage) will be relied upon to establish the extent of damage caused to the Council’s infrastructure during construction. In the event that the owner/developer fails to provide to the Council a photographic record of the Council’s infrastructure, then any damage to the Council infrastructure found on completion of works will be deemed to be the responsibility of the owner.

 

Reason for condition

 

To ensure that any of the Council infrastructure and/or site­related service connections affected by the proposal will be altered and/or reinstated at the owner’s full cost.

 

ENV 2

 

Sediment and erosion control measures, sufficient to prevent sediment from leaving the site and in accordance with an approved soil and water management plan (SWMP), must be installed prior to the commencement of work and maintained until such time as all disturbed areas have been stabilised and/or restored or sealed to the Council’s satisfaction.

 

A SWMP must be submitted and approved, prior to the commencement of work. The SWMP must be prepared in accordance with the Soil and Water Management on Building and Construction Sites fact sheets (Derwent Estuary Program, 2008), available here.

 

All work required by this condition must be undertaken in accordance with the approved SWMP.

 

Advice: Once the SWMP has been approved, the Council will issue a condition endorsement (see general advice on how to obtain condition endorsement).

 

Reason for condition

 

To avoid the pollution and sedimentation of roads, drains and natural watercourses that could be caused by erosion and runoff from the development.

 

HER 6

 

All onsite excavation and ground disturbance on Tasport's land between SW2.1 and SW2.2 (as shown on drawing C11, Revision P1, Drawn by M Richardson, Drawing date 14/12/2016) must be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. Should any features or deposits of an archaeological nature be discovered during excavation or disturbance:

 

1.      All excavation and/or disturbance must stop immediately; and

2.      A qualified archaeologist must provide advice and assessment of the features and/or deposits discovered and make recommendations on further excavation and/or disturbance; and

3.      All and any recommendations made by the archaeologist engaged in accordance with above must be complied with in full; and

4.      All features and/or deposits discovered must be reported to the Council with 7 days of the discovery; and

5.      A copy of the archaeologist's advice, assessment and recommendations obtained in accordance with paragraph (2) above must be provided to Council within 60 days of receipt of the advice, assessment and recommendations.

 

Excavation and/or disturbance must not recommence unless and until approval is granted from the Council.

 

Reason for condition

 

To ensure that work is planned and implemented in a manner that seeks to understand, retain, protect, preserve and manage significant archaeological evidence.

 

ADVICE

 

The following advice is provided to you to assist in the implementation of the planning permit that has been issued subject to the conditions above. The advice is not exhaustive and you must inform yourself of any other legislation, by­laws, regulations, codes or standards that will apply to your development under which you may need to obtain an approval. Visit the Council's website for further information.

 

Prior to any commencement of work on the site or commencement of use the following additional permits/approval may be required from the Hobart City Council.

 

CONDITION ENDORSEMENT

 

If a condition endorsement is required by a planning condition above, you will need to submit the relevant documentation to satisfy the condition, via the Condition Endorsement Submission on Council's online e­service portal.

 

Once approved, the Council will respond to you via email that the condition(s) has been endorsed (satisfied). Detailed instructions can be found here.

 

PLUMBING PERMIT

 

Plumbing permit in accordance with the Tasmanian Plumbing Regulations 2014.

 

Click here for more information.

 

PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE

 

Permit to construct public infrastructure with a 12 month maintenance period and bond (please contact the Hobart City Council's City Infrastructure Division to initiate the permit process).

 

NEW SERVICE CONNECTION

 

New service connection (please contact the Hobart City Council's City Infrastructure Division to initiate the application process).

 

STORMWATER

 

Please note that in addition to a building and/or plumbing permit, development must be in accordance with the Hobart City Council’s Hydraulic Services By law. Click here for more information.

 

STORMWATER / ROADS / ACCESS

 

Services to be designed and constructed in accordance with the (IPWEA) LGAT ­ standard drawings. Click here for more information.

 

WEED CONTROL

 

Effective measures are detailed in the Tasmanian Washdown Guidelines for Weed and Disease Control: Machinery, Vehicles and Equipment (Edition 1, 2004). The guidelines can be obtained from the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment website.

 

DIAL BEFORE YOU DIG

 

Click here for dial before you dig information.

 

HERITAGE

 

Aboriginal relics and artifacts may be located within the area of excavation and you are therefore advised that the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 may apply. You are advised to seek independent and separate advice in relation to the application and requirements of this legislation.

 

Attachment a:             PLN-16-1185 - 20 MCVILLY DRIVE HOBART TAS 7000 - Planning Committee or Delegated Report

Attachment b:             PLN-16-1185 - 20 MCVILLY DRIVE HOBART - 1 MCVILLY DRIVE - 2 DAVIES AVENUE - CPC Agenda Documents   


Item No. 7.1.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 15

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.1.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 37

ATTACHMENT b

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.1.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 47

ATTACHMENT b

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.1.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 62

ATTACHMENT b

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.1.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 65

ATTACHMENT b

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.1.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 66

ATTACHMENT b

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.1.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 71

ATTACHMENT b

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.1.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 75

ATTACHMENT b

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.1.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 76

ATTACHMENT b

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator 


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 96

 

27/3/2017

 

 

7.2     Applications under the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015

 

7.2.1 325 Elizabeth Street, 321-323A Elizabeth Street and Adjacent Right of Way, North Hobart – PLN-14-00639 - Request for an Extension of Time to Permit

          File Ref: F17/29504; eta - 17-23

Report of the Manager Development Appraisal of 22 March 2017 and attachments.

Delegation:     Committee


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 97

 

27/3/2017

 

 

 

 

Memorandum: City Planning Committee

 

325 Elizabeth Street, 321-323A Elizabeth Street and Adjacent Right of Way, North Hobart – PLN-14-00639 - Request for an Extension of Time to Permit

 

Introduction

This memorandum relates to a request to extend the time period to substantially commence planning permit PLN-14-00639-01 (the permit) for Partial Demolition, Alterations and Partial Change of Use to Shop at 325 Elizabeth Street, 321-323A Elizabeth Street and Adjacent Right of Way, North Hobart.

