Agenda of Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 4

7/6/2018

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting (Open Portion) held Thursday, 7 June 2018 at 5:00 pm in the Lady Osborne Room, Town Hall.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Reynolds (Chairman)

Deputy Lord Mayor Sexton

Briscoe

Ruzicka

Harvey

ALDERMEN

Lord Mayor Christie

Zucco

Burnet

Cocker

Thomas

Denison

Apologies:

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 Parks and Recreation Committee meeting held on Thursday, 10 May 2018 and the Special Parks and Recreation Committee meeting held on Monday, 21 May 2018, are submitted for confirming as an accurate record.

3. Consideration of Supplementary Items

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

Recommendation

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

4. Indications of Pecuniary and Conflicts of Interest

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

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

5. Transfer of Agenda Items

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

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

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

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

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 7

7/6/2018

REPORT TITLE: Naming of Pedestrian Bridge over Tasman Highway

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Acting Associate Director Community Development

Director Parks and City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report seeks the Council’s endorsement to progress the naming of the pedestrian bridge across the Tasman Highway following the Nomenclature Board’s advice that the name of Legacy Link submitted by the Council has been refused.

1.1.1. The naming of this bridge has caused significant division and concern for key stakeholders who have all advised that they are seeking the matter to be resolved without any further public engagement.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The City of Hobart submitted the name of Legacy Link to the Nomenclature Board for consideration following a community engagement survey that indicated that this was the popular choice for naming the bridge over the Tasman Highway.

2.2. Correspondence was received from the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania on 15 March 2018 advising that the Board voted unanimously to reject the application to name the Tasman Highway bridge Legacy Link. A copy of the letter is shown at Attachment A.

2.2.1. It is noted that there is not a mechanism to appeal this decision.

2.3. Correspondence was subsequently received from Hobart Legacy on 3 April 2018 requesting that the Council consider naming the bridge ‘Gellibrand Bridge’ in recognition of MAJGEN Sir John Gellibrand. A copy of this letter is shown at Attachment B.

2.4. Aldermen were advised in a memorandum dated 13 April 2018, that in order to progress this matter, officers would be undertaking the following process:

· Contacting the Nomenclature Board office to seek preliminary advice as to whether it is considered that there would be any potential barriers under the Rules for Place Names in Tasmania for the name Gellibrand Bridge; and

· Contacting other key stakeholders from veterans and defence support organisations who have been engaged throughout the naming process, to seek their comment. A copy of the correspondence sent to the stakeholders is shown at Attachment C.

2.5. Advice was subsequently received from the Nomenclature Board Secretary stating that:

‘As Secretary of the Nomenclature Board and having a look at the “Rules for Place Names in Tasmania” below are some things to be considered.

Section 14 of Rules for Placenames Tasmania “appropriate consultation must be carried out by the proponent”. Will council be conducting any consultation with stakeholders/public and will Council do any online polling as per the previous proposed names?

Section 13 of Rules for Placenames Tasmania “Duplication of Placenames” There are multiple uses of Gellibrand within the State, the name would be assessed on its location and if there would be any confusion to emergency services and the public.

At this stage, as Secretary of the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania I don’t see any major issues with the proposed name “Gellibrand Bridge” being submitted for consideration. However the Board members who have the final vote and will investigate the proposed name on what evidence has been supplied for consideration.’

2.6. Responses were received from all stakeholders contacted with the responses shown as follows:

· The Returned & Services League of Australia (RSL) Attachment D

· Friends of Soldiers Memorial Avenue Inc. (FOSMA)

Attachment E

· TPI Association Attachment F

· Department of Premier and Cabinet Attachment G

· Department of Veterans Affairs Attachment H

2.6.2. The Department of Defence has requested that their response be treated in confidence and has therefore been provided to Aldermen under separate cover.

2.7. As anticipated, responses from the Department of Defence, Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Premier and Cabinet have reiterated their neutrality in respect to a specific name but have indicated that the name needs to reflective of the views of the veteran community.

2.8. Correspondence received from RSL, FOSMA and the TPI Association has advised that they do not support the name Gellibrand Bridge being submitted to the Nomenclature Board.

2.9. RSL Tasmania advised that they cannot support the bridge being named ‘Gellibrand’ Bridge as Gellibrand was the founder of Legacy, and that by association, is a connection to Hobart Legacy, and therefore contravenes the Rules of the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania.

2.9.1. RSL Tasmania further advised that they consider in the interest of fairness and transparency, the name receiving the second highest number of votes from the community consultation process, should now be elevated and become the appropriate name for the Bridge. They strongly support Bridge of Remembrance as it is not identified with any single organisation or group, but rather, the name encompasses all people in all communities.

2.10. FOSMA provided several reasons as to why they do not support the bridge being named Gellibrand Bridge including: that they do not consider the name would meet the Rules for Place Names in Tasmania as it would be too closely associated with Legacy; the name Gellibrand was not part of the public consideration; there are already a number of places around Tasmania recognising John Gellibrand; the bridge should not be named after an individual; and the name needs to be inclusive for the wider community.

2.10.1. FOSMA has advised that they firmly believe the name Bridge of Remembrance is the best choice as it would acknowledge all those that have served across all conflicts, all those wounded, all those who have died, and all those families who lost loved ones and have had to cope with the consequences of war and would be timeless and not tied to any one conflict or individual.

2.11. All groups, including Hobart Legacy Inc. have advised that they would not support any further widespread engagement being undertaken as they feel the naming of the bridge has already caused significant divisiveness in the veteran community and they wish this matter to be resolved without further public debate.

2.12. Correspondence from Hobart Legacy Inc. received on 24 April 2018 stated that the Board has also agreed that they would prefer to avoid any further public consultation regarding this matter. A copy of this correspondence is shown at Attachment I.

2.12.1. The President of Hobart Legacy Inc. further confirmed on 14 May 2018 that the Board does not wish to enter into any further deliberations on this matter.

