Minutes
Open Portion
Monday, 8 November 2021
AT 5:05 pm
Council Chamber, Town Hall
This meeting of the Council was conducted in accordance with a Notice issued by the Premier on 3 April 2020 under section 18 of the COVID-19 Disease Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020.
|
|
Minutes (Open Portion) Council Meeting |
Page 3 |
|
|
8/11/2021 |
|
PRESENT, APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE
3. Communication from the Chairman
4. Notification of Council Workshops
7. Consideration of Supplementary Items
8. Indications of Pecuniary and Conflicts of Interest
9. Council Acting as Planning Authority
9.1 66 Alexander Street, Sandy Bay - Three Multiple Dwellings and Front Fencing
10. Asset Management Policy and Strategy - Updates
11. 48-50 New Town Road - Hospital Development - Commuter Parking and Active Travel Plan
Community, Culture and Events Committee
12. Orange Sky Laundry Town Hall Operation
14. Creative Hobart Quick Response Grant
15. 2021-22 Taste of Summer In Kind Support
Parks and Recreation Committee
16. Petition - Domain Tennis Centre - Installation of a Tree Root Barrier
Special Report – Chief Executive Officer
17. COVID - Business Support Update
18. Closed Portion of the Meeting
|
|
Minutes (Open Portion) Council Meeting |
Page 5 |
|
|
8/11/2021 |
|
PRESENT:
The Lord Mayor Councillor A M Reynolds, the Deputy Lord Mayor Councillor H Burnet, Aldermen M Zucco, J R Briscoe, D C Thomas, Councillors W F Harvey, Alderman S Behrakis, Councillors M S C Dutta, J Fox, Dr Z E Sherlock and W N S Coats.
APOLOGIES:
Nil.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE:
Alderman Dr P T Sexton.
Councillor Fox joined the meeting at 5.15pm and was not present for items 1 and 2.
Alderman Thomas retired from the meeting at 5.46pm and was not present for items, 15 to 18 inclusive.
Alderman Behrakis left the meeting at 5.58pm, returning at 5.59pm.
|
The Chairman reports that she has perused the minutes of the meeting of the Open Portion of the Council meeting held on Monday, 25 October 2021, finds them to be a true record and recommends that they be taken as read and signed as a correct record.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Behrakis That the recommendation be adopted. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
The minutes were signed. |
Are there any items, which the meeting believes, should be transferred from this agenda to the closed agenda or from the closed agenda to the open agenda, in accordance with the procedures allowed under Section 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015?
No items were transferred.
|
|
The Lord Mayor reported that, as part of Children’s Week activities, Hobart Schools were invited to participate in a Hobart Children’s Mayor Program.
The program aimed to provide more engagement and learning opportunities with primary school children, leaving them with a greater understanding of the role of local Government, the democratic process and the role of the Lord Mayor and Elected Members.
Students of Hobart Primary Schools were invited to submit a short ‘manifesto’ outlining how they would make Hobart a better city. The Commissioner for Children and Young People joined a panel comprising of the City’s CEO, Officers from our Children and Families area, the Deputy Lord Mayor and Lord Mayor, to select the Children’s Mayor and Deputy Mayor.
The winning students, who had joined the Lord Mayor at the Council meeting, also met with officers to talk about their ideas.
The Lord Mayor then introduced the Children’s Mayor, Alex Johnstone, year 6 Lansdowne Crescent Primary and Children’s Deputy Mayor, Edie Tracey, year 6 Lenah Valley Primary School and invited them both to present their manifesto to the Council.
Questions where then invited from elected members.
Behrakis
That the manifestos of the Children’s Mayor and Children’s Deputy Mayor be received and noted and included in the minutes of the meeting. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
a Children's Mayor manifesto by Alex Johnstone ⇨ b Children's Deputy Mayor manifesto by Edie Tracey ⇨ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
In accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, the Chief Executive Officer reports that no Council workshops have been conducted since the last ordinary meeting of the Council.
