HCC Coat of Arms.jpg
City of hobart

 

 

 

 

AGENDA

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

 

Open Portion

 

Wednesday, 21 February 2018

 

at 5:00 pm

Lady Osborne Room, Town Hall


 

 

 

 

THE MISSION

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

THE VALUES

The Council is:

 

about people

We value people – our community, our customers and colleagues.

professional

We take pride in our work.

enterprising

We look for ways to create value.

responsive

We’re accessible and focused on service.

inclusive

We respect diversity in people and ideas.

making a difference

We recognise that everything we do shapes Hobart’s future.

 

 


 

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 3

 

21/2/2018

 

 

ORDER OF BUSINESS

 

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

 

APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

1.        Co-Option of a Committee Member in the event of a vacancy  4

2.        Confirmation of Minutes. 4

3.        Consideration of Supplementary Items. 4

4.        Indications of Pecuniary and Conflicts of Interest. 5

5.        Transfer of Agenda Items. 5

6.        Reports. 6

6.1     Hobart Heritage Tramway Business Plan - Peer Review. 6

6.2     Hobart Municipal Emergency Management Plan. 102

6.3     Request for Installation of Barrier Screen - Outdoor Dining - Sandy Bay Bakery and Cafe - 166-168 Sandy Bay Road, Sandy Bay. 197

7.        Committee Action Status Report. 205

7.1     Committee Actions - Status Report 205

8.        Responses to Questions Without Notice. 231

8.1     Disability Parking in Loading Zones. 232

8.2     Hobart and New Town Rivulet Litter Traps - Examination of Contents. 234

8.3     Public Highway in Private Ownership. 237

8.4     Albuera Street Primary School - Laying of Yellow Paint and Installation of No Parking Signs. 239

9.        Questions Without Notice. 241

10.     Closed Portion Of The Meeting.. 242

 


 

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 4

 

21/2/2018

 

 

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting (Open Portion) held Wednesday, 21 February 2018 at 5:00 pm in the Lady Osborne Room, Town Hall.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Burnet (Chairman)

Deputy Lord Mayor Christie

Reynolds

Denison

Harvey

 

ALDERMEN

Lord Mayor Hickey

Zucco

Briscoe

Ruzicka

Sexton

Cocker

Thomas

Apologies: Nil.

 

 

Leave of Absence: Nil.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

2.       Confirmation of Minutes

 

The minutes of the Open Portion of the City Infrastructure Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 6 December 2017, are submitted for confirming as an accurate record.

 

 

 

 

 

3.       Consideration of Supplementary Items

Ref: Part 2, Regulation 8(6) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

Recommendation

 

That the Committee resolve to deal with any supplementary items not appearing on the agenda, as reported by the General Manager.

 

 

4.       Indications of Pecuniary and Conflicts of Interest

Ref: Part 2, Regulation 8(7) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

 

Aldermen are requested to indicate where they may have any pecuniary or conflict of interest in respect to any matter appearing on the agenda, or any supplementary item to the agenda, which the committee has resolved to deal with.

 

 

 

 

5.       Transfer of Agenda Items

Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

 

A committee may close a part of a meeting to the public where a matter to be discussed falls within 15(2) of the above regulations.

 

In the event that the committee transfer an item to the closed portion, the reasons for doing so should be stated.

 

Are there any items which should be transferred from this agenda to the closed portion of the agenda, or from the closed to the open portion of the agenda?

 


Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 6

 

21/2/2018

 

 

6.       Reports

 

6.1    Hobart Heritage Tramway Business Plan - Peer Review

          File Ref: F18/993; F17/109782, 36-20-33

Report of the Manager Fleet & Support Services and the Director Parks and City Amenity of 14 February 2018 and attachments.

Delegation:     Council


Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 7

 

21/2/2018

 

 

REPORT TITLE:                  Hobart Heritage Tramway Business Plan - Peer Review

REPORT PROVIDED BY:  Manager Fleet & Support Services

Director Parks and City Amenity

 

1.         Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1.     The purpose of this report is to present the peer review of the Hobart Tram Restoration and Museum Society Inc.’s (H-TRAMS) Business Plan for the proposed established of a tourist oriented tramway attraction in Hobart.

2.         Report Summary

2.1.     Consultant Hirst Projects was appointed to undertake a peer review of the Business Plan (refer Attachment A) and provide advice on the potential capital cost associated with the infrastructure to support the tourist oriented tramway proposal.

2.2.     The review (refer Attachment B) noted that substantial work had gone into the development of the Business Plan as presented to the City.

2.3.     The review found that the Business Plan whilst a good initial document, contained insufficient information on the function and design of the proposed museum and workshop component to accurately identify the true capital cost required by the proposal.

However, initial indications are that an investment of at least $4.3M would be required to enable the proposal, as originally suggested, to proceed. In addition, there will be substantial costs associated with the repair and acquisition of the rail track for the use of by the rolling stock.

2.4.     There would also be additional costs associated with marketing, shed and office fitout, tram and railway operations and maintenance, platform upgrades, insurances all of which at this stage have not be quantified.

2.5.     The peer review identifies that the Business Plan has key issues to be addressed by H-TRAMS, these include further analysis, investigation, clarification, evidence, financial quantification of the financial and operational risks associated with the proposal in its current form.

