PUBLIC AGENDA This Agenda is provided for the assistance and information of members of the public.
COUNCIL AGENDA
NOTICE is hereby given that an Ordinary meeting of the Kingborough Council will be held in the Civic Centre, Kingston on Monday, 14 October 2019 at 5.30pm
Kingborough Councillors 2018 - 2022
Mayor Deputy Mayor Councillor Dean Winter Councillor Jo Westwood
Councillor Sue Bastone Councillor Gideon Cordover Councillor Flora Fox
Councillor David Grace Councillor Amanda Midgley Councillor Christian Street
Councillor Steve Wass Councillor Paula Wriedt
QUALIFIED PERSONS
In accordance with Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993, I confirm that the reports contained in Council Meeting Agenda No. 20 to be held on Monday, 14 October 2019 contain advice, information and recommendations given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendations.
Gary Arnold GENERAL MANAGER
8 October 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item Page No.
Open Session
1 Apologies ...... 1
2 Confirmation of Minutes ...... 2
3 Workshops Held Since Last Council Meeting ...... 2
4 Declarations of Interest ...... 2
5 Transfer of Agenda Items ...... 2
6 Questions Without Notice from the Public ...... 2
7 Questions on Notice from the Public ...... 2
8 Questions Without Notice from Councillors ...... 3
9 Questions on Notice from Councillors ...... 3
9.1 24 Beach Road, Snug ...... 3 9.2 Sewerage Upgrade at Middleton Hall ...... 3 9.3 Illegal Work Complaints to Council ...... 4 9.4 Kingborough Market Sign ...... 4 9.5 Chemicals Used to Spray Weeds ...... 5 9.6 Food Trucks ...... 6 9.7 Gemalla Road ...... 6 9.8 Creek at Silver Water Park ...... 6 9.9 Kettering Point Track ...... 7 9.10 Shelter Over Picnic Tables In Kettering ...... 7 9.11 Uniting Church, Kettering ...... 7
10 Officers Reports to Planning Authority ...... 9
10.1 Delegated Authority for the Period 11 September 2019 to 1 October 2019 ...... 9 10.2 DA-2019-364 - Development Application for Two Visitor Accommodation Units on Separate Titles at 39 & 41 Lumeah Road, Adventure Bay for Matt Williams Architects ...... 14 10.3 DA-2019-162 - Development Application for Two Multiple Dwellings (One Existing) at 233 Roslyn Avenue, Blackmans Bay for SJM Property Developments Pty Ltd ...... 37 10.4 DA-2019-343 - Development Application for Dwelling, Including Demolition of Existing Dwelling at 2 Belhaven Avenue, Taroona for All Urban Planning Pty Ltd ...... 78 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Item Page No.
10.5 DA-2019-403 - Application for Two Multiple Dwellings (One Existing) and Childcare for Mr DL Chambers and Mrs PY Chambers at 18 Willow Avenue Kingston ...... 99 10.6 DAS-2019-9 - Application for Subdivision of One Lot and Balance at 31 Gourlay Street, Blackmans Bay for PDA Surveyors...... 124
11 Motions of Which Notice has been Given ...... 142
11.1 Kingston Tennis Club ...... 142 11.2 Silverwater Park, Woodbridge ...... 144
12 Petitions Still Being Actioned ...... 144
13 Petitions Received in the Last Period ...... 144
14 Officers Reports to Council ...... 145
14.1 Turf Maintenance Service Level Review ...... 145 14.2 Recreational Water Quality - Blackmans Bay Beach South ...... 185 14.3 Petition to Seal Endeavour Place, Lorkins Road and Kellaway Road at Adventure Bay ...... 190 14.4 Appointment of Representative to Copping Refuse Site Joint Disposal Authority ...... 195
15 Information Reports ...... 197
15.1 Mayor’s Communications ...... 198 15.2 Kingborough Waste Services - Bi-Monthly Report ...... 200
16 Confirmation of Items to be Dealt With in Closed Session ...... 216
AGENDA of an Ordinary Meeting of Council Kingborough Civic Centre, 15 Channel Highway, Kingston Monday, 14 October 2019 at 5.30pm.
AUDIO RECORDING
The Chairperson will declare the meeting open, welcome all in attendance and advise that Council meetings are recorded and made publically available on its website. In accordance with Council’s policy the Chairperson will request confirmation that the audio recording has commenced.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TRADITIONAL CUSTODIANS
The Chairperson will acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land, pay respects to elders past and present, and acknowledge today’s Tasmanian Aboriginal community.
ATTENDEES
Councillors: Mayor Councillor D Winter Deputy Mayor Councillor J Westwood Councillor S Bastone Councillor G Cordover Councillor F Fox Councillor D Grace Councillor A Midgley Councillor C Street Councillor S Wass Councillor P Wriedt
Staff:
1 APOLOGIES
Agenda No. 20 Page 1 14 October 2019 2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
MOVED SECONDED
That the Minutes of the open session of Council Meeting No. 19 held on 23 September 2019 be confirmed as a true record.
For Against For Against Cr Bastone Cr Street Cr Cordover Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Westwood Cr Grace Cr Winter Cr Midgley Cr Wriedt
3 WORKSHOPS HELD SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING
30 September - Department of State Growth Transport Vision 14 October - New Planning Scheme
4 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
In accordance with Regulation 8 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 and Council’s adopted Code of Conduct, the Mayor requests Councillors to indicate whether they have, or are likely to have, a pecuniary interest (any pecuniary benefits or pecuniary detriment) or conflict of interest in any item on the Agenda.
5 TRANSFER OF AGENDA ITEMS
Are there any items, which the meeting believes, should be transferred from this agenda to the closed agenda or from the closed agenda to the open agenda, in accordance with the procedures allowed under Section 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
6 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC
7 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC
At the time the Agenda was compiled there were no questions on notice from the public.
Agenda No. 20 Page 2 14 October 2019 8 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS
9 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS
9.1 24 Beach Road, Snug
At the Council meeting on 23 September 2019, Cr Grace asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:
In the response to my question at the last meeting, it stated that the applicant for DA-2018- 420 at 14 Gillies Street submitted a Coastal Erosion and Inundation Report prepared by a suitable qualified person and that was allowed to be built. It also says that it was an ancillary building and that it was at the rear of the house. In fact, it’s not at the rear of the house, it’s at the side of the house and I’m still wondering why this report couldn’t be used for the block at 24 Beach Road?
Officer’s Response:
This assessment for DA2018-420 was undertaken for the construction of a new habitable building located at 14 Gillies Street, whereas the application at 24 Beach Road is for the purposes of a subdivision. The planning scheme requirements for a new habitable building in an inundation prone area are different to the subdivision requirements. In addition, this assessment was undertaken specifically for the purposes of determining the finished floor levels required at 14 Gillies Street, rather than at 24 Beach Road. Therefore this information cannot be simply transferred and applied to a different site.
Tasha Tyler-Moore - Manager Development Services
9.2 Sewerage Upgrade at Middleton Hall
At the Council meeting on 23 September 2019, Cr Grace asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:
Can we get a definite date to start the works?
Officer’s Response:
Council is undertaking a number of septic upgrades this financial year, however the Middleton Hall upgrade is the priority project. The design of this system is largely complete with the next steps being the discussion with suitable installers for the installation and with the Hall Committee in terms of the suitable timing. The intention is to have this new system in and operating prior to the Middleton Fair.
David Reeve - Executive Manager Engineering Services
Agenda No. 20 Page 3 14 October 2019 9.3 Illegal Work Complaints to Council
At the Council meeting on 23 September 2019, Cr Bastone asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:
If ratepayers have contacted Council about illegal tree cutting and the compliance officers have been out to the properties, this is more than one property, and have measured the trees that have been cut down, will the original complainants be notified as to the results, whether the people are being fined, whether anything is happening about it.
Officer’s Response:
Complainants are contacted by staff if they request to be kept updated regarding a particular investigation. It is not uncommon for a complainant to wish not to be identified at the time of placing the complaint with Council. In these situations they cannot be notified. In relation to reports of illegal tree removal, it is not standard practice to provide information to the original complainant unless requested. This is primarily a resource issue given the number of compliance cases that are being investigated at any one time. The complainants for the cases referred to in the question have been contacted by staff.
Liz Quinn - Acting Manager Environmental Services
9.4 Kingborough Market Sign
At the Council meeting on 23 September 2019, Cr Wass asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:
This issue still continues and traffic coming down Van Morey Road trying to turn onto the Channel Highway either left or right are still having problems where they can't see the traffic traveling north because of the sign. To make matters worse over the whole weekend just us gone, cars for sale were parked all the way along the Channel Highway frontage and as soon as night follows day there is going to be an almighty crash there unless DSG have that sign removed and Council undertakes to have those cars removed as well. Can we have some action please?
Executive Manager Engineering Services responds:
This sign has been investigated before in terms of sight distance, but we can follow up on that. In terms of cars along Channel Highway, I’m assuming you are talking about cars parked on Channel Highway itself. Is that correct?
Cr Wass:
I’m talking about cars parked in the hall car park.
Executive Manager Engineering Services responds:
That is Council owned so it wouldn't be appropriate for cars to be up for sale within that particular premises, so we can certainly chase that up.
Officer’s Response:
The position of the Kingborough Market sign has been further assessed and there is adequate sight distance for motorists wishing to turn onto Channel Highway in either direction. The sale of motor vehicles within the Margate Hall premises will be investigated by Council’s Compliance unit.
David Reeve - Executive Manager Engineering Services
Agenda No. 20 Page 4 14 October 2019 Cr Westwood submitted the following questions on notice:
9.5 Chemicals Used to Spray Weeds
What type of chemicals does Council use to spray weeds in the municipality? Is this safe for areas frequented by children, such as playgrounds?
Officer’s Response:
Council staff and contractors use a range of herbicides to control weeds in the municipality. The type of herbicide selected is based on a range of factors, including the label requirements and the type of weed(s) being controlled. Council is committed to ensuring the highest of safety standards are adhered to and takes the health and safety of all people that come into contact with the products, including our own workers, very seriously. These standards apply consistently across all public areas managed by Council.
In playgrounds, the most common type of herbicide applied to treat weeds is glyphosate. A marker dye (Blazon) is commonly applied with the herbicide to indicate what has been sprayed. Council is aware of the current concerns regarding the use of glyphosate in weed management. We are guided by the Federal Department of Health and the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicine Authority (APVMA) regarding the use of chemicals to control weeds. Herbicides are always used in accordance with the product label or the DPIPWE off-label permit.
A comprehensive scientific assessment by expert scientists at the APVMA recently concluded that glyphosate products are safe to use, provided they are used in accordance with the label instructions. The APVMA state that they are safe to use in public areas which will be later used by people and animals provided they are applied according to the instructions.
When spraying in public places signage is used to alert people that spraying is being undertaken. The APVMA has produced a fact sheet on the use of glyphosate to reassure users and visitors to areas where the product may be used by councils. The information sheet can be found on their website at https://apvma.gov.au/node/13891#IARC.
Council's specialist weeds officers most frequently use a selective herbicide (rather than a glyphosate product) to spot spray particular weeds (for example boneseed or gorse). These selective herbicides will be site specific (mostly used in bushland reserves) and registered for use on the target weed.
The selective herbicide most commonly used by the weed crew is Garlon 600 (Triclopyr). To a lesser extent, they use Associate (Metsulfuron-methyl), Lontrel Advanced (Clopyralid) and Kamba M (Dicamba + MCPA). If the situation is appropriate, they sometimes use Grazon Extra (Triclopyr + Picloram + Aminopyralid). With the selective herbicides, a surfactant and marker dye is used to improve effectiveness of the herbicide. The re-entry period for most of the selective herbicides used by Council is when the product has dried on the surface of the leaf.
Liz Quinn - Acting Manager Environmental Services
Agenda No. 20 Page 5 14 October 2019 9.6 Food Trucks
How will Council police the operation of food trucks within our municipality as per the recently approved Food Truck Policy, particularly where many of these businesses operate on a weekend?
Officer’s Response:
Many operations occur out of normal Council working hours which do make it more difficult to ensure they are compliant with Council requirements. The Food Truck Policy is just another example of one of these operations and will be managed via a combination of measures as follows:
Complaints from the general public which will be then followed up direct with the operator(s)
Complaints from other businesses/operators which can then be further investigated
Spot audits after hours to ensure compliance
Food Trucks have been operating in the Kingborough municipality for some time now and this range of measures, particularly the top two have been successful in identifying issues and allowing for them to be rectified. It is not envisaged that more will be needed but this can be monitored over time.
David Reeve - Executive Manager Engineering Services
Cr Bastone submitted the following questions on notice:
9.7 Gemalla Road
Gemalla Road in Margate has for some time been a rough patchwork road. As more and more industry is developed in this area and more heavy vehicle traffic using it when will the large deep potholes be fixed?
Has the design for a new Gemalla road been started? If not when will the design work commence?
Officer’s Response:
Gemalla Road is within Council’s five year Capital Works Forward plan currently listed for 2023/24. Note projects are assessed each year and their positioning in the five year plan is subject to change with changing priorities. A concept design has been completed for this road which will lead to a full detailed design once this project is closer to being considered for construction. David Reeve - Executive Manager Engineering Services
9.8 Creek at Silver Water Park
There is a small creek at Silver Water Park in Woodbridge adjacent to the children's playground which has the permanent sign saying the water is polluted and not to swim or play in it. As this creek runs immediately into the Channel this stops children playing on the sand and in the shallow water. What is the pollution? How long has it been polluted? and what is being done to fix this situation?
Agenda No. 20 Page 6 14 October 2019 Officer’s Response:
The sign relates to historically poor water quality in the creek and creek mouth, not the recreational water in general. Council has a recreational water sampling site at Silverwater Park in Woodbridge. This is monitored monthly during the period December-March each year. The results for this recreational site have been consistently compliant with no failures recorded over the last ten years. The sign however has been in place for many years and its currency, location and wording should be reviewed. This has been included as an addition to the review of the recreational water quality monitoring program.
Aby McGuire - Senior Environmental Health Officer
9.9 Kettering Point Track
Why has mulch been used to surface the Kettering Point Track rather than gravel as was previously the case? The mulch stops people with prams or pushers, or people with walkers from being able to use the Track.
Officer’s Response:
Members of the community were provided with some mulch to help beautify the area, but appeared to have spread this mulch without approval on the track. This mulch will be removed shortly and the matter further addressed with the community members involved.
Darren Johnson - Managers Works
9.10 Shelter Over Picnic Tables in Kettering
When will the Kettering Association be notified as to when the shelter over the picnic tables will commence? Will it be in time for the Summer holidays?
Officer’s Response:
The community have put forward the idea of having a shelter over some existing picnic tables, however, this is not a current project for Council and there is no Council budget to undertake any works this financial year.
David Reeve - Executive Manager Engineering Services
9.11 Uniting Church, Kettering
Now that the Uniting Church has written to Council regarding the columbarium that is attached to the Church in Kettering will the Council absorb it into the cemetery as requested?
Will the Council consider purchasing the Church and its car park to enable mourners and their families somewhere to park while attending internments or just visiting the cemetery?
If the Church and car park were to be purchased would the Council consider demolishing the Church and using the area as a contemplative garden? The area is surrounded by land that is a no dog area and unsuitable for housing.
Agenda No. 20 Page 7 14 October 2019 The Church was built immediately after the bush fires and was originally used by Anglican, Uniting and Roman Catholic congregations. It is currently in the hands of only the Uniting Church and has virtually ceased to function, holding only 4 services a year which are run by the Church in Woodbridge.
Officer’s Response:
Council could potentially add the Kettering columbarium wall to its cemetery management responsibilities. Given that the facility is currently owned by the Uniting Church, an appropriate agreement would need to be prepared to formalise the arrangement. The acquisition of the church property has not previously been considered and would require a detailed assessment of the merits of this proposal and a decision made by Council before a definitive answer to this question (and any others relating to the future use of the site) could be provided.
Daniel Smee - Executive Manager Governance & Community Services
OPEN SESSION ADJOURNS
Agenda No. 20 Page 8 14 October 2019 PLANNING AUTHORITY IN SESSION
Planning Authority commenced at
10 OFFICERS REPORTS TO PLANNING AUTHORITY
FILE NO 17.170 DATE 1 OCTOBER 2019 OFFICER TASHA TYLER-MOORE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
10.1 DELEGATED AUTHORITY FOR THE PERIOD 11 SEPTEMBER 2019 TO 1 OCTOBER 2019
The following are matters that have received delegated approval from the Manager – Development Services for the period 11 September 2019 to 1 October 2019.
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT/USE DA-2019-422 Mr A Whatley Change of use to visitor accommodation 3418 Channel Highway WOODBRIDGE DA-2019-427 Bruny Bowls Club Erect shade covers over eight existing 730 Adventure Bay Road bench seats ADVENTURE BAY DA-2019-446 Mr P & Mrs D Stokely Change of use from dwelling to visitor 181 Cemetery Road accommodation LUNAWANNA DA-2019-456 Another Perspective Three multiple dwellings 110 Apolline Drive KINGSTON
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY DEVELOPMENT/USE DA-2018-623 DW+A P/L Demolition of existing dwelling and 14 Christophers Way construction of new dwelling KINGSTON BEACH DA-2019-48 Smeekes Drafting P/L Dwelling 1 Wiggins Road LONGLEY DA-2019-74 Kingborough Lions UFC (Soccer) Extensions to Soccer Clubrooms ‘Lightwood Park’, 10 Kingston View Drive KINGSTON DA-2019-129 G Hills & Partners Architects Two multiple dwellings 16 Talone Road BLACKMANS BAY
Agenda No. 20 Page 9 14 October 2019 DA-2019-134 Miss T Liao Dwelling 18 Apolline Drive KINGSTON DA-2019-141 Urban Homes Tasmania P/L Dwelling 418 Brightwater Road HOWDEN DA-2019-260 Mr T J Cradick Demolish and replace outbuilding (shed) 26 Beach Road MIDDLETON DA-2019-261 JSA Consulting Engineers Partial change of approved use from café 5 Ferry Road to gym KETTERING DA-2019-263 G J Gardner Homes Hobart West Dwelling 24 Turquoise Way KINGSTON DA-2019-274 Mr R & Mrs J Cawthorn Outbuilding (shed) and rainwater tanks 495 Tinderbox Road TINDERBOX DA-2019-286 G J Gardner Homes Dwelling 32 Turquoise Way KINGSTON DA-2019-289 MCE Building Design Extensions and alterations to dwelling 97 Benbows Road OYSTER COVE DA-2019-309 Wilson Homes Tasmania P/L Dwelling 15 Eleni Avenue Kingston DA-2019-313 Dunbabin Architects Extensions and alterations to dwelling 240 Tinderbox Road TINDERBOX DA-2019-324 Prime Design Swimming Pool 3855 Channel Highway BIRCHS BAY DA-2019-327 Spark Design Lab Partial demolition, extensions and 68 Blue Gate Road alteration to existing dwelling and MARGATE workshop, new outbuilding (garage) DA-2019-331 Krause Builders Outbuilding (garage/workshop), demolition 3867 Channel Highway of shed, construction of wooden lean-to BIRCHS BAY shed and structures for four sea containers (two existing) DA-2019-337 Glanville Architects / Ideas / Extension (roofed terrace) and alterations Solutions to dwelling 26-30 Carison Court HOWDEN DA-2019-356 Mr S Haas Dwelling 11 Steen Court BLACKMANS BAY
Agenda No. 20 Page 10 14 October 2019 DA-2019-372 G Hills & Partners Architects Extensions (including decks) and 181 Roslyn Avenue alterations to dwelling BLACKMANS BAY DA-2019-374 Mr M J Burgess Extension to dwelling 52 Redwood Road KINGSTON DA-2019-379 Mr M Kinsella Dwelling 13 Trout Court KINGSTON DA-2019-382 Shopping Centres Australasia Change of use from retail to coffee shop Property Group Re Ltd Shop 1, 26 Channel Highway KINGSTON DA-2019-390 Design Carvalho Outbuilding (replacement of fire damaged 670 Sharps Road building) SOUTH BRUNY DA-2019-392 MacLeod Developments P/L Dwelling 21 Reeves Crescent KINGSTON DA-2019-395 Mr A T Davidson Outbuilding (studio) 389 Brightwater Road HOWDEN DA-2019-401 MCE Building Design Outbuilding (shed) 243 Lighthouse Road SOUTH BRUNY DA-2019-405 Mrs P L Pitt Extension to existing dwelling and internal 10 Winmarleigh Avenue alterations TAROONA DA-2019-407 Mr J Mitchell & Ms J Kaica Dwelling 39 Kingsgate Circle HUNTINGFIELD DA-2019-408 JSA Consulting Engineers Dwelling 17 Lomandra Drive BLACKMANS BAY DA-2019-419 Wilson Homes Tasmania P/L Dwelling 12 Apolline Drive KINGSTON DA-2019-428 Wilson Homes Tasmania P/L Dwelling 3 Homestead Place KINGSTON
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR SUBDIVISION/BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT DAS-2018-32 PDA Surveyors Subdivision of two lots ‘Spring Farm’, 63 Spring Farm Road KINGSTON
Agenda No. 20 Page 11 14 October 2019 DAS-2019-11 PDA Surveyors Reorganisation of boundaries 35 Bruny Island Main Road NORTH BRUNY DAS-2019-23 PDA Surveyors obo Kingborough Subdivision of one road lot and balance Council ‘Strathmore’, 1 Maddocks Road KINGSTON
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR STRATA STR-2018-17 Rogerson & Birch Surveyors Stratum plan – units 1 and 2 46 Ineked Drive KINGSTON STR-2019-17 Leary & Cox Pty Ltd Strata of units 1 and 2 6 Lomandra Drive BLACKMANS BAY STR-2019-24 Leary & Cox Pty Ltd Strata of five units 28 Pearl Place BLACKMANS BAY
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR AMENDMENTS TO PERMIT DA-2017-508 Mr P J Stokely Amendment – Relocate approved 4501 Bruny Island Main Road outbuilding within balance lot after LUNAWANNA subdivision DA-2018-649 Ms J Hilliard (Designful) Amendment - height of retaining wall from 21 Saddle Road 1m to 1.5m KETTERING DA-2019-8 Ronald Young & Co Builders P/L Amendment – move the house north and 6 Dolphin Drive decrease the side setback from 3m to KINGSTON 1.75m, and include an eastward facing window in bedroom 3
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR NO PERMIT REQUIRED DA-2018-113 Mr T K Porter Outbuilding (shed) 356 Redwood Road KINGSTON DA-2019-317 Dirt Building Design Extension to dwelling 26 Kingston Heights KINGSTON BEACH DA-2019-339 Dr R E Mount Alteration to dwelling 99 Coningham Road CONINGHAM DA-2019-377 Mr A Graham Dwelling 34 Turquoise Way KINGSTON
Agenda No. 20 Page 12 14 October 2019 DA-2019-398 Mrs M McTaggart Extension to dwelling (deck) 44 Beach Road SNUG DA-2019-399 G Hills & Partners Architects Extension to dwelling 85 Beach Road MARGATE DA-2019-402 Cunic Homes Dwelling 16 Perch Court KINGSTON DA-2019-420 Mr I T Headley Dwelling 16A Beach Road MARGATE DA-2019-423 Pinnacle Drafting & Design Extension to dwelling 4 Amarina Court KINGSTON BEACH DA-2019-440 Mr A D Pafitis Extension and alterations to dwelling 76 Old Station Road LOWER SNUG DA-2019-442 Mr T A Spedding Alterations to existing dwelling 10 Glenbower Court MARGATE DA-2019-465 Direen Homes Dwelling 12 Guthrie Street KINGSTON DA-2019-471 Another Perspective Extension to dwelling (deck and roof) 9 Montego Court BLACKMANS BAY DA-2019-473 Tassie Homes P/L Dwelling 41 Hollyhock Drive KINGSTON DA-2019-482 Designful Alterations to existing dwelling and garage 19 Timbertop Drive BLACKMANS BAY DA-2019-490 Smeekes Drafting P/L Extension and alteration to dwelling 131 Channel Highway (including partial roofed deck) TAROONA
RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That the report be noted.
For Against For Against Cr Bastone Cr Street Cr Cordover Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Westwood Cr Grace Cr Winter Cr Midgley Cr Wriedt
Agenda No. 20 Page 13 14 October 2019 FILE NO DA-2019-364 DATE 2 OCTOBER 2019 OFFICER LAUREN O'BRIEN - PLANNING OFFICER ENDORSED BY TASHA TYLER-MOORE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
10.2 DA-2019-364 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR TWO VISITOR ACCOMMODATION UNITS ON SEPARATE TITLES AT 39 & 41 LUMEAH ROAD, ADVENTURE BAY FOR MATT WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS
Application Number: DA-2019-364 Applicant: Matt Williams Architects Owner: WLL Pty Ltd Zoning: Low Density Residential Discretions: Visitor accommodation in new buildings, non-dwelling development, disposal of stormwater to public infrastructure, Biodiversity Code and on-site wastewater management Existing Land Use: Vacant No. of Representations: Three (3) Planning Issues: Containment within building envelope Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions
1 THE PROPOSAL IN DETAIL
1.1 The Proposal
A development application has been received for two visitor accommodation units at 39 and 41 Lumeah Road, Adventure Bay (the subject site). The units would be as follows:
39 Lumeah Road (unit 1)
A single storey studio unit is proposed on 39 Lumeah Road. The unit would have a floor area of 43.9m² and a 51.3m² attached deck. The unit would include an open plan kitchen, living and bedroom area, a bathroom, toilet and covered porch. A spa bath is proposed on the deck.
One car parking bay is proposed next to the unit. The car parking bay is accessible by a driveway that leads from the access strip along 39 and 41 Lumeah Road.
41 Lumeah Road (unit 2)
A two storey unit is proposed at 41 Lumeah Road. The unit would have a floor area of 22.9m² and a 42.7m² attached deck. The unit would have an open plan kitchen and living area and a bathroom on the ground floor. A bedroom would be located on the second floor and a spa bath is proposed on the deck.
One car parking bay is proposed for the use of unit 2. The car parking bay would be located at the front of 41 Lumeah Road and would be accessible from unit 2 by a boardwalk.
Both units would be constructed in the following materials:
Agenda No. 20 Page 14 14 October 2019 glazing;
masonry;
roof sheeting;
timber; and
Colorbond cladding.
A water tank for domestic use is proposed next to each unit. Two 10,000L water tanks for firefighting purposes would be located at the front of the subject site in accordance with the Bushfire Hazard Management Plan.
Separate Aerated Wastewater Treatment System (AWTS) units are located to the rear of each unit to provide on-site wastewater management.
1.2 The Site
The subject site consists of two internal lots and does not have a primary frontage. Access to the subject site is by a private right of way provided from Lumeah Road (refer to Figure 1). The site contains mature native vegetation. Some vegetation would require removal due to the bushfire hazard management area.
The subject site is located in an area of Bruny Island that does not have connection to public stormwater and sewerage infrastructure. As a result, stormwater and sewerage must be retained and/or repurposed on-site or disposed of to a Council approved discharge point. Additionally, the subject site is unable to be connected to a public potable water supply. Therefore potable water must be collected on site or purchased for use.
1.3 Background
The subject site was created as part of a 2 lot subdivision (DAS-2010-19). The subdivision was approved subject to conditions, including that all future dwellings must comply with the Australian Standard for the Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas and development must have an accompanying AWTS unit for on-site wastewater management. These requirements are reflected in covenants listed on the certificate of titles for each lot.
Agenda No. 20 Page 15 14 October 2019 2 PLANNING ASSESSMENT
2.1 Statutory Implications
Planning Directive No. 6
The application is subject to Planning Directive No. 6 (the Directive) which is a State Government directive relating to visitor accommodation use. The application is considered a discretionary application under the Directive as the proposed use would not be accommodated in an existing building. As a result, the application requires assessment against the Visitor Accommodation (P1) clause.
Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015
The land is zoned Low Density Residential (Area A) under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (the Scheme). The proposal has been assessed under the Visitor Accommodation Use Class provisions of the Scheme.
The relevant parts of the Scheme are:
Part D – 12.0 Low Density Residential Zone
Part E – Code E6.0 Parking and Access
Part E – Code E7.0 Stormwater Management
Part E – Code E10.0 Biodiversity
Part E – Code E11.0 Waterway and Coastal Protection
Part E – Code E23.0 On-site Wastewater Management
The following discretions apply to the proposed development:
(a) Clause 12.4.1 (A1 / P1) – Non-dwelling development
(b) Clause E7.7.1 (A1 / P1) – Stormwater drainage and disposal
(c) Clause E10.7.1 (A1 / P1) – Buildings and works
(d) Clause E23.8.1 (A1 / P1) – Development standards for non-residential development
Council's assessment of this proposal should also consider the issues raised in the representations, the outcomes of any relevant State Policies and the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
2.2 Public Consultation
The application was advertised in accordance with the requirements of s.57 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (from 7 September 2019 to 20 September 2019). Three representations were received during the public exhibition period.
The following issues were raised by the representors:
(a) Water supply
(b) Increased traffic
(c) Vegetation removal
(d) Name of adjacent reserve
Agenda No. 20 Page 16 14 October 2019 2.3 Strategic Planning
The relevant strategies associated with the Scheme are as follows:
Clause 12.1.1 – Zone Purpose
The zone purpose statements of the Low Density Residential zone are to:
“To provide for residential use or development on larger lots in residential areas where there are infrastructure or environmental constraints that limit development.
To provide for non-residential uses that are compatible with residential amenity.
To avoid land use conflict with adjacent Rural Resource or Significant Agricultural zoned land by providing for adequate buffer areas.
To provide for existing low density residential areas that usually do not have reticulated services and have limited further subdivision potential.”
Clause 12.1.2 – Local Area Objectives
The local area objective of Adventure Bay is:
“Adventure Bay is to be maintained as a relatively small residential and holiday village with future buildings designed to suit the low-key character of Bruny Island.”
Clause 12.1.3 – Desired Future Character Statements
The desired future character statement for Adventure Bay is:
“Future development within Adventure Bay should enhance residential amenity and encourage a higher quality of accommodation.”
2.4 Planning Directive No. 6
As the proposed use is visitor accommodation, the application requires assessment against the Directive. The Directive provides provisions that override the zone provisions for visitor accommodation use. The proposal is assessed against the relevant provisions as follows:
Visitor Accommodation (A1)
Acceptable Solution (A1) requires visitor accommodation use to be located in existing habitable buildings which have a gross floor area of no more than 200m² per lot.
