City
of hobart
AGENDA
Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting
Open Portion
Thursday, 7 March 2019
at 5:15 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) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 3 |
|
7/3/2019 |
|
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
3. Consideration of Supplementary Items
4. Indications of Pecuniary and Conflicts of Interest
6.2 Girrabong Park, Lenah Valley - Redevelopment Potential
6.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge over Brooker Avenue - Proposed Name 'Rose Garden Bridge'
6.4 Public Toilets Strategy 2015-2025 - Progress Update
7 Committee Action Status Report
7.1 Committee Actions - Status Report
8. Responses to Questions Without Notice
10. Closed Portion Of The Meeting
|
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 4 |
|
7/3/2019 |
|
Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting (Open Portion) held Thursday, 7 March 2019 at 5:15 pm in the Lady Osborne Room, Town Hall.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS Briscoe (Chairman) Deputy Lord Mayor Burnet Thomas Ewin Sherlock
NON-MEMBERS Lord Mayor Reynolds Zucco Sexton Denison Harvey Behrakis Dutta |
Apologies:
Leave of Absence: Nil.
|
The minutes of the Open Portion of the Parks and Recreation Committee meeting held on Thursday, 7 February 2019, are submitted for confirming as an accurate record. |
Ref: Part 2, Regulation 8(6) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
That the Committee resolve to deal with any supplementary items not appearing on the agenda, as reported by the General Manager. |
Ref: Part 2, Regulation 8(7) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
Members of the Committee 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.
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?
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 6 |
|
|
7/3/2019 |
|
6.1 kunanyi / Mount Wellington, Organ Pipes - National Heritage Listing and Wellington Park - Extension of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area
Report of the Park Planner, the Acting Group Manager Open Space and the Director City Amenity of 28 February 2019.
Delegation: Council
Item No. 6.1 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 7 |
|
7/3/2019 |
|
REPORT TITLE: kunanyi / Mount Wellington, Organ Pipes - National Heritage Listing and Wellington Park - Extension of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area
REPORT PROVIDED BY: Park Planner
Acting Group Manager Open Space
Director City Amenity
1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit
1.1. The purpose of the
report is respond to the following Council decision of 17 December 2018:
“That a report be prepared to consider the merits or otherwise
(i) Of seeking national heritage listing for the Organ Pipes of kunanyi/Mount Wellington and/or
(ii) An extension of the South West World Heritage area (Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (WHA)) to include the Wellington Park; and
(iii) The report to also investigate and ascertain who is the correct party to formally make the nomination to seek a national heritage listing or inclusion in the South West World Heritage area.”
2. Report Summary
2.1. The National Heritage List is established by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act 1999). The list provides for places of high national-level significance to be listed, and for the celebration and protection of the recognised national values of listed places.
2.2. Initial cultural heritage consideration of the proposal to list only the Organ Pipes for National Heritage Listing broadly concludes that it is unlikely to meet the required criteria, however it is proposed to progress investigations into nominating the eastern face of kunanyi / Mount Wellington (including but not limited to the Organ Pipes area).
2.2.1. The Council has the authority to lodge a submission.
2.3. To be included on the World Heritage List, sites must be of outstanding ‘universal’ value and must meet at least one of ten selection criteria.
2.4. It is proposed the Council not proceed to undertake the necessary further investigations and assessments required to support a move to extend the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area to include Wellington Park, as it is considered unlikely that the proposal would meet the necessary criteria.
2.4.1. Any submission in respect to the World Heritage List requires the Australian Government.
That: 1. Further investigations and assessments be undertaken to determine if nationally-significant heritage values (in accordance with the National Heritage Criteria as established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Regulations) exist to potentially support the Council’s future nomination of the eastern face of kunanyi / Mount Wellington (including but not limited to the Organ Pipes area) onto the National Heritage Listing. (i) Funding of the investigation and assessment costs, in the order of $100,000, be considered in the development of the Council’s 2019/2020 annual plan (budget). 2. The Council not proceed to undertake the necessary further investigations and assessments required to support a move to extend the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area to include Wellington Park.
|
4. Background
National Heritage Listing
4.1. The National Heritage List is established by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act 1999). The list provides for places of high national-level significance to be listed, and for the celebration and protection of the recognised national values of listed places.
4.2. To be listed on the National
Heritage List, a place must be of ‘outstanding heritage value to the
Nation’ in relation to one or more of the National Heritage Criteria that
are established through the EPBC Act 1999 Regulations.
In determining if a place is suitable for listing, a comparative assessment
with other similar places must be made, and only one or a small number of
places with the same/similar value will be recommended for listing.
4.3. For a place to be included in the National Heritage List, the Federal Minister must be satisfied that the place meets one or more of the following National Heritage Criteria, being the Place’s:
(a) importance in the course or pattern of Australia’s natural or cultural history,
(b) possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia’s natural or cultural history,
(c) potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia’s natural or cultural history,
(d) importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of Australia’s natural or cultural places, or a class of Australia’s natural or cultural environments,
(e) importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group,
(f) importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period,
(g) strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons,
(h) special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia’s natural or cultural history, or
(i) the place’s importance as part of Indigenous tradition.
4.4. Initial cultural heritage consideration of the proposal to list only the Organ Pipes for National Heritage Listing broadly concludes (as detailed below) is that it is unlikely to meet the required criteria;
4.4.1. It is
considered unlikely that the Organ Pipes meet National Heritage criterion (a):
Although the emplacement of Jurassic dolerite is a
significant part of Australia’s geological history and Jurassic dolerite
is only found in this state, the Organ Pipes on its own does not have any
particular importance and it is considered that other areas in Tasmania would
better meet this criterion both at the national and state level.
This criterion is not considered relevant in relation
to cultural values as it was the summit and eastern slopes of kunanyi / Mount
Wellington that were appreciated and visited historically.
4.4.2. Considered
unlikely to meet National Heritage criterion (b);
Although the Organ Pipes is a fine example of the columnar
jointing of Jurassic dolerite in Tasmania, hence in Australia, the evaluation
in the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database is only ‘notable’, rather
than outstanding at the state level, and, therefore not of outstanding heritage
value at the national level.
The criterion is not considered to apply in relation to
cultural values.
4.4.3. Considered
unlikely to meet National Heritage criterion (c):
Although the Organ Pipes are a large and clearly
evident example of columnar jointing of Jurassic dolerite, they are not
considered to be of any greater importance in potentially being able to yield
information that will contribute to an understanding of Tasmania’s, or
Australia’s, natural history, than a number of other outcrops of dolerite.