2.6.     Given the information identified during the peer review, the H-TRAMS suggested that its proposal could be progressed in two stages:

2.6.1.     Establishment of a display facility and restoration garage;

2.6.2.     Future development of a tourist oriented tramway experience.


 

2.7.     Additionally, both major political parties in the lead up to the March 2018 state election have committed to the provision of a light rail service utilising the existing rail corridor.

It is not clear if the rail corridor would remain available for any tramway operation once the light rail service begins to operate.

2.8.     There is no allocation in the City’s draft 10-year Capital Works Program for this project.

However, the City’s Public Toilet Strategy 2015-2025, identifies the need for new public toilets at the Regatta Grounds.

A future allocation to fund these toilets may be able to partially contribute to the cost of a new display facility and restoration garage, as it is possible for the new toilets to be incorporated as part of that facility.

2.9.     On this basis, it will be necessary for external funding to be secured to enable the H-TRAMS proposal to be further progressed.

As a result, H-TRAMS is encouraged to revise its business plan, concentrating on the first stage and incorporating the suggestions and comment made as a result of the peer review.

3.         Recommendation

That:

1.      The peer review of the Hobart Tram Restoration and Museum Society Inc’s ‘Hobart Heritage Tramway’ proposal, dated December 2017 and marked as Attachment B to the report, be noted.

2.      The Hobart Tram Restoration and Museum Society Inc be encouraged to revise its business plan, incorporating the suggestions and comment made as a result of the peer review and focus on the establishment of a display facility and restoration garage.

3.      The Hobart Tram Restoration and Museum Society Inc be encouraged to actively pursue external funding for the revised proposal.

 

4.         Background

4.1.     The Council at its meeting held on 2 October 2017 resolved:

That:   1.    The Hobart Tram Restoration and Museum Society’s proposal and business plan for a tourist-oriented tramway attraction utilising restored historic Hobart trams be received and noted.

2.    The General Manager be authorised to engage expertise to peer review the business plan and provide advice on the potential capital cost associated with the infrastructure to support the tourist-oriented tramway proposal.

3.    A further report on the matter be submitted for consideration following the completion of the arrangements detailed above by no later than 28 February 2018.

4.2.     In accordance with the Council’s decision, Consultant Hirst Projects was appointed to undertake the peer review of the Business Plan.

4.3.     The peer review identified that H-TRAMS is a small, voluntary organisation comprising of committed and enthusiastic members with a passion and extensive knowledge of heritage trams.

The membership recognise however that whilst having strong engineering and business expertise it has limited experience in the operation of a tourist attraction as proposed.

4.4.     The peer review of the Business Plan identified the following key points, as extracted below:

4.4.1.     H-TRAMS is a small, voluntary organisation with no experience in running a tourism attraction.

4.4.2.     The organisation does not appear to have the financial backing that would allow it to invest in the attraction and to take the risks involved in starting such an enterprise from scratch.

4.4.3.     The Business Plan provides insufficient information about the function and design of the museum and workshop component to accurately address the capital cost required by Council. A Quantity Surveyor has provided an estimate based on the limited information provided.

4.4.4.     The Business Plan provides insufficient information about the value proposition for visitors. There are substantial issues raised by the location of the attraction and its market appeal. In our opinion, the Plan currently overstates the likely take-up and revenue that can be derived from the attraction.

4.4.5.     There will be substantial cost to Council in preparing for, acquiring and administering the rail track, as Corridor Manager, and substantial risk in devolving the operation to H-TRAMS.

4.4.6.     There will be a minimum investment of $463,813 (ex gst) required to commence operation with Tram 39.

4.4.7.     There will be a minimum investment of $1,896,000.00 (ex gst) required to design and construct a building to house the museum and workshop.

4.4.8.     There will be additional costs associated with platform upgrades (not yet costed).

4.5.     The inclusion in the proposal to operate the tramway with rolling stock adds a level of complexity, cost and risk.

4.6.     Utilisation of the rail corridor may also not be possible given the bipartisan State level political support for the establishment of a light rail service.

4.7.     Initial consultation with the statutory National Rail Safety Regulator identified significant and complex operational issues would need to be addressed should the use of the rail corridor be available.

This includes significant investment on the existing rail line and associated boarding platforms, as well as a need to address a range of risk and safety issues.

4.8.     The revision of the proposal to involve only a display facility and restoration garage removes a high degree of complexity and could enable this proposal to progress in the shorter term.

4.9.     The review process also identified that the shed, as described in the Business Plan provided, would not achieve the aim of providing a high quality display garage and as such needs to be revised to describe a building of a higher quality in design and function.

4.10.   The Business Plan would need to be revised with a renewed focus and address issues identified through the peer review.

4.11.   Once this is undertaken the document could provide a strong basis upon which external grant funding opportunities could be pursued by the proponent.

5.         Proposal and Implementation

5.1.     It is proposed that the peer review of the Hobart Tram Restoration and Museum Society Inc’s ‘Hobart Heritage Tramway’ proposal, dated December 2017 and marked as Attachment B to the report, be noted.

