Minutes (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 3

27/5/2024

Minutes (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 5

27/05/2024

The Chairperson reports that she has perused the minutes of the meeting of the Open Portion of the Council meeting held on Monday, 29 April 2024, and finds them, together with item 19.3, as amended, of the Open Portion of the Council meeting held on Monday, 19 March 2024, to be a true record and recommends that they be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

SHERLOCK

DUTTA                                                    

That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

The minutes were signed.

The Lord Mayor reported that on Saturday 27 April 2024, Alderman Bloomfield attended the official opening of ‘Ancient Charm, Splendid Colours’ exhibiting art works from Chinese artist, Qin Sheng.  The event was hosted by the Federation of the Chinese Associations Tasmania and held a Wrest Point.

Qin Sheng is considered one of the best ink panting calligraphy artists in the world.  His art works display a very contemporary fusion style of eastern and western art, retain elements of traditional ink paint calligraphy that have stretched back hundreds of years.

Alderman Bloomfield was presented with two beautiful pieces of work which the Lord Mayor presented to the Chamber.

The Lord Mayor presented a Certificate of Welcome that was received from Safer Australian Roads and Highways to welcome the City of Hobart as a 2024 Yellow Ribbon Road Safety Council.  The certificate also thanks the Council and staff for “their steadfast commitment to improving road safety.”

The Lord Mayor acknowledged the passing of Tony Foster, former Mayor of Brighton.  Tony was Tasmania’s longest serving Mayor, who made a significant contribution to the local government sector.  The Lord Mayor, on behalf of the council extended thoughts and wishes to his family and friends.

The Chamber observed one minute of silence.

7.1      Collins Street Tactical Cycleways

The Chief Executive Officer tabled a petition from Alison Hetherington Public Affairs Manager Bicycle Network, Hobart calling for the Council to commence work on the tactical trial for an active transport link in Collins Street.

There were 1298 signatories to the petition.

HARVEY

DUTTA

That the petition be received and noted, and a report be provided back to a future Council meeting, following consideration by the relevant portfolio committee.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Attachment

a    Petition - Collins Street Tactical Cycleways - May 2024 ⇨  

10.      Collins Street Tactical Bicycle Infrastructure

POSSELT

Lohberger

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 10 of the Open Council Agenda of 27 May 2024, be adopted.

ZUCCO

DUTTA

That Councillor Posselt be granted an extra two minutes to address the item.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

PROCEDURAL MOTION

ELLIOT

BLOOMFIELD

That the item be deferred to allow further engagement to be undertaken.

PROCEDURAL MOTION LOST

VOTING RECORD

SHERLOCK

DUTTA

That Alderman Zucco be granted an extra two minutes to address the item.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That:

1.      The Council endorse the concept plan for tactical bicycle lanes on Collins Street, between Molle Street and Murray Street, to proceed to further project communications and engagement, and detailed design.

2.      Following implementation of the above recommendation, an Engagement Summary report be provided to the Council for consideration, and approval sought for the installation of the Collins Street Tactical Bicycle Infrastructure.

11.      Central Hobart Plan - Implementation Program - Year One

HARVEY

SHERLOCK

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 11 of the Open Council Agenda of 27 May 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That:

1.      The Council endorse the Central Hobart Plan Implementation Program year one report, marked as Attachment A to item 11 of the Open Council Agenda of 27 May 2024.

2.      The Council note the public release and sharing of the report to facilitate the communication and delivery of the priority actions.

12.      Stormwater Management Policy for Development

lOHBERGER

POSSELT

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 12 of the Open Council Agenda of 27 May 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the Council endorse the Stormwater Management Policy for Development, marked as Attachment A to item 12 of the Open Council Agenda of 27 May 2024.

13.      Quarterly Financial Report - 31 March 2024

sherlock

posselt

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 13 of the Open Council Agenda of 27 May 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That:

1.      The Council note the Quarterly Financial Report – 31 March 2024; and

2.      Approve the following proposed Operational and Capital Works variation requests to update the City’s 2023-24 Budget Estimates:

Operational Variations:

Capital Works Variations:

14.      2024-25 Fees and Charges

harvey

sherlock

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 14 of the Open Council Agenda of 27 May 2024, be adopted, as amended by the deferral of the proposed fees and charges relating to information request fees to be subject to a report for further information.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 14 of the Open Council Agenda of 27 May 2024, be adopted, as amended by the deferral of the proposed fees and charges relating to information request fees to be subject to a report for further information.

15.      Procurement - Quotation Exemption Report

posselt

sherlock

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 15 of the Open Council Agenda of 27 May 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the Council note the exemptions granted from the requirement to seek three written quotations for the period 1 January to 31 March 2024, marked as Attachment A to item 15 of the Open Council Agenda of 27 May 2024.

