Agenda of City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 7

26/7/2017

REPORT TITLE: Petition - Sandy Bay Shopping Precinct Footpaths - Opposing Change to Outdoor Dining Areas and Bus Stop Locations

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Director City Infrastructure

Manager Traffic Engineering

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report has been written to provide background information to the Committee to assist in its consideration of a petition tabled at the 19 June 2017 Council meeting, opposing the City of Hobart’s decision to move outdoor dining areas and bus stop seating to the outside edge / kerb of the footpath in the Sandy Bay Shopping Precinct.

2. Report Summary

2.1. A petition was tabled by the General Manager, on behalf of the Deputy Lord Mayor at 19 June 2017 Council meeting. The petition, with 243 signatories, opposes the relocation of outdoor dining furniture and other infrastructure away from the building line on the footpaths in the Sandy Bay Retail Precinct.

2.2. On 12 October 2015, the Council resolved to modify the management of commercial furniture and infrastructure on public footpaths towards a model where such furniture is relocated away from building lines to maintain a clear pedestrian path adjacent to the property boundary.

2.3. The early stages of the implementation of this decision has been to relocate this furniture and infrastructure away from building lines on footpaths that are reconstructed. To date this has occurred on Liverpool Street (Elizabeth Street to Murray Street), Morrison Street (Murray Street to Elizabeth Street), and is planned to occur following upcoming works on Salamanca Place and on Augusta Road in Lenah Valley.

2.4. Officers are currently in the process of relocating commercial furniture away from the building line on Sandy Bay Road in the Sandy Bay Retail Precinct.

2.5. The implementation date for the change was planned for 1 August 2017.

2.6. Following receipt of the petition described above, businesses on Sandy Bay Road have been advised that this date has been postponed to 1 September 2017, should the Council proceed.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The General Manager proceed with the implementation of the Council resolution of 12 October 2015, by progressing the relocation of occupation licence areas and signboards away from the building line in the Sandy Bay Shopping Precinct.

2. The petitioners be advised accordingly.

4. Background

4.1. A petition was tabled by the General Manager, on behalf of the Deputy Lord Mayor, at 19 June 2017 Council meeting.

4.1.1. A copy of the petition, with 243 signatories’ forms Attachment A to this report.

4.2. While the petition does not request any specific action from the Council, it is opposed to the relocation of outdoor dining furniture and other infrastructure away from the building line on the footpaths in the Sandy Bay Retail Precinct.

4.3. For context, the Council considered a report on the future management of furniture on footpaths in October 2015. At its meeting of 12 October 2015, the Council resolved inter alia as follows:

“That: 1. 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; and

(ii) In locations where footpath infrastructure is upgraded or renewed, existing occupation licence areas and signboards be relocated away from the building line following completion of the works.”

4.4. The direction in the report provided to Committee in September 2015, and endorsed by the City of Hobart at its meeting held on 12 October 2015 was clear. It was essentially that the City of Hobart would move towards a ‘best practice’ model approach regarding infrastructure on public footpaths. This ‘best practice’ model as described in that report, was that pedestrians be provided with a clear an unobstructed path of travel adjacent to the building line.

4.4.1. This approach is supported by the Human Rights Commission.

4.5. Since October 2015, following the completion of reconstruction works, furniture and signage has been relocated away from the building line, on the following streets:

4.5.1. Liverpool Street (between Elizabeth Street and Murray Street); and

4.5.2. Morrison Street (between Elizabeth Street and Murray Street).

4.6. Photograph 1 and Photograph 2 below, shows the streetscape in Morrison Street and Liverpool Street following the recent upgrades.

IMG_20170116_062536874
Photograph 1 – Morrison Street following Footpath Upgrade

IMG_20170113_121855107_HDR Photograph 2 – Liverpool Street following Footpath Upgrade

4.7. Currently works are underway on the planning for the reconstruction of the Lenah Valley Retail Precinct, and following the completion of those works, it is planned that the same process will be undertaken in that area.

4.8. The reconstruction of the footpath on Salamanca Place between Gladstone Street and Montpelier Retreat is also underway, and following extensive engagement with stakeholders, the Council is proceeding with the relocation of outdoor dining furniture and advertising signage away from the building line.

4.9. It should be noted that the alignment of pedestrian paths and outdoor dining furniture on Salamanca Place was the subject of several reports, with strong views expressed by some traders against the relocation of furniture away from the building line, before the Council resolved to proceed.

4.10. Overall, the Council is in the early stages of implementing its decision to move towards a best practice approach in the management of private infrastructure on public footpaths.

4.11. In these early stages, the focus in on implementing the changes on streets where the City is spending a significant amount of funds upgrading the footpath infrastructure. Typically, this involves the significant widening of the footpaths (Morrison Street, Liverpool Street, Salamanca Place), or the upgrading and minor widening of already comparatively wide footpaths (Sandy Bay Road).

4.11.1. In these locations, businesses with outdoor dining are either obtaining larger outdoor dining areas, or in the case of Sandy Bay Road are able to maintain outdoor dining areas of similar size.

4.12. In the future, assuming that the Council continues to move towards implementing a ‘best practice’ policy of moving private furniture away from the building line, there will be many footpaths where it will not be possible to maintain both an equivalent area of outdoor dining for existing licence holders, and provide a full width pedestrian path to allow two wheelchairs to pass. In those cases it will be necessary to do one or both of providing a lesser clear pedestrian width and / or reducing or removing outdoor dining areas.

4.12.1. These matters will be the subject of a future report to Committee.

4.13. For the information of Committee, the matters raised in the text accompanying the petition are discussed in the ‘proposal and implementation’ section of this report.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The full text accompanying the petition is replicated below, with comments from officers provided.

5.2. "Petition to Hobart City Council, opposing changes to the outside dining areas and bus stop locations on footpath in Sandy Bay Shopping Precinct."

"As business owners, key stakeholders, residents and users of these areas, we are directly opposed to the HCC decision to move outside dining areas and bus stop seating to the outer edge / curb of the footpath throughout the Sandy Bay Shopping Precinct as it is dangerous and reduces the useable footpath space for the public."

"This proposal is dangerous and irresponsible in many ways."

"Sandy Bay Road is a major arterial route and as such approximately 16000 vehicles use this road every day. It is not a suburb off the grid, the area affected by these changes is extremely busy, with trucks, buses, cars, motorbikes and commuter traffic."

"Cars and large trucks park on the yellow lines directly out the front of Brew and Zambreros, precisely adjacent to where HCC are proposing tables will be placed, putting the safety of patrons at great risk. When a car comes flying around the corner and it hits the patrons who is responsible for this? The car will hit the patrons before the type hits the curb. The barrier HCC is planning to erect is not a safety barrier."

5.3. Comment - In the rare event that a driver loses control and mounts the footpath with a vehicle, resulting in injury to pedestrians on the footpath, or damage to a building next to the road, it would most likely be the responsibility of whoever or whatever caused the vehicle to lose control. Officers are of the view that there is no outstanding safety risk that would prevent the City of Hobart issuing a licence to permit outdoor dining on the footpath in front of either of these businesses after the work is complete.

5.4. "In many places where there are parking bays adjacent to the proposed new dining areas (outside Sandy Bay Bakery, Sash, Mykonos, Burgers Got Soul and Tap That) the usable area of footpath will be significantly reduced to less than half of the existing current space, due to the need for 600mm gap between the curb and new dining area, for car doors to open. The remaining area between dining areas and buildings is therefore much less! How can this be best practice and safe? The footpaths are not wide to begin with so why make them even narrower??!!"