5.2.     It is further proposed that Hobart Tram Restoration and Museum Society Inc. be encouraged to revise its business plan, incorporating the suggestions and comment made as a result of the peer review and focus on the establishment of a display facility and restoration garage.

5.3.     Hobart Tram Restoration and Museum Society Inc. also be encouraged to actively pursue external funding for the revised proposal.


 

6.         Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1.     The approximate location of the building as proposed is consistent with the intent of the Queens Domain Master Plan although the Master Plan does not specifically identify the purpose of the building as now proposed.

6.2.     The proposed main location falls under the Sullivan’s Cove Planning Scheme 1997 (Activity Area 4.2 Regatta Point). 

The H-TRAMS depot facility proposed for that site includes elements that fall into two use clauses:

6.2.1.     Public Transport Facility (discretionary use).

6.2.2.     Arts and Cultural Facility (permitted use).

7.         Financial Implications

7.1.     Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1.     Not applicable.

7.2.     Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1.     Initial indications are that an investment of at least $4.3M would be required to enable the proposal, as originally suggested, to proceed. In addition, there will be substantial costs associated with the repair and acquisition of the rail track for the use of the rolling stock.

7.2.2.     The quantum of the investment may be reduced if the operation of the rolling stock is excluded from the proposal.

However, the development of further more refined plans for a display facility and restoration garage would be required before final likely costs are known.

7.2.3.     There is no allocation in the City’s draft 10-year Capital Works Program for this project.

However, the City’s Public Toilet Strategy 2015-2025, identifies the need for new public toilets at the Regatta Grounds.

A future allocation to fund these toilets may be able to partially contribute to the cost of a new display facility and restoration garage, as it is possible for the new toilets to be incorporated as part of that facility.

7.2.4.     On this basis, it will be necessary for external funding to be secured to enable H-TRAMS proposal to be further progressed.

7.3.     Asset Related Implications

7.3.1.     Further financial advice on a revised proposal, as suggested above, will need to be provided.

8.         Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1.     There appears to be a lack of detail regarding the specifics of any partnership between the City and H-TRAMS, shared obligations and ability of the organisation to take financial risk.

The Business Plan requires the capital costs associated with the establishment of the Tram Museum and the Workshop to be met by the City. 

The Plan also proposes the City invest capital and assume the risk associated with the rail corridor.

8.2.     The Business Plan proposes the City apply to the Minister under the Strategic Infrastructure Corridors (Strategic and Recreational Use) Act 2016 for the section of the railway between the Macquarie Point boundary and Queens Walk Level Crossing to be declared as a Strategic Infrastructure Corridor.  

Such a declaration requires approval by both Houses of Parliament.  

The Minister can then grant a lease or licence over the rail corridor and make the City the Corridor Manager.  The City would then take on all the obligations, duties, liabilities and responsibilities as Corridor Manager.

8.3.     However, with bipartisan state political support for the establishment of a light rail service in the same rail corridor, the availability of the line for the use of a tourist oriented tramway remain uncertain.

9.         Environmental Considerations

9.1.     Any development in area will require environmental considerations, including as part of any statutory planning approval process.

10.      Social and Customer Considerations

10.1.   The tramway experience could provide a unique experience for the community and visitors to Hobart.

10.2.   The establishment of a display facility and restoration garage could provide an interest to those in the community willing for volunteer participation in tram restoration and operation.

10.3.   The facility would also address the ongoing issue of public access to the City’s heritage tram vehicles which is currently not available.

11.      Community and Stakeholder Engagement

11.1.   The peer review included some initial stakeholder engagement regarding this proposal however a more significant engagement process would be required should any element of this proposal be further considered.

11.2.   In particular the Hobart Regatta Association and proponents of the light rail service would have a keen interest in any proposal for the area identified.

12.      Delegation

12.1.   The Council has delegation.

 

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.

 

Greg Fannon

Manager Fleet & Support Services

Glenn Doyle

Director Parks and City Amenity

 

Date:                            14 February 2018

File Reference:          F18/993; F17/109782, 36-20-33

 

 

Attachment a:             H-Trams Business Plan

Attachment b:             H-Trams Peer Review   


Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting - 21/2/2018

Page 14

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting - 21/2/2018

Page 81

ATTACHMENT b

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 102

 

21/2/2018

 

 

6.2    Hobart Municipal Emergency Management Plan

          File Ref: F17/159249; 15-30-1

Report of the Group Manager Project Services and the Director City Infrastructure of 14 February 2018 and attachment.

Delegation:     Council


Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 103

 

21/2/2018

 

 

REPORT TITLE:                  Hobart Municipal Emergency Management Plan

REPORT PROVIDED BY:  Group Manager Project Services

Director City Infrastructure

 

1.         Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1.     The purpose of this report is to obtain endorsement from the Council for the latest version (Issue 10) of the City of Hobart’s Emergency Management Plan.

1.2.     The endorsement of this report will benefit the community by providing an updated Emergency Management Plan that clearly identifies the City of Hobart’s roles, responsibilities and processes during an emergency.

2.         Report Summary

2.1.     The current version (Issue 9) of the City of Hobart’s Emergency Management Plan was approved by the State Controller in December 2015.

2.2.     The Plan is required to be reviewed by the Hobart Municipal Emergency Management Committee at least every two years.

