Minutes (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 3

20/9/2021

Minutes (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 26

20/09/2021

The Chairman reports that she has perused the minutes of the meeting of the Open Portion of the Council meeting held on Monday, 6 September 2021, finds them to be a true record and recommends that they be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

Burnet

Sherlock                                            That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

The minutes were signed.

The Lord Mayor reported that the Council of Capital City Lord Mayor’s (CCCLM) held its AGM on 8 September 2021.

It was resolved at the meeting that the Lord Mayor of Perth would act as Chair of CCCLM for 2022.

The CCCLM Annual Report was accepted and was circulated to all Elected Members via the Hub.

Other items discussed included:

·         The Night Time Economy Report for 2019-20;

·         The role of Cities and the National Plan (Covid-19); and

·         Federal Election Advocacy.

The Lord Mayor also reported on the Asia Pacific Cities Summit where she participated in the Lord Mayors' Panel via Zoom on Thursday 9 September 2021.  The panel were asked questions around how cities were responding to the challenges of managing city life during the ongoing impacts of the pandemic and how we are building resilient capital cities.

The Lord Mayor reported that she and the CEO met with the Premier, the Hon Peter Gutwein MP last week to talk about:

·         The Hobart City Deal

·         The Digital Twin Proposal

·         Hobart Port Infrastructure upgrades

·         Council engagement with state Cabinet

·         Hotel Quarantine

·         Colonial Era Conflicts Memorial

It was imparted on the Premier that Council was focused on planning for Hobart’s future.  The Hobart City Deal Implementation Plan, the Greater Hobart Metro Plan and the Central Hobart Precinct Plan are all part of that focus.

Also discussed was the importance of the Hobart Port infrastructure upgrades (identified by Infrastructure Australia has having priority status) so the Nuyina can have a permanent berth and so Hobart can continue to develop the Antarctic Gateway City status.

As part of enhancing the City’s intergovernmental relations, the Premier was agreeable to establishing an annual meeting of all Elected Members and State Cabinet.  The CEO will work with the Premier’s CoS to identify a format and a date in 2022.

It was noted the Lord Mayor and CEO also met with Mr Andrew Wilkie MP, Federal Independent Member for Clark last week where they spoke about the Digital Twin Proposal, Federal Election proposals and Building Better Regions Funding and sought Mr Wilkie’s advocacy on these matters at the appropriate time.

Ms Bloomfield put the following question and was provided with the corresponding response by the Lord Mayor. 

Question:

On the 7 September 2021, some weeks after it was noted that the plants had died, men in high-vis came and uprooted all the dead trees and plants in the Elizabeth Street Parklets outside the  Stagg and other small businesses - replacing with fresh new shrubbery.

This evokes a few vital questions:

1.   Who was responsible for the maintenance of these plants - HCC or benefiting businesses?

2.  What is the cost associated with this refresh and who is paying? HCC or private enterprise?

3.  Has any attempt been made to ascertain the real time use of this seating as it appears to be more unused than used? Are statistics available regarding the use?

4.  In light of the fact that this seating replaced car parks accessed by the local businesses  client base who truly did spend - when is this parklet trial scheduled for removal?

Response to question 1:

As the initiator of the Midtown Expanded Outdoor Dining trial, the City of Hobart is responsible for ongoing and more substantive maintenance.  A number of traders have been very active in watering and maintaining planter boxes, in line with the provisions of their Midtown Permit Outdoor Dining Permit, which require them ‘to take all reasonable steps to keep the plants within their occupation area healthy and alive, including by watering’.

However, some plants, in particular the Risdon Peppermint Gum (Eucalyptus risdonii), have not thrived within the planter box environment, and so these have been removed and replaced.

Officers have written to all participating traders, reminding them of their responsibilities to maintain the planter boxes, and will continue to monitor this. The City will however supplement this with weekly watering during the forthcoming late spring and summer months.

Response to question 2:

The cost of the recent standard maintenance and refresh work, which was undertaken by a contractor and totalled $2,175 (excluding GST), was met by the City of Hobart.