Hence it cannot be considered to be of outstanding value at the state or
national level.
As the Organ Pipes have had minimal human modification,
this criterion is not relevant for cultural values.
4.4.4. Considered
unlikely to meet National Heritage criterion (d):
The Tasmanian Geoconservation Database indicates that
the Organ Pipes are of importance for columnar jointing in dolerite at the
state level (and it is assumed that this is as both a fine example of the
columnar jointing of Jurassic dolerite, and because of the nature of the
exposure as a significant vertical cliff line).
Although the Organ Pipes appears to have state level
significance in this respect, it is unclear without a formal comparative
analysis whether the Organ Pipes are of outstanding heritage value to the
nation because of the place’s importance in demonstrating the principal
characteristics of columnar jointing (as a feature of volcanic or hypabyssal
rock).
The criterion is not considered to apply in relation to
a natural or cultural ‘environment’ or a cultural ‘class of
place’.
4.4.5. Considered
unlikely to meet National Heritage criterion (e):
Although it has been found to have significant
aesthetic value at the local and state level (i.e., as a landmark, symbolic and
aesthetic feature), its aesthetic significance cannot be regarded as of
‘outstanding heritage value to the nation’.
The landform features in well-known and valued art
works in Tasmania and is valued by Tasmanians, but this is not the case at the
national level.
4.4.6. Considered
unlikely to meet National Heritage criterion (g):
Although it has been found to be strongly valued as a
landmark, symbolic and aesthetic feature by the community of Hobart, and also
by Tasmanians, but less strongly, it is not a well-known and significant
landscape feature for Australians generally, nor is it embedded in the psyche
of Australians.
Hence it cannot be considered to be of
‘outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s
strong or special association with a particular community or cultural
group’.
4.4.7. Considered unlikely to meet criteria F, H or I.
4.5. It is however considered
that a larger area of kunanyi/ Mount Wellington may be more likely to have
National Heritage significance than the Organ Pipes alone.
The eastern face is considered rare and comparable only to the Blue
Mountains in its track network, but it is unique in that it has historical
recreational overnight huts which are absent in the Blue Mountains public land.
The eastern face of kunanyi / Mount Wellington therefore, potentially, has
National Heritage significance in relation to National Heritage criteria (b),
(c), (d) and/or (e).
4.6. It is therefore proposed that further investigations, across a range of specialist areas be undertaken to determine the suite of heritage values present across this larger area and whether any of these values are likely to be worthy of National Heritage listing.
4.7. City of Hobart is likely to be a suitable party to formally make the nomination for National Heritage Listing, should the investigations indicate high-level significance.
4.8. The key implication of
listing a place on the National Heritage List is that, once on the List, no
action is to be taken which:
“will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the
National Heritage values of a National Heritage place”.
Any action which is likely to have a significant impact on the National
Heritage values must be referred to the Australian government for assessment of
the potential impacts.
The Australian government may decide to not allow the proposed action,
allow the action with changes and/or with conditions, or they may allow the
action. It is, therefore, important which criterion/ criteria were met for the
Place to be listed.
Nomination Process
4.9. Once a year the relevant
Minister calls for nominations. A nomination must be prepared and submitted to
the Australian government, using the nomination form.
The nomination must contain adequate detail i.e. the location, ownership,
management, history, nature and values of the place. The nomination must
demonstrate that a place is of sufficient significance to be listed.
4.10. Once a nomination is received, it
is subject to an initial review by the Department of Environment and Energy /
Australian Heritage Council.
The nomination will be accepted only if it is considered to have potential for inclusion on the List and adequate information for assessment is provided in the nomination.
4.11. The final priority list of nominations, covering nominations from across the country, will contain up to ten sites. The final assessment is a complex, detailed assessment whereby the Department of Environment and Energy / Australian Heritage Council seeks feedback from stakeholders including owners, occupiers and Indigenous people with rights or interests, as part of this process.
4.12. If a place is not selected for the ‘priority assessment list’ within two years of nomination, it will be removed from the list of accepted nominations. There is no right of appeal on decisions about listing nominated places.
World Heritage Listing
4.13. To be included on the World Heritage List, sites must be of outstanding universal value and must meet at least one of the ten selection criteria. The selection criteria cover the following;
4.13.1. the site represents a masterpiece of human creative genius,
4.13.2. the site exhibits an important interchange of human values… on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design,
4.13.3. the site bears a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilisation which is living or which has disappeared,
4.13.4. the site is an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates a significant stage/s in human history,
4.13.5. the site is an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use or sea-use or human interaction with the environment,
4.13.6. the site is directly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, beliefs or artistic and literary works,
4.13.7. the site contains superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance,
4.13.8. the site is an outstanding example representing major stages of earth’s history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features,
4.13.9. the site is an outstanding example representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals, or
4.13.10. the site contains the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.
4.14. Tasmania has three World Heritage Areas;
4.14.1. Macquarie Island (sub Antarctic),
4.14.2. Australian Convict Sites (Port Arthur, Longford properties, Maria Island and Sarah Island) and
4.14.3. The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (WHA).
4.15. There are 19 World Heritage Areas across Australia.
4.16. The Tasmanian Wilderness WHA fits seven of the ten criteria for listing. It is one of only two properties in the world to meet so many criteria. Unusually, it fits both natural and cultural criteria, including the criteria being its outstanding natural beauty.
4.16.1. The Tasmanian Wilderness WHA has been extended several times (but only into immediately adjacent areas), including in 2010, 2012 and 2013 to include tall forest values around its perimeter.
4.16.2. The Tasmanian Wilderness WHA at its closest point is approx. 15 km from the edge of Wellington Park (40 km from the Organ Pipes).
4.17. It would be possible to nominate the broader Wellington Park area as a stand-alone World Heritage Area as the Park could potentially fit two of the World Heritage selection criteria;
4.17.1. As an area of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance.
4.17.1.1. It is considered unlikely that the City would be able to demonstrate that the Park’s scenic value is ‘outstanding and universal’ as areas of exceptional natural beauty have already been protected with World Heritage status in Tasmania, but as part of an extensive region that also meets many other criteria for World Heritage status.
4.17.2. As a site that contains the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.
4.17.2.1. There
are two species, a small plant and a snail, that are entirely restricted to
(the City of Hobart section of) Mount Wellington, and two further species that
only have one population outside Wellington Park.
However the species need to be ‘of outstanding
universal value’.
It is considered unlikely that World Heritage status
would be granted only on the basis of the presence of threatened species as
they are protected by other legislation at both state and national levels.
