Agenda of City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 9

24/5/2017

REPORT TITLE: 2017/2018 Fees and Charges - Parks and City Amenity Division - Cleansing and Solid Waste

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Director Parks and City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the proposed fees and charges applicable to the Parks and City Amenity Division’s Cleansing and Solid Waste functions for the 2017/2018 financial year.

2. Report Summary

2.1. Pursuant to Section 205 of the Local Government Act 1993, the Council may impose fees and charges for various services.

2.2. The attached schedules detail the proposed fees and charges for the following activities for the 2017/2018 financial year:

2.2.1. Cleansing and Solid Waste (refer Attachment A)

3. Recommendation

That the schedule of fees and charges for the 2017/2018 financial year, as referenced below and attached to the report, be approved.

1. Cleansing and Solid Waste (Attachment A)

4. Background

4.1. The fees and charges for the Parks and City Amenity’s Cleansing and Solid Waste Unit for the 2017/2018 financial year have been assessed.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the attached schedules of fees and charges for the 2017/2018 financial year be approved.

Solid Waste Requested Works

5.2. Services will continue to be charged via quote or on a do-and-charge basis.

5.3. Overall, due to expected decrease in activity, revenue for this function is anticipated to decrease by $19,230 or -24.4%.

Wheelie Bins

5.4. A minor increase to the residential garbage wheelie bin upsize fee is proposed.

5.5. A new fee is proposed for the replacement of a wheelie bin, should a bin be lost or stolen in a more than five yearly frequency.

In the 3 months to September 2016, 293 replacements wheelie bins were provided to residents claiming that their bins have been lost or stolen.

The introduction of a replacement fee, should a replacement bins have already been issued within the last five years, is aimed to offset the City’s replacement costs.

5.6. Overall, revenue for is anticipated to increase by $95,700 or 12.3%.

Kemp Street Recycling and Waste Service

5.7. As part of the City’s redevelopment of Kemp Street a new waste and recycling compaction facility will be established.

This facility will replace the existing space that utilises numerous wheelie bins and mini skip bins.

5.8. A new fee is proposed for the use by nearby commercial clients.

McRobies Gully Waste Management Centre

5.9. An increase to fees related to general mixed waste is proposed.

5.10. Fees for sorted recyclable materials remain unchanged as an inducement for the sorting and separation of such materials by the customer.

5.11. Overall, revenue is anticipated to increase by $77,088 or 5.9%.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The annual review of the City’s fees and charges contributes to the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 - Goal 5 – “Governance, Leadership provides for informed decision-making for our capital city”.

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. The review of the fees and charges for the Division’s Cleansing and Solid Waste Unit has been undertaken and expected increases/decreases for the 2017-18 financial year for each function area is expected as follows:

Function Area	2016-17 Budget	2017-18 Budget	Increase / (Decrease)
Solid Waste Requested Works	$78,760	$59,530	($19,230)	(24.4%)
Wheelie Bins	$780,000	$875,700	$95,700	12.3%
McRobies Gully Waste Management Centre	$1.3M	$1.38M	$77,088	5.9%

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. Pursuant to Section 205 of the Local Government Act 1993, the Council may impose fees and charges for various services.

9. Delegation

9.1. This matter is delegated to the Council

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

Glenn Doyle

Director Parks and City Amenity

Date: 18 May 2017

File Reference: F17/35575

Attachment a: Fees and Charges Schedule ⇩

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 19

24/5/2017

REPORT TITLE: 2017/2018 Fees and Charges - City Infrastructure Division

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Director City Infrastructure

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. In accordance with the requirements of Council Pricing Policy and Guidelines dated 19 February 2017, the Council is to review its fees and charges on an annual basis as part of the budget process.

1.2. The purpose of this report is to present the proposed schedule of fees and charges for the City Infrastructure Division for the 2017/2018 financial year for endorsement.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The attached fees and charges as summarised in Attachments A to this report outlines the present fees and charges for the City Infrastructure Division and the proposed fees and charges for the 2017/2018 financial year.

2.2. No new fees have been proposed. Where a fee increase is proposed, this is in order to more accurately reflect cost recovery and market pricing.