Background

On 30th December 2014, approval was granted under delegated authority for “partial demolition, alterations and partial change of use to shop” (the proposal) at 325 Elizabeth Street, 321-323A Elizabeth Street and adjacent right of way, North Hobart (the site).

The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982.

There were two discretions:

1.     The site was adjacent to a heritage listed site at 366 Elizabeth Street. 

2.     The proposal did not comply with the side setback provisions under D.3.4.2 or the maximum length of wall within 1.5m of the side boundary under D.3.4.3.

One representation was received within the statutory advertising period.  No appeal was lodged with the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The applicant had until 30 December 2016 to substantially commence the proposal under the planning permit.  No work has been undertaken to date.  A building application for the proposal was submitted to the Council on 2 February 2017.  A building permit cannot be issued until and unless this extension of time request is determined in favour of the applicant.

The applicant has requested an extension of time (until 30 December 2018) in which to substantially commence the proposal. The request is made under Section 53(5)(b) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (the Act).

Extension of time delegation

Usually, requests for extensions of time to a permit are dealt with at an officer level under delegation.  However, that delegation can only be exercised at officer level when the ‘strategic intent of the relevant planning scheme has not significantly changed’.

As stated above, the proposal was considered under the relevant provisions of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982.  The Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 came into force on 20 May 2015.  If the provisions of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 represent a significant change in the strategic intent to the provisions of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 insofar as they are applicable to the proposal, delegation to grant the extension of time to the permit rests with the City Planning Committee.

The Strategic Intent of the Planning Scheme

Originally the proposal was assessed under the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982.  The property was dual zoned, Residential 3 and Local Service.  The building and proposed works, other than the proposed parking, was fully contained within the Local Service Zone.  The proposal triggered discretions under Schedule D: Siting and Landscaping and Schedule F: Heritage. The site was also contained within the Precinct 16A Local Area Plan (North Hobart).

Under the now in force Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015, the site remains dual zoned as General Business and Inner Residential.  The building and proposed works, other than the proposed parking, is fully contained within the General Business Zone.  The proposal complies with all the Use Standards and Development Standards for Building and Works, including setback provisions, within the General Business Zone.  Consequently, it is considered that the strategic intent of the zone provisions applicable to the site has not changed from the former City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 to the current Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

Similarly, the site is subject to the North Hobart Specific Area Plan under the current Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015.  The provisions between the original Precinct 16A Local Area Plan (North Hobart) and the current North Hobart Specific Area Plan remain the same. Therefore there is no change in the strategic intent of provisions applicable to the site with respect to this specific overlay.

However, there is a significant change to the heritage status of the site between the two planning schemes: under the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 the site was adjacent to a heritage listed site.  Under the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 there are no adjacency provisions and the site is contained within Heritage Precinct NH6.

The change in heritage status from being adjacent to a heritage listed site under the former planning scheme to being within a Heritage Precinct under the current planning scheme is considered to be a significant change to the strategic intent of planning scheme provisions applicable to the site. Therefore, delegation to approve the extension of time to the permit request rests with the City Planning Committee.

Heritage Assessment

The Council’s Cultural Heritage Officer, who undertook the original assessment, has re-considered the proposal against the provisions of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015.  The officer has confirmed that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the characteristics of Heritage Precinct NH6, subject to the approval of suitable cladding colours prior to commencement of construction.  A condition to this effect is included on the existing permit.

Conclusion

The strategic intent of planning provisions applicable to the site has significantly changed from the former City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015, on the basis that the site is now within a Heritage Precinct.

Council’s Cultural Heritage Officer has advised that they support the extension of time request for planning permit PLN-14-00639-01.

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and advised that the original conditions imposed are consistent with the requirements of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

If the City Planning Committee grants the extension of time request, the applicant will have until 30 December 2018 to substantially commence the proposal.

If the City Planning Committee refuses to grant the extension of time request, the applicant may lodge a new development application which will be assessed under the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

 

There is no provision under the Act to appeal an extension of time refusal.

 

REcommendation

That the Council approve the extension of time request lodged under Section 53(5)(b) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 in respect of PLN-14-00639-01.

 

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.

 

Rohan Probert

Manager Development Appraisal

 

 

Date:                            22 March 2017

File Reference:          F17/29504; eta - 17-23

 

 

Attachment a:             ETA-17-23 - 325 ELIZABETH STREET NORTH HOBART TAS 7000 - Approved Plans   


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 101

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 102

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 103

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 104

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 105

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 106

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 107

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 108

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 109

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 110

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 111

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 112

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 113

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 114

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 115

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 116

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 117

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 118

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 119

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 120

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 121

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 122

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 7.2.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 123

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator  


Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 124

 

27/3/2017

 

 

8        Reports

 

8.1    Tasmanian Planning Scheme - State Planning Provisions

          File Ref: F17/23921; S32-013-07

Report of the Manager Planning Policy and Heritage of 20 March 2017 and attachments.

Delegation:     Council


Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 125

 

27/3/2017

 

 

REPORT TITLE:                  Tasmanian Planning Scheme - State Planning Provisions

REPORT PROVIDED BY:  Manager Planning Policy and Heritage

Director City Planning

 

1.         Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1.     This report informs Council about the assessment of the State Planning Provisions (SPPs) by the Tasmanian Planning Commission (Commission) and the making of the final SPPs by the Minister for Planning and Local Government (the Minister).  It also outlines the implications for the preparation of the Local Provisions Schedule (LPS).

