COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA

NOTICE is hereby given that an Ordinary meeting of the Kingborough Council will be held in the Civic Centre, Kingston on Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 5.30pm

Back (L – R): Cr Paul Chatterton, Cr Mike Percey, Cr Sue Bastone, Cr Dean Winter, Cr Richard Atkinson Front (L – R): Cr Dr Graham Bury, Cr Flora Fox, Mayor Cr Steve Wass, Deputy Mayor Cr Paula Wriedt, Cr David Grace

QUALIFIED PERSONS

In accordance with Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993, I confirm that the reports contained in Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 to be held on Tuesday, 14 June 2016 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 June 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Open Session Agenda Page No.

Attendees 1

Apologies 2

Confirmation of Minutes 2

Council Meeting No. 9 Held on Monday, 23 May 2016 2

Special Council Meeting No. 10 Held on Monday, 6 June 2016 2

Workshops held Since Council Meeting on 23 May 2016 2

Declarations of Interest 3

Questions on Notice from the Public 4

Questions Without Notice from the Public 4

Questions on Notice from Councillors 4

Annual Percentage Rate Rise Since 2006/07 4

Questions Without Notice from Councillors 4

Motions of Which Notice has been Given 4

Petitions Still Being Actioned 5

Petitions Received in Last Period 5

Planning Authority - Reports of Officers 6

Delegated Authority for the Period 11 May 2016 to 31 May 2016 6

DA-2015-479 - Development Application for Telecommunications Tower at 441 Tinderbox Road, Tinderbox for Visionstream Pty Limited 9

DA-2016-154 - Development Application for Change of Use - Carriage 1 Bookshop to Cellar Door Facility at Margate Train, 1567 Channel Highway, Margate for Mr D A Tottle 31

DA-2016-174 - Development Application for Dwelling at 19 Saddle Road, Kettering for Henry Carr Design & Consulting 40

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Open Session Agenda Page No.

Council - Reports of Officers 58

Climate Change Innovation Lab 58

Oxley and Groombridge Road Petition 70

Regional Waste Group 80

Community Grants 2016/2017 Round 1 85

Code of Conduct 88

Code of Conduct Panel 100

Nominations for the 1967 Bushfires Commemoration Working Group 102

Bruny Island SES Unit Complex 122

Kingston Produce Market 125

Policy 3.14 – Rates and Charges Policy 130

Information Reports 137

Mayor’s Communications 137

Confirmation of Items to be Dealt With in Closed Session 140 1

AGENDA of an Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held at the Kingborough Civic Centre, Kingston on Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 5.30pm.

From To Time Occupied Open Council 5.30pm Planning Authority Open Council Closed Council Open Council TOTAL TIME OCCUPIED

AUDIO RECORDING

The Chairperson is to direct commencement of the recording.

Declare meeting open (time), welcome all in attendance and read:

“All persons in attendance are advised that it is Council policy to record Council Meetings.

The audio recording of this meeting will be made available to the public on Council’s web site for a period of twelve months.

In accordance with Council Policy, I now ask staff to confirm that the audio recording has commenced.”

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS

The Chairperson acknowledges the traditional owners of this land and pays respects to them and their customs, and to their elders, past, present and future.

ATTENDEES

Councillors:

PRESENT Mayor Councillor S Wass Councillor R Atkinson Councillor S Bastone Councillor Dr G Bury Councillor P Chatterton Councillor F Fox Councillor D Grace Councillor M Percey Councillor D Winter

Staff:

TITLE NAME

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 1 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 2

APOLOGIES

Deputy Mayor, Cr Wriedt (Leave of Absence)

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Council Meeting No. 9 held on Monday, 23 May 2016

MOVED SECONDED

That the Minutes of Council Meeting No. 9 held on 23 May 2016 be confirmed.

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

Special Council Meeting No. 10 held on Monday, 6 June 2016

MOVED SECONDED

That the Minutes of Council Meeting No. 10 held on 6 June 2016 be confirmed.

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

WORKSHOPS HELD SINCE COUNCIL MEETING ON 23 MAY 2016

DATE PURPOSE 19 May 2016 Budget Communication, Fees and Charges 30 May 2016 STCA

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 2 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 3

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.

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

At each meeting of Council or a Council Committee there will be an opportunity for question to be asked by any member of the public. A question may either be in writing, or may be verbally asked at the meeting. You are reminded that the forum is designed to accommodate questions only. Neither the questions nor answers will be debated.

A period of 15 minutes, if required, will be set aside and the Chairperson will endeavour to deal with as many questions as possible at each meeting. If a response to a question cannot be provided at the meeting a written response will be provided as soon as practicable. If time constraints do not permit all questions to be put, the Council will reply to any question that is put in writing.

A Question must not relate to any matter that is listed on the agenda for the meeting.

Questions in Writing :

A member of the public may give written notice to the General Manager 7 days before a meeting of a question to be put to the meeting. The question will appear in the agenda of the meeting, and a written response will be recorded in the minutes. There is no standard form for such questions, but they should be clearly headed Question(s) on Notice.

Questions asked at the Meeting :

At the commencement of Question Time the Chairperson will ask members of the public present, if there are any questions, and if so what are those questions? This procedure is to permit the Chairperson to determine an appropriate time limit for Question Time and perhaps limit the opportunity for multiple questions, and to determine whether each question is appropriate. There is to be no discussion, preamble or embellishment of any question at this time.

The Chairperson will then determine which of those questions will be accepted and will provide the reason for any refusal; will determine the order of the questions, and may set a time limit for Question Time. The Chairperson may require a question to be put on notice and in writing.

A member of the public present may only ask one question at a time. The Chairperson may give preference to questions from other members of the public before permitting second or further questions from a member of the public. The Chairperson may rule that a multi-part question is in fact two or more questions, and deal with them accordingly.

The Chairperson may rule a question inappropriate, and thus inadmissible if in his or her opinion it has already been asked, is unclear, irrelevant, offensive or relates to any matter which would normally be considered in Closed Session.

Lengthy preambles or introductions are discouraged, and the Chairperson may require that a member of the public immediately put the question.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 3 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 4

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC

At the time the Agenda was compiled there were no questions on notice from the public.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS

Annual Percentage Rate Rise Since 2006/07

Cr Winter has submitted the following question on notice :

What has been the annual percentage rate rise at Kingborough Council in each year since 2006-07?

Response:

Responsible Officer: John Breen - Chief Financial Officer

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

At the time the Agenda was compiled there were no Notices of Motion given.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 4 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 5

PETITIONS STILL BEING ACTIONED

A report on the petition submitted to Council on the 9th May 2016 headed “Lower Oxleys & Groombridges Road, Kettering” can be found at page 58 of this Agenda.

PETITIONS RECEIVED IN LAST PERIOD

On the day of compiling the Agenda no Petitions had been received.

O P E N SESSION OF COUNCIL A D J O URNS

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 5 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 6

P L A NNING AUTHORITY IN SESSION

Planning Authority Meeting commenced at

REPORTS OF OFFICERS

REPORT TO: PLANNING AUTHORITY

SUBJECT: DELEGATED AUTHORITY FOR THE PERIOD 11 MAY 2016 TO 31 MAY 2016

FILE REF: 17.170 DATE: 1 June 2016

OFFICER: BELINDA LOXLEY – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

The following are matters that have received delegated approval from the Manager – Development Services for the period

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY USES

DA-2016-118 Wilson Homes Dwelling 1 George Avenue, KINGSTON DA-2016-104 Mr P D Cowles Extension to existing dwelling 112 Brightwater Road, BLACKMANS BAY DA-2016-127 Mr P R Aston Dwelling 60 Wilsons Road, KETTERING DA-2016-162 Mr M W Fleming Dwelling and shed 16 Beach Road, MIDDLETON DA-2016-24 All Urban Planning Pty Ltd Office, amenities buildings and Lot 1/21 Pothana Road carparking (CT 138725/1) and 21 Pothana Road, ELECTRONA DA-2016-108 Mr G M Jenkinson and Dwelling and garage Mrs M J Jenkinson Lot 2/79 Dillons Road, ALONNAH (CT 154965/2)

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 6 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 7

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR SETBACK, SITE COVERAGE OR HEIGHT VARIATIONS

DA-2016-133 Mr J M Lyle Extension and alterations to existing 1 James Avenue, dwelling and partial change of use to KINGSTON BEACH visitor accommodation DA-2016-123 Mr R C Smeekes Dwelling requiring relaxation of boundary 72 Burwood Drive, setback BLACKMANS BAY DA-2016-90 G Hills & Partners Architects Shed requiring relaxation of front 28 Serena Road, boundary setback ADVENTURE BAY DA-2016-89 Tassie Homes Pty Ltd Dwelling requiring relaxation of rear 48 Lester Crescent, boundary setback KINGSTON DA-2016-182 Mr D E Weir Deck and carport requiring relaxation of 22 Carinya Street, side boundary setback BLACKMANS BAY DA-2016-139 Cyclad Hobart Garage requiring relaxation of side 56 Parkdale Drive, boundary setback LESLIE VALE DA-2016-120 Mrs G K Porter Dwelling requiring relaxation of front 25 Taranaki Place, boundary setback SNUG DA-2016-153 G Hills & Partners Architects Shed requiring relaxation of rear 15 Grevillea Way, boundary setback KINGSTON

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR LOT SUBDIVISION/BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT

DAS-2016-4 Lark & Creese Subdivision of three lots 777 Cloudy Bay Road, SOUTH BRUNY

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR STRATA

STR-2016-10 Rogerson and Birch Surveyors Strata Plan - Units 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 134 Burwood Drive, 12, 13 & 14 BLACKMANS BAY STR-2016-12 Mr Lester Franks Strata Plan - Units 1, 2, 3 and 7 30 Caladium Place, BLACKMANS BAY

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR STAGED DEVELOPMENT SCHEME

STG-2016-11 Mr Lester Franks Staged Strata - Stage 1, Units 1, 2, 3 and 30 Caladium Place, 7 BLACKMANS BAY

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 7 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 8

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR NO PERMIT REQUIRED

DA-2016-171 Mr D J Overeem Extension to existing dwelling 61 Ineke Drive, KINGSTON DA-2016-184 Mr P V Gadomski and Addition to existing dwelling Mrs J M Gadomski 1 Topaz Court, BLACKMANS BAY DA-2016-186 Mr C M Alexanderson Home based business – mobile welding 636 Adventure Bay Road, service ADVENTURE BAY DA-2016-191 Mr S Hall Extension and alterations to existing 6 Bay Court, dwelling BLACKMANS BAY DA-2016-192 Mr L Vincent Dwelling 11 Hinsby Road, TAROONA DA-2016-194 Mr G Strutt and Mrs A D Strutt Shed 22 Beach Road, MIDDLETON DA-2016-204 Mrs A J MacDonald Extension to existing dwelling 17 Poimena Drive, MARGATE

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED

DA-2016-118 1 George Avenue, Dwelling KINGSTON Representations - 2

RECOMMENDATION:

MOVED SECONDED

That the report be noted.

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 8 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 9

REPORT TO: PLANNING AUTHORITY

SUBJECT: DA-2015-479 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 441 TINDERBOX ROAD, TINDERBOX FOR VISIONSTREAM PTY LIMITED

FILE REF: DA-2015-479 DATE: 1 JUNE 2016

OFFICER: MARY GIBBS - PLANNING OFFICER & ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

ENDORSED BY: BELINDA LOXLEY – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Application Number: DA-2015-479 Applicant: Visionstream Pty Limited

Zoning: Environmental Living

Discretions: Clause 14.4.2 Setback (A2) Rear boundary setback Clause 14.4.3 Design (A1) Clearing of native vegetation, location on a skyline Clause E6.7.3 Vehicular passing areas along an access Clause E6.7.6 Surface treatment of parking areas Clause E10.7.1 Buildings and works Clause E14.7.1 Removal of bushland within a scenic landscape area Clause E14.7.2 Appearance of buildings and works within scenic landscape areas (A1) Visibility of building from public spaces Clause E19.7.1 Shared use and co-location (A1) New tower required Clause E19.7.2 Visual amenity (A1) New tower, on ridgeline Clause E19.7.3 Environmental values Existing Land Use: Agricultural No. of Representations: 11 (one objection) Planning Issues: Visual amenity, environmental values, public health Recommendation: Approval with conditions

1. THE PROPOSAL IN DETAIL

1.1 The Proposal

To construct a 40m high monopole NBN tower with dish and panel antennas, two outdoor units, post and rail compound fencing and ancillary equipment. Cable is also to be laid underground for a length of approximate 60m from the existing Telstra monopole on the site, and the existing dirt track between the two towers is also to be upgraded. The purpose of the tower is to provide fixed wireless coverage to Tinderbox.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 9 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 10

The proposal site is on the eastern boundary of a very large rural property at the top of the Tinderbox ridgeline at the southern end of the peninsula. The proposal includes documentation as to the reason for the site being chosen rather than other sites in Tinderbox. It has been selected by the applicant for its technical feasibility, accessibility, minimal impact on natural and heritage values and low amenity impact on neighbouring sensitive uses.

1.2 The Site

The property is a large agricultural title of approximately 317ha in size. More than 50% of the title is covered in native bushland. It supports a vineyard on its lower slopes at the southern end of the peninsula. Cropping and grazing activities are undertaken on other cleared parts of the site. The existing Telstra tower is located on the eastern boundary of the site at its highest point, effectively on the ridgeline running down the centre of the Tinderbox peninsula, with a gravel track traversing the site up to the tower. The proposal is to be located approximately 60m beyond the existing tower, utilising the same access.

Figure 1: Aerial image of site with approximate location of proposed tower circled

1.3 Background

The proposed telecommunications tower is part of the Australian Government’s National Broadband Network (NBN), which is a high speed broadband network intended to utilise a combination of optical fibre in urban areas, fixed wireless in surrounding regional areas and satellite technology in outlining areas beyond.

NBN Co has engaged Visionstream as the equipment vendor and project manager to establish this particular tower facilitate the fixed wireless component of the NBN.

According to the Applicant, the site has been selected to provide high speed wireless broadband coverage to rural areas in the Kingborough Municipality.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 10 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 11

In accordance with documentation submitted with the application, the selection of the location has been considered to provide the best overall solution when considering: radio frequency (coverage) and transmission objectives for the overall NBN network, design, site constructions, property and planning/environmental issues. Other sites were also assessed; however, they were deemed inappropriate by the NBN assessments based on transmission coverage and potential impacts on environmental and heritage values.

One of the principle issues facing the design and location of proposed towers is the surrounding topography of the Kingborough Municipality. A line of sight has to be established between the transmission dish and other towers and the NBN hub stations linked to the fibre network. A failure to this link reduces the effectiveness of the system and the download speed of the network.

The proposed facility involves installation of a new monopole tower. The development is not considered to be low-impact in accordance with Telecommunications (Low- impact Facilities) Determination 1997, and is therefore not exempt from local government assessment. It is noted that it is the visible physical characteristics of the equipment and associated structures that determine if the development is either low- impact or non-low-impact, and not the radio-frequency emissions.

2. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

2.1 Statutory Implications

The land is zoned Environmental Living under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (the Scheme). The proposal has been assessed under the Utilities Use Class provisions of the Scheme. The proposal is discretionary.

The relevant parts of the Scheme are:

 Part 14.0 Environmental Living Zone

 Code E6.0 Parking and Access

 Code E7.0 Stormwater Management

 Code E10.0 Biodiversity

 Code E14.0 Scenic Landscapes

 Code E19.0 Telecommunications

The following discretions apply to the development:

(a) Clause 14.4.2 Setback (A2) Rear boundary setback

(b) Clause 14.4.3 Design (A1) Clearing of native vegetation, location on a skyline

(c) Clause E6.7.3 Vehicular passing areas along an access

(d) Clause E6.7.6 Surface treatment of parking areas

(e) Clause E10.7.1 Buildings and works

(f) Clause E14.7.1 Removal of bushland within a scenic landscape area

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 11 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 12

(g) Clause E14.7.2 Appearance of buildings and works within scenic landscape areas (A1) Visibility of building from public spaces

(h) Clause E19.7.1 Shared use and co-location (A1) New tower required

(i) Clause E19.7.2 Visual amenity (A1) New tower, on ridgeline

(j) Clause E19.7.3 Environmental values

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 14/5/2016 to 27/5/2016). Ten representations of support were received during the public exhibition period. One representation objecting to the proposal was received after the closure of the public exhibition period.

The representations of support all expressed a need for improved internet services which would result from the installation of the tower.

The following issues were raised by the representors objecting to the proposal:

(a) That the tower may result in negative health impacts on local residents, particularly as there is already one telecommunication tower on the same property.

(b) That the tower may result in loss of habitat for wedge-tailed eagles and the forty- spotted pardalote.

(c) That the tower may result in a potential collision hazard for eagles.

2.3 Strategic Planning

The relevant strategies associated with the Scheme are as follows:

Zone Purpose Statements of the Environmental Living zone

The zone purpose statements of the Environmental Living zone are to:

14.1.1.1 To provide for residential use or development in areas where existing natural and landscape values are to be retained. This may include areas not suitable or needed for resource development or agriculture and characterised by native vegetation cover, and where services are limited and residential amenity may be impacted on by nearby or adjacent rural activities.

14.1.1.2 To ensure development is reflective and responsive to the natural or landscape values of the land.

14.1.1.3 To provide for the management and protection of natural and landscape values, including skylines and ridgelines.

14.1.1.4 To protect the privacy and seclusion that residents of this zone enjoy.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 12 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 13

14.1.1.5 To provide for limited community, tourism and recreational uses that do not impact on natural values or residential amenity.

14.1.1.6 To encourage passive recreational opportunities through the inclusion of pedestrian, cycling and horse trail linkages.

14.1.1.7 To avoid land use conflict with adjacent Rural Resource or Significant Agriculture zoned land by providing for adequate buffer areas.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with these Statements as it has been located such that impact on environmental values and scenic amenity is minimised, noting the requirements of such a structure to be located on a skyline to obtain adequate coverage.

There are no applicable Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements for this zone.

2.4 Zone

The site is zoned Environmental Living 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 14.3.1 Non-residential use

The standards under this clause are not considered relevant to the proposal as it does not have hours of operation and will not emit noise once operating.

Clause 14.4.1 Building height

This clause is not considered to apply to tower infrastructure which is inevitably higher than the permitted maximum height.

Clause 14.4.2 Setback

(A1) The proposal complies with the Acceptable Solution under this clause as it is more than 30m from the front boundary of the property.

(A2) The proposal does not comply with the Acceptable Solution as it is within 30m of the rear boundary of the site.

(P2) The proposal setback is consistent with that of the existing Telstra tower and will not result in loss of privacy or amenity for neighbouring properties due to the existing vegetation and large distances involved.

Clause 14.4.43 Design

(P1) The proposal is considered to comply with the Performance Criteria in that the amount of vegetation removal has been minimised to the greatest extent feasible given the technical requirements of the tower. Retained vegetation will provide significant screening and reduce amenity impact.

(A2) Unpainted concrete is proposed. A permit condition is recommended requiring that the final finish have a low light reflectance value.

(A3) The tower is not considered a building in terms of coverage and so gross floor area is not considered relevant.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 13 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 14

(A4) The proposal complies with the Acceptable Solution in that fill and excavation are minimised.

2.5 Code Matters

Code E6.0 Parking and Access

This has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineering Officer Paul Verne. Two discretions have been identified under this Code:

a) E6.7.3 Vehicular Passing Areas Along an Access.

b) E6.7.6 Surface Treatment of Parking Areas.

After construction of the tower, use of the existing access track would be limited to property owner’s vehicles and maintenance vehicles which would check the towers every six months, therefore avoiding any traffic conflicts with other users and limiting sediment transfer on to the road network from the development.

No permit conditions are recommended.

Code E7.0 Stormwater Management

This has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineering Officer Paul Verne. No discretions have been identified. One permit condition is recommended regarding onsite soil and water management during construction.

Code E10.0 Biodiversity

Clause E10.7.1 Buildings and works

The proposal requires the disturbance of 0.054ha of Eucalyptus globulus dry forest (DGL), consisting largely of understorey but with the potential to disturb the root systems of three blue gum trees, each with a trunk diameter of less than 40cm. As DGL is listed as a threatened vegetation community under the Nature Conservation Act 2002, it is considered a high priority biodiversity value under the Code. The blue gums have the potential to become feeding and nesting habitat of swift parrots and nesting habitat of the forty spotted pardalote at a future time, but are not considered to constitute such at the moment due to their immaturity.

Several wedge-tailed eagle nests have been identified in close proximity to the site, with the closest being one approximately 100m from the track leading up to the site. Detailed consultation has been undertaken with technical staff at the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment to ensure that the proposal will not result in a detrimental impact on these species, including works during breeding season. Permit conditions are recommended to enforce this.

The proposal is considered to comply with part (c) of the clause (as is relevant to high priority biodiversity values) as follows:

(i) The development has been designed and located to minimise impacts, utilising an existing track with a minor extension required, and directing the cable away from the trees as far as possible;

(ii) Bushfire hazard management measures are not required;

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 14 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 15

(iii) Remaining values on the site are to be retained; further clearing will not be required once the tower is constructed other than maintenance of undergrowth in the immediate vicinity;

(iv) Special circumstances are considered to exist both in the value of the proposal to the community and in the minimal impact on values relative to that remaining on the site;

(v) A financial offset is proposed and a permit condition is recommended requiring this offset in accordance with the Code and Council’s Biodiversity Offset Policy;

(vi) The proposed disturbance will not substantially detract from the conservation status of the biodiversity values in the vicinity of the development due to the much larger extent of bushland on the property and surrounding areas, and the strict permit conditions imposed to regulate the methodology of construction.

