Minutes (Open Portion)

Special Council Meeting

Page 2

27/7/2021

Minutes (Open Portion)

Special Council Meeting

Page 6

27/07/2021

AYES

NOES

Lord Mayor Reynolds

Deputy Lord Mayor Burnet

Zucco

Briscoe

Sexton

Thomas

Harvey

Behrakis

Dutta

Ewin

Sherlock

Coats

The following representors addressed the meeting in relation to item 2.2.1:

Residents Opposed to the Cable Car Inc. represented by Mr Vica Bayley, Mr Ted Cutlan and Ms Jen Woodward

Hobart Cable Car Supporters  represented by Mr Tony Donaghy, Mr Paul Reece, Mr Matthew Goldsmith, Mr Robert Otto and Ms Julie Lawless

Residents of Old Farm represented by Mr Karl Rollings, Ms Annie Philips and Mr Phil Stigant

Mr Graham Murray and Ms Louise Elliot

Tasmanian University Mountaineering Club represented by Mr Alex Lawson and Mr Fraser Labine-Romain

The South Hobart Progress Association Inc. represented by Mr David Day, Phillip Hoysted, Mr David Halse Rogers, Ms Rosemary Sandford and Ms Elisabeth Rees

Hobart Wheelers Dirt Devils Cycling Club represented by Mr Mark Johnston

Tasmanian Conservation Trust represented by Mr Peter McGlone

Residents of McRobies Road represented by Ms Susie Watson, Mr Stuart McAdam and Mr Adam D’Andrea

Respect the Mountain No Cable Car represented by Mr Jarrah Vercoe, Mr Ben Jones and Ms Bronwyn Scanlon

Climbers Club of Tasmania represented by Mr Hamish Jackson and Jon Nermut

Australian Institute of Landscape Architects represented by Mr Don Thomson and Mr Jerry de Gryse

Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre represented by Ms Sharnie Reid

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania represented by Ms Zoe Rimmer and Mr Rob Anders

The Mount Wellington Cableway Company (applicant), represented by Mr Chris Oldfield, Mr Adrian Bold and Ms Irene Duckett of Irene Inc. then addressed the meeting

Attachments

a    Deputation 3 - Old Farm Road Group ⇨

b    Deputation 6 - South Hobart Progress Association ⇨

c    Deputation 7 - Hobart Wheelers Dirst Devils Cycling Club ⇨

d    Deputation 10 - Respect the Mountain ⇨

e    Deputation 11 - Climbers Club of Tasmania ⇨  

AYES

NOES

Lord Mayor Reynolds

Deputy Lord Mayor Burnet

Zucco

Briscoe

Sexton

Thomas

Harvey

Behrakis

Dutta

Ewin

Sherlock

Coats

2.1.1   100 Pinnacle Road, Mount Wellington and 30 McRobies Road, South Hobart and Adjacent Road Reserve

That pursuant to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015, the Council refuse the application for a cableway and associated facilities, infrastructure and work at 100 Pinnacle Road, 30 McRobies Road & Adjacent Road Reserve for the following reasons:

1.      The proposed Transport Depot and Distribution use (the cableway) is not consistent with the values of Wellington Park identified in section 8.2 and section S2.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) in that it will diminish the Park’s tourism, recreational, cultural and landscape values as a result of its scale, mechanisation and emissions.

2.      The proposed Food Services use is not consistent with the values of Wellington Park identified in section 8.2 and section S2.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) in that it will diminish the Park’s tourism, recreational and landscape values as a result of its scale, nature and intensity.

3.      The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criterion with respect to clause 28.3.1, A1 or P1 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 as the proposed hours of operation will have an unreasonable impact on the residential amenity of land in the residential zones as a result of noise and other emissions.

4.      The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criterion with respect to clause 28.3.2, A1 or P1 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 as the proposed noise emissions have the potential to cause environmental harm within the Environmental Living and General Residential zones on McRobies Road.

5.      The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criterion with respect to clause E5.6.4, A1 or P1 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 as the proposed sight distances for the access road on to McRobies Road is inadequate and  and does not ensure safe movement of vehicles entering the existing roundabout.

6.      The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution with respect to clause E7.7.1 A3 as the stormwater from the pinnacle centre will be primarily drained to ground and in a storm event the flows will be greater than pre-existing runoff and there is no corresponding performance criterion.

