Agenda of City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 4

24/7/2019

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting (Open Portion) held Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 4:00 pm in the Lady Osborne Room, Town Hall.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Denison (Chairman)

Zucco

Lord Mayor Reynolds

Briscoe

Behrakis

NON-MEMBERS

Deputy Lord Mayor Burnet

Sexton

Thomas

Harvey

Dutta

Ewin

Sherlock

Apologies:

Leave of Absence:

Lord Mayor Reynolds

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, 19 June 2019, 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.

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.

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

24/7/2019

REPORT TITLE: Request for Speed Limit Reduction in Degraves Street and Apsley Street, South Hobart

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Traffic Engineering

Director City Planning

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to advise the committee that the South Hobart Progress Association has requested consideration be given to reducing the speed limit from 50 km/h to at least 40 km/h in Degraves Street, South Hobart, and the addition of a warning sign in the vicinity of a Child Care Centre in Degraves Street.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The City of Hobart has considered matters relating to vehicle speeds and residential amenity on Degraves Street since the mid 2000’s. Investigations were undertaken into various traffic calming options and a treatment to narrow the width of Degraves Street was implemented in 2012. This treatment involved reducing the road width to change the road environment, and using the reclaimed space to provide a separated on-road contraflow bicycle lane.

2.2. This treatment resulted in a reduction in average vehicle speeds in the order of 10 km/h (from about 40 km/h to about 30 km/h) and in 85^th percentile vehicles speeds of about 11 km/h (from about 47.5 km/h to about 37.0 km/h).

2.3. In 2015, a child care centre commenced operation in Degraves Street in the former church building at 34 Degraves Street. This has led to requests being received from parents and staff at the child care centre for additional warning signage and speed controls.

3. Recommendation

That the report be received and noted.

4. Background

4.1. Concerns about the speed and noise of vehicular traffic has been raised by residents and businesses in Degraves Street in the past. In the mid to late 2000’s, the speed of traffic, including of heavy vehicles was a particular concern. Officers investigated the matter, and undertook speed surveys and vibration testing.

4.2. Speed and volume surveys were undertaken on Degraves Street in 2005 and in 2006 near 17 Degraves Street. These surveys showed that in 2005 and 2006, Degraves Street carried about 1,030 vehicle movements a day and that the average speed of a driver was about 40 km/h. Table 1, below, shows the results of the speed and volume surveys.

Survey Date	Average Daily Traffic Volume (veh/day)	Average Weekday Traffic Volume (veh/day)	Average Vehicle Speed (km/h)	85^th Percentile Vehicle Speed (km/h)
19 July to 10 August 2005	1,045	1,038	41.2	48.6
19 August to 29 August 2006	1,032	1,030	39.9	46.8

Table 1 Degraves Street Vehicle Speeds and Volumes, 2005 and 2006

4.3. A number of traffic calming treatments were considered. Standard devices like road humps or chicanes were not practical due to the amenity issues they would have caused for local residents (the noise and vibration of empty trucks travelling over the road humps, and the loss of parking to create sufficient space for a chicane that would work on a heavy vehicle). An example of the testing of a “chicane” treatment is shown in Figure 1 (below).

Figure 1 Degraves Street Traffic Calming (Chicane) Testing

4.4. In 2012 a separated outbound cycling path was installed between parked cars and the kerb line. This treatment had the benefit of both providing a legible separated path for outbound cyclists on the South Hobart Rivulet Track (who prior to this change mostly rode the wrong way on the road surface) and narrowing the width of Degraves Street between parked cars.

4.5. This narrowing of road space for through traffic on Degraves Street was intended to reduce the speed of through traffic by changing the feel of the road for drivers.

4.6. Before (November 2007) and after (June 2015) images taken from Google Streetview are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 below, and demonstrate the apparent road width reduction for drivers.