Other areas with threatened species populations have
not been granted World Heritage status.
4.18. It remains unclear as to whether the Tasmanian State Government or the Australian Government, which provides funding for World Heritage Areas would support a proposal to include Wellington Park into an extended Tasmanian World Heritage Area.
4.19. It is therefore proposed that the City not progress with further investigations and assessments to support a proposal to Wellington Park to be included into an extended Tasmanian World Heritage Area.
5. Proposal and Implementation
5.1. It is proposed that further investigations and assessments be undertaken to determine if nationally-significant heritage values (in accordance with the National Heritage Criteria as established under the EPBC Act 1999 Regulations) exist to potentially support the City’s future nomination of the eastern face of kunanyi / Mount Wellington (including but not limited to the Organ Pipes area) for National Heritage Listing.
5.2. It is proposed that the Council not proceed to undertake the necessary further investigations and assessments required to support a move to extend the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area to include Wellington Park.
6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations
6.1. City of Hobart Strategic Plan 2015-2025
Goal 3 – environment and natural resources,
Strategic objective
3.2 Strong environmental stewardship;
3.2.4; Regulate and manage potentially polluting activities and protect and
improve the environment.
Strategic objective
3.3, a highly valued natural and cultural open space network;
3.3.3 Develop policies, strategies and standards to guide future management and
development of the open space network.
6.2. Wellington Park Management Plan 2015
6.2.1. Management principles include protection of the Park’s environment for the long term, and retain the essential cultural characteristics of the Park.
7. Financial Implications
7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result
7.1.1. It is
estimated that investigative and assessment costs to support the
Council’s potential future nomination of the eastern face of kunanyi / Mount
Wellington (including but not limited to the Organ Pipes area) onto the
National Heritage List are in the order of $100,000.
Funding does not currently exist for these works in the
2018/2019 annual plan.
7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result
7.2.1. Consideration of funding be undertaken in the development of the Council’s 2019/2020 annual plan (budget).
8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations
8.1. There are no legal or risk implications for seeking nomination of kunanyi / Mount Wellington for the National Heritage List.
8.2. The key implication of
listing a place on the National Heritage List is that, once on the List, no
action is to be taken which:
“will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the
National Heritage values of a National Heritage place”.
Any action which is likely to have a significant impact on the National
Heritage values must be referred to the Australian government for assessment of
the potential impacts.
The Australian government may decide to not allow the proposed action,
allow the action with changes and/or with conditions, or they may allow the
action. It is, therefore, important which criterion/ criteria were met for the
Place to be listed.
9. Environmental Considerations
9.1. Listing of kunanyi / Mount Wellington as a National Heritage Place could increase the protection of environmental values.
10. Social and Customer Considerations
10.1. Sections of the community that use and value kunanyi / Mt Wellington could be consulted on the nomination for National Heritage Listing.
11. Community and Stakeholder Engagement
11.1. If a nomination is to proceed,
engagement with sectors of the community that use and value kunanyi / Mt
Wellington would be useful.
Sectors to engage could include rock climbers, walkers, mountain bikers,
people undertaking scenic drives on the mountain, tourists visiting from
interstate or overseas, and people using the facilities.
The extent of the area to be nominated for National Heritage Listing
would determine the extent of community consultation that is appropriate.
12. Delegation
12.1. The matter is 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.
Christine Corbett Park Planner |
Jill Hickie Acting Group Manager Open Space |
Glenn Doyle Director City Amenity |
|
Date: 28 February 2019
File Reference: F19/21691; 5587226R
Item No. 6.2 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 17 |
|
7/3/2019 |
|
6.2 Girrabong Park, Lenah Valley - Redevelopment Potential
Report of the Manager Parks and Recreation and the Director City Amenity of 26 February 2019 and attachment.
The Parks and
Recreation Committee considered the attached report at its meeting held on 7
February 2019 whereat it was deferred.
The report is attached for consideration
Delegation: Council
Item No. 6.2 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 18 |
|
7/3/2019 |
|
REPORT TITLE: Girrabong Park, Lenah Valley - Redevelopment Potential
REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Parks and Recreation
Director City Amenity
1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit
1.1. The purpose of this report is to respond to the following Council resolution of 17 December 2018:
A report be prepared on the opportunities to have the Girrabong Park
redeveloped.
The report should include detail on the costs, options and alternatives
associated with the redevelopment of the Park to accommodate the needs of both
dog owners and the broader community (including children) who wish to use the
Park.
1.2. The Girrabong Road Park is a small but popular park located in Lenah Valley. The Park has not received investment for many years and is the subject of competing community need from both children (as a playground) and dog owners to exercise their dogs.
2. Report Summary
2.1. In accordance with the Council resolution, an assessment of the Girrabong Road Park was undertaken to determine the possibility of the Park undergoing refurbishment to enable its use as both a children’s playground and a dog exercise area.
2.2. The planning exercise identified that it would be possible for the Park to be redeveloped to offer a small space to each of the differing user groups.
2.3. A very preliminary concept plan has been prepared which identifies a possible design solution for the area (refer Attachment A).
2.4. At this stage there has been no community engagement undertaken and the plans are initial and conceptual only.
2.5. Based on the very high
level assessment undertaken, it has been identified that an investment in the
order of $250,000 would be required for the refurbishment identified.
At this stage there is no budget allocation in the City’s forward
estimates for these works.
That: 1. The report on the potential upgrading of the Girrabong Road Park upgrading be received and noted. 2. Consideration be given to the allocation of funding of $250,000 in the City’s 10 year Capital Works Program to enable the planning for the upgrade to be progressed. 3. Should the allocation of funding be approved, a detailed community engagement program be undertaken to: (i) Determine the community’s satisfaction with the proposed redevelopment of the Girrabong Road Park to accommodate both a children’s playground and a separated dog exercise area, and to (ii) Seek feedback on the concept plans developed 4. With funding available and the community engagement process complete, works associated with the redevelopment of the Park be undertaken accordingly.
|
4. Background
4.1. The Girrabong Rodd Park is a small but popular park located in Lenah Valley. The Park has not received investment for many years and is the subject of competing community need from both children (as a playground) and dog owners to exercise their dogs.
4.2. The Park has become contentious in recent years where it is used extensively for exercising dogs, many claim to the detriment of others enjoying the area.
4.3. Over the last year, the Council received two petitions;
4.3.1. One calling for dogs to be banned and the area redeveloped for non-dog related use.
4.3.2. The other seeking improvements to the area to better facilitate its use as a dog exercise area.
4.4. The Council at its meeting held 17 December 2018, resolved as follows:
A report be
prepared on the opportunities to have the Girrabong Park redeveloped.