The proposed visitor accommodation units would be located in new buildings and therefore the application must be assessed against the Performance Criteria (P1).
The Performance Criteria states:
“Visitor Accommodation must be compatible with the character and use of the area and not cause an unreasonable loss of residential amenity, having regard to:
(a) the privacy of adjoining properties;
(b) any likely increase in noise to adjoining properties;
(c) the scale of the use and its compatibility with the surrounding character and uses within the area;
Agenda No. 20 Page 17 14 October 2019 (d) retaining the primary residential function of an area;
(e) the impact on the safety and efficiency of the local road network; and
(f) any impact on the owners and users rights of way.”
The proposed development complies with the Performance Criteria (P1) as follows:
(a) the proposed units would be setback from surrounding development by approximately 50m. The proposed setback and existing vegetation located on the subject site ensures that no privacy issues would arise from the proposed development.
(b) the proposed units would contain one bedroom each and would likely contain a maximum of four visitors at any one time. Due to the low number of visitors at any one time, an increase in noise to adjoining properties is unlikely to occur.
(c) the proposed units are small in size and scale, being 43.9m² and 22.9m² in area, which are well under the size of an average dwelling. As one unit is proposed for each lot, the scale of the use is not anticipated to have any negative impact on the surrounding area.
(d) the nature of the proposed units would not detract from the residential function of the area as each unit may accommodate two people, reducing the amount of noise, traffic movements and waste generated from the site.
(e) the proposed use is considered to generate similar traffic movements as the existing residential uses in the area. As a result, no impact on the safety and efficiency of the local road network would arise.
(f) the subject site has access via a private right of way. No other lots are dependent of the right of way.
Visitor Accommodation (A2)
Acceptable Solution (A2) requires visitor accommodation to not be located on a lot that is part of a strata scheme.
The subject site is not part of a strata scheme and the application therefore complies with the Acceptable Solution (A2).
2.5 Zone Matters
The site is zoned Low Density Residential (Area A) under the Scheme. This zone provides a range of Use and Development Standards and the proposal is assessed against the relevant provisions as follows:
Clause 12.3.1 – Non-residential use
Acceptable Solution (A1) requires non-residential use to comply with set opening hours. The opening hours do not apply to visitor accommodation.
As the application is for a visitor accommodation use, the application therefore complies with the Acceptable Solution (A1).
Acceptable Solution (A2) requires noise emissions to not exceed set levels. The set levels are:
Agenda No. 20 Page 18 14 October 2019 (a) 55 dB(A) (LAeq) between the hours of 8.00 am to 6.00 pm;
(b) 5dB(A) above the background (LA90) level or 40dB(A) (LAeq), whichever is the lower, between the hours of 6.00 pm to 8.00 am;
(c) 65dB(A) (LAmax) at any time.
Due to the nature of the proposed use, any noise emissions generated at the site are unlikely to exceed the abovementioned requirements. Therefore the proposed development complies with the Acceptable Solution (A2).
No external lighting is proposed. Therefore the proposed development complies with the Acceptable Solution (A3). Nevertheless, a condition is recommended on any planning permit granted requiring any future external lighting to be turned off between 6:00pm and 8:00am, except for security lighting and any security lighting must be baffled.
Due to the nature of the proposed use, more than 20 commercial vehicle movements per day is unlikely. Therefore the proposal complies with the Acceptable Solution (A4).
Clause 12.4.1 – Non-dwelling development
Acceptable Solution (A1) requires non-dwelling development to comply with the following clauses:
A 12.4.2 A1 and A3;
B 12.4.3 A1 (a) and (b);
C 12.4.7 A1.
D 12.4.2 A4
Where a proposal does not meet the requirements of the Acceptable Solution (A1), the application must be assessed against the Performance Criteria of each abovementioned clause.
The proposal is assessed against the clauses as follows:
A. 12.4.2 (A1) – Front setback requirements
Clause 12.4.2 (A1) requires a minimum front setback of 4.5m.
The proposed units would be located over 40m from the internal frontage of the subject site. Therefore the proposal complies with the Acceptable Solution (A1).
12.4.2 (A3) – Containment within the building envelope
Clause 12.4.2 (A3) requires development to be wholly contained within the building envelope.
Unit 2 would be located outside the building envelope by 2.4m due to the height of the proposed building. Therefore the proposal requires assessment against Performance Criteria (P3).
The Performance Criteria states:
“The siting and scale of a dwelling must:
Agenda No. 20 Page 19 14 October 2019 (a) not cause unreasonable loss of amenity by:
(i) reduction in sunlight to a habitable room (other than a bedroom) of a dwelling on an adjoining lot; or
(ii) overshadowing the private open space of a dwelling on an adjoining lot; or
(iii) overshadowing of an adjoining vacant lot; or
(iv) visual impacts caused by the apparent scale, bulk or proportions of the dwelling when viewed from an adjoining lot; and
(b) provide separation between dwellings on adjoining lots that is compatible with that prevailing in the surrounding area.”
The proposed development complies with the Performance Criteria (P3) as follows:
(a) the proposed development would not cause unreasonable loss of amenity as:
(i) the units would not cause a reduction in sunlight to another building on the adjoining lot as the units are separated by 7.2m and are not located to the north of each other. Additionally, the units would be located approximately 50m from the nearest development.
(ii) the subject site contains two adjoining lots, the proposed units would not impact on each other as no private open space is required as the development would not be a residential use. The adjoining property to the north would not be affected as it is a visitor accommodation use and therefore does not require private open space. All other adjoining lots contain a covenant that prohibits residential use. Therefore private open space is not required for those lots.
(iii) The proposed development is adequately setback from adjoining vacant lots and therefore would not cause any overshadowing issues.
(iv) while the exterior building colours have not been provided on the development plans, it is considered that the small scale and size of the units would ensure no visual impacts are caused by the development.
(b) The proposed development is not for a dwelling and therefore (b) does not apply. Nevertheless, the proposed units would be adequately setback from residential development in the vicinity.
B. 12.4.3 (A1 a and b) – Site coverage
Clause 12.4.3 (A1a and b) requires a site coverage of no more than 25% and at least 25% of the site to be free of impervious surfaces.
The proposed site coverage would be 2.7% for 39 Lumeah Road and 2% for 41 Lumeah Road. Over 25% of each lot would be pervious surfaces. Therefore the proposed development complies with the Acceptable Solution (A1 a and b).
C. 12.4.7 (A1) – Front fences
Clause 12.4.7 (A1) requires front fences to have a height not more than 1.2m if a solid fence or 1.5m with a uniform transparency of not less than 30% above 1.2m.
Agenda No. 20 Page 20 14 October 2019 The proposal does not include front fencing. Therefore clause 12.4.7 (A1) does not apply.
D. 12.4.2 (A4) – Impact on trees
Clause 12.4.2 (A4) requires development to have no impact on high conservation value trees.
An Ecological Assessment submitted with the application identifies three trees of high conservation value. The development would impact on two trees of the high conservation value trees, as the access works would encroach into the tree root protection zone. Therefore the proposal requires assessment against Performance Criteria (P4).
The Performance Criteria states:
“Buildings and works are designed and located to avoid, minimise, mitigate and offset impacts on trees of high conservation value.”
The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Planner who advised that the proposed development complies with the Performance Criteria (P4) as follows:
An arborist assessment submitted with the application demonstrates the impact on the trees is tolerable as it is largely within the existing access alignment.
Impacts during construction can be managed through implementation of tree protection measures. A condition requiring implementation of tree protection measures is recommended in any planning permit issued.
2.6 Code Matters
Code E6.0 Parking and Access
The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer who advised that the application complies with the Acceptable Solutions of Code E6.0.
The proposed development would include two car parking bays, one located in front of each unit. One vehicle access is proposed which would serve each lot.
Code E7.0 Stormwater Management
On-site water tanks are proposed for stormwater collection and reuse within the subject site. The application triggers a discretion under Clause E7.7.1 (A1) which requires stormwater from new impervious surface to be disposed of to public stormwater infrastructure. As the subject site does not have access to public stormwater infrastructure, the application therefore requires assessment against the Performance Criteria (P1).
The Performance Criteria states:
“Stormwater from new impervious surfaces must be managed by any of the following: (a) disposed of on-site with soakage devices having regard to the suitability of the site, the system design and water sensitive urban design principles (b) collected for re-use on the site;
Agenda No. 20 Page 21 14 October 2019 (c) disposed of to public stormwater infrastructure via a pump system which is designed, maintained and managed to minimise the risk of failure to the satisfaction of the Council.”
The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer who advised that the Performance Criteria (P1) can be satisfied by the inclusion of a condition in any planning approval granted requiring all stormwater to be retained and used on site or disposed of to a Council approved discharge point.
Code E10.0 Biodiversity
The proposed development would require the removal of vegetation to allow for the proposed buildings and works. The application triggers a discretion under Clause E10.7.1 (A1) which requires the clearance and conversion or disturbance of land to be located within a building envelope. A building envelope does not apply to the subject site. Additionally, the proposal would impact on moderate biodiversity values, being a non-threatened native vegetation community Eucalyptus obliqua forest over broad-leaf shrubs (WOB) with the occasional tree of high conservation value. Therefore the application requires assessment against the Performance Criteria (P1).
The Performance Criteria states: “Clearance and conversion or disturbance must satisfy the following: (b) if moderate priority biodiversity values: (i) development is designed and located to minimise impacts, having regard to constraints such as topography or land hazard and the particular requirements of the development; (ii) impacts resulting from bushfire hazard management measures are minimised as far as reasonably practicable through siting and fire-resistant design of habitable buildings; (iii) remaining moderate priority biodiversity values on the site are retained and improved through implementation of current best practice mitigation strategies and ongoing management measures designed to protect the integrity of these values; (iv) residual adverse impacts on moderate priority biodiversity values not able to be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated are offset in accordance with the Guidelines for the Use of Biodiversity Offsets in the Local Planning Approval Process, Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority 2013 and Council Policy 6.10.
The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Planner who advised that the Performance Criteria (P1) can be satisfied as follows:
The proposed clearing/disturbance would be located to minimise impacts on priority vegetation, including individual trees of high conservation value.
The extent of proposed clearing would be the minimum necessary to achieve BAL 29.
The remaining vegetation values are proposed to be maintained and managed.
No moderate or high priority biodiversity values are lost as a result of the proposed development and therefore no offsets are required.
Agenda No. 20 Page 22 14 October 2019 Permit conditions are recommended limiting clearing, protecting high conservation value trees and requiring appropriate hygiene, soil and water and tree protection measures during construction.
Code E11.0 Waterway and Coastal Protection
While part of the site is within a Waterway and Coastal Protection Area, no works are required within this area. Therefore Code E11.0 is not applicable.
Code E23.0 On-site Wastewater Management
The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer who advised that the application complies with the Acceptable Solutions and Performance Criteria of Code E23.0.
An AWTS unit is proposed with an irrigation area (land application area) of 55m² per lot. The application triggers discretion under Code E23.0 as follows:
Clause E23.8.1 (A1) requires land application areas to comply with the standards of Table E23.1. Table E23.1 required a land application area of 60m² for the proposed development. As the land application area would be 55m² the proposed requires assessment against the Performance Criteria (P1).
The Performance Criteria states:
“The land application area is of sufficient size to comply with the requirements of AS/NZ1547.”
Council’s Environmental Health Officer has advised that the proposed land application area complies with the requirements of AS/NA1547. Therefore the proposal complies with the Performance Criteria (P1).
2.7 Other matters
As the site is located within a bushland setting and adjacent to an existing private reserve, a condition is recommended for inclusion in the permit requiring landscaping to be with predominantly local native species.
Given the extent of site works and the bushland setting of the proposed development, in accordance with clause 8.11.3(b), a condition should be included in any permit issued requiring implementation of best practice hygiene measures.
A number of covenants apply to the subject site as listed on the certificate of title. These covenants include the following:
(a) Not to use or permit to be used any part of the said Lots except for those areas marked “ABCD” in the said Lot on the Plan for the disposal of wastewater.
(b) Not to construct, or permit to be constructed any dwelling on the Lots unless that dwelling complies with the Australian Standards for Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas.
A fencing covenant also applies to the subject site which exempts the vendor from being required to fence.
The proposed development complies with the covenants as a AWTS unit is proposed for each lot within the areas marked “ABCD”, the proposed units would be constructed to a BAL rating under AS3959 and the proposal does not include fencing.
Agenda No. 20 Page 23 14 October 2019 3 REFERRALS AND REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Internal Referrals
Health
The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer who advised that the application complies with the relevant Acceptable Solutions and Performance Criteria of Code E23.0.
Engineering
The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer who advised that the application complies with the relevant Acceptable Solutions and Performance Criteria of Codes E6.0 and E7.0.
Environmental Planning
The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Planning who advised that the application complies with the relevant Acceptable Solutions and Performance Criteria of Clause 12.4.2 (A4) and Codes E10.0 and E11.0.
3.2 External Referrals
There were no external referrals required as part of this application.
3.3 Representations
Responses to the matters raised are provided below.
Water supply
Potable water supply requirements are not a planning consideration under the zone and applicable codes.
Increased traffic
As mentioned in the assessment, Council’s Development Engineer assessed the application and determined that the proposed use would generate the similar traffic movements to a residential use. It is therefore not considered that the proposed use would have any unreasonable impact on residential amenity in the area.
Vegetation removal
The proposed development will result in the loss of some native vegetation, including a number of eucalypts >70cm in size (but less than the threshold for high conservation value trees). However, the extent of tree removal has been minimised through the small footprint and high BAL rating for the visitor accommodation pavilions and no blue gums or riparian vegetation will require removal. A detailed assessment is included earlier in the report.
Name of adjacent reserve
The name of the adjacent reserve shown on the plan is incorrect. There is a private reserve protected under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 adjacent to the lot. It is understood this is what the plans are referring to.
Agenda No. 20 Page 24 14 October 2019 4 STATE POLICIES AND ACT OBJECTIVES
The proposal is consistent with the outcomes of the State Policies, including those of the State Coastal Policy.
The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
5 CONCLUSION
The proposed visitor accommodation units at 39 and 41 Lumeah Road, Adventure Bay would not result in an unreasonable adverse impact on the landscape or residential amenity. While unit 2 would be located outside the building envelope, it is not expected to cause any impact on the surrounding area, as it has been proposed to reduce the overall amount of clearing associated with the development.
There were a number of representations in relation to this application; however the proposal is not beyond the acceptable parameters of the Performance Criteria.
The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions.
6 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That the Planning Authority resolves that the development application for two visitor accommodation units on separate titles at 39 & 41 Lumeah Road, Adventure Bay for Matt Williams Architects 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-2019-364 and Council Plan Reference No. P1 submitted on 10 July 2019 and P2 submitted on 27 August 2019. 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. Any external lighting must be turned off between 6:00pm and 8:00am, except for security lighting. Security lighting must be baffled to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Services.
3. The use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally impacted upon through any of the following:
(a) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land;
(b) Appearance of any building, works or materials;
(c) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke vapour, steam, sot, ash, dust, waste water or waste products (rubbish).
4. The visitor accommodation is for short term stay only. Accommodated guests must not stay any longer than a total of three (3) months.
Agenda No. 20 Page 25 14 October 2019 5. Considering the number of habitable rooms in the units, the maximum number of occupants must not exceed four (4) persons at any time.
6. Guests are to park within the designated car parking for the subject dwelling unit.
7. Only Eucalyptus obliqua wet forest with broadleaf shrubs may be removed or disturbed for the purpose of the proposal, in accordance with Council Plan Reference P2 submitted on 27 August 2019 and the Development Impact Assessment (Element Tree Services, 26 August 2019) and to the minimum extent required to achieve a BAL 29 under the Australian Standard AS3959:2009 Construction of buildings in bushfire prone areas.
No vegetation within the Waterway and Coastal Protection Area as shown in Council Plan Reference P2 submitted on 27 August 2019, no blue gums (Eucalyptus globulus) with a diameter at breast height of >40cm or any native tree with a diameter >100cm are to be removed, either for bushfire management or any other purpose, unless otherwise approved by Council.
No native vegetation is to be removed prior to the issue of a Building Permit for the dwelling.
8. All remaining native vegetation, including individual trees identified for retention in Council Plan Reference No. P2 submitted on 27 August 2019, must be retained and appropriately protected during and after construction to ensure that no damage is inflicted that may impact upon the health of the trees or cause them to die. This includes:
(a) establishing dedicated stockpile area on the driveway to 39 Lumeah Road, or at an alternative location as approved in writing by the Manager Development Services; and
(b) maintaining a Vegetation Protection Zone to exclude the following from the Waterway and Coastal Protection Area and the tree root protection zones of trees identified for retention:
(i) Machine excavation including trenching;
(ii) Excavation for silt fencing;
(iii) Cultivation;
(iv) Storage;
(v) Preparation of chemicals, including preparation of cement products;
(vi) Parking of vehicles and plant;
(vii) Refuelling;
(viii) Dumping of waste;
(ix) Wash down and cleaning of equipment;
(x) Placement of fill;
(xi) Lighting of fires;
(xii) Soil level changes;
Agenda No. 20 Page 26 14 October 2019 (xiii) Temporary or permanent installation of utilities and signs; and
(xiv) Physical damage to the tree(s).
In addition, the following vegetation protection measures must be adhered to following construction for all areas within the Vegetation Protection Zone but outside the footprint of the approved works:
(c) the existing soil level must not be altered within the Vegetation Protection Zone of the trees (including the disposal of fill, placement of materials or the scalping of the soil); and
(d) the Vegetation Protection Zone must be free from the storage of fill, contaminates or other materials; and
(e) machinery and vehicles are not permitted to access the Vegetation Protection Zone outside the approved vehicular access.
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. The stormwater runoff from all concrete, paved, or otherwise sealed areas must be contained within the property or discharged to a Council approved discharge point. All works in relation to the discharge of stormwater must be completed to the satisfaction and approval of the Executive Manager – Engineering Services.
11. Erosion/siltation infiltration control measures must be applied during construction works to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager – Engineering Services.
12. Any landscaping associated with and in the vicinity of the approved development is to be with predominantly native species local to the Adventure Bay area. No weeds listed under the Weed Management Act 1999 or/and identified as non-declared priority weeds in the Kingborough Weed Management Strategy are to be planted on the property. In addition, no native species which are not local to the area are to be planted on the property.
13. Food must not be sold/served/provided to guests unless prior approval is granted by Council.
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. The developer should obtain a Plumbing Permit for the development prior to commencing construction.
Agenda No. 20 Page 27 14 October 2019 C. A drainage design plan 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.
D. The proposed development requires onsite disposal of wastewater. Prior to Council issuing a Plumbing Permit, the developer must submit all documents specified in Schedule 2 of the Director’s Specified List for an onsite wastewater management system.
E. No further felling, lopping, ringbarking or otherwise injuring or destroying of native vegetation or individual trees is to take place without the prior written permission of Council or in accordance with a further permit or otherwise as provided for in the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 or otherwise in accordance with law.
F. Signs advertising the accommodation must not be displayed without the separate approval of Council, other than the erection of a small 0.5m x 0.5m sign being affixed to the front fence or within the subject property boundaries.
Application for additional signage must be made to the Manager Development Services.
For Against For Against Cr Bastone Cr Street Cr Cordover Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Westwood Cr Grace Cr Winter Cr Midgley Cr Wriedt
Attachments: 1. Proposal Plans (8)
Agenda No. 20 Page 28 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 29 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 30 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 31 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 32 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 33 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 34 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 35 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 36 14 October 2019 FILE NO DA-2019-162 DATE 2 OCTOBER 2019 OFFICER XIN BARBOUR - PLANNING OFFICER ENDORSED BY TASHA TYLER-MOORE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
10.3 DA-2019-162 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR TWO MULTIPLE DWELLINGS (ONE EXISTING) AT 233 ROSLYN AVENUE, BLACKMANS BAY FOR SJM PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
Application Number: DA-2019-162 Applicant: SJM Property Developments Pty Ltd Owner: Mr T I J Butler Zoning: General Residential Discretions: Setback and Building envelope Private open space Privacy Existing Land Use: Single Dwelling/Residential No. of Representations: Four (4) Planning Issues: Offsite amenity impacts Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions
1 THE PROPOSAL IN DETAIL
1.1 Background
The application was advertised from 13/07/2019 to 26/07/2019. Four (4) representations were received during the public exhibition period.
The proposed building did not comply with the building envelope and privacy requirements of the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (the Scheme). Council planning officers held discussions with the applicants regarding the issues cause by the proposed noncompliant building envelope.
The applicant subsequently submitted revised plans to address the issues raised by the representors, and an extension to the Council’s assessment time was granted. The following changes have been made:
Increase in setback from the rear boundary from 1m to 2m;
Reduction in gross floor area from 214.39m2 to 204.19m2;
Reduction from 2 living areas to 1 living area;
Reduction to the width of the building from approximately 12m to 11m;
Removed study and shower on upper level resulting in an approximately 2m recess from the southwestern corner section of the upper level;
Increased landscaped area between the proposed dwelling and rear boundary.
Agenda No. 20 Page 37 14 October 2019 1.2 The Proposal
The application seeks approval for two dwellings (one existing) at 223 Roslyn Avenue, Blackmans Bay. The proposed double-storey dwelling is to be located to the rear of the existing dwelling. The proposal also includes the demolition of a shed and construction of new deck for the existing dwelling.
The proposed dwelling design is reverse living with the living areas located on upper level. In total, the dwelling includes three bedrooms, two bathrooms, open plan kitchen/dining/living area and a double car garage on the ground floor. A 24m2 upper level deck is proposed and the total floor area is 204.19m2 including the garage plus a 22.5m2 verandah. The development includes retaining walls built onto the proposed dwelling to a maximum height of 1.85m. 1.8m high boundary fence and 1.8m high treated pine paling frontage fence with 30% transparency are proposed. The proposal also includes small garden sheds measuring 1.5mx 0.75m, one for each dwelling.
External materials of the new dwelling include brick veneer and cement sheet cladding and a Colorbond skillion roof. The maximum height of the building would be 6.384m. There would be approximately maximum 1.7m deep cut from the western section towards the eastern section to meet the lower level.
The existing dwelling is single-storey with a total floor area of 133.36m2 containing three bedrooms, two bathrooms and open plan kitchen, living and a separate dining area with a new deck.
Vehicle access to both dwellings would be via the existing driveway along the northern boundary. The existing dwelling would have two parking spaces provided one at the front and one at the rear of the dwelling. The private open space would be provided both at the front and rear of the dwelling. A visitor space for both dwellings’ use would be provided at the middle section of the site.
1.3 The Site
The subject land is contained within Certificate of Title 202207, folio 1 and has an area of 794m2. The site fronts Roslyn Avenue and is rectangular in shape with over two metre fall from the rear of the site toward the frontage. There is some vegetation within the rear of the site and a little in the front. The site is afforded views over Blackmans Bay.
There are no covenants on the title imposing restrictions to the proposed development.
The surrounding properties are all residential in nature, and the majority of the properties are single dwellings. Dwelling styles are varied; however setbacks from the frontage and side boundaries are typically consistent. There are multiple units within proximity at 229 Roslyn Avenue, 190 Roslyn Avenue, and 2 Myuna Road.
Agenda No. 20 Page 38 14 October 2019
Plate 1- Aerial photo of the subject site (red outlined)
Plate 2 - Photo of subject site viewed from Roslyn Avenue
Agenda No. 20 Page 39 14 October 2019 2 PLANNING ASSESSMENT
2.1 Statutory Implications
The land is zoned General Residential under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (the Scheme). The proposal has been assessed under the Residential Use Class provisions of the Scheme. The proposal is discretionary.
The relevant parts of the Scheme are:
Part 10.0 – General Residential Zone
Code E5.0 – Road and Railway Assets Code
Code E6.0 – Parking and Access Code
Code E7.0 – Stormwater Management Code
The application requires discretionary assessment against the following clauses:
Clause 10.4.2 P3 – Building envelope
Clause 10.4.3 P2 – Private open space
Clause10.4.6 P1 and P2 – Privacy for all dwellings
Council's assessment of this proposal should also consider the issues raised in the representations, the outcomes of any relevant State Policies and the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
2.2 Public Consultation
The application was advertised in accordance with the requirements of s.57 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. The application was advertised from 13/07/2019 to 26/07/2019. Four (4) representations were received during the public exhibition period. The following issues were raised by the representors:
The proposal is inconsistent with the Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements for Blackmans Bay
Overshadowing
Visual impact
Area of provided open space for existing dwelling
Privacy
Traffic
Potential destabilization cause by excavation
2.3 Strategic Planning
Zone Purpose Statements of the General Residential zone
The relevant zone purpose statements of the General Residential zone are to:
Agenda No. 20 Page 40 14 October 2019 10.1.1.1 To provide for residential use or development that accommodates a range of dwelling types at suburban densities, where full infrastructure services are available or can be provided.
10.1.1.3 To provide for the efficient utilisation of services.
10.1.1.4 To implement the Regional Settlement Strategy and the Greater Hobart Residential Strategy.
10.1.1.5 To encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character, natural landscape and provides a high standard of residential amenity.
10.1.1.6 To encourage urban consolidation and greater housing choice through a range of housing types and residential densities.
The subject land is a 794m2 allotment. The development of an additional dwelling is considered to be consistent with the Zone Purpose of the General Residential Zone, in particular Clauses 10.1.1.1 and 10.1.1.6. As discussed, the applicant has submitted revised designs in an effort to demonstrate compliance with the relevant development standards of the Scheme. It is now considered that the proposed development as amended would respect the neighbourhood character, the natural landscape, and would provide an acceptable level of residential amenity for residents within and adjacent to the site.
Clause 10.2.2 – Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements
The Scheme details separate Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements for the main settlements in the municipal area. The following Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements are relevant to the assessment of this application:
10.1.2 Local Area Objectives
Local Area Objectives Implementation Strategy BLACKMANS BAY (a) Blackmans Bay should be (a) The natural landscape and setting maintained as an established is an important issue when residential area with a high level of considering new development amenity associated with its coastal proposals. location, pleasant views and lifestyle.
10.1.3 Desired Future Character Statements
Desired Future Character Statements Implementation Strategy BLACKMANS BAY (a) Blackmans Bay should continue as (a) New development should respect a predominantly low-density the amenity of surrounding residential area with larger lot sizes residences and the natural that enable reasonable setbacks, landscape. Multi-unit housing the retention of native vegetation should be encouraged to locate in and gardens. the area surrounding the Opal Drive commercial precinct.
Agenda No. 20 Page 41 14 October 2019 The proposal is for an additional dwelling in an established residential area. The site is fully serviced and the proposal would make use of the existing infrastructure.
The proposed density and large expanses of hard stand make it difficult for the proposal to appropriately respond to the desire of continuing as ‘predominantly low- density residential area with larger lot sizes that enable reasonable setbacks, the retention of native vegetation and gardens’. Nevertheless, the subject site is 794m2 in area. The density is 397m2 per dwelling which complies with the density standards for the General Residential Zone as detailed below.
2.4 Zone
The site is zoned General Residential under the Scheme. The proposal is assessed against the relevant provisions as follows:
Clause 10.4.1 Residential density for multiple dwellings
A1 Multiple dwellings must have a site area per dwelling of not less than 325m2.
The subject site is 794m2 in area. The density is 397m2 per dwelling and so the Acceptable Solution has therefore has been satisfied.
Clause 10.4.2 – Setbacks and building envelope for all dwellings
A1 Unless within a building area, a dwelling, excluding protrusions (such as eaves, steps, porches, and awnings) that extend not more than 0.6m into the frontage setback, must have a setback from a frontage that is:
(a) if the frontage is a primary frontage, at least 4.5m, or, if the setback from the primary frontage is less than 4.5m, not less than the setback, from the primary frontage, of any existing dwelling on the site; or
(b) if the frontage is not a primary frontage, at least 3m, or, if the setback from the frontage is less than 3m, not less than the setback, from a frontage that is not a primary frontage, of any existing dwelling on the site; or
(c) if for a vacant site with existing dwellings on adjoining sites on the same street, not more than the greater, or less than the lesser, setback for the equivalent frontage of the dwellings on the adjoining sites on the same street; or
(d) if the development is on land that abuts a road specified in Table 10.4.2, at least that specified for the road.
The proposed dwelling would be setback approximately 30m from the site frontage due to the nature of the building being located to the rear of an existing site and only being afforded driveway access for frontage. Therefore the Acceptable Solution has been satisfied.
A2 A garage or carport must have a setback from a primary frontage of at least:
(a) 5.5m, or alternatively 1m behind the façade of the dwelling; or
(b) the same as the dwelling façade, if a portion of the dwelling gross floor area is located above the garage or carport; or
(c) 1m, if the natural ground level slopes up or down at a gradient steeper than 1 in 5 for a distance of 10m from the frontage.
Agenda No. 20 Page 42 14 October 2019 The existing dwelling would not have a carport or garage provided and the garage for the new dwelling would be located beyond the required setbacks mentioned, therefore the Acceptable Solution has been met.
A3 A dwelling, excluding outbuildings with a building height of not more than 2.4 m and protrusions (such as eaves, steps, porches, and awnings) that extend not more than 0.6 m horizontally beyond the building envelope, must:
(a) be contained within a building envelope (refer to Diagrams 10.4.2A, 10.4.2B, 10.4.2C and 10.4.2D) determined by:
(i) a distance equal to the frontage setback or, for an internal lot, a distance of 4.5m from the rear boundary of a lot with an adjoining frontage; and
(ii) projecting a line at an angle of 45 degrees from the horizontal at a height of 3m above natural ground level at the side boundaries and a distance of 4m from the rear boundary to a building height of not more than 8.5m above natural ground level; and
(b) only have a setback within 1.5m of a side boundary if the dwelling:
(i) does not extend beyond an existing building built on or within 0.2m of the boundary of the adjoining lot; or
(ii) does not exceed a total length of 9m or one-third the length of the side boundary (whichever is the lesser).
The front setback would not be altered as part of the proposal and the new dwelling does not impact on the front setback; therefore A3 (a) of the clause is complied with.
The proposed dwelling exceeds the building envelope due to that the proposed dwelling would have 2m setback from rear boundary.
The proposed dwelling does not comply with the second part of the Acceptable Solution A3 (b) as the building within 1.5m of the northern side boundary is approx. 11.6m in length.
