Agenda of Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 7

8/8/2019

REPORT TITLE: Review of the Dog Management Strategy

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Development Compliance

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to present the results of the public submissions undertaken on modifications to the declared areas in accordance with the requirements of the Dog Control Act 2000 (the Act).

2. Report Summary

2.1. The Council at its meeting on 20 May 2019:

2.1.1. Adopted the Dog Management Policy 2019-2023;

2.1.2. Declared areas under section 25 of the Dog Control Act 2000 (see Attachment A); and

2.1.3. Endorsed amendments to the following areas: Radfords Track, Mathers Place, the Cenotaph, Hobart Regatta Grounds, Reids Track and Nutgrove Beach (see Attachment B).

2.2. The amended declared areas were released for public comment in June 2019. Ten submissions were received from the public. No submissions were received opposing the amendments.

2.3. The amended declared areas are presented for finalisation.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. Pursuant to section 24 of the Dog Control Act 2000, the Council notes the public submissions received during the public consultation period and provided under separate cover.

2. Pursuant to section 20 of the Dog Control Act 2000 the Council declare the areas in Attachment B as modifications to the areas already declared contained in Attachment A.

3. The Council endorse notification of the declared areas in Attachment B pursuant to section 25 of the Dog Control Act 2000 by public notice on 24 August 2019 to take effect on 23 September 2019 and to remain in force until 23 June 2023.

4. Background

4.1. Section 7 of the Act requires a Council to develop and implement a policy relating to dog management in its municipal area.

4.2. Sections 20-24 of the Act gives a Council the power to declare areas where dogs may be exercised, where dogs may be trained, where dogs are prohibited and where dogs are restricted from entering.

4.3. The Council at its meeting on 20 May 2019:

4.3.1. Adopted the Dog Management Policy 2019-2023;

4.3.2. Declared areas under section 25 of the Dog Control Act 2000 to remain in force until 23 June 2023 (see Attachment A); and

4.3.3. Endorsed amendments to the following areas: Radfords Track, Mathers Place, the Cenotaph, Hobart Regatta Grounds, Reids Track and Nutgrove Beach (see Attachment B).

4.4. The amendments to Radfords Track, Mathers Place, the Cenotaph, Hobart Regatta Grounds, Reids Track and Nutgrove Beach were released for public comment between 20 May 2019 – 18 June 2019.

4.5. Ten submissions were received at the close of the public submission period.

4.6. A full copy of all submissions is provided under separate cover due to the requirement to comply with the Personal Information Protection Act 2004. In summary:

4.6.1. Five submissions were positive, two were questions unrelated to the advertised areas and three were general concerns about dogs in the Municipal area.

4.6.2. All of the responses that specifically addressed the changes advertised were positive, and respondents were particularly supportive of the extended hours at Nutgrove Beach.

4.7. Pursuant to section 25 of the Act, the Council is required to provide notice of the date on which a declaration of an area takes effect being a date at least 20 working date after a notice is published.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that:

5.1.1. Pursuant to section 20 of the Act, the Council declare the areas in Attachment B as modifications to the areas already declared and contained in Attachment A.

5.1.2. Pursuant to section 25 of the Act, the Council endorse notification of the declared areas in Attachment B on 24 August 2019 to take effect on 23 September 2019 and to remain in force until 23 June 2023.

6. Financial Implications

6.1. The amended declared areas will require an update of some signage and dog dispensers. The cost is expected to be met from the City’s current operational budget.

7. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

7.1. The new policy and declared areas have been developed in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

8. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

8.1. Public consultation has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

9. Delegation

9.1. The declaration of the areas requires formal approval by 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.

Kirsten Turner

Manager Development Compliance

Date: 1 August 2019

File Reference: F19/103814

Attachment a: Declared Areas ⇩

Attachment b: Amended Declared Areas ⇩

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 15

8/8/2019

REPORT TITLE: Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge Over Brooker Avenue - Proposed Name 'Rose Garden Bridge'

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Executive Manager City Place Making

Director City Planning

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report proposes 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. This name seeks to provide this important new piece of infrastructure with an identity that aligns with its surrounds and the community of interest within which it is located.

2. Report Summary

2.1. At the Council meeting of 18 March 2019, the Council resolved that the matter relating to the ‘Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge over Brooker Avenue - Proposed Name ‘Rose Garden Bridge,’ be deferred pending further consideration of appropriate public consultation for an alternative name.