2.3.     An amended Emergency Management Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Emergency Management Act 2006.

2.4.     The amended Plan (Issue 10) was endorsed by the Hobart Emergency Management Committee on 5 December 2017.

2.5.     The updated draft Emergency Management Plan is being presented to the Council for endorsement (refer Attachment A to this report).

2.6.     Once endorsed, the plan will be submitted to the State Controller for approval and subsequent distribution.

2.7.     During an Emergency, the City of Hobart would typically provide a support role to a primary response authority.  For example during a major fire, the Tasmania Fire Service (TFS) would be the lead responder. 

2.8.     However, the Council would have a primary role to provide for the necessary resources and coordinate community recovery during an emergency.

2.9.     The resources of the Southern Tasmania Region would be available for any southern Council to call upon during an emergency.

 

3.         Recommendation

That:

1.      The draft City of Hobart Emergency Management Plan Issue 10, marked as Attachment A to this report, be endorsed.

2.      The General Manager be authorised to endorse any subsequent minor amendments.

 

4.         Background

4.1.     The current version of the City of Hobart Emergency Management Plan (“the Plan”) was authorised by the State Emergency Management Controller in January 2016.

4.2.     The Emergency Management Act 2006 requires that each Municipal Committee review its Municipal Emergency Management Plan at least once every two years.

4.3.     The Municipal Committee consists of a chairperson (the Lord Mayor), the Municipal Coordinator, emergency services agencies (Police, Fire, Ambulance, SES, Health) and Council officers undertaking statutory and non-statutory roles within the emergency management framework.

4.4.     An amended draft of the Plan was presented to the City of Hobart Emergency Management Committee on 5 December 2017.

4.5.     The Plan was amended to reflect changes in the emergency management field and also internal changes to Council operations and staffing.  The Municipal Committee subsequently endorsed these amendments.

4.6.     The changes to the Plan can be summarised as follows:

(i)           Updating changes to the Municipal Coordinator and the Recovery Coordinator since the last issue of the Plan;

(ii)          An update of new community warning and public information platform – TasALERT;

(iii)         An update on registration systems providing details of persons affected by emergencies;

(iv)         An update of the Risk Register and treatments for associated risks; and

(v)          Inclusion of Mathers House and Criterion House as locations that may be useful to assist with during emergencies.

5.         Proposal and Implementation

5.1.     It is proposed that the Council endorse the City of Hobart Emergency Management Plan Issue 10.

6.         Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1.     The Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 identifies emergency management in Goal 4 – Strong, Safe and Health Communities. 

6.2.     Strategic Objective 4.3 – Build community resilience, public health and safety has the following actions:

(i)           4.3.1 Build capacity and resilience so the community is prepared for emergency situations;

(ii)          4.3.2 Consider vulnerable members o the community when responding to an emergency and in community recovery planning; and

(iii)         4.3.3  Implement the Tasmanian Municipal Emergency Management Plan and Recovery Plan.

7.         Financial Implications

7.1.     Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1.     The current operating budget provides funding for emergency management functions.

7.2.     Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1.     There will be minimal impact on the current year operating results as a result of the Plan being modified. 

7.3.     Asset Related Implications

7.3.1.     Not applicable.

8.         Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1.     The Emergency Management Act 2006 places a range of statutory obligations on the Council.  The review of the Plan address a major part of the Council’s obligations detailed in the Act.

8.2.     The Act also requires the Council to provide the necessary resources for the management of an emergency in accordance with the Municipal Plan.

8.3.     The Act specifies that councils, in consultation with the Director SES, are to establish and maintain such volunteer SES unit as considered necessary under the Municipal Plan and for rescue and retrieval activities.

8.4.     The Council meets this obligation through its support of the Southern Regional (Volunteer) SES Unit, known as the Southern Regional Unit. 

8.5.     Other risk treatment strategies and actions are identified in Appendix 5.2 - Risk Assessment Report in the Plan.

9.         Community and Stakeholder Engagement

9.1.     The release of the Plan will involve the preparation of a media release and some communication with the community as well as emergency management stakeholders.

10.      Delegation

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

 

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.

 

Geoff Lang

Geoff Lang

Group Manager Project Services

Mark Painter

Mark Painter

Director City Infrastructure

 

Date:                            14 February 2018

File Reference:          F17/159249; 15-30-1

 

 

Attachment a:             Draft City of Hobart Emergency Management Plan Issue 10, 2018   


Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting - 21/2/2018

Page 107

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting - 21/2/2018

Page 119

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting - 21/2/2018

Page 120

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting - 21/2/2018

Page 165

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting - 21/2/2018

Page 178

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 198

 

21/2/2018

 

 

6.3    Request for Installation of Barrier Screen - Outdoor Dining - Sandy Bay Bakery and Cafe - 166-168 Sandy Bay Road, Sandy Bay

          File Ref: F18/8097; R0820

Report of the Director City Infrastructure of 14 February 2018 and attachment.