Response to question 3:

A survey has been available on the City of Hobart Your Say page since May 2021, seeking community feedback. This survey is promoted on site in Midtown via QR coded signage.

The City will be undertaking a comprehensive survey of business operators and building owners following the 2021/2022 summer trading period, which will include questions on utilisation. 

The funding body for the project, the Department of State Growth, will also commission provider PlaceScore to follow up their base ‘place value’ assessment – undertaken prior to the installation of the outdoor dining areas.

Response to question 4:

The current trial is due to conclude at the end of March 2022.

The CEO, on behalf of Mr Paul Daniels put the following question and was provided with the corresponding response from the Lord Mayor.

Question:

Per Council minutes dated:  May 20 2019, "The General Manager tabled a petition from Mr Brian Corr requesting a poll of electors be held in relation to building heights."

I note that the Hobart City Council had already commissioned and received a report from leading Tasmanian Architect Mr Leigh Woolley back on the 3rd September 2018.

I also note that the 'Woolley Report' was highly publicised both for its cost and findings in both social and printed media at the time.

1.    The process for an elector poll appears to require a petition for a public meeting and within 30 day's of that meeting a second petition requesting the elector poll.

Can the Council provide the total direct and indirect costs associated with the TEC Elector poll triggered by Mr Corr's petitions, including staffing costs associated with the elector poll, and the precursor public meeting of 16th April 2019?

2.    Was Mr Corr advised and made aware of the Leigh Woolley report at any time before the acceptance of the petition requesting the elector poll on 4th February 2019?

3.    Once the TEC had conducted the elector poll and provided the HCC its report, what action was taken by the HCC?  Was the elector poll report simply “received and noted”?

4.    Has the HCC historically taken any action on any previous elector poll?

5.    In light of current financial circumstances, does the Council consider this a good use of ratepayers funds?

6.    Will the HCC lobby the State Government to seek changes to the process in which elector polls are able to be established considering that in the past elector polls held have not produced any defined outcomes except the resulting cost burden to ratepayers?

Response to question 1:

The total costs associated with the Elector Poll regarding building heights was as follows:

Elector Poll               $118,516.13

Public meeting         $7,633.14

It should be noted that the above costs do not capture staff costs other than overtime for the public meeting and that the public meeting regarding building heights was held in conjunction with a public meeting regarding the cable car.

Response to question 2:

It can only be assumed that Mr Corr was aware of the Leigh Woolley report given that the petition submitted seeking a public meeting in February 2019 called for the Council to adopt officer’s recommendations from December 2018 which were recommendations from Leigh Woolley’s report.

Response to question 3:

In accordance with its statutory obligations, at its meeting of 22 July 2019, the Council received and noted the results of the Elector Poll and resolved to refer it to the appropriate committee for consideration.

The Council subsequently considered a report responding to the results of the Elector Poll via the City Planning Committee in August 2019.  The Council ultimately made no resolution in relation to this matter as the recommendation from the City Planning Committee was not adopted by the Council.

Response to question 4:

The most recent elector poll was conducted in conjunction with the 2007 local government election in relation to the process regarding the proposed Tamar Valley Pulp Mill.  In that case, the Council resolved to provide the results of the elector poll to the relevant Federal Ministers and the Tasmanian Premier along with reviewing the Council’s investments in financial institutions associated with the proponents of the proposed Pulp Mill.

Response to question 5:

The Council has not formed a position as to whether this represents good use of ratepayers’ funds, however it is important to note that under the Local Government Act 1993 (“the Act”), it is the right of members of the public to sign a petition to conduct a public meeting and ultimately an elector poll and the City of Hobart will ensure that it meets its statutory obligations in this regard.

Response to question 6:

The Council has sought changes to the Act in relation to petitions, public meetings and elector polls as part of the review of the Act that was being conducted by the Local Government Division.  The General Manager wrote specifically in relation to this issue on 17 June 2019 and a copy of that correspondence will be provided to you.

Ms Elliot put the following question which the Lord Mayor took on notice.