2.         Report Summary

2.1.     The Minister approved the draft SPPs for exhibition on 9 March 2016.  The Commission exhibited the draft SPPs for a 60 day period between 12 March and 18 May 2016, during which time 294 representations were received and a further nine late representations were accepted.  Following assessment by the Commission the Minister made the SPPs on 22 February 2017.

2.2.     The Commission’s role was to undertake an independent assessment of the draft SPPs and to provide advice to the Minister. The final decision on the content of the SPPs is for the Minister.  A copy of the Commission’s report on the assessment of the draft SPPs is provided in Attachment B.

2.3.     The Commission considered over 300 representations which raised thousands of individual issues and it found that many of the representations raised matters of merit.  The Commission’s considered however that its recommendations for modifications were constrained due to the limitations of the process.  In relation to a number of issues the Commission has stated that it has been unable to recommend modifications to address the issue because of the limited time available.

2.4.     In the context of the process established by the Act, the Commission took the view that the provisions of the draft SPPs reflect planning policy positions determined by the Minister and the Commission accepted the planning policy positions inherent in the draft SPPs.  As a consequence of this view the Commission has avoided, wherever possible, making modifications that change the policy intent of provisions.

2.5.     The Commission states that while it was given an extension of time within which to consider and report on the draft SPPs, its approach has been necessarily pragmatic. It considers that more time would have been helpful to better resolve some issues of complexity or detail.

2.6.     The key modifications recommended by the Commission are outlined in section 5.9 of this report and the Ministers response to those recommendations are summarised in section 5.12.

2.7.     The Commission has published a summary of the representations and its opinion as to merit (Attachment D).  Given the time constraints the summary and opinion as to merit is at a high level and it is not always possible to ascertain what the Commissions opinion is in relation to many specific issues raised in the representations.

2.8.     Council’s representation in relation to the draft SPPs identified a considerable number of issues related to the detailed drafting of various standards and provisions.  The more substantive issues raised and the Commissions response, if any, are outlined in section 5.14 of this report.

2.9.     The drafting of the LPS in Hobart will mostly be a translation exercise from the existing Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015.  The more significant tasks will be:

2.9.1.     Review of the areas currently zoned Environmental Living and identification of  an appropriate replacement zone given this zone is not available in the SPPs;

2.9.2.     Translation of the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997 into the Tasmanian Planning Scheme format;

2.9.3.     Drafting of Specific Area Plans for the Central Business, Commercial and Light Industrial Zones, the Battery Point Heritage Precinct and the Lower Sandy Bay escarpment;

2.9.4.     Review of the existing vegetation mapping to identify vegetation of local importance;

2.9.5.     Review and rewriting of the heritage precincts statements of significance so that they contain the information required by the SPP table;

2.9.6.     Preparation of statements of local heritage significance for each of the 1400 heritage listed places;

2.9.7.     Deletion of the approximately 2000 places listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register from the current Hobart Interim Planning Scheme list of heritage places; and

2.9.8.     Review of mapping requirements and preparation of an overlay for the application of the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code.

2.10.   The preparation of statements of local heritage significance for each of the 1400 locally listed heritage places has considerable resource implications for Council and will significantly delay the completion of the draft LPS for submission to the Commission. 

2.11.   The Commission’s report does acknowledges that the preparation of statements of local heritage significance will have resourcing implications for councils but considers that this is required to improve clarity and certainty in the operation of the code.

2.12.   The preparation of the statements of local heritage significance will involve a review of the information held for each property and rewriting of the existing information held in the datasheets to be consistent in terminology and structure with the definition in the SPPs.  It is estimated that this process for 1400 places will take around 12 months. 

2.13.   Given the current workload of Councils Cultural Heritage Officers it will be necessary to employ a suitably qualified person to complete the task.  It should also be noted that it may be difficult to find a suitably qualified person given the small pool of cultural heritage practitioners in Tasmania and the fact that a number of councils will need to undertake the same task at the same time.

2.14.   It is recommended that Council write to the Minister and make him aware of the time and resourcing implications of the requirement to prepare statements of local heritage significance for inclusion in the LPS.

2.15.   In relation to the issue of Visitor Accommodation the Minister decided to modify the SPPs as follows:

2.15.1.  provide an exemption for 'Visitor accommodation in a dwelling (including a secondary residence)' if: - the dwelling is used by the owner or occupier as their main place of residence, and only let while the owner or occupier is on vacation, or the dwelling is used by the owner or occupier as their main place of residence, and visitors are accommodated in not more than 4 bedrooms;

2.15.2.  increase the Acceptable Solution gross floor area from 160m2 to 300m2 for permitted Visitor Accommodation within an existing building in the relevant residential zone standards, and

2.15.3.  make consequential amendments to the Visitor Accommodation use class description to ensure the use of holiday homes or shacks by the owners or by non-paying guests of the owners does not constitute a change of use.

2.16.   The Tasmanian Planning Scheme will not come into effect in each council area until the LPS which applies the SPPs in that area is finalised.  This will involve assessment by the Commission and then a public exhibition and hearing process.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Council write to the Minister for Planning and Local Government and make him aware of the time and resourcing implications of the requirement to prepare statements of local heritage significance for inclusion in the Local Provisions Schedule.

 


 

3.         Background

3.1.     On the 17th December 2015 amendments were made to the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (the Act) which enabled the preparation of draft SPPs to be known as the Tasmanian Planning Scheme.

3.2.     The Minister approved the draft SPPs for exhibition on 9 March 2016.  The Commission exhibited the draft SPPs for a 60 day period between 12 March and 18 May 2016, during which representations were invited. During that period 294 representations were received and a further nine late representations were accepted.

3.3.     At its meeting on 6 May 2016 Council considered a report on the draft SPPs and endorsed a representation to the Commission. A copy of that report and representation are provided in Attachment A.

3.4.     The Commission held public hearings in Hobart, Launceston and Burnie on dates between July and October 2016 to assist its consideration of the draft SPPs and submitted its report to the Minister on 9 December 2016.