16.      Menopause

Motion

“That Council:

1.   Sign a Menopause Workplace Pledge; and

2.   Request the CEO to:

(a)     undertake steps to possibly nominate a dedicated Menopause Champion amongst the staff, so the City of Hobart can be a Menopause Friendly Employer;

(b)     facilitate regular support and advice sessions on peri-menopause and menopause that can be accessed by both staff and Councillors/Alderman; and

(c)     work with health care providers to facilitate improved access to information and advice on peri-menopause and menopause in the community

(d)     Seek feedback on the initiative from the Healthy Hobart Portfolio Committee”

Rationale:

“Recently the Lord Mayor noted that "At the City of Hobart, we are committed to fostering an inclusive environment where women thrive. With 41% of our workforce comprising women, including those in non-traditional roles, we are proud of the progress we've made in promoting gender equality. Our city is privileged to have women in prominent leadership positions, including myself as Lord Mayor and Cr Helen Burnet as Deputy Lord Mayor, alongside many others in senior management and director roles.¹

The current Australian Government has supported a motion for a Senate inquiry into the effects of menopause.2 

The inquiry appears to encompass both perimenopause and menopause. ‘People experiencing physically and mentally debilitating menopause and perimenopause symptoms have for too long been forced to suffer in silence,’ says Senator Larissa Waters, who is the Greens leader in the Senate and the spokesperson for women.³

New South Wales has also launched a Perimenopause and Menopause Toolkit. ‘A free resource, which is designed to address the issues that women face by raising awareness in culturally and linguistically diverse communities. This toolkit is part of a $37.3 million, four-year campaign designed to support people experiencing severe symptoms of menopause.4

In the UK, the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk5 recognised that peri-menopause and menopause and the ‘wide ranging symptoms involved can be a difficult time for women, [leading] to a loss of confidence which may then lead to women leaving the workforce. The Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk also proposed a similar motion, which was aimed at fully supporting both staff and councillors experiencing menopause and wished to be a Menopause Friendly Employer.⁶

[1] https://www.miragenews.com/hobart-city-dress-for-success-join-forces-to-1187385/#:~:text=%22At%20the%20City%20of%20Hobart,made%20in%20promoting%20gender%20equality.

2https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/27136/&sid=0167

3https://globalwomen.org.nz/inclusive-cultures/australia-menopause-policy/

4 Ibid.

5 https://democracy.west-norfolk.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=33184

6 https://democracy.west-norfolk.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=33184

sherlock

Posselt                                                         That the motion be adopted.

PROCEDURAL MOTION

COATS

ELLIOT

That the item be deferred to allow consultation with the Healthy Hobart Portfolio Committee.

PROCEDURAL MOTION LOST

VOTING RECORD

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That Council:

1.   Sign a Menopause Workplace Pledge; and

2.   Request the CEO to:

(a)     undertake steps to possibly nominate a dedicated Menopause Champion amongst the staff, so the City of Hobart can be a Menopause Friendly Employer;

(b)     facilitate regular support and advice sessions on peri-menopause and menopause that can be accessed by both staff and Councillors/Alderman; and

(c)     work with health care providers to facilitate improved access to information and advice on peri-menopause and menopause in the community

(d)     Seek feedback on the initiative from the Healthy Hobart Portfolio Committee.

17.      Support for updating the Local Government Act 1993 and Code of Conduct

Motion

“That the Council supports the Lord Mayor to write to the Minister for Local Government and Director of Local Government advocating for the Local Government Act 1993 and Code of Conduct policies and processes to be updated:

a)   to provide Code of Conduct respondents with a reasonable timeframe in which they can lodge a review of a decision (such as a 30-day appeal period from the date the Determination Report is received)

b)   to ensure that a Determination Report is not to be published on a Council agenda until the appeal period expires (if no review has been lodged) or until the review of the decision has been resolved (if a review of the decision has been accepted)

c)   to ensure that any sanction resulting from the Determination Report is not implemented until the Determination Report has been published on a Council agenda

d)   to ensure that any Determination Report and associated sanction is to be treated with the utmost confidentiality until the Determination Report is published on a Council agenda.”

Rationale:

“Recent events have shown that the Local Government Act 1993 and policies and processes associated with Code of Conduct determinations and have major deficiencies in relation to Code of Conduct Determination Reports and their associated sanctions and appeal rights.

On 22 January 2024, Cr Elliot was notified that she was suspended with immediate effect for one month. On 24 January an appeal of the decision was lodged with the Magistrates Court, and soon after an application to have the suspension stayed was lodged and successfully granted. Later, the Determination Report was set aside after the State did not contest that natural justice had not been afforded.

