|
|
|
MINUTES Open Portion Monday, 26 May 2025 At 4.00pm Council Chamber, Town Hall
|
|
|
|
|
|
MINUTES Open Portion Monday, 26 May 2025 At 4.00pm Council Chamber, Town Hall
|
|
|
|
|
Minutes (Open Portion) Council Meeting |
Page 1 |
|
|
26/5/2025 |
|
PRESENT, APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE
4. Communication from the Chairperson
5. Notification of Council Workshops
7.1. Petition - Traffic Issues at Wynyard Street, South Hobart
8. Consideration of Supplementary Items
9. Indications of Pecuniary and Conflicts of Interest
10. North Hobart Neighbourhood Plan
11. Crowther Stage Four Interpretive Elements Methodology
13. Proposed Lease Amendment - Ten Lives Cat Centre - Part of 10 Selfs Point, New Town
15. 2024-25 Capital Works Program - Quarterly Review
16. Multi-Storey Car Parks' Operating Hours
17. Procurement - Quotation Exemption Report
18. Quarterly Financial Report - 31 March 2025
Motions of which notice has been given
19. Russian Oil Coming into Australia
20. Halls Saddle Master Planning
21. Domain Highway Interchange
23. Response to Questions Without Notice
23.1 Social Media Correspondence
25. Questions Arising During Debate
26. Closed Portion of the Meeting
|
|
Minutes (Open Portion) Council Meeting |
Page 1 |
|
|
26/05/2025 |
|
PRESENT:
The Lord Mayor A M Reynolds, the Deputy Lord Mayor Councillor Sherlock, Alderman M Zucco, Councillor W F Harvey, Councillor M S C Dutta, Councillor J L Kelly, Councillor L M Elliot, Alderman L A Bloomfield, Councillor R J Posselt, Councillor B Lohberger, Councillor W N S Coats, Councillor G H Kitsos.
APOLOGIES:
Nil.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE:
Nil.
Councillor Elliot left the meeting at 5.10pm, returning at 5.12pm.
Alderman Bloomfield left the meeting at 6.07pm, returning at 6.08pm and was not present for item 12.
Councillor Coats left the meeting at 6.08pm, returning at 6.10pm and was not present for item 13.
The Deputy Lord Mayor, Councillor Sherlock left the meeting at 7.46pm, at the commencement of the dinner break, returning at 7.08pm and was not present for items 17 and 18.
Councillor Coats left the meeting at 7.46pm, at the commencement of the dinner break, returning at 7.07pm and was not present for items 17 and 18.
Councillor Kelly left the meeting at 8.19pm, returning at 8.20pm.
The Deputy Lord Mayor, Councillor Sherlock retired from the meeting at 8.33pm and was not present for items 21 to 26 inclusive.
Councillor Harvey left the meeting at 8.39pm, returning at 8.40pm and was not present for the vote on the procedural motion during item 21.
The Chairperson opened the meeting and provided an acknowledgement of country.
|
|
Kitsos
The Chairperson reports that she has perused the minutes of the meeting of the Open Portion of the Council meeting held on Monday, 28 April 2025, finds them to be a true record and recommends that they be taken as read and signed as a correct record.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
Council Resolution: The minutes were signed.
|
Are there any items, which the meeting believes, should be transferred from this agenda to the closed agenda or from the closed agenda to the open agenda, in accordance with the procedures allowed under Section 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015?
No items were transferred.
No communication was received.
In accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, the Chief Executive Officer reports that the following workshops have been conducted since the last ordinary meeting of the Council.
Date: 12 May 2025
Purpose: North Hobart Area Briefing | North Hobart Neighbourhood Plan | Derwent River Ferry Expansion – Update | Selfs Point/Cornelian Bay Master Plan – Potential Cornelian Bay Sports Ground Configurations
Attendance:
Lord Mayor Councillor A M Reynolds, Deputy Lord Mayor Councillor Dr Z E Sherlock, Councillors W F Harvey, M S C Dutta, L M Elliot, Alderman L A Bloomfield, Councillors R J Posselt, B Lohberger, and G H Kitsos
Apologies:
Alderman M Zucco, Councillors J L Kelly, and W N S Coats
Date: 19 May 2025
Purpose: Dog Management Policy Review | Notification of Council Workshops | Notification of Council Workshops
Attendance:
Lord Mayor Councillor A M Reynolds, Deputy Lord Mayor
Councillor Dr Z E Sherlock, Alderman M Zucco, Councillors W F Harvey, M S C
Dutta, J L Kelly, L M Elliot, Alderman L A Bloomfield, Councillors R J Posselt,
B Lohberger, and G H Kitsos
Apologies:
Councillor W N S Coats
6.1 Public Questions
Ref: Part 2, Regulation 8(6) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
|
|
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council resolve to deal with any supplementary items not appearing on the agenda, as reported by the Chief Executive Officer in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
No supplementary items were received.
|
Ref: Part 2, Regulation 8(7) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
Elected Members are requested to indicate where they may have any pecuniary or conflict of interest in respect to any matter appearing on the agenda, or any supplementary item to the agenda.