The report should include detail on the costs, options and alternatives
associated with the redevelopment of the Park to accommodate the needs of both
dog owners and the broader community (including children) who wish to use the
Park.
4.5. In accordance with the Council resolution, an assessment of the Girrabong Road Park was undertaken and to determine the possibility of the Park undergoing refurbishment to enable its use as both a children’s playground and a dog exercise area.
4.6. The planning exercise identified that it would be possible for the Park to be redeveloped to offer a small space to each of the differing user groups.
4.7. A very preliminary concept plan has been prepared which identifies a possible design solution for the area.
4.8. The plan (refer Attachment
A) identifies that it could be possible to redevelop the Park providing an
area of ~750m2 at the rear for a children’s playground which
would retain an upgraded basketball court and see the installation of some very
basic play elements.
4.9. The park would be divided by a pathway, landscaping and a fence. The area across the front of the park could be developed as a small dog exercise area of ~520m2.
4.10. Whilst the planning shows it is
possible to accommodate both uses, it must be accepted that this is a small
park and each of the designated areas in the concept plan would be relatively
small.
The risk to the City is that neither area would be considered to be of
sufficient size by either of the potential user groups.
4.11. At this stage there has been no community engagement undertaken and the plans are initial and conceptual only.
5. Proposal and Implementation
5.1. It is proposed that the Council consider the preliminary concept as presented and if supported provide funding in the 10 year capital works program to enable the planning for the project to be progressed.
5.2. Should funding be available, the next step would be to undertake extensive community engagement with the local community to determine the community’s satisfaction with the redevelopment of the Park to accommodate both a children’s playground and a separated dog exercise area and to seek feedback on the very initial concept plans developed
6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations
6.1. In accordance with the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015 – 2025, the proposal is aligned with the following strategic objectives;
4.2 City facilities, infrastructure and open space 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. Based on
a very high level assessment it has been identified that an investment in the
order of $250,000 would be required for the refurbishment identified.
At this stage there is no budget allocation in the City’s forward
estimates for these works.
8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations
8.1. Any development of the area for use as a children’s playground will need to comply with all relevant Australian Standards.
8.2. Any area designated as a dog exercise area will need to be incorporated in the Council’s Dog Management policy and would need to be subject to specified operating hours.
8.3. It has been identified that redevelopment of the Park as suggested is unlikely to require a planning permit.
9. Social and Customer Considerations
9.1. This is a small but highly contentious area, significant community engagement will be needed to determine the ability to secure community support for the compromise which could be offered by the redevelopment of the Park as suggested in this report.
10. Community and Stakeholder Engagement
10.1. At this stage there has been no community engagement undertaken and the plans are initial and conceptual only.
10.2. Should funding be available, the next step would be to undertake extensive community engagement with the local community to determine the Community’s satisfaction with the redevelopment of the Park to accommodate both a children’s playground and a separated dog exercise area and to seek feedback on the very initial concept plans developed
11. Delegation
11.1. The matter is delegated to the Council.
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.
Lee Farnhill Manager Parks and Recreation |
Glenn Doyle Director City Amenity |
Date: 26 February 2019
File Reference: F19/22340
Attachment a: Preliminary Concept Plan - Girrabong Road Park ⇩
Item No. 6.2 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting - 7/3/2019 |
Page 23 ATTACHMENT a |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 24 |
|
|
7/3/2019 |
|
6.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge Over Brooker Avenue - Proposed Name 'Rose Garden Bridge'
Report of the Executive Manager City Place Making of 1 March 2019.
Delegation: Council
Item No. 6.3 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 25 |
|
7/3/2019 |
|
REPORT TITLE: Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge over Brooker Avenue - Proposed Name 'Rose Garden Bridge'
REPORT PROVIDED BY: Executive Manager City Place Making
1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit
1.1. The purpose of this report is to seek to assign a name for the new bicycle and pedestrian bridge across Brooker Avenue, positioned between Bathurst Street and the University Rose Gardens on the Queens Domain.
1.2. The proposed name ‘Rose Garden Bridge’, provides this new piece of infrastructure an identity that sets it in place with its surrounds.
2. Report Summary
2.1. It is proposed that the new bicycle and pedestrian bridge across Brooker Avenue be named ‘Rose Garden Bridge’, to reflect the bridge’s close proximity to the University Rose Gardens on the Queens Domain.
2.2. Support for the proposed name was received from key stakeholders, the Glebe Residents’ Association and the University of Tasmania.
2.3. Pursuant to the Survey Co-ordination Act 1944 (Tasmania), it is proposed that the Council recommend to the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania the name ‘Rose Garden Bridge’ be assigned to the new bridge.
That: 1. The Council endorse the assignment of the name ‘Rose Garden Bridge’ to the City’s new bicycle and pedestrian bridge across Brooker Avenue, located between Bathurst Street and the University Rose Gardens on the Queens Domain. 2. Pursuant to the Survey Co-ordination Act 1944, the Council recommend to the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania the name ‘Rose Garden Bridge’ be assigned to the new bridge.
|
4. Background
4.1. The bicycle and pedestrian bridge over Brooker Avenue is a Transforming Hobart project. When completed it will provide improved connections between the inner city and Queens Domain sporting and recreation facilities, as well as to the Glebe residential area, and between UTAS educational facilities at Campbell Street and the Domain.
4.2. The potential location for the new bridge was identified as a key project recommended in the Inner City Action Plan, and responds directly to the key recommendations from the Gehl Architects Report, Hobart 2010 Public Spaces and Public Life – a city with people in mind.
4.3. The location was also recommended by the Queens Domain Master Plan 2013-33, and forms part of the path The City to Garden Way, linking the city to the Royal Botanical Gardens.
4.4. The construction of the bridge is funded through the City of Hobart’s Capital Works Program. The total estimated cost of the project is $6.5 million.
4.5. The bridge features a steel girder construction with concrete abutments at the landing points either side of Brooker Avenue. It includes a clear span over Brooker Avenue of some 60 metres and is 6.5 metres at its highest point.
4.6. The bridge was designed by City of Hobart staff, led by the Executive Manager City Design, George Wilkie and VEC Civil Engineering Pty Ltd (VEC). VEC is a leader in the design and construction of bridges and has built a diverse range of structures, from large multiple-span highway bridges to small single-span road, rail and pedestrian bridges.