Figure 2          Degraves Street at McRobies Road
                        Traffic Calming (Before and After)
                        Source: Google Streetview

Figure 2          Degraves Street near #17
                        Traffic Calming (Before and After)
                        Source: Google Streetview

4.7. The traffic speed and volume data survey was repeated in May 2019. Table 2, below shows the results (along with the results of the earlier surveys).

Survey Date	Average Daily Traffic Volume (veh/day)	Average Weekday Traffic Volume (veh/day)	Average Vehicle Speed (km/h)	85^th Percentile Vehicle Speed (km/h)
19 July to 10 August 2005	1,045	1,038	41.2	48.6
19 August to 29 August 2006	1,032	1,030	39.9	46.8
6 May to 21 May 2019	1,175	1,245	30.5	37.1

Table 2 Degraves Street Vehicle Speeds and Volumes, 2019

4.8. The survey shows that there has been an increase in the volume of traffic on Degraves Street (from about 1,039 vehicles per day in 2005 and 2006, to about 1,175 vehicles per day in 2019, an increase of 13%) and a decrease in vehicle speed (from about a 40.5 km/h average in 2005 and 2006 to an average of about 30.5 km/h in 2019, a decrease of 25% in vehicle speeds).

4.9. The road safety history as documented on the database maintained by the Department of State Growth shows that from January 2000 to present (the period to which we have access to the data) there have been three crashes reported to Tasmania Police on Degraves Street (between McRobies Road and the Apsley Street Bridge). These crashes were:

4.9.1. In May 2006, there was damage to a parked car in the vicinity of 42 Degraves Street, resulting in property damage;

4.9.2. In February 2018, a crash involving “other manoeuvring” resulting in property damage in the vicinity of 34 Degraves Street;

4.9.3. In April 2018, a parking vehicle damaged another parked car in the vicinity of the Female Factory site, resulting in property damage.

4.10. In 2015, a childcare centre opened at 34 Degraves Street. Since the opening of the centre, several requests have been received from parents or staff at the centre regarding parking and road safety matters.

4.11. In recent times, the South Hobart Progress Association (SHPA) has written to the General Manager regarding traffic in Degraves Street. A copy of this letter, dated 25 March 2019, is included as Attachment A. This letter requests that the 50 km/h speed limit in Degraves Street be reduced to (at least) 40 km/h. It also requests that a warning sign highlighting the presence of a childcare centre be installed

4.12. Two responses, dated 15 April and 9 May 2019, sent by the Acting General Manager and the Director City Planning, are included as Attachment B and Attachment C respectively.

4.13. The City of Hobart has authority to approve the installation of warning signage on roads under its management and control, provided they are installed in compliance with the Australian Standard series AS1742: Manual of uniform traffic control devices.

4.14. The Transport Commission retains the authority to install and modify speed limit signage. This signage (along with traffic signals) can only be modified with the approval of the Transport Commission.

4.15. Before considering a speed limit change, the Transport Commission will request that a review be prepared by the road manager (in this case the City of Hobart) which the Transport Commission with then consider and make a decision on.

4.16. The officer advice on warning signage to date is that a pedestrian warning sign is not considered appropriate, due to it being clear to road users that they could expect the presence of pedestrians due to the presence of residential properties, parked cars, and other obvious signs of likely pedestrian activity.

4.17. This advice is in keeping with the guidance in the Australian Standard for Pedestrian Control and Protection (AS1742.10) which advises that pedestrian warning signage not associated with a dedicated pedestrian crossing should not be provided where the likely presence of pedestrians is obvious.

4.18. The officer advice on a speed limit reduction to date is that the current road design and layout is effective in mitigating driver speeds, and that an isolated reduction from 50 km/h to 40 km/h would be unlikely to deliver any road safety benefit in this particular location, and would be out of keeping with speed limit guidance in the Australian Standard for Speed Controls (AS1742.4) and would therefore not be able to be supported at this time.