The following interest was indicated:
1. Alderman Bloomfield - item 12
2. Councillor Coats - item 13
|
10. North Hobart Neighbourhood Plan File Ref: F25/23806; 23/40 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Kitsos That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 11 of the Open Council Agenda of 26 May 2025, be adopted with the inclusion of an additional clause 4 that reads: 4. Council resolves to maintain majority public
ownership of Condell Place, with any future development to consider
public/private partnership models and ensure community interests are prioritised;
and i)
Any future projects on the site be
subject to further community consultation and council decisions; and ii) To ensure future developments align with Council's strategic
objectives, particularly as they pertain to public open space and urban
greening; and iii) To authorise officers to progress feasibility studies for potential future uses of the site. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Sherlock
Alderman Zucco be granted an additional three minutes to address the meeting. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Amendment |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Sherlock
That clause 4 (i), 4 (ii) and 4 (iii) of the motion be deleted.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
AMENDMENT CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The Lord Mayor then put clauses 1, 2 and 3
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The Lord Mayor then put clause 4.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
VOTING RECORD
Council Resolution:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
1.
The Council endorse the North Hobart Neighbourhood Plan marked as
Attachment A to item 10 of the Open Council Agenda of 26 May 2025. 2.
The Council receive and note the Engagement Report marked as
Attachment B to item 10 of the Open Council Agenda of 26 May 2025. 3.
An implementation plan be developed to
document timeframes for the implementation of actions in the North Hobart
Neighbourhood Plan and that progress be monitored and reported to Council
annually. 4. The Council resolves to maintain majority public ownership of Condell Place, with any future development to consider public/private partnership models and ensure community interests are prioritised.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
11. Crowther Stage Four Interpretive Elements Methodology File Ref: F25/8344 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Kitsos That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 12 of the Open Council Agenda of 26 May 2025, be adopted.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Posselt
That Deputy Lord Mayor Sherlock be granted an additional two minutes to address the meeting.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Amendment |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Sherlock
That Council delegate the approval for the text and the three dimensional components for a permanent interpretive work in Franklin Square to the Chief Executive Officer.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Procedural Motion |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Lohberger
That the motion to amend be now put.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
PROCEDURAL MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
AMENDMENT CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
VOTING RECORD
Council Resolution:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
1. The Council approves the methodology for Stage Four of the Crowther Reinterpreted Project to commission text and three-dimensional components for a permanent interpretive work in Franklin Square.
2. The Council delegate the approval for the text and the three dimensional components for a permanent interpretive work in Franklin Square to the Chief Executive Officer.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alderman Bloomfield declared and interest in item12 and left the room.
|
File Ref: F25/25339 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
Harvey That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 13 of the Open Council Agenda of 26 May 2025, be adopted.
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
VOTING RECORD
Council Resolution: |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
1. The Council agrees to the establishment of a secretariat for the Hobart City of Literature which involves the creation of a Steering Committee to provide joint funding and decision making with the following partner organisations:
a. City of Hobart (to act as Convenor) b. Libraries Tasmania c. University of Tasmania (UTAS) d. Brand Tasmania
2. The Steering Committee will collaborate with a City of Literature Working Group which will comprise local literacy/writers/arts groups.
3. The Council provide an annual contribution of $10,000 plus in-kind support up to $25,000 for the operation of the Hobart City of Literature program. |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Councillor Coats declared and interest in item13 and left the room.
|
13. Proposed Lease Amendment - Ten Lives Cat Centre - Part of 10 Selfs Point, New Town File Ref: F25/18906 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Harvey That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 14 of the Open Council Agenda of 26 May 2025, be adopted.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
VOTING RECORD
Council Resolution:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
That the Council agree to amend the leases to Ten Lives Cat Centre dated 7 February 2006 and 13 May 2019 for part of 12 Selfs Point Road, New Town and replace the respective lease plans with the plan shown at Attachment E to item 13 of the Open Council Agenda of 26 May 2025.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
File Ref: F25/34604 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Harvey That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 15 of the Open Council Agenda of 26 May 2025, be adopted.