2.3. Projected income generated by the activities of the Division has been based on a conservative estimate of demand for these services. The income generated by the Division is in part due to the level of construction activity in the community.

2.4. The total income generated for 2017/2018 is estimated to be $334,728 which is an increase of approximately 11.4% of the income estimated from the previous financial.

3. Recommendation

That the attached schedules of fees and charges be endorsed for the City Infrastructure Division for the 2017/2018 financial year as marked as Attachments A to this report.

4. Background

4.1. The attached fees and charges as summarised in Attachment A to this report, outline the present fees and charges for the City Infrastructure Division and the proposed fees and charges for the 2017/2018 financial year.

4.1.1. No new fees are proposed and no significant fee increases are proposed.

4.2. The anticipated income generated by the activities of the Division has been based on a conservative estimate of demand for these services. The income generated by the Division is in part due to the level of construction activity in the community.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The following provides information in relation to the proposed services and associated fees and charges levied by the City Infrastructure Division within each program area.

5.1.1. Subject to Council approval, the fees and charges for the 2017/2018 financial year will become effective from 1 July 2017.

Residential Parking

5.2. No changes to the fees associated with residential parking permits are proposed for this year.

5.3. The income projection for the residential parking function, including parking exemption permits is approximately $80,000 which is approximately 25% of the Division’s anticipated income.

Traffic Strategy and Projects

5.4. These fees and charges relate to use of the road reservation to support construction activities in adjacent land or special events which are conducted in the road reserve.

5.5. There are fee increases averaging approximately 40% that are proposed for this budget function in 2017/2018, and it is expected that there will be an increase in income compared to the 2016/2017 expected actuals. The increase in fees is to better reflect the cost to the Council and the impact that these activities have on the community.

5.6. The income projection for this function is $143,902 which is approximately 40% of the Division’s anticipated income.

Road Strategy and Projects

5.7. These fees relate to construction works which take place in the road reservation and are most often associated with the construction or connection of underground services.

5.8. As with other construction related activities it is expected that the demand for road opening permits will remain strong.

5.9. There is little demand for the inspection fee and the fees were last increased in the 2014/2015 financial year.

5.10. There are no fee increases proposed for this budget function.

5.11. The anticipated income of $10,010 associated with this function is approximately 3% of the Division’s anticipated income.

Stormwater Strategy and Projects

5.12. Investigation of private hydraulic installations is normally conducted by the private sector but can be conducted by the Council on request. During the 2016/2017 financial year to date there were no requests for such inspections however, given the fee was last increased during 2014/2015 it is considered appropriate to adjust the fee for 2017/2018.

5.13. Similarly the fee for re-assessment of stormwater infrastructure plans was last considered during 2014/2015 and given this, it is considered appropriate to adjust the fee for 2017/2018 should it need to be applied when sub-standard designs are repeatedly submitted for assessment.

5.14. No income is expected from these activities during 2017/2018.

Civil Maintenance - Stormwater Service Connections

5.15. The fees associated with stormwater service connections are proposed to be increased by 2% this year in order to still represent a pricing policy of full cost recovery. The anticipated quantity is based on the level of activity during 2016/2017.

5.16. The income projection for this function is $82,087 which is approximately 27% of the Division’s anticipated income.

Surveying Services

5.17. There is only one fee increase proposed for this budget function that being a proposed fee increase of 6% for amendments to Sealed Plans.

5.18. The anticipated income of $18,730 associated with this function is approximately 5% of the Division’s anticipated income.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The annual review of the City’s fees and charges contributes to Goal 5 – “Governance, Leadership provides for informed decision-making for our capital city”, from the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025.

6.2. In particular it aligns with Strategic Objective “5.1 - The organisation is relevant to the community and provides good governance and transparent decision-making, and

5.1.1 -Undertake a review of core business systems.”

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Fees and charges are accounted for within the relevant budget Function areas of the 2017/2018 City Infrastructure Division.