Code E14.0 Scenic Landscapes

The site is within a Scenic Landscape Area overlay. Therefore the following clauses apply:

Clause E14.7.1 Removal of Bushland within a Scenic Landscape Area

The proposal does not comply with the Acceptable Solution under this clause, as the tower is located on a skyline and requires more than 500sqm of vegetation disturbance (being 540sqm).

A mocked-up view of the tower as provided by the applicant is shown in Figure 2 below, as would be viewed from Tinderbox Road West approximately 1.3km from the proposed site, looking east.

Figure 2: Indicative view from Tinderbox Road West, approximately 1.3km from the proposed site, looking east

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 15 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 16

While the tower will be visible above the tree line, it is considered to comply with the Performance Criteria (P1) in that it will result in a negligible change to the silhouette of the skyline, with trees retained around the tower, and will maintain scenic landscape value.

Clause E14.7.2 Appearance of buildings and works within Scenic Landscape Areas

(A1) The proposal does not comply with the Acceptable Solution under this clause in that the tower will be visible from public spaces and does not constitute an addition to an existing structure.

(P1) The proposal is considered to meet the Performance Criteria in that it will have non-reflective external finish (a) and be located to take advantage of existing vegetation for visual screening (d). It is also very narrow and so has minimal visual impact in terms of bulk.

(A2) The proposal is considered to meet the Acceptable Solution in that proposed works will not be visible from public spaces.

Code E19.0 Telecommunications

Clause E19.7.1 Shared use and co-location

(A1) The proposal does not meet the Acceptable Solution as it is for a new tower rather than positioning of antennae on an existing tower.

(P1) The proposal is considered to meet the Performance Criteria as it is not technically feasible to use the existing Telstra tower at that location or existing towers in other locations due to inadequate heights for coverage. In addition, the existing Telstra tower at the subject site is not structurally suitable for co-location.

(A2) The proposed monopole tower has sufficient room for an additional antenna to be added to the structure at a later date as required.

Clause E19.7.2 Visual amenity

(A1) The proposal does not meet the Acceptable Solution as it does not use existing infrastructure, is located on the ridge and will be able to be seen in silhouette above the tree line.

(P1) The proposal complies with the Performance Criteria in that the proposed structure will not be highly visually prominent, being very narrow, to be constructed in neutral grey, and being surrounded by trees of at least 25m height.

(A2) The proposal meets the Acceptable Solution as it is 40m high, the permitted maximum height in the Environmental Living Zone.

Clause E19.7.3 Environmental values

(P1) Although the proposal is on a sight considered to contain high environmental values, it meets the Performance Criteria in that it minimises clearing and includes measures to avoid bird strike.

Clause E19.7.4 Access

(A1) The proposal is considered to meet the Acceptable Solution in that the infrastructure is located approximately 1.3km along a gravel track and so will not

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 16 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 17

impede movement of vehicular and other modes of transport on the public road. There may be some minor short-lived disruption of traffic during transportation of equipment onto the site.

Clause E19.7.5 Significant Agricultural Land

This clause is not applicable.

3. REFERRALS AND REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Internal Referrals

Health

There are no environmental health issues relevant to the proposed development.

Engineering

The proposal was assessed by Council’s Development Engineering Officer, Paul Verne in regard to Codes E6.0 and E7.0 (see above).

No engineering issues were raised in representations.

3.2 External Referrals

The following external referrals were required or undertaken as part of this application:

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

The application was referred to DPIPWE for comment in regard to potential environmental impacts of the tower, particular on threatened avifauna such as the forty- spotted pardalote and the wedge-tailed eagle. Advice was given by DPIPWE threatened species staff in regard to the proposed location, direct impact on habitat, collision risk and construction methodology to minimise impact. Permit conditions have been developed in consultation with DPIPWE to ensure that the proposal does not impact on threatened fauna, particularly on nesting of the wedge-tailed eagle.

3.3 Representations

While the vast majority of representations received were highly supportive of the proposal, one representation was received objecting to the tower. The issues raised are addressed as follows:

a) That the tower may result in negative health impacts on local residents, particularly as there is already one telecommunication tower on the same property.

While not specifically stated, it appears that the health concern raised is the potential for electromagnetic radiation to be emitted from the tower.

The Planning Authority is required to apply the relevant regulatory standards. The Planning Authority has no jurisdiction in creating new regulatory standards. The Australian Standard is based on scientific research that shows the levels at which harmful effects occur and it sets its limits, based on international guidelines. The NBN has relied on expert advice from national and international health authorities such as the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) – and

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 17 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 18

agency of the Commonwealth Department of Health, and the World Health Organisation (WHO) for the overall assessment of health and safety impacts.

All telecommunications towers are required to operate within the relevant standards of the Radio communication (Electromagnetic Radiation – Human Exposure) Standard 2003. The ACMA sets standards under the appropriate legislation that limits the level of Electromagnetic Energy exposure to humans. A summary of calculated maximum cumulative radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy (EME) Levels around the proposed tower has been provided as part of the application (see Section 7.11 and Appendix C of the submitted Planning Report (NBN), received 8 December 2015). The report provided details that predicted EME levels of the proposed tower at multiple distances from the tower, are below 1% of the maximum limits allowable by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). These strengths are taken at full strength operation of the tower, which is stated as being rare.

As the Planning Authority is aware, there are various findings from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and the Tasmanian Resource Planning & Appeals Tribunal (RMPAT) that stated that the validity of the Australian Standard must be upheld and that refusing telecommunications towers or facilities on the basis of health effects were insufficient grounds for refusal when the associated EME Levels are demonstrated to comply with the Australian Standards. (Connell Wagner PL v City Port Phillip [1998] VCAT 606, Optus Pty Ltd v Cardinia SC [2004] VCAT 581, Heland Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2005] VCAT 2927, Telstra Corporation Ltd v Whitehorse CC [2005] VCAT 909, Hutchison 3G Australia Pty Ltd v Hobsons Bay CC [2005] VCAT 1470, Telstra Corporation Ltd v Mildura RCC [2009] VCAT 1928, Optus Mobile Pty Ltd v Ballarat CC [2010] VCAT 661, Telstra Corporation Ltd v Yarra Ranges SC [2011] VCAT 895, Vodafone Hutchinson Australia Pty Ltd v Corangamite SC [2012] VCAT 1155). Whilst there have been fewer Telecommunication Tower applications that have proceed to an appeal in Tasmania, the experience by the RMPAT has been similar to VCAT, where a refusal by Council to grant a permit or a third party appeal on the grounds of impact on health when it has been demonstrated that the EME Levels comply with the relevant standards have also been overturned (Blake Dawson Waldron obo Telstra Corporation v West Tamar Council [2004] TASRMPAT 201).

The EME Levels generated from the proposed tower are well below the Australian Standard. The Planning Authority cannot reject the proposal on health grounds where the application complies with the relevant Australian Standard in relation to electromagnetic radiation. The Australian Standard must be upheld in regards to radiation emissions. The Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 does not provide the power to support refusal of a permit if the emissions comply with the Australian Standard and the levels determined by the ACMA.

b) That the tower may result in loss of habitat for wedge-tailed eagles and the forty- spotted pardalote.

c) That the tower may result in a potential collision hazard for eagles.

The above two issues have been addressed by the applicant in the Flora and Fauna Assessment and Environmental Management Plan (BL &A, May 2016), and further advice was also sought by Council of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. This assessment determined that:

(i) There is potential habitat for the forty-spotted pardalote in close proximity to the site, but that the proposal itself will not affect any white gums or hollow-bearing vegetation;

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 18 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 19

(ii) The tower will be self-supporting and will not have guy wires, significantly reducing the potential for impact with avifauna. Light deflectors (also called flight diverters) are recommended as these are shown to reduce collision rates by up to 95%. A permit condition is recommended requiring these to be installed.

(iii) The fence surrounding the tower is proposed to be solid and therefore is unlikely to constitute a collision risk.

(iv) Construction should ideally take place outside the breeding season of the wedge- tailed eagle (July to January).

As prohibiting construction from July to January would delay the installation of the tower by several months, further advice was sought by Council of DPIPWE. Staff at DPIPWE have been able to provide more detailed advice as to how construction may be able to proceed during breeding season while avoiding disturbance to the known wedge-tailed eagle nests in the vicinity. This includes transport of equipment to the site after dark, as transport along the gravel track is considered to pose a greater threat of disturbance than construction on the site itself. A permit condition is recommended accordingly and Visionstream have confirmed that this condition is able to be implemented.

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 proposal meets the requirements of the Scheme to the greatest extent possible considering that such a tower needs to be located on a skyline will almost inevitably involve some native vegetation disturbance as the majority of Tinderbox ridgeline is vegetated. It is considered that the concerns raised in the objecting representation have been addressed. It is recommended that the proposal be approved with conditions.

6. RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That in accordance with Council Policy 1.1 – Delegated Authority Policy, the Planning Authority resolves that the report of the Manager Development Services be received and that the development application for telecommunications tower at 441 Tinderbox Road, Tinderbox for Visionstream Pty Limited 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-2015-479 and Council Plan Reference No. P4 submitted on 9 May 2016 and associated Planning Report (NBN, November 2015) and Flora and Fauna Assessment & Environmental Management Plan (BL&A, May 2016). 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.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 19 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 20

2. Colours and finishes used on the tower must have a light reflectance value of 40% or less.

3. Measures to minimise the risk of bird strike must be incorporated into the design of the tower and associated structures in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted Flora and Fauna Assessment (BL&A, May 2016), including flight deflectors and visible fencing.

4. No more than three (3) trees of conservation significance (comprising two Eucalyptus globulus trees with a DBH >25cm) and 0.054ha (540sqm) of Eucalyptus globulus dry forest (DGL) in moderate condition may be removed or modified for the purpose of the development in accordance with the submitted Flora and Fauna Assessment and Environmental Management Plan (BL &A, May 2016) and approved plans.

To offset the loss of the threatened DGL community in accordance with Code E10.0 of the Scheme, a financial offset must be paid to Council’s Tree Preservation Fund for the conservation of the same community in the municipality. As the community is in moderate condition, the payment is calculated at a ratio of 4:1 at a rate of $10,000/ha in accordance with Council’s Biodiversity Offset Policy, resulting in an offset payment of $2,160.

No vegetation is to be disturbed prior to payment of this offset.

All other native vegetation is to be protected and retained, and the nesting habitat of the swift parrot maintained. 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. Prior to commencement of works, visible barriers must be erected around areas of vegetation and trees to be retained, to exclude machinery, excavation, storage of materials and deposition of fill.

5. If construction takes place between early July and late January, transport of materials for construction of the tower must be undertaken after dusk and prior to 9pm to minimise visual disturbance to the wedge-tailed eagle nests located in the vicinity.

Council may approve variation to this requirement if a safety risk is demonstrated and if Council is satisfied that variation will minimise risk to breeding of the wedge-tailed eagle in accordance with current expert advice. If movement of equipment during daylight hours is required, an inspection of nest 425 must be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist within the two weeks prior to the equipment movement to determine whether the nest is in use, and this information referred to Council as part of the request for variation.

Lights used in non-daylight hours should not be shone above eye level to reduce disturbance.

Construction of the pole and movement of personnel for the purpose of construction can take place during daylight hours. Movement to and from the site must be planned such that movements are minimised during daylight hours.

6. Environmental weeds are present on the site. Prior to commencement of construction, implementation of primary control of weeds on site must be undertaken.

To ensure these weeds are not spread from the site:

(a) Weed plant material or soil containing their seed must not be removed from the site, unless approval is obtained from State government as required under the Weed Management Act 1999;

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 20 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 21

(b) Weed plant material and topsoil containing their seed must not be stored or moved into areas containing weed-free native vegetation;

(c) Appropriate hygiene measures must be undertaken prior to any machinery 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;

(d) 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.

7. Prior to the commencement of site works a soil and water management plan must be submitted to Council and implemented. The plan must be in accordance with NRM South Soil and Water Management of Construction Sites – Guidelines and Tasmanian Standard Drawings (TSD-SW28).

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.

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

Attachments:

1. Location Plan (1) 2. Proposal Plans (8)

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 21 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 22

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 22 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 Client:

GENERAL SITE No. 7MGT-51-04-TIND Client: TINDERBOX

441 TINDERBOX RD Client: ELECTRICAL TINDERBOX TAS 7054 RF AND TX CONFIGURATIONS AND EME EXCLUSION ZONES Project:

STRUCTURAL RFNSA No: 7054008 SITE No: 7MGT-51-04-TIND TINDERBOX 441 TINDERBOX RD TINDERBOX TAS 7054

CIVIL FOR CONSTRUCTION

MONOPOLE DESIGN

Rev Date Revision Details CAD

VISIONSTREAM PTY LTD LEASE

DRAFTED BY: AK PROJECT SUMMARY CHECKED BY: JP APPROVED BY: JRK GREENFIELD Drawing Title: 40m MONOPOLE WITH CIRCULAR HEADFRAME COVER SHEET DISTRIBUTION OUTDOOR CABINETS ON CONCRETE SLAB

Drawing No. Revision 7MGT-51-04-TIND-T1 A Client:

Client:

Client:

Project:

SITE No: 7MGT-51-04-TIND TINDERBOX 441 TINDERBOX RD TINDERBOX TAS 7054

FOR CONSTRUCTION

Rev Date Revision Details CAD

VISIONSTREAM PTY LTD

DRAFTED BY: AK CHECKED BY: JP APPROVED BY: JRK Drawing Title: SITE SPECIFIC NOTES

Drawing No. Revision 7MGT-51-04-TIND-C1 A Client:

SITE LOCATION N

Client:

Client:

Project:

SITE CO-ORDINATES SITE No: 7MGT-51-04-TIND TINDERBOX 441 TINDERBOX RD TINDERBOX TAS 7054

FOR CONSTRUCTION 9444150 21/07/2015

Rev Date Revision Details CAD

LEGEND VISIONSTREAM PTY LTD

DRAFTED BY: AK CHECKED BY: JP APPROVED BY: JRK Drawing Title: OVERALL SITE PLAN

Drawing No. Revision 7MGT-51-04-TIND-C2 A Client:

N

Client:

Client:

Project:

SITE No: 7MGT-51-04-TIND TINDERBOX 441 TINDERBOX RD TINDERBOX TAS 7054

FOR CONSTRUCTION

Rev Date Revision Details CAD

VISIONSTREAM PTY LTD

DRAFTED BY: AK CHECKED BY: JP APPROVED BY: JRK Drawing Title: LEGEND SITE SETOUT PLAN

Drawing No. Revision 7MGT-51-04-TIND-C3 A Client:

Client:

Client:

Project:

SITE No: 7MGT-51-04-TIND TINDERBOX 441 TINDERBOX RD TINDERBOX TAS 7054

FOR CONSTRUCTION

Rev Date Revision Details CAD

VISIONSTREAM PTY LTD

DRAFTED BY: AK CHECKED BY: JP APPROVED BY: JRK Drawing Title: SITE ELEVATION

Drawing No. Revision 7MGT-51-04-TIND-C4 A Client:

N

Client:

Client:

Project:

SITE No: 7MGT-51-04-TIND TINDERBOX 441 TINDERBOX RD TINDERBOX TAS 7054

FOR CONSTRUCTION

Rev Date Revision Details CAD

VISIONSTREAM PTY LTD

DRAFTED BY: AK CHECKED BY: JP APPROVED BY: JRK Drawing Title: LEGEND SITE SETOUT PLAN

Drawing No. Revision 7MGT-51-04-TIND-C5 A Client:

Client:

Client:

Project:

SITE No: 7MGT-51-04-TIND TINDERBOX N 441 TINDERBOX RD TINDERBOX TAS 7054

FOR CONSTRUCTION

Rev Date Revision Details CAD

VISIONSTREAM PTY LTD

DRAFTED BY: AK CHECKED BY: JP APPROVED BY: JRK Drawing Title: ANTENNA CONFIGURATION & SETOUT PLAN Drawing No. Revision 7MGT-51-04-TIND-A1 A 30

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 30 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 31

REPORT TO: PLANNING AUTHORITY

SUBJECT: DA-2016-154 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF USE - CARRIAGE 1 BOOKSHOP TO CELLAR DOOR FACILITY AT MARGATE TRAIN, 1567 CHANNEL HIGHWAY, MARGATE FOR MR D A TOTTLE

FILE REF: DA-2016-154 DATE: 30 MAY 2016

OFFICER: ADAM SMEE - PLANNING OFFICER

ENDORSED BY: BELINDA LOXLEY – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Application Number: DA-2016-154 Applicant: Mr D A Tottle

Zoning: Local Business

Discretions: Hotel Industry Use Class within Local Business Zone Existing Land Use: Various commercial No. of Representations: 1 Planning Issues: Operating hours and noise emissions Recommendation: Approval with conditions

1. THE PROPOSAL

1.1 The Proposal

The proposal is to convert and use an existing train carriage on the subject site as a retail outlet for the sale of beer, cider, and associated merchandise such as apparel, glassware, and giftware. Pre-packaged food would also be sold from the premises although no food would be prepared onsite. The proposal liquor retail outlet would have a floor area of approximately 26m² and include sampling and display areas. A below awning sign and a wall sign advertising the business are also proposed on and adjacent to the premises although a ground based sign originally proposed was subsequently withdrawn. No external development is proposed to carry out the change of use although some internal alterations would be required. The carriage in question was previously used as a bookshop.

Proposed operating hours are generally within standard business hours (9am to 5pm) although a later closing time of 8pm is proposed on Friday nights. Proposed plumbing fixtures are limited to a hand wash sink. Toilets would be provided elsewhere on the site by existing facilities. Council has recently issued approval for the Onsite Wastewater Management System on the property to be upgraded (see SPP21-2011). A TasWater reticulated water supply is available on the site. The proposal would not affect existing vehicular access and car parking arrangements on the site.

1.2 The Site

The site is the commercial property known as the Margate Train. The property is a relatively narrow lot between the Channel Highway to the west and an offshoot of this

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 31 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 32

road to the east. A variety of businesses occupy the train carriages placed along the site’s eastern boundary. A furniture/antiques business occupies the large shed within the southern part of the property. Council has approved a storage unit facility further to the south that involves several shipping containers placed on the site (see DA2010- 301). A carpet/floor covering business occupies the other substantial building on the site that is between the southern end of the row of carriages and the Highway.

The primary vehicular entry to the site is via an access from the side road at the northern end of the property’s eastern boundary. This access provides entry to a sealed carpark that provides spaces for approximately 43 vehicles. Additional car parking is provided along the eastern boundary of the property, between the side road and the carriages. There is an additional, secondary access to the storage facility from this road close to the property’s south-east boundary.

There is a dwelling and garden based business on the property to the east of the site, on the opposite side of the side road.

1.3 Background

Council received the current application on 11 April 2016. Council requested additional information regarding the proposal on 18 April 2016 that included a request for clarification of the proposed onsite wastewater management arrangements and of proposed signage. This request was answered to Council’s satisfaction on 2 May 2016. Council requested an extension of the application’s assessment period to 21 June 2016 on 17 May 2016. The applicant provided consent to this request on 18 May 2016.

2. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

2.1 Statutory Implications

The site is within the Local Business Zone of the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (the Scheme). The proposal has been assessed as within the Hotel Industry Use Class of the Scheme. The proposal is discretionary.

The relevant parts of the Scheme are:

 Part 20.0 Local Business Zone

 Code E23.0 On•Site Wastewater Management Code

The following discretion applies to the proposal:

Clause 20.2 Use Table

Council's assessment of this proposal should also consider the issues raised in any representation received regarding the proposal, any relevant State Policies, and the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (the Act).

2.2 Public Consultation

The application was advertised in accordance with s.57 of the Act from 4 to 17 May 2016. Council received one representation during this public exhibition period which raises concern regarding the potential acoustic impact of the proposed use of the site for a hotel industry use upon a nearby residential property. The representation raises specific concern regarding the potential impact of music played within the premises

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 32 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 33

upon the residential and business use of the latter property. This issue is considered in greater detail later in the report.

2.3 Strategic Planning

Local Business Zone

Clause 20.1.1 Zone Purpose Statements

The proposal is considered to comply with the zone purpose statements for the Local Business Zone as it would provide a retail service that would meet the convenience needs of the local area in accordance with the statement listed at clause 20.1.1.1. The proposal would also allow for small scale dining and entertainment that is unlikely to affect residential amenity in accordance with the statement provided at 20.1.1.3. The proposed operating hours are considered reasonable (i.e. an 8pm closing time on Friday nights and 5pm closing time all other nights) and likely to ensure that any impact as a result of the proposed business is limited.

Clause 20.1.2 Local Area Objectives

The proposal is considered to comply with the Local Area Objective for Margate as it would assist to provide a range of retail services within the regional activity centre hierarchy.

Clause 20.1.3 Desired Future Character Statements

The only DFCS listed for Margate is not considered relevant to the proposal as it refers to its central business area.

2.4 Zone

Local Business Zone

Clause 20.2 Use Table

The proposal liquor retail outlet has been classified within the Scheme’s Hotel Industry Use Class which is defined within Table 8.2 as:

Use of land to sell liquor for consumption on or off the premises. If the land is so used, the use may include accommodation, food for consumption on the premises, entertainment, dancing, amusement machines and gambling. Examples include a hotel, bar, bottle shop, nightclub and tavern.

Hotel Industry is listed as a discretionary Use Class within the above Use Table.