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
VOTING RECORD
Council Resolution:
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
That the schedule of Fees and Charges, marked as Attachment A to this report, be adopted for 2025-26.
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
15. 2024-25 Capital Works Program - Quarterly Review File Ref: F25/29392 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Lohberger That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 16 of the Open Council Agenda of 26 May 2025, be adopted.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
VOTING RECORD
Council Resolution:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
That the report titled 2024-25 Capital Works Program – Quarterly Review, dated 23 April 2025, be noted.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
16. Multi-Storey Car Parks' Operating Hours File Ref: F25/34271 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Harvey That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 17 of the Open Council Agenda of 26 May 2025, be adopted.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Amendment |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Lohberger
That a report be prepared that outlines the costs, timelines and feasibility of changing the Argyle Street Car Park operations to 24 hours.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
AMENDMENT CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Procedural Motion |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Kelly
That the matter be deferred for further consideration at a Council Workshop.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
MOTION LOST
VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Amendment
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Kelly
That clause 2 be amended to replace the words ‘an annual’ with ‘six monthly’.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
SUBSTANTIVE MOTION CARRIED
VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Council Resolution:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
1. Council officers commence planning the design and construction of long-term permanent access option to the Centrepoint Car Park independent of the Centrepoint Shopping Centre’s operating hours.
2. The Council approves a two-year trial to extend the closing time of the Centrepoint Car Park (currently 6.15 pm) by one hour, to 7.15 pm, Monday to Friday, with six monthly review to be undertaken and any outcomes of the review reported back to the Council.
3. The Council approves a two-year trial to extend the opening time of the Argyle Street Car Park (currently 7 am) by 30 minutes, to 6.30 am, seven days a week, with an annual review to be undertaken and any outcomes of the review reported back to the Council.
a. That a report be prepared that outlines the costs, timelines and feasibility of changing the Argyle Street Car Park operations to 24 hours.
4. The Council endorses the Chief Executive Officer to amend the operational hours of the Centrepoint, Argyle Street and Hobart Central Car Parks on an as needs basis in the City of Hobart, where Council officers can demonstrate that there will be no nett cost to Council by doing so. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
17. Procurement - Quotation Exemption Report File Ref: F25/33923 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Lohberger That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 18 of the Open Council Agenda of 26 May 2025, be adopted.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
Council Resolution:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
That the Council note the exemption granted from the requirement to seek three written quotations for the period 1 January to 31 March 2025, marked as Attachment A to this report.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
18. Quarterly Financial Report - 31 March 2025 File Ref: F25/35737 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Kitsos That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 19 of the Open Council Agenda of 26 May 2025, be adopted.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
VOTING RECORD
Council Resolution:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
1. The Quarterly Financial Report for the period ending 31 March 2025 be noted; and 2. The proposed operational and capital variation requests to the 2024‑25 Budget Estimates be approved:
(i) Operational Variations:
(ii) Capital Variations:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In Accordance with Regulation 16(5) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015
19. Russian Oil Coming into Australia
FILE REF: F25/37349
Councillor Lohberger
Motion:
“That the Lord Mayor write a letter on behalf of the Council to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Trade Minister Don Farrell, asking that Australia better enforce its current oil sanctions against Russia, especially against petroleum products refined from oil that originates in Russia but is coming into Australia through third-party countries.”
Rationale:
“Russian oil is increasingly making its way into Australia as a percentage of shipments that come via refineries in third-party countries, despite the current strict Australian sanctions imposed in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
This issue is very relevant to this Council, which expressed its support for the people of Ukraine, and the Ukrainian community in Hobart, in February 2022, but which also spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on petroleum products every year. Hobart residents and ratepayers spend many times more, and none of us want to be contributing to the Russian war against Ukraine every time we fill our tank.
The Association of Ukrainians in Tasmania is supportive of this motion, and the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations has also raised this issue.”
Further Information:
“Hobart City Council expresses support for Ukraine (page 5):
https://hobart.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/02/CO_28022022_MIN_1618.PDF
Russian oil making its way into Asia and Australia:
Current Australian Government sanctions:
It is prohibited to import, purchase or transport any of the following goods if they were exported from, or originated in, Russia: [emphasis mine]
● arms or related materiel
● any goods which originate in or have been exported from the specified Ukraine regions
● oil, refined petroleum products, natural gas, coal and other energy products (as designated in the Autonomous Sanctions (Import Sanctioned Goods – Russia) Designation 2022).