7.1.2. The income projected for the City Infrastructure Division for 2017/2018 is $334,728 which is an increase of approximately $34,228 or 11.4% from the 2016/2017 budget for those fees. This is summarised per budget function in the table below:

Function Area	2016/2017 BUDGET	2017/2018 BUDGET	Increase / (Decrease)
F420 – Residential Parking	$80,000	$80,000	$0.00	0.00%
F550 – Traffic Strategy and Projects	$132,700	$143,902	$11,202	8.44%
F540 – Road Strategy and Projects	$10,000	$10,010	$10	0.10%
F620 – Stormwater Strategy and Projects	0	0	$0	0.00%
F515 – Civil Maintenance – Stormwater Service Connections	$60,000	$82,086	$22,086	36.81%
F860 – Surveying Services	$17,800	$18,730	$930	5.00%
TOTAL	$300,500	$334,728	$34,228	11.40%

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. The impact on future years’ financial results would be subject to the Council’s annual review process of fees and charges.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. None are foreseen.

8. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

8.1. Consultation has occurred with Divisional Budget Function Officers and the Executive Officer City Infrastructure in the preparation of this report.

9. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

9.1. Pursuant to Section 205 of the Local Government Act 1993, the Council may impose fees and charges for various services.

10. Delegation

10.1. Fees and charges are a matter for the Council to determine.

Mark Painter

Director City Infrastructure

Date: 18 May 2017

File Reference: F17/45960; 17/41

Attachment a: City Infrastructure Fees and Charges for 2017/2018 ⇩

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 32

24/5/2017

REPORT TITLE: Development of a Parklet Policy
Response to Notice of Motion

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Traffic Engineering

Director City Infrastructure

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report is provided in response to the notice of motion titled ‘Parklet Policy’ issued at the City Infrastructure Committee meeting held on 21 September 2016.

1.2. The purpose of this report is to:

1.2.1. Review the Council’s current process for the use of parking spaces for outdoor dining.

1.2.2. Propose a policy direction for parklets in Hobart, as the basis for a future parklet program and policy.

1.2.3. Propose a trial parklet installation in Elizabeth Street opposite the new University of Tasmania student accommodation, to be evaluated prior to the development of a policy and program.

1.3. Parklets can offer benefits to the general community, including:

1.3.1. Incentive for people to stay longer on the street which can lead to safer and enlivened public space in areas which already have high numbers of pedestrians and a mix of land uses.

1.3.2. Opportunities to enhance streetscape amenity with seating, landscaping, art and design.

1.4. Parklets can offer specific benefits to traders, including:

1.4.1. Additional space for outdoor dining. This is particularly beneficial when footpath space is limited.

1.4.2. Improved street presence.

1.5. Parklets can offer benefits to the Council, including:

1.5.1. A useful way to test future streetscape changes with a temporary or trial installation

2. Report Summary

2.1. An assessment of current outdoor dining arrangement types in the city shows that there is a diversity of arrangements, each with different costs and opportunities for businesses and the city.

2.2. A comprehensive review of the Council’s 2012 framework for the use of car parking spaces for outdoor dining requires a much better understanding of the role that a parklet program could play in providing sitting and staying opportunities within the city.

2.3. Parklets are “small public parks set into the existing streetscape. A parklet repurposes part of the street into a public space for people and enhances the streetscape by adding interest and amenity. They are for anyone to use, providing a place to rest, eat or work. They provide simple amenities like shade, bike parking and seating. They help local businesses by encouraging people to linger longer, and are a point of interest in the community for residents and visitors to experience”. (definition from City of Vincent Parklet Policy No. 2.2.13)

2.4. Parklets are likely to provide more space, seating opportunities and amenity in the footpath for people to sit and enjoy the life of the city.

2.5. Following a request from the business owner, it is proposed that a trial parklet be established in an on‑street car parking space nearby to The Stagg cafe situated at 138 Elizabeth Street, Hobart and that this be the basis for monitoring and testing the impacts and benefits of parklets and inform the development of a parklet policy for the city.

2.6. A fuller review of the ‘framework for outdoor dining in parking spaces’ would also be developed following the trial, to determine how parklets may be incorporated into the various arrangements for on-street activation, including dining.