2.2. At the time that this matter was considered by the Council, the City received a submission from Tasmanian Branch of Australian Garden History Society, requesting that the City of Hobart give consideration to naming the bridge the ‘Kitty Henry Bridge’.

2.3. As part of the media commentary relating to the possible naming of the bridge, the City also received a further request by a greater Hobart community member for the use of the name the ‘T. T. Flynn Walkway’ for the new bridge.

2.4. Additional engagement with the Glebe community and the University of Tasmania (UTAS) has now taken place.

2.4.1. The Glebe Residents' Association has advised that the name 'Rose Garden Bridge' is strongly preferred, in line with its original advice reported to the Council in March this year.

2.4.2. Advice from UTAS indicates that it would be supportive of the City’s final recommendation, though ideally the name should be sympathetic to the community within which the bridge is located.

2.4.3. This name was also recommended by officers in the report to the Council earlier this year, again after feedback from the Glebe Residents' Association.

2.5. Whilst acknowledging the advocacy shown by the Tasmanian Branch of Australian Garden History Society in promoting the name Kitty Henry, taking account of the countering view of the Glebe Residents' Association, and responding to the need to strongly reference the place in which it is located, officers propose the new bridge be named the 'Rose Garden Bridge' in preference to the 'Kitty Henry Bridge'.

2.6. This proposal strongly reinforces the relationship of the bridge to the University Rose Garden and strengthens the bridge's connectivity to the soon to be constructed City to Garden Way path.

2.7. Pursuant to the Survey Co-ordination Act 1944 (Tasmania), the bridge name determined by the Council would then need to be recommend to the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania.

3. Recommendation

That 'Rose Garden Bridge’ be submitted as the Council’s recommended name for the new bicycle and pedestrian bridge across Brooker Avenue, located between Bathurst Street and the University Rose Gardens on the Queens Domain, to the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania, pursuant to the Survey Co-ordination Act 1944 (Tasmania).

4. Background

4.1. When completed, the new bridge over Brooker Avenue will provide improved connections between the inner city and the 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.

4.1.1. The potential location for the 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.

4.1.2. The location was also recommended by the Queens Domain Master Plan 2013-33, and forms part of the City to Garden Way path, linking the city to the Royal Botanical Gardens.

4.2. The City has worked closely with UTAS on the location, and the design and functional aspects of the bridge, including its connection to the Menzies Centre.

The Process for Determining a Name

4.3. In late 2018, Council officers engaged with both the University of Tasmania and the Glebe Residents’ Association to determine a name for the bridge. A number of names were considered, with Rose Garden Bridge being the preferred outcome.

4.4. At the time that this matter was considered by the Council in March 2019, the City received a submission from the Tasmanian Branch of Australian Garden History Society, requesting that the City of Hobart give consideration to naming the bridge the ‘Kitty Henry Bridge’.

4.5. As part of the media commentary relating to the possible naming of the bridge, the City also received a further request by a community member for the use of the name the ‘T. T. Flynn Walkway’.

Supporting Information for T. T. Flynn:

4.6. The submission from the community member noted “Being centrally located between the University, TAFE and Hobart's first University precinct, the bridge should be named the "T. T. Flynn Walkway". Theodore Thomas Flynn (1883 - 1968) was Hobart's first lecturer in biology and served our community as Chancellor, Marine Biologist and researcher in local marsupials. Theodore's tenure at the University of Tasmania spanned from 1909 to 1930.”

4.7. The father of actor Errol Flynn, T. T. Flynn was also fellow of the Royal Society of Tasmania (1909), a trustee of the Tasmanian Museum and Botanical Gardens between 1913 and 1919, and had an active interest in community affairs, including debating, theatre and adult education.

4.8. Further information on T. T. Flynn can be found at: http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/flynn-theodore-thomson-6202

Supporting Information for Kitty Henry:

4.9. Kitty Henry (1904-1966) was a garden designer and florist. She is understood to have been a creative, strong, and independent woman. Unable to afford to pursue her dream of studying horticulture in Melbourne, she taught herself garden design from books and magazines. ‘Bohemian in appearance’, she was a sought-after artists’ model, and a portrait of her by Lucien Dechaineux is held in the TMAG collection.