Delegation:     Committee


Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 199

 

21/2/2018

 

 

REPORT TITLE:                  Request for Installation of Barrier Screen - Outdoor Dining - Sandy Bay Bakery and Cafe - 166-168 Sandy Bay Road, Sandy Bay

REPORT PROVIDED BY:  Director City Infrastructure

 

1.         Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1.     The purpose of this report is to inform the Committee of a request for the Council to fund the installation of a barrier at an outdoor dining area on Sandy Bay Road, and to seek guidance from the Committee about its ongoing expectations for the use of Council funds to construct infrastructure to facilitate outdoor dining.

2.         Report Summary

2.1.     The proprietor of the Sandy Bay Bakery and Café has requested the installation of a barrier fence similar in style to the one installed along Sandy Bay Road at Brew and Zambrero, to contain furniture and patrons and to separate the patrons from opening car doors.

2.2.     In correspondence, officers have expressed support for the installation of barrier screens and have indicated a series of options that would be acceptable.

2.3.     The proprietor of the Sandy Bay Bakery and Café has requested that the matter be considered by the Council. The main issue identified by the proprietor is that officers expect that the proprietor fund the installation of the barrier.

2.4.     In summary, it was the view of officers that the installation of a fence/barrier was necessary at Brew and Zambrero. This was determined during the planning for the Sandy Bay Retail Precinct upgrade, and part of the funding available for landscaping was utilised to modify a proposed landscaping feature to serve the dual purpose of providing landscaping and ensuring patrons do not slip/fall into a moving traffic lane.

2.5.     It was and remains the view of officers that the installation of a fence/barrier is not necessary at the Sandy Bay Bakery and Café or other outdoor dining areas in the precinct.  Additionally, there is no funding available for further landscaping works as part of the project.

2.6.     The advice provided has been that the City of Hobart will support the installation of barriers if the licence holder wishes to install these, but that the installation will need to be at the licence holders cost. This advice is in keeping with the existing City of Hobart Policy - Private Works – Charges as marked as Attachment A to this report.

3.         Recommendation

That

1.    The installation of a barrier screen along the back of the kerb adjacent to the Sandy Bay Bakery and Café located at 166-168 Sandy Bay Road, Sandy Bay, be supported, subject to appropriate licence conditions to be determined by the General Manager’s nominee.

2.    Any barrier screen installed adjacent to the Sandy Bay Bakery and Café be installed at the applicant’s cost.

3.      The applicant be advised of the Committee’s decision.

 

 

4.         Background

4.1.     It has been the long standing practice of the City not to fund the construction of infrastructure on public highways under its management that is intended for the sole benefit of individual businesses or persons.

4.2.     There is an existing City of Hobart Policy - Private Works – Charges, that forms Attachment A to this report, that states:

“That in any case where work, for which the Council itself is not responsible nor has directed to be done, is carried out at the request of another organisation or person, that work shall be charged out at total cost, including overheads to the Council, and an appropriate profit margin, with the possible exception of charities and emergency works”.

4.3.     In 2017, the City reconstructed and upgraded the footpaths in the Sandy Bay Retail Precinct.  As part of these works, businesses with outdoor dining areas were asked to relocate outdoor dining furniture clear of building lines to allow a clear and accessible path of travel for pedestrians.

4.4.     This relocation of outdoor dining furniture clear of the building line was in line with a previous Council resolution of 12 October 2015, that includes the following:

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

(iv)    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.”

4.5.     Concerns were raised by some traders and patrons about the planned relocation of outdoor dining furniture clear of the building line. These concerns were documented in a petition and subsequent report.  At its meeting held on 4 September 2017, the Council resolved (in part) the following:

“That 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.”

4.6.     As part of the planning work for the Sandy Bay Shopping Precinct works, a risk assessment of outdoor dining patron safety was compiled by officers. The risk assessment forms part of the report considered at the 23 August 2017 City Infrastructure Committee meeting. The risk assessment makes two recommendations, which are:

(i)           Maintain 0.6m clear zone between parking areas and outdoor dining areas to minimise the risk of a manoeuvring vehicle striking patrons of furniture; and

(ii)          Modify proposed fence feature in section with outdoor dining where no parking is provided, to mitigate risk of patron slipping/falling into travelling lane.

4.7.     Both these recommendations were implemented.

4.8.     The proposed fence feature was a part of the street scaping for the Sandy Bay Shopping Precinct works that was modified and relocated to be installed in front of Brew and Zambrero.

4.9.     Figure 1 below, shows the subject fence installed as a part of the project.

Figure 1 – Streetscaping fence at Brew and Zambrero

4.10.   Following the implementation of the relocation of commercial furniture clear of the building line on 1 November 2017, a request was received from the proprietor of the Sandy Bay Bakery and Café at 166-168 Sandy Bay Road.

4.11.   Figure 2 below shows the footpath at the Sandy Bay Bakery and Café.

Figure 2 – Footpath at Sandy Bay Bakery and Café

4.12.   In Figure 2, taken immediately prior to the relocation of furniture clear of the building line, the approximate location of the new outdoor dining area is indicated by the red box. This area runs from the litter bins to the northern boundary of the premises.

4.13.   There is on-street parking in front of most of this dining area. The section of dining area that does not have parking in front of it (the space between the parked utility and the litter bin) is not considered likely to have moving vehicles in the traffic lane next to the parking lane driving over it.

