Agenda of Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 4

6/4/2017

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting (Open Portion) held Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 5.00 pm in the Lady Osborne Room, Town Hall.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Reynolds (Chairman)

Briscoe

Ruzicka

Sexton

Harvey

ALDERMEN

Lord Mayor Hickey

Deputy Lord Mayor Christie

Zucco

Burnet

Cocker

Thomas

Denison

Apologies: Nil.

Leave of Absence:

Alderman J R Briscoe.

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 Parks and Recreation Committee meeting held on Thursday, 9 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?

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 7

6/4/2017

REPORT TITLE: Council Policy 'Establishment of Bushfire Hazard Management Areas in Bushland Reserves for New Developments on Adjoining Properties' - Proposed Amendment

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Park Planner

Program Leader Fire & Biodiversity

Group Manager Open Space

Director Parks and City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The existing Council Policy ‘Establishment of Bushfire Hazard Management Areas in Bushland Reserves for New Developments on Adjoining Property’ (the policy) was first adopted by the Council on 27 April 2015.

1.1.1. The purpose of the policy is to generally minimise the extent of new bushfire hazard management areas being established within Council’s bushland reserves for the benefit of new residential developments, while ensuring existing lots are not sterilised from development.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The report proposes a number of amendments to the policy in light of its application since its implementation.

2.2. Some of these changes are minor and seek to improve clarity; a more significant change relates to limiting application of the policy to new single dwellings, or an extension to a new single dwelling – rather than the broader definition of habitable buildings currently used.

3. Recommendation

That the Council policy titled ‘Establishment of Bushfire Hazard Management Areas in Bushland Reserves for New Developments on Adjoining Property’ be amended, as marked in Attachment A to the report.

4. Background

4.1. The original policy was adopted by the Council in response to amended state regulations for the construction of buildings in bushfire prone areas. In one aspect, these amendments effectively expanded the land area required in separating a new dwelling from a bushfire hazard.

4.2. In some locations, existing lots that were approved prior to the amended regulations simply were not big enough to provide the new separation areas.

4.3. Where this was evident, requests to the City for the establishment of hazard management areas on City land were received, and generally dealt with on a case by case approach.

4.4. The policy sought to provide a consistent corporate approach to addressing such requests, balancing such requests with other land management needs such as impact on natural and cultural values (i.e. aesthetic impacts, recreational use) and financial costs.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The substantive amendment to the policy is to allow for only single dwellings, or extensions to single dwellings that would not allow for the establishment of hazard management areas on the City’s land for developments such as multiple-dwellings, ancillary dwellings and the like.

5.1.1. This is in addition to existing exclusions for non-habitable buildings such as sheds, garages and outbuildings.

5.1.2. The amendment is recommended in light of requests to establish hazard management areas on already developed lots to allow for ancillary and ‘studio type’ dwellings.

5.1.3. The only exception in the case of proposed multiple dwellings on a lot shall be where the required hazard management area on City land would be no larger than that required for a single dwelling on the lot. This situation would only arise where the particular shape of the lot facilitated such an outcome.

5.2. Other amendments to the policy are less significant, and are more editorial in nature:

5.2.1. Clarifying the policy position that all necessary bushfire hazard management areas should – in the first instance – be contained within the property being developed.

5.2.2. Clarifying that in making a request, an applicant acknowledges the responsibilities outlined in the policy regarding the maximum extent of any hazard management area, responsibilities for approvals and the relevant costs that will be borne by the applicant.

5.2.3. Clarifying the criteria that will be used when assessing any request for establishment of a hazard management area on the City’s land.

5.2.4. Clarifying the process for assessing such requests, particularly the need to receive landowner consent prior to submission of any development application.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The revised policy is consistent with the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 with the following Strategic Action:

3.3.3 Develop policies, strategies and standards to guide the future management and development of the open space network; and

5.2.1 Manage the bushfire risk through the implementation of the Hobart Fire Management Strategy.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Implementation of the policy is unlikely to have a significant impact on current year operating result

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Maintenance costs of hazard management areas are estimate at $6,000/hectare per year.

