Open Council Agenda

Chairman Executive Management City Services Community Development Lord Mayor Ald Rob Valentine B. Armstrong – G.M. A. Tompson – D.C.S. H. Salisbury – D.C.D. Aldermen N. Heath – D.E.M. M. Howell – E.O.C.S. W. Mason – E.O.C.D. Deputy Lord Mayor Ald Eva Ruzicka Corporate Services Development & Media Ald Lyn Archer J. Warner – D.C.S. Environmental Services Mercury Ald Darlene Haigh M. Johns – E.O.C.S. 4 N. Noye – D.D.E.S. ABC Radio Ald Marti Zucco L. Wells – C.S.O. I. Stanley – M.D.A. Trevor Sutton Ald Jeff Briscoe J. Stafford – C.S.O. R. Rust – E.O.D.E.S. Sub Total: 38 Ald Eric Hayes E. Wilmshurst – C.S.O. Parks & Customer Services Reception 6 Ald Peter Sexton C. White – P.A.L.M. R. Viney – D.P.C.S. Public 8 Ald John Freeman Financial Services C. Walker – E.O.P.C.S. Trolley/Ald. Offices Ald Ron Christie D. Spinks – D.F.S. Customer Services Counter Spare Ald Helen Burnet Civic Solutions Total Distribution: 54 Ald Philip Cocker M. Street – D. Civic Solutions

AGENDA

OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING

MONDAY 23 APRIL 2007 AT 5.00 P.M.

THE MISSION Our mission is to ensure good governance of our capital City.

THE VALUES

The Council will: Leadership Provide effective capital City leadership, integrity and openness in its approach and will advocate the needs and aspirations of the community.

Equity Ensure equity, consistency and co-operation in its dealings with the community and government. Community Involvement Encourage effective democratic involvement by the community in the life of the City through communication, consultation and participation. Responsiveness Be responsive to the needs and aspirations of the community.

Quality Ensure continuous improvement in the delivery of all its services. HOBART 2025 VISION

In 2025 Hobart will be a city that:

• Offers opportunities for all ages and a city for life

• Is recognised for its natural beauty and quality of environment

• Is well governed at a regional and community level

• Achieves good quality development and urban management

• Is highly accessible through efficient transport options

• Builds strong and healthy communities through diversity, participation and empathy

• Is dynamic, vibrant and culturally expressive

OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING TABLE OF CONTENTS 23/4/2007

PRESENT

APOLOGIES

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING OF THE OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING

2. COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIRMAN

3. NOTIFICATION OF COUNCIL WORKSHOPS

4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

5. PETITIONS

6. CONSIDERATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ITEMS TO THE AGENDA

7. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

8. COUNCIL ACTING AS PLANNING AUTHORITY

8.1 9, 11, 13, 15 & 17 LIVERPOOL STREET AND 55 CAMPBELL STREET, HOBART – PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ALTERATIONS AND NEW BUILDING (EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT AND UNLISTED USE/RESEARCH CENTRE) – PLN-06-01357-01 – FILE REF: 5668253 & P/17/626

8.2 250 ELIZABETH STREET AND ELIZABETH STREET PARK, HOBART – OUTDOOR DINING AREA, AWNING, ALTERATIONS TO RESTAURANT (COFFEE SHOP) AND FENCE – PLN-07-00197-01 – FILE REF: 5662935 & P/242-250/470

8.3 QUEENS DOMAIN (2 DAVIES AVENUE), HOBART – TREE REMOVAL AND PLANTING, WALKING TRACK, CAR PARK EXTENSION AND FENCING (SOLDIERS MEMORIAL AVENUE CROSSROADS - TREES REINSTATEMENT) – PLN-07-00100-01 – FILE REF: 70-53-1 OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING TABLE OF CONTENTS 23/4/2007

8.4 STATE PLANNING SYSTEM – DEVELOPMENTS IN RELATION TO THE RESOURCE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION – FAST TRACKING LEGISLATION - FILE REF: 16-11-2

9. ANNUAL REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES 2007/2008 – DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION – FILE REF: 21-50-5

10. PETITION - DEVELOPMENT OF COUNCIL POLICIES SUPPORTING THE DIVERSITY OF HOUSING AIMS OF THE PLANNING SCHEME – FILE REF: 33-20-2

11. 8TH INTERNATIONAL CITIES TOWN CENTRES AND COMMUNITIES SOCIETY CONFERENCE 2007 – CITIES ON THE EDGE – 26-29 JUNE 2007 – AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND – FILE REF: 11-25-45

12. APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER THE BUILDING REGULATIONS 2004 AND BUILDING ACT 2000 – FILE REF: 30-1-17

PARKS AND CUSTOMER SERVICES

13. ANNUAL REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES 2007/2008 – PARKS AND CUSTOMER SERVICES DIVISION – FILE REF: 21-50-6

14. 74 RISDON ROAD, NEW TOWN – VAUCLUSE GARDENS PTY LTD – REQUEST FOR ACCESS OVER COUNCIL LAND IN WILMSLOW AVENUE – LANDOWNER CONSENT – FILE REF: 5525498 & P/74/792

FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES

15. ANNUAL REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES 2007/2008 – FINANCE & CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE – FILE REF: 21-50-2; 21-50-6; 21-50-4

16. SALAMANCA SQUARE CAR PARK – REQUEST TO INSTALL GAS SUPPLY LINE – FILE REF: 35-7-35

17. ST VIRGILS ROWING SHED – NEW TOWN BAY – PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT – LANDLORD APPROVAL – FILE REF: 72-27-4

18. SALAMANCA SQUARE CAR PARK – STORAGE ROOM – FILE REF: 35-7-35 OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING TABLE OF CONTENTS 23/4/2007

CITY SERVICES

19. ANNUAL REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES 2007/2008 – CITY SERVICES COMMITTEE– FILE REFS: 21-50-4; 21-50-8

20. SALAMANCA PLACE – REQUEST FOR OCCUPATION OF PARKING SPACES FOR SPECIAL EVENT – WOMEN’S WEEKLY ROAD TRAIN – FILE REF: 817

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

21. GOOD SPORTS PROGRAM – COUNCIL SUPPORT – FILE REF: 17-1-2

22. ANNUAL REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES 2007/2008 – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION - FILE REF: 21-50-9

23. CLOSED PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING

MOTION OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN UNDER REGULATION 16 (5) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MEETING PROCEDURES) REGULATIONS 2005

24. ZERO NET CARBON EMISSIONS - FILE REF: 13-1-9, 17-50-11

OPEN COUNCIL AGENDA

Lord Mayor A meeting of the Open Portion of the Council meeting will be Deputy Lord Mayor held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall on Monday 23 April Aldermen 2007, at 5.00 p.m. Archer Haigh Zucco Briscoe V.B. ARMSTRONG Hayes GENERAL MANAGER Sexton Freeman PRESENT: Christie Burnet Cocker APOLOGIES:

LEAVE OF ABSENCE: Alderman D.A. Haigh

1. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING OF THE OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING

The Chairman reports that he has perused the minutes of the meeting of the Open Portion of the Council meeting held on 11 April 2007, finds them to be a true record and recommends that they be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

2. COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIRMAN

3. NOTIFICATION OF COUNCIL WORKSHOPS

In accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005, the General Manager reports that no Council workshops have been conducted since the last ordinary meeting of the Council.

OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 2 23/4/2007

4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

5. PETITIONS

6. CONSIDERATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ITEMS TO THE AGENDA

In accordance with the requirements of Part 2 Regulation 8 (6) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005, the Council, by absolute majority may approve the consideration of a matter not appearing on the agenda, where the General Manager has reported:

(a) the reason it was not possible to include the matter on the agenda, and (b) that the matter is urgent, and (c) that advice has been provided under Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve by absolute majority to deal with any supplementary items not appearing on the agenda, as reported by the General Manager in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005.

7. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

In accordance with Part 2 Regulation 8 (7) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005, the chairman of a meeting is to request Aldermen to indicate whether they have, or are likely to have, a pecuniary interest in any item on the agenda.

Accordingly, Aldermen are requested to advise of a pecuniary interest they may have in respect to any matter appearing on the agenda, or any supplementary item to the agenda, which the committee has resolved to deal with, in accordance with Part 2 Regulation 8 (6) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005.

OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 3 23/4/2007

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

8. COUNCIL ACTING AS PLANNING AUTHORITY

In accordance with the provisions of Part 2 Regulation 25 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005, the intention of the Council to act as a planning authority pursuant to the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 is to be noted.

In accordance with Regulation 25, the Council will act as a planning authority in respect to those matters appearing under this heading on the agenda, inclusive of any supplementary items.

The Council is reminded that any alternative decision it may make to the recommendation appearing on the agenda, will require a full statement of reasons in order to maintain the integrity of the planning approval process and to comply with the requirements of the Judicial Review Act.

Attachment P/1-63 Report of the Manager Development Appraisal and Development Appraisal Planner of 19 February 2007 and attachments.

In the absence of a recommendation from the Committee, the matter is referred to the Council for determination.

DES-F-0102/11 Item No. 8.1 / Page 1 20/5/2005

APPLICATION UNDER CITY OF HOBART PLANNING SCHEME 1982

Committee: 16 April 2007 Council: 23 April 2007 Expiry Date: 27 February 2007 (Extension of time granted until 23 April 2007)

Application No: PLN-06-01357-01 Address: 9,11,13,15 &17 Liverpool Street & 55 Campbell Street, Hobart Applicant: University of Tasmania, 33 Salamanca Place, Hobart Owner: University of Tasmania, 33 Salamanca Place, Hobart Proposal: Partial Demolition, Alterations and New Building (Educational Establishment and Unlisted Use/Research Centre)

N Ï

Location: Central Business District of Hobart on the corner of Liverpool and Campbell Street

Representations Received: One Discretion: Heritage, Use, Density, Height, Parking

PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION DATE OF REPORT: 19 February 2007 Refusal with Reasons File Ref: 5668296 P/9-11/626 Ref:CH:IC (\\corpsvr\approvetas\documents\pln-06-01357- 01\committee report - chps.doc) Item No. 8.1 / Page 2 CONSIDERATION

Proposal

The proposal involves a new 5-storey building with a total floor area of 9,200sqm to enable the University of Tasmania to co-locate the Faculty of Health Science and the Menzies Institute. The new building involves the development of 13 and 17 Liverpool Street and 55 Campbell Street.

The proposal also includes the partial demolition of a heritage-listed building Hollydene House, located at 55 Campbell Street. The redevelopment of this building is not proposed at this stage and will be part of another development application. The applicant has indicated however that in terms of use the building will be related and complementary to the Menzies Centre such as teaching or administrative offices.

Each floor is to be utilised as follows:

• Ground floor teaching spaces, student café, lecture theatre, School of Medicine administration and Menzies Research Institute Clinic;

• First and second floor levels University of Tasmania teaching facilities, offices and library;

• Third floor level- Menzies Research Institute staff research offices; and

• Fourth floor level- Wet research labs and animal holding and procedures areas.

The roof will accommodate plant areas, service areas and flue platforms and stacks.

The proposal also includes an additional 7 carparking spaces to the existing 24, the additional parking spaces will located on 13 Liverpool Street. A ‘back of house’ area to be accessed from a widened right of way off Bathurst Street will accommodate a substation and service/loading areas.

The site area also includes 15 Liverpool Street and 9 - 11 Liverpool Street Advocate House, which is listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register no works or change of use are proposed for these sites.

Consultation

Several meetings occurred with Council Planning Officers and Alderman that included giving presentations of the proposal. During the pre-application phase Council however, was not presented with elevations of the proposal or given any indication of the treatment of the façade. In addition to this Council’s Cultural Heritage Officer was consulted at a very early stage and indicated to the applicant the sensitivity and potential of the site to affect heritage values at that stage, and that there would be significant concerns. However since that early discussion no further consultation occurred until the submission of the development application.

Item No. 8.1 / Page 3 Once the project was submitted to Council with elevations and photomontages of the new building further consultation was undertaken. These meetings were predominantly about the building proposed and its impact on the heritage buildings both on the site and adjacent to it. Further details of these meetings are included in the attached report of Council’s Assistant Cultural Heritage Officer, however in summary the Council Assistant Cultural Heritage Officer states:

“Our conclusion is that the process of analysis of the heritage context presented to us is flawed, and that what is presented is rather a justification for a design that has evolved from other considerations and other places. It is at odds with the heritage significance of the site and cannot be said to comply with the requirements of Schedule F of the Planning Scheme.”

Discretion

The site is located in Precinct 2 and Precinct 5A both of the Central Commercial and Administrative Zone; majority of the new building is located within Precinct 2. The proposal instigates the following discretions under the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982:

• Heritage the proposal includes alterations and the partial demolition of Hollydene House 55 Campbell Street, which is listed under Schedule F of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 and on the Tasmanian Heritage Register.

• The site also includes 9-11 Liverpool Street and is adjacent to 46 and 57 Campbell Street, Hobart Technical College, the old university building which are all listed under Schedule F of the Scheme and on the Tasmanian Heritage Register. In addition to this the proposal is adjacent to the Glebe Heritage Area.

• Use the use for the proposed building is an educational establishment and research centre (an unlisted use) both are discretionary uses in the Central Commercial and Administrative Zone.

• Density the plot ratio proposed of 2.4 is below the basic plot ratio of 5.25 for Precinct 2 and above the basic plot ratio of 2.25 for Precinct 5A, it is however below the maximum plot ratio for Precinct 5A of 3; plot ratio is therefore a discretion in Precinct 5A.

• Height the maximum height proposed is 17.6m to the top most habitable floor; the maximum permitted height in Precinct 2 and 5A is 42m and 12m respectively. The proposal therefore instigates a height discretion within Precinct 5A.

• Parking pursuant to Clause E.7.1 there is no minimum requirement for the number of parking spaces to be provided in Precinct 2. The proposal includes a total of 31 parking spaces to be provided on site; pursuant to Table E1 the number of parking spaces required to be provided are calculated by student and teacher numbers. The applicant indicated that ‘it is impossible to accurately predict the number of potential staff and students, as this is dependent on funding and enrolments’. Subsequently parking is a discretion within Precinct 5A. Item No. 8.1 / Page 4 Representations

There was one representation received during the 14 day public notification period. The representor raised both matters in support of the proposal and matters against the proposal as outlined below:

Matters Raised in support of the Development Planning Response Supportive of its scale. The matters raised have all been considered within the body of the report. Accept the design approach of juxtaposition as opposed to blending in with the surroundings Inappropriate design response for this site and the city. Form of building is unimaginative and relies on a two- dimensional façade treatment that most people will probably find superficially interesting but ugly. On the basis of external appearance alone I believe this development should not be permitted. Campbell street façade makes little concession to the scale of the neighbouring Hollydene House- this could be easily achieved by cutting away a section the tyre patterning on the nearby corner of the proposed building. Archaeological remains dating back to 1820s- important to preserve and interpret these remains.

Delegation

Council reserves unto itself the power to determine applications made under Sections 57 and 58 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 where building developments exceed 2 000sqm in floor area or are three storeys in height. The floor area of the five- storey building proposed is over 9 000sqm; delegation therefore rests with full Council.

Appraisal

Zone Objectives and Statements of Desired Future Character

The proposal is located across the boundary of two Precincts Precinct 2 the Central Commercial Precinct and Precinct 5A the Lower Brooker Precinct; both Precincts are within the Central Commercial and Administrative Zone. The proposal as detailed above instigate discretions within Precinct 5A only, under Schedule B - Density, Schedule C - Height and Schedule E - Traffic Access and Parking. Clause 5.1.2 allows for the adjustment of relevant controls to enable an appropriate transition between differing precincts.

“5.1.2 Where development is in close proximity to the boundary between two dissimilar Precincts, consideration may be given to adjusting relevant controls to create a gradual transition of use and building form from one precinct to the other. However, such development must still not detract from the attainment of the Desired Future Character of either precinct.”

Item No. 8.1 / Page 5 As detailed below the proposal is consistent with the Statement of Desired Future Character for both Precinct 2 and Precinct 5A. Furthermore the proposal is well within the requirements for Precinct 2 in terms of height and density and not substantially over the requirements to comply for Precinct 5A, it is therefore acceptable for Council to consider the discretions of which apply to Precinct 5A to be relaxed.

Notwithstanding this, the proposal has been assessed against the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 in terms of each discretion instigated by the development for both precincts.

Zone Objective

The proposal is located within the Central Commercial and Administrative Zone. The Objective of this Zone is stated under Clause 5.3:

“The Objective of the Central Commercial and Administrative Zone is to provide for the administrative, commercial, financial and professional headquarters of the State, for intensive generators of employment, and for cultural and community activities and supporting uses associated with those functions.”

The building proposed will provide a facility for professional research, teaching and administrative uses. The applicant has stated in the submission that:

“The co-location project links a tertiary education and research function with a community role in delivering health services. To achieve that, the new development will employ clinical, administrative, teaching and research staff.”

The proposal is consistent with the Zone Objective in terms of providing employment and a professional facility.

Statement of Desired Future Character

The proposal is located within two Precincts, the Central Commercial Precinct 2 and the Lower Brooker Precinct 5A. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the Statement of Desired Future Character for both precincts as detailed below.

“Central Commercial Precinct- No. 2

The precinct should be characterised by closely linked activities at high densities. The current stock of vacant or under-utilised sites and derelict buildings should be progressively redeveloped. Offices and institutions should be supported by shops, services and eating and entertainment establishments for the benefit of the workforce and visitors.

A network of public spaces should link major generators of pedestrian traffic and vary from compact urban spaces adjacent to the Central Retail Precinct to larger landscaped terraces, plazas and pocket parks to the northeast.

Item No. 8.1 / Page 6 Development throughout the Precinct should have a high level of vehicular accessibility for deliveries and business communications. Parking stations should be developed as necessary to serve both its own demand and that of the Central Retail Precinct.”

The development of the site for the co-location of the University of Tasmania’s Faculty of Health Science and the Menzies Institute allows for the development of a partially vacant area within close proximity to closely linked activities including the Royal Hobart Hospital and the Hobart Private Hospital.

The site is adjacent to a major pedestrian route between the central area of Hobart, the Queens Domain and the Cenotaph via the Roundabout underpass and Liverpool Street. The applicant has indicated in the submission that the aim for the site is to provide pedestrian links and community space through the site with the aim of allowing members of the public to ultimately walk through the site and use some of the spaces within. This pedestrian link was demonstrated on a plan submitted to Council on the 2 April 2007. It is questionable however the level of use that such a route would receive due to the entranceway being through carparks or airlock double doors and there being little reason to enter the grounds in terms of shops, cafes or galleries. It is therefore unreasonable to consider pedestrian link throughs a feature of the development. The proposal however will have no effect upon the existing pedestrian routes and is therefore not inconsistent with the Statement of Desired Future Character.

In terms of the vehicular accessibility the widening of a right-of-way off Bathurst Street will enable direct access to the loading and services area.

The proposal is consistent with the Statement of Desired Future Character for Precinct 2.

“The Lower Brooker Precinct No 5A;

The Precinct should continue to consolidate its education, administrative and public utility functions. New development should reflect the scale and form of the existing fabric.”

It is important when considering the Statement of Desired Future Character for Precinct 5A that the part of the building located within this Precinct is considered only, as the Statement of Desired Future Character is specifically for that Precinct. In terms of scale and form, single and two-three storey buildings built to the street edge are prevalent in the precinct. However the dominant single building within the Precinct is the TAFE Building on the corner of Bathurst and Campbell Streets, which is located towards the southern end of the precinct within close proximity to the proposed building. As a result, when considering the Lower Brooker Precinct only, the existing fabric has a variety of scale and form, some of which reflect the proposed building. In addition to this the portion of the building that is located within Precinct 5A is positioned at the rear of the existing buildings established on Bathurst and Campbell Street, this setback allows for the existing fabric and form of the Precinct to remain. The proposal, which includes a use as an educational established is consistent with the Statement of Desired Future Character of the Lower Brooker Precinct.

Item No. 8.1 / Page 7 Use

The proposal is for the co-location of the Faculty of Health Sciences a tertiary institution and the Menzies Institute- a research facility.

The Faculty of Health Sciences is defined as an educational establishment pursuant to Clause A.1.1 of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982:

“Means a primary or secondary school, a tertiary institution or university, art gallery or museum, but does not include a welfare institution.”

Pursuant to Table A1 of Schedule A an educational establishment is a discretionary use in the Central Commercial and Administrative Zone; a research facility is not listed within a Use Group pursuant to Section A.3.1.

Pursuant to Clause A.7 of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 the uses proposed is a discretion for the proposal:

“A.7 Discretionary Uses;

A.7.1 Subject to the provisions of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982, the Council may use its discretion to refuse or permit the development and use of land unconditionally or subject to conditions:

a) for a use which is neither permitted nor prohibited pursuant to Table A.1, including any use in a Use Group indicated by the sign ‘d’ opposite the relevant Zone reference; or b) for a use considered not to be listed within a use Group pursuant to Section A.3.1; or c) for any use of land not within a Zone depicted in Table A.1.”

The proposed use is consistent with the Zone Objective and the Statement of Desired Future Character for both precincts. The proposal is acceptable in terms of use.

Density

As detailed above the proposal is located within two Precincts- the Central Commercial Precinct No. 2 and the Lower Brooker Precinct – No. 5A. Subsequently, the development is subject to different density requirements dependent on the precinct.

The relevant density requirements for the development are the Basic Plot Ratio and the Maximum Plot Ratio for Precinct 2 and Precinct 5A as per table B1 of Schedule B:

Precinct 2: Minimum plot ratio required - 5.25 Maximum plot ratio required - 7.0

Precinct 5A: Minimum plot ratio required - 2.25 Maximum plot ratio required - 3.0 Item No. 8.1 / Page 8 The plot ratio proposed for the development, which includes all existing and proposed buildings is 2.4. The proposal therefore does not exceed the maximum plot ratio for either Precinct but does exceed the minimum plot ratio required for Precinct 5A under Table B1.

Clause B.11 allows for variation from the provision of Table B1:

“B.11 Variations from the Provisions of Table B1;

B.11.1 Having regard to the Planning Scheme overall, including Principle 8, Council has a discretion to refuse or permit any use or development not complying with the quantitative provisions of Table B1 and any variation proposed under the B4 to B9 of Schedule B.”

The relevant clauses that provided for variation from Table B1 of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 are B.4 and B.5 as detailed below:

“B.4 Floor Areas;

B.4.1 Without the consent of the Council, the floor area of any development shall not exceed the figure determined by multiplying the site area by the basic plot ratio for the relevant Density Rating given by Table B;

B.4.2 Notwithstanding Section B.4.1 the Council may exercise its discretion to approve a floor area in excess of that permitted by the relevant basic plot ratio in Table B.1 but not exceeding that permissible by application of the relevant Maximum Plot Ratio in that Table;

B.4.3 Notwithstanding Section B.4.1 and B.4.2. For any site within any zone where the plot ratio applicable to the site prevents an existing building or buildings from being extended, the Council may permit an extension that is necessary to solely to provide access, toilet or other facility for people with disabilities, including facilities required by other legislation or regulation.”

The proposal does not exceed the maximum plot ratio for either precinct; the proposal will therefore be considered under Principle 8:

“P.8 Bonus plot ratio may be awarded in respect of development which provides specific uses, facilities and features approved or required for the benefit of the city in particular precincts.”

such uses, facilities and features may include:

“(a) Residential uses in appropriate non-residential Precincts.