2.7. The trial parklet at 138 Elizabeth Street would reuse an existing asset (the ex Cultura dining deck). Refurbishments will need to be undertaken to make the existing deck workable and presentable in the new site.

2.7.1. These alterations would cost in the order of $7500, and should the Council approve the trial, funds would need to be allocated for the purpose.

2.8. A risk assessment has been undertaken by consultant engineers which finds that from a risk and safety perspective (and with some attention to the design and siting of the platform) the 138 Elizabeth Street site is potentially suitable for a parklet.

2.9. Initial stakeholder engagement regarding The Stagg’s parklet request has been undertaken with owners and occupiers in Elizabeth Street (between Melville Street and Brisbane Street).

2.9.1. There was a mix of views in the street, with roughly half of respondents supportive and half opposed to the establishment of a parklet.

2.9.2. Most opposed respondents cited car parking as the main issue, however there will be a boost to car parking supply in the area from August 2017 when approximately 100 new car parking spaces become available.

2.10. It is recommended that the trial parklet be installed only once the car parking associated with the UTAS student accommodation development is available to the public, in order to mitigate local traders’ concerns around loss of car parking.

2.11. It is proposed that the parklet be installed as a trial from the beginning of spring and that the trial run until the end of summer. This will give sufficient time to measure and evaluate the success and the impacts of the trial.

2.12. A trial parklet would provide a positive opportunity to begin engaging with community stakeholders in Elizabeth Street prior to the retail precinct upgrade planned for 2019‑2020.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. A trial parklet be designed and installed in the vicinity of 138 Elizabeth Street, Hobart with The Stagg cafe as the hosting business, at an estimated cost of $7,500 to be funded from the Civil Maintenance budget of the 2017/2018 Annual Plan.

2. Further reports be provided to the City Infrastructure Committee reviewing the trial parklet, providing a draft parklet policy and outlining how a parklet program might be incorporated into the Council’s current framework and policies relating to use of the public highway for dining and other city activation activities.

3. Stakeholders in the area of the parklet trial site be advised of the Council’s decision.

4. Background

4.1. This report is provided in response to the Notice of Motion considered by the City Infrastructure Committee at its meeting held on 21 August 2016, which stated:

“That the Council requests a review of the Council’s 2012 ‘framework’ on the use of parking space for outdoor dining, taking into account the following changes that have taken place since 2012, namely:

(i) Council’s October 2015 decision to restrict new occupation licences for outdoor dining on footpaths, based on changes to improve the pedestrian access and safety on city footpaths

(ii) The increased adoption of ‘parket policies’ in a number of cities around Australia and around the world to encourage the low-cost activation of streets.”

4.2. The Council’s 2012 framework mentioned in the Notice of Motion refers to the following resolution from the Council’s meeting held on 10 December 2012, namely:

“That: A. In consideration of requests from businesses in the CBD to occupy public car parking spaces for outdoor dining, the following framework apply:-

1. The following fees be stipulated:

(i) An initial assessment fee of $1200.

(ii) An annual dining area occupation licence fee in line with Council’s approved Fees and Charges.

(iii) An annual fee of 13% of the construction cost of the outdoor dining structure to take into account the construction costs to Council, to be charged for a period of 10 years.

(iv) An annual fee of 5% of the construction cost of the outdoor dining structure to take into account the maintenance of the structure.

(v) An annual fee per occupied car park, representing lost parking income ($4368 for the 2012/2013 financial year and thereafter subject to annual review).

2. The outdoor dining structures not be permitted where there are high traffic volumes such as arterial and sub-arterial roads.

3. The requesting businesses be advised that landlord and development approval will be required for each proposed structure.

B. The fee structure outlined in clause 1 above, with the exception of the initial assessment fee, be attributed to the occupation licence at 123 Liverpool Street, Hobart as of 1 July 2013.

C. A report be prepared which considers the possibility of the Council being the proponent in developing outdoor dining designs and other elements, around the CBD with the report to include potential construction and leasing arrangements.”