4.10. The Tasmanian Branch of Australian Garden History Society has provided the following reasons for the name ‘The Kitty Henry Bridge:

4.11. “Kitty Henry was instrumental in establishing the University Rose Garden:

4.11.1. Whilst her exact role in this has not been discovered, it is likely that she played a large part in designing, constructing and planting the garden. A plaque on the fountain in the rose garden acknowledges Kitty’s prominent role: https://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/people/community/display/100624-kathleen-henry

4.12. Kitty Henry was a highly respected landscape designer and plants-woman, who had her own gardening business:

4.12.1. At the time (1920s -1950s) this was considered a very daring occupation for a woman. She was well respected and designed many large Hobart gardens. Almost a century later, in 2019, with businesses and governments, actively encouraging women into construction trades, there are very few female landscaping contractors running their own businesses. She was a strong and independent woman and a role model for many women today.

4.13. Kitty Henry played a significant role in the social history of Hobart:

4.13.1. Not everyone could afford to have a garden designed and constructed by Kitty Henry. But on special occasions, people flocked to florist Kitty Henry for bridal bouquets, flowers for the wedding party, to decorate churches and party venues, or to celebrate the birth of a baby, as was then common practice in Hobart. Many of our parents and grandparents had their wedding flowers created by Kitty Henry. Kitty Henry was a household name, both for her plant knowledge and for her consummate artistry. While her name is not now on everyone’s lips, there is a storytelling opportunity open to Council to create a conversation around Kitty Henry and those family wedding albums stowed in the backs of cupboards.

4.13.2. Numerous articles in The Mercury from 1938 - 1953 mention Kitty’s active role in organising fund raising events for war funds, the Women’s Land Army, and the United Nations amongst others; in creating the floral decorations for a variety of events in the Hobart Town Hall and City Hall; and giving many lectures on growing flowers and shrubs and flower arranging.

4.13.3. Jack Thwaites, conservationist and pioneer Tasmanian bushwalker, was also a neighbour of Kitty’s and used to supply her with flowers for her bouquets.

4.13.4. Reference to Kitty Henry is also included in ‘The Oxford Companion to Australian Gardens’, edited by Richard Aitken and Michael Looker (Page 295) and ‘Garden Voices, Australian Designers – Their Stories’ by Anne Latreille (pages 87 – 93).

4.14. Kitty Henry was part of an important movement in Tasmania.

4.14.1. As a member of the Women’s Land Army during World War 2, she helped Tasmania’s farming industries survive throughout the war years and provide food for the Tasmanian people.”

4.15. The Tasmanian Branch of Australian Garden History Society has noted a speech by Her Excellency Kate Warner, the Governor of Tasmania, opening the Claremont Flower Show, where she mentions Kitty Henry.

4.16. The Tasmanian Branch of Australian Garden History Society has indicated that Dr Alison Alexander, freelance historian and lecturer and tutor in history at UTAS, is also supportive of the proposed name, and is considering writing a paper on Kitty.

City of Hobart Research – Kitty Henry

4.17. Genealogical research has been undertaken by the City’s Senior Cultural Heritage Officer, Brendan Lennard using archival BDM information, newspaper notices, wills, cemetery records and plaques, electoral rolls and ancestry.com, together with personal communication with family members.

4.17.1. Kitty lived at her parents’ home, ‘Ellington’ at 10 Braddon Avenue in Sandy Bay (known before 1939 as Douglas Street). Her mother died in 1942, and her father in 1958. Under the terms of her father’s will, Kitty was able to live in the family house during her lifetime, after which the estate was sold and distributed among the three surviving siblings. The house, which had its general access from St Stephens Avenue, sat within the remnants of a rambling garden. During the nineteenth century, the house was owned by Edward Lipscombe. The Lipscombe nursery (between the present-day St Canice Avenue and Lipscombe Avenue) was well-known.

4.17.2. Kitty died in 1966 at the age of 62. Her funeral was held at St Stephen’s Anglican Church (not far from Ellington) on Wednesday 23 November, followed by cremation at Cornelian Bay.

4.17.3. It is understood from an exchange with Kitty’s brother’s great, grand daughter has confirmed that the family “would be delighted” if the bridge were to be named after Kitty Henry.

Feedback from the Glebe Residents’ Association

4.18. The naming of the bridge was discussed at the Glebe Residents’ Association meeting on 22 May 2019, with the name ‘Rose Garden Bridge’ being preferred, in line with their original advice reported to the Council in March this year.

4.19. The Association noted that:

“Our reasons were that the ‘Rose Garden Bridge’ option provides a stronger sense of place and will be easier for people to use and recognise than the other two options relating to individuals with an association to the site.

