Agenda of City Planning Committee Meeting

Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 169

29/7/2019

REPORT TITLE: Significant Trees Amendment - Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 - PSA-19-3

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Development Planner

Manager Planning Policy & Heritage

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to consider nominations received from the community for additions to the Significant Tree Register, and make recommendations for:

1.1.1. An amendment to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (HIPS 2015) for the inclusion of additional trees in E24.0 Significant Trees Code – Table E24.1 Significant Tree List;

1.1.2. An amendment to E24.0 Significant Trees Code to ensure that the removal of dead or dying trees is able to be permitted where accompanied by a report by a suitably qualified person; and

1.1.3. Where nominated trees are located within the area of land currently covered by the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997 (SCPS 1997), inclusion of these trees in the Local Provisions Schedule (LPS) of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme (TPS).

1.2. The proposal benefits the community by ensuring that trees of value to residents and visitors are adequately protected.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The proposal is to amend the Significant Tree Code of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (HIPS 2015) by inserting 84 additional listings into the Significant Tree List, and inserting a new acceptable solution (and associated definitions) permitting the removal of significant trees that have died through natural causes.

2.2. The proposed amendments are provided in Attachment A.

2.3. A further 6 trees that are within the area currently covered by the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997 (SCPS 1997) are proposed to be included in the significant tree list under the Hobart Local Provisions Schedule (LPS) (Attachment C).

2.4. The proposal is in response to a Council resolution to conduct a public process inviting significant tree nominations.

2.5. 194 trees or groups of trees were nominated by 53 nominators, totalling 1478 individual trees and 4 hedges (Attachment E). Some trees were nominated by more than one person.

2.6. Land owners and occupiers were notified of trees nominated on their land. 47 submissions were received in response to the nominations. Of these submissions, 11 supported the nomination, 24 opposed the nomination, 3 expressed some concern and 9 did not express clear support or opposition. A further general response was submitted from Council’s City Infrastructure Division in its role as public highway authority.

2.7. A Tree Assessment Panel (the panel) was formed by Council’s Development Planner, Program Leader Arboriculture and Nursery, Cultural Heritage Officer and Urban Design Officer to assess the trees.

2.8. Each nominated tree was assessed by the panel objectively against the 10 categories of the Significant Tree Assessment Criteria (Attachment D). A summary of the panel recommendations for each nomination is provided in Attachment E, and detailed individual datasheets are provided in Attachment F.

2.9. The proposed amendments to the HIPS 24.0 Significant Tree Code, outlined in Attachment A, are recommended for initiation.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. Pursuant to Section 34(1) (b) of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, the Council resolve to initiate amendments to E24.0 Significant Trees Code of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (as indicated in Attachment A) to:

(a) Insert 84 new listings into Table E24.1 Significant Tree List;

(b) Insert two new definitions for ‘suitably qualified person (arboriculture)’ and ‘natural causes’ under E24.3 Definition of Terms; and

(c) Insert a new Acceptable Solution A1 under E24.6 Development Standards to allow for a permitted pathway for the removal of significant trees that have died due to natural causes.

2. Pursuant to Section 35 of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, the Council certify that the amendment to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme PSA-19-3 meets the requirements of Section 32 of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and authorise the General Manager and Deputy General Manager to sign the Instrument of Certification (Attachment B).

3. Pursuant to Section 38 of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, the Council place amendment PSA-19-3 to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 on exhibition for a 28 day period.

4. In respect of 6 recommended listings that are under the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme area, these listings be inserted into the Significant Trees list of the Hobart Local Provisions Schedule (Attachment C).

4. Background

4.1. At its meeting on 18 December 2017, the Council considered a report on ‘Significant Trees – Vegetation Management’. This report was prepared in response to a request by the Council on 5 June 2017 to provide advice on whether a new tree nomination process should commence, whether the assessment criteria should be broadened, the impact of the new state wide planning scheme, and whether a broader Tree Management Policy could be considered.

4.2. Following consideration of that report, the Council’s resolution in relation to significant trees was as follows:

1. The significant tree assessment criteria be amended as indicated in Attachment A to item 8.2 of the Open City Planning Committee agenda of 11 December 2017.