5.5. Comment - Outdoor dining furniture would be required to be placed a minimum of 0.6 of a metre from the kerb line, to provide space for vehicles to manoeuvre when parking, for car doors to open, and for people to enter and exit parked vehicles. The clear width for pedestrians would change from approximately 2 metres prior to the reconstruction of the footpath to 1.8 metres after the works, and with the outdoor dining furniture relocated. All currently operating businesses with outdoor dining would be able to increase the size of their outdoor dining areas to the proposed areas detailed below, should they wish to do so:

5.5.1. Burger Got Soul – Current 8.4 sqm, Proposed 9.6 sqm (+11%).

5.5.2. Sandy Bay Bakery – Current 10 sqm, Proposed 11.8 sqm (+18%).

5.5.3. Brew – Current 6.5 sqm, Proposed 8.8 sqm (+35%).

5.5.4. Zambrero – Current 4.2 sqm, Proposed 5.7 sqm (+36%).

5.5.5. Mykonos – Current 1.5 sqm, Proposed 12 sqm (+700%).

5.5.6. Sash – Current 2.4 sqm, Proposed 4.2 sqm (+75%).

5.6. "This then poses problems for pedestrians, there is far less space for people to walk with children, wheelchair access, double prams and motorised devices for the elderly. Multiple times a day there are bike riders and skateboarders using these footpaths too?"

5.7. Comment - The 1.8 metres clear pedestrian width will typically be about 0.2 of a metre less than the 2 metres typically available for pedestrians pre-works. A clear width of 1.8 metres is sufficient for two wheelchairs to comfortably pass each other (AustRoads Guide to Road Design Part 6A - Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths). Wheelchairs, accessibility scooters and double prams are all typically of maximum 750mm width, and as such designing for wheelchairs will typically also cater for other footpath users.

5.8. "What happens when tables and chairs are in the way of parked cars doors opening…. When the door hits a seated patron or when the car door gets damaged by hitting a table or chair that's not placed correctly. Who is liable? The HCC?"

5.9. Comment - People entering and exiting parked vehicles already need to take care to avoid opening their doors onto objects like other adjacent vehicles, street sign poles, power poles etc. The 0.6 of a metre set-back proposed will be sufficient to allow access to and from vehicles. Occupation licence holders may choose to increase this width if they are concerned that it is insufficient.

5.10. "Who is responsible when a hot coffee or plate of food is spilt on someone who is walking, riding or skating between the building and the new dining area? At times there are multiple people walking past, this just poses a greater danger to pedestrians. Currently there is no risk because they do not have to navigate a lane of foot traffic."

5.11. Comment - It is an unusual arrangement where outdoor dining furniture is placed against the building line of a business. By way of example, the CBD of Melbourne allows no advertising signboards on its footpaths, and outdoor dining furniture is required to be placed away from the building line. Therefore every business serving food and drink in the Melbourne CBD with a door directly onto a public footpath therefore deals with this issue. In the Hobart context, businesses on Liverpool Street (between Elizabeth Street and Murray Street) and Morrison Street have in the last year had advertising signage and outdoor dining relocated away from the building line.

5.12. "Loss of trade - moving tables to the curb is going to have a significant impact on the businesses effected. Small business is hard and costly enough without increasing insurance premiums and reducing businesses ability to provide safe and weather proof outside dining. Moving tables to the outside means there is no shelter from the rain as this area will no longer be sheltered from the rain. In total, there are approximately 50 seats that businesses will not be able to fill when there is inclement weather. Who is compensating these businesses for loss of business? Patrons are already saying there is no way they will sit outside if this change occurs as they are too close to the car fumes and they are too exposed to the dangerous traffic conditions. Who is going to pay the insurance costs when damage occurs to the parked cars and passing cars?"

5.13. Comment - It may be that the proposed arrangements are less advantageous to businesses who seek approval to place private furniture on the public footpath. The commercial interests of private parties seeking to utilise a public asset should however be secondary to the interests of the public.

5.14. "The HCC have instructed businesses that have sandwich boards that these will also need to be removed. This is just cruel and a further loss to businesses who need as much exposure as they can following the massive interruptions to business trade with the lengthy and overrun redevelopment project. Who will compensate businesses for the loss of trade from inability to use outdoor dining areas at all or with reduced capacity, plus loss of exposure and subsequent trade."

5.15. Comment - Officers are not aware of any such instruction to remove advertising signage from footpaths. Businesses with advertising signage will be required to relocate their signage away from the building line to maintain a clear 1.8 metre zone for pedestrians.

5.16. "The HCC have already moved the bus stop outside Magnet Court / Chemart, which has significantly reduced the useable space for pedestrians as the seats are now 600mm off the curb (not flush against the building) and now sit almost in the middle of the footpath. It has already been noted that on inclement days the bus stop seats are empty and instead those waiting for the bus are standing back against the wall, further reducing the already narrowed footpath. On a recent site visit with HCC staff, this was witnessed, an elderly man came up the street on his motorised wheelchair / vehicle and he had limited space to pass and navigate. It has also been pointed out that this, like the exposed strip in front of Brew / Zambrero is now extremely dangerous."

5.17. Comment - Officers do not believe that there are any safety concerns with this arrangement.

5.18. "It can be seen along the top of the awning fascia's how close trucks and buses come to the curb as they are continually hitting the fascia's and with seating so close to the curb at the bus stop and dining areas the potential danger is there for patrons to be hit along with the fascia's."

5.19. Comment - Officers do not believe that there are any safety concerns with this arrangements.

5.20. "The police in the area have made comment that they believe it is ridiculous and irresponsible of the HCC to put people in harm's way when they are trying to protect people not to mention increase their exposure to car fumes by sitting next to idling cars at the traffic lights."

5.21. Comment - While this may be the view of individual officers of Tasmania Police, Officers do not believe that this statement accurately represents the view of Tasmania Police on this matter.

5.22. "The HCC are siting best practice requires these changes to be made, and that it favours those with disabilities, however this change in fact makes it harder for people with disabilities as they have reduced footpath area to use, they must navigate traffic in and out of businesses carrying hot coffee and food on a reduced area of footpath."

5.23. Comment - Officers do not believe that the proposed changes will make it harder for people with disabilities.

5.24. "One of the HCC Aldermen who has a disability voted against this change, and said as a person with a disability she did not believe it was in favour of those with disabilities! How can this be best practice?"

5.25. Comment - This statement does not appear to be based on fact. The Council resolution on this change (12 October 2015) and the preceding City Infrastructure Committee recommendation to Council (23 September 2015) were passed unanimously.

5.26. "When pointed out to the HCC that we would assume they would be moving all structures that are against buildings such as garbage bins (recently placed in front of Metz) or the bus stop in front of Metz, or the service boxes belonging to Aurora etc outside ANZ they said no they wouldn't be. What??? So, of it is "best practice" to have clear walkways against buildings how can these things remain!! They are simply contradicting themselves and therefore should not pursue this ridiculous change!"

5.27. Comment – On the Sandy Bay Road footpaths, the following infrastructure is in place against the building line:

(i) An NBN cabinet on the ANZ Bank frontage at 198 Sandy Bay Road;

(ii) A Telstra payphone along the frontage of Magnet Court;

(iii) A State Growth traffic signal cabinet at 241 Sandy Bay Road;

(iv) A Metro Tasmania bus shelter in front of the Metz at 217 Sandy Bay Road; and

(v) A City of Hobart litter bin to service the bus stop in front of the Metz at 217 Sandy Bay Road.

5.28. The only piece of City of Hobart infrastructure installed against the building line is therefore a single litter bin, that was installed to service the Metro Bus Stop, that was placed next to the existing Metro Tasmania Bus Shelter.