3.5.     The Minister subsequently made the SPPs on 22 February 2017.

4.         Proposal and Implementation

4.1.     It is proposed that Council note this report and write to the Minister in relation to the requirement in the SPPs to include a statement of heritage significance for each heritage listed place. 

4.2.     Implementation of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme will follow completion of the LPS process.

Assessment of the draft SPPs by the Commission

4.3.     The Commission’s role was to undertake an independent assessment of the draft SPPs and to provide advice to the Minister. The final decision on the content of the SPPs is for the Minister.  A copy of the Commission’s report on the assessment of the draft SPPs is provided in Attachment B.

4.4.     The Commission considered over 300 representations which raised thousands of individual issues. The Commission found that many of the representations raised matters of merit. While some representations informed recommendations for modifications, in some instances, due to the limitations of the process, the Commission’s considered that its recommendations for modification were constrained.  In relation to a number of issues the Commission has stated that it has been unable to recommend modifications to address the issue because of the limited time available.

4.5.     In the context of the process established by the Act, the Commission took the view that the provisions of the draft SPPs reflect planning policy positions determined by the Minister and while some of those planning policy positions were not accepted by those who made representations, the Commission accepts the planning policy positions inherent in the draft SPPs. 

4.6.     The Commission recommended numerous modifications throughout the draft SPPs to improve the clarity and consistency of drafting. It has avoided, wherever possible, making modifications that change the policy intent of provisions. However, in some circumstances it has done so in response to representations and submissions or to ensure that the draft SPPs can be practically applied or to operate in the manner intended.

4.7.     The Commission states that while it was given an extension of time within which to consider and report on the draft SPPs, its approach has been necessarily pragmatic. It considers that more time would have been helpful to better resolve some issues of complexity or detail.

4.8.     The modifications recommended by the Commission are largely elaborations, corrections and editorial changes to improve the clarity and consistency of the draft SPPs. Generally modifications that change the policy intent have been avoided unless there has been a reason to do so for clarification or implementation reasons.

4.9.     The key modifications recommended by the Commission are as follows:

4.9.1.     Exemptions - Inclusion of an exemption for internal works. The Commission considers that building interiors do not necessarily fall within the scope of development as the purpose of the planning system is concerned more broadly with the external implications of development.  The Commission supports the inclusion of the exemption as it adds clarity and will assist a consistent approach by avoiding the opportunity for alternate interpretations.

4.9.2.     Visitor Accommodation - Deletion of the exemption for Visitor Accommodation accompanied by the recommendation that an alternative exemption be introduced by amendment to the SPPs (after they are made) for ‘home stay’, including the introduction of a new term and definition for ‘home stay’ as follows:

4.9.2.1.      Add a new definition for ‘home stay’ which allows for short term accommodation in an existing dwelling, if it has 4 bedrooms or less, with no limit on the number of nights. 

4.9.2.2.      Replace the exemption for ‘visitor accommodation in a dwelling ’with ‘home stay’ if for the use of a dwelling for home stay accommodation, with no limitation on the number of nights. 

4.9.2.3.      Include the example of home stay in the Residential Use Class.

4.9.3.     The Commission considered that there is high public interest in this issue and that as the modifications reflect a different policy approach to the manner the activity is addressed in the draft SPPs it considered that re-exhibition of these provisions is appropriate.

4.9.4.     Low Density Residential Zone - The density implications of multiple dwellings being permitted in the Low Density Residential Zone was raised by a number of representors. The Commission does not consider that allowing multiple dwellings is necessarily a threat to density however the Commission considers it may be more transparent to identify Multiple Dwellings as discretionary in the Use Table, indicating ‘up-front’ that Multiple Dwellings will be subject to discretion. This will allow any Local Area Objectives to be considered under clause 6.10.2(b) in determining whether the use is appropriate.

4.9.5.     Rural Living Zone - Introduce further densities in the Rural Living Zone by allowing for 1ha, 2ha, 5ha and 10ha minimum lot sizes.

4.9.6.     Environmental Management Zone - Modify the Environmental Management Zone to apply to all land irrespective of tenure and to clarify that the range of uses that are Permitted must be on State-reserved land and granted an approval or authority by the managing authority.

4.9.7.     Natural Assets Code - Remove the Natural Assets Code pending its further review as it requires further work to be suitable for implementation.

4.9.8.     Local Historic Heritage Code – Modify the LPS requirements to require a statement of local heritage significance for each listed place.  The Commission considers this is required for the code to improve clarity and certainty in the operation of the code.

4.9.9.     Remove significant trees from the Local Historic Heritage Code, as trees of historic heritage significance can be listed as local heritage places.

4.9.10.  Stormwater - A stormwater code as suggested by planning authorities and practitioners was not supported but the Commission recommends its further consideration and potential future amendment to the SPPs. In the absence of a stormwater code the Commission has modified clause 6.11.1 to include ‘erosion and stormwater volume and quality controls’. This provides broader powers to apply conditions to not only the construction phase of development but also its ongoing use.

4.10.   The Commission also identified the following issues that have implications for the making of the LPS:

4.10.1.  Deletion of the Environmental Living Zone will result in zoning changes for all property owners that are currently zoned Environmental Living under an interim planning scheme.

4.10.2.  There may be a considerable task for planning authorities to complete the Local Heritage Code listing requirements to the extent required by the LPS Requirements.

4.10.3.  Considerable guidance in the form of section 8A guidelines and Commission Practice Notes will be required as a high priority after the SPPs are made to assist planning authorities to prepare LPS.

4.11.   The Commission also made a number of general recommendations (see Page 61 of Attachment B) in relation a number of issues including the following:

4.11.1.  Residential Standards PD4.1 - A number of the representations received from planning authorities and individuals raised concerns about the development outcomes and loss of local character that can arise through application of the residential standards, since they are already in operation as a result of Planning Directive No.4.1 in interim planning schemes.

