Agenda of Council Meeting - Tuesday, 28 January 2025

Item No. 6.2.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 9

28/1/2025

Meeting date: 11 November 2024
Raised by: Mr Andrew Edwards
Response Author: Neil Noye, Director Strategic and Regulatory Services
Topic: Cycling Lanes in Collins Street

Question 1
Will the Council stand by their honesty and integrity in making decisions in relation to specific public proposals. i.e. will every statement that the Council issues be factually correct and honestly researched?

Response 1
Yes, the City of Hobart is committed to upholding its Values of ‘People’, ‘Teamwork’, ‘Focus and Direction’, ‘Creativity and Innovation’ and to address your question, ‘Accountability’ where we are transparent, work to high ethical and professional standards and are accountable for our community.

Question 2

Will the Council make decisions based on empirical, justifiable and recognised basis of information?

Response 2

The City of Hobart makes decisions based on professional advice, research, evaluation and data to progress work that achieves the outcomes set out in the Community Vision. Strategies and actions to achieve the Vision are detailed in the Capital City Strategic Plan 2019-2029 (updated 2023). Pillar 8 of the Plan speaks to good governance of our City:

Governance and Civic Involvement: We are a city of ethics and integrity. We govern with transparency and accountability, encouraging and welcoming active civic involvement. We collaborate for the collective good, working together to create a successful Hobart.

Question 3

When will we get the pre-installation parameters and the measurement factor?

It is a 2-year trial period, will we get the opportunity to have the 3 months, 6 months, 12 months analysis of the effectiveness made public?

Response 3
As previously advised, the following metrics will be used both pre-installation as well as 1 month, 3 months and 12 months post-installation.

1. Number of bike and micromobility riders, targeting an increase in riders. 2. Diversity of users, targeting an increase in the proportion of women and children and types of bicycles (e.g. road bikes, cargo bikes, mountain bikes) indicating the perceived safety and accessibility of the infrastructure.

3. Increased access for people walking, targeting increases in people crossing mid-block indicating perceived safety.

4. Road safety, targeting reduced vehicle speeds.

5. User confidence, targeting increased perceptions of safety for people walking and riding.

6. Feedback from local stakeholders, including users of the street, nearby properties and businesses. Targeting net positive sentiment towards the project.

7. Feedback from broader stakeholders, targeting net positive sentiment towards the project.

The “measurement factor” will be either numerical where electronic and observation means allow and for the qualitative metrics it will be through a combination of survey and interview methodologies. These figures will be obtained pre installation and will be made available on the project web site.

Question 4

Will the Council implement those changes as received during that period or will they land bank them and say at the end of 24 months “oh it's all gone”, or will they interpret them and change things, if necessary, based on stakeholder feedback which is already on the table and acknowledged by Councillor Harvey in his meeting on the 31^st?

Response 4

The nature of the tactical trial allows the Council to implement changes as the trial progresses. Any changes to the configuration of the laneways as the trial progresses, however, will be based on an analysis of the assessment metrics and traffic engineering observations in the street.

Item No. 6.2.6

Agenda (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 1

28/1/2025

Meeting date: 9 December 2024
Raised by: Chris Merridew
Response Author: Glenn Doyle, Project Manager – Office of the CEO
Topic: Derwent Ferry Service

Question

It's a great shame that you couldn't use the Scout Hall site on Marieville Esplanade because it is the direct link between where the Ferry may berth and the University and obviously Mount Carmel and the Hutchins Schools and clearly the idea of this ferry presumably coming into Sandy Bay is to bring people and students from Bellerive. I don’t believe the current site is really going to work. Then perhaps you might like to consider looking at a site that belongs to the City Council, there is a site I call the ‘Seawall Walk’ that goes from the second pier level along to virtually to Manning Reef.

My question is, has that been considered as option four?

Option four would do two things, it would give an extended pleasant walk into the city for those who choose to walk from Sandy Bay in the morning and quite a few do. It would also enable the ferry wharf design that you've got to be situated down basically out of eyesight.

If this option hasn’t been considered, why not?

Response

The Scout Hall Site was included for assessment but determined to be a less favourable site for a number of reasons.

A high-level assessment of the shoreline between Lords Beach and Nutgrove Beach was also carried out. This area was found to have a number of challenges including the reef, insufficient water depths, difficulties to enable land based access to any new terminal and (in some instances) close proximity to residences.

Question

Following on from my first questions. I recently received correspondence from the CEO that advised, in response to a previous question, that placement of a bicycle rack at the top of Collins Street wouldn’t work because he thinks that people like to park their bikes near they where they work. So why would you therefore want to have a bicycle rack at Sandy Bay Road wharf, you can't have what I would say almost both ways?

My other question of that, or relative to the correspondence is that the CEO says that various alternative configurations for the proposed Collins Street bicycle lane were considered however the qualified advice concluded the current proposed configuration was preferred taking into account safety.