As you are aware, the Council publishes a summary of planning and building data on its website. This information does not, however, tell the full picture as it only contains applications that were approved.

While more information is accessible in the Council minutes and meeting recordings which are publicly available, this information is weaved into these items making it is difficult to get an overview of the data and trends.

The Council has already recognised the value of providing summary information given information on approved applications is already provided. 

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote to the Lord Mayor requesting that the scope of the summary information provided to the public be expanded so that a more comprehensive picture is easily accessible to the community. I have since received a response from the Director of Planning that this would not be possible due to resource constraints.

Given the dire situation of Hobart’s housing affordability – which is commonly acknowledged as being fundamentally due to the imbalance of supply and demand – I believe that the community deserves access to the full picture of what is happening when the council acts as a planning authority. Every new home in our City is filtered through the council. The decisions made by elected members have an undeniable impact on housing supply.

Consistent with valuing transparency, I thereby request that the council agree to provide the community with a fuller picture and commit to finding the resources needed to do so. 

Specifically, I ask the Council to provide the community with:

·           a cumulative summary of each occasion where the Council acts as a Planning Authority on all housing and hotel planning applications (including dwellings, multiple dwellings, student accommodation, change of use to visitor accommodation, and parcels of land) which states:

·         the date of the Council’s decision

·         the title of the application and associated reference numbers

·         the number of dwellings and/or hotel rooms included in the application

·         what recommendation the Council’s planning officer have made

·         the votes cast by each Elected Member so it is easily clear which Elected Members did and did not support the planning application and

·         the overall result of the application.

Alderman Briscoe put the following questions which the Lord Mayor took on notice.

1.    Is there a professional expectation by the City of Hobart (legal and or moral) or just politeness that questions asked by members of public are answered rather than just a response given?

2.    Does the City of Hobart have a policy or policies to make sure that communication is professional and not contain legal threats as in the response to the questions asked as an example that was published in our agenda tonight?

3.    Should there be a checking process to make sure the above is adhered to so as to avoid Code of Conduct complaints which is quite expensive to council?

Alderman Briscoe put the following questions which the Lord Mayor took on notice.

1.    What processes of consultation were followed in cancelling the popular and important Christmas pageant event?

2.    Why wasn’t the decision about this important event a full council decision considering there was time?

3.    Considering that elected members were informed by a press release by the Lord Mayor who only has one vote out of 12 - what steps can take place in future to make sure the decision is one of full council?

4.    Why wasn’t other options considered such as Adelaide solution and have it at an oval?

That the following responses to public questions taken on notice, be received and noted.

Burnet

Briscoe                                         That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Meeting date:             26 July 2021

Raised by:                  Ms Isla MacGregor

Response Author:   Councillor Jax Ewin

Topic:    Gender Identity in Law:  Impacts on Women, Children and Transgender People – Balancing the Conversation

Meeting date:             5 July 2021

Raised by:                  Mr Jarrah Vercoe

Response Author:   Ms Kelly Grigsby

Topic:                          Development Application Assessment Cost

9.1      339 Lenah Valley Road, 30 Lumeah Avenue and 337 Lenah Valley Road, Lenah Valley - Subdivision (Boundary Adjustment)

Ref:    Open CPC 7.2.2, 13/09/2021

Application Expiry Date: 21 October 2021

That the proposed subdivision (boundary adjustment) at 339 Lenah Valley Road, Lenah Valley 7008, be approved subject to the following conditions, for the reason that it satisfies the relevant provisions of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015, including clause 10.6.1.P4 (i):

GEN

The use and/or development must be substantially in accordance with the documents and drawings that comprise PLN-21-367 339 LENAH VALLEY ROAD LENAH VALLEY TAS 7008 - Final Planning Documents except where modified below.

Reason for condition

To clarify the scope of the permit.

TW

The use and/or development must comply with the requirements of TasWater as detailed in the form Submission to Planning Authority Notice, Reference No. TWDA 2021/00922_HCC dated 02/09/2021 as attached to the permit.

Reason for condition

To clarify the scope of the permit.