2.13. In light of the above feedback from key stakeholders, it is considered that submitting the name of Gellibrand Bridge to the Nomenclature Board would most likely result in refusal under the Rules for Place Names in Tasmania noting that the name would not comply as it would be “likely to cause offence to members of the public, or members of any section of the public”.

2.14. It is noted that the name Gellibrand Bridge has not been tested with the broader public and at this point in time has only been a consideration by the Hobart Legacy Board and the key stakeholders detailed in this report.

2.14.1. RSL Tasmania and FOSMA have indicated that they would strongly oppose this name were it submitted to the Nomenclature Board for consideration.

2.15. The other alternative that the Council may wish to consider is submitting the name Bridge of Remembrance noting that it is the preferred name FOSMA, RSL Tasmania and the TPI Association.

2.15.1. This name was also the second most popular name resulting from the widespread community survey that was distributed in November 2017. Of the 1105 submissions, ‘Legacy Link’ was the preferred name with 693 votes, ‘Bridge of Remembrance’ received 315 votes and Peace Bridge received 97 votes.

2.16. The rationale for Bridge of Remembrance is as follows:

Bridge of Remembrance - Remembrance is a word strongly associated with military history through the act of remembering, or the state of being remembered or commemorated. Remembrance is also identified as a memento or keepsake that inspires recollection or reminiscence. It is seen as something that serves to bring to mind or keep in mind some place, person, event, action etc. Remembrance is also defined as the act of honouring and showing respect for someone who has died or a past event. Bridge of Remembrance is seen as a particularly fitting name that has very broad relevance across the community including acknowledging the families affected by conflict.

2.17. The Nomenclature Board has advised at the time that the three names were being considered that they do not see any concerns with the name Bridge of Remembrance. It is noted however, that the same requirements relating to stakeholder support for the name would apply.

3. Recommendation

That the Council consider submitting a name to the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania for their consideration for the pedestrian bridge over the Tasman Highway taking into consideration the submissions made by stakeholders and the advice received from the Nomenclature Board in relation to complying with the Rules for Place Names in Tasmania.

4. Background

4.1. The Parks and Recreation Committee at its meeting held on 10 November 2016 resolved:

‘That: 1. The Tasman Highway Memorial Bridge Preliminary Concept Design, marked as Attachment A to supplementary item 6.6 of the Open Parks and Recreation Committee agenda of 10 November 2016, be released for public consultation.

2. A further report be provided to the Council outlining the results from the public consultation process and presenting a final concept design suitable for the lodgement of a formal planning application.’

4.2. A report was presented to the Parks and Recreation Committee meeting on 9 February 2017, at which time the Committee resolved:

‘That: 1. The General Manager authorise the lodgement of a planning application in accordance with Section 52 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, for the Tasman Highway Memorial Bridge, marked as Attachment A to item 6.1 of the Open Parks and Recreation Committee agenda of 9 February 2017.

2. The issues raised by the stakeholders during the consultation process, as outlined within the Inspiring Place report marked as Attachment B to item 6.1 of the Open Parks and Recreation Committee agenda of 9 February 2017, be progressively assessed and addressed in the detailed design of the proposal for construction.’

4.3. A report detailing the results of stakeholder engagement on a proposed name for the bridge was presented to the Council on 23 October 2017 where the following was resolved:

‘That: 1. The Council endorse community engagement being undertaken to determine the name for the pedestrian bridge across the Tasman Highway from the Cenotaph to the Domain.

2. The Council endorse the following three names for community engagement: Bridge of Remembrance, Legacy Link and Peace Bridge.

3. The name that is most popular with the community be the one that is submitted to the Nomenclature Board for approval at its meeting on 7 December 2017.’

4.4. The community engagement closed on 22 November 2017 with the following results:

Bridge Name	Your Say Surveys	Hard Copy Surveys	Total	% of Total
Bridge of Remembrance	161	154	315	28.6
Legacy Link	294	399	693	62.7
Peace Bridge	70	27	97	8.7

4.5. In line with the above Council resolution on this matter, officers subsequently submitted the name Legacy Link to the Nomenclature Board for their consideration.

4.6. Formal advice was received from the Nomenclature Board on 15 March 2018 advising that the name Legacy Link had been refused for a range of reasons as shown at Attachment A.

4.7. It is noted that there had been strong representation to the Nomenclature Board from stakeholders that were opposed to the name Legacy Link stating that it did not comply with Rules for Place Names in Tasmania.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the Council consider submitting a name to the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania for their consideration for the pedestrian bridge over the Tasman Highway taking into consideration the submissions made by stakeholders and the advice received from the Nomenclature Board in relation to complying with the Rules for Place Names in Tasmania.

5.2. Correspondence be distributed to all stakeholders advising of this outcome.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The construction of the Tasman Highway Memorial Bridge is identified in the Council-endorsed Queens Domain Master Plan and is identified as an ICAP Project. Furthermore the proposal fulfils the following strategic objectives outlined within the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025.

2.1 A fully accessible and connected city environment.

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

2.4 Unique heritage assets are protected and celebrated.

5.4 An engaged civic culture where people feel part of decision-making.’

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. There are no financial impacts resulting from this report.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. There are no financial impacts resulting from this report.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. There are no asset related impacts resulting from this report.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. It is noted that the naming of this bridge has generated significant concern and division within the local veteran, and families of veterans community in Tasmania and that there may be some members of Hobart Legacy Inc. who may still publicly advocate for the name Gellibrand Bridge.

8.2. It is also noted that were the Council to consider submitting the name Gellibrand Bridge to the Nomenclature Board, there may be public opposition from stakeholders.

9. Social and Customer Considerations

9.1. The naming of the bridge has caused considerable concern and caused a divide within the veteran, and families of veterans community in Tasmania.

9.2. All stakeholders have advised that they do not want further engagement on this issue and would not support another divisive debate in the wider community.

10. Marketing and Media

10.1. Due to the concerns raised within the veterans community regarding the divisiveness of this issue, the Council’s decision on the name to be submitted to the Nomenclature Board would be announced at an appropriate time.

11. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

11.1. Following the advice from the Nomenclature Board regarding the refusal of the name Legacy Link, further recent engagement has been undertaken with key stakeholders to determine whether or not they would support the name Gellibrand Bridge being considered.

11.1.1. Engagement has taken place with the following stakeholders:

· Department of Veterans Affair Tasmania;

· RSL Tasmania;

· Legacy Tasmania;

· TPI Association;

· Friends of Soldiers Memorial Avenue;

· Department of Premier and Cabinet;

· Department of Defence.

12. Delegation

12.1. The decision to submit a name for the pedestrian bridge across the Tasman Highway from the Cenotaph to the Domain to the Nomenclature Board for consideration is a matter for the Council to decide.

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.

Kimbra Parker

Acting Associate Director Community Development

Glenn Doyle

Director Parks and City Amenity

Date: 1 June 2018

File Reference: F18/40617

Attachment a: Correspondence from Nomenclature Board dated 15 March 2018 ⇩

Attachment b: Correspondence from Hobart Legacy dated 3 April 2018 ⇩

Attachment c: Correspondence to Stakeholders dated 13 April 2018 ⇩

Attachment d: Correspondence from Returned and Services League of Australia (RSL) ⇩

Attachment e: Correspondence from Friends of Soldiers Memorial Avenue ⇩

Attachment f: Correspondence from TPI Association ⇩

Attachment g: Correspondence from Department of Premier and Cabinet ⇩

Attachment h: Correspondence from Department of Veteran Affairs ⇩

Attachment i: Correspondence from Hobart Legacy dated 24 April 2018 ⇩

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 35

7/6/2018

REPORT TITLE: Update - Cable Car (kunanyi/Mount Wellington) Facilitation Act 2017 - Authority to Enter

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Group Manager Open Space

Director Parks and City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report provides details of recent correspondence sent to the Department of State Growth and provides answers to the Council’s questions raised at the meeting of 19 March 2018.

2. Report Summary

2.1. In March 2018 the Council considered a report detailing the “Authority to Enter” issued by the Minister for State Growth.

2.2. In response to this, the Council sought answers to a range of specific questions relating to the issuing of the Authority and Council’s involvement in the process.

2.3. Answers to these questions were sought from the Department of State Growth (DSG) and via external legal advice that is summarised in the body of this report.

2.4. Recent media articles and a media release from the Minister’s Office, seem to indicate that the Minister may be considering rescinding the current Authority to Enter, and issue a new Authority. This approach is reported to be in response to announcements from the Mount Wellington Cable Car Company (MWCC) that it is exploring alternative locations within the Park for its base station infrastructure.

2.5. Further correspondence to the DSG and Trust is being prepared to detail the City’s suggested amendments to any new Authority that may be issued.

3. Recommendation

That the report providing an update on the Cable Car (kunanyi / Mount Wellington) Facilitation Act 2017 and related Authority to Enter, be received and noted.

4. Background

4.1. On 19 March 2018, the Council considered a report on the “Authority to Enter” issued under Section 7 of the Cable Car (kunanyi/Mount Wellington) Facilitation Act 2017 to the Mount Wellington Cable Car Company (MWCC).

In considering the report, the Council resolved to seek clarification on a range of matters raised. These questions and answers are included within the body of this report.

4.2. In actioning the above resolution, questions were posed to the Department of State Growth. Independent legal advice was also obtained in relation to several of the queries and issues.

4.3. The detail provided in this report is offered in the context of the Cable Car (kunanyi/Mount Wellington) Facilitation Act 2017 and the subsequent Authority to Enter issued by the Minister, dated 28 January 2018.

4.4. In response to the legal advice received by the City and the DSG reply to questions posed to it following the Council decision of 19 March 2018, the City is preparing further correspondence to the DSG and the Trust.

4.4.1. Recent media articles and a media release from the Minister’s Office, seem to indicate that the Minister may be considering rescinding the current Authority to Enter, and to perhaps issue a new Authority. This approach is reported to be in response to announcements from MWCC that it is exploring alternative locations within the Park for its base station infrastructure.

It is understood the Minister is seeking clarity from the proponent on what the actual cable car proposal now involves.

4.4.2. Additional correspondence will now be forwarded to the DSG and the Trust to detail the City’s concerns and its suggested amendments to any new Authority to ensure:

4.4.2.1. The City and the public remain suitably informed of pending investigative works,

4.4.2.2. The City receives copies of any authorised Safety Management Plans

4.4.2.3. The City receives recognition of its external legal advice that:

· The City’s has no responsibilities under the Authority

· The City’s observer role at DSG and Trust meetings will cease, and

· No City resources will be attributed to on ground support of any authorised activities.

If the Minister, MWCC or the Trust requires the City’s services or use of its facilities, the terms of any engagement are to be negotiated with the City.

Responses to Questions of 19 March 2018

4.5. Answers to the questions specified in Council’s resolution of 19 March 2018 are summarised below.

Q. Will the Hobart City Council as the land owner be referring the Minister’s Authority to Enter Land to the Commonwealth Government for assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999?

A. No.

Advice received is that the action is not considered a Controlled Action which requires approval under the EPBC Act (action is limited in scope and there is no indication that Wellington Park contains critical habitat for a particular listed species).

It is noted that a full flora and fauna assessment is required by the Authority and this may yield further information.

In any respect, the Council does not have administrative responsibility for the action and is therefore not able to refer the action under the EPBC Act.

Q. How can activities conducted under the Authority be consistent with other legislative requirements including the Aboriginal Relics Act, if the exact locations for works are not known?

A. Advice sought from Secretary DSG and answered:

“The Authority does not remove the requirement for the MWCC to obtain other statutory approvals, nor does it remove the requirement to comply with other relevant legislation, such as the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975, Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and CASA guidelines.”

