Agenda of City Planning Committee Meeting

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 5

26/6/2017

City Planning Committee Meeting (Open Portion) held Monday, 26 June 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: Nil.

Leave of Absence:

Alderman T M Denison.

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, 13 June 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.

Item No. 7.1.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 38

26/6/2017

7.1.2 22 Thelma Drive, West Hobart - Dwelling

pln-16-00591-01 - FILE REF: F17/74287

Address: 22 Thelma Dive, West Hobart

Proposal: Dwelling

Expiry Date: 2 August 2017

Extension of Time: Not applicable

Author: Cameron Sherriff

REcommendation

Pursuant to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015, the Council approve the application for a Dwelling at 22 Thelma Drive, WEST 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 PLN160059101 22 Thelma Drive WEST HOBART Final Planning Documents except where modified below.

Reason for condition

To clarify the scope of the permit.

PLN s1

The palette of exterior colours and materials must assist in minimising the visual impact of the dwelling given its prominent location and complement the Purpose Statement for the Low Density Residential Zone and Part 5

Agreement attached to the title. The dwelling must blend and not contrast with the surrounding area and natural environment.

Plans must be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of work. The plans must;

1. Detail specific materials, colours and finishes that are of darker hues, nonreflective and with reduced gloss levels, to satisfy the above requirement. Light reflectance values should be included where possible.

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

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

Reason for condition

To ensure that development is undertaken in a sympathetic manner which does not

cause undue visual impacts when viewed from nearby and distant vantage points.

ENG 2

Vehicle crash barriers compliant with the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 1170.1 must be installed where required by AS/NZS A2890.1, prior to the first occupation.

A certified design/report prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer, to satisfy the above requirements, must be provided to the Council prior to the commencement of work.

All works, required by this condition must be undertaken in accordance with certified design/report. Upon completion the barriers must be inspected by a qualified engineer and a certification submitted to the Council, confirming that the installed barriers comply with the above requirement.

Reason for condition

To ensure that the safety of users of the driveway/parking and compliance with the standard.

ENG 4

The driveway and car parking area approved by this permit must be constructed to a sealed standard and surface drained prior to the first occupation.

Reason for condition

To ensure safe access is provided for the use.

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.

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.

ENGR 3

Prior to the commencement of use, the proposed reconstruction of the driveway crossover Thelma Drive highway reservation must be designed and constructed in accordance with:

· Urban TSDR09v1 – Urban Roads Driveways and TSD R14v1 Type KC vehicular crossing

Design drawings must be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of work. The design drawing must:

1. Show the cross and long section of the driveway crossover within the highway reservation and onto the property.

2. Detail any services or infrastructure (ie light poles, pits, awnings) at or near the proposed driveway crossover.

3. Be designed for the expected vehicle loadings. A structural certificate to note that driveway is suitable for heavy vehicle loadings.

4. Show swept path templates in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1 2004 (B85 or B99 depending on use, design template).

5. If the design deviates from the requirements of the TSD then the drawings must demonstrate that a B85 vehicle or B99 depending on use (AS/NZS 2890.1 2004, section 2.6.2) can access the driveway from the road pavement into the property without scraping the cars underside.

6. Show that vehicular and pedestrian sight lines are met as per AS/NZS 2890.1 2004.

7. Grated wedge, asphalt wedge and the standard open wedge driveway crossover are not permitted. Grated wedges are permits on highly used bike routes and details of the grate (ie mass) will be required. To gain access a concrete plinth to Councils standards may be constructed at the gutter. A drawing of a standard concrete plinth can be obtained from Councils Road Services Engineer. Note: that the agreement of the Council’s is required to adjust footpath levels.

8. Be prepared and certified by a suitable qualified person, to satisfy the above requirement.

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

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

Reason for condition

To ensure that works will comply with the Council’s standard requirements.

ENV 1

Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to prevent sediment from leaving the site must be installed prior to any disturbance of the site. Sediment controls must be maintained until all areas of disturbance have been stabilized or revegetated.

Advice: For further guidance in preparing a Soil and Water Management Plan – in accordance with Fact sheet 3 Derwent Estuary Program click here.

Reason for condition

To avoid the sedimentation of roads, drains, natural watercourses, Council land that could be caused by erosion and runoff from the development, and to comply with relevant State legislation.

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.

BUILDING PERMIT

Building permit in accordance with the Building Act 2016. Click here for more information.

PLUMBING PERMIT

Plumbing permit in accordance with the Building Act 2016, Building Regulations

2016 and the National Construction Code. Click here for more information.

PART FIVE AGREEMENT

This approval and subsequent conditions are given in the knowledge that the Part 5

Agreement on the title (CT 163474/6) to the property is effective and binds the applicant to the restrictions and controls of the original subdivision approval, including environmental considerations for any subsequent development upon the lots.

Attachment a: PLN-16-00591-01 - 22 Thelma Drive WEST HOBART - Planning Committee or Delegated Report ⇩

Attachment b: PLN-16-00591-01 - 22 Thelma Drive - WEST HOBART - CPC Agenda Documents ⇩

Attachment c: PLN-16-00591-01 - 22 Thelma Drive - WEST HOBART - CPC Supporting (Supporting information)

Item No. 7.1.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 126

26/6/2017

Memorandum: City Planning Committee

ETA-17-32 - 69 Princes Street, Sandy Bay - Partial Demolition, House Extension and Alterations

Introduction:

This memorandum relates to a request to extend the time period to substantially commence planning permit PLN150001501 for partial demolition, house extension and alterations at 69 Princes Street, Sandy Bay.