2. Nominations for additions to the Significant Tree List in the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 be invited through a public process commencing in February 2018 and that in future nominations be sought from the public every 3 years.

4.3. In relation to part 2 of this resolution, nominations were invited by way of an item in Capital City News, notification on the Council’s website, social media and notification in the Mercury, with a closing date of 1 May 2018. Any person could nominate any tree within the Hobart municipal area, whether on private or public land.

4.4. Potential nominators had access to an information sheet explaining the nomination process, a nomination form and the Significant Tree Assessment Criteria (updated as per part 1 of the above resolution - see Attachment D). Many nominations were received via an online form through Council’s website.

4.5. A total of 194 trees or groups of trees were nominated by 53 nominators, totalling 1478 individual trees and 4 hedges (see Attachment E). Some trees were nominated by more than one person.

4.6. The previous round of significant tree nominations in 2010 resulted in a total of 39 listings (90 individual trees) being added to the list of significant trees in Schedule I of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982, and Schedule K of the Battery Point Planning Scheme 1979. The full lists from both schemes were then transferred to the HIPS 2015 when it came into operation.

4.7. There are currently 144 listings on the Significant Tree List under the HIPS 2015.

Landowner notification

4.8. Following the nomination process, owners and occupiers of land that contained a nominated tree were notified by letter and invited to comment.

4.9. 47 submissions were received from landowners or occupiers. Of these submissions, 11 supported the nomination, 24 opposed the nomination, 3 expressed some concern and 9 did not express clear support or opposition.

4.10. A further submission was received from Council’s City Infrastructure Division, in its role as public highway authority, expressing concern over trees listed in the road reservation.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The proposal is to amend E24.0 Significant Tree Code of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 by:

5.1.1. Inserting 84 additional listings into Table E24.1 Significant Tree List;

5.1.2. Inserting two new definitions, for ‘suitably qualified person (arboriculture)’ and ‘natural causes’ under E24.3 Definition of Terms; and

5.1.3. Inserting an acceptable solution into E24.6 Development Standards that allows for trees that have died of natural causes to be removed as a permitted development, if accompanied by a report from a suitably qualified person.

5.2. It is also proposed that 6 additional trees that are recommended for listing, but that are within the area covered by the SCPS 1997, are inserted into the Significant Tree List of the LPS. The LPS has recently been submitted to the Tasmanian Planning Commission for review.

Assessment of Nominated Trees

5.3. Each of the 194 nominations were assessed by the Tree Assessment Panel (the panel), consisting of Council’s Development Planner, Program Leader Arboriculture and Nursery, Cultural Heritage Officer and Urban Design Officer.

5.4. The panel has made a recommendation on whether or not each tree should be listed as significant, based on whether they are considered to meet any of the 10 categories under the Significant Tree Assessment Criteria (see summary in Attachment E and individual datasheets in Attachment F).

5.5. These recommendations have been made objectively on the tree’s ability to meet the criteria. Where the tree is known to present a potentially high level of risk to public safety, however, this has been taken into consideration.

5.6. There are 6 nominated trees that were removed before finalisation of the assessment process. There are 2 nominations that were determined to already be listed under the HIPS 2015 or the SCPS 1997.

5.7. The panel considers that 84 of the 194 nominations meet one or more of the criteria for listing. Within these 84 nominations, there are a total of 749 individual trees and 3 hedges. 534 of these trees are accounted for by the nomination of all trees within the Soldiers Memorial Avenue.

5.8. A further 6 nominations are recommended for listing, however they are within the area covered by the SCPS 1997. These trees cannot be included in the SCPS 1997, as there is no significant tree list in this scheme.

5.9. Some trees are protected under Schedule 1 – Conservation of Cultural Heritage Values of the SCPS 1997, however this is not considered to be the appropriate location for the 6 nominations recommended for listing as not all are intended to be listed for heritage related reasons.

5.10. Inserting a new section into the SCPS 1997 for significant trees would be a significant undertaking, and not considered to be justifiable given the scheme is intended to be incorporated into the LPS of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme in the near future.