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Ms Wilson put the following question and was provided with the corresponding response by the Chief Executive Officer. Question:
My concern lies with City Amenity’s 26 October 2020 Riding the Mountain plan (RTM) for the staged construction of 20 new mountain bike tracks, total 37 km, in the foothills of kunanyi’s eastern face. I asked a question in four parts in Public Question Time at the Council meeting on 11 October 2021 about this matter and I received a written response dated 25 October 2021 signed by you. Thank you for that, CEO. At the meeting I proposed that RTM needs to go back to the drawing board. Of great concern to me, CEO, is the fact that on 6 September 2021 Council approved its own Development Application for the construction of 3 of the new tracks proposed in RTM: Rocky Wheel’n, Free Wheel’n and Skid Road. I believe you ought to postpone any RTM track construction, CEO, pending review of RTM. My question today is a follow up to the answer I received to part 2 of my 11 October 2021 question. I asked, and I quote:
“…. Can I be provided with evidence that shows that the RTM public consultation process sought and obtained input from representative samples of all the different types of kunanyi’s recreational users, including walkers?...” Your answer referred me to the “…Council Report of 15th October 2020…”, and in particular to Attachment B of that report. I note that the report is correctly referred to in full as Item 6.2 from the Agenda of the Parks & Recreation Committee meeting of 15 October 2020, pages 13 – 78 (which includes Attachments A, B & C). It is signed by: The Director City Amenity, Manager Bushland, Program Officer Park Planning & Program Leader Bushland Recreation. There are a number of criticisms that can be made about the RTM public consultation process, otherwise known as the community engagement process, as conducted by City. Not the least of these is that the surveys used were online, respondents self-selected and could respond multiple times, and did not need to identify themselves, i.e., were anonymous. On this basis alone it can be concluded that responders to the RTM surveys are unlikely to be a representative sample of kunanyi users. Attachment C notes the following:
“…596 survey responses were received across the three surveys; with 423 responses to the rider’s survey; 104 responses to the walker’s survey and 59 responses to the runner’s survey…” (p.52). I note that the Manager Bushland provided these figures to the local newspaper presumably as evidence that the public consultation process was valid (Mercury 7 September p 3). It is immediately obvious that the surveys did not capture a representative sample of walkers who use kunanyi at any one time. For City Amenity to assert that capturing the responses of only 104 walkers is capturing a representative sample of walkers is patently ridiculous. (And I note that these walkers could also have been mountain bike riders). The fact is that the RTM public consultation targeted mountain bike riders but the results were reported as if the consultation was a representative survey of all user groups. So, CEO, in the light of my above comments, I am asking you how the RTM public consultation process can be viewed as valid by Council? How does it stack up against the requirements of Council’s Community Engagement Framework guidelines?
Response:
The City has undertaken extensive engagement in the development of the Riding the Mountain Plan which has been detailed in a number of meetings and responses to date.
You are correct Ms Wilson, in your statement that community engagement undertaken for this project did not yield a representative sample, the engagement report did not make this claim.
The engagement process provided the opportunity for any interested person to provide feedback on the project and extensive efforts were made to provide this opportunity. While the majority of respondents were from the mountain bike community, each user group was given the opportunity to provide feedback through user specific surveys, direct contact, notifications on social media, print media and postings on the lower foothills walking track trail heads.
The engagement results were reported by respondent group rather than as an overall statistic. This was done to ensure that the views of each user group were clearly articulated in the engagement report.
Engagement opportunities for the project were broadly promoted to casual users and stakeholders within the community including newspaper advertising and social media.
The engagement process for this project adheres to the principles and objectives within the City’s Community Engagement Policy and Framework which seeks to ensure everyone who may be affected by a decision has the opportunity to have their say. The objectives of the policy are to: o Achieve good governance by facilitating open, fair and constructive dialogue. o Allow for informed decision making and achieve together an improved quality of life in Hobart. o Achieve active community participation through involvement and inclusiveness. o Provide the community with a clear understanding of the Council’s consultation processes.
While the sample of survey respondents is not a statistically representative sample, the project has provided ample opportunity for those who wish to participate, to do so. Feedback was reported in such a way that the views of all user groups were clearly represented.
|
|
Meeting date: 25 October 2021 |
|
|
Raised by: Ms Louise Elliot |
|
|
Response Author: Ms Kelly Grigsby, CEO |
|
|
Topic: University of Tasmania Urban Design Framework & Elected Member Allowances |
|
Question:
1. UTAS’ Urban Design Framework document that covers its move to the CBD outlines dramatic changes to our City. These changes will no doubt be welcomed by some, while being forcibly imposed on others to their detriment.
Some of these changes include UTAS’ intention to “develop Melville Street as a pedestrian priority street” and to expand their property portfolio to over a dozen large, prime real estate sites in the central CBD. The community is already seeing UTAS’ wishes coming to fruition through the removal of considerable on-street parking in Elizabeth Street and more plans for similar underway.
Can the Council please advise:
· what, if any, assurances has the Council or its representatives given UTAS that the plans UTAS has outlined in their Urban Design Framework are or will be supported by the Council?