The proposal therefore does not comply with the Acceptable Solution A3 in relation to building envelope and is required to be assessed under Performance Criteria P3 as follows:
P3 The siting and scale of a dwelling must:
(a) not cause unreasonable loss of amenity by:
(i) reduction in sunlight to a habitable room (other than a bedroom) of a dwelling on an adjoining lot; or
(ii) overshadowing the private open space of a dwelling on an adjoining lot; or
(iii) overshadowing of an adjoining vacant lot; or
(iv) visual impacts caused by the apparent scale, bulk or proportions of the dwelling when viewed from an adjoining lot; and
(b) provide separation between dwellings on adjoining lots that is compatible with that prevailing in the surrounding area.
Agenda No. 20 Page 43 14 October 2019 In terms of overshadowing, three adjoining properties are required to be considered.
231 Roslyn Avenue: The proposed dwelling would be located to the south of the property at 231 Roslyn Avenue; therefore it would not overshadow the property at 231 Roslyn Avenue.
1 Garnett Street: The shadow diagrams submitted by the applicants indicate that the overshadowing to the habitable room of 1 Garnett Street caused by the proposed dwelling would be around 9.00am to 10:30am; and there would be no overshadowing from 11.00am onwards from the proposed dwelling. Therefore it is considered acceptable.
235 Roslyn Avenue: The proposed dwelling would have overshadowing effect to the habitable room on the northern side and open space at the rear of property at 235 Roslyn Avenue. However, as indicated by the shadow diagram (projected for 21 June), the proposed dwelling would not overshadow the habitable room from 9.00am to 12:30pm. Taking the fact that the existing dwelling on the proposed site is single level and on lower contour (Refer to Plate 3), the habitable room of 235 Roslyn Avenue would have reasonable morning sunlight access. Whilst the shadow diagrams also indicate majority of the open space would have reasonable sunlight from 10.00am to 1.00pm. Although it is not ideal, it is considered that overshadowing would not be unreasonable.
Plate 3: Image showing east elevation of 233 and 235 Roslyn Avenue, noting there are windows for the living area on north elevation for 235 Roslyn Avenue.
In terms of visual impact, the proposed two-storey dwelling has a maximum building height of 6.338m with an approximate footprint of 160m2. The site is sloping from south west to the north east section. Despite being two-storey, there would be approximately maximum 1.7m deep cut from the western section towards the eastern section to meet the lower level. The building viewed from the south west would be approximately 3.8m- 4.5m in height from natural ground level as seen in Plate 5 and the full plans attached.
Agenda No. 20 Page 44 14 October 2019
Plate 4: Original plans (red hatched area exceeding building envelope)
Plate 5: Revised plans (red hatched area exceeding building envelope)
As shown in Plate 6, the revised design also removed the study and shower area on upper level, the total recess to the east on upper level is approximately 2m from the original design resulting in a further reduced visual bulk.
Original upper level floor plan Revised upper level floor plan
Plate 6: Revised floor plan for upper level removing study and shower (red hatched)
Agenda No. 20 Page 45 14 October 2019 The development would be of a size and density reflected by other single and multiple dwelling developments in the vicinity of the site. Given the applicant has made efforts to reduce the width of the building to curtail its bulk, to increase its setback from the western (rear) boundary and removed an area of the upper level, the overall heights and bulk of the building, particularly that part of the building in the vicinity of the rear boundary would be minimised.
The revised design also includes some mature trees (6-9m in height) in the landscape plan which would soften the look of the building in particular from the west and north elevation. It is therefore considered that the visual bulk, scale and apparent proportions of the building as viewed from adjoining lots would not be unreasonable.
In terms of separation between dwellings, it is typical the separation between many adjoining dwellings in the surrounding area would be minimum 4.5m. It is also noted from the aerial photograph of the surrounding area within 100m radius shows that buildings on surrounding lots would have less separation distance ranging from 2.5m to 4m (See Plate 7); such as approximate 2.5m separation between the outbuilding of 225 Roslyn Ave and the dwelling at 223 Roslyn Avenue; 3.5m between the outbuilding of 3 Garnett Street and the dwelling of 5 Garnett Street; 3m between 1 Roslyn Avenue and 1A Roslyn Avenue.
Plate 7 – Aerial photo showing separation distance for dwellings in the area within 100m radius from centre of the proposed dwelling. The red outlined is the approximate location of the proposed dwelling.
Agenda No. 20 Page 46 14 October 2019 The proposed building would have a minimum separation of approximately 3m from the dwelling on adjoining site at 1 Garnett Street, 8m from 235 Roslyn Avenue and 8m from 231 Roslyn Avenue.
On the above basis, and also taking into account the efforts for an increased rear setback on the revised design by the applicants, it is considered that the separation between the proposed dwelling and dwellings on adjoining lots is not unacceptable, hence compatible with the surrounding area.
A4 No trees of high conservation value will be impacted.
There are no trees of high conservation value that would be affected therefore the acceptable solution has been met.
Clause 10.4.3 – Site coverage and private open space for all dwellings
A1 Dwellings must have:
(a) a site coverage of not more than 50% (excluding eaves up to 0.6m); and
(b) for multiple dwellings, a total area of private open space of not less than 60m² associated with each dwelling, unless the dwelling has a finished floor level that is entirely more than 1.8m above the finished ground level (excluding a garage, carport or entry foyer); and
a site area of which at least 25% of the site area is free from impervious surfaces.
The site area is 794m2. The footprint of the existing dwelling is 133.36 m2; the footprint of the proposed dwelling is 118.54m2. The development would have total site coverage of 31.7%. Compliance with Clause 10.4.3 A1(a) is therefore achieved.
The total private open space for each dwelling is 154.23m2 and 128.89m2. Compliance with Clause 10.4.3 A1(b) is therefore achieved.
The total pervious area is approximately 278.73m2 (31.5%). Compliance with Clause 10.4.3 A1(c) is therefore achieved.
A2 A dwelling must have an area of private open space that:
(a) is in one location and is at least:
(i) 24 m²; or
(ii) 12 m², if the dwelling is a multiple dwelling with a finished floor level that is entirely more than 1.8 m above the finished ground level (excluding a garage, carport or entry foyer); and
(b) has a minimum horizontal dimension of:
(i) 4 m; or
(ii) 2 m, if the dwelling is a multiple dwelling with a finished floor level that is entirely more than 1.8 m above the finished ground level (excluding a garage, carport or entry foyer); and
(c) is directly accessible from, and adjacent to, a habitable room (other than a bedroom); and
Agenda No. 20 Page 47 14 October 2019 (d) is not located to the south, south-east or south-west of the dwelling, unless the area receives at least 3 hours of sunlight to 50% of the area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on the 21st June; and
(e) is located between the dwelling and the frontage, only if the frontage is orientated between 30 degrees west of north and 30 degrees east of north, excluding any dwelling located behind another on the same site; and
(f) has a gradient not steeper than 1 in 10; and
(g) is not used for vehicle access or parking.
The north facing private open space (proposed new deck) for the existing dwelling is accessible from the open plan hallway connecting with kitchen and living area with minimum 24m2 in area.
The north-facing private open space with minimum 24m2 in area for the proposed dwelling would be located on the ground level and is not directly accessible from living room on upper level. The proposal therefore does not comply with the Acceptable Solution A2 in relation to private open space and is required to be assessed under Performance Criteria P2 as follows:
P2 - A dwelling must have private open space that:
(a) includes an area that is capable of serving as an extension of the dwelling for outdoor relaxation, dining, entertaining and children’s play and that is:
(i) conveniently located in relation to a living area of the dwelling; and
(ii) orientated to take advantage of sunlight.
Even though the north facing verandah on upper level would not have a minimum 4m horizontal dimension, it would have an area of 24m2. The combined private open space of verandah and the private open space on ground level is considered adequate for outdoor relaxation, dining, entertaining and children’s play. Compliance with Clause 10.4.3 P2 is therefore achieved.
Clause 10.4.4 – Sunlight and overshadowing for all dwellings
A1 A dwelling must have at least one habitable room (other than a bedroom) in which there is a window that faces between 30 degrees west of north and 30 degrees east of north (see Diagram 10.4.4A).
The proposed dwelling has north facing windows for the dining and living areas. The living areas of the existing dwelling would be unaltered.
The proposal complies with A1.
A2 is not applicable as units are not to the north of the other.
A3 is not applicable as units are not to the north of the private open spaces of the other.
10.4.5 Width of openings for garages and carports for all dwellings
The proposed garage for the new dwelling is not within 12m of the frontage. There is no garage proposed for the existing dwelling. This clause does not apply.
Agenda No. 20 Page 48 14 October 2019 10.4.6 Privacy for all dwellings
A1 A balcony, deck, roof terrace, parking space, or carport (whether freestanding or part of the dwelling), that has a finished surface or floor level more than 1 m above natural ground level must have a permanently fixed screen to a height of at least 1.7 m above the finished surface or floor level, with a uniform transparency of no more than 25%, along the sides facing a:
(a) side boundary, unless the balcony, deck, roof terrace, parking space, or carport has a setback of at least 3 m from the side boundary; and
(b) rear boundary, unless the balcony, deck, roof terrace, parking space, or carport has a setback of at least 4 m from the rear boundary; and
(c) dwelling on the same site, unless the balcony, deck, roof terrace, parking space, or carport is at least 6 m:
(i) from a window or glazed door, to a habitable room of the other dwelling on the same site; or
(ii) from a balcony, deck, roof terrace or the private open space, of the other dwelling on the same site.
The solid timber screen is provided in full height joining with the roof for the veranda deck on upper level which has a 1m side setback.
However the veranda has approximately 5m separation at the very southern section from the private open space of the existing dwelling. The proposal does not comply with A1 and is required to be assessed under Performance Criteria P1 as follows:
P1 A balcony, deck, roof terrace, parking space or carport (whether freestanding or part of the dwelling) that has a finished surface or floor level more than 1 m above natural ground level, must be screened, or otherwise designed, to minimise overlooking of:
(a) a dwelling on an adjoining lot or its private open space; or
(b) another dwelling on the same site or its private open space; or
(c) an adjoining vacant residential lot.
The majority part of the veranda would have over 6m separation from the private open space of the existing dwelling on site. The section which would have 5m separation from the corner of the private open space is considered to have limited opportunity overlooking the private open space of the existing dwelling due to the angle and the garden shed located at the corner of the POS. It is therefore considered the performance criteria P1 can be met.
A2 A window or glazed door, to a habitable room, of a dwelling, that has a floor level more than 1 m above the natural ground level, must be in accordance with (a), unless it is in accordance with (b).
The window or glazed door:
(i) is to have a setback of at least 3 m from a side boundary; and
(ii) is to have a setback of at least 4 m from a rear boundary; and
(iii) if the dwelling is a multiple dwelling, is to be at least 6 m from a window or glazed door, to a habitable room, of another dwelling on the same site; and
Agenda No. 20 Page 49 14 October 2019 (iv) if the dwelling is a multiple dwelling, is to be at least 6 m from the private open space of another dwelling on the same site.
The window or glazed door:
(i) is to be offset, in the horizontal plane, at least 1.5 m from the edge of a window or glazed door, to a habitable room of another dwelling; or
(ii) is to have a sill height of at least 1.7 m above the floor level or has fixed obscure glazing extending to a height of at least 1.7 m above the floor level; or
(iii) is to have a permanently fixed external screen for the full length of the window or glazed door, to a height of at least 1.7 m above floor level, with a uniform transparency of not more than 25%.
There would be no new windows proposed for the existing dwelling.
The windows of the proposed dwelling would comply as measured from the plans as follows:
- Window on upper level on south elevation would have approx. 1.7m sill height.
- Windows on upper level on north elevation would have approx. 1.7m sill height.
- Windows on upper level on west elevation would have approx. 1.7m sill height.
- Windows for bedroom1 on east elevation would have approximately 5m separation from the private open space of the existing dwelling.
The proposal does not comply with A2 and is required to be assessed under Performance Criteria P2 as follows:
P2 A window or glazed door, to a habitable room of dwelling, that has a floor level more than 1 m above the natural ground level, must be screened, or otherwise located or designed, to minimise direct views to:
(a) window or glazed door, to a habitable room of another dwelling; and
(b) the private open space of another dwelling; and
(c) an adjoining vacant residential lot.
As the plans do not provide notations for the windows sill height, however it appears that the sill height would be less than 1.7m from natural ground level. It is recommended to include a condition for any permit granted requiring window sill be minimum 1.7m from finished floor level or obscure treatment to the same height of 1.7m.
On this basis the proposal is considered to comply with P2.
A3 A shared driveway or parking space (excluding a parking space allocated to that dwelling) must be separated from a window, or glazed door, to a habitable room of a multiple dwelling by a horizontal distance of at least:
(a) 2.5m; or
(b) 1m if:
(i) it is separated by a screen of at least 1.7m in height; or
Agenda No. 20 Page 50 14 October 2019 (ii) the window, or glazed door, to a habitable room has a sill height of at least 1.7m above the shared driveway or parking space, or has fixed obscure glazing extending to a height of at least 1.7m above the floor level.
North elevation of the existing building has 3m separation from the shared driveway and parking spaces. Therefore it complies with A3.
10.4.7 Frontage fences for all dwellings
1.8m high treated pine frontage fence with 30% transparency is proposed. The proposal complies with A1.
Clause 10.4.8 – Waste storage for multiple dwellings
Complies as at least 1.5m2 storage area is provided for each dwelling and not in front of dwellings. The proposal complies with A1.
2.5 Code Matters
Code E5.0 – Road and Railway Assets Code
Council’s Development Engineer has advised that the proposal satisfies the relevant Acceptable Solutions of the Code.
A single dwelling is expected to generate 8 vehicle movements per day. The development is expected to generate a total of 16 vehicle movements per day. Roslyn Avenue is subjected to a 50 km/hr speed limit, the total vehicle movements generated is less than 40 movements per day as set out in Clause E5.5.1; therefore, the proposal complies with the acceptable solution. The additional 8 vehicle movements generated is less than the 20% of the annual average daily traffic of vehicle movements on Roslyn Avenue and is considered insignificant. Furthermore, there are bus stops located nearby; residents are also likely to commute via public transport.
Code E6.0 – Parking and Access Code
The relevant provisions of the Parking and Access Code have been assessed by Council's Development Engineering Unit.
A total of five (5) parking spaces, including one (1) visitor space, is required. The proposal includes a double attached garage for the proposed dwelling, as well as two (2) open parking spaces for the existing dwelling and one (1) open visitor parking space.
A condition of approval (if granted) should be included requiring that at least one (1) parking space is designated for visitors and contained within common property on any future strata plan.
The proposal is consistent with the requirements of all relevant Acceptable Solutions within the Code. Conditions have been provided for inclusion in any permit issued regarding relevant matters.
Code E7.0 – Stormwater Management Code
The relevant provisions of Code E7.0 – Stormwater Management Code have been considered by Council’s Development Engineering Unit. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of all relevant Acceptable Solutions. Conditions have been provided for inclusion in any permit issued regarding relevant matters.
Agenda No. 20 Page 51 14 October 2019 3 REFERRALS AND REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Internal Referrals
Council's Development Engineering Unit has assessed the plans for compliance with the planning scheme and Council’s relevant standards. Standard conditions have been provided for inclusion in any permit issued.
3.2 External Referrals
The application was referred to TasWater in accordance with the requirements of the Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008. TasWater has provided its response to the Council Notice of Planning Application Referral including conditions of approval to be included in any permit issued for the development. A copy of the conditions from TasWater has been included in the recommended condition.
3.3 Representations
As discussed, a total of 4 representations were received in relation to this application and are discussed in detail as follows:
The proposal is inconsistent with the Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements for Blackmans Bay.
As discussed, the proposal satisfies the relevant Acceptable Solutions and Performance Criteria of the Scheme and by extension is consistent with the Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements that relate to Blackmans Bay.
Overshadowing
As discussed, the proposal does not comply with the acceptable solution A3 of Clause 10.4.2 and is required to be assessed under the performance criteria P3. The details in the body of the report and the shadow diagram have indicated that the overshadowing caused by the proposed dwelling is considered not unreasonable.
Visual impact and noncompliance with the building envelope
The matters of the visual impact and non-compliance with the building envelope have been discussed within the body of the report. As discussed, the revised design satisfies the requirements of the Performance Criteria of Clause 10.4.2 P3 of the Scheme.
Area of provided open space for existing dwelling
As discussed, the design provides private open space that satisfies the requirements of the Acceptable solutions of Clause 10.4.3 A1 and A2 of the Scheme.
Loss of privacy
Representors have raised concerns about overlooking caused by the proposed development, specifically caused the windows on upper level of the proposed dwelling. Representors have also raised concern that the proposal does not comply with the privacy standard relating to the location of windows relative to the shared driveways.
The applicable standards for privacy under the Scheme are under Clause 10.4.6 - Privacy for all dwellings. As assessed above, for windows proposed on the finished floor level 1m above natural ground level, a condition requiring 1.7m sill height for the east facing windows for bedroom 1 has been recommended for any permit issued.
Agenda No. 20 Page 52 14 October 2019 The proposed north veranda deck on upper level would have full height solid timber privacy screen except the southern corner section having 5m separation. The proposal is considered to comply with the relevant Performance Criteria.
Additionally, the application satisfies the privacy requirements in relation to the distance from the windows of habitable rooms to the shared driveway.
There is no basis to refuse the application on the grounds of Privacy.
Traffic
Matters of traffic and parking are discussed within the report. The proposal satisfies the requirements of the relevant Codes. Therefore this ground of objection cannot be substantiated.
Potential destabilization cause by excavation
The representors raised concerns in relation to the close proximity of the excavation for the proposed dwelling, specifically the retaining wall. The revised design has proposed retaining wall to be part of the dwelling. The proposal has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineers who advised the design is satisfactory and a condition is recommended for any permit issued for retaining walls greater than 1m in height must be designed and certified by a Registered Professional Engineer. Matters relating to retaining wall design are dealt with at the Building Permit stage, not planning. Therefore this ground of objection cannot be substantiated.
4 STATE POLICIES AND ACT OBJECTIVES
The proposal is consistent with the outcomes of the State Policies, including those of the State Coastal Policy.
The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
5 CONCLUSION
In response to the issues raised in relation to the proposed development, the applicant has submitted revised designs in an attempt to reduce the impact of the building on surrounding properties. In particular, the proposed building has been reduced in size and increased in rear setback in order to reduce visual bulk and overshadowing. The revised plans satisfy the relevant Acceptable Solutions and Performance Criteria of the Scheme and demonstrate that although there would be some impact on the amenity of adjoining properties, such impacts would not be considered unreasonable.
Consequently, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
6 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That the Planning Authority resolves that the development application for two multiple dwellings (one existing) at 233 Roslyn Avenue, Blackmans Bay for SJM Property Developments Pty Ltd be approved subject to the following conditions:
Agenda No. 20 Page 53 14 October 2019 1. Except as otherwise required by this Permit, use and development of the land must be substantially in accordance with Development Application No.DA-2019-162 and Council Plan Reference No. P3 submitted on 26 September 2019. 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. The east-facing windows for bedroom 1 of the proposed dwelling must be obscured to a minimum height of 1.7m above the finished floor level; or have a window sill of minimum 1.7m above the finish floor level. Plans submitted with the application for building approval must demonstrate that this requirement is satisfied.
3. The landscaping shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be completed to the satisfaction of the Council prior to the occupation of the new dwelling. The landscaping must be maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Council, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are replaced.
4. The visitor parking space must be appropriately sign posted prior to the occupation of the new dwelling and kept available for visitor parking at all times. Any future application for strata title in respect of the property must ensure that the visitor parking space is included within the common property on the strata plan.
5. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, engineering design drawings must be submitted to Council for approval. Plans must be to satisfaction of the Executive Manager - Engineering Services and demonstrate that:
(a) The car parking and vehicle manoeuvring areas must be of a sealed construction (concrete) and comply with Australian Standard AS2890.1:2004 (Off street car parking);
(b) A visitor car parking sign must be installed for the visitor car parking space, prior to occupation of any dwelling;
(c) Signage noting residential parking for each unit must be installed for the car parking spaces, prior to occupation of any dwelling;
(d) Parking and vehicle circulation roadways and pedestrian paths must be provided with bollard lighting, prior to occupation of any dwelling; and
(e) Stormwater discharge from all new impervious areas must be disposed of by gravity to public stormwater infrastructure.
The engineering plans must also include, but not be limited to, detailed internal vehicular and pedestrian access, car parking, manoeuvring areas, and drainage services layouts. Furthermore, the driveway/access road design must detail the following:
(a) Long and cross sections of the driveway/access road;
(b) Contours, finish levels and gradients of the driveway/access road;
(c) Drainage;
(d) Pavement construction / cross section; and
(e) The provision of passing bays.
Agenda No. 20 Page 54 14 October 2019 The engineering plans and specifications must be prepared and certified by an accredited professional Civil Engineer to the approval of the Executive Manager - Engineering Services.
6. The construction works must be undertaken in accordance with the approved drawings. Works must be to the satisfaction and approval of the Executive Manager - Engineering Services and include the following:
(a) ‘No Parking’/’Keep Clear’ signage must be installed for the turning bay;
(b) visitor carparking signs must be installed for the one visitor carparking space;
(c) signage noting residential parking for the existing resident installed for the associated car parking spaces;
(d) parking and vehicle circulation roadways and pedestrian paths must be provided with bollard lighting;
(e) on-site stormwater detention for the new dwelling unit must be installed; and
(f) stormwater discharge from all new impervious areas must be disposed of by gravity to Council’s stormwater infrastructure.
7. 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.
8. Erosion/siltation infiltration control measures must be applied during construction works to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager – Engineering Services.
9. Prior to the occupation of the new dwelling the following works must be completed to the satisfaction of the Council:
a) The parking areas shown on the endorsed plans;
b) Installation of the signage for the parking spaces;
c) Establishment of the garden and landscape areas shown on the endorsed landscape plans; and
d) Drainage works;
10. All waste material generated by the development or from other sources must be contained in appropriate building waste containers for periodic removal to a licensed disposal site. The receptacle must be of a size to adequately contain the amount of waste generated and must be appropriately located on the subject site and must not impede residential traffic or parking at any time.
11. The conditions as determined by TasWater, and set out in the attached Appendix A, form part of this permit.
Agenda No. 20 Page 55 14 October 2019 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. Any proposal to stage the development is subject to the separate approval of Council.
C. An application for Notifiable Plumbing Work must be lodged with Council before commencing any work.
D. A drainage design plan at a scale of 1:200, designed by a qualified hydraulic engineer, showing the location of the existing and proposed sewer and stormwater house connection drains; including the pipe sizes, pits and driveway drainage, must be submitted with the application for Plumbing Permit.
E. The Developer should not allocate any property address numbers for the proposed units.
New property addresses have been allocated as follows:
Unit No. Allocated Property Address 1 1/233 Roslyn Avenue, Blackmans Bay - (Existing dwelling) 2 2/233 Roslyn Avenue, Blackmans Bay
These numbers must then be referenced on design and As-Constructed drawings as well as any Strata Plans lodged for sealing.
For Against For Against Cr Bastone Cr Street Cr Cordover Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Westwood Cr Grace Cr Winter Cr Midgley Cr Wriedt
Attachments:
1. Location Plan (1) 2. TasWater Conditions (2) 3. Proposal Plans (18)
Agenda No. 20 Page 56 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 57 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 58 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 59 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 60 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 61 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 62 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 63 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 64 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 65 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 66 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 67 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 68 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 69 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 70 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 71 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 72 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 73 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 74 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 75 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 76 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 77 14 October 2019 FILE NO DA-2019-343 DATE 2 OCTOBER 2019 OFFICER VICKY SHILVOCK - PLANNING OFFICER ENDORSED BY TASHA TYLER-MOORE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
10.4 DA-2019-343 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR DWELLING, INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AT 2 BELHAVEN AVENUE, TAROONA FOR ALL URBAN PLANNING PTY LTD
Application Number: DA-2019-343 Applicant: All Urban Planning Pty Ltd Owner: Golden Land Tasmania Pty Ltd Zoning: Low Density Residential – Area C Discretions: Building envelope, landslide code and heritage precinct Existing Land Use: Residential No. of Representations: Three (3) Planning Issues: Building envelope, landslide code and heritage precinct Recommendation: Approval with conditions
1 THE PROPOSAL IN DETAIL
1.1 The Proposal
The proposal is for the demolition of an existing circa 1955 single storey brick dwelling and the construction of a new two storey brick and weatherboard 377m2 six bedroom, four bathroom dwelling with an integrated double garage setback to the rear of the lot.
1.2 The Site
The subject site is located in the Low Density Residential Zone on the corner of the Channel Highway and Belhaven Avenue, Taroona and has a site area of 993m2. The site has direct access from Belhaven Avenue, Taroona.
Agenda No. 20 Page 78 14 October 2019
Figure 1: The subject site is shown outlined in yellow. (Image: Council's GIS mapping system)
1.3 Background
The existing dwelling, a circa 1955 single storey brick dwelling is located on the edge of a landslip plate and exhibits cracking displacement in every wall, ceiling and some floors. A geotechnical report (William C Cromer Pty Ltd Consulting Engineers) submitted with the application indicates that:
The house is sited on the south west corner of the very large slow moving School Creek Landslide(SCL);
The house itself is almost entirely within the medium active band of the landslip;
The structural problems of the house are extensive- both internally and externally;
Movement of the house sewer line has caused the pipe to leak and is a health hazard;
Existing footings are relatively shallow and rest on reactive clay;
The movement has occurred since the construction of the house in the 1950’s. Movement since the 1950’s has been about 400mm;
The movement is intermittent and may be stable for a few years then become active;
The damage to the house cannot be adequately repaired in its current location on the active SCL;
Consideration should be given to demolishing the house;
Agenda No. 20 Page 79 14 October 2019 A new replacement house slightly north of the existing could be built with well- designed footings to acceptably withstand the ground movement.
The site is located within the Belhaven Avenue Heritage Precinct and a Heritage report undertaken by Heritage consultant Graeme Corney recommends that the house should be demolished and replaced with a new structure that is:
Carefully sited to avoid landslip; and
Designed to respect the characteristics of the precinct as much as possible.
2 PLANNING ASSESSMENT
2.1 Statutory Implications
The land is zoned Low Density Residential under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (the Scheme). The proposal has been assessed under the Residential Use Class provisions of the Scheme. The proposal is discretionary.The relevant parts of the Scheme are:
Part 12.0 Low Density Residential
Code E3.0 – Landslide Code
Code E6.0 – Parking and Access Code
Code E7.0 – Stormwater Management Code
Code E13.0 – Historic Heritage Code
The following discretions apply to the development:
(a) Clause 12.4.2 A3 The proposal would not be contained within the building envelope as shown in Diagram 12.4.2C of the Scheme;
(b) Clause 3.7.1 A1 of the Landslides Code as the site is within a medium active landslide hazard area;
(c) Clause 7.7.1 A1 of the Stormwater Code. The proposal requires a pump to dispose of stormwater into the Council infrastructure;
(d) Clause 13.8.1 A1 of the Historic Heritage Code. The proposal includes demolition of a dwelling within a heritage precinct; and
(e) Clause 13.8.2 A1 and A2 of the Historic Heritage Code as the proposal includes construction of a new dwelling within a heritage precinct
Council's assessment of this proposal should also consider the issues raised in the representations, the outcomes of any relevant State Policies and the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
2.2 Public Consultation
The application was advertised in accordance with the requirements of s.57 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (from 7 September to 20 September 2019). Three representations were received during the public exhibition period.
The following issues were raised by the representors:
Agenda No. 20 Page 80 14 October 2019 (a) Proposal outside of the building envelope
(b) Overlooking into adjoining lots
(c) Overshadowing
(d) On street carparking
(e) Future use of dwelling
2.3 Strategic Planning
The relevant strategies associated with the Scheme are as follows:
Clause 12.0 Low Density Residential Zone
Zone purpose statement of the Low Density Residential zone
The relevant zone purpose statements of the Low Density Residential zone are:
12.1.1.1 To provide for residential use or development on larger lots in residential areas where there are infrastructure or environmental constraints that limit development.
12.1.1.4 To provide for existing low density residential areas that usually do not have reticulated services and have limited further subdivision potential.
As discussed later in the report, the proposal for a single residential dwelling meets the relevant zone purpose statements.
The Scheme details separate Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements for the main towns in the municipal area. The following Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements are relevant to the assessment of this application.
Clause 12.1.2 Local Area Objectives
TAROONA Local Area Objectives Implementation Strategy
(a) The relative low residential density of (a) Infill development should only be Taroona will be maintained and any encouraged on sites convenient to urban significant change to higher densities is facilities and services. to be avoided. (b) Existing larger lot sizes are to be (b) Areas within Taroona that are zoned retained in order that there is sufficient Low Density Residential are to be land to accommodate substantial developed so that both visual landscape vegetation on site and provide for the and natural environmental values are desired landscape and natural amenity protected. with only minimal expansion of the existing urban footprint permitted.
As discussed later in the report, the proposal which would involve the construction of a new two storey dwelling within a large lot would continue to contribute to maintaining the residential amenity and visual landscape of Taroona.
Clause 12.1.3 – Desired Future Character Statements
Agenda No. 20 Page 81 14 October 2019
TAROONA Desired Future Character Statements Implementation Strategy (a) Taroona is to continue to be a (a) Multi-unit housing is to be seaside suburb mainly containing single discouraged other than in the vicinity of detached dwellings with established the Taroona shopping centre. landscaped gardens. (b)The visual amenity of hillsides and (b)The existing neighbourhood character skylines is retained by providing for that is associated with the area's larger lots that are able to retain sufficient landscape and environmental values native vegetation. Native vegetation is to should be protected. be protected along the coastline and alongside gullies and watercourses. In some cases these areas also provide a buffer or transition between more closely settled urban areas and other areas with high natural values.
The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the Desired Future Character Statements for Taroona contained in Clause 12.1.3 as the proposal would provide a single detached dwelling and maintain the areas landscape values.
2.4 Zone
The site is zoned Low Density Residential under the Scheme. This zone provides a range of Use and Development Standards and the proposal is assessed against the relevant provisions as follows:
Clause 12.4.2 Setbacks and building envelope
A1 specifies the street setback requirements, which includes 4.5m from the primary frontage and 3m on the other frontage (as it is a corner). The proposal easily satisfies the Acceptable Solution with a 20m setback to Belhaven Ave and an 8.5m setback to Channel Highway.