5.11. The Council has recently submitted its LPS to the Tasmanian Planning Commission for review. It is recommended that the Significant Tree List of the LPS be updated with the 6 additional trees through this review process (see Attachment C).

5.12. It is noted that the 84 additional trees to be listed in the HIPS 2015 will also ultimately be incorporated into the LPS if the amendment is approved by the Tasmanian Planning Commission.

5.13. Including the trees within the SCPS area, 46% of the nominations are recommended to be listed as significant trees.

5.14. It is noted that many of the nominated trees that were not recommended for listing are valuable trees, but did not adequately meet the threshold for listing under the criteria.

5.15. The panel endeavoured to apply a consistent approach to assessing trees, only recommending those that met a reasonably high threshold of significance.

5.16. A single nominator contributed 69 (36%) of the total number of nominations, primarily on the basis of the ecological contribution of native trees (particularly Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum) and Eucalyptus viminalis (white gum)).

5.17. Each of these 69 nominations were reviewed against the 10 categories of significance and it was determined that many were not outstanding individual specimens and did not meet any criteria for listing outside of their potential ecological contribution. These trees were then referred to Council’s Environmental Development Planner to determine whether they met assessment category 9: ‘trees that have a significant contribution to the integrity of an ecological community’.

5.18. It is noted that each of these eucalypts do provide ecological value to the local community, perhaps particularly in the suburbs where there are few other mature native trees.

5.19. It is further noted that blue gums (Eucalyptus globulus) and black gums (Eucalyptus ovata) are particularly important foraging trees for the threatened swift parrot, and that white gums (Eucalyptus viminalis) are important foraging and habitat trees for the threatened forty-spotted pardalote.

5.20. Despite this, it was determined that these trees were required to satisfy a high level of individual ecological significance in order to satisfy the test of providing a ‘significant contribution’. This could be in the form of a specifically notable and demonstrable contribution to the ecological community, such as known nesting sites for threatened species or viable hollows for refuge and nesting.

5.21. The Significant Tree Code is intended to protect trees of outstanding individual (or sometimes group) significance. It is not considered feasible that every native tree of a specific species be automatically granted significance status purely based on its species (unless that species is very rare).

5.22. Protecting whole tree species would be better managed through limiting scheme exemptions and subsequently addressing the species in a biodiversity related code. Changes to this effect would have to be made at a state level.

Consultation

5.23. 47 submissions were received from landowners or occupiers after they were notified of nominated trees on their land. Of these submissions, 11 supported the nomination, 24 opposed the nomination, 3 expressed some concern and 9 did not express clear support or opposition (see submissions in Attachment G).

5.24. There are 5 nominations that are supported by owners or occupiers, but are not recommended for listing.

5.25. None of the nominations where the owner or occupier expressed concern, but not direct opposition, are intended to be listed.

5.26. There are 6 nominations that are opposed by owners or occupiers, but are recommended for listing. Responses to these submissions are as follows:

Ref no./ address/ tree common name

Submission and response

Ref 59 / 290 Elizabeth Street / velvet ash

Main points of submission

· It is certainly a large tree with no green space around it and has been there for quite some time.

· I would like it recorded that although the tree is on our property, it was planted by Council, I gather without permission.

· The ongoing maintenance of the tree including root damage to the pavement is the responsibility of Council.

· Despite the impressive nature of the tree it seems it was perhaps not a good choice for the location.

· Ongoing issues include lifting of pavements creating unsafe paths, leaf litter blocking drains and work put into cleaning up the leaf fall.

· Concern with the listing is it may cause difficulty gaining council action in responding to these WHS issues.

Response to submission

This tree is considered to meet Category 6 of the Assessment Criteria, relating to local significance. The suspected origin of the tree’s planting is noted, however the panel has not considered the tenure of the land, or the method by which the tree was planted, in its consideration of the assessment criteria. Common maintenance issues relating to trees including leaf litter and root disturbance of pavement is not considered to be a reason not to list a tree that meets the assessment criteria. It is noted that Council can still respond to potential issues caused by the tree, without requiring removal of the tree.

Ref 60 / 454 Elizabeth Street / English oak

Main points of submission

· Prefer that it is not listed on the register.

