MINUTES - Kingborough Council€¦ · Minutes No. 21 Page 4 24 September 2018 under the planning scheme from Saturday 8 September 2018 until seven days after the election on 30 October

MINUTES

24 September 2018

Back (L – R): Cr Paul Chatterton, Cr Mike Percey, Cr Sue Bastone, Cr Dean Winter, Cr Richard Atkinson

Front (L – R): Cr Dr Graham Bury, Cr Flora Fox, Mayor Cr Steve Wass, Deputy Mayor Cr Paula Wriedt, Cr David Grace

PUBLIC MINUTES

These Minutes are provided for the

assistance and information of members

of the public.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Minute No’s Agenda

Page No. Minute

Page No.

Apologies 1 1

C624/21-18 Confirmation of Minutes of 10 September 2018 1 2

Workshops held Since Last Council Meeting 2 2

C625/21-18 Declarations of Interest 2 2

Transfer of Agenda Items 2 2

Questions on Notice from the Public 3 2

C626/21-18 1 Budget 3 2

C627/21-18 2 Electoral Signs 3 3

C628/21-18 3 Legal Expenses 4 4

C629/21-18 4 Kingston Park 5 4

C630/21-18 5 Compliance 6 5

C631/21-18 6 Recording of Questions on Notice 6 6

C632/21-18 7 Fence Around New Blackmans Bay Playground 7 7

C633/21-18 8 Dog Management Policy 7 7

Questions Without Notice From the Public 9 8

C634/21-18 1 Election Signs 8

C635/21-18 2 Council Finances 10

C636/21-18 3 Future Public Inquiry into the Kingston Park Project 10

C637/21-18 4 Mayoral Debate 11

C638/21-18 5 Audio in Council Chambers 12

C639/21-18 6 Dog on Powell Road 12

Questions on Notice From Councillors 9 13

C640/21-18 1 Bruny Island Cat Management Project 9 13

C641/21-18 2 Australian Antarctic Division Response 11 15

C642/21-18 3 Climate Change Innovation Lab 11 15

C643/21-18 4 Hobart City Deal 11 15

C644/21-18 5 Trees on Channel Highway 12 16

C645/21-18 6 Oxley's Road 13 16

C646/21-18 7 Pullens Road, Woodbridge 13 17

C647/21-18 8 Speed Limit Signs, Bruny Island 14 18

C648/21-18 9 Planning Department 14 18

C649/21-18 10 Arthur vs Kingborough Council 16 20

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Minute No’s Agenda

Page No. Minute

Page No.

C650/21-18 11 Kingston Park Land Release Strategy 17 21

C651/21-18 12 Kingston Beach RSL 18 22

Questions Without Notice From Councillors 18 22

C652/21-18 1 Community Recovery Funds 22

C653/21-18 2 Correspondence to Councillors 22

C654/21-18 3 Variations 23

C655/21-18 4 Snug Park Playground 24

C656/21-18 5 Toilet Bloc, Osbourne Esplanade 24

C657/21-18 6 Dog Management Policy 25

C658/21-18 7 Taroona Beach Playground 25

C659/21-18 8 Blackmans Bay Playground 26

C660/21-18 9 Hobart City Deal 26

C661/21-18 10 Toilets at Coningham Beach 26

Motions of Which Notice has been Given 18 27

C662/21-18 1 Review of Framework for General Manager's Performance Review 18 27

C663/21-18 2 Seeking City Status 19 28

Petitions Still Being Actioned 19 28

Petitions Received in Last Period 19 28

Officers Reports to Planning Authority 20 29

C664/21-18 Delegated Authority for the Period 29 August 2018 to 11 September 2018 20 29

C665/21-18 DA-2018-148 - Development Application for Extension to Existing Marina to Provide 53 Additional Wet Berths and Relaxation of Carparking Requirements at 7 Ferry Road, Kettering for P C Boustead 23 29

C666/21-18 DA-2018-336 - Development Application for Training and Operations Facility (Surf Life Saving) at 20 Beach Road, Kingston Beach for Kingston Beach Surf Life Saving Club 40 31

Officers Reports to Council 62 36

C667/21-18 Policy 5.9 – Significant Tree Register Policy 62 36

C668/21-18 North West Bay River Catchment Management Plan 2018-2027 74 36

C669/21-18 Paperless Council Meetings 131 37

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Minute No’s Agenda

Page No. Minute

Page No.

C670/21-18 Audit Panel Charter 136 38

C671/21-18 Kingborough Bicycle Advisory Committee 147 38

C672/21-18 Information Reports 152 39

Mayor’s Communications 153

Financial Report for the Period 1 July 2018 to 31 August 2018 156

Kingborough Council Audit Panel Independent Chairman’s Report to Council 175

Environmental Services Quarterly Activities Update 197

Minutes Kingborough Bicycle Advisory Committee 206

C673/21-18 Confirmation of Items to be Dealt With in Closed Session 211 40

______________________________________________________________________________

Minutes No. 21 Page 1 24 September 2018

MINUTES of an Ordinary Meeting of Council held at the Kingborough Civic Centre, 15 Channel Highway, Kingston on Monday, 24 September 2018 at 5.30pm.

AUDIO RECORDING

The Chairperson declared the meeting open at 5.30pm, welcomed all in attendance and read:

“All persons in attendance are advised that it is Council policy to record Council Meetings. The audio recording of this meeting will be made available to the public on Council’s website. In accordance with Council Policy, I now ask staff to confirm that the audio recording has commenced.”

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS

The Mayor paid respect to the traditional and original owners of this land the muwinina people, paid respect to those that have passed before us and acknowledged today’s Tasmanian Aboriginal community who are the custodians of this land.

ATTENDEES

Councillors:

Mayor Cr S Wass Deputy Mayor Cr P Wriedt Councillor R Atkinson Councillor S Bastone Councillor Dr G Bury Councillor P Chatterton Councillor F Fox Councillor D Grace Councillor M Percey Councillor D Winter Staff: Acting General Manager Mr Tony Ferrier Chief Financial Officer Mr John Breen Executive Manager Organisational Development Ms Pene Hughes Executive Manager Information Services Mr Fred Moult Executive Manager Engineering Services Mr David Reeve Executive Manager Governance & Community Services Mr Daniel Smee Acting Manager Environmental Services Ms Liz Quinn Manager Development Services Ms Tasha Tyler-Moore Media & Communications Officer Ms Sarah Wilcox Executive Assistant Mrs Amanda Morton

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

______________________________________________________________________________


C624/21-18 (Commences at ± 1 minute of audio recording)

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF 10 SEPTEMBER 2018

MOVED Cr Fox SECONDED Cr Percey

That the Minutes of Council Meeting No. 20 (open session) held on 10 September 2018 be confirmed as a true record.

FOR

Cr Atkinson Cr Bastone Cr Bury Cr Chatterton Cr Fox

Cr Grace Cr Percey Cr Wass Cr Winter Cr Wriedt

Carried Unanimously

WORKSHOPS HELD SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING

17 September - Derwent Estuary Project & Calvin Christian School

C625/21-18 (Commences at ± 3 minutes of audio recording)

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Cr Fox declared an interest in the item headed “DA-2018-336 - Development Application for Training and Operations Facility (Surf Life Saving) at 20 Beach Road, Kingston Beach for Kingston Beach Surf Life Saving Club” as well as an item in closed session.

TRANSFER OF AGENDA ITEMS

No agenda items were transferred.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC


1 Budget At the Council meeting on 10 September 2018, Mr Mervin Reed asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice: Can you advise the ratepayers why the budget deficit is $1,332,424? Why you have spent cash from the reserves once again? In responding to our question please take note of the following facts; 1. You told us that the long term financial plan was on track 2 years ago and it appears

now that this is not the case. How can it be on track with an operating loss of over $1.3m?

______________________________________________________________________________


What do you now propose to advise the ratepayers was the real reason for such a disastrous budget result, in the same year of huge increase in rates at 4 times CPI. Officer’s Response: The Tasmanian Audit Office uses the concept of an Underlying Result to determine the financial sustainability of Councils. The intent of the underlying result is to show the outcome of a Council’s normal or usual day to day operations. It is intended to remove unusual factors that could create volatility and therefore make it difficult for users to understand the outcome of a Council’s normal operations. A number of years ago, Kingborough Council developed a long-term financial plan to deliver an underlying surplus by 2021. The financial report to Council for June 2018 shows Council producing an underlying surplus ahead of schedule of $391,384. The financial reports are subject to audit by the Tasmanian Audit Office.