This is supported by the City’s legal advice which states:

“In our opinion, the works can be conducted consistently with other legislation because:

(a) The Proponent is exempted from complying with that legislation by the Cable Car Act (ie, the LUPA Act and Wellington Park Act); or

(b) Permits can be applied for if relevant protected matters are discovered during the course of the works.

However, we acknowledge that the ordinary requirements of the LUPA Act and Wellington Park Act may require surveys prior to approvals being granted, which would not be required here.

In relation to threatened species, clause 18 of the Authority provides some level of protection.

In relation to indigenous cultural heritage, this will be a matter for the Office of Aboriginal Affairs to enforce.”

Q. The Minister for State Growth has publically stated that the Authority will be managed by the Wellington Park Management Trust (the Trust) and we have the Trust then stating that its role is simply to put up some signs and a notice on its website.

The City of Hobart as landowner is saying it doesn’t have any control over the permit? Who has control?

A. The Secretary DSG’s letter does not expressly address this issue, however it does imply that DSG is responsible for the administration of the Authority.

Various responsibilities are also assigned to the Trust by the Authority.

Q. The public have a right to be given sufficient notification of the exact location, timing and extent of vegetation clearance requirements.

Particularly given that the area contains so many public trails and there will be an impact on public access and commercial operators, eg. North South Track and the main kunanyi/Mount Wellington Road.

Will notification occur?

A. Advice was requested from the Secretary DSG however was not responded to in his letter of 24 April 2018.

The Authority does require the proponent to notify the Minister and the Trust 14 days prior to the intended date of commencement of works, written notification on the day of activities commencing and 48 hours prior to helicopter operations.

It also requires that the Proponent and each Authorised Person “must conduct each Authorised Activity with due caution and care for users of Wellington Park to ensure the safety of other users is not compromised.”

The Authority is silent on the issue of more general notification other than a requirement to erect appropriate temporary signage and barriers to ensure public safety.

Q. With regard to public safety, worker safety and liability for environmental damage (particularly relating to vegetation removal and potential rock fall relating to drilling works above the organ pipes) who will be liable for damages under the Authority?

A. Advice was requested from the Secretary DSG however was not responded to in his letter of 24 April 2018.

This issue was comprehensively examined in the City’s legal advice noting that it is complex in that there are many components to this question and areas in which liability may arise.

The Act deals with ‘Compensable Loss’ which does not specifically address public safety or worker safety. The Council will retain a risk of liability for public safety and public injury that occurs within Wellington Park because the Council continues to own the land.

The Council also owes a duty of care to entrants of Wellington Park however as the Council has no role under the Authority there would be good grounds to argue that no duty is owed in relation to the authorised activities or where any duty exists, it has not been breached.

It has been recommended that the Council advise of any ‘peculiar hazards’ of which the Council is aware and the correspondence to DSG will seek to do this.

In essence, the Council, whilst not directly responsible for any authorised activities under the Authority, does have an ongoing risk of liability by virtue of it owning and occupying the land as well as having various statutory and operational responsibilities in managing the land.

It will be important that appropriate risk mitigation measures are maintained during the period of any authorised activities under the Authority being undertaken.

Q. Will the works be overseen by Hobart City Council staff?

A. No.

The Authority clearly removes the Council’s control of Approved Activities.

Council does, however, maintain its landowner rights and authority outside of areas provided for in the Authority and thus will remain vigilant in terms of any breaches of Park regulations in these areas.

Q. Who will manage and monitor on ground operations including rehabilitation following vegetation removal at the sites where drilling will take place?

A. Advice was requested from the Secretary DSG, however was not responded to in his letter of 24 April 2018.

However, conditions 19 & 20 of the Authority clearly confer that responsibility to the Trust.

Q. Should damage occur to City-owned land, who compensates the City?

A. Advice was requested from the Secretary DSG, however was not responded to in his letter of 24 April 2018.

However legal advice indicates that the Act provides for payment of compensation for certain losses.

Q. It is usual practice for the City to request a security bond when works are proposed on its land or infrastructure.

Has a security bond been requested for the proposed cable car investigation works?

A. No.

The Authority disrupts Council’s level of control in the Park and does not allow for the imposition of a bond for Authorised Activities.

It is noted that Clause 19 of the Authority requires the Proponent to rehabilitate any damage caused by the Proponent or Authorised Person.

Q. Does the City have an indication of the scale of the proposed investigative works?

A. The City is only aware of the scope of works as detailed in the Authority

Q. Officers indicated that meetings are/will occur between the proponent, the Trust and the Department of State Growth at which a City Officer may at times be an observer.

Will the City be provided with copies of the minutes of these meetings?

A. Based on advice, the Council will withdraw, as an observer, from these meetings as such minutes will not be available.

4.6. The Council sought advice in respect to its jurisdiction over private land in regards to a Cable Car development.

4.6.1. The details of the form, location and timing of any planning application will all have a bearing on the nature of the planning jurisdiction that would apply to a cable car development on private land.

Until this information is available it is not possible to answer this question with any certainty.

The timing of an application has particular relevance as the planning controls may vary between the current Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 and the state wide compliant planning scheme likely to come into force in 2019.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. That the information be received and noted.

6. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

6.1. The information provided in this report is offered on the basis that the Wellington Park Management Trust will undertake a role which represents the land owner.

7. Community Engagement Considerations

7.1. Representatives from both the MWCC and Residents Opposing the Cable Car have (at separate times) attended meetings with City Officers seeking guidance on issues of process.

8.
Delegation

8.1. The report is for the information of the Committee.

Rob Mather

Robert Mather

Group Manager Open Space

Glenn Doyle

Director Parks and City Amenity

Date: 1 June 2018

File Reference: F18/57729; 15/153-182, 70-42-3/5

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 44

7/6/2018

REPORT TITLE: 24 Gregson Avenue, New Town - Proposed Transfer of Crown Land to Council

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Senior Park Planner

Acting Group Manager Open Space

Director Parks and City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report proposes a transfer of land at 24 Gregson Avenue, New Town, from the Crown to the City.