4.14.   In summary, the proprietor of the Sandy Bay Bakery and Café has requested the installation of a barrier fence similar in style to the one installed at Brew and Zambrero to contain furniture and patrons and to separate the patrons from opening car doors.

4.15.   In correspondence, officers have expressed support for the installation of barrier screens, and have indicated a series of options that would be acceptable.  These options ranged from very low cost (the bolting to the surface of removable barrier screens), to high cost (similar to the barrier fence installed in front of Brew and Zambrero).

4.16.   The proprietor of the Sandy Bay Bakery and Cafe has now requested that the matter be considered by the Council. The main issue identified by the proprietor is that officers expect that the proprietor fund the installation of the barrier.

4.17.   In summary, it was the view of officers that the installation of a fence/barrier was necessary at Brew and Zambrero. This was determined during the planning for the Sandy Bay Retail Precinct upgrade and part of the funding available for landscaping was utilised to modify a proposed landscaping feature to serve the dual purpose of providing landscaping, and ensuring patrons do not slip/fall into a moving traffic lane.

4.18.   It was and remains the view of officers that the installation of a fence/barrier is not necessary at the Sandy Bay Bakery and Café or other outdoor dining areas in the precinct. Additionally, there is no funding available for further landscaping works as part of the project.

4.19.   The advice provided to the proprietor of the Sandy Bay Bakery and Café has been that the City of Hobart will support the installation of barriers if the licence holder wishes to install these, but that the installation will need to be at the licence holders cost. This advice is in keeping with the existing City of Hobart Policy - Private Works – Charges as marked as Attachment A to this report.

5.         Proposal and Implementation

5.1.     It is proposed that no changes be made to the current practice where physical works required to benefit businesses with outdoor dining areas are to be funded by the benefiting business.

6.         Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1.     If physical works to benefit businesses remain the financial responsibility of that benefiting business, the existing City of Hobart Policy – Private Works – Charges would require no alteration.

6.2.     If the Committee or the Council were of the view that in some cases it may be appropriate for the City of Hobart to partially or fully fund some such private works, this policy would need to be altered to clarify the intent.

7.         Financial Implications

7.1.     Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1.     The proposed recommendation has no funding implications as any changes would be at the applicant’s cost.

7.1.2.     In the event that it was determined that a fence similar in standard to that previously installed at Brew and Zambrero be installed at the cost of the City, this is expected to cost in the order of $10,000.

8.         Delegation

8.1.     The Manager Traffic Engineering, Manager Roads and Environmental Engineering, and all officers to which those positions report hold delegation under Section 30(1) and 30(2) of the Local Government (Highways) Act to approve the installation of fencing/barriers.

8.2.     In this case, officers have chosen not to exercise this delegation, and the matter has therefore been referred to the Committee for determination.

 

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

Mark Painter

Director City Infrastructure

 

 

Date:                            14 February 2018

File Reference:          F18/8097; R0820

 

 

Attachment a:             CoH Policy - Private Works - Charges   


Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting - 21/2/2018

Page 205

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator

 


Item No. 7.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 206

 

21/2/2018

 

 

7.       Committee Action Status Report

 

7.1      Committee Actions - Status Report

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

REcommendation

That the information be received and noted.

Delegation:      Committee

 

 

Attachment a:             Open Status Report    


Item No. 7.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting - 21/2/2018

Page 207

ATTACHMENT a

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

  


Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 233

 

21/2/2018

 

 

8.       Responses to Questions Without Notice

Regulation 29(3) Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
File Ref: 13-1-10

 

The General Manager reports:-

 

“In accordance with the procedures approved in respect to Questions Without Notice, the following responses to questions taken on notice are provided to the Committee for information.

 

The Committee is reminded that in accordance with Regulation 29(3) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, the Chairman is not to allow discussion or debate on either the question or the response.”

 

8.1    Disability Parking in Loading Zones

          File Ref: F17/155221; 13-1-10

Memorandum of the Director City Infrastructure of 14 February 2018.

8.2    Hobart and New Town Rivulet Litter Traps - Examination of Contents

          File Ref: F17/160368; 13-1-10

Memorandum of the Director City Infrastructure of 16 January 2018.

8.3    Public Highway in Private Ownership

          File Ref: F17/160374; 13-1-10

Memorandum of the Director City Infrastructure of 14 February 2018.

8.4    Albuera Street Primary School - Laying of Yellow Paint and Installation of No Parking Signs

          File Ref: F18/2293

Memorandum of the Director City Infrastructure of 14 February 2018.

 

Delegation:      Committee

 

That the information be received and noted.

 

 

 


Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 234

 

21/2/2018

 

 

Memorandum:          Acting Lord Mayor

Aldermen

 

Response to Question Without Notice

 

Disability Parking in Loading Zones

 

Meeting: City Infrastructure Committee

 

Meeting date: 22 November 2017

 

Raised by: Alderman Burnet

 

Question:

 

Could the Director please advise if loading zones can also be used for people with disabilities?

 

Response:

 

The Road Rules do not allow for people with a disability to park on a loading zone.  However, community transport services may use loading zones to drop off and pick up passengers.