Clause 20.3 Use Standards

Clause 20.3.1 Hours of Operation

The Acceptable Solution for the above clause requires hours of operation for a use within 50m of a residential zone to be within certain hours. While a “residential zone” is not defined in the Scheme, it is considered to include the Environmental Living Zone. While the word “residential” is not included in the title of this zone it is considered to suggest that the Scheme recognises that the use of land within it will be primarily residential. Therefore, the above clause is considered to apply to the proposal as the site is less than 50m from land within the Environmental Living Zone, i.e. that to the east on the opposite side of the side road that provides access to the property.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 33 Tuesday, 14 June 2016

34

The proposed operating hours would generally comply with the above Acceptable Solution although the application does not state what operating hours are proposed on public holidays. Given the later closing time proposed on Friday nights, it is possible that this may not comply with the standard set by the Acceptable Solution for public holidays that would fall on this day of the week. However, any such instance of non- compliance would be limited to the very few days of the year when a public holiday falls on a Friday.

Therefore, any potential operating hours that may not comply with the Acceptable Solution are considered to comply with the Performance Criteria for this clause. Commercial vehicle movements associated with the business would be limited to courier deliveries during normal business hours and are therefore unlikely to occur on public holidays. Other emissions from the premises during operating hours that do not comply with the Acceptable Solution would be limited in their timing, duration, and extent given that these would occur on very few occasions per year.

To ensure that the stated operating hours are complied with, a condition of approval should be included upon any Planning Permit issued for the propose changed of use restricting the business’ opening hours to those stated in the applicant’s supporting submission.

Clause 20.3.2 Noise

The Acceptable Solution pursuant to the above clause sets standards for noise emissions measured at the boundary of a residential zone. Similarly to above, a “residential zone” is not defined but is considered to include the Environmental Living Zone. This clause is therefore considered to apply to the proposal.

No measurements of likely noise emissions generated as a result of the proposed change of use are available. However, as the equipment proposed within the premises is limited to display fridges, the proposal is considered likely to comply with the above Acceptable Solution. The suggestion from the representor that there is nothing “to prevent the lessee from having bus loads of football fans to listen to a heavy metal band” on the site is not considered realistic given the limited floor area of the proposed retail outlet.

Clause 20.3.3 External Lighting

This clause is not relevant as no external lighting is proposed.

Clause 20.3.4 Commercial Vehicle Movements

As noted above, commercial vehicle movements associated with the proposed use would be limited to courier deliveries within normal business hours. Therefore, the proposal would comply with the Acceptable Solution for this clause.

20.4 Development Standards for Buildings and Works

The above standards are not relevant to the proposal as no building or other work is proposed.

2.5 Code Matters

Code E5.0 Road and Railway Assets Code

This Code is not considered relevant to the proposal as it does not involve a new vehicle crossing or sensitive use and would not intensify the use of an existing access.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 34 Tuesday, 14 June 2016

35

Code E6.0 Parking and Access Code

Clause E6.6 Use Standards

Clause E6.6.1 Number of Car Parking Space

The proposal is considered to comply with this clause as the number of on-site car parking spaces required for the proposed use is the same as that required for previous use of the site. The proposed use is considered to be most similar to a bottleshop out of the uses listed within the Hotel Industry Use Class within Table E6.1 which requires 1 space per 30m² of bottleshop floor area to be provided. The previous use of the site as a bookshop would have been considered to be within the General Retail and Hire Use Class for which parking was required at a similar ratio.

As mentioned in the introduction to the report, considerable onsite car parking is provided, i.e. approximately 50 spaces. This existing car parking is considered adequate for the proposed use. As no new car parking spaces or vehicular access is proposed, the remaining clauses of this Code that relate to access and parking space construction are not relevant.

Code E7.0 Stormwater Management Code

This Code is not considered relevant to the proposal as it does not apply to a change of use where no additional roofed or other impervious area is proposed.

Code E17.0 Signs Code

The above Code would apply to the proposed signs. As demonstrated by the table provided within the applicant’s submission supporting the proposal, the proposed below awning sign and wall sign would comply with the relevant standards provided within this Code.

Code E23.0 On•Site Wastewater Management Code

As noted earlier in the report, wastewater from the proposed internal fixtures would be managed onsite by an existing system. This system has recently been upgraded and is considered adequate to manage any additional wastewater generated by the proposed change of use in accordance with the above Code. Wastewater generated by the proposal is likely to be limited given the nature of the proposed use.

3. REFERRALS AND REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Internal Referrals

Health

Council’s Environmental Health section has considered the proposed onsite wastewater management arrangements and found them to be acceptable. This section has also considered the likely acoustic impacts of the proposal upon nearby properties and concluded that these would be limited

Engineering

There are no development engineering issues relevant to the proposal given that no changes to the existing vehicular access, car parking, and stormwater management arrangements on the site are proposed.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 35 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 36

Natural Resource Management

There are no natural resource management issues considered relevant to the proposal.

3.2 External Referrals

The application was not referred externally.

3.3 Representations

As noted earlier, Council received one representation regarding the proposal when it was placed on public exhibition. The representation raises concern regarding the potential acoustic impact of the proposal upon a nearby property where residential and business use occurs. As discussed above, the proposal substantially complies with the Scheme standards for operating hours. The proposed operating hours are considered reasonable and unlikely to result in any significant adverse impact upon nearby properties. Where the proposed hours may fall outside the Scheme’s acceptable standards, this would be limited to a very few days per year where a public holiday coincides with a Friday.

Similarly, the proposal is considered to comply with the Scheme standards for noise emissions. Proposed equipment is limited to display fridges that are unlikely to emit significant noise. The small floor area of the proposed premises (i.e. less than 30m²) would ensure that its occupancy is not high and therefore unlikely to generate significant noise. The limited floor area of the proposed use would also ensure that it is unlikely to be used for a live music venue, as suggested by the representor.

4. STATE POLICIES AND ACT OBJECTIVES

The proposal is consistent with the relevant State Policies and the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.

5. CONCLUSION

The proposal complies with the relevant Scheme provisions and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

6. RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That in accordance with Council Policy 1.1 – Delegated Authority Policy, the Planning Authority resolves that the report of the Manager Development Services be received and that the development application for change of use - carriage 1 bookshop to cellar door facility at Margate Train, 1567 Channel Highway, Margate for Mr D A Tottle be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. The development must substantially comply with development application no. 2016- 154 and the plans marked P1 submitted to Council on 8 April 2016. Whoever acts on this Permit (hereafter referred to as the developer) must comply with all conditions placed upon it. Any amendment, variation, or extension of this Permit requires further approval.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 36 Tuesday, 14 June 2016

37

2. A drainage design plan (preferably drawn at a scale of 1:200) prepared by a suitably qualified person that shows the location of the sewer and stormwater house connection drains and includes pipe sizes, pits, and driveway drainage, should accompany any application for a Building Permit for the development.

3. The developer must obtain from Council a Special Plumbing Permit for an upgrade of the existing onsite wastewater management system in accordance with the recommendations by Geo-Environmental Solutions dated 2 May 2016. This application must be to the satisfaction of Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer.

4. The operating hours for the approved use must comply with the following:

• Monday – Thursday: 9am – 5pm;

• Friday: 9am – 8pm, and,

• Saturday – Sunday: 9am – 5pm.

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) This Permit does not constitute building approval. The developer should obtain a Building Permit for the development prior to commencing construction.

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

Attachments:

1. Location Plan (1) 2. Proposal Plans (1)

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 37 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 38

Attachment 1, Location Plan:

Aerial view of subject property (outlined in red) and surrounding land.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 38 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 39

Attachment 2, Proposal Plans:

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 39 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 40

REPORT TO: PLANNING AUTHORITY

SUBJECT: DA-2016-174 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR DWELLING AT 19 SADDLE ROAD, KETTERING FOR HENRY CARR DESIGN & CONSULTING

FILE REF: DA-2016-174 DATE: 30 MAY 2016

OFFICER: CHLOE EDGELL - PLANNING OFFICER

ENDORSED BY: BELINDA LOXLEY – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Application Number: DA-2016-174 Applicant: Henry Carr Design & Consulting

Zoning: Low Density Residential

Discretions: On-site Wastewater Management Code Existing Land Use: Vacant residential No. of Representations: one Planning Issues: On-site waste water treatment configuration Recommendation: Approval with conditions

1. THE PROPOSAL IN DETAIL

1.1 The Proposal

An application was received for 19 Saddle Road, Kettering on the 30 May 2016 for a proposed extension to a single dwelling in the Low Density Residential Zone requiring a relaxation to the requirements of the relevant zone requirements and On-Site Wastewater Management Code according to the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (the Scheme).

The proposal is for a one storey single dwelling with 3 bedrooms and one bathroom. The finish is white aluminium framed widows, custom orb wall cladding in Colorbond ‘Monument’, with the same finish to the roof and gutters.

The dwelling has a floor area of 68.3 m2, the dwelling is setback 12.982 m from the western side boundary, 13.373 m from the eastern side boundary, 41.496 m from northern front boundary and 14 m from the southern rear boundary. The proposal fits within the building envelope requirements.

Two 10,000L tanks for rainwater and for fire storage are provided. The application also provides for a wastewater management system. A hardstand driveway with parking for two cars also forms part of the proposal.

1.2 The Site

The subject site is an unserviced residential allotment which is currently vacant. The locality is a low density residential area in an open semi-rural setting characterised with

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 40 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 41

pasture grass and remnant tees. Overall the site covers area is 2504 m2. The surrounding lots vary in size.

Photo 1 – The subject lot 19 Saddle Road, Kettering, highlighted in the centre of the image

1.3 Background

The application was submitted on 28 April 2016 and the application proceeded to advertising on the 11 May 2016.

There is no other background information relevant to this application.

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 Zone

 Code E6 - Parking and Access Code

 Code E7 - Stormwater Management Code

 Code E10 - Biodiversity Code

 Code E 23 - On-site Wastewater Management Code

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 41 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 42

The following discretions apply to the development:

E23 On-site Wastewater Management Code 6.7.12

(a) Clause 23.7.1 Development Standards for Residential Development P1

(b) Clause 23.10.1 Land Application Areas P6

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 11 /06 /2016 to 24 / 06 /2016). One representation was received during the public exhibition period.

The following issues were raised by the representors:

(a) Erosion of the rural nature of the street and surrounding landscape and views

(b) Proposal will be visible from neighbouring property

(c) Proposal does not have regard to the local landscape

(d) Saddle road is a mix of zones ‘Low Density Residential’ and Rural Living’ and ‘Environmental Living’ zones, the subdivision for the lot being developed requiring a change of zone from rural to low density.

(e) Future development allowed by this development could take the area away from its current landscape type becoming more suburban, this will not be compatible with the local area objectives stated for Kettering.

(f) Screening vegetation should be used to mitigate the effects of the development.

2.3 Strategic Planning

The relevant strategies associated with the Scheme are as follows:

Zone Purpose Statements of the Low Density Residential zone

The zone purpose statements of the Low Density Residential zone are to:

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.

12.1.1.2 To provide for non-residential uses that are compatible with residential amenity.

12.1.1.3 To avoid land use conflict with adjacent Rural Resource or Significant Agricultural zoned land by providing for adequate buffer areas.

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.

Clause 12.1.2 – Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 42 Tuesday, 14 June 2016

43

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.

12.1.2 Local Area Objectives

KETTERING

(a) Local Area Objectives (a) Implementation Strategy Kettering's natural values should be Future development will strive to protected - including water views, protect water quality, native foreshore access and vegetated visual vegetation, views and public access. surrounds.

Response: This development does not affect water views or foreshore access. The site coverage of 2.7% leaves a lot of the site as open grassed area as it currently exists.

Water quality will be protected through the soil and water plan submitted with the proposal including measures:

 During construction through the installation of a on silt management stop fence and cut off drain directing surface flow away from disturbed areas

 Installation of an on-site waste water system as per council’s requirements.

 No native vegetation is disturbed by the development

 Low density of development i.e. 2.7% site coverage will minimise impact on views

 Impact on public access not applicable

The proposal is in accordance with the Local Area Objectives for Kettering.

12.1.3 Desired Future Character Statements

KETTERING

(a) Desired Future Character Statements (a) Implementation Strategy Kettering is to remain a relatively small, Future development is constrained by low-density coastal village. the absence of reticulated water and sewer and future suburban type development is to be avoided.

Response: The site coverage proposed of 2.7% is well below that typical of low density development. There is ample space on the 2504m2 lot for provision of water tanks and for an on-site waste water system.

It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with the Desired Future Character Statement and Implementation Strategy for Kettering.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 43 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 44 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. The proposal has a 41 m setback from the northern frontage which complies with the 4.5 m required. Therefore the proposed development complies with the requirements set out in the Acceptable Solution.

A2. No garage or carport is proposed. Therefore the Acceptable Solution is not relevant to the assessment of the application.

A3. The dwelling is setback 12.98m from the western side boundary, 13.3 m from the eastern side boundary, 41.496 m from northern front boundary and 14 m from the southern rear boundary. The proposal fits within the building envelope requirements.

Therefore the proposed development complies with the requirements set out in the Acceptable Solution.

A4. No trees of high conservation value will be impacted. Therefore the Acceptable Solution is not relevant to the assessment of the application.

Clause 12.4.3 Site coverage and private open space

A1. The proposal has a site coverage of 68.3 m2 on the 2504 m2 lot making a 2.7% coverage. This meets the requirements of 25% maximum coverage. Therefore the proposed development complies with the requirements set out in the Acceptable Solution.

A2. The proposed dwelling has a an area of private open space that: is in one location and is at least 24 m2, has a has a minimum horizontal dimension of 4m, is directly accessible from, and adjacent to the living room, is located between the dwelling and the frontage as the frontage is orientated between 30 degrees west of north and 30 degrees east of north and has a gradient of roughly 1:10 and is not used for vehicle access or parking. Therefore the proposed development complies with the requirements set out in the Acceptable Solution.

Clause 12.4.4 Sunlight and overshadowing

A1. The proposed living area has a north facing window. Therefore the proposed development complies with the requirements set out in the Acceptable Solution.

A2 and A3. The proposal is not a multiple dwelling. Therefore the Acceptable Solution is not relevant to the assessment of the application.

Clause 12.4.5 Width of openings for garages and carports

A1. No garage or carport is proposed. Therefore the Acceptable Solution is not relevant to the assessment of the application.

Clause 12.4.6 Privacy

A1. The proposed verandah has a maximum FFL of 550 mm off ground level. Therefore the Acceptable Solution is not relevant to the assessment of the application.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 44 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 45

A2. Windows on the proposal are setback greater than 3 m from the side boundaries and 4 m from rear boundary. Therefore the proposed development complies with the requirements set out in the Acceptable Solution.

Clause 12.4.7 Frontage fences

A1. There is no front fence proposed. Therefore the Acceptable Solution is not relevant to the assessment of the application.

2.5 Code Matters

Code E6.0 – Parking and Access Code

There is an existing sealed driveway access on the subject lot.

The proposal complies with the requirements of the code as there is sufficient area available for the parking of two (2) cars in accordance with the requirements of Table E6.1.

Code E7 – Stormwater Management Code

The purpose of this Code is to ensure “that stormwater disposal is managed in a way that furthers the objectives of the State Stormwater Strategy”.

Plans have been submitted demonstrating how the roof of the proposal will be piped into rainwater tanks on site with the overflow directed below the on; therefore complying with the Acceptable Solution of Clause E7.7.1.

Code E10 – Biodiversity Code

The site is currently a vacant grassed paddock, no vegetation will be disturbed by the development.

Code E23 On-site Wastewater Management Code

The waste water plan has been prepared by a consultant and assessed by council’s Environmental Health Department. Whilst a smaller Landscape Application Area has been proposed the design meets the performance criteria.

2.6 Other matters

There are no other matters relevant to the assessment of the application.

Health

There are no environmental health issues relevant to the proposed development

Engineering

The following report was prepared by Council’s Development Engineering Officer, Paul Verne.

The above development application has been assessed and the following comments are provided for inclusion in the planning assessment report:

Roads and Traffic

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 45 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 46

The proposed development is located off Saddle Road which is owned and maintained as road by Council.

The submitted plans and details demonstrate compliance with E5.0 Road and Rail Asset Code of Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

Parking and Access

The submitted plans and details demonstrate compliance with E6.0 Parking and Access Code of Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

Stormwater Management

The submitted plans and details demonstrate compliance with E7.0 Stormwater Management Code of Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

Representations

There have been no engineering related representations against the proposed development.

Recommendation

Approval should be subject to engineering conditions.

Natural Resource Management

There are no natural resource management issues relevant to the proposed development.

3 REFERRALS AND REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Internal Referrals

Health

Wastewater generated by the proposed development is proposed to be treated by an aerated wastewater treatment system (AWTS) and disposed via a subsurface irrigation field within the property boundaries at 19 Saddle Road. Wastewater from an AWTS is treated to a higher (secondary) standard than wastewater from conventional septic tank systems. The proposed wastewater system complies with the performance criteria of the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 and is unlikely to cause long term detrimental environmental effects if installed and maintained appropriately.

Engineering

The following report was prepared by Council’s Development Engineering Officer, Paul Verne.

The above development application has been assessed and the following comments are provided for inclusion in the planning assessment report:

Roads and Traffic

The proposed development is located off Saddle Road which is owned and maintained as road by Council.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 46 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 47

The submitted plans and details demonstrate compliance with E5.0 Road and Rail Asset Code of Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

Parking and Access

The submitted plans and details demonstrate compliance with E6.0 Parking and Access Code of Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

Stormwater Management

The submitted plans and details demonstrate compliance with E7.0 Stormwater Management Code of Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

Representations

There have been no engineering related representations against the proposed development.

Recommendation

Approval should be subject to engineering conditions.

Natural Resource Management

There are no natural resource management issues relevant to the proposed development.

3.2 External Referrals

There were no external referrals required as part of this application.

3.3 Representations

One (1) representation was received during the public exhibition period and the issues raised are discussed in detail as follows:

(a) Erosion of the rural nature of the street and surrounding landscape and views

The proposed development will be undertaken on just a small part of the site leaving the remaining land as open grassed areas. It is considered to be s scale of development that reflects the rural nature of the area being just one dwelling on a large lot.

(b) Proposal will be visible from neighbouring property

Whilst the proposal will be visible from surrounding dwellings this is not in itself a reason to refuse the application. The proposal meets the setback requirements of the scheme and is considered appropriate.

(c) Proposal does not have regard to the local landscape

The site coverage of 2.7% leaves the majority of the site as open grassed area as it currently exists. The proposed dwelling will be partially obscured by the cut batters at the back of the dwelling. No existing vegetation will be affected by the development. The proposed cladding, Colorbond ‘Monument’ is a dark grey/brown colour with a Light Reflectance Value of 8% (which means low light reflectivity). It is considered that this will reduce visual impact.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 47 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 48

The proposal meets all the requirements in the scheme for the zone including the requirements for Setbacks and Building Envelope where the proposal exceeds requirements by a large margin

(d) Saddle road is a mix of zones ‘Low Density Residential’ and Rural Living’ and ‘Environmental Living’ zones, the subdivision for the lot being developed requiring a change of zone from rural to low density.

This matter from a previous development does not affect the current application.

(e) Future development allowed by this development could take the area away from its current landscape type becoming more suburban, this will not be compatible with the local area objectives stated for Kettering.

The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the Local Area Objectives and Implementation Strategy for Kettering because:

 The development does not affect water views or foreshore access.

 The site coverage of 2.7% leaves a lot of room for future planting, and leaves a lot of the site as open grassed area as it currently exists.

 Water quality will be protected through the soil and water plan submitted with the proposal including measures:

 During construction through the installation of a on silt management stop fence and cut off drain directing surface flow away from disturbed areas

 Proposed installation of an on-site waste water system as per council’s requirements.

 No native vegetation is disturbed by the development

 Low density of development i.e. 2.7% site coverage will minimise impact on views

 Impact on public access not applicable

Low Density Residential Zone requires site coverage of 25%, and area A within this zone requires a minimum lot size of 2500m2.

The site is 2404m2 and the coverage proposed of 2.7% is well below that typical of suburban development. There is ample space on the 2504m2 lot for provision of water tanks and for an on-site waste water system, all of which is not typical of suburban development.

(f) Screening vegetation should be used to mitigate the effects of the development

The proposal meets all the relevant requirements of the scheme and is not considered to have an unreasonable impact on the landscape. It is therefore considered that specific conditions relating to landscaping and the provision of screening plants cannot be justified.

4 STATE POLICIES AND ACT OBJECTIVES

The proposal is consistent with the outcomes of the State Policies, including those of the State Coastal Policy.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 48 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 49

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.

5 CONCLUSION

The proposal is for a single dwelling in the Low Density Residential Zone in the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

The proposal is fully compliant with the relevant standards, as the design for the single dwelling is considered acceptable and meets the requirements of the relevant Acceptable Solutions or Performance Criteria. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

6. RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That in accordance with Council Policy 1.1 – Delegated Authority Policy, the Planning Authority resolves that the report of the Manager Development Services be received and that the development application for dwelling at 19 Saddle Road, Kettering for Henry Carr Design & Consulting 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-2016-174 and Council Plan Reference No. P1 submitted on 26 April 2016 and Council Plan Reference No. P2 submitted on 03 May 2016 and Council Plan Reference No. P3 submitted on 04 May 2016. 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. No native trees are to be ringbarked, cut down, topped, lopped, or removed without Council approval.

Prior to commencement of works, barriers must be erected adjacent to any trees in the vicinity of the works to establish and maintain Tree Protection zones in accordance with AS 4970-2009 (calculated as 12 x trunk diameter) to exclude:

a) Storing of building materials;

b) Vehicular traffic;

c) Placement of fill; and

d) Excavation works.