ENG sw1

All stormwater from the proposed development (including but not limited to: roofed areas, ag drains, retaining wall ag drains and impervious surfaces such as driveways and paved areas) must be drained to the Council’s stormwater infrastructure prior to first occupation or commencement of use (whichever occurs first).

Advice: Under section 23 of the Urban Drainage Act 2013 it is an offence for a property owner to direct stormwater onto a neighbouring property.

Reason for condition

To ensure that stormwater from the site will be discharged to a suitable Council approved outlet.

ENG 1

Any damage to council infrastructure resulting from the implementation of this permit, must, at the discretion of the Council:

       1.    Be met by the owner by way of reimbursement (cost of repair and                   reinstatement to be paid by the owner to the Council); or

       2.    Be repaired and reinstated by the owner to the satisfaction of the Council.

A photographic record of the Council's infrastructure adjacent to the subject site must be provided to the Council prior to any commencement of works.

A photographic record of the Council’s infrastructure (e.g. existing property service connection points, roads, buildings, stormwater, footpaths, driveway crossovers and nature strips, including if any, pre-existing damage) will be relied upon to establish the extent of damage caused to the Council’s infrastructure during construction. In the event that the owner/developer fails to provide to the Council a photographic record of the Council’s infrastructure, then any damage to the Council's infrastructure found on completion of works will be deemed to be the responsibility of the owner.

Reason for condition

To ensure that any of the Council's infrastructure and/or site-related service connections affected by the proposal will be altered and/or reinstated at the owner’s full cost.

SURV 1

The applicant must submit to the Council a copy of the surveyor’s survey notes at the time of lodging the final plan.

Reason for Condition

To enable the Council to accurately update cadastral layers on the corporate Geographic Information System.

SURV 3

The final plan and schedule of easements must be submitted and approved under section 89 of the Local Government (Building & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993.

The final plan and schedule of easements must provide easements to the satisfaction of the Council:

1.   Over any storm water or sewer mains passing through the lots on the final plan, in favour of the Hobart City Council and/or TasWater (minimum width of 2m, or 3m if they cover two pipes).

2.   Over any existing private rights of way and drainage easements) in favour of the lots they are required to serve

Reason for Condition

To ensure that there are no impediments to the provision of public and private services and access to the lots.

SURV 9

Any lots on the final plan created from the addition of sub minimal lots on the plan of subdivision are to be notated on the final plan.

The final plan must include notations in accordance with section 111 of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993, in relation to lot 1 to satisfy the above requirement.

Reason for condition

To ensure compliance with statutory provisions.

ENG 16

Prior to the sealing of the final plan, private sewer, stormwater (including surface drainage) and water services/connections are to be entirely separate to each lot and contained wholly within the lots served.

Reason for condition

To ensure that each lot is services separately.

ENG 17

Prior to the sealing of the final plan, the developer must verify compliance with condition ENG 16 by supplying the Council with an as-installed services plan clearly indicating the location and details of all relevant services (entirely contained within their respective lots or appropriate easements). The as-installed services plan must be accompanied by certification from a suitably qualified person that all engineering work required by this permit has been completed.

Advice: Any final plan submitted for sealing will not be processed unless it is accompanied by documentation by a suitably qualified person that clearly certifies that this condition has been satisfied and that all the work required by this condition has been completed. A 'suitably qualified person' must be a Professional Engineer or Professional Surveyor or other persons acceptable to Council.

Reason for condition

To ensure that the Developer provides the Council with clear written confirmation that the separation of services is complete.

ADVICE

The following advice is provided to you to assist in the implementation of the planning permit that has been issued subject to the conditions above. The advice is not exhaustive and you must inform yourself of any other legislation, by-laws, regulations, codes or standards that will apply to your development under which you may need to obtain an approval. Visit the Council's website for further information.

Prior to any commencement of work on the site or commencement of use the following additional permits/approval may be required from the Hobart City Council.

BUILDING PERMIT

You may need building approval in accordance with the Building Act 2016. Click here for more information.