 

Regulation 179 if the Australian Road Rules 2009 relates to stopping in a loading zone and states that:

“(1)    A driver must not stop in a loading zone unless the driver is driving –

(a) a public bus that is dropping off, or picking up passengers; or

(b) a truck or service vehicle, together with any trailer that it may be towing, that is dropping off, or picking up, goods in the course of business; or

(c)  a vehicle that is permitted to stop in the loading zone under another law of this jurisdiction.”

 

Further clarification is provided in relation to the interpretation of part 179(1)(c), that:

“(1)    For rule 179(1)(c), a vehicle may stop in a loading zone if –

(a)     the vehicle is dropping off or picking up goods (the permitted activity); and

(b)     the vehicle, if not a truck, service vehicle or public bus, has the name and address of its registered operator permanently displayed by non-magnetic means on its left-hand or right-hand side in letters that are at least 25 millimetres high and of a contrasting colour to the colour of the vehicle; and

(c)     the driver does not carry out any activity other than the permitted activity; and

(d)     the driver, on completing the permitted activity, leaves the loading zone as soon as the driver can do so safely.

(2)     For rule 179(1)(c), a vehicle may also stop in a loading zone if –

(a)     the vehicle is providing a community transport service, and the driver is dropping off or picking up passengers (the permitted activity); and

(b)     the driver does not carry out any activity other than the permitted activity; and

(c)     the driver does not leave the vehicle unattended for more than 5 minutes; and

(d)     the driver, on completing the permitted activity, leaves the loading zone as soon as the driver can do so safely.

(3)     For this rule, the driver of a vehicle is taken to have left it unattended if the driver is more than 3 metres away from the closest point of the vehicle.

(4)     In this clause –

community transport service means a transport service provided by –

(a)     the Commonwealth, the State or a council; or

(b)     an organisation that is a not-for-profit organisation funded entirely or partially by the Commonwealth, the State or a council (or any combination of those government entities); or

(c)     an organisation that is, or is entitled to be, endorsed by the Australian Taxation Office as a charitable or benevolent institution.”

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

 

 

Date:                            14 February 2018

File Reference:          F17/155221; 13-1-10

 

 

  


Item No. 8.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 236

 

21/2/2018

 

 

Memorandum:          Acting Lord Mayor

Aldermen

 

 

Response to Question Without Notice

 

Hobart and New Town Rivulet Litter Traps - Examination of Contents

 

Meeting: City Infrastructure Committee

 

Meeting date: 6 December 2017

 

Raised by: Alderman Harvey

 

Question:

Could the Director please advise if it is possible when the Hobart and New Town Rivulets litter traps are next emptied, could the contents be examined and Aldermen advised of the results?

 

Response:

 

The Hobart and New Town Rivulets have floating litter traps in place near the outlet into the River Derwent.  The photos below show these litter traps.  These photos were taken just prior to cleaning the debris out of the traps.

 

IMG_3350    IMG_3349.

New Town Rivulet – Floating Litter Trap

 


 

 

Image0 (005)   Image0 (007)

 

Hobart Rivulet – Floating Litter Trap

 

The litter traps are monitored regularly and are cleaned when the traps are full.  Typically, the litter traps need cleaning after a large rainfall event when the stormwater flows cause rubbish, vegetation and other debris to enter into the rivulets and then into the traps.

 

The litter traps were cleaned out in mid-December 2017.  Approximately 2.3 tonnes were removed from the New Town Rivulet trap and 0.2 tonnes were removed from the Hobart Rivulet litter trap.

 

A rough calculation was made of the proportion of different material types within the litter traps.  It was estimated that 90% of the floating material removed from the New Town Rivulet was organic (branches, leaves, vines etc).  Approximately 5% of the floating material was recyclable materials (plastic bottles and cans) and the remaining 5% was non-recyclable waste.

 

It is noted that the New Town Rivulet also includes a detention basin at the same location as the litter trap.  The detention basin allows heavier materials (sediments, boulders, logs, hard waste etc) to settle to the bottom of the basin.  This is then cleaned out approximately every four years. 

 

The litter trap at the Hobart Rivulet contained approximately 70% recyclable materials, 20% organic materials and 10% non-recyclable waste.  The Hobart Rivulet trap has less organic matter than the New Town Rivulet due to the presence of several devices in the Hobart Rivulet upstream of the CBD.  These devices were put in place to catch tree branches and other organic materials prior to flowing under the CBD, in order to prevent possible blockages and reduce the likelihood of flooding in the CBD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Date:                            16 January 2018

File Reference:          F17/160368; 13-1-10

 

 

  


Item No. 8.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 239

 

21/2/2018

 

 

Memorandum:          Acting Lord Mayor

Aldermen

 

 

Response to Question Without Notice

 

Public Highway in Private Ownership

 

Meeting: City Infrastructure Committee

 

Meeting date: 6 December 2017

 

Raised by: Alderman Ruzicka

 

Question:

 

Can the Director please advise:

1.    Whether there is a need to convert public highway, currently still in private ownership as part of subdivisions, into Council/State ownership? and

2.    How widespread is this landownership around the city?

 

Response:

 

1.    For all of the standard activities that the City undertakes as a highway authority there is no need to own the land on which a public highway is located. The powers conferred through the Local Government (Highways) Act 1982 are in relation to highways and not the land.  There are some powers not conferred by the Act, such as the creation of easements, and these continue to reside with the land owner.  Issues related to these powers only arise rarely and usually in relation to requests from third parties, who then have to deal with the land owner directly in addition to any highway related matters which the City can address.