Background:

On 25 February 2015 planning approval was granted under delegated authority for partial demolition, house extension and alterations at 69 Princes Street, Sandy Bay.

The development was assessed under the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 and

Planning Directive 4.

There were two discretions:

1. The proposal did not comply with the rear setback requirement of 4m under clause 2.A.2

2. The proposal did not comply with the building envelope provisions under clause 3.A.1(b) in relation to height, wall length within 1.5m of the side boundary and rear setback.

One representation was received within the statutory advertising period with concerns about overlooking. No appeal was lodged with the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal and as such the date the planning permit commenced was the date of approval, 25 February 2015.

The applicant has two years from the date of the permit to substantially commence the development, which is 25 February 2017 and six additional months to apply for a two year extension of time. There has been no work undertaken to date.

The applicant has requested a two year extension of time (until 25 February 2019) within which to substantially commence the work. The request is made under Section 25(5)(b) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.

Evaluation

Extension of time delegation

Normally requests for an extension of time to a permit are dealt with at 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'.

The applicant lodged the development application on 8 January 2015 at which time the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 and Planning Directive 4 were in force. However on 20 May 2015, that changed with the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 coming into force.

If the provisions of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 represents a significant change in the strategic intent to the provisions of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 so far as they are applicable to the development, delegation to grant the extension of time to the permit rests with the Council.

The strategic intent of the planning scheme

When the proposal was assessed under the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 and Planning Directive 4, the property was located within the residential 1 zone, and building envelope and rear setback were the only discretions.

The property is now located within the inner residential zone under the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015. The development standards for an extension to a single dwelling in the inner residential zone are substantially the same as the Planning Directive 4 provisions. However, the rear boundary setback requirements have been decreased from a permitted setback of 4m from the rear boundary to a permitted setback of 3m from the rear boundary. The proposed development, with a setback of 1.5m from the rear boundary would still be outside the building envelope, however it would be to a lesser extent. It is considered that this would not conflict with the requirements of the performance criteria.

There is however a significant change to the heritage status of the dwelling between the two schemes: under the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 the site had no heritage status; under the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015, the site is within Heritage Precinct SB2.

The change in heritage status is considered to be a significant change to the strategic intent of the Scheme, and so delegation to approve the extension of time to the permit request rests with the Council.

Heritage Assessment

The Council's Cultural Heritage Officer has reconsidered the proposal against the provisions of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015. The officer is of the view that if the proposal was lodged as a development application and assessed against the provisions of the Heritage Code of that Planning Scheme, it would not be recommended for refusal. The officer has indicated that on that basis, there is no heritage objection to extending the time of the permit.

Conclusion

The strategic intent of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 has significantly changed in respect of 69 Princes Street, Sandy Bay, as the site is now within a heritage precinct.

The Council's Cultural Heritage Officer has advised that the development meets the heritage provisions of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 and would be recommended for approval if lodged as an application for a planning permit under this scheme.

If the Council grants the extension of time request, the applicant will have until 25 February 2019 to substantially commence the work.

If the Council refuses to grant the extension of time request, the applicant may lodge a new application for a planning permit which will be assessed under the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

There is no provision under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 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 PLN150001501.

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: 21 June 2017

File Reference: F17/64534

Item No. 7.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 130

26/6/2017

REPORT TITLE: Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 - Central Business Zone - Height Standards Review - Proposed Amendment PSA-3-2017

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Planning Policy and Heritage

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report presents the outcomes of Central Business Zone Height Standards – Performance Criteria Review report (Leigh Woolley 2016) (Attachment A) and proposes amendments to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (HIPS 2015) clauses 22.1.3 Desired Future Character Statements and 22.4.1 Building Height in the Central Business Zone as recommended in the review report.

1.2. The proposal benefits the community by helping to ensure that development in the Central Business Zone makes a positive contribution to the streetscape and townscape values and meets community expectations.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The current development standards for buildings in the Central Business Zone in the HIPS2015 were formulated after a detailed review and analysis of land use and development patterns in the central city area. The development standards address building height, setbacks, design, passive surveillance, outdoor storage and pedestrian links.

2.2. The building height standards in the Central Business Zone include an 'Amenity Building Envelope' which has been developed with regard to heritage, streetscape and sense of scale, wind effects and solar penetration.

2.3. Since the introduction of the HIPS2015 in May 2015, one significant development application has been submitted for a building outside the Amenity Building Envelope (28-32 Elizabeth St. - Palace Hotel). The assessment of that proposal identified limitations in the use of performance criteria P1(b)((ii) and concerns were expressed that this criteria may not provide sufficient guidance to ensure that impacts on streetscape, townscape and heritage values are acceptable.

2.4. At its meeting on 25 July 2016, Council endorsed a project brief (Attachment B) for the engagement of a consultant to undertake a review of the performance criteria and related objectives used in the height standards in the Central Business Zone in the HIPS2015. Mr Leigh Woolley – architect and urban design consultant was subsequently commissioned to undertake the review.

2.5. The Woolley (2016) report has identified key townscape and streetscape values that require consideration when development does not meet the height acceptable solutions. These are based on well considered and illustrated townscape principles.

2.6. The report recommends that the key values that should be considered when assessing buildings outside the Amenity Building Envelope include: townscape elements - location, containment, enclosure, connectivity, permeability, intensity, views and streetscape elements - rhythm, permeability, protection and enclosure.

