Agenda of City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 4

25/7/2018

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting (Open Portion) held Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 5:00 pm in the Lady Osborne Room, Town Hall.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Burnet (Chairman)

Lord Mayor Christie

Reynolds

Denison

Harvey

ALDERMEN

Deputy Lord Mayor Sexton

Zucco

Briscoe

Ruzicka

Cocker

Thomas

Apologies:

Leave of Absence:

Alderman T M Denison.

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

2. Confirmation of Minutes

The minutes of the Open Portion of the City Infrastructure Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 20 June 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)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 7

25/7/2018

Memorandum: City Infrastructure Committee

Stormwater System - Control of Flow Impacts from Property Development

At the City Infrastructure Committee meeting held on 26 April 2018, a report on the City’s stormwater system was tabled. A resolution in relation to this report was that:

“A further report be provided to the Committee in relation to how the City reduces the impact of increased stormwater flow due to property development”.

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information on this issue.

The main impact from development on stormwater flow is from the creation of impervious areas such as roofs or paved areas which mean rainfall does not reach the underlying soil and is intercepted and transferred by pipes to the City’s stormwater system.

The ability of the City to manage the impacts of development on stormwater flows is dependent on the nature and scale of the development. There are in effect three different categories of development resulting from the content of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme, the Urban Drainage Act 2013 and the Building Regulations 2016.

These are:

1. Development requiring a planning permit.

2. Development which does not require a planning permit but requires a new stormwater connection.

3. Development which requires neither a planning permit nor a new connection.

Planning Permit Required

Where development requires a planning permit, then stormwater quality and quantity need to be addressed as required by the Stormwater Code within the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme. The permit conditions can include requirements for stormwater detention and treatment. These types of development are generally those which will have the greatest impact on stormwater flows.

For large subdivisions there are a number of approaches to requiring treatment and detention:

1. Private systems on each lot installed by the developer.

2. Private systems on each lot to be installed by the future property owner by way of an agreement on the title under Part 5 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act.

3. A system for multiple lots installed by the developer and to be transferred to the City to operate and manage.

4. A cost contribution from the developer in lieu of on-site treatment and detention for a separate system to be owned and managed by the City.

In reality, none of these options are without issues. Private systems are generally poorly maintained and easily bypassed reducing their effectiveness. The enforcement of Part 5 agreements is typically time consuming and resource intensive and hence are always not acted upon. Again, the resulting private systems are usually not well maintained. Multi-lot systems installed by a developer for future ownership by the City can represent a maintenance burden for the City, given that remaining areas of the City are often in challenging locations, such as steep terrain, which means that such systems can be difficult to maintain. In many instances a cost contribution towards a larger City-owned system in a more appropriate location in the network is the preferred option.

The new Statewide Planning Scheme (which is currently in draft form and likely to come into effect by 2019) does not contain a Stormwater Code. If this remains the case then planning permits will not be able to include conditions regarding stormwater flow control. Instead a separate permit, based on powers contained in the Urban Drainage Act and Building Regulations, will be required.

No Planning Permit and New Stormwater Connection

For development where no planning permit is required (e.g planning exempt, such as a small shed, carport or a paved area) and a new stormwater connection is required the City has powers through the Urban Drainage Act and section 43 of the Building Regulations to provide consent, set conditions and charge an appropriate fee in regard to the connection to the public stormwater system.

No Planning Permit or New Stormwater Connection

Some development is planning exempt and also does not require a new stormwater connection, for instance, where a carport or a paved area is being added to an existing developed property and a stormwater connection is already in place. For these circumstances the City does not have any head of power to address the impacts of additional stormwater flows. These types of developments are expected to have a lesser impact on overall flows compared to those in the categories noted above, but incrementally such developments will still contribute significant additional flow in the long run.

The increased impervious area resulting from property development will have the biggest network and flooding impacts in shorter duration (5 to 15 minutes), high intensity rainfall events, where there may be localised flooding as the capacity of individual pipes or sub-catchments is exceeded.

The effect of such development on longer duration (1 hour or more) events, such as occurred on 10 May 2018, is much less significant. In these events the natural ground often is, or becomes, saturated and the flows from these non-impervious areas are much, much greater than those from structures and paved surfaces. This proved to be the case in the 10 May event, where much of the damage occurred in areas below open spaces such as bushland, or in the rivulets where the majority of flow was from the upper areas of the catchments on the slopes of Mount Wellington.

REcommendation

That the information contained in the memorandum titled ‘Stormwater System – Control of Flow Impacts from Property Development’ of 20 July 2018 be received and noted.

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.

Scott Morgan

Group Manager Infrastructure Planning

Mark Painter

Director City Infrastructure

Date: 20 July 2018

File Reference: F18/76537; 41-1-1/5

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 11

25/7/2018

Memorandum: City Infrastructure Committee

Hobart Bicycle Advisory Committee - Meeting Notes

The Hobart Bicycle Advisory Committee met on 20 June 2018 and the draft notes from the meeting are attached.

REcommendation

That the draft notes of the Hobart Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting of

20 June 2018 be received and noted.

Mark Painter

Director City Infrastructure

Date: 16 July 2018

File Reference: F18/79603; 37-1-4

Attachment a: Draft Notes of the Hobart Bicycle Advisory Committee Meeting held 20 June 2018 ⇩

Item No. 7.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 16

25/7/2018

7. Motions of which Notice has been Given

7.1 Shared Ownership and Control of Davey and Macquarie Street

File Ref: F18/81993

Alderman Damon Thomas

Motion

“Following the notification by the State of its intention to proclaim their takeover to state control, an urgent report be prepared to advise Council on the value of seeking state government approval for a shared ownership and control of Davey and Macquarie Streets given their strategic importance to the City of Hobart.”