PLUMBING PERMIT

You may need plumbing approval in accordance with the Building Act 2016, Building Regulations 2016 and the National Construction Code. Click here for more information.

DRIVEWAY SURFACING OVER HIGHWAY RESERVATION

If a coloured or textured surface is used for the driveway access within the Highway Reservation, the Council or other service provider will not match this on any reinstatement of the driveway access within the Highway Reservation required in the future.

RIGHT OF WAY

The private right of way must not be reduced, restricted or impeded in any way, and all beneficiaries must have complete and unrestricted access at all times.

You should inform yourself as to your rights and responsibilities in respect to the private right of way particularly reducing, restricting or impeding the right during and after construction.

FEES AND CHARGES

Click here for information on the Council's fees and charges.

DIAL BEFORE YOU DIG

Click here for dial before you dig information.

SUBDIVISION ADVICE

For information regarding standards and guidelines for subdivision works click here.

All conditions imposed by this permit are in accordance with the Local Government Building & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 and the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1884.

PRIVATE UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS

The City of Hobart does not allow the installation of private underground electrical services within the road reservation. Click here for more information.

PUBLIC OPEN SPACE - CASH IN LIEU VALUATION

Please contact the Council's Development Appraisal Unit on 6238 2715 to instigate the valuation process.

Burnet

Behrakis                                                        That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

9.2      10 Selfs Point Road, New Town - Partial Demolition, Alterations and Extension

Ref:    Open CPC 7.2.4, 13/09/2021

Application Expiry Date: 21 September 2021

That pursuant to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015, the Council approve the application for partial demolition, alterations and extension, at 10 Selfs Point Road, New Town 7008 for the reasons outlined in the officer’s report attached to item 7.2.4 of the Open City Planning Committee agenda of 13 September 2021 and a permit containing the following conditions be issued:

GEN

The use and/or development must be substantially in accordance with the documents and drawings that comprise PLN­20­268 ­ 10 SELFS POINT ROAD NEW TOWN TAS 7008 ­ Final Planning Documents except where modified below.

Reason for condition

To clarify the scope of the permit.

ENG sw1

All stormwater from the proposed development (including but not limited to: roofed areas, ag drains, retaining wall ag drains and impervious surfaces such as driveways and paved areas) must be drained to the Council’s stormwater infrastructure prior to first occupation or commencement of use (whichever occurs first).

Advice:

Under section 23 of the Urban Drainage Act 2013 it is an offence for a property owner to direct stormwater onto a neighbouring property.

Reason for condition

To ensure that stormwater from the site will be discharged to a suitable Council approved outlet.

ENG 1

Any damage to council infrastructure resulting from the implementation of this permit, must, at the discretion of the Council:

1.         Be met by the owner by way of reimbursement (cost of repair and reinstatement to be paid by the owner to the Council); or

2.         Be repaired and reinstated by the owner to the satisfaction of the Council.

A photographic record of the Council's infrastructure adjacent to the subject site must be provided to the Council prior to any commencement of works.

A photographic record of the Council’s infrastructure (e.g. existing property service connection points, roads, buildings, stormwater, footpaths, driveway crossovers and nature strips, including if any, pre­existing damage) will be relied upon to establish the extent of damage caused to the Council’s infrastructure during construction. In the event that the owner/developer fails to provide to the Council a photographic record of the Council’s infrastructure, then any damage to the Council's infrastructure found on completion of works will be deemed to be the responsibility of the owner.

Reason for condition

To ensure that any of the Council's infrastructure and/or site related service connections affected by the proposal will be altered and/or reinstated at the owner’s full cost.

ENV 1

Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to prevent sediment from leaving the site must be installed prior to any disturbance of the site, and maintained until all areas of disturbance have been stabilized or re­vegetated.

Advice:

For further guidance in preparing a Soil and Water Management Plan – in accordance with Fact sheet 3 Derwent Estuary Program click here.

Reason for condition

To avoid the sedimentation of roads, drains, natural watercourses, Council land that could be caused by erosion and runoff from the development, and to comply with relevant State legislation.