7.2.2. Based on application of the policy in its two years of operation, over time the cumulative impact is likely to be low.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. No financial assets are impacted on by adoption of the proposal (hazard management areas are not currently deemed a financial asset).

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. There is no legal requirement to approve the establishment of new hazard management areas on the City’s land for new developments on adjoining properties.

8.2. In approving any new hazard management areas, the City does accept the ongoing costs and risks associated with the maintenance of any such areas.

8.2.1. However, the refusal to entertain any such areas could prevent the construction of single dwellings on some (approved) vacant residential lots. This could effectively sterilise those lots, and pose a potential reputational risk to the Council.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. A key objective of the revised policy is to minimise the extent of any new hazard management areas being established in the City’s bushland and reserves network.

9.1.1. Underpinning this objective, is the need balance bushfire hazard management practices with the purposes for which the reserves are established and funded, that being the conservation of natural and cultural values.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. The number of enquiries regarding the establishment of new bushfire hazard management areas in bushland reserves is in the order to 10-12 per year.

10.2. Of these, three to five are assessed in detail, and generally approved.

10.3. While the absolute number of enquiries and hazard managements are not high, the relatively high cost of residential land in Hobart means that most applicants have a relatively high financial and emotional investment in such requests.

11. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

11.1. Given the limited nature of this review, stakeholder engagement is not considered necessary.

12. Delegation

12.1. The policy provides the General Manager with authority to approve applications which comply with the policy requirements.

12.2. The amendment of a Council policy is a matter for the Council.

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

Matt Lindus

Park Planner

Robert Bennett

Program Leader Fire & Biodiversity

Rob Mather

Robert Mather

Group Manager Open Space

Glenn Doyle

Director Parks and City Amenity

Date: 31 March 2017

File Reference: F17/29950; 16/360

Attachment a: Council Policy ⇩

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 19

6/4/2017

REPORT TITLE: Queens Domain Advisory Committee - Proposed Amendment to Function and Membership

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Executive Officer Parks and City Amenity

Group Manager Open Space

Director Parks and City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to propose a new function and membership of the Queens Domain Advisory Committee.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The Queens Domain Advisory Committee (QDAC) was established in 1997 with a core function that through ‘greater communication and co-ordination of activities, planning and events on the Domain, and in accordance with statutory obligations, ensure:

“The Queen’s Domain shall be a park of the people which celebrates and protects its significant natural landscape and rich cultural history whilst providing for the education, recreation, health and enjoyment of its visitors”

2.2. The QDAC has been a successful entity that has aided the City to improve the management and utilisation of the Queens Domain.

2.3. A key achievement of the Committee has been the development of the Queens Domain Master Plan 2013 that is the guiding document in the future development, use and improvement to this key community and City asset.

2.4. Future capital works to support the implementation of the Master Plan are costed at $15M and programmed over the next 10 years.

2.5. The Terms of Reference and Structure of the Committee has not been substantially updated since its inception and it is recognised that the number of stakeholder groups with interest in the Domain has increased during that time.

2.6. With the Master Plan now being implemented, it is timely to review the purpose, terms of reference and structure of the Committee, to ensure it meets the City’s and the community’s requirements into the near to medium future.

2.7. It is proposed to amend the function of the QDAC from a limited membership, advisory committee, to a broader stakeholder reference and networking group.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Queens Domain Advisory Committee be renamed the Queens Domain Network.

2. The function and membership of Queens Domain Network be amended from a limited membership, advisory committee, to a broader stakeholder reference and networking group.

3. The function of the Network be as follows:

(i) To serve as an identified stakeholder forum for the City to engage on proposed changes to substantive use, development (including both new developments/facilities and upgrades/modifications to existing) in relation to the Queens Domain;

(ii) To serve as an identified stakeholder forum in relation to relevant planning scheme matters and on proposals (either from the City or third parties) expected to be lodged as development applications, or to be advised of advertised development applications within or adjacent to the Queens Domain;

(iii) To allow for the engagement or notification of matters, that may be provided out-of-session, as need may arise;

4. A forum of the Network stakeholders be held at least biannually, to discuss current issues and consider longer term proposals under consideration and/or brief on activities/changes recently introduced.