Why do you keep saying that safety is the criteria when the ambulance reports say it's not an accident zone?

Response

In response to your first question there are significant office towers in close proximity to the terminal within Sullivans Cove so it is expected that in reality taking a bike on the ferry for those commuters makes little sense when there will not be a need for the bike between the Sullivans Cover terminal and an expected significant number of peoples workplaces.

In relation to your second question the level of safety is relative to the capability and experience of riders. The purpose of increasing the safety rating of bicycle infrastructure is to make it more appealing and accessible for riders that are less confident and less capable.

Item No. 7.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 1

28/1/2025

REPORT TITLE: Petition - Request for Public Meeting

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Legal and Corporate Governance

Acting Director Corporate Services Network

1. Report Summary

1.1. To provide an update and associated advice as to the receipt of a petition calling for a public meeting on the proposed Collins Street bike lanes.

1.2. Council received the first submission of signatures via email (Attachment A) on 29 November 2024, containing 1,489 names. A second submission (Attachment B) of 201 names was provided via email on 6 January 2025. A third submission of 70 signatures (Attachment C) was provided via email on 14 January 2025.

1.3. Council made a commitment to the lead petitioner that a report would be provided at the January Council meeting, which would also provide for the tabling of the petition in accordance with section 58 of the Local Government Act 1993.

2. Key Issues

2.1. Section 59(2) of the Act provides that a council ‘must hold a public meeting if the petition complies with section 57 and is signed by whichever is the lesser of…. 5% of electors in the municipal area or 1,000 of those electors.’

2.2. At the time of writing this report, officers have determined that there are 970 signatures on the petition that appear on either the Electoral or General Manager’s Roll, noting the threshold required is 1,000.

2.3. The Act permits the lead petitioner to continue to provide additional signatures to Council with no time limits for doing so.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. Council note and receive the petition calling for a public meeting in relation to the Collins Street Cycleway; and

2. Council note that formal advice will be provided to the petitioner that the petition fails to meet the statutory requirements of section 59(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1993, in that the petition only contains 970 signatures that match either the electoral roll or General Manager’s roll, noting that the Act allows the petitioner to continue to provide Council with an updated copy of the petition at any time; and

3. Noting that officer advice in respect of section 60 Local Government Act 1993 will be provided at such time as the petition complies with the statutory requirements of section 59(2)(b), the Chief Executive Officer, or their delegate, be authorised to commence work on section 60-60A requirements for action on petitions calling for a public meeting in the expectation that the 1,000 signatory threshold will be satisfied in the near term.

4. Background

4.1. By way of background the lead petitioner contacted Council officers on 19 November 2024 seeking advice as to the construction of the proposed petition to ensure statutory compliance with sections 57-59 of the Local Government Act 1993.

4.2. That advice was accepted and acted on in its entirety and the subsequent officer assessment of the petition against section 57-59 has occurred in alignment with the original advice.

Assessment Methodology

4.3. As previously detailed the construction and assessment of petitions calling for public meetings must occur in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

4.4. Officers verified signatures using the most recent versions of both the Electoral and General Manager’s rolls, as certified by the Tasmanian Electoral Commission.

4.5. Based on advice from the Tasmanian Electoral Commission, Council staff must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a signature accords with an entry on the electoral rolls.

4.6. Officers then manually cross-checked names and the associated address contained on the petition against those on the two rolls. Where there was a 100 per cent match for an entry, the signature was counted toward the 1,000 required. Where there was not a 100 per cent match in the two data sets, a degree of discretion was required, which was exercised in the following way based on external advice:

4.6.1. Addresses match the roll(s) but not the name.

4.6.1.1. For example, the electoral roll contained a record for a Jonathan Smith of 1 Bell Street Hobart, but the petition contained an entry for a John Smith of 1 Bell Street. In this scenario the relevant entry was accepted.

4.6.1.2. Another common example was the use of middle names as first names. In this context the electoral roll may contain a record for a Sally Ann Winter of 1 Smith Street Hobart while the petition contains an entry for Ann Winter of 1 Smith Street. In these scenarios the signature was counted toward the 1,000 required.

4.6.2. Address information was incomplete or did not perfectly match the roll.

4.6.2.1. For example, a petition entry of Robert Jones, Sandy Bay Road where the relevant roll entry has a Robert Jones of 5 Sandy Bay Road. Such entries were initially excluded, subject to verification by the Electoral Commission.

4.6.3. Process for exclusion of signatories.

4.6.3.1. Petition entries where only a first name was provided or no address details, were not counted toward the 1,000 signatories as it did not comply with section 57 requirements. Signatories that didn’t appear on either roll have also been excluded.