A2 requires a 5.5m setback from the frontage for a garage or carport which the proposal easily meets with a 20m setback from Belhaven Ave.
A3 of the Scheme sets the requirements for the containment of a dwelling within a building envelope. The eastern gabled end of the proposed dwelling does not conform to the permitted building envelope. See Figure 2.
Figure 2: The proposal from the southern elevation
Agenda No. 20 Page 82 14 October 2019 The proposal must be assessed against the performance criteria which states:
P3
The siting and scale of a dwelling must:
(a) not cause unreasonable loss of amenity by:
(i) reduction in sunlight to a habitable room (other than a bedroom) of a dwelling on an adjoining lot; or
(ii) overshadowing the private open space of a dwelling on an adjoining lot; or
(iii) overshadowing of an adjoining vacant lot; or
(iv) visual impacts caused by the apparent scale, bulk or proportions of the dwelling when viewed from an adjoining lot; and
(b) provide separation between dwellings on adjoining lots that is compatible with that prevailing in the surrounding area.
The proposal is located to the west of the dwelling at 4 Belhaven Ave with a separation distance of 5 metres and south of the dwelling at 116 Channel Hwy with a separation distance of 15 metres and will not overshadow habitable rooms or private open space of dwellings on adjoining lots between 9am – 3pm on 21 June.
Figure 3: The proposal location outlined in red in relation to adjoining lots
The scale and bulk of the proposed dwelling is higher and larger than the existing dwelling that it will replace, however the visual impact will be reduced through the articulation of walls and the use of a variety of external materials, decking and windows to provide contrast on both the eastern and northern elevations.
Currently there is extensive vegetation screening between the dwellings, which will be partially lost if the proposal is constructed. The visual amenity of the site could be enhanced through landscaping. If approved a condition of the planning permit is to include a landscape plan for the proposal for the front boundaries adjacent to the Channel Highway and Belhaven Avenue
Agenda No. 20 Page 83 14 October 2019 The proposed siting of the dwelling provides separation that is consistent with other development within the prevailing area, which contains a mixture of both single and two storey single detached dwellings.
A4 is not applicable as no trees of high significance exist on the site.
12.4.3 Site coverage and private open space
A1 requires that site coverage is no more than 25% and at least 25% of the site is permeable. The proposal has site coverage of 21.85% and permeability of 58.78%, therefore the Acceptable Solution has been met.
A2 specifies the requirement for private open space including that it must have a minimum area of 24m2 in one area; have a minimum dimension of 4m; be directly accessible from a living area located to the north, north east or northwest; only be located forward of the dwelling if it is to provide good northern aspect; have a gradient less than 1 in 10; and, not be used for parking or access. The private open space of the dwelling is located in the form of a balcony on the upper level (in addition to large areas on the ground level). The private open space satisfies all the requirements of the Acceptable Solution.
12.4.4 Sunlight and overshadowing
A1 requires a dwelling must have at least one habitable room (other than a bedroom) window that faces between 30 degrees west of north and 30 degrees east of north. The proposal satisfies the requirement.
12.4.5 Width of openings for garages and carports
A1 relates to widths of openings for garages and carports within 12m of a frontage. However, this is not applicable to this proposal as the garage is setback in excess of 12m.
12.4.6 Privacy
A1 relates to protection of privacy from elevated decks, roof terraces or parking areas. The proposal includes an upper level balcony on the northern elevation; however as it is in excess of 3m it meets the Acceptable Solution and does not require screening. It should be noted that the northern boundary is defined as a side boundary, not a rear boundary, as the site has the two frontages and it is a side to the Channel Hwy frontage.
A2 relates to protection of privacy from elevated (above 1m of NGL) windows or glazed doors. The proposal has upper level windows facing neighbouring sites, however as they have a setback greater than 3m there is no requirement for them to be screened or obscured.
12.4.7 Frontage fences
This clause is not applicable as the proposal does not include a new front fence.
2.5 Code Matters
E3.0 Landslide Code
Clause E3.7.1 A1 of the Scheme is relevant to the application as the site is located within a medium active landslide hazard area.
Agenda No. 20 Page 84 14 October 2019 A1 has no acceptable solution therefore it must be assessed against the Performance Criteria.
P1 states:
Buildings and works must satisfy all of the following:
(a) no part of the buildings and works is in a High Landslide Hazard Area;
(b) the landslide risk associated with the buildings and works is either:
(i) acceptable risk; or
(ii) capable of feasible and effective treatment through hazard management measures, so as to be tolerable risk.
No part of the building or works is located in a high landslide hazard area
A Geotechnical report “Geotechnical investigations of stressed house at 2 Belhaven Avenue, Taroona” 9 April 2019 by WC Cromer Pty Ltd Consulting engineering, groundwater and environmental geologists was submitted by the Applicant.
The report concluded that structural damage to the existing house cannot be adequately repaired, that the movement is continuing and consideration should be given to demolition of the existing house.
It was also stated that a new house located to the north of the existing one on the property of a different footing design could be built to acceptably withstand the ground movement
E6.0 Parking and Access Code
Council’s Development Engineers assessed the proposal and are satisfied that all of the Acceptable Solutions have been met.
Code 7.0 Stormwater Management
The clauses contained under Code E7.0 are relevant to all applications.
A1 of the Scheme requires that stormwater be disposed of by gravity into the public stormwater infrastructure. The proposal includes a provision for pumping the stormwater and does not meet the acceptable solution and must be assessed against the performance criteria.
P1 states:
Stormwater from new impervious surfaces must be managed by any of the following:
(a) disposed of on-site with soakage devices having regard to the suitability of the site, the system design and water sensitive urban design principles
(b) collected for re-use on the site;
(c) disposed of to public stormwater infrastructure via a pump system which is designed, maintained and managed to minimise the risk of failure to the satisfaction of the Council.
Council’s Development Engineers reviewed the proposal and have advised that the proposal indicates that stormwater is to be collected then pumped and disposed of into
Agenda No. 20 Page 85 14 October 2019 the roadside gutter (Council’s infrastructure). The proposal meets the acceptable solution P1(c).
Code 13 Historic Heritage
2 Belhaven Avenue is located within the Belhaven Heritage Precinct and the proposal includes the demolition of an existing circa 1950s brick single dwelling.
E13.8.1 Demolition
A1 has no acceptable solution so must be assessed against the performance criteria.
P1 states:
Demolition must not result in the loss of any of the following:
(a) buildings or works that contribute to the historic cultural heritage significance of the precinct;
(b) fabric or landscape elements, including plants, trees, fences, paths, outbuildings and other items, that contribute to the historic cultural heritage significance of the precinct;
unless all of the following apply;
(i) there are, environmental, social, economic or safety reasons of greater value to the community than the historic cultural heritage values of the place;
(ii) there are no prudent or feasible alternatives;
(iii) opportunity is created for a replacement building that will be more complementary to the heritage values of the precinct.
The Applicant submitted a report 2 Belhaven Avenue, Taroona. Heritage Impact Assessment 24 June 2019 undertaken by Architect and Heritage Consultant Graeme Corney which addresses the proposed demolition of the existing house.
It was acknowledged in the report that the proposed demolition clearly will result in the loss of a building that contributes to the historic cultural significance of the precinct.
It is considered by the Heritage Consultant that the retention of the existing dwelling with its structural faults associated with the School Creek Landslide may have an economic impact on surrounding property values. Additionally there are safety issues associated with the failure of the dwelling: with cracking walls, movement and more recently cracked sewerage pipes servicing the house.
The Geotechnical report provided advice that there is no solution to the structural movement of the existing dwelling and that the movement will continue and therefore there are no prudent for feasible alternatives
The demolition of the existing dwelling will provide an opportunity for a replacement house within the lot in a structurally sound location. It is considered by the Heritage Consultant that a replacement house would be more complimentary to the heritage values of the precinct than the deterioration or abandonment of the existing house retained in situ.
Agenda No. 20 Page 86 14 October 2019 E13.8.2 Buildings and works other than demolition
There is no acceptable solution for A1 and A2 and therefore the application must be assessed against the performance criteria.
P1 states:
Design and siting of buildings and works must not result in detriment to the historic cultural heritage significance of the precinct, as listed in Table E13.2.
The Applicant submitted a report Heritage based design guidelines for redevelopment of 2 Belhaven Avenue, Taroona Graeme Corney 9 May 2019 which reviewed the twelve characteristics of Heritage Precinct T4(Belhaven Avenue) against twenty one properties in the vicinity of the subject site and developed a series of design guidelines (See Figure 4) for the proposed redevelopment of the site.
Figure 4: Design guideline for replacement dwelling
These guidelines were then used to inform the design of the proposed dwelling. It is considered that the proposal respects the precinct characteristics of orientation, materials, roof form and height and will not result in detriment to the historic cultural heritage significance of the precinct.
Council agrees with the assessment and recommendations of the report.
P2 states:
Design and siting of buildings and works must comply with any relevant design criteria / conservation policy listed in Table E13.2, except if a heritage place of an architectural style different from that characterising the precinct.
No design criteria are listed in Table E13.2, however the Applicant has made an effort to respect the existing precinct characteristics and employ the use of a series of design guidelines to design a dwelling that will have no adverse impacts on heritage values
The proposal will be well setback from the street further minimising the impact on the existing streetscape.
The proposed dwelling will have a gable style roof, use of weatherboard, brick and Colorbond external materials, which is consistent with the existing dwellings in the area.
The proposed garage which is located directly at the end of the driveway proposes to use salvaged brick from the demolition for the facing.
Agenda No. 20 Page 87 14 October 2019 3 REFERRALS AND REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Internal Referrals
The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer who advised that the application complies with the relevant Acceptable Solutions and Performance Criteria.
3.2 External Referrals
The application was referred to TasWater in accordance with the requirements of the Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008. TasWater has provided its response to the Council Notice of Planning Application Referral including conditions of approval to be included in any permit issued for the development. A copy of the conditions from TasWater has been included in the attachments to this report.
3.3 Representations
The following issues were raised by the representors:
(a) Proposal outside of the building envelope
The eastern gable of the dwelling projects outside of the building envelope. The proposal satisfies the requirements of the performance criteria under Clause 12.4.2 (P3), as discussed earlier in the report.
(b) Overlooking into adjoining lots
As the windows and balcony are in excess of 3m from the boundary the proposal meets the requirements of the Planning Scheme and is not considered as overlooking.
(c) Overshadowing
The proposal is located to the north and west of adjoining dwellings and satisfies the requirements of the performance criteria under Clause 12.4.2 (P3), as discussed within the report.
(d) On street carparking
The proposal meets the requirements for on-site parking under Clause E6.6.1 the Scheme. On street carparking is not relevant to the application.
(e) Future use of dwelling
The use of the dwelling is for residential purposes, the future use of the dwelling is not relevant to the application.
4 STATE POLICIES AND ACT OBJECTIVES
The proposal is consistent with the outcomes of the State Policies, including those of the State Coastal Policy.
The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
5 CONCLUSION
The proposed development at 2 Belhaven Avenue, Taroona will not result in an unreasonable adverse impact on the landscape or residential amenity of the area.
Agenda No. 20 Page 88 14 October 2019 The proposal will provide an opportunity for a replacement dwelling within the lot in a structurally sound location. It is considered that a replacement dwelling would be more complementary to the heritage values of the precinct than the deterioration or abandonment of the existing house retained in situ.
The character of the area is generally single level dwellings, with a small number of two storey dwellings in the prevailing area including newer developments within Belhaven Avenue. Therefore the proposal is not out of character for the area.
There were a number of representations in relation to this application, however the proposal is not beyond the acceptable parameters of the Performance Criteria. The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions.
6 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That the Planning Authority resolves that the development application for dwelling, including demolition of existing dwelling at 2 Belhaven Avenue, Taroona for All Urban Planning Pty Ltd 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. DA2019-343 and Council Plan Reference No. P2 submitted on 26 August 2019. 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 development must be in accordance with the recommendation of “Geotechnical investigations of stressed house at 2 Belhaven Avenue, Taroona” 9 April 2019 by WC Cromer Pty Ltd Consulting engineering, groundwater and environmental geologists.
3. Prior to the issue of a building permit for the development, a landscaping plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of the Council. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plan must show:
a) Landscaping to front boundaries adjacent to the Channel Highway and Belhaven Avenue;
b) A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs/small trees, grasses and ground cover. The proposed vegetation must include a variety of species with varying heights to create diversity, interest and amenity; and
c) The location of each species to be planted and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other surface material.
The landscaping shown on the endorsed plan must be completed to the satisfaction of the Council within thirty (30) days of the issue of a Completion Certificate (Building). The landscaping must be maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Council, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
4. The conditions as determined by TasWater, and set out in the attached Appendix A, form part of this permit.
Agenda No. 20 Page 89 14 October 2019 5. 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. A Permit to carry out works within a Council road reservation must be obtained prior to any works commencing within the Council road reservation.
6. Erosion/siltation infiltration control measures must be applied during construction works to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager – Engineering Services.
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 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 Against For Against Cr Bastone Cr Street Cr Cordover Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Westwood Cr Grace Cr Winter Cr Midgley Cr Wriedt
Attachments: 1. TasWater Conditions (2) 2. Location Plan (1) 3. Proposal Plans (5)
Agenda No. 20 Page 90 14 October 2019
Appendix A TasWater Conditions
Agenda No. 20 Page 91 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 92 14 October 2019
Attachment 1 Location Plan – 2 Belhaven Avenue, Taroona
Agenda No. 20 Page 93 14 October 2019 Attachment 2 Proposal Plans
Agenda No. 20 Page 94 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 95 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 96 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 97 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 98 14 October 2019 FILE NO DA-2019-403 DATE 24 SEPTEMBER 2019 OFFICER VICKY SHILVOCK - PLANNING OFFICER ENDORSED BY TASHA TYLER MOORE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
10.5 DA-2019-403 - APPLICATION FOR TWO MULTIPLE DWELLINGS (ONE EXISTING) AND CHILDCARE FOR MR DL CHAMBERS AND MRS PY CHAMBERS AT 18 WILLOW AVENUE KINGSTON
Application Number: DA-2019-403 Applicant: Smeekes Drafting Owner: Mr DL Chambers and Mrs PY Chambers Zoning: General Residential Discretions: Non-residential use, setback, building envelope, Scenic Landscapes code Existing Land Use: Residential No. of Representations: Three (3) Planning Issues: Non-residential use, setback, building envelope, Scenic Landscapes code Recommendation: Approval with conditions
1 THE PROPOSAL IN DETAIL
1.1 The Proposal
The proposal is for the construction of a two storey brick and weatherboard building containing:
a two bedroom unit on the upper level with an integrated deck and separate access; and
on the ground level a 75m2 open plan area for undertaking occasional child care including a kitchen and bathroom to the front of the existing dwelling;
the retention of an existing residential single dwelling and the relocation of the existing two car carport at the front of the dwelling to the rear, including the construction of a driveway adjacent to the building.
The proposal includes provision of six off street carparking spaces: two for each dwelling, a visitor carpark and occasional child care carpark. A single access would be from Willow Avenue.
The proposal is for the occupant of the new dwelling to operate a childcare for maximum 4 children within the dwelling building which would be considered as a ‘home based child care facility’. Typically a home based child care facility is a ‘no permit required’ use within the General Residential Zone, with the qualification that it operates in accordance with a licence under the Child Care Act 2001. However, the Applicant has advised that there is no existing licence under the Child Care Act 2001 therefore, it cannot be afforded the ‘no permit required’ status and instead must be considered as an ‘occasional care facility’ and it therefore is within a ‘discretionary’ use class.
Agenda No. 20 Page 99 14 October 2019 The proposed child care would operate between 7.15am – 6.30pm Monday to Friday and cater for up to four children. The owner, who will be acting as the carer, will undertake the necessary licencing and operational requirements for the facility in accordance with the provisions of the Child Care Act 2001.
1.2 The Site
The subject site is located in the General Residential Zone and has a site area of 1067m². An existing dwelling and carport are located at the site. The subject site has direct access from Willow Avenue (refer to Figure 1).
The site is connected to reticulated sewerage and stormwater. Vegetation has been removed from the property over subsequent years and no further vegetation would require removal for the construction of the development.
Figure 1: The subject site is shown outlined in yellow. (Image: Council's GIS mapping system)
2 PLANNING ASSESSMENT
2.1 Statutory Implications
The land at 18 Willow Avenue Kingston is zoned General Residential under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (the Scheme). The proposal has been assessed under the Residential and Non – Residential Use Class provisions of the Scheme. The proposal is discretionary.
The relevant parts of the Scheme are:
Part 10.0 – General Residential Zone
Code E6.0 – Parking and Access Code
Code E7.0 – Stormwater Management Code
Code E14.0 – Scenic Landscapes Code
Agenda No. 20 Page 100 14 October 2019 The following discretions apply to the development:
(a) Clause 10.3.1 (A1) The proposed hours of operation do not meet the acceptable solution
(b) Clause 10.3.1 (A2) No details were provided on noise emissions
(c) Clause 10.3.1 (A3) No details were provided on external lighting
(d) Clause 10.4.2 (A3) - The proposal would not be contained within the building envelope as shown in Diagram 10.4.2A of the Scheme
(e) Clause 10.4.3 (A2) - The proposed private open space for the first floor Unit is less than 12m2
(f) Clause 14.7.2 (A2) – The application involves works within a Scenic Landscape Area
Council's assessment of this proposal should also consider the outcomes of any relevant State Policies and the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
2.2 Public Consultation
The application was advertised in accordance with the requirements of s.57 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (from 4/09/2019 to 17/09/2019). Three representations were received during the public exhibition period.
The following issues/comments were raised in objection to the proposal by the representors:
(a) Non-compliance with the home based business requirements
(b) Proposal outside of building envelope causing overshadowing
(c) Inadequate private open space for the dwelling
(d) Loss of privacy from upper level windows
(e) Doesn’t meet the vehicle access and carparking requirements
2.3 Strategic Planning
The relevant strategies associated with the Scheme are as follows:
General Residential Zone
Clause 10.1.1 – Zone purpose statement of the General Residential zone
The relevant zone purpose statements of the General Residential zone are:
10.1.1.1 To provide for residential use or development that accommodates a range of dwelling types at suburban densities, where full infrastructure services are available or can be provided.
10.1.1.2 To provide for compatible non-residential uses that primarily serve the local community.
10.1.1.3 To provide for the efficient utilisation of services.
Agenda No. 20 Page 101 14 October 2019 10.1.1.5 To encourage residential development that respects neighbourhood character, natural landscape and provides a high standard of residential amenity.
10.1.1.6 To encourage urban consolidation and greater housing choice through a range of housing types and residential densities.
As discussed later in the report, the proposal for a multiple dwelling and occasional child care meets the relevant zone purpose statements.
Clause 10.1.2 – Local Area Objectives
KINGSTON Local Area Objectives Implementation Strategy (a) Kingston will be primarily maintained (a) New development should ensure that as residential area, with opportunities residential amenity is optimised by taken to protect natural features, maintaining the existing character of the improve local infrastructure and services area and providing quality infrastructure when appropriate where appropriate.
As discussed later in the report, the proposal which would involve the construction of a new two storey building containing a first floor two bedroom residential unit and a ground floor child care facility. Both of these proposed developments would contribute to providing appropriate services in the neighbourhood and maintaining the residential amenity of Kingston.
Clause 10.1.3 – Desired Future Character Statements
The Scheme details separate Desired Future Character Statements for the main towns in the municipal area including Kingston. The following Desired Future Character Statements are relevant to the assessment of this application.
KINGSTON Desired Future Character Statements Implementation Strategy (a) Kingston is to include a mix of (a) While traditional suburban areas are housing types that provide for a range of to be retained as appropriate, multi-unit choices and affordability options. housing is to be directed towards those areas that are relatively close to central Kingston or other significant business or commercial precincts. (b) The ageing population should be well (b) Aged care facilities and associated accommodated within Kingston enabling housing and infrastructure are to be residents to have easy access to encouraged within appropriate areas. relevant services. (c) The Kingston area is characterised (c) The subdivision or development of by vegetated corridors and backdrops land should be designed in a manner to and this visual appearance should be protect or enhance vegetated corridors protected. and backdrops.
Agenda No. 20 Page 102 14 October 2019 The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the Desired Character Statements for Kingston Beach contained in Clause 10.1.3 as the proposal would provide for multi – unit housing and the proposed child care facility is within a residential area and is relatively close to Kingston and Huntingfield business precincts.
2.4 Zone
The site is zoned General Residential under the Scheme. This zone provides for a range of use and development standards. The application has been assessed against all standards within the General Residential Zone.
Clause 10.3.1 Non-residential use
A1 sets the hours of business operations. The proposed child care facility proposes to operate between 7.15am – 6.30pm Monday to Friday and would not meet the acceptable solutions of 8am – 6pm daily.
The proposal must be assessed against performance criteria which state:
P1
Hours of operation must not have an unreasonable impact upon the residential amenity through commercial vehicle movements, noise or other emissions that are unreasonable in their timing, duration or extent.
The hours of operation would be a variation of 45min earlier in the morning (7.15am instead of 8.00am) and an additional 30min in the evening (6.30pm instead of 6.00pm).
It is considered that the nature of the use coupled with the minimal extension of the times outside of the Acceptable Solution will mean that the impacts will be minimal. For those times of day it is likely that the children would be within the building and therefore emanating very little noise. The vehicle movements of parents/carers dropping the children off are a typical residential noise which would be intermittent and unlikely to all occur at the one time.
Therefore it is considered that the variation of the times will not be to the detriment of the amenity of the area. Furthermore the use is restricted to week days thereby protecting amenity on the weekends when noise expectations are different.
A2 sets the level of noise emissions at the boundary of the site. No specific details were provided in the Application however it is considered very unlikely that the nature of the use would breach those levels. It would be appropriate to include a condition as part of any approval that the use complies with the Acceptable Solution.
A3 sets the requirements for external lighting within the premises. No specific details were provided in the Application. It is considered appropriate that any approval granted include a condition that the use must comply with the acceptable solutions.
A4 sets the requirements for commercial vehicle movements within the premises. The proposal does not include any commercial vehicle movements and is therefore not applicable.
Clause 10.4.1 Residential density
A1 sets the requirements for residential density for multiple dwellings. The proposal meets the acceptable solution as the site area for multiple dwellings is 533m2.
Agenda No. 20 Page 103 14 October 2019 Clause 10.4.2 Setbacks and building envelope for all dwellings
A1 sets requirements for setback from the frontage. The setback is 9m from the frontage and complies with the acceptable solution.
A2 sets requirements for setback from the frontage for carport or garage. The proposed carport will be relocated to the rear of the lot and meets the acceptable solution.
A3 sets the requirements for the containment of a dwelling within a building envelope. The proposed building would be located within 900mm adjacent to the southeastern side boundary and the proposed relocated carport would be located in the northeast corner of the lot 2m from the rear boundary and would not meet the acceptable solution which requires that the development be contained within the building envelope.
The proposal must be assessed against performance criteria which state:
P3
The siting and scale of a dwelling must:
(a) not cause unreasonable loss of amenity by:
(i) reduction in sunlight to a habitable room (other than a bedroom) of a dwelling on an adjoining lot; or
(ii) overshadowing the private open space of a dwelling on an adjoining lot; or
(iii) overshadowing of an adjoining vacant lot; or
(iv) visual impacts caused by the apparent scale, bulk or proportions of the dwelling when viewed from an adjoining lot; and
(b) provide separation between dwellings on adjoining lots that is compatible with that prevailing in the surrounding area.
The proposed dwelling projects outside of the building envelope on a small portion of the southeast corner. See Figure 2. The proposal is located downslope to the west north west of Units 1 and 2, 16 Willow Avenue and both units are separated from the proposal by an access driveway. Unit 1 has a separation of 9.1 metres due south east and Unit 2 has a separation distance of 11 metres to the north east from the proposal.
The separation distance from Units 1 and 2, 16 Willow Avenue are adequate to not cause an unreasonable loss of amenity, through a reduction in sunlight or overshadowing.
Visually the proposed dwelling would not be of a scale or bulk to impact adjoining lots, as it is generally setback in excess of 1 metre from the south east side boundary and its exterior surfaces contain a mixture of brick and timber weatherboard materials to provide contrast.
The separation between dwellings on adjoining lots is consistent with other development within the prevailing area, which contains a mixture of single and multi- dwelling residential development.
The proposal would not overlook the adjoining lots to the east as it has no elevated windows or doors to overlook adjoining neighbours.
Agenda No. 20 Page 104 14 October 2019 The proposed relocated carport would be located within 2 metres of the rear boundary and given that the building is non-habitable and open on four sides, it is considered that its visual appearance is minimal with a maximum height of 3 metres. It is considered that it generally is compatible with the development of ancillary outbuildings that prevail within Kingston.
Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the requirements of Clause 10.4.2(P3) (a) and (b) of the Scheme.
Figure 2: Proposal and building envelope
A4 sets requirements for vegetation removal. The proposal does not require the removal of vegetation and meets the acceptable solution.
Clause 10.4.3 – Site coverage and private open space for all dwellings
A1 sets the requirements for site coverage and private open space per dwelling. The subject site has an area of 1067m2 and the total building footprint is 267m2, giving it total site coverage of 26.9% which meets the acceptable solution.
A2 sets the requirements for an area of private open space for each dwelling. The proposed first floor unit requires an area of private open space that is 12m2 The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution as it is proposing a 9.6m2 deck which is orientated to the southeast and southwest.
The proposal must be assessed against performance criteria which state:
P2
A dwelling must have private open space that:
a) includes an area that is capable of serving as an extension of the dwelling for outdoor relaxation, dining, entertaining and children’s play and that is:
(i) conveniently located in relation to a living area of the dwelling; and
(ii) orientated to take advantage of sunlight.
The proposal’s first floor unit has a finished floor level of 1.8 metres, contains a 9.6m2 deck and is orientated to the southeast and southwest. The deck is centrally located to the proposed open plan kitchen, living and dining area; and would serve as an extension to the dwelling for outdoor relaxation.
Agenda No. 20 Page 105 14 October 2019 Although it is not orientated to the north it would take advantage of the westerly afternoon sun being orientated southeast and southwest. The proposal includes plans for landscaping to the front and side of the lot and the views from the proposed deck in the future would be across to extensive vegetation planting’s providing visual amenity. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of Clause 10.4.3 (P2) of the Scheme.
Clause 10.4.4 Sunlight and overshadowing for all dwellings.
A1 sets the requirements for window orientation in a habitable room. The proposed elevated unit has a northeast facing window of twenty eight degrees which meets the acceptable solution.
A2 sets the requirements for location of multiple dwelling to the north of a habitable room of another dwelling on the same site. The proposal meets the acceptable solution.
A3 sets the requirements for location of multiple dwelling to the north of the private open space of another dwelling on the same site. The proposal meets the acceptable solution.
Clause 10.4.5 Width of openings for garages and carports for all dwellings
A1 sets the requirements for the width of openings for garages and carports for all dwellings. The proposal meets the acceptable solution as the carport would be located in excess of 12m from the frontage
Clause 10.4.6 Privacy for all dwellings
A1 sets the requirements for setbacks for balconies, decks, roof terrace, parking spaces and carports. The elevated deck and porch are setback 9m from frontage and 5m from side boundary The proposal meets the acceptable solution.
A2 sets the requirements for setbacks and separation for windows of habitable rooms. The proposal does not have any windows within 3m of side boundary and meets the acceptable solution.
A3 sets the requirements for separation of habitable room windows from shared driveway for multiple dwellings The proposal complies with the requirements and meets the acceptable solution.
Clause 10.4.7 Frontage fences for all dwellings
A1 sets the requirements for frontage fences. The proposal does not include a frontage fence and is therefore not applicable
Clause 10.4.8 Waste storage area for multiple dwellings
A1 sets the requirements for Waste storage and recycle bin areas for multiple dwellings. The proposal meets the acceptable solutions.
2.5 Codes
Code 5.0 Road and Railway Assets
Clause E5.5.1 Existing road accesses and junctions
The application was referred internally to Council’s Development Engineer who provided advice that that there would be four(4) vehicle movements per day per child
Agenda No. 20 Page 106 14 October 2019 for the childcare with a total number of vehicle movements generated being sixteen (16) vehicle movements per day based on a maximum of four children. The additional dwelling is expected to generate eight (8) vehicle movements per day. The total vehicle movements generated is twenty four (24) vehicle movements per day, which is less than 40 vehicle movements per day. Therefore the proposal complies with the acceptable solution
Code 6.0 Parking and Access
The clauses contained under Code E6.0 are relevant to all applications. This application proposes maintaining the existing access and providing for additional carparking.
Clause E6.6.1 – Number of car parking spaces
The proposal requires six parking spaces, which have been provided, including two for each dwelling, a visitor car park and one for the child care facility. Only 0.25 of a car park space is required for each child in attendance. The proposal meets the acceptable solution.
Clause E6.7.1 - Number of vehicular accesses
Clause E6.7.1 requires properties to have no more than one vehicle access per street frontage, which the proposal complies with.
Clause E6.7.3 Vehicular passing areas along an access
The proposed 30 metre long access to the rear dwelling and carport is expected to serve 2 vehicles per day, there would be minimal traffic impact having regard the volume of traffic generated. The proposal satisfies P1(c) of the Scheme.
Clause E6.7.4 On-site turning
On-site turning is not required if the access serves no more than 2 dwelling units according to the Scheme. The proposal include two multiple dwellings and home based childcare. On-site turning has not been provided as part of the application, hence the proposal must be assessed against the performance criteria.
There are sufficient spaces at the front parking areas to allow vehicles to reverse and exit in a forward direction without causing conflict to the adjacent bay. A condition will be included requiring widening of the rear driveway to allow for a turning bay to enable vehicles to exit in a forward direction. The proposal satisfies P1(c) of the Scheme.
Clause E6.7.5 Layout Parking Areas
The minimum parking layout in AS2890 Part 1: Off-street car parking (Figure 2.2) is 5.4 metres long and 2.4 metres wide. The parking bays shown on the plans submitted are 5.4 metres long and 2.6 metres wide. The aisle width complies with AS2890 based on the most logical vehicle reverse movements.
Code 7.0 Stormwater Management
The clauses contained under Code E7.0 are relevant to all applications. This application proposes for additional roof area to be disposed of into the Council stormwater infrastructure. It meets the acceptable solution.