(b) Approved or required public facilities, such as plazas, terraces, through site pedestrian links over or under streets, childcare centres, community centres, public toilets, ramps for prams and wheelchairs.

(c) The provision of sculptures, fountains or other works of art visible from public spaces. Item No. 8.1 / Page 9 (d) The conservation and maintenance of items deemed to be of heritage significance.

(e) The use of special materials or design features to respect, conserve and enhance the surrounding environment.

In no case shall the plot ratio exceed the maximum plot ratio for the relative density zone.”

The submission indicated that the proposal satisfied point (b) and (d) as follows:

“The proposal is considered to meet these requirements through the provision of the public permeability into the site at ground floor level, through the rear courtyard spaces which will be development in accordance with the masterplan.

More significantly, the masterplanning concept underpinning the proposal seeks to conserve and rehabilitate the heritage buildings Hollydene and Advocate house over the life of the project.”

Neither of these statements are evident in the plans and details submitted to Council, Council has not been privy to the masterplan for the site; the developer therefore has no accountability to proceed with the masterplan, as it is not part of this development application. A site plan was submitted to Council on the 2 April 2007 that attempted to demonstrate the site providing through-site pedestrian links, this however is questionable as the entrance is either through carparks or through airlock doors and there is little reason to enter the premises in terms of shops, cafes or galleries. It is therefore recommended that if Council approves the development, the permit should be conditioned so as to enforce the conservation and maintenance of heritage buildings on the site including Hollydene House- 55 Campbell and Advocate House 9-11 Liverpool Street thereby enabling Council to allow for bonus plot ratio.

In addition to this is Clause 5.1.2, which as detailed above allows Council to adjust relevant controls when a development is within the proximity of a boundary between to dissimilar Precincts. In this instance it is considered reasonable, as the proposal is considerably below the minimum plot ratio for Precinct 2 and only slightly above the minimum plot ratio for Precinct 5A, with majority of the proposed building located within Precinct 2. Therefore with the condition of the conservation of the heritage buildings on the site and Clause 5.1.2, which provides for the adjustment of controls between dissimilar precincts the proposal is acceptable in terms of density.

Height Similarly to the density provisions, the proposal is subject to different maximum permitted heights as the building crosses two precincts. Pursuant to Section 1.7.1 height is defined as the top most habitable floor:

“height” means:

(i) in respect of buildings, that maximum vertical distance measured between the natural surface level and topmost habitable floor level of a building at any point of any part of a building;” Item No. 8.1 / Page 10 Table C1- Permitted Height of New Building, determines the maximum permitted height for each precinct:

Precinct 2 - 42m Precinct 5A - 12m

The height of the building varies from approximately 15.9m to 17.1m; this height is within the 42m maximum permitted height limit for Precinct 2 but exceeds the 12m maximum height for Precinct 5A. The height variation of the building is a result of the gradient of the Campbell Street and the cut proposed for the development. The lower height occurs within the Lower Brooker Precinct 5A.

Clause C.2.1 provides for variation from Table C1:

“C.2.1 Having regard to the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 overall, in particular Principle 11, Council has a discretion to refuse or permit a proposed development that exceeds the permitted height for the relevant precinct shown in Table Clause 1 below.

P.11 Permitted height limits have been established for the various Precincts having regard to the nature of preferred development for the Precinct in question. Within these limits the height of any building or structure may be further controlled having regard to the relevant Zone Objective, the desired future character of the relevant Precinct, and considerations of streetscape, townscape and amenity. A relaxation of these limits will only be considered where the relevant Zone Objective and desired future character of the Precinct are not compromised.”

The proposal is consistent with the Zone Objective and Statement of Desired Future Character for Precinct 5A, enabling Council to consider a relaxation of these limits. Furthermore Clause 5.1.2 allows for the adjustment of relevant controls to create a gradual transition of use and building form from one Precinct to the other. Notwithstanding this, Principle 11 demands consideration of streetscape and townscape. Principle 16 and 17 provide Townscape, Amenity and Environment guidelines:

“P.16 New building work shall not be permitted to obtain a lesser setback from the street alignment than that prevailing in the vicinity, or such a dimension as the Council may determine having regard to the desired future character of its Precinct.

P.17 Requirements regarding any matter affecting probable effects upon energy consumption, microclimate, or other prevention of environmental pollution by waste matter or noise, may be imposed as conditions for approval of any new or changed use or development of land and buildings.”

The part of the building located within Precinct 5A will have limited impact upon the streetscape of Campbell and Bathurst Streets due to the structure being setback from the existing two/three storey buildings. In terms of the impact from Brooker Avenue, the building will be setback over 20m, with landscaping and a carparking area providing a buffer between Brooker Avenue and the building proposed. Item No. 8.1 / Page 11

There is a variation in setbacks along the western side of Brooker Avenue, thereby making the 20m setback of the proposed building acceptable. As the building is developed towards the middle of the block, in terms of microclimate the structure is acceptable; in terms of environmental pollution and energy consumption, the use is appropriate for the site and the building will be subject to the relevant state and federal legislation.

The proposal is consistent with the Zone Objective and the Statement of Desired Future Character for both precincts, the setback proposed is consistent with the setbacks within the vicinity and the building will have minimal impact upon the amenity of the area.

Furthermore Clause 5.1.2 allows for the adjustment of relevant controls to create a gradual transition of use and building form from one Precinct to the other, for these reasons the height discretion for Precinct 5A is acceptable.

Notwithstanding this the proposal raises streetscape concerns, these concerns are specifically the bulk and treatment of the building in the heritage context of the site. Therefore being addressed by the Cultural Heritage Officer.

Siting and Landscaping

The proposal is located within the Central Commercial and Administrative Zones, pursuant to Clause D.3.1 of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 no specific boundary setbacks are required.

“D.3.1 Central Retail Zone and Central Commercial and Administrative Zone;

D.3.1.1 In these Zones no specific boundary setback are required other than to satisfy Principle 16 or the Statement of Desire Future Character for individual Precincts in respect of front boundary setbacks.”

As detailed above the proposal is consistent with Principle 16 in terms of setback on Liverpool Street and Campbell Street; all buildings are built to the street edge. The prevailing setback along Brooker Avenue however is variable with buildings being located on the street edge with large gaps between the buildings. Therefore the proposed setback of 20m from Brooker Avenue for the building of which will have a street address from Campbell and Liverpool Street will be consistent with the variable setbacks along Brooker Avenue. Furthermore the building proposed is consistent with both the Zone Objective and the Statement of Desired Future Character for both Precinct 2 and Precinct 5A. The proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of Siting and Landscaping.

Traffic Access and Parking

Table E1 determines the number of parking spaces required to be provided on site for a development:

“E.4.1 For any development, the minimum number of parking spaces to be provided on-site shall be in accordance with the requirements set out in the table below.” Item No. 8.1 / Page 12 As stated above the use for the proposed development is an Educational Establishment (tertiary institution) and a Research Facility (not listed in the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982). Table E1 requires 1 space per 2 staff members and 1 space per 10 students for a university or tertiary institution; for a use not listed within the table such as a Research Facility the parking requirements are at Council’s discretion – ‘as determined by Council’.

Similarly to the density discretion and the height discretion, discretion is required for only the area of the building located within Precinct 5A. Pursuant to Clause E.7.1 provision of the parking within Precinct 2 is not required.

“E.7.1 Notwithstanding Section E.4.1 of the Schedule there shall be no minimum requirement for the number of parking spaces to be provided in the Central Retail Zone (Precinct 1) and Precincts 2, 3 and 4 of the Central Commercial and Administrative Zone.”

Clause E.11 allows Council to vary the requirements of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982.

“E.11.1 Having regard to the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 overall, particularly Principles 14 and 15, Council has a discretion to refuse or permit any proposed use or development which does not comply with the quantitative standards imposed by this schedule.”

Principles 14 and 15 are as follows:

“P.14 Development will only be permitted provided it will facilitate the mutual compatibility of public and private transport and it can demonstrate that it will bot create traffic flows and movements that are detrimental to safety or amenity, and can make adequate provision for the direction, access, turning and parking of all vehicular traffic, as well as provision for pedestrian movement, in accordance with Council requirements.

P.15 Persons and organisations receiving approval for development may be required to provide approved security to the Council to ensure that car parking areas are constructed in accordance with the approved plans.”

The applicant submitted a Traffic Study that included the assessment of access, sight distance, pedestrian access, access for service and emergency vehicles and the impact of the development on surrounding streets and intersections. The study states:

“As the number of parking spaces to be provided for the development is relatively small, it is considered that the traffic generated by the development will have minimal impact on the surrounding streets and intersections.”

The proposal was referred to the Manager of Roads and Engineering, whom raised no concerns to the proposal. Due to the location of the building being within close proximity to public transport, the discretion applying to part of the building only located within Precinct 5A, the Traffic Study submitted raising no concerns in regards to the development and Clause 5.1.2 the proposal is acceptable in terms of Traffic Access and Parking. Item No. 8.1 / Page 13 Heritage

The proposal instigates discretion under the Heritage Schedule. The site includes two listed places Hollydene House 55 Campbell Street and Advocate House 9-11 Liverpool Street. The site is also adjacent to several heritage listed buildings that including The Royal Exchange Hotel 57 Campbell Street and the former Blundstones Factory- 46 Campbell Street.

The Tasmanian Heritage Council approved the application on the 7th February 2007. Details of the decision including the conditions are included in Attachment E.

Attached is the full report completed by Council’s Assistant Cultural Heritage Officer in regards to the development, the summary of which is as follows.

“The proposed development is located at an important ‘gateway’ to central Hobart, and includes two heritage-listed buildings, Hollydene and Advocate House, and is adjacent to several other heritage places, including the former Blundstone’s Boot Factory, Royal Exchange Hotel and Hobart Technical College buildings. The character of both Campbell Street and Liverpool Street in this vicinity is defined by the qualities of these existing heritage buildings.

The fundamental heritage Principle of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 (Principle 20) requires Council to exercise control over development to achieve conservation and enhancement of heritage values to the maximum degree.

By reference to the principles of the Burra Charter, the planning scheme also requires a considered and analytical approach to conservation, before decisions are made about options for demolition and redevelopment. The current proposal is not a product of this process, and the application includes no evidence to support the extent of proposed demolition.”

Clause F.4.4 of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 requires:

“F.4.4 Any new development within or adjacent to a place listed on the Heritage Register shall be in keeping with and shall not detract from those characteristics of the place which contribute to its cultural significance.

The current proposal represents the antithesis of this requirement, deliberately shunning the characteristics of heritage-listed buildings within and adjacent to the site, and preferring instead a pastiche of design elements and architectural gestures with obscure references to Hobart’s surrounding mountains and subterranean streams. The height, bulk, form, materials, colours and fenestration of the proposed development bear little, if any contextual relationship with surrounding heritage-listed places. It is fair to say that nothing about the proposed development is “in keeping with” the heritage characteristics of nearby places listed in the Heritage Register.

The proposal fails to comply with fundamental requirements of the Heritage Schedule of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 and clearly warrants substantial redesign.” Item No. 8.1 / Page 14 As the proposal fails to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Heritage Schedule it is recommended that Council refuse the application.

Conclusion

The five-storey building proposed crosses the boundary of two precincts: the Lower Brooker Precinct - 5A and the Central Commercial Precinct - 2. Three of the discretions (Schedule B - Density, Schedule C- Height and Schedule E - Traffic Access and Parking) invoked by the proposal under the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 are relevant for that part of the building located within Precinct 5A only. The part of the building located within Precinct 5A is approximately one third of the building and it is setback considerably from the adjacent buildings within that precinct located on Campbell and Bathurst Streets, making the development consistent with the Statement of Desired Future Character. This allows for the consideration of the adjustment of the relevant controls to create a gradual transition of use and building form from one Precinct to the other, pursuant to Clause 5.1.2, and as detailed within the body of the report this adjustment of the controls is acceptable.

However, the proposal also invokes heritage discretion of some magnitude. This includes

Listed Buildings within the site: 55 Campbell Street, Hollydene House 9-11 Campbell Street, Advocate House

Adjacent Places listed: 57 Campbell Street, The Royal Exchange Hotel 46 Campbell Street former Blundstones factory Hobart Technical College The Glebe Heritage Area The Old University building

As detailed within the body of the report it is this discretion that is of concern and is not acceptable. As required under Clause F.4.4 two questions need to be answered satisfactorily; is the building ‘in keeping’ and does the development ‘detract from those characteristics of the place which contribute to its cultural significance’. As described by Council’s Cultural Heritage Officers, the building is not in keeping and it does detract from the places listed on the Heritage Register both on the development site and adjacent to it.

Therefore notwithstanding the developments consistency with the requirements of Use, Density, Height, Siting and Landscaping and Traffic Access and Parking, the proposal does not meet the requirements of the heritage provisions and is recommended for refusal.

Item No. 8.1 / Page 15 Recommendation

That: B. Pursuant to part 2 of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982, the Council refuse the application for Partial Demolition, Alterations and New Building (Educational Establishment and Unlisted Use/Research Centre) at 9,11,13,15 &17 Liverpool Street & 55 Campbell Street, Hobart for the reasons outlined below:

1. The proposal is contrary to Principle 20 of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982, which requires the conservation and enhancement of the significant heritage characteristics of the buildings and area.

2. The proposal is contrary to the Burra Charter that pursuant to Clause F.2.2 of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982, Council shall have regard to in its consideration of developments.

3. The proposal is contrary to Clause F.3.3 of City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 that requires new development adjacent to a Heritage Area to be in keeping the heritage characteristics of the area.

4. The proposal is contrary to Clause F.4.4 City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 as the development is not in keeping and does detract from those characteristics of the place, which contribute to its cultural significance.

(Clare Hester) DEVELOPMENT APPRAISAL PLANNER

(Ian Stanley) MANAGER DEVELOPMENT APPRAISAL

Attachment(s) Attachment A Photos – 23 x 6 A4 pages Attachment B Plans x 13 A4 pages Attachment C Photomontages x 4 A4 pages Attachment D Assistant Cultural Heritage Officers Report Attachment E Decision of Tasmanian Heritage Council Item No. 8.1 / Page 16 ATTACHMENT A

Brooker Avenue

Corner of Brooker Avenue and Bathurst Street

Vista from railway roundabout

Item No. 8.1 / Page 17 Vista from railway roundabout

Mountain backdrop to the site from the Railway Roundabout

Campbell Street

Item No. 8.1 / Page 18 Scale and form of the existing fabric – reflected in recent development

Scale and form of the existing fabric – reflected in recent development

19-21 Liverpool Street

17 Liverpool Street

Item No. 8.1 / Page 19 Former Blundstones Factory

Hollydene House

TAFE

RHH Argyle Street

Item No. 8.1 / Page 20 RHH Liverpool Street

Hobart Magistrates Court

Royal Exchange Hotel

Intersection of Liverpool and Campbell Streets

Item No. 8.1 / Page 21 9-11 Liverpool Street

Former University Building

Hobart Technical College

Item No. 8.1 / Page 22 Item No. 8.1 / Page 23 Item No. 8.1 / Page 24 Item No. 8.1 / Page 25 Item No. 8.1 / Page 26 Item No. 8.1 / Page 27 Item No. 8.1 / Page 28 Item No. 8.1 / Page 29 Item No. 8.1 / Page 30 Item No. 8.1 / Page 31 Item No. 8.1 / Page 32 Item No. 8.1 / Page 33 Item No. 8.1 / Page 34 Item No. 8.1 / Page 35 Item No. 8.1 / Page 36 Item No. 8.1 / Page 37 Item No. 8.1 / Page 38 Item No. 8.1 / Page 39 ATTACHMENT D

PLN-06-01357-01 Application Number

DEVELOPMENT APPRAISAL

HERITAGE COMMENT

Address: 9,11,13,15 &17 Liverpool Street, & 55 Campbell Street Description of proposed development: Partial Demolition, Alterations and New Building (Educational Establishment and Unlisted Use/Research Centre) Zoning: Heritage Area: Is the property listed? Planning Officer: Clare Hester Date advertised: 31-Jan-2007 Date required: Default

The proposal involves the demolition of a number of buildings, the conservation of heritage-listed buildings on the site and the construction of a new building. The Cultural Heritage Officer was consulted at a very early stage and indicated the sensitivity and potential of the site to affect heritage values at that stage, and indicated that there would be significant concerns. However since that early discussion no further consultation occurred until the submission of the Development Application.

Heritage Discretion

Listed Buildings impacted upon Within the site: 55 Campbell Street, Hollydene House, is heritage listed 9-11 Liverpool Street, Advocate House, is heritage listed Furthermore: No. 15 Liverpool Street includes an early19th century building that has significance and has been identified in the City Fringe Heritage Review.

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 1 Item No. 8.1 / Page 40

Adjacent Places listed: 57 Campbell Street, The Royal Exchange Hotel 46 Campbell Street former Blundstone’s Factory Hobart Technical College The Glebe Heritage Area The Old University building

HERITAGE PRINCIPLE 20 P.20 The Council shall list parts of the Planning Area and specific buildings and sites to be of special significance; and control of development through the Planning Area shall be exercised to require conservation and enhancement of the significant characteristics of such areas, buildings and sites to the maximum degree the Council considers practicable.

The City of Hobart Planning Scheme achieves this control by requiring consistency with the existing grain of the place, rather than against it. This is desirable from a heritage viewpoint but also makes good sense in economic and quality of life terms. A development that sits comfortably in its site and consolidates the distinctiveness of the place and helps the sense of identity that people feel for a place obviously has indirect benefits for the city. The Planning Scheme explicitly requires that

F.4.4 Any new development within or adjacent to a place listed on the Heritage Register shall be in keeping with and shall not detract from those characteristics of the place which contribute to its cultural significance.

There are three adjacent existing buildings on Bathurst Street that are outside of the site boundary. Other than these, the University’s land parcel for this redevelopment constitutes the entire block bounded by Campbell Street, Liverpool Street, Brooker Avenue and Bathurst Street.

Heritage Significance and the Location The proposed development is in a highly significant location: at the entry point into the city blocks from the Brooker Highway; on the Campbell Street axis that extends to Sullivans Cove Waterfront alongside the City Hall; and on the Liverpool Street axis, terminated by the distant views to the hillside suburbs and the Keens Curry sign to the south-west and by the Fountain and the former Hobart Railway Station to the northeast.

Brooker Avenue Bathurst/Brooker corner Site from Brooker Avenue The tree lined avenue/mature trees define an entry point to the city blocks

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 2 Item No. 8.1 / Page 41

Vistas from the Railway Roundabout A significant entry point into the city where the new building will be prominent

Pedestrian access from the Domain/ Glebe The site is on a significant pedestrian route into the city centre

Mountain backdrop to the site from the Railway Roundabout The new development will be prominent against the mountain backdrop

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 3 Item No. 8.1 / Page 42

Campbell Street Vista

Vistas in Campbell Street on the ‘City Hall axis’. and towards Sullivan’s Cove

The new development will be significant to Hobart’s sense of place

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 4 Item No. 8.1 / Page 43

With regard to heritage values, the proposal represents a real opportunity to reinforce and consolidate the block. The Planning Scheme seeks through its Principles to make the most of this kind of opportunity to integrate and enhance the historic identity that makes this city unique.

New Development ‘in Keeping’ The question is, is the proposal ‘in keeping’ with the adjacent buildings that surround it? Does the proposed development ‘detract from’ those characteristics that are considered significant to the sense of place? The site itself is heritage listed. On the site there are buildings and elements of buildings with varying degrees of significance.

Characteristics of the area The listed sites display a substantial degree of consistency in their form and scale, while representing a wide range of periods. It is this evolving homogeneity that characterises much of Hobart’s sense of place.

Need to follow Burra Charter to manage change The Planning Scheme requires that the principles of the Burra Charter be followed. Essentially this entails analysis of the existing heritage context to inform proposed changes.

The Burra Charter provides a recognised approach. This would be recorded in a Conservation Management Plan. The purpose of the CMP with regard to the Planning Scheme is to ensure that heritage values would be ‘conserved and enhanced’ and to allow development to be appraised against the scheme requirements. A CMP has not been submitted. Rather the process here is reversed; in that a report has been submitted as ‘Notes to accompany the application for Stage 1 works including partial demolition’. This includes plans to demolish parts of Hollydene House. While this allows more site area for the new work, it is an approach that is at odds with the principles of the Burra Charter as a process.

The proposal rather risks a familiar threat to heritage places such as Hollydene, where unsympathetic new development alienates a building from its curtilage, reducing the options for a viable future use. The proposal submitted is to board up Hollydene till an undefined future use is found. This cannot be said to be consistent with the Burra Charter or the Planning Scheme.

Demolition of parts of Hollydene House would need to be supported by a CMP that proposes a future for the building.

The proposal will be prominent in vistas of a number of significant streetscapes and all the adjacent listed buildings as well as other highly significant listed buildings in the immediate vicinity. The impact is significant because the treatment proposed for the façade is very different from anything in the historic pattern of the area.

The site is in the Central, Commercial and Administrative Zone and spans two precincts 5a and 2 and its resolution impacts on the character of the Wapping Area adjacent, and the continuity of this inner city residential area with the city blocks of Hobart.

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 5 Item No. 8.1 / Page 44

Desired Future Character

Scale and form of the existing fabric – reflected in recent development City Hall and St David’s Mission Church, Wapping, amidst new development

The grain and scale of the area have been respected in new development in the Wapping area, and heritage values have been enhanced by this restraint as well as by the retention of the heritage buildings that contribute most significantly to the heritage character.

Buildings that define the heritage character of the area These heritage buildings that define the character of the area are significant in existing streetscape vistas. The new development will dominate these vistas and will not be in keeping with them.

Theatre Royal Theatre Royal Hotel Prominent cultural building Typical corner building

The buildings that are currently prominent will be dominated by the new development, detracting from the area character that is specifically Hobartian.

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 6 Item No. 8.1 / Page 45

19-21 Liverpool Street 17 Liverpool Street (Campbell St.corner) Non-listed buildings reinforce a consistency in scale and form in the area

Blundstones former factory Hollydene Lodge Even a factory is ‘in keeping’ as it reflects An institutional use ‘in keeping’ the scale and form of the area in much altered scale and form

The consistency and human scale that distinguishes this streetscape (and much of Hobart) was disrupted by a larger scale in the second half of the 20th century, by the introduction of the scale of industrialised building processes. However exciting this capacity for a different scale may be, it is unsympathetic to the historic character of the city and undermines what is quintessentially Hobartian. Subsequent modifications to the street facades of the hospital buildings have re-introduced the cohesive scale and articulation of the street and successfully re-integrated the streetscape.

Hospital Buildings –recent modifications

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 7 Item No. 8.1 / Page 46

The scale of late 20th century buildings in this context has been found inappropriate. Recent changes have re-humanised the scale of late 20th century buildings and re- established the scale and animation of the street edge to be ‘in keeping’ with the historic scale, using contemporary design and modern materials.

TAFE- modifications The treatment of form and scale that articulated a whole city block as a single repetitive and monumental architectural form was unsuccessful and has been reviewed, resulting in numerous recent modifications that are more ‘in keeping ‘ in scale and form.