● gold exported from Russia (as defined in the Autonomous Sanctions (Import Sanctioned Goods—Russia) Amendment (No.1) Designation 2022”
|
Administration Response to Notice of Motion |
|
|
|
Discussion
1. City of Hobart officers have made enquiries and can advise as follows;
· Relevant remarks by the Prime Minister of Australia on 18 May 2025 can be found at Bilateral opening remarks – Rome, and from 24 February 2025 at Three years on, Australia stands with Ukraine.
· Further information about the topic of Australian support for Ukraine was considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on 5 August 2024 as here.
· During this committee hearing, the matter of oil was specifically mentioned and officers from the Department advised the following;
· “Australia joined others in a ban on importation of oil, gas and the like exported by Russia or of Russian origin. There was also something called an oil price cap, which is not quite the way it sounds. It's quite a complex kind of mechanism. Australia participated in all of that. Our ban on imports of oil was very similar to that imposed by other partners around the world. It was not intended to hit substantially transformed oil and gas, which I think is getting to the point that you wanted. We've got the ban. We've got the oil price cap. It was intended to hit Russian oil and gas, not to necessarily stop global supply of energy, because that would be a major impact on countries beyond Russia. What it means is that oil that's been substantially transformed is not picked up in what is banned by sanctions, and that's consistent with every country that's imposed that kind of ban.”
· The Motion is seeking that the Lord Mayor write letters to both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade on this matter and it poses little risk for Council to do so.
|
|
|
|
Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications |
|
|
Capital City Strategic Plan |
|
|
Pillar: |
8 – 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.
|
|
Outcome: |
8.1 – Hobart is a city that is well governed that recognises the community as an active partner that informs decisions
|
|
Strategy: |
8.1.2 – Ensure the needs of the community are well represented through effective advocacy and strong collaborative partnerships with key stakeholders and all levels of government.
|
|
Legislation and Policy |
|
|
Legislation: |
NA |
|
Policy: |
City of Hobart International Relations Policy |
|
Financial Implications
1. There are no financial implications arising from this Notice of Motion. |
|
|
Sherlock That the motion be adopted.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Amendment |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Elliot
That letter also
includes urging the Prime Minister to:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
AMENDMENT LOST VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
VOTING RECORD
Council Resolution:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
That the Lord Mayor write a letter on behalf of the Council to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Trade Minister Don Farrell, asking that Australia better enforce its current oil sanctions against Russia, especially against petroleum products refined from oil that originates in Russia but is coming into Australia through third-party countries.
|
20. Halls Saddle Master Planning
FILE REF: F25/37350
The Lord Mayor Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Lohberger
Motion
“That the Council request the Chief Executive Officer make allowance in the 2025/26 annual plan and budget for an immediate start on the preparation of a master plan for a visitor and transport hub at Halls Saddle, with the aim of developing a planning application for the site.”
Rationale:
“Halls Saddle provides the opportunity for a much-needed visitor centre on the mountain, which will also help to disperse visitation, and ease congestion at the Springs and on the Pinnacle. Following a successful open day at Halls Saddle in April, there is significant support for the development of the site as a transport and visitor hub on Kunanyi/Mt Wellington, and also interest in the site from the private sector.
Ideas for the site already include a mountain interpretation centre and cafe, possibly combined with an indigenous ranger centre, and a recreation hub to disperse visitors to the lower mountain slopes. A transport hub that can display real-time traffic and parking counters has also been suggested, so visitors can see when parking is unavailable further up the mountain or Pinnacle Road is congested.
A master plan is needed for the Halls Saddle site before any of these ideas or a development can be progressed, and that planning will also allow for an EOI process to gauge interest from community groups and private businesses that may also wish to operate out of a redeveloped site.
There are currently two separate reviews underway into the business and management models that may best suit management of the mountain, but neither of those reviews will be doing the work of this master plan. It will be complementary to the review work currently underway.”
|
Administration Response to Notice of Motion |
|
|
|
Discussion
This Motion is received at a time when the future ownership, funding and governance of kunanyi / Mount Wellington are currently uncertain as there are two important pieces of Strategic work that are occurring:
1. The State Government led Strategic Review is developing a long-term community vision for kunanyi / Mount Wellington and identify how best to deliver that vision for the entire community. Vision considerations include visitor experience, cultural and environmental values, funding and resourcing, and arrangements for the management and administration of kunanyi / Mount Wellington; and
2. The Wellington Park Management Trust’s Wellington Park Business Case is developing a financially sustainable management model for the Park. The Trust is seeking to identify a pathway to reduce the dependency on recurrent State Treasury Allocation funds over time and instead develop a model to provide for sustainable, long-term investment in appropriate visitor infrastructure and Park management consistent with the statutory purposes for which the Park was set aside.