2.7. These townscape and streetscape elements are articulated in a proposed Statement of Desired Future Character and new performance criteria in clause 22.4.1 (Attachment C) that would be considered in relation to development proposed outside of the Amenity Building Envelope.

2.8. It is proposed that the outcomes of Central Business Zone Height Standards – Performance Criteria Review report (Woolley 2016) be endorsed and the amendments to the HIPS 2015 clauses 22.1.3 Desired Future Character Statements and 22.4.1 Building Height in the Central Business Zone as outlined in Attachment C be initiated.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The outcomes of Central Business Zone Height Standards – Performance Criteria Review report (Woolley 2016) be endorsed.

2. Pursuant to Section 34(1) (b) of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, the Council resolve to initiate the amendments provided in Attachment C to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

3. Pursuant to Section 35 of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, the Council certify that the PSA-3-2017 Amendment to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 meets the requirements of Section 32 of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and authorise the General Manager and the Deputy General Manager to sign the Instrument of Certification (Attachment D).

4. Pursuant to Section 38 of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, the Council place the PSA-3-2017 Amendment to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 on public exhibition for a 28 day period following certification.

5. A public forum to explain the proposed amendments and the results of the Woolley (2016) report be held during the exhibition of the PSA-3-2017 Amendment to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

6. A further report to Council be prepared addressing the additional analysis required in relation to a number of issues including the preparation of design guidelines, modelling of buildings in certain locations, development of spatial principles to inform appreciation of the ‘urban amphitheatre’, designation of additional view protection planes, height control planes and specification of maximum height limits.

4. Background

4.1. The current development standards for buildings in the Central Business Zone in the HIPS2015 were formulated after a detailed review and analysis of land use and development patterns in the central city area. The development standards address building height, setbacks, design, passive surveillance, outdoor storage and pedestrian links.

4.2. The building height standards in the Central Business Zone include an 'Amenity Building Envelope' which has been developed with regard to heritage, streetscape and sense of scale, wind effects and solar penetration.

4.3. The performance criteria in clause 22.4.1 P1(b) provides that development outside the Amenity Building Envelope must only be approved if:

4.3.1. (i) it provides significant benefits in terms of civic amenities such as public space, pedestrian links, public art or public toilets, unless an extension to an existing building that already exceeds the Amenity Building Envelope; and

4.3.2. (ii) the siting, bulk and design does not significantly negatively impact on the streetscape and townscape of the surrounding area; and

4.3.3. (iii) the design demonstrates that it will minimise unacceptable wind conditions in adjacent streets; and

4.3.4. (iv) for city blocks with frontage to a Solar Penetration Priority Street in Figure 22.2, the overshadowing of the public footpath on the opposite side of the Solar Penetration Priority Street does not unreasonably impact on pedestrian amenity.

4.4. Additional standards in clause 22.4.1 A4/P4 and A5/P5 and in the Historic Heritage Code (E13.0) apply to development on or adjacent to heritage listed places.

4.5. Since the introduction of the HIPS2015 in May 2015, one significant development application has been submitted for a building outside the Amenity Building Envelope (28-32 Elizabeth St. - Palace Hotel). The assessment of that proposal identified limitations in the use of performance criteria P1(b)((ii) and concerns were expressed that this criteria may not provide sufficient guidance to ensure that impacts on streetscape, townscape and heritage values are acceptable.

4.6. At its meeting on 25 July 2016, the Council endorsed a project brief (Attachment B) for the engagement of a consultant to undertake a review of the performance criteria and related objectives used in the height standards in the Central Business Zone in the HIPS2015. Mr Leigh Woolley – architect and urban design consultant was subsequently commissioned to undertake the review.

4.7. The objectives of the project brief were:

4.7.1. To assess whether or not the performance criteria P1(b)(ii) in clause 22.4.1 provides sufficient guidance for assessing applications for development outside of the Amenity Building Envelope to ensure that impacts on streetscape and townscape values in the Central Business Zone are acceptable.

4.7.2. To draft appropriate amendments to the objective and performance criteria in clause 22.4.1 P1(b) and draft 'desired future character' statements if it is concluded that the current criteria do not provide sufficient guidance to ensure that impacts on streetscape and townscape values are acceptable.

4.7.3. To identify issues related to townscape considerations relevant to the translation of the HIPS2015 and the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997 into the Hobart Local Provisions Schedule of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme.

4.7.4. Review the building height standards in the Commercial Zone (clause 23.4.1) and evaluate whether or not they will ensure that building height contributes positively to the streetscape and will not adversely impact on the townscape in the central business area.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the outcomes of Central Business Zone Height Standards – Performance Criteria Review report (Woolley 2016) be endorsed and the amendments to the HIPS 2015 clauses 22.1.3 Desired Future Character Statements and 22.4.1 Building Height in the Central Business Zone as outlined in Attachment C be initiated.

Central Business Zone Height Standards – Performance Criteria Review (Woolley 2016)

5.2. The Woolley (2016) report has identified key townscape and streetscape values that require consideration when development does not meet the height acceptable solutions. These are based on well considered and illustrated townscape principles.

5.3. The report considers the landform of the city centre and its influence on urban form, before identifying townscape and streetscape values in response to the central Hobart setting. Analysis of the location of the Central Business Zone within the landscape of the city and its influence on townscape values underpins these considerations.