3. 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 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.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 49 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 50

4. The stormwater runoff from all concrete, paved, or otherwise sealed areas must be collected and contained within the property or discharged to a council approved discharge point. All works in relation to the discharge of stormwater is to be completed to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager - Engineering Services.

5. Erosion/siltation infiltration control measures are to be applied during construction works to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager - Engineering Services.

6. (a) The developer must obtain from Council a Special Plumbing Permit for an onsite wastewater management system in accordance with the site and soil evaluation and system design by Geo-Environmental Solutions dated May 2016. This application must be to the satisfaction of Council’s Environmental Health Officer and should accompany any application for a Building Permit for the development.

(b) Wastewater generated by the development must be managed by an Aerated Wastewater Treatment System.

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. This Permit does not constitute building approval. The developer should obtain a Building Permit for the development prior to commencing construction.

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

Attachments:

1. Location Plan (1) 2. Proposal Plans (6)

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 50 Tuesday, 14 June 2016

COPYRIGHT: "This document is and shall remain the property of Tuesday, Council Henry Carr Design & Consulting. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the terms of engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document is prohibited."

Meeting PROPOSED RESIDENCE 14 No. Revision June FOR DEAN RYAN A DA Issue - 25/04/2016 Agenda

2016 Development Application: DA-2016-174 19 SADDLE ROAD, KETTERING Plan Reference no.: P1 Date Received: 26 April 2016

No. Date placed on Public Exhibition: 11 May 2016 DRG No. DRG TITLE 11 HENRY CARR DESIGN & CONSULTING DRAWINGS 216016-01 Drawing Index & Locality Plan 216016-02 Site Plan 216016-03 Plan & Elevations 216016-04 Roof & Drainage Plan 216016-05 Sanitary Sewer Plan SITE 216016-06 Energy Efficiency 216016-07 Wet Area Waterproofing Details 216016-08 Soil & Water Management Plan 216016-09 BAL Construction Notes A B N 9 1 1 1 5 9 9 8 7 2 4 216016-10 Safety Notes A C N 1 1 5 9 9 8 7 2 4

U n i t 1 / 2 K e n n e d y D r i v e C a m b r i d g e 7 1 7 0 T A S P h ( 0 3 ) 6 2 4 8 5 1 9 5

Building Practitioner Accreditation No.: CC2703F

PROJECT PROPOSED BUILDING COLOURS LOCALITY PLAN Proposed Residence Roof Colorbond "Monument" For Dean Ryan At 19 Saddle Road Walls Colorbond "Monument" PROJECT INFORMATION Kettering 7155 SITE ADDRESS 19 SADDLE ROAD Corners Colorbond "Monument" KETTERING 7155 DRAWING INDEX Barge Colorbond "Monument" CERTIFICATE OF TITLE No CT170309/2 & LOCALITY PLAN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT GEO-ENVIROMENTAL SOLUTIONS PTY LTD Gutter Colorbond "Monument" 86 QUEEN STREET SANDY BAY, TAS 7005 SCALE Windows White SITE CLASSIFICATION CLASS M 1:10,000 WIND CLASSIFICATION N3 DRAWN CHECKED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ALEXANDER FILONOV PO BOX 7121 PAH BLACKTOWN NSW 2148 DATE: BUSHFIRE ATTACK LEVEL TBA March 2016

CLIMATE ZONE 7 DRG NO. REV

CORROSION ENVIRONMENT "MODERATE" TO BCA TABLE 3.4.4.2 Page 216016-01 A FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY HOUSE FLOOR AREA Pò 51 SHEET OF A3 COPYRIGHT: "This document is and shall remain the property of

Tuesday, 14 June 2016 No. 11 Meeting Agenda Council Henry Carr Design & Consulting. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the terms of engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document is prohibited."

W1 W2 D1 No. Revision

A DA Issue - 25/04/2016

Development Application: DA-2016-174 Plan Reference no.: P1 Date Received: 26 April 2016

Date placed on Public Exhibition: 11 May 2016

W6

A B N 9 1 1 1 5 9 9 8 7 2 4 A C N 1 1 5 9 9 8 7 2 4

U n i t 1 / 2 K e n n e d y D r i v e C a m b r i d g e 7 1 7 0 T A S P h ( 0 3 ) 6 2 4 8 5 1 9 5

Building Practitioner Accreditation No.: CC2703F

PROJECT W3 W4 W5 Proposed Residence For Dean Ryan At 19 Saddle Road Kettering 7155 NOTES: 1. Wet areas to be waterproofed in accordance with BCA Part 3.8.1. FLOOR PLAN & 2. All flashings and damp proof coursings to be installed in s - Denotes ceiling mounted hard ELEVATIONS accordance with Parts 2.2 & 3.3 of the BCA. wired smoke alarm with battery 3. Custom orb roof sheeting - Colorbond finish - to be backup to AS 3789 installed in accordance with Part 3.5.1.3 of the B.C.A. SCALE 4. 3URYLGHGLD39&GRZQSLSHVZLWKƒEHQGV RIIVHW 1:100 brackets as required, to be installed in accordance with Part 3.5.2 of the B.C.A. and to AS 3500.5 DRAWN CHECKED 5. Fibre cement sheet lining to soffit to be installed in accordance with Part 3.5.3 of the B.C.A. and to NOTE: PAH manufacturer's instructions. This drawing is to be read in DATE: 6. Paved surfaces shall be a minimum of 50mm below slab conjunction with detailed plans March 2016 level and fall away from the building. Finished ground level prepared by "Backyard Sheds P/L" to be a minimum of 100mm below floor level, in DRG NO. REV accordance with 3.1.2.3 of the BCA. Page 52 FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY 216016-03 A

SHEET OF A3 COPYRIGHT: "This document is and shall remain the property of

Tuesday, 14 June 2016 No. 11 Meeting Agenda Council Henry Carr Design & Consulting. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the terms of engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document is prohibited."

No. Revision

DN100 subsoil drain at 1:100 min fall A DA Issue - 25/04/2016 I.O. I.O. Eaves Gutter Development Application: DA-2016-174 ‘'3 Connect roofwater to water storage tanks. Plan Reference no.: P1 Reserve 1 No 10,000 Litre tank for fire fighting Date Received: 26 April 2016 I.O. purposes. Fire tank to be min 6.0m offset from Date placed on Public Exhibition: 11 May 2016 building. Provide 250 dia opening in top of tank or install Storz 65mm adaptor to Tas Fire Service requirements. Provide hardstand area within 3.0m of water storage tank. ƒ3LWFK

DN100 subsoil drain at 1:100 min fall Rainwater Fire Storage Tank Tank DN100 SW at 1:100 Min

I.O. DN100 SW at 1:100

DN100 subsoil drain at 1:100 min fall A B N 9 1 1 1 5 9 9 8 7 2 4 A C N 1 1 5 9 9 8 7 2 4 ƒ3LWFK U n i t 1 / 2 K e n n e d y D r i v e Eaves Gutter C a m b r i d g e 7 1 7 0 T A S P h ( 0 3 ) 6 2 4 8 5 1 9 5

‘'3

Building Practitioner Accreditation No.: CC2703F Hardstand Area STORMWATER DRAINAGE NOTES PROJECT

1. All plumbing works to be carried out in accordance with Proposed Residence AS3500 - Plumbing and Drainage Code, Tasmanian For Dean Ryan Plumbing Regulations 2004, the BCA and to Council At 19 Saddle Road requirements. Kettering 7155 2. The final location of all existing and new stormwater mains are to be confirmed on-site. DN100 SW Overflow at 1:100 Min ROOF & DRAINAGE PLAN 3. Unless shown otherwise the following minimum grades are to be adopted: Discharge overflow clear of building - 1:100 (1.00%) ‘ works and downstream of wastewater SCALE beds as determined on-site 4. All pipe trenches in trafficable areas are to be backfilled to 1:100 underside of basecourse layer with compacted FCR. DRAWN CHECKED

5. All inspection openings in paved areas to be fitted with PAH bolted cap at finished slab level. DATE: 6. 3URYLGHGLD39&GRZQSLSHVZLWKƒEHQGV RIIVHW March 2016 brackets as required. Install in accordance with Part 3.5.2 of DRG NO. REV the B.C.A. and to AS 3500.5 Proposed Driveway Page 53 7. All stormwater pipe to be DWV Class SN6 SCJ uPVC. FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY 216016-04 A

Driveway Table Drain SHEET OF A3 Date placed on Public Exhibition: 11 May 2016 A D J A C E N T S I T E RIGHTS OF WAY COPYRIGHT: "This document is and shall remain the property of

Tuesday, 14 June 2016 No. 11 Meeting Agenda Council 33.0 31.0 34.0 32.0 30.0 VARIABLE WIDTH Henry Carr Design & Consulting. 62.42m The document may only be used for the purpose for which it ƒ  was commissioned and in accordance with the terms of SITE ACCESS POINT engagement for the commission. 3.00m Wide Drainage Easement Unauthorised use of this document is prohibited." 35.0

No. Revision SADDLE ROAD A DA Issue - 25/04/2016 PROPOSED 3.0m WIDE Development Application: DA-2016-174 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY Plan Reference no.: P1 Date Received: 26 April 2016 SITE FALL

LOCATION OF TEMPORARY SOIL & MATERIAL STOCKPILE (BEHIND SILT STOP FENCE)

36.61m ƒ 

300 deep cut-off drain - 1:100 grade SILT STOP FENCE (OR HAY BALES) Proposed Residence

ƒ 

40.27m

SITE FALL A B N 9 1 1 1 5 9 9 8 7 2 4 A C N 1 1 5 9 9 8 7 2 4

U n i t 1 / 2 K e n n e d y D r i v e C a m b r i d g e 7 1 7 0 T A S P h ( 0 3 ) 6 2 4 8 5 1 9 5

Building Practitioner SITE FALL INSTALL CUT-OFF DRAIN TO Accreditation No.: CC2703F DIRECT SURFACE FLOW AWAY 73.40m FROM DISTURBED AREAS PROJECT SILT MANAGEMENT NOTES SILT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME ƒ  1. LIMIT SOIL DISTURBANCE ON-SITE TO THE MINIMUM 1. IT IS THE BUILDERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ESTABLISH AND REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE DOCUMENTED WORKS. MAINTAIN ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Proposed Residence 2. CONSTRUCTION OF ALL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT DEVICES MEASURES. SHALL BE COMPLETED AND EFFECTIVE PRIOR TO: 2. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES TO BE For Dean Ryan - BULK EARTHWORKS TO THE SITE INSPECTED ON A WEEKLY BASIS TO ENSURE THEY ARE At 19 Saddle Road - SERVICE INSTALLATION FUNCTIONING CORRECTLY. IF THEY ARE FOUND TO BE - DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENT THEN IT IS THE BUILDERS RESPONSIBILITY TO Kettering 7155 3. ALL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT DEVICES ARE TO REMAIN IN RE-ESTABLISH OR INSTALL ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO PLACE UNTIL COMPLETION OF SITEWORKS. PROTECT THE DOWNSTREAM WATERWAYS, CHANNELS AND STRAW BALES TRENCHED INTO 4. BOTH TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEDIMENT DRAINAGE STRUCTURES. NATURAL GROUND TO 50mm DEPTH STAR DROPPERS AT MANAGEMENT DEVICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT A 3. SEDIMENT FENCES ARE TO BE CLEANED OUT WHEN SOIL & WATER AND PINNED WITH TIMBER STAKES. A14 GEOTEXTILE FILTER SUITABLE LEVEL/CONDITION THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY IS REDUCED BY 30% 2000mm MAX CENTRES. 5. IF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES HAVE BEEN FABRIC (850 WIDE) 4. STRIPPING TOPSOIL, BULK EARTHWORKS AND EXCAVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 400 1000 FOUND TO BE DEFICIENT OR FAILED IN SERVICE, DUE TO FOR STRIP FOOTINGS ATTACH GEOTEXTILE UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES, CORRECTIVE ACTION IS TO - SILT STOP FENCES TO BE INSTALLED AS INDICATED OR TO POST WITH NYLON BE UNDERTAKEN IMMEDIATELY WHICH MAY INCLUDE AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED. EXCAVATED MATERIAL TO BE END OF FILTER TO BE BURIED STRAPS AMENDMENTS/ADDITIONS TO THE ORIGINAL APPROVED STOCKPILED BEHIND SILT STOP FENCES. SCALE AND BACKFILLED WITH EROSION CONTROL PLANS. SUCH ADDITIONS OR - LOAM AND SOW DISTURBED AREAS IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXCAVATED CLAY MATERIAL. AMENDMENTS ARE TO BE AS APPROVED. COMPLETING THE EARTHWORKS. 6. THE INSTALLATION, REMOVAL, RELOCATION OR 5. STORMWATER, SEWER & WATER SERVICES 1:250 NSL MODIFICATION TO EROSION AND SEDIMENT AND CONTROL - EXCAVATED MATERIAL TO BE PLACED ON HIGH SIDE OF DEVICES MAY BE MADE BY COUNCIL, IF DEEMED NECESSARY 100 TRENCH TO PROTECT PIPEWORK AND DIRECT SURFACE DRAWN CHECKED AND RELEVANT. MATERIAL AWAY FROM EXCAVATIONS. 7. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY - LOAM AND SOW DISTURBED AREAS IMMEDIATELY AFTER 400 20 X 20 HWD STAKES PRECAUTIONS TO CONTROL EROSION AND DOWNSTREAM COMPLETING THE SERVICES CONSTRUCTION. PAH SEDIMENTATION DURING ALL STAGES OF THE BUILDING 300 6. SPOIL STOCKPILE AREA WORKS. - SILT FENCE TO BE ERECTED 5m FROM TOE OF BATTER ON DATE: 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR THE PREVAILING LOW SIDE OF SPOIL AREA. STRAW BALE SEDIMENT TRAP DETAIL WEATHER CONDITIONS AND PROTECT DOWNSTREAM March 2016 WATERWAYS. INLETS TO HAVE SILT PROTECTION AT SILT STOP FENCE DETAIL LOCATIONS SHOWN OR AS DETERMINED ON-SITE. FINAL LOCATION OF SILT STOP FENCES TO BE DRG NO. REV 9. THE EXTENT OF GRASSING TO BE DETERMINED ON-SITE AND DETERMINED ON-SITE TO SUIT CONSTRUCTION Page 54 SHALL BE TURFED OR SEEDED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF ACTIVITIES. ENSURE SILT STOP FENCES ARE COMPLETION OF WORKS. POSITIONED TO PREVENT TRANSPORTATION OF 10. TO REDUCE THE TRACKING OF SEDIMENT OFF-SITE PROVIDE 216016-08 A FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY DISTURBED MATERIALS INTO DRAINAGE CHANNELS & STABILISED ENTRY/EXIT POINT TO THE SITE. INSTALL DIVERSION HUMP IF THE SITE SLOPES TOWARDS THE ROAD. COUNCILS STORMWATER SYSTEM. SHEET OF A3 COPYRIGHT: "This document is and shall remain the property of Henry Carr Design & Consulting. Tuesday, 14 June 2016 No. Meeting Agenda Council The document may only be used for the purpose for which it Construct sealed access in was commissioned and in accordance with the terms of accordance with LGAT engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document is prohibited." A D J A C E N T S I T E standard drgs TSD-R03, R04, E01 & RF01. Rights of Way No. Revision variable width A DA Issue - 25/04/2016 34.0 33.0 32.0 31.0 30.0 B Drive amended - 3/5/2016 62.42m ƒ 

Development Application: DA-2016-174 3.00m Wide Drainage Easement Plan Reference no.: P2 Table Drain Date Received: 3 May 2016

Date placed on Public Exhibition: 11 May 2016

11 35.0 SADDLE ROAD

12982 Table Drain Proposed 3.0m wide flush sealed driveway Refer GES Geo Environmental Report for 3.00m Wide wastewater system details Drainage Easement

36.61m 41496 ƒ  14000

300 deep cut-off drain - 1:100 grade

Refer GES Geo Environmental Proposed Report for construction details A B N 9 1 1 1 5 9 9 8 7 2 4 Residence A C N 1 1 5 9 9 8 7 2 4

ƒ  40.27m U n i t 1 / 2 K e n n e d y D r i v e C a m b r i d g e 7 1 7 0 T A S P h ( 0 3 ) 6 2 4 8 5 1 9 5

Building Practitioner 16335 Discharge cut-off drain below new Accreditation No.: CC2703F building and wastewater beds, tail out as determined on-site. PROJECT

13373 Proposed Residence For Dean Ryan At 19 Saddle Road 73.40m Kettering 7155

ƒ  SITE PLAN

Existing Driveway S I T E SCALE 0.5m 0.5m 3.0m A D J A C E N T 1:250

DRAWN CHECKED

NOTE: 3.0% PAH Table Drain Gravel Shoulder

Gravel Shoulder NSL This drawing is to be read in Table Drain 1 in 2.0 conjunction with detailed plans 1 in 2.0 DATE: 2 coat seal March 2016 prepared by "Backyard Sheds P/L" A D J A C E N T S I T E Strip to 150mm 75 base course (20 FCR) DRG NO. REV min deep 100 sub-base course (40 FCR) Page 55 FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY TYPICAL DRIVEWAY SECTION 216016-02 A Existing Driveway Scale 1 :100 SHEET OF A3 COPYRIGHT: "This document is and shall remain the property of Henry Carr Design & Consulting. Tuesday, 14 June 2016 No. 11 Meeting Agenda Council The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the terms of engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document is prohibited."

No. Revision

34.0 A DA Issue - 25/04/2016 B WW System amended-3/5/16 ORG Date placed on Public Exhibition: 11 May 2016 S Development Application: DA-2016-174 Plan Reference no.: P2 Date Received: 3 May 2016 DN50 to Sink

SANITARY SEWER & WATER SUPPLY NOTES HB/TR DN40 to HB/TR 1. All plumbing works to be carried out in accordance DN50 to Shr WC with AS3500 - Plumbing and Drainage Code, Tasmanian Plumbing Regulations 2004, the BCA SHR and to Council requirements. V 2. The final location of all existing and new sewer DN50 vent lines are to be confirmed on-site. DN100 to WC 3. Unless shown otherwise the following minimum grades are to be adopted: - 1:40 (1.25%)

DN100 at 1:60 Min ‘ ‘ - 1:40 (1.25%) ‘ - 1:60 (1.65%) 4. All pipe trenches in trafficable areas are to be A B N 9 1 1 1 5 9 9 8 7 2 4 backfilled to underside of basecourse layer with A C N 1 1 5 9 9 8 7 2 4 compacted FCR. 5. All sewer pipe to be DWV Class SN6 SCJ uPVC. U n i t 1 / 2 K e n n e d y D r i v e I.O. 6. Vents to terminate above roof with approved vent C a m b r i d g e 7 1 7 0 T A S P h ( 0 3 ) 6 2 4 8 5 1 9 5 DN100 at 1:60 Min 33.0 cowl. Provide "dektite" or similar weatherproof flashing. 7. All floor wastes to be charged with a waste pipe or Building Practitioner tap priming device in accordance with AS3500 Accreditation No.: CC2703F Clause 4.6.8.

8. All inspection openings in paved areas to be fitted PROJECT with bolted cap at finished slab level. 9. Install hotwater cylinder with temperature valve set Proposed Residence Refer GES Geo Environmental Report for WRƒ&,QVXODWHKRWZDWHUSLSHZRUNLQ For Dean Ryan accordance with BCA Part 3.12.5. & AS3500.4. Construct diversion drain wastewater system details 10. Hotwater to Bathroom and En-suite to be tempered At 19 Saddle Road

upstream of wastewater bed. 6.00m MIN SEPARATION FROM BUILDING Refer GES wastewater report WRƒ&LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK$6 Kettering 7155 for drain detail SANITARY SEWER

DN100 at 1:60 Min PLAN

10.0m

PLUMBING LEGEND SCALE S - Sink 1:100 WC - Water closet DRAWN CHECKED 32.0 HB - Hand basin SHR - Shower PAH

TR - Trough DATE: V March 2016 5.0m ‘YHQWSLSHWRDLU ORG - Overflow relief gully DRG NO. REV DP - 90 dia Downpipe Page 56 FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY I.O. - Inspection Opening 216016-05 B

SHEET OF A3 Date placed on Public Exhibition: 11 May 2016 Tuesday, 14June 2016 No. 11 Meeting Agenda Council

Development Application: DA-2016-174 Plan Reference no.: P3 Date Received: 4 May 2016 Page 57 58

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL RESUMES

Open session of Council resumed at

REPORTS OF OFFICERS

REPORT TO: COUNCIL

SUBJECT: CLIMATE CHANGE INNOVATION LAB

FILE REF: 8.162 DATE: 26TH MAY 2016

OFFICER: JON DOOLE - MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

ENDORSED BY: TONY FERRIER - DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

1. PURPOSE

Strategic Plan Reference

Key Priority Area 3 A healthy natural environment Strategic Outcome 3.4 Proactive measures address the adverse impacts of natural hazards on the potential use or development of land Strategy 3.4.2 Investigate and promote within the community climate change mitigation initiatives and adaptation measures.

1.1 The purpose of this report is to propose the establishment of a Climate Change Innovation Lab in Kingborough.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The reality of climate change is indisputable. The impacts are already occurring in many parts of the world through increases in extreme events, population displacement, damage to infrastructure, species shifts, regulatory changes and challenges to insurance availability and affordability. The latest scientific projections see the world heading towards a global average 4°C increase by 2100, compared to pre-industrial times.