John Breen - Chief Financial Officer


2 Electoral Signs At the Council meeting on 10 September 2018, Mr John McDonald asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice: If there is a limitation on the number of electoral signs that can be displayed on a residential premises, could that be indicated as to where that restriction is actually to be found? Officer’s Response: In order to be exempt a sign must meet all of the requirements of E17.4.1 of the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015. This includes the need to comply with E17.7.1 A2 which states under (a) that there is a maximum of one of each sign type per street frontage. Further to this, under E17.7.1 A2(d) there is an additional exemption in regard to the limit of one sign for the following sign types. (1) Building site (2) Name plate (3) Newspaper day bill (4) Open/closed (5) Real estate (6) Street number (7) Temporary sign An Election sign is not included on this list and is therefore not exempt in complying to the requirement of one sign per frontage. An Election sign is separately defined in the scheme to a Temporary sign. In summary only one election sign per frontage is allowed

______________________________________________________________________________


under the planning scheme from Saturday 8 September 2018 until seven days after the election on 30 October 2018.

Tony Ferrier - Acting General Manager


3 Legal Expenses At the Council meeting on 10 September 2018, Mr John McDonald asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice: Please advise, for the 2017/8 financial year: (a) Total expenditure on external legal services; (b) Of that sum, the amount paid relating to compliance issues. Please advise, for the 2018/9 financial year: (c) Total budgeted expenditure for external legal services; (d) Total amount budgeted for external legal services by type of service to be provided

(eg contracts, planning advice and appeals, other civil litigation, compliance work). Officer’s Response: For the 2017/8 financial year, the legal expenditure was $167,000, as reported in the Annual Financial Report. Legal expenditure for compliance issues for 2017/18 was $16,220. For the 2018/19 financial year, the budget for external legal services is $140,500 and this is made up from: Compliance $20,000 Planning and development services $74,500 Organisational development $17,000 Property & emergency management $12,000 Other $17,000.

John Breen - Chief Financial Officer


4 Kingston Park At the Council meeting on 10 September 2018, Mr Ray Westwood asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice: 1 Would Council provide a consolidated report on the actual outlay on the Kingston

Park Project in each financial year of the plan's existence showing all expenditures, grants, and borrowings to date?

2 Would Council advise the expected timing and recovery of Council's expenditure on the Kingston Park Project financed to date and in the future by the ratepayers?

Officer’s Response: 1. The following is the cash inflows and outflows from the Kingston Park

Implementation Report (end of June 2018) on the Council website:

______________________________________________________________________________


2. Council is currently considering requests for proposals from developers in regard to the sale of land within the Kingston Park site. Until this process is finalised, the timing and recovery of Council’s expenditure is uncertain. However based on current estimates, it is possible that the project will incur a financial loss of around $4 million after 10 years (bearing in mind that considerable community assets will have been acquired during that period and major progress made towards a long term sustainable Kingston CBD).



5 Compliance At the Council meeting on 10 September 2018, Ms Tricia Ramsay asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice: Does the Council understand that considerable ratepayer funds wasted on the recent unsuccessful court case about 'Molly' the dog has reinforced serious concerns within the Municipality about the heavy handed reputation of Kingborough Compliance Officers? Can the Deputy General Manager please provide the following details: a) the ·number of court cases this Council has authorised in the last 4 years regarding

dog compliance issues b) the total cost to ratepayers of those court cases including compliance/administrative

and legal costs c) the number of these cases that have been unsuccessful from the Council's

perspective and the total costs incurred by those specific cases? Officer’s Response: Between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2018 Council has had thirteen (13) matters progress to the Magistrates Court, via complaint and summons, concerning “dog compliance issues”, for determination. The following table shows the outcomes of these matters and total cost incurred:

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Income ($,000)

Government Grants 220 220

DHHS Road Bond 377 377

Expenditure ($,000) 290 291 1147 345 403 3,585 6,061

Net Cost 70 291 1147 345 26 3,585 5,464

Interest ($,000) 2 11 47 54 54 162 330

Total Project Cost 5,794

Borrowings 2,700 2,700

______________________________________________________________________________


No. Decision Cost to Council Penalty Operational Order

Cost (+ or -)

1 Guilty $785.20 $503.65 Yes -$281.55

2 Guilty $0 (cost order) $730.00 Yes +$730.00

3 Guilty $0 (cost order) $730.00 Yes +$730.00

4 Guilty $214.50 $400.00 No +$185.50

5 Guilty $0 (cost order) $400.00 No +$400.00

6 Guilty $77.00 (cost order) $967.45 Yes +$890.45

7 Guilty $77.00 (cost order) $967.45 Yes +$890.45


9 Guilty $0 (cost order) $2,238.00 Yes +$2,238.00




13 Guilty $0 (cost order) $1,200.00 No +$1,200.00

Total cost to Council $1153.70 Total income $8232.85

Scott Basham – Compliance Co-ordinator


6 Recording of Questions on Notice At the Council meeting on 10 September 2018, Ms Tricia Ramsay asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice: Does the Council realise that a Question on Notice supplied to you on 9/7/18 and incorporated into the Agenda of 23 July was not printed in full as required by the Local Government Act. Would you please ensure that this occurs? Officer’s Response: Reg. 31(1) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 states that a “member of the public may give written notice to the general manager at least 7 days before an ordinary council meeting of a question to be asked at that meeting”. The Question on Notice that was supplied on 9/7/18 included some paragraphs that were statements but did not constitute questions as required by the Meeting Procedures Regulations. The Meeting Agenda is to include a transcript of the questions that were asked on notice. That is what occurred in the Agenda of 23 July 2018. The relevant provision in regard to what is minuted within the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 is regulation 32(1)(h), which states that “the general manager is to ensure that the minutes of the meeting accurately record .... any question asked, without notice, by a member of the public and a summary of any answer given in response”. Only the question needs to be recorded in the Agenda or Minutes of the meeting and it is not necessary to record the narrative surrounding the question. This has been confirmed by legal advice and is also consistent with the approach adopted by other councils.

Tony Ferrier – Acting General Manager

______________________________________________________________________________



7 Fence Around New Blackmans Bay Playground Ms Jo Westwood submitted the following question on notice: Does the Council intend to build a fence around the new playground in Blackmans Bay? Officer’s Response: Council considers the fencing of playgrounds where there may be direct safety related hazards nearby and where there is a risk of younger children interacting with those hazards. The Blackmans Bay playground equipment has been designed for families or an older children’s age group and, as such, a fence is not warranted in this instance.

David Reeve - Executive Manager Engineering Services


8 Dog Management Policy The following question on notice has been received: Does Council agree that the last minute amendment to the Dog Management Policy at the Council meeting on 10 September to include an additional off-lead area, east of the boat ramp at Taroona beach, appears to represent a breach of s24 of the Dog Control Act 2000? Before a council resolves to make a declaration under this Division in relation to an area, it is to (a) notify, by public notice, the details of –

(i) the area; and (ii) any condition relating to the use of that area; and (iii) in the case of a restricted area or prohibited area, the reasons for the

declaration; and (b) invite submissions to be lodged within 15 working days after the notice is published;

and (c) consider any submissions lodged. If so, will Council commit to rescind the amendment as a matter of priority reverting the entire Taroona beach to its previous status as being restricted to dogs at all times which is in line with the final draft Policy developed through public consultation and presented to Council for endorsement at the meeting? If not, can Council please table any legal advice it has obtained on the matter, full details of any environmental assessment carried out and justification for failing to notify or consult with the community? Officer’s Response: The requirements for the development of a Dog Management Policy are set out in Section 7 of the Dog Control Act 2000 as follows: 7. Dog management policy (1) A council is to develop and implement a policy relating to dog management in its municipal area. (2) A dog management policy is to include the following:

______________________________________________________________________________


(a) a code relating to responsible ownership of dogs; (b) the provision of declared areas; (c) a fee structure; (d) any other relevant matter. (3) A council is to – (a) invite public submissions relating to a proposed dog management policy; and (b) consult with any appropriate body or organisation; and (c) consider any submissions and results of any consultation before finalising the

policy. In preparing and endorsing its 2018 policy, Council has followed every one of the above steps. The issue of dogs accessing Taroona Beach came up numerous times during the consultation period and this was taken into consideration in the finalisation of the policy on 10 September 2018. A comprehensive assessment of all land owned or managed by Council has previously been undertaken by appropriately qualified staff and Taroona Beach was not identified as containing sensitive habitat for native wildlife that would support a prohibition under Section 22(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the development of the 2018 policy and the provision for declared areas contained therein complies with the requirements of the Act. It is Council’s view that the process prescribed by Section 24 of the Act applies to the declaration of areas made outside of the policy development process.