5. Stakeholders of the Network be as follows:

(i) A Council Alderman (Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Committee);

(ii) Relevant City of Hobart Officers;

(iii) Representative of the Doone Kennedy Hobart Aquatic Centre;

(iv) Representatives of the various land owners and organisational tenants, including, but not limited to:

(a) Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens;

(b) Government House;

(d) University of Tasmania;

(e) Domain Tennis Centre.

(v) Representatives of user groups/bodies that utilise facilities and open spaces, including, but not limited to:

(a) Representatives of Friends of Soldiers Memorial Avenue;

(b) Cricket Tasmania;

(d) Athletics South;

(e) Central Region Junior Soccer Association;

(f) Hobart Football Club;

(g) North Hobart Cricket Club;

(h) DOSA Football Club;

(i) Hobart Dog Walking Association;

(j) Hobart Canine Obedience Club;

(k) RSL Tasmania;

(l) Hobart Regatta Association;

(m) Swimming Tasmania.

(vi) Representatives of adjacent neighbourhood bodies including, but not limited to:

(a) Glebe Progress Association.

6. An open process of nomination from relevant groups be undertaken to ensure stakeholders are given an opportunity to participate in the forum.

7. A review of the Network’s operation, function and terms of reference be undertaken after 12 months of operation.

4. Background

4.1. The Queens Domain Advisory Committee (QDAC) was established in 1997 with a core function that through ‘greater communication and co-ordination of activities, planning and events on the Domain, and in accordance with statutory obligations, ensure:

(Queen’s Domain Management Plan, p32)

4.2. The current key objectives of the QDAC are:

4.2.1. to advise the Council’s Committee on planning matters affecting the Domain

4.2.2. to advise on the implementation of the Queen’s Domain Management Plan (1996)

4.2.3. to assess priorities as recommended in the five year Action Plan (1997)

4.2.4. to provide a link between Council and the community through representative bodies

4.3. The current membership of the QDAC is as follows:

4.3.1. A Council Alderman (Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Committee);

4.3.2. City of Hobart Officers;

4.3.3. A representative of the Parks & Wildlife Service;

4.3.4. A representative from Government House;

4.3.5. A representative of the Royal Tasmanian Botanic Gardens;

4.3.6. Representatives of the Glebe and East New Town Progress Associations and the Friends of the Domain;

4.3.7. Representatives from the Domain Tennis Centre, Doone Kennedy Hobart Aquatic Centre, Tasmanian Cricket Association, and Athletics Tasmania; and

4.3.8. Those people co-opted as needs arise
e.g. Wireless Institute, Old Gun Powder Store.

4.4. The QDAC has been a successful entity that has aided the City to improve the management and utilisation of the Queens Domain.

4.5. A key achievement of the Committee has been the development of the Queens Domain Master Plan 2013 that is the guiding document in the future development, use and improvement to this key community and City asset.

4.6. Future capital works to support the implementation of the Master Plan are costed at $15M and programmed over the next 10 years.

4.7. The Terms of Reference and Structure of the Committee has not been substantially updated since its inception. It is also recognised that the number of stakeholder groups with interest in the Domain has increased during that time.

4.8. With the Master Plan now being implemented, it is timely to review the purpose, terms of reference and structure of the Committee, to ensure it meets the City’s and the community’s requirements into the near to medium future.

4.9. The QDAC previously discussed the issue of reviewing the structure and function of the Committee with a view to moving towards a consultative model.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed to amend the function of the QDAC from a limited membership, advisory committee, to a broader stakeholder reference and networking group.