5.4. The identification of townscape principles involved assessment of:

5.4.1. The exterior view – the city centre within the municipal and regional setting including urban vistas from key locations in the region;

5.4.2. The interior view – the city centre from within the urban blocks in the context of established urban design principles; rhythm, enclosure, protection, permeability and intensity; and

5.4.3. Connectivity – view lines and view protection planes from the Cenotaph, Civic Square and Hunter Island.

5.5. The report recommends that the key values that should be considered when assessing buildings outside the Amenity Building Envelope include: townscape elements - location, containment, enclosure, connectivity, permeability, intensity, views and streetscape elements - rhythm, permeability, protection and enclosure.

5.6. These townscape and streetscape elements are articulated in a proposed Statement of Desired Future Character and new performance criteria in clause 22.4.1 (Attachment C) that would be considered in relation to development proposed outside of the Amenity Building Envelope.

5.7. The report also recommends that the performance criteria in clause 22.4.1 make more positive statements rather than using phrases such as: ‘does not significantly negatively impact’ as this assumes some degree of negative impact.

5.8. The report does identity an ‘area of built intensity’ where higher buildings may be appropriate subject to meeting the relevant streetscape, townscape and amenity considerations. This is a pear shaped area extending from Macquarie Street to Melville Street as illustrated below. Reference is made to this area in the proposed Statement of Desired Future Character, it has however been refined to refer to the area bounded by Murray, Macquarie, Argyle and Melville Streets to assist in implementation as the ‘pear’ shape cuts through lots and city blocks.

5.9. The report notes that while the scale, form and height within the potential zone of increased built density will be an outcome of the principles, to ameliorate individual prominence a maximum height datum of 75m is suggested. Further modelling of proposed development intensity in this location is however recommended before a definitive position is reached on the appropriate maximum height.

5.10. In relation to the townscape considerations relevant to the translation of the HIPS2015 and the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997 (SCPS) into the Hobart Local Provisions Schedule of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme, the report considers that it is desirable to continue the landscape and setting basis of the SCPS and to extend that approach into the city centre.

5.11. In relation to the building height standards in the Commercial Zone (CZ) (clause 23.4.1) the report recommends that the CZ should also be considered in the context of the central area landform and provide a transition in scale in support of the principal activity centre of the state and the height controls should not be relaxed.

5.12. The consultant has suggested that additional analysis is required in relation to a number of issues including the preparation of design guidelines, modelling of buildings in certain locations, development of spatial principles to inform appreciation of the ‘urban amphitheatre’, designation of additional view protection planes and height control planes. This work will be the subject of a further report to Council.

Urban Design Advisory Panel Consideration

5.13. The Urban Design Advisory Panel received a briefing on the report from Leigh Woolley at its meeting on 7 June 2017 and formed the following views:

5.13.1. The methodology and recommendations in the Woolley report are supported and endorsed.

5.13.2. The proposed amendments to clauses 22.1.3 and 22.4.1 outlined in Attachment A to the UDAP Agenda 7/06/17 are supported in principle and panel members indicated that they would forward any suggestions as to amendments.

5.13.3. The additional criteria in P1(b) should also be applied in P1(a).

5.13.4. That Council should seriously consider applying an absolute maximum upper height limit in the Central Business Zone and in adjacent zones to ensure that there is a transition in height from the CBD.

5.14. The suggestion that the additional criteria in P1(b) should also be considered in P1(a) is supported and has been included in the proposed amendments.

5.15. The suggestion that Council should seriously consider applying an absolute maximum upper height limit in the Central Business Zone and in adjacent zones is considered to have merit as it will provide greater certainty and direction. The consultant however is of the view that further modelling of proposed development height is required before a definitive position is reached on the appropriate maximum height.

Planning Scheme Amendments

5.16. The proposed planning scheme amendments based on the recommendations of the Woolley (2016) report are provided in context in Attachment C. The key amendments are outlined below:

5.17. Clause 22.1.3 - a desired future character statement for the Central Business Zone based on the statement in Appendix 1 of the report is inserted. The statement is drafted in response to city centre development scales (regional, precinct and individual development) and is intended to accommodate development that does not meet the height acceptable solutions.

5.18. Clause 22.4.1 Building Height Objective – The objective of the building height standard is amended to specifically refer to townscape and view lines as a consideration.

5.19. Clause 22.4.1 P1(a) – This amendment requires development in the core area, within the amenity building envelope, to make a positive contribution to the streetscape and townscape values of the surrounding area having regard to the criteria in P1(b).

5.20. Clause 22.4.1 P1(b) – This amendment requires development in the core area, outside of the amenity building envelope to make a positive contribution to the streetscape and townscape values and identifies the townscape elements requiring consideration including the identified view lines and the desired future character statement in clause 22.3.1. A new subclause P1(b)(vii) is also inserted to allow consideration of the impacts of overshadowing of public open space.

5.21. Clause 22.4.1 P3(a) – This amendment requires development in the central business fringe area, within the amenity building envelope to make a positive contribution to the streetscape and townscape values of the surrounding area.

5.22. Clause 22.4.1 P3(b) – This amendment requires development in the central business fringe area, outside of the amenity building envelope to make a positive contribution to the streetscape and townscape values and identifies the townscape elements requiring consideration including the identified view lines and the desired future character statement in clause 22.3.1. The introductory paragraph is also amended to be consistent with 22.4.1(b) with the ‘overriding benefits in terms of economic activity’ criteria being replaced with ‘significant benefits in terms of civic amenities’.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The proposed planning scheme amendments will assist in the achievement of the strategic objectives of the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 particularly in relation to Goal 2 Urban Management - 2.3 "City and regional planning ensures quality design, meets community needs...."