4.3. In October 2015, the Council considered a report titled ‘Pedestrian Access and Safety on Hobart Streets’.

4.3.1. The report highlighted the Council’s obligation under the Disability Discrimination Act to provide public footpaths that have clear, consistent and comfortable lines of passage for pedestrians including those with mobility or vision impairments.

4.3.2. The Council resolution included inter alia the following:

“That the General Manager be authorised to modify the management of commercial furniture and infrastructure on public footpaths towards a best practice model approach, where such furniture and signage is only permitted if it does not interfere with the safe and equitable movement of pedestrians along that public footpath, specifically:

(i) Applications for new occupation licences for outdoor dining, or applications to install other private infrastructure on the council managed footpaths only be approved if the installation of that furniture or infrastructure would not obstruct the future maintenance of a clear pedestrian path adjacent to the property boundary, although in an area adjacent to other existing licensed areas, a licence may be granted for the area adjacent to the building line to avoid “weaving” of the pedestrian path. Alternatively a business may apply for the conversion of the parking spaces in front of their business into outdoor dining.”

4.4. In June 2016, the proprietors of The Stagg cafe at 138 Elizabeth Street expressed interest in converting the on-street parking space in front of its business into a space for people to sit, such as the dining deck which had been installed at Cultura in Liverpool Street prior to the upgrade of that street.

4.5. The Council’s framework (as outlined in clause 4.2 above) was provided to the proprietors of The Stagg and a site meeting was held to discuss the process for applying. This meeting was attended by the Senior Roads and Traffic Engineer, the Director City Infrastructure and Alderman Reynolds.

4.6. In September 2016, Alderman Reynolds submitted a Notice of the Motion to which this report responds (at the City Infrastructure Committee Meeting held on 21 September 2016) requesting a review of the Council’s policy in light of increasing adoption of parklet policies around Australia.

4.7. In November 2016 consultation was undertaken with local stakeholders in Elizabeth Street to gauge the level of support amongst nearby owners and occupiers in relation to The Stagg’s request for a dining deck.

4.8. The results of that engagement are summarised in Section 12 of this report and are more fully outlined in Attachment A to this report.

Review of the framework

4.9. In preparing this report the current outdoor dining arrangement types have been documented in Attachment B to this report. This initial assessment shows that there is a diversity of arrangements, each with different costs and opportunities for the business and the City.

4.10. Embedded within these different outdoor dining arrangements are complexities and sensitivities around how public space is used, and the balance of costs and benefits to business, the Council and the public.

4.11. A comprehensive review of the Council’s 2012 framework for the use of car parking spaces for outdoor dining requires a much better understanding of the role that a parklet program could play in providing sitting and staying opportunities within the city.

Parklets

4.12. Parklets are “small public parks set into the existing streetscape. A parklet repurposes part of the street into a public space for people and enhances the streetscape by adding interest and amenity. They are for anyone to use, providing a place to rest, eat or work. They provide simple amenities like shade, bike parking and seating. They help local businesses by encouraging people to linger longer, and are a point of interest in the community for residents and visitors to experience”. (definition from City of Vincent Parklet Policy No. 2.2.13)

4.13. The parklet shown below is an example from Adelaide. Parklets typically use temporary materials and incorporate built-in furniture, greenery and shade.

4.14. Parklets, while being public by definition, typically rely on a cooperative relationship with a host business or businesses which maintain the parklet on a day‑to‑day basis, and which generate the staying activity required to make a parklet attractive and vibrant.

4.15. There is no reason why a community organisation or group of residents, rather than a business, couldn’t host a parklet. However, most parklets are hosted by cafes or restaurants.

4.16. There are a range of parklet programs operating in cities around Australia. Some are more established and some are new and currently operating as trials. A selection of Australian parklet programs is summarised in Attachment C to this report.

4.16.1. The Adelaide City Council’s Parklet program review (included as Attachment D to this report), provides an excellent overview and evaluation of their parklet program which began as a short term trial in 2012 and has evolved into a mature and successful program.

4.16.2. The Moreland City Council is currently developing a policy for parklets, featuring a short-term (Council funded) parklet stream and a long-term (business funded) stream. This program is in its trial phase, with a Council-owned parklet installed and going well. The Moreland process could provide a template for the City of Hobart.