4.19. The officer advice to date has been that speed limit changes would be more appropriately considered under the draft action in the recently adopted City of Hobart Transport Strategy to “consider wider area speed limit reductions to 40 km/h in residential areas.”

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that no further action be undertaken at this time.

5.2. However, should the Council decide that a change to the current speed limit should be requested, it should be noted that all requests for new or modified speed limits are to be submitted to the Transport Commissioner for consideration.

5.3. The submissions need to be supported by a report from the road owner that includes the following information regarding the characteristics of the road:

- Road function

- Road standard

- Road owner

- Roadside development

- Road alignment

- Road accesses / intersections

- Traffic volume

- Pedestrians

- Length

- Adjacent speed zones

- Crash history

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. Matters of road safety are supported by Strategic Objective 2.1 of the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015‑2025 as follows:

“2.1 A fully accessible and connected city environment.

2.1.3 Identify and Implement infrastructure improvements to enhance road safety.”

6.2. The desire to reduce speed limits is understandable given the size of vehicles moving through this street and the presence of the childcare centre. However the physical changes made in 2012 appear to have physically achieved this result. Ultimately if the Council wish to agree to this request then a reduced speed limit consistent with the physical speeds achieved in the street would not be inconsistent with this strategic objective.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Nil.

7.1.2. Should Council decide that a change to the current speed limit be requested of the Transport Commissioner then the preparation of an appropriate supporting report would need to be undertaken. The cost of this would be cover within the existing operating budget.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. Subject to Section 59 of the Traffic Act 1925, the City of Hobart has responsibility for the care control and management of local highways (such as Degraves Street) under Section 21 and 30 of the Local Government (Highways) Act 1982.

8.2. The Transport Commission, pursuant to Section 59 of the Traffic Act 1925 has issued a direction to Tasmanian Highway Authorities (Transport Commission Direction – 2014/2) that requires those authorities to only install traffic signs and linemarking in compliance with the Australian Standard Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, consider the AustRoads national guidelines, and to comply with Department of State Growth specifications and standard drawings.

8.3. The City of Hobart has a responsibility to consider and respond to issues raised by the community on our road network.

8.4. For matters raised concerning traffic signs that the City of Hobart has authority to alter / install, the risk to Council is managed by relying on professional advice about the suitability of a proposed change, and by installing signage that complies with the Transport Commission instruction issued under Section 59 of the Traffic Act 1925.

8.5. For matters raised concerning traffic signs that the City of Hobart does not have the authority to alter (regulatory speed limit signs, traffic signals and parking controls on State roads with a speed limit over 70 km/h), the risk to Council is managed by relying on professional advice and either referring the matter to the Department of State Growth with a request to make alterations, or advising that the City of Hobart does not support a change, but that the party making the request may contact the Department of State Growth directly if they wish to pursue the matter.

9. Delegation

9.1. The responsibility for the approval of speed limits sits with the Transport Commissioner, within the Department of State Growth.

9.2. As the road authority responsible for the management and maintenance of Degraves Street and Apsley Street, the Council can request changes to speed limits on their roads.

9.3. The Manager Traffic Engineering and all positions to which that position reports have delegation to approve changes to signage and linemarking on those public streets for which the City of Hobart is the Highway Authority (except for speed limits, traffic signals and parking controls on State roads with a speed limit over 70 km/h).

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.

Angela Moore

Manager Traffic Engineering

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 18 July 2019

File Reference: F19/90869

Attachment a: Letter - South Hobart Progress Association - 25/3/2019 ⇩

Attachment b: Letter - City of Hobart - 15/4/2019 ⇩

Attachment c: Letter - City of Hobart - 9/5/2019 ⇩

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 67

24/7/2019

REPORT TITLE: Proposed Tram Display Facility - Consideration of Inclusion of a Men's Shed Program

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Capital Works Officer

Acting 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 Councils resolution from the meeting held on the 3 of June 2019, in part:

‘That a further report be provided on the concept of a Men’s Shed being incorporated into the proposal.’