ENV s1

All works associated with the Bridge Club alterations and extension are to be undertaken in accordance with an Environmental Management and Communications Plan, prepared by the club, to the satisfaction of the Director City Amenity.

Advice:

A template for the Environmental Management and Communications Plan can be provided by the Open Space Planning Team, call 03 6238 2488. This plan must be made specific for the works that will occur on the site.

Reason for condition

The alterations and extension must be done in a manner that minimises impact to the Council land, is safe for the public and minimises inconvenience for the public.

ENVHE 4

As identified in the Preliminary Site Investigation Report 10 Selfs Point Road New Town, Revision 00 dated 29 June 2021 prepared by Pitt & Sherry, a Construction Environmental Management Plan must be implemented throughout the construction works.

A CEMP must be submitted and approved as a Condition Endorsement prior to the issuing of any approval under the Building Act 2016. The plan must;

·          detail the proposed construction methodology (particularly where works may have environmental and health impacts)

·          identify all potential environmental and health impacts associated with the works including noise, odour, air pollution, water pollution, land contamination, erosion and land instability.

·          include measures to manage identified contamination and associated waste management in order to mitigate and control potential human health impacts during works.

All work required by this condition must be undertaken in accordance with the approved construction environmental management plan which forms part of this permit and must be complied with.

Advice:

This condition requires further information to be submitted as a Condition Endorsement. Refer to the Condition Endorsement advice at the end of this permit.

Reason for condition

To minimise the potential for environmental and health impacts from the construction activity on identified contaminated land.

ADVICE

The following advice is provided to you to assist in the implementation of the planning permit that has been issued subject to the conditions above. The advice is not exhaustive and you must inform yourself of any other legislation, by­laws, regulations, codes or standards that will apply to your development under which you may need to obtain an approval. Visit the Council's website for further information.

Prior to any commencement of work on the site or commencement of use the following additional permits/approval may be required from the Hobart City Council.

CONDITION ENDORSEMENT

If any condition requires that further documents are submitted and approved, you will need to submit the relevant documentation to satisfy the condition via the Condition Endorsement Submission on Council's online services e­planning portal. Detailed instructions can be found here.

A fee of 2% of the value of the works for new public assets (stormwater infrastructure, roads and related assets) will apply for the condition endorsement application.

Once approved, the Council will respond to you via email that the condition has been endorsed (satisfied).

Where building approval is also required, it is recommended that documentation for condition endorsement be submitted well before submitting documentation for building approval. Failure to address condition endorsement requirements prior to submitting for building approval may result in unexpected delays.

BUILDING PERMIT

You may need building approval in accordance with the Building Act 2016. Click here for more information.

This is a Discretionary Planning Permit issued in accordance with section 57 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.

PLUMBING PERMIT

You may need plumbing approval in accordance with the Building Act 2016, Building Regulations 2016 and the National Construction Code. Click here for more information.

WEED CONTROL

Effective measures are detailed in the Tasmanian Washdown Guidelines for Weed and Disease Control: Machinery, Vehicles and Equipment (Edition 1, 2004). The guidelines can be obtained from the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment website.

FEES AND CHARGES

Click here for information on the Council's fees and charges.

DIAL BEFORE YOU DIG

Click here for dial before you dig information.

Burnet

Behrakis                                                        That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

10.      Monthly Planning Statistics - 1 August 2021 - 31 August 2021

Ref:    Open CPC 8.3, 13/09/2021

That the planning statistical report of the Director City Planning be received and noted:

During the period 1 August 2021 to 31 August 2021, 62 permits were issued to the value of $12,028,590 which included:

(i)    9 new single dwellings to the value of $1,334,775;

(ii)   17 multiple dwellings to the value of $5,759,000;

(iii)  26 extensions/alterations to dwellings to the value of $3,762,815;

(iv) 13 extensions/alterations to commercial properties to the value of $1,362,000;

(v)   1 major project:

(a) 43A Pirie Street, New Town - Demolition, Six Multiple Dwellings, Front Fencing, and Associated Works - $2,400,000;