2.2 Climate change is rapidly emerging as an economic issue that will manifest at the local level. The impacts of climate change are likely to cause a range of direct impacts for local governments. These include impacts of property prices (affecting local government ability to generate income); increased extreme events (affecting assets); local insurance availability; impacts on development yield; health and well-being of the community; and effects on the natural environment and ecosystem services.

2.3 It has become apparent that local governments need to show leadership in responding to climate change and find innovative ways of developing, financing and implementing climate change adaptation actions.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 58 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 59

2.4 The Kingston Beach Integrated Natural Hazard and Climate Change Project has set Kingborough on a trajectory to resilient development in Kingston Beach and throughout the municipality. The Project highlighted that adaptation actions exist, but have some constraints that need further exploration.

2.5 The proposed Climate Change Innovation Lab is a perfect example of a way to showcase the adaptation options and utilize benefits by being a mover on climate change issues.

3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 There are no statutory requirements pertaining to the matters discussed in this report.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 The proposed Climate Change Innovation Lab (the Lab) is a place where researchers, Council staff, community and business can come together and explore real-world applications to climate change. The Lab will connect with public, academic, and private sector organisations, researchers, and outreach specialists to deliver technical support and provide tools and strategies for climate change. The Lab will have a physical presence in Kingborough and be co-funded by partnership agreements and grants. The Lab will also achieve funding targets through the organisation of paid conferences, workshops and training.

4.2 Establishing a Climate Change Innovation Lab will bring a range of benefits for Kingborough Council and the community it represents, including:

 Gain access to real-world solutions for the climate change issues facing Kingborough;

 Be able to test innovative and emerging responses to climate change for specific challenges facing Kingborough;

 Gain access to world-leading climate change professionals and researchers;

 Gain more competitive access to National, State, corporate and other funding;

 Be the catalyst for local economic development. For example the Lab can organise national and international conferences, training and professional workshops. All of these can be a source for the Lab’s funding and also bring money into the local economy;

 Be seen as a thought leader in climate change adaptation;

 Act as a tangible interface between the community and leading climate change science;

 Assist with managing climate change related information associated with development approvals; and

 Act as a focal point for Kingborough staff training and critical functions (e.g. asset management).

4.3 The creation and operation of a Climate Change Innovation Lab in Kingborough would act to raise the profile of the potential impacts of climate change on our community and how adaptation could be planned for.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 59 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 60

4.4 A local government based Climate Change Innovation Lab is likely to be a world’s first. Kingborough Council is becoming increasingly recognised for its leadership in managing climate change issues.

4.5 Kingborough Council has undertaken a range of activities associated with exploring climate change risks (with the most recent being the Kingston Beach study). Each of the studies highlight a broad range of challenges – however exploring adaptation options will require some initial financial outlay and the Lab may be able to help co-fund and deliver the research required.

4.6 The idea of the Lab has received very strong support with a range of organisations, some of which have written letters of support (see attached). The organisations that have shown initial support for the project include ACE CRC, the Climate Institute, UTAS, QUT and DibbsBarker. Partnership discussions will also be undertaken with CSIRO, the Australian Government, Tasmanian SES, TasFire, TasNeworks, TasWater, MONA, NCCARF, financial institutions, consultancies and other organisations.

4.7 The Lab will require focussed leadership during the establishment phase. It will require a person to identify and liaise with potential partners, funders and researchers and help direct the research to ensure that projects are specific to Kingborough locations, community, environment and the economy. It will also require a person to lead the actual set up of the site (lease agreements etc), administration and initial financial management.

4.8 A range of options for the location for the Lab exist and these can be explored in the coming weeks. Options include:

4.8.1 Digital Arts Hub: There is an opportunity to share the facilities with the Kingborough Digital Arts Hub (preferred option);

4.8.2 Local Hub: A community member was inspired by the Kingston Beach community forum on climate change and has offered to lease their house in Kingston Beach to host the Lab; and

4.8.3 Other – the Lab could be hosted in the former Kingston High School site, Channel Court or other suitable locations. Initial conversations with CSIRO have been undertaken to explore mutual opportunities.

5. FINANCE

5.1 There will be no additional impact on the 2016/2017 budget. Money has been already earmarked in the initial budget to advance the Lab ($22,000).

5.2 It is proposed that prior to the establishment of the Lab a more detailed Business Case be prepared that provides the necessary financial details associated with its establishment and ongoing operational costs – together with governance and staffing arrangements, a risk assessment and the real potential for revenue raising opportunities. This report is seeking Council’s endorsement of the Lab in order that these more detailed investigations can be conducted.

5.3 In the future, it is envisaged that the Lab will seek funding from partnership arrangements and grant applications. The Lab will also be funded through activities such as conferences, training and professional workshops. All resources obtained by the Lab will be invested back into the Lab and not in the consolidated funds of Council.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 60 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 61

6. ENVIRONMENT

6.1 The environmental implications have been addressed in this report.

7. COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

7.1 The creation and operation of a Climate Change Innovation Lab in Kingborough would act to raise the profile of the potential impacts of climate change on our community and how adaptation could be planned for.

7.2 The Climate Change Innovation Lab would provide a forum to showcase the latest in climate science as well as climate change adaptation initiatives being undertaken throughout Australia and the rest of the world.

8. RISK

8.1 The establishment of a Climate Change Innovation Lab in Kingborough may lead to a reduction in the impacts of climate change on the Kingborough community. It will showcase adaptation actions and assist in Council managing corporate and political risks associated with climate change.

9. CONCLUSION

9.1 Climate change will affect Kingborough Council – directly and indirectly. Establishing a Climate Change Innovation Lab will be a world first and will greatly assist Council manage the risks in a way that help promote economic activity. The Lab will be self- funded and require little contribution from Council resources.

9.2 The fact that initial support has already been garnered shows there is support and a potential demand for the Lab. The next step is to prepare a Business Case that establishes its future viability and determines the likely costs and benefits in Council overseeing the operation of a Climate Change Innovation Lab.

10. RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That Council notes the information in the report and endorses the proposed establishment of a Climate Change Innovation Lab in Kingborough, subject to the further consideration of a Business Case that determines its establishment and ongoing operational costs – together with future governance and staffing arrangements, a risk assessment and the real potential for revenue raising opportunities.

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 61 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 62

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 62 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 63

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 63 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 64

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 64 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 65

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 65 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 66

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 66 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 67

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 67 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 68

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 68 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 69

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 69 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 70

REPORT TO: COUNCIL

SUBJECT: OXLEY AND GROOMBRIDGE ROAD PETITION

FILE REF: 23.125, 23.216 DATE: 11 May 2016

OFFICER: DAVID REEVE – EXECUTIVE MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES

ENDORSED BY: GARY ARNOLD – GENERAL MANAGER

1. PURPOSE

Strategic Plan Reference

Key Priority Area 2.0 Sustainable land use and infrastructure management. Strategic Outcome 2.2 Community Infrastructure is enhanced, replaced and maintained Strategy 2.2.1 Maintain a safe and efficient road transport so that it provides easy access for the whole community

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide a response to a petition requesting sealing of lower Oxleys Road and Groombridges Road.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 A petition containing 82 signatures was tabled at 9 May 2016 Council meeting, requesting for sealing of lower Oxleys Road and Groombridges Road with the reasons cited being:

2.1.1 To reduce the cost of Council’s unsealed road maintenance program;

2.1.2 To reduce the risk of motor vehicle accidents;

2.1.3 To meet the increased traffic flow and match the residential development in the area;

2.1.4 To reduce adverse recreational, health and environmental impact to residents and community.

2.2 Two meetings have been held with residents on this matter, one a site meeting on 15 April 2016 and the second a more formal meeting held in the Council Chambers on 26 April 2016. The second meeting was held after the petition was lodged and was to address a number of issues outlined by the community in the attached agenda for the meeting.

2.3 Following the meeting a summary of the agreed actions was distributed to all the attendees and other relevant properties in both Groombridges Road and Oxleys Road, refer to the attachment.

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 as follows

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 70 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 71

1) Subject to this Act, the corporation of a municipality is charged with the duty of maintaining the local highways in the municipality that are maintainable by the corporation as shown on its municipal map, and, in any particular case, it shall discharge that duty in such manner as, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it considers practicable and appropriate.

(2) For the purposes of the discharge of its duties under this section in respect of a highway, a corporation may carry out such works as it considers necessary for the maintenance or renewal of any bridge, embankment, or other work carrying, or otherwise associated with, the highway.

(3) The local highways in a municipality that are maintainable by the corporation vest in the corporation and, for the purpose of the exercise of its functions in respect of those highways, the corporation has, subject to the Traffic Act 1925 and the Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999, the care, control, and management of those highways.

(4) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, a corporation is not liable for any injury or loss arising from the condition of a highway unless that condition results from the improper carrying out of highway works that are carried out by, or at the direction of, the corporation.

3.2 Notwithstanding the above Council does need to take into account the health and welfare of the community when deciding an appropriate standard of road to be maintained.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Sealing unsealed roads is an expensive option as it involves, as a minimum, new pavement, often improved drainage and a new seal. As such, it is important to consider each case carefully. Factors that may be considered for sealing an unsealed road would include:

4.1.1 Significant safety issues that can only be addressed with sealing of the road;

4.1.2 Increased traffic use, generally caused by changes in abutting land use with higher density housing;

4.1.3 The maintenance costs for the unsealed road are high and in the long term it is considered more cost effective to seal the road.

4.2 Approximately half of Council’s road network is unsealed and in the majority of cases these perform very well. Council has sealed unsealed 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.

4.3 Oxleys Road is unsealed for its entire length; however it is only the section of road from Channel Highway to the intersection of Groombridges Road that has been requested for sealing. This section is the most heavily trafficked with a relatively high level of housing density (block sizes ranging from 700 square metres to over 4000 square metres). It is also the main traffic generator from the Groombridges Road area. Indicative traffic counts for the area suggest approximately 250 vehicle movements per day, which for a road of this type and length is medium to high.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 71 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 72

4.4 Groombridges Road is part sealed and part unsealed. A section of the road was sealed in 2015/16 following a development contribution and subsequent Council commitment to undertake the sealing works. Currently 1.101km of the road remains unsealed, however of this, 590m is of greatest concern being steep (average gradient of 20%) with ongoing requirements to grade regular occurring ruts and corrugations. While there is only one reported crash on the steep section, vehicles can easily lose traction both ascending and descending and anecdotal evidence suggests this happens. In addition pedestrians struggle to negotiate the slippery slope.

4.5 Both Oxleys Road and Groombridges Road would meet the criteria for sealing based on the density of the abutting land use for the former and safety considerations for the latter.

4.6 Commitment has been given to residents that, regardless of the outcome of this report, some minor matters will be addressed as follows:

4.6.1 Undertake more frequent maintenance of lower Oxleys Road to remove the large stones which get pushed to the verge by traffic.

4.6.2 Undertake more frequent sweeping of the sealed junction at Channel Highway to ensure the bus stop area is clear of loose gravel.

4.6.3 Review grading operations to ensure existing corrugations are successfully removed and access to properties is appropriately reinstated.

4.6.4 Upgrade the signage at the Channel Highway junction. Consider RESPECT RURAL RECREATION signage or similar to alert motorists that they can expect pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders and to encourage slow travel speeds for improved safety and reduced dust.

4.6.5 Consider signs such as STEEP DESCENT, USE LOW GEAR and SLIPPERY SURFACE in advance of the steep section of Groombridges Road.

5. FINANCE

5.1 To seal the steep section of Groombridges Road, approximately $570K would be required.

5.2 To seal Oxleys Road from Channel Highway to Groombridges Road, approximately $480K would be required.

5.3 Both of these projects could be accommodated in Council’s current 5 Year Capital Works Program based on the current competing priorities.

6. ENVIRONMENT

6.1 There are no environmental implications for this matter.

7. COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

7.1 Recent discussions have been held with the residents and other interested parties as regards this matter via public meetings and a follow up letter sent to all residents as to the outcome of those meetings.

7.2 Further information will be provided to residents as to the outcome from this report.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 72 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 73

8. RISK

8.1 There is an ongoing risk associated with the steep section of Groombridges Road in its current form with vehicles having difficulty maintaining traction.

8.2 There is a risk that Council agreeing to consider these roads for sealing in the 5 Year Capital Works Program will drive similar requests from other residents. This risk is ameliorated somewhat by the fact that each road needs to be treated on its own merits having regard to safety, traffic use and costs.

9. CONCLUSION

9.1 Both Oxleys Road and Groombridges Road would be appropriate to seal, however as both projects would be new works and relatively expensive they would need to be carefully considered against competing priorities prior to funding the works.

9.2 Several minor improvements will be undertaken now to improve the safety and amenity for the users of Oxleys Road and Groombridges Road.

10. RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That

(a) Oxleys Road from Channel Highway to Groombridges Road be considered for sealing within the 5 Year Capital Works Program

(b) Groombridges Road from the junction of Oxleys Road to approximately 590m be considered for sealing within the 5 Year Capital Works Program

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Percey Cr Bastone Cr Street Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Fox Cr Winter Cr Grace

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 73 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 74

Agenda for Meeting of Oxleys & Groombridge Residents with Kingborough Council representatives

Friday 22nd April 2016.

General Purpose of Meeting:

To re address the issues raised by residents and the community in relation to the ongoing issues regarding the current surface condition of Oxleys & Groombridge Roads and for council to guarantee a commitment to resolve the health and safety issues.

Agenda to be addressed:

The local residents and community of Oxleys & Groombridge Roads wish to discuss the following areas of concern with Council members and representatives:

 Oxleys & Groombridge Roads are the only local residential roads that aren’t sealed for the first km or at least up to the intersection of Oxleys and Groombridge Roads as per Saddle Rd, Watsons Rd, Manuka Rd Oyster Crt, Ferry Rd, Rada Rd, Selby Rd, Turners Dr, Wilsons Rd, and has to present date 48 driveways/properties attached to these roads with potentially more properties and vehicles accessing the road as more blocks are sold and properties are built.

 Oxleys Rd is narrow, barely a dual carriage way and is approached by oncoming vehicles much like a single lane bridge, one giving way to the other for passing. This has been noted with cars and especially the case with any heavy trucks/vehicles.

 There is no allocated pedestrian pathway so people travelling by foot along Oxleys/Groombridge Roads must walk on the road. Community access is compromised due to the loose surface and dangerous gradient of Groombridge Rd, with several community members having suffered from falls and slips on the loose surfaces of these roads

 The road is close to the houses on the north side of Oxleys Rd which poses a threat to property and persons on their property should a vehicle travelling at speed lose control and traction on the loose gravel surface. This is most likely at dusk or early in the morning when native fauna are active, or when a vehicle is travelling too fast or is passing on the road.

 Local residents have come to the aid of motorists who have been involved in accidents coming down lower Groombridge Rd over the years and as such, these accidents have not been reported but dealt with by the locals to expedite a quick response to the incident. Therefore anecdotal evidence exists regarding any accidents that have occurred on this section of road.

 Properties on Oxleys Rd are identified and rated as residential for council rates and fire protection zoning, yet we are not provided with residential services that reflect this status.

 Many residents feel that their letters/emails to council have not been heard and the lack of response to them raising their concerns indicate that council is not acting in the interest of its ratepayers and the local community.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 74 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 75

Community Issues raised and Indicators:

 What measures does council have to assist ratepayers with protecting their property from the effects of the loose surface on their properties? Does council offer planting options for Council land strips in front of their properties? Perth Nursery??

 Residents have requested a breakdown of costs involved in the ongoing maintenance of the current road surface and would like to highlight any comparisons between the maintenance of loose surfaces vs sealed roads.

 Is Council able to guarantee that public works will be tabled and executed on either Groombridge or Oxleys Rd or both in the next financial years planning agenda? Can council indicate a timeframe for any public works to be tabled and addressed for the interest of the residents and the community?

 What measures will council implement to address this situation ensuring that ratepayers and the community are achieving the best possible outcomes?? This has been an ongoing safety issue for the community as identified at least 8 years ago by current residents and the issue will only increase in scale as the volume of traffic and demographics in the area increase in the future.

 Is council committed to address the historical issues regarding the development of the local residential area in lieu of current planning requirements regarding sealed roads as part of the planning approval process for subdivision and development of residential land? Oxleys Rd was developed more than 10 years ago and the road surface has not been upgraded to meet the present requirements for residential needs as per Planning.

 Is Council able to erect adequate signage to better protect the residents and community to reflect the residential and recreational status and to create a safer environment for the residents and community who access the local area?

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 75 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 76

2 May 2016 Our Ref: 23.125

«Resident» «Address_1» «Address_2»

Dear «Salutation»

MEETING OF OXLEYS ROAD AND GROOMBRIDGES ROAD RESIDENTS WITH KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL OFFICERS

I write to confirm the discussions of the meeting between Oxleys Road and Groombridges Road residents and Kingborough Council officers held at the Council Chambers on Tuesday 26 April 2016. An Agenda was tabled at the meeting and the key points and questions were discussed in detail. A summary of the questions and Council’s response are shown below.

 What measures does Council have to assist ratepayers with protecting their property from the effects of the loose surface on their properties? Does Council offer planting options for Council land strips in front of their properties? Example Perth Nursery?

Council does not have a street planting regime to screen properties from the effects of dust or loose material. Large trees in the verge can potentially impact on road user visibility and clear sight lines to property accesses. Large trees are also slow to establish so any screening benefits would not be realised for many years to come. There are many locations where landholders have planted trees and landscaped verges throughout the municipality, usually without Council approval. They create maintenance issues, road safety issues and sometimes cause damage to the road pavement. As a consequence Council is developing a roadside verge policy to allow effective management of trees.

 Residents have requested a breakdown of costs involved in the ongoing maintenance of the current road surface and would like to highlight any comparisons between the maintenance of loose surfaces versus sealed roads.

While Council has a good understanding of the costs of grading and resheeting roads each year, a specific breakdown of cost for each road or road segment has not previously been recorded. The higher cost for maintaining Groombridges Road is anecdotal and based only on the frequency of maintenance rather than from known actual costs.

Gravel roads generally require more frequent maintenance than sealed roads but usually only consists of regrading and drain cleaning maybe every 6 months, with a full resheet of a new gravel every 10 years or so. Sealed roads also require maintenance and while it is generally less frequent with some general potholing, a reseal is required every 15 to 20 years or so. The amount of maintenance is usually liked with traffic volumes and road hierarchy so higher profile roads are serviced with a higher priority. However maintenance of the sealed road network is considerably more costly than the maintenance costs of the unsealed road network. Council will look at monitoring expenditure within the Groombridge Road/ Oxley Road area over the next 12 months to better define this expenditure.

 Is Council able to guarantee that public works will be tabled and executed on either Groombridges Road or Oxleys Road, or both, in the next financial year’s planning agenda? Can Council indicate a timeframe for any public works to be tabled and addressed for the interest of the residents and the community?

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 76 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 77

Council officers are aware of the safety and maintenance issues regarding the steep section of Groombridges Road. A project to seal the steep section is already listed in Council’s 5 Year Plan with a current proposed delivery during the 2017/18 Capital Works program.

Council is also aware of the concerns of Oxleys Road residents regarding the reduced amenity as a result of dust from increased traffic levels. A project for the sealing of the lower end of Oxleys Road will be costed and placed on the 5 Year Plan with a view of listing it for the year after Groombridges Road. It is noted that residents would prefer a rural style sealed road, with no kerb and channel and no paved footpath.

It must be understood that the final approval of each year’s Capital Works program is by Elected Members and priorities sometimes need to change, but there is a long term commitment in the 5 Year Plan for the upgrade of these roads.

 What measures will Council implement to address this situation ensuring that ratepayers and the community are achieving the best possible outcomes? This has been an ongoing safety issue for the community as identified at least 8 years ago by current residents and the issue will only increase in scale as the volume of traffic and demographics in the area increase in the future.

Council is investigating other methods to reduce dust and improve traction on some of the higher trafficked gravel roads in the municipality. There are products available such as dust suppressants and alternative sealing treatments however their cost, success rates and suitability to local conditions are not known. Sometimes a community’s expectations are not fully achieved as the treatments are sometimes only temporary and when problems return it is often assumed to be as a result of Council incompetence. Nevertheless, if Groombridges Road and lower Oxleys Road were on the 5 Year Plan they possibly wouldn’t be considered as part of any trial.

As a short term commitment Council will look at more frequent maintenance of lower Oxleys Road to remove the large stones which get pushed to the verge by traffic. Council will discuss with the Works Depot its concerns that grading operations aren’t successfully removing existing corrugations and require accesses to be appropriately reinstated. Council will undertake more frequent sweeping of the sealed junction at Channel Highway to ensure the bus stop area is clear of loose gravel.

 Is Council committed to addressing the historical issues regarding the development of the local residential area in lieu of current planning requirements regarding sealed roads as part of the planning approval process for subdivision and development of residential land? Oxleys Road was developed more than 10 years ago and the road surface has not been upgraded to meet the present requirements for residential needs as per Planning.

Any new subdivisions along Oxleys Road or Groombridges Road would require sealing of any new roads or a contribution toward sealing of Oxleys or Groombridges Road (similar to the 2009 subdivision at the end of Saddle Road). However as noted above, Council has listed the steep section of Groombridges Road and is listing the lower end of Oxleys Road in the 5 Year Plan for sealing.

 Is Council able to erect adequate signage to better protect the residents and community to reflect the residential and recreational status and to create a safer environment for the residents and community who access the local area?