4.11.2.  The Commission notes that the ‘one size fits all’ approach is likely to result in planning authorities seeking more exceptions through the inclusion of particular purpose zones, specific area plans and site-specific qualifications in their LPSs.

4.11.3.  The Commission recommends that the standards in General Residential and Inner Residential Zones be reviewed as a priority and it is appropriate to:

4.11.3.1.    evaluate the performance of the standards and whether the intended outcomes have been realised, including delivering greater housing choice, providing for infill development and making better use of existing infrastructure;

4.11.3.2.    consider the validity of the claims that the standards are resulting in an unreasonable impact on residential character and amenity; and

4.11.3.3.    introduce drafting that is more consistent with the conventions that apply to the SPPs generally. 

4.11.4.  Business Zones - The Commission heard from planning authorities that the business and commercial zones were not strongly distinguished from each other and each allowed a wide range of uses. The Commission agrees and recommends that further policy development be undertaken to establish a state-wide activity centre network and that this be given statutory status in the SPPS, potentially leading to amendments that will simplify the assessment of applications.

4.11.5.  Significant trees - a number of planning authorities submitted that their listed trees were not always listed for heritage significance but for one or a number of other reasons, such as aesthetic or scientific grounds. The Commission recommends that consideration be given to whether a stand-alone code for significant trees to protect other values should be added to the SPPs by a future amendment.

4.11.6.  Affordable Housing – In relation to this issue the Commission considered it difficult to make any modifications to the draft SPPs without a greater policy mandate to do so and has recommended that the Minister give consideration to whether housing affordability is a matter that should be addressed in the planning system and if so, what actions are required to set the policy context, such as modifications to the objectives of the Act or planning policy direction relevant to the SPPs.

4.11.7.  State Coastal Policy 1996 – The Commission has recommended that priority consideration is given to the review of the State Coastal Policy 1996, particularly Outcome 1.4.2 regarding actively mobile landforms. Now that coastal hazard mapping is available on a state-wide basis, the SPPs could potentially include planning standards to deliver the outcomes envisaged by clause 1.4.2 but is constrained from doing so by the terms of the policy.

4.11.8.  Stormwater Code - The Commission recommends that that a stormwater management code or standards suitable for inclusion in zones be prepared to better manage the stormwater disposal.

Ministers response to TPC recommendations

4.12.   After seeking advice from the Planning Policy Unit and the Planning Reform Taskforce the Minister decided (the Ministers report is provided in Attachment C) to accept the majority of the Commission's recommended modifications to the exhibited draft SPPs for the reasons specified in its report of 9 December 2016, with the exception of the following key matters:

4.12.1.  Natural Assets Code – The Commission’s recommendation that the Natural Assets Code be omitted from the SPPs and revised was not accepted.  A number of modifications were made however, including broadening the scope of the code to include native vegetation of local importance and deletion of the permitted allowance of clearing up to 3000m2 of vegetation in the Rural Living Zone.

4.12.2.  Visitor Accommodation – The Minister did not accept the recommendation that the changes to the provisions relating to visitor accommodation in a dwelling be re-exhibited and decided to modify the SPPs as follows:

4.12.2.1.    provide an exemption for 'Visitor accommodation in a dwelling (including a secondary residence)' if: - the dwelling is used by the owner or occupier as their main place of residence, and only let while the owner or occupier is on vacation, or the dwelling is used by the owner or occupier as their main place of residence, and visitors are accommodated in not more than 4 bedrooms;

4.12.2.2.    increase the Acceptable Solution gross floor area from 160m2 to 300m2 for permitted Visitor Accommodation within an existing building in the relevant residential zone standards, to provide a better reflection of the size of an average 4 bedroom dwelling, and

4.12.2.3.    make consequential amendment to the Visitor Accommodation use class description to ensure the use of holiday homes or shacks by the owners or by non-paying guests of the owners does not constitute a change of use.

4.12.3.  Significant Trees - The Commission has recommended removing the specific provisions relating to significant trees in the SPPs (C.6.9) indicating that trees associated with heritage values could be managed as a type of 'place' under the broader provisions. They also recommended that consideration be given to whether a stand-alone code for significant trees to protect other values should be added to the SPPs by a future amendment.

4.12.4.  The Minister was satisfied that the provisions relating to significant trees in the Local Historic Heritage Code as originally exhibited should be retained in the final SPPs. This includes the requirement to list significant trees in the relevant Local Provisions Schedule.

4.12.5.  Attenuation Code - The Commission recommended the Attenuation Code be modified to remove the airport provisions and that a separate code be prepared and titled the Safeguarding of Airports Code and for it to be subject to a future amendment after the SPPs have been made.

4.12.6.  The Minister accepted that the airport provisions are better contained in a separate code to provide the necessary emphasis for the protection of Tasmania's airports. However, he did not accept that the airport provisions, as contained in the exhibited version of the Attenuation Code, require substantial modification and re-exhibition as part of a future amendment following the making of the SPPs and that a Safeguarding of Airports Code should be included in the SPPs.

4.12.7.  Agriculture Zone - The Commission recommended deleting the provision allowing for multiple dwellings as a discretionary use in the Agriculture Zone. The Minister did not agree and was satisfied there is a need to provide for the consideration of multiple dwellings in the Agriculture Zone where necessary for the agricultural activity to accommodate farm employees.

4.12.8.  Scenic Protection Code - The Commission recommended extending the application of the Scenic Protection Code to the Low Density Residential Zone.  The Minister did not agree as he considered that there was potential for the purpose of the Low Density Residential Zone to be undermined if the Scenic Protection Code is applied inappropriately.