Proposed new Purpose and Function:

5.2. The purpose of the new Queens Domain Network would be to:

5.2.1. Serve as an identified stakeholder forum for the City to engage on proposed changes to substantive use, development (including both new developments/facilities and upgrades/modifications to existing) in relation to the Queens Domain;

5.2.2. Serve as an identified stakeholder forum in relation to relevant planning scheme matters and on proposals (either from the City or third parties) expected to be lodged as development applications, or to be advised of advertised development applications within or adjacent to the Queens Domain;

5.2.3. Allow for the engagement or notification of matters, that may be provided out-of-session, as need may arise;

5.3. A forum of the Network stakeholders be held at least biannually, to discuss current issues and consider longer term proposals under consideration and/or brief on activities/changes recently introduced.

5.4. Stakeholders to be included in the Network:

5.4.1. A Council Alderman (Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Committee);

5.4.2. Relevant City of Hobart Officers;

5.4.3. Representative of the Doone Kennedy Hobart Aquatic Centre;

5.4.4. Representatives of the various land owners and organisational tenants, including, but not limited to:

5.4.4.1. Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens;

5.4.4.2. Government House;

5.4.4.3. Crown Land/Parks and Wildlife;

5.4.4.4. University of Tasmania;

5.4.4.5. Domain Tennis Centre.

5.4.5. Representatives of user groups/bodies that utilise facilities and open spaces, including, but not limited to:

5.4.5.1. Representatives of Friends of Soldiers Memorial Avenue;

5.4.5.2. Cricket Tasmania;

5.4.5.3. Athletics Tasmania;

5.4.5.4. Athletics South;

5.4.5.5. Central Region Junior Soccer Association;

5.4.5.6. Hobart Football Club;

5.4.5.7. North Hobart Cricket Club;

5.4.5.8. DOSA Football Club;

5.4.5.9. Hobart Dog Walking Association;

5.4.5.10. Hobart Canine Obedience Club;

5.4.5.11. RSL Tasmania;

5.4.5.12. Hobart Regatta Association;

5.4.5.13. Swimming Tasmania.

5.4.6. Representatives of adjacent neighbourhood bodies including, but not limited to:

5.4.6.1. Glebe Residents’ Association.

5.5. It is proposed that an open process of nomination from relevant groups be undertaken to ensure stakeholders are given an opportunity to participate in the forum.

This may see an increase in the number of members to that of the current QDAC membership.

5.6. It is proposed to review the operation, function and terms of reference of the forum after 12 months of operation.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The City of Hobart Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 outlines the following:

Goal 3 Environment and Natural Resources - An ecologically sustainable city maintains its unique character and values our natural resources

Goal 4 Strong, Safe and Healthy Communities - Our communities are resilient, safe and enjoy healthy lifestyles

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Not applicable

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Not applicable

8. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

8.1. Details of the proposed changes were forwarded to the members of the QDAC, with feedback received supportive of the changes.

8.2. The Glebe Residents’ Association are in general support with it’s suggestion that the Network meet at least biannually supported by officers in the recommendation of the report.

8.3. A long standing and active member of the committee joined QDAC as a representative of the now inactive East New Town Progress Association. With the inactive status of the association, and therefore his representative role now redundant, he regrettably appreciates his representative involvement will now conclude.

8.4. It is proposed that an open process of nomination from relevant groups be undertaken to ensure stakeholders are given an opportunity to participate in the forum. This may see an increase in the number of members to that of the current QDAC membership.

8.5. It is proposed that under the new framework, to hold a forum at least annually, to discuss current issues and consider longer term proposals under consideration and/or brief on activities/changes recently introduced.

9. Delegation

9.1. This matter is delegated to the Council

Adrian Roth

Executive Officer Parks and City Amenity

Robert Mather

Group Manager Open Space

Glenn Doyle

Director Parks and City Amenity

Date: 31 March 2017

File Reference: F17/30210

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 28

6/4/2017

REPORT TITLE: Request for Extension of Lease - Telstra Telecommunication Tower - Sandown Park, Sandy Bay

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Program Leader Recreation and Projects

Manager Parks and Recreation

Director Parks and City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of the report is to consider a request from Telstra for a new lease over the site of its telecommunication tower and infrastructure located at Sandown Park in Sandy Bay.