Daniel Smee - Executive Manager Governance & Community Services

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC


Mr John McDonald asked the following questions without notice: 1 Election Signs

At the last Council meeting I cited standard E17.7.1 para A2 of the Interim Planning Scheme, noting that the standard limited the number of election signs which could be displayed per business per street frontage, to one. The printed notes I handed up also highlighted the ‘per business’ limitation, contrasting that to the apparent lack of restriction on sign numbers for residences.

(a) Why was the reference to the limiting phrase ‘per business’ omitted from the

question as recorded in the minutes? Acting General Manager responds: The text in the response wasn’t a quote from the scheme, it was just to indicate what the scheme said. The scheme’s words are in fact “the number of signs per business per street frontage must comply with all of the following…”. It was read or interpreted by Council that the signs per business reflects the actual election sign itself. Obviously the election candidate is not a business but, in other words, if that wasn’t interpreted that way then you wouldn’t be allowed to have any election signs placed in the municipality. It was interpreted in a way which facilitated the placement of election signs. Mr McDonald: I think you have misunderstood my question. My question was, why in the recording of my question was the phrase ‘per business’ not mentioned because I certainly mentioned it in both my oral and my written notes that I handed up as well?

______________________________________________________________________________


Acting General Manager: I can’t respond in relation to why that word wasn’t included in your question. We’ve got your question as ‘if there is a limitation on the number of electoral signs that can be displayed on a residential premises, could that be indicated as to where that restriction is actually to be found’. I understood that that was the question that was asked. Mr McDonald: There was some previous material which was relevant to that which related to the contrast, as I said, between the term ‘per business’ in the standard E17.7.1 that I cited which I think, in my view, is relevant to the question. I think the proper thing to do would be to ask for that to be reviewed and perhaps corrected if appropriate.

Mr McDonald:

(b) My second question is, and I think you answered it, the phrase ‘per business’ was omitted from the mention in the answer to my question in standard E17.7.1 paragraph A2, so the question is, everything else was there except that phrase ‘per business’. Acting General Manager: As I said before, if it was interpreted that only signs for a business were allowed or to be exempt, then we wouldn’t be exempting any of the election signs, so it was an interpretation of the scheme. The scheme is written in a way which is focused on how businesses might advertise themselves within signs. If we didn’t interpret it that way we wouldn’t be able to allow any election signs so it was very much about the number of signs. As it says that a “number of signs per business per street frontage”, we assumed that the number of signs per business includes the election signs. Mr McDonald: I understand and I don’t want to argue interpretation. I disagree with you but I don’t want to argue interpretation tonight. That’s not the purpose of the question. I certainly agree with you that if you are running a business you can only have one election sign per frontage. For residences I don’t think that restriction applies but as I said that is not relevant to my questions.

(c) My third question is, have the Council enforcement officers been instructed to take

down election signs where there are more than one per residence? Acting General Manager responds: Yes they have, but we are endeavouring to first notify anybody who has got those signs so that they can remove them themselves.

Mr McDonald:

(d) Thank you. Does Council have any formal legal advice as to the effect of that limiting phrase ‘per business’ in the standard as or if it relates to restrictions on sign numbers on residential properties? Acting General Manager responds: No, we don’t have separate legal advice, that’s just Council’s interpretation.

______________________________________________________________________________


Mr McDonald:

(e) “Final question, has Council budgeted for legal action against it arising from election sign removal from residential properties?” Acting General Manager responds: No, there is no separate budget line item for that particular action.


Mr Mervin Reed asked the following question without notice: 2 Council Finances

On the 30th August 2017 the Mercury reported your passionate defence of the Council’s finances. In summary, you dismissed the Council’s underlying result, blamed it on depreciation, and pointed to the net operating result, which was a $4.9 million surplus. On Saturday, just over a year later, the Mercury ran yet another story with you defending the Council’s finances. In this article, you dismissed the net operating result (which you relied on a year earlier) a $1.3 million deficit and pointed to the underlying result (the one which had discounted a year earlier). Given the two statements are diametrically opposed, and both can’t be right, which of the two statements is wrong? The one from 2017 or the one from two days ago? Mayor: Mr Breen are you able to respond? Chief Financial Officer responds: I am not fully aware where the results from 2017 came from, however, there is information reported in the Mercury recently in regard to the current financial position of Council. The Tas Audit Office, in their report to parliament, look at two numbers. The first being the net surplus, which in the case of Council for the 17/18 financial year is around about $8 million and then they discount that back to the underlying surplus by taking away non-cash flow items, capital items and those sorts of things. The result, which is still subject to audit by the Tas Audit Office at this stage, clearly shows Council for 17/18 delivering an underlying surplus.


Mr Mervin Reed asked the following question without notice: 3 Future Public Inquiry into the Kingston Park Project

The Kingborough Ratepayers Association has formed the view that the Kingston Park is a land development project that Mr Ferrier, the Council’s Deputy General Manager, assess may end up with a loss to the ratepayers of some $6 million. (a) What external consultants from major property companies such as LJ Hooker

Commercial or Knight Frank Tasmania are being engaged to provide consulting advice to the councillors on this project?

______________________________________________________________________________


(b) What independent valuation consulting services is being provided and by whom on this project?

(c) What individual financial risk management advice is being provided and by whom on this project?

Failure to have these current and independent reports to hand, both in the past and in the future, when making any financial or project management decisions in respect of this project, will see Councillors deemed to not be acting in the best interests of the ratepayers. Councillors have a fiduciary responsibility to the ratepayers and must be able to demonstrate this with independent evidence and advice. It is quite likely that given the losses on this project will impose rate increases of at least 6% on the ratepayers for some 5 years to clear debts, a formal public inquiry into the huge losses will be a probable result. Therefore, I request that the answer detail all consultants and professional advisers who have been engaged by the Council and whether copies of their reports have been provided to councillors prior to any decisions being made and if not why not? Mayor: Mr Ferrier has indicated that he will take that on notice.


Ms Tricia Ramsay asked the following question without notice: 4 Mayoral Debate

My question is in relation to an e-mail that I sent you on Wednesday the 19th September inviting you to participate in a Mayoral debate that the Kingborough Ratepayers Association are happy to facilitate such a debate in the lead up to next month’s Local Government Elections. Did you receive that e-mail? Mayor responds: I have received it. Ms Ramsay: And you are prepared to participate in the debate? Mayor: I don’t believe that I will participate in it, no, because all the decisions of Council are made by at least six members of Council, so there is really nothing one can say in a Mayoral debate as such. Ms Ramsay: The other Mayoral candidates might dispute that Mayor and they might wish to debate you on some of the issues that you feel very strongly about. Mayor: I’ve answered that Trish and that’s all I’m happy to say. If it’s open to every Councillor nomination that’s a different point and I would certainly be involved.

______________________________________________________________________________


Ms Ramsay: That’s very disappointing Mr Mayor. Mayor: Well, a Mayor acts on behalf of Councillors and its resolutions and the Mayor has one vote as does the Deputy Mayor and as does each and every other Councillor around the room when a decision is made. So from that aspect I would suggest that it’s a Council decision and not necessarily a Mayor or a Deputy Mayor or an individual Councillor decision.


Ms Julie Taylor asked the following question without notice: 5 Audio in Council Chambers

When will Council consider a new system of audio in the chambers? I know that the one now has been in for a few years and it’s quite inadequate, especially when, and I’ll give you a demonstration, when people turn to one side and into the microphone to the other side in the recordings afterwards it is very hard for hearing impaired people to actually listen to what is going on. Executive Manager Information Services responds: We are actually in the process of evaluating the system for the new Kingston Hub which is the same sort of system. This one won’t be upgraded because the actual console is still a current model, but we are looking at upgrading the outputs around the room including the need for lapel microphones and also the hearing aids for hearing disability purposes as well so the wifi type ones that tune into smartphones. We are evaluating all of those now. Ms Taylor: I’ve had to move position to actually hear you from the microphones that are in at the moment. There are none down the other end of the chambers when people are here other than Council meetings when there is a community meeting in this place. There are black spots when it comes to being able to hear. I wear hearing aids.


Ms Kim Chandler-Storey asked the following question without notice: 6 Dog on Powell Road

It has been brought to my attention that a young family walks their children to school along Powell Road, Blackmans Bay and there is an unregistered vicious dog that escapes under a gate and bails them up. They have reported this to the Council three times and they have video evidence. The dog is not at large all the time as it runs back under the gate under the fence. The family is very traumatised and has a young child who is suffering from fear of dogs and they now can’t walk to school. What can Council do about this and can they inform, as I’m sure they know who these people are, can they inform them and is Council under any obligation to this family if this unregistered dog attacks?