4.13.   The Minister also made a number of other minor modifications to the SPPs including in relation to; the various hazard codes, vehicular access requirements in the subdivision standards, water supply connections in the zone standards, small scale food and beverage production and provisions for contaminated land at the Macquarie Point Site.

Response to Councils representation

4.14.   The Commission has published a summary of the representations and the Commission’s opinion as to merit (Attachment D).  Given the time constraints the summary and opinion as to merit is at a high level and it is not always possible to ascertain what the Commissions opinion is in relation to many specific issues raised in the representations.

4.15.   Council’s representation in relation to the draft identified a considerable number of issues related to the detailed drafting of various standards and provisions.  The more substantive issues raised and the Commissions response, if any, are outlined below:

4.15.1.  Strategic foundation – Council was concerned that elements of the SPPs appear to be based on ‘policy’ positions that have not been documented or subject to any consultation process.  In relation to this issue the Commission has taken the view that the provisions of the draft SPPs reflect planning policy positions determined by the Minister and while some of those planning policy positions were not accepted by those who made representations, the Commission accepts the planning policy positions inherent in the draft SPPs. 

4.15.2.  Standardisation of zone provisions – Council was concerned that standardising acceptable solutions does not reflect the existing or desired character of many areas. The Commission acknowledges this concern but accepts that this is a deliberate policy of the draft SPPs which seek to increase the state-wide consistency of provisions.

4.15.3.  The Commission notes that while consistent provisions may make the administration of planning more convenient and efficient, the performance of the planning system will also be judged by on-the-ground outcomes. If local character is a point of difference and an attribute of all Tasmanian places, unintended consequences may flow from denying local differences. 

4.15.4.  The Commission acknowledges the limitations of the ‘one size fits all’ approach and considers that it is likely to result in planning authorities seeking more exceptions through the inclusion of particular purpose zones, specific area plans and site-specific qualifications in their LPS.

4.15.5.  Commercial Uses in Residential Zones – Councils representation submitted that the qualifications related to business and professional services, food services and general retail and hire uses in the residential zones are inadequate as they will not prevent displacement of residential uses.  There is no change to these provisions and no discussion of the issue in the Commission’s report.

4.15.6.  Environmental Living Zone – Council submitted that the omission of the current Environmental Living Zone (ELZ) and its replacement with the Landscape Conservation Zone (LCZ) will make it difficult to translate the existing areas in the ELZ into the new scheme so that similar provisions apply.  The Commission has responded to this issue by providing for a greater variety of lot sizes in the Rural Living Zone (1, 2, 5 and 10ha).

4.15.7.  Local Historic Heritage Code – Councils concerns in relation to this Code included; its non-application to places listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register and internal works, inclusion of the significant tree provisions, omission of reference to the Burra Charter and the requirement to detail the significant features of a listed place.  None of these issues have been addressed and it is now mandatory to include a statement of local heritage significance for each heritage listed place.

4.15.8.  Environmental and Hazard Codes – Council submitted that some inappropriately liberal acceptable solutions are included in these codes such as permitting clearance of 3000m2 of threatened vegetation within the Rural Living Zone under the Natural Assets Code.  This particular acceptable solution has been removed.  The ability of the Natural Assets Code to now include vegetation identified to be of local importance is a considerable improvement.

4.15.9.  Stormwater Management Code – Council was concerned that the omission of the current Stormwater Management Code means that detailed standards related to stormwater management are not provided.  The Commission has responded by inserting an additional provision in clause 6.6.2 to provide a head of power for conditions addressing stormwater to be included on permits.

Preparation of Local Provisions Schedule

4.16.   The LPS will be comprised of the zone and overlay maps, local area objectives, lists relevant to codes, particular purpose zones, specific area plans, and any site specific qualifications for specific circumstances.

4.17.   The drafting of the LPS in Hobart will mostly be a translation exercise from the existing Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015.  The more significant tasks will be:

4.17.1.  Review of the areas currently zoned Environmental Living and identification of  an appropriate replacement zone given this zone is not available in the SPPs;

4.17.2.  Translation of the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997 into the Tasmanian Planning Scheme format;

4.17.3.  Drafting of Specific Area Plans for the Central Business, Commercial and Light Industrial Zones, the Battery Point Heritage Precinct and the Lower Sandy Bay escarpment;

4.17.4.  Review of the existing vegetation mapping to identify vegetation of local importance;

4.17.5.  Review and rewriting of the heritage precincts statements of significance so that they contain the information required by the SPP table;

4.17.6.  Preparation of statements of local heritage significance for each of the 1400 heritage listed places;

4.17.7.  Deletion of the approximately 2000 places listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register from the current Hobart Interim Planning Scheme list of heritage places; and

4.17.8.  Review of mapping requirements and preparation of an overlay for the application of the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code.

4.18.   The preparation of statements of local heritage significance for each of the 1400 heritage listed places has considerable resource implications for Council and will significantly delay the completion of the draft LPS for submission to the Commission. 

4.19.   The Commission’s report does acknowledge that the preparation of statements of local heritage significance will have resourcing implications for councils but considers that this is required to improve clarity and certainty in the operation of the code.

4.20.   The preparation of the statements of local heritage significance will involve a review of the information held for each property and rewriting of the existing information held in the datasheets to be consistent in terminology and structure with the definition in the SPPs.  It is estimated that this process for 1400 places will take around 12 months based on an average of 1 hour per place. 

4.21.   Given the current workload of Councils Cultural Heritage Officers it will be necessary to employ a suitably qualified person to complete the task. It should be noted that it may be difficult to find a suitably qualified person given the small pool of cultural heritage practitioners in Tasmania and the fact that a number of councils will need to undertake the same task at the same time.  Glenorchy for example has over 300 heritage listed places and Launceston over 500.

4.22.   It is considered that to require the preparation of statements of local heritage significance for inclusion in the LPS is not a good use of public resources as it is likely that the vast majority of heritage listed places will never be the subject of a development application.  The current approach requires the assessment of the heritage significance of a place at the time a development application is made and this is considered to be a more efficient use of public resources.