It is critical that all parties are afforded natural justice and that respondents are not unfairly impacted by determinations that are flawed. In Cr Elliot’s situation, she served two weeks of a suspension that was publicly announced by the Council, despite the decision being under review, and from a determination that was later declared null and void.”

Councillor Elliot elected to allow the motion to lapse

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

The motion lapsed.

18.      Elizabeth Street Mall Information Booth

Motion

“That a report be prepared for Council that outlines the options for the future use of the Elizabeth Street Mall Information Booth, including examining the feasibility of the asset being offered for commercial lease.”

Rationale:

“The Information Booth in the Elizabeth Street Mall has been in place for many years but is rarely staffed, which reflects poorly on the City and presents considerable opportunity cost.

Given the Council’s financial situation and good practice more broadly, it is important that all opportunities to maximise revenue and make use of the Council’s assets are examined.

If the Council was to offer the Information Booth location for an alternative use through a commercial lease, this could activate a rarely used asset, deliver a new revenue stream, and provide a reliable presence in a high foot traffic location that can be prone to anti-social behaviour.

The report prepared could consider the potential for the Information Booth to be leased to a long-term tenant and the possibility of the Booth being used on a rolling calendar as a shopfront for local start-up and micro businesses.”

ELLIOT

COATS                                                                       That the motion be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That a report be prepared for Council that outlines the options for the future use of the Elizabeth Street Mall Information Booth, including examining the feasibility of the asset being offered for commercial lease.

19.      Breastfeeding is Welcome Everywhere

Motion

“This motion seeks the City of Hobart to:

1.   Be part of the Breastfeeding is Welcome Everywhere initiative.

2.   Take the necessary steps, on Council owned property and community public spaces, to use the resources that promote the Breastfeeding is Welcome Everywhere initiative.

3.   Pro-actively consider inviting other Hobart City Council stakeholder businesses to be part of the initiative

4.   Seek feedback on the initiative from the Healthy Hobart Portfolio Committee.”

Rationale:

“This is a free program - an initiative of the Australian Breastfeeding Association (ABA) – Australia’s peak breastfeeding organisation. The Breastfeeding is Welcome Everywhere program is a local, simple, no-fuss way to contribute broad-scale education and inclusion of breastfeeding women and parents, and therefore to the enhancement of family-friendly, inclusive, welcoming and healthy communities. Venues need only check some simple criteria and register – and be provided with sticker/s, and other resources.  The program sparks an opportunity for conversations to educate venue staff about women’s’ right to breastfeed in public - all in a low-key and positive way. This is an easily actionable initiative to foster inclusion and community-mindedness.  The display of the program sticker at venue entrances (up to 5 stickers are available per venue) signals to everyone, not just mothers and families (who may otherwise experience vulnerability) that mothers and parents are welcome to breastfeed.

This program is one of a range of advocacy initiatives from the ABA designed to include and support women and parents to breastfeed their babies in accordance with their own autonomy and personal wishes/plans. These initiatives support the establishment and maintenance of breastfeeding in accordance with best-practice health guidelines. The Breastfeeding is Welcome Everywhere program is a simple program that enhances family-friendliness in our community and strengthens community ties.

Participation in the Breastfeeding is Welcome Everywhere recognition is beneficial to the community in a variety of ways.  They include:

·    Expanded customer base and loyalty to participating venues. Venues who display the sticker widen their appeal as a family-friendly venue, as mothers and parents recognise the welcoming attitude of the venue to families resulting in greater participation and engagement with local venues and services from earlier in the parental and family phase of life.

·    Education of the broader community as to the worth, acceptability and inherent good of breastfeeding.

·    Increased wellbeing of our community’s breastfeeding mothers and parents. The Breastfeeding is Welcome Everywhere program asserts and confirms the rights of mothers to breastfeed as protected in the federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

Why is the Breastfeeding is Welcome Everywhere initiative important?

The relatively few incidents of discrimination or hostility towards breastfeeding in Australian society that occur often gain significant exposure in the media and on social media. This attention to these discriminatory incidents – and debate in reaction to them – may contribute to negative views of breastfeeding in public.  However, breastfeeding in public is not a privilege, it is a right.

In Tasmania breastfeeding is a protected attribute. Discrimination or 'prohibited conduct' is illegal on the basis of breastfeeding in the areas of education, employment, provision of goods, facilities and services, clubs, state laws and programs, awards and industrial agreements. 'Prohibited conduct' is any conduct that offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules a reasonable person on basis of a protected attribute. 

According to the ABA, it is not uncommon for mothers and parents to cease breastfeeding before they planned to, and concerns about “breastfeeding in public” are cited by those who feel limited or vulnerable in their capacity to engage in the community when they perceive or fear their breastfeeding may be viewed as unacceptable. The Breastfeeding is Welcome Everywhere program – and the venues who participate in it – increase knowledge of the legal and ethical protection of the right to breastfeed, and of the inclusion of breastfeeding mothers and parents in our community.