Council is able to erect signage to improve the safety and amenity of both Oxleys Road and Groombridges Road. It was noted that there is already a GIVE WAY sign and painted HOLD LINE at the junction of Oxleys Road and Channel Highway which is sufficient and appropriate for a T-junction of a major/minor road. Some residents thought the GIVE WAY sign was partially obscured by the bus stop. Council will look at relocating it to a more

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 77 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 78

prominent location. Council will install a HAZARD MARKER (black and white bidirectional arrows) on the far side of the T-junction to provide additional warning of the intersection.

Council will also consider installing RESPECT RURAL RECREATION signage or similar to alert motorists that they can expect pedestrians (including children), cyclists and horse riders on the road and to encourage slow travel speeds for improved safety and reduced dust. For Groombridges Road signage such as STEEP DESCENT, USE LOW GEAR and SLIPPERY SURFACE can be erected to alert motorists of the approaching hazard of the steep gravel section.

The current 50 km/h posted speed limit cannot be reduced. Traffic counters will be installed very shortly which will record travel speeds. It is quite possible that vehicle speeds will increase if, or when, the road is sealed as the road alignment on Oxleys Road is fairly straight. However this could be assessed and speed management methods could be considered at that stage.

Council will arrange for the redundant steel pipe (signpost sleeve?) located on the southwest corner of Channel Highway/Oxleys Road junction to be removed.

The petition for the sealing of lower Oxleys Road and Groombridges Road has been lodged. Providing the petition complies with the Local Government Act and the General Manager will table the petition at the next meeting of Council. A formal response via a Council report will follow in due course.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you believe I have missed any of the main points from the meeting or for any other issues related to this matter.

Yours sincerely

DAVID REEVE EXECUTIVE MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 78 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 79

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 79 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 80

REPORT TO: COUNCIL

SUBJECT: REGIONAL WASTE GROUP

FILE REF: 24.6 DATE: 1 JUNE 2016

OFFICER: GARY ARNOLD - GENERAL MANAGER

1. PURPOSE

Strategic Plan Reference

Key Priority Area 3 A healthy natural environment Strategic Outcome 3.2 Sustainable land and waste management practices are adopted by land owners, contractors, businesses, government agencies and the general community Strategy 3.2.3 Encourage reduced levels of waste going to landfill and waste avoidance, reuse and recycling.

1.1 This report to Council is to consider the proposal for the Southern Waste Strategy Authority (SWSA) to cease as an operational body on 30 June 2016 and be replaced by a regional waste body from 1 July 2016 auspiced by the Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority (STCA).

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Council will be aware that the STCA is endeavouring to establish a regional waste group to become operational from 1 July 2016 following the cessation of SWSA on 30 June 2016.

3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 SWSA was established as a joint authority in accordance with Sec 30 of the Local Government Act 1993 comprising the twelve Councils in Southern Tasmania approximately 15 years ago.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Waste management, mitigation and collection remain a major responsibility for Local Government.

4.2 Over the past twelve months, STCA has been working towards the establishment of a regional waste group to guide the process of marrying the roles and responsibilities of SWSA into the STCA.

4.3 The Lord Mayor, Aldermen Hickey, Chair of STCA, recently wrote to all member Councils (refer attached) in regard to this matter.

4.4 Council recently held a workshop to discuss the proposal. The workshop was attended by Mayor Vincent, Chair of the STCA working group and the STCA CEO, Brenton West.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 80 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 81

5. FINANCE

5.1 There are no additional financial implications associated with the proposed cessation of SWSA on 30 June 2016 and commencement of a regional waste group under the auspices of STCA from 1 July 2016 as this proposal has been accommodated in the budget recently adopted by Council for 2016/17.

6. ENVIRONMENT

6.1 The environmental implications of waste management require a coordinated strategic regional approach.

7. COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

7.1 No public consultation or communication is required for this report. Should Council agree with the proposal, Council’s representative on SWSA, Mayor Wass, will vote accordingly at the next meeting of SWSA scheduled for 23 June 2016.

8. RISK

8.1 There appears to be little risk in Council supporting the proposal to wind up SWSA on 30 June 2016 and replace that authority with a regional waste group auspice by STCA from 1 July 2016.

9. CONCLUSION

9.1 The proposal to cease the operations of SWSA from 30 June 2016 and replace that authority with a regional waste group under the auspices of STCA from 1 July 2016 is considered appropriate.

10. RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That Council support the proposal to cease the operations of Southern Waste Strategy Authority on 30 June 2016 and replace that authority with a regional waste group under the auspices of Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority from 1 July 2016.

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 81 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 82

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 82 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 83

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 83 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 84

c/- Glenorchy City Council P.O. Box 103 Glenorchy 7010 TAS. 24th May 2016

Dear General Manager

You will be aware that the Southern Tasmania Councils Authority is endeavouring to establish a Waste Committee to be effective from 1st July 2016 and this will replace SWSA as the southern regional waste body.

Because of this, SWSA has been operating this year on the basis that it will cease as an operational body on 30th June 2016.

From the information available to SWSA at this time, it appears that STCA’s proposal is likely to succeed and arrangements need to be made for the future of SWSA post 30/6/16.

At the last SWSA meeting it was resolved to recommend to Member Councils that SWSA be wound up as soon as practical after 1st July 2016 and the balance of funds remaining be distributed to existing Members in accordance with the rules of Authority.

The next meeting of SWSA will take place on Thursday 23rd June 2016 and it would be appreciated if your representative could be informed of your Council’s position so that he/she will be in a position to vote on this proposal.

It is realised that several Councils have already given us advice of their intentions and no further advice will be required from them.

Assuming the winding up proposal is agreed to at the meeting, there will still be certain administrative tasks that will be required to be undertaken post 1/7/16 such as the accounts and audit for 2016/17 as well as the actual winding up process and this may take several months and require two or three more SWSA meetings to enable all the legalities to be observed.

I will advise you of the outcome following the meeting on 23/6/16.

Yours faithfully

Danielle Hall Executive Officer

C.C. SWSA Board Members

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 84 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 85

REPORTTO: COUNCIL

SUBJECT: COMMUNITY GRANTS 2016/2017 ROUND 1

FILE REF: 10.156 DATE: 1ST JUNE 2016

OFFICER: JULIE ALDERFOX - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

ENDORSED BY: DANIEL SMEE - MANAGER COMMUNITY & RECREATIONAL SERVICES

1. PURPOSE

Strategic Plan Reference

Key Priority Area 1.0 A safe, active and supportive community Strategic Outcome 1.1 A connected, supportive and thriving community Strategy 1.1.1 Support is provided to community organisations so that they are able to provide a broad range of local services.

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide Council with recommendations of funding allocations for projects from the Round One 2016/2017 Community Grants

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Community Grant applications were called for in March 2016 with a closing date of 16 May. This enables the assessment process of applications to be completed and recommendations formed prior to announcements in July 2016.

2.2 This year there are again two grant rounds being held. A total of 21 applications were received for the first round with requests for projects totalling $70,150. Copies of all applications received are available in the Councillors’ room.

3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Grants are required to be listed in Council’s Annual Report in accordance with Section 77 of the Local Government Act 1993.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 The applications as listed in the attached tables have been assessed against the guidelines and are provided for Council’s consideration.

4.2 In accordance with the guidelines, the recommended grants for each recipient totals no more than 50% of the project cost.

4.3 An amount of $29,990 is recommended to fund projects that meet the criteria for Council’s 2016/2017 Community Grants program for round one.

4.4 The attached table provides details of each of the grant applications received and subsequent recommendations for Council’s consideration.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 85 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 86

4.5 Successful round one grant recipients will be announced at a formal ceremony to be held in the Civic Centre in July 2016.

5. FINANCE

5.1 An amount of $60,000 has been included in the 2016/2017 operational budget for the Community Grant program.

6. ENVIRONMENT

6.1 There are no environmental implications for this matter.

7. COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

7.1 The Community Grants Program is widely advertised in the local media and promoted directly to community groups.

8. RISK

8.1 No risks to Council are identified in relation to this matter.

9. CONCLUSION

9.1 A total of 21 grant applications were received for round one, seeking a total of $70,150. Following assessment against the criteria, grants to the value of $29,990 are recommended for funding.

10. RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That Council endorse the allocations for funding for Round One of the 2016 Community Grants Program as outlined in the attached table.

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 86 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 87

Amount Amount Number Organisation Project Requested Recommended 1 Kingborough U3A $880 Purchase of photocopier $880 2 Snug Christian Church $2,838 Snug Outdoor Movie Night Nil 3 Blackmans Bay District Cricket Club $5,000 New concrete slab and pitch resurfacing Nil 4 Taroona Football Club $4,000 Facility development plans $3,275 5 Friends of the Linc $2,023 Kingston Book Benches Project $2023 6 Kingborough Netball Association $2,000 KNA Junior Netball Carnival Nil 7 Southern Football Club $4,367 Sherburd Park – construction of steps Nil 8 Kingborough Helping Hands $2,100 Fuel, background checks and microwave $1,200 9 Taroona Environment Network $5,000 Sculpture Event $3,000 10 Bruny Island Environment Network $4,881 Support for Bruny Island Bird Festival Nil 11 Kingston Beach Sailing Club $2,200 Promotion of sailing and site safety Nil 12 Illawarra Primary School Parents and Friends $4,500 That Was Then This Is Now – History Arts Project $3,000 13 Coningham & Lower Snug Community $2,000 Recreational seating on Snug Bay/Coningham $2,000 Association walkways 14 Margate Seventh Day Adventist Church $4,249 Margate Community Garden Nil 15 Australian Institute of Architects $5,000 Bring ‘Open House’ scheme to Kingborough $2,500 16 Taroona Neighbourhood Garden $5,000 Garden Infrastructure $3,000 17 Kingborough District Cricket Club $3,500 Facility development plans $3,500 18 North West Bay Scouts $3,742 Fit-out of Scout learning area and kitchen $3,742 19 Channel Heritage Centre $670 Migrant achievements project $670 20 Rotary Club of Kingston $1,200 Defibrillator $1200 21 Kingborough Life Church $5,000 Life Care Nil Total $70,150 Total $29,990

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 87 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 88

REPORT TO: COUNCIL

SUBJECT: CODE OF CONDUCT

FILE REF: 12.143 DATE: 30 MAY 2016

OFFICER: IAN HOLLOWAY – EXECUTIVE OFFICER

ENDORSED BY: GARY ARONLD – GENERAL MANAGER

1. PURPOSE

Strategic Plan Reference

Key Priority Area 6 A well administered organisation Strategic Outcome 6.3 Legislative obligations are met Strategy 6.3.1 Ensure that Council’s governance arrangements meet the requirements of the Local Government Act.

1.1 To adopt the Model Code of Conduct as required by amendments to the Local Government Act 1993.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 At its meeting on 9th May 2016, Council adopted the Code of Conduct (Minute No. C169/8-16 refers).

3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Council is required to adopt the Model Code of Conduct prior to 12 July 2016 as required by the Local Government Act 1993.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Following the adoption of the Code of Conduct, the Code was referred to the Office of Local Government. The Director has advised that the version adopted by Council is not in line with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 (see email contents below).

“Thank you for the provision of the amended Kingborough Council’s Code of Conduct. As stated in my letter to you dated 20 May 2016, the amended Code of Conduct will need to be adopted by the Council prior to 12 July 2016 as it differs from the version that the Council adopted at its meeting on 9 May 2016.

I have noted that there are a few minor errors within the amended Code.

Specifically:

Part 1 – Decision making –

In paragraph 3, the word “of” has been omitted between “or” “which”.

In paragraph 4, there has been a spelling error where the word “not” has been changed to “no.”

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 88 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 89

In paragraph 4, the plural “circumstances” has been changed to “circumstance”.

Part 2 – Conflict of interest - In paragraph 4, the plural “interests” has been changed to “interest”.

Part 3 – Use of information – in paragraph 3, the word “In” has been changed to “I”.

Part 5 – Use of information – in paragraph 2, the word “personal” has been changed to “person”.

Part 6 – Gifts and benefits – In paragraph 8, the word “register” has been changed to the plural “registers”.

Part 8 – Representation –

In paragraph 1, the word “giving” has been changed to “given”.

In paragraph 3, the words “or Lord Mayor” has been omitted.

There may be other errors not identified. It is the Council’s responsibility to ensure its compliance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2016.

To prevent further minor errors, I recommend that the Model Code is copied and pasted directly from Schedule 1 of the Order available from www.thelaw.tas.gov.au as this would reduce the likelihood of errors and changes to the Code.

If you have any queries, please contact me as soon as possible.”

4.2 The anomaly is associated with the manner of the setout of the document not the content. However the Director has advised that it is necessary for Council to formally adopt the layout as required by the legislation.

5. FINANCE

5.1 There are no financial implications for this matter.

6. ENVIRONMENT

6.1 There are no environmental implications for this matter.

7. COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

7.1 The amended document will be placed on Council’s website.

8. RISK

8.1 Council is required to adopt the Model Code of Conduct by 12 July 2016 otherwise there is the risk that action could be taken against Council for failing to comply with its legislative obligations.

9. CONCLUSION

9.1 The previously adopted Code of Conduct did not meet the format as required and therefore Council is required to formally adopt the required format of the Model Code of Conduct.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 89 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 90

10. RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That Council adopt the Code of Conduct, as included in the Agenda, with immediate effect.

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 90 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 91 KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL’S CODE OF CONDUCT

PREAMBLE

APPLICATION OF CODE OF CONDUCT

1. Introduction

Purpose of code of conduct

This Code of Conduct sets out the standards of behaviour expected of the councillors of the Kingborough Council, with respect to all aspects of their role.

As leaders in the community, councillors acknowledge the importance of high standards of behaviour in maintaining good governance. Good governance supports each councillor’s primary goal of acting in the best interests of the community.

Councillors therefore agree to conduct themselves in accordance with the standards of behaviour set out in the Code of Conduct.

This Code of Conduct incorporates the Model Code of Conduct made by Order of the Minister responsible for local government.

Application of code of conduct

This Code of Conduct applies to a councillor whenever he or she:

- conducts council business, whether at or outside a meeting;

- conducts the business of his or her office (which may be that of mayor, deputy mayor or councillor); or

- acts as a representative of the Council.

A complaint of failure to comply with the provisions of the Code of Conduct may be made where the councillor fails to meet the standard of conduct specified in the Model Code of Conduct.

Standards of conduct prescribed under the Model Code of Conduct

The model code of conduct provides for the following eight standards of conduct:

1. Decision making

A councillor is to bring an open and unprejudiced mind to all matters being considered in the course of his or her duties, so that decisions are made in the best interests of the community.

2. Conflict of interest

A councillor effectively manages conflict of interest by ensuring that personal or private interests do not influence, and are not seen to influence, the performance of his or her role and acting in the public interest.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 91 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 92

3. Use of office

A councillor uses his or her office solely to represent and serve the community, conducting himself or herself in a way that maintains the community’s trust in the councillor and the Council as a whole.

4. Use of resources

A councillor uses Council resources and assets strictly for the purpose of performing his or her role.

5. Use of information

A councillor uses information appropriately to assist in performing his or her role in the best interests of the community.

6. Gifts and benefits

A councillor adheres to the highest standards of transparency and accountability in relation to the receiving of gifts or benefits, and carries out his or her duties without being influenced by personal gifts or benefits.

7. Relationships with community, councillors and council employees

A councillor is to be respectful in his or her conduct, communication and relationships with members of the community, fellow councillors and Council employees in a way that builds trust and confidence in the Council.

8. Representation

A councillor is to represent himself or herself and the Council appropriately and within the ambit of his or her role, and clearly distinguish between his or her views as an individual and those of the Council.

Principles of good governance

By adopting this Code of Conduct, councillors commit to the overarching principles of good governance by being:

 Accountable – Explain, and be answerable for, the consequences of decisions made on behalf of the community.

 Transparent – Ensure decision making processes can be clearly followed and understood by the community.

 Law-abiding – Ensure decisions are consistent with relevant legislation or common law, and within the powers of local government.

 Responsive – Represent and serve the needs of the entire community while balancing competing interests in a timely, appropriate and responsive manner.

 Equitable – Provide all groups with the opportunity to participate in the decision making process and treat all groups equally.

 Participatory and inclusive – Ensure that anyone affected by or interested in a decision has the opportunity to participate in the process for making that decision.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 92 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 93

 Effective and efficient – Implement decisions and follow processes that make the best use of the available people, resources and time, to ensure the best possible results for the community.

 Consensus oriented – Take into account the different views and interests in the community, to reach a majority position on what is in the best interests of the whole community, and how it can be achieved.

2. Legislation

The code of conduct framework is legislated under the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act). The Act is available to view via the Tasmanian Legislation Website at www.thelaw.tas.gov.au.

Code of conduct

Tasmanian councillors are required to comply with the provisions of the Council’s Code of Conduct while performing the functions and exercising the powers of his or her office with the council.

The Code of Conduct incorporates the Model Code of Conduct (made by order of the Minister responsible for local government) and may include permitted variations included as attached schedules to the Model Code of Conduct.

Making a code of conduct complaint

A person may make a code of conduct complaint against one councillor in relation to the contravention by the councillor of the relevant council’s code of conduct.

A person may make a complaint against more than one councillor if the complaint relates to the same behaviour and the same code of conduct contravention.

Code of conduct complaints are lodged with the general manager of the relevant council and must comply with legislative requirements, as outlined below.

A complaint may not be made by more than two complainants jointly.

A code of conduct complaint is to –

- be in writing;

- state the name and address of the complainant;

- state the name of each councillor against whom the complaint is made;

- state the provisions of the relevant code of conduct that the councillor has allegedly contravened;

- contain details of the behaviour of each councillor that constitutes the alleged contravention;

- be lodged with the general manager within six months after the councillor or councillors against whom the complaint is made allegedly committed the contravention of the code of conduct; and

- be accompanied by the code of conduct complaint lodgement fee.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 93 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 94

Once satisfied that the code of conduct complaint meets prescribed requirements, the General Manager forwards the complaint to the Code of Conduct Panel.

Code of conduct complaint lodgement fee

The code of conduct complaint lodgement fee is prescribed under Schedule 3 (Fees) of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2015. The lodgement fee is 50 fee units ($75.50 in 2015/16).

3. Further assistance

Councillor dispute resolution

Councillors commit to developing strong and positive working relationships and working effectively together at all times.

Prior to commencing a formal code of conduct complaint, the councillors who are parties to any disagreement should endeavour to resolve their differences in a courteous and respectful manner, recognising that they have been elected to act in the best interests of the community.

A council’s internal dispute resolution process should be the first step that is taken when there is a dispute between councillors.

A councillor who is party to any disagreement should request the Mayor (or Lord Mayor) or the General Manager to assist that councillor in resolving the disagreement informally.

If the informal assistance does not resolve the disagreement, the General Manager may, with the consent of the parties involved, choose to appoint an external mediator to assist in the resolution of the disagreement. If an external mediator is appointed, councillors who are party to the disagreement must strive to cooperate with the mediator and use their best endeavours to assist the mediator and participate in the mediation arranged.

Where a matter cannot be resolved through internal processes, the next step may be to lodge a formal code of conduct complaint.

Councillors should only invoke the provisions of the Code of Conduct in good faith, where it is perceived that another councillor has not complied with the provisions or intent of the Code of Conduct.

Complaints under the Local Government Act 1993

The Director of Local Government is responsible for the investigation of complaints regarding alleged breaches of the Act.

Any person can make a complaint to the Director, via the Local Government Division (contact details below), in accordance with section 339E of the Act, where it is genuinely believed that a council, councillor or general manager may have committed an offence under the Act or failed to comply with the requirements of the Act.

To make a complaint, it is recommended that you first contact the Local Government Division to discuss whether the matter is something that the Division can assist with.

Public Interest Disclosure

Any instances of suspected corrupt conduct, maladministration and serious and substantial waste of public resources or substantial risk to public health or safety or to the environment

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 94 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 95

should be reported in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2002. Disclosures may be made to the Tasmanian Ombudsman or the Tasmanian Integrity Commission.

Key contacts

Department of Premier and Cabinet’s Local Government Division Executive Building, 15 Murray Street, HOBART TAS 7000 GPO Box 123, HOBART TAS 7001 Phone: (03) 6232 7022 Fax: (03) 6232 5685 Email: [email protected] Web: www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/local_government

Local Government Association of Tasmania 326 Macquarie Street, HOBART TAS 7000 GPO Box 1521, HOBART TAS 7001 Phone: (03) 6233 5966 Email: [email protected] Web: www.lgat.tas.gov.au

The Tasmanian Integrity Commission Surrey House, Level 2, 199 Macquarie Street, HOBART TAS 7000 GPO Box 822, HOBART TAS 7001 Phone: 1300 720 289 Email: [email protected] Web: www.integrity.tas.gov.au

Ombudsman Tasmania NAB House, Level 6, 86 Collins Street, HOBART TAS 7000 GPO Box 123, HOBART TAS 7001 Phone: 1800 001 170 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ombudsman.tas.gov.au

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 95 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 96

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL’S CODE OF CONDUCT

ADOPTED BY COUNCIL

MINUTE REFERENCE

PART 1 - Decision making

1. A councillor must bring an open and unprejudiced mind to all matters being decided upon in the course of his or her duties, including when making planning decisions as part of the Council's role as a Planning Authority.

2. A councillor must make decisions free from personal bias or prejudgement.

3. In making decisions, a councillor must give genuine and impartial consideration to all relevant information known to him or her, or of which he or she should have reasonably been aware.

4. A councillor must make decisions solely on merit and must not take irrelevant matters or circumstances into account when making decisions.