4.7. Following the assessment of the petition, 275 signatories were identified where a name and address was provided but an associated entry could not be matched on either electoral roll. This may be because they are either not an elector of the City of Hobart, or they are yet to appear on an updated general roll.

4.8. This information was then provided to the Tasmanian Electoral Commission, who advised that they had identified a further 48 names as being on the electoral roll with the remaining 227 names unable to be matched to the roll beyond reasonable doubt, these entries were then excluded.

4.9. Duplicate entries were only accounted for once.

5. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

Section 57 Requirements

5.1. Section 57 provides for a series of requirements as to the nature of a petition’s call to action in addition to a series of requirements for both paper based and electronic petitions with regard to the collection of information relating to signatories and a certifying statement from the lead petitioner (Mr Johnstone). In this instance the petition is a hybrid of both a traditional ‘paper’ petition and an electronic petition. This has occurred on account of the petition having been placed in a series of public places (such as some Collins St businesses) while also being promoted on social media and being hosted on the website of the Confederation of Greater Hobart Businesses Limited (www.cghb.org.au/petition).

5.2. The petition as a document is compliant with all the requirements of section 57, with the exception of some signatories who have not provided their full details (which also impacts section 59 matters) but this is beyond the control of the lead petitioner and not critical to the document’s validity under section 57.

Section 59 Requirements

5.3. Section 59 of the Act provides a statutory framework for petitions that specifically call for a ‘public meeting,’ noting that such petitions must also comply with section 57.

5.4. Section 59(2) provides that a council ‘must hold a public meeting if the petition complies with section 57 and is signed by whichever is the lesser of…. 5% of electors in the municipal area or 1,000 of those electors.’

5.5. The relevant requirement for the City of Hobart is 58(2)(b), which is 1,000 electors. Of the 1,000 electors they can be drawn from either the general electoral roll or the ‘General Manager’s Roll’ (as provided for under section 258), both of which are maintained in a manner as directed by the Tasmanian Electoral Commission.

6. Discussion

6.1. At the time of writing this report, officers have determined that there are 970 signatures on the petition that appear on either the Electoral or General Manager’s Roll, noting the threshold required is 1,000. The Act permits the lead petitioner to continue to provide additional signatures to Council with no time limits for doing so. It is expected that the lead petitioner will most likely reach the 1,000 signatures in the coming weeks, which then triggers the operation of Section 60 of the Local Government Act.

6.2. At the present time, Council simply needs to table and ‘note’ the petition in accordance with Section 58 as it fails to meet the statutory threshold required for the calling of a public meeting.

6.3. However, prudence would dictate that officers commence the process of ‘pencil booking’ of a series of dates for an appropriate venue and facilitating the development of the associated materials required for the public meeting as the relevant statutory threshold will most likely be met in the near term, which will then require the Council’s Chief Executive Officer to turn their mind to section 60 requirements (action on petition) and bring forward a report to Council detailing what action be taken in respect of a compliant petition per section 60(2).

7. Hobart: A Community Vision For Our Island Capital

7.1. Statement 7 - How We Engage In Civic Life.

7.1.1. 7.1 We are active on issues that are important to us.

7.2. Pillar 1. Sense of Place

7.2.1. 1.2.3 We appreciate that we each have different ideas of what this city means to us and how we would improve it. We allow our understandings of our place to evolve through personal experience. We use differences of opinion to test our ideas.

8. Capital City Strategic Plan

8.1. Pillar 8 – Governance and Civic Involvement

8.1.1. Strategy 8.1.3 Make informed decisions by undertaking genuine, transparent and appropriate community engagement to understand the current and future needs of the community.

9. Financial Viability

9.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

9.1.1. N/A

9.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

9.2.1. N/A

9.3. Asset Related Implications

9.3.1. N/A

10. Communications Strategy

10.1. None at this time with the exception of Council formally advising the lead petitioner that their petition has not met the relevant statutory threshold for the calling of a public meeting.

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.

Wes Young

Manager Legal and Corporate Governance

Michelle Wickham

Acting Director Corporate Services Network

Date: 22 January 2025

File Reference: F25/2933

Attachment a: Petition Calling for Public Meeting on Proposed Collins Street Bike Lanes - Part 1 (Supporting information)

Attachment b: Petition Calling for Public Meeting on Proposed Collins Street Bike Lanes - Part 2 (Supporting information)

Attachment c: Petition Calling for Public Meeting on Proposed Collins Street Bike Lanes - Part 3 (Supporting information)

Item No. 10

Agenda (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 1

28/1/2025

REPORT TITLE: West Hobart Local Area Mobility Plan

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Transport and Traffic Engineer

Manager City Mobility

Director Strategic and Regulatory Services

1. Report Summary

1.1. This report outlines the development process for the LAMP, including the engagement approach, findings, and a summary of projects.

1.2. The LAMP project aims to provide the community with active travel options by identifying key walking and cycling routes to and from destinations like schools, shops, parks, and bus stops.