2. Report Summary

2.1. The Council recently agreed to progress a Hobart Tram Restoration and Museum Society Inc (H-TRAMS) proposal for a tram display and workshop facility on the Regatta Grounds, with the provision of $20,000 to enable the design development to be progressed.

2.2. The Council further resolved to seek a report to explore the potential inclusion of a Men’s Shed program into the facility proposal, including the potential provision of an additional $10,000 to progress this opportunity.

2.3. City Officers have since engaged with H-TRAMS and representatives from Men’s Shed.

2.3.1. H-TRAMS have considered the matter but do not wish to see the inclusion of the Men’s Shed program into this proposal on the grounds of the likely additional costs for the project as well as the potential delays such arrangements may place to the project.

2.3.2. Men’s Shed have had discussions with the Royal Hobart Regatta Association on potential opportunities with that group and the City will continue to explore other potential sites or partnerships together with Men’s Shed

3. Recommendation

That:

1. Following engagement with Hobart Tram Restoration and Museum Society Inc (H-TRAMS) and Men’s Shed, the Council not proceed with the exploration of including the Men’s Shed program in the H-TRAMS proposal for a tram display and workshop facility.

(i) The City continue to explore potential sites or partnerships, together with the Men’s Shed program, on potential opportunities for that group.

2. The additional provision of $10,000 of City funding towards the H-TRAMS tram display and workshop facility proposal, not be provided, at this time.

4. Background

4.1. The proposal for a tram display and workshop facility to be located at the Hobart Regatta Grounds was considered by the Council meeting at its meeting held on the 3 June 2019 where it was resolved the following:

‘That: 1. The concept plans for a proposed tram display and workshop facility, located at the Hobart Regatta Grounds, be endorsed.

2. The Council provide an allocation of $20,000 from recurrent expenditure to enable the design development to be progressed.

(i) The provision of an additional $10,000 to enable the design development to be progressed, be considered by the City Infrastructure Committee.

3. Hobart Tram Restoration and Museum Society Inc be authorised to seek funding opportunities to allow the project to proceed.

(i) Should funding be obtained for the project, the General Manager be authorised to progress any necessary arrangements to allow a development application to be submitted, and to commence lease negotiations over the land that would be the subject of a future report to the Council.

4. That a further report be provided on the concept of a men’s shed being incorporated into the proposal.’

4.2. Following the resolution of Council, further contact was made with H-TRAMS Inc. concerning the idea of incorporating a Men’s Shed into the tram display and workshop facility.

4.3. A response provided by H-TRAMS Inc. was that they did not have interest in pursuing the Men’s Shed as part of this proposal. The decision was around the additional costs for the project as well as the potential significant delays to the project.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. With the stated preference of H-TRAMS, as the leading proponent of the proposal for a tram display and workshop facility, to not progress an inclusion of the Men’s Shed program into the proposal, and noting that Men’s Shed continue to explore other future opportunities, including discussions with the Royal Hobart Regatta Association, it is recommended that this opportunity not be progressed, at this time.

5.2. It is proposed that the City continue to explore potential sites or partnerships, together with the Men’s Shed program, on potential opportunities for that group.

5.3. Accordingly, the potential additional provision of a further $10,000 of City funding not be included in the project, at this time.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The Capital City Strategic Plan supports the proposal of the tram display and workshop facility in a number of ways including:

Strategic Objective 1.4 – An enriched visitor experience.

Strategic Objective 2.4 – Unique heritage assets are protected and celebrated.

Strategic Objective 4.4 – Community diversity is encouraged and celebrated.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. It is proposed that the provision of a further $10,000 of City funding to the project, not proceed.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Not applicable.

8. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

8.1. H-TRAMS Inc. and representatives from a Men’s Shed group were consulted on the proposal

9. Delegation

9.1. The matter is for the Council to determine

Simon Munn

Capital Works Officer

Ruby Wilson

Acting Manager Parks and Recreation

Glenn Doyle

Director City Amenity

Date: 17 July 2019

File Reference: F19/94257

Item No. 6.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 72

24/7/2019

REPORT TITLE: 24 Ancanthe Avenue Lenah Valley - Consent to Partially Build Over Service Easements - Section 74 Buliding Act 2016

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Roads and Environmental Engineering

Director City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of the report is to seek approval to allow the owner of 24 Ancanthe Avenue, Lenah Valley to partially build over City of Hobart service easements located within that parcel of land, pursuant to Section 74 of the Building Act 2016.

1.2. It is further proposed that pursuant to Section 22 of the Local Government Act 1993, the General Manager be delegated the authority of the Council to determine future requests, applicable to Section 74 of the Building Ac t 2016.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The City holds easements over a portion of land located within the boundary of 24 Ancanthe Avenue, Lenah Valley as shown on Folio C.T.172457/1, marked at Attachment A to the report.

2.2. Planning Permit PLN-18-864, marked as Attachment B to the report, approves plans under the Planning Scheme for construction of a residential dwelling.

2.3. The Council as land manager and holder of the easements is requested to consider whether it will allow construction of a demountable driveway deck to proceed over a portion of the easements.

2.4. City Officers have reviewed the request and recommend approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the recommendation below.

2.5. It is further proposed that pursuant to Section 22 of the Local Government Act 1993 the Council delegate to the General Manager the power to consent to building work over or within a service easement in favour of the City, in accordance with Section 74 of the Building Act 2016.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council grant consent, under Section 74 of the Building Act 2016, to the owner of 24 Ancanthe Avenue, Lenah Valley to partially build over the 2.0m wide retaining wall maintenance easement and 3.0m wide & variable width drainage, pipeline and services easement, as shown on Folio C.T.172457/1, marked at Attachment A to the report.

(i) The consent be limited to the proposed works shown on the approved plans under Planning Permit PLN-18-864, marked as Attachment B to the report.

(ii) The Council reserve all rights associated with the Retaining Wall Maintenance Easement, and Drainage, Pipeline and Services Easement, including the right to access the easement to maintain, install, replace, repair or remove any drainage infrastructure.

(iii) The owner of 24 Ancanthe Avenue, Lenah Valley to remain responsible for any reasonable costs incurred by the City in exercising its lawful rights under the easement, including but not limited to the demolition or removal of any obstruction, including any building or structure located over or within the easement.

(iv) The owner indemnify the City against any costs or claims arising from building over the easements.

2. Pursuant to Section 22 of the Local Government Act 1993, the Council delegate to the General Manager, the power to consent to building work over or within a service easement in favour of the City, in accordance with Section 74 of the Building Ac t 2016.

4. Background

4.1. The City holds easements over a portion of land located within the boundary of 24 Ancanthe Avenue, Lenah Valley as shown on Folio C.T.172457/1, marked at Attachment A to the report.

4.2. Planning Permit PLN-18-864, marked as Attachment B to the report, approves plans under the Planning Scheme for construction of a dwelling.

4.3. The Council as land manager and holder of the easements is requested to consider whether it will allow construction of a demountable driveway deck to proceed over a portion of the easements, and the conditions to be applied to any such approval.

4.4. City Officers have reviewed the request and recommend approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the recommendation above.

4.5. It is further proposed that pursuant to Section 22 of the Local Government Act 1993, the Council delegate to the General Manager the power to consent to building work over or within a service easement in favour of the City, in accordance with Section 74 of the Building Act 2016.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the Council grant consent, under Section 74 of the Building Act 2016, to the owner of 24 Ancanthe Avenue, Lenah Valley to partially build over the easements, as shown on Folio C.T.172457/1, marked at Attachment A to the report.