· The property is listed by the Tasmanian Heritage Council and we value the oak, elm and other mature trees on that boundary.

· In the past 40 years HCC has instructed us twice to remove overhanging branches of the oak that could obstruct traffic.

· We would appreciate advice on the present status of the above trees with respect to the Heritage Council and Hobart City Council bylaws.

Response to submission

This tree is considered to meet Categories 1, 5 and 6 of the Assessment Criteria, relating to aesthetic, historical and local significance. This tree is an important component of the streetscape and overall setting of the property. It is noted that tree pruning is exempt under the Significant Tree Code where it improves the tree’s health or appearance provided its normal growth habit is not retarded. The tree is currently not specifically protected under the Local Historic Heritage Code, as it is not referenced in the listing for the property. The owner should seek advice from the Tasmanian Heritage Council directly to determine its status under the Tasmanian Heritage Register.

Ref 114 / 262 Macquarie Street / bunya-bunya and Norfolk Island pines

Main points of submission

· Deep concern regarding proposed listing.

· Acknowledge historical value however the trees, particularly the bunya-bunya, pose safety issues as large limbs have previously dropped, causing damage to the house and cars.

· Concerned about serious injuries or death due to heavy limbs falling.

· The root system is causing significant damage to heritage listed sandstone walls and the foundations of the house.

· Strongly oppose the listing of the trees, and due to public liability and safety concerns as well as damage to the house, Council should consider allowing the trees to be removed.

Response to submission

These trees are considered to meet categories 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the assessment criteria, relating to aesthetic, size, age, historical, local and rarity related significance. These trees have been visited by a consultant arboricultural specialist, who has advised that the condition of both trees is good. The consultant determined that there is a minimal risk posed to the public from falling branches, and tree surgery could be used to further mitigate this concern. It was further advised that any issues relating to root damage could be resolved by means such as installing root barriers.

Ref 124 / 3c Montagu Street / blue gums

Main points of submission

· Wish to dispute the nomination of the tree.

· The gum rests on the edge of the property on a steep hill and overhangs the adjacent property, posing a risk to neighbours.

· When the land is developed it will pose a risk to housing in its vicinity.

· A significance status will pose a risk to people’s lives.

· Request a report of the tree in regards to its significant value and structural integrity if proposed to be listed.

Response to submission

This tree is considered to meet category 6 of the assessment criteria, relating to local significance. Council’s Program Leader Arboriculture and Nursery and a consultant arboricultural specialist have both assessed this tree as being in good condition. The future development potential of land is not able to be considered when making a judgement about whether a tree meets the assessment criteria

Ref 161 / 894 Sandy Bay Road / blue gums

Main points of submission

· Intention in the future of doing a development on 894 Sandy Bay Road.

· The trees being Eucalyptus globulus are not particularly rare or valuable.

· Listing of the trees may compromise future development plans, therefore request the trees are not listed.

Response to submission

These trees are considered to meet categories 5 and 6 of the assessment criteria, relating to landscape and local significance. The trees are not proposed to be listed under the category relating to rarity. The future development potential of land is not able to be considered when making a judgement about whether a tree meets the assessment criteria. It is noted that the owner of 892 Sandy Bay Road as well as an occupier made a supporting submission in relation to this group of trees.

Ref 170 / 66 Summerhill Road / white gum

Main points of submission

· Do not wish the tree on our land to be placed on the register.

· The tree appears to be showing signs of dieback so its future retention may become unviable.

· We have lodged an application with Council for a rezoning of lands near this tree, and if successful the intention is to subdivide which would necessitate the tree’s removal to allow servicing and access to lots.

· Suggest the outcome of the zoning application be determined first before any further consideration of the tree being placed on the register.

Response to submission

This tree is considered to meet categories 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the assessment criteria, relating to aesthetic, size, age, landscape and local significance. Council’s Program Leader Arboriculture and Nursery has determined that, while some die back is expected due to the advanced age, this tree is considered to be in sound condition. The rezoning of this site is a separate process to the determination of the significance of nominated trees. The assessment of this individual tree cannot be delayed awaiting an outcome of a rezoning application. This tree is considered to meet a large number of assessment criteria, and the underlying zone or development potential of the land is not a relevant consideration of the panel’s assessment.