Incongruity with the Heritage Identity In terms of heritage impact, the fundamental problems with the proposal for the new Research Centre are 1 Massing, scale and bulk which is in contradiction with the scale and form of the city block. The city grid is characterised by blocks with a public façade that creates hard edge to the street of 2-3 stories. The proposed sinuous mass applies the same façade treatment to the street face and inner elevations to the block. A forecourt on Liverpool would further erode the sense of a block. 2 The application of an incongruous single continuous surface treatment, which suppresses the articulation that is inherent in the plan, and imposes a scale that is unsympathetic to the immediate adjacent heritage places, as well as to the area character and indeed the heritage identity of Hobart, with its familiar materials, colours and fenestration patterns.

The effect of this is that the proposal will have a similar impact on the context to that created by the TAFE building, and the out-of scale bulk of the accumulated blocks of the Hospital, with a similar anonymity and monotony.

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 8 Item No. 8.1 / Page 47

TAFE-Campbell Street TAFE- Brooker Avenue Anonymous scale and form not in keeping with distinctive local character

RHH Argyle Street RHH Liverpool Street

These late 20th century buildings dominated by the need for economy do have their own familiar character; they occur in every city. They do not however contribute to the character that is specific and distinctive to this historic city.

These streets and the two precincts also contain a number of larger scale, contemporary developments that have achieved a sympathetic outcome, both at the level of individual developments and at the wider planning level. The conservation of an appropriate scale has been achieved with an authentic and contemporary design approach, in the case of developments with multiple typologies, such as residential apartments:

Wapping Wapping

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 9 Item No. 8.1 / Page 48

Contemporary development that reflects local scale The same sympathetic scale has been achieved in institutional development:

Hobart Magistrates Court ….in keeping with its context

To comply with the Planning Scheme and be ‘in keeping’ does not involve an imitative or historicist design approach. It does involve developing an elevational treatment that has some relationship to what gives Hobart in general and, typically, the coherent part of these precincts, a specific and continuous urban identity, despite the incursion of developments that have disrupted its integrity. Within this grain that provides homogeneity there is considerable scope for individual contemporary design expression.

A design approach is needed for the proposal that provides a strategy for the conservation of the historic buildings that exist on the site.

New development could be positive in its impact on heritage values.

The block in which the new development will sit is fragmented; modern development here has not enhanced heritage values, rather, if it has paid respect to what exists it has done so in a superficial way. There is scope for change including demolition which also ‘conserves and enhances’ heritage values, as required by the Planning Scheme.

The Royal Exchange Hotel corner Campbell Street elevation A strong corner despite the fragmented city block

The northern corner of the block is strongly defined by the Royal Exchange Hotel The proposal could, with a sympathetic treatment informed by the Burra Charter approach, consolidate the block.

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 10 Item No. 8.1 / Page 49

Opposite corners, Liverpool/Campbell St. Street edge, Campbell Street Incremental development has allowed the area character to survive

Consistency or Contrast The block opposite the proposed development on Liverpool and Campbell Street is cohesive and consistent. The buildings use a compatible architectural language, which is continued with Hollydene, while spanning a century of development. The site could readily absorb a contemporary intervention of an original and distinctive design bearing some considered relationship to the existing heritage context.

While the design approach need not be slavish to the prevailing architectural treatment of red brick with horizontal banding in a pale cream, it must in some way satisfy the Scheme requirement to be ‘in keeping’. In this area of the city, the pattern that gives identity to the place is fragmented and warrants consolidation. This is not a uniform place where a contrasting and original pattern would be distinctive.

The use proposed is not incompatible with the grain of the area. It is not the scale of a city landmark, nor a use of citywide significance, but rather it is one of a family of facilities associated with health, education and research. New development clamouring for attention among other institutional buildings disrupts the continuity of the urban fabric in the city fringe area.

Existing infill development The existing modest additions and infill developments are of little significance but are not intrusive on the whole. New development could readily improve on their contribution to the heritage values and character of the area.

17 Liverpool Street – existing building Campbell Street 15, 17 Liverpool St Not intrusive but not distinctive

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 11 Item No. 8.1 / Page 50

15 Liverpool St 13 Liverpool St / entrance detail 13,9-11 Liverpool St

The surviving early 19th century (Georgian) cottage at 15 Liverpool Street has an unsympathetic addition. The original cottage would be restorable. The modern building at 13 Liverpool Street has an undistinguished relationship with its heritage-listed neighbour at 9-11 Liverpool Street, Advocate House. These more recent infill developments do not create significant relationships with the historic elements or enhance their heritage values.

The retention in the short term of the remnant Georgian cottage of 15 Liverpool Street is desirable, however the plans suggest that this would be demolished in the longer term.

Non-intrusive elements to the rear Access and car parking areas - poor setting

The new proposal could deal with some of the negative impacts of previous alterations and additions. There is the potential with this proposal to greatly enhance the setting of the heritage listed elements on the site, for instance through the reconfiguration of car parking and access.

9-11 Liverpool Street - outbuilding - facing Brooker Avenue

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 12 Item No. 8.1 / Page 51

Liverpool Streetscape reinforced by the Hobart Magistrates Court

The consistency of the context survives, and is reinforced by some modern development, particularly the Magistrates Court

Existing Area Character The proposal is out of scale with the area, which is historically characterised by medium scale institutional buildings as well as some larger residential buildings. The development proposed, with a different design approach and elevation treatment could be articulated to relate to the scale of adjacent heritage listed places and readily conserve the prominence of the landmark buildings in the area that historically contribute to its character and the city’s identity.

Buildings that contribute to the heritage character of the area:

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 13 Item No. 8.1 / Page 52

Former University Building

TAFE

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 14 Item No. 8.1 / Page 53

43 Liverpool Street - Solomon’s house

St Andrews Church

The new development should allow these buildings to remain prominent in the area

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 15 Item No. 8.1 / Page 54

Opportunities to articulate the proposed development to be ‘in keeping’

The form and exterior treatment could be ‘in keeping’ to a greater extent, with a different design approach. For instance the volume of the proposed lecture theatre could be expressed in an articulated manner. The handling of entrances could make an identifiable relationship with the other buildings in the street and this could be achieved more generally through the articulation of the essentially cellular spatial typology, which is within the range of scale of the historic fabric.

Summary of initial comment

The summary of the heritage comment is that the proposed development as submitted does not comply with the heritage provisions of the Planning Scheme, because the process and analysis underlying the design approach are flawed. The proposal does potentially have the capacity to significantly ‘conserve and enhance’ heritage values of the site and adjacent places. However, this would be achievable with modification of massing, planning and elevational treatment. Such modifications are needed to comply with the scheme requirement, in the Heritage Principle 20 that:

‘control of development through the Planning Area shall be exercised to require conservation and enhancement of the significant characteristics of such areas, buildings and sites to the maximum degree the Council considers practicable’.

Furthermore the proposal must comply with the fundamental requirements of F4.4

Before developing a design approach, the future of Hollydene House would need to be resolved to comply with F4.2 and F4.3 of the Planning Scheme. This would be achieved by applying the Burra Charter process for establishing and conserving cultural significance.

F.4.2 Pursuant to Principle 20, those places listed on the Council’s Heritage Register, as set out in Appendix 1 to this Schedule shall be conserved.

F.4.3 Pursuant to Principle 20 any existing building or structure listed on the Heritage Register shall be retained except where:

(i) it clearly detracts from the cultural significance of the place, or

(ii) there are overriding environmental, economic or practical reasons for its removal either wholly or in part.

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 16 Item No. 8.1 / Page 55

We understand that some re-thinking is envisaged by the client for reasons of budget. We advocate that these changes take into account the heritage provisions of the Planning Scheme in any reconfiguration planned.

Danielle Pacaud Assistant Cultural Heritage Officer 15th February 2007

Further Comment

A presentation was made outlining the analysis of the context and the design response in the proposed architectural solution.

Good Historical Research The process is informed by thorough and original historical research of high integrity and authority in the form of three historical reports by Lindy Scripps:

1 Hollydene, 55 Campbell Street Hobart-History and Development, Nov 2005 2 Liverpool Street between Brooker Avenue and Argyle Street and Brooker Avenue between Liverpool Street and Bathurst Street, Historical Overview, April 2006 3 9-11 Liverpool Street, Historical overview July 2006

These reports reveal a rich and detailed body of evidence of the cultural and historical significance of the site. This is an area where the record of development since original European settlement is evident

Lack of Burra Charter Process Unfortunately, the next step, of identifying that significance in order to direct the design approach, has been omitted. The ensuing analysis is flawed and the resulting design outcome fails to ‘conserve and enhance’ the considerable significance of the site.

Flawed Analysis The presentation from the architect demonstrates this in a number of regards. Two pertinent examples are:

The significance of ‘gaps’ in the streetscape. The architect’s presentation focused on the fact that there have always been gaps in the street elevation (like missing teeth). However the question needs to be asked; do the ‘gaps’ contribute to the cultural significance of the streetscape? Would the streetscape be less characteristic without ‘gaps’? The answer is that the gaps are of little significance.

Of far greater significance are the colours, materials, scale, form and articulation of the streetscape, and these are the characteristics that the design needs to respond to, in order to be ‘in keeping’ as required by the Planning Scheme. In particular the proposal undermines the sense of streetscape by creating a continuous façade treatment wrapping the floor plates, like a warehouse, with no distinction made of street frontage.

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 17 Item No. 8.1 / Page 56

The Mountain and the River The distortions of the façade treatment were presented as a response to Mount Wellington and the River Derwent.

The Mountain Vertical arrows were used in the presentation to illustrate an upward thrust, signifying the Mountain. This resulted in pointy curves like a diagram of a hilly skyline. However it could be said that what distinguishes Mount Wellington is its flatness; it was after all called Table Mountain. The Mountain that meets the eye as one enters to Hobart from the Airport, whether it means ‘you’re home’ or welcomes the visitor, is the Mountain that oriented the circumnavigator and that dominated the skyline for the coastal tribes of the Mouheneeneer people. The one that Glover painted and that Bea Maddock traced in ochre. It is redolent with cultural significance, and making reference to it is a natural thing. Unfortunately the reference here is so slight and general that its veracity is questionable, as well as its legibility. The risk here is that a simple intention is rendered as a hollow gesture and its impact on our most significant cultural landscape element is empty of meaning, or trite, and that it reads rather as a blot on our cultural landscape.

The River Two horizontal arrows were used to illustrate a thrust in opposing directions, and this was intended to suggest the flow of water in the River Derwent. A street plan was shown indicating the course of the Park Rivulet (along the site boundary on Brooker Avenue) and the Hobart Town Rivulet (the channel along Liverpool Street). This was said to justify the ‘wiggle’ plan form of the building.

The allusion to water is not specific to our context and might easily be missed. The Hobart Rivulet was in fact diverted to its present course and the channel is a man made rectilinear form. The opportunity to trace the course of the Park Rivulet in the proposed development has been missed. The ‘wiggle’ has no direct relationship to any water course and could be interpreted in any number of ways

A City defined by Mountain and River While the view is to the wider cultural landscape, it is from the 19th century city grid. The opportunity to develop a design response to this dynamic is recognised by the design approach, but there is a lack of attention to the rich heritage, natural and historical, that is needed for the radical approach to be successful.

There is a significant body of work, by Leigh Woolley and others, exploring the topography of the cultural landscape, which is so crucial to the sense of place here, and the urban morphology that results. Informed by such study, quite subtle measures might better integrate the proposed building into its natural context.

If playful gestures in the surface treatment are to make any sense they might be more likely appreciated from Brooker Avenue and the Railway Roundabout, where the profile of the Mountain would be seen above the building façade. In the streetscapes of Liverpool Street and Campbell Street they will seem arbitrary and incongruous and the point will be lost.

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 18 Item No. 8.1 / Page 57

Gateway The proposed building is intended to form a ‘gateway’ with the Royal Hobart Hospital wing, which is visible from the Railway Roundabout, for visitors coming over the Tasman Bridge from the airport. There is really no way in which the proposal and the Hospital wing could be said to form two verticals of a portal. There is nothing that links them, in height, form, scale, or location.

Our conclusion is that the process of analysis of the heritage context presented to us is flawed, and that what is presented is rather a justification for a design that has evolved from other considerations and other places. It is at odds with the heritage significance of the site and cannot be said to comply with the requirements of Schedule F of the Planning Scheme. University of Tasmania, Co-Location Project

9,11,13,15 &17 Liverpool Street, & 55 Campbell Street

During our recent meetings the applicant has requested that we communicate the expectations of the heritage appraisal process.

Expectations

The expectation of the Planning Scheme is clearly that the Burra Charter process is followed (clause F2.2). This would mean analysing what is significant about the site, before making decisions as to the retention of this significance and developing design responses. This process would mean for example identifying appropriate development parameters consistent with conservation. In addition, archaeological evidence should inform the design strategy, from the outset, whereas the archaeological information has been sought after the design approach has been developed.

The Planning Scheme requires that a proposal should be ‘in keeping’ with the adjacent heritage places.

There is an expectation that a development proposal should be consistent with the desired future character statement for the Lower Brooker Precinct No 5A that ‘new development should reflect the scale and form of the existing fabric.’

From the limited analysis made for the preparation of the heritage comment, and the presentations made, the following indicators are given. There are many ways in which a design might respond to the heritage characteristics of this listed site, the adjacent listed places and the wider area. These indicators represent issues that should be addressed, not design solutions:

1 Scale While the Menzies Centre is a larger scale development than the Hollydene and Advocate House buildings, it consists of a multiplicity of spaces that could readily be articulated at the scale of the adjacent listed places. (cf Hobart Magistrates Court). In a larger city, such as Melbourne, the scale of the proposal would be moderate but Hobart has its own particular scale. The proposed plan form does exacerbates the scale, which is not ‘in keeping’ rather than using devices to reduce scale.

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 19 Item No. 8.1 / Page 58

2 City Grid The impact of the development on the city block needs to be resolved. There is scope to reinforce the block perimeter on the Campbell Street and Liverpool Street elevations, at the scale of the 2-3 storey city grid, while introducing contrasting form elsewhere on the site (cf JAWS proposal for 58 Collins Street).

The typology of the block, and in particular Hollydene and Advocate House, also involves a notion of frontage to the public street contrasting with more private areas looking inwards with a more discreet treatment. The proposed facade treatment disrupts this meaning and alienates the listed buildings from their setting.

There is more scope for a gestured non-conforming treatment facing Brooker Avenue and the Railway Roundabout. The architectural response to the context of Hobart in the proposed design approach was explained as a response to the skyline of the Mountain. A relationship that would allow this to be apparent would be made from the Brooker Avenue/Railway Roundabout viewpoint, where the vista includes the Mountain.

2 Archaeological evidence The archaeological investigations appear to indicate that a landscaped garden once existed. A plan that conserved access to archaeological evidence would be consistent with the Planning Scheme. An interior courtyard to the block would be preferable to a forecourt on Liverpool Street, which is out of character and would further fragment the block.

3 Skin The elevation treatment proposed for the façade is a morphed organic-looking skin treatment, in cast concrete panels with holes cast in them. This is not in keeping with the existing context and is irreconcilable with the need to provide continuity with the listed buildings and the context of the city grid. However the proposal includes an orthogonal substructure, which is revealed in part. The goals of heritage conservation and the free expression of the skin could be mutually compatible if the balance between the two changed. For example, by lightening the skin as a shroud so that the underlying conforming orthogonal elevation is still legible. (cf Soler - Ministry of Culture and Communication Paris); It would also be helpful to differentiate the treatment of street façades from inner elevations of the block.

4 Plinth The proposed design approach might be reconciled with the heritage requirements of the Planning Scheme by establishing a ‘plinth’ element at the street edge. The massing of the proposal could be reconfigured to be consistent with the typology of the historic urban fabric (cf Hobart Magistrates Court). The lower three storeys of the development, along the length of the site on Campbell Street and from the corner to No 15 Liverpool Street should remain hard to the back of the public footpath. Upper storeys could be set back sufficiently that they would read as a separate building element. This could be prominent from Brooker Avenue and the approaches to the city at the Railway Roundabout.

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 20 Item No. 8.1 / Page 59

5 Public Reaction The reaction of the people of Hobart to the proposal could be gauged by publicising images of the proposal before the design proceeds. This might be preferable to the negative reaction to some recent development after its construction.

Summary of Further Comment

The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the requirements of the Heritage Schedule, Schedule F, of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme.

The proposal is not ‘in keeping’ in scale, form, colour or materials with adjacent places listed in the Heritage Schedule of the Planning Scheme. It does not demonstrate how the development will ‘conserve and enhance’ the significant parts of the site, in particular, Hollydene, ‘to the maximum degree’.

The following approaches are suggested as ways that it might be possible to reconcile the design approach of the proposal with the requirements of the Heritage Schedule and the Statement of Desired Future Character of the Planning Scheme.

1.0 The development proposal needs to include a design proposal for a resolved future use for Hollydene, informed by a Conservation Plan. The Conservation Plan should provide a Statement of Cultural Significance and should indicate how the proposed future use provides measures to conserve the cultural significance of the place. New development needs to follow the outcome of this analysis of significance.

2.0 The façade treatment onto Liverpool Street and Campbell Street should be ‘in keeping’ in terms of scale, colours, materials and articulation with the brick and stone/stucco articulated architectural character of adjacent buildings that will be impacted upon by the proposal, that is

55 Campbell Street, Hollydene, 57 Campbell Street, The Royal Exchange Hotel 46 Campbell Street former Blundstone’s Factory

3.0 The proposed design approach of a morphed cellular concrete panel skin is inconsistent with the streetscapes of Liverpool and Campbell Streets but is less problematic on the elevations facing Brooker Avenue /Railway Roundabout. The fact that the profile of the Mountain is part of the vista from the Railway Roundabout could lend meaning to the references made to the Mountain in the rationale for the proposed design.

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 21 Item No. 8.1 / Page 60

Reconsideration of the proposed design approach is recommended a) To comply with the Heritage Schedule where it requires that

P.20 The Council shall list parts of the Planning Area and specific buildings and sites to be of special significance; and control of development through the Planning Area shall be exercised to require conservation and enhancement of the significant characteristics of such areas, buildings and sites to the maximum degree the Council considers practicable. and F.4.4 Any new development within or adjacent to a place listed on the Heritage Register shall be in keeping with and shall not detract from those characteristics of the place which contribute to its cultural significance. b) To comply with the statement of desired future character where it states

‘New development should reflect the scale and form of the existing fabric.’

(Danielle Pacaud) ASSISTANT CULTURAL HERITAGE OFFICER 19 March 2007

(Brendan Lennard) CULTURAL HERITAGE OFFICER 3 April 2007

O:\DS\AGENDAS\DS\AGENDAS\2007\16 April\Attachment D Heritage report - Liverpool & Campbell Sts.doc 22 Item No. 8.1 / Page 61 Item No. 8.1 / Page 62 Item No. 8.1 / Page 63 OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 4 23/4/2007

8.2 250 ELIZABETH STREET AND ELIZABETH STREET PARK, HOBART – OUTDOOR DINING AREA, AWNING, ALTERATIONS TO RESTAURANT (COFFEE SHOP) AND FENCE – PLN-07-00197-01 – FILE REF: 5662935 & P/242-250/470 Ref. Open DESC 6.1.2, 16/4/2007 Application Expiry Date: 24/4/2007 (Extension Granted to 6/5/2007)

That: 1. A. Pursuant to Part 2 of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982, the Council approve the application for an outdoor dining area, awning, alterations to restaurant (coffee shop) and fence at 250 Elizabeth Street and Elizabeth Street Park, Hobart for the reasons outlined in the report attached to item 6.1.2 of the Open Development and Environmental Services Committee agenda of 16 April 2007, and a permit containing the following conditions be issued: -

1. The use and development shall be substantially in accordance with the documents and drawings that comprise the planning application No. PLN-07- 00197-01 as outlined in attachment A to the permit except where modified below.

Reason for condition

To clarify the scope of the permit.

2. The proposed window on the Elizabeth Street Park elevation be replaced with a vertical window of similar proportions to the upper level double hung windows, the design of which is not a direct copy of the earlier architecture but reflective of it. Further to this the proposed door to the park should have similar proportions to the vertical window, with horizontal bars. Plans detailing these changes are to be submitted to the Council and shall be to the satisfaction of Council’s Cultural Heritage Officer and Director Development and Environmental Services prior to a building permit being issued.

Reason for condition

To maintain the heritage fabric of the site. cont.../ OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 5 23/4/2007

Item No. 8.2 continued

3. The proposed awning must be physically separated from the side façade of the building and should also be detailed and constructed as a solid contemporary form. Plans detailing these changes are to be submitted to the Council and shall be to the satisfaction of Council’s Cultural Heritage Officer and Director Development and Environmental Services prior to a building permit being issued.

Reason for condition

To maintain the heritage fabric of the site.

4. Any bricks removed as part of the development must be retained on site for future use if necessary.

Reason for condition

To maintain the heritage fabric of the site.

B. The Council include the following advice to the applicant: -

1. As a permit is required for the use/development under the Building Regulations 2004, the submission/and issue of a permit in respect of working drawings is required prior to the commencement of any works or the occupancy of the premises.

2. An application for a plumbing permit is required to be lodged in accordance with the Tasmanian Plumbing Regulations 2004, and a permit issued prior to the commencement of any plumbing work on the site.

2. The Finance and Corporate Services Committee be requested to consider the prohibition of smoking within the occupation licenced area of the coffee shop, which is located in the Council owned Elizabeth Street Park.

OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 6 23/4/2007

8.3 QUEENS DOMAIN (2 DAVIES AVENUE), HOBART – TREE REMOVAL AND PLANTING, WALKING TRACK, CAR PARK EXTENSION AND FENCING (SOLDIERS MEMORIAL AVENUE CROSSROADS - TREES REINSTATEMENT) – PLN-07-00100-01 – FILE REF: 70-53-1 Ref. Open DESC 6.1.3, 16/4/2007 Application Expiry Date: 27/3/2007 (Extension Granted to 8/5/2007)

That: A. Pursuant to Part 2 of the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982, the Council approve the application for tree removal and planting, walking track, car park extension and fencing (Soldiers Memorial Avenue - Crossroads - trees reinstatement) at Queens Domain (2 Davies Avenue) Hobart, for the reasons outlined in the report attached to item 6.1.3 of the Open Development and Environmental Services Committee agenda of 16 April 2007, and a permit containing the following conditions be issued: -

1. The use and development shall be substantially in accordance with the documents and drawings that comprise the planning application number PLN-07- 00100-01 as outlined in attachment A to the permit, except where modified below.

Reason for condition

To clarify the scope of the permit.

2. The use and development shall be substantially in accordance with the Soldiers Memorial Avenue Management Plan dated May 2004.

Reason for condition

To ensure the proposal is sympathetic to the natural, cultural and recreational values of the area.

3. Existing native vegetation is to be retained where removal is not necessary to undertake the development as proposed.

Reason for condition

To minimise the impact of the development upon the natural values of the area. cont.../ OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 7 23/4/2007

Item No. 8.3 continued

4. An equivalent number and composition of mature native tree species as those that are removed during the development must be replanted elsewhere on the Queens Domain within twelve months of completion of the development.

Reason for condition

To minimise the impact of the development upon the natural values of the area.

5. Appropriate landscaping of the car park must be undertaken to minimise the impact of the car park upon the landscape while still allowing adequate surveillance of the car park. Details of the proposed landscaping to the satisfaction of the Director Development and Environmental Services must be submitted prior to works for the car park commencing.