4.7. The City has worked closely with UTAS on the name, location, and the design and functional aspects of the bridge. In proposing a name for the bridge, Council officers have liaised with both the Glebe Residents’ Association and the University of Tasmania.
4.8. It is understood that both organisations are supportive of the proposed name, given it strongly references its close proximity to the University Rose Gardens, a site of significance to both the history and context of the University of Tasmania, and the Glebe and Queens Domain.
4.9. It is understood that the use of the word ‘Bridge’ is strongly preferred by the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania, as opposed to the words ‘Link’ or ‘Way’ which would likely be refused for use associated with a bridge structure.
5. Proposal and Implementation
5.1. Pursuant to the Survey Co-ordination Act 1944, it is proposed that the Council recommend to the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania the name ‘Rose Garden Bridge’ be assigned to the new bridge.
5.2. It is understood that the matter of the naming of the bridge, if endorsed by the Council, would be considered at the 6 June 2019 Nomenclature Board meeting.
5.3. It is anticipated that all construction works on the bridge will be completed by the middle of 2019.
6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations
6.1. The new bridge has been developed in response to a recommendation contained within the Queens Domain Master Plan 2013 - 2033.
6.2. The Bridge also responds to the following the following strategic objectives of the City’s Strategic Plan 2015 - 2025
2.1 A fully accessible and connected city environment
2.2 A people-focused city with well-designed and well managed urban and recreation spaces
2.4 Unique heritage assets are protected and celebrated
4.1 Community connectedness and participation realises the cultural and social potential of the community
4.2 City facilities, infrastructure and open spaces support healthy lifestyles
7. Financial Implications
7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result
7.1.1. There are no financial implications in this proposal.
7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result
7.2.1. Not applicable
7.3. Asset Related Implications
7.3.1. Not applicable
8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations
8.1. Pursuant to the Survey Co-ordination Act 1944 (Tasmania), the name of the new bridge is to be endorsed by the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania.
9. Social and Customer Considerations
9.1. The proposed name of the new bridge will reinforce to the community the site’s intrinsic connection from the City to the University Rose Gardens. It provides a straightforward geographically placed name for the bridge.
10. Marketing and Media
10.1. Media and marketing of the new park, and its new name, will be undertaken.
11. Community and Stakeholder Engagement
11.1. Key stakeholders, as identified in the background above, have been engaged in respect to the proposal.
11.2. Officer advice from the office of the
Nomenclature Board of Tasmania was that with the endorsement of the key
stakeholders, this name would be accepted under the Rules for Place Names in
Tasmania.
However, this advice does not pre-empt the formal consideration of the Board.
11.3. The Nomenclature Board of Tasmania’s Role is to:
11.3.1. Consider whether or not there is a place (road, locality, geographical feature etc.) that warrants the assignment of a name, and if so, the extent of the application of a name is considered
11.3.2. Determine the appropriateness of the proposed name, based on the application of Rules for Place Names in Tasmania, and subsequently approve or reject the proposed name.
11.4. After
examination and approval of a proposal for the assignment or alteration of a
place name, formal notice of the Board's intention is published in the
Tasmanian Government Gazette and made available on the DPIPWE Government
website. The Board also maintains an email distribution list, whereby a
party can be added by sending a message to the Secretary with the title Email Alert.
Any person wishing to object to a decision of
the Board must do so in writing, stating the grounds for objection, and lodge
that objection with the Board Secretary within one month following the
publication of the Board's Notice of Intention to assign or alter that place
name. If no objection is received, the Board publishes formal confirmation of its
decision to assign or alter the name.
Any objection is considered by the Board at its earliest opportunity, and the details of the objection, together with the Board's recommendation, are submitted to the Minister for final decision. The Minister's decision is subsequently gazetted and is not subject to appeal.
11.5. It is understood that the matter of the naming of the bridge, if endorsed by the Council, would be considered by the 6 June 2019 Nomenclature Board of Tasmania meeting.
12. Delegation
12.1. The matter is delegated to the Council.
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.
Philip Holliday Executive Manager City Place Making |
|
Date: 1 March 2019
File Reference: F19/15238
Item No. 6.4 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 30 |
|
7/3/2019 |
|
6.4 Public Toilets Strategy 2015-2025 - Progress Update
Report of the Program Leader Recreation and Projects, the Manager Parks and Recreation and the Director City Amenity of 1 March 2019 and attachments.
Delegation: Committee
Item No. 6.4 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 31 |
|
7/3/2019 |
|
REPORT TITLE: Public Toilets Strategy 2015-2025 - Progress Update
REPORT PROVIDED BY: Program Leader Recreation and Projects
Manager Parks and Recreation
Director City Amenity
1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit
1.1. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the implementation of the City of Hobart Public Toilet Strategy 2015-2025.
2. Report Summary
2.1. The report provides an update on the implementation of City of Hobart Public Toilet Strategy 2015-2025.
2.2. The Strategy provided a new 10 year planning framework for improving and managing Hobart’s public toilet network to ensure the City’s future planning, investment and operation of public toilets is targeted to meet community needs and was approved by the Council on 22 February 2016.
2.3. The plan was developed with reference to several other City-based strategic documents, including City’s Social Inclusion Strategy 2014-2019, the City’s Equal Access Strategy 2014-2019, the City’s Children and Families Strategy 2014-2019.
2.4. The Strategy addressed 10 key issues that influence the provision and management of public toilets including:
• Demographic influences
• Demand
• Distribution and availability
• Access
• Safety and security
• Design and sustainability
• Information and promotion
• Management and cleaning
• Community expectations
2.5. Since the approval of the Strategy, 34 facilities have either been updated, upgraded or constructed with the program being widely praised by the community and visitors to the Hobart.
2.6. Works proposed in the coming 12 months, include:
2.6.1. Swan Street;
2.6.2. Hobart Central Car Park; and
2.6.3. Long Beach Reserve.
2.6.4. Fern Tree Park;
2.6.5. Tolmans Hill Playground;
2.6.6. Queens Domain Summit.
That the report on the implementation of the Public Toilet Strategy 2015-2025 be received and noted. |
4. Background
4.1. The City of Hobart Public Toilet Strategy 2015-2025 (refer Attachment B) provides a new 10 year planning framework for improving and managing Hobart’s public toilet network to ensure the City’s future planning, investment and operation of public toilets is targeted to meet community needs.
4.2. The Strategy was developed with reference to several other City-based strategic documents, including City’s Social Inclusion Strategy 2014-2019, the City’s Equal Access Strategy 2014-2019, the City’s Children and Families Strategy 2014-2019.