Elizabeth Street ‘Midtown’

4.17. Elizabeth Street will be the site of a retail precinct streetscape upgrade in 2019‑2020. Significant engagement with traders and stakeholders in the precinct will be required prior to then in order to scope the project. A trial parklet in the area could provide an opportunity for early and positive engagement with the local community including traders, university residents and the people who shop and walk by regularly.

4.18. The recent University of Tasmania 430 bed student accommodation complex and a collection of enterprising new businesses have brought additional life and vibrancy to the street.

4.19. The Stagg, a vibrant cafe in the Elizabeth Street ‘Midtown’ precinct, has requested permission to install a dining deck in the parking space adjacent to their business.

4.20. The Stagg aligns with many criteria that have been set for parklets in other cities, with regards to site suitability.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. In developing a parklet program for Hobart, it is proposed that further work be carried out to determine the best model for the City.

5.2. It is proposed that a trial parklet be established in a parking space nearby to The Stagg situated at 138 Elizabeth Street, Hobart and that this be the basis for monitoring and testing the impacts and benefits of parklets.

5.3. Such a trial parklet could reuse the Council’s dining deck that was originally installed at Cultura in Liverpool Street – offering a low-cost opportunity.

5.4. Refurbishment of the deck is required, including some alterations to ensure that it can be installed in a safe and accessible manner that is flush with the kerb and accounting for the gradient of the street.

5.5. It is recommended that the trial parklet be installed only once the car parking associated with the UTAS student accommodation development is available to the public, in order to mitigate local traders’ concerns around loss of car parking. Approximately 100 public car parking spaces will become available at the UTAS site (off street) and approximately nine on‑street spaces in Elizabeth Street and Melville Street will return to public use around August 2017 when building works are complete.

5.6. It is proposed that the parklet be installed at the beginning of spring and that the trial run until the end of summer. This will give sufficient time to measure and evaluate the success and the impacts of the trial.

5.7. A trial would allow officers to evaluate and better understand the positive and negative impacts of a parklet program, and this would inform the development of an appropriate policy for a public parklet program for Hobart.

5.8. A fuller review of the ‘framework for outdoor dining in parking spaces’ would also be undertaken, to determine how parklets may be incorporated into the various arrangements for on-street activation, including dining.

5.9. Following the evaluation of the trial, it is proposed that a workshop be held with Aldermen, prior to the finalisation of the report and draft parklet policy.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. A policy that would allow parklets to be installed in suitable urban streets would further the following strategic objectives from the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025:

Vibrant city centre and suburban precincts

· Develop and implement a program of city improvements supporting the major retail, commercial and hospitality precincts and small business

· Implement activation programs and projects

A people-focussed city with well-designed and well-managed urban and recreational spaces

· Provide a wide range of quality places where the community can enjoy urban activities and events

· Develop, manage and maintain the city’s urban spaces and infrastructure

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. The trial parklet would reuse an existing asset (the ex Cultura dining deck) however, refurbishments would need to be undertaken to make the existing deck workable and presentable in the new site. The cost of these works would be in the order of $7500.

7.1.2. Should the Council approve the trial, funds would need to be allocated for the purpose, from the Civil Maintenance function of the 2017/2018 Annual Plan.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Installing parklets in paid on‑street parking spaces would have financial impacts arising from the loss of on‑street car parking revenue.

7.2.2. The likely loss of revenue for metered parking in the section of Elizabeth Street between Brisbane Street and Melville Street (on the ‘city fringe’) would be in the order of $4500 per space per year. A parklet and associated bollards, wheelstops and other infrastructure would occupy two on‑street car parking spaces and result in the loss of $9000 revenue per year.

7.2.3. The parking revenue obtained from on‑street parking spaces increases in inner city and waterfront locations where the parking demands are higher, for example:

· Morrison Street
$6310 per space per year or $12,620 per parklet per year.

· Salamanca Place
$7200 per space per year or $14,400 per parklet per year.