Agenda No. 20 Page 107 14 October 2019 Code E14.0 Scenic Landscapes
Clause E14.7.2 Appearance of Buildings and woks with Scenic Landscape Areas
A1 is relevant as the proposed works would be visible from a public space, namely Willow Avenue. The proposal therefore must be assessed against the performance criteria which states:
P1
Buildings visible from public spaces must maintain scenic landscape value by satisfying one or more of the following, as necessary:
(a) have external finishes that are non-reflective and coloured to blend with the landscape;
(b) be designed to:
(i) incorporate low roof lines that follow the natural form of the land;
(ii) minimise visual impact in height and bulk;
(iii) minimise cut and fill;
(c) be located below skylines;
(d) be located to take advantage of any existing native vegetation or exotic vegetation for visual screening purposes.
The proposed development complies with Performance Criteria as follows:
The proposed building would be located in excess of 9 metres from the frontage and behind a hardstand and parking area.
The topography and orientation of the lot and the cross fall of the land makes it difficult to construct a two storey building which would have low rooflines. . However, the proposal will minimise cut/fill and a conceptual landscape plan has been provided which demonstrates how the proposed building can be partially screened from a public space. See Figure 3.
The proposed building is not located on a skyline or ridgeline.
It is recommended that if the application is approved then a condition be required on the permit to develop a landscape plan for the site.
P2
Works visible from public spaces must maintain scenic landscape value by satisfying one or more of the following, as necessary;
(a) driveways and access tracks are as close as practical to running parallel with contours and are surfaced with dark materials;
(b) cut and fill is minimised;
(c) surfaces of retaining walls and batters are finished with a natural appearance;
(d) fences are post & wire or other designed of a similarly transparent appearance.
Agenda No. 20 Page 108 14 October 2019 The proposed development complies with Performance Criteria as follows:
Access would continue via the existing single access into the property from Willow Avenue and the proposal includes the construction of a hardstand area to provide for four carparking spaces and suitable turning at the front of the proposed building. The design of the driveway would curve slightly to the west to extend the driveway to the rear of the site.
Given the siting of the proposal, the orientation of the lot and the cross fall of the land it is difficult to construct a driveway which runs parallel with contours. However, the proposed driveway works will minimise cut/fill and a conceptual landscape plan has been provided which demonstrates how the proposed driveway can be partially screened from a public space. See Figure 3.
It is recommended that if the application is approved then a condition be required on the permit to develop a landscape plan for the site.
Figure 3: Proposed driveway and landscaping.
3 REFERRALS AND REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Internal Referrals
Engineering
The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer who advised that the application complies with the relevant Acceptable Solutions and Performance Criteria.
Environmental Planning
The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Planner who advised that the application complies with the relevant Acceptable Solutions and Performance Criteria.
3.2 External Referrals
There were no external referrals required as part of this application.
3.3 Representations
The following comments respond to the issues raised by the representors:
(a) Non-compliance with home based business requirements.
Agenda No. 20 Page 109 14 October 2019 The proposed home child care facility must comply with the provisions of the Child Care Act 2001 and is not considered a home based business under the definition of the Scheme. An advice clause to that effect will be included in any proposal.
(b) Proposal outside of building envelope causing overshadowing.
It is considered that the proposal meets the performance criteria of the Scheme.
The separation distance from Units 1 and 2, 16 Willow Avenue are adequate to not cause an unreasonable loss of amenity, through a reduction in sunlight or overshadowing. Visually the proposed dwelling would not be of a scale or bulk to impact adjoining lots, as it is generally setback in excess of 1 metre from the south east side boundary and its exterior surfaces contain a mixture of brick and timber weatherboard materials to provide contrast. The separation between dwellings on adjoining lots is consistent with other development within the prevailing area, which contains a mixture of single and multi-dwelling residential development.
(c) Inadequate private open space for the new dwelling
As discussed within the report earlier, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the performance criteria.
(d) Loss of privacy from upper level windows.
Clause 10.4.6 A2 refers to the screening of windows to a habitable room which have a finished floor level of more than 1 metre if within 3 metres of a side boundary. The window referred to is located in a bathroom, which is not considered a habitable room and is orientated to the south of the lot. The proposal meets the acceptable solution.
(e) Vehicle access and carparking
Council’s Development Engineer reviewed the requirements of the relevant clauses of Code E5.0 Road and Railway Assets and Code E6.0 Parking and Access and determined that the application met the acceptable solutions and/or the relevant performance criteria.
4 STATE POLICIES AND ACT OBJECTIVES
The proposal is consistent with the outcomes of the State Policies, including those of the State Coastal Policy.
The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
5 CONCLUSION
The proposed development of 18 Willow Avenue, Kingston will not result in an unreasonable adverse impact on the landscape or residential amenity of the area. There may be some minor visual impact due to the proximity of the building to the boundary; however the building would not dominate the view fields from adjoining properties as it is setback 9 metres from the frontage enabling clear views across to the west and Mount Wellington.
The character of the area is generally single level dwellings, with a small number of two storey dwellings in the prevailing area including Willow Avenue. Therefore the proposal is not out of character for the area.
Agenda No. 20 Page 110 14 October 2019 There were a number of representations in relation to this application; however the proposal is not beyond the acceptable parameters of the Performance Criteria.
The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions.
6 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That the Planning Authority resolves that the report of the Manager Development Services be received and that the development application for two multiple dwellings (one existing), home based child care facility and relocated carport at 18 Willow Avenue Kingston for Mr DL Chambers and Mrs PY Chambers 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. DA2019-403 and Council Plan Reference No. P2 submitted on 28 August 2019. 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. Operating hours of the child care are restricted to the following:
Monday – Friday: 7.15am – 6.30pm Saturday: nil Sunday: nil Public Holidays: nil
3. This approval is for a maximum number of four (4) children in attendance at the child care facility. Any increase in numbers of children is not permitted without the prior approval of Council.
4. Noise emissions measured at the boundary of the site must not exceed the following:
55 dB(A) (LAeq) between the hours of 8.00 am to 6.00 pm;
5dB(A) above the background (LA90) level or 40dB(A) (LAeq), whichever is the lower, between the hours of 6.00 pm to 8.00 am;
65dB(A) (LAmax) at any time.
5. External lighting of the childcare must comply with all of the following:
be turned off between 6:30 pm and 7:15 am, except for security lighting;
security lighting must be baffled to ensure they do not cause emission of light into adjoining private land.
6. The use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected through the:
a) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land;
b) Appearance of any building, works or materials;
Agenda No. 20 Page 111 14 October 2019 c) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil;
d) Presence of vermin.
7. All waste material generated by the development or from other sources must be contained in appropriate building waste containers for periodic removal to a licensed disposal site. The receptacle must be of a size to adequately contain the amount of waste generated and must be appropriately located on the subject site and must not impede residential traffic or parking at any time.
8. Prior to the issue of a building permit for the development, a landscaping plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of the Council. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plan must show:
a) Landscaping to front and southwestern side boundary of the new building;
b) A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs/small trees, grasses and ground cover. The proposed vegetation must include a variety of species with varying heights to create diversity, interest and amenity;
c) The location of each species to be planted and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other surface material; and
d) Fence design details.
The landscaping shown on the endorsed plan must be completed to the satisfaction of the Council within thirty (30) days of the issue of a Completion Certificate (Building). The landscaping must be maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Council, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
9. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, engineering design drawings must be submitted to Council for approval. Plans must be to satisfaction of the Executive Manager - Engineering Services and demonstrate that:
(a) Vehicle access complies with the Tasmanian Standard construction drawings;
(b) The car parking and vehicle manoeuvring areas would be of a sealed construction (concrete or asphalt) and comply with Australian Standard AS2890.1:2004 (Off street car parking);
(c) Visitor car parking signs would be installed for the visitor car parking space, prior to occupation of any dwelling;
(d) Signage noting residential parking for each unit would be installed for the car parking spaces, prior to occupation of any dwelling;
(e) Signage noting childcare parking would be installed for Parking Bay 3, prior to occupation of any dwelling or operation of child care facility;
(f) Parking and vehicle circulation roadways and pedestrian paths would be provided with bollard lighting, prior to occupation of any dwelling; and
(g) Stormwater discharge from all new impervious areas would be disposed of by gravity to public stormwater infrastructure.
Agenda No. 20 Page 112 14 October 2019 The engineering plans must also include, but not be limited to, detailed internal vehicular and pedestrian access, car parking, manoeuvring areas, and drainage services layouts. Furthermore, the driveway/access road design must detail the following:
(a) Long and cross sections of the driveway;
(b) Cut and fill batters and any stabilisation works required;
(c) Contours, finish levels and gradients of the driveway;
(d) Drainage; and
(e) Pavement construction / cross section.
The engineering plans and specifications must be prepared and certified by an accredited professional Civil Engineer to the approval of the Executive Manager - Engineering Services.
10. The construction works must be undertaken in accordance with the approved drawings. Works must be completed to the satisfaction and approval of the Executive Manager - Engineering Services and include the following:
(a) Visitor car parking sign installed for the 1 visitor car parking space;
(b) Signage noting residential parking for each unit must be installed for the associated car parking spaces;
(c) Signage noting childcare parking must be installed for Parking Bay 3;
(d) Parking and vehicle circulation roadways and pedestrian paths provided with lighting; and
(e) Stormwater discharge from all new impervious areas must be disposed of by gravity to Council’s stormwater infrastructure.
11. The rear driveway must be widened by an additional metre to allow for a turning bay to enable vehicles at Parking Bay 1 & 2 to exit the site in a forward direction. Plans must be submitted with the engineering design drawings for approval and must be to satisfaction 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.
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. The Developer should not allocate any property address numbers for the proposed units.
Agenda No. 20 Page 113 14 October 2019 New property addresses have been allocated as follows:
Unit No. Allocated Property Address 1 1/18 Willow Avenue, Kingston 2 2/18 Willow Avenue, Kingston (existing dwelling)
These numbers must then be referenced on design and As-Constructed drawings as well as any Strata Plans lodged for sealing.
C. An application for Notifiable Plumbing Work must be lodged with Council before commencing any work.
D. A drainage design plan 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 Against For Against Cr Bastone Cr Street Cr Cordover Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Westwood Cr Grace Cr Winter Cr Midgley Cr Wriedt
Attachments:
1. Location Plan (1) 2. Proposal Plan (8)
Agenda No. 20 Page 114 14 October 2019 Attachment 1 Location Plan – 18 Willow Avenue, Kingston
Agenda No. 20 Page 115 14 October 2019 Attachment 2 – Proposal Plans 18 Willow Avenue, Kingston
Agenda No. 20 Page 116 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 117 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 118 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 119 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 120 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 121 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 122 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 123 14 October 2019 FILE NO DAS-2019-9 DATE 18 SEPTEMBER 2019 OFFICER JAMIE DOUGLAS- SENIOR PLANNING OFFICER ENDORSED BY TASHA TYLER-MOORE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
10.6 DAS-2019-9 - APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT AND BALANCE AT 31 GOURLAY STREET, BLACKMANS BAY FOR PDA SURVEYORS
Application Number: DAS-2019-9 Applicant: PDA Surveyors Owner: Mr T R Warren and Mrs D Warren Zoning: General Residential Discretions: Lot Design Existing Land Use: Residential No. of Representations: Two (2) Planning Issues: Impact of future development on the additional lot Recommendation: Refusal
1 THE PROPOSAL IN DETAIL
1.1 The Proposal
It is proposed to subdivide 31 Gourlay Street to create an additional residential lot.
Lot 1 would be 760m2 in area and would be created by excising the rear garden area of the existing dwelling. Creation of an access way along the eastern boundary via a 3.81m wide reciprocal right-of-way and service easement parallel to the existing access strip would be required. Lot 1 would be irregular in shape and have no road frontage. The Balance Lot would be 833m2 in area and would contain the existing dwelling. Access to Gourlay Street would be via a 3.81m wide access strip containing the existing driveway. The lot would be irregular in shape.
Plan 1: Proposed subdivision layout
Agenda No. 20 Page 124 14 October 2019 1.2 The Site
The subject site is zoned General Residential and has no Code Overlays. It is an internal battle axe lot, mostly situated behind 33 Gourlay Street. There is a two-storey, brick dwelling and outbuilding on the site and a number of mature trees. All surrounding development is residential.
Photo 1: Aerial photo of site and surrounds (subject site shown hatched).
2 PLANNING ASSESSMENT
2.1 Statutory Implications
The land is zoned General Residential under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (the Scheme). The relevant part of the Scheme is Part 10 General Residential Zone.
The proposal has been assessed against Clause 10.6 ‘Development Standards for Subdivision’ in the General Residential Zone. The proposal is Discretionary because it does not comply with the Acceptable Solutions for Clause 10.6.1 Lot Design.
Council's assessment of this proposal should also consider the issues raised in the representations, the outcomes of any relevant State Policies and the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
2.2 Public Consultation
The application was advertised in accordance with the requirements of s.57 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (from 4/9/2019 to 18/9/2019). Two representations were received during the public exhibition period. The following issues were raised by the representors:
(a) Poor quality of concept sketches.
(b) Detrimental impact upon the privacy of 33 Calder Crescent.
(c) Lack of adequate setback to 33 Calder Crescent, the indicated building area is 1.5m from the respective boundary.
Agenda No. 20 Page 125 14 October 2019 (d) The proposed garage with terrace on top will have a detrimental impact upon the rear of 25 Gourlay Street because it will be visually dominant and will cause a loss of privacy.
(e) The proposed garage will be outside the indicated building area.
2.3 Strategic Planning
The relevant strategies associated with the Scheme are as follows:
Clause 10.1.1 Zone Purpose Statements of the General Residential zone
The relevant zone purpose statements of the General Residential Zone are:
10.1.1.1 To provide for residential use or development that accommodates a range of dwelling types at suburban densities, where full infrastructure services are available or can be provided.
10.1.1.4 To implement the Regional Settlement Strategy and the Greater Hobart Residential Strategy.
10.1.1.5 To encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character, natural landscape and provides a high standard of residential amenity.
10.1.1.6 To encourage urban consolidation and greater housing choice through a range of housing types and residential densities.
Clause 10.1.2 Local Area Objective and Implementation Strategy for Blackmans Bay (in General Residential Zone) are:
Local Area Objective: Blackmans Bay should be maintained as an established residential area with a high level of amenity associated with its coastal location, pleasant views and lifestyle.
Implementation Strategy: The natural landscape and setting is an important issue when considering new development proposals.
Clause 10.1.3 Desired Future Character Statements and Implementation Strategy for Blackmans Bay (in General Residential Zone) are:
Desired Future Character Statement: Blackmans Bay should continue as a predominantly low-density residential area with larger lot sizes that enable reasonable setbacks, the retention of native vegetation and gardens.
Implementation Strategy: New development should respect the amenity of surrounding residences and the natural landscape. Multi-unit housing should be encouraged to locate in the area surrounding the Opal Drive commercial precinct.
As discussed further within the assessment below, the proposal is not considered to be consistent with the objectives of the zone, Local Area Objective or the Desired Future Character as it is creating lots that are not consistent with the neighbourhood character, including provision of adequate space for landscaping, retention of vegetation, spacious setbacks from boundaries. Additionally it is contrary as the proposal is likely to result in development that will be to the detriment of the amenity of the future occupants and amenity of the neighbouring dwellings.
Agenda No. 20 Page 126 14 October 2019 2.4 Zone
The site is zoned General Residential under the Scheme. This zone provides a range Development Standards for Subdivision (Clause 10.6) and the proposal is assessed against the relevant provisions as follows:
Clause 10.6.1 Lot Design objectives are to provide for new lots that:
(a) have appropriate area and dimensions to accommodate development consistent with the Zone Purpose and any relevant Local Area Objectives or Desired Future Character Statements;
(b) contain building areas which are suitable for residential development, located to avoid hazards;
(c) are a mix of lot sizes to enable a variety of dwelling and household types;
(d) are capable of providing for a high level of residential amenity including privacy, good solar access; and passive surveillance of public spaces;
(e) ensure an average net density for new suburban areas no less than 15 dwellings per hectare with higher densities close to services, facilities and public transport corridors;
(f) are not internal lots, except if the only reasonable way to provide for desired residential density;
(g) are provided in a manner that provides for the efficient and ordered provision of infrastructure.
(h) contain building areas which are located to avoid environmental values.
For reasons already mentioned and included below it is considered that the proposal fails to achieve a positive response to the objectives including (a), (d) and (f).
A1 requires that the size of each lot must comply with the minimum and maximum lot sizes specified in Table 10.1. In this instance the minimum specified is 550m2 and a maximum of 1000m2. Lot 1 is proposed to be 760m2 and the Balance Lot is proposed to be 833m2 therefore the Acceptable Solution has been met.
A2 requires that the design of each lot must provide a minimum building area that is rectangular in shape and complies with all of the following:
(a) clear of the frontage, side and rear boundary setbacks;
(b) not subject to any codes in this planning scheme;
(c) clear of title restrictions such as easements and restrictive covenants;
(d) has an average slope of no more than 1 in 5;
(e) the long axis of the building area faces north or within 20 degrees west or 30 degrees east of north;
(f) is 10m x 15m in size.
(g) no trees of high conservation value will be impacted.
Agenda No. 20 Page 127 14 October 2019 An assessment of the application reveals that the proposal fails to achieve the Acceptable Solution in parts:
part (a) the proposed building area (shown as dashed lines setback 1.5m from each of the boundaries) shown on Lot 1 intrudes into the 4m rear setback area and the 4.5m setback to the front boundary with the Balance Lot, therefore is not ‘clear’ of the required setbacks. The existing dwelling on the Balance Lot does not meet the acceptable solution for rear setbacks of 4m;
part (e) The long axis of the proposed building envelope is approximately 45 degrees west of north; and,
part (f) The proposed building envelope is 8.6m x 15m.
Accordingly, the proposal must be assessed against the Performance Criteria (P2).
P2 The design of each lot must contain a building area able to satisfy all of the following:
(a) be reasonably capable of accommodating residential use and development;
(b) meets any applicable standards in codes in this planning scheme;
(c) enables future development to achieve maximum solar access, given the slope and aspect of the land;
(d) minimises the need for earth works, retaining walls, and fill and excavation associated with future development;
(e) provides for sufficient useable area on the lot for both of the following;
i on-site parking and manoeuvring;
ii adequate private open space.
(f) avoids, minimises, mitigates and offsets impacts on trees of high conservation value.
The applicant submitted a concept development plan incorporating a double storey dwelling on Lot 1 to try to illustrate the type of development that may be accommodated. Provision of such a plan is concept only and there is no obligation for that plan to be enacted. The concept plan incorporates a double-storey dwelling and a detached double garage with roof terrace (to provide private open space). Concerns about the Lot Design and the design of the concept include:
It is not apparent how the dwelling could meet the requirements of Clause 10.4.6 Privacy for all dwellings. Accordingly, it is considered the privacy of neighbouring dwellings would potentially be impacted by development on proposed Lot 1. The use of substantial screening can affect solar access, amenity and create further issues of building bulk.
The proposed Lot 1 incorporates a substantial cross fall with a level difference of approximately 5 metres from the western to the eastern side boundaries. Consequently, the proposed dwelling shown in the submitted concept plans would require substantial excavation and retaining walls.
The existing dwelling on the proposed Balance Area would not meet the rear boundary setback provisions of Clause 10.4.2 A3 of the Scheme.
The proposal is unlikely to achieve the requirements for site coverage and permeability.
Agenda No. 20 Page 128 14 October 2019 The new dwelling would be significantly affected by overshadowing by the existing dwelling due to the lack of setback.
There would be poor access and manoeuvring on site for cars accessing Lot 1 as they would be required to reverse almost 78m on to Gourlay Street.
Therefore it is determined that the proposal does not achieve the requirements of the Performance Criteria.
With respect to criteria (g) of A2 Council’s Environmental Planners confirmed that the proposal complies with the acceptable solution as the proposed additional lot is capable of containing a building area which does not impact on high conservation value trees.
With respect to criteria (f) of P2 Council’s Environmental Planners confirmed that while there was one high conservation value tree on site at the time of lodgement, this tree was approved for removal under an unrelated tree application on the basis of proximity to existing dwellings. As there are no further high conservation value trees on the site, the works comply with the acceptable solution as they do not impact on any trees of high conservation value.
A3 is not applicable as the site is an internal lot.
A4 requires that no lot is an internal lot. The proposal does not comply since both lots are internal lots. Accordingly, the proposal must be assessed against the Performance Criteria (P4).
P4 An internal lot must satisfy all of the following:
(a) the lot gains access from a road existing prior to the planning scheme coming into effect, unless site constraints make an internal lot configuration the only reasonable option to efficiently utilise land;
(b) it is not reasonably possible to provide a new road to create a standard frontage lot;
(c) the lot constitutes the only reasonable way to subdivide the rear of an existing lot;
(d) the lot will contribute to the more efficient utilisation of residential land and infrastructure;
(e) the amenity of neighbouring land is unlikely to be unreasonably affected by subsequent development and use;
(f) the lot has access to a road via an access strip, which is part of the lot, or a right- of-way, with a width of no less than 3.6m;
(g) passing bays are provided at appropriate distances to service the likely future use of the lot
(h) the access strip is adjacent to or combined with no more than three other internal lot access strips and it is not appropriate to provide access via a public road;
(i) a sealed driveway is provided on the access strip prior to the sealing of the final plan.
(j) the lot addresses and provides for passive surveillance of public open space and public rights of way if it fronts such public spaces.
Agenda No. 20 Page 129 14 October 2019 An assessment of the application reveals that the proposal fails to achieve the Acceptable Solution in parts:
part (c) if the existing dwelling was not being retained a more practical subdivision could occur.
part (e) For reasons already explained in this assessment there is concern about the impact on amenity as a result of the proposal. The parent title currently exists as an internal battle axe lot however the existing house shares a similar setback and alignment to dwellings on either side at 35-37 and 25 Gourlay Street. The proposal would insert a further internal lot to the rear of the existing dwelling on the Balance Area which would overview the private rear garden areas of its neighbours.
The creation of internal lots within established streetscapes and setbacks is often problematic in terms of overlooking, overshadowing and visual impact upon adjoining neighbours. In this instance it is considered the potential impacts would be particularly severe.
A5 requires that the subdivision is not for more than 3 lots, which the proposal satisfies.
3 REFERRALS AND REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Internal Referrals
The application was referred to Development Engineering, however no issues were raised.
The application was also referred to Environmental Planning whose comments have been included within the assessment above. In addition to the assessment against Clause 10.6 they provided the following comments:
The plans show there is one remaining native tree on the site and this tree is proposed for retention. A condition is recommended for inclusion in any permit issued specifying no tree removal is approved as part of this permit. A condition is also recommended for inclusion protecting this tree during subdivision works.
While no weeds have been identified on site, given the extent of site works, in accordance with clause 8.11.3 (b), a condition should be included in the permit requiring implementation of best practice hygiene measures.
3.2 External Referrals
The application was referred to TasWater in accordance with the requirements of the Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008. TasWater has provided its response including conditions of approval to be included in any permit issued for the development.
3.3 Representations
Two (2) representations (from each adjoining neighbour) was received during the public exhibition period. The following issues were raised:
1 Poor quality of concept sketches.
Council was satisfied that the plans that were presented showing potential development of the house were satisfactory as they are only required to be indicative. If the proposal was for the development of a dwelling additional details and plans would be required.
Agenda No. 20 Page 130 14 October 2019 2 Detrimental impact upon the privacy of 33 Calder Street.
The application is for subdivision, not development, therefore it cannot be determined at this stage whether overlooking may occur. However, as expressed within the report there are concerns that the proposal would not meet setbacks requirements which may place additional pressure on amenity outside the site, such as building bulk and privacy.
3 Lack of adequate setback to 33 Calder Street, the indicated building area is 1.5m from the respective boundary.
Matters of building envelope setbacks are discussed within the report.
4 The proposed garage with terrace on top will have a detrimental impact upon the rear of 25 Gourlay Street because it will be visually dominant and will cause a loss of privacy.
As previously discussed, it is considered that development on the proposed Lot 1 will likely impact the existing level of amenity of neighbours in terms of loss of privacy. The concept plans have not demonstrated how development could proceed without such amenity impacts occurring.
5 The proposed garage will be outside the indicated building area.
The plans provided are concept only and are not subject to the assessment. As discussed within the assessment there are concerns about the ability to complete an appropriate development on the site without detriment to the future occupants of neighbouring residents.
4 STATE POLICIES AND ACT OBJECTIVES
The proposal is consistent with the outcomes of the State Policies, including those of the State Coastal Policy.
The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
The Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 Section 85 states;
(a) “The Council may refuse to approve a plan of subdivision if it is of the opinion-
(b) that one or more lots is by reason of its shape in relation to its size or its contours unsuitable for building on”.
In light of the above assessment, it is considered the proposal is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act.
5 CONCLUSION
The proposal seeks approval for the subdivision of an existing internal lot at 31 Gourlay Street, Blackmans Bay to create Lot 1 and a Balance Area containing an existing dwelling.
The proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of the objectives for the General Residential zone and Clause 10.6.1 Lot Design. It is therefore recommended that the proposed subdivision be refused.
Agenda No. 20 Page 131 14 October 2019 6 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That the Planning Authority resolves that the development application subdivision of one lot and balance at 31 Gourlay Street, Blackmans Bay for PDA Surveyors be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is inconsistent with the Lot Design Objectives and associated Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements in Clause 10.6.1 of the Scheme. It will not achieve a high standard of residential amenity and is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character including space for landscaping, retention of vegetation, spacious setbacks from boundaries and creating development that will be to the detriment of the future occupants and amenity of the neighbouring dwellings.
2. The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant Performance Criteria of Clause 10.6.1 P2 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) as the proposal is not able to achieve a suitable future building area on proposed Lot 1.
3. The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant Performance Criteria of Clause 10.6.1 P4 (c) and (e) of the Scheme because there is an alternative design to subdivide the land and it is considered the privacy of neighbouring dwellings would potentially be impacted by development on proposed Lot 1.
4. The proposed subdivision is contrary to of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 Section 85 which states;
“The Council may refuse to approve a plan of subdivision if it is of the opinion-
(f) that one or more lots is by reason of its shape in relation to its size or its contours unsuitable for building on”.
For Against For Against Cr Bastone Cr Street Cr Cordover Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Westwood Cr Grace Cr Winter Cr Midgley Cr Wriedt
Attachments:
1. Location Plan (1) 2. Proposal Plan (4)
Agenda No. 20 Page 132 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 133 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 134 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 135 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 136 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 137 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 138 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 139 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 140 14 October 2019
PLANNING AUTHORITY SESSION ADJOURNS
Agenda No. 20 Page 141 14 October 2019 OPEN SESSION RESUMES
Open Session of Council resumed at
11 MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN
The following Notice of Motion was submitted by Cr Westwood :
11.1 Kingston Tennis Club
MOVED Cr Westwood SECONDED
That Council agree to:
1 provide the Kingston Tennis Club with $50 000 subject to a successful grant application from the 2019 Sport and Recreation Major Grants Program; and
2 authorise the Mayor to write a letter of support to accompany the grant application stating Council’s support of the project and committing to provide funding if the grant application is successful.
For Against For Against Cr Bastone Cr Street Cr Cordover Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Westwood Cr Grace Cr Winter Cr Midgley Cr Wriedt
Background
The Kingston Tennis Club has operated for over 90 years and currently has 200 members. It has a strong commitment to the Kingborough community and a history of good financial management. The Club relies solely on volunteers.
The tennis courts are located at the Kingborough Sports Precinct and are available to all members of the community to use (not just paid members). The Club aims to increase community participation and provide accessible playing options for all abilities.
The Club is preparing a submission for a major grant from Sport and Recreation Tasmania. The Sport and Recreation Major Grants Program offers financial assistance towards the improvement of facilities or playing surfaces that improve opportunities for Tasmanians to participate in sport and active recreation. Applicants must contribute at least half of the project funding.
The Club requires $240 000 to fund the replacement of courts 3, 4, 5 and 6. This project is identified in the Club’s 3-5 year Business Plan. It will provide opportunities for all ability accessibility, year round participation and drive talent options to encourage youth participation (with injury risk reduction).
The Club needs financial support from Council to proceed with the grant application, given the requirement for applicants to contribute at least half of the project funding. The grant application from the Club requests the maximum grant amount available of $80 000 towards
Agenda No. 20 Page 142 14 October 2019 the project. The Club intends to source the remaining funding through a $110 000 bank loan and is hopeful of a contribution from Council of $50 000. Volunteers have committed in-kind support to undertake work necessary to assist with the project.
Consideration of this funding request is required in advance of Council’s 2020-21 budget as the grant application period closes on 30 October 2019. This is an opportunity for Council to leverage a $240 000 investment in sporting infrastructure within the Kingborough Sports Precinct. If the grant application is unsuccessful, the funds will not be required as the project will be unable to proceed until an alternative source of funding is secured.
The Club had undertaken fundraising to contribute the $50 000 as part of the grant application, but lengthy and costly issues with court lighting has used up cash reserves which had been set aside for the resurfacing of the courts. A significant amount of money ($54 000) has recently been spent on new state of the art lighting, due to be installed prior to the end of October 2019. Whilst a large and unanticipated financial outlay upfront, the LED lights are environmentally friendly and will result in cost savings for the Club into the future.
The installation of the proposed plexi-cushion courts will provide further options to those in the community of limited physical ability to undertake wheelchair tennis. Plexi-cushion courts are the preferred surface for international players as well as junior players who regularly represent Tasmania and currently need to travel to the Domain Tennis Centre to train on appropriate surfaces. The Club has an agreement with Reclink (a National Disability Insurance Scheme provider) for the free use of the facilities, courts and equipment to encourage these clients to participate. Kingston High School and other schools utilise the tennis facilities during the school terms to provide opportunities to those who may otherwise not have exposure to the sport. The Club is a registered Ticket-To-Play organisation which provides opportunities for free membership for children and youth. The Club encourages culturally diverse players who engage both on and off the court, providing valuable social connections within the community.
Over the past 10 years the Club has rebuilt the clubrooms, upgraded facilities and installed two new supergrass courts. The Club has received limited financial support from Council in the past. This includes a loan guarantee in 2009 and in 2016 a grant of $20 000 to the Club and further loan guarantee for $20 000. Both these loans were repaid in full by the Club and the guarantees were not required to be actioned.