______________________________________________________________________________


Executive Manager Governance & Community Services responds: I’m not familiar with the circumstances of this case. I will need to consult with our compliance staff so I will take the question on notice.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS


1 Bruny Island Cat Management Project At the Council meeting on 27 August 2018, Cr Winter asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice: Can Council be provided with an update report on the Bruny Island Cat Management project, including its performance against the requirements of its funding deed and any other KPIs that were set at the commencement of the project? Officer’s Response: The main requirements within the Deed of Agreement are listed below, together with progress made to date in achieving these requirements. 1. By June 2019 there will be demonstrable evidence of a reduction in feral cat

numbers (against an identified baseline) in select areas critical to the ongoing survival of identified EPBC-listed species.

Numbers of feral cats (estimated baseline) at the Neck and adjacent sites and at Whalebone Point (control site) - completed.

Relative abundance of feral cats (estimated baseline) across North Bruny Island - underway – surveys have been deployed and data is currently being analysed.

Number of feral cats managed at The Neck and adjacent sites - underway - annual seasonal trapping.

GPS tracking of feral cats at the Neck to assess home range, seasonal trends, habitat use – underway - 7 feral cats tracked, data analysed for 3 and data for remaining (4) is currently being analysed.

2. By June 2019, there will be high quality data sets which will inform the effects/correlations of reduced feral cat predation on the status and population levels of identified EPBC listed species.

Data set (estimated baseline) - numbers of breeding populations of Shearwaters, Little Penguins, Hooded Plovers at the Neck & Whalebone Pt – underway – annual surveys completed for 2016 and 2017 and survey planned for 2018.

Data set (estimated baseline) - numbers of Eastern Quolls at the Neck and adjacent sites - occupancy baseline data completed.

Data set (estimated baseline) - relative occupancy of CWR mammals at the Neck and adjacent sites – occupancy data available for analysis.

Data set (estimated baseline) - occupancy of CWR mammals (other than quolls) at key habitat sites on North Bruny - underway – surveys have been deployed and data currently being analysed.

______________________________________________________________________________


3. By June 2019, the relevant local government (Kingborough Council) will demonstrate at least 80% uptake/adoption of responsible cat ownership within the Bruny Island community, with the aim of achieving 100% uptake/adoption.

Number (at least 80%) of Bruny Island cat-owners have desexed and micro-chipped domestic cats – to date 92% of known cat owners on the island.

X No. Bruny Island cat-owning residents have established and committed to containing cats – to date 89% of known cat owners on the island.

Surveys among Bruny Island resident & other rate payer cat owners to provide baseline (2016/17) - completed.

RPO adoption data and 2019 RPO outcome data – underway and for final actioning in 2019.

A register of cat owners and cats resident (including their RPO status) on Bruny Island – completed & updated as program progresses.

A targeted community education and liaison program with Bruny Island community (including cat owners) – underway with active engagement of 92% of known cat owners.

Data collated on de-sexing, micro-chipping, containment and re-homing activities - completed & updated as program progresses.

Active feeding stray cats stopped by 4 Bruny Island residents – a targeted community education and liaison program with the Bruny Island community including key households - 50% of known cases managed & active engagement in progress with 2 remaining known households.

Community engagement activities associated with the staged implementation of By-laws for domestic cat ownership – staged implementation activities well underway including community promotion, individual contact and consultation, community forums and events. Currently supporting cat owners with complying with containment provisions of By-law. Formal community consultation on the By-law will be undertaken once By-law approved by Director of Local Government.

Establishment of a cat holding facility – due for completion by Dec 2018.

Community Ranger Partner Program on Bruny Island (Kingborough Council) – stage 1 commenced - partnership with weetapoona Aboriginal Council, NRM South, STEPS and Work and Training implementing a pilot school-based apprenticeship program in Conservation and Land Management in collaboration with the Bruny Cat Management Program.

4. By June 2019, the ongoing, long term goal to eradicate feral cats from the Island, has a long term program in place, involving the different levels of government in partnership with the community and relevant industry and research organisations.

Report on the feasibility & cost of feral cat eradication on Bruny Island – draft currently under review.

Feasibility study to assess cost-benefit based on appropriate methods, biosecurity risks, socio-political support, financial and institutional support – completed.

15 year (to 2035) Bruny Island Cat Management Plan (including monitoring & evaluation plan, organisation involvement, funding plan) – draft prepared.

Based on feasibility study investigate funding and collaboration opportunities with key institutions and stakeholders – to be undertaken in 2019.

INFFER assessment to analyse benefit-cost of key cat management interventions across a range of geographic locations (Natural Decisions consultancy) – completed.

Kaylene Allan - Cat Management Officer

______________________________________________________________________________



2 Australian Antarctic Division Response Cr Winter submitted the following question on notice: Has Council received a response from Shadow Minister Tony Burke in relation to the reported relocation of the Australian Antarctic Division to Macquarie Point? Officer’s Response: A letter was sent on 31 July 2018 and no response has been received to date.



3 Climate Change Innovation Lab Cr Winter submitted the following question on notice: Please provide an update on Council's financial relationship with Climate Change Lab Tasmania. How has this relationship changed since 1 July 2018? What are the reasons for any changes? Officer’s Response: As a result of the decision made by Council at the meeting on the 10th September 2018, Council no longer has a financial relationship with the Climate Change Lab.

John Breen – Chief Financial Officer


4 Hobart City Deal At the Council meeting on 10 September 2018, Cr Atkinson asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice: There have been several reports in the media regarding the Hobart City Deal, for example, the Mercury last week reported on a meeting of the Greater Hobart Mayors urging the State and Federal Government to sign to the City Deal. What involvement does Council have in the City Deal negotiations and is there any intention for Council to contribute to the formulation of details of the deal and when will Council be informed on progress on the deal negotiations? Officer’s Response:

The development of the Hobart City Deal is primarily focused on five key areas:

examining options to facilitate an Antarctic Precinct as part of Macquarie Point;

progressing a Greater Hobart Transport Vision to guide a coordinated approach to transport planning;

establishing a Greater Hobart Act;

examining options to facilitate the development of the University of Tasmania’s STEM presence in the city; and

______________________________________________________________________________


exploring options to support affordable housing in the Greater Hobart region. These key areas were defined in the Heads of Agreement signed by the Prime Minister and Tasmanian Premier in January 2018. Since then, there have been regular meetings held by a Senior Officials Group and by various working groups that are considering each of the five key areas above. These groups have been focussing on the identification of the necessary actions to progress each of the above. Council’s General Manager is a member of the Senior Officials Group and the Transport Work Group and the Deputy General Manager is a representative on the Affordable Housing Working Group. This has provided some opportunities to have an input into discussions. There have been no “negotiations” and it has essentially been an information gathering exercise to date. It would be appropriate for the General Manager to provide Council with a more thorough briefing when the preliminary results of the working groups are known. This may then be an opportunity for Council to develop a view or position on any particular matter. It is expected that this could occur towards the end of this year.



5 Trees on Channel Highway At the Council meeting on 10 September 2018, Cr Bastone asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice: I’ve been approached by some ratepayers in regards to Council letters that were sent to them in regard to cleanup of trees and blackberries on the Channel Highway. The residents are in agreement with this and are eagerly looking forward to it happening, but the letters were sent in May and there has been no follow up whatsoever despite them ringing the Council to see when it would happen. Could we find out when it will actually take place? Officer’s Response: This question is in regard to vegetation alongside the Channel Highway in Taroona. After letter dropping the residents affected, all but two wished for the area to remain as is. As a consequence only some limited brushcutting of the area was undertaken. A further response will be sent to all affected residents to inform them of the situation.

Liz Quinn - NRM Coordinator


6 Oxley's Road Cr Bastone submitted the following question on notice: How were the scope and standards for Oxley road set? Who determined that a minor road became such a massive road that required even the power poles to be moved. What help will residents get to realign the slope of their driveways once the road is finished. Is the contractor claiming for extra work outside the tender submitted as he did on the road to Dru Point.