1.3. The report aims to identify opportunities to increase the number of people who may walk and ride by implementing direct interventions that promote well-being and facilitate these modes of transportation.

1.4. To assist with making walking and riding a viable option, it is crucial to create an environment where people feel safe and comfortable while doing so.

1.5. The report proposes several projects, policies and other initiatives including the proposal for an area-wide trial speed limit reduction in West Hobart. It is essential to highlight that endorsing the plan does not constitute mandatory approval for the proposed speed limit reduction trial.

1.6. The area-wide speed reduction trial will involve further rounds of stakeholder consultation and a collaborative study conducted in conjunction with the Department of State Growth to define the extent of the area proposed.

1.7. The speed limit reduction proposal will require separate approval by the Council before implementation.

2. Key Issues

2.1. The primary objective of the West Hobart LAMP is to enhance pedestrians and riders’ safety by:

2.1.1. Prioritising safety: Implementing measures to minimise traffic-related risks and create a more secure environment for all road users.

2.1.2. Improving accessibility: Enhancing connectivity to schools, local businesses, public transport, and community facilities.

2.1.3. Promoting active transportation: Encouraging walking and riding as viable and enjoyable modes of transport.

2.1.4. Fostering social interaction: Creating a more pedestrian-friendly environment that supports community engagement and social interaction.

2.1.5. Reducing carbon emissions: Contributing to a more sustainable transportation system by decreasing reliance on private vehicles.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. Council notes the outcomes of public engagement on the Local Area Mobility Plans for West Hobart marked as Attachment B to this report.

2. Council endorses the West Hobart Local Area Mobility Plan marked as Attachment A to this report and that the projects outlined in the plan be considered for future financial years funding.

4. Background

4.1. One of the key strategic priorities for the City Transport group is to develop Local Area Mobility Plan (LAMP) for the local neighbourhood areas in the City.

4.2. This Local Area Mobility Plan aligns with the previously endorsed Battery Point and Northern Suburbs Local Area Mobility Plans, both approved by Council in November 2023.

4.3. This report presents the final Local Area Mobility Plans (LAMP) for West Hobart and a section of Mount Stuart, incorporating feedback from the community engagement process held in October 2024, and seeks Council's endorsement.

4.4. The Mount Stuart section was included in response to the 2023 community petition, "Slow traffic through West Hobart, Mount Stuart and Lenah Valley," which was signed by 576 residents. This petition was submitted due to concerns regarding the volume and speed of traffic passing through these suburbs.

4.5. It is crucial to acknowledge that Local Area Transport Plans will exhibit variations in their methodologies and outcomes, each area possesses distinct challenges and transportation requirements.

4.6. The development of the plan was supported by extensive collaboration with the local community and key stakeholders. Through community engagement and thorough data analysis, the City gained valuable insights into local travel patterns, identified frequent routes, and acknowledged the barriers that currently obstruct walking and cycling.

4.7. This input was crucial in shaping effective and locally relevant mobility solutions. The engagement process has happened in two stages:

4.7.1. Phase 1 was conducted between April and July 2024. It sought feedback from the West Hobart community on how to enhance the safety, connectivity, and liveability of the area.

4.7.2. Phase two of the engagement process took place between August and December 2024, seeking feedback from the West Hobart community on the draft West Hobart Local Area Mobility Plan.

4.7.3. The Engagement Report is included as Attachment B.

4.8. The consultancy firm WSP was engaged to prepare the LAMP in collaboration with the City of Hobart.

4.9. Following the conclusion of the engagement phase, City Transport Group collaborated with WSP to review the feedback received from different stakeholders. The final LAMP reports incorporate the findings of this feedback analysis, conducted by City officers.

5. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

5.1. The primary risks associated with the West Hobart LAMP is related to implementation. The Council may face reputational damage if the projects outlines in the plan do not progress.

5.2. City Transport will apply for suitable grant programs to implement the priority projects and will commence project planning upon endorsement.

5.3. Further risk assessments will occur prior to installation of the tactical infrastructure.

5.4. Some aspects of the project will require a direction from the Transport Commission, such as the wide area speed limit alteration to 40km/h.

5.5. The proposed reduction of the speed limit across a wider area in West Hobart to 40 km/h will constitute a separate project and will necessitate further approvals before implementation.

6. Discussion

6.1. The West Hobart Local Area Mobility Plan identified three key opportunities to enhance West Hobart as a more pedestrian and ride friendly neighbourhood:

6.1.1. Improved local access to schools.

6.1.2. Safer vehicle speeds on quieter streets.

6.1.3. Direct, connected, and comfortable places to walk and ride.

6.2. The actions outlined in the plan were designed to mitigate identified barriers and maximise identified opportunities.