5.27. Various Council units were consulted in relation to the trees on Council land that were intended to be listed, including traffic engineering, road services, park planning and bushland and reserves.

5.28. A general response to the proposed nominations was submitted by Council’s (then) City Infrastructure Division, in its role as public highway authority. The submission is attached in full under Attachment G, and the main points of this submission can be summarised as follows:

5.28.1. Council is tasked via the Local Government (Highways) Act 1982 with the responsibility to maintain local highway, including the authority to ‘improve, widen, alter and repair’, to install or remove trees, and to compel removal or trimming of trees.

5.28.2. The primary purpose of public highways is to facilitate the free and efficient movement of people and goods. Legal protections are in place that make it illegal for public highways to be closed or obstructed.

5.28.3. Council supports other uses that are in the public interest, including installation of street trees. Council has always, however, been mindful of its responsibility to protect the public highway corridors for the present and future.

5.28.4. In many locations, trees may present concerns in the future if the tree grows or the required use of the public highway changes. They have been allowed because it has been clear based on the legislative powers of the Local Government (Highways) Act that if a tree were to become an obstacle it could be trimmed or removed. Where removal is considered, positives and negatives of the proposal have always been balanced.

5.28.5. The street trees currently on the significant tree register have typically been included for historic reasons. The main concern with a number of the current trees proposed for inclusion is that there are many categories unrelated to age and heritage significance that can allow a tree to be considered for inclusion.

5.28.6. The state wide planning scheme in its current form makes altering or removing significant trees a difficult process, including making alterations for safety, pedestrian amenity or other key functions fundamental to the ongoing management of a public highway. There appears to be no exemption for the providing, maintaining and upgrading of utilities and infrastructure on public land. Development (potentially including excavation for services by a public authority) within the ‘tree protection zone’ of a significant tree may require a planning permit supported by a written statement by a suitably qualified person.

5.28.7. It is requested that no nominations be accepted on public highway reservations for any primary criteria other than Criterion 3 – Trees that are very old or venerable, or Criterion 4 – Trees that commemorate, or are reminders of, cultural practices, historic events or famous people. This will ensure Council can appropriately manage highway reservations if the trees transfer to the state wide planning scheme.

5.28.8. The current planning scheme (HIPS) contains exemptions for providing, maintaining and upgrading utilities and infrastructure on public land and under this scheme it is not expected the listings would have a significant impact.

5.28.9. There are established internal processes within Council to identify, assess and make decisions in regard to highway works that may impact on street trees, including reviewing a tree’s importance. Given these internal processes, it is considered that listing trees in the highway as significant will provide negligible additional protection to the trees, but will increase administrative work and costs, impact on project timelines and potentially impede Council’s role as a highway authority.

5.29. It is noted that there are potentially competing interests for Council in terms of facilitating future changes within highway reservations as well as retaining the significant amenity afforded by street trees.

5.30. The trees assessed through this process have been submitted for consideration, in response to Council’s invitation, by members of the public that place significant value in these trees.

5.31. The assessment panel’s role has been to make impartial recommendations based on whether or not a tree meets one or more of the categories under the assessment criteria. Potential conflict between the tree and its setting is not a mitigating factor under the assessment criteria. Council endorsed the current version of the Significant Tree Assessment Criteria in 2017.

5.32. There are 18 listings in the current HIPS 2015 significant tree list that are within a highway reservation (although two of these trees have since been removed due to poor health or damage). Of these listings, none are listed for their age (category 3). Only one listing (24 trees along St John’s Avenue) is listed under category 4, relating to commemoration of historic events. Most of the trees are listed for their local significance (category 6), with some listed for their aesthetic appeal (category 1) or significance in the landscape setting (category 5).

5.33. Of the proposed new trees to be listed, 28 are within a public road reservation (32% of total recommended listings). 3 of these listings are considered to meet the age criteria (category 3), and none are intended to be listed under category 4 relating to commemoration. Most are proposed to be listed due to their local or aesthetic significance, with some to be listed for their size, rarity or historical or landscape significance. It is considered these new trees to be listed are consistent with the quality and reasons for listing of existing significant trees in road reservations.