In the case of the ‘The Kitty Henry Bridge’ proposal, some residents with an interest in the history of the Rose Garden were able to add some information. Their advice was that while Kitty Henry was an important figure in the design and implementation of the Rose Garden, there were a number of other community members involved in the stonework, landscaping and planting of the garden. To recognise one person through the bridge name might be unfair and be seen to diminish the contribution made by others to the Rose Garden.”

4.20. This sentiment was amplified in an additional email from a member of the public, which advised that in the early to mid-1960s, when the Rose Garden was built and planted, the work was done by members of the community, as a community project. It is understood that two Hobart stonemasons, Lindsey Tuffin and Ronald Davis laid all of the stonework. The rosebushes were planted by any number of volunteer from various floral societies in and around Hobart, including Dolores Davis of the Lindisfarne Garden Society.

4.20.1. There was a strong sense in this communication that the Rose Garden could be seen to be the first ‘community garden’ in Hobart, and as such “should be honoured in itself for all those who created it, and not any specific individual.”

Feedback from the University of Tasmania

4.21. Advice from UTAS indicates that it would be supportive of the City’s final recommendation, though ideally the name should be sympathetic to the community within which the bridge is located.

Feedback from the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania

4.22. 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.

4.23. Preliminary advice from the Nomenclature Board indicates that the use of the name ‘Kitty Henry’ may be acceptable to the Board, being that it is a cultural feature, and not a geographic feature, locality or road.

4.23.1. In respect to duplication, while Board officers indicated that there is a ‘Kitty Way’ in Kingston and a few geographical features named ‘Kitty’, none of these should present an issue for the full name ‘Kitty Henry Bridge’.

4.23.2. Further, as ‘Henry’ is duplicated 23 times in roads and streets and a number of geographical features, to shorten the name to ‘Henry Bridge’ would not be not advisable.

4.24. Preliminary advice from the Nomenclature Board would indicate that the use of the name ‘T. T. Flynn’ would not be approved by the Board, given that the initials of a given name must not be used in any place name. The first name and surname may be used for cultural features such as parks and sports grounds if necessary to avoid duplication with an existing feature. In this context, the use of the use of ‘Theodore Flynn Bridge’ or the ‘Flynn Bridge’ may be acceptable to the Board, although the latter may be confused with his son the actor Errol Flynn.

4.25. The Board has further advised that the existing ‘T. T. Flynn Street’ in Sandy Bay is not an officially named place, being a private University carriageway and not a public way. It is recorded only in the Placenames Tasmania database.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. Given the lack of specific support for the T. T. Flynn proposal, and given many places of interest in Hobart and Tasmania more broadly, are named after historic male figures, officers do not recommend that the name (or a derivation of it) be progressed for consideration.

5.2. Whilst acknowledging the advocacy shown by the Tasmanian Branch of Australian Garden History Society in promoting the name Kitty Henry, taking account of the countering view of the Glebe Residents' Association and the apparent support of UTAS, and responding to the need to strongly reference the place in which it is located, officers propose the new bridge be named the 'Rose Garden Bridge' in preference to the 'Kitty Henry Bridge'.

5.3. This proposal strongly reinforces the relationship of the bridge to the University Rose Garden and strengthens the bridge’s connectivity to the soon to be constructed City to Garden Way path.

5.4. Pursuant to the Survey Co-ordination Act 1944 (Tasmania), the bridge name determined by the Council would then need to be recommended to the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania.

5.5. It is understood that the matter of the naming of the bridge, if a recommended name was determined by the Council at its meeting of 19 August 2019, would be considered at the 5 September 2019 Nomenclature Board meeting.

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 specific financial implications in this proposal.

7.1.2. 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.

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 bridge recommended by the City of Hobart would need be endorsed by the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania.

9. Social and Customer Considerations

9.1. The name to be submitted to the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania should ideally reinforce the local community’s views, the site’s relationship to the Glebe and Domain, and the surrounding garden environment, and its function in connecting the City to the UTAS’ Domain campus, and the new City to Gardens Way pathway.

10. Marketing and Media

10.1. Appropriate communication activities will be undertaken to promote the new bridge and its name.

11. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

11.1. Key stakeholders in the vicinity of the bridge, as identified in the background above, specifically UTAS and the Glebe Residents’ Association, have been engaged in respect to the proposal.