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Amendment fees provided in current budget.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. None.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. None.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. The Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) requires that planning scheme amendments must seek to further the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Act and be prepared in accordance with State Policies.

8.2. The objectives of the Act require use and development to occur in a fair, orderly and sustainable manner and for the planning process to facilitate economic development in accordance with the other Schedule 1 objectives.

8.3. It is considered that the proposed amendment meets the objectives of LUPAA, in particular it:

8.3.1. Assists sound strategic planning by assisting in the achievement of the relevant Zone Objectives and the Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy (STRLUS) policies;

8.3.2. Is consistent with the objective to establish a system of planning instruments to be the principal way of setting objectives, policies and controls for the use, development and protection of land;

8.3.3. Assists in the provision of a pleasant living and working environment by protecting key townscape and streetscape values; and

8.3.4. Assists in the conservation of places of special cultural value by helping to protect key townscape and streetscape values.

8.4. The amendment does not conflict with the State Policies - Coastal, Agricultural Land and Water Quality.

8.5. S32(e) of the former provisions of LUPAA requires that planning scheme amendments must avoid the potential for land use conflicts in adjacent planning scheme areas. The proposed amendment will not result in any land use conflict.

8.6. S32(f) of the former provisions of LUPAA requires that planning scheme amendments must have regard to the impact that the use and development permissible under the amendment will have on the use and development of the region as an entity in environmental, economic and social terms. The amendment does not have any regional implications.

8.7. Section 30O of LUPAA requires that an amendment to an interim planning scheme is as far as practicable, consistent with the regional land use strategy. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following activity centre policies in the STRLUS:

8.7.1. AC 1 Focus employment, retail and commercial uses, community services and opportunities for social interaction in well-planned, vibrant and accessible regional activity centres that are provided with a high level of amenity and with good transport links with residential areas;

8.7.2. AC 1.5 Ensure high quality urban design and pedestrian amenity through the respective development standards;

8.7.3. AC 1.8 Ensure that new development and redevelopment in established urban areas reinforce the strengths and individual character of the urban area in which the development occurs;

8.7.4. AC 2.2 Achieve high quality design for all new prominent buildings and public spaces in the Primary and Principal Activity Centres.

9. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

9.1. Council has requested that reports which recommend the initiation of planning scheme amendments address the need to conduct a public meeting or forum to explain the proposed amendments an also outline the explanatory information to be made available. These are addressed below:

9.1.1. It is considered that a public forum is desirable to explain the proposed amendments and the results of the Woolley (2016) report to the public given the current community interest in the issue of building height in the CBD.

9.1.2. The following information will be made available on the website: a copy of this report and a copy of the formal amendment document.

9.1.3. Council will have the opportunity to recommend to the Tasmanian Planning Commission modifications or refusal of the amendment after the 28 day public advertising period.

10. Delegation

10.1. Delegation to initiate planning scheme amendments rests with the Council.

James McIlhenny

Manager Planning Policy and Heritage

Date: 21 June 2017

File Reference: F17/56956; 17/167

Attachment a: CBD Height Standards Review Report ⇩

Attachment b: CBD Height Standards Project Brief ⇩

Attachment c: CBD Height Standards Proposed Amendments ⇩

Attachment d: Instrument of Certification ⇩

Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 237

26/6/2017

REPORT TITLE: Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 - PSA-17-2 - 2 Churchill Avenue - Application for Planning Scheme Amendment

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Development Appraisal Planner

Manager Planning Policy and Heritage

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to consider an application under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA), from All Urban Planning on behalf of the University of Tasmania to amend the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (HIPS 2015) in relation to Particular Purpose Zone 3 - University of Tasmania (Sandy Bay Campus). The application report is provided in Attachment A.

1.2. The proposal benefits the community by ensuring that land is appropriately zoned and that the site and buildings are able to be appropriately utilised given its urban setting.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The proposal is to amend the Particular Purpose Zone 3 - University of Tasmania (Sandy Bay Campus) of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 to facilitate a more diverse range of uses in the area identified for disposal by the University of Tasmania. The individual amendments are detailed in Appendix B to Attachment A.

2.2. The amendments required to facilitate this divestment of assets are as follows:

2.2.1. Adding to the zone purpose to allow non-university uses for the area, providing they are complimentary to both the site and surrounds.

2.2.2. Amending the use table to extend the permissible uses beyond being just for university related activity in the upper campus and at 301 Sandy Bay Road and 6 Grace Street.

2.2.3. Introducing additional use and development standards to ensure that the expanded range of uses for the site are adequately controlled so as not to have a detrimental impact on the ongoing university operation of the remainder of the site, or on the residential amenity of the surrounding area.

2.3. The area affected by the proposed amendments currently contains vacant buildings, which were most recently used for lecture theatres, laboratories and academic offices in the upper campus and university staff and student accommodation and academic offices in the lower campus.

2.4. The proposed amendments follow recent Urgent Amendment HOB UA27-2016 to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme approved by the TPC 8 March 2017. Those amendments acknowledged that:

2.4.1. The Upper Campus is an area in transition as the University divests itself of redundant assets; and

2.4.2. Future use and development of the Upper Campus will be reviewed and subject to further applications for amendments to the Planning Scheme.