PART 2 - Conflict of interest

1. When carrying out his or her public duty, a councillor must not be unduly influenced, nor be seen to be unduly influenced, by personal or private interests that he or she may have.

2. A councillor must act openly and honestly in the public interest.

3. A councillor must uphold the principles of transparency and honesty and declare actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest at any meeting of the Council and at any workshop or any meeting of a body to which the councillor is appointed or nominated by the Council.

4. A councillor must act in good faith and exercise reasonable judgement to determine whether he or she has an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest.

5. A councillor must avoid, and remove himself or herself from, positions of conflict of interest as far as reasonably possible.

6. A councillor who has an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest in a matter before the Council must –

(a) declare the conflict of interest before discussion on the matter begins; and

(b) act in good faith and exercise reasonable judgement to determine whether the conflict of interest is so material that it requires removing himself or herself physically from any Council discussion and remaining out of the room until the matter is decided by the Council.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 96 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 97

PART 3 - Use of Office

1. The actions of a councillor must not bring the Council or the office of councillor into disrepute.

2. A councillor must not take advantage, or seek to take advantage, of his or her office or status to improperly influence others in order to gain an undue, improper, unauthorised or unfair benefit or detriment for himself or herself or any other person or body.

3. In his or her personal dealings with the Council (for example as a ratepayer, recipient of a Council service or planning applicant), a councillor must not expect nor request, expressly or implicitly, preferential treatment for himself or herself or any other person or body.

PART 4 - Use of resources

1. A councillor must use Council resources appropriately in the course of his or her public duties.

2. A councillor must not use Council resources for private purposes except as provided by Council policies and procedures.

3. A councillor must not allow the misuse of Council resources by any other person or body.

4. A councillor must avoid any action or situation which may lead to a reasonable perception that Council resources are being misused by the councillor or any other person or body.

PART 5 - Use of information

1. A councillor must protect confidential Council information in his or her possession or knowledge, and only release it if he or she has the authority to do so.

2. A councillor must only access Council information needed to perform his or her role and not for personal reasons or non-official purposes.

3. A councillor must not use Council information for personal reasons or non-official purposes.

4. A councillor must only release Council information in accordance with established Council policies and procedures and in compliance with relevant legislation.

PART 6 - Gifts and benefits

1. A councillor may accept an offer of a gift or benefit if it directly relates to the carrying out of the councillor's public duties and is appropriate in the circumstances.

2. A councillor must avoid situations in which the appearance may be created that any person or body, through the provisions of gifts or benefits of any kind, is securing (or attempting to secure) influence or a favour from the councillor or the Council.

3. A councillor must carefully consider –

(a) the apparent intent of the giver of the gift or benefit; and

(b) the relationship the councillor has with the giver; and

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 97 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 98

(c) whether the giver is seeking to influence his or her decisions or actions, or seeking a favour in return for the gift or benefit.

4. A councillor must not solicit gifts or benefits in the carrying out of his or her duties.

5. A councillor must not accept an offer of cash, cash-like gifts (such as gift cards and vouchers) or credit.

6 A councillor must not accept a gift or benefit if the giver is involved in a matter which is before the Council.

7. A councillor may accept an offer of a gift or benefit that is token in nature (valued at less than $50) or meets the definition of a token gift or benefit (if the Council has a gifts and benefits policy).

8. If the Council has a gifts register, a councillor who accepts a gift or benefit must record it in the relevant register.

PART 7 - Relationships with community, councillors and Council employees

1. A councillor –

(a) must treat all persons with courtesy, fairness, dignity and respect; and

(b) must not cause any reasonable person offence or embarrassment; and

(c) must not bully or harass any person.

2. A councillor must listen to, and respect, the views of other councillors in Council and committee meetings and any other proceedings of the Council, and endeavour to ensure that issues, not personalities, are the focus of debate.

3. A councillor must not influence, or attempt to influence, any Council employee or delegate of the Council, in the exercise of the functions of the employee or delegate.

4. A councillor must not contact or issue instructions to any of the Council’s contractors or tenderers, without appropriate authorisation.

5. A councillor must not contact an employee of the Council in relation to Council matters unless authorised by the General Manager of the Council.

PART 8 - Representation

1. When giving information to the community, a councillor must accurately represent the policies and decisions of the Council.

2. A councillor must not knowingly misrepresent information that he or she has obtained in the course of his or her duties.

3. A councillor must not speak on behalf of the Council unless specifically authorised or delegated by the Mayor or Lord Mayor.

4. A councillor must clearly indicate when he or she is putting forward his or her personal views.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 98 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 99

5. A councillor’s personal views must not be expressed in such a way as to undermine the decisions of the Council or bring the Council into disrepute.

6. A councillor must show respect when expressing personal views publicly.

7. The personal conduct of a councillor must not reflect, or have the potential to reflect, adversely on the reputation of the Council.

8. When representing the Council on external bodies, a councillor must strive to understand the basis of the appointment and be aware of the ethical and legal responsibilities attached to such an appointment.

PART 9 - Variation of Code of Conduct

1. Any variation of this model code of conduct is to be in accordance with section 28T of the Act.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 99 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 100

REPORT TO: COUNCIL

SUBJECT: CODE OF CONDUCT PANEL

FILE REF: 12.143 DATE: 19 MAY 2016

OFFICER: IAN HOLLOWAY - EXECUTIVE OFFICER

ENDORSED BY: GARY ARNOLD - GENERAL MANAGER

1. PURPOSE

Strategic Plan Reference

Key Priority Area 6 A well administered organisation Strategic Outcome 6.3 Legislative obligations are met Strategy 6.3.3 Ensure that Council’s governance arrangements meet the requirements of the Local Government Act

1.1 To formally terminate Council’s Code of Conduct Panel.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 At the Council meeting 9th May 2016, Council adopted a new Code of Conduct based on the Model Code of Conduct (Minute No. C169/8-16 refers).

3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 The Code of Conduct procedures are in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Advice has been received from the Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT) that following consultation with the Office of Local Government, advice was provided that each Council should formally terminate their Code of Conduct Panel following adoption of the new Model Code of Conduct.

4.2 Council’s existing Code of Conduct Panel comprises Mr Rob Winter of Crawford & Company (Chairperson) and Councillors Dr Bury and Wriedt. Former Councillor Street was a member however his position was not filled following his resignation.

4.3 At this time there are no current or outstanding Code of Conduct matters before the Panel and therefore terminating the Panel can occur.

5. FINANCE

5.1 There are no financial implications for Council in this matter.

6. ENVIRONMENT

6.1 There are no environmental implications for this matter.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 100 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 101

7. COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

7.1 Mr Winter will be formally advised and thanked for his participation in the Code of Conduct Panel.

8. RISK

8.1 There are no risks to Council associated with the terminating of the previous Code of Conduct Panel.

9. CONCLUSION

9.1 The Office of Local Government has advised that each Council should formally terminate their Code of Conduct Panel following their adoption of the new Code of Conduct.

10. RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That Council’s Code of Conduct Panel comprising of Mr Rob Winter, Councillor Dr. Bury and Councillor Wriedt be terminated effective from this date and a letter of appreciation be forwarded to Mr Winter for his role as Chairperson of the Panel.

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 101 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 102

REPORT TO: COUNCIL

SUBJECT: NOMINATIONS FOR THE 1967 BUSHFIRES COMMEMORATION WORKING GROUP FILE REF: 5.197 DATE: 31 MAY 2016

OFFICER: JULIE ALDERFOX - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

ENDORSED BY: DANIEL SMEE - MANAGER COMMUNITY AND RECREATIONAL SERVICES

1. PURPOSE

Strategic Plan Reference

Key Priority Area 1.0 A safe, active and supportive community Strategic Outcome 1.5 A community that celebrates its arts, culture and place Strategy 1.5.3 Encourage, facilitate and support community events that celebrate living in Kingborough

1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider nominations received for representation on the 1967 Bushfires Commemoration Working Group.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 At the April 26 meeting Council endorsed the appointment of a working group to provide advice to Council in relation to commemorative events to mark the 50th Anniversary of the “Black Tuesday Bushfires”

2.2 It was recommended to Council that the Working Group is to comprise of Councillor Grace (Chairperson), Council staff, three (3) community members, one (1) Channel Heritage Centre representative and one (1) representative from a Kingborough based school.

2.3 Expressions of interest for membership of the working group were advertised in May 2016 and closed on 25 May.

3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 There are no statutory requirements relating to this report.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Nine nominations for the working group have been received, with details as follows:

Community School representatives Channel Heritage Centre representatives representative Graham Rae (Woodbridge) David Kilpatrick (Kingston Phyl Norton Roger McNeice (Kingston) Primary School) Russell Griffiths (Middleton) Bonnie Jeffrey (Snug Primary School) Colin Walton (Kingston) Gay Lawless (Kingston David Archer (Electrona) High School)

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 102 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 103

4.2 Given that five nominations have been received for the community representatives with each of the nominees having a strong interest in the commemorative events and three for the school representatives, two of whom are primary school students and one High School student, and taking into account the finite term of this working group, it is recommended that Council accept all nominations and amend the terms of reference for the Working Group accordingly.

5. FINANCE

5.1 Council endorsed the allocation of $10,000 within the 2016/2017 budget, for the 1967 Bushfires Commemoration Working Group’s 50th anniversary activities and events.

6. COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

6.1 Nominations were called for in the Kingborough Chronicle May 10 edition and Kingston Classifieds May 11 issue. Council’s social media was used to promote the nomination process. Correspondence was forwarded to each Kingborough based school inviting a staff member to be nominated.

7. RISK

7.1 There are no risks identified in relation to this matter.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL

8.1 There are no environmental issues associated with this report.

9. CONCLUSION

9.1 A total of 5 nominations were received for community representation on the 1967 Bushfires Commemoration Working Group, all of whom have the necessary experience and therefore given the finite term of the Working Group it is recommended that all four be appointed.,

9.2 A total of three nominations were received from Kingborough based schools and similarly it is recommended that all three be appointed.

9.3 Channel Heritage Centre nominated one worthy representative.

10. RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That:

(a) Mr Graham Rae, Mr Roger McNeice, Mr Russell Griffiths, Mr Colin Walton and Mr David Archer be appointed as community representatives on the 1967 Bushfire Commemoration Working Group.

(b) David Kilpatrick, Bonnie Jeffrey and Gay Lawless be appointed as the Kingborough schools’ representatives on the 1967 Bushfires Commemoration Working Group.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 103 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 104

(c) Phyl Norton be appointed as representative of the Channel Heritage Centre on the 1967 Bushfires Commemoration Working Group.

(d) The Terms of Reference for the 1967 Bushfires Commemoration Working Group be amended to have 5 community members and 3 Kingborough schools’ representatives.

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 104 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 105

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 105 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 106

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 106 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 107

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 107 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 108

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 108 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 109

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 109 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 110

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 110 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 111

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 111 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 112

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 112 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 113

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 113 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 114

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 114 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 115

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 115 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 116

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 116 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 117

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 117 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 118

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 118 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 119

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 119 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 120

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 120 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 121

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 121 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 122

REPORT TO: COUNCIL

SUBJECT: BRUNY ISLAND SES UNIT COMPLEX

FILE REF: 7195939 DATE: 18 MAY 2016

OFFICER: IAN HOLLOWAY - EXECUTIVE OFFICER / MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR

ENDORSED BY: GARY ARNOLD - GENERAL MANAGER

1. PURPOSE

Strategic Plan Reference

Key Priority Area 1 A safe, healthy and supportive community Strategic Outcome 1.6 Community capacity to deal with hazards and disasters Strategy 1.6.1 Assist in developing resilient communities that are prepared for emergencies and supported in time of critical need

1.1 To consider allocation of funding to extend the vehicle housing bay occupied by the Bruny Island SES Unit at the South Bruny fire brigade complex.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The Bruny Island SES Unit co-occupies a building with the Tasmania Fire Service (TFS) (South Bruny brigade) at 3341 Bruny Main Road.

2.2 The SES Unit has two vehicles one of which is designated and equipped mainly for road crash rescue (RCR). Both vehicles are owned by Council however the State Emergency Service undertakes replacement by funding the shortfall between trade-in and purchase price.

2.3 The vehicle allocated for road crash rescue is being upgraded with a larger vehicle and new canopy to house the RCR equipment.

3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Section 49 of the Emergency Management Act 2006 requires that where Council has a municipal volunteer SES unit, Council is responsible for the effective operation of the unit including responsibility for all aspects of the storage and maintenance of the equipment.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 With the upgrade of the vehicle housing the RCR equipment, it has been ascertained that the existing bay within the TFS building allocated for the SES Unit is not long enough to house both unit vehicles. Due to the operational requirements of the unit, it is not practical to change the remaining vehicle to a smaller vehicle.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 122 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 123

4.2 Therefore to house both vehicles it is necessary that the existing vehicle bay be extended. Advice was sought from an architect on Bruny Island as to the feasibility and potential cost of the building extension with the preferred option to extend the vehicle bay to the rear so not to impact on the concrete area in front of the bay (this area is used for training as it provides a stable surface).

4.3 As an interim measure whilst the housing of vehicles is resolved, a decision has been made that the RCR vehicle be housed at the Unit Manager’s property (alternative location is the Police Station if the Unit Manager is off the Island). Whilst this resolves the issue short term a permanent solution is required.

5. FINANCE

5.1 The option to extend the vehicle bay at the rear has been estimated at $40,000 (based on advice from an architect).

5.2 Whilst the SES unit is housed in the complex, the building is owned by the Tasmania Fire Service (which has recently taken primary responsibility for the State Emergency Service). This adds some complexity to the situation given the requirements for Council to house the vehicles and therefore it is recommended that Council consider allocation of $20,000 subject to a co-contribution from the Tasmania Fire Service.

5.3 Unfortunately this project has not been considered in the 2016/17 budget due to the timing of the vehicle replacement and therefore no funding has been allocated.

6. ENVIRONMENT

6.1 There are no environmental impacts associated with this matter.

7. COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

7.1 Preliminary discussions have been held with the TFS South West District Officer and he supports the extension taking place however is not able to commit TFS to co- funding the project as it requires a commitment from TFS senior management.

7.2 If Council is able to allocate funding then it will be necessary that a formal application be made to TFS to share the building costs.

8. RISK

8.1 The temporary housing of the vehicle with the Unit Manager does not pose a risk to the Unit’s operational capability however it is not appropriate that the Unit Manager be expected to house the vehicle on a long term basis.

8.2 There is a risk that if the building is not extended to house both SES unit vehicles that may impact on the morale of the Unit volunteers.

9. CONCLUSION

9.1 The change of Bruny Island SES Unit primary vehicle has resulted in an inability to house both SES Unit vehicles in their vehicle bay at the South Bruny fire station.

9.2 To house both vehicles it is necessary that the bay be extended to the rear at an estimated cost of $40,000. It is recommended that Council allocate funding of $20,000

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 123 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 124

(or 50% of costs whichever is the lower) with an application to the Tasmania Fire Service for the remaining funds.

10. RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That:

(a) Council allocate up to $20,000 within the 2017/18 financial year towards the cost of extending the vehicle bay occupied by the Bruny Island SES Unit at the South Bruny fire brigade building subject to a co-contribution from the Tasmania Fire Service; and

(b) Negotiations commence with the Tasmania Fire Service for a matching contribution for the vehicle bay extension.

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 124 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 125

REPORT TO: COUNCIL

SUBJECT: KINGSTON PRODUCE MARKET

FILE REF: 5.341 DATE: 1 JUNE 2016

OFFICER: ZOE MAGNUS – KINGBOROUGH FOOD CHAIN PROJECT OFFICER

ENDORSED BY: DANIEL SMEE – MANAGER, COMMUNITY & RECREATIONAL SERVICES

1. PURPOSE

Strategic Plan Reference

Key Priority Area 4.0 A vibrant local economy Strategic Outcome 4.1 A dynamic and prosperous economy that is attractive for business investment. Strategy 4.1.3.1 Facilitate the establishment of a farmers market at one or more locations within Kingborough.

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide a recommendation in relation to the future operation of the Kingston Produce Market.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The Kingston Produce Market was an initiative of the Kingborough Food Chain Project, funded via an $80,000 grant from the Heart Foundation, with the objective of increasing community access to fresh fruit and vegetables.

2.2 The delivery of the Kingston Produce Market by Council did not manage to achieve the desired aim of being financially self-sustainable after the set-up period funded by the Heart Foundation.

2.3 At the Council meeting on 11 April 2016, a group of stallholders was granted permission to continue operation of the market in the interim between the end of April 2016 and such time as a suitable entity was identified and ready to take over the operation of the market (Minute C131/6-16 refers).

2.4 An advertisement calling for Expressions of Interest to operate the Kingston Produce Market was placed in the Kingborough Chronicle on Tuesday 24 May.

3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 The market has obtained all necessary statutory approvals in order to operate.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 At the closing date for Expressions of Interest to operate the market on 1 June 2016, only one application had been received, being from the Kingborough Local Produce Association Inc (KLPA).

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 125 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 126

4.2 The KLPA is the incorporated group of stallholders that has been running the market since Council ceased operating it at the end of April 2016.

4.3 They have provided a sound case for their group to assume ongoing operation of the market (see attached), which they acknowledge must be done in accordance with the conditions on the planning permit.

4.4 KLPA intends to continue the high standards and established ethos of the market, focussing on local produce, but also including other food related products, made locally from primarily local materials.

4.5 The Kingston Rotary Club had previously expressed interest in operating the market but did not proceed with an application on the basis that they did not have the necessary resources to take it on.

5. FINANCE

5.1 It is considered appropriate to charge a venue hire fee for the Civic Centre Forecourt, incorporating power usage costs and maintenance of the area. Given that the market is currently running at a very small size with low income, this fee should be modest but realistic.

5.2 It is suggested that a charge of $50 per market is an appropriate fee for the use of the site.

6. ENVIRONMENT

6.1 The market assists in promoting sustainable living by providing locally grown produce that reduces food kilometres.

7. COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

7.1 Expressions of Interest for the future operation of the market were sought via advertising in the Kingborough Chronicle and direct contact with potential operators, including the Kingston Rotary Club.

8. RISK

8.1 There is a risk that an external operator may not maintain the high standards for the market that have been set during its establishment phase. This risk will be managed through an appropriate agreement and ongoing monitoring.

8.2 The KLPA will carry their own public liability insurance and will be subject to the risk management procedures established by Council for the operation of the market.

9. CONCLUSION

9.1 Following the advertising of Expressions of Interest to operate the Kingston Produce Market, one application has been received from the Kingborough Local Produce Association.

9.2 The group is well placed to continue the operation of the market and it is recommended that Council endorses their application, subject to a fee of $50 per market.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 126 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 127

10. RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That the General Manager be authorised to sign an agreement with the Kingborough Local Produce Association Inc. for the operation of the Kingston Produce Market, subject to the terms and conditions of Planning Permit DA2015-299 and the application of a fee of $50 per market.

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 127 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 Kingborough Local Produce Association

Expression of Interest Ongoing Operation of the Kingston Produce Market The Kingborough Local Produce Association (Inc) wishes to submit an expression of interest in regard to taking on the ongoing operation of the Kingston Produce Market. The Association was established in April 2016 by a group of people interested in helping to ensure access to local produce in the Kingborough area; this includes locally grown food, value added food such as jams and preserves, ready to consume take away or ‘eat in’, and other products that contain predominantly local materials The basic objects and purposes of the Association, as stated in our constitution, are:

• to bring together local growers, producers and consumers • to increase access to local produce with clear provenance • to build strong positive relationships amongst growers and producers and customers and the community within which we coexist • to promote the economic, environmental and social benefits, to both the community and individuals, of using local product The Association is a not for profit organisation with a steering committee, the Executive being: Chair: Jane Grosvenor Vice Chair: Heinz Ahlemeyer Secretary: Sarah Lowe Treasurer: Tim Ball Market Coordinator: Rhyllon Sykes

The Association membership includes current and past market stall holders, local growers and producers and members of the wider community with an interest in accessing local produce. The Kingborough Local Produce Association (KLPA) has a Memorandum of Understanding in place with Kingborough Council allowing the Association to run the Kingston Produce Market from 1 May 2016 until there is an outcome to this tender process. We have had very positive feedback from customers in respect to the operation of the market, both how we are doing it and the fact that we have taken it on.