1.2. Council considered this matter on 19 December 2016 and recommended that:

1. The City initiate community consultation, pursuant to Section 178 of the Local Government Act 1993, in response to a request from Telstra for a new lease over the site of its telecommunication tower and infrastructure located at Sandown Park, Sandy Bay.

2. Upon conclusion of the community engagement process, a further report be provided on the merit and terms of a proposed new lease for the site.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The Council considered a report in December 2016 discussing a request from Telstra for a new lease agreement over the existing tower at Sandown Park.

2.2. The Council provided approval for consultation to be undertaken as per the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993.

2.3. The consultation was completed in March 2017, where two submissions were received from nearby residents concerning the proposal to provide a new lease.

2.4. The report recommends the approval of a new lease to Telstra for a ten (10) year period, with two (2) further five (5) year terms.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council approve a new lease to Telstra for the site of the telecommunications tower located at Sandown Park, Sandy Bay for a ten (10) year period with two (2) further five (5) year options.

2. The addition of any further infrastructure relating to the tower be considered by the Council at the time of application.

3. The General Manager be authorised to negotiate the terms of the new lease agreement.

4. Pursuant to Section 178 of the Local Government Act 1993, notice be provided of the Council’s decision, in writing and within 7 days of the decision, to those parties that lodged an objection including rights of appeal under the Act.

4. Background

4.1. Telstra has made a request to extend their lease over the site of the tower at Sandown Park for a further ten (10) year period and have also requested two (2) further five (5) year options. A plan of the proposed lease area (Attachment A).

4.2. Council considered this matter on 19 December 2016 and recommended that:

1 The City initiate community consultation, pursuant to Section 178 of the Local Government Act 1993, in response to a request from Telstra for a new lease over the site of its telecommunication tower and infrastructure located at Sandown Park, Sandy Bay marked as Attachment A to item 6.3 of the Open Parks and Recreation Committee agenda of 8 December 2016.

2 Upon conclusion of the community engagement process, a further report be provided on the merit and terms of a proposed new lease for the site

4.3. Following this resolution, community engagement was initiated in March 2017 for a period of 3 weeks concluding on 20 March 2017.

4.4. It should be noted that the Council met all requirements for consultation under the Local Government Act and in addition sent letters to a number of residents.

4.5. Residents were advised of the proposal by:

4.5.1. Letters were sent to 71 nearby property owners.

4.5.2. Notices were placed in prominent locations on site.

4.5.3. Advertising in The Mercury newspaper.

4.6. At the conclusion of the consultation period two (2) submissions were received, these are summarised in the table below.

Response

Comments

1 – Nearby Resident

Against the proposal on two grounds:

1) Nutgrove is a very popular area during weekends and public holidays. It is one of the most visited public spaces yet the existence of the Telstra Pole is ugly and ruins the ambiance and pleasure that visitors to the area seek.

2) The existence of low frequency electromagnetic energy may at this stage show no harm to humans but is concerned that the low exposure will be increased through more towers and modern devices, the accumulated affect may be harmful in the future.

Suggested other sites be considered including Alexandra Battery (due to its elevation a lower tower could be considered), or the sand hills between Prossers and the Sailing Club.

Nearby Resident

Against the proposal

Preference would be that the Council does not support the new lease as it would be better relocated away from residences due to the visual aspects and due to EMR (electromagnetic radiation).

Second preference would be for the lease to be renewed but with restrictions on other companies adding further infrastructure to the pole.

Is aware of the proposal from Optus/Vodafone to also add infrastructure to the pole.

4.7. It is noted that both responses relate to the same issues around the visual impact of the pole, and the possible health effects through electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

4.8. The visual impact of the pole is a subjective view depending on the individual, whilst the pole is noticeable on site (it stands at 20m above the ground level) it is of similar height to the lighting towers on nearby Sandown Park (18 metres) and is obscured from some perspectives by large trees in the area.