______________________________________________________________________________


Officer’s Response: Oxley Road and Groombridge Road sealing were requested as part of a petition from the community in 2016. As a response, both sections of road were assessed and considered as viable candidates for sealing. A public meeting with residents at the time suggested that Oxley Road was the priority, which is why this section has been addressed first. When undertaking road construction upgrades, LGAT Tasmanian Standard Drawings and Austroads standards and design principles are used to determine the requisite lane and formation widths and clearance zones necessary. These take into account numerous factors such as traffic and pedestrian volumes and speeds. A 5.5 m sealed traffic width with 0.5m x 2 unsealed shoulders and 0.5m x 2 unsealed verge standard for Rural Road AADT 100-300 Vehicles per day was adopted. It is noted in this instance that projected future counts would likely exceed 300 vehicles per day requiring 6m seal width, however given site constraints and topography it was deemed a width of 5.5m would suffice. Similarly the table drain clearance width should have been 2.1m but was reduced to 1.5m. Although many roads in the municipality have been built to various standards, it is important that Council aim, where possible, to meet the current standards to ensure a safe and effective road can be provided. The need for the relocation of the power poles, as well as other services such as Telstra and NBN was dictated by the widening requirements as mentioned above. It is worthwhile noting that the original trafficable width was 3.5m. All existing driveways were reviewed and taken into account in the design process, as is always the case with construction works. All realignment and reshaping works required in order to maintain property access, along with asphalt surfacing, are included within the tender. As with any quotation or Tender for services, where works change and additional works are required to be undertaken which are not specified or included within the original price submission, these are considered and assessed as variations. Generally these are catered for in the contingency as the case is here.



7 Pullens Road, Woodbridge Cr Bastone submitted the following question on notice: When were the gutters last cleaned out and proper grading (& re-sheeting) done on Pullens Road Woodbridge. Some pot holes have been filled but the filling has all washed away again as the gutters are not clear and water just washes down the road. The pot holes are large and dangerous especially in the first kilometre up from Channel Hwy.

______________________________________________________________________________


Officer’s Response: Pullens Road drains where cleaned and re-shaped on 9th Nov 2017 and a maintenance grade was also carried out on the road at that time. The road has had 2 potholing repair instances since that time. There is a further maintenance grade scheduled in within the next 2 – 3 months and at that time there will be some spot re-sheeting done on specific areas of the road, in the meantime any large potholes will be assessed and repaired if required. The road has been assessed and is in good condition and is not considered dangerous, however, as is the case with all Council roads, residents are encouraged to drive to the conditions.



8 Speed Limit Signs, Bruny Island Cr Bastone submitted the following question on notice: Earlier this year I asked at a Council meeting when would the 40km signs be placed on the section of road leading to Rob Pennicott’s new wharf and restaurant. I was assured it would be done quickly. It is still not done and there is an ever increasing amount of traffic due to the opening of Rob's new restaurant. The only sign is at the bridge and as it is one way people are often too busy watching for other cars to check. Officer’s Response: There is currently a 40km/hr area speed limit control covering this area. Any additional location of speed signage needs to be considered appropriate and approved by the Department of State Growth (DSG), progress with this will be followed up with them.



9 Planning Department Cr Bastone submitted the following question on notice: In the last few weeks I have had many people complain to me about difficulties with the planning department and with follow up questions with that department. The difficulties all concern plans lodged with the Council being assigned to individual planners and when ratepayers attempt to contact the planner with follow up questions or to supply additional information they are told sorry that planner is unavailable as they only work 2 or 3 days a week. (1) While it is great that people are able to work in a flexible manner, what is the

planning department doing to ensure a smooth flow of applications so this complaint ceases?

(2) What percentage of planners work on flexible hours? (3) What guarantee do we have that part-time planners, who also work in private

businesses and are the applicant for planning permission do not get favourable treatment?

______________________________________________________________________________


(4) How many more planners does our planning department require to be able to speedily process the large number of applications that are at present being submitted to Council?

(5) Has the planning department estimated how many planners they will need when Kingston Park and White Water farm start to be developed.

Officer’s Response: (1) The Development Services Department continues to work on process improvements

to make the planning assessments more efficient, accurate and as timely as possibly. The recent appointment of a full time Technical Officer has allowed officers to be freed up from general enquiries (phone, counter and email) so that they can focus on processing development applications. This has had a positive effect on the current work pressures of the planners.

(2) Council’s Development Services Department is made up of Statutory Planners and

other support disciplines such as Development Engineering, Environmental Planning and Strategic Planning. Two thirds of the Statutory Planners are part time. Below is a breakdown of the workforce in the Department and their applicable EFT’s.

One Statutory Planning Coordinator (0.82EFT)

One full time Senior Statutory Planner

Two full time Statutory Planners and five part time Statutory Planners (0.46EFT, 0.63EFT, 0.36EFT, 0.84EFT and 0.63EFT)

One full time Statutory Planning Technical Officer

Two Environmental Planners (0.84EFT and 0.56 EFT)

One full time Strategic Planner

Three full time Development Engineers (3) Any staff that undertake work in a related discipline outside of Council are required

to sign a‘Disclosure of Relevance Personal Interest Form’ agreement. Planners that are working in the private industry are not permitted to work on any applications that are submitted by, or directly associated with their other business.

(4) Any additional staff resources would be most helpful, however this would require an

increased budgetary allocation. When considering this, it should be noted that having additional staff will not always result in faster approvals, as there are due processes that must be followed. This is not often understood by complainants. For example, each application is required to be referred to other relevant internal and external departments in order to complete the initial assessment; additional information may be required in order to conduct the statutory assessment (note that this is sent to the applicant and the owner is often not aware of this); most applications must be advertised for two weeks (plus some delays as proofs are required by the Mercury in advance and signs must be placed on site); site inspections need to be undertaken; and the detailed assessment and report must be prepared. If an application needs to go to a Council meeting there is an additional lead up time for Council meeting agendas to be prepared and delivered 5 days before the meeting. Following the approval there may be other requirements for assessments such as preparation or review of Part 5 agreements, vegetation management plans, construction management plans, engineering drawings, review of landscape plans as a few examples.

(5). An additional position has been employed for this financial year to partly address the

increased number of applications resulting from the release of lots in the Spring Farm Estate. The application numbers are being closely monitored and the current trend indicates that the increase in development applications is not likely to slow down until both the Spring Farm and Whitewater Farm estates are completed. In

______________________________________________________________________________


the meantime, Kingston Park will be developed and it is expected additional development will occur at Huntingfield. At this stage it is anticipated that there would be a budget bid made next year to make this position permanent to deal with the increase. It should also be noted that the increased workload is also strongly felt in other areas such as the development engineers, environmental planners, administrative support and, of course, impacts on the Building and Plumbing Department. Appropriate resourcing is required to ensure good quality work and retention of staff.

Tasha Tyler-Moore - Manager Development Services


10 Arthur vs Kingborough Council Cr Winter submitted the following question on notice: What legal costs have been incurred by Council to date from the Arthur vs

Kingborough Council case? What were the total costs incurred by Council in engaging a professional witness in

the proceedings? Please itemise these costs. Did Council receive legal advice about the likely outcome of the case at any stage

before the verdict was handed down? If so, when was this advice received and what was that advice?

Does Council concede that it could have engaged in mediation during the case, particularly when it was suggested by the Magistrate and an offer was received from the applicant?

Officer’s Response: In providing this response, it is relevant to remind all interested parties that this matter is not finalised.

Council has not received an invoice from its Counsel concerning the matter.

The total cost to engage Canine Services International, as an expert witness in this matter, was $5,052.00 incl. GST. This cost was made up of: - 1st February 2018: $1,100.00 – Document Analysis and Formal Report for the

court case. - 27th April 2018: $300.00 – report writing – research and reply to Affidavit of

response. - 25th June 2018: $3,652.00 – consulting services – one full day of consulting

services, plus a travel day including flights to and from Melbourne, 2 nights’ accommodation and other expenses, plus meeting with Council’s counsel, one full day in court, testimony as an expert witness and de-brief.

Council’s advice was that prima facie did exist concerning the declaration. No direct likely outcome of the appeal was provided to Council. Acting as an active respondent to the appeal made by Mr Arthur was deemed appropriate.

Council does not concede that it could have engaged in mediation during the case. The background to this is as follows.

On the 7th May 2018, Council received correspondence from Mr Arthur’s solicitor advising that the applicant (Mr Arthur) was prepared to resolve the matter by an agreed settlement. This settlement was based on certain actions to be taken by Mr Arthur that were well below that of the minimum standards required to keep a dangerous dog, as explicitly expressed in Sec.32 of the Dog Control Act 2000 and Reg.4 of the Dog Control Regulations 2010. It would be inappropriate to enter into a conciliation or mediation that

______________________________________________________________________________


resulted in keeping a declared dangerous dog, in conditions that were less than these minimum standards. This would place an unnecessary risk on Council and on the health, safety and welfare of the general public.