The Strategic Review is planned to be completed towards the end of 2025, while the Wellington Park Business Case will be completed in 2026.
Accordingly, any work completed on the future of the Council’s Halls Saddle site will be slightly speculative as the outcomes of the above-mentioned strategic work are not currently known. Therefore, this motion does carry an element of risk.
This having been said, it is considered very likely that an improved visitor experience will be required for kunanyi / Mount Wellington into the future and the Halls Saddle site offers an outstanding opportunity to deliver a multi-faceted and contemporary visitor experience which would involve public and potentially private investment. The idea of completing a Masterplan for the site would enable the Council to identify and test opportunities for the site, which may then dovetail with the findings of the current strategic projects that are occurring. Accordingly, it would be necessary to engage closely with the Wellington Park Trust and State Government in respect to the Master planning process.
|
|
Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications |
|
|
Capital City Strategic Plan |
|
|
Pillar: |
1 - We are a city of unique beauty, environment, heritage and people, built on a shared sense of ownership, pride and wonder. This spirit of place has been shaped by Tasmanian Aboriginal people for tens of thousands of years and continues to be shaped by all who have called Hobart home. It is developed jointly by community, private enterprise and government, valuing and enhancing our Hobart identity.
6 - We are a city whose people see ourselves as part of a beautiful and unique natural environment, from the mountain to the river, which embrace us and shape our identity. We are proud custodians and advocates, ensuring resources are appreciated rather than wasted, supporting biodiverse ecosystems in honour of past, current and future generations.
|
|
Outcome: |
1.1 - Hobart keeps a strong sense of place and identity, even as the city changes.
6.1 - The natural environment is part of the city and biodiversity is conserved, secure and flourishing.
|
|
Strategy: |
1.1.1 - Protect and enhance, core elements of Hobart identity – kunanyi / Mount Wellington, timtumili minanya / River Derwent, natural areas, green spaces and Hobart’s heritage, culture and human scale – so they continue to be valued as central features of Hobart’s landscape and social fabric.
6.1.1 - Strengthen open space connectivity, prioritising links between the river, city, bushland and the mountain, through acquisitions and other opportunities. |
|
Legislation and Policy |
|
|
Legislation: |
Local Government Act 1993
|
|
Policy: |
Not applicable |
|
Financial Implications
A Masterplan would be able to be completed largely by Officers but would also require consultancy services in the order of $50,000. An allowance can be made on the 2025/26 Annual Plan and Budget should this Motion be supported.
|
|
|
Kitsos That the motion be adopted
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
VOTING RECORD
Council Resolution:
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
That the Council request the Chief Executive Officer make allowance in the 2025/26 annual plan and budget for an immediate start on the preparation of a master plan for a visitor and transport hub at Halls Saddle, with the aim of developing a planning application for the site.
|
21. Domain Highway Interchange
FILE REF: F25/37376
Councillor Posselt
Motion
“That:
1. The Council lobby the State Government to address the congestion and safety risks caused by the Domain Highway interchange with the Brooker Highway as a priority congestion busting project.
2. The Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer and the Lord Mayor to write to elected representatives advocating for transport infrastructure investment at this intersection. Letters should be addressed to:
· The Premier
· The Tasmanian Minister for Transport
· The Tasmanian Minister for Infrastructure
· Clark, Franklin and Lyons members of the Tasmanian Parliament
· Hobart, Elwick, Pembroke and Rumney members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council
· Federal members for Clark, Franklin and Lyons”
Rationale:
“The Council has an interest in addressing congestion and transport concerns of both residents of the municipality and people who live elsewhere but travel through the Hobart municipality. Hobart City Council has focused on interventions within its remit in the recent past with investment in active transport infrastructure and modal shift programs. It has also been the recipient of $20m to assist the state in developing a ferry network in Greater Hobart.
The Council has a long standing interest in improving transport for all, but must recognise that for some cohorts and some trips, efficient road transport is a key component of their transport needs. Efficient road transport infrastructure not only serves movement of citizens and visitors in private vehicles, it is also crucial for freight and on-road public transport, such as busses and rapid bus networks. Indeed, congestion and traffic are frequently cited as top concerns for Hobartians when surveyed about their priorities for this city.
While Council has tried to address congestion where it can, it is essential that the council recognise when projects and infrastructure are the responsibility of other arms of government and when necessary advocate to other levels of government for investment in particular projects. The Domain Highway interchange is one such infrastructure project that is a core responsibility of the state but that the city has recognised is problematic for managing congestion and road safety.