1.2. The report recommends that the City pursue the transfer on that basis that it will enable a significant connection between the Garrington Park (110 Giblin Street) subdivision, Gregson Avenue and existing public open space in New Town and Lenah Valley.

2. Report Summary

2.1. In December 2017, the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service contacted the City regarding the potential transfer of 24 Gregson Avenue, New Town, from the Crown to the City.

2.2. The land at 24 Gregson Avenue is of interest to the City for two reasons:

2.2.1. It provides a connection between the neighbouring Brick Works subdivision, Gregson Avenue and existing public open space in New Town and Lenah Valley.

2.2.2. It contains the cul-de-sac end of Gregson Avenue, itself a City road.

2.3. It is proposed that the Council support the land transfer as it forges an important strategic open space link for New Town and beyond.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The transfer of Crown land located at 24 Gregson Ave, New Town to the City of Hobart, as detailed on Attachment B to the report (Plan F-912-371 (Lot 1 and Lot 2)), be supported.

1.1 Lot 1 on Plan F-912-371 be allocated for road purposes.

1.2 Lot 2 be indicated as Public Land on the City’s statutory property plan.

2. The General Manager be authorised to negotiate with the Crown in order to complete all necessary tasks to transfer ownership of 24 Gregson Avenue to the City.

4. Background

4.1. In December 2017, the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service contacted the City regarding the potential transfer of 24 Gregson Avenue, New Town from the Crown to the City. The area covers approximately 2,700m².

4.2. Attachment A shows the location of the land in the broader context of New Town.

Attachment B details the survey plan prepared by the City’s Surveying Services Unit of the land proposed for transfer.

4.3. As part of the earlier Crown Land Assessment and Classification (CLAC) project, a large 4.5 hectare tract of Crown land adjoining this area was transferred to the City in February 2016.

4.3.1. At that time, it appears that the Crown did not seek to transfer the title at 24 Gregson Avenue to the City on the basis it hoped to attract market interest in the land.

4.4. City officers have investigated the land proposed for transfer and undertaken a strategic assessment (refer to photos in Attachment C)

4.4.1. The ownership of a small parcel (50m²) of this property is clearly occupied by the neighbouring 27 Gregson Avenueand it is understood to be under dispute.

This area is identified as Lot 3 on Attachment B and given its status, it is proposed should remain with the Crown to resolve.

4.4.2. Except for the cul-de-sac end of Gregson Avenue, the land at 24 Gregson Avenue is currently undeveloped and mostly covered in exotic grasses, one remaining white gum, an infestation of blackberries and a few large cotoneasters. It has low biodiversity value.

4.4.3. The southern portion of Lot 2 contains a vegetated cut bench that gently slopes downhill from the cul-de sac providing a route for a potential future recreational path connection to the neighbouring subdivision.

4.4.4. The property provides an important strategic recreational and open space link that connects the neighbouring subdivision at the old brick works at 110 Giblin Street to the larger 4.5ha area of open space transferred from the Crown that is directly adjacent to the St Johns Avenue State Government land package and coincides with a Transend wayleave easement.

4.4.5. It also offers connections through to public walkways linking Lenah Valley Primary School to John Turnbull Park and lower New Town.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the transfer of Crown Land located at 24 Gregson Avenue, New Town to the City for the purposes of Public Land (as detailed on Attachment A – Plan F-912-371) be supported.

5.2. If approved, the General Manager write to Manager Crown Land Services stating the Council’s support for the transfer and requesting it be progressed.

5.3. The Manager Surveying Services facilitate the statutory requirements for its transfer with Crown Land Services

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. This proposal is in accordance with the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 - Strategic Objective 2.2.4

Strengthen open space connectivity through acquisitions and other opportunities.

6.2. It is noted that the transfer of this property will benefit the local community through the provision of local recreational opportunities and improved connections to nearby schools and services.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. In the short term the areas adjacent to residential properties in Gregson Avenue will be assessed to be in accordance with the Tasmanian Fire Service Firebreak Guidelines and managed accordingly.

7.1.2. The City’s Surveying Services Unit will absorb the costs associated with the survey and Land Titles Office registrations costs. The Legal and Governance Unit will attend to the transfer.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. In the longer term, weed management and the establishment of a recreational track that links the Garrington Park subdivision with Gregson Avenue will be considered in the future review of the 10 year capital works budget.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. See 7.1.1.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. All statutory processes will be accorded in the transfer to the land to the City.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. The land at 24 Gregson Avenue is cleared, largely undeveloped and devoid of significant natural values.

9.2. Weed management works will require programming in the future.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. If acquired, 24 Gregson Avenue will benefit the local community through the provision of local recreational opportunities and connections to nearby schools and services.

11. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

11.1. This report has been prepared in consultation with the City’s Manager Surveying Services and the Road Services Engineer.

12. Delegation

12.1. This matter is delegated to Council.

Jill Hickie

Senior Park Planner

John Fisher

Acting Group Manager Open Space

Glenn Doyle

Director Parks and City Amenity

Date: 31 May 2018

File Reference: F18/11683; 7207298

Attachment a: Location of 24 Gregson Avenue Crown Land ⇩

Attachment b: Survey Plan - Proposed Crown Land Transfer - 24 Gregson Avenue ⇩

Attachment c: Photos - 24 Gregson Avenue, New Town ⇩

Item No. 6.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 53

7/6/2018

REPORT TITLE: Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens - Annual Grant - 2017/2018

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Executive Officer Parks and City Amenity

Group Manager Open Space

Director Parks and City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report seeks approval for the payment of the annual grant to the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens (RTBG) for the 2017/2018 financial year.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The City provides an annual grant to the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens.

2.2. In 2015/2016, a contribution of $25,000 was provided in support of works relating to the 40^th Anniversary of the Sister City Relationship with Yaizu.

2.3. In 2016/2017, a contribution of $33,000 (exc gst) to assist in three projects and related works in support and in preparation of the Gardens’ bicentennial program was provided.