During the period 1 August 2020 to 31 August 2020, 68 permits were issued to the value of $19,228,200 which included:

(i)    9 new single dwellings to the value of $4,163,790;

(ii)   26 multiple dwellings to the value of $9,585,000;

(iii)  29 extensions/alterations to dwellings to the value of $3,673,500;

(iv) 7 extensions/alterations to commercial properties to the value of $1,285,680;

(v)   3 major projects:

(a)  26 Lower Jordan Hill Road, West Hobart - Partial Demolition, Five Multiple Dwellings, Landscaping and Fencing - $3,000,000;

(b)  27 Lefroy Street, North Hobart - New Development for Eight Multiple Dwellings, Business and Professional Services, Food Services and General Retail and Hire, Signage and Associated Works in the Road Reservation - $3,000,000;

(c)   18-24 Letitia Street, North Hobart - Partial Demolition and New Development for Eight Multiple Dwellings - $2,200,000;

In the twelve months ending August 2021, 827 permits were issued to the value of $314,035,672; and

In the twelve months ending August 2020, 841 permits were issued to the value of $256,633,142.

# This report includes permits issued, exempt and no permit required decisions.

Burnet

Sherlock                                                      That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

11.      Monthly Building Statistics - 1 August 2021 - 31 August 2021

Ref:    Open CPC 8.4, 13/09/2021

That the building statistical report of the Director City Planning be received and noted:

During the period 1 August 2021 to 31 August 2021, 60 permits were issued to the value of $34,812,040 which included:

(i)    40 for extensions/alterations to dwellings to the value of $6,669,986;

(ii)   7 new dwellings to the value of $3,650,554;

(iii)  0 new multiple dwellings; and

(iv)  3 major projects:

(a) 48 Liverpool Street, Hobart - Commercial Internal Alterations - $13,510,000;

(b) 16 Degraves Street, South Hobart - New Commercial Building - $5,268,500;

(c)  66-80 Collins Street, Hobart - Commercial Internal Alterations - $3,500,000;

During the period 1 August 2020 to 31 August 2020, 44 permits were issued to the value of $5,892,275 which included:

(i)    28 for extensions/alterations to dwellings to the value of $4,257,786;

(ii)   3 new dwellings to the value of $790,000;

(iii)  0 new multiple dwellings; and

(iv)  0 major projects:

In the twelve months ending August 2021, 671 permits were issued to the value of $256,601,368; and

In the twelve months ending August 2020, 601 permits were issued to the value of $219,128,955

Burnet

Ewin                                                                  That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

12.      Development Applications - Equal Accessibility

Ref:    Open CPC 9.1, 13/09/2021

Motion

“That Council officers produce a report on potential mechanisms and issues for ensuring that development applications that propose improved access facilities to meet the equal access requirements of the National Building Code are not singularly refused because of breaches in the heritage code of Council’s planning schemes or the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995.”

Rationale:

“Nipaluna/Hobart has many buildings protected on heritage grounds, which is fantastic, but many of them are inaccessible for people with access requirements, which is not so fantastic. Of course we need to protect what makes our town special, but this should never be at the cost of excluding anyone in our community, especially people with disabilities. We are also all bound, at all times, by the Anti-Discrimination Act; and the Building Code also sets out specific requirements for equal access for very good reasons.

The fact that we have had DAs before us recommended for refusal because of applicants needing to meet access requirements set out in the Building Code and to meet their requirements under Anti-Discrimination legislation based on protecting heritage, is completely unacceptable. I understand that officers only assess DAs based on planning criteria, but I believe in 2021 this should be balanced by meeting our requirements under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1992, as well as our Community Vision and Social Inclusion Strategy documents, which demonstrate our clear commitment to upholding principles of equity.”

Ewin

Zucco                                                               That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That Council officers produce a report on potential mechanisms and issues for ensuring that development applications that propose improved access facilities to meet the equal access requirements of the National Building Code are not singularly refused because of breaches in the heritage code of Council’s planning schemes or the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995.