4.23.   It is recommended that Council write to the Minister and appraise him of the time and resourcing implications of the requirement to prepare statements of local heritage significance for inclusion in the LPS.

Local Provisions Schedule Process

4.24.   Councils are required to submit their draft LPS to the Commission for consideration prior to the public exhibition and assessment process.

4.25.   Councils are required under the Act to publicly exhibit their draft LPS for 60 days.

4.26.   The Act provides that any person can make a representation on the draft LPS within that period.  The council will then report to the Commission on the representations it has received.

4.27.   The Commission will undertake the statutory assessment of representations on the draft LPS and conduct public hearings.

4.28.   The Tasmanian Planning Scheme will come into effect in each council area when the LPS which applies the SPPs in that area is finalised.

5.         Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

5.1.     Aspects of the SPPs will make it more difficult to achieve some of the strategic objectives of the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 particularly in relation to Goal 2 Urban Management.

6.         Financial Implications

6.1.     Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

6.1.1.     The requirement to prepare statements of Local Heritage Significance for each of the 1400 heritage listed places has considerable resource implications for Council and it is estimated to cost in the vicinity of $130,000 to employ a suitably qualified person for 12 months to complete the task.  Funding for this has not been allocated in the current budget.

6.2.     Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

6.2.1.     As above.

6.3.     Asset Related Implications

6.3.1.     None.

7.         Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

7.1.     The implementation of the SPPs and the LPP will be undertaken in accordance with the process set out under the Act.

8.         Environmental Considerations

8.1.     The SPP does contain a number of codes dealing with hazard and environmental issues including issues related to climate change in the Coastal Inundation Hazard Code.

9.         Community and Stakeholder Engagement

9.1.     The community were given the opportunity to make representations in relation to the SPPs during the statutory public exhibition period.  Given the lack of response to many of the issues raised in the over 300 representations there is likely to be a degree of community dissatisfaction with the process. A further opportunity will be available to make representations in relation to the LPP will be available when it is placed on public exhibition.

10.      Delegation

10.1.   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.

 

James McIlhenny

Manager Planning Policy and Heritage

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

 

Date:                            20 March 2017

File Reference:          F17/23921; S32-013-07

 

 

Attachment a:             HCC SPP Representation

Attachment b:             TPC Report on SPPs

Attachment c:            Ministers Statement of Reasons

Attachment d:            TPC report on representations   


Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 140

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 204

ATTACHMENT b

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 276

ATTACHMENT c

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 296

ATTACHMENT d

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item No. 8.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 567

 

27/3/2017

 

 

8.2    Petition - Flashing Sign -
381 Elizabeth Street, North Hobart

          File Ref: F17/30023

Report of the Manager Development Appraisal of 22 March 2017 and attachments.

Delegation:     Committee


Item No. 8.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 568

 

27/3/2017

 

 

 

 

Memorandum: City Planning Committee

 

Petition - Flashing Sign -
381 Elizabeth Street, North Hobart

 

Introduction

This memorandum relates to a petition containing 11 signatures presented to the Council at its meeting of 23 January 2017.  The petition requests the Council to investigate a flashing sign which is situated on the corner of Elizabeth and Federal Streets, North Hobart (381 Elizabeth Street), as it is not considered to be in keeping with the heritage values of North Hobart and is distracting to nearby residents and drivers.

Background

The sign as it exists today was given planning approval on 23 January 2008 under planning application PLN-07-01363-01.  Signage of greater overall dimensions already existed in the same location at the time the application was made, and had been in place since at least 1984.  While application PLN-07-01363-01 sought approval for a 2.4m x 4.8m LED sign and a 1.0m x 6.0m billboard, the billboard component was required to be omitted from the proposal by a condition of approval.  The application was publicly advertised and received no representations. The application was assessed against the planning scheme prevailing at the time, the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982, and included assessment against that scheme’s heritage provisions and provisions relating to the Elizabeth Street streetscape within what was then Precinct 16A.

Discussion

In relation to the sign’s impact upon heritage and streetscape values, the planning report for application PLN-07-01363-01 noted that while the proposed sign was likely to detract from the streetscape and architectural features of the North Hobart area, the sign warranted discretionary support subject to conditions due to being an improvement to the existing signage in relation to streetscape and townscape values.

 

In relation to the sign’s potential impact upon drivers, the documentation submitted as part of the application and which subsequently forms part of the sign’s planning permit specifies that the sign’s content show static images (ie. not moving ‘video’ images) that change at a rate no faster than 1 image every 10 seconds.  The relatively high location of the sign (not in line with traffic signals) and the road environment slowing from 50 km/h to 40 km/h adjacent to the site have also been noted by a Council Traffic Engineer as helping to minimise the sign’s impact upon drivers.

 

In relation to the sign’s impact upon nearby residents, the planning assessment carried out under application PLN-07-01363-01 noted that the sign was smaller in overall size compared to that which existed at the time, and that it would have significantly reduced illumination at night.  This latter point refers to the specification submitted by the applicant and which subsequently forms part of the planning permit that indicates as follows:

 

 

An inspection of the sign was undertaken on 16 March 2017.  The following images were taken:

 

IMG_5211

IMG_5219

Image 1: Taken at 6:53pm, 16/03/2017 by R Probert.

Image 2: Taken at 9:39pm, 16/03/2017 by R Probert.

Image 1: Taken at 6:53pm, 16/03/2017

 by R Probert.

Image 2: Taken at 9:39pm, 16/03/2017 by R Probert.

 

Although difficult to quantify in specific terms, these images suggest that the requirement to dim the sign to 10% of normal power is unlikely to have occurred between each image being taken on 16 March 2017.