11.2. Officer advice from the office of the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania is that both the 'Rose Garden Bridge' or the Kitty Henry Bridge' would be accepted under the Rules for Place Names in Tasmania, though the endorsement of local community stakeholders in regard to 'Rose Garden Bridge' may possibly be taken into account.

11.2.1. This advice however, 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.

11.5. 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.

11.6. 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.

11.7. It is understood that the matter of the naming of the bridge, if a recommended name was determined by the Council at its meeting of 19 August 2019, would be considered at the 5 September 2019 Nomenclature Board meeting.

11.8. If the Council was of a mind to submit the naming of the bridge to a public consultation or voting process of reasonable duration, this could delay the submission of the recommended name to the Nomenclature Board until its 5 December 2019 meeting, although an out of round meeting may be possible.

11.8.1. Such a process would also need to be carefully managed, given the potential reputational risks involved.

11.9. In the writing of this report, the author has also consulted with the Director City Amenity, Manager Parks and Recreation, Senior Cultural Heritage Officer and Senior Community Engagement Advisor – Strategic.

12. Delegation

12.1. The matter is delegated to the Council.

Philip Holliday

Executive Manager City Place Making

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 2 August 2019

File Reference: F19/51589

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 26

8/8/2019

REPORT TITLE: Waterworks Reserve - Master Plan Development

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Senior Parks Planner

Manager Bushland

Director City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report seeks approval to develop the Waterworks Reserve Master Plan.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The Waterworks Reserve is a popular and significant Hobart bushland and recreational reserve set in the midst of Tasmania’s oldest functioning drinking water supply system.

2.2. Since 1958 the reserve infrastructure has evolved to meet its popularity with established and irrigated lawns, paths and picnic shelters, but without a planning framework. The reserve was firstly managed by the City water supply field staff and then the bushland operational staff; all aspects of the parkland around the reservoirs developed organically in the absence of a plan.

2.3. Preliminary planning documents and values assessments that were prepared in the late 1990’s to guide the future management and development of the Waterworks Reserves will assist informing the preparation of the plan in addition to officer knowledge. This information has been used as a draft master plan and now requires update

2.4. Reserve based assets are depreciating with the City’s asset replacement budget holding an allocation of $200,000 to the replace key assets over the next 2 years (2019-2021), with more funds accumulating as assets depreciate.

2.5. There are no new capital funds allocated in the City’s Capital Works Program for the Reserve, so no major works are planned.

2.6. A review of the existing draft master plan is proposed to provide a coordinated planning framework to inform the asset replacement and the expenditure of these funds.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The draft Waterworks Reserve Master Plan be reviewed to guide future development and asset replacement in the Waterworks Reserve.

2. A community engagement process and collation and review of relevant survey and user data be undertaken to determine the values and user experiences of the Waterworks Reserve.

3. The draft Waterworks Reserve Master Plan be presented back to the Council in 2021 for endorsement to release for public exhibition and feedback.

4. Background

4.1. The Waterworks Reserve is a popular and significant Hobart bushland and recreational reserve set in the midst of Tasmania’s oldest functioning drinking water supply system. It forms part of the Hobart Water Supply System which commenced construction in 1861 and was completed in 1910 for the storage and distribution of drinking water collected from kunanyi / Mt Wellington for the people of Hobart.

4.2. The broader Hobart Water Supply System is historically significant as it is unique amongst other Australian water supply systems due to it being largely intact, its construction techniques and bushland setting. For these reasons it is a listed site on the Tasmanian Heritage Register.

4.3. The area that is owned and managed by the City, with the Reserve surrounds and the upper and lower water reservoirs covering approximately 14 hectares. This high use parkland area sits amidst the City’s broader Ridgeway Reserve and at the base of the 20 kilometre corridor of the Mountain Water Supply System.

However the water reservoirs and associated water supply infrastructure, covering 13 hectares, are owned and managed by TasWater.

4.4. Since 1958, the Reserve has been a popular destination for the people of greater Hobart to walk, picnic and barbecue due to its peaceful picturesque landscape sitting amidst a parkland and cultural heritage context with the forested foothills of kunanyi / Mt Wellington as a backdrop. Comments from visitors emphasise the secluded and natural experience that the reserve provides.

4.5. The reserve is also unique with a network of walking tracks that surround the reservoirs and connect up to Ridgeway Reserve, the Pipeline Track and broader Wellington Park offering a range of more extended walks.