4.3. The Strategy addressed 10 key issues that influence the provision and management of public toilets including:
• Demographic influences
• Demand
• Distribution and availability
• Access
• Safety and security
• Design and sustainability
• Information and promotion
• Management and cleaning
• Community expectations
4.4. The Strategy detailed a number of upgrade and new works across the City, with capital works funding listed, updated and confirmed annually by the Council within the City’s Capital Works Program of works.
4.5. Since the approval of
the Strategy 34 facilities have either been updated, upgraded or constructed
with the program being widely praised by the community and visitors to the
Hobart.
(refer Attachment A)
4.6. Some of the notable achievements from the Strategy include:
4.6.1. New
facilities at Soldiers Memorial Oval Community Hub
4.6.2. New
replacement facilities at Princes Park
4.6.3. New
facilities at Ancanthe Park
4.6.4. New
replacement facilities at Salamanca Square
4.6.5. New
replacement facilities at the Argyle Street Car Park
4.6.6. Internal
refurbishment and layout of the facilities outside Woolworths, Sandy Bay.
(before) (after)
4.6.7. Internal
and external improvements to Washington Street Playground facilities
4.6.8. Internal refurbishments of heavily utilised facilities including:
4.6.8.1. Franklin Square,
4.6.8.2. Domain Athletic Centre
4.6.8.3. Centrepoint Car Park
4.6.8.4. Salamanca Arts Centre
4.7. Works proposed in the coming 12 months, include:
4.7.1. Swan Street (facility replacement)
4.7.2. Hobart Central Car Park (refurbishment)
4.7.3. Long Beach Reserve (facility replacement)
4.7.4. Fern Tree Park (facility replacement)
4.7.5. Tolmans Hill Playground (new facility)
4.7.6. Queens Domain Summit (new facility)
Usage Counters
4.8. As part of the upgrades, counters have been installed in a number of facilities that provide useful statistical data on number users as well as times of use.
4.9. The below table indicates average and peak weekly usage for the 2018 period.
Public Toilet Facility |
Average
Weekly Usage |
Peak
Weekly usage |
Salamanca Square |
7,800 |
11,800 |
Salamanca Arts Centre public alcove |
3,800 |
5,300 |
Princes Wharf No.1 |
1,200 |
8,500 |
kunanyi /Mount Wellington – Summit Toilets |
3,800 |
7,800 |
kunanyi /Mount Wellington – The Springs |
1,800 |
3,000 |
Centrepoint Shopping Centre |
8,200 |
11,200 |
Argyle Street Car Park |
4,000 |
4,500 |
Sandy Bay Woolworths Toilets |
3,200 |
3,700 |
Franklin Square |
3,700 |
5,400 |
Long Beach Playground |
1,400 |
2,400 |
Sandy Bay Regatta Pavilion |
350 |
670 |
Princes Park Playground |
650 |
1,400 |
Domain Athletics Centre |
1,200 |
2,900 |
Marieville Esplanade Playground |
1,000 |
1,400 |
Waterworks Reserve |
500 |
700 |
4.10. Usage data allows the City to refine its cleansing and maintenance regimes and monitor the effect major events or local activities has on specific facilities.
Safety, Amenity, Availability
4.11. To improve the safety and amenity of facilities, issues such as entrapment, lighting, cleanliness, graffiti mitigation and maintainability have been factored into the refurbishment, construction and cleansing regimes.
4.12. The City has introduced a standardised internal fitout to improve maintainability and cleansing, including the use of larger wall tiles (the less need of grouting allows the removal of graffiti significantly easier), specific grade of floor tiles (that reduce issues of slippage whilst allowing effective cleansing), improved lighting (to improve amenity usage and sense of safety) and civic-grade fixtures and fittings (including soap dispensers, sensor taps where feasible, hand dryers, etc)
4.13. Child and infant facilities, including change tables, child seats, child-size pans/urinals are introduced at key sites.
4.14. All toilets have a ‘last cleaned’ sign that informs users when the facilities were last cleaned. Should antisocial use occur that requires cleansing or repairs, a 24/7 contact number is available to alert Officers in order to respond.
4.15. Information of the location and hours of availability are listed on the City’s website, the City’s wayfinding street signage, local tourist information maps, via the Australian Government ‘The National Public Toilet Map’ and via online search engines.
DDA compliance and services
4.16. All new fixtures and toilet designs are DDA compliant to cater to the diverse community requirements.
4.17. In new builds or where significant redevelopment of toilet facilities have been undertaken, these facilities include improved and/or additional capacity for those with mobility or other needs requirements.
4.18. Assisted adult change facilities, including adult change hoists and change tables, have been installed at high use locations at Salamanca Square and the new Argyle Street Car Park facility.
5. Proposal and Implementation
5.1. The progress update of the implementation of the Public Toilet Strategy 2015-2015 be received and noted and the strategy to continue to be reviewed annually in the development and endorsement of the City’s Capital Work Program.
6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations
6.1. The Public Convenience Strategy aligns to the 2015-2025 Capital City Strategic Plan in a number of ways including:
Strategic Objective 1.4 – An enriched visitor experience
1.4.1 Ensure Council owned assets reflect visitor requirements.
7. Financial Implications
7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current and Future Year Operating Result
7.1.1. Funding of works are provided through the City’s Capital Works Program
7.2. Asset Related Implications
7.2.1. The works to date have not only improved the amenity and safety of the facilities but has seen a reduction in vandalism and ongoing maintenance costs.
8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations
8.1. New facilities are designed to counter antisocial behaviour including issues with encroachment, lighting and amenity.
8.2. All new facilities meet DDA compliance requirements.
9. Social and Customer Considerations
9.1. The new and improved facilities meet contemporary public expectations both of locals and visitors with feedback being very positive.
10. Marketing and Media
10.1. The implementation of the strategy has received feedback within the local media.
10.2. The Princes Park facilities received a commendation award in the Tasmanian Architectural awards.
11. Delegation
11.1. The matter is for the Committee to receive and note.
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.