5.29. The existing fixed infrastructure owned by other authorities was not removed or relocated.

5.30. "The safety of the public is at risk and the potential loss of trade to businesses is significant!"

5.31. It is proposed that the petition be received and noted.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. Strategic Objective 2.2 from the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 is relevant in considering this proposal, namely:

“2.2 A people focused city with well designed and well managed urban and recreational spaces.”

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. None are foreseen.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. Section 23 of the Federal Disability Discrimination Act describe responsibilities for the provision of access for people with disabilities.

8.2. Section 23 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 states that:

“It is unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s disability:

(a) by refusing to allow the other person access to, or the use of, any premises that the public or a section of the public is entitled or allowed to enter or use (whether for payment or not); or

(b) in the terms or conditions on which the first‑mentioned person is prepared to allow the other person access to, or the use of, any such premises; or

(c) in relation to the provision of means of access to such premises; or

(d) by refusing to allow the other person the use of any facilities in such premises that the public or a section of the public is entitled or allowed to use (whether for payment or not); or

(e) in the terms or conditions on which the first‑mentioned person is prepared to allow the other person the use of any such facilities; or

(f) by requiring the other person to leave such premises or cease to use such facilities.”

8.3. Section 29A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 states that:

“This Division (other than Section 30) does not render it unlawful for a person (the discriminator) to discriminate against another person on the ground of a disability of the other person if avoiding the discrimination would impose an unjustifiable hardship on the discriminator:”

9. Delegation

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

9.2. If the Council were to resolve to not proceed with relocating outdoor dining furniture and advertising signage away from the building line on Sandy Bay Road, this would be contrary to the Council resolution of 12 October 2015, and as such, it would require an absolute majority decision of Council to rescind its previous decision.

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.

Mark Painter

Director City Infrastructure

Angela Moore

Manager Traffic Engineering

Date: 21 July 2017

File Reference: F17/88873; R0820

Attachment a: Petition Opposing Relocation of Outdoor Dining Furniture in Sandy Bay Shopping Precinct ⇩

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 30

26/7/2017

REPORT TITLE: Sponsorship of Art/Science Collaborative Project Focussing on Micro-Plastics

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Cleansing & Solid Waste Policy Coordinator

Manager Cleansing & Solid Waste

Director Parks and City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to recommend the sponsorship of an Art/Science collaborative exhibition and education program, to raise awareness of the issue surrounding micro-plastics pollution in the world’s oceans and its ecological, biological and social impact.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The City has received an invitation to sponsor the Art/Science collaborative exhibition and awareness program; Vanishing Point: Unseen. Additional project information is included as Attachment A.

2.2. An art exhibition focussing on the impact of micro-plastics will be supported by public talks by scientists and an outreach program to raise awareness within Hobart schools.

2.3. Micro-plastics are having a dramatic impact on ocean ecology and promotion of the issues it creates will lead to changed behaviours within the community. Tasmania has significant aquaculture and eco-tourism industries where quality of ocean ecology is paramount.

2.4. Sponsorship will include an invitation to the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen to the opening of the exhibition, and the City’s logo will be placed on all promotional material including the exhibition catalogue and banners.

2.5. The event aligns with the objectives of the City’s Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030, in particular action 3.8 Promote and support community reuse programs, and 3.10 Develop campaigns to promote the use of sustainable materials.

2.6. The sponsorship of $3,000 is to be funded from the City’s Solid Waste Policy and Strategy budget function.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council sponsor the art/science collaborative exhibition, Vanishing Point: Unseen, to a value of $3,000, subject to the event organiser securing remaining funding required for the event to proceed.

2. The cost of the sponsorship be funded from the Solid Waste Policy and Strategy budget function within the 2017/2018 Annual Plan.

3. The City’s contribution be acknowledged in relevant promotional material.

4. The sponsorship be recorded in the ‘Grants, Assistance and Benefits Provided’ section of the City of Hobart’s Annual Report.

4. Background

4.1. The City received an invitation to sponsor an arts/science collaborative exhibition; Vanishing Point – Unseen.

The aim is to raise awareness into issues surrounding micro-plastics pollution in the world’s oceans and its ecological, biological and social impact.

4.2. Professional artists will create and exhibit works in the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) Exhibition space, with works from Katherine Cooper (painting), Peter Walsh (photography), Sophie Carnell (jewellery), Toby Muir-Wilson (woodwork) Ron Moss (haiku), Di Masters (printmaking) and Gerhardt Mausz (sculpture). IMAS Scientists Heidi Auman, Patti Virtue and Fred Olivier will provide scientific advice to the artists.

4.3. The City helped fund a Vanishing Point exhibition in 2015 ($1,900) through the Waste Reduction Grants Program that focussed on marine pollution and saw 2,000 people visit the exhibition, social media views of between 3,000 to 6,000 per week, with around 30 shares per day.

4.4. The public will be engaged on the issue of micro-plastic marine pollution on various levels.

Through the artist’s exhibits, presentations from scientists, and outreach to schools the problem of marine micro plastic pollution will be presented to a wide audience and pose practical solutions to reduce this problem.

A series of public talks will also be held over the period of the exhibition to inform the general public of the issue and how they can help.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The program will involve an exhibition to be held for a 3 month period in the IMAS exhibition space in Hobart.

5.2. In addition to the exhibition there will be a series of public talks and a school outreach program coinciding with National Science Week.

5.3. The complete project is estimated to cost an estimated $17,442 to undertake, comprising of two elements as detailed in Attachment A.

5.4. It is understood that the event organiser is securing other funding bodies for the balance of the likely event costs.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The project aligns with the objectives of the City’s Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030, in particular action

3.8 Promote and support community reuse programs, and

3.10 Develop campaigns to promote the use of sustainable materials.

6.2. The implementation of the Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030 is identified in the City’s Strategic Plan.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. The sponsorship of this exhibition and program cab be funded from the City’s Solid Waste Policy and Strategy budget function within the 2017/2018 Annual Plan.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Nil.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. There are no legal, risk or legislative considerations associated with this report.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. The exhibition and associated education program will promote awareness of the impacts micro-plastics are having on the ocean ecology. The more people that are aware of the impact micro-plastics are having, the better chance that their use will be reduced.

10. Marketing and Media

10.1. The City’s logo will be placed on marketing and program material.

11. Delegation

11.1. This matter is delegated to the Council.

Jeff Holmes

Cleansing & Solid Waste Policy Coordinator

David Holman

Manager Cleansing & Solid Waste

Glenn Doyle

Director Parks and City Amenity

Date: 21 July 2017

File Reference: F17/90412; 2016-0192

Attachment a: Vanshing Point: Unseen 2017 ⇩

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 38

26/7/2017

REPORT TITLE: Plastic Takeaway Packaging Ban

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Environmental Health

Director City Planning

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report is in response to a notice of motion that requested an examination of the likely impacts associated with an amendment to the draft Environmental Health By-Law 2018 comprising a phase out and subsequent ban on non-compostable single-use takeaway food packaging currently used to enable prepared food or beverages to be carried from the retailer’s premises.

1.2. The community benefits of limiting the use of such packaging are to:

1.2.1. Reduce the impacts of discarded plastic packaging on human health and the wider environment;

1.2.2. Reduce the volume of plastics being disposed to landfill or ending up as litter;

1.2.3. Support retailers already supplying compostable takeaway packaging items;

1.2.4. Encourage the ease of disposal of compostable items to compost facilities rather than to landfill;

1.2.5. Foster innovation with respect to the development of alternative products made from natural fibres that rapidly decompose in the environment; and

1.2.6. Educate the community and support them to transition to and adopt the worldwide shift away from plastic takeaway packaging.