2.    Obtaining the ownership of land under highways in fee simple through the subdivision process was not a standard practice of the City’s officers before the late 1990s. There are several administrative steps and some costs in doing so, and previously the land under the road remained with the developer.  Thus most of the land under highways that the City owns has been transferred through subdivisions which have occurred since that time.  In total it is estimated that the City owns slightly less than 10% of the land under highways in the municipality.


 

 

The large majority of the land that is not owned is either ungranted Crown land which has never been transferred to the City, or privately owned land resulting from subdivision development where land ownership has not been transferred to the City.  It would be a very significant task to accurately identify what proportion of the highways would fit in each of these categories as each road segment would need to be researched individually.  In very approximate terms, it is estimated that about 10% is in the City’s ownership, 50-60% is in private ownership and 30-40% is ungranted Crown land.  To obtain title to the land under highways currently in private ownership would be a very expensive task and would require significant additional resources for an extended period.

 

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

 

 

Date:                            14 February 2018

File Reference:          F17/160374; 13-1-10

 

 

  


Item No. 8.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 241

 

21/2/2018

 

 

Memorandum:          Acting Lord Mayor

Aldermen

 

 

Response to Question Without Notice

 

Albuera Street Primary School - Laying of Yellow Paint and Installation of No Parking Signs

 

Meeting: City Infrastructure Committee

 

Meeting date: 22 November 2017

 

Raised by: Alderman Ruzicka

 

Question:

 

Could the Director please provide a memorandum to Aldermen in relation to the laying of yellow paint and the installation of No Parking signs in the vicinity of the Albuera Street Primary School?

 

Response:

 

A “No Stopping” parking restriction can be designated through the use of yellow linemarking parallel to the edge of the roadway or through the placement of parking control signage.

 

The Australian Standard AS1742.11 allows for the use of yellow linemarking parallel to the kerb to either supplement signposted “No Stopping” areas or yellow linemarking may be used in lieu of “No Stopping” signage. 

 

However, the practice across Tasmania (including within the City of Hobart) has been to use either yellow lines or signage to indicate areas where “No Stopping” restrictions apply – rather than utilising both.  This decision has been based on minimising maintenance costs associated with maintaining these traffic control devices – and installing extra signage or linemarking to address compliance with a “No Stopping” restriction that has been ineffective.

 

 

 

 

 

The decision to use either signage or linemarking generally relates to the length of the “No Stopping” zone, for instance:

 

-     yellow lines are used for short sections of “No Stopping” (such as areas adjacent to driveways, approaching traffic signals or intersections) or where signage may impact on the width of a footpath.

 

-     signs are used where the “No Stopping” restriction applies for part of the day (such as weekday clearways) or when the “No Stopping” zone extends over a longer distance.

 

There are examples across the city where both signage and linemarking has been installed to designate a “No Stopping” parking control, such as in Albuera Street (near Sandy Bay Road).  Where these areas are identified Council officers will generally remove either the signage or linemarking.

 

 

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

 

 

Date:                            14 February 2018

File Reference:          F18/2293

 

 

   


 

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 243

 

21/2/2018

 

 

9.       Questions Without Notice

Section 29 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

File Ref: 13-1-10

 

An Alderman may ask a question without notice of the Chairman, another Alderman, the General Manager or the General Manager’s representative, in line with the following procedures:

1.         The Chairman will refuse to accept a question without notice if it does not relate to the Terms of Reference of the Council committee at which it is asked.

2.         In putting a question without notice, an Alderman must not:

(i)    offer an argument or opinion; or

(ii)   draw any inferences or make any imputations – except so far as may be necessary to explain the question.

3.         The Chairman must not permit any debate of a question without notice or its answer.

4.         The Chairman, Aldermen, General Manager or General Manager’s representative who is asked a question may decline to answer the question, if in the opinion of the respondent it is considered inappropriate due to its being unclear, insulting or improper.

5.         The Chairman may require a question to be put in writing.

6.         Where a question without notice is asked and answered at a meeting, both the question and the response will be recorded in the minutes of that meeting.

7.         Where a response is not able to be provided at the meeting, the question will be taken on notice and

(i)    the minutes of the meeting at which the question is asked will record the question and the fact that it has been taken on notice.

(ii)   a written response will be provided to all Aldermen, at the appropriate time.

(iii)  upon the answer to the question being circulated to Aldermen, both the question and the answer will be listed on the agenda for the next available ordinary meeting of the committee at which it was asked, where it will be listed for noting purposes only.

 


 

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 244

 

21/2/2018

 

 

10.     Closed Portion Of The Meeting

 

The following items were discussed: -

 

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

Item No. 2          Consideration of supplementary items to the agenda

Item No. 3          Indications of pecuniary and conflicts of interest

Item No. 4          Committee Action Status Report

Item No. 4.1       Committee Actions - Status Report

LG(MP)R 15(2)(g)

Item No. 5          Questions Without Notice