6.3. The targeted actions to improve streetscapes throughout the area, were classified into the following categories:

6.3.1. Intersection Upgrades.

6.3.2. Calm Streets.

6.3.3. Continuous Footpaths.

6.3.4. Safer Crossings.

6.4. Approximately 73% of respondents expressed general support for the LAMP, with a significant majority also agreeing that the plan would enhance walking and riding conditions within the catchment area.

6.5. Two priority projects were identified: upgrades to the intersection of Arthur Street with Mellifont Street and Hill Street and a wide-area reduced speed limit zone.

6.5.1. During the Engagement Phase 1 more than 35% of all comments were related to the three streets or the intersection itself.

6.5.2. During the Engagement Phase 2 almost 86% of participants supported a 40km/h speed limit trial in the West Hobart area.

6.6. Of the two intersection upgrade concepts presented, 71% of survey participants preferred the option with a roundabout at the Arthur Street/Mellifont Street intersection. This option also included raised pedestrian crossings on all four arms and a continuous footpath with pedestrian priority at the Arthur Street/Hill Street junction.

6.7. Given the substantial estimated cost of a full intersection upgrade, a proposed solution involves the construction of a continuous footpath with pedestrian priority at the junction of Arthur Street and Hill Street prior to the full upgrade.

6.8. Interventions to discourage speeding in West Hobart are aligned with Action A.13 of the Hobart Transport Strategy, which aims to 'Trial an area-wide speed limit reduction to inform a Speed Limit Reduction Policy'.

6.9. There is strong and broad community support for safer traffic speeds in West Hobart.

6.10. The area where the wide-area reduced speed limit zone will be proposed will be guided by further engagement with the community, data analysis and the Department of State Growth.

6.11. A key finding of this study was the strong community support for the implementation of new Wombat Crossings. The installation of three Wombat Crossings along the spine of Hill Street and Mellifont Street will enhance pedestrian safety by:

6.11.1. Reducing average vehicle speeds: The crossings will encourage drivers to slow down, creating a safer environment for all road users.

6.11.2. Improving residents’ safety: the sequence of Wombat Crossings will provide safe gaps in traffic flow, allowing residents to easily and safely enter and exit their properties, particularly during peak morning and afternoon traffic.

6.12. The installation of the new crossings, in conjunction with the proposed lower speed trial area, were identified by the developers of the LAMP to simultaneously enhance pedestrian safety and accessibility while reducing the speed of traffic through the corridor used as a through route.

6.13. The 'Calm Streets' initiative offers an alternative approach to enhancing pedestrian and riders safety. Departing from traditional traffic calming methods such as speed humps, signage, and conventional obstructions, 'Calm Streets' emphasise the creation of intuitively navigable street environments that foster walking, riding, and leisurely interaction.

6.14. Creating an environment where drivers naturally adjust their behaviour, rather than solely responding to signage and speed enforcement.

6.15. The Continuous Footpath and Safer Crossing initiatives as outlined on Item 6.12 are proposed for seven different locations. These actions aim to increase pedestrian comfort and safety, while inducing a reduction in vehicle speeds.

7. Hobart: A Community Vision For Our Island Capital

7.1. Improvement to active transport and comfort aligns with Hobart’s Community Vision, particularly the following pillars:

7.1.1. A Sense of Place

7.1.2. Inclusion, Participation and Belonging

7.1.3. Movement and Connectivity

7.1.4. Governance and Civic Involvement

7.2. This action-oriented vision clearly outlines the City's aspirations for Hobart's future transportation network, aiming to serve the city and its residents effectively. The overarching themes of the Transport Strategy align with this vision.

8. Capital City Strategic Plan

8.1. Pillar five of the "Capital City Strategic Plan 2023" focuses on Movement and Connectivity. The following strategies, contained within Outcome 5.1 "An accessible and connected city environment helps maintain Hobart's pace of life" and Outcome 5.2 "Hobart has effective and environmentally sustainable transport systems," are considered relevant to this matter:

5.1.1 - Improve connectivity throughout Hobart’s inner city and suburbs.

5.1.4 - Collaborate with stakeholders and business on the efficient, sustainable and innovative movement of people, information and goods.

5.1.5 - Consider social, environmental and economic elements in transport and technology decision-making.

5.1.6 - Investigate transport and technology possibilities that meet the needs of daily life, are accessible, and reinforce values of sustainability and connection.

5.1.8 – Consider children and family needs in city mobility planning.

5.2.1 - Prioritise zero emissions and energy efficient transport and technology initiatives that improve city life.

5.2.2 - Prioritise and promote opportunities for safe, accessible and integrated active transport.

5.2.6 - Identify and implement infrastructure improvements to enhance access and road safety and reduce air and noise pollution.

5.2.7 - Develop, upgrade and maintain the City’s network of roads, bridges, cycleways, footpaths and walkways to ensure they are safe, accessible and sustainable.