In addition to the experience that we are gaining as an Association by currently running the Kingston Produce Market we also have a body of experience within our membership that gives strength to our capacity to take on the running of this market on an ongoing basis. This includes: • A significant number of our members with long term market experience selling products both at the Kingston Produce Market and at other major markets in Southern Tasmania including Salamanca Market, The Farm Gate Market, Show Grounds Sunday Market and Sorell Market, as well as at many smaller periodic markets such as Snug, Woodbridge, and Sandfly Markets; • Experience running a local market – our Chair used to be involved in the operation of the Forcett Market; • A significant number of small business operators who understand the necessity for due process in running a business including the need for good financial management; • Executive members with experience in not for profit operation – Sarah Lowe with Sustainable Living in Kingborough and Jane Grosvenor with Feeding the Future Local Produce Guild • Access to other skill sets through our combined networks including marketing, accountancy and legal advice. KLPA has comprehensive public liability and product liability through Compass Insurance Brokers. Our insurance covers both the public and members of the Association working on our common trade tables. The latter has been set up to allow small growers and producers who do not hold their own insurance to come and sell small amounts of product in a shared space. Equally this insurance would allow KLPA to sell on behalf of operators not able to attend the market themselves.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 128 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 If KLPA is awarded the ongoing operation of the Kingston Produce Market, it would be the intention of the Association to maintain the initial intent and ethos of the market as being a local produce market, supplying predominantly locally grown food together with locally produced food products and ready to eat food, but we would not intend to continue as a registered Farmers’ Market. The reason for this is that we see the Farmers’ Market Guidelines as being overly restrictive. Some of the issues raised include: • That there are many farmers who are unable to attend a farmers’ market to sell their own product and who cannot afford to pay someone to do so; • Not all growers or producers have the range of produce to make a stall a viable proposition; • Many farmers see themselves as growers not retailers and do not have a personality suited to direct merchandising; • Full time farmers already expend large amounts of time growing without committing more time to selling; • Not allowing on-selling of produce restricts the ways in which interested stall holders can maintain viability and complicates mechanisms for allowing the sale of produce from those unable to attend the market in person; • And we believe that there are some products that have a place in the market that do not fit under the Farmers’ Market Guidelines. In relation to the last point KLPA would like to see a wider base to the market that would add interest and opportunity while maintaining the basic ethos of a local produce market. Some of the types of products that we would want to be able to consider are:

• Cut flowers, bulbs, seeds, seedlings and potted plants • Quality skin care products made locally from natural ingredients • Quality cleaning products made locally from natural ingredients • Products that are locally made, largely from local materials and fit with the market – examples that we have been asked about include alternatives to plastic wrap for covering food made from cloth impregnated with natural oils and beeswax; timber bread boards and cheese platters; and ceramic cookware.

These are all items that we believe would fit with the general ethos of the existing market and be acceptable to current stall holders. Approval of any application to become a regular stall holder would be subject to a trial period and the final decision would rest with the Market Management Committee. Currently the Market Management Committee is the KLPA Steering Committee but in to the future this might be a separate group answering to the steering committee.

We understand that while we operate from the Civic Centre we need to adhere to the additional Council guidelines and terms of the planning permit. As an Association we are in support of a midweek market, unique to the local area at this point in time. We appreciate the attractive venue presented by the Civic forecourt and enjoy the spectacle of market colour and bustle in the economic heart of Kingston. We would look to moving to the old Kingston High School site as the site develops and our market grows but that would be a decision for the future. Our only concern in submitting this EOI is the rental required for the Civic Centre site as this is not stated as a monetary value in the tender outline. We appreciate the need to pay a rental but we are a new organisation with limited financial resources and looking to taking the market through winter before we have an opportunity for consolidation and financial growth coming in to summer. The rental figure will determine our capacity to take this on given a currently limited revenue from stall holder rental. We believe that this is a matter that can be resolved in negotiation with Council. We hope that Kingborough Council will give serious consideration to this expression of interest and allow Kingborough Local Produce Association to take over the permanent management and operation of the Kingston Produce Market. With this decision we can start planning and building a future for the market.

Jane Grosvenor Chair - On behalf of the Kingborough Local Produce Association 30 May 2016

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 129 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 130

REPORT TO: COUNCIL

SUBJECT: POLICY 3.14 – RATES AND CHARGES POLICY

FILE REF: 3.14 DATE: 1 JUNE 2016

OFFICER: JOHN BREEN – CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

ENDORSED BY: GARY ARNOLD - GENERAL MANAGER

1. PURPOSE

Strategic Plan Reference

Future Direction 1 Good governance Desired Strategic Outcome 1.5 Fair and just statutory compliance regime Desired Strategic Outcome 1.6 Forward planning and leadership

1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider changes to the current policy on rates and charges.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 As the result of the recent decision by Council to introduce a Stormwater Removal Rate and remove the Baretta Levy, the attached policy has been updated.

3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Section 86B of the Local Government Act 1993, states each Council must prepare and adopt a Rates and Charges Policy.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 The changes to the Policy are essentially to remove the reference to the Baretta Levy and replace it with the Stormwater Removal Rate

4.2 The date for payment of rates has been altered to reflect the due date for the final instalment payment being 28 April rather than 30 April to avoid having a due date fall on a weekend which has caused confusion in the past.

4.3 Reference to the Strategic Plan in 9.1 has been updated to reflect the latest version of the plan.

5. FINANCE

5.1 The changes to the Policy will not affect finances.

6. ENVIRONMENT

6.1 There are no environmental implications for this matter.

7. COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

7.1 The updated Policy will be placed on the internet in line with standard practice.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 130 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 131

8. CONCLUSION

8.1 The update to the Rates and Charges Policy is to reflect the decision of Council at the 6 June 2016 meeting.

9. RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That the updated Rates and Charges Policy be approved and implemented.

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 131 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 132

Rates and Charges (Policy No 3.14)

Policy LAST NEXT MINUTE REVIEW REVIEW REF

June 2015 Jun 2017

POLICY 1.1 In Tasmania, Council rates are a form of property tax levied by Local STATEMENT: Government as the primary source of funding for the many mandatory and discretionary services that are provided. Rates are administered in line with the Local Government Act 1993 which allows some flexibility for each Council to make decisions that suit its local community. 1.2 As rates are a method of taxation, the total amount of rates paid may not directly relate to the services used by each ratepayer. 1.3 Property values (set by the Valuer-General) play an important role in determining how much each individual ratepayer contributes to the cost of delivering Council services and activities. The Local Government Act 1993 expects that the higher the value of the property the higher the rates to be paid. 1.4 All land within a Council area, except for land specifically exempt (eg. Crown Land, Council occupied land and other prescribed land is rateable. Council also raises revenue through fees and charges, which are set, giving consideration to the cost of the service provided and any equity issues.

OBJECTIVE: 3.1. The objectives of this policy are to outline Council’s approach to determining and collecting rates from its community. 3.2. This policy will meet the requirements of Section 86B of the Local Government Act 1993, which states each Council must prepare and adopt a Rates and Charges Policy.

SCOPE: 3.1 This policy covers:  The relationship between Council’s strategic plans, its budget and rates structure  Council’s revenue raising powers  Method used to value land  Adoption of valuations  Differential general rates  Minimum rate  Concessions  Payment of rates  Late payment of rates  Recovery of rates  Sale of land for non-payment of rates  Remission and postponement of rates  Rebate of rates  Disclaimer

PROCEDURE: Strategic Focus (POLICY DETAIL) 4.1 Council is faced with balancing its service levels, the needs and expectations of the community and setting appropriate tax levels to adequately resource and fulfil its roles and responsibilities. In determining rates for the financial year Council gives primary consideration to:  Council’s Strategic Plan,  Council’s Long Term Financial Management Plan,  the Local Government Act 1993,

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 132 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 133

 current economic climate, and  likely impacts on the community The resources required to successfully achieve this outcome are documented in the annual plan. Rates in Kingborough 4.2 Kingborough Council considers the combined use of service charges and variable charges (rate in the capital value dollar) per rateable property provides the fairest and most equitable method of charging rates to our Community. 4.3 Council considers the imposition of a minimum general rate is the most fair and equitable means of ensuring that all ratepayers contribute equally to the administration of Council’s services and the development and maintenance of the Community’s infrastructure. 4.4 Council adopts the Capital Value (CV) as determined by the Valuer- General as the valuation method to be used in determining rates. 4.5 In response to the varied CV adjustment factors provided by the Valuer- General, parity between residential and non-residential rates has been maintained by setting a differential rate for non-vacant residential properties compared to all other rateable properties. 4.6 Council levies a Stormwater Removal Service Rate on all properties to fund current and future Stormwater Infrastructure requirements. 4.7 Annual service charges also apply for the collection and disposal of garbage and recycling on a per waste bin basis. 4.8 Council collects three fire rate levies on behalf of the State Fire Commission based on the cents in the CV dollar, with a minimum fire levy charge. 4.9 There are a number of properties which are public, educational, religious or charitable in use or ownership and which are in part or in full exempt from the general rate. 4.10 Council considers that the CV method of valuing land provides a fair method of distributing the rate burden across all ratepayers on the following basis:  Rates constitute a system of taxation and the equity principle of taxation requires that ratepayers of similar wealth pay similar taxes and ratepayers of greater wealth pay more tax than ratepayers of lesser wealth;  Property value is a generally accepted indicator of wealth, and capital value, which closely approximates the market value of a property, provides the best indicator of overall property value.

Adoption of Valuations 4.11 Council adopts the “CV” as assessed by the Valuer-General as the valuation method to be used in determining rates. If a ratepayer is dissatisfied with the valuation made, the ratepayer may object to the Valuer-General in writing. 4.12 Council has no role in the assessment of objections. The lodgement of an objection does not alter the due date for the payment of rates. Rates must be paid in accordance with the Rate Notice until otherwise notified by Council. Objections to rates notice 4.13 Council will consider any objections to rate notices in accordance with Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 133 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 134

Rate Concessions 4.14 The State Government, in providing equity across Tasmania, funds a range of concessions in relation to Council rates. The concessions are administered by various State Government agencies that determine eligibility and pay the concession directly to Council on behalf of the ratepayer. Concessions are available only on a ratepayer’s principal place of residence. 4.15 Ratepayers seeking a rate concession are not to withhold payment of rates pending assessment of an application by the State Government. Rates must be paid in accordance with the Rate Notice 4.16 A refund will be paid to an eligible person if Council is advised a concession applies and rates instalments have already been paid. Payment of Rates 4.17 Council rates are payable by four equal instalments on 15 August, 31 October, 31 January and 28 April. The total outstanding balance of rates may be paid in full at any time. Any arrears outstanding are payable with the first instalment. 4.18 Any ratepayer who may, or is likely to, experience difficulty with meeting the standard quarterly payment should contact the Rates Department to discuss alternative payment arrangements. Such enquiries are treated confidentially by Council. Late Payment of Rates 4.19 Council has determined that penalties for late payments will be imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and relevant Council procedures. 4.20 A penalty of 5% of the unpaid rate may be imposed on instalments not paid by the due date. 4.21 Daily interest at a rate set by Council’s annual Rate Resolution will be applied in respect of the unpaid rate or instalment for the period during which it remains unpaid. Recovery of Rates 4.22 In accordance with sound financial management principles, Council's Rates Department will apply prudent debt management practices to Rate Debtors. This includes an ongoing review of rates in arrears and following a systematic debt recovery approach.

4.23 Rates, which remain in arrears for a period exceeding 30 days from the due date of an instalment, will be subject to recovery action. 4.24 Council will seek to recover a rate debt through legal Court proceedings if an amount remains overdue in excess of 90 days. 4.25 Prior to taking legal action Council will provide a notice in writing of its intention to recover the outstanding debt through the Courts and provide 14 days for payment prior to lodging the outstanding debt with its solicitors. 4.26 Prior to taking legal action Council will take all reasonable steps to establish a payment arrangement or negotiate settlement of the outstanding debt. Sale of Land for Non-payment of Rates 4.27 The Local Government Act 1993 provides that a Council may sell any property where the rates have been in arrears for a period of three years or more. Council is required to; a) notify the owner of the land of its intention to sell the land, b) provide the owner with details of the outstanding amounts; and

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 134 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 135

c) Advise the owner of its intention to sell the land if payment of the outstanding amount is not received within 90 days. Except in extraordinary circumstances, Council will enforce the sale of land for arrears of rates. Remission and Postponement of Rates 4.28 Application for remission of rates and charges or postponement of rates will be considered under the discretionary provisions of Section 129 of the Local Government Act 1993. Rebate of Rates 4.29 Council has determined that rebates of rates will be only granted when the applicant satisfies the requirements for mandatory rebates under applicable Sections of the Local Government Act 1993. 4.30 Rebates for Conservation Covenants are addressed within Council Policy 3.9 “Rate Rebate for Conservation Covenant Policy’. Disclaimer 4.31 A rate cannot be challenged on the basis of noncompliance with this policy and must be paid in accordance with the required payment provisions. 4.32 Where a ratepayer believes that Council has failed to properly apply this policy, it should raise the matter with Council. In the first instance contact should be made with the Rates Department.

GUIDELINES: 5.1 Rates constitute taxation for the purposes of Council, rather than a fee for service. 5.2 The value of rateable land is an indicator of the capacity of ratepayers to pay rates. 5.3 There is a commitment to the broad principle of fairness and equity in the distribution of rates across all ratepayers.

5.4 Capital Value (The valuation of the property) is used as the basis for valuing land within the Council area, as determined by the Valuer-General each year. 5.5 A general rate, a differential rate applying to non vacant residential, a service charge, and a minimum rate will be applied as a means of raising taxation revenue within the community. 5.6 Eligible Pensioner ratepayers who hold a Pensioner Concession Card, DVA Gold Card or Government Health Care Card are entitled to a remission of rates, subject to a range of criteria. This remission does not apply to holders of the Commonwealth Seniors Health Cards. 5.7 Annual garbage and recycling collection charges will be charged at a set amount based on the size bin. 5.8 The three fire rate levies that Council collects on behalf of the State Fire Commission are based on the cents in the CV dollar. 5.9 Council will apply rebates in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993. Council will adhere to the Act in granting full or part exemption for general rates for properties which may include public, educational, religious or charitable in use and ownership. 5.10 Council will continue to accept the payment of rates in full or by four instalments. Council will consider other payment arrangements with ratepayers when requested. 5.11 Council will impose late payment penalties strictly in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 135 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 136

5.12 Council may enforce the sale of land for non-payment of rates in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993. 5.13 Council advises that a rate cannot be challenged on the basis of non- compliance with this policy and rates must be paid in accordance with the required payment provisions.

COMMUNICATION: 6.1 All Councillors and employees may be briefed on this policy as part of the induction program and on an on-going basis.

LEGISLATION: 7.1 The rating and valuation methods available to local government are covered under various pieces of legislation. In particular Part 9 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Valuation of Land Act 2001 are the most relevant. 7.2 The rating and valuation methods available to local government are covered under various pieces of legislation. In particular Part 9 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Valuation of Land Act 2001 are the most relevant. 7.3 The following Sections within the Local Government Act 1993 related to the Rates and Charges Policy are detailed below: 86A. General principles in relation to making or varying rates

(1) A council, in adopting policies and making decisions concerning the making or varying of rates, must take into account the principles that –

(a) rates constitute taxation for the purposes of local government, rather than a fee for a service; and

(b) the value of rateable land is an indicator of the capacity of the ratepayer in respect of that land to pay rates.

(2) Despite subsection (1), the exercise of a council’s powers to make or vary rates cannot be challenged on the grounds that the principles referred to in that subsection have not been taken into account by the council.

DEFINITIONS: 8.1 Part 9, Section 86, of the Local Government Act 1993 comprises the definition of key terms applicable to the rating processes of Local Government.

RELATED 9.1 Kingborough Council Strategic Plan 2015 – 2025 DOCUMENTS: 9.2 Long Term Financial Management Plan

AUDIENCE: 10.1 The Rating and Charges Policy applies to Councillors in setting rates for the community.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 136 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 137

INFORMATION REPORTS

MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS

Mayor Wass reported the following:

Appointments / Activities

1. 2.00 p.m. Saturday 7.5.16 At invitation of the Australian-American Association (Hobart Division) Inc, attended and laid a wreath commemorating the 74th Anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea. Venue : Hobart Cenotaph.

2. 3.00 p.m. Monday 9.5.16 At invitation attended a Presentation of the inaugural Tasmania Volunteer of the Year Awards, by Her Excellency Professor the Honourable Kate Warner AM, The Governor of Tasmania, and the presentation of the Premier’s Volunteer of the Year Award by the Premier, the Hon Will Hodgman MP. Venue : Government House, Hobart.

3. 6.00 p.m. Wednesday 11.5.16 In company with General Manager, Mr Arnold and fellow Councillors attended an event to recognise and thank Council’s Volunteers for their valuable contribution over the past year. Venue : Civic Centre.

4. 10.30 a.m. Thursday 12.5.16 In company with General Manager, Mr Arnold attended TasWater General Meeting. Venue : Windsor Community Precinct, Riverside.

5. 6.30 p.m. Friday 13.5.16 Attended and presented awards at the Kingborough Art Prize and Exhibition. Also in attendance Councillors Bastone, Chatterton, Percey and Winter together with General Manager Mr Arnold and Arts and Cultural Development Officer, Mr Arrowsmith. Venue : Kingston Beach Community Hall.

6. 10.00 a.m. Monday 16.5.16 At invitation of Senators Abetz and Bushby attended Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea. Also in attendance Councillor Grace. Venue : Senator Abetz’s Office, 136 Davey Street, Hobart.

7. 11.00 a.m. Tuesday 17.5.16 In company with General Manager, Mr Arnold and Manager Community and Recreational Services, Mr Smee met with Messrs Dennis Fuller and Russell Stevens representing the Kingston Beach RSL Sub Branch. Venue : Civic Centre.

8. 10.30 a.m. Wednesday 18.5.16 At invitation of Senator Bilyk attended a function to acknowledge volunteers within the Kingborough community. Also in attendance Councillor Bastone. Venue : Senator Bilyk’s Office, Kingston Plaza, Kingston.

9. 11.30 a.m. Thursday 19.5.16 Attended LGAT General Management Committee. Venue : The Old Woolstore, Hobart.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 137 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 138

10. 2.00 p.m. Thursday 19.5.16 Attended Premier’s Local Government Council Venue : Premier’s Reception Room, Executive Building, Hobart.

11. 10.30 a.m. Friday 20.5.16 In company with General Manager, Mr Arnold attended Think South General Meeting. Venue : Lord Mayor’s Courtroom, Hobart.

12. 7.00 p.m. Saturday 21.5.16 At invitation attended Kingston Beach Surf Life Saving Club’s Annual Club Dinner and Awards Evening. Venue : Twin Ovals Function Centre, Kingston.

13. 10.30 a.m. Monday 23.5.16 Met with Rob Sheers, Rae Wells and Mark Florusse. Venue : Civic Centre.

14. 11.00 a.m. Wednesday 25.5.16] In company with General Manager, Mr Arnold met with Saunders and Ward Director, Mr Nick Saunders and General Manager, Mr Ben Rolliston. Venue : Saunders & Ward, Patriarch Drive, Huntingfield.

15. 5.15 p.m. Wednesday 25.5.16 Attended public presentation of Kingston Beach Integrated Risk and Adaptation Case Study. Also attending Councillor Atkinson and General Manager, Mr Arnold. Venue : Kingston Beach Community Hall.

16. 10.00 a.m. Thursday 26.5.16 At invitation attended Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea. Venue : Hale Financial, Channel Highway, Kingston.

17. 3.00 p.m. Thursday 26.5.16 In company with General Manager, Mr Arnold attended Copping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority General Meeting. Venue : Clarence City Council, Rosny Park.

18. 10.00 a.m. Sunday 29.5.16 At invitation attended Kingborough Life Church’s “Honour Service”. Venue : Kingborough Life Church, Mertonvale Circuit, Kingston.

19. 1.00 p.m. Monday 30.5.16 In company with General Manager, Mr Arnold met with Lord Mayor of Hobart and Mayors of Clarence and Glenorchy with respective General Managers, to be updated by SGS Economics and Planning on work to date regarding Local Government reform. Venue : Hobart City Council, Hobart.

31. 2.30 p.m. Tuesday 31.5.16 In company with General Manager, Mr Arnold met with Messrs Steve Old and Cam Crawford, representing the Kingborough Tigers Football Club to be updated on the Club’s infrastructure proposals. Venue : Civic Centre.

32. 11.30 a.m. Wednesday 1.6.16 At invitation and in company with Deputy General Manager, Mr Ferrier attended the Launch of the 10th Tasmanian Community Achievement Awards by the Premier, the Hon Will Hodgman MP. Venue : Reception Room, Parliament House, Hobart.

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 138 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 139

33. 5.30 p.m. Wednesday 1.6.16 At invitation attended the book Launch of ‘The Long Con’ by local Adventure Bay author Barry Weston. Venue : The Hobart Bookshop, Salamanca Place, Hobart.

34. 7.00 p.m. Thursday 2.6.16 Attended with Councillor Grace a general meeting planning sesquicentennial anniversary of Margate’s Proclamation of 3 July 1866. Venue : Channel Heritage Centre, Margate.

35. 2.00 p.m. Friday 3.6.16 At invitation attended the unveiling of headstones to First World War veterans. Venue : Cornelian Bay Cemetery, Cornelian Bay

36. 6.30 p.m. Friday 3.6.16 Attended the Premier’s Olympic Appeal Dinner. Venue : Hotel Grand Chancellor, Hobart

37. 10.30 a.m. Sunday 5.6.16 At invitation attended the Hon Julie Collins MP, Member for Franklin’s media release pledging $5 million to Kingborough Council for Stage 1 development of the former Kingston High School Site, should Labor be elected at the coming Federal Government Election. Venue : Former Kingston High School Site

38. 12.00 Noon Sunday 5.6.16 At invitation attended Boer War Commemorative Day. Venue : Mawson Place, Hobart.

MOVED SECONDED

That the Mayor’s Communications be noted:

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 139 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 140

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 the following items are to be dealt with in Closed Session.

Matter Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 Reference

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

Kingston SES Unit & Relocation of Emergency Services 15(2)(c)

Compensation Claim – 13 Wandella Avenue 15(2)(i)

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

CLOSED SESSION

MOVED SECONDED

That in accordance with Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 that Council move into Closed Session.

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

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 OF COUNCIL ADJOURNS

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 140 Tuesday, 14 June 2016 151

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL 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:

Subject Decisions/Documents

Applications for Leave of Absence

Kingston SES Unit & Relocation of Emergency Services

Compensation Claim – 13 Wandella Avenue

VOTING For Against For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox

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

...... (Confirmed) (Date)

Council Meeting Agenda No. 11 Page 151 Tuesday, 14 June 2016