Reason for condition

To minimise the impact of the development upon the landscape values of the area.

6. The location of underground infrastructure, particularly irrigation systems, must be accurately located and marked prior to works commencing.

Reason for condition

To avoid accidental damage to Council infrastructure.

cont.../ OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 8 23/4/2007

Item No. 8.3 continued

7. If suspected ground contamination is encountered during the development, works must cease until a risk management plan is submitted to the satisfaction of the Director Development and Environmental Services. If such a risk management plan is submitted, subsequent works must be in accordance with the plan.

Reason for condition

To ensure the development does not present a risk to the environment or to human health.

B. The Council include the following advice to the applicant: -

1. Approval to carry out works or an exemption under the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 is also required for the proposed development.

8.4 STATE PLANNING SYSTEM – DEVELOPMENTS IN RELATION TO THE RESOURCE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION – FAST TRACKING LEGISLATION - FILE REF: 16-11-2 Ref. Open DESC 6.2.1, 16/4/2007

That: 1. The Council forward a motion to the Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT) Conference along the lines that LGAT advise the State Government that it strongly supports the Resource Management and Planning System and is concerned that it is weakened by fast track legislation.

2. The Council write to the Federal Government expressing concern about it approving developments that have been fast tracked without a thorough assessment process involving public hearings. cont.../ OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 9 23/4/2007

Item No. 8.4 continued

3. A report be provided on options for the Council to more actively promote the merits of the current Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmania.

OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 10 23/4/2007

9. ANNUAL REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES 2007/2008 – DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION – FILE REF: 21-50-5 Ref. Open DESC 7, 2/4/2007 10x’s

Attachments 9/P 1-10 Development & Environmental Services Division – Fees and Charges 2007/2008

That the proposed schedule of fees and charges for the Development and Environmental Services Division, as attached, be adopted, for the 2007/2008 financial year.

10. PETITION - DEVELOPMENT OF COUNCIL POLICIES SUPPORTING THE DIVERSITY OF HOUSING AIMS OF THE PLANNING SCHEME – FILE REF: 33-20-2 Ref. Open DESC 6.2.2, 16/4/2007

That:1. The signatories to the petition requesting the Hobart City Council adopt policies supporting the diversity of housing aims of the Planning Scheme thereby alleviating housing stress on Tasmanians and ensuring an inclusive community, be advised that the Council fully supports the concept of housing diversity where it is consistent with sound planning outcomes for the city and it will continue to facilitate meaningful initiatives to reduce housing stress within its sphere of influence.

2. A further report be prepared on possible incentives that the Council can offer for developers to ensure that housing is provided for low income and disadvantaged people.

Item No. 9 / Page 1

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending

Compliance Building and Plumbing 2007/2008

Details Present Charge / Hire Rate Last Proposed Charge / Hire Rate Changed

Building Fees Expected (gross) Certificate of Likely Income this year Compliance(or any other $384,500 Certificates pursuant to Part 11, Building Act 2000) and #Building Permits (or any other Permits pursuant to Part 11, Building Act 2000) submitted to Council before 1 March 2006.

Houses & Outbuildings Cost of work/250($132 2004/2005 Cost of work/250($132 Minimum)+$150 Minimum)+$150 #Administration Fee #Administration Fee

Flat & Residential Buildings Up to $5000 $200 + $150 #Administration Fee 2004/2005 $200 + $150 #Administration Fee $5001 - $100,000 0.8% + $300 + $150 #Administration 2004/2005 0.8% + $300 + $150 #Administration Fee Fee $100,001 - $1,000,000 0.7% +$400 + $150 #Administration 2004/2005 0.7% +$400 + $150 #Administration Fee Expected (gross) Fee Income for next $1,000,000 and Over 0.7% +$400 + $150 #Administration 2004/2005 0.7% +$400 + $150 #Administration Fee Financial Year Fee $384,500

Offices, Shops, Warehouses, Factories & Public Buildings

Up to $20,000 $300+$150 #Administration Fee 2004/2005 $300+$150 #Administration Fee $20,001 - $100,000 0.9% + $200+$150 #Administration 2004/2005 0.9% + $200+$150 #Administration Fee Fee $100,001 - $1,000,000 0.3% + $800+$150 #Administration 2004/2005 0.3% + $800+$150 #Administration Fee Estimated extra Fee (Gross) income for next financial year $0

$1,000,001 and Over 0.2% + $2000+$150 #Administration 2004/2005 0.2% + $2000+$150 #Administration Fee Fee Please Note: Building Fees comprise 75% of total fee for Certificate of Likely Compliance Certificate(or any other Certificates pursuant to Part 11, Building Act 2000 ) and 25% of total fee for building permit (or any other Permits pursuant to Part 11, Building Act 2000) for statutory inspections. In addition $150 Administration fee is applied for all permits over $5,000.

GST is applicable on all above Certificates and the statutory inspection component of the above Permits Levy: prescribed under Part 3 0.2% of estimated cost of works e.g 0.2% of estimated cost of works e.g for of the Building and for $100,000 works Levy = $200 $100,000 works Levy = $200 Construction Industry Training Fund Act 1990. Applies for value of work more than $12,000 Levy: payable under Section 0.1% of estimated cost of works e.g 0.1% of estimated cost of works e.g for 270 of the Building Act 2000 for $100,000 works Levy = $100 $100,000 works Levy = $100 applies for value of work more than $12,000 or more

Staged Approvals requested A loading of 25% shall be added to 2003/2004 A loading of 25% shall be added to the by Applicant the normal fee normal fee Item No. 9 / Page 2

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending

Compliance Building and Plumbing 2007/2008

Details Present Charge / Hire Rate Last Proposed Charge / Hire Rate Changed

Energy efficient discount for Green Smart Loan discount of 20% on 2003/2004 $150 building adminstration fee rebate for single non-speculative houses building fee, 25% discount on building developments meeting Council's Energy and extensions/alterations fees on designs complying with the Efficiency Planning, Design and meeting the relevant criteria relevant Australian Standards for Construction guidelines. Tasmania.

Amended Plans for Certificates Amended Certificates to be charged 2003/2004 Amended Certificates to be charged at a of Likely Compliance (or any at a minimum rate of $82.50per minimum rate of $82.50per hour.The other Certificates pursuant to hour.The minimum charge shall be minimum charge shall be $82.50. Part 11, Building Act 2000). $82.50.

#Amended Plans for Building Amended Permits to be charged at a 2003/2004 Amended Permits to be charged at a Permits(or any other Permits minimum rate of $75.00 per hour.The minimum rate of $75.00 per hour.The pursuant to Part 11, Building minimum charge shall be $75.00. minimum charge shall be $75.00. Act 2000). GST is only applicable on all above Certificates Illegal Building Work Defined in Building Act 2000 and 2004/2005 Defined in Building Act 2000 and Building Building Regulations 2004 Regulations 2004

Issue of Building Permit (or any other Permit pursuant to Part 11, Building Act 2000) following private building surveying certification.

Certified as complying with the Administration Fee of $150 for 2006/2007 Administration Fee of $150 for applications provisions of the BCA applications with a total value of works with a total value of works over $5,000 over $5,000 Administration fee of $75 Administration fee of $75 for applications for applications with a total value of with a total value of works under $5,000 works under $5,000 #Amendment to Building Permit (or any other permit pursuant to Part 11, Building Act 2000) following private building surveying certification.

Amendments certified as Amended Permits to be charged at a 2004/2005 Amended Permits to be charged at a complying with the provisions minimum rate of $75.00 per hour.The minimum rate of $75.00 per hour.The of the BCA minimum charge shall be $75.00. minimum charge shall be $75.00.

OTHER FEES Additional Inspections or re- $77.00 per hour with a minimum fee 2006/07 $77.00 per hour with a minimum fee of inspections as required by the of $144.00 $144.00 applicant, builder and any other person or relevant authority #Building Certificate other than $77.00 per hour with a minimum of 2006/2007 $77.00 per hour with a minimum of concurrent with a building $144.00 $144.00 application Cancellation of an application Refund of 25% of the total building 2003/2004 Refund of 25% of the total building fee by applicant following issue of fee (inspection fee component) (inspection fee component) Building Permit submitted to Council before 1 March 2006.

Refusal to issue a Certificate 75% of the normal building fee 2005/2006 75% of the normal building fee of Likely Compliance or Building Permit submitted to Council before 1 March 2006.

Occupancy Permit requested $77.00 per hour with a minimum of 2006/2007 $77.00 per hour with a minimum of by applicant $144.00 $144.00 #Application for Temporary $55.00 per application 2005/06 $55.00 per application Occupancy Permit (Fees to be paid upon lodgement) #Extension of time to Building $55.00 per application 2005/06 $55.00 per application Permit Plan Retrieval Archived Plans $16.50 per set of plans 2003/2004 $16.50 per set of plans Item No. 9 / Page 3

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending

Compliance Building and Plumbing 2007/2008

Details Present Charge / Hire Rate Last Proposed Charge / Hire Rate Changed

Pre-Application Advice Free for the first 30 Minutes. $77.00 2006/2007 Free for the first 30 Minutes. $77.00 per per hour thereafter hour thereafter

Reports on Building Code of $77.00 per hour with a minimum of 2006/2007 $77.00 per hour with a minimum of Australia including those to $144.00 $144.00 Statutory Authorities

#Plumbing Fees Plumbing Permit Assessments $55.00 per application 2006/2007 $55.00 per application

Fixtures Only $8.00 per fixture 2006/2007 $8.00 per fixture Apparatus $8.00 per fixture 2006/2007 $8.00 per fixture Minimum Fee per Application $139.40 per application 2006/2007 $139.40 per application (Minimum fee comprises 75% of the fee for Plumbing Assessment and 25% of the fee for statutory inspections

#Amended Plan $65.00 per amendment 2006/2007 $65.00 per amendment #Special Connection Permit $130.00 per permit 2006/2007 $130.00 per permit

#Commercial Water Assessments $55 per application + $11.00 per 2006/2007 $55 per application + $11.00 per storey storey Fixtures Only $5.00 per fixture 2006/2007 $5.00 per fixture Apparatus Only $5.00 per apparatus 2006/2007 $5.00 per apparatus

Inspections Stormwater Pipe Work 62.70 per application 2006/2007 62.70 per application Downpipes 15.40 per application 2006/2007 15.40 per application Pits 15.40 per application 2006/2007 15.40 per application

Inspections Sewer Per Storey $62.70 per storey 2006/2007 $62.70 per storey Fixtures $9.90 each 2006/2007 $9.90 each Apparatus $9.90 each 2006/2007 $9.90 each

Inspection Water Water (Commercial Only) $62.70 per storey 2006/2007 $62.70 per storey Water (Residential) $62.70 per dwelling 2006/2007 $62.70 per dwelling Added Inspections $62.70 per hour 2006/2007 $62.70 per hour Re-Inspections $62.70 per hour 2006/2007 $62.70 per hour Inspections of Cut and Sealed $77.00 per inspection 2006/2007 $77.00 per inspection Services

OTHER FEES

Consultation Fee Free for first 30 minutes. $77.00 per 2006/2007 Free for first 30 minutes. $77.00 per hour hour thereafter thereafter Broken Pipes $77.00 per permit 2006/2007 $77.00 per permit Blockages $77.00 per permit 2006/2007 $77.00 per permit

#Backflow Prevention $55 minimum per property plus $5 per 2006/2007 $55 minimum per property plus $5 per Annual Registration valve valve

Illegal Plumbing Work Defined in Building Act 2000 and 2004/2005 Defined in Building Act 2000 and Plumbing Regulations 2004 Plumbing Regulations 2004

#Extension of time to Plumbing $55.00 per application 2006/2007 $55.00 per application Permit Cancellation of an application Refund of 25% of the total plumbing 2003/2004 Refund of 25% of the total plumbing fee by applicant following issue of fee (inspection fee component) (inspection fee component) PlumbingPermit

Pre-Application Advice Free for first 30 minutes. $77.00 per 2006/2007 Free for first 30 minutes. $77.00 per hour hour thereafter thereafter #Refusal to issue a Plumbing 75% of the normal Plumbing fee 2005/2006 75% of the normal Plumbing fee Permit Item No. 9 / Page 4

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending

Compliance Building and Plumbing 2007/2008

Details Present Charge / Hire Rate Last Proposed Charge / Hire Rate Changed

#Plan Copies (AS Builts) A4 $22 per copy $22 per copy A3 $49.50 per copy $49.50 per copy A1 $72.50 per copy $72.50 per copy All Costs are Inclusive of GST unless otherwise marked # Comments Item No. 9 / Page 5

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending

Development Appraisal 2007/2008

## Details Present Charge / Hire Rate Last Changed Proposed Charge / Hire Inc / (Dec) Rate as a %

Planning Fees Expected Planning Permits (gross) Income this year $290,000

Minimum Fee for all $75 2004/2005 $100 33% applications requiring Planning Approval Cost of Development Up to and $1.00 for every $1,000 of 2004/2005 $1.00 for every $1,000 of including $500,000 Development Cost Development Cost Cost of Development >$500 $500 + $0.50 for every 2004/2005 $500 + $0.50 for every 000 $1,000 of Development $1,000 of Development Cost in excess of $500,000 Cost in excess of $500,000 with a maximum fee of with a maximum fee of $5,000 $5,000 Applications for change of use $75 2004/2005 Delete covered under that are permitted (Section 58 "planning fee" of Land Use Planning Act 'LUPPA') Discretionary change of use $200 for applications 2004/2005 $200 for applications Expected applications (Section 57 of involving no development or involving no development or (gross) Land Use Planning Act that, which would generate that, which would generate Income next 'LUPPA') less than $200,000 in less than $200,000 in financial year development costs. development costs. $300,000 $1.00 for every $1,000 of $1.00 for every $1,000 of development costs in development costs in excess of $200,000. excess of $200,000.

Applications involving the total demolition of a building. City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982. Buildings NOT listed in heritage $100 2004/2005 Delete - covered under schedule (Schedule F CHPS ) minium planning fee

Buildings Listed in heritage $250 1995/1996 & $500 (to ensure 100% schedule(Schedule F in CHPS 199920/00 for consistency with the ) SCPS Battery Point Planning Scheme) Battery Point Planning Scheme 1979 Building NOT listed in Listed $250 1995/1996 Delete - to be consistent Expected Building Code, List of National with the City of Hobart Extra (Gross) Heritage Trust or Tasmanian Planning Scheme income for Heritage Register. next financial year $10,000 Building Listed in Listed $500 1995/1996 $500 Building Code, List of National Trust or Tasmanian Heritage Register.

Applications for Signs All Planning Schemes Signs exempt No Fee N/A Permitted signs $50 per each separate sign 2000/2001 $50 per each separate sign

Signs which Council has a $75 per each separate sign 2000/2001 $75 per each separate sign discretion to refuse or permit

Applications proposing 4 or $175 2005/2006 $175 more signs which are all permitted Applications proposing 4 or $250 2005/2006 $250 more signs which are all discretionary Item No. 9 / Page 6

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending

Development Appraisal 2007/2008

## Details Present Charge / Hire Rate Last Changed Proposed Charge / Hire Inc / (Dec) Rate as a %

All Planning Schemes Submission of amended 50% of the applicable fee 1996/1997 50% of the applicable fee plans after the determination of the application.

Additional Information - $25 for additional 2006/2007 $25 for additional (incomplete applications) information requests information requests resulting from incomplete resulting from incomplete applications applications

Applications withdrawn prior 50% of the applicable fee 2004/2005 50% of the applicable fee to their determination

Reassessment of modifications A request made under Section Up to half of the original 1996/1997 $50 for refusal of S56, 50%- 0 - 100% 56 of LUPAA to modify an application fee. 100% of original planning approval fee A Section 56 request that Equal cost of the original 1996/1997 Equal cost of the original involves work already application fee. application fee. undertaken without a permit If a new planning application is Equal cost of the original 1996/1997 Equal cost of the original required fee. fee. If the request relates to the Equal cost of the original 1996/1997 Equal cost of the original decision of the Tribunal. fee. fee. Pre-application advice The first discussion with a No fee N/A No fee planner prior to submission of a proposal Subsequent pre application $50 additional to normal 2006/2007 $50 additional to normal advice that exceeds 30min application fee. Introduction application fee. Introduction of fee to charge for of fee to charge for extended consultations extended consultations

Applications, which require $50 additional to normal 1997/1998 $50 additional to normal referral to Relevant Agencies application fee application fee Illegal Work Illegal Work - assessment of a i) If the work has a value 1996/1997 i) If the work has a value proposal involving illegal work less than $5,000 and the less than $5,000 and the or uses commenced without applicant has never applicant has never approval previously been responsible previously been responsible for illegal work, the standard for illegal work, the standard planning fee will be charged. planning fee will be charged.

ii) If the work has a value 1998/1999 ii) If the work has a value greater than $5,000 and the greater than $5,000 and the applicant has never applicant has never previously been responsible previously been responsible for illegal work, twice the for illegal work, twice the standard planning fee will be standard planning fee will be charged. charged.

iii) If the applicant/owner 1998/99 iii) If the applicant/owner has been previously has been previously responsible for illegal work, responsible for illegal work, four times the standard four times the standard planning fee will be charged. planning fee will be charged. Item No. 9 / Page 7

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending

Development Appraisal 2007/2008

## Details Present Charge / Hire Rate Last Changed Proposed Charge / Hire Inc / (Dec) Rate as a %

Statutory Advertising Applications requiring $200 2005/2006 $200 advertising under Section 57 of Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. Applications requiring $80 1997/1998 $80 advertising under Section 34 of the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995. Site Inspections Additional fee to cover cost of $50 for the first hour then 1996/1997 $50 for the first hour then site inspection - not $50 for each additional hour $50 for each additional hour necessary on all applications Mediations A fee for the cost of organising $250 per mediation 2005/2006 $250 per mediation meeting mediation in accordance with meeting S.57A of LUPAA in order to determine a planning application. This fee would not apply to mediations on illegal uses/unapproved work as the issue of who is responsible for the cost is more problematic

Consultants A fee will be charged for Normal consultant rates N/A Normal consultant rates planning officers functioning as consultants for other Government bodies or advising outside their statutory and customer service duties

Subdivisions - All Planning Schemes Subdivision application $250+$20 per lot 2004/2005 $250+$20 per lot proposal plans involving up to 30 lots. Subdivision application $1000+$10 per lot 2004/2005 $1000+$10 per lot proposal plans involving 31 to 100 lots Amendments after their 50% of the normal fee 1999/2000 50% of the normal fee determination Subdivision application A proportion of the 1999/2000 A proportion of the proposal plans withdrawn prior prescribed fees as prescribed fees as to their determination determined by the Director determined by the Director Development and Development and Environmental Services or Environmental Services or the Manager Development the Manager Development Appraisal Appraisal Amendments to Sealed Plans, $200 1999/2000 Delete - this fee conflicts Section 103, Local Government with fees charged und (Building and Miscellaneous Surveying Services Provisions Act 1993).

Certificate under Section 90 of $200 1999/2000 Delete - this fee conflicts the Local Government (Building with fees charged und and Miscellaneous Provisions) Surveying Services Act 1993 Stratum Plans (not including $300 2004/2005 Delete - this fee conflicts inspection fees required or a with fees charged und Certificate under Regulation 83 Surveying Services of the Statutory to the building Regulations). Item No. 9 / Page 8

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending

Development Appraisal 2007/2008

## Details Present Charge / Hire Rate Last Changed Proposed Charge / Hire Inc / (Dec) Rate as a %

Adhesion Orders under Section $150 1999/2000 Delete - this fee conflicts 110 of the Local Government with fees charged und (Building and Miscellaneous Surveying Services Provisions Act 1993).

Declaration under Section 106 $150 1999/2000 Delete - this fee conflicts of the Local Government with fees charged und (Building and Miscellaneous Surveying Services Provisions) Act 1993 that the land of the Highway Authority will become a highway.

Tasmanian Heritage $25 per application N/A $25 per application Applications

Other Scanning of Plans and $1per page A4 and A3 size Documentations $2 per page A2 - A0 size

Totals

Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year

Comments: Item No. 9 / Page 9 Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending

Environmental Health 2007/2008

## Details Present Charge / Hire Last Changed Proposed Charge Inc / (Dec) as Indicator / Rate / Hire Rate a % Discriptor, eg. hrs Food Businesses Expected (gross) Registration Low Risk $50 2004/05 $75 50% per application Income this year submitted by 30 June $114,500 Registration Medium Risk $100 2004/05 $150 50% per application submitted by 30 June Registration High Risk $150 2004/05 $200 33% per application submitted by 30 June Penalty fee for late renewal $200 2000/01 $200 0% per application Estimated (gross) submitted after 30 June Income for Next New Registrations after 31/12 - $25 2004/05 $50 100% per application Financial Year Low Risk Premises $152,500 New Registrations after 31/12 - $50 2004/05 $75 50% per application Medium Risk Premises

New Registrations after 31/12 - $75 2004/05 $100 33% per application High Risk Premises Non-Compliance 'follow up' $50 2004/05 $50 0% per visit Estimated Extra premises inspection (gross) Income for Next Financial Year $38,000

Places of Assembly Licence $50 1998/99 $50 0% per application Specific Event Licence (I.E $50 1998/99 $50 0% per application Temporary) Public Health Risk Activities

Premises Registration (ear $50 1998/99 $100 100% per annum piercing, acupuncture, tattooing) Operator Licence $20 1998/99 $50 120% per annum On-Site Wastewater Disposal Assessments Approval of assessments $100 2004/05 $100 0% per application referred by consultant Environmental Sampling Swimming Pools/Spas $41.50 2006/07 $43.50 4.60% per sample Re-samples $50 2004/05 $50 0% per sample Accommodation Houses Registration $100 1997/98 $100 0% per application Premises Inspections & Reports Solicitor Requests $100 2002/03 $100 0% per inspection Cooling Towers Registration $50 1999/00 $75 50% nnum per system Environmental Monitoring Requests to oversee clean $50 2004/05 $50 0% per hour ups/voluntary disposals Vaccines Hepatitis A (Havrix 1440) adult $58 1998/99 $70 17%

Hepatitis A (Havrix 720) junior $35 1998/99 $45 22%

Hepatitis A & B (Twinrix) adult $50 2006/07 $70 28.00%

Hepatitis A & B (Twinirix) junior $32 1998/99 $40 20%

Hepatitis B (Engerix B) adult $15 2006/07 $25 40.0% Hepatitis B (Engerix B) junior $10 2006/07 $15 33.00%

Chickenpox (Varilrix) $60 2006/07 $70 15.00% Influenza (Fluarix) $13 2003/04 $13 0% Meningococcal (Mencevax) $33 2006/07 $45 27.00% Meningococcal (NeosVac C) $75 2006/07 $75 0.00% Typhoid (Tyoherix) $35 2006/07 $50 30.00% Pneumococcal (Prevenar) $144 2006/07 $150 4.00% Pneumococcal (Pneumovax) $39 2006/07 $55 29.00% Diphtheria/Tetanus/Pertussis $30 2006/07 $40 25.00% (Boostrix) Adult

Comments Proposed changes to annual registration/licence fees more accurately reflect costs incurred through officer time and expenditure on resources to achieve objectives. Increases in vaccine costs include minor handling/storage charge. Item No. 9 / Page 10

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending

Development Planning 2007/2008

## Details Present Charge / Hire Last Changed Proposed Charge Inc / (Dec) as Indicator / Expected (gross) Rate / Hire Rate a % Discriptor, eg. Income this year hrs Development Planning $3,300 Scheme Amendments $470 2006/2007 $1100 with $600 to 234% per amendment be refunded if the amendment is not initiated [*Note for a s43A application there will also be a planning application fee component payable.]