2.4. For 2017/2018 the Gardens has requested $29,000 (exc gst) to assist in three projects and related works as part of the second half of the bicentenary and ongoing visitor improvements (refer Attachment A).

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council provide an annual grant of $29,000 to the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens (RTBG) funded from the Parks and City Amenity Divisional Budget Function within the 2017/2018 Annual Plan.

2. The RTBG acknowledge the City’s contribution in relevant promotional material.

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

4. Background

4.1. The RTBG cover an area of approximately 34.6 acres and was established in 1818. This year is the bicentennial of the Gardens with a significant program in place and being undertaken.

4.2. The Gardens hold historic plant collections and a large number of significant trees, many dating back to the nineteenth century.

4.3. The Gardens are the sixth most visited attraction in the state with over 460,000 visitors in 2017/2018.

4.4. The RTBG plays an important role in the life and wellbeing of the City through the promotion of a range of community events and education programs and as an iconic destination within the City.

4.5. The City has paid an annual grant to the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens for many years with the grant usually indexed by CPI annually.

4.6. In accordance with previous years, the grant is usually paid in the last quarter of the financial year.

2016/2017 Grant Funding

4.7. In 2016/2017, the City provided grant funding of $33,000 (exc gst) to support three projects:

4.7.1. $12,000 to assist in achieving significant enhancement of living collections with a focus on enhanced floral displays.

4.7.2. $15,000 to undertake major upgrade to essential visitor amenities (mainly the public toilets).

4.7.3. $6,000 to assist with the Bicentenary Program including installation of a ‘200’ feature piece within the Gardens for the duration of the year and related aspects of the program.

4.8. The Gardens has provided a closure report on the outcomes of last year’s grant (refer Attachment B).

2017/2018 Grant Funding Request

4.9. With the Gardens entering the second half of its bicentenary, further visitor improvements are proposed.

4.10. The Gardens is subsequently requesting consideration of a grant package of $29,000 (+gst), attributed to the following projects:

4.10.1. $12,000

To undertake new wayfinding signage throughout the Gardens.

4.10.2. $6,000

Towards the development of the floral collections at the Gardens.

4.10.3. $11,000

To construct a new tour buggy storage unit as part of the new Visitor Hub located at the main gate.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the City provide $29,000 (exc gst), to the RTBG as part of its annual grant for 2017/2018.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The provision of the grant is consistent with the City’s Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 Strategic Plan, specifically:

Strategic Objective 1.4 – An enriched visitor experience

Strategic Objective 2.4 – Unique heritage assets are protected and celebrated

Strategic Objective 3.3 – A highly valued natural and cultural open space network

6.2. The application accords with a number of collaborative initiatives as outlined in the City’s memorandum of understanding with the RTBG.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Funding remains available in the Parks and City Amenity Divisional Budget Function (160) within the 2017/2018 Annual Plan.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Not applicable.

8. Social and Customer Considerations

8.1. The Gardens are an important part of the fabric of the City and the southern Tasmanian region and is visited and utilised by local, intrastate, interstate and international visitors alike.

9. Marketing and Media

9.1. The grant is subject to the RTBG acknowledging the City’s contribution in relevant promotional material.

9.2. The grant provision is to be recorded in the ‘Grants, Assistance and Benefits Provided’ section of the City of Hobart’s Annual Report.

10. Delegation

10.1. The matter rests with the Council.

Adrian Roth

Executive Officer Parks and City Amenity

Robert Mather

Group Manager Open Space

Glenn Doyle

Director Parks and City Amenity

Date: 1 June 2018

File Reference: F18/44009

Attachment a: Grant Request ⇩

Attachment b: RTBG Report on Use - Previous Grant ⇩

Item No. 6.5

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 63

7/6/2018

REPORT TITLE: St David's Park - Request to Install a Memorial Plaque

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Program Leader Parks and Reserves

Acting Manager Parks and Recreation

Director Parks and City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval for the installation of a memorial plaque at St David’s Park.

1.2. The request is from Sharon Gibson as a memorial to her father Brian Francis Gibson AM

2. Report Summary

2.1. A request has been received from Sharon Gibson to install a memorial plaque in memory of her late father Brian Francis Gibson AM.

2.2. Mr Gibson was a Senator for the State of Tasmania from 1993 to 2002.

2.3. In 1988 Mr Gibson was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia.

2.4. This report proposes approval of the installation of the plaque on an existing seat in St David’s Park with all costs being be met by the applicant.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. Approval be granted for the installation of a memorial plaque on a seat in the St David’s, Hobart in memory of Brian Frances Gibson AM.

2. The plaque be installed on an existing seat in St David’s Park.

3. All costs for production and installation of the plaque be met by the applicant.

4. The Director Parks and City Amenity approve the actual location of the plaque within St David’s Park.

4. Background

4.1. A request has been received to install a memorial plaque on a seat in St David’s Park, Hobart (refer Attachment A).

4.2. The request is from Sharon Gibson as a memorial to her late Father Brian Gibson.

4.3. Mr Gibson was a resident of Salamanca and often walked in St David’s park.

4.4. Mr Gibson was a Senator for Tasmania from 1993 to 2002 and was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in 1988.

4.5. The request meets the criteria of the City’s Policy ‘Donation of Park Furniture and Equipment, Memorial Plaques and Tree Planting in Parks, Bushland and Reserves’, specifically:

4.5.1. Clause 3(1)(ii) states:

Plaques be only installed to commemorate historically important national or state events, or people who have made a significant contribution to the social, political and cultural life of Hobart subject to the approval of the Parks and Recreation Committee

The request is deemed to meet this criteria.

4.5.2. Clause 3(1)(v) states:

The application for a plaque be supported by a minimum of three third parties, one of which must be a local community group.

The request includes endorsement from the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery and two other individuals.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. Following approval, a location for the plaque (on an existing seat) will be decided in consultation with Sharon Gibson and approved by the Director Parks and City Amenity.