The Kingston Tennis Club does not receive any ongoing financial support from Council as Council does not own the assets. The Club holds a 10 year lease with Council for the land it occupies and the full cost of maintaining the assets is borne by the Club. In comparison, other sports clubs in the Kingston Sports Precinct receive significant ongoing operational funding to maintain assets, as well as capital funding for asset improvements.
Officer’s Response:
Whilst the merits of the proposed upgrade of the Kingston Tennis Club’s courts are not questioned, the timing is problematic. As the Tennis Club own the asset, any funding support from Council would need to come from the operational rather than the capital budget.
Council has not made provision in its 2019/20 operational budget to accommodate the request for a cash contribution of $50,000 and at this stage in the financial year, there are no identified budget savings that could be used for this purpose. Any immediate support from Council would therefore need to come from cash reserves and would result in an increase to the projected operating deficit for the current financial year.
The only other alternatives would be to provide a loan or a commitment in advance for funding from the 2020/21 financial year – a practice that Council has been extremely reluctant to approve in the past due the fact that it requires consideration of the request
Agenda No. 20 Page 143 14 October 2019 without the context of the overall budget deliberations. It is understood that a loan from Council for $50,000 is not an option as the club would not have the capacity to service this loan in addition to a bank loan of $110,000.
In view of the above, consideration of the request as part of the budget preparation process for 2020/21 is considered to be the most appropriate response.
Daniel Smee - Executive Officer Governance & Community Services
The following Notice of Motion was submitted by Cr Bastone :
11.2 Silverwater Park, Woodbridge
MOVED Cr Bastone SECONDED
Council will undertake community engagement in and around Woodbridge regarding the future of Silverwater Park, reporting back to a future Council meeting with the results.
For Against For Against Cr Bastone Cr Street Cr Cordover Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Westwood Cr Grace Cr Winter Cr Midgley Cr Wriedt
Background
Council has been approached by members of the Woodbridge community about developing a plan to enhance Silverwater Park. The Woodbridge School has been engaged informally, but further work is required to engage with the local community about the future of the site.
Officer’s Response:
Community engagement can be undertaken in relation to this matter and a further report provided to Council that places the request in context with the upgrading needs of parks and playgrounds throughout the Municipal Area.
Daniel Smee - Executive Manager Governance & Community Services
12 PETITIONS STILL BEING ACTIONED
A report in response to the petition headed ‘Save the Bruny Island Boat Club’ will be provided to Council.
13 PETITIONS RECEIVED IN THE LAST PERIOD
At the time the Agenda was compiled no Petitions had been received.
Agenda No. 20 Page 144 14 October 2019 14 OFFICERS REPORTS TO COUNCIL
FILE NO 22.159 DATE 2 OCTOBER 2019 OFFICER DANIEL SMEE - EXECUTIVE MANAGER GOVERNANCE & COMMUNITY SERVICES ENDORSED BY GARY ARNOLD - GENERAL MANAGER
14.1 TURF MAINTENANCE SERVICE LEVEL REVIEW
1 PURPOSE
Strategic Plan Reference
Key Priority Area 2.0 Deliver Quality Infrastructure and Services Strategic Outcome 2.1 Service delivery meets the current and future requirements of residents and visitors.
1.1 The purpose of this report is to present a review of Council’s Turf Maintenance Service Levels (see attached).
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 At its meeting of 11 June 2019, Council resolved as follows (Minute C426/12-19) refers:
Council will undertake a review of its turf crew maintenance arrangements and provide a report to a future meeting. The review will consider:
Service level options across existing assets;
Current and future demand for turf assets and associated capital requirements;
Models to manage and maintain turf assets; and
Options to increase usage of Twin Ovals.
2.2 The service level review has been completed and is presented to Council for consideration.
3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
3.1 The provision of sporting facilities is not a statutory requirement for Council.
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 The review has included a comprehensive assessment of service levels undertaken by Council’s Turf Maintenance Unit and has reached the following conclusions:
a) Service levels are reflective of community expectations and contemporary risk management requirements;
b) Service levels are comparable to that of other grounds of a similar standard maintained by Councils in southern Tasmania;
Agenda No. 20 Page 145 14 October 2019 c) Alternate management models are limited due to the fact that Council’s venues do not generate sufficient income to attract commercial interest;
d) Demand for sportsgrounds in Kingborough (particularly in the Kingston area) will continue to grow in line with population growth;
e) There is some scope for increased usage of the Twin Ovals during both the summer and winter seasons;
f) The cost of service delivery using Council staff is competitive with that of external contractors and provides greater flexibility;
g) Clubs do not have the capacity to take on sole responsibility for the costs associated with the maintenance of grounds; and
h) The Turf Maintenance budget covers numerous items that fall outside of the remit of turf maintenance.
4.2 The review has raised some broader issues in relation to the provision of sports grounds by Council.
4.3 These include cost recovery levels, hire fees and the equity of support provided to different sporting codes and recreational activities by Council.
4.4 However, it was beyond the scope of the review to explore these issues in depth and Council may wish to seek further reports on these matters if warranted.
5 FINANCE
5.1 The review was undertaken in-house and no costs have been incurred other than staff time.
6 ENVIRONMENT
6.1 There are no environmental issues associated with this matter.
7 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION
7.1 In the preparation of the review paper, discussions were held with staff from a number of Councils in Southern Tasmania, along with representatives of local clubs and state sporting organisations
8 RISK
8.1 As noted in the review, risk management is a major driving force behind the service levels provided by Council in relation to the standard of sports grounds.
9 CONCLUSION
9.1 A review of the maintenance and management of Council’s turf assets has been undertaken in accordance with Council’s resolution of 11 June 2019.
9.2 The review has concluded that current service levels are consistent with that provided by other Councils in southern Tasmania and are reflective of community expectations and risk management standards.
Agenda No. 20 Page 146 14 October 2019 10 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That the Turf Asset and Maintenance Review dated October 2019 be received and noted.
For Against For Against Cr Bastone Cr Street Cr Cordover Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Westwood Cr Grace Cr Winter Cr Midgley Cr Wriedt
Agenda No. 20 Page 147 14 October 2019
Turf Asset and Maintenance Review
October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 148 14 October 2019 Table of Contents: 1. Executive Summary 4 2. Introduction 5 3. Turf Maintenance Activities 6 3.1 Turf Renovation: 6 3.2 General Turf Maintenance 8 3.2.1 Mowing 8 3.2.2 Spraying 8 3.2.3 Aeration 9 3.2.4 Scarifying 9 3.2.5 Irrigation 10 3.2.6 Fertilising 10 3.3 Turf Wicket Maintenance 11 3.3.1 Wicket Square Renovation 11 3.3.2 Wicket Preparation 11 3.3.3 Wicket Repair 11 4. Non Turf Maintenance Activities 12 4.1 Line Marking 12 4.2 Outer Area Maintenance 13 4.3 Other Responsibilities 13 5. Financials 14 6. Discussion 15 6.1 Service Level Options 15 6.1.1 Increase Service Levels 15 6.1.2 Decrease Service Levels 15 6.1.3 Maintain Current Service Levels 15 6.2 Demand Considerations 16 6.2.1 Current Demand 16 6.2.2 Future Demands 16 6.3 Alternate Management and Maintenance Models 17 6.3.1 Commercial Management 17 6.3.2 State Sporting Body Management 17 6.3.3 Club Management 17 6.3.4 Committees of Management 17 6.3.5 Contract Maintenance 17 6.3.6 Club Maintenance 18 6.4 Options to Increase Usage of Twin Ovals 19 7. Conclusion 21 Appendix A – Service Level Detail 23
Agenda No. 20 Page 149 14 October 2019 1. Executive Summary
This report has been provided in response to a resolution of Council that sought to review the level of service provided by Council’s Turf Maintenance Crew, including an assessment of current and future demand for turf assets, alternate management and maintenance models and options to increase the usage of the Twin Ovals. The review draws on data obtained from an in-depth service level assessment of turf maintenance operations undertaken in 2017/18 and seeks to describe the range of activities undertaken on an annual basis to provide safe sportsgrounds that meet contemporary community expectations.
The review has concluded that service levels are reflective of community expectations and contemporary risk management requirements. In addition, they are comparable to that of other grounds of a similar standard maintained by Councils in southern Tasmania. Whilst there is some scope to reduce costs by putting greater responsibility for maintenance back onto clubs, these relate more to replacement of assets than labour costs. Opportunities to introduce alternate management models are limited due to the fact that Council’s venues do not generate sufficient income to attract commercial interest and it is also evident that Clubs do not have the capacity to take on the sole responsibility for the costs associated with the maintenance of grounds.
In relation to alternate maintenance options, the review has found that the cost of service delivery using Council staff is competitive with that of external contractors and provides greater flexibility. Past practices associated with clubs using Council equipment to maintain grounds on a voluntary basis are no longer appropriate due to changes in WH&S requirements. It is also noted that there are many costs attributed to the turf maintenance budget that fall outside of the remit of turf maintenance. These include outer areas maintenance, training lights, fences, cricket nets, wicket mats and goals. Of particular significance is the outer areas of the Kingborough Sports Precinct, where the turf crew have responsibility for maintaining large areas that are not sports grounds (eg the Kingston View Drive Dog Exercise Area and Mt Pleasant Walking track).
Given the continued population growth in Kingborough, demand for sportsgrounds will continue to grow creating both challenges and opportunities. There is some scope for increased usage of the Twin Ovals during both the summer and winter seasons but any increase in revenue this may bring will likely be offset by increased maintenance requirements.
Finally, there are some broader policy issues that have been highlighted by the review that relate to questions of cost recovery and Council’s level of support for all sport and recreation activities in Kingborough. However, it was beyond the scope of this report to provide recommendations in relation to these issues.
Daniel Smee Executive Manager, Governance & Community Services
Agenda No. 20 Page 150 14 October 2019 2. Introduction
The purpose of this review is to respond to the following Council resolution of 11 June 2019 (Minute C426/12-19 refers):
Council will undertake a review of its turf crew maintenance arrangements and provide a report to a future meeting. The review will consider:
Service level options across existing assets; Current and future demand for turf assets and associated capital requirements; Models to manage and maintain turf assets; and Options to increase usage of Twin Ovals.
This report has been prepared in-house, utilising data obtained through the turf maintenance service level review undertaken in 2017-2018 and overlaid with current usage statistics.
Council’s Turf Maintenance Crew is based at the Twin Ovals and comprises a Team Leader, Assistant Team Leader, Assistant Curator and four Turf Maintenance Officers. The majority of the team work under a Flexible Work Agreement in which they accrue additional hours during the summer season when the workload is at its peak and take this time off during the winter months. This arrangement sees the team accumulate a total of 1000 hours of additional time during the summer that needs to be reduced before the start of the following season.
Preparation of ovals for use by sporting clubs involves much more than just mowing the grass. Turf maintenance activities vary in accordance with the time of year, the surface qualities of the ground weather conditions and the nature of the sport being played. The standard of turf maintenance on Council’s sports grounds has been lifted considerably over the past 10 years in response to heightened community expectations, changes to workplace healthy and safety regulations and greater emphasis on risk management requiring the provision of a safe playing surface.
Agenda No. 20 Page 151 14 October 2019 3. Turf Maintenance Activities
3.1 Turf Renovation:
All of Council’s sportsgrounds undergo a renovation process at the start of each playing season (summer and winter). This process involves rehabilitation of the playing surface following a season of use and rejuvenation of the turf to promote grass growth for the new season. Ideally, grounds should be closed for a period of 4-6 weeks between seasons to allow for renovation work to take place. However, with many sports now operating 12 months of the year, the window of opportunity in which to undertake ground rehabilitation and renovation is becoming less each year. A critical component of the renovation process is coring of the turf to improve drainage, reduce compaction and promote root-growth. Cores produced as a result of this practice need to be removed or chopped up through mowing before a ground can be used for sport. The photos below show an oval being cored (Image 1) and subsequently cleaned up (Image 2).
Image 1 - Coring Image 2 – Core removal
Following coring, grounds are top dressed. This process involves spreading a uniform layer of sand applied over the turf surface (Image 3). The incorporation of sand into the soil profile assists with drainage and creates a better growing medium for germination of new grass. Top-dressing is followed by drag-matting to spread the sand evenly to produce a level playing surface (Image 4).
Image 3 – Top dressing Image 4 – Drag matting
The seasonal renovation program concludes with the application of fertiliser and re-seeding with appropriate grass species. The main species sown on Council’s ovals is Perennial Ryegrass, which has excellent wear tolerance and a creeping growth habit ideal for sports fields. The table below provides a summary of the renovation activities and frequencies for Council’s sportsgrounds:
Agenda No. 20 Page 152 14 October 2019 Table 1 – Seasonal Turf Renovation Activities
Activity (occurrences/year)
SPORTSGROUND
dressing
-
Coring removal Core Fertilising Top Seeding matting Drag Alonnah Oval 2 0 2 0 0 0 Gormley Park 2 2 2 2 2 2 Kelvedon Park 2 2 1 1 2 1 Kettering Oval 2 2 1 2 2 2 Kingston Beach Oval 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lightwood 1a 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lightwood 1b 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lightwood 2 2 2 1 0 1 0 Lightwood 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 Margate Oval 2 2 2 2 2 2 Sandfly Oval 2 2 1 1 1 1 Sherburd Park 2 2 2 2 2 2 Snug Oval 2 2 2 2 2 2 Twin Oval 1 (AFL) 4 4 4 4 4 4 Twin Oval 2 (Cricket) 4 4 4 4 4 4 Woodbridge Oval 2 0 1 0 1 0
Agenda No. 20 Page 153 14 October 2019 3.2 General Turf Maintenance:
3.2.1 Mowing – A range of turf maintenance activities are undertaken throughout the year, with the most regular being grass mowing. All of Council’s sportsgrounds are mowed using Reel Mowers specifically designed to efficiently mow large areas (as shown in Image 5). Mowing frequency varies depending on the season, with most ovals mowed three times per week during summer and weekly during winter. Grass is cut to a height of 18mm in summer and 27mm in winter. The exception is the Twin Ovals, where the Cricket Oval is mowed up to four times per week during summer to a height of 10mm and the AFL Oval mowed up to three times per week to a height of 18mm.
Image 5 – Reel Mower
3.2.2 Spraying – Ovals are sprayed with herbicide to reduce the build-up of broad leaf weeds and undesirable species such as winter grass. In the absence of herbicide application, ovals would become over-run with weeds, producing an uneven surface with limited capacity to withstand the rigours of regular usage. Insecticide is used to control the build-up of soil borne insect pests that feed on either the roots or the leaves of turf grasses. Both root and surface feeding grubs can cause significant damage to a sportsground, with their activities leading to bare patches of turf. This problem is exacerbated by birds digging up the turf to feed on the grubs living in the soil below (as show in in Images 6 and 7).
Image 6 – Bird damage Image 7 – Cockchafer grubs
3.2.3 Aeration – ground aeration assists drainage, improves the soil structure and helps root development of the turf. This results in a more resilient playing surface that is able to withstand higher levels of usage
Agenda No. 20 Page 154 14 October 2019 during the winter months. Aeration also assists the turf to uptake fertiliser easier thereby reducing the amount of fertiliser required. A variety of techniques are used to aerate the sub-surface, including coring, slicing, spiking and verti-draining. Coring is done as part of the renovation process and involves the removal of a core of soil, leaving a small hole which allows for better water and air movement into the root zone. Slicing cuts a narrow slit through the soil, thus allowing water penetration and encouraging lateral grass growth. Spiking uses solid tines to punch holes into the soil and is used on heavily compacted areas. Verti-draining (Image 8) involves the use of tines that loosen the soil, creating air-pocket in the root zone. Council owns all of the necessary items of plant necessary to undertake these processes as part of the annual turf maintenance program.
Image 8 – Verti-Drainer
3.2.4 Scarifying – this is an important turf management process that involves the removal of the dead thatch layer accumulated over a playing season. Thatch is a normal by-product of growing grass but its accumulation on the soil surface prevents air and water from reaching the root zone and contributes to drainage problems.
Image 9 – Scarifier
3.2.5 Irrigation – the majority of Council’s sports grounds are irrigated during the summer months to maintain turf quality and consistency. This is necessary for the playing of summer sports but is also important for winter sports as good grass coverage with strong root structures ensures that grounds are able to withstand training pressures over a sustained period without turning to mud. The irrigation systems in Council’s ovals are all in-ground pop-up style sprinklers (which cost $110 each to replace) and are able to
Agenda No. 20 Page 155 14 October 2019 be controlled remotely. Systems on the Twin Ovals are equipped with moisture sensors to determine the precise amount of watering required. On other ovals, irrigation levels are a judgement call for the Turf Crew. Irrigation checks and maintenance are undertaken regularly throughout the summer months.
3.2.6 Fertilising – nutrients become depleted by constant grass growth and leach out of the soil - particularly on sand based ovals that are irrigated such as the Twin Ovals and Lightwood Park 1. For this reason, it is necessary to undertake annual soil tests to determine nutrient levels in order to apply the right type and quantity of fertiliser. Both slow release granular and liquid fertilisers are used as part of Council’s renovation program. Fertiliser is also applied to sportsgrounds during the renovation process and on an ongoing basis throughout the year as part of the annual maintenance program.
Table 2 provides a summary of the general turf maintenance activities that take place throughout the year outside of the seasonal renovation process.
Table 2 – Annual Turf Maintenance Activities
Activity (occurrences/year)
drain
-
SPORTSGROUND aying
Slicing Verti Spiking Scarifying Spr Fertilising Alonnah Oval 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gormley Park 3 3 1 2 2 5 Kelvedon Park 3 3 2 2 2 5 Kettering Oval 1 0 1 0 2 5 Kingston Beach Oval 3 3 2 2 2 5 Lightwood 1a 3 3 2 3 2 5 Lightwood 1b 3 3 2 3 2 5 Lightwood 2 0 0 1 1 2 5 Lightwood 3 1 0 1 2 2 3 Margate Oval 2 2 2 2 2 5 Sandfly Oval 0 0 2 0 2 2 Sherburd Park 3 3 2 2 2 5 Snug Oval 2 2 2 2 2 5 Twin Oval 1 (AFL) 3 4 4 4 2 10 Twin Oval 2 (Cricket) 3 4 4 4 2 10 Woodbridge Oval 0 0 0 0 2 2
Agenda No. 20 Page 156 14 October 2019 3.3 Turf Wicket Maintenance
3.3.1 Wicket Square Renovation – preparations for the new cricket season commence two months prior to the first scheduled match (usually early October). It is necessary to rope off the centre square at this point to prevent usage. The grass on the square is cut as low as possible and the wicket block scarified. It is then re-levelled using a laser grader, seeded, fertilised and covered with a grow mat. The establishment of new grass growth is then monitored over the next month, with further re-seeding, fertilising and watering as required. The grow mat is removed and light hand rolling commences for two hours per day up to three times per week. The same process is undertaken for the practice wicket area.
3.3.2 Wicket Preparation – the wicket block at the Twin Ovals has sufficient room to accommodate the preparation of 10 individual wickets that are prepared on a rotational basis throughout the season. Preparation of a wicket involves hand mowing of the pitch, with the mowing height progressively lowered from 10mm through to 4mm for play. This process takes up to four hours per week. Dry grass clippings are placed on bare areas to prevent cracking as shown in Image 10 below. The pitch is hand watered and rolled for up to 12 hours per week and covered each night or when rain is forecast. The final task in the wicket preparation process is to line mark the pitch. On weekends, club personnel are responsible for the removal and installation of covers before and after play.
Image 10 – Addition of Grass Clippings
3.3.3 Wicket Repair – wickets are generally only used for a maximum of four days play (two weekends) before they are rotated. Whilst a wicket is in use, repairs are made to foot holes and any other damage that may have occurred. The centre square is roped off at the end of each day to prevent unauthorised usage. After a wicket has been used, foot holes are repaired with clay and the pitch renovated. This process involves scarifying the surface, reseeding, covering with a grow mat and watering and takes up to six hours for one worker.
Agenda No. 20 Page 157 14 October 2019 4. Non Turf Maintenance Activities
4.1 Line Marking
Line marking of sports grounds was undertaken by user groups for many years until 2010 when Council’s Turf Maintenance Crew assumed responsibility for this task. This decision was made due to risk management concerns associated with the need to ensure appropriate run-off distances between the boundary line and the fence, as well as the fact that some clubs were using lime and/or weedkiller to create permanent line markings that did not need to be re-painted each week. Lime can cause eye irritation and burns to unprotected skin, whilst inhalation of lime dust can cause lung problems. The use of weedkiller to create permanent markings caused indents in the ground that were identified as potential trip hazards. From an aesthetic perspective, the lack of proper line marking equipment and expertise within sporting clubs meant that the presentation of grounds was often brought down by poor line marking.
Notwithstanding the above, line marking of grounds represents a significant cost to Council, both in terms of material purchases and labour. Line marking is a labour intensive process, utilising a walk behind machine as shown in Image 8. The process takes up to one hour per ground each week and using 10L of paint each time for an AFL ground and 40L for the Little Athletics track at Gormley Park. Line marking paint costs a cost of $4 per litre and due to the fact that mowing greatly reduces the visibility of lines, it is necessary to repaint most weeks. With 15 grounds to line-mark before weekend matches, the process represents a substantial component of the Turf Crew’s general maintenance program.
Image 11 – Line Marking
Agenda No. 20 Page 158 14 October 2019 4.2 Outer Area Maintenance
Included within the responsibilities of the Turf Crew is maintenance of all non-hard stand areas within the Kingborough Sports Precinct. This includes the Mt Pleasant Walking Track, the Kingston View Drive Dog Exercise Area and all of the grassed areas behind the KSC Carpark. In addition, the Turf Crew maintain all of the garden beds around the Sports Centre and Twin Ovals Pavilion. Whilst some of these areas can be mown, the grass growth on many areas can only be kept in check through the use of a brushcutter as shown in Image 12 below.
Image 12 – Brushcutting KSC Precinct
4.3 Other Responsibilities
Other non-turf maintenance responsibilities that fall under the remit of the Turf Crew include maintenance of cricket nets, wicket covers, training lights, goal posts and boundary fences. Synthetic wicket mats have a lifespan of around 7-10 years and the cost of their replacement is split between Council and the respective tenant cricket clubs (Council contributes 25% of the replacement cost of centre wicket mats and 50% for practice nets). Synthetic wickets on most grounds are covered with a soft-step rubberised mat at the end of the summer season to allow for winter sports to be played. Installation and removal of these mats is done under contract and costs Council around $12,000 per annum.
Cricket practice nets and boundary fences require annual maintenance depending on their age and condition and this is also a task that is undertaken by a contractor but with the costs met from the Turf Maintenance budget. Similarly, repairs to training lights and scoreboards are organised and paid for by the Turf Crew, along with replacement of globes. Soccer goals and AFL goal posts are installed by the Turf Crew at the commencement of each winter and removed for the summer season. The turf maintenance budget also covers the cost of repairs to or replacement of goal structures when required.
Agenda No. 20 Page 159 14 October 2019 5. Financials
Specific ground costs in the Turf Maintenance budget for 2019/20 total $935,000 and are allocated as shown in Table 3:
Table 3 – Turf Maintenance Budget Allocation
Ground Annual Maintenance Cost Alonnah Oval $10,000 Gormley Park $46,000 Kelvedon Oval $51,000 Kettering Oval $35,000 Kingston Beach Oval $60,000 KSC Precinct Outer Areas $70,000 Lightwood Park 1 $57,000 Lightwood Park 2 $45,000 Lightwood Park 3 $34,000 Margate Oval $46,000 Sandfly Oval $34,000 Sherburd Park $52,000 Snug Oval $46,000 Twin Oval 1 (AFL) $120,000 Twin Oval 2 (Cricket) $206,000 Woodbridge Oval $23,000 Total $935,000
Council receives $41,000 in income from the hire of sportsgrounds, the majority of which ($40,000) is derived from the Twin Ovals, where the two anchor tenants (Tigers Football Club and Kingborough District Cricket Club) pay $10,000 per annum each for the use of their respective grounds. The balance of income comes from ground hire to third parties, primarily Cricket Tasmania for usage of the Twin Ovals Cricket Ground. Hire rates for the Twin Ovals are shown in Table 4 below:
Table 4 – Twin Ovals Hire Fees 2019/20
Match Rate $113 p/h Training Rate $55 p/h Juniors (U/16) 50% discount Lights Full cost recovery
Agenda No. 20 Page 160 14 October 2019 6. Discussion
6.1 Service Level Options
The options available to Council in relation to the level of service provided by the Turf Maintenance Crew are essentially to either increase, decrease or maintain the status quo. An assessment of these options is provided below:
6.1.1 Increase Service Levels – feedback from sporting clubs provided in recent years indicates a high level of satisfaction with the service level provided by Council. Whilst there have been requests for Council to assist with the provision of more grounds or ancillary facilities, there has not been any suggestion that Council should increase the level of service provided with respect to ground maintenance. The standard of presentation of Council’s sportsgrounds compares favourably with that of other facilities in southern Tasmania and is commensurate with the level of sport played. Any increase in service level provision is considered to be unwarranted and will lead to an increase in operational expenditure that is assumed to be the opposite of the intended outcome of this service level review.
6.1.2 Decrease Service Levels – as discussed during the detailed analysis provided in the previous sections of this report, the current levels of service are determined primarily by risk management considerations. The need for a safe playing surface necessitates good turf maintenance practices with a focus upon maintaining coverage of appropriate grass species. A reduction in current service levels will inevitably result in grounds that have more weeds, poor drainage and less grass coverage. This then has implications in terms of usage, community expectations and the safety of users.
The higher level of service provided at the Twin Ovals is reflective of the higher level of sport played on these facilities. The Tigers Football Club play in the Tasmanian State League and the standard of ground provided needs to be equivalent to that of other clubs in this competition ie Bellerive Oval, KGV Oval, North Hobart Oval and York Park in Launceston. The Kingborough District Cricket Club has a team in Cricket Tasmania’s Premier League that brings similar requirement for access to a well maintained ground.
The Twin Ovals is currently also used for National Underage Cricket Carnivals, National Women’s League matches and Tasmanian Futures League matches. The AFL ground has previously hosted A-League Soccer matches and an AFL pre-season match. Any reduction in current service levels will see the playing surface deteriorate rapidly and therefore compromise the ability for of the grounds to cater for both club and higher level matches.
6.1.3 Maintain Current Service Levels – it is considered that the current level of service provision reflects community expectations and contemporary risk management standards. Whilst there are some areas in which greater responsibility can be placed upon user groups (to be discussed further in section 6.3), the most likely scenario is maintenance of existing service levels. Comparison with other Council’s in southern Tasmania indicates that the Kingborough’s service levels are on par for grounds hosting a similar standard of sport. The main point of difference is that the larger Council’s apply hire fees for use of their grounds.
Agenda No. 20 Page 161 14 October 2019 6.2 Demand Considerations
6.2.1 Current Demand – analysis of usage rates indicates that there is greatest pressure on facilities within the Kingston area and its immediate surrounds. Grounds at Lightwood Park, Kingston Beach Oval and Kelvedon Park are at maximum capacity and the primary users at these venues are currently accessing alternate grounds to meet the needs of their members. The Kingborough Lions Soccer Club (based at Lightwood Park) use the Sandfly Oval, along with a number of school owned grounds in Kingston and Blackmans Bay. The Kingborough Tigers Junior Football Club has teams training at Snug Oval, whilst the Taroona Soccer Club (based at Kelvedon Park) hire grounds from the Hobart City Council to make up the shortfall required for their teams. The growth in women’s AFL and cricket in recent years has stretched the capacity of a number of existing grounds and has highlighted the inadequacies of supporting infrastructure at these venues.
6.2.2 Future Demands – the growth in women’s AFL is expected to continue over the next few years before levelling out. The demand for increased access to grounds with a turf wicket is likely to increase, in part due to a requirement from the sport’s governing body to have juniors playing on turf at an earlier age than occurred in the past. This requirement has seen junior teams from the Kingborough District Cricket Club playing “home” games at Pontville as the only ground with a turf wicket in Kingborough (the Twin Ovals cricket ground) is at capacity.
It is considered that the future demand for greater access to sports grounds in Kingborough will require a combination of a number of strategies:
a) Greater use of grounds that are currently underutilised; b) A willingness by clubs to train outside of the peak 5pm – 7pm time slot; c) Increased use of school grounds (potentially through a partnership with Council); d) Installation of lights on grounds that currently don’t have them (eg Margate Oval); e) Upgrading of former grounds (Leslie Vale Oval and Dru Point); and f) Development of new grounds.
Given the cost of developing new facilities and lack of available space, maximising usage of existing grounds should be the underlying strategy. This will require a shift in the mindset of clubs, many of whom consider that no other club/sport should share “their” home ground.
Agenda No. 20 Page 162 14 October 2019 6.3 Alternate Management and Maintenance Models
6.3.1 Commercial Management – whilst some of the larger stadiums in Australia are privately owned or operated, Kingborough’s grounds do not generate sufficient income to attract commercial interest. This situation is not expected to change in the foreseeable future.
6.3.2 State Sporting Body Management – for much the same reason as above, it is highly unlikely a State sporting body would want to take on the management of a ground without the continued support of Council in relation to maintenance costs. Whilst Cricket Tasmania leases the Bellerive Oval from the Clarence Council, they have expressed no interest to date in leasing the Twin Ovals cricket ground. Discussions with staff have indicated that they would need to thoroughly review the requirements and implications of such a proposal before determining a position and that the financial implications would be a significant factor.
6.3.3 Club Management – whilst there are some clubs who may like the thought of having greater autonomy over the management of their home ground, the reality of the maintenance costs involved would quickly end discussions in this regard. Council provides sportsgrounds as a community service with a high level of subsidy from the general rate and there is not a sporting club in Kingborough that could afford to take on the full maintenance costs involved. The direct management of ovals by sporting clubs was prevalent in a number of mainland Council’s in the late 1990’s, often in response to moves to charge full cost recovery for use of facilities. Clubs responded by taking out leases over facilities and maintaining grounds using volunteer labour to reduce costs. Over time, this proved to be detrimental to the condition of grounds and many Councils have since taken back management responsibilities for their ovals.
6.3.4 Committees of Management – Council has in the past established Management Committees for some sportsgrounds made up of representatives from user groups. The Management Committee model had some benefits in terms of improved communication between user groups but did not produce any efficiency gains for Council. In fact, it was contended that they added to the overall cost of providing sports grounds through the provision of another layer of governance and reporting requirements. The extent to which Council can allow volunteer labour or contractors organised by Committees of Management has reduced over time due to risk management requirements.