8.2. The West Hobart LAMP aligns directly with four overarching themes of the Hobart Transport Strategy 2024:

§ Choice in How We Move

§ Encouraging and Enabling Behaviour Change

§ Safe and Healthy Streets

§ Climate Ready Transport

9. Regional, State and National Plans and Policies

9.1. The West Hobart LAMP aligns with the objectives of existing Tasmanian Government plans and strategies, in particular:

9.1.1. Tasmanian Walking and Cycling for Active Transport Strategy (2010).

9.1.2. Tasmanian Urban Passenger Transport Framework (2010).

9.1.3. Tasmanian Road Safety Strategy (2016).

9.1.4. Greater Hobart Cycling Plan (2021).

9.1.5. 30-Year Greater Hobart Plan (2022).

9.1.6. Draft Keeping Hobart Moving Plan (2023).

9.1.7. Towards Zero - Tasmanian Road Safety Strategy 2017-2026 (2017)

9.1.8. Speed Management Strategy – Consultation Paper (2024)

10. Financial Viability

10.1. The LAMP does not have an initial implementation budget for this financial year, 2024-2025. However, planning and design budget will be sought in future years to develop and deliver the primary identified projects.

11. Sustainability Considerations

11.1. A primary goal of the West Hobart LAMP is to promote active transportation within local communities, thereby reducing reliance on private motor vehicles and contributing to a positive environmental impact by mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

12. Community Engagement

12.1. The West Hobart LAMP has been developed through two stages of community and stakeholder engagement.

12.2. Further details are contained in the Background and Discussion sections of this report.

12.3. The Engagement Report is included as Attachment(B).

13. Communications Strategy

13.1. The intent is that following the endorsement of the plans, the community would be notified via social media and Council official communication channels.

13.2. The endorsed and finalised West Hobart Local Area Mobility Plan will be available on the City of Hobart’s website.

14. Collaboration

14.1. The West Hobart LAMP is the outcome of collaboration between the City Transport Group and other Council departments who contributed ideas and feedback throughout the development and finalisation of the project documentation.

14.2. WSP Australia was the consultant firm involved in the project.

Thiago Borges

Transport and Traffic Engineer

Daniel Verdouw

Manager City Mobility

Neil Noye

Director Strategic and Regulatory Services

Date: 22 January 2025

File Reference: F24/82215

Attachment a: West Hobart Local Area Mobility Plan (Supporting information)

Attachment b: Engagement Report (Supporting information)

Item No. 11

Agenda (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 1

28/1/2025

REPORT TITLE: Annual Plan Progress Report for the period ending 31 December 2024

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Senior Advisor - Strategic Planning

Acting Director Corporate Services

1. Report Summary

1.1. The purpose of this report is to present the progress report for the City of Hobart’s 2024-25 Annual Plan for the period ended 31 December 2024. (Refer Attachment A).

2. Key Issues

2.1. The Annual Plan is developed as part of the annual budget and sets out the major actions and initiatives for the 2024-25 financial year. Actions in the Annual Plan must be aligned with the City’s Strategic Plan.

2.1.1. Reports on the progress of the Annual Plan are provided each quarter to the Council for noting.

2.2. The 2024-25 Annual Plan has 28 major actions and initiatives listed. Implementation for the period 1 October to 31 December 2024 has seen two actions completed, 17 in-progress – on track and 9 in‑progress – delayed.

3. Recommendation

That the Council note the 2024-25 Annual Plan Progress Report for the period ending 31 December 2024, marked as Attachment A to this report.

4. Background

4.1. The Annual Plan is required pursuant to Section 71 of the Local Government Act 1993. It is adopted by Council with the Budget Estimates and other budget papers. The Annual Plan sets out the major actions and initiatives that will guide the priorities of the organisation over the coming 12 months and must include a summary of the budget.

4.1.1. The 2024-25 Annual Plan includes actions that bring focus to the key needs of the community while balancing the Council’s commitment to support the future of Hobart.

5. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

5.1. The Annual Plan is prepared in accordance with section 71 of the Local Government Act 1993 and must be summarised in the Annual Report (section 72(1)(a) of the Act).

6. Discussion

6.1. The progress report provided at Attachment A, reports on the progress of the Annual Plan major actions and initiative for the period 1 October to 31 December 2024.

6.1.1. The 2024-25 Annual Plan has 28 major actions and initiatives listed. Implementation for the period 1 October to 31 December 2024 has seen two actions completed, 17 in-progress – on track and 9 in-progress – delayed.

7. Capital City Strategic Plan

7.1. The Annual Plan progress report provides a summary of the progress of the major actions and initiatives in the Annual Plan and aligns with various strategies in the Capital City Strategic Plan 2023 including best practice, transparency and accountability to the community.