Rationale:

“The decision to take over from city control of our major streets, Davey and Macquarie streets by the state government has occupied almost no time by the council notwithstanding the imminent gazettal. Whilst the council has briefly considered an advisory committee with the State but a committee without any power to influence to finally influence a state decision which joint ownership and control would afford council.

History provides us with many lessons and few are as pronounced as what the loss for community might mean for our capital. These two streets, named after British forebears with links to the then colony [with no recognition afforded the indigenous owners and custodians] have always loomed large in civic and community activity. When Queen Victoria’s second son, Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh came to Hobart, in January 1868 the city, ‘festooned with flags and several arches’ greeted the prince warmly, with the civic highlight being the quaintly-named ‘Colonists’ Ball’ at the Town Hall, which had been specially illuminated for the occasion. The dancing continued ‘with great spirit’ until the early dawn. During his Hobart visit, the Duke laid the foundation stone of St David’s Cathedral, on the corner of Murray and Macquarie streets.

The visit of the popular Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII) in 1920 prompted lavish displays of affection, including a municipal welcome arch, illuminated decorations and civic entertainment. In both our Macquarie Street was a focus for the people as it has been on countless Anzac days and innumerable public events. Over all this time the City of Hobart has been the responsible custodian of these two significant city assets.

These two roads much debated for the possibilities of being adapted and made more people friendly by city futurists such as Gehl the globally renowned city sculptor will shortly become state highways and over a hundred years of municipal stewardship will be gone forever.

The takeover raises a number of significant questions including the telling point of whether sole state control make any real difference to the reality of increasing congestion in these two streets and after a century plus of city stewardship is there any doubt that Hobart with its professional traffic engineers working closely with the state is not capable of working collegially in the community’s best interest?

During this administration as for those before the council was as owner, and subject to good planning and public support the custodian of these streets with a number of well thought through designs and improvements, particularly to the means by which pedestrians could move between the Mall and the waterfront. Lest we not end up with a Parramatta road Sydney style thoroughfare in our city with potential for clearways, increased speed, unstable Georgian building foundations as a consequence and curb side traders left with no parking access to their businesses without solid and reliable input, and moreover agreement from council I seek approval for an urgent report into seeking from government a new accommodation and joint concert between the State with its greater Hobart mandate and our city constituted by a joint authority responsible for the ownership and management of these arterial roads. The report could look at the authority having equal responsibility for funding and for decision making. By formalising the arrangements, the intimate knowledge each has can be combined in the communities’ best interest and all issues of traffic management worked through collaboratively. The time for urgent consultation and negotiation with the government is now.”

The General Manager reports:

“In line with the Council’s policy in relation to Notices of Motion, I advise that the matter is considered to be within the jurisdiction of the Hobart City Council as it concerns the ownership of Davey and Macquarie Streets.”

Item No. 7.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 18

25/7/2018

7.2 Tap Water Refill Program

File Ref: F18/81998; 13-1-9

Alderman Anna Reynolds

Motion:

“That Council requests advice on whether the Zero Waste Strategy could benefit from the introduction of a tap water refill program, inspired by the Refill program rolling out in cities across the UK.”

Rationale:

“A million plastic bottles are bought around the world every minute and it’s predicted that figure will rise by another 20% by 2021. Efforts to collect and recycle the bottles to keep them from creating waste and polluting the oceans, are not keeping up. 480 billion plastic bottles were produced globally in 2016 and less than half of those were recycled.

The alternative to plastic water bottles is people carrying their own water bottle and refilling it, but the take up of this option is not widespread enough yet. Additionally, the provision of water fountains to allow people to fill their bottles can be expensive to install and maintain for local government.

In the UK a program has taken off around the country called ‘Refill’ - www.refill.org.uk – it enlists friendly cafes, shops and businesses to promote themselves as a place where people can refill their water bottle for free. Participating businesses simply put a sticker in their window – alerting passers-by to the fact they’re welcome to come on in and fill up their bottle.

An app also allows consumers to see where they can refill. Many local Councils are partners in starting and promoting the Refill program in their cities.

The program is a simple yet effective way to raise awareness with both customers and businesses about the waste impact of plastic bottles and the alternatives to it.

Because most plastic water bottles are manufactured outside Hobart, this major source of plastic waste is unlikely to be captured by the proposed single use take away containers by-law.

A program like Refill could however help to increase awareness and use of refillable water bottles and decrease the amount of water bottles being purchased in Hobart.”

The General Manager reports:

“In line with the Council’s policy in relation to Notices of Motion, I advise that the matter is considered to be within the jurisdiction of the Hobart City Council as it relates to the City of Hobart Waste Management Strategy 2015-2030.”

Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting - 25/7/2018

Page 21

ATTACHMENT a

PDF Creator

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 47

25/7/2018

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 48

25/7/2018

10. Closed Portion Of The Meeting

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve by absolute majority that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to regulation 15(1) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 because the items included on the closed agenda contain the following matters:

· Renewal of a contract including details of the terms and conditions of renewal.

· Information that was provided to the Council on the basis that it be kept confidential.

The following items are listed for discussion:-

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

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.