· Inner City / CBD
$9015 per space per year or $18,030 per parklet per year.

7.2.4. The amount of parking revenue lost per year would be compounded if a program with multiple parklets were to be developed.

7.2.5. The cost of constructing any new parklet would be dependent upon the design, but could be up to approximately $20,000.

7.2.6. There is an option to charge a parklet applicant this fee. However, as far as it could be ascertained, none of the parklet policies that were included in the desktop research for this report opted to charge parklet hosts for the lost parking revenue.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. The installation of temporary parklet structures may have implications for Council assets. However, these impacts would be assessed and managed for each individual parklet installation.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. A risk assessment has been undertaken by consultant engineers which finds that from a risk and safety perspective (and with some attention to the design and siting of the platform), the proposed trial location near 138 Elizabeth Street site is potentially suitable for a parklet.

8.2. In developing a policy for parklets, site suitability criteria would be strongly influenced by risk-related issues, and a number of sites would be unsuitable such as those located on arterial roads and close to intersections, those with poor sight distance and very steep sites.

8.3. The Council’s Principal Advisor – Risk and Audit Systems, has been consulted and has provided advice regarding public liability insurance.

9. Social and Customer Considerations

9.1. Parklets are likely to provide more space, seating opportunities and amenity in the footpath for people to sit and enjoy the life of the city.

9.2. A point of difference between parklets and the City of Hobart’s usual arrangements for occupation licenced outdoor dining areas is that parklets are designed, signposted and promoted as public space, available to all. The image below from City of Vincent, WA, illustrates this.

9.3. Parklets are likely to be of particular benefit in areas where there are high pedestrian volumes and limited footpath space.

9.4. As the city moves towards a best practice approach with respect to providing continuous pedestrian access against property lines, there is likely to be some sensitivity and complexity in reviewing the range of outdoor dining arrangements that are currently operating around the City.

10. Marketing and Media

10.1. Preliminary discussions have been held with officers from the City Marketing unit to explore synergies with its programs, for example the retail grants program.

10.2. The delivery of a trial parklet will be an event of interest for the City, and for the Midtown traders. It is likely that there will be opportunities for positive media coverage.

11. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

11.1. Initial stakeholder engagement regarding The Stagg’s parklet request has been undertaken with owners and occupiers in Elizabeth Street (between Melville Street and Brisbane Street).

11.2. There was a mix of views in the street, with roughly half of respondents supportive and half opposed to a trial parklet. The results of the consultation are documented in Attachment A to this report.

11.3. Consultation has been undertaken with a range of Council units and officers including: Parking Operations, Traffic Engineering, Risk and Audit, City Marketing, Civil Works and Design.

11.4. Should the Council approve the proposal, an engagement plan would be developed and would include a communications plan with the objective of clearly explaining the parklet concept to the community and explaining the purpose of the trial.

11.5. A trial parklet would provide a good opportunity to involve the community in the design and launch of the parklet, and in its evaluation. A trial parklet would also provide a positive opportunity to begin engaging with community stakeholders prior to the retail precinct upgrade planned for 2019-2020.

12. Delegation

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

Angela Moore

Manager Traffic Engineering

Mark Painter

Director City Infrastructure

Date: 19 May 2017

File Reference: F17/32283; S35001-01-03

Attachment a: Consultation Report - The Stagg - Request for Parklet ⇩

Attachment b: Typology of Outdoor Dining in the City ⇩

Attachment c: Summary of Parklets in Other Cities ⇩

Attachment d: Adelaide City Council - Parklet Program Review - 2015 ⇩

Item No. 7.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 105

24/5/2017

7.2 Potential Permanent Partial Road Closure in Campbell Street, Hobart

FILE REF: F17/50530

Alderman Briscoe and Alderman Thomas

Motion

“That: 1. A report to be prepared that investigates the potential for a permanent partial road closure in Campbell Street, Hobart, between Bathurst Street and Collins Street, with a single traffic lane to remain open for emergency services vehicles, public transport and bicycle access.

2. The report to consider the following:

(a) Given the proposed development in this area, the benefits of increasing pedestrian networks and people-friendly spaces.