6.3.5 Contract Maintenance – the obvious alternate maintenance model is to contract out the maintenance of grounds. Brighton Council contracts the services of the Hobart City Council to maintain their turf ovals at Pontville, whilst the maintenance of the Kangaroo Bay and University Ovals are contracted to a commercial operator. Cricket Tasmania employee their own turf maintenance crew for Bellerive Oval and have a strategic objective to expand their service provision by tendering for contracts for the curation of other turf wicket based grounds. From 2003 to 2007, the Kingston Beach Oval, turf centre wicket and practice wickets were maintained under a contract arrangement for the six months of the summer season. The contractor was required to work 32 hours per week, including 2.5hrs on Saturday mornings and for the 2006/07 summer season was valued at $31,000. The following year, Council moved to maintain the oval using its own employees and has continued to do so since this date. In 2011, the turf centre wicket at Kingston Beach Oval was removed and replaced with a concrete pitch covered with a synthetic wicket mat.
Without going through a competitive tender process, it is not possible to give a definitive answer to the question as to whether contract maintenance would produce savings for Council. In addition, it is not a straight forward exercise to compare the merits of contract versus in-house labour given the numerous
Agenda No. 20 Page 163 14 October 2019 additional tasks that are undertaken by the Turf Crew that provide a service to user groups and the broader community but are not turf maintenance related.
It is understood that the turf maintenance contract for Kangaroo Bay Oval is around $150,000 per annum. When the additional costs of maintaining scoreboards, sight screens, wicket covers, cricket nets, training lights, boundary fences and outer areas are factored in, the annual maintenance cost incurred by Council’s Turf Crew of $210,000 for the Twin Ovals Cricket Ground compares favourably. Other Council’s that have assessed the option of contracting out their turf maintenance services have concluded that this option does not produce cost savings. In addition, it significantly reduces the level of flexibility required to respond to changes in weather, rostering or other unforeseen circumstances.
6.3.6 Club Maintenance – up until 2003, the Kingborough District Cricket Club was responsible for the preparation of turf wicket and maintenance of the Kingston Beach Oval during the summer season. Under this arrangement, Council provided all of the necessary equipment and paid the club an amount of $35,000 to maintain the ground for six months of the year. Disputes in relation to the maintenance of Council’s equipment and concerns regarding the condition of the ground resulted in Council resolving to take over the responsibility for the maintenance henceforth.
As discussed previously in this report, the level of volunteer maintenance on grounds provided by clubs has been greater in the past. However, many of the tasks previously undertaken by clubs have been taken over by Council, primarily to ensure that safety and risk management standards are upheld.
If Council was to push more responsibilities back onto user groups, it is considered that this needs to be in the form of non-specialised turf maintenance items such as:
Line marking paint; Wicket mat replacements; Training light repairs and globe replacements; Cricket net repairs; and Goal replacements.
This would require a change to Council’s Sportsground User Policy. Alternatively, Council may wish to consider the reintroduction of hire fees for use of sports grounds. In 2005, Council resolved to exempt sporting clubs operating from Council facilities with general public access from the requirement to pay ground rentals (Minute C54/5-05 refers). Up until this time, clubs had been charged ground rentals based loosely on a formula that took into account usage rates and the annual cost to Council in providing the facility. This figure was subsequently increased by CPI each year. No hire fees have been charged to clubs since this date, with the exception of the Twin Ovals where there is an annual charge for the two anchor tenants and an hourly rate for other users.
Agenda No. 20 Page 164 14 October 2019 6.4 Options to Increase Usage of Twin Ovals
Table 5 – Twin Ovals Usage
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun AFL Ground 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm Occasional Occasional (Summer) (AFL Pre- (AFL Pre- (AFL Pre- (AFL Pre- (AFL Pre- AFL Practice AFL Practice season season season season season Matches Matches Training) Training) Training) Training) Training)
AFL Ground 4 – 8 pm 4 – 8 pm 4 – 8 pm 4 – 8 pm 4 – 8 pm AFL AFL (Winter) (AFL (AFL (AFL (AFL (AFL Rostered Rostered Training) Training) Training) Training) Training) matches matches
Cricket Oval Nil 5 – 7pm 5 – 7pm 5 – 7pm 5 – 7pm 8am – 6pm 8am – 6pm (Summer) (Cricket (Cricket (Cricket (Cricket (Cricket (Cricket Training) Training) Training) Training) Matches) Matches)
Cricket Oval 5-8 pm 5-8 pm 5-8 pm 5-8 pm 4-6 pm Occasional Occasional (Winter) (AFL (AFL and (AFL (AFL and (AFL Junior AFL Junior AFL Training) soccer Training) soccer Training) Matches Matches training) training)
As can be seen from Table 5, there are not too many opportunities available in terms of time slots in which to increase usage of the two ovals. The times in which there is some availability are as follows:
a) Weekdays during school hours (both grounds); b) Weekends on the AFL ground during summer; and c) Weekends on the Cricket ground during winter for part of the season.
Weekdays between 7:30am and 3:30pm is when the majority of ground maintenance takes place, so the extent to which this presents an opportunity to increase usage is limited but not without potential. The Kingston High School has previously expressed an interest in using the ground for PE lessons and Inter- school AFL matches but has baulked at payment of hire fees. The Draft KSC Precinct Masterplan proposes the development of accommodation that would open up the potential for the Twin Ovals to be used as a venue for training camps for a range or sporting groups and schools. Although a longer term option, this is considered to have the potential to significantly increase usage of the facility, with the onsite accommodation providing an alternate revenue stream for Council.
Options to increase the usage of the AFL ground during summer are limited by the fact that the Tigers Football Club train at the venue five nights per week from November onwards. There has been a suggestion that the Kingborough Little Athletics Centre should utilise the facility for their weekly competition as it would provide a full size 400m running track that they lack at Gormley Park. This would bring challenges in terms of areas for jumps pits but is worth further investigation. The other suggestion to improve summer usage of the AFL ground is to install a turf centre wicket to enable more cricket matches to be played at the venue. This proposal is vehemently opposed by the Tigers Football Club on the basis that it would compromise the ground surface during winter and has been previously considered and rejected by Council.
Use of the Cricket Ground for AFL matches during winter has only been possible on a very limited basis in previous years due to the need for the centre square to settle in post construction and again after it was
Agenda No. 20 Page 165 14 October 2019 extended in 2017. Going forward, the window of opportunity to use the ground will be increased and it is expected that more AFL junior and women’s matches will be rostered. The Kingborough Lions Soccer Club has indicated that they would like greater access to the facility for training purposes.
It should be noted that increasing usage in most cases will also increase Council’s maintenance costs. The option of installing a turf wicket in the AFL Oval would necessitate the addition of another employee to the Turf Crew to cover the additional labour associated with preparing and maintaining a turf wicket. Grounds have a maximum level of traffic that they can withstand, beyond which they require a greater level of rehabilitation to reverse the effects of ground compaction and loss of grass cover. The fees charged for matches at the Twin Ovals are comparable with that charged by other Councils for grounds of a similar standard but are not based on full cost recovery. In addition, the fee charged to the Kingborough District Cricket Club for use of the ground is an annual one and does not increase with an increase in the number of matches rostered at the venue.
Agenda No. 20 Page 166 14 October 2019 7. Conclusion
The following general conclusions can be drawn from the review of Council's turf maintenance and management arrangements:
a) Service levels are reflective of community expectations and contemporary risk management requirements;
b) Service levels are comparable to that of other grounds of a similar standard maintained by Councils in southern Tasmania;
c) Alternate management models are limited due to the fact that Council’s venues do not generate sufficient income to attract commercial interest;
d) Demand for sportsgrounds in Kingborough (particularly in the Kingston area) will continue to grow in line with population growth;
e) There is some scope for increased usage of the Twin Ovals during both the summer and winter seasons;
f) The cost of service delivery using Council staff is competitive with that of external contractors and provides greater flexibility;
g) Clubs do not have the capacity to take on sole responsibility for the costs associated with the maintenance of grounds; and
h) The Turf Maintenance budget covers numerous items that fall outside of the remit of turf maintenance.
The issue of service levels is part of a broader discussion in relation to the level of support provided by Council to the community. The provision of sports grounds has traditionally been seen as a core role for local government but with a far greater range of recreational activities now being pursued, the justification for the high level of support is being questioned. Whereas the village oval was once the focal point for the local community, there is now far less involvement in traditional sports – either as a spectator or a participant. Statistics cited in the Kingborough Sport and Recreation Strategy indicate that around 75% of residents in Kingborough participate in walking on a regular basis, whilst less than 5% are involved in traditional sports such as AFL and cricket. Despite this, Council’s annual operational budget for sports ground maintenance is five times that for walking tracks. Sports that utilise a Council provided oval (predominantly AFL, cricket and soccer) continue to receive a high level of general rate subsidy, whilst other sports operate on a full cost recovery basis. The issue is further complicated by the fact that some of the bigger sporting clubs utilising Council’s facilities are becoming more professional, with paid administrative staff, coaches and in some cases, players. Whilst the level of service provided by Council’s turf maintenance crew is comparable with other Council’s, there is a big difference in terms of the level of cost recovery. Kingborough Council currently only applies hire fees on the Twin Ovals, with all other grounds provided to users free of charge, with the exception of out of area clubs/organisations. In comparison, Hobart City Council applies hire charges for all of its sports grounds ranging from $12 per hour for juniors using Mt Nelson Oval for training to $110 per hour for
Agenda No. 20 Page 167 14 October 2019 matches on North Hobart Oval. Clarence, Glenorchy, Sorell, Brighton, Derwent Valley and Tasman Councils all apply hire fees for use of sports grounds with rates varying in accordance with the standard of the ground. The reintroduction of sportsground hire fees was proposed by Council in 2012 but was not pursued following strong opposition from clubs, a number of which stated that they would be forced out of existence due to the tenuous nature of their finances. Other clubs indicated that any hire fees would be passed onto users, creating a barrier to participation for financially disadvantaged members of the community. Whilst this report has focused on service levels, it is evident that they go hand in hand with the issue of cost recovery levels and the broader question of the level of support provided by Council for all sport and recreation activities within the Municipal Area.
Agenda No. 20 Page 168 14 October 2019 Appendix A – Service Level Detail Alonnah Oval
Primary User – Bruny Island Cricket Cub (summer)
Secondary Users – Bruny Island School, casual hirers
Summer Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Nil Nil Nil 5:30-7:30pm Nil HCCA matches (every Nil 2nd week)
Winter Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Maintenance Schedules:
Mowing – weekly (summer), monthly (winter)
Turf renovation – twice per year
Fertilising – twice per year
Spraying – twice per year
Aeration – as required
Linemarking – weekly (summer)
Wicket Covers - N/A
Other – cricket net, boundary fence and outer areas maintenance as required
Annual Maintenance Cost:
$10K
Usage Considerations:
The oval does not have a winter tenant and this situation is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. A Little Athletics Club utilised the ground during the summer season from 2014-2016 but has since folded.
Agenda No. 20 Page 169 14 October 2019 Gormley Park
Primary Users – Kingborough Little Athletics Centre (summer), Kingborough Lions Soccer Club (winter)
Secondary Users – Local schools for athletic carnivals
Summer Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 4 - 6:30pm Nil 4 - 9pm 4 - 6:30pm Nil 8am - 3pm Nil
Winter Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 4 - 8:30pm 4 - 8:30pm 4 - 8:30pm 4 - 8:30pm 4 - 8:30pm 8am - 6pm 8am - 6pm
Maintenance Schedules:
Mowing – weekly (summer), fortnightly (winter)
Turf renovation – twice per year
Fertilising – five times per year
Spraying – twice per year
Aeration – three times per year
Linemarking – weekly (summer and winter)
Wicket Covers - N/A
Other – long jump pit, boundary fence and outer areas maintenance as required
Annual Maintenance Cost:
$46K
Usage Considerations:
The ground is heavily used during the winter, causing issues with compaction. The window of opportunity for renovation is limited given that Little Athletics starts in early October.
Agenda No. 20 Page 170 14 October 2019 Kelvedon Park
Primary User – Taroona Soccer Club
Secondary Users – Taroona High School
Summer Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Winter Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 8.50 – 9.40 am 3.30 – 4.30 pm 11.40 – 12.30 3.30 – 4.30 pm 1.30 – 2.25 pm 8am –5 pm 8am – 5pm 3.30 – 8.30 pm pm 5.30 – 7.30pm 3.30 – 8.30 pm
Maintenance Schedules:
Mowing – weekly (summer), fortnightly (winter)
Turf renovation – twice per year
Fertilising – five times per year
Spraying – twice per year
Aeration – three times per year
Linemarking – weekly (summer and winter)
Wicket Covers - N/A
Other – boundary fence and outer areas maintenance as required
Annual Maintenance Cost:
$51K
Usage Considerations:
The ground is heavily used during the winter and is the only Council ground available to the Taroona Soccer Club for both matches and training. Post-season renovation takes most of the summer season to re- establish grass cover.
Agenda No. 20 Page 171 14 October 2019 Kettering Oval
Primary User – Kettering Cricket Club
Secondary Users – Cricket Tasmania (Junior League matches)
Summer Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 4:30 - 8pm 4:30 - 8pm 4:30 -8pm 3:30 - 8pm 3:30 - 8pm 10am - 6pm 10am- 6pm
Winter Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Maintenance Schedules:
Mowing – weekly (summer), fortnightly (winter)
Turf renovation – twice per year
Fertilising – five times per year
Spraying – twice per year
Aeration – three times per year
Linemarking – weekly (summer)
Wicket Covers - N/A (centre wicket is not covered as there is no winter tenant)
Other – cricket nets and outer areas maintained as required
Annual Maintenance Cost:
$35K
Usage Considerations:
It would be desirable for the oval to have a winter tenant to maximise usage. However, this would almost certainly require the provision of training lights.
Agenda No. 20 Page 172 14 October 2019 Kingston Beach Oval
Primary User – Kingston Crows Cricket Club (summer), Kingborough Tigers Junior Football Club (winter)
Secondary Users – Cricket Tasmania, Kingborough AFL Masters
Summer Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 4 – 9 pm 4 – 9 pm 4 – 9 pm 4 – 9 pm Nil 9 am – 7 pm 9 am – 7 pm
Winter Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 3.30 – 8 pm 3.30 – 8 pm 3.30 – 8 pm 3.30 – 8 pm 3.30 – 8 pm Nil 8 am – 6 pm
Maintenance Schedules:
Mowing – weekly (summer), fortnightly (winter)
Turf renovation – twice per year
Fertilising – five times per year
Spraying – twice per year
Aeration – three times per year
Linemarking – weekly (summer and winter)
Wicket Covers – synthetic wicket covered during winter months
Other – boundary fence, cricket nets and outer areas maintenance as required
Annual Maintenance Cost:
$60K
Usage Considerations:
The ground is at maximum capacity during both the summer and winter seasons.
Agenda No. 20 Page 173 14 October 2019 Lightwood Park 1a
Primary User – Kingborough Lions Soccer Club
Secondary Users – Nil
Summer Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 8.30am – 8.30 8.30am – 8.30 pm pm
Winter Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 8.50 – 9.40 am 3.30 – 4.30 pm 11.40 – 12.30 3.30 – 4.30 pm 1.30 – 2.25 pm 8am – 5 pm 8am – 5 pm 3.30 – 8.30 pm pm 5.30 – 7.30pm 3.30 – 8.30 pm
Maintenance Schedules:
Mowing – weekly (summer), fortnightly (winter)
Turf renovation – twice per year
Fertilising – five times per year
Spraying – twice per year
Aeration – three times per year
Linemarking – weekly (summer and winter)
Wicket Covers – N/A
Other – boundary fence and outer areas maintenance as required
Annual Maintenance Cost:
$57K
Usage Considerations:
The ground is the premier facility for Kingborough Lions home games. Due to the need to preserve its condition for these matches, it is at maximum usage capacity.
Agenda No. 20 Page 174 14 October 2019 Lightwood Park 1b
Primary User – Kingborough Lions Soccer Club
Secondary Users – Nil
Summer Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 8.30am – 6 pm 8.30am – 6 pm
Winter Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 8am – 6pm 8am – 6 pm
Maintenance Schedules:
Mowing – weekly (summer), fortnightly (winter)
Turf renovation – twice per year
Fertilising – five times per year
Spraying – twice per year
Aeration – three times per year
Linemarking – weekly (summer and winter)
Wicket Covers – N/A
Other – boundary fence and outer areas maintenance as required
Annual Maintenance Cost:
Included as part of 1a
Usage Considerations:
The ground has only been in use for 18 months and has already reached maximum usage capacity.
Agenda No. 20 Page 175 14 October 2019 Lightwood Park 2
Primary User – Summerleas Eagles Cricket Club (summer), Kingborough Lions Soccer Club (winter)
Secondary Users – Kingston High School (school hours), Kingborough District Cricket Club
Summer Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun School hrs School hrs School hrs School hrs School hrs 4.15 – 6.15pm 6 – 8.30 pm 4.15 – 7.45pm 6 – 8.30 pm 6.15 – 8.15 10 am – 6pm 10 am – 6pm pm
Winter Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun School hrs School hrs School hrs School hrs School hrs School hrs School hrs 3.30 – 6 pm 4.15 – 6 pm 3.30 – 6 pm 3.30 – 6 pm 3.30 – 6 pm 8am – 5 pm 8am – 5 pm
Maintenance Schedules:
Mowing – weekly (summer), fortnightly (winter)
Turf renovation – twice per year
Fertilising – five times per year
Spraying – twice per year
Aeration – three times per year
Linemarking – weekly (summer and winter)
Wicket Covers – N/A
Other – boundary fence and outer areas maintenance as required
Annual Maintenance Cost:
$45K
Usage Considerations:
Ground is at maximum usage capacity.
Agenda No. 20 Page 176 14 October 2019 Lightwood Park 3
Primary User –
Secondary Users –
Summer Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 6am – 7.45 am Nil 6am – 7.45 am Nil 6am – 7.45 am As required As required 4.15 – 8.30 pm 4.15 – 8.30 pm
Winter Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 4-8.30 pm 4-8.30 pm 4-8.30 pm 4-8.30 pm 4-8.30 pm 8am – 6pm 8am – 6pm
Maintenance Schedules:
Mowing – weekly (summer), fortnightly (winter)
Turf renovation – twice per year
Fertilising – three times per year
Spraying – twice per year
Aeration – three times per year
Linemarking – weekly (summer and winter)
Wicket Covers – N/A
Other – boundary fence and outer areas maintenance as required
Annual Maintenance Cost:
$34K
Usage Considerations:
Ground currently has poor drainage and soil structure that limits usage. This issue will be addressed through an upgrade to be undertaken in 2019/20.
Agenda No. 20 Page 177 14 October 2019 Margate Oval
Primary User – Margate Cricket Club (summer), Channel United Soccer Club (winter)
Secondary Users – Cricket Tasmania, Margate Primary School
Summer Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 3.30 – 7.30 pm 4 – 8 pm 3.30 – 7.30 pm 4 – 8 pm Nil 9am – 6 pm 9am – 6 pm
Winter Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 3 – 4.30pm 3 – 4.30pm 3 – 4.30pm 3 – 4.30pm 3 – 4.30pm 9am – 2 pm Nil
Maintenance Schedules:
Mowing – weekly (summer), fortnightly (winter)
Turf renovation – twice per year
Fertilising – three times per year
Spraying – twice per year
Aeration – three times per year
Linemarking – weekly (summer and winter)
Wicket Covers – N/A
Other – boundary fence, cricket nets and outer areas maintenance as required
Annual Maintenance Cost:
$46K
Usage Considerations:
The ground is close to maximum usage capacity. Installation of a drainage system in 2019/20 will improve ground conditions during winter.
Agenda No. 20 Page 178 14 October 2019 Sandfly Oval
Primary User – Longley Cricket Club (summer)
Secondary Users – Kingborough Lions Soccer Club
Summer Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 5.15 – 7.15 pm 5 – 7.30 pm 5.15 – 7.15 pm 5 – 7.30 pm Nil 10 – 6.30 pm 10 – 6.30 pm
Winter Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Nil 6 – 8.15 pm Nil 6 – 8.15 pm Nil Nil Nil
Maintenance Schedules:
Mowing – weekly (summer), fortnightly (winter)
Turf renovation – twice per year
Fertilising – twice per year
Spraying – twice per year
Aeration – three times per year
Linemarking – weekly (summer and winter)
Wicket Covers – N/A
Other – boundary fence, cricket nets and outer areas maintenance as required
Annual Maintenance Cost:
$34K
Usage Considerations:
The ground has training lights and its usage could be increased by securing a regular winter tenant.
Agenda No. 20 Page 179 14 October 2019 Sherburd Oval
Primary User – Blackmans Bay Cricket Club (summer), Southern Football Club (winter)
Secondary Users – Cricket Tasmania
Summer Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 5.15 – 7.15 pm 4 – 9 pm 5.15 – 7.15 pm 4 – 9 pm Nil 10am – 7 pm 10am – 7 pm
Winter Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 4.30 – 6pm 3.30 – 8 pm 3.30 – 8 pm 3.30 – 8 pm 3.30 – 10 pm 8.30 – 10 pm 8.30 – 6 pm
Maintenance Schedules:
Mowing – weekly (summer), fortnightly (winter)
Turf renovation – twice per year
Fertilising – three times per year
Spraying – twice per year
Aeration – three times per year
Linemarking – weekly (summer and winter)
Wicket Covers – synthetic centre wicket covered during winter months
Other – boundary fence, cricket nets and outer areas maintenance as required
Annual Maintenance Cost:
$52K
Usage Considerations:
The ground is at maximum usage capacity.
Agenda No. 20 Page 180 14 October 2019 Snug Oval
Primary User – Snug Cricket Club (summer), Channel Junior Football Club (winter)
Secondary Users – Cygnet Football Club
Summer Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Nil 5 – 8 pm 5.30 – 7.30pm 5 – 8 pm Nil 10am – 6 pm 10am – 6 pm
Winter Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 3.30 – 8.30pm 3.30 – 7.30 pm 3.30 – 8.30pm 3.30 – 8.30pm 3.30 – 8.30pm Nil 8am – 6pm
Maintenance Schedules:
Mowing – weekly (summer), fortnightly (winter)
Turf renovation – twice per year
Fertilising – three times per year
Spraying – twice per year
Aeration – three times per year
Linemarking – weekly (summer and winter)
Wicket Covers – synthetic centre wicket covered during winter months
Other – boundary fence, cricket nets and outer areas maintenance as required
Annual Maintenance Cost:
$46K
Usage Considerations:
The ground has some capacity for increased usage.
Agenda No. 20 Page 181 14 October 2019 Twin Oval 1 (AFL)
Primary User – Tigers Football Club
Secondary Users – AFL Tasmania, STJFL
Summer Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm 4 – 8.30 pm AFL practice AFL practice matches matches
Winter Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 4 – 8 pm 4 – 8 pm 4 – 8 pm 4 – 8 pm 4 – 8 pm Rostered Rostered matches matches
Maintenance Schedules:
Mowing – weekly
Turf renovation – four times per year
Fertilising – 10 times per year
Spraying – twice per year
Aeration – four times per year
Linemarking – weekly (winter)
Wicket Covers – N/A
Other – boundary fence and outer areas maintenance as required
Annual Maintenance Cost:
$120K
Usage Considerations:
The ground has capacity to accommodate additional usage in summer on weekends when there is no sport rostered other than the occasional AFL practice match.
Agenda No. 20 Page 182 14 October 2019 Twin Oval 2 (Cricket)
Primary User –
Secondary Users –
Summer Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Nil 5 – 7pm 5 – 7pm 5 – 7pm 5 – 7pm 8am – 6pm 8am – 6pm
Winter Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 5-8 pm 5-8 pm 5-8 pm 5-8 pm 4-6 pm Rostered Rostered matches matches
Maintenance Schedules:
Mowing – Up to four times per week during summer. Weekly (winter)
Turf renovation – four times per year
Fertilising – 10 times per year
Spraying – twice per year
Aeration – four times per year
Linemarking – weekly (winter)
Wicket Covers – removed and installed as required
Other – boundary fence and outer areas maintenance as required
Annual Maintenance Cost:
$206K
Usage Considerations:
The ground has capacity to accommodate additional usage during winter (both matches and training).
Agenda No. 20 Page 183 14 October 2019 Woodbridge Oval
Primary User – Woodbridge Cricket Club (summer), Woodbridge Soccer Club (winter)
Secondary Users – Cygnet Soccer Club
Summer Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 5 – 8pm 10 – 6 pm 10 – 6 pm Every 2nd wk Every 2nd wk
Winter Usage:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 3-5 pm 3-5 pm 3-5 pm 3-5 pm 3-5 pm 8am – 5 pm Nil
Maintenance Schedules:
Mowing – weekly (summer), fortnightly (winter)
Turf renovation – twice per year
Fertilising – three times per year
Spraying – twice per year
Aeration – three times per year
Linemarking – weekly (summer and winter)
Wicket Covers – synthetic centre wicket covered during winter months
Other – boundary fence, cricket nets and outer areas maintenance as required
Annual Maintenance Cost:
$23K
Usage Considerations:
The ground has no drainage, irrigation or training lights and has limited capacity for increased usage.
Agenda No. 20 Page 184 14 October 2019 FILE NO 36.48 DATE 2 OCTOBER 2019 OFFICER ABY MCGUIRE - SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER ENDORSED BY LIZ QUINN - ACTING MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
14.2 RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY - BLACKMANS BAY BEACH SOUTH
1 PURPOSE
Strategic Plan Reference
Key Priority Area 1 Encourage and support a safe, healthy and connected community Strategic Outcome 1.5 An active and healthy community with vibrant, clean local areas that provide social, recreational and economic opportunities
1.1 The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the proposed options for the southern end of Blackmans Bay Beach for this summer.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 The southern end of Blackmans Bay Beach has a current long-term recreational water quality grading of ‘poor’. Signs were erected in October 2018 advising the public that swimming is not recommended.
2.2 A Councillor Workshop was held on 16 September 2019 to provide a briefing on investigations and work that has been undertaken in the last 10-12 months.
2.3 The outcome of this Workshop was that Council would make a determination on the way forward for this summer.
3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
3.1 The key Guidelines for the monitoring and management of recreational water by local government in Tasmania are: Tasmanian Recreational Water Quality Guidelines 2007 (issued under the Public Health Act 1997); National Health and Medical Research Council Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water 2008 ; and New Zealand Microbiological Water Quality Guidelines for Marine and Freshwater Recreational Areas 2003.
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 Council has undertaken intensive investigation into the issues at the southern end of Blackmans Bay Beach over the last 10-12 months. This has included:
i) An ongoing weekly beach and stormwater sampling program. This commenced in November 2018 and includes the beach and stormwater outfalls. TasWater and the Derwent Estuary Program also conducted marine based sampling during this period.
ii) Source tracking of contamination.
Agenda No. 20 Page 185 14 October 2019 iii) Identification and rectification of a number of illegal domestic cross-connections.
iv) The formation of a Joint Investigative Team between Council and TasWater.
v) Collaboration with TasWater to identify damaged sewer infrastructure within the catchment area.
vi) A short-term trial diversion system at the Illawarra Road outfall (note: this was unsuccessful beyond a few weeks).
vii) Working with TasWater for approval to divert low-flows of stormwater to sewer.
viii) Monitoring the number and location of seagulls at the beach.
ix) Sand sediment sampling.
x) Engagement of a consultant with a specialist background in water quality issues and particularly the Derwent Estuary.
xi) Active participation in a Source Tracking Working Group with the Department of Health, TasWater, EPA, Derwent Estuary Program, City of Hobart and the Clarence City Council.
xii) Commitment to a permanent full-time Stormwater Investigation Officer position to focus on stormwater impacts on recreational water quality.
4.2 Water sampling results for the beach have shown compliant results for the last few months for the specific parameter, Enterococci. However this is the first time that sampling has been conducted over a Winter/Spring period.
4.3 A low-flow diversion at the Illawarra outfall will be a significant step forward in the management of stormwater outfalls to recreational areas. This will see all stormwater, during periods of low-flow, diverted into the TasWater sewer network. It is intended to have this installation completed by the end of 2019. After this installation, Council has approval to implement similar diversions at other outfalls at Blackmans Bay.
4.4 Council has the following options for the southern end of Blackmans Bay Beach for this summer. These all involve working closely with the Department of Health and the Director of Public Health.
Option 1 – seek immediate review of the ‘poor’ grading
4.5 Data from the water sampling program together with details of Council’s investigations and work to date would be presented to the Director of Public Health.
4.6 Whilst the results have looked promising in general, it should be noted that Winter/Spring sampling has not previously been conducted and there is no comparative data over this period.
4.7 The current ‘poor’ grading is based on five years of data at this site. This would therefore require significant discretion in the absence of at least a summer of compliant data.
4.8 It is unlikely that Council’s low-flow diversion will be installed before 1 December 2019 and there will be no opportunity for performance monitoring prior to the upcoming summer.
4.9 Council has actively prioritised this issue and committed significant resourcing, however it should be noted that these water quality investigations can be complex and
Agenda No. 20 Page 186 14 October 2019 in other similar circumstances it has taken a number of years to be in a position to review the grading.
4.10 This is not the recommended option.
Option 2 – continue with the current program and seek review of the ‘poor’ grading in preparation for the 2020/2021 summer
4.11 Council would commit to continuing the intensive weekly water sampling program for the next 12 months. If the results demonstrate a pattern of compliance this, together with details of Council’s ongoing investigations, would be presented to the Director of Public Health.
4.12 The low-flow diversion will have been installed at the Illawarra outfall and monitoring undertaken on its performance. In anticipation of this being successful, remaining diversions will have been installed at other outfalls at Blackmans Bay.
4.13 Council’s Stormwater Investigation Officer will have been appointed and commenced further investigative work in this area.
4.14 Council will commit to reviewing the Recreational Water Quality Management Strategy (April 2019).
4.15 This option does mean that the public health advisory signs remain at the southern end of the beach for this summer.
4.16 This is the recommended option.
Option 3 – reclassify the site
4.17 The site could be reclassified as an ‘environmental site’ due to nearby stormwater outfalls.
4.18 Permanent signage would need to be erected advising the community not to swim near stormwater outfalls. This would effectively cover the southern end of the beach.
4.19 This would be in conflict with Council’s current commitment to divert stormwater from these outfalls to improve both water quality long-term and the grading of the beach.
4.20 Other sites in Kingborough would then need to have this consistently applied ie – the southern end of Kingston Beach.