· what is the Council’s understanding of what making Melville Street pedestrian priority means in real terms? For example, is this blocking the street to traffic, making the street one-way, and/or removing some or all parking?
· what, if any, plans do the Council have to consult with the residents and businesses in the areas impacted by the Council’s plans for Hobart’s streets?
· how does the Council expect UTAS’ move to the City to impact rates revenue, in particular:
o what rates does the Council estimate would be payable if the real estate currently and proposed to be occupied by UTAS in the CBD was instead occupied by a party that did not have exemption from paying rates? Or put another way, how much rates income is UTAS’ move to the CBD costing in terms of missed rates revenue?
o what, if any, properties in the Hobart LGA does UTAS currently pay rates on and what is the value of those rates?
2. In April 2020 a motion was put forward by the Lord Mayor and Councillor Sherlock seeking that all elected members take a voluntary 20 per cent reduction in their allowance. The motion was lost with the Lord Mayor, and Councillors Sherlock, Dutta and Ewin voting in support of the motion.
Can the Council please advise if this motion needed to be supported in order for elected members to action a voluntary reduction in their allowance or was it possible for members to take their own independent action to reduce their allowance without this motion being raised or supported?
Assuming that members could reduce their allowance without the motion being supported, can the council please advise which, if any, of the four elected members that voted in support of this motion actioned a voluntary reduction in their allowance since April 2020 and the value of the reduction made per member?
Response:
Question 1
The University of Tasmania Urban Design Framework has been prepared in consultation with Council officers with the University of Tasmania providing briefings to the Council however, it is important to note that no formal statutory approvals have been requested or provided to date and the Council has not formally formed an opinion on the framework.
The framework will be considered as part of the Council’s Central Hobart Precinct Plan and any permanent changes to the road network to accommodate greater pedestrian activity will be considered as part of this broader planning project.
Any changes to the street network to accommodate greater pedestrian activity (pedestrian priority) and active transport options, is likely to result in changes to the allocation of road space currently designated for car parking and vehicle movement.
The Council is committed to engaging with businesses, landowners and the community prior to making any determination to proceed, should significant changes to the road network be requested. Significant changes would also be subject to a statutory notification process allowing the wider public to express an opinion as to the merit or otherwise of the proposal, and for the Council and or the Commissioner for Transport to consider these opinions.
Any individual development application on University of Tasmania owned land will be considered under the planning scheme in force at the time they are lodged, noting the full re-location of the Sandy Bay Campus into the city centre is expected to take ten years to achieve.
In respect of your questions relating to rates, there would be no lost rates. The University of Tasmania and the City of Hobart have signed a 10 year Heads of Agreement, through which the University will pay the equivalent of rates on properties purchased by UTAS in the CBD that the University would otherwise be exempt from certain rates (such as the general rate) pursuant to section 87(1)(d) of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas), which states that all land is rateable except the following are exempt from general rates:
· Land or part of land owned and occupied exclusively for charitable purposes.
It is noted that the advancement of education is a charitable purpose.
The agreement covers the following points:
· Council will assess any application for exemption by the University under s87(1)(d) of the Local Government Act 1993 and, subject to the exemption applying, will grant the exemption
· The University will make ex gratia payments in respect of Rateable Land and Student Accommodation Land and the quantum of the payments will increase by CPI annually (the rates equivalency payment)
· Should the University purchase any additional land which is exempt, it will also attract the rates equivalency payment
· In addition to the rates equivalency payment, the University has agreed to pay development contributions in situations where Council intends to undertake works near land owned by the University and those works will directly benefit the University
· The parties will meet annually in March to discuss:
o The frequency of instalments of the rates equivalency payments
o The application or distribution of the rates equivalency payments
o The identification of works Council intends to undertake to improve and enhance public areas adjacent to or in close proximity to land owned by the University
In regards to the which properties and the value of rates, while it would be inappropriate to comment on the circumstances of individual ratepayers in the Hobart municipal area, like any other charity, the University of Tasmania pays full rates on properties or part of properties that are not eligible for the charitable rates exemption pursuant to section 87(1)(d) of the Local Government Act 1993. These properties or part of properties are not owned and occupied exclusively for a charitable purpose.
As outlined above, the University of Tasmania will pay the equivalent of rates on properties it purchases in the CBD, where the charitable rates exemption on the general rate applies.
Like any other charity, the University of Tasmania pays service rates and charges on all properties, even those eligible for the charitable rates exemption. This is because the charitable rates exemption does not apply to the obligation to pay service rates and charges. Service rates and charges include the stormwater removal service rate, the waste management service charge, landfill rehabilitation service charge and fire service rate.