1.3. Endorsement is sought to progress with actions designed to further inform council to implement appropriate measures by 2020.

2. Report Summary

2.1. It is acknowledged that plastic pollution of the marine environment is a global issue. A proposal to ban or replace non-compostable single-use food packaging with compostable alternatives has been investigated.

2.2. The City manages the complexities of street litter and home-generated waste streams through careful planning and commitment under a range of strategies. Whilst there may be other priorities in terms of the overall landfill waste stream, there would be long term benefits from a reduction in plastics, and in establishing ‘away from home’ pathways for compostable takeaway items.

2.3. There are perceived advantages of a council legislated approach to phasing out and banning plastic packaging. By-law controls would demonstrate a ‘stronger’ stance by Council, provide a clear set of rules for business and the community, prohibit specific problems products and clearly identify all parties, administration and compliance expectations.

2.4. By-law controls may encourage innovation, increase support for the expansion of commercial composting facilities, and clearly demonstrate Council’s commitment to the environment.

2.5. The disadvantages of a council legislated approach however include some of the following. A ban may restrict market entry to new operators, force increased costs on to small business or significantly alter their current business practices. The economic costs of a ban may outweigh the perceived environmental benefits, and the ban may be subject to legal challenge.

2.6. A ban may also be viewed as council over-reaching its remit and interfering with commercial operations. It may raise questions about what else Council may seek to ban in future, and following the regulatory impact process, a ban may not be approved by the Director of Local Government.

2.7. Other alternatives to reduce plastic pollution are to lobby the State Government to consider amending the Plastic Shopping Bags Ban Act 2013 (PSBB Act), or to develop a voluntary code of practice for retailers.

2.8. An amendment to the PSBB Act, which exists to restrict the use of certain types of plastic bags, would continue a Statewide commitment to the issue. This is a potentially more effective and consistent means to achieving an actual reduction in pollution.

2.9. A voluntary code of practice would be a local initiative which builds on the City’s proud record of leadership on reducing waste, managing difficult wastes, promoting recycling and the use of compostable products at events and markets. A voluntary approach would acknowledge and support those businesses already making the switch without force or incentive.

2.10. A voluntary code may be quicker and less costly to implement, and be more easily staged and flexible to alteration as the system develops. A voluntary code would emphasise education over enforcement, would be less likely to be challenged and would be ‘owned’ by the City.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. Either:

(i) A draft Voluntary Code of Practice to reduce the use of single-use plastic takeaway food packaging be developed and reported to Council. The report to the Council is to also outline the process for its implementation and promotion on or before 2020; or

(ii) An amendment to the draft Environmental Health By-Law 2018 that restricts the use of single-use plastic takeaway food packaging be developed and reported to the Council. The report to the Council is to also outline the process for its implementation and promotion on or before 2020.

2. Council lobby the State Government to consider amendments to the Plastic Shopping Bags Ban Act 2013 to broaden the scope of the legislation to include non-compostable single-use takeaway food packaging.

4. Background

4.1. The City Infrastructure Committee considered the notice of motion ‘Plastic Pollution’ by Alderman Cocker and Harvey at its meeting of 16 November 2016 and on 21 November 2016 the Council resolved that:

‘1. A report be prepared on amendments to the Health and Environmental Services By-Law 2008 (also including any other relevant local or state government legislation) to examine the effectiveness of a phase out and subsequent ban on non-compostable single-use food packaging in reducing the impacts of plastic on human health, biodiversity and ocean ecology.

2. The report include a time line for implementation of appropriate measures by 2020.

3. The report also address the requirement for retailers to phase out the sale of identified problem plastic items and replace them with more appropriate items to reduce domestic single use of plastics.

4. The report also canvass options for ensuring collaboration with local and state government to maximise outcomes’.

4.2. It is acknowledged that on a global scale, plastic pollution is threatening the natural order as one of the most common forms of marine debris. Regardless of whether it ends up as litter or landfill, there is considerable public momentum for the reduction in availability of non-compostable products as a means to reduce environmental impact.

4.3. Takeaway packaging is a major contributor to the litter stream in Tasmania. Data from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) indicates that up to 50% of the litter stream is comprised of paper and plastic takeaway rubbish.

4.4. The Keep Australia Beautiful National Litter Index, which in 2015/2016 primarily focused on suburban areas of Hobart, provides some insight into the composition of this litter. That year it found that approximately 16% of the litter items audited were plastic, but only 2.4% were plastic spoons/cutlery, straws and plastic takeaway containers and cups.

4.5. The City maintains a significant litter collection network including hundreds of stormwater litter traps and litter socks. These traps are already extremely effective in preventing marine pollution in general.

4.6. Compostable packaging is not considered to be a solution to litter. No compostable takeaway packaging currently on the market breaks down quickly in the environment. Solutions to litter lie in effective campaigns that lead to behavioural change, an overall reduction in the consumption of packaging, as well as the provision of pathways for recovery of compostable litter.

4.7. The City of Hobart has set a target of zero waste to landfill by 2030 in its ambitious Waste Management Strategy. This is against a state-wide backdrop not yet mirroring similar ambition.

4.8. The priority actions within the Waste Management Strategy relate to the heavier waste categories such as organics (29%) and construction / demolition materials (42%). Plastic packaging represents less than 3% of the total annual waste tonnage, however unlike organics and many demolition materials, landfill is currently the only end-of-life destination available in Tasmania due to low tech recycling systems. One way to stop it entering the landfill may be to limit supply.

4.9. In contrast, compostable takeaway packaging items (made from materials that meet the Australian AS4736, European EN13432 and American ASTM D6400 and D6868 standards) do have an end of life solution and are accepted at commercial composting facilities throughout Tasmania.

4.10. The implementation of kerbside collection of food waste including compostable packaging, identified in the Waste Management Strategy, may also enable these items to reach composting facilities. This may eventually lead to the reduction in volumes of this waste from households to landfill, but only if the pathways to such facilities exist.

4.11. The greater issue with respect to the disposal of takeaway packaging may not be with what is able to be collected and separated domestically, but with items consumed in public spaces. The issue then is how a system could be established to provide an ‘away from home recycling pathway’ for the capture of compostable items.

4.12. The City of Hobart has a proud record of showing leadership in the field of waste management, recycling, and in promoting the switch to compostable single-use products. The Taste of Tasmania has led the way from first enabling recycling approximately 8yrs ago to capturing 6 waste streams at last year’s event. Winter Feast and other events in receipt of a grant from the Council must also adhere to the rules around the use of compostable products.

4.13. Regulatory intervention has a place in addressing the need for action to reduce the impacts of plastic packaging on human health and the environment given the following facts:

4.13.1. The use of non-renewable resources for the rapidly growing plastic packaging industry,

4.13.2. Toxic additives in plastic polymers, stabilizers and pigments being released into the environment, and

4.13.3. The persistence and cumulative impacts of plastic in the environment for hundreds of years in their original form or as small particles.

4.14. A ban on plastic packaging in Hobart may restrict the entry of new plastic packaging wholesalers into the Hobart business sector, however all current Tasmanian wholesalers supply compostable takeaway packaging options. Currently many compostable products are cheaper or the same price as their plastic equivalents, some are several cents more expensive. Prices do fluctuate but on the whole compostable products are becoming competitively placed within the market.

4.15. One third of Hobart’s approximately 300 takeaway food and beverage businesses already supply some compostable takeaway packaging items. This movement demonstrates the minimal competitive disadvantage for retailers supplying compostable packaging.

4.16. It is anticipated that there may be challenges against any restrictions. This has been seen in the Northern Territory where the container deposit scheme was challenged by Coca-Cola Amatil under the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act 1992. Also in Western Australia the City of Freemantle plastic bag ban was disallowed by the state government.