5.34. If a tree is highly valued by the community and is of great enough significance to meet the assessment criteria, it is not considered unreasonable to require a discretionary process that involves public participation when that tree is proposed to be removed.

5.35. The response submitted by the City Infrastructure Division refers to the State Planning Provisions and the perceived lack of exemptions relating to providing, maintaining and upgrading of utilities and infrastructure. However, there are exemptions in the State Planning Provisions relating to provision, removal, maintenance and repairs of stormwater infrastructure, vehicle crossings and junctions, minor infrastructure and widening or narrowing existing carriageways. Some road works that would directly conflict with the Local Historic Heritage Code (including significant trees) may require a permit. It is considered that the exemptions provided for under the State Planning Provisions are in fact similar in extent to the HIPS 2015.

5.36. Council’s Bushland Unit identified one specific tree recommended for listing that posed concerns due to its species.

5.37. Reference 136 nominates a weeping willow (Salix babylonica) within the grounds of Ogilvie High School. The nomination was made by the students of Ogilvie for its social significance to their school life. On this basis, the panel considers the tree meets category 6 of the assessment criteria, relating to local significance.

5.38. The concern raised by the Bushland Unit is that willows are invasive. This particular species is not listed as a declared weed (most other Salix species are listed, but babylonica is specifically excluded). Nonetheless, it is considered under a ‘Weeds at the Early Stage of Invasion’ (WESI) list to be highly invasive, with a very high score for invasive risk.

5.39. This particular tree is positioned in an isolated location within a well maintained school ground, which could be considered to mitigate the risk of invasion to some degree, however the concern relating to listing a species with invasive tendencies is noted and valid.

5.40. In this instance, the panel has objectively recommended that the tree meets one of the criteria for listing, as the potential invasiveness of a species is not a consideration under the assessment criteria. There is one other weeping willow currently listed under the HIPS 2015 Significant Tree List.

New Acceptable Solution – Dead Trees

5.41. Currently, exemptions for trees listed under the HIPS Significant Trees Code are as follows:

(a) the removal, destruction or lopping of a tree if necessary for emergency access or emergency works by a public authority or the tree poses an immediate danger to persons or property;

(b) the pruning of a tree to improve its health or appearance provided its normal growth habit is not retarded.

5.42. There are no acceptable solutions relating to the lopping, pruning, removal or destruction of any listed tree. Any works to a listed tree that do not meet the exemptions must go through a full discretionary development application process. Performance criteria considerations include impact on the character of an area, the health of the tree, the means of works, amenity value, heritage significance, potential hazards to persons and property and proposed replacement plantings.

5.43. Proposed removal of trees that are dead but not posing an immediate danger would also be required to go through this discretionary process, including public advertising, which is considered unreasonably restrictive. A recent example of this is the removal of a dead horse chestnut tree on Arthur Circus (PLN-19-122).

5.44. Exempting the removal of dead trees may be problematic, however, as there would be no ability to condition a permit to require replacement, if replacement were desirable.

5.45. It is considered that a permitted pathway is the most appropriate method to address the removal of dead significant trees. A new acceptable solution is proposed, as follows:

The lopping, pruning, removal or destruction of any tree listed in Table E24.1 that is determined to be dead from natural causes, based on a written statement to that effect prepared by a suitably qualified person

5.46. A definition for ‘suitably qualified person’ is proposed to be included under E24.3 Definition of Terms of the Significant Tree Code. This ensures that appropriately qualified tree specialists are assessing the condition of the tree.

5.47. A definition of ‘natural causes’ is also proposed to be included, to support the requirement that trees may only be removed under a permitted application if they were not deliberately killed.

5.48. The full amendments are detailed in Attachment A.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025, particularly in regard to Strategic Objective 2.3 – ‘City and regional planning ensures quality design, meets community needs and maintains residential amenity’.

6.2. The provisions are also relevant to the community aspirations for the future of Hobart as articulated in: Hobart: A community vision for our island capital, particularly in relation to the statements in Pillar 7. Built Environment: We are a city that maintains our unique built and ecological character, where we all have a safe, secure and healthy place to live. We are a city where people and communities can access world-class services and infrastructure and provide for their social, cultural and economic wellbeing. We embrace change but not at the expense of our Hobart identity and character.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. None.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. None.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. None.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. The Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) requires that planning scheme amendments must seek to further the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Act and be prepared in accordance with State Policies.