2.5. This proposal is the first of such amendments and will provide greater flexibility for reuse of surplus buildings without unreasonably impacting on the amenity of surrounding residential areas or the strategic planning objectives for Greater Hobart.

2.6. The proposed amendment to the Particular Purpose Zone 3 - University of Tasmania (Sandy Bay Campus) provisions is considered to be an appropriate amendment to the HIPS 2015 and is recommended for initiation.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. Pursuant to Section 34(1) (a) of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, Council resolve to initiate an amendment to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 to amend the Particular Purpose Zone 3 – University of Tasmania (Sandy bay campus), as detailed in Appendix B to Attachment A.

2. Pursuant to Section 35 of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, Council certify that the amendment to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 PSA-17-2 meets the requirements of Section 32 of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and authorise the General Manager and the Deputy General Manager to sign the Instrument of Certification (Attachment B).

3. Pursuant to Section 38 of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, Council place Amendment PSA-17-2 to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 on public exhibition for a 28 day period following certification.

4. Background

4.1. The University of Tasmania lodged a representation in 2015 in relation to the HIPS 2015 exhibition highlighting concerns with a number of the provisions in the Particular Purpose Zone 3 – University of Tasmania (Sandy Bay Campus), and with the extent and location of the Biodiversity Code mapping.

4.2. The Tasmanian Planning Commission subsequently made urgent amendment, UA27-2016, which included some modifications to the zone provisions to accommodate the change in strategic direction identified by the University. This urgent amendment came into effect on 8 March 2017.

4.3. Specifically, the amendments to the Scheme standards were as follows:

4.3.1. Modification of the Biodiversity Code mapping to more accurately represent the natural values present on site.

4.3.2. Amending the zone purpose to better reflect the changing needs of the University of Tasmania and acknowledging that the Upper Campus is an area in transition as the University divests itself of redundant assets.

4.3.3. Acknowledging that the future use and development of the Upper Campus will be reviewed and subject to further applications for amendments to the Planning Scheme.

4.3.4. Removing the significance of and desire for connectivity between the upper and lower sections of the site.

Existing Situation

4.4. The land affected by the Particular Purpose Zone 3 – University of Tasmania (Sandy Bay Campus), whilst covering several titles, is all in the ownership of the University of Tasmania.

4.5. The land affected by the proposed amendment is primarily in the upper campus section of the zone above Churchill Avenue, and is currently occupied by a number of purpose built buildings. Some of these are still occupied by the University, but some are now vacant as the University diversifies its asset base and re-locates several of its facilities away from the Sandy Bay Campus.

4.6. The current provisions of the HIPS2015 limit disposal of these now vacant facilities, or their re-purposing for non-university related uses.

4.7. The Union Building, which is located in the upper campus already contains a mixture of commercial uses including; a bookshop, bank, shop / post office, travel agent and doctor’s clinic. Whilst aimed at servicing campus needs, there is not any prohibition currently for the general public to utilise these facilities.

Planning Scheme Provisions

4.8. The Zone Purpose Statements for the Particular Purpose Zone 3 – University of Tasmania (Sandy bay Campus) are:

To provide for the continued development of the University of Tasmania Sandy Bay campus (UTAS Sandy Bay) as a major tertiary education centre of the State.

To provide for a diversity of activities primarily catering for the education, recreation and entertainment of its student population while also encouraging a closer integration with the community.

4.9. Within the Particular Purpose Zone 3 – University of Tasmania (Sandy Bay Campus), most uses are qualified so that they must be associated with the University, staff, students and visitors. The only exceptions to this being uses that would complement the University. Permitted uses include; community meeting and entertainment, educational and occasional care, research and development, sport and recreation. Discretionary uses, include; hotel industry, tourist operation, and visitor accommodation.

4.10. There are a limited number of use standards that control the impact of uses in the Particular Purpose Zone 3 – University of Tasmania (Sandy Bay Campus) where they are in proximity to a residential zone. Development standards generally relate to hours of operation for take away food premises, noise emissions, and external lighting.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The proposal is to amend the Particular Purpose Zone 3 - University of Tasmania (Sandy Bay Campus) of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 to allow for additional uses as the university divests itself of surplus assets, primarily in the upper campus area, but also at 301 Sandy Bay Road and 6 Grace Street.

5.2. Specifically, it is proposed to amend the Particular Purpose Zone 3 - University of Tasmania (Sandy Bay Campus) of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 as follows:

5.2.1. Insertion of an additional zone purpose statement in Clause 34.1.1 to acknowledge opportunities for compatible commercial uses providing they are consistent with the regional activity centre hierarchy;

5.2.2. Amendments to the Use Table in Clause 34.2 to remove the qualifications that require some uses to be primarily for student, staff and visitor use; and

5.2.3. Insertion of Use Standards in a new Clause 34.3.4 to ensure that commercial uses are consistent with the activity centre hierarchy, for hours of operation and commercial vehicle movements for Business and Professional Services and General Retail and Hire uses.

Justification – Applicant’s Submission

5.3. The applicant considers that the requested amendments are justified for the following reasons:

5.3.1. The University’s submission on the HIPS 2015, Council’s report on the representation issues, the resultant urgent amendment, and the current desired future character statements for the zone foreshadow this change in strategic direction for the University and as such the zone controls.

5.3.2. The characteristics of the existing building stock are such that they are best suited to ongoing office or research and development use for enterprises compatible with the University. Alternatively they could be adapted for residential or visitor accommodation use.