Further Breastfeeding is Welcome Everywhere program information is available at https://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bwe

References

Breastfeeding is Welcome Everywhere program – Australian Breastfeeding Association https://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bwe

Australian Government (2014) Sex Discrimination Act 1984. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2014C00002

Breastfeeding in Public – Australian Breastfeeding Association 2022
https://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/resources/breastfeeding-public

Breastfeeding and the law – Australian Breastfeeding Association May 2022
https://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/resources/breastfeeding-and-law

Australian Breastfeeding Association, (2022) Breastfeeding for a healthy baby and mum. https://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/resources/breastfeeding-healthy-baby-and-mum

Ball, T. M., & Wright, A. L. (1999). Health care costs of formula-feeding in the first year of life. Pediatrics, 103(Supplement 1), 870-876.

Government of Tasmania 2022 Healthy Tasmania Five-Year Strategic Plan 2022–2026 Healthy_Tasmania_Five-Year_Strategic_Plan_2022–2026_DoHTasmania2022 (2).pdf

Smith, J. P., Thompson, J. F., & Ellwood, D. A. (2002). Hospital system costs of artificial infant feeding: estimates for the Australian Capital Territory. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 26(6), 543-551.

WBTI Breastfeeding Trends UK (n.d). Open letter on the current crisis in breastfeeding in the UK –UK mothers are being let down. https://ukbreastfeedingtrends.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/open-letter-uk-response-to-lancet-updated7.pdf

Tasmanian Government, Climate Action 21: Climate Action Report Card 2021, https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/348971/Climate_Action_21_Report_Card_2021.pdf

Tasmanian Food Security Council 2012 Food for all Tasmanians A food security strategy Food_for_all_Tasmanians_A_food_Security_Strategy_DoHTasmania.pdf

The Tasmania Project Is high food insecurity the new normal in Tasmania? Report number: 45 Authors: Dr Katherine Kent, Sandra Murray, Dr Denis Visentin Date: 4 June 2021.”

SHERLOCK

HARVEY                                                                   That the motion be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the City of Hobart:

1.   Be part of the Breastfeeding is Welcome Everywhere initiative.

2.   Take the necessary steps, on Council owned property and community public spaces, to use the resources that promote the Breastfeeding is Welcome Everywhere initiative.

3.   Pro-actively consider inviting other Hobart City Council stakeholder businesses to be part of the initiative

4.   Seek feedback on the initiative from the Healthy Hobart Portfolio Committee.

20.      Virgin Australia and Air New Zealand

Motion

“This motion calls upon the Council;

To empower the CEO to make a submission to the ACCC to support the proposed tie up between Virgin Australia and Air New Zealand on Council’s behalf following discussions with relevant stakeholders.”

Rationale:

We know that the direct link to New Zealand is a benefit to our community and provides for savings on cost, time, convenience, and emissions reduction.  As an island state, transport links and the ability to easily get on and off island are critical to our ability to engage with work, leisure, attend events and host family and friends.  For Tasmanians, air links are move than just a means to travel from point A to point B, they represent our freedom to explore, to engage with the world and to likewise showcase the best of Tassie to those who arrive here.

It was with great celebration that Hobart welcomed flights directly from New Zealand with an Auckland service being seen pre COVID for the first time in some twenty years. 

This service has since seen disruption due to COVID, and then further disruption due to technical difficulties encountered by Air New Zealand with their Pratt & Witney engine maintenance program. 

It is obvious that the service is relatively marginal and with capacity constraints it was one of the routes that was unfortunately chosen for suspension.

For Tasmania it is incredibly welcome to see a proposal for Virgin Australia to be able to market and sell flights operated by Air New Zealand on trans-Tasman routes.  This proposed arrangement will mean that Virgin flyers and Velocity members will be more likely to make the journey across the Tasman via an Air New Zealand flight and will make the Hobart to Auckland service more viable and provide a deeper pool of potential flyers to access the service.  It potentially opens Hobart as a transit destination for travellers from Perth and Adelaide who need to travel east.

It is a fact that many Tasmanians currently need to travel via the ‘hubs’ of Melbourne and Sydney to get where they need to go.  Encouraging direct services and flights from Tasmania to bespoke destinations allows for savings on cost, time, and emissions.  The proposed alliance for trans-Tasman services will, all else being equal, mean that Air New Zealand has an increased chance of filling its plane and justifying its service. 

As healthy Hobart chair, I consistently am on the lookout to promote the interests of the community.  We have had loneliness raised as a concern.  Better and direct links provide for family and friend reunions as well as the ability to travel and help combat the scourge of loneliness.

I note the benefits of the proposed tie up to Hobart and the wider community on business, tourism, leisure, and environmental grounds. 