Shannon Avery Program Leader Recreation and Projects |
Lee Farnhill Manager Parks and Recreation |
Glenn Doyle Director City Amenity |
|
Date: 1 March 2019
File Reference: F19/22453
Attachment a: Toilet Works Completed To Date ⇩
Attachment b: Public Toilet Strategy 2015-2025 ⇩
Item No. 6.4 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting - 7/3/2019 |
Page 39 ATTACHMENT a |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting - 7/3/2019 |
Page 41 ATTACHMENT b |
Item No. 6.4 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting - 7/3/2019 |
Page 75 ATTACHMENT b |
Item No. 6.4 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting - 7/3/2019 |
Page 82 ATTACHMENT b |
Item No. 6.4 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting - 7/3/2019 |
Page 84 ATTACHMENT b |
Item No. 6.4 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting - 7/3/2019 |
Page 91 ATTACHMENT b |
Item No. 6.5 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 103 |
|
7/3/2019 |
|
6.5 Annual Maintenance Grants - Leased Facilities - Tasmanian Hockey Centre, Domain Tennis Centre, Hobart Netball and Sports Centre
Report of the Program Leader Recreation and Projects, the Manager Parks and Recreation and the Director City Amenity of 1 March 2019 and attachments.
Delegation: Council
Item No. 6.5 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 104 |
|
7/3/2019 |
|
REPORT TITLE: Annual Maintenance Grants - Leased Facilities - Tasmanian Hockey Centre, Domain Tennis Centre, Hobart Netball and Sports Centre
REPORT PROVIDED BY: Program Leader Recreation and Projects
Manager Parks and Recreation
Director City Amenity
1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit
1.1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval to provide annual grants to assist with the maintenance of a number of large leased facilities including the Tasmanian Hockey Centre, the Domain Tennis Centre and the Hobart Netball and Sports Centre.
2. Report Summary
2.1. Council has previously provided annual grants to assist with the maintenance of the Tasmanian Hockey Centre, Domain Tennis Centre and Hobart Netball Sports Centre.
2.2. The terms of these grants have now expired and the lessees are requesting an extension of the funding arrangement.
2.3. The Domain Tennis Centre Inc and the Southern Tasmanian Netball Association have both requested an extension for a 3 year period.
2.4. Hockey Tasmania has requested an extension for a 4 year period.
2.5. The annual grants provide assistance with the ongoing maintenance costs of these major spending facilities and enable the organisations to be more focussed on maximising the use of facilities and providing recreational opportunities to the community.
2.6. The report recommends a grant be provided to each of these facilities for a period of three (3) years.
That: 1. An annual grant of $69,883 (exc GST) be provided to Hockey Tasmania for a period of three (3) years to assist with the maintenance of the Tasmanian Hockey Centre. 2. An annual grant of $44,544 (exc GST) be provided to the Domain Tennis Centre Inc for a period of three (3) years to assist with the maintenance of the Domain Tennis Centre. 3. An annual grant of $31,962 (exc GST) be provided to the Southern Tasmanian Netball Association for a period of three (3) years to assist with the maintenance of the Hobart Netball and Sports Centre. 4. Each grant provided to commence in the current (2018/2019) financial year. 5. The Clubs’ formal annual grant request submission is to outline the proposed use of the City’s annual maintenance grant, with an annual grant acquittal to be received and assessed prior to the City’s consideration of the subsequent year grant submission. 6. An increase to subsequent year grant funding be linked to the rate of Hobart CPI. 7. Should the grants be approved, the value of each grant be recorded in the City’s Annual Report in accordance with the Council Policy ‘Grants and Benefits Disclosure’. |
4. Background
Hockey Tasmania (Tasmanian Hockey Centre)
4.1. The Council originally approved a grant to Hockey South (now Hockey Tasmania) in 2006 to assist with the ongoing maintenance of the Tasmanian Hockey Centre, who at that time had just commenced on a major redevelopment. The term of the original grant was for a five (5) year period.
4.2. The grant was subsequently extended for a further five (5) years in 2011 and then a further two (2) years in 2016.
4.3. The grant has been utilised to cover a significant amount of maintenance in the Centre including the synthetic pitches, building maintenance, lighting and light tower maintenance and the general upkeep.
4.4. Hockey Tasmania is now
seeking an increase of their annual grant (refer Attachment A). The
grant amount approved by the Council in 2016 was $60,000 (exc GST) plus CPI
increase each year.
Hockey Tasmania has requested the grant be increased to $95,000 to help meet the
increasing growth and use of the Centre for high calibre sport.
Domain Tennis Centre Inc (Domain Tennis Centre)
4.5. In 2012 the Council approved a grant to the Domain Tennis Centre Inc for a five (5) year period to assist with the ongoing maintenance of the Centre. Approval of the grant aligned with the completion of the major development of the Centre and a significant increase in the asset value at the Centre. The original five year term of this agreement has recently expired.
4.6. The grant has be utilised to cover expenses such as maintenance of clay courts, stadium cleaning, lighting maintenance and grounds keeping.
4.7. The Domain Tennis Centre Inc is seeking an increase to their annual grant (refer Attachment B).The grant amount approved by Council in 2012 was $40,000 (exc GST). The Domain Tennis Centre Inc has requested the grant be increased to $113,000 (exc GST) to help with the significant increase in the costs of maintenance required to maintain the facility to its high level.
4.7.1. In the correspondence from the Domain Tennis Centre Inc, a significant portion ($37,000) of the requested $113,000 is to assist with asset replacement within the Centre, which was not the original intent of the grant.
4.7.2. It is suggested that the Centre’s assistance with such projects should be sought from external funding sources such as Sport and Recreation Tasmania or the Tasmanian Community Fund.
Southern Tasmanian Netball
Association
(Hobart Netball and Sports Centre)
4.8. In 2015 the Council approved a grant for the Southern Tasmanian Netball Association for a two (2) year period which has recently expired. This grant was approved to coincide with the expiry dates for both the Hockey and Tennis grants.
4.9. This grant has been used on maintenance of lighting, access ramp as well as landscaping.
4.10. The Southern Tasmanian Netball Association is requesting the same grant amount of $30,000 (exc. GST) as previously approved by the Council. (refer Attachment C).
Grant Purposes and Benefits
4.11. Each of these major sporting facilities were developed by the Clubs on City-owned land and are the subject of long term lease agreements with the Council. Each of the lessees do an excellent job of maintaining the facilities.
4.12. It is of great value to the City having these facilities, managed by organisations who are professionals in the sports and activities they run, as they are more focussed on maximising the use of facilities and providing recreational opportunities.
4.13. Each dollar the City provides to assist with maintenance allows for that dollar to be reinvested in the sport that allows for greater opportunities for residents.
4.14. Whilst it would be ideal to meet the requests of each of these lessees, the grant is provided to assist with maintenance costs for each of these facilities and it is expected that as each facility is rented to the lessees at a nominal rental ($50 per year) that maintenance is also undertaken and funded by the Club/Association.