4.6. Over the last 65 years the reserve infrastructure has evolved to meet its popularity with established and irrigated lawns, paths and picnic shelters without a planning framework. The reserve was firstly managed by the City water supply field staff and then bushland operational teams.

Pan 2 (Small)

4.7. The Reserve is a significant City asset containing a reserves based road and track network, a number of car parks, playground, two sets of public toilets and 13 picnic sites with barbeques: three of which are covered sites, ten which are bookable. It contains a number of assets requiring renewal, including some picnic shelters, walls, an old shed and crib room, paths and the like.

4.8. Due to the Reserve’s popularity, during the warmer months the BBQ sites are often fully booked. Planning for the sites maintenance and future development is essential to delivering a well-maintained recreational and parks based asset to the people of Hobart.

4.9. The City’s asset replacement budget has $200,000 allocated to the Waterworks Reserve over the next 2 years targeting the replacement of the playground, toilets, some picnic shelters, landscaping features, and elements of the road network.

4.10. Reserve based assets are depreciating with the City’s asset replacement budget holding an allocation of $200,000 to the replace key assets over the next 2 years (2019-2021), with more funds accumulating as assets depreciate. The program will target the replacement of the playground, toilets, some picnic shelters, landscaping features, and elements of the road network.

4.11. There are no new capital funds allocated in the City’s Capital Works Program for the Reserve, so no major works are planned.

4.12. A review of the existing draft master plan is proposed to provide a coordinated planning framework to inform the asset replacement and the expenditure of these funds, and is informed by an understanding of the broader values of the reserve, the community’s understanding and visitor use of the park.

4.13. Preliminary planning documents and values assessments that were prepared in the late 1990’s to guide the future management and development of the Waterworks Reserves will assist informing the preparation of the plan in addition to officer knowledge.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It proposed to review the draft Waterworks Reserve Master Plan to guide development and asset replacement in the Waterworks Reserve.

5.2. Community engagement and collation and review of relevant survey and user data is proposed to be undertaken to determine the values and user experiences of Waterworks Reserve.

5.3. It is proposed that the revised draft plan be presented back to the Council in 2021 for endorsement to release for public exhibition.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. This proposal is aligned with the :

Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025

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

Strategy 3.3.3. Develop policies, strategies and standards to guide future management and development of the open space networks.

Draft Capital City Strategic Plan 2019-2029

Strategy 6.1.1 – Ensure systems are in place to guide future management and development of parks, gardens and reserves, offering a variety of landscapes and passive recreational opportunities

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. The City’s asset replacement budget contains over $200,000 allocated to the Waterworks Reserve over the next 2 years (2019-2021) targeting the replacement of the playground, some picnic shelters, landscaping features, and elements of the of road network.

This allocation will increase with asset depreciation and the collection of this information in City’s new asset management software system.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Internal resourcing will undertake the review of the plan.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. The proposed plan will provide a coordinated and informed planning framework resulting in improved asset management.

8. Environmental Considerations

8.1. The new master plan will ensure the cultural and environmental values of the Reserve will continue to me protected and enhanced.

9. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

9.1. Community and stakeholder engagement will form part of the review.

10. Delegation

10.1. This matter is delegated to Council.

Jill Hickie

Senior Parks Planner

John Fisher

Manager Bushland

Glenn Doyle

Director City Amenity

Date: 1 August 2019

File Reference: F19/102429

Item No. 6.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 33

8/8/2019

REPORT TITLE: Recreational Vehicle Black Water Dump Point - Proposed Installation

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 obtain approval to fund and install a recreational vehicle (RV) black water dump point within the City’s Municipal Area.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The City has been approached by the Campervan and Motorhome Club of Australia (CMCA), Tasmanian branch expressing concern at the lack of black water waste disposal points in the City.

2.2. Research has shown there are no public options within the Hobart Municipal Area with those in place only available within accommodation facilities.

2.3. An investigation has been undertaken on the provision of a point and a location has been identified on Selfs Point Road in the vicinity of Rugby Park that would provide an ideal location for a dump point.

2.4. The estimated cost of statutory approvals and installation is in the order of $51,000, with an estimated annual operational expense of $6,500 per annum.

2.5. It is proposed to list the proposal for consideration for funding and development in the 2020-21 Capital Works Program

2.6. The Campervan and Motorhome Club of Australia has offered to provided the ‘Dump Ezy’ lid as a contribution to the project.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. Funding and development of a Recreation Vehicle black water dump point (proposed for installation in Selfs Point Road, in the vicinity of Rugby Park and the 10 Lives Cat Centre) be considered when the Council determines the 2020-21 Capital Works Program and annual budget at an estimated cost of $51,000 with an estimated annual operational expense of $6,500 per annum.