Council is to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community pursuant to Sec.20(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993, and taking into consideration the manner in which the dog acted on the 24th May 2017 towards two persons trained in handling aggressive dogs, the prior history of the dog, and the proximity of the dog to vulnerable people (children), the proposed settlement put forward by Mr Arthur’s counsel was regarded as being inappropriate.

Scott Basham - Compliance Co-Ordinator


11 Kingston Park Land Release Strategy - Development Proposals Cr Winter submitted the following question on notice: Is there any particular reason why Council must consider this very important matter at this meeting? Could the decision wait until a meeting after the upcoming Council election? Other levels of Government institute caretaker conventions during the short election period. Does Council accept that with at least one new elected member joining Council in November, it would be better to commence this part of the Kingston Park project with elected members who will be in place for the next four years? Officer’s Response: The report that is included within these Agenda papers is the culmination of a long process of Council considering how the Kingston Park site should be developed – both in the form of that development and how private developers are to be involved. The development of the Land Release Strategy and calling for Expressions of Interest from developers, have both been the subject of a series of Council reports and councillor workshops. Councillors have previously indicated that they have the knowledge and background that is required to make the necessary decision and that this responsibility should be owned by the present Council. It is also important to keep faith with the interested developers in that they are each expecting a decision very soon. They have each invested a considerable amount of time and resources into their Expressions of Interest and the preparation of detailed proposals and binding offers. Any delay (which would mean at least a few months in order to fully brief any new councillors and bring the report back to Council) is likely to result in developers losing interest or hardening their offer. The elections that occur for other levels of government potentially result in a change of government and a caretaker convention is appropriate under such circumstances. This is not the case for local government as elected members form a single governing body. The business of Council continues regardless. The Kingston Park project needs to progress according to schedule and it is recommended that the report that is within this Agenda be considered and not deferred.


______________________________________________________________________________



12 Kingston Beach RSL Cr Winter submitted the following question on notice: Is Council considering providing land for a new Returned and Services League Community Club at Kingston Park? Officer’s Response: There has been no specific proposal submitted for such a development within Kingston Park and there are no plans to set aside any land for this purpose.


QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS


Cr Percey asked the following question without notice: 1 Community Recovery Funds

Last week the State Government announced that a $9.67 million community recovery fund was going to happen to support Local Government areas who were significantly affected by the extreme weather in May. The community facilities likely to benefit include walking tracks, mountain bike trails, parks and playgrounds. Is Kingborough Council applying for some of these funds and if so what types of projects and when will they need to apply for that? Executive Manager Engineering Services responds: I’m not aware of all the details for that particular fund but in answer to your question, we will be trying to apply for anything which Council would be eligible under that funding stream. We know that there have been some other funds that have been set aside for some of the damaged assets that we have already applied for funding for. Any of the other ones which are outside of that, which might not be eligible through that stream, we will definitely be trying to access, for repairing some of that damage. At the moment, we are still gathering some details on the design implications and cost implications of a number of the more major areas that were damaged in the May event. They will be brought to Council for consideration in the near future. At that time we hope that there will be information on this further funding availability and we will be able to add that in as part of the report.


Cr Grace as the following questions without notice: 2 Correspondence to Councillors

When residents write letters addressed to the Mayor and General Manager and also on the bottom of the letter cc copy to all Councillors, could you please advise why these are not being handed on to Councillors and how many of these come in that have not been

______________________________________________________________________________


handed out because this letter was dated the 23rd August to yourself and the General Manager and the resident is not very happy that we didn’t get the copy. Mayor: What is the letter Cr Grace? Cr Grace: Its regarding a property in Blowhole Road. Mayor: From whom? Cr Grace: Mr and Mrs Potts. Mayor: I haven’t even seen it so I don’t even know what you are talking about either. Cr Grace: Well, it’s here and it’s been received on the 23rd by the Kingborough Council. Mayor: Well it hasn’t been passed to me. I will ask Mr Ferrier to respond. Acting General Manager: My understanding is that Councillors do get a copy of the letters but we can track that one down. Cr Grace: Why I have the letter is because the (inaudible) brought another letter in and put it in my pigeon hole.


3 Variations How many more times do I have to request and be told by the General Manager, not the Acting General Manager, that yes, he would make available to myself and other Councillors information about the variations which were exceeded over $100,000 on the Esplanade, Margate road project. I’ve asked that question three times and still not got any information regarding those variations. Acting General Manager responds: Unless Mr Reeve can answer that question I will take it on notice as I don’t know the answer to that.

______________________________________________________________________________


Cr Grace: It’s been taken on notice but I would like a copy of the information.


4 Snug Park Playground Some two or three months ago we dealt with the Snug Park playground. Council proposed, at the last minute, a skate park which was something in the order of 9.5m x 1.5m. At that time we passed the plan because we didn’t want to hold the playground equipment up but we were told that there would be more consultation regarding the skate park. The question I’m asking is, the community is not satisfied with what Council has proposed and what do the community need to do to get Council to do consultation with the wider part of the community? Executive Manager Engineering Services: This project has gone through a (inaudible) and there has been a fair bit of widespread consultation with the community. You will note that the skate park part of the proposal is a future stage. What we would expect with any of the future stages that there would be additional consultation that would go through that part once funding was made available for that stage. I guess there is some more consultation that would be coming up for that part of it.


Cr Winter as the following questions without notice: 5 Toilet Block, Osborne Esplanade

Will the new public toilets at 25A Osborne Esplanade be ready for summer 2018/19? Acting General Manager responds: My understanding is that they will be constructed and ready by February/March next year. The building applications and the building plans are being finalised and the time then is taken up by calling for tenders for the construction and for the tenderers to be brought on board to commence construction and they certainly won’t be constructed by December this year. It will more than likely be February next year. Cr Winter: What is Council’s plan to deal with public toilet facilities at Kingston Beach during the interim period when the old toilet is knocked down and new ones are being constructed. Acting General Manager: The old toilets are not being removed until the new toilets are fully serviceable. So the old toilets are there all through the summer. That was one of the reasons why it was designed as it is. The new toilets are being built behind the old toilets. The old toilets remain there. When the new toilets are finished the old toilets will be demolished and that front area will be made as a grassed piece of public open space.

______________________________________________________________________________


Cr Winter: I asked the question on the 28th July in relation to the toilets and it was said that they were going to be completed by December. What’s changed in the last eight weeks that has led to this delay? Acting General Manager: I think it is just the delays in getting the designs completed, the details with all the fittings. It’s been with the architect and the project manager now for the last month or two and I think that in July we were probably a little ambitious in terms of our predictions in how fast we can move in regard to some of those design aspects and it has taken us longer in finalising all the architectural drawings. It’s probably added on about two months to the process that we didn’t really expect and we are only just now reaching a point that we thought we might have been a month or two ago. Cr Winter: When will Council be announcing to its residents that they are set to endure yet another summer using these decrepit, pungent public toilets at Kingston Beach? Acting General Manager: We will make further announcements when we have a schedule from the building contractor and we know when the building will commence and there are significant things to announce to the public so that they understand the time frames involved in constructing and completing the new public toilets.


6 Dog Management Policy When will the new Dog Management Policy come into effect? Executive Manager Governance & Community Services: The policy in essence came into effect when it was approved by Council at the last Council meeting. In practical terms the implementation of the policy needs to be supported by signage which we are endeavouring to roll out over the next couple of weeks. But in essence, once Council approved that policy it came into effect.


7 Taroona Beach Playground Given off lead dog access is now permitted at east Taroona Beach, will Council consider putting a fence around the Taroona Beach playground? Executive Manager Governance & Community Services: The Dog Control Act prohibits dogs coming from within 10 metres of a playground, so there is quite a significant legislative control in place preventing dogs from going near that playground. We would need to assess whether there is a need to fence the playground and we would also need to determine the cost. I would suggest that if a need is identified it would need to be something that would be put in our capital works budget for next financial year.

______________________________________________________________________________



8 Blackmans Bay Playground Is Council aware of the community feedback around the lack of fencing at the new Blackmans Bay playground from parents and on that basis, is Council prepared to reconsider its position that a fence is not required. Executive Manager Engineering Services: Yes, I’m aware of the feedback on the Blackmans Bay playground and am quite happy to meet any member of the community down there and explain Council’s position or at least the Council officers’ position. The response that I provided to the Question on Notice is the response but I’m happy to provide additional details to anyone who wishes to come along and hear that on site.