5.3.3. The existing buildings are generally not suited to retail activity of significant floor size. There are however existing commercial tenancies within the University that sensibly would be able to evolve for non-university related use without significant impact on the surrounding area or the activity centre hierarchy.

5.3.4. In this case, subject to the proposed qualifications in the Use Table and Use Standards the amendments are considered consistent with the Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy and the associated background report on the basis that they will:

• Allow the use of existing buildings that are predominantly already used for similar office or commercial activities with flexibility for non-university use;

• Provide for the repurposing of redundant university buildings on existing serviced urban land;

• Ensure that environmental values of the reserve are protected;

• Include use provisions to minimise potential for land use conflict; and

• Limit the extent of retailing to avoid competition with the established activity centre network of the Hobart CBD.

5.3.5. As set out above it is considered that with the existing code provisions, development standards and expanded use standards will ensure that the proposed amendments will as far as practical avoid conflicts with use and development permissible on adjacent residential land.

5.3.6. The proposed planning scheme amendment meets the requirements of Schedule 1 of LUPAA, State Policies, National Environmental Protection Measures and the Gas Pipelines Act 2000.

Justification - Comment

5.4. The applicant has submitted some valid reasons supporting the proposed amendments.

5.4.1. The University’s submission on the HIPS 2015, Council’s report on the representation issues, the resultant urgent amendment, and the current desired future character statements for the zone did foreshadow this change in strategic direction, and their acceptance by the TPC shows support for it.

5.4.2. The current zone provisions focus on the preservation and growth of the University of Tasmania in a central location. As such the Scheme provisions focus on consolidating, intensifying and enhancing the use of the Sandy Bay campus. This strategic intent was developed in consultation with the University for the current zone provisions.

5.4.3. A recent review of the University’s asset base and strategic direction has resulted in an altered strategic direction which offers the potential to review the provisions of the zone to ensure the highest and best use of the site can be achieved.

5.4.4. It is considered that the proposed additional use standards for the zone will assist in minimising the impacts of future use on the existing residential amenity surrounding the affected land.

5.4.5. Accordingly, the development potential will not be significantly increased by the proposed changes as qualifications are included in the use table to limit the extent of new development of the land, whilst enabling a broader range of uses to occur.

5.4.6. The proposed broadened uses of the site have the potential to complement existing uses, through enabling the growth of business and professional services, as well as visitor accommodation facilities that would benefit from the proximity to the university campus, both in terms of knowledge banks and facilities for visiting academics, and prospective students and their families.

5.4.7. There is, however, the potential for conflict with existing / surrounding uses. This is because the local residents have become accustomed to a university campus which is largely dormant, if not quietly occupied, outside of university hours. The introduction of non-university oriented uses of the site has the potential to alter the occupation and activity hours of the site. The proposed additional use standards should minimise this potential conflict.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 in regard to 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. None.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. None.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. None.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. The Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) requires that planning scheme amendments must seek to further the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Act and be prepared in accordance with State Policies.

8.3. It is considered that the proposed amendment meets the objectives of LUPAA, in particular it:

8.3.1. Assists sound strategic planning by not prejudicing the achievement of the relevant Zone Objectives or the STRLUS objectives;

8.3.3. Provides greater flexibility to address changes in local environmental, social and economic circumstances;

8.3.4. Allows for a more efficient use of the existing infrastructure and facilities;

8.3.5. Facilitates the integration of compatible and complementary land use activities in a managed and safe environment;

8.3.6. Provides for the exercise of greater flexibility to fully consider the capability of the land.

8.4. The relevant State Policies to consider in this case are the State Coastal Policy, and the State Policy on Water Quality Management.

8.5. It is considered that the proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives of the State Coastal Policy due to the spatial separation from the coast in terms of both distance and development between the two.

8.6. It is considered that the proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives of the State Policy on Water Quality Management as the site already has an extensive stormwater network connected to Council’s stormwater infrastructure. This, in conjunction with the Stormwater Code of the Scheme is considered adequate to ensure that site runoff is adequately treated to protect water quality downstream in the catchment.

8.7. S32(e) of the former provisions of LUPAA require that planning scheme amendments must avoid the potential for land use conflicts in adjacent planning scheme areas. The proposed amendment does not represent a significant potential for land use conflict between the site and adjacent sites as there already exists an intensive use of the site with the potential to disturb the surrounding land users. Given that the amendments do not significantly change the intensity of uses on the site, it is considered that there is no significant increase in the potential for detriment to surrounding land users. Additional standards are also proposed to further minimise any impacts of the proposed change of allowable uses for the upper campus.

8.8. S32(f) of the former provisions of LUPAA require that planning scheme amendments must have regard to the impact that the use and development permissible under the amendment will have on the use and development of the region as an entity in environmental, economic and social terms. The size, location and configuration of the land affected by the modified provisions is such that it will not have any regional implications. The new direction the University has taken will have regional impacts but this is facilitated by existing planning scheme provisions.

8.9. Section 30O of LUPAA requires that an amendment to an interim planning scheme is as far as practicable, consistent with the regional land use strategy. The proposed amendment is consistent with the activity centre policies in the STRLUS as outlined in section 5.4 of the applicant’s submission.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. The areas of the site with identified environmental values are already protected through the Biodiversity Code in the HIPS 2015. The proposed modifications to the zone provisions do not alter this, nor would they override any of this. As such, any reuse of buildings within the already disturbed areas of the site is considered a sustainable outcome for both the site, and the broader area as it provides opportunities for re-development without encroaching further into areas of conservation significance.