COATS

ELLIOT                                                                       That the motion be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the Council empower the CEO to make a submission to the ACCC to support the proposed tie up between Virgin Australia and Air New Zealand on Council’s behalf following discussions with relevant stakeholders.

21.      Upholding Integrity in Planning Decisions

Motion

“This motion is in response to recent public commentary surrounding the refusal by the planning committee of a development application in Argyle Street.

That Council:

1.   Note that recently a highly contentious planning application for a development on Argyle Street was refused by the planning committee.

2.   Note that the refusal was a planning decision made after multiple representations received from the community providing evidence against the item, an expert UDAP report critical of the proposal, and finally that the application fell within the discretionary provisions of the planning scheme.

3.   Note that Council takes very seriously its role as a statutory planning authority and asks of its elected members to sit as a planning authority, as representatives of their community, and to put aside their personal views and assess applications solely against the provisions and criteria of the planning scheme.

4.   Note that while a contentious decision, it was not extraordinary, and at the meeting the professional director of planning indicated to committee members that it is likely a professional planner could be sourced to defend it at tribunal (i.e some experts would support refusal).

5.   Note that since this decision there has been consistent, egregious and personal attacks against the elected members on the planning committee, and that such attacks amount to a form of bullying, intimidation and public humiliation.

6.   Note that much of the commentary is being conducted by members of the public who are genuinely upset at the outcome of the planning process.

7.   Note that some of the commentary has been by public figures and individuals who ought to know better, and that public statements naming and shaming elected members for decisions they make as a planning committee is not appropriate.

8.   Write to members of parliament in Tasmania asking for a public statement or apology for the public naming and shaming of elected members acting as a planning authority (example letter with rationale).

9.   Issue a media release outlining the above.”

Rationale:

“There was a decision recently made on a development application ‘the Argyle development’ which was highly contentious. In an environment of housing shortages this was a large development containing many abodes and desired by many in the community.

Nevertheless, the development attracted a large number of representations against, and it did not receive a strong endorsement from the UDAP report. The professional planning director at the meeting indicated that a planning professional could be found to support refusal, unlike some other recent refusals by council.

Some aspects of the development fell outside the acceptable criteria under the planning scheme and were open to discretion under the performance criteria. Ultimately, the planning committee resolved in a close (5-4) vote in a determination to refuse the development. There is no evidence that the committee acted inappropriately in coming to its decision or conducting its affairs.

Given the highly contentious nature of the application, this refusal was welcomed by some in the community, but equally not welcomed by others.

Immediately post the refusal, commentary began as to who voted for the refusal and the impact this refusal would have on the development and addition of abodes to Hobart. These are not relevant to the decision the planning committee was tasked with making (that of assessing the application against the provisions of the planning scheme).

This commentary kicked off a ‘pile on’ of hateful, vitriolic and intimidatory messages directed at elected members, staff, and reflected poorly on the reputation of the City of Hobart and its planning processes.

Members of the planning committee have endured bullying, harassment and humiliation for completing the tasks to which they have been elected to do.

The commentary was aided and abetted by public figures who ought to know that the decision was made under a planning scheme and not under a consideration of whether elected members personally supported or not the application.

Given the desire to not have this incident repeated, it is considered that writing to public figures (for example MP’s Julie Collins, Felix Ellis, Cassy O’Connor, Ella Haddad) who publicly named and isolated elected members and reminding them of (1) the fact that as a planning committee you must vote only on the planning code and (2) that using their public profile to cast aspersions on the conduct of elected members results in public humiliation and (3) to consider apologising.

Example letter below

Felix Ellis MP, Cassy O’Conner MP, Julie Collins MP et al

Dear Members of Parliament (MP’s),

I write on behalf of Hobart City Council in relation to your recent conduct and commentary regarding a decision made by the council on a planning matter (the ‘Argyle development’).

As you ought to know, planning matters are often highly contentious in the community and often must be made in an environment of heighted scrutiny and public pressure. It is often the case that community members are invested in the outcome of planning decisions irrespective of the correctness and assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the planning scheme.

Council takes very seriously its role as a statutory planning authority and asks of its elected members to sit as a planning authority, as representatives of their community, and to put aside their personal views and assess applications solely against the provisions and criteria of the planning scheme.

The planning scheme (Hobart interim planning scheme 2015) is a performance-based planning scheme which recognises that there are in many cases a number of ways in which land use and development can satisfy desired environmental, social and economic standards.

To assess this there are areas of the scheme that fall within ‘acceptable’ or ‘performance’ criteria. Performance criteria are discretionary, and the development application is assessed against the criteria, and it is judged as to whether it complies.

As an example, a building height may be considered in the context of surrounding buildings if it falls within the performance criteria. An isolated building of great height would perform poorly against the performance criteria versus the exact same building of great height amongst a bevy of similar buildings.