Cr Atkinson asked the following question without notice: 9 Hobart City Deal

On the 13th February Council passed a motion to do with the Hobart City Deal and one of the items there is the General Manager provide regular reports to Council on these matters including implications on Council resources and priorities. The answer to my question earlier in this agenda talks about a report later in the year. Is that all the update that we are going to be receiving because my understanding from that previous motion was that we would get regular updates which I don’t feel that we are receiving? Acting General Manager responds: I must admit I don’t recall the previous commitment made by the General Manager so if I have omitted that from my response to the Question on Notice I apologise. Personally, I’m certainly happy to give regular updates. I tried to describe the situation in the response to the question. I’m happy to provide more details on a more regular basis. Unfortunately the meetings, certainly the ones that I’m aware of, they don’t occur too often so there’s not a lot to report but I will make a commitment here to the Council that I will provide a briefing paper and let you know what the current situation is and when Gary Arnold returns from leave I will discuss with him some regular reports to Council as part of the agendas.


Cr Grace asked the following question without notice: 10 Toilets at Coningham Beach

You might recall four years ago we put a budget figure to build toilets at Coningham Beach. We got told that many times that, yes, they are going to happen but to date there is no sign of the toilets. Our toilet program is not looking good for this Council because I thought some years back we spoke about toilets and our strategy was to get some sort of a design in place ahead of time so that we can go out for grants, if we can, appropriate grants for toilets because we’ve got quite a few toilets that need upgrading. I don’t know why it’s taking so long and as you know, the one at Alonnah was supposed to be done in six or seven months and ended up taking almost two years to get that toilet and that was only a small building structure. Council need to get another strategy on the toilet upgrades.

______________________________________________________________________________


Executive Manager Engineering Services responds: This goes for any structure of that type. It might sound like a trite phrase but it’s true. The wheels of motion actually are quite slow in terms of actually having to go and put these types of buildings together. There are quite a few approval processes you need to go through, not only internal Council approval processes but external approval processes as well. Plus there is also a fair detail of community consultation as well to actually occur with those particular types of facilities. From our experience we recognise that for those particular projects they usually take at least twelve months for all that prep work. In future, when we look at putting those types of bids up, we will be trying to put them up as a design and approval stage in one year with the viewpoint that we do the construction in the second year after that to allow for the necessary time. Cr Grace: Coningham is just a bit of an unordinary one taking four years. Because we did do consultation down there Mayor: Anything to add Mr Smee? Executive Manager Governance & Community Services responds:

Funding for Coningham was only put into last financial year’s budget and as Mr Reeve said the consultation process associated with finding the best location for that facility did take a while. And the other complication is, it is Crown Land and it is in a coastal zone so there have been approvals required through Crown Land Services and there has also been planning issues associated with constructing a toilet facility within the coastal erosion zone. I did meet with the project manager today who has indicated that those approvals have now largely been received and we can start to move forward with the Coningham facility.

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN


1 Review of Framework for General Manager's Performance Review

MOVED Cr Atkinson SECONDED Cr Fox

That Council undertake a review of the framework for the General Manager's Performance Review to ensure that the process and procedures are in accordance with contemporary best practice and that they provide both opportunity for councillors to exercise their role in monitoring the General Manager's performance and reassurance to the public that this role is being properly performed.

FOR



Carried Unanimously

______________________________________________________________________________



2 Seeking City Status

MOVED Cr Wriedt SECONDED Cr Percey That staff prepare a report for Council about the benefits, or otherwise, of Kingborough seeking city status. That such a report look at both the pro’s and cons of such a move, including any anticipated costs to Council. FOR

Cr Atkinson Cr Bastone Cr Fox Cr Percey Cr Wass

Cr Winter Cr Wriedt

AGAINST

Cr Chatterton Cr Bury Cr Grace

Carried

PETITIONS STILL BEING ACTIONED

There are no petitions still being actioned.

PETITIONS RECEIVED IN LAST PERIOD

At the time the Agenda was compiled no Petitions had been received.

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL ADJOURNS

______________________________________________________________________________


Planning Authority Meeting commenced at 6.27pm


DELEGATED AUTHORITY FOR THE PERIOD 29 AUGUST 2018 TO 11 SEPTEMEBR 2018

MOVED Cr Fox SECONDED Cr Chatterton That the report be noted. FOR



Carried Unanimously


DA-2018-148 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION TO EXISTING MARINA TO PROVIDE 53 ADDITIONAL WET BERTHS AND RELAXATION OF CARPARKING REQUIREMENTS AT 7 FERRY ROAD, KETTERING FOR P C BOUSTEAD

MOVED Cr Grace SECONDED Cr Fox That the Planning Authority resolves that the report of the Manager Development Services be received and that the development application for extension to existing marina to provide 53 additional wet berths and relaxation of carparking requirements at 7 Ferry Road, Kettering for P C Boustead be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. Except as otherwise required by this Permit, use and development of the land must be substantially in accordance with Development Application No. DA-2018-148 and Council Plan Reference No’s. P1 submitted on 26 March 2018 and P2 submitted on 6 June 2018. This Permit relates to the use of land or buildings irrespective of the applicant or subsequent occupants, and whoever acts on it must comply with all conditions in this Permit. Any amendment, variation or extension of this Permit requires further planning consent of Council.

2. All recommendations and management actions in the Environmental Management Plan prepared by Elgin Associates Pty Ltd (Attachment 3 of the Natural Values Assessment

PLANNING AUTHORITY IN SESSION

______________________________________________________________________________


and Environmental Management Plan for the extension of the existing Oyster Cove Marina, dated 1 June 2018) must be implemented during construction.

Ongoing use and management of the site must be in accordance with this Plan unless otherwise approved in writing by Council.

3. No dredging works are approved as part of this development. Best practice construction procedures must be used in order to ensure minimal sea bed disturbance during installation of piles.

ADVICE

A. In accordance with section 53(5) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 this permit lapses after a period of two years from the date on which it is granted if the use or development in respect of which it is granted is not substantially commenced within that period.

Amendment: MOVED Cr Bastone SECONDED To add condition 4: That all new lighting associated with this development be baffled.

Motion lapsed for want of a seconder MOVED Cr Bastone SECONDED Cr Atkinson To add condition 4: 4. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works the Applicant is required to submit

a report from a suitably qualified person that lighting associated with the approved extension is appropriately installed to minimise light spill outside of essential lighting requirements for the marina and to protect broader amenity and to comply with Australian standards. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Services.

FOR

Cr Atkinson Cr Bastone Cr Bury Cr Fox Cr Wriedt

AGAINST

Cr Chatterton Cr Grace Cr Percey Cr Wass Cr Winter

Lost

______________________________________________________________________________


The motion was then put. FOR



Carried Unanimously

C666/21-18 (Commences at ± 1 hour, 19 minutes of audio recording)

DA-2018-336 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR TRAINING AND OPERATIONS FACILITY (SURF LIFE SAVING) AT 20 BEACH ROAD, KINGSTON BEACH FOR KINGSTON BEACH SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB

MOVED Cr Winter SECONDED Cr Chatterton That the Planning Authority resolves that the report of the Manager Development Services be received and that the development application for training and operations facility (surf lifesaving) at 20 Beach Road, Kingston Beach be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. Except as otherwise required by this Permit, use and development of the land must be substantially in accordance with Development Application No. DA-2018-336 and Council Plan Reference No. P2 submitted on 7 August 2018, and P3 submitted on 21 August 2018. This Permit relates to the use of land or buildings irrespective of the applicant or subsequent occupants, and whoever acts on it must comply with all conditions in this Permit. Any amendment, variation or extension of this Permit requires further planning consent of Council.

2. Before the development hereby permitted starts, including excavation, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. No works are permitted to occur until the Plan has been endorsed by the Responsible Authority. Once endorsed, the Plan will form part of the permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must be prepared in accordance with Council’s Construction Management Plan template and provide details of the following:

(a) Hours for construction activity in accordance with any other condition of this Permit;

(b) Measures to control noise, dust, water and sediment laden runoff;

(c) Measures relating to removal of hazardous or dangerous material from the site, where applicable.

(d) A plan showing the location of parking areas for construction workers and sub-contractors’ vehicles on the site, to ensure that vehicles associated with construction activity cause minimum disruption to surrounding premises;

(e) A Traffic Management Plan showing truck routes to and from the site;

______________________________________________________________________________


(f) A plan showing the location and design of a vehicle wash-down bay for construction vehicles on the site;

(g) Measures to ensure that sub-contractors / tradespersons operating on the site are aware of the contents of the Construction Management Plan; and

(h) Contact details of key construction site staff.