4.9. EMR was the predominant concern from the community when the pole was first installed. The pole at the time of installation and at the current time meets the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) radiofrequency standard – the compliance with this standard is a requirement of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) prior to installing a new tower, or upgrading any existing tower.

4.10. Most recent advice on EMR suggests that there is no scientific evidence regarding possible adverse health effects from base stations or antennas, this advice is supported by both the ARPANSA and the World Health Organisation.

4.11. It is noted one of the respondents suggest two alternative locations for relocation of the tower.

4.11.1. Alexandra Battery is not considered a suitable alternative to the current location. The writer raises concern of the current pole being within 100m of residences, however it is likely that a pole at this location would be closer to residences and would have more within 100m than the current site. There would also be likely heritage implications with any work on this site.

4.11.2. The suggestion of locating the pole to the sand hills between Prossers Restaurant and the Sandy Bay Sailing Club is also considered unviable. Whilst this location would move the infrastructure further away from residents, the infrastructure would require significant excavation to find a suitable base and due to erosion issues in the area this would not be a suitable option. It is also unlikely to be viable from an economic perspective from Telstra for this to occur.

4.12. If the lease was not to continue, and the pole was to be removed it would leave a significant gap in Telstra services in the area, which would create areas with unreliable reception or black spots where no reception was available.

4.13. It is known that Optus/Vodafone are planning to make a request to Telstra to add some additional antennas to the pole as well as some cabinets at the rear of the existing pavilion. Whilst the addition of antennas will be subject to an agreement between Telstra and Optus/Vodafone, the Council will need to consider a request for lease for the location of the cabinets. Any lease will also be subject to the consultation requirements under Section 178 of the Local Government Act. As such the extension of the lease could be approved; however any additional infrastructure would need the Council consideration.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the Council approve a new lease to Telstra for the site of the telecommunications tower located at Sandown Park for a ten (10) year period with two (2) further five (5) year options.

5.2. It is proposed that the addition of any further infrastructure relating to the pole be considered by the Council at the time of application, noting that ‘low impact’ facilities can be added to existing infrastructure without planning approvals or landowner consent.

5.3. Pursuant to Section 178 of the Local Government Act 1993, notice be provided of the Council’s decision, in writing and within 7 days of the decision, to those parties that lodged an objection including rights of appeal under the Act.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The proposal is line with the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025, Strategic Objective 2.3:

City and regional planning ensures quality design, meets community needs and maintains residential amenity.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. A valuation of the leased area has been completed and an annual rental of $6,600 exc GST has been recommended for the site.

7.1.2. Should a lease be approved this will result in an additional $6,600 exc income per annum.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. The lease rental will increase by CPI each year.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. There are no asset related items – all assets within the lease area will be the responsibility of Telstra.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. A new lease agreement will be developed by the City’s Legal Services Officer.

8.2. Section 178 of the Local Government Act 1993 outlines the process the Council must abide when seeking to dispose (including lease) Public Land.

Should the Council resolve to lease the portion of land, notice will be provided, in writing and within 7 days of the decision, to those that lodges an objection including their rights of appeal.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. There has been much debate about the potential health effects of electromagnetic radiation from towers such as the one which is the subject of this application. Advice from Telstra is that the current facility complies with the relevant Standard and there is no substantiated evidence of negative health effects.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. It is considered that the proposed extension of the lease will generate community interest. However it does need to be noted that if this pole and associated infrastructure were to be removed it would reduce the capacity for the provision of a high quality telecommunications service usage that meets customer requirements and may result in additional “black spots” or mobile telephone reception being non existent.

11. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

11.1. As noted earlier in the report the Council has exceeded its obligations under the Local Government Act.

12. Delegation

12.1. This matter is delegated to the Council.

Shannon avery

Shannon Avery

Program Leader Recreation and Projects

Simon Harrison

Manager Parks and Recreation

Glenn Doyle

Director Parks and City Amenity

Date: 31 March 2017

File Reference: F17/30107; 5601657

Attachment a: Site Plan - Lease Area ⇩

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.