7.      The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to clause E10.7.1, A1 or P1 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 as the proposed access road from McRobies Road to the boundary of Wellington Park involves the removal of high priority biodiversity values and the mitigation strategies and management measures to retain and improve the remaining high priority biodiversity values are not sufficient as required by subclause (c)(iii).

8.      The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to clause E10.7.1, A1 or P1 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 as the proposed access road from McRobies Road to the boundary of Wellington Park involves the removal of high priority biodiversity values and special circumstances have not been demonstrated as required by subclause (c)(iv).

9.      The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section 8.5.7, Issue 2, P2.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal, due to the clearance associated with the base station, associated bushfire hazard areas and towers 1 and 2, does not avoid or sufficiently remedy the loss of swift parrot habitat values and therefore results in a long-term impact on vegetation values.

10.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section 8.5.7, Issue 2, P2.2 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal, due to the clearance associated with the base station, associated bushfire hazard areas and towers 1 and 2, does not avoid or sufficiently remedy the loss of swift parrot habitat values and therefore results in a long-term impact on vegetation values.

11.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section 8.5.7, Issue 2, P2.3 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal does not avoid or sufficiently remedy adverse impacts on the geoheritage values of geoconservation sites: Organ Pipes Columnar Jointing and Wellington Range Periglacial Terrain as listed under the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database.

12.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section 8.5.7, Issue 5, P5.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal is not designed and sited to minimise or remedy the loss of visual values and impacts on visual character of the affected area that arise from the proposed cableway (including towers).

13.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section 8.5.7, Issue 5, P5.2 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal does not harmonise with the visual landscape and natural qualities of the site in terms of appearance and proportions.

14.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section 8.5.7, Issue 6, P6.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal will generate noise emissions that will have an adverse effect on the quiet enjoyment of the natural and cultural values of kunanyi/Mount Wellington and which are insufficiently remedied.

15.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section S2.6, Issue 2, P2.3 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal does not avoid or sufficiently remedy adverse impacts on the geoheritage values of geoconservation sites: Organ Pipes Columnar Jointing and Wellington Range Periglacial Terrain as listed under the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database.

16.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section S2.6, Issue 5, P5.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal does not sufficiently mitigate or remedy the loss of visual values and impacts on visual character of the affected area that arise from the proposed pinnacle centre.

17.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section S2.6, Issue 6, P6.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal is not supported by a geotechnical land instability report that sufficiently considers all risks to life and property that will be triggered by the development of the pinnacle centre.

18.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section S2.6, Issue 9, P9.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the pinnacle centre will visually intrude into the landscape in relation to local and natural features and views from the Pinnacle area and elsewhere in the Park.

19.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section S2.6, Issue 9, P9.2 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the pinnacle centre will cause visual intrusion.

20.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section S2.6, Issue 10, P10.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the pinnacle centre will diminish the values of the site and has not been designed or sited sufficiently to remedy or mitigate the loss of visual values. 

21.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section S2.6, Issue 11, P11.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal will generate noise emissions that will have an adverse effect on the quiet enjoyment of the natural and cultural values of kunanyi/Mount Wellington and which are insufficiently remedied.

Burnet

Harvey                                                 That the recommendation be adopted.

Briscoe

THOMAS                                                                                                                       

That Deputy Lord Mayor Burnet be granted an additional 3 minutes to address the meeting.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Burnet

Sherlock                                                                                                                  

That Alderman Briscoe be granted an additional 3 minutes to address the meeting.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

ZUCCO

BEHRAKIS                                                                                                                   

That each elected member be granted an additional 3 minutes to address the meeting.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Procedural Motion

Behrakis

Coats                                                                                                                          

That the matter be deferred.

PROCEDURAL MOTION LOST

VOTING RECORD

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That pursuant to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015, the Council refuse the application for a cableway and associated facilities, infrastructure and work at 100 Pinnacle Road, 30 McRobies Road & Adjacent Road Reserve for the following reasons:

1.      The proposed Transport Depot and Distribution use (the cableway) is not consistent with the values of Wellington Park identified in section 8.2 and section S2.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) in that it will diminish the Park’s tourism, recreational, cultural and landscape values as a result of its scale, mechanisation and emissions.