Paula Gudgeon

Senior Advisor - Strategic Planning

Michelle Wickham

Acting Director Corporate Services

Date: 14 January 2025

File Reference: F24/109711

Attachment a: 2024-25 Annual Plan Progress for the period ending 31 December 2024 (Supporting information)

Item 12

Agenda (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 1

28/1/2025

REPORT TITLE: Proposed delegation - Planning

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Deputy Director Strategic and Regulatory Services

1. Report Summary

1.1. The purpose of this report is to request a delegation from the Council to officers to allow an extension of time for developers to have a further two years to substantially commence their planning permit.

2. Key Issues

2.1. The State Government has amended the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 to allow a further extension of time to substantially commence a development under a planning permit.

2.2. Council officers currently have a delegation to grant the first two extensions of time, allowing for up to 6 years in total for the life of a permit. If this delegation is granted then it would allow Council officers to also grant the third extension.

2.3. The proposed delegation is consistent with the earlier extensions, in that if there has been a change to the strategic intent of the planning scheme then the extension would be referred to the Planning Committee for determination.

3. Recommendation

That the Council makes the delegation to officers contained in Attachment A to this report.

4. Background

4.1. The Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 was amended on 13 December 2024, with the purpose of supporting development.

5. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

5.1. This delegation is consistent with similar delegations, which have been in place for many years.

6. Discussion

6.1. The amendment to the Act is as follows:

(5D) The planning authority may grant, only once, a further extension of a permit that would otherwise lapse under subsection (5)(c) if –

(a) the planning authority is satisfied that, due to the technical or complex nature of the use or development in respect of which the permit was granted, the use or development is not, or is unlikely to be, substantially commenced before the permit would otherwise lapse under subsection (5)(c) ; and

(b) the further extension of the permit, by the planning authority, would enable that use or development to substantially commence.

7. Capital City Strategic Plan

7.1. This proposed delegation is consistent with the Capital City Strategic Plan, namely Pillar 8: Governance and Civic Involvement.

8. Financial Viability

8.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

8.1.1. No impact.

8.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

8.2.1. No impact.

8.3. Asset Related Implications

8.3.1. No impact.

Karen Abey

Deputy Director Strategic and Regulatory Services

Date: 16 January 2025

File Reference: F25/2614; 16/119

Attachment a: Proposed delegation - planning (Supporting information)

Item No. 13

Agenda (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 1

28/1/2025

Motions of which notice has been given

IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATION 16(5) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MEETING PROCEDURES) REGULATIONS 2015

13. Cornelian Bay Track

File Ref: F25/4662

Councillor Lohberger

Motion

“That the Council requests a report into:

1. The damaged section of the Cornelian Bay track that has led to its partial closure;

2. The work required to repair or traverse the damaged part of the track; and

3. The possibility of transferring ownership from the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Garden, which currently owns the land.”

Rationale:

“The Cornelian Bay track is one of Hobart’s most beautiful and popular short walks, winding through a rare remaining piece of coastal bushland between the Cornelian Bay boatsheds and the lower entrance of the RTBG. It is heavily used by the public, but a lengthy section has been closed since late last year, due to storm surge damage on a short but exposed part of the track that runs just above the high tide line.

The track travels across an unusual parcel of land, owned by the RTBG but cut off from the gardens by a highway, as well as the former train line and intercity cycleway. There are no crossing points between the gardens and the track. The current arrangements for the track are also unusual, with the RTBG owning the land, while the Council installed and maintained the track. It would be far more logical if the Council owned this parcel.

The short section of damaged track needs to be repaired or replaced, and it is clear that the Council bears the ultimate responsibility as the organisation that built and maintained the track and the associated signage. There is already an extensive built walkway on another section of the track - Council could either repair the damaged section, or install a short, raised walkway to cross it.”

Administration Response to Notice of Motion

Discussion

1. It is recognised that, if feasible, it is desirable to maintain public access along the Cornelian Bay Foreshore Track for visitor experience, network connectivity and the reasons outlined above by Councillor Lohberger.

2. Officers can investigate and prepare a Council report on the damaged section of the Cornelian Bay track that has led to its partial closure, subject to permission / support from Royal Tasmania Botanical Gardens (RTBG ), as the section in question is on their land. However, it will take a number of months to properly consider the range of issues the request raises which include land tenure, heritage issues, legal considerations, environmental conditions at the River Derwent edge, infrastructure requirements and estimated costs.

3. Regarding “while the Council installed and maintained the track.” It is noted that to the best of officer’s knowledge, the City of Hobart (CoH) did not build the track, because the track is on RTBG land. CoH do not maintain the track for the same reason, and commonly refer visitor / ratepayer requests for maintenance of that section of track to the RTBG.