The item in question was a planning decision made after multiple representations received from the community providing evidence against the item, an expert UDAP report highly critical of the proposal, and finally the application fell within the discretionary provisions of the planning scheme.

While a contentious decision, it was not extraordinary and at the meeting the professional director of planning indicated to committee members that it is likely a professional planner could be sourced to defend it at tribunal (i.e some experts would support refusal).

The subsequent commentary around the decision has focused on matters such as the intended purpose or who the applicant was, as well as who voted against, these are not factors taken into consideration in the scheme.

The consistent, egregious and personal attacks against the elected members on the planning committee can only be described as a form of bullying and intimidation at an outcome some in the community did not desire. There is no indication that the elected members of the planning committee in any way acted inappropriately.

We ask for your apology on behalf of the members of the planning committee for your conduct in this matter and the regrettable way in which they subsequently have had to bear community anger.

Kind regards,

Hobart City Council”

BLOOMFIELD

ELLIOT                                                                       That the motion be adopted.

PROCEDURAL MOTION

COATS

KELLY

That the item be deferred to allow mediation with the proponent of the Argyle Street development.

PROCEDURAL MOTION LOST

VOTING RECORD

COATS

POSSELT

That Councillor Dutta be granted an extra three minutes to address the item.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

MOTION LOST

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

The motion was lost.

22.      Confirmation of Council Position on UTAS Move Post 2024 State Election

Motion

“This motion is to clarify the position of Council given the confusion arising from frequent reporting and commentary at the recent 2024 State election.

That this Council:

1.   Accept the results of the Elector Poll from October 2022 in which the constituents of the City of Hobart voted 74% that they do {Not} support the University of Tasmania’s proposal to relocate the Sandy Bay campus into Hobart’s central business district.

2.   Note that the position taken by the Liberal Party, who subsequently formed Government, at the 2024 election was that they would pass laws prohibiting UTAS from selling off the Sandy Bay campus except with the permission of Parliament.  (attached as appendix)

3.   Note the position statement put forward by the Tasmanian Greens including that “The State Government should use available opportunities to ensure UTAS halts the relocation into the CBD and confirming an ongoing commitment to the maintenance of the Sandy Bay Campus for educational purposes”. (attached as appendix)

4.   Note the media release put out by the Save UTAS group condemning the Liberal Policy as not stopping the relocation into the CBD and lauding the Greens position. (attached as appendix)

5.   Advise that the Hobart City Council has never resolved to support the position of the Liberal Government.

6.   Position is that it does not support the University of Tasmania’s proposal to relocate the Sandy Bay campus into Hobart’s central business district. In line with the October 2022 elector poll subsequently accepted at the meeting of the 12 of December 2022 (the next Council meeting).

7.   Note that that the Council is obligated to represent and promote the interests of the community and, in doing so, to consult and involve the community (Local Government Act 1993, section 20 (1) and (2).

8.   Further notes that the elector poll was a consultation of the community of their view of the UTAS relocation and that there is a clear interest in the community to oppose the relocation into the CBD and that this poll was not qualified to suggest a hybrid model.

9.   Further notes that the relocation of components of the UTAS campus, including the school of Business and Economics, are contrary to the elector poll and are a relocation into the CBD.

10. Asks officers to report back to council actions currently being taken to promote the interests of the community and oppose the UTAS relocation from Sandy Bay into the CBD.”

Rationale:

“The 2024 state election saw increased interest in, and discussion and commentary about, the potential UTAS relocation into the CBD.  This relocation has been a matter of public discourse for some time and was famously the subject of a public meeting on the 11^th of May 2022 and subsequently an elector poll held concurrent with the council elections in October 2022. 

The elector poll returned a 74% majority of constituents of the City of Hobart who voted NO to the question:

Do you support the University of Tasmania’s proposal to relocate the Sandy Bay campus into Hobart’s central business district?

At the 2024 election many parties and candidates put forward policy positions in regards to the UTAS relocation.  The Liberal policy was that they would pass laws to stop the selling of Sandy Bay without the consent of Parliament.  This was then the subject of a media release by the Save the UTAS group condemning it as not being in line with the elector poll.  The Greens put out a comprehensive position statement which asked that the UTAS move into the city be immediately halted.  This was lauded by the same Save UTAS group media release.

Because of the public commentary and the victory by the Liberal government there has been confusion as to what the ‘current’ policy is around the UTAS relocation and if Council’s position has changed. 

As an example, recently in correspondence with a Councillor it was suggested that there were unaware that council has a position on the UTAS move, or more accurately is of the view that it has none, but that council accepts the elector poll and represents the community.  A seeming contradiction. 