4.17. A proposed ban on plastic takeaway packaging could specify which products cannot be supplied by retailers in Hobart rather than specify which products are to be supplied. A proposed ban may provide certainty around the prohibition of problem products, identify all relevant parties to the ban, and outline administration and compliance expectations.

4.18. It is not envisaged that the quantity of packaging provided by retailers would reduce through a ban because single-use packaging is a key tool for maintaining food hygiene standards. A ban would facilitate the replacement of plastics with compostable products. The already evident market-led transition to compostable packaging in Hobart suggests that product replacement may be supported.

4.19. A proposed ban may encourage innovation and new business opportunities including:

4.19.1. Alternative products, new market entrants.

4.19.2. More sustainable extraction and manufacturing throughout the life cycle of a product.

4.19.3. Increased support for commercial composting facilities.

4.20. The question then is, whether or not a ban, either through council by-law or other statutory mechanism is the lawful and most appropriate mechanism to achieve a phase-out of problem products and improve marine and terrestrial ecology.

4.21. The Tasmanian Plastic Shopping Bags Ban Act 2013 (PSBB Act) is described as an act to ‘prevent, so as to minimise environmental pollution, the provision by retailers of certain plastic bags, and for related purposes’. The Tasmanian government chose to implement this legislation contrary to the decision of the Australian Government Environment Protection and Heritage Council findings, that regulatory options for a phase-out of plastic bags had economic costs that significantly outweighed the perceived environmental benefits.

4.22. There has been no formal review of whether or not the PSBB Act has, or is on track to, achieve its objectives. In early July 2017 the Environment Minister acknowledged ‘the significant community concern that has emerged in relation to the current effectiveness of the ban’ and has asked the EPA to undertake an audit to fully understand the current practice around the provision of thicker single-use plastic bags. Thicker bags are not technically in breach of the Act but may be inconsistent with the original intent.

4.23. The outcome of the audit is due by the end of the year and will be of interest in the context that even with the best intentions, seeking to ban anything can be problematic. In the case of single-use plastic takeaway products, problems with the mutual recognition of goods between jurisdictions may arise, as well as substitution complications. Enforceability is also a key element for consideration, as is the potential impact of a ban on some of the smaller operators in the market.

4.24. Council sought a legal opinion on whether or not the proposal to amend the by-law to ban single-use plastic takeaway items is within the definition of s.145 of the Local Government Act 1993 where council may make a by-law in respect of ‘any act, matter or thing for which council has a function or power under this or any Act’

4.25. The opinion suggests that Council does have the power to pass a by-law on the topic relying on Council’s functions and powers pursuant to the Litter Act 2007, however its validity may be subject to legal challenge.

4.26. The use of a by-law may be seen as council over-reaching and interfering with normal commercial operations. A ban, as with any change, has the potential to have a perceived impact on proprietors in terms of operational practices and costs. A ban of this nature could also raise questions about what else the council might choose to ban in future using the argument of litter management or waste reduction.

4.27. An alternative is to lobby the State Government to consider amending the PSBB Act to include non-compostable single-use takeaway food packaging. This approach would broaden the commitment to the issue beyond the city boarders and therefore generate a greater return.

4.28. Difficulties also exist with respect to measuring an actual reduction in impact on ocean ecology for such an isolated marine area, which is affected by all users of the land surrounding the estuary and beyond. An effective ban would require cooperation from all bordering municipal areas at minimum, which leans towards advocating for state or federal prioritisation of the issue.

4.29. The National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011 is a national initiative linked to the Australian Packaging Covenant which contains over 900 business signatories committed to reducing the impacts of litter. 31% of signatories are from the food and beverage industry.

4.30. Research and consultation with stakeholders suggests legislation pathways can be fraught and there may be more benefit in exploring a well-planned voluntary approach which builds on the existing City of Hobart brand and our ambitious waste policies. Hobart is uniquely placed as the gateway to the Antarctic, enjoys high levels of interest from tourists and already demonstrates significant commitment to modern methods of waste management. It is suggested that approaches other than regulation could be effective.

4.31. Voluntary Product Stewardship programs currently exist for other difficult wastes which have been implemented as national programs under the National Waste Policy. The City of Hobart is involved in some of these programs which involve manufacturers contributing to the collection and recycling of the products they create.

4.32. The City of Hobart is currently working on engaging an agency to build and promote Hobart as a ‘Cup Conscious City’ which involves identifying cafes that provide and support re-usable coffee cups, reduce non-compostable cups and provide discounts to customers who reduce plastic use.

4.33. The Council therefore has two options to reduce plastic pollution. The first is through an amendment to the draft Environmental Health By-Law 2018 (replacement to the Health and Environmental Services By-Law 2008 currently under review) which would proceed through the relevant statutory processes required for enactment including a Regulatory Impact Statement. Alternatively the Council has an option to pursue a voluntary code of practice with or without an incentive program to achieve the goals of a phase-out. This will serve to demonstrate that Hobart continues to lead by example, as well as recognise that many proprietors are already making the shift to compostable products without force or incentive.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The Council has two options available to, within the constraints of its jurisdiction, address reducing the non-compostable single-use food packaging and the associated impacts of plastic on human health, biodiversity and ocean ecology. The Council can either;

5.1.1. Amend the draft Environmental Health By-Law 2018 to ban non-compostable single-use food packaging (replacement to the Health and Environmental Services By-Law 2008 currently under review) and proceed through the relevant statutory processes required for enactment including a Regulatory Impact Statement; or

5.1.2. Develop a Voluntary Code of Practice (VCoP) to achieve a reduction in the availability of non-compostable plastic takeaway packaging;

5.2. Either option would require a further report that fully explored the specific scope and particulars of the amendment to the draft by-law or the VCoP and the associated marketing and communications strategy that would accompany such initiative.

5.3. It would be necessary to engage key stakeholders with the idea of Council’s preferred option, to seek feedback and input on the scope and particulars to be included within a draft proposal to the Council.

5.4. It is also proposed to undertake a detailed survey of Hobart takeaway retailers to gauge levels of acceptance and capacity for change under either a voluntary approach or a by-law. A Council Environmental Health Officer is already preparing to conduct this survey in 2017 as part of her Master of Public Health research project.

5.5. Parallel to the above, it is considered valuable for Council to lobby the State Government to consider amendments to the PSBB Act as potentially a more effective and consistent means to achieving a reduction in pollution from this type of material right across Tasmania.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. In considering this proposal the following strategic objectives from the Capital City Plan are relevant:

Strategic objective 3.2 ‘Strong environmental stewardship’, and

Strategic objective 3.4 ‘Leadership in environmental performance with the efficient use of natural resources’, and

Strategic objective 4.3 ‘Build community resilience, public health and safety’.

6.2 The City of Hobart Waste Management Strategy is relevant:

6.2.1 The Strategy includes over 90 actions across a range of areas relating to organic waste, education and litter, to achieve zero waste to landfill by 2030.

6.3 The City of Hobart Climate Strategy is relevant:

6.3.1 The documented energy use and emissions inventories consider local use and emissions but also acknowledge the embodied energy of materials consumed. Emissions associated with the production of food and other goods, including packaging, account for more than four times the emissions of personal energy use.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. It is envisaged that either an amendment to the draft Environmental Health By-Law 2018 or the development of a draft VCoP can be undertaken within current Council officer expertise and resourcing levels.

7.1.2. An additional budgetary allocation will be required to assist in implementation of an engagement strategy for either preferred option.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. The Local Government Act 1993 authorises Councils to make by-laws under section 145 ‘in respect of and act, matter or thing for which a council has a function or power under this or any other Act’. Legal opinion suggests that Council does have the power to pass a by-law on the topic of plastic takeaway packaging relying on Council’s functions and powers pursuant to the Litter Act 2007 however its validity may be subject to legal challenge.