It is understood that the Domain highway interchange represents one of the weakest links in the Greater Hobart road transport network. This was illustrated recently when Tas water closed Queens walk to traffic removing a crucial relief valve from this intersection. The subsequent result was significant queuing, some days as far back as the Tasman Bridge, for cars to access the Brooker to head north from the Eastern shore.
Interestingly, the closure of Queens walk removed queuing from the Brooker Highway for car movements heading from the North to the East, particularly in afternoon peak, which had occurred as a result of a “courtesy wave” by drivers letting other vehicles through to access Queens walk. However, with the reopening of Queens walk, queuing on the Brooker has returned, representing a safety risk. It also reduces inbound traffic on the Brooker Highway to one lane in afternoon peak, resulting in increased congestion and frustration for drivers. Despite the reopening of Queens walk, queuing to access the Brooker northbound from the bridge remains significant.
This motion is prepared with the intent of highlighting the importance of investment in redesign and replacement of specific, critical and aging infrastructure to aid in reducing congestion for all residents and visitors to Great Hobart.”
|
Administration Response to Notice of Motion |
|
|
|
Discussion
Planning work has been undertaken on this interchange, most recently in 2019. The Domain Highway Long Term Planning Study, jointly funded by the Australian and Tasmanian Governments, was undertaken to explore infrastructure improvements around Hobart’s Queens Domain. The study’s overarching goal was to enhance the safety, reliability, and efficiency of transport movements into, out of, and through Hobart, particularly via the northern and inner eastern approaches.
The study identified several key issues affecting the Domain Highway and surrounding corridors. These include inconsistent travel reliability, a high frequency of minor crashes that disrupt traffic flow, and limited infrastructure supporting public and active transport. The analysis showed that while the road network is nearing capacity, particularly at intersections like the Domain Interchange and Brooker Highway/Risdon Road, the most pressing problems stem from variability in traffic conditions and a lack of control at key decision points.
A link to the study in full can be found here.
To address these challenges in the short to medium term, the study recommends implementing Program Option 2. This option focuses on enhancing network safety and improving traffic management through the use of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). Key measures include the introduction of variable speed limits (VSLs) and variable message signs (VMS), as well as improved traffic monitoring via CCTV and vehicle detection systems. These interventions are designed to reduce the likelihood and severity of incidents, smooth traffic flow, and provide real-time information to road users. Additional low-cost improvements, such as upgraded lane markings, pedestrian crossings, and bus stop facilities, are also proposed to support safer and more accessible travel for all users.
For the long term, the study considers the potential for a full grade separation of the Domain Interchange. Concept Option 3 is identified as the most viable starting point, as it offers the potential to improve traffic flow while minimising environmental and community impacts. However, the study advises against immediate implementation due to uncertainties around future traffic growth, the need for alignment with broader transport strategies, and the pending outcomes of related initiatives such as the Northern Suburbs Transit Corridor.
The next steps outlined in the study include conducting detailed engineering and environmental assessments, engaging with the community and affected landowners, and updating travel demand forecasting. These actions will help refine the proposed solutions and ensure they are integrated effectively into the broader transport planning framework for Greater Hobart.
It is the advice of officers that it would be prudent for the City of Hobart to write to the State Government and other representatives to continue to advocate for this work to be undertaken.
|
|
Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications |
|
|
Capital City Strategic Plan |
|
|
Pillar: |
Pillar 5 – Movement and Connectivity
|
|
Outcome: |
An accessible and connected city environment helps maintain Hobart’s pace of life and ensuring that Hobart has effective and environmentally sustainable transport systems.
|
|
Strategy: |
Hobart Transport Strategy 2024 |
|
Legislation and Policy |
|
|
Legislation: |
N/A |
|
Policy: |
N/A |
|
Financial Implications
No financial implications for undertaking the proposed actions within this motion are anticipated. |
|
|
Sherlock That the motion be adopted, with the inclusion of an additional clause that reads: The Council write to the Minister for Infrastructure seeking a briefing on the structural condition of the Tasman Bridge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Lohberger
That Councillor Posselt be granted an additional two minutes to address the meeting.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
|
|
Procedural Motion |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Dutta
That the motion be now put.
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
PROCEDURAL MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
VOTING RECORD
Note: Councillor Harvey abstained from voting. In accordance with section 28(3) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, to abstain from voting at a meeting is to vote in the negative and has been recorded accordingly.