13.      Patient Assisted Travel Scheme

Ref:    Open FGC 6.1, 14/09/2021

That:   1.      Council support the implementation of a Patient Assisted Travel Scheme at a flat rate of $5 per day, for 1 car only per patient/resident, at the following facilities:

2.      The Patient Assisted Travel Scheme be implemented within the 2021-22 financial year.

3.      In accordance with the Council Policy ‘Grants and Benefits Disclosure’ the annual gross total provision of the Patient Assisted Travel Scheme be disclosed in the City’s Annual Report.

4.      The Patient Assisted Travel Scheme be included and communicated through the City of Hobart website and for future consultation in the draft City Parking Policy.

5.      The Manager Smart and Sustainable City be authorised to undertake an assessment of applicant providers to determine eligibility for future Patient Assisted Travel Scheme authorisations.

Zucco

Thomas                                                          That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

14.      Review of Rates Late Payment Fees and Credit Card Payment Limit

Ref:    Closed FGC 4.6, 14/09/2021

That:  1.    Council confirm its practice to charge 3% penalty and the prescribed interest rate on overdue rates.

2.    The $3,000 maximum payment limit per property per instalment for payment of rates by credit card be removed effective on date the City migrates its banking and bill paying services to Westpac in 2021.

Zucco

Burnet                                                          That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

16.      North Hobart Petition, Digital Signs and Reinvestment

Burnet

Sherlock     

That the recommendation contained in the Special Report of the Chief Executive Officer, marked as item 16 of the Supplementary Open Council Agenda of 20 September 2021, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the Council:

1.      Approve the preparation of a Precinct Plan for North Hobart to be developed in consultation with key agencies and stakeholders including North Hobart traders, landowners and residents.

2.      Facilitate place-making activities across North Hobart that are community driven; and deliver on feedback received during the period of community consultation.

3.      Authorise the CEO to hood the parking meters in Elizabeth Street, between Burnett and Federal Streets, North Hobart until such time as other supports to enhance the North Hobart precinct are achieved; in consultation with traders, landowners and residents; with progress reports provided to Council at key milestones.

4.      Authorise the CEO to make any necessary amendments to parking times and signage in Elizabeth Street between Burnett and Federal Streets, North Hobart in in consultation with traders.

5.      Explore and implement enhanced mobility options; to encourage visitors into the precinct using alternate modes of transport; including trialling low-cost micro mobility modes.

6.      Authorise the CEO to undertake all necessary actions to pursue opportunities to increase off street car parking stock within the coming months to accommodate future growth and install dynamic signage to alter motorists to available on street and off street parking.

7.      Engage with North Hobart Traders to design and implement a marketing campaign; as part of Hello Hobart to promote (NoHo) and encourage visitation.

8.      Continue to advocate to the Hon Michael Ferguson MP Minister for State Growth; Minister for Infrastructure and Transport for increased regulation around social food delivery vehicles.

17.      Hobart City Deal - Southern Projects

Sherlock

Harvey

That the recommendation contained in the Special Report of the Chief Executive Officer, marked as item 16 of the Supplementary Open Council Agenda of 20 September 2021, be adopted.

Amendment

Burnet

Thomas                                                                                                                       

That       1. The Council submission notes the concerns Dynnyrne Road residents have in respect of the State Government compulsorily acquiring properties and strongly urge the State Government to seek various solutions to traffic management before housing is demolished; and

               2. A small delegation on behalf of the Council seek a meeting with the Minister to discuss the Council’s submission at the appropriate time.

AMENDMENT CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

SUBSTANTIVE MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That:      1.   The Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to write to the Department of State Growth detailing the Council’s submission to the ‘Hobart City Deal Southern Projects’ Public Display.

               2.   The Council submission notes the concerns Dynnyrne Road residents have in respect of the State Government compulsorily acquiring properties and strongly urge the State Government to seek various solutions to traffic management before housing is demolished; and

               3.    A small delegation on behalf of the Council seek a meeting with the Minister to discuss the Council’s submission at the appropriate time.