5.2. It is further proposed that pursuant to Section 22 of the Local Government Act 1993, the Council delegate to the General Manager the power to consent to building work over or within a service easement in favour of the City, in accordance with Section 74 of the Building Act 2016.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The following element from the current Strategic Plan is supported.

6.1.1. Priority area of Activity – Goal 2 – Urban Management, specifically Strategic Object 2.2.2 Develop, manage and maintain the city’s urban spaces and infrastructure

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Not applicable

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Not applicable

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. The recommendation of the report outlines the measures to protect the City’s future rights and access to the easements.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. Section 74 of the Building Act 2016 states the following:

74. Works involving, or in proximity of, service easements

A person must not perform any building work over or within a service easement unless the person obtains written consent to do so from the person on whose behalf the service easement was created.

8.2. The easements partially located within 24 Ancanthe Avenue were created by the City and accordingly, in the current absence of a Council Delegation to the General Manager, the matter is referred to the Council to determine.

8.3. Pursuant to Section 22 of the Local Government Act 1993, the Council may delegate to the General Manager its powers, with some exemptions that are not applicable to this matter.

9. Delegation

9.1. The matter is for the Council to determined

Mao Cheng

Manager Roads and Environmental Engineering

Glenn Doyle

Director City Amenity

Date: 18 July 2019

File Reference: F19/94259

Attachment a: Easements over a portion of land located within the boundary of 24 Ancanthe Avenue ⇩

Attachment b: Schematic of Building Envelope - Planning Permit PLN-18-864 ⇩

Item No. 6.5

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 80

24/7/2019

Memorandum: City Infrastructure Committee

Response to a Petition - Pura Milk Factory, Lenah Valley - Heavy Vehicles

At its meeting of 19 June 2019, the City Infrastructure Committee considered a report in response to a petition regarding heavy vehicle usage by vehicles which service the Lenah Valley Pura Milk Factory, via the Augusta Road/Giblin Street corridor.

The Council, at its meeting of 8 July 2019, resolved that:

1. The Council decline the following requests of the petitioners, on the grounds outlined in the officer’s report, listed as item 6.4 of the City Infrastructure Committee agenda of 19 June 2019:

(i) The immediate cessation of Pura truck movement between the hours of 7pm and 7am in the Augusta Road/Giblin Street corridor.

(ii) The immediate introduction of a 5-tonne heavy vehicle weight limit in the Augusta Road/Giblin Street corridor.

(iii) The immediate resurfacing of Augusta Road with noise abating bitumen between Edge Avenue and Giblin Street.

2. The City continue to work with Pura Milk in respect to mitigating the effects of noise from heavy vehicle movements within the Augusta Road/Giblin Street corridor, with a further report to be provided to the Council.

3. The Council write to the Federal Member for Clark, Mr Andrew Wilkie, to lobby the Federal Government on behalf of the City to seek funding to resurface Augusta Road with noise abating bitumen between Edge Avenue and Giblin Street.

4. The petitioners be advised of the Council decision.

(i) The correspondence to include the Council’s intent to write to the Federal Member for Clark seeking funding to resurface Augusta Road with noise abating bitumen between Edge Avenue and Giblin Street

The petition was originally tabled at the 16 April 2019 Council meeting following which, the lead petitioner was notified that a report would be prepared and likely tabled at the 24 July 2019 City Infrastructure Committee meeting.

The matter was considered by the City Infrastructure Committee at the 19 June 2019 meeting however, due to an administrative error, the lead petitioner was not advised the matter would be considered earlier than initially indicated and therefore not provided the opportunity to address the committee.

Accordingly, and in consultation with the Chairman, the matter is re-listed to afford the petitioner the opportunity to address the Committee.

REcommendation

That: 1. The Council note the comments of the petitioner in its dealings with Pura Milk in respect to mitigating the effects of noise from heavy vehicle movements within the Augusta Road/Giblin Street corridor.

Paul Jackson

Manager Legal and Governance

Date: 18 July 2019

File Reference: F19/96962

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.