 

The current operator of the sign, Claude Neon, took over operation of the sign from Pulse Advertising who submitted planning application PLN-07-01363-01.  Claude Neon have indicated that they were unaware of the restrictions on the planning permit, but that they will adjust the operating parameters of the sign if necessary to ensure compliance with the permit.  They have indicated that they are making immediate arrangements to have a technical advisor inspect the sign to ascertain what adjustments, if any, need to be made.

 

As indicated above, the applicant for PLN-07-01363-01 included a specification in the documentation submitted at the time that the sign would ‘dim at night to 10% of normal power usage’.  By virtue of condition 1 on the planning permit, which requires the sign to be operated in accordance with the submitted documentation, that specification forms part of the sign’s planning approval.  The question, however, of when ‘night’ starts and finishes needs to be clarified.

 

Claude Neon have suggested that 9:00pm is a fair time for night to commence in the context of this sign.  They contend that while the onset of dusk obviously varies during different times of the year, 9:00pm is a reasonable time to dim the sign as, after that time, many people are going to bed for the night.  While there will clearly be people who go to bed earlier, 9:00pm is considered a reasonable time to require the sign to be dimmed.

 

In terms of when ‘night’ ought to finish, allowing the sign to return to full luminosity, Claude Neon suggest 5:00am.  5:00am is considered to be a time when most people are still asleep, and as such it is suggested that 6:00am is a more reasonable time for the sign to resume full brightness.

 

 

Conclusion

A petition was presented to Council at its meeting of 23 January 2017 requesting that the sign at 381 Elizabeth Street, North Hobart be investigated, due to being considered inconsistent with the heritage values of North Hobart and distracting to nearby residents and drivers.

 

The sign was assessed against the planning provisions prevailing at the time under planning application PLN-07-01363-01, which included consideration of heritage values, traffic and residential amenity.  No representations were submitted in relation to that application.  In broad terms, the proposed sign was considered to be an improvement on the sign that existed on the site at the time.  It was given planning approval subject to conditions that include:

·    the images shown on the sign being static (rather than moving) and changing at a rate no faster than 1 image every 10 seconds;

·    the sign being dimmed at night to 10% of normal power usage.

 

The sign has planning approval to continue operating on the site provided it does so in accordance with the requirements of that planning permit.  As discussed above, it is considered reasonable that those requirements include the sign being dimmed to 10% of normal power usage at 9:00pm each night and not returning to normal power usage until 6:00am each following morning.

 

The sign’s operator, Claude Neon, has indicated that they are making immediate arrangements to ascertain the sign’s current operating parameters, and that if adjustments to those parameters need to be made to ensure compliance with planning permit PLN-07-01363-01, then those adjustments will be made and maintained.  They have indicated that they hope to complete that work within the next week.

 

REcommendation

That:

1.    The sign be inspected by Council within a week of the City Planning Committee meeting of 27 March 2017, and that the Council initiate enforcement action if compliance with planning permit PLN-07-01363-01 has not been demonstrated by that time.

 

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.

 

Rohan Probert Signature

Rohan Probert

Manager Development Appraisal

 

 

Date:                            22 March 2017

File Reference:          F17/30023

 

 

Attachment a:             Petition - Flashing Signs - Cnr Elizabeth and Federal Streets   


Item No. 8.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 572

ATTACHMENT a

 

Page_000001


Page_000002


Page_000003


Page_000004


Page_000005


Page_000006


Page_000007


Page_000008


Page_000009


Page_000010


Page_000011


Item No. 8.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 583

 

27/3/2017

 

 

8.3    Delegated Decisions Report (Planning)

          File Ref: F17/29304; 16/117

Report of the Director City Planning of 20 March 2017 and attachments.

Delegation:     Committee


Item No. 8.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 584

 

27/3/2017

 

 

 

 

Memorandum: City Planning Committee

 

Delegated Decisions Report (Planning)

 

Attached is the delegated planning decisions report for the period 6 March until 20 March 2017.

 

REcommendation

That:

1.      The information be received and noted.

 

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.

 

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

 

 

Date:                            20 March 2017

File Reference:          F17/29304; 16/117

 

 

Attachment a:             Delegated Decisions Report (Planning)     


Item No. 8.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 585

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 8.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 586

 

27/3/2017

 

 

8.4    City Planning - Advertising List

          File Ref: F17/29829

Report of the Director City Planning of 21 March 2017 and attachments.

Delegation:     Committee


Item No. 8.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 587

 

27/3/2017

 

 

 

 

Memorandum: City Planning Committee

 

City Planning - Advertising List

 

Attached is the advertising list for the period 3 March until 17 March 2017.

 

REcommendation

That:

1.      That the information be received and noted.

 

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.

 

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

 

 

Date:                            21 March 2017

File Reference:          F17/29829

 

 

Attachment a:             City Planning - Advertising List   


Item No. 8.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 588

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Item No. 9.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 593

 

27/3/2017

 

 

9        Committee Action Status Report

 

9.1      Committee Actions - Status Report

 

A report indicating the status of current decisions is attached for the information of Aldermen.

REcommendation:

That the information be received and noted.

Delegation:      Committee

 

 

Attachment a:             City Planning Status Report - February 2017    


Item No. 9.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 27/3/2017

Page 594

ATTACHMENT a

 

Page_000001


Page_000002


Page_000003


Page_000004


Page_000005


Page_000006

  


 

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 600

 

27/3/2017

 

 

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.

 


 

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 601

 

27/3/2017

 

 

11.     Closed Portion Of The Meeting

 

The following items were discussed: -

 

Item No. 1          Minutes of the last meeting of the Closed Portion of the Council Meeting

Item No. 2          Consideration of supplementary items to the agenda

Item No. 3          Indications of pecuniary and conflicts of interest

Item No. 4          Planning Authority Items – Consideration of Items with Deputations

Item No. 5          Questions without notice – File Ref: 13-1-10