The intent behind this motion is to send a clear message to the community that their vote matters, and that, until resolved otherwise, the City of Hobart’s position is as per the Elector poll and that the Council does NOT support the University of Tasmania’s proposal to relocate the Sandy Bay campus into Hobart’s central business district?”

COATS

LOHBERGER                                                            That the motion be adopted.

PROCEDURAL MOTION

posselt

sherlock

That the motion be put.

PROCEDURAL MOTION LOST

VOTING RECORD

MOTION LOST

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

The motion was lost.

23.      Catchment Management

Motion

“The Hobart City Council calls on the State Government to establish a single management organisation for the River Derwent catchment to:

1.   prioritise the supply of drinking water for Hobart and southern Tasmania, and

2.   to monitor water quality and reduce the amount of nutrients and pollution entering this critical drinking water catchment.”

Rationale:

“The River Derwent is under growing pressure from climate change, increased drinking water usage, increased industrial use, increases in nutrient levels and algal blooms, and the massive expansion of irrigation - with further expansion planned. This year is also the tenth anniversary of the 2014 state government decision to cancel regular water testing of Tasmanian rivers for agricultural chemical contamination. 

Scientists and medical doctors are expressing concern about Hobart’s drinking water catchment. Dr Christine Coughanowr in particular, the former longtime head of the Derwent Estuary Program, has been raising serious concerns for several years about growing problems in the Derwent catchment. Dr Coughanowr is one of Tasmania’s leading fresh water experts, and she has specific experience and knowledge in the Derwent after managing the DEP for decades. Dr Coughanowr is likely one of our foremost experts on the River Derwent itself, and if she is concerned about water quality in the Derwent, then we should all take notice.

There is no single authority to manage the Derwent or its large catchment, which covers around 13% of Tasmania. The current management of the catchment involves multiple Councils, GBEs, large private landholders, and numerous government agencies and departments, all managing or responsible for some but not all of the catchment. There are too many cooks in the kitchen and, as a result, compliance in the catchment is contestable, and there is evidence that different government authorities can, and do, disagree over who is responsible - but only after pollution events occur.  

While the Environmental Protection Agency does have some powers to regulate use in the catchment, there is a problem with the EPA and other authorities disagreeing over who is responsible. This occurred in the Plenty River valley, where the EPA and Derwent Valley Council disagreed over responsibility for a composting operation that caused a massive fish kill in the Plenty River. And the same problem has again occurred earlier this year at Risdon Vale, with the Clarence City Council and the EPA disagreeing over responsibility for managing a tip site. When management does take place it is reactive, occurring only after 100,000 fish are killed, or neighbours raise the alarm. 

TasWater does its best to provide clean drinking water from the Derwent, but ultimately it is the meat in the sandwich in this debate. TasWater is caught between the upper Derwent catchment, over which it has no regulatory control, and the need to continue providing clean drinking water from that catchment. A catchment management authority can only help TasWater in its mission. 

It is clear that the current fragmented management system is not working, and when it does work it is reactive, taking action only after serious pollution events have occurred. This is not acceptable in our drinking water catchment. 

A single management organisation is needed to prioritise drinking water over other uses of River Derwent water, with the power to monitor water quality and to enforce compliance if users are directing unacceptable levels of pollution into the Derwent or its tributaries.”

LOHBERGER

HARVEY                                                                    That the motion be adopted.

PROCEDURAL MOTION

DUTTA

ELLIOT                                                                                 That the motion be put.

PROCEDURAL MOTION LOST

VOTING RECORD

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the Hobart City Council calls on the State Government to establish a single management organisation for the River Derwent catchment to:

1.    prioritise the supply of drinking water for Hobart and southern Tasmania, and

2.    to monitor water quality and reduce the amount of nutrients and pollution entering this critical drinking water catchment.

24.      Crowther Statue Vandalism, Repair and Future

Motion

“That the Council:

1.   Condemn the destructive vandalism of the Dr William Crowther statue.

2.   Support the timely and professional repair of the statue.

3.   Confirm its support that a new permanent home for the statue must be facilitated that provides safe and secure public access to the statue.

4.   Requests officers to prepare a report for the Council’s June meeting that addresses:

·      when and by whom the statue will be repaired

·      the direct and indirect cost of the statue’s repair to the Council

·      how the conditions on the Council’s planning permit and Heritage Council of Tasmania consent are impacted and will be managed given the statue’s vandalism

·      the status of negotiations with collecting institutions around a permanent home for the statue

·      the feasibility of the statue being offered for sale to the community.”

Rationale:

“While the Council is the technical owner of the statue, the Dr Crowther statue is the only monument in the State that was paid for by the community. Over 1000 people contributed small donations to pay for this statue and its plinth. Given this, the Council has a moral obligation to ensure the horrific vandalism of the statue is repaired and that safe and secure public access to this valuable heritage item is facilitated.