Question 2
Section 340A of the Local Government Act 1993 entitles elected members to prescribed allowances however section 340A(3) also allows individuals to decided not to receive part or all of an allowance, therefore a motion or Council decision is not required for a reduction to occur.
Of the four elected members that voted in support of the motion in April 2020, two elected members independently arranged for a temporary reduction in their allowances totalling the following:
Lord Mayor Councillor Anna Reynolds - $4,505.67
Councillor Zelinda Sherlock - $900.00
These reductions are reflected in the elected member allowances and expenses reports that are published to the Council’s website - hobartcity.com.au/Council/Elected-Members/Elected-Member-Allowances-and-Expenses
No petitions were received.
Ref: Part 2, Regulation 8(6) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
|
That the Council resolve to deal with any supplementary items not appearing on the agenda, as reported by the Chief Executive Officer in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
No supplementary items were received.
|
Ref: Part 2, Regulation 8(7) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
Elected members are requested to indicate where they may have any pecuniary or conflicts of interest in respect to any matter appearing on the agenda, or any supplementary item to the agenda, which the Council has resolved to deal with.
No interest was indicated.
In accordance with the provisions of Part 2 Regulation 25 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, the intention of the Council to act as a planning authority pursuant to the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 is to be noted.
In accordance with Regulation 25, the Council will act as a planning authority in respect to those matters appearing under this heading on the agenda, inclusive of any supplementary items.
The Council is reminded that in order to comply with Regulation 25(2), the Chief Executive Officer is to ensure that the reasons for a decision by a Council or Council Committee acting as a planning authority are recorded in the minutes.
|
9.1 66 Alexander Street, Sandy Bay - Three Multiple Dwellings and Front Fencing pln-21-559 - File Ref: F21/109293 Ref: Supplementary Open CPC 12, 1/11/2021 Application Expiry Date: 5 November 2021 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
That pursuant to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015, the Council refuse the application for three multiple dwellings and front fencing at 66 Alexander Street, Sandy Bay 7005, for the following reasons:
1. The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or the performance criterion with respect to clause D11.4.2 A1 or P1 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 because the front setback is not compatible with the streetscape. 2. The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or the performance criterion with respect to clause D11.4.2 A3 or P3 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 because the site and scale of the dwellings cause an unreasonable loss of amenity to adjoining properties. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Briscoe That the recommendation be adopted. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
MOTION CARRIED
VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
10. Asset Management Policy and Strategy - Updates File Ref: F21/100130; 15/127-026-07; 16/335 Ref: Open CIC 6.1, 27/10/2021 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
That the updated Asset Management Policy and Strategy as marked as Attachment A and B to item 6.1 of the Open City Infrastructure Committee agenda of 27 October 2021, be approved. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Sherlock That the recommendation be adopted. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
11. 48-50 New Town Road - Hospital Development - Commuter Parking and Active Travel Plan File Ref: F21/99397; R0712 Ref: Open CIC 6.5, 27/10/2021 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
That 1. The information be received and noted. 2. The actions of Council Officers be noted and the item be marked as complete on the status report. 3. The Chief Executive Officer ensure that an Active Travel Plan, in accordance with the resolution of 9 March 2021, is completed and submitted to Council. PART B That a report be provided back to Council on including Active Travel Plans into the planning approval system for large developments over a certain size. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Burnet That the recommendation be adopted. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
12. Orange Sky Laundry Town Hall Operation File Ref: F21/103166 Ref: Open CCEC 6.1, 28/10/2021 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
That: 1. The Council endorse a twelve-month trial for Orange Sky Laundry to operate for 2-3 hours one evening per week on the Town Hall parking deck. (i) The Council delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to negotiate an agreement with Orange Sky Laundry. 2. An evaluation report be provided to the Council at the end of the trial. 3. The total benefit provided be recorded in the ‘Grants, Assistance and Benefits provided’ section of the City of Hobart’s Annual Report. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Harvey That the recommendation be adopted. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
File Ref: F21/95600; 20/39 Ref: Open CCEC 6.2, 28/10/2021 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
That Council acknowledge completion of Action #CCS02 (Hobart City Watch Security Operations Centre) of Pillar 2 (Connected Communities and Safety) of the Connected Hobart Action Plan as detailed in the report marked as item 6.2 of the Open Community Culture and Events Committee agenda of 28 October 2021. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Sherlock |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
14. Creative Hobart Quick Response Grant File Ref: F21/100367; 21/44 Ref: Open CCEC 6.4, 28/10/2021 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
That: 1. The Creative Hobart Quick Response Grant is withdrawn from the City of Hobart Grants Program for the foreseeable future. 2. The funding allocation for the Creative Hobart Quick Response Grant of $11,000 be diverted to the Creative Hobart Small Grant Stream. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Burnet That the recommendation be adopted. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
15. 2021-22 Taste of Summer In Kind Support File Ref: F21/106431 Ref: Closed CCEC 4.1, 28/10/2021 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
That: 1. The Council endorse the level of proposed in kind support outlined in this report for the 2021-22 Taste of Summer event including: (i) Fee waivers for equipment and venue hires, to the value of $430,984 (excluding GST) (ii) Partial fee waivers for the Civic Banner Program and road closures, to the value of $14,128 (excluding GST) 2. The Council delegate the authority to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise any licence requirements, including incidental additional requests for in kind support sought by Pinpoint Group for the 2021-22 Taste of Summer event. 3. The total value of the in kind support be recorded in the ‘Grants, Assistance and Benefits Provided’ section of the City of Hobart’s Annual Report 2021-22.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Dutta That the recommendation be adopted. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Amendment
Behrakis
That: 1. The Chief Executive Officer be delegated to evaluate items owned by the City and held in storage pertaining to the Taste of Tasmania, and determine what items are no longer required.