4. It is noted that the transfer of land suggested in the above motion is one potential option that would require further investigation, discussions and negotiations with the RTBG. It is one of a number of options that require consideration which include:

a. Shifting the rail crossing to where it can be crossed from the HCC owned and managed track.

b. RTBG retain land and decommission track.

c. RTBG retain land and lower service level to a class 4 track.

d. RTBG retain land and lease or licence track corridor to HCC for HCC to repair and maintain,

e. RTBG transfer ownership of land to HCC.

5. A more detailed analysis of the options is required by the City before a recommendation is made. A potential transfer would impose extra costs and risks on the City through the management of the land, the track and related infrastructure.

6. Figures 1,2 and 3 below include a map of the area showing the track, title boundaries of HCC / RTBG, location of the eroded track at the water edge, and the railway crossing that connects the gravel foreshore track to the Intercity Cycleway.

Figure 1 – Site Context and Features

Figure 2 – Section of eroded track at waters edge on RTBG land

Figure 3 – Site Context

Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications
Capital City Strategic Plan
Pillar:	5 Movement and Connectivity
Outcome:	5.2 Hobart has effective and environmentally sustainable transport systems.
Strategy:	Develop, upgrade and maintain the City’s network of roads, bridges, cycleways, footpaths and walkways to ensure they are safe, accessible and sustainable.
Legislation and Policy
Legislation:	Heritage
Policy:	Not Applicable

Financial Implications

1. The upfront capital cost and ongoing maintenance costs of a range of options need to be properly assessed.

2. It is noted that building a boardwalk through the affected area could be expensive and also have high maintenance costs due environmental conditions along the edge of the River Derwent.

Item No. 14

Agenda (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 1

28/1/2025

14. Rabbits in Hobart

File Ref: F25/4665

Councillor Lohberger

Motion

“That the Mayor write to the State Government about the rabbit baiting program that took place on the Ogilvie campus of Hobart High School during the Christmas break, and ask:

1. Can the government please communicate with the people of Hobart about the reason behind the growing influx of rabbits into the municipality, and what it is doing about the problem now?

2. Can the government also communicate with residents and the media, before conducting any future poison baiting programs in Hobart suburbs.”

Rationale:

The State Government is responsible for rabbit control but has stayed silent while a significant influx of rabbits is occurring throughout the Hobart municipality, unprecedented in recent times. There have been reports of rabbits in multiple suburbs, along the intercity cycleway, on the Queens Domain, and even in the CBD.

The State Government is aware of the problem. It conducted a poison baiting operation on the Ogilvie campus of Hobart High School in New Town over the Christmas break, but still said nothing.

There needs to be better communication from the government about what is happening, and what it's doing about the problem, and that includes giving proper warning before conducting poison baiting operations in Hobart.

Administration Response to Notice of Motion

Discussion

The Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (NRE) use calicivirus to control high rabbit populations in Tasmanian with releases usually occurring during autumn when environmental conditions are favourable to ensure its effective use. However, calicivirus has been unavailable in recent times, and no release was undertaken in 2024. The Council is advised that NRE has now sourced calicivirus and have advised that Biosecurity Tasmania will now monitor conditions for a suitable time to release, which is unlikely to occur until autumn.

The State Government have also advised that Biosecurity Tasmania staff are available to work directly with the wider community to support their control of increased rabbit populations and to provide advice on alternative rabbit control strategies until calicivirus releases can be made.

There is extensive information on the NRE website in respect to European rabbit control programs (www.nre.tas.gov.au).

The use of pindone, which occurred at the Hobart High School site is typically used by landowners under the supervision of NRE. The landowner undertook the action under a permit issued to them by Biosecurity Tasmania and complied with the public notification requirements imposed by the permit.

It is certainly open for Council to write to the State Government and request information as outlined in the motion.

Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications
Capital City Strategic Plan
Pillar:	6 – Natural Environment
Outcome:	6.1 -.The natural environment is part of the city and biodiversity is conserved, secure and flourishing.
Strategy:	6.1.4 - Protect and enhance Hobart’s biodiversity, manage invasive species through sensitive and ecologically sustainable use of parks and reserves. 6.1.5 - Regulate, measure and manage potentially polluting activities, prioritising air and water quality
Legislation and Policy
Legislation:	Not applicable
Policy:	Not applicable

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Meeting date: 11 November 2024
Raised by: Chris Merridew
Response Author: Neil Noye, Director Strategic and Regulatory Services
Topic: Bike Racks and Shared Footpaths

Meeting date: 11 November 2024
Raised by: Mr Chris Merridew
Response Author: Neil Noye, Director Strategic and Regulatory Services
Topic: Collins Street Idling Emissions

Meeting date: 11 November 2024
Raised by: Maria Riedl
Response Author: Neil Noye, Director Strategic and Regulatory Services
Topic: Cycling Lane Collins Street

Meeting date: 11 November 2024
Raised by: Susan Wallace
Response Author: Neil Noye, Director Strategic and Regulatory Services
Topic: Treasury Building