Various materials related to the Crowther Reinterpreted Project, reference the need for “negotiations with public collecting institutions” to occur to find a permanent home for the Crowther statue. As noted by the Professional Historians Association (Victoria and Tasmania), the statue is “… a cultural artefact of the past and it should be preserved – if not in situ, in a safe repository such as the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery.”

ELLIOT

BLOOMFIELD                                                            That the motion be adopted.

Each clause was voted on separately.

The Lord Mayor put clause 1.

MOTION CARRIED
(CLAUSE 1)

VOTING RECORD

The Lord Mayor put clause 2.

MOTION LOST
(CLAUSE 2)

VOTING RECORD

The Lord Mayor put clause 3.

MOTION LOST
(CLAUSE 3)

VOTING RECORD

MOTION

POSSELT

SHERLOCK

That a new Clause 2 be included to read as follows:

2.    A report be prepared by Officers outlining options for possible repairs (or not) of the Crowther Statue in consultation with key stakeholders and associated professionals advice including planning advice.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That:

1.   The Council condemn the destructive vandalism of the Dr William Crowther statue.

2.   A report be prepared by Officers outlining options for possible repairs (or not) of the Crowther Statue in consultation with key stakeholders and associated professionals advice including planning advice.

25.      Two-Step Planning Application Review Process

Motion

“That the CEO prepare a report to Council:

1.   To develop a two-step process for planning applications whereby applications are considered firstly by a Planning Committee which develops a recommendation for approval or refusal of non-officer delegated applications to be ultimately considered by the full Council acting as Planning Authority at a later date and or other Council delegated Planning Authority Committee as part of the two step process.

2.   As part of the report, the CEO consider the Planning Committee consisting of six elected members that is tasked with forming a recommendation for consideration at a later date within 7 days of the planning committee.”

Rationale:

“Recent events have highlighted the value of a two-step process when assessing planning applications. Return to a two-step process for planning applications allows:

·    applications to be considered in depth, including deputations, through the Planning Committee

·    time to carefully consider an application before final decision

·    time for more information to be sought as required

·    time for applicants to respond to concerns raised by the Committee and/or representors to the Planning Committee

·    time for the applicant to amend, withdraw or seek another opportunity to highlight the merits of the application.

A return to the two-step process that was in place for many years before 2022 and functioned well.

It is acknowledged that this two-step process is extra work and increases scheduling pressures, however, the benefit is a greater opportunity for community input and for applicants to be able to respond to concerns raised prior to final decision by the Council. Given many planning decisions are for developments that will impact the Hobart built landscape for decades to come it is seen as appropriate to maximise community input.

There is also an additional benefit in that a smaller Planning Committee means a more streamlined meeting and other Council members can still attend if required and/or can watch the recording. This benefit is also for those who can watch the representations and make a considered decision prior to final decision at Council.”

In the absence of Alderman Zucco, to move his motion, the motion lapsed.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

The motion lapsed

26.      RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

The Council is reminded that in accordance with Regulation 29(3) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, the Chairperson is not to allow discussion or debate on either the question or the response.

SHERLOCK

HARVEY                                                                                                                        

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 26 of the Open Council Agenda of 27 May 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the following responses to questions without notice be received and noted:

Memorandum of the Director City Enablers 9 May 2024.

Memorandum of the Director City Enablers 9 May 2024.

Memorandum of the Acting Director Connected City 7 May 2024.

Memorandum of the Acting Director City Life 30 April 2024.

Memorandum of the Acting Director City Life 9 May 2024.

Memorandum of the Director City Enablers 9 May 2024.

Memorandum of the Acting Head of Intergovernmental Relations & Partnerships 10 May 2024.

27.      QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Regulation 29 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

File Ref: 13-1-10

27.1    Councillor Coats - UTAS Relocation

Question:    Can the Lord Mayor advise does the council support the University of Tasmania’s proposal to relocate the Sandy Bay campus into Hobart’s central business district?

Answer:       The Lord Mayor advised the Council’s position on the matter was resolved at its meeting on 12 December 2022.

27.2    Councillor Coats - Conflicts of Interest

Question:    Can Elected Members make decisions on items if clear statements have been put out presupposing the Elected Members ‘position’ during an election campaign?

Answer:       The Manager Legal and Corporate Governance advised that under the Local Government Act 1993, it is up to the individual elected member to manage their own perceived or actual conflicts of interest on matters as identified under the Act.

28.      Questions Taken on Notice During Debate

SHERLOCK

DUTTA

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 28 of the Open Council Agenda of 27 May 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COMMITTEE RESOLUTION:

That the register of questions arising during debate, marked as Attachment A, to item 28 of the Open Council Agenda of 27 May 2024 be received and noted.