(b) A full traffic impact assessment and modelling on the implication of a permanent partial road closure of Campbell Street, Hobart, between Bathurst Street and Collins Street, with a single traffic lane to remain open for emergency services vehicles, public transport and bicycle access;

(d) The recommended community and stakeholder consultation process.”

Rationale:

“With the significant public and private investment in and around Campbell Street it is timely that the physical conditions provided for pedestrians and issues related to walking and getting around are properly considered with any future upgrade of Campbell Street.

Cities around the world are judged and critiqued on their ‘liveability’ which has as a key criteria the encouragement of open space and amenity and the availability of pedestrian friendly zones . The Gehl report upon which much of the current and medium term $300m infrastructure spend is referenced lays emphasis on transforming Hobart from a car dependent city to one which has a range of transport modes, including pedestrian friendly facilities.

The city has recently visited Europe together with the University of Tasmania Vice Chancellor specifically looking at pedestrian friendly zones cities and towns where the University presents is both well regarded and heavily promoted.

Major developments in the area include:

- The establishment of a science, technology, engineering and mathematics hub (STEM ) on the corner of Argyle and Melville Street of which is expected to bring 3,000 students and 700 staff;

- The construction of a major ‘creative industries and performing arts development’, the Hedberg, creating a world-class entertainment precinct, which will invigorate and enliven both the Wapping precinct and the city as a whole. The new building will adjoin the Theatre Royal in Campbell Street and is due for completion early 2019;

- The Brooker Bridge, linking the Inner city from Bathurst Street, across the Brooker Avenue to the Domain;

- The redevelopment of the Royal Hobart Hospital;

- The existing TasTAFE campus on Campbell Street; and

- The existing Menzies Research Institute on the corner of Campbell Street and Liverpool Street.

Further to the significant investment and development within our city the Council must keep pace by investing, improving and modernising our roads, paths and open spaces.

The new developments will bring an increase of people to study, work and live in the city generating an unprecedented level of heavy pedestrian activity. This strengthens the pedestrian network creating opportunity to support the unique character of this area.

The Council supports the continued growth of the University of Tasmania (UTAS) campuses in the inner city. A key role in supporting growth is to provide great pedestrian environments around the city.

The recent three week closure of Campbell Street, 25 September 2016 through to
16 October 2016, similar to what is being suggested in this Notice of Motion, known as the ‘Stage 3 headwork’s’ in support of the Royal Hobart Hospital redevelopment, did not result in significant impacts in most cases as analysed in the Construction Traffic Impact Assessment Report, dated 11 November 2016, by GHD Pty Ltd.

The report indicated that the network generally continued to operate satisfactorily. This provides opportunity for the Council to further assess its options when considering the upgrade of Campbell Street and include measures that support an increase in pedestrian networks within the area.

A future pedestrian network should include a variety of street types linking the main streets and connecting important destinations, giving consideration to public spaces that are an attractive and inviting way to lead people from space to space through the city.

Currently Hobart has a weak pedestrian network. Vehicular traffic is dominating the city and has a negative effect on a number of streets and public spaces. Calming of vehicular traffic and giving a higher priority to people in transit, cyclists and pedestrians is required to create a more lively and social environment.

The report should include alternative transport routes in the area, including the availability of the adjacent Brooker Highway and also countenance the potential for a vehicle free zone [except for the emergency vehicles access cited above] which might be time linked e.g. 930 am until 4 pm and 630 pm until 930 am .

Where feasible the Council should consider the scaling down of roads and intersections to provide a human scale street environment and encourage multi-use areas for the provision of public seating possibilities, more opportunities for physical activities, strengthen the pedestrian network, encourage more opportunities for relaxing in the public spaces on a daily basis and make the city more attractive to study, work and live in..”

The General Manager reports:

“In accordance with Clause 5 of the Notices of Motion procedures, I provide the following qualification as to whether the substance of this Notice of Motion resides within the jurisdiction of the Hobart City Council:

The substance of this Notice of Motion resides within the jurisdiction of the Hobart City Council as it considers the partial closure of a local road under its control.”

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.