4.21 This reclassification would not reflect the expected use of this area of the beach and the high community value for recreational use.
4.22 This is not the recommended option.
5 FINANCE
5.1 Council has committed almost $1 million from the 2019/2020 budget for stormwater projects in Blackmans Bay.
5.2 An additional $200,000 per year was committed for the stormwater operational team.
5.3 Water sampling, analysis and program investigation costs were approximately $25,000 for the last financial year and to date.
5.4 Staff costs are not included in the above figure. Resourcing across departments for the last financial year and current is the equivalent of approximately 3 days/week.
Agenda No. 20 Page 187 14 October 2019 6 ENVIRONMENT
6.1 Blackmans Bay Beach is a regionally significant recreational area with a critical reliance on good water quality.
6.2 Council understands and recognises the importance and value of this beach for community recreational use.
7 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION
7.1 Councillors were updated on this issue at a Workshop on 16 September 2019.
7.2 Council recognises the significant interest in this issue and that regularly informing the community is essential. Regular social media updates will be provided, particularly in relation to progress of the installation of the low-flow diversion.
7.3 Water sampling results will continue to be published on Council’s website. These will include greater context to increase community understanding.
7.4 Council is reviewing its Communications Strategy to ensure the community are well informed about recreational water quality. This is currently under review at the date of this report.
7.5 Council intends to hold a community information session on recreational water quality, with a specific focus on Blackmans Bay, prior to the summer season.
8 RISK
8.1 Council needs to ensure that the correct advice is provided to the community in the interests of public health.
8.2 Without consistent data, including over a recent summer period, there is a risk of non- compliant results again without knowledge of the cause(s). This could be the case if Council seek an immediate review of the grading.
8.3 A precautionary approach is recommended to ensure Council can demonstrate there is no risk to recreational users.
9 CONCLUSION
9.1 Council has undertaken intensive investigation over the last 10-12 months into the issues affecting water quality at the southern end of Blackmans Bay Beach with the view of improving water quality in the long-term.
9.2 Water sampling results have shown an improvement over some months for a specific parameter however further data should be collected.
9.3 Increased financial commitment and priority has been attributed to stormwater impacts on recreational water quality.
9.4 The low-flow diversion at the Illawarra outfall is due to be installed by the end of 2019. This is a significant step forward in the management of stormwater outfalls to recreational areas.
9.5 Immediate review of the ‘poor’ grading could be considered premature; a more precautionary approach is recommended.
Agenda No. 20 Page 188 14 October 2019 10 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That Council:
(a) commit to continuing with the current planned monitoring and works program; and
(b) seek a review of the ‘poor’ grading in preparation for the 2020/2021 summer.
For Against For Against Cr Bastone Cr Street Cr Cordover Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Westwood Cr Grace Cr Winter Cr Midgley Cr Wriedt
Agenda No. 20 Page 189 14 October 2019 FILE NO 12.21, 23.103, 23.151, 23.1122 DATE 23 SEPTEMBER 2019 OFFICER RENAI CLARK - ROADS & STORMWATER ENGINEER ENDORSED BY DAVID REEVE - EXECUTIVE MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES
14.3 PETITION TO SEAL ENDEAVOUR PLACE, LORKINS ROAD AND KELLAWAY ROAD AT ADVENTURE BAY
1 PURPOSE
Strategic Plan Reference
Key Priority Area 2.0 Deliver Quality Infrastructure and Services Strategic Outcome 2.1 Service provision meets the current and future requirements of residents and visitors.
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide a response to a petition for the sealing of Endeavour Place, Lorkins Road and Kellaway Road at Adventure Bay.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 A petition containing 24 signatures was tabled at the 12 August 2019 Council meeting requesting the sealing of Endeavour Place, Lorkins Road and Kellaway Road at Adventure Bay.
2.2 Residents are concerned that increased traffic volumes are having a detrimental impact on the health, wellbeing and standard of living of residents due to road dust.
3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Council has wide discretion as to what standard it maintains its roads as outlined in the Local Government (Highways) Act 1982 clause 21.
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 Council received a number of complaints from a resident regarding water carts using Endeavour Place and Lorkins Road to access the water filling station in Kellaway Road. The concern was that the water carts were travelling too fast and creating a lot of dust.
4.2 Council contacted the water cart operator to discuss the resident’s concerns. The operator advised that the water cart travels at around 20 km/h and usually wets down the road using left over water to keep the dust down.
4.3 Following further complaints Council agreed to place a traffic counter on Endeavour Place to measure traffic volumes, speeds and vehicle types using the road. The counter was active for a five week period from Wednesday 27 February until Tuesday 2 April 2019.
4.4 Average daily traffic was measured at 36 vehicles. Average hourly traffic was measured at 4 vehicles. The largest peak hour recorded was 11 vehicles at 1pm on Sunday 10 March 2019 and again at 12pm on Saturday 30 March 2019.
4.5 The 85th percentile speed was measured at 30.2 km/h and the mean speed was measured at 24.1 km/h. The maximum speed recorded was 39.8 km/h and was a standard passenger vehicle. No heavy vehicles exceeded 30 km/h.
Agenda No. 20 Page 190 14 October 2019 4.6 The dominant vehicle class was standard passenger vehicles making up 87.3% of all vehicles. 7.2% of vehicles were two axle trucks such as a food delivery truck or minibus. Larger trucks such as a water cart, 10 yard truck or semi-trailer made up 4% of all vehicles. 1.3% were motorcycles or bicycles. The average daily volume of standard passenger vehicles was 37 vehicles while the average daily volume of heavy vehicles was 3 vehicles.
4.7 Endeavour Place is around 150 metres in length. There are 15 residential lots fronting onto Endeavour Place, two of which are undeveloped. Only two of the properties have permanent residents. One property is listed as holiday accommodation.
4.8 Lorkins Road is around 450 metres in length. There are 13 residential lots fronting onto Lorkins Road, two of which are undeveloped. All residential lots are located on the eastern side of Lorkins Road. A large heavily forested area runs the full length of Lorkins Road on the western side. There are also two residential lots on the western side which are set back around 110 metres from the road. Five of the properties have permanent residents. One property is listed as holiday accommodation.
4.9 Construction of a road for a nine lot subdivision of the large property on the western side of Lorkins Road commenced in 2010. The road was to be constructed to a rural sealed standard however was never completed. No further works have been undertaken on the subdivision.
4.10 Kellaway Road is around 110 metres in length between Adventure Bay Road and Lorkins Road. There are four residential lots fronting onto the northern side of Kellaway Road. One property does not have a dwelling. Only one property has permanent residents. The Adventure Bay Hall grounds fronts the southern side.
4.11 Endeavour Place, Lorkins Road and Kellaway Road have a high level of safety. There have been no reported crashes on this road network.
4.12 Given the low overall traffic volumes, low heavy vehicle movements and low traffic speeds the resident was previously advised that the sealing of Endeavour Place was not considered a priority.
4.13 To give some context to the larger picture associated with unsealed roads the following points are relevant.
4.14 Approximately half of Council’s road network is unsealed and in the majority of cases these perform very well. Council has sealed gravel sections of road in the past and it is fair to say there have been some inconsistencies over the areas chosen and the quality of construction. As such it is important going forward that consistent criteria are used to assess whether a road is a suitable candidate for sealing and that appropriate pavement and drainage are provided to support the seal.
4.15 Sealing of unsealed roads is an expensive option as it involves, as a minimum, new pavement, improved drainage and a new bituminous surface. As such, it is important to consider each case carefully.
4.16 Maintaining an unsealed road is often considerably less than the cost of upgrading and maintaining a rural sealed road over the life of the asset. This is dependent on the specific maintenance requirements due to factors such as traffic volumes and a high presence of heavy vehicles, climatic and environmental conditions, topographic and geometric conditions.
4.17 Council is increasingly receiving requests for sealing unsealed roads, usually citing improved road safety and reduction in dust as the most common reasons.
Agenda No. 20 Page 191 14 October 2019 4.18 Dust can become a problem on unsealed roads in the drier months; however, there are no simple solutions to address this. There are short term dust suppression proprietary products that Council has used for particular roads but they are relatively expensive and usually are only effective for up to 12 months and even during this period may not be fully effective in managing dust. This type of product is more suited to higher trafficked unsealed roads where dust is more of a prevalent issue.
4.19 Council’s Asset Management Plan has prioritised the renewal of existing infrastructure. The function of the Asset Management Plan is to ensure that Council continues to provide effective and comprehensive management of its infrastructure to meet the legislative and operational requirements to provide the required levels of service to meet the needs of its community. Its core focus is on the maintenance and renewal of existing assets.
4.20 For the unsealed road network the focus is for the continued resheeting on a cyclic program as necessary, dependent on traffic volumes. Maintenance is generally limited to potholing, regrading and drain cleaning. Resheeting is undertaken around every five to fifteen years depending on the road hierarchy and road condition. The purpose of these treatments is to ensure the asset is maintained in a safe and operational condition but not necessarily to improve the overall condition of the road.
4.21 Upgrading an unsealed road to a sealed road does have many benefits such as reducing maintenance frequency, improving resident amenity, improving ride quality, improving skid resistance thus improving safety. However, sealing a road has a high capital cost and generally higher ongoing maintenance costs. As such the decision to seal an unsealed road needs to be considered carefully in context of the benefit versus cost.
4.22 Notwithstanding the above, it is considered prudent that Council consider the development of a clear strategy and policy for the management of unsealed roads and its position in relation to sealing of unsealed roads.
4.23 While there are some Local Government areas in Australia that have implemented such policies they have varying conditions and requirements needed to be met in order for the proposals to be considered. However they generally consider priorities using a score matrix together with a cost-benefit analysis.
4.24 Other Local Government Policies and assessment practices previously researched have provided a good foundation to allow the development of a score matrix for Kingborough. Although still requiring some further development and testing against the full unsealed road network in Kingborough, the draft score matrix considers a number of factors including: traffic volumes; traffic speeds; crash statistics; road geometry; climatic conditions; environmental considerations such as proximity of trees; the number of dwellings and proximity of dwellings; and ongoing maintenance requirements.
4.25 A future report and draft policy on the management of unsealed roads based on the above research will be presented for Council’s consideration later in the year.
5 FINANCE
5.1 The estimated costs to reconstruct Endeavour Place, Lorkins Road and Kellaway Road, between Adventure Bay Road and Lorkins Street, to a rural sealed standard and an urban sealed standard are shown in the table below:
Agenda No. 20 Page 192 14 October 2019 Road Rural sealed standard Urban sealed standard Endeavour Place $180,000 $250,000 Lorkins Road $540,000 $760,000 Kellaway Road $130,000 $185,000 Total $850,000 $1,195,000
5.2 The Tasmania Grants Commission collected data on valuation rates sourced from five Tasmanian City Councils: Hobart; Glenorchy; Clarence; Launceston; and Burnie, to derive median road maintenance costs per kilometre for various maintenance works typically carried out on urban and rural roads.
5.3 Based on the derived values determined by the Tasmanian Grants Commission a cost comparison was undertaken on Endeavour Place, Lorkins Road and Kellaway Road to measure the difference between maintaining the unsealed roads as compared with the cost to upgrade and maintain the roads to a rural sealed standard and also the cost to upgrade and maintain the roads to an urban sealed standard.
Maintaining the existing unsealed roads $1,800/km/pa Upgrading and maintaining to a rural sealed road $6,500/km/pa Cost difference $4,700/km/pa
6 ENVIRONMENT
6.1 There are no environmental implications for this matter.
7 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION
7.1 Council has previously communicated with a resident of Endeavour Place and other members of the household that the sealing of Endeavour Place is not considered a priority when compared with other unsealed roads.
7.2 Council has previously communicated with a resident of Kellaway Road that the sealing of Kellaway Road is not considered a priority when compared with other unsealed roads.
7.3 Council will respond directly with the petitioners as to the outcome of this report.
8 RISK
8.1 There is a risk to Council that agreeing to consider these roads for sealing in the 5-Year Capital Works Program will drive similar requests from residents on other unsealed roads. This risk is ameliorated somewhat by the fact that each road needs to be assessed on its own merits having regard to safety, traffic use and costs.
8.2 There is a risk to Council that agreeing to fund these roads for sealing in the 5-Year Capital Works Program will push out timelines for other reconstruction works already identified as being at the end of their serviceable life.
9 CONCLUSION
9.1 A draft score matrix was recently developed for assessing Kingborough’s unsealed road network as a means of ranking them in order of priority. While still in the early
Agenda No. 20 Page 193 14 October 2019 stages of development it was used as an example to compare the priority for sealing Endeavour Place against a listed candidate for a future seal, Harvey Street at Alonnah. Endeavour Place obtained a weighted average score of 18%. Harvey Street obtained a weighted average score of 41%.
9.2 The cost to maintain Endeavour Place, Lorkins Road and Kellaway Road in their unsealed form is less than one third of the cost to upgrade and maintain to a rural sealed standard.
9.3 In consideration of the above it is not considered a priority to submit a project bid for the future reconstruction of Endeavour Place, Lorkins Road and Kellaway Road to a sealed road standard.
9.4 The low traffic volumes and speeds would not be a driver for considering any dust suppression measures.
9.5 Further development of scoring matrix to rate the viability of sealing an unsealed road and the development of a policy to guide Council is considered important due to the extensiveness of Council’s unsealed road network and the ongoing requests from the community to seal gravel roads.
10 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That:
(a) The petitioners be advised that sealing of Endeavour Place, Lorkins Road and Kellaway Road will not be considered in the 5-Year Capital Works Program.
(b) Council receive a future report and draft policy outlining Council’s position on the management of its unsealed road network
For Against For Against Cr Cordover Cr Street Cr Bastone Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Westwood Cr Grace Cr Winter Cr Midgley Cr Wriedt
Agenda No. 20 Page 194 14 October 2019 FILE NO 12.22 & 12.17 DATE 7 OCTOBER 2019 OFFICER GARY ARNOLD - GENERAL MANAGER
14.4 APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TO COPPING REFUSE SITE JOINT DISPOSAL AUTHORITY
1 PURPOSE
Strategic Plan Reference
Key Priority Area 2 Deliver quality infrastructure and services Strategic Outcome 2.2 Infrastructure development and service delivery are underpinned by strategic planning to cater for the needs of a grown population
1.1 The purpose of this report is to appoint a proxy for the Mayor to the Copping Refuse Site Joint Disposal Authority (CRSJDA).
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Following the recent resignation of former councillor, Richard Atkinson, it is appropriate for Council to appoint a proxy to attend CRSJDA meetings when the Mayor is unable to attend.
3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
3.1 CRSJDA trading as Southern Waste Solutions was established in accordance with Section 30 of the Local Government Act 1993.
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 Former councillor, Richard Atkinson, was appointed proxy for the Mayor at Council’s meeting held on 12 November 2018 (Minute C769/24-18 refers).
4.2 Following the resignation of former councillor, Richard Atkinson, it is appropriate for Council to appoint a new proxy.
5 FINANCE
5.1 There are no financial implications to Council.
6 ENVIRONMENT
6.1 There are no environmental implications to consider.
7 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION
7.1 CRSJDA will be advised of the appointment.
8 RISK
8.1 There are no perceived risks to Council.
Agenda No. 20 Page 195 14 October 2019 9 CONCLUSION
9.1 The appointment of a proxy to CRSJDA is required following the recent resignation of former councillor, Richard Atkinson.
10 RECOMMENDATION
MOVED SECONDED
That Council resolve to appoint Councillor ……….. as proxy to the Mayor for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Disposal Authority.
For Against For Against Cr Bastone Cr Street Cr Cordover Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Westwood Cr Grace Cr Winter Cr Midgley Cr Wriedt
Agenda No. 20 Page 196 14 October 2019 15 INFORMATION REPORTS
MOVED SECONDED
That the following information reports be noted:
1 Mayor’s Communications.
2 Kingborough Waste Services Bi-Monthly Report.
For Against For Against Cr Bastone Cr Street Cr Cordover Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Westwood Cr Grace Cr Winter Cr Midgley Cr Wriedt
Agenda No. 20 Page 197 14 October 2019 15.1 MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Winter reported the following meetings and activities:
Date Place Meeting/Activity 2 September Salamanca Meeting with Rebecca White MP & Anita Dow MP to discuss Local Government issues and reform options. 3 September Kingston Participated in Legacy Week collection Civic Centre Met with Mr Andrew Paul and Cr David Grace to discuss planning issues. 4 September Salamanca Met with Mr Robert Rockerfeller to discuss the Australian Antarctic Division. 5 September Westside Circle Attended the opening of the Vinnies Shop Kettering Met with Robert Armstrong MLC to discuss local issues, including proposed Huntingfield development. Clarence City Council Attended Copping Joint Authority Meeting Office of Sen. Jonathon Attended Greater Hobart Mayors meeting with Duniam southern Liberal Senators 6 September Civic Centre Met with Mr Peter Harvey of Kingborough Community Missions 7 September Kettering Hall Attending the opening of the Channel Regional Arts Exhibition 10 September Salamanca Met with Mr Chris Jones to discuss City Deal and other Council issues. Kingston Beach Golf Attended Bonnet Hill Community Association AGM Club 11 September Parliament House Attending briefing to the Legislative Council regarding the Housing Land Supply (Huntingfield) Order 13 September Launceston Attended LGAT General Meeting 14 September Launceston Attended Local Government Act Review Consultation 15 September Kingborough Bowls Attended the Opening of the Greens Club 16 September Hobart Town Hall Attended Infrastructure Australia Bridgewater Bridge briefing Civic Centre Attended Kingborough Ratepayers Association quarterly meeting Civic Centre Attended General Manager’s Performance Review Committee meeting 17 September Hobart Town Hall Attended Greater Hobart Mayors Forum Community Hub Attended Citizenship Ceremony Civic Centre Attended Hobart City Deal workshop with Minister Michael Ferguson Kingston High School Attended ‘Popstars’ performance
Agenda No. 20 Page 198 14 October 2019 Date Place Meeting/Activity 18 September Civic Centre Met with Mr Mel Cooper of the Kingston Beach RSL sub-branch to discuss future needs of the RSL. MONA, Berriedale Attended MyState dinner 20 September Hobart Town Hall Attended Hobart City Deal and Waste Management Discussion Kingborough Sports Attended NBL Blitz Centre 21 September Kingston Park Park Run launch Taroona Bowls Club Attended Bowls Club opening 23 September The Neck, Bruny Island Met Federal Environment Minister the Hon. Sussan Ley MP to discuss cat management project 24 September Salamanca Met with Shadow Infrastructure Minister, Shane Broad MP to discuss local infrastructure priorities and the city deal. 26 September Kingston Attended opening of Meg Webb MLC Electorate Office on Channel Highway, Kingston Civic Centre Met with Ms Kate Slater, Principal Margate Primary School Clarence City Council Attended SKM Recycling meeting 27 September Taroona High School Attended Scholarship Awards Beachfront 32 Brian Wightman of the Property Council to discuss planning reform 30 September Huon Valley Council Attended meeting with Minister Ferguson to discuss the Sandfly intersection 1 October Hobart Town Hall Attended Greater Hobart Mayors Forum 3 October Bellerive Attended City Deal Implementation Plan launch 4 October Snug Attended the official opening of the Ashton Denehy Park 5 October Kingston Beach Attended the official opening of the Kingston Beach Sailing Club Willie Smith’s Cider, Attended Kingborough Lions United Football Club Huon Highway end of season dinner.
Agenda No. 20 Page 199 14 October 2019 Author : Tony Ferrier - Deputy General Manager File No : 12.180 Date : 9 October 2019
15.2 KINGBOROUGH WASTE SERVICES - BI-MONTHLY REPORT
Attached to this information report are the minutes of the Board meeting held on 24 September 2019, the Chairman’s report, the financial reports up to the end of August 2019 and the Waste Management Strategy Progress Report.
FINANCE
The Profit and Loss Statement for the year-to-date period up to 31 August 2019 resulted in an operational deficit of $18,692. This result is $9,629 more than the budgeted deficit of $28,321.
Surplus/(Deficit) Actual Result Month Income Expenditure 2019/20 2018/19 July 192,082 180,085 11,997 14,722 August 178,446 209,134 (30,689) (24,757) September October November December January February March April May June TOTAL 370,528 389,220 (18,692) (10,035)
The year-to-date budget versus actual results comparison is as follows:
Month in 2019/20 Budget Actual Variance July 1,465 11,997 10,532 August (29,786) (30,689) (903) September October November December January February March April May June TOTAL (28,321) (18,692) 9,629
Agenda No. 20 Page 200 14 October 2019 Variances of note for the 2019/20 year to date include the following (acknowledging it is only two months into the year and most items were close to budget):
Item Positive Negative Comments Impact Impact Income $ $ General waste 8,585 Less waste was received than expected. Green waste 5,335 More green waste received than expected. Metal sales 19,734 Substantial revenue was obtained due to a large removal of metals in July – noting that no revenue has been budgeted for this year. Kerbside 2,720 Less kerbside waste has been received collection charges from the contractor than expected. Bruny Island 3,351 More Bruny waste received than expected. Disposal Charges Expenditure $ $ Salaries 5,873 Additional (labour hire) staff replaced staff taking accumulated leave. Transport Costs - 3,185 More loads taken to Copping than expected. Copping
WASTE TRANSFER STATION SITE ACTIVITIES
A major service on the compactor was carried out in July. Preliminary work has commenced on the construction of a hard stand area at Barretta for processing green waste.
A free green waste disposal week-end is scheduled for 26-27 October.
Onestop Metal Recycling collected 290 tonnes in July and a further 44 tonnes in August with a financial return to KWS.
The CMA Eco-cycle program removed 64kg of fluorescent tubes and globes, 187kg of household batteries and 94kg of X-rays during July.
For the Re-use Shop, July resulted in 2,650 transactions, with sales of $29,239 which is $739 above budget. August resulted in 2,640 transactions, with sales of $27,738, which is $762 above budget. The shop has had good start to the year compared to the same time last year (an increase in sales of $3,468).
The Board considered and updated a number of human resource policies and procedures – including Employee Code of Conduct Policy, Disciplinary Policy, Performance Management Policy, Issue Resolution (Grievance) Policy, Communication Devices and Social Media Policy and Workplace Behaviour Policy
Agenda No. 20 Page 201 14 October 2019
The following table outlines the waste received up to the end of August 2019 and that which is transported to Copping and other diversions.
Product Tonnes General Waste 819.93 Kerbside Waste 873.16 Kerbside Recycling 346.66 Recyclables (Sawtooth) 218.93 Shop Receivables 59.61 Green Waste 331.15 Timber waste 19.58 Car Batteries 4.04
Agenda No. 20 Page 202 14 October 2019 Product Tonnes X-Ray/Globes/Batteries 0.35 Non Ferrous 4.45 Oil 3.70 Paint 2.53 Tyre/Gas 0.88 E-waste 6.64 TOTAL WASTE RECEIVED (Tonnes) 2,691.61
Product Tonnes Transported to Copping 1,609.1 Kerbside Recycling 346.66 Diverted WTS 83.99 Diverted Metal 105.49 Diverted MRF 57.19 Diverted Glass 56.25 Diverted Shop 59.61 Diverted Green Waste 331.15 Diverted Timber Waste 19.58 Diverted Car Batteries 4.04 Diverted X-Ray/Globes/Batteries 0.35 Diverted Non Ferrous 4.45 Diverted Oil 3.70 Diverted Paint 2.53 Diverted Tyres / Gas Bottles 0.88 Diverted E-waste 6.64 Total Diverted 1,082.51 Diverted % 40%
A list of the diversion rates (waste diverted from landfill) now being achieved on a month-to-month basis compared to previous years is as shown in the following table. Note that these figures now include the diversion of green waste and, since mid-October 2018, they also include kerbside recycling volumes – hence the increased diversion percentage compared to previous years.
Month 2019/20 2018/19 2017/18 2016/17 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14 July 41% 33.6% 23.70% 15.16% 17.17% 22.85% 22.04% August 39% 36.07% 25.92% 19.22% 17.20% 26.35% 23.53% September 36.03% 22.03% 22.94% 23.01% 23.04% 28.04% October 45.4% 22.84% 24.73% 19.82% 25.63% 23.85% November 43.6% 22.62% 21.41% 26.32% 27.69% 25.33% December 45.46% 21.01% 27.71% 19.87% 20.54% 24.60% January 44.01% 21.32% 22.01% 24.26% 22.08% 26.29% February 45.19% 21.49% 24.24% 23.22% 26.11% 30.33% March 47.37% 19.42% 24.44% 23.62% 25.18% 28.34% April 43.0% 25.84% 25.63% 21.50% 23.25% 26.36% May 43.09% 31.12% 19.85% 18.41% 24.05% 25.16% June 42.25% 23.9% 22.7% 24.97% 17.86% 35.32% TOTAL 42.56% 24.21% 22.89% 21.73% 23.72% 26.60%
Agenda No. 20 Page 203 14 October 2019 STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES
The Board considered the Service Level report. The kerbside collection program is meeting all KPIs, except for an incomplete progress claim. The mainland public place bin collection program has met all KPIs – except for some missed collections and a failure to provide some collection vehicle and operator records. This had been dealt with in more detail in the preceding Service Level Agreement meeting with the General Manager.
Council has decided to commence a kerbside green waste service in July 2020 and KWS will prepare a proposal that outlines the necessary implementation arrangements.
KWS has also been consulting with Hobart, Launceston and Glenorchy councils, plus Mornington Park Waste Transfer Station, in regard to the most efficient means of implementing a kerbside green waste collection service. The consensus is that it should be a two stage approach – initially garden organics only and then food organics later. It is also acknowledged that there are limited disposal options currently available for the collected product. Consequently, a joint Expressions of Interest process (with Hobart and Glenorchy) commenced on 17 August (closes 18 September 2019) to identify a future FOGO processing facility.
The Board discussed the issues raised in the State Government’s Waste Action Plan and identified those matters that were worth commenting on. KWS would then provide advice to the General Manager on what might be contained in a submission from Council (submissions close on 7 October).
An update was also provided to the Board on the current situation with the SKM Materials Recycling Facility at Lutana. This had been the subject of a separate report to Council.
COMMUNICATION
Updated information is provided in the Kingborough Chronicle on a monthly basis that provides information on the services provided at Barretta, re-use shop advertisements and any current notifications or changes to operating arrangements. Similar information is provided on Council’s Facebook page. There have also been a number of website updates (eg fees and charges). The home composting workshops have been advertised. The 2019/20 Waste and Recycling Guide was printed and distributed.
At this meeting the Board also considered the opportunities to provide assistance to community groups and local schools to undertake programs consistent with Council’s Waste Management Strategy.
Agenda No. 20 Page 204 14 October 2019 ATTACHMENTS
1. Minutes of the Board meeting held on 31 July 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 205 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 206 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 207 14 October 2019 2. Chairman’s report
Kingborough Waste Services Pty Ltd Chairman’s Report No 49 Issued 3rd October 2019
Board Meeting, 24th September 2019
The KWS Board held a scheduled board meeting on Wednesday 24th September 2019 at the Council Chambers, Kingston. KWS attendees were Peter Shelley in his capacity as the Chairman/Director; Debra Mackeen, Director, Tony Ferrier, Director, David Reeve, Director, Stuart Baldwin (Manager of KWS), and Tim Jones (Manage-Finance, Kingborough Council), and Mr. Dean Street KWS
Principle Matters The principle matters discussed/addressed by the Board at the meeting were as follows:
Confirmed the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 31st July 2019.
The Board reviewed the financial reports for KWS for July and August 2019. The results for July were positive and yielded a profit of $12k some $10.5 higher than forecast. August results were in line with forecast resulting in a loss$30.6k. This loss is attributed in the main to $30k insurance being paid for in this month. All expenses and income for the period were in line with forecast. The Board reviewed the Operational Report for July and August 2019. The major service to the compactor was carried out in July and resulted in lower average tonnages per load being transported to Copping for a short period. The Board discussed the need for a continuing media programme covering the present and planned developments at KWS. Management will monitor the needs and progress the actions required to achieve the desired outcomes. The Board reviewed and noted the July and August 2019 Service Level Agreement report from the Manager KWS. It was noted that the kerbside collection contractor did not meet their KPI’s for progress claims in July and August. The mainland contractor for public place bin collection has not been meeting their KPI’s with a number of missed collections and delays in the provision of reports. KWS management are following-up on these matters. The Board discussed the HR Policy and Procedure Review and resolved to approve and adopt the 2019 policies as specified in the minutes of this Board meeting. The Board discussed the opportunity for KWS to have an involvement in Community and School assistance programmes relative to our adopted Waste Management Strategy. Management to address this concept with a view of incorporation in the 2020/21 budget. The Board discussed the State Government Waste Action Plan and agreed to provide Council with KWS Management recommendations for a Council response to the State Government. The Board discussed the Bruny Island Contract and the possibility of a second Waste Transfer Hub. It was identified that an investigation needs to take place and identify the need for a monitored solution that perhaps may include a community group or a commercial activity as operator. This matter to be actioned by KWS. The Next Board Meeting of KWS will be on Wednesday 27 November 2019 at the Civic Centre commencing at 9:00am
PC Shelley, Chair, 3rd October 2019.
Agenda No. 20 Page 208 14 October 2019 3. Financial reports up to the end of June 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 209 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 210 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 211 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 212 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 213 14 October 2019 4. Waste Management Strategy Progress Report
Agenda No. 20 Page 214 14 October 2019
Agenda No. 20 Page 215 14 October 2019 16 CONFIRMATION OF ITEMS TO BE DEALT WITH IN CLOSED SESSION
MOVED SECONDED
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)
For Against For Against Cr Bastone Cr Street Cr Cordover Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Westwood Cr Grace Cr Winter Cr Midgley Cr Wriedt
In accordance with the Kingborough Council Meetings Audio Recording Guidelines Policy, recording of the open session of the meeting will now cease.
Open Session of Council adjourned at
OPEN SESSION ADJOURNS
Agenda No. 20 Page 216 14 October 2019 OPEN SESSION RESUMES
Open Session of Council resumed at
MOVED SECONDED
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 Applications for Leave of Absence
For Against For Against Cr Bastone Cr Street Cr Cordover Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Westwood Cr Grace Cr Winter Cr Midgley Cr Wriedt
CLOSURE
There being no further business, the Chairperson declared the meeting closed at
…………………………………… …………………………………… (Confirmed) (Date)
Agenda No. 20 Page 217 14 October 2019