8.2. The directive for local government to address pollution and inefficient resource use is found in numerous Acts including, but not limited to, the following:

8.2.1. Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 Schedule 1 – Objectives Part 2, (3)

(b) to prevent environmental degradation and adverse risks to human and ecosystem health by promoting pollution prevention, clean production technology, reuse and recycling of materials and waste minimisation programs; and

(g) to control the generation, storage, collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of waste with a view to reducing, minimising and, where practicable, eliminating harm to the environment; and

(k) to coordinate all activities as are necessary to protect, restore or improve the Tasmanian environment.

8.1.2 Litter Act 2007, Section 5

(b) to regulate the distribution of materials that may become litter; and

(d) generally to protect and enhance the quality of the Tasmanian environment.

8.1.3 National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011

To increase the recovery and recycling of used packaging from households and away-from-home sources, through improved collection systems, markets and promotion programs.

8.1.4 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Section 3 (1)

(a) to provide for the protection of the environment; and

(b) to promote ecologically sustainable development through conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources.

8.2 Local government is a major stakeholder in the National food regulation system implementing, monitoring and enforcing food laws in Tasmania through the Food Act 2003 and subordinate legislation. As authorised officers appointed under the Act, City of Hobart Environmental Health Officers may enter and inspect food businesses in connection with the handling of food for sale. Guiding principles used in carrying out their functions include;

· To assist regulated parties in understanding legislative requirements, and

· To take a risk-based, graduated and proportionate approach to managing non-compliance.

Environmental Health Officers are trained to provide clear information and guidance, and undertake regulation across the compliance, monitoring and enforcement continuum. They are also regularly in attendance at food businesses which provides an opportunity to support the implementation of either proposal.

8.3 The City of Hobart is currently reviewing five of its by-laws, including the Health and Environmental Services By-Law 2008 which is due to expire in October 2018. The replacement by-law is the draft Environmental Health By-Law 2018 which is due to be considered by the Governance Committee on 1 August, following an external stakeholder engagement process. Amendments to the draft may still be considered and incorporated into the document prior to the finalisation of the Regulatory Impact Statement for the by-law which is due to be prepared later in August / September 2017. The by-law would be likely to come into effect in mid-2018.

8.4 The Plastic Shopping Bags Ban Act 2013 was enacted to support community aspirations for environmental sustainability. The legislation was the preferred option at that time as opposed to self-regulation or doing nothing due to a range of factors including the resolution of the Tasmanian House of Assembly to support a ban, the diversity of the retail industry, and community interest.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. As outlined in the background section to this report.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. Quality and cost comparable compostable replacement products are available. It is reasonable to assume that the costs of packaging will continue to be passed on to consumers as part of their total shopping bill. Consumers should therefore not see any discernible rise in the cost of their purchases as a result of the wide adoption of a ban through a by-law or the adoption of a VCoP.

10.2. Plastic packaging waste is very topical at present. Government bodies across Australia are considering such interventions as plastic bag, container and packaging bans in response to public concern. As outlined in the background, the City of Hobart is already a leader in this space and there is a perceived expectation within the community that this continues.

11. Marketing and Media

11.1. The marketing and media opportunities with this proposal has been outlined with the Proposal and Implementation section of this report and will be expanded on in more detail in further reports should the Council resolve to progress the recommendations.

12. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

12.1. The community and the stakeholder engagement opportunities with this proposal have been outlined within the Proposal and Implementation section of this report and will be expanded on in more detail in future reports should the Council resolve to progress the recommendations.

13. Delegation

13.1. This matter is delegated to the Council.

Felicity Edwards

Manager Environmental Health

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 21 July 2017

File Reference: F17/83122

Item No. 6.5

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 54

26/7/2017

Memorandum: City Infrastructure Committee

Status of Traffic Related Requests

1. Introduction

Since its election in November 2014, the current Council has resolved on a number of traffic related matters, tabled a number of traffic related petitions and submitted a number of Notices of Motion on traffic issues.

This memo summarises any outstanding traffic related resolutions, petitions and notices of motion that are awaiting further reports and details the actions proposed to be undertaken in response to these matters.

2. Current Traffic Related Matters

2.1. Sandy Bay Walking and Cycling Project

The Sandy Bay Walking and Cycling project is nearing completion – with the Stage 3 works (linking between Wayne Avenue and the City’s southern boundary with Kingborough) now substantially complete. However, the pedestrian crossing near the Riverview Inn at 795 Sandy Bay Road has not yet been installed. The Council considered a report on this matter at its meeting held on 3 April 2017, however the Council resolved to defer it to a future meeting. Further investigation is underway in relation to the most appropriate location for a pedestrian crossing in the area near the Riverview Inn.

Officers have also committed to undertake ongoing monitoring of the safety and uptake for the whole walking and cycling improvement project on Sandy Bay Road (between Marieville Esplanade and the boundary with Kingborough).

Action

A report recommending a location for the pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of the Riverview Inn will be presented to the City Infrastructure Committee on 23 August 2017.

Cycling safety and uptake report once the Cycling Super Tuesday count data is released, it expected that this report would be considered by the City Infrastructure Committee at its meeting on 20 September 2017 or 25 October 2017.

2.2. Hill Street Pedestrian Improvement Project

Consultation has been undertaken on the project to install a median lane, pedestrian refuges and kerb bulbings in Hill Street, West Hobart. A feasibility investigation is underway for the consideration of wombat or zebra crossings at the two Lansdowne Crescent roundabouts. In addition the General Manager and the Director City Infrastructure are meeting on a regular basis with the Transport Commissioner and a resident representative in finalising the concept design.

Action

A report detailing the results of the community engagement, the concept design for pedestrian improvements in Hill Street and recommendations in relation to the installation of zebra or wombat crossings is being prepared for the consideration of the City Infrastructure Committee at its meeting of 23 August 2017.

An allocation of $310,000 was included in the 2016-2017 budget for pedestrian improvements in Hill Street.

2.3. Local Retail Precinct Plan – New Town

The Local Retail Precinct Plan continues to be progressed and the Council recently approved the proposed concept design for the Lenah Valley Retail Precinct for construction in the 2017-2018 financial year.

Community engagement is about to commence for the New Town Retail Precinct in order to develop a concept design for this area to be constructed in the 2018-2019 financial year.

Action

Following community engagement and the development of a concept design for the New Town Retail Precinct a report will be provided to the City Infrastructure Committee in mid‑2018. There is a total budget allocation of $2,000,000 across Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 of the revised 10‑Year Capital Works Program.

2.4. South Hobart Pedestrian Crossings

The Council resolution of 8 May 2017 required further investigation into the feasibility of pedestrian traffic signals being installed in Macquarie Street (adjacent to the butcher and chemist). This further investigation into pedestrian traffic signals was instigated by Aldermen in response to community lobbying, including the petition that was subsequently tabled at the Council meeting of 19 June 2017.

The petition (with 225 signatures) calls for the Hobart City Council and the state government to install pedestrian traffic lights across Macquarie Street between the butcher and chemist shops.

Initial findings from the consultant undertaking the feasibility investigation are that pedestrian traffic signals (including kerb bulbing) would be possible.

The report will provide information on any safety and pedestrian delay benefits that pedestrian traffic signals would provide. The General Manager has provided an undertaking to the South Hobart Progress Association that he will keep them informed of the progress of the report.