2.      The proposed Food Services use is not consistent with the values of Wellington Park identified in section 8.2 and section S2.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) in that it will diminish the Park’s tourism, recreational and landscape values as a result of its scale, nature and intensity.

3.      The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criterion with respect to clause 28.3.1, A1 or P1 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 as the proposed hours of operation will have an unreasonable impact on the residential amenity of land in the residential zones as a result of noise and other emissions.

4.      The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criterion with respect to clause 28.3.2, A1 or P1 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 as the proposed noise emissions have the potential to cause environmental harm within the Environmental Living and General Residential zones on McRobies Road.

5.      The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criterion with respect to clause E5.6.4, A1 or P1 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 as the proposed sight distances for the access road on to McRobies Road is inadequate and  and does not ensure safe movement of vehicles entering the existing roundabout.

6.      The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution with respect to clause E7.7.1 A3 as the stormwater from the pinnacle centre will be primarily drained to ground and in a storm event the flows will be greater than pre-existing runoff and there is no corresponding performance criterion.

7.      The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to clause E10.7.1, A1 or P1 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 as the proposed access road from McRobies Road to the boundary of Wellington Park involves the removal of high priority biodiversity values and the mitigation strategies and management measures to retain and improve the remaining high priority biodiversity values are not sufficient as required by subclause (c)(iii).

8.      The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to clause E10.7.1, A1 or P1 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 as the proposed access road from McRobies Road to the boundary of Wellington Park involves the removal of high priority biodiversity values and special circumstances have not been demonstrated as required by subclause (c)(iv).

9.      The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section 8.5.7, Issue 2, P2.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal, due to the clearance associated with the base station, associated bushfire hazard areas and towers 1 and 2, does not avoid or sufficiently remedy the loss of swift parrot habitat values and therefore results in a long-term impact on vegetation values.

10.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section 8.5.7, Issue 2, P2.2 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal, due to the clearance associated with the base station, associated bushfire hazard areas and towers 1 and 2, does not avoid or sufficiently remedy the loss of swift parrot habitat values and therefore results in a long-term impact on vegetation values.

11.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section 8.5.7, Issue 2, P2.3 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal does not avoid or sufficiently remedy adverse impacts on the geoheritage values of geoconservation sites: Organ Pipes Columnar Jointing and Wellington Range Periglacial Terrain as listed under the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database.

12.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section 8.5.7, Issue 5, P5.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal is not designed and sited to minimise or remedy the loss of visual values and impacts on visual character of the affected area that arise from the proposed cableway (including towers).

13.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section 8.5.7, Issue 5, P5.2 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal does not harmonise with the visual landscape and natural qualities of the site in terms of appearance and proportions.

14.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section 8.5.7, Issue 6, P6.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal will generate noise emissions that will have an adverse effect on the quiet enjoyment of the natural and cultural values of kunanyi/Mount Wellington and which are insufficiently remedied.

15.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section S2.6, Issue 2, P2.3 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal does not avoid or sufficiently remedy adverse impacts on the geoheritage values of geoconservation sites: Organ Pipes Columnar Jointing and Wellington Range Periglacial Terrain as listed under the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database.

16.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section S2.6, Issue 5, P5.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal does not sufficiently mitigate or remedy the loss of visual values and impacts on visual character of the affected area that arise from the proposed pinnacle centre.

17.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section S2.6, Issue 6, P6.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal is not supported by a geotechnical land instability report that sufficiently considers all risks to life and property that will be triggered by the development of the pinnacle centre.

18.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section S2.6, Issue 9, P9.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the pinnacle centre will visually intrude into the landscape in relation to local and natural features and views from the Pinnacle area and elsewhere in the Park.

19.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section S2.6, Issue 9, P9.2 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the pinnacle centre will cause visual intrusion.

20.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section S2.6, Issue 10, P10.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the pinnacle centre will diminish the values of the site and has not been designed or sited sufficiently to remedy or mitigate the loss of visual values. 

21.    The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or performance criteria with respect to section S2.6, Issue 11, P11.1 of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended October 2015) as the proposal will generate noise emissions that will have an adverse effect on the quiet enjoyment of the natural and cultural values of kunanyi/Mount Wellington and which are insufficiently remedied.