2. Should the project proceed, the contribution to the project by the Campervan and Motorhome Club of Australia (CMCA) (being the supply of the Dump-Ezy ‘lid’ of the proposed system) be acknowledged in the promotion of the project in the media at the appropriate time.

3. Should the project proceed, the General Manager be authorised to secure all necessary approvals for the project.

4. Background

4.1. The City is experiencing an increase in tourist visitor numbers, including a large number of recreational vehicles including campervans.

4.2. Whilst many of these vehicles are self-contained, vehicle water and black water waste storage (sewerage) are limited with water tank re-fill and black water storage tank discharge regularly required.

4.3. A public black water dump point was previously available at the North Hobart BP Service Station, Brooker Highway, however a recent renovation of that site has removed that facility.

4.4. Public dump points are located around southern Tasmania including Sorell, Kingston, the Huon Valley, however central Hobart currently offers no public facilities.

4.5. Locations for a facility have been investigated and it has been determined a space on Selfs Point Road, New Town offers a good opportunity for a dump point. The location between Rugby Park and the Cat Centre, provides a central location for visitors, as well as generous room for manoeuvring the large vehicles safely.

Connection to adjacent existing water and sewerage lines is also available.

4.6. A design for the facility has been completed (refer Attachment A).

4.7. The City has been working with local representatives of the Campervan and Motorhome Club of Australia (CMCA) who support the proposed. CMCA have offered to contribute to the project with the supply of the ‘lid’ of the proposed system, known as ‘Dump-Ezy’. Information on this product is marked at Attachment B.

4.8. There is significant visitation of RV’s (motorhomes and caravans) to the State. The last available figures from the Spirit of Tasmania from the 2016-17 report show 10,956 motorhomes and 12,877 caravans travelled across Bass Straight. These figures don’t include any intrastate travel.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that funding and development of a Recreation Vehicle black water dump point (proposed for installation in Selfs Point Road, in the vicinity of Rugby Park and the 10 Lives Cat Centre) be considered when the Council determines the 2020-21 Capital Works Program and annual budget at an estimated cost of $51,000 with an estimated annual operational expense of $6,500 per annum.

5.2. Should the project proceed, the contribution to the project by the Campervan and Motorhome Club of Australia (CMCA) (being the supply of the Dump-Ezy ‘lid’ of the proposed system) be acknowledged in the promotion of the project in the media at the appropriate time.

5.3. Should the project proceed, the General Manager be authorised to secure all necessary approvals for the project.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The proposal is compatible with the Capital Strategic Plan 2015-2025 as follows:

6.1.1. 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 Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Funding for the project is not available in the 2019-20 capital works program.

7.1.2. Maintenance and cleaning of the asset will also be required, with an estimated cost of $6,500 per annum.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. It is proposed that funding of $51,000 be considered by the Council in the development of the 2020-21 Capital Works Program

7.2.2. Annual operational costs in the vicinity of $6,500 per annum be included in future year budgets.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. Upon completion of the project, the City will become the owner of the asset, with an asset replacement timeframe in the order of 20 years.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. A planning permit, including TasWater approvals, will be required to be issued prior to any works commencing.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. The proposed installation will meet all required environmental regulations.

9.2. It is considered by providing these facilities it may reduce the incidence of black water waste being disposed of illegally by those that cannot access a public dump point.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. A convenient located facility will provide beneficial social considerations and will likely enhance Hobart’s reputation as an RV destination.

11. Marketing and Media

11.1. The completion of the project will provide a positive marketing opportunity for the City and a media release should be considered upon completion.

12. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

12.1. Should in-principal approval for the proposal be received, the will undertake engagement with the nearby Ten Lives Cat Centre as well as Tasmanian Rugby Union.

12.2. Engagement has already been undertaken with TasWater.

13. Delegation

13.1. The matter is delegated to the Council.

Shannon avery

Shannon Avery

Program Leader Recreation and Projects

Lee Farnhill

Manager Parks and Recreation

Glenn Doyle

Director City Amenity

Date: 1 August 2019

File Reference: F19/99668

Attachment a: RV Dump Point - Plans ⇩

Attachment b: RV Dump Point Lid Detail ⇩

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.