8.2. The objectives of the Act require use and development to occur in a fair, orderly and sustainable manner and for the planning process to facilitate economic development in accordance with the other Schedule 1 objectives.

8.3. It is considered that the proposed amendment meet the objectives of LUPAA, in particular it:

8.3.1. Assists sound strategic planning by supporting the achievement of the relevant Code Purpose, and not prejudicing any STRLUS objectives;

8.3.2. Is consistent with the objective to establish a system of planning instruments to be the principal way of setting objectives, policies and controls for the use, development and protection of land;

8.3.3. Considers effects on the environment by seeking to protect trees;

8.3.4. Secures a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment by safeguarding trees that are of value to the community;

8.3.5. Conserves places that are of aesthetic or historical interest

8.4. No State Policies are directly relevant to the proposed amendments.

8.5. S32(e) of the former provisions of LUPAA requires that planning scheme amendments must avoid the potential for land use conflicts in adjacent planning scheme areas. This amendment is not related to a change in the way land is used, but only the protection of valued trees within the Hobart municipal area. It is not expected that the amendment will create any opportunity for conflict between scheme areas.

8.6. S32(f) of the former provisions of LUPAA requires that planning scheme amendments must have regard to the impact that the use and development permissible under the amendment will have on the use and development of the region as an entity in environmental, economic and social terms. The proposed amendments aim to protect the amenity provided by trees that are valued by the community, and therefore they are considered to have a positive environmental and social impact. The amendments are also likely to support a positive economic impact as they protect values that make the region an attractive place to live, invest and visit.

8.7. Section 30O of LUPAA requires that an amendment to an interim planning scheme is as far as practicable consistent with the regional land use strategy. It is considered that the amendments are consistent with the strategy in that they value and protect special features in the landscape, which correlates in particular with Strategic Directions SD6: Increasing Responsiveness to our Natural Environment, SD8: Supporting Strong and Healthy Communities and SD9: Making the Region Nationally and Internationally Competitive.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. The proposal to protect additional trees has a positive environmental impact in terms of retaining habitat, providing shade in the city and contributing to carbon sequestration.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. The proposal is not considered to have any negative impact on social inclusion.

11. Marketing and Media

11.1. There are no marketing or branding implications of this amendment.

12. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

12.1. Council has requested that reports which recommend the initiation of planning scheme amendments address the need to conduct a public meeting or forum to explain the proposed amendments and also outline the explanatory information to be made available. These are addressed below:

12.1.1. It is not considered that a public forum is necessary to explain the proposed amendment to the public as it is relatively simple and self-explanatory.

12.1.2. The following information will be made available on the website: a copy of this report and a copy of the formal amendment document.

13. Delegation

13.1. This 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.

Sarah Crawford Signature

Sarah Crawford

Development Planner

James McIlhenny Signature

James McIlhenny

Manager Planning Policy & Heritage

Date: 24 July 2019

File Reference: F19/70239; PSA-19-3

Attachment a: Amendment Document ⇩

Attachment b: Instrument of Certification ⇩

Attachment c: Trees Recommended to be Listed under the Local Provisions Schedule ⇩

Attachment d: Significant Tree Assessment Criteria ⇩

Attachment e: Summary of Recommendations ⇩

Attachment f: Assessment Datasheets ⇩

Attachment g: Land Owner or Occupier Submissions ⇩

Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 29/7/2019

Page 216

ATTACHMENT f

PDF Creator

People	We value people – our community, our customers and colleagues.
Teamwork	We collaborate both within the organisation and with external stakeholders drawing on skills and expertise for the benefit of our community.
Focus and Direction	We have clear goals and plans to achieve sustainable social, environmental and economic outcomes for the Hobart community.
Creativity and Innovation	We embrace new approaches and continuously improve to achieve better outcomes for our community.
Accountability	We work to high ethical and professional standards and are accountable for delivering outcomes for our community.