The report to the City Infrastructure Committee is likely to recommend that the kerb bulbings are installed as soon as possible at the butcher / chemist location – noting that any pedestrian traffic signals may take some time to progress to installation stage, and that the kerb bulbings would still be required.

Action

The feasibility investigation into pedestrian traffic signals is currently underway and the results of the investigation (including a formal response to the petition) will be reported back to Committee and Council. This further report will be provided to the City Infrastructure Committee on 23 August or 20 September 2017.

There is currently $40,000 of Black Spot funding for the installation of wider median refuge islands and kerb bulbings at the existing crossing points on Macquarie Street between Elboden Street and the Southern Outlet. A further $350,000 of Council funds was allocated in the 2016-2017 budget for pedestrian improvements in South Hobart.

The South Hobart Retail Precinct project for Macquarie Street has a total budget allocation of $2,000,000 across Year 4 and Year 5 of the revised 10‑Year Capital Works Program.

2.5. Parklet Policy

A notice of motion was received and has been progressed. The City Infrastructure Committee considered a report on a parklet trial in Elizabeth Street (between Brisbane Street and Melville Street). However, the matter was deferred by the Council until such time as further consultation has been undertaken with residents and businesses in Elizabeth Street.

Action

Further community engagement is to commence in August 2017. The matter is likely to be reconsidered by the City Infrastructure Committee at its meeting of 20 September 2017 or 25 October 2017.

2.6. Hobart Central Bus Interchange

Redesign of the Elizabeth Street Bus Mall (between Collins Street and Macquarie Street) is identified as Action AP02 in the Inner City Action Plan.

Over the last few years officers have been working with Metro Tasmania and the Department of State Growth to identify a preferred arrangement for the Hobart Central Bus Interchange and to progress the concept design development through to implementation. However, a preferred arrangement is yet to be agreed between parties and this project is currently on hold, even though officers believe that the substantive concerns of Metro have been addressed.

However, it is likely that there will be a need to temporarily relocate bus stops from the southern side of the Elizabeth Street Bus Mall to accommodate construction of The Palace (Hyatt) Hotel. This may need to include consideration of relocating the motorcycle parking from the median in Elizabeth Street – including consideration of the use of Post Street for this.

It is expected that the temporary bus stop relocation and construction activity may precipitate further progress on the upgrade of the Hobart Central Bus Interchange.

Action

Changes to the traffic management arrangements in Elizabeth Street (between Macquarie Street and Collins Street) to accommodate construction of the Palace (Hyatt) Hotel are likely to not be approved by officers under delegation due to the scale and duration of the construction activity. A report on this matter is likely to be considered by the City Infrastructure Committee before the end of 2017.

A final arrangement for the upgraded Hobart Central Bus Interchange will continue to be progressed. A further report to the City Infrastructure Committee on this matter could be expected in early 2018 providing the results of community engagement and assuming that the endorsement of the Transport Commissioner and Metro can be obtained. There is a total budget allocation of $2,100,000 across Year 1 and Year 2 of the revised 10 Year Capital Works Program for the upgrade of the Hobart Central Bus Interchange.

2.7. Salamanca Place Upgrade Works

Works are currently underway to construct a widened footpath on the southern side of Salamanca Place between Montpelier Retreat and Gladstone Street.

Planning works have commenced on the Stage 2 works – to upgrade the intersection of Montpelier Retreat and Salamanca Place and to provide a widened footpath through to Kennedy Lane. These design works will also consider the ongoing need for the Montpelier Retreat vehicular connection to Morrison Street (through the Salamanca Lawns), including traffic modelling to understand the impacts of any changes to the road network in this location. The provision of a safe and comfortable pedestrian connection between the Morrison Street footpath (at the Princes Wharf 1 forecourt) and the southern footpath on Salamanca Place is also part of the scope.

Action

Community engagement will need to be undertaken in developing a concept design for the Stage 2 works in Salamanca Place at Montpelier Retreat. A report on this matter is likely to be provided to the City Infrastructure Committee in mid‑2018 to ensure construction works can be undertaken during 2019.

Costs for the improvements to widen the southern footpath on Salamanca Place between Montpelier Retreat and Kennedy Lane are expected to be in the order of $650,000 (currently includes across Year 1 and Year 2 of the revised 10‑Year Capital Works Program). Any works to provide improved pedestrian linkages and to alter the road network in the Salamanca Lawns / Castray Esplanade / Morrison Street precinct are likely to be in the order of $1,500,000 (currently includes across Year 2 and Year 3 of the revised 10 Year Capital Works Program).

2.8. Collins Street Cycling Connection

Collins Street is identified in the Inner City Action Plan as providing an important link between the Hobart Rivulet Park and the City centre.

There are four components to this project:

- The connection of the Hobart Rivulet path across Molle Street at Collins Street;

- Provision for cycling along Collins Street between Molle Street and Murray Street;

- Provision for cycling along Collins Street between Murray Street and Argyle Street; and

- The connection between Collins Street (at Argyle Street) and the Intercity Cycleway.

Bicycle Network is also actively lobbying to see improved cycling connections along Collins Street between the Hobart Rivulet path and the city centre.

Action

An options report has been prepared by GHD in relation to the connection across Molle Street at Collins Street and includes recommendations on some short term improvements at the Collins Street / Molle Street intersection, as well as the possible signalisation of this junction in the longer term. This project could be nominated for funding through the Black Spot program.

Planning works and feasibility design are currently underway for the length of Collins Street between Molle Street and Murray Street, to identify options for improved cycling connections along the street. Early indications are that an uphill cycling lane may be possible along this section – and a concept design for consideration of the City Infrastructure Committee is likely to occur in early to mid‑2018. There is a total budget allocation of $120,000 across Year 1 and Year 2 of the revised 10 Year Capital Works Program.

Planning works and feasibility design has also commenced for the section of Collins Street between Murray Street and Elizabeth Street to try and incorporate a contra-flow bicycle lane on this link. A community engagement and communications strategy needs to be developed before further progressing the delivery of this aspect with. There is a total budget allocation of $300,000 across Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 of the revised 10‑Year Capital Works Program.

The connection of Collins Street through to the Intercity Cycleway will be considered as part of the project to extend the on-road bicycle lanes on Campbell Street and Argyle Street. Concept design development is currently underway with the aim that any infrastructure would be implemented once the construction zone for the Royal Hobart Hospital Redevelopment is no longer required (approximately mid-2019).

2.9. Transport Strategy

Community engagement is nearing completion on the four modules to identify issues to be considered in the new Transport Strategy for the City of Hobart.

A number of resolutions of the Council are appropriate to be addressed in preparation of the Transport Strategy including:

· A review of Local Area Traffic Management for the Lenah Valley area (particularly in Augusta Road, Creek Road, Alwyn Road, Chaucer Road and Monash Avenue – related to the 221a Creek Road subdivision).

· Improved pedestrian crossings (including pedestrian priority crossings such as zebra and wombat crossings) on key pedestrian routes in the City to improve both the safety and walkability of Hobart’s streets.

Action

A draft Transport Strategy will be presented to the 22 November 2017 or 6 December 2017 meeting of the City Infrastructure Committee prior to commencing the final community engagement on the document.

It is likely that a final Transport Strategy would be presented by mid 2018 for adoption by the Council. There is $250,000 in the 2017‑2018 capital works program and $500,000 in subsequent years for implementation of the Transport Strategy.

2.10. Resident Traffic Committees

The future of the resident traffic committees is being addressed in both the Communications and Community Engagement reviews currently underway.

It has been agreed that the resident traffic committees will continue in their current form until the completion of the Transport Strategy – at which time it is anticipated that the community members participating in this program can be transitioned to the new framework.