2. The Chief Executive Officer consider selling those items identified as unused or no longer required, including the shipping containers used for storing the items, and report back to Council should the need arise.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
AMENDMENT CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
SUBSTANTIVE MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
COUNCIL RESOLUTION: |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
1. The Council endorse the level of proposed in kind support outlined in this report for the 2021-22 Taste of Summer event including: (i) Fee waivers for equipment and venue hires, to the value of $430,984 (excluding GST) (ii) Partial fee waivers for the Civic Banner Program and road closures, to the value of $14,128 (excluding GST) 2. The Council delegate the authority to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise any licence requirements, including incidental additional requests for in kind support sought by Pinpoint Group for the 2021-22 Taste of Summer event. 3. The total value of the in kind support be recorded in the ‘Grants, Assistance and Benefits Provided’ section of the City of Hobart’s Annual Report 2021-22. 4. The Chief Executive Officer be delegated to evaluate items owned but the City and held in storage pertaining to the Taste of Tasmania, and determine what items are no longer required.
(i) The Chief Executive Officer consider selling those items identified as unused or no longer required, including the shipping containers used for storing the items, and report back to Council should the need arise.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
16. Petition - Domain Tennis Centre - Installation of a Tree Root Barrier File Ref: F21/106890 Ref: Special Open PRC 4.1, 8/11/2021 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
That: 1. The offer to fund the installation of a root barrier adjacent to court 17 at the Domain Tennis Centre at the quoted price of $3,630 exc GST be confirmed. 2. The City will continue to provide support and assistance to the Domain Tennis Centre in securing future external grant funding. 3. The condition of the annual grant provided to the Domain Tennis Centre that the funding be spent on the maintenance of capital assets where it is demonstrated that the work undertaken will extend the life of that asset be noted. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Sherlock That the recommendation be adopted. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
17. COVID - Business Support Update File Ref: F21/105237 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Behrakis
That the recommendation contained in the Special Report of the Chief Executive Officer, marked as item 17 of the Open Council agenda of 8 November 2021, be adopted. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
COUNCIL RESOLUTION: |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
That the COVID-Business Support Update provided by the Chief Executive Officer of 3 November 2021, marked as item 17 of the Open Council agenda of 8 November 2021, be received and noted. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That the Council resolve by absolute majority that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to regulation 15(1) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 because the items included on the closed agenda contain the following matters:
· Minutes of a Closed portion of the meeting · Leave of absence · Commercial Tender · Information provided to the Council on the basis it remains confidential
The following items were discussed:-
Item No. 1 Minutes of the last meeting of the Closed Portion of the Council Meeting Item No. 2 Communication from the Chairman Item No. 3 Leave of Absence Item No. 4 Consideration of supplementary Items to the agenda Item No. 5 Indications of pecuniary and conflicts of interest Item No. 6 FOGO Processing Tender LG(MP)R 15(2)(d) Item No. 7 Wellington Park Management Trust - Draft Visitor and Recreation Strategy LG(MP)R 15(2)(g) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Behrakis That the recommendation be adopted. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MOTION CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY VOTING RECORD
|
There being no further business the Open portion of the meeting closed at 6.07pm.
TAKEN AS READ AND SIGNED AS A CORRECT RECORD
THIS
22nd DAY OF November 2021.
CHAIRMAN