5.2. Sharon Gibson will organise and supply the plaque and meet all expenses with the supply and installation of the plaque.

5.3. The plaque will be installed by the City.

5.4. After installation, the plaque contact details will be added to the plaque register for future reference.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The proposed installation of a plaque is within guidelines of the Council policy titled ‘Donation of Park Furniture and Equipment, Memorial Plaques and Tree Planting in Parks, Bushland and Reserves’ (refer Attachment B).

6.2. The location of the plaque will not affect any management plans, park values or needs of park users

6.3. The City will maintain the plaque for a minimum of 10 years.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. All costs of the plaque and installation will be met by the applicant.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Ongoing maintenance costs will be negligible.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. The plaque will be attached to an existing park bench for a minimum of 10 years.

8. Delegation

8.1. This matter is delegated to the Committee.

Peter Kerstan

Program Leader Parks and Reserves

Shannon avery

Shannon Avery

Acting Manager Parks and Recreation

Glenn Doyle

Director Parks and City Amenity

Date: 1 June 2018

File Reference: F18/48141

Attachment a: Application to Install Memorial Plaque - St David's Park ⇩

Attachment b: Council Policy ⇩

Item No. 6.6

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 80

7/6/2018

REPORT TITLE: Franklin Square - Street Eats at Franko - Consultation with Market Patrons

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Program Leader Parks and Reserves

Acting Manager Parks and Recreation

Director Parks and City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to provide the outcome of consultation with patrons of the Street Eats @ Franko market.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The Council, at its meeting held on 21 August 2017, resolved

“To gain a better understanding of potential economic impact the markets have on local businesses, the Council undertake consultation with market patrons during the upcoming season.”

2.2. In accordance with this direction, a research company was engaged to undertake a survey of the market patrons.

2.3. Surveying occurred at two markets one month apart on Friday 2 February and Friday 2 March 2018 with approximately 100 people were surveyed at each market.

2.4. The survey identified that the Market attracts visitors to the City that would not otherwise would have visited with this benefiting other local businesses:

2.5. 51.7% of respondents indicating they would normally be at home at that time, if it weren’t for the market.

2.6. 24.6% indicating that they would stay in the City following the end of the market.

3. Recommendation

That the report Franklin Square – Street Eats @ Franko – Consultation with Market Patrons, conducted in February/March 2018, be received and noted.

4. Background

4.1. The Street Eats @ Franko market operates in Franklin Square every Friday afternoon from December through to the end of April.

4.2. In July 2017 Street Eats @ Franko applied to amend their planning permit to change the months of operations from January - May to December – April.

4.3. They also proposed to seek planning approval for 6 pop up markets over the winter period. This application was later withdrawn.

4.4. The request was considered by the Council and at its meeting held on 21 August 2017, whereat it resolved in-part:

“To gain a better understanding of potential economic impact the markets have on local businesses, the Council undertake consultation with market patrons during the upcoming season.”

4.5. A private research firm (Myriad Consulting) was engaged to undertake a survey of the market patrons.

4.6. Surveying occurred during two markets on Friday 2 February and Friday 2 March 2018. Approximately 100 people were surveyed at each market.

4.7. The research was undertaken by random interception of patrons at the two markets from 5pm until 8pm approximately.

4.8. A summary of the results of the survey were;

Gender – 69.1% female

Age

Highest attendance are from the 30-39 & 50-59 age groups (both at 24.5%).

Interestingly a drop in the middle of these two categories 40-49 (13.7%)

Time

Most number of people are at the event around 7pm, 52.9% of people stay 1-2 hours.

Number of people attending

2,574 per night and average of 858 per hour.

Where are they travelling from

15.7% are from interstate and 3.9% from overseas.

Of the 80.4% of Tasmanians attending the event 33.8% are from Hobart and 24% are from Clarence.

Frequency

36.8% were at the event for the first time (just this one time) and only 4.4% of people go every Friday night.

Some 17.2% go once a month and 22.5% go twice a month (collectively this is 44.1% attending the event with a frequency of every event to at least once a month).

What would they normally do on a Friday night?

51.7% said that they would normally have a home meal.

21.3% said that they would normally go to a restaurant.

9% said that they would go to a bar, nightclub or pub.

What were you doing before going to Street Eats?

42.6% said that they were working in Hobart, 18.6% said that they were at home.

What did you do afterwards?

71.1% said that they went home.

In total 24.6% stayed and did something else after Street Eats.

6.9% went to restaurants or cafes after the event, 8.8% went to a bar/nightclub or café, 2.5% went to the movies, 6.4% did some other form of entertainment.

11.8% are in the ‘other’ category (went for a walk, friends, other events, etc).

How did you find out about the event?

Word of mouth, social media and general knowledge/been before, seem to be the way people find out about the event, although there is some evidence to say that its central location beside public transport also attracts interest and attendance.

Why they visit

75% come for the food, 50% come to meet friends and to be social. Entertainment is 34.8%.

Overall some very positive comments on the event, the atmosphere and the food offering with 72.5% giving the event a 5/5 for atmosphere.

Improvements that they would like to see

Include more tables seating and shelter, signage for vegetarian/gluten free or vegan food and more options for drinks and non-alcoholic options.

Some patrons didn’t know where the toilets were located and some also indicated that the cleanliness was an issue.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. That the information be received and noted.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The information in this report may be considered for any future planning applications relating to the Street Eats @ Franko market.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Nil ongoing.

8. Delegation

8.1. This matter is delegated to the Committee.

Peter Kerstan

Program Leader Parks and Reserves

Shannon avery

Shannon Avery

Acting Manager Parks and Recreation

Glenn Doyle

Director Parks and City Amenity

Date: 1 June 2018

File Reference: F18/48346

Item No. 6.7

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 85

7/6/2018

REPORT TITLE: Swimming Tasmania - 2018 Australian School Sports Swimming Championships - Request for Fee Waiver - Doone Kennedy Hobart Aquatic Centre

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Acting Manager Doone Kennedy Hobart Aquatic Centre

Director Parks and City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to consider a request from Swimming Tasmania for a reduction in fees in relation to the 2018 Australian School Sports Swimming Championships to be hosted at the Doone Kennedy Hobart Aquatic Centre (DKHAC) from 25-31 July 2018.