A site plan showing the location of any site sheds, on-site amenities, building waste storage and the like.

3. The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the building. The landscaping must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by Council’s Manager of Development Services, the building cannot be used for private functions.

5. Hours of operation must be within the following times:

• 7am to 8pm Monday to Friday;

• 8am to 6pm Saturdays; and

• 10am to 5pm on Sundays and public holidays

except for office and administrative tasks.

6. Commercial vehicle movements to and from the site, including deliveries, rubbish removal and minor maintenance work by tradespeople (maintenance does not include building construction work), must be restricted to the following hours:

• 7am to 9pm Mondays to Fridays;

• 8am to 7pm Saturdays; and

• 10am to 6pm Sundays and public holidays.

7. External lighting must be turned off between 9pm and 8am, except for security lighting; and security lighting must be baffled to ensure light is not emitted into adjoining private land.

8. Mechanical plant and miscellaneous equipment such as heat pumps, air conditioning units, switchboards, hot water units or similar must be screened from view from the street and other public spaces.

9. To reduce the spread of weeds or pathogens, all machinery must take appropriate hygiene measures prior to entering and leaving the site as per the Tasmanian Washdown Guidelines for Weed and Disease Control produced by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment.

Any imported fill materials must be sourced from quarries able to provide documentation as to the weeds present on the source site in order to minimise introduction of new weeds and pathogens to the area.

10. No felling, lopping, ringbarking or otherwise injuring or destroying of native vegetation or individual trees is approved as part of this planning permit.

______________________________________________________________________________


11. The stormwater runoff from all new impervious areas must be disposed of by gravity to Council’s reticulated stormwater system to the satisfaction and approval of the Executive Manager – Engineering Services.

12. Erosion/siltation infiltration control measures must be applied during construction works to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager – Engineering Services.

13. A double width (5.5m) vehicular access must be constructed in accordance with the Tasmanian Standard Drawings (TSD-RO9, TSD-E01 and TSD-RF01) in standard grey concrete with a broomed non-slip finish from the kerb crossing layback to the lot boundary. A Permit to carry out works within a Council road reservation must be obtained prior to any works commencing within the Council road reservation.

14. An accessible parking space must be provided in accordance with AS2890.6 in the existing car park adjacent to the entrance gate. The work must be completed prior to occupation of the building.

15. Car park lighting located adjacent to the entrance gate as shown on the endorsed plans must be installed prior to occupation of the building. Lighting must be provided in accordance with clause 3.1 “Basis of Design” and clause 3.6 “Car Parks” in AS/NZS 1158.3.1:2005 Lighting for roads and public spaces Part 3.1: Pedestrian area (Category P) lighting.

16. Vegetation located adjacent to the vehicle access on to Beach Road must be removed in accordance with the recommendations of the Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Milan Prodanovic dated May 2018. The vegetation must be removed prior to occupation of the building.

17. The conditions as determined by TasWater, and set out in the attached Appendix A, form part of this permit.

ADVICE

A. In accordance with section 53(5) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 this permit lapses after a period of two years from the date on which it is granted if the use or development in respect of which it is granted is not substantially commenced within that period.

B An application for Notifiable Plumbing Work must be lodged with Council before commencing any work.

C. A drainage design plan in accordance with the Director of Building Control Specified List, Schedule 2, at a scale of 1:200, designed by a qualified hydraulic designer, showing the location of the proposed sewer and stormwater house connection drains; including the pipe sizes, pits and driveway drainage, must be submitted with the application for Plumbing Permit.

FOR



Carried Unanimously

______________________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________________


Open session of Council resumed at 7.04pm

OFFICERS REPORTS TO COUNCIL


POLICY 5.9 – SIGNIFICANT TREE REGISTER POLICY

MOVED Cr Fox SECONDED Cr Atkinson That the updated Significant Tree Register Policy 5.9 be adopted as attached. FOR


Cr Percey Cr Wass Cr Wriedt

AGAINST

Cr Grace Cr Winter

Carried


NORTH WEST BAY RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2018-2027

MOVED Cr Grace SECONDED Cr Fox That Council endorse the release of the attached North West Bay River Catchment Management Plan (2018-2027) for public comment for a period of six weeks. FOR



Carried Unanimously

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL RESUMES

______________________________________________________________________________



PAPERLESS COUNCIL MEETINGS

MOVED Cr Winter SECONDED Cr Grace That this matter be deferred until November. FOR

Cr Grace Cr Percey Cr Winter Cr Wriedt

AGAINST


Cr Wass

Lost

MOVED Cr Fox SECONDED Cr Bastone That:

a) Council supports the introduction of paperless Council Meetings for all Councillors and staff by June 2019;

b) Council agrees to the implementation of a technology solution to support the transition to paperless Council Meetings on a cost neutral basis; and

c) Council agrees that only mobile computers will be supplied to Councillors who request access to a Council provided device.

FOR



AGAINST

Cr Grace Cr Winter

Carried

______________________________________________________________________________


C670/21-18 (Commences at ± 2 hours, 9 minutes of audio recording)

AUDIT PANEL CHARTER

MOVED Cr Percey SECONDED Cr Atkinson That the attached Audit Panel Charter be approved. FOR



Carried Unanimously


KINGBOROUGH BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MOVED Cr Atkinson SECONDED Cr Fox That:

a) Council notes the Minutes of the Kingborough Bicycle Advisory Committee and the following resolution:

That Council writes to the Minister of State Growth asking for an increase in the verge width on Channel Highway between Kingston and Margate.

b) Council authorises the Mayor to write a letter to the Minister of State Growth requesting that consideration be given to increasing the verge width on Channel Highway between Kingston and Margate.

FOR



Carried Unanimously

______________________________________________________________________________



INFORMATION REPORTS

MOVED Cr Chatterton SECONDED Cr Fox Cr Grace left the room at 7.52pm Cr Grace returned at 7.53pm Cr Atkinson left the room at 7.54pm Cr Atkinson returned at 7.56pm Cr Fox left the room at 7.55pm Cr Fox returned at 7.57pm Cr Percey left the room at 8.01pm Cr Percey returned at 8.02pm That the following information reports be noted: 1 Mayor’s Communications. 2 Financial Report for the period 1 July 2018 to 31 August 2018. 3 Audit Panel Chairman’s report to Council.

4 Environmental Services Quarterly Activities Report.

5 Minutes Kingborough Bicycle Advisory Committee. FOR



Carried Unanimously

______________________________________________________________________________


C673/21-18

CONFIRMATION OF ITEMS TO BE DEALT WITH IN CLOSED SESSION

MOVED Cr Fox SECONDED Cr Bury That in accordance with Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 Council, by absolute majority, move into closed session to consider the following items:

Item Regulation

Confirmation of Minutes 34(6)

Applications for Leave of Absence 15(2)(h)

Kingston Park Land Release Strategy – Assessment of Development Proposals

15(2)(c)

Tender Assessment - TS2688 Barretta Landfill Gas Extension 15(2)(d)

AB1808 Provision of Traffic Management Services 15(2)(d)

FOR



AGAINST

Cr Grace Cr Winter

Carried and by Absolute Majority

In accordance with the Kingborough Council Meetings Audio Recording Guidelines Policy, recording of the open session of the meeting ceased. Open Session of Council adjourned at 8.10pm The meeting adjourned at 8.10pm The meeting resumed at 8.20pm

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL ADJOURNS

______________________________________________________________________________


Open Session of Council resumed at 9.27pm

C680/21-18

MOVED Cr Wriedt SECONDED Cr Fox The Closed Session of Council having met and dealt with its business resolves to report that it has determined the following:

Item Decision

Confirmation of Minutes Confirmed

Applications for Leave of Absence Nil

Kingston Park Land Release Strategy – Assessment of Development Proposals

Assessed and General Manager to negotiate with respondents

Tender Assessment - TS2688 Barretta Landfill Gas Extension

Tender awarded to Run Energy for $341,576.64 ex GST

AB1808 Provision of Traffic Management Services Tender awarded to Statewide Earthworks Pty Ltd for an initial term of three years

FOR



Carried Unanimously

CLOSURE

There being no further business, the Chairperson declared the meeting closed at 9.28pm

…………………………………… …………………………………… (Confirmed) (Date)

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL RESUMES

Documents

MINUTES - Kingborough Council€¦ · Minutes No. 21 Page 4 24 September 2018 under the planning scheme from Saturday 8 September 2018 until seven days after the election on 30 October