# Pre-Application Advice Advice shall be free for 2001/2002 No change 0% the first 4 hours after which a charge of $75 $0 per hour applies.

0% # Publications Various Reports, Studies and No change Planning Schemes available from the Hobart Council Centre (Customer Services)

Expected (gross) Income for next Financal Year $

Estimated Extra (gross) Income for next Financial Year $

Totals

Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year

Comments We are currently under charging on planning scheme amendment fees. The $470 barely covers the cost of the initial add and the final approval add. Clarence Council charge a flat fee of $1070 and Glenorchy charges an initial fee of $500 and a further $900 if the amendment is initiated. A similar approach to that used at Glenorchy is favoured as much of the expense would not be incurred if the amendment is not initiated. A fee of $1100 would cover the time spent in assessing the proposal, the cost of advertising and S39 reporting if the amendment is initiated. If the amendment is not initiated a refund of $600 is suggested as much less work would be involved. The number of amendment applications -i.e. non Council initiated proposals - is low, averaging about 3 per year. OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 11 23/4/2007

11. 8TH INTERNATIONAL CITIES TOWN CENTRES AND COMMUNITIES SOCIETY CONFERENCE 2007 – CITIES ON THE EDGE – 26-29 JUNE 2007 – AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND – FILE REF: 11-25-45 Ref. Open DESC 7, 16/4/2007

That Aldermanic nominations be invited to attend the 8th International Cities Town Centres and Communities Society Conference 2007- Cities on the Edge, to be held in Auckland, New Zealand from 26-29 June 2007, at an estimated cost of $4,900 per person, to be funded from the Aldermanic Conference allocation in the City Government Function of the 2006/2007 Annual Plan.

12. APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER THE BUILDING REGULATIONS 2004 AND BUILDING ACT 2000 – FILE REF: 30-1-17 Ref. Open DESC 8, 16/4/2007

That it be received for information that:

A. 1. During the period 1 March 2007 to 31 March 2007, 25 permits were issued to the value of $4,337,447 which included:

(i) 19 permits for extensions/alterations to dwellings to the value of $1,620,200;

(ii) 5 new dwellings to the value of $1,067,247; and

(iii) 1 major project:

(a) 51-53 Pirie Street – Extension to Welfare Institution - $1,650,000.

2. During the period 1 March 2006 to 31 March 2006, 47 permits were issued to the value of $4,957,742 which included:

(i) 24 permits for extensions/alterations to dwellings to the value of $1,950,900;

(ii) 7 new dwellings to the value of $1,619,842; and

(iii) 1 major project: cont.../ OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 12 23/4/2007

Item No. 12 continued

(a) 395 Argyle Street – Alterations and Additions to School $740,000.

B. 1. In the twelve months ending 31 March 2007, 559 permits were issued to the value of $105,143,965; and

2. In the twelve months ending 31 March 2006, 681 permits were issued to the value of $88,064,783.

PARKS AND CUSTOMER SERVICES

13. ANNUAL REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES 2007/2008 – PARKS AND CUSTOMER SERVICES DIVISION – FILE REF: 21-50-6 Ref. Open PCSC 10, 15/3/2007 21x’s

Attachments 13/P 1-21 Parks and Customer Services Division – Fees and Charges 2007/2008

That the proposed schedule of fees and charges for the Parks and Customer Services Division, as attached, be adopted for the 2007/2008 financial year.

Item No. 13 / Page 1

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending F305 - Sporting Parks and Recreation Facilities 2007/2008 Management ## Details Present Charge / Last Proposed Indicator / Hire Rate Changed Charge / Hire Discriptor, Rate eg. hrs Clare Street Oval Expected Senior Rates (gross) Income Winter Match Rate$ 41.50 2006/07 42.50 hour this year Winter Training Rate$ 23.00 2006/07 23.50 hour Summer Match Rate$ 47.50 2006/07 48.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 30.00 2006/07 30.50 hour Synthetic Practise Wickets - $ 7.00 2006/07 7.25 per hr, per Senior training (minimum of 2) net $ 192,991 Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 21.00 2006/07 21.50 hour Lump Sum Winter Training Rate$ 11.50 2006/07 12.00 hour Estimate Summer Match Rate$ 24.00 2006/07 24.50 hour for 2007/08 Summer Training Rate$ 15.00 2006/07 15.50 hour Synthetic Practise Wickets - $ 4.00 2006/07 4.25 per hr, per Junior training (minimum of 2) net A 10% surcharge will be applied for the use of training lights $ 195,923 Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Estimated Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer (gross) Income within 7 days for Next Financial Year Cornelian Bay No 1 Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 41.50 2006/07 Abolish Charge hour Winter Training Rate$ 23.00 2006/07 Abolish Charge hour Summer Match Rate$ 32.00 2006/07 Abolish Charge hour $ 195,923 Summer Training Rate$ 20.00 2006/07 Abolish Charge hour Associated Junior Rates (Under 18) Direct Costs for Winter Match Rate$ 21.00 2006/07 Abolish Charge hour next Financial Year Winter Training Rate$ 11.50 2006/07 Abolish Charge hour Summer Match Rate$ 16.50 2006/07 Abolish Charge hour Summer Training Rate$ 10.00 2006/07 Abolish Charge hour Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 Abolish Charge per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 Abolish Charge per hirer $ - within 7 days

Cornelian Bay No 2-5 Estimated Extra Senior Rates (gross) Income Winter Match Rate$ 32.00 2006/07 33.00 hour for next Winter Training Rate$ 20.00 2006/07 20.50 hour Financial Year Summer Match Rate$ 32.00 2006/07 33.00 hour Summer Training Rate$ 20.00 2006/07 20.50 hour Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 16.00 2006/07 16.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 10.00 2006/07 10.50 hour $ 2,891 Summer Match Rate$ 16.00 2006/07 16.50 hour

## Details Present Charge / Last Proposed Indicator / Hire Rate Changed Charge / Hire Discriptor, Rate eg. hrs Summer Training Rate$ 10.00 2006/07 10.50 hour Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer within 7 days

Domain Athletic Centre Track Athletic Carnivals Full Day (8 hr basis)$ 433.00 2006/07 445.00 8 hours Hourly Rate$ 62.50 2006/07 64.00 hour Senior Training$ 42.00 2006/07 43.00 hour Junior Training$ 21.50 2006/07 22.00 hour Deposit for Back Up Days N/A 50.00 per day A 10% surcharge will be applied for the use of training lights Registered Athlete Training Levy$ 28.50 2006/07 29.50 per person Training Levy (unregistered $ 28.50 2006/07 29.50 per person athletes) National Meet/Carnivals$ 1,950.00 2006/07 2,000.00 per meet Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer within 7 days

Domain Athletic Centre Oval Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 41.50 2006/07 42.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 23.00 2006/07 23.50 hour Summer Match Rate$ 41.50 2006/07 42.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 23.00 2006/07 23.50 hour Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 21.00 2006/07 21.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 11.50 2006/07 12.00 hour Summer Match Rate$ 21.00 2006/07 21.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 11.50 2006/07 12.00 hour A 10% surcharge will be applied for the use of training lights Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer within 7 days

Domain Crossroads East Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 32.00 2006/07 33.00 hour Winter Training Rate$ 20.00 2006/07 20.50 hour Summer Match Rate$ 41.50 2006/07 42.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 20.00 2006/07 20.50 hour Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 16.00 2006/07 19.00 hour Winter Training Rate$ 10.00 2006/07 10.50 hour Summer Match Rate$ 21.00 2006/07 21.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 10.00 2006/07 10.50 hour A 10% surcharge will be applied for the use of training lights Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer within 7 days

## Details Present Charge / Last Proposed Indicator / Hire Rate Changed Charge / Hire Discriptor, Rate eg. hrs Domain Crossroads West Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 21.50 2006/07 22.00 hour Winter Training Rate$ 14.00 2006/07 14.50 hour Summer Match Rate$ 21.50 2006/07 22.00 hour Summer Training Rate$ 14.00 2006/07 14.50 hour Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 10.50 2006/07 12.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 7.50 2006/07 8.00 hour Summer Match Rate$ 10.50 2006/07 11.00 hour Summer Training Rate$ 7.50 2006/07 8.00 hour Dog Obedience Training$ 415.00 2006/07 425.00 per season Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer within 7 days

John Turnbull Oval Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 25.50 2006/07 26.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 16.00 2006/07 16.50 hour Summer Match Rate$ 25.50 2006/07 26.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 16.00 2006/07 16.50 hour Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 13.00 2006/07 13.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 8.50 2006/07 9.00 hour Summer Match Rate$ 13.00 2006/07 13.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 8.50 2006/07 9.00 hour Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer

Lower Queenborough 1 & 2 Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 32.00 2006/07 33.00 hour Winter Match Rate$ 19.50 2006/07 20.00 hour Summer Match Rate$ 25.50 2006/07 26.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 16.00 2006/07 16.50 hour Synthetic Practise Wickets - $ 7.00 2006/07 7.25 per hr, per Senior training (minimum of 2) net Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 16.00 2006/07 16.50 hour Winter Match Rate$ 10.00 2006/07 10.50 hour Summer Match Rate$ 13.00 2006/07 13.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 8.50 2006/07 9.00 hour Synthetic Practise Wickets - $ 4.00 2006/07 4.25 per hr, per Junior training (minimum of 2) net A 10% surcharge will be applied for the use of training lights Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer

## Details Present Charge / Last Proposed Indicator / Hire Rate Changed Charge / Hire Discriptor, Rate eg. hrs Mount Nelson Oval Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 21.50 2006/07 22.00 hour Winter Training Rate$ 14.00 2006/07 14.50 hour Summer Match Rate$ 20.50 2006/07 22.00 hour Summer Training Rate$ 14.00 2006/07 14.50 hour Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 10.50 2006/07 11.00 hour Winter Training Rate$ 7.00 2006/07 7.50 hour Summer Match Rate$ 10.50 2006/07 11.00 hour Summer Training Rate$ 7.00 2006/07 7.50 hour Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer within 7 days

New Town Oval Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 49.00 2006/07 50.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 32.00 2006/07 33.00 hour Summer Match Rate$ 49.00 2006/07 50.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 32.00 2006/07 33.00 hour Synthetic Practise Wickets - $ 7.00 2006/07 7.25 per hr, per Senior training (minimum of 2) net Turf Practice Wickets - Senior $ 10.50 2006/07 11.00 per hr, per Training only (minimum 2) net Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 25.00 2006/07 25.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 16.00 2006/07 16.50 hour Summer Match Rate$ 25.00 2006/07 25.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 16.00 2006/07 16.50 hour Synthetic Practise Wickets - $ 4.00 2006/07 4.25 per hr, per Junior training (minimum of 2) net A 10% surcharge will be applied for the use of training lights Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer

North Hobart Oval Senior Rates Winter Match Rate - exc, $ 62.00 2006/07 63.50 hour Plaister Stand Winter Training Rate - exc, $ 36.50 2006/07 37.50 hour Plaister Stand Summer Match Rate - exc, $ 47.50 2006/07 48.50 hour Plaister Stand Summer Training Rate-exc, $ 29.50 2006/07 30.50 hour Plaister Stand VFL Matches (inc Plaister Stand $ 2,000.00 2006/07 2,050.00 per match & Corporate Boxes) AFL Matches (inc Plaister Stand $ 6,250.00 2006/07 Abolish per match & Corporate Boxes) Plaister Stand Function Room$ 250.00 2006/07 255.00 day Plaister Stand Function Room$ 40.00 2006/07 41.00 hour Corporate Boxes (Each)$ 15.00 2006/07 15.50 hour

## Details Present Charge / Last Proposed Indicator / Hire Rate Changed Charge / Hire Discriptor, Rate eg. hrs Special Events Negotiable Negotiable A 10% surcharge will be applied for the use of training lights Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate - exc, $ 31.00 2006/07 31.50 hour Plaister Stand Winter Training Rate - exc, $ 18.50 2006/07 19.00 hour Plaister Stand Summer Match Rate - exc, $ 24.00 2006/07 24.50 hour Plaister Stand Summer Training Rate-exc, $ 15.00 2006/07 15.50 hour Plaister Stand

Parliament Street Oval Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 21.00 2006/07 21.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 14.50 2006/07 15.00 hour Summer Match Rate$ 21.00 2006/07 21.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 14.50 2006/07 15.00 hour Synthetic Practise Wickets- $ 7.00 2006/07 7.25 hour Senior training Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 10.50 2006/07 10.75 hour Winter Training Rate$ 7.50 2006/07 8.00 hour Summer Match Rate$ 10.50 2006/07 10.75 hour Summer Training Rate$ 7.50 2006/07 8.00 hour Synthetic Practise Wickets- $ 4.00 2006/07 4.25 hour Junior training Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer within 7 days

Queens Walk Oval Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 32.00 2006/07 33.00 hour Winter Training Rate$ 20.00 2006/07 20.50 hour Summer Match Rate$ 32.00 2006/07 33.00 hour Summer Training Rate$ 20.00 2006/07 20.50 hour Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 16.50 2006/07 17.00 hour Winter Training Rate$ 10.00 2006/07 10.25 hour Summer Match Rate$ 16.50 2006/07 17.00 hour Summer Training Rate$ 10.00 2006/07 10.25 hour A 10% surcharge will be applied for the use of training lights Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer within 7 days

## Details Present Charge / Last Proposed Indicator / Hire Rate Changed Charge / Hire Discriptor, Rate eg. hrs

Sandown Park No 1 Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 41.50 2006/07 42.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 23.50 2006/07 24.00 hour Summer Match Rate$ 41.50 2006/07 42.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 23.50 2006/07 24.00 hour Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 21.00 2006/07 21.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 12.00 2006/07 12.25 hour Summer Match Rate$ 21.00 2006/07 21.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 12.00 2006/07 12.25 hour A 10% surcharge will be applied for the use of training lights Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer within 7 days

Sandown Park No 2 Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 25.50 2006/07 26.00 hour Winter Training Rate$ 16.50 2006/07 17.00 hour Summer Match Rate$ 25.50 2006/07 26.00 hour Summer Training Rate$ 16.50 2006/07 17.00 hour Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 13.00 2006/07 13.25 hour Winter Training Rate$ 8.50 2006/07 8.75 hour Summer Match Rate$ 13.00 2006/07 13.25 hour Summer Training Rate$ 8.50 2006/07 8.75 hour Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer within 7 days

South Hobart Oval Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 47.50 2006/07 48.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 30.00 2006/07 30.75 hour Summer Match Rate$ 47.50 2006/07 48.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 23.50 2006/07 24.00 hour Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 24.50 2006/07 25.00 hour Winter Training Rate$ 15.50 2006/07 16.00 hour Summer Match Rate$ 21.00 2006/07 21.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 12.00 2006/07 12.25 hour A 10% surcharge will be applied for the use of training lights Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer within 7 days

## Details Present Charge / Last Proposed Indicator / Hire Rate Changed Charge / Hire Discriptor, Rate eg. hrs

TCA Ground Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 47.50 2006/07 48.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 30.00 2006/07 30.75 hour Summer Match Rate$ 47.50 2006/07 48.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 30.00 2006/07 30.75 hour Synthetic Practice Wickets - $ 7.00 2006/07 7.25 hour Senior Training (minimum 2) Turf Practice Wickets - Senior $ 10.50 2006/07 10.75 per hr, per Training only (minimum 2) net Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 24.00 2006/07 24.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 15.50 2006/07 16.00 hour Summer Match Rate$ 24.00 2006/07 24.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 15.50 2006/07 16.00 hour Synthetic Practice Wickets - $ 4.00 2006/07 4.25 hour Junior Training (minimum 2) A 10% surcharge will be applied for the use of training lights Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer within 7 days

Wellesley Park Oval Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 32.00 2006/07 32.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 20.00 2006/07 20.50 hour Summer Match Rate$ 32.00 2006/07 32.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 20.00 2006/07 20.50 hour Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 16.00 2006/07 16.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 10.00 2006/07 10.25 hour Summer Match Rate$ 16.00 2006/07 16.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 10.00 2006/07 10.25 hour A 10% surcharge will be applied for the use of training lights Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer within 7 days

West Hobart Oval Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 25.50 2006/07 26.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 16.00 2006/07 16.50 hour Summer Match Rate$ 25.50 2006/07 26.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 16.00 2006/07 16.50 hour Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 13.00 2006/07 13.25 hour Winter Training Rate$ 8.50 2006/07 8.75 hour Summer Match Rate$ 13.00 2006/07 13.25 hour Summer Training Rate$ 8.50 2006/07 8.75 hour A 10% surcharge will be applied for the use of training lights Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 hour Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 hour within 7 days All headings marked with a # mean all items under that heading attract GST. Where a heading is not marked with a #, only items so marked attract GST. All amounts are inclusive of GST where applicable. Item No. 13 / Page 8

## Details Present Charge / Last Proposed Indicator / Hire Rate Changed Charge / Hire Discriptor, Rate eg. hrs Domain Regatta Grounds Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 21.00 2006/07 21.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 14.50 2006/07 15.00 hour Summer Match Rate$ 21.00 2006/07 21.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 14.60 2006/07 15.00 hour Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 10.50 2006/07 10.75 hour Winter Training Rate$ 7.50 2006/07 7.75 hour Summer Match Rate$ 10.50 2006/07 10.75 hour Summer Training Rate$ 7.50 2006/07 7.75 hour Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer within 7 days

Mt Stuart Park Senior Rates Winter Match Rate$ 21.00 2006/07 21.50 hour Winter Training Rate$ 14.50 2006/07 15.00 hour Summer Match Rate$ 21.00 2006/07 21.50 hour Summer Training Rate$ 14.60 2006/07 15.00 hour Junior Rates (Under 18) Winter Match Rate$ 10.50 2006/07 10.75 hour Winter Training Rate$ 7.50 2006/07 7.75 hour Summer Match Rate$ 10.50 2006/07 10.75 hour Summer Training Rate$ 7.50 2006/07 7.75 hour Key Bond - Seasonal Hirer$ 150.00 2006/07 150.00 per hirer Casual Hirer key not returned $ 100.00 2006/07 100.00 per hirer within 7 days

Social Sports Events Bond$ 250.00 2005/06 250.00 per hirer/event Same as training rate applicable to each facility Totals Estimated % Variance Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $ 195,923 1% Comments The fee structure has been reviewed with an increase which averages 2.4% in line with the consumer price index (CPI). A 10% surcharge on hire rates for the use of training lights is proposed to continue. The loss of Cornelian Bay 1 Hockey field is expected to nutrilise the increase to a degree.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending 301 Parks Parks & Recreation 2007/2008 Infrastructure ## Details Present Charge / Last Proposed Indicator / Hire Rate Changed Charge / Hire Discriptor, eg. hrs Rate VENUE HIRE John Colvin Stand Meeting Room Expected Casual Room Hire$ 13.00 2005/06$ 13.00 per hour Bond - Casual Room Hirers$ 200.00 2003/04$ 200.00 per hirer Key Bond - Long-term Hirers$ 150.00 2006/07$ 150.00 per hirer Key Charge if not returned in 7 days$ 100.00 2006/07$ 100.00 per hirer $ 77,000

Sandown Park Pavilion Lump Sum Casual Room Hire$ 18.00 2003/04$ 18.00 per hr Estimate Bond - Casual Room Hirers$ 200.00 2003/04$ 200.00 per hirer 2007/08 Key Bond - Long-term Hirers$ 150.00 2006/07$ 150.00 per hirer Key Charge if not returned in 7 days$ 100.00 2006/07$ 100.00 per hirer $ 79,000 St David's Park Rotunda Weddings (see below) Estimated Other functions$ 80.00 2006/07$ 80.00 per hour Extra (gross) Key Charge if not returned in 7 days$ 100.00 2006/07$ 100.00 Per event Income for Bond (Minimum plus any additional $ 200.00 2003/04$ 200.00 Per event next Financial charges) Year Security requirements Cost Recovery 2003/04 Cost Recovery Per event

Wedding Ceremonies St David's Park Rotunda$ 270.00 2006/07$ 270.00 per hirer All other Parks$ 180.00 2006/07$ 180.00 per hirer -$ 2,000 Photography & Filming$ 40.00 2006/07$ 50.00 per hirer Key Charge if not returned in 7 days$ 100.00 2006/07$ 100.00 per hirer Marquee Site (in addition to park hire)$ 170.00 2003/04$ 170.00 per hirer Bond (Minimum plus any additional $ 200.00 2003/04$ 200.00 per hirer Security requirements Cost Recovery 2003/04 Cost Recovery per hirer

PARKS, GARDENS & RESERVES Commercial Events Small event (1-50)$ 130.00 2006/07$ 130.00 per event (not exceeding 6 hours) Medium event (50-150)$ 185.00 2006/07$ 200.00 per event (not exceeding 6 hours) Large event (over 150)$ 270.00 2006/07$ 275.00 per event (not exceeding 6 hours) Key Charge if not returned in 7 days$ 100.00 2006/07$ 100.00 per hirer Bond (Minimum plus any additional $ 250.00 2003/04$ 250.00 per hirer Marquee Site (in addition to park hire)$ 170.00 2006/07$ 175.00 per hirer Security requirements Cost Recovery 2003/04 Cost Recovery per hirer

Non Commercial Events Small event (1-50)$ 50.00 2006/07$ 50.00 per event (not exceeding 6 hours) Medium event (50-150)$ 100.00 2006/07$ 100.00 per event (not exceeding 6 hours)

All headings marked with a # mean all items under that heading attract GST. Where a heading is not marked with a #, only items so marked attract GST. All amounts are inclusive of GST where applicable. Item No. 13 / Page 10 ## Details Present Charge / Last Proposed Indicator / Hire Rate Changed Charge / Hire Discriptor, eg. hrs Rate Large event (over 150)$ 150.00 2006/07$ 150.00 per event (not exceeding 6 hours) Key Charge if not returned in 7 days$ 100.00 2006/07$ 100.00 per hirer Marquee Site (in addition to park hire)$ 170.00 2006/07$ 175.00 per hirer Bond (Minimum plus any additional $ 200.00 2003/04$ 200.00 per hirer Security requirements Cost Recovery 2003/04 Cost Recovery per hirer Charges include a $50.00 booking fee due upon return of the booking form. All other fees paid prior to the booked date will be refunded if cancelled > 7 days. Filming (other than weddings) Commercial Half Day or Part$ 150.00 2006/07$ 150.00 per application Commercial Full Day$ 200.00 2006/07$ 200.00 per application

Photography (other than weddings) Commercial$ 150.00 2006/07$ 150.00 per annum

*Vendors Stalls, Rides Etc Community Groups $ 50.00 2006/07$ 50.00 per stall Commercial$ 150.00 2003/04$ 150.00 per stall

*Hot Air Landing Rights$ 130.00 2003/04$ 130.00 per landing Skydiving NEW $ 130.00 per jump NEW $1,000 permit per annum

*Circus Booking Fee$ 1,400.00 2006/07$ 1,400.00 per circus Performing Day$ 350.00 2006/07$ 350.00 per circus *Bonds for any and/or all bookings to be applied at the discretion of the Director PCS