1.2. The national competition will provide economic benefit to Hobart and further enhance national awareness of the Centre.

2. Report Summary

2.1. Swimming Tasmania and the Doone Kennedy Hobart Aquatic Centre will be hosting the 2018 Australian School Sports Swimming Championships between 25-31 July 2018.

2.2. The Championships will involve approximately 750 students from across Australia and an expected 1,000 parents and supporters. Similar to previous large events held in the City, extensive local economic benefits will be achieved with the Centre hosting the Championships.

2.3. The estimated pool hire and related fees for the event is $47,000.

2.4. Swimming Tasmania is seeking a reduction of the fees to $20,000, given the other costs it will be responsible for incurring.

2.5. An offset to the pool hire fee reduction, will be the increased ancillary spend expected in the Centre via the Café of an estimated $9,000 in additional income, broadened national awareness of the Centre as an aquatic event venue and the wider economic benefit to the City.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. Swimming Tasmania be granted a reduction of hire fees applicable for the use of the Doone Kennedy Hobart Aquatic Centre to hold the 2018 Australian School Sports Swimming Championships to be held 25-31 July 2018, to a value of approximately $27,000:

2. The cost of the fee reduction be funded from the Parks and City Amenity Divisional Budget Function within the 2018/2019 Annual Plan.

3. The quantum of the assistance be recorded in the ‘Grants, Assistance and Benefits Provided’ section of the City of Hobart Annual Report.

4. Acknowledgment of the City’s support be provided in accordance with the City of Hobart Grant and Partnership Acknowledgment Guidelines.

4. Background

4.1. Swimming Tasmania and the Doone Kennedy Hobart Aquatic Centre will be hosting the 2018 Australian School Sports Swimming Championships between 25-31 July 2018.

4.2. The Championships will involve approximately 750 students from across Australia and an expected 1,000 parents and supporters. Similar to previous large events held in the City, extensive local economic benefits will be achieved with the Centre hosting the Championships.

4.3. The estimated pool hire and related fees for the event is $47,000.

4.4. Swimming Tasmania is seeking a reduction of the fees to $20,000, given the other costs it will be responsible for incurring.

Such costs include its hire of additional temporary seating to be installed at the Centre to accommodate the number of parents and supporters anticipated to attend over the duration of the Championships.

Economics

4.5. Swimming Tasmania expect an average spend including accommodation to be similar to the other previous similar events with an average spend including accommodation, food, rental car/bus, excursions and other activities to be approximately $209 per person per day, representing a potential economic benefit of approximately $2.5M to the City. (The average spend per day was derived from using the 2013 Tourism Tasmania published figures.)

4.6. An offset to the pool hire fee reduction being proposed will be an increased ancillary spend expected in the Centre via the Café of an estimated $9,000 in additional income, broadened national awareness of the Centre as an aquatic event venue and the wider economic benefit to the City.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that Swimming Tasmania be granted a reduction of hire fees applicable for the use of the Centre to hold the Championships to a value of $27,000.

5.2. The cost of the fee reduction be funded from the Parks and City Amenity Divisional Budget Function within the 2018/2019 Annual Plan.

5.3. The quantum of the assistance be recorded in the ‘Grants, Assistance and Benefits Provided’ section of the City of Hobart Annual Report.

5.4. Acknowledgment of the City’s support be provided in accordance with the City of Hobart Grant and Partnership Acknowledgment Guidelines.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. This proposal is consistent with the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015- 2025, particularly:

6.1.1. Strategic Objective 1.3 - Vibrant city centre and suburban precincts

1.3.1 Support and deliver events, festivals and markets

6.1.2. Strategic Objective 1.5 - Cultural and creative activities build community wellbeing and economic viability

1.5.2 Develop an approach to the use and promotion of Council property for commercial and community-based events

6.1.3. Strategic Objective 4.2 - City facilities, infrastructure and open spaces support healthy lifestyles

4.2.2 Support effective utilisation of city facilities, infrastructure and open spaces

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. It is proposed that the City provide a fee waiver of approximately $27,000 to be funded from the Parks and City Amenity Divisional budget.

The quantum and type of assistance provided will be accordingly disclosed in the City’s Annual Report.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. The event organiser will be required to supply evidence of public liability insurance to the value of $20 million.

9. Social and Customer Considerations

Regular Centre Users

9.1. Casual users and members of the Centre will have reduced access to a portion of the aquatic areas for the duration of the championships. Access to the 25m pool for lap swimming is to remain available however possibly at times in a limited capacity. Access to the leisure/toddler pool will remain.

Squad training and lap swimming will still be available in the dive pool and 50m pool from 6am to 7am each day, and daily from 6pm – 9pm when the event meet closes.

9.2. Users of the pools will be provided advanced notice of restricted pool access and lap lane availability.

9.3. Full access to the gym will remain available for members.

Overflow parking

9.4. As is usual practise when large events are held at the Centre, overflow parking will be made available at the Domain Regatta Grounds.

9.5. However, with many of the championship entrants expected to find accommodation in close proximity to the Centre, parking demand is not currently expected to be excessive.

10. Marketing and Media

10.1. The event will provide a national opportunity to market the City and the Centre.

10.2. It is recommended acknowledgment of the City’s sponsorship and support is provided in accordance with the City of Hobart Grant and Partnership Acknowledgment guidelines replacing the single City of Hobart Logo with the dual branded City of Hobart and DKHAC logo.

11. Delegation

11.1. This matter is delegated to the Committee.

Andrew Reason

Acting Manager Doone Kennedy Hobart Aquatic Centre

Glenn Doyle

Director Parks and City Amenity

Date: 1 June 2018

File Reference: F18/62700

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.