9.2. The remainder of the land affected by these proposed Scheme changes is an underutilised area of land within close proximity to services and transport, and therefore efficient development of the land is considered to provide for a positive environmental outcome.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. The proposal is not considered to have any negative impact on social inclusion.

11. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

11.1. Council has requested that reports which recommend the initiation of planning scheme amendments address the need to conduct a public meeting or forum to explain the proposed amendments and also outline the explanatory information to be made available. These are addressed below:

11.1.1. It is not considered that a public forum is necessary to explain the proposed amendment to the public as it is relatively straight forward and self-explanatory.

11.1.2. The following information will be made available on the website: a copy of this report and a copy of the formal amendment document.

11.2. Council will have the opportunity to recommend to the Tasmanian Planning Commission modifications or refusal of the amendment after the 28 day public advertising period.

12. Delegation

12.1. Delegation rests with the Council.

Helen Ayers

Development Appraisal Planner

James McIlhenny

Manager Planning Policy and Heritage

Date: 21 June 2017

File Reference: F17/56725; PSA-17-2

Attachment a: Applicant Submission ⇩

Attachment b: Instrument of Certification ⇩

Item No. 8.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 282

26/6/2017

Memorandum: City Planning Committee

City Planning Division – Revised Fees and Charges 2017/2018 Financial Year – Development Compliance

The purpose of this memorandum is to seek approval for revised fees and charges for the 2017/2018 financial year in respect to the City Planning divisional activity of development compliance.

Summary

At its meeting of 5 June 2017, the Council approved fees and charges for the 2017/2018 financial year. A review of the fees and charges for the activity of Development Compliance approved by the Council has identified that some minor revisions are required.

The proposed revised fees are as follows:

Fee Description	Proposed Fee	GST	Unit
City Inspector Task -695
Occupation Licences – Use of Footpaths for Outdoor Dining Salamanca Square – 24 hour occupation	$155	N	per m²
Building Compliance - 025
Miscellaneous Building Fees Building Permit – Extension of Time	$176	N	per extension
Plumbing Compliance - 025
Inspections Inspections and issue of statutory certificates for permits issued after the statutory period has elapsed (permit issued prior to November 2012)	$450	N	per certificate

Background

Salamanca Square – 24 hour occupation

Council’s occupation licence terms and conditions currently provide that the licensee may occupy the occupation licence area for outdoor dining including the placement of tables, chairs, umbrellas, barriers and screens or other structures from 7:00 am until 12 midnight seven (7) days a week. There are a number of venues in Salamanca, Morrison Street and Salamanca Square where the furniture and structures remain in the occupation area outside this timeframe. As this practice is increasing with a number of venues installing more permanent infrastructure, for example large heated umbrellas and fixed barrier systems, an independent valuation was obtained which identified there is a significant advantage for the licensees to be able to leave all outdoor dining infrastructure in place on a permanent basis and therefore an additional rental fee or a premium applied to the assessed base rental fee for the subject localities is appropriate.

At its meeting of 5 June 2017, the Council approved a new fee for 24 hour occupation of occupation licence areas in Salamanca, Morrison Street and other areas of Sullivans Cove.

As a result of an administrative oversight, a fee for 24 occupation of Salamanca Square was omitted from the fees and charges approved by Council.

The fee for an occupational licence from 7:00 am until 12 midnight seven (7) days a week for Salamanca Square is $140 per square metre. It is proposed that a fee of $155 be imposed for 24 occupation of occupation licence areas in Salamanca Square.

Building Permit – Extension of Time

Under the Building Act 2016, a fee is payable when seeking an extension of time for both building permits and plumbing permits. It is simpler for both the customer and Council’s administrative staff if the fee is the same for an extension of time for a building permit and an extension of time for a plumbing permit.

At its meeting of 5 June 2017, the Council approved a fee of $176 for an extension of time for a plumbing permit. The same amount was not adopted for an extension of time for a building permit. It is proposed that a fee of $176 be imposed for an extension of time for a building permit.

Plumbing - inspections and issue of statutory certificates for permits issued after the statutory period has elapsed (permit issued prior to November 2012)

Under the Building Act 2016, a fee is payable to finalise a building permit and plumbing permit after the statutory period for completion has elapsed. It is simpler for both the customer and Council’s administrative staff if the fee is the same for finalisation of a building permit and finalisation of a plumbing permit.

At its meeting of 5 June 2017, the Council approved a fee of $450 for finalisation of a building permit. The same amount was not adopted for finalisation of a plumbing permit. It is proposed that a fee of $450 be imposed for inspections and issue of statutory certificates for plumbing permits issued after the statutory period has elapsed (permit issued prior to November 2012).

REcommendation

That the Council approve the following fees to apply from 1 July 2017:

(i) Occupation Licences – Use of Footpaths for Outdoor Dining Salamanca Square – 24 hour occupation - $155 per square metre.

(ii) Building Permit – Extension of Time - $176 per extension.

(iii) Inspections and issue of statutory certificates for plumbing permits issued after the statutory period has elapsed (permit issued prior to November 2012) - $450 per certificate.

Kirsten Turner Signature

Kirsten Turner

Manager Development Compliance

Date: 21 June 2017

File Reference: F17/72950; 17/41

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.