Liquor Permit (GST FREE) $ 35.00 2003/04$ 35.00 per permit

Tiered Seating Hire Per section, per day (or part)$ 60.00 2003/04$ 150.00 per section Bond less than 5 sections$ 600.00 2003/04$ 600.00 per hirer Bond each section over 5$ 120.00 2003/04$ 120.00 per hirer (note hirer to collect and return)

Plastic Seating Hire (limited <30 Delivered$ 90.00 2006/07 $90.00 per hirer 30-80 delivered$ 200.00 2006/07 $200.00 per hirer Bond$ 200.00 2006/07 $200.00 per hirer

Skate Park Facility Hire$ 110.00 2006/07$ 150.00 per event/function Key Charge if not returned in 7 days$ 105.00 2006/07$ 100.00 per hirer Bond (Minimum plus any additional $ 200.00 2003/04$ 200.00 per hirer charges)

Intercity Cycleway Facility Hire$ 110.00 2003/04$ 110.00 per event/function

Annual Permits Photography $150.00 2006/07 $150.00 Per annum Exercise Classes $250.00 2006/07 $250.00 Per annum Exercise Classes $30.00 2006/07 $30.00 Per hour Occupational Licence - Park Areas New $25.00 per m2

Skydiving NEW $1,000.00 Per annum

Vending machines Charge (public conveniences)$ 15.00 2003/04$ 15.00 per week per

Totals Estimated % Variance Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $ 79,000 3% Comments Anticipated income is likely to increase slightly with the introduction of new fees and charges. Minimal fee rises in some areas.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending Parks and Recreation 348 Skill Centre 2007-2008

## Details Present Charge / Last Proposed Hire Rate Changed Charge / Hire Rate Skill Centre Hire Expected (gross) Mon - Fri 8am - 5pm (minimum 4 $ 19.25 2006/07 $ 19.60 Income this year hour booking) Mon - Fri 5pm onwards (minimum 2 $ 26.40 2006/07 $ 27.00 $ 14,550 hour booking) Sat/Sun/Public Holidays (minimum $ 34.85 2006/07 $ 35.70 Lump sum estimate 2 hour booking) for 2007/08

Skill Centre Hire (both rooms) $ 14,906 Mon - Fri 8am - 5pm (minimum 4 $ 28.90 2006/07 $ 29.50 Estimated (gross) hour booking) Income for Next Mon - Fri 5pm onwards (minimum 2 $ 39.70 2006/07 $ 40.50 Financial Year hour booking) Sat/Sun/Public Holidays (minimum $ 52.20 2006/07 $ 53.50 $ 14,906 2 hour booking) Associated Direct Costs for next Financial Year

$ 15,391

Estimated Extra (gross) Income for next Financial Year

$ 356

Totals Estimated % Variance Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year 2% Comments The charges at the Skill Centre have been reviewed and a small increase is proposed. The fee increase is expected to see the Centre further move towards recovery of it's operational costs.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending F155 - Customer Customer Services 2007-2008 Services

# Details Present Charge / Hire Last Proposed Indicator / Rate Changed Charge / Discriptor, Hire Rate eg. hrs

OTHER FEES & CHARGES Licences Expected (gross) Hawkers$ 60.00 1/07/2000$ 60.00 per annum Income this year Kerbside Vendors$ 60.00 1/07/2000$ 60.00 per annum Itinerant Purchaser's Stalls$ 60.00 1/07/2000$ 60.00 per annum $ 413,700 Street Photographers Organisation$ 80.00 1/07/2000$ 80.00 each Lumpsum Single Operator$ 10.00 1/07/2000$ 10.00 each estimate for Temporary Licence$ 5.00 1/07/2000$ 5.00 each 2007/08

Photocopies By-Laws$ 1.10 1/07/2001$ 1.10 each Council/Committee Agendas$ 2.20 1/07/2001$ 2.20 each Council/Committee Minutes$ 2.20 1/07/2001$ 2.20 each General: A4 Copies New$ 0.20 each A3 Copies New$ 0.25 each A2 Copies New$ 2.00 each A1 Copies New$ 3.00 each AO Copies New$ 5.00 each

Section 337 and 132 Cerificates Certificates (GST Free under Division 81) Section 337$ 160.33 1/07/2006$ 160.33 each $ 484,714 Section 132$ 36.30 2/07/2006$ 36.30 each Estimated (gross) TICKET SALES - EVENTS Income for Next CITY INSPECTOR - OTHER Financial Year

ANIMAL CONTROL Dog Registrations Standard Registrations before 31/7$ 55.00 1/07/2006$ 55.00 each

Standard Registrations after 31/7$ 70.00 1/07/2006$ 70.00 each Desexed Dogs before 31/7$ 17.00 1/07/2006$ 17.00 each Desexed Dogs after 31/7$ 35.00 1/07/2006$ 35.00 each Pensioners (First Dog) before 31/7$ 12.50 1/07/2006$ 12.50 each $ 484,714 Pensioners (First Dog) after 31/7$ 35.00 1/07/2006$ 35.00 each Purebred (KCC) before 31/7$ 25.00 1/07/2006$ 25.00 each Associated Purebred (KCC) after 31/7$ 45.00 1/07/2006$ 45.00 each Direct Costs for Greyhounds before 31/7$ 25.00 1/07/2006$ 25.00 each next Financial Greyhounds after 31/7$ 45.00 1/07/2006$ 45.00 each Year Working Dogs before 31/7$ 25.00 1/07/2006$ 25.00 each

All headings marked with a # mean all items under that heading attract GST. Where a heading is not marked with a # only items so marked attract GST. All amounts are inclusive of GST where applicable. Item No. 13 / Page 18

# Details Present Charge / Hire Last Proposed Indicator / Rate Changed Charge / Discriptor, Hire Rate eg. hrs

Working Dogs after 31/7$ 45.00 1/07/2006$ 45.00 each Obedience Trained (Level 1 certificate $ 27.50 1/07/2006$ 27.50 each to be shown) Must be achieved prior $ - to July 1 of year of registration

Obedience Trained (Level 1 achieved) $ 55.00 1/07/2006$ 55.00 each after 31/7 Guide Dogs$ - 1/07/2000$ - each Puppywalkers$ - 1/07/2000$ - each Formal Complaints - Deposit$ 20.00 1/07/2006$ 20.00 each All new registrations half price from 1 January 2005 Kennel Licences Estimated Extra New Licences (3-5 Dogs)$ 55.00 1/07/2006$ 55.00 each (gross) Income (6+ Dogs)$ 65.00 1/07/2006$ 65.00 each for next Financial Renewals (3-5 Dogs)$ 35.00 1/07/2006$ 35.00 each Year (6+ Dogs)$ 45.00 1/07/2006$ 45.00 each

Impounding Fees First Seizure$ 20.00 1/07/2006$ 20.00 each $ 71,014 Subsequent Seizures$ 25.00 1/07/2006$ 25.00 each

Dog Control Measures Anti Barking Collar Purchase$ 270.00 1/07/2006$ 270.00 per unit Weekly Hire$ 25.00 1/07/2006$ 25.00 per unit Weekly Hire - Deposit$ 30.00 1/07/2004$ 30.00 per unit Citronella Spray$ 25.00 1/07/2000$ 25.00 each Dog tidy Bags - per roll$ 11.00 1/07/2006$ 11.00 per roll Dog tidy Bags - individual$ 0.06 1/07/2003$ 0.06 each

Animal Control Fines

Totals Estimated % Estimated Income for Variance $ 484,714 Program/Service next Financial 17% Comments 337 and 132 fees changed in accordance with the state government direction. Figure provided in the revised budget took into account the large increase in revenue due to this change. New figures based on present fees applied for the full year. 337 and 132 numbers have been calculated on present financial years figures (up till mid feb) averaged across the full year. 337 and 132 fees will again rise when the state government releases the adjusted figures for 2007/2008. New fees introduced for photocopies - A4, A3, A2, A1, AO have been introduced to offset the costs of requests for copies of S57 applications and requests for larger archival plans.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending 323 Bushland & Bushland & Reserves 2007-2008 Reserves ## Details Present Charge / Last Proposed Indicator / Hire Rate Changed Charge / Discriptor, eg. Hire Rate hrs Expected VENUE HIRE (gross) Income this year BUSHLAND RESERVES Waterworks Reserve (n.b. Other Waterworks Reserve sites are free for General Public usage) $ 19,000 Site 1 - General Public$ 11.00 2003/04$ 11.00 per booking Site 2 - General Public$ 16.50 2003/04$ 16.50 per booking Lumpsum Site 9 - General Public$ 33.00 2003/04$ 33.00 per booking estimate for 2007/08 Commercial Events (Inc. Waterworks Reserve) Small event (1-50)$ 130.00 2006/07$ 134.00 per event (not Medium event (50-150) $ 185.00 2006/07$ 190.00 per event (not Large event (over 150)$ 270.00 2006/07$ 275.00 per event (not Key Charge if not returned in 7 days$ 100.00 2006/07$ 102.00 per hirer $ 19,500 Marquee Site Fees (in addition to $ 170.00 2005/06$ 175.00 per hirer Estimated Bond (Minimum plus any additional $ 250.00 2003/04$ 255.00 per hirer (gross) Income Security requirements Cost Recovery 2003/04 Cost Recovery per hirer for Next Financial Year Non Commercial Events (Inc. Waterworks Reserve) Small event (1-50)$ 50.00 2006/07$ 50.00 per event (not $ 19,500 Medium event (50-150) $ 100.00 2006/07$ 100.00 per event (not Large event (over 150)$ 150.00 2006/07$ 150.00 per event (not Associated Key Charge if not returned in 7 days$ 100.00 2006/07$ 100.00 per hirer Direct Costs for Marquee Site Fees (in addition to $ 170.00 2005/06$ 170.00 per hirer next Financial Bond (Minimum plus any additional $ 200.00 2003/04$ 200.00 per hirer Security requirements Cost Recovery 2003/04 Cost Recovery per hirer $ - Estimated Extra Wedding Ceremonies (gross) Income All Reserves$ 180.00 2006/07$ 180.00 per hirer for next Photography & Filming$ 40.00 2006/07$ 40.00 per hirer Financial Year Key Charge if not returned in 7 days$ 100.00 2006/07$ 100.00 per hirer Marquee Site Fees (in addition to $ 170.00 2005/06$ 170.00 per hirer Bond (Minimum plus any additional $ 200.00 2003/04$ 200.00 per hirer $ 500 Security requirements Cost Recovery 2003/04 Cost Recovery per hirer

Mt Wellington Observation Shelter Hire (special conditions apply) $ 170.00 2006/07$ 170.00 per event

Photography/Filming (other than weddings) Commercial Half Day or Part$ 150.00 2006/07$ 150.00 per application Commercial Full Day$ 200.00 2006/07$ 200.00 per application

*Vendors Stalls, Rides Etc Community Groups $ 50.00 2006/07$ 50.00 per stall Commercial$ 150.00 2005/06$ 155.00 per stall

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending 323 Bushland & Bushland & Reserves 2007-2008 Reserves ## Details Present Charge / Last Proposed Indicator / Hire Rate Changed Charge / Discriptor, eg. Hire Rate hrs *Hot Air Balloons/ Helicopters/Sky Landing Rights$ 130.00 2005/06$ 130.00 per flight *Bonds for any and/or all bookings to be applied at the discretion of the Director PCS

Liquor Permit (GST FREE) $ 35.00 2005/06$ 36.00 per permit Plastic Seating Hire (Limited < 30 delivered$ 90.00 2006/07$ 90.00 per hirer 30-80 delivered$ 200.00 2006/07$ 200.00 per hirer Chair Bond$ 200.00 $ 200.00 per hirer

Annual Permits Photography$ 150.00 2006/07$ 150.00 per annum Exercise Classes - Annual $ 250.00 2006/07$ 250.00 per annum Exercise Classes - Per Class $ 30.00 2006/07$ 30.00 per hour

Vending machines Charge (public conveniences) $ 15.00 2005/06$ 15.00 /week/machine

A booking fee of $50 is included in the hire fee for wedding bookings, commercial / non-commercial event bookings. All other fees paid prior to the booked date will be refunded if cancelled > 7 days

WELLINGTON PARK KEY BONDS Bond Abloy Keys - yellow security $ 100.00 2006/07 $ 100.00 per key level Bond Abloy Keys - gray security $ 500.00 2006/07 $ 500.00 per key level

FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT Labour $ 47.30 2006/07 $ 51.05 per hour Tip Truck Hire $ 26.40 2006/07 $ 25.30 per hour Tractor $ 29.70 2006/07 $ 29.70 per hour Estimated % HCC BUSHLAND ACCESS Variance 1 Entry - light vehicle New Charge $ 30.00 per entry Bond - single entry New Charge $100-$300 per entry 2- 5 Entries - light vehicle New Charge $ 60.00 per 2-5 entries Bond - light vehicle 2-5 entries New Charge $200-$600 per 2-5 entries Medium weight commercial vehicle New Charge $ 60.00 multiple entries Bond - multiple entries medium vehic New Charge $200-$600 multiple entries 5 or more entries - light vehicle New Charge $ 120.00 per 5+ entries Bond - 5 or more entries New Charge $300-$2500 per 5+ entries Less than 5 entries off formed tracks New Charge $ 120.00 per <5 entries Bond - less than 5 entries off formed New Charge $300-$2500 per< 5 entries Heavy commerical vehicles New Charge $ 120.00 multiple entries Bond - heavy commerical vehicles New Charge $300-$2500 multiple entries

Totals $ 19,500 3%

Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $ 19,500

Income projections shown relate to hire of bushland reserves. Income from Fire Hazard abatement are expected to be offset by charges applied to the Unit by Civic Parks, they are therefore not included in the budgeted income.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending F451 - Marketing Marketing 2007-2008 and ## Details Present Charge / Last Proposed Indicator / Hire Rate Changed Charge / Hire Discriptor, Rate eg. hrs ARTERIAL Expected (gross) Half Set Arterial Installation $700.00 1/07/2005$ 750.00 Income this year Half Set Arterial Infrastructure $600.00 1/07/2003$ 650.00 Full Set Arterial Installation $760.00 1/07/2005$ 810.00 Full Set Arterial Infrastructure $800.00 1/07/2003$ 850.00 $ 25,290 SMALL CBD Part of Small CBD (Elizabeth Mall $420.00 1/07/2005$ 470.00 Lumpsum only) - Install estimate for Part of Small CBD (Elizabeth Mall $300.00 1/07/2003$ 350.00 2007/08 only) - Infrastructure Full Set Small CBD (Elizabeth Mall $570.00 1/07/2005$ 610.00 $ 23,685 & Criterion Street) - Install Full Set Small CBD (Elizabeth Mall $400.00 1/07/2003$ 450.00 Estimated & Criterion St) - Infrastructure (gross) Income LARGE CBD for Next Part Set Large CBD (core block $730.00 1/07/2005$ 780.00 Financial Year only) - Install Part Set Large CBD (core block $400.00 1/07/2003$ 450.00 only) - Infrastructure $ 23,685 Full Set Large CBD - Install $1,050.00 1/07/2005$ 1,100.00 Associated Direct Costs for next Financial Year Full Set Large CBD - Infrastructure $800.00 1/07/2003$ 850.00 *Additional areas for installation: $ - Upper Liverpool Street Install $420.00 1/07/2005$ 450.00 Estimated Extra Upper Liverpool Street $100.00 1/07/2003$ 130.00 (gross) Income Infrastructure for next Lower Liverpool Street - Install $420.00 1/07/2005$ 450.00 Financial Year Lower Liverpool Street - $100.00 1/07/2003$ 130.00 Infrastructure Lower Collins Street - Install $210.00 1/07/2005$ 250.00 -$ 1,605 Lower Collins Street - Infrastructure $100.00 1/07/2003$ 130.00

Elizabeth Street - Install $210.00 1/07/2005$ 250.00 Elizabeth Street - Infrastructure $100.00 1/07/2003$ 130.00 Macquarie Street - Install $105.00 1/07/2005$ 120.00 Macquarie Street - Infrastructure $100.00 1/07/2003$ 120.00

EVENT SIGNAGE (Entrances to the City) Single line display $75 1/07/2005$ 75.00 Totals Estimated % Variance Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $ 23,685 -6.35% Comments Fees and charges related to Civic Banners and Entrance Signage.

14. 74 RISDON ROAD, NEW TOWN – VAUCLUSE GARDENS PTY LTD – REQUEST FOR ACCESS OVER COUNCIL LAND IN WILMSLOW AVENUE – LANDOWNER CONSENT – FILE REF: 5525498 & P/74/792 Ref. Open PCSC 5, 13/4/2007; Open FCSC 8, 17/4/2007

That the request from Vaucluse Gardens Pty Ltd to temporarily occupy Council owned land located at Wilmslow Avenue, New Town for the purpose of developing an entrance to the privately owned land at 74 Risdon Road, be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. All statutory approvals relevant to the proposal be obtained.

2. A licence for a period of twelve (12) months from 1 May 2007 (or such longer term as the General Manager may approve) be negotiated for the area and include such conditions as deemed appropriate by the General Manager.

3. The area be appropriately fenced to ensure public safety in the area and signage with wording to the satisfaction of the General Manager be installed to notify the community of the temporary nature of the depot establishment.

4. The applicant be required to hold Public Liability Insurance cover for at least $5 million with Council’s interest as owner noted and indemnify the Council against any actions as a result of this proposal.

5. The applicant is to be responsible for any damage to any Council property, whether caused by the applicant or any other person or persons associated with the proposal.

6. The subject area (including the adjacent Council road network) be reinstated to the satisfaction of the General Manager at the expiration of the occupancy of the land.

7. A fee of $100 be applied for the use of the area.

8. A bond to cover any possible damage to infrastructure of $3,000 be lodged for the period of the occupation of the site.

Finance and Corporate Services

The Committee concurs

OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 14 23/4/2007

FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES

15. ANNUAL REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES 2007/2008 – FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE – FILE REF: 21-50-2; 21-50-6; 21-50-4 Ref: Open FCSC 8, 9, and 11, 20/3/2007 8x’s

Attachments 15/P 1-4 City Services Division – Parking Administration (On and Off Street) - Fees and Charges 2007/2008

Attachments 15/P 5-6 Parks and Customer Services Division – Parking Enforcement – Fees and Charges 2007/2008

Attachments 15/P 7-8 Corporate Services Division – Fees and Charges 2007/2008

That: 1. The proposed schedule of fees and charges for the City Services Division – Parking Administration (On and Off Street), as attached, be adopted for the 2007/2008 financial year.

2. The proposed schedule of fees and charges for the Parks and Customer Services Division – Parking Enforcement, as attached, be adopted for the 2007/2008 financial year.

(i) A report be prepared which addresses the cost, feasibility and legal implications of placing information on signs and meters advising motorists that overparking fines may be issued and the cost of such fines.

3. The proposed schedule of fees and charges for the Corporate Services Division, as attached, be adopted for the 2007/2008 financial year.

Item No. 15 / Page 1

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending Off Street Parking - Short Term Rentals

Traffic Engineering 2007-2008

## Details Present Charge / Hire Last Proposed Charge / Indicator / Rate Changed Hire Rate Descriptor, eg. hrs Argyle and Centrepoint Car Parks 1st hour Free Free 1st hour Expected (gross) 2nd hour 60c 2003-2004 60c 2nd hour stay Income this year 3rd hour $1.80 2003-2004 $1.80 3rd hour stay 4th hour $3.50 2002-2003 $3.50 4th hour stay $2,200,000 5th hour $6.00 2002-2003 $6.00 5th hour stay 6th hour $8.70 2000-2001 $8.70 6th hour stay 7th hour $9.80 2000-2001 $9.80 7th hour stay 8th hour $10.90 2000-2001 $10.90 8th hour stay 9th hour $13.60 2000-2001 $13.60 9th hour stay 10th hour $16.30 2000-2001 $16.30 10th hour stay overnight fee $2.00 1995-1996 $2.00 overnight stay Estimated (gross) Income for Next *Public holiday and Sunday rate 1st hour free - 50c per hour thereafter to a maximum of $2.00. Financial Year $2,200,000 Hobart Central Car Park 1st hour Free Free 1st hour Associated Direct 2nd hour 50c 1997-1998 50c 2nd hour stay Costs for next 3rd hour $1.60 1997-1998 $1.60 3rd hour stay Financial Year 4th hour $2.70 2000-2001 $2.70 4th hour stay 5th hour $3.80 2000-2001 $3.80 5th hour stay 6th hour $8.70 2000-2001 $8.70 6th hour stay $ 7th hour $9.80 2000-2001 $9.80 7th hour stay 8th hour $10.90 2000-2001 $10.90 8th hour stay 9th hour $13.60 2000-2001 $13.60 9th hour stay Estimated Extra 10th hour $16.30 2000-2001 $16.30 10th hour stay (gross) Income for overnight fee $2.00 1995-1996 $2.00 overnight stay next Financial Year

*Public holiday and Sunday rate 1st hour free - 50c per hour thereafter to a maximum of $2.00.