Council Resolution:
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
1. The Council lobby the State Government to address the congestion and safety risks caused by the Domain Highway interchange with the Brooker Highway as a priority congestion busting project. 2. The Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer and the Lord Mayor to write to elected representatives advocating for transport infrastructure investment at this intersection. Letters should be addressed to: · The Premier · The Tasmanian Minister for Transport · The Tasmanian Minister for Infrastructure · Clark, Franklin and Lyons members of the Tasmanian Parliament · Hobart, Elwick, Pembroke and Rumney members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council · Federal members for Clark, Franklin and Lyons 3. The Council write to the Minister for Infrastructure seeking a briefing on the structural condition of the Tasman Bridge.
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
FILE REF: F25/37815
Alderman Bloomfield
Motion
“That a review of the Councils Borrowing Policy be undertaken to ensure that when Council is considering any new borrowings there is a fully costed and evaluated business case, with all alternatives considered and outcomes identified. The business case should be based on sound business principles and consider factors such as ongoing operational costs for the infrastructure project or if the infrastructure project is for a service that is funded by user charges (e.g. Waste), then the user charge should reflect the cost of servicing the loan.”
Rationale:
“It is important that any decision to enter borrowings is supported by a solid business case, based on sound business principles. The current policy needs to be updated to reflect the need for decision making based on a robust business cases.
Council should only consider borrowings for infrastructure projects that are not able to be funded from revenue and which are identified as a priority for the City. This will ensure the Council can respond to the future infrastructure needs of the City while ensuring the responsible use of public monies. When entering into the borrowing Council needs to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the Council.”
|
Administration Response to Notice of Motion |
|
|
|
Discussion
The Council’s current Borrowing Policy is dated 24 August 2020 and was due for review in September 2023 and is programmed for review later this year. Accordingly, this Notice of Motion is timely.
The borrowing guidelines under the current Policy are as follows:
· Borrowings are not a form of revenue and do not replace the need for Council to generate sufficient operating revenue to service its operating requirements; · Financing of major infrastructure assets requires a strategic approach to evaluate the risk exposure to Council; · Council, where it is appropriate, may enter into a borrowing facility for a long term asset construction or purchase projects; · There will be no long term debt to finance operating activities, non-capital projects or recurring expenditure of Council; · The term of the loan should not exceed the expected economic life of the asset being funded, subject to the maximum periods below; and · The maximum period for borrowing will be set at 15 years. Variations to this will require a resolution of Council.
It is considered that a requirement for future borrowings be supported by a solid business case, based on sound business principles is a positive step, which is more contemporary with best practice Local Governments. Accordingly, the motion is supported. |
|
Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications |
|
|
Capital City Strategic Plan |
|
|
Pillar: |
8 – Governance and Civic Involvement
|
|
Outcome: |
8.2 - Hobart is a city that delivers public value and excellence by being a financially responsible, high performing and accountable organisation that is responsive to the needs of the community.
|
|
Strategy: |
8.2.1 - Monitor and maintain financial sustainability into the future through responsible management of annual budgets, assets and long-term financial planning. |
|
Legislation and Policy |
|
|
Legislation: |
Local Government Act 1993
|
|
Policy: |
|
|
Financial Implications
1. There are no financial implications resulting from this motion.
|
|
|
Posselt That the motion be adopted
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Procedural Motion |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
lohberger
That the motion be now put.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
PROCEDURAL MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
VOTING RECORD
Council Resolution:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
That a review of the Councils Borrowing Policy be undertaken to ensure that when Council is considering any new borrowings there is a fully costed and evaluated business case, with all alternatives considered and outcomes identified. The business case should be based on sound business principles and consider factors such as ongoing operational costs for the infrastructure project or if the infrastructure project is for a service that is funded by user charges (e.g. Waste), then the user charge should reflect the cost of servicing the loan.
|
|
|
Minutes (Open Portion) Council Meeting |
Page 1 |
|
|
26/05/2025 |
|
Regulation 29 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
File Ref: 13-1-10
|
|
Coats
That the information contained in the following responses to questions without notice, be received and noted.
VOTING RECORD
Council Resolution:
|
Memorandum of the Director Corporate Services of 28 January 2025
Regulation 29 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
File Ref: 13-1-10
|
|
Question: What engagements has the City of Hobart had with the Black Spot Program and what intersections, roads etc has the City put forward?
Answer: The Chief Executive Officer took the question on notice. |
|
|
Question: Up until late 2024 there were monthly public expense reports for all Elected Members published. At the end of the year the full 12 month report was published in the Annual Report. I am unsure as to why the reporting has ceased. Is it possible for this to be re-instated as I believe that the publishing of those reports is of public interest?