4.15. The report recommends approval for the respective grants, however with a CPI increase based on the inflation rate on top of the previously approved amount provided by the Council, as noted below:
Lessee |
Last Approved Grant |
Original Grant Approved Year |
Recommended Grant |
Hockey Tasmania |
$60,000 |
2011 |
$69,883 |
Domain Tennis Centre |
$40,000 |
2012 |
$44,544 |
Southern Tasmanian Netball Association |
$30,000 |
2015 |
$31,962 |
5. Proposal and Implementation
5.1. An annual grant of $69,883 be provided to Hockey Tasmania for a period of three (3) years to assist with the maintenance of the Tasmanian Hockey Centre.
5.2. An annual grant of $44,544 be provided to the Domain Tennis Centre Inc for a period of three (3) years to assist with the maintenance of the Domain Tennis Centre.
5.3. An annual grant of $31,962 be provided to the Southern Tasmanian Netball Association for a period of three (3) years to assist with the maintenance of the Hobart Netball and Sports Centre.
5.4. Each grant provided to commence in the current (2018/2019) financial year.
5.5. An increase to the level of the Hobart CPI be provided each year.
5.6. The annual grant request submission is to outline the Club’s proposed use of the City’s annual maintenance grant, with a grant acquittal to be received and assessed prior to the City’s consideration of the subsequent year grant submission.
6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations
6.1. This proposal is consistent with the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025, particularly:
Goals and Strategic Objectives, Goal 4 – “Strong, Safe and Healthy Communities”,
Strategic Objective 4.2 – “City Facilities, infrastructure and open spaces support health 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. The grants will require budget allocations from the City’s operational budget under the Recreation and Projects Management budget function in the 2018/2019, 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 Annual Plans.
7.1.2. The approval of these grants will result in grant payments of $146,389 (exc. GST) for the current financial year.
7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result
7.2.1. An extension to the grants will require budget funding from the Council’s operation budget under the Recreation and Projects Management budget function in the 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 Annual Plans.
7.3. Asset Related Implications
7.3.1. The provision of grants to these organisations to assist with maintenance costs will help to ensure that sufficient funding is provided towards the repair and maintenance of assets.
7.3.2. Whilst these assets at the Centres are considered non-valuation assets (i.e. the City does not allocate funding towards their replacement), it is in the City’s interests as landowner to ensure these significant facilities are adequately maintained.
8. Social and Customer Considerations
8.1. The Centres provide opportunities for players of a variety of sports and activities of all ages and abilities to participate at high quality venues.
8.2. Should the City contribute to the maintenance of the Centres, the lessees would be able to invest further money into the support and programming, therefore increasing these opportunities.
9. Marketing and Media
9.1. Hockey Tasmania, the Domain Tennis Centre and the Hobart Netball and Sports Centre will be required to recognise the City’s support with promotion of the City’s logo on its website homepage and have appropriate signage displayed in site recognising the City as owners of the facilities.
9.2. Negotiation be undertaken to identify further acknowledgement opportunities on relevant collateral produced by each organisation such as newsletters etc.
10. Delegation
10.1. This matter is delegated to the Council 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.
Shannon Avery Program Leader Recreation and Projects |
Lee Farnhill Manager Parks and Recreation |
Glenn Doyle Director City Amenity |
|
Date: 1 March 2019
File Reference: F19/1636
Attachment a: Hockey Tasmania Grant Renewal Request ⇩
Attachment b: Domain Tennis Centre Inc Grant Renewal Request ⇩
Attachment c: Southern Tasmanian Netball Association Grant Renewal Request ⇩
Item No. 6.5 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting - 7/3/2019 |
Page 110 ATTACHMENT a |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting - 7/3/2019 |
Page 113 ATTACHMENT b |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting - 7/3/2019 |
Page 114 ATTACHMENT c |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 121 |
|
|
7/3/2019 |
|
A report indicating the status of current decisions is attached for the information of Elected Members.
REcommendation
That the information be received and noted.
Delegation: Committee
Item No. 7.1 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting - 7/3/2019 |
Page 122 ATTACHMENT a |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 152 |
|
|
7/3/2019 |
|
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 InterCity Cycleway
File Ref: F19/18438; 13-1-10
Report of the Director City Amenity of 28 February 2019.
8.2 Table Tennis Facility
File Ref: F19/18476; 13-1-10
Report of the Director City Amenity of 28 February 2019.
Delegation: Committee
That the information be received and noted.
|
Item No. 8.1 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 153 |
|
7/3/2019 |
|
Memorandum: Lord Mayor
Deputy Lord Mayor
Elected Members
Response to Question Without Notice
InterCity Cycleway
Meeting: Parks and Recreation Committee
|
Meeting date: 7 February 2019
|
Raised by: Alderman Briscoe |
Question:
Could an update please be provided as to progress of the City’s extension of the InterCity Cycleway to the recently completed Macquarie Point Development Corporation cycleway?
Response:
Engineering design works for the alignment of the track extension are underway.
Following design confirmation and the receipt of statutory planning approval, works will be tendered for the construction of the cycleway extension.
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.
Glenn Doyle Director City Amenity |
|
Date: 28 February 2019
File Reference: F19/18438; 13-1-10
Item No. 8.2 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 154 |
|
7/3/2019 |
|
Memorandum: Lord Mayor
Deputy Lord Mayor
Elected Members
Response to Question Without Notice
Table Tennis Facility
Meeting: Parks and Recreation Committee
|
Meeting date: 7 February 2019
|
Raised by: Lord Mayor Reynolds |
Question:
Is there a facility within the vicinity of the City of Hobart where table tennis can be played?
Response:
In respect to the ability to hire the use of table tennis tables within a facility, the University Gym, located at its Sandy Bay Campus, provides this service.
Table Tennis facilities outside the Hobart municipal area include the Kingborough Sports Centre and Clarence Sports Centre.
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.
Glenn Doyle Director City Amenity |
|
Date: 28 February 2019
File Reference: F19/18476; 13-1-10
|
Agenda (Open Portion) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 155 |
|
7/3/2019 |
|
Section 29 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
File Ref: 13-1-10
An Elected Member may ask a question without notice of the Chairman, another Elected Member, 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 Elected Member 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, Elected Member, 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 Elected Members, at the appropriate time.
(iii) upon the answer to the question being circulated to Elected Members, 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) Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting |
Page 156 |
|
7/3/2019 |
|
That the Committee resolve by 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:
· The acquisition of land; · Renewal of a contact including details of the terms and conditions of renewal; · Information that was provided to the Council on the basis it is kept confidential.
The following items are listed for discussion:-
Item No. 1 Minutes of the last meeting of the Closed Portion of the Committee 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
|