Hobart Central Car Park - Early $7.00 2005-2006 $7.00 bird parking $0.00 Special Events parking in $4.00 2005-2006 $4.00 Salamanca Square Car Park

Salamanca Square Market $3.00 2005-2006 $3.00 Parking Totals Estimated % Variance

Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $2,200,000

Comments There is a review being conducted by SGS Consultants into Council's parking charges. In the absence of a result from that study at this time it is recommended there be no change in the short term charges shown above.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending Off Street Parking - Long Term Traffic Engineering Rentals 2007-2008

## Details Present Charge / Hire Last Proposed Charge / Indicator / Rate Changed Hire Rate Descriptor, eg. hrs Argyle Street $190.00 2006-2007 $200.00 per month Expected (gross) Income this year Elizabeth /Morrison $165.00 2006-2007 $185.00 per month

Goulburn Street $125.00 2006-2007 $135.00 per month $500,000.00 Liverpool Street $130.00 2006-2007 $140.00 per month Melville Street $125.00 2006-2007 $135.00 per month Lump sum estimate for Hobart Central $170.00 2006-2007 $180.00 per month 2006/07 Lefroy Street $30.00 2006-2007 $30.00 per month $500,000.00 Salamanca Square $170.00 2006-2007 $185.00 per month Salamanca Square -motorcycle $42.00 2006-2007 $42.00 per month Estimated (gross) spaces Income for Next Financial Year

$530,000.00

Associated Direct Costs for next Financial Year

Estimated Extra (gross) Income for next Financial Year

$30,000.00

Totals Estimated % Variance Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $530,000.00 6%

Comments There is a review being conducted by Consultants SGS into Council's parking charges. Notwithstanding that study the current waiting lists for off-street monthly parking are an indication that the fees should be increased. The suggested increases, pending a recommendation from SGS, are included above.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending Parking Enforcement - Meters, Voucher Traffic Engineering Machines, Meter 2007-2008 Removal, Exemption Permits

## Details Present Charge / Hire Last Proposed Charge / Indicator / Rate Changed Hire Rate Descriptor, eg. hrs Parking Meters Expected (gross) 15 minute meters $1.00 - $1.40 2006-2007 $1.00 - $1.40 per 1 hour Income this year 20 minute meters $1.00 - $1.40 2006-2007 $1.00 - $1.40 per 1 hour 30 minute meters $1.00 - $2.00 2006-2007 $1.00 - $2.00 per 1 hour $2.9 million 1 hour meters $1.00 - $1.40 2006-2007 $1.00 - $1.40 per 1 hour 2 hour meters 80c - $1.40 2006-2007 80c - $1.40 per 1 hour 3 hour meters 80c - $1.00 2006-2007 80c - $1.00 per 1 hour 4 hour meters 80 cents 2006-2007 80 cents per 1 hour Lump sum Voucher Machines estimate 2006/2007

$2.9 million Salamanca Place $1.20 2006-2007 $1.20 per hour Dunn Place $1.00 2001-2002 $1.20 per hour Melville Street Car Park 60 cents 2003-2004 60 cents per hour (maximum stay 3 hours) Salamanca Square Car Park 80c (Saturday only $3 2006-2007 $1.00 (Saturday only per hour per vehicle, Special $3 per vehicle, Special (Saturday only events $4.00) events $4.00) $3 per vehicle, Special events $4.00)

Meter Removal

Plus reinstatement $50.00 2006-2007 $50.00 Cost per day per meter $15.00 2006-2007 $15.00 per day/per meter

Exemption Permit Estimated Extra Up to 4 hours $18.00 2006-2007 $18.00 up to 4 hours (gross) Income for For one day $32.00 2006-2007 $32.00 per one day next Financial Year

$20,000.00

Totals Estimated % Variance Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $2.920 million

Comments It is proposed to keep most meter charges the same as last year when they were increased substantially as part of the new meter installations. Proposed to increase charges at Salamanca Square Car Park and Dunn Place.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending Parking Enforcement Traffic Engineering (Residential 2007-2008 Parking)

## Details Present Charge / Hire Last Proposed Charge / Indicator / Rate Changed Hire Rate Descriptor, eg. hrs Expected (gross) Residential Permit Income this year

Metered Areas Permit $39.00 2006-2007 $40.00 per annum $40,000.00 Pensioners $20.00 2006-2007 $20.50 per annum Replacement Sticker $4.00 2006-2007 $4.00 per sticker

Non metered Areas Permit $27.00 2006-2007 $28.00 per annum Lump sum Temporary Permit $12.00 2006-2007 $12.00 per month estimate for Replacement Sticker $4.00 2006-2007 $4.00 per sticker 2006/07 $40,000.00

Estimated (gross) Income for Next Financial Year

$41,000

Associated Direct Costs for next Financial Year

Estimated Extra (gross) Income for next Financial Year

$1,000.00

Totals Estimated % Variance Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $41,000.00 2.45% Comments Charges increased generally in accordance with CPI.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending F421 - Parking Customer Services 2007-2008 Enforcement

## Details Present Charge / Last Proposed Inc / Indicator / Hire Rate Changed Charge / (Dec) Discriptor, Hire Rate as a % eg. hrs

*Public holidays and Sunday rate Expected 1st hour free - 50c per hour (gross) thereafter to a maximum of $2.00 Income this PARKING METER COLLECTIONS year

OTHER FEES AND CHARGES Parking Meter Hoods Up to 4 hours $8.00 1/07/2006 $8.00 0% per hood $ 6,212,520 Per day $15.00 1/07/2006 $15.00 0% per hood Deposit per hood/ or two traffic cones - $ 40.00 1/07/2002$ 40.00 0% per hood Lump sum GST only applies on forfeture of estimate for deposit 2006/07 Replacement key$ 5.00 1/07/2002$ 5.00 0% per key Replacement lock$ 12.00 1/07/2002$ 12.00 0% per lock Damaged Hood - repairable Cost of Repairs 1/07/2002 Cost of per hood Repairs Damaged Hood - unrepairable (from $ 40.00 1/07/2002$ 40.00 0% per hood deposit) Replacement Traffic Cones New Charge $20.00 per cone Replacement Swipe Cards $ 25.00 1/07/2001$ 25.00 0% per card Parking Meter Permit $500.00 1/07/2006 $750.00 50% per permit Deposit for After Hours Use $ 7,112,500 (Gst only applies on forfeiture of deposit) Elizabeth Street Mall$ 550.00 1/07/2001$ 550.00 0% per entry Estimated Salamanca Square $ 110.00 1/07/2001$ 110.00 0% per entry (gross) Holding Vehicle for Safety$ 19.00 1/07/2002$ 19.00 0% per day Income for Overnight fee$ 3.00 1/07/2006$ 3.00 0% per night Next Releasing Vehicle after Hours$ 35.00 1/07/2006$ 35.00 0% per release Financial

Tow Away Fee For tow $ 88.00 1/07/2005$ 88.00 0% per vehicle For tow truck call $ 38.50 1/07/2006$ 38.50 0% per vehicle $ 7,112,500 Towing Abandoned Vehicle$ 70.00 1/07/2006$ 70.00 0% per vehicle Holding Fee - Abandoned Vehicle$ 5.00 1/07/2006$ 5.00 0% per day

Temporary Disabled Permits Permit $15.00 1/07/2006 $15.00 0% per permit Associated Deposit $15.00 1/07/2006 $15.00 0% per permit Direct Costs for next PARKING METER FINES Financial Composition Fee - Over Parking Year Initial Fine$ 26.00 1/07/2005 $35.00 35% per issue After 14 days$ 36.00 1/07/2005 $45.00 25% per issue At Collection Agency$ 70.00 1/07/2006 $80.00 14% per issue Summons Withdrawal$ 70.00 1/07/2005 $80.00 14% per issue $ -

## Details Present Charge / Last Proposed Inc / Indicator / Hire Rate Changed Charge / (Dec) Discriptor, Hire Rate as a % eg. hrs

Composition Fee - All Other Meters Initial Fine$ 20.00 1/07/2005 $25.00 25% per issue After 14 days$ 30.00 1/07/2005 $35.00 17% per issue At Collection Agency$ 70.00 1/07/2006 $80.00 14% per issue Summons Withdrawal$ 70.00 1/07/2005 $80.00 14% per issue

TRAFFIC INFRINGEMENTS (Joint Enforcement Fines) (As per the Traffic Act & Australian Road Rules) Traffic Infringements$ 50.00 1/07/1999$ 50.00 0% per issue At Collection Agency$ 85.00 1/07/2006$ 85.00 0% per issue Summons Withdrawal$ 85.00 1/07/1999$ 85.00 0% per issue Except Time Zone$ 35.00 1/07/1999$ 35.00 0% per issue At Collection Agency$ 70.00 1/07/2006$ 70.00 0% per issue Summons Withdrawal$ 70.00 1/07/1999$ 70.00 0% per issue No Stopping Zone$ 80.00 1/07/1999$ 80.00 0% per issue Yellow Lines$ 80.00 1/07/1999$ 80.00 0% per issue 10m from Corner$ 80.00 1/07/1999$ 80.00 0% per issue Children's Crossing$ 80.00 1/07/1999$ 80.00 0% per issue Estimated % Clearway$ 80.00 1/07/1999$ 80.00 0% per issue Variance Obstructing Traffic$ 80.00 1/07/1999$ 80.00 0% per issue Pedestrian Zone$ 80.00 1/07/1999$ 80.00 0% per issue Disabled Time Zone$ 80.00 1/07/1999$ 80.00 0% per issue At Collection Agency$ 115.00 1/07/2006$ 115.00 0% per issue Summons Withdrawal$ 115.00 1/07/1999$ 115.00 0% per issue

Totals $ 908,500 Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $ 7,112,500

Business Unit Program Year Ending Fee City Government Halls 2007/2008 Hire Charges

Details Present Charge Last Proposed Charge Anticipated $ Changed $ Income this year (06/07) $85,000

CITY HALL Commercial Mon-Fri 9am-5pm $54 p/h (Min 4 hrs) 2006/7 $55 p/h (Min 4 hrs) Mon-Fri 5pm onwards $107 p/h (Min 2 hrs) 2006/7 $110 p/h (Min 2 hrs) Sat/Sun/Public Holidays $113 p/h (Min 2 hrs) 2006/7 $116 p/h (Min 2 hrs)

Non-Commercial Mon-Fri 9am-5pm $54 p/h (Min 4 hrs) 2006/7 $55 p/h (Min 4 hrs) Mon-Fri 5pm onwards $72 p/h (Min 2 hrs) 2006/7 $74 p/h (Min 2 hrs) Sat/Sun/Public Holidays $81 p/h (Min 2 hrs) 2006/7 $83 p/h (Min 2 hrs)

Kitchen No Charge No Charge Public Address System No Charge No Charge Heating Per Power Meter Per Power Meter Reading Reading

Hirers Bond (as $2,000 – $3,000 $2,000-$3,000 required)

TOWN HALL Commercial Mon-Fri 9am-5pm $47 p/h (Min 4 hrs) 2006/7 $48 p/h (Min 4 hrs) Mon-Fri 5pm onwards $67 p/h (Min 2 hrs) 2006/7 $69 p/h (Min 2 hrs) Sat/Sun/Public Holidays $72 p/h (Min 2 hrs) 2006/7 $74 p/h (Min 2 hrs)

Non-Commercial Mon-Fri 9am-5pm $41 p/h (Min 4 hrs) 2006/7 $42 p/h (Min 4 hrs) Mon-Fri 5pm onwards $54 p/h (Min 2 hrs) 2006/7 $55 p/h (Min 2 hrs) Sat/Sun/Public Holidays $60 p/h (Min 2 hrs) 2006/7 $61 p/h (Min 2 hrs)

Kitchen No Charge No Charge Public Address System No Charge No Charge Heating $47 p/h 2006/7 $48 p/h Piano $60 per performance 2006/7 $61 per performance $5 per rehearsal $5 per rehearsal Organ $51 per performance 2006/7 $52 per performance $5 per rehearsal $5 per rehearsal Corporate ServicesItem DivisionNo. 15 – Fees / Page & Charges 8 2007/2008

ELIZABETH ST CONFERENCE ROOM

Mon-Fri 9am-5pm $31 p/h (Min 4 hrs) 2006/7 $32 p/h (Min 4 hrs) Mon-Fri 5pm onwards $47 p/h (Min 2 hrs) 2006/7 $48 p/h (Min 2 hrs) Sat/Sun/Public Holidays $60 p/h (Min 2 hrs) 2006/7 $61 p/h (Min 2 hrs)

Kitchen No Charge No Charge Power $20 p/h 2006/7 $20 p/h

MAWSON PLACE WATERSIDE PAVILION

Commercial Mon – Fri 9am-5pm $55 p/h 2006/7 $56 p/h (Min 4 hrs) Mon – Fri 5pm onwards $100 p/h 2006/7 $102 p/h (Min 2 hrs) Sat/Sun/Public Holidays $125 p/h 2006/7 $129 p/h (Min 2 hrs)

Weekly Rate - $950 per week 2006/7 $975 per week Commercial

Non-Commercial Mon – Fri 9am-5pm $55 p/h 2006/7 $56 p/h (Min 4 hrs) Mon – Fri 5pm onwards $80 p/h 2006/7 $82 p/h (Min 2 hrs) Sat/Sun/Public Holidays $100 p/h 2006/7 $102 p/h (Min 2 hrs)

Weekly Rate Non- $600 per week 2006/7 $620 per week commercial

Key Charge (if not $105 2003/4 $105 returned within 7 days)

Hirers Bond (as $250 2003/4 $250 required)

Associated Direct Costs $ $ $ $71,050

Estimated Extra Income 2007/08 $2,100 Comments Refer to covering report for comment.

OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 15 23/4/2007

16. SALAMANCA SQUARE CAR PARK – REQUEST TO INSTALL GAS SUPPLY LINE – FILE REF: 35-7-35 Ref. Open FCSC 6, 17/4/2007

That approval be given to Winrock Investments Pty Ltd to install a private gas connection through the Council’s Salamanca Square Car Park, subject to a lease agreement with conditions as determined by the General Manager.

17. ST VIRGILS ROWING SHED – NEW TOWN BAY – PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT – LANDLORD APPROVAL – FILE REF: 72-27-4 Ref. Open FCSC 7, 17/4/2007

That: 1. The proposal by the St Virgils College to extend its rowing sheds at New Town Bay be granted Council landlord approval, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant meet all costs associated with the proposal.

(ii) The applicant be required to consult with the Buckingham Rowing Club and the Tasmanian University Rowing Club (as co-tennants of the New Town Bay area) to ensure no objections are held in regard to the proposal.

(iii) Relevant planning and building or other statutory approvals be obtained prior to work commencing on the (2900 x 27000) extension to the existing shed.

(iv) Evidence of Public Liability Insurance to indemnify Council against any injury or damage to person or property to the value of $10 million is to be supplied to the Council during the construction stage.

(v) Such additional conditions as the General Manager may determine.

2. The Council provide a grant to the value of the development application costs, to be funded from the 2006/2007 Parks and Recreation Policy and Management Function (Grants and Specific Purpose Benefits). cont.../ OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 16 23/4/2007

Item No. 17 continued

3. An amended lease agreement be prepared for the amended leased area, should development approval be obtained.

18. SALAMANCA SQUARE CAR PARK – STORAGE ROOM – FILE REF: 35-7-35 Ref. Open FCSC 9, 17/4/2007

That: 1. The Body Corporate of Salamanca Square be offered a lease over an area of approximately 7.5 square metres on the 1st floor of the Council’s Salamanca Square Carpark, as detailed in the attachment to item 9 of the Open Finance and Corporate Services Committee agenda of 17 April 2007, for the purpose of constructing a small storage area.

2. The term of the lease be 5 years with a further 5 year option.

3. The rent for the lease be $100 per annum with annual adjustments based on the CPI.

4. The lease be subject to such other conditions as the General Manager may determine.

OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 17 23/4/2007

CITY SERVICES

19. ANNUAL REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES 2007/2008 – CITY SERVICES COMMITTEE– FILE REFS: 21-50-4; 21-50-8 Ref. Open CSC 11 & 12, 28/3/2007 17x’s

Attachment 19/P1-12 City Services Division – Fees and Charges 2007/2008

19/P13-17 Civic Solutions - Fees and Charges 2007/2008

That: 1. The proposed schedule of fees and charges for the City Services Division, as attached, be adopted for the 2007/2008 financial year.

2. The proposed schedule of fees and charges for Civic Solutions, as attached be adopted for the 2007/2008 financial year.

20. SALAMANCA PLACE – REQUEST FOR OCCUPATION OF PARKING SPACES FOR SPECIAL EVENT – WOMEN’S WEEKLY ROAD TRAIN – FILE REF: 817 Ref. Special Open CSC 2, 23/4/2007

A recommendation will be submitted to the meeting.

Item no. 19 / Page 1

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending Traffic Policy and Management - Traffic Engineering Occupation 2007-2008 Licences

## Details Present Charge / Hire Last Proposed Charge / Indicator / Rate Changed Hire Rate Descriptor, eg. hrs Occupation licences - Use of Expected (gross) Footpaths for Outdoor Dining Income this year

Elizabeth Mall $75.80 2006-2007 $77.70 per square metre Salamanca Place/Morrison $75.80 2006-2007 $77.70 per square Street/other areas in Sullivans metre $70,000 Cove Salamanca Square $75.80 2006-2007 $77.70 per square Lump sum metre estimate for Wellington Walk $29.70 2006-2007 $30.45 per square 2006/2007 metre Liverpool /Murray/Collins $41.40 2006-2007 $42.40 per square Streets metre CBD Fringe $23.20 2006-2007 $23.80 per square metre $70,000.00 North Hobart-Elizabeth St $23.20 2006-2007 $23.80 per square (Lefroy to Burnett) metre Occupation Licences - Estimated (gross) General Income for Next Private occupation of roadway $38.50 2006-2007 $39.40 per annum Financial Year

Goods Displayed on Footpath $11.50 ($63.37 per 2006-2007 $11.80 ($65.00 per per month annum maximum) annum maximum) $72,000

Associated Direct Costs for next Financial Year

Estimated Extra (gross) Income for next Financial Year

$2,000.00

Totals Estimated % Variance Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $72,000.00 2.45% Comments Charges increased generally in accordance with CPI.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending Roads Policy & Management Road Engineering 2007-2008

## Details Present Charge / Hire Last Proposed Charge / Indicator / Rate Changed Hire Rate Descriptor, eg. hrs Expected (gross) Hoarding Permit $6.70 (minimum 2006-2007 $7.00 (minimum per month per Income this year charge $67.00) charge $70.00) square metre 2006/07

Scaffolding Permit $6.70 (minimum 2006-2007 $7.00 (minimum per month per charge $67.00) charge $70.00) square metre

Skip Bin Permit $29.00 2006-2007 $30.00 per week

$172,000.00 Crane/Concrete Pump/Cherry $67.00 2006-2007 $70.00 per week Picker etc Permit

Inspection fee for Works in the $67.00 (minimum 2006-2007 $70.00 (minimum per hour Lump sum Highway Reserve charge $67.00) charge $70.00) estimate for 2006/07 Highway Opening Fee $270.00 2006-2007 $280.00 per week

Road Closure Fee $185.00 2006-2007 $190.00 per closure

Service Connection Fee - Gas $100.00 2006-2007 $105.00 per connection $172,000.00 Use of Council's conduits New Fee New Fee $50.00 per metre Estimated (gross) Income for Next Financial Year

$130,000.00

Associated Direct Costs for next Financial Year

Estimated Extra (gross) Income for next Financial Year

-$42,000.00

Totals Estimated % Variance Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $130,000.00

Comments Income from Highway Opening Fees will substantially decrease due to finalisation of the gas rollout. Less inspection resources will also be required as a result. Fees for gas connections to houses will continue to be applied. This fee will offset the resources required for gas inspections. A new fee for use of Council's conduits is considered warranted. During Council's road reconstructions, a conduit will be installed to allow for future gas connections. This will reduce excavation on Council's new roads. When the connection is made, the fee will be applied.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending Solid Waste Management (Refuse Disposal Waste Engineering Charges for 2007-2008 McRobies Gully WMC)

## Details Present Charge / Hire Last Changed Proposed Charge Indicator / All income and Rate / Hire Rate Descriptor, eg. expenditure hrs excluding GST Light Vehicles and trailers < 1m³ $5.00 2006-07 $5.00 per vehicle Expected (gross) Income this year Light Vehicles and trailers 1-3m³ $10.50 2006-07 $10.80 per vehicle

Light Vehicles and trailers > 3m³ $17.40 2006-07 $18.00 per vehicle $1,300,000 (external) General Mixed Waste $41.10 2006-07 $42.50 per tonne $805,000 (internal) Hard Waste $38.20 2006-07 $39.50 per tonne

GREEN WASTE Lump sum Light Vehicles and trailers < 1m³ $2.60 2006-07 $2.70 per vehicle estimate for 2006/07 Light Vehicles and trailers 1-3m³ $5.20 2006-07 $5.40 per vehicle

Light Vehicles and trailers > 3m³ $8.80 2006-07 $9.10 per vehicle $1,300,000 Commercial Green Waste $34.50 2006-07 $35.60 per tonne (external)

Contaminated Green Waste $46.30 2006-07 $47.80 per vehicle $805,000 (internal) OTHER WASTE CATEGORIES Estimated (gross) Whole Car Bodies $43.00 2006-07 $44.40 per car Income for Next Financial Year Half Car Bodies $29.00 2006-07 $30.00 per half car

Clean Fill $6.00 2006-07 $6.00 per tonne

Clean Fill No charge 2006-07 No charge per vehicle $1,339,000 - light vehicles & trailers (external) Animal Waste $37.00 2006-07 $38.20 per cubic metre $829,000 (internal)

Quarantine Waste $50.40 2006-07 $52.00 per cubic metre Associated Direct Costs for next Illicit Drugs $50.40 2006-07 $52.00 per cubic metre Financial Year

Asbestos $50.40 2006-07 $52.00 per cubic metre $2,023,000

Sharps $50.40 2006-07 $52.00 per cubic metre

Screenings $50.40 2006-07 $52.00 per cubic metre Estimated Extra (gross) Income Shredded Tyres $50.40 2006-07 $52.00 per cubic metre for next Financial Year Sewage Sludge $38.50 2006-07 $40.00 per tonne

Sawdust $6.00 2006-07 $6.00 per tonne

WASTE TYRES Car $3.90 2006-07 $4.00 per tyre $39,000 (external) $24,000 (internal) Light Truck & Four Wheel Drive $6.40 2006-07 $6.60 per tyre

Truck $13.90 2006-07 $14.50 per tyre

Totals Estimated % $1,339,000 (external) External Variance Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $829,000 (internal) 3% Comments Charges are proposed to be increased by approximately 2.5-3% which is line with CPI forecasts for Hobart. In the past the charge for the disposal of sewage sludge was by "price on application" a flat fee will now apply. A new category, sawdust has been included and was previously received as clean fill. Income estimations assume the same quantities of waste will be received in 2007/08 as in the past 12 months. Item no. 19 / Page 4

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending Solid Waste Management Waste Engineering (Organic Waste & 2007-2008 Operations )

## Details Present Charge / Hire Last Changed Proposed Indicator/ Rate Charge/Hire Descriptor, eg. Hrs Rate 250 gms approx 1,000 $18.80 2006-07 $19.40 per 250g Expected (gross) worms Income this year 500 gms approx. 2,000 $31.50 2006-07 $32.50 per 500g worms 1 kg approx. 4,000 worms $56.80 2006-07 $58.70 per 1 kg Compost - 20 Lt bag $7.00 2005-06 $7.20 per 20 lt bag RELN Compost Bin $32.00 2006-07 $33.10 per bin $68,000 (external) $55,000 RELN Worm Farm $71.00 2006-07 $73.30 per unit (internal) Mulch Sales (Coarse) $16.30 2006-07 $16.80 per m3 Bulk Compost $51.00 2006-07 $52.70 per m3 Lump sum estimate for Composted Mulch $23.50 2005-06 $24.30 per m3 2006/07 Landscape Blend Compost $41.00 2005-06 $55.00 per m3

Replacement Wheelie Bins Free of charge 2002-03 Free of charge $123,000 *Wheelie Bins - 240 litre for $100 2003-04 $100 per bin/yr Estimated (gross) garbage Income for Next Wheelie Bins - 240 litre for No charge 2006-07 No charge per bin/yr Financial Year recycling

$75,000 (external) $58,000 (internal)

Associated Direct Costs for next Financial Year

$250,000 Estimated Extra (gross) Income for next Financial Year

$7,000 (ext) $3,000 (int)

Totals Estimated % Variance $75,000 (external) Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year 8% $58,000 (internal)

Comments Price increases of 2.5-3.0% in line with expected increase in CPI for all items. The exception is 240 litre wheelie bins for garbage, which are to be kept at $100 per annum. Recycling crates are no longer available as a new wheelie bin residential recyclables collection service has been introduced. *Subject to a statutory declaration being made to the satisfaction of the General Manager, a rebate of $100 will apply. Item no. 19 / Page 5

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending Sewage Treatment Waste Engineering (Tankered Waste) 2007-2008

Details Present Charge / Hire Last Proposed Charge / Indicator / Rate Changed Hire Rate Descriptor, eg. hrs Expected (gross) Tankered Liquid Waste $30.00 2005-2006 $32.00 delivery Income this year (handling charge) Tankered Liquid Waste $15.00 2005-2006 $16.00 per kilolitre (volumetric charge)

$28,000.00

Lump sum estimate for 2006/07 $28,000.00

Estimated (gross) Income for Next Financial Year

$29,680.00

Associated Direct Costs for next Financial Year

Estimated Extra (gross) Income for next Financial Year

$1,680.00

Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $29,680 6% Comments Acceptance of tankered liquid waste subject to approval. Special rates may apply to high strength wastes. These charges are GST free. Fees have increased by 6% for 2007/08 as there was no increase in 2006/07 from the 2005/06 fee.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending Selfs Point Laboratory Waste Engineering 2007-2008 (Charges for laboratory testing)