Answer: The Manager Legal and Corporate Governance advised there had been a delay with producing this information due to resourcing, however it will be reinstated again very soon. |
|
|
Question Since we have approved to write to the Minister of Infrastructure, with regards to the Tasman Bridge, will the Chief Executive Officer prepare a briefing report for that meeting, if it is agree too, and include any correspondence that we have had from any Infrastructure Minister and the Council with regards to the Tasman bridge.
Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that yes, if that is what the Council request then we will arrange the briefing and make sure that Elected Members are invited and can participate.
|
|
|
Question: When can we expect the first three monthly report on Collins Street bike lane trial?
Response: The Manager Strategic Communications, Engagement and Marketing advised that the report will be available two to three weeks after the engagement period. Engagement will commence on 30 June 2025. |
|
|
Question: Will the remainder of the implementation, like the bus stop in the middle of the road, be installed – will that be by this coming Friday?
Response: The Manager Strategic Communications, Engagement and Marketing advised that Collins Street (from Victoria Street to Murray Street) will not be completed at the same time as Collins Street (Molle Street to Victoria Street). |
|
|
Question: Can I have a ball park timeframe from when the trial report evaluation on the Collins Street from Victoria to Murray Street will happen?
Response: The Chief Executive Officer took the question on notice. |
|
|
Question: At the start of the meeting as park of your acknowledgement to country you said that the Council resolved a few years ago to do acknowledgement to country(s). Can I have some more information about that decision like when and what forum that was made?
Response: The Lord Mayor took the question on notice as it was before her time on Council.
|
|
24.8 Councillor Elliot – Acknowledgement to Country - Chairperson Obligation |
|
|
|
Question: Are meeting Chairpersons obligated to do Acknowledgement of Country?
Response: The Chief Executive Officer advised that meeting chairs are not obligated to do acknowledgement of country. It is at the discretion of the chairperson to make those calls for meeting they preside over. |
|
|
Question: Lord Mayor can you clarity, if I am chairing a meeting or a workshop, I don’t have to do an Acknowledgement to Country? I would like clarification as it is included as a standard item in our agendas.
Response: The Lord Mayor requested that this be taken on notice.
|
|
|
Question: What is the mechanism for Council to authorise that Directors and other staff can remain seated when addressing the Council at Council meetings?
Response: Chief Executive Officer advised officers standing to address the Council was done out of respect, a longstanding custom and practice and one that he will continue to do. Should Elected Members wish to remain seated when addressing each other, this can be reviewed. |
|
|
Question: There has been consternations over who is responsible for different highway articulations between Local Government and the State Government. Tonight’s example was the catch fencing on the pedestrian bridge, but we also had the roundabout fencing at the railway roundabout. Are we being short changed in Tasmania by these MOUs signed with the State Government. Where everywhere else - Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, these types of overpass infrastructure is a responsibility of the State Government rather than the Council. Can we look at what other States are doing?
Response: Chief Executive Officer took the question on notice.
|
In accordance with the Council’s Meetings: Procedures and Guidelines Policy, attached is a register of questions taken on notice during debate of previous items considered by the Council.
|
|
Bloomfield
VOTING RECORD
Council Resolution:
That the register of questions arising during debate be received and noted.
|
|
|
Lohberger
That the Council resolve by absolute majority that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to regulation 15(1) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 because the items included on the closed agenda contain the following matters:
· Minutes of a closed Council meeting · Information of a personal and confidential nature · Personal hardship · Information relating to commercial arrangements · Proposals for the Council in interest of land
The following items were discussed:-
Item No. 1 Minutes of the last meeting of the Closed Portion of the Council Meeting Item No. 2 Communication from the Chairperson Item No. 3 Leave of Absence Item No. 4 Consideration of supplementary Items to the agenda Item No. 5 Indications of pecuniary and conflicts of interest Item No. 6 Outstanding Sundry Debts and Debt Write-Offs as at 31 March 2025 LG(MP)R 15(2)(g) Item No. 7 Unpaid Rates - Section 137 Sale of Property LG(MP)R 15(2)(f), (g), (i) and (j) Item No. 8 Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT) 2025 Election LG(MP)R 15(2)(g) Item No. 9 Questions without Notice
MOTION CARRIED VOTING RECORD
|
The Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 746pm for a meal break.
The meeting was reconvened at 7.05pm pm.
Item 17 was then taken.
There being no further business the Open portion of the meeting closed at 9.00pm.
TAKEN AS READ AND SIGNED AS A CORRECT RECORD
THIS
30th DAY OF june 2025.
CHAIRperson