2.11. Management of Commercial Furniture and A-Frame Signboards

In September 2015 the Council agreed to move towards a “best-practice” approach to managing the use of public footpaths, particularly relating to the placement of commercial furniture. It was agreed that officer progress works to achieve a clear building line and minimum footpath widths in the future.

In locations where the footpath is reconstructed it has been agreed that commercial furniture (including A-frame signboards) will be relocated away from the building line. Officers are currently working with business operators in Sandy Bay and Lenah Valley to achieve this following completion of the Retail Precinct upgrades (recognising that a petition has been received from traders in Sandy Bay and a response being considered at the July 2017 City Infrastructure Committee meeting).

Officers have also committed to:

- Review the location of outdoor dining furniture on Salamanca Place between Kennedy Lane and Wooby’s Lane following completion of the current footpath widening project on Salamanca Place (between Montpelier Retreat and Gladstone Street).

- Develop and implement a style guide for outdoor dining furniture.

Action

A report detailing the review of the location of outdoor dining furniture on Salamanca Place between Kennedy Lane and Wooby’s Lane following completion of the current footpath widening project on Salamanca Place (between Montpelier Retreat and Gladstone Street).

A further report that identifies how the Council may achieve a clear building line with minimum footpath widths is likely to be provided in late 2018 following the adoption of the revised By‑Laws. This report could also include the style guide for outdoor dining furniture.

2.12. Active Transport to Schools

A study has been commissioned to explore the active travel behaviours of students, parents and teachers from public primary schools within the City of Hobart. A draft report has been provided that includes feedback from the school communities regarding barriers to active travel, access to schools and suggestions for how these might be addressed in order to increase participation in active travel to and from school.

Action

Once this Active Transport to Schools report has been finalised it will be presented for the consideration of the City Infrastructure Committee. This will likely be on the agenda of the meeting of 20 September 2017.

2.13. Review of Parking – North Hobart

Council has resolved that a review of car parking be undertaken in North Hobart to include a review of the on-street parking time limits, the possible installation of parking meters and changes to the current parking enforcement regime to include consideration of evening and weekend patrols.

The area in centred on the Elizabeth Street restaurant strip, between Warwick Street and Federal Street and extending down all side streets by one block (approximately to Andrew Street and Argyle Street).

Initially, officers will arrange for an audit of the existing parking time limits, parking availability and usage to be undertaken (including motorcycle and bicycle parking). The audit will allow for an informed optimisation of parking arrangements in the area. Opportunities for “shared parking” will also be explored to identifiy locations where additional parking may be available outside of normal business hours. Consultation with the North Hobart community (both businesses and residents) will be an important aspect of any changes proposed for the area, especially regarding the possible installation of parking meters.

Action

The findings of the parking audit and any “quick win” parking optimisation options will be progressed at an operational level. However, a report to the Finance Committee will be required to detail the results of any community engagement and include a list of suggested actions to improve parking in the area. This report has been requested for early 2018.

2.14. Lord Street Traffic Conditions

A petition was tabled at the Council meeting of 20 February 2017. The petition (with 39 signatures) calls for the Council to investigate the traffic conditions on Lord Street, Sandy Bay, by way of implementing traffic calming measures on the upper end of Lord Street, Sandy Bay, near the Princes Street Primary School.

Action

Traffic surveys have been undertaken on Lord Street in the area adjacent to the rear access to Princes Street Primary School. The findings of the traffic survey and a recommendation about improvement options (including possible signage or road markings warning drivers of children crossing) will be reported back to the City Infrastructure Committee on 23 August or 20 September 2017.

2.15. Ownership of Macquarie Street, Davey Street and Brooker Avenue

In response to growing community concern regarding the impacts of increasing levels of congestion, the Council has requested a report to examine the advantages and disadvantages of the Council transferring the control and ownership of Davey Street and Macquarie Street to the State Government, with the report to consider potential short and long term financial implications, including advice on maintenance, asset renewal and depreciation expenses, as well as advice concerning the viability and issues associated with the creation of bus / multi occupancy vehicle lanes on Davey and Macquarie Streets.

Action

Further investigation is required to address the many aspects that may contribute to an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the Council continuing to own and manage Macquarie Street and Davey Street. The Brooker Avenue will also be included in this investigation.

A report in response to the Notice of Motion is likely to be provided to the City Infrastructure Committee within 6 months.

2.16. Construction Traffic Management for Private Developments

Various private developments are currently underway or soon to be commenced across the city centre and waterfront area. Most of the construction traffic management plans will be approved by officers under delegation. However, in instances where the traffic management plans are considered to have a significant impact (either due to the space being taken up within the road reservation and/or the duration of the proposed traffic management) then this would be reported to Committee and Council for a decision.

Action

It is understood that there may be a further request for changes to the current construction traffic management arrangements in Campbell Street for the Royal Hobart Hospital Redevelopment. A report on this matter is likely to be considered by the City Infrastructure Committee on 23 August 2017.

As previously discussed in Section 2.6, there will be a need to make changes to the traffic management arrangements in Elizabeth Street (between Macquarie Street and Collins Street) to accommodate construction of the Palace (Hyatt) Hotel. A report on this matter is likely to be considered by the City Infrastructure Committee before the end of 2017.

3. Summary

A summary table is attached to this memorandum (as marked as Attachment A), that details the traffic related requests requiring a report and the date that it is proposed to be presented to the City Infrastructure Committee for consideration.

Aside from the matters raised by the Council (as detailed above) operational matters will continue to need to be addressed.

These include (but are not limited to):

- Ongoing administration of Black Spot projects, including planning and implementing funded projects and identifying and nominating projects for consideration in future funding programs.

- Traffic engineering input required for private development proposals (including planning permit applications and appeals to the RMPAT).

- Investigating and responding to ongoing public requests regarding traffic, parking, cycling, pedestrian and public transport matters.

- Planning.

It should be noted that any further requests for additional reports or further investigations on traffic engineering matters will need to be prioritised against the work currently underway. Projects are currently prioritised in relation to the Capital Works Program and agreed budgets.

REcommendation

That the information contained in the memorandum of the Manager Traffic Engineering and the Director City Infrastructure titled ‘Status of Traffic Related Requests’ be received and noted.

Angela Moore

Manager Traffic Engineering

Mark Painter

Director City Infrastructure

Date: 21 July 2017

File Reference: F17/87776; 17/56

Attachment a: Summary of Traffic-Related Requests ⇩

Item No. 6.5

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting - 26/7/2017

Page 64

ATTACHMENT a

Summary of Traffic‑Related Requests (as at July 2017)

Report Topic	Date of City Infrastructure Committee Meeting
	2017					2018
	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Early	Mid	Late
Sandy Bay Walking and Cycling Project – Riverview Inn	ü
Sandy Bay Walking and Cycling Project – Safety and Uptake		ü or ü
Hill Street Pedestrian Improvement Project	ü
Local Retail Precinct Plan – New Town							ü
South Hobart Pedestrian Crossings	ü or ü
Parklet Policy		ü or ü
Hobart Central Bus Interchange – Temporary Relocation due to Palace (Hyatt) Hotel		ü or ü
Hobart Central Bus Interchange – Infrastructure Upgrade						ü
Salamanca Place Upgrade Works							ü
Collins Street Cycling Connection						ü or ü
Transport Strategy				ü or ü			ü
Management of Commercial Furniture and A-Frame Signboards						ü		ü
Active Transport to Schools		ü
Review of Parking – North Hobart						ü (Finance)
Traffic Conditions on Lord Street, Sandy Bay	ü or ü
Ownership of Macquarie Street, Davey Street and Brooker Avenue						ü
Construction Traffic Management for Private Developments – RHH	ü

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.