## Details Present Charge / Hire Last Proposed Charge Indicator / Rate Changed / Hire Rate Descriptor, eg. hrs Administration $22.00 2006-2007 $22.00 per report Alkalinity $17.60 2006-2007 $18.70 per test Bicarbonate $38.50 2006-2007 $40.70 per test BOD $30.80 2006-2007 $31.90 per test Carbonate $38.50 2006-2007 $40.70 per test Chloride $24.20 2006-2007 $24.20 per test Expected (gross) Income Chlorine free & total $13.20 2006-2007 $13.75 per test this year Chlorophyll "a" $27.50 2006-2007 $28.60 per test $ 100,000 (external) per test $191,000 (internal) COD $30.80 2006-2007 $30.80 Conductivity $8.80 2006-2007 $11.00 per test Lump sum estimate for Fluoride $24.20 2006-2007 $27.50 per test 2006/07 Hydrocarbons $55.00 2006-2007 $55.00 per test $291,000.00 Ammonia $22.00 2006-2007 $23.10 per test Oill & Grease $41.80 2006-2007 $38.50 per test Estimated (gross) Income Ortho phosphate $22.00 2006-2007 $24.20 per test for Next Financial Year Outsource service $33.00 2006-2007 $34.65 per day Oxidised Nitrogen (Nitrite + Nitrate) $22.00 2006-2007 $24.20 per test pH $8.80 2006-2007 $11.00 per test $320,000.00 Salinity $8.80 2006-2007 $11.00 per test Sulphate $24.20 2006-2007 $24.20 per test Associated Direct Costs TDS (by conductivity) $8.80 2006-2007 $11.00 per test for next Financial Year TDS (by SM) $22.00 2006-2007 $23.10 per test Total Solids $11.00 2006-2007 $11.55 per test Total Suspended Solids $17.60 2006-2007 $19.80 per test $370,000.00 Total solids (by SM) $22.00 2006-2007 $23.10 per test Estimated Extra (gross) Total Nitrogen $24.20 2006-2007 $26.40 per test Income for next Financial Total Phosphorous $24.20 2006-2007 $26.40 per test Year Turbidity $8.80 2006-2007 $11.00 per test up to 4 $29,000.00 analytes (each additional METALS - 4 from Cu, Pb, Zn, Al, Mg, Na, K, Ca, Fe, $10) Cr $41.80 2006-2007 $44.00 E. coli (environmental waters by MF) $27.50 2006-2007 $38.50 per test E. coli (potable waters by MF) $16.50 2006-2007 $27.50 per test Estimated % Variance E. coli (environmental waters DST) $27.50 2006-2007 $33.00 per test E. coli (potable waters by DST) $22.00 2006-2007 $27.50 per test 10% E. coli with Total coliforms by DST $22.00 2006-2007 $33.00 per test Faecal coliforms confirmed by MF (enviro waters) $49.50 2005-2006 $49.50 per test Faecal coliforms confirmed by MF (potable waters) $16.50 2006-2007 $27.50 per test Faecal streptococci confirmed $55.00 2005-2006 $55.00 per test Enterococci by DST $27.50 2006-2007 $41.80 per test Total coliforms confirmed by MF (enviro waters) $27.50 2006-2007 $38.50 per test Total coliforms confirmed by DST (potable waters) $27.50 2006-2007 $27.50 per test Standard plate count $19.80 2006-2007 $27.50 per test Totals

Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $320,000 Comments

Whilst these fees and charges have been in existence for a number of years they are being formalised for the first time through the fees and charges process this year. The Selfs Point Laboratory received NATA accreditation in 2007. Prices for other tests or for bulk sample submissions available upon request.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending Surveying Surveying Services 2007-2008 Services

Details Present Charge / Hire Last Proposed Charge / Indicator / Rate Changed Hire Rate Descriptor, eg. hrs Amendments to Sealed Plans $250 2005/2006 $250 Expected (gross) (Section 103 Local Income this year Government (Building and $20,000 Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993)

Subdivision exemption (Section $250 2003/2004 $250 90 Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993)

Strata Plan Certificates (Part 2 $250 1996/1997 $250 & Part 3 Strata Titles Act 1998) Plus an additional fee for the issue of Building Certificates and an hourly rate for assessment by the Council's Building Surveyor .

Adhesion Orders (Section 110 $200 2003/2004 $200 Local Government (Building & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993

Land to form part of a Highway $200 2003/2004 $200 (Section 106 Local Government (Building & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993) Declaration for buildings over $200 2003/2004 $200 Highway (Section 75CA Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1884)

Certificate for vesting of blocks $200 1996/1997 $200 subject to rights of way (Section 84D Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1884)

DETAIL SHEET DIGITAL $60 2004/2005 $60 Lump sum DATA - Part of Detail Sheet in estimate for digital format for a specific site 2007/08 project. The equivalent of an $20,000 A3 at 1:500 Digital Orthophotography 2005. N/A 2006/2007 $60 Digital equivalent of an A3 at 1:2000 for a specific project.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending Surveying Surveying Services 2007-2008 Services

Details Present Charge / Hire Last Proposed Charge / Indicator / Rate Changed Hire Rate Descriptor, eg. hrs SUPPLY OF BULK DIGITAL DATA Base Cadastre $0.20 2006/2007 $0.20 per parcel Graphical Street Address $0.02 2006/2007 $0.02 per parcel Building layer $0.02 2006/2007 $0.02 per parcel Kerb & Channel $0.02 2006/2007 $0.02 per parcel Estimated (gross) Water reticulation $0.05 2006/2007 $0.05 per parcel Income for Next Sewerage $0.05 2006/2007 $0.05 per parcel Financial Year $20,000 Stormwater $0.05 2006/2007 $0.05 per parcel Textural Information $0.02 2006/2007 $0.02 per attribute Transfer Fee $100.00 2006/2007 $100.00 Update fee = 10% of initial cost

HARD COPY PLANS A4 copy of detail sheet $1.00 1996/1997 $1.00 each - 1st copy free A3 copy of detail sheet $2.00 1996/1997 $2.00 each - 1st Estimated Extra copy free (gross) Income for Detail Sheet $30.00 1996/1997 $30.00 full copy next Financial 1:2000 series map sheet at A1 $12.00 1996/1997 $12.00 full copy Year $0.00

Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $20,000

Comments Operational improvements tend to offset CPI increases.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending

Hydraulic Engineering Water Service Fees 2007-2008

Details Present Charge / Last Changed Proposed Charge Indicator / Hire Rate / Hire Rate Discriptor, eg. hrs

Expected (gross) Excess water property allowance Income this year Property allowance of water quantity if exceeded attracts an 58.5 2000-2001 58.5 litres/$AAV excess water charge - in litres per dollar of annual assessed value.

Excess water charge Property charge for water quantity used in excess of the excess water $0.80 2006-2007 $0.90 kilolitres property allowance - dollars per kilolitre of water consumed.

Water meter reading fee Fee charged for a special water $40.00 2006-2007 $50.00 $ per reading meter reading between reading cycles.

Water meter testing fee Water meter testing fee applied on request of property owner and refunded if the meter is in error $135.00 2006-2007 $140.00 Number $301,000 more or less than 5% of full scale in $ per test - 20mm & 25mm nominal diameter.

Water meter testing fee Water meter testing fee applied on Estimated Extra request of property owner and (gross) Income refunded if the meter is in error $200.00 2006-2007 $205.00 Number for next more or less than 5% of full scale in Financial Year $ per test - 40mm & 50mm nominal diameter.

Water meter testing fee Water meter testing fee applied on request of property owner and refunded if the meter is in error $250.00 2006-2007 $260.00 Number $92,000 more or less than 5% of full scale in $ per test - 75mm and larger nominal diameter. Estimated % Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $390,000 Variance 31% Comments The excess water rate has been increased again this year to align with anticipated increases in bulk water supply charges and with the goal to recover actual water cost in accordance with full cost attribution requirements of the Government Prices Oversight Commission.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending

Hydraulic Investigations and Hydraulic Engineering 2007-2008 Inspections

Details Present Charge / Last Changed Proposed Indicator / Hire Rate Charge / Hire Descriptor, eg. Rate hrs Expected Hydraulic Investigations (gross) Income Private water sewerage & stormwater this year $95.00 2006-2007 $100.00 per hour installation investigation fee for private works.

Water Investigations Water installation investigation fee for $125.00 2006-2007 $130.00 per hour private works using leak detection equipment.

Water Capacity Report Report requested to assess the hydraulic capacity of the Council's $650.00 2006-2007 $680.00 per system water, sewerage, stormwater and waterways assets.

Plan reassessment fee Hydraulic infrastructure plans requiring $135.00 2006-2007 $135.00 per hour $3,440 reassessment.

Estimated Extra Subdivision water supply (gross) Income commissioning Hydrant $165.00 2006-2007 $175.00 per hydrant for next flow and pressure testing. Financial Year

Subdivision water supply per standard commissioning Water $390.00 2006-2007 $410.00 $160 range of tests quality sampling and testing.

Estimated % Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $3,590 Variance 5% Comments

Fees have been increased to account for CPI.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending

Hydraulic Engineering Hydraulic Services Connections 2007-2008

Details Present Charge / Last Changed Proposed Charge / Indicator / Hire Rate Hire Rate Descriptor, eg. hrs Expected (gross) Sewerage branch construction fee Income this year Sewer branch construction for discharge into a Council sewer main or access chamber where the main is in $650.00 2006-2007 $660.00 $ per branch the applicant's property and applicant exposes the sewer main - 100mm or 150 mm diameter.

Stormwater branch construction fee Stormwater branch construction for discharge into a Council stormwater main or access chamber where the $650.00 2006-2007 $660.00 $ per branch main is in the applicant's property and applicant exposes the stormwater main - 100mm or 150 mm diameter.

Stormwater branch PVC footpath crossing fee Stormwater branch construction for $1,000.00 2006-2007 $1,025.00 $ per branch discharge into a Council concrete kerb and gutter system - 100mm uPVC footpath crossing.

Stormwater branch RHS footpath crossing fee Stormwater branch construction for $1,030.00 2006-2007 $1,055.00 $ per branch discharge into a Council concrete kerb and gutter system - 252 x 76 RHS footpath crossing. $55,800 Water connection fee 20mm Water connection construction from a Council water main to an applicant's $1,050.00 2006-2007 $1,100.00 $ per connection property boundary where the boundary is less than 30.5 metres from the water main - 20mm diameter.

Estimated Extra Water connection fee 25mm (gross) Income for Water connection construction from a next Financial Year Council water main to an applicant's $1,150.00 2006-2007 $1,200.00 $ per connection property boundary where the boundary is less than 30.5 metres from the water main - 25mm diameter.

Locations for hydraulic infrastructure Full cost recovery 2006-2007 Full cost recovery $ per location Locating and marking hydraulic infrastructure.

Locations for water connections Call out fee for locating and marking $50.00 2005-2006 $50.00 $ per call out $5,200 water connections (only levied if the connection was easily locatable).

Estimated % Variance Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $61,000

9% Comments

A review of actual expenditures has resulted in an increase in fees.

Business Unit Program/Service Year Ending

Hobart Waterways Tours (including Hydraulic Engineering the Hobart Rivulet and the Wishing 2007-2008 Well Tours)

Details Present Charge / Last Changed Proposed Indicator / Hire Rate Charge / Hire Descriptor, eg. Rate hrs Adult tour fee Expected (gross) Fee for persons participating 18 years $19.00 2004-2005 $19.00 per person Income this year and over inclusive. Seniors or pensioner tour fee Fee for senior or pensioner $12.50 2002-2003 $12.50 per person cardholder concession. Students tour fee Fee for student concession aged 12 $12.50 2003-2004 $12.50 per person $6,200 to 17 inclusive. Family tour fee Estimated Extra Fee for concession for two parents (gross) Income $40.00 2006-2007 $40.00 per family and their children aged 12 to 17 for next inclusive. Financial Year Group tour fee Fee for concession with 10 or more $12.50 2003-2004 $12.50 per person $0 participants. Estimated % Estimated Income for Program/Service next Financial Year $6,200 Variance 0% Comments

Rates have remained the same to be competitive.

Business Unit Program Year Ending Fee Fleet Services 07/08

Details Present Charge Last Proposed Charge Expected $ Changed $ Income this year Transportable Comfort $1320 per day including 2005- No change $3,000 Station (Splashdown) maintenance/cleaner; or 2006 $1045 per day subject to the hirer entering into an agreement to maintain the Unit at a satisfactory level; Plus cartage; Plus $220 set up fee

On-Site Comfort $220 per day for first 2 2006- No change $2,500 Station days; or 2007 $660 per week plus cartage; $121 set up fee; Plus Cleaning Charge (If applicable)

On-site Disabled Toilet $110 per day for up to 2 2006- No change $1,500 days; or 2007 $330 per week plus cartage; Plus cleaning charge (If applicable)

Associated Direct Costs

$27,000

Estimated Extra Income $Nil

Comments Units are kept by Council for CSO or when required. Is used by outside organisations for functions and events such as Hobart & Launceston Cup, Taste of Huon and other similar events. Low usage is again expected.

Item no. 19 / Page 14

Business Unit Program Year Ending Fee Waste Management Hire of Mobile Garbage Bins 30 June 2008

Details Present Charge Last Proposed Charge Expected Income $ Changed $ this year $4.40/bin/day. 2005 $5.00/bin/day $200 $ $

$ $ $ $ Associated Direct Costs $ $ $ Depreciation of bins.

Estimated Extra Income $160

Comments The recommended increase in charges is to ensure costs for depreciation of bins is adequate

Item no. 19 / Page 15

Business Unit Program Year Ending Fee Waste Management Sharps Collection 30 June 2008

Details Present Charge Last Proposed Charge Expected Income $ Changed $ this year $22.00 per service, with 2006 $30.00 per service, with $2,000 maximum of 2 x 72 ltr maximum of 2 x 72 ltr containers per collection. containers per collection $ $

$ $ $ $ Associated Direct Costs $ $ $ Collection $15.00 Disposal $2.50 PA $2,000

Estimated Extra Income $500.00

Comments 05/06 income $1, 020.00 05/06 expenditure $2,044 With improving accreditation standards in the health services industry the call for this service has reduced significantly. Currently our costs are exceeding income, therefore I am recommending an initial 36% increase in charges. In addition to this, we will be reviewing the need for this service to be continued.

Item no. 19 / Page 16

Business Unit Program Year Ending Fee Recycling Security Shredding 30 June 2008

Details Present Charge Last Proposed Charge Expected Income $ Changed $ this year $0.45/kg, with minimum 2006 $0.50/kg, with minimum $140,000 collection charge of $20.00 collection charge of $25.00 $ $

$ $ $ $ Associated Direct Costs $ $ $ $0.40/kg PA$120,000 $

Estimated Extra Income $10,000

Comments It is proposed to increase charges, as detailed above, so as to ensure the income for this activity exceeds expenditure.

Total income shredding/ recycling 05/06 $135,000. Expenditure 05/06 $112,500)

Item no. 19 / Page 17

Business Unit Program Year Ending Fee Recycling Office Paper Recycling 30 June 2008

Details Present Charge Last Proposed Charge Expected Income $ Changed $ this year $5.50 per collection 1999 same $10,000 $ $

$ $ $ $ Associated Direct Costs $ $ $ $15.00 per collection $

Estimated Extra Income Nil

Comments This service is provided to external customers, for the costs detailed above and to HCC units, no costs applied. The service is based on a community service commitment, in the form of a recycling initiative and that the HCC committed to provide the service to the commercial sector. The charges are also in line with market charges.

OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 18 23/4/2007

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

21. GOOD SPORTS PROGRAM – COUNCIL SUPPORT – FILE REF: 17-1-2 Ref. Open CDC 6, 12/4/2007

That: 1. The Council provide in-principle support for an annual contribution of $5,000 to the Drug Education Network for the Good Sports Program, for a three year period from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2010.

2. An allocation of $5,000 for the Good Sports Program be listed for consideration in the Community Development Function of the draft 2007/08 and subsequent Annual Plans.

3. Additional in-kind support be provided in the form of provision of venues for Good Sports seminars or forums and assistance with promotion of the Good Sports Program.

4. A Memorandum of Understanding be developed which outlines the obligations of both the Council and the Drug Education Network as the provider of the program.

22. ANNUAL REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES 2007/2008 – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION - FILE REF: 21-50-9 Ref. Open CDC 7, 12/4/2007 5x’s

Attachments 22/P 1-5 Community Development Division – Fees and Charges 2007/2008

That the proposed schedule of fees and charges for the Community Development Division, as attached, be adopted for the 2007/2008 financial year.

Item No. 22 / Page 1

Business Unit Function Year Fee Ending

Events & Cultural Salamanca Market 30/6/2008 Salamanca Market Development

Details Present Charge Last Proposed Charge Expected $ Changed $ Income this year (Excluding GST) A Site – Centre $57.70 1/7/2006 $58.95 $772,227 Site B Site – Side Line $47.35 1/7/2006 $48.35 site C Site $41.80 1/7/2006 $42.70 Casual Sites $41.80 1/7/2006 $42.70 Split Centre Site $31.45 1/7/2006 $32.10 Associated Direct Costs Table Hire $6.00 2004/05 $6.00 $388,718 (2006/2007 budget) Power Charge $8.20 1/7/2006 $8.40 Transfer Fee $350.80 1/7/2006 $359.40 Food Vans As determined by Estimated the Valuer General Extra Income (Excluding GST) $15,034 Comments Salamanca Market site fees are increased in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Hobart for the period to December 2006 in accordance with the Salamanca Market Stallholder Licence Agreement. The proposed charge for Public and Product Liability insurance which is included in the site fee, is unchanged. The actual cost to the Council of this insurance for 2007/2008 is unknown at this time. In 2006/2007 the fee exceeded actual premium costs and while this may occur again, in previous years a shortfall has been met by the Council. The fee for split centre sites is being formalised for the first time.

Item No. 22 / Page 2

Business Unit Function Year Fee Ending

50&Better Centre Aged Services 30/6/2008 50&Better Centre

Details Present Charge Last Proposed Charge Expected $ Changed $ Income this year Upper Level: 6am-6pm Mon – Fri $19.00 per hour 1/7/2006 $20.50 per hour $78,650 After 6pm & $25.00 per hour 1/7/2006 $25.60 per hour weekends (4hr minimum) Lower Level:

6am-6pm Mon – Fri $13.00 per hour 1/7/2006 $15.00 per hour Associated Direct Costs After 6pm & $19.00 per hour 1/7/2006 $20.50 per hour $164,960 weekends (4hr (2006/2007 budget) minimum) Other: Full use of Kitchen New fee $165 Partial use of New fee $31 kitchen i.e. glassware, cutlery crockery, ‘fridge Security Bonds: Normal use New fee $150 Parties New fee $500 18th and 21st New fee $5,000 Birthday parties Estimated Extra Income $1,700

Comments Fees reflect the increased costs associated with the operation of the facility including power and cleaning. It is also proposed to introduce a minimum hire period of 4 hours for usage after 6pm and at weekends. The fees for the full use of the kitchen ($165) and partial use ($31) are being formalised for the first time as are the respective security bonds. Fees relate to the private hire of the Centre for usage that is unrelated to the core activities of the Centre.

Item No. 22 / Page 3

Business Unit Function Year Fee Ending Events and Cultural Development Cultural Development 30/6/2008 Carnegie Gallery

Details Present Charge Last Proposed Charge Expected $ Changed $ Income this year Non Commercial Monday - Sunday $309 1/7/2006 $317 Monday - Saturday $228 1/7/2006 $231 Commercial Monday - Sunday $538 1/7/2006 $551 Associated Direct Costs Monday - Saturday $401 1/7/2006 $411 $86,738 (2006/2007 budget) Surcharge $43.50 p/h 1/7/2006 $44.50 (exhibition use) after 5 pm weekdays Per hour use – $116.90 p/h 1/7/2006 $119.9 $568 corporate/ non (Excluding exhibition) $110 GST) per hour at any time Estimated Extra Income Nil

Comments

Fees have been increased in line with the CPI for Hobart for the period to December 2006. Little opportunity for exhibition hire in the 2007/2008 financial year is predicted given the committed exhibition program for this period however there is some potential for use of venue during exhibitions for Corporate type activities.

Item No. 22 / Page 4

Business Unit Function Year Fee Ending Events and Cultural Summer Events 30/6/2008 Stall (Site) Rental – Taste Development of Tasmania

Details Present Charge Last Proposed Charge Expected $ Changed $ Income this year Standard Stall $2,750 1/7/2006 $2,970 $171,720 (Excluding GST) Corner Stall $3,080 1/7/2006 $3,300 Gourmet Taste $2,497 1/7/2006 $2,717 Stall

Associated Direct Costs $921,109 (2006/2007 budget)

Estimated Extra Income $3,680 (Excluding GST)

Comments All site fees have been increased by $220 (including GST) which represents an increase of 8 per cent. Site fees were increased by the same amount for the 2006/2007 financial year. Net increase reflects cost of provision of sites to the principal wine sponsor as part of the sponsorship agreement.

Item No. 22 / Page 5

Business Unit Function Year Fee Ending

Community Youth Services 30/6/2008 Youth Arc Programs

Details Present Charge Last Proposed Charge Expected $ Changed $ Income this year Hire of Youth Arc $50 per hour 1/7/2006 $50 per hour Mon-Fri, 6pm-11pm Mon-Fri, 6pm-11pm $500 Sat/Sun, 8am-11pm Sat/Sun, 8am-11pm

Associated Direct Costs

Estimated Extra Income Nil

Comments

Fee is for the private hire of Youth ARC unrelated to Youth ARC core activities outside of normal operating hours. Given the infrequent use no variation to the fee is proposed for 2007/2008

OPEN PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING 19 23/4/2007

23. CLOSED PORTION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING

The following items were discussed:-

Item No. 1. Minutes of the Last Meeting of the Closed Portion of the Council Meeting Item No. 2. Transfer of Agenda Items Item No. 3. Leave of Absence – File Ref: 13-2-2 Item No. 4. Consideration of Supplementary Items to the Agenda Item No. 5. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest Item No. 6. Lease Arrangements – File Ref: 5645721 & P/827/820 LG(MP)R 15(2)(e) Item No. 7. Sale of Council Land – File Ref: 7659617 & P/10/397 LG(MP)R 15(2)(e) Item No. 8. Lease – File Ref: 5656252 & P/108-110/342 LG(MP)R 15(2)(e) Item No. 9. Refurbishment – File Ref: 60-1-4 LG(MP)R 15(2)(e) Item No. 10. Land Acquisition Update – File Ref: 5585861 & P/11/663; 5585888 & P/13/663 LG(MP)R 15(2)(e)

MOTION OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN UNDER REGULATION 16 (5) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MEETING PROCEDURES) REGULATIONS 2005

24. ZERO NET CARBON EMISSIONS - FILE REF: 13-1-9, 17-50-11

ALDERMAN COCKER “That the Hobart City Council prepare a report on having Zero net carbon emissions by the year 2020.

That the Council use the City of Melbourne Zero Net Strategy as the starting point and include the goals